Cinerama Hollywood

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.

Hello-

in response to vindanpar’s 9/2/18 comment about Camelot’s 1968 Labor Day schedule posted on the photos page. in said post vindanpar said the film’s run was pretty good at the Dome compared to its roadshow run at the Warner in Manhattan- “it pretty died as a roadshow in New York”. how is 34 weeks pretty much died as a roadshow in New York?

How many seats does this theater have

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.

To change aspect ratio from one medium to another i.e. film to digital, 70mm to 35mm, then the image is either cropped or letter boxed. Many movies these days are released in several different formats and aspect ratios. The camera original source material is often different formats. It is always cropped to make it fit.

Gone With The Wind was released in 70mm and those prints were cropped the original is 1.33:1 and the 70mm prints were 1:85 matted.

The Ten Commandments was shot in VitaVision so the 70mm prints were cropped.

2001 of course was shot on 65mm film for a 70mm release print (2.5mm extra space on each outer edge for sound tracks) The 70mm prints are not cropped but the 35mm version is cropped a little on the top and bottom and is much shorter than the roadshow version. The digital version is either cropped or letter boxed probably the latter.

AMC and other chains crop 20% or more in the projectors. If a theater does not have movable masking or the masking is limited they will crop the image to fit the screen. It is standard procedure in most multiplexes to crop the image to make it fit the screen or letter box it. Very few theaters bother to run a film in the exact proper aspect ratio that is why the Arclight in Hollywood is a favorite among the film crowd.

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?

what does that mean? are you saying 2001 was projected in 2.39 scope?

What evidence is there that Arclight was not running “2001” in the correct aspect ratio? If the venue (the Dome?) ran the film, the use of mattes on the screen—and not much matting would be needed—could easily accommodate the different ratios. Perhaps you have more information you could share with us.

After reading some of the newer comments, here’s my “2 cents”: In regards to “The Hateful Eight” / “Star Wars” first-run situation that occurred with the Cinerama Dome, the blame lies with Disney. After 2 or 3 weeks of the “Star Wars” film playing in the Dome (and doing its business), “The Hateful Eight” was supposed the Dome’s next attraction (it’s been said that one of the reasons why Quentin Tarantino shot the movie in the old Ultra Panavision 70 format was that “It’s the kind of movie that was made for a theatre like the Dome”.) Unfortunately, the folks who run Disney “pitched a bitch” & threatened Arclight / Pacific Theatres with a lawsuit (something to the effect of “If you move our Star Wars film out of the Dome & into one of your smaller cinemas, we’re gonna sue your asses off for breach of contract!”) Instead of siding with Tarantino, Arclight / Pacific “PUSSIES” its way out of the situation & sides with Disney. (Honestly, if I was the owner of the Dome, I would’ve told Disney to “F..K OFF AND TAKE YOUR STAR WARS MOVIE & SHOVE IT IT UP YOUR ASS! AND BY THE WAY, WE WILL NEVER PLAY ANOTHER DISNEY MOVIE AGAIN!!!” But that’s just me & my opinion.)

In regards to the recent re-release of “2001”, apparently Arclight is not running the film in its correct aspect ratio – Stanley Kubrick shot the film in Super Panavision 70, which has a smaller aspect ratio of 2.20:1. (Ultra Panavision 70 movies, like “The Hateful Eight”, have a wider aspect ratio of 2.75:1.)

Which brings me to the point: If Arcligtht / Pacific TRULY CARES about pleasing their customers & presentations, maybe they should start getting their sh.t together & STOP being another AMC-like movie-theatre business. Meaning: COOL IT with “the manager / assistant mgr.– operator thing” – it seems that the movie theatre biz has gone DOWNHILL for the past 40 / 50 / maybe 60 years. It’s my understanding that it all started with AMC & the multiplex idea – it was a good idea, at first. Then AMC (and companies like it) got greedy & LAZY, all in the name of “making profits”. In other words, BRING BACK THE PROJECTIONIST! (I’m not saying “bring back the union projectionist”. BUT what I am saying is – if you run a movie theatre, you have to treat the projection booth like its “the heart of the operation”. Meaning: NO MORE “BUTTON PUSHERS”! (A “button pusher” is a “manager / operator” or a “assistant manager / operator” who presses “the start button” on a projector & then goes downstairs to worry about, either the snack bar, or the box office, or both. “The button pusher” does the job of 3 people & makes a bit more than minimum wage – if he or she is lucky on that.) Anyway, if things DON’T CHANGE within this business, then sometime, in the near future, there WON’T BE any more movie theatres, like the Cinerama Dome – any more movie theatres, PERIOD! (Something tells me it’s gonna eventually happen. The question is: Sooner or later?)

For three out of the past four weeks, the highest grossing movie in the US based on per-screen average has been “2001”. If only Stanley were still alive to see this.

Yes, Howard. They opened the curtain on the MGM logo after the overture and closed them at the intermission. Then they opened them again after the entrance music and closed them at the end of the credits. It was very professionally done.