Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Widescreen and Stereophonic Sound in 1953

This is topic Widescreen and Stereophonic Sound in 1953 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=011428

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-18-2013, 03:31 PM:

Our new article is finished and I hope that you find it interesting:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Anybody have memories of running those interlocked stereo tracks in 1953?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-18-2013, 06:34 PM:

WOW! Thank you for posting such a very informative article about 50's wide screen movies and stereophonic sound, Robert. As a movie lover going back to the mid forties to the present, I was witness to many of film process when they were first introduced.

I seem to recall during the early fifties, the Princess Theatre here in Honolulu presented THE SNOWS OF KILLIIMANJARO with Gregory Peck, Susan Hayward and Ava Gardner on a huge screen advertised as a MAGNA SCREEN. The screen was four times as large as their previous screen and stretched wall to wall and floor to ceiling in that very large film venue. This same theatre later in the fifties presented all of the three strip Cinerama travelogue films.

-Claude

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-18-2013, 08:29 PM:

That's very kind Claude, thank you. I envy your memories!

I suspect Magna Screen was just a variation on Magnascope, the sytem that dated back to 1926 and was used to enlarge certain key scenes, like big musical spectacles or dramatic moments. Do you recall if they used it for just a specific sequence or the entire film?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-18-2013, 09:00 PM:

They used it for the entire film, Robert. I still remember the picture quality was not as good as 35mm films projected on the Princess original screen. The picture quality was kind of grainy because the MAGNA SCREEN had the 35mm film frame enlarged more than it was intended on that huge screen.

-Claude

Posted by Jarod Reddig (Member # 6363) on 04-18-2013, 10:49 PM:

Great article Robert! I've always been so fascinated by the progression of film technology throughout its history and this article taught me a lot. Thanks!

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-20-2013, 01:49 PM:

Thank you, Claude. That's the first time I've heard of the Magnascope treatment being used for a complete feature. I wonder how often that was done?

Thanks Jarod, I'm glad that you found it interesting.

Here's a preview of our upcoming article: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/shane-in-widescreen

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-20-2013, 02:11 PM:

I was a projectionist at the time of CinemaScope's inception and was proud to be a part of the industry. I was running E-7s with an Ampex penthouse for the 4 track magnetic sound track. Bausch & Lomb (sp) anamorphic lenses. Depending on the house I worked there might be Panatar lenses. After Fox's copyright apparently expired a number of companies came out with 2:35x1 wide screen processes under different names.

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-20-2013, 03:07 PM:

That's wonderful, Robert. Did you run the interlocked stereo tracks in 1953?

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 04-20-2013, 05:59 PM:

No Robert. I never even saw them. Every 'scope picture I ran had a 4 track magnetic soundtrack that was played by the penthouse to the three speakers behind the screen. Early on there was no surround sound. Later the magnetic tracks were increased to six for the surrounds.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-21-2013, 10:50 AM:

When I first started, the booth I ran in Bryan/College Station had E-7s and those monster Superscope lenses which were variable -- had a knob on the top to allow you to change the amount of stretch from zero -- basically a pass thru of the image, but with first sucking out about 1/3rd of the light (they were light hogs) -- to X2 full scope. Actually, they might have had even more stretch that X2, but I can't vouch for that.

I do recall the manual said that for "effect" you should start the film at zero stretch -- Academy ratio on the screen -- and crank the anamorphic control knob as the curtains opened (remember curtains?) until the picture was full width on the screen. I never did that because I thought it was hokey and when I was a kid, I saw my first CinemaScope picture THE ROBE in NYC, and they didn't do that; NYC was the criteria that I used, even down to the use of the curtains and curtain lights once I got to run movies. My boss loved it. He bragged, "We do it just like the big New York City theatres do it."

Robert, as usual, a great piece; many thanks -- it is important that our history be documented; it won't be long before digital makes people forget how 100 years of film used to excite the imagination and its progression over the first century. I don't think there is nearly the excitement over the installation of digital as there was for CinemaScope or even 3D in the 50s.

I remember when the theatres in Queens NY where I lived installed CinemaScope. Many actually closed to do the physical installation, especially if they needed to modify the proscenium for the scope width. The one Century Theatre's flagship house, which was my favorite, closed for a few days. I don't think people realized what a huge event that was in the public's mind. Movie theatres were THE entertainment. As kids, we went every Saturday; the adults went much more often than we do today. There was always a title they wanted to see. In fact, there was a 1-sheet that the Century chain had in each of its theatres for quite awhile which stated, Movies, Movies, Movies -- everyone should have one to look forward to. I remember it so vividly that I actually recreated it and use it where I work now. To have a theatre close its doors, even for a few days, back then was BIG. The equivalent today would be if they were to shut down TV stations for a few days. The public was keenly aware that SOMETHING was happening at the local Bijou and the anticipation was of this event was palpable.

Me and the kids on my block ventured down to Century's Fresh Meadows Theatre, their flagship theatre in Queens, to see what we could see. We found the side door opened and I was too curious not to venture in. Workers were on the side of the stage constructing a wall of some sort while others were installing the scope screen -- (Fox called it the Miracle Mirror or something like that) a new lenticular silver screen which was part of Fox's CinemaScope spec to compensate for the light loss.

I couldn't pull myself away. My friends finally just left me there; I only left when one of the workers shooed me away. CinemaScope was even bigger than Cinerama in terms of public perception. Unlike Cinerama, it happened across the country in almost every theatre and at about the same time. Cinerama was only in key cities and major markets.

And I will add that even though the common perception is that CinemaScope was Hollywood's (Zanuck's in particular) sword with which to slay TV, it should be mentioned that it was also a direct response to the impact of Cinerama. It was not lost on the moguls that upstart Cinerama, which was not a product of any of the major studios, had captured the imagination of the public to the point were every show had lines around the block at all their installations, few as those might have been. Nothing makes studio execs' mouths salivate and turn green with envy as does the proverbial "line around the block," especially when it's not their title. They wanted in on that wide screen, stereophonic sound ticket sales bonanza. Zanuck especially sent his minions out to get him some of it. They came back with the anamorphic lens and the rest is history. He was so convinced in the future of wide screen (CinemaScope) that at one press conference he brashly proclaimed that every Fox title from then on out would be in filmed and presented in CinemaScope. The rest of the studios saw that writing on the wall and believed so strongly in it that they were even willing to pay Fox to used the CinemaScope logo on their anamorphic films. Imagine how it must have irked Jack Warner to have to use the CinemaScope logo and then right underneath it, albeit in VERY small font, add "A Trademark of Twentieth Century Fox?!

Once the screens went wide, that was the end of the Academy ratio, which for decades was thought to be the ideal aesthetic ratio.

Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 04-21-2013, 12:49 PM:

enjoyed every nugget of that article, thanks for posting it, made my day

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-21-2013, 01:18 PM:

Frank: I've mentioned this before: Andy Marglin was the Cinerama tech guy along with Joe Kelly. Andy also was the tech guy for Century Theatres. He still comes in to Kelmar everyday and has all of his memories intact. You would enjoy each other. Louis

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-23-2013, 12:14 PM:

Louis, next time you see Andy, thank him from me and tell him that the Century Theatres were the classiest, best-run theatres in the outer boroughs for as long as Century was in NYC. I got my love of the theatre from the way they were run. I even outfitted our 2500 seat house to mimic the Century Fresh Meadows, down to our cream-white satin curtains and the curtain warmers which change hue from red to purple to blue as the show is about to start.

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-23-2013, 01:57 PM:

Frank, thanks for sharing those memories. I wish I had been there!

You're very welcome, Alan. It's a pleasure getting this material out there for people to enjoy.

I've added some more ads to the article and expect to have some widescreen trailers posted in the next few days.

Thank you to our good friend, Leonard Maltin: http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/how-to-pitch-a-movieand-more

Posted by Robert Furmanek (Member # 7026) on 04-28-2013, 11:36 AM:

I've added more ads, information on Warnerphonic sound and some trailers.

When production began on March 28, 1953, WINGS OF THE HAWK was the first feature composed for widescreen in the aspect ratio of 1.85:1. It was also filmed in 3-D, Technicolor and presented in 3 channel stereophonic sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nQh2dSJkE

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 04-28-2013, 01:44 PM:

Totally OT given that this thread is about mag stereo, but I've always been curious about the merits of Variable Density (WE) vs Variable Area (RCA)tracks. My impression is that VD was supposedly deemed superior, but I always felt that the VA tracks on WB titles were more enjoyable than the VD tracks on MGM and others. Anybody else have this opinion and/or have an answer why?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 04-29-2013, 02:23 PM:

With all things equal and working properly, area tracks are superior to density tracks by default, since density tracks are limited to the resolution of the film.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-29-2013, 03:05 PM:

VD tracks tended to have lower signal to noise, but limited frequency response, especially in the high end.

VA tracks had better frequency response, but tended to have worse signal to noise, especially after the print picked up dust and other dirt. This became a non issue after the introduction of Dolby.