one thing to keep in mind is that the digital imax projectors can’t support more than 70'x35' or so screen width so that wouldn’t work too well at Lincoln Square yet 97' wide screen and digital IMAX is much, much, much lower res than what they can get out of something shot and projected as real IMAX film so all taht stuff would look worse (then again for 3D stuff it seems like they are only filling the screen to maybe 66' width or so anyway, but maybe that is just palisades, lincoln square must have stronger bulbs to begin with and perhaps they can fill say 80' or even the full 97' width or maybe they can afford to replace the reels and aren’t as worried abotu fading out the image for a long run?? I was thinking of giving lincoln square a try but it wont be projected another larger than at palisades that would be a major waste of time). Anyway I don’t think they will replace the projectors at the real imax theaters until 8K 2D, 4k 3D projectors with 100'x70' support arrive which I bet would be another five years certainly.
@JJD – i may give palisades another try when I pass by again and then I can give it a better comparison, saw it at Rockaway again, with a better seat this time but now my exact memory of palisades is fading, my vague impression is that the palisades prentation was a dimmer and had a bit more motion blur but, despite the failing to utlilize a lot of the screen, it was still a bigger image and the 3D effect seemed even stronger and something overal seemed more impressive
i’m curious did they notice if the showing at lincoln square used the full width of the screen? at palisades they did some pretty extensive side boxing so the actual projected image was only modestly larger than at Rockaway instead of considerably so.
also curious since you say you know someone who works at the rockaway theater, can he find out the exact screen dimensions of the imax there?
I guess they could redo some of the battles and stuff that were primarily CGI pretty well. But the rest will never look 1/10th as good as if it was shot with a 3D camera. You can manually select layers to place items and use some processing to sort of fake 3D out it but you generally end up with slightly off-looking cut-outish look. If you shot in 2D you only recorded 2D info and there is no magic to truly bring back all the missing information. His comments made it sound like he hadn’t been too pleased with the standard tkae the 2D stuff and try to fake layer it and fake shift angles and turn it into 3D process maybe he will redo some of the CGI in real 3D.
Saw it at Reading, Manville on my way back. They couldn’t put it on their largest screen (70' !) since Dolby3D (and RealD3D) don’t support really large screens (as it was on a screen noticeably smaller than the Rockaway IMAX, if still reasonably sized, the projection was dimmer). It was still a cool experience for sure but the smaller screen and wider aspect ratio (2.34:1), and IMO D3D tech, just don’t work as well as either a real IMAX film 3D theater or the reasonably large Rockaway IMAX screen (1.78:1). Still worth it to go there (Manville) for a 2D 2.34:1 movie, but for any 1.85 or 3D stuff definitely not better than Rockaway, in fact, definitely not as good, smaller and dimmer.
Digital IMAX tosses more light to the screen than the other technology and lets theaters use it on their largest screen (well unless they have >70' screens, not in this area).
IMAX screens seem to be doing wayyyyy better business. WAYYYYY better. Early evening Friday showing at manville FAR less full (closer to entirely empty) than a 1:35 wed showing on the Rockaway IMAX or a 3PM Thursday at Palisades (totally packed).
That said I still wish they had designed one of the original two largest screens they had had to 2.34:1 instead of 1.85:1 (at the same height which would’ve made it a 70' or so wide screen), then when they extended it for IMAX even if it had to be side boxed a bit if the ceiling was not high enough it still would’ve allowed for the largest 1.78:1 IMAX projection in the region (Aside from lincoln square) and truly been THE destination theater (noting that palisades doesn’t have bright enough projection to fill there even larger screen when showing 3D movies). COnsidering theaters always end up playing the hits on 2 or 3 screens, including one tiny one, I don’t knwo why they (or almost anyone else in the region) didn’t jsut build one giant palace and elimate one of the shoe boxes…. seems dumb to me on many levels. But they didn’t listen to anyone’s input…. Or why Manville didn’t use IMAX tech and use it on their giant 70' auditorium….
It’s still probably tied for the largest IMAX outside of palisades or NYC though, in the region, AFAIK (although if you head out to Reading, PA I believe they have a 70'x42' digital IMAX monster screen, waht Rockaway should’ve designed for to begin with, for one of the richest counties in the country and one of the more densely populated areas we still dont have the screen sizes that the suburbs of LA, SF, Boston, CO, PA do). Although perhaps Jersey Gardens or the new Paramus (not that anyone wants to drive around Paramus) might have a bigger one???
Avatar IMAX must be doing some kick-ass business. The 1:35PM Wed. showing was solidly packed through and through the entire main center section. Not a sellout or anything but pretty full and crazy full for a winter 1:35PM showing…. of a movie already out for a few weeks. Been a long time since that has happened. And I saw lines already forming for later shows. Titantic certainly had insane lines weeks and weeks into the release wrapping way around the old outer theaters (at least for weekends and evenings), but nothing much quite like that since.
I wonder why they didn’t extend the screen up and down a little more so they wouldn’t have to have side boxed about a foot and a half off the edge of the screen. I would’ve knocked out the remaining lower tier row too since that is worthless, you’d see all the grid patterns and yeah worthless seats, better to move screen up another 3-4'.
Screen size is pretty decent for a semi-wider ratio movie and considering how much Palisades IMAX had to box the 3D showing (maybe a good 5' lost on either side of the screen) (to get enough ligth for 3D??) I suppose the Rockaway screen shouldn’t seem too much smaller although something about it didn’t feel quite as immersive not quite as much liek I was really on that foreign world, maybe I sat closer in the Palisades or the extra 8' or so (???) screen width was just anough to kick it over the top or they projected a little taller or something, although I guess the Rockaway had a bit less dual-projecion blur artifacting with the digital system. I might suggest sitting maybe main row 4 at Rockaway. At Palisades best to sit relatively close too (film so no grid lines if you get close, although not row 1 or 2 certainly). When you are close enough to be utterly enveloped then you really feel like you are in that world (when I tested farther back, sure it’s cool and the screens are big, etc. but you lose the incredible feeling that you’ve truly been sucked into their world and are a part of the film itself).
I do have to admit the 3D is pretty cool. I had been pretty down on it or at least very lukewarm about the whole thing. I’m not sure the tech is quite seemless enough for any old regular drama to benefit by it yet (and I think it could even subtract a bit) but certainly for anything otherworldy scifi/fantasy/animation and so on wow I do have to admit it really is amazing. Watching Avatar in 2D onb bluray even on my giant HDTV is gonna feel like watching VHS on a 9" CRT in comparison. :(
One odd thing is that Avatar 3D did not take up the full width (I know it can’t take up the full height since the aspect ratio is 1.78:1 and not 1.4:1 as is IMAX). Maybe this location doesn’t have a bright enough bulb to drive 3D at over 64-66' or so width? Maybe no location does? Or did they just side crop it down a little for no reason? Anyway, with film 3D you don’t have to worry about seeing gridlines if you sit fairly close. Pretty awesome experience all the same, but I was wondering why they didn’t project the full 74' width.
also the small-class screens above are still larger to ridiculously larger than the avg little multiplex screen so they are only small compared to real IMAX screens or monster-class regular screens, until maybe 10-15 years ago even this size had been all but gone from NJ (after they killed the old Stanley Warner and all the old palaces during the 80’s)
note on the above lists they are regualr screens and not IMAX of any form unless stated
also I think the Zeigfeld in NYC is something like 58'x32'???
the Lincoln Square non-IMAX is claimed to be 50-65'x?‘
downtown NYC they got rid of the premiering screen said to have been 65'x’? or so
I found out some info on screen sizes, but still nothing on the AMC Rockaway IMAX size nor the Jersey Gardens IMAX:
where do the AMC digIMAX Rockaway, NJ and Jersey Gardens digIMAX Elizabeth, NJ fit?? really want to know what size they are! If the Rockaway digIMAX really does look larger than the Rockaway RealD screen then maybe it and the Jersey Gardens could make it into the intermediate catergory?? the large (seems hard to believe)??????
giant screens:
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX NY, NY – 97.6'x75.6'
New Roc IMAX New Rochelle, NY – 81.5'x59.5'
Palisades IMAX Nyack, NY – 74'x53.8'
Tropicana IMAX Atlantic City, NJ – 69.8'x52.5'
digIMAX Reading, PA – 70'x42'
Reading’s two giant screens Manville, NJ – 70'x30'???(are they for sure?)
intermediate size (by modern IMAX standards):
Museum of Natural History IMAX NY, NY – 66'x40'
smaller non-giant screens (at least by modern day IMAX standards):
AMC digIMAX Hamilton, NJ – 58'x32'
AMC RealD Rockaway, NJ – 57'x30.5'
AMC digIMAX Cherry Hill, NJ – 54'x28'
As above with some other theaters from across the country tossed in (not remotely complete, there are quite a few other 70'+ IMAX and non-IMAX screens scattered around out there, although few to none other in the NJ area):
where do the AMC digIMAX Rockaway, NJ and Jersey Gardens digIMAX Elizabeth, NJ fit?? really want to know what size they are! If the Rockaway digIMAX really does look larger than the Rockaway RealD screen then maybe it and the Jersey Gardens could make it into the intermediate catergory?? the large (seems hard to believe)??????
giant screens:
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX NY, NY – 97.6'x75.6'
Arclight Cinerama Dome, LA, CA – 86'x?‘
New England Aquarium IMAX Boston, MA – 85'x65'
Palace “Grand Palace”, Ontario, CA (California) – 85'x?'
New Roc IMAX New Rochelle, NY – 81.5'x59.5'
Jordan IMAX, ?, MA – 80'x?' Mann’s Chinese, LA, CA – 60-80’???(conflicting info)x?‘
Edwards Big Newport S1, Newport Beach, CA – 80'x?'
Continental Denver?, CO – 78'x?'
Palisades IMAX Nyack, NY – 74'x53.8'
Tropicana IMAX Atlantic City, NJ – 69.8'x52.5'
digIMAX Reading, PA – 70'x42'
Palace “Hollywood” (S1) Ontario, CA – 70'x?'
Palace “Chinese” (S22) Ontario, CA – 70'x?'
Uptown Theatre, Washington DC – 70'x?'
Reading two giant screens Manville, NJ – 70'x30’???(are they for sure?)
Cinerama Seattle, WA – 68'x?'
intermediate size (by modern IMAX standards):
Museum of Natural History IMAX NY, NY – 66'x40'
Screen Monster Boston, MA – 65'x?'
smaller non-giant screens (at least by modern day IMAX standards): Mann’s Chinese, LA, CA – 60-80'???x?‘
AMC digIMAX Hamilton, NJ – 58'x32'
AMC RealD Rockaway, NJ – 57'x30.5'
AMC digIMAX Cherry Hill, NJ – 54'x28’
comments
AMC Rockaway RealD (assuming it was left same dimensions as prior to RealD conversion) is about as big as most non-trueIMAX get for 1.85:1 movie projection but considerably smaller than the largest 2.35:1 screens or the largest digitalIMAX screens or the larger IMAX screens
Reading Manville two mega theaters – claimed to be 70'x30' by someone working there (they are huge not sure if they are really quite that big, not verified)
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX biggest non-drive in screen in western hemisphere???
New England Aquarium Boston IMAX one of the largest screens out there, went there once, very impressive
oh and so people agree that the IMAX3D in #8 here really is more impressive than the RealD Sony 4k they have in #7?
What about for non-3D stuff? I hear some claims that for regular stuff Sony 4K projection looks amazing (far better than the 2k stuff) and better than IMAX dual-projection (supposedly not real 4k but sort of a fake upscaled 2k of sorts???).
Just back in the hometown again after having been away for six years.
Is the palisades IMAX screen much bigger for a 1.78 movie or only for 1.33 standard IMAX stuff?
I read somewhere a claim that screen Rockaway16 screen #8 had been a 1.85 56'x30' prior to conversion (pretty solid height for a screen if not quite as wide as some). So what is it now a 1.78 64'x36??? 1.6 64'x40'??? 56'x32'??? 72'x41' :) ???
Is the palisades IMAX a 72' wide one??
I believe the SONY Lincoln in NY is 97' wide!
72' vs 64' would be noticeable but not hugely so. 72' vs 56' would be a pretty tremendous difference though…. (and of course 97 vs any of these is very, very noticeable) If the new rockaway is at least 64' wide and the palisades is a 72' one then it might not be worth the trip stuff that has no 1.33 scenes. but if rockaway is still 56' wide then it would be at times.
weird that they didn’t use circular polarization. is it the same at palisades and lincoln square?
(height is irrelevant in this discussion, as for any standardish-type aspect ratio hollywood film shown here since they are at most 1.85 and I beleive all the Rockaway 16 screens are 1.85 ratio and even if some IMAX3D are 1.78 i’m sure they have that covered just by extending up the ceiling)
Side note does anyone know where the largest screen in NJ is? Regular and IMAX. And what size? Incredibly hard to find #’s anywhere. I know CO and CA have a few 75-85' giants (non-IMAX). I believe Reading in Manville NJ claimed two 70' 2.34:1 screens (i’ve been there a few times and they did look pretty big, I guess sort of like the largest Rockaway 1.85 screens only stretched out to 2.34:1). Jersey Gardens has a few pretty decent sized screens, not sure the exact dimensions. Someone claimed the Atlantic City IMAX screen is extremely large, but nothing concrete.
The original huge screen used to be on the left. When they showed SW there in 1977, man it was so amazing, 6 track sound, great speakers, astonishing screen size. At that time, there were two other screens to the right, the auditoriums there were about the same length, but much narrower and without the towering height and balcony. At the time Phantom Menace came out, the only one of the 1970’s screens left was the far right auditorium, very, very long, but so tiny compared to the fabled great main screen which I have heard described as making a top ten list of movies screens in the entire world back in the late 70’s or early 80’s. A crime. I also saw ESB in 70mm there. Some of the scenes were different than in the 35mm releases for both SW and ESB. I have been looking for such a theater, with such a giant screen ever since. My local mall had about as large as a screen would get for an early 80’s multiplex in its biggest auditoriums, yet this theaters main screen must have had 4x the surface area for sure. When I saw TPM there in digital, an employee told me that the main screen used to sit over 2200 people. I recall it being an extremely long and wide theater with many different rows, perhaps two giant main section and perhaps two smaller ones at the edges. The screen was so, so much bigger and better than say the Ziegfield in NYC, although the theater was certaintly not as ornate, if moreso than for a typical multiplex. Maybe, the Sony Lincoln square is using there 100' screen for some regular films not and it will feel the same. I’ve heard the AMC 24 in Hamilton has 4 giant screens with balconies. I doubt they are as big as this one was. Has anyone been there?
has anyone seen avatar 3D on the IMAX screen here?
Do they project to the full 97' width or something smaller?
At the palisades center they are not projecting to the full 74' screen width for Avatar 3D.
(note I am not talking about filling the screen top to bottom as that would be impossible since Avatar is 1.78:1)
one thing to keep in mind is that the digital imax projectors can’t support more than 70'x35' or so screen width so that wouldn’t work too well at Lincoln Square yet 97' wide screen and digital IMAX is much, much, much lower res than what they can get out of something shot and projected as real IMAX film so all taht stuff would look worse (then again for 3D stuff it seems like they are only filling the screen to maybe 66' width or so anyway, but maybe that is just palisades, lincoln square must have stronger bulbs to begin with and perhaps they can fill say 80' or even the full 97' width or maybe they can afford to replace the reels and aren’t as worried abotu fading out the image for a long run?? I was thinking of giving lincoln square a try but it wont be projected another larger than at palisades that would be a major waste of time). Anyway I don’t think they will replace the projectors at the real imax theaters until 8K 2D, 4k 3D projectors with 100'x70' support arrive which I bet would be another five years certainly.
@JJD – i may give palisades another try when I pass by again and then I can give it a better comparison, saw it at Rockaway again, with a better seat this time but now my exact memory of palisades is fading, my vague impression is that the palisades prentation was a dimmer and had a bit more motion blur but, despite the failing to utlilize a lot of the screen, it was still a bigger image and the 3D effect seemed even stronger and something overal seemed more impressive
i’m curious did they notice if the showing at lincoln square used the full width of the screen? at palisades they did some pretty extensive side boxing so the actual projected image was only modestly larger than at Rockaway instead of considerably so.
also curious since you say you know someone who works at the rockaway theater, can he find out the exact screen dimensions of the imax there?
I guess they could redo some of the battles and stuff that were primarily CGI pretty well. But the rest will never look 1/10th as good as if it was shot with a 3D camera. You can manually select layers to place items and use some processing to sort of fake 3D out it but you generally end up with slightly off-looking cut-outish look. If you shot in 2D you only recorded 2D info and there is no magic to truly bring back all the missing information. His comments made it sound like he hadn’t been too pleased with the standard tkae the 2D stuff and try to fake layer it and fake shift angles and turn it into 3D process maybe he will redo some of the CGI in real 3D.
Saw it at Reading, Manville on my way back. They couldn’t put it on their largest screen (70' !) since Dolby3D (and RealD3D) don’t support really large screens (as it was on a screen noticeably smaller than the Rockaway IMAX, if still reasonably sized, the projection was dimmer). It was still a cool experience for sure but the smaller screen and wider aspect ratio (2.34:1), and IMO D3D tech, just don’t work as well as either a real IMAX film 3D theater or the reasonably large Rockaway IMAX screen (1.78:1). Still worth it to go there (Manville) for a 2D 2.34:1 movie, but for any 1.85 or 3D stuff definitely not better than Rockaway, in fact, definitely not as good, smaller and dimmer.
Digital IMAX tosses more light to the screen than the other technology and lets theaters use it on their largest screen (well unless they have >70' screens, not in this area).
IMAX screens seem to be doing wayyyyy better business. WAYYYYY better. Early evening Friday showing at manville FAR less full (closer to entirely empty) than a 1:35 wed showing on the Rockaway IMAX or a 3PM Thursday at Palisades (totally packed).
That said I still wish they had designed one of the original two largest screens they had had to 2.34:1 instead of 1.85:1 (at the same height which would’ve made it a 70' or so wide screen), then when they extended it for IMAX even if it had to be side boxed a bit if the ceiling was not high enough it still would’ve allowed for the largest 1.78:1 IMAX projection in the region (Aside from lincoln square) and truly been THE destination theater (noting that palisades doesn’t have bright enough projection to fill there even larger screen when showing 3D movies). COnsidering theaters always end up playing the hits on 2 or 3 screens, including one tiny one, I don’t knwo why they (or almost anyone else in the region) didn’t jsut build one giant palace and elimate one of the shoe boxes…. seems dumb to me on many levels. But they didn’t listen to anyone’s input…. Or why Manville didn’t use IMAX tech and use it on their giant 70' auditorium….
It’s still probably tied for the largest IMAX outside of palisades or NYC though, in the region, AFAIK (although if you head out to Reading, PA I believe they have a 70'x42' digital IMAX monster screen, waht Rockaway should’ve designed for to begin with, for one of the richest counties in the country and one of the more densely populated areas we still dont have the screen sizes that the suburbs of LA, SF, Boston, CO, PA do). Although perhaps Jersey Gardens or the new Paramus (not that anyone wants to drive around Paramus) might have a bigger one???
Avatar IMAX must be doing some kick-ass business. The 1:35PM Wed. showing was solidly packed through and through the entire main center section. Not a sellout or anything but pretty full and crazy full for a winter 1:35PM showing…. of a movie already out for a few weeks. Been a long time since that has happened. And I saw lines already forming for later shows. Titantic certainly had insane lines weeks and weeks into the release wrapping way around the old outer theaters (at least for weekends and evenings), but nothing much quite like that since.
I wonder why they didn’t extend the screen up and down a little more so they wouldn’t have to have side boxed about a foot and a half off the edge of the screen. I would’ve knocked out the remaining lower tier row too since that is worthless, you’d see all the grid patterns and yeah worthless seats, better to move screen up another 3-4'.
Screen size is pretty decent for a semi-wider ratio movie and considering how much Palisades IMAX had to box the 3D showing (maybe a good 5' lost on either side of the screen) (to get enough ligth for 3D??) I suppose the Rockaway screen shouldn’t seem too much smaller although something about it didn’t feel quite as immersive not quite as much liek I was really on that foreign world, maybe I sat closer in the Palisades or the extra 8' or so (???) screen width was just anough to kick it over the top or they projected a little taller or something, although I guess the Rockaway had a bit less dual-projecion blur artifacting with the digital system. I might suggest sitting maybe main row 4 at Rockaway. At Palisades best to sit relatively close too (film so no grid lines if you get close, although not row 1 or 2 certainly). When you are close enough to be utterly enveloped then you really feel like you are in that world (when I tested farther back, sure it’s cool and the screens are big, etc. but you lose the incredible feeling that you’ve truly been sucked into their world and are a part of the film itself).
I do have to admit the 3D is pretty cool. I had been pretty down on it or at least very lukewarm about the whole thing. I’m not sure the tech is quite seemless enough for any old regular drama to benefit by it yet (and I think it could even subtract a bit) but certainly for anything otherworldy scifi/fantasy/animation and so on wow I do have to admit it really is amazing. Watching Avatar in 2D onb bluray even on my giant HDTV is gonna feel like watching VHS on a 9" CRT in comparison. :(
One site claims the screen is 74' wide.
They support film 3D projection.
One odd thing is that Avatar 3D did not take up the full width (I know it can’t take up the full height since the aspect ratio is 1.78:1 and not 1.4:1 as is IMAX). Maybe this location doesn’t have a bright enough bulb to drive 3D at over 64-66' or so width? Maybe no location does? Or did they just side crop it down a little for no reason? Anyway, with film 3D you don’t have to worry about seeing gridlines if you sit fairly close. Pretty awesome experience all the same, but I was wondering why they didn’t project the full 74' width.
also the small-class screens above are still larger to ridiculously larger than the avg little multiplex screen so they are only small compared to real IMAX screens or monster-class regular screens, until maybe 10-15 years ago even this size had been all but gone from NJ (after they killed the old Stanley Warner and all the old palaces during the 80’s)
note on the above lists they are regualr screens and not IMAX of any form unless stated
also I think the Zeigfeld in NYC is something like 58'x32'???
the Lincoln Square non-IMAX is claimed to be 50-65'x?‘
downtown NYC they got rid of the premiering screen said to have been 65'x’? or so
I found out some info on screen sizes, but still nothing on the AMC Rockaway IMAX size nor the Jersey Gardens IMAX:
where do the AMC digIMAX Rockaway, NJ and Jersey Gardens digIMAX Elizabeth, NJ fit?? really want to know what size they are! If the Rockaway digIMAX really does look larger than the Rockaway RealD screen then maybe it and the Jersey Gardens could make it into the intermediate catergory?? the large (seems hard to believe)??????
giant screens:
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX NY, NY – 97.6'x75.6'
New Roc IMAX New Rochelle, NY – 81.5'x59.5'
Palisades IMAX Nyack, NY – 74'x53.8'
Tropicana IMAX Atlantic City, NJ – 69.8'x52.5'
digIMAX Reading, PA – 70'x42'
Reading’s two giant screens Manville, NJ – 70'x30'???(are they for sure?)
intermediate size (by modern IMAX standards):
Museum of Natural History IMAX NY, NY – 66'x40'
smaller non-giant screens (at least by modern day IMAX standards):
AMC digIMAX Hamilton, NJ – 58'x32'
AMC RealD Rockaway, NJ – 57'x30.5'
AMC digIMAX Cherry Hill, NJ – 54'x28'
As above with some other theaters from across the country tossed in (not remotely complete, there are quite a few other 70'+ IMAX and non-IMAX screens scattered around out there, although few to none other in the NJ area):
where do the AMC digIMAX Rockaway, NJ and Jersey Gardens digIMAX Elizabeth, NJ fit?? really want to know what size they are! If the Rockaway digIMAX really does look larger than the Rockaway RealD screen then maybe it and the Jersey Gardens could make it into the intermediate catergory?? the large (seems hard to believe)??????
giant screens:
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX NY, NY – 97.6'x75.6'
Arclight Cinerama Dome, LA, CA – 86'x?‘
New England Aquarium IMAX Boston, MA – 85'x65'
Palace “Grand Palace”, Ontario, CA (California) – 85'x?'
New Roc IMAX New Rochelle, NY – 81.5'x59.5'
Jordan IMAX, ?, MA – 80'x?'
Mann’s Chinese, LA, CA – 60-80’???(conflicting info)x?‘
Edwards Big Newport S1, Newport Beach, CA – 80'x?'
Continental Denver?, CO – 78'x?'
Palisades IMAX Nyack, NY – 74'x53.8'
Tropicana IMAX Atlantic City, NJ – 69.8'x52.5'
digIMAX Reading, PA – 70'x42'
Palace “Hollywood” (S1) Ontario, CA – 70'x?'
Palace “Chinese” (S22) Ontario, CA – 70'x?'
Uptown Theatre, Washington DC – 70'x?'
Reading two giant screens Manville, NJ – 70'x30’???(are they for sure?)
Cinerama Seattle, WA – 68'x?'
intermediate size (by modern IMAX standards):
Museum of Natural History IMAX NY, NY – 66'x40'
Screen Monster Boston, MA – 65'x?'
smaller non-giant screens (at least by modern day IMAX standards):
Mann’s Chinese, LA, CA – 60-80'???x?‘
AMC digIMAX Hamilton, NJ – 58'x32'
AMC RealD Rockaway, NJ – 57'x30.5'
AMC digIMAX Cherry Hill, NJ – 54'x28’
comments
AMC Rockaway RealD (assuming it was left same dimensions as prior to RealD conversion) is about as big as most non-trueIMAX get for 1.85:1 movie projection but considerably smaller than the largest 2.35:1 screens or the largest digitalIMAX screens or the larger IMAX screens
Reading Manville two mega theaters – claimed to be 70'x30' by someone working there (they are huge not sure if they are really quite that big, not verified)
AMC Lincoln Square IMAX biggest non-drive in screen in western hemisphere???
New England Aquarium Boston IMAX one of the largest screens out there, went there once, very impressive
oh and so people agree that the IMAX3D in #8 here really is more impressive than the RealD Sony 4k they have in #7?
What about for non-3D stuff? I hear some claims that for regular stuff Sony 4K projection looks amazing (far better than the 2k stuff) and better than IMAX dual-projection (supposedly not real 4k but sort of a fake upscaled 2k of sorts???).
Just back in the hometown again after having been away for six years.
Is the palisades IMAX screen much bigger for a 1.78 movie or only for 1.33 standard IMAX stuff?
I read somewhere a claim that screen Rockaway16 screen #8 had been a 1.85 56'x30' prior to conversion (pretty solid height for a screen if not quite as wide as some). So what is it now a 1.78 64'x36??? 1.6 64'x40'??? 56'x32'??? 72'x41' :) ???
Is the palisades IMAX a 72' wide one??
I believe the SONY Lincoln in NY is 97' wide!
72' vs 64' would be noticeable but not hugely so. 72' vs 56' would be a pretty tremendous difference though…. (and of course 97 vs any of these is very, very noticeable) If the new rockaway is at least 64' wide and the palisades is a 72' one then it might not be worth the trip stuff that has no 1.33 scenes. but if rockaway is still 56' wide then it would be at times.
weird that they didn’t use circular polarization. is it the same at palisades and lincoln square?
(height is irrelevant in this discussion, as for any standardish-type aspect ratio hollywood film shown here since they are at most 1.85 and I beleive all the Rockaway 16 screens are 1.85 ratio and even if some IMAX3D are 1.78 i’m sure they have that covered just by extending up the ceiling)
Side note does anyone know where the largest screen in NJ is? Regular and IMAX. And what size? Incredibly hard to find #’s anywhere. I know CO and CA have a few 75-85' giants (non-IMAX). I believe Reading in Manville NJ claimed two 70' 2.34:1 screens (i’ve been there a few times and they did look pretty big, I guess sort of like the largest Rockaway 1.85 screens only stretched out to 2.34:1). Jersey Gardens has a few pretty decent sized screens, not sure the exact dimensions. Someone claimed the Atlantic City IMAX screen is extremely large, but nothing concrete.
The original huge screen used to be on the left. When they showed SW there in 1977, man it was so amazing, 6 track sound, great speakers, astonishing screen size. At that time, there were two other screens to the right, the auditoriums there were about the same length, but much narrower and without the towering height and balcony. At the time Phantom Menace came out, the only one of the 1970’s screens left was the far right auditorium, very, very long, but so tiny compared to the fabled great main screen which I have heard described as making a top ten list of movies screens in the entire world back in the late 70’s or early 80’s. A crime. I also saw ESB in 70mm there. Some of the scenes were different than in the 35mm releases for both SW and ESB. I have been looking for such a theater, with such a giant screen ever since. My local mall had about as large as a screen would get for an early 80’s multiplex in its biggest auditoriums, yet this theaters main screen must have had 4x the surface area for sure. When I saw TPM there in digital, an employee told me that the main screen used to sit over 2200 people. I recall it being an extremely long and wide theater with many different rows, perhaps two giant main section and perhaps two smaller ones at the edges. The screen was so, so much bigger and better than say the Ziegfield in NYC, although the theater was certaintly not as ornate, if moreso than for a typical multiplex. Maybe, the Sony Lincoln square is using there 100' screen for some regular films not and it will feel the same. I’ve heard the AMC 24 in Hamilton has 4 giant screens with balconies. I doubt they are as big as this one was. Has anyone been there?