my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Advice sought about image sizes in a historic theater (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Advice sought about image sizes in a historic theater William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-05-2016 04:42 PM                     I am working on a historic theater renovation project and have a question regarding screen sizes. We are planning to install a new screen and masking system that is limited by an arch over the stage. The theatre was built in 1928 when the standard Academy ratio easily fit inside the arch, but with widescreen presentations the arch gets in the way. While we can have a reasonably large 1.85 presentation within the arch (18'6"X32'3"), if we set up for constant width presentations the 'scope picture will be letterboxed and cover less surface area than flat. Nothing new here--this is the problem with a lot of constant width theaters these days. If we make all ratios constant image height, which would be ideal, the opposite happens with the 1.85 picture. It gets squashed. However, if we were to try to maximize each individual ratio within the arch, with 'scope having the lowest height and 1.33 the highest, would we be breaking the rules for standard cinema presentations? I'd be interested to hear some opinions about this.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-05-2016 04:46 PM                        How deep is your auditorium?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2016 04:46 PM                     Teaser subject titles are not permitted on these forums. CLick here and fix please  |  IP: Logged William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-05-2016 05:11 PM                     Scott, the auditorium is about 95 feet deep, from screen to back wall. With a 35 ft. screen width for a 'scope picture that yields about a 23 deg. view from the back center seat. Not ideal, which is why I am inclined to get the largest picture sizes possible. Of course I am talking about a historic theater here, not a multiplex situation, so maybe I should let it go. Still, I hate constant width theaters and compromised 'scope pictures, even if the majority of movies today are 1.85.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-05-2016 05:22 PM                        I have worked in a number of older theatres (mostly built from the late 1920s to the early 1930s) and your dimensions (screen and throw) are pretty typical. I have seen this done both ways and have a slight preference for common height in this case. Here is a picture of an auditorium with a 13x31' common-height screen with a 113' throw (picture was taken from the booth while showing a 1.37:1 film): The 1.37 picture is small-ish, but probably about what it would have been when the theatre originally opened (screens were smaller then). Few people sit in the balcony for films, anyway, so the picture size isn't really the issue that you might think that it is for the narrower formats. One of the reasons I prefer common-height is that the venue above (which is mostly a performing-arts center, with occasional film programming) always shows a cartoon or short subject before the feature, and most of those are 1.37:1. It would look dumb to have the cartoon or short appear larger than the feature, which is what you would get if you maximized the image area for each format (unless you have a separate set of lenses or screen files for "1.37 short"). Having said all of that, I have seen venues that did the opposite (screen gets smaller for scope), including many that made that decision in the 1950s when scope was first installed. That works, too, especially if you don't care about screening shorts with your features (or flat trailers with scope features).  |  IP: Logged William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-05-2016 05:39 PM                     If I had to choose, I would also go with CIH. I've attached the architect's rendering of the screen. Do you still feel that CIH is the way to go? http://www.film-tech.com/uploads/uploads0503/Screen_sizes1.jpg  |  IP: Logged Simon Wyss Film Handler Posts: 80 From: Basel, BS, Switzerland Registered: Apr 2011 posted 06-06-2016 04:12 AM                     There was exactly one image aspect ratio in use in 1928, three to four. The AMPAS nominal ratio of 1:1.375 deals with the camera aperture alone, projector apertures should cut 1:1.333 out of it, slightly more laterally than longitudinally. Screens are three high and four wide since 1907. The 16-mm. image should match the same screen. I should try to present the highest possible quality picture within the boundaries there are. I think it is more important to have the screen as free from stray light as possible which leads to a concept of either installing the 3:4 screen somewhat in front of the arch or darkening the arch with the screen in or behind it. If you can achieve a floating screen, i. e. it suspended from behind like a basketball board, you might arrive at an incredible effect. Curtains are nice to cover something but they always look silly just encircling the screen. Dark fabrics should hang behind the screen, two to three feet back. CinemaScope. A bold solution could be a curved screen popping out of the arch. It would fit in between stage floor and arch with a foot of room between each of them and extend over the opening to both sides. One would need a pair of curved rails, basically. The question is where to store them when not in use. Safest solution: lowered into a pit. There are more solutions. It can become very complicated to play a number of aspect ratios on one screen. That actually calls for a multi-duty historical cinema installation. 1.333, 1.666, 1.75, 1.85, 1:2 Superscope, 1:2.2 Todd-AO, 1:2.35 CS optical, 1:2.55 original CS. Paper rolls, screens quick and dirty.  |  IP: Logged William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-06-2016 11:24 AM                     Thank you for your suggestions Simon. For aesthetic reasons we won't have the screen in front of the arch. It will be behind it and yes, we will have a curtain. To me one of the most magical experiences about going to the movies is watching the curtain open up as the film begins. You make a good point about eliminating stray light from the insides of the arch though and that is something we will have to address, most likely with a black textile material.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2016 12:21 PM                        William - you would probably get more/better advice if you put up a picture or two of your auditorium.  |  IP: Logged William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-06-2016 01:22 PM                     Mike, good suggestion... Attached is a photo that should give you a pretty good idea of the space. As you can see, we have challenges that go way beyond just the screen system!  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2016 03:56 PM                        Interesting room. I think that the arch is crying out for a 1.37 and 1.66 picture that are taller than your scope image would be. You will need to do the math to figure out how big you can make each format. I fear that those formats would look too small with that procenium. Maybe you can compromise and make 1.85 and scope common-height, with the screen becoming taller for the other formats. It might be interesting to get an architect's opinion on this, actually. You will want a black cloth or something similar to cover that shiny wood stage during screenings.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2016 04:06 PM                        A lot of older theaters (including mine) use a 2:1 ratio. In our case it is a good compromise -- the flat picture is pillarboxed and scope fills the screen with a bit of the edges trimmed. In the case of a movie where there's important content on those edges (such as the recent Captain America where it had the word BUDAPEST from one edge to the other) we letterbox the image slightly which I hate, but it does work. For that arch, maybe if you put the picture as close to the floor as possible, you could get a pretty good sized scope picture before the top corners run into the arch.  |  IP: Logged William Steele Film Handler Posts: 9 From: Lawrence, KS USA Registered: May 2014 posted 06-06-2016 05:29 PM                     The proscenium is bigger than it looks, nearly 50 feet wide. We have hired an architect and it will be interesting to see what he thinks we should do, but my thinking is that we should try to maximize the screen sizes with the space we're given. There are limitations though. We can't put the screen too close to the stage floor because of the sightline issue we have. It will probably need to be at least 1.5-2' off the floor for the masking anyway. And then we do have limited space along the sides of the stage for the masking material and curtain. I'm not sure yet if we could put in a screen that will extend all the way to the edges of the arch. The shiny wood stage ... yes, a black textile material, perhaps black carpet that is easily removed. Need to reduce stray light from the arches, too.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2016 05:39 PM                        The only other theatre that I can think of with an arch like that is Radio City. Does anyone have the picture dimensions there for the various formats? I assume that you have front-facing chairs that get installed in the orchestra section for screenings, correct?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-06-2016 05:41 PM                        What about the huge open area in front of the stage? Are you planning to put movable seats in there so it can still be used for other purposes? Those side seats won't be much good for movie viewing so you might need a way to up your capacity...?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.