Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "The Wrong Size Film"

This is topic "The Wrong Size Film" 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=001525

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2000, 05:45 PM:

I clipped this from the Roger Ebert "movie answer man" website. Good for a laff!

-----------
Q. Recently, I saw "The Patriot" at Chicago's Water Tower Theater. When the film began, the audience noticed that the picture was off the screen. It extended about 1 foot off the top and bottom and approximately 3 feet off of each side onto the curtains and the walls. I mentioned this to the manager at the start of the film, hoping to have it corrected. I was told by her, "We know. The film they sent us was too large for our screen. There is nothing that can be done about it." I mentioned that I have been in theaters with much smaller screens than this one and not had a problem. I also noted that we shouldn't be expected to pay $8.50 for a movie when we are being denied a portion of the picture. She just shrugged it off.
---Jason Steele, Chicago

A. A movie can be configured to show on any size screen. All it takes is a projectionist who knows what he's doing. The movie does not have a "size," but a format, and the projector must be adjusted to frame the film in that format. "The Patriot" was filmed in the ratio of 2.35 to 1, true wide screen, but movies in that format have been shown in every theater countless times.

-------------------

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-05-2000, 06:11 PM:

(thinking) 'Mental note: when in Chicago, go to Water Tower Theater and smack so-called projectionist in the head for single handedly bringing our area into disrepute'.

I wonder if they got a nice call from old Roger?

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 10-05-2000, 06:31 PM:

Hmmm, at first it sounded like he had the wrong plate in... but im not so sure. I worked in a theatre that had a really small "bitch" adutorium. It just so happens that the plate was cut and the lense chosen so that a scope movie fit the screen that was perfectly sized for a flat movie. Normally you'd have top and bottom masking for this, but the scope picture filled the entire screen. It spilled over on the edges and usually cut credits off. I never understood the reason for this or why they even put scope films in that auditorium in the first place.... Go figure.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-05-2000, 10:06 PM:

Actually for the posh place that Water Tower Center is the theaters are about the worst in all of Chicago. Try McClurg Court if you want to step up a notch or two. All in all Chicago is so far behind L.A. and New York in quality movie theaters that it is almost pathetic.
Mark
P.S. I grew up there. Years ago there used to be good theaters there......

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-06-2000, 01:35 AM:

I think maybe he had a small (cropped) screen, and NO aperture plate in. But then the moviegoer didn't say anything about "that squiggley line on the left wall of the auditorium," so who knows.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 10-06-2000, 02:02 AM:

This is simply hilarious.

"We know. The film they sent us was too large for our screen."

It's taken right out of Terry Gilliam's splendid "Brazil".

More jokes like that please.

The best from Copenhagen (It's in Denmark!)

Thomas

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 10-06-2000, 07:34 AM:

He couldn't possibly have had a lens from a different sized auditorium in the machine for some reason. Maybe they'd dropped one or something. This would account for no sound track being visible.

Just a thought.

Good night all

Paul

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-06-2000, 07:39 AM:

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Can't we just kill all the stupid people?"

I knew Kodak should have thrown out that batch of 42 mm print film!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment 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 Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-07-2000, 06:05 PM:

Actually John they did slit 34mm film
In the 50's Great Brittain had a very large tax on american feature films on 35mm.

To get around the tax Micheal TOdd had one film printed on 34mm stock to get arround the rules and provided replacement trap guides etc.
The things you have to go to to avoid the tax man

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 10-07-2000, 06:11 PM:

I sure would like to have someone like Mike Todd in the industry today.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-07-2000, 06:16 PM:

I have seen a few auditoriums that go 1/2 and 1/2 on FLAT and SCOPE.

The screen is a little bit wider than the regular FLAT screen and a little bit taller than the regular SCOPE screen. It's SUPPOSED to save you from having to have movable masking. (Read: CHEAP!) I think it sucks. You have to crop part of the image for BOTH formats and I think it's a STUPID sacrifice to save a couple of bucks!

Seems to me that they may be going "halvsies" here. Like was said before, I think they put in the wrong plate/lens combination and didn't know it.

Yes, I also vote for nomination to the STUPID PEOPLE HALL OF FAME!

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 10-07-2000, 08:07 PM:

This sounds like what many drive-in's seem to have evolved to: the 2:1 ratio screen, where scope pictures emigrate to the trees at the side, and flat cropped top and bottom. What would be more ethical? A scope screen that maintains same height for flat (and doesn't use sides). Anyone ever hear of adjustable masking OUTDOORS?

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 10-07-2000, 09:15 PM:

On the half and half flat and scope issue: A theatre we had that closed last May had 7 of its screens 2.00:1 and only one that was adjustable for flat and scope. It was built by Cobb and was the most horribly built theatre I'd encountered. It was an A&P grocery store before it was a theatre. Cobb is also the company that put 1.85:1 screens with no adjustable masking in two thirds of their auditoriums at Madison Square 12 and Hollywood 18 here in Huntsville, AL so that flat can be shown properly, but scope loses nearly one fourth on the sides. I hate this and Regal has not seen fit to fix this since they took the theatres over on August 1, 1997. Me and some of my friends refer to this problems as "Cobb Syndrome".

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 10-08-2000, 03:46 AM:

I have recently been to a newly opened 9 plex. UCI had the contract, but was willing to pay the fine for not taking the finished site, and even liked to pay for rebuilding to more mall parking spaces.
Another cheap theatre operator to the finished site. First comments were awful. Soda without carbon dioxide and syrup (no taste at all), popcorn that tasted like it was several days old, and Nachos without any taste, the cheese sauce simply awful...
THAT'S an art to sell this! Your first impression is normally based on corn and soda.
We were expecting the worst for the halls, and were right.
The auditoriums just had one large picture size, 1.77:1, (probably 16:9?-to make you feel home). Every film was cropped to match theese screens.
Sound was simply awful, harsh and without bass or treble, not even SR sounded good.
We were not allowed to enter the booth, "for safety reasons"....
Equipment seemed to be Christy and KCS speakers, more we could not see.

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 10-08-2000, 04:02 AM:

The Mike Todd Gordon refers to was Mike Todd's "Around the world in 80 days". This film had it's first run -not only in Britain- in Europe in 30 fps 34 mm format, full frame format without soundtrack. The sound came from a seperate "Cinestage" mag dubber, which was rented at approx $1000 per month to the theatres.
The sound format was 8 channels, with 5 front channels and a split surround (L/R/Top).
You needed to have Todd-AO projectors (DP 70) to run the 30 fps, as trhis was the only brand available at the time (1958). Todd supplied the special masks for the projector, but with DP 70 no other change was neccessairy.
I do still have the original correspondence and invoices from 1958, found at my Savoy ToDD AO theatre's storage area.
Basicly the taxes on any film wider than 35 mm, and not beeing printed in Britain (or Germany) were prohibitively high.
In 1958 London's printing labs did not offer 70 mm printing or reduction printing, therefore the "Cinestage" trick had to be done, as then the film could be called "narrow gauge" with narrow duties.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-08-2000, 02:37 PM:

"One Size Fits All" screens with non-adjustable masking rate an "F" (FAILURE) in the KODAK SCREENCHECK Experience program.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-08-2000, 02:41 PM:

I've heard the 34 mm story too. Mike Todd was a shrewd businessman, but he also was the complete SHOWMAN. He is missed.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-08-2000, 02:45 PM:

Stefan said: "You needed to have Todd-AO projectors (DP 70) to run the 30 fps, as trhis was the only brand available at the
time (1958). Todd supplied the special masks for the projector, but with DP 70 no other change was neccessairy.
I do still have the original correspondence and invoices from 1958, found at my Savoy ToDD AO theatre's storage
area."

You may want to contact Marty Hart of the American Widescreen Museum, who is always looking for original documentation regarding widescreen formats to post on his site:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-08-2000, 06:43 PM:

John Pytlak said, "One Size Fits All" screens with non-adjustable masking rate an "F".....

Agreed! The first time I ran into one of those I was doing a PM. I checked the FLAT lens with the RP-40 then flipped to the SCOPE lens. I was expecting the masking ot move and it didn't. I went in search of the circuit breaker that controls the motor and couldn't find one. About a half-minute later it dawned on me that the SCOPE picture was fitting on the screen.... "What the..."
I musta' spent the next 5 minutes flipping the lens back and forth and looking at the picture just to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

"Who's the bone head that dreamed up THAT idea?!", I thought.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-20-2001, 06:26 PM:

I'm seeing The Mexican in the stadium theater near my home. Masking is set for 1.85 ratio. At the R1 > R2 join I notice the cue marks are elliptical. A scope movie on a flat screen with the sides chopped off!

I quietly get up to leave -- I don't want to make a fuss in the middle of a show.

That night I go back, track down the manager and explain what happened. Turns out the masking was not set properly in the auditorium which had The Mexican. The manager issued me a refund ticket. He didn't have to but it was a nice gesture on the theater's part.

Because of that screwup I now try to find out what ratio a movie is in before I see it.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-21-2001, 07:07 AM:

These 2:1 screen sound awfull. I dont know if there are any in the uk but its not something i've ever encountered. The worst mistake i have seen was a scope film played with a full set of flat adverts and trailers, with the whole lot shown with the masking and lense set to scope. The kids seemed to find it funny. I belive one of the flat trailers was for The First Wives Club. This is especially funny in scope.

------------------
------------------
Michael Brown
Bradford Student Cinema
www.Bradfordstudentcinema.co.uk

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2001, 08:07 AM:

Charles Everett said: "That night I go back, track down the manager and explain what happened. Turns out the masking was not set properly in the auditorium which had The Mexican."

If the full 0.825 x 0.690 inch scope image area was being projected and the wrong masking setting was used, you would have seen the sides of the scope picture "spill" onto the masking. IMHO, something sounds "fishy" in the manager's explanation.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 06-21-2001, 11:16 AM:

John P: The sides of the picture were chopped off -- they did NOT spill onto the masking. I was in a stadium theater that opened in 1999 (no, it's not a Regal). All the auditoriums have adjustable masking. I caught the mistake because the cue marks were clearly visible.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-21-2001, 11:53 AM:

Charles said: "The sides of the picture were chopped off -- they did NOT spill onto the masking."

Then they were using an undersized aperture, and it was not simply a mistake in setting the masking. Try to visit that theatre when they are showing a scope picture again, and see if they correct the problem.

FWIW, a piece of United States currency has an aspect ratio close to 2.39:1 "scope" (6.1 inches / 2.6 inches = 2.35:1). And a US business card is 1.75:1 (3.5 inches / 2 inches = 1.75:1). Or you can make a template for a quick check of the screen aspect ratio from your seat.

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 06-22-2001, 05:28 AM:

More about 34mm film in London here

------------------
Cheers, Thomas
..in70mm - The 70mm Newsletter
www.in70mm.com www.dp70.com www.70mm.dk www.hauerslev.com http://hjem.get2net.dk/in70mm