Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Running a 1.33 picture with 1.85 lenses/plates

This is topic Running a 1.33 picture with 1.85 lenses/plates 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=011733

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 10-31-2014, 02:02 AM:

So I just received a fairly new Warner Brothers print of "King Kong" (1933) from HFC Clark to show at my drive in and it just occurred to me it is in 1.33. It doesn't look like it's matted and I do not have 1.33 lenses or plates for my machines here.
As lenses/plates/aspect ratios have never been my area of expertise, I was wondering what you all would recommend I do to rectify this situation.
It seems like I've heard of some tricks like using my flat 1.85 lenses with my scope 2.35 plates.
Over and above the fact I am a stickler for film done right regardless of whether I have an audience of 3 or 3,000, these screenings are guaranteed to bring in several thousands of customers from several different states so I'd like for it to look as good as possible. Had I known it wasn't matted, I probably wouldn't have booked it :-(.
Any tips, guys?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2014, 03:04 AM:

You could probably get by with using the prime lens only (remove the anamorphic) and the scope plate. It won't be ideal, but it will be much closer than using the 1.85 lens and plate.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-31-2014, 03:13 AM:

quote: Tony L. Hernandez
It seems like I've heard of some tricks like using my flat 1.85 lenses with my scope 2.35 plates.

I believe what you are thinking of is that you can pull the 'prime' lens off
of one of your scope adapters and that will give you an image pretty close
to the size you need, if you don't have a "1:33" lens. But I think you still
need to have the correct aperture plate to really make things 'work'

I ran into almost the same problem the other night while preparing a
1:33 print for a halloween show. I had the right lenses, but the theater
in question had misplace their aperture plates. I tried using the scope plate,
but the image was slightly too tall for the screen, and it bled onto the
top & bottom (unmovable) maskings. Fortunately, I had a 1:33 plate in
my collection of cinemastuff at home that matched the screen size pretty
good, and by sheer luck I came across the theatre's actual aperture
plate the following day while looking for something else.

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 10-31-2014, 05:12 AM:

I gave that a try, Brad, and it worked in theory but I'm running into the same issue as Jim with my plates. I am literally cringing while I type this bit just how bad are we talking if I just run this with flat 1.85 lenses/plates? Will the average joe notice?

A full set if lenses and plates is next on my wish list...

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 10-31-2014, 09:02 AM:

As a last resort can you mask your port window to stop the bleed over?

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-31-2014, 09:25 AM:

Use the scope plate and prime lens, masking the top/bottom at the window. The lens is probably correct, but the specifications for 1.37 aperture plates has less height than for scope.

Depending upon the wattage of your xenon lamp, you may be able to get away with masking the scope aperture plate with silver heat tape (the stuff they use to seal heating ducts), which will give you a sharper edge to the masking. I've seen this done at indoor theatres, however the bulb wattage at a drive-in may be too hot for the heat tape.

Who or what is HFC Clark? Kong should have come from Warner Brothers.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 10-31-2014, 10:02 AM:

HFC Clark is the former Hollywood Film Company.
Warner Bros. has them handle their 35mm print library, which was formerly housed at the studio.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-31-2014, 10:04 AM:

Thanks Richard.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-31-2014, 12:50 PM:

Depending on his current cropping for scope will depend on how acceptable or not acceptable the bleed will be.

I would not recommend using tape on the aperture. He could scratch the film and not know it until the next pass.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-31-2014, 01:15 PM:

If the frames on the print are all 1.37 hard matted, then the 'scope plate and prime lens will do more or less fine. Your audience will see the matte line and rounded corners, but for a one-off show that isn't going to kill them.

However, a lot of 1930s shows include shots that were taken with a full aperture silent camera and only duplicated through the intermediate stages by continuous contact printing (no opticals or effects introduced). Therefore, the result will be that these shots are full height on the release print - they look like 'scope frames, only not anamorphic. If you use your scope prime and plate to show those, you'll show unwanted action top and bottom, including, possibly, boom mics. The image size will also appear to change in cuts between matted shots and full height ones.

However, that's still a helluva lot better than 1.85.

The scope backing lens is also a good ghetto-rigged solution for full-gate silent prints, too, though for those you obviously need to use no aperture plate at all and try to do something to center the image (e.g. take a crowbar to the projector pedestal), or else you'll be cropping some of the left hand side of it.

Afterthought: I'm guessing that apart from the opening scenes and those on the boat, most if not all the shots in King Kong will be process shots, and thus step printed and Academy-matted. Weird - I've seen that movie hundreds of times, but all on video (plus once on 16mm): I don't believe that I've ever shown or seen a 35mm print of it. It would be a great one to see a nitrate print of (if any survive in projectable condition), with all that detail in the dark end of the midtones.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 10-31-2014, 02:12 PM:

The last generation of 35mm Kong prints that Warner struck looked incredible. More detail than I had ever seen. I too would be curious to see a nitrate print, but I doubt it could look any better.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-31-2014, 02:21 PM:

Any possible way to get a variable magnacom lens to put in front of the prime so the image could be enlarged on the screen if using full aperture?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 10-31-2014, 02:44 PM:

Do you have time enough to have lenses shipped to you? Because I might have the correct size and you're welcome to borrow them.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-31-2014, 04:59 PM:

Just leaving the plate out and using black gaffers tape on the port window like Imax does is the best answer to this issue.

Mark