Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flat films that take up the full frame

This is topic Flat films that take up the full frame 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=008197

Posted by Ryan Navaroli (Member # 3477) on 08-10-2006, 02:14 PM:

Does anyone have suggestions when running, what I have called "full frame flat" movies. I have encountered a couple (40 yr old Virgin, Ms Henderson)over my time projecting. I realize with these two mentioned the reason for this was that booms were included in the shot often and extra head room was given so that it could be framed up.

Currently we are running "The Lost City" and apparently there are subtitles located both at the top and the bottom of the film causing me a great amount of difficulty while playing. I just don't understand why prints are made like this.

What ratio is it when a flat film takes up the whole frame, a 1.33? Also with a film like this would showing it on a 1.66 or 1.33 lens help? I had not watched this film all the way through and didn't realize about the subtitle problem until some complaints were brought up last night. I have the lower subtitles frame to the absolute bottom of the screen so bringing it down to include the ones at top would knock those off.

Me-> [Confused]

Posted by Ken Lackner (Member # 1002) on 08-10-2006, 02:37 PM:

Some 1.85 flat films are "hard matted" -- that is, there are thick black bars between frames, and only what is intended to show on screen is printed -- while others are not. Just because there is image taking up the entire frame does not mean that enitre image is intended to be projected. The film could still be 1.85. Often you will see boom mics, etc, in the top portion of the image, and this is not intended to show on screen. The undesireable portion gets cropped by the aperture plate.

If it is determined that the film truly is 1.33 or 1.66, then yes, you need a different lens (and aperture plate!) to properly show 1.33 or 1.66 on that screen. If you show a 1.66 or 1.33 film through the same lense you use for 1.85 on that screen, something will get cut off.

Make sense?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-10-2006, 04:02 PM:

Standard SMPTE 195 recommends using a full frame aperture in the camera. If a hard matte is desired, it should be done during the making of the duplicate negative. Sometimes, opticals or titles will have a hard matte, while other scenes are full height frames.

Many cinematographers prefer using a full frame aperture to reduce the risk of "hairs in the gate" showing.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 08-10-2006, 08:14 PM:

I don't recall seeing subtitles at the top of the frame in "Lost City", which is surely a 1.85 film, the one time I ran it (who puts them up there, anyway?), but I'll take your word for it. If indeed you can't frame it to include everything that's supposed to be shown, you might just be using a lens with too short a focal legnth. You may be projecting a 1.85 picture, sure, but are blowing it up too much (and using an aperture plate with a small aperture that cuts off stuff that should be on the screen). That's all I can think of.

If you are using say a 3-inch lens, try one that's 3 1/4 or 3 1/2 inches*, take out the plate, and see if it gets those titles on the screen without anything showing on the sides (soundtrack, perfs) you don't want to see. If this works, remember you have to file out your plate to match.

(*This is America, we don't like your monkey millimeters.)

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-11-2006, 12:36 AM:

Ryan, rather than futzing around with different focal lenght lenses until you find one that will show the subtitles and the supertitles (there really is text at the top of the screen?) without compromising one or the other for this particular print, it really sounds as if you need to verify that entire optical system, i.e., the lens, the aperture plate and screen masking are all in proper relationship to give you a true 1.85/1 aspect ratio on the screen. This should be done with an SMPTE Projection Alignment Test Film PA30 (sometimes referred to as RP40, which is the SMPTE specification that the test film let's you know you are conforming to or not).

If the test film IS showing that you are right on point -- you are showing exactly a 1.85 aspect ratio on the screen -- yet stuff STILL gets cut off, then it's a problem with the particular print and not your system. That said, I would bet it's the optical system being not quite on the money rather than the print. On the other hand.....

This comes to mind: subtitles are actually etched into the emulsion of a print AFTER the image has been processed. It is possible that either these sub or super titles were etched improperly. In that case, a replacement print is in order (good luck on that). If they can't give you are replaement, then, yes you can try a longer focal length lens with a 1.66 aperture plate. In an art house, having a lens/plate combo for the 1.66 format would be a common thing and going to that AR would be as easy as switching from flat to scope. In straight commercial houses, however, you pretty much will only find 1.85 and scope unless you are really lucky.

FYI, a full frame print with a soundtrack is actually 1.37/1 AR not 1.33. A full frame silent print (without a soundtrack) is 1.33/1 AR. Not to worry, it's not your fault; I am sure you've heard lots and lots of people who should know better for some strange reason still refer to pre-1950 full frame soundprints as 1.33, as if they are stuck time in the silent film era. It makes as much sense as someone refering to 2000ft reels of soundfilm as "1000 footers" because that's what silent films were shipped on some freakin 100 years ago. [Eek!]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-11-2006, 03:10 AM:

if all the supertitles appear in one reel exclusively, that's an error. reel 4 of our print of el crimen del padre amaro had the subtitles in the middle of the frame. got that reel replaced the next day. these were laser titles.

i haven't seen the lost city. can anyone confirm that there are really supposed to be supertitles?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-11-2006, 07:36 AM:

The next time you play Doc Hollywood at your theater, play with the framing knob during the scene where that chick is topless after coming out of the water or whatever it was. You'll see that she's bottomless as well in this PG movie!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-11-2006, 07:50 AM:

quote: Carl Martin
if all the supertitles appear in one reel exclusively, that's an error. reel 4 of our print of el crimen del padre amaro had the subtitles in the middle of the frame. got that reel replaced the next day. these were laser titles.

Sounds like the laser recording facility accidently misframed the print when threading it into the laser recording equipment. A mistake that should have been caught, although it likely affected only that particular reel of film.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-11-2006, 12:27 PM:

Doc Hollywood was PG-13, but usually nude scenes are the opposite- they're supposed to be naked, but in the unframed area of the picture you can see they're wearing something. I used a few examples of that to show some new people how it's important to keep everything framed properly!

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 08-11-2006, 01:32 PM:

We had no problems with subtitles on the few prints of "The Lost City" that I handled for the NYC Press screenings. It ran fine in 1.85 .

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-11-2006, 02:33 PM:

Years ago I ran MURDER'S ROW with Dean Martin as Matt Helm; it was one of those full frame prints. Martin was passably entertaining and if it weren't for him the film, the film would have been excrutiating rather than just painful -- it was soooo bad and deathly BORING.

In this sleepy Texas town there were morning shows with nary a patron and one morning I racked the frame down so I could see the very top edge of the frame and WOW!, all the stuff you could see -- a shot where Martin and some other actor were sitting in what at 1.85 looked like a normal car, misframed you now could see that it was just the body of car cut diagonally at the windshield and you could see a big 2 by 4 clamped to the top of the roof to hold it up because there were no front posts. The boom mike was not only visible, but you could watch it change postions as the operator aimed it at each actor as they spoke their (boring) lines.

There was one shot with Dean supposedly hanging from a helecoptor by a rope. There was a long shot of the stunt guy actually hanging on the line; in the close-up however, Martin could be seen hanging on a rope, but behind him you could see the gromets and the pipe of the projection screen on which they were projecting the sky background.

I swear it made watching the film infinately more interesting and tolerable than watching it straight.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2006, 03:20 PM:

There's some film from the 80s with Sally Field in which she's shown taking a shower...properly framed, she's cut off at the shoulder but framed up, she's in all her topless glory. Nice perky 'uns, too.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-11-2006, 08:18 PM:

More fun is when you do see these skin shots and frame up - Flesh Pastie City, or the use of flesh cloth tape is in order....with a small pencil mic taped to the bellies of the actresses pointing upward to catch the voice.

This thread can ALMOST swing into a blooper section (which is so much fun do to as a projectionist in the changeover days..)

I'll throw a couple of examples (and not meaning to go off-topic) :

1- "GREASE" 1978 - the scene where Travolta and Newton-John were standing by the jukebox in the soda shop (and this was right before the changeover of that certain reel..and nobody caught this one) - the were talking back and forth and in the refoection of the jukebox, you can see the pencil mic on the boom swing back and forth between the two characters when each were talking...

2- "Star Wars" : EP-V - EMPIRE : In the scene where C3PO was missing his head and the camera panned to the conveyor belt that showed his head. You look at in the area of the forehead of the C3PO's head and you can see the focus puller on the lens of the camera taking this shot in the reflection.

ONE should start a new thread called "Bloopers" .. in the "AfterLife" section, so we could really have fun with this.

-Monte

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-11-2006, 09:13 PM:

Mike I'm wondering if you're confusing that with Beverly DAngelo in Nat. Lampoons Vacation... same situation

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-11-2006, 09:38 PM:

quote: Peter Mork
(*This is America, we don't like your monkey millimeters.)

Hi Peter

So...how wide's your film then? [Big Grin]

Mike, you could also be thinking of Best friends with Goldie Hawn.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-11-2006, 10:28 PM:

John asks, "So...how wide's your film then?"

Gosh, I thought you knew! Dimension A is 1.377 +/- 0.001 inches, or 34.975 +/- 0.025 mm, per SMTPE 139 (SMPTE STANDARD for Motion-Picture Film (35-mm) ---- Perforated KS).

--jhawk

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-11-2006, 11:39 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
Mike I'm wondering if you're confusing that with Beverly DAngelo in Nat. Lampoons Vacation... same situation

No, this film came out before Vacation. I think Beverly is not cut off...isnt' she visible in the regular frame? Gotta get my NLV DVD out.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 08-11-2006, 11:56 PM:

I think she was cut off if I recall... I used to have a print and projected it full frame one time and she was nude there.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 08-12-2006, 12:58 PM:

In "Vacation" she's wearing panties in the shower, which you can see on the old CED videodisc.

I've got the 1981 laserdisc of The Muppet Movie from Magnetic Video, and you can see TONS of stuff you're not supposed to see on that, like arms coming out of the puppets and there's one part where you can see some guys laying on a board operating several puppets at once. The CED videodisc of that movie is zoomed-in so you don't see any of that. Some kids must have been scarred for life at any badly-framed showings- all the other Muppet films after that were hard-matted.

Posted by Peter Mork (Member # 1336) on 08-12-2006, 06:32 PM:

RE: John Wilson, "So...how wide's your film then?"
That would be 1 189/500 inches - wise guy.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-12-2006, 07:15 PM:

... and 70mm is just a myth?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-12-2006, 07:21 PM:

[Wink]