This is topic How to best present "Spellbound"? 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=005387

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-27-2003, 10:27 PM:
 
We're showing the movie Spellbound in a couple of weeks. I understand that it's a video blow-up. Isn't it a 1.33 hard matte inside a 1.66 frame or something crazy like that?

If so, what's the best way to present it?

I can move my masking in to any position. The curtains are tied to the pipe in front of the screen... Just retie in any position. I can also fly the screen in or out just a hair to scrunch the screen vertically. (Only a couple feet or so.)

I was thinking that I could move the masking in to Academy and play through the regular flat lens we have. Then I could put some gaffer's tape on the glass in front of the projector to guard against spillover. We had to do this for Gone With the Wind.

Any ideas? I've got two weeks to figure it out.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 09-27-2003, 11:21 PM:
 
Spellbound is 1.85 pillerboxed to 1.37. you can just use your 1.85:1 lens.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-28-2003, 12:35 AM:
 
In other words, it's about the same rez as a 16mm print....well almost. No matter, it's a STUPID idea -- and they moan about the waste of film geography that cropped 1.85 causes. This not only wastes the top and bottom of the frame, but the sides as well.

Whatever happened to the much more elegant idea of using the anamorphic format to present a 1.37 original? It's a much more efficient use of the film frame -- better light and rez.

Randy, as far as what you need to do in the booth....if your flat 1.85 lensing and aperture is on the money, you should not need any additional masking on the booth port glass. The top and bottom of the image will meet the top and bottom mask quite perfectly. You should only have to adjust your side masks to meet the sides of the image. You have to tie and untie the entire curtain hang when you want to change screen ratios? Even a pully-less track would be better than that. Make them put in a simple lightweight track in place of the pipe (or strap one to the pipe) ADC makes a very lightweight aluminum model called Specifine that we use; although it is lightweight, it supports a fairly heavy masking velour and a full 42 ft satin curtain. You could then just pull the curtain or mask to any position you need to without all that tying and tying.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 09-28-2003, 02:32 AM:
 
Frank,

I definitely agree that 1.33-in-1.85 is a pretty lousy idea. But I thought GWTW looked pretty lousy as 1.33-in-2.39 also. Of course, the resolution issue doesn't matter with "Spellbound"... it was shot on video anyway.

Randy,

Beware... IIRC the horizontal matte does shift slightly from reel to reel. So you can never get it perfectly aligned with the side masking (not counting keystoning issues, either)....
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-28-2003, 10:28 AM:
 
It's sad that so few theatres are equipped to properly present the classic "Academy" 1.37:1 aspect ratio (projectable image area of 0.825 x 0.602 inches, per SMPTE 195). Lots more light and better image quality than any cropped or pillar-boxed format.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-28-2003, 10:43 AM:
 
Agreed that 1.33-in-1.85 releases are dumb. Theatres that can't play 1.33 films properly just shouldn't book them. Would it really kill the gigaplexes to invest in _one_ Magna-Com lens and cut a few 1.33 plates for different-sized auditoria? Even if they don't add a 1.33 stop to their masking, at least they could show classic films uncropped without having to do stuff like take apart their scope lenses.

As for Spellbound, I ran it at 1.85, although the theatre is equipped for all formats. It looked fine at 1.85 and I'd be amazed if the producers intended anything different. Titles are just barely "safe" for 1.85, though, so you might want to try 1.66 if your projection angle is steep and/or if your 1.85 picture tends to crop off the corners a bit.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-28-2003, 11:02 AM:
 
I'd say just set up several old 25" Zenith tube color TV's in the lobby, have it transferrd to cartrivision format and show it that way. After all, doesn't this sort of thing deserve the proper presentation method???
Mark
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-28-2003, 11:58 AM:
 
The problem with installing a traveller is that there's not a lot of room between pipes. They are on (I think) 8" centers. The screen is on lineset #5. The masking is on pipe #4. Then, pipe #3 is "First Electric". #2 is "Main Rag". #1 is "Main Valence and Border". That puts the screen 48" upstage of the plaster line. The biggest problem is that "First Elec." has lights on it, making is slightly wider than the 16" fly space given it. You have to have room to swivel the fixtures yet keep the hot lights away from the curtains, lest they get "toasted". Tying the curtains to the pipe is the lowest profile we can have. This is a big PITA but it's the best solution we have come up with. We might possibly be able to come up with enough $$ to buy a low profile traveller track but we'd probably have to move the screen back one pipe to make fly space for the curtain.

Moving the screen upstage brings on another set of problems: Line #6 is the orchestra shell. That's 800 lbs. of wood and steel to move. The screen frame is iron pipe fashioned out of "Kee-Klamps". There's another couple-few hundred pounds of weight to move there. All those pipes would have to be reweighted when the goods are moved upstage. We don't have the manpower. There's just me and the Production Manager. The rest of the labor force is Work Study students. (Not a reliable workforce for "heavy stuff" like that.) Assuming all of that can be done, we have to account for the screen being moved 8" farther away from the projector. The image size would increase. New lenses would have to be purchased. New apretures would have to be cut. We're in a cluster fuck situation as it is. I'm going to have to live with things as they stand for a while.

We DO have an Academy lens/aperture set. We are the only place in town (within at least 100 miles) that even has a set. Not even the old Warner Theatre has them. I know. I'm the last guy to run those machines. We will be using Academy later on this year to present Metropolis. I want to see that movie!

Our projector is an older model Simplex. PR-1003, to be exact. It has no turret but the "lens shifter" for old style Cinemascope movies is still intact and working. I have it set up so that I can shift off center images back onto the screen. I have my workstudies check the projector every reel. Most of them don't know what a cue dot really means, except that they have to get up from their seats in the back row of the balcony and go check the projector! I'll make sure when they go to check the film path, focus and sound that they also check the lens shift. So, Christopher, thanks for the tip!

You guys don't think I need to put some masking on the window? What if the film is scratched outside the image area but inside the black matted area? Won't that put distracting "squigglies" on the curtain? I thought that taping off the windows would prevent some of that. You all KNOW what condition this film is likely to be in!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-28-2003, 12:23 PM:
 
Certainly, for pillar-boxed pictures, if you don't have an appropriate aperture plate, "masking" the opaque area of the image on the port glass can help reduce the risk of unwanted "junk" outside the image area.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-28-2003, 12:49 PM:
 
When the Fox Theatre in Bakersfield plays a classic film in 1.37, they just unscrew the anamorphic portion of their scope lens and mask accordingly.
 

---

Posted by Phillip Seib (Member # 1406) on 09-28-2003, 02:11 PM:
 
Just for point of reference Randy, I beleive Mark Comi at the Plaza Theatre is able to project properly in academy. Unless he has sold his lens since the last time I worked up there.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-28-2003, 02:32 PM:
 

quote:

---

Would it really kill the gigaplexes to invest in _one_ Magna-Com lens and cut a few 1.33 plates for different-sized auditoria?

---

How oddly topical. I am doing this for one complex in town currently. As it turns out, there is one backup lens for 1.66, one backup lens for 1.37 and a Magnacom that floats between the two that just so happens to fit on every screen except for one. All the projectionist has to do is pull the flat lens from the turret, screw the appropriate backup to the Magnacom, change the aperture (of which there is a specific one cut for each auditorium) and adjust the zoom control on the Magnacom until the picture is sized to the top and bottom of the masking for that particular auditorium. Voila!

The only thing that sucks is there is no 1.66 or 1.33 masking, but if you're careful when cutting the plates you can get pretty darned straight and sharp edges.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-28-2003, 02:48 PM:
 

quote:

---

Phillip Seib: I beleive Mark Comi at the Plaza Theatre is able to project properly in academy.

---

Interesting. I didn't think they had Acad. I visited there one time. I casually asked if they did. I got a vague, "I don't think so..." type of answer. I'll chalk it up to the fact that the person I talked to probably didn't know much and the fact that I worked for the "enemy" at the time. (Cinemark) Combine those two factors and you can see where that type of information wouldn't be very forthcoming.

It's good to know. I'll keep it in the mental file!
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-29-2003, 05:57 AM:
 
Randy, I feel your pain, buddy. We have the same problem. First Electrics is right behind the screen and the lighting instruments or their gel holders invariably rub against the screen when flying it in or out. We had to attach three "runners" -- 3 inch strips of steel formed into a circle about a foot in diameter -- to the FE pipe. These jutt out just enough to engage the screen frame which then pushs the pipe away as the screen come in or out. I understand that these are standard pipe hardware; you should check them out if they could help in your situation.

Originally the main rag was used as the curtain for movies, but it is a on a manual fly and cannot be motorized except for vast sums of money. After having stage hands miss curtain cues more times than they got it (you have no idea how frustrating it is screaming into a head set, "Curtain go.....curtain GO....CURTAIN GO YOU INCOMPETENT SOB!" only to watch the first 3 minutes of a Merry Melodies cartoon play on the closed curtain), I decided to install a light wight curtain and attached it directly to the screen frame via that Specifine track. It attaches with right-angle brackets which add just enough space for it to fit between the first boader (pipe 1) and the screen frame (pipe 2).

Yes, it is VERY tight in terms of the pipes and the First Electric, but we got it to work....with no help from the Lighting Department, I might add, who's head electrician's solution was "just stop showing movies," or "move the screen to the back wall" -- about 50 feet from the first row of seats. When I responded to those suggestions, I was pulled aside by the GM who told me, "Up yours" is not a professional response to a collegue's position.

Film is always a bastard child in a performing arts hierarchy. You have to fight for every inch of space.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-29-2003, 07:06 AM:
 
Out of curiousity, why would the first electric go in front of the screen? That seems unnecessary (why would you want to light the front of the screen from above?) and likely to damage the screen, either due to large lighting instruments that hit the surface or due to heat if someone accidentally turns on the power when the screen is lowered.

At the Columbus (the only place I've shown films that also has full stage rigging, albeit from the 1920s), the first lineset (after the fire curtain) holds the teaser, the second holds the main curtain (which is used as masking), and the third holds the screen. There's another, lighter, curtain a few feet behind the screen (and stage speaker) which stays closed during films in order to avoid reflections from items stored backstage. The speaker itself is not flown, but is on rollers and can be easily moved offstage as needed.

There are also two other screen frames (for 1.33 ratio only) farther back which presumably were used in the silent era when live shows were combined with films in the same program. We've never used them, but I suppose that they might be useful to have for slide lectures or something like that. This theatre doesn't have "electrics" in the modern sense...they just have a half-dozen or so of those striplight/cyc light type things with white/red/blue lights pointing straight down. The lighting capabilities are pretty limited, with just these fixtures, white/red/blue footlights, and white/red/blue border lights, all on a Ward-Leonard resistance board. There are also a few 750w Lekos on the balcony rail controlled by an old (1960s?) 8-channel Century dimmer. Lastly, there's a crappy tungsten-bulb followspot on the balcony, a Brenkert carbon-arc followspot in the original booth that hasn't been used in years (sadly), and a carbon-arc Super Trouper stored backstage that needs a 30 amp circuit which we don't have yet.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-29-2003, 09:25 AM:
 
First Elec. is pipe #3. Right behind the rag. If you think I'm tearing out all that horse cock just to move it, you're nuts! (Although, we do need to install the cable cradles that weren't put in when they built the place.)

The 1-E is two pipes down from the screen. That gives almost 24" of space between them. That's more than enough to prevent the screen getting snagged on a gel frame, etc. Yes, we have to be careful not to turn the lights directly on the screen but you'd have to be a serious dolt to do that! Under normal circumstances, the 1-E is at trim a good 6' to 8' above the top of the screen. (When screen's in.) Our policy is to always grid the screen when it goes out. That gives about the same amount of space below the screen. We never grid the electrics. We don't have cable cradles. Remember? We do have a loading gallery so there's no need to grid the electrics.

The next pipe up from the screen is the orchestra shell. (AKA: "Clouds") You know, those angled panels to reflect the sound out to the audience? They're made of heavy plywood and iron pipe. When we're not using them they collapse and hang vertically. They take up just a hair bit more than their alloted 8" when they are collapsed. The screen frame is made from 2" dia. iron pipes held together with Kee Klamp fittings. There are angled battens coming off the back of the frame to give it stability. They stick out a bit from the back. If one is not careful when flying the clouds or the screen they will rub together. Basically, we have the same protection as you, Frank. The battens on the back act as guide rails. He who makes the screen and clouds rub together too hard is given the job of repainting the clouds.

We never have any stage lights on when it's a movie night, although I do, on occasion shine a gobo on the screen from FOH to act as a light curtain. I don't do it often because I have to have an operator at the light board. It's just not worth it unless it's a special event. I burn gobos with the movie's title or logo if it's a big show. Sing-along S.O.M. provided gobos for us!

Same goes for curtains. I have never even considered having them close for a movie. That means there'd have to be a hand at the rail. We just don't have the manpower. Besides, if I did it once I'd have to do it all the time. (At least with gobos, I can claim that it costs money to make them.) What I do is fly the main rag in as normal and draw it all the way open. Then I draw it shut again until it's about 2'-3' further open than the edges of the screen/masking. There it stays. You have to draw it all the way open so that all the excess material bunches up behind the valence where it's not seen by the audience. A half-open, bunched-up rag looks ugly if you don't do that.

Our speakers are on roll-away carts. They store against the backstage wall, behind the "full-black". Last upstage pipe is a full stage black velour curtain. Travelled w/ fullness. I always bring it in for movies to prevent backstage reflections. I like to fly in all the legs and borders too so that they act as sound baffles. It deadens the backstage area a bit so it doesn't sound so hollow. Most people don't notice the difference but I do.

How I long for a theater where I can just "light the fire and go!"
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-30-2003, 01:49 AM:
 

quote:

---

Out of curiousity, why would the first electric go in front of the screen?

---

quote:

---

That seems unnecessary (why would you want to light the front of the screen from above?)

---

quote:

---

and likely to damage the screen, either due to large lighting instruments that hit the surface or due to heat if someone accidentally turns on the power when the screen is lowered.

---

quote:

---

At the Columbus (the only place I've shown films that also has full stage rigging, albeit from the 1920s), the first lineset (after the fire curtain) holds the teaser, the second holds the main curtain (which is used as masking), and the third holds the screen.

---

The fire curtain runs in a track attached to the back of the proscenium opening. That wall is a firewall, the track has a U-shaped channel around it creating the "smoke pocket". The fire curtain & its associated froo-fra is not a part of the fly system.

This is confusing. There's a teaser in front of the main curtain? Maybe you mean the valance? Except for the fire curtain, usually anything that hangs in front of the grand rag is purely decorative. A 'teaser' is a piece of stage equipment, & would be behind the main curtain.



That draped valance is not as original; it once had additional narrower segments of longer swoopy swags draped farther down hugging the prosc at the sides. That's how they made artistical the transitions to the different colors in the drapes. They're gone because the screens got wider & went to the edges of the prosc.

A straight valance is often used alone in movie theaters now, since it leaves more room for the screen. Also, it's a cheaper replacement when the valance must be replaced because of damage from dry rot, water, fire, or falling plaster, or if there's renovation & re-decoration.
Straight valance alone hanging in front of the main curtain at the Majestic in Eastland, TX:



Another layer is often a lambrequin, which is sort of shell-like: fabric & sometime pseudo-jewels & tassels glued to a hard backing, usually flat but sometimes with glued-down draped ruffles. It is also neccessarily flown, to get it up there & get it down for cleaning, etc.

The Southtown in Chicago, from the ATOS website at
http://www.atos.org/Pages/Palaces/Southtown-Chicago/Southtown.html
all copyrights theirs:



showing a light-colored lambrequin, hanging in front of a draped valance, hanging in front of two straight valances,hanging in front of the main curtain. A lambrequin can be convex, like that one likely is, or hang straight as a board. It may hang behind any valances also, & have the appearance of a straight sheet (looking like a fire curtain slightly in) or looking like a pseudo-teaser.

All of those usually hang not only in front of the main curtain, but in front of the firewall in a false arch over the proscenium opening proper. The lines are usually onstage, passing through various means through the firewall.

quote:

---

There are also two other screen frames (for 1.33 ratio only) farther back which presumably were used in the silent era when live shows were combined with films in the same program.

---

quote:

---

This theatre doesn't have "electrics" in the modern sense...they just have a half-dozen or so of those striplight/cyc light type things with white/red/blue lights pointing straight down

---

quote:

---

There's another, lighter, curtain a few feet behind the screen (and stage speaker) which stays closed during films in order to avoid reflections from items stored backstage

---

quote:

---

The speaker itself is not flown, but is on rollers and can be easily moved offstage as needed.

---

quote:

---

We never have any stage lights on when it's a movie night, although I do, on occasion shine a gobo on the screen from FOH to act as a light curtain

---

quote:

---

William Hooper: We really need to resurrect & create oil light projectors...

---

Much agreed! I would love to do things like this all the time! On the rare occasion when I have time to do it I take a few lights from the FOH (catwalk) and focus them on the screen. I put a few gels and gobos in them. The light board is programmed to do a psuedorandom pattern. It looks really nice but it takes a lot more time to do than I have. I only do this once or twice a year. The big problem is that I have to have an operator at the board and a Clear-Com (headset communicator) line set up between the booth and the console. The projectionist and the light operator have to coordinate things. It's often too much to ask Work Study students to do.

I WOULD love to do it more often if we had the time and manpower .
 

---

Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 09-30-2003, 01:54 PM:
 
I have not read in every word in this thread. But read enough.

I believe every film should be shot in 1.85 or 2.35 and when shooting keep in mind that it will NEED to equate to 4:3 and 16:9 for DVD or digital TV.

Why film makers THESE days shoot any other way way is beyond me.

Granted ART HOUSES should be able to show at least 3 formats, but 4 or 5 is really pushing it.
(We have the lenes, but on turrets that take two lenes at a time, it's come be pain in if there are 4 different movies screening in. Then there are masking stops to change too)

BTW: I just did the trailer change tonight, and put 4 x SPELLBOUND trailers in and they looked around to 1.85 to me.

Bill!
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 09-30-2003, 03:25 PM:
 
and of course all painters should paint on a standard-sized canvas in either portrait or landscape orientation, so museums can more efficiently close-pack them on the walls. old, non-conformist works like those arch-shaped religious triptychs should be cropped and digitally resized for our convenience.

carl
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2003, 05:17 PM:
 
Agreed with Carl.

Is it _really_ too much to ask for all theatres to be able to show at least 1.33 (aka 1.37), 1.66, 1.85, and scope properly? In a multiplex that shows primarily current mainstream product, only one or two screens would need to be capable of showing the first two formats, and that could be accomplished (as mentioned above) with a Magna-Com zoom attachment which could be shared amongst multiple screens; alternatively, a standard lens could be shared amongst multiple screens with similar throw distances and screen sizes. Given the larger number of theatres that have closed recently, it would seem like it would be pretty easy to at least get some old lenses of the right focal lengths and some uncut aperture plates to have on hand.

I wouldn't expect most theatres to be able to show stuff like 1.75 or 1.17 or 1.33 silent frame, but these are all far less common than the four major formats.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-30-2003, 08:50 PM:
 
Randy, my notes agree with you: Spellbound is 1.33-within-1.66, not 1.85.

I don't find the 1.33-within-1.85 all that objectionable. It's one way to ensure that the film will be seen properly and given the realities of many theatres it's a good compromise.

If 1.85 projection is capable of putting a superb picture on the screen then a smaller portion of the same format will be just as good. Given the resolution advantage of print and intermediate stock over camera negative it's not as drastic a loss as you think. And when this format is used for 16mm or video there is no loss at all. I see no point in talking about screen illumination; does one get 16fL on 1.85 or not? If so then what's the problem?

1.33-within-1.66 is pretty much indefensible for a USA release. Anyone who can handle 1.66 probably can handle 1.33(1.37) or at least has a clue about what is necessary. Which is more than can be said for the transfer house that suggested doing it this way.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-30-2003, 09:45 PM:
 
We don't have a 1.66 lens/aperture set. I'm going to have to use the 1.85.

However... This could be a good time to pitch the new lens(es) I've been bitching to my boss about for over a year. (Several years, actually, but renewed bitching in the last.) How can I get the most bang for the buck out of any new lenses purchased? I think I have hatched a plan but let me try it out on y'all. Remember this: I can move the side masking open or closed to, virtually, an infinite number of positions. Further, I can scrunch the screen vertically by a couple feet by flying it out. (The top masking is a fabric border on the next pipe down.) Right now we have three lenses: Regular flat, Scope and Acad.

Here's the plan:

• Toss the flat & scope lenses. They are junk. (You may remember my pictures in the past.) Maybe I can get a few bucks out of them on ebay! Keep the Acad. lens as is. We use it, maybe once or twice a year. It's not as bad as the others.
• Buy new lenses for scope and regular flat that fit the screen as it flies out now. (To the spikes.) File aperture plates in the normal manner.
• Get a couple of extra apertures and file them for 1.77 and 1.66 ratios. Scrunch (vertically) or scretch (horizontally)the screen to fit the images.

IF I got my math right I could conceivably get 5 ratios out of only 3 lenses. What I'm driving at is being able to tell the boss, "If you buy me "X" more lenses I'll be able to present "Y" formats in their full splendor for only "Z" dollars whereas mere mortal projectionsist would tell you that you have to spend "Z++" dollars.
I'm hoping to appeal to a tight-fisted boss's avarice to get the goods I need for my booth! Gotta' love THAT!

Am I on track here? Or, do I have it all bass ackwards?
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-01-2003, 01:24 AM:
 

quote:

---

I can move the side masking open or closed to, virtually, an infinite number of positions

---

quote:

---

I can scrunch the screen vertically by a couple feet by flying it out. (The top masking is a fabric border on the next pipe down.)

---

quote:

---

Get a couple of extra apertures and file them for 1.77 and 1.66 ratios. Scrunch (vertically) or scretch (horizontally)the screen to fit the images

---

quote:

---

William Hooper: How are you masking the bottom of the screen to the stage?

---

Here's the whole setup in pictures.

Proscenium View:

Yes, you can see through the masking when the backstage lights are on. Trust me, though. You can't see through the scrim when the lights are off. The inboard edges of the masking are Duvetine (sp?) They make a nice edge for the picture.

Standing under the proscenium looking up:

Downstage is on the left of the image. Moving right is upstage.
The angle of the dangle makes things look a bit out of place. The orchrstra shells LOOK like they are further down than they really are. Still, you can see that things squezed in as tight as they can go.

Back of screen frame:

Iron Pipes & Kee-Klamps. Screen is laced in. Bottom masking is a border tied to the bottom of the screen.

Front of screen from close up:

You can see the black border and side masking. Again, angle of the dangle lets you look behind the masking in a way that customers can't. Note the use of the "Stagehand's Secret Weapon" to cover the space between the bottom of the screen and the border. No, the tape doesn't actually touch the screen surface. I was careful only to put it on the webbing.

So you can see that I can make the screen virtually any size. When we have a lecture with Power Point, I can raise the screen almost five or six feet above the deck and tie the masking in close so that the screen fits the picture of the video image. The presenter can walk under the screen and he/she won't obscure much of the image because most of it is above his head. For movies the bottom edge is only about 3 feet above the deck.

If I'm going to buy one lens to show several aspect ratios using different aperture plates and different trims on the screen, which focal length should I get? Should I get the one for 1.66 and go from there or should I get the 1.85 lens and work backwards?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-01-2003, 12:42 PM:
 
Is your 1.85 picture using the full height of the screen or are you masking a big chunk away? If so then you could just get a couple of aperture plates, file for 1.66, and set the top and bottom masks accordingly. And for Spellbound bring the side masking in for 1.33 @ this screen height.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-01-2003, 01:38 PM:
 
Almost the full height. There's probably 6" of space.

In the days when we first started this project there was a 12' X 28' Da-Lite screen. (Non-perf.) When I got the go-ahead to buy a new screen I spec-ed it out as 13' X 31' - 1".

I kept the old lens/apertures as is and scrunched the screen to fit. I have been weaseling and plotting and planning for this day to come ever since. Close to five years later I'm finally driving the boss to the brink. If I can show him some "cost effective" way to do this I might get him to pull the trigger!
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-03-2003, 12:47 AM:
 
Maybe I'm missing a piece, but here's what I see as a plan to just get by with lenses for 2 aspect ratios, 1 is given as scope:

What makes it harder is that your screen is 13' x 31', that's a 1:2.38 ratio. So it's set up to be for all intents common height for all formats. In other words, a different lens for each format - as its aspect ratio gets taller, its lens shrinks the picture vertically.

It's easier if you'd been more square. Most older proscenium houses are tall & closer to 1:2, 1.66 often is perfect in them. With a taller screen that 1.66 fits in nicely & to the top, you could just use the same lens for 1.66, a shorter aperture plate, & bring in the vertical screen masking for 1.85. Both would stay the same on the sides, same as on the print; you'd just be masking the screen shorter, like the fatter framelines on the print.

At 13' high & 21.58' wide & for 1.66, 1.85 would still be 21.58' wide but 11.66' high.

If you start whittling vertically from 1.37, it gets painful.
1.37: 13' high, 17.8 feet wide
1.66: 10.72' high, 17.8 feet wide
1.85: 9.62' high, 17.8 feet wide

Are you running changeovers (two lenses per format, wake up & smell the money!) or a platter?

You might be happier just getting new lenses for your most-used flat format.

------------
I read Steve's question about whether you're masking a large amount vertically in 1.85 as hoping that you *are* masking a lot vertically for 1.85. If that was the case, your 1.66 could be the same lens, just filing out the plate more vertically & pulling the vertical masking out some more.

---------------
Steve said:

quote:

---

I don't find the 1.33-within-1.85 all that objectionable

---