Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: is 1.78:1 now a standard film format?

This is topic is 1.78:1 now a standard film format? 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=010687

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-09-2010, 05:20 AM:

I had a bit of a discussion with a director last night (if you can call it a discussion when he barely spoke English). He had a 35mm print of a film that was shot on video as 16x9 (1.78:1) and printed as such with a hard matte. He was surprised that his choices for projection were limited to 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. He chose 1.66, even though the hard matte was visible at the top and bottom of the screen.

Are art houses and special venues now expected to be able to show 1.78 (or 1.75) in addition to 1.37, 1.66, 1.85, scope, and maybe 1.33 silent?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-09-2010, 05:45 AM:

Hells NO. If it was shot on video, then make him bring in a digibeta or whatever video format he's got handy and show it on the E-Cinema video projector, then the audiences would be seeing what he saw. Video is video....film is film; simple.

Either that, or if the wants to distribute his video on film, then he should do what is done all the time when when recording a work on either film or video that is expected to be shown in another format with different standard ratios -- the director shoots with a safe area marked with a reticle that will allow him to easily extract an image to the format on which he wants the work to wind up -- you can't get a more extreme example of this than VistaVision -- you want 4:3 TV? We got it! You want 2.35 CinemaScope? We got it! You want 1.85 or 1.66? We got them too...all on one negative! The reticle must have looked like a tick-tack-toe grid on steroids to the cinematographer.

In this case, his 1.66 safe area reticle would be on the left and right sides, so in the video-to-film xfer the lab can extract a 1.66 image, OR he would use a safe area 1.85 reticle so he could extract 1.85 if that happens to be his aesthetic preference. But, if he's had the lab do a direct video-to-film transfer at the video standard of 16:9, then sorry, he gets to see black bars (just like LieMax), which to a video person, I suppose, is like, well, normal. But, sorry, he doesn't get to expect a theatre to have a non-standard lens/plate set for 16:9 for their FILM projector, or that they adjust, of all things, their top and bottom masking for his video...film....er, video. He doesn't get to mix video and film formats.

Did you ask this director how come they didn't teach him this is film school?

Yah, I know; I am cranky this morning....haven't had my cup-o-joe yet.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-09-2010, 07:43 AM:

quote: Frank Angel

Did you ask this director how come they didn't teach him this is film school?

He actually teaches film (video?) production! (I don't know the details, but he was introduced as being involved with some sort of film school program.)

He was actually a really nice guy, but I don't speak Spanish, and his English was poor, which made communication difficult. He was unhappy when I ran the first reel at 1.85, so I switched to 1.66 for the rest of the feature (at his request).

I honestly think that it looked better at 1.85, especially since the subtitles were printed for 1.85, but a few shots needed the extra headroom. In any case, I can't legitimately argue about composition and aesthetics with the film's director.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-09-2010, 09:30 AM:

quote:
He actually teaches film (video?) production!

Oh great; we are doomed.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-09-2010, 10:18 AM:

FWIW, back in the late 70's and early 80's when I worked at places like the AFI and MPAA they did have 1:75 plates. Not sure if we ever used them, but they were for those films made during the transition years in the 50's and 60's.

Can't the video people get anything standardized? [Wink]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-09-2010, 11:55 AM:

Some, but not many, cinemas are equipped for 1.75; I think that it is on the formats list for the NFT if I remember correctly, though I haven't seen it for several years. I can see a case for film following what video does, but I haven't seen any cinemas which specifically mention 1.78. 1.75 is probably close enough to make no difference in the real world.

Posted by James Larden (Member # 5594) on 11-09-2010, 01:08 PM:

I have come across this situation a few times, generally at a festival the director or prod. will give you instructions. If not I tend to screen 1:78 at 1:66 if there is a hard matte, but sometimes you just have to screen a bit to see what is best. Often they'll ask if you have the capability for 1:66 and say that most places don't and have gotten used to screening in 1:85. My general inclination is to play it open with 1:66 if there is no indication otherwise.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2010, 01:49 PM:

I know 1.78:1 isn't a standard, traditional movie framing format like 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see a movie shot on video in the 16x9 ratio shown that way. However, I would prefer to see a movie shot on video projected via video as well.

I think it's pretty damned pretentious how a good number of movies have been shot on video yet cropped for 2.39:1 'scope.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by James Larden (Member # 5594) on 11-09-2010, 01:59 PM:

Couldn't agree more; letterboxed 2:39 Digibeta, [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-09-2010, 04:49 PM:

For the last few years, we have been equipping our "special venues" with 1.75/1.78 lenses/plates. Not only are there 1.75 films but with 16:9 origination, it only made sense to have this format available. It also can do wonders for headroom on a subtitled movie that is not 1.66. Often, the only difference is the aperture plates if the top(/bottom) masking is movable.

Steve