posted 08-25-2006 03:17 AM                       

quote: Michael Coate

---

In addition to the new stereo tracks, didn't you tell me the Kubrick Estate asked that you project all of the flat films during the retrospective at 1.75:1?

---

Before Hollywood latched on to cropped wide screen at 1.85, many resisted the move because of the degredation it intaled and there was a good five to ten years where 1.85 was not king....not the only cropped ratio out there. Spherical cropped wide screen was quite variable, with the existing theatre geography playing a lot more of a role in the screen aspect ratio than the intention of the filmmaker. And everyone recognized this.

Disney technicians in particular rightfully thought that the decreased rez due to the extra magnification of cropped 1.85 and the smaller film geography being used to say nothing of the loss of light, held that that much cropping was just unacceptable and they held out for 1.75/1, so 1.75 wasn't at all some freakish odd ratio. It was around for quite some time in that transition period. And of course the European cinematographers thought that even 1.75 was to big of a concession to reduced quality; they just stayed with 1.66 even to the present.

And don't be fooled even by people who should know better who talk about those title from the 60s as all being 1.85 when indeed not all were. As an example, Miramax was forever claiming that their imports like CINEMA PARADISO were 1.85. WRONG! Yah, maybe when the prints got to the USA, Miramax had the SUBTITLES etched so that they wouldn't drop out if the film were projected 1.85, and they would list the title as 1/85 -- yeah, the SUBTITLES, but the IMAGE sure as hell wasn't. Anyone with with half a brain could see that at 1.85 heads were being cut off. Even the IMDB and the studios own claims on the liner notes are often wrong, claiming 1.85 when at the time of the release, the film was released with a maximim crop stated (usually 1.85:1 or even 2:1), and a minimum crop stated (usually 5:1 or 1.66:1). Those were printed right on the reel bands. So my point is, there was a long period, nearly a decade I would say, where first run, flagship theatres were running films what they called wide screen but at 1.75 or 1.66:1 and now those same films are claimed to be 1.85:1 (usually by people too young to know anything other than 'scope and the flat, and were someone told them that flat is 1.85:1.

And an ironic note, Disney, the company that stood up for holding out for quality, has now done complete reversal -- Disney actually releases their classics doing all kinds of shenannegans. I wanted to play CINDERELLA and all they would give me was one of those vertically scanned prints where they have a hard matted 1.85 image of the original 1/37, and they frame the image up and down as need be, i.e., the vertical equivalent of Pan & Scan. WHAT A FREAKIN ABORTION. Walt would be turning over in his chryonics tank. We begged and pleaded saying we were completely equipped to play it correctly full-frame 1.37 AS IT WAS SHOT, but nope -- it was their scanned afterbirth that was all they would send us -- so much for the integrity of a "timeless Disney classic."

And how's this for bizarre: When they released BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, it also was hard matted at 1.85. OK I thought, it's a modern title, they obviously filmed it at 1.85. Oh contraire.....what they ACTUALLY did was, they shot it full frame at 1.37 for the all important HOME VIDEO/TV/CABLE/BROADCAST TV release. But then what to do for the theatres? For us they simply did some truly severe cropping of what obvously was a full frame original (you can see the original 1.37 verson on Laserdisc), and then again did that vertically SCANNED thing to keep stuff in frame. Unfortunately there is lots of fast movement and it become painfully obvious that there was no way to keep what needed to be seen in frame. The result of this Scanned and "Tilted" process was a theatrical release where shot after shot looked and felt disturbingly chlostrophobic; you always feel like something is not where but is just out of frame. In the 1.37 video version however, it looked demonstrably better....it had the "feel" of a well composed film.

So here is Disney favoring the video release over the theatrical. They decided to make the video look right over what is shown in the theatres; I guess it's the sign of the times -- they must think they know where their bread is buttered.

If it were the other way around, i.e., if they had designed the shots for 1.85 but shot if full frame, then the VIDEO would have looked wrong, with too much headroom and "feet room," but no -- it was the 1.85 theatrical that had heads obviously cut off and chins dropping below the screen all through the film. Just play them both together and you will see what I mean. And if they knew damn well that film design was to make the 1.37 look "right," then at least strike a few full frame prints so the specialty houses like ours could play it correctly.


[ 08-25-2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]

posted 08-25-2006 11:10 AM                       

quote:

---

VistaVision is a FLEXIBLE SYSTEM and it is a COMPATIBLE SYSTEM. As explained later in this booklet, the picture can play in any aspect ratio from 1.33/1 through 1.66/1, 1.85/1 up to 2/1. It plays best in ratios close to 1.85/1. There is one point on which Paramount is emphatic. Paramount pictures are not to be played in an aspect ratio greater than 2/1.

---

quote:

---

The finders on the VistaVision cameras carry a hairline framing marking in the aspect ratio of 1.66/1. There will also be a frame line marking for the 1.33/1 aspect ratio. The cameramen are instructed to compose for a loose (meaning adequate head-room) 1.66/1 picture. A picture composed in this way will play equally good at 1.85/1, it will play very satisfactorily at 2/1 and it can be played at the old standard of 1.33/1.

---

quote:

---

As a further recommendation in this regard, it is our belief that in the very large theaters they should install screens capable of accepting the aspect ratio of 1.85/1, unless the sight line for seats at the back of the main floor is limited by a low hanging balcony. In this case the theater may elect to install a screen in the ratio of 2/1. This is the only limitation that should force the theater into an aspect ratio as high as 2/1. In theaters where the screen width is limited to under 30 feet, and where there is adequate height, we recommend a screen aspect ratio of 1 66/1, reducing the height only when necessary for good viewing.

One of the objectives of VistaVision is to FILL THE SCREEN. VistaVision is a flexible system and allows adequate latitude for filling the screen. In the preceding paragraphs we have named specific aspect ratios. However, the theaters should vary from these defined ratios as required to fill the screen.

---

quote:

---

With respect to the sub-title foreign release, it is the writer's earnest recommendation that all theaters that exhibit sub-titled pictures use an aspect ratio of 1.66/1 or 1.33/1. Wherever possible, they should avoid 1.85/1 and 2/1.

---