Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flat films

This is topic Flat films in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000296

Posted by Carl Welles (Member # 59) on 10-11-1999, 11:47 PM:

Do we really need flat films? What's the point? Half of the image area is wasted and with today's stadium seating complexes with dozens of screens, the scope image is always smaller! Hence, the scope images look awesome and the flat images look like crap being dim and blurry. Do directors not care? Why is Spielberg still shooting flat? Why can't people shoot everything in Super 35, release to theaters in scope and use the flat Super 35 frame for the VHS?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-11-1999, 11:53 PM:

Wow. Good point. What I really don't care for on flat films is that there is so much less image area used on the film. It's a bad format. Plus I think that most places run flat films out of frame anyway. Just as long as the "projectionist" doesn't see any frame lines, it must be in frame, right? Arrrg! Plus, since flat is magnified so much more, you see bob and weave much more easilly.

I say all of us projectionists should boycott all flat films. Just don't build 'em up! Well, maybe that's going a bit too far

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 10-12-1999, 05:30 AM:

I can just imagine that call from the booker...

"Why do you show zero gross for the blockbuster of the century"

"Well, cause it was flat, so we didn't build it out of protest."

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 10-12-1999, 09:30 AM:

Flat Format describes many formats. 1.85:1 is the US standard flat format and I agree it looks bad. 1.85:1 is the most wasteful film format. The European format is 1.66:1 and it usually looks much better. Both of these formats were developed in the 1950s to differentiate film from television. The television screen is 1.33:1, which is similar to the old Academy Format of 1.37:1.

So, my two favorite film formats are Cinemascope and 1.66:1.

Imagine how much more impressive scope would be if the masking moved from 1.66:1 to scope. I hate “scissor” masking that moves up and down. In my old theatre the masking always reset to flat and then when we ran a scope movie the screen got smaller before the image hit the screen. We used to get complaints all the time, “why has the screen gotten smaller?” The only way masking should move is sideways, unless you are making the screen taller for 70mm.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-12-1999, 11:50 AM:

One good idea Kodak is working on is to use the current anamorphic image area (0.825 X 0.690 inches) with a 1.5X squeeze anamorphic lens. This would have a 1.79:1 aspect ratio (16:9). The advantage over current 1.85:1 non-anamorphic (image area 0.825 X 0.446 inches) is the much greater image area that ends up on the screen. Sharpness, grain, and vertical steadiness would be significantly improved, and about 1.5X more light would be available. The only change required in the theatre would be the new 1.5X anamorphic lens for this format, and adjusting the screen masking to 1.79:1. Of course, the current 2X anamorphic format would still be used for pictures composed for the wider 2.39:1 aspect ratio.

The idea was first proposed by Glenn Berggren in 1983 as "IscoVision", and demonstrated to the InterSociety Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation and the MPAA in 1984.

The 1.5X anamorphic prints could be achieved by using 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses, or by shooting in "Super-35" and using a 1.5X anamorphic printing lens or "digital intermediate" to produce the "squeezed" printing negative.

Kodak has produced a "Super-35" film demo, and is working with a lab (Imagica USA) to produce a matched set of prints comparing the current 1.85:1 non-anamorphic format with the proposed 1.5X anamorphic format. The prototype anamorphic printing and projection lenses are from IscoOptic. Preliminary results have been very encouraging, especially the significant increase in light efficiency --- large screens that now struggle to get 11 footlamberts for 1.85:1 would easily get 16 footlamberts with the new format.

------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-12-1999, 12:04 PM:

I've heard of this and it is an excellent solution for 1.85 films! However, this was demonstrated 15 years ago. I'm assuming once again the studios won't take the brunt of the expenses as usual, so I don't see this happening. I mean, hey it's been sitting on the shelf like a bad movie for 15 years now, just waiting to be released.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-12-1999, 01:01 PM:

Like you, I was very disappointed this great idea wasn't adopted by the industry when first demonstrated by Glenn Berggren in 1984. You are right that COST was a factor, as well as "the chicken or egg" dilemma of making a feature film in a new format if most theatres don't have the lens to show it.

The advent of "Super-35" gives the idea new hope. Instead of requiring development of a new family of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses, the 1.5X anamorphic printer lens has already been designed. Doing the "squeeze" in printing allows making "dual inventory" flat and anamorphic prints during the transition period, with the 1.5X anamorphic prints at first going to the theatres having huge screens that need the extra light.

This is a GREAT movie that has sat on the shelf for 15 years. Now that most theatres have at least a few huge screens that need the extra light, it may be an idea whose time has come. With Kodak's help, it may finally happen.

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 10-12-1999, 03:12 PM:

I had heard that the primary reason Spielberg shoots flat is because the image translates better to the TV screen. Considering that today 99.99%+ of all TV screens are 1:33, there is less image lost at the edges than scope and when the full frame is used, none of the image is lost (in non-letterboxed presentations). If scope was the standard, almost 40% of the image of a film would be lost until the new widescreen TVs were the norm.

Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 10-17-1999, 03:48 AM:

The reason that someone would choose one aspect ratio over another one is perspective. You want a digital dino to look very tall, and large. With a narrower screen, your dino fills up more of it, thus making it look all that much bigger. In scope the shot would have to be pulled back to show as much of the dino as you wanted to show and the result is not the close up that you wanted, and it would not look as large and as threatening because the image dose not fill up as much of the screen.

Posted by Tom Ferreira (Member # 70) on 10-17-1999, 08:18 AM:

It seems to me that the trend seems to be towards more directors working in scope. There was one point this summer when everything I had on screen was in scope. About ten years ago, scope was the exception rather than the rule. I remember being quite surprised when we made up our print of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, and found out it was in scope. Perhaps with the advent of DVD, where letterboxing is accepted, and with widescreen VHS having it's own section in video stores, directors are less likely to be scared off by a format where there's going to be image loss on video. Anybody remember when Die Hard first came out on video? Instead of using pan and scan or letterboxing, they compressed the image so that it looked like it was being projected with a flat lens. If I were Renny Harlin, and saw that on video, I'd never work in scope again. I agree that there is still too many films in the flat format, but in the case of a film like, say, Superstar, it probably wouldn't be as readily accepted in the widescreen format for it's video release. I was very disappointed that The Story Of Us is flat, but I'm willing to bet that Rob Reiner cut his teeth working with a similar aspect ratio for television.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-18-1999, 06:31 AM:

Interestingly there is a lot of image lost off the sides of even a flat film being transfered on a telecine the TV safe title area (scanned area) is quite small almost the height of 1.66:1
Scope transfers are usually easier because they use a minature reverse anamorphic if it will be letterboxed

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-18-2001, 02:31 PM:

David Lynch filmed Mulholland Drive in flat and The Straight Story in scope. The Coen Brothers filmed The Man Who Wasn't There in flat and O Brother, Where Art Thou? in scope.

Oh well, to each his own . . .

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 11-18-2001, 03:13 PM:

Mulholland Drive was going to be a TV series but the footage was re-worked into a feature. So I assume it was shot flat since it was originally intended for TV.

I wonder if the shots were originally composed with 1.33:1 or 1.85:1 in mind.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-18-2001, 03:15 PM:

Phil: Mulholland Drive was pitched to ABC/US as a TV pilot but the network didn't buy it. No TV footage was shot AFAIK.

Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 11-18-2001, 03:21 PM:

Oops, my bad.

I guess I must have read a less than accurate report about the film somewhere.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-18-2001, 04:31 PM:

Mulholland Drive is a less than good film, too. I doubt even releasing it in Ultra-Panavision 70 would help.

Don't forget that most of the reason flat images look so poor is because someone either cheapened out, or just screwed up the theater design; that's not the format's fault. Flat looks accaptable on a 50ft wide screen, and few of today's theaters have any screens bigger.

As someone pointed out (while talking about the cyan-track issues) it looks like we're nearing the end of film for theaters. It's not going to happen right away, but soon enough that no one probably wants to deal with or pay for "new " film formats like Iscovision, Maxivision, etc.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 11-18-2001, 04:36 PM:

Hi;

I'll happily jump on this bandwagon -- again. GO JOHN!

1.85/1 is clearly a desirable format for many film makers, popular not just for its "economy" compared to Scope but for its artistic impression as well. To "do it right", the Super 35 format with a 1.5X Anamorphic that John describes is the best answer with a fairly reasonable expense to all concerned.

Problem is that any type of "expense" right now in the industry puts a bit of a hold on things. Hopefully that's a situation that can change.

Pat

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-18-2001, 05:52 PM:

Actually a better solution than super 35 with a squeeze is just shoot everything on 65mm and release 5 perf 70

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-18-2001, 06:47 PM:

First, I have to say that Mulholland Drive was an amazing film. Not everyone's cup of tea, but impressive none the less. I am also fairly certain that Charles is right that there wasn't anything shot for television.

Anyway, what about the Maxivision idea? Not neccessarily the 48fps, but the 3 perf pulldown. I think that makes some sense, or at least more than the wasted film for 1.85 with a 4 perf pulldown. The change in equipment needed to change to a 3 perf system will never happen though.

I hope the kodak idea goes through. That makes a lot of sense, and wouldn't require much more than some new lenses and aperture plates.

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-18-2001, 08:08 PM:

I don't understand. Why 1.5 anamorphic?

Why do theatres have a hard time getting enough light on screen when in flat?

What is Super 35?

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 11-18-2001, 08:36 PM:

Ken,
The main reasons for the 1.5 anamorphic, in my estimation, is to continue using an aspect ratio other than cinemascope. Some directors prefer working in a less wide image. The 1.5 anamorphic would also translate quite well to video, especially animorphic dvds.

The reason that people might have a harder time getting enough light onto the screen using the standard 1.85 aperture is that when you are using the 1.85 aperture plate, you are essentially blocking off more than 1/3 of the light a full 1.33 frame would allow.

Super 35, if i remember correctly is a production format, not unlike super 16, that shoots the image into the area that would normally have the analog soundtrack on a release print. Super 35 is sometimes used for blow up to 70mm or for animorphic 35mm prints. It allows for a wider image without anamorphic lenses. I think Titanic was shot on Super 35.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-18-2001, 11:15 PM:

Ken;

There are two ways to get a 1.85 ratio image on the screen. One way is to do what we do now; shine a lotta light through a small 0.446" x 0.825" opening in the aperture.

Another way is to make the opening in the aperture larger to allow more light. I forget the exact size, but it would be something like 0.670" x 0.825". To get it to correctly fit an existing 1.85 screen, compress the image on the film, just like 'scope, but use a anamorphic lens with a 1.5X squeeze (instead of 'scope's 2X.) This was/is the Iscovision process.

There's slightly more to do than new lenses and apertures. Most turrets only hold two lenses; there will be some confusion during any transition. And, what about future showings of the thousands of already made flat film. Cost? Another prime lens (apx. $800), a 1.5X anamorphic adapter (regular 2X adapters are $1000, a safe compairson), about $100 in aperture plates and labor for a total of $1900 per screen. I do think it's a good idea, but it's just too late.

Same thing with Maxivision, only you need to change lenses, apertures and intermittents! Add another $800 (current intermittent price, although I'm sure a Maxivision intermittent would cost much more.)

Even when the industry was making money 3-4 years ago, no one wanted to spend the money. I think most people thought it was'nt worth it; If someone though a "high-quality image theater" was worth investing in, they looked at the cost-reduced IMAX competitors.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-19-2001, 10:47 AM:

Here's a link to the article I wrote on the 1.5X anamorphic format advantages:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/pytlak.shtml

I presented a technical paper and film demonstration (using prototype Isco lenses) at the SMPTE technical conference in Los Angeles last year, which clearly showed the advantages, especially the greater light efficiency. My PowerPoint presentation is available "on-line" on the SMPTE Library site "Scope 1.5X - Squeezing Even Higher Quality from 35mm Prints":
http://www.smpte.org/members_only/

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-19-2001, 11:01 AM:

BTW, I miss the lively discussions with Carl Welles, who started this thread in October 1999. Wonder whatever became of him? Last I heard, he was working decoding CAP code from pirated videos for the Motion Picture Association.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-19-2001, 11:33 AM:

I sort of like the fact that a director can choose at least two aspect ratios. I don't think I would want to force everything to 2:1, especially if the industry moves to all-electronic imaging. After all, digital-film is supposed to be more flexible, right?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-19-2001, 12:15 PM:

Some propose using a 2X anamorphic lens for 2.39:1 AND 1.85:1 (and everything in-between). The 1.85:1 pictures would be "shadowboxed" with black bands at the sides of the print image. The proposal would not require any new lenses in the theatre. Although it actually would slightly improve the quality of 1.85:1 with a bit of additional image area and light efficiency, it doesn't have the "bang for the buck" that 1.5X anamorphic has, with 1.5X more light efficiency.

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 11-19-2001, 12:21 PM:

A little off-topic, but....

Charles Everett writes:

"Mulholland Drive was pitched to ABC/US as a TV pilot but the
network didn't buy it. No TV footage was shot AFAIK."

It's true that the network didn't buy it, but the entire pilot
was shot and edited. I watched it with my own eyes almost two
years ago, so I'm not just passing on rumor. And no, I wasn't
watching an early cut of the movie--it was the ABC pilot.

It was framed for TV. Lynch shot additional footage to flesh it
out for theatrical release (footage that would never have been
shown on network TV) .

--John