Motion Picture Herald (Jul-Aug 1936)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

2 6 IOtt Figure I I b side wall; and, in Diagram lb, a center bank of 14 seats and an aisle against either wall. Both schemes, la and lb, are limited to a seating capacity of approximately 350. To exceed this capacity would introduce excessive viewing distances and aisle lengths, and difficulty in obtaining unobstructed sight lines. While Scheme la requires less structure than Scheme lb, the single aisle in the center is objectionable in la because it occupies valuable seating area, it causes annoyance to seated spectators due to movement in the aisle within view of the screen and also forces a narrower screen width than Scheme lb. To use this type of theatre plan for more than 350 seats on one floor is just turning back to the theatre of the original "shooting gallery" type. The addition of an upper level of seating to increase capacity in this and other types shall be dealt with in a subsequent article. WIDTH ADJUSTMENTS Figure 2 shows 28 seats in a row, having, in Diagram 2a, a center bank of 14 seats, an aisle on either side, and then 7seat banks extending from each aisle to the side walls. Diagram 2b disposes of the 28 seats in two 14-seat banks, utilizing a center aisle and two wall aisles. Schemes 2a and 2b both permit a seating capacity up to approximately 700 for a one floor plan, recognizing the proper screen size and proper viewing distance limits. Scheme 2a is far more desirable than Scheme 2b, since it requires less width of structure and eliminates the annoying center aisle. The efficiency and qualities of Scheme 2a have made it a most popular aisle arrangement. Figure 3 shows 42 seats in a row having, in Diagram 3a, a center aisle flanked on each side by two banks of 14 seats each, an aisle on either extreme of these seats, and seven seats from these aisles to the side walls. Diagram 3b disposes of the 42 seats in the auditorium width by utilizing three banks of 14 seats each with two aisles against the side walls and two aisles separating the three banks of seating. Schemes 3a and 3b both permit a seating capacity up to approximately 1,100 for a one-floor plan, using the proper screen size and viewing distances. In this instance, Scheme 3b, although it requires slightly greater width in structure, is more desirable because of the center bank of seats instead of the center aisle and because it has only two aisles within the seating area instead of three, as in Scheme 3a, thus causing less annoyance to patrons who are already seated. SPACE ECONOMY If space efficiency is important, and it usually is, it can be seen that for a onefloor type of plan, it is necessary to have a seating capacity that is as close as possible to 350, 700 or 1,100 seats, respectively, for Schemes 1, 2 and 3, to have a minimum of aisle area per seat. For example, a 900 seating capacity would require aisle Scheme 3b for proper design, causing a greater square-footage of structure per seat than if the capacity were 700 seats using Scheme 2a. The limits set forth in these diagrams are a compromise with what might be termed ideal viewing conditions for every spectator, and the practices of the past. They permit good viewing conditions in spite of economy of structure.. Many existing and recently constructed theatres conform to these limits ; others are wasteful in aisle arrangement, or on the other hand, for example, utilize Scheme 2a for over 700 seats, producing poor viewing conditions for rear seats. To those exhibitors who would desire even more ideal quality in viewing conditions, the possibilities of upper levels of seating and a greater area per seat must be considered. These systems will be discussed in a subsequent article. [The author is a New York theatre architect whose researches in the planning of theatres specifically for motion pictures have been frequently reported before the Society of Motion Picture Engineers as well as in the pages of this publication. He is a contributing consultant to Better Theatres on architectural form.] 55: 5" 5 6 L 2" D!/\6HkM 2-A DUtf&kM 2-b Figure 2 14 Better Theatres 1