[Eric Peterson]

I have a fairly solid understanding of theater projection, but due to several recent occurences, I would like to learn more and hopefully there are some resident experts in this community that can help me do so.

My questions lie primarily with the projection of classic films which are intended to be shown using academy ratio (4:3).

I live in the Chicago area and enjoy attending and supporting classic screenings. Recently, I attended two screenings at a local theater for "The Wolfman" and "It's a Wonderful Life". It was immediately apparent that both screenings had the top and bottom of the picture cropped off.

For "The Wolf Man", I could see the projectionist framing the picture to clip off as little as possible, but