quote:

---

With respect, it's easy to say that living in London where you have easy access to a large number of rep cinemas which show a wide range of archive and re-release titles in technically ideal circumstances. I have lived in several provincial towns where the only cinema on offer is a high street fleapit or a ring-road multiplex, and if they ever got a 1.38 title at all it was a rare and welcome event. In these circumstances, which is the lesser of two evils - an Academy frame compressed into the 1:1.85 height, or the film shown with severe vertical cropping? You are not going to covince the likes of Warners or UCI to put Academy lenses in all their several hundred screens for the benefit of one or two films a year (if that).

---

Leo, sorry if I caused offence, I didn't mean to. I know of several cases where managers and projection staff of cinemas, both multiplexes and "high street fleapits", not equipped to run Academy films have gone to considerable trouble to obtain the necessary parts to show these films correctly, often by borrowing from another cinema, or using their own personal equipment. I had a 'phone call last year from a manager who had been given my number by someone who thought I might be able to lend him a lens. When I looked in my stock, I had a lens fo the required length, and was happy to lend it for the show. This is by no means limited to cinemas in the major citys, it really does seem to have much more to do with people than with location, or type of venue.

Yes, yes, I agree. It all video's fault! But seriously, I agree, the DOP has to keep all those viewfinder lines in mind, but still, there is ONE way he envisions as correct. You wouldn't suggest that I could run everything at 1.66 just because I know every DOP will keep that all clear for the European market and he'll even keep it clear out to the TV safe area. So in theory I could play every recent release in 1.66. But would it be correct for the theatrical release at a New York premiere? If the director were sitting in the audience, would he be happy seeing his film in 1.66 rather than 1.85? When he come up to the booth to chew me out, would he accept my argument that, hey man, you kept it safe for 1.66 in Europe. In all likelihood, he would tell me to go to Europe to ply my craft. My point being, there is a difference between what is clear so mics and set gack don't show and what the DOP and director compose for theatrical presentation.

Stephen, you don't have to apologize to ME for long posts!

>You said: My criticism was aimed at those cinemas who genuinely cannot be bothered, those who even have the required lens in the cupboard, but who feel that it is too much trouble to mount it on a machine for one show, and would rather just show the film cropped to 1.85.<

OK, that's the worst scenario and there is nothing much you can do about incompetence and indifference like that, other than wait for them to go out of business, which they surely will. But there are theatres that do only have flat 1.85 and scope lenses and legitimately WANT to run a 1.37 classic film correctly; the ironic thing is, unless they are using one of those "all-in-one" prime/anamorphic combo lenses, they DO have the proper lens to project 1.37 -- it's their anamorphic prime lens -- sitting right there in their turret.

Just unscrew the anamorphot and you've got a lens that, although it will be a tad longer focal length than "perfect" -- there might be a very slight visible frameline on top and bottom of the picture -- it will be a far better solution than projecting a 1.37 print at 1.85. If the print has, as most prints do, black frame-lines, then they don't even need to cut new aperture plates. If they get one of those odd prints (mostly IBTec, I think) that have transparent framelines, or if they were cropping their scope picture, then, yes, they will need to buy new 1.37 plates, all of $18 each. But that's it -- perfect 1.37 without scrounging around for another lens.

And you are absolutely correct; for those theatres that don't have enough interest in presentation to get the proper equipment to show a film the way it was intended, then the studios shouldn't book a classic picture into such a theatre. It would be like a museum saying, well, we do want to exhibit this Monet painting because we know there is an audience that will pay to see it, but, gee, we don't have a frame the proper size -- we'll just mount it in one that's handy -- no one will miss the three feet on the top and bottom of the original painting.

When distribs cater to that mentality by providing lesser versions for "lesser" theatres, then it is just another step down that road to mediocrity -- nothing matters, anything goes, as long as we get the money out of the consumer's pocket -- standards are out the window and quality, well, that's just word that sounds nice....perhaps it can be worked into the display ad.

Now I am not so naive to think that you can only show a film in one format. Films are knocked down to 16mm, to video, to scan & pan TV, to ANYTHING that will show a movie image and produce sound, but when a film is shown in a THEATRE, there is the expectation by the public that this is the "ultimate" experience -- this isn't non-theatrical....this isn't home theatre....it isn't broadcast TV. This is The Movies, dame it, and you should be seeing exactly what the filmmaker intended. Or perhaps I am jousting at windmills -- perhaps that concept is dead and the culture will come to see that their home theatre experience is better than the theatres. In that case, I'll retire and leave the driving to someone else. And he'd probably got a DLP.

Frank

Even back to the silent days, there were problems with how large you could magnify or crop 35mm due to film grain. With the advent of the move to wider aspect ratios, some films were simply cropping the Academy aperture to get a wider projection aspect ratio: 1:1.85 is an example. VistaVision approached *that* problem with a higher negative area, reducing grain in both horizontal projection prints & reduced to regular 35mm projection prints. It's excellent: we ran King & I and White Christmas, both VistaVision titles, both projected from standard 35mm film, & they were sharp, sharp, sharp; the best looking 35mm we had on that screen.

You should really think in terms of the flexibility in projection aspect ratios as working for you, not against you. The ability to meet different projection needs was part of its design! For a given title, since all VistaVision movies are rep titles now, you could do a little research & see which particular aspect ratio the DP & director wanted. This is just the kind of meat you want for program notes & newspaper blurbs. Barring that you can do the standard forensic psychology/statistical analysis bit of how people tend to put design into practice: When something must be acceptable over a range, generally people shoot for the middle & try to just keep the extremes under control. So you should take something around the middle a/r of the range.

And when it gets to *your* needs, remember that the flexible projection a/r means that you can get what works best for you out. If you're running it in a proscenium theater, it's likely the biggest screen area & best looking screen will be about 1:1.66, so take it, it will be the best-looking 1.66 from 35mm film you've put up. If your outdoor screen is 2:1 & can't be masked like a drive-in screen, & you've had to crop all 1:1.37 to fit it because of complaints when it doesn't go the edge, a VistaVision print plopped up there will also be the best-looking 1:1.37 cropped to 2:1 you've had.

quote:

---

we ran King & I and White Christmas, both VistaVision titles, both projected from standard 35mm film, & they were sharp, sharp, sharp; the best looking 35mm we had on that screen.

---

'The King and I' was Cinemascope 55, not Vistavision, but
the same applies; bigger negative equals better looking print, other things being equal, even from a standard 35mm print.

quote:

---

'The King and I' was Cinemascope 55, not Vistavision

---

quote:

---

But there are theatres that do only have flat 1.85 and scope lenses and legitimately WANT to run a 1.37 classic film correctly; the ironic thing is, unless they are using one of those "all-in-one" prime/anamorphic combo lenses, they DO have the proper lens to project 1.37 -- it's their anamorphic prime lens -- sitting right there in their turret.

---

This won't give you a perfect Academy frame, because the 'scope frame uses quite a bit more height. Assuming you cut a plate to Academy specifications and used a 'scope prime lens of the right focal length to fill the height of the screen, then you would see some blank space top and bottom. But this is certainly preferable to showing an Academy film in 1:1.85.

What 'scope primes can be used for very successfully is showing full-gate silent or the 'early sound ratio' (i.e. full height but not anamorphic) which was used briefly during the late '20s & early '30s. The difference in frame dimensions is negligable. Of course you need to offset the optical centre of the frame when showing silent.

Some original 1950's prints were hard matted at either 1.85 or 1.66, some were not. This seems to be a product of how wide the original horizontal frame was. They clearly wanted the full horizontal width transfered to the vertical prints. Original prints of North By North West were not matted, however, if you run it 1.37, you will get mikes and stage lights in the picture. Obviously, it was not intended to run that way. Although the DVD is hard matted to 1.85, I think NBNW looks best at 1.66 or 1.75.

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Although the DVD is hard matted to 1.85, I think NBNW looks best at 1.66 or 1.75.

---

Actually, the "North By Northwest" DVD is framed in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Similarly, all of Paramount's DVD versions of VistaVision-originated movies are also in 1.78:1 ratios ("The Ten Commandments," "White Christmas," etc.).

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

The leaders on this particuar print of NBN had 1.66, hand written on the internegative next to the title and clearly visible in the identification section of the all leaders, that's why I was confident in running it at that AR.

---

But how could you be sure that whoever wrote that on the neg was correct? It's an indication, but can you rely on it. This is always going to be a problem where the same print format can be used by films intended for several different exhibition formats. I think the best we could do would be for the director of each film to clearly state how the film is intended to be exhibited, this information should be on the leader of each reel, preferably not just hand written, and should also be recorded in a central database somewhere, which can be consulted by the projectionist if the original leaders are missing, or have been replaced. The problem with this is that it could only be done with new films, while the main problem is with older ones. I don't know the answer to that one; we can only use our judgement, and do the best that we can, if we are not given adequate information.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged