This is topic Projecting 1.33 and 1.85 with manual masking 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=009187

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 03-14-2008, 03:24 AM:
 
Hello,

I wanted to run something I was thinking of doing by you folks and get your opinions. I am running a picture tomorrow night only for two showings that is in the 1.33 aspect ratio and I have a slight dilemma. My trailer reel that contains the trailers for my two upcoming pictures as well as my theater's welcome tag is flat 1.85 and this usually this works fine as I either am running it with a 1.85 feature with the masking set to the above mentioned or on scope 2.35 prints where the masking is opened for 2.35 and I simply change over to reel one of my feature after the trailer reel which already has a scope lens and plate in and then switch the lens and plate on the projector I ran the trailers on to scope while I thread up reel two. Well, needless to say, tomorrow night the maskings will be set to 1.33 so of course I cannot do what I usually do (run the trailers on 1.85 and change lenses and plates). I have to set my maskings manually (rope and pulley) before the show and before we start seating the house so switching them between the trailers and feature is out of the question.

So after trying some things after my show tonight, I found that I could run my trailer reel on 1.33 with out too much cropping. That said, however, even an audience member who knows nothing of film or projection would immediately find that the image "looks funny." Although we do have many of the above mentioned folks in attendance, we are an arthouse and have many filmmakers and film students who patronize us and would be all the more inclined to notice.

I would like your opinions on how good or bad of an idea I have here and what you would think of it if you had paid to see my show. I would really like to be able to run my trailers and tag but at the same time I personally and my theater both pride ourselves on quality showmanship and I would hate to do anything tacky or unprofessional that would lower our standards. Aside from the missed opportunity to advertise and the chance to buy a few minutes for the late comers, just skipping the trailer reel would not cause any problems or repercussions for anyone or anything but I do like to show them whenever possible.
I am a 2k changeover house, by the way.

Thank you!
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-14-2008, 08:08 AM:
 
Run the trailers with the masking set at 1.85, stop, then go down to the screen and set the masking to 1.33. Go back, change apertures and start the projector up again. Announce to the patrons what you are doing as you walk to the screen. This way, the people who know about ratios will know you care about it being correct. And the people who don't know will at least know it wasn't a mistake.

The anamorphic format hasn't been 2.35 since the early 1980's; it's 2.39 now, even though 2.35 is printed on all the trailers.

Yoy might change the topic title to something a little clearer, like "Projecting 1.33 and 1.85 with manual masking." This will help others who might search later.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-14-2008, 09:06 AM:
 
Run the trailers 1.37 (1.33 hasn't been used since the early 1930's). If they are hard matted on the print, center them on the screen. People are already conditioned to "letterboxing" from video and tv. Most will not notice or care, and the few that do will appreciate that you are actually running the feature in it's proper aspect ratio with masking. That is my experience talking to customers at The Landmark Loews Jersey.
 

---

Posted by Malcolm John Metcraft (Member # 2917) on 03-14-2008, 09:37 AM:
 
Hi Tony L. Hernandez,
I don't have a quick fix but I would run sum ropes and pulleys from masking curtains on stage up threw roof cavity and down into projection room on front wall long side projector then you can open and close curtains as needed join in loop just pull down on one side to open then pull down on other side to close.
The old theatre I use to work in that's how we use to work the masking curtains, I've even dune the same setup for a home cinema. works well.
A quick fix would be to have a friend be behind the screen to open & close for you on change over cues. Cheers Malcolm
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-14-2008, 09:58 AM:
 
Oh this is easy...Run the trailers in 1.85 with the 1.37 lens. That is, use the 1.85 aperture plate but the 1.37 lens...the width of the image is supposed to be the same so the aperture plate should be close enough. People are quite accustomed to letterboxing (done all the time on TV even). Everything is presented in its proper ratio. It also allows the feature to retain the largest screen you are running for the show (always protect for the feature, not the preview...they paid to see the feature).

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2008, 11:37 AM:
 
Tony - see Rule #7 on the site policies page.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-14-2008, 11:59 AM:
 
I have to set my maskings manually (rope and pulley) before the show and before we start seating the house so switching them between the trailers and feature is out of the question.

Why is this out of the question? If you have a curtain, bring the house lights up to half and close the curtain, change the masking, open the curtain/down the house lights and start the feature. This was common proceedure in the days of movie palaces. Don't have a curtain, then just skip the curtain part. I have been to many multiplexes where the uncurtained masking changes (via automation) between trailers and feature. No, I am not suggesting you run down from the booth to do this, just show one of the floor staff what needs to be done and position them by the making rope when the show starts.
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 03-14-2008, 12:21 PM:
 
To Brad and the others who felt misled by my subject: I do apologize for this. I posted this at 2:30 am after a very long night and the original title was unfortunately the most creative thing I could think of at the time. I took the liberty of using John Walsh's suggested title verbatim as I thought it sounded great.

Mitchell: The actual ratio is indeed 1.37 although what I have to work with are 1.33 lenses and plates. Believe it or not, however, I have in the past ran 2 or 3 actual 1.33 prints. And I was not aware that scope was 2.37 rather than 2.35. I would like this post to stay on topic but would someone briefly explain why these minor alterations were deemed necessary over the years?

I don't know how well it would be received by my boss to stop the show and switch the maskings so I don't think I will be able to do that. And someone suggested I extend my rope into the booth which does seem like a good idea but I'm not sure when or if I can get the chance to do this.

Essentially I'm wondering how bad my original idea would look but I do really appreciate other suggestions as well.

Thanks, guys!
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-14-2008, 12:37 PM:
 
The original aspect ratio for silent movies (pre soundtrack) were about 1.37:1. When optical soundtracks were added circ 1930, the picture was narrowed to 1.33 to make room for it. Exhibitors at the time felt that made the picture too square, so in the mid 1930's, the studios increased the thickness of the frame lines to form a 1.37 image, which was standardized as academy flat. Although your lens/plates may be marked 1.33, it is very likely that they are really 1.37. Many projectionist used the two ratios interchangebly over the years.

As to scope, it went though a bunch of aspect ratio changes in it's early days do to the fact that originally their was no optical soundtrack. After the optical track became standard for scope films, the aspect ratio was standardized as 2:35:1. In the late 1980's, that standard was changed to 2.39:1 to better hide sloppy negative spices. Nothing actually changed on the film, just aperture plates in the projectors were changed to crop more from the top and bottom.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-14-2008, 12:46 PM:
 
What Steve said. People will complain if the screen gets smaller for the feature. If you run the trailers in Academy with the 1.85 plate, the image will get bigger for the feature and this will look more natural and impressive.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-14-2008, 01:49 PM:
 
mitchell's chronology is slightly wrong. silents were more-or-less 1.33, without there really being a standard saying so. the addition of optical soundtracks made the ratio about 1.2. this was then cut down to 1.37 in an approximation of the silent ratio.

back on topic, i wouldn't bother with the 1.85 plate for the trailers unless there's something egregious in the frame that's intended to be masked off. in fact, if the trailers are hard-matted, that will give you a crisper top and bottom edge than using the 1.85 plate.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-14-2008, 08:59 PM:
 
Moving to FHF.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-15-2008, 07:01 AM:
 
Good luck with the show Tony and let us know what procedure you ended up using.

Showing the trailer reel with the 1.37 lens and 1.85 plate is a good idea given all the constraints but if there's a Scope title being trailed that is hard-masked to keep the aspect ratio, then the image could be very small on the screen.

quote: Tony L. Hernandez

---

Mitchell: The actual ratio is indeed 1.37 although what I have to work with are 1.33 lenses and plates

---