Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Optical sound on Cinemascope.

This is topic Optical sound on Cinemascope. in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=005388

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-24-2008, 03:09 AM:

Does anybody know which were the first Cinemascope films to have prints made:

a) with conventional mono optical tracks

b) with mag-optical tracks

rather than the original mag only format, and when they were released?

Also, when were the first mag prints made without the 12kHz. surround channel switching system?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2008, 07:34 AM:

quote: John Belton, 'Widescreen Cinema' (Cambridge, MA, Harvard UP, 1992), p. 154
Fox's campaign to convert the nation's exhibitors to stereo magnetic sound had proved only partially successful. Though all of the 3,234 theaters that had installed CinemaScope by April 1954 had bought stereo as part of the entire package, exhibitor resistance to Fox's stereo-only policy throughout 1953 and the spring of 1954 forced the studio to begin releasing CinemaScope films in three different versions - with monaural optical, with one-track magnetic, and with four-track magnetic soundtracks. In June 1956, in order to reduce the costs involved in striking separate optical and magnetic release prints, Fox announced that it would release all future productions, starting with Bus Stop, in a combined magnetic and optical format which was subsequently referred to as 'magoptical' and which provided both kinds of tracks on a single print.[footnote] At the same time Fox also abandoned its 'Fox hole' perforations, returning to the larger ones favoured by the majority of producers and exhibitors. However, in order to add an optical soundtrack to its revamped CinemaScope film frame, Fox was forced to reduce the picture area by 10 per cent. This step reduced the overall aspect ration from 1:2.55 to 1:2.35, which remains the current anamorphic aspect ratio for release prints in use today.

[footnote] According to Aubrey Solomon, Fox saved $3 million annually by using magoptical prints: Twentieth Century-Fox: A Corporate and Financial History (Methuen, NJ, Scarecrow Press, 1988) p. 89.

In other words, just as Hollywood was unable to exclusively package the conversion to sound with widescreen in the late 20s/early 30s, the studios' attempts to tie stereo to widescreen in the 1950s were also largely unsuccessful, apart from in prestige roadshow venues. By the late '50s it became apparent that a mass market was there for the former, but not the latter.

My guess would be that the widespread take up of consumer stereo audio technology prompted the film industry to undertake a mass-rollout of stereo in the 1980s, just as the increasing popularity of radio and recorded music was a big factor in the conversion to sound in the late '20s - both in terms of the development of the technology itself and in creating consumer demand for it.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-24-2008, 08:19 AM:

I showed the first Cinemascope film on the ABC circuit at the Regal, Kingston in 1954 which was “The Command” made by Warner Bros. The ABC release prints were all mono optical tracks with standard perforations, as none of their cinemas were equipped with magnetic stereo sound at that time. Perspecta optical stereo sound was installed in a few selected cinemas on the circuit.

Can’t give you any film titles, but I think you will find that mag-optical fox-hole prints were made standard in 1956.

Enable to answer your last 12k Hz question. I do know it still applied when I did the press & trade shows of Patton, Hello Dolly, and Tora! Tora! Tora! in 4-track stereo at the Carlton Theatre, Haymarket in London during 1969/70.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-24-2008, 07:42 PM:

But still, it was very interesting that "Snow White and the Three Stooges" was printed on "foxhole" sprocket film, but only with an optical track release. Thus, to my knowledge, this was the only FOX film that had those blue colorcoded film wraps (being red as CinemaScope-Optical .black was CinemaScope-mag/optical and green being a "Regular" (flat) print release)

(I thought that the full-mag release prints were in a 2.66:1 ratio without the optical track printed on the film...but, oh well..)

quote:
At the same time Fox also abandoned its 'Fox hole' perforations, returning to the larger ones favoured by the majority of producers and exhibitors.

...not to question this statement, but if the foxhole sprockets were abandoned, then would this be the camera negative part of the production, since all the mag that I ran in the early 70's were the common 'foxhole', mag/opt, print releases?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-25-2008, 01:02 AM:

I think what he must have meant was 'Fox abandoned exclusive release printing on Fox-holed stock and gave exhibitors the option of prints with conventional perforations', and then the editor cut it down to conserve word length, unaware that this was bringing ambiguity in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but camera negative stock has its own perforation type anyway, and as extra space freed up by the Fox holes was used for mag track, not frame area, I wouldn't have thought that the dual inventory release printing issue would have affected what went on in the studio one way or another.

I've noticed several statements in Belton's book which are either oversimplifications or quite simply wrong (and I seem to remember that someone once compiled a list of all of them and circulated it on the Internet, though I may be mistaken). On first glance you think there's no way that someone with his reputation could make such a blunder: then on second it looks suspiciously like an publisher's editor who doesn't know the subject found what seemed like an elegant way of hacking a paragraph down into a single sentence by getting rid of ifs, buts and qualifications. The problem is that the ifs and buts are crucial to the argument, not just unnecessary detail.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-25-2008, 02:33 AM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
The problem is that the ifs and buts are crucial to the argument, not just unnecessary detail.

(can you imagine the absense of these logics in a computer and how it would operate..and how hard it would be for Mr. Holmes to try to solve a problem)

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-25-2008, 04:11 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
(I thought that the full-mag release prints were in a 2.66:1 ratio without the optical track printed on the film...but, oh well..)

16mm Cinemascope was of course 2.66:1 with the normal optical mono track.

Mag-optical prints were always fox-hole surely.

I have however run 4 track magnetic without an optical track on standard perforation stock. These were Harold Lloyd’s personal prints of “Safety Last” and a couple of his comedy shorts, the sound was only mono on the main track. The showing was at the BFI Cinema City Festival held at the Roundhouse Theatre, Chalk Farm in London early 1970s. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I did have the pleasure of meeting the man. [Smile]

There have been other variations, a single magnetic track covering the optical track for one.

Incidently, I remember receiving a copy of "Rollerball" made in 1975 from United Artists, and enable to run the print as it was 4-track magnetic fox-hole without an optical track included.

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 02-25-2008, 09:13 PM:

quote: Bernard Tonks
Mag-optical prints were always fox-hole surely.

prints of "Jesus Christ Superstar" were 3 track magoptical with large perfs. I'm sure there were others.
Bob

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 02-26-2008, 05:30 AM:

Interesting Bob, I never heard of that one and I stand corrected, thanks. You learn a lot on Film-Tech.

Great pity the industry never changed to foxhole stock full time in my opinion.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-26-2008, 06:24 AM:

If polyester release print stock had been in widespread use then, Fox holes would have been viable. But trade papers and anecdotal evidence suggests that perf damage was a big problem with acetate Fox hole prints, leading to a much shorter print life compared to those with full-sized perfs. Virtually every 'Fox hole' print in the BFI/NFTVA has perf damage to varying degrees.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-26-2008, 08:38 AM:

I ran a print of South Pacific in 3-track with large perfs.

I don't think polyester is the key for foxhole perfs but VKF sprockets, sendust heads and more sensible clutch tensions.

The use of CS sprockets, combined with cheeseball permalloy heads and piss-poorly maintained clutch tensions result in a lot of stress on any perforation, not just CS types. The sendust heads did not need as much tension to maintain good contact/response. VKF sprockets were designed to work with CS perfs and would greatly reduce the stress on the perforations too. Note, polyester would prolong the usefulness of the print, indeed, as print shrinkage is not as severe and would allow VKF sprockets to be used for even vault prints...something Acetate prints don't allow due to shrinkage.

Steve

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-26-2008, 03:20 PM:

Leo Enticknap wrote

quote: Leo Enticknap
If polyester release print stock had been in widespread use then, Fox holes would have been viable. But trade papers and anecdotal evidence suggests that perf damage was a big problem with acetate Fox hole prints, leading to a much shorter print life compared to those with full-sized perfs. Virtually every 'Fox hole' print in the BFI/NFTVA has perf damage to varying degrees.

In a 1954 issue of SMPTE Journal (might be titled "Design Considerations for CinemaScope") there is a discussion about the foxhole durability, and if I recall it correctly, they claimed that smaller perfs did last much longer than standard KS perforation.

