Cinerama Hollywood
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
142 people
favorited this theater
Showing 126 - 150 of 1,416 comments
Hello-
to the best of my recollection when Krakatoa East of Java opened June 1969 at the Warner Theater (47 St.& Bway) it was not continuous nor reserved seat but a reserved performance policy.
Wasn’t Krakatoa continuous perfs in NY?
I wonder why LA was roadshow.
The Legion Theater on North Highland is testing its newly renovated theater equipped with two DP70 film projectors. The 70mm is stunning picture and sound.
DEFG: thank you for the kind words – the 10 ½ years I spent doing those shows at the Lafayette were very rewarding.
edlambert, I was quoting the spec so I’m not sure what would cause the height limitation but I suspect that it could be that the three booths were sometimes placed on orchestra level at the back of the house which might cause problems with a balcony overhang. If the height was lensed down to be completely visible then the width would be sacrificed and the screen would be smaller. It might have been that they felt that it was better to have the widest “wrap around” effect than to have to reduce the screen width. We were frequently required to place road projectors at the back of the orchestra when I was at Radio City and we had to be careful about the 1st Mezzanine balcony overhang. That problem would be exacerbated with Able and Charlie booths possibly getting the image clipped from the overhang.
Bigjoe – For the VHS and LaserDisc releases of Grimm the source they used was the 35mm ‘scope reduction of the Cinerama version that was created for the general release after the Roadshow. It’s cropped on the sides and the panel mis-matching and join lines are pretty visible. That version airs on TCM from time to time.
There were, and may still be, single strip 35mm IB tec prints of The Brothers Grimm.
Hello-
thanks to Peter A. again for his reply. as you state HTWWW
has been available on home video(vhs,dvd,blu-ray) since the dawn of the home video market. now the only time TWWOTBG has ever been issued on home video is a vhs from MGM Home Video at the advent of the home video revolution which has been long been out f print. so what would they have used to strike(if that’s the correct term)the vhs from approx. 30? years ago if
as you say the original camera negative has water damage.
RobertEndres, I should have gone back to Hart’s website myself. The problem with screen height that you mention eludes me. It seems to me that the overall aspect ratio was known and that a screen would be installed to accommodate it, the overall dimensions of the screen being dictated by the space available and lens focal lengths being used that would fit the image to the screen. Perhaps I’m revealing my ignorance of physics here.
I look forward to seeing the three strip next year when they get their s*it together
edlambert: checking on the Cinerama specs listed in Martin Hart’s Widescreen Museum which lists them from the SMPTE standards the negative image for three strip Cinerama was .996 x 1.116. The print aperture was .985 x 1.088 x 3. This produced an aspect ratio of 2.59 although there was a note that because some theatres might not be able to handle the increased frame height the ratio could be 2.65. Somewhere I have a pamphlet from the SMPTE published in the ‘60’s that had all the specs for all the widescreen processes. I hope to find it as it was the definitive reference source.
Yes, they did but based on what I know of HTWWW, it did not require the amount of restoration work that Grimm would. Grimm’s original negatives suffer from water damage and a host of other problems. HTWWW has also been a perennial best seller on video, even prior to the restoration. Grimm…wasn’t.
Moviebuff – if “what” is projected properly?
Hello-
thanks to Peter A. for his reply. if I understand your reply correctly Warner Bros. Hone Video which has home video rights to all of MGM’s roadshow epics wouldn’t want to spend the necessary $$$ to restore Grimm. but didn’t they do an extensive restoration/remastering of HTWWW before they released the Blu-ray disc Oct. 2008?
If projected properly, the image would be just as sharp as a Dolby Cinema print.
“I hope someone with indepth technical know how can answer a question. if the Dome was able to find a print of Grimm good enough to show a few years back why isn’t it good enough to use for mastering for a Blu-ray disc?”
BigJoe – Using a theatrical print would probably not yield a very pretty image. The contrast from the dye-transfer print would obscure shadow detail and it wouldn’t be as sharp as going back to the original elements. Other video labels might do it if there were no other option – though the expense of making three transfers and then attempting to color correct and clean up the join lines might make it prohibitively expensive for something that can’t sell more than a couple of thousand copies. Warner’s studio policy regarding restorations means they wouldn’t do it that way.
Ah, the 4th paragraph here says the 2.89 is letterboxed http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/west_digital/index.htm I’m no expert on Cinerama so can’t say for sure.
Mr. Haas, I did a bit of math, which should be checked, given my history with math! I assume that for each aperture of the Cinerama camera the the aspect ratio became 0.913:1 because the height was increased by 1/3 when 2 additional sprocket holes were included. I used the Academy ratio of 1.37:1. A film projected with a height of 10' would have a width of 13.7' in this ratio. Increasing the height to 15', which the 6-sprocket hole aperture would give us, and the 13.7' width remaining constant, we have a new aspect ratio of 0.913:1. With the 15' ht. remaining constant and the 13.7' multiplied by 3, we get a 15' ht. to 41.1' width, which is an aspect ratio of 2.74:1. Close enough. I’m off if the Academy ratio of 1.37:1 was not used for the aperture. The source you site refers to a possible 2.89:1 aspect ratio. That can only be if some other aspect ratio was used for the camera apertures.
Mr. Haas, Aha! Yes, I remember being struck by the fact that the two side panels (Dome, HTWWW, 2012)did not appear to be as wide as the center panel. I looked carefully to make sure that screen curvature did not influence my judgment. I wonder why they did this. Perhaps Waller and others thought that a screen wide enough to accommodate three full frames would prove too difficult for many theater installations. I know that our Detroit installation had to be a headache and couldn’t accommodate 2.76 without seriously reducing the height of the screen.
both sides at the far ends? see Restoration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_West_Was_Won_(film)#Restoration
Mr. Hass, I don’t understand how the original negatives could have captured more “width” than was actually shown on the screen. Any reduction in the width of each frame of the print would have meant that adjoining panels would not properly meet because each had some information missing. Something would appear to have been cut out of the picture. To give an example: signage appears on two adjacent frames when it is filmed. If the frame is cropped for projection, some of the letters in the signage would not be visible. and this would be noticeable. On the other hand, if each frame incorporated a bit of information that is also found on the adjoining frame, there would be no loss, only a difference in color registration or intensity. This would be “fuzzied over” by the gigolos.
I welcome any and all input to help me get a better grasp on this matter.
The Dome is only showing ONE film in Cinerama style, How the West was Won though in digital. Some footage is shown that was actually filmed (not showing gigolos). Again, the 70mm versions regarding the other films are different than 3 strip Cinerama. What I don’t understand is the reference to no good prints of Mad World because today Seattle Cinerama was showing 70mm of such though possible from a private collector?
Mr. Haas, I am confused about the Cinerama aspect ratio. I wonder why the full width of each of the 3 films was not originally projected. I know that there was a degree or two of overlapping where the segments joined on the screen so that the gigolos might do their work. Still, there is some difference between 2.59 and 2.76, enough to account for a few feet of screen width.
All I know is that the Brothers Grimm print belonged to a private collector from, I think, Australia. Maybe this person wouldn’t allow it to be used for anything except those few Dome screenings. I’m sure someone else knows more than that about it.
Hello From NYC-
I hope someone with indepth technical know how can answer a question. if the Dome was able to find a print of Grimm good enough to show a few years back why isn’t it good enough to use for mastering for a Blu-ray disc?
Mr. Sittig, I just wanted to use this space to thank you personally for the 3-strip showing of Brothers Grimm. I came in from New Jersey to see it and while sitting in the theater, I felt like the most privileged of all movie fans, seeing one of the rarest of all big studio films in the best possible way. Unfortunately I can’t attend Grand Prix, but I look forward to the next time I get to experience Cinerama at the Dome. Thanks again, and I hope the 55th anniversary shows are a big success.