|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Pictures of the Booth at the Hiway Theater - Chicago (demolished)
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-15-2007 07:09 AM
Mark, I don't see any contradiction there at all. Firstly, the fact that somebody is 12 says nothing about how much skill, knowledge or experience they have, other than that they obviously cannot have more than 12 years of experience of anything. There is nothing about being a projectionist that a 12 year old could not learn to do, other than lifting large spools of film onto projectors, and moving complete prints on and off platters, due to limitations of size and weight. There are plenty of good projectionists who cannot lift full tower spools on their own, and most cinemas that use them no longer allow one person to do this on their own anyway.
Secondly, why is the ability, or otherwise, to make a changeover seen as any indication of competence, or otherwise, as a projectionist? I keep hearing this; are there people who seriously think that this is all that the job involves? I made my first changeover at the age of six, just a few minutes after setting eyes on a film projector for the first time. It always struck me as being one of the easiest parts of the job: watch screen, press button; watch screen again, press another button; It doesn't get much simpler. It's one of the few things that I've allowed the occasional visitor to a projection room to do, without experience. If you warn them about parts of projectors that can be dangerous, make sure that they don't have any loose clothing, long hair etc. that could get caught, give them about thirty seconds instruction, and a light tap on the shoulder as each cue comes up in case they don't see it, I've never known anybody who couldn't make a reasonable changeover. Since their reaction time is unknown I would wind the incoming reel down just a few extra frames. I've had about half a dozen visitors, of all ages, do this over the years. The usual reaction when they look at the screen and see that it's gone ok is 'Is that all there is to it?' The seem to expect it to be really difficult.
Compare this to starting a show, dealing with houselights, curtains, masking, non-sync, film sound, lamp, douser etc. Or how about making up and breaking down prints, working with platters and setting up automation cues? Even something as simple as checking and setting Dolby levels requires more knowledge and skill than making a changeover.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-15-2007 09:50 AM
I think what Tim was saying is that it was harder to run a booth in the old days because there was more that you HAD to learn in order to do the job properly.
There is no doubt that presentation standards are higher today than back in the old days. We used to dread every new show we started, because there was always the possibility that the used print we got would be scratched, spliced-up, missing footage, etc. Today we probably get a scratched used print maybe once in two years, if that. This is because movies play off so much faster now, mostly.
Plus you had at least five or six chances for a breakdown with every show due to changeovers, not to mention the lamp issues with carbons. Now, if the movie starts properly, chances are good it will play just fine all the way through.
The standards that are lower now are more due to people just not paying attention to adjustments than anything, along with just not caring enough to learn how to operate the equipment (and clean it) properly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-15-2007 10:10 AM
The queston of whether things were better in the past is interesting. I'm only 30, so I wasn't around in the golden days of film exhibition (which I would guess were the mid- to late-1960s), but my research suggests that the very best downtown theatres of that era were far better than the best of today, but that the "average" theatre experience is probably better now.
The average recent (1990 to present) build has adequate light on the screen, a quality sound system, and lenses that are far better than anything that was available before. On the other hand, the best houses in, say, 1965, had 70mm with mag stereo, (generally) larger screens, curtains, no screen advertising, competent operators, and professional managers and floor staffs. They were also (generally) larger buildings with better sightlines (at least compared to most stadium houses) and classier decor.
Having said that, I've seen some "mothballed" small-town theatres and booths (which have sat idle for decades) that would make people here cry. These places were around at the same time as the palaces described above, but would have had poorly maintained equipment, uncomfortable seats, small screens, no curtains, cheesy masking systems, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that an AMC multiplex today provides a better experience for the customer than these trashy houses ever did.
I would be interested in comments from those who were around this business in the 1960s (and earlier) to see if my thoughts are correct.
I disagree that operators' jobs were harder in the past, however. We now have more types of equipment (changeovers, platters, automation, video) and more formats (16mm, 35mm, 70mm, and a slew of video formats) than ever before. Modern sound systems may require less maintenance than older tube systems, but require more knowledge to understand and troubleshoot. Older equipment and installations are still with us, as is the need to know how to operate and troubleshoot it. Add to this the fact that most theatres now have multiple screens and require time-management skills as well as mechanical and electrical knowledge.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-15-2007 12:37 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
In my 30 years of doing work in this field I've only met perhaps eight full time working projectionists that were competant of doing the tasks that you listed above. In the part of the U.S. that I began working in this field the majority of the working projectionists got their jobs as a favor not because they were competant to do the work... indeed most worked other full time jobs and or had other qualifications or degrees. Many would not even clean the machines they ran!
So to me yes... Tim's lines do tell me that anyone can become a projectionist at least in his neck of the woods.
I think most of the projectionists that I have met had been doing the job for years, often decades, before I met them, so I don't know how they got started.
I think that what I said still stands; the fact that somebody was 12 wouldn't stop them from being able to be a good projectionist, other than possibly the heavy lifting, depending on the equipment they were using.
