Unless I see something to the contrary, the area beyond .825 or the appropriate height on the release prints is undefined. If it is defined then it should be stated somewhere that it's purpose is to fall on masking systems and should be protected space as such.

Steve

Any projector that has the aperture so far away from the film *cough* Simplex *cough* should be redesigned so that the aperture is close as possible. There is no reason to have it so far away. Any projector that does just has a bad design.

I beleive that all plates should be cut to the correct width and height for the format being shown, my later years before forced retirement were spent in an art house twin, where we ran the film in its correct format, or as close as we could get, film done right is to show the audiance only the content of the frame and not fuzzy bits on the edge or top and bottom.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Here are the relevant SMPTE Standards.

ANSI/SMPTE 195
SMPTE Standard for Motion-Picture Film (35-mm)--Motion Picture Prints--Projectable Image Area
Dim A 0.825 in Nom (aperture width)
Dim C 0.738 in Ref (picture centerline to reference edge)
Dim D 0.324 in Min (picture edge to reference edge)
Dim E 1.151 in Max (picture edge to reference edge)

ANSI/SMPTE 59
SMPTE Standard for Motion-Picture Film (35-mm)--Camera Aperture Images and Usage
Dim A 0.864 in Nom (aperture width)
Dim C 0.738 in +/- 0.002 (picture centerline to reference edge)
Dim D 0.307 in Max (picture edge to reference edge)
Dim E 1.171 in Min (picture edge to reference edge)
Dim F 0.115 in Nom (soundtrack width)

ANSI/SMPTE 111
SMPTE Standard for Motion-Picture Film (35-mm)--Prints Made on Continuous Contact Printers--Exposed Areas for Picture and Audio
Dim A 1.184 in +/- 0.002 (picture edge to reference edge)
Dim B 0.304 in +/- 0.002 (picture edge to reference edge)
Dim C 0.192 in +/- 0.001 (sound edge to reference edge)
Dim D 0.308 in +/- 0.002 (sound edge to reference edge)
Dim F 0.738 Nom (picture centerline to reference edge)
Note 1: overlap of picture and audio areas of 0.000 to 0.008 inches

Comparing SMPTE 195 Dim A with SMPTE 59 Dim A, there is an extra 0.039 inches of image available outside the projectable image area. Granted, this is not intended for projection but should be acceptable to hide fuzzy aperture edges.

Comparing SMPTE 195 Dim D with SMPTE 111 Dim D shows 0.016 inches between the projectable image edge and the edge of the exposed photographic audio.

ANSI/SMPTE 40
SMPTE Standard for Motion-Picture Film (35-mm)--Photographic Audio Records--Release Prints
Dim A 0.308 in Nom (printed area from SMPTE 111)
Dim B 0.192 in Nom (printed area from SMPTE 111)
Dim C 0.205 in +/- 0.001 (audio record edge to reference edge)
Dim D 0.281 in +/- 0.001 (audio record edge to reference edge)

RP 115
SMPTE Recommended Practice
Dimensions of Photographic Control and Data Record on 35-mm Motion-Picture Release Prints
Dim A 0.292 in +/- 0.001 (data record edge to reference edge)
Dim B 0.302 in +/- 0.001 (data record edge to reference edge)

I believe DTS timecode uses the RP 115 photographic control and data record area that is part of the opaque area not used for the audio record of SMPTE 40.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

So lets throw another type of screen into the mix...the "wrap around screen" which is essentially unmasked...that is the fringe area will show. Certainly you shouldn't cut beyond the .825 line on those.

Steve

Given Steve K's proposition of the ideal setup, being dead-on screen center with no keystone issues, I'd still set masking width to .825. So-called studio viewing rooms are probably as close to this ideal as I've ever seen in real life and I don't recall any that go beyond .825. If, for whatever reason, they want to see past that edge they can pull the aperture or even file a different plate, but .825 is certainly the norm.

We certainly have to deal with keystone in the theatre world though, especially with stadium seating. You generally can't "fix" it with perspective control, so we end up compromising by necessity. Picture width at the top is at the widest point -- still .825 for me -- and the width at the bottom is cropped by the masking hanging straight vertical.

Given the quality of prints we sometimes see, I think going beyond .825 asks for trouble. I'll give up 2% of the picture width to know I have a clean presentation on screen.

Steve G -- I'm not a floating screen fan myself but I'd agree that I would not go past .825 width-wise.

Pat

Is there ANYWHERE in the standards that defines the area beyond .825 to some other dimension (and likewise on the heights) as for use to hide aperture plate shadow on masking material?

If not how can you or anyone claim it is safe? What if the area beyond .825 is clear on the print? Is it violating any of the standards (I know some are)?

If that is a safe area, then let it be defined as such and written into the standards so people can be accountable to it.

Where did your 2% number come from? Just personal experience or actual field tests? Is it in the standards anywhere?

I'll admit I'll have to go through them myself to dig up the 10% number. As I recall the allowable amount of cropping is not to exceed 10% with less than 5% desired.

Now, I'll admit that 10% is a bit excessive and I can't imagine cropping that much...even in extreme situations.

Based on experience...I'd say that about 2.5% of the image is lost or in the aperture shadow...it is a matter of if it is safe to spill that onto the masking or not...but to declare it safe, then site the standard that say so. Where does it say there WILL be safe image on a RELEASE print that is greater than 2.5% beyond the projectable image dimensions? It has to be greater to allow for the absolute worst case cumlative from camera, through printing and projection (all working within standards yet at the worst of the extremes). That is what a "safe area" is!

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"