Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Of All MPAA films for 2002, how many were in flat or Scope ?

This is topic Of All MPAA films for 2002, how many were in flat or Scope ? 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=004805

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-19-2003, 12:43 AM:

It is somewhat surprising to note that the 1.85 : 1 films are mostly produced in the U.S.

Will someone give figures, if they are available at all, on the number of films that came out of the MPAA in the year 2002 screen ratio wise ?

Also, for other territories, would somebody have the figures like say for Hong Kong or Germany ?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-19-2003, 12:59 AM:

I'd suggest you look at Box Office Mojo. They list pretty much everything that gets significant US release, and provide financial and theatre-count information.

Edit: When I first read your post, I thought your reference to "screen ratio" was about what fraction of screens in the US showed a particular film. But now I realize you mean the aspect ratios in use. I guess you're best off using the IMDB's information.

--jhawk

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-19-2003, 01:16 AM:

Oh yes ! I meant the screen aspect ratio.

But IMDB used to be complete and accurate once. Not any more. They do not list the technical specifications for several released films. So, I wonder if any survey was ever made by anyody at all.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-19-2003, 02:41 AM:

I don't know about 2002, but 2003 has been the year of scope so far, at least for our theatre (which admittably doesnt' get all wide releases due to competition). Currently we are playing 10 scope movies and 3 flat.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-19-2003, 10:01 AM:

Sadly, about 2/3 of the Scope releases are Super 35 blow-ups, not from anamorphic photography. Some look very good, some not so good, but always relatively grainy. Nothing short of 65mm looks as nice as a crisp and creamy smooth true anamorphic Scope print.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-19-2003, 01:02 PM:

since the inception of the use of super 35 the number of scope films has increased over the years. Super 35 is an easier concept to use than the anamorphic concept because you do not have added bulkiness of the lenses and the extra cost. However you do loose or take a chance on loosing conceptual information in the optical transfer process. Mainly related to focuse issues.

last year I seemed to be running a far greater amount of scope films than I did flat.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-19-2003, 01:08 PM:

I have on record the aspect ratios (flat/scope) for the 127 films we received last year. If you are interested I will email the info to you.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-19-2003, 01:40 PM:

I'm not a fan of super 35 (I'd rather see 65mm or VistaVision used as a production format for feature films), but I will admit that the picture quality of films originated in super 35 has improved significantly in the last decade or so (since I started paying attention to such things).

I used to associate super 35 with "grainy"; now, I tend to think of it as "scope with a little more grain and without anamorphic lens artifacts." It's probably a good thing that the format exists, as it provides a way for filmmakers to choose the scope aspect ratio when limitations of anamorphic lenses (too heavy and big for extensive handheld shooting) would make it very difficult to shoot in the format. I assume that improvements in camera lenses, film stock, and optical printing have been responsible for the improvement in scope release prints from super 35 negative.

One of the best-looking films released in 2002 was "8 Mile" which was shot in super 35; it was very sharp and not excessively grainy. It's too bad that all prints from super 35 negative don't look this good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2003, 02:21 PM:

One of the big problems I have with Super35 is very few movies shot in the process actually compose for the frame properly. They just sort of compose for different aspect ratios at once. The movie kind of works in widescreen and kind of works in home video "fullscreen." But it doesn't seem very dynamic in either frame.

When cinematographers make the courageous choice and shoot true anamorphic, they have to consider using the frame properly. That's not to say anamorphic shot films have not been compromised either. I've seen plenty of 'scope-shot films in the 1980s and 1990s place their content in safe area for more friendly pan-and-scan work. Robert Zemeckis talked about the extra work involved in truly composing for 'scope on the "Forrest Gump" DVD commentary track. The extra work does pay off and create a much more dynamic, sweeping frame.

Outside of the work of James Cameron and David Fincher, I see very few films using the 2.39:1 frame in Super35 properly. Most is just bland, watered down half-composition.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-19-2003, 03:08 PM:

One excellent example of framing in the middle was the 1950's An Affair to Remember. This was WEIRD, since it was way before these films were sold to TV, but EVERYTHING was kept in the center of the frame, making the surounding areas wasted space.

I have to agree with Bobby here. A lot of 80's films (oh, JUST around the time of home video taking off)and some truly hideous compositions. Fortunately, this seems to be going by the wayside now that letterboxing and wide screen TV's are becoming the norm.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-19-2003, 03:28 PM:

Put in a letterbox copy of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Now get two pieces of tape and place them vertically on your tv screen where the 1.33 cropping mark would have been and watch the entire opening scene with River Phoenix. This will allow you to see what a centered 1.33 image would look like as well as still being able to see what is being cropped off (assuming no panning for the video transfer). With the exception of I think 2 shots there is no need to pan and scan the frame at all. Even those 2 shots are extreme edge framed such that it would still fit effortlessly on a tv. I'm betting Spielberg and Lucas went 'round and 'round on that one with George demanding scope and Steve insisting to frame for video.

Framing like that sucks, but I would welcome it any day over a 1.85 release. If nothing else, at least the 35mm prints have the benefit of more print real estate which translates into brighter and sharper pictures than 1.85 can produce.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-19-2003, 03:55 PM:

Size DOES matter. [Smile]

Bigger IS better. [Smile]

The larger the frame, the less the magnification --- better sharpness, less graininess.

1.85:1 "flat" wastes image area and light:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-20-2003, 05:47 AM:

Thanks Aaron Mehocic.

email : dhananjaykv@indiatimes.com

I wonder if anybody is here who knows the scenario at Europe.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-22-2003, 01:45 PM:

Information forthcoming. Cannot access e-mail. I use public computers because I'm to stupid to figure out why I can't get my home computer's internet wizard to work. Stay tuned [Frown]

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 04-23-2003, 11:50 AM:

55% of all US films are released in 1.85

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-23-2003, 10:44 PM:

I question that number since in most plexes I go into to service I end find most of the machines set for scope

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-25-2003, 09:56 AM:

Wow! I don't see how I missed this thread. I have stats for this. I'll post them later.

For now, I'll post this:

In the Huntsville/Decatur area, 219 scope movies and 234 flat movies have been released from July 7, 2000 to April 25, 2003 .
I believe there are 5 movies released during this period that I don't have aspect information for.

I want to break this down by year -- time to add a few lines to my Perl script! [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2003, 10:07 AM:

I think that the percentage of "scope" releases has been trending upward of late, likely because distributors are less afraid of "letterbox" video releases on DVD. [Smile]

Would be interesting to see the percentage of anamorphic origination vs. Super-35 for "scope" releases.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-25-2003, 10:25 AM:

John, can you suggest any useful data sources for Super-35 versus anamorphic origination? The only useful place I can think of to find that information in an automated fashion is the FITA forum on this site... the only other place I see that information is in the occasional article in In Camera and the like, but it's hard to pull that information in an automated way...

--jhawk

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-25-2003, 10:26 AM:

OK. Here's my data broken down by year:

July 7, 2000 to end of 2000: 43 flat, 29 scope (60 percent flat)

all of 2001: 71 flat, 69 scope (51 percent flat)

all of 2002: 93 flat, 88 scope (51 percent flat)

2003 up to and including April 25: 27 flat, 33 scope (45 percent flat)

This is for the 5 first-run Huntsville and Decatur, AL theatres.

The partial year percentages aren't to be trusted much since by July, most of the big summer movies are already released (the 2000 stats), and the big movies haven't begun to be released this year (2003).

As for super35 or anamorphic origination for the movies, I only note that data on movies I see, which is only a small fraction of what's released. It would be nice to have that data for all the movies released though.

If you're wondering why my program is setup to count flats and scopes, rather that just displaying the data on the WWW site, it's because until a couple of months ago, there were screens here that were only capable of showing movies at 1.85:1, cropping scope. This is no longer a problem here in Huntsville (Thanks Regal!), but the deduction given for the problem in the rating was based on the number of screens that were unadjustable and the number of scope and flat movies released in the area!

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 04-25-2003, 11:45 AM:

It is by now impossible to depend on the process credits

For many years, Panavision distinguished between

- "Filmed in Panavision" for anamorphic productions and
- "Filmed with Panavision cameras and lenses" for all productions shot with spherical lenses, like many TV shows, 1.85 films and Super-35 productions.

But in the last years, I saw a number of major films that were definitely shot in "Super-35" (should be "Inferior-35" to me) but bore the "Filmed in Panavision" logo onscreen.

Remembers me of the stupid "Panavision 70" name from the 1970s which caused so much confusion over the years; many people thought that these 35-to-70mm blowups were real 65-70mm productions.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2003, 11:45 AM:

quote:
John, can you suggest any useful data sources for Super-35 versus anamorphic origination?

As a start, you can use the Internet Movie Data Base http://www.imdb.com and search on Technical Specifications:

Here is a search for "Super 35":

http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS%3ASuper+35

Here is a search for "Panavision":

http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PCS%3APanavision

Use with the usual caveat regarding the accuracy of imdb listings.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-25-2003, 11:33 PM:

I was hoping for a better source than the IMDB. I'm afraid I don't think its sufficiently trustoworthy to spend any time on.

I did look at the FITA though. Since 1 January 2002 (starting with topic #350, Gosford Park), there have been 409 topics in FITA. Of them, 205 contain the word "flat" and 156 contain the word "scope." A whopping 18 mention Super 35 (that is, they match the case-insensitive regular expression 'super.*35'). That includes chit-chat of people asking "Was this in Super 35?"

So, we get 43% scope, 57% flat, and 5% super 35. I don't have a lot of confidence in those numbers.

On the other hand, it's pretty close to Mike Perju's, "55% of all US films are released in 1.85". Mike, could you substantiate that number? Where did it come from? And does it include 1.66:1 flat as well?

Oh, and the super 35 number has false positives because there are no line breaks in the raw html, so it includes some super 16 references (e.g. Lana's Rain), and I was too lazy to render the html before running the count.

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 04-26-2003, 03:12 AM:

well, I believe that the number of scope films coming out of the US are increasing as some suggest. The 55 % for flat films might apply for 2000 or 2001. In my search for scope films this year and the later part of 2002, I also find an increase in scope over flat.

I wonder if I could club this topic with another that concerns the percentage of screens that are ready (without masking) for scope or flat in a given territory. I have conclusive and thoroughly researched information that for all the 13965 screens in INDIA, the unmasked screen size is ready for the scope, that is, 2.39 : 1 or in some cases 2.35 : 1.

Not one screen in INDIA is structured for an unmasked presentation of 1.85 : 1 or its variations 1.66 : 1. So, I am sure that screens here that regularly play American films might be happy to learn that there is an increase in the number of scope films from the US.

There is hardly any information forthcoming on the scenario in Europe. I believe that the percentage of screens outside the US (particularly in the Europe and the Asia) are predominantly scope sized too. Any figures for this ?

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 04-29-2003, 04:23 AM:

You can't beat a film shot in scope, but Super 35 is still way better than the wasteful 1.85:1 widescreen image. In addition to the bulky anamorphic lenses on cameras, another reason for Super 35 was the ability to shoot in lower light situations than the anamorphic would allow.

David Kilderry

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-01-2003, 10:20 PM:

I have always admired the way Europe or rather all the non-US film industries resisted Hollywood's adaptation of 1.85 in its lust for easy wide screen with little regard for image quality. Although foreign films still seem to come in at a very high percentage still using 1.66 spherical, a growing number of productions are falling to the 1.85 mania, mostly prints from Japan -- and they don't seem to be ambiguous about it either -- they are hard matted at 1.85. I hope it is not a trend, as the 1.66 looks just fine. All the image enhancing advantages of that larger frame geography that have already been enumerated are quite apparant when running 1.66; it would be a shame if it fell into disuse.

My question is, has the SMPTE identified and defined 1.66 as a standard, or is it a de facto standard just because there's a big chunk of the world that is doing it regardless?

The most outragous assault on image quality was the half-assed idea....no, make that the FULL-assed idea (it took TWO companies to come up with it) of reducing the film speed and the height of the film frame. Who came up with this idea you ask? Why Technicolor and UA Theatres -- their eyes fixed on the $$ rather than the screen. Technicolor, so they had less poundage to ship and UA so that they would significantly reduce print handling time....all the more reason to eliminate the projectionist. Ooops, I stand corrected -- UA refuses to even use the word projectionist any more -- they are "booth attenants."

Frank

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2003, 08:22 AM:

quote:
My question is, has the SMPTE identified and defined 1.66 as a standard, or is it a de facto standard just because there's a big chunk of the world that is doing it regardless?

Standard SMPTE 195-1998 specifies the projectable image area for 1.66:1 non-anamorphic aspect ratio as 0.825 x 0.497 inches (20.96 x 12.62 mm) in Annex A.4 and Table A.1.

The standard also suggests that hard matting be printed into the duplicate negative and NOT be used in the original camera negative, and should have an image height of at least 0.505 inches (12.83mm). (Annex A.4 and A.5).