Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Caring About Composition

This is topic Caring About Composition 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=002001

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-07-2001, 03:58 PM:

My latest article for Kodak's Cinema Notes is "Caring About Composition":
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/spring2001/pytalk.shtml

(I dedicate this article to Evans Criswell, who is a strong advocate of showing movies in the correct aspect ratio. )

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-12-2001, 07:23 PM:

I agree totally with everything in your article. However, there's a related problem which it does not mention. In Europe, where 1.85 is not the only 'flat' ratio in regular use, further problems are caused by the intended ratio not being communicated to the projectionist and by some cinemas not having the lenses and plates for all the ratios they are trying to show. In the UK, for example, this usually means 1.66 films being shown in 1.85, and in France the exact opposite.

As you've pointed out in another thread, the relevant SMPTE standard for head leaders does specify that the ratio should be marked on them. But, frankly, it's a specification that everyone ignores. I simply can't remember the last time I've shown a print which has had this information printed (as distinct from written on by a projectionist) onto the leader.

In one recent instance - 'Les Convoyeurs Attendant', the cans said 1.85 but several projectionists had written 1.66 on the leaders and tails. If negative cutters and/or labs did what they were supposed to do and write this information on the leaders it would end the confusion. OK, it wouldn't get round the problem of cinemas not having a lens and plate for the correct ratio of the film they are trying to show, but it would be a start. The alternative would be to hard-matte everything to the desired ratio, but that would mean everything having to be step-printed (at least in the interneg stage) and risk hairs in the gate being visible on-screen.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-12-2001, 07:59 PM:

Haven't figured out how I'm going to do it, but for you John, my outdoor screen will have adjustable side masking!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-12-2001, 08:26 PM:

Dave, adjustable masking in an outdoor would be nice if you could make it cost effective. I have never seen it done, but I suppose it could be. Please remember the angle of the screen tilt, the wind that blows at a good clip, the huge screen size, and the mechanical apperatus needed must be able to stand the beating of the elements such as rain, wind, weathering, and itself and anything else that comes along. You might have one helluva maintenance nightmare with movable masking in an outdoor enviroment. You might want to compare the number of scope movies vs flat movies. Most are scope now, but I don't know the percentage figure. If you try it, I hope you have good luck with it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-12-2001, 09:50 PM:

Leo: That's a good suggestion to try to reach film editors, negative cutters, lab cutters, or whomever is responsible for properly identifying the aspect ratio on the leaders.

I've used a search engine to find possible organizations:
http://www.editorsnet.com/
http://www.ace-filmeditors.org/
http://www.nenm.com/filmedit.htm
http://www.sullivanballou.com/strock/index.html

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2001, 10:03 PM:

For the drive in, how about having masking "panels" that are attached to the sides of the screen on hinges, like a pair of shutters? For a scope picture, the panels would be folded around back of the screen. For a flat picture, the panels (painted flat black) could be swung around to the front, covering the excess screen area. There would have to be some method for locking the panels in place, as well as a means to open and close them, but it could probably work?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2001, 10:18 PM:

I've never had any problem with a flat image presented on a scope screen without masking. What I do HATE is the fuzzy side edges from the aperture. My ideal drive-in design would be to have the concession building at least 10 feet larger than the booth that would sit atop. On flat films, two boards could be brought in vertically (perhaps on some kind of hinge arrangement) at the edge of the concession stand (at least 10 feet away from the projector) to mask the fuzzy edges of the aperture, which would produce magnificently razor sharp edges on the flat image, just like a matted 70mm flat movie.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-13-2001, 11:05 AM:

Hi Brad. On a huge outdoor screen, the boards would brobably sag due to the weight and rip themselves free in the wind. Also, due to the massive forward tilt of the screen, I think they would be very difficult for one person to move, especially when an attempt is made to close or open them. It just seems that way to me.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-13-2001, 11:06 AM:

Wow, Thanks, John! Great article!

I am very opposed to the showing of scope movies at the flat aspect ratio (Regal Theatres in Huntsville in two thirds of the auditoriums) and the showing of both formats at 2.00:1 (like the old Cobb Cinema 8 did in 7 of their 8 auditoriums).

However, I don't mind the use of top masking in smaller auditoriums as much. There are many smaller auditoriums out there that are 28 feet in width that have high ceilings. In such auditoriums, having a screen with side masking would provide scope images that are up to 26 feet in width, but would limit flat images to a width of about 20 feet. With top masking, the flat images can be made 26 feet wide. It isn't an optimal situation, but at least the aspect ratios are preserved and each image is as large as possible. The real solution is to not build long narrow auditoriums that are 28 feet in width. Build them 32 feet in width (or more) and make the auditoriums less deep so that side masking can be accommodated with good results.

The only practical way that Regal can fix the screens in their 28-foot auditoriums here in Huntsville is to install adjustable top masking. That way, their flat setup would not change, requiring them to buy new lenses for their scope setup. New aperture plates would be needed unless the ones they have could be filed out to show the entire image. I wish someone at Regal would realize how unprofessional the "scope at 1.85:1" practice is here in Huntsville and make it a priority to fix it. It just shows that large theatre companies just don't give a hoot about presentation quality details or adhering to ANSI/SMPTE standards.

If top masking is used, I think it is very important to not let the audience see the masking in the flat position if a scope feature is to be shown. Have the masking set for scope when the audience comes in and leave it that way. Never let the audience see it in the flat position first and have it go down to make the screen smaller afterwards.

About showing flat movies on scope screens: I dislike that practice. If I go to a theatre and the side masking is not pulled in when I see a flat film, due to the fuzzy edges, I usually count off 4 points. The highest grade for such a presentation is typically 96. I'm talking about indoor theatres here, and not drive-ins.

About lack of adjustable masking: I do not deduct for lack of adjustable masking on a per-movie basis because doing so would require that I actually watch a realistic percentage of scope movies shown at 1.85:1. which I prefer to avoid like the plague. Also, deducting for lack of adjustable masking on a per-move basis would allow me to let a theatre's rating be higher or lower based on how many "wrong ratio" presentations I attend at the theatre. Instead, I calculate a facility deduction and apply it after I calculate the average for such a facility. That is, if I see a scope movie at 1.85:1 and everything else is perfect, I give it a 100. If the theatre's overall average is 98.0, and two thirds of the screens lack masking and are 1.85:1-only, then 7.5 points are deducted from the average, giving a 90.5 rating. Another beneficial aspect of using this method is if the problem is corrected in all auditoriums, the theatre's rating instantly goes up and is an accurate reflection of presentation quality at the time, rather than taking 2 to 4 years to slowly move up to the proper value.

Evans A Criswell

These ratings can be seen on my site. In the ratings table, click the theatre name to see lists of rated showings:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-13-2001, 11:52 AM:

John, Love your article and I appreciate the knowledge and information you so willingly share with us all.

It is criminal what some operators do, to the projected image, on the screen. It seems to me that some of the film distributor's are also derelict, in their responsibilities to the director's and producers, of the film when they permit it to go to a theatre, that does not present it properly. There was a time in exhibition that presentation was of paramount importance to both exhibition and distribution. I know, at least in New York first run the film companies send in their technicians to work with the exibitor's technician to insure the film is played properly. Many of the distributor's hire the Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) personnel to check these theatres for compliance. Pre 1975 the film distributor's use to have us repair seats, change carpeting, put in new curtains or maskings before booking a picture into an auditorium. This was in the days of the Red Carpet and Blue Ribbon bookings.

Love the creative jucies flowing on the drive in masking. Keep it coming and you will find the solution.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 03-13-2001, 12:57 PM:

Hee, hee, I was being somewhat silly when I talked about the outdoor masking, however I knew it would get us thinking! What is it about the matting that would require it to be 10 feet away Brad? You know, the FLAT print of Chocolat I saw the other night had fuzzy (I described it as jagged aperature plates) sides to it. Is the proper procedure to first try to have proper screen masking, failing that the "matting" near the projector? This print was at the local multiplex, where they DO "fill the wall" and use top masking for Scope. Before I read John's article, I did actually notice some pretty heavy "graininess" in some scenes
(at least it wasn't pixels!

). Brad, for the outdoor matte, I would try a set of "goalposts" that would hinge back to rest against the outer wall of the booth giving room for Scope pictures, and crank forward to matte for Flat. Or, how about something on rails?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2001, 02:41 PM:

Seeing as how difficult moveable masking could be at a drive-in, I was just suggesting a way to at least make sharp edges on the flat images with the posts several feet in front of the lens.

By the way, the TAP guidelines are now available for download in the manuals section under "Instructional Documents".

(Oops, I just realized Ted just started a thread specific to the TAP guidelines. Please post your responses on that thread to keep things together.)

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-13-2001, 07:23 PM:

Brad, I mis-understood your post. Sorry.

What you said sounds like a very good idea - I'll have to fiddle around with it to see what I can get away with in an indoor theater. It could be your suggestion might clear up fuzzy edges when a 1.85 is projected on a 2.35 screen. Thanks.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-13-2001, 08:52 PM:

I have to relate a story here about showing proper ratios.

In 1982, Bob Maar was the general manager at the theater company where I was projectionist/ technician.

We had just finished a 70mm installation in a newly twined (and completely renovated)theater. After projecting some 35PA test film, I was unhappy with the way the lenses and screen sizes had been set up.

1.85 was OK, but scope (although masked to the correct ratio) had a 12% crop. And 70mm was being made to fit on the same ratio screen as scope. Also, the rectifiers were too small (not enough wattage.)

It's tough to get theaters to spend money at any time; even more so to replace new stuff that was just installed. But, as soon as I demonstrated to Bob that it was not right, he approved about $4000 worth of replacement lenses, rectifiers, and labor.

So, while some people will SAY they want screen ratios, etc. done correctly, Bob will actually find the funds to DO it.

Thanks, Bob!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-13-2001, 09:07 PM:

One thing to remember is that cropping any image area is also "throwing away" light --- light that hits the aperture plate never ends up on the screen. So an image area that is cropped 12% is 12% less bright than it could be.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-13-2001, 09:30 PM:

I don't think masking an outdoor screen would be too awfully difficult. Just EXPENSIVE! Y'Know those roll-up steel security shutters they use to block off whole hallways in places like shopping malls? I know this would take a lot of engineering but I think that's a solvable problem. The real problem is $$$!

Posted by Tom Sauter (Member # 616) on 03-14-2001, 09:49 AM:

Since we're on the subject of proper screen masking, does anyone have any suggestions to get a nice looking scope image on this screen?

Those idiots on the stage must be the architects. We actually bring architecture students through this theatre as an example of how NOT to design a cinema.

I've installed manually adjustable side masking, which does a nice job for 1.85, 1.66, and 1.37. But since the screen's opening is drywalled on all four sides, I fear I may have to "letterbox" scope images to get rid of fuzzy aperture lines.

(Side note: This theatre was a nightmare when I first walked into it. All of the installation work that Gordon and others had done was completely wiped out by my predecessor. I've had to re-install every single piece of equipment. The scope masking is one of last deficiencies remaining).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-14-2001, 10:01 AM:

Tom Sauter:

That room cries for a wider screen for "scope". Looks like the present screen is about 8 feet high, so you would want a screen at least 19 feet wide.

It would also be a good idea to use black paint or carpeting on that shiny light wood stage, to avoid "contrast killing" reflection of light back to the screen.

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-14-2001, 10:56 AM:

To: John Walsh, I appreciate your kind words, but all the "thanks" should go to you for bringing the facts to my attention. The people of Stamford, Ct., are the real winners for they get a proper presentation and the theatre owner gets the receipts, etc. It pays in more ways imaginable to do things correctly. Plus we can sleep at night.

To: Tom, As John suggested, please put a dark (black) carpet over the entire stage including the front facade.

It looks like you have room to put in a wider screen, possibly with movable side maskings and use a common height for your ratio's.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 03-14-2001, 11:20 AM:

Could build another screen frame 2 feet in front of the present screen so you could widen it out to 2.35 ft across foo every foot of hieght you have. This is what the Upstairs Auditorium of the Howard Twin looks like except the screen is correct for scope at 9'6" tall by 22' masked at 9' X 21' 2" fixed masking. We also had a stage like that one in front of it. At one point someone painted the stage Bright Red. We are looking at moving the screen up 3 ft to accomadate a stereo system. As it sits now the Speaker behind the screen sits in a partial Pod that protudes into the auditorium below.

Posted by Tom Sauter (Member # 616) on 03-15-2001, 08:07 AM:

Thanks, guys! Those are excellent suggestions. Carpeting that stage has been on the radar for some time now... I'm trying to convince a few folks that the finished oak is NOT a "feature" of the room. The screen is 10.5' x 19.5', and believe it or not they accidentally ordered two when they built the place! Maybe I can splice them together

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 03-18-2001, 04:55 PM:

John: fixed screen format? "one size fits all"????
I CAN'T BELIEVE!
I will never go in a theater where scope film are presented in the same dimension of a flat movie... How many theaters are there in the USA that are using this orrible tecnique????????? I hope few ones...
I can understand the "multiplex" tecnique to enlarge the screen vertically to have flat screen as widht as scope. I agree with evans. I saw my first type of that masking in an Italian Multiplex. At the moment I thought it was a good idea since the theater is not big. But in their biggest auditorium they have a classic masking. I also agree with John: in smaller auditorium flat films are bigger than scope...

However I cannot understand how a theater can thinks "one size fits all". If I'll go in a theater like that I'll go away immediately screaming and running!!! Unbelievable!

In Italy masking is not used often. In my theater, for example, when I project in 1:85 part of the screen is not used, white. In Florence there are more than 45 screens and one only has motorized masking.

bye
Antonio

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-18-2001, 08:12 PM:

I have a few "Onezie" screens in my theatres. They really look terrible to me. My problem is that as much as I want to change them, I have 100 other screens to keep running.

Sometimes when I go to these places all I can do is just shake my head.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-19-2001, 08:11 PM:

Antonio: "One size fits all" shouldn't happen, but it does.

IMHO, if a theatre cannot afford movable side masking, then at least show the correct aspect ratios with "fuzzy" edges. The only justifiable reason not to have a screen capable of the full 2.39:1 scope aspect ratio is that it is an old landmark theatre that would require tearing out the prescenium to install a wider screen.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-20-2001, 09:40 AM:

I agree with John that showing a movie at the correct aspect ratio with "fuzzy edges" on an incorrectly-sized screen is better than cropping the image to fit the screen if the amount of crop would be significant (like 2.39:1 down to 2.00:1 or 1.85:1, or 1.85:1 down to 2.00:1 or less). Actually, if the Regal theatres in my area began showing scope movies on their 1.85:1-only screens by "letterboxing them", I'd give those theatres a higher rating than I currently do. They currently get a hefty 7.5 point facility deduction because of the severe cropping (23 percent) of scope films in two thirds of the auditoriums.

Based on my previous experiences, nobody seems to complain if a flat movie is shown on a scope screen with several feet of black on both sides (although I will deduct 4 points for it), but every time a "letterboxed" scope trailer is printed to be shown in the flat format with black at the top and bottom, people start chattering when they see it and think something is wrong. I don't believe "letterboxing" scope onto a 1.85:1-only screen would go over well with the average customers, although it would be better than cropping to 1.85:1.

The only feasible cure for Cobb Syndrome (as I affectionately refer to it) in those long narrow auditoriums that are only 28 feet or less wide is to put adjustable top masking in place. I know top masking is disliked, but it's better than a fixed size of 1.85:1 for everything.

Evans A Criswell
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-20-2001, 10:30 PM:

Is it true that one factor that limited the screen size in certain shopping center/mall theatres was the "standard" support column spacing? In other words, they didn't design the building to be a theatre, they designed the theatres to fit inside a multi-purpose building, leading to narrow screens, and floors with inadequate slope (poor sight lines).

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-20-2001, 11:07 PM:

John, that's exactly what happens a lot of the times when a theatre moves into a preexisting facility. I'm sure the column support system in a preexisting building would create severe limitations on how well a theatre could be built, as would ceiling height and the nature of the floor.

Let me use as an example my favorite example, the Cobb Cinema 8 in Huntsville that closed last May. Read all of these details of the auditoriums and booth configuration and be amazed!

It was in a shopping center built for a grocery store. There was an A&P grocery store in the location, which Cobb Theatres chose to put an 8-screen multiplex. It was painfully obvious that the building was never intended to be a theatre. Some auditoriums were 24 feet wide with the big ones being 28 feet wide. All of the screens except one were fixed-sized with no adjustable masking and the screens were 20 feet by 10 feet to give that 2.00:1 aspect ratio for everything that we've come to love so much. One screen was 24 feet wide by 10 feet wide and had adjustable side masking, but the manager told me at the time that it stayed "out" all the time, and I guess that only scope movies were shown in that auditorium.

Every auditorium had a nice bright red exit sign right at one of the edges of the screen washing out a large portion of each screen in red light.

The port holes were not in the centers of the rears of the auditoriums, but in a rear corner of each, for maximum keystoning. One glance at the booth made it obvious why they did that. Projectors for pairs of auditoriums could be placed close to each other so that a single deck of 5 platters could feed both. That way, only 4 decks of platters were needed for the 8 projectors.

One of my favorite features of the theatre was the way the booth had to be built into the place. The walkway that went from the lobby straight back to the rear of the theatre, with 4 auditoriums on each side, did not have enough clearance between the hall ceiling and the building's ceiling to put the booth directly above the walkway. Instead, it was placed on the left side of the walkway and you went up a set of very unfinished looking steps to get to it, and the booth floor was about 4 feet higher than the walkway floor. This configuration caused the front and back auditoriums on the left side to be "L-shaped" since the booth ended at the right back corner of the front auditorium and the left rear corner of the rear auditorium. It felt very odd sitting in the rear section of those auditoriums due to the assymmetry. The 20 foot by 10 foot screens were not even centered on the front wall in those auditoriums. They were about a foot off center. There was room for 24 foot by 10 foot screens with side masking in every auditorium, but those 20 by 10s were put in every auditorium but one.

Anyway, now for the strange booth quirk: since the booth was to the left and up four feet from the walkway, running along it for most of the length of the walkway, you may wonder how the image was projected into the auditoriums on the right side of the complex. They projected the beam of light through the space over the walkway into the right auditoriums. The right auditoriums therefore probably had a 20 foot longer throw than did the left auditoriums.

Another feature of this theatre was a single aisle up the center of every auditorium, with seats going from both sides of it to the walls. There was not much slope and the seats actually started sloping upward toward the screen in the front portions of each auditoriums.

This place was a perfect example, in nearly every way, of how NOT to build a theatre. Can anyone think of ways to have so many undesirable features? Building in an old grocery store led to some of the shortcomings, but there was no excuse for others. This was a first-run theatre complex from 1982 until 1996, and then was a second-run theatre until 2000. I weep thinking of all the presentations that suffered in that place. I was actually ecstatic to see it close.

MORAL of the story: If you're going to build a theatre, do it right! The world does not need grocery store theatres!

Although Cobb's later theatres were actually designed and built as theatres from the start, the 28-foot wide auditorium with a fixed-size 1.85:1-only wall-to-wall screen was the norm in 20 of the 28 auditoriums that Cobb built here. Regal added 2 auditoriums to the Hollywood 16, making the ratio 20 out of 30 (two thirds). I wonder if we will be forever afflicted with Cobb Syndrome here. Roger Frazee, are you still around?

Evans A Criswell
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-21-2001, 10:32 AM:

Evans: Ouch!

I guess the only thing worse than a poorly designed theatre is ruining a really good theatre by crudely twinning it, as was too often done in the 70's and 80's.

One good thing about modern stadium designs is that the building is intended as a theatre right from the start. Although sometimes the smaller auditoriums in a stadium complex don't get the attention they deserve, and end up sparsely designed and unsatisfying.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-21-2001, 01:03 PM:

John,

About crudely twinning, look at this information given by a theatre manager in a certain small town. Since this was a private email, I have blocked out the theatre name and dates to protect the identity of the sender, since I don't want to cause any problems for him.

Here is some relevant information concerning the twinning of the theatre that was in the email message:

>I still use the original <brand deleted>
>Projectors. <irrelevant stuff deleted> I
>updated when I twinned. I use platters,
>and put in surround sound. <more deleted>
>The single screen ... was 20x40. The
>screens now are 14x28.

From this paragraph, it is clear that in the twinning, the theatre was switched from changeovers to platters. I'll bet that the two projectors being reused were aimed at the two new screens through the same portholes. I'll have to check this out and verify it if I have a chance to visit that theatre. Note the screen dimensions: 2.00:1 . Adjustable masking was not mentioned, but I'll not assume that unless I make a visit to the theatre.

Sound like a typical twinning job?

Evans

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-28-2002, 08:41 PM:

Bumping this up because the subject of John Pytlak's article is important!

The worst twinning I ever saw was the Edwards Huntington Cinema in Huntington Beach, CA. As a single-screen, this was a wonderful theater with the seats arranged in an arc so they faced the center of the original screen. When it was twinned, they didn't bother to re-aim the seats, so they faced the end of the newly-constructed center wall. You had to turn your head to the side to view the center of the new screens. Also, the booths seemed to be constructed on plywood with little support (or something), because they acted as a sounding board and vibration from the projectors was clearly audible in the auditoriums.

I love it when the image is centered in the masking and there are four clean, crisp black borders. Hate those fuzzy edges where the image doesn't reach the masking.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-28-2002, 10:11 PM:

Sounds exactly like what GCC did to the Avco General Cinema in Westwood, CA. Originally a premiere first-run house (the first in SoCal to be THX'd, for the opening of Return of the Jedi I believe), it was cheaply twinned about five years ago. The seats were left curved towards the old centerline. Couldn't believe the place when I went there to see the 70mm/VistaVision restoration of Vertigo, the screening of which came complete with on-screen alignment of the lamphouse during the credits. What a crime! Definitely won't be going to that house again.

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
Vyizderzomanimororzizazzizzanzerizorziz?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 03-29-2002, 12:26 AM:

Didn't some lamphouse manufacturer at one time, was it Strong?, make a reflector that was made so that it could be "bent" when showing 1.85 -- effectively converting the round light cone to an eliptical shape to utilize more of the light? Sounds like a good idea, but it didn't seem to stick. Anyone have any info on that design?

As for cruddy twins -- they twined a really nice neighborhood theatre in the mid-70s (the worst days of early multiplexing). As was their want, they would split it right down the middle and keep the two projectors, ports and seats in exactly the same position. This shifted the centerline of each screen's placement yet the seats, remained facing the what was the corner of the two new screens. Although the aperture plates were cut properly to correct the keystoning, any horizon lines in the image would dip in to one side at the bottom of the screen and then turn upward toward the top of the screen, creating a kind of trapizoid distortion....credits were fun to watch because there never was a parallel line anyplace on the screen. Couple with the fact that you weren't sitting facing the screen, but some mytical place further to the left or right, depending on which box you wound up in, you constantly had to overcome the sensation that the room was tilted and you were always on the verge of falling sideways.

The there was the fact that the rooms were now twice as long as they were wide. The audio sounded like it was in this big echo chamber -- nice for those who like that gym shower room sound, only trouble was, you couldn't understand not a single word of dialogue.

As much as I used to hate it when they would close theatres in my neighborhood to put in bowling alleys, but in this case, a bowling alley would have served us better than that abomination of a theatre. Of course, it is now a bank. Eventually they all turn into banks.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-29-2002, 03:25 AM:

What you described above is the old Sony Theatres Cinema City Danvers. They turned a 4 screen into a six screen.

------------------
--Sean McKinnon
Manager
Loews Cineplex Entertainment
Liberty Tree Mall 20
Danvers, Mass
www.enjoytheshow.com

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 03-29-2002, 06:48 AM:

The worst twin job ever has to be the Century 23 on Winchester Blvd. in San Jose, CA. It's a dome that has been cut in half by a wall. (Just let your imagination fill in the rest.)

Fortunately just accross the street there is the Century 21, a much bigger dome that is also a former 3-strip Cinerama installtion. That dome is still intact, as are the three domes of the Century 22. (I regularly go there to see first run movies, and presentation quality is almost always excellent.)

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 03-29-2002, 12:29 PM:

They have 2 of those Century domes in Sacramento, both of which were cut in half (one around 1974, the other in 1978 if I'm correct.) It makes me sad to even drive by them; though they've added 8 new screens not too long ago I still won't go to that complex at all until they change the big domes back to the way they should be. Century seems better committed to quality than they used to be so hopefully they'll do that someday; however the Century 21 was recently closed for remodeling and when it re-opened it STILL had 2 screens

I used to go to the ones in San Jose in the 70's when I lived near there, I have lots of fond memories. I don't know how people can stand to go to the cut-up domes.