http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=media&storyID=nN29403439&imageid=&cap=&from=business

I have been saying this all along.

You are correct BUT
1 Some decisions are political
2 Dlp is the safer choice

However I think wire grid polarizers can give 4k sxrd a good boost in performance. The industry will not be satisfied with 2k forever.

I am yet to see true high mtf lcos, the qxia looked pretty good years ago but the MTF on the sxrd sucks.

CINERMAX
When was the last time you saw a functioning 4k sxrd projector? By functioning I mean that any engineer or professional doing the demonstration could not give good explanation for a substandard performance characteristic noted by yourself. I am just curious. The platform is not robust but doesn´t it sing once in a while?

Reading the response on the film forums about this projector has not been positive but we do not know the reason. Most comments came from viewing this projector at events like Cedia but for the film equipment industry. Maybe the setups are not ideal. Regardless, the format is having an up hill battle. It is half the price of DLP so you would think cinemas would jump on this thing.

Bring on 4k to home theater with 4k source :)

Really, i thought you were saying that you were installing one for Shaq... I seem to recall one of your photoshop "creations" calling it the puppy. You were the biggest flag waver.

It has been obvious that it is "not ready" for a while now. it is new, it is still a little flakey, and nobody wants to be the beta tester.

Once they have some installed for a year or more and have made the required changes, then it will potentially take over. However, in the meantime they will sell plenty into commercial and get that feedback from harsh environments.

Really, i thought you were saying that you were installing one for Shaq... I seem to recall one of your photoshop "creations" calling it the puppy. You were the biggest flag waver.

Pretty good memory Dizz, actually the puppy was the QXIA, close.

I was very dissapointed when I saw the srx-r110 the first time, since then I've seen it many times, always exhibiting poor convergence and uniformity, the last time at Infocomm they licked those two but the image is soft in the high frequecies, thus 3dlp looks sharper.

To me the best pj out there at the moment is the Barco FLM hd 14 (not hdcp) or Maybe for an easy to use high quality (finest scaler I have ever) + (hdcp) 2.35 CIH the Runco: Vx -55d.

http://www.cesweb.org/shared_files/innovations/innovations_2004/6488/mainphoto6488.jpg



So there you go I have come full circle. From critic to fan.

Hi Peter, So how much for that Runco Beast with the 2.35:1 package??

115

115

Peter ,
Obviously that Runco has some nice MTF but what are your thoughts on the one chip DLPs like the Marantz on smaller screens say 8' wide....... has to be the king there right now ?

Art

Art and Peter,
What size screen and aspect ratio would you suggest for a room 22 feet deep. My space for a screen could be as large as 13 foot wide, but don't strive for that large a screen unless you feel strongly!! woven screen for acoustic transparency

I'll Look Again In That Category Before Opining.

CINERMAX
Dlp might be facing a new contender.
Magneto Photonic crystals
http://www.panoramalabs.com/

I have tried to get them to spill some info on their technoogy compared to todays in brightness, contrast and color performance. Initially they said they would comment but they have been silent. Perhaps you with your high end profile can ask some questions. You can say that you need to know what is ahead before you install very expensive systems for your clients.

This is in response to your PM where you asked me again. I wish you a happy new year, did santa bring you the Laser Projector Parts Kit?

Ohlson, I have been waiting and waiting for close to ten years to be a ble to do HT properly, now that we have blue ray, hd dvd, hd satellite, 1080p 3 chip dlp, and Don Stewart finally getting up his ass on the anamorphic torus cinemascope, are you asking me to look at another pie in the sky technology that sounds like a designer drug models snort in the bathrooms of south beach discotheques? No. Not interested in magneto photonic crystals or any other type of crystals for that matter.

I have all the tools in place to declare Miami: "the Home Theater Capital of the World" again and I fully intend to get bussy on that matter.

and Don Stewart finally on the anamorphic torus cinemascope, .

This sounds exciting. What about a masking option?? Not a DIY!

According to Grant Stewart who I have recruited to keep the Torus fire lit under Don's seat. Don is "on it " (working on the development of the masking system). The plan is That I would also be involved as a liasion in any initial Home Torus projects, as Stewart does not want to sell any such screens and later have people complain about acoustical anomalies, where I know how to make a Torus room also be Audiophile grade, from past and present experimentation.

This room I am pitching would be the first one with the Masking System. With the front speaker arch further separated from the wall to make space for the mask.

http://cineramax.com/images/Cinema-smallest.jpg

http://cineramax.com/images/Helene-Screen-EVOLUTION.jpg

http://cineramax.com/images/Cine-Evl-Ex-Elevat-sml.jpg

Also this would not be a Torus Kit made out of plywood, like their high end simulators it would be a trasporatble torus made out of aluminium frame and a corrugated cardboard-like fire proof plastic composite. I guess the masking mechanism could be swing in, but then you would not have side adjustment for 2.35,2.37.2.40, like their new drop down screens have. All I want is 2.37. I'll let the scaler handle the rest.

The swing-in sounds like the most logical choice. wide screen then mask down to 1:85 or something of choice.

But not a swing out like a door. They are solid panels that separate forward to clear the screen and then swing sideways out of the way.

But not a swing out like a door. They are solid panels that separate forward to clear the screen and then swing sideways out of the way.

That could ( with a little work ) be easily automated.

http://inscribe.iupress.org/doi/abs/10.2979/FIL.2004.16.3.277

It has a free 10 day subscription.


The curved screen

 
( 

John Belton
The following essay examines the history of the
curved screen for motion picture presentation
from Raoul Grimoin-Sanson’s Cineorama,
which debuted at the Paris Exposition of 1900,
to curved screens in contemporary multiplexes.
The goal of the essay is not to provide
a definitive history of the curved screen but to
explore its virtues and limitations.
Novelty projection formats
The curved screen of the Cineorama process
emerged as a novelty format for the presentation
ofanimagethat literallyengulfedaudiences
at the Paris Exposition. Using ten interlocked
70mm projectors, Grimoin-Sanson filled a 360-degree,
300 by 30-foot screen with images of a balloon
ascension, filmed from an actual balloon that took
off from the Tuileries and descended in La Grande
Place de Bruxelles.
The curved screen did not become a fixture of
motion picture presentation until Cinerama, another
novelty format, made it an essential ingredient in the
illusion of depth it provided for spectators. In the
pre-widescreen era, standard projection manuals,
such as F.H. Richardson’s Handbook of Projection,
advocated for the installation of flat screens in all
theatres. Richardson wrote that ‘there is no advantage
in the installation of a concave screen surface,
except possibly in cases where the distance of projection
is such that a very short focal length projection
lens [e.g. 3.5 inch] must be employed ...’1
What Richardson acknowledges is a necessary
calculus for the correction of distortion. Short
focal length lenses introduce distortion, spreading
rays of light farther than normal lenses. Curved
screens can function to reduce that distortion. With
wide angle projection lenses, the radius of the distance
from the lens to the screen necessarily varies
across the width of the screen – with a shorter radius
at the centre of the screen and longer radii at the
extreme edges of the screen. A curved screen could
compensate for these differences and ensure a more
or less even distribution of light and a sharper focus
of the image at the edges of the screen.
Between Cineorama and Cinerama, other novelty
projection situations also called for curved
screens. One such screen is associated with Henri
Chretien’s Hypergonar lens in its pre-CinemaScope
days. Back in 1937, at the International Exposition in
Paris, two Hypergonar lenses were used to project a
composite, 60 metre by 10 metre panoramic image
onto a concave exterior wall at the Pavilion of Light.
The curved wall compensated, in part, for the distortion
introduced by the cylindrical projection lenses,
maintaining a constant distance in the projection
throw from centre to sides.
Cinerama inventor Fred Waller was also working
with curved screens – projecting a mosaic of still
pictures on a curved screen at the 1939 World’s Fair
in New York. At around this time, Waller was experimenting
with peripheral vision as a component of the
illusion of depth. He concluded that in order to fill the
field of human peripheral vision, he would need a
screen that was the width of an entire city block. As
his colleague Ralph Walker explained it, what Waller
needed was a curved screen ‘to delimit the field of
vision and yet convey a sense of the all-embracing
environment of his films’. Grounding his work on the
fact that ‘normal human vision is actually arc-shaped
..., [giving] us a curved view of the world around us’
that took the form of a ‘sweeping arc of about 160-
degrees wide and 60-degrees high’, Waller reasoned
that ‘if a picture covering that same area were
projected on a curved screen ..., anyone watching it
would feel as if he were right in the center of it’.2 The
curved screen became an integral part of Waller’s
flexible gunnery trainer in the early 1940s and of his
subsequent experiments with Cinerama in the midto-
late-1940s.
Film History, Volume 16, pp. 277–285, 2004. Copyright © John Libbey Publishing
ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America
John Belton teaches film in the English Department
at Rutgers University. Address correspondence to him
at Belton@fas-english.rutgers.edu
Three-strip Cinerama
On 30 September 1952, Cinerama premiered at the
Broadway Theatre in New York City on a screen that
was 75 feet wide and 26 feet high.3 The screen filled
the theatre’s proscenium arch and then some. The
edges of the curved screen extended eight feet on
either side out into the auditorium. The screen was
so large that the original asbestos curtain could not
be lowered; the fire department had to waive its usual
regulations to permit the theatre to operate without
it.4 The screen covered an arc of 146-degrees and
curved to a depth of roughly 25 feet.5
Original photography for films made in the
Cinerama process relied on three wide angle
(27mm) lenses so the curved screen played a small
role in correcting for distortion introduced by these
lenses. Unlike single projector systems, three-strip
Cinerama projection minimised distortion along the
curve of the screen by locating its projection booths
directly opposite the side panels of the screen; in
other words, the projectors were positioned to provide
head-on projection of each panel. With the
advent of single-strip Cinerama in the early 1960s, a
single booth was used, as well as a less deeplycurved
screen. The new screen reduced the curvature
of the arc from 146 to as little as 90-degrees,
depending on the size of the theatre.6 For example,
the Cinerama Dome, built in 1963 in Los Angeles,
has a 126-degree curve in its 86 by 32-foot screen.
Single-strip Cinerama
The Cinerama single lens process introduced ‘corrections’
in the printing and projection to make the
new films suitable for projection in the old, deeplycurved,
three-strip theatres. The printer lens of a
special optical printer introduced what was referred
to as ‘barrel distortion’ to generate a negative for
producing prints for deeply-curved screens. This
