This is topic Sneak Preview in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001605
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2003, 11:42 AM:
Here it is. Please feel free to discuss the various new site additions on this thread. This way we can keep things together a little bit better. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-05-2003, 01:35 PM:
The silence is defening! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-05-2003, 03:11 PM:
I think it was better the other way...Brad, you ought to unlock them....
Mark
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-05-2003, 04:24 PM:
If this is referring to the "Sneak Preview" I think the way you are doing it now with the limited viewing will encouragte people to make more posts.
It also is a nice way of thanking the people who are active member. Kind of like the free "Film-Tech T Shirt" at 500 posts.
It's time to open the Film-Tech Store.
Anyone else agree about the store?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-05-2003, 05:39 PM:
Let's see how this goes Mark. There was already two different Angelika discussions opened and that's where things start to get confusing. Besides, as long as Ian behaves, I will keep doing daily updates.
Bob, you had a typo there. It's a free Film-Tech T shirt at 5000 posts!
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-05-2003, 06:02 PM:
Brad, That wasn't a typo I actually thought it was 500? I sit corrected.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-05-2003, 06:50 PM:
Oh! My!
I agree with Ian "The silence is defening! " Ian, needs to speak out.
We are waiting.
Daryl I have one shirt that Brad dropped at the Neumade Booth last Showest.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-05-2003, 11:25 PM:
quote:
Bob, you had a typo there. It's a free Film-Tech T shirt at 5000 posts!
Does that mean Bob gets two t-shirts?
Do these t-shirts really exist?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2003, 02:11 AM:
I'm just wondering when the pictures of my theatre will come up. The suspense is killing me! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gordon Bachlund (Member # 124) on 01-08-2003, 11:42 AM:
I was amazed at how complete, finished and CLEAN the booth of the Majestic 8 appears. No unpainted drywall, exposed roof trusses or bare concrete floors were to be seen. Instead the booth reflects pride and professionalism.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2003, 04:37 PM:
Indeed. That is unusual for booths completed within the last few years.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-08-2003, 04:55 PM:
Indeed, there is nothing better than being cheap when building a new theater. Bare floors, unpainted walls and lack of ceiling tile just can't be beat! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Actually I think the only thing the Majestic screwed up on is they did not put in exhaust systems. The exhaust blows right into the booth.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-08-2003, 05:43 PM:
I'd say that they also messed up the location of the rewind bench; there's no way that they could rewind 6000' reels in that tight space.
Otherwise, I would agree that it looks like a very nice and well-kept theatre.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-08-2003, 06:50 PM:
I noticed that too Scott. If they just moved it a few inches over to the left they might be OK. I wonder if they only use the table to rewind 2000' reels and do trailer work.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-09-2003, 10:46 AM:
So, err, the AMC Stonebriar 24 so great that it appears on the
sneak preview page twice? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I mean, it is...vacuous(?).
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-09-2003, 11:36 AM:
Read the sneak preview explanation. There is a link on the front page.
Posted by Stephen Brown (Member # 292) on 01-12-2003, 05:44 AM:
G'day to all,
If I may can I make a comment here.
I'm probably what you would call a lurker in these forums. I read them everyday, but don't contribute much. I am a former projectionist who's moved onto different pastures now (learned on Kalee 21's, progressed to C+W and Bauer, had a deep affair with some Kinoton DP75's, FP20's and FP30's, got a little intimate with some Vic-8's and Vic-5's, and wound up the career on Centurys), but I still love the art of projection, movies and all that goes with it. I do wish that one day I will return to running shows. Since I feel I haven't kept up with the industry in a practical way I tend not to interject for fear of getting it all wrong. And coming from Australia also limits me a bit as a lot of the information is US-centric.
However I do look forward to being able to see projection room installations and I felt a bit disappointed when the limits were placed on viewing the new pictures available.
I tend to get the feeling that in these forums that the film-uneducated waffling on with dribble is frowned upon, and thats why I rarely post. However I would love to see these new additions to the site.
I commend you Brad on the Site and all its workings, but can I ask why the restrictions? Will it mean that I have to rack up 50 posts of nothing so I can see these pics? I dont want to have to start contributing crap just to see them....
Thanks for letting me post. Hope I haven't offended anyone.
regards
Steve Brown
(Former Platter to Platter via projector transportation engineer)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2003, 05:48 AM:
Again, read the sneak preview explanation page. The link to it is at the bottom of the main page of the site. It's only a 2 week restriction.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-12-2003, 05:53 AM:
Steven, I'm going to guess that you missed the link to the sneak preview explaination on the front page. The 'restrictions' are there to encourage participation and even out the bandwidth used so that it doesn't 'kill' the forums. Everyone, even the unregistered, will be able to see new additions about two weeks or so after they are first introduced -- they'll be then located in the regular Picture Warehouse (link on the left).
quote:
I tend to get the feeling that in these forums that the film-uneducated waffling on with dribble is frowned upon, and thats why I rarely post. However I would love to see these new additions to the site.
Not at all, it gets boring bull ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
ing each other. Ask / contribute all you want.
Posted by Stephen Brown (Member # 292) on 01-12-2003, 06:22 AM:
Daryl, Brad,
Thanks for the reply. Yes I did miss the Link even on the 21" monitor I'm sitting in front of...
So I guess I will start to interject a bit more, I may even scan some of my own projection room pics and add them to the collection. Hell I may even send in a photo of myself, but I must warn that small children and animals could become frightened at this sight.
Oh and I'll add a crap detector to my computer.
Thanks
Steve Brown
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-13-2003, 11:07 PM:
151 Countries... One Film-Tech.
Crown Royal or Canadian Club... so hard to choose. Now I must go to Waterloo where it's sold real cheap.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2003, 07:08 AM:
Just can't get enough of those Bauer manuals! My heart races with excitement each day hoping that a new Bauer manual will be posted. So far I have not been let down. I bet a lot of people are posting like mad to be able to download the Bauer manuals. I know I am!
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-14-2003, 06:56 PM:
Is it possible to unpost?
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-14-2003, 10:07 PM:
I have some Bauer U4 manuals in multiple languages, Joe. I keep meaning to, err, "share" them with film-tech. Haven't quite had time.
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2003, 01:53 AM:
Please do send them in as quickly as possible so Joe can get his Bauer fix! In the meantime, I have postponed today's picture update with a manual to one of Joe's favorite projectors. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2003, 03:44 AM:
Awww man! I was expecting the Brenkert or the Holmes, but instead I get the Norelco AA2?
Seriously though, I personally think a packet of manuals should be available for download instead of one per day. That way the Bauer crap only takes up one day since it seems to have 40 different manuals. And then if there are 36 different manuals for the Norelco, then they could be bunched together as well. I wouldn't want you to post a picture of the outside of a theater one day, then the lobby the next day, etc etc...
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-15-2003, 04:22 AM:
Great Joe! Brilliant idea! Now this Sneak Preview bout is going to take all year. Glad I'm not the one updating the access lists.
"Today's Film-Tech, Since 1903" - Is that how long these manual updates are taking?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-15-2003, 05:01 AM:
I'd better send in some more Brenkert manuals, since I know how eager Joe is to download them. Sadly, I don't have any Holmes manuals.
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 01-15-2003, 07:05 AM:
I for one am glad to see the Bauer manuals online. Not everyone has the same opinion of Bauers as Joe does. I think the Bauers were one of the best projectors ever made. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-15-2003, 07:53 AM:
I've never even heard of a Bauer so therefore I have no opinion of them.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-15-2003, 01:39 PM:
I hate to post this because Brad takes revenge when people dissagree with him.
I'm not really enjoying these manuals sneak previews.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-15-2003, 01:54 PM:
Ian, Your number is low enough that you can disagree with anyone you want to..but why?
Please be carefull with that 15,000W Xenon Lamp. If you drop it your parts will end up in Dallas.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-15-2003, 01:58 PM:
Ok, per Ian's request, we will now continue to list the Sneak Preview site updates as normal, but whenever there is a manual we will present a "file not found". ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-17-2003, 07:32 PM:
Bernard the pictures of your theatre are excellent its closing looks like a loss to film done right
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-17-2003, 08:27 PM:
REGAL Theatre pics.
At first I thought this was a theatre associated with that nasty megaplex chain around here, guess not!
Look closely at the 2k reel on that Westar projector. Besides driving on the wrong side, do they also thread backward??? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Danny
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-17-2003, 10:11 PM:
Danny said "Look closely at the 2k reel on that Westar projector. Besides driving on the wrong side, do they also thread backward??? "
No they are actually threading following SMPTE guiidlines for film wind which is emulsion in so the rilm will come off the feed reel off the front
Europe has held that standard long before SMPTE discovered it
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-18-2003, 11:44 AM:
Okay, this is starting to tick me off:
January 11, 2003 -- Sneak Preview of the Roxy Theater in Forsyth, MT, USA (For members with pictures and 50+ posts)
January 18, 2003 -- Sneak Preview of the Roxy Theater in Forsyth, MT, USA (For members with pictures and 50+ posts)
This happened with the Grapevine Mills, too. Quit teasing us with re-packaging so-called "new" pictures. We've lived through New Coke, we're wise to it already!! (or at least fix the description! )
=TMP=
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 01-18-2003, 11:52 AM:
Thanks for the compliment Gordon.
For those interested in single screen presentation, the Revox tape machines are full track stereo run @ 15ips. We made our own house overture, recording a mix taken from the Cinema 100 CD album, which was the first 11 seconds of “Casablanca” mixed into the last 56 seconds of “Spellbound”. A pulse on the tape activates the Cinemation unit to start the projector for the Adverts & Trailers. After the sales interval, it is the same procedure to start the Feature, with the music being taken from the film CD if available or recorded from the end cast list soundtrack, to make up an opening overture timed to the end of the mute censor certificate or any silent trade marks.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-18-2003, 12:36 PM:
Calm down Thomas. It's just a typo. You will notice now that we are more than 14 days into this, each day has 3 levels of new additions. The top link is for members with pictures and 50+ posts, the next level is members with 50+ posts (pic not required) and the third level is general public. The coding is right, just occasionally not the description.
Now do I need to tighten those straps on your jacket?
I guess I'll take Ian's advice and start updating more manuals since I get complaints when I add new pictures.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-18-2003, 01:24 PM:
Hmmm... I guess I had better shut up about everything until I upload those ShowEast 2002 pictures I promised MONTHS ago! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
=TMP=
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-18-2003, 03:27 PM:
Cinema Paradiso....Did they have to liscence the name....? Great idea and very interesting copnception....I can envision someone over here doing an 8 plex of them...BUT IT WON'T BE amc...THATS FOR SURE!
Calum Mcleod....probably a relative of Gords......
Mark @ CLACO
www.clacoequipment.com
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-18-2003, 05:14 PM:
Upload Scott's Brenkert manuals. Upload'em all.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-21-2003, 01:49 AM:
Better hurry up and email me those ShowEast pics Thomas, before Ian gets really mad with my manual updates.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-23-2003, 08:03 AM:
So, what the heck is a "cine gong chimer"? From the manual, it appears to be a tone generator of some type. What would be the application?
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-23-2003, 09:40 AM:
In 1978 (and being late for school) I was running C&W Senior's (and Kaylee 21's at a another GUO location) with carbon arc with 2000 ft change overs.
Up the road a cinema had Xenon lamps, 6000 ft spools using Bauer projectors.
I was was in awe of it.
I want a BAUER manual uploaded now JOE!
Hmm can you sent me the button cluster.
I'm still working with them to this day, and I need the
GREEN button that turns the projector on.
Bill.
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-23-2003, 09:43 AM:
My thoughts exactly Scott!
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-23-2003, 09:59 AM:
Here is a far more interesting sneak preview if you ask me......
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-mps.html
I think the Cinedingdong will soon be up there with ultra important things like the Gong Show, The Neumade Paddle, and, and Ian's 15kw xenon lamp.
Mark
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2003, 03:04 AM:
So the "Cine Gong" doesn't ring your bell eh? Well everyone can think Mr. Tomlinson Holman for today's new addition. It's great reading.
Thank you Tom for sending it in!
BTW, I think Mark had the better idea. Let's go ahead and put comments on updates in their own threads. Otherwise searching through the archive is going to be next to impossible once this thread gets larger. Please do put them in Yak though. (Today's update from Tomlinson Holman already has a thread going in FHF though.)
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-24-2003, 04:22 AM:
That was my idea dammit!
While we're at it, how about we reserve this thread strictly for complaining about equipment manuals.
BTW, I think the Cine Gong is supposed to be like quickly dimming/flashing the lights at the end of an intermission before the show restarts. Once I found out that it wasn't even true stereo I stopped reading.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2003, 11:29 AM:
Those damned manuals!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2003, 12:14 PM:
Uh oh, Joe wants more manuals!!!
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-24-2003, 12:18 PM:
Yes, but only one section of the manual at a time. The information overload is unbearable.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-25-2003, 02:48 PM:
ok, D version of the Preo paper, same place, for you clever
remembering midnight readers. Needs some help with the vertical positioning of pages. E version tomorrow ;-)
--jhawk
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 01-31-2003, 05:38 PM:
Regal Cinema Image 4
Half an hour of trailers?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-31-2003, 08:58 PM:
I will assume that everyone agrees with my Strong platter review 100% since there has been no mention of it.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 02-02-2003, 06:43 AM:
Its not that anyone agrees... Its that well quite frankly no one cares Just Kiddin I liked it a lot.
I think you (joe) should write all the captions for pictures the Tamarac, and UA captions had me cracking up!
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-02-2003, 10:10 AM:
Wow. UA seemed to really love laserdisc players. I bet they thought that one day, theaters will show all movies on laserdisc instead of film -- because laserdiscs are the future! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Speaking of which, anyone have any old UA laserdiscs with the "Magic Hat" or "Bladerunner" policies on them? Those were the best...
=TMP=
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-02-2003, 11:32 AM:
I have the video wall LaserDiscs containing both Magic Hat and Bladerunner in fantastic analog mono!
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-05-2003, 09:19 AM:
quote:
Regal Cinema Image 4
Half an hour of trailers?
Well observed Michael. It was the opening week of the first Harry Potter film, the Adverts & Trailers ran 20 minutes followed by a 10 minute sales interval. By doing this and advertising the cinema opening time only in the press, we were able to fill the house in comfort at least 20 minutes before the feature.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-10-2003, 09:02 PM:
Just got done lookin' at the Rainbow Fairview Cinemas pictures, and I am really concerned. Looking at the pictures of the sound rack wiring, I am not sure if there are enough cable ties around the wiring to keep everything together. There seems to be a cable tie only every 2 inches or so. There should be one cable tie every 1/16th of an inch. If the wiring is left the way it is shown in the pictures, it will bust apart and get extremely disorganized within a month and could possibly kill somebody.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-10-2003, 09:17 PM:
Joe since I have stock in the tyton tie wrap company I use and recomend the excessive use of there ties
personally I prefer lacing tape but only use it on prefab shop racks
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-10-2003, 09:38 PM:
OK, finally done with the Preo paper and with reprint permissions from SMPTE. I'll send email to Brad and give him a chance to sneak it before posting the URL .
Now you have something to make it clear to people why acetate prints should be stored tail out.
--jhawk
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-10-2003, 10:00 PM:
As long as acetate prints are wound emulsion in I would be suprised that it makes any difference if stored head or tail out the emulsion wind is what is criticle
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-10-2003, 10:06 PM:
Yes, emulsion-in is what I meant. I suppose people could wind them RP39-style head-out emulsion-in, but I don't think many people practice that.
But for most people, saying "tail-out" means "emulsion-in" and "head-out" means "emulsion-out." No?
--jhawk
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 02-16-2003, 01:19 PM:
The Film Tech screening room is awesome
I have a question to which I am probably the only one who doesn't know the answer. Anyway, how did you finance it and is this part of your home? Do you do screenings for Directors, etc.
Cool setup!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-16-2003, 02:07 PM:
Thank you Sam.
All financing came from my tech work. Sales of our products (eg: FilmGuard) go exclusively to the bandwidth bill of this website. Bear in mind I have been collecting piece by piece for many years. I didn't just go out and buy it all at once. I went through my share of starting out modestly and upgraded as I could. Before it's all over, I expect to upgrade the DLP, the Century projectors to Kinoton and the Strong lamphouses to Christie.
Yes it is built into the side of my house. I have a rental next week actually from a local filmmaker who is going to do his 5.1 sound mix in there next week. Occasionally I have studio people out to check over some film repair work that I do for them in my spare time too, but no "big" people yet. It's always available though, and short of a mag dubber, most everything they would need is ready to run.
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 02-16-2003, 03:19 PM:
One day I would like to take a tour of your place. I am not that far from you so mabye one day.
Didn't mean to put you on the spot there Brad. I retract my statement.
[ 02-18-2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Sam Hunter ]
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 02-16-2003, 03:56 PM:
Brad, I think you win the prize for best home screening room!
And all those sound readers plus a feed reel arm, WOW!!!!!!!
Danny
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-16-2003, 05:06 PM:
Several words describe your screening room, Brad.
Fantastic! Awesome! Beautiful!
I still think it was neat the way Josh had to climb up on the step stool to thread all those penthouses when we were there. 
He was almost on his tip toes while attempting this....but he got it right on the first attempt.
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 02-16-2003, 05:27 PM:
Aw, you guys are just trying to rack up brownie points.
I got to Brad first
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-16-2003, 09:20 PM:
I knew him before all of you (who have posted so far)! The brownie points are mine! Here I am standing in the Film-Tech screening room during construction. This is not a Photoshopped image, so
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-17-2003, 08:01 AM:
Looks like a terrific place to watch a movie. Certainly sellable although I don't know what the market down there would be.
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 02-18-2003, 02:08 AM:
quote:
Here I am standing in the Film-Tech screening room during construction. This is not a Photoshopped image, so
Sure
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-18-2003, 05:53 AM:
I knew it! Joe IS the original "digital beard". More than just a "bit" player on Film-Tech.
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 03-10-2003, 09:16 AM:
Thanks to Jean-Michael for the Les Galeries Cinemas photos from Switzerland.
Having a five-tier platter stack in each booth is an excellent idea for providing flexibility of programming, as well as back-up capacity in case of breakdown. This shows the management will spare no expense for reliability and ability to program for many audience preferences.
Booth visibility enabling audiences to experience the technical "magic" is an interesting concept I have only experienced in IMAX theatres.
CRT monitoring of each booth is another expense that pays off in
the long run with continuous good service.
Thanks for sharing.
Gerard
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-10-2003, 08:33 PM:
Thanks for Day 1 of ShoWest; nice video, and excellent turnaround time.
I've got to say, though, the audio is atrocious -- isn't there some straightforward filtering you can apply to tune out most of the crap? What tools are you using to produce it?
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-10-2003, 08:48 PM:
There was no processing. Remember, it's just a camera microphone. Bringing along a boom operator was out of the question and with hundreds of people all jabbering in one "live" acoustical room, the audio is pretty damn good for what it is. When I shot the first few, I didn't think it would be audible at all. Bear in mind it also has to do with how well a person speaks. Those soft spoken people won't be heard too well, but that goes for real life too. Fortunately, most of the sales reps had clear and prominent voices.
Perhaps next year I will invest in a wireless mic or request the "loud mouth" of the company do the talking. For now just do like Grandpa Simpson and "turn it up".
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-10-2003, 08:54 PM:
Thanks, Cordell Miller.
Play that number.....
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-10-2003, 09:30 PM:
Sorry to be vague, I was curious what software Brad was using for postprocessing/encoding. I would at least expect there to be a volume normalization checkbox, and probably a "screen-out-crowd -type" noises checkbox. Oh, and a "mono mode" to keep the main speech centered and not let it pan around as the camera angle changes.
Maybe I've really naive and these features aren't trivially available. (I guess I should believe Brad when he says "none whatsoever.")
--jhawk
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 03-10-2003, 09:31 PM:
I believe most camcorders come with an attached omni-directional mic that picks up all the unwanted noises. Could one plug in a shotgun mic, and have an assistant point it at the speaker(s)?
And if there were an on/off switch and volume control in the line, the recording could be muted live to diminish annoying background or foreground noise.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-10-2003, 09:46 PM:
Gerard, a shotgun mic would not work well on such a close range. The slightest movement of the talker and wham...no sound. Also, turning the sound on and off coupled with altering the level would do absolutely nothing to pull the dialogue out of the background noise. Even matrixing the background out would not work that well because the person on screen is always moving around and the panning would be off causing wild variations in the output. It is just best to leave it as it is. (By the way, every camera mic I have ever seen is of the cardioid variety.)
John, no those features are not trivially available, and even the more elaborate ones I've used don't make enough of a difference in a situation like this anyway. If the audio isn't good enough for you after looking at a few more for an average comparison, just don't download any more of them. It's the best that could be done on such short notice in the situation without a boom operator (which will never happen) or a wireless mic (which I do not have).
I think you guys aren't really putting any thought into the sheer VOLUME of the NOISE in that room that was to be overcome vs. the amplitude of the speaker. Like I said, the fact that the camera picked up the audio to the intelligible extent that it did is a magnificent compliment to the built in microphone given the circumstances. The videos are not meant to be anything super professional, just a way for people who could not attend to be able to see what it was like and the products exhibited. A ShoWest pass is $750. The video downloads are free. Hey, you get what you pay for.
Now everybody hurry up and send in more theater pictures, manuals or offer to write a review. Once my streak of daily updates comes to a stop when I run out of material, I'm bound to become lazy again and put things off! (hint, hint)
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-10-2003, 11:04 PM:
Hooray for Brad and for him providing for FREE the opportunity to "view" the show for those who were unable to attend ShoWest for one reason or another.
I must say I get annoyed at some of the "Monday-morning quarterbacking" that sometimes goes on. It reminds me that if you provide something for free, it becomes expected. We should all be thankful for what we have. The "Whiners" should fork-over the bucks to go, or at the VERY least be grateful for a glimpse of the show for free.
I'm sure the trip to Las Vegas cost Brad many $$$$ and he was good enough to share it with the no-shows. It's just not the cost of the show ticket, but the accommodations, the airfare, rentals, etc. He did NOT have to spend ***his*** time taping the show for our collective benefit. He could have spent his time socializing, partying, oh and pursuing his own business interests.
I'll get off my soapbox now... Flame Off!
>>> Phil
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 03-11-2003, 12:34 AM:
Brad, the video was a VERY cool idea! I thoroughly enjoyed it and I'm looking forward to future releases. THANKS!!
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-11-2003, 12:42 AM:
My projection booth has WAY LOUDER background noise! Besides, if you were to filter out the background noise (which ain't gonna happen without really screwing up the foreground audio since you're not going to get a constant noise sample) it would take away from a large part of the show atmosphere.
Thanks for the videos -- saves me the ~$3000 it would cost to see the show in person.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-11-2003, 02:37 AM:
The video of the new Christie projector was very interesting, even though there was probably more camera time on Christie Guy than the actual projector. The round-toothed belts should be cool. And I'd love to see that basement reader in action. With only 2 constant speed sprockets it makes the machine much more simple. It'd be fun trying to teach kids how to thread that thing. It's not something that most people would be used to.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-11-2003, 02:39 AM:
Hmmm... that basement reader looks a LOT like a Dolby penthouse reader.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 03-11-2003, 09:21 AM:
Thanks for the videos. i look forward to seeing more.
I don't have too much experience with newer console equipent, like the Christie projector, but the douser design seems like it could be a disaster waiting to happen. When the douser is in the closed position, that shaft sticks out , a good four inches from the look of it, on the operator side of the projector. It seems that if someone was to run into that with a bit of momentum, more likely in a darker booth or after an especially long day, that shaft could be bent, thus locking that douser in it's closed position. I'm guessing it could be removed somewhat quickly, but not by the average teenager that was bumped up from the concession stand. Why would the sideways moving douser be considered an improvement? Is there some problem with the vertically moving douser?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-11-2003, 11:10 AM:
There was at one point issues with the vertically mounted douser falling down during a show. Once it fell down a little bit, the end would get bent by the heat of the lamp and would then no longer function properly.
A good point about the handle. Perhaps Christie could design it so that there was a slit opening on the lamphouse side of the projector and reorient the handle 90 degrees so it would require the operator to manually move it from the rear? I don't have one in front of me to check the feasability though, so I may just be rambling.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 03-11-2003, 11:23 AM:
If I recall correctly, the Christie Rep opened and closed the douser via a switch on the console. I think they should just keep the moving parts inside as much as possible, and divise another means to operate the douser manually in case of switch failure. I can see a lot of service calls for the replacement of that shaft. Good for the techs, but bad for the audience.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-11-2003, 11:32 AM:
Thanks Brad - I'm enjoying these videos as much as everyone else. The production values are fine too - not sure why some people feel the need to find fault.
Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 03-11-2003, 11:33 AM:
On the Christie video there is a scene where you seem to concentrate more on a lady's legs than on the projector or the salesman
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-11-2003, 11:45 AM:
I think the best thing to do with the changeover handle would be to use a push-pull tube and angle it out the back -- looking at the video there appears to be enough room to do it.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-11-2003, 01:31 PM:
Thanks for the Christie video; I've never seen a Christie projector up close. I'm a fan of Century (for reliability and ease of maintenance) and Kinoton (for picture quality), but the new model looks at least somewhat interesting.
Do they offer a non-turret model (or a 3-lens or 4-lens turret) for venues which deal with more than two formats?
Agreed with the comments on the changeover handle. Ideally it should be positioned so that it can be manually operated from either side of the projector for use in a two-machine installation (so that it can be opened or closed manually in the event of failure while one is standing between machines). Also, it looks like it might be difficult to replace the coil if/when it burns out.
Is the Davis-loop soundhead design only for the machines with the SRD basement reader or will all of these models use it?
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-11-2003, 01:36 PM:
Wow. I'm shocked at how incredibly snipey and rude people are.
No more speech from me on this thread.
--jhawk
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-11-2003, 04:45 PM:
At least the new Christie projector has a flywheel. No more belt tooth-jumping when trying to advance the projector at a decent speed.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 01:02 PM:
Yes there is a new ShoWest video for today, I just didn't get the chance to upload it until now.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-12-2003, 01:14 PM:
The link to the Xenon failure analysis paper doesn`t seem to work.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 02:27 PM:
I just checked it and it definitely works. Use the March 11 link.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-12-2003, 02:42 PM:
Yes it works now. Must have been that bloody Opera browser I am using. I think I should go back to Internet Explorer.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 02:53 PM:
Sounds like you did not set up Opera to not cache documents. Instructions for this are in the FAQ.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-12-2003, 02:59 PM:
I had set it to cache documents. Maybe it was just some small hang-up. The truth is, I like Opera for the many clever functions it has. But it crashes far more often than IE. And the Bookmarks fold-down menu doesn`t work anymore. Strange.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 03:10 PM:
There is a small bug with Opera regarding bookmarks. If you like to use file sharing software, it tends to kill the bookmark list.
You can cache images, just don't set it to cache documents. IE is the devil in this area which is one of the reasons I cannot stand it so much.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-12-2003, 03:22 PM:
Maybe I misunderstood you. You recommend to set Opera to NOT CACHE documents? What will be the advantage?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 04:24 PM:
Frequently I upload documents and then realize I botched up the coding and then re-upload a corrected one. If your browser is cacheing, you will still see the botched page.
Just be happy I'm not using VI or this whole site would be one mess of broken links!
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-12-2003, 04:34 PM:
Remember, with most browsers, CTRL + F5 reloads a page while ignoring your cache and most ISP cacheflow appliances.
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-13-2003, 09:30 AM:
Ian's Challenge Video
I loved the part when John P starts to turn the platter deck and the music box starts playing in the background.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-13-2003, 05:54 PM:
We should thank Larry Shaw of Kinoton for the inspiration to do this stunt. He did it first with two fat men, so I was pretty confident that we could pull it off.
Thank you to Pat Moore from Strong for having the guts to let us try it on his platter. I'm guessing they would have to have changed the name of the company if the platter had failed.
Thank you Brad Miller for all the shots of my big fat ass!
Note: I was either still drunk or had the biggest hangover that morning. I bailed before Brad could drag me to every platter manufacture in the building.
Thank you to John Pytlak and Aaron Seismore for being in my corner. I'm sure you guys would have caught me if the platters had failed.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-13-2003, 07:06 PM:
I have resisted the temptation to download the film as I have a rather slow modem connection. But I can hardly belive that any, even the smallest person could stand on a platter!
I will have to see it sooner or later.
Are there going to be pictures from the film-tech gathering? I only took one single picture there:
For those of you who could not go, this is what Las Vegas looks like:
Since I posted a number of pictures recently, I have received many requests if my pictures can be bought. Yes, large format hand-signed printouts are available for $355 each.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2003, 08:22 PM:
Oh Michael, Michael, Michael. It looks like you have shot that picture of Ian intending to use it as a dart board after paintnig a ring of red circles! Don't forget about composition when you shoot.
Isn't that MUCH better?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-13-2003, 08:31 PM:
Why? Because his head is in the middle of the frame? I discovered only later that I had forgotten to set the white balance in my camera to artificial light, that`s why everything looks so orange...
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-13-2003, 08:33 PM:
Yup. Waaaaaaaaaay too much headroom. It's photography 101.
If you have Photoshop or another similar program you can do color correction, so the white balance thing isn't that much of an issue.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-13-2003, 08:36 PM:
I don`t know, I sort of like it that way because it also shows what the room was like...
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-13-2003, 09:07 PM:
Yeah come on Brad, stop picking on Michael just because he wants to be Stanley Kubrick Jr.
He likes to frame big, and then release in whatever the hell format is available.
>>> Phil
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-13-2003, 11:45 PM:
Yeah ... Michael was shooting in Imax!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2003, 11:48 AM:
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 03-14-2003, 12:14 PM:
When I look at that target all I see is Osama Bin Laden!
Is it possible that he is hiding at the Rialto Cinemas Lakeside!
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-14-2003, 12:32 PM:
Las vegas has attracted quite a few al Qaeda members:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=20619
Note that in Michael's photo, "Osama" the Large has hidden his name tag.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-14-2003, 02:55 PM:
Osama bin Price?
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-14-2003, 11:52 PM:
Hey - so far I downloaded the sneak previews of the ShoWest MOV's Brad took. As of this time, there were five of them.
I was very impressed with the quality of videos Brad provided, and I was equally impressed with the response of the manufacturers that were interviewed. Kudos to all those manufactureres I have seen so far.
To Christie, Dolby, Kelmar, Kineton, Panastereo and Strong International, (for Pat Moore allowing Ian to stand on their platter), my hat is off in respect to those companies. They are trying to make the best possible equipment for our industry.
Please gentlemen, continue to accept the suggestions of us slobs that are trying to put on a good show. Your improvements are really what we like to see.
So far, all of the above companies I mentioned....I would welcome your new equipment in any of the booths I run or have to maintain. Good show! Manufacturers like you and your representatives that truly believe in your product and are willing to take suggestions from us is what this whole thing is about. Many of us want to put on a good show, and you guys are helping us do just that with your innovations and improvements.
I sincerely thank you for your efforts and professionalism.
Paul, The "Weenie Man"
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 03-15-2003, 08:55 AM:
And thanks from me to Brad and All.
Today I changed to AOL Broadband, and was able to download all the latest six videos in Large Quicktime. It was great to hear the voice belonging to a well known picture on Film-Tech. I liked the shot of John Pytlak turning the Kinoton platter.
I had to download the free Quicktime program to view. Are there better versions you can purchase to increase quality worth considering?
And now to other video downloads in the library.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-15-2003, 04:41 PM:
The $30 purchase price of Quicktime only allows you to author your own Quicktimes. The player is free.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-15-2003, 05:33 PM:
The free Quicktime program gives just as good of results are the Pro version. The files are extremely compressed so that as many internet people as possible can view them. If I was to make a high resolution file of those, it would be ten times over the file size to download and would clog up the lines. The same file size does tend to look better in QT than on generic MPEG, which is why they are provided in that format. (Plus it makes Scott use a Windows computer, which is always fun. )
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-15-2003, 07:20 PM:
Now I just need to find a way to make Brad use vi!
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-15-2003, 09:54 PM:
Nonsense, you can play Quicktime video on Linux with CodeWeavers CrossOver.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 03-16-2003, 10:12 AM:
The attitude... the velvety voice.. the smooth style... and the unquenchable thirst for martinis.
I really think that Bob Maar is the lost member of the Rat Pack.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-16-2003, 10:38 AM:
Since you're talking about Quicktime software, is there a simple freeware editor I can use to perform some basic pruning of the little 5 fps QT videos my still camera shoots? I have Premiere but it's not currently happy on my machine and plus I seem to always end up bloating everything (different rez and frame rate). Just want something primitive for simple cutting.
Obligatory Sho-Nuff content: What's heavier: Titanic in 5-perf 70mm or Ian? Show your work for full credit.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-16-2003, 10:56 AM:
Ian weighs more.
According to John P., 70mm film weighs about 10 pounds per 1000 feet (not sure if this is mag or DTS). Titanic runs for 194 minutes at 112.5 fpm, for a total of 21825 feet (plus a few more feet for leader and tail and maybe trailers, too). Thus, Titanic weighs about 218 pounds in 5/70. Ian weighs 300 pounds. 218 < 300. Thus, Ian weighs more. Q.E.D.
Further comparisons are left as an exercise for the interested student.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 03-16-2003, 02:50 PM:
Ah, but Ian produces more pressure -- force per unit area. The weight of the film is distributed throughout the entire platter.
But of course, it's all irrelevent. No one measured how true the platter was before Ian stepped on it, nor after, so there's no way to know what really happened.
--jhawk
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2003, 09:45 AM:
Oh wow, that crazy THX! They are so fun and playful making people do the "Broadway Tone" into the camera. Makes me love THX and want to buy THX certified speakers for my car or maybe my computer (THX is no longer about cinema). They so funny!!
OK that was a very smart-ass post. But the video showed some kid, Dwayne (gettin' old there fella!), some guy with no facial expressions, and Ian doing the "tone". Only Ian could produce the bass of the original Broadway trailer. Loved the edit at the end with Ian and the www.film-tech.com logo.
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 03-23-2003, 11:22 AM:
Just for those further comparisons: Is Ian digital or analog ?
Per
student ![[eyes]](graemlins/eyes.gif)
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-23-2003, 05:31 PM:
quote:
Ah, but Ian produces more pressure -- force per unit area. The weight of the film is distributed throughout the entire platter.
That really becomes a non-issue when the arm starts to fail before the deck itself starts to bend.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-27-2003, 02:50 AM:
The ShoWest 2003 videos are not over just yet, I just haven't had the spare time these last few days to squeeze in some more of that awesome "slap it together" editing and Quicktime compression. They will return in a few days. In the meantime, the recent daily update tradition will continue.
Today's film calculator program was written by Stewart Anderson. It is a Windows program where you can tell it frames per second and frames per foot, then you can convert frames to hours/minutes/second/frames or feet/frames or vice versa, etc. Also you may add or subtract between any format. When you want to just convert numbers, just input the film's length in the upper field and leave the lower field blank. This way when you add or subtract you will get the same film length you entered, only in all 3 formats. Thanks to Stewart for sending it in.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-27-2003, 08:58 AM:
The Kodak website also has an on-line Javascript film length/run-time calculator for all formats and framerates:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/index.shtml
or
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/index.shtml
Go to "Film Calculator"
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-27-2003, 11:16 AM:
But John, it only calculates to the nearest second. What if a film is 2 hours, 12 minutes and 12.2 seconds long? Or what if someone cut the tail on the print diagonally with a pair of scissors? It does not compensate for that.
Kodak should shut down completely until this is fixed.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-27-2003, 03:38 PM:
I'll talk to our webmaster.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-27-2003, 09:41 PM:
In that THX booth video, WTF is wrong with Josh Jones's hair?
It's obviously imparing him in doing the tone well.
=TMP=
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-28-2003, 02:22 AM:
Josh wore his hair 'spiked' thru all of ShoWest.
-Aaron
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-31-2003, 11:00 AM:
In the Fox Theatre pics, what kind of lamphouses are those? It looks like they use rotating, non-copper-coated positive carbons, correct? How are those different from Peerless or Enarc lamps (the only arc lamps that I have worked with)? Is it just a different system which provides similar on-screen results or is one method superior to the other?
In any case, the Fox looks like a great theatre; hopefully the restoration work will continue.
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 03-31-2003, 12:11 PM:
The lamphouses in the Fox pics are Strong Futura II's.
The positive carbons are 13mm and are joinable and do rotate. The positive is clamped into the bracket (the positive jaws are water cooled as well) with conical rollers that rotate and feed the carbon, the little dial on the bottom front of the lamphouse is the feed rate control, and the cranks are the manual trim adjusters.
I ran a pair of these lamps when I worked at the Sonomarin D/I, and preferred these lamps to Peerless and Brenkert.
-Aaron
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-03-2003, 09:23 AM:
There is an error with the captions/titles of the cinema in Amsterdam. The sign on the building clearly states plain as day that it is a Theater yet, the title of the pictures section and several captions refer to it as a Theatre. Who could overlook such a glaring error?
At the Broadway cinema section, I noticed one of the projectors has that ugly orange "STOP!" notice on the lamphouse. I have seen these before all over the booth at other Carmikes. The funny thing about this one is that the sign says, "STOP! It is VERY important to thread your Century projector in frame!!" (you can see it's a picture of a century head.) Isn't this place an All-Christie package? Oh well. Christie, Century, they both start with C...
=TMP=
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-03-2003, 12:03 PM:
Maybe they're just trying to make their employees feel better about having to work with Christie projectors by showing them a picture of a _good_ machine? (And does anyone think that notes like this actually do any good? Either the employees know/care enough to do the job properly or they don't; signage isn't likely to change that, unless it says something like "anyone who does not thread this machine in frame will be fired immediately.")
Anyway, the Broadway looks like a really nice theatre. Is it typical of the newer Carmike houses? The only examples that I have seen from that chain are of the shoebox-plex vintage (late '70s/early '80s) and are abysmal places to watch a film.
And what is/was the now-closed Butterfly Pavilion?
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 04-03-2003, 03:52 PM:
I finally made it!!!
Scott,
The Broadway typifies the standard Carmike desgin since 1995+. They have done away with the "Italian Marble" in the main lobby, as well as the main concession stand when you go in. The lobby flooring is now tile style layout and the concession stand has been replaced with a decent size game room.
Thomas,
I forgot that the signs were for Century projectors. I have always trained my guys to thread in frame and the importance of not having to stop a show after the initial start for any threading error(s).
The Butterfly Pavilion was just that. Without too much detail, a group rec'd a federal rural subsidy low interest loan (what's rural about http://www.Broadwayatthebeach.com ?) to build this million+ dollar facility housing butterflies. I think the initial desire was to build on the success of Ripley's Aquarium (see previous link) but my feeling was that, from the inception, it was destined to fail. I was correct in my assumption.
BATB is a nice outdoor retail shopping/dining/entertainment complex situated on what was wooded swamp 10 years ago. BATB has received the governors award for Outstanding Tourist Destination for a few years now.
Any other questions? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-04-2003, 01:35 AM:
When the Butterfly Pavilion closed, did they just leave the butterflies in there, (They're just dumb insects) take them away, or just set them free? Just curious...
=TMP=
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-04-2003, 02:36 AM:
Thomas-
They set the hunters loose and they were all shot.
--Joe
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-04-2003, 02:52 AM:
The hunters were shot!?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-04-2003, 10:13 AM:
Yes. Right after the butterflies were shot.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-04-2003, 08:37 PM:
Hmmmm, interesting no one said anything about there not being an update today. Well, the day isn't over yet.
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 04-09-2003, 04:04 PM:
Regarding todays new IMAX pictures:
In the last picture of the set, large metal shipping cases are shown. One is stenciled with the words "stained glass". Was this the title of an IMAX show?
I love original Tiffany windows, but I can't imagine making an IMAX film about them....
Danny
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-09-2003, 09:30 PM:
Disney has code-worded the titles of their large format films.
Fantasia 2000 = Stained Glass
Beauty and the Beast = Stained Glass II
Ultimate X = Stained Glass III
Treasure Planet = Stained Glass IV
The Lion King = Stained Glass V
The prints of Ghosts of the Abyss arrived in the old Fantasia cases.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-09-2003, 11:00 PM:
Maybe so shippers will think the boxes contain stained glass and not an IMAX print?
Driver: "Wow. This theater sure does order a lot of Stained Glass!"
=TMP=
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 04-10-2003, 01:31 AM:
From experience I can tell you that stained glass is always shipped in wooden crates. Although those metal cases would be cool, considering the better brands of glass run about $30 to $50 a square foot.
Danny
Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 04-10-2003, 10:26 AM:
Those first few pics are hard to see. I brightened uped my moniter and still couldn't see anything.
Adam did you get special permission from IMAX corp. to show those pics of the booth? I thought IMAX had some sort of "no pics" allowed rule. I would love to show our booth off as well.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-10-2003, 01:54 PM:
You cannot take and distribute pictures of the IMAX projector mechanism itself. We have several IMAX booth picture tours on the site and you will notice none of them include a close up shot of the rolling loop and it's components to help protect their patent.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-10-2003, 02:00 PM:
Is it just me or does anyone else think that the Midland DI needs to upgrade their lenses and lamphouses? I have a hard time believing that their scope picture comes anywhere near SMPTE specs for image brightness. Surely they can get a pair of 4kw lamphouses reasonably cheaply on the used market, given the large number of theatres that have closed in the last few years.
Oh, and why is the tension so high in that soundhead?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-10-2003, 02:06 PM:
Well if the thief was smart he'd just know that "Stained Glass" = IMAX print and steal it anyway. Disney = Dumbasses.
What is Ultimate X? Who thought that title up? I need to be familiar with Average and Mediocre Xs first. Why would I want to watch anything about the letter X? Stupid.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-11-2003, 02:18 AM:
Brad said:
"You cannot take and distribute pictures of the IMAX projector mechanism itself."
