Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Stealth Theater

This is topic Stealth Theater 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=000432

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-29-2002, 02:12 PM:

[This was mentioned in the "new construction" thread, but it might be worthy of its own discussion. Not trying to steal anyone else's thunder.]

A 17-screen "Stealth Theater" is proposed for construction in New Orleans. Pretty radical design departure. Scroll down to see the layout of the entire complex.
http://jazzlandfan.tripod.com/new.htm

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-29-2002, 02:23 PM:

I'm sure that others will pick apart the auditorium shape for various reasons. Some of the idea is cool but I have one big critisism. I'm certain that it is going to get awfully crowded in the projection booth where the four theatres all come together at one point.

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-29-2002, 02:32 PM:

I think that the design will make for an interesting piece of architecture, but I'm not sure how well it will work for film presentation. I don't really like the idea of the curved seating in relation to the curved screen. I just think it will go further to distort the image from certain vantage points. Plus, no matter how they try to sell it, smaller screens will not sell tickets.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 01-29-2002, 03:43 PM:

Looks like a drive-in! Based on my own opinion, this design is doomed. It was found that in drive-ins, with a flat screen even, that picture dropped off at around 70 degree field of vision. Not sure if you follow me here, but if you look at the mock-up, these auditoriums are at 90 degrees. Add the curve of the screens, I don't think anyone at the side could see anything but the opposite half of the screen.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-29-2002, 04:20 PM:

I want to go on record that this is the stupidest idea for a layout I've ever seen for many reasons, including the ones listed above. This WILL fail. Any takers?

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-29-2002, 04:45 PM:

I have pictures of their Branson theater at home, which I'll post later (if I can find them!). They use a lot of 5-deck platters in those tight spaces. Oh, and they purchase only used projection equipment.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-29-2002, 06:05 PM:

I count 13 projection booth locations in this blueprint, and most appear triangular. I'd like to see a plan for the booths! I wonder how much attention will be given to equipment layout, access to it,
and transport of prints. How many projectionists?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-29-2002, 06:42 PM:

Actually curved rows work really well with curved screens. The problem with the proposed layout is the rows lengths far exceed the screen width creating viewing angle problems. I agree with Brad, this will fail. Someone ought to "enlighten" the developer.... Hmmmm a biz opertunity....

>>> Phil

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 01-29-2002, 07:41 PM:

This has to be a wind-up!

It took me about 5 seconds looking at the plans to realise this would never work. Perhaps if the seating plans were reversed.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 01-29-2002, 08:53 PM:

This plan is nothing new. It plan has been around and used for several years. I believe the originator is Serv Pro/Theatre Service Network out of Yorkville Illinois.

They have had one of these in my area since 1999. It is a seven screen squeezed into a former hardware store of aprox 19,000 square feet (and includes a sizeable lobby area to boot). Each of the seven auditoriums is exactly the same - six rows and 110 seats. You are coming in from the side of the auditorium on the third row which is ground level. The first two rows are cut into the existing concete floor. The 3 rows above surfare a tired up in a modified stadium. The people in the first row can literally reach out and touch the screen while sitting in their seats. From the furthest row in the back if you get a good spit you can manage to hit the screen.

Another example of multiplex mania run amuk!

Posted by Jeff Leyland (Member # 1092) on 01-29-2002, 09:04 PM:

There was an article about ShoPro last year in NATO News, with a diagram of a smaller design.

About a year and a half ago, I was able to take a quick look in their theatre in Branson. It was a twelve screen with one really long main hallway. I did not get to tour behind the scenes (I just walked in and checked out the theatres). My quick impression was that for a small chain, it was a nice theatre. Was it as good as the big boys? No. But the 'stealth' design looked interesting. I sat down in a theatre that was a no show for about a minute or so. The presentation was not too bad. Overall finish of the theatre had that generic, sort of cost cutting feel to it.

I plan on going thru it again when I get back to Branson someday.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 01-29-2002, 09:17 PM:

Boy, that looks PHONY!

It has "DUMP" written all over it.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-29-2002, 11:16 PM:

Sorry, Ken, it's for real!

Here's a link to a bunch of pix I just updated of their Branson theater:
Sho-Pro Branson Meadows 11

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-29-2002, 11:32 PM:

Nice pics, sickening content.

Note to self, never work for a "stealth" theater.

Posted by Ryan Powers (Member # 1059) on 01-30-2002, 12:24 AM:

Strange looking theater. I wonder what the sound will sound like in this type of arrangement? My guess is not good.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-30-2002, 05:33 AM:

Having done work for "Uncle Buck Kolkmeyer" at his more straight foreword West Bend, Wisconsin site, which is alot nicer than this place, I can attest to the fact that he buys mostly used equipment. At West Bend it was all rebuilt X-L's and was actually quite decent. All the sound system components were new there and consisted of Smart, Ultra Stereo and JBL.

I've been wondering about his Stealth design for a number of years. Man, am I glad that I didn't get involved in any of these places. I agree with Brad, "tell self never to get involved with a Stealth Theatre". It would be about impossible to do a decent EX Surround system in there. Acoustics may actually be pretty good though due to room shape, although this is so unconventional I'd never even consider it. Unless megabucks is spent on lenses and lamphouses I can well imagine focus is not too good either. Screens this deep sometimes require stops installed into the lenses to get any decent focus at all and this eats up alot of light.

I love the conduit work under the wall mount sound rack! Looks bent into place instead of being bent before putting in palce which is usually the thing you do. Ha! Also, the film running back to the platter directly across the floor, and these look to be unsealed concrete floors to me. A real dust zone and disaster zone going on all at once here guys. This place could probably use a 55 gallon drum of Film-Guard a month! All in all one of the dunbest ideas I've seen in ages. But then, people have been offered the Brooklyn bridge for purchase too.
Mark
P.S. Note the Cineplex Odeon insignias on the Super Highlites! Isn't there a Stealth insignia, or does the Air Force own that?

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 01-30-2002, 08:05 AM:

"Stealth" surely refers to the fact that you know you're in a theatre, yet you can't see the picture???

Posted by Betsie Beadling (Member # 591) on 01-30-2002, 08:10 AM:

Woudent Watching a Curved Screen Look Weird??

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-30-2002, 08:25 AM:

Barf...........Most of my clients work with TK architects, a great bunch or we are doing a "barnraising" disguised with seats, drapes, screen to imitate a cinema. One of my favorite cinema designers I work with is an 80 year old guy, who did his "first" stadium cinema that was shown in an article published in the 1946-47 Theatre Catalog yearly review.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-30-2002, 09:03 AM:

Betsie;
The curve is fairly slight (2X the throw) so it's not deeply curved.

With a curved screen, the distance from the projector to all areas of the screen are *about* the same, so focus is better (more even) from one side to the other. Some people also feel the picture gets a slight "3D" look.

There have been projection systems that did use a deeply curved screen (like a Dimension 150 or Cinerama theater) but those were special "few-of-a-kind" processes.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-30-2002, 09:16 AM:

John, focus on a curved screen is dependent on the design of the lens, isn't it? Focus is generally optimized for flat or slightly curved film on a flat screen, as I remember.

Watching a deeply curved screen from the side can be disconcerting. Prespective gets all screwed up. This was one of the problems I had watching Cinerama.

Does anyone have a chart of optimal seating positions? I think it looks like a flattened oval? I'd like to overlay that on the corner screen plans and compare it to a coventional arrangement. I can think of a few theatres with corner screens that have been around for a while. I can't say that I cared for them.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2002, 09:35 AM:

If a gain screen is used, it should be curved to optimize the luminance uniformity. Ideally, ray-tracing is used to determine the optimum curve that reflects the projector's light to the center of the seating area. "Installation of Gain Screens" is specified by SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 95.

Matte (gain=1) screens should be installed flat.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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 John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-30-2002, 12:57 PM:

"Matte (gain=1) screens should be installed flat."

Uh-oh... If that's true, I know one place's that wrong...

But wouldn't a slight curve help generally for focus even on non-gain screens?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2002, 02:05 PM:

A potential problem with curving a matte screen is cross-reflections killing contrast. Since a matte surface reflects light in all directions, some ends up on the other side of a curved screen. Usually not a serious problem unless the screen has a fairly "deep" curve. A gain screen is more directional, so it "rejects" the light from off-axis when properly curved.

Recall the original deep-curve Cinerama screens used narrow overlapping strips of screen material, each oriented to reflect the light to the audience, and not to the other side of the screen:
http://www.govst.edu/users/gaskrau/cinestage.html
http://www.cineramaadventure.com/seattlepreps.htm
http://www.weavervale.co.uk/onscreen/cinerama3.htm
http://www.villatheater.com/features/screen.html
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr1.htm

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-30-2002, 04:35 PM:

>>"Since a matte surface reflects light in all directions, "<<

Not necessarily true in a theatre situation where the screens are not truely matte...I have measured "matte" screens with as much as 30% gain. Even the ones that claim to have a gain nearly 1.0 have fall-off on the sides, even using the manufacturer's data...thus a very shallow curve with a "Matte-white" screen works (keep the screen to a scope curve or less...Schneider's "opitimum" radius program will not generally have a problem with the typical Matte-White theatre screen.

Steve

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

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-30-2002, 11:04 PM:

OK, just so poor Betsie (and me!) are not confused, are curved screens good or bad?

I say a slight (2X) is *good*, mostly for focus reasons. 2X does not seem deep enough to have reflections. Deep curve, yes. But not the small amount applied in your basic multiplex (which I assume would be the same used in this "Stealth Theater.") Keeping the throw distance the same would provide better focus, no?

Jerry, I think lenses are optimized for curve gates... I don't know how lenses would be set to help with curved screens.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-31-2002, 08:54 AM:

"With a curved screen, the distance from the projector to all areas of the screen are *about* the same, so focus is better (more even) from one side to the other. Some people also feel the picture gets a slight "3D" look." (John Walsh)

A curved screen with the radius equal to the projection distance - so the distances from the projector to all areas of the screen would be closest to being about the same - is NOT an ideal focus situation. In fact it is a terrible focus situation.

A flat film plane will project in perfect focus ONLY onto a flat screen positioned without parallax. Image-to-lens distances must be proportional between source and projected images, the distance from the corner of the film image to the lens aperture is greater than from the center of the film image. With a flat screen these proportions are maintained. With a curved screen they are not. With uncorrected parallax they are not. IF a curved gate is used the situation gets worse.

Cinema lenses have a reasonably large focus depth to give good focus even with curved screens and gates plus parallax.
This ability decreases with shorter throw distances more than would be explained by proportionality alone, with shorter throws the lens is working further from its "infinity focus" where focus depth becomes infinite. Iris reducing rings are usually needed only for shorter throw cinemas with curved screens or bad parallax where, luckily, the screen is small so we have some flexibility with the lamphouse. With a huge screen the light level is usually marginal even with very high wattage bulbs so the reducer is not an option, in a large cinema the designer needs to carefully balance the focus depth of the lens vs the projection and screen geometry.
Hopefully the "stealth" designers didn't ignore that!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2002, 10:40 AM:

One way to see if you have significant stray light, including cross-reflection:

Use a large black card or panel (e.g., about the size of a "one-sheet" movie poster) about ten feet from the screen to cast a shadow on the screen in a projected picture having lots of light scenes. Now get close to the screen and try to cast a shadow within the shadow of the card --- any light you see on the screen in the shadowed area is stray light that can degrade projected image contrast. Trace it to its' source --- exit signs, auditorium/aisle lighting, reflections from light colored walls or ceilings, or cross-reflections from the other side of the screen.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2002, 06:15 AM:

Richard,
I had a couple of clients that worked with T-K. I was never impressed with Teds work at all. He also has the personality of a goat thats been left outside in the cold too long! Ya want a good architect try Carlos Alonzo in Woodland Hills, Ca. This guy will blow you away the first time you meet him, plus he's not a stiff either.
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-03-2002, 08:34 AM:

Mark,
TK is the McDonald's of the industry...a known level of service; his staff makes up for his "faults". My 80 year achitect, Ernesto, who I have done 90 cinemas with, by himself, blows away his entire staff...he has a state of the art set-up / staff: but when there is a problem, he rolls out the tracing paper on his desk, starts drawing to scale, upsidedown ( for the other people at a meeting viewing it in front of him ) and will give you two - three solutions in a minute.
On the young side, there is Gonzalo and his staff at a cinema circuit I supply.....I first started working with him when he was 26...now at 31 and many cinemas later, his projects are like clockwork due to the detailed plans...based on inputs from our shop drawings ( he blew away my front in installer when he received a copy of a project plan with his verbal input and " stick figure" drawings trasformed into accurate, engineered end result....something he never saw at UA or Loews ) and his constant visits to cinemas in the USA and Europe to get ideas.
Most of my work year is spent working with architects and contractors ( after I hang up my money collection hat I use for clients ) and some of the

I see is truely amazing. Some projects I work on include a fee based for real world supervision with the end goal is to save the customer money and grief....
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2002, 10:19 AM:

Hi Richard,
I agree with you to a point about saving our customers time and money, but only to a point. There are other ways to save them money, mainly in the construction phase. There is a new construction method that allows one to get the building done a couple of months faster than usual. Largely saves on labor costs, and interest payments! It also has a much higher R insulation factor and better noise control than any other type of outer/inner wall construction does. A for instance of this system goes like this...
An old customer built two locations almost simultainously in Wisconsin. One project built the old fashioned way with block started on time, and the other building, with the new construction method started two months late due to site problems. Well, the late starting site beat the block and morter site by over a month on completion. It also has saved these people 60% in HVAC savings as well during the first year of operation. Thats the sort of thing a really good architect goes for. New methods, modern materials, etc. He will pay for himself in no time flat. Being able to draw upside down for a group of people is a nice touch but hardly necessary in todays tough world.

You can then put that saved money to good use in the actual workings of a location and make them stand out from the rest of the competition. Making a first run to McDonaldsy is a really bad thing imho, ok for a dollar house location sort of thing that would be a no frills experience. Most of my indie customers try to go out of their way to make their sites alot better than the "chain" competition and its worked almost every time. Sometimes its easy to make their sites alot better than the chains with out going to great extremes, but sometimes they have to. It also depends on which chain is near them. Some are absolutely no competition at all but you still need to envision into the future as to what they might do, or who else might come in. They don't mind spending a bit more money to do it the right way and win out if they think it necessary.
Mark @ GTS
www.getgts.com
mark@getgts.com

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2002, 10:37 AM:

While I'm pretty skeptical of the Stealth design I've had some e-mail from its designer with some links that I am posting here at his request. I really think its just a bit of a gimmik, but then, if it sells tickets, and makes a profit who cares. Gimmiks work sometimes......Its also probably cheaper to build a Stealth Theatre as well.
Its designer feels that the overly large screens with "fist sized grain" are less desirable to view a film on. I definately don't agree with him at all on that statement as all the 40 foot plus wide screens in this area do exceptionally well. Patrons sometimes go out of their way to see films at the loation with the larger screens. Many of the large screens in this area out sell out constantly and they are making money faster than he is by cycling more people through at one time. Needless to say, a 600 seater is also doing better concessions sales in the same time period.
Mark @ GTS
www.getgts.com
mark@getgts.com

http://mail.getgts.com:8383/Xae609b9b9d999399cf99a6541253/attach/Main/4 /1/1012744884/stealthtriciti.pdf
http://mail.getgts.com:8383/Xae609b9b9d999399cf99a6541253/attach/Main/4/ 2/1012744884/stealthbrnson.pdf

http://mail.getgts.com:8383/Xae609b9b9d999399cf99a6541253/attach/Main/4/3/1 012744884/stealthno1.pdf

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-03-2002, 11:52 AM:

I see his point on screens being too large, but for different reasons. As I often mention, I hate the way "wall to wall" screens put auditoriums "out of balance" in relation to sightline/sound. But I certainly don't mind a 40+ foot screen. So I guess "stealth" refers to sneaking the fact you've shrunk the screen. But then he goes and places patrons at W I D E angles. If it really does take the buzzword hype of "wall to wall" screens to sell tickets, I'd rather they do it by "stealthily" making the fronts of auditoriums slightly narrower than the back, allowing for wall to wall with a properly balanced seating area, and not putting people at a 40+ degree
angle from the line of projection like these corner-screens do.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-03-2002, 12:43 PM:

Mark, I don't know what your email password is, so if you'd like to email the .pdf files to Brad, I'm sure he can post them in a more appropriate place.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-03-2002, 02:19 PM:

Mark,
like I said in a post a few days ago we are either building a palace or doing a "barn raising" hiding the barn with drapes etc. It is nice to work on a project where the factors of operations, showmanship, and quality hardware are going in at an affordable price.
Two years ago we built an eleven-plex where the building was extremely utilitarion but the front, lobby, seating, projection and sound was first class....the project cost was 1/2 of the competitor ( a large international chain who was going to show the "locals" on how a theatre should be built ) who had built a nine plex less than 3 miles from them...they thought terrazo floors where more important than the dimly lit screens, uncomfortable seats, and lousy sound they gave their public..... at present my client has 91% of the business in that market......spend more in areas where the greatest return / service life can be obtained.
Richard Fowler
TVP-theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-03-2002, 02:33 PM:

Mark, mail them to me, not someone else. Every time someone else posts a link, picture or whatever, I have to go in and manually move it over. It is much less work for me to do it straight than to un-do someone else's link.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2002, 04:49 PM:

Ok everyone, here they are for your reading enjoyment.
Mark @ GTS

First one
Second one
Third one

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-03-2002, 06:02 PM:

With all due respect to the designer, I was looking forward to some sort of technical documents supporting his work. I've ranted on the press in the past, so I'll just leave everyone with this quote from the "Third One":

quote:
Steven Spielberg, among others, favor DTS over THX and other systems.