Not sure about this idea of having the picture extend at 90 degrees onto the two side walls?
Neither am I!
Surely a more immersive experience would be achieved by having a wider, possibly curved, floor to ceiling screen.
It would extend further into the audience’s horizontal peripheral vision than IMAX — 270°, as you quote, is their advertised claim, vs. maximum 120° for an IMAX conforming to criteria — and those areas are used by the human brain for motion awareness…
I can’t see it working well in terms of producing a geometrically undistorted picture, and also consistent illumination, including across seating positions?
Plus keeping all the projectors properly aligned and calibrated?
(Of course, the old OMNIMAX system could achieve “wider than IMAX” images.)
Wonder if any existing 4DX auditoria get converted into ScreenX or whether they will all be new build or conversions of non-4DX screens only?
Adding ScreenX to existing 4DX auditoria seems likely? (Given the above) the system would seem to work well in tandem with the motion seating.
About 40% of the movie utilises the three screen, most of it is displayed on the front wall in the traditional way.
“[Shooting Screen X involves a] three cameras [setup], a center camera and two peripheral cameras. The cameras – we used three RED Epics [for the South Korean film “The X”] – are hooked up onto a rig that allows you to shoot simultaneously in three directions at the same time.”
Apparently, using white screens doesn’t work, and at the time of the interview, they were using a “very cool dark grey”:
“The reason white screens don’t work is that you are now projecting onto the walls itself, that is still a light source and it reflects off the main screen and washes off on the main screen. This is a color we came upon because it absorbs light and it doesn’t reflect onto the main screen and at the same time it retrains most of the contrast and the colors. We are still experimenting with different colors.”
Kim mentions that the CJ Group’s cinema subsidary CGV are using Tectum fabric covered walls. I’m not clear from the article if the fabric supplied with this system is used as the sidewall screen material.
Also: “We have developed a term called FSR, which is Front Side Ratio, so the front of the screen to how long the side of the theater is. Ideally it’s about 1.5 to 1.8. We don’t like it to be any longer than that and we don’t like it to be any shorter.” He goes on to say that “180 to 230 seats is ideal.”
Sounds like an interesting system but whilst 4DX “works” as a optional “gimmick” that’s added late in post, I’d question the long term viability of ScreenX as a specialist format given that it would seem to require considerable additional production costs and upfront commitment?
Adding ScreenX to the LSQ 4DX would seem to be a non-starter—unless the columns are allowed to “interrupt” the sidewall images? With the 4DX conversion already pushing the limit of the cinema’s demised area in the basement of 1-4 Leicester Square, not sure there’s room for all the extra projectors, either.
Meanwhile, vendors continue to push LED screens to replace projection in cinemas.
You might be interested in an article published by Hollywood Reporter, which also notes the apparent exasperation of Spielberg of Nolan and Spielberg at the prospect of direct view display systems in theatres.
According to this article, the first Samsung Onyx LED display system in the US was installed at Pacific Theatres Winnetka in Chatsworth, CA—in the suburbanised San Fernando Valley area ~15 miles NW of Hollywood—with “Ready Player One” being the first programmed feature.
LARGE_screen_format: Many thanks for counting all the seats. :–)
Regarding the IMAX seat count mystery, having a look at the seating diagram on the booking page for a 3D performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the IMAX, it is noticeable that rows A and B are missing.
In the seating diagram for a 2D performance of the same in the IMAX, rows A and B reappear, as do 24 missing side seats in rows C-F.
For 2D IMAX performances, my count of the seats comes to 275 + 4 disabled.
Total for the complex based on your count = 2053 + 43 disabled.
Wonder how much ScreenX content is available? “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been released in this format, but I can’t see how this would work without seriously cropping the top/bottom off the frame?
Just went to the Barco Escape site to see how many cinemas are now equipped with that system, but apparently it was discontinued as of February 2018!
“CJ 4DPLEX has announced today a partnership with Cineworld Group to open 100 ScreenX locations at its theatres in the next few years. This agreement, which marks a major milestone for both companies, will include installing the multi-projection cinematic system in 10 different countries: U.S., U.K., Israel and seven other European countries.”
What I assume to be the same (or at least certainly similar) video of various premiere events shown on the displays on the right wall adjacent to the LSQ entrance, proclaiming it to be “The home of the stars” and “The premiere destination in London’s West End,” as noted in my post dated July 24th 2018, is available via YouTube—Cineworld Leicester Square – “Discover the Home of the Stars”.
(I can only assume that whoever was responsible for the footage of the LSQ foyer/lobby areas was not aware of the extreme irony of (IMO incompetently!) using a “cinéma vérité” shooting style given the “subject” is showcasing the glitzy interior, rather than, say, POV disorientation in a frenetic sequence? At any rate, if the operator could actually hold the camera still and not fiddle with the zoom…! Still, good that Cineworld are clearly eager to promote LSQ as a flagship venue…)
It would seem not only did the idea to have two IMPACT auditoria whilst under Empire Cinemas ownership get dropped at some stage…
Looking at the photo uploaded by SteveAWOL described as “Superscreen 2,” given that this has 9 rows of seats, with >20 seats/row visible—so I assume this is in fact Screen 3—with the photo taken prior to the front row seating being installed either side of the disabled bays?
It is clear from this photo that an Atmos sound system was installed as overheads are clearly visible; the seating is the same Seating Concepts “Empire” model as used in other Empire Cinemas' sites, and other decorative features also follow Empire Cinemas' current house style. I assume the main change resulting from Cineworld’s acquisition was the “star logo” signs and lack of horizontal strips on the sidewalls, and perhaps alterations to the ceiling “recesses” for the overheads, including the addition of red coloured concealed lighting; these would be an easy enough change if the auditorium was at a late stage of development at the time of acquisition.
So, it looks like the second IMPACT auditorium does in fact “exist,” just not branded/priced as a PLF screen. ;–) (Albeit no idea if there’s a dual projection system installed?)
Also, there are no leather recliner seats at this cinema. Which, unless I am mistaken, is another attraction of IMPACT Luxe auditoria?
Both IMPACT auditoria at Empire Ipswich feature reclining seats and double sofas. The LUXE is actually bigger in terms of seat count and screen size than the BLUE; ditto Sutton (albeit they are closer in size.)
There are no other Empire Cinemas venues which feature two IMPACT screens.
Keep in mind that “supersized” seats are a relatively recent development in the UK, and Empire Ipswich opened last year and Empire Sutton re-opened post-refurbishment this year; I suspect IMPACT “LUXE” is simply branding in line with other operators.
(Incidentally, I think high quality leatherette is used rather than leather, which might not perform well given the wear and tear it would be subjected to.)
Usually the only way to find out this information is to go online to the bookings page and work your way through all of the movies and all of the separate performances
Cineworld really ought to add auditorium information to their website. Fortunately, it only took a couple of minutes of clicking around to find a performance programmed for Screen 3—which, compared to the amount of time research takes for some of my posts, is neither here nor there. ;–)
Can’t imagine that got changed after this screen was opened to the public unless the seats got changed adding more legroom which would be the only explanation for a number of rows to be removed.
Doesn’t look like it based on the above-linked photo?
(not 24,766 which obviously is a typo otherwise would surely make this the highest number of seats of any cinema multiplex in the world!)
Oops—almost by an order of magnitude!
Kinepolis Brussels is listed as having 7500 seats on Cinema Treasures, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the seat count has been lowered subsequent to that figure being posted. Off the top of my head, that’s the largest seat count I’ve seen of any multiplex.
Screen 3 was originally to be an identical version of Screen 2 (IMPACT: Blue) which has 185 seats. Cineworld obviously rebranded Screen 2 to Superscreen. Screen 3 however is not a Superscreen.
Looking at the booking pages on Cineworld’s site (if I haven’t miscounted!):
Screen 2 (Superscreen) – 11 rows of seats, max. 20 seats/row, total = 185 + 5 disabled.
Screen 3 – 10 rows of seats, max. 30 seats/row, total = 272 + 6 disabled.
(Today’s 20:30 performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is in Screen 3.)
Trying to think of cinemas which have two literally (internally) identical auditoria?
The only one I can think of is Screens 5 and 7 in Vue West End, where they are vertically stacked; you can overlay the plans of on top of each other. The only difference is that the splay wall fire exits either side of the screen are a bit further forward in Screen 5. Otherwise, the only difference is the differently arranged sidewall decorative LED strips.
(Oddly enough they had slightly different seat counts before the 2017 refurbishment.)
Were any changes made to the IMPACT Blue auditorium post-Cineworld acquisition? It’s not clear whether the Screen 3 fit-out was as specified by Empire or if Cineworld made changes?
(Reply con’d):
Everything is more or less on one (ground) level with the exception of a few steps into some of the smaller screens.
(Thanks to anunfortunateevent for uploading numerous photos of this cinema.)
I am always interested to learn more about cinemas.
OK, I shall start adding floor area information, starting with Vue West End. :–)
On the subject of auditoria sizes and shapes, in an ideal world what are the best proportions for IMAX and non-IMAX screens?
Yikes, that’s a difficult question!
Ideally the content should be created, e.g. framed, so that it’s designed for the target relative viewing distance.
“Classic” cinemas layouts are perhaps 1.5-2x screen distance away, plus given a “scope” ratio screen, achieve far less than the vertical angle implied by the basic IMAX criteria (centre seat of last row no more than the screen width away from the centre of the screen.)
My bias is towards sitting closer to the screen, so IMAX criteria would seem to be fairly optimum to create an “immersive” experience extending well into peripheral vision (ignoring “VR” content and other IMO misguided attempts to “break the fourth wall.”)
Acoustics need to be considered—the obvious “solution” (!) would be to build the auditorium within an anechoic chamber somewhat larger than the screen width/height with “floating” stretched fabric walls/ceiling used to form false ceilings and walls.
It would have one luxurious seat on mechanically raised platform accessed via a catwalk over the anechoic chamber material below, which would otherwise by hidden with more “floating” stretched fabric to form a false floor.
Mid to high frequency sections would be strongly directional dispersion-wise, with the single seat on axis. The seating position could be set to 0.5x screen width as default, but as well as being vertically moveable, would also be moveable forwards and backwards, to allow sitting closer or further away from the screen; the angle of the mid/high frequency sections would be automatically altered to match the seating position (and time/level alignment also altered automatically.)
Another option would be a wavefield synthesis-based audio system.
Naturally, it would have a colour-changing lighting system using cold cathode (neon) strips, à la the old Empire 1. ;–)
Hadn’t really noticed that the large sheltered entrance to this cinema looks to be empty inside. The glass area certainly isn’t to allow daylight into the foyer area as it’s artificial light only inside and there’s not much of that!
Do you mean that it looks empty from outside?
Can’t remember the layout of what it was like back then. I’m guessing from the planning application that you linked to that four auditoria from the original site layout were sold and changed into one or more restaurants which now exist on either side of the cinema as you face the entrance from the car park. Then the cinema was extended further back within the complex.
(N.B. Seems to be some minor changes in a further “non-material amendment” application in relation to floor levels and bin area.)
According to the plans:
The existing two nightclubs (“Lava”/“Ignite”), situated to the right of the cinema’s main entrance, were converted to 5 new restaurant units.
“JJ’s Bar” to the right of the cinema’s main entrance was converted to restaurant use (currently a Frankie & Benny’s.)
The bowling alley behind the two nightclubs was converted to cinema use.
The four screens on the left side of the cinema’s main entrance were converted to restaurant use; external openings and new finishes, including wooden (“western red cedar”) cladding, added to NW elevation (i.e. the external wall if one approached the cinema’s main entrance, turned left instead of entering, and then right.)
Pizza Hut to the left side of the cinema’s main entrance is currently a Prezzo (no idea if unit expanded into the space formerly occupied by the cinema.)
Remaining area previously housing an “Aqua Splash” pool, ice rink, and green bowls reconfigured, and decorative changes to the entire main frontage (including removal of cold cathode/neon signage! :–()
“Following the acquisition of an additional 35000sq ft of space, construction and fit out of Phase 1 (9 of the 17 NEW screens) is well under way and on track to open on Friday 9th October. At which point the current 8 Screens will close and be demolished.”
I guess this actually means that 4 screens were converted to restaurant use, and the area occupied by the other 4 was reuse to house new auditoria?
Incidentally, the above link states the IMAX screen size to be “18.3m x 10m” (=60ft. x 32.8ft.)
Using Google Earth’s “Historical Imagery” function for aerial photo views, the building footprint today is essentially the same as it was in 1999. The two large rooftop chiller units above the cinema, presumably located above the (escape?) corridor between former Auditoria 7/8 and former Auditorium 6(/back of house areas behind former Auditorium 5,) seem to have been replaced with numerous smaller units.
(As an aside, air conditioning plant tends to be located above corridors, and not above auditoria, to help prevent structurally transmitted vibration from being audible in the auditoria.)
Thanks for the detailed information and links. ;o)
You’re welcome. :–)
Didn’t realise that non-IMAX cameras could be used for scenes that are shown as 1.43:1 or 1.9:1 ratio on IMAX screens.
The only strict criteria I’m aware of is that, for non-IMAX content, IMAX Digital systems will only operate in a “crippled” mode, e.g. only one of the two projector (no 3D) is used. This includes non-IMAX trailers, advertising, etc. before an IMAX main feature, and with an IMAX with Laser projection system, this can be seen by putting on the supplied 3D glasses; one eye is blanked out. ;–)
I suspect 1.43:1 scenes would be shot on 15perf IMAX, e.g. “Dunkirk.”
IMAX themselves now offer digital cameras (1.9:1 ratio); however, if the objective is to achieve “IMAX” quality, then there are various options available—and the technology is developing at a rapid pace!
When the “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” picture “opened up” to 1.9:1, I actually said to myself “wow… this is… IMAX.”
It really is an exciting time for “large format” content as astonishing results are now possible, and things are only going to get better. :–)
Lucy is judged by many to be a reference quality 4K UHD movie.
Interesting! I shall have to acquire a copy. :–)
The clarity and detail, as demonstrated by e.g. the close shots of Morgan Freeman’s face, is certainly startling.
Would you happen to know the size of the current 17-screen Cineworld, Hemel Hempstead?
No—although Cinema Treasures' description mentions the acquisition of “35,000sq.ft.” when Empire Cinemas redeveloped this location. (I’m slightly confused, as a planning application dated 2015 only mentions the removal of four auditoria?)
Obviously, this wouldn’t necessarily be equal to the gross area of the cinema demise, not least since there are likely to be multiple levels (e.g. booths)—but I guess that’s a reasonable ballpark figure for a “flat” layout of auditoria—though not sure what the layout is at Cineworld Hemel Hempstead?
Also, would you happen to know of any other multiplexes in the UK that are of a similar size (40,000 sq ft)?
Not off the top of my head, but (+/– say ~10%) it’s a pretty typical size—there really would be too many to list?!
To put these sort of dimensions into some sort of context, a typical retail park unit occupied by PC World (not the “Currys PC World Megastore” format) would perhaps be something like 15,000-20,000sq.ft—so you could imagine that ~40,000sq.ft. wouldn’t be unusual for a multiplex?
Overall area figures are interesting—well, at least for those possessing a similar temperament to myself (if anyone?—LOL)—but I think what you really want to know is the width, height and depth of the particular auditoria (and perhaps foyers, lobbies, etc.) that have captured your attention?
(If you are interested, I have some “published” figures and estimates which I could post, but it might be better if I did this on the respective pages for each cinema.)
“Lucy: The IMAX Experience will be released in select international IMAX theatres only.”
I actually rather enjoyed “Lucy,” even if the premise and execution was absurd. Fantastic picture quality also.
I ended up seeing it twice at the LSQ IMAX, as I wanted a friend to experience a screening in a “real cinema,” the Orange/EE Wednesdays promotion was still available (albeit for IMAX screens there was a modest uplift charge for the “free” ticket), and I was quite happy to watch “Lucy” again.
Neither screening was terribly busy, and IIRC, on my second visit, I had a brief conversation with a member of staff, who when asked how the IMAX screen was doing, looked rather sheepish and said that “it is… building awareness” and “it is a success.”
To be fair to IMAX/Empire Cinemas, the “new” IMAX sites referenced in the above-linked press release didn’t suffer from the same problem as LSQ under Empire Cinemas, including the inability to get bookings of the biggest releases.
Of course, it is now very much a success, and given the very high grosses achieved over at the BFI London IMAX, as well as the Central London prices, I wouldn’t be surprised if for certain releases it is one of the highest grossing IMAX venues on an international basis.
Was the presentation of Mission: Impossible – Fallout in IMAX 3D?
Yes it was; as usual, when films are programmed for both the IMAX and Superscreen at LSQ, the IMAX shows the 3D version, and the Superscreen the 2D version.
Sadly, didn’t manage to and it has today been replaced by Ant-Man and the Wasp.
Exactly, that’s why I went there at the last minute when I found myself in a location with just enough time to get there a few minutes before the auditorium doors were open. :–) I had thought about seeing it in the Superscreen, actually, but it was heavily booked—and I had better acquire an Unlimited card prior to the next Superscreen visit!
Be interested to hear your comments on the 3D effect considering this was a post-production conversion, as are most movies, and not natively shot in 3D.
In the “non-IMAX” scenes, the 3D conversion was, for the most part, dreadful—“cardboard cut-out” look and constrained by the general shallow depth of field (i.e. most objects not in focus, including close shots of adjacent actors) of the photography—an aesthetic choice that doesn’t work well for 3D. The 3D in these scenes, however, is relatively subtle.
3D was very effective in the “full height” scenes, though I don’t think mostly “in your face,” either.
I like 3D, but I wouldn’t be overly concerned about only having seen it theatrically in 2D.
I enjoyed the movie and even rewatched all of the other five movies in the franchise before and after this latest instalment in the franchise.
I really need to realise that franchise films these days require having some knowledge of the backstory set in previous installments, and I’d probably do well read a plot summary beforehand. In “fast-paced” films, I tend to miss key exposition in the first act as I’m distracted by assessing picture/sound quality and looking around the auditorium. :–(
The scenes in Kashmir during the final act, were they the only ones filmed using IMAX cameras and opened up to fill the whole screen?
I think they were the only 1.9:1 ratio scenes; AFAIK they weren’t shot on IMAX cameras but rather using Panavision Millennium DXLs with Primo 70 series lenses. These are so-called large format cameras boasting a 40.96mm wide sensor (c.f. 24mm for “35mm” format.)
I had expected the Burf Khalifa scene in Ghost Protocol to have been filmed in IMAX but alas I don’t believe it was? It certainly isn’t listed on the wiki list of movies filmed using IMAX cameras.
No other details have yet been released with regards to the opening date of the new Cineworld 9-screen cinema [at the expanded intu Watford] which includes an IMAX screen.
According to a July 2018 update from intu, three months were left until opening, with units being handed over to retailers for fit-out:
“The first unit to open will be the 4-storey Debenhams on September 27th, with lots of other great brands opening shortly after.”
Not sure if this relates to the timeframe for the cinema, but seems reasonable to assume around October or if there is slippage, November. Then again, depending on project sequencing, if “handover” means from shell/core only then the cinema “fit-out” is presumably rather more involved than the average retail unit.
As always, thanks for providing such detailed info, that is some great drilling down you’ve managed there! ;o)
You’re welcome! :–) I do my best, it’s always good to get positive feedback. ;–)
The four VIP boxes at the very back of the auditoria are not as great as they may sound
They sound like an incredibly stupid idea to me, actually. ;–)
The rear wall should be heavily acoustically damped; having large areas of glass to reflect sound (and, even if to a rather modest extent relatively, image) back is not good for those in the auditorium.
Each box has it’s own 5.1 surround sound system.
Interesting. I can’t imagine this works too well, since the speakers won’t be in the correct location spatially?
It also obliterates one of the major benefits a large auditorium has over a living room (well, unless your living room has dimensions exceeding, say, 50ft.+ ;–)—namely, freedom from low frequencies being dominated by room modes (resonances.)
But then again, I can’t imagine that anyone booking seats in the boxes is too interested in optimum seating locations… ;–)
it’s a shame that there’s no VIP seat option outside of the VIP boxes (2/3 the way back as in most Vue cinemas).
Talking of which, IME, the position of the VIP seats in the Vue Xtreme auditoria I’ve visited are altogether too far back.
I’ve posted estimates of relative seating positions to the screen width for Vue O2 Finchley Road, and certainly that auditorium hardly qualifies as “large format,” if the criteria is based on the basic “classic” IMAX geometry standards. I guess “caveat emptor” with screens marketed as “PLF”!
Incidentally, apparently these “old” screen width to seating position ratio standards were actually based on tests using 35mm film in the 1950s (!), being set so that the audience would be far enough away from the screen such that the artifacts of film and projection thereof—i.e. grain, weave, etc.—would not be overly perceptible! Whereas, the “classic” IMAX standards are, I think, based more around creating an immersive system given human physiology/perception, i.e. in a sense the system is built more from the perspective of achieving a quality immersive experience, rather than around the limitations of an existent—and in the theatrical world now more or less obsolete—format.
Don’t know what brand the rear array speakers are but I shall try to get a closer look or ask a member of staff the next time I watch a movie there which might be soon.
Thanks. :–) I think they’re QSC, actually; I was confused as my initial thought was that they might be JBL, but the relevant model was not available when the cinema was built—and I can’t imagine the sound system was upgraded, without otherwise an overall refurbishment of the auditorium occurring, and even then I’d be surprised if they bothered to replace the rears (unless, perhaps, if upgrading to Atmos?)
Not sure how well this cinema is doing compared to Empire, High Wycombe but I’ve rarely ever seen it busy or packed.
Seems to me the area is overscreened, certainly on the basis of multiplexes per capita in the UK and the population of High Wycombe per se?
I can imagine that in the earlier days of multiplexes that the CIC/UCI High Wycombe would draw in trade from a wide catchment as, if I’m not mistaken, there was very little in the way of local competition.
I guess the idea behind Eden was to create a regional retail/leisure facility, but there’s competition on that front, such as the “new” The Lexicon Bracknell, which of course is also home to a Cineworld.
On the M40/A40 corridor, the Odeon Uxbridge IMAX and the fairly recently opened Cineworld South Ruislip would obviate the need (or possible even draw in business from High Wycombe and environs in the case of the IMAX due to the brand?) to head out to High Wycombe for the purpose of a cinema trip.
Regarding parking costs, planning policy effectively “forced” new leisure development to predominantly be in city/town centres. You can probably guess my view on those policies from the last sentence, but I’ll avoid further comment here as this isn’t a site for “political” debates—but suffice to say, with cinema ticket prices as they are, in most locations (i.e. not Central London and environs—and if one were crazy enough to park off Leicester Square, it would cost just as much as a premium cinema ticket at West End prices!) paying for additional parking charges doesn’t seem reasonable.
Shame that you aren’t able to get the off-peak discounts that were previously available. :–(
I’d expect Cineworld, across their entire UK estate, to have done their homework though? (I think their priority is on their “Unlimited” card…)
ritzman: That would be nice, but given the “large format” — possibly Dolby Cinema — screen slated for the refurbished OLS, I wouldn’t get my hopes up—at least not in the original location!
It will be interesting to see just how much plasterwork is retained or reinstated. The auditorium as it was would need a lot of acoustic treatment were it to be brought closer to current “new build” standards.
Of course, the forms could be recreated to a lesser or greater degree of exactitude using modern materials, as was the panelling around the “golden ladies” in the late 90s refurb using, AFAIK, stretched fabric panels, where wooden panelling was originally used.
Incidentally, Eomac—the company that seemingly supplies stretched fabric profiles and textiles to just about every new or refurbished cinema on the planet, also offer acoustic wood products.
Acoustic plaster solutions also exist, e.g. Quietspray (no idea if that would be suitable or not to recreate the 1930s forms, but as an example of a plaster system that has good acoustic absorption performance.)
I suppose all depends in part on just how much money Odeon are willing to throw at the project, and ability to diverge from the path of least resistance, for non-obligatory heritage reasons.
Update: The LSQ scaffolding has been covered over with fire retardant sheets; I did take some photos, but thinking about it, it really isn’t very interesting! However, it may suggest that work is now progressing to the foyer/facade phase.
Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, the location where the top of this shot is cropped (at the screen end of the auditorium) is somewhere around where the ceiling of the old Empire 1 was.
I attended a screening of “Mission Impossible—Fallout” in the IMAX auditorium today, having booked my ticket at the “last minute” (by which I mean, just enough time to get to the cinema some minutes before the auditorium doors were opened!)
This was foolish in that I did not consider whether the film was worth seeing—albeit, its current Rotten Tomatoes score is 97%(!)—so “research” may not have been of any assistance!
It turns out that the film IS worth seeing—but, IMO, only for the visuals in the final act. Set in Kashmir, numerous stunning shots of mountainous terrain in “full height” IMAX Digital (1.9:1) are featured, presumably digitally acquired (CGI aside) using Panavision Millennium DXLs (8K source format) per IMDb Technical Specifications.
Full use of the 12 channel IMAX sound system was apparent in these scenes, e.g. strongly directional helicopter sounds panned overhead.
(Picture quality-wise, the rest of the film is lacking in detail with poor depth of field and I assume was mostly acquired on 35mm film per IMDb Technical Specifications, although no grain was apparent, suggesting heavy noise reduction.)
IMAX auditorium update:
I’m not sure if it was the fault of the source material, but there was a marked absence of low level detail throughout the film, with dark areas clipped to black. Some low level dither seemed to be visible in one or two 1.9:1 scenes in the final act. Subtle “laser speckle” was also apparent momentarily a couple of times.
Today’s outside temperature was ~30°C, and the HVAC system was working extremely well with the auditorium very well chilled and unstuffy for the late afternoon screening I attended, as were the foyer areas.
On the left splay wall, the front bottom two LED bars were misaligned. (Photo uploaded.)
Also, my perception was that the colour-changing LEDs have lost some brightness, which is odd since even allowing for 5 hours of use/day, they would not even have hit the 10,000 hour mark, and the bars use OSRAM LEDs which have outstanding performance in terms of brightness maintenance with use. Perhaps they are being driven hard? With 171 RGB bars, and given a retail price of, say, £200+ each, one does wonder whether Cineworld will bother with long term upkeep/replacement. Regular LED strips just wouldn’t be bright enough to illuminate the large areas of black walls/ceiling, which the current system already struggles with. I overheard a kid sitting behind making a comment on the “magical lighting,” so clearly it’s effective in adding a special touch for those with no awareness of the heritage aspect.
AFAICT, one or more of the subbass drivers bottomed out during one of the trailers; if this represents failure, hopefully IMAX will action replacement(s).
Cineworld (Empire) Leicester Square update:
The building site notice still appears on the fire exit door to Leicester Street.
To add to ongoing observations of extreme minutiae, the left wall of the lower vestibule (i.e. underneath the section leading to the 4DX) now has black strips added. (Photo uploaded.) Interestingly (?), if it’s the same product visible in fit-out photos of Cineworld Broughton—see Image 1 and Image 2—these black strips might not actually be PMMA (aka Perspex/Plexiglass,) but Alupanel.
Empire Cinemas' registered office is, as of November 2017, 63-65 Haymarket. The “10 – Empire Studios” sign remains by the entrance to the upper level offices on the Leicester Place frontage, although no signs of activity were externally visible, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that they’ve vacated.
[Added text to overcome “Your comment appears to be spam!” notification which appeared on reposting with minor edits. And some more text for another repost. :–(]
Estimating the Auditorium 8 (aka “Vue Xtreme,”) based on the screen size given in Vue’s press release (linked to above) and the screen as drawn on the plans, the auditorium measures approximately 19m wide by 26.5m deep (or ~62ft. x ~87ft.)
The front row is ~0.35 screen width from the screen, whilst to keep within the classic IMAX criteria of no more than the screen width from the screen, it is necessary to sit no further back than the second row of the steeply raked section (the front 5 rows are on a flatter rake.)
The second row of the “VIP seats” is ~1.2x screen width away from the screen, and the rearmost row of all the seats ~1.65x.
Not to say that there’s anything “wrong” (or “right”) about the auditorium—it might be a black box, but I think it’s pretty good in terms of build (e.g. acoustic isolation and absorption)—but just to compare it to classic IMAX criteria for horizontal viewing angles/“immersiveness.”
Passed by Cineworld (Empire) LSQ yesterday; alas “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” was playing in the IMAX/Superscreen. :–(
(ABBA, like them or not, have gifted the world with a large repertoire of popular songs written and arranged to a very high standard, many of which are classics, and I have no interest in watching/hearing them being mutilated in a corny sequel!)
Cineworld are now branding LSQ as “London’s premiere destination and home to the stars,” on the screen nearest to the entrance (mounted on the right side wall of the lower vestibule), with clips of various premiere/“red carpet” events being shown. (Photo uploaded.)
The only external sign of ongoing building work remains the “Construction Site” notice on the exterior of the Leicester Street fire exit doors.
Empire Cinemas' registered address has been changed to 63-65 Haymarket, aka Empire Haymarket. The “Empire Studios” sign remains by the the entrance door facing Leicester Place.
bigjoe59: Regarding the Cinerama you refer to, that format/system existed way before my time—but perhaps you mean the location that was originally, and is today, named the “Prince Edward Theatre”? It’s about 100 metres (on foot) from Shaftesbury Avenue.
Photos of the auditorium in Cinerama guise and a (somewhat crudely drawn!) plan (with the three projector locations marked) can be seen, as well as a plan for the change to a single projector setup/replacement screen in 1974. Lists of three strip and single strip programming are also included.
Whatever the merits of Cinerama by today’s standards, the 1954 alterations look disastrous—aesthetically and yielding a technically substandard auditorium (in terms of acoustics, seating locations relative to the screen, etc.) Fascinating history, though…!
External scaffolding has now been erected on the Leicester Square facade. As far as I could tell, the foyer areas are in the same stripped state as previous posts, with what I assume to be the underside of the circle stadia still visible.
Armstrong Project Gallery – Uttoxeter Cinema and Bowling Complex – Photos and Armstrong products used.
LARGE_screen_format:
Neither am I!
It would extend further into the audience’s horizontal peripheral vision than IMAX — 270°, as you quote, is their advertised claim, vs. maximum 120° for an IMAX conforming to criteria — and those areas are used by the human brain for motion awareness…
I can’t see it working well in terms of producing a geometrically undistorted picture, and also consistent illumination, including across seating positions?
Plus keeping all the projectors properly aligned and calibrated?
(Of course, the old OMNIMAX system could achieve “wider than IMAX” images.)
Adding ScreenX to existing 4DX auditoria seems likely? (Given the above) the system would seem to work well in tandem with the motion seating.
Filmmaker Magazine – October 2013 – “Introducing Screen X, Cinema in 270 Degrees” – Interview with Paul Kim, “Lead Producer of ScreenX”.
“[Shooting Screen X involves a] three cameras [setup], a center camera and two peripheral cameras. The cameras – we used three RED Epics [for the South Korean film “The X”] – are hooked up onto a rig that allows you to shoot simultaneously in three directions at the same time.”
Apparently, using white screens doesn’t work, and at the time of the interview, they were using a “very cool dark grey”:
“The reason white screens don’t work is that you are now projecting onto the walls itself, that is still a light source and it reflects off the main screen and washes off on the main screen. This is a color we came upon because it absorbs light and it doesn’t reflect onto the main screen and at the same time it retrains most of the contrast and the colors. We are still experimenting with different colors.”
Kim mentions that the CJ Group’s cinema subsidary CGV are using Tectum fabric covered walls. I’m not clear from the article if the fabric supplied with this system is used as the sidewall screen material.
Also: “We have developed a term called FSR, which is Front Side Ratio, so the front of the screen to how long the side of the theater is. Ideally it’s about 1.5 to 1.8. We don’t like it to be any longer than that and we don’t like it to be any shorter.” He goes on to say that “180 to 230 seats is ideal.”
Sounds like an interesting system but whilst 4DX “works” as a optional “gimmick” that’s added late in post, I’d question the long term viability of ScreenX as a specialist format given that it would seem to require considerable additional production costs and upfront commitment?
Adding ScreenX to the LSQ 4DX would seem to be a non-starter—unless the columns are allowed to “interrupt” the sidewall images? With the 4DX conversion already pushing the limit of the cinema’s demised area in the basement of 1-4 Leicester Square, not sure there’s room for all the extra projectors, either.
Meanwhile, vendors continue to push LED screens to replace projection in cinemas.
You might be interested in an article published by Hollywood Reporter, which also notes the apparent exasperation of Spielberg of Nolan and Spielberg at the prospect of direct view display systems in theatres.
According to this article, the first Samsung Onyx LED display system in the US was installed at Pacific Theatres Winnetka in Chatsworth, CA—in the suburbanised San Fernando Valley area ~15 miles NW of Hollywood—with “Ready Player One” being the first programmed feature.
LARGE_screen_format: Many thanks for counting all the seats. :–)
Regarding the IMAX seat count mystery, having a look at the seating diagram on the booking page for a 3D performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” in the IMAX, it is noticeable that rows A and B are missing.
In the seating diagram for a 2D performance of the same in the IMAX, rows A and B reappear, as do 24 missing side seats in rows C-F.
For 2D IMAX performances, my count of the seats comes to 275 + 4 disabled.
Total for the complex based on your count = 2053 + 43 disabled.
CJ 4DPLEX is South Korean… and growth markets… China is now the world’s largest market by box office…
World’s First 4DX with Screen X — includes selected footage of the fit-out, and the 4DX/ScreenX system in use.
Wonder how much ScreenX content is available? “Ant-Man and the Wasp” has been released in this format, but I can’t see how this would work without seriously cropping the top/bottom off the frame?
Just went to the Barco Escape site to see how many cinemas are now equipped with that system, but apparently it was discontinued as of February 2018!
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you for posting that!
Press release-14th June 2018.
“CJ 4DPLEX has announced today a partnership with Cineworld Group to open 100 ScreenX locations at its theatres in the next few years. This agreement, which marks a major milestone for both companies, will include installing the multi-projection cinematic system in 10 different countries: U.S., U.K., Israel and seven other European countries.”
Image Technique – Digital Signage & AV Solutions – Cineworld Cinemas – Large Scale Video Walls.
The curved screen at the top of the vestibule is shown in a photo, so presumably the LED modules were supplied and fitted by them.
As well as Cineworld, they have also been involved with signage for Empire Cinemas, Odeon and Vue.
A “full resolution” (4K) JPEG file of this photo can be downloaded.
What I assume to be the same (or at least certainly similar) video of various premiere events shown on the displays on the right wall adjacent to the LSQ entrance, proclaiming it to be “The home of the stars” and “The premiere destination in London’s West End,” as noted in my post dated July 24th 2018, is available via YouTube—Cineworld Leicester Square – “Discover the Home of the Stars”.
(I can only assume that whoever was responsible for the footage of the LSQ foyer/lobby areas was not aware of the extreme irony of (IMO incompetently!) using a “cinéma vérité” shooting style given the “subject” is showcasing the glitzy interior, rather than, say, POV disorientation in a frenetic sequence? At any rate, if the operator could actually hold the camera still and not fiddle with the zoom…! Still, good that Cineworld are clearly eager to promote LSQ as a flagship venue…)
LARGE_screen_format:
Looking at the photo uploaded by SteveAWOL described as “Superscreen 2,” given that this has 9 rows of seats, with >20 seats/row visible—so I assume this is in fact Screen 3—with the photo taken prior to the front row seating being installed either side of the disabled bays?
It is clear from this photo that an Atmos sound system was installed as overheads are clearly visible; the seating is the same Seating Concepts “Empire” model as used in other Empire Cinemas' sites, and other decorative features also follow Empire Cinemas' current house style. I assume the main change resulting from Cineworld’s acquisition was the “star logo” signs and lack of horizontal strips on the sidewalls, and perhaps alterations to the ceiling “recesses” for the overheads, including the addition of red coloured concealed lighting; these would be an easy enough change if the auditorium was at a late stage of development at the time of acquisition.
So, it looks like the second IMPACT auditorium does in fact “exist,” just not branded/priced as a PLF screen. ;–) (Albeit no idea if there’s a dual projection system installed?)
Both IMPACT auditoria at Empire Ipswich feature reclining seats and double sofas. The LUXE is actually bigger in terms of seat count and screen size than the BLUE; ditto Sutton (albeit they are closer in size.)
There are no other Empire Cinemas venues which feature two IMPACT screens.
Keep in mind that “supersized” seats are a relatively recent development in the UK, and Empire Ipswich opened last year and Empire Sutton re-opened post-refurbishment this year; I suspect IMPACT “LUXE” is simply branding in line with other operators.
(Incidentally, I think high quality leatherette is used rather than leather, which might not perform well given the wear and tear it would be subjected to.)
Cineworld really ought to add auditorium information to their website. Fortunately, it only took a couple of minutes of clicking around to find a performance programmed for Screen 3—which, compared to the amount of time research takes for some of my posts, is neither here nor there. ;–)
Doesn’t look like it based on the above-linked photo?
Oops—almost by an order of magnitude!
Kinepolis Brussels is listed as having 7500 seats on Cinema Treasures, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the seat count has been lowered subsequent to that figure being posted. Off the top of my head, that’s the largest seat count I’ve seen of any multiplex.
Maybe the “bed bug” count in one of the NYC ‘plexes is in the 10s of thousands. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format:
Looking at the booking pages on Cineworld’s site (if I haven’t miscounted!):
Screen 2 (Superscreen) – 11 rows of seats, max. 20 seats/row, total = 185 + 5 disabled.
Screen 3 – 10 rows of seats, max. 30 seats/row, total = 272 + 6 disabled.
(Today’s 20:30 performance of “Ant-Man and the Wasp” is in Screen 3.)
LARGE_screen_format:
Trying to think of cinemas which have two literally (internally) identical auditoria?
The only one I can think of is Screens 5 and 7 in Vue West End, where they are vertically stacked; you can overlay the plans of on top of each other. The only difference is that the splay wall fire exits either side of the screen are a bit further forward in Screen 5. Otherwise, the only difference is the differently arranged sidewall decorative LED strips.
(Oddly enough they had slightly different seat counts before the 2017 refurbishment.)
Were any changes made to the IMPACT Blue auditorium post-Cineworld acquisition? It’s not clear whether the Screen 3 fit-out was as specified by Empire or if Cineworld made changes?
(Reply con’d):
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/24766/photos/197756 shows a sign with “UPPER” and “LOWER” levels marked on it?
(Thanks to anunfortunateevent for uploading numerous photos of this cinema.)
OK, I shall start adding floor area information, starting with Vue West End. :–)
Yikes, that’s a difficult question!
Ideally the content should be created, e.g. framed, so that it’s designed for the target relative viewing distance.
“Classic” cinemas layouts are perhaps 1.5-2x screen distance away, plus given a “scope” ratio screen, achieve far less than the vertical angle implied by the basic IMAX criteria (centre seat of last row no more than the screen width away from the centre of the screen.)
My bias is towards sitting closer to the screen, so IMAX criteria would seem to be fairly optimum to create an “immersive” experience extending well into peripheral vision (ignoring “VR” content and other IMO misguided attempts to “break the fourth wall.”)
Acoustics need to be considered—the obvious “solution” (!) would be to build the auditorium within an anechoic chamber somewhat larger than the screen width/height with “floating” stretched fabric walls/ceiling used to form false ceilings and walls.
It would have one luxurious seat on mechanically raised platform accessed via a catwalk over the anechoic chamber material below, which would otherwise by hidden with more “floating” stretched fabric to form a false floor.
Mid to high frequency sections would be strongly directional dispersion-wise, with the single seat on axis. The seating position could be set to 0.5x screen width as default, but as well as being vertically moveable, would also be moveable forwards and backwards, to allow sitting closer or further away from the screen; the angle of the mid/high frequency sections would be automatically altered to match the seating position (and time/level alignment also altered automatically.)
Another option would be a wavefield synthesis-based audio system.
Naturally, it would have a colour-changing lighting system using cold cathode (neon) strips, à la the old Empire 1. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format:
Do you mean that it looks empty from outside?
Here’s what I’ve found so far:
Change of use planning application.
(N.B. Seems to be some minor changes in a further “non-material amendment” application in relation to floor levels and bin area.)
According to the plans:
Empire Cinemas – Hemel Hempstead Development Update-August 2015.
To quote:
“Following the acquisition of an additional 35000sq ft of space, construction and fit out of Phase 1 (9 of the 17 NEW screens) is well under way and on track to open on Friday 9th October. At which point the current 8 Screens will close and be demolished.”
I guess this actually means that 4 screens were converted to restaurant use, and the area occupied by the other 4 was reuse to house new auditoria?
Incidentally, the above link states the IMAX screen size to be “18.3m x 10m” (=60ft. x 32.8ft.)
Using Google Earth’s “Historical Imagery” function for aerial photo views, the building footprint today is essentially the same as it was in 1999. The two large rooftop chiller units above the cinema, presumably located above the (escape?) corridor between former Auditoria 7/8 and former Auditorium 6(/back of house areas behind former Auditorium 5,) seem to have been replaced with numerous smaller units.
(As an aside, air conditioning plant tends to be located above corridors, and not above auditoria, to help prevent structurally transmitted vibration from being audible in the auditoria.)
Reply to be continued…
Nice! :–)
LARGE_screen_format:
You’re welcome. :–)
The only strict criteria I’m aware of is that, for non-IMAX content, IMAX Digital systems will only operate in a “crippled” mode, e.g. only one of the two projector (no 3D) is used. This includes non-IMAX trailers, advertising, etc. before an IMAX main feature, and with an IMAX with Laser projection system, this can be seen by putting on the supplied 3D glasses; one eye is blanked out. ;–)
I suspect 1.43:1 scenes would be shot on 15perf IMAX, e.g. “Dunkirk.”
IMAX themselves now offer digital cameras (1.9:1 ratio); however, if the objective is to achieve “IMAX” quality, then there are various options available—and the technology is developing at a rapid pace!
When the “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” picture “opened up” to 1.9:1, I actually said to myself “wow… this is… IMAX.”
It really is an exciting time for “large format” content as astonishing results are now possible, and things are only going to get better. :–)
Interesting! I shall have to acquire a copy. :–)
The clarity and detail, as demonstrated by e.g. the close shots of Morgan Freeman’s face, is certainly startling.
LARGE_screen_format:
No—although Cinema Treasures' description mentions the acquisition of “35,000sq.ft.” when Empire Cinemas redeveloped this location. (I’m slightly confused, as a planning application dated 2015 only mentions the removal of four auditoria?)
Looking at a planning application dated September 2016, specifically, the area marked in red on the “Site Location Plan,” the plan area is approx. 34,000sq.ft.
Obviously, this wouldn’t necessarily be equal to the gross area of the cinema demise, not least since there are likely to be multiple levels (e.g. booths)—but I guess that’s a reasonable ballpark figure for a “flat” layout of auditoria—though not sure what the layout is at Cineworld Hemel Hempstead?
Not off the top of my head, but (+/– say ~10%) it’s a pretty typical size—there really would be too many to list?!
To put these sort of dimensions into some sort of context, a typical retail park unit occupied by PC World (not the “Currys PC World Megastore” format) would perhaps be something like 15,000-20,000sq.ft—so you could imagine that ~40,000sq.ft. wouldn’t be unusual for a multiplex?
Overall area figures are interesting—well, at least for those possessing a similar temperament to myself (if anyone?—LOL)—but I think what you really want to know is the width, height and depth of the particular auditoria (and perhaps foyers, lobbies, etc.) that have captured your attention?
(If you are interested, I have some “published” figures and estimates which I could post, but it might be better if I did this on the respective pages for each cinema.)
LARGE_screen_format:
Interesting. I suspect it’s a regurgitated press release, and sure enough, it is:
Empire Cinemas Expands IMAX Commitment with Three-Theatre Deal in England.
From IMAX – Lucy:
“Lucy: The IMAX Experience will be released in select international IMAX theatres only.”
I actually rather enjoyed “Lucy,” even if the premise and execution was absurd. Fantastic picture quality also.
I ended up seeing it twice at the LSQ IMAX, as I wanted a friend to experience a screening in a “real cinema,” the Orange/EE Wednesdays promotion was still available (albeit for IMAX screens there was a modest uplift charge for the “free” ticket), and I was quite happy to watch “Lucy” again.
Neither screening was terribly busy, and IIRC, on my second visit, I had a brief conversation with a member of staff, who when asked how the IMAX screen was doing, looked rather sheepish and said that “it is… building awareness” and “it is a success.”
To be fair to IMAX/Empire Cinemas, the “new” IMAX sites referenced in the above-linked press release didn’t suffer from the same problem as LSQ under Empire Cinemas, including the inability to get bookings of the biggest releases.
Of course, it is now very much a success, and given the very high grosses achieved over at the BFI London IMAX, as well as the Central London prices, I wouldn’t be surprised if for certain releases it is one of the highest grossing IMAX venues on an international basis.
LARGE_screen_format:
Yes it was; as usual, when films are programmed for both the IMAX and Superscreen at LSQ, the IMAX shows the 3D version, and the Superscreen the 2D version.
Exactly, that’s why I went there at the last minute when I found myself in a location with just enough time to get there a few minutes before the auditorium doors were open. :–) I had thought about seeing it in the Superscreen, actually, but it was heavily booked—and I had better acquire an Unlimited card prior to the next Superscreen visit!
In the “non-IMAX” scenes, the 3D conversion was, for the most part, dreadful—“cardboard cut-out” look and constrained by the general shallow depth of field (i.e. most objects not in focus, including close shots of adjacent actors) of the photography—an aesthetic choice that doesn’t work well for 3D. The 3D in these scenes, however, is relatively subtle.
3D was very effective in the “full height” scenes, though I don’t think mostly “in your face,” either.
I like 3D, but I wouldn’t be overly concerned about only having seen it theatrically in 2D.
I really need to realise that franchise films these days require having some knowledge of the backstory set in previous installments, and I’d probably do well read a plot summary beforehand. In “fast-paced” films, I tend to miss key exposition in the first act as I’m distracted by assessing picture/sound quality and looking around the auditorium. :–(
I think they were the only 1.9:1 ratio scenes; AFAIK they weren’t shot on IMAX cameras but rather using Panavision Millennium DXLs with Primo 70 series lenses. These are so-called large format cameras boasting a 40.96mm wide sensor (c.f. 24mm for “35mm” format.)
You might find this video to be of interest:
Panavision – DXL2: A Wider Gamut.
65mm IMAX film cameras certainly were used…
Photo of Director Brad Bird and IMAX camera rig.
According to a July 2018 update from intu, three months were left until opening, with units being handed over to retailers for fit-out:
“The first unit to open will be the 4-storey Debenhams on September 27th, with lots of other great brands opening shortly after.”
Not sure if this relates to the timeframe for the cinema, but seems reasonable to assume around October or if there is slippage, November. Then again, depending on project sequencing, if “handover” means from shell/core only then the cinema “fit-out” is presumably rather more involved than the average retail unit.
Addendum: Taken August 2018.
LARGE_screen_format:
You’re welcome! :–) I do my best, it’s always good to get positive feedback. ;–)
They sound like an incredibly stupid idea to me, actually. ;–)
The rear wall should be heavily acoustically damped; having large areas of glass to reflect sound (and, even if to a rather modest extent relatively, image) back is not good for those in the auditorium.
Interesting. I can’t imagine this works too well, since the speakers won’t be in the correct location spatially?
It also obliterates one of the major benefits a large auditorium has over a living room (well, unless your living room has dimensions exceeding, say, 50ft.+ ;–)—namely, freedom from low frequencies being dominated by room modes (resonances.)
But then again, I can’t imagine that anyone booking seats in the boxes is too interested in optimum seating locations… ;–)
Talking of which, IME, the position of the VIP seats in the Vue Xtreme auditoria I’ve visited are altogether too far back.
I’ve posted estimates of relative seating positions to the screen width for Vue O2 Finchley Road, and certainly that auditorium hardly qualifies as “large format,” if the criteria is based on the basic “classic” IMAX geometry standards. I guess “caveat emptor” with screens marketed as “PLF”!
Incidentally, apparently these “old” screen width to seating position ratio standards were actually based on tests using 35mm film in the 1950s (!), being set so that the audience would be far enough away from the screen such that the artifacts of film and projection thereof—i.e. grain, weave, etc.—would not be overly perceptible! Whereas, the “classic” IMAX standards are, I think, based more around creating an immersive system given human physiology/perception, i.e. in a sense the system is built more from the perspective of achieving a quality immersive experience, rather than around the limitations of an existent—and in the theatrical world now more or less obsolete—format.
Thanks. :–) I think they’re QSC, actually; I was confused as my initial thought was that they might be JBL, but the relevant model was not available when the cinema was built—and I can’t imagine the sound system was upgraded, without otherwise an overall refurbishment of the auditorium occurring, and even then I’d be surprised if they bothered to replace the rears (unless, perhaps, if upgrading to Atmos?)
Seems to me the area is overscreened, certainly on the basis of multiplexes per capita in the UK and the population of High Wycombe per se?
I can imagine that in the earlier days of multiplexes that the CIC/UCI High Wycombe would draw in trade from a wide catchment as, if I’m not mistaken, there was very little in the way of local competition.
I guess the idea behind Eden was to create a regional retail/leisure facility, but there’s competition on that front, such as the “new” The Lexicon Bracknell, which of course is also home to a Cineworld.
On the M40/A40 corridor, the Odeon Uxbridge IMAX and the fairly recently opened Cineworld South Ruislip would obviate the need (or possible even draw in business from High Wycombe and environs in the case of the IMAX due to the brand?) to head out to High Wycombe for the purpose of a cinema trip.
Regarding parking costs, planning policy effectively “forced” new leisure development to predominantly be in city/town centres. You can probably guess my view on those policies from the last sentence, but I’ll avoid further comment here as this isn’t a site for “political” debates—but suffice to say, with cinema ticket prices as they are, in most locations (i.e. not Central London and environs—and if one were crazy enough to park off Leicester Square, it would cost just as much as a premium cinema ticket at West End prices!) paying for additional parking charges doesn’t seem reasonable.
Shame that you aren’t able to get the off-peak discounts that were previously available. :–(
I’d expect Cineworld, across their entire UK estate, to have done their homework though? (I think their priority is on their “Unlimited” card…)
ritzman: That would be nice, but given the “large format” — possibly Dolby Cinema — screen slated for the refurbished OLS, I wouldn’t get my hopes up—at least not in the original location!
It will be interesting to see just how much plasterwork is retained or reinstated. The auditorium as it was would need a lot of acoustic treatment were it to be brought closer to current “new build” standards.
Of course, the forms could be recreated to a lesser or greater degree of exactitude using modern materials, as was the panelling around the “golden ladies” in the late 90s refurb using, AFAIK, stretched fabric panels, where wooden panelling was originally used.
Incidentally, Eomac—the company that seemingly supplies stretched fabric profiles and textiles to just about every new or refurbished cinema on the planet, also offer acoustic wood products.
Acoustic plaster solutions also exist, e.g. Quietspray (no idea if that would be suitable or not to recreate the 1930s forms, but as an example of a plaster system that has good acoustic absorption performance.)
I suppose all depends in part on just how much money Odeon are willing to throw at the project, and ability to diverge from the path of least resistance, for non-obligatory heritage reasons.
Update: The LSQ scaffolding has been covered over with fire retardant sheets; I did take some photos, but thinking about it, it really isn’t very interesting! However, it may suggest that work is now progressing to the foyer/facade phase.
No changes to views from Charing Cross Road.
Incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, the location where the top of this shot is cropped (at the screen end of the auditorium) is somewhere around where the ceiling of the old Empire 1 was.
Correction to previous post: 151 RGB LED bars, not 171.
I attended a screening of “Mission Impossible—Fallout” in the IMAX auditorium today, having booked my ticket at the “last minute” (by which I mean, just enough time to get to the cinema some minutes before the auditorium doors were opened!)
This was foolish in that I did not consider whether the film was worth seeing—albeit, its current Rotten Tomatoes score is 97%(!)—so “research” may not have been of any assistance!
It turns out that the film IS worth seeing—but, IMO, only for the visuals in the final act. Set in Kashmir, numerous stunning shots of mountainous terrain in “full height” IMAX Digital (1.9:1) are featured, presumably digitally acquired (CGI aside) using Panavision Millennium DXLs (8K source format) per IMDb Technical Specifications.
Full use of the 12 channel IMAX sound system was apparent in these scenes, e.g. strongly directional helicopter sounds panned overhead.
(Picture quality-wise, the rest of the film is lacking in detail with poor depth of field and I assume was mostly acquired on 35mm film per IMDb Technical Specifications, although no grain was apparent, suggesting heavy noise reduction.)
IMAX auditorium update:
Cineworld (Empire) Leicester Square update:
The building site notice still appears on the fire exit door to Leicester Street.
To add to ongoing observations of extreme minutiae, the left wall of the lower vestibule (i.e. underneath the section leading to the 4DX) now has black strips added. (Photo uploaded.) Interestingly (?), if it’s the same product visible in fit-out photos of Cineworld Broughton—see Image 1 and Image 2—these black strips might not actually be PMMA (aka Perspex/Plexiglass,) but Alupanel.
Empire Cinemas' registered office is, as of November 2017, 63-65 Haymarket. The “10 – Empire Studios” sign remains by the entrance to the upper level offices on the Leicester Place frontage, although no signs of activity were externally visible, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that they’ve vacated.
[Added text to overcome “Your comment appears to be spam!” notification which appeared on reposting with minor edits. And some more text for another repost. :–(]
Plans are available in a licensing application — Camden Council Public Licensing Register Search — by searching using reference:
APP\PREMISES-VARY\000685
Plans were supplied by UNICK Architects.
Estimating the Auditorium 8 (aka “Vue Xtreme,”) based on the screen size given in Vue’s press release (linked to above) and the screen as drawn on the plans, the auditorium measures approximately 19m wide by 26.5m deep (or ~62ft. x ~87ft.)
The front row is ~0.35 screen width from the screen, whilst to keep within the classic IMAX criteria of no more than the screen width from the screen, it is necessary to sit no further back than the second row of the steeply raked section (the front 5 rows are on a flatter rake.)
The second row of the “VIP seats” is ~1.2x screen width away from the screen, and the rearmost row of all the seats ~1.65x.
Not to say that there’s anything “wrong” (or “right”) about the auditorium—it might be a black box, but I think it’s pretty good in terms of build (e.g. acoustic isolation and absorption)—but just to compare it to classic IMAX criteria for horizontal viewing angles/“immersiveness.”
Passed by Cineworld (Empire) LSQ yesterday; alas “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” was playing in the IMAX/Superscreen. :–(
(ABBA, like them or not, have gifted the world with a large repertoire of popular songs written and arranged to a very high standard, many of which are classics, and I have no interest in watching/hearing them being mutilated in a corny sequel!)
Cineworld are now branding LSQ as “London’s premiere destination and home to the stars,” on the screen nearest to the entrance (mounted on the right side wall of the lower vestibule), with clips of various premiere/“red carpet” events being shown. (Photo uploaded.)
The only external sign of ongoing building work remains the “Construction Site” notice on the exterior of the Leicester Street fire exit doors.
Empire Cinemas' registered address has been changed to 63-65 Haymarket, aka Empire Haymarket. The “Empire Studios” sign remains by the the entrance door facing Leicester Place.
bigjoe59: Regarding the Cinerama you refer to, that format/system existed way before my time—but perhaps you mean the location that was originally, and is today, named the “Prince Edward Theatre”? It’s about 100 metres (on foot) from Shaftesbury Avenue.
London Casino – incinerama.com.
Photos of the auditorium in Cinerama guise and a (somewhat crudely drawn!) plan (with the three projector locations marked) can be seen, as well as a plan for the change to a single projector setup/replacement screen in 1974. Lists of three strip and single strip programming are also included.
Whatever the merits of Cinerama by today’s standards, the 1954 alterations look disastrous—aesthetically and yielding a technically substandard auditorium (in terms of acoustics, seating locations relative to the screen, etc.) Fascinating history, though…!
External scaffolding has now been erected on the Leicester Square facade. As far as I could tell, the foyer areas are in the same stripped state as previous posts, with what I assume to be the underside of the circle stadia still visible.