Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How to distinguish between 1.66 and 1.85

This is topic How to distinguish between 1.66 and 1.85 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=002289

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-19-2001, 09:10 AM:

Hello.

I saw on "Caring of composition" an interesting discussion.
John talked about "hard matted" prints, where frame is intentionally black surrounded so that the film is easy to frame (or hard to misframe!).
However since I became a projectinost, I wonder how to exactly distinguish between 1.66 and 1.85.
An older projectionist told me that "hard matted" frame are 1.85:1 while full frame prints are 1.66
I usually project in 1.66 almost all movies because rarely they are "hard matted".
Then I heard on this forum that 1.66 is rarely used on US movie...
On "Hannibal" cans there was a sticker with "project in 1.85 format" while film was "full framed".
What should I do? Follow the older projectionist's tip or just read on cans?

I'm sure that I'll finally have an answer!!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-19-2001, 09:25 AM:

Read what is on the print
The hard matte is usually around 1.66 to allow for it to be projected at that ratio

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 05-19-2001, 09:28 AM:

Short answer - project the current U.S. films as 1.85.

However...
Often the reason for using this ratio has less to do with creative composition than keeping boom mikes, set edges, and poorly framed shots out of the projected image.

I still remember the pleasure of screening Moroder's "Flashdance" full frame just to see the gorgious full frame composition of the bicycle shots. In some ways Griffith had the right idea in matting out sections of the image and using different areas of the screen to build a montage. The convention of starting at one aspect ratio and going all the way to the end of the film using that same ratio is one of convenience for the projectionist.

Another reason you might want to project 1.66 is subtitles. Sometimes these can require racking the framing knob slightly to get all the text, which causes the actors hair to be removed.

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 05-19-2001, 09:30 AM:

Unless it's a Stanley Kubrick film

, assume that all flat theatrical movies from the U.S. for the last forty years are intended to be projected at 1.85:1 unless noted otherwise.

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-19-2001, 11:58 AM:

It fun when you get three things.
A movie late in its run (In this case SAVE THE LAST DANCE) and the fact that you know your scope lens is shot and you have no choice but to use it. We only have four screens screens and all the movies are scope.

So during a no show of Last dance I thought
I'd file the plate the plate and align the anomorhpic, and Last Dance uses the full frame. The boom mike is in just about ever shot. Fun to whatch while playing around, but I pitty anyone who run its one perf up.

Bill.

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-19-2001, 12:26 PM:

I know that last post makes littles sense.
Just ignore it.

However, (the doubling up of words aside) it will make sense to projectionists.

What I was trying to do, was focus the c/s lens and cut the plate while there was no one in the cinema. Putting the anamorphic up during a w/s film that used full frame showed up the boom mike like Ive never seen before. So thats why they have 1.85 on release prints, to hide the boom if someone can't rack the framing to the centre.
I'll give up while I'm behind it's 3.30am.
Bill.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-19-2001, 03:49 PM:

If a "hard matte" is printed, the image height is usually at least 0.505 inches, per standard SMPTE 195. The 1.85:1 aspect ratio has a projected image area of 0.825 x 0.446 inches. The presence or absence of a "hard matte" is NOT necessarily an indicator of whether it is 1.85:1 or 1.66:1.

Probably safe to assume any "flat" major release from the USA in the last 50 years is 1.85:1, unless the leaders or print labels say otherwise. Most any sound film made before 1953 is "Academy" 1.37:1 (0.825 x 0.602 inches).

------------------
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 Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 05-19-2001, 03:56 PM:

Until I got a new trap for the Holmes 8 that I run, I saw all of my flat prints in 1:37. Everything seemed OK at first, then I noticed how many mics and grips I was seeing in the normally unseen areas on the image. One 1962 feature that I have has several people sitting among the lights laughing it up...and this is a big dramatic scene in the film.

Some of my animation features has the image stop just below the normal 1:85 image area, while the backgrounds are full frame.

The new aperture plates have changed the way films look here at the Fiasco Films Theatre. Everything is 1:85 (at least on one machine, for now) and I no longer see mics.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-19-2001, 09:08 PM:

There are lots of non-1.85 flat releases from the US, but most of these were circa late 1950s/early 1960s before 1.85 became standardized as the US "non-anamorphic widescreen" format.

"Dr. Strangelove," for example, is 1.66. Some documentaries ("Don't Look Back" comes to mind) are Academy (this applies through the present time, too, especially for stuff shot on 16mm or video). Some Disney animation is 1.75.

Basically, you sort of have to make a guess and run a reel or two to see if you guessed right. For US films, 1.85 is the logical starting point. For European films, 1.66 would make sense. Many films made in the 1950s and early 60s were intentionally composed to look reasonably good at either 1.66 or 1.85 because there were many theatres that were only equipped for one format or another.

I know of an original 1954 CinemaScope installation that, until two years ago, was showing all flat/widescreen titles at 1.75:1 because that is the format that was installed at the time of the CinemaScope conversion and it had never been updated.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 05-19-2001, 10:12 PM:

I have the 1981 laserdisc release of "The Muppet Movie" from Magnetic Video, which is a full-frame transfer and you would not BELIEVE what you can see on it- in a lot of shots you can see people's arms sticking out from under the puppets, and in the scene where the band is outside the church you can see 2 guys wearing sunglasses laying down on a roll-around board operating all the characters. I also have this movie on the dead RCA SelectaVision CED videodisc format (I collect these) and the transfer on that is zoomed-in so you don't see any of that stuff.
The rest of the Muppet films were 1.85 hard-matted- they probably heard about the first movie being run framed wrong!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-19-2001, 10:18 PM:

Did anyone even look at the video transfer before they made thousands of disks?

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-20-2001, 05:40 AM:

Thanks to all.

So I will start projecting in 1.85 all US movie and I will check leaders or cans for european movies.

Antonio

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-20-2001, 06:39 AM:

Check the leaders and cans for ALL movies, but MOST from the US will be 1.85:1.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-20-2001, 08:41 AM:

Some films have aspect ratios in their listing on the Internet Movie Database. Click on "Technical Specs" after pulling up the movie in question. I don't know reliable these listings are, though.

Posted by Antonio Marcheselli (Member # 373) on 05-20-2001, 02:23 PM:

Adam,
Yes, I saw the page on imdb.com. However I'm searching a reliable way to found how to project a movie.
I really beleived that the "hard matted" films were to projected in 1.85 and the other ones in 1.66. Now that John said me that the "hard matted" way is wrong, I think that the only way to determine the picture format of the film is the leaders/cans.
I think that imdb.com, a wonderful place where to find all kind of information, will be no more reliable rather than the "hard matted" picture way!

Bye
Antonio

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 05-22-2001, 01:59 AM:

Do NOT trust the IMDB for old rep stuff.
A lot of entries seem to have been the
work of some enthusiasts just making
a "best guess", & are not based on
firsthand knowledge or primary (or
even secondary!) research sources.

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-22-2001, 09:10 AM:

"Do NOT trust the IMDB for old rep stuff."

I agree with William. Don't trust IMDB for the answers. Sometimes they're wrong

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/