|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cinema shows Flat film in Scope - Nobody notices!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-11-2002 06:36 PM
Actually it kind of makes sense. The eye and brain are always working together to "normalize" what we see. Our vision automatically "white balances" whatever light temp environment we are in without us barely noticing -- we walk in from blue-heavy outdoor light to yellow-heavy incandescent indoor light and our brain still keeps whites looking white. We look at things from an angle and our eye "normalizes" the geometric distortion so that we are not disorientated by the trapizodial lines that we see where there should be parallel straight lines.
It is the same when we watch a movie. If we are sitting to the far left or right of center, the picture is geometrically distorted, yet we adjust quite readily to it -- the brain telling us this is "normal" looks like. Years ago I worked for a production house which used to telecine scope motion pictures "as is," with the anamorphic squeeze left in. On playback, the resultant anamporphic video image could be letterboxed by decreasing the vertical gain and thus retaining the full scan line compliment of the raster (and thus giving an apparent increase in resolution by the more tightly packed lines); this was a much better solution than the conventional letterboxing which uses much less of the raster, wasting image resolving lines.
The point is, we used to watch the compressed "scope" image on the monitors for length of the entire film, but what was so amazing was that within less than 5 or 10 minutes, the eye and brain seemed to normalize that distorted, squeezed picture and actually made it seem normal. In fact, if we switched to the correct ratio (i.e., compressed vertically to compensate for the anamorphic squeeze), the undistorted picture looked too "fat" and unnatural, until the eye and brain we were able to re-adjust to the normal image. So it doesn't surprise me that few in an audience will be savvy enough to understand what's going on or to complain about it -- hey, there are projection TVs that actually have a mode that purposely stretches a conventional 1.33: 1 TV raster image so it fits in a 1.74:1 ar wide screen. Presumably there are people who watch conventional TV this way with nary a complaint.
As far as SHREK is concerned, it's a cartoon. Cartoons are even harder for the layman to tell what is distortion and what is just the way the cartoon is drawn. No doubt once the audience adjusted to the FAT Shrek, putting him back to normal seemed wrong to them. This lack of descerning perception on the part of the public prompted Disney of all studios, to re-release FANTASIA in a CinemaScope version sometime in the mid-50s. It simply used an anamorphic stretch for the animation segments; the live-action sequences with the musicians and Leopold Stokowsky were returned to normal without any stretch, presumably because it was easier to notice squeeze distortion in live humans than in elephants. Evidently the critics went bezerk at the thought of the Disney people distorting the classic animation and they complained to the rooftops. This version, an embarassment to Disney, even though it sported 4 track mag stereo, was never released again.
Squeeze is in the eye of the beholder. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy Muirhead
Master Film Handler
Posts: 323
From: Galashiels, Scotland
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 12-11-2002 06:39 PM
Ken, The machine with the vertical plates was indeed a Kalee, I forgot before but you refreshed my memory!
The Kingsway is now The Pavilion. We took over the building in 1993, and it has been completely refurbished, now it is a 4 screen! The original cinema hall is our screen 1, the other screens were built from void space within the building as it used to be a Theatre in another life. Cinema's 2 and 3 are where the old fly tower used to be, behind the screen of number 1, and 56 seater number 4 was crammed into another void space.
The Ross is still here as part of a display of old projection equipment in the foyer. It was still running as of a few weeks ago, but we have been having problems with it, we think the intermittent is shot. Usually the customer can press a button and it springs into life and projects a trailer onto a small screen (we used a slide projector bulb for the light source). It's actually pretty cool when it does work!
And yes, it is bloody cold up here just now!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 12-12-2002 05:06 AM
quote:
Slightly off topic for this forum, but the reason why 16 X 9 TVs stretch 4 X 3 images is because if they project a matted 4 X3 image for more than 19% of the time that the TV is being run, the matting will burn into the projection system and a widescreen image will look awkward from that point on.
Interesting. I thought I had read somewhere that the burn-in problem with standing images was solved, at least with quality computer monitors. If this is so, it would strongly speak against buying a 16:9 monitor in my eyes.
About the actual topic, I have often been surprised by how little people see or notice. For instance, in one cinema I used to work in, we ran flat trailers before the feature, and then used an automation cue to open the masking for CS (and change the lense in the background). I talked to many of our employees who could watch as many movies as they liked in their free time, and the majority of them never noticed that there are different picture sizes, not even that sometimes the screen opens in front of their eyes. Strange. I am not a professional cook, but I do notice whether I am eating rice or potatos...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barry Martin
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 203
From: Newington, CT USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 12-12-2002 08:33 AM
quote:
Theatre personnel should be paid for test screenings if it is part of their job responsibilities
When I first started in 1998 the standard practice was one person allowed in a screening PERIOD and they were paid. After a couple months the theater didn't really want that extra labor being paid (compared to the amount of free passes and print damage blamed on the theater I guess it just wasn't worth it) and the employees also wanted to be able to have co-workers to watch the movie with. We all agreed that the screenings would no longer be paid and any amount of employees could watch the screenings. Kind of a trade. Staff were also fine with this because it meant bragging rights after seeing movies before the general public could. When I screened Star Wars: The Phantom Menace I had my first truly evil urge, which was to go out to the mall gate where all the "hardcore fans" were sleeping waiting for the box office to open the next day and say "You'll never believe who died!" ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Of course, when there were nights with no screeners, I would watch the film myself (provided my print work was done for the night and the last shows running down) and I would get paid, because if something was wrong and needed to be fixed what was I going to do, run downstairs, punch in, run upstairs, fix it and repeat process if there was another problem?
The two most common things we didn't catch in make-up inspection but we did catch in test-screening were faulty soundtracks and color faults on the film (scene all of a sudden tinted blue, green, etc.).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Doyle
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 176
From: Bristol, CT, USA
Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 12-12-2002 04:03 PM
At our theater a few weeks ago, the manager told me something similar happened: the projectionist started a film and did not have the correct lens or aperture plate in. Not a problem normally, except he did not even look at the picture - just pushed the start button and walked away. The manager told him about it 20 minutes into the show. (I'm not sure if he noticed himself, or someone complained to him.)
Let's face it; this is really carelessness on the part of the projectionist. I was taught to actually *look* at the screen. I'm by no means perfect myself, but I try to avoid mistakes, and correct any I make. Any projectionist should notice if the wrong lens is in place when the green band comes up on the first trailer. If I have time, I will watch through all of the trailers to the start of the movie (typically 2 or 3 trailers). I am running six screens so I can do this for less than half of the shows. However, this thread started with a story from a single screen theater!
Another problem that has come up at our theater is the masking not being set properly for a show. Ours is not automated, and the downstairs staff is usually unaware of any necessary changes. I often end up running downstairs to tell the staff a change is needed and sometimes I do it myself, while the first preview is running. Hey, anything to make sure the show is presented properly!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic