Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flat or 1.66

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Flat or 1.66 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Flat or 1.66

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-20-2013 10:52 AM

Many "flat" films are printed open mat, ie 1.37, however after 1954 they were not intended to be shown that way. They were intended to be cropped in the projector.

As to The Shining, the "recommended" aspect ratio was 1.66, but Kubrick knew that only a handful of theatres in the USA could show it that way, so the image was "protected" for 1.85 during filming.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-20-2013 12:36 PM

Hard printing a matte didnt become common lab practice until the late 70s by most labs
basically if it was made in us mainstream it would have been composed for 185:1 i have seen many examples of lights and mic booms dropping into the frame if shown with a larger plate

| IP: Logged

Sean Goodrich
Film Handler

Posts: 22
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-20-2013 03:33 PM

The Shining is 1.85, protected for 4:3 so it could be shown open matte on television.
Here it is in Kurbick's own handwriting.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-20-2013 03:50 PM

Not meaning to split hairs, but does that sketch indicate that he actually wanted it to be projected in 1.85, or just that he knew that it would be in the majority of theatres whether he liked it or not, and was therefore indicating 1.85 protection on his storyboard of the shot and his written instructions on it?

By the late '70s / early '80s, how many theatres outside France would have the lenses and plates for 1.66? Apart from a smattering of well-equipped arthouse and rep venues, bugger all would be my guess. So even if he did have an artistic preference for 1.66 (I've just had a look at my BD of Grover Crisp's restoration of Dr. Strangelove, which is indeed matted to 1.66, but annoyingly it doesn't say anywhere on the packaging why Kubrick preferred the ratio - haven't had time to go through the making-of extras, though), he must have known that the movie was not going to be projected that way in 99 out of every 100 theatres it played in, and therefore designed the production accordingly.

If you raised the top line of the aperture on that drawing right to the top of the page, that would give you 1.66, more or less, and the line of the trees goes up to it.

| IP: Logged

Sean Goodrich
Film Handler

Posts: 22
From: Dallas, TX, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-20-2013 04:12 PM

Here's what the notes say for this story board:

quote:
IGNORE WHAT LOOKS LIKE
A CENTRAL PATH JUST HAVE
THE SNOW SMOOTHLY AND
ROUNDLY CHANGE ITS DIRECTION
UP THE SLOPE AT ABOUT THE
POSITION OF WHAT IS
DRAWN AS A CENTRAL PATH
THE FRAME IS EXAXCTLY 1-1:85
Obviously you compose for that
but protect the full 1-1:33 area.

In order to accurately get the
central path curve, you have to
set up the shots and put stakes
in the ground so that the curve
as seen through the ground
glass corresponds to what is
drawn. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY
TO DO IT REPEAT NO OTHER
WAY exercise the greatest
care as the compositional
effect of a different path might
be BAD BAD BAD

MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T
WIND UP LOOKING LIKE
A SNOW PLOW DID IT
After you push the snow around
the wind and fresh snow fall
should keep it from looking plowed

I don't think there are many hairs to be split when he says "EXACTLY 1.85"
Then he talks about having the image through the ground glass (the frame ground into the camera's viewfinder) corresponds to the drawing, anything different would be "BAD BAD BAD".

Kubrick started out as a photographer for Look Magazine. He knew what he wanted, and how to talk to cameramen to get it.

Using his previous films' aspect ratios is not much proof. Most filmmakers aren't married to a single ratio.

| IP: Logged

Jason Metcalfe
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 134
From: Austin, TX, U.S.
Registered: May 2010

posted 05-20-2013 04:32 PM

quote:
You can tell whether a print is mono or SVA (stereo variable area) from a visual examination, but you can't distinguish between the different flavours of SVA. For example, this:

I've found the best way to confirm mono from dolby-a is to look at the very very end of the credits for the "Dolby Stereo" logo (or SR or whatever). It's usually the last thing on there

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 05-20-2013 05:31 PM

Problem is; there were mono prints made of Dolby Stereo films. Dolby visual is not a reliable indicator on 1976 to 1986 films. louis

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

Posts: 411
From: New York, USA
Registered: Sep 2007

posted 05-20-2013 06:51 PM

quote: Sean Goodrich
Using his previous films' aspect ratios is not much proof. Most filmmakers aren't married to a single ratio.

Correct, and the winning decision was usually who was putting up the money, not who was at the helm. By 1980, making a flat film in anything other than 1.85-1 would have been defeatist*.

Also, in the outtakes from the "Making of" documentary, the video assists are all marked off for 1.85.

*Yes, I'm aware Coppola shot ONE FROM THE HEART for 1.37, but the film flopped before it could even get a fair run, which I'm sure would have been pillerboxed in a 1.85 frame.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-20-2013 09:48 PM

I know we've set up MANY theatres for 1.66. It was/is more prevalent than you might imagine. Those systems that had a 3rd lens (either in a turret or in a separate lens holder), the 3rd lens was most likely to be a 1.66...not a 1.37 (at least in the bulk of the theatres I worked/set up.

As for preference...1.66 is close to the "golden ratio" and seems to have the right mix of width/height for composing a shot. Personally, I prefer 1.66 to 1.85 too. Then again, I prefer 2.2 and wider most of all.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-20-2013 10:10 PM

FWIW the DCP of "The Shining" is 1.85.

Also, if the track is Center-Only (mono) that does not automatically mean that it is Format-01. It may need the noise reduction offered by Format 04 (Dolby-A) or 05 (Dolby-SR). It depends on how it was encoded. Sometimes this information is clearly marked on a print. Other times, you have to take the time to listen to it in each format and pick the one that sounds the best.

Muddying the waters somewhat further, I've run a number of movies that were released before the "Dolby era" but were re-released with new Dolby encoded soundtracks.

Also, the absence of a hard matte does not mean there aren't any mic's (or other "junk") in the full-frame image. I've seen many, many instances where the mic was allowed to drop into the full-frame area, just outside the projected area.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 05-20-2013 10:17 PM

My hometown theatre, being the Paramount Theatre - a 1100 seat single house palace, we could run all flat formats - from 1.37:1 to 2.00:1 due to the available side and top adjusting masking tabs.

Our default flat masking was 1.66:1

I even had 2.66:1 scope apertures for my XL's since we had magnetic sound - which was installed right after CinemaScope was introduced and Fox Intermountain, who was the owner of this palace, went all the way for anamorphic presentation. Thus installed a movable, curved silver screen (since we still used the stage), Altec A-4 speakers, full adjustable maskings, all Simplex magnetic sound system with XL-Deluxe setup.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 05-21-2013 07:45 AM

Who actually makes the decision as to what ratio a film will be composed for?

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 05-21-2013 07:48 AM

quote: Stephen Furley
Who actually makes the decision as to what ratio a film will be composed for?

The one who is paying for it...

In reality, there is probably no single right answer.

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-21-2013 08:31 AM

I've played 'The Shining' in both 1.66 and 1.85 and 1.66 looks much better. I don't know why you would even think of running a 1980 film in 1.375.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 05-21-2013 08:59 AM

> Who actually makes the decision as to what ratio a film will be composed for?

The director of photography, or possibly the producer.

> Who actually makes the decision as to what ratio will be recommended for a film.

For "flat" films in the 1950's and early 1960's, the studio marketing department. They did not always agree with the director.

> Who actually makes the decision as to what ratio a film will be shown.

In a theatre, the projectionist. For home video, the person who makes the master. In theory, both should follow the director's/studio's recommendation, but we all know that is not always the case.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.