During the discussions, they were asked how theatrical presentation of their movies could be improved. The five problems they cited most frequently were:

1. Theatres that severely crop the normal aspect ratios for "scope" (2.39:1) and "flat" (1.85:1), destroying their compositions. They specifically cited those theatre circuits that have a policy of showing both scope and flat with a common "one size fits all" aspect ratio (e.g., 2.00:1).

2. Theatres that show scope and flat at a common image width, so that the 2.39:1 scope image is actually smaller than 1.85:1 flat, with a "letterbox" appearance.

3. Misframed images, such that negative splices are seen in 2.39:1 scope, and compositions are ruined in 1.85:1 flat.

4. Poor attention to good focus, with pictures being shown out of focus until someone complains.

5. Dim pictures. Too many theatres are significantly below the SMPTE standard screen luminance of 16 footlamberts (55 candelas per square metre).

Unsteadiness was mentioned, but they considered it more of a lab issue than a theatre issue, as it was limited to a few specific productions.

They seemed to feel that the physical quality and durability of the prints have improved in the last few years, although I'll bet that most of them don't often go to second-run houses.

 |  IP: Logged

Beg, borrow or steal (or better yet, buy!) some SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film to precisely check the size and placement of your projected image.

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies the projected image size of "scope" to be 0.825 X 0.690 inches. For 1.85:1 "flat", the projected image size should be 0.825 X 0.446 inches. (For the more enlightened rest of the world, "scope" is 20.96 X 17.53 millimetres, and 1.85:1 is 20.96 X 11.33 millimetres).

SMPTE Standards and test films can be purchased from the SMPTE at:
http://www.smpte.org

Item 1 (Cropping): I find that many service techs don't know how to figure out the correct lens size and order a lens two or three sizes too short to make sure; or they have to order the lenses early in the construction, and the finished screen size is smaller then orginally planned. Personally, I think many techs don't know how. Some use those "slide-rule" type calculators. I find them to be too far off.

I've never seen a paper on figuring out exact lens sizes in trade publications. I wrote one, but the tech we were using at the time looked at it and said it was too much work. Our new tech wrote a Lotus program based on it, so no problems any more.

Also, depending on the theater, (throw/screen size) it might be price. While the price (using Schneider sugg.list) for a 28mm vs. a 30mm lens is the same, there is a $260 difference for 26mm/28mm (and a $300 difference for 24mm/26mm.) Someone might be tempted to save a few bucks, especially if you're buying for an 18-plex.

Showing all formats at 2:1 is cheapness, plain and simple. I don't know how to fight that.

Item 2 (Common width): I have mixed feelings about this. While one person might say; "Scope is smaller than flat: Bad." I would say, "The biggest image possible without cropping is shown." The screen size has been limited somehow. What sense is there in making flat smaller? We know about light loss when shooting out of the lower part of the lens, but people are more likley to complain aboue screen size that brightness. A correct-sized lamp can help mitigate this.

Item 3 (Framing): How about applying VistaVision-type "F"s in addition to or in place of c/o marks? Also, distributors are poor in marking what format a print is (1.75, 1.66, etc.) although, I admit most are 1.85 or 2.39.

Item 4 (Focus): Lack of manpower at theaters (which is close to cheapness, but not always.) Is it possible to make an auto-focusing device at a practical cost? I guess not, because theaters don't even want to pay for remote focus, let alone the "smarts" for auto-focus.

Item 5 (Dim Light): I think this is like #1 above: Lack of knowledge and cheapness. Don't know how to fight that.

The SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film is the best way to measure the projected image dimensions. Although the physical dimensions of the aperture plate are important, they don't tell you about image position, and don't take the screen masking into account (normally, the projected image is slightly oversized, so the masking forms the edge of the image as defined by the SMPTE 35-PA test film). Don't change aperture, masking or lens without using SMPTE 35-PA to check the dimensions on the screen.

There is an autofocus device available for 35mm projectors! A Swedish company "Autograf Cinema Systems" has a patented automatic focusing device:
http://www.autograf.se

I'd personally like to see projectors equipped with remote focus devices that can be adjusted from the auditorium, up close to the screen.

As far as "cheapness" and "lack of knowledge" driving decisions that hurt presentation quality, don't get me started... We need to fight that!

Note to John P.: I looked at that auto-focus device, and it is pretty cool! But can you see any owner buying, say 18 of them, either for a new theater, or to retofit?

In our Kodak screening rooms, we have custom-made remote focus from the auditorium using either selsyn motors, or a geared-down bi-directional DC motor to drive the focus knob. So I guess that I'm spoiled. Someone always "focuses on the grain" from upfront to assure optimum sharpness.

It would be great to have a remote focus option on regular theatre projectors, perhaps using an IR remote control operated from the auditorium. Even with a focus telescope, it's sometimes difficult to focus well from the "worst seat in the house" behind a booth viewing port.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged