I don’t know if the plans mean that it won’t be a Dolby Cinema, just that having conjured up possible schemes based on inferring the implications of the publically disclosed information from Odeon, not to mention the apparent secrecy and high projected cost, I’m very surprised.
Great news in the sense that it remains intact as it was, but compared to the ideas I had for more radical schemes it’s, well, boring—and I’ve got egg on my face now for my predictions (other than the change to the rear stalls) being so far off the mark!
Still, Dolby Cinema or not, I’m looking forward to the reopening…
100° (2D) and 50° (3D) sightlines are also drawn on the former Studios auditoria, and one might well expect that they will still be using polarisation-based 3D. Hmm…
FWIW the screen shown on the old licensing plans (drawing dated 2005) measures ~48ft. wide (by the chord.)
Rear stalls largely removed to make way for toilets, switch room, “food prep” area, and concessions (namely, “Snacks and Cold Food; Order Hot Food,” “Hot Food Collection,” and “Coffee.”)
Stalls accessed through double sets of doors on the left side ONLY, via a small “lobby” area. (One pair of doors into the lobby, another into the auditorium.)
The last three rows of the new stalls are under the balcony; the rear of the auditorium, compared to previous, is about the position of the seat backs 7 rows from the rear. (5 in the centre section which omitted the last two rows.)
All seats are recliners.
Circle:
Royal Circle is now 3 rows deep, except it is 2 rows deep in the centre section. Seating capacity – 90.
Additional new wide centre vomitorium access to Royal Circle.
Back row of the new Royal Circle in line with the 5th row of the previous (formerly 6 rows deep.)
All seats (in the new Royal Circle) are recliners. Existing two aisles at sidewalls removed.
Rear circle – 14 rows of seats to rear wall. Rows in the same position as existing except 2 additional rows to rear wall. New seats of increased width; no centre aisle.
Front of auditorium:
Splay walls in same location.
Increased stage width shown.
Screen width identical as drawn but moved forward to be just behind proscenium opening. (Albeit this is probably not a reliable source for the absolute size and position.)
*Theatre lighting rail shown on “Second Floor” plan.
Alterations to ground floor and circle foyers:
Other substantive details than new concessions offer already covered in Odeon’s planning application and summarised in previous posts on Cinema Treasures.
Seating capacity of stalls and rear circle:
I’m not yet quite crazy enough to bother!
Former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios (now integrated with the OLS as the ground floor foyers are connected internally):
Screen 2: 34 seats (Former Screen 3 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 3: 41 seats (Former Screen 2 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 4 :40 seats (Former Screen 4 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 5: 34 seats (Former Screen 5 of Odeon Studios.)
In all auditoria, most rows are 6 seats wide (the maximum) and all seats are increased width being drawn identically to the new rear circle seats. Row locations adjusted.
Projection rooms removed, alterations to access areas including new lift to all levels.
Stairwell adjacent to external wall to LSQ removed and Screen 3 (former Screen 2) extended forward.
Can’t be bothered to enumerate other changes to the former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios!
Looks like the main auditorium of the OLS will survive the refurbishment very much intact after all. Seems odd that Odeon were talking about installing a PLF screen… wonder if it will be a Dolby Cinema location after all?
This being said, the “First Floor” plan shows sightlines for 2D and 3D, with a 100° angle for 2D and 50° for 3D. (As drawn, about half of the Royal Circle seats are thus outside of the 3D seating area!) Not sure what the allowed angles are for Dolby Cinema, but it might be interesting to compare to the LSQ IMAX and/or other systems using wavelength multiplexed 3D.
HowardBHaas: No idea about the accuracy of the opening programme although maybe that was the size of the screen on its frame.
Perhaps I should have asked if LARGE_screen_format’s screen size figure pertained to the 1990s as stated or if it was for the post-2006 upgrades—albeit as you intimate none of this is needed for relative comparisons between venues where the differences are >10ft.!
The replacement screen was larger than the previous, and necessitated the removal of the contour curtain (which came down in vertical sections from above the screen.)
According to the Gala Opening Programme, the original screen installed during the 1962 reconstruction was 63ft. x 30ft. (Masked sizes for various formats not given.)
Not sure if the size you’ve quoted for the Odeon Marble Arch is for the original Dimension 150 screen before it was replaced?
Update on OLS works as seen from LSQ as of yesterday: Same as previous post.
HowardBHaas: Having to convert between metric and imperial (or “English” as I believe you guys call it; or, as Wikipedia informs me, strictly “United States customary units!”) is indeed a giant PIT*! I, too, prefer imperial for screen sizes.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed, 2000 was before the emergence of IMAX in the feature film sector and the development of PLF screens as “competitors” of sorts.
Besides, 20m wide would be on the very large side (outside of perhaps “drive-in” locations!) for 35mm and 5/70mm film projection?
Remember also that the “classic” viewing distrance guidelines were based on the limitations of conventional projection of 35mm film prints, i.e. placing the audience far enough away that their perception of the inherent artifacts was kept at an acceptable level; and, also, that IMAX introduced their “DMR” process, initially so that 35mm sources would be acceptable when blown up to 15/70 and shown in an IMAX auditorium, including the use of digital noise reduction to reduce grain.
IOW… it would make no sense to stick in an IMAX-sized screen relative to the auditorium size without suitable projection (and content!) to match…
Or to put it another way, if you like super large screens, then consider yourself lucky that today there’s an ever-expanding embarrassment of riches to choose from thanks to digital. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the above linked ES Global Solutions page, the “Skyscape” building took 16 weeks to build, 8 weeks to dismantle, and cost £10m(!) As the “project completion” date was April 2002, I assume that’s when “dismantling” had been completed.
The page also says: “Skyscape was required for the duration of the Millennium Dome event as dual cinema venues each having capacity for 2,500 people. The East cinema was also designed to be deployed as a 5,500 capacity auditorium for music shows and other events.”
The former gasworks on Greenwich Peninsula have been (and continues to be) built out since the “Millennium Experience”—on the Dome site per se AFAIK the only (major?) buildings left are the Dome itself—if an oversized tent* can be called a “building”!—and the above-ground part of North Greenwich station.
(*Not to demean it… excepting that the fabric seems to permanently be in a state requiring cleaning, it looks cool and is definitely iconic, and I’d be fairly annoyed if it was ever torn down!)
According to the above Skyscape promotional video it was the UK’s largest cinema with 3,300 seats!
Looking at an interior photo courtesy of ES Global Solutions, it looks fairly “barebones” and—hard to say from this photo—but it doesn’t look like there’s any acoustic treatment to the ceiling.
The “purple” wall coverings you mentioned in a previous post are in fact a midnight blue colour and are part of the original decor, unaltered in Cineworld’s recent refurbishment.
The fabric coverings sure look (and measure in Photoshop!) purple as shown in the photo on Chapman Taylor’s site, with blue wall carpet on the vomitory walls and lower sidewalls.
The lighting features on the sidewalls are exactly the same as are/were (at least on opening) fitted to the IMPACT/Superscreen in Basildon, and can also be seen in an Eomac Case Study. It would have been better if the wall and stadia steps carpets had been replaced, though.
Slightly odd that Cineworld have left bits and pieces untouched, particularly as this must be one of their premiere sites.
Incidentally, during the period when the “dome” and environs were operating as the “Millennium Experience” exhibition, there was a Sky-sponsored cinema in a temporary building adjacent to the dome:
I did visit the “Millennium Experience” in 2000, although I don’t remember visiting Skyscape—frankly it was all so dire that I was quite glad to get out of there ASAP!
I do wonder why the “Sky Superscreen” was opened as a disproportionately large auditorium by today’s standards, unless it actually was part of the original “Millennium Experience” structures built inside the “dome”?
Zappomatic: Thanks for the photos, your comprehensive observations of the ScreenX auditorium and update on the O2 “Project Loop” construction.
yes it’s the school holidays but the majority of the audience was made up of adult couples and groups
I am minded to visit today on the way back from dropping someone off at Heathrow, but even the last performance is heavily booked. Argh!
Ventilation grilles are visible above the side projectors.
Hmm, were these there before?
Finally it seemed as though there was a very slight lag between the main screen and the side projectors, noticeable in jump cuts and scenes with a lot of movement and I can see this causing motion sickness in some people if not corrected.
Yikes—that’s very jarring. I imagine that the hardware/software to split the picture over all those projectors adds a bit of lag.
Looking at a photo of the ScreenX auditorium, it looks like the sidewalls are indeed stretched fabric, as the “seams” between fabric sections (where the fabric meets the profiles to which it’s attached) are visible.
Oddly, these appear to be rectangular sections of fabric, as both vertical and horizontal “seams” are visible, whereas usually the fabric width would relate to horizontal “seams”—Eomac recommends 168cm “usable”—and the fabric length would far exceed this thus requiring fewer vertical “seams.”
The fabric sections also appear not to be entirely colour matched, either.
LARGE_screen_format: The £35m figure is for the entire “Project Loop-Leisure and Cinema Extension” scheme, which also includes an indoor “trampoline park.” I assume Cineworld will be taking a lease on the space and their primary upfront capital cost will be for the fit-out.
As shown on the above-linked planning drawings, the largest auditorium will have an ~18m (~59ft.) wall-to-wall screen, with a centreline screen to last row distance of ~24m (~80ft.); so the last row will be ~1.35x screen width from the screen. (First row ~0.4x screen width from screen in centreline.)
Thus there will be plenty of “immersive” seating positions, and it will be interesting to see if Atmos is installed also.
(FYI, this auditorium is about ~29m deep, for a total area of ~530sq.m. (~5700sq.ft.))
1073sq.m. (~11500sq.ft.) (!) of new foyer space (at “Level 02”) will be provided to the “right”* of the existing, via 6 steps due to a slight floor level change, from which (the screen end of) 5 new auditoria can be accessed.
(*Relative to the entrance up escalator from “Level 00,” aka “ground level” of The O2.)
An additional “VIP” foyer, 365sq.m. (~3900sq.ft.) in floor area, will be provided off of this new foyer area, with stairs up to corridors at “Level 03” leading to 3 new auditoria situated above the new “Level 02” foyer areas.
(There is also a lift, presumably for disabled access, which is shared between the “extended” and “VIP” foyers, and an additional lobby at “Level 04” providing access to the rear of 5 auditoria accessible from the extended foyer area at “Level 02.”)
Note that whilst these drawings are marked as originating from CallisonRTKL, Chapman Taylor are the “fit-out and final delivery” architects.
According to a press release from The O2, the cinema extension (50,000sq.ft.) is an anchor to within a 110,000sq.ft. development scheduled to open in Q1 2019. A new 4DX auditorium within the extension is also mentioned.
(N.B. Registration is required to view the release on The O2’s site, but it seems to have been posted word-for-word elsewhere.)
List of seating capacities for all existent (pre-extension) auditoria.
Would not think it would be in the extension as the completion date isn’t until later this year, and IIRC from the plans (which for some reason I don’t seem to have provided a link to here, and I’m currently too tired to trawl around clunky local authority planning application databases!) the access to those auditoria will be via extended foyer/lobby areas.
“We’re excited to announce that ScreenX has opened at
Cineworld O2!
“ScreenX is the world’s first multi-projection cinema technology expanding the traditional cinema screen to the side auditorium walls, creating a 270-degree viewing experience. Plus, if you’re an Unlimited customer you can enjoy ScreenX for only £3!”
The application (dated as received 11th May 2018) is for the total redevelopment of an area which includes (but is not limited to) the existing Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park, with new units for retail, leisure, residential and other uses.
The proposals include the demolition and replacement of the existing cinema, although in relation to this the above linked application is outline only, being a detailed application only in respect of Phase 1 (which does not include the new cinema.)
CF100
commented about
Cinebowlon
Aug 7, 2018 at 12:58 am
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.
Addendum (again!):
In the process of editing, I seem to have accidentally deleted the following:
I don’t know if the plans mean that it won’t be a Dolby Cinema, just that having conjured up possible schemes based on inferring the implications of the publically disclosed information from Odeon, not to mention the apparent secrecy and high projected cost, I’m very surprised.
Great news in the sense that it remains intact as it was, but compared to the ideas I had for more radical schemes it’s, well, boring—and I’ve got egg on my face now for my predictions (other than the change to the rear stalls) being so far off the mark!
Still, Dolby Cinema or not, I’m looking forward to the reopening…
Addendum:
Licensing Application – Dated as Received 7th August 2018.
In summary:
Stalls:
Rear stalls largely removed to make way for toilets, switch room, “food prep” area, and concessions (namely, “Snacks and Cold Food; Order Hot Food,” “Hot Food Collection,” and “Coffee.”)
Stalls accessed through double sets of doors on the left side ONLY, via a small “lobby” area. (One pair of doors into the lobby, another into the auditorium.)
The last three rows of the new stalls are under the balcony; the rear of the auditorium, compared to previous, is about the position of the seat backs 7 rows from the rear. (5 in the centre section which omitted the last two rows.)
All seats are recliners.
Circle:
Royal Circle is now 3 rows deep, except it is 2 rows deep in the centre section. Seating capacity – 90.
Additional new wide centre vomitorium access to Royal Circle.
Back row of the new Royal Circle in line with the 5th row of the previous (formerly 6 rows deep.)
All seats (in the new Royal Circle) are recliners. Existing two aisles at sidewalls removed.
Rear circle – 14 rows of seats to rear wall. Rows in the same position as existing except 2 additional rows to rear wall. New seats of increased width; no centre aisle.
Front of auditorium:
Splay walls in same location.
Increased stage width shown.
Screen width identical as drawn but moved forward to be just behind proscenium opening. (Albeit this is probably not a reliable source for the absolute size and position.)
*Theatre lighting rail shown on “Second Floor” plan.
Alterations to ground floor and circle foyers:
Seating capacity of stalls and rear circle:
Former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios (now integrated with the OLS as the ground floor foyers are connected internally):
Screen 2: 34 seats (Former Screen 3 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 3: 41 seats (Former Screen 2 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 4 :40 seats (Former Screen 4 of Odeon Studios.)
Screen 5: 34 seats (Former Screen 5 of Odeon Studios.)
In all auditoria, most rows are 6 seats wide (the maximum) and all seats are increased width being drawn identically to the new rear circle seats. Row locations adjusted.
Projection rooms removed, alterations to access areas including new lift to all levels.
Stairwell adjacent to external wall to LSQ removed and Screen 3 (former Screen 2) extended forward.
Can’t be bothered to enumerate other changes to the former Odeon Mezzanine/Studios!
Looks like the main auditorium of the OLS will survive the refurbishment very much intact after all. Seems odd that Odeon were talking about installing a PLF screen… wonder if it will be a Dolby Cinema location after all?
This being said, the “First Floor” plan shows sightlines for 2D and 3D, with a 100° angle for 2D and 50° for 3D. (As drawn, about half of the Royal Circle seats are thus outside of the 3D seating area!) Not sure what the allowed angles are for Dolby Cinema, but it might be interesting to compare to the LSQ IMAX and/or other systems using wavelength multiplexed 3D.
HowardBHaas: No idea about the accuracy of the opening programme although maybe that was the size of the screen on its frame.
Perhaps I should have asked if LARGE_screen_format’s screen size figure pertained to the 1990s as stated or if it was for the post-2006 upgrades—albeit as you intimate none of this is needed for relative comparisons between venues where the differences are >10ft.!
LARGE_screen_format: The screen sizes for the old Empire 1 following the 2006 overhaul from a Cinema Treasures post by Laurence Claydon*:
(*Then at Bell Theatre Services.)
“Cinemascope: 18.38x7.62m
“Widescreen: 14.95x8.06m
“70mm: 18.04x8.23m.”
The replacement screen was larger than the previous, and necessitated the removal of the contour curtain (which came down in vertical sections from above the screen.)
According to the Gala Opening Programme, the original screen installed during the 1962 reconstruction was 63ft. x 30ft. (Masked sizes for various formats not given.)
Not sure if the size you’ve quoted for the Odeon Marble Arch is for the original Dimension 150 screen before it was replaced?
Update on OLS works as seen from LSQ as of yesterday: Same as previous post.
