my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Urgent request - 'The Birds' A.R. (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Urgent request - 'The Birds' A.R. Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-16-2014 10:13 AM                        And as coincidence would have it, I was in the booth with Mike at the Aero last night at that very same show! 1.66 looked perfect, both in terms of titles and the framing of the actual shots. The process shot of the crow's POV just before it (and lots of others, obviously) dive bombs the car fire stuck in my mind: it hovers just below the top of the 1.66 frame before swooping away bottom left, with no vertical cropping. It looked totally composed that way to me. Bizarre for a Hollywood feature made as late as 1963 to be 1.66: the only guess we came up with is that Hitch came to like 1.66 in his VistaVision days, and used it again for The Birds. Psycho, though, looks a clear 1.85 to me. My wife was looking at Hitchcock last week (as in, the Anthony Hopkins adaptation of the Stephen Rebello book about the production of Psycho), as a result of which I re-watched my BD of Psycho very recently. It's mastered in 1.85 (as in, digital 16:9 with a thin letterbox to make the image true 1.85), and the framing looks perfect. Maybe the preference for 1.66 came from Robert Burks, who shot all Hitchcock's movies from Strangers on a Train to Marnie, apart from Psycho (which was made with his TV crew).  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 05-16-2014 10:24 AM                     Last time I ran a 35mm print of The Birds, I ran it at 1:85 and it was fine. I agree with what Frank Angel said about not relying on IMDB. I can't tell you how many times I've discovered bad aspect ratio info on their website.  |  IP: Logged Sean Goodrich Film Handler Posts: 22 From: Dallas, TX, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 05-16-2014 11:54 AM                     Just because it's hard matted to 1.66 doesn't mean that's the intended ratio.  |  IP: Logged Robert Furmanek Expert Film Handler Posts: 113 From: Clifton, NJ, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 05-16-2014 05:35 PM                     From Boxoffice: 1.85:1 had become the accepted non-anamorphic widescreen standard in the U.S. by the fall of 1956. Right around the same time, 1.75:1 had become the recommended UK standard. Also, VistaVision prints were recommended initially for 1.85:1 and then 2:1, never 1.66:1. More documented information on the transition to widescreen in 1953 can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation  |  IP: Logged David Kilderry Master Film Handler Posts: 355 From: Melbourne Australia Registered: Sep 1999 posted 05-20-2014 07:41 AM                        I've never noticed the matts come in on prints of Psycho during the shower scene. I have access to 35mm, 16mm and the trailer.........I'll check this out.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-20-2014 12:53 PM                     I've run this a few times as 1.85 and it looked fine. I never assume spherical is 1.85 but in the absence of any concrete information -- e.g. info printed into the leader, or multiple web sources agreeing -- I made a guess based on it being a non-anamorphic American release from the 1960s. One thing I looked at was titles. I'll agree that it is a grainy movie.  |  IP: Logged John Eickhof Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 588 From: Wendell, ID USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-23-2014 07:56 PM                        I remember many a drive-in I was familiar with (either servicing or as projectionist) in the mid-late 70s used 1.66 or 1.75 apertures. Also some of the .flat. films I ran in 1.37 were multi- ratio and you would see a little frame locator mark in the beginning of each reel that framed you to 1.66 & 1.85 this was most predominant on Paramount features and cartoons. These were 1950s vintage releases.It was our theatres policy to always run in the largest ratio possible and we would generally only use our 1,85 plates when the print was matted. I remember the bands were marked with a notation something like 'universal projection ratio' or similar note that you could project it at different ratios.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-23-2014 10:58 PM                     Are you sure you're not referring to the VistaVision framing guide? It kinda looks like the letter "F" http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/paramount_frame_guide.gif I don't think 1.37 was a suitable ratio for those titles though.  |  IP: Logged Robert Furmanek Expert Film Handler Posts: 113 From: Clifton, NJ, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 05-24-2014 12:16 PM                     VistaVision was initially recommended for 1.85:1 and later titles were 2:1.  |  IP: Logged John Eickhof Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 588 From: Wendell, ID USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-25-2014 10:06 PM                        thanks! you jogged my feeble old memory, yes it was the mark, in fact i went to my booth and dug out a vista vision intro and product reel i have. I looked and the framing indicator was right there, however that reel is 1.37 ratio throughout and not letterboxed anywhere it is early as it explains the new marvel of vista vision and has trailers from the first 6 upcoming features. I also see the marks on some cartoons i have of the same vintage. It was fun to watch Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis (Three Ring Circus)on the screen again! Plus Cary Grant and Princess Grace in Hitchcock's 'It Takes A Thief' plus a few more greats in VV.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-26-2014 01:01 AM                     C.B.DeMille's 1956 "the Ten Commandments" had these "F" markings also at the head of each of the 11 reels. Ran an "IB" of this film back in 1972.  |  IP: Logged Doug Thompson Film Handler Posts: 27 From: Jacksonville, Fl, USA Registered: Sep 2011 posted 05-26-2014 01:29 PM                     Back to the subject of the OP.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.