This film was originally shot in both Todd-AO (70mm) at 30 frames per second and in CinemaScope or its equivalent at 24 frames per second. Second-run or neighborhood theater owners did not invest in equipment for 70mm and had the ‘scope format film in 35mm to exhibit.
At this time the Fox does not have a screen, the theater being used for staged events, including concerts. Any organization renting the theater and requiring a screen must see to the temporary installation of one.
The Fox began preparing for widescreen films early in 1953 and photos show a portion of the 68 foot wide slightly curved screen in late May of that year, at a time when Twentieth-Century-Fox executives and others came to demonstrate the new CinemaScope format to theater owners. The proscenium of the Fox is 70 feet wide. On 02 October of that year “The Robe” began its run at the Fox as the first ‘scope film released, one year after the introduction of Cinerama to the public at the Broadway Theater in New York City. In the early 'scope years the Fox screened only films from its namesake Hollywood studios.
More regarding the United Artists: The theater’s mezzanine was altered to include a new projection room for the presentation of Todd-AO films, the first being “Oklahoma!.” It had been discovered with the screening of this film in New York that projecting the film at the extreme angle from high at the back of the Rivoli theater resulted in severe keystoning of the image on the screen. “Straight on” projection from the Rivoli’s lower level eliminated this problem and mezzanine placement of the projectors in Detroit was done before the Todd-AO films were screened. “Oklahoma!” was also available in optically corrected prints to compensate for keystoning but this “correction” also somewhat altered the original framing on the film itself, giving us not what the camera originally “saw.” Most cinemas today offer a more “straight on” projection.
It is reported that the Fox Theatre CinemaScope screen was 74 X 32 feet. This may have been the dimensions before the screen was matted for showings. The first few CinemaScope films had an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. The screen measurement as reported would have allowed only for a 2.31:1 aspect ratio. Not much horizontal masking would have been required, however, to accommodate those earliest ‘scope films.
Delta, I agree with what Pictureville is doing, and I would not want to see the 3-srip format locked away forever from viewers. I believe, however, that only “Grimm” and “West” are films that have permanent value among all those produced in the Cinerama process, although “Grimm” is not of interest to me personally. These two films, I believe, can still draw audiences, and their presentation in a reconstructed format makes it less expensive for exhibitors to do so. It also provides a technically superior presentation. This is the way for Cinerama to live on.
Do we really want theaters to screen the Cinerama films as they were originally screened, with all the imperfections of the process? I am not disparaging the process, for it started a trend in film production and screening that today gives us beautiful digital improvements of these Cinerama films. I’ll be on my way to Hollywood and the Cinerama Dome as soon as I learn that “How the West Was Won” will be digitally presented, with the richness of the soundtrack as we knew it from the original seven tracks.
I am interested in Roger A’s comment. I would have to see side-by-side presentations of parts of a Cinerama film in both formats to be able to evaluate the quality of each. I am pleased with the quality of “West” and “Grimm” when I see them on Turner Classic Films.
As much as I enjoy “How the West Was Won,” I tend to think that it was not “pure” Cinerama–that is, everything seen on the screen had come out of the Cinerama cameras themselves. We know that HTWWW has some short segments borrowed from “Raintree County” as part of a cost-saving effort. While I cannot find sufficient detail about the other 1962 production, I think that “Grimm” is entirely out of the Cinerama cameras.
Later productions, I believe, should not have been labelled as Cinerama or “Cinerama out of one lens.” Cinerama is always about the 3-lens, 3-projector process and presentation. I’ll remember it best as the start of a wonderful new beginning for filmmaking.
I’m of the opinion that what Mr. Strohmeier and others have done to digitally improve the quality of the projected Cinerama 3-strip films means that we should put the old format to rest. Yes, it was great, especially for what it did for motion pictures generally. What it did was inspire others to simplify the widescreen process and produce better film emulsions. We can truthfully say that Cinerama started it all–giving a brief nod to Fox’s attempt back in the 1930’s.
I would make plans to see “How the West Was Won” again at the Dome, in digital form and with 7-track sound, if the opportunity arises. I feel that Fred Waller and the others would be proud of the restorations.
Back in October 1953 (yeah, that’s a ways back!) I was taken to the Fox Theatre in Detroit to see the first CinemaScope film released, “The Robe,” as the birthday gift I wanted. Does anyone know how wide the screen was at the Fox?
For years it was my dream to develop my own cinema man cave with a large curved screen that would accommodate every aspect ratio by adjusting the side mattes–all films to be presented at the same height. Stereo sound, but of course.
Back in the day this was not an affordable luxury. At 79 I am a bit late in attempting to find a place that might meet my “needs” (wants), and then there’s all that energy needed but in shorter supply these days.
Curmudgeon, the original installations, it seems, included a deeply-curved screen, deeper than the curvature of the screen at the Dome. Perhaps the Dome’s screen curvature does not result in light from either extreme side washing out the image on the opposite side. It is also possible that many Cinerama installations for one reason or another, could not install a screen with the prescribed curvature. If so, the notion of a “true Cinerama presentation” might not be a meaningful description.
When “one projector” Cinerama was about to begin in Detroit, the louvered screen was replaced by a solid one. I watched them do the replacement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Sittig, thanks for the info! A question, though: Don’t the Cinerama films have an aspect ratio of about 2.6:1? I think this is partly accounted for by the fact that each filmstrip uses a 6-sprocket rather than a 4-sprocket pull-down. If I am correct, then 2.76 can only happen by cropping or horizontal “stretching,” no?
I flew out from Michigan to Hollywood in 2012 just to see HTWWW since I was out of the country during its original release in 1962. I may do it again! By the way, Detroit was the 2nd city to get Cinerama, after NYC, beating out LA.
RogerA, thanks for the info. I’m hopin' that the cinema you reference also has the screen width to accommodate the widest aspect ratios. Simple masking can hide many “sins,” and most viewers wouldn’t know the difference.
It is too bad that the Dome can’t continue with authentic Cinerama equipment. I’ve yet to hear any digital sound that can match the quality of the mag stripes. I say that about all the CD’s I still own and occasionally play, too.
Well!
My dream has always been to operate a cinema that presents films in the way the director wanted them shown. Thus, the full height of my screen would always be the “1,” and there would always be enough screen for everything from the 1.37 to the 2.76—with sufficient curvature in the screen so that the throw of the projector would be the same distance both to the center of the screen and to the sides. No, I wouldn’t have curvature along the top and bottom. That looks funny.
Here’s hoping, too, that the engineering of lenses will soon be able to accommodate deeper curvature so that projector or projection room glass does not require the matting that actually eliminates some of the image. Perfect squares or circles from top to bottom and side to side when the test strip is projected.
Roger, but you said that digital presentation is at 2.39:1. That can only mean that the digital presentation stretches the negative or crops it, thereby achieving the same effect.The aspect ratio can be changed in only one of these two ways.
Roger, that must mean that either the original image was stretched (which wouldn’t be that much of a stretch) or that the frames were cropped to produce the same ratio. Either way, it seems, there was either distortion or loss of image. The mathematics of ratio permit nothing else. No?
This film was originally shot in both Todd-AO (70mm) at 30 frames per second and in CinemaScope or its equivalent at 24 frames per second. Second-run or neighborhood theater owners did not invest in equipment for 70mm and had the ‘scope format film in 35mm to exhibit.
Ah, yes! They cropped the film in order to fill out the wide screen–and so butchered a classic.
At this time the Fox does not have a screen, the theater being used for staged events, including concerts. Any organization renting the theater and requiring a screen must see to the temporary installation of one.
The Fox began preparing for widescreen films early in 1953 and photos show a portion of the 68 foot wide slightly curved screen in late May of that year, at a time when Twentieth-Century-Fox executives and others came to demonstrate the new CinemaScope format to theater owners. The proscenium of the Fox is 70 feet wide. On 02 October of that year “The Robe” began its run at the Fox as the first ‘scope film released, one year after the introduction of Cinerama to the public at the Broadway Theater in New York City. In the early 'scope years the Fox screened only films from its namesake Hollywood studios.
More regarding the United Artists: The theater’s mezzanine was altered to include a new projection room for the presentation of Todd-AO films, the first being “Oklahoma!.” It had been discovered with the screening of this film in New York that projecting the film at the extreme angle from high at the back of the Rivoli theater resulted in severe keystoning of the image on the screen. “Straight on” projection from the Rivoli’s lower level eliminated this problem and mezzanine placement of the projectors in Detroit was done before the Todd-AO films were screened. “Oklahoma!” was also available in optically corrected prints to compensate for keystoning but this “correction” also somewhat altered the original framing on the film itself, giving us not what the camera originally “saw.” Most cinemas today offer a more “straight on” projection.
It is reported that the Fox Theatre CinemaScope screen was 74 X 32 feet. This may have been the dimensions before the screen was matted for showings. The first few CinemaScope films had an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. The screen measurement as reported would have allowed only for a 2.31:1 aspect ratio. Not much horizontal masking would have been required, however, to accommodate those earliest ‘scope films.
Delta, I agree with what Pictureville is doing, and I would not want to see the 3-srip format locked away forever from viewers. I believe, however, that only “Grimm” and “West” are films that have permanent value among all those produced in the Cinerama process, although “Grimm” is not of interest to me personally. These two films, I believe, can still draw audiences, and their presentation in a reconstructed format makes it less expensive for exhibitors to do so. It also provides a technically superior presentation. This is the way for Cinerama to live on.
Do we really want theaters to screen the Cinerama films as they were originally screened, with all the imperfections of the process? I am not disparaging the process, for it started a trend in film production and screening that today gives us beautiful digital improvements of these Cinerama films. I’ll be on my way to Hollywood and the Cinerama Dome as soon as I learn that “How the West Was Won” will be digitally presented, with the richness of the soundtrack as we knew it from the original seven tracks.
Roger, I easily spotted the difference in HTWWW: the mountain scene in the background of the imported segment is very grainy.
I am interested in Roger A’s comment. I would have to see side-by-side presentations of parts of a Cinerama film in both formats to be able to evaluate the quality of each. I am pleased with the quality of “West” and “Grimm” when I see them on Turner Classic Films.
As much as I enjoy “How the West Was Won,” I tend to think that it was not “pure” Cinerama–that is, everything seen on the screen had come out of the Cinerama cameras themselves. We know that HTWWW has some short segments borrowed from “Raintree County” as part of a cost-saving effort. While I cannot find sufficient detail about the other 1962 production, I think that “Grimm” is entirely out of the Cinerama cameras. Later productions, I believe, should not have been labelled as Cinerama or “Cinerama out of one lens.” Cinerama is always about the 3-lens, 3-projector process and presentation. I’ll remember it best as the start of a wonderful new beginning for filmmaking.
I’m of the opinion that what Mr. Strohmeier and others have done to digitally improve the quality of the projected Cinerama 3-strip films means that we should put the old format to rest. Yes, it was great, especially for what it did for motion pictures generally. What it did was inspire others to simplify the widescreen process and produce better film emulsions. We can truthfully say that Cinerama started it all–giving a brief nod to Fox’s attempt back in the 1930’s. I would make plans to see “How the West Was Won” again at the Dome, in digital form and with 7-track sound, if the opportunity arises. I feel that Fred Waller and the others would be proud of the restorations.
Back in October 1953 (yeah, that’s a ways back!) I was taken to the Fox Theatre in Detroit to see the first CinemaScope film released, “The Robe,” as the birthday gift I wanted. Does anyone know how wide the screen was at the Fox?
For years it was my dream to develop my own cinema man cave with a large curved screen that would accommodate every aspect ratio by adjusting the side mattes–all films to be presented at the same height. Stereo sound, but of course. Back in the day this was not an affordable luxury. At 79 I am a bit late in attempting to find a place that might meet my “needs” (wants), and then there’s all that energy needed but in shorter supply these days.
Curmudgeon, the original installations, it seems, included a deeply-curved screen, deeper than the curvature of the screen at the Dome. Perhaps the Dome’s screen curvature does not result in light from either extreme side washing out the image on the opposite side. It is also possible that many Cinerama installations for one reason or another, could not install a screen with the prescribed curvature. If so, the notion of a “true Cinerama presentation” might not be a meaningful description.
When “one projector” Cinerama was about to begin in Detroit, the louvered screen was replaced by a solid one. I watched them do the replacement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Sittig, thanks for the info! A question, though: Don’t the Cinerama films have an aspect ratio of about 2.6:1? I think this is partly accounted for by the fact that each filmstrip uses a 6-sprocket rather than a 4-sprocket pull-down. If I am correct, then 2.76 can only happen by cropping or horizontal “stretching,” no?
I flew out from Michigan to Hollywood in 2012 just to
see HTWWW since I was out of the country during its original release in 1962. I may do it again! By the way, Detroit was the 2nd city to get Cinerama, after NYC, beating out LA.
RogerA, thanks for the info. I’m hopin' that the cinema you reference also has the screen width to accommodate the widest aspect ratios. Simple masking can hide many “sins,” and most viewers wouldn’t know the difference.
It is too bad that the Dome can’t continue with authentic Cinerama equipment. I’ve yet to hear any digital sound that can match the quality of the mag stripes. I say that about all the CD’s I still own and occasionally play, too.
Well! My dream has always been to operate a cinema that presents films in the way the director wanted them shown. Thus, the full height of my screen would always be the “1,” and there would always be enough screen for everything from the 1.37 to the 2.76—with sufficient curvature in the screen so that the throw of the projector would be the same distance both to the center of the screen and to the sides. No, I wouldn’t have curvature along the top and bottom. That looks funny. Here’s hoping, too, that the engineering of lenses will soon be able to accommodate deeper curvature so that projector or projection room glass does not require the matting that actually eliminates some of the image. Perfect squares or circles from top to bottom and side to side when the test strip is projected.
Roger, but you said that digital presentation is at 2.39:1. That can only mean that the digital presentation stretches the negative or crops it, thereby achieving the same effect.The aspect ratio can be changed in only one of these two ways.
Roger, that must mean that either the original image was stretched (which wouldn’t be that much of a stretch) or that the frames were cropped to produce the same ratio. Either way, it seems, there was either distortion or loss of image. The mathematics of ratio permit nothing else. No?