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 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Flat or 1.66

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-21-2013 09:45 AM

Interesting point--theatres that converted to Cinemascope early may have only had one "flat widescreen" format before 1.85 and 1.66 were standardized.

The masking at the theatre where I worked when I was in college was configured in 1955 for 1.37, 1.75, and scope. It stayed that way until 1998, so 1.66 and 1.85 films both played at 1.75:1. I am sure that some theatres are still set up in an unusual configuration like this.

I seriously doubt that most American cinemas, with the exception of art and repertory houses that played foreign films regularly, would have made a distinction between 1.85 and 1.66 between about 1955 and 1980 or so. They would have played everything in whatever "flat widescreen" format they had. Obviously, this is not correct, but it would likely have been common practice.

As for mono vs. stereo--this should be marked in the soundtrack area on the leaders. Dolby prints should say "STEREO" for Dolby A or "STEREO SR" for Dolby SR. Mono prints should either say nothing or be marked "MONO." If there are no markings, then it should be easy enough to look at the track during the opening title or end credits (when there would likely be music in the soundtrack). As for distinguishing Dolby A from Dolby SR on a poorly marked print, I find it easiest just to listen to the sound. Dolby A (and mono) prints sound miserable when played in SR.

| IP: Logged

Jack Theakston
Master Film Handler

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

posted 05-21-2013 11:16 AM

I recommend a trip to Bob Furmanek's widescreen article for those who haven't read it:
http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

The people who decided the aspect ratio of the film were the producers of the picture.

I reiterate, the monitors during the filming of THE SHINING were marked for 1.85-1.

quote: Scott Norwood
I seriously doubt that most American cinemas, with the exception of art and repertory houses that played foreign films regularly, would have made a distinction between 1.85 and 1.66 between about 1955 and 1980 or so. They would have played everything in whatever "flat widescreen" format they had. Obviously, this is not correct, but it would likely have been common practice.

Correct. Many places ran films at 2-1, with flat films being cropped top and bottom, and 'scope films with the sides cut off. Loew's Inc. installed screens at an aspect ratio of 1.75-1, a holdover from when that was MGM's house aspect ratio.

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 05-21-2013 11:55 AM

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

The director of photography, or possibly the producer.

Spielberg used to be on record as preferring the 1.85AR but he used Anamorphic for Indiana Jones movies because that's what George Lucas wanted.

This web article discusses his recent return to the Scope format, and mentions his earlier preference for 1.85.

quote:
Spielberg and Kaminski make no apologies about their preference for film. Like every live-action feature they’ve made together, Lincoln was shot in 35 mm, in this case KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negative Film 5219, a stock Kaminski calls “the best in the world.” The format was 3-perf Super 35 for a widescreen 2.40:1 aspect ratio, like War Horse, a departure from Spielberg’s longtime 1.85:1 standard.

Yes, I'm aware that they rounded 2.39 up to 2.40. No, I don't like it. But I won't let it be the end of the world.

quote: Scott Norwood
As for mono vs. stereo--this should be marked in the soundtrack area on the leaders. Dolby prints should say "STEREO" for Dolby A or "STEREO SR" for Dolby SR. Mono prints should either say nothing or be marked "MONO." If there are no markings, then it should be easy enough to look at the track during the opening title or end credits (when there would likely be music in the soundtrack).

--Emphasis added.

Yes, but only in a perfect world. I've received sooooo many prints where there was no indication on the leader.

Looking at the soundtrack, as you describe, is quite often useful.

Sometimes the optical track will have some useful hand-written note regarding which format to use.

I've also received prints with a note from a previous projectionist. In those cases, I still listen to the track in the other formats before making my final decision. Anyone who has followed F-T forums for a while should know by now that projectionists often disagree.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

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

posted 05-21-2013 04:02 PM

If there is a SRD digital track in between the perfs the analogue is SR
where it gets messy Some DTS features were dolby A
And for fun remember that there were a few US and many european DOLBY A Mono prints usually with just a Dolby System in the credits

Also remember to confuse things Ben Schlanger was advocating a 1.66 image in his maskingless screen surrounds

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

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

posted 05-21-2013 06:04 PM

Also, remember early on, many Dolby Stereo prints had no surrounds; a memorable one was Chariots of Fire. Sounded good with them on, but editorial errors on audio (small blips) rang up the surrounds just before they ran on the screen. We ran it no surrounds, until the last reel. Louis

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

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

posted 05-22-2013 01:27 AM

quote: Gordon McLeod
where it gets messy Some DTS features were dolby A

Some of the early Universal DTS pics had something called 'DTS Stereo' as its analogue optical track, which was an SVA mastering system developed by DTS, presumably in order to avoid having to pay royalties to Dolby. I distinctly remember one of these films (possibly the second or third Jurassic Park) having 'Play in SR if you don't have DTS (Digital)' labels on the cans. We certainly did play these DTS SVA tracks as SR, but I knew other projectionists who would play them in A-type, too. Did these tracks have the extra dynamic range of SR (or at least some of it), or is it known for definite that they were supposed to be played in A-type? Having just Googled 'DTS stereo variable area', I can't find anything obvious online.

| IP: Logged

Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 05-22-2013 11:51 AM

> And for fun remember that there were a few US and many european DOLBY A Mono prints usually with just a Dolby System in the credits

And of course back then, there were print with just a Dolby System in the credits that were not Dolby, the credit just indicated that the sound mixers used Dolby noise reduction during the mastering of the film, not necessarily for the release print.

It is my understanding that DTS Stereo, Ultra-Stereo and possibly others were just Dolby A knockoffs. Dolby A goes back to the 1960's, and the patent had run out by the early 1990's.

| IP: Logged

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

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

posted 05-22-2013 01:57 PM

quote: Leo Enticknap
I distinctly remember one of these films (possibly the second or third Jurassic Park) having 'Play in SR if you don't have DTS (Digital)' labels on the cans.

The format war may have stabilized by the time the JP sequels were released.

For example:

Jurassic Park III info on Film-Tech.

JP III was definitely released in the Quad-Track era. Since it carried SRD, the analog-optical WOULD have been Dolby SR.

Strangely, JP2 isn't listed in the F-T database. Didn't anybody show that??

| IP: Logged

Brent Francis
Film Handler

Posts: 84
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Nov 2008

posted 05-22-2013 03:50 PM

Don't forget(for silent film workprint dailies) - Super 35 and 1:1.75.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

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

posted 05-22-2013 04:25 PM

quote: Manny Knowles
Strangely, JP2 isn't listed in the F-T database. Didn't anybody show that??

It must have been JP II that I showed, because I remember this print being at the theatre I worked at from 1996-99, and this one came out in 1997. Pretty sure it was our summer family film for that year.

There was definitely nothing but DTS on that print: no Dolby (analogue or digital) or SDDS. The only digital format we had was Dolby and so we had to play the SVA analogue, hence remembering the 'play this in SR' stickers.

That could have been one of the last big Universal releases that was exclusively DTS, though.

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

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

posted 05-22-2013 06:21 PM

The Flintstones also was dts only. Both that and Jurassic Park had dialog "issues." Dolby most certainly is a release format, but there are a couple of "magic boxes" that are used during mixing. Without them, dialog doesn't "pop." louis

| 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.