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 4)

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

Author

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

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-10-2007 11:06 AM

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Steve; we built the first modern stadium theatre at Goshen Indiana about 18 years ago.

Ha? How do you define modern? I define modern as built after WW-2. In fact there were many stadium theaters built after the war both large and small and even before the war that I would still consider to be modern designs or vastly superior to what some think are modern designs.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-10-2007 11:10 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ha? How do you define modern? I define modern as built after WW-2. In fact there were many stadium theaters built after the war both large and small and even before the war that I would still consider to be modern designs or vastly superior to what some think are modern designs

wasn't some of those theatres built with stages and the idea that they could be both movie and stage production oriented.

Don't forget that your high school gym and auditoriums had stadium seating. It never been a new thing it's just been implemented it different and sometimes incorrect ways. One being the failure to properly place handycap seating in retrofits and early stadium designs. A lot of lawsuits came from that mistake.

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

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

posted 08-10-2007 11:16 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
However, Barco, with their DP1500 and DP2000 projectors that are now coming out...they will have lenses that will cover the flat/scope difference (they will have many overlapping lens ranges).

I will have to check but I recall that the DCI spec covered the anamorphic lens thing pretty well and I also distinctly remember that the change between format HAS to be automatic to meet DCI spec (regardless how how it is done).

The Barco setup could be what I heard about - I'd be interested to hear anyone's impressions if you see these in operation.

Unfortunately DCI does not specifically mention anamorphics and there are some studios that don't want them used since it requires scaling the vertical picture by 1.25X and the onscreen pixels are not square (of course no where in DCI does it mention a requirement for keeping the pixels square).

Once more installs go out the industry will have a better sense of what will be acceptable to all parties involved.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Expensive elevators... no wonder theater owners balked at Stadium . The funny thing here is that Stadium is much more dangerous and accident prone... introduce me to any "Stadium" theater owner that doesn't have at least one "slip and fall" lawsuit going at the moment.

Elevators are why my company no longer wants to build auditoriums larger than 300 seats (i.e. 300(?) is the break point where ADA access to the back row is required).

My previous employer's architect designed the stadium with 14" risers so each step was 7" just like normal stairs so there was no odd steps required to get up to your seat in the dark (i.e. each step up was exactly like walking up a normal stairway, it just required a slightly longer gait - no half steps in between to reach the next step up). This of course made for some tall booths, especially on the 100 seat'ers - those screens were tilted back 5 degrees to help the keystone and viewing angle. And yes, sooo many lawsuits - once you have a popular theatre you see an increase in reported "accidents".

quote: Scott Norwood
Out of curiousity, why? Does this include motorized masking or just the lens change on the projector? Is the automated lens change actually necessary for some reason (do they have separate flat and scope trailer files for DLP?), or is it just a convenience feature?

I think DCI was trying to make sure all the same convenient features of 35mm were available to digital - i.e. since you can do an automatic lens changer for 35mm then digital needs one too . . . . so far we have not been asked to put mixed format trailers on a title (and we wouldn't unless absolutely required by the studio), since the source picture is not squeezed for scope any mistakes of crossing content are not usually noticed by the audience (and they are already used to seeing pillarboxed scope previews in 35mm).

And yes, I have a lot of time on my hands - I'm on vacation and I'm a little bored until I leave town tommorrow . . . .

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-10-2007 12:10 PM

Many good points raised in this thread about sloped vs. stadium (and common-width vs. common-height). When it comes down to it though once people experience stadium seating, that's what they will prefer, with few exceptions (elderly, etc.) I know I do. Unfortunately the elderly are not the prime demographic.

Looking at Regal's new build here, their designers clearly understand the difference between a boxy screening room with a common-width screen, and a more "grand" theater with side masking etc. I know I'm stating the obvious but every theater does not need to be "grand" nor can they be in this quick-turnover market where a film opens on your largest screen and by Week 3 you're lucky if you sell 50 tickets to any one show. If you build a 15-screener and all 15 screens are "grand" you've thrown away a lot of money for basically nothing.

Be happy if they get the aspect ratio right on all their screens, large or small. Be even happier if they give their largest houses extra attention toward being "grand". [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 08-10-2007 12:25 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Slopped foors cannot be properly designed any longer due to ADA Restrictions on floor slope... 1 in 12 maximum allowed at least in the Mountain States and thats not very much slope! Good luck though on your end

Sorry Mark...I've been working with 1:12 longer than ADA has been bellyaching. It used to vary from area to area depending on local codes but 1:12 is nothing new.

You statement about not being able to design a theatre with such a slope and with good sight lines is just plain wrong. With ACAD it is pretty easy to set the relationship of the seats/slope and screen such that all are satisfied. It was always an architects mistake that the problem ever existed. Designing a theatre with obstructed views is just plain incompetent. This was especially true when there were such fine guide lines as EG-18 available to guide the way. Heck with the PAC type theatres we work with, you not only have to make the slope floor work but also make sure the overhanging balcony doesn't occlude the picture! Sometimes it is like threading a needle.

Here is an example of the State Theatre in State College, PA. The "stadium seated" balconey posed the biggest problem to sight lines (as you can see)...one MUST be seated to get a clear view to the top of the screen from the back rows. I don't believe there were any obstructed views to the bottom of the screen.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-10-2007 01:29 PM

Our floor is about 1 to 12 and we've never had any comments like "This theatre would be awesome if only you had stadium seating." Proper row spacing and offset is the key. (Along with a stack of kiddie boosters for the kids, although they're not really necessary in a lot of cases but the kids like'em.)

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 08-10-2007 02:07 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
I'm happy to see that some theatres are compromising...part stadium, part sloped.

...doesn't this also contribute to lesser construction costs where the building's roof height can be more lower than a full stadium complex - and still keep the screen viewing at the maximum in the stadium seating area?

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-10-2007 02:40 PM

The problem here (common width; and stadium problems as well) comes down to architects. Yes, at least 90% are not competent, especially with cinema design. Not something they can find, precanned.

If you've ever seen a booth with a concrete pedestal, you've seen the work of an incompetent artch. Louis

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-10-2007 03:56 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
2) Unless I'm crazy I think the side maskings would have to be more complicated than the top one. It clearly has to move 2 of them at exactly the same time. Granted, the moveable parts of each masking will pretty much be identical so it'll be somewhat simple but 2 maskings that have to work together is more complicated than 1 that works alongside not much else.

I am in no way a "front end" specialist, but side masking is much easier to rig, as you aren't fighting gravity. Besides you can't just hang a pulley in the middle of a top masking and expect it to work anyway. It still requires multiple pulleys to move each side of the masking up and down evenly.

quote: Louis Bornwasser

If you've ever seen a booth with a concrete pedestal, you've seen the work of an incompetent artch.

I couldn't agree more!!! Fortunately I was able to stick my nose into the architect's work on the January install before they became set in stone, because they wanted to have the booth on different levels and projectors up on wooden or concrete blocks. In the end the medium houses have virtually 0 degree tilt, the big house points upward just a tad and the small houses point downward a little bit. Not only did it make day to day operation much easier, but it also saved bucks on construction. The people who are designing these multiplexes where projectors are up on blocks are very much uninformed. (Or to make David happy, they are stupid.)

| IP: Logged

David Zylstra
Master Film Handler

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

posted 08-10-2007 04:35 PM

LOL . . . .

I'll translate that to "completely unfamiliar with efficient booth operation" . . . . . .

I've seen some stadium conversions where the projector had to be raised up on a poured concrete plaform, with low HVAC vents above it was interesting to re-install the equipment . . . . . I felt sorry for the shorter projectionists that had to thread those . . . . conversion shouldn't have been that steep, it didn't need to be . . . .

It's always sad when theatre owners don't bring the technical booth guys in on the design phase.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 08-10-2007 08:08 PM

Some of them have all-the-answers and cannot use anything we help with. Louis

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-10-2007 10:29 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
You statement about not being able to design a theatre with such a slope and with good sight lines is just plain wrong. With ACAD it is pretty easy to set the relationship of the seats/slope and screen such that all are satisfied.

Ok, on your A-cad drawings whats the tallest person that can sit in front of you without blocking your view?

Mark

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 08-11-2007 12:29 AM

We generally take the eye height of the typical female looking over the head height of the typical male. We also protect to the very bottom of the image to ensure that subtitles are not blocked.

A little trivia there...it appears that the typical theatre seat pan is about the same height off the ground as a typical toilet. We once drew a theatre full of em (in a section view) with a "seat dude" on each one. No one noticed until it was pointed out.

We normally use our "block head" to check sight lines rather than a scale seat dude and dudette. The block head person has the male head height but the female eye height so one dude can be used to check all rows.

Add to that the seats are radiused such that one is typically looking through the immediate row in front and you get yet more headroom.

In most slope floor OR stadium theatres, there are normally only a couple of dicey rows to worry about and often they occur about 2/3rds of the way back. As the risers bring people's eyes up, that tends to lower the field of vision (makes them look more down) which actually can count against the stadium style but again normally only one or two rows will be so affected...depending on the screen height and the height of the risers.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 08-11-2007 04:07 AM

quote: Brad Miller
I am in no way a "front end" specialist, but side masking is much easier to rig, as you aren't fighting gravity. Besides you can't just hang a pulley in the middle of a top masking and expect it to work anyway. It still requires multiple pulleys to move each side of the masking up and down evenly.

So the "unless I'm crazy" part of my post was spot on; or more correctly, I was uninformed. Oh well.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 08-11-2007 10:21 AM

quote: Louis Bornwasser
If you've ever seen a booth with a concrete pedestal, you've seen the work of an incompetent artch.

My theatre was built in 1930 so I had no input on the booth design, but the projector does sit on a 12" high pedestal. But, I like it that way because it's easier to thread at eye-level than having to bend over, and it's also easier to clean the port glass for the same reason. I don't really see why the pedestal would be a problem -- vibration maybe? (That's not a problem here though.)

| 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.