Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Silence of the Lambs (discussion)

This is topic Silence of the Lambs (discussion) in forum The Afterlife 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=12;t=000025

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-30-2003, 12:34 AM:

Moving discussion from the FITA thread (Silence of the Lambs).

Michael Coate asked: "Were there any notes enclosed with the prints indicating the projection ratio is 1.66:1, or is 1.66:1 simply the ratio the image was printed in (meaning 1.85:1 would be the projection ratio)? I can recall seeing other Orion spherical releases printed with rounded hardmatte corners (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and RoboCop 2 come to mind, yet they were still meant for 1.85:1 projection)."

No, as you would expect, there's no enclosed data (it rarely lasts 3 months, much less 10 years). There appears to be a full 1.66:1 image, however, and there are no boom mics or other untoward items visible when projected at 1.66:1. In fact, it looked to me that there was even a little more than 1.66:1 in there, but I did not actually measure.

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-30-2003, 01:41 AM:

John,
Why did you move this thread? There was nothing "chatty" about it. If others start babbling about things like their DVD collections or anything else not related to the entry in other FITA threads, that's not my problem...so don't hold me responsible. Sometimes my contribution to these FITA entries may seem chatty to some but it's all relevant information if you ask me; I'm adding useful information or attempting to clarify already posted information. If the FITA category is really meant to be a resource and an archive of useful information then I'd suggest not getting bent out of shape when someone tries to add relevant data to a particular film's entry.

The Silence Of The Lambs may very well have been intended to be projected at 1.66:1. My point was simply that *most* spherical prints in the last couple decades -- whether hardmatted or not -- are meant to be projected at 1.85:1. For some odd reason, many people get tripped up on 1.66:1 hardmatted prints, falsely thinking they automatically imply 1.66:1 projection. Re Silence; I was just trying to get a clarification on the ratio so the entry for that title would be as complete and accurate as possible.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-30-2003, 01:58 AM:

It wasn't an insult at you Mike. John was just nipping it before it turned into chit chat. The FITA forum is for hard data. Since he linked the thread to this one, people searching the archives can still have access to the data. If some hard proof turns up in this thread, then it can be added back over in the FITA thread. [Smile]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-30-2003, 02:04 AM:

Michael: I moved the thread because I thought that it was not a set of clear answers regarding Silence of the Lambs. It was a set of questions, to which I did not have useful answers. But I think they are questions still being discussed. (Perhaps someone else will have answers...[*])

I don't hold you responsible for the DVD collection discussion, but the presence of them does make me more sensitive to what I see as gray areas in the FITA charter.

The question of how to run most of the 1.66:1 -matted prints is a good question. Our general policy is to run them at 1.66:1 unless there's something glaringly wrong at that aspect ratio. I suppose our policy might differ if we had different lenses for 1.66:1 versus 1.85:1, but that's just us (well, and a lot of other people).

I certainly appreciate your desire to clarify. Personally, I would see such inquiry outside the FITA, but you are welcome to differ with me on that; I'm not an authority by any means.

--jhawk

[*] perhaps someone will email MGM/UA, or the DP (Tak Fujimoto?) to get the definitive answer. I promise not to "grump." [Eek!]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2003, 02:30 AM:

Which brings up a related point... why, oh why, can't DPs instruct the lab to print his or her intended aspect ratio for projection on the head leader of each reel of the cut camera negative. Then on every single f***ing element of a film it would say, clear as daylight, 'show this in 1:1.66' or 'show this in 1:1.85'. No projectionists would have to faff about holding bits of film up to the light and playing guess the ratio: their lives would get easier and presentation standards would imptove. Everyone's a winner. So why don't they do it?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-30-2003, 02:37 AM:

DP instruct the lab? Isn't it more like "Why can't the DP instruct the Producer to instruct the Executive Producer to instruct the Studio to instruct the lab?" Or am I too pessimistic?

--jhawk

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-30-2003, 03:08 AM:

But this brings about another issue. If I was given a print of Silence of the Lambs to run at a theater that had 1.66 and 1.85 and I had hard evidence that the film was shot to be projected ideally at 1.66, I would STILL run it at 1.85. Why? Those damned rounded corners. Can't stand 'em! [Mad]

There would have to be obvious cropping or subtitling issues when projected at 1.85 for me to ever settle with round corners.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2003, 05:49 AM:

If the printer matte is such that a film can't be shown in 1:1.66 without exposing its edges at the corners, then surely it can't have been intended for projection in that ratio. Either that or there was a serious lab screw-up.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-30-2003, 08:33 AM:

Speaking of 1.66, I've seen several films at the Mann Chinese Theatre in Hollywood that were projected in this ratio (Robocop, Robin Hood (Costner) and Interview With the Vampire. Flat previews that were hard matted at 1.85 were shown with the black mattes equally above and below the image. So this theatre (a high profile one in the shadow of the industry's influence) apparently has (or had) a policy of projecting the extra image if it was on the film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 09:15 AM:

Standard SMPTE 195 discusses the proper use of "hard mattes".

Standard SMPTE 301 specifies an area on the leaders for labeling the intended aspect ratio.

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2003, 09:26 AM:

I know that SMPTE 301 calls for precisely what I called for above, but my experience as a projectionist was that neg cutters (or whoever's responsiblity it is to write ID information on the head leaders before duplication) paid about as much attention to SMPTE 301 as I do to Chairman Mao's little red book. Ensuring that the intended aspect ratio for projection is communicated between whoever determines what it should be and the projectionist is hardly rocket science, but my experience was certainly that the industry seemed incapable of doing it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-30-2003, 10:00 AM:

Chairman Mao's Red Book [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-31-2003, 03:07 AM:

Nice link, wrong colour! [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-31-2003, 10:21 AM:

Jhawk

I really see no reason why you felt the need to challenge my opinion via private e-mail instead of answering in post. Your answer was a relevant part of this discussion, and shouldn't be hidden. As far as wondering what the official projection policy of the Chinese Theatre used to be (BEFORE they changed booth location upstairs and increased screen size) almost EVERY flat feature I've seen there has been shown at either 1.66 or 1.33(7). (I should add that this is the case for 35mm flat films). I have seen previews projected (on occasion) at 1.85 when preceeding a scope film, though. Now, the 1.66 and 1.37 image seems to be about the same screen width as 1.85, just adding extra height.

I can only go by my observances. I really don't know for a fact if this was "policy" or not. My use of the word "apparently" meant I was guessing based on this observation.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 01-31-2003, 10:42 AM:

I guess I'm the big bad ogre of FT this week. I sent you private email, Paul, because I didn't think the one sentence "Just because they did it 3 times doesn't mean it's a policy, as much as randomness perhaps the personal policy of an individual projectionist." was necessary to post (that was the sole content of the email). It would come across as a nitpicky commentary on word choice [which it was], and did not add to the discussion usefully as far as I could see.

--jhawk

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-31-2003, 07:54 PM:

well, if you consider it nitpicky if put in the general post, wouldn't it still be nitpicky in a private e-mail? As I said, your response didn't bother me one way or the other, just the fact that you sent it in e-mail made me think that you thought that there was something wrong about it.

But, we're all friends, aren't we? [Smile]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 02-01-2003, 04:46 PM:

It's American.
It's 1991.
It's not scope.

Sounds like 1.85:1 to me.

EDIT: Does anyone have a widescreen copy on DVD? What ratio is it in?

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 02-01-2003, 07:20 PM:

Silence of the Lambs is presented in 1.85 on the dvd.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-02-2003, 03:21 AM:

Yes, but the Psycho DVD is also in 1:1.85 and Hitchcock has said in no fewer than two published sources that it should be shown in Academy. I'd guess that the DVD is in 1:1.85 because whoever did the telecine transfer didn't know any different and because consumers with widescreen tellies expect it to be that way.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2003, 04:54 PM:

Umm, I hate to break it to you, Michael, but there are huge piles of flat American films from 1991-2004 that are appropriate for 1.66:1. That is, they have an image area that fits in 1.66:1 (with room for masking) and show no boom mic or other unintended elements. I'd say that it's greater than 50% of the flat films.

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-02-2003, 08:46 PM:

quote:
Umm, I hate to break it to you, Michael [Brown], but there are huge piles of flat American films from 1991-2004 that are appropriate for 1.66:1. That is, they have an image area that fits in 1.66:1 (with room for masking) and show no boom mic or other unintended elements.

John,
Appropriate for 1.66:1??? Just because a film can be run 1.66:1 doesn't mean it should be.... Now I know why you think The Silence Of The Lambs is 1.66:1. [Smile]

quote:
I'd say that it's greater than 50% of the flat films.

That's certainly a curious comment. I'd say the percentage is much higher or lower depending on what your exact point is. Are you saying most spherical films are "protected" for 1.66:1 (or even 1.33/7:1) projection 50 percent of the time? How would you know? Are you watching these films out of frame to check for intruding mic booms, lights, tape marks for actors, etc.? (Or do you run everything at 1.66:1, and with perfectly-centered framing the image seems fine?) If you're commenting on the number of non-hardmatted prints, then that percentage would be in excess of 90 percent, I would imagine (at least during the '80s and early '90s when I was handling prints). The use of hard mattes in photography isn't all that common, and the use of hardmatted prints is almost as uncommon (again, someone with everyday handling of contemporary prints can chime in and confirm/counter, if they like...and don't fire back at me saying you remember this movie, this movie, this movie and that movie being hardmatted; I think if you add it up you'll recall more non hardmatted prints). And even when hardmattes are present on a print, it often isn't consistent through a whole film frequently being present only during a visual effects-originated shot, a nude scene, an optical effect, etc. Furthermore, in speaking with members of the cinematography community I certainly don't get the impression that hardmattes are used all that much lately; DPs have often stated that the studios won't allow them to be used, or at least encourage them not to be used. (None of the spherically-originated productions I worked on as a camera assistant used hard mattes, by the way.)

There's currently a (small) push for 3-perf origination and, when used, obviously a "regular" spherical 4-perf projection print would be hardmatted.

Michael Brown,
It is a myth that all spherical American films are 1.85:1 and all European films are 1.66:1. I can bore you to death with a lengthy listing of American 1.66:1 productions as well as European 1.75:1 and 1.85:1 films (Numerous British films were meant for 1.75:1 projection; many films from Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. were intended for 1.85:1.).

Post edited to include:

quote:
Does anyone have a widescreen copy on DVD? What ratio is it in?

quote:
Silence of the Lambs is presented in 1.85 on the dvd.

I cannot comment on international video releases, but for the U.S. I'm aware of two laserdisc releases and two DVDs. The ratio has been 1.85:1 in each instance, and some of these have been from Criterion, a company very conscious (certainly more so than other companies) of original presentation and filmmaker intent.

In addition, the Criterion liner notes state: "The Silence of the Lambs is presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This new digital transfer was made from the 35mm interpositive and the 35mm Dolby Stereo magnetic master in consultation with cinematographer Tak Fujimoto."

A final note: I'm planning to attend the American Cinematographer open house event and ASC awards dinner & ceremony later this month. Both events are attended by many DPs. If Lambs DP Tak happens to be in attendance, I'll make a point to ask him about the ratio if it'll help put an end to this ridiculous argument.

[ 02-02-2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2003, 09:27 PM:

Michael,

The only information I can generally provide is the way the image looks. We can speculate as to 1.66:1 versus 1.85:1 until we're blue in the face if we attempt to ascribe intent -- unless there is explicit text included with the print, which is extremely rare (not to mention that any notation on the leaders would be suspect, but generally it just reads "F L A T"). So yes, I can only comment on "appropriateness."

You ask, "How would you know? Are you watching these films out of frame to check for intruding mic booms, lights, tape marks for actors, etc.? (Or do you run everything at 1.66:1, and with perfectly-centered framing the image seems fine?)". The answer is essentially "Yes."

As I said before in this thread, "Our general policy is to run them at 1.66:1 unless there's something glaringly wrong at that aspect ratio." Of course, we don't keep the frameline "perfectly centered"; we adjust framing until most elements look correctly centered, and run from there.

So are you asking if I'm saying "are most flat films protected for 1.66:1"? Sure, that's basically what I'm saying (assuming you define "protected" to not include "hard matted to 1.85"; and perhaps a word instead of "most" to imply "more than 50%").

Clear enough?

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 09:46 PM:

Hmmm...I've screened dailies for 50+ feature films and never once did a crew on a 1.85 show ask to see what was masked away. That's a good indication they weren't thinking about 1.66. Maybe they tell the camera operator to protect it and alert them if the mike is too close but that I can't say. I did have one editor want to see a shot in 1.37 but she was confused about what happens in a video transfer but lost interest when I explained that video framing can be whatever the transfer-ist wants.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2003, 09:49 PM:

Umm, Steve, how do you know if it's a 1.85 show or not? Are you saying you have additional information (out-of-band), or do you mean you show all flat dailies at 1.85 unless otherwise requested?
If the former, well, if only we could all be in that position for release prints.

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 09:53 PM:

On dailies? Um...they tell you up front whether they are shooting anamorphic, Super 35, or 1.85. No guessing involved. And then on most shows, they will have shot a roll of a focus chart with the logo of the film and the specific frame outlined (which the camera operator shot lined up with his/her groundglass markings). The editor syncing dailies will put a dozen or so feet on the head of each roll of picture. Remember, this is for the crew including the DP, operator, director, producer, etc. If it wasn't exactly right you'd be told post haste.

I've never screened 1.66 dailies but then I'm not in Europe.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-02-2003, 09:58 PM:

jhawk asked:

quote:
Clear enough?

Sure. Just remind me never to attend a movie at your theatre. [Smile]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2003, 10:01 PM:

So, Michael, what do you think is right -- that all modern US-produced flat fare should be run at 1.85:1 unless there's some special information provided, or an obviously critical element appears to be cut off from the image?

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 10:08 PM:

John, if it's a new release from a major US studio and it's not a foreign film and it's not some sort of low budget thing from 16mm, Super 16mm, or video, and perhaps one or two other caveats I may be forgetting...but if it's a regular release you might see at the mainstream multiplex theatre...and it's not Scope...then yes it is without a doubt intended for 1.85 projection.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-02-2003, 10:20 PM:

quote:
So, Michael, what do you think is right -- that all modern US-produced flat fare should be run at 1.85:1 unless there's some special information provided, or an obviously critical element appears to be cut off from the image?

Observing what appears to be a critical element being cut off in 1.85:1 can be very subjective. Generally, in the absence of any enclosures, labeling on leaders, or comment from a film's DP, camera operator, lab liaison, etc., yes, I believe that 1.85:1 would be the best ratio to project in.

But then, something tells me that you might ignore notes enclosed with a print since you previously mentioned that you don't always trust info printed onto a leader. What would it take for you to be convinced that movie x should be run at 1.85:1?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-02-2003, 11:08 PM:

3-perf pulldown! [Big Grin]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-02-2003, 11:17 PM:

quote:
What would it take for you to be convinced that movie x should be run at 1.85:1?

3-perf pulldown!

Then there'd be arguments over whether a movie should be 1.85:1 or 1.78:1. [Big Grin]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-02-2003, 11:55 PM:

If there was actually something that said 1.85:1, then I would project in 1.85:1. I wouldn't be sure I was right, though.

Disney animation? ;-)

--jhawk

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-03-2003, 01:20 AM:

Jhawk

I for one hope I didn't confuse the issue by reporting on the AR I have seen some flat films projected in at the Chinese. I didn't mean to imply they were supposed to be shown that way from a studio point of view, just that, for whatever reason, it was a Chinese thing. Whether from a manager or projectionist decision.

You by chance weren't the projectionist during this period, were you? [Wink]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2003, 01:56 AM:

There are many cinemas in France which have 1:1.66 as the only 'flat' ratio in the same way that many cinemas in the UK show only 1:1.85 and 'scope. I can't speak for other European countries, as France is the only one I visit regularly. But if the use of 1:1.66 is in any way widespread, it would make sense for Hollywood DoP's to 'shoot and protect'. So I can understand if a large number of American features are 1:1.66 compatible but weren't supposed to be shown that way.

However, if the producers can't be bothered to communicate their intended aspect ratio to the projectionist, they can hardly complain if (s)he shows it some other way. I took the absence of a ratio (or simply the word 'flat') on a can or leader to mean that I can show the film in any ratio I like just as long as no matte edges or boom mikes were visible. There were one or two occasions when I would show a film in 1:1.66 which I suspected was intended for 1:1.85 when local conditions suggested it, e.g. one venue where the 1:1.66 lens gave a much sharper picture than the 1:1.85 lens, which appeared to have suffered heat damage at some point in the past.