was accompanied by a slight horizontal compression
in the two side panels – a compression that
would be unsqueezed by the curvature of the screen
itself. The projection lens used in the theatre was
designed with what was called ‘pin-cushion distortion’.
The result was that ‘the shape of the projected
rectangular image approximate[d] the projected
shape of the screen’. The amount of ‘pin-cushion
distortion’ was ‘proportionate to the focal length of
the projection lens required for any particular theatre’.
7 In other words, single lens Cinerama films must
be ‘corrected’ if they are to be shown on deeplycurved
screens.
Over the past ten years, several three-strip
Cinerama theatres have been constructed or restored.
These include the Pictureville Theater (opening
ca. 1993) at the National Museum of
Photography, Film and Television in Bradford, England;
the Neon (opening ca. 1996) in Dayton, Ohio,
which no longer operates as a Cinerama theatre;
Paul Allen’s Seattle Cinerama Theater (opening in
June, 2000) in Seattle; and the Cinerama Dome
(re-opening in September, 2003) in Los Angeles. I
have been able to see a number of three-strip and
single-strip Cinerama films at Bradford on its 51 by
22-foot screen, which curves to a depth of 15 feet.
While all the three-strip films look pretty good on this
curve, single-strip films, such as Battle of the Bulge
(1965), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and The Last
Valley (1971), appeared distorted on the deeply
curved Cinerama screen because those prints were
uncorrected.
The curved Cinerama screen automatically
amplified the sense of audience participation by
surrounding spectators with the image, but it also
posed a potential problem. Light reflected from one
edge of the screen struck the opposite edge, washing
out the image. Cinerama solved that problem
with its louvered screen, consisting of 1,100 vertical
strips. The louvered strips prevented the reflection of
light back on to the other side of the screen.
Subsequently, two Cinerama clones were introduced.
Cinemiracle was unveiled with the premiere
of Windjammer in 1958. In 1956–1957, Evsei
M. Goldovskii and Soviet scientists at N.I.F.K.I (All-
Fig. 1. The
Cinerama screen
in the Broadway
Theatre curved to
a depth of 25 feet
[author’s
collection].
278 John Belton
Union Scientific Research Institute of Motion Picture
Photography) developed Kinopanarama which won
a Grand Prize at the 1958 World’s Fair in Brussels.
Great is my Country was the first film in the process.
When it was shown in Moscow, it played on a deeplycurved
screen that was 102 feet wide and 38 feet in
height; it boasted nine-track stereo sound (Cinerama
featured only seven).8 A compilation of six Kinopanarama
films was released in the United States
as Cinerama’s Russian Adventure (1966).
Wide-angle projection
Paramount
The success of Cinerama prompted a host of ersatz
widescreen presentations. A new pair of widescreen
aperture plates and a pair of short focal length projection
lenses enabled any exhibitor to climb onto the
widescreen bandwagon. The wide angle projection
lenses were frequently accompanied by curved
screens – in part, to compensate for the distortion
but also to cash in on the added attraction of a
Cinerama-like curved screen. Paramount introduced
what it called the ‘Paramount Panoramic Screen’ for
the projection of 1.66:1 films. It resembled the RCA
Synchro-Screen, designed by theatre architect Ben
Schlanger. The curvature of the screen varied, depending
on the width of the auditorium and the
projection throw. ‘For normal houses, the radius of
curvature should be equal to, or greater than threequarters
of the distance from the centre of the screen
to the projector, assuming that the projector is not
further forward than the last row of seats. In very wide
houses, the radius should be approximately equal to
the projector throw.’9
A year later, with the advent of VistaVision,
Paramount re-issued guidelines for screen curvature:
‘We recommend curving metallic screens with
a radius equal to the projection throw or in long
narrow houses this radius may be increased to one
and one-fourth or one and one-half times projection
throw. We also recommend tilting the screen back
slightly at the top in theatres that have very high
projection angles.’10 The second VistaVision film,
Strategic Air Command (1955), was shown at the
Paramount Theatre in New York on a 64 by 32-foot
metalised screen that curved to a depth of 3.5 feet.11
Fig. 2.
Paramount’s
Panoramic
screen curved
slightly to
compensate for
wide angle
projection
[Jay Emanuel
Publications].
Fig. 3.
Universal’s
Wide-Vision
screen curved to
a depth of three
feet in the Loew’s
State Theatre
[Jay Emanuel
Publications].
The curved screen 279
Universal
In the Spring of 1953, Universal-International introduced
a new, all-purpose wide screen with the release
of Thunder Bay. Made by U-I’s special
photographic effects dept. in conjunction with the
Research Council of the Motion Picture Producers
Assn., the new screen was designed to be used for
3-D or 2-D films with aspect ratios from 1.33 to 2:1.
According to Universal, ‘After weeks of experimentation,
it was discovered that a larger and brighter
picture could be achieved by spray coating a textile
surface with aluminum powder and giving the screen
a moderate curvature’.12 The screen was ‘curved on
a 90 foot radius’. It had ‘a light magnifying factor of
approximately four to one, as compared to present
theatrical screens of less than one’.13 The depth of
the curve on the 46 by 24-foot screen at Loew’s State
Theatre in New York was about three feet.14
The curved screens introduced by Paramount
and Universal saw the industry through a brief transition
period where old, 1.33:1 films were released in
cropped, wide screen formats. During this period, a
number of screen manufacturers marketed curved
screens, such as the ‘Curvamatic Screens’ and
Walker Screens. Curved screen even found their way
into drive-ins.
CinemaScope
With the introduction of CinemaScope in September
of 1953, Twentieth Century-Fox designed a complete
technological package for exhibitors, consisting of
