Talk:Cinerama

"Sharing a single shutter?"

The article says

The original system involved shooting with three synchronized cameras sharing a single shutter...

Is this correct? How could three cameras "share a single shutter?" Weren't they just "synchronized," three shutters, pulldowns and all? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a Cinerama camera. Three film magazines, three lenses, one big shutter. Mackerm 06:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the shutter is in front of the lens -- especially at the distance required to service three lenses -- what prevents stray light from exposing the film? An inquiring mind wants to know. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling "Cinerama camera". Here's one webpage: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cineramacam.htm

Can this be added ?

The Waller Flexible Gunnery Trainer. By Fred Waller. In: Journal of the SMPTE, Volume 47, July, 1946; pages 73 through 87. 80.219.85.243 12:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Why not be bold and go ahead and do it yourself? Just give it a try. If you don't get the formatting right or something like that, other editors will be glad to tidy it up later. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. Greetings from Switzerland ! Filmtechniker and 80.219.86.190 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK performances

In the UK some shows were presented in oversize circus-style circular marquees. I remember one such event in Torquay ( a beach resort in Devon) during the 1960's. There were two films on the programme: first a travelogue (something like "natural wonders of the world") comprising helicopter shots of places such as the Grand Canyon. The other was probably "How the West Was Won" though my memory is not totally clear. Both surround-sound (with speakers behind the audience) and the three-projector system were in use. The curved screen took up nearly half of the "big top" with the audience in the other half.81.86.230.16 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

globalize tag

Perhaps you could leave some comments as to what specifically you think that this article is lacking as far as global perspective goes? Yes, I acknowledge that there were Cinerama venues outside of the US, but to the best of my research, the technology was proprietary to a single US company which was also responsible for all of the productions - of which there were very few - made on the system. While some of these were travelogues which were filmed internationally (with American crews), the system was controlled from the US and concentrated their business pursuits primarily towards persuading Hollywood to adopt their system. Its major competitors were other American formats, some of which were developed in-house by the studios, and others of which were retooled from prior technologies. What else would you have the article mention from an international standpoint, other than that a handful of titles produced by Americans also screened abroad? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported statement: Cinerama is best

The article says, without evidence or explanation, "Every other system -- Todd-AO, CinemaScope, even IMAX -- can be fairly described as attempts, with varying degrees of success, to approximate Cinerama at lower cost." As it stands, it sounds like opinion, especially with respect to IMAX DOME. The article needs details and/or references to justify this statement. David (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I hope my rewrite of this para eliminates the extreme negative unsupported POV of the former. Markhh (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over later 3-projector film

The information about the later "pseudo-Cinerama" movies are confusing regardless of where someone looks for information. I actually saw The Hallelujah Trail in New York City during its original release and three projectors were definitely used to exhibit the film. It's the only Cinerama film I've ever seen in a theatre so I'm not mixing it up with something else, it absolutely was shown that way and made a tremendous impact on me as a result. I'm mentioning it because this has bothered me for some years since whenever I happen to encounter information about the film somewhere, there is no mention of this, almost as though I'm a character from a Jack Finney time travel novel who briefly inhabited a parallel universe. I know that actually having seen the movie myself would probably qualify as "original research" under Wikipedia rules but it was certainly exhibited with three projectors whose beams crossed, one for the left third of the screen, one for the middle third, and one for the right third of the screen. Cinerama Comment (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the talk page for "The Hallelujah Trail", you will find it explained there. Unfortunately this article does not mention the Super Cinerama process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.75.230 (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinerama on home video

There is no discussion of the computer conversion of three-strip Cinerama films to a single image. This processing reduces or removes the visible lines between the frames, and also corrects for perspective errors. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cinerama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cinerama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130104231658/http://cinerama.topcities.com/ctcooper.htm to http://cinerama.topcities.com/ctcooper.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whitehat.com.au/Melbourne/Theatres/Regent.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.rca.com/en-US/ModelDetail.html?PC=BySizeLarge&MN=HD50LPW165%2F
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.film-tech.com/warehouse/tips/WSMC20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image is fake...

File:Bel. Cinerama scherm wit gemaakt 1.jpg
photoshopped screen onto perhaps real theater

2601:646:201:57F0:37A2:DC41:9FE3:F202 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]