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 5)

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

Author

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

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-11-2007 01:50 PM

He is speaking of booths that could've had a bunch of projectors all on the same level (or maybe one of 2 levels), but for stupidity (my new favorite word) the architect decided to order some projectors to be an extra 8 inches or 14 inches or whatever higher on pedestals.

The Angelika Film Center Plano is an excellent example of pure, raging stupidity on the part of the architect. I say this not only just looking at the pictures, but I spoke to the architect when he was designing this and trust me, that guy is an absolute fucking idiot who builds pretty lobbies with no concern whatsoever towards the actual moviegoing experience.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 08-11-2007 11:52 PM

Speaking of mounting pedestals on platforms:

From a Drive-In that I service and work at on occasion. (I know, I need to shoot some picts of this place when I get more pix taken and submit all of this... [Big Grin]

)

When the building was built back in 1979 to replace the old building, the drive-in was converted to a triple screen drive-in and were three machines upstairs in this configuration due to that all machines sat on that blue large reel transport that is noticable behind this Century/XENEX setup.

In 1989, there was a huge fire upstairs (word said it was arson that was the cause of this fire) that literally melted the Left and Right setup, but the middle setup didn't suffer the damage as the other two.

Place was close for a few years, but reopened with just the middle screen with the Century sitting on that large reel transport.

It was just 4 yrs ago that the large reel transport finally took a final rest and the base and platter setup came into play. Thus why this setup sits on that platform .. and we have to stand on that stool behind the setup to lace up the projector.

| IP: Logged

James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 08-12-2007 02:40 AM

The Sky-Vue Drive-in in Lamesa, Texas is still running on some kind of reel transport like that.
The Angelika in Houston, if memory serves me correctly...isn't one of their consoles raised by 2 4 by 4 fence posts to allow the picture to shoot to the screen?
(I just realized that I can easily look that up myself...I'm going to be hell on earth when I become an old man...)

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-12-2007 11:54 AM

quote: David Zylstra
Unfortunately DCI was seemingly written to economically favor fixed width - i.e. if you have fixed height you need to buy 2 lenses, use a larger lamp and vary lamp power depending on format; but fixed width can be done with 1 lens (all you do is crop 3"-12" of picture).

David, the thing with D-Cinema and fixed height is having to have the extra anamorph swing into position for scope movies. As far as using a larger lamp, I don't think that is the case. I use the same lamp for scope or flat. That would be silly to change it out for each format. Uggh.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

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

posted 08-12-2007 12:27 PM

When I went to one of our theatres in Louisville, Ky to get some initial training before we installed our digital projector at my location. The screen they were using was a common height screen. However they were not using an anamorphic on the lens. I think they had markings on the lens to set for zoom on scope, flat and 3-D but there was no mention of an anamorphic nor did I see one. On ours it is just markings for 3-D and normal settings.

Only time we change bulbs to a different size is for 3-D.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-12-2007 01:52 PM

I have to change to a different 3D lense because my zoom isn't large enough for that use.

That just doesn't seem right to zoom to scope, you'll be setting the electronic masking such that you are cropping the top and bottom part of the images off, just in an effort to fill the screen side to side.

Darryl, do you have an anamorph?

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

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

posted 08-12-2007 02:44 PM

No, not on our set up. The Louisville set up was playing a scope image of 300 at the time I was there. I did not notice an anamorphic being used and they did not say one was being used they just had the extra markings on the lens for zooming so I do not know what the flat image looked like. I do know that it did not look like a top masking setup when I watched some of the movie while there. I can find out for sure and let you know what is up on that set up.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 08-20-2007 01:08 PM

I am not an expert in this area. So , my apologies, if I spout stuff that may end up being nonsensical. But let's say you, as a theater owner, are stuck with an auditorium that has very small dimensions and so they go with fixed width. The thing is if they went with fixed height, the scope image would not be any bigger. And you can always tailor your preshow to fit the screen to remove the preshow bigger than the main show factor. Now, the counterargument seems to be that flat images will look dim compared to scope movies on a fixed width. But if the screen size itself is small, how is that different from projecting a flat movie a on similar sized 1.85:1 portion of a fixed height screen in a much bigger auditorium? ANd it's not like the audience is going to watch a scope and a flat movie back to back in the same auditorium to notice the difference. Or do the bigger auditoriums use more powerful bulbs to account for the bigger screen?

Also , why not use the fixed width auditorium to show mostly flat movies and show 2.35:1 movies only as a last ditch scheduling fix. THis way, at least the ratio is not compromised when they are forced to show a scope movie.

Now, onto another point. Idiot managers. They don't seem to take a movie's aspect ratio in mind when scheduling movies in their auditoriums. When Legally Blonde 2 and T3 came out one weekend, this idiotic theater(Regal Perimeter POinte) scheduled them as follows. Legally Blonde 2 was in a slightly bigger house - seating wise, but much bigger screen for 2.35:1. It wsa a fixed height screen. but the movie was 1.85:1. THey put T3 in the fixed width house. Both movies had the same opening weekend with T3 being the bigger grosser. Now let's just assume they thought Legally Blonde would get slightly more people, it clearly was not that much where either house could not accomodate either movie- seating wise. So why not put the movies in the right houses and give both audiences maximum enjoyment? I assume that Legally Blonde 2 would have roughly the same image size in both houses. But T3 had a much smaller image size in the fixed width house.

I have seen too many examples like this.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 08-20-2007 01:52 PM

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Idiot managers. They don't seem to take a movie's aspect ratio in mind

Oh can agree with this one, but sometimes they have to schedule houses like this for house cleanups to be more organized esp if two shows love to get out the same time and those two might be in the same part of the theatre and cause traffic jams on exiting.

Plus, sometimes those house positions have to be done like that for booking contracts from the film studios and instructions from the DM of that area.

| IP: Logged

Mike Spaeth
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1129
From: Marietta, GA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-20-2007 04:47 PM

Good analysis - Pravin...

That weekend in question, Legally Blonde did $10,641; T3 did $9,545...so on paper the manager did right, but you make an excellent argument otherwise. Unfortunately, for most managers, stuff like that isn't noticed. I know I've never thought about aspect ratios when doing house placements, gonna have to look at that...

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 08-20-2007 05:13 PM

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Or do the bigger auditoriums use more powerful bulbs to account for the bigger screen?

Yes...and common width is still stupid.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Pitt
Master Film Handler

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

posted 08-20-2007 05:23 PM

The Vue Leeds Light boasts the 'biggest screens in the region'. This may well be true for flat films, but not for scope...
As I've mentioned before, the top masking causes the screen to fall down and shrink for scope movies, thus making the screen size about the same as other multiplexes in the region [Wink]

I also had an idea: how about adjusting the projector so the top and bottom of the scope image match the top and bottom of the 'flat' screen? You would, of course, lose some of the image off the left and right, but I haven't seen many scope features that have anything important on the extremes!
In effect you're pan-scanning the scope ratio image to flat ratio (and using the whole fixed-width screen), although you can't pan the image left and right easily.
I don't think this would work very well in practice though - any thoughts?

| IP: Logged

Sam Graham
AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues.

Posts: 1431
From: Waukee, IA
Registered: Dec 2004

posted 08-20-2007 06:52 PM

quote: Monte Fullmer
In 1989, there was a huge fire upstairs (word said it was arson that was the cause of this fire) that literally melted the Left and Right setup, but the middle setup didn't suffer the damage as the other two.

Place was close for a few years, but reopened with just the middle screen with the Century sitting on that large reel transport.

Assuming you're talking about the Terrace, THANK YOU. I've always wondered why they only ran one screen with three on the lot...

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 08-20-2007 08:07 PM

What's interesting is that only Steve Guttag has pointed out that 'Scope is meant to be WIDER (and bigger) than the "flat" ratios.

It's as if theatre designers and / or theatre owners have either forgotten or just don't know what CinemaScope is, and how and why it originated.

Common width is just WRONG:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
But let's say you, as a theater owner, are stuck with an auditorium that has very small dimensions and so they go with fixed width

But that's the problem. One shouldn't get to that point where "one is stuck with" such an auditorium! This is an ERROR which shouldn't happen in the first place.

For example, one could fit out a new multiplex just with mono optical sound! It wouldn't be best practice today, but it's possible. So - just because it's possible to construct common width screens doesn't mean it's right!

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

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

posted 08-20-2007 08:14 PM

quote: Brian Guckian
What's interesting is that only Steve Guttag has pointed out that 'Scope is meant to be WIDER (and bigger) than the "flat" ratios.

That's because everyone thinks he's right.

quote: Thomas Pitt
I also had an idea: how about adjusting the projector so the top and bottom of the scope image match the top and bottom of the 'flat' screen? You would, of course, lose some of the image off the left and right, but I haven't seen many scope features that have anything important on the extremes!
In effect you're pan-scanning the scope ratio image to flat ratio (and using the whole fixed-width screen), although you can't pan the image left and right easily.
I don't think this would work very well in practice though - any thoughts?

That's a ridiculous idea. Your idea is to crop the image because you assume that most movies don't use the extreme parts of the image. I'm sure that everyone here is in agreement that we are supposed to show the whole picture in the original aspect ratio; not cutting off sections of a scope image to force it to essentially use the aspect ratio of a flat print.

| 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.