Ben-Hur premiere 50 years ago
Jim Nason
Ben-Hur took place at 8:00 p.m. at Loew's State Theatre in New York. I
believe it played at the theater for 74 consecutive weeks in its original
anamorphic 70mm and six channel sound. It was, in its day, more of an event
than the opening of a film in today's world. I don't think that can be
adequately conveyed to most people who were not around at the time. I am
posting to two newsgroups because I enjoy both, and because the subject is
mutually appropriate.
Jim Nason
calvin
In college in Atlanta, I saw it in it's original presentation at the
Roxy
Theater. The impression it made visually, and in sound and music,
and grand spectacle, has never been equaled, it seems to me. All
of its aspects may have been equalled, but not the impression made.
Mutley
50 years ago. Gee I am getting old. I remember it here in the road
show days. I still have the reserve seat ticket somewhere.. Years
latter I saw it again on the Cinerama screen That sure looked good.
Mr. Mike
<jhn...@metrocast.net> wrote:
>believe it played at the theater for 74 consecutive weeks in its original
>anamorphic 70mm and six channel sound.
It ran for 54 weeks at the Stanley Theatre in Vancouver, BC, where I
saw it.
There is a scene at the beginning where some kid runs up a ladder to
watch Roman soldiers who are approaching in the distance. I remember
feeling as if I was actually going up the ladder with the kid (such
was the sharpness of the image) ... something which I also experienced
many years later when I again saw this film in 70mm in Seattle.
Michael Coate
yesterday at the Cinema Treasures website. It may interest some of you
guys as it cites many of the original roadshow runs of the film.
Richard
<jhn...@metrocast.net> wrote:
Do you know if they run it 74 weeks with ONE print or if they had
to use more ?
calvin
The Roxy in Atlanta was destroyed back in the sixties
when the Westin Peachtree hotel tower (the round one)
was built partly on the site. Before 'Ben-Hur', the Roxy
had shown Cinerama and Todd-AO. I saw 'The Seven
Wonders of the World' and 'Around the World in 80 Days'
there. Also the original roadshow productions of 'South
Pacific', 'Spartacus', and others.
Though the Fox was, and still is, Atlanta's most ornate
and impressive theater, the Roxy's physical layout was
more conducive to (in fact perfect for) the showing of the
wide and deeply curved screen showings of Cinerams,
Todd AO, Camera 65, and other such processes of the
era.
Martin Hart
@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, cri...@windstream.net says...
It should be noted that Camera 65 was not a curved screen process and
MGM specified that only flat screens be used in the presentation of
"Ben-Hur". Only Cinerama, Todd-AO and Cinemiracle were specifically
designed for the use of a DEEPLY curved screen, though screens of
substantially lesser curvature were relatively common. "Ben-Hur", which
has no significant wide angle photography, does not benefit from being
shown on a deep curve, except to those that just love deep curves.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
calvin
wrote:
I don't believe you, not that you should care. Any movie
should be shown on a screen that has the left, center, and
right equally distant from the projector, and that means
curvature. I will retract the word, 'deeply', though. No
matter what the process, the screen should curve such that
it is an arc of a circle for which the projector is the center.
The distance from projector to screen determines whether
or not 'deeply' applies.
Cinerama is the exception, because it has three projectors.
In its case, each third of the screen should be curved
according to its individual projector.
Of course, actual theater arrangements are never more than
approximations of these ideals.
moviePig
I'm no authority either, but I think common sense applies: Unless the
film gate is reciprocally curved (never, afaik), there's no intrinsic
longing by the projector-lens to have a curved screen. Also, Cinerama
is the exception not because it has three projectors, but merely
because its audience is placed *inside* its screen's wraparound --
e.g., so that left-side action occurs "behind" a viewer focused on
right-side action -- and, in theory, this requirement affects only how
the shot is *framed*. (Thus, the framing was sometimes artificial...
as in HOW THE WEST WAS WON, where face-to-face dialogue occurs between
left- and right-edge characters who in reality were speaking towards
empty space.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
(Mr. Hart *is* an authority, but that doesn't stop arrogant
people like me from disagreeing with him.)
It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
calvin
> It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
> be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
> whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
> This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
> distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
> to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
Actually, there are theoretical screen height issues too, because,
unless the screen is tilted to face the projector, the top and
bottom, let alone the middle, are different distances from the
projector. I don't know how much the focus differences are expected
to be, side to side or top to bottom, but common sense, which you
tried to use against me, clearly argues for focus differences
to be a theoretical issue if not all parts of the screen are
equidistant from the projector.
moviePig
(He may even be the source of my HOW THE WEST example...)
> It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
> be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
> whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
> This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
> distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
> to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
Instead of seeing the projector as a radiant point of light, consider
its lens a pinhole, replicating a (small) flat image inside onto a
(big) flat surface outside. Notice that messing with the screen's
flatness messes with the replication's faithfulness. Optics can
correct for such things, of course, but flat-to-flat is Nature's way,
afaics...
calvin
But it isn't a pinhole. It *is* a radiant point of light.
Are you claiming, to take an extreme example,
that if the screen was cut in half, and one side pushed
twice as far back, that the focus would be the same
on each half?
I'm aware of the universal focus of pinholes. I believe
that the first cameras used pinholes instead of lenses.
But theater projectors do not have universal focus.
I'm sure that you have seen focus adjusted (after audience
cries of "focus") in theaters.
moviePig
For a pinhole, there is no 'focus'. There's only the matter of a
consistent-appearing projected image ...which such a "pushed back"
screen would destroy for any viewer not positioned exactly upon the
pinhole itself.
Instead, the idea is effectively to hang a picture frame on the wall,
a frame which the viewer will interpret "correctly" from a variety of
angles ...e.g., just as he does when strolling past the Mona Lisa.
> I'm aware of the universal focus of pinholes. I believe
> that the first cameras used pinholes instead of lenses.
> But theater projectors do not have universal focus.
> I'm sure that you have seen focus adjusted (after audience
> cries of "focus") in theaters.
But, iirc, the earliest and simplest lenses merely sought to sharpen
the pinhole's "circle of confusion" (the circle thrown by an
infinitesimal point of light positioned at the source focal-plane,
determining the projected image's maximum resolution). That
sharpening sought to allow wider -- and thus brighter -- pinholes.
And, again afaik, those simplest (near sphere-segment?) lenses resolve
planes into planes ...with any other sort of behavior comprising a
relatively difficult-to-achieve "correction"...
calvin
That's what I meant by 'universal focus' and you know it.
Why quibble about that?
> There's only the matter of a
> consistent-appearing projected image ...which such a "pushed back"
> screen would destroy for any viewer not positioned exactly upon the
> pinhole itself.
You insist on talking about a pinhole. I don't yet admit that a
a movie projector is, in effect, a pinhole. In any case, I asked
a simple question: Do you claim that the focus would be the
same on each half of a screen when one half is twice as far
away from the projector as the other half? Since you insist on
talking about a pinhole, I guess you do claim that, but it would
be nice if you would say so.
I wasn't saying anything about an audience member's
positioning. You're shifting the subject, as usual.
> Instead, the idea is effectively to hang a picture frame on the wall,
> a frame which the viewer will interpret "correctly" from a variety of
> angles ...e.g., just as he does when strolling past the Mona Lisa.
Again, I was only talking about focus at varying distances from the
projector. You're going off on an irrelevant tangent.
> > I'm aware of the universal focus of pinholes. I believe
> > that the first cameras used pinholes instead of lenses.
> > But theater projectors do not have universal focus.
> > I'm sure that you have seen focus adjusted (after audience
> > cries of "focus") in theaters.
>
> But, iirc, the earliest and simplest lenses merely sought to sharpen
> the pinhole's "circle of confusion" (the circle thrown by an
> infinitesimal point of light positioned at the source focal-plane,
> determining the projected image's maximum resolution). That
> sharpening sought to allow wider -- and thus brighter -- pinholes.
I have no disagreement with any of that.
> And, again afaik, those simplest (near sphere-segment?) lenses resolve
> planes into planes ...with any other sort of behavior comprising a
> relatively difficult-to-achieve "correction"...
So far you have avoided what I think is the central issue (though
in practical terms it may not be an issue), that focus varies with
distance from the projector. If it is perfect at 100 feet, then it
will
be off at 200 feet (if unaltered). I claim it because I don't (yet)
accept
your pinhole analogy.
I'm willing to be convinced. We once had an argument about 3D
in which you finally convinced me. I'm not trying to be obtuse.
The Giant Brain
news:edce760c-ad70-492a...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>... I'm not trying to be obtuse.
But you're succeeding...
moviePig
Always good to learn what I'm *really* thinking. Unguided, I'd
wandered into the idea of 'universal focus' referring to a cheap,
fixed-focus, narrow-aperture lens with a depth-of-field supposedly
including infinity. Now I see that I was merely quibbling and
dissembling...
> > There's only the matter of a
> > consistent-appearing projected image ...which such a "pushed back"
> > screen would destroy for any viewer not positioned exactly upon the
> > pinhole itself.
>
> You insist on talking about a pinhole. I don't yet admit that a
> a movie projector is, in effect, a pinhole. In any case, I asked
> a simple question: Do you claim that the focus would be the
> same on each half of a screen when one half is twice as far
> away from the projector as the other half? Since you insist on
> talking about a pinhole, I guess you do claim that, but it would
> be nice if you would say so.
>
> I wasn't saying anything about an audience member's
> positioning. You're shifting the subject, as usual.
Yes, I'm incorrigible in switching the subject toward relevance. It's
a bad habit.
Recall that an infinitesimal pinhole is in effect a "perfect" lens. I
used it to clarify the film-to-screen relationship.
Re your question: Indeed, a typical projector focuses at a single
plane. (But notice how that applies to both the film- and the screen-
planes. I.e., because the film's a plane, the screen wants to be one,
too.)
> > Instead, the idea is effectively to hang a picture frame on the wall,
> > a frame which the viewer will interpret "correctly" from a variety of
> > angles ...e.g., just as he does when strolling past the Mona Lisa.
>
> Again, I was only talking about focus at varying distances from the
> projector. You're going off on an irrelevant tangent.
Not irrelevant. I presented what the planar screen is preserving, and
what your curved screen is destroying absent corrective measures.
> > > I'm aware of the universal focus of pinholes. I believe
> > > that the first cameras used pinholes instead of lenses.
> > > But theater projectors do not have universal focus.
> > > I'm sure that you have seen focus adjusted (after audience
> > > cries of "focus") in theaters.
>
> > But, iirc, the earliest and simplest lenses merely sought to sharpen
> > the pinhole's "circle of confusion" (the circle thrown by an
> > infinitesimal point of light positioned at the source focal-plane,
> > determining the projected image's maximum resolution). That
> > sharpening sought to allow wider -- and thus brighter -- pinholes.
>
> I have no disagreement with any of that.
>
> > And, again afaik, those simplest (near sphere-segment?) lenses resolve
> > planes into planes ...with any other sort of behavior comprising a
> > relatively difficult-to-achieve "correction"...
>
> So far you have avoided what I think is the central issue (though
> in practical terms it may not be an issue), that focus varies with
> distance from the projector. If it is perfect at 100 feet, then it
> will be off at 200 feet (if unaltered). I claim it because I don't (yet)
> accept your pinhole analogy.
>
> I'm willing to be convinced. We once had an argument about 3D
> in which you finally convinced me. I'm not trying to be obtuse.
You seem to feel that the projector's task will be "aided" if it has
only a single throw-distance to deal with ...i.e., minimal disparity
between screen-center and -corner. But you seem to forget that
exactly the same proportional disparity occurs between film-center and
-corner ...and that the two disparities -- one on each side of the
lens -- cancel each other out.
(Note that my favorite theater employs a physically wide, clearly
curved screen, with a substantial audience able to sit near its center
of curvature. But I'm quite sure that only expensive projection-booth
optics afford me that excellent viewing experience.)
moviePig
I've thought some more about it, and find my preceding claim about
lens focal planes may be completely off-base. Ignore it, and I'll get
back to you...
calvin
> ...
> You seem to feel that the projector's task will be "aided" if it has
> only a single throw-distance to deal with ...i.e., minimal disparity
> between screen-center and -corner. But you seem to forget that
> exactly the same proportional disparity occurs between film-center and
> -corner ...and that the two disparities -- one on each side of the
> lens -- cancel each other out.
I have often thought about the fact that a flat film
frame is being projected onto a curved screen, and
have thought that it would be nice if the film could
be slightly buckled as it passed through the projector
so that it would match the curvature of the screen. I
have no doubt that this would be an impractical and
probably needless thing to do, but it had occurred
to me.
If one draws a picture as seen from above, showing
a small triangle inside the projector, with the film
frame represented by the base of the triangle, and
the opposite apex at a projecting pinhole lens, and extending
the lines out to form a similar but much larger triangle
whose base is a flat screen, then the proportions of the
images on the film frame obviously will be the same as the
proportions on the flat screen. A knowledge of elementary
geometry tells me that. You seem to think that I'm not
comprehending it, though.
But, I can't get past the fact that this is not a simple matter of
light passing through a pinhole, which would conform to my
mental drawing. It is light passing through a lens, and that
means that what is in focus at the center of the screen will
not (theoretically) be in focus at the sides. Practically
speaking, it may not matter, however..
Like you, I prefer a noticably curved screen, and am willing
to put up with some distortion in order to have it. Though
it may only be a subjective illusion, I think panorama works
best on a curved screen, and I was therefore appalled when
Mr. Hart (who has a great web site, and even owns a Todd-AO
lens) said that MGM recommended a flat screen for Ben-Hur.
This movie has an aspect ratio even more extreme than
CinemaScope, and the very idea of intentionally projecting
it flat disturbs me no end. Thank goodness the Roxy
theater in Atlanta did not heed MGM's directions (which I
still doubt were given).
calvin
> ... when
> Mr. Hart (who has a great web site, and even owns a Todd-AO
> lens) said that MGM recommended a flat screen for Ben-Hur.
Though he gave the link to his website, here it is
again. I first discovered it a decade ago, and
communicated with Mr. Hart a bit in e-mail.
He has a very interesting Ben-Hur section too.
moviePig
Okay, I haven't been able to Google much that's satisfying ...but it
does seem that my elegant notion (in my paragraph quoted above) of
disparities "canceling out" is too good to be true. Nor,
unfortunately, do I accept your notion of curving the screen to ease
projection focus -- which did seem briefly to be a contender. Afaics,
e.g., only *one* point (on frame and screen) ever gets to be in
*perfect* focus at any one time ...and all the rest is compromise.
> Like you, I prefer a noticably curved screen, and am willing
> to put up with some distortion in order to have it. Though
> it may only be a subjective illusion, I think panorama works
> best on a curved screen, and I was therefore appalled when
> Mr. Hart (who has a great web site, and even owns a Todd-AO
> lens) said that MGM recommended a flat screen for Ben-Hur.
> This movie has an aspect ratio even more extreme than
> CinemaScope, and the very idea of intentionally projecting
> it flat disturbs me no end. Thank goodness the Roxy
> theater in Atlanta did not heed MGM's directions (which I
> still doubt were given).
In my Googling, I learned that Todd-AO avers that a viewer with his
cheek against a corner of their canonical curved screen can still get
a pretty good view. Accepting that is beyond my intuitive powers.
Meanwhile, though, note that there's no correlation between even a
very wide aspect ratio and the desirability of a curved screen. E.g.,
think of Da Vinci again, and The Last Supper...
calvin
> Meanwhile, though, note that there's no correlation between even a
> very wide aspect ratio and the desirability of a curved screen. E.g.,
> think of Da Vinci again, and The Last Supper...
I'm very much aware of the difference between 'widescreen'
and 'wide angle'. I've mentioned more than once that
Brian De Palma's 'The Untouchables' was filmed predominately
in both widescreen and wide angle. His constantly moving
wide angle camera work makes the movie worth seeing just
for that.
moviePig
But, then, that may be the reason that BEN-HUR asked for planar
projection ...i.e., that it *wasn't* shot in panoramic ("wraparound")
mode.
calvin
I understand that. I've never said that Ben-Hur was wide angle,
though I'm a bit surprised that some shots were not. But it's
hard to believe that curved screens would not be thought to
enhance in some sense the viewers' experience. It certainly
did mine, when I saw the original 70mm roadshow presentation
in an outstanding theater. MGM used a curved screen
suggestion in some of its artwork, that you can see at Mr. Hart's
website.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense that MGM would suggest
flatness, considering the fact that theaters with 70mm six-track
stereo capability all would have had curved screens. Another wide
screen, but probably not wide angle movie was 2001, but it was
touted as Cinerama, though it was ordinary 70mm projection. It was
MGM too, I believe, though it was nine years later than Ben-Hur.
moviePig
2001:ASO was, of course, released in Cinerama theaters -- then the
highest quality available -- even though its single-camera Ultra-
Panavision 70 (or something like that) didn't quite use the full
Cinerama screen-width. However, some shots were practically fish-eye,
so I suspect Kubrick respected his destination venue. Again, though,
wraparound-movies are a different animal from their normal
counterparts. Although it's always cool to sit "inside" the projected
image, it's a very specialized perspective, making real sense only
when the material's been shot that way.
calvin
I can think of only one 2001 scene that was very wide angle,
but one is enough to make your point. A couple of months ago
I watched the two extremes, both filmed in Todd-AO. 'South Pacific'
had nothing wide angle, though of course it was all widescreen
and 70mm. 'Around the World in 80 Days' was all wide angle and
widescreen, and did extensive 'immersive' shooting, putting the
viewer 'inside' the projected image, as you say. Of course I could
only simulate the theater experience by placing my chair close
to my monitor screen, but the difference between wide angle/widescreen
and 'ordinary' widescreen is immediately obvious. And of course
wide angle does not have to be widescreen, as many true IMAX
films have demonstrated.
The worst example of sub-ordinary fake widescreen, and
emphatically not wide angle, was the 70mm print of 'Gone
With the Wind', made by slicing off the top and bottom of
the 35mm frames and remastering a new 'widescreen'
negative. In Washington DC it was shown in the same
fine roadshow theater, the Uptown, where many great 70mm
productions were projected. All prints of this monstrosity
should have been burned, in my opinion, as I've said here
before.
William Hooper
when I looked inside the booth at a platter house!
moviePig
(Rather than 'widescreen', 'wide angle', 'inside', etc., I suggest
'wide aspect' vs, 'panoramic'. Afaik, those aren't subject to
inherited misinterpretation.)
Similar treatment was wreaked on FANTASIA, but iirc its newly wide
aspect was achieved by putting the original image on the rack.
calvin
Yes, FANTASIA was stretched, and unfortunately that
version of it lasted for a long time, iirc.
The public seems to have a high tolerance for stretching,
even today; many people intentionally stretching 4:3 aspect
ratio film and video to fill their 16:9 screens.
Dymphna
Technicolor was amazing for holding it's true colors.
--
Dymphna
Message origin: www.TRAVEL.com
calvin
wrote:
> Technicolor was amazing for holding it's true colors.
The Technicolor was gorgeous on the DVD of
'The Adventures of Robin Hood' (1938) that I saw
a couple of months ago. Of course the movie
probably was restored, so the good color might
not necessarily be due to the Technicolor process.
Ultrascope
"'South Pacific' had nothing wide angle, though of course it was all
widescreen and 70mm. ' "
While it is true that SOUTH PACIFIC makes little use of wide angle
shots, there are a few. At least one wide angle shot was done with the
128-degree lens, you can see it at 2:28:32 (chapter 41, "Operation
Alligator" on my NTSC DVD Cat. No. 4110864) when Ray Walston adresses
the officers standing at the beach.
Other less extreme wide angle shots do look impressive on a curved
screen, like the day-for-night long shot at 1:27:00 (chapter 25), the
audiences at the show (chapter 31) or Lt. Cable looking up to the
trees on Bali Ha'i (chapter 22).
Joshua Logan's direction makes no use of Todd-AO's potential, he
always lines up his cast as he did on a theatre stage, not very
imaginative. The staging and editing of "I'm in Love With a Wonderful
Guy" is almost to bad to believe, bad continuity plus "artful"
vignetting in panning and moving shots. IMHO the only time Logan
managed to use widescreen properly was in BUS STOP.
Hugh Biggins
"Ultrascope" <ultra...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:36b043ef-ccde-4db2...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
It might be worth pointing out that although "South Pacific" was filmed in
Todd-AO, it was actually designed to be shown on a flat screen.
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto11.htm
calvin
> It might be worth pointing out that although "South Pacific" was filmed in
> Todd-AO, it was actually designed to be shown on a flat screen.
>
> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingto11.htm
Apparently this is true, and also the same thing said about
Ben-Hur and the Camera 65 process. I stand corrected, and
will shut up about it.
Martin Hart
@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, cri...@windstream.net says...
<SNIP>
> > It should be noted that Camera 65 was not a curved screen process and
> > MGM specified that only flat screens be used in the presentation of
> > "Ben-Hur". Only Cinerama, Todd-AO and Cinemiracle were specifically
> > designed for the use of a DEEPLY curved screen, though screens of
> > substantially lesser curvature were relatively common. "Ben-Hur", which
> > has no significant wide angle photography, does not benefit from being
> > shown on a deep curve, except to those that just love deep curves.
>
> I don't believe you, not that you should care. Any movie
> should be shown on a screen that has the left, center, and
> right equally distant from the projector, and that means
> curvature. I will retract the word, 'deeply', though. No
> matter what the process, the screen should curve such that
> it is an arc of a circle for which the projector is the center.
> The distance from projector to screen determines whether
> or not 'deeply' applies.
You're obviously not a lens designer. Lenses may be designed to yield a
flat image on a flat screen, in fact most projection modern lenses are
so designed. I've even had slide projectors that used flat field
projection optics.
The advent of screens curved to maintain the distance from the
projection lens are damned near flat in the first place. But the first
such screens were not implemented for sharp focus, which was
unnecessary, but to redirect the reflected light back to the center of
the auditorium where the paying customers were seated. This was
important because screen brightness became an issue when systems such as
CinemaScope doubled the screen width. With the aluminized "Miracle
Mirror" screen, a flat screen would reflect light at the edges toward
the auditorium walls. PLUS, it gave Fox a reason to make those
outrageous illustrations of screens that seem to be almost 180 degrees.
As Roger Thornhill said, it's merely expedient exaggeration.
> Cinerama is the exception, because it has three projectors.
> In its case, each third of the screen should be curved
> according to its individual projector.
If you hop in your Waybac machine you can correct Fred Waller and have
him redesign his screen, which actually had a 120 curve at the center
but had no curve in the 13 degrees at each edge of the screen.
> Of course, actual theater arrangements are never more than
> approximations of these ideals.
Precisely.
Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/
Martin Hart
975582...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cri...@windstream.net
says...
>
> (Mr. Hart *is* an authority, but that doesn't stop arrogant
> people like me from disagreeing with him.)
>
> It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
> be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
> whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
> This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
> distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
> to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
>
I have no idea if you're arrogant or not. I haven't really seen any
evidence to make me think so. But you are a tad uninformed on optics,
which is okay because I'm not a lens designer either. But facts is facts
and the absolutely sharpest projected images that I've ever seen were
screens that were flat.
With today's horrible multiplex theatres there's almost no significant
difference between the distance of any location on the screen to the
projector located way back in the narrow auditoriums. And even if a
metallic was in use, the projection angle would not direct much light
away from the audience.
I have a large screen home theatre using a triple LCD projector. While
the screen width is approximately ten feet, the projector is a scant 15
feet from it. According to your assumptions I would need a curved screen
to get perfect focus across the screen, but t'aint so. The lens focuses
a tack sharp image across the entire screen, which is easily determined
if you closely examine the projected image and look at the tiny lines
between pixels. And I was surprised at how precisely that lens focused
on a flat screen from that distance.
J. Theakston
wrote:
> The advent of screens curved to maintain the distance from the
> projection lens are damned near flat in the first place. But the first
> such screens were not implemented for sharp focus, which was
> unnecessary, but to redirect the reflected light back to the center of
> the auditorium where the paying customers were seated. This was
> important because screen brightness became an issue when systems such as
> CinemaScope doubled the screen width. With the aluminized "Miracle
> Mirror" screen, a flat screen would reflect light at the edges toward
> the auditorium walls. PLUS, it gave Fox a reason to make those
> outrageous illustrations of screens that seem to be almost 180 degrees.
> As Roger Thornhill said, it's merely expedient exaggeration.
Erm... yes and no. Where the most light ends up, of course, is
dependent on how well focused the lamphouse is. Another necessity for
the silver screen, of course, was that had you set up for 3D (still
going strong as of December '53), you weren't SOL in buying a 'scope
screen.
Of course, the most beneficial aspect of a curved screen for
CinemaScope was to hide barrel distortion. It's an optical illusion,
but an effective one.
J. Theakston
moviePig
wrote:
> In article <69fb3419-86c0-422b-bd10-
> 975582ca8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, cri...@windstream.net
Fwiw, the little I was able to glean from Googling suggested (to my
untrained ear) that those wonderfully intuitive flat-field optics are,
in fact, the product of considerable optical acrobatics ...and that,
given, say, a simple magnifying glass for a lens, a curved screen (and
film-frame, for that matter) *ought* to be all-round sharper. (An
educated guess, only... and I'd welcome anybody's more educated
one...)
Neil Midkiff
>
>>
>>> It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
>>> be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
>>> whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
>>> This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
>>> distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
>>> to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
>> which is okay because I'm not a lens designer either. But facts is facts
>> and the absolutely sharpest projected images that I've ever seen were
>> screens that were flat.
>
> untrained ear) that those wonderfully intuitive flat-field optics are,
> in fact, the product of considerable optical acrobatics ...and that,
> given, say, a simple magnifying glass for a lens, a curved screen (and
> film-frame, for that matter) *ought* to be all-round sharper. (An
> educated guess, only... and I'd welcome anybody's more educated
> one...)
But nobody has been using simple magnifying glasses for camera or
projector lenses since, oh, 1850 or so, more or less.
Yes, simple lens designs have some field curvature. But *most* compound
lens designs, especially those which are labeled "anastigmatic", attempt
to correct that aberration, and do a reasonable job of it. This is an
ordinary assumption in most camera and projector lenses for the last
century or more.
Nobody has yet mentioned in this discussion anything about lens shift.
Read up on view cameras -- the old-fashioned, usually wooden-framed
large-format still cameras with a bellows connecting the front and back
of the camera, in which the front plate which carries the lens can be
raised or lowered, and sometimes shifted left-and-right as well.
Sometimes the front lens carrier and the rear plate carrier can be
tilted off-axis horizontally and/or vertically as well. All these
adjustments are designed to allow control of the plane of sharp focus,
so that, for instance, the whole front of a tall building can be
photographed crisply and in rectilinear correctness even though the
camera is at ground level. You can see some drawings at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_camera
which begin to show what I mean, though the discussion is a bit terse.
Also, some SLR camera lenses have mounts which slide sideways to give
the same off-axis adjustments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control_lens
which gives a better comparison of the images obtained by tilting the
camera versus shifting the lens.
Or, in cases which are more easily found in your average office today,
look at a better-than-average-quality digital projector for computer or
video images. Many of them can shift the lens axis up and down with
respect to the LCD imager.
Or look at the design of a movie theater, in which the projection booth
is hardly ever on-axis with the center of the screen.
In ALL these cases, the lenses are assumed to be corrected for
reasonable flatness of field. The film or LCD imager frame is always
set to be *parallel* with the screen (or in a camera, parallel to the
image plane that's supposed to be in focus, such as the facade of a
building in architectural photography).
Let's take as an example EITHER the case of a projection booth that's
above the balcony of a movie theatre, or an office conference room with
a digital projector on a shelf just below the ceiling. Either way, the
axis of the projection lens is well above the center of the screen.
If you just tilted the projector down, you'd get a keystone-shaped
(trapezoidal) image on the screen. I know that modern digital
projectors can digitally distort the image to compensate for this, but
this isn't the effect we're talking about now. And it doesn't help with
the problem of keeping the whole image in focus, which is our topic for
the current discussion.
But if you leave the projector itself level so that the film/LCD is
parallel to the screen, and shift or tilt the lens appropriately, you
can project an undistorted and fully-focused view onto the screen even
though it's off-axis, as long as you use a lens designed for projection
of this type...a simple magnifying-glass lens wouldn't be adequate, as
you say, but you don't find those on projectors anyway.
This off-axis shifting is practically possible and very commonly done
with deviations of 20 or 30 degrees or more off-axis.
Once you understand that this is common optical practice, it's less
troubling to think about the off-axis problems of the corners of a
rectangular image relative to the center. Yes, the distance from the
center of the lens to a corner of the rectangular screen is longer than
the distance to the center of the screen. But the same ratio applies to
the distance from the lens center to the corner of the rectangular film
frame relative to the distance to the center of the film frame.
In other words, projectionists have been accustomed to using compound
lens designs good enough to keep corners and edges in focus at the same
time for over 100 years. This is a less-stringent requirement for the
lens than doing the off-axis focusing of one planar area onto another
parallel but not coaxial planar area, which has also been done in
practice for a similar period of time.
Please don't confuse flat-screen projection, as discussed above, with
any of the 1950s curved-screen processes, in which lenses were
*designed* to work with a flat film frame and a curved screen which was
intended to wrap around the audience for visual impact. Those screen
curvatures are MUCH greater than the field curvature inherent in a
simple non-astigmatism-corrected lens, and had to be planned for in the
lens designs for these projection systems.
I know this is a lot of hand-waving, and I wish I could attach images to
this message, but it may, I hope, begin to help with this discussion.
-Neil Midkiff
Schauburg
> IMHO the only time Logan
> managed to use widescreen properly was in BUS STOP.
PICNIC (1954) used CinemaScope very well too (DoP: James Wong Howe),
although agree, that Mr. Logan seems to be much more a director
focused on story and actors.
PAINT YOUR WAGON has some great CinemaScope shots too, but also a lot
of disturbing zooms and filtering IMHO.
Greg Faris
<e3593353-2a12-40ca...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
tomser...@yahoo.com says...
>Erm... yes and no. Where the most light ends up, of course, is
>dependent on how well focused the lamphouse is.
Incorrect. Marty Hart is correct (as usual).
Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection. The light projected outward on a
flat screen will be redirected toeard the theater walls. This was the
impetus, and not constant focus concerns, for curved screens, particularly
as these got larger. Computer ray-trace methods show this, and show as well
that a very moderate curvature is sufficient to procure a dramatic
improvement.
The "constant distance/constant focus" argument comes up again and again in
projectionists' lore, but it is a specious argument.
Greg Faris
today, and is widely used and understood, but this principle just never
really made it into the vernacular of the motion picture projection systems
of yesteryear. Lens manufacturers did not concentrate on providing lenses
with adequate circle of sharp definition, and even if they had, most film
projectors have mechanical design considerations which would sharply curtail
any significant displacements.
One timid initiative was the Zeiss "Alinar" lens of the 1950's, designed for
this purpose, but little known then or now. I have a technical article about
this lens, but in my discussions with designers today, even the engineers at
ISCO-OPTIK were unaware if it.
It should be noted, in using the view-camera analogy, that lens shift in
projection systems is exclusively concerned with maintaining of rectilinear
geometry, and has never been used in Scheimpflug applications to maintain
sharp focus distribution. Generally this would be superfluous anyway.
Greg
In article <j8KdnbtezOjFlpTW...@earthlink.com>,
nmid...@earthlink.net says...
moviePig
Yes, and thank for the rest of the post (about lens-shift). However,
rather than my suggesting a return to simple two-surface optics, I was
merely inferring from their behavior that a curved screen should, at
least theoretically, lower the obstacles to approaching "perfect"
focus ...so that, all else being equal, the designers of even giga-
element lenses would consider a curved target (and source) an
advantage...
J. Theakston
> In article
> <e3593353-2a12-40ca-ad3b-497363ddb...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> tomservoro...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >Erm... yes and no. Where the most light ends up, of course, is
> >dependent on how well focused the lamphouse is.
>
> Incorrect. Marty Hart is correct (as usual).
> Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection. The light projected outward on a
> flat screen will be redirected toeard the theater walls. This was the
> impetus, and not constant focus concerns, for curved screens, particularly
> as these got larger. Computer ray-trace methods show this, and show as well
> that a very moderate curvature is sufficient to procure a dramatic
> improvement.
I think you missed my point. I was not arguing that constant focus
was the reason behind the curved CinemaScope screen. My point was
that curved screens are only useful when the lamp house is balanced
properly.
You're also overlooking the barrel distortion correction that a curved
screen gives.
J. Theakston
Neil Midkiff
>
> rather than my suggesting a return to simple two-surface optics, I was
> merely inferring from their behavior that a curved screen should, at
> least theoretically, lower the obstacles to approaching "perfect"
> focus ...so that, all else being equal, the designers of even giga-
> element lenses would consider a curved target (and source) an
> advantage...
You're not quite getting the point of field curvature when you say
"curved target and source". A simple lens has aberrations which cause a
*flat* object to be imaged onto a *slightly curved* surface.
I don't have the references handy to do the exact calculation, but if
you were using a simple (one-element) lens to project a movie in a
typical theatre, and wanted to curve the screen to keep proper focus
from center to corners, you'd end up with a very shallow spherical
dishing of the screen -- something on the order of a foot or two deeper
in the center if my recollection is correct. But you'd still have other
lens errors (chromatic aberration among them) which the shallow-dished
screen wouldn't help with. And of course this screen would look pretty
flat to the audience, so it has nothing to do with "wraparound" curved
screens of the panoramic processes of the 1950s and 1960s.
So it's better to use a compound lens design (not very complicated --
there are some classic four-element lenses with very nearly flat fields)
which corrects these other errors too, and lets you get by with a flat
screen.
On the other hand, if I were designing a new projection process for a
deeply curved (cylindrical-surface) screen, I'd certainly consider a
projector gate system which warped the film into a cylindrical shape as
it passed by the lens. And then, of course, one would need to use a
lens that was corrected for flatness of field! That is, a lens which
images a plane onto a plane will also image a cylinder onto a cylinder.
It would also image a sphere onto a sphere, but it's obviously
impractical to warp the film into a shape that's curved both
horizontally and vertically. So you wouldn't ever want to "take
advantage" of a simple lens's field curvature, which applies along both
of those axes.
-Neil Midkiff
Martin Hart
@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com says...
The amount of barrel distortion seen in most CinemaScope films,
especially in the early 50s, was minimal if not totally lacking. A 50mm
lens, even with a 2x adapter in front of it does not create any visible
barrel distortion. Furthermore the curvature of the Miracle Mirror and
similar Scope screens is infinitesimal, correcting for nothing other
than to put the light from the sides back into the center of the
auditorium.
Your argument holds a lot more water when 70mm Cinerama came into being.
While Ultra Panavision had very low barrel distortion due to the fact
that it did not have ultra wide angle lenses, Super Panavision did have
very wide lenses and Cinerama hoped that those would be used. Such
lenses would have the barrel distortion corrected on the oblique sides
of the screen. Alas, few really decent ultra wide shots appear in any of
the 70mm "Cinerama" films, if any at all.
calvin
cartoon making fun of the various widescreen formats?
Comment: I have the impression, after looking at the
great website and reading much commentary on the
subject over the years, that neither the public nor the
filmmakers really cared about wide angle filmmaking,
other than for a few thrill rides and for a few travelogues.
It made great advertizing, showing audiences
surrounded by curved screens, putting YOU in
the picture, but that never really happened, except
for three-strip Cinerama and one Todd-AO movie,
Around the World in 80 Days, as far as I know.
Wide aspect ratio, of course, survives to this day,
and maybe IMAX still does wide angle travelogues and
such. Hopefully a few people still like curved screens,
when we can get them, but apparently they no longer
serve any real or imagined purpose with the public in
general, sad to say; curved screens seem so cinematically
right to me.
J. Theakston
wrote:
> The amount of barrel distortion seen in most CinemaScope films,
> especially in the early 50s, was minimal if not totally lacking. A 50mm
> lens, even with a 2x adapter in front of it does not create any visible
> barrel distortion. Furthermore the curvature of the Miracle Mirror and
> similar Scope screens is infinitesimal, correcting for nothing other
> than to put the light from the sides back into the center of the
> auditorium.
I disagree. The barrel distortion on ALL CinemaScope titles,
ESPECIALLY in the '50s titles, is painfully inherent.
Check this video out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mT1n5ej3o
J. Theakston
calvin
> ... The barrel distortion on ALL CinemaScope titles,
> ESPECIALLY in the '50s titles, is painfully inherent.
> Check this video out:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mT1n5ej3o
Lovely, especially with one eye closed. And YouTube
has this one immediately available, of Cinerama, smile-boxed.
Check it out with one eye close to the screen and the other
eye closed:
Peter
> I disagree. The barrel distortion on ALL CinemaScope titles,
> ESPECIALLY in the '50s titles, is painfully inherent.
>
> Check this video out:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mT1n5ej3o
BTTMR -- 1953 -- used the fatally-flawed Cretien anamorphic adapter.
By the following year, Bausch and Lomb would come out with the
so-called Cretien formula CinemaScope adapters -- AKA, Type I -- and
would quickly follow those with the so-called Bausch and Lomb formula
CinemaScope adapter -- AKA, Type II.
The Type II adapters were dramatically improved over the Type I which,
in turn, were significantly improved over the Cretien.
Further improvements were obtained, also in 1954, with the Bausch and
Lomb combined CinemaScopes.
--
CinemaScope�: The Modern Miracle You See without Special Glasses!
grand...@hotmail.com
I recall that when BEN-HUR roadshowed around the world latecomers had
to wait outside until the pre-credit sequence had finished. This was
the same for both 70 mm and 35mm screenings.What ruined the film was
Charlton Heston's performance which was more wooden that the cross
used in the crucifiction scene..The oscar he received whould haver
been made of wood not metal
calvin
> I recall that when BEN-HUR roadshowed around the world latecomers had
> to wait outside until the pre-credit sequence had finished. This was
> the same for both 70 mm and 35mm screenings.What ruined the film was
> Charlton Heston's performance which was more wooden that the cross
> been made of wood not metal[.]
Nothing ruined the movie. It's a classic of the first magnitude.
J. Theakston
> On 2009-11-22 16:50:59 -0800, "J. Theakston" <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > I disagree. The barrel distortion on ALL CinemaScope titles,
> > ESPECIALLY in the '50s titles, is painfully inherent.
>
> > Check this video out:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5mT1n5ej3o
>
> BTTMR -- 1953 -- used the fatally-flawed Cretien anamorphic adapter.
Guys, this is getting off track. BTTMR is just an example of the era
that we're talking about: EARLY CinemaScope, when Miracle Mirror and
Magniglow Astrolite curved screens were being sold.
But that being said, there was still barrel distortion in CinemaScope,
like it or not. I saw a print of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS a few weeks ago,
a fairly late CSer, and the wide-angle "bump" was totally obvious.
J. Theakston
Ultrascope
* Comment: I have the impression, after looking at the
* great website and reading much commentary on the
* subject over the years, that neither the public nor the
* filmmakers really cared about wide angle filmmaking,
* other than for a few thrill rides and for a few travelogues.
Not so. It depends strongly on the individual film, director and/or
DP.
You will find many anamorphic films that make great use of wide angle
lenses and that will look very good on (slight, not deep) curved
screens. Take a look at these movies:
IN COLD BLOOD (1967) dir. Richard Brook, cin. Conrad Hall
TWO FOR THE SEESAW (1962) dir. Robert Wise, cin. Ted McCord
TRAPEZE (1956) dir. Carol Reed, cin. Robert Krasker
Robert Wise liked to use wide angle anamorphics, same with John
Sturges.
As Marty has pointed out, distortion in anamorphic format has more to
do with the focal length, at 50mm and above it is usually not visible,
but wide angle lenses like 40mm and 35mm will definitely introduce
strong barrel distortion and bending lines (look at John Carpenter's
Panavision films like HALLOWEEN or the long shots in VAMPIRES).
From the early CinemaScope films, I remember TWELVE MILE REEF as
having the worst distortion on the edges, I don't recall that effect
with THE ROBE and HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE.
It should also be noted that early anamorphic camera lenses were not
thrown away when better designs came out, but they were sold and used
in low budget production and overseas for many years. Some Italian and
British films carrying the CinemaScope logo or another process name
seem to be shot with the first Bausch&Lomb anamorphoser (not the
Chrétien lens, of course).
Martin Hart
@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com says...
Your use of the word "distortion" is, IMO, inappropriate. It is
absolutely not possible to photograph a very wide angle image without
bowing of straight lines near the top and bottom of the image. To remove
the bowing entirely is to distort the way things are in nature. In my
opinion distortion is only a problem if it is deemed objectionable by
the viewing audience. The curves that you see are much less noticeable
if you were in a large theatre seated about midway down, and even less
if you're closer. "Beneath the 12-Mile Reef" does not appear distorted
from my seat in front of a ten foot screen, but I likes me seats purty
close.
Martin Hart
04e623...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com
says...
I guess I wear better corrective lenses than you. "Painfully Inherent"?
Naw.
Peter
> But that being said, there was still barrel distortion in CinemaScope,
> like it or not.
Also in early Panavision.
> I saw a print of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS a few weeks ago,
> a fairly late CSer, and the wide-angle "bump" was totally obvious.
Also in early Panavision.
CinemaScope production lenses were made in three series, from 1954.
The changes were evolutionary, but the anamorphoser was tweaked, not
completely changed, as was Panavision:s.
Peter
> It should also be noted that early anamorphic camera lenses were not
> thrown away when better designs came out, but they were sold and used
> in low budget production and overseas for many years. Some Italian and
> British films carrying the CinemaScope logo or another process name
> seem to be shot with the first Bausch&Lomb anamorphoser (not the
> Chr�tien lens, of course).
This would be the CinemaScope, Type II.
20,000 Leagues was shot with this system, available to any licensee of
CinemaScope�
Kwai, for example, was shot with borrowed combined CinemaScopes,
remounted as required for Mitchells and Bell and Howell 2709s.
moviePig
wrote:
> In article <a2a3e0e3-dc4b-49e8-8b7a-dd554e3c0bb2
> @a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, tomservoro...@yahoo.com says...
I'll wager that, to the average viewing audience, 'noticeable' and
'objectionable' have a practical half-life measured in minutes. E.g.,
on the rare occasion when I've been crowded into a tear-duct seat
below and far to the side of a giant screen, the image, virtually
indecipherable when I first sit down, seems quickly to become somehow
"normalized". Because I doubt human perception would've evolved any
specific power to invisibly rotate planar images, I'm guessing our
brains' inherent wish to make sense of the world forgives -- and hides
-- nearly any consistent distortion...
J. Theakston
> > I saw a print of DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS a few weeks ago,
> > a fairly late CSer, and the wide-angle "bump" was totally obvious.
>
> Also in early Panavision.
Really? What is that based on?
J. Theakston
Peter
>> Also in early Panavision.
>
> Really? What is that based on?
Get real, dude!
J. Theakston
> On 2009-11-23 13:24:50 -0800, "J. Theakston" <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >> Also in early Panavision.
>
> > Really? What is that based on?
>
> Get real, dude!
??
My easy-to-answer question is: what is your source? I find it unusual
that a film that basically had an average budget could afford
Panavision lenses right out of the gate. GREEN MANSIONS, shot a few
years earlier, looks nothing like it in comparison.
J. Theakston
StormChaser
cymbals and blaring horns.
Give me the headgear during the chariot races
(Ramon Navarro with modest covering. Francis
X. Bushman with wings)
Give me the occasional body part shown of
Our Lord Savior.
Give me leprosy healed with a trick of light.
Give me nubile maidens parading in Technicolor.
Give me bare whip stained backs in rowing galleys.
Give me gestures from aforementioned Mr. Bushman
so broad in their executions as to be better seen
without words.
StormChaser
> Question: Was there ever a Bugs Bunny (or other)
> cartoon making fun of the various widescreen formats?
>
The Tom and Jerry short Timid Tabby
climaxes with a gag designed for a wide screen.
S D
in Roman empire times.
calvin
> Slaves were not used in the building of the pyramids or as galley rowers
> in Roman empire times.
So, who did the manual labor in building the Pyramids,
and who did the rowing for the Roman ships? You
told us only half of it.
S D
off time needed to harvest their crops. Pharaoh was a living God and
the work was seen as homage. The galleys were manned by men who could
not get better jobs. Would you want your ship powered by people who had
nothing to lose if you were rammed ?
calvin
According to 'Ben-Hur' they had their lives to lose, because
they were chained. But I'm not arguing with you, because I
don't know anything about it, and don't look to movies for
historical facts.
TT
Nonono. Actually pyramids were built by aliens and Dachau was a summer
camp run by the catholic church.
S D
all were lost at least you'd take your oppressors with you.
Martin Hart
da8705...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, pwal...@moviepig.com
says...
I think you're correct. However when I'm forced into one of those
crappy seats I never seem to be able to forget how annoyed I am.
Back around 1967 my wife of less than a year had never seen "Gone With
The Wind" so I took her to see the roadshow re-issue in 70mm widescreen,
full stereophonic sound and glorious Metrocolor. When I got to the
ticket booth I was told that the only seats available were in the fifth
row. I'd been in that theatre a bunch of times and figured the fifth row
wouldn't be too bad. Wrong! They neglected to mention that rows 1 thru 4
had been removed about 15 years earlier when the theatre was a Cinerama
house. So we were really in the first row, center fortunately, and we
were treated to that godawful 70mm abomination with the electrifying
opening title replaced with a tiresome static one. And it was all
downhill from there. There are some viewing experiences you never
forget.
Marty
Martin Hart
cfe417...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com
says...
If you look at the history of films shot with Panavision lenses you'll
see that LOTS of low budget stuff used Panavision lenses. They were not
the most expensive lenses available and didn't extort a fee to use their
trademark as Fox did with CinemaScope. The AIP films used Panavision
extensively in the 1960s.
You also have to understand that Peter has long considered Panavision to
be a satanic organization that made the Bausch & Lomb CinemaScope lenses
obsolete. Peter's kind of funny that way.
As for me, I like them both but I don't shoot with them, I just collect
them.
Marty
--
Martin Hart
@rattlebrain.com says...
> On 2009-11-23 10:14:57 -0800, Ultrascope <ultra...@gmx.de> said:
>
> > It should also be noted that early anamorphic camera lenses were not
> > thrown away when better designs came out, but they were sold and used
> > in low budget production and overseas for many years. Some Italian and
> > British films carrying the CinemaScope logo or another process name
> > seem to be shot with the first Bausch&Lomb anamorphoser (not the
>
> This would be the CinemaScope, Type II.
>
> 20,000 Leagues was shot with this system, available to any licensee of
> CinemaScope®
>
> Kwai, for example, was shot with borrowed combined CinemaScopes,
> remounted as required for Mitchells and Bell and Howell 2709s.
Lots of KWAI was shot with ARRI cameras using attachments, not combined
lenses.
Martin Hart
b5978d...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, ring...@surfglobal.net
says...
Francis X. Bushman's performance as Messala seems like it should have
been in a silent film made ten years earlier. Navarro's performance is
pretty much natural and believable but Bushman, including his makeup,
just don't look like he's in the same movie.
moviePig
wrote:
> In article <43535ae7-3523-405a-8914-
> da870508c...@m35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, pwall...@moviepig.com
Heh. Viewing that title must've felt like being run over by a freight
train from Sesame Street...
J. Theakston
wrote:
> In article <2cc258ad-3766-4c94-a4a6-
> cfe417476...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, tomservoro...@yahoo.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:54 pm, Peter <peterh5...@rattlebrain.com> wrote:
> > > On 2009-11-23 13:24:50 -0800, "J. Theakston" <tomservoro...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > > >> Also in early Panavision.
>
> > > > Really? What is that based on?
>
> > > Get real, dude!
>
> > ??
>
> > My easy-to-answer question is: what is your source? I find it unusual
> > that a film that basically had an average budget could afford
> > Panavision lenses right out of the gate. GREEN MANSIONS, shot a few
> > years earlier, looks nothing like it in comparison.
>
> > J. Theakston
>
> If you look at the history of films shot with Panavision lenses you'll
> see that LOTS of low budget stuff used Panavision lenses. They were not
> the most expensive lenses available and didn't extort a fee to use their
> trademark as Fox did with CinemaScope. The AIP films used Panavision
> extensively in the 1960s.
What I simply would like to know is, how does Peter know TRIFFIDS was
shot with Panavision lenses? It looks like a CinemaScope shot film to
me, and there's never been anything that came up to prove otherwise,
including interviews with Freddie Francis, who directed the lighthouse
scenes.
J. Theakston
J. Theakston
wrote:
> > I'll wager that, to the average viewing audience, 'noticeable' and
> > 'objectionable' have a practical half-life measured in minutes. E.g.,
> > on the rare occasion when I've been crowded into a tear-duct seat
> > below and far to the side of a giant screen, the image, virtually
> > indecipherable when I first sit down, seems quickly to become somehow
> > "normalized". Because I doubt human perception would've evolved any
> > specific power to invisibly rotate planar images, I'm guessing our
> > brains' inherent wish to make sense of the world forgives -- and hides
> > -- nearly any consistent distortion...
>
> I think you're correct. However when I'm forced into one of those
> crappy seats I never seem to be able to forget how annoyed I am.
To each his own. I project film every day and I see the barrel
distortion on most 'scope titles. You might not, and that's fine,
even beneficial. It's like not seeing cue marks-- it doesn't distract
you because you don't see it there.
But, my point, to reiterate, is that a curved screen rectifies some
barrel distortion.
J. Theakston
moviePig
With respect to the screen's planar (i.e., unwrapped and flattened)
rectangle, it seems that a curved screen would actually worsen
barreling ...because its middle is farther from the projector.
Perhaps you're saying that a curved screen's barreled image -- however
it got there -- is corrected for an audience who, though laterally
centered, is sitting closer to the screen's edges than to its middle.
J. Theakston
Exactly. As I said, it's an optical illusion. The curve on the edges
stretches the picture to a degree so that when viewed perpendicularly
to the screen, people on the edges of the screen don't look like
they're being smooshed.
J. Theakston
Martin Hart
fc5017...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, tomser...@yahoo.com
says...
Frankly, I think Peter is wrong. In 1962, when the film was shot in
England, with finale shot in Spain, Panavision didn't have much
distribution outside the U.S. The film sports a CinemaScope credit and
I don't recall a lenses by Panavision credit in the opening titles.
