The Brutalist in Vistavision

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I'm not a big fan of curved screens, if for no other reason than that they basically violate
awholebuncha 'rules' of the physics of light projection. Yes, with an optically corrected
print and a 'perfect' set up, they can give an impressive picture, if you are willing to ignore
bent horizons and other optical unavoidable optical distortions. But, to answer your question-
. . I assume that CINERAMA™️ had less of a problem with the 'curve' of the screen, because
each of the projectors had to only cover a portion of the total arc curvature of the screen.
A single projector & lens would have a much harder time bending light (which doesn't bend)
onto a huge, curved screen, IMO.

Jim,

Single strip 70mm Cinerama and D-150 had special projection lenses that compensated for the deep curve. D-150 actually worked better than 70mm CInerama did, because it also pre-distorted the projected image to make it fit better on a deep curve, where Cinerama's lens was strictly a deep focus spherical lens that did nothing to compensate the image to fit it to a deep curve. The D-150 Curvalon lens was technologically ahead of the spherical 70mm Cinerama lens. BTW: Each of the lenses are massive and weigh about 20+ pounds depending on it's focal length and or back up lens in the case of D-150...

[Jim Cassedy]

Thanks Mark. . I should have been a big more specific, and I do agree that D-150
worked very well. In the late 1970's I occasionally worked fill-in shifts at the UA
D-150 theater in Syossett, NY. None of the shows I ran were D-150 prints, but
I had seen several projected there. - - and, I was quite in awe of the set of D-150
lenses in the booth. I know you've got one, and they are really outstanding pieces
of workmanship.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Well, at the risk of dating myself, you'd probably get a brighter picture with the image divided between three projectors., but there's that seam where they just never quite match up, fudge-factors notwithstanding.
Also Cinerama was intended to be wider. But it failed because pictures like "How the West Was Won" were not especially, what's the word? good. Even when I was 10 I recognized that.

First Peter, I have to disagree about HTWWW. I've seen it in three strip and it's awesome, even considering the "fluff" actors that are in it. The gross also says a lot about it. $46,500,000 gross, and it only had a 15 million dollar budget. That gross was a ton of money in the early 1960's!

And of course Cinemiracle got rid of the join lines in such a simple and perfect way, by allowing the light from projectors 1 & 3 edges to fall off the edge of micrometer adjustable front surface mirrors. Cinerama liked that idea so much they bought out CInemiracle and snuffed it out of existence, because they knew it would quickly take away their business. I guess I should mention that Cinemiracle's camera photographed the same way, except the lenses on cameras 1 & 3 were servo controlled and shifted laterally the optical center of the lens as the 1st assistant followed focus. This way, what you saw in the theater, was exactly what the camera saw. The system kept what was at the join lines constant.

[Allan Young]

And of course Cinemiracle got rid of the join lines in such a simple and perfect way, by allowing the light from projectors 1 & 3 edges to fall off the edge of micrometer adjustable front surface mirrors.

It was certainly an improvement over Cinerama, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that the join lines were gotten rid of. They were still clearly visible in Cinemiracle.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

It was certainly an improvement over Cinerama, but it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that the join lines were gotten rid of. They were still clearly visible in Cinemiracle.

You may have seen it in a less than optimum situation. Projectors have to be dead straight on with the screen for it to work properly. Cinemiracle also doesn't use gigolos because that was a Cinerama patent. I worked with a guy in Salt Lake City who's dad was head of projection for Cinemiracle, and he told me a lot of info about it. He used to go with his dad and assist on setups and told me how invisible the join lines could be when it was all set up properly. The picture is of their their testing lab, and you can see the height of the projectors is correct rather than having them upstairs. They built a platform and booth similar to this when they ran Windjammer at the Civic Opera House in Chicago.

[Jim Cassedy]

Last nights BRUTALIST 70mm special preview screening was completely sold out, and there was even a
waiting line of people hanging around in case some ticket holders cancelled or didn't show up. They even
wound up putting extra seats in some of the wheel-chair spaces, since as of a few minutes before show
time, we had no handicapped attendees. The director, cinematographer, and several other people who
worked on the film were there to intro and do an extended Q&A afterwards. (yes, there was a Q&A after
the 3½hour movie- - and I still had another show to do after that. Now that WAS brutal!) After the show,
A24 had rented out the bar /event space at the theater, and there was free food (and I assume drinks)
for everyone who came to the event. I got to chat with the director for a few minutes and he thanked me
for doing a good job with the presentation. (and complemented me on my VistaVision™ t-shirt.)

Q&A Panel : Brady Corbet, co-writer Mona Fastvold, Cinematographer Lol Crawley, Production
Designer Judy Becker, and Composer Daniel Blumberg. (not necessarily seated in that order
in the photo. My notes said 6 chairs & 6 microphones, so I don't know who the empty chair was for)
BRUTALIST_QnA.jpg

It's my understanding we will be doing additional 70mm BRUTALIST shows in early January. (after
completing our run of NOSFERATU in 35mm)

BONUS PICTURE: "The Shirt"
VistaVisionShirt.jpg

[Paul Finn]

Mr. Cassedy: What is the source-location of the Q&A image on the screen in the picture above? Is it rear projected? I don't see any shadows behind the chairs. Also, you are so lucky to not have 20-30 godawful line array boxes hanging in your theater for house sound. They seem to be the only acceptable solution for audio people/installations today.

Thank you, Paul Finn.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Sounds like it was a great evening! Congrats on getting through it!

[Jim Cassedy]

<edited>. What is the source-location of the Q&A image on the screen in the picture?
Is it rear projected? I don't see any shadows behind the chairs.. <edit> you are so lucky to not have 20-30
godawful line array boxes hanging in your theater for house sound. . .

Brutalist Q&amp;A.jpg


The image was a PNG graphic file that I converted to a DCP that would fade in and pause when it was
time for the Q&A. It is front projected. I think the 'no shadows' is sort of an optical illusion, because if
you notice, I have brought the footlights up a bit, which tends to wash out the shadows on screen.
Also, because this was taken from almost a 'head on' angle, the sitters are masking their own shadows.

Normally, I'd have some Leko-spots on the talent too, but the control system died recently, so for now
I only have the footlights, and a nice LED followspot if in need it. After the 1st of the year, we're getting
a new screen, and a new laser projection system to replace the dual-projector SONY setup we have now.
I've also got the Leko lights on my 'fix it" list while they're doing the projectionstuff.

> I too am glad that the auditorium maintains most of its' original 1916 architecture. Here's a wider pic
taken last weekend when I was investigating reports of "very distracting red lines on screen" during one
of the WICKED shows. ( I need to get the lights behind the organ grills working again too. Some are out)
NuMishBars.jpg
THE REST OF THE (red line) STORY: On Sunday, the management told me there was an angry
e-mail from a customer who complained about 'annoying' red lines on screen during the first WICKED
show on Sunday morning. I got there just as that show was ending. I didn't see any red lines, nor could
I find any of the floor staff who worked that show who had seen any red lines, or had any complaints
from anyone about them. Between shows, I ran test colors & bars from the projector & server, and
from an external color bar & test pattern generator connected to the HDMI input. (above photo)
. . . but NO RED LINES. I finally got to see the original e-mail and I contacted the customer for more
information. The punch line is that he was at a WICKED show that morning, and was annoyed by red
lines on screen. . . BUT IT WAS AT A DIFFERENT THEATER!!! He e-mailed the wrong venue.
"Problem solved"

[Peter Mork]

When is the general opening date of Brutalist? Does anyone know if they are making 35mm prints?

[Jim Cassedy]

According to a press release package I read last night, BRUTALIST release date is Dec 20th
in the USA, and Jan 24th in the UK. Brad Miller might know about availability of 35mm prints,
since he was handling the shipping of the 70mm . When I was chatting with the director after
the movie about shooting in VistaVision™️, and his decision to use a 1:66 aspect ratio, he did
mention that there were IMAX® prints going into circulation, but 35mm never came up during
our conversation. That doesn't mean there aren't any . . just that it wasn't mentioned.

[Brad Miller]

The push is for 70mm presentations. There are only 3 prints in the US for 35mm. International hasn't been finalized yet.

[Sascha Roll]

We have confirmation from Universal for our 35mm run starting January 30th in Berlin. Hearing that there are only 3 prints out there I Hope it won't be trashed by then...

[Steve Guttag]

Cinerama and Cinemiracle had the same optical engineer...a family friend (and classmates with my father at MIT), Richard (Dick) C Babish. Prior to Cinerama, he also was an optical engineer on Vitarama, as used in WW2 trainers. So, the link between the two formats is going to be a progression based on what was learned from the prior work and without violating patents (which his name was on, but for a different corporation).

As for curved screens...it is a love-hate thing for me. I prefer to watch movies on a curved screen. I just don't like the geometric distortions. I was fortunate to work at the Uptown Theatre in DC (Cinerama theatre) where the projection booth was, effectively, on centerline of the screen (slightly below center so we had an ever so slight upward projection angle). For 70mm we have ISCO curve field lenses that, effectively kept the horizontal lines flat(ish)...it wasn't a perfect fit but you didn't have the "grin" of most curved screen theatres. However, the curved field lenses were uniform...so, while horizontal lines were okay...vertical lines, as you got towards the edge would pincushion. For 35mm Flat/1.85, we used the Magnacom's ability to pre-distort the image to fit our screen pretty well. Nobody would notice any curved screen distortion anymore than they notice elongation from downward projection theatres (most). However, for 35mm Scope...we just had to suffer. Not only did we have barrel distortion, focus was always touchy since the screen's chord depth was on the order of 16-feet deep.

Oh and for Cinerama's Mad World lenses...corrected for curved field my butt. They were still in the booth and I gave them a try...yuck. Focus was soft and I didn't notice any particular curve field correction. The ISCOs we were using was, at least, a 10 fold improvement on focus alone...and then add in another quadrupling of contrast. Switching to those ISCO lenses had to have been the easiest sale anyone could have made...it was like getting new eyes.

So, given that everyone recognizes the downside of curved screens (from a projection geometry...there are light reasons to justify them)...whey did the Motion Picture Academy Museum use a curved screen in their main (Geffen) theatre? They have something like 5 projectors pointing at that screen. So, in addition to keystone they have to content with curved field. I don't get it. It's not a radical curve so you get all of the down sides without any of the light benefits (or few of them).

As for aspect ratio...that is up to the Director and DP. There is no reason why aspect ratio has to be tied to shooting format. You use the ratio that tells your story the best. With a 2.2+ ratio, hopefully you have valuable image to put in those spaces. But if you are going to have all of your subject crowed in the center of the screen with just background on the sides, it will compose oddly. Sometimes, you get a director like Steven Spielberg that deliberately didn't want a 2.39 ratio for Jurassic Park so the dinosaurs didn't look short. They would look bigger if they filled the frame. Then again, back then theatres masked the screen properly so it all looked better.

[Ryan Gallagher]

We have confirmation from Universal for our 35mm run starting January 30th in Berlin. Hearing that there are only 3 prints out there I Hope it won't be trashed by then...

You'll probably get the 35mm prints from the Austrian lab I had. Brad had sent ahead this handy 35PA reference so I could file plates cause my lead time on the print was minimal. It's 1.66:1 but undersized apparently to work with houses with only flat/scope options. Also note the intermission is printed and designed to play through (WITH AUDIO). Depending on your booth position, and if you have shown undersized ones like this before, new plates may or may not be justified. They were for us.

EDIT: Actually, not sure the under-sizing had such a valid reason, even this is taller than a true SMPTE flat aspect. We just got lucky with our flat lensing and our available screen height (and movable masking).

35mm Brutalist SMPTE 35PA Framing.jpg