Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fantasia 2000 on 35mm

This is topic Fantasia 2000 on 35mm 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=001096

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-15-2000, 12:50 PM:

How will Fantasia 2000 be presented on 35mm film? Will it be printed as a small 4:3 rectangle in the middle of the image area like "The Wizard of Oz" was a couple of years ago, or will it be printed full frame and cropped to 1.85:1? I never got to see this film in IMAX, but I assume the aspect ratio was approximately 4:3. It's a shame that modern theatres don't have at least one screen that will handle Academy properly for the occasional release of an older movie or a shrink-down of an IMAX movie.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 06-15-2000, 01:42 PM:

Fantasia 2000 will be shown in 35mm 1.85, which is what the film was designed for. (I assume prints will be hard-matted at 1.66). The film was bumped up to IMAX size (and this version wasn't even in full IMAX - the film was hard-matted at 1.66 and the Sorcerer's Apprentice sequence was "windowboxed" (1.33 within the 1.66 matte), so the IMAX frame was never fully utilized (it wasn't really that big of a deal, but the live-action intros looked terrible in IMAX - they were very grainy and the composition of everything was out of scale for normal IMAX films - none of the proper IMAX scaling was evident).

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-15-2000, 02:10 PM:

Thanks for the info. I have the deluxe box set laserdisc of Fantasia and it was 4:3, so I assumed (incorrectly) that since Fantasia 2000 was IMAX, it would be 4:3 as well. I never made it down to Atlanta to see this film while it was being shown at the Mall of Georgia Regal IMAX. I'll catch it this week at the local Regal Madison Square 12, which seems to be the only theatre in my area carrying it. I'm glad it was designed for 1.85:1 since I remember "The Wizard of Oz" looking so ugly with a 1.37:1 image centered on a 1.85:1 screen with black on the sides (top masking for flat/scope was the only adjustment, lens turret had the standard 2 lenses).

Huntsville-Decatur Theatre Info
(Showtimes, Proj. Qual. Ratings, History) http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 06-15-2000, 05:05 PM:

We've ben runing Fantasia 2000 in 35mm since May 26.
All it is in 1,85:1 except the Sorcerer's Apprentice which is in 1,33:1 hard matted.
One thing that found OK is that sound is not wandering between the channels like the original Fantasia (an aesthetic desision of the first days of movie stereo) but the orchestra is placed in front with the standard orchestra spread. In the "Pines of Rome" - the flying whales - segment Ottorino Rhespigi demands additional brass players to be placed behind the audience. And very nicely this is presented in the left and right surrounds. Hear the scorcerer's apprentice and see what I mean about sound wandering since this is the mix of the restored Fantasia released in 1990 with the original (or almost original sound paning)
C.

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 06-15-2000, 06:20 PM:

I liked the wandering sound on the original Fantasia. It was never stereo, just an example of things to come if WWII had not happened.

I disliked the 1984 (?) reissue with the re-recorded soundtracks. I cant really explain why, but, I dont.

I saw it again in 1988 or so in a UA theater with a dim xenon lamp, and a kid in the row behind me that repeated: Daddy, when's the cartoon gonna start?

This time, the show affected me the way it always did before. When the final fade out comes, and the lights come up, I get this cold shiver up my back. I can only say one thing: wow.

Can the new one top the original?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-16-2000, 09:07 AM:

What a pain in the butt to build up?

All reels were fade from / to black !

Find the changeover marks, count 24 frames.
Find the countdown to start, manually count down from 3 to 0

Paul.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-16-2000, 06:30 PM:

Mine came from the Technicolor lab in Europe!!! Those guys always do a great job.

Anyone else get their's from that lab?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-16-2000, 07:48 PM:

You'll find that most times the black in the leaders/tails are a slightly different shade from the projectable image black. Hold it up to a good work light and you'll find the spot where they change. That way you won't have to count frames.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-16-2000, 10:15 PM:

Reel changes at fadeouts are really very common in films from the '30s and '40s. If you watch just about any film made in that time period, you can be almost assured that at least one reel change will be at a fade-to-black.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-16-2000, 10:41 PM:

F.Y.I. The prints of Fantasia 2000 did not have any "color shading", as that was the first thing I looked for. I ended up using the method Paul mentioned. A pain indeed, but at least no one will be arguing over how many frames to chop off for id purposes!

Posted by Robb Johnston (Member # 239) on 06-17-2000, 11:45 AM:

Regarding the masking for 1.33, When I was re-organizing an old supply room, I found some extra masking. I realized that I have two swaths of masking material that can be hooked over the top masking and hang down along both sides. It is fitted for two of my screens, allowing me to screen a 1.33 print without letterboxing

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-19-2000, 11:10 AM:

I finally saw Fantasia 2000 last night. Several people mentioned "fadeins/fadeouts" at reel changes. I didn't really notice any total fadeouts last night. If gradual fades to black existed between the segments, they appeared to be lost in the splices. The image was quite jittery during the entire movie (not a print problem since previews were the same way). Reel 2 already had a nice green vertical scratch down the right side for the first few minutes and had many noticeable black scratches there as well, and it was only the 3rd night of its run at that theatre. The DTS time code was faintly visible on the left side of the image and the masking was left in the scope position, although the manager told me all the maskings were operational except for one (in another auditorium). I had to make a choice between seeing the movie in a theatre with sloppy presentation and DTS sound, or in a theatre with optical sound and (usually) less sloppy projection. I chose the digital sound at a particular poorly maintained Carmike location over a presentation at a particular Regal location with poor quality control.

I need to get my laserdiscs out and see how the fadeouts were done in the original Fantasia so I'll know if the splices were done correctly.

Evans A Criswell

Huntsville-Decatur Theatre Info
(Projection Quality, Showtimes, History) http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 06-19-2000, 01:14 PM:

If you didn't see them they got chopped out. They're there.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-19-2000, 01:33 PM:

I wouldn't be surprised if some lazy ass just found a place at the head or tail where he could still see the image as it was fading in or out and chopped it without bothering to count out even a few frames of black. It doesn't take a whole lot of time, for example, to make a customized ruler with frame graduations. Just label it from 1 to 24 and you can instantly count out up to 1-second lengths.

Also, does anyone else think the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" sequence is less than 1.33? It seems more like 1.2 or so. The same thing is noticeable on "Blair Witch Project".

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-19-2000, 01:46 PM:

Yes, I did notice that "The Sorcerer's Apprentice looked more narrow than 1.37:1. I was wondering if it was 1.17:1, as if maybe the original used the full height of the image area (MovieTone style) and they transferred all of it rather than the 1.37:1 area. In the theatre I was in, the image definitely appeared more narrow than 1.37:1, and not only that, there was visible image above the top of the black masking at the top of the screen, meaning that the image was even more narrow on the film that I was seeing on the screen. Can anyone running this print now measure the image on the film and verify the ratio? In my previous post, I said "1.37:1" since theoretically, it would be the correct value for that scene.
Some of Disney's early cartoons with sound were 1.17:1, according to a laserdisc box set of Mickey Mouse cartoons that I saw once.

About the fadeouts and the laziness factor, I'll bet anything that's what happened. The person who built up the movie just spliced in places where he could see image. Judging from my observations in my 39 visits to this theatre, I feel sure that laziness was the cause. This particular theatre (Carmike 8, Decatur, AL) has the sloppiest presentations, by far, of any theatre in my area--"The Theatre That Carmike Forgot". One thing that is really disturbing is that some Carmike employees have told me that some of the theatres in some smaller nearby cities in north Alabama are even worse than this one. Surprisingly, though, the Carmike 10 in Huntsville has been very good.

Evans A Criswell http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/