Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cinema shows Flat film in Scope

This is topic Cinema shows Flat film in Scope - Nobody notices! 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=004295

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 12-10-2002, 07:01 PM:

It's amazing what some cinemas can get away away with!

A few weeks ago I got a call at work from another local cinema, a single screen part time site. It was the new manager/projectionist in a bit of a panic (I think he only had a few weeks on the job)! He asked me whether 'Mr Deeds' was a flat or scope film. When I said it was flat, he just kind of made this anguished groan and said 'shit' a lot! So I asked what was up, and he tells me that the cans said scope, so he started in scope. I asked him how long it has been running like that and how busy the house was, and he said he'd been running 20 minutes and it was a fairly busy show!!

So naturally my advice was to stop, change plates and lenses, etc. And now! I can't remember at the moment the machine they use, but it's one of the ones where the plate drops into the gate vertically, so you can't change on the fly. Anyway, he hangs up, hopefully I'm thinking to set things right.

Since this particular cinema is in the town I live, and about two minutes from my house, I dropped in on my way home that night to see how it went and to find out why such an arse-up happened. When I arrived I went straight up to the booth to check the cans. I saw straight away what his confusion was about the cans - You know how on some cans both ratios are marked, then one is scored out leaving the correct ratio? Well this is one of those cans where none of the ratios were scored out. So he saw 1.85 on one side and SCOPE on the other - he probably didn't know what the hell 1.85 meant, and saw SCOPE so he figured it was scope. Like I said, he was only about two weeks into the job.

So after I left the booth, I went to find this guy to find out how he solved the problem - This is the real killer here guys! Apparently he phoned the Manager, who was on holiday, explained the problem and the manager said - Carry on with the show!

So, That night, the audience were treated to a showing of 'Mr Deeds' with scope plates and lenses in, the entire film!

And you know what? Not ONE of the audience noticed a thing, or at least didn't mention it as the guy made a point of hanging about as the audience left in case there were any complaints!

AMAZING what some places can get away with!

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-10-2002, 07:26 PM:

The audience, being Adam Sandler fans, probably thought it was supposed to be that way.... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-10-2002, 07:42 PM:

I have heard of a theatre in Pasadena, CA that was running 'Mission:Impossible' for who knows how long with the flat lens, no anamorphic!!! [Eek!]

-Aaron

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-10-2002, 07:50 PM:

Well, granted that this kind of fuck up never should have been made, in a case like this you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

So you blew it when you didn't double check the film format before the show started. People are going to have to see at least some of the movie in the wrong format. On turret mounted lenses, you can quickly switch lenses/apertures and there's only about a 5 second interruption.
It still counts as an interruption and it should be noted as such in the booth log book but it's a minor one.

Now, when you don't have a turret projector the thing gets more complicated. If you have one like a Simplex where it only takes a second to swap apertures and maybe 10 seconds to swap lenses you're still in about the same position... Bite the bullet, make the swap and log it.

When you have a projector that you can't quickly swap lenses/apertures on, you're in a pickle. If it was me, I'd stop the machine, make the switch and take the blame from the customers. If any of them complained I'd make good with a rain check, etc. (We had one manager who would sign the rain checks and make the projectionist give them to the customers if it was his fault!)

All that, having been said, one thing that could have been done was for the projectionist (manager?) to monitor the movie for a minute before walking away from the projector. Maybe, just maybe, he could have caught the mistake in the previews, BEFORE the feature began!

I have an unwritten rule that I believe even the most stalwart can live by: "You are allowed ONE mistake IF you catch it before the previews end."

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-10-2002, 07:51 PM:

Once upon a time, I was at an 8-plex in a town where we had a 3-plex subrun house. A group of our employees went to the 3-plex on a Sunday night to watch a show that had played at our theater a few months prior. Reels 3 and 4 were reversed, so the film played out of order the entire weekend. Without complaints. Go figure. I don't remember what the film was, but it was a busy one for that theater.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-10-2002, 09:12 PM:

"Star Trek 6", Cinemark Movies 12 in Springfield, Friday night sellout crowd in their THX house (which was a joke but that's another story). Feature starts and I realize immediately that they're using the flat lens (I am so smart). I was with a group of friends and didn't want to make a scene, and I figured the booth would fix it right away, so I didn't say anything. Well, the credits finished and the action started, and everything was obviously squished on the screen, but not 1 person said anything or got up and reported it. I finally reported it and they fixed it right away (screen went dark for a couple seconds), but I have no doubt that the rest of the audience thought the intrepid crew of the Enterprise was just caught in some kind of wormhole or reverse-tachyon field or something and that's how it was supposed to look...

Posted by Mike Rendall (Member # 1499) on 12-11-2002, 05:11 AM:

The worst thing I had was just the other day, I was showing a Czech movie (Little Otik) which was in full frame flat. It was marked up as 1.85:1 on the reels and hence I played it in that -except- that the subtitles were right at the bottom of the frame, so it was a choice, either play it so you can see the subtitles, or play it so you can see the heads..

I chose the subtitles, I had a few complaints from the audience (It is a film society so nearly all people think they know everything about films). The really really really annoying thing is, that the euro lens that I have had on back order arrived the day after!!

The thing is that many cinemas I know only have two lenses, flat and scope, so how do they get away with this. For a full complement of supported ratios, we did have lenses for the following ratios 35mm 1.33:1 (std), 1.66:1 (Euro), 1.75:1 (UK Widescreen), 1.85:1 (US Widescreen), 2.39:1 (Cinemascope). As we are in a new venue with a new machine we have had to order loads of new lenses including 70mm!

I suppose many theatres don't show too many non-blockbuster films so only need flat and scope, In the UK when you show foreign films you generally need the full complement.

Mike

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 12-11-2002, 05:46 AM:

A little off the subject, but I've noticed that some of the new 16:9 TV's STRETCH the 4:3 standard programs to fill the screen! [Mad]

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 12-11-2002, 05:55 AM:

SNAP!
We had a couple of screenings of LITTLE OTIK about 6 months ago, the projectionist who made it up thought we would get away with it in 1.85:1 [Roll Eyes]

.
He didn't think to warn me and when i came on screen it was plainly obvious, so all i could do at the time was rack it up for the subtitles, i hung around after the screening and explained to those who complained and handed out comp's.
Luckily we had another screening a week later, so i rang around and borrowed a lens for STD and used our scope aperture, it looked great, a minor satisfaction after the embarrassment of before [Embarrassed]

On another occasion, at another cinema, we had a projectionist who made up THE USUAL SUSPECTS in the wrong order for a once only screening, the manager at the time thought that we'll see what happens...out of over 200 people only two complained (seen it before), so the management hushed it up and quietly gave the ones who noticed comps. There were a few staff members in the audience (film buffs) who came out raving about how great the film was, we told them about the mix up though.
The projectionist got a written warning for that one (he had done it before) [Roll Eyes]

.
Yes i have mixed up a film before, my famous STAR TREK FESTIVAL DEBACLE [Embarrassed]

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-11-2002, 08:46 AM:

Given the above listed experiences, what are people's opinions on "test-screenings" of new prints? In my 20-plex, I would receive between 2-10 new prints per week and always worked my hardest to have them screened by staff before Friday (or Wednesday for early releases). There were a few different ways we did this, but what ended up being the best method was:

Build up as soon as the print arrives. We received prints from ETS (Fox, Paramount, New Line, Warner Bros.) two days before release and Technicolor came in the day before release. This way not all movies (usually) had to be built/screened the same night. This also helped us order any trailers that were not enclosed/shipped and were supposed to be.
Try and screen the print in the house it was playing in. We had 10 SDDS houses and 10 Dolby houses, so this would help us make sure the soundtrack playing on Friday/Wednesday was the same that was screened. Also helped avoid an extra print move.
Only one staff member allowed per screening until all are taken. Often we would have 50 people in something like Star Wars and nobody wanting to watch something like Crossroads. It seems a bit mean, but I always tried to BEG someone to switch over before I put my foot down and wouldn't start the stacked movie until the unpopular one was started.

I cannot imagine my booth running as smoothly as it did without those screenings. So many reels I found mislabeled, aspect ratios printed incorrectly, scratches here and there, etc. and I was often able to get a new reel/what I needed by opening day. Of course, in a booth with trainees and less time for hands-on print inspection I imagine this to be even more valuable.
My first make-up I built The Messenger: Joan of Arc with reels 5-7 swapped. I was actually the one screening the print and almost couldn't tell myself that the storyline was out of order. The way the reels were cut it just made it seem like a sort of flash-back/forward. Upon investigation, the reel leader was mislabeled. From that moment on I knew I was going to LOVE Technicolor. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-11-2002, 09:07 AM:

IMDb describes Otesánek ("Little Otik") as 1.37 : 1.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 12-11-2002, 09:57 AM:

Isn't STD (standard) another name for 1.37:1, or are you referring to something else [Confused]

Posted by Mike Rendall (Member # 1499) on 12-11-2002, 11:39 AM:

1.3x :1 is standard. We (as of yet) do not have a standard lens, although thinking about it, I could have used the scope backing lens and scope gate after removing the anamorph....... [thumbsup]

That would have been much better than playing it though in USWs.

Ah, Hindsight is a blessed thing.

With regards to the other posters comments about test screening, we only show a film once (occasionally twice if it is a big feature). We hand inspect all reels for damage and every splice is checked and if necessary remade so that the feature would technically be perfect. We also do not have the luxury of having the theatre outside of presentation hours due to the multipurpose aspect. But in the case I mentioned above it would have been better. I was a little rushed when I spooled it and the fact that all the reel cans had been shattered (It looks like it had been literally dropped off the back of a lorry). This is one of the main problems with art house features in the UK, there are normally only one or two prints available after its initial release and these do the rounds for years and obviously it only takes one badly trained operator to completely ruin the print. (as was our case).

anyway, not wanting to moan too much, it did look like it had been film guarded as it was silent though the gate and the picture in the middle of the reels was spot on.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-11-2002, 01:24 PM:

When the AMC Hamilton played Gosford Park last winter, the trailer pack included a flat/letterboxed trailer for The Rookie. The booth staff didn't check the leader and/or the rating card before adding the trailer.

Yes, the rating card comes off at AMC, but if you see a squeezed rating card when you build a trailer pack you should know the trailer is scope.

This also happens in converse. On opening day of Jackie Brown (flat ratio) the General Cinema Bridgewater Commons ran it with a scope trailer for Palmetto. [Embarrassed]

That was Xmas Day 1997.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 12-11-2002, 02:43 PM:

We had Shrek playing and I looked in on it after the trailers went threw, and some how it switched lens (scope). So I switched it back and walked away. I got a call from management saying Shrek "looked funny". So I ran back, checked it, everything fine. 5 minutes went by and another call about Shrek looking funny. Checked it and it was ok.

Another 5 minutes passed and again same call about Shrek. So my manager came into booth and asked what's wrong? I told him about the lens switch and now everything was fine. He told me to switch back to scope format, thinking the customer thinks shrek is shown in scope, instead of flat. I switched back to scope and no more complaints.

How funny is that. [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-11-2002, 03:28 PM:

IMHO, "test screenings" are a good idea, as there are problems that aren't always caught during inspection on a rewind or while making the film up onto the platter.

Theatre personnel should be paid for test screenings if it is part of their job responsibilities. One way to get free "inspectors" is to recruit mature, technically astute, audience members to watch the film in their own "private screenings" in exchange for filling out a comprehensive report on the technical quality of the print and sound presentation (similar to a THX TAP evaluation). Reward them if they find and report any significant problem, perhaps with a pass for a regular show.

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-11-2002, 06:10 PM:

Just for information.... as the appature plate slotted in vertically it's either a BTH or Kalee projector, more likly a Kalee 18, 19 or 20/21. Can't recall if the Ross were similar?. Scotland has a lot of older projectors still running happily.

Shame some of the operators don't have the same performance of the equipment they use...... so what else is new?

Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 12-11-2002, 06:16 PM:

Hi Andy,

I used to work for Kingsway Entertainments who owned the Kingsway Galashiels, Ross GC3 if I'm not mistaken..... How's things going up there cold enough for you [Smile]

Is the Kingsway still going?

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-11-2002, 06:21 PM:

Jeff -- I noticed that on 16x9 TVs as well. Was at a friends house who has one, and we were watching "The Mexican" (a scope film) which was the pan N Scan version, which he CROPPED OFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM so it would fit his 16x9 TV's screen all the way. Talk about a strange-looking film!!

I also hate those store displays that have the 1.33 image STRETCHED to fit the 16x9 TV. I asked a store employee about it (mistake) and he said that "HDTV is just like that." Yeah, that makes me want to buy one real quick!!

Back on the topic of Cinema Screwups, we ran "Waking Ned Devine" which was in Scope. Someone had, for some reason, stuck a lens-change cue on the policy. Policy runs through, film turns to flat. The first complaint was almost a week after it had been running in this manner.

=TMP=

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-11-2002, 06:36 PM:

Actually it kind of makes sense. The eye and brain are always working together to "normalize" what we see. Our vision automatically "white balances" whatever light temp environment we are in without us barely noticing -- we walk in from blue-heavy outdoor light to yellow-heavy incandescent indoor light and our brain still keeps whites looking white. We look at things from an angle and our eye "normalizes" the geometric distortion so that we are not disorientated by the trapizodial lines that we see where there should be parallel straight lines.

It is the same when we watch a movie. If we are sitting to the far left or right of center, the picture is geometrically distorted, yet we adjust quite readily to it -- the brain telling us this is "normal" looks like. Years ago I worked for a production house which used to telecine scope motion pictures "as is," with the anamorphic squeeze left in. On playback, the resultant anamporphic video image could be letterboxed by decreasing the vertical gain and thus retaining the full scan line compliment of the raster (and thus giving an apparent increase in resolution by the more tightly packed lines); this was a much better solution than the conventional letterboxing which uses much less of the raster, wasting image resolving lines.

The point is, we used to watch the compressed "scope" image on the monitors for length of the entire film, but what was so amazing was that within less than 5 or 10 minutes, the eye and brain seemed to normalize that distorted, squeezed picture and actually made it seem normal. In fact, if we switched to the correct ratio (i.e., compressed vertically to compensate for the anamorphic squeeze), the undistorted picture looked too "fat" and unnatural, until the eye and brain we were able to re-adjust to the normal image. So it doesn't surprise me that few in an audience will be savvy enough to understand what's going on or to complain about it -- hey, there are projection TVs that actually have a mode that purposely stretches a conventional 1.33: 1 TV raster image so it fits in a 1.74:1 ar wide screen. Presumably there are people who watch conventional TV this way with nary a complaint.

As far as SHREK is concerned, it's a cartoon. Cartoons are even harder for the layman to tell what is distortion and what is just the way the cartoon is drawn. No doubt once the audience adjusted to the FAT Shrek, putting him back to normal seemed wrong to them. This lack of descerning perception on the part of the public prompted Disney of all studios, to re-release FANTASIA in a CinemaScope version sometime in the mid-50s. It simply used an anamorphic stretch for the animation segments; the live-action sequences with the musicians and Leopold Stokowsky were returned to normal without any stretch, presumably because it was easier to notice squeeze distortion in live humans than in elephants. Evidently the critics went bezerk at the thought of the Disney people distorting the classic animation and they complained to the rooftops. This version, an embarassment to Disney, even though it sported 4 track mag stereo, was never released again.

Squeeze is in the eye of the beholder. [Smile]

Frank

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 12-11-2002, 06:39 PM:

Ken, The machine with the vertical plates was indeed a Kalee, I forgot before but you refreshed my memory!

The Kingsway is now The Pavilion. We took over the building in 1993, and it has been completely refurbished, now it is a 4 screen! The original cinema hall is our screen 1, the other screens were built from void space within the building as it used to be a Theatre in another life. Cinema's 2 and 3 are where the old fly tower used to be, behind the screen of number 1, and 56 seater number 4 was crammed into another void space.

The Ross is still here as part of a display of old projection equipment in the foyer. It was still running as of a few weeks ago, but we have been having problems with it, we think the intermittent is shot. Usually the customer can press a button and it springs into life and projects a trailer onto a small screen (we used a slide projector bulb for the light source). It's actually pretty cool when it does work!

And yes, it is bloody cold up here just now!

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-11-2002, 07:32 PM:

I've got some friends who grew up in the Phillipines who've told me that they saw a lot of scope films shown without scope lenses. They never questioned it, they just thought that's how some American movies were made. One friend pointed out that a lot of times you could see microphones which leads me to believe they were running 1.37.

The theatre I started at had top/bottom masking for scope films and if we ran flat trailers then switched to scope, we always had customers come out and complain that we were cutting off the top and bottom of the picture. Very few of them wanted to learn the difference between scope and flat and just walked away angry.

Speaking of 16X9 t.v.s, I was in a Barnes & Noble the other day and they had Lord Of The Rings showing on their 16X9's but it was stretched side to side. The 'black bars' at the top and bottom comprised more than two thirds of the picture! I spose they were showing the letterboxed version unsqueezed as if it were anamorphic?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-11-2002, 09:04 PM:

Right. The DVD player was set for standard TV. So many stores don't have properly set up viewers.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 12-11-2002, 09:10 PM:

Slightly off topic for this forum, but the reason why 16 X 9 TVs stretch 4 X 3 images is because if they project a matted 4 X3 image for more than 19% of the time that the TV is being run, the matting will burn into the projection system and a widescreen image will look awkward from that point on.

Posted by Lionel Fouillen (Member # 1475) on 12-12-2002, 03:59 AM:

quote:
but I have no doubt that the rest of the audience thought the intrepid crew of the Enterprise was just caught in some kind of wormhole or reverse-tachyon field or something and that's how it was supposed to look...

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-12-2002, 05:06 AM:

quote:
Slightly off topic for this forum, but the reason why 16 X 9 TVs stretch 4 X 3 images is because if they project a matted 4 X3 image for more than 19% of the time that the TV is being run, the matting will burn into the projection system and a widescreen image will look awkward from that point on.

Interesting. I thought I had read somewhere that the burn-in problem with standing images was solved, at least with quality computer monitors. If this is so, it would strongly speak against buying a 16:9 monitor in my eyes.
About the actual topic, I have often been surprised by how little people see or notice. For instance, in one cinema I used to work in, we ran flat trailers before the feature, and then used an automation cue to open the masking for CS (and change the lense in the background). I talked to many of our employees who could watch as many movies as they liked in their free time, and the majority of them never noticed that there are different picture sizes, not even that sometimes the screen opens in front of their eyes. Strange. I am not a professional cook, but I do notice whether I am eating rice or potatos...

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-12-2002, 08:33 AM:

quote:
Theatre personnel should be paid for test screenings if it is part of their job responsibilities

When I first started in 1998 the standard practice was one person allowed in a screening PERIOD and they were paid. After a couple months the theater didn't really want that extra labor being paid (compared to the amount of free passes and print damage blamed on the theater I guess it just wasn't worth it) and the employees also wanted to be able to have co-workers to watch the movie with. We all agreed that the screenings would no longer be paid and any amount of employees could watch the screenings. Kind of a trade. Staff were also fine with this because it meant bragging rights after seeing movies before the general public could. When I screened Star Wars: The Phantom Menace I had my first truly evil urge, which was to go out to the mall gate where all the "hardcore fans" were sleeping waiting for the box office to open the next day and say "You'll never believe who died!" [evil]

Of course, when there were nights with no screeners, I would watch the film myself (provided my print work was done for the night and the last shows running down) and I would get paid, because if something was wrong and needed to be fixed what was I going to do, run downstairs, punch in, run upstairs, fix it and repeat process if there was another problem?

The two most common things we didn't catch in make-up inspection but we did catch in test-screening were faulty soundtracks and color faults on the film (scene all of a sudden tinted blue, green, etc.).

Posted by Tom Doyle (Member # 1474) on 12-12-2002, 04:03 PM:

At our theater a few weeks ago, the manager told me something similar happened: the projectionist started a film and did not have the correct lens or aperture plate in. Not a problem normally, except he did not even look at the picture - just pushed the start button and walked away. The manager told him about it 20 minutes into the show. (I'm not sure if he noticed himself, or someone complained to him.)

Let's face it; this is really carelessness on the part of the projectionist. I was taught to actually *look* at the screen. I'm by no means perfect myself, but I try to avoid mistakes, and correct any I make. Any projectionist should notice if the wrong lens is in place when the green band comes up on the first trailer. If I have time, I will watch through all of the trailers to the start of the movie (typically 2 or 3 trailers). I am running six screens so I can do this for less than half of the shows. However, this thread started with a story from a single screen theater!

Another problem that has come up at our theater is the masking not being set properly for a show. Ours is not automated, and the downstairs staff is usually unaware of any necessary changes. I often end up running downstairs to tell the staff a change is needed and sometimes I do it myself, while the first preview is running. Hey, anything to make sure the show is presented properly!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-12-2002, 04:18 PM:

A very common problem is only focusing on the first trailer(s), and then leaving, having the entire feature come in slightly out of focus. Trailers are often printed on a different stock than the feature, and often take on a different curl, affecting where they focus. Always recheck and adjust the focus once the feature starts. (This was an especially serious problem when acetate and polyester were shown sequentially, causing a focus shift).

Posted by Tom Doyle (Member # 1474) on 12-12-2002, 04:38 PM:

Yes, I've noticed this problem myself. I'll start a shift, go up to the booth to check the films, and have to refocus one. Well, this is why I walk the booth every 20 minutes. This typically only happens with one projector so I know what to look for. Of course, when you have up to three shows starting at the same minute and no timers, you don't always have the luxury of watching all the previews! This is why I was surprised to see the original post was about a single screen auditorium.

Usually, once per shift I also go downstairs and watch each show for a couple of minutes from inside the theater. This helps to ensure everything is working properly.