Oh my goodness, THANK YOU, this was so helpful. I find it frustrating how difficult it is to wade through marketing just trying to find out what the hell something actually, findamentally is. Your video is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
I feel that’d be worse. The left and right screen are just supposed to fill in your peripheral vision, to make you feel more immersed. Your not supposed to be watching the left or right screen as there’s nothing happening in those screens. The only screen that should be payed attention to is the middle screen where all the stuff is happening. Because of this, I think the best place is either in the middle of the theater or more in front of the
Experienced the Screen X experience for the first time today as a film grad. I couldn’t stop laughing for the first 20 minutes of the movie. What an absolutely stupid idea in my opinion.
I agree, it’s a gimmick more than anything. Honestly I wouldn’t be shocked if the directors don’t even approve of having a screen x version of their film in the first place.
Slowing down speech can make it easier for non-native English speakers to understand, allowing for better communication with a wider audience. Remember, the world doesn’t revolve around you.
I agree with your assessment. I thought it was distracting. The movie I saw just had some extra atmospheric / background stuff and it came on and off at certain points of the movie. So when it changed either on or off, it was distracting
Yup it was the same way with Spider-Man no way home. I feel like if you’re gonna do computer generated side screens, you gotta at least commit to it for the entire movie. It’s not like imax where it’s literally different cameras. If it’s all done on the computer anyway I don’t see why they can’t have it expand for the entire movie.
I did Screen X once, and never again. The screen image is from a DCP, but the side walls image is from low grade projectors. For me personally it was awful.
@@EvansMedia99 don't they do that though because that's how human vision works? if you're looking at the center screen the stuff on the side is in your peripheral vision, and we don't see that as clearly. so i guess the question is, does the lower resolution actually impact the viewing experience when you're watching the film as intended?
I've been to it a couple of times and I feel it's worth it if tickets are cheap, The Batman and Mission: Impossible were awesome so it satisfied me overall
Some of this stuff was in the original frame. Dr. Strange's body is wrapped on two screens there. Clearly its not all created later. Most of the backgrounds in spiderman are digital anyway. Whether its in the center shot or not.
This sounds like a total gimmick. A different experience that definitely wasnt a gimmick was something called Omnimax (Science World in Vancouver, BC). I watched Dunkirk there and it was mind blowingly immersive without feeling gimmicky. It basically takes an IMAX film and wraps it around you in a hemisphere.
Im trying to find out If Godzilla Minus One is worth seeing in Screen X, it seem like a movie that could take good advantage of the extra space, but even in your video you can tell the side screens look like crap, and seem more distracting than anything (maybe its different when your actually there idk...). But from my limited experience, you can never go wrong with IMAX.
For everyone bashing the ScreenX format, the idea is to EXTEND the picture around the side walls to create a 270-degree panoramic experience to fully surround and immerse the viewer in the movie. Whether it achieves this for you is personal, but it's not stupid. For me, it's a good idea, and the flaw is in the execution. The end result varies, sometimes it's good, other times less so, even in the same movie, and it's not something I'd always pay more for, even with action movies and the like. I think a big part of the problem is our peripheral vision, we simply do not have that wide a field of vision to watch three screens of that size at the same time, and it's not seamless. Ideally, the screen/screens would curve so there wouldn't be any lines/breaks at the wall junction points, and the side screens would have the same image quality as the main screen. But again, the idea is if your entire field of vision is filled, in this case meaning you cannot see the edges of the screen as your side peripheral vision is also filled by the movie by what wraps around the side walls, it gives you a greater sense of "being there," of it being real. And for all those lauding IMAX... I don't know, maybe it's my local theater that sucks(sorry to say), but I see very little to no difference between IMAX and standard, not in screen size or anything else(okay, maybe the Imax sound was a little better, but that's a minor thing, it's not like the standard sound is poor. I even think my RPX theater looks better than IMAX). My theater is somewhat lax and I have literally walked back and forth between two auditoriums playing the same movie, one IMAX and one standard, and to me, the movie playing in Standard format was better; LOOKED BETTER. I won't get started on 4DX, but if anyone wants to know my thoughts, go ahead and ask and I'll give you my diatribe on the matter.
A lot of things we enjoy today started as gimmicks; it’s the early stages and takes a while to nail down how to best utilize the technology. It also takes end user buy-in to push companies to continue investing in and developing this stuff - see folding phones, 3d films, and many other things. See where it goes. Imagine something like Avatar on this type of screen setup with some tweaks and better usage of space.
I wonder if it's improved since your video from a year ago. I might go check out dune this afternoon cuz I just learned about this. It's a great concept but I have to agree with you. It would be nice if it was shot in a different format for something like this and why isn't it one screen either lol they can figure that out. Especially the seams they could get rid of those that would probably help. Maybe this is experimental and in the future it's going to change and get better or they'll have it different version of it that makes it a better experience. I think it's an alternative to IMAX and they're just trying to be as immersive as possible. Keep in mind movie theaters are losing money because they're not doing anything groundbreaking and with the way home theater setups are at home with the TVs and the sound systems that are available to us people are choosing to stay home rather than to go to movie theaters.
It's not that great. There some desert imagery that happens on the 2 other screens and big chunks where it's only the center screen and what was on the other 2 screens looked absolutely awful. I'd save your money
Never seen a movie in a screen X I’ve always watched in 4D which in my opinion everyone should experience it. I’ve seen kingdom of apes, Godzilla X Kong, Abigail all in 4D I have a blast watching movies like that. Mad max is bout b my 4th movie
That sounds so fun! If I had to guess it’ll be similar to no way home where only part of the movie utilizes all 3 screens but idk that’s just a random guess. Thanks for the support!
I just saw the new Sonic movie with this (somewhat unknowingly, had no idea this was a thing until it started happening) and I must say, it was AWFUL!! Whoever thought this up is an absolute fool! It just made me dizzy, I had to shield it out with my hands best I could just to focus comfortably on the movie itself...
Thank you so much! Glad this poorly edited video was of some help. I haven’t gotten the chance to try out 4dx unfortunately. We don’t have any theaters with 4dx auditoriums near us and honestly I don’t know a ton about the format. If I were to try it, it would be a spur of the moment type thing while traveling.
Tried it once today and its not worth it just a gimmick theater FUCKING MOVIE WASNT EVEN AT FULL SCREEN! only the action scenes but still IMAX 70MM and XD still the way to go see a movie
I wonder how much work it is and how much it cost to add the extra content for any of these VFX heavy movies. I work as a VFX artist and I know the vfx budget for these shows are so tight already. To retroactively add 2 extra screens of stuff, even if you have the original footage as a guide, even if it's low res and blurry, even if the timing is a little off, would still be a sh!t ton of work. Also, the idea of Screen X only happening for a few major key moments, doesn't sound like it's worth it at all. I'd try it once just to experience it, but it seems like a bad investment business wise.
I'll concede that the side screens aren't the same video quality as the main screen, it seems slightly lower res, but I don't see the timing issue the video is talking about. As for the business investment, I can say that I watched Twisters in ScreenX last night and had the ENTIRE theater to myself. I'll let you draw your own conclusion from that, but I know I was happy. : )
@@digitalplagu3i saw it in screen x last night with some friends, the action was cool but the quality on the side projectors for me in the cinema i saw it in was pretty rough and the colour grading was kind of off, also the film already has a naturally wide format so the black bars were a bit strange but still it was a unique experience
Only two films that where good with this, Maverick and batman. They should really just use it on films itsnworth having for and just use it as a 2D screen otherwise
Not sure if it was available in my location. That day I went to the only location in our area with an IMAX theater because I wanted to see Jaws in IMAX. Plus I was just curious about Screen X tbh lol.
I walked by the theatre recently and noticed screen x being advertised and was mind blown, so I had to come see this video!! To me It’s like an ultra wide pc monitor, I just don’t get it!! It looks so weird!! I’m not into it!! I prefer imax, even that’s a little excessive!! ✌️❤️
Exactly. It’s fun to experience during cheap screenings that happen surprisingly often, but I’d never pay full price. I’d rather just go to an imax screening
Oh my goodness, THANK YOU, this was so helpful. I find it frustrating how difficult it is to wade through marketing just trying to find out what the hell something actually, findamentally is. Your video is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!
Same
screen x is worth when you sitting at behind rather than front , because you cant watch the left and right side
Couldn’t agree more!
I feel that’d be worse. The left and right screen are just supposed to fill in your peripheral vision, to make you feel more immersed. Your not supposed to be watching the left or right screen as there’s nothing happening in those screens. The only screen that should be payed attention to is the middle screen where all the stuff is happening. Because of this, I think the best place is either in the middle of the theater or more in front of the
Experienced the Screen X experience for the first time today as a film grad. I couldn’t stop laughing for the first 20 minutes of the movie. What an absolutely stupid idea in my opinion.
I agree, it’s a gimmick more than anything. Honestly I wouldn’t be shocked if the directors don’t even approve of having a screen x version of their film in the first place.
No idea is stupid
That's what this country is built on
As a film grad oooooo
@@1BigBoy legit don’t even know why I put that in there.
Is it good for a concert?
You farted at 2:20? Lol
I put your video to 1.5 speed because you Sir are a slow speaker.
LOL 😂
😂
Slowing down speech can make it easier for non-native English speakers to understand, allowing for better communication with a wider audience. Remember, the world doesn’t revolve around you.
@@beszaid9245 🏳️🌈
Yes the slowest. Its like he was thinking what to say as talking.
I agree with your assessment. I thought it was distracting. The movie I saw just had some extra atmospheric / background stuff and it came on and off at certain points of the movie. So when it changed either on or off, it was distracting
Yup it was the same way with Spider-Man no way home. I feel like if you’re gonna do computer generated side screens, you gotta at least commit to it for the entire movie. It’s not like imax where it’s literally different cameras. If it’s all done on the computer anyway I don’t see why they can’t have it expand for the entire movie.
Couldn’t make it more than 2 minutes with your slow diction and beating around the bush. Speed up!
Just play it on 2x speed
Same
Can speed up with TH-cam settings
Only made it 1:30
Facts
I did Screen X once, and never again. The screen image is from a DCP, but the side walls image is from low grade projectors. For me personally it was awful.
Yup, if you look close enough you can literally see the pixels.
@@EvansMedia99 don't they do that though because that's how human vision works? if you're looking at the center screen the stuff on the side is in your peripheral vision, and we don't see that as clearly. so i guess the question is, does the lower resolution actually impact the viewing experience when you're watching the film as intended?
I agree 100%.
The front screen was not even in full format so there was a gap of 4 ft on each side.
Total gimmick.
Should not charge extra for this
I’m seeing Wicked at a ScreenX in Plano TX, not expecting much but going in blind & optimistic
I've been to it a couple of times and I feel it's worth it if tickets are cheap, The Batman and Mission: Impossible were awesome so it satisfied me overall
top gun maveric with screen x was great exprience. I went twice.
Same here!
Super helpful! Thanks for the thorough review and explanation!
Some of this stuff was in the original frame. Dr. Strange's body is wrapped on two screens there. Clearly its not all created later. Most of the backgrounds in spiderman are digital anyway. Whether its in the center shot or not.
FYI both ScreenX and 4DX are imported from CGV, a Korean cinema. That probablly is why they can't get actual footage for the side screens.
This sounds like a total gimmick. A different experience that definitely wasnt a gimmick was something called Omnimax (Science World in Vancouver, BC). I watched Dunkirk there and it was mind blowingly immersive without feeling gimmicky. It basically takes an IMAX film and wraps it around you in a hemisphere.
That sounds like the Sphere in Las Vegas.
@@tiberiius similar but predates Sphere by about 40 years.
Im trying to find out If Godzilla Minus One is worth seeing in Screen X, it seem like a movie that could take good advantage of the extra space, but even in your video you can tell the side screens look like crap, and seem more distracting than anything (maybe its different when your actually there idk...). But from my limited experience, you can never go wrong with IMAX.
Lmao. That's the reason why I'm here, too. I'm going to return the screens tickets I bought because this looks stupid as shit.
I saw it in screen x, imax and in Xd format, imax was easily the best experience, screen x is pretty bad in general I’d prefer standard.
For everyone bashing the ScreenX format, the idea is to EXTEND the picture around the side walls to create a 270-degree panoramic experience to fully surround and immerse the viewer in the movie. Whether it achieves this for you is personal, but it's not stupid. For me, it's a good idea, and the flaw is in the execution. The end result varies, sometimes it's good, other times less so, even in the same movie, and it's not something I'd always pay more for, even with action movies and the like. I think a big part of the problem is our peripheral vision, we simply do not have that wide a field of vision to watch three screens of that size at the same time, and it's not seamless. Ideally, the screen/screens would curve so there wouldn't be any lines/breaks at the wall junction points, and the side screens would have the same image quality as the main screen. But again, the idea is if your entire field of vision is filled, in this case meaning you cannot see the edges of the screen as your side peripheral vision is also filled by the movie by what wraps around the side walls, it gives you a greater sense of "being there," of it being real.
And for all those lauding IMAX... I don't know, maybe it's my local theater that sucks(sorry to say), but I see very little to no difference between IMAX and standard, not in screen size or anything else(okay, maybe the Imax sound was a little better, but that's a minor thing, it's not like the standard sound is poor. I even think my RPX theater looks better than IMAX). My theater is somewhat lax and I have literally walked back and forth between two auditoriums playing the same movie, one IMAX and one standard, and to me, the movie playing in Standard format was better; LOOKED BETTER.
I won't get started on 4DX, but if anyone wants to know my thoughts, go ahead and ask and I'll give you my diatribe on the matter.
4DX? I'm listening and enjoy diatribes from time to time. 😃
I tried Jumanji in ScreenX. It gave me headache
I saw Argyle in Screen X. Ultimately the side screens were distracting and didn't help the storytelling. I do not recommend. It's a gimmick.
Never seen screenx but all the footage i found on youtube looks absolutely ridiculous
A lot of things we enjoy today started as gimmicks; it’s the early stages and takes a while to nail down how to best utilize the technology.
It also takes end user buy-in to push companies to continue investing in and developing this stuff - see folding phones, 3d films, and many other things.
See where it goes. Imagine something like Avatar on this type of screen setup with some tweaks and better usage of space.
I wonder if it's improved since your video from a year ago. I might go check out dune this afternoon cuz I just learned about this. It's a great concept but I have to agree with you. It would be nice if it was shot in a different format for something like this and why isn't it one screen either lol they can figure that out. Especially the seams they could get rid of those that would probably help. Maybe this is experimental and in the future it's going to change and get better or they'll have it different version of it that makes it a better experience. I think it's an alternative to IMAX and they're just trying to be as immersive as possible. Keep in mind movie theaters are losing money because they're not doing anything groundbreaking and with the way home theater setups are at home with the TVs and the sound systems that are available to us people are choosing to stay home rather than to go to movie theaters.
I'm about to go see it at 1 I'll let you know how it turns out
@@johnbrown6821any news ?
Please update guys about dune
It's not that great. There some desert imagery that happens on the 2 other screens and big chunks where it's only the center screen and what was on the other 2 screens looked absolutely awful. I'd save your money
Just wait till u can see it in imax or just go standard but I'm also sure the 4xd would be cool tho
Took to long getting to the point
😂
I feel like screen X also zooms in the image to fit every perimeter, which I don’t like
Never seen a movie in a screen X I’ve always watched in 4D which in my opinion everyone should experience it. I’ve seen kingdom of apes, Godzilla X Kong, Abigail all in 4D I have a blast watching movies like that. Mad max is bout b my 4th movie
What are the theater screen where you’re reclined and the screen wraps all around you?
Trying it when quantumania comes out so excited 😌great video btw
That sounds so fun! If I had to guess it’ll be similar to no way home where only part of the movie utilizes all 3 screens but idk that’s just a random guess. Thanks for the support!
Will you try socialism now you watched CommieMania?
Thanks, I’ll go to the regular screen that I’m used to.
In India at max ScreenX costs $8-9 but normally it's $3-5
Here in the US it’s like $18. It’s just not worth it at full price.
@@EvansMedia99 yeah for $18 i can buy two 4k blu ray
I just saw the new Sonic movie with this (somewhat unknowingly, had no idea this was a thing until it started happening) and I must say, it was AWFUL!! Whoever thought this up is an absolute fool! It just made me dizzy, I had to shield it out with my hands best I could just to focus comfortably on the movie itself...
Just saw Napoleon (2023) in AVX which is similar to this, but the extra projections where on the wall. Awful way to watch a historic drama 😅
Thanks. This was helpful. Have you tried 4dx?
Thank you so much! Glad this poorly edited video was of some help. I haven’t gotten the chance to try out 4dx unfortunately. We don’t have any theaters with 4dx auditoriums near us and honestly I don’t know a ton about the format. If I were to try it, it would be a spur of the moment type thing while traveling.
@@EvansMedia99 Top Gun Maverick was amazing in 4DX
Tried it once today and its not worth it just a gimmick theater FUCKING MOVIE WASNT EVEN AT FULL SCREEN! only the action scenes but still IMAX 70MM and XD still the way to go see a movie
I get it now, adds more detail too the background.
I think it would be only great for concerts in the theater such as the Born Pink Movie.
I wonder how much work it is and how much it cost to add the extra content for any of these VFX heavy movies.
I work as a VFX artist and I know the vfx budget for these shows are so tight already. To retroactively add 2 extra screens of stuff, even if you have the original footage as a guide, even if it's low res and blurry, even if the timing is a little off, would still be a sh!t ton of work.
Also, the idea of Screen X only happening for a few major key moments, doesn't sound like it's worth it at all.
I'd try it once just to experience it, but it seems like a bad investment business wise.
I'll concede that the side screens aren't the same video quality as the main screen, it seems slightly lower res, but I don't see the timing issue the video is talking about.
As for the business investment, I can say that I watched Twisters in ScreenX last night and had the ENTIRE theater to myself. I'll let you draw your own conclusion from that, but I know I was happy. : )
I wonder how this would be now with The Creator since that was filmed in anamorphic.
That’s a good point. That could have potential. I never thought of that but you’re absolutely right.
How was it?
I kinda want to know how this would be too! I was just about to buy tickets but haven't got a clue about this experience
@@digitalplagu3i saw it in screen x last night with some friends, the action was cool but the quality on the side projectors for me in the cinema i saw it in was pretty rough and the colour grading was kind of off, also the film already has a naturally wide format so the black bars were a bit strange but still it was a unique experience
What's the right movies for Screen X: Star Wars?
twisters
Yeah I’d have gotten my money back for sure if I endured that 😂 No wonder tickets are way cheaper at Regal here!
Im trying it for the first time to watch Godzilla for movie value day at Regal. Thanks for the review
This video could have been 60 seconds long… Maybe try a script next time? It felt like it lasted an hour.
Aracely Walks
should i watch aquaman 2 on screen x lol
Only two films that where good with this, Maverick and batman. They should really just use it on films itsnworth having for and just use it as a 2D screen otherwise
Saw Dune 2 in X last night… it was pretty bad a$$…
U tried all that but not 4dx
Not sure if it was available in my location. That day I went to the only location in our area with an IMAX theater because I wanted to see Jaws in IMAX. Plus I was just curious about Screen X tbh lol.
what is 4dx like?
@@Zauchiamazing. You have to try it out
@@Zauchi for superhero movies it is awesome. for movies like john wick 4 not so good
Great review.
Thank you!
Leonard Plains
Schmeler Circles
Wilderman Mall
Rolfson Shoals
I came in very neutral. And I hate it. Good video though.
I walked by the theatre recently and noticed screen x being advertised and was mind blown, so I had to come see this video!!
To me It’s like an ultra wide pc monitor, I just don’t get it!! It looks so weird!! I’m not into it!!
I prefer imax, even that’s a little excessive!!
✌️❤️
Your right, it’s basically a ultra wide monitor but for movies. And I’m with you, IMAX is easily the best premium format in my opinion.
Rath Avenue
Schultz Glen
Yeah I wouldn’t pay full price for it
Exactly. It’s fun to experience during cheap screenings that happen surprisingly often, but I’d never pay full price. I’d rather just go to an imax screening
Rhett Fork
Vandervort Fords
Nolan Shore
Robert Grove
Rebekah Mission
Florida Square
Ill stick with imax
Creola Fork
Hills Mall
Karine Island
Kasey Plaza
Waelchi Mission
Mack Parks
Jesus Cove
Maci Branch
Shanny Heights
Royal Plaza
Hettinger River
Mathew Station
thanks
Adonis Plaza
Wendy Center
Reinhold Port
Hermann Ways
Konopelski Harbor
Spinka Point
Moen Coves
Fannie Burgs
Xander Drive
Macejkovic Stream
Margarette Freeway
Mosciski Stream
This a No
Renner Fords
Roman Port
Dude, have an AI narratte this thing. Otherwise, we all will fall fast asleep inside of 35 seconds of it. Like I just did.
Screen X is awesome... Watched King Kong. Its amazing
Florida Square