|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: West Side Squeezed
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-25-2015 02:12 PM
Early in this thread it was suggested that the film had been run without an anamorphic lens. Assuming that it was a squeezed print I do not think this is possible, simply because the problem would be so obvious that nobody who saw it could possibly be in any doubt that something was badly wrong, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That leaves two possibilities, that the film was shown at the correct ratio, or it was shown slightly squeezed. I didn't see the film, so I cannot say which was the case, but I think the former is a possibility worth considering,
It is extremely easy to fool the brain into thinking that it's seeing something which it is not. The cinema where I project is equipped for both film and digital. 1.85 is the same size on both, but 1.66 is not. On film these two ratios share the same lenses, so that on digital when changing from 1.85 to 1.66 the sides come in,while on film the top goes up. On film, 1.66 is actually our largest picture size. On digital 1.66 looks like 1.66. With film, if I hold up a 1.66 plate it looks like 1.66. If I put it in a projector and look at the light on the port glass it looks like 1.66, but if I look at it on screen it doesn't. I've measured the image on screen, and it is 1.66, but however hard I try I cannot convince my brain of this fact, it always looks squarer than it is. I've even thought that it looked slightly squeezed, which it's not, the lens is spherical, and the same as used for 1.85. The plates are correct, checked with a 35-PA loop. The image on screen is 1.66, my brain is playing tricks on me, possibly something to do with the greater image height with film at this ratio. It would be interesting to try superimposing 1.66 images on screen from both film and digital and see if this breaks the illusion.
I can't help wondering if something similar was happening with the 2.2:1 image with this film.
The condition of the print of course is a different matter altogether.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-29-2015 12:15 AM
Audiences are notorious for not being able to accurately describe anomalies in both picture and sound and the words they use will be confusing to the technie who uses very specific words to describe tech malfunctions, although, tall and skinny certainly seems straight forward enough to suggest an anamorphic print not being corrected by a 2x scope lens.
I have never seen a print of WSS that was pillar-boxed at 2.2:1 and as has been said, even if it were, it would STILL have been necessary to use a 2x anamorphot. As also has been said, the most incompetent projectionist would hit the screen with a scope picture that was uncorrected and immediately shut everything down, UNLESS they knew before had that (and here is the scenario I find the most plausible) that they simple had the scope lenses socked away somewhere and they guy with the key or the knowledge as to where they were was no where to be found. If that IS the case, then shame on them for not informing the audience that they are sorry but explaining the situation and let them decide if they want to watch it under those conditions. Hey, I ran WSS in the park and it rained and we asked it the audience wanted us to keep running it, and they said yes; people love that movie so such that they sat in the rain for 2 & half hours. I once got a beautiful, pristine, right-out-of-the-wash-bath print of EUROPA, EUROPA ran the first real only to discover it was SO new that it had not been subtitled. I stopped the show and asked them if they wanted us to continue and almost unanimously they said yes. Only a handful left. I could be this was announced and a few people didn't get the word for some reason, or didn't understand it.
The prints that I have seen of WWS were either old enough to have mag sound or straight mono. Anything with digital would also have a DTS code AND Dolby SRD.
As for that GORGEOUS Paramount booth -- I can't imagine that anyone associated with it, even a so called "B" operator, would be oblivious to unstretched image and how to correct it, IF it were correctable.
And yah, first thing I noticed in that picture were the TWO Eastman 25Bs -- gotta LOVE those babies -- the Lamborgini of 16mm projectors! And yes, WE had TWO of them in TWO of our theatres when I got here, but only the 16mm machines, no 35mm...in a 2500 seat house! So when I came on board in 1970, I reluctantly had to pull one of the Eastmans out, move the other one to the far end of the booth and cut new ports for it. Modified it to play long-play reels. In place of the 25Bs, I put in two spanking newly refurbished XLs where the Eastmans had been. They were refurbished by a brilliant tech/projectionst, Bruce Sanders who unfortunately just passed away a few months ago (RIP). The rest of the equipment including Peerless Lamphouses came from the great Star Cinema in NY owned by the late Saul Tanney and now his son still running the business, Steve Tanney. This booth also has a SuperTrouper Followspot (same lamphouse as the Eastman, BTW). It is a TIGHT booth. Would have given anything to be able to put in 70mm, but they wouldn't let me. I was lucky enough to convince them that we HAD to have 4trk mag (told them modern 35mm professional film needed 4trk mag in order to hear any sound at all).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic