This is topic Drive-In Aspect Ratio's - Do They Really Matter? 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=004267

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 12-02-2002, 09:16 AM:
 
We are getting ready to place the order on our screen towers for the drive-in, and have several different quotes - each for a different size screen or aspect ratio.

I've seen many drive-in screens built with a fixed 2:1 ratio, but I know that crops a scope image a bit. If we had a true 2.39:1 screen ratio, and showed a FLAT image upon it, it would leave a black border about 6 feet on each side of the image but fill the entire height of the screen. The only drawback is that the patrons could see that the image isn't entirely filling the screen, and may percieve that they aren't really getting the "BIG" picture they were expecting.

So the question is: Do we order a 2:1 ration screen and loose (crop) a couple of feet of the image, and totally fill the screen with a FLAT image and loose nothing, OR order a true 2.39:1 ratio screen, and fill it completely with a SCOPE image, and end up with a smaller projected FLAT picture?

There's not really enough difference in price of the towers to justify one over the other?
 

---

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 12-02-2002, 09:22 AM:
 
Personally, I would go for fixed 2.39 screen an run a smaller flat image since it is harder to get light trough that small hole anyway, without damaging the film.

Josh
 

---

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 12-02-2002, 09:45 AM:
 
I agree with Josh here, plus I think that you should try to show the film at, or as close as possible to, the correct aspect ratio.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-02-2002, 10:09 AM:
 
I've worked at two drive-in's with 2.35 screens and have never had a complaint about not filling the entire screen while running a flat picture. Just make sure that you file the 1.85 plates so that the picture is square on the screen.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-02-2002, 12:27 PM:
 
Barry, Selby will try to sell narrow screens everytime because it has something to do with their material usage. I can attest from rote experience that a scope image on a 2:1 screen is more than a little cropped. And flat on those screens look like something is wrong yet. I would get the next size up of a narrow screen, and then just paint out the bottom to mask a correct scope ratio.
 

---

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 12-02-2002, 12:51 PM:
 
Barry,

Debrean and I have visted about 270 drive-in theatres and seen films presented at over 80 drive-ins during the past 12 years so we've seen a lot of different screens. Some were built 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 and quite a few were built at a 2:1 ratio. We've even seen a few that were never added to after the advent of CinemaScope and still are "flat" screens even though we've seen scope films shown on them.

In my opinion, the ends of a scope screen when unlit during the projection of a 1.85:1 image is not that noticeable in an outdoor setting. I doubt that most drive-in customers even pay attention to the fact that part of the screen is unused during a flat picture or not masked like many indoor screens are. In fact, now that I'm a projectionist myself I sometimes wonder how I could have missed the fact that favorite non-anamorphic films shown at drive-ins during my youth didn't fill the giant screen edge-to-edge. While it's something I think about now that I have some involvement in the industry, I never paid any attention prior to training in a booth. My guess is that most people would fall into that same category.

Too much cropping is obviously a different story. I've seen a few drive-ins that use focal length lenses that are too short when doing 1.85:1 presentations. This of course results in cropping and I find that to be very noticeable. One drive-in manager explained to us that they did that because they wanted their patrons to enjoy the largest image they could provide, even with a flat picture. While I appreciated his attempt at showmanship, it just didn't work since the cropping was obvious.

This past summer we saw "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron" properly presented at one drive-in and then severely cropped at another. I noticed that the characters' eyes and foreheads kept disappearing off the top of the screen at the second drive-in, something that I think would have been noticeable even if I had not already seen the film properly presented. "Stallion" was followed at the second theatre by "The Sum of All Fears" and the subtitles used when the russians spoke disappeared off the right side of the screen. I have also seen a drive-in that used a flat lens that was too long and it resulted in white screen at the top and bottom as well as on both sides. That made be feel cheated more than having unfilled screen just at the sides. Fortunately, the last time I was there they had swiched to a proper focal length lens.

To get back to your original question, It has been my observation that a 2:1 aspect ratio screen at a drive-in, while not preferrable to a 2.35:1 screen, is usually not too noticeably short for scope pictures as long as the proper focal length lens is used to give the proper height, top to bottom. However, if you can do the 2.35:1 screen, I think that would be the way to go. I wouldn't worry about the unused edges during flat presentations.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-02-2002, 01:43 PM:
 
Why isn't it common (or is it?) for drive-in screens to utilize adjustable masking the way indoor/walk-in theaters have? If moveable masking (either manual or electronic) were used then certainly this screen size/aspect ratio dilemma wouldn't be a dilemma at all.
 

---

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 12-02-2002, 02:10 PM:
 
I'm sure Tim is right about there being substantial image loss when a scope picture is shown on a 2:1 screen. I guess that since most of the action takes place in the center of the frame the loss of the stuff at the ends probably isn't as noticeable in a lot of films.

As far as masking on a drive-in screen, I've seen a few outdoor screens with fixed top and bottom masking but none with moveable side masking. I'm guessing that expense, potential problems with exposure to the elements for motorized units, and the hassles of manually moving side masking have prevented drive-ins from using side masking.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-02-2002, 02:15 PM:
 
"Caring About Composition" does matter, even in a drive-in:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

IMHO, the aspect ratio of the screen should be 2.39:1, and you should fill it with the scope image. For 1.85:1 flat, fill the height of the screen and no one will complain about the side bars. Cropping the image (e.g., showing "flat" as 2.00:1) just loses light efficiency.

Showing movies at the intended aspect ratio and composition are important parts of "Film Done Right".
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-02-2002, 02:59 PM:
 
Since I'm considered to be the local "aspect ratio police" at the theatres here in my area :-) , I would definitely go with the 2.39:1 screen and file the flat plate to have a 1.85:1 image centered on the 2.39:1 screen while keeping the left and right edges as sharp and straight-looking as possible.

2.00:1 is a terrible aspect ratio to use if you plan to fill it for every movie. I always found the vertical cropping on flat films on those types of screens to be more objectionable to cropping scope to 2.00:1 since many flat films have very little leeway for further cropping to ratios larger than 1.85:1.

Showing a movie in the correct aspect ratio with part of the screen unused is a lesser evil than enlarging and cropping to an incorrect screen aspect ratio. I know that it's unreasonable to expect a drive-in to have adjustable screen masking, so this is the best compromise.

Fortunately, our "1.85:1-only" problem in two thirds of our Regal auditoriums here in Huntsville is supposedly being fixed this month. (Keeping my fingers crossed). It'll be great to be able to watch a scope movie in any auditorium and see the whole image instead of 77 percent of it after that work is done. (Top/bottom masking is a lesser evil than no masking at all and a 1.85:1-only screen.)
 

---

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-02-2002, 03:20 PM:
 
I just want to add my support to what has been said here. NEVER crop the picture. You will be cheating your customers and presenting it in a different aspect ratio than was intended when the film was made. The one thing a theatre (even a drive-in) can do that TV is not yet doing (in most situations) is present the image and sound as was intended which is an excellent selling point for your ozoner. Good luck friend.
 

---

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 12-02-2002, 04:22 PM:
 
My gut instinct was to go with the 2.39:1 to begin with, and most all of you seem to agree.

At the Drive-In Owners Conference back in February of '02, we all drove down to a member's Florida Drive-In to watch a couple of shows. Black Hawk Down had numerous scenes that featured sub-titles, and all of them were unreadable as they were cropped off the screen.
I had never noticed this before at a drive-in, but then again, I don't see too many films with sub-titles either.

Thanks to all for the replies, we'll go with the 2.39:1 screens.... now we just have to decide who to build them.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-02-2002, 06:08 PM:
 
Huh. You'd think they would have framed it up and cut off the top of the image...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-02-2002, 06:11 PM:
 
There you go Barry! Having thought about it now, full scope is the way to go. Despite a possible perception problem with flat films "not filling the screen", a scope screen is the only way to show all films including flat "as big as you can" and properly. I don't even mind scope "letterboxed" top and bottom on a 2:1 screen, at least I'm seeing the whole film, but these guys who "fill it" look really bad when you can't read the opening credits or subtitles flying off into the night. Bottom line, we're the ones paying for it, and it'll bug the crap out of me to do it wrong....
 

---

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 12-02-2002, 07:04 PM:
 
Barry,

You won't regret showing films in the correct ratio. More and more films are shot "on the line" and if you are cheating it shows.

--Chris
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-03-2002, 10:02 AM:
 

quote:

---

Despite a possible perception problem with flat films "not filling the screen", a scope screen is the only way to show all films including flat "as big as you can" and properly.

---

Make a little half-page-sized handout that you give to your customers that explain that there are two commonly-used movie formats, and that your screen has the shape of the wider format, since it isn't feasible to put movable side masking on a large outdoor screen. Show a diagram of a 2.39:1-sized rectangle and a 1.85:1-sized rectangle and show how each look on your screen.

Most customers are not aware of proper movie aspect ratios and few know that there are different aspect ratios for movies! It wouldn't hurt to educate them a little!

Making such a handout would take little effort and wouldn't cost much. If you printed 3 vertically in landscape mode on a piece of paper, with a laser printer and just one ream of paper (500 pages), you could make 1500 of the things.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-03-2002, 10:52 AM:
 
In all my years of running drive-in booths, no one ever complained about the flat image on a scope screen. I had been asked a couple of times why the picture filled the screen sometimes and not others, but no one ever complained. After all, it's been commonplace (in drive-ins) since 1954. I think everyone already knows -- particularly since TV has increasingly used letterboxing.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-03-2002, 09:20 PM:
 
2.39 is the way to go.
 

---

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 12-03-2002, 11:05 PM:
 
Most drive-in theatres in my experience have a 2.0:1 or 2.2:1 aspect ratio. Full c/s ratio is obviously preferred, but 1.85 cropped top and bottom to fill one of these aspect ratios is a no-no. Not only is the image cropped top and bottom, the inefficient light of the w/s ratio makes the image look all the more lifeless in a drive-in. Scope always looks better at a drive-in even with 2.0 or 2.2:1 screens.

Black masking either top, bottom or sides always ads a direct contrast to any screen and is partcularly effective in a drive-in. Shame to build a nice big screen then cut down it's projected image size with black paint masking though.

Whilst on the subject of drive-ins, who in the US still sells new drive-in speakers? The last outlet in Australia has dried up.

David
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2002, 03:51 AM:
 
The obvious solution is to get a 2.39 screen. The even more obvious solution is to refuse to show those crappy 1.85 movies.

Here's a tip if your drive in permits it. Many drive in booths are a small 2nd story room on top of a larger ground level concession/office/restroom area. If yours is like this and you can actually walk out a ways on the roof in front of your booth window on top of the main level, then get yourself some 2x4s and make a left and right masking guard. (Essentially this is like building two vertical poles that are heavily braced on the bottom so they cannot tip over.) Place this at least 15 feet in front of the booth window. The farther away you place it, the better the effect. Now open up your 1.85 plate to the absolute extreme edges you can get away with, but no so much that you are revealing dts timecode or the edge of the picture on the right. Now put your poles in place and your resulting edges to your 1.85 image will be razor sharp, just like a matted 1.85 image on a scope print.

Here is what I mean. Look for the two red poles...



Randy, did I read your post correctly? You sat Spirit TWICE???
 

---

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-04-2002, 07:21 AM:
 
David, apparently SPECO still makes 'em. Short of that, have all the manufacturers destroyed the moulds?????

SPECO
709 North 6th Street
Kansas City, KANSAS
66101 USA
913-321-3978
 

---

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 12-04-2002, 09:50 AM:
 
Brad,

Yes, I must confess, I did have to sit through "Spirit" twice. We saw it at one of the drive-ins we attend regularly and then went to check out another drive-in, in another state, that we had never visited. They just happened to also be showing "Spirit," as their first feature.

With as many drive-ins as we see, we often run into the same features at many of them. I think we saw "Twister" about five or six times at drive-ins when it came out (no complaints ). Often we run into the same double feature combo at drive-ins. That's when we have to remind ourselves that we're there to see the theatre, not the movie. It really helps when we know the owner and they invite us to help out in the booth or somewhere else behind the scenes. That way we don't have to keep enduring the same films over and over!
 

---

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 12-04-2002, 05:31 PM:
 
Dave is right, SPECO does still sell the RCA speaker w/cord unpainted for a listed $18.50 dealer price. It is item 9154-U. They still have some parts for RCA/and Circlite Junctions,Transformers,Speakers, and misc. Also still have some lighting (aisle lights,exit lights,ramp lights,etc.) The above address is correct. Tel: (913) 321-3978, 1-800-633-5913.

Hope that helps!
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-05-2002, 03:15 PM:
 

quote:

---

Barry Floyd wrote:
My gut instinct was to go with the 2.39:1 to begin with, and most all of you seem to agree.

At the Drive-In Owners Conference back in February of '02, we all drove down to a member's Florida Drive-In to watch a couple of shows. Black Hawk Down had numerous scenes that featured sub- titles, and all of them were unreadable as they were cropped off the screen.
I had never noticed this before at a drive-in, but then again, I don't see too many films with sub- titles either.

Thanks to all for the replies, we'll go with the 2.39:1 screens.... now we just have to decide who to build them.

---

quote:

---

John Hawkinson wrote:
Huh. You'd think they would have framed it up and cut off the top of the image...

---