Loew's Capitol Theatre

I’m writing about a man who composed musical arrangements for the Capitol Theatre between 1925 and 1930. Does anyone know of collections of programs from the Capitol for that period other than those at the Theatre Historical Society? I’ve found only one posted on the web. (This query is addressed especially to Tinseltoes and Warren G. Harris, if they are still reading this list.) If private replies are appropriate, use eisenbak@stthom.edu.

BobbyS: It was the most incredible movie theater experience I’ve ever had, before or since. The size and shape of the Capitol screen, combined with the greatest science-fiction movie ever made – nothing else will ever come close!

43 years ago today – a life-changing event. I saw “2001” at the Capitol. I try to commemorate it every year here on this page.

Michael, I was not commenting or giving an opinion, just wanted to thank REndres. Anything wrong with that? He deserves my thanks for the detailed explanation, period.

REndres, thanks for the detailed explanation.

I’m sorry, but the urge to weigh in on the VistaVision discussion is irresistible for an “old timer” who’s been hanging around projection booths from B.C. to A.D. —“Before CinemaScope” to “After Digital”. Not only was I very much aware of the VistaVision process when it started in 1954 with “White Christmas”, I was later to spend 25 years in the theater that first ran it in New York, Radio City Music Hall, and was a VistaVision dailies projectionist for three features: “Men In Black”, “Michael” and “Jungle 2 Jungle” all of which used VistaVision plates in their production.

The confusion above is thinking that two frames of 35mm equal 70 or 65 mm image size. Since VistaVision is a horizontal process, the frame width of 8 perfs is less than two normal 35mm frame widths. If you hold 8 perfs of 35mm up against a 70mm frame, they will cover about 2/3 of the width. While a few theatres did run VistaVision on horizontal machines, most of the prints were reduction prints to 35mm as noted above. In 1954 the non-anamorphic ratio of 35mm could vary anywhere from 1.5 to one to 2.1 depending on the amount of cropping of the frame by the aperture plate in the projector, thus the multiple framing reference marks at the start of each reel of a VistaVision release print made in conventional vertical orientation.

In 1954 CinemaScope had been introduced,and Paramount decided to go for a less radical image in terms of width, and with better resolution than could be obtained with the anamorphic lenses used for CinemaScope at the time. As a know-it-all 15 year old I remember commenting to the manager of our local theatre that someday someone would combine the width of CinemaScope with image clarity of VistaVision, and a year later they did with the first 70mm Todd-AO releases of “Oklahoma” in 1955 and “Around The World In 80 Days” in 1956.

The horizontal VistaVision print of “White Christmas” at the Music Hall was run with an interlock sound track printed on conventional 35mm and played on the Hall’s normal 35mm projectors,as were the mag tracks for the dailies I ran starting with “Men In Black”. Running VistaVision is a trip since it is still running at 24 frames per second and thus the film speed is 180' a minute, twice the normal speed and faster than even a 70mm print.

One more note to fire up even more heated debate: the argument might be made that Super Technirama is the equivalent of 70mm in terms of image size. Technirama is an 8 perf horizontal system with a 50% anamorphic squeeze. Thus the image unsqueezed is equal to 12 perfs of 35mm film. If you hold 12 perfs of 35mm against a 70mm image, you’ll find that they match almost perfectly (try it). The process was used as recently as Disney’s “Black Cauldron” and yielded the 70mm release print we ran at the Hall.

(And yes, hdtv267 this really does have very little to do with the Capitol — sorry about that!)

AGR,

I think you are simply wrong and need to stop now.

Although I think Wikipedia is always suspect, their simple description is pretty good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

I had seen that before. Look at this part, and I quote:
“Using whatever sources were available, the restoration team created a new 35mm 8-perf negative from which a 65mm inter positive was generated. Although not noticeable on the screen, some elements were as many as eight generations away from the original negative. Both 70mm and 35mm prints were then made for theatrical showing.”
65mm interpositive — 70mm prints for soundtrack etc. — doesn’t that makes it a 65mm process? It was probably that way for the original Vertigo which is what they are talking about. I think it is very simple explanation. Anyway, I am not going to spend the rest of my life discussing if VV is 65mm or 100mm or whatever. Over and out.

OK, technically VV was 70mm since it was a horizontally filmed two 35mm frames. But if a theater showed the horizontal print, the film image in the double frame would be 65mm since the other 5mm were for the sprockets and soundtrack(s), just like ToddAO and other 70mm systems. Can a CT commenter who is a projectionist or film technician clarify this? Or can you be more specific, Michael? I will appreciate a more detailed response.

VistaVision was not 65mm!!!

Bobby, as I said on the March 30 post above, all VistaVision films were shot in 65mm, and only 1 or 2 theaters in NY and LA could show the 65mm horizontal prints, all other showings were in reduced 35mm prints and theaters did no have to use a different projector. The “changeover” signal at the right top of the screen indicated to projectionists the width of the projected film they could use depending on the size of the screen since main action was usually centered when shooting the film. Recommend you take a look at the VistaVision page on the American WideScreen Museum website. Here is the link:
View link