What evidence is there that Arclight was not running “2001” in the correct aspect ratio? If the venue (the Dome?) ran the film, the use of mattes on the screen—and not much matting would be needed—could easily accommodate the different ratios. Perhaps you have more information you could share with us.
2001 played in Detroit at a second theater converted to Cinerama—deeply curved screen and stereo. During intermission I had the chance to walk back to the projection booth that was installed for “straight on” projection. What caught my eye was the “Smilebox” masking on the projector portal glass, needed because of expanding bleed from edge to center caused by the screen curvature. Not good.
Have lenses now been developed that eliminate a need for masking of this sort?
I am curious about the photo at the top of this thread. It isn’t the Cinerama screen in the Dome, nor does the seating arrangement seem to be from that venue.
I went out to LA in Oct. 2012 specifically to see HTWWW during a Cinerama revival at the Cinerama Dome. Since the film has been restored for DVD and those lines virtually eliminated, is it possible that the film can be projected on the full screen in digital form?
The Adams never screened a film in MGM Camera 65, the first of which was “Raintree County.” MGM did not release this film in 70mm format. “Ben-Hur” was the other film from MGM in the Camera 65 process, and it was screened at the United Artists Theater. I suspect that the full Todd-AO screen at the UA was not used because the aspect ratio of the film, at 2.76:1, was wider than the Todd-AO aspect ratio. If the full width of the film was screened, then the upper part of the screen had to be masked, much as was done in neighborhood theaters when a CinemaScope film was screened. The film process subsequently was renamed Ultra Panavision 70. Later Cinerama productions used this process.
I would like to see a picture of the interior of the United Artists Theater in Detroit at the time that it was screening films released in the Todd-AO process. The theater was closed briefly before “Oklahoma!” began its run there so that a projection booth could be installed at mezzanine level and a curved screen installed at the front.
Indeed, the Fox looked magnificent last evening on tv. I wonder whether hi-def tv gives us more beauty than is actually seen by the eye. When last I visited a couple years ago the auditorium was in need of some fresh paint and new upholstery on the seats. None of this was visible last evening.
Additional note: The screen in the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood measures 86 feet wide along the arc and covers about 122 degrees, giving the screen’s depth of curve about 21 feet. The Dome offers much more space in width and height than does the Music Hall, but it still does not accommodate a screen with 146 degrees of arc.
The Cinerama screen at the Music Hall did not encompass an arc of 146 degrees. The 66-foot wide screen (measured along the arc (curve) would have had to measure about 18 feet deep at the center, measured from the chord of the arc (that is, a straight line from one side of the screen to the other) at the center of the screen.
The Cinerama installation in various venues had to accommodate the physical character of the theater itself. A screen at the Music Hall, in order to have the depth of 18 feet, would have required a major reduction in the number of seats on the main floor since the screen itself could not take up any space on the stage but had to be constructed entirely outside and below stage level.
As a child I became interested in the new-fangled cinema photography as it was being presented: Cinerama, CinemaScope, etc. As my birthday gift in 1953 I visited the Fox to see the first film released in CinemaScope, “The Robe.” I know that the Fox just prior to showing this film was advertising its films as being on “the giant screen,” as other theaters downtown were doing. My questions: What were the dimensions of the old screen at the Fox? The dimensions of the ‘scope screen?
In neighborhood theaters, larger screens were installed, but masking was used to cover the upper part of the screens and to open on the sides in order to provide the aspect ratio for CinemaScope. In other words, ‘scope films actually used less square footage of the screen than did non-'scope films. I wonder whether the Fox also did this, although for years after every film shown at the Fox was in CinemaScope or its successor, Panavision.
The Warner in Hollywood did not screen the world premiere of “This is Cinerama.” The Broadway in New York City premiered the film. The second city to install a Cinerama facility was Detroit. Hollywood may have been the third installation.
A bit late in responding to DavidRobey, who posted on my birthday! The Fox Theater’s presentation of the first CinemaScope film, “The Robe,” back in October 1953 was my birthday present that year. It, along with “This Is Cinerama” at the nearby Music Hall, drew me to a lifelong interest in widescreen films.
A few years ago, following restoration of the Fox, there was an occasional screening of some of the widescreen films. I took my daughter to see “West Side Story” on one such occasion. Alas! Two huge banks of speakers had been suspended from the ceiling at the sides of the proscenium, from which all six soundtracks originated, or so it seemed.
At my last visit to the theater a couple years ago, the speaker banks were still in place. They are an awkward intrusion on the design of the auditorium. Too bad a better, aesthetically pleasing system for film sound reproduction—and for live onstage productions—hadn’t been incorporated in the auditorium during its restoration.
The theater sees heavy usage and is overdue for refurbishing.
Only Radio City Music Hall has a larger seating capacity.
Yes, the Fox is one of Detroit’s gems, right across the street from the new home of the Detroit Tigers, a stadium offering great views of the Detroit skyline beyond the right outfield.
Recently Dave Strohmaier exhibited snippets of the Smilebox restoration of “Cinerama Holiday” on the full Cinerama screen at Bradford, UK. It is an improvement to see the film without the jiggling that couldn’t be helped when three filmstrips were being run in the three projectors required for the original Cinerama process and presentation. I neglected to ask Dave whether the original seven-track sound system was preserved or that a downsizing to fewer tracks was employed. You can see the presentation here:
The film referenced was “Strategic Air Command,” filmed in VistaVision. I specifically went to the Michigan Theater to see it, thinking that projected VistaVision films were of a wider aspect ratio such as CinemaScope films. I was wrong about that, but the depth of field was unbeatable except by the Cinerama films.
My second experience at RCMH was seeing the Christmas show back in 1989 or ‘90. I see from more recent photos that the auditorium has lots of audio and visual equipment hanging from the rafters and destroying the view of the magnificent architecture of the space.
If this “stuff” appears only as needed for special events, ok. I’d hate to see it there were I to return to see the Christmas show or some similar event.
Happy to see the cinema saved, but the story illustrates something wrong with our federal government: use of Dept. of Ag. money (from the taxpayers) to help save the cinema. Better that the locals, perhaps with support from Bismarck, keep the Scenic open. Nonetheless, may the Scenic now see prosperous times.
What evidence is there that Arclight was not running “2001” in the correct aspect ratio? If the venue (the Dome?) ran the film, the use of mattes on the screen—and not much matting would be needed—could easily accommodate the different ratios. Perhaps you have more information you could share with us.
2001 played in Detroit at a second theater converted to Cinerama—deeply curved screen and stereo. During intermission I had the chance to walk back to the projection booth that was installed for “straight on” projection. What caught my eye was the “Smilebox” masking on the projector portal glass, needed because of expanding bleed from edge to center caused by the screen curvature. Not good.
Have lenses now been developed that eliminate a need for masking of this sort?
I am curious about the photo at the top of this thread. It isn’t the Cinerama screen in the Dome, nor does the seating arrangement seem to be from that venue.
I went out to LA in Oct. 2012 specifically to see HTWWW during a Cinerama revival at the Cinerama Dome. Since the film has been restored for DVD and those lines virtually eliminated, is it possible that the film can be projected on the full screen in digital form?
The Adams never screened a film in MGM Camera 65, the first of which was “Raintree County.” MGM did not release this film in 70mm format. “Ben-Hur” was the other film from MGM in the Camera 65 process, and it was screened at the United Artists Theater. I suspect that the full Todd-AO screen at the UA was not used because the aspect ratio of the film, at 2.76:1, was wider than the Todd-AO aspect ratio. If the full width of the film was screened, then the upper part of the screen had to be masked, much as was done in neighborhood theaters when a CinemaScope film was screened. The film process subsequently was renamed Ultra Panavision 70. Later Cinerama productions used this process.
I would like to see a picture of the interior of the United Artists Theater in Detroit at the time that it was screening films released in the Todd-AO process. The theater was closed briefly before “Oklahoma!” began its run there so that a projection booth could be installed at mezzanine level and a curved screen installed at the front.
Indeed, the Fox looked magnificent last evening on tv. I wonder whether hi-def tv gives us more beauty than is actually seen by the eye. When last I visited a couple years ago the auditorium was in need of some fresh paint and new upholstery on the seats. None of this was visible last evening.
Additional note: The screen in the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood measures 86 feet wide along the arc and covers about 122 degrees, giving the screen’s depth of curve about 21 feet. The Dome offers much more space in width and height than does the Music Hall, but it still does not accommodate a screen with 146 degrees of arc.
The Cinerama screen at the Music Hall did not encompass an arc of 146 degrees. The 66-foot wide screen (measured along the arc (curve) would have had to measure about 18 feet deep at the center, measured from the chord of the arc (that is, a straight line from one side of the screen to the other) at the center of the screen.
The Cinerama installation in various venues had to accommodate the physical character of the theater itself. A screen at the Music Hall, in order to have the depth of 18 feet, would have required a major reduction in the number of seats on the main floor since the screen itself could not take up any space on the stage but had to be constructed entirely outside and below stage level.
As a child I became interested in the new-fangled cinema photography as it was being presented: Cinerama, CinemaScope, etc. As my birthday gift in 1953 I visited the Fox to see the first film released in CinemaScope, “The Robe.” I know that the Fox just prior to showing this film was advertising its films as being on “the giant screen,” as other theaters downtown were doing. My questions: What were the dimensions of the old screen at the Fox? The dimensions of the ‘scope screen?
In neighborhood theaters, larger screens were installed, but masking was used to cover the upper part of the screens and to open on the sides in order to provide the aspect ratio for CinemaScope. In other words, ‘scope films actually used less square footage of the screen than did non-'scope films. I wonder whether the Fox also did this, although for years after every film shown at the Fox was in CinemaScope or its successor, Panavision.
Does anyone know the size of the screen installed at the Broadway for the premiere of “This Is Cinerama”?
The Warner in Hollywood did not screen the world premiere of “This is Cinerama.” The Broadway in New York City premiered the film. The second city to install a Cinerama facility was Detroit. Hollywood may have been the third installation.
A bit late in responding to DavidRobey, who posted on my birthday! The Fox Theater’s presentation of the first CinemaScope film, “The Robe,” back in October 1953 was my birthday present that year. It, along with “This Is Cinerama” at the nearby Music Hall, drew me to a lifelong interest in widescreen films.
A few years ago, following restoration of the Fox, there was an occasional screening of some of the widescreen films. I took my daughter to see “West Side Story” on one such occasion. Alas! Two huge banks of speakers had been suspended from the ceiling at the sides of the proscenium, from which all six soundtracks originated, or so it seemed.
At my last visit to the theater a couple years ago, the speaker banks were still in place. They are an awkward intrusion on the design of the auditorium. Too bad a better, aesthetically pleasing system for film sound reproduction—and for live onstage productions—hadn’t been incorporated in the auditorium during its restoration.
The theater sees heavy usage and is overdue for refurbishing.
Only Radio City Music Hall has a larger seating capacity.
Yes, the Fox is one of Detroit’s gems, right across the street from the new home of the Detroit Tigers, a stadium offering great views of the Detroit skyline beyond the right outfield.
Recently Dave Strohmaier exhibited snippets of the Smilebox restoration of “Cinerama Holiday” on the full Cinerama screen at Bradford, UK. It is an improvement to see the film without the jiggling that couldn’t be helped when three filmstrips were being run in the three projectors required for the original Cinerama process and presentation. I neglected to ask Dave whether the original seven-track sound system was preserved or that a downsizing to fewer tracks was employed. You can see the presentation here:
http://www.davidstrohmaier.com/TEST/Smilebox%20BrafordiPad%20and%20iPhone%204.m4v
The film referenced was “Strategic Air Command,” filmed in VistaVision. I specifically went to the Michigan Theater to see it, thinking that projected VistaVision films were of a wider aspect ratio such as CinemaScope films. I was wrong about that, but the depth of field was unbeatable except by the Cinerama films.
My second experience at RCMH was seeing the Christmas show back in 1989 or ‘90. I see from more recent photos that the auditorium has lots of audio and visual equipment hanging from the rafters and destroying the view of the magnificent architecture of the space. If this “stuff” appears only as needed for special events, ok. I’d hate to see it there were I to return to see the Christmas show or some similar event.
Happy to see the cinema saved, but the story illustrates something wrong with our federal government: use of Dept. of Ag. money (from the taxpayers) to help save the cinema. Better that the locals, perhaps with support from Bismarck, keep the Scenic open. Nonetheless, may the Scenic now see prosperous times.