Roger Frazee did the specs for Regal River Oaks Cinema 8 in Decatur, a theatre that does not have the "fixed masking" problem. He specified excellent projection equipment, lenses, and sound equipment. I know that he knows what he's doing. He's probably having a hard time convincing other higher-ups at Regal that the "fixed masking" problem in Huntsville in those 20 auditoriums is worth fixing. I'm sure he would want it fixed himself if he were the sole decision-maker, but unfortunately, technical people and management people typically do not see eye to eye on things. Management tends to see something as a problem only if they see it as something that will cost them money. Either the customers are going to have to be educated and start demanding that this "scope at 1.85:1" practice be stopped, or the studios themselves are going to have to start penalizing the theatres that do so by, say, not allowing them to show their scope prints on those smaller screens.

Speaking of sloppily cut aperture plates, I saw Atlantis at Regal Madison Square 12 last Friday night. If new Christie projectors have been installed there recently, the aperture plate was cut in a sloppy way that made rough, uneven globs protrude into the right edge of the image. Of course, the theatre was very busy that night and I didn't ask if new projectors had been installed, or if the Ballantynes were still there. Boy, that would be an awkward question to ask an average staff member, wouldn't it? I've never had a conversation with the manager of this theatre before.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

But how many people in the booth are willing to go the extra step to reframe the movie in event of a format change? Unfortunately, the answer is not many these days. One out-of-frame presented to the audience is one too many.

If the screen is three to four feet off the floor as I have seen in several instances, The sightline will be enhanced to those in the rear of the auditoriums if top and bottom movable masking was employed.

That's where most of the people sit anyway.

Nothing like sitting behind someone in the rear rows that has one of those "Poof" hairdos that block the bottom 1/3 of the screen. That has driven me out of movie watching, even when I don't have to pay to see the damn thing. Time for Blockbuster videos......

For the most part, new construction from Regal, Cinepuke, and others have corrected that problem by proper design. On the other hand, there are thousands of older theaters using a fixed 1.85 or 2:1 masking.

Some can be fixed only with top movable masking, but many can also be fixed with both top and bottom movable masking.

I hope Roger Frazee from Regal doesn't have a cast-in-stone policy about using top movable only. A poorly designed auditorium is loaded with compromises. One more in the positive direction just might rent some more seats.....

Roger has plenty of those in the older houses. So does everybody else, for that matter.

It does not require a lot of additional expense to correct some of the the masking errors, other than possibly re-lensing the scope format. I don't think that is a big deal, as many theaters have a healty inventory of projection lenses that are just sitting on the shelf.

Personally, I would rather slightly compromise two or three front rows of seating than to sacrifice four or five rows of prime seats in the back 1/3 of the auditorium. Another reason I don't mind compromising like this is because people do complain the picture is "too big" in the front rows, so they don't use them anyway.

I have seen frustrated movie goers scurry around in the auditorium looking for a place where they can sit without having the POOF hairdos in front of them, or where they can see most of the screen.

Personally, I see very little wrong with top-only adjustable masking. I know it's not ideal, but if other details are done correctly, I would gladly accept it over the many other worse things that can be done. People demand large screens, and theaters should try to give it to them (and I don't mean go overboard with a 99ft wide screen). That is what makes them come to the theater, rather then stay home. Depending on the front wall area avaiable, adjustable top masking may be the only way to go. This gives each format (1.85 or 2.39) the largest image possible.

A problem with adjustable top masking is the framing usually must be changed to recenter the image when going from one fromat to another. A simple mark on the framing knob will show where it should be set. This is a decision management must make: ("We choose to have a narrower auditourium, which means top masking, which means a person must adjust the framing.") If adjusting the framing knob is too much for the operators at a theater, then they are (again) too cheap, and not worth going to.

quote:

---

Wait, Evans, are you saying that there are some screens in your area that are fixed at 1.85 ratio?! I've heard of 2:1, but not 1.85:1. That's pretty bad.

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. Severe cropping occurs when scope images are shown on those screens. Cobb built those screens that way (20 of them out of the 30 in the two theatres I'm mentioning) and Regal took them over on August 1, 1997. One theatre, the Madison Square 12, was built with 8 screens and opened June 28, 1985, with 4 screens with side masking and 4 screens fixed at 1.85:1 only (non-adjustable). On May 22, 1992, 4 more screens with 1.85:1-only size with no adjustable masking opened for use. On July 15, 1994, Hollywood 16 opened with 4 auditorums with adjustable masking and 12 screens with fixed 1.85:1 non-adjustable masking. Regal recently added two more auditoriums in late 1999 that have adjustable side masking, bring the number of screens to 18 at that location.

Unless Regal has gone in and changed these and put in adjustable masking in the last couple of months, two thirds of the screens in those two theatres are flat only and scope movies get cropped to the "flat" size when shown.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

Also, Brad, AMEN to your framing knob comment.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Here are two actual theaters:

Example 1:
Cinemeccanica V8 single lens, 60ft throw,
Flat 23' x 12'7" - 55mm lens
Scope 23' x 9'10" - 95mm lens

At this theater, dumb luck prevailed. By simply threading the film in the gate one sprocket up (out of frame) scope is centered without needing to move the framing knob. I'm guessing that since sprocket holes are about 0.187" apart, the scope lens would have moved down by that same amount to re-center the on-screen image without using the framing knob, but still have the film in the normal projector center.

-------------------
Example 2:
Century SA single lens, 120ft throw,
Flat 24' x 14'- 105mm lens
Scope 24' x 11'- 180mm lens

Here the framing knob had to be moved only slightly.

-------------------

I’m not familiar with all lens holders, but I can’t see any way to make a Cinemeccanica, AAII, Simplex or Century single lens holder go up/down for just one format. While I suppose a (5 inch to 2 25/32”) lens bushing could be specially-machined to position the scope lens, I’m sort of not counting that. Both of the example theaters were done before Schneider or ISCO made that lens offset thing that goes into a 5 inch lens holder; using that wasn’t an option at the time. If a projector only has a 2 25/32” holder, there's no option at all.

On a Simplex (PR1060) lens turret, the lens holder can be moved only slightly, but no where enough for the screen in example 1. The only turret I’ve worked with that might do is a Cinemeccanica 3-lens model. They make several different models, and I not sure exactly which one we have. It came on some V9’s we bought in 1975. Each lens barrel has two rods with offset (cam-like) ends. One will move the lens up/down, the other left/right.

In example 1, a heat baffle behind the V8’s trap required filing to allow the light to clear. The trap did not require filing, as the opening was quite tall. (I suspect that Cinemeccanica made the trap opening tall for Cinerama; they would then only have to inventory only one part for both projectors.) I’ve seen a Century JJ-2 trap filed out on the top inside; being all brass, that was quite a job.

All of this does not address Gordon’s point about light loss. Even if both flat and scope images are centered on screen, one of the formats will not be centered on the lamp’s optical center. Most techs (at installations that have adjustable top masking) will tilt the projector normally for flat. They align the lamphouse, flatten the light, and file aperture plates normally. Then, they move the framing knob to position the scope image and file aperture plates. Generally, this means the bottom of the scope screen will be darker than the top, because the scope image is outside the lamphouse’s optical center light “spot”.

I read in a SMPTE article (“Screen Illumination of 35mm Film Projection” Dec. 1983) a suggestion to change the set up procedure. Instead of setting the tilt of the projector for flat, tilt it for scope first. Align the lamphouse, flatten the light, and file aperture for scope. Then, move the framing knob to center the flat image on screen (and file it’s plate.) The result is the flat image will still be within the lamp’s light spot.

Gordon’s also right about having bottom masking come up to keep the image centered, but the motors and rigging for that are expensive. If the theater had that kind of money, they wouldn't be doing top masking in the first place!

Sorry for giving everyone my long-winded opinion, but I really do feel that adjustable top masking is no where near the worst thing that a theater can do. It can be made acceptable if a small amount of work is done.