|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Lost in Translation Aspect ratio..
|
|
|
|
|
William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-27-2004 06:25 AM
quote:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml
In which is writ:
quote:
. In most cases, the intended aspect ratio is written on the print leaders or otherwise specified in writing.
Unfortunately, it's wrong 99.8% of the time with 1.37 prints. They almost invariably have "1.33" written on the leaders, & I don't think it's by a previous projectionist. I think I may have seen 3 correctly labeled 1.37, & I think it *was* done by a previous projectionist. Find them people who do that writing & straighten them out!
Also, I have seen 1.66 prints with 1.85 written on the leaders.
quote:
it's pretty rare that i see new films in academy ratio (unless you count the ones that are matted to fit inside 1.85).
Lots & lots & lots of 1.37 prints are out there & being run at art/rep houses. Studios even oftn strike new prints of the most popular titles. The ones printed to fit inside 1.85 or scope are ABORTIONS from some either attempts at a wide modern re-release, or a need to get a soundtrack on a fairly popular silent so it can be played in houses that might not have live accompaniment.
I have an excruciating memory of running Gone With the Wind in a proscenium house from that wretched print that was made printed anamorphic. The house had vertical & side masking to get maximum picture size out of all formats. 1.37 (GWTW original a/r) goes from the floor to the top with the masking brought in at the sides, scope goes from one side of the prosc all the way to the other with masking brought in from the top. Show up to run GWTW, find it's that abominable printed into scope thing from hell. With no time to get another prime with a different focal length for the anamorphic, it had to be projected with the house scope lens. Top masking brought way in for scope as required, the print was pillarboxed with black bars printed FAR in at the sides...a freaking POSTAGE STAMP for a high draw & image show.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-28-2004 05:05 AM
quote:
Also, I have seen 1.66 prints with 1.85 written on the leaders.
Even the studios get this wrong sometimes. When Miramax imported CINEMA PARADISO, the little ID stickers that they put on all the leaders claimed it to be 1:85, yet anyone with two eyes could clearly see that it was intended to be screened at 1.66, as are most European productions. For my first show I obeyed the reelbands as this wasn't someone handwriting what he thought it was supposed to be; this was a lab sticker. d Running it at 1.85, yes the titleing will be placed so as not to be sliced by the edge of the bottom mask, but that's not at all the same as the picture being shot at 1.66. In that first show at 1.85, when I set the subtitles so they were are just sitting above the bottom mask, there are some shots that are badly cropped by the top of the mask. One long shot of a character standing on a hill in the distance, at 1.85 he was decapitated; his head is returned at 1.66.
When it released it in 1980, the Official Technical data as given in International Film Journal (and presumably given to them by Miramax) claimed it was a 1.85:1 title. Now these many years later, the DVD rightly made the correction and has it at 1.66:1. I ran the rest of the engagement at 1.66 and it was fine.
Is this nit-picking? When a character gets decapitated, that's a pretty big nit.
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-18-2016 08:55 PM
I was intrigued by Rebecca's interest in that article by "our" late film guru, John Pytlak. Indeed, that link now just goes to the general Kodak web location, nothing having to do with John Pytlak's article. But John always was spot on in his writings, full of insights and technical references. Plus, the subject of his referenced article, composition of filmed images, and the correct presentation of same, would be something that would be important and relevant reading for decades into the future -- if it could be tracked down. The article was written after the end of the EKC publication "Film Notes For the Reel People" (which was at the end of 2000), so it would not be in the archived copies of that. Those issues can be seen archived here on F-T. So, what next? How to find it?
So I thought ... if I could find someone with an "in" at Kodak, maybe we could find out where some of John's later writings might be found. I contacted Robert Shanebrook, the author of the highly interesting book "Making Kodak Film" (web page ). He's an ex-EKC employee, still lives in Rochester and I thought he might have some connections there. He even worked with John Pytlak off and on, and maybe he could help.
Apparently not. He bounced my request for info to a West Coast Kodak representative, Beverly Pasterczyk, who is still considered an actual EKC current employee. I've met her a few times over the years, so I knew her background and enthusiasm was in the "film" area, for sure, esp. large format. She contacted me to report that, sadly, there is no known official company archive of some of the later writings by John Pytlak, unless possibly his family had them. For some years, there has been another Kodak publication, "In Camera", aimed primarily at cinematographers. I asked if maybe it had gotten into the archives under that name, but it turns out the online "archives" of that only go back to ... 2014!
What shocked me even more was that, in the context of the conversation, it came out that EKC can't even afford an office for Ms. Pasterczyk -- she works out of her home! She says that there are vast amounts of papers in storage units, but that there isn't much of an inventory, so accessing anything is next to impossible. She has papers which were in her office, not to mention papers from some other former EKC employees who have retired or left the company, and it's all "in storage" and just totally inaccessible.
That stuff would be a vast repository of film technical & historical material that may someday make it to the Motion Picture Academy, but also may not. I suggested to her that she needed an intern of some sort who could start taking those papers and digitizing them, so that they'd be 1) preserved and 2) accessible & readable. She said that there was no budget for that. Not surprising, I guess, considering that EKC is actually making her work out of her home. She says that EKC is a "totally different" company now; that's the understatement of the year.
A pretty sad state of affairs. Maybe if someone who reads this has contact information for the Pytlak family, possibly there could be a glimmer of light in that direction, but I fear that, as the years grind by, much valuable information will be lost.
| 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