Are you serious? I have many pics of IMAX booths, projectors, and details of the mechanisms.
The rolling-loop projector patents are public knowledge and are available on the patent websites. IMAX does have proprietary theatre specifications, sound, and show-control systems that there are many pics of, but I understand no details of the software code! HAhahahaha
I am very familiar with IMAX patents and have copies of them….and how their system works.
I hate to say how much time I spent in court and in making depositions regarding lawsuits filed against Ummmm...me and the "competition" by IMAX. All parties had to bare their "privates" in order to see if there was a basis for the suits. In the end, the courts threw out ALL the lawsuits as being "frivolous and without merit."
When I spec'd and designed "our" systems, I made sure it did not infringe on ANY IMAX proprietary technology.
I am dismayed at, and don't understand, your statement about posting the mechanism pics are not allowed…
I REALLY do not think someone would be able to manufacture a knock-off projector from pictures. Trust me, there is WAY much more to deal with in terms of "special" know-how and "tricks" to make it all work!
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-11-2003, 03:22 AM:
What if, by extreme coincidence, someone designed an IMAX-like projector without having ever been in an IMAX booth before nor having ever seen the projector and came up with nearly the exact same design for his own machine? With IMAX not allowing pics, how could he have ever known that a similar mechanism was already patented?
Also, if the method and machinery are patented, why does IMAX want to hide pictures of the machines? If anyone copies it then surely they will face a prompt losing battle in court. So they are basically trying to protect what is already protected. IMAX is weird.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-11-2003, 03:24 AM:
You have to put on your night vision goggles to see the drive-in photos. You do have night vision goggles, right?
Ultimate X was that it-grows-on-you X Games movie.
Imax files patents for all kinds of crap. I think they don't want you taking photos of the projector front-end because they don't want you to figure out which design they finally decided would work in reality. They're Canadians. What do you expect?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2003, 03:58 AM:
I don't know the specifics, Phil. I just know IMAX isn't comfortable with pictures of the rolling loop being taken/published. It's an easy work-around when making picture pages for the warehouse. When pictures of the front of the projector has been submitted, I delete them. It keeps everyone happy.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-11-2003, 04:13 AM:
Have they threatened to break your legs, cut off your dick, or some other harassment?
They are soooo full of their own self-importance and corporate (FART) air for something that IS NOT as unique as they would like to portray.
It just seems a little weird to me… Oh well, I respect your philosophy and decision...
>>>> Phil
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-11-2003, 04:20 AM:
No, there has been no harassment at all from IMAX. If a company doesn't want something particular shown and they are polite about it, I have no problem complying with their request fully. I know the front of the projectors are something IMAX doesn't want shown, so when I go into an IMAX booth, I don't even take the camera over there and like I said above, I delete any submissions that I feel "reveal" too much. (It's those people who automatically assume that they must get an army of attorneys to write a book of threats and be complete A-holes that deserve a little thrown back at them! )
Actually in the 4+ years the Picture Warehouse has been online, there have only been three requests to have a picture removed. One was understandable, but the other two were for really weird reasons that didn't make much sense, but hey, no problem...and away it went.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-11-2003, 07:52 AM:
Several SMPTE papers on the basic "rolling loop" concept, and Bill Shaw's work on developing it into the IMAX projector:
"The Rolling Loop -- A New Concept of Film Transport" by P. R. W. Jones, January 1968 SMPTE Journal, pages 21-23
"Film Dynamics of a Rolling-Loop Film-Transport System" by William C. Shaw, September 1970 SMPTE Journal, pages 778-782
"New Large-Screen and Multi-Image Motion-Picture System" by William C. Shaw, September 1970 SMPTE Journal, pages 782-787
Bill Shaw decided on the 15-perf pull-across after discussions with Kodak's Rollie Zavada, who noted that optimum steadiness would be achieved by using an integral multiple of the 5-perforation repeat used for perforating 65mm and 70mm film (principle of "cancellation").
As Phil Hill noted, while the concept is simple, the "Devil is in the Details" and these systems are a marvel of superb engineering.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-11-2003, 10:59 AM:
Surely Phil you've met some engineers that couldn't understand something without you drawing them a picture. Not providing a potential competitor with pictures can't hurt. Of course writing your patents so that they are more 'concept based' is the best way to go if you're concerned someone might rip off your design.
It's not uncommon in the plastics industry to disallow pictures of machines and specialized moulds. In fact, many of my father's designs are under a no-picture rule. Maybe it is a Canadian thing, eh?
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-11-2003, 11:25 AM:
I have hosted tours of film manufacturing areas for VIP customers. Of course, no cameras allowed! Or lights, for that matter.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-11-2003, 11:34 AM:
All that film and no pictures!
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-11-2003, 03:40 PM:
Daryl, Don't call me "Surely"
>>> Phil
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-11-2003, 05:00 PM:
Most of the Imax patent paperwork I've seen has been concept-based and the final product was hardly recognizeable compared to the patent drawings.
Strangely, I got to see a 35mm print of Airplane! while I was in Phoenix. "Do you like gladiator movies?"
[ 04-11-2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-11-2003, 05:28 PM:
While the patents I'm thinking of are very detailed and up-to-date, it would be impossible, or at lease improbable, to build anything that complex from patents or even close-up photos. You really must have detailed dimensioned mechanical drawings...and even then there is an art that a skilled craftsman adds to make it all work. It's not as easy as it looks.
And with the coming of video and the ever increasing resolution and performance of 35mm film, I really doubt someone would be foolish enough to invest a bazillion dollars in R&D and tooling to rip-off an already established and operating projector for a format that will someday in the near future die.
There are people I know working on a different method, much less costly 1570 projector, but they are even questioning the long-term feasibility of continuing. 1570's demise will be the ever-increasing film & print costs, outrageous projection system costs, the ridiculous contractual demands of "the equipment supplier", and of course, the continuing improvements in the great Kodak films in smaller formats.
>>> Phil
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 04-11-2003, 09:00 PM:
Last year I was in Scotland installing a sound system at the Glasgow Science Center and asked for a tour of the Imax booth. The Technical director of the center took me to the booth, but he wouldn't let me see the inside of the projector because I work for the competition and the Imax patents were expired. I guess I could take that info and reproduce the projector?
Rick
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-11-2003, 09:11 PM:
In the case of IMAX and no pictures, it's probably more of an old rule from times when the system was new and had a bright future.
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 04-12-2003, 04:18 AM:
Mercyhurst College pictures by Randy Stankey.
What a Super attractive cinema & theatre. Love the polished brass rails in the balcony and boxes.
When I worked in a cine-variety theatre, the speakers were on wheels although there was a fly tower for the screen and everything else.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-13-2003, 04:29 AM:
Garrick theater:
Uh, interesting.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-13-2003, 06:52 AM:
It looks like someone didn't follow the "half of all pictures must be booth shots" rule.
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 04-13-2003, 10:04 AM:
Andrew McCrea? Wasn't he expelled from the forum a long time ago?
Maybe this is the the theatre he wishes to reopen someday, once his business plan is in place and funding is secured.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-13-2003, 10:38 AM:
The Garrick was an interesting theatre the big house with the D150 screen was one of 2 in Canada that was equiped with Vic10's the rest of the D150 had dp75's
There was also one screen with pro35/70 ballantynes and a pair of vic 8' and a pair of just pro 35's
Last time i was there it was still all running on reels with cinemation and BTS pegboard automations
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-15-2003, 11:02 PM:
Will Brad make it in the next 58 minutes or will it stop at 104 continuous days?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-15-2003, 11:22 PM:
Daryl, stop using that stupid IE browser and clear your cache. April 15th's update was done about 20 hours ago of the Avon cinema.
I wonder how many people don't get to see all of the updates due to that stupid browser?
Anyone taking bets on how long this "daily update" thing can keep running?
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-15-2003, 11:29 PM:
I really need to learn how to read a calendar, apparently today isn't the 16th.
Put me down for the last week of May.
BTW, today was a Netscrape day... only browser I've got on the Mac Quadra.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-20-2003, 09:08 PM:
Starlite Drive-In: How far IS it from the projection booth to those screens? It looks like a quarter mile! What wattage lamps do they use??
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-28-2003, 01:49 AM:
Thanks to those responsible for the new look of the old sneak peaks. Very readable and user friendly. Now I no longer have to scroll to every day's listings to see what is level 1, 2, or 3. Whoever did this deserves a raise
BTW, what is the problem people have with IE? Mine seems to refresh whenever I log on.
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 04-28-2003, 05:19 PM:
Sam,
Great screening room!! I really like that portable sound rack you have.
<<<BTW that's a nice looking Coke machine I see in the background. I used to be an avid Coke collector, still have quite a few nice pre-1942 trays in the closet, which according to ebay, are now basically worthless. damn ebay ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-29-2003, 01:26 AM:
Re: Starlite Drive-In.
I'll ask Jim what his throws are. He's told us they're pretty far out there. It might be interesting to know where he got his lenses.
At our last drive-in owners' convention, Jim told us about the telescope he came up with to help get the focus trimmed. A picture of it is in that group of photos.
The lamps are Strong Ultra-80s... and he's running them full-out at 7kW.
As for how successful the place is: He has an answering machine there that can handle something like 36 lines. He's been running something like 24+ during the busy season.
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 04-29-2003, 10:42 PM:
Thanks Dan
I am in the process of moving to a new home and will be building up a screening room so I can go permanent with my equipment. I have a brenkent 4 point base and an old QSC 6 bay amp lined up for it. That Coke machine is an 1960 model Cavalier Model 80. It needs a new compressor in which I will be installing one day. We also have 4 Coke Dispensers, and hundreds of bottles. Every time I buy a movie or part for my stuff I have to buy my wife something
Anyway, thanks for the compliment.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-06-2003, 01:32 PM:
Uh-oh... Brad needs more pictures.
The bottom of the barrel must be getting scraped with the Monee manual posting.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-06-2003, 02:16 PM:
That was a highly requested manual addition by Ian. I've been putting it off for a long time now, but I figured I couldn't wait any longer or he might get angry.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-06-2003, 03:50 PM:
Is Ian getting ready to switch out all his Simplex with the rock-steady and trouble free marvels that have come to make Monee the standard in Indian projectors?
Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 05-06-2003, 07:10 PM:
Nah, he can't be hurting for pictures -- I just sent him some cool pics of the Fig Garden. And now that I have more than 50 posts, I can actually view them when they are posted!
Hey, I collect Coke stuff too! Well, I haven't gotten any new pieces in a while as everything good is out of my budget.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-07-2003, 11:30 AM:
Nice job on the Crown Neonopolis video!
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 05-07-2003, 12:16 PM:
I have to wait until I get home to watch that. Will there be pictures too?
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-18-2003, 03:55 PM:
A day or so ago I was looking at the pictures for 'Peterborough Community Theatre'. I noticed in the last picture how someone had stuck tape over the window in the shutter housing to stop the light escaping.
I thought that was a good idea so I tried it tonight with our projector.
hmmm
Think I need to have a shower and wash my hair when I get home. I can still smell the smoke.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-01-2003, 11:56 AM:
I want to thank Brad for only placing equipment manuals in the Sneak Preview window these past 12-15 days. As I was at Mountainfilm in Telluride and suffering a dial-up Internet connection. Thus I was never tempted to suffer a long download times to look at pictures of another theatre.
I am back home in California for the summer. Brad, feel free to return to posting interesting pictures of other movie theatres untill I leave again in Late August. Thank you.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-01-2003, 01:08 PM:
So I do have your permission to go back to pictures and reviews and other stuff? Are you sure? Will you be emailing me pictures of this year's Mountainfilm as you should?
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-01-2003, 06:04 PM:
I still have to email you pictures of last year's ShowEast... both Ian and I have our forum pictures from that day. Aah, the memories...
=TMP=
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-01-2003, 08:59 PM:
Mountainfilm is stupid. ShowEast is stupid. Certainly you have more interesting things than that. Where's the manual for the Motiograph T-7 Johnson Rod?
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-02-2003, 12:35 PM:
Ian: Relative to your new Film-Tech photo, I didn't know that Doctor Biber had moved his clinic from Trinidad CO to Telluride CO.
http://www.moss-fritch.com/biber.htm
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-20-2003, 11:47 AM:
What the world needs now is another Cinemeccanica manual.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-20-2003, 01:18 PM:
quote:
What the world needs now is another Cinemeccanica manual.
And "Love, sweet Love".
http://sunhawk-m.sunhawk.com/Preview/700/WARNER/BAWHATTH.mid
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2003, 02:36 PM:
I'll try and work on that tomorrow Adam. Ian got angry at me for posting so many videos and pictures, so I'm trying to stick to business stuff with manuals.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2003, 05:08 AM:
With today's update...and SIX MONTHS of non-stop daily updates...we introduce a revised access policy. Rather than restricting the sneak sections to people who have been around long enough to accumulate 50 posts, it is now 10 posts within the last 30 days.
Check out the specifics here.
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 07-01-2003, 03:07 PM:
I will take this opportunity to express my displeasure with the new system . Heres my start to getting back to level 1. I guess I should have been posting all this time.
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-02-2003, 02:11 AM:
I'm still waiting to see Sam Hunter's new setup. The antici.......................pation is killing me.
Danny
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-02-2003, 02:30 AM:
Sam did a very nice job with it. His new picture page will be up by the weekend.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2003, 04:41 AM:
I have already seen Sam Hunter's pictures (I resized them all for the site). He did do a good job. Sam is even in one of the pics, so watch out!
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-02-2003, 05:08 AM:
That new policy is a bunch of horse-shit! Who the hell wants a sneak-preview to look at a bunch of manuals for projectors...especially those POS Cinemeccanica ones?
All technical manuals should be immediately available to all members so as to help all techies out. I wonder what yous are smoking over there?
Level 2 should contain all theater related pics.
Level 1 should only contain porno pics and be accessible only to members that have had sex with Brad at least 10 times in the last 30 days. Or, those members that have paid Brad and me 1 billion dollars.
