Ziegfeld Theatre
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
131 people
favorited this theater
Showing 2,276 - 2,300 of 4,511 comments
<<The Ziegfeld has an NEC 2500 2K projector and a Dolby Digital Showplayer. …. I’ll be interested in all of your responses to the presentation at the Ziegfeld (one caveat: we use an anamorphic for digital 2.35 projection, the Zigfeld may letterbox, although “Star Wars” was presented anamorphically. Even that raises quetions, as some techs feel the added glass of an anamporhic softenes the image, although you gain resolution by squeezing the image across the full DLP chips.)>>
REndres, can you elaborate a little on the anamorphic digital comment? Thats new to me. Is it similar to the early TI Dlp projector w/anamorphic attachment from early d-cinema? And the files on the server are squeezed—not 2.35 AR but 1.89AR (chip size)?
HBH, Exhibitors may follow the martket, but they have also cheapened the market. They stripped everything memorable away from the moviegoing experience then shot themselves in the foot by overbuilding.
I wasn’t suggesting any kind of formula for showing “classics” – just saying that when I wanted to book some digital files of older pictures, I found the cost to handle the digital media to be prohibitive for a just a couple of days/showings. I’m sure for current films, the cost of handling the digital files is absorbed elsewhere.
I should mention that one of the factors for any film, especially a “previously released” title, not doing well in today’s market is the fact that most cinemas are not worth paying for in the first place. If Godfather, or even SIngin' in the Rain, are exhibited in a great theatre with top notch presentation – in a way they could never be seen at home – more people might come out to see them. I believe a combination of exceptional showmanship, presentation and theatre quality can make any film more appealing. As for profitable, well, it would take some special handling and scheduling… I actually paid to see Encino Man at the glorious El Capitan, and didn’t regret it.
Both Clearview and National Amusements have regularly scheduled classic series at reduced prices — imagine if the quality and selection were greatly enhanced.
I agree with the new post, except insofar as studios will release the films if the profit in some way rather than being nice to classic film fans.
And, since arthouses and commercial moviehouses nationwide do show classics, I’m sure arrangements will be made NOW even if they go digital. Indeed, Roadshow’s assertions as to costs sound so high that even new movies might not be able to go out nationwide on the formula he suggests.
I hear you, Howard. Just seems to me a real shame that we seldom get the opportunity to see classic films in pristine form on the big screen where they belong. I’m not saying that the studios should book classics on a large scale to replace new titles, but I sure would like to see them help make a wider selection of titles available for certain engagements at theaters like the Ziegfeld. Just a giveback to cinema enthusiasts and a nod to the past. I understand it would have limited appeal but it should be marketed and targeted appropriately.
I imagine the entire economic model would have to change – and perhaps when the day comes that more and more films are released digitally, upload/dowload costs will come down and level out and classic titles might be made available so that even neighborhood multiplexes might be able to offer a weekly classic (as many now do with tacky DVD projection) at an affordable cost.
Ed, the movies that studios send into movie theaters are what’s keeping movie theaters alive! If those classics could sell better, they’d be in the theaters. So few people went to see the nationally reissued The Godfather in 1997, that The Godfather Part II wasn’t reissued. People had seen The Godfather on TV & didn’t jump at the chance to see it again in the theaters. (I did, and saw it again at the Ziegfeld last year).
I’m not saying the classics can’t ever play, but I am saying that in general, movie theater distribution follows the market.
Also, don’t expect temporary huge screens to be constructed for Cinerama. I’m not sure how digital classic cost structures will be worked out, but the costs and other logistics of construction of huge screens would possibly be pretty high indeed.
Thanks for the info, REndres. Very encouraging. And I agree, Roadshow. The upload/download costs need to come down in order to establish digital cinema as a viable way to present classic revivals. If you ask me, I really think that the INDUSTRY (meaning the studios) should consider underwriting some of that expense in an effort remind the public of the tremendous cinematic heritage we have relegated to Turner Movie Classics and DVD viewing. A lot of the fodder that is released as “new” product deserves a straight-to-video fate so that screens might be cleared for occasional digital re-releases of films like “Casablanca,” “Best Years of Our Lives,” “Ben Hur,” “2001: A Space Oddyssey,” “The Godfather”…. the list could go on and on. Not to mention “How the West Was Won.” Or how about digitally perfect 3-D re-releases of “House of Wax” and “Dial M for Murder?”
But what would that profit the studios, right? Sigh… For now, its all just a pipe dream.
Ed S: There have already been experiments with wraparound panoramic digital photography, a sort of “Digital Cinerama” – in SoCal. Years ago, in fact. I don’t know what came of it, but I know a Hollywood director was engaged to do a test film in the process.
I would imagiine that the team who digitally line up the three YCM matrices for Warners (with great precision) could probably do the same with the three strips of Cinerama, if they haven’t already. Warner Homevid is already working on a new special edition of HOW THE WEST WAS WON from the Cinerama negs.
A big problem that prohibits digital presentation of classics is the huge charge required for the 3rd party company to come download and upload the feature to a theatre’s server. Unless you’ve got sold-out houses for a week, who'se going to spend that kind of money?
I was going to make an “Old projectionists…” type of joke, but then I stopped myself out of respect for you guys. I too have fond, fond memories of the projectionist that worked at my grandfather’s theater for 40 years. A true loaner, but a really great, friendly guy. Both my mother and myself were “kids growing up” in his booth, and the ONLY time I ever saw him get mad was the time I pulled a chain and all the nitrate shutters slammed closed during a show! Well, you can’t blame him. His arc light went out, and we never knew what happened to him. Mom and I still think of him.
Your changeover cues get a little raggedy,too.
…and our negitive and positive carbons begin to drift apart causing us to grow dimmer and dimmer.
Rob, we are getting silly in our ole age, bless us!
Vito: Old Projectionists never die — our changeover dousers just get stuck in the “closed” position!
REndres, I have written many times of the valuable,informative and often entertaining posts you have graced us with here.
General McArthur said “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away”. That’s us Rob, old projectionist who will never die. I’m not even going to fade away, for as long as I still can, I will preach the ways of showmanship days gone by.
I only wish we could have worked together.
The Ziegfeld took a big step in the right direction with the presentation of “Porgy and Bess”, sure there were some problems, but the important thing is they tried to do it right. I would like to believe this was the result of the comments in this forum regarding proper film presentation techniques, which may have reached Clearview management and projection staff.
We need to continue to pursue the help of those in charge of running our theatres to keep the great art of showmanship alive.
The Ziegfeld has an NEC 2500 2K projector and a Dolby Digital Showplayer. I have seen the first 30 min. or so of the new digital transfer of “Blade Runner” on a 25' wide screen, and while I didn’t see it in 70mm, it really looks good. I was particularly interested in the 65mm plates which are scanned in at 8K resolution. There are a number of considerations. I have in the last few months done sevral demos of split screen 35mm vs. 2k digital on a 14' wide screen for companies considering doing previews digitally, and even at 2k, the results are impressive. Film motion between negative and positive layers degrades the resolution, and with more layers involved in order to strike enough printing negatives for a 4,000 print run, the image can degrade markedly compared to the check print pulled from the camera negative. I’ll be interested in all of your responses to the presentation at the Ziegfeld (one caveat: we use an anamorphic for digital 2.35 projection, the Zigfeld may letterbox, although “Star Wars” was presented anamorphically. Even that raises quetions, as some techs feel the added glass of an anamporhic softenes the image, although you gain resolution by squeezing the image across the full DLP chips.)
I too would like to see a three-strip Cinerama experiment done digitally. Many of the original Cinerama liabilities would be overcome: video images can be seamlessly matched with “video wall” software; there would be no vertical jiggling between panels, and color would be consistant (another problems film labs have with striking prints — color can shift during the work day). I had kind of hoped Paul Allen might experiment with this in his Seattle Cinerama, since it is set up for both three-projector Cinerama presentation and for digital projection. It would be fun to transfer some Cinerama footage from the classics to see how it would look, but the real test would be to shoot some new footage digitally for three screens.
While there may be no 4k projectors in general use in cinemas now, the D-5 screenings I did of “3:10 To Yuma” were scanned into a server from the negative at 4k resolution and then down-converted to 2k for the screening copy. They’re making 4k archival copies of “Blade Runner” for future use. We’re at the “Edison” stage of digital exhibition right now — it will get better, and probably sooner rather than later. Nonetheless, I don’t think you’ll be disappointed in “Blade Runner” at the Ziegfeld.
Well Warner Bros. plans not to strike new 35mm prints for future reissues of their classics. Their plan is to only release them in Digital Cinema presentations now.
Warner has “2001” along with the Kubrick films slated for release on Oct. 23rd. on HD-DVD and Blu-ray formats. Warner has done very nice work on other 65mm productions for release on HD formats before.
I think the Ziegfeld is equipped with 2K. The only 4K units are from Sony.
Thanks, Howard. It is safe to assume, however, that as digital technology improves, we might yet see a the format capable of capturing the resolution of 70MM in the not-too-distant future. It seems to me that – given the expense of striking new prints and the reluctance of cinemas to ditch the platter – digital format might be the most viable way of presenting large format classics down the road. In fact – assuming data storage and download costs come down – it might open up the revival of classics for a wider selection of titles.
Is REndres projecting film in a residence or at a film studio?
Ed, There’s NO digital projector available yet to capture the high resolution of 70 mm. At most, a 4k projector might equal 35 mm. I’d much rather see 70 mm.
Glad to know you’re alive and kicking (and changing reels), Bob! Too bad, however, that you’re not practicing your craft on the general public anymore! Worse that general audiences, by and large, do not know what they’re missing!
Focusing back on the Ziegfeld… I’m looking forward to the upcoming engagement of “Blade Runner.” I won’t be around this weekend, but I do plan on checking it out before its 2-week engagement comes to an end. Aside from enjoying a pristine version of Ridley Scott’s excellent film, I’m also keen to seeing what kind of a curtain show will be run with the digital presentation. Does the Ziegfeld have a 2K or 4K projector?
Last night TCM ran “2001: A Space Oddyssey” and – while I didn’t catch the whole movie – I found myself wondering what it would be like to see a digital presentation of the incredibly sharp and vivid print TCM ran last night. I’ve always that that digital cinema would be an awesome way of presenting classic films – particularly large format restorations such as “2001” or “Spartacus.” With the platter system scaring off owners of restored 70MM prints, I would think that the digital format would be the next best thing to preserve the experience of seeing a Super Panavision, Todd AO or Camera 65 movie. Perhaps even – dare I say it – three strip Cinemara in cities (like NYC) where actual three strip projection no longer has a proper venue. Surely a temporary curved screen could be installed for such a presentation at a theatre like the Ziegfled – or perhaps the Nokia Theatre – for special extended festivals.
Wow! I hadn’t realilzed that article was done 25 (!) years ago. I do have copies of it, but hadn’t read it or looked at the date for some time. I was a “mere lad” of 43 when I was quoted in the article. I tell people that I’ve been around projection booths from “B.C.” to “A.D” (Before Cinerama till After Digital). That’s true — I started learning how to thread 35mm machines at the Majestic Theatre in Streator, Ill. two years before I entered high school, and a year before Cinerama debuted. Oddly enough, we’re both still in operation, although the Majestic now has 70mm projectors (I’ve grown wider too!) And yet as recently as this morning I was still running 35mm reels with changeovers, in a house with two curtains and three colors of footlights almost exactly as I did at the Ziegfeld (in fact our screening room was patterned after the Ziegfeld in terms of presentation.) I guess (hope?) they’re going to keep me doing this until I get it right! No wonder Vito initiated my first response to this site with the question, “Is Bob Endres still alive?”
In Los Angeles at the Mann’s National and Mann’s Village Theatres also had great presentations of “The Wall” in 70MM.
Ed: I saw “The Wall” there also, probably projected by Robert. I wasn’t crazy about the movie that night, but it grew on me over the years and now I think it’s excellent. And I can still recall how spectacularly it sounded at the Ziegfeld, especially right after “Tear Down the Wall!”
Oh, and all due respects to Janet Maslin (who was one of my favorite critics), “The Wall” – while not quite everyone’s cup of tea – was not a terrible movie. I saw it at the Ziegfeld on its original release and quite enjoyed it!
“But when it’s done sloppily, the showmanship is gone and the public is being cheated.”
And how.
Those last three paragraphs… sad that such presentations by such masters of their craft are now relegated to industry screening rooms out of the public’s view. I, for one, feel HORRIBLY cheated!