The only release prints I know of that are always hard matted are Super 16 'blow jobs' (which have to be duplicated in an optical printer anyway) and animation, where the matte is (presumably) photographed as a black background by the rostrum camera.

Perhaps using an aperture plate in the studio camera of the same ratio to that in which the film is intended to be projected (overcut by a millimetre or two to allow a margin for error) would be the best bet. But as Paul notes, if you do that and then a boom mike still gets into the shot, you're buggered.

It does'nt matter whether the film was shot with 1:1.85 camera aperture,hard matted in the lab. or even if the film was shot using Academy Ratio,if the correct aperture/lens combination is used extra image information including booms,lights etc. will be cropped in projection.

The problem occurs when films are shot using full Academy Ratio but framed by camera operator using ground glass markers in camera viewfinder for 1:1.85. Obviously this leaves a lot of information outside the 1:1.85 frame. Hopefully this information is not critical as it should be cropped in projection.

When a light or boom intrudes into this area, depending on the difficulty of the shot or the fact that it may be unrepeatable the director will go with it knowing that the "offender" should be cropped out if projected properly.

Why shoot Academy Ratio? To accomodate cinemas which don't have proper aperture/lens cominations for 1:1.85. It is an attempt to provide a print which can be shown in any flat ratio.

Of course this creates the problems voiced in this thread.

Incidentally swinging boom on a film set is highly skilled work and we take our cues from the camera operator. He will let you know if your intruding in his frame (sometimes quite forcefully

The problem is trying to provide one print which will satsfy all flat ratios.

A "mild" anamorphic to get 1.85 using the full-frame was proposed by Glenn Berrgren (sp?) at ISCO years ago, aptly called ISCOvision, but it went no where.

Dave, usually original camera negs are shot full-frame just because. Actually it makes it easier for video transfering -- less need to loose the sides, and if they are careful to shoot the full-frame with "clean" tops and bottoms out to the frame edges, the video transfer is just straight foward without any need for manipulation.

Originally theatres just used what lenses they had to get a wider image than the Academy "square." So it is not a very good idea to hard matte to 1.85 simply because theatre screen sizing is not always an exact science. Many times the screen aspect ratio can come in at somthing less than 1.85 and for those theatres, hard matted 1.85 prints would play with bars on top and bottom. Europe never accepted 1.85 and still use 1.66 as the norm, so you wouldn't want hard-matted 1.85 prints that would be wrong for the overseas market. Although I have seen a number of films hard-matted right out to 1.85 -- ZEFFERILLI'S ROMEO & JULIET (Paramount) for one.

I find that older films, pre-1975 or so, look just fine in 1.66 mainly because there wasn't a hard change to 1.85 earlier on and the studios kept top and bottom areas clean for the older theatres that were running 1.5, 1.66, 1.75 -- all popular versions of cropped wide screen. Disney, in fact, for years insisted (rightfully so) that 1.85 was too severe a crop for good image quality and insisted that their features all play at 1.75 instead. If you can play a film at 1.66 without seeing set gack, do it. The picture is brighter and the lower magnification makes the grain less visible.

In some cases I have seen them hard-matte certain shots; I assume those shots had set gack that needed to be covered, while the rest of the film is left wide opened.

quote:

---

Michael Brown has hit the nail on the head. If the film is shot 1:1.85 and projected 1:1.85 with correct lens and aperture plate-no problem.

---

No problem if boom mikes are successfully kept out of the 1:1.85 picture area.

...and Frank Angel asks:

quote:

---

Do you guys really find current films with boom mics showing at 1.85?

---

Unusual, but not unheard of. If the print is not hard-matted then as Paul points out, you can get round the problem by racking up or down a bit. But if it is, then either you have to show the boom mike or the matte line.

The 1.85 ratio change did serve a good purpose in minimizing the visual distractions of splices. Remember that theatre wet splicers were almost universally 1/4 frame.

Lastly, I can't remember having seen it done, but by having a full frame image, it is theoretically possible possible to "re-frame" a poorly framed shot prior to the release of a film.

quote:

---

Lastly, I can't remember having seen it done, but by having a full frame image, it is theoretically possible possible to "re-frame" a poorly framed shot prior to the release of a film.

---

I guess you'd do that with a contact step printer by programming it to stop at the end of each shot and then having the operator 'reframe' the position of the negative (or fine-grain pos) relative to the raw stock just like you would a projector. The Debrie Matipo printer, which is used widely by archives and specialist labs because it is very good at dealing with shrunken and perf-damaged originals, has such a facility. When I saw one in action (at the National Film and Television Archive, just outside London), the person who explained the process told us that the inclusion of a framing control was to enable the operator to compensate for the shifting position of the original relative to the raw stock caused by shrinkage. So whether it would allow you to shift the frame far enough to get rid of a boom mike I'm not sure.

Leo is correct that "hard matting" prints to "force" the framing would require an additional optical printing step to create the wide opaque framelines. Standard SMPTE 195 suggests a hard matte with an image height of at least 0.505 inches.

Every theatre should verify that they are projecting the correct image area for each format by using the SMPTE 35-PA (RP 40) test film:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/spring2001/pytalk.shtml

And do pay attention to framing, in case there is an errant boom mike or lighting fixture visible outside the 1.85:1 image area.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

35mm/3-perf cameras are being used in an effort to cut down on the waste of film. (25% savings in a camera raw stock budget) Features and several TV shows are using this format as well as Super 16 in an effort to trim budgets.

The change in "taking format" will still not help the sacrifice in grain and resolution of the 1.85/4-perf release format. One the plus side, EK has worked wonders with fantastic film stocks!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged