This is topic 'Avatar' presentation formats in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001568

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 15, 2010, 11:41 AM:
 
I read that 'Avatar' was initially only going to be released in digital format, but of course it ended up getting a 2-D 35mm release as well as a digital 3D release. I was surprised to see these formats indicated on the IMDB:
1.78 : 1 (2K 3-D Version)
1.78 : 1 (IMAX 3-D version)
2.35 : 1 (2-D version)

I saw it in (non-Imax) 3D and I thought the picture was wider than 1.78:1, so I wondered if the above is correct? I'd also be grateful if anyone could enlighten me on the following points:

Are the Imax screenings all 70mm Imax, or could some be digital Imax? The footage and and cost of an 70mm Imax print must be staggering!

I note that there are apparently no 35mm 3D prints, but am I right in thinking that some modern 3D films have been presented in 35mm, even though few cinemas are suitably equipped?

[Incidentally, I thought that it's a great film, but I DON'T want this thread to be a debate on the merits of the film!]
 

---

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on January 15, 2010, 08:32 PM:
 
35mm 3D is unfortunately pretty much a dead format that requires a large investment in either special lenses or synched double projectors that noone is wiling to make. Likewise the distributors aren't really interested in making 3D prints anymore. It is unfortunate but the effect is much simpler and cheaper on a digital projector.

FWIW we had the regular old 35mm print.
 

---

Posted by Robert Wales (Member # 502) on January 15, 2010, 08:59 PM:
 
James Cameron has prepared several versions of Avatar in differing aspect ratios in order to get the largest screen presentation possible for each specific venue.

All of the Imax runs are 1:78 ratio. There are both digital 3D Imax and film-based 3D Imax versions in circulation depending on the location. Imax is the only format that has 3D film prints available.

Digital 3D versions are available in both 1:78 and 2:35 ratios. Fox went to great trouble to try and match the proper digital 3D versions to the auditoriums they are booked to play in. Older locations with fixed height masking ( meaning the side masking opens wider for 2:35 projection than for 1:85) , received the 'scope' 3D version. Many of the newer locations built in the last decade have wall-to-wall screens which raise the top masking to present 1:85 and lower the masking for scope. The side masking never moves . This gives the rather odd result of a "flat' picture that is actually bigger than the scope picture. These locations should have received a 1:78 version similar to the Imax ratio.

Standard 35mm prints are all 2:35 and 2D.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on January 15, 2010, 11:24 PM:
 
Lots of information that is semi-correct here, but not accurate.

#1 2D 35mm film 2.39 scope
#2 3D IMAX 1.85 flat
#3 2D digital 1.85 flat
#4 2D digital 2.39 scope
#5 3D digital 1.85 flat ghostbusted (Real-D system)
#6 3D digital 2.39 scope ghostbusted
#7 3D digital 1.85 flat non-ghostbusted (Dolby and other systems)
#8 3D digital 2.39 scope non-ghostbusted

Poorly designed theaters with common width masking got 1.85 ratio files.

Properly designed theaters with common height masking got 2.39 ratio files.

There were no 1.78 or 2.35 versions.

You saw it in a properly designed theater.

Technicolor is releasing a 35mm over/under 3D system the first of this year. Look for it in March.

[...and yes the movie sucked. ]
 

---

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on January 15, 2010, 11:34 PM:
 
Disregard this post, I just read the FT thread.
 

---

Posted by Robert Wales (Member # 502) on January 16, 2010, 01:56 PM:
 
Sorry Brad, but I received a call directly from my contact at Imax advising me of the exact aspect ratio of the Imax presentation ( for a film-based location ) We were told to expect slight black bars at both sides of the picture which would not extend to the full width of the screen because of the 1:78 ratio.

I'd certainly be interested if you had any knowledge that my very trustworthy contact was calling with incorrect information. Over the years you learn who knows what they are talking about in the film business and this guy has been one of the good ones.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on January 16, 2010, 03:36 PM:
 
IMAX is weird (and currently going to the shitter), so it is possible they did 1.78. When I asked the lab a few weeks back, that is the list they gave me.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Murin, Jr. (Member # 1745) on January 16, 2010, 04:20 PM:
 
Brad, our theater has a 2D 2.35:1 print. That is the aspect ratio listed on the paperwork that came with the print. None of our 10 screens are wider than 2.35:1.

However, ALL Scope prints are native 2.39:1 but most directors frame for 2.35:1 or, increasingly, 1.78:1 in the 2.35:1 frame.

James Cameron has never shot a film with anamorphic lenses, preferring the Super 35 process to allow for better film to video transfers. Therefore, his movies can have any number of aspect ratios. Except for Piranah 2, The Terminator and Aliens all of whch are 1.85:1.

Thing is, all of the ratios attributed to Avatar are correct. There is no one "preferred" ratio. I would guess the 3-D version works best in 1.85:1 as it would fill more of your field of vision. While 2.35:1 would work best for 2D giving a more epic look and feel for the "flat" version.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on January 16, 2010, 07:06 PM:
 
Humans see more width than they do height. The scope versions are the best and preferred version. Cameron only made the 1.85 versions due to the recent increase of "top masking" multiplex theaters so they would have a reasonable sized image.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 18, 2010, 06:49 PM:
 
Many thanks for the contributions - very interesting. And I had not heard about Technicolor's new 35mm 3D system; anyone else who wants to learn more might like to read this:
http://celluloidjunkie.com/2009/09/17/technicolor-goes-3d-with-film-based-system/

I suppose that projecting 35mm via one projector will raise questions regarding the amount of light output, but at least according to one of the guys commenting at the bottom of the article, that's already an issue with regard to digital 3D.

If we're soon about to have the chance to see new 3D films on 35mm, I wondered if anyone can remember the last new release on 35mm to use polarised 3D (via two projectors)
 

---

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on January 18, 2010, 08:17 PM:
 
Adrian,
Two projectors, no. The closest I can get is the awful "Comin' at Ya" in over/under (single projector) 35mm, with Polaroid glasses. I actually bought a ticket to see that....

Claus.
 

---

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on January 18, 2010, 09:05 PM:
 
I saw ANDY WARHOL'S THE FLESH OF FRANKENSTEIN in the single 35mm under/over system.
I also saw and ran SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL and that was in a different system again but I cant remember what it is called but it was the same system that my super 8 3D films are in.
Pat
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 18, 2010, 11:07 PM:
 
I was forgetting that the 35mm 3D of the 1980s was the over/under system. As I suppose this was basically the same as Technicolor's 'new' system, I wonder how this one differs from the 1980s type?

Patrick - the type with the res/green glasses is anaglyph 3D.
 

---

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on January 19, 2010, 01:20 AM:
 
Hi Adrian Yep thats the system anaglyph 3D.
I rememebr the SHARKBOY AND LAVA GIRL had a strange brown tint to it when watching it with the glasses on.
 

---

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 19, 2010, 01:59 PM:
 
Pat
Were you with us during a very busy school holidays when the downstairs staff put all the people in the wrong cinemas the kids were watching "Wallace and Grommet" with those stuped 3D glasses and the kids in "Shark Boy and Lava Girl" with none . Its amazing no one complained we were at least 10-15 minutes into it until I picked up the mistake from the projection room. I remember reading the riot act to one staff member over that one. I think one day I am going to write a book on my ten years worth of working in a cinema... might even make a movie

Graham
 

---

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on January 19, 2010, 04:47 PM:
 
Hi Graham
No I was working at Readings when the film came out, Did not to very well patron wise.
Yes I always thought a day time soap opera about the movie theatre business would do very well.
"Like film through the projector, so are the days of our cinema"
Pat
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 20, 2010, 01:09 PM:
 
Brad, for the technologically uninformed such as me, please explain the "ghostbusting" you referred to in some of the digital formats. Thanks in advance!
 

---

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on January 20, 2010, 01:26 PM:
 
Bill,click the link below,its a bit long winded but should clear up your question of Brad.
Regards
Stewart

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/Dolby-digital-3D-servers-playback-glasses-screens
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 20, 2010, 04:17 PM:
 
Must say that the more I read, the more confusing this all seems to get! I've read the above article and if I've understood it correctly, Dolby are developing a non-polarised digital 3D system, partly to avoid the need for a silver screen.
But I thought that polarised was now the type that the industry was more or less settled on, and I thought I saw Avatar in polarised 3D on a white screen.

So, are some digital projectors bright enough to make a silver screen unecessary, and is it likely that whatever Dolby are offering will catch on? Surely, there's no way that cinemas will be willing to switch from one type of digital 3D to another, bringing out different types of glasses for different films. Or have I misunderstood something?
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 21, 2010, 10:42 AM:
 
Good reading, Stewart, thank you for the link.

Now that I understand what it is, the article doesn't explain:
1) How Dolby does non-polarized 3D. Is it a variation of red-cyan anaglyph? If not, why would color correction be necessary?
2) How ghost busting is actually achieved without destroying picture contrast.

Anyone?
 

---

Posted by Stewart John Boyle (Member # 1785) on January 21, 2010, 11:07 AM:
 
Thanks Bill,
Rather than me use up forum space explaining one of your questions, try this link Bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_3D



As for your second question,its outside of my feild of expertise,sorry,perhaps another forum member can fill in the blanks
Just noticed at the bottom of the wiki article at External links,the article on "Interference Filters" sort of explains your contrast question.
Regards
Stewart
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 22, 2010, 07:35 AM:
 
As I thought I'd seen 'Avatar' in polarised 3D at the Barbican Cinema, but on a white screen, I contacted the cinema to ask if I was correct that the screen was white. I received this reply:
"We do not have a silver screen, we have a normal cinema screen that is used for 2D screenings. Unlike other 3D systems at other cinemas the 3D effect is produced only by the 3D glasses. You may have noticed that they are heavier than other 3D glasses and this is because they contain a signal receptor that creates a flickering effect in the lens which makes the images appear 3D."

Although I wouldn't say that the image I saw was too dim, this reply puzzled me because there's no doubt that the amount of light lost using the glasses was considerable - possibly more than would apply to polarised glasses. Does anyone know if the projected image I saw would have been the same as in a cinema using polarised glasses, or is there yet another version in circulation?
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on January 22, 2010, 08:08 AM:
 
Hi,

sounds like "shutter glasses" to me. If so, they're probably using the same mechanism as the "Imax3D with shutter glasses" (doesn't matter whether the source is real film or some digital mumbojumbo): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#IMAX_3D

As the polarizing glasses also causes some light-loss...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_3D#Viewing_comfort
... I guess that the only difference would have been caused by the screen - and a silver screen is brighter than a white one...

Jörg
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on January 22, 2010, 08:03 PM:
 
If I'm to understand this correctly, then no Imax presentation of Avatar actually uses film, nor any of the 3-D versions? Last time I was in a theater recently I stuck my head in the Imax room for a few seconds, and it was obviously digital, and in a newly "retrofitted" theater that had never had Imax before. The screen was about 1.85:1 (with a little black on the edges) and smaller than any Imax screen I've ever seen before, though still impressive in size. But if you compare it to the classic museum Imaxes, or Disney's California Adventure "Soaring Over California," there is clearly no comparison. I'm sure that was Brad's point.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on January 23, 2010, 10:35 PM:
 
Bill - I've been trying to establish the facts concerning this too. Following numerous searches, as I understand it: You can see the film in 3D on film (i.e. 70mm '15-70' film) if you see it at a proper Imax cinema. The type of screen you refer to adds to the confusion, due to the dubious use of the name 'Imax' in relation to screens that may be larger than most cinema screens, but are very small compared to a 'genuine' Imax screen. A lot of people are unhappy about this being misleading, especially as ticket prices are higher. Apparently, the Imax Corporation resisted suggestions that the new inferior form should be called 'Digital Imax' to distinguish it from the superior form.

