The article, which must surely be considered to be a key historical record, is from the June 1963 issue of International Projectionist, and continues onto the next page.
High resolution files of the original photographed pages (captured with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II) are available to download (with a preview shown) on the Internet Archive:
It’s 1 subwoofer in a theatre that now has 179 seats, so I assume it’s still compliant, wouldn’t you think so? As you know, the quantity depends on the dB the speaker is able to deliver versus room volume. I have the JBL brochures to calculate required amplification and speakers, but too lazy to read them again ;–)
Depends on whether it’s single or dual 18".
Having a quick look at the spec. sheet for the single 18" JBL 4645… If it’s 179 “regular” seats then it might be OK down to 40Hz or so. Don’t forget for digital reference level for LFE is 115dB peak at the listening position! It really is penny pinching not to add more LFE capability. Of course, hitting peak reference levels at those frequencies might cause problems with “leakage” in adjacent auditoria, if the soundproofing isn’t highly specified. ;–)
The IMAX auditorium is the nearest part of the building in the photos, where it can be seen that the roof indeed extends above the rest of the retail/cinema block.
It can also be seen that the whole cinema is located above a thick slab at first floor level, below which are retail units/restaurants. Thus, the floor to roof measurements taken from the levels marked on the cross-section plan linked to in the previous post are a very good indication of the available height within the IMAX auditorium. 16.81m certainly seems quite possible.
Recently I spoke over the phone with one of the former projectionists. He told me that, already several years ago, they threw away everything that was in the booths when the complex went all digital. Film projectors and JBL amplifiers (and BGW amplifiers for some of the screens) are gone. However, at least in the main auditorium, the JBL speaker installation from 1989 remains, still bi-amplified of course but with new hardware in the booth.
That makes sense as those electronics are getting on and these days commerical amplifiers tend to be “Class D” or other power efficient types.
Kind of ironic to keep the old speakers when a key motivation behind the original THX programme was to act as a catalyst for the replacement of previous generation (Altec, Vitavox, etc.) cinema speakers. Still, 4675’s in a baffle wall were once state-of-the-art and they should still sound good today. The main problem would actually seem to an insufficient number of subwoofers for LFE.
2017 planning application. (Non-material amendments—the only relevant one appears to be “reverse the slope of the cinema roof.”)
The most relevant application to view is the one dated 2016.
The applicable “minor material amendments” in this are:
“An increase the height and length of the commercial development building with alterations to internal layout and an increase in cinema and restaurant floorspace.”
Plans for the cinema are shown in documents “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 00,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 01,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 02,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, CINEMA PROJECTOR LEVEL,” and “GA PLAN ROOF PLAN.”
The layout of the cinema is altered from the 2014 application; the “footprint” of the retail/cinema block in the 2014 approved application is shown on these plans.
Comparing the roof plans in the 2016/2017 applications, the roof over the IMAX auditorium does not appear to be be changed. A cross-section is available; referring to the 2017 application, it is “SOUTH STAND AND RETAIL SECTION.”
Alas, this does not show the IMAX. Furthermore, it is not clear from this what the roof height of the IMAX is—there is a “lightbox parapet” marked, but it is not clear whether this has any relation to the IMAX’s roof.
The distance between “01 Level-Cinema Foyer” and the “Lightbox Parapet” is ~20m, and between “01 Level Cinema Foyer” and “R&C Parapet” (i.e., the heighest point above the other auditoria) is ~15.5m—about the height needed for a 1.43:1 screen!
Whatever the exact height of the screen is, it seems quite clear that the amended (2016) scheme was designed around a 1.43:1 IMAX with Laser installation. Perhaps it was only at a later date that it was decided by IMAX not to include 1.43:1 capability with the “Commercial Laser” version of their laser projection system? Still somewhat puzzling, for whilst 1.43:1 hasn’t faded away just yet, most IMAX releases remain at 1.90:1 maximum height.
Cineworld should be applauded for taking forward these ambitious schemes, but the random “red box” sidewall treatment is, in my view, not too attractive. Still, from having visited Cineworld Watford, I can confirm that these single projector IMAX with Laser-equipped auditoria with 70ft. or so wide screens are excellent places to see a film, with outstanding picture quality and a very capable sound system. I wouldn’t be overly concerned about letterboxing/the disused screen area; whilst absurd to have a 1.43:1 screen that can’t be filled, even more so given IMAX is supposed to be “no compromise,” it is still a large screen and the disused parts of the screen will be near-black.
[ADDED TEXT TO OVERCOME “YOUR COMMENT APPEARS TO BE SPAM” ERROR MESSAGE ON REPOSTING.]
“Adapting the existing structure provides a whole series of interesting challenges. Built in the 1990’s the IMAX theatre is supported in amongst a whole series of truss hung “trays”.
“[The dual laser projection system imposes an additional load of 1 tonne.] Careful forensic analysis of the existing structure has been carried out to assess this and other carefully planned interventions in the upgrade of the museum.”
It also says that it is anticipated that the new screen will be “craned up to its new location and angled into the building.”
The page includes a “cut-away” 3D plan of the cinema, renderings of the ScreenX and another auditoria, and the facade. Also included is a cross-sectional drawing of one auditorium, which shows the new stadia (and toilets underneath the rear end!) built off the existing sloped floor. Most rows in this auditorium are 1200mm (slightly under 4ft.) back to back.
Lionel: Fascinating write-up and lots of technical information there, thank you.
I can’t believe the baffle wall was visible?
The 4675’s really need upgrading. A single subwoofer is certainly woefully inadequate! (Even if it’s the dual 18" type?)
Would certainly be interesting to have something of a comparison between the old 4675’s and more recent speakers. Wonder if they still have the old THX crossover or if the cards were removed when the certification was dropped; or perhaps “aftermarket” replacement cards were installed?
The “Fulham Road Picturehouse is OPEN!” video is also available on YouTube.
Hmm. The foyer/lobby areas are something of a mixed bag. I don’t get this “copper piping” decor… and I wonder what it will look like when it’s not shiny and new?
As for the auditoria, the blue upholstered seating looks very nice and the “legs” (as Terry refers to them) to the sides of certain screens are better than nothing.
However, the wall finishes aren’t obvious from the video, and the “bare” ceilings not only look rough, but need acoustic treatment…
Whatever one might think of the revamped OLS, for example, much effort went into stopping sound from getting in (soundproofing) and stopping sound from bouncing around the auditorium (absorption)—including the cherry veneered wooden panelling (which is actually “perforated” and hides yet more acoustic absorption placed behind.)
It certainly looks like a great deal more effort has gone into the “menu” (and I have no objection to that per se—cinemas certainly need to be “places” rather than simply shuffling patrons in and out of auditoria) rather than the provision of technically excellent standards of presentation, and I can’t imagine paying “premier screen” West End prices to see a film here…
Perhaps Cineworld, with their rollout of laser light source systems, have at least upgraded the projection…?
Per the above linked press release, it is being refurbished and will reopen in the Summer with an IMAX with Laser (dual, aka “GT” version) projection system, somewhat unusually, keeping the existent 15/70 projection.
The architect for the refurbishment is Ellis Williams Architects.
It’s clear from the rendering shown on the linked page that the auditorium will have a refreshed look; as noted in the linked press release, all seating will be replaced and a new concessions area will be added.
Also from the linked press release: “the redevelopment has been made possible by the kind support of The Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation.”
PhilipWW: The unmasked areas of the screen (in scope) are not ideal but the black levels are quite low, so it is not the disaster that it might have been.
A “flat” screen can be advantageous, for one because otherwise the trailers/adverts end up letterboxed within the central “flat ratio” part of the screen. (Obviously, ideally with vertically movable masking.)
As you say, the horizontal resolution specified in DCP for “2K flat” is 1998 pixels. However, on a “scope” screen switching from “flat” to “scope” can be accomplished by simply automatically zooming the lens. (858 rather than 1080 pixels high for “2K scope.”) 2K DLP cinema chips, of course, provide 2048 horizontal pixels.
At the time the scheme to which you linked was developed, the adjacent 1-4 Leicester Square (which also happens to house the old Empire 2, now the 4DX auditorium in its basement!) was being redeveloped with the primary use being a hotel, and they had added windows on the reverse side of the building. In a nutshell, there was a “dispute” about this as L&R argued that it affected future development potential of the site, as in the windows would be overshadowed (or completely blocked!) if building higher. However, the “authorities”* sided with the owners of 1-4 LSQ, for one because there was really no evidence that any scheme to develop 5-6 LSQ (aka “The Empire”) had progressed beyond a long term wish on the part of L&R.
theatreofvarieties confirmed that the cinema still has ~60 years on its lease. The casino still ~10 years on its lease and various parts of it have been recently refurbished/altered. Not to mention the amount that has been spent on the cinema in recent years, and the amount (substantially over valuation) Cineworld paid to acquire LSQ and other Empire sites.
There are other constraints, including another hotel, and presumably structural issues given adjoining properties.
So, I wouldn’t expect any similar redevelopment scheme to be progressed any time soon…
(* Namely “The Planning Inspectorate” as it went to appeal. If exceptionally bored (!) see the document titled “APPEAL DECISION” in the relevant planning application documents.)
Lionel: Yes, I could not make out whether the surrounds had the characteristic angled baffles (fronts) of the 8330’s. I’m really not sure what speakers were standard in the “early” days of Dolby Stereo? “Local” cinemas had surround speakers that looked like they had been taken from a 1970’s “stereo centre” domestic “hi-fi” system!
I lost interest in the Empire since they turned it into an Imax theatre but looked at your Superscreen pictures out of solidarity for your own obsessive-compulsiveness. :–)
That’s very nice of you. :–)
There is nothing that can replace the magical, majestical, and unique masterpiece that was the old Empire 1, and it is probably fair to say that there never will be. At least some of its design, form and spirit lives on in the IMAX.
Cineworld’s refurbishment of the rest of venue is impressive but absolutely disrespectful of the heritage; it really is their cinema now. With the changeover to their own management, the continuity with the past (i.e. MGM->CIC->UCI->Empire Cinemas) has been further eroded, too. I wonder what happened to those old uniforms that you photographed in the manager’s office?
However… I hoped that the Superscreen info/photos might encourage you to keep some interest in cinemas as they are today. :–)
It may well be relatively “generic” in decor and lacking in the old theatrical embellishments. But… the screen is almost 70ft. wide, and the sound system is top-of-the-line and very powerful. The auditorium also has a lot of height at the screen end, which helps it to feel spacious, too. Once the main feature started, it honestly reminded me of past times in the greatest West End cinemas. :–)
My case however is improving a little bit over time, as I no longer count the seats of the theatre I’m into. I remember having counted those of the Empire in 1993, because different sources mentioned different figures.
I, too, used to do that, although I don’t think I would have attempted it in the old Empire 1. Hmm, although I may have done. :–(
I would usually try to multiply the rows by seats per row, then (where the sidewalls “splay” inwards, i.e. not a “box” shaped auditorium) compensate for the reduction in seats per row towards the screen by working out how many seats to deduct from the basic calculation.
Fortunately, with plans usually readily available (in the UK) these days thanks to the Internet, there is no need to count seats. :–) Or at least, it can be done at home, if you do not trust the seat counts given on the plans… ;–)
P.S. Counted the seats on the old Empire 1 plans, cross-checked against photos, it was definitely 1330. (688 stalls, 642 circle.)
Addendum: A closer shot of the modules can be seen in another photo taken in the IMAX auditorium—so in RGB groups. Err… just in case anyone reading this actually cares what model they are! ;–)
(Come to think of it, an even closer shot is the one that needs to be viewed in order to see the model number.)
Lionel: Great photos, thanks for the links. Looks like some have only been added a year or so ago.
Wonder if Thomas Hauerslev has higher resolution versions available?
I’m afraid that I, too, cannot make out the rear speakers, despite adjusting the image in photo editing software. I can make out two “blobs” on each of the sidewalls. Is it just possible that they were JBL 8330’s, or maybe that’s being too optimistic? ;–)
Well, never mind, I must get rid of these obsessive-compulsive habits ;–) .
Never! :–) You might like to look at the photos that I’ve uploaded of the Superscreen at the Cineworld Leicester Square for some more “obsessive-compulsiveness.” ;–)
Errata: “only all are red colour only, rather than allowing for colour mixing” should read “only all are red only, rather than additional green and blue modules, which in the IMAX allow for colour mixing.”
Having not visited the “Superscreen” at this location in years—in fact, the cinema was still operated by Empire Cinemas and it was called the “IMPACT” screen—with some trepidation, I recently attended a screening in that auditorium.
The headline is: As far as I can ascertain, LASER projection has now been installed.
I had wondered if Cineworld would upgrade this location given that they have upgraded both Picturehouse Central Screen 1 and the O2 Superscreen with laser projection, as well as Cineworld rolling out laser projection in new sites.
During the performance, I was impressed by the picture quality achieved, and wondered if this was indeed the case. The “tell-tale” signs of laser—speckle, etc.—however, were either non-existent or hardly noticeable, and whilst well saturated colours were achieved, as well as a very good black level, it perhaps didn’t quite look “laser” in this respect, either. But it hardly looked like Xenon, either.
To add to the puzzle, I was slightly surprised to see that only one of the two Barco 4K projectors was operating, though, as is always for the Leicester Square Superscreen, it was a 2D presentation.
Looking into the booth, as can easily be done from the back of the main seating area (i.e. non-balcony), it was noticeable that on top of one projector was a large black rectangular-shaped unit, and this was not the case for other—not in use—projector.
To cut to the chase, it seems that likely Cineworld have NOT upgraded the Superscreen to all-new projection, but added Barco’s laser “retrofit” option, which amounts to converting the model from a Barco DP4K-23B, as moved over from the old (and very much still missed by myself!) Empire 1 on opening, to a DP4K-23BLP—the unit on top is in fact the “lamp house” for this.
The “LP” stands for “laser phosphor,” so it does not use separate red, green and blue lasers.
“The light source in an RGB projector contains red, green and blue lasers. The light source in a laser phosphor projector contains only blue (and sometimes red) lasers, combined with a yellow phosphor wheel. Both types of light sources create a uniform white light interface that enters the engine; just like a Xenon lamp did before. Only when you analyze the spectral properties of this white light, you can discern the narrow bandwidth of RGB from the broader bandwidth of LP.”
So there we are. Not the “real deal” but a, hopefully, good upgrade nonetheless. It always seemed to me that the auditorium was “made” for Atmos with laser-light source projection.
There’s more to say, but that will have to wait for a full write-up.
The sound was definitely on top form, too, with outstanding rear imaging from the Atmos system.
So, FWIW, I am happy to say that a high standard of picture and, particularly excellent sound quality was achieved; as a modern-style “own brand” with Atmos “premium large-format” auditorium, it is a very good place to see a film.
A photo looking into the booth clearly showing the two Barco projectors has been uploaded.
SethLewis: I like your idea and indeed the proposed scheme (if the developer is to be believed) was intended to have delivered something closer to your suggestions than another West End cinema playing the same first-run mainstream fare.
“A new four-screen cinema providing a total of 260 seats would be provided at basement level. The cinema would be operated by the Applicant and would be based on the second viewing cinema principles successfully operated by Light Cinemas.”
(*Relinked since the link in a previous post does not work.)
Regarding the above discussion on “less than substantial harm,” reading through the “Refusal Report,” this (confusingly!) appears to be correctly worded—there would be harm to the building’s heritage, but not as severe as “substantial harm.”
Essentially, in this case, the proposals need some alterations/refinements to be acceptable in heritage and other aspects, e.g. the form and massing of the additional floors above existing roof level. A revised scheme was submitted; however, further changes are/were sought.
(Full details beginning at the bottom of p21 of the “Refusal Report,” under the heading “Design Review Panel.”)
In gaining permission from Camden Council, the primary stumbling block for the developer would seem to be the provision of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that full scale use of the building as a cinema, theatre, or other “cultural/leisure” activities would be unviable. For this planning application, they did not carry out an acceptable marketing exercise in relation to finding potential operator of such, which the “Refusal Report” states:
“…should be undertaken over a period of not less than 12 months and be based on a realistic price/rent which is supported by the Council.”
According to Camden Council’s planning database, at this time, the refused application has not been appealed.
Addendum: On reflection, my previous post suggests that Tom Holman/Lucasfilm/THX were the fountainhead of the new speaker designs whereas key developments occurred elsewhere.
Very briefly: The JBL 4675 incorporated key developments such as their patented “Bi-Radial” “constant directivity” horn design and were the first THX certified screen speakers. A THX installation required a baffle wall and use of the THX time-aligned active crossover unit.
In 2001, JBL engineers were honoured with an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement for “The Concept, Design and Engineering of the Modern Constant-Directivity, Direct-Radiator Style Motion Picture Loudspeaker Systems.”
Not to sideline the achievements at Lucasfilm; and the THX programme played a key role in promulgating the use of new sound systems, as well heavily acoustically-treated and isolated auditorium designs.
A “TL;DR” historical overview of the new speakers can be read on p55 and p57 (PDF page numbers) in “The History and Legacy of JBL.” Elsewhere in the document, information on earlier cinema speakers (Western Electric/Altec Lansing) is available.
(Just realised that I know little about the Vitavox screen speakers that were common in the UK, so that might just be something to add to the never-ending research to-do list!)
I am flexible on date as I live in London. Ken Roe’s suggestion of “The Montagu Pike,” having a relatively spacious interior thanks to its original use as a cinema, sounds like a fine idea too.
Addendum: In case anyone reading this is interested in a more detailed account of the changes to cinema speaker systems as mentioned in the previous post, a 1990 interview with Tom Holman from “Speaker Builder” magazine is available.
Lionel: I do not know what was installed back in the day; in the flickr photoset that you linked to, DP75 projectors can be seen in a booth.
In the 1980s, cinema sound systems had not changed for decades, still using the old Altecs or Vitavox designs dating back to the mid 20th century.
After Dolby Stereo was introduced, cinemas simply upgraded the (so-called) “A-chain” with a Dolby Stereo decoder.
The THX programme in particular motivated changes to the “B-chain” side, with the JBL 4675 as the canonical example of the new screen speaker design (eliminating the bass horn and using a modern so-called “constant directivity” horn for the midrange/high frequencies) as specified by Tom Holman et al at Lucasfilm.
(N.B. The new speaker types were installed industry-wide, not THX-certified auditoria only.)
My suspicion is that an upgrade of the screen speaker system would not have occurred at the time that your Father visited. Still, the old screen speakers, whilst not state-of-the-art at that time, were very capable and indeed the old Altec “Voice of the Theater” speakers are now sought after by collectors (see eBay prices!) As an aside, with the immense technological progress in the 70 years or so, it is ironic that speakers were available then that still eat today’s average consumer “Bluetooth” speakers for dinner!
So even if still using the old speaker types, as long as the system was properly serviced, which seems more likely here than the local “flea-pit,” it may well have provided better than average sound.
Looking at photos of two of the current auditoria, the rear array speakers look like JBL 8330s (OK, but now obsolete and the design pre-dated the “new” digital formats, e.g. Dolby Digital. I’m also not sure if there are a sufficient number for adequate coverage?) The sidewalls are covered in (dirty looking!) stretched fabric or “Soundfold” pleated fabric, presumably hiding acoustic absorption behind. Of very limited interest with the spectacular Odeon Leicester Square’s Dolby Atmos installation available close by…
The article, which must surely be considered to be a key historical record, is from the June 1963 issue of International Projectionist, and continues onto the next page.
High resolution files of the original photographed pages (captured with a Canon EOS 5D Mark II) are available to download (with a preview shown) on the Internet Archive:
Page 1. Page 2.
The second page also provides the screen size, as it was then, as well as the picture sizes for various aspect ratios.
Depends on whether it’s single or dual 18".
Having a quick look at the spec. sheet for the single 18" JBL 4645… If it’s 179 “regular” seats then it might be OK down to 40Hz or so. Don’t forget for digital reference level for LFE is 115dB peak at the listening position! It really is penny pinching not to add more LFE capability. Of course, hitting peak reference levels at those frequencies might cause problems with “leakage” in adjacent auditoria, if the soundproofing isn’t highly specified. ;–)
Google Streetview links:
Under construction-July 2018. Under construction-July 2019.
The IMAX auditorium is the nearest part of the building in the photos, where it can be seen that the roof indeed extends above the rest of the retail/cinema block.
It can also be seen that the whole cinema is located above a thick slab at first floor level, below which are retail units/restaurants. Thus, the floor to roof measurements taken from the levels marked on the cross-section plan linked to in the previous post are a very good indication of the available height within the IMAX auditorium. 16.81m certainly seems quite possible.
Lionel:
That makes sense as those electronics are getting on and these days commerical amplifiers tend to be “Class D” or other power efficient types.
Kind of ironic to keep the old speakers when a key motivation behind the original THX programme was to act as a catalyst for the replacement of previous generation (Altec, Vitavox, etc.) cinema speakers. Still, 4675’s in a baffle wall were once state-of-the-art and they should still sound good today. The main problem would actually seem to an insufficient number of subwoofers for LFE.
Is this venue still popular?
Addendum: The main foyer level appears to be particularly generous:
Main foyer: 727sq.m.
Screen foyer: 557sq.m.
VIP foyer: 371sq.m.
Total: 1655sq.m. (=~17,700sq.ft.)
Presumably, as with the O2 extension, a sea of black polished “sparkle” tiles!
The IMAX auditorium itself is 628sq.m. (=~6,700sq.ft.)
2014 planning application.
2016 planning application. (Minor material amendments.)
2017 planning application. (Non-material amendments—the only relevant one appears to be “reverse the slope of the cinema roof.”)
The most relevant application to view is the one dated 2016.
The applicable “minor material amendments” in this are:
“An increase the height and length of the commercial development building with alterations to internal layout and an increase in cinema and restaurant floorspace.”
Plans for the cinema are shown in documents “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 00,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 01,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, LEVEL 02,” “GA FLOOR PLAN, CINEMA PROJECTOR LEVEL,” and “GA PLAN ROOF PLAN.”
The layout of the cinema is altered from the 2014 application; the “footprint” of the retail/cinema block in the 2014 approved application is shown on these plans.
Comparing the roof plans in the 2016/2017 applications, the roof over the IMAX auditorium does not appear to be be changed. A cross-section is available; referring to the 2017 application, it is “SOUTH STAND AND RETAIL SECTION.”
Alas, this does not show the IMAX. Furthermore, it is not clear from this what the roof height of the IMAX is—there is a “lightbox parapet” marked, but it is not clear whether this has any relation to the IMAX’s roof.
The distance between “01 Level-Cinema Foyer” and the “Lightbox Parapet” is ~20m, and between “01 Level Cinema Foyer” and “R&C Parapet” (i.e., the heighest point above the other auditoria) is ~15.5m—about the height needed for a 1.43:1 screen!
Whatever the exact height of the screen is, it seems quite clear that the amended (2016) scheme was designed around a 1.43:1 IMAX with Laser installation. Perhaps it was only at a later date that it was decided by IMAX not to include 1.43:1 capability with the “Commercial Laser” version of their laser projection system? Still somewhat puzzling, for whilst 1.43:1 hasn’t faded away just yet, most IMAX releases remain at 1.90:1 maximum height.
Cineworld should be applauded for taking forward these ambitious schemes, but the random “red box” sidewall treatment is, in my view, not too attractive. Still, from having visited Cineworld Watford, I can confirm that these single projector IMAX with Laser-equipped auditoria with 70ft. or so wide screens are excellent places to see a film, with outstanding picture quality and a very capable sound system. I wouldn’t be overly concerned about letterboxing/the disused screen area; whilst absurd to have a 1.43:1 screen that can’t be filled, even more so given IMAX is supposed to be “no compromise,” it is still a large screen and the disused parts of the screen will be near-black.
[ADDED TEXT TO OVERCOME “YOUR COMMENT APPEARS TO BE SPAM” ERROR MESSAGE ON REPOSTING.]
Addendum: Per the contribution from “The Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation,” the cinema will be renamed “IMAX: The Ronson Theatre.”
Civic Engineers – London Science Museum IMAX.
To quote:
“Adapting the existing structure provides a whole series of interesting challenges. Built in the 1990’s the IMAX theatre is supported in amongst a whole series of truss hung “trays”.
“[The dual laser projection system imposes an additional load of 1 tonne.] Careful forensic analysis of the existing structure has been carried out to assess this and other carefully planned interventions in the upgrade of the museum.”
It also says that it is anticipated that the new screen will be “craned up to its new location and angled into the building.”
The first Cineworld project by Earle Architects, who as Zappomatic says, have been involved with a number of Picturehouse sites.
Earle Architects – Cineworld Brighton.
The page includes a “cut-away” 3D plan of the cinema, renderings of the ScreenX and another auditoria, and the facade. Also included is a cross-sectional drawing of one auditorium, which shows the new stadia (and toilets underneath the rear end!) built off the existing sloped floor. Most rows in this auditorium are 1200mm (slightly under 4ft.) back to back.
Lionel: Fascinating write-up and lots of technical information there, thank you.
I can’t believe the baffle wall was visible?
The 4675’s really need upgrading. A single subwoofer is certainly woefully inadequate! (Even if it’s the dual 18" type?)
Would certainly be interesting to have something of a comparison between the old 4675’s and more recent speakers. Wonder if they still have the old THX crossover or if the cards were removed when the certification was dropped; or perhaps “aftermarket” replacement cards were installed?
The “Fulham Road Picturehouse is OPEN!” video is also available on YouTube.
Hmm. The foyer/lobby areas are something of a mixed bag. I don’t get this “copper piping” decor… and I wonder what it will look like when it’s not shiny and new?
As for the auditoria, the blue upholstered seating looks very nice and the “legs” (as Terry refers to them) to the sides of certain screens are better than nothing.
However, the wall finishes aren’t obvious from the video, and the “bare” ceilings not only look rough, but need acoustic treatment…
Whatever one might think of the revamped OLS, for example, much effort went into stopping sound from getting in (soundproofing) and stopping sound from bouncing around the auditorium (absorption)—including the cherry veneered wooden panelling (which is actually “perforated” and hides yet more acoustic absorption placed behind.)
It certainly looks like a great deal more effort has gone into the “menu” (and I have no objection to that per se—cinemas certainly need to be “places” rather than simply shuffling patrons in and out of auditoria) rather than the provision of technically excellent standards of presentation, and I can’t imagine paying “premier screen” West End prices to see a film here…
Perhaps Cineworld, with their rollout of laser light source systems, have at least upgraded the projection…?
Closed as of 2nd February 2020.
Per the above linked press release, it is being refurbished and will reopen in the Summer with an IMAX with Laser (dual, aka “GT” version) projection system, somewhat unusually, keeping the existent 15/70 projection.
The architect for the refurbishment is Ellis Williams Architects.
It’s clear from the rendering shown on the linked page that the auditorium will have a refreshed look; as noted in the linked press release, all seating will be replaced and a new concessions area will be added.
Also from the linked press release: “the redevelopment has been made possible by the kind support of The Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation.”
PhilipWW: The unmasked areas of the screen (in scope) are not ideal but the black levels are quite low, so it is not the disaster that it might have been.
A “flat” screen can be advantageous, for one because otherwise the trailers/adverts end up letterboxed within the central “flat ratio” part of the screen. (Obviously, ideally with vertically movable masking.)
As you say, the horizontal resolution specified in DCP for “2K flat” is 1998 pixels. However, on a “scope” screen switching from “flat” to “scope” can be accomplished by simply automatically zooming the lens. (858 rather than 1080 pixels high for “2K scope.”) 2K DLP cinema chips, of course, provide 2048 horizontal pixels.
Lionel: Those plans were for London and Regional Properties who are the freeholders (owners) of the whole building.
At the time the scheme to which you linked was developed, the adjacent 1-4 Leicester Square (which also happens to house the old Empire 2, now the 4DX auditorium in its basement!) was being redeveloped with the primary use being a hotel, and they had added windows on the reverse side of the building. In a nutshell, there was a “dispute” about this as L&R argued that it affected future development potential of the site, as in the windows would be overshadowed (or completely blocked!) if building higher. However, the “authorities”* sided with the owners of 1-4 LSQ, for one because there was really no evidence that any scheme to develop 5-6 LSQ (aka “The Empire”) had progressed beyond a long term wish on the part of L&R.
theatreofvarieties confirmed that the cinema still has ~60 years on its lease. The casino still ~10 years on its lease and various parts of it have been recently refurbished/altered. Not to mention the amount that has been spent on the cinema in recent years, and the amount (substantially over valuation) Cineworld paid to acquire LSQ and other Empire sites.
There are other constraints, including another hotel, and presumably structural issues given adjoining properties.
So, I wouldn’t expect any similar redevelopment scheme to be progressed any time soon…
(* Namely “The Planning Inspectorate” as it went to appeal. If exceptionally bored (!) see the document titled “APPEAL DECISION” in the relevant planning application documents.)
Lionel: Yes, I could not make out whether the surrounds had the characteristic angled baffles (fronts) of the 8330’s. I’m really not sure what speakers were standard in the “early” days of Dolby Stereo? “Local” cinemas had surround speakers that looked like they had been taken from a 1970’s “stereo centre” domestic “hi-fi” system!
That’s very nice of you. :–)
There is nothing that can replace the magical, majestical, and unique masterpiece that was the old Empire 1, and it is probably fair to say that there never will be. At least some of its design, form and spirit lives on in the IMAX.
Cineworld’s refurbishment of the rest of venue is impressive but absolutely disrespectful of the heritage; it really is their cinema now. With the changeover to their own management, the continuity with the past (i.e. MGM->CIC->UCI->Empire Cinemas) has been further eroded, too. I wonder what happened to those old uniforms that you photographed in the manager’s office?
However… I hoped that the Superscreen info/photos might encourage you to keep some interest in cinemas as they are today. :–)
It may well be relatively “generic” in decor and lacking in the old theatrical embellishments. But… the screen is almost 70ft. wide, and the sound system is top-of-the-line and very powerful. The auditorium also has a lot of height at the screen end, which helps it to feel spacious, too. Once the main feature started, it honestly reminded me of past times in the greatest West End cinemas. :–)
I, too, used to do that, although I don’t think I would have attempted it in the old Empire 1. Hmm, although I may have done. :–(
I would usually try to multiply the rows by seats per row, then (where the sidewalls “splay” inwards, i.e. not a “box” shaped auditorium) compensate for the reduction in seats per row towards the screen by working out how many seats to deduct from the basic calculation.
Fortunately, with plans usually readily available (in the UK) these days thanks to the Internet, there is no need to count seats. :–) Or at least, it can be done at home, if you do not trust the seat counts given on the plans… ;–)
P.S. Counted the seats on the old Empire 1 plans, cross-checked against photos, it was definitely 1330. (688 stalls, 642 circle.)
Addendum: A closer shot of the modules can be seen in another photo taken in the IMAX auditorium—so in RGB groups. Err… just in case anyone reading this actually cares what model they are! ;–)
(Come to think of it, an even closer shot is the one that needs to be viewed in order to see the model number.)
Lionel: Great photos, thanks for the links. Looks like some have only been added a year or so ago.
Wonder if Thomas Hauerslev has higher resolution versions available?
I’m afraid that I, too, cannot make out the rear speakers, despite adjusting the image in photo editing software. I can make out two “blobs” on each of the sidewalls. Is it just possible that they were JBL 8330’s, or maybe that’s being too optimistic? ;–)
Never! :–) You might like to look at the photos that I’ve uploaded of the Superscreen at the Cineworld Leicester Square for some more “obsessive-compulsiveness.” ;–)
Errata: “only all are red colour only, rather than allowing for colour mixing” should read “only all are red only, rather than additional green and blue modules, which in the IMAX allow for colour mixing.”
Having not visited the “Superscreen” at this location in years—in fact, the cinema was still operated by Empire Cinemas and it was called the “IMPACT” screen—with some trepidation, I recently attended a screening in that auditorium.
The headline is: As far as I can ascertain, LASER projection has now been installed.
I had wondered if Cineworld would upgrade this location given that they have upgraded both Picturehouse Central Screen 1 and the O2 Superscreen with laser projection, as well as Cineworld rolling out laser projection in new sites.
During the performance, I was impressed by the picture quality achieved, and wondered if this was indeed the case. The “tell-tale” signs of laser—speckle, etc.—however, were either non-existent or hardly noticeable, and whilst well saturated colours were achieved, as well as a very good black level, it perhaps didn’t quite look “laser” in this respect, either. But it hardly looked like Xenon, either.
To add to the puzzle, I was slightly surprised to see that only one of the two Barco 4K projectors was operating, though, as is always for the Leicester Square Superscreen, it was a 2D presentation.
Looking into the booth, as can easily be done from the back of the main seating area (i.e. non-balcony), it was noticeable that on top of one projector was a large black rectangular-shaped unit, and this was not the case for other—not in use—projector.
To cut to the chase, it seems that likely Cineworld have NOT upgraded the Superscreen to all-new projection, but added Barco’s laser “retrofit” option, which amounts to converting the model from a Barco DP4K-23B, as moved over from the old (and very much still missed by myself!) Empire 1 on opening, to a DP4K-23BLP—the unit on top is in fact the “lamp house” for this.
The “LP” stands for “laser phosphor,” so it does not use separate red, green and blue lasers.
To quote from Barco’s website:
“The light source in an RGB projector contains red, green and blue lasers. The light source in a laser phosphor projector contains only blue (and sometimes red) lasers, combined with a yellow phosphor wheel. Both types of light sources create a uniform white light interface that enters the engine; just like a Xenon lamp did before. Only when you analyze the spectral properties of this white light, you can discern the narrow bandwidth of RGB from the broader bandwidth of LP.”
So there we are. Not the “real deal” but a, hopefully, good upgrade nonetheless. It always seemed to me that the auditorium was “made” for Atmos with laser-light source projection.
There’s more to say, but that will have to wait for a full write-up.
The sound was definitely on top form, too, with outstanding rear imaging from the Atmos system.
So, FWIW, I am happy to say that a high standard of picture and, particularly excellent sound quality was achieved; as a modern-style “own brand” with Atmos “premium large-format” auditorium, it is a very good place to see a film.
A photo looking into the booth clearly showing the two Barco projectors has been uploaded.
JBL rear speakers can also be seen, as well as a “night vision” light source comprising LEDs for auditorium surveillance.
SethLewis: I like your idea and indeed the proposed scheme (if the developer is to be believed) was intended to have delivered something closer to your suggestions than another West End cinema playing the same first-run mainstream fare.
From the Planning Statement document of the refused application:*
“A new four-screen cinema providing a total of 260 seats would be provided at basement level. The cinema would be operated by the Applicant and would be based on the second viewing cinema principles successfully operated by Light Cinemas.”
(*Relinked since the link in a previous post does not work.)
Regarding the above discussion on “less than substantial harm,” reading through the “Refusal Report,” this (confusingly!) appears to be correctly worded—there would be harm to the building’s heritage, but not as severe as “substantial harm.”
Essentially, in this case, the proposals need some alterations/refinements to be acceptable in heritage and other aspects, e.g. the form and massing of the additional floors above existing roof level. A revised scheme was submitted; however, further changes are/were sought.
(Full details beginning at the bottom of p21 of the “Refusal Report,” under the heading “Design Review Panel.”)
In gaining permission from Camden Council, the primary stumbling block for the developer would seem to be the provision of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that full scale use of the building as a cinema, theatre, or other “cultural/leisure” activities would be unviable. For this planning application, they did not carry out an acceptable marketing exercise in relation to finding potential operator of such, which the “Refusal Report” states:
“…should be undertaken over a period of not less than 12 months and be based on a realistic price/rent which is supported by the Council.”
According to Camden Council’s planning database, at this time, the refused application has not been appealed.
Addendum: On reflection, my previous post suggests that Tom Holman/Lucasfilm/THX were the fountainhead of the new speaker designs whereas key developments occurred elsewhere.
Very briefly: The JBL 4675 incorporated key developments such as their patented “Bi-Radial” “constant directivity” horn design and were the first THX certified screen speakers. A THX installation required a baffle wall and use of the THX time-aligned active crossover unit.
In 2001, JBL engineers were honoured with an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement for “The Concept, Design and Engineering of the Modern Constant-Directivity, Direct-Radiator Style Motion Picture Loudspeaker Systems.”
Not to sideline the achievements at Lucasfilm; and the THX programme played a key role in promulgating the use of new sound systems, as well heavily acoustically-treated and isolated auditorium designs.
A “TL;DR” historical overview of the new speakers can be read on p55 and p57 (PDF page numbers) in “The History and Legacy of JBL.” Elsewhere in the document, information on earlier cinema speakers (Western Electric/Altec Lansing) is available.
(Just realised that I know little about the Vitavox screen speakers that were common in the UK, so that might just be something to add to the never-ending research to-do list!)
Lionel: Would love to attend.
I am flexible on date as I live in London. Ken Roe’s suggestion of “The Montagu Pike,” having a relatively spacious interior thanks to its original use as a cinema, sounds like a fine idea too.
Addendum: In case anyone reading this is interested in a more detailed account of the changes to cinema speaker systems as mentioned in the previous post, a 1990 interview with Tom Holman from “Speaker Builder” magazine is available.
Lionel: I do not know what was installed back in the day; in the flickr photoset that you linked to, DP75 projectors can be seen in a booth.
In the 1980s, cinema sound systems had not changed for decades, still using the old Altecs or Vitavox designs dating back to the mid 20th century.
After Dolby Stereo was introduced, cinemas simply upgraded the (so-called) “A-chain” with a Dolby Stereo decoder.
The THX programme in particular motivated changes to the “B-chain” side, with the JBL 4675 as the canonical example of the new screen speaker design (eliminating the bass horn and using a modern so-called “constant directivity” horn for the midrange/high frequencies) as specified by Tom Holman et al at Lucasfilm.
(N.B. The new speaker types were installed industry-wide, not THX-certified auditoria only.)
My suspicion is that an upgrade of the screen speaker system would not have occurred at the time that your Father visited. Still, the old screen speakers, whilst not state-of-the-art at that time, were very capable and indeed the old Altec “Voice of the Theater” speakers are now sought after by collectors (see eBay prices!) As an aside, with the immense technological progress in the 70 years or so, it is ironic that speakers were available then that still eat today’s average consumer “Bluetooth” speakers for dinner!
So even if still using the old speaker types, as long as the system was properly serviced, which seems more likely here than the local “flea-pit,” it may well have provided better than average sound.
Looking at photos of two of the current auditoria, the rear array speakers look like JBL 8330s (OK, but now obsolete and the design pre-dated the “new” digital formats, e.g. Dolby Digital. I’m also not sure if there are a sufficient number for adequate coverage?) The sidewalls are covered in (dirty looking!) stretched fabric or “Soundfold” pleated fabric, presumably hiding acoustic absorption behind. Of very limited interest with the spectacular Odeon Leicester Square’s Dolby Atmos installation available close by…