Discussion:
What is curve for the screen at the Cinerama Dome - 146 degrees?
(too old to reply)
r***@sbcglobal.net
2012-02-18 20:27:45 UTC
Permalink
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
CineSIght
2012-02-18 22:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered. They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-18 23:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered.  They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
Not true cinerama .More dimension 150. Definately no good for cinerama
due to the steep angle of the projected picture.Worse still is that
they are going to project digital copies of the original cinerama
films onto their over-sized screen next september to celebrate the
60th anniversary of cinerama.I don't call that a celebration.Like I
have said before in these columns, there is nowhere today where you
can see the original cinerama as we saw it in the fifties and early
sixties.Even Bradford in the United Kingdom does not give you the
real cinerama effect and Seattle's flaws are tragic.Cinerama fans
today do,not have that memory and never will sadly. I was lucky enough
to have seen Cinerama in four countries including the famed Warner
and Capitol in New York City. Does anyone else remember those good
old days. It would be good to hear from them in this column. The worst
tragedy was how they stored the original negatives for several
decades.Now that was criminal.Unfortunately all we are now left with
is digital copies that will NEVER replicate the same quality and
experience.
Martin Hart
2012-02-19 02:19:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <12e74f47-536a-4b11-b829-8db9653ddc33
@jn12g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, ***@HOTMAIL.COM says...
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered.  They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
Not true cinerama .More dimension 150. Definately no good for cinerama
due to the steep angle of the projected picture.Worse still is that
they are going to project digital copies of the original cinerama
films onto their over-sized screen next september to celebrate the
60th anniversary of cinerama.I don't call that a celebration.Like I
have said before in these columns, there is nowhere today where you
can see the original cinerama as we saw it in the fifties and early
sixties.Even Bradford in the United Kingdom does not give you the
real cinerama effect and Seattle's flaws are tragic.Cinerama fans
today do,not have that memory and never will sadly. I was lucky enough
to have seen Cinerama in four countries including the famed Warner
and Capitol in New York City. Does anyone else remember those good
old days. It would be good to hear from them in this column. The worst
tragedy was how they stored the original negatives for several
decades.Now that was criminal.Unfortunately all we are now left with
is digital copies that will NEVER replicate the same quality and
experience.
It would be wise to withhold your criticism of the new digital versions
of the three strip films until you see them. Sure, you're not going to
get the same image as an early first generation contact print would
offer. But there's been some substantial magic performed on the aging
negatives. I think there's some potential for a pleasant surprise.

Marty
Remembering what Cinerama was in some of the best Cinerama installations
in the country.
Scott Dorsey
2012-02-19 16:09:02 UTC
Permalink
It would be wise to withhold your criticism of the new digital versions=20
of the three strip films until you see them. Sure, you're not going to=20
get the same image as an early first generation contact print would=20
offer. But there's been some substantial magic performed on the aging=20
negatives. I think there's some potential for a pleasant surprise.
This is not digital projection, right? These are just prints made through
digital intermediates.


My basic experience with DIs on my own material has been:

1. A DI never looks as good as an EK print made right off the negative,
but it can look a whole lot better than a fourth-generation print made
off an interpositive (as is common today).

2. A good DI can look really good, and a bad DI can look really awful.

3. 2K is not enough resolution for a good DI. (Watch "Moon" if you don't
believe me). 4K can make for a decent looking 35mm print. For archival
material, I think 8K is more appropriate.

4. As you increase the resolution linearly, the difficulty of doing dustbusting
and scratch removal increases exponentially.

5. It's possible to get WAY better greyscale from a DI than from any digital
projection system. A good argument could be made that you can get as good
greyscale as you would from a contact print. It's hard to tell since the
current fashion is for exaggerated midrange contrast and dark shadows and
so that's what most people are accustomed to doing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
CineSIght
2012-02-19 22:11:54 UTC
Permalink
It would be wise to withhold your criticism of the new digital versions=20
of the three strip films until you see them. Sure, you're not going to=20
get the same image as an early first generation contact print would=20
offer. But there's been some substantial magic performed on the aging=20
negatives. I think there's some potential for a pleasant surprise.
This is not digital projection, right?  These are just prints made through
digital intermediates.
1. A DI never looks as good as an EK print made right off the negative,
   but it can look a whole lot better than a fourth-generation print made
   off an interpositive (as is common today).
2. A good DI can look really good, and a bad DI can look really awful.
3. 2K is not enough resolution for a good DI.  (Watch "Moon" if you don't
   believe me).  4K can make for a decent looking 35mm print.  For archival
   material, I think 8K is more appropriate.
4. As you increase the resolution linearly, the difficulty of doing dustbusting
   and scratch removal increases exponentially.
5. It's possible to get WAY better greyscale from a DI than from any digital
   projection system.  A good argument could be made that you can get as good
   greyscale as you would from a contact print.  It's hard to tell since the
   current fashion is for exaggerated midrange contrast and dark shadows and
   so that's what most people are accustomed to doing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
I don't want to appear to speak for Marty but I think he will confirm
that with the exception of TIC, HTWWW and now WWotBG, and maybe the
car commercial and new short, all the other Cinerama stuff will be
shown digital, meaning the very same transfers being prepared for home
video.
Scott Dorsey
2012-02-23 15:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CineSIght
I don't want to appear to speak for Marty but I think he will confirm
that with the exception of TIC, HTWWW and now WWotBG, and maybe the
car commercial and new short, all the other Cinerama stuff will be
shown digital, meaning the very same transfers being prepared for home
video.
What transfers would those be, though?

If you scanned three negatives in with generic consumer 1024p resolution
and stitched them together you'd get a file approaching standard 4K
digital cinema, which might look pretty good.

If you de-resed them so that the whole thing had consumer 1024p resolution,
it would not look so good.

To be honest I think some of these films are better off being forgotten
by themselves; what makes them interesting is the process and the presentation
and when that is lost there is really no reason to watch them. This isn't
the case for all of them, mind you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Martin Hart
2012-02-24 03:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by CineSIght
I don't want to appear to speak for Marty but I think he will confirm
that with the exception of TIC, HTWWW and now WWotBG, and maybe the
car commercial and new short, all the other Cinerama stuff will be
shown digital, meaning the very same transfers being prepared for home
video.
What transfers would those be, though?
If you scanned three negatives in with generic consumer 1024p resolution
and stitched them together you'd get a file approaching standard 4K
digital cinema, which might look pretty good.
If you de-resed them so that the whole thing had consumer 1024p resolution,
it would not look so good.
To be honest I think some of these films are better off being forgotten
by themselves; what makes them interesting is the process and the presentation
and when that is lost there is really no reason to watch them. This isn't
the case for all of them, mind you.
--scott
Scott,
As I have mentioned before, each six perf frame is being scanned at 2K.
I don't know how that relates to standard 35mm format which is merely 3
perfs for 1.85, but it's twice as much information, obviously. Then the
three 35mm scans are married together at full resolution. From that all
the necessary resolutions are derived, including DVD, Blu-ray, and
theatrical rez, whatever that is.

I've seen some of the footage and it looks pretty good. Of course a
contact print off pristine negatives would be optimum but, believe me,
these are not pristine negatives. Scratches and dirt are a problem but
the proprietary scanning system can actually see through dirt with a
separate infra-red pass and scratches are removed through the scanning
software as well. Each frame is scanned four times, red, green, blue and
IR.

The biggest difficulty is the negative fading which, for reasons I don't
fully understand, varies not only from panel to panel but also within
the panels themselves. Panel matching is difficult enough when you have
a perfectly stored and seldom run negative like HTWWW, but when you've
got variations all over the place it becomes a real battle of nerves to
try to pull off a seamless look to the film. In fact, it's impossible
but those panel joins were always there and they'll probably wind up
looking better than ever. I do know that corrections are being made to
focus errors which cause the same object to appear in two adjoining
panels like the famous three-legged woman at La Scala in TIC.

I get exhausted just describing some of the problems that have had to be
resolved. Doing the same job on a beat up 70mm negative would be child's
play by comparison with the tasks that three panels create.

Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
www.widescreenmuseum.com
Scott Dorsey
2012-02-29 14:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Hart
As I have mentioned before, each six perf frame is being scanned at 2K.
I don't know how that relates to standard 35mm format which is merely 3
perfs for 1.85, but it's twice as much information, obviously. Then the
three 35mm scans are married together at full resolution. From that all
the necessary resolutions are derived, including DVD, Blu-ray, and
theatrical rez, whatever that is.
Doing something like that effectively gives you slightly better resolution
than a 4K scan. That's not as good as the originals, not even as good as a
top-notch 35mm print, but it's respectable and usable on a big screen.
Post by Martin Hart
I've seen some of the footage and it looks pretty good. Of course a
contact print off pristine negatives would be optimum but, believe me,
these are not pristine negatives. Scratches and dirt are a problem but
the proprietary scanning system can actually see through dirt with a
separate infra-red pass and scratches are removed through the scanning
software as well. Each frame is scanned four times, red, green, blue and
IR.
If this is a Kinetta, it doesn't see through dirt. What happens with the
IR pass is that it _only_ sees dirt, so you get a frame that shows only the
defects. This allows you to go through with software that replaces the
dirty pixels with the same color as adjacent ones. It works remarkably well
on 35mm although it can have some bizarre artifacts on 16mm reversal originals
because the scratches and dirt are much larger compared with the frame.

The image dyes are transparent to IR so the image itself does not show up on
the IR pass. Unfortunately this doesn't work with B&W film where the silver
image shows up on the IR pass.
Post by Martin Hart
The biggest difficulty is the negative fading which, for reasons I don't
fully understand, varies not only from panel to panel but also within
the panels themselves.
It's because the fading is caused by light and air and residual junk. If
the washing is not completely even, the fading may not be even. If the air
flow is not completely even, the fading may not be even. I see prints where
three reels were packed on cores together and the two on the sides fade a
little more than the one in the middle.
Post by Martin Hart
Panel matching is difficult enough when you have
a perfectly stored and seldom run negative like HTWWW, but when you've
got variations all over the place it becomes a real battle of nerves to
try to pull off a seamless look to the film. In fact, it's impossible
but those panel joins were always there and they'll probably wind up
looking better than ever. I do know that corrections are being made to
focus errors which cause the same object to appear in two adjoining
panels like the famous three-legged woman at La Scala in TIC.
I think leaving the focus errors there is a good thing... some of the
artifacts of the original are what make the original interesting and
unique.

Is the dustbusting and color correction being done on the composited frames
or on the original frames? If the color correction can be done on the
original frames then it should be relatively easy to go out and do a
filmout from the original frames... giving you three strips of 35mm that
have been color-corrected and dustbusted and are ready for showing at the
Dome.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
CineSIght
2012-02-19 09:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered.  They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
Not true cinerama .More dimension 150. Definately no good for cinerama
due to the steep angle of the projected picture.Worse still is that
they are going to project  digital copies of the original cinerama
films onto their  over-sized  screen  next september to celebrate the
60th anniversary of cinerama.I don't call that a celebration.Like I
have said before in these columns, there is  nowhere   today where you
can see the original cinerama  as we  saw it in the fifties and early
sixties.Even Bradford in the United Kingdom does  not give you the
real cinerama effect and  Seattle's flaws are tragic.Cinerama fans
today do,not have that memory and never will sadly. I was lucky enough
to have seen Cinerama in  four countries including the famed Warner
and Capitol in New York City. Does  anyone else remember those  good
old days. It would be good to hear from them in this column. The worst
tragedy was how they stored the  original negatives  for several
decades.Now that was  criminal.Unfortunately all we are now left with
is digital copies that will NEVER  replicate the same quality and
experience.
I saw 2001 at Loews Capitol and it was very impressive but I was a
kid.

There's a lot I don't like about the Dome, a combination of bad decor
choices, cheap workarounds for big problems that don't really work,
keystoning, horizon sag from the throw angle, lax presentation, etc.
even at their Cinerama and other "event" shows, careless staff... I
don't go there much anymore.

What's wrong with Bradford other than being somewhat smaller and on a
stage? It's 146 louvered, right?

Seattle has 146 floor to ceiling and louvers... What's tragic if they
were to properly align and anchor the louvers? (besides that wavy
star ceiling cutting off the top of the picture on the Cinerama
screen) Seems at least they have the potential of replicating the 3
strip experience.
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-19 12:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by CineSIght
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered.  They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
Not true cinerama .More dimension 150. Definately no good for cinerama
due to the steep angle of the projected picture.Worse still is that
they are going to project  digital copies of the original cinerama
films onto their  over-sized  screen  next september to celebrate the
60th anniversary of cinerama.I don't call that a celebration.Like I
have said before in these columns, there is  nowhere   today where you
can see the original cinerama  as we  saw it in the fifties and early
sixties.Even Bradford in the United Kingdom does  not give you the
real cinerama effect and  Seattle's flaws are tragic.Cinerama fans
today do,not have that memory and never will sadly. I was lucky enough
to have seen Cinerama in  four countries including the famed Warner
and Capitol in New York City. Does  anyone else remember those  good
old days. It would be good to hear from them in this column. The worst
tragedy was how they stored the  original negatives  for several
decades.Now that was  criminal.Unfortunately all we are now left with
is digital copies that will NEVER  replicate the same quality and
experience.
I saw 2001 at Loews Capitol and it was very impressive but I was a
kid.
There's a lot I don't like about the Dome, a combination of bad decor
choices, cheap workarounds for big problems that don't really work,
keystoning, horizon sag from the throw angle, lax presentation, etc.
even at their Cinerama and other "event" shows, careless staff...  I
don't go there much anymore.
What's wrong with Bradford other than being somewhat smaller and on a
stage?  It's 146 louvered, right?
Seattle has 146 floor to ceiling and louvers... What's tragic if they
were to properly align and anchor the louvers?  (besides that wavy
star ceiling cutting off the top of the picture on the Cinerama
screen)  Seems at least they have the potential of replicating the 3
strip experience.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What's wrong with Bradford? You already answered your own question.I
have never heard of or seen Cinerama on a stage- (at least in the
good old days of seeing cinerama in about 20 cinemas).) You don't get
the feeling of being "in the picture".That was a HUGE part of the
Cinerama experience.Us traditionalists don't like seeing How The West
Was Won with the joining lines digitally removed. The new Windjammer
and This Is Cinerama trailers only look so-so on my large TV in
digital.Digital cinema has a long way to go especially if blown up
to the Dome's 90ft screen.. How many people who have seen digital
prints of Cinerama on a large screen were actually impressed with
it? It seems the idea today is to show digital films on screens
that are far too big for the experience to be enjoyable.The louder
the sound and larger the screen,the worse the film looks.Even
seeing Imax in digital on our local 100ft screen is disappointing but
then again,I hate Imax. I shudder at how the new digital prints of
Oklahoma and South Pacific will look when projected onto large cinema
screens in Melbourne this month. What is wrong with showing the
films in 70mm as they were intended to be seen .The Astor has a
fantastic 70mm screen so will anyone bother to see the films in
digital while 70mm prints are available?There is no reason for
this except that digital is cheaper and to hell with the 70mm
experience.
CineSIght
2012-02-19 22:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by CineSIght
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
No, it's never been more than 126, and not louvered.  They use a sheet
screen which has a prominent belly in the middle.
Not true cinerama .More dimension 150. Definately no good for cinerama
due to the steep angle of the projected picture.Worse still is that
they are going to project  digital copies of the original cinerama
films onto their  over-sized  screen  next september to celebrate the
60th anniversary of cinerama.I don't call that a celebration.Like I
have said before in these columns, there is  nowhere   today where you
can see the original cinerama  as we  saw it in the fifties and early
sixties.Even Bradford in the United Kingdom does  not give you the
real cinerama effect and  Seattle's flaws are tragic.Cinerama fans
today do,not have that memory and never will sadly. I was lucky enough
to have seen Cinerama in  four countries including the famed Warner
and Capitol in New York City. Does  anyone else remember those  good
old days. It would be good to hear from them in this column. The worst
tragedy was how they stored the  original negatives  for several
decades.Now that was  criminal.Unfortunately all we are now left with
is digital copies that will NEVER  replicate the same quality and
experience.
I saw 2001 at Loews Capitol and it was very impressive but I was a
kid.
There's a lot I don't like about the Dome, a combination of bad decor
choices, cheap workarounds for big problems that don't really work,
keystoning, horizon sag from the throw angle, lax presentation, etc.
even at their Cinerama and other "event" shows, careless staff...  I
don't go there much anymore.
What's wrong with Bradford other than being somewhat smaller and on a
stage?  It's 146 louvered, right?
Seattle has 146 floor to ceiling and louvers... What's tragic if they
were to properly align and anchor the louvers?  (besides that wavy
star ceiling cutting off the top of the picture on the Cinerama
screen)  Seems at least they have the potential of replicating the 3
strip experience.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What's wrong with Bradford? You already answered your own question.I
have never  heard of  or seen Cinerama on a stage- (at least in the
good old days of seeing cinerama in about 20 cinemas).) You don't get
the feeling  of being "in the picture".That was a HUGE part of the
Cinerama experience.Us traditionalists  don't like seeing How The West
Was Won with the  joining lines digitally removed. The new Windjammer
and This Is Cinerama   trailers only  look  so-so on my large TV in
digital.Digital  cinema has a long way to go  especially if blown up
to the Dome's 90ft screen..  How many people who have seen digital
prints of Cinerama on a large screen were  actually   impressed with
it? It seems the idea today is to   show  digital films on  screens
that are far too big  for the experience to be enjoyable.The louder
the sound and  larger the screen,the worse the film looks.Even
seeing  Imax in digital on our local 100ft screen is disappointing but
then again,I hate Imax. I shudder at how the new  digital prints of
Oklahoma and South Pacific will look when projected onto large cinema
screens in Melbourne this month. What is wrong with  showing the
films in 70mm as they were  intended to be seen .The Astor has a
fantastic 70mm screen so  will anyone bother to see the films   in
digital  while 70mm prints are   available?There is no reason for
this except that digital is cheaper and to hell with the  70mm
experience.
Actually a lot of the early Cinerama installations, from the very
first, were on a stage level and extended outward from there. Not
saying I prefer that, just saying I wouldn't condemn Bradford for it
(not that I've been there).

I've seen South Pacific in digital at the Dome. They apparently did
no tech runthrough or did not care that they were not filling the
screen... a couple feet at the bottom middle and more at the sides
were blank, even with the Dome's fake optical illusion cheat to hide
keystoning by rounding the bottom masking UP toward the ends. The
tape had a blank space where the intermission should be - bad
presentation again. Last time I saw HTWWW there, they had an annoying
constant howl on the soundtrack from halfway through act one to the
end of the movie. No apologies or compensation were made for this by
management.

Did I miss the explanation of why Seattle is a disaster? Not ideal I
get, but again what's wrong that can't be fixed by anchoring the
louvers?
Scott Dorsey
2012-02-20 01:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by CineSIght
presentation again. Last time I saw HTWWW there, they had an annoying
constant howl on the soundtrack from halfway through act one to the
end of the movie. No apologies or compensation were made for this by
management.
The first generation Dolby magsound amps are very close to being unstable
as is; if you turn the gap compensation up too high they break out into
oscillation. When the capacitors inside get old and dried out they get
even more prone to breaking out into noise. Unfortunately too many
projectionists are hard of hearing and can't hear the high frequency whistles.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
CineSIght
2012-02-20 04:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
presentation again.  Last time I saw HTWWW there, they had an annoying
constant howl on the soundtrack from halfway through act one to the
end of the movie.  No apologies or compensation were made for this by
management.
The first generation Dolby magsound amps are very close to being unstable
as is; if you turn the gap compensation up too high they break out into
oscillation.  When the capacitors inside get old and dried out they get
even more prone to breaking out into noise.  Unfortunately too many
projectionists are hard of hearing and can't hear the high frequency whistles.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Three different projectionists, not quite that old, it was not a
subtle noise, and it's not like someone on the theatre staff couldn't
have told them, at Intermission if not before.
Derek Gee
2012-02-20 03:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Us traditionalists don't like seeing How The West Was Won with the
joining lines >digitally removed.
Are you serious? Why would you want to see the ugly join lines when they
can be fixed? Even Cinerama, Inc. wanted them gone and spent money
discussing ways to improve the system. To hell with "Tradition" in this
instance! I suppose you'd rather have the non-Ultra Restoration versions of
the Warner Home Video product too...
The new Windjammer and This Is Cinerama trailers only look so-so on my
large TV in
digital.
And what does that prove? If you got those trailers off of You Tube,
they're only 720p HD, not the full 1080p HD your set is probably capable of
displaying.
Digital cinema has a long way to go especially if blown up
to the Dome's 90ft screen.. How many people who have seen digital
prints of Cinerama on a large screen were actually impressed with
it? It seems the idea today is to show digital films on screens
that are far too big for the experience to be enjoyable.The louder
the sound and larger the screen,the worse the film looks.
Hang on, new laser-based digital projectors are coming. I've heard that
IMAX theaters will be getting them first in 2013. But then again, you hate
IMAX.
Even seeing Imax in digital on our local 100ft screen is disappointing but
then again,I hate Imax.
I love film-based IMAX, but the current digital IMAX doesn't cut it.
I shudder at how the new digital prints of
Oklahoma and South Pacific will look when projected onto large cinema
screens in Melbourne this month. What is wrong with showing the
films in 70mm as they were intended to be seen .The Astor has a
fantastic 70mm screen so will anyone bother to see the films in
digital while 70mm prints are available?There is no reason for
this except that digital is cheaper and to hell with the 70mm
experience.
I can understand your disappointment at not getting 70mm when prints are
available.

Derek
Martin Hart
2012-02-19 02:14:16 UTC
Permalink
In article <bb37483e-23b5-4943-8e71-c2c7bc7e0955
@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, ***@sbcglobal.net says...
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
The Cinerama Dome was designed, as were later Cinerama theatres, with a
120 degree sheet screen. At 120 degrees the cross reflections are not
the same problem that the 146 degree screen presents and thus the
louvres are not mandatory. That said, I strongly feel, and I'm not the
only one who feels this way, that the three strip films are definitely
better when projected on a 146 degree screen.

Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
www.widescreenmuseum.com
Larry
2012-02-20 04:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees. Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets. Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets. I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking. I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation. The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama. Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience. I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format. I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message. I goofed but an resending it. Larry
r***@sbcglobal.net
2012-02-20 22:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres - http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Mutley
2012-02-21 02:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres - http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.

Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ. By the way.
One update for that . The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-21 05:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutley
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres -http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.
Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ.   By the way.
One update for that .  The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Auckland screen was small but cinerama looked great if you sat
near the screen. Not so good if you sat in the uptairs lounge.I saw
Bros Grimm and HTWWW there.It was the 45th cinerama cinema in the
world.I have several photos of it and details regarding the cinerama
installation ..Another little know fact about the cinema: a very
large sealed and forgotten room was found during the cinerama
installation which took 4 months.It was the smallest of all the 20 or
so cinerama screens that I saw in 4 countries.I was also lucky to
have worked for Amalgamated theatres in NZ during the cinerama era.
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-21 05:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutley
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres -http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.
Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ.   By the way.
One update for that .  The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Auckland screen was  small but cinerama looked great if you sat
near the screen. Not so good if you sat in the uptairs lounge.I saw
Bros Grimm and HTWWW there.It was the 45th cinerama cinema in the
world.I have several photos of   it and details regarding the cinerama
installation ..Another little know fact about the cinema: a   very
large  sealed  and forgotten  room  was found  during the cinerama
installation which took 4 months.It was the smallest of all the  20 or
so cinerama  screens that I saw in 4 countries.I was also lucky to
have worked  for Amalgamated theatres in NZ  during the cinerama era.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: further to a question above re why was the Seattle screen a
disaster for cinerama? Well a large awning on the ceiling shone
onto the screen so that the top 18 inches on the picture hed to be
covered with black masking. This got a lot of criticism from
cinerama fans at the time.
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-21 05:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
Post by Mutley
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres -http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.
Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ.   By the way.
One update for that .  The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Auckland screen was  small but cinerama looked great if you sat
near the screen. Not so good if you sat in the uptairs lounge.I saw
Bros Grimm and HTWWW there.It was the 45th cinerama cinema in the
world.I have several photos of   it and details regarding the cinerama
installation ..Another little know fact about the cinema: a   very
large  sealed  and forgotten  room  was found  during the cinerama
installation which took 4 months.It was the smallest of all the  20 or
so cinerama  screens that I saw in 4 countries.I was also lucky to
have worked  for Amalgamated theatres in NZ  during the cinerama era.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
RE: further to a question above re why was the Seattle screen a
disaster for cinerama? Well a  large  awning  on  the ceiling   shone
onto the screen  so that the top  18 inches on the picture hed to be
covered  with black masking. This  got a lot of criticism   from
cinerama fans   at the time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
further to another article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however get the trailers on dvd from the USA
BEFORE they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd quality was
100% the digital trailers did not impress me.
Derek Gee
2012-02-22 01:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@HOTMAIL.COM
further to another article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however get the trailers on dvd from the USA
BEFORE they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd quality was
100% the digital trailers did not impress me.
Was this a standard DVD to go in a DVD player, or a data DVD with files to
be played back, or an AVCHD disk?

Derek
g***@HOTMAIL.COM
2012-02-23 04:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Gee
further to another  article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use   utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however   get  the trailers  on dvd from the USA
BEFORE  they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd  quality was
100%  the  digital  trailers did not impress me.
Was this a standard DVD to go in a DVD player, or a data DVD with files to
be played back, or an AVCHD disk?
Derek
standard dvd- it had a lot of other cinerama stuff on the dvd.as well
Derek Gee
2012-02-24 00:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Gee
further to another article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however get the trailers on dvd from the USA
BEFORE they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd quality was
100% the digital trailers did not impress me.
Was this a standard DVD to go in a DVD player, or a data DVD with files to
be played back, or an AVCHD disk?
Derek
standard dvd- it had a lot of other cinerama stuff on the dvd.as well
Then I wouldn't expect it to look too swift when up-rezzed to HD. That's
going to look very soft compared to a genuine HD presentation.

D
CineSIght
2012-02-24 01:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Gee
further to another article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however get the trailers on dvd from the USA
BEFORE they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd quality was
100% the digital trailers did not impress me.
Was this a standard DVD to go in a DVD player, or a data DVD with files to
be played back, or an AVCHD disk?
Derek
standard dvd- it had a lot of other cinerama stuff on the dvd.as well
Then I wouldn't expect it to look too swift when up-rezzed to HD.  That's
going to look very soft compared to a genuine HD presentation.
D
http://in70mm.com/news/2011/cinerama/index.htm
Derek Gee
2012-02-27 01:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Gee
further to another article above re the new trailers for TIC and
windjammer- I never use utube so I didn't download them from the
internet. I did however get the trailers on dvd from the USA
BEFORE they were put on the internet. Alhough the dvd quality was
100% the digital trailers did not impress me.
Was this a standard DVD to go in a DVD player, or a data DVD with files to
be played back, or an AVCHD disk?
Derek
standard dvd- it had a lot of other cinerama stuff on the dvd.as well
Then I wouldn't expect it to look too swift when up-rezzed to HD. That's
going to look very soft compared to a genuine HD presentation.
D
http://in70mm.com/news/2011/cinerama/index.htm
I think you may have missed my point, CineSIght. I was commenting that
using a standard definition DVD of the Cinerama restoration on an HD set at
home will look very soft. It needed to be a Blu-ray or AVCHD disk in order
to display full HD resolution.

D
r***@sbcglobal.net
2012-02-25 18:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutley
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres -http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.
Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ.   By the way.
One update for that .  The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Auckland screen was  small but cinerama looked great if you sat
near the screen. Not so good if you sat in the uptairs lounge.I saw
Bros Grimm and HTWWW there.It was the 45th cinerama cinema in the
world.I have several photos of   it and details regarding the cinerama
installation ..Another little know fact about the cinema: a   very
large  sealed  and forgotten  room  was found  during the cinerama
installation which took 4 months.It was the smallest of all the  20 or
so cinerama  screens that I saw in 4 countries.I was also lucky to
have worked  for Amalgamated theatres in NZ  during the cinerama era.
I would love to add any pictures you have of Cinerama theatres to the
http://cineramahistory.com web site!
r***@sbcglobal.net
2012-02-25 18:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mutley
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Larry
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
I think someone said when it's fully opened for 3-strip its about 146.
Roland, as I think you probably know,
I have seen all the movies which carried the Cinerama logo  (3 strip
and 70mm ) which were shown in the U.S. except Best of Cinerama  - in
U.S. ,Canada, Mexico, Thailand, Philippines and Japan. Over 20
theaters in all. Most of these screens were 146 degrees and louvered.
The Indian Hills theater in Omaha as far as I know had the largest
screen about 125 by 35, louvered and 146 degrees.  Some of the screens
I saw were significantly smaller but I don't recall any 3 strip that
were sheets.  Of course several theaters which projected 70mm were
solid sheets.  I agree that the original Cinerama experience was
breathtaking.  I have never been to Bradford so I cannot evaluate
their presentation.  The Dome and Seattle, while the best we have
currently available in the states, both do have problems as many
people are happy to point out. I have seen the true 3 strip, 70mm
conversions and digital reconstuctions at the Dome. Considering the
age, poor storage conditions and general disinterest in the films,
they are impressive. A few years ago I thought I would never see any
of the travelogs again, let alone in Cinerama.  Dave Strohmaier and
others have done a terrific job in bringing these back to us in a
format which at least significantly approaches the original
experience.  I for one am happy that any effort is being put forth to
save these films in any format.  I thought I was posting this rep;ly
to your original message.  I goofed but an resending it.  Larry
Thanks for all the responses guys. Going over my list of Cinerama
theatres -http://cineramahistory.com/ctcineramatheatres.htm, most of
the Cinerama theatres that opened in the 60's had 120 degree screens,
some had 146 and others only 90.
Thanx Roland for the website.
Nice to see my old favorite The Auckland Cinerama, NZ.   By the way.
One update for that .  The multiplex built on that site closed about
10 years ago and is currently empty awaiting development.
I'll add that to my next update in March.
Loading...