Cinerama Hollywood

Guys there seems to be a “disconnect” going on here. Haineshisway is agreeing with you that a scope film should simply have the side masking open up for a proper presentation. But he’s also telling you the fact of the matter was that many classic movie palaces weren’t able to accomodate the full width of scope without unfortunately reducing the height of the screen (while yes, opening up side masking as well). As a little kid in the sixties, I was very much aware of which classic theatres in my area used constant height for scope and which ones used constant width (or the masking on both top and sides that Haineshisway has mentioned). Guess which theatres I preferred?

I have a question about the Dome. My favorite deeply curved screen theatre had the same height screen for scope and flat. I loved it when all the trailers were flat, the curtains would close then reopen all the way for the Panavision feature film. The only difference here was for 70mm presentation. In that case the curtains and masking opened all the way like a scope film, but top masking suddenly went up too, to accomodate the 2.21 to 1 image. Does the Dome screen also increase it’s height for 70mm and the occasional presentation of a Cinerama film like “How The West Was Won”?

Yes, the masking always came down as the screen widened for the original 2:55 Cinemascope and then the 2:35 scope a few years later. CineMiracle was a Cinerama knockoff and something wholly other. I happened to be at a memorial service tonight at The Music Box on Hollywood Blvd., which used to be the Pix, where I saw many movies. I hadn’t been in there since they renovated it as a legit house. As I looked at the proscenium I realized there was no way they could have showed scope in that theater with that proscenium. Then I saw what they’d done – they simply put a much larger screen in FRONT of the proscenium, completely covering the original proscenium so that you couldn’t even see it anymore. Then there were curtains in front of the screen.

We aren’t questioning your memory, haines. Whatever masking is used in any theatre, the 2.35 scope shape is 2.35:1. The difference is the SCREEN SIZE. You can’t change the SHAPE. What WE are talking about is the proper presentation in a theatre built after the scope format came around. Those old theatres weren’t built for scope so they had to sacrifice the screen at the top and widen the side masking to make the 2.35:1 rectangle. In a theatre such as Arclight, they’ve made the houses (most) wider, put in the largest screen they can fit in the room, and then have the side masking move in and out to match whatever shape the format is in.

The BEST presentation in an ideal house will use side masking because you get to use ALL of the screen for scope films which tend to be shot that way to feel larger and match more closely to a person’s natural wide field of vision.

haines, the top and bottom were not supposed to change, only the sides. Thats why it was called widescreen. Those old theaters you’re talking about that were originally built for 1.33 or 1.85 to 1 were doing what they could to accomodate the new wider screens. A few, like the Chinese, and later, the Egyptian, actually ripped out their prosceniums to accomodate a screen that was truly wider and at least as tall as their original 1.33 or 1.85 screens.

The whole idea of widescreen was to have a new screen that was at least as tall as the existing 1.85 or 1.33 screen, but wider.

Mark, thank you for saying what I was trying to say. I hadn’t thought of the fact that those classic theatres were built before CinemaScope.

segask, I don’t think THX standards have anything to do with the picture, only acoustics and other audio “standards,” etc. And yes, all Arclight Hollywood houses are THX-certified.

I beleive when the top and bottom masking moves its called a ‘common width’ screen, and when the right and left masking moves its called a ‘common height’ screen?

Another reason for a theater having common width screens might be so they can advertise everything playing as being presented on a ‘giant wall to wall screen’.

Don’t all the screens at Arclight Hollywood carry THX certification? I thought that one of the requirements of THX certfication is a common height screen, where the masking adjusts on the sides rather top or bottom?

haineshisway: The reason the top masking came down AND the screen widened at your old theatre was simply the constraints of that particular theatre’s design and adaption to 2.35 Scope films. Because that particular theatre, or others, presented the films that way, does not mean it was the INTENTION of the filmmakers. I know the Royal theatre does this with their masking simply because they kept the screen under the old proscenium. A 1.85 screen shape will fill the proscenium top to bottom, but not quite side to side. For 2.35 scope they can widen to the edges of the proscenium but have to lower the top masking to create the more rectangular shape. In other words, I think they are doing they best they can with what they’ve got. For a lot of older theatres with the screen either under the proscenium or moved in front of it to allow it to get much wider, I think this is a lot of the times the case.

However, I think the INTENTION of the studios and the filmmakers was to have the image keep the same height but get WIDER, creating a more open, panoramic look that replicates more closely a person’s true field of vision. There would be no purpose for the image to get a little wider, but a little lower at the same time. That is counterproductive and merely a flaw or drawback in a particular theatre’s design.

I, and many others here, feel that a properly designed theatre for scope pictures only has the screen open wider to accommodate scope films. Such examples would be the Village and National (RIP) in Westwood (L.A.), Grauman’s Chinese, the Cinerama Dome, Seattle Cinerama and MOST of the auditoriums at the Hollywood Arclight.

Many of us here (and I kow Chris Utley is one) have a particular dislike for theatres designed from the ground up with top-down only masking only. Such examples would be the AMC Century 15 and Pacific’s Grove in Los Angeles. The reasons for such poor design might be several, but I feel it is doe to: poor design, cheap design, a lack of respect to the film-makers wishes, and most of all, the theatre chains idea of “lets blow them with the most crazy-huge screen possible!” The problem is with most stadium designed theatres the screen wall ends up being a square shape because of how tall the auditoriums are. This means that the biggest screen they fit in the place is largest when at a 1.85 ratio. Many of these screens are just too big. Watch any non-scope 1.85 feature at the large houses at the Century 15 and The Grove and you have to sit at least two-thirds the way back just to not be overwhelmed or get sick. Then the theatres have a big dramatic let down: You are watching the preshow “entertainment”, then some previews in 1.85 when suddenly the screen shrinks vertically but keeps a common width for your showing of “The Dark Night”. Think of it like watch a DVD on your old school TV. For 1.85 the letterboxing has narrow strips at the top and bottom. For a 2.35 scope film, which is meant to have more grandeur, the black bands at top and bottom get bigger, creating a narrow band for the image. Would you want the same effect in a movie theatre?

Most of the Arclight Hollywood’s auditoriums have side masking that open wider for scope films (as the movie gods intended) because they designed the auditoriums wider. In the bigger auditoriums the screens are still pretty big for 1.85 and they position the seats far enough away so those sitting near the front don’t get overwhelmed and still have all the picture in their field of vision.

I have not been to the Arclight Sherman Oaks, but since it is a conversion of a regular old Pacific Stadium theatre, something tells me there is top-down masking everywhere, which to me seems like Arclight on the cheap and goes against their presentation principles.

I am no expert, but this is my view of things. I’ll shut up now.

as long as the screen is as wide as it possibly can be given the room… if the height of the ceiling dictates that a 1.85 can indeed fit given that width, even though it’s then technically a larger screen than films shown in 2.35 in the same room i prefer that. people talk as if 2.35 movies are somewhat better than 1.85 films – in the 50’s this would be a valid argument, but nowadays it’s simply an artistic choice. let me put it this way, if you were going to see a film in 1.85, walked into an auditorium with a small screen, but saw that it could have been larger but was kept small so that it wouldn’t eclipse 2.35 films… wouldn’t you be disappointed?

And I’m talking about the big theaters, too – the Paramount, the Pantages, wherever – the top masking always came down as the screen got wider on the sides. This is not guessing – I watched it happen every day, and ultimately watched a projectionist do it from the booth.

haineshisway, perhaps you aren’t understanding the concept of aspect ratios. 1.85:1 means the width is 1.85 times the height. Or for every 1 foot high the screen is, it is 1.85 feet long.

Width:Height
1.85:1
2.35:1

The height (1) stays the same; the width gets bigger (1.85 to 2.35). A theater could decide to use top masking and side masking for scope but the screen would be smaller. Maybe that’s what is required in narrower houses or something, I’m not sure.

Don, it may be like that in some theaters but ideally masking should make the screen bigger for wider films. That’s the reason 2.35 movies are shot that way, so it’s HUGE! Theaters that don’t use side masking (unless for design constraints in Arclight’s case) don’t understand much or anything at all about presentation.

No, instead of the screen getting wider, masks narrow the screen from the top and the bottom. So with a 2.35 movie, you’re getting the smallest possible screen area.

“The newer AMCs seem to have taller and wider screens…”

…with TOP & BOTTOM MASKING that causes those screens to SHRINK RIGHT BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES whenever a 2:35 film is projected on them. Yuk!