|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is it 2:35:1 or 2.39:1
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-24-2002 10:56 AM
Steve, I started my career running film in commercial theatres from 1963 to 1967, after which I went into the arthouse end of the business where we have to have at least 3 non-anamorphic lens/apeture sets -- 4 if you want to do Disney correctly and 5 if you run silent. l can tell you that it was in those days when I saw those reel bands that gave the maximum and minumum aspect ratio that the theatres could use without, as they put it, "significant information being cropped" or "danger of showing extranious material." In almost all those cases, prints were either hard matted to something very minimal, like 1.45 or not at all, i.e. full frame. Now I don't know when the SMPTE actually standardized at 1.85, but the studios certainly knew that in the real world, theatres were by no means all cropping at 1.85 and nothing else. Originally the whole cropping wide screen idea (bad as it is) was started by theatres, not the studios, simply because after they invested in CinemaScope screens, they figured why use 1.37 when we've got all that extra screen we paid for? They were cropping on pictures that were shot for 1.37. So although it becomes fairly simple after standarization, there is that whole gray area, maybe even a little longer, where it's not so cut-and-dry. Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-27-2002 02:38 PM
John, is there a time-frame on that spec -- when it was first introduced (wasn't that one up for renewal a few years ago?). Steve, as for imdb, they are worthless for any definative information about original specs -- they get much of their information from the video release and there, unfortunately, "letterboxing" has become a big marketing tool and videos are coming out where they are letterboxed films at 1.85 that clearly have clean composition right out to 1.37. Because the video is letterboxed at 1.85 is no guarantee that is true to the original intent. Disney did that with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. The animation was shot at full frame 1.37. For the VHS release, the entire 1.37 frame is shown, while the laserdisc was "letterboxed" at 1.85. If you look at two identical frames from each side by side, you will see that the 1.85 is nothing more than the full frame image with black bands added. I am sure that 1.85 was the maximum for WAOVW; the minimum was something like 1.55 or 1.56, I don't exactly remember, but it was under 1.66 because we were running just under 1.66 and it looked fine. If the composition of the original film was ok at 1.66 in theatres, then I would certainly opt to crop at the less severe ratio in any retrospective presentation, and also, for that matter in the video release, rather than the more severe, especially since the negs are probably full frame. I would love to get my hands on one of those old reel bands.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic