The curved screen�� �� (�� �� ���

John Belton

The following essay examines the history of the

curved screen for motion picture presentation

from Raoul Grimoin-Sanson’s Cineorama,

which debuted at the Paris Exposition of 1900,

to curved screens in contemporary multi-

plexes. The goal of the essay is not to provide

a definitive history of the curved screen but to

explore its virtues and limitations.

Novelty projection formats

The curved screen of the Cineorama processemerged as a novelty format for the presenta-tion ofan imagethat literallyengulfedaudiencesat the Paris Exposition. Using ten interlocked

70mm projectors, Grimoin-Sanson filled a 360-de-gree, 300 by 30-foot screen with images of a balloonascension, filmed from an actual balloon that tookoff from the Tuileries and descended in La GrandePlace de Bruxelles.

The curved screen did not become a fixture ofmotion picture presentation until Cinerama, anothernovelty format, made it an essential ingredient in theillusion of depth it provided for spectators. In thepre-widescreen era, standard projection manuals,such as F.H. Richardson’s Handbook of Projection,advocated for the installation of flat screens in alltheatres. Richardson wrote that ‘there is no advan-tage in the installation of a concave screen surface,except possibly in cases where the distance of pro-jection is such that a very short focal length projec-tion lens [e.g. 3.5 inch] must be employed ...’1

What Richardson acknowledges is a neces-sary calculus for the correction of distortion. Shortfocal length lenses introduce distortion, spreadingrays of light farther than normal lenses. Curvedscreens can function to reduce that distortion. Withwide angle projection lenses, the radius of the dis-tance from the lens to the screen necessarily variesacross the width of the screen – with a shorter radiusat the centre of the screen and longer radii at theextreme edges of the screen. A curved screen couldcompensate for these differences and ensure a more

or less even distribution of light and a sharper focusof the image at the edges of the screen.

Between Cineorama and Cinerama, other nov-elty projection situations also called for curvedscreens. One such screen is associated with HenriChretien’s Hypergonar lens in its pre-CinemaScopedays. Back in 1937, at the International Exposition inParis, two Hypergonar lenses were used to project acomposite, 60 metre by 10 metre panoramic imageonto a concave exterior wall at the Pavilion of Light.The curved wall compensated, in part, for the distor-tion introduced by the cylindrical projection lenses,maintaining a constant distance in the projectionthrow from centre to sides.

Cinerama inventor Fred Waller was also work-ing with curved screens – projecting a mosaic of stillpictures on a curved screen at the 1939 World’s Fairin New York. At around this time, Waller was experi-menting with peripheral vision as a component of theillusion of depth. He concluded that in order to fill thefield of human peripheral vision, he would need ascreen that was the width of an entire city block. Ashis colleague Ralph Walker explained it, what Wallerneeded was a curved screen ‘to delimit the field ofvision and yet convey a sense of the all-embracingenvironment of his films’. Grounding his work on thefact that ‘normal human vision is actually arc-shaped..., [giving] us a curved view of the world around us’that took the form of a ‘sweeping arc of about 160-degrees wide and 60-degrees high’, Waller rea-soned that ‘if a picture covering that same area wereprojected on a curved screen ..., anyone watching itwould feel as if he were right in the center of it’.2 Thecurved screen became an integral part of Waller’sflexible gunnery trainer in the early 1940s and of hissubsequent experiments with Cinerama in the mid-to-late-1940s.

Film History, Volume 16, pp. 277–285, 2004. Copyright © John Libbey PublishingISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America

John Belton teaches film in the English Departmentat Rutgers University. Address correspondence to himat Belton@fas-english.rutgers.edu

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 277

Three-strip CineramaOn 30 September 1952, Cinerama premiered at theBroadway Theatre in New York City on a screen thatwas 75 feet wide and 26 feet high.3 The screen filledthe theatre’s proscenium arch and then some. Theedges of the curved screen extended eight feet oneither side out into the auditorium. The screen wasso large that the original asbestos curtain could notbe lowered; the fire department had to waive its usualregulations to permit the theatre to operate withoutit.4 The screen covered an arc of 146-degrees andcurved to a depth of roughly 25 feet.5