I've just looked at the Imax Corporation website, including the pages on company history and technology, and the FAQs, and I was unable to find a single clear reference to the use of film in Imax cinemas. I suppose that at a time when the public are being told that digital = new and superior, they don't want to acknowledge that if you want to see the best possible picture in an Imax cinema, you need to find one using film!
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 17, 2010, 01:48 PM:
 
In my ongoing question to understand the various 'Avatar' presentation formats, I've learnt some more but I'm no less confused. The Barbican confirmed that I saw the film (in 3D) in 2:35:1, so this was definitely an example of a cinema with a wider picture for scope, as mentioned by Robert.

I finally saw it at the London IMAX cinema on Monday night (at 00.20am!). I was assured that it was 70mm film IMAX, although the steadiness and the almost complete lack of specks or any imperfections of any kind made me uncertain while I was watching it. It was impressive and the 3D seemed to have greater depth than the digital version I saw at the Barbican. But not surprisingly it wasn't as sharp as the films made for IMAX cinemas and I felt I'd prefer to be further back, even though I was already about two-thirds of the way back. What really baffled me was that I thought it would be 1.78:1 ratio with part of the height of the screen not used. However, the picture did not seem to fill the entire width either and I don't think the ratio was any wider than 1.6:1, so I'm convinced it was a squarer picture. I wondered if this meant that the sides were cropped, or was I seeing more at the top and the bottom than on any other version? I tried a question to the IMAX Corporation information box and received this reply:

"IMAX films are screened in the aspect ratio chosen by the film’s director. Avatar was not cropped, this is an effect of the aspect ratio chosen."

The above doesn't make much sense to me, so if anyone can explain what was happening, I'd be very grateful!
 

---

Posted by Robert Wales (Member # 502) on February 17, 2010, 04:26 PM:
 
Hi Adrian ;

I have a friend with very good eyes who also went to see Avatar in Imax last week and was convinced he was watching digital because of the complete lack of dust and specks. He even called me to ask what I knew of the situation. I confirmed to him that the venue was in fact running Avatar FROM FILM in 3D, which is a tribute to the quality of the prints and the operator in the booth. ( Multiplex locations with an Imax screen usually have a dedicated projectionist on staff just for Imax, unlike the rest of their screens. ) I can also verify that the aspect ratio is 1:78 as confirmed to me directly from Imax.

Someone also asked if there were actually any Imax locations running Avatar 3D from film and I can confirm that every run of Avatar Imax in Canada is film-based.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 17, 2010, 08:16 PM:
 
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your response but I'm afraid I'm still baffled, particularly as you mentioned IMAX screens in multiplexes, as everything I've read on the subject of these has given the impression that they are digital and it's only the massive screen IMAX cinemas specifically created for IMAX films that have the film version. Are you certain that multiplex IMAX screens in Canada actually have two projectors screening the Imax-type 70mm film, as I've found no conclusive evidence of any elsewhere?

I suppose the IMAX screen might have given me the illusion that the film was squarer than 1.78:1. The Technical Manager informed me: "James Cameron did many tests in various IMAX cinemas and decided that he did not want the film to fill the screen left to right which is why the image leaves about a meter of screen unused left and right". I presume this only applies to the enormous IMAX screens, though.

[ February 18, 2010, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Adrian Winchester ]
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on February 21, 2010, 07:28 AM:
 
"So, are some digital projectors bright enough to make a silver screen unecessary, and is it likely that whatever Dolby are offering will catch on? Surely, there's no way that cinemas will be willing to switch from one type of digital 3D to another, bringing out different types of glasses for different films. Or have I misunderstood something?"

When I attended a demonstration of digital 3D films at the Pictureville, National Media Museum this was by Dolby and the normal white drop down screen was used. It was bright enough.
I learnt that there where 3 methods of 3D presntation, the other 2 where usualy bought by cinemas and needed a silver screen.
The Dolby 3D system equipment could use a normal screen.
I suppose if the cinemas buying the other systems then it is a money choice against the Dolby 3D equipment.

The National Media Museum also has an IMAX theatre with the orginal high and wide screen not seen Avatar yet but saw the the Christmas Scrooge in 3D there. There was slight blanks at the sides and large blanks top and bottom, prestation was as usual perfect, and like was said just as fault free as if it were digital but of course I'm sure they use 70mm film horizontal X 2.

For Avatar see this,
http://nationalmediamuseum.blogspot.com/2009/12/avatar-how-we-get-it-on-imax-screen.html
 

---

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on February 21, 2010, 08:26 AM:
 
The Dolby 3D system is really the best I've seen so far. RealD is OK but requires a silver screen which means that you can get a serious case of hot spot. I've seen too many cases of malfunctionning active glasses to be on Xpand's side.

The IMAX version of Avatar being shown here is on film...
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on February 21, 2010, 07:10 PM:
 
I suppose the suitability of white sceens with the of the Dolby system must helpto give it a big advantage. Apart from the cost involved in changing the screen, most cinemas would sometimes be screening 2D films on the same screen and I suppose many people would say that white has advantages, particularly if it's quite a wide cinema.

One thing I'm still unsure about - that I'd welcome an informed comment on: do the different digital systems (and glasses) all involve using the same sort of digital download, or does the cinema need to get the Dolby, Real D, etc version?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on February 22, 2010, 01:12 AM:
 
Different versions for different systems. In the case of Avatar, there were also flat and scope versions.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 02, 2010, 07:02 AM:
 
As Avatar gets replaced with Alice in Wonderland this week we got ourselves off to see Avatar last night at the IMAX with the big high screen and using 2 x 70 mm horizontal films.
The picture was the non-wide screen ratio of the IMAX screen (4x3 'ish.) but did not quite fill it, had what looked like a couple of feet blank all round.
I would say just a little dark but that might well have been the setting of the movie. Quiet a good 3D effect think the producer must have refained from putting things in your face all the time which can happen with 3D in the old days.
Yes we enjoyed the movie and the 3D.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on March 02, 2010, 10:20 PM:
 
David,
That's interesting that you thought it looked "4x3 'ish" as that's exactly what I thought when I saw it at the London IMAX. However, I even consulted their Technical Manager who assured me it was 1:1.78. I really can't understand it as I'm usually good at guessing ratios!
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 03, 2010, 01:15 AM:
 
When we saw the Christmas film there the Scrooge, Christmas Carol that was 'normal' cinema wide screen ratio, the couple of feet blank at sides but a lot more blank at top and bottom.
There were parts of Avatar on a TV program yesturday and they were cinemascope ratio IE much, much wider, the Imax I saw must be cropped at sides. I would feel happier I'm sure watching the normal cinema ratio, I do not like moving my head up and down to watch a film.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 03, 2010, 01:22 PM:
 
Noted today that the run of Avatar is going to continue at our local muti-plex but when The Imax theatre, also local to me, ends its 3D presenation and goes to 3D IMAX Alice in Wonderland, the multiplex changes to a 2D presenation of Avatar.
A few days later the multi-plex also runs Alice in Wonderland but not in 3D it is in 2D.
A strange industry is the cinema these days.
 

---

Posted by Adrian Winchester (Member # 248) on March 05, 2010, 06:02 AM:
 
David - just wondered which Imax do you go to?
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on March 05, 2010, 01:08 PM:
 
National Media Museum which you probably know is in Bradford and 5 stories high screen. This was the first IMAX in the UK.
 

---

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on April 22, 2010, 10:06 PM:
 
Went last night to see "How to Train Your Dragon" in Imax 3-D digital, at AMC Burbank 16. Fun fluffy movie, a nice ride for the kids and dog-loving adults. Saw this in 35mm 2-D a couple of days earlier. The comparison is interesting.

Of course, in 35mm it looks like a movie in all the best ways, and one with the impressive visuals you'd expect from this caliber of production. I can't deny that the digital had a higher level of clarity, lacking film grain and having (how do I say this) good "pixel utilization." But that's comparing Imax digital to standard 35mm (which looked really good). Suppose we compare this to film Imax, and I presume that there can't possibly be a comparison left.

One can presume that this AMC house is like most first-run theaters these days: trying to achieve a high-quality presentation in the most attention-getting manner possible while keeping costs low. I'm trying to be sympathetic here -- they're just trying to make money. However, there are a number of things that subtly detracted from the presentation.

1 - sound was a frame or frame+1/2 ahead of the picture
2 - the subwoofer system was not calibrated correctly and was overbearingly loud, as in kick-in-the-chest mode. It wasn't even "good" bass, with the majority concentrated in the upper end of its range. So, for example, the trailer for the new "Karate Kid" gave us an unrelenting pounding.
3 - Although Imax promotes 10 channels of "laser aligned" speaker systems, the sound clarity/detail was less than that of the 35mm presentation. When the room was retrofitted for Imax, the curved screen scaffold was placed a few feet from the wall and the screen speakers relocated onto the new scaffold. However, all the front-area walls are hard, and an acoustic "haze" results from the hash of reflections coming from the untreated surfaces.
4 - I kept wanting to clean my glasses because the picture seemed slightly "foggy." But my glasses were very clean.
5 - The area directly under the screen used to be a seating area. It needs to be painted matte black. In the many rows high enough for the angle to be "just right," the screen reflection on this floor has the annoying habit of only being visible in one eye.
6 - Being really picky: as wonderful as DLP is, I couldn't help but think that the tonal range of film still looks better, particularly in the extremes of bright or dark. But who's to say just what digitally-created content screened digitally should look like?
7 - Being really, really picky: some sort of aliasing or re-sizing artifacts are infrequently visible on sharp light-to-dark transitions, like for example on the edge of a sniny knife/dagger. This gives what should be a smooth line a jagged look.

One can engage in endless debates about digital projection brightness, and I will say that the Imax DLP projectors do an impressive job in this area, but not as bright as I'd like. (It seems just right with the glasses OFF, when it's twice as bright.) And there's no question that the images we saw last night would be blown away by 70mm Imax, not to mention a screen size 2-3x larger. But I have no doubt for most people this would give them the epic thrill that has been the staple of moviegoing for decades.

Ironically, the large room opposite the Imax theater in this facility now boasts something called ETX (Enhanced Theater Experience) with RealD 3D in digital projection, oversized screen, and gazillions of sound channels. Hmmm.... sounds like Imax Digital, yes, under a different brand name? Hey, anything to bring in the crowd, right?

One of the friendly staff mentioned how everything is moving to digital. And how a family member works for one of the local film printing companies.
 

---

Posted by David Park (Member # 123) on April 23, 2010, 12:33 AM:
 
Hi Bill, I'm a bit confused here with your talk of digital presentation. I asked one of the experts on Imax at the National Media museum on the confusion between Imax being digital or not. He said all Imax DMR is presented on 70mm film horizontaly and in the case of 3D 2 x 70mm horiz. In special Imax installations or converted cinemas.
3D versions in cinemas are digital.
 

---

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on April 23, 2010, 03:16 AM:
 

quote:

---

I'm a bit confused here with your talk of digital presentation.

---

quote:

---

Wikipedia: IMAX Corporation's decision not to designate the new digital installations in any manner has led to a backlash by some viewers[35] who are disappointed to have paid a premium to view an IMAX presentation only to find it being shown with much lower resolution on a screen of relatively ordinary size.[36] Some reviewers have pointed out that the visual artifacts due to low resolution are detrimental to the picture quality, especially for viewers seated closer to the screen.[29] The company CEO has stated that in digital IMAX installations the first few rows of seats are removed, allowing the screen to be closer to moviegoers, which makes the screen appear larger than it would in a standard theater setting.[37]

---

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC


UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2