Mark & Steve: Thanks for the comments. I think we're in general agreement from a technical standpoint. Given, the Cinerama is a multi-purpose Cinema, we had to consider many aspects, and how they impacted each other. As pointed out, many love the 140 degree curve, and are willing to accept the distortions, etc. that go with it. The attitude on this job was "how can we optimize as many formats as possible." The answer became a dual screen system - which we installed. The nice thing about Seattle, is that if the movie-going public demands the C-screen for all presentations, it can be easily done.

>>As to the deep curve screen, there are adequate lenses available for minimize the distorion on 35mm "Flat" projection with excellent focus (70mm too). The Scope stuff is a bit more difficult but I feel is also achievable with "off-the-shelf" lenses (based on my experimentation.<<

Agreed to the above, emphasizing "minimize". I'm not aware of lenses that offer gradiated focal length across the horizontal plane. We must keep in mind that there is a 24 foot throw difference from screen center to sides. This will result with a 6 foot higher image in the center - therefore the image distortion. I do agree that modern Schneider lenses can go a great job with depth of field in the FOCUS.

Most Cinerama theatres using the strip screen for "flat" projection end up reducing the picture size to minimize this distortion and gain lumens. We felt we could deliver a larger, brighter, sharper 35 image (which is 95% of the product), on a typical single sheet curved screen. I believe that goal was achieved.

Now we have to talk about speaker placement. We all know about aiming the horns at the audience. With a Cinerama screen, the side speakers end up pointing at the oposite side wall. If you use a baffle wall (as we did), it gets real difficult turning the systems to aim correctly. The owner required THX in this house. Incidently, when we go to Cinerama mode, we lose THX certification, as there is no baffle wall anymore.

Hopefully you all are getting a taste as to the reasoning for what was done. The end results are very good, but for those who can't stand the loss of the deep C-screen for everyday projection, I understand.

Actually there are a couple lenses that will greatly reduce or eliminate the horizontal difference. Schneider does make excellent lenses though they are best on Flat and very shallow curve screens. ISCO offeres their type "C" lenses that do indeed bend the image so it "fits" the deep curve without excessive cropping. Furthermore, the Magn-Com (now in two sizes by ISCO) can be used to virtually eliminate the distortion as well on 35mm FLAT presentations. If you select a prime lens so that the magna-com is in it nearly almost compact state, you can fine-tune the distortion to fit your particular geometry.

Incidentally, I work in a theatre that uses a Cinerama curve screen for all of its presentations.

Steve

I've heard all kinds of comments on Seattle Cinerama, but never "missed opportunity"!

What an opportunity, indeed! We actually brought in a 61.1mm deep curve ISCO to A-B with Ultra-Star and Schneider. If seeing is believing, I'd have to say that the Schneider out-proformed them all. The C-ISCO carried a $20k price tag, too.

Appreciated the comments concerning Leitz and Magna-Coms, but wonder at what cost to light transmission that solution would introduce. Each decision regarding screen, lens, projector, lamphouse, sound, etc. impacted one another in some way. Sure we can make the C-screen work, but what about brightness? We couldn't just focus (sorry) on one aspect and ignore others.

There were several expert consultants on this theatre, John Norton, Emil Pogy (formerly of ISCO), Dwight Lindsay, Neil Grant (accoustical engineer), Craig Shoulder, Tom Holman, and John Galluchi. (sorry to anyone I left out) I feel confident, from an accuracy standpoint, that we are reproducing each format in a very high degree of quality.

No such animal. In the "C" lenses there is a 62.4 and a 59.8mm from ISCO and they do not carrry a $20K price tag. I sold a pair to Paramount (slightly longer, 65mm but same price) for around $8000 for the pair as memory serves. For your reference, Schneiders were checked against them and the ISCOs won, in this "shoot out".

>>"Appreciated the comments concerning Leitz and Magna-Coms, but wonder at
what cost to light transmission that solution would introduce. Each
decision regarding screen, lens, projector, lamphouse, sound, etc.
impacted one another in some way."<<

In my experience, insignificgant to improvement since more light is put on the screen rather than the aperture plate. The current batch of Magnacoms (they don't even call them that anymore) and prime lenses are even better than in the past.

>>"There were several expert consultants on this theatre, John Norton, Emil
Pogy (formerly of ISCO), Dwight Lindsay, Neil Grant (accoustical
engineer), Craig Shoulder, Tom Holman, and John Galluchi. (sorry to
anyone I left out) I feel confident, from an accuracy standpoint, that
we are reproducing each format in a very high degree of quality."<<

A couple of points here....No doubt you are reproducing each format with a high degree of quality. You don't see me specing Cinerama screens everywhere...in fact I tend to spec. shallow curve screens such as yours and I use Schneider and ISCO lenses. Kinoton projectors, now that is some fine stuff.

One name that is conspiciously absent is Glen Berggeren. I like Dwight but he isn't really a curve screen fan in the first place whereas Glen is and has Cinerama experience. While on that subject, how many of your "expert consultants" had expert Cinerama experience prior to the project?

Up until now, I mainly have dealt with the technicalities of obtaining good presentations on Cinerama screens. The reason being, This is an area I have some experience with (at the Uptown theatre in Washington DC).

I agree with Mark. This theatre bears the Cinerama name and as such almost demands that a Cinerama screen be in use at all times. In my opinion (and it is just that), it should have been the consultant's job to see that value and come up with solutions that would make that (Cinerama) screen work at it's best on all formats. This opportunity is the one I think Mark was referring to being missed. It isn't a matter of money either, I'm sure the dual screen approach cost more than than getting the necessary lenses to make the Cinerama screen work. Not having the Cinerama screen in place makes it just another big theatre (technically accurate though it may be) rather than one of the elite few that people will come from all over to see because of it's specialness. It is a Cinerama theatre, there aren't many of them left. Unfortunately, this one only works part-time.

Steve

These people were pleased and impressed and loved the meld of new and old technology, as well as the dual presentation format. Otto Lang made the comment when asked about the use of the smaller screen for regular presentations, "It is a good idea as the large curved screen was never meant to show standard flat and scope film".

This type of installation is one of those situations where you can't seem to please everyone. We did however please the customer and a few select people involved with the consept of keeping Cinerama alive. I am sure that more will be pleased after viewing the festival in May.
I would like to mention the skilled and dedicated group of technicians I worked with on this job,
Scott Hicks - Boss - Consultant - Installer
Scott Kimber - Lead installer systems engineer - Rebuilder
Tracy Riddell - Rebuilder - Installer Tech
Joel Miller - Installer Tech
Joe Boczki - Support - Installation

No doubt.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged