Thanks Lionel; for some reason my own Google search on the 8325 yielded no results. Very similar indeed, just a neater and easier to install form with the 8330.
I could have sworn it was ‘86. Somewhere I have an old notebook in which I kept logs of cinema/theatre trips from my childhood…
I paid a visit to Screen 2 in February to see “Parasite,” which was not programmed in any of the largest auditoria of any venue, and this location seemed to me to be the best option available in the West End.
Very good picture quality was achieved, bright and with good saturation, and, IIRC, with good black levels. The sound seemed to be lower than reference level, but the quality was very good, aided by the low reverberation time of the auditorium. The surround imaging was good although as with any “legacy” system using a rear array, it was diffuse even when it should have been directional. The bass was well extended, although presumably this feature did not push LFE to the limit.
Quibbles: The auditorium has some audible HVAC noise and/or noise from the (boothless) projection (situated above the rear rows of the stadia.) Also, before the programme started, the left surrounds had a clearly audible noise floor. Fortunately, no leakage from the foyer nor the adjacent Screen 1 was audible.
The screen is scope ratio and moveable masking is not used. In practice, given that the adverts/trailers are shown in “flat” ratio in the centre section of the screen, and any that are scope end up being letterboxed, this entire aspect of the presentation is compromised, anyway. It obviously made no difference to the main, scope ratio, feature.
The screen is very generously sized for the auditorium depth.
The red upholstered Lino Sonego seating is comfortable, and the restepped stadia from Cineworld’s 2018 refurbishment provides good legroom.
All in all, as a “standard” auditorium, a good place to see a film. Remarkably non-compromised given that it occupies the former space occupied by the toilets.
Addendum: The weave of the stretched fabric wall covering can be seen above the strip, and the “acoustic carpet” fixed to the lower part of the sidewalls (which doesn’t look terribly different to any other short-pile carpet, but it is marketed as such by vendors such as Eomac) is also visible.
Looks like Cineworld have another IMAX with a “tall” screen planned for their Aberdeen site, planning permission for which was granted a couple of weeks ago. Estimated screen size and link to planning application on the linked page.
A planning application for an extension, to include an IMAX, new foyer, and another additional auditorium (where the current foyer is located) was approved on 28th February 2020.
Of particular interest, looking at the plans and cross-section, this appears to be another case of a Cineworld IMAX designed to have a 1.43:1 (or taller!) aspect ratio screen, with a drop in level ahead of the front row.
Measuring off the planning drawings, the screen size is ~21.5x17.5m. The height in particular is subject to inaccuracy due to the cross-section being a quasi-3D rendering with a rectangular shaped image clearly pasted on; but it’s clearly not a 1.9:1 screen.
Given the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, one might wonder if Cineworld will proceed with this scheme.
SethLewis: It was looking very messy with various changes and patch-ups of the 1993 cinema over the years until the 2017 refurbishment. Much cleaner design now and the first floor bar is completely clean, unlike the entrance foyer with its various food/beverage counters that give it something of a “mini mall” feel.
Of course, these days the same films are programmed in the adjacent Cineworld and Odeon, so it is pretty hard to come up with reasons to visit the Vue when one way or the other they have more to offer, although Screens 5/7 are high quality.
Not sure how Westfield is “cluttered,” it has a spacious main foyer overlooking the central atrium of the mall. The Shepherds Bush foyer is a bit of a mess.
I did not visit the cinema prior to the 1990’s rebuild as a multiplex. Alas, there are few references for what it looked like internally in the period before the original building was closed.
There must be an error somewhere in the figures given by the International Projectionist article, for it states that the screen is 63ft. wide, yet the image is 64ft. wide for “Panavision ratio (2.7:1).”
Do you have the image sizes for other formats in the 80’s/90’s?
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.)
Thanks Lionel; for some reason my own Google search on the 8325 yielded no results. Very similar indeed, just a neater and easier to install form with the 8330.
I could have sworn it was ‘86. Somewhere I have an old notebook in which I kept logs of cinema/theatre trips from my childhood…
I paid a visit to Screen 2 in February to see “Parasite,” which was not programmed in any of the largest auditoria of any venue, and this location seemed to me to be the best option available in the West End.
Very good picture quality was achieved, bright and with good saturation, and, IIRC, with good black levels. The sound seemed to be lower than reference level, but the quality was very good, aided by the low reverberation time of the auditorium. The surround imaging was good although as with any “legacy” system using a rear array, it was diffuse even when it should have been directional. The bass was well extended, although presumably this feature did not push LFE to the limit.
