Here is a scenario that results in a 1.85 matted release print:

If a primary goal is to save negative costs, studios can use a camera that only pulls down two perforations at a time. It saves negative costs, but results in somewhat less quality. This was originally part of the "Techniscope" process. (I don't know exactly what Super 35 is, but I'm guessing it's similar.) This gives a image area of 0.868" x 0.373" (I have my ASC book right here.) An optical printer blows up the image slightly to fill the height of a flat (0.838" x 0.446") frame. The director realizes that what he sees on the far left/right will be pushed out of the frame after blowing up, so he makes sure no action takes place there. Since this does not fill up the height of the frame as used in a projector (4 perf, 0.868" x 0.631"), a matte is placed around the unphotographed area.

Here's a different scenario that results in a 1.85 non-matted release print:

A director knows ahead of time that his film will be shown on TV. He wants to be sure it looks the way he intended when shown at the theaters (1.85) and on TV (1.33.) He does not want to use a 2 perf camera, because someone later will have to re-format the 1.85 ratio to fit a TV screen, and it might not be him. In the viewfinder of the camera, there are lines that denote the frame edges in both ratios. He composes the frame so both ratios look good. This is not a minor decision; backdrops must be made bigger, more people are needed to fill crowd scenes, etc. The flat release print is printed with no matte. The theaters show only the 1.85 area, later, TV shows the entire area.

So, whether a matte appears on a print may depend on questions like:

Two perf or four perf? This usually is a money issue, but if I have to carry a camera and film 40 miles and back, I might like the negative savings two perf offers.

Do I want to pay more now and compose the film for theaters and TV, or save the money and do it later?

Am I a 'director control freak' and don't want anyone changing my 'vision'? Kubrick was like this.

Let's say I'm cheap, but can get some four perf cameras and lenses so cheap that I don't care about negative costs. Also, when Mirramax buys my movie, I'll let them pay for the TV formatting. So, I'll shoot with booms and lights visible, because I know the theaters will limit the frame area.

Maybe, I had no money when I started shooting this picture, but got some towards the end.

Sorry to blab on.. I probably said more than you wanted to know...

Speaking of pulled footage, why are we americans, who live in the land of the free and home of the brave, so afraid and terrified of movie footage that we have to have it removed to protect our fragile little minds? What are we, wussies?

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Incidentally, there are very few feature films which aren't filmed with 4-perf pull down. It's the industry standard and anything else requires the lab to do too much work (and that costs money).

Super 35 allows the filmmaker to use the area on the film which is normally reserved for the optical sound. In recent years, Super 35 has been used for many features which are intended for 2.35 theatrical release and, yes, the lab DOES have to convert the image to amamorphic (and restore that room for the optical soundtrack). Some filmmakers (James Cameron, for one) prefer Super 35 for a variety of reasons, including video transfer consideration, greater depth of field than you get with anamorphic lenses, less offensive lens flares, etc.

When Cameron made THE ABYSS, he requested that the effects shots be composed for 1.66, although the theatrical prints would be 2.35. Of course, he was considering video releases when he called for those effects shots. ILM's effects people have used VistaVision cameras for many years and that's among the reasons why effects aren't "full frame" in flat films.

I've heard a bunch of complaints about re-issues on films which weren't shot for 1.85 or 2.35. Although I didn't see the latest re-issue of THE WIZARD OF OZ (less than 2 years ago), I was told it was matted on all 4 sides of the image so that it would play in the proper 1.33 aspect ratio even in theatres which could only show today's standard 1.85 flat material. I can't imagine why that approach wasn't taken with previous re-issues of those older films. Personally, I saw a so-called "restoration" of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS about 10 years ago in 70mm. The only trouble was that the original version was VistaVision and this "restoration" was cropped to 2.35. As a friend of mine commented, there were only 8 commandments in the print I saw! Boneheads!

quote:

---

I am assuming you are referring to the electric dowser (more commonly referred to as a changeover

---

Maybe it's a projector with some model of fire shutter out of adjustment?

ALL films are flat when you unroll them all the way.

"To help ensure correct vertical centering (framing) of the projected image, hard-matte printing may be used in producing the duplicate negative used for release printing of theatrical prints. A hard matte with an image height of at least 0.505 in (12.83 mm) may be used with all style A aspect ratios (1.66:1 or greater). Note that prints intended for a style C aspect ratio (1.37:1) will normally have an image height of at least 0.630 in (16.00 mm)as specified in ANSI-SMPTE 59. In all cases, the framelines on the print shall essentially be opaque".

"Use of camera aperture dimensions other than those stated in ANSI/SMPTE 59 is discouraged. Film users are reminded that many features composed for wide-screen aspect ratio will be shown later on television. Use of a hard matte in the camera will require substantial cropping of the film horizontally when the film is transferred to television, and severely limits the use of a print made from the negative".

"Good practice dictates using the 1.37:1 style A camera aperture of ANSI/SMPTE 59, while composing for the desired theatrical projection aspect ratio. Care should be taken to exclude extraneous items or action from the photographed image area which may show in the television scanned area".

ANSI/SMPTE 59 "Camera Aperture Images and Usage" specifies the "Style A" aperture size as 0.864 X 0.63 inches (21.95 X 16.0 mm). The "Style B" (scope) camera aperture is 0.864 X 0.732 inches (21.95 X 18.59 mm). The "Style C" ("Super 35") camera aperture is 0.981 X 0.735 inches (24.92 X 18.67 mm). Note that the camera aperture is ALWAYS larger than the final projected image area, and the image is composed on the camera viewfinder groundglass to correspond to the projectable image area specified in ANSI/SMPTE 195.

Copies of SMPTE Standards and Recommended Practices are available from the SMPTE:
http://www.smpte.org/stds/index.html

A good projectionist is always careful to properly frame the image, because the image on the print is always larger than the projectable image area that the cinematographer and director composed the image for. And despite the warning in ANSI/SMPTE 195, there is always a chance of a wayward mike boom, lighting flag, or bikini-clad "nude" scene being on the print, that was never intended to be seen.

The normal "Super-35" camera aperture is 0.980 X 0.735 inches. The area "extracted" (i.e., printed) when a picture is released in the 2.39:1 "scope" format is 0.945 X 0.394 inches. This is the area outlined in the camera's viewfinder, which guides the composition of the shot. Examples of pictures shot this way are "Titanic", "Godzilla" and "Independence Day". Jim Cameron and Russell Carpenter's work on "Titanic" was an fine example of the excellent quality that can be obtained using "Super-35".

A few 1.85:1 pictures have been shot using the "Super-35" format. In this case, the same 0.980 X 0.735 inch camera aperture is used, but the negative image area that ends up on the screen is 0.945 X 0.511 inches. Despite having the advantage of a larger image area on the negative, "Super-35" is not often used for 1.85:1, as it requires the duplicate negative to be made on a slow optical printer, rather than a faster continuous contact printer. Pictures shot in "Super-35" 1.85:1 include "The Godfather Part III", "Bonfire of the Vanities", "The Fisher King", "Goodfellas", "Malcolm X", and "The Two Jakes".

Some have suggested a "Super-35" release print format to take advantage of the increased image area. These include Dean Goodhill's "MaxiVision" proposal, and Vittorio Storaro's "Univision System". But such a change would require eliminating the analog soundtrack (without analog backup, the digital sound would need to be 100% reliable) and changing the optical centerline of the image and the placement of the DTS timecode. Some projectors would require fairly extensive modification to change the centerline without vignetting.

A very bad example of sloppy film to video is the laserdisc release of 'Ben-hur'

Anamorphic 1.85

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged