Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Painted Wall VS Screen

This is topic Painted Wall VS Screen 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=010126

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 10-09-2009, 11:12 PM:

What is better a painted wall or a screen. The movie theater I worked at had both the walls reflected a lot of light but the screens looked better but were dimmer because the bulbs were to small.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-09-2009, 11:48 PM:

??? [Confused]

Why would anyone even consider not installing a screen in a commercial theatre? Reflectivity notwithstanding, the sound needs to appear to come from the picture, which cannot be done without a screen.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-10-2009, 01:23 AM:

So the "solution" to cheap bulbs and mediocre screens is to get bright pain on a wall? God. Just get a screen that ISN'T shitty along with bulbs that AREN'T "to small."

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-10-2009, 01:56 AM:

quote: Tim Reed
Why would anyone even consider not installing a screen in a commercial theatre?

It was very common in silent days, but I've never heard of it since. I've visited several theatres where the old painted screen could still be seen on the back wall behind the screen frame.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 10-10-2009, 04:18 AM:

The only cinema still operating in the UK that uses the original screen painted on the back wall used for silent films only is at the The Electric Palace cinema, Harwich, is one of the oldest purpose-built cinemas to survive complete with its silent screen, original projection room and ornamental frontage still intact. Other interesting features include an open plan entrance lobby complete with paybox, and a small stage plus dressing rooms although the latter are now unusable. There is also a former gas powered generator engine with a 7 foot fly wheel situated in the basement.

The main scope screen with all the other ratios is rolled up for the silent special screenings and small stage use.

http://www.electricpalace.com/

Remains of an old silent screen can still be seen at the the old Plaza Cinema, Oxted.

http://www.cinephoto.co.uk/oxted_painted_screen.htm

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 10-10-2009, 10:25 AM:

The Former Central Cinema in Leith still has its plaster screen.

It is now used as a church, but seems to show occasional video showings on the screen.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-10-2009, 10:34 AM:

quote: "Michael Voiland"
[T]he walls reflected a lot of light but the screens looked better but were dimmer because the bulbs were to small.

It sounds like you're talking across purposes to me.

The screens "look better" but are too dim. The walls don't look as good but "reflect a lot of light." That doesn't make sense. You're comparing apples to oranges.

It's like you're asking us whether we prefer a picture that is crappy but bright to a picture that is clearer but dim.

It doesn't make sense.

The solution: Replace or upgrade your lamps so that you get a brighter picture on the screens.

We all know that theater designers often suffer from Recto-Cranial Inversion so it's not surprising that some people would still use painted walls for screens. But you really should consider getting screens in those theaters.

By your own admission, screens look better. Right?

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 10-11-2009, 11:09 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
By your own admission, screens look better. Right?

Yes, Screens look better.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 10-11-2009, 11:56 PM:

I worked in a private screening room were a wall was put up as a screen instead of a real screen. It was painted with ceiling white paint. There was professional designed and installed side and bottom masking. Carbon Arc was the light source and it was the best show in town. Sure a screen is better for a commercial cinema but this had one advantage with not having visible perf holes.
There was room on the side where the left and right loudspeakers went and top and bottom centre channel.
Might sound retarded to some of you but it worked a real treat for this place.
You couldn't tell that there was no screen.
One of the reasons this was done was that there was no room to place loudspeakers if there was a screen as the theatre needed all the seating space it could get and a video preview room was right behind it where the size could not be reduced to accomodate loudspeakers. Sadly it is no longer around.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 10-12-2009, 12:09 PM:

quote: John Koutsoumis
and top and bottom centre channel.

So if I am understand this correctly their were 2 center channel speakers?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-12-2009, 02:32 PM:

The original 4 screens of the Showplace 6 had walls instead of screens, with the center speaker sitting in front covered with some kind of material. The 4 houses were mono until center/surround was installed in the 90s.
I have not been in this theatre in 6 years, but there had been talk of building screen frames, installing screens and raising the center speaker up higher in a platform.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 10-12-2009, 06:55 PM:

quote: Michael Voiland
So if I am understand this correctly their were 2 center channel speakers?

Yes that's correct. The top loudspeaker was more for higher frequencies and the below was full range. Strange as it may seem it worked for this place.