Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: more image than available screen

This is topic more image than available screen 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=008517

Posted by Carl King (Member # 398) on 02-19-2007, 08:04 AM:

Hello everyone.

On some trailers there seems to be a lot more image than normal. Much of this image does not get viewed because of framing positon. Is this Super 35 mm film?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2007, 11:57 AM:

What trailers do you mean? Titles, man!

Maybe you're looking at a trailer for a scope movie that has been "cropped" for flat rather than letterboxed.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 02-19-2007, 03:48 PM:

quote: Carl King
Is this Super 35 mm film?

um no, super 35mm is film shot on location that includes image on the sound track area, so if you have a soundtrack you have 35mm. Super 35mm is usually used for blowing up to scope. Titanic is an example

What you describe is a standard 1.375 gate in the camera, which is framed for 1.85 or 1.66 projection,

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-19-2007, 11:35 PM:

Yea, pull out your flat aperture and it's probably have been cut open in a retangular shape to represent a 1.85/1 ratio to where if you lay it against a full frame flat trailer, you will notice some pict information being cropped out due to the ratio of the aperture opening.

Posted by Richard May (Member # 2627) on 02-22-2007, 09:42 AM:

Yep, most theaters I know that have this problem only have lenses and plates for 1.85. It's probably a trailer shot in 1.33.

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 02-27-2007, 11:16 AM:

Many film are shot in a full-frame ratio (1.37) but are supposed to be shown in 1.85. Whether this is to make it easy to transfer to a full-frame DVD, or just a bit of laziness on the part of the DP is never clear, but trailers are often the same way, meant to be shown 1.85, no matter how they are cropped. I've seen prints with sections in 1.37 and other sections, sometimes on the same reel, in 1.85. This has been going on for years.

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 02-27-2007, 05:03 PM:

In Sweden we call it "american full-frame", and show it in 1:1,85. All of it is not meant to be seen on screen as it contains booms and other interesting things. Sometimes we have a whole feature in this format, and the give away is ususally that the subtitling is almost in the middle of the frame.

I understand that films are sometimes shot like this to avoid pan&scan for TV and DVDs. This way the director basically composes the shot for both formats (if skilled) otherwise you see to little width and to much height on the TV, but he keeps "creative control" instead of the panner and scanner. But I may be mistaken.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-27-2007, 08:57 PM:

Standard SMPTE 195 actually discourages the use of a "hard matte" (e.g., a 1.85:1 aperture) in the original photography. If a hard matte is introduced to force proper framing, it should be done in the printing negative, not the original negative.

Practical reasons for using a full frame aperture in the camera is to reduce the chances of a "hair in the gate" showing on screen, and to allow some flexiblity to reposition the image in post production.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-28-2007, 09:02 AM:

Used to be that European productions had the majority of their releases framed for 1.66 rather than the US standard of 1.85. Is that still the case or have our friends across the lake moved more toward our 1.85 mistake? I have seen a number of prints from Japan come in now with 1.85:1 marked in the leader itself even though they were hard-matted at 1.66. Just wondering.

Personally, I like 1.66 over 1.85 for a number of reasons -- that extra bit of resolution is nice, but it also makes scope look a lot wider by comparison; I really like that. And of course, there is nothing quite as dramatic as running a 1.37 cartoon before a scope feature and having the curtain and mask widen to the extreme for the main feature; and if the scope feature has a Fox logo with the full music, well, that's just projectionist Nirvana. [thumbsup]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 02-28-2007, 04:32 PM:

Absolutely agree with you Frank.

Conversely, there is nothing more disappointing than to see top maskinng fall for a smaller scope feature.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-01-2007, 03:41 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
And of course, there is nothing quite as dramatic as running a 1.37 cartoon before a scope feature and having the curtain and mask widen to the extreme for the main feature; and if the scope feature has a Fox logo with the full music, well, that's just projectionist Nirvana.

...and try that with dbl masking tabs - first the title curtain closes when the cartoon "the End" hits the screen which during this time, the masking tabs are adjusted for 2.35/1 Scope from our 1.66/1 "Regular" lens settings (remember when the term regular was used before the term FLAT came on board in the late 60's??), a few seconds of dead silence, dowser opens from the changeover, Lionel Newman's "FOX FANFARE" trumpets behind the screen,the title curtain opens up to the FOX logo with the old "A CinemaScope Picture" trademark..in 4trk mag stereo ...yes, it's definitely a nirvana that sends shivers up the spine.

that was Grand Presentation in those days.

And it was a great tribute when the first Star Wars movie, in 1977 reintroduced the 2nd half of that fanfare music that was played during the "CinemaScope" part of that trademark, Before then, FOX only had the opening section of the Fanfare for both flat and scope movies..

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 03-01-2007, 04:28 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
have our friends across the lake moved more toward our 1.85 mistake?

I think we are moving toward the mistake. At least in Sweden, though I´m not sure why. Most multiplexes only have two formats, and it´s usually 1,85, maybe because we have so many american prints. Our new multiplex has three formats (1,66 being the third one) but we don´t use it. Maybe because not everybody in the booth can see, or care about the difference.
When we had adverticing in 35 mm (until this january 1) we ran (at my single) them in 1,66, but not many others did, and now it´s all digital, so we run it in 1,85.

I´ve been told that the reason this side of the pond used 1,66 was that we needed the "extra height" for subtitles, so you´d get the same picture composition but with the subtitles below, not in the picture as with 1,85. I was taught that 1,85 was once known as "french widescreen", maybe because they also didn´t need subtitling as much, but a colleague said that the "real" french widescreen was 1,75 (a precursor of 16:9?).

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-02-2007, 05:14 PM:

The decline in use of 1:1.66 (additionally referred to as European Widescreen) in Europe may well be to do with the rise of multi/megaplexes during the last 20 years. Commonly using just two ratios (1.85 and 'Scope), these may have encouraged European filmmakers to move to 1.85 when making flat features.

1.66 now seems to be used mainly on the Festival circuit, for shorts and some features.

Interestingly, as well as the subtitling advantages above, 1.66 is reasonably close to the "Golden Ratio" of 1:1.61803399 approx. favoured by artists as a pleasing proportion for composition.

This ratio is arrived at via geometric construction using a unit square as a starting point. A line divided in the ratio will have its smaller part in the same proportion to the larger part as the larger part is to the whole.

A rectangle constructed using this ratio (the "Golden Rectangle") is close to that of the 1.66 film frame

A detailed explanation is here:

Golden Ratio

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-03-2007, 03:01 PM:

quote: Brian Guckian
Interestingly, as well as the subtitling advantages above, 1.66 is reasonably close to the "Golden Ratio" of 1:1.61803399 approx.

1:1.61803399 [Confused]

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 03-03-2007, 07:40 PM:

The golden ratio is half of "1 + the square root of 5", which isn´t a rational number, hence all the decimals as an attempt to be specific.