Quibbles: The auditorium has some audible HVAC noise and/or noise from the (boothless) projection (situated above the rear rows of the stadia.) Also, before the programme started, the left surrounds had a clearly audible noise floor. Fortunately, no leakage from the foyer nor the adjacent Screen 1 was audible.
The screen is scope ratio and moveable masking is not used. In practice, given that the adverts/trailers are shown in “flat” ratio in the centre section of the screen, and any that are scope end up being letterboxed, this entire aspect of the presentation is compromised, anyway. It obviously made no difference to the main, scope ratio, feature.
The screen is very generously sized for the auditorium depth.
The red upholstered Lino Sonego seating is comfortable, and the restepped stadia from Cineworld’s 2018 refurbishment provides good legroom.
All in all, as a “standard” auditorium, a good place to see a film. Remarkably non-compromised given that it occupies the former space occupied by the toilets.
Several photos have been uploaded.
Addendum: The weave of the stretched fabric wall covering can be seen above the strip, and the “acoustic carpet” fixed to the lower part of the sidewalls (which doesn’t look terribly different to any other short-pile carpet, but it is marketed as such by vendors such as Eomac) is also visible.
Looks like Cineworld have another IMAX with a “tall” screen planned for their Aberdeen site, planning permission for which was granted a couple of weeks ago. Estimated screen size and link to planning application on the linked page.
A planning application for an extension, to include an IMAX, new foyer, and another additional auditorium (where the current foyer is located) was approved on 28th February 2020.
Of particular interest, looking at the plans and cross-section, this appears to be another case of a Cineworld IMAX designed to have a 1.43:1 (or taller!) aspect ratio screen, with a drop in level ahead of the front row.
Measuring off the planning drawings, the screen size is ~21.5x17.5m. The height in particular is subject to inaccuracy due to the cross-section being a quasi-3D rendering with a rectangular shaped image clearly pasted on; but it’s clearly not a 1.9:1 screen.
Given the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, one might wonder if Cineworld will proceed with this scheme.
Lionel: “The Jungle Book” re-release (IIRC in 1986?) was actually one of the first films I ever saw in a cinema, alas in a poor quality local cinema.
Not familiar with the JBL 8325. Have you any more information?
Thanks Lionel, I assume that was the THX-certified auditorium?
Bizarre ceiling decor, reminds me of passing through an airport in Moscow some years ago.
SethLewis: It was looking very messy with various changes and patch-ups of the 1993 cinema over the years until the 2017 refurbishment. Much cleaner design now and the first floor bar is completely clean, unlike the entrance foyer with its various food/beverage counters that give it something of a “mini mall” feel.
Of course, these days the same films are programmed in the adjacent Cineworld and Odeon, so it is pretty hard to come up with reasons to visit the Vue when one way or the other they have more to offer, although Screens 5/7 are high quality.
Not sure how Westfield is “cluttered,” it has a spacious main foyer overlooking the central atrium of the mall. The Shepherds Bush foyer is a bit of a mess.
GF Holding – Everyman Muswell Hill (Main contractor.)
NBDA Architects – Everyman Cinema. According to this page, the project cost was £3.5m.
First Plan – Everyman Cinema, Muswell Hill.
2016 Listed Consent Planning Application.
How strange to have the surrounds on stands.
I did not visit the cinema prior to the 1990’s rebuild as a multiplex. Alas, there are few references for what it looked like internally in the period before the original building was closed.
Lionel: The sizes following the 2006 works are available in a post on Cinema Treasures.
To quote from that post (with imperial conversions added):
“Screen Dimensions
Cinemascope: 18.38x7.62m, 85mm Schneider Cinelux Premiere aspheric variable-iris combined anamorphic lens (60.3x25ft.) Widescreen: 14.95x8.06m, 52.5mm Schneider Cinelux Premiere aspheric variable iris lens (49x26.4ft.) 70mm: 18.04x8.23m, 100mm Schnieder Super Cinelux Lens (59.2x27ft.) D-Cinema image sizes are as 35mm"
There must be an error somewhere in the figures given by the International Projectionist article, for it states that the screen is 63ft. wide, yet the image is 64ft. wide for “Panavision ratio (2.7:1).”
Do you have the image sizes for other formats in the 80’s/90’s?
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.)