|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

The only non-Lucas related scope movies Steven has made are Close Encounters, Jaws, Hook and maybe that first one [The Sugarland Express]

---

Also "1941." Plus, as writer and/or producer, Spielberg has been involved with many scope releases, including "Poltergeist," "The Goonies," "Joe Versus The Volcano," "Twister," "The Mask Of Zorro," "Ace Eli And The Rodger Of The Skies," and others.

quote:

---

2.39 first came into use on The Cell two years ago.

---

Huh? 2.39:1 has been the standard scope projection ratio for the past thirty years! (Maybe John Pytlak can post a reference to the SMPTE standards here.) Most people, however, either (A) don't know that the standard is actually 2.39:1 (rather than 2.35:1) or (B) they simply use the more common term of "2.35:1." Others prefer refering to scope with the figure of 2.40:1, which is subjectively correct as well, but is simply a rounded figure.

quote:

---

When using Super 35, the image can be composed for 2.39:1 "scope" theatrical release, but additional height of the frame "protected" so the video release can have a less severe "letterbox".

---

True, though very few video transfers (on DVD anyway) are available this way to the public. Most are presented in the original composition ratio of 2.39:1 (or something close to that). Some of the handful of Super 35-originated films shown theatrically in scope that are available on laserdisc and/or DVD in other widescreen ratios (typically 1.78:1, 1.85:1 or 2.00:1) include "Top Gun," "Judgment Night," "The General," "Silverado" (first pressing only), "The Governess," "Set It Off," "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country," and "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (LD only; DVD is in scope ratio), among others. A larger number of Super 35 films have appeared on TV (HBO in particular) broadcast in different widescreen ratios than the theatrical prints.

quote:

---

Spielberg originally intended Empire of the Sun to be projected at 1.66. I don't know how many US theaters actually did though.

---

References to 1.85:1 have appeared in interview pieces with cinematographer Allen Daviau, ASC in American Cinematographer and (a future issue of) Widescreen Review. According to Mr. Daviau, the film was composed for 1.85:1 and meant to be projected in that ratio. Of course, this wouldn't have prevented any theater from actually projecting it at 1.66:1; the imagery was there to do so. The film was shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte.

The DVD is framed at 1.78:1. The laserdisc versions were framed around 1.66:1, which is what I believe has led many to believe the film was meant to be projected at 1.66:1.

Michael, 2.39:1 is not the 2.35:1 spec, just misstated. These are two different specifications, the 2.35 being the older one, dating back to the revised CinemaScope specification in the 1950s (the original scope spec being 2.55). The 2.39 spec was designed recently to prevent negative splice flashes from being projected and to conform to how most theatres have been cutting plates to prevent this distraction themselves. However not hard matting 2.39 can lead to new questions about how a print is intended to be projected. Not all current scope releases hard matted to 2.39, but leave the frame wide open. I suppose this might be to avoid exposing frame lines in theatres which are still projecting right out to full height.

2.4 is the 2.39 spec misstated, although I don't know why in the world of technical specifications where everything is based on correct numbers, someone decides to call relatively new specification by the wrong number. Is it easier to say "for-ty" than "thir-ty-nine" (you save one syllable)? It is bad enough that techies still refer to the Academy ratio as 1.33 when that is the spec for silent film; when sound was added it was changed to 1.37 -- two different specs. It's a small thing, but just goes to show how easily things can get messed up by inexactitude (yes, I made the word up).

In the re-release SW trilogy and Ep 1, which I ran recently, some had the frame hard matted at 2.39 while one did not. So it may be more of an arbitrary decision on the part of the lab rather than a conscious decision by the filmmaker.

And never EVER trust DVD or Laserdisc jacket material for correct information about what went on in theatres with respect to aspect ratios, especially older titles. The liner notes are written by video people, usually about films made before they were even born, and they are notorious for saying that the video release is "the way the film was intended to be seen." It is nothing but a marketing line; if the video folks were so intent on faithfulness to the film presentation, then they wouldn't be so fast to throw in half the junk that was originally left on the editing floor -- all those "additional scenes not shown in theatres." Usually there's a reason the director cuts scenes from a film....because, hello, they weren't intended to be there!

"Huh? 2.39:1 has been the standard scope projection ratio for the past thirty years! (Maybe John Pytlak can post a reference to the SMPTE standards here.) Most people, however, either (A) don't know that the standard is actually 2.39:1 (rather than 2.35:1) or (B) they simply use the more common term of "2.35:1." Others prefer refering to scope with the figure of 2.40:1, which is subjectively correct as well, but is simply a rounded figure."

A few years ago, I researched the history of the "scope" standards, which is now posted on Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum" website:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards. John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of 0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715 aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats became the same width of 0.825 inches.

Oddly enough, there's a shot on the laserdisc where you can see the boom microphone quite clearly in the bottom of the screen. It's around the time of the costume party (early in the film) and after the boy goes to get his glider and stumbles upon a group of soldiers. As the boy and two men are walking away, there's the fuzzy, gray microphone cover, plain as day. I don't think they wanted that to be seen in theatres and I'm disappointed that it's on the laserdisc and/or that the laserdisc was not 1.85. Also early in the film (but in a different scene) there's an odd dissolve right in the middle of a shot. It's really weird and I don't know if it was that way in the theatrical release or it's unique to the laserdisc. I always admired that film because, on the technical side, I consider it one of the most flawless movies ever made. So it's sad to start seeing errors on the disc.

quote:

---

Not all current scope releases hard matted to 2.39, but leave the frame wide open.

---

Are SCOPE releases ever hard matted (letter-boxed, not door-boxed) on the 35mm print material? I don't see the reason. It is not like there is anything left to hide.

quote:

---

Release prints made from duplicate negatives can have excellent quality. For "Film Done Right", the proper procedure is to contact print the short pitch original negative (BH-1866 perfs) onto a long pitch master positive (DH-1870 perfs). Then use a (slower) pin-registered step printer to make the short pitch duplicate negatives (BH-1866 perfs). The sound negative is recorded directly onto short pitch sound recording film (KS-1866 perfs). Then contact release prints are made onto long pitch print film (KS-1870 perfs). This method minimizes any slippage in the printers to give the optimum steadiness and sharpness, even with high speed release printing.

---

John, are optical printers inherently pin-registered devices? I'm thinking that if this is the case, then this would remove one of the variables for 'film done wrong' at the lab stage (with super 35). Yet, I have seen that super-35 print quality can vary substantially. Would most of the loss in sharpness from one procedure to another come down to incorrect pitch choices at each printing stage?

As an example, I projected two prints of 'The Beach' (super 35) prior to its release - one print of the movie was 20 minutes longer and sharpness and colour were outstanding - even long shots were extremely crisp and fine-detailed. The next print came from a different lab, and it was extremely grainy even on a modest-sized screen. Sharpness and detail were lacking in absolute terms, but *especially* in comparison to what I knew was possible from the source material - it was like watching a different movie. What went wrong? I assume that the duplicate negative of the inferior print was already flawed, meaning that the fault was either with the IP or the optical-squeeze step used to create the DN. I'm therefore wondering where can such discrepancies occur and what can be done to prevent them?

quote:

---

Are SCOPE releases ever hard matted (letter-boxed, not door-boxed) on the 35mm print material? I don't see the reason. It is not like there is anything left to hide.

---

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged