Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Screen: Common Height or Common Width? (Page 5)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 12 13

Author

Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width?

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 04-26-2014 09:40 PM

yes, thanks Brad for the correct interpretation of my comment. While it's unfair to compare the Silver to the curved 'larger' Uptown screen, the 'Ben Hur' reissue I saw, where the curtain kept on unveiling to expose the full 2.76 screen area and no reduction of the screen vertically was a ('wow!') memory I will never forget.

In terms of the AFI Silver - the use and non-use of the pre-film slides/trailers is consistent at best. Just the other night the screening of 'Sorcerer' was only accompanied by the DLP, Dolby Digital Cinema and THX intros and then straight to the movie - 'Khartoum' in the same vein should have gone into the film minus all the pre-film extras

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-26-2014 10:49 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Having the picture get larger in front of the audience is fine, but it should never get smaller.

Outside we know that these new complexes are built without any adjustable masking to save monies on installations of masking devices and maintenance, it still looks tacky when one week, a flat movie is in one house, and next week a scope movie is in that house with the image in the middle of an unmasked screen to give the image the "letterbox" image that is on our flat screen TV's.

..and customers that witnessed a flat movie in that same house, now attends a "letterboxed" movie in that same house a week later complains that the "movie needs to be stretched out to fill the screen", or they feel that they're getting cheated with not all of the image presented on the screen.

What's real sad is that you can't a good answer to the customer outside that "we're working on the issue".

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 04-26-2014 10:55 PM

quote:
Outside we know that these new complexes are built without any adjustable masking to save monies on installations of masking devices and maintenance,

This is not to save money at all. It is deliberate. It is done to take on IMAX and give off the perception that there is a larger screen.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 04-26-2014 11:33 PM

Which would be the STUPIDEST REASON EVER.

There is nothing better than to impress someone when they walk into an auditorium and then realize only half of the screen is used. It's fantastic way to make people feel that either there is something wrong with the projector ("not showing all of the picture") or deceived and ripped off. It's bad showmanship, period.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-27-2014 12:03 AM

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
This is not to save money at all. It is deliberate. It is done to take on IMAX and give off the perception that there is a larger screen.

That's just crazy. It's absolutely done to save money. Masking costs a lot of money when it's movable and done right.

I suppose there are a few "suits" who say, "If we leave all of this huge screen exposed it'll make people think we have a bigger screen like Imax does!" but I know enough about corporate thinking to guarantee you that THAT is just an added "benefit" of not having masking. The first and foremost reason is to cut costs. The fact that it hurts the presentation doesn't even enter into their thought process.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 04-27-2014 12:11 AM

quote: Brad Miller
Which would be the STUPIDEST REASON EVER.

There is nothing better than to impress someone when they walk into an auditorium and then realize only half of the screen is used. It's fantastic way to make people feel that either there is something wrong with the projector ("not showing all of the picture") or deceived and ripped off. It's bad showmanship, period.

I totally 100% agree that it is bad showmanship. But I think the box office performance of these locations demonstrates that the public does not care that masking is being eliminated. Cineplex actually uses the entire screen for all advertisements, most trailers and corporate/AVX/Atmos snipes and then shows the movie in scope. It totally sucks!

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's just crazy. It's absolutely done to save money. Masking costs a lot of money when it's movable and done right.

I suppose there are a few "suits" who say, "If we leave all of this huge screen exposed it'll make people think we have a bigger screen like Imax does!" but I know enough about corporate thinking to guarantee you that THAT is just an added "benefit" of not having masking. The first and foremost reason is to cut costs. The fact that it hurts the presentation doesn't even enter into their thought process.

I think you have been to IMAX once right? Well, you probably have not been to a premium large format theatre. The lack of masking is for perception reasons, these screens were installed to compete with IMAX. Premium large format screens are a chains way of making their own version of IMAX.

Go to a PLF+IMAX location and you will understand. There are a few in my area, in some cases the IMAX screen is smaller.