>>> Phil
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-07-2003, 05:42 PM:
Classic Cinemas Charlestown 18. Very nice looking facility. Question about the Christie ELF though. Having never seen pictures of one before, the question that comes to mind is Why is the film wound like that? It just looks "wrong" to my layman's eye. Maybe someone could explain how those work for those of us who don't know. I understand the endless loop concept, I just don't get why the film is wound like that.
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 07-07-2003, 05:52 PM:
Someone correct me if im wrong but isnt it so that the platter deck spins at the correct speed to pay out as it would to take up?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2003, 06:59 PM:
Yup, that is so the outer loop of film is the same diameter as the inner loop of film. The platter deck itself never changes speed.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-07-2003, 08:51 PM:
Wrong forum, but since we're here... Are endless loop systems reliable, and do they cause any extra wear to film? Aside from the fact that they probably cost more, now I'm wondering why more megaplexes don't use them.
Posted by Mike Fitzgerald (Member # 1304) on 07-07-2003, 08:52 PM:
I guess I need to post more often I did not realize that I was behind on my count until I tried to open the advance previews. I should be almost up there in my counts
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-07-2003, 09:05 PM:
Typically the endless loop systems that "scallop" the print are very sensitive to humidity variations that change the curl of the film. The loose wind of the film can allow dirt particles to get in between the film convolutions. Plus, they are more complex in their operation than normal platters. They can work well, but normal platters are more robust.
The other disadvantage is that since they eliminate rethreading between shows, some theatres have also tried to eliminate all booth personnel except for show make-up and tear-down, resulting in neglect of normal projector maintenance like cleaning the projector gate.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-07-2003, 10:02 PM:
Thanks John.
Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 07-08-2003, 03:06 AM:
for the rear screen at my last theater we had a strong endless loop for rear screen lobby projection... what ever "scalloping" does to a print it f'ed my endless loop up until about a month before I stopped managing it, that God fer Film Guard very lightly swabbed on the top!
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-14-2003, 09:21 AM:
Today I downloaded the "Takacom AT-R33 telephone answering machine" from the front page. I was very angry to find out that it was just a manual. Nowhere did it say it was the manual. I thought I was downloading the actual answering machine itself and I was quite pleased. I demand that you put the actual answering machine up for download immediately.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-14-2003, 03:21 PM:
Sorry you thought it was the machine. Ian probably thought it was pictures of the unit.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-14-2003, 04:31 PM:
www.answeringmachinetour.com ... my next project?
And I was expecting to see a photo tour of the DTS Setup Disc. Imagine my surprise!
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-14-2003, 08:55 PM:
Adam--shh! Don't give Brad any ideas. Otherwise, we may be condemned to see photos of DTS setup disks, buzz-track loops, and answering machines, rather than actual useful manuals or (better yet) pics of theatres.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-14-2003, 09:36 PM:
quote:
www.answeringmachinetour.com ... my next project?
So you can go to the site and download mp3 files of theater recordings from around the world?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-14-2003, 09:59 PM:
I wonder... how many manuals does Cinemeccanica actually publish? Thousands? Millions? Seems excessive.
Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 07-15-2003, 01:19 AM:
Joe they own stock in papermills and printing companies.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-15-2003, 04:52 AM:
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-15-2003, 11:04 AM:
Michael, you have a crappy monitor. You need to replace it before you post here again. You have been warned.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 07-15-2003, 06:22 PM:
Whaoh I've been out of town too long. Not only have I fallen behind on my Sneak-Preview status... I'm also completely unaware of what the hell anybody is talking about. It's like I'm finally not addicted to smack anymore... and now here I am with my belt around my arm getting the needle ready...
I'm gonna go out and see what's been going on while I've been away.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-29-2003, 03:17 PM:
The three Cameron manuals and the Kodak "Film Mutilation" publication are great! Oldies but goodies.
As far as I can tell, that Kodak publication likely dates back to the early 1920's, just after Kodak developed the KS perforations to reduce perforation wear from long theatre runs. ("Report of the Film Perforations Committee", Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers, Volume 16, (1923), pages 303-308). The publication also discusses using "hot wax" for edgewax lubrication of prints, which was used before solvent-based edgewaxing was developed by Kodak in 1927.
My best guess is that the publication was written by J. G. Jones, John I. Crabtree, Charles E. Ives, or Otto Sandvik of Kodak.
These fellows "wrote the book" on early motion picture film technology, and won many honors. For example, Crabtree and Ives are "Honor Roll" members of the SMPTE, along with notable inventors like Thomas Armat, Theodore Case, Lee DeForest, William K. L. Dickson, Walt Disney, Linwood Dunn, Thomas Edison, Herbert T. Kalmus, Louis Lumiere, and George Mitchell. Sandvik helped develop the 24fps projection standard.
Wonderful to see how Kodak tried to help theatres have "Film Done Right" almost 80 years ago!
Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 07-30-2003, 03:24 AM:
Rather than restricting the sneak sections to people who have been around long enough to accumulate 50 posts, it is now 10 posts within the last 30 days.
Where's that three-word game when you need it?
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-07-2003, 09:18 AM:
The Lincoln Theatre looks great. How often do they show films, and what do they show?
I'm guessing that the unidentified black box in the dungeon is the controller for a TransVerter motor-generator set. I think that the knob regulates motor RPM. Hopefully someone can confirm or deny this.
Posted by Rick Long (Member # 213) on 08-07-2003, 10:36 PM:
10 Posts in 30 days? Christ, man, do you think I'm MADE of time?
Scott wrote:
"I'm guessing that the unidentified black box in the dungeon is the controller for a TransVerter motor-generator set. I think that the knob regulates motor RPM. Hopefully someone can confirm or deny this."
Maybe a different type than I was used to, but didn't this control regulate the amount of feedback to the field coils of the generator, thus controlling its output?
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-08-2003, 05:41 AM:
10 posts in 30 days plus a picture!
Now you'll have to find time to send in a picture too!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-08-2003, 06:47 AM:
If you'd like, we could change things a bit. How's this?
10 posts in 30 days with a picture = Sneak Level 1 (debuts new content for 30 days)
60 posts in 30 days without a picture plus at least one new submission (manual, picture tour, etc) per year for eligibility = Sneak Level 2 (debuts new content for 11 months)
New additions are released to the lurking public after 1 year.
Would that work? Should we disable the forum's "search" feature for all users without pictures too?
Stop hiding! Take the hint! Send in your picture! (We'll like you better.)
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-08-2003, 06:51 AM:
How many times do I have to tell you Brad!
You forgot the first born child clause. Gotta have somebody around to vacuum / mop the booth floor.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-09-2003, 04:23 AM:
Finally. It's about time I sent in pictures of my own theater. I thought I was never gonna get to see what it looks like.
And when the heck am I gonna update that member photo? I bet I don't even look like that any more.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-09-2003, 05:06 AM:
Here is your newest member pic, Adam:
(I have no idea who this guy really is. But he might as well be you.)
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 08-09-2003, 11:08 AM:
quote:
And when the heck am I gonna update that member photo? I bet I don't even look like that any more.
Why does that sound oddly familiar Adam? Whoa, deja vu!
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-09-2003, 02:01 PM:
I wish I had dimples. I'd be irresistible.
It's about time I sent in those drive-in photos. Brad must be getting really desperate, as they went live three hours after I uploaded them. Are Paul Thompson and I the only ones with booth photos to share?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2003, 02:13 PM:
All these members working at all these theaters and yet so many don't bother to send in pictures to share with the world.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-17-2003, 10:45 AM:
Brad, there's still no such thing as a 10-28 screw. It's likely
a 10-32 screw (but might be a 10-24).
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-17-2003, 04:21 PM:
Alright John, I tried. I really did try, but I can't figure out what in the heck you are talking about.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-17-2003, 05:59 PM:
On my Strong MUTs when the screw is in the down position, it rubs against the hub and makes breaking film down very troublesome and erratic. The screw must be removed completely unless it is being used for a split reel. These Strong MUTs were purchased brand new and are about 10 months old at the most.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-17-2003, 06:28 PM:
Well, it's all crystal clear to me now, thanks to Joe. Brad must be a retard or something.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-17-2003, 06:46 PM:
Now I'm confused.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-17-2003, 07:28 PM:
Aha, John is talking about the Strong MUT/split reel tips page.
(Note to John: tell us what in the #$@%*&%! you are talking about next time. )
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-18-2003, 02:48 AM:
Speaking of screws ... it's Ron Jeremy!
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-18-2003, 05:02 AM:
Sorry, Brad, I didn't want to give the tip away to those who had no picture.
[Yeah, yeah, that's it!]
--jhawk
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-21-2003, 04:47 PM:
The new picture updates submitted by Gordon are interesting.
But for the love of all that is right and good someone PLEASE buy Gordon a new digital camera! Ug!
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-21-2003, 09:06 PM:
It's one of those damn Motiograph digital cameras.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-21-2003, 11:22 PM:
Most were taken with a old Kodak DC50 I now have the sme casio brad has
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2003, 05:27 PM:
Excellent! That's a great camera and I look forward to theater pics taken with it. I am amazed that Kodak would ever make such a bad camera.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-22-2003, 10:26 PM:
Lots of improvements since the early days of digital cameras.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2003, 10:41 PM:
I was looking at the new Kodak Digital Cameras and they look really cool from what I could find on the Kodak website (www.kodak.com -- in typical Kodak fashion expands to incredibly large and looong URL upon arriving at the site since no URL is too long). But I could only find info on 3 sets of cameras. I selected the "performance and control" models and looked at the highest end model. It still uses JPEG to store pics (bleh, I want BMP, TIFF or PICT). If it does anything other than JPEG then it wasn't mentioned where I could see. Also, there should be some full size examples of pics from the camera on the site (unretouched, unshrunk). Not pictures of the typical lavish beach like most examples are, but of real world everyday scenes. Again, unretouched, no enhanced lighting, etc. And certainly not wimpy shrunk down 320x240 sized JPGs. How 'bout it? That's the ONLY true way to show off a camera's picture quality. That microdrive in Brad's sure is awesome though.
Sorry for straying from the topic.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-22-2003, 10:45 PM:
Brad has a "micro-drive"? Hmmm that doesn't surprise me...
>>> Phil
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-22-2003, 10:48 PM:
Joe, since you are a professional, you should be looking at the Kodak Professional Digital Cameras:
Kodak Professional Cameras
Kodak Pro 14N 14 Megapixel Camera Images
Kodak Pro Back
Kodak Pro Back Images
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-22-2003, 10:49 PM:
I was looking at the new Kodak Digital Cameras and they look really cool from what I could find on the Kodak website (www.kodak.com -- in typical Kodak fashion expands to incredibly large and looong URL upon arriving at the site since no URL is too long). But I could only find info on 3 sets of cameras. I selected the "performance and control" models and looked at the highest end model. It still uses JPEG to store pics (bleh, I want BMP, TIFF or PICT). If it does anything other than JPEG then it wasn't mentioned where I could see. Also, there should be some full size examples of pics from the camera on the site (unretouched, unshrunk). Not pictures of the typical lavish beach like most examples are, but of real world everyday scenes. Again, unretouched, no enhanced lighting, etc. And certainly not wimpy shrunk down 320x240 sized JPGs. How 'bout it? That's the ONLY true way to show off a camera's picture quality. That microdrive in Brad's sure is awesome though.
Sorry for straying from the topic.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-25-2003, 05:19 PM:
Gotta love that booth in the Capitol Theatre. It has a boom box plugged into a Smart-Mod 2B. Maybe it's to pump out hip-hop for non-sync.
Smart-Mod 2C may not be meant for rap music, but Smart-Mod 2B might.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-25-2003, 06:58 PM:
The caption for the last photo (Capitol Theatre) should be "Edlo (Raven) PAC2 automation and Dimmer". It didn't get in before I had to post the page.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-25-2003, 11:41 PM:
Done!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-26-2003, 07:41 AM:
The line output of the blaster is used as the nonsynce feed to the mod2b so there is nothing wrong with that
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-26-2003, 09:11 AM:
Gordon,
In the Film Factory pictures, the caption for the auditorium pic for Cinema 2 says that they were using Yorkville stage speakers.
Do you know what model they were?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-26-2003, 11:26 AM:
The largest of the elite line
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-26-2003, 06:30 PM:
Elite's in a cinema application? I wonder how they sounded in there.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-26-2003, 07:25 PM:
quote:
The largest of the elite line
As in some 1500 watt E2204's or E2152's? That'd be insane... those cabinets scream.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-26-2003, 09:12 PM:
They sounded good and were very efficient
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-27-2003, 01:16 AM:
I'd agree with that.
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-27-2003, 08:48 AM:
On the topic of Yorkville, if the Elite's sound good as cinema speakers, would the TX line be any better? Provided of course you supply the external x-over.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-27-2003, 12:30 PM:
Haven't used the TX line but check out the horn coverage first
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 08-28-2003, 02:45 AM:
Both of the TX4 and TX8 cabinets have a 60 x 40 HF dispersion.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-28-2003, 06:07 AM:
I love the original two auditoria of the UA Cine 6. When did it close? Why? And why the heck did they take out the 70mm equipment?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-28-2003, 06:56 PM:
quote:
In case you missed it, Scott Norwood wrote:
why the heck did they take out the 70mm equipment?
It's all part of the plan to present audiences with the lowest resolution images possible.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-11-2003, 07:07 PM:
Wow. Check out the Century 10 pics posted. Note the "X-Treme" screen!!!!!!! Yes, the X-Treme marketing rears its ugly head again. It's not a big screen, not a giant screen, but an X-TREME screen! Yes, complete with exclamation point which is mounted on the outside of the building. The exclamation point helps customers know that Centruy is serious when they are talking about their X-Treme screen.
Here's what I want to know: Do midgets come out and bash your knees in before the movie starts? If not, then it simply is not extreme. Does someone on a BMX come out doing multiple backflips land on his head and start spinning around only to launch back up into the air doing crazy flips yet again? If something similar doesn't happen, then it simply isn't extreme.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2003, 07:23 PM:
The pirate says it well.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-12-2003, 06:41 AM:
Why don't they use the XXXXXXXtreme screen more often? Lack of demand? Lack of programming? Do they show 35mm on the same size screen? Is the 35mm image bright enough on that size screen?
What's available in 8/70, anyway? Is it all reductions of the usual non-IMAX 15/70 titles?
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-13-2003, 12:34 PM:
It's likely that the last thing they played in 8/70 was The Lion King. Imax Corporation films are not released in 8/70, but most other large format distributors have product available in that format. They could run large format all the time if they chose to, but most commercial exhibitors don't know how to run theaters with educational product.
I never bothered to look out the window or step into the auditorium to see what the image looked like.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2003, 06:24 PM:
quote:
Adam Martin Lawrence wrote:
They could run large format all the time if they chose to, but most commercial exhibitors don't know how to run theaters with educational product.
No, it's because they know educational crap is BOOOOORRRRRING and people don't wanna pay for it, especially when there are libraries. That's why IMAX sucks an incredible amount of ass... because it is boring.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-13-2003, 06:37 PM:
quote:
DJ Joe Redifer Remix wrote:
That's why IMAX sucks an incredible amount of ass... because it is boring.
So? This theater doesn't have access to Imax product in any way, shape or form. You might as well say "all large format films are boring" and see what fans of Cinerama, VistaVision, et al have to say about that. As of late, 35mm films pretty much suck ass, too.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-13-2003, 07:07 PM:
Adam Martin Lawrence wrote:
quote:
You might as well say "all large format films are boring" and see what fans of Cinerama, VistaVision, et al have to say about that
Phil Hill King Dick says:
quote:
There is no comparison to the BORING large-format stuff to the commercially produced Cinerama or Vista-Vision films.
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-13-2003, 07:22 PM:
Sorry Adam, if it's an educational film, no matter if it's on 140mm 32-perf IMAX or VHS-EP it's still boring. It just so happens that IMAX caters to boring films.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-13-2003, 07:25 PM:
Educational films are not boreing in any fashion and most institutional large format theatres make money that pays the bills of many museums that house them (unlike many bankrupt megaplex circuits)
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-13-2003, 07:26 PM:
quote:
Joe Phiggidy Phat Rerun Remix Redifer said:
IMAX caters to boring films.
Yep.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-13-2003, 07:33 PM:
quote:
Some people said and quoted:
IMAX caters to boring films.
Like Star Wars Episode II?
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-13-2003, 08:34 PM:
The ONLY film I ever feel asleep in the theatre was "Lawnmower Man". Now THAT was not only B O R I N G, but a waste of silver too.
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-02-2003, 06:30 PM:
About the "Premiere Cinema 12 " pics posted today:
That theater is sure visual overload. The exterior is almost acceptable, but it has a Ruddfuckers right next to it, and they make awful burgers. Not sure if I like the checkerboard ceiling. The auditoriums look pretty nice. Then there is the booth. Damn it's cramped! I see they like to buy some used equipment here and there as well. I guess it's OK since the platters are AW3. But the sound looks like it doesn't offer much. They don't believe in drop ceilings, which should be mandatory in ALL projection booths.
Check out these pics if you haven't already.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 10-08-2003, 01:16 PM:
Regarding the Starplex Galaxy 16:
What's all that film hanging off of the wire rack next to the makeup table? And on the floor? I don't see any film cleaners...
And the sound rack conduit is at the perfect height for me to whack my forehead on. Maybe if they put in slightly more thought, they would put it under the tile...
=TMP=
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-08-2003, 07:20 PM:
The mess of film hanging there just shows how much the projectionists care.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-08-2003, 07:32 PM:
About the front page.
Would it be possible to be able to save the files in the level 1 or 2 previews?
I ask because some of us are still in the 90's and have stupid dial up and I have to download the PDF manuals to be able to view them. It just takes too long when it tries to load each page individually.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-08-2003, 08:26 PM:
Chris, that is the point of pdf format. You download it and save it onto your computer, then you can view it off of your hard drive. It was never meant to be "surfed" like regular html web pages.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-09-2003, 01:01 AM:
Ok, I jsut tried it and I can save from the front page now. I just recently started using netscape and I couldn't save from it with IE.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-09-2003, 01:14 AM:
You can always save a PDF by clicking the little floppy disk icon in the top left of the window after the first page of the document has loaded.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-09-2003, 02:39 AM:
Thanks Daryl, I've always jsut tried to to the right click save target as.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-14-2003, 11:04 AM:
Joe Redifer kicks ass. Finally, someone else took seven photos of a cinema.
Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 10-14-2003, 11:44 AM:
Hell if I take seven photo's of a theatre, I am usually not even out of the damn lobby.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 10-14-2003, 11:51 AM:
Adam forgot to mention it was a 28 - Plex and Joe used his Kodak Brownie that belonged to his Grandma Redifer.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-14-2003, 06:13 PM:
I've always wanted to see the inside of the Tiffany Plaza. Are there pictures of the lobby or a small theatre anywhere?? Or the outside?
And hopefully I'll be coming back from Los Angeles with some good tours to post. You know me.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-14-2003, 06:22 PM:
Hey, at least they are 7 unique photos, which is usually 5 more than any given theater on Cinemawhore! No pics of the outside or lobby (completely opposite of Cinemawhore), nor will I bring my camera back for that. My heart just isn't in taking pictures of theaters anymore. You've seen a billion, you've seen them all.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-14-2003, 06:36 PM:
quote:
And hopefully I'll be coming back from Los Angeles with some good tours to post. You know me.
I seem to recall a phone call about retrieving 60 deleted photos ...
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-14-2003, 09:16 PM:
Those pics are gone... and that was only pictures of the VIP party at Oakridge... nothing useful anyway.
I think the camera freaked out on me... wasn't my fault. Honest.
And Joe, I've seen plenty of theatres, and I'm still interested in seeing good pictures of them. Trust me, I've been to all the Century Theatres (almost) and they all look the same, but I'm still interested in the minute details. It's also interesting to see how other companies have improved on the previous owner's ideas... or massacred them.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-28-2003, 04:46 PM:
Anyone who does not check out the Mann Highland 1 & 2 Theater pics currently on the front page can not be qualified as a human being. Only someone with no rights, no intelligence, and no saavy would miss these pics. These are the best pics on Film-Tech. If you do not check them out, then you do not deserve to be alive.
Pretty simple, eh?
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 10-28-2003, 05:31 PM:
Joe, I thought you wrote the captions...that is, until I caught the credit at the bottom. A protege, perhaps?
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-28-2003, 05:49 PM:
Joe doesn't actually write the captions. He has a random caption generator (the RCG-4000) that creates random theatre captions. So far it's just been pure luck that they match the picture they've been paired with.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-28-2003, 06:30 PM:
What's up with the misthreaded platter in the upper booth? It looks like it won't damage the film, but normally the film would run to the right of the unused rollers on the platter tree.
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-28-2003, 10:20 PM:
Thats a frickin' awsome tour.
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-29-2003, 02:26 AM:
can't view level 1, but i think i know what scott is talking about. i see people going on either side of those rollers, and i don't think it really makes any difference. i thread to the right of the unused rollers, except when feeding from the top platter and through the film cleaner. even though the film clears the cleaner on the way down, i feel safer running it over to the left of those rollers.
if anyone has a reason threading to the left of these rollers is a bad idea, i'm listening.
carl
Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 10-29-2003, 03:13 AM:
About the 'mis-thread' in the Highland 1 & 2 picture; I was hoping this would come up!
I have been taught both ways, I generally stay to the inside but wanted to get some feedback. Is there any reason you should thread on the outside of the rollers? I have always been taught that you want the film paths to be as straight as possible and being on the outside goes against that.
If possible I would like to get some feedback and present it to my bosses to get a stanardized 'correct' way.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-29-2003, 04:24 AM:
The normal way is to thread straight down. However there is absolutely nothing detrimental to the film or the equipment to thread "behind" the rollers like is shown in that picture. Personally, I always thread straight down just like any standard platter threading. However the reasoning I have been given for threading "behind" the rollers is that it is quicker to whip the film behind them. What does that save, a second??? Regardless, it just doesn't matter.
Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 10-29-2003, 06:20 AM:
quote:
Anyone who does not check out the Mann Highland 1 & 2 Theater pics currently on the front page can not be qualified as a human being. Only someone with no rights, no intelligence, and no saavy would miss these pics. These are the best pics on Film-Tech. If you do not check them out, then you do not deserve to be alive.
Sigh... I guess I'll have to wait and see these when they come off sneak, as I just can't seem to think of anything worthy of posting, and I can't bring myself to post for posting's sake, like I'm doing right now.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-29-2003, 08:31 AM:
According to the manual, you thread like this:
The Speco LP-270 is sure an ambiguous platter.
Nate, I will assume it doesn't matter, just as long as you thread on the '9'. If it were up to me I'd go in front of one roller and behind the other depending on what day it was or how the weather was outside.
Oh, and Jon.... your first assumption was correct.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-29-2003, 10:49 AM:
The only times that I've threaded to the left of the rollers is when I was having static problems and the two layers of film (going down and coming back up) were attracted to and rubbed against each other or the tree.
I see nothing wrong with threading this way so long as the rollers spin freely. This may also slightly (unnoticeably?) increase tension between the platter and projector.
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 10-29-2003, 11:20 AM:
Joe...the ghostwriter?
Now, if an oddball print arrives with a SMPTE Universal leader, does that mean the projectionist is automatically fired?
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 10-29-2003, 11:33 AM:
I need me some good Speco time.
Maybe Cinemark will hire me somewhere...
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-05-2003, 12:20 PM:
Wow! Is that William T. Parr in the Plano Movies 10 pics? It must be. He has on a red shirt. I remember the day(s) he wore that shirt!
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-06-2003, 04:41 PM:
Dig that marquee at Movies 10! They're encouraging people to wait for "Ghetto Tuesday".
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2003, 02:53 AM:
Damn, I look like a reanimated corpse in the first pic of the Film-Tech Halloween gathering pics. Brad, don't you think you could have picked a frame where my mouth was closed? I am obviously mid-word.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-10-2003, 06:37 AM:
It's a lot like when people hear their own voice on tape for the first time. They're never happy about it.
That's just how you look, dude.
Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 11-10-2003, 08:51 AM:
I've always wandered how you thread on the "7" or on the "9"... Is this feet or the number on a countdown leader? Or does it not matter with automations the way they are today? How do you properly thread a show (what number and how) so that it becomes a true presentation?
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-10-2003, 09:07 AM:
Andrew -- this would have been a great question for the FHF.
If you are using an automation that is based on physical cues then it isn't so much of an issue as long as you provide enough time for the motor to come up to speed. In this case, you would need to work out where to insert the cue in relation to the "First Frame of Action" or "FFOA." This kind of automation can provide *very* precise show starts.
Another type of automation uses a one-button "auto-start" routine that is based around a series of timed relays. If you're using one of these, you'd have to know what the delay setting is and thread accordingly. The actual threading point in the leader could vary between projectors due to variances in motor ramp-up speeds. For instance, a motor that gets up to speed quickly may need to be threaded at "8" whereas a motor with a slower start could need to be threaded at something like "7."
As you already guessed, tho numbers refer to those printed on the countdown leader.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-10-2003, 01:44 PM:
quote:
Brad, don't you think you could have picked a frame where my mouth was closed?
No ... you were all in awe of the servers being violated. Lots of things were violated that week. Besides, Joe's mouth is always open anyway.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2003, 01:49 PM:
My #1 projector will never be the same, Adam.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2003, 02:10 PM:
Manny, I've seen many pics of me, and that's the worst. Brad chickened out and didn't put the pic I took of him up.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2003, 02:12 PM:
I can always crop you out of that shot, Joe.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-10-2003, 02:14 PM:
My "offical comment" on my pics is: No Comment.
>>> Phil
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-10-2003, 02:19 PM:
I have a fantastic blackmail photo of Brad that I may have to use someday.
My favorite is the photo of Phil looking at his drink like it was something out of American Pie.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2003, 03:07 PM:
So how COLD was Brad's screening room? Manny looks frigid wrapped in that blanket.
Also, that print you guys tried to "bootleg" was likely made before CAP Code was introduced by Kodak, so you might get away with it.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2003, 03:08 PM:
Brad kept it at a lovely 63 degrees or so until Josh and I turned it up to 71 or so when Brad wasn't lookin'.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2003, 03:16 PM:
Joe, that's a typo. It was programmed for 36 degrees to make things comfortable for Daryl. Besides, even if you changed it, the thermostat is set to force reset it.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-10-2003, 03:27 PM:
All those subwoofers kept the room nice and breezy.
In any case, Brad's screening room is terrific, and compares favorably with the best commercial cinemas which I have visited. It doesn't quite have the "big" sound that one gets in a huge auditorium with 1000-1500 seats (like the Uptown in DC or the pre-renovation Cinerama Dome in LA), but it is the best sounding small room that I have ever heard. I don't think I've ever been in a theatre which came so close to technical perfection for picture and sound quality.
Too bad the takeup shafts spin backwards (counterclockwise).
Should I mention here that Brad's automation missed a changeover and that he threaded the 70mm print out of frame?
(So what if the projectors were just installed a few weeks prior and there was a mix of formats to be shown on that same night, with minimal interruption between shows. I expect perfection!)
In any case, I had a great time, and I'm sure that everyone else who attended did as well.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-10-2003, 04:11 PM:
Yeah that's right, bring that up! I should've pushed back the show 1/2 hour, as I had just bashed the crap out of my head and was having a real hard time concentrating when I set up that 70mm show. I felt like I was going to fall over and pass out and had a pounding headache from it. In retrospect, I'm surprised I got the damn thing on screen.
On that missed changeover, it was just the sound processor that didn't get the command to switch. I got that fixed after I discovered the glitch Friday night...remember??? Besides, like I said that show was "the test run". Scott =
(Note to self: never make big changes to a setup when you have a bunch of picky ass Film-Techers coming over. )
By the way Scott, are you sold on how phenomenal Harkness screens are yet?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2003, 07:35 PM:
The picture I was able to get of Brad was while he was threading the projector, and I definitely could tell all was not right in his world (this was right after he bashed his head, apparently).
