“Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations.”
That is exactly correct, as has already been stated. Those theatres were built before there was anything wider than 1.85 (or smaller if even older), so compromises would have to be made.
“I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant?”
Again, yes. Now, theatres you may have visited may have changed the height for other formats such as 1.37, but again in an ideal theatre the side masking only would come in to make the screen 1.37 sized. Arclight has three theatres that are capable of projecting 1.37, 1.66, 1.85, and 2.35 films and all three use side masking only and look great.
“And it’s good that you don’t question my memory."
"but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s."
"I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age.”
And yes, you’ve been acting like an ageist troll. It’s the arrogance that is off-putting. Just would appreciate it if we weren’t all talked DOWN to in every other post like we don’t know anything.
In relation to this topic, using side masking only keeps the light level pretty close to being the same when switching from 1.85 and 2.35. Because of the 1.85 aperture plate blocking the top and bottom of the frame less light goes on screen. When you switch to 2.35 and use side masking the screen gets larger so you would think you would need to increase the light level since you have more surface area to fill. But actually since a 2.35 aperture plate is wide open, more light goes through the frame. So in the end, the light spread on screen is usually no more than one footlambert above or below what it ideally should be when switching between the two formats used today.
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.
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’m not saying that’s not the way it was. It isn’t the BEST way to do it. One person saying the screens are too small and another saying they should be smaller for wider films.
Why would you want the screen to get smaller for a movie, say like The Dark Knight?
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.
Yes, that’s correct. The height stays the same, the width is what changes. Two of the Arclight screens have top masking only though, which also are the two I refuse to see anything in.
I know that the company that owns the Hollywood & Highland complex recently bought the Chinese theater, but Mann (WB & Par owned) is still the contracted management. I had thought that wouldn’t affect bookings but it looks like it might have.
I’ve noticed as well. I’ve heard rumblings of The Dark Knight being possibly being booked at Arclight. That would be a big deal because I believe every Batman movie since 1989 has played at the Chinese.
I suppose they might be playable on the projectors, but the projector would have to “downgrade” it to 2K. Just speculation on my part.
Also, last I had heard the only public theater in town with a 4K is Mark Cuban’s new Landmark. Which was why Blade Runner: Final Cut played there since they mastered it in 4K.
I actually agree with most of that. Curtains are nice and would be better but it’s not a huge thing for me. The Dome is definitely not one of my faves either, unless their showing 70mm or Cinerama.
I’m not saying the Arclight houses are perfect, but outside of some of the screening houses in town (such as the DGA) they’re the best houses to me because the projection and sound are great, I don’t have to fight for a good seat (which are the most comfortable to me), and I never feel as immersed in the film as anywhere else I’ve been. I appreciate the Chinese and still go there occasionally but usually only for “event” movies.
Of course, all of this is changing since Arclight is making the move to digital which I’m not really a fan of yet.
Architechture and curtains? I only care about the best viewing environment that makes me forget about everything around me. I’ll never understand the appeal of “palaces” over better viewing quality, other than nostalgic reasons. To each his own, I guess.
There’s always the two largest Arclight houses, which I actually tend to prefer to Grauman’s most of the time. Much shorter throw to the screen (and not nearly as many annoying customers).
The Dome is considered a “historical landmark” by the city so I believe a renovation to put in a mezzanine-level booth isn’t legally allowed, even if Pacific wanted to spend the money to do it (this is the reason that the seats are still crappy). And if they could, they wouldn’t because 90% or more of the patrons only care about “BIG SCREEN!!” and not about the improvement in quality it would bring from a lower projector and shrinking the screen for digital and 35mm.
I called and asked and was informed SP is D5 digital tape.
I’ve heard digital on “South Pacific.” Also, “2001” 70mm again and…..Cinerama: “How The West Was Won.”
“Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations.”
That is exactly correct, as has already been stated. Those theatres were built before there was anything wider than 1.85 (or smaller if even older), so compromises would have to be made.
“I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant?”
Again, yes. Now, theatres you may have visited may have changed the height for other formats such as 1.37, but again in an ideal theatre the side masking only would come in to make the screen 1.37 sized. Arclight has three theatres that are capable of projecting 1.37, 1.66, 1.85, and 2.35 films and all three use side masking only and look great.
“And it’s good that you don’t question my memory."
"but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s."
"I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age.”
And yes, you’ve been acting like an ageist troll. It’s the arrogance that is off-putting. Just would appreciate it if we weren’t all talked DOWN to in every other post like we don’t know anything.
In relation to this topic, using side masking only keeps the light level pretty close to being the same when switching from 1.85 and 2.35. Because of the 1.85 aperture plate blocking the top and bottom of the frame less light goes on screen. When you switch to 2.35 and use side masking the screen gets larger so you would think you would need to increase the light level since you have more surface area to fill. But actually since a 2.35 aperture plate is wide open, more light goes through the frame. So in the end, the light spread on screen is usually no more than one footlambert above or below what it ideally should be when switching between the two formats used today.
I’ve heard “How The West Was Won.”
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.
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’m not saying that’s not the way it was. It isn’t the BEST way to do it. One person saying the screens are too small and another saying they should be smaller for wider films.
Why would you want the screen to get smaller for a movie, say like The Dark Knight?
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.
Yes, that’s correct. The height stays the same, the width is what changes. Two of the Arclight screens have top masking only though, which also are the two I refuse to see anything in.
I know that the company that owns the Hollywood & Highland complex recently bought the Chinese theater, but Mann (WB & Par owned) is still the contracted management. I had thought that wouldn’t affect bookings but it looks like it might have.
I’ve noticed as well. I’ve heard rumblings of The Dark Knight being possibly being booked at Arclight. That would be a big deal because I believe every Batman movie since 1989 has played at the Chinese.
Lucas builds up my dreams only to then taint the end result somehow every time.
I suppose they might be playable on the projectors, but the projector would have to “downgrade” it to 2K. Just speculation on my part.
Also, last I had heard the only public theater in town with a 4K is Mark Cuban’s new Landmark. Which was why Blade Runner: Final Cut played there since they mastered it in 4K.
I actually agree with most of that. Curtains are nice and would be better but it’s not a huge thing for me. The Dome is definitely not one of my faves either, unless their showing 70mm or Cinerama.
I’m not saying the Arclight houses are perfect, but outside of some of the screening houses in town (such as the DGA) they’re the best houses to me because the projection and sound are great, I don’t have to fight for a good seat (which are the most comfortable to me), and I never feel as immersed in the film as anywhere else I’ve been. I appreciate the Chinese and still go there occasionally but usually only for “event” movies.
Of course, all of this is changing since Arclight is making the move to digital which I’m not really a fan of yet.
Actually, Arclight has 7 new NEC 2Ks.
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=1047
Architechture and curtains? I only care about the best viewing environment that makes me forget about everything around me. I’ll never understand the appeal of “palaces” over better viewing quality, other than nostalgic reasons. To each his own, I guess.
There’s always the two largest Arclight houses, which I actually tend to prefer to Grauman’s most of the time. Much shorter throw to the screen (and not nearly as many annoying customers).
Iron Man has been confirmed for Arclight.
Sigh….all that build up for something I’ve known for months (and I thought others knew). I was hoping 70mm news.
Manwithnoname, Different aspect ratios have different lenses, and Shine a Light is 1.85 meaning the trailers would have to be as well.
The Dome is considered a “historical landmark” by the city so I believe a renovation to put in a mezzanine-level booth isn’t legally allowed, even if Pacific wanted to spend the money to do it (this is the reason that the seats are still crappy). And if they could, they wouldn’t because 90% or more of the patrons only care about “BIG SCREEN!!” and not about the improvement in quality it would bring from a lower projector and shrinking the screen for digital and 35mm.