HowardBHaas: Having to convert between metric and imperial (or “English” as I believe you guys call it; or, as Wikipedia informs me, strictly “United States customary units!”) is indeed a giant PIT*! I, too, prefer imperial for screen sizes.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed, 2000 was before the emergence of IMAX in the feature film sector and the development of PLF screens as “competitors” of sorts.
Besides, 20m wide would be on the very large side (outside of perhaps “drive-in” locations!) for 35mm and 5/70mm film projection?
Remember also that the “classic” viewing distrance guidelines were based on the limitations of conventional projection of 35mm film prints, i.e. placing the audience far enough away that their perception of the inherent artifacts was kept at an acceptable level; and, also, that IMAX introduced their “DMR” process, initially so that 35mm sources would be acceptable when blown up to 15/70 and shown in an IMAX auditorium, including the use of digital noise reduction to reduce grain.
IOW… it would make no sense to stick in an IMAX-sized screen relative to the auditorium size without suitable projection (and content!) to match…
Or to put it another way, if you like super large screens, then consider yourself lucky that today there’s an ever-expanding embarrassment of riches to choose from thanks to digital. ;–)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the above linked ES Global Solutions page, the “Skyscape” building took 16 weeks to build, 8 weeks to dismantle, and cost £10m(!) As the “project completion” date was April 2002, I assume that’s when “dismantling” had been completed.
The page also says: “Skyscape was required for the duration of the Millennium Dome event as dual cinema venues each having capacity for 2,500 people. The East cinema was also designed to be deployed as a 5,500 capacity auditorium for music shows and other events.”
The former gasworks on Greenwich Peninsula have been (and continues to be) built out since the “Millennium Experience”—on the Dome site per se AFAIK the only (major?) buildings left are the Dome itself—if an oversized tent* can be called a “building”!—and the above-ground part of North Greenwich station.
(*Not to demean it… excepting that the fabric seems to permanently be in a state requiring cleaning, it looks cool and is definitely iconic, and I’d be fairly annoyed if it was ever torn down!)
Looking at an interior photo courtesy of ES Global Solutions, it looks fairly “barebones” and—hard to say from this photo—but it doesn’t look like there’s any acoustic treatment to the ceiling.
Having said that, it turns out that it was fully equipped in terms of film projection and “A-chain” sound equipment—in70mm.com – 70mm DTS at the Millennium Dome—to quote:
“Cinemeccanica Victoria 8 35/70 & Console 7kW Xenon. Cinemeccanica 70 CNR Platter. DTS 6AD with ES Processors. Screen size 20m wide.”
Zappomatic:
The fabric coverings sure look (and measure in Photoshop!) purple as shown in the photo on Chapman Taylor’s site, with blue wall carpet on the vomitory walls and lower sidewalls.
The lighting features on the sidewalls are exactly the same as are/were (at least on opening) fitted to the IMPACT/Superscreen in Basildon, and can also be seen in an Eomac Case Study. It would have been better if the wall and stadia steps carpets had been replaced, though.
Slightly odd that Cineworld have left bits and pieces untouched, particularly as this must be one of their premiere sites.
Incidentally, during the period when the “dome” and environs were operating as the “Millennium Experience” exhibition, there was a Sky-sponsored cinema in a temporary building adjacent to the dome:
ES Global Solutions – Skyscape.
Skyscape – Promotional Video.
I did visit the “Millennium Experience” in 2000, although I don’t remember visiting Skyscape—frankly it was all so dire that I was quite glad to get out of there ASAP!
I do wonder why the “Sky Superscreen” was opened as a disproportionately large auditorium by today’s standards, unless it actually was part of the original “Millennium Experience” structures built inside the “dome”?
Zappomatic: Thanks for the photos, your comprehensive observations of the ScreenX auditorium and update on the O2 “Project Loop” construction.
I am minded to visit today on the way back from dropping someone off at Heathrow, but even the last performance is heavily booked. Argh!
Hmm, were these there before?
Yikes—that’s very jarring. I imagine that the hardware/software to split the picture over all those projectors adds a bit of lag.
Addendum to last post: If they’re using the Armstrong Tectum product mentioned in a linked interview I previously posted on the LSQ page, then based on Armstrong’s product literature then perhaps they are using pre-fabricated panels.