The fact that somebody, of whatever age, can do a changeover doesn't, in itself, make them a good projectionist. If you've learned to do a changeover, and nothing else, then you've learned maybe 2% of what you need to be a good projectionist.
quote: Mike Blakesley
There is no doubt that presentation standards are higher today than back in the old days. We used to dread every new show we started, because there was always the possibility that the used print we got would be scratched, spliced-up, missing footage, etc. Today we probably get a scratched used print maybe once in two years, if that. This is because movies play off so much faster now, mostly.
Are you saying that you only get used prints once in two years, or that you get lots of used prints, but only a few of them are damaged? Where I project at the moment we never get new prints of features; some of the adverts will be new, most of the trailers when they come into the building, tough we may put them into and out of the reel several times over a period of several weeks, or sometimes months, and the short 'A Colour Box' which we ran recently was a new print, but all of the features are used prints. I don't think things are quite as bad as they are over there, judging by the 'Hey you, you suck' thread, but we see plenty of print damage. When I was young North London ran films the week before South London; I lived in the South, so I would almost never have seen a new print, except for newsreels. This would have been in the '60s; the prints that I saw were not full of scratches, splices, dirt, roughly hand-scribed changeover cues, tippex, sticky muck from splicing tape, damaged perforations etc, and of course, these were triacetate prints, so they would have been easier to damage. Now I don't know who is causing all of this print damage, I've visited lots of cinemas, single screens, muliplexes, multi-purpose venues, arts centres etc., and met lots of projectionists, who seem to be doing a good job. There obviously are some bad ones, or the prints wouldn't be in the state that a lot of them are, even ones which can only be a few weeks old when we get them.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The standards that are lower now are more due to people just not paying attention to adjustments than anything, along with just not caring enough to learn how to operate the equipment (and clean it) properly.
That certainly seems to be the case.
quote: Scott Norwood
The queston of whether things were better in the past is interesting. I'm only 30, so I wasn't around in the golden days of film exhibition (which I would guess were the mid- to late-1960s), but my research suggests that the very best downtown theatres of that era were far better than the best of today, but that the "average" theatre experience is probably better now.
I don't know about the"average"; it's very difficult to say. There will always have been a range, but I think there's probably a greater difference between the best and the worst than there was then.
quote: Scott Norwood
The average recent (1990 to present) build has adequate light on the screen, a quality sound system, and lenses that are far better than anything that was available before. On the other hand, the best houses in, say, 1965, had 70mm with mag stereo, (generally) larger screens, curtains, no screen advertising, competent operators, and professional managers and floor staffs. They were also (generally) larger buildings with better sightlines (at least compared to most stadium houses) and classier decor.
In the '60s you could still find cinemas using old cloth, I think they were linen, screens; the modern plastic ones are far better; lenses are generally better, most cinemas in those days were running Academy mono sound; even if they had mag stereo installed most films were not released in those formats. Very steep projection rakes, some that I've seen must have been about 30 degrees, were a problem in some theatres, though others were almost level. This wasn't always within the control of the architect. Consider two of the London Astorias; at Brixton the projection box was located at the rear of the stalls (downstairs), under the circle (upstairs) and the projection was almost level. At Finsbury Park this wasn't allowed by the licencing authority, and so it had to be built high up at the top of the building, with one of the steepest rakes I've seen. This sort of thing became much less of a problem once nitrate was out of the way.
Multi-screen cinemas created by dividing up what had been designed as a single auditorium, were often far from ideal, and some were downright dreadful, though most of these have now closed
quote: Scott Norwood
I disagree that operators' jobs were harder in the past, however. We now have more types of equipment (changeovers, platters, automation, video) and more formats (16mm, 35mm, 70mm, and a slew of video formats) than ever before. Modern sound systems may require less maintenance than older tube systems, but require more knowledge to understand and troubleshoot. Older equipment and installations are still with us, as is the need to know how to operate and troubleshoot it. Add to this the fact that most theatres now have multiple screens and require time-management skills as well as mechanical and electrical knowledge.
What do you mean by 'harder'? They were sometimes physically harder, carrying prints up many flights of stairs for example, there was equipment involved which few modern projectionists will ever use; generators, mercury arc rectifiers, carbon arc lamps, slide lanterns, Brenographs, follow spots, mechanical dimmer systems, organ blowers etc., but they may well have to work with platters, automation systems, video, various front of house display systems, box office equipment, computers, networks, digital projectors live satellite feeds, adsl lines etc. I've only ever run single screens, but many projectionists today have to look after several, or many.
As far as the knowledge required is concerned, I'd say there is more required to run a modern multiplex that a simple traditional cinema, but maybe about the same if you compare it to a large theatre, with organ, live stage events, etc. In terms of being physically hard work, I'd say the multiplex is more so, though I've never actually worked in one; this is my impression from watching people who do.
[ 10-15-2007, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic