Having not visited the “Superscreen” at this location in years—in fact, the cinema was still operated by Empire Cinemas and it was called the “IMPACT” screen—with some trepidation, I recently attended a screening in that auditorium.
The headline is: As far as I can ascertain, LASER projection has now been installed.
I had wondered if Cineworld would upgrade this location given that they have upgraded both Picturehouse Central Screen 1 and the O2 Superscreen with laser projection, as well as Cineworld rolling out laser projection in new sites.
During the performance, I was impressed by the picture quality achieved, and wondered if this was indeed the case. The “tell-tale” signs of laser—speckle, etc.—however, were either non-existent or hardly noticeable, and whilst well saturated colours were achieved, as well as a very good black level, it perhaps didn’t quite look “laser” in this respect, either. But it hardly looked like Xenon, either.
To add to the puzzle, I was slightly surprised to see that only one of the two Barco 4K projectors was operating, though, as is always for the Leicester Square Superscreen, it was a 2D presentation.
Looking into the booth, as can easily be done from the back of the main seating area (i.e. non-balcony), it was noticeable that on top of one projector was a large black rectangular-shaped unit, and this was not the case for other—not in use—projector.
To cut to the chase, it seems that likely Cineworld have NOT upgraded the Superscreen to all-new projection, but added Barco’s laser “retrofit” option, which amounts to converting the model from a Barco DP4K-23B, as moved over from the old (and very much still missed by myself!) Empire 1 on opening, to a DP4K-23BLP—the unit on top is in fact the “lamp house” for this.
The “LP” stands for “laser phosphor,” so it does not use separate red, green and blue lasers.
“The light source in an RGB projector contains red, green and blue lasers. The light source in a laser phosphor projector contains only blue (and sometimes red) lasers, combined with a yellow phosphor wheel. Both types of light sources create a uniform white light interface that enters the engine; just like a Xenon lamp did before. Only when you analyze the spectral properties of this white light, you can discern the narrow bandwidth of RGB from the broader bandwidth of LP.”
So there we are. Not the “real deal” but a, hopefully, good upgrade nonetheless. It always seemed to me that the auditorium was “made” for Atmos with laser-light source projection.
There’s more to say, but that will have to wait for a full write-up.
The sound was definitely on top form, too, with outstanding rear imaging from the Atmos system.
So, FWIW, I am happy to say that a high standard of picture and, particularly excellent sound quality was achieved; as a modern-style “own brand” with Atmos “premium large-format” auditorium, it is a very good place to see a film.
A photo looking into the booth clearly showing the two Barco projectors has been uploaded.
SethLewis: I like your idea and indeed the proposed scheme (if the developer is to be believed) was intended to have delivered something closer to your suggestions than another West End cinema playing the same first-run mainstream fare.
“A new four-screen cinema providing a total of 260 seats would be provided at basement level. The cinema would be operated by the Applicant and would be based on the second viewing cinema principles successfully operated by Light Cinemas.”
(*Relinked since the link in a previous post does not work.)
Regarding the above discussion on “less than substantial harm,” reading through the “Refusal Report,” this (confusingly!) appears to be correctly worded—there would be harm to the building’s heritage, but not as severe as “substantial harm.”
Essentially, in this case, the proposals need some alterations/refinements to be acceptable in heritage and other aspects, e.g. the form and massing of the additional floors above existing roof level. A revised scheme was submitted; however, further changes are/were sought.
(Full details beginning at the bottom of p21 of the “Refusal Report,” under the heading “Design Review Panel.”)
In gaining permission from Camden Council, the primary stumbling block for the developer would seem to be the provision of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that full scale use of the building as a cinema, theatre, or other “cultural/leisure” activities would be unviable. For this planning application, they did not carry out an acceptable marketing exercise in relation to finding potential operator of such, which the “Refusal Report” states:
“…should be undertaken over a period of not less than 12 months and be based on a realistic price/rent which is supported by the Council.”
According to Camden Council’s planning database, at this time, the refused application has not been appealed.
Addendum: On reflection, my previous post suggests that Tom Holman/Lucasfilm/THX were the fountainhead of the new speaker designs whereas key developments occurred elsewhere.
Very briefly: The JBL 4675 incorporated key developments such as their patented “Bi-Radial” “constant directivity” horn design and were the first THX certified screen speakers. A THX installation required a baffle wall and use of the THX time-aligned active crossover unit.
In 2001, JBL engineers were honoured with an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement for “The Concept, Design and Engineering of the Modern Constant-Directivity, Direct-Radiator Style Motion Picture Loudspeaker Systems.”
Not to sideline the achievements at Lucasfilm; and the THX programme played a key role in promulgating the use of new sound systems, as well heavily acoustically-treated and isolated auditorium designs.
A “TL;DR” historical overview of the new speakers can be read on p55 and p57 (PDF page numbers) in “The History and Legacy of JBL.” Elsewhere in the document, information on earlier cinema speakers (Western Electric/Altec Lansing) is available.
(Just realised that I know little about the Vitavox screen speakers that were common in the UK, so that might just be something to add to the never-ending research to-do list!)
I am flexible on date as I live in London. Ken Roe’s suggestion of “The Montagu Pike,” having a relatively spacious interior thanks to its original use as a cinema, sounds like a fine idea too.
Addendum: In case anyone reading this is interested in a more detailed account of the changes to cinema speaker systems as mentioned in the previous post, a 1990 interview with Tom Holman from “Speaker Builder” magazine is available.
Lionel: I do not know what was installed back in the day; in the flickr photoset that you linked to, DP75 projectors can be seen in a booth.
In the 1980s, cinema sound systems had not changed for decades, still using the old Altecs or Vitavox designs dating back to the mid 20th century.
After Dolby Stereo was introduced, cinemas simply upgraded the (so-called) “A-chain” with a Dolby Stereo decoder.
The THX programme in particular motivated changes to the “B-chain” side, with the JBL 4675 as the canonical example of the new screen speaker design (eliminating the bass horn and using a modern so-called “constant directivity” horn for the midrange/high frequencies) as specified by Tom Holman et al at Lucasfilm.
(N.B. The new speaker types were installed industry-wide, not THX-certified auditoria only.)
My suspicion is that an upgrade of the screen speaker system would not have occurred at the time that your Father visited. Still, the old screen speakers, whilst not state-of-the-art at that time, were very capable and indeed the old Altec “Voice of the Theater” speakers are now sought after by collectors (see eBay prices!) As an aside, with the immense technological progress in the 70 years or so, it is ironic that speakers were available then that still eat today’s average consumer “Bluetooth” speakers for dinner!
So even if still using the old speaker types, as long as the system was properly serviced, which seems more likely here than the local “flea-pit,” it may well have provided better than average sound.
Looking at photos of two of the current auditoria, the rear array speakers look like JBL 8330s (OK, but now obsolete and the design pre-dated the “new” digital formats, e.g. Dolby Digital. I’m also not sure if there are a sufficient number for adequate coverage?) The sidewalls are covered in (dirty looking!) stretched fabric or “Soundfold” pleated fabric, presumably hiding acoustic absorption behind. Of very limited interest with the spectacular Odeon Leicester Square’s Dolby Atmos installation available close by…
According to a brochure on the hotel’s website, the opening date for the hotel is June 2020. Among the many facilities listed in the brochure are “two screening rooms,” which I assume is a reference to the new Odeon’s two auditoria—which will of course, in any case, be available to book.
(The renderings of the hotel’s interior look impressive, but this isn’t “Hotel Treasures” (!)—suffice it to say that it’s too bad that a “hotel palace” is being completed on the site of a “picture palace.”)
Re-visited a couple of months ago to attend a preview screening in Auditorium 6 (Xtreme.)
The auditorium has been completely reseated per Vue’s current choice of “house” seating.
The standard seating, with “velour”-type upholstery, is the same as Vue Eltham and, if I’m not mistaken, the VIP seating is also. (Photos of both seating types can be seen on Cinema Treasures' Vue Eltham pages.)
Not being “important”—much less “very important!”—in relation this event, standard seating was the only option, and I ended up seated in the last row auditorium. (Fortunately centre of row.)
I noted on the Vue Eltham page that the standard seating did not have an appearence in line with current expectations, and on briefly trying out one of these seats at the Eltham location, did not seem to be very comfortable. My revised view is that in some respects they do feel luxurious (e.g. good upholstery), but the comfort level really is inadequate, even for basic standard seating.
In terms of picture/sound quality, both were very good; much in line with my experiences in Auditorium 9 over at this cinema’s adjacent “sibling” (Shepherds Bush,) suggesting a good level of maintenance.
The new seating certainly gives a refreshed feel. The VIP seating should now be very comfortable indeed—I did not like the previously installed type—and comfortably positioned, so the Xtreme auditoria could now be good places to see a film.
Of course, whether or not the tickets represent value given the “premium” location, combined with uplifts charged for Xtreme with VIP seating; as well as the lack of laser light source projection and/or Atmos in a “PLF” auditorium, and the dreaded floating “flat” ratio screens, is another question…
What I considered to be a rather hideous “postmodern” mess of screens (see previous post dated 11th July 2018 on the Sony “Ziris Canvas”) in the main foyer has been removed. (IIRC replaced with a conventional multi-screen layout; I shall check my photos at a later time…)
[Previously posted November 23rd 2019 on the Odeon Leicester Square page, pending creation of this page.]
This is the first Odeon “Luxe & Dine”-branded venue.
Interestingly—at least in terms of potential, ahem, finger-pointing!—it was planned to be a “dine-in” venue (along the lines of “The Lounge at Whiteleys”) prior to the AMC acquisition, per Odeon’s 2016 press release, in which the project was announced.
A rendering of the venue’s public external entrance shows a glazed frontage, behind which is a very small lobby and two elevators.
The cinema’s page on Odeon’s website includes several images, one of which appears to be a rendering of a seating area in the foyer, which looks very attractive indeed. There is also a photo of an auditorium, though I suspect this is in fact of Odeon Luxe Haymarket, given the low ceiling and limited rake of the seating.
According to an article, the menu includes “Wagyu Beef, Corn Fed Chicken and Moving Mountains Vegan burgers, Wild Boar Hotdogs and Flatbread Pizza.” Drinks are available at an Oscar’s Bar.
I can only describe the “dine-in” concept with “waiter service” as a nightmare, but clearly a suitable “hipster” location has been selected!
(Incidentally, Odeon say that food can be ordered via their smartphone app—as if there wasn’t already enough potential “activity” in the auditorium to ruin the experience?!)
Update: Looking at the new building externally a couple of days ago, the majority is obscured by scaffolding with fire-retardant sheeting.
However, it appeared that at least some windows have been fitted, and much Rockwool was at the ready on multiple levels.
According to a newsletter posted on the ground-level site hoarding, dated August 2019 (!), “facade works are in progress on all elevations”. Mechanical & Electrical service installation and fit-out are also “in progress on all levels.” Of course, it might well be expected that this does not include the cinema fit-out just yet…
Having recently paid a visit to the IMAX auditorium, the sidewall IMAX signs now fade in/out—however, the fade is extremely “stepped,” obviously sequencing through a handful of different levels, rather than smooth.
The sidewall signs were also (irritatingly!) turned on as the end credits started.
Would a seat towards the rear of the circle of the OLS be best (row F for example).
IMO none of the seating further back than the Royal Circle is suitable—just too far from the screen. The rear of the auditorium is about 3x the screen width away from the screen (c.f. max. 1x for IMAX and typical 1.5x in multiplex screens.) You are also having to look down at the screen.
In my view, the stalls would be a much better option. You do have to look up at the screen—however, at least in terms of comfort this is mitigated by the recliners. Row D or E would be a good choice (remembering that the recliners mean that the rows are deeper, so this is further back than it sounds!)—any further forward and the surround sound won’t be ideal, too far back and you’ll end up under the balcony.
Or would a seat in the superscreen be better? They are a similar price – around £20 but there is a much wider choice of seats in the superscreen. Does the tech in the OLS amke it a better choice overall, or would better seats be a wiser choice?
I have not been to the LSQ Superscreen in a long time now. The Superscreen has a top-of-the-line sound system (inc. Dolby Atmos) and it might be said is actually better specified than the OLS.
However, I was not impressed by the projection (2xBarco DP4K-23B with Xenon light source) installed at the time of the conversion of the old Screen 1 (2014.) These projectors were moved over from the old Empire 1. My recollection from the article on the Screen 1 conversion in Cinema Technology Magazine is that the long-throw lenses (~120ft. from the projection to the screen) were simply kept even though the throw is much less in the Superscreen. Empire Cinemas were queried about this in that article, and they claimed that they worked perfectly, but my experience was serious barrel distortion (curved like a goldfish bowl to the left/right sides of the screen.)
In addition, the lack of masking on the “flat” ratio screen is, in my view, not really acceptable for letterboxed material, as the projection cannot achieve sufficiently deep black levels for the disused parts of the screen.
It is, however, possible that Cineworld have, or will, upgrade to laser projection—Christie laser projection has been installed in Screen 1 of Picturehouse Central, and in the Superscreen over at the O2.
Laser projection allows for a wider colour gamut (i.e. more saturated, vibrant colours,) where the content has been supplied that takes advantage of this, as one would hope for a release in the Dolby Cinema format. The LSQ Superscreen’s screen is much larger than the OLS, but overall, as far as “technology” goes, I would recommend the OLS over the LSQ Superscreen.
I notice that Cineworld LSQ’s IMAX screenings will be in 3D, whereas both the LSQ Superscreen and the OLS screenings are 2D only. I guess that you do not wish to see “The Rise of Skywalker” in 3D? Otherwise, I’d say that the IMAX would be the best option.
Of course, it goes without saying that, if it is the venue/auditorium itself that you want as part of the experience, then the OLS wins hands down over the LSQ Superscreen.
A 120fps movie can contain 24fps content—e.g. all that has to be done is repeat each frame 5 times.
So, as a way of thinking about this, how about a whole movie at 24fps, with only the end credits at 120fps? There is no way this could “ruin” the experience; but it would stop the end credits “jumping” their way up the screen, scrolling smoothly instead.
Going back to the videos in the linked page on the “American Cinematographer” site, these, again, are both at 24fps.
Yet, the contents of these videos was captured at 120fps, and was converted to 24fps using the software’s “virtual shutter.”
The “virtual shutter” has settings which are based on the shutters of “classic” 35mm cameras. So, the software could actually be used to make 24fps content that looks more “classic” in style.
Or, alternatively, as the videos show, a different “virtual shutter” could be used for part of the picture, in one example creating less blur on the woman’s face.
Also shown in the first video is what happens when there is no blur on moving objects at 24fps—it looks awful! There has to be motion blur at 24fps or it falls to bits (end credits, of course, are an obvious example.)
The videos promote the software’s ability to create the “classical” look of 24fps movies… and it doesn’t have to be used to convert to 24fps, it could be used on HFR material, so that it looks more like “classical” 24fps.
That said, I don’t think HFR delivery of movies is going to replace 24fps yet… (or ever…?) But with the increased storage available today, shooting HFR is more likely.
You were wondering about audience leaving the movie-show (and even more leaving when the action-sequences were shown): Having some of them interviewed, the latter ones leaving told me, that even watching the ‘action-sequences’ was a boring, sterile (!) and emotionless thing to do. The first ones leaving shared exactly the same impression I was telling you about and were not complaining of any headaches while watching.
Funnily enough, I thought “Gemini Man” was somewhat “boring” and “sterile,” but thought this was due to the movie itself. Also, CGI “Young” Will Smith didn’t quite look real, so there was some disconnect there.
Have you experienced some of the audience leaving other shows?
Quite frankly I do not share this opinion: 24 fps might never be chosen on any optimal technical basis, but it’s been there for over 100 Years of cinematic presentation and one should think of the only reason being… because it has proven itself.
Getting the World to change standards is not easy! I don’t think 24fps is a “magic” number, after all 24fps movies have often been shown on 25fps TV simply by slightly speeding them up (which “no-one” even notices!)
When we think of 24fps movies, we are not really thinking of “24fps”—as the videos on the “American Cinematographer” page show, 24fps itself can look quite different depending on the shutter speed. Rather, we are thinking of how movies are stylised, and part of that is due to the limitations of 24fps—it has “proven itself,” but only because filmmakers (hopefully) don’t do things that don’t work at 24fps.
So, to my mind, it would be far more interesting to remove those limitations, and see how filmmakers adapt to HFR—just as in the last 20 years digital cameras have rapidly developed and creators adapted to get the results they want…
The last thing we need is to throw away 100 years of cinematic heritage, ending up with (say) a nightmare of hyper-“Michael Bay” chaotic action films. Storytelling, characters and performance always come first, presented in a cinematic way…
Whether “Atmouse” or not, i.e. the extent to which the extended capabilities of Atmos are used, see the Dolby Atmos Specifications document, which sets out the minimum system requirements and design.
Even if overheads are disused, there is still the option of using objects for directional surround, rather than the traditional use of the surrounds (IMAX excepted)—replicating the same channel over multiple surround speakers (producing a diffuse effect—desirable in the days of Dolby Stereo with mono surround only, and still can be for “ambience.”)
Additionally, the surrounds are “bass managed” with subwoofers thus providing an extended bass response. As I mentioned on the respective Cinema Treasures page, this was obvious during my last visit to the Odeon Leicester Square.
Given also that Dolby Atmos installations to date have tended to be in “premium” auditoria, entering a screen that has a Dolby Atmos-capable system should be an indication that, even for 5.1 or 7.1 content, the sound system will be of above average quality.
On the other hand, it is too bad that the Dolby Cinema trailer demonstration of Atmos is very impressive, whilst IME that “3D” soundstage is rarely heard in the main feature.
I am pleased to say that I have never seen a rodent in a Dolby Atmos-equipped cinema!
Terry: I am shocked and deeply saddened to hear about this. :–(
Whilst I never had the pleasure of knowing him outside of the limited confines of text-based communication on this site, his good manner, generosity and love of “real” cinemas always shone through.
Stored in his head, of course, was an irreplaceable catalogue of obscure information!
moviebuff82: Yes, it will be (2D.) There will also be a triple-bill with the previous two episodes on the 18th December, “The Rise of Skywalker” performance starting at midnight.
Thank you for your comments on HFR, it is interesting to hear your opinion!
Certainly 24fps was never chosen on any optimal technical basis, it has simply existed for so long as the standard with cinematographic “language” and technique built around it, as well as strong association in the audience’s mind that 24fps = cinematic.
“Gemini Man” was downconverted from 120fps to 24 and 60fps using RealD’s TrueMotion software.
Check out the two video demonstrations (which show footage converted to 24fps!) on the above-linked page—with the “virtual shutter” provided by the software, there are all sorts of interesting options—by shooting at HFR at 120fps it can be decided how much motion blur to add—e.g. allowing for part of a shot to remain sharp (the woman’s face in one example) whilst allowing for a more traditional “flowing” look on other moving objects.
HFR does not mean that everything has to look like a “news bulletin”—the frame rate could even be varied within a film—one could imagine quiet character scenes at 24fps and then switching to HFR for fast action sequences? (Even possible to have different frame rates for different areas within a shot.)
If I remember correctly, “Gemini Man” was supposed to have more of a “documentary” look to it.
There is no need to throw away 100 years of cinema heritage, rather building on it with an expanded creative palette—even if HFR remains a novelty for distribution, the above-linked video demonstrations show new creative and post-production options at 24fps (when shooting HFR.)
Some people left the movie-show before I did.
I am surprised to hear this; I suppose given the ticket prices, no-one would want to leave the Odeon Leicester Square before the end of the film!
I wonder if it wasn’t something to do with the projection system used? Many single projector 3D systems alternate between projecting left eye, right eye, etc. in sequence—whereas 3D films are created so that both eyes should be seeing the “same” frame at once. It’s a particular problem with fast scenes, so perhaps a single projector system was used and some audience members were getting headaches?
Best regards (and solidarity in these troubling times!) from London.
Since laser came out, AMC doesn’t like to maintain the Dolby glasses that are needed for both IMAX and Dolby CInema.
If true, then that is pathetic! The glasses are more expensive than the polarised (RealD, etc.) 3D types but “maintaining” them involves putting them in a “dishwasher” (and I can’t imagine that attrition due to non-returns amounts to a significant cost?)
I don’t know if some of the former Loews theatres, if AMC replaced the SDDS processors with Dolby Digital.
Dolby Digital and SDDS were sound formats for 35mm film prints:
(DTS stored the audio on external CD-ROMs synchronized to the image, Dolby Digital and SDDS stored the data on the film itself.)
They were both “lossy” formats (like MP3); SDDS had the benefit of supporting up to 5 screen channels instead of 3, albeit in practice the number of titles and venues that supported this was probably limited.
Suffice it to say that comparing the systems beyond this is now academic; however, the SDDS decoders were quite advanced for the time, with on-board digital equalisation for system tuning.
Also, there was a “war” between DTS, Dolby Digital and Sony over reliability, with Dolby claiming that storing the data between sprockets instead of the film edges meant that their system could cope with more wear and tear.
In today’s age of digital theatrical distribution, all audio is lossless digital per industry standards; whether or not there’s a Dolby box around or not is irrelevant—except in the case of Dolby Atmos.
Therefore, for a regular 5.1 or 7.1 system, differences are to do with the equipment specified, room acoustics and quality of the installation.
Summary details as entered on Bournemouth’s planning database:
“Development and re-development, including partial retention of building including main facade at three levels on the Westover Road frontage to allow for the construction of 1,197sq.m. comparison retail floor space; 67 apartments, 68 car parking spaces, associated servicing facilities, refuse and cycle storage.”
Several urban explorers have posted YouTube videos of the current state of this cinema (and the former ABC nearby.) These are particularly interesting venues; many thanks to them for their efforts, should any of them happen to read this.
The above links directly to the time in the video where the old screen speakers can be seen. I am not quite sure about the make/model (HF horns removed?) but this certainly confirms “dinosaur” speakers were still behind the screen. Ironically, these kind of speakers are actually “audiophile” collectors' items today!
(Other videos of the old Westover Road super-cinemas are easy to find on YouTube.)
Obviously, both the Odeon and ABC are in a less than pristine state, with pigeons having moved in. Although their condition is more intact than some other disused cinemas that have been “explored,” with crumbling ceilings and severe water damage—a word of warning—these videos are not for the faint of heart!
Having not visited the “Superscreen” at this location in years—in fact, the cinema was still operated by Empire Cinemas and it was called the “IMPACT” screen—with some trepidation, I recently attended a screening in that auditorium.
The headline is: As far as I can ascertain, LASER projection has now been installed.
I had wondered if Cineworld would upgrade this location given that they have upgraded both Picturehouse Central Screen 1 and the O2 Superscreen with laser projection, as well as Cineworld rolling out laser projection in new sites.
During the performance, I was impressed by the picture quality achieved, and wondered if this was indeed the case. The “tell-tale” signs of laser—speckle, etc.—however, were either non-existent or hardly noticeable, and whilst well saturated colours were achieved, as well as a very good black level, it perhaps didn’t quite look “laser” in this respect, either. But it hardly looked like Xenon, either.
To add to the puzzle, I was slightly surprised to see that only one of the two Barco 4K projectors was operating, though, as is always for the Leicester Square Superscreen, it was a 2D presentation.
Looking into the booth, as can easily be done from the back of the main seating area (i.e. non-balcony), it was noticeable that on top of one projector was a large black rectangular-shaped unit, and this was not the case for other—not in use—projector.
To cut to the chase, it seems that likely Cineworld have NOT upgraded the Superscreen to all-new projection, but added Barco’s laser “retrofit” option, which amounts to converting the model from a Barco DP4K-23B, as moved over from the old (and very much still missed by myself!) Empire 1 on opening, to a DP4K-23BLP—the unit on top is in fact the “lamp house” for this.
The “LP” stands for “laser phosphor,” so it does not use separate red, green and blue lasers.
To quote from Barco’s website:
“The light source in an RGB projector contains red, green and blue lasers. The light source in a laser phosphor projector contains only blue (and sometimes red) lasers, combined with a yellow phosphor wheel. Both types of light sources create a uniform white light interface that enters the engine; just like a Xenon lamp did before. Only when you analyze the spectral properties of this white light, you can discern the narrow bandwidth of RGB from the broader bandwidth of LP.”
So there we are. Not the “real deal” but a, hopefully, good upgrade nonetheless. It always seemed to me that the auditorium was “made” for Atmos with laser-light source projection.
There’s more to say, but that will have to wait for a full write-up.
The sound was definitely on top form, too, with outstanding rear imaging from the Atmos system.
So, FWIW, I am happy to say that a high standard of picture and, particularly excellent sound quality was achieved; as a modern-style “own brand” with Atmos “premium large-format” auditorium, it is a very good place to see a film.
A photo looking into the booth clearly showing the two Barco projectors has been uploaded.
JBL rear speakers can also be seen, as well as a “night vision” light source comprising LEDs for auditorium surveillance.
SethLewis: I like your idea and indeed the proposed scheme (if the developer is to be believed) was intended to have delivered something closer to your suggestions than another West End cinema playing the same first-run mainstream fare.
From the Planning Statement document of the refused application:*
“A new four-screen cinema providing a total of 260 seats would be provided at basement level. The cinema would be operated by the Applicant and would be based on the second viewing cinema principles successfully operated by Light Cinemas.”
(*Relinked since the link in a previous post does not work.)
Regarding the above discussion on “less than substantial harm,” reading through the “Refusal Report,” this (confusingly!) appears to be correctly worded—there would be harm to the building’s heritage, but not as severe as “substantial harm.”
Essentially, in this case, the proposals need some alterations/refinements to be acceptable in heritage and other aspects, e.g. the form and massing of the additional floors above existing roof level. A revised scheme was submitted; however, further changes are/were sought.
(Full details beginning at the bottom of p21 of the “Refusal Report,” under the heading “Design Review Panel.”)
In gaining permission from Camden Council, the primary stumbling block for the developer would seem to be the provision of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that full scale use of the building as a cinema, theatre, or other “cultural/leisure” activities would be unviable. For this planning application, they did not carry out an acceptable marketing exercise in relation to finding potential operator of such, which the “Refusal Report” states:
“…should be undertaken over a period of not less than 12 months and be based on a realistic price/rent which is supported by the Council.”
According to Camden Council’s planning database, at this time, the refused application has not been appealed.
Addendum: On reflection, my previous post suggests that Tom Holman/Lucasfilm/THX were the fountainhead of the new speaker designs whereas key developments occurred elsewhere.
Very briefly: The JBL 4675 incorporated key developments such as their patented “Bi-Radial” “constant directivity” horn design and were the first THX certified screen speakers. A THX installation required a baffle wall and use of the THX time-aligned active crossover unit.
In 2001, JBL engineers were honoured with an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement for “The Concept, Design and Engineering of the Modern Constant-Directivity, Direct-Radiator Style Motion Picture Loudspeaker Systems.”
Not to sideline the achievements at Lucasfilm; and the THX programme played a key role in promulgating the use of new sound systems, as well heavily acoustically-treated and isolated auditorium designs.
A “TL;DR” historical overview of the new speakers can be read on p55 and p57 (PDF page numbers) in “The History and Legacy of JBL.” Elsewhere in the document, information on earlier cinema speakers (Western Electric/Altec Lansing) is available.
(Just realised that I know little about the Vitavox screen speakers that were common in the UK, so that might just be something to add to the never-ending research to-do list!)
Lionel: Would love to attend.
I am flexible on date as I live in London. Ken Roe’s suggestion of “The Montagu Pike,” having a relatively spacious interior thanks to its original use as a cinema, sounds like a fine idea too.
Addendum: In case anyone reading this is interested in a more detailed account of the changes to cinema speaker systems as mentioned in the previous post, a 1990 interview with Tom Holman from “Speaker Builder” magazine is available.
Lionel: I do not know what was installed back in the day; in the flickr photoset that you linked to, DP75 projectors can be seen in a booth.
In the 1980s, cinema sound systems had not changed for decades, still using the old Altecs or Vitavox designs dating back to the mid 20th century.
After Dolby Stereo was introduced, cinemas simply upgraded the (so-called) “A-chain” with a Dolby Stereo decoder.
The THX programme in particular motivated changes to the “B-chain” side, with the JBL 4675 as the canonical example of the new screen speaker design (eliminating the bass horn and using a modern so-called “constant directivity” horn for the midrange/high frequencies) as specified by Tom Holman et al at Lucasfilm.
(N.B. The new speaker types were installed industry-wide, not THX-certified auditoria only.)
My suspicion is that an upgrade of the screen speaker system would not have occurred at the time that your Father visited. Still, the old screen speakers, whilst not state-of-the-art at that time, were very capable and indeed the old Altec “Voice of the Theater” speakers are now sought after by collectors (see eBay prices!) As an aside, with the immense technological progress in the 70 years or so, it is ironic that speakers were available then that still eat today’s average consumer “Bluetooth” speakers for dinner!
So even if still using the old speaker types, as long as the system was properly serviced, which seems more likely here than the local “flea-pit,” it may well have provided better than average sound.
Looking at photos of two of the current auditoria, the rear array speakers look like JBL 8330s (OK, but now obsolete and the design pre-dated the “new” digital formats, e.g. Dolby Digital. I’m also not sure if there are a sufficient number for adequate coverage?) The sidewalls are covered in (dirty looking!) stretched fabric or “Soundfold” pleated fabric, presumably hiding acoustic absorption behind. Of very limited interest with the spectacular Odeon Leicester Square’s Dolby Atmos installation available close by…
Lionel: Thank you for posting the link. Not sure if I have seen it before, but it was worth watching in any case.
The lighting and “festoon” tabs look wonderful!
According to a brochure on the hotel’s website, the opening date for the hotel is June 2020. Among the many facilities listed in the brochure are “two screening rooms,” which I assume is a reference to the new Odeon’s two auditoria—which will of course, in any case, be available to book.
(The renderings of the hotel’s interior look impressive, but this isn’t “Hotel Treasures” (!)—suffice it to say that it’s too bad that a “hotel palace” is being completed on the site of a “picture palace.”)
Re-visited a couple of months ago to attend a preview screening in Auditorium 6 (Xtreme.)
The auditorium has been completely reseated per Vue’s current choice of “house” seating.
The standard seating, with “velour”-type upholstery, is the same as Vue Eltham and, if I’m not mistaken, the VIP seating is also. (Photos of both seating types can be seen on Cinema Treasures' Vue Eltham pages.)
Not being “important”—much less “very important!”—in relation this event, standard seating was the only option, and I ended up seated in the last row auditorium. (Fortunately centre of row.)
I noted on the Vue Eltham page that the standard seating did not have an appearence in line with current expectations, and on briefly trying out one of these seats at the Eltham location, did not seem to be very comfortable. My revised view is that in some respects they do feel luxurious (e.g. good upholstery), but the comfort level really is inadequate, even for basic standard seating.
In terms of picture/sound quality, both were very good; much in line with my experiences in Auditorium 9 over at this cinema’s adjacent “sibling” (Shepherds Bush,) suggesting a good level of maintenance.
The new seating certainly gives a refreshed feel. The VIP seating should now be very comfortable indeed—I did not like the previously installed type—and comfortably positioned, so the Xtreme auditoria could now be good places to see a film.
Of course, whether or not the tickets represent value given the “premium” location, combined with uplifts charged for Xtreme with VIP seating; as well as the lack of laser light source projection and/or Atmos in a “PLF” auditorium, and the dreaded floating “flat” ratio screens, is another question…
What I considered to be a rather hideous “postmodern” mess of screens (see previous post dated 11th July 2018 on the Sony “Ziris Canvas”) in the main foyer has been removed. (IIRC replaced with a conventional multi-screen layout; I shall check my photos at a later time…)
[Previously posted November 23rd 2019 on the Odeon Leicester Square page, pending creation of this page.]
This is the first Odeon “Luxe & Dine”-branded venue.
Interestingly—at least in terms of potential, ahem, finger-pointing!—it was planned to be a “dine-in” venue (along the lines of “The Lounge at Whiteleys”) prior to the AMC acquisition, per Odeon’s 2016 press release, in which the project was announced.
A rendering of the venue’s public external entrance shows a glazed frontage, behind which is a very small lobby and two elevators.
The cinema’s page on Odeon’s website includes several images, one of which appears to be a rendering of a seating area in the foyer, which looks very attractive indeed. There is also a photo of an auditorium, though I suspect this is in fact of Odeon Luxe Haymarket, given the low ceiling and limited rake of the seating.
According to an article, the menu includes “Wagyu Beef, Corn Fed Chicken and Moving Mountains Vegan burgers, Wild Boar Hotdogs and Flatbread Pizza.” Drinks are available at an Oscar’s Bar.
I can only describe the “dine-in” concept with “waiter service” as a nightmare, but clearly a suitable “hipster” location has been selected!
(Incidentally, Odeon say that food can be ordered via their smartphone app—as if there wasn’t already enough potential “activity” in the auditorium to ruin the experience?!)
Auditorium info. from Odeon’s site:
6 screens
Total – 202 recliner + 12 accessible
(Belated!) best wishes to all for 2020…
Update: Looking at the new building externally a couple of days ago, the majority is obscured by scaffolding with fire-retardant sheeting.
However, it appeared that at least some windows have been fitted, and much Rockwool was at the ready on multiple levels.
According to a newsletter posted on the ground-level site hoarding, dated August 2019 (!), “facade works are in progress on all elevations”. Mechanical & Electrical service installation and fit-out are also “in progress on all levels.” Of course, it might well be expected that this does not include the cinema fit-out just yet…
Having recently paid a visit to the IMAX auditorium, the sidewall IMAX signs now fade in/out—however, the fade is extremely “stepped,” obviously sequencing through a handful of different levels, rather than smooth.
The sidewall signs were also (irritatingly!) turned on as the end credits started.
joeswin:
IMO none of the seating further back than the Royal Circle is suitable—just too far from the screen. The rear of the auditorium is about 3x the screen width away from the screen (c.f. max. 1x for IMAX and typical 1.5x in multiplex screens.) You are also having to look down at the screen.
In my view, the stalls would be a much better option. You do have to look up at the screen—however, at least in terms of comfort this is mitigated by the recliners. Row D or E would be a good choice (remembering that the recliners mean that the rows are deeper, so this is further back than it sounds!)—any further forward and the surround sound won’t be ideal, too far back and you’ll end up under the balcony.
I have not been to the LSQ Superscreen in a long time now. The Superscreen has a top-of-the-line sound system (inc. Dolby Atmos) and it might be said is actually better specified than the OLS.
However, I was not impressed by the projection (2xBarco DP4K-23B with Xenon light source) installed at the time of the conversion of the old Screen 1 (2014.) These projectors were moved over from the old Empire 1. My recollection from the article on the Screen 1 conversion in Cinema Technology Magazine is that the long-throw lenses (~120ft. from the projection to the screen) were simply kept even though the throw is much less in the Superscreen. Empire Cinemas were queried about this in that article, and they claimed that they worked perfectly, but my experience was serious barrel distortion (curved like a goldfish bowl to the left/right sides of the screen.)
In addition, the lack of masking on the “flat” ratio screen is, in my view, not really acceptable for letterboxed material, as the projection cannot achieve sufficiently deep black levels for the disused parts of the screen.
It is, however, possible that Cineworld have, or will, upgrade to laser projection—Christie laser projection has been installed in Screen 1 of Picturehouse Central, and in the Superscreen over at the O2.
Laser projection allows for a wider colour gamut (i.e. more saturated, vibrant colours,) where the content has been supplied that takes advantage of this, as one would hope for a release in the Dolby Cinema format. The LSQ Superscreen’s screen is much larger than the OLS, but overall, as far as “technology” goes, I would recommend the OLS over the LSQ Superscreen.
I notice that Cineworld LSQ’s IMAX screenings will be in 3D, whereas both the LSQ Superscreen and the OLS screenings are 2D only. I guess that you do not wish to see “The Rise of Skywalker” in 3D? Otherwise, I’d say that the IMAX would be the best option.
Of course, it goes without saying that, if it is the venue/auditorium itself that you want as part of the experience, then the OLS wins hands down over the LSQ Superscreen.
Hello LoveCinema—
Thanks for your response. :–)
A 120fps movie can contain 24fps content—e.g. all that has to be done is repeat each frame 5 times.
So, as a way of thinking about this, how about a whole movie at 24fps, with only the end credits at 120fps? There is no way this could “ruin” the experience; but it would stop the end credits “jumping” their way up the screen, scrolling smoothly instead.
Going back to the videos in the linked page on the “American Cinematographer” site, these, again, are both at 24fps. Yet, the contents of these videos was captured at 120fps, and was converted to 24fps using the software’s “virtual shutter.”
The “virtual shutter” has settings which are based on the shutters of “classic” 35mm cameras. So, the software could actually be used to make 24fps content that looks more “classic” in style.
Or, alternatively, as the videos show, a different “virtual shutter” could be used for part of the picture, in one example creating less blur on the woman’s face.
Also shown in the first video is what happens when there is no blur on moving objects at 24fps—it looks awful! There has to be motion blur at 24fps or it falls to bits (end credits, of course, are an obvious example.)
The videos promote the software’s ability to create the “classical” look of 24fps movies… and it doesn’t have to be used to convert to 24fps, it could be used on HFR material, so that it looks more like “classical” 24fps.
That said, I don’t think HFR delivery of movies is going to replace 24fps yet… (or ever…?) But with the increased storage available today, shooting HFR is more likely.
Funnily enough, I thought “Gemini Man” was somewhat “boring” and “sterile,” but thought this was due to the movie itself. Also, CGI “Young” Will Smith didn’t quite look real, so there was some disconnect there.
Have you experienced some of the audience leaving other shows?
Getting the World to change standards is not easy! I don’t think 24fps is a “magic” number, after all 24fps movies have often been shown on 25fps TV simply by slightly speeding them up (which “no-one” even notices!)
When we think of 24fps movies, we are not really thinking of “24fps”—as the videos on the “American Cinematographer” page show, 24fps itself can look quite different depending on the shutter speed. Rather, we are thinking of how movies are stylised, and part of that is due to the limitations of 24fps—it has “proven itself,” but only because filmmakers (hopefully) don’t do things that don’t work at 24fps.
So, to my mind, it would be far more interesting to remove those limitations, and see how filmmakers adapt to HFR—just as in the last 20 years digital cameras have rapidly developed and creators adapted to get the results they want…
For example, an anamorphic “65mm” lens can be used with a new “65mm” 8K digital camera…
The last thing we need is to throw away 100 years of cinematic heritage, ending up with (say) a nightmare of hyper-“Michael Bay” chaotic action films. Storytelling, characters and performance always come first, presented in a cinematic way…
Best regards.
ridethectrain:
Sorry, not quite sure what you mean…?
Whether “Atmouse” or not, i.e. the extent to which the extended capabilities of Atmos are used, see the Dolby Atmos Specifications document, which sets out the minimum system requirements and design.
Even if overheads are disused, there is still the option of using objects for directional surround, rather than the traditional use of the surrounds (IMAX excepted)—replicating the same channel over multiple surround speakers (producing a diffuse effect—desirable in the days of Dolby Stereo with mono surround only, and still can be for “ambience.”)
