quote:

---

Directors Aaron Blaise and Robert Walker along with producer Chuck Williams also have fun with the layout and design: The film starts off in an earthen color palette and the standard 1.85:1 format. Then, at the moment the movie's central character, a native American youth named Kenai, is transformed into a grizzly bear, the screen shifts to more saturated colors and Cinemascope or a 2.35:1 format, thus opening up the rich vistas of the Pacific Northwest of 10,000 years ago to our startled eyes. It's a grand moment.

---

My question is, what is going to be the best way to run this film? It is obviously going to be a scope feature, but when the first part is windowboxed, should we close the side masking (if available)? I just don't want to get any complaints from customers about this, and I can see that happening. But then again, if we close the side masking for the opening scenes, the trailers are still scope and will take up the full width most likely. And then there's the problem with folks with top masking. I think it sounds like a nice artistic touch, but going to be hard to pull off nowadays in a multiplex while still practicing showmanship.

AJG

Home Theater Forum
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 10-20-2003, 05:30 PM:
 
maybe they mean it starts off like, as in a 5 minute scene that is boxed in, and then when the character comes out, it covers the full screen?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-20-2003, 05:30 PM:
 
The scope picture will be matted just like a flat (1.85) trailer with the black bars on the sides. So at that point in the picture it will open up all by itself to the scope image. So it is a scope film.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 10-20-2003, 05:42 PM:
 
I understand that Bill, but was curious as to how this is going to look for the audience. I know on scope features, with windowboxed flat trailers, keystoning can be very apparent. I'm just curious how everyone else is going to run this to keep showmanship at a peak for the first scenes.

AJG
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-20-2003, 05:49 PM:
 
At ShowEast, they showed it on a digital projector. Some of the audience noticed the aspect ratio change, but I'm not sure everyone understood that it was part of telling the story.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-20-2003, 05:53 PM:
 
Oooooh, they did this with the Far and Away trailer a long time ago. I'm going to set up an automated masking opening at that point in the movie like I did with that Far and Away trailer.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-20-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
Didn't "Galaxy Quest" do something very similar?
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-20-2003, 06:47 PM:
 
They did it with "Superman:The Movie" and they opened the movie "Road Warrior" also with a small matted image.

And "Brainstorm" also went with a slight change in mattes.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-20-2003, 07:14 PM:
 
This is one I did not do the press preview on but we have at least one awards screening coming up so good to know this. A masking change sounds cool. All we need is Lowell Thomas announcing...
"Ladies and Gentlemen: This is...Grizzly Bear!"
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-20-2003, 07:21 PM:
 
Brainstorm was cool in that the effects took place when they put the helmet on and the visuals were widended along with an expanded stereo presence. I saw that one in 70mm.

They also did that with the Horse Whisperer. The first reel was matted flat and reel two was full screen scope. People complained almost every show to the point we had to start telling people before they went in.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 10-20-2003, 07:41 PM:
 

quote:

---

Didn't "Galaxy Quest" do something very similar?

---

quote:

---

They also did that with the Horse Whisperer. The first reel was matted flat and reel two was full screen scope. People complained almost every show to the point we had to start telling people before they went in.

---

quote:

---

Disney did the same format "widening" with "The Horse Whisperer". The scene in the begining where the girl is injured is letterboxed for the entire first reel, then at the second reel when the horse is let loose (beginning of Reel 2) the picture widens to full Scope.

---

Hmmmmmmmmm, why does that sound familure.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 10-21-2003, 10:04 AM:
 
Several of you mentioned Galaxy Quest:

Galaxy Quest started with a 4:3 image (simulating the TV show they were making in the show). After the first few minutes, the image widened (not instant -- it took a few seconds) to 1.85:1 within the scope aperture. After a while, it widened to full scope, and I believe the second widening was instant.

However, on the DVD, it starts out with the 4:3 image within the 2.39:1 letterboxed area, and at the first widening, instead of widening to 1.85:1, it widens to full scope then when the "slow widening" is used".

I liked this effect in the theatre, but I guess they figured it wouldn't translate well to DVD since a scope image is letterboxed in a 16:9 area and not using the full image width appears an an image with black all around it, which is a very different appearance than in a theatre.

I wish they'd made prints for theatres with nothing but the "Thermian Soundtrack".
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-21-2003, 11:31 AM:
 
How about Rustler's Rhapsody?? I might be wrong, but didn't it open in 1.33/b&w/mono and suddenly go widescreen/color/stereo.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-21-2003, 11:35 AM:
 
Might as well add another title to this list: Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines (1965) also starts out with a prologue in 1.37 B&W complete with an ancient looking Fox logo, then cuts to color and widescreen. I've been fortunate to see or run this one in 16, 35, and 70mm. When I ran it I set both the curtain and side masking to look good for 1.37 then opened both for that first wide panning shot. Fun!
 

---

Posted by Randy Loy (Member # 112) on 10-21-2003, 12:15 PM:
 
I saw "The Horse Whisperer" at a drive-in. Of course there was no movable masking on their large outdoor screen so I didn't think much about it when the first reel was 1.85:1, other than wondering why Robert Redford didn't shoot a film with western landscapes in scope. When it did open to scope I thought it was a nice effect.
 

---

Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 10-21-2003, 12:19 PM:
 
There's a very funny change of aspect in Fox's 1956 "The Girl Can't Help It". It opens in B&W Academy aspect, then Tom Ewell walks to one edge of the frame and flicks it with his finger, making it slide open. Then, he walks to the other side and does it again.

That one really made me wish I could control left and right side masking separately!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 10-21-2003, 12:43 PM:
 
AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS features a prologue that starts in 1.33(7) Lowell Thomas speaks on a set with a globe and shows clips from the Melies silent, TRIP TO THE MOON. Then, a countdown of a rocket launch commences, while an optical mask opens to reveal the full image (don't know if this was how it was originally projected in 1956, but it is how it exists now).

All of the CINERAMA travelogues began with standard 35mm introductions before expanding to full screen.

BRAINSTORM had all normal sequences in 35mm 1.85 format, and then cut to the SP 70 POV shots (or, more correctly. point of MIND shots). I never saw this in 35mm, so I dont know what format this was in (scope or flat). It was very effective in 70mm, though. Actually, even the 35mm flat blow-up material looked really good in the print I saw.

NAPOLEON played with an extremely small 1.33 image for most of the film until the last reel exploded to triple width. It was interesting how they achieved this in the 70mm 1982 version. This presentation actually required two lenses. The 1.33 stuff filled the top and bottom (or almost) of the 70mm frame and required a different focal length lens than the last reel, which used the standard 70mm lens of the theatre and had an extreme letterboxed ratio of 4 to 1 (ok, 3.99). So the brightness levels between the two formats were extremely noticable at the theatre I saw this at. In other words, the top and bottom of the screen was masked down and up to the ratio of 3.99, with the 1.33 image fitting within that narrow ratio.

MYSTERY OF PICASSO (1956) This was a french film that showed the artist at work, creating canvasses specifically for this movie. The last reel of the film is in scope to demonstrate "wide" canvas paintings as opposed to the narrower paintings of the rest of the film.

The HORRID 1989 re-release of THE TEN COMMANDEMNTS presents the Cecil B. DeMille introduction in 1.37, then optically EXPANDS the screen to a 2.2 ratio during the Paramount logo. NEITHER ratio was correct, as both prologue and movie were shot in VistaVision, and (despite the so-called several AR approach hyped by Paramount for the process) was specifically supposed to be shown at 1.85.

THE RIGHT STUFF opens with scratchy Black and white 1.3 footage, and with the crash of the test plane shown here, explodes into color and wide (1.85) screen. Not as much a dramatic increase in width, but effective all the same.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-21-2003, 01:04 PM:
 

quote:

---

...as both prologue and movie were shot in VistaVision, and (despite the so-called several AR approach hyped by Paramount for the process) was specifically supposed to be shown at 1.85.

---

quote:

---

reminiscent of what Robert Redford did in "The Horse Whisperer," the screen expands from the conventional 1.85-to-1 aspect ratio to widescreen with the ursine transformation 24 minutes in

---

The credits section of the review claims that the MPAA Rating is "R". The text of the review does claim this is a "G-rated pic".
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-22-2003, 01:53 AM:
 
Yeah, well I've got the DADDY of all aspect ratio changes. The very first IMAX film I ever saw was at Gordon's CineSphere in Toronto. The film was NORTH OF SUPERIOR. I had never heard of IMAX before and I only went in because I was on vacation visiting Ontario Place and, hey, it was a movie and the name of the theatre as the CineSphere....would could resist?

My friend and I file in with the rest of a very long line. We hear people talking about "the biggest screen ever made." I think, "hmmm, we shall see." I sit in front of this wall. "Where's the screen...it's just a wall," I tell my friend. Already I am not impressed....and even worse, there's no curtain. Then they give the ole down-at-the-bottom-of-the-screen talk, which seemed to suggest we were going to see a really BIG picture. Then NORTH OF SUPERIOR starts and here's this smallish square image in the middle of the wall. I lean over to my friend, this is the big deal screen? The screen in my theatre is bigger than this...these Canadians have a weird idea of what BIG is," says I. "Shut up," says he.

Warning: SPOILER -- If you haven't seen this film, don't read any further.... you really should see it not knowing what to expect.

The film has started and we are looking at what seems to be a camera mounted on a boat that is slowly picking up speed as it skims along the water. The camera seems mounted in front of the boat almost at water level. It picks up speed....I mean REALLY picks up speed going faster and faster while the 360 degree sound is building to a pounding pitch, a kind of "Jaws" theme, only better. Then, just as it looks like the boat is about to fly out over a waterfall, camera and all, in that perfect instant, the image jumps to fill IMAX screen and it is now obvious as the camera dives and tilts over the gargantuan water fall, that it is not mounted in a boat at all but on an airplane and you are flying out over the rising mist of the falls.

It was one of the most exciting and impressive movie moments ever....reminiscent of Kubricks span across eons in the famous cut between the falling bone and the spacecraft, only with a lot my viseral reaction. I actually said loud enough for people around to hear, "Holy shit." An my friend didn't tell me to shut up either....everyone was of the same mind, holding with white knukles onto the arm rests so as not to fall over into the water. It was truly spectacular.

I dragged my friend back on the line and waited another hour to see it again....did that for the rest of the day until we saw the last show.

Gordon, do you know if that title is still in the IMAX rotation? Can it be seen anywhere?

I got back to Brooklyn and had IMAX send me tons of literature. I became an IMAX junkie. And one of the guys at the last show let me see the projector and even gave me three frames from a print that was damaged. It's still up on the wall. That was in around 1975 or 6. Gordon, could that have been you?
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-22-2003, 02:09 AM:
 
Gord ran a restoration print of North of Superior this past Saturday. Unfortunately I couldn't make it.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-22-2003, 05:56 AM:
 
"North of Superior" was my first IMAX experience too, also at Ontario Place, with the same wonderful effect thirty years ago. Bill Shaw himself made the presentation and gave the booth tour at a Toronto/Rochester/Montreal SMPTE "mini-conference" held in Toronto.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-22-2003, 02:40 PM:
 
No that wouldn't have been me that far back probably John Gifford
The new print is in the weekend rotation and I think will be shown again soon we are haveing a IMAX film festival on weekends right now so depending on attendance it may get repeated
checkt he ontarioplace web site http://www.ontarioplace.com/
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 10-26-2003, 01:28 PM:
 
Doesn't "Snake Eyes" start out with a 1.33:1 image within the scope frame? It opens with a news broadcast. If I remember right, it closes with that too. I never saw the movie, though.

I just remember getting complaints about it, heh.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 10-26-2003, 02:42 PM:
 

quote:

---

I'm going to set up an automated masking opening at that point in the movie like I did with that Far and Away trailer.

---

quote:

---

Disney did the same format "widening" with "The Horse Whisperer". The scene in the begining where the girl is injured is letterboxed for the entire first reel, then at the second reel when the horse is let loose (beginning of Reel 2) the picture widens to full Scope.

---

The change from 1.85 to 2.39 occured at the beginning of reel 3, when the mother and daughter prepare to drive out to the country. It was certainly a cool effect in the theater.

Another addition to all of these titles is the recent Canadian film "Falling Angels" (1.85:1), where most of the 16mm sequences in the movie are paneled in at 1.37:1.

Jason
 

---

Posted by James Falloon (Member # 1933) on 10-26-2003, 03:44 PM:
 
I once had the misfortune to show the Crocodile Hunter Collision Course IMDB (Mostly Scope)

What a mess, mostly it was printed in 'full' scope, but some of it had bars down the sides of the picture to bring it back to W/S aspect ratio, then it would jump back into 'full' scope, and then back again. It did this about half a dozen times throughout the movie, halfway through reels etc.

It was a complete disaster, I ended up playing it with the masking curtains out, which looked stupid and I considered very bad showmanship

Oh well, I hope they learned their lesson.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-26-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
What shape is the opening material in North of Superior? In other words, is it the "daddy of all aspect ratio changes" or the daddy of size changes.