Regardless, it sure was worth the trip to finally meet a whole bunch of tech'ers. Scott Norwood was exactly as I imagined, both physically and personality wise. Daryl was pretty much spot-on personality wise, but he looked MUCH different than I figured. I knew Josh would be cool, but he turned out to be cooler than I thought. I didn't know mini-Ian (Todd Paar) would be there, but he looks exactly like he does in his member photo and loves to crack jokes. Cool guy. Manny looked different but was really cool to meet and made some awesome lasagna. I imagined that Adam would be the quiet type and he sort of fit that image (or maybe it was because everyone else loved to jabber). Paul Thompson was a really cool guy (whom I shared the road trip with) who pulled a really cool joke on Manny (and it cost Manny a buck, but it was worth it). I had met Bobby Henderson before, and he loves to pirate movies. Phil Hill is pretty much as I imagined, an ass kickin' individual who likes to give Brad a hard time (and vice versa as far as Brad is concerned). Michael Shaffer was there as well.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-11-2003, 12:30 AM:
quote:
Manny looks frigid wrapped in that blanket.
Interesting choice of words, John. You have no idea.
Like my doctor used to say:
"Manny are cold but few are frozen."**
Seriously. I don't remember feeling that cold even in Boston the week before.
The blanket made it okay, though.
And, yeah, when the subwoofers kicked in there was a wind-chill factor.
**I have had to explain this joke many times in the past so, for those of you who don't "get" it, the original saying is: "Many are called but few are chosen."
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-11-2003, 03:58 AM:
I wonder how many pics didn't make it past the "cencor(s)". Heh
Danny
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-11-2003, 11:26 AM:
Dan...What kind of pics do you think might be missing?
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-11-2003, 01:10 PM:
The kind of pictures that would've been taking had I gone to the gathering and dispensed with the alcohol.
I did notice that in lieu of liquid euphoria, you guys did partake of Chicken Euphoria. How'd you first timers enjoy the Chick-Fil-A?
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-11-2003, 03:59 PM:
Maybe it's a good thing I didn't go. I hate Chic fil a.
Looked like it was fun though, what movie was that in 70mm?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2003, 04:31 PM:
The entertainment choice is confidential information to those in attendance only.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 11-11-2003, 04:39 PM:
Scott --
The Chick Fil-A wasn't bad but I don't get your fixation with it.
Chris --
There were other things there to eat.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-11-2003, 04:40 PM:
I would not eat Chicken even if it meant winning the Fear Factor's top prize. ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-11-2003, 08:02 PM:
Bob is a sushi man! YUM! ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
>>> Phil
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-11-2003, 08:06 PM:
What is a "Chick Fil-A" anyway
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-11-2003, 08:16 PM:
It's the most disgusting chicken sandwich you will ever find. I will admit that they have good chicken nuggets but the rest of their menu is awful.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-11-2003, 09:02 PM:
The Chicken Nuggets are the best thing on Earth; breaded with golden batter of delicious yum.
The original chicken sandwich is great... just a big nugget on a bun with two pickles.
If I had the money... I'd like to by every member of Film-Tech some Chick-Fil-A nuggets... then you'd know.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2003, 09:30 PM:
I enjoyed Chick Fil-A. I had never had it before. I think there is only a half of a Chick Fil-A here in Colorado, not quite an entire location... like a tent set up in the mall or something. Anyway I had the chicken sandwich. Just chicken on bread with pickles. I put mustard on it. And damn I wish I had about 40 of 'em. Good goodness!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2003, 09:33 PM:
Joe, there are Chick-Fil-A restaurants in Denver.
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-11-2003, 10:33 PM:
Scott wrote: quote:
Too bad the takeup shafts spin backwards (counterclockwise).
Actually, that's the correct way if you ask me.
If you came to my house, you'd find the takeup spinning in that direction also.
Screw whatever SMPTE has said, emulsion in is garbage and leads to warpage. <even a 1997 reel of polyester that I recieved that had been stored emulsion in still will not wind tight and flat emulsion out!>
Danny
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-11-2003, 11:49 PM:
Gord: Knock Yourself Out
yum...
-Aaron
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-12-2003, 12:10 AM:
My chicken burger was cold and soggy.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2003, 02:30 AM:
Yeah, just like you.
Brad - OMFG! I must get Chick Fil-A NOW! Are they open 24 hours? No? CRAP! Oh well I must visit them all. Unfortunately none are close to me. Unless one is in Southwest Plaza... could it be? Help me out here Jeffrey Skallan! Mmmm pickles....
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-12-2003, 03:29 AM:
i'd always wondered what the "chi" logo thing in scott neff's pic was. so it's not a frat thing after all.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-12-2003, 03:46 AM:
Daryl ... we didn't get our sandwiches until everyone else had finished for some reason. Maybe we were preoccupied with the servers or something.
I have the feeling that Joe's gonna go on a rampage some Sunday afternoon when he finds out that Chick-fil-A is closed on Sunday.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2003, 04:02 AM:
Damn! All them thar Chick Fil-A joints are way down in the South Bay from me.
It's just too far to drive when I can get an original "Tommy's" burger or a "Pinks" weenie soooo close!
>>> Phil
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-12-2003, 10:44 AM:
Aaron do they go well with Newcastle Brown Ale ?
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-12-2003, 01:28 PM:
I took a peek at the Plano 10 pictures and it looks much like ours before they added 4 more screens. How big is the largest auditorium? One thing notably different was that I did not see the highback purple seats. That's one thing I LOVE about our place. Oh so comfortable.
AJG
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-12-2003, 02:40 PM:
Dan Lyons wrote: quote:
If you came to my house, you'd find the takeup spinning in that direction also.
Screw whatever SMPTE has said, emulsion in is garbage and leads to warpage. <even a 1997 reel of polyester that I recieved that had been stored emulsion in still will not wind tight and flat emulsion out!>
Remember, SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 39 that specified maintaining an emulsion-in winding orientation for optimum focus performance was based on TRIACETATE prints. Polyester prints have different curl characteristics, and retain "core set" longer.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-12-2003, 03:03 PM:
I don't think it's a good idea to try to extrapolate platter experiences with winding orientation to 2000' reels.
With platters there are significant issues with tension and evenness of winding that just don't come up with 2000' reels. It seems likely to me that focus stability is not necessarily tightly coupled to evenness of wind on platters.
But running 2000' reels regularly, I've never seen an issue with winding orientation. I expect Steve K. and Steve G. and Bill G. will tell you the same. As such, it doesn't seem to be worth the pain of being nonstandard by reversing the takeup direction for no real benefit.
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2003, 03:42 PM:
Looks like jhawk has never kept a print in his possession for any length of time and seen what emulsion in winding does to deform it, and instead is basing his post purely on having a print for a few weeks. That's not like you John.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-12-2003, 03:45 PM:
In my booth (where no one else operates) I would go with what Brad has done--emulsion-out to emulsion-out for polyester on reels. I would also go with emulsion-in to emulsion-in for triacetate on reels--ala the old European standard. But that's just me, in my own booth, with no worries about having to train anyone else on such apparent idiosyncrasies.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2003, 04:04 PM:
I have lots of triacetate stuff that has always been stored emulsion out. We watched that reel at Brads. No focus issues whatsoever. Previously that reel had been sitting there, emulsion out, for about 3 years. Some of the stuff on the reel is polyester.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-12-2003, 04:47 PM:
Post deleted so I dont look totally stupid
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2003, 04:59 PM:
Oh come on Chris...leave the post. All of us, including Joe, Daryl, myself, and especially Brad have posted stuff that makes us look really stupid. It is in all of our natures to be stupid!
>>> Phil
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-12-2003, 05:00 PM:
Note that I was just making fun of Brad, not questioning his statement that emulsion-out winding is better. Personally, I haven't seen much difference. Anyway, I store film (both acetate and polyester...don't have nitrate, thankfully) heads-out, emulsion-out for convenience and haven't had any problems.
Still, as the relief guy for several different booths, I hate
hate hate nonstandard things like backwards-spinning takeups. They may make a marginal improvement in presentation quality, but at the expense of thoroughly confusing any non-regular operator who runs the booth. This obviously isn't an issue in Brad's screening room (for the most part).
If and when I have my own screening room (which will be soon if all goes well), I will run in standard "S-wind" configuration (emulsion out on feed reel and emulsion in on takeup reel).
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-12-2003, 05:38 PM:
But Scott, when I come to your place and go to thread a film I'll screw it up!
(Then I'll fix it! )
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-12-2003, 05:49 PM:
Scott so young to be set in your ways When I was your age I used to work swing shifts in many booths....part of the routine was figuring the ( odd for me / normal for the regular operator )layout before I made a fool of myself on the screen.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-12-2003, 06:55 PM:
Well at cinesphere we run the same thing day in and day out for our 35mm and the focus over a 6K reel is evener with emulsion in winding
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-13-2003, 12:37 AM:
It's potentially a fair criticism, Brad. We don't run long engagements. On the other hand, we do have some film that we keep around tail-out emulsion-in polyester, but not very much, and not frequently run: generally shorts. They do not appear to show winding problems. Though in in Kodak's work with triacetate, focus stability improved with the number of runs. I would expect that to be true for polyester as well, even if it is more slow.
You seem to stop short of a hard statement, though. Have you seen winding deformation on 2000' reels? Has anyone?
As for focus instability, of course the question is not so much "is it there or not", but "how much is there?". With lenses of sufficient depth-of-field, presumably you can miss significant potential focus issues. So the scientific way to run this experiment is to find some way to measure focus error precisely and then compare both orientations on a system that can see them.
John P., can you comment on the Preo/Yavitz measurement methodology? I was particularly disappointed that not only did they elect to not include the numerical ordinate-axis data, they did not really discuss how they measured focus shift. I suppose a measuring microscope might also be a useful tool here.
Is there any chance of encouraging someone at Kodak to repeat the work with current ESTAR base films? Or has that been done and just not published?
--jhawk
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-13-2003, 12:55 AM:
quote:
You seem to stop short of a hard statement, though. Have you seen winding deformation on 2000' reels? Has anyone?
YES! All the time.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-13-2003, 02:06 AM:
Please start a new thread in FHF for any further discussion of the emulsion in/out controversy.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-13-2003, 05:30 AM:
Nah, if jhawk is hell bent on the subject, he can dredge up some old topic from the archives so I don't have to re-explain it to him.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2003, 05:41 AM:
So Adam, would you please email me what the ol' in/out thing is about?
Thanks!
>>> Phil
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2003, 10:09 AM:
Here's the original Kodak SMPTE paper that studied the effect on winding orientation on projection performance:
http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/SMPTEWIND.pdf
It led to SMPTE Recommended Practice RP 39, which recommends maintaining an emulsion-in winding orientation to optimize projection performance, especially improved focus stability at high radiant energy level on large screens. Note that the experiments were done with triacetate prints.
Recent work to study projection performance has been done by Kodak as part of the "Enhanced Theatrical Experience" (ETE) project. Some results have already been published in the SMPTE Journal. Preferred winding orientation of polyester prints is very dependent on the curl of the film and the transport equipment. Winding orientation is less of an issue for focus stability today because platters and large reel automation systems use relatively large hubs. Film curl is affected by relative humidity, with optimum curl at the recommended humidity range of 50 to 60 percent. Very dry conditions may cause excessive "positive" curl, very damp conditions may cause "negative" curl and emulsion softness/sticking.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-13-2003, 03:13 PM:
Seriously guys, the next post on winding is going to be deleted. Dredge up an old thread in FHF for that please. (If need be, Charles Everett can probably assist in finding one.)
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-13-2003, 05:10 PM:
49 manuals, er, updates to go!
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-15-2003, 12:49 PM:
Brad -- why do you love Quicktime so much? Can't you make Windows Media Files for those of us who hate having 3000 video players on our computer.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-15-2003, 01:49 PM:
How many makeup tables does the Cinemark Vista Ridge 12 have? I counted six. Why do they need so many?
And is it just me or does Cinemark get the award for "tackiest multiplex design"?
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-15-2003, 01:53 PM:
Why do they have six MUTs? Well, why are there three platter decks? The extra ones make life easier.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2003, 03:38 PM:
Scott, you only need 2 media players on your computer: Quicktime and Windows Media Player. WMP sucks, but obviously you should have it. Real video sucks and you should NOT have it. Same goes for pretty much any other format. Quicktime is the ONLY video format that is completely cross-compatible between Macs and Windows. MPEGs will kind of play on a Mac (stutters for the first second) but MPEGs are bloated and look bad, plus cannot do widescreen... only letterbox. I'm not sure if they can do 24 frames per second either... only 30.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-15-2003, 03:49 PM:
Um...can I get these files on 35mm? Thanks.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-16-2003, 11:24 AM:
Joe-- that answer really didn't clear up why I can't have an MPEG of these fine things. And why are we still catering to mac users anyway?
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-16-2003, 12:18 PM:
Mac users are just better than the rest of us
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2003, 04:00 PM:
Why would we ignore Mac users and offer .wmv files? That is even more stupid! MPEG cannot do widescreen 24fps either, like I already explained. I have created some MPEG versions for some of the older 4:3 30fps material.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-16-2003, 04:04 PM:
If we made MPEG files of these, then a good chunk of the bandwidth would be spent on encoding the black letterbox bars. Besides we also learned a long time ago that Quicktime files look a heck of a lot better than MPEG.
Just be glad we aren't encoding in REAL player!!! Not only is the quality insanely bad, but everytime I have put REAL player on one of my computers it starts having all sorts of crashes. Once removed, the computers are solid.
Now to be a good boy and download Quicktime.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2003, 04:21 PM:
I have a friend who did not want to download Quicktime becuae he was under the impression that it was bloatware and/or took over much of the system. Not true. I eventually got him to download it and he was happy with it. When you install, just be sure NOT to check the boxes that tell it to be the default player for everything from MP3 files to MIDIs to MPEGs. I would just worry about MOV files and the like.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2003, 04:45 PM:
I agree, Real Players rate only 2nd to AOL in all their annoying crap they put one's computer! I hate those money-grabbing thieves!