Additionally, the surrounds are “bass managed” with subwoofers thus providing an extended bass response. As I mentioned on the respective Cinema Treasures page, this was obvious during my last visit to the Odeon Leicester Square.
Given also that Dolby Atmos installations to date have tended to be in “premium” auditoria, entering a screen that has a Dolby Atmos-capable system should be an indication that, even for 5.1 or 7.1 content, the sound system will be of above average quality.
On the other hand, it is too bad that the Dolby Cinema trailer demonstration of Atmos is very impressive, whilst IME that “3D” soundstage is rarely heard in the main feature.
I am pleased to say that I have never seen a rodent in a Dolby Atmos-equipped cinema!
Terry: I am shocked and deeply saddened to hear about this. :–(
Whilst I never had the pleasure of knowing him outside of the limited confines of text-based communication on this site, his good manner, generosity and love of “real” cinemas always shone through.
Stored in his head, of course, was an irreplaceable catalogue of obscure information!
I will greatly miss his contributions.
R.I.P. James.
moviebuff82: Yes, it will be (2D.) There will also be a triple-bill with the previous two episodes on the 18th December, “The Rise of Skywalker” performance starting at midnight.
LoveCinema:
Thank you for your comments on HFR, it is interesting to hear your opinion!
Certainly 24fps was never chosen on any optimal technical basis, it has simply existed for so long as the standard with cinematographic “language” and technique built around it, as well as strong association in the audience’s mind that 24fps = cinematic.
“Gemini Man” was downconverted from 120fps to 24 and 60fps using RealD’s TrueMotion software.
American Cinematographer – “RealD’s TrueMotion for Multiple Frame Rate Options”.
Check out the two video demonstrations (which show footage converted to 24fps!) on the above-linked page—with the “virtual shutter” provided by the software, there are all sorts of interesting options—by shooting at HFR at 120fps it can be decided how much motion blur to add—e.g. allowing for part of a shot to remain sharp (the woman’s face in one example) whilst allowing for a more traditional “flowing” look on other moving objects.
HFR does not mean that everything has to look like a “news bulletin”—the frame rate could even be varied within a film—one could imagine quiet character scenes at 24fps and then switching to HFR for fast action sequences? (Even possible to have different frame rates for different areas within a shot.) If I remember correctly, “Gemini Man” was supposed to have more of a “documentary” look to it.
There is no need to throw away 100 years of cinema heritage, rather building on it with an expanded creative palette—even if HFR remains a novelty for distribution, the above-linked video demonstrations show new creative and post-production options at 24fps (when shooting HFR.)
I am surprised to hear this; I suppose given the ticket prices, no-one would want to leave the Odeon Leicester Square before the end of the film!
I wonder if it wasn’t something to do with the projection system used? Many single projector 3D systems alternate between projecting left eye, right eye, etc. in sequence—whereas 3D films are created so that both eyes should be seeing the “same” frame at once. It’s a particular problem with fast scenes, so perhaps a single projector system was used and some audience members were getting headaches?
Best regards (and solidarity in these troubling times!) from London.
Al Alvarez:
Eh?
ridethectrain:
If true, then that is pathetic! The glasses are more expensive than the polarised (RealD, etc.) 3D types but “maintaining” them involves putting them in a “dishwasher” (and I can’t imagine that attrition due to non-returns amounts to a significant cost?)
Dolby Digital and SDDS were sound formats for 35mm film prints:
Photo of 35mm film showing DTS timecode, Dolby Digital and SDDS data and analogue optical tracks.
(DTS stored the audio on external CD-ROMs synchronized to the image, Dolby Digital and SDDS stored the data on the film itself.)
They were both “lossy” formats (like MP3); SDDS had the benefit of supporting up to 5 screen channels instead of 3, albeit in practice the number of titles and venues that supported this was probably limited.
Suffice it to say that comparing the systems beyond this is now academic; however, the SDDS decoders were quite advanced for the time, with on-board digital equalisation for system tuning.
Also, there was a “war” between DTS, Dolby Digital and Sony over reliability, with Dolby claiming that storing the data between sprockets instead of the film edges meant that their system could cope with more wear and tear.
In today’s age of digital theatrical distribution, all audio is lossless digital per industry standards; whether or not there’s a Dolby box around or not is irrelevant—except in the case of Dolby Atmos.
Therefore, for a regular 5.1 or 7.1 system, differences are to do with the equipment specified, room acoustics and quality of the installation.
2019 outline planning application has been “approved in principle.”
Summary details as entered on Bournemouth’s planning database:
“Development and re-development, including partial retention of building including main facade at three levels on the Westover Road frontage to allow for the construction of 1,197sq.m. comparison retail floor space; 67 apartments, 68 car parking spaces, associated servicing facilities, refuse and cycle storage.”
Several urban explorers have posted YouTube videos of the current state of this cinema (and the former ABC nearby.) These are particularly interesting venues; many thanks to them for their efforts, should any of them happen to read this.
In response to DrGuyWalker’s post (from 2007!):
Odeon Bournemouth Westover Road urban exploration video.
The above links directly to the time in the video where the old screen speakers can be seen. I am not quite sure about the make/model (HF horns removed?) but this certainly confirms “dinosaur” speakers were still behind the screen. Ironically, these kind of speakers are actually “audiophile” collectors' items today!
(Other videos of the old Westover Road super-cinemas are easy to find on YouTube.)
Obviously, both the Odeon and ABC are in a less than pristine state, with pigeons having moved in. Although their condition is more intact than some other disused cinemas that have been “explored,” with crumbling ceilings and severe water damage—a word of warning—these videos are not for the faint of heart!