I don't remember whether they did these test runs with mag-striped positive. - Is it possible that many foxhole prints were damaged so badly long after their initial release because exhibitors didn't know any more how to handle the format properly?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-26-2008, 04:56 PM:

According to reports in British trade journals (e.g. Kine Weekly and Today's Cinema), the problem appears to have been that these prints were simply not as resilient to careless handling and projector mechanisms that weren't perfectly adjusted as acetate prints with no oxide layer and BH perforations were. It's been a while since I read through this stuff (the notes and photocopies are filed somewhere!), but if I remember correctly, film jamming when gate tensions weren't loosened to take account of the thicker, oxide-coated stock was a particular problem, as was shedding oxide accumulating and hardening in between sprocket teeth, which then weren't cleaned properly and so the build-up continued until film started running off the sprockets.

It was a slightly different version of the same problem which scuppered early safety bases for normal theatrical use in the '30s. Experiments were done with both diacetate and propionate, but the higher cost of the prints and their much shorter usage life made it cheaper to carry on absorbing the cost of the safety precautions needed with nitrate.

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 02-26-2008, 05:50 PM:

A lot of the trouble with the smaller Fox hole perfs was caused by projectionists damaging the prints by running them on the standard size sprocket, and not the correct smaller Fox hole sprocket.

In the 1970s I showed at least two Bond films with 3 track mag stripe, and a mono optical track. These prints had the normal size sprocket holes.
There was also a Gordons Gin advert doing the rounds with three track mag, but no optical.

There was a film in the late 1960s, can't remember it's title, that had a mono mag track completely covering the optical track. It also had a mute mag track on the opposite side to keep the film flat in the gate.

We were told, by the film company, that when the print had finished the rounds of cinemas equipped for mag it would be washed off, their words not mine, to give a pristine optical track. It then could be shown in optical only cinemas.
Never saw another film like this, so I assume that the experiment was a failure.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-26-2008, 06:08 PM:

quote: Leo Enticknap
I've noticed several statements in Belton's book which are either oversimplifications or quite simply wrong (and I seem to remember that someone once compiled a list of all of them and circulated it on the Internet, though I may be mistaken).

I'm not aware of a compilation of errors in Belton's "Widescreen Cinema." I'd be interested in seeing such a list should one exist, although I think the general perception from historians and widescreen enthusiasts has been that Belton's book is devoid of any major faux pas and is considered the best book written thus far on the subject.

Perhaps, Leo, the corrections you're thinking of pertain to the similarly-titled "Wide Screen Movies" by Robert Carr & R.M. Hayes (McFarland, 1988). Dan Sherlock compiled the infamous corrections document, and it's widely available on the Internet incuding here at film-tech in the TIPS section.

There's also the lengthy list of corrections I had the (dis)pleasure of compiling for Richard Haines' The Moviegoing Experience, 1968-2001 (McFarland, 2003). I posted my review in a thread a couple of years ago and some discussion ensued, although due to length I did not include the corrections supplement in the post.

Posted by Dan Sherlock (Member # 4663) on 02-26-2008, 09:57 PM:

As Michael said above, there were plenty of errors in the "Wide Screen Movies" book to allow my putting together a “corrections” list that grew and grew and grew. But John Belton’s book only has a few errors that I have noticed, so I doubt that there would be much of a “corrections list” anywhere.

One error in John Belton’s book does appear to be the statement that the use of “Fox hole” perforations disappeared with the introduction of magoptical sound. The evidence suggests that this claim by John Belton was influenced by the same error in the “Wide Screen Movies” book. Here’s the real story:

The first use of an optical track with Perspecta for a CinemaScope film that I have found was for prints (mostly European prints) of Knights of the Round Table. (They were released a few months after the premiere in the USA.) The original mag-striped prints from Fox for CinemaScope had no optical track at all. Fox fought but finally relented against the use of optical tracks (particularly for drive-ins) and in 1954 allowed the use of stereo mag prints, monophonic mag prints, and optical prints. I do not know if there was an earlier release of an optical sound CinemaScope title than Knights of the Round Table.

Fox did not invent the “magoptical” format. It was in fact developed by the Motion Picture Research Council, with substantial help from MGM. The first magoptical film was apparently Kismet released by MGM in 1955. Fox strongly objected to the use of magoptical prints, but finally relented and first used it for the movie Bus Stop in 1956 and then for all magnetic prints beginning with The True Story of Jesse James in 1957. There were indications at the time of development of the magoptical format that it was hoped that the magnetic stripes could be stripped off of magoptical prints to reveal a full size optical track for secondary release, but this proved to be impractical.

The first 35mm mag prints (with CS perfs) that did not have the 12 KHz control tone was apparently the Cinestage prints for Around the World in 80 Days. This was because the modified Perspecta process for the surrounds did the job of suppressing the noise from the narrow oxide stripe used for the surrounds. The first mag CinemaScope title without a 12 KHz tone? I don’t know, but the tone continued to be used for many, many years for such prints.

To address a comment from Monte above – the aspect ratio for mag-only CinemaScope prints is 2.55:1, not 2.66:1. The 2.66:1 aspect ratio was used only for the early CinemaScope showings, and the 2.55:1 shape was recommended by Fox even for shows using interlocked mag stereo.

There were indeed mag releases using KS perfs. There were a number of movies using this type of print – particularly from Universal around the early 1980’s. (Universal was very slow to adopt the Dolby stereo optical format.)

Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 02-27-2008, 07:33 AM:

quote: Dan Sherlock
The first mag CinemaScope title without a 12 KHz tone? I don’t know, but the tone continued to be used for many, many years for such prints.

The mag prints for "Woodstock" had no control tone. The surrounds were on all the time for announcements.
Bob

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2008, 08:21 AM:

Sorry - it was Carr & Haines that inspired the infamous corrections document. Belton's book is in another league from that one, though there are still some glitches; I suspect these were introduced during the editorial process in an attempt to reduce word length rather than as part of the initial draft (an occupational hazard, especially if the publisher's editor is not a subject specialist).

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 02-27-2008, 09:11 AM:

I don't know if one could call some formats 'standard.' It seemed some formats were 'one-offs' or maybe 'a few-offs.' Not that they are not interesting, but all kinds of things were used at different times. I don't think one could flatly say a certain standard was always followed after a certain date.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-27-2008, 07:49 PM:

I ran both SOUTH PACIFIC and OKLAHOMA! when Samuel Goldwyn had the rights and they both had the standard sprocket holes and three mag strips, with one mag head necessarily tracking on the edge of the sprocket holes. Can you say brrrrrrrrrr? They played fairly well in mag, without the surround track of course, and depending on how good your ears were, you could hear that undertow of motorboating going on on the Left channel (if memory serves) because of the head running over part of the sprocket holes.

It was better than no mag at all, yes, but seemed like ill-conceived to me. I mean, most of the theatres back then, even the local neighborhood houses had installed Fox sprockets drives on their machines even if they didn't buy the whole CinemaScope package. They had to, otherwise they couldn't play the magoptical prints. And if you are as old as I am, you will remember Fox being adamate that from THE ROBE on, EVERY Fox title was going to be CinemaScope/Stereophonic. So to drop a mag channel to accomodate theatres that not only don't have mag penthouses, but hadn't converted to Fox sprokets....well, as I said....ill-conceived. Besides, do you know what that optical track sounded like with only half its ass peaking out from under the mag track on a magoptical print? Fox should have called it mag-half-assed-optical; you had to turn the fader up twice as loud just to get a decent level, but that was without any noise reduction, so you doubled the noise PLUS, you got that weird rumbling sound as the optical slit read the uneven edge of the applied oxide stripe. It was anything but ideal.

I had to run THE SOUND OF MUSIC for a week in a mono/optical only house using a magoptical print and it drove me crazy knowing there was awesome stereo tracks on the print and all I could hear was that AM quality mono. So whereas standard Fox magoptical prints compromised the optical mono track, that hybrid KS perf/3track magoptical compromised the mag playback as well.

Foolish.