Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screen Ratio

This is topic Screen Ratio 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=002094

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 03-28-2001, 06:54 PM:

What is the most common screen ratio?

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 03-28-2001, 09:44 PM:

The two common screen ratios in use today are :

1 height to 1.85 width (called FLAT)

1 height to 2.39 width (called SCOPE)

These are not the only screen ratios used, but for wide-release, first-run, American movies these are all you will need. Neither of these is more common than the other, it seems to run in cycles as to which is more prevelant at any given time. Hope this helps!

-Mike

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-28-2001, 09:57 PM:

I run an art house so I need a few more lenses to show more film ratio's.

We have 1.37:1 for old films like black and white films shot before the 1960s.

We have 1.66:1 to show foreign films shot in that ratio.

We have 1.85:1 and Cinemascope or 2.35:1 for all of our domestic releases.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 06:59 AM:

For a really good history of film formats, check out Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum" at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com .

Today, the trend seems to be that well over half (60-70 percent?) of the US pictures are composed for 1.85:1 "flat". (Unfortunately, the "flat" format is sometimes chosen only because it requires less severe "pan and scan" or letterboxing when the movie is released on video). "Scope" pictures with an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 may either be shot with anamorphic camera lenses, or in "Super-35", with the anamorphic squeeze done on an optical printer when making the duplicate negative.

Caring About Composition
Format Options

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 03-29-2001, 08:02 AM:

The majority of US multiplexes have the two lens turret for 1.85:1(flat) and 2.35:1 (scope) formats, because these are the standard US formats. (For those who use the extra lens for the 1.66:1 format of foreign releases, congratulations for your professionalism and belief of perfect presentation)

Here you MUST have an extra flat lens (and appropriate gate) for the 1.66:1 format since it is the standard flat European format, not to mention of course our domestic releases.
The three lens turret sould not be an option. I say "should not" because many theatres (including the new foreign based multiplexes) are projecting 1.66:1 croped to 1.85.

Regards,
Christos.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-29-2001, 10:16 AM:

The other day I was watching AMC and they ran this short just before "The Dirty Dozen" It was an orchestra/symphony film. What was interesting is that it was letterboxed and had a "scope" ratio, but as things approached the edges of the screen they got very skinny while in the center they were normal looking. The orchestra leader if framed way over on the edge looked like anamorphic film through a flat lens. Severe distortion! What's up with that?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-29-2001, 01:03 PM:

I wouldn't say that the "majority" of US theatres use lens turrets, although I agree that most recently-built multiplexes do have them and are set up for only 1.85 and scope.

Lens turrets are nice if you only show two formats, but they would be more trouble than they're worth for theatres that have more lenses than spaces in the turret.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-29-2001, 01:49 PM:

With the usual availability of trailers in both "flat" and "scope" versions, is it really necessary to automate the lens change with a turret? I would think that a turret would not hold the lens as perfectly in position as a solid, non-moving, lens mount.

Or are you often forced to show "flat" trailers and snipes with a "scope" movie, and vice-versa? Since many theatres buy the turret and aperture changer option, there must be a real or perceived need.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-29-2001, 02:46 PM:

John,

The short answer is we run Flat trailers with Flat films and Scope trailers with Scope films.

At our 5-plex we have manual masking so that is why we don't mix ratios. We have three machines with manual lens turrets and two machines with fixed lens mounts. In my years of experience, I have found lens turrets to be good lens mounts. They do need periodic adjustments though. I have had older Strong lens turrets become loose and need tightening. The usual symptom is a slow side-to-side weaving of the image. Up and down is usually the gate and side-to-side is usually the turret.

When I worked at a large 10-plex with Century's and Kelmar turrets and at a 12-plex with Strong's and Strong turrets I didn't like to mix the trailer ratios either. Even though the Kelmar turret changed in 3 seconds. The Strong turrets took 20 seconds to change. You had to include black mylar. That theatre also had half the auditoriums with scissor masking. So if you ran flat trailers with a scope movie and then moved it to one of the smaller auditoriums, the customers invariably came out to complain that the screen just got smaller! So we just made it policy then and there that we only show trailers in the same aspect ratio as the feature. Yes, there were some exceptions to the rule, but aren't there always?

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 03-29-2001, 03:44 PM:

On occassion when my theatre has a lot of flat movies, we have to run scope screenvisions with them.

Steven Gorsky

------------------
Projectionist

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 03-29-2001, 05:51 PM:

I would have to think that part of the reason we see so many turret sales these days is because of the manufacturers. They seem to be offering it as a "standard" package deal. Can you even buy a new Simplex without a turret? Looking through all the Strong manuals and catalogs I have, recent ones anyway, I can't find any without. I attempt to never mix formats on a feature due to the problems mentioned above and the fact that my Craftsman garage door opener masking only works on the first try about half of the time.

On a side note : wasn't the 2.35 to 1 SCOPE standard replaced by 2.39 to 1 a few years ago? I had read somewhere here that this was done to help better cover the framelines or some such.

-Mike

Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 03-29-2001, 06:08 PM:

Another reason theatre chains like lens turrets is that it makes it easier for them to staff the booth with unskilled (cheap) people. They don't have to worry about uncaring projectionists dropping lenses. And if a poorly trained operator accidentally starts the show in the wrong format, it's an easy fix. Just push the magic button and the picture on screen looks normal again.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-29-2001, 06:09 PM:

Greg; I think I saw that short subject also, it was a Cinemascope demo film for the public to see before a main feature. I think it was made right about the time Cinemascope came out, and show distortions in the few lenses they had at the time.

Mike; Yes, SMPTE suggested changing from 2.35 to 2.39 (aperture opening is 0.690 x 0.825.) JP did a past search (which you can read at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com) and it shows the "history" of changes.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 03-30-2001, 08:46 AM:

Michael; Strong still makes single-lens versions of the Simplex, Century and Ballantyne, though the turret versions of the projectors are far more prevalent in sales for today's world of multiplex cinemas. The single lens systems generally go into screening rooms and such, or to retrofit into two-projector changeover houses.

Turret systems are the most popular, though, and there are advantages to them even in manually operated cinemas. Due to volume, the price difference between turret and non-turret versions is not all that much.

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 03-30-2001, 04:11 PM:

Scott,
When I said turrets, yes, I had in mind multiplexes, convenience and the use of automation. And certainly automation works better with fewer changes ie fewer lenses.
If you run the show manually utilization or not of a turret sustem is not a subject.

For new installations, and where Kinoton equipement is used I prefer the three lens turret system which I find very reliable and steady.

Christos.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-30-2001, 09:52 PM:

Just about all of the projectors made today can have single lens holders instead of turrets...about 90% of all our installations are with single lens projectors regardless of manufacturer and most have more than just the basic Flat/Scope.

In fact, the Simplex PR-1014 has even been improved a bit in the last couple of years....the intermittent shoe is now mounted on a sub-assembly so it can be more precisely adjusted to mate up with the intermittent once the gate closure depth has been properly optimized. With single lens systems, you can still get one of my favorite options, the fire douser...if the machine isn't running up to speed...no light passes though.

As to the advantages of turrets....

Sure there is concern over dropping lenses but how about people installing the lenses correctly or twisting the scope attachment as they slam and twist the lens into prosition?

With turrets you can adjust for keystoning to some degree without a PC adapter so both or all three images are centered. If you have top only masking (not that I am advocating the practice) you can accomodate the shift in vertical center with the turret.

I much prefer single lens machines and all of the turrets advantages can be negated with the appropiate apparatus with the single lens and a competent operator.

However, it is not the manufacturers that are "pushing" the turrets on the exhibitors it is the exhibitors that buy what they feel suits them best and the manufacturers are simply supplying what they want. If the exhibitors want turrets, then the manufacturers will make turrets...it is that simple.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 03-31-2001, 07:29 AM:

It seems I have mispoken myself, to judge by the umbrage taken at my earlier post. I did not intend to portray manufacturers as "pushing" the turret design down our throats. I was just mentioning that it had been a long time since I had seen a new single-lens projector installed and was curios as to whether they were still made on a regular basis.

-Mike

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-31-2001, 01:47 PM:

Also, it was only recently that trailers were widely-made avaiable in both flat and scope. Also, policy and company logo snipes may have been done in only one format.

I do think the advantages of turrets make them a worthwhile purchase.

I do not know why on the Simplex with a turret, you don't get the safety-fire shutter. To me, it is a very important feature, especially with less-experienced people in the booth. I'm guessing that when they tried to fit the auto aperture changer in there, the safety-fire shutter was in the way. I feel it should have been retained, regardless of any engineering problems.

Posted by Steffan Laugharne (Member # 800) on 04-08-2001, 10:14 AM:

Greetings All

I have been involved with cinema in the UK for the last 20 years. Nearly every multiplex in the UK has a twin turret. Over here, screen advertising (Pearl & Dean / Carlton Screen Advertising) is exhibited before the trailers. All screen advertising is in 1.85:1. Occasionally we get 'scope trailers attached to the start of features, but in the majority of cinemas, they are removed, and a non-anamorphic version is substituted in the 'ads and trailers' package. Even the American company National Amusements, who have about 15 theatres in the UK follow the 'UK norm' of screening advets prior to the trailers. I guess the revenue makes it all worth while. I know, when I used to run the cinema at my University we used to get about £7000 a year for screening ads. How come this doesn't occur in the States? Or does it? I'd be interested to hear your comments.

Steff

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-08-2001, 02:00 PM:

Steffan-

Many theatres run slides before the feature. some even run rolling stock ads, but they aren't nearly as good as the ones made for the British cinema. I sort of like your system.

I run a 5-screen art house and we don't run any ads at all. With our fine tradition of advertising on television we feel that we provide a refuge from the advertising world. Our patrons tell us that they appriciate this. We do run trailers for our upcoming films.