Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Switch from common width to common height

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Switch from common width to common height - trend or aberation? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: Switch from common width to common height - trend or aberation?

Mike Croaro
Master Film Handler

Posts: 394
From: Millbrae, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 08-08-2007 08:25 PM

Hi Folks:

The common with screens are only essential in the old twinned theatres of the 70's where the deminsions are, for example 28 X 90 or 20 X 60.

No reel [Wink]

need in modern cinemas. Too many studios think bigger is better.

My favortie quote is by Louis Bornwasser:

"Largeness on a wall is not showmanship. In fact it can be quite obnoxious".

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-08-2007 08:33 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
the only people who would justify common width screens are cheapskate morons who know nothing of presentation and not showmen

hmm . . . . scope screen is already as big as it can be (in most cases) so they are making flat bigger - that obviously leads to a slightly higher frame cost; significantly more screen area so significantly higher screen cost; top moveable masking is a little complicated to rig and needs a stronger motor; done right the lamp size will be higher to properly light the flat picture so higher lamp costs . . . . the true cheapskate would insist on the proper configuration of fixed height.

As long as the screen is properly lit, jump & weave is withing tolerance, aperture edges are sharp, focus is perfect, etc where is the presentation issue?

As for showmen - that comes from making sure the picture is in focus, sound is correct, print is clean, cues are properly placed, etc . . . . and it includes checking every reel from the customers perspective for proper focus and sound quality.

Again, fixed width screens are morally, philosophically and ethically questionable - not stupid, moronic or evil.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-08-2007 10:08 PM

Ok David, are you for real or just brainwashed? In real life you will find that people rarely spec a common width auditorium for flat and that "good enough" is all that matters these days to theaters only concerned with things like "wall to wall screens".

Theaters concerned with presentation will design an auditorium properly in the first place to use a common height design.

And yes, common width is STUPID!

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 08-08-2007 10:19 PM

quote: Thomas Pitt
The Vue Leeds Light, as I'm sure I mentioned in other posts, has fixed-width screens for all its auditoriums. For scope, a single blind drops from the top (top masking) to make the screen the correct aspect ratio.
I've never once seen the picture need to be re-framed after a scope changeover; I assume they have the turret set to project the scope image slightly lower - possibly with one of those adapters.

I also remember going to see a movie in Vue Sheffield, and they actually had both vertical and horizontal masking (4 blinds)! For scope, the top and bottom blinds move in a little bit, while the left and right blinds open up to full width. I think this is only in the large auditoriums though - the smaller auditoriums in Vue Sheffield use either top & bottom or side masking.

If you travel around alot you'll get to see all kinds of different combinations of masking in use. I've seen side-masking, top-masking, top and side-masking and no masking.

The strangest I have seen was bottom only masking (common width auditorium) Which was weird because after the masking change you suddenly find yourself having to look more upwards to see the screen. I actually got up and switched seats to a row further back.

The worst I have seen was 'scope' shown as letterbox on a 1.85 screen that didn't have masking. Horrible.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

Posts: 432
From: Novi, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-08-2007 10:42 PM

Yes, I am for real . . . . . and over the years I have found that there are a lot of exhibitors that settle for "good enough" . . . . but there are many exhibitors out there that want wall to wall screens that meet standards and spec them properly (I worked for one of them years ago - though not in the design capacity).

I just prefer not to jump to the conclusion that all fixed width installs are sub-standard, especially since I know many that can meet or exceed standards easily. (All my current company's screens ARE fixed height and I do think it is correct but I wouldn't call anyone stupid for choosing fixed width since I am not privy to their reasoning)

There are arguments that stadium seating is not correct either, but customers want stadium so they get stadium.

I agree that we disagree, but I respect your opinion and I don't wish "full body herpes" on you for having it.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 08-08-2007 10:58 PM

quote: Michael Brown
The worst I have seen was 'scope' shown as letterbox on a 1.85 screen that didn't have masking. Horrible.

Yep, and I take care of a couple houses that the owner wanted the largest FLAT screens possible.

Thus, the 1.85/1 common width screens and complaints from people who ask why the beginning/end credits are cut off, some scenes lookin so crowded, some characters being cut off,only noses and chins are being projected and no nice wide pictures to be seen esp. with action movies that are made for wide screens - and the employees have to explain this dilemma to the patrons.

Then they have to report to the office of these complaints.

I've recommended longer base lens for the attachment so that a close true scope can be shot on the screen-just that the image will have the black bars on top and bottom.

Owners just turn deaf ears on this idea...so much for professional presentations. Guess, I'm too smart for my own good.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 08-08-2007 11:34 PM

Back in 1990 when I was working at UA (and the then new Cinemark Movies 12 with 10 common-width screens were going up),
we had a cropping issue with our scope movies in our biggest house. This theatre had common-height screens, but the 2 smaller houses had side masking: the 2 bigger ones had no masking, and flat presentations had empty screen on each side.
The scope lens in the big house was projecting an image wider than our screen, and was causing cropping of the then-UA policy logo trailer.(it read "nited Artists") It was cheaper to erect a new screen frame (recycled galvenized pipe frame from the then defunct Boman Twin in Tulsa: We cut the pipe to fit our situation) and install a new wider screen. When we were done, we had perfect cinemascope ratio.
George Cisco, the tech who engineered this, told me the newer theatres had cropping problems because 1) most movie releases were coming out flat then and 2) home video and premuim movie channels played scope movies in pan-and-scan, thus the higher-ups didn't want to bother with the expense of playing the scope films right as the customers generally didn't know better anyway.
But that was 1990.
I would be thrilled if my situation could be converted to common-height. I would also be thrilled to be rid of my Rentec consoles and Peavey amps but that's for another thread...

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 08-09-2007 12:48 AM

Common width screens are OK for home theatre and for attracting the customers who don’t know any better.

Even on the home theatre scene the aspect might change with those in the know. Lenses on motorised tracks are availalabble for anamorphic dvds (for home theatre, not professional electonic cinema).

Armed with these little gadgets, more perfectionists will opt to watch movies at home, where the image and 5.1 sound quality are seldom in doubt, rather than venture out to exhibitors who think that we are all mugs.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 08-09-2007 05:19 AM

Common width screens are usually not popular with the public! The problem with them is pretty basic. In the 6 or so cinemas that I have worked in that featured them (out of aprox 50) I use to notice the audience mostly sat in the back rows or on the extreme edges of the rows, as far away as possible from the screen the bulk of these auditoriums seats were wasted and the image substandard.

1.85 35mm or 2k digital simply is not IMAX. Many common width auditoriums in 1.85 to me resemble an imax theatre, but 15 perf 70mm is specifically composed and framed very differently to regular film and TV production, the absolutely huge film frame allows it to be seen so close that a sharp clear image can fill your field of view. The tiny 1.85 frame simply can not stand up to the head turning size that it is now filling in only a small percentage of cinemas worldwide.

The film makers tend to shoot 1.85 for the more intimate type of films and EPIC's are in 2.35. If you sit in a common hight screen, when you walk in during the pre show, you find a seat where the screen feels comfortable, when it grows on the sides as say Star Wars starts, the extra image simply fills your peripheral vision and the amount of film real estate increases, it all feels like a bonus.

I tend to find with common width, where the screen shrinks by over 30%, I tend to feel either that I want to move forward or thank god its getting smaller! But who knows what the average customer thinks? Most of the cinemas that I worked at that featured them have closed, I can think of one which had its screen reduced by over 20%.

After saying all of that though, I still believe that some cinemas could be improved or are best off with them! If an existing cinema has a tiny screen. It might be a really good option! Big for Big's sake is just plain stupid! The people who are forcing this on filmgoers..........

quote: Joe Redifer
They deserve fatal full body herpes.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-09-2007 08:13 AM

Cameron,

I don't know how big your common width screens were but all the ones I was involved with were tiny. Hence the audisnce did not have to sit way back from the screen.

MArk

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-09-2007 10:53 AM

quote: Michael Brown
The strangest I have seen was bottom only masking (common width auditorium) Which was weird because after the masking change you suddenly find yourself having to look more upwards to see the screen. I actually got up and switched seats to a row further back.

I have bottom only masking in 3 auditoriums I service. It was that or top masking or a REALLY tiny flat screen. I chose bottom masking because the image was already a couple of feet too low to the ground for the sightlines, and more importantly the "eye line" is 1/4 to 1/3 down from the top of the screen. Let me try and draw something out here...

-----------------------
-.............................-
- X X X X X X X X X X -
-.............................-
-.............................-
-.............................-
-----------------------

Where the Xs are is the eyeline of proper framing. Common width auditoriums with TOP masking completely fuck this up because the customers come into the auditorium and sit in a location that they are comfortable with (some people this is for back or neck reasons) and then once the preshow is over, the screen "falls down" (yes I've got this complaint a lot in my Cinemark days) and the eyeline is now substantially lower...thus the customer ended up with a seat that is no longer comfortable to them. This is where my logic of using bottom masking came into play. At least the eyeline hardly changes at all with the switch, unlike top masking where the eyeline changes drastically!

Stadium seating further aggravates the use of top masking, because the customers are already "looking down" at the screen as it is! Any proper designer shouldn't make them look FURTHER down the screen!

Another thing we do is we ALWAYS reset the masking to scope at the completion of each show. The preshow is "pillarboxed" on that scope screen. Then if we happen to run a flat movie, the picture gets bigger. This is the only good solution I have found.

I've found with bottom only masking, there are far less complaints from customers who don't understand. However that doesn't in any way mean I made the right choice. To this day I and all of the projectionists and anyone presentation-oriented at that theater wishes we had stuck with side masking.

BTW, common width screens are still stupid!

| IP: Logged

Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Registered: May 2007

posted 08-09-2007 04:27 PM

Come to think of it, the Vue Leeds Light is a relatively modern cinema, opening in 2001. The original exterior still exists, but the interior has been completely demolished and rebuilt to new specifications. Therefore, auditorium and screen dimensions could have been planned from day one - the only concern being the overall size of the complex (no more than the exterior wall)

In 2001, both scope and flat movies were commonplace - yet, they still chose to use fixed-width screens and top masking. Is it cheaper to install and use top masking?

In my opinion, if you HAVE to use a fixed-width screen, install a double-blind system giving top and bottom masking. This at least keeps the image centered on the screen when changing over; the screen doesn't "fall down" as Brad put it.

The worst I've ever seen is an IMAX cinema; they run 35mm commercials before each IMAX showing. Of course, the 35mm picture only fills a tiny portion of the IMAX screen, and with no masking the soft edges of the projected picture are very noticeable.
Other than that, I went to a Cineworld once and they had fixed-dimension screens with no masking. Flat features were pillarboxed into the middle of the scope screen; scope features filled the whole screen. During the flat format commercials and trailers, the dark edges of the screen were quite noticeable.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Meredith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 126
From: Jackson, MS, USA
Registered: Apr 2006

posted 08-09-2007 04:41 PM

One aspect of the discussion that can easily be overlooked is the impact of aspect ratio on secondary sales in dvd and rentals. I'd much rather watch a flat transfer than a scope one on my HDTV because, in a sense, those 16:9 TV's are "fixed width" and scope transfers still have letterboxing. I first consciously noticed this difference when going through the new James Bond 4-box collection. The shift from flat to scope somewhere in the 70's was noticeable since we were watching them back-to-back.

I wonder if the continuing rise of the home theater will make film-makers reconsider the idea that "scope is bigger."

| IP: Logged

Dustin Mitchell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1865
From: Mondovi, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 08-09-2007 04:48 PM

Don't get me wrong-if I was doing a new build it would be common height. All the screens in my current theatre are like that. The competition has common width, BUT, they are stuck with a 1970ish theatre. To make matters they twinned the large auditorium (was a two screener). Even if they hadn't made this mistake the smaller auditorium is disgustingly long and narrow. Side masking would move the presentation in that auditorium from 'poor' to 'unwatchable except from the front two rows.'

I guess in the end what I was really questioning was the logic of the arguments being used. I can agree with what others are saying, but when people trot our the 'scocpe shouldn't be smaller than flat' argument I start scratching my head. As has been stated your not going to make your scope image any bigger with common height, in fact it may be slightly smaller.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-09-2007 06:54 PM

We have a 30x15 screen (I hate the dimensions, but that's what we have) without movable masking, and in all my years in the biz, I've only had one person (a young teen) ask why the flat picture was "cut off on the sides."

When we ran the reissue of "Gone With The Wind" a few years ago, we masked off the screen to the proper size...I thought it looked really weird, but even then not one person inquired as to why the picture was so narrow.

As for the TV watchers -- I wonder what percentage of them use their controls to make the picture fit the screen, no matter how stretched or squashed it looks. I see this in "public" screens all the time (bars and such).

So for me at least, all this points to the conclusion that most of the public doesn't know/care what size or shape the picture is, as long as they can actually sort of see it.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.