If a film-maker wants 1:1.85 or any other ratio, then do what SMPTE 301 says and make sure that is written clearly on the leader of every print. If they did this, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-03-2003, 09:45 AM:

While it is unfortunate that the typical US theatre cannot handle other aspect ratios the fact remains that there is a reason that they are equipped for 1.85 and Scope and that is that those are the standard aspect ratios of general releases. We can get into a chicken and egg discussion of whether films are forced to conform to the theatres or the other way around but either way, that is the way it is (with certain rare exceptions noted in my other posting). Anyone who thinks they need to think about 1.66 on a common, mainstream, major US studio production is simply mistaken.

I should add that I've spent plenty of time agonizing over aspect ratios, calling or emailing distributors (who often don't know or supply erroneous information, seeing if there is a listing here on F-T or if an online review mentions it, or auditioning a reel. But never on the kind of mainstream product we're talking about here.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-03-2003, 10:57 AM:

Most of the confusion is from those unfamiliar with the specifics of standard SMPTE 195. You really should have a copy:

On-Line SMPTE Standards Ordering

In almost all cases, the image area on the print (even if hard matted) will be significantly higher than the intended projectable image area. That does NOT mean it should be shown, even if there are no extraneous items in the frame like microphones or lighting equipment and you "feel" the composition looks okay. The intended aspect ratio SHOULD be written on the leaders (per SMPTE 301M) or at least available from the distributor. If the ratio is specified as 1.85:1, that is how it should be shown, even if you feel it is "safe" to show more.

As noted, the vast majority of US screens are set up for 1.85:1 "flat" and 2.39:1 "scope", and very few are set up for the 1.66:1 or 1.37:1 ratios also specified in SMPTE 195. So any current "mainstream" US "flat" release should be treated as 1.85:1 in the absence of other information. FWIW, the Panavision publication "Film Apertures and Projection Ratios" does not even specify the 1.66:1 ratio for projection.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-04-2003, 02:19 AM:

My rule of thumb has always been this-

If it's hard matted at 1.66, I run it 1.66. Otherwise, full-framed flat gets the 1.85 treatment.

I've noticed that just a few short years ago, most British films were hard matted 1.66 but that has fallen out of practice and most seem to be full-frame now. Therefore I run them 1.85.

The only prints I've ever seen with aspect ratios marked at the lab are hard matted to that ratio anyway.

Then there's Kubrick with his multiple ratios for Dr. Strangelove and his preference for the Academy ratio (The Shining) yet keeping the 1.85 theatrical cropping in mind. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/

At the end of the month I'll be running Open Hearts - a Danish Dogme film that, from what I understand, is a 1.37 image set in a 1.75 matte. Now I need to decide if I should run it 1.85 and lose a bit of top & bottom or 1.66 and have a nice little border around it.

By the way, one film that looks absolutely brilliant projected 1.37 is Pi (1998) - shot on 16mm and intended for 1.66 - the improved contrast and grain reduction do it a good deal of justice. (Only ran it that way once for a midnighter.)

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2003, 02:35 AM:

There was a phase in the late '80s and '90s where many British films tended to be produced by TV companies operating small-scale spin-off film production units (e.g. the BBC Drama Unit, Film Four). Many of these films (e.g. Regeneration, Girls' Night and most of the Jane Austen [bs]

) tended to be shot full-frame for 1:1.66 projection and Academy broadcasting.

Now that (i) we're in an economic downturn, advertising revenues are down and TV companies have less money to splash about and (ii) widescreen tellies are being agressively marketed, the small amount of TV/theatrical crossover stuff that is being produced seems to have gone to 1:1.85.

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 02-04-2003, 02:54 AM:

Leo, please don't ever mention Jane Austen ever again - ever! [puke]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2003, 04:11 AM:

What would you prefer... Merchant-Ivory? [sleep]

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 02-04-2003, 05:46 PM:

jhawk wrote:

quote:

Disney animation? ;-)

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Disney love affair with 1.75?