You are very welcome, Nick. Actually, I think you are most likely correct and your friend was incorrect about the ability to project 35mm from the Cinerama booth.
The vast majority of theaters that showed 70mm Cinerama used Phillips Norelco DP 70s (also known AA IIs). There were some Century JJs in use and possibly a few Bauer U2s. But all of these were capable of showing both 70mm and 35mm. The listing of DP 70s on the in70mm.com website does not show any DP 70s used at the Tampa Palace, so I would think the 70mm projectors there were most likely Century JJs.
What I am now wondering though is whether, instead of using a 70mm print at the outset, the initial print shown at the Tampa Palace may have been one of the 35mm anamorphic prints with four track magnetic stereo; there were some of these struck (see below). That might well explain why, when the switch was made to projection from the upstairs booth, there was no change in the masking. Initially, the Cinerama booth may have had to be used because the projectors there would have had magnetic sound heads which those in the upstairs booth most likely did not.
If the run did in fact start with a 70mm print, then the top masking may well have been he result of Cinerama requiring the screen to be masked down. The switch to a 35mm anamorphic print later though would been the result of the fact that 35mm image was not as tall as that from the 70mm print; essentially the 35mm images reduced from the original 70mm Todd-AO elements were identical to CinemaScope images.
The fact that you say that the sound went from stereo to mono almost certainly means that the later-used 35mm print had an optical soundtrack instead of the six-track magnetic soundtracks on the original 70mm prints or the four-track magnetic 35mm prints. If the information on the IMdB is correct with regard to the SOM’s audio, there were some stereo 35mm prints made (probably a mix-down to four magnetic tracks with some image reduction to accommodate them), but most of the 35mm prints were, in fact, mono.
I am a bit surprised though that images you saw later in the run were noticeably more grainy; normally, 35mm prints reduction printed from 70mm elements are very sharp.
The switch to a 35mm print was probably both for economic and practical reasons. Properly projecting 70mm requires highly skilled projectionists even when they are using such a superb machine as the DP 70. Switching over to a standard 35mm print could easily have meant that the projection crew could now be less sophisticated or experienced (i.e., paid less), and I would think the studio would have charged less of a rental for a 35mm print with optical sound. If management really thought moviegoers would not notice the downgrade in terms of both picture quality and sound, I would imagine that it would have made the switch. But obviously you noticed the difference, and I certainly would have too.
The amount of top masking required in any particular theater when showing any film in 70mm would vary depending on the actual height of the screen in most cases.
According to the information on the Roland Lataille’s website about Cinerama theaters, the screen at the Tampa Palace was 75 feet wide and 32 feet high (and had a true Cinerama deep curve of 146 degrees). That would mean, if my math is right, that the unmasked screen would have a ratio of 2.34 to 1. So, the side masking you referred to makes perfect sense; the five films you mentioned beginning with “Grand Prix” would have had image ratios of 2.20 to 1 which would mean that without the side masking, there would have been white space left and right of the image if the screen had not been masked.
I am a little puzzled though as to why side masking was used on “It’s a Mad…World” (I am not though for the SOM, as that too would have a 2.20 to 1 aspect ratio if a 70mm print was shown). Projecting “Mad World” would have presented a different problem: the full projected images of those films would have been too wide for that screen, even with the screen full open. Perhaps a decision was made to standardize the projected width of all 70mm films shown there at the Palace, perhaps using a modified aperture plate as well as the side masking.
Regarding the “Sound of Music” situation you describe: I am wondering if the explanation could be found in a comment made by a Nunzienick on August 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm on the Palace’s page here on CT that indicates that the mid-1960s initial long run of the SOM at the Tampa Palace was in 35mm, (if it was, then it was no doubt a 35mm anamorphic print). If the 1965 run of the SOM was in 35mm rather than 70mm, then top masking would certainly have had to be used; the aspect ratio would have been 2:35 to 1 so the image would have filled the screen side to side but not top to bottom as 35mm images are only four sprocket holes tall as opposed to 70mm images which are six or nearly six sprocket holes tall.
If the 1965 run used a 70mm print, I can still think of a possible explanation for the top masking, but it is only a speculation and would require a fairly lengthy discussion, even longer than this one.
Finally, “Mad World” was indeed promoted as being presented in Cinerama in its initial roadshow runs; it was the first film shown the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood; I still have my souvenir program proudly announcing, “Stanley Kramer presents in Cinerama “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” with a whole page in it proudly announcing the “technological breakthrough” of single lens Cinerama projection.
Here is a webpage from the Widescreen Museum website showing a poster promoting the film; it’s identical to the LP album cover of the original soundtrack in my collection. As Martin Hart points out, when the film went into general release, all they did was print new posters without the Cinerama logo.
The answer to your question is that would have varied from Cinerama theater to Cinerama theater depending on specific screen sizes and dimensions, masking, projection lenses, and aperture plates. These varied quite a bit.
“Krakatoa” was shot using mixture of Super Panavision 70 and Todd-AO cameras and would have had a printed image ratio of 2:20 to 1 (meaning that the image was slightly more than twice as wide compared to the images’s height), identical to “2001” or “Grand Prix”.
Compare that to, say, “It’s a Mad…World” or “Khartoum” which were shot in Ultra Panavision 70 which produced an image with a ratio of 2.76 to 1 (which begins to approach an image which is almost three times as wide as it is high). Most presentations masked the image down to about 2.5 to 1 to avoid having to install wider screens.
So – in general – assuming we are talking about a theater where the images of “It’s a Mad…World” filled the whole screen left to right with no side masking used and no image cropping via a modified projector aperture plate, the images from “Krakatoa” would occupy somewhat less screen real estate in terms of image width.
I am loathe to disagree, but I still think the two theaters may well have occupied the same building. Both theaters were in the 200 block of W. Market. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I think the nickelodeon may have occupied the building on the first floor and became retail space or something else when the Dixie was purpose-built as a theater when the second story was added.
BTW, some nickelodeons, especially in larger cities, were purpose-built and had a certain elegance for their time with outer lobbies and theater seating, even a stage for small-time variety acts. San Francisco and New York especially had several of these.
Well, I do not know for sure, but I think it is quite possible that the copyist who wrote that was probably referring to material in the Seattle Cinerama advertising archives that used that “Super Cinerama” advertising and descriptive phraseology, without really knowing that it was just advertising hype.
The Seattle Cinerama is, unless I am mistaken, the only surviving purpose-built Cinerama theater in the USA except for the Dome in L.A. which I do not think ever advertised itself as a “Super Cinerama”. The Cooper houses are all gone; the other two Martins are too, along with the Cinerama theaters in San Diego and Las Vegas. (There were some Redstone theaters that installed louvered Cinerama screens in the 1960s and showed 70mm Cinerama productions, but I do not think any of them ever advertised themselves as “Super Cineramas”. So one could, I suppose, claim that the Seattle Cinerama is the only surviving “Super Cinerama” house, at least in the USA.
None of the Cinerama films exhibited there differed in any way from Cinerama films exhibited anywhere else (at least on a roadshow basis). The three-strip films were either projected at 26 or 24 fps, probably if not certainly using modified or custom-built Century projectors (with the vibrating comb or “jiggolo” which helped blend the join lines) which were the most common (a few theaters used Cinemeccanica Victoria 8s) and the proprietary Cinerama sound reproducer. 70mm Cinerama films (regardless of the 70mm originating photographic process used) were originally projected using a pair of Philips Norelco production line DP 70s (since removed and replaced with other 70mm capable equipment – one of the original DP 70s is on display in the lobby). It is hard for me to believe that any of this equipment was dissimilar in any significant way compared to other Cinerama installations that had the capability of showing three-strip or 70mm Cinerama.
It is possible that there were some lens and/or aperture plate modifications made for Cinerama presentation at the Seattle Cinerama, but these would hardly be so unusual to qualify as some major alteration or enhancement. Almost all Cinerama installations required some technical tweaking. If memory serves, when the Seattle Cinerama was first restored, the Cinerama projectors came from a theater in Peru.
I think Martin Hart, curator of the Widescreen Museum website, is entirely correct when he says, “Super Cinerama,” which referred to 3-strip Cinerama theaters built specifically for that process…never referred to any sort of variation on the Cinerama photographic process, as has been stated in some references."
I lived through the whole Cinerama era, have been in many current or former Cinerama theaters, and have read just about anything I could find in print or on the web about the history of Cinerama, and have talked to a number of Cinerama experts such as John Harvey, and I have never read or heard anything about “Super Cinerama” except as being a promotional concept for certain theaters and some of the 70mm films.
It has to be remembered too, that by the time “Super Cinerama” appeared, Cinerama was on the decline for a number of reasons; the decision was made by 1962 or 1963 to drop the three-strip process in favor of the inferior, if cheaper, 70mm process, and several of the 70mm Cinerama films were something less than memorable. I am convinced that the use of “Super Cinerama” was similar to the way other products attempt to get re-invigorated by advertising them as “New and Improved” or “Super”.
If you really think there was anything more to “Super Cinerama” other than a form of advertising hype, you might want to contact John Sittig of Pacific Theaters in Los Angeles. Pacific Theaters inherited all of the Cinerama trademarks and patents, and John is the person who coordinates all current activity relating to Cinerama.
Comparing the 1935 picture of the Victory to the others that are dated prior, it is clear that at least as of 1935, the building was the same as the others though apparently that striking half-dome entry had been least partially filled in and a marquee installed. The move across the street to the Empress probably did occur around 1937.
It was not any enhancement of the original Cinerama process at all; it was just the way some of the newer, purpose-built Cinerama-equipped theaters and some of the 70mm Cinerama films were advertised (especially as a way of emphasizing that the “new” or “super” Cinerama was “seamless”). For example, see the poster advertising “Krakatoa, East of Java” on this webpage and the one for “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” in Spanish at the bottom of this webpage.
I don’t know, PF; you can move around in the Google street level photo above and move in close into the shopping center and you can see that the building pictured on the Cinema Tour page is still there, now branded Sports Authority. I think the gym may be a new build, at least by its pictures on other websites. I will be up in that area in about a month and I will look around.
There is additional historical information about this theatre on this webpage.
As noted, Prince’s Theatre was located on top of the Star Music Hall/Palace Theatre, making it a part of the possibly first stacked set of theatres in the United Kingdom. The design resembles in some respects Loew’s Mall Theaters opened in 1914 in Cleveland, Ohio USA.
You are very welcome, Nick. Actually, I think you are most likely correct and your friend was incorrect about the ability to project 35mm from the Cinerama booth.
The vast majority of theaters that showed 70mm Cinerama used Phillips Norelco DP 70s (also known AA IIs). There were some Century JJs in use and possibly a few Bauer U2s. But all of these were capable of showing both 70mm and 35mm. The listing of DP 70s on the in70mm.com website does not show any DP 70s used at the Tampa Palace, so I would think the 70mm projectors there were most likely Century JJs.
What I am now wondering though is whether, instead of using a 70mm print at the outset, the initial print shown at the Tampa Palace may have been one of the 35mm anamorphic prints with four track magnetic stereo; there were some of these struck (see below). That might well explain why, when the switch was made to projection from the upstairs booth, there was no change in the masking. Initially, the Cinerama booth may have had to be used because the projectors there would have had magnetic sound heads which those in the upstairs booth most likely did not.
If the run did in fact start with a 70mm print, then the top masking may well have been he result of Cinerama requiring the screen to be masked down. The switch to a 35mm anamorphic print later though would been the result of the fact that 35mm image was not as tall as that from the 70mm print; essentially the 35mm images reduced from the original 70mm Todd-AO elements were identical to CinemaScope images.
The fact that you say that the sound went from stereo to mono almost certainly means that the later-used 35mm print had an optical soundtrack instead of the six-track magnetic soundtracks on the original 70mm prints or the four-track magnetic 35mm prints. If the information on the IMdB is correct with regard to the SOM’s audio, there were some stereo 35mm prints made (probably a mix-down to four magnetic tracks with some image reduction to accommodate them), but most of the 35mm prints were, in fact, mono.
I am a bit surprised though that images you saw later in the run were noticeably more grainy; normally, 35mm prints reduction printed from 70mm elements are very sharp.
The switch to a 35mm print was probably both for economic and practical reasons. Properly projecting 70mm requires highly skilled projectionists even when they are using such a superb machine as the DP 70. Switching over to a standard 35mm print could easily have meant that the projection crew could now be less sophisticated or experienced (i.e., paid less), and I would think the studio would have charged less of a rental for a 35mm print with optical sound. If management really thought moviegoers would not notice the downgrade in terms of both picture quality and sound, I would imagine that it would have made the switch. But obviously you noticed the difference, and I certainly would have too.
The amount of top masking required in any particular theater when showing any film in 70mm would vary depending on the actual height of the screen in most cases.
According to the information on the Roland Lataille’s website about Cinerama theaters, the screen at the Tampa Palace was 75 feet wide and 32 feet high (and had a true Cinerama deep curve of 146 degrees). That would mean, if my math is right, that the unmasked screen would have a ratio of 2.34 to 1. So, the side masking you referred to makes perfect sense; the five films you mentioned beginning with “Grand Prix” would have had image ratios of 2.20 to 1 which would mean that without the side masking, there would have been white space left and right of the image if the screen had not been masked.
I am a little puzzled though as to why side masking was used on “It’s a Mad…World” (I am not though for the SOM, as that too would have a 2.20 to 1 aspect ratio if a 70mm print was shown). Projecting “Mad World” would have presented a different problem: the full projected images of those films would have been too wide for that screen, even with the screen full open. Perhaps a decision was made to standardize the projected width of all 70mm films shown there at the Palace, perhaps using a modified aperture plate as well as the side masking.
Regarding the “Sound of Music” situation you describe: I am wondering if the explanation could be found in a comment made by a Nunzienick on August 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm on the Palace’s page here on CT that indicates that the mid-1960s initial long run of the SOM at the Tampa Palace was in 35mm, (if it was, then it was no doubt a 35mm anamorphic print). If the 1965 run of the SOM was in 35mm rather than 70mm, then top masking would certainly have had to be used; the aspect ratio would have been 2:35 to 1 so the image would have filled the screen side to side but not top to bottom as 35mm images are only four sprocket holes tall as opposed to 70mm images which are six or nearly six sprocket holes tall.
If the 1965 run used a 70mm print, I can still think of a possible explanation for the top masking, but it is only a speculation and would require a fairly lengthy discussion, even longer than this one.
Finally, “Mad World” was indeed promoted as being presented in Cinerama in its initial roadshow runs; it was the first film shown the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood; I still have my souvenir program proudly announcing, “Stanley Kramer presents in Cinerama “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” with a whole page in it proudly announcing the “technological breakthrough” of single lens Cinerama projection.
Here is a webpage from the Widescreen Museum website showing a poster promoting the film; it’s identical to the LP album cover of the original soundtrack in my collection. As Martin Hart points out, when the film went into general release, all they did was print new posters without the Cinerama logo.
This theater is probably, if not certainly, a Vincent Rainey design.
The answer to your question is that would have varied from Cinerama theater to Cinerama theater depending on specific screen sizes and dimensions, masking, projection lenses, and aperture plates. These varied quite a bit.
“Krakatoa” was shot using mixture of Super Panavision 70 and Todd-AO cameras and would have had a printed image ratio of 2:20 to 1 (meaning that the image was slightly more than twice as wide compared to the images’s height), identical to “2001” or “Grand Prix”.
Compare that to, say, “It’s a Mad…World” or “Khartoum” which were shot in Ultra Panavision 70 which produced an image with a ratio of 2.76 to 1 (which begins to approach an image which is almost three times as wide as it is high). Most presentations masked the image down to about 2.5 to 1 to avoid having to install wider screens.
So – in general – assuming we are talking about a theater where the images of “It’s a Mad…World” filled the whole screen left to right with no side masking used and no image cropping via a modified projector aperture plate, the images from “Krakatoa” would occupy somewhat less screen real estate in terms of image width.
An article about the closing.
I am loathe to disagree, but I still think the two theaters may well have occupied the same building. Both theaters were in the 200 block of W. Market. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I think the nickelodeon may have occupied the building on the first floor and became retail space or something else when the Dixie was purpose-built as a theater when the second story was added.
BTW, some nickelodeons, especially in larger cities, were purpose-built and had a certain elegance for their time with outer lobbies and theater seating, even a stage for small-time variety acts. San Francisco and New York especially had several of these.
Well, I do not know for sure, but I think it is quite possible that the copyist who wrote that was probably referring to material in the Seattle Cinerama advertising archives that used that “Super Cinerama” advertising and descriptive phraseology, without really knowing that it was just advertising hype.
The Seattle Cinerama is, unless I am mistaken, the only surviving purpose-built Cinerama theater in the USA except for the Dome in L.A. which I do not think ever advertised itself as a “Super Cinerama”. The Cooper houses are all gone; the other two Martins are too, along with the Cinerama theaters in San Diego and Las Vegas. (There were some Redstone theaters that installed louvered Cinerama screens in the 1960s and showed 70mm Cinerama productions, but I do not think any of them ever advertised themselves as “Super Cineramas”. So one could, I suppose, claim that the Seattle Cinerama is the only surviving “Super Cinerama” house, at least in the USA.
None of the Cinerama films exhibited there differed in any way from Cinerama films exhibited anywhere else (at least on a roadshow basis). The three-strip films were either projected at 26 or 24 fps, probably if not certainly using modified or custom-built Century projectors (with the vibrating comb or “jiggolo” which helped blend the join lines) which were the most common (a few theaters used Cinemeccanica Victoria 8s) and the proprietary Cinerama sound reproducer. 70mm Cinerama films (regardless of the 70mm originating photographic process used) were originally projected using a pair of Philips Norelco production line DP 70s (since removed and replaced with other 70mm capable equipment – one of the original DP 70s is on display in the lobby). It is hard for me to believe that any of this equipment was dissimilar in any significant way compared to other Cinerama installations that had the capability of showing three-strip or 70mm Cinerama.
It is possible that there were some lens and/or aperture plate modifications made for Cinerama presentation at the Seattle Cinerama, but these would hardly be so unusual to qualify as some major alteration or enhancement. Almost all Cinerama installations required some technical tweaking. If memory serves, when the Seattle Cinerama was first restored, the Cinerama projectors came from a theater in Peru.
I think Martin Hart, curator of the Widescreen Museum website, is entirely correct when he says, “Super Cinerama,” which referred to 3-strip Cinerama theaters built specifically for that process…never referred to any sort of variation on the Cinerama photographic process, as has been stated in some references."
I lived through the whole Cinerama era, have been in many current or former Cinerama theaters, and have read just about anything I could find in print or on the web about the history of Cinerama, and have talked to a number of Cinerama experts such as John Harvey, and I have never read or heard anything about “Super Cinerama” except as being a promotional concept for certain theaters and some of the 70mm films.
It has to be remembered too, that by the time “Super Cinerama” appeared, Cinerama was on the decline for a number of reasons; the decision was made by 1962 or 1963 to drop the three-strip process in favor of the inferior, if cheaper, 70mm process, and several of the 70mm Cinerama films were something less than memorable. I am convinced that the use of “Super Cinerama” was similar to the way other products attempt to get re-invigorated by advertising them as “New and Improved” or “Super”.
If you really think there was anything more to “Super Cinerama” other than a form of advertising hype, you might want to contact John Sittig of Pacific Theaters in Los Angeles. Pacific Theaters inherited all of the Cinerama trademarks and patents, and John is the person who coordinates all current activity relating to Cinerama.
Comparing the 1935 picture of the Victory to the others that are dated prior, it is clear that at least as of 1935, the building was the same as the others though apparently that striking half-dome entry had been least partially filled in and a marquee installed. The move across the street to the Empress probably did occur around 1937.
It was not any enhancement of the original Cinerama process at all; it was just the way some of the newer, purpose-built Cinerama-equipped theaters and some of the 70mm Cinerama films were advertised (especially as a way of emphasizing that the “new” or “super” Cinerama was “seamless”). For example, see the poster advertising “Krakatoa, East of Java” on this webpage and the one for “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” in Spanish at the bottom of this webpage.
Also, the address of the Sports Authority is the same as that for the theater – 6420 W. Fullerton.
Ah, Bob, you already listed this theater here on CT as the Dixie just a little while ago.
I don’t know, PF; you can move around in the Google street level photo above and move in close into the shopping center and you can see that the building pictured on the Cinema Tour page is still there, now branded Sports Authority. I think the gym may be a new build, at least by its pictures on other websites. I will be up in that area in about a month and I will look around.
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage.
There is additional historical information about this theatre on this webpage.
As noted, Prince’s Theatre was located on top of the Star Music Hall/Palace Theatre, making it a part of the possibly first stacked set of theatres in the United Kingdom. The design resembles in some respects Loew’s Mall Theaters opened in 1914 in Cleveland, Ohio USA.
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage.
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage.
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage.
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage (scroll down about half way).
There is additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage (Scroll down a bit).
There is additional information about this theatre on this webpage.
Here is the webpage of the Gray & Holt Dry Goods store with a closeup view of the front of the former theater.
There is a picture on this theater’s entry page at CinemaTour: View link
There some additional historical detail about this theatre on this webpage. (Scroll down to see it).
There is additional information about this theatre on this webpage.
There is additional history of this theatre on this webpage.