***THE*** best format is QuickTime...bar none! As was mentioned, ya only need 2 players on the ol' 'puter... QuickTime and Window's Media Player. All the rest suck the big one.
And as Joe mentioned, just use Quicktime for mov and the like...Media Player for everything else.
>>> Phil
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-16-2003, 07:59 PM:
I've had quicktime on my home computer forever. It's that damned laptop for work that doesn't have it and I don't think I can download it and install it for some lame reason... damned NT.
Anyway -- Imma gonna go watch the vid now.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2003, 08:12 PM:
You shouldn't be watching this stuff on the job! Now I've got dirt on you! You have to get me a projection job that pays REALLY NICE at the Century 16 Bel Mar in Lakewood CO when it opens or I will tell your boss! Ha!
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-16-2003, 09:50 PM:
Regarding REALPLAYER, I use an excellent Pest killer called PEST PATROL, and it identifies REALPLAYER as spyware, and tries to delete it.
Unfortunately, I have to use it because some of the things I need to use for business are encoded. So, I live with it.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-16-2003, 09:57 PM:
That's interesting... Spybot S&D doesn't have any problem with it.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2003, 01:15 AM:
Mark is right...Pest Patrol is great AND REALSHIT is spyware. It calls back to the "home office" to report God knows what?
Delete ALL hidden files from that POS prg.
OBTW: Have a nice day all...
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-18-2003, 07:58 PM:
Re: the recent piracy and digital cinema seminar pics: I like the multiple pictures of the same person at the podium from the same exact angle over and over again! "Here's a shot of Ioan Allen. Here's a shot of Ioan Allen with his head aimed 3 degrees to the left of where he was looking in the proir photo. Here's Ioan again looking ever so slightly down. Here's one with his head in motion, hence the blur...."
And you gotta love the corporate speak on the slides. Nothing puts people to sleep faster than corporate speak. Liven it up guys! Even people who attend those seminars are human! Put a little humor in it here and there. It will help keep their attention, generate positive feelings of the event and thus accomplish better results! Look at Film-Tech!
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-18-2003, 10:12 PM:
Joe, we've got more ShoWest photos to post. Not all have captions. Would you like to provide captions?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2003, 05:53 AM:
I would have but it seems to be a bit late.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-19-2003, 05:58 AM:
Tomorrow's update can be "ShoWest 2003 trade show floor pictures with captions 11-20-03".
On page five you could put, "Here's a picture of Brad with his video camera. Let's see how long it takes him to remove this picture."
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-20-2003, 05:16 AM:
I immediately noticed the lack of cheese on the table in front of Steve Guttag in the tenth photo of the FT 2003 Drink set.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-21-2003, 11:22 PM:
Joe: I sent Brad all the photos I took, along with simple captions. I leave it up to the Film-Tech moderators as to which ones to use.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-22-2003, 04:21 AM:
Well of course we're gonna use 'em all!
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-22-2003, 04:54 AM:
The photos with datestamps are from John and most of those will have captions. I don't remember where the others came from. I went through a couple hundred ShoWest photos and don't remember any specific single one, except for the one where Steve ate all the cheese again.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-25-2003, 01:05 AM:
Look at me going to ShoWest in 2004... I haven't had enough exposure in 2003.
And Joe... why haven't you applied at the Aurora 16? Where do you think half the staff is probably coming from?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2003, 01:48 AM:
I did apply at the Aurora 16 a few years back but the manager only offered me around $7.75 or similar for the projection job. Just a tad low, I'd say!
Ian and I put the video wall in that theater. That's why it sucks, in case you were wondering.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-25-2003, 12:46 PM:
The Picture Picture Pictures Picture Pictures photos.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-26-2003, 12:29 PM:
Looks like the Interstate Movies 8 has done the Film-Tech "upgrade your 2-drive DTS unit to 3 drives" modification!
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 11-26-2003, 07:07 PM:
I think they've stopped using that video wall now. GOOD WORK GUYS!
I think I'm going to go complain about how bored I am in Josh's "I'm bored thread..."
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-26-2003, 08:39 PM:
The InterState Movies 8 booth looks really clean for a sub run house. I wish I could keep my booth that nice.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-26-2003, 09:08 PM:
I shot video of that place (video tour coming) and indeed those guys do a pretty darned good job. Even though it was a sub run theater, only one print had anything other than very, very light dust on the print. At least half of them looked brand new.
Indeed, they put on a better show than most first run theaters.
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-03-2003, 09:15 AM:
Well, I see someone at the Cinemark Tinseltown at Six Flags Mall has flunked slide tray loading school. (Check out the orientation of the "Matrix Revolutions" slide in the second auditorium picture.)
Wonder how their film presentation is?
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 12-03-2003, 09:33 AM:
Supposedly the Interstate Movies 8 was designed so that at a later time stadium seating could be retrofitted without too much difficulty.
The last time I saw a movie there, it was in pretty good shape, but it was still a first run back then, as a Starplex cinema.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 12-03-2003, 04:26 PM:
I like that the caption on the pic is ultra plain, and doesn't mention the backwards slide. Nobody would ever have guessed you chose that pic for a reason...
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-03-2003, 06:30 PM:
Cinemark has a 10-plex in Central Ohio that is almost exactly this layout. Same color scheme and same poster positions in the lobby.
I've been told it was also designed to be retrofitted for stadium seating, as the screens are quite high as well as the booth ports. When Cinemark stopped putting any money into their local theatres, talk of the stadium seats stopped.
Watching a film in there is quite uncomfortable as the screens are just up too high. It's hard on the neck.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-03-2003, 07:59 PM:
Dont all cinemarks look the same? at least all the few that I have been to do.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-03-2003, 08:34 PM:
Most Cinemark theaters of the same vintage are alike except for the occasional variation in the paint job.
There are two theaters in different towns (about 200 miles apart) that have the exact same floor plan, the exact same equipment inside but one has the "Front Row Joe" paint scheme (orange & purple) and the other has the "Image" paint scheme. (maroon & gold) When you are in the booth it's pretty hard to remember which theater you are in.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-03-2003, 09:48 PM:
The schemes have official names? Wow. I've just been calling them "Movies", "Tinseltown", and "Legacy".
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-03-2003, 10:39 PM:
Front Row Joe is going to be making a return to the big screen next year. This time it will be computer generated, This is being done to celebrate the 20th aniversary. Not sure when it will hit the screen but will be coming soon.
As for the cinemark locations. We have two loccations here that are the same only diferances is that the concession stands are on oposite walls and the theaters are numbered the oposit way.
Actually I think the Legacy in Texas is the only one officially using that name. All other designs of that type are just called Cinemark
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-04-2003, 12:28 AM:
No, I don't think they have official names but when you talk to people (within the company) you can say, "Front Row Joe" or "Image" and they'll know what your talking about.
Specifically, they refer to the periods of time when the various Cinemark policy trailers were being used. At first, the F.R.J. trailers were popular. Then Popcorn Penny dumped Joe and ran off with Clyde so the "powers-that-be" at corporate headquarters decided to cancel Penny and Joe's contracts and perpetrate a coverup. They produced new policy trailers (that were totally lame) and pronnounced them "Image" trailers. Right about that time they changed the corporate color scheme to maroon and gold.
Therefore, you can point to an "era" in the company timeline simply by refering to "Front Row Joe" or "Image".
By the way... An interesting tidbit about the carpet in those new theaters with the "Image" scheme: If you look real closely, you can pick out an image of a FLAMING SKULL hidden in the design! No shit! Take a look for yourself.
Close-up of the carpet. Normal, un-enhanced picture.
Now, look at it with hilighting.
Once you've seen it, the skull jumps right out at you every time you look at it! It's CREEPY!!
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 12-04-2003, 09:18 AM:
Darryl, filming happened last night (12/3/03) for the new 20th anniversary trailer at my theatre. Corp and theatre staff were asked to be extras and greet Joe on the (standard) red carpet, take pictures as he got out of the limosine.
Adam,
The only reason we are called Legacy is that the theatre is located on the corner of Legacy Dr and Central Expwy. I don't think
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-04-2003, 11:45 AM:
I just called it "Legacy" after the first theater to use the design, for lack of a better name. I've seen several "Legacy" or "Image" facades (depending on the market), but they are all the same basic scheme.
The original Legacy in Plano and the Cinemark in Victoria:
The Tulsa in Tulsa, Oklahoma:
"Movies" refers to the FRJ theme with sloped floors and boxy buildings; "Tinseltown" refers to the FRJ theme with stadium seating and (usually) "steamboat" facades with the towers.
The Movies 10 in Plano and the Movies 8 in Lewisville:
The Tinseltown in Pueblo, Colorado:
There's even one transitional Tinseltown, in north Austin, that has the Legacy exterior color scheme on a "steamboat" facade and a Front Row Joe interior.
I guess I should also add the weird and not-so-common "Hollywood USA" design with the pastel colors, but I can't think of many buildings with that design other than the Garland theater.
The Hollywood Movies 15 in Garland:
Next time, we'll discuss the weird carpet history of Century Theatres with guest commentator Scott Neff.
For the record, I didn't use the upside-down slide photos to be mean or anything, those are just the photos that came out best without a tripod. I didn't even notice the slides until I got back home.
[ 12-04-2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-04-2003, 01:38 PM:
The Cinemark Tinseltown 16 in Rochester NY originally had the "steamboat" facade and lots of neon clearly visible from Interstate 490. But the IMAX screen added a few years ago required changing the appearance. There's also a Cinemark Movies 10 second-run theatre.
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-04-2003, 06:09 PM:
Post removed (Sorry, Brad! Totally forgot. )
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2003, 06:19 PM:
Apparently some people are having problems figuring out what "sneak preview" means.
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 12-05-2003, 01:15 PM:
I will do my best to assemble a montage of Century carpet patterns so we can have an enthralling conversation about them.
It's part of my goofy-ness that I take a picture of the carpet at most any theatre I go to... it just seems more fun that way.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-11-2003, 05:07 PM:
The Vista Theatre doesn't quite have the right sound system. They have a Smart-Mod 2B. After all, Smart-Mod 2C is meant for rap music.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-12-2003, 11:36 AM:
I don't think rap music is all that popular in an oiltown in northern alberta
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-15-2003, 01:42 PM:
Why is the Cinema 72 called "Cinema 72"? That name might actually have worked if it had 72 screens.
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 12-15-2003, 02:04 PM:
Maybe the year it opened?
Posted by Dino Panagiotopoulos (Member # 1579) on 12-15-2003, 02:33 PM:
Those "nipples" that are in the Cinemark Vista Ridge Movies 12 page seem to be HVAC vents but I have no clue why they would be positioned in that manner or if they are even functioning. Possibly could be an aesthetic touch?
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 12-16-2003, 07:20 AM:
That's definitely an interesting threading patter from platter to projector in the Else-Lichtspiele pics. I guess you have to be creative while setting up cramped booths.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-16-2003, 03:15 PM:
It is located on that highway that is why it is cinema 72
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-16-2003, 04:13 PM:
Nipples? Did I miss something?
Cinemas named after highways? The Cinema 6 in McAlester, Oklahoma, used to be a 3-plex with a drive-in. It was called ... drumroll, please ... Cinema 69.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-18-2003, 10:19 AM:
How come every time I build up anticipation in the chat room about something like a theater with SPECO mini-winds, Brad posts a completely different sneak preview? 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-18-2003, 11:29 AM:
The music in the video tour of the Interstate 8 made me want to slip into my leisure suit and boogie. I was really feeling the "groove"!
=TMP=
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-18-2003, 01:05 PM:
yes where did that music come from?
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-18-2003, 01:44 PM:
quote:
...slip into my leisure suit and boogie...
Heck, it makes me wanna slip into some leopard-print PJ's and hit the bong.
>>> Phil
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2003, 01:55 PM:
Adam, it's part of Daryl's built in chat room anticipation script. I'm afraid it is out of my control. Maybe if you don't talk about it tonight, it will appear tomorrow.
The music is by Leftfield. Nowhere near as kick ass as the music from the Vista Ridge video, but good enough.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-18-2003, 02:41 PM:
Leftfield sux!
Joe Satriani RULES!
>>> Phil
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-18-2003, 03:37 PM:
How long does it take Brad to post a new member picture? I sent mine in a week ago and really am anxious to have some fun in the political forum.
BTW I sent mine to Flix@film-tech.com
I can resend it if needed
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2003, 03:51 PM:
Richard Greco wrote:
quote:
I sent mine in a week ago and really am anxious to have some fun in the political forum.
That forum is only for SERIOUS discussion by RATIONAL people. No "fun" or "loonies" allowed.
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 12-18-2003, 03:54 PM:
Richard,
Don't sweat it, he'll get to it.
John:
Wrong. Obviously you don't truly *read* the posts that are in the political forum. If you did, you'd know right off the bat that there are at least a few "loonies" there already....
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-18-2003, 03:58 PM:
Jason Black wrote:
quote:
Obviously you don't truly *read* the posts that are in the political forum. If you did, you'd know right off the bat that there are at least a few "loonies" there already....
Sorry. It's just that I didn't want to insult my ultra-conservative friends.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-18-2003, 04:12 PM:
John, you have friends? Whew! I am impressed!
BTW: I'm sure Jason was referring to the ultra-liberal as well as the ultra-conservative "loonies."
>>> Phil
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2003, 06:24 PM:
I sit down and do pictures every couple of weeks or so. Now if you would send in a PIRATE picture, why I would put immediate attention to that!
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-18-2003, 07:22 PM:
obviously the videos on the sneak previews are not MPPAA approved as I saw not form of watermarking or cap code
what is the world comng to
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-19-2003, 01:49 PM:
Phil Hill wrote:
quote:
John, you have friends? Whew! I am impressed!
Even more impressive is that some are CONSERVATIVES!
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-19-2003, 02:07 PM:
Hahahahaaha... that's a funny come-back! It cracked me up, John!
>>> Phil
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-08-2004, 05:48 PM:
the crown glenview 10 pics are great (and on level 2 now). i like to see that construction/remodeling behind-the-scenes stuff.
i actually think the naked concrete exterior is far nicer than the fake-o bullshit brickwork. good that the stadium seating didn't result in keystoning.
carl
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2