my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Screen: Common Height or Common Width? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  11  12  13

Author Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width? Martin Thuss Film Handler Posts: 20 From: Strathoy, Ontario, Canada Registered: Nov 2013 posted 04-18-2014 09:41 AM                        In the planning stages to build a new movie theatre and beginning to think about our screens. I believe that many theatres (particularly the big chains) use common-width screens. However, just because "they" are doing it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing (they also don't typically use masking). I'm curious to get some opinions ... common height or common width? Based on a quick bit of research (using IMDB to look up the aspect ratio of the top 20 grossing movies from 2013 and 2014 YTD), it appears that around 80% of "mainstream" wide-release movies are in Scope. We plan to have three screens, so it would be rare that we would show non-mainstream movies. It would seem to me then that a common-height screen using the Scope ratio and masking for the occasional Flat/other movie would make the most sense. Having a Scope screen also allows our ceilings to be 4-6 feet lower which could save us considerably on construction costs (we are building from the ground up as our town has no existing theatre and no existing buildings which are even close to suitable for renovation). Thoughts? Thanks in advance!  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 04-18-2014 10:21 AM                     The right way to do film was common height with side moving masking. With digital I think it's still the best way to do it even though scope uses less pixels than flat. Most of us on here hate the practice of floating screens or no masking that's become more and more common. Cineplex now leaves masking open for flat and scope even if the masking works. It's a bad trend. Sounds like you want to do things right in Strathroy! I say common height with full masking. At the Hyland in London we have film/digital/masking and main curtains with common height. Rainbow cinemas has common height with movable side masking.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 04-18-2014 10:23 AM                     Common height is indeed the way to go! Sounds like you are already, but do get proper masking as well. And screen curtains as the cherry on top  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-18-2014 11:29 AM                     If you go common height and let Scope be WIDER instead of less tall, then I suggest also springing for an Anamorphic lens/mover...it will go a long way to improving the brightness and lamp life.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-18-2014 11:46 AM                    Are those still available and do they meet DCI? I seem to remember 007 telling me he'd bought the last ones Strong had for NEC, or something like that. One setup would probably pay for a lot of bulb hours though.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 04-18-2014 01:03 PM                        I'm not sure what's it's called or if this is the gadget that you mean, but I have an auxiliary lens that automatically moves into position in front of my projector when I play a scope movie. I think there's a label on that lens somewhere that says something about it being a "spreader". This is on a Christie 2210 and I have a common height screen.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 04-18-2014 03:08 PM                     quote: Martin Thuss In the planning stages to build a new movie theatre and beginning to think about our screens. I believe that many theatres (particularly the big chains) use common-width screens. However, just because "they" are doing it doesn't necessarily mean it's the best thing (they also don't typically use masking). I'm curious to get some opinions ... common height or common width? If you are building from the ground up, then I would say common height is the way to go, from an enthusiasts point of view it is the proper thing to do, it is also the "correct" thing to do. And you should also be using an anamorphic lense and stay as far away as you can from a fixed lense. However, for maximum impact, an ultra high common width screen with no masking is what will allow you (whether you think you compete with Cineplex or not) to compare favorable with the largest Cineplex ULTRA-AVX and IMAX screens in the London Ontario. Cineplex has successfully shown that these super large/no masking screens can command a much higher premium price. The perception of how large the screen is outweighs a screen that has masking from a pricing point of view. Have you had a chance to visit some of the other locations in the London area? I strongly suggest you research what people will pay for. Is the SilverCity North London showing open flat with scope projected. How about the location with the AVX and VIP? In Toronto, the most expensive ticket I have ever seen is $24.99, the auditoriums are about 125 seats, the screens are in the range of 25-30 feet, they are 16x9, floating and with no masking. The perception is that these screen are better. The location is also the first Cineplex to have two Ultra-AVX auditoriums that are common width with no masking.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-18-2014 10:33 PM                     Frank you have a WCL (wide angle converter lens). Basically it's nothing more than a "zoom" lens. It isn't anywhere near as efficient as a true anamorphic, but when the projector's lens doesn't have enough zoom ratio to switch between flat and scope on a common height screen (as was the case with most series 1 lenses), it was the solution.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-19-2014 06:52 AM                     Steve...yes and yes. Schneider still makes the ISCO version and it was ALWAYS DCI compliant...anyone that would have said otherwise doesn't know the spec. Furthermore, every DCI compliant projector has always supported them via their internal scaler. Even Sony has/had an anamorphic lens. Moving Image Technologies has an Anamorphic lens mount for their XL Mover so any projector can still have them. 23% of your light is a lot to throw away on scope movies. Just do the math on the lumen difference by just zooming the lens for scope. Cost wise, the payback is much faster on the larger lamps...whereas if you are in the 2KW lamp category, or smaller, it probably won't payback until near the end of the projector's life.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2014 11:24 AM                     quote: Steve Guttag If you go common height and let Scope be WIDER instead of less tall, then I suggest also springing for an Anamorphic lens/mover...it will go a long way to improving the brightness and lamp life. Well Mr. Anamorphic Lens salesman I agree if this is some really huge screen or perhaps a drive in or critical screening facility. But he makes no mention of the screen size. Neither does Frank. Frank obviously has manually operated zoom on his Christie with the primitive excuse Christie used for changing aspect ratios automatically. It is simply not worth spending an extra 10 grand on a screen size that is easily within the realm of the projector and it's zoom lens. That's like saying hey, lets throw another 10 grand at this projector to gain a few foot lamberts and 20 lines per mm more sharpness. No one is gonna notice it in the average theater going crowd. Lets find out from him how big the screen is first... Martin?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-19-2014 11:59 AM                     Mark, I understand your financial argument. It makes a lot of sense, but I should note that anywhere I do a large screen I do anamorphics. It really does pay for itself and looks significantly better. I even use an anamorphic in my screening room, not so much for the light efficiency, but moreso in the overall picture quality which is better than simply zooming.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-19-2014 01:21 PM                        Would it be possible for some of you guys to put up pictures of an "anamorphic" picture vs a "zoomed" one using similar equipment? I'm just curious what the A-B differences would be. I mean, we have a zoom lens and I think our picture is really good -- my only complaint is the old standard "blacks aren't black enough."  |  IP: Logged Amanda Mundin Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK Registered: Sep 2005 posted 04-19-2014 03:13 PM                     Are people using Prime lenses rather than Zoom lenses with the Anamorphic to get a better quality image?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-19-2014 03:54 PM                     For me, it is all about the light and getting better life/performance out of the xenon lamp. No matter what the size lamp, the current difference between the needs of flat and scope normally exceed the range of the lamp...even when the lamp is new...and proceeds to dramatically shift such that one can't hit the light on scope. Some size the lamp just for scope and then let Flat fall where it falls...that typically puts flat at 22fL...while flicker isn't an issue...black level is. If one has the lamp go up/down between flat and scope, performance of the lamp (striking, flicker, stability) almost always suffers. With an anamorphic lens...those issues are all lessened. But as I said above...the smaller the lamp, the more distant the payback on the anamorphic, in terms of cost/lumen. If you are in the 4500W+ range...the payback can be VERY fast.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-19-2014 09:09 PM                     Mike, assuming your projector is "dead on" in terms of convergence and boresight for your specific install, if you put up a white test pattern and walk down to the screen you will see very sharply defined black lines within the white grid. Throw an anamorphic in front of it (and zoom down), the grid lines will essentially disappear (and your light level will greatly increase) because you are now stretching the image just like a 35mm anamorphic. (Just like in the film days though, the astigmatism on the anamorphic must be properly set.) The short answer is the anamorphic gives the image more of a film look. If you want to increase the quality of your picture, blacken the entire front of your auditorium. Here are a couple of examples where the first 15 feet of the auditorium side walls (and the ENTIRE screen wall) is pure black. Anything other than black within the entire front end of the auditorium is bad news for contrast. Also curved screens are bad for contrast, so always stay away from that. Finally make sure your port window is actual optical glass and that it and your lens is kept absolutely spotless. (The rear element of the lens can get dusty too.)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  11  12  13

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.