|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Stadium seating vs non-stadium seating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 10-14-2010 08:43 PM
(Let me preface that I have not read any of the other responses yet.)
I don't mind stadium seating at the movies, and I don't say that because I manage an all-stadium seating theatre. For me, I care more about the quality of the sound and picture. I want a picture that is neither too dark nor too bright, masking that is set properly, a properly cut aperture plate that doesn't leave fuzzy black edges on the ends of the screen or allow some of the image to bleed on to the masking, proper balance between speakers, not too loud or too soft, and a subwoofer that does not overpower.
For Mr. Petrov, most of your complaints are not specific to stadium seating. I've been to, and even managed, a number of older theatres where the screens were too large (or too small) for the size of the theatre. Many of the theatres built in the pre-stadium seating era had no room to stretch out your legs under the seats. And ditto on the angled seating. These are bad design issues, immaterial of whether the auditoria have sloped or stadium seating.
Also, most MLB stadiums built in the past twenty years were designed by a firm called HOK Sport Venue Event, which built Orioles Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, which made many owners rush to them and go "I want that!" PacBell Park in San Francisco, Jacobs Field in Cleveland, Petco Park in San Diego, Coors Field in Denver, Nationals Park in Washington DC, Target Field in Minneapolis, Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati, PNC Park in Pittsburgh... all slight variations of the basic Camden Yards design. But then, I go to the ballpark for the game, not the stadium.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Petrov
Five Guys Lover
Posts: 1121
From: El Paso, TX
Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 10-15-2010 01:01 AM
quote: Edward Havens
And ditto on the angled seating. These are bad design issues, immaterial of whether the auditoria have sloped or stadium seating.
I will agree with you, but oftern the theatre with non-angled seats is the smallest at the location, usually sloped non angled seat theatres are hard to find. I have never seen a newer angled stadium seating theater...not sure if one exists.
quote: Edward Havens
For Mr. Petrov, most of your complaints are not specific to stadium seating. I've been to, and even managed, a number of older theatres where the screens were too large (or too small) for the size of the theatre. Many of the theatres built in the pre-stadium seating era had no room to stretch out your legs under the seats. And ditto on the angled seating. These are bad design issues, immaterial of whether the auditoria have sloped or stadium seating.
My biggest complaint is angled seating, where all seats regardless of location are pointed at the centre of the of the screen. I have yet to see a movie theatre in the greater Toronto area that offers this feature. My 500 seat lecture hall in University was angled.
The only theater I ever remember was the Runnymede Theatre #2 and Humber Theatre #2 were balcony seating which where angled at the centre of the screen. I think the Hyland was like this as well. What is ironic is that, back then the newest hit never opended in the stadium/balcony theatre...it was always in the downstairs theatre which was sloped.
quote: Edward Havens
Also, most MLB stadiums built in the past twenty years were designed by a firm called HOK Sport Venue Event, which built Orioles Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, which made many owners rush to them and go "I want that!" PacBell Park in San Francisco, Jacobs Field in Cleveland, Petco Park in San Diego, Coors Field in Denver, Nationals Park in Washington DC, Target Field in Minneapolis, Great American Ball Park in Cincinnati, PNC Park in Pittsburgh... all slight variations of the basic Camden Yards design. But then, I go to the ballpark for the game, not the stadium.
Yes, the movie/game is important, but in my mind, the actual theatre is vitally important as well. I would rather see a movie in a theatre that has character, is interesting, is unique and different than any other theatre.
On the other hand, every Cineplex Odeon, or AMC looks exactly like one another whereas you have no idea which theatre you are once you are inside.
The lasest trend in the GTA is to call the theatre by the most obvious street it is on, I think this sucks, we have the Queensway, Winston Churchill,Elgin Mills, Yonge/Dundas. We still have theatres named after the mall or what not...but what ever happened to the days of the Sussex, Westwood, Oakvile Mews, Skyway 6, Hollywood, Skyline, Cedarbrae, The Uptown 3, the Plaza, The Madison, THE HUMBER 1 & 2(which was named after the river that was flowing next to it)
We always did have theatres named after the road it was on and there is nothing wrong with it, but the name of the theatre is so cool when it has a really cool meaning...The Skyway was named that way because it was next to an airport and you could often hear the planes flying overheard during the movie
To bad there was no river flowing next to my newsest favorite theatre, the Jackson Square...but I guess I will live with the name Jackson Square as it is located in a mall with a box office that is on a lower lever with flashing bulbs and the old style letters...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-15-2010 06:00 PM
quote: Edward Havens
I don't mind stadium seating at the movies, and I don't say that because I manage an all-stadium seating theatre. For me, I care more about the quality of the sound and picture. I want a picture that is neither too dark nor too bright, masking that is set properly, a properly cut aperture plate that doesn't leave fuzzy black edges on the ends of the screen or allow some of the image to bleed on to the masking, proper balance between speakers, not too loud or too soft, and a subwoofer that does not overpower.
the aperture plate will always yield a fuzzy edge because it does not share the same focal plane as the film -- a small portion of the image is SUPPOSED to spill onto the masking -- it is the MASKING that provides the crisp edge.
as for the "not too bright, not too dark" and "not too loud or too soft" -- who set up your system? Goldilocks?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm not denying that good slope designs exist. I'm thinking through the "standard" commercial theaters I've been to in 50+ years (living in California and Oregon) and I can't come up with any that stand out as not having the issues I mentioned. Of course I can't recall every single detail about every theater.
Printer-friendly view of this topic