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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Silence of the Lambs (discussion) (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Silence of the Lambs (discussion) Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 02-02-2003 11:17 PM                     quote: What would it take for you to be convinced that movie x should be run at 1.85:1? 3-perf pulldown! Then there'd be arguments over whether a movie should be 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-02-2003 11:55 PM                     If there was actually something that said 1.85:1, then I would project in 1.85:1. I wouldn't be sure I was right, though. Disney animation? ;-) --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 02-03-2003 01:20 AM                     Jhawk I for one hope I didn't confuse the issue by reporting on the AR I have seen some flat films projected in at the Chinese. I didn't mean to imply they were supposed to be shown that way from a studio point of view, just that, for whatever reason, it was a Chinese thing. Whether from a manager or projectionist decision. You by chance weren't the projectionist during this period, were you?  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-03-2003 01:56 AM                        There are many cinemas in France which have 1:1.66 as the only 'flat' ratio in the same way that many cinemas in the UK show only 1:1.85 and 'scope. I can't speak for other European countries, as France is the only one I visit regularly. But if the use of 1:1.66 is in any way widespread, it would make sense for Hollywood DoP's to 'shoot and protect'. So I can understand if a large number of American features are 1:1.66 compatible but weren't supposed to be shown that way. However, if the producers can't be bothered to communicate their intended aspect ratio to the projectionist, they can hardly complain if (s)he shows it some other way. I took the absence of a ratio (or simply the word 'flat') on a can or leader to mean that I can show the film in any ratio I like just as long as no matte edges or boom mikes were visible. There were one or two occasions when I would show a film in 1:1.66 which I suspected was intended for 1:1.85 when local conditions suggested it, e.g. one venue where the 1:1.66 lens gave a much sharper picture than the 1:1.85 lens, which appeared to have suffered heat damage at some point in the past. If a film-maker wants 1:1.85 or any other ratio, then do what SMPTE 301 says and make sure that is written clearly on the leader of every print. If they did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-03-2003 09:45 AM                    While it is unfortunate that the typical US theatre cannot handle other aspect ratios the fact remains that there is a reason that they are equipped for 1.85 and Scope and that is that those are the standard aspect ratios of general releases. We can get into a chicken and egg discussion of whether films are forced to conform to the theatres or the other way around but either way, that is the way it is (with certain rare exceptions noted in my other posting). Anyone who thinks they need to think about 1.66 on a common, mainstream, major US studio production is simply mistaken. I should add that I've spent plenty of time agonizing over aspect ratios, calling or emailing distributors (who often don't know or supply erroneous information, seeing if there is a listing here on F-T or if an online review mentions it, or auditioning a reel. But never on the kind of mainstream product we're talking about here.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-03-2003 10:57 AM                        Most of the confusion is from those unfamiliar with the specifics of standard SMPTE 195. You really should have a copy: On-Line SMPTE Standards Ordering In almost all cases, the image area on the print (even if hard matted) will be significantly higher than the intended projectable image area. That does NOT mean it should be shown, even if there are no extraneous items in the frame like microphones or lighting equipment and you "feel" the composition looks okay. The intended aspect ratio SHOULD be written on the leaders (per SMPTE 301M) or at least available from the distributor. If the ratio is specified as 1.85:1, that is how it should be shown, even if you feel it is "safe" to show more. As noted, the vast majority of US screens are set up for 1.85:1 "flat" and 2.39:1 "scope", and very few are set up for the 1.66:1 or 1.37:1 ratios also specified in SMPTE 195. So any current "mainstream" US "flat" release should be treated as 1.85:1 in the absence of other information. FWIW, the Panavision publication "Film Apertures and Projection Ratios" does not even specify the 1.66:1 ratio for projection.  |  IP: Logged Mathew Molloy Master Film Handler Posts: 357 From: The Santa Cruz Mountains Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-04-2003 02:19 AM                     My rule of thumb has always been this- If it's hard matted at 1.66, I run it 1.66. Otherwise, full-framed flat gets the 1.85 treatment. I've noticed that just a few short years ago, most British films were hard matted 1.66 but that has fallen out of practice and most seem to be full-frame now. Therefore I run them 1.85. The only prints I've ever seen with aspect ratios marked at the lab are hard matted to that ratio anyway. Then there's Kubrick with his multiple ratios for Dr. Strangelove and his preference for the Academy ratio (The Shining) yet keeping the 1.85 theatrical cropping in mind. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/ At the end of the month I'll be running Open Hearts - a Danish Dogme film that, from what I understand, is a 1.37 image set in a 1.75 matte. Now I need to decide if I should run it 1.85 and lose a bit of top & bottom or 1.66 and have a nice little border around it. By the way, one film that looks absolutely brilliant projected 1.37 is Pi (1998) - shot on 16mm and intended for 1.66 - the improved contrast and grain reduction do it a good deal of justice. (Only ran it that way once for a midnighter.)  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-04-2003 02:35 AM                        There was a phase in the late '80s and '90s where many British films tended to be produced by TV companies operating small-scale spin-off film production units (e.g. the BBC Drama Unit, Film Four). Many of these films (e.g. Regeneration, Girls' Night and most of the Jane Austen ) tended to be shot full-frame for 1:1.66 projection and Academy broadcasting. Now that (i) we're in an economic downturn, advertising revenues are down and TV companies have less money to splash about and (ii) widescreen tellies are being agressively marketed, the small amount of TV/theatrical crossover stuff that is being produced seems to have gone to 1:1.85.  |  IP: Logged Mathew Molloy Master Film Handler Posts: 357 From: The Santa Cruz Mountains Registered: Nov 2000 posted 02-04-2003 02:54 AM                     Leo, please don't ever mention Jane Austen ever again - ever!  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-04-2003 04:11 AM                        What would you prefer... Merchant-Ivory?  |  IP: Logged Tao Yue Expert Film Handler Posts: 209 From: Princeton, NJ Registered: Apr 2001 posted 02-04-2003 05:46 PM                        jhawk wrote: quote: Disney animation? ;-) Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Disney love affair with 1.75?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.