IMAX revenue falls

[Jeremy Hughes]

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070809.wimax0809/BNStory/robNews/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070809.wimax0809

It's a dying market...

RED will just speed things up.

[Ken Corben]

I'd bet the other way. Buy the stock when it hits a low this Fall they are a smart group, have money and I wouldn't be surprised if they start a proprietary 4K digital 3D system upgrade and new install base in the next 12 months to compete with RealD. Think of them as the Apple stock you wish you bought in 2002.

Look, there are now more than 170 LF 3D theaters globally many of them associated with blue chip science centers. A few of the films in release like Deep Sea 3D have done more than $42 million. Nat Geo's new release Sea Monsters 3D will probably have a successful run as well as the numerous 3D films in production. They have 3D market share where RealD does not and will certainly be screening the major tent pole 3D features in production like Avatar, Shrek 4, etc. Audiences are buying 3D tickets. Also the restatement of income - read Sarbanes/Oxley here, is part of the reported loss.

I'd look for a transition from 15perf 70mm originated 3D projects to RED 4K 3D in all genres from a producer's point of view - perhaps sooner than later.

Sharky

[Thomas Mathai]

I don't see large format dying, it's just that it's really expensive and unwieldy.

Add in the fact that most of the screens are in museums, that don't have the desire to show Matrix or Superman Returns.

I see 4k and higher digital cinema cameras, advances in 4k DI, such as Sony's Cell board, and 4k projection making large format more enticing.

The question will be how will IMAX go digital, and be unique compared to everyone else.

[Jeremy Hughes]

Not many other theatres have anything above 35mm (or S35mm). But a lot will be switching to 4K.

And a lot of IMAX films originate on 35mm now. And in 2D. I guess it's the big screen that makes people want to see it in IMAX.

But yes, not many other theatres will have 3D 4K, and that's another reason IMAX will be unique compared to everyone else.

And as soon as 4320p or 8K cameras and projectors come along, they'll probably adopt it pretty quick.

[Tom Lowe]

As many have pointed out, 4K (Red, Dalsa, etc) does not blow up to 15-perf 70mm IMAX any better than a 4- or 6K 35mm scan would. Red would be better for some of the remote shoots, though, like the mountain climbing IMAX movies and such. But then, you'd probably want to shoot on a 6K or 8K Red-like camera if you really wanted to compete with current IMAX chemical film.

I'm sure IMAX will recover from its woes. I for one love the IMAX experience.

[Chris Gearhart]

I don't see large format dying, it's just that it's really expensive and unwieldy.

Add in the fact that most of the screens are in museums, that don't have the desire to show Matrix or Superman Returns.

I see 4k and higher digital cinema cameras, advances in 4k DI, such as Sony's Cell board, and 4k projection making large format more enticing.

The question will be how will IMAX go digital, and be unique compared to everyone else.

I agree. How Imax handles the digital transition will help them or kill them off. If they could use their already-built infrastructure to get out ahead of the curve for larger format projection on a more popular level, it would help. Having 4K(+) digital projectors up in that booth with the Imax tanks will be fairly easy to do and they could stay competitive for a while. If they could get a digital version of the IMAX cameras that'd help maintain an edge a bit longer.

Of course, Red Two may beet them (pun intended).

[Priyesh P.]

I've seen T-Rex on Imax 3D. It was the most boring cinema-experience in my whole life. Never again...

[Chris Gearhart]

The NPR of the Cinema world sometimes.

[Michael Hastings]

As many have pointed out, 4K (Red, Dalsa, etc) does not blow up to 15-perf 70mm IMAX any better than a 4- or 6K 35mm scan would. Red would be better for some of the remote shoots, though, like the mountain climbing IMAX movies and such. But then, you'd probably want to shoot on a 6K or 8K Red-like camera if you really wanted to compete with current IMAX chemical film.

I'm sure IMAX will recover from its woes. I for one love the IMAX experience.

your point about not blowing up better is true, but I think the key is from a budget standpoint it will make a lot more of those films possible - the spectacular nature, documentary and scientific type stuff for which there is no other real large outlet except the IMAX/science museum theatres. In other words if I want to make a 30-40 minute underwater documentary on the WWII shipwrecks in Truk Lagoon before they all dissolve, unless I can get funded for an IMAX (a long and difficult process) or can afford to shoot 35mm ($30K? for film) I have no shot. Yet with RED we are looking at funding our own trip, and getting some comps from the operators, so for a few thousand in out of pockets we can make that movie with the borderline IMAX technical parameters - i.e. that 35mm equivalent blow up to 65 - and have a shot at a release to the IMAX theaters.

Would we like an 8K RED? Sure, but I think we'll have to wait for NAB 2009 for that announcement. At least with 4K we're in the major league ballpark as far as image specs.

[Tom Lowe]

I see your point, Aqua. You are basically looking at RED as a 35mm replacement for nature docs hoping to make it to an IMAX screen.

On the other hand, you could shoot 1080p and get the thing aired on Discovery Channel HD, or any number of similar TV channels worldwide. Planet Earth was shot mainly in 720p and it has made a huge impression on the world's population, just running on TV.

BTW, if you need any crew at Truk Lagoon, let me know! :)

[Chris Gearhart]

Me too. As long as I can stay on the boat. And what's the fascination with swimming in water you can SEE in? IMAX 3d looks much better with dead bodies and MacDonalds wrappers floating by.