In some locations, all common width screen project scope on an open flat screen, (basically they do not use the masking anymore, they just leave it open) This has become a corporate mandate by Cineplex at some of their locations. Even worse than no masking at all is scope projection with digital masking on a fully opened common width masked flat screen.

The perception is that these screens are bigger and thus better.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 04-27-2014 12:44 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's just crazy. It's absolutely done to save money. Masking costs a lot of money when it's movable and done right

Maybe for an "indie" house like Mike has, but corporate operations have "inexperienced mechanics" in suits running their complexes..and having them deal with something complex as a moveable masking setup is beyond their reasoning.

Thus, these corp operations follow the K.I.S.S. procedure - to keep the inexperienced from fiddling around, busting something, or themselves and creating all forms of liability situations.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 04-27-2014 12:54 AM

Monte, seeing that 4 out of 5 releases are scope, please explain why in the world would Cineplex convert 54 auditoriums in their network to a much, much, much larger open flat screen and leave out the masking and still show all of the movies in scope? Why not just leave the masking and leave the screen they already have? It's the perception!

This looks like an IMAX knock-off to me:

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 04-27-2014 02:33 AM

Here's a fun discussion point- Is it a knock off if it's better?

| IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

posted 04-27-2014 07:21 AM

At least they show their films in Scope. I know a chain which installed such big flat screen, branded them and now show all their features so they fill up the screen, regardless of the original format.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-27-2014 12:23 PM

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
While it's unfair to compare the Silver to the curved 'larger' Uptown screen, the 'Ben Hur' reissue I saw, where the curtain kept on unveiling to expose the full 2.76 screen area and no reduction of the screen vertically was a ('wow!') memory I will never forget.

Time to burst your bubble again...WRONG!

The Uptown did NOT present Ben-Her in 2.76:1...at least not in 70mm. I was a projectionist there from 1988-2005. We NEVER used UP70 lenses/attachments during that time. The 70mm of Ben-Hur you would have seen during that time would have been a 2.20 version which merely cropped the sides of the image.

This does not take away from the dramatic opening of the curtain in that theatre when running 70mm which I agree is impressive. With the lenses we had for 70mm, it was tack sharp too.

I can assure you that had you seen UP70 at the Uptown in that era (i.e. if we received a UP70 print) it would have likely have been softer and not filling the screen height. They (Cineplex/Loewes) would not have rescreened the theatre for a one-off week/weekend of a movie since the screen no longer was that wide...depending on the era, we would have had to add additional strips (it was strip screen into the '90s) and they would have been a different color due the aging of the hanging strips. Adding UP70 attachments to our deep-curve lenses would have not been possible so you would have had other issues to content with.

As it is, at the AFI/Silver...when UP70 prints are screened there...a different set of longer prime lenses are sent off and attached by Panavision to the UP70 anamorphics to ensure that the full intended image is presented.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-27-2014 01:04 PM

quote:
Well, you probably have not been to a premium large format theatre. The lack of masking is for perception reasons,

I haven't been to a lot of PLFs but I have been to a few. I just think you're out of your mind if you think the designers are saying "let's leave off the masking so the screen will look bigger and thus be better than an Imax." Even a corporate suit doesn't use such convoluted logic as that.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-27-2014 04:47 PM

Yea, I remember the strip screen was still in there when I saw Gettysburg. It was before I even knew you but you were the one running the show that night!

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 04-27-2014 06:36 PM

Not only do I still have the used strip Steve gave me at the Uptown years ago (along with a new one for Mark), but amazingly, I could lay my hands on it immediately.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 04-27-2014 08:18 PM

(thread digression - sorry)

@ Steve Guttag:

question - I remember seeing 'Alien' at the Uptown (not the original releases) but a one off screening - I think during the time you were a projectionist there. Was that 35mm or 70mm? I thought it was the latter, Being the second time I saw the film, the prior, on a teeny-tiny 13 inch screen - the theatrical experience (obviously) was aptly scary and intense.

@ Terry Lynn-Stevens: which theater is that UltraAVX screen at?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11 12 13

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.