"I cannot understand why most theaters pay no attention to the projection of their films. I see at least three shows a week. At (movie title) in Westwood, the screen blacked out for two minutes at a crucial point while the sound continued. At (movie title) at the (theatre) the picture started without sound and continued for two minutes that way. throughout the rest of the film, one projector was consistently out of focus and the operator never bothered to check. At (theatre), the (theatre) and the (theatre), large portions of the films were out of focus, and in Westwood one could not even read the subtitles of (movie title). Managers and ushers walk through fiddling around with thermostats and preparing sales of concessions, and when queried inevitably blame the print condition and not the projectionist. The latter watches TV and laughs in one's face when one tries to object. New theaters spring up with the ultimate in exterior comforts and conveniences yet nobody bothers with the most important item - that which brings the audience in the first place - the proper presentation of the picture."
I'll fill in the blanks later.
I just cannot understand how theatres cannot run top notch shows. Especially in L.A. Being that close to Hollywood, I would be scared silly of I had any glitches in my booth. I would not want to risk being embarassed. I am that way now and always have been that way as well.
"I cannot understand why most theaters pay no attention to the projection of their films. I see at least three shows a week. At "The Godfather" in Westwood, the screen blacked out for two minutes at a crucial point while the sound continued. At "The Hospital" at the El Rey the picture started without sound and continued for two minutes that way. Throughout the rest of the film, one projector was consistently out of focus and the operator never bothered to check. At Gruman's Chinese, the Egyptian and the Hollywood Pacific, large portions of the films were out of focus, and in Westwood one could not even read the subtitles of "Without Apparent Motive." Managers and ushers walk through fiddling around with thermostats and preparing sales of concessions, and when queried inevitably blame the print condition and not the projectionist. The latter watches TV and laughs in one's face when one tries to object. New theaters spring up with the ultimate in exterior comforts and conveniences yet nobody bothers with the most important item - that which brings the audience in the first place - the proper presentation of the picture."
This letter appeared in April, 1972. The point? Much is said about sloppy operators today as opposed to the good old days, but this demonstrates that these problems have always existed (and in top first-run screens by (presumably) union operators using (presumably) changeover projection systems in single screens.
Curious, but why were the "blanks" not filled in the first post? If it was a published letter, there is no reason to hide it. Also, there is no reason to protect the guilty (that's the point of the "You suck" thread in FHF).
(Unless we care enough to make them change).
------------------
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
Josh
------------------
"Film is made of silver, video is made of rust"
'nuf said
My absolute favorite one is how "we ran that print for over a year on 2000' reels and there was not one speck of dirt or mark anywhere on the print at the end of it's run". Bullshit. Sorry guys, but that's a lie. That's your mind playing tricks on you. 
The biggest improvement I've seen in the modern filming style is in the special effects department...the old effects are hokey. Also the surround channel I find much more suited in modern films and well implemented.
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
quote:
Why cant a modern film have panned dialoge?
Maybe because modern films are so full of rapidly moving shots and quick cuts? Wouldn't this be a huge distraction and cause confusion?
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
When I saw "Seven Wonders of the World" presented by John Harvey in original 3-strip Cinerama at the New Neon Theatre in Dayton, I was amazed at the sound "presence", despite the almost 50-year old recording and playback technology. During the "Indian Wedding Parade" sequence, you could close your eyes and still feel you were in the middle of that crowded Indian street as the parade passed by on both sides of you. Amazing.
------------------
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
Recently I watched the DVD (in full 2.55 aspect ratio) of "How to marry a millionaire" with Marylin Monroe. I had never seen this film before and was amazed... First, the Fox logo followed by a prologue showing the Fox fanfare conducted by Alfred Newman playing the main musical theme to the film, then the opening credits, then the story itself. Look at how it was beautifully photographed. The photo composition is polished up. And that's CinemaScope! Let's watch it in pan&scan and see if we still understand the film. There are many shots where the camera is static or slightly panning, showing 2 or 3 of the main characters talking to each other. I made a test and put my left and right speakers far away from the center speaker and I could clearly hear dialogs coming from "between" speakers in my living room. I can imagine the precise stereo effects obtained in a theatre, showing all the benefits of true discrete stereo mixing. Not to mention the talent of the actors and actresses who were used to act in longer shots, with more elements or people dealing with each other within the camera capture angle.
BTW, do you remember the opening sequence of The Player by Robert Altman? Just brilliant direction...
Today, dialog is kept in the center mainly because the damn' matrixed Dolby Stereo doesn't allow you to pan sounds across channels. And you wonder if the way films are shot and cut is serving poor acting where it's easier to remake a shot when 2 characters talking to each other are filmed with 2 cameras, 1 pointing at each actor's face... Have them play on stage before an audience, for 2 hours without the possibility to make mistakes and start again, and then I'll accept to call them actors. As for the filmmakers, why do they use this method of choosing one aspect ratio in the making, that will allow them to crop either the sides or bottom/top of the picture depending on if the release print is intended for theatre or TV/video (examples: Dick Tracy, Terminator 2). Why can't they choose one ratio, stick to it and compose the picture by artistically exploiting the specs of the chosen format...
But I also agree with Brad about some things. Why refuse technological progress when it allows you to improve the making or the projection. The question is: does progress always improve things?
quote:
Come on...do you think Super-35 would have had a chance back then?
But what about Superscope? And Superscope-235, and Techniscope? Superscope-235 was basically Super-35 but without the additional soundtrack area. And that was with less advanced film stocks.
Today, the "average" theatre has a fairly large screen, digital sound (or at least Dolby Stereo), higher-quality lenses, prints in (generally) good condition from not having to be rewound repeatedly on those horrible Goldberg enclosed rewinds, and more consistant lab work. And, with platters and automation, there is relatively little to go wrong once a show is threaded properly and the timer is set.
What we are missing today, sadly, is the experience that could have been had in the best theatres in the '50s and '60s. We're missing the BIG theatres (1500 seats! 60-foot screens!), 70mm prints, IB Tech prints, 6-track and 4-track mag stereo that would have been many times better than the average home audio system of the time, and, of course, there would have been a much higher degree of showmanship than is common today: curtains instead of slides, tastefully decorated theatre buildings, no TV commercials before the film, etc., etc.
What upsets me about the current state of the exhibition industry is that it is being run with the goal of short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability. I genuinely believe that a theatre which spends a bit more than usual on presentation and forgoes the revenue generated by blatant commercial advertising will be more likely to be successful over the long term than the "anything for a buck" chain theatres that are all too common today.
During that time the Locals still used a Seniority number system for the jobs. So depending on how long you have been with the Local, you got a Seniority number. The lower the number the better chance to get
a good job at bidding time. The better jobs around that time where
Hollywood Blvd., Westwood, and that was the last great time for Beverly Hills. Around that time of the early 70's, United Artists
locked out the projectionists. That was the last time the Egyptian Theatre ran well till it reopened resently. So some of the operators
at those theatres in the LA Times letter. May have been there a long
time. So if a theatre on Hollywood Blvd. came on the bid sheet.
And it got 5 bids. And one of the bids came from a projectionist that
only worked drive-ins for the last 20 years and had a seniority number of 2. And the rest of the bids were from operators with seniority numbers of say 7, 8, 10 etc, etc. And they worked nice
walk-ins. The job would go to the projectionist with the number 2.
So sometimes seniority clause in the contracts, backfired. The best
theatres got the oldest operators with all the new equipment to work
with. During that time at Local 150, alot of the old timers. Worked
the big single screen houses, drive-ins. They were afraid of the
automation equipment, they just wanted to keep making change-overs.
And yes, the center dialog is indeed intended for proper home reproduction. Sheesh... spending money on movie technology then using it to format the film for home release. Ain't that sad?
Sorry.
I said "technical quality and presentation" in my post, not the actual story content. I don't know where you pulled that from, but that was not part of my comment.
Panned dialogue is indeed a wonderful thing, but only on scope movies. Flat movies should NEVER use panned dialogue, but then again no one should be shooting flat movies anyway. In the end, the big moneymaker is home video, so unless the filmmakers are willing to make 2 mixes, you can pretty much kiss that one goodbye.
I will agree that the filmmakers did more with what they had back then and that is certainly to be commended. I have had enough bad cgi to last me the rest of my life. However if you are going to use that argument, then how about these labs who have to crank out 8000 prints of Harry Potter and keep the quality up compared to only a couple hundred prints back then?
Getting back to my specific point though, it's the projectionists who I was specifically referring to. No way were prints ran for a year or more at the time with the equipment available to them then (yes, even including changeovers) and the prints were lab new at the end of the run. That's Josh's example of how the brain tends to forget the bad parts of the memories.