LARGE_screen_format: Indeed! I’ll probably visit myself next week…
Looking at a photo of the ScreenX auditorium, it looks like the sidewalls are indeed stretched fabric, as the “seams” between fabric sections (where the fabric meets the profiles to which it’s attached) are visible.
Oddly, these appear to be rectangular sections of fabric, as both vertical and horizontal “seams” are visible, whereas usually the fabric width would relate to horizontal “seams”—Eomac recommends 168cm “usable”—and the fabric length would far exceed this thus requiring fewer vertical “seams.”
The fabric sections also appear not to be entirely colour matched, either.
LARGE_screen_format: The £35m figure is for the entire “Project Loop-Leisure and Cinema Extension” scheme, which also includes an indoor “trampoline park.” I assume Cineworld will be taking a lease on the space and their primary upfront capital cost will be for the fit-out.
As shown on the above-linked planning drawings, the largest auditorium will have an ~18m (~59ft.) wall-to-wall screen, with a centreline screen to last row distance of ~24m (~80ft.); so the last row will be ~1.35x screen width from the screen. (First row ~0.4x screen width from screen in centreline.)
Thus there will be plenty of “immersive” seating positions, and it will be interesting to see if Atmos is installed also.
(FYI, this auditorium is about ~29m deep, for a total area of ~530sq.m. (~5700sq.ft.))
The scheme for the “Leisure and Cinema Extension” is known as “Project Loop.”
McLaren Group – Topping Out Ceremony on Project Loop at The O2 – July 2018.
Project cost according to this page is £35m. (Presumably excluding fit-out.)
Plans for the extension are available in a planning application dated July 2016, within the “All drawings” document.
1073sq.m. (~11500sq.ft.) (!) of new foyer space (at “Level 02”) will be provided to the “right”* of the existing, via 6 steps due to a slight floor level change, from which (the screen end of) 5 new auditoria can be accessed.
(*Relative to the entrance up escalator from “Level 00,” aka “ground level” of The O2.)
An additional “VIP” foyer, 365sq.m. (~3900sq.ft.) in floor area, will be provided off of this new foyer area, with stairs up to corridors at “Level 03” leading to 3 new auditoria situated above the new “Level 02” foyer areas.
(There is also a lift, presumably for disabled access, which is shared between the “extended” and “VIP” foyers, and an additional lobby at “Level 04” providing access to the rear of 5 auditoria accessible from the extended foyer area at “Level 02.”)
Note that whilst these drawings are marked as originating from CallisonRTKL, Chapman Taylor are the “fit-out and final delivery” architects.
According to a press release from The O2, the cinema extension (50,000sq.ft.) is an anchor to within a 110,000sq.ft. development scheduled to open in Q1 2019. A new 4DX auditorium within the extension is also mentioned.
(N.B. Registration is required to view the release on The O2’s site, but it seems to have been posted word-for-word elsewhere.)
LARGE_screen_format: Squaremeal – Cineworld O2 Greenwich.
List of seating capacities for all existent (pre-extension) auditoria.
Would not think it would be in the extension as the completion date isn’t until later this year, and IIRC from the plans (which for some reason I don’t seem to have provided a link to here, and I’m currently too tired to trawl around clunky local authority planning application databases!) the access to those auditoria will be via extended foyer/lobby areas.
E-mail received from Cineworld yesterday:
“We’re excited to announce that ScreenX has opened at Cineworld O2!
“ScreenX is the world’s first multi-projection cinema technology expanding the traditional cinema screen to the side auditorium walls, creating a 270-degree viewing experience. Plus, if you’re an Unlimited customer you can enjoy ScreenX for only £3!”
Canada Water Masterplan – Planning Application.
The application (dated as received 11th May 2018) is for the total redevelopment of an area which includes (but is not limited to) the existing Surrey Quays Shopping Centre and Leisure Park, with new units for retail, leisure, residential and other uses.
The proposals include the demolition and replacement of the existing cinema, although in relation to this the above linked application is outline only, being a detailed application only in respect of Phase 1 (which does not include the new cinema.)
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. ;–)