my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Is common width sometimes better? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Is common width sometimes better? Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-02-2005 03:17 PM                     Now, next question if possible: with the autofocus feature on these consoles, isn't there the danger of overheating the film, especially if one is cooking a 4.2 to 6k bulbs inside when projecting such a big flat presentation ( on a 35 x 62 ft screen) , or is an area that is pretty well under a controlled operation where this isn't too much of a concern? thx-Monte  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-02-2005 03:24 PM                        Yes, with a large lamp, you do need to be careful not to "hot spot" to the extent you might cause heat damage to the print. Be especially careful with silver image B&W prints and prints with deliberate silver retention processes.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-02-2005 03:43 PM                        Brightness-wise scope will take care of itself even if misaligned. Flat however will forevermore be dark. Remember if flat height is 35 ft, then the scope width the lamp thinks it is illuminating is 82.25 ft; a VERY large screen. Flat light level will be appropriate for an 82 ft screen....6k? Louis  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-02-2005 04:22 PM                     quote: "Scope" Is Meant to be Wider than "Flat" Filling the full width of the screen for both 2.39:1 scope pictures and 1.85:1 flat pictures is almost as bad as "one size fits all" screens. Way to go John!!!!! For too long some exhibitors have been cheating the moving going public out of the effect of "scope", stereo surround sound process with the "one size fits all" presentation. Ya know what I miss? The Fox CinemaScope logo. One of the theatres I owned was equipped with Panatar variable anamorphic lenses and I would hit the screen with the image compressed and as the theme played I would slowly expand it to its full width. It never failed to impress the audience.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 12-02-2005 05:33 PM                     Remember too that a long narrow auditorium is bad acoustically, and you're often into using very long focal length lenses as well, which can sometimes be awkward in terms of getting ones which closely fit the required image sizes. Why not shorten the auditorium? Moving the stage area forward is probably the easiest way, and would create room at the rear which could be used for other purposes, e.g. an additional foyer area perhaps. Worth thinking about; sure you lose seating capacity, but as has been pointed out, they're not good seats at the back anyway!  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-02-2005 06:32 PM                     Yes, I miss that "CinemaScope" logo as well. It was great to see it on the screen again last year with the movie (I forget the name and it kinda flopped some) that had E. Magregor in it. Panatars variables were an interesting set of anamorphics. I ran a "hole-in-the-wall" buck house theatre that had a set of these hanging on the front of a pair of SuperSimplexes. During kid shows and with the cartoons, I'd do the same-set the attachment so the cartoon would play full-frame (even though a small picture) then reset it for the feature... -Monte  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 12-03-2005 11:56 AM                     One of the worst features (from a non-projection trained audiances perspective) is the reduction in screen size from the flat adverts to the scope feature.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 12-03-2005 05:42 PM                     Hey, Monte, That movie you are thinking of was "Down With Love." I, too, appreciated that CinemaScope logo, even if it was only a joke to put you in the mood. The end credits list Panavision.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 12-03-2005 09:32 PM                        quote: John Pytlak But with common width, "scope" will be MUCH brighter than "flat", unless attention is paid to matching the light level. That's the one great thing about common width screens. If the flat image is at least close to being properly lit, the scope image will be nice and bright.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 12-04-2005 03:46 AM                     About the only advantage I can think of is that if you run a lot of Academy ratio films you will have a nice large screen size for them. I suppose it could be said that if you're using something like Kalee Varamorphs (there are still a few places) that lose a lot of light, then your scope picture will not be dim, but buying new anamorphics would be a better idea. Of course, when Cinemascope came in a lot of cinemas were running very old equipment, and gettng enough light on the screen was a serious problem. Many places had to replace their arcs, or even completely re-equip. It's odd that today, with better lenses, and common width, it's the Scope picture that's brighter.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-05-2005 01:22 AM                        This is the problem that killed a lot of successful "storefront" theaters several years after cinemascope arrived. With a screen 20' wide, the picture was 14.5' tall & worked OK in the room. As scope titles became more numerous & it was neccessary to install Cinemascope equipment to remain competitive in booking (after holding out as long as possible running just Academy), the scope picture was just 8' tall & completely unacceptable. That's why those theatres are gone; they couldn't compete because they were unsuccessful at running the scope format. If it's an historic theatre with a small front end & you've got to run scope & flat, you must have *not* common width or height, but adjustable side & top masking so that the image size for both formats can be maximized. Obviously, the wider the screen is to begin with, the more acceptable this is to an audience. At 25' wide, the scope picture will be only 10.5' tall. That's screening room size. The room really can't be very long or the folks that get the seats in the rear won't be coming back. Cute, but I don't think it'll do a lot of repeat business these days. If you're stuck with the room, I'd go with shortening it, & also adding a small balcony a few rows deep. Balconies are popular, & the Prytania in New Orleans often rents the entire balcony out for birthday groups, etc. I mean often; almost every weekend I visit they've had a balcony rental. If you're adding a balcony today, you'd need an elevator too as well as other considerations for satisfying ADA.  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 12-05-2005 07:07 AM                     The Electric Cinema London has a screen that 'folds' out from the proscenium arch for widescreen films and 'folds' back afterwards so the curtains can close.  |  IP: Logged Steven J Hart Master Film Handler Posts: 282 From: WALES, ND, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-05-2005 07:28 PM                        Many of you would really hate my theater! This theater was built in 1936 with the auditorium only 23'6" wide with seating area extending back about 80 feet. (This picture was taken from the front of the balcony) The seating area used to go back 114 feet. The reason the building is so narrow must have been because the original business district lots were only 25' wide. As you can see by the image above we have tons of headroom so when I installed a new screen I thought it made sense to install a fixed-width screen 23' wide by 12' 5" high to maximize the image area for flat features. My Scope picture is still as large as possible so whats been lost? My audience may not be very discerning, but I've never had a complaint about the Scope image being "too small" in comparison with the Flat image. The nearest competing theater is about an hour away so I guess my customers are just happy to have a theater in town. I think most of our customers would be pretty upset if we had bulldozed the theater "because it was too narrow" instead of restoring it. Steve  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-06-2005 12:57 AM                        quote: Mark Hajducki The Electric Cinema London has a screen that 'folds' out from the proscenium arch for widescreen films Neat idea if the room is wider than the proscenium; in theatres like Steven Hart's, though, the room is no wider than the 'proscenium'. I wonder how they avoid visual evidence of folds on the screen when it's folded out. There should be 4 or 6 ranks of theatre organ located on top of the exit vestibule at left. Someone needs to be fired. quote: Many of you would really hate my theater! If it works, it works, & it's working for me! It's also a good example of how a center aisle is neccessary in a narrow room. Especially since the width must be 36" to comply with ADA. Stick 2 aisles on the sides, & you lose too many seats. The sconces are GREAT! I know you had to expose the pictures for other features in the auditiorium & blow out the light from the sconces, but I can tell the shapes of light cast by them are cool! I demand a movie theatre deco valance or even a rudimentary proscenium in that sleek room with the cool sconces! edit: There's your valance. Also, if you can't make it work, turn it into a bit: make that speaker cabinet at center work for you by getting a grille for it & sticking your logo in the middle of it. Heck, make an acoustically transparent cartouche out of chicken wire & fabric & stick it on there. Shine a special on it. Front & center is your space, not JBL's! edit again: Those white HVAC grilles over the screen are hurting. Get some cheap scrim material, stretch it over a frame, staple it in folds radiating in a pattern from the bottom center (a classic movie theatre deco shape), & screw the panel of scrim material over the panel with the HVAC vents. The house lights hitting it & the folds will make it more fascinating than the diagram. Get some scrim material with some metallic threads in it & it will pop. You'd need someone like Bobby Henderson to do the colors. I'm a mechanic, not an artist. It's the old gag with a lot of horizontal lines & surfaces over the screen de-emphasizing a large area above it. [ 12-06-2005, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: William Hooper ]  |  IP: Logged Steven J Hart Master Film Handler Posts: 282 From: WALES, ND, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-06-2005 07:02 AM                        William, Thanks for the advice. I've been looking for ideas on dressing stage area of the theater. I have almost no sense of "design", but can fix the boiler or the projector in a snap. I'll be trying some of your ideas in the future. Steve  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.