I've long considered Peter to be a friend, but I can't get my arms
around his contention that Panavision is The Evil Empire. Peter is quite
a piece of work, very smart and extremely funny.
Ultrascope
> England, with finale shot in Spain, Panavision didn't have much
> distribution outside the U.S. The film sports a CinemaScope credit and
> I don't recall a lenses by Panavision credit in the opening titles.
>
That's right. I just checked it.
There is no "lenses by..." credit - just "CinemaScope".
sgu...@aol.com
setting up film projectors for about 3-decades, on flat, curved,
Cinerama...etc. screens and also happens to be on the committee of the
SMPTE that deals with Projection Technology?
First off...both of you...stop with the "common sense" theories.
Physics is rarely common sense...it is a reason that most people, that
even have an interest, can do it or think in a manner consistent with
the actual way the world works. Trying to use common sense on things
like lenses and projection is going to lead you down a fruitless
trail.
The first flaw in your theories is that the projection plane is
flat...never has been. The radiant energy of the light source will
cause the film to swell towards the light/heat source. Even in a
"straight gate" projector. In fact, to help with image stability,
virtually all projectors use a curved gate (though they don't all use
the same radius...the various projector manufacturers have come up
with their own reasons, over the years, for curving them as they do.
Furthermore, though high-speed photography, it has been shown that the
projectionist will focus the image on the MOST deflected film
position. That is, with a typical double-flash shutter, it is on the
second opening, with the film most deflected from the heat that the
person will judge focus. So, take your flat plane theory and just
stop with it right now. It doesn't exist in film projection.
As on may now think about it, depending on the projector's gate design
coupled with the film's deflection and that it is constantly moving
due to the shutter opening/closing the heat, it is a moving target.
If you design your lens for a flat plane, you will have a lens that
will not focus uniformly...as Kollmorgan Lens corp found out in the
50s/60s. To make matters worse, the image area on 35mm film is offset
by 200mils for the optical soundtrack. This makes the swelling of the
film asymmetrical too. Something that 70mm rarely had to suffer (CDS
comes to mind). Glenn Berggeren published an excellent article in the
SMPTE Journal regarding this a couple of years ago.
So you have this moving target film plane and now, as a lens designer
you also have a moving target screen. That is, these are general
purpose lenses in the sense they are not designed for a particular
projector or a particular image size at a particular distance. What
one theatre may use for a 1.85:1 image may be the prime lens for
another theatre's "scope" image via an anamorphic lens. This puts a
near impossible set of requirements on a single lens. The lens
companies must also over a wide range of focal lengths to cover the
range of requirements...at the moment it is about 19mm to 180mm in
2.5mm increments up till about 80mm and then it expands to 5mm
increments and only jumps to 10mm increments above 150mm. In the
olden days with large/long movie palaces, those focal lengths went
much longer (and not quite as short and the increment was typically
1/4"). Light in the olden days was always a struggle too...typical
lens speeds were f/1.7. To get the faster lenses in the longer focal
lengths is why the industry adopted 4" lens mounts in the '50s over
the 2-25/32 (70.6mm) of the previous eras. As you may be aware, the
faster lenses, move you further away from the pinhole theory and also
make the depth of focus even worse.
Modern lenses (since the ISCO Cinelux Ultra, for sure) have made use
of much of the knowledge obtained though actual testing and
represented a huge improvement over past designs. One of the things
the lens designers did is move away from f/1.7 designs and towards f/
2.0 designs, if for no other reason, than to improve the depth of
focus. The modern optics with multi-coatings had better light
throughput too.
So what have my findings been on modern lenses? Curved screens will
yield a superior focused image. Different lens hold this up to
greater/lesser degrees. ISCO lenses seemed to have more of a
presumption of screen curvature than Schneider lenses but even with a
Schneider, if you will get a pincushioned image on a flat screen but
it is a slight one, depending on the focal length...the shorter EFs
tend to pincushion more and do better on slightly curved screens.
There have been, for some time, lenses specifically designed for
curved (deep) too that will yield a substantially focused image all
over the screen. However, the ones I've worked with are uniformly
distorted so while the deep curve lenses have a nominally flat horizon
line, their vertical lines are pinchusioned on a cylindrically curved
screen (most common).
As for flat screens versus curved screens...they are a personal
preference. The notion that flat screens somehow provide a more
faithful view of the image is hogwash as one's seating position will
inherently give one a distorted view of the screen unless they are
dead center (vertically too). I personally prefer a curved screen and
fell they do a better job of reflecting the light back onto the
audience and give a greater sense of depth to the image.
Regards,
Steve
On Nov 19, 1:23 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 1:03 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 12:53 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 12:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 19, 11:49 am, Martin Hart <emai...@thewidescreenmuseum.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > cri...@windstream.net says...
>
> > > > > > On Nov 19, 9:56 am, Michael Coate <mcoat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Here's a link to a "Ben-Hur" 50th anniversary tribute piece I posted
> > > > > > > yesterday at the Cinema Treasures website. It may interest some of you
> > > > > > > guys as it cites many of the original roadshow runs of the film.
>
> > > > > > >http://cinematreasures.org/news/22307_0_1_0_M/
>
> > > > > > The Roxy in Atlanta was destroyed back in the sixties
> > > > > > when the Westin Peachtree hotel tower (the round one)
> > > > > > was built partly on the site. Before 'Ben-Hur', the Roxy
> > > > > > had shown Cinerama and Todd-AO. I saw 'The Seven
> > > > > > Wonders of the World' and 'Around the World in 80 Days'
> > > > > > there. Also the original roadshow productions of 'South
> > > > > > Pacific', 'Spartacus', and others.
>
> > > > > > Though the Fox was, and still is, Atlanta's most ornate
> > > > > > and impressive theater, the Roxy's physical layout was
> > > > > > more conducive to (in fact perfect for) the showing of the
> > > > > > wide and deeply curved screen showings of Cinerams,
> > > > > > Todd AO, Camera 65, and other such processes of the
> > > > > > era.
>
> > > > > It should be noted that Camera 65 was not a curved screen process and
> > > > > MGM specified that only flat screens be used in the presentation of
> > > > > "Ben-Hur". Only Cinerama, Todd-AO and Cinemiracle were specifically
> > > > > designed for the use of a DEEPLY curved screen, though screens of
> > > > > substantially lesser curvature were relatively common. "Ben-Hur", which
> > > > > has no significant wide angle photography, does not benefit from being
> > > > > shown on a deep curve, except to those that just love deep curves.
>
> > > > I don't believe you, not that you should care. Any movie
> > > > should be shown on a screen that has the left, center, and
> > > > right equally distant from the projector, and that means
> > > > curvature. I will retract the word, 'deeply', though. No
> > > > matter what the process, the screen should curve such that
> > > > it is an arc of a circle for which the projector is the center.
> > > > The distance from projector to screen determines whether
> > > > or not 'deeply' applies.
>
> > > > Cinerama is the exception, because it has three projectors.
> > > > In its case, each third of the screen should be curved
> > > > according to its individual projector.
>
> > > > Of course, actual theater arrangements are never more than
> > > > approximations of these ideals.
>
> > > I'm no authority either, but I think common sense applies: Unless the
> > > film gate is reciprocally curved (never, afaik), there's no intrinsic
> > > longing by the projector-lens to have a curved screen.
>
> > (Mr. Hart *is* an authority, but that doesn't stop arrogant
> > people like me from disagreeing with him.)
>
> (He may even be the source of my HOW THE WEST example...)
>
> > It is common sense that suggests to me that for focus to
> > be correct over the whole width of the screen, then the
> > whole width should be equidistant from the projector.
> > This applies to the height of the screen also, but the
> > distance difference is not so pronounced from top to middle
> > to bottom as it is from side to middle to side.
>
> Instead of seeing the projector as a radiant point of light, consider
> its lens a pinhole, replicating a (small) flat image inside onto a
> (big) flat surface outside. Notice that messing with the screen's
> flatness messes with the replication's faithfulness. Optics can
> correct for such things, of course, but flat-to-flat is Nature's way,
> afaics...
calvin
> Okay Calvin and MoviePig...
No need to address moviePig and me together. We
haven't been in sync on any of this. My only attempted
contribution was to claim that theoretically the screen
needs to be curved equidistantly around the projector
lens for perfect focus. And I also said that in actual
theaters, everything is approximation.
Personally, though, I prefer curved screens for everything,
with no reason given, and I can't be talked out of it.
Martin 'Martinland' Schemitsch
[snip most interesting stuff]
Thank you Steve, that has been most educational!
Martin
Peter
>> Frankly, I think Peter is wrong.
I've been wrong a few times.
I'm usually right about CinemaScope and Western Electric/Westrex, however.
sgu...@aol.com
I only addressed you two together (and I clearly didn't proof-read
much of my post <sigh>) because both of you were championing theories
that don't have basis in fact.
The plane surface to plane surface theory is the correct one...it is
just that in film projection, in cinemas where there is a large heat
source, it isn't the case.
For instance...have you ever been in a darkroom to blow up negatives
to prints? If so...was the film in a flat plane or curved (we'll
presume the heat source from an enlarger is small enough to not
deflect the film significantly)? Was the paper held in a flat or
curved plane? (hint, your answer should begin with "P")...are you
claiming that the image was not uniformly focused or pincushioned due
to the non-curved plane. And with the typical lens-to-paper distance,
the radius would have been relatively short or more dramatically
curved.
Again, with film projection, I've found that some lenses are clearly
designed with curved screens in mind (modern lenses, like ISCO Ultra-
Star PLUS) and some are looking for a more flat screen (Schneider
Super-Cinelux). Both benefit from a curved screen with ISCO
benefiting from a more curved screen. It is pretty easy to
prove...put up a target and go to the corner of the image...note the
resolution...then take a piece of paper and hold it in the projection
beam of the target and pull it forward (towards the projector)...with
modern lenses, the image resolution will improve to a point and it
will vary based on lens (focal length and brand/model).
I too preferred curved screens but it is a subjective thing...I can
easily dismiss (for myself) the geometric distortions that the curved
screen will introduce. I prefer the more uniform light, focus and the
flat screen seems to exaggerate the lack of depth to the image. But
that is me (and perhaps you). Give the option, I design my screens
around a pearlescent surface (1.5-1.8 gain) and curve for maximum
light uniformity. For me, it has the best feel and overall look.
One thing to note, in DCinema (digital projection)...curving the
screen WILL get you barrel distortion. You don't have a deflecting
film plane to focus on anymore. They clearly were designed around a
flat screen. About the only geometric distortion I've observed is
when a lens is shifted towards an extreme...the image will bend a
little.
As to lens shifting...its been available for film for many years
(decades). Century incorporated it for lateral shifting right in the
projector. ISCO and Schneider have PC-Cine adapters that allow for
5mm or more shift (the current Schneider version has about 20mm shift
as its maximum...naturally, the inlet pupil of the lens in use will
likely limit the amount of usable shift). I've used them in many,
many installations...particularly where multiple formats are required
and 2 or more film projectors. It should be noted that most lens
turrets for projectos also offer what is effectively lens-shift too.
Steve
moviePig
Interestingly, the little Googling I did suggested that for digital
projection (i.e., digital image-formation), some folks are bending the
the imaging chip ...presumably to make it a more optically ideal focal
source. Meanwhile, of course, as directly viewable light-emitting
surfaces (i.e., TVs) continue to increase their size, resolution, and
even flexibility -- thereby obviating many of the compromises imposed
by optical and celluloid physics -- it'll be interesting to see what
transformations befall the high-end viewing venues (i.e., theaters)...
Scott Dorsey
>For instance...have you ever been in a darkroom to blow up negatives
>to prints? If so...was the film in a flat plane or curved (we'll
>presume the heat source from an enlarger is small enough to not
>deflect the film significantly)? Was the paper held in a flat or
>curved plane? (hint, your answer should begin with "P")...are you
>claiming that the image was not uniformly focused or pincushioned due
>to the non-curved plane. And with the typical lens-to-paper distance,
>the radius would have been relatively short or more dramatically
>curved.
Note that the lens used in the darkroom to make prints was a flatfield
lens specifically designed for the application.
I found that if I used the 135mm Xenar lens off my camera as an enlarging
lens, it had to be stopped down quite a bit because it didn't focus at the
same point on the edges as on the center.
But using a poorer quality but designed-for-the-application Componon lens,
the edge to edge focus was perfect.
>Again, with film projection, I've found that some lenses are clearly
>designed with curved screens in mind (modern lenses, like ISCO Ultra-
>Star PLUS) and some are looking for a more flat screen (Schneider
>Super-Cinelux). Both benefit from a curved screen with ISCO
>benefiting from a more curved screen. It is pretty easy to
>prove...put up a target and go to the corner of the image...note the
>resolution...then take a piece of paper and hold it in the projection
>beam of the target and pull it forward (towards the projector)...with
>modern lenses, the image resolution will improve to a point and it
>will vary based on lens (focal length and brand/model).
Yes, it's a case of using the right tool for the job. Most modern cine
projection lenses are flatfield although most cine camera lenses are
slightly curved, especially wide angle and retrofocus lenses.
>One thing to note, in DCinema (digital projection)...curving the
>screen WILL get you barrel distortion. You don't have a deflecting
>film plane to focus on anymore. They clearly were designed around a
>flat screen. About the only geometric distortion I've observed is
>when a lens is shifted towards an extreme...the image will bend a
>little.
You should be able to fix that in software, though, right?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Richard
>
>One thing to note, in DCinema (digital projection)...curving the
>screen WILL get you barrel distortion. You don't have a deflecting
>film plane to focus on anymore. They clearly were designed around a
>flat screen. About the only geometric distortion I've observed is
>when a lens is shifted towards an extreme...the image will bend a
>little.
Most, if not all, theatres of the Kinepolis Group have curved
screens and most also have digital projectors.
When those projectors were installed the engineers told me
they had to adjust each projector according to the screen curve to
take care of geometry and focus. They used an electronic grid
projected on the screen and some kind of probe.
sgu...@aol.com
A DCinema projector is prohibited from correcting for geometric
problems (scaling)...that is part of the deal and in many cases it
sucks. What a DCinema projector is allowed to do is the electronic
equivalent of an aperture plate...we turn off pixels. On the DLP
projectors, one may adjust all four corners (deals with keystone) and
all four sides have the ability to block off pixes in a concave
fashion...like cutting an aperture plate with a curved arc.
Now, when dealing with curved screens the set up is indeed trickier
and every part of the lens alignment must be spot on to take full
advantage of the available depth-of-focus. The truth also is that
with 2K projection, we are at about 1/4 the resolution of 35mm 1.85
film. The detail lost in the slight softening will be less noticed.
That said, I've had extremely good results on curved screens for
DCinema with radii on the order of 2/3 the projection throw (screens
were optimized for most uniform light from 35mm projection).
Steve
On Nov 30, 10:34 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
moviePig
> Scott,
>
> A DCinema projector is prohibited from correcting for geometric
> problems (scaling)...that is part of the deal and in many cases it
> sucks. What a DCinema projector is allowed to do is the electronic
> equivalent of an aperture plate...we turn off pixels. On the DLP
> projectors, one may adjust all four corners (deals with keystone) and
> all four sides have the ability to block off pixes in a concave
> fashion...like cutting an aperture plate with a curved arc.
>
> Now, when dealing with curved screens the set up is indeed trickier
> and every part of the lens alignment must be spot on to take full
> advantage of the available depth-of-focus. The truth also is that
> with 2K projection, we are at about 1/4 the resolution of 35mm 1.85
> film. The detail lost in the slight softening will be less noticed.
> That said, I've had extremely good results on curved screens for
> DCinema with radii on the order of 2/3 the projection throw (screens
> were optimized for most uniform light from 35mm projection).
What do you mean, "A DCinema projector is prohibited from correcting
for geometric problems ...that is part of the deal..."? Surely that's
not as legalistic as it sounds...
sgu...@aol.com
allowance for using an anamorphic lens for "scope" in theatres (but
one would never be permitted to do it in a review room). The vertical
scaling, being a set multiplication, is less invasive of a scaling
than say for keystone. The reason it is allowed is to overcome the
poor light throughput on scope since the imager is only 1.896:1 in
ratio. Using an anamorphic lens will get you about 20% more light.
Note, this is only an issue for theatres with side-movable masking,
not for fixed side masking. In any event, once you scale the image,
you are morphing pixels to pixels and the effective resolution goes
down.
I'm guess it was deemed better to loose a few pixels in the extreme
edges of the screen than to degrade the entire image in the name of
keystone.
Since most of the DCinema money is coming from "Virtual Print
Fees"...and since most of those VPFs are tied to DCI compliance, there
is indeed a bit of a contractual requirement on the no-scaling front.
The DCinema projectors won't do it for keystone. They do lens
shift...which deals with most problems, quite effectively...what is
left is done with the "masking" function of blocking off pixels.
Steve
R W
When one realizes the incredible specifics of the the precision that
went into the Great Pyramid; it is indeed difficult to believe that
primitive earthlings were able to do so.