But as they say, size isn't everything. In Times Square they have an LED video display that is the size of a 10 story building. Yeah, the picture is big....even bright, but so out-of-focus that they pretty much stopped using images and only display text, and even that looks like you want to turn a focusing knob someplace.

.
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

I interpreted the original post as saying the magnification from a standard 35mm print to the 93 foot screen would show how pixelated the image origination is.
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Lucas should have shot the thing in 70mm, but what do I know?
 

What type of 35mm projectors and lamphouses does the Villa use to light 93 feet of screen?

This is the largest indoor conventional cinema screen I have heard of. I can understand it being lit effectivly with 3-strip or even the larger aperture of 70, but what are the results like in 35?

David Kilderry
 

The closest way to explain it is that they will sort of animate the pixels out. Whether or not the process will actually work remains to be seen. But ILM has come up with some pretty amazing things to cover up bigger mistakes than Georgy filming star wars on video.

Now all I have to do is see it without paying and It might turn out pretty good.

Dave
 

The Villa has a DP-70 and a 7kw Christie lamphouse. The screen is relatively new there, but is a solid sheet. The picture quality is better than you'd expect for such a large screen. Yes, it is the largest one left in the world since the Omaha site was demolished. Go to www.villatheatre.com to see alot more on it.
Mark

Thus... it has still been a while since I've seen a movie at the Villa. In my recent viewing experiences in the Salt Lake City area, the Century and Jordan Commons have taken very good care of their prints. I believe I'll be going to one of those to see the next Star Wars.
 

Someone has developed an imaging device where each pixel can see all three colors. If it works out it will put an end to filter grids on consumer equipment and the 3-chips + prism professional arrangement.
 

I saw few movies at the Villa last year without any problems, but for some reason things went really wrong with "Harry Potter". In addition to the scratches on the print there was a dying surround speaker that was making some horrible noise, and a slight flicker on the bright scenes.

Chris Hicks ran a very negative article on the Villa in the Deseret News and then Carmike sent a technician out a couple times to give the system an "overhaul". They got a new print of "Harry Potter", fixed the speaker, and put in a new bulb so it wouldn't flicker. The article caused another round of cleaning/repairs about a month ago after a competitor sent it to Fox to try to get "Star Wars" booked for their theater instead.

So now may be best time to see a movie at the Villa - before things start going bad again.

With a properly curved gain screen, 6K or 7K lamp, and care to control the radiant energy with proper lamp alignment, heat filtration, and water cooling, I would venture that they could get close to 8 footlamberts on that huge screen with 35mm "scope" prints. As Mark notes, the presentation may not be perfect, but the impact of such a presentation would still be worth the effort.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: <A HREF="http://www.kodak.com/go/motion" TARGET=_blank>http://www.kodak.com/go/motion</A>

So... we're aiming to keep this theatre around when, most likely, the people who go there can't remember what the true purpose of this theatre was. Some of us remember 70mm but few remember Cinerama... and even if you could show Cinerama there, how many movies are available in that format? Three? Four?

It's hard for me to imagine tearing down the Villa so that someone can build a bigger parking lot and/or another ugly office building (the neighborhood already has plenty of both). But if the Villa is to be preserved for its historical value then we must find a way to show the historical movies which were meant to be played there... and in the correct format. Otherwise, what's the point?

When Chris Hicks complained of the dim picture for "Harry Potter" in his newspaper article he said it was because the house lights were left on during the whole film. The lighting's so poor in the auditorium anyway that I suppose that could happen without the staff noticing. Even with 70mm or 3-strip Cinerama they wouldn't get a properly-lit picture on the screen in those circumstances.

His second complaint about the picture was that it flickered on the bright scenes. I was told later by an employee that it was because the bulb had to be replaced. I assume they should have replaced the bulb earlier, or had a spare on hand so they didn't have to order it.

It seems to be that these two problems are staff-related and not because of technical limitations because of the size of the screen. Keep in mind that the Villa has been showing 35mm films on that Cinerama screen (either as a strip screen or a solid sheet) since around 1967. If a dim picture was such a serious problem then they would have removed the Cinerama screen a lot earlier. The last 70mm Cinerama film showed there, probably, in 1969. The 54-foot TODD-AO screen on the stage wasn't removed until 1998 and the original draperies for the stage are still in place (although very dusty and ripped in parts). Removing the Cinerama screen in the early 1970s wouldn't have been too difficult.

The Villa is definitely not a perfect theater, but it is worth saving and it can still deliver a great performance with 35mm films. Some people don't like the Cinerama screen because it distorts the picture - they can go to the all-THX Century 16 down the street. Other people love the Cinerama screen because it's so huge and curves so much that it makes you feel like you are a part of the movie (which is probably a distortion of another sort.) These people couldn't care less about a slightly dim picture (if they notice it), distortion of straight horizontal lines, and even subtitles that go off the bottom of the screen and onto the carpet. What they won't tolerate is scratched up prints, having both surround channels turned off because of one bad surround speaker, a sometimes dismal selection of movies, a messy and sticky floor, and other such problems that can be addressed.

I've heard from people who attribute the decline of the theater to Mann Theaters firing the qualified and experienced staff and replacing them with teenagers. The theater is also a single-screen, so it's not as profitable and so it isn't as well-kept as it needs to be. Things were apparently so bad before the 1996 renovation that many people haven't been back since and still complain about problems that were resolved over five years ago. Some people simply refuse to give the theater a second chance.
 

The screen is about 78.5 feet wide along the bottom (I measured it twice), but it seems to be slightly narrower in the middle because the screen bends outwards. The curtains were covering a few feet on either side, so there was about 72 feet exposed. The image for "Star Wars" didn't quite reach the curtains on the right side, so I'd guess it was using about 70 or 71 feet of the screen.

The Cinerama screen was 96 feet wide. I was told recently that it was removed in 1978 for "Superman" and replaced with a solid-sheet screen that was 89 by 29. I didn't get a good measurement of the current frame, but I estimated it at 88. The scaffolding and curtains continue a ways past that, and I'm certain there was room there for the 96-foot Cinerama screen.

So, getting back to the original topic, I did notice a couple of people-oriented shots in "Star Wars" that looked particularly grainy. I'm not sure I would have noticed it too much if I hadn't been thinking about it. I couldn't see any individual pixels, of course.

Maybe we'd better hear from someone who's seen it on the Jordan Commons Superscreen, since it's apparently ten feet wider than the Villa. (Can they adequately light that 80' screen with a 35mm print, or should they stick to the large-format 70mm films?)
 

An 80 x 33.5 foot screen would be "stretching" the limit for 35mm. Even with a moderate gain curved screen and a 7000 watt lamp, they would probably fall well short of 16 footlamberts.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Jordon Commons Snooper Screem is way underlit. I'd venture to say its between 6 to 8 foot lamberts. Not much better on 8/70 either. The Museum Of Ancient Life's 8/70 is alot brighter mainly due to the high speed pulldown that is just a part of the Iwerks Linear Loop Projector.
Mark @ GTS
 

What sized lamp are they using for 8/70? What sized screen and what gain (reflectance) is it?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

I have seen one movie on the Superscreen at Jordan Commons, "Unbreakable", and didn't think there was anything wrong with the brightness of the picture. I think personal preference will be the main factor in whether people enjoy seeing movies on large screens like the Villa, Jordan Commons Superscreen, or drive-ins. Obviously people don't think the picture is dim enough to keep them away.

Here is a rough stitch of a 360 panorama of the area behind the Villa's screen.
http://www.villatheater.com/photos/tour/020515-BehindA.html

If I had measured the screen before I took the photos, then I would have taken a photo that better shows the edge of the screen, but this one gives you something of a view and it also shows the original stage.

If you look at the mural,you will see the figures of two women. I believe that the 100-foot Cinemiracle screen came right up to the wall where these women are. The curtain that hangs here may have been to mask the edge of the screen. If you look at the floor in front of the stage you will see what might be the curve of the Cinemiracle screen. I think they laid carpet down right up to the screen and it was later removed, leaving the black stuff on the floor. The Cinemiracle screen was used from September 1960 to when Cinerama was installed in July 1961.