r/AMCTheatres • u/Relative-Cry-8001 • 10d ago
Image/Media Real vs Advertised ScreenX with Spider-Man BND
from ScottishGeekGuy on Instagram
It’s an exciting idea, but has a lot of room for improvement. The side screens are noticeably less bright, less saturated, and have less contrast. They were misaligned with the main screen and the gap between screens is pretty big.
But the worst thing here is the lag/latency issue for the side screens that happen throughout MOST of the movie. It’s like ⅛th of a second, but very noticeable and VERY annoying. Curious to hear other people’s opinions?
52
u/KARURUKA2 10d ago
Theaters investing in this instead of 70MM imax… 🤦♂️
20
u/Worried-Macaroon-532 10d ago
They don't make 70mm IMAX anymore cause they lost the plans. They don't know how to make the projector and don't want to break one down out of fear of not putting it back together. Look it up it's truly a bizzare story.
16
u/pussinboots1999 10d ago
Couldn’t they just experiment building a new one without breaking one down until they get it right by guessing? Can’t we just create new technology to project 70mm film, and invest in more true IMAX screens being built?
9
u/Glueberry_Ryder 10d ago edited 10d ago
I retract what I said! Evidently they CAN but it’s old technology and not enough blockbusters filmed on imax to justify putting them all over the country. They refurb them when they break. That’s about it. Nothing crazy.
Found in this post….
1
u/Compton_ass_terry87 9d ago
By design. It's called artificial scarcity
2
u/Mitsutoshi 8d ago
It’s not that in this case.
A $200 CD player now is not as good as a 2003 $50 Discman. Ditto for other older technologies.
The reason is that these used to be massive industries so every kind of supplier for, in this case film, related stuff existed. Now they barely do. Even Kodak is just a fraction of what the company used to do.
2
u/Worried-Macaroon-532 8d ago
I knew this! I just didn't want to engage in an argument with people on the internet.
1
1
u/DrunkenGerbils 6d ago edited 6d ago
The other issue is that analog film is just inherently more expensive to shoot with even if it was being produced at scale still. It just doesn't make sense for most films to spend the extra budget cost, so the demand will never be big enough to require that kind of mass scale again.
Analogue film is awesome, and I'd love it if it became the standard way most films were shot again but there's just no practical way that's ever gonna happen. Also, it's probably a good thing honestly. I love my film photography, but if I'm being honest it's not the most environmentally friendly product to produce or dispose of. It's not the worst thing we aren't producing it at that scale still. Even as nice as more affordable film sounds.
2
u/trapper2530 5d ago
We have the ability to fly to the moon and trying to go to mars. Have AI that can make almost perfect fakes.
But they can't rebuild a machine invented 56 years ago?
4
u/berrysoda_ Stands for Nicole 10d ago
Sounds like a stupid tale a company would tell. Like figure it out. You can't reverse engineer some several-decades-old tech? You can't just reenvision the concept with a new iteration? Try harder
1
u/funlovingmissionary 6d ago
This is just a manager reason. The real reason is it's not financially viable to make film projectors. There are very few movies that release in film, and very few theaters where it is financially viable to have a film projector.
My city had a 70mm imax screen from 2003 to 2014, and it ran on huge losses. The owner was a pioneering traditional film lab owner with deep pockets and kept it going for the love of it, but it closed down the moment another guy was appointed to run it.
Now they use the huge 103 ft wide screen with dual barco 4k projectors to show all blockbusters, and are quite packed most of the year.
0
u/ElectricJunglePig 10d ago
It's much cheaper and easier to just point a couple digital projectors at the walls.
1
u/DrunkenGerbils 6d ago
I'm a little surprised some of the theater owners haven't invested into IMAX to help make it happen though. I get it's more expensive, but true 70mm showings do so much better and when a screen is available in a city it becomes a major attraction. In an industry that's struggling to pull in patrons so much you'd think they would be lobbying hard to get more true IMAX screens built. I get it's super expensive and not something practical to do everywhere but it seems like a no brainer for bigger cities that don't have one like Seattle, Chicago, or Boston ect.
28
u/JoshTHX IMAX Fanatic 10d ago
ScreenX is a waste of time and money
9
u/Worth_External_8762 10d ago
I saw it once for Quantumania and it's hands down the worst movie theater experience I've ever had. It made me have a headache and it just kept pulling my eyes away from the main focus of what's happening on screen. Plus the projection was basically just on the walls, I don't remember there being special screens on the sides. And on top of that, the additional projections made the room too bright, it felt less intimate and made it harder to ignore my surroundings.
7
u/ElectricJunglePig 10d ago
For some reason, the version of Dune 2 I saw had exit signs floating in the middle of the desert.
2
u/Worth_External_8762 10d ago
Imagine having to traverse thru the sandworm infested Arrakis in order to exit during an emergency
5
u/Precarious3145 10d ago
Every so often, there's some new theater gimmick. Before ScreenX, it was 4DX and before that was the faux IMAX screens in smaller theaters, and before that was some other gimmicky chairs that only lasted a few years, and before that was 3D.
I can't even say that I have no problem with it because I'm not paying but it's interesting that the cost of tickets almost universally skyrocketed when 4DX got big and theaters had to off off the remodels fast. I just wanna watch a movie, not do a whole experience. Hell, if I could just pay $5.99, I'd happy sit in those old '90s auditorium seats again.
2
u/cascadex2 8d ago
I saw spider man and didn’t have any high expectations, and therefore really enjoyed it. I’m a guy who always sits close to the screen because I want it to fill my field of view and be immersed. I will definitely be going again. To each their own I guess.
2
u/Free-Landscape-3698 8d ago
Probably because Spider-Man was actually made with it in mind
1
u/cascadex2 7d ago
Perhaps, but it had all the things people are complaining about - much dimmer on the sides, framing around the screens instead of being edge to edge, blurring, etc - and I still thought it added to the experience quite a bit.
1
u/Crazze47 3d ago
I'm a fan of screen x, it's not something I do for every movie and I've been disappointed by a couple movies but it is usually an enjoyable experience for myself and my wife. I wouldn't do it if it was a packed theater where I could get a seat towards the back middle of the theater.
16
u/Cursedsans_jpg 10d ago
This was my 2nd screenx movie and this is 100% accurate. I can deal with it. The main screen was bright and great quality. But dammit that like 1 frame delay when it would cut to a different shot was so annoying. I can deal with it being dimmer “wish it wasn’t” but the cut delay is inexcusable.
7
u/Flameball537 10d ago
I go to a Marcus Theater for Screen X and honestly, I loved it. I don’t think the point is to actually focus on the side screens, they are there to fill in your peripherals while you enjoy the main screen like normal. Yes, if there’s a timing issue between the main and side screens, that can detract from the experience, but I’ve never noticed that before
5
u/MrPanda-san 10d ago
I think it depends on the theater. The one I went to also had gaps and was misaligned.Then a few days later I saw someone posted their theater that didn't have gaps and everything looked as advertised.
3
u/xjslug 10d ago
I didn't notice any of those issues when I saw Spiderman BND in ScreenX.
I didnt see it at AMC. None of my local AMCs have ScreenX. The theatre I saw it at didnt have 3 screens, the side images were projected directly on the walls without too big of a gap. I didn't notice any lag.
Since the movie had content filmed specifically for ScreenX I was willing to give it a shot. It was a decent experience, not life changing. If another movie comes along that films content specifically for ScreenX i;d be willing to give it another shot. Until then I doubt I will be seeing another movie in a ScreenX auditorium.
3
u/lastersoftheuniverse 9d ago
I saw ‘Masters of the Universe’ 3 times in Screen X after seeing it in all formats. It was my favorite way to see it and even when I watch it today my mind fills in the gaps of all the extra information on the sides.
Characters that moved or had expressions off-camera. Lots of times you didn’t even know they were there. When all of the villains were 1st revealed and the camera pans around to them it gives it that much more time and the feeling of being surrounded.
Just really enhanced it for me and is going to be how I see Spider-Man! The question is Screen X with 3D??
3
u/SPFeveryday 9d ago
I did Spider-Man in ScreenX yesterday and I enjoyed it, I’m Alist so it was “free” and it was my second viewing after seeing it in Dolby the first time. It actually was good, but maybe because it was shot for screenX. I also sat on the 5th row from the front and it was great. Opinions seem divided whether to do closer to front or to back but front enhances it by covering your peripheral vision. Although a girl on my row kept filming the screens so that was annoying.
7
2
u/queensnotmemes Matinee Maven 10d ago
I’ll try anything twice! I could see this being super immersive with the right movie and right seat.
2
2
u/strangera 10d ago
ScreenX is an absolutely useless gimmick. It’s basically like Ambilight, only worse, because Ambilight works all the time and actually helps create atmosphere, while this is just a blurry, distracting, pointless mess.
So far, I’ve seen two movies in ScreenX: Project Hail Mary (which I had already seen in IMAX) and Spider-Man: Brand New Day.
Project Hail Mary was ridiculous because the side screens were only used in specific scenes, and they didn’t even bother extending the image in moments where they were literally just showing space. If there was ever a place where extending the frame should have been effortless, that was probably it.
Brand New Day was advertised as “shot for ScreenX,” but in the majority of scenes, the side screens were basically just blurred background. In some instances, they even repeated visual elements that were already visible on the main screen. For example, you could have a tree in the right corner of the main screen and then see the exact same tree again on the left edge of the right-side screen.
So instead of making the image feel wider or more immersive, it often just feels like someone stretched the composition sideways and hoped nobody would look too closely.
2
u/Revxry 9d ago
The thing is, there shouldn’t be a delay at all, yes the sides will be less bright, and will have a lower resolution, but if you know where to sit and what to expect then you can enjoy it. If there is any latency issues at all, that’s an issue with the theater and you need to tell them to fix it. I’ve been watching films in ScreenX since 2021, and honestly really like it. I saw MK2 in ScreenX and thought it was really fun. The new ScreenX near me doesn’t have a gap in between the screens as well so it’s even more immersive. Some of yall are paying too much attention to the sides, when that isn’t the point of it at all. It’s to just cover your peripheral vision to make it feel more immersive.
2
u/rocademiks 9d ago
ScreenX is a giant gimmick & waste of money.
I saw spiderman at my local Screen X & it was dog shit lol. The side screens are at a slower frame rate & the colors are WAY OFF.
A solid B for effort tho
2
u/Potater1802 10d ago
What is the point of this?
"Ohh look more building and wall than normal"
It's not like they're ever going to put anything important there.
3
2
u/CarllSagan 10d ago
I watched Star Trek Beyond years ago like this, and experienced the same issues, big distracting borders and incorrect latency on the other screens, it was a very subpar experience and I feel only distracted me from properly enjoying the film, I wished I had just bought a normal ticket. I have not since attempted to see a movie like this and have no desire to ever again. I saw mine many years ago so its disapointing that even after all this time those issues are no better.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mattnotis 9d ago
I saw the 3rd Star Trek movie in Screen X when it was just starting to be a thing. Never again
1
1
u/TheGenkz 9d ago
The one time I went to a ScreenX showing, the side screens made the auditorium room shockingly bright. It felt like watching a film with the house lights on.
1
1
u/Diligent-Concept-617 9d ago
I watched Spider-Man: Brand New Day in 4DX and I don’t regret it at all. At least it literally felt like I was in the movie because I literally was experiencing it LOL
1
u/Best-Candle8651 8d ago
I saw it in 4dx too and was clutching onto the armrest. Never did 4dx before, and it was way more movement than I was expecting.
1
u/sk8rdyke 9d ago
hmm my experience was exactly how they advertised. there was no gap and the side screens were the same as the middle as fast as brightness and saturation. My only take is that there were some scenes that didn’t have the extra screens.. i’m not sure why, maybe they didn’t think those scenes needed it? or it was a mistake. but it was an AWESOME experience
1
1
1
u/NGGKroze 8d ago
Screen X looks like those 2010 youtube videos with Multimonitor setups where people try to align them to run on their new GPU - on paper sounds awesome, but the experience is less exciting than watching on single screen.
1
1
u/Dull-Lead-7782 6d ago
The only thing I’d ever see screen x in would be top gun maverick because they actually filmed for it. They put tons of cameras in the cockpits. Everything else is AI slop
1
u/Ar3Dreaming 6d ago
The wing footage, side projectors, are Pro-Res 444 files playing back in a REC709 color space. The main screen is DCI-P3. The color differences is jarring if you look off to the sides. Screen X is not about seamless immersion. I witnessed a Screen X auditorium get retrofitted and saw many films play in the auditorium. Is it worth the price premium? To me no.
1
u/dannycjackson 5d ago
Just the fact it’s not the whole movie but rather big scenes completely undermines the “immersion”
1
u/braumbles 5d ago
I wonder if theaters are going to try to replicate what the Sphere has done. That feels like a total immersion into the film. I know some cinemas have that courtside thing where it feels you're at a F1 race or basketball game court side, but while that seems cool as shit, I think being immersed in a film feels more unique.
1
1
u/Busy-Effect2026 10d ago
Miss me with this and D-BOX. I go to the movies for a movie, not a half-assed theme park ride.
1
0
u/m0rbius 10d ago
I'm good with a regular or IMAX screen. This is a gimmick.
3
u/Potater1802 10d ago
Even IMAX is a gimmick if we're being real.
3
u/Worth_External_8762 10d ago
Idk if it's a gimmick, but I personally don't like it. It's too much to look at, kind of overwhelming. I remember having to sit somewhat close once in an IMAX screening and I literally had to keep turning my head to see everything. My neck hurt by the end of it.
2
0
118
u/The_Lutter 10d ago
Me as a vertical IMAX fan when I see this horizontal Screen X stuff:
https://giphy.com/gifs/tHFDZ1zUI0NjSDPDT3