Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Matting

This is topic Matting 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=000634

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 02-05-2000, 12:18 PM:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but flat prints have to be matted by the projectionist, right? Only scope and hard matted prints don't have to be. Right?

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-05-2000, 01:54 PM:

I am not sure what you are getting at, but I make sure we use the right lense with the right apeture plate, depending on the format of the film. And adjusting the screen masking and curtains to make sure that there is little to no image drift.

Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong.

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-05-2000, 02:54 PM:

If I understand your question, then the answer is yes. Scope prints use the full frame, but flat does not, so the projectionist 'mattes' the flat image.

But I think you have the terminolgy mixed up. The term 'matte' is used for several things, but for this use, is the black frame placed around the image. Flat has a large area (the black area between the frames) matted. Scope does not.

But in both cases, the projector has an aperture plate. That could be thought of as a matte, but it's not called that.

If I understand what you are trying to ask...

A matte is printed on the film and can not be changed by the projectionist. He changes the aperture plate, and that blocks light from areas of each frame you do not want to see.

Posted by Paul Rich (Member # 243) on 02-05-2000, 03:06 PM:

I just know that I've heard when some flat films were not "matted" properly, that certain parts of the picture that weren't meant to be seen were. Things like boom mikes, etc.

While I'm at it, what exaclty is a douser? And if they keep falling during shows, what can be done about that?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-05-2000, 03:55 PM:

The previous film handlers are correct, of course, but I wonder why the question is being asked. The projectionist really doesn't have an option in this. The vast majority of theatres in the United States are made to show just two formats. One is 'scope with just one size of aperture plate and the other is flat with just one size of aperture plate. If the lens isn't matched to the correct aperture, most audience members will notice a problem (which, I hope, means the projectionist will notice too).

The question of hard matting and what's really on the film (as opposed to what's intended to be shown in the theatre) becomes more relevant when we're talking about transfering a film to video. Now, if you have more questions about that, it might be a good discussion too. How many projectionists have stopped to examine a "flat" film closely enough to see what's on the film but is NOT within the 1.85 area and is, therefor, not intended to be shown to the public? Usually, you'll just see the occasional microphone, but you might also see that the guy in the shower is really wearing shorts, etc. If the projectionist doesn't get the framing set correctly, the audience can see it too. But rest assured that the filmmakers DO frame for 1.85 in the theatre, whether or not the "full frame" is safe to show in the video version. I tend to like flat films which have a "hard matte" so that even a bone-head projectionist won't frame it incorrectly.

I recall that BACK TO THE FUTURE was "full frame" (or, in other words, the image extended both above and below the 1.85 image which the filmmakers wanted the audience to see). In that case, the projector plate masked off the unseen portion. However, all the effects shots which ILM did were hard matted to 1.85 (or something similar. I didn't actually measure the aspect ratio!).

As time goes on, filmmakers are more and more conscious of the video transfer while they're shooting the theatrical version. One of the reasons James Cameron is so fond of Super 35 is that it allows him to have an "epic" 2.35 aspect ratio in theatres but then he has the option of extending the top and/or bottom of that frame for a video release, so that the pan-and-scan version doesn't look so horrible. If you compare the "letterbox" versions of Super 35 films to their pan-and-scan versions, you will often see that the pan-and-scan version actually shows more of the original image! It can make you question which version is the best to watch on video.

Posted by Johanna Innes (Member # 228) on 02-05-2000, 04:07 PM:

How can a dowser "fall closed"? We have Super Lume-X lamphouses, and ours all close upwards. I guess it could fall _open_, but only if a hurricane ripped through a booth or an elephant bumped into one of the projectors.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-05-2000, 06:33 PM:

Why is it that in some 1:85 (flat) films they swicth between matted and not matted, like Greg mentioned during some effects shots?

Any advise on how to frame a not matted flat film? not all prints are printed 'dead center' of the frame?

Posted by David Koegel (Member # 25) on 02-05-2000, 08:44 PM:

I really think Paul's question is innocent and direct enough and I want to take a crack at a complete answer.

First off, the use of an aperature plate to block part of a projected image is called matting. The way this is achieved is explained below

As mentioned by John, scope prints, squeezed horizontally in a 2:1 ratio, are unsqueezed by that same 2:1 ration (okay, 1:2 ration now) to give a normal looking image upon projection. But an aperature plate IS used here as well for a slight cropping of the image, else things like the sound track will be projected as well, particularly the DTS time code track.

Flat prints (which are shot with Spherical lenses, not Panavision lenses, which record the images on the negative squeezed) are normally printed and delivered as full frame images. The projectionists are expected to employ an aperture plate with a 1.85 width-to-height ratio, to block the top and bottom portions of the image, the part which the director didn't expect you to see. If a projector is "framed" wrong, meaning that the image of the film is not correctly centered in the opening of the projector's gate, then you will see part of the image above or below the part the director expected you to see, hence seeing a portion of the "unexpected" part. Also, some prints use 1.66 ratio plates, just to confuse this issue further. Each final projection ratio requires its own lens to give the identical projected image height on the screen, with only the width changing, at least in an ideal situation.

Older classics were filmed flat and the images projected were basically the full image from the camera negative, approx 1.37:1. No projection matting is or was employed except like in the case of Scope, with a minor blocking of the image around the edged.

Hard matted prints are prints where the image on the final film has been modified so that there is no area above or below the area that the director expected you to see. It could have been done in the camera OR during final printing. Disney animated titles are often hard matted in later reissues even though they were originally shot and projected full frame (nominally 1.33:1). To a film collector, such hard matted prints are less desirable. Afterall, some of the originally-seen image is no longer available to be seen.

In my collection, I have "odd reels" of Gone With The Wind that are very different, depending on the year of issue. (Odd Reels are orphan reels that are not presently part of a full set of reels that make up a full feature, typically say 6 reels for a 2 hour movie.) The 1967 domestic print is hard matted. Some of the other reels I have are full frame flat, which is how it was originally printed for final projection, with a camera negative in a 1.37:1 ratio and an expected projection of 1.37:1 ratio (full frame, per www.imdb.com). The 70mm prints were projected 2.20:1, hence slightly cropped. My hard-matted prints were supposed to give the illusion of a wide screen (1.85:1, I think in this case) epic, but all the audience got was a truncated or cropped view of the original movie. Presumably, this was also done so that the projectionist didn't have a chance to project the movie full frame. Why? I just can't fathom a "good" reason here

Well, I've been a bit redundant with respect to earlier postings on this question, and of course this posting is subject to attack, er, correction by others, but that's how you gain an education. -- David

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-06-2000, 01:18 AM:

Paul:

I am assuming you are referring to the electric dowser (more commonly referred to as a changeover, or the most popular trade name "Zipper®")...

If these are improperly adjusted, gravity can cause the blade of the changeover to fall into the closed position, either partially or fully, obviously messing up the picture... Or it can be caused by a malfunctioning automation or a forgotten cue from another theatre being executed by your automation system causing the changeover to close.

The other dowser would be the hand dowser on the lamphouse or console. Depending on the design of the dowser, it can fall closed for many reasons, most of them being things such as a missing or broken spring, linkage or magnet (CFS console hand dowsers have a magnet holding them in the open position).

Aaron

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-06-2000, 01:40 AM:

A recent example of booms and stuff seen in the frame....

I was training a guy, and I switched from flat to scope to show him how things should, and should not look. We were just running trailers, and I had on a flat trailer of "The Bachelor." I changed it to scope, and there was a boom mic right above their heads. That's a recent film; maybe someone still has it.

I forget the details now, but there was a serious messup with the film "Going in Style" where lights, boom, all kinds of stuff was visable within the 1.85 (flat) frame. It was so bad, Warners bought everyone running it a new (undercut) aperture plate. Looked crappy on the screen, though. We weren't going to pry the nailed down masking off and reset it for one picture.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-06-2000, 03:35 AM:

I would think that special effects (anything computer related) are hard-matted because they cost money and there is no room for waste there, especially if the negative has to be digitally scanned, for example. You will only want to scan the portions which will appear in the final frame. Same for modern animated features meant to be seen at 1.85 -- they will be hard-matted since it makes no sense to draw parts of the frame that won't be seen. But for regular camera shooting, it doesn't cost any more to shoot full-frame or hard-matted since the unprojected film portion is being wasted anyway. For example, in the current teaser trailer playing for "Rocky and Bullwinkle", the normally photographed sections of clouds and sky are full-frame but the computer-generated titles which supposedly "zoom out" beyond the projected frame are hard-matted at 1.85, so you can actually see the ghost of the 1.85 frame within the full frame.

So there is a reason for shooting full-frame in Super 35. But is there any reason for shooting full-frame in 1.85 other than that no one bothered to buy or manufacture the correct camera aperture plates? This practice can encourage misframing due to the amount of vertical play, if the lab leaves the release-prints full-frame. And the matteing inconsistencies can be annoying. I remember one feature where one series of full-frame shots was intercut with another series of hard-matted shots, presumably from different cameras with different aperture plates.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-06-2000, 09:02 AM:

This is a very interested toppic just wanted to recap:

The reason they make hard-matted shots is a money issue. Effects and digital shots are cheaper to make, and animated films dont have to be drawn more than to 1:85, as the film is only 1:85 anyway.

But i STILL cant understand why they dont print all 1:85 made films as hard-matted (1:85)

1. It's cheaper (digital/effects shots and animation)
2. Easyer to get the film in frame
3. No microphones etc. will appear

All movies shot for 1:85 SHOULD be hard-matted (1:85) at least in the US as 1:85 is your standard ratio. In europe american movies (shot in 1:85) are of cause projected in 1:85 as they should, but 1:66 is more the standard ratio for european film-makers but thats another story.

Nightmare before christmas is photographed for 1:66 (please correct me if i am wrong) so the filmmakers can use the extra space still avalibel in the frame.

When a filmmaker wants to make a movie in 1:85 then he should make sure that it is also printed hard-matted. The chance that movie will be projected proberly is very high as there is no excuse for not framing a 'matted' movie right. Framing a not-matted flat film CAN be hard (you experts might find that easy but remember i am only a film collector )the picture is not always printed dead center, so how do you make sure it IS deadcenter? do you use the studio logo at the start of the film to correct in frame?

AND yes I CAN frame properly as i learnd it here on film-tech in the thread called 'framing question'

Martin

Posted by David Koegel (Member # 25) on 02-06-2000, 09:30 AM:

Martin: I agree with your statement for those features meant only to be seen in 1.85 (or 1.66 for that matter). I just resent it when the studios decide to reissue an as-originally-released full frame feature as a hard matted 1.85 print. Do they really expect me to believe that the director changed his mind decades after the fact? Hardly!

Of course there is the video release issue: for standard 1.33 videos, they often use the full frame final print, so suddenly the audience is now seeing stuff that wasn't intended to be seen. I'm not sure if that's better or worse than pan-and-scan for scope movies

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 02-06-2000, 10:37 AM:

I have a 1960 IB 35 print of "All In A Nights Work" On the Holmes, which features a fixed aperture plate (1:37) if I dont frame the image high on the screen, I will be seeing mics, lights, and the occasional body above the stage!

I have an awful 1959 16 print of "The Trap." If I dont frame it high, too, the audience gets to see the cut-back roof of a 1957 black Chrysler in every scene shot "in the car"

Just for my own amusement, I run both of these films low in the frame so I can see all the "goodies"

I love film. It's so adjustable.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-06-2000, 11:15 AM:

In my opinion it is o.k. to transfer a full frame film (1:33) to video IF it is done proberly to fit the TV/video screen.

BTW i do not think Sir David Lean was thinking about how Lawrence of arabia would look like when it was to be released on video im just kidding of cause, but you get the picture todays directors think to much about getting the action in the camera so that it will fit for TV/video releases (James Cameron)

I miss 70mm.......

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-06-2000, 11:49 AM:

I think Chris has described it pretty well, especially for new films. The only thing I might add is: If you were trying make a rule for all (old and new) 1.85 films, the rule is - there is no rule. It depends on both what is desired while filming and what is desired while viewing.

Here is a scenario that results in a 1.85 matted release print:

If a primary goal is to save negative costs, studios can use a camera that only pulls down two perforations at a time. It saves negative costs, but results in somewhat less quality. This was originally part of the "Techniscope" process. (I don't know exactly what Super 35 is, but I'm guessing it's similar.) This gives a image area of 0.868" x 0.373" (I have my ASC book right here.) An optical printer blows up the image slightly to fill the height of a flat (0.838" x 0.446") frame. The director realizes that what he sees on the far left/right will be pushed out of the frame after blowing up, so he makes sure no action takes place there. Since this does not fill up the height of the frame as used in a projector (4 perf, 0.868" x 0.631"), a matte is placed around the unphotographed area.

Here's a different scenario that results in a 1.85 non-matted release print:

A director knows ahead of time that his film will be shown on TV. He wants to be sure it looks the way he intended when shown at the theaters (1.85) and on TV (1.33.) He does not want to use a 2 perf camera, because someone later will have to re-format the 1.85 ratio to fit a TV screen, and it might not be him. In the viewfinder of the camera, there are lines that denote the frame edges in both ratios. He composes the frame so both ratios look good. This is not a minor decision; backdrops must be made bigger, more people are needed to fill crowd scenes, etc. The flat release print is printed with no matte. The theaters show only the 1.85 area, later, TV shows the entire area.

So, whether a matte appears on a print may depend on questions like:

Two perf or four perf? This usually is a money issue, but if I have to carry a camera and film 40 miles and back, I might like the negative savings two perf offers.

Do I want to pay more now and compose the film for theaters and TV, or save the money and do it later?

Am I a 'director control freak' and don't want anyone changing my 'vision'? Kubrick was like this.

Let's say I'm cheap, but can get some four perf cameras and lenses so cheap that I don't care about negative costs. Also, when Mirramax buys my movie, I'll let them pay for the TV formatting. So, I'll shoot with booms and lights visible, because I know the theaters will limit the frame area.

Maybe, I had no money when I started shooting this picture, but got some towards the end.

Sorry to blab on.. I probably said more than you wanted to know...

I would suggest getting a copy of the ASC manual. It's not too expensive, and while it is meant for shooting film, knowing that helps you understand how they should be projected.
http://www.cinematographer.com/store/index.html

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-06-2000, 03:59 PM:

An example of a film that was shot for 1:66 and presented in 1:85 is the original ROBOCOP. Foriegn director Paul Verhoven shot it in 1:66 and intended it that way, not realizing that in the US we show them as 1:85. Even in the DVD release it is in 1:85, however you can get the original version on DVD presented in 1:66 with all the missing footage that was pulled out for US release.

Speaking of pulled footage, why are we americans, who live in the land of the free and home of the brave, so afraid and terrified of movie footage that we have to have it removed to protect our fragile little minds? What are we, wussies?

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-06-2000, 04:17 PM:

Dave, in europe we get to see it all! hehehe

Life IS beautiful!

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-06-2000, 04:22 PM:

I don't think Americans are wussies, but American producers (who are afraid to offend anyone and lose a few bucks) are.

Posted by David Koegel (Member # 25) on 02-06-2000, 04:33 PM:

America was originally populated by Puritans, and their point of view has been carried all the way to the present. They certainly didn't want anyone, anywhere to be enjoying themselves in anyway even if no one was is harmed in the process. Hence, the nudity that is so common in foreign films just isn't expected here, and when it does appear, it's normally given a more restrictive rating. No wonder Americans are so uptight.....

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-06-2000, 09:57 PM:

It seems to me that the motion picture camera companies and/or rental houses would prepare viewfinders with a standardized ground glass. Thus, while the camera operator may be able to see more than the 1.85 area of the original image, that 1.85 area WILL be in the same place in every viewfinder. So the only people who can mess up that standardized framing on the release prints would be the people at the lab. But... do they? If the projectionist has figured out the framing on one 1.85 film, is it that hard to get it right on the others (especially when you're running the same policy trailers month after month on a variety of films and you know how THEY look)?

Incidentally, there are very few feature films which aren't filmed with 4-perf pull down. It's the industry standard and anything else requires the lab to do too much work (and that costs money).

Super 35 allows the filmmaker to use the area on the film which is normally reserved for the optical sound. In recent years, Super 35 has been used for many features which are intended for 2.35 theatrical release and, yes, the lab DOES have to convert the image to amamorphic (and restore that room for the optical soundtrack). Some filmmakers (James Cameron, for one) prefer Super 35 for a variety of reasons, including video transfer consideration, greater depth of field than you get with anamorphic lenses, less offensive lens flares, etc.

When Cameron made THE ABYSS, he requested that the effects shots be composed for 1.66, although the theatrical prints would be 2.35. Of course, he was considering video releases when he called for those effects shots. ILM's effects people have used VistaVision cameras for many years and that's among the reasons why effects aren't "full frame" in flat films.

I've heard a bunch of complaints about re-issues on films which weren't shot for 1.85 or 2.35. Although I didn't see the latest re-issue of THE WIZARD OF OZ (less than 2 years ago), I was told it was matted on all 4 sides of the image so that it would play in the proper 1.33 aspect ratio even in theatres which could only show today's standard 1.85 flat material. I can't imagine why that approach wasn't taken with previous re-issues of those older films. Personally, I saw a so-called "restoration" of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS about 10 years ago in 70mm. The only trouble was that the original version was VistaVision and this "restoration" was cropped to 2.35. As a friend of mine commented, there were only 8 commandments in the print I saw! Boneheads!

And, finally, God bless America! The dumbest movies we make here carry the excuse that "it'll be a big hit overseas." Let's all share the blame, please.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-06-2000, 11:26 PM:

quote:
I am assuming you are referring to the electric dowser (more commonly referred to as a changeover

Maybe it's a projector with some model of fire shutter out of adjustment?

ALL films are flat when you unroll them all the way.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-07-2000, 10:34 AM:

Standard ANSI/SMPTE 195 "Motion-Picture Prints --- Projectable Image Area" specifies the image area on the print that should be projected, and discusses the use of "hard-matte" printing:

"To help ensure correct vertical centering (framing) of the projected image, hard-matte printing may be used in producing the duplicate negative used for release printing of theatrical prints. A hard matte with an image height of at least 0.505 in (12.83 mm) may be used with all style A aspect ratios (1.66:1 or greater). Note that prints intended for a style C aspect ratio (1.37:1) will normally have an image height of at least 0.630 in (16.00 mm)as specified in ANSI-SMPTE 59. In all cases, the framelines on the print shall essentially be opaque".

"Use of camera aperture dimensions other than those stated in ANSI/SMPTE 59 is discouraged. Film users are reminded that many features composed for wide-screen aspect ratio will be shown later on television. Use of a hard matte in the camera will require substantial cropping of the film horizontally when the film is transferred to television, and severely limits the use of a print made from the negative".

"Good practice dictates using the 1.37:1 style A camera aperture of ANSI/SMPTE 59, while composing for the desired theatrical projection aspect ratio. Care should be taken to exclude extraneous items or action from the photographed image area which may show in the television scanned area".

ANSI/SMPTE 59 "Camera Aperture Images and Usage" specifies the "Style A" aperture size as 0.864 X 0.63 inches (21.95 X 16.0 mm). The "Style B" (scope) camera aperture is 0.864 X 0.732 inches (21.95 X 18.59 mm). The "Style C" ("Super 35") camera aperture is 0.981 X 0.735 inches (24.92 X 18.67 mm). Note that the camera aperture is ALWAYS larger than the final projected image area, and the image is composed on the camera viewfinder groundglass to correspond to the projectable image area specified in ANSI/SMPTE 195.

Copies of SMPTE Standards and Recommended Practices are available from the SMPTE:
http://www.smpte.org/stds/index.html

A good projectionist is always careful to properly frame the image, because the image on the print is always larger than the projectable image area that the cinematographer and director composed the image for. And despite the warning in ANSI/SMPTE 195, there is always a chance of a wayward mike boom, lighting flag, or bikini-clad "nude" scene being on the print, that was never intended to be seen.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 02-08-2000, 12:28 AM:

This is fascinating. Before, I thought that the only two ways of presenting a non-1.33 image on the television screen were letterbox (lossless) and pan-'n'-scan (lossy). So how common is this third method that actually includes MORE information that was contained in the theatrical release? And moreover, is anyone keeping track of which videotape/laserdisc/DVD releases use this third method? A quick check shows the IMDB doesn't seem to be aware of it, for example.

Regarding Super 35... so it's more or less the old 1.33 silent aperture? My understanding is that it is then simply cropped to a 2.35 aperture. But after cropping its dimensions would be reduced from 0.981" x 0.735" (per John Pytlak's figures) to 0.981" x 0.417", or about 0.409 square inches. This is only the tiniest bit more than the 0.403 square inches of 1.85 (0.864" by 0.467" or so). Thus, how is it that 2.35 anamorphic prints, no matter whether filmed in anamorphic or Super 35, seem to look so much better than 1.85 spherical prints?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-08-2000, 06:02 AM:

There are filmmakers who don't like Super 35 because it looks more "contrasty" than anamorphic 2.35 which uses more space on the original negative. Somehow, they think Cameron's prints look better than anyone else's Super 35 work which is released in 2.35 theatrically. The issue of AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER which discusses TITANIC (so the issue is about 2 years old) contains a good interview of Cameron in which he explains how he works with the lab to ensure that his Super 35 material looks so good.

Professional motion picture camera operators I've spoken with tell me it's impossible to compose a picture correctly for 2 aspect ratios at once. The "pan and scan" version of THE BLUES BROTHERS, for example, shows more than the letterbox version. When a camera operator I know watched the pan and scan version, it just drove him nuts because there was too much headroom and, overall, it didn't look right to him. He also admits than when he does television work composing for 1.33 and 16 by 9 at the same time, it only looks best in one of those ratios.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-08-2000, 08:13 AM:

Christopher:

The normal "Super-35" camera aperture is 0.980 X 0.735 inches. The area "extracted" (i.e., printed) when a picture is released in the 2.39:1 "scope" format is 0.945 X 0.394 inches. This is the area outlined in the camera's viewfinder, which guides the composition of the shot. Examples of pictures shot this way are "Titanic", "Godzilla" and "Independence Day". Jim Cameron and Russell Carpenter's work on "Titanic" was an fine example of the excellent quality that can be obtained using "Super-35".

A few 1.85:1 pictures have been shot using the "Super-35" format. In this case, the same 0.980 X 0.735 inch camera aperture is used, but the negative image area that ends up on the screen is 0.945 X 0.511 inches. Despite having the advantage of a larger image area on the negative, "Super-35" is not often used for 1.85:1, as it requires the duplicate negative to be made on a slow optical printer, rather than a faster continuous contact printer. Pictures shot in "Super-35" 1.85:1 include "The Godfather Part III", "Bonfire of the Vanities", "The Fisher King", "Goodfellas", "Malcolm X", and "The Two Jakes".

Some have suggested a "Super-35" release print format to take advantage of the increased image area. These include Dean Goodhill's "MaxiVision" proposal, and Vittorio Storaro's "Univision System". But such a change would require eliminating the analog soundtrack (without analog backup, the digital sound would need to be 100% reliable) and changing the optical centerline of the image and the placement of the DTS timecode. Some projectors would require fairly extensive modification to change the centerline without vignetting.

Posted by Martin Frandsen (Member # 74) on 02-08-2000, 02:30 PM:

On American widescreen museum's web page they tell the horribel story how film is transferd to video. Very rarely is a films correct aspect-ratio transferd to video. Just because it say's 'scope' on the back of a dvd dosent mean it's in scope (2:35)

A very bad example of sloppy film to video is the laserdisc release of 'Ben-hur'

Posted by Erich Loepke (Member # 166) on 02-08-2000, 03:23 PM:

Here's one I saw on the back of one of my brother's DVD boxes:

Anamorphic 1.85

I thought 1.85 was called "flat", and was projected without anamorphic lenses. Oh well, the mass market consumer won't know the difference, and besides, doesn't "anamorphic" sound high-tech?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-08-2000, 11:33 PM:

The term "anamorphic" when used to describe a DVD refers to those which are 16 by 9 enhanced. There needs to be some standardization of the terms used in packaging DVDs. Indeed, a 1.85 image CAN be converted to "anamorphic" on a DVD. Even the new, Disney TARZAN DVD is 16 by 9 enhanced and some would also call that "anamorphic" although the aspect ratio is 1.66!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-09-2000, 12:15 AM:

Some Bad news for the purists
1.33:1 films do not scan with a full apperture to T.V.
The safe title area which most telecines are set for is actually an area in the centre of the frame about the verticle heigth of teh 1.66:1 frame but with the width to hiegth ratio of 1.33
SO not only the top and bottom is cropped but so are the sides
This is less of a problem now but just watch many of the older titles and look at how the sides of the credits are cropped
In fact most news 16mm cameras ground glass wa marked very clearly for projection and then the smaller safe tv frame

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-13-2000, 02:07 AM:

Personally, I think all flat films should be hard matted to 1.66 with CLEAR matting between frames with black wording "You are watching a movie being presented by an incompetent projectionist. Please notify the manager immediately for 10 free passes and all the concessions you can eat."

Think that might get those flicks in frame?

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 02-13-2000, 03:59 AM:

What about cinemas with large 1.33:1 screens?
Two of the "Elite" cinemas here in Athens are projecting "full frame" just to cover the entire screen and impress the audinence. When it comes to anamorphic...well its like you are viewing a leterbox LD or DVD presentation.
Totally unacceptable.
I remember seeing Saving pvt. Ryan in one of them. The live footage was filmed full frame, and the scenes where special effects are added were hard matted on film. The projected image was constantly shifting between 1.33:1 and 1.85:1. VERY distracting.

Another issue of correct framing.

Subtitles are burned in beetwen the lower third and fourth perforations of the frame. Well in anamorhic projection there is no problem. But in 1.85 (ie most US releases) you have to reframe a little higher so the second line of the subtittles is clear for the audience. With this compromise you loose a bit of the top and you see the botom hard matte or unexpected things as traveling rails etc.
I always put the subtittles "touching" the lower point of the screen but in many cases you have to be a liitle "up" since that second line is cut in half by the end of the screen. :-(

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 02-14-2000, 02:33 AM:

On the subject of aperture ratios, what is the correct ratio for anamorphic "scope" prints? I was taught, many years ago, that it was 2.35:1. But on a lot of newer prints, the studio has been asking for 2.39:1. Granted, there isn't that much difference, but it seems kind of strange. Any thoughts?

-Mike

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-14-2000, 09:04 AM:

The current correct ratio for 'scope is 2.39. It has changed over the years, but was 2.35 from (I think) about 1965 to 1985, so there are still people and documentation that say or print that.

The offical size is now 0.825" x 0.690" which (2X) comes to 2.39130.......

I think someone did a "SMPTE standard" history of it, showing what sizes 'scope has been over the last 50 years, but I can't remember where it was. More dead brain cells....

I'm guessing, but I wonder if 2.39 came into use after Lucas did his TAP survey in 1983 for "Empire." (If you never heard if this..) Just before "Empire" was released, Lucas created the TAP program to make sure just about every theater running that film was techinally up to par. For that one film, TAP sent a guy to your theater to not only check it out, but to file plates, push projectors, EQ sound.. whatever it took to get the best sound and picture out of your existing equipment. They also recorded data like screen height, width, and brightness, throw, lens sizes, aperture openings, projector angle, amp wattages, processor type, etc. There were even some reports that (for 70mm runs) if they found a bad speaker or something else wrong, it had to be fixed. If your theater didn't fix it, "NO 70 FOR YOU!"

Anyway, I was talking to a guy at TAP shortly after, and asked him if there was anything interesting that came out of the data they collected. He said a few things, but one thing was how just about every theater cropped the image left/right. A few years after that, the offical 'scope size went from 0.825" x 0.700" to what it is now.

I asked if Lucas was going to release all the data they took. I, personally, would find it would be very interesting to see. But the fellow said they would not be releasing it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-14-2000, 10:12 AM:

John:

Some time ago, I provided a chronology of the changes to the projected image area for the anamorphic "scope" format to Martin Hart, Curator of the on-line "American WideScreen Museum". Here is a link to the data:
http://www.simplecom.net/widefilm/widescreen/apertures.htm

The current area is documented in standard ANSI/SMPTE 195 "Motion-Picture Prints --- Projectable Image Area": 0.825 X 0.690 inches (20.96 X 17.53 mm).

In 1993, the image width was reduced from 0.838 to 0.825 inches to be consistent with the non-anamorphic "Style A" image width, and to reduce the risk of seeing the DTS time code at the left hand edge. The image height was reduced from 0.715 to 0.700 to 0.690 inches to reduce the visibility ("flash") of splices in the negative if the film was conformed as a single roll for printing.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-14-2000, 02:51 PM:

John,

Not "all" nude scenes are "covered up". I recall seeing the flick "Powder" at a theater where it was framed high. I even complained twice during the trailers to the management about it.

Needless to say, towards the end there is a scene where some bullies rip Powder's clothes off and guess what was right there waving to the audience?

The manager got a nice bitch after the film was over out by a mother who had brought her kids to this PG film for having such nudity in it. He could've avoided that if he had've just framed the thing during the trailers like I asked.

Another such instance happened on the video transfer of "Some Girls". Patrick Dempsey had a nude scene and the video transfer was done full frame. I think he prosecuted the company for it. That'll teach them actors to participate in non-scope movies! Long live scope!!!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-15-2000, 07:33 PM:

Gee, wouldn't it be really funny if somebody would print a "second" movie between the frames of a flat film? You could be watching Hunchback of Notre Dame(Animated) and with a twist of the framing knob you'd be watching Striptease!!! Heck! Make the DTS track so that both sets of discs would play on the same film! Only thing is the "second" movie would be a little less than a whole frame. STILL, it's a funny, (but silly) thought!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-17-2000, 08:09 AM:

There actually was once a proposal for a 35mm print format that printed 2-perf high frames "heads-to-tails", and then interleaved another set "tails to heads", with appropriate analog soundtracks on each side of the print. So the roll was projected in a normal 4-perf pulldown projector, first in one direction (heads-to-tails) and then the other (tails-to-heads) without rewinding. I recall that the projected image area was only about 0.700 X 0.350 inches. It might have worked as a budget format for reel-to-reel projection with changeovers, but there'd be no real advantage for platter systems. And the image area was barely larger than a 16mm print, so image quality would suffer.