Motion Picture Herald (Jan-Mar 1956)

A \Nay to Simplify the New Projection CONTINUED FROM PAGE 14 emaScope ratio of 2.35 or 2.55-to-l. This argument may have some justification; however, the loss of picture quality produced by cropping a standard aperture to obtain this aspect ratio only serves to defeat the process. A method may be suggested which will use the maximum amount of film area and also confine magnification to a minimum. Let us first consider Item 8 in the table. Here we use the maximum picture frame size of .912" x .715"; however the picture on the film is compressed to an anamorphic ratio of 1.5-to-l, and when projected through a 1.5-to-l anamorphic expander a picture 16 feet by 31 feet will be obtained. This will have an enlargement ratio of only 110,000 times. Item 7 shows a cropped picture of the same size which, however, has twice such enlargement (216,000 times). The case shown in Item 5 is quite similar, but the picture area on the film is reduced to .839" x .715" to suit singletrack optical sound. Even for the largest picture possible under the conditions of this discussion. Item 10 shows that a 21foot by 40-foot picture projected with a 1.5-to-l anamorphic system would have an enlargement factor of 185,000 times, which is far less than the 340,000 times produced by the cropped picture of Item 9. If all pictures were photographed anamorphically in a proper ratio and released with the four-track magnetic CinemaScope print specifications (aperture size .912" x .715"), both CinemaScope and 2-to-l ratio pictures could be projected to a width of 40 feet with acceptable magnification. This would be especially true with print-down from larger negative frame. With the latter technique plus recent improvements in chemical reagents, the above proposals should insure extremely good picture quality even in the upper picture sizes. If it were possible to have such procedure universally accepted, projection would be simplified considerably. The height of the pictures would be the same and the center lines of the pictures would coincide. Full size apertures could be used, and the projectors would not have to be moved between pictures. The same back-up lenses could be used in all cases, and if a variable anamorphic attachment were used, the only operational change required for the different projection systems would be to reset the anamorphic ratio of the expander. The writer submits this system in the interests of sorely needed simplification of motion picture projection among the majority of theatres everywhere. It in no way places any burden on technical progress. To the contrary, it would enable the industry to realize more consistently the advances already achieved. Theatre Design in the New Techniques CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 1 Some tests made recently for a picture 60 feet wide indicated that the distance from it to the first row could be approximately 35 feet if the film photograph had an area of 2 square inches, and about 45 feet if that area were 1 Yi square inches. Seating has to be as close to the screen as it is practicable to put it in order to minimize loss of land value and the amount of non-productive structure. It fortunately so happens that these forward viewing positions are among those from which the screen performance, completely filling the field of vision, gives the greatest sense of “presence.” In designing a theatre for the new techniques we need not provide for deeply curved screen as a means of attaining “presence,” or as it is sometimes confusingly called, “participation.” Subtended viewing angles alone control the degree to which the spectator has a feeling of being at the scene. Any screen curvature emplo3'ed is useful mostly, if not entirely, for the purpose of distributing screen light more uni formly and of equalizing focus across the screen. These purposes are served by curving the screen with the projection throw, or not less than 75% of it, as the radius. In this contemplation of theatre and motion picture technique designed one for the other to realize the ultimate possibilities of the screen, we are of course setting forth conditions not to be met generally. There always has been material differentiation among theatres, with groupings according to greater or lesser facilities of one kind and another, including those entering into picture presentation. The departure from traditional screen technique now being under taken may reasonably call for further differentiation, with the new screen format first and foremost among the considerations dictating design. Experience with that group would advise how much the whole exhibition plant could be practicably revised to install, or approach, the same superlative conditions. The motion picture deserves that chance {Continued on page 29) Test ’em at Our Expense! i'' Free Samples on Request Larger Core for Greater Crater Area means MORE BRILLIANT ILLUMINATION for SHARPER, BRIGHTER PICTURE CinemaScopE VISTAVISION AND ALI OTHER WIDE AREA SCREENS 40 (1 Kw) 28 7x14 54IC 6x9 54S-20C 42-80 31-38 7x14 544C 6x9 S45-C 55-<S 34-37 8x14 544C 7x9 545C 70 38 6x14 544 7x9 545C 6S-70 35-37 9x14 S44C 7x9 543C 78-80 39-40 9x14 544C 8x9 545C 80-88 37-40 9x14 544-IOC 8x9 545C 80-90 50-55 9x20 552-09 5/16x9 5S7C lOO-IIO 54-60 10x20 552-09 11/32x9 557C IIS 62 10x20 552-09 3/8x9 S57C 115-130 60-66 11x20 552-09 3/8x9 557C 130-150 65-67 13.6x22 553-01 7/16x9 557C 150-160 68-70 13.6x22 523 1/2x9 555C 170-180 68-69 13.6x22 583-08 1/2x9 555C There’s a Lorraine Carbon for your particular lamp Write for your FREE NEW LORRAINE CARBON CHART of recommended amperages, voltage and arc gaps. CARBONS, Inc.BOONTON, N.J. Longer Burning Economical to use Amp, Volts Pos. Grade Neg. Grait BETTER THEATRES SECTION 27