Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "The Wrong Size Film"

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » "The Wrong Size Film" (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: "The Wrong Size Film"

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-08-2000 02:37 PM

"One Size Fits All" screens with non-adjustable masking rate an "F" (FAILURE) in the KODAK SCREENCHECK Experience program.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-08-2000 02:41 PM

I've heard the 34 mm story too. Mike Todd was a shrewd businessman, but he also was the complete SHOWMAN. He is missed.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-08-2000 02:45 PM

Stefan said: "You needed to have Todd-AO projectors (DP 70) to run the 30 fps, as trhis was the only brand available at the
time (1958). Todd supplied the special masks for the projector, but with DP 70 no other change was neccessairy.
I do still have the original correspondence and invoices from 1958, found at my Savoy ToDD AO theatre's storage
area."

You may want to contact Marty Hart of the American Widescreen Museum, who is always looking for original documentation regarding widescreen formats to post on his site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-08-2000 06:43 PM

John Pytlak said, "One Size Fits All" screens with non-adjustable masking rate an "F".....

Agreed! The first time I ran into one of those I was doing a PM. I checked the FLAT lens with the RP-40 then flipped to the SCOPE lens. I was expecting the masking ot move and it didn't. I went in search of the circuit breaker that controls the motor and couldn't find one. About a half-minute later it dawned on me that the SCOPE picture was fitting on the screen.... "What the..."
I musta' spent the next 5 minutes flipping the lens back and forth and looking at the picture just to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

"Who's the bone head that dreamed up THAT idea?!", I thought.

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-20-2001 06:26 PM

I'm seeing The Mexican in the stadium theater near my home. Masking is set for 1.85 ratio. At the R1 > R2 join I notice the cue marks are elliptical. A scope movie on a flat screen with the sides chopped off!

I quietly get up to leave -- I don't want to make a fuss in the middle of a show.

That night I go back, track down the manager and explain what happened. Turns out the masking was not set properly in the auditorium which had The Mexican. The manager issued me a refund ticket. He didn't have to but it was a nice gesture on the theater's part.

Because of that screwup I now try to find out what ratio a movie is in before I see it.

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-21-2001 07:07 AM

These 2:1 screen sound awfull. I dont know if there are any in the uk but its not something i've ever encountered. The worst mistake i have seen was a scope film played with a full set of flat adverts and trailers, with the whole lot shown with the masking and lense set to scope. The kids seemed to find it funny. I belive one of the flat trailers was for The First Wives Club. This is especially funny in scope.

------------------
------------------
Michael Brown
Bradford Student Cinema
www.Bradfordstudentcinema.co.uk

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-21-2001 08:07 AM

Charles Everett said: "That night I go back, track down the manager and explain what happened. Turns out the masking was not set properly in the auditorium which had The Mexican."

If the full 0.825 x 0.690 inch scope image area was being projected and the wrong masking setting was used, you would have seen the sides of the scope picture "spill" onto the masking. IMHO, something sounds "fishy" in the manager's explanation.

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 06-21-2001 11:16 AM

John P: The sides of the picture were chopped off -- they did NOT spill onto the masking. I was in a stadium theater that opened in 1999 (no, it's not a Regal). All the auditoriums have adjustable masking. I caught the mistake because the cue marks were clearly visible.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-21-2001 11:53 AM

Charles said: "The sides of the picture were chopped off -- they did NOT spill onto the masking."

Then they were using an undersized aperture, and it was not simply a mistake in setting the masking. Try to visit that theatre when they are showing a scope picture again, and see if they correct the problem.

FWIW, a piece of United States currency has an aspect ratio close to 2.39:1 "scope" (6.1 inches / 2.6 inches = 2.35:1). And a US business card is 1.75:1 (3.5 inches / 2 inches = 1.75:1). Or you can make a template for a quick check of the screen aspect ratio from your seat.

| IP: Logged

Thomas Hauerslev
Master Film Handler

Posts: 451
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 06-22-2001 05:28 AM

More about 34mm film in London here

------------------
Cheers, Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.