veyoung, you described exactly why happens when the automation is not programmed properly or cues are missing. Some of the older systems are still triggered by a metallic cue tape affixed to the edge of the print. Problem with that is, because that area of the film comes in contact with metal surfaces running through the projector, they wear out or loose their conductivity. When that happens the sensing device does not read the cue and a step in the automation is missed, causing everything to go out of sequence.
Later models of automation have the sensing tape affixed directly across the frame line of the print, which does not come in contact with anything that would compromise the cue tape. But the projectionist must be sure to put all the cues on the print necessary to run a complete show. Of course other things like bad relays or other mechanical devices in the automation system can sometimes cause problems, but generally it is a misplaced,missing, or worn out metallic cue strip.
I would love to know what type of automation system is used at the Ziegfeld. I certainly hope it’s not the old relic that was originally installed.
veyoung, you are most welcome.
I should also point out that many automation systems allow
for 2 or 3 completely different set ups to be programed.
However, the projectionist would have to remember to tell the automation which set to use. That can be problematic for a guy running multible screens by himself. So generaly all the movies are programmed to run the same way on all screens.
It might be ok to use mulible programming on let’s say a twin or perhaps up to four screens, after that it gets a bit risky.
If a movie plays on the wrong automation program all kinds of things will go wrong because in effect, the automaton program will run out of sync with the placement of programming cues on the print.
Om my God Bill, it’s been 46 years!!
I better go take a nap.
Howard, your dream of seeing more classics returning in the Digital format should be easily done. The cost is so much less than striking and shipping 70mm prints. At least it will give a new generation a chance to see some of the great films of days gone by in a theatre.
I can see that happening.
William we have had similar problems getting service from DTS.
You can’t beat the Dolby return and repair policy. Just put the Cat card in a bag ship it off to Dolby, and they repalce it.
Dolby also provides in house installation which includes EQ and all the fixins.
Bill, I too am sorry that you are such a young whipper snapper, if not you would have had a chance to fully experience the magnificent presentaion at the late,great Rivoli.
Well Howard you are in good company when you said DTS may have offered best quality sound.
When Steven Spielberg was preparing “Jurassic Parkâ€, he tested all the digital systems available at the time. When he heard the ambient sounds playing in such rich manner, coupled with the impressive stereo separation he knew he was on the right track. Then when the first tests were done of the dinosaurs roar, Steven said “That’s my Dinosaurâ€
It’s true that Digital may have a way to go, but our friend REndres put it very well when he wrote, “Digital is still in the Edison stageâ€.
William, you hit it exactly, the studios feel there simply is no need for the wide gauge film and magnetic tracks now that we can have the big sound with Digital. Add to that the advances made in lenses which have improved the 35mm image considerably, the interest in 70mm has waned.
It was a rocky start for Digital to be sure, the first Dolby Digital systems came with penthouse readers and the quality and reliability was excellent. Soon a new cheaper version, using basement readers, located in the optical sound head came along, and the troubles began. Suddenly the actors on screen sounded like they were speaking under water and music was distorted. The problem steamed from the duel LED readers in the optical sound head, which could read both analog and Digital tracks. They needed constant recalibrating, at first it was decided that the light output was insufficient, so they made them hotter. But then we learned that by doing that we lowered the life expectancy of the LEDs, so that did not work. Another problem was in the actual printing of the digital encoding on the print; Reel one might play fine but then reel two would give you problems. Scratches on the track area also caused failures. Eventually things got better, improvements were made and now they run rather well.
DTS had its own problems, the CD-ROM disk carriage began to fail or the sound would skip. Often the system would switch back to default (analog) several times through out the running of the print. I experienced a lot of DTS breakdowns in the early days in 1993
SDDS was DOA as far as many of us were concerned, just too many problems some of which you outlined. Of course Sony was no help at all and I don’t think gave enough in the way of support. Typical of them, remember Beta? Another system they simply allowed to just die.
Howard, I hope you don’t some of us hijacking yor thread with this Digital stuff, did not mean to get away from the topic of 70mm.
Very true Howard, While Dolby Digital is not compatable with 70mm, DTS is, all that was needed was a 70mm reader.I thought Titanic was going to be the begining of a resurgence of 70mm, with Digital sound replacing the mag tracks. However it was not to be, the idea soon faded. In fact I would be concerned about the fate of both DTS and SDDS Digital sound, it’s all about Dolby now. We still have Quad prints with Dolby SVA, Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS all printed on release prints, but for how long I wonder.
It is too late for 70mm, all attention is focusing on Digital Cinema which is growing at lightning speed. The use of film in motion picture theatres is in danger of going the way of Vinyl records and video tape. It’s a whole new world.
Progress? well, I suppose.
I started to see the end of 70mm prints in the late 60s; then came Star Wars in 1977 and the resurgence began. People wanted more 70mm and prints began becoming available once again. I seem to recall the biggest 70mm releases came in the early 80s were just about every other week or so I saw the release of a movie with prints available in 70mm. Theatre owners were once again began installing 70mm.
Unfortunately it did not last, and by the late 80s once again, 70mm prints began getting scarce.
One of the problems steamed from the fact that Multiplex theatres with limited 70mm houses could not move the 70mm prints from house to house depending on how well they were doing. Many 10-12 screen Multiplexes had only two or at the most three 70mm houses and they were always the largest ones. So, if a movie did not do well after one or two weeks we had to switch to a 35mm version in order to play it in a smaller auditorium. I read Tim’s comment on theatres in Toronto having 10 or more auditoriums equipped with 70mm, but in all my travels I never saw anything like that in New York/New Jersey. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.
In addition, the prints could not be interlocked into two or more screens, and on a busy Friday or Saturday night popular movies needed more seats, but with the 70mm print we were locked into just the one auditorium. Then of course there was the cost, the 70mm prints were expensive and shipping a print was double the cost of a 35mm print. The studios began to wonder if that extra cost was worth it. I always thought it was because time and time again when ever we had two prints of a movie and played only one of them in 70mm the house with the 70mm print always did better. When a 70mm showing sold out people would often wait it out and see the next performance rather than settle for the 35mm version.
So it was not so much loss of interest by the movie going public that killed of 70mm it seems to me it was the studios reluctance to provide prints, and the theatre circuits shying away from them.
The company I worked for had for many years installed 70mm in at least two of the auditoriums in a Multiplex. Then in 1993 they stopped, and instead spent the money on Dolby Digital and/or DTS equipment. Other than IMAX, They have not had a 70mm installation since 1992.
Thanks Rob, I went to work for Fox in Manhatten in the 50s and had the differences between CinemaScope and VistaVision expained to me.
I was told at the time that Paramount never intended to run very many VistaVison prints, as you said, the main purpose of the format was for the reduction prints which of course produced an excellent image.
Paramount developed VistaVision because they wanted their own wide screen process. They wanted no part of CinemaScope, and would never entertain the idea of paying Fox for the right to film in Cinemascope.
Thanks also for allowing me to picture how the VistaVision projectors were laid out in the Music Hall booth, I always wondered about that. That interlocking of the VistaVision projectors and the straight 35mm must have been scary stuff. I can’t help wonder how many times that broke down. Poor Ben.
REndres, there has always been some confusion in my mind about VisatVision projection in New york.
I recall you teling us RCMH installed VistaVision for “White Christmas” but used the projectors for only that engagement.
I also remember the Paramount theatre installing VistaVision projectors. but That’s about all I can recall.
I always wonderd about the Criterion, did they ever install the projectors and how did they run “10 Commandments”
I was still new in the business, working the Paramount theatre on Staten Island in 1954, and can not recall where the projectors were actually installed. The Capital theatre played a few Paramount pictures, any VistaVision there?
By the way, what ever happened to the VistaVision projectors at RCMH,
and what was the configeration in relatinship to the other four 35mm projectors?
I picked up on that as well Warren.
I had hoped the Music Hall would have had some sort of special presentaion to celebrate the 75th anniversary and not just revamp the Christmas show.
I wonder if REndres has had a chance to look into exactly how the Christmas show has changed this year, the mention of new staging intriged me. In addition I wondered if the 3-D opening is coming back, and more importantly is it going to be presented using 70mm film as usual, ot have they gone (gulp) Digital..
Well Howard, that brings to mind one of the last 35mm roadshows. “Fiddler on the Roof”, which I ran in June 1972 at the Syosett on Long Island in 35mm with four mag track sound.
70mm in New York lists the D-150 on Long Island as having played “Fiddler”, but as I recall we played the movie at the Syosset which we played day and date with the Five Towns theatre in Woodmere, Long Island. The Syosset played the movie in 35mm with four track mag sound and the Five Towns played it in 35mm with Optical(mono)sound. They did get a four track mag/optical print at the Five Towns but the theatre did not have mag capabilities and so it played mono
It was a significent event on Long Island because Prior to “Fiddler” most if not all roadshow engagements were 70mm which employed two projectionists on duty for every show. However when “Fiddler” played in 35mm, the projectionist union had a difficult time convincing the theatres owners to continue using two projectionists per shift. Century theaters, who operated the Five Towns, insisted only one man per shift was needed for a 35mm engagement, roadshow or no roadshow.
JAlex, I think you are missing the point of this thread.
It is not about the importance or specialty of any given movie, but rather the technical presentation with particular emphasis on 70mm.
Thanks Howard, I recall Ron Howards “Far and Away” having been one of the last shot in 65mm I forgot about “Hamlet”
As to the best theatres from a technical point of view, I would have to say the Rivoli was the best, hands down. The man in charge of UAs projection and sound was a fella named Joe Kelly. Joe was a friend of mine and I would often go to the Rivoli with Joe for his upgrades and tune ups. He was a master of the craft and the picture and sound at the Rivoli was hard to beat must less match. Of course the original design was done by Mike Todd, so Joe had big shoes to fill, but fill them he did.
I remember once when Joe was setting up “Hello Dolly” and he just could not satisfy himself with the quality of the presentation, I jokingly called up to the booth and said, “Joe, it’s Barbra (Streisand) on the phone; she wants to say thanks for the great sound.
I remember how devastated Joe was when UA tripled the theatre it took it like the loss of a loved one. Joe was also responsible for the best presentations on Long Island. The Syosset and D-150 were in a class by them selves.
I don’t recall when 70mm blowups became the norm. Originaly of course, movies were filmed in 65mm and the 70mm release prints were outstanding. later, sometime in the 60s I believe, more and more movies were shot on 35mm, and 70mm blow up prints were struck. The difference, at least to me, was rather obvious. Is there a list of films filmed in 70mm as opposed to those shot in 35mm? When was the last film shot on 65mm stock?
I believe you you are correct Erik, “Hello Dolly” opened in mid December 1969, at the Rivoli.I seem to recall playing it later at the D-150 on Long Island in March 1970.
Again a lot depends on the capabilitty of the automation. Some are just basic systems with little capabilities. However most would be able to do a masking change very easily with just an additionl diode (peg) inserted into the program to activate the masking, along with an additional metalic strip on the print positioned in the proper place. In my days in the booth, where we had automation, I would always go the extra mile to do that. In fact before the studios made duel versions of trailers available, and we had to make masking and lens changes, it was done though the automation, which would change masking settings and operate torrets to change lens and aperture plates. The only draw back is the problem of moving prints from screen-to-screen in a Multiples operation. You would have to remember to re-program the automation to add/delete the extra masking change. Keep in mind, on any given day, moving prints from screen to screen may occur often. Kiddie movies in larger houses during the day and smaller ones at night, etc.
By the way Ed, the Digital versions play the same way, and although the trailers are downloaded with the feature, a projectionist can add additional trailers. But once again, flat versions of anamorphoic features, etc.
As for the coming attraction snipes, National Amusements still use them, I would hope most circuits do.
It is usually part of the head (opening) trailer which may include, welcome to the theatre, no talking pleae, bla, bla, bla, and then end with an announcement of coming attractions followed by the trailers. Also in use in some loctions (those not to lazy to include them) is a Feature Presentaion or Sneak Preview snipe. By the way, the ironic thing about those opening trailers is, they are called “curtain raisers”
When trailers are shipped to theatres it is almost always in both scope and flat versions.
Almost all flat features have trailers available in both scope and flat formats, as well as scope features which have trailers available in a flat version. In addition, all features have at least one trailer of an up coming movie attached to the head of reel one, with an additional 2-3 others trailers enclosed in the film can. Although deals are made within the studio system to play one another’s trailers. The film buyer (booker) may also negotiate trailer and posters when the film is booked. Studios will often send checkers to the theatres to verify the trailers being shown are correct. A report is later sent to the theatre owners home office and any inconsistencies are taken up with the theatre in question and corrections must be made.
What you are seeing when what appears to be a flat trailer is actually the anamorphic version, but it is true to the flat ratio, therefore you will see a black boarder on each side of the image. Occasionally this is done letterbox style with black boarders at the top and bottom with the image across the entire scope screen. This allows the theatre to show the complete program, trailers and feature, though the same lens, eliminating the need for several lens/masking changes in the program. The same procedure is used for movies filmed flat with scope versions of the trailer which are available to show with a flat feature.
As to the masking, when showing a flat trailer through an anamorphic lens it is of course possible to bring the masking in to properly mask the image, don’t hold our breath, I know no one who actually goes to the trouble of doing that. The Ziegfeld should absolutely do it, but, well …you know.
I hope this helps explain the black boarders on the trailer showings, let me know if you have any other questions or if I did not make my self clear.
Of course you may Ed; Let’s try this one more time.
The preshows are here to stay; I have accepted the fact that the revenue brought in by them is too much to give back. Although I question the need for them at the Ziegfeld. It’s just cheapens the whole movie palace experience.
Curtains and masking:
When you have preshow and curtains, the proper thing to do is to close the curtains and raise the stage lights about a minute before the movie is to begin. That would be a nice touch, and would set the stage for the audience to begin anticipation of the movie’s start. After a minute or so the movie should begin with the stage lights dimming and the curtains opening on the first frame of the movie, and not open the curtains to revile a white screen before starting the movie. If there is a flat trailer the masking should of course be at the proper setting to mask the image properly, it should not be left full open. At the end of the flat presentation, a “deluxe†should be performed, which is closing the curtains timed for the two panels to kiss as the last frame fades or ends. Stage lights should be raised at this point as well. At the start of the feature the curtains open and the stage lights dim, careful not to allow the curtains to open to soon which would expose a white screen. If the feature is scope, the masking should be opened before the curtains so that is not seen moving, by the time the curtain is fully open the masking should already be in the scope position. At the end of the movie a complete shut down must be performed, the curtains should close timed properly as not to show white screen. Allow the audience to file out with the curtains in the closed position, they should remain that way until the next audience, who should see the closed curtains as they come into the theatre, come in .Once the initial crowd has gotten in their seats the curtains can be opened to start the preshow. The loss of time when the preshow is not on would be minimal, a small price to pay to allow the audience to experience a bit of class and old-time showmanship.
Is ther any hope for Clearview to pay more attention to this?
You mentioned poor staffing at National Amusements, I wish to let you know that the staffing is determined by an estimated attendance, and is calculated for optimum staff coverage. If you are seeing poor staffing at one of those theatres I encourage you to make it known to management. It is not supposed to be that way, especially in the concession stand where a great deal of care is taken with staffing in order to ensure high PCs (per cap). Theatres are expected to generate a PC of at least $3 dollars) per person) and poor staffing makes that difficult. Of course the problem often comes from misjudgment in the attendance, or no shows and call outs in staffing
REndres, thaks for that heads up. Unfortunatly my current, temporary health situation, does not afford me the option of traveling into the city. Hopefully, when I am up to it, I might get a chance to see the documentory at another time.
Perhaps you and some of my other friends here at CT will attend and post some interesting info.
Cinerama was a magnificent process, and a sometimes scary and nerve racking job to operate, but so was 3-D for that matter. It was an oddly scary, yet fun, time to be a projectionist. But Rob you would appreciate that feeling, it was sorta like making a change over at RCMH with 5000+ people in attendance.
These kids today, with their platters and automation, have no idea of what is like to be a real projectionist and run some of the stuff they threw at us in the 50s.
Very true Jeff, as a matter of fact in the early days of automation I was invited to attend a meeting with one of the designers who asked “Ok guys what do you want this thing to do”.
They asked for our impute, what followed was a wide range of automation systems.
Someone asked whether or not the same automation system used in a theatre for film can be used with Digital. The answer is yes, the sane automation system is used. The only difference is instead of a cam device or metallic strip along the film to control the automation, it is done with a script that is written and downloaded with the movie into the computer
Thanks guys, I am an old school man who will never conform to the new school way of thinking when it comes to film presentation.
Jeff, the curtain(s) usually are a part of the automation, along with lights and all the rest. Some one would have to explain what type of automation the Ziegfeld has, perhaps it is a simple basic system that works the functions of only the projection system. I have seen automations that only start shows and work the lights. It would seem to me odd that the Ziegfeld would not have an automation system that would also work the curtains. I ran a booth with a fully loaded automation system which was capable of running different functions on a clock with a cam that would enable the start of each function to start independently. It is simply a matter of programming the automation on the first day of a new show to meet the requirements of that particular movie. It is possible to push a button which would dim the house lights and then after a beat start the projector and lamp, open the curtain and dim the stage lights.
Some automation systems can be programmed to make a lens change via a turret and open/close masking.
But again, at the Ziegfeld where you still have a projectionist in the booth all day; it would b a simple matter for him/her to
“put on a show” manually.
It baffles me why they don’t always do that.
veyoung, you described exactly why happens when the automation is not programmed properly or cues are missing. Some of the older systems are still triggered by a metallic cue tape affixed to the edge of the print. Problem with that is, because that area of the film comes in contact with metal surfaces running through the projector, they wear out or loose their conductivity. When that happens the sensing device does not read the cue and a step in the automation is missed, causing everything to go out of sequence.
Later models of automation have the sensing tape affixed directly across the frame line of the print, which does not come in contact with anything that would compromise the cue tape. But the projectionist must be sure to put all the cues on the print necessary to run a complete show. Of course other things like bad relays or other mechanical devices in the automation system can sometimes cause problems, but generally it is a misplaced,missing, or worn out metallic cue strip.
I would love to know what type of automation system is used at the Ziegfeld. I certainly hope it’s not the old relic that was originally installed.
veyoung, you are most welcome.
I should also point out that many automation systems allow
for 2 or 3 completely different set ups to be programed.
However, the projectionist would have to remember to tell the automation which set to use. That can be problematic for a guy running multible screens by himself. So generaly all the movies are programmed to run the same way on all screens.
It might be ok to use mulible programming on let’s say a twin or perhaps up to four screens, after that it gets a bit risky.
If a movie plays on the wrong automation program all kinds of things will go wrong because in effect, the automaton program will run out of sync with the placement of programming cues on the print.
Om my God Bill, it’s been 46 years!!
I better go take a nap.
Howard, your dream of seeing more classics returning in the Digital format should be easily done. The cost is so much less than striking and shipping 70mm prints. At least it will give a new generation a chance to see some of the great films of days gone by in a theatre.
I can see that happening.
William we have had similar problems getting service from DTS.
You can’t beat the Dolby return and repair policy. Just put the Cat card in a bag ship it off to Dolby, and they repalce it.
Dolby also provides in house installation which includes EQ and all the fixins.
Bill, I too am sorry that you are such a young whipper snapper, if not you would have had a chance to fully experience the magnificent presentaion at the late,great Rivoli.
Sorry, I was of course referring to DTS with the Spielberg story
Well Howard you are in good company when you said DTS may have offered best quality sound.
When Steven Spielberg was preparing “Jurassic Parkâ€, he tested all the digital systems available at the time. When he heard the ambient sounds playing in such rich manner, coupled with the impressive stereo separation he knew he was on the right track. Then when the first tests were done of the dinosaurs roar, Steven said “That’s my Dinosaurâ€
It’s true that Digital may have a way to go, but our friend REndres put it very well when he wrote, “Digital is still in the Edison stageâ€.
William, you hit it exactly, the studios feel there simply is no need for the wide gauge film and magnetic tracks now that we can have the big sound with Digital. Add to that the advances made in lenses which have improved the 35mm image considerably, the interest in 70mm has waned.
It was a rocky start for Digital to be sure, the first Dolby Digital systems came with penthouse readers and the quality and reliability was excellent. Soon a new cheaper version, using basement readers, located in the optical sound head came along, and the troubles began. Suddenly the actors on screen sounded like they were speaking under water and music was distorted. The problem steamed from the duel LED readers in the optical sound head, which could read both analog and Digital tracks. They needed constant recalibrating, at first it was decided that the light output was insufficient, so they made them hotter. But then we learned that by doing that we lowered the life expectancy of the LEDs, so that did not work. Another problem was in the actual printing of the digital encoding on the print; Reel one might play fine but then reel two would give you problems. Scratches on the track area also caused failures. Eventually things got better, improvements were made and now they run rather well.
DTS had its own problems, the CD-ROM disk carriage began to fail or the sound would skip. Often the system would switch back to default (analog) several times through out the running of the print. I experienced a lot of DTS breakdowns in the early days in 1993
SDDS was DOA as far as many of us were concerned, just too many problems some of which you outlined. Of course Sony was no help at all and I don’t think gave enough in the way of support. Typical of them, remember Beta? Another system they simply allowed to just die.
Howard, I hope you don’t some of us hijacking yor thread with this Digital stuff, did not mean to get away from the topic of 70mm.
Very true Howard, While Dolby Digital is not compatable with 70mm, DTS is, all that was needed was a 70mm reader.I thought Titanic was going to be the begining of a resurgence of 70mm, with Digital sound replacing the mag tracks. However it was not to be, the idea soon faded. In fact I would be concerned about the fate of both DTS and SDDS Digital sound, it’s all about Dolby now. We still have Quad prints with Dolby SVA, Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS all printed on release prints, but for how long I wonder.
It is too late for 70mm, all attention is focusing on Digital Cinema which is growing at lightning speed. The use of film in motion picture theatres is in danger of going the way of Vinyl records and video tape. It’s a whole new world.
Progress? well, I suppose.
I started to see the end of 70mm prints in the late 60s; then came Star Wars in 1977 and the resurgence began. People wanted more 70mm and prints began becoming available once again. I seem to recall the biggest 70mm releases came in the early 80s were just about every other week or so I saw the release of a movie with prints available in 70mm. Theatre owners were once again began installing 70mm.
Unfortunately it did not last, and by the late 80s once again, 70mm prints began getting scarce.
One of the problems steamed from the fact that Multiplex theatres with limited 70mm houses could not move the 70mm prints from house to house depending on how well they were doing. Many 10-12 screen Multiplexes had only two or at the most three 70mm houses and they were always the largest ones. So, if a movie did not do well after one or two weeks we had to switch to a 35mm version in order to play it in a smaller auditorium. I read Tim’s comment on theatres in Toronto having 10 or more auditoriums equipped with 70mm, but in all my travels I never saw anything like that in New York/New Jersey. Perhaps someone can correct me on that.
In addition, the prints could not be interlocked into two or more screens, and on a busy Friday or Saturday night popular movies needed more seats, but with the 70mm print we were locked into just the one auditorium. Then of course there was the cost, the 70mm prints were expensive and shipping a print was double the cost of a 35mm print. The studios began to wonder if that extra cost was worth it. I always thought it was because time and time again when ever we had two prints of a movie and played only one of them in 70mm the house with the 70mm print always did better. When a 70mm showing sold out people would often wait it out and see the next performance rather than settle for the 35mm version.
So it was not so much loss of interest by the movie going public that killed of 70mm it seems to me it was the studios reluctance to provide prints, and the theatre circuits shying away from them.
The company I worked for had for many years installed 70mm in at least two of the auditoriums in a Multiplex. Then in 1993 they stopped, and instead spent the money on Dolby Digital and/or DTS equipment. Other than IMAX, They have not had a 70mm installation since 1992.
Thanks Rob, I went to work for Fox in Manhatten in the 50s and had the differences between CinemaScope and VistaVision expained to me.
I was told at the time that Paramount never intended to run very many VistaVison prints, as you said, the main purpose of the format was for the reduction prints which of course produced an excellent image.
Paramount developed VistaVision because they wanted their own wide screen process. They wanted no part of CinemaScope, and would never entertain the idea of paying Fox for the right to film in Cinemascope.
Thanks also for allowing me to picture how the VistaVision projectors were laid out in the Music Hall booth, I always wondered about that. That interlocking of the VistaVision projectors and the straight 35mm must have been scary stuff. I can’t help wonder how many times that broke down. Poor Ben.
REndres, there has always been some confusion in my mind about VisatVision projection in New york.
I recall you teling us RCMH installed VistaVision for “White Christmas” but used the projectors for only that engagement.
I also remember the Paramount theatre installing VistaVision projectors. but That’s about all I can recall.
I always wonderd about the Criterion, did they ever install the projectors and how did they run “10 Commandments”
I was still new in the business, working the Paramount theatre on Staten Island in 1954, and can not recall where the projectors were actually installed. The Capital theatre played a few Paramount pictures, any VistaVision there?
By the way, what ever happened to the VistaVision projectors at RCMH,
and what was the configeration in relatinship to the other four 35mm projectors?
I picked up on that as well Warren.
I had hoped the Music Hall would have had some sort of special presentaion to celebrate the 75th anniversary and not just revamp the Christmas show.
I wonder if REndres has had a chance to look into exactly how the Christmas show has changed this year, the mention of new staging intriged me. In addition I wondered if the 3-D opening is coming back, and more importantly is it going to be presented using 70mm film as usual, ot have they gone (gulp) Digital..
Well Howard, that brings to mind one of the last 35mm roadshows. “Fiddler on the Roof”, which I ran in June 1972 at the Syosett on Long Island in 35mm with four mag track sound.
70mm in New York lists the D-150 on Long Island as having played “Fiddler”, but as I recall we played the movie at the Syosset which we played day and date with the Five Towns theatre in Woodmere, Long Island. The Syosset played the movie in 35mm with four track mag sound and the Five Towns played it in 35mm with Optical(mono)sound. They did get a four track mag/optical print at the Five Towns but the theatre did not have mag capabilities and so it played mono
It was a significent event on Long Island because Prior to “Fiddler” most if not all roadshow engagements were 70mm which employed two projectionists on duty for every show. However when “Fiddler” played in 35mm, the projectionist union had a difficult time convincing the theatres owners to continue using two projectionists per shift. Century theaters, who operated the Five Towns, insisted only one man per shift was needed for a 35mm engagement, roadshow or no roadshow.
JAlex, I think you are missing the point of this thread.
It is not about the importance or specialty of any given movie, but rather the technical presentation with particular emphasis on 70mm.
Thanks Howard, I recall Ron Howards “Far and Away” having been one of the last shot in 65mm I forgot about “Hamlet”
As to the best theatres from a technical point of view, I would have to say the Rivoli was the best, hands down. The man in charge of UAs projection and sound was a fella named Joe Kelly. Joe was a friend of mine and I would often go to the Rivoli with Joe for his upgrades and tune ups. He was a master of the craft and the picture and sound at the Rivoli was hard to beat must less match. Of course the original design was done by Mike Todd, so Joe had big shoes to fill, but fill them he did.
I remember once when Joe was setting up “Hello Dolly” and he just could not satisfy himself with the quality of the presentation, I jokingly called up to the booth and said, “Joe, it’s Barbra (Streisand) on the phone; she wants to say thanks for the great sound.
I remember how devastated Joe was when UA tripled the theatre it took it like the loss of a loved one. Joe was also responsible for the best presentations on Long Island. The Syosset and D-150 were in a class by them selves.
I don’t recall when 70mm blowups became the norm. Originaly of course, movies were filmed in 65mm and the 70mm release prints were outstanding. later, sometime in the 60s I believe, more and more movies were shot on 35mm, and 70mm blow up prints were struck. The difference, at least to me, was rather obvious. Is there a list of films filmed in 70mm as opposed to those shot in 35mm? When was the last film shot on 65mm stock?
I believe you you are correct Erik, “Hello Dolly” opened in mid December 1969, at the Rivoli.I seem to recall playing it later at the D-150 on Long Island in March 1970.
Again a lot depends on the capabilitty of the automation. Some are just basic systems with little capabilities. However most would be able to do a masking change very easily with just an additionl diode (peg) inserted into the program to activate the masking, along with an additional metalic strip on the print positioned in the proper place. In my days in the booth, where we had automation, I would always go the extra mile to do that. In fact before the studios made duel versions of trailers available, and we had to make masking and lens changes, it was done though the automation, which would change masking settings and operate torrets to change lens and aperture plates. The only draw back is the problem of moving prints from screen-to-screen in a Multiples operation. You would have to remember to re-program the automation to add/delete the extra masking change. Keep in mind, on any given day, moving prints from screen to screen may occur often. Kiddie movies in larger houses during the day and smaller ones at night, etc.
By the way Ed, the Digital versions play the same way, and although the trailers are downloaded with the feature, a projectionist can add additional trailers. But once again, flat versions of anamorphoic features, etc.
As for the coming attraction snipes, National Amusements still use them, I would hope most circuits do.
It is usually part of the head (opening) trailer which may include, welcome to the theatre, no talking pleae, bla, bla, bla, and then end with an announcement of coming attractions followed by the trailers. Also in use in some loctions (those not to lazy to include them) is a Feature Presentaion or Sneak Preview snipe. By the way, the ironic thing about those opening trailers is, they are called “curtain raisers”
With respect to scope/trailers
When trailers are shipped to theatres it is almost always in both scope and flat versions.
Almost all flat features have trailers available in both scope and flat formats, as well as scope features which have trailers available in a flat version. In addition, all features have at least one trailer of an up coming movie attached to the head of reel one, with an additional 2-3 others trailers enclosed in the film can. Although deals are made within the studio system to play one another’s trailers. The film buyer (booker) may also negotiate trailer and posters when the film is booked. Studios will often send checkers to the theatres to verify the trailers being shown are correct. A report is later sent to the theatre owners home office and any inconsistencies are taken up with the theatre in question and corrections must be made.
What you are seeing when what appears to be a flat trailer is actually the anamorphic version, but it is true to the flat ratio, therefore you will see a black boarder on each side of the image. Occasionally this is done letterbox style with black boarders at the top and bottom with the image across the entire scope screen. This allows the theatre to show the complete program, trailers and feature, though the same lens, eliminating the need for several lens/masking changes in the program. The same procedure is used for movies filmed flat with scope versions of the trailer which are available to show with a flat feature.
As to the masking, when showing a flat trailer through an anamorphic lens it is of course possible to bring the masking in to properly mask the image, don’t hold our breath, I know no one who actually goes to the trouble of doing that. The Ziegfeld should absolutely do it, but, well …you know.
I hope this helps explain the black boarders on the trailer showings, let me know if you have any other questions or if I did not make my self clear.
Of course you may Ed; Let’s try this one more time.
The preshows are here to stay; I have accepted the fact that the revenue brought in by them is too much to give back. Although I question the need for them at the Ziegfeld. It’s just cheapens the whole movie palace experience.
Curtains and masking:
When you have preshow and curtains, the proper thing to do is to close the curtains and raise the stage lights about a minute before the movie is to begin. That would be a nice touch, and would set the stage for the audience to begin anticipation of the movie’s start. After a minute or so the movie should begin with the stage lights dimming and the curtains opening on the first frame of the movie, and not open the curtains to revile a white screen before starting the movie. If there is a flat trailer the masking should of course be at the proper setting to mask the image properly, it should not be left full open. At the end of the flat presentation, a “deluxe†should be performed, which is closing the curtains timed for the two panels to kiss as the last frame fades or ends. Stage lights should be raised at this point as well. At the start of the feature the curtains open and the stage lights dim, careful not to allow the curtains to open to soon which would expose a white screen. If the feature is scope, the masking should be opened before the curtains so that is not seen moving, by the time the curtain is fully open the masking should already be in the scope position. At the end of the movie a complete shut down must be performed, the curtains should close timed properly as not to show white screen. Allow the audience to file out with the curtains in the closed position, they should remain that way until the next audience, who should see the closed curtains as they come into the theatre, come in .Once the initial crowd has gotten in their seats the curtains can be opened to start the preshow. The loss of time when the preshow is not on would be minimal, a small price to pay to allow the audience to experience a bit of class and old-time showmanship.
Is ther any hope for Clearview to pay more attention to this?
You mentioned poor staffing at National Amusements, I wish to let you know that the staffing is determined by an estimated attendance, and is calculated for optimum staff coverage. If you are seeing poor staffing at one of those theatres I encourage you to make it known to management. It is not supposed to be that way, especially in the concession stand where a great deal of care is taken with staffing in order to ensure high PCs (per cap). Theatres are expected to generate a PC of at least $3 dollars) per person) and poor staffing makes that difficult. Of course the problem often comes from misjudgment in the attendance, or no shows and call outs in staffing
REndres, thaks for that heads up. Unfortunatly my current, temporary health situation, does not afford me the option of traveling into the city. Hopefully, when I am up to it, I might get a chance to see the documentory at another time.
Perhaps you and some of my other friends here at CT will attend and post some interesting info.
Cinerama was a magnificent process, and a sometimes scary and nerve racking job to operate, but so was 3-D for that matter. It was an oddly scary, yet fun, time to be a projectionist. But Rob you would appreciate that feeling, it was sorta like making a change over at RCMH with 5000+ people in attendance.
These kids today, with their platters and automation, have no idea of what is like to be a real projectionist and run some of the stuff they threw at us in the 50s.
Very true Jeff, as a matter of fact in the early days of automation I was invited to attend a meeting with one of the designers who asked “Ok guys what do you want this thing to do”.
They asked for our impute, what followed was a wide range of automation systems.
Someone asked whether or not the same automation system used in a theatre for film can be used with Digital. The answer is yes, the sane automation system is used. The only difference is instead of a cam device or metallic strip along the film to control the automation, it is done with a script that is written and downloaded with the movie into the computer
Thanks guys, I am an old school man who will never conform to the new school way of thinking when it comes to film presentation.
Jeff, the curtain(s) usually are a part of the automation, along with lights and all the rest. Some one would have to explain what type of automation the Ziegfeld has, perhaps it is a simple basic system that works the functions of only the projection system. I have seen automations that only start shows and work the lights. It would seem to me odd that the Ziegfeld would not have an automation system that would also work the curtains. I ran a booth with a fully loaded automation system which was capable of running different functions on a clock with a cam that would enable the start of each function to start independently. It is simply a matter of programming the automation on the first day of a new show to meet the requirements of that particular movie. It is possible to push a button which would dim the house lights and then after a beat start the projector and lamp, open the curtain and dim the stage lights.
Some automation systems can be programmed to make a lens change via a turret and open/close masking.
But again, at the Ziegfeld where you still have a projectionist in the booth all day; it would b a simple matter for him/her to
“put on a show” manually.
It baffles me why they don’t always do that.