This is topic Porthole size preference in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000356

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 11-02-1999, 09:39 PM:
 
I've seen alot of new theaters built with these huge living room sized port glasses.

I like a seperate projector porthole and observation port. The projector port should be 12" by 12". Same for the observation port.
I like to turn on some lights in the booth to see what I'm doing without having lights shine out into the auditorium and bothering everyone.

What's everyone's preference?
 


Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-02-1999, 10:26 PM:
 
Ours are 16" x 16", the THX type (two peices of glass on an angle.) I like this size: I just put a peice of thick black poster paper with the exact cut-out for the projector image on the window. This keeps stray light from going through, but if you change projectors, you can cut out another peice. And there's plenty of room for different height pedastals. Also, it's pretty handy to have a large enough window to remove and lean out of. At another theater, the guy there made a nice sort of bellows that sticks a little on the inside and outside. This keeps a work light from shining down on people almost directly under the port.

In the carbon days (here in my state) the law was: no port will be larger than 144 sq inches. At an old theater we had, the port was 12" square. But when we twined it, we needed a much shorter focal length lens, so we had to shim the projector height high enough to fit the image through.
 


Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 11-02-1999, 10:45 PM:
 
Do you want to know why big,new mutliplexes, put big port windows in their theateres? It's so people like us can see what they're doing up there, so we know what's wrong before we complain!

But, seriously, I work in a house that has 12 x 12 ports with seprate viewport. It's fine with me. The house was built with changeover and has two port/view combos, and both are open and uncovered. I have to watch about the booth lighting so it doesn't bother patrons when I'm in the booth.
 


Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 11-02-1999, 10:50 PM:
 
I just wish the geniuses who design these port-holes would remember someone has to clean the glass on both sides.
 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 11-02-1999, 11:15 PM:
 
I also don't like the larger ports. One theatre in my area has large ports in the smaller houses and the customers walk right up the ports and bang on them when they want the volume adjusted, etc. Also, operators can't have even a shred of light in the booth until the shows are out, which means hauling a print that has to be broken down to another booth with more light.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-1999, 12:47 AM:
 
I agree with Ken. I like seperate ports because sometimes I have to turn on a light by the projector for one reason or another. I don't like to run the booth in complete darkness.
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-03-1999, 09:35 AM:
 
At the Lowes Astor Plaza in NYC, the booth is just a glass wall on three sides, starting about 3 feet up from the floor. The booth sticks out into the auditourium, with it's floor level only about 3 ft higher than the auditourium itself. That guy has no privacy at all. You can seat in the rear seats, and see the rear of the lamps. The glass is slighty tinted.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-03-1999, 09:45 AM:
 
Where's a good place to buy glass? In my case I have to have more rrom between the wall and the projector because of the short throw and the mtrs out front (Norelco AA) So I need wider glass.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-03-1999, 09:57 AM:
 
I figured that the Megaports were born out of people that just couldn't figure out where to place the port in relation to the projector and screen thus said "if I make it big enough, it is bound to get out no matter where I put it!"

I think the port size should be in harmony with the image going through it. If a 12x12 does it, fine, then 15x20 or 18x18 should cover just about any of the rest. The view ports, which I think should be separate, should be 12x12.

Projection ports should be on _CLEAR_ coated glass (particularly if it is of the new double glass design)

As to the light in the booth. Most booths are put in nowadays with florescent fixtures which just aren't needed or desirable. The projection equipment should be lit with "bullet" fixtures that can be aimed to the work area, not the audience. Any wall behind a port should be painted BLACK. The overhead lighting should either be down-light or even better, indirect and reflected off the cieling so you have plenty of light in the work area and none going out the ports (except for the projection beam, hopefully).

The front walls of the booth (providing that there isn't a set of ports on the other side) can be painted a bright color to help with lighting.

Steve
 


Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 11-03-1999, 11:11 AM:
 
I have to see that we have seven screens for the Telluride Film Festival. All our booths are permanent installations and since we do substantial productions for all our programs, I want the booth glass as large as possible so those in the booth can see what is going on down on the floor. We have to be careful with light pollution, but it's worth it in order for everyone to be on the same production page.

But, since in much of the world it seems as if the last thing many projectionists do is look at the screen, why isn't there a move to make the ports larger so the operator can easily see the screen to check for picture quality. I know they are supposed to, but I've been in so many theatres that the film has come up in the wrong format, out of frame or out of focus, it seems that if there is anything that can be done to get operators to look at the screen it should be employed. Work lights can be designed to reduce pollution into the auditorium and glass can be properly fitted to reduce noise pollution.

Look at it this way, when you're driving a vehicle, the larger the windshield, the better your vision. Don't smaller ports simply turn an operator inward and make him/her even less aware of the world outside? If ports were larger as a standard, operators would have to be more careful and aware of the audience.

I'm not talking about the "Brad Miller Level of Attention," I'm talking about the other 90% of America's screens.
 


Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 11-03-1999, 12:16 PM:
 
Jim,

The Telluride Film Festival has big port glass because there could be a wide variety of formats shown. Let's see, in the last 3 years, the Festival has shown 16mm, 35mm, 35mm double system, 35mm two projector 3D, 70mm, 70mm two projector 3D, video with the Digital Projection 8GV, Video with the projector hung on the basket ball bracket, slides and some sort of 18th century oil lit glass plate slide thingy. Did I miss anything?

New slogan for next years tech T-shirt.

Vespucci Pictures Tech Crew,
We change film formats more often than we change our underwear.

It makes a lot of sense to have the large port glass. I noticed in the new Chuck Jones Cinema that you purchased a 7' long optically perfect sheet of glass. I heard it cost 7 large. It looks great. I know that at the festival we spend a lot of time chasing down all stray light. As evidence look at all the cardboard that I have taped on to the projectors at Minnie.

The large port glass may be beneficial when theatres start the transition to electronic cinema. But that would be an infinitesimal cost saving.

I prefer to have two small projection ports for all the reasons Joe mentioned. It is good to be able to turn on the lights in a commercial booth in order to troubleshoot.

In the theatre that I am about to take over, there are small ports that are home made. You know the type; they are two pieces of ½ x ½ inch wood strips in which glass from the hardware store has been slid. The glass is scratched and there is a half-inch gap between the glass and the top of the frame. I am sure you can hear the projectors out in the auditoriums. I'll just have to add new port windows to the list of improvements we are going to have to make.

 


Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-03-1999, 02:53 PM:
 
I like the larger ports becasue with 17+ machines, you can walk down the row and check them all pretty quickly. In fact, it gets to be 'second nature' when you walk down the hall. You almost automatically check the screens without thinking of it. I can't tell you how many times I've been walking down the hall, talking to the boss, etc. and stopped dead in my tracks... "OOPS! Gotta tweek the focus... Just a sec..."

If you don't like light pollution, you can go downstairs to the lobby and 'appropriate' a couple of those red tubes for the fluorescent lights. We have one house where the fluorescent hallway light shines into the theatre and that's what we did. It works pretty well.

All of our proj. have a fluorescent light overhead and a 'can' light pointing to the proj. head. We can pull the chain and have the can turned on without the fluo. Of course we turn out both lights during the show. Only the hall light (recessed cans) stays on. We don't have much problem with stray light. (Except for the one I mentioned.)
 


Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-03-1999, 09:49 PM:
 
I prefer the larger port windows mainly for the option of being able to stick a 16mm or video projector right beside the 35mm machine and not have to deal with finding a place to throw the special format from.. Plus it hearkens back to my childhood when I used to look up and watch the projectionist at the drive-in running the projectors thru the hyuge picture-window sized glass above the snack bar... There will always be projection-curious kids and adults and IMO i have no problem with letting them see!

Aaron

 


Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-06-1999, 07:54 AM:
 
I work at the newest theatre in Anchorage and, of course, we got stuck with the new 4' x 6' port windows. My main issue with these monstrosities is cleaning. What used to take me about five minutes all told (clean inside, open, clean outside), now requires me to come in at 8AM so that I can haul a ladder around to each theatre!! Stray light is also a problem as even the "aimable" spots can shed light down into the theatre and our Strong lamphouses are poorly built and shed light through all their seams.
 
Posted by Chris Wootten (Member # 283) on 03-01-2003, 08:30 AM:
 
I prefer the "smaller the better" ,with separate portholes for the projector, and the operator. Any stray light that enters the theatre is a distraction for the customers and ruins the "experience" we work so hard to provide. [beer]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2003, 10:15 AM:
 
It all really depends on the job and the equipment situation at hand. Sometimes large single windows work out well, sometime ports just large enough for the passing cone of light work the best. Weigh the situation at hand and install what is needed. There is no standard here except to use optically coated glass, or at least white water glass. The minimum quality of glass to use is Starphire. Regular plate glass is taboo....
Why have 5K worth of lenses projecting through glass that is of lesser quality than the lenses themselves????
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-01-2003, 10:25 AM:
 
I usually spec out a single port per machine 24" high by 36" wide
It allows lots of fudge factor space and allows for the big mirror boxs if 3d comes back (a few years ago I got a little sick of smaching out around the old ports in theatres to accomodate them)
As for lighting I usually put a bullet fixture on the front wall at about 6' off the floor with a par 75 watt lamp in it and a single tube flourescent on the front wall just below the ceiling above the port with a pull chain to provide lots of light for service
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-01-2003, 11:21 AM:
 
I like small portholes, with two per machine. The viewing ports should be able to be opened to quickly check the sound quality in the auditorium. A large followspot port (along with some means of covering it up when it isn't needed) is nice to have, too, since it allows one to watch the screen while seated and also makes it easy to set up additional equipment (slide projectors, 16mm/video, followspot, etc.) if needed.
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-01-2003, 03:10 PM:
 
The concern of a large porthole being more effort to clean seems a bit specious to me. If that is really a concern, one could simply tape out a rectangle around the image area (with a few inches of fudge for projector movements) using paper tape, and clean that regularly, and clean the rest of the glass much less frequently.

Beyond that, though, I do agree that there are benefits to both methods. The real problem with large portholes is that it discourages the purchase of high-quality optical glass, because it becomes frightfully expensive.

--jhawk
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-03-2003, 02:07 AM:
 
More glass = more sound reflection in the auditorium

I'm seeing more old theaters-turned-PAC's having their acoustics turned whangy by locals who pull out the whole front wall of the projection booth & replace it with a flat picture window for the follow spots.
 
Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 03-03-2003, 08:43 AM:
 
William:

I've seen the same thing in my area. One old theater that comes to mind is the 7th Street Theater in Hoquiam, Wash. The local "experts" there decided they didn't want to show movies anymore so they yarded out the front wall of the booth (even though it already had a dedicated followspot porthole) to install huge picture windows. Well, later on the "experts" had so many requests to run movies again that they bought a platter and beatup and very shopworn Simplex XL. When it came time to run movies, there was tons of noise from the booth and light spillage all over the audience because of the picture windows. Now they are finding out they were better off with just the original followspot porthole for stage shows. The new picture windows are too big for the followspot they have now! What idiots. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-03-2003, 09:43 AM:
 
The Monroe Theatre at Notre Dame has a "designer" booth that jutts out over the audience like a big floating fishbowl with glass from booth floor to cieling on all three sides. It was a nightmare for light containment as well as sound; plus I never got use to the uneasy feeling it gave me working there (I used to have wake up in cold sweats from nightmares of running films in that booth naked). I have no idea what kind of glass they used. It seemed to be quite thick so I doubt it was anything but window pane glass.

There is big (I understand the advantages that have been mentioned for large ports) and then there is BIG. In the booth at the Brooklyn Museum, they decided that the entire front wall of the booth was to be a wall of glass. Luckily they realized that it had to be clear coated optical glass (which was shipped in from Italy at an incredible cost -- something like 18Gs -- now, of course, they don't have enough money to by splicing tape, but that's another story). Even if they wanted to do the "wall of glass" thing for whatever high tech effect the designer was going for, I would have put in plate glass and after all the equipment was set up, cut out holes and glue coated optical glass over them. If at such time they add some new equipment, they can always cut extra holes. If it should come to a situation where they move stuff around so much that they can't accomodate them that way, then they could easily just put in a new plate glass and cut new optical glass ports -- it would still be MUCH cheaper than that huge optical glass window, plus, from anyplace in the theater other than right up against the glass, the patrons wouldn't be able to see the optical glass cutouts.

Of course this window is only a single sheet, not double and it is not angled so sound transfer is always a problem. People can't talk in the booth if there are people in the balcony under the window. And of course, everything has to be lit with Little Lites at $40 bucks a throw for a piece of hardware and a 12v transformer that must cost all of $5 bucks to make. Also a few recessed lights and flourescents that can't ever be used except for cleaning. Anyway, we also use deep blue (Rosco #86, I think) gels around even the Little Lite fixtures so whatever spill there is, is deep blue.

In our Whitman booth with small individual port windows, we have regular winky down lights on the projector heads, but we also have what we call Work Blues -- flourescents with deep blue gels wrapped around the tubes so the room is bathed with blue light when we are running film or when there is a followspot operator. It provides plenty of visibility to move around the booth, but it seems that any blue light that winds up reflected into the theatre barely reads 5 stories below in the seating area, and not nearly as annoying to patrons as white light.

Frank
John said, "You can seat in the rear seats, and see the rear of the lamps. The glass is slighty tinted." You've got to be kidding, right....TINTED port glass? What a novel idea for screwing up correct color temp.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-03-2003, 08:24 PM:
 
quote:
I like a seperate projector porthole and observation port.
Ditto, Ken!

Steve G's right; oversized ports are the result of a lack of specialized knowledge. They simply don't know how to locate portholes. After a few spectacular misses, architects probably just started going WAY oversized, so there would be no questions; to save face. Quick and dirty - who cares about functionality?

In the State Theatre renovation in Lexington, KY - a booth I was able to design from the ground up - I located very small THX portholes for projectors and operator. All of them are spot-on perfect. When you walk up to the projector, you simply turn your head towards the wall, look down, and comfortably see all of the screen out the window. There's no stooping to look out, or reaching for projector controls during operation, either. And the beam exits right through the center of its opening.

If you want to sweat, let me tell ya, just spec. 12" x 12" ports (with a projector that can't be moved, because you also spec'd embedded conduit) and watch as the walls come together and the screen goes up! I got it right, but I didn't sleep well for a couple of weeks. I must've checked my figures a hundred times while the booth was being constructed! [Wink]
 
Posted by Manuel Francisco Valencia (Member # 710) on 03-06-2003, 07:37 PM:
 
Scott mentioned covering up the glass. This is something that I notice that a lot of theatres do not do but I do not know why. It seems logical when it comes to light spillage, just block it entirely. I have seen a picture (I cannot remember if it was in a topic or the pictures archive) where the porthole had a cardboard cutout with plenty of space for the picture. What are your guys take on this?
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 03-06-2003, 09:10 PM:
 
Our booth being designed for live theatre has a band of windows from end to end. The center panels are optical glass, the others are regular tempered glass. For film showings we have 1/8" plywood pieces to fit all but the center panels, held in with window screen retainers and painted black on the auditorium side. It takes about 90 seconds to install or remove the ply sections. Since our booth is HIGH above the last row of seats, even the sound of the Christie is not a problem.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-06-2003, 10:15 PM:
 
Chris,

I wanted to do that from the inception of this booth....sort of, instead of plywood, I thought we could use velour curtian on a track that could be pulled away to either corner for non-film events and when the curators give those patron tours and want that designer look. But for films, you could pull the curtain across the windows and square cutouts would fall precisely in front of the projector lenses and view locations.

Higher ups nixed it big-time. Seems a famous Japanese architect designed this theatre and covering up the rear "technical vista" would be counter to the man's "work." "Thing is," says me, 'IT DOESN'T WORK!" [Mad] They were not moved. [Roll Eyes]

Frank
 
Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 03-07-2003, 12:44 AM:
 
At the old theatre building I used to work in, one of the rooms still had its original, small port windows (c. 1965) The layout was obvious - projector, viewport, projector, viewport. Then there was this 5th window waaaaay down by the sidewall. Never could figure out why until eventually I noticed it lined up with another (at that point shuttered) window in the back wall of the booth that looked in on the toilet. You could check the picture while doing other things...

The other booth there had some of its original small windows, plus giant ones that were installed when the room was twinned c. 1980. Lots of light leakage there.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-07-2003, 10:05 AM:
 
I am 6'4", and throughout the 10 years I worked in cinemas, I did not find one observation port that I didn't have to crouch down to look through. I wished someone would start installing vertical observation ports - e.g. 12" across by 2 feet tall - mounted at a height that would enable both abnormally short and abnormally tall people to use them without straining themselves.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-11-2003, 02:40 AM:
 
Leo, that reminds me of the time we hired this masonry guy to put in two bullet-proof windows in our new box office. After he was done with the job we went to see the finished work. Three of us walked up to the newly installed windows and realized that we all had to bend down because the top of the window ended in line with our noses. We confronted the contractor who was standing behind us. He walked up to the window and said, "So what's the problem." His head was perfectly centered; he was 5'6"!

Everything is relative.

Frank
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2