Showing 101 - 125 of 1,401 comments
There was a sky light in the ceilng of the Gables booth I still recall the day a giant praying mantis hovered over me all day watching me work. :)
Thanks for thjat responce New Yorker 68 I have since learned that was the case with the curtain not being used during the perfomance. I was glad to hear however that it is closed prior to the show begins and raised at the start, at least the audience is not subjectd to an open curtain befoe the show begins.
The Bayshore was 70mm capable with two Norlco 35/70 projectors in the booth.
Thanks NPoi abd garth, I too was very excited about the project as well as Peter and his partner. They managed to get most of the marquee up and running again and were waiting on a permit to light it up in the evening. And yes, if you are wondering, Peter said “ I want to bring movies back to the Paramount” I know Peter used to visit this site so Peter if you are put there please let us know more of what happened.
I am sure there may have been other contibuting factors but I belive the code updates were a big part of it. I worked on the St George and it was just one thing after another getting the fire codes up to date. It is a tribute to that wonderful family who persurvered and got the job done.
When I last spoke to Peter Lisi, who was one of the investors, he told me of the unexpected problems with getting the building back up to code and the enormous expense involved perticularly with fire codes. I believe this to be the primary reason for the end of the restoration. I offered to speak with the family that had resored the St George for assistance but he never took me up on that.
Thanks for that New Yorker64
After looking closly at the screen caps from the video I realise that all they did, as someone else noted, was build a second proscenium inside the original, I quess they thought it looked better astetically and fitted the format of the presentation better.
With shows like the one at Christmas if the curtain is not raised as high as it is for Cirgue you wont even notice the top portion of the added prosenium.
All in all I guess what they have done isn’t all that bad. You forgot to mention the curtain and if they are using it for Cirque, are they?
I would agree with you Ed, since the show will be returning it makes sense to leave the alterations in place for now. I wish somone could give us a more detailed explaniatin of what exactly was done for those of us who can not visit the theatre.
I would also like to see how the proscenium looks with the the curtain closed. By the way, does anyone know if they using the curtain at all for the current show.?
Thanks redt55 It just seems looking at the pictures that the changes to the proscenium were minor and not enough to affect the screen size but I guess looks are deceving. Any idea if Cirque du Soleil will return next summer?
I added the Cirque du Soleil photos to the photo section of RCMH
Sorry apperently I do not know how to post pictures or video what I just posted did not work proprly. perhaps someone can help with that
NY I did a review of the show and in this clip the proscenium can be seen somewhat altered. I have no apples to apples comparisons to show but the changes seem minor, perhaps I am wrong and someone moe familar with the theatre can elaberate, it has been a while since I attemded a show there. The stage has been extended out over the pit area but that is not at all unusual and has been done many times. Bases on what we can see here it would even be posssible to use the main curtain in the show.The NY 1 video shows a bit more of the processium than the You Tube video tinseltoes has kindly posted here , I have included the video of the review and made a couple of caps as well.
As to the size of the3D picture for the Christmas show it seems to me based on what you see in this video the picture does not need to be made smaller as suggested by rcd55b perhaps there is a secondary reason for the change of the picture size we may learn about later. There are changes this tear with the Rocketts 3D what ever that is and may explain the change in the screen.
It looks inicent enough from the You tube movie I just am confused by rcdt55 comment about reconfiguring the Christmas Show 3D for a smaller picture because of some of the changes. That sounds a bit scary, please to expmain rcdt55
I read the Times review and can’t for the life of me find anything regarding “auditorium modifications”
Did my tired ole eyes miss something?
Oh my plinfesty I think we are all clear on that whole Kiss Me Kate misunderstandment it was an interesting journey however mudding thru it all was it not :)
Plinfesty, I simply wanted to clarify the 3D situation at the hall I beleive I misssd the word “probably"in your post which changes what you meant, and I misunderstood it
I sute miss the days when we had someone like REndres at the hall to keep us up to date, I have asked about the modifacatios in the Hall for the current show but apperently no one knows. Guess I will have to go there and see for myself.
I also wonder how the boxoffice is doing with those very high ticket prices for that show.
Ok now ou have sparked my interest
What are these modifacations you speak off.
I certanly hope the main curtain is intact.
Thanks for that tinsetoes, has anyone attended the show
I would love to know more abouttchnical aspects of how the show works at the hall.
Howard, I would like someone else to confirm but I believe the Ziegfeld has NEC NC2500S Digital projector
Thanks Rob, your responce certainly cleared that up.
Speaking of the Christmas show 3D does anyone have info on this uocoming 3-D live show are we looking at 70mm or digital?
plinfesty, I would find it hard to beleive that REndres, who wrote the post regarding “Kiss Me Kate” at the hall, was incorrect. As I recall, and yes I was there, the Hall payed the movie in 2D. The article sounds very much what happened at the Paramount in Times Square where 3D movies were shown without intermissiion using four projectors. Would you be kind enough to read that BoxOffice article again and get back to us. If what you say is correct it can only mean that means the Boxoffice article was incorrectly written. There may have been a plan to do so at RCMH but after tests showed problems with sugnifcent light dropoff in the far left and right sides of the theatre the decision was made not to show the film in 3D
Perhaps REndrews who is without question our resident expert on all things Music Hall will jump in here and comment.
I do not belive so Howard, in editing my post it looks like I suggested that Tom wrote the projectors at the Ziegfeld were Christie.
The Christie and NEC equipment have lenses that are easy to change, the touch of a button changes things. As Tom wrote, What I have been told is The Sony projectors are not as easy and sometimes when the lens is changed something goes out of alignment and the projector cannot be used until a tech spends 2 hours realigning the lens. In addition, the lens which can weigh about 20 lbs. are a bit of a pain to change for a a non professional projectionist. Four half inch bolts hold the lens in the projector, you need a socket with a short extension to get the job done but it takes two to change the lens, one to hold it and the other to unbolt it, which leads to the danger of a very expensive lens falling to the floor. Then there is the problem with the silver screen not reflecting light back like a matte screen. If you are sitting too far to one side the other side of the screen looks dark.
It is my understanding that the 3D lens while capable of showing 2D, cuts down on the light output making the images darker than they should be. Some projectors have an easy change from one lens to another while others require mounting bolts and realignment.
Basic rule seems to be do not use the 3D lens for 2D
I suppose I should also clarify that the tape was placed on the bottom masking and not the screen. It served as a guide for the masking people to set the proper stops and for the tech to establish dead center on the sheeet.
The tape I refered to was removed once final installation was completed and used only to mark center and ratio settings, sorry if I confused you on that. I do not recall screen size Floral/Bellrose
Yes robboehm, there is a formula for determining proper lens size
We have a slide rule type tool that gives proper lens size determined by distance of lens from screen and screen size. Putting the screen size and projection throw into the tool will give the proper lens size to use for 1:85 and scope. Done properly you avoid cropping and “creative aperture plate cutting” to fit screen. Once the screen and proper lens is installed an SMPTE loop run thru the projector will give proper aperture cutting instructions for all formats,this should never be done with just a white light projecd onto the screen. First step is to deterine the exact center of the screen which can be marked with some sort of tape that can be seen from the booth then the projector can be centurned properly,once that is done th loop can be run and apertures cut. In days when we had movable masking a set of tape marks was put on he screen to mark proper width of flat/scope image to enable techs to properly set open close settings of the masking motor.