Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is it 2:35:1 or 2.39:1

This is topic Is it 2:35:1 or 2.39:1 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=003123

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-21-2002, 12:08 PM:

Is there anyway of visably checking to see if a scope print is 2.35 or 2.39?

Are all scope films now made at 2.39?

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 02-21-2002, 12:35 PM:

And if you could tell the difference, what would/could you do about it?

I think I'd be right in saying (somebody back me up/correct me here) that the SMPTE have never adopted 2.39:1 officially, it's being used as a guide by installers to reduce the occurence of flashing neg joins and that annoying flashing you see when the DTS track wanders into what really oughta be the picture area. 2.35:1 was the ratio in use way back in the days of four track mag CinemaScope.

I have a slight problem with using 2.39:1, if we use 2.39:1 to get rid of problems caused by sloppy printing, doesn't this encourage the printing to get sloppier?? Which then means we have to crop the projected image further, and before you know it we're showing 1.85:1 CinemaScope! Ok it's an exagerated example, but you see my point?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-21-2002, 01:32 PM:

Scope is officially 2.40 : 1 and has been for some 20+ years. It was originally 2.55 when CinemaScope was part of a package that included 4-track magnetic stereo. The 4-track mag-only prints (with smaller, squarish CS sprocket holes) left a bit more room for picture. The rare interlock runs were 2.66 : 1. Adding an optical track (half covered by the CENTER mag stripe) made it about 2.35 : 1. There were some minor adjustments made to width over the years and the most recent change was, as Pete has said, a slight reduction of the height to reduce showing the negative splices.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-21-2002, 01:41 PM:

I should add that no, there is no reasonable way to tell one from the other and I never heard of anyone, even the most concerned, consciencious retrospective projectionist, differentiating between 2.35 or 2.40 (or 2.39) although 2.55 is a completely different matter as the difference would be apparent. (Surely someone is going to claim otherwise but I've never heard of it.)

What you see looking at the frame has only a limited relationship with what is intended to be shown. The *only* way you'd get that sort of accuracy would be to be in possession of one of the custom framing leaders shot by the crew of that film and attached by the assistant editors to each roll of dailies as that would represent how they were judging what they shot. Even then while this would assure the correct aperture it would still not be valid for actual framing adjustment due to the slop involved in high speed bi-directional printing.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-21-2002, 02:24 PM:

Panavision recommended the AR change from 2.35 to 2.39 for optical or mag/op 'scope, yielding a projection aperture of 0.838x0.700" or 21.29x17.78mm. I think that SMPTE adopted this change in 1995 but I'm not sure (shame on me

). More recently there's been a move to standardize the width of all picture formats at 0.825" or 20.96mm. To maintain the 2.39 AR for 'scope this results in the new dimensions of 0.825x0.690" or 20.96x17.53mm. I think this is what the labs print to these days. Overall I think these changes are pretty minor and would be willing to bet that most multiplexi file their plates by more than these deltas.

I suppose if you're running lots of archive prints, you'd want to have an extra set of 'scope plates cut to the older standard...

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!
-27

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 02-21-2002, 02:59 PM:

It really depends on the print. Some will be 2.39 and some 2.35, just like some are 1.85, 1.77, or 1.66 or 1.33 or whatever. There is also the case of 2.20 (tron as far as I recall) on certain releases. Most DVD's are burned with the 2.35 standard on scope films regardless of its actual ratio, unless the producers specifically call for the correct ratio.

dave

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-21-2002, 04:50 PM:

quote:

Most DVD's are burned with the 2.35 standard on scope films regardless of its actual ratio, unless the producers specifically call for the correct ratio.

The difference in 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 wouldn't be much in terms of scan lines. 268 scan lines would be used for 2.39:1 and 272 for 2.35:1 for Laserdisc and non-anamorphic DVD. For anamorphic DVDs, 363 would be used for 2.35:1 and 357 for 2.39:1. I'd almost bet that 360 are used, since it's such a nice round number, and halfway between those values, since the resolution would be 720x360 (remember, puixels are not square on DVDs).

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2002, 01:41 AM:

I would never run an aperature out to .838 - unless I wanted to risk showing the dye line or DTS time code on the screen.

After all, .825/.690 times 2 comes up on my handy dandy TI-83 calculator as a 2.39 ratio. Moreover, the .838 x .690 comes out to 2.42 ratio.

I think 2:35 (.825 x .700) is the standard. As stated, the 2.39 was .825 X .690 and it was still active as far back as 1967. When it was dropped in favor of the 2.35, I don't know.

When I cut a scope aperature, I elect the 2:39 ratio using the .825 width. This gives .010 inches on the top and bottom as a fudge factor to play with.

Another benefit for cutting it to a 2.39 fit is it sure helps hide frame line flashes in the scope format.

The 2.35 (.825 X .700) is just too close. One mis-judged cut with the aperature file when you ary trying to run it out at .825 x .700 renders that plate useless.

Year ago, you could spend some time cutting an aperature, and then accidently goof it up with a single stroke of a file. Those mis-judged aperature plates could be simply tossed in the trash.

With today's auto lense changers, many of those aperature plates can get mighty expensive. You don't want to screw them up.

In addition, whether you are running a cinemascope print in the 2.39 or the 2.35 format, nobody will no the difference. You lose more in masking spill-over than a lousy .010 inch.

Just my buffalo's nickle worth....(That is a 4-cent nickel.)

(Only Bob Maar would understand that one.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-22-2002, 07:17 AM:

I put together a chronology of the SMPTE standards specifying the image area for "scope" for Marty Hart's American WideScreen Museum:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards. John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of 0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715 aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats became the same width of 0.825 inches.

BTW, with the current projectable area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches specified by SMPTE 195, and EXACTLY a 2X anamorphic squeeze, the on-screen aspect ratio calculates to 2.39:1.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 02-22-2002, 08:22 AM:

Thanks John!! You can always be relied upon to be a mine of information.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-22-2002, 07:11 PM:

Thanks for the history on the ratios, John. Now, I just wish one of the formats (preferably flat) would just ride off into the sunset.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-23-2002, 05:44 PM:

John,

I wish we had the same kind of time-line for cropped spherical wide screen. For a rep house like ours, trying to figure out what crop should be used when there is no hard matte and no infomation on the print itself (printed in the emulsion, not handwritten) is best informed by the film's release date. For a good number of years cropping was all over the place. My rule of this for those years, between 1955 and 1970, is to go with the less severe crop -- 1:66 unless that crop shows set gack (it almost never does). But I would love to know when 1.85 was followed in earnest.

Frank

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-23-2002, 06:42 PM:

Surely the average US domestic non-anamorphic release was well established at 1.85 long before 1970, probably before 1960. In absence of some evidence to the contrary I would presume 1.85 for the 1960's.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-23-2002, 06:56 PM:

I believe VistaVision sort of standardises the cropping of spherical prints as they had a recomended AR of between 1.66-2:1
House Of wax was recomended at 1.66:1 in the double system print

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-24-2002, 12:28 AM:

My rule-of-thumb (in the absence of other instruction) was:

Pre-1953: Use 1.37:1 unless hard-matted to something wider
1953 to Present: Use 1.85:1 for US films, 1.66:1 for Euro films

I imagine the above is probably an over-simplification. 1953 is significant as that was the year the NTSC-II met to declare war on theaters by forcing us to buy "tint" knobs for our TVs.

Mag 'scope: No choice but 2.55:1 and Fox sprockets
Other 'scope: 2.39:1

For me the delta between 2.39 and 2.35 is minor unless the client asks about it

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!
-24

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-24-2002, 10:56 AM:

Steve,

I started my career running film in commercial theatres from 1963 to 1967, after which I went into the arthouse end of the business where we have to have at least 3 non-anamorphic lens/apeture sets -- 4 if you want to do Disney correctly and 5 if you run silent. l can tell you that it was in those days when I saw those reel bands that gave the maximum and minumum aspect ratio that the theatres could use without, as they put it, "significant information being cropped" or "danger of showing extranious material."

In almost all those cases, prints were either hard matted to something very minimal, like 1.45 or not at all, i.e. full frame. Now I don't know when the SMPTE actually standardized at 1.85, but the studios certainly knew that in the real world, theatres were by no means all cropping at 1.85 and nothing else. Originally the whole cropping wide screen idea (bad as it is) was started by theatres, not the studios, simply because after they invested in CinemaScope screens, they figured why use 1.37 when we've got all that extra screen we paid for? They were cropping on pictures that were shot for 1.37.

So although it becomes fairly simple after standarization, there is that whole gray area, maybe even a little longer, where it's not so cut-and-dry.

Frank

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-24-2002, 11:34 AM:

I gladly defer to your experience at the time but as I did say "average US domestic non-anamorphic release" can you give us a few example titles of mainstream domestic (US production, major distributor, not arthouse-only) non-anamorphic films from the 1960's that are to be projected at other than 1.85?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-24-2002, 12:38 PM:

Actually cropping of sperical prints started long before the advent of cinemascope.
I remember reading a bulletin from the projection department of Leows from 1949 that they were shifting to a 1.5:1 screen aspect ration
Also Universal was pushing in the early 50 for 1.66:1
But by about 1960 the defacto standard for the ground glass in the camera in North America was 1.85:1 as the safe area

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-25-2002, 04:11 AM:

The one that comes to mind was WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF (WB). I recall that title in particular because it was one that had one of those minimum/maximum reel bands and I wasn't sure what it meant. I was only on the job for about a month and I hadn't seen this information before. I had to ask the veteran booth man what we were running....if we were between those ARs. He said we were running just about 1.66. He showed me that the print had a hard matte less than 1.66. It might have even been 1.37.

They bicycled me around the four theatre the Schulman's owned and I had taken an interest in this aspect ratio thing so I looked to see what AR each were projecting at -- all of them were different; as I recall, none were at 1.85. But, as I said, that doesn't mean the industry didn't move 1.85 more readily than theatres adapted to it. It would just be informative if we knew when exactly the SMPTE established 1.85. Also would be fun to find out how long Disney held out for 1.75 -- was it even after the SMPTE Standard or did they just fight for it during the proposal.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-25-2002, 07:39 PM:

Very interesting; I've never seen a print labeled with max and min aspect ratios.

But are you saying that 1.85 is outside the max/min specs for Virginnia Woolf? IMDb seems to think it's a 1.85 title (not that they are a reliable authority). If the studio gave you some sort of a loosy goosy aspect ratio and 1.85 is within the range then I'm not sure I am understanding your point. I thought we were looking for pictures that should *not* run at 1.85, not titles that could possibly run at other ratios.

Plus I'd wager you could run almost any 1.85 film in 1.75 if the image is there and not notice any excess headroom unless it was pointed out to you. [Even films that on the bench *look* like they are hard matted all the way down to 1.85 usually have a tiny bit of excess there. When one is precisely matted to 1.85 if you run with 100% plates even setting the framing with 35PA/RP40 will inevitably show a sliver of black top or bottom which can only be corrected by framing with the actual print.]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2002, 10:09 AM:

Standard SMPTE 195 specifies that any "hard matte" on the print should have a projectable image area at least 0.505 inches (12.83 mm) high. Of course, 1.85:1 is 0.446 inches high, and 1.66:1 is 0.497 inches high.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-27-2002, 02:38 PM:

John, is there a time-frame on that spec -- when it was first introduced (wasn't that one up for renewal a few years ago?).

Steve, as for imdb, they are worthless for any definative information about original specs -- they get much of their information from the video release and there, unfortunately, "letterboxing" has become a big marketing tool and videos are coming out where they are letterboxed films at 1.85 that clearly have clean composition right out to 1.37. Because the video is letterboxed at 1.85 is no guarantee that is true to the original intent.

Disney did that with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. The animation was shot at full frame 1.37. For the VHS release, the entire 1.37 frame is shown, while the laserdisc was "letterboxed" at 1.85. If you look at two identical frames from each side by side, you will see that the 1.85 is nothing more than the full frame image with black bands added.

I am sure that 1.85 was the maximum for WAOVW; the minimum was something like 1.55 or 1.56, I don't exactly remember, but it was under 1.66 because we were running just under 1.66 and it looked fine. If the composition of the original film was ok at 1.66 in theatres, then I would certainly opt to crop at the less severe ratio in any retrospective presentation, and also, for that matter in the video release, rather than the more severe, especially since the negs are probably full frame. I would love to get my hands on one of those old reel bands.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2002, 03:17 PM:

The standard I cited was SMPTE 195-1993. I don't have the later version (1998?).

Marty Hart's American Widescreen Museum has quite a bit of information about the evolution of aspect ratios:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/mullen.htm

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-27-2002, 06:22 PM:

Ah, but Frank, the gist of this discussion was the assertion that one could run pretty much any mainstream USA non-Scope movie from the 1960's at 1.85 with little fear of error and if 1.85 is within the spec given by the studio for your example title then you're not really contradicting the point.

John: That standard is obviously not one that is adhered to since many films are matted to a size that enforces 1.85 projection -- generally just a little taller to avoid framing errors but noticably (even to the naked eye) smaller than 1.66.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2002, 08:47 AM:

Steve Kraus said: "John: That standard is obviously not one that is adhered to since many films are matted to a size that enforces 1.85 projection -- generally just a little taller to avoid framing errors but noticably (even to the naked eye) smaller than 1.66."

Unfortunately, SMPTE Standards are VOLUNTARY. If they had the rule of law, many bad practices wouldn't be allowed.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-28-2002, 01:05 PM:

Well I must say that this is a standard the violation of which I wholeheartedly endorse. If a film was composed for 1.85 then it should be shown in something close to that ratio and if hard masking to just a tad north of that enforces proper presentation then I'm all for it. Sure, a little slop for varations in plates, lenses, weird keystones etc. is necessary but .505 inches? A filmmaker might compose a frame that looks decent at either 1.66 or 1.85 but if their intent was specifically 1.85 and they want to force it shown that way then good for them. A standard of .505 is a considerable amount of slop even beyond 1.66 and to show a 1.85-composed film taking full advantage of that standard would just destroy the composition. That's not much of a standard if it allows that to happen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-28-2002, 02:46 PM:

Steve --- like most standards, I recall the actual number of 0.505 inches was decided after discussion and compromise. My guess would be there was a desire not to "FORCE" a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and to accomodate both 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 with the hard matte. The labs may also have had a concern about "hairs in the gate" from the optical printer showing if the matte was too close to the projected image area for the more widely used 1.85:1 ratio.

Developing GOOD and WORKABLE standards is a mix of technology and compromise. I doubt PERFECT standards that EVERYONE agrees to are even possible.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-28-2002, 10:23 PM:

I realize this but IMHO there should be no standard that comprises BOTH 1.66 and 1.85 as these are different formats. There should be a standard for hard masks for both. So both heights plus a bit of slop to hide dirt and account for small framing discrepencies.

BTW, how much taller than the projection aperture is the standard for a 1.37 Academy mask, or does SMPTE advise just leaving the full Scope height on those now. The old practice seemed to be pretty close to projection height and that (AFAIK) worked ok.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-01-2002, 07:05 AM:

SMPTE 195 specifies a projectable area of 0.825 x 0.602 inches (20.96 x 15.29 mm) for the 1.37:1 aspect ratio. The "scope" image area (0.825 x 0.690 inches) should NOT be used for "Academy" aspect ratio prints, as the "Style A" camera aperture specified by SMPTE 59-1997 is only 0.866 x 0.630 inches (22.0 x 16.0 mm).

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-01-2002, 11:06 AM:

Nowadays there must also be slop allowed for to accommodate bi-directional printers. Bi-directional printing can cause a vertical shift equivalent to slop of the sprocket within the perforation. Printing 2-strip 3-D films on bi-directional printers should be banned.

Steve

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

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-01-2002, 11:21 AM:

Bi-Directional contact printers are the "workhorse" at many of the medium and smaller sized laboratories:
http://www.rti-us.com/bhp/

I agree with you that the 0.005 inch vertical shift when printing BH-1866 original onto KS-1870 print film in both directions is an issue, especially for two-strip 3D. Of course, the printers can still be consistently used in the head-to-tail mode with a rewind step for the printing original(s). Contact printers can be very steady --- I have even seen some well-maintained printers do a reasonable job combining separation exposures (obviously printing R+G+B in the same direction).

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-01-2002, 02:40 PM:

That of course begs the question as to what they do at the biggest labs. Loop the negatives through Disney-style roller cabinets?