widescreen film, stereophonic sound, and curved
screens. Fox’s Miracle Mirror screen was designed
to imitate Cinerama’s curved screen but without the
latter’s deep curve. The curve of the CinemaScope
screen was relatively shallow. Depending on the size
of the projected image and the distance of the projection
throw, the depth of the curve could range
from less than a foot to 8 feet. The CinemaScope
screen curved at the approximate rate of one inch
Fig. 4. Table
indicating depth
of curve for
CinemaScope
screens, based
on picture width
and projection
throw
[Jay Emanuel
Publications].
280 John Belton
per foot, resulting, in the case of a sixty-two foot wide
screen, in a five foot curve. The CinemaScope curve
compensated for the horizontal expansion of the
image, keeping the screen at a more or less constant
distance from the centre of the projection lens and,
thus, insuring a focus that was as sharp at the edges
as at the centre.
The accompanying table (facing page) for
computing the dimensions of the curved screen
provides an indication of the depth of the curve
(indicated in column ‘R’) in relation to projection
throw (the numbers at the top running from left to
right ranging from 60 to 200) and picture width (the
numbers at the side from top to bottom ranging from
24 to 74).
Fox’s instructions for the installation of its Miracle
Mirror screens stated that the curvature of the
screen should have a radius equal to that of the
projection throw. Fox promoted the curved screen as
a way of maintaining adequate picture brightness
across the surface of the screen and, in some situations,
improving ‘picture definition at the sides’. But
the studio also acknowledged that curved screens
do introduce distortion through the curvature of horizontal
lines. This distortion could be reduced by
‘tilting the top of the screen away from the projector
a few degrees’.15 Fox recommended that exhibitors
obtain special aperture plates to correct for certain
distortions in projection – such as keystoning and
off-centre projection from high angles. When projecting
from a steep angle, in order to get a rectangular
picture on a curved screen, banana-shaped aperture
plates had to be used. Distortion is clearly more
visible with steep projection angles; spectators
seated in the balcony also experienced distortion.
Campaigning against curved
screens
One trade publication – International Projectionist –
published by members of the projectionist union
took issue with Fox and its CinemaScope package,
including the curved screen. International Projectionist
felt that 60-foot-plus wide screens were just too
wide and published its own preferred screen sizes.
For a small theatre – 30 x 18 feet; medium – 44 x 24
feet; and large – 50 x 38 feet (Vol. 28, No. 5 [May
1953]: 23). The journal declared the 2.55:1 aspect
ratio to be ‘absurd’ (IP, 9/53, 3) and it sided with small
exhibitors and denounced Fox’s insistence on stereo
magnetic sound as part of the CinemaScope package.
But its most consistent target was the curved
screen which it denounced in a series of articles
beginning in March of 1953.
In its editorials, the journal argues that ‘far from
eliminating distortion, the curved screen creates it!
... Because the screen is curved, not flat, horizontal
lines appear bowed, while vertical lines are variously
curved, depending on the camera angle and the seat
from which the screen is viewed... . From the balcony,
the waterfall flows up!’ (IP 3/53, 16). Subsequent
editorials included graphic illustrations of
this perceived distortion. In May of 1954, Robert A.
Mitchell complained that ‘a flat floor in a Cinema-
Scope picture looks like the interior of a bathtub.
Walls vault in graceful arches. Rivers flow uphill and
skyscrapers emulate the leaning tower of Pisa.’16 As
late as 1960, they recommended that a prism-type
compensator be attached to the CinemaScope lens
to straighten out its horizontal lines (IP 2/60, 22). The
prism attachment was designed to correct Cinema-
Scope’s supposed ‘horizontal sag’.
In a review of a CinemaScope demo at the
Roxy, an editorial complained that ‘the curve of the
screen was too deep, about 5 feet at the Roxy, and
while necessary for this vast expanse, it irritated us
Fig. 5.
International
Projectionist’s
rendition of
distortion
introduced by
CinemaScope’s
curved screen
projection
[International
Projectionist].
The curved screen 281
because we were always conscious of it’. (IP, 5/53,
23).
When Radio City Music Hall installed a flat 70
by 28-foot screen for its premiere of Knights of the
Round Table in CinemaScope, International Projectionist
congratulated the Hall on defying Fox’s insistence
on a curved screen. One of the problems with
curved screens for movie palaces that still ran stage
shows was the difficulty in ‘flying’ the screen. Both
the extreme size of the screen and its curve demanded
considerable space in the fly lofts above the
stage – space which the Music Hall apparently did
not have. But it was not impossible to fly a Cinema-
Scope screen with the help of two-to-three counterweights.
When Paramount demonstrated VistaVision
at the Hall in the Spring of 1954, the review was titled
‘Promise of Sanity at Music Hall’. The editors of IP
vastly preferred the less extreme VistaVision format
to that of CinemaScope.
Todd-AO
Todd-AO restored the madness with a vengeance.
In its attempt to duplicate the experience of Cinerama
with one projector and one strip of film, Todd-
AO relied on extreme, bug-eye lenses in original
photography and on a deeply curved screen in projection.
Instead of Cinerama’s louvered screen,
Todd-AO introduced a specially designed lenticular
screen, which was ‘a plastic-coated fabric with an
aluminum surface embossed in a formation of lenticles,
or tiny lenses’. It performed a similar function to
Cinerama’s louvered screen, preventing ‘the surface
from reflecting light back on itself at the extremities’.
17 Like CinemaScope’s Miracle Mirror screen,
Todd-AO’s screens also concentrated the reflected
light into the area occupied by the audience (rather
than dispersing it throughout the auditorium).
The Todd-AO screen curved to a depth of 13
feet for a screen with a width of 52 feet (at the chord)
and a height of 26 feet.18 This extreme screen curvature
resulted in visible distortion, which Brian O’Brien
corrected in his design of the system’s optics.
Todd-AO’s ingenious answer to the problem
of distortion was to compensate for it in the printing
process, by introducing optical distortions into the
projection prints. Thus American Optical developed
an ‘optical correcting printing process which eliminate[
d] distortions in wide films when projected from
high angles onto a sharply curved screen’.19 This
corrective-printing process also corrected prints for
distortion ‘caused by the use of extreme wide-angle
lenses in photography’.20 (The degree of curve in the
screen also eliminated some of the distortion introduced
by the use of extreme wide angle camera
lenses, but Mike Todd, Jr. insisted that O’Brien’s
lenses resulted in some optical distortion in the final
print of Oklahoma! even when ‘corrected’ prints were
projected on the Todd-AO screen.)21
Todd-AO’s film laboratory in Fort Lee actually
produced two ‘classes’ of projection prints for theatres
– one for projection at angles from 10 to 15
degrees and another for angles of 15 degrees or
more.22 Demonstrations of this ‘corrective printing
process’ were given in September 1955 at George
Skouras’ Rivoli Theatre in New York, which had installed
a new projection booth on the ground floor to
Fig. 6.
Todd-AO’s
screen curved to
a depth of
roughly 13 feet at
the Rivoli Theater.
[Author’s
collection.]
282 John Belton
enable comparison tests. One optically-corrected,
70mm print of Oklahoma! was projected from the
theatre’s original booth, which had an extreme projection
angle of 22 degrees and another, non-corrected
print was projected from this new booth,
which featured virtually head-on projection at an
angle of 2.8 degrees.23 Later that year, similar tests
were conducted at the Rivoli for participants at the
79th SMPTE conference in New York, but this time a
single booth was used. To demonstrate the virtues
of the corrective printing process, an uncorrected
print of Oklahoma! was projected at an angle of 22
degrees, followed by a corrected print, which eliminated
the distortions seen previously.24 Todd-AO
claimed that this system could accommodate projection
angles as great as 25 degrees.25 Though
Todd-AO prints could be tailor-made for individual
theatres, the deeply-curved, Todd-AO theatre
screen remained incompatible with prints filmed in
other widescreen processes, such as Cinema-
Scope, which employed no corrective printing process.
These films were therefore terribly distorted
when shown on a Todd-AO screen from extreme
projection angles. This proved to be the chief problem
with curved screens – since the degree of curvature
varied with each process, no one curved
screen could be made compatible for the exhibition
the various curved-screen formats.
Dimension-150
Dimension-150, developed by Dr. Richard Vetter and
Dr. C. Williams in 1963, also attempted to solve the
problem of curved-screen distortion. D-150’s optical
system relies on 50-degree, 70-degree, 120-degree
and 150-degree lenses for principal photography.
During the printing process, a special lens is used to
‘correct’ the film image so that it can be projected on
a deeply-curved screen similar to that used in Cinerama.
The D-150 printing process can also generate
flat-screen versions for exhibition in 70mm or
35mm. The D-150 print of Patton shown at Bradford
in 2002 on the Cinerama screen was clearly generated
for flat screen exhibition. It was visibly distorted
on the Cinerama screen.
D-150 was designed to be shown on screens
‘from 120 degrees to 150 degrees of arc, depending
on the physical features of various theatres. A typical
deeply-curved screen size: 34 feet high by 92 feet
wide; its aspect ratio is 2.7 to 1.’26 The typical D-150
screen curves to a depth of 20 feet.27 At the Rivoli,
the D-150 screen curved to a depth of 37.5 feet.28
Fig. 7. An
advertisement for
Dimension-150,
featuring a
deeply-curved
screen
[Jay Emanuel
Publications].
The curved screen 283
Other systems
Numerous curved-screen processes have been installed
in theme parks and other special venues,
including Disney’s Circarama and Circlevision,
Spacearium, and various Imax systems. Circarama,
introduced in 1955, was a 16mm system that used
eleven cameras in production and the same number
of interlocked projectors to display 360-degree images
on eleven panels on the walls of a circular
auditorium. At Disneyland, the screen was eight feet
in height and the auditorium had a diameter of 40
feet. Spectators stood in the centre of the auditorium.
29 Circlevision, installed at Disneyland and Disney
World’s Epcot Center, was a 35mm system that
projected 360-degrees of image on nine panels. The
Wonders of China was made to highlight the Circlevision
format. In all of these multi-camera and multiprojector
systems, distortion in the projected image
is minimised because projection is more-or-less
head-on and the curvature in each panel of the
composite 360-degree screen is minimal.
At the 1958 Photokina Exhibition in Cologne,
Germany, Adalbert Baltes’ Cinetarium process was
demonstrated. Cinetarium involved the use of a
hemispherical mirror in photography and projection
to project a 360-degree circular image onto a domelike
screen mounted in the theatre’s ceiling.30
Introduced in 1967 at Montreal’s Expo 67,
Imax has preserved the curved screen experience in
both the Omnimax and Imax Solido systems; Omnimax
projects images through a 180-degree fish-eye
lens onto a dome in the ceiling of the auditorium that
is up to 99 feet in diameter while Imax Solido projects
stereoscopic images onto a screen that wraps
around the audience.
The deeply-curved screen remained a feature
of specialised exhibition formats, such as Cinerama,
Todd-AO, and D-150, into the late 1960s, but it
became increasingly rare thereafter – except in Imax
theatres and theme parks. The slightly-curved
screen disappeared from conventional theatres
much earlier – probably by the late 1950s and early
1960s, after the first generation of Miracle Mirror and
other curved screens had been replaced.
But within the last 10–20 years, the curved
screen has begun to make a comeback. Slightlycurved
screens now function as attractions in contemporary
exhibition. Starting in 1998, AMC theatres
began to install the Torus Compound Curved Screen
in its theatres. ‘This screen uses powerful fans that
act as air pumps to keep the viewing surface pulled
back into a concave dish shape.’31 Introduced in
1987 by Sigma Design Group, the Torus screen is a
seamless screen without perforations for behindthe-
screen speakers. Perforations would interfere
with the vacuum system that maintains the curve. As
a result, speakers are placed above, below and
alongside the screens. One-fifth of AMC theatres
have installed the $25,000 Torus screens.
The Marcus Theatres, the ninth largest theatre
circuit in the United States with over 490 theatres in
the mid-West, boasts that it has ‘all the amenities ...
stadium seating, digital sound, and big curved
screens ...’. A number of United Artists theatres also
advertise curved screens while many multi-screen
cinema complexes advertise ‘wall-to-wall curved
screens, digital sound’, and stadium seating.
The return of the curved screen may have
more to do with the design of contemporary multiplexes
than with their novelty value or showmanship
appeal. The size of contemporary,multi-screen theatres
has encouraged the use of short focal length
projection lenses to get large images on big screens
with very little projection throw. One lens manufacturer,
Schneider, advertises a line of Super-Cinelux
wide angle projection lenses. These short focal
length lenses start at 24mm and are being marketed
to theatres for curved screen exhibition.
Ironically, these short lenses and limited projection
throws look back to theatre conditions in the
silent era and to the discussion of screen curvature
in Richardson’s 1927 Handbook of Projection. As
Richardson noted, curved screens were only preferable
to flat screens ‘in cases where the distance of
projection is such that a very short focal length
projection lens must be employed’. The rule of
thumb is still all about keeping the edges of the
image in focus.
The curved screen has made a comeback, but
it has returned not so much as a novelty as a norm.
It is no longer a device used to engulf audiences in
images and to produce an illusion of depth. The
shallow curves of contemporary screens can only
allude nostalgically to deeply curved screens of the
1950s and 1960s. Curved screens give exhibitors
something to ballyhoo, like digital sound, stadium
seating, and cup holders, but their impact on the
nature of the motion picture experience that today’s
spectators have is minimal. Their impact is more like
that of a cup holder than that of digital sound or
stadium seating, which really have transformed the
nature of that experience.
284 John Belton
1. Richardson, Handbook of Projection (5th edn) (New
York: Chalmers Publishing Co., 1927): 233.
2. Ralph Walker, ‘The Birth of an Idea’ in New Screen
Techniques, ed. Martin Quigley, Jr. (New York:
Quigley Publishing, 1953): 114–116.
3. International Projectionist gives the figures as 78 feet
around the curve, 51 feet straight across the curve,
and 26 feet high. January 1953.
4. William R. Latady, ‘Cinerama Arrives’, Theatre Catalog,
1953–54 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publications,
1953): 194.
5. Greg Kimble, ‘How the West Was Won’, American
Cinematographer, Vol. 64, No. 10 (October 1983):
90.
6. Keith H. Swadkins, ‘Whatever happened to Cinerama?’,
Cinema Technology Quarterly, Vol. 3, No.
4 (July 1990): 63.
7. ‘Cinerama Single Lens Process’, www.widescreenmuseum.
com/widescreen/singlelensprocess. htm.
8. ‘Soviet Cinerama Makes its Debut’, New York Times
(9 March 1958).
9. ‘Old Films Get the New Look’, Theatre Catalog,
1953–54 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publications,
1953): 198.
10. ‘The Paramount VistaVision Process’, Theatre Catalog,
1954–55 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publications,
1955): 235.
11. International Projectionist, Vol. 30, No. 4 (April 1955):
5.
12. Theatre Catalog, 1953–53 (Philadelphia: Jay
Emanuel Productions, 1954): 202.
13. ‘Old Films Get the New Look’, 202.
14. International Projectionist Vol. 28, No. 5 (May 1953):
8.
15. ‘Installing CinemaScope’, Theatre Catalog, 1954–55
(Philadelphia: JayEmanuelPublications, 1954): 225-
227.
16. ‘The Anatomy of CinemaScope’, International Projectionist,
Vol. 29, No. 5 (May 1954): 7.
17. Motion Picture Daily (7 October 1955), 16.
18. The actual width of the Rivoli screen was 63 feet when
measured along the curve, but it was 52 feet along
the chord, which was the term used to describe the
distance, in a straight line, from one edge of the
screen to the other.
19. Film Daily (2 May 1956).
20. ‘Progress Committee Report’, JSMPTE 65, No. 5
(May 1956), 248.
21. Michael Todd, Jr. and Susan McCarthy Todd, A
Valuable Property: The Life Story of Michael Todd
(New York: Arbor House, 1983): 294–295.
22. Film Daily (2 September 1955), 10.
23. Ibid., 14.
24. Film Daily (2 May 1956).
25. Film Daily (26 October 1956).
26. ‘D-150 Demonstration Run Gets Unanimous
“Raves”’, International Projectionist, Vol. 39, No. 3
(March 1964): 8.
27. Charles Loring, ‘Photographing ‘The Bible’ in Dimension-
150’, American Cinematographer (February
1965), 105.
28. Don V. Kloepfl, ed. Motion Picture Projection and
Theatre Presentation Manual (New York: SMPTE,
1969): 15.
29. Alden, Alex (uncredited), Widescreen Motion Picture
Systems. Pamphlet published by the Society of Motion
Picture and Television Engineers, New York,
1965. No page numbers.
30. Alden, Alex (uncredited), Widescreen Motion Picture
Systems. Pamphlet published by the Society of Motion
Picture and Television Engineers. New York,
1965. No page numbers.
31. Michael P. Lewis, ‘Silver Screens Worth Their Weight
in Gold’, Los Angeles Times (15 July 1998).
Notes
The curved screen 285

Fascinating! But how have you solved both the acoustical and optical issues with a curved screen?

115


Cineramax, Other than the bulb and what is the difference between the Runco Vx-44d and the Runco Vx-55D ? dose the bulb cost that much more ?

The acoustical issues are handled with room treatments, The optical ones are for non anamorphic PJ's, and even if you do not use anamorphics a long throw distance solves the problem.

Taker the vx-44 and vx-55 have a different power supply entirely, hence the different lamps.

I'm confused. How can you treat the room for the concave lensing effect that a curved screen has on sound when sitting in the sweet spot?

Also, a curved screen will tend to self-splash light back onto itself, lowering contrast ratio and apparent color saturation in bright scenes.

Otherwise, I am also a big fan of curved screens. Do you have any original Cinerama theaters near you?

So did the Torus Theater work out?

We will know in 9 months.


Here is the mockup.

http://cineramax.com/images/Theater002.jpg

HOT!

How wide is the screen (curve inclusive)?

157 5/8 or 157.5 straight.

13.14 feet eh? What's the throw distance to the best seat?

http://cineramax.com/images/Prometheus-elevation-cross-.jpg

The best seat is a Family bed that occupies the entire width of the room (almost).I would say net of the 16" depth of the torus the viewing distance is 20 feet.



This is a simulated angle overlayed over the mockup.

http://cineramax.com/images/Viewfrombed_TORUS_SML.jpg

Great Work!

I'm curious, though, won't the tweeters in your D'Apolito front towers be too low for the bed seating (lying) to have flat treble response?

Might some speaker rake, like the center channel not possibly improve the overall response back at the bed height?

Im not sure we can tilt back those behemoths. In any event a speaker platform will be built to raise the tweeter window to the Family Bed Height. Probably sand filled like this other one, (but deeper in the Torus room).

http://cineramax.com/images/Proposed-cinemascope-height.jpg

Excellent!

Is there some special type of treatment you are using behind the bed (lying) position that addresses the close rear wall position?

http://cineramax.com/images/Ugos%20Cinema%20Phoebe_jpg.jpg

Essentially the back of the room has to be total absorption. Imagine a foam matress stuck inside the wall . With a woodgrill covering like this one.

That is a must for the Torus.

Then the problem is finding the angles of attack for the surround speakers to have envelopment in the back row. We are working on that, there are several ways to skin that cat.

http://cineramax.com/images/Torus-Section.jpg

I have distorted the radius a bit, and eliminated all radius reference and the image height to protect Stewart Intelectual Property right. However the shop drawing depicts the proximity sensor used to engage and disengage the ME unit (stewarts term for a manifolded ventilator unit) reminiscent of an astronauts pre flight luggable ac unit.

So the whole room gets sucked out - totally isolated environmentally?

The room is isolated from the rest of the house by other means. The vacuum of the screen does not pull that much pressure actually, it's just enough negative pressure to pop the screen to the proper curvatures. Like a revrese spinnaker. Once that happens the sensor cuts off the fans, the screen slowly deflates over say a 6 hour period the sensor kicks the fans in again.... you get the picture.

It's an endless cycle, and quite reliable.

WOW -

Did you come up with this Torus Screen solution?

It sounds really cool!

No I came about it by sheer curiosity, in 1992 NAB Kodak was using one with 35 mm to promote the screens near 70mm qualities. I dug up and met Gerald Nash the coinventor of the tchnology (who passed in 2001). They just had installed one in the Sony Studios culver city facility, where they were transfering about 300 movies into MUSE laserdiscs using dual stacked 9 inch sony hDIH projectors and comparing to the 35 mm film. The screen was 16' by 9'. When I saw that i knew what video nirvana was.

It took me flying about 4 clients from Miami to LA to show them the holly grail, and eventually 2 comissioned the screens for home theater. At those early years of the ISF and video standards there were competing vested interests vying to control and dominate " the high end video market" suffice is to say that adding a $27K screen to the equation was considered an extravaganze considering the high acoustical risk, NEVER MIND THAT THE SCREENS white field uniformity, and contrast enhancement did unbelievable things to the 9" crt projectors. Joel Silver, and Gary Reber refused to review the systems during Stereophile 94.

So the technology lay dormant until in this forum Don Stewart and I strated a thread where he basically said to the DIY's this is basically how it's done, and I will allow you to build one for your own personal use if you build it yourself. Then all of a sudden the technology got "vindicated" and to this dat it has a robust following in the crt forum.

To be fair Gary Reber did review the Torus Screen during the premiere of Digital Star Wars in 1998, and gave it a glowing review.

But as good as the screen is for light starved CRT's, it has certain psycovisual subtelties, probably related to the field unifomity that makes it an ideal screen for single lens projection.

We will see, with digital cinema projectors the images are getting soo good that the Torus may in fact enter therealm of diminishing returns, if a unity gain screen with contrast enhancement is found.

No I came about it by sheer curiosity, in 1992 NAB Kodak was using one with 35 mm to promote the screens near 70mm qualities. I dug up and met Gerald Nash the coinventor of the tchnology (who passed in 2001). They just had installed one in the Sony Studios culver city facility, where they were transfering about 300 movies into MUSE laserdiscs using dual stacked 9 inch sony hDIH projectors and comparing to the 35 mm film. The screen was 16' by 9'. When I saw that i knew what video nirvana was.

...

We will see, with digital cinema projectors the images are getting soo good that the Torus may in fact enter therealm of diminishing returns, if a unity gain screen with contrast enhancement is found.

Peter,

I was under the impression that only Sony in Japan were involved in the creation of MUSE LaserDisc masters (of which only 178 titles were created?) as the format was only intended for Japan and it's MUSE HDTV market (available to the Japanese public beginning in 1986)?

I'm also curious about a unity gain screen with contrast enhancement for large applications, starting at 14' wide and larger.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios

We will see, with digital cinema projectors the images are getting soo good that the Torus may in fact enter therealm of diminishing returns, if a unity gain screen with contrast enhancement is found.
Why does a screen need contrast enhancement?

Hmm, haven't the Torusses been around for much longer than the use of the word 'co-inventor' would suggest. Believe they already came with the Saba Schauinsland Telerama first introduced in 1948, according to online sources.

In post #30 of this thread, you show a schematic picture showing the projector tilted downwards. Wouldn't that create a fair amount of keystoning?

In post #30 of this thread, you show a schematic picture showing the projector tilted downwards. Wouldn't that create a fair amount of keystoning?

An angle of no more than about 3.5 degrees will produce only minimal keystone, which is noticeable mainly on the right and left image edges, which can be hidden on the screen frame. Also, the digital cinema models, like the one Peter is installing, have adjustable angled blanking that will produce a perfectly straight edge. It's much better to have a small amount of keystone that can't be seen in video than to drive the lens to an extreme off axis position which degrades image quality, especially uniformity.

Schneider has software that will show the amount of keystone with various projector angles, throw distance, etc.:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/software/tdp.htm

As usual what would we do without your wisdom, Master O.

Interestingly the projector depicted there was a conceptual of the new Titan Reference.

By the time you add the anamorphic lens the depth of that unit exceeded that of the Barco DP1500 (which has the tilted keystone blanking, or curved blanking Odyssey references to above, the Titan does not). So now the Barco is back on the drawing board for Prometheus.

Phil we will have a small time window to see the high contrast Barco during January here.

You need to replace your unit, I believe you know the owner of the Barco VAR in Orange county. This is the projector your theater screams for. I would even do multiple aspect ratio with 2-1 presentation of 2.35 content due to your constant image width scenario. It is hdcp, it will be cool seeing: Display Barco DP1500 when you hook up

You are all dressed up in a tux, barefoot. :D

Peter,

I was under the impression that only Sony in Japan were involved in the creation of MUSE LaserDisc masters (of which only 178 titles were created?) as the format was only intended for Japan and it's MUSE HDTV market (available to the Japanese public beginning in 1986)?

I'm also curious about a unity gain screen with contrast enhancement for large applications, starting at 14' wide and larger.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios

Jeremy , It is an interesting story but I require time to convey it in all it's riveting aspects ( Ives Faroudja's sudden enrichment as a result of the sale of his company's impact on his professional quests at the time, a telepathic communication from the ces antenna farm in Vegas to Pat Riley in Miami where pondering Ives Faroudja's issues, Pat telepathicaly gave me the solution to Ives problem: The perforated screen, etc.etc.;)).

Cutting to the chase certain perforated screens which are optically fitted to match a projection pixel array for moire-less presentation, by virtue of an obscure black matrix effect (baptized by me after a CES anecdote with Ives Faroudja as NEGATIVE LIGHT MATRIX).

So the SMX screen that Barco recommended to me, exhibits these qualities, unity gain and contrast enhancement- if properly fitted to the projected pixel arrays (in cinemascope and vistavision ar's). That is a big IF.

That is all I can say for now.