Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or..... - Page 6

post #151 of 311
11/24/09 at 7:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL View Post
Just a slight correction. Raintree County was the first filmed in MGM Camera 65 although it was released in 35mm only. Ben-Hur was the second. Also, according to Marty Hart at his WideScreen Museum web site, Ben-Hur played for three years in Rome - http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup4.htm
 

I like the remark about all the extra wanting to see themselves in the movie :)

I mentioned Ben Hur as the first anamorphic 65mm production that was also shown with anamorphic 70mm prints. I made that distinction as I am still convinced that 35mm reduction prints really did a great disservice to the idea of a bigger camera negative bringing superior quality to the screen.
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Ben-Hur [Blu-ray]
post #152 of 311
11/24/09 at 3:06pm
Quote:
With both theatres not being specially built for Camera 65 / UP70 movies AND with flat screens I would have to guess that the screens were masked at the top and/or bottom if the were built as Todd AO venues or maybe the projection had some overscan if the screen had been built to show the original Cinemascope movies with a 2.55 to 1 apect ratio.
 

The Todd-AO standards called for a curved screen, more deeply curved then CinemaScope, but less deeply curved then Cinerama.

I know of at least one theater converted to Todd-AO that used an adjustable screen frame that allowed the curvature depth of the screen to be changed.

However, when I saw "Mutiny On The Bounty"  in SFO in UP70, the screen was also very wide, at least 2.55:1 or so, even though  the main curtain and proescenium both had a deep curve.

Vern
Reply
post #153 of 311
11/25/09 at 12:43am
Thanks for your recollections Vern,

it is a shame that there is often so little documentation that remains about the demolished roadshow theaters of the past.

In Germany there was a huge roadshow theater in Berlin that was demolished in 2006 and it is not even know if its biggest screen was 39 or over 43' high. The screen width was apparently at least 105' and deeply curved but nobody has ever measured the screen to get the exact dimensions.

To anybody who might not know: Vern has one of the very few home theaters with a screen that has an aspect ratio of more than 2.4 to 1. It is 2.66:1 screen and it is VERY wide :) 
Reply
post #154 of 311
11/25/09 at 6:13am
I remember back in the early 1980's in Minneapolis I went to a special showing of Ben Hur at one of the few theaters left that had a very large screen. Before the movie started, there were other coming attractions that, frankly, seemed large on the large screen. But then, Ben Hur began, and suddenly the curtains opened more, and more, and more, The screen size was unbelievable. Everyone in the packed theater began to applaud -- not only because their favorite movie had started -- but because we could not believe how big the screen was. It may not have been the largest screen around, but it was wonderful. I had forgotten how big the screens were in the 'good ole days' of those special, single screen theaters. It was a treat.
Reply
post #155 of 311
11/25/09 at 9:07am
 I miss the Imperial in Montreal for the same reason.
Reply
post #156 of 311
11/25/09 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK View Post





Robert,

while I do not think that it should be the only deciding factor in the discussion about what aspect ratio Ben Hur should have on Blu-Ray it does indeed seem that projection at the Cinerama aspect ratio would usually have been the widest projected aspect ratio for Ben Hur.
I have looked up historic movie theaters in Germany and could not find even one theater that had a screen that was definitely wider than the 2.59 to 1 needed for Cinerama presentations.  Do you know of any theater in the US that had a wider screen ?

Apparently Ben Hur was shown in Germany with reduced height in several theaters with a scope or Todd-AO shaped screen but I could not ascertain that it was really projected in 2.76 to 1 rather than the usual 2.5 to 2.59 to 1.

Oliver

 

I have read  several times that when it played at the Egyptian in LA ( which was the original Todd AO installation there), Ben Hur was projected across the full width of the screen with the height reduced accordingly to give a 2.55:1 AR  .Did anyone see it there?
Reply
post #157 of 311
11/25/09 at 11:52pm
The whole point of widescreen was for theaters to retain Academy standard height and to increase the width. Otherwise the audience was not getting a bigger picture. I used to go to a cinema which up to as late as 1965, until it was modernised, was still having to reduce the height to show Cinemascope films or indeed anything wider than 1.85:1. I saw BEN-HUR projected at 2.76:1 at the Empire, London and it looked marvellous. My objection to having that extreme width on discs for widescreen TV sets is that you simply end up with a much narrower picture, not a bigger one, just as in those cinemas which had to reduce the height, especially as BEN-HUR has no essential picture information at the far sides when seen in 2.76:1.         
Reply
post #158 of 311
11/26/09 at 2:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK View Post

In Germany there was a huge roadshow theater in Berlin that was demolished in 2006 and it is not even know if its biggest screen was 39 or over 43' high. The screen width was apparently at least 105' and deeply curved but nobody has ever measured the screen to get the exact dimensions.

Kinokompendium.de has some pictures of the "Royal Palast".
Reply
post #159 of 311
11/26/09 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post

The whole point of widescreen was for theaters to retain Academy standard height and to increase the width. Otherwise the audience was not getting a bigger picture. I used to go to a cinema which up to as late as 1965, until it was modernised, was still having to reduce the height to show Cinemascope films or indeed anything wider than 1.85:1. I saw BEN-HUR projected at 2.76:1 at the Empire, London and it looked marvellous. My objection to having that extreme width on discs for widescreen TV sets is that you simply end up with a much narrower picture, not a bigger one, just as in those cinemas which had to reduce the height, especially as BEN-HUR has no essential picture information at the far sides when seen in 2.76:1.         
Doug, I totally agree with your comments. Ben-Hur looked stupendous projected via 70mm film at 2.76. But the movie was composed for a 2.55 presentation, so surely that that's the OAR - not that extra bit of picture on the sides. And then there's the real surprise: there's even more picture on each frame of the camera negatives. The part that's hidden by the magnetic soundtracks on the 70mm release prints. For those fans intent on seeing the "entire frame" wouldn't the actual ratio be around 3:1? Can't wait to watch that version on my 52" screen. 
Reply
post #160 of 311
11/26/09 at 11:56am

So I went and looked at the Kompendium website, which lists the size of the screen in Cinema 1 officially as 380 square metres, but suggests the size may be as much as 32 by 13m, which for the non-metric out there is approximately 104 ft x 42.25 ft, a mammoth screen for sure, but one with a max aspect ratio of approximately 2.46:1. Very few modern screens display the full Panavision AR of 2.39:1 and some are as low as 2:1. The megaplex I worked at during law school (2003-05) used top and bottom masking rather than side masking, but the max viewable image on a scope film was ~ 2.25:1. When someone actually points me to a screen that was capable of showing 2.76:1, I might be inclined to agree that the correct AR for Ben-Hur and most other Ultra Panavision/Camera 65 is 2.76, but the only ones that really used the full width were the ones presented in single-strip Cinerama (IAMMMMW, TGSET, etc.).

Reply
post #161 of 311
11/26/09 at 1:10pm
The difference between a properly presented 70mm presentation and 35 scope is additional height, with normally the upper masking raised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R View Post

The whole point of widescreen was for theaters to retain Academy standard height and to increase the width. Otherwise the audience was not getting a bigger picture. I used to go to a cinema which up to as late as 1965, until it was modernised, was still having to reduce the height to show Cinemascope films or indeed anything wider than 1.85:1. I saw BEN-HUR projected at 2.76:1 at the Empire, London and it looked marvellous. My objection to having that extreme width on discs for widescreen TV sets is that you simply end up with a much narrower picture, not a bigger one, just as in those cinemas which had to reduce the height, especially as BEN-HUR has no essential picture information at the far sides when seen in 2.76:1.         
Reply
post #162 of 311
11/26/09 at 1:24pm
It is highly improbable that the Royal Palast had a screen with an aspect ratio of 2.46:1 as it had been designed to show three strip cinerama (recommendation for projected aspect ratio 2.59:1). Other sources are giving the height of the screen as 12m and that would give an aspect ratio of 2.67:1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H View Post

So I went and looked at the Kompendium website, which lists the size of the screen in Cinema 1 officially as 380 square metres, but suggests the size may be as much as 32 by 13m, which for the non-metric out there is approximately 104 ft x 42.25 ft, a mammoth screen for sure, but one with a max aspect ratio of approximately 2.46:1. Very few modern screens display the full Panavision AR of 2.39:1 and some are as low as 2:1. The megaplex I worked at during law school (2003-05) used top and bottom masking rather than side masking, but the max viewable image on a scope film was ~ 2.25:1. When someone actually points me to a screen that was capable of showing 2.76:1, I might be inclined to agree that the correct AR for Ben-Hur and most other Ultra Panavision/Camera 65 is 2.76, but the only ones that really used the full width were the ones presented in single-strip Cinerama (IAMMMMW, TGSET, etc.).

Reply
post #163 of 311
11/26/09 at 5:41pm
Of course, the dimensions given on the website (and given I don't speak German, so Babelfish as usual was painfully limited) probably didn't take the curve into account. Even so. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a venue that had a 2.76:1 screen. BTW, @ 380 sqaure metres, if the height of the screen was 12m, that would make the screen 31.67 metres wide, which would yield a 2.64:1 AR. At 13m high the screen would be 29.23m wide, yielding an AR of 2.25:1. I'm guessing the first set of measurements is correct, since in Imperial measures, the screen would be 103ft wide, whereas with a 13m high screen, it would be a 95ft wide screen, with a closer to flat 70mm AR, rather than a Cinerama ratio.
Reply
post #164 of 311
11/27/09 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

The difference between a properly presented 70mm presentation and 35 scope is additional height, with normally the upper masking raised.
 


 

The two 70mm theaters nearest to me did exactly that. Films that were shot 1.85:1 were the same height as 35mm scope, but the masking and curtains on the giant curved screen opened all the way out for the scope films. The 70mm presentations, just like 35mm scope, used the full width of the screen but also had the top masking go up, filling the entire screen with the 2.21:1 aspect ratio. When the trailers would only be in 1.85:1 it was really thrilling to see the curtains go all the way out for the scope feature, and even more so when the feature was in 70. Both of these theaters had screens that were about 60 feet wide (measured along the chord). I can't imagine how big they'd have to be to incorporate both the additional height and width of anamorphic 70mm used for Ben-Hur!
Reply
post #165 of 311
11/29/09 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H View Post

Of course, the dimensions given on the website (and given I don't speak German, so Babelfish as usual was painfully limited) probably didn't take the curve into account. Even so. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a venue that had a 2.76:1 screen. BTW, @ 380 sqaure metres, if the height of the screen was 12m, that would make the screen 31.67 metres wide, which would yield a 2.64:1 AR. At 13m high the screen would be 29.23m wide, yielding an AR of 2.25:1. I'm guessing the first set of measurements is correct, since in Imperial measures, the screen would be 103ft wide, whereas with a 13m high screen, it would be a 95ft wide screen, with a closer to flat 70mm AR, rather than a Cinerama ratio.
Some of the Cinerama theatres screens were 2.76:1 or close to it:

http://cineramahistory.com/warner.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctdome.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctmartin.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctwarner.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctorpheum.htm
Reply
post #166 of 311
11/29/09 at 2:04pm
I forgot to check your site for screen dimensions - so there are a few screens that were around 2.7 to 1 - very interesting.

I looked up the theaters in Germany and the widest theaters where you have dimensions listed are around 2.5:1.
BTW: The Schauburg in Karlsruhe shows UP70 and Camera 65 with reduced height in the full 2.76:1 AR, their screen is about 2.2:1.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL View Post



Some of the Cinerama theatres screens were 2.76:1 or close to it:

http://cineramahistory.com/warner.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctdome.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctmartin.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctwarner.htm

http://cineramahistory.com/ctorpheum.htm





 
Reply
post #167 of 311
11/30/09 at 6:08am
cinerama.topcities.com/150ua.htm  was the first of the Cinema 150 theatres that opened in Santa Clara CA.

The  projectionist and I opened the masking one time all the way, top to buttom,  side to side,  and the screen was 88 by 32 ft. That is exactly 2.75 ratio.

Unfortunately the theatre never played any Ultra Panavision/ MGM Camera 65 films.
Reply
post #168 of 311
11/30/09 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stockton View Post

cinerama.topcities.com/150ua.htm  was the first of the Cinema 150 theatres that opened in Santa Clara CA.

The  projectionist and I opened the masking one time all the way, top to buttom,  side to side,  and the screen was 88 by 32 ft. That is exactly 2.75 ratio.

Unfortunately the theatre never played any Ultra Panavision/ MGM Camera 65 films.
 


What a waste, it would have looked fantastic to see the screen open up and then some more and then even more until it opened up to the whole Ultra Panavision aspect ratio
Reply
post #169 of 311
11/30/09 at 7:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stockton View Post

cinerama.topcities.com/150ua.htm  was the first of the Cinema 150 theatres that opened in Santa Clara CA.

The  projectionist and I opened the masking one time all the way, top to buttom,  side to side,  and the screen was 88 by 32 ft. That is exactly 2.75 ratio.

Unfortunately the theatre never played any Ultra Panavision/ MGM Camera 65 films.

Thanks for the link.  From the pictures, it looks very much like the late (idiots demolished it in the 1990s), great Cooper theater in Denver.  I loved that huge curved screen.

http://cinematreasures.org/theater/930/
Reply
post #170 of 311
11/30/09 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stockton View Post

cinerama.topcities.com/150ua.htm  was the first of the Cinema 150 theatres that opened in Santa Clara CA.
 

Enjoyed that link, John.

The pictures in that article remind me so much of the old Hellman Theater in Albany.  I don't know if any old photos of it exist...but it opened in 1960 and supposedly had 1,060 seats.  I was born in 1959 so all my memories of this theater are from the few times I attended as a youngster.  But it was grand!  I remember taking my mother to a showing of That's Entertainment there before it got "twinned" in the late '70s.  The whole thing is long gone now. 

   

Here's some info from cinematreasures.org:

Quote:
This is from Boxoffice magazine in April 1960:

ALBANY-The new 1,060-seat Hellman Theater on Upper Washington Avenue which Neil Hellman is building at a cost estimated at $500,000, will open April 27 with the first upstate New York showing of "Please Don't Eat the Daisies".

The Hellman, constructed as a memorial to Neil's father, the late Harry Hellman, a pioneer Albany exhibitor, will have a 52-foot wall-to-wall screen, eight stage and 12 wall speakers and the most modern design and deluxe equipment. Designed by Sidney Schenker, Paterson NJ architect, the house will "represent the new concept of a motion picture theater's functions", according to general manager Alan Iselin. Mannie Friedman, whose exhibition experience covers 23 years, will be the house manager.
Reply
post #171 of 311
11/30/09 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OliverK View Post





What a waste, it would have looked fantastic to see the screen open up and then some more and then even more until it opened up to the whole Ultra Panavision aspect ratio
You are right. This was the ideal place to view Ben Hur. Seeing it on a gigantic screen in full aspect ratio would have been an unsurpassed experience.



Also as the article mentions, this theatre had an all purpose projection. It was designed to play films like Ben Hur and Mutiny on the Bounty without lowering the horizontal masking(reduced height).
Edited by John Stockton - 11/30/09 at 10:38pm
Reply
post #172 of 311
11/30/09 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post




Thanks for the link.  From the pictures, it looks very much like the late (idiots demolished it in the 1990s), great Cooper theater in Denver.  I loved that huge curved screen.

http://cinematreasures.org/theater/930/
 
Yes. I believe the Cooper and Cinema 150 had similar characteristics. Though from the outside the Cooper looks to have been circular shaped, where the 150 was rectangular.

I think these two theatres along with the Big New Port and the Cinerama dome in hollywood are known to have(had) the largest screens in the western United States.
Edited by John Stockton - 11/30/09 at 10:43pm
Reply
post #173 of 311
11/30/09 at 10:28pm
Double post
Edited by John Stockton - 11/30/09 at 10:41pm
Reply
post #174 of 311
11/30/09 at 10:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon View Post




Enjoyed that link, John.

The pictures in that article remind me so much of the old Hellman Theater in Albany.  I don't know if any old photos of it exist...but it opened in 1960 and supposedly had 1,060 seats.  I was born in 1959 so all my memories of this theater are from the few times I attended as a youngster.  But it was grand!  I remember taking my mother to a showing of That's Entertainment there before it got "twinned" in the late '70s.  The whole thing is long gone now.

 
It is a shame that theatres such as this have disappeared to make way for the local shoe box megaplex.
Reply
post #175 of 311
12/1/09 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon View Post




Enjoyed that link, John.

The pictures in that article remind me so much of the old Hellman Theater in Albany.  I don't know if any old photos of it exist...but it opened in 1960 and supposedly had 1,060 seats.  I was born in 1959 so all my memories of this theater are from the few times I attended as a youngster.  But it was grand!  I remember taking my mother to a showing of That's Entertainment there before it got "twinned" in the late '70s.  The whole thing is long gone now. 

   

Here's some info from cinematreasures.org:

 

I have some pictures of the Hellman - http://www.cineramahistory.com/cthellman.htm .
Reply
post #176 of 311
12/1/09 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL View Post

I have some pictures of the Hellman - http://www.cineramahistory.com/cthellman.htm .

Dang it, Roland.  I got SO excited when I saw your post...

But I can't get the link to open...nor the link in your sig!  Maybe there's a problem between me and your server right now... 
Reply
post #177 of 311
12/1/09 at 12:29pm
Working now!  Awesome! 

FWIW, the last three images just before the pictures of the "twinned" Hellman aren't showing up for me.  (They are probably the last three pages of the 1960 Motion Picture Herald article?)

It's amazing how I can look at those photos and it all comes rushing back to me.  Just fantastic!

Thank you for posting. 
Reply
post #178 of 311
12/1/09 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandL View Post




I have some pictures of the Hellman - http://www.cineramahistory.com/cthellman.htm .

Geez, that last picture is sad.
Reply
post #179 of 311
12/1/09 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post




Geez, that last picture is sad.

That's the truth.  Unfortunately, that building sat like that for too long. 
Reply
post #180 of 311
12/4/09 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stockton View Post



Yes. I believe the Cooper and Cinema 150 had similar characteristics. Though from the outside the Cooper looks to have been circular shaped, where the 150 was rectangular.

I think these two theatres along with the Big New Port and the Cinerama dome in hollywood are known to have(had) the largest screens in the western United States.
 

From my Cooper link it states,

Quote:
The original screen was 105 feet along its 146 degree curve. The original three projector could run at either 24 fps or 26fps for earlier three strip Cinerama films.

105 feet!  146 degrees!  I can only imagine now.... 
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Ben-Hur [Blu-ray]
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › Warner to release Ben-Hur on Blu-ray in 2009 (?), or.....