With most visitors nowadays familiar with what an IMAX picture is going to look like the surprise factor would no longer be there but at the time it must have packed a wallop.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 10-27-2003, 02:21 AM:
 
hmm, for these show-in-progress masking changes i imagine you must have pretty quiet masking motors. ours are kinda noisy. not to mention we don't have stops on our main screen so it's a hit and miss operation.

carl
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-27-2003, 02:51 AM:
 
Steve called it -- really a size change rather than an aspect ratio change. And yeah, today IMAX is no mystery and most people will realize the small image in the middle of the screen isn't the full screen, but still, it's one spectacular effect.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-27-2003, 11:44 AM:
 
They still jump when the picture explodes
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 10-27-2003, 02:19 PM:
 
There is a similar scene in the early IMAX film TO FLY. It starts off very small and shows the preparations for a balloon launch. When the balloon takes off, the image expands to full size and the audience usually gasped in unison.

One thing that helps this work is the steadiness of the Imax image.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-04-2003, 03:09 PM:
 
In the Feature info topic for Brother Bear:

quote from note in can:
All screen maskings and aperture plates are to be set for normal CinemaScope projection in your auditorium for the entire showing of the film.

John Pytlak said:
So they don't want you to use adjustable side masking, even if you have it? Guess the worry is that some theatres will forget to open it to full 2.39:1 at the appropriate time.


Then Greg Routenburg said:
John, I tried adjusting the side adjustable masking today to see if it could be made to work but the first part of the film didn't fill the full width of the 1.85 aspect ratio. It appears to be 1.80 tops. This could be why they made this recommendation.

-------------------------------------

Not all screens show the proper 1.85 aspect ratio, even when the masking is pulled in. (allthogh in a perfect world they should be...)
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-04-2003, 03:36 PM:
 
The term "aspect ratio" refers to the height/width ratio of the picture as it appears on the screen, no? Thus, the IMAX film "North of Superior" does make an aspect ratio change as well as a size change. Is this not true?

The reason I say this is because of anamorphic prints. You can measure the size/height/width of the picture on the film but you won't know the true shape of the picture until you factor in the effect of the anamorphic lens. If you didn't, then a Scope-2.39 picture would have almost the same AR as a picture in the Academy AR.

As far as the AR change in "Brother Bear", I thought it was annoying! I watched the ads in their usual crappy "video-to-film transfer" ratio. Then came the previews which jumped back and forth between Scope-2.39 and Hard-Matte-1.85. Then came the policy snipe, again in full Scope. Finally, the feature started and the film, which I KNEW was playing through the Scope lens showed in hard-matte 1.85 throughout the first 1-1/2 reels. Suddenly at the "magic moment" the screen widens out to where it SHOULD have been all along. The cue dot was even placed inside the regular 1.85 picture area. Even then, I knew that this is what was intended because I could see that the cue dot was "stretched out" the way it is when seen through the anamorphic lens.

This made it very hard for me to enjoy the first part of the film. My eyes kept getting "caught" on the edges of the picture and I was sitting in my seat, fidgeting and waiting for the picture to open up to where it SHOULD have been!

I thought the movie was fairly decent but this gimmick was not effective as far as I'm concerned. It took away from the film.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 11-04-2003, 06:16 PM:
 
The toughest presentation critic you'll ever find is a projectionist who cares. Really reduces the number of places you can enjoy a film without subconsciously picking things apart.

That also used to be a problem in the pre-automation days... though you were more likely to observe a projectionist's style as a comparison with your own. How many of you waited for the actual changeover? Timing? Lamp balance? Focus? Framing? Pops in the sound? Overly-noticeable dips as one exciter dropped & the other came on? Oh.... and if that curtain didn't finish closing right at the moment the image faded out... Whoooooeeeee! There went the whole show!
 

---

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 11-05-2003, 12:34 AM:
 
Simple question: Why did Disney do this with Brother Bear? Yeah, I know it's for artistic purposes or some crap like that, but to me it doesn't make sense. Anyone?

Mike is right, you are not supposed to show any part of this feature witht the masking set for 1.85. It is supposed to be Scope the whole time.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-05-2003, 01:58 PM:
 
I'll bet this movie is going over REALLY well on screens with top/bottom masking, especially at places that have the masking raised between shows for the "pre-show-entertainment"!
 

---

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 11-22-2003, 07:18 PM:
 
Here's a very odd one: "Forty Deuce", a 1982 Paul Morrisey film. First half (3 reels?) is 1.85, shot flat and meant to be projected that way. Suddenly, at a reel change, it converts to a split screen: two images printed side-by side (the same scene shot from different angles, apparently by two 16mm cameras), on an anamorphic projection print. Stays that way to the end. You have to do a lens change mid-film.

This would not be too a problem for someone doing changeovers, but where I saw it (the old Nickelodeon in Boston) they used platters and had to stop the film (for way too long, as I recall) and make the lens/plate switch. Kind of ruined the flow.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-22-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
Ridiculous to release a film like that and not have the entire thing be Scope with various formats within that. However, a bit of black film would have covered a lens and plate change without any need to stop; it should only take a few seconds. Unless you have a AA-II or DP70.
 

---

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 11-23-2003, 10:33 AM:
 
The Mystery of Picasso Mystère Picasso, Le (1956)

The last reel is CinemaScope. The previous reels are 1.37:1.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 11-23-2003, 11:43 AM:
 

quote:

---

The HORRID 1989 re-release of THE TEN COMMANDEMNTS presents the Cecil B. DeMille introduction in 1.37, then optically EXPANDS the screen to a 2.2 ratio during the Paramount logo. NEITHER ratio was correct, as both prologue and movie were shot in VistaVision, and (despite the so-called several AR approach hyped by Paramount for the process) was specifically supposed to be shown at 1.85.

---

quote:

---

The Mystery of Picasso Mystère Picasso, Le (1956)

The last reel is CinemaScope.

---

As I mentioned in my earlier post of 10-21.
 

---

Posted by Frank Aston (Member # 478) on 11-24-2003, 03:46 AM:
 
I wonder if anyone remembers the delightful credit sequence on Blake Edwards' THE GREAT RACE?

The titles were done as silent movie slides, including a "Ladies Please remove your hats", at 4x3 ratio.

The last of the slides features a hot air balloon and then the image dissolves into a full spectacular panorama long shot.

It was thrilling in 70mm in 1966.

When we played the film on reissue in the early 70's we programmed the Gretton Ward automation to open the masking at the appropiate moment.

Seeing the effect, and the audience reaction made you realise why you wanted to work in projection.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Wilkinson (Member # 1463) on 12-06-2003, 10:44 PM:
 
With previous features, as mentioned, such as Horse Whisperer and Galaxy Quest, we have left masking in 1.85:1 position then at the appropriate point placed a foil so the automation will open masking to scope position. Works and looks great, PRESENTATION!

In Horse Whisperer, when the reel came on that was "full Scope", it just cut to it (on the reel change), with a foil at that point the masking opened to reveal "the splendor of the country in scope", gradually.

Brother Bear opens here on Boxing Day.

Thanks for the Heads Up about it.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-07-2003, 12:03 AM:
 
6 min 24 seconds into Reel 2. There's a couple seconds of black at the transition. Noticeably narrower than actual 1.85 (based on common height projection); you will probably need to reprogram your stops or create a special one.

A properly excuted masking change will look better than over 20 minutes of wrong masking. I understand that at the local press screening (held at a theatre) even the reps thought the projectionist had the masking wrong then after the transition had to fend off viewers who thought they'd been missing part of the picture all that time.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Wilkinson (Member # 1463) on 12-07-2003, 01:23 AM:
 
Steve Wrote:

quote:

---

6 min 24 seconds into Reel 2. There's a couple seconds of black at the transition. Noticeably narrower than actual 1.85 (based on common height projection); you will probably need to reprogram your stops or create a special one.

---

Steve could you just clarify that at this point you mean the whole picture is black for a couple of seconds,
and the ratio isn't exactly 1.85 for Reel 1 and 6m 24secs of Reel 2, so the masking may have to come in a bit more. Have I got that right?

Thanks for your info.

The projectionist always gets blamed!

When we had Harry Potter No.2 (printed in australia) last year the audio (analogue and SRD) on ONLY one of the Reels was printed about 1/2 a second late (12 frames). Of course the projectionist got the blame for making the loop to big!
12 frames loop, I think NOT! They were set straight.
Stephen
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-07-2003, 02:25 AM:
 
Reel one and the first part of reel two is narrower than 1.85:1.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-07-2003, 10:17 AM:
 
Yeah, I had to go in a bit farther than 1.85. Tempted to call it 1.75 but this being the age of digital maybe it was 1.78 ("16:9"). And, yes, there's a tiny bit of black at that instant.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Wilkinson (Member # 1463) on 12-07-2003, 06:32 PM:
 
Thanks Steve.
I look forward to it with anticipation.

Stephen
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-07-2003, 06:39 PM:
 
What makes this change a bit awkard is that the two attached Disney previews seem to be at true 1.85. They are noticably wider than the first part of the film.
 

---