"Darren" <dnemet...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:h1Tmj.130$uZ.127@newsfe05.lga...>I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.

That's how it's supposed to be done. But so few theaters have curtains these
days that the operators don't always know the procedure.

I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.
That's how it's supposed to be done. But so few theaters have curtains these

I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.
That's how it's supposed to be done. But so few theaters have curtains these
days that the operators don't always know the procedure.

I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.

Who is right?


Darren

"Darren" <dnemeth01@charter.net> wrote in message
news:h1Tmj.130$uZ.127@newsfe05.lga...
I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.
That's how it's supposed to be done. But so few theaters have curtains these
days that the operators don't always know the procedure.

I saw two films at two different movie palaces. Both opened the curtains
then started the film.

What is the proper way to do this?

I think that starting the film then opening the curtsins gives a more
dramatic effect.

Who is right?


Darren

Dunno about the Hartford theatre, but in at least some of the grand
old dames, scope masking did move up and down. The theatre design was
for the old academy ratio, and there was even a problem fitting
wide-screen, and then scope exacerbated the problem.

Just a minor correction. The 'scope screen maskings moved in and out,
not up and down. The method of presentation that you describe was used
by virtually every theatre, regardless of size, in the U.S. until
General Cinema Corporation showed everyone how to save money. A dozen
blue flood lamps cost considerably less than fifty feet of drapes.

As for not ever showing a blank screen: at the long gone Harford
Loew's Poli there would sometimes be previews in CScope. The curtain
would be closed, lighted, & opened and lights faded for the 'flat'
preview, then closed and opened for the scope preview; while closed
the masking for the scope preview would have been dropped. As the
scope preview ended the curtains were again closed, the masking
raised, then opened for the flat preview. As the previews ended,
regardless of the AR of the coming feature, the curtains would be
closed, lighted, and opened again and the lights faded, with of course
the scope masking being dropped if necessary. I have no idea how much
of this was done either backstage or in the booth or some combination
thereof and I sometimes wondered if guys were bumping into each other!

Sadly, about half of modern multiplexes are designed this way, with the
result that academy-ratio films are shown on larger screens than scope
films.

In article <8bcdb23a-fc35-4a00-9808-
7bbefa4d747b@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, ep45guy@yahoo.com says...


SNIP

As for not ever showing a blank screen: at the long gone Harford
Loew's Poli there would sometimes be previews in CScope. The curtain
would be closed, lighted, & opened and lights faded for the 'flat'
preview, then closed and opened for the scope preview; while closed
the masking for the scope preview would have been dropped. As the
scope preview ended the curtains were again closed, the masking
raised, then opened for the flat preview. As the previews ended,
regardless of the AR of the coming feature, the curtains would be
closed, lighted, and opened again and the lights faded, with of course
the scope masking being dropped if necessary. I have no idea how much
of this was done either backstage or in the booth or some combination
thereof and I sometimes wondered if guys were bumping into each other!

Just a minor correction. The 'scope screen maskings moved in and out,
not up and down. The method of presentation that you describe was used
by virtually every theatre, regardless of size, in the U.S. until
General Cinema Corporation showed everyone how to save money. A dozen
blue flood lamps cost considerably less than fifty feet of drapes.

Marty

In article <o2a1q3l0gmgdfr9fvejgf8nfg933fj8n10@4ax.com>,
Roo@theatresupport.com> wrote:

Dunno about the Hartford theatre, but in at least some of the grand
old dames, scope masking did move up and down. The theatre design was
for the old academy ratio, and there was even a problem fitting
wide-screen, and then scope exacerbated the problem.


Top masking appears to have been popular in neighborhood and
small-town theatres from the beginning of Cinemascope. I've worked
in several like this. A 1.66:1 (more-or-less) proscenium seems to
have been common. One actually had a 1.75:1 screen installed circa
1955 with top and side masking for scope (the sides only moved out
by about a foot, and moved in for Academy). This was redone a few
years ago and I belive that it is now a common-height system.

Sadly, about half of modern multiplexes are designed this way, with the