Original photography for films made in theCinerama process relied on three wide angle(27mm) lenses so the curved screen played a smallrole in correcting for distortion introduced by theselenses. Unlike single projector systems, three-stripCinerama projection minimised distortion along thecurve of the screen by locating its projection boothsdirectly opposite the side panels of the screen; inother words, the projectors were positioned to pro-vide head-on projection of each panel. With theadvent of single-strip Cinerama in the early 1960s, asingle booth was used, as well as a less deeply-curved screen. The new screen reduced the curva-ture of the arc from 146 to as little as 90-degrees,depending on the size of the theatre.6 For example,the Cinerama Dome, built in 1963 in Los Angeles,has a 126-degree curve in its 86 by 32-foot screen.

Single-strip CineramaThe Cinerama single lens process introduced ‘cor-

rections’ in the printing and projection to make thenew films suitable for projection in the old, deeply-curved, three-strip theatres. The printer lens of aspecial optical printer introduced what was referredto as ‘barrel distortion’ to generate a negative forproducing prints for deeply-curved screens. Thiswas accompanied by a slight horizontal compres-sion in the two side panels – a compression thatwould be unsqueezed by the curvature of the screenitself. The projection lens used in the theatre wasdesigned with what was called ‘pin-cushion distor-tion’. The result was that ‘the shape of the projectedrectangular image approximate[d] the projectedshape of the screen’. The amount of ‘pin-cushiondistortion’ was ‘proportionate to the focal length ofthe projection lens required for any particular thea-tre’.7 In other words, single lens Cinerama films mustbe ‘corrected’ if they are to be shown on deeply-curved screens.

Over the past ten years, several three-stripCinerama theatres have been constructed or re-stored. These include the Pictureville Theater (open-ing ca. 1993) at the National Museum ofPhotography, Film and Television in Bradford, Eng-land; the Neon (opening ca. 1996) in Dayton, Ohio,which no longer operates as a Cinerama theatre;Paul Allen’s Seattle Cinerama Theater (opening inJune, 2000) in Seattle; and the Cinerama Dome(re-opening in September, 2003) in Los Angeles. Ihave been able to see a number of three-strip andsingle-strip Cinerama films at Bradford on its 51 by22-foot screen, which curves to a depth of 15 feet.While all the three-strip films look pretty good on thiscurve, single-strip films, such as Battle of the Bulge

(1965), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), and The Last

Valley (1971), appeared distorted on the deeplycurved Cinerama screen because those prints wereuncorrected.

The curved Cinerama screen automaticallyamplified the sense of audience participation bysurrounding spectators with the image, but it alsoposed a potential problem. Light reflected from oneedge of the screen struck the opposite edge, wash-ing out the image. Cinerama solved that problemwith its louvered screen, consisting of 1,100 verticalstrips. The louvered strips prevented the reflection oflight back on to the other side of the screen.

Subsequently, two Cinerama clones were in-troduced. Cinemiracle was unveiled with the pre-miere of Windjammer in 1958. In 1956–1957, EvseiM. Goldovskii and Soviet scientists at N.I.F.K.I (All-

Fig. 1. TheCinerama screen

in the BroadwayTheatre curved toa depth of 25 feet

[author’scollection].

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 278

278 John Belton

Union Scientific Research Institute of Motion PicturePhotography) developed Kinopanarama which wona Grand Prize at the 1958 World’s Fair in Brussels.Great is my Country was the first film in the process.When it was shown in Moscow, it played on a deeply-curved screen that was 102 feet wide and 38 feet inheight; it boasted nine-track stereo sound (Cineramafeatured only seven).8 A compilation of six Ki-nopanarama films was released in the United Statesas Cinerama’s Russian Adventure (1966).

Wide-angle projection

Paramount

The success of Cinerama prompted a host of ersatzwidescreen presentations. A new pair of widescreenaperture plates and a pair of short focal length pro-jection lenses enabled any exhibitor to climb onto thewidescreen bandwagon. The wide angle projectionlenses were frequently accompanied by curvedscreens – in part, to compensate for the distortionbut also to cash in on the added attraction of aCinerama-like curved screen. Paramount introducedwhat it called the ‘Paramount Panoramic Screen’ forthe projection of 1.66:1 films. It resembled the RCASynchro-Screen, designed by theatre architect BenSchlanger. The curvature of the screen varied, de-pending on the width of the auditorium and theprojection throw. ‘For normal houses, the radius ofcurvature should be equal to, or greater than three-quarters of the distance from the centre of the screento the projector, assuming that the projector is notfurther forward than the last row of seats. In very widehouses, the radius should be approximately equal tothe projector throw.’9

A year later, with the advent of VistaVision,Paramount re-issued guidelines for screen curva-ture: ‘We recommend curving metallic screens witha radius equal to the projection throw or in longnarrow houses this radius may be increased to oneand one-fourth or one and one-half times projectionthrow. We also recommend tilting the screen backslightly at the top in theatres that have very highprojection angles.’10 The second VistaVision film,Strategic Air Command (1955), was shown at theParamount Theatre in New York on a 64 by 32-footmetalised screen that curved to a depth of 3.5 feet.11

Fig. 2.Paramount’s

Panoramicscreen curvedslightly tocompensate forwide angleprojection[Jay EmanuelPublications].

Fig. 3.Universal’sWide-Visionscreen curved toa depth of threefeet in the Loew’s

State Theatre[Jay EmanuelPublications].

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 279

The curved screen 279

Universal

In the Spring of 1953, Universal-International intro-duced a new, all-purpose wide screen with the re-lease of Thunder Bay. Made by U-I’s specialphotographic effects dept. in conjunction with theResearch Council of the Motion Picture ProducersAssn., the new screen was designed to be used for3-D or 2-D films with aspect ratios from 1.33 to 2:1.According to Universal, ‘After weeks of experimenta-tion, it was discovered that a larger and brighterpicture could be achieved by spray coating a textilesurface with aluminum powder and giving the screena moderate curvature’.12 The screen was ‘curved ona 90 foot radius’. It had ‘a light magnifying factor ofapproximately four to one, as compared to presenttheatrical screens of less than one’.13 The depth ofthe curve on the 46 by 24-foot screen at Loew’s StateTheatre in New York was about three feet.14

The curved screens introduced by Paramountand Universal saw the industry through a brief tran-

sition period where old, 1.33:1 films were released incropped, wide screen formats. During this period, anumber of screen manufacturers marketed curvedscreens, such as the ‘Curvamatic Screens’ andWalker Screens. Curved screen even found their wayinto drive-ins.

CinemaScopeWith the introduction of CinemaScope in Septemberof 1953, Twentieth Century-Fox designed a completetechnological package for exhibitors, consisting ofwidescreen film, stereophonic sound, and curvedscreens. Fox’s Miracle Mirror screen was designedto imitate Cinerama’s curved screen but without thelatter’s deep curve. The curve of the CinemaScopescreen was relatively shallow. Depending on the sizeof the projected image and the distance of the pro-jection throw, the depth of the curve could rangefrom less than a foot to 8 feet. The CinemaScopescreen curved at the approximate rate of one inch

Fig. 4. Tableindicating depth

of curve forCinemaScope

screens, based

on picture widthand projection

throw[Jay EmanuelPublications].

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 280

280 John Belton

per foot, resulting, in the case of a sixty-two foot widescreen, in a five foot curve. The CinemaScope curvecompensated for the horizontal expansion of theimage, keeping the screen at a more or less constantdistance from the centre of the projection lens and,thus, insuring a focus that was as sharp at the edgesas at the centre.

The accompanying table (facing page) forcomputing the dimensions of the curved screenprovides an indication of the depth of the curve(indicated in column ‘R’) in relation to projectionthrow (the numbers at the top running from left toright ranging from 60 to 200) and picture width (thenumbers at the side from top to bottom ranging from24 to 74).

Fox’s instructions for the installation of its Mir-acle Mirror screens stated that the curvature of thescreen should have a radius equal to that of theprojection throw. Fox promoted the curved screen asa way of maintaining adequate picture brightnessacross the surface of the screen and, in some situ-ations, improving ‘picture definition at the sides’. Butthe studio also acknowledged that curved screensdo introduce distortion through the curvature of hori-zontal lines. This distortion could be reduced by‘tilting the top of the screen away from the projectora few degrees’.15 Fox recommended that exhibitorsobtain special aperture plates to correct for certaindistortions in projection – such as keystoning andoff-centre projection from high angles. When project-ing from a steep angle, in order to get a rectangularpicture on a curved screen, banana-shaped apertureplates had to be used. Distortion is clearly morevisible with steep projection angles; spectatorsseated in the balcony also experienced distortion.

Campaigning against curvedscreensOne trade publication – International Projectionist –published by members of the projectionist uniontook issue with Fox and its CinemaScope package,including the curved screen. International Projection-

ist felt that 60-foot-plus wide screens were just toowide and published its own preferred screen sizes.For a small theatre – 30 x 18 feet; medium – 44 x 24feet; and large – 50 x 38 feet (Vol. 28, No. 5 [May1953]: 23). The journal declared the 2.55:1 aspectratio to be ‘absurd’ (IP, 9/53, 3) and it sided with smallexhibitors and denounced Fox’s insistence on stereomagnetic sound as part of the CinemaScope pack-age. But its most consistent target was the curved

screen which it denounced in a series of articlesbeginning in March of 1953.

In its editorials, the journal argues that ‘far fromeliminating distortion, the curved screen creates it!... Because the screen is curved, not flat, horizontallines appear bowed, while vertical lines are variouslycurved, depending on the camera angle and the seatfrom which the screen is viewed... . From the bal-cony, the waterfall flows up!’ (IP 3/53, 16). Sub-sequent editorials included graphic illustrations ofthis perceived distortion. In May of 1954, Robert A.Mitchell complained that ‘a flat floor in a Cinema-Scope picture looks like the interior of a bathtub.Walls vault in graceful arches. Rivers flow uphill andskyscrapers emulate the leaning tower of Pisa.’16 Aslate as 1960, they recommended that a prism-typecompensator be attached to the CinemaScope lensto straighten out its horizontal lines (IP 2/60, 22). Theprism attachment was designed to correct Cinema-Scope’s supposed ‘horizontal sag’.

In a review of a CinemaScope demo at theRoxy, an editorial complained that ‘the curve of thescreen was too deep, about 5 feet at the Roxy, andwhile necessary for this vast expanse, it irritated us

Fig. 5.InternationalProjectionist’srendition ofdistortionintroduced byCinemaScope’scurved screen

projection[InternationalProjectionist].

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 281

The curved screen 281

because we were always conscious of it’. (IP, 5/53,23).

When Radio City Music Hall installed a flat 70by 28-foot screen for its premiere of Knights of the

Round Table in CinemaScope, International Projec-

tionist congratulated the Hall on defying Fox’s insis-tence on a curved screen. One of the problems withcurved screens for movie palaces that still ran stageshows was the difficulty in ‘flying’ the screen. Boththe extreme size of the screen and its curve de-manded considerable space in the fly lofts above thestage – space which the Music Hall apparently didnot have. But it was not impossible to fly a Cinema-Scope screen with the help of two-to-three counter-weights. When Paramount demonstrated VistaVisionat the Hall in the Spring of 1954, the review was titled

‘Promise of Sanity at Music Hall’. The editors of IP

vastly preferred the less extreme VistaVision formatto that of CinemaScope.

Todd-AOTodd-AO restored the madness with a vengeance.In its attempt to duplicate the experience of Cin-erama with one projector and one strip of film, Todd-AO relied on extreme, bug-eye lenses in originalphotography and on a deeply curved screen in pro-jection. Instead of Cinerama’s louvered screen,Todd-AO introduced a specially designed lenticularscreen, which was ‘a plastic-coated fabric with analuminum surface embossed in a formation of lenti-cles, or tiny lenses’. It performed a similar function toCinerama’s louvered screen, preventing ‘the surfacefrom reflecting light back on itself at the extremi-ties’.17 Like CinemaScope’s Miracle Mirror screen,Todd-AO’s screens also concentrated the reflectedlight into the area occupied by the audience (ratherthan dispersing it throughout the auditorium).

The Todd-AO screen curved to a depth of 13feet for a screen with a width of 52 feet (at the chord)and a height of 26 feet.18 This extreme screen curva-ture resulted in visible distortion, which Brian O’Briencorrected in his design of the system’s optics.

Todd-AO’s ingenious answer to the problemof distortion was to compensate for it in the printingprocess, by introducing optical distortions into theprojection prints. Thus American Optical developedan ‘optical correcting printing process which elimi-nate[d] distortions in wide films when projected fromhigh angles onto a sharply curved screen’.19 Thiscorrective-printing process also corrected prints fordistortion ‘caused by the use of extreme wide-anglelenses in photography’.20 (The degree of curve in thescreen also eliminated some of the distortion intro-duced by the use of extreme wide angle cameralenses, but Mike Todd, Jr. insisted that O’Brien’slenses resulted in some optical distortion in the finalprint of Oklahoma! even when ‘corrected’ prints wereprojected on the Todd-AO screen.)21

Todd-AO’s film laboratory in Fort Lee actuallyproduced two ‘classes’ of projection prints for thea-tres – one for projection at angles from 10 to 15degrees and another for angles of 15 degrees ormore.22 Demonstrations of this ‘corrective printingprocess’ were given in September 1955 at GeorgeSkouras’ Rivoli Theatre in New York, which had in-stalled a new projection booth on the ground floor to

Fig. 6.Todd-AO’s

screen curved toa depth of

roughly 13 feet atthe Rivoli Theater.

[Author’scollection.]

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 282

282 John Belton

enable comparison tests. One optically-corrected,70mm print of Oklahoma! was projected from thetheatre’s original booth, which had an extreme pro-jection angle of 22 degrees and another, non-cor-rected print was projected from this new booth,which featured virtually head-on projection at anangle of 2.8 degrees.23 Later that year, similar testswere conducted at the Rivoli for participants at the79th SMPTE conference in New York, but this time asingle booth was used. To demonstrate the virtuesof the corrective printing process, an uncorrectedprint of Oklahoma! was projected at an angle of 22degrees, followed by a corrected print, which elimi-nated the distortions seen previously.24 Todd-AOclaimed that this system could accommodate pro-jection angles as great as 25 degrees.25 ThoughTodd-AO prints could be tailor-made for individualtheatres, the deeply-curved, Todd-AO theatrescreen remained incompatible with prints filmed inother widescreen processes, such as Cinema-Scope, which employed no corrective printing proc-ess. These films were therefore terribly distortedwhen shown on a Todd-AO screen from extremeprojection angles. This proved to be the chief prob-lem with curved screens – since the degree of cur-vature varied with each process, no one curved

screen could be made compatible for the exhibitionthe various curved-screen formats.

Dimension-150Dimension-150, developed by Dr. Richard Vetter andDr. C. Williams in 1963, also attempted to solve theproblem of curved-screen distortion. D-150’s opticalsystem relies on 50-degree, 70-degree, 120-degreeand 150-degree lenses for principal photography.During the printing process, a special lens is used to‘correct’ the film image so that it can be projected ona deeply-curved screen similar to that used in Cin-erama. The D-150 printing process can also gener-ate flat-screen versions for exhibition in 70mm or35mm. The D-150 print of Patton shown at Bradfordin 2002 on the Cinerama screen was clearly gener-ated for flat screen exhibition. It was visibly distortedon the Cinerama screen.

D-150 was designed to be shown on screens‘from 120 degrees to 150 degrees of arc, dependingon the physical features of various theatres. A typicaldeeply-curved screen size: 34 feet high by 92 feetwide; its aspect ratio is 2.7 to 1.’26 The typical D-150screen curves to a depth of 20 feet.27 At the Rivoli,the D-150 screen curved to a depth of 37.5 feet.28

Fig. 7. Anadvertisement forDimension-150,featuring adeeply-curvedscreen[Jay EmanuelPublications].

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 283

The curved screen 283

Other systemsNumerous curved-screen processes have been in-stalled in theme parks and other special venues,including Disney’s Circarama and Circlevision,Spacearium, and various Imax systems. Circarama,introduced in 1955, was a 16mm system that usedeleven cameras in production and the same numberof interlocked projectors to display 360-degree im-ages on eleven panels on the walls of a circularauditorium. At Disneyland, the screen was eight feetin height and the auditorium had a diameter of 40feet. Spectators stood in the centre of the audito-rium.29 Circlevision, installed at Disneyland and Dis-ney World’s Epcot Center, was a 35mm system thatprojected 360-degrees of image on nine panels. The

Wonders of China was made to highlight the Circle-vision format. In all of these multi-camera and multi-projector systems, distortion in the projected imageis minimised because projection is more-or-lesshead-on and the curvature in each panel of thecomposite 360-degree screen is minimal.

At the 1958 Photokina Exhibition in Cologne,Germany, Adalbert Baltes’ Cinetarium process wasdemonstrated. Cinetarium involved the use of ahemispherical mirror in photography and projectionto project a 360-degree circular image onto a dome-like screen mounted in the theatre’s ceiling.30

Introduced in 1967 at Montreal’s Expo 67,Imax has preserved the curved screen experience inboth the Omnimax and Imax Solido systems; Omni-max projects images through a 180-degree fish-eyelens onto a dome in the ceiling of the auditorium thatis up to 99 feet in diameter while Imax Solido projectsstereoscopic images onto a screen that wrapsaround the audience.

The deeply-curved screen remained a featureof specialised exhibition formats, such as Cinerama,Todd-AO, and D-150, into the late 1960s, but itbecame increasingly rare thereafter – except in Imaxtheatres and theme parks. The slightly-curvedscreen disappeared from conventional theatresmuch earlier – probably by the late 1950s and early1960s, after the first generation of Miracle Mirror andother curved screens had been replaced.

But within the last 10–20 years, the curvedscreen has begun to make a comeback. Slightly-curved screens now function as attractions in con-temporary exhibition. Starting in 1998, AMC theatresbegan to install the Torus Compound Curved Screenin its theatres. ‘This screen uses powerful fans thatact as air pumps to keep the viewing surface pulled

back into a concave dish shape.’31 Introduced in1987 by Sigma Design Group, the Torus screen is aseamless screen without perforations for behind-the-screen speakers. Perforations would interferewith the vacuum system that maintains the curve. Asa result, speakers are placed above, below andalongside the screens. One-fifth of AMC theatreshave installed the $25,000 Torus screens.

The Marcus Theatres, the ninth largest theatrecircuit in the United States with over 490 theatres inthe mid-West, boasts that it has ‘all the amenities ...stadium seating, digital sound, and big curvedscreens ...’. A number of United Artists theatres alsoadvertise curved screens while many multi-screencinema complexes advertise ‘wall-to-wall curvedscreens, digital sound’, and stadium seating.

The return of the curved screen may havemore to do with the design of contemporary multi-plexes than with their novelty value or showmanshipappeal. The size of contemporary, multi-screen thea-tres has encouraged the use of short focal lengthprojection lenses to get large images on big screenswith very little projection throw. One lens manufac-turer, Schneider, advertises a line of Super-Cineluxwide angle projection lenses. These short focallength lenses start at 24mm and are being marketedto theatres for curved screen exhibition.

Ironically, these short lenses and limited pro-jection throws look back to theatre conditions in thesilent era and to the discussion of screen curvaturein Richardson’s 1927 Handbook of Projection. AsRichardson noted, curved screens were only prefer-able to flat screens ‘in cases where the distance ofprojection is such that a very short focal lengthprojection lens must be employed’. The rule ofthumb is still all about keeping the edges of theimage in focus.

The curved screen has made a comeback, butit has returned not so much as a novelty as a norm.It is no longer a device used to engulf audiences inimages and to produce an illusion of depth. Theshallow curves of contemporary screens can onlyallude nostalgically to deeply curved screens of the1950s and 1960s. Curved screens give exhibitorssomething to ballyhoo, like digital sound, stadiumseating, and cup holders, but their impact on thenature of the motion picture experience that today’sspectators have is minimal. Their impact is more likethat of a cup holder than that of digital sound orstadium seating, which really have transformed thenature of that experience.

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 284

284 John Belton

1. Richardson, Handbook of Projection (5th edn) (NewYork: Chalmers Publishing Co., 1927): 233.

2. Ralph Walker, ‘The Birth of an Idea’ in New Screen

Techniques, ed. Martin Quigley, Jr. (New York:Quigley Publishing, 1953): 114–116.

3. International Projectionist gives the figures as 78 feetaround the curve, 51 feet straight across the curve,and 26 feet high. January 1953.

4. William R. Latady, ‘Cinerama Arrives’, Theatre Cata-

log, 1953–54 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publica-tions, 1953): 194.

5. Greg Kimble, ‘How the West Was Won’, American

Cinematographer, Vol. 64, No. 10 (October 1983):90.

6. Keith H. Swadkins, ‘Whatever happened to Cin-erama?’, Cinema Technology Quarterly, Vol. 3, No.4 (July 1990): 63.

7. ‘Cinerama Single Lens Process’, www.widescreen-museum.com/widescreen/singlelensprocess. htm.

8. ‘Soviet Cinerama Makes its Debut’, New York Times

(9 March 1958).

9. ‘Old Films Get the New Look’, Theatre Catalog,

1953–54 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publications,1953): 198.

10. ‘The Paramount VistaVision Process’, Theatre Cata-

log, 1954–55 (Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publica-tions, 1955): 235.

11. International Projectionist, Vol. 30, No. 4 (April 1955):5.

12. Theatre Catalog, 1953–53 (Philadelphia: JayEmanuel Productions, 1954): 202.

13. ‘Old Films Get the New Look’, 202.

14. International Projectionist Vol. 28, No. 5 (May 1953):8.

15. ‘Installing CinemaScope’, Theatre Catalog, 1954–55

(Philadelphia: Jay Emanuel Publications, 1954): 225-227.

16. ‘The Anatomy of CinemaScope’, International Pro-

jectionist, Vol. 29, No. 5 (May 1954): 7.

17. Motion Picture Daily (7 October 1955), 16.

18. The actual width of the Rivoli screen was 63 feet whenmeasured along the curve, but it was 52 feet alongthe chord, which was the term used to describe thedistance, in a straight line, from one edge of thescreen to the other.

19. Film Daily (2 May 1956).

20. ‘Progress Committee Report’, JSMPTE 65, No. 5(May 1956), 248.

21. Michael Todd, Jr. and Susan McCarthy Todd, A

Valuable Property: The Life Story of Michael Todd

(New York: Arbor House, 1983): 294–295.

22. Film Daily (2 September 1955), 10.

23. Ibid., 14.

24. Film Daily (2 May 1956).

25. Film Daily (26 October 1956).

26. ‘D-150 Demonstration Run Gets Unanimous“Raves”’, International Projectionist, Vol. 39, No. 3(March 1964): 8.

27. Charles Loring, ‘Photographing ‘The Bible’ in Dimen-sion-150’, American Cinematographer (February1965), 105.

28. Don V. Kloepfl, ed. Motion Picture Projection and

Theatre Presentation Manual (New York: SMPTE,1969): 15.

29. Alden, Alex (uncredited), Widescreen Motion Picture

Systems. Pamphlet published by the Society of Mo-tion Picture and Television Engineers, New York,1965. No page numbers.

30. Alden, Alex (uncredited), Widescreen Motion Picture

Systems. Pamphlet published by the Society of Mo-tion Picture and Television Engineers. New York,1965. No page numbers.

31. Michael P. Lewis, ‘Silver Screens Worth Their Weightin Gold’, Los Angeles Times (15 July 1998).

Notes

FILM HISTORY: Volume 16, Number 3, 2004 – p. 285

The curved screen 285