Modernized Digital Cinerama: Barco Escape

Will be seeing this either Thursday or Friday in Woodridge, IL, in Barco Escape format. Will report back.

 

Ummm........this visual representation of what to expect:

....is 100% complete and utter Photoshopped bull****, at least compared to what I experienced tonight near Chicago.

Here is reality in Woodridge, IL, one of only five theatres in the country equipped to show this thing:

Above: first off, as you walk in, it is obvious that the side screens are very nearly at a right angle to the center screen, unlike the publicity shot at the top. WAY different!


Above: The ceiling tiles are traditional 2'x4' tiles, so the "splay" in the screens from the "hinge" to the outer edge is roughly 2' (since the screen does not actually touch the wall). The result is a viewing experience that is very close to sitting in a box and having an image -- or rather, three pseudo-connected-but-not-connected images -- displayed on three sides of the box. Note, too, the position of the side projectors near the ceiling, and, problematically, that if you sit in the first row ahead of the walkway, you are actually looking UP at the BOTTOM of the image, which does not provide a very "enveloping" experience. Note, too, that the screens do not touch. You thought Cinerama join lines were bad? Hoo-chee mama!


Above: Ignore the on-screen image, which is from pre-show commercials, etc. For the MAZE RUNNER movie, the entire scope width of the center screen was used -- or very close to it. As you can imagine, the absolute outer edges can not be filled, because the side screen slightly blocks off that area.


Above: Again, ignore the on-screen pre-show image. Look at that gap!

Before the show, a brief video along the lines of "The movie you are about to see is an experiment..." yada yada, hyping up Barco and hyping up the scenes shot in "Escape," was played. The guy also mentions that the Escape technology is only used twice: Briefly near the beginning of the film (and by briefly, he means for the duration of an elevator ride, so....45 seconds maybe -- and poorly utilized at that, IMO) and again about midway through the film (which seemed like an eternity later, and much closer to the end, but it ran for maybe 3 minutes or so).

How was the experience? It was so bad, I could not believe that I was even looking at it, NEVER MIND THAT I FLEW TO OMAHA, THEN DROVE WITH MY PAL LARRY TO ILLINOIS TO SEE IT. This thing is (IMO) not worth driving to the next room to see.

You know how when an HD newscast shows an old news clip that was shot in SD, and they add in this kind of shadowy representation of the video over on the sides to kind of make the footage seems sorta maybe wide-screen-ish? "Escape" is not quite to that point, but it's nearly there. The actors, as far as I noticed, NEVER -- not even once -- appeared in any way, shape, or form on the side screens. In fact, there were a few shots wherein their arms or legs or even entire bodies moved off the side of the center image, and I expected to see them move over to the side panel, but, instead, the side panel was just the scene's surrounding. The sides were almost literally nothing more than window dressing. Where'd that arm or leg disappear to?????? This occurred multiple times, and made me strongly suspect that the "stuff" that appeared on the side screens was largely or entirely CGI'd after the fact to make the film conform to this neat-o skeet-o Escape format. It really sucked. On the elevator ride in the beginning, ALL of the action that you needed to see was in the center panel. Imagine, if you will, that you are riding in a cube-ish freight elevator, with metal-grate siding on the left and right, and that this elevator was in a very closely-conforming elevator shaft, and as you rode up that elevator, some light from the elevator would spill over onto the side walls of the shaft, creating some shadows along the shaft wall. That's what was on the side panel. You know what it made me think? "This is like being in a box" -- or under a bottomless box, to be more accurate. You know what it made my friend Larry lean over and ask me? "Are the side projectors on now?" I kid you not.

[EDIT: I see that in my earlier post I said this:
<<•From the article: "In the case of The Maze Runner, the film was shot in a traditional way, before the decision to use Escape was made. " Oooh, that doesn't sound good. (That said: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World was not filmed for Cinerama theatres, but is generally loved by Cinerama fans, so I won't throw any stones just yet.)>>

So yes...shot after the fact. Continuing....]

Regarding cross-reflection: It is here not just in spades, but in spades on steroids.

Back in the 1952-1960-ish days of Cinerama, before MGM got involved, the join lines were the join lines, and nothing much was done to mask them. When MGM came on the scene for two films that were released in 1962, they did some tricks to mask the join lines, i.e., they would have an actor stand between two alder trees for a static shot, and gosh, those two alder trees just "happened" to be along the join lines, and if there was a little flicker on the join line it was much less distracting than if there was an obvious join line on, say, Karl Malden's extended arm.

I am pretty sure that the producers of this film are doing the same type of thing to mask the humongous seams and the reflection across the seams, i.e., the center of the center panel might be bright as day, but there'd be a much-darker rock formation or something at the edge on both sides, so as to avoid cross-screen (from center screen to side screen, near the corners) washout from bright reflections occurring there.

I'll probably gather my thoughts a little more clearly when I'm more awake, but bottom line: This thing is just a joke, folks. It's poorly conceived, horribly executed, and much a-do about less than nothing. Forget not ready for Prime Time. This is not ready for the 3:18 AM test pattern. It deserves to die as quick a death as cinematically possible, and become an asterisk in the annals of digital exhibition history.

 

Taken from a similar perspective as this shot:

Here's a non-3-panel portion of the movie:

That black vertical strip near the center is the join-space between the panels. Note how badly the bright objects reflect over onto the side screen. This does wonders for contrast during the actual Escape portions.

 

Again, big-time reflection:

 

Here's a shot I took during the actual Escape portion (the second segment), and notice how the center panel's brightness (left part of my photo) completely washes out -- reduces black level and reduces contrast -- across much of that dark pillar thing that is just to the right of the seam line (this is showing parts of the center and RIGHT screens this time):

DID NOBODY AT BARCO NOTICE THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENING??????? Could they not predict that it would happen? It's not rocket science. (Note how the contrast improves the farther away the image gets from the brightness in the center screen.)

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: There was very poor shadow detail throughout the feature in the center panel. Makes me wonder if they dropped the juice a bit in an attempt to reduce reflections. (My guess? It's just a typically underpowered presentation, in terms of brightness, but the conspiracy theory is more fun, so I'm throwing it out there.)

 

De Nada. The movie was so bad, it was still not worth the price! (IMO)

 

You are wise, my friend. It actually gives crocs a bad name.