Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screen Sizes

This is topic Screen Sizes in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=000128

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 12-17-2000, 10:38 AM:

What are the sizes of your screens?
How many seats per auditorium?

Our local theatre:
20 feet x 10 feet w/159 seats
40 feet x 20 feet w/282 seats
50 feet x 25 feet w/380 seats
60 feet x 30 feet w/451 seats

This is for SilverCity Polo Park... How do yours compare?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 12-17-2000, 01:36 PM:

What are you trying to invoke, screen envy?

Much like Rolls Royce, I'll just say that our screens are adequate.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 12-17-2000, 04:56 PM:

I'm not trying to "promote screen envy"! I'm only 13 years old.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-17-2000, 09:03 PM:

I think 40 feet in width is the largest screen in any Huntsville/Decatur theatres. Since I've been noting screen widths, 40 feet is the max anywhere around here. Most screens in the Regal (old Cobb) theatres are either 40 feet at max width (with side masking) or are 25 to 27 feet (in 28 foot wide auditoriums) in width with no movable masking. In the Decatur Regal, in the 28-foot auditoriums, top masking is used, so the 25 to 27 foot width is constant.

Carmike is a different story. They use all side masking but have varying widths. Depending on the auditorium, in the Huntsville location, scope widths vary from 20 feet (in 30-foot auditoriums) to 34 feet (in the 43-foot auditorium).

Andrew, all the screen dimensions you gave were 2.00:1. I surely hope there is an adjustable masking system of some sort on those.

Evans

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-17-2000, 10:23 PM:

60 feet high X 85 feet wide silver screen with 440 seats.

Okay, so it's an Imax theater.

But, hey, we can do 3D!

Stylin' glasses!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2000, 12:18 AM:

Is Imax still using the same glasses as 2 years ago? Those things were heavy...I had a big headache after watching "Everest" in Seattle!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2000, 02:00 AM:

Andrew, where did you get those figures from? A remarkably accurate method for measuring a screen is to count ceiling tiles. They are 2 feet by 4 feet. Just count them and multiply depending on their orientation. For the height, you would need to get in the back of the auditorium and eyeball it, but I've always been able to get it within a couple of feet in a pinch to find a suitable lens.

(Something tells me Andrew will become an "expert film handler" before his 14th birthday. )

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-18-2000, 08:16 AM:

Everest wasn't in 3d so you shouldn't have been wearing the glasses.
The heavy headset style is more light efficien than the regular plastic polarizers as the other has lcd shutters synced to the projector. Also the have less ghosting and head position isn't as criticle. Also there is a PSE soundsystem

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2000, 10:03 AM:

Another little "tidbit" on aspect ratios:

United States paper money (Federal Reserve Note) is about 6.0 x 2.5 inches, which is an aspect ratio of 2.4:1, almost exactly matching the 2.39:1 aspect ratio of the "scope" format.

A typical US business card is 3.5 x 2.0 inches, which is 1.75:1, just slightly under the normal 1.85:1 "flat" aspect ratio.

So if you forgot your tape measure or calibrated template, you can simply hold up a dollar bill or a business card in front of you (in the USA) to gauge the approximate aspect ratio of the screen. Hint: it should NOT be 2.00:1 in any theatre that "Cares About Composition".

------------------
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

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2000, 06:17 PM:

This is the one thing about my theatre that I hate, and can't really do anything about ... the 2:1 screen. It came with the place. It's 15X30 and goes wall-to-wall, so if I wanted to fix the scope picture, it would have to be about 2.24 feet shorter. Which of course would look like a "letterboxed" video. So what's the lesser of two evils? I do "care about presentation" but short of making the building wider (impossible, because it's surrounded by other buildings), I'm stuck.

On the bright side, I've been here over 22 years and have never had one single complaint about it. So I guess I won't knock down the walls just yet.

Posted by Richard C. Wolfe (Member # 431) on 12-18-2000, 07:08 PM:

Mike:

I wonder if that could be a standard Roxy screen size (just kidding), my Roxy also has a 15x30 screen. Even though the theatre is 60 feet wide, the proscenium arch is 30.5 feet, and therefore we take up the entire opening. Our flat picture is 15x27.5 with the side masking moved in slightly, and our scope is 13x30 with the top masking moved down. When we have a cartoon or flat trailer before a scope feature we show those at 13x24 with the curtain masking the sides which then closes and reopens to total width for the scope feature.

I think our picture sizes look quite good in relation to the auditorium size.(560 seats)

And we can't tear out the proscenium as that would require removing the organ chambers, and then where would we put the pipes? And our patrons don't want anything to happen to the mighty WurliTzer. What would they listen to before the shows on Saturday nights? I know they don't want movietunes and a slide presentation with advertisements. If we wanted to sell ads, we could just lower the ad curtain, and put them there.
Are some of you younger ones lost?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-18-2000, 11:55 PM:

Our screen is 17x39 scope using all the available width, flat is 17 x 30. Top maaking is fixed, sides motorized. This is for 916 seats on the main floor & 476 in the balcony.

Posted by Joe Smith (Member # 190) on 12-19-2000, 03:46 PM:

My screen size is approx. 36 x 82 with no masking.......

But then it's a drive-in.

Posted by Roger Frazee (Member # 640) on 12-21-2000, 05:03 AM:

Measuring a screen's height is easy. First get yourself a 10' length of 3/4" PVC pipe and a 3/4" 90-degree elbow. Place the elbow on one end of the pipe, hold the pipe vertically, and "hook" the elbow over the top of the screen. Let the pipe hang straight down.

Now, measure from the bottom end of the pipe to the bottom of the screen. Add 10' to this measurement and you have the screen height.

If all that seems like too much trouble, get the dimensions from the label on the back of the screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-21-2000, 08:11 AM:

Roger --- thanks for the tip. Maybe you could actually make a 20-foot PVC pipe adjustable "ruler" by sliding a 10-foot length of small diameter PVC pipe inside a larger diameter pipe, with distance marks marked on the pipes.

What is the current trend at circuits like Regal as to the "mix" of screen sizes in new multiplexes? Do you prefer common image height for flat and scope, with movable side masking? Does the high front wall in stadium designs drive a common image width for scope and flat, with adjustable top (and bottom?) masking?

Posted by Roger Frazee (Member # 640) on 12-22-2000, 07:03 AM:

Hello John. The type of screen and masking Regal installs depends, primarily, on the width of the auditorium. If we are able to put in a screen that is wider than thirty feet, we will use side-movable maskings. If the room is narrow, we will use either top-movable or top and bottom movable maskings so that flat picture will be wall-to-wall.

I just pulled the spec sheet on our theatre in Port Charlotte, FL, which is a fairly typical Regal house.

At this location, four of the sixteen screens have side-movable maskings. The remainder of the screens are top-movable.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-22-2000, 09:53 PM:

Roger,

It's good to see you posting here! A couple of years ago, the manager of the River Oaks Cinemas in Decatur, AL mentioned you as the one who did the specs for that location. I want to compliment you since this theatre's equipment, to have been installed in 1991, has been excellent and has performed well. That theatre is very well-maintained and well-kept, and has the best projection quality of any theatre in my area (see my site for a large list of compliments for that location).

Since you're the VP of Technical Services for Regal:

About screen sizes: Since the Huntsville Regal locations have no adjustable masking at all in two-thirds of the auditoriums, most of which are 28 feet wide, at Hollywood 18 (3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16) and Madison Square 12 (3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12), is there any hope that adjustable top masking could be installed in those auditoriums? Back in October of 1999, there was a snippet in the Huntsville Times stating that such masking would be installed at Hollywood 18, but nothing has ever been changed. Many other improvements have been made, such as installation of stadium seating in both locations, and digital sound at Hollywood 18, so I've found it very disappointing that Regal never went the extra step to fix the main problem (Scope at 1.85:1) with those theatres. I'd much rather see the screen reduced 3 feet in height to show a scope film properly than to have a bigger cropped image (by 23 percent). Top masking (Decatur Regal style in 7 auditoriums) is better than none.

Are there any masking movements from any theatres that are being closed that could be used there (from other 28-foot auditoriums?)

Evans

Huntsville-Decatur Theatre Information Site:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-23-2000, 02:37 AM:

Roger, I have always been opposed to top OR bottom movable masking. For a multitude of reasons, the presentation quality is easily compromised. If you are going to do that, please consider doing the bottom only rather than the top.

Most non-stadium seating theaters have a very lousy sight line to begin with. Raising of the lower masking for scope movies will at least improve the sight line for the people sitting near the rear of the auditorium. It would probably look better for stadium seating auditoriums as well.

Top AND bottom movable masking is perfectly acceptable, and is the way to go if you want to maintain a constant screen width.

Please have a good holiday season.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2000, 03:02 PM:

Hmmm....At the Uptown it is 26.75 by 62' on the chord or about 74' on the arc. This is not the full open size but the Scope/70MM size....only sides are really movable but we have been known to adjust the bottom as necesary to appease some studios.

John, my big problem with top/bottom masking is that it really throws the light balance off between 1.85 and Scope. Scope is already more light efficient, even with the larger screen area (due the aperture area also being larger). So if one is at 16fL for 1.85:1, they are way over 22fL for Scope.

I have been known to use ISCO "Studio" lenses (f/2.8) for Scope while using Schneider Super Cinelux (f/2.0) for 1.85:1 in order to balance things out a bit. Normally this lets the theatre meet SMPTE specs of 16fL +/- 4fL (commercial theatres, not review rooms) and often has it to +/- 2fL (desired).

Fortunately, ISCO is now offering stop down rings for their Ultra*Star Plus series (red lenses) of f/2.4 AND f/2.8 so the ability to balance light closer is still there.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-25-2000, 12:09 AM:

quote:
Most non-stadium seating theaters have a very lousy sight line to begin with. Raising of the lower masking for scope movies will at least improve the sight line for the people sitting near the rear of the auditorium.

Except for theaters with a balcony, & a bit of balcony cut-off for the audience on the floor at the rear of the house.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-25-2000, 01:44 AM:

William, you are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately, they are getting scarce.

Paul

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-26-2000, 05:42 PM:

Actually stadium theatres have a bigger sight line problem in that the higher verticle heigth cause the center of the image to be higher increasing the distance back from the screen that the front row is to maintain the recomended 30 degree upward viewing angle
Also stadium theatres tend to maximize the use of vericle moving masking that is light inefficient and image unmaximizing

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 12-26-2000, 05:49 PM:

Gordon,
I noticed you're from Canada also. Do you attend Famous Players? A lot? What do you think of their new SilverCity, Collosus, Coliseum & Paramount theatres?

Andrew
I'll Be Back, Forums!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-27-2000, 12:45 AM:

Gordon, what you say has merit. No question about that. But, a hard fast rule can never be made because of all the different circumstances that enter the picture. I have seen many theaters where the bottom of the screen is 7 feet off the floorfor a flat film, and I have seen some that are three feet off the floor for the same. And, of course, if the bottom masking was movable while the screen is 7 feet off the floor for a flat presentation, the scope would be a triple disaster! It is all a compromise as to what would be best under the given circumstances.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2000, 07:14 PM:

In the late 1960's Phillips (the makers of the DP70) wrote what I consider the defintive work on theatre design called "designing the cinema"
They did psycological testing of audience reactions to verious cinema designs and they came up with a modified theatre that had
1 a curved screen (curved on the ellipse not the cord)
2 A reversed slope floor with a stadium seating area at the rear
3 The total diallowing of verticle movable masking

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-27-2000, 07:17 PM:

Andrew wrote:
"What are the sizes of your screens?
How many seats per auditorium?

Our local theatre:
20 feet x 10 feet w/159 seats
40 feet x 20 feet w/282 seats
50 feet x 25 feet w/380 seats
60 feet x 30 feet w/451 seats

This is for SilverCity Polo Park... How do yours compare?"

Famous players does not use 2:1 ratio screens
I have done several tap alignments at Famous theatres and they are always wel within the SMPTE guidelines for aspect ratio
please check your facts

Posted by Roger Frazee (Member # 640) on 12-29-2000, 04:49 AM:

Evans:

Thank you for your kind words about River Oaks. That theatre was built in 1991 when Regal was a company of 40 screens and I was the entire Technical Services Department.

It is managed by Ralph Frehauf who is a true professional. He is dedicated to running a clean comfortable theatre and to putting on a perfect presentation. The industry could use more people like Ralph.

Concerning the Huntsville Screens, their screens are on the list needed upgrades. I can't say when these screens will modified for 2.39 : 1 because there are several other proje4cts around the company that need to be attended to as well.

I appreciate your patience and your constructive suggestions. It is good to know that we have people coming into our theatres who know how a movie is supposed to look and who will let us know when things are not up to specs.

Have you had a chance to check out our new Trussville theatre in the Birmingham area? I would be interested in your opinions of that theatre as well.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-29-2000, 11:43 PM:

Roger,

I just sent you an email (to the rkfrazee@cs.com address from your profile) which contains many more compliments about Ralph and the River Oaks 8. I feel I'm one of the few customers that truly appreciates the quality of Ralph's work, so in case you haven't read them on my WWW site, I wanted to send them to you via email. If all managers were like Ralph, then there would be no need for the ratings section of my site. The quality of Ralph's work was noticed after only 3 or 4 visits to that location back in 1997. I'm now at 47 visits with never a bad experience there.

Do you think Regal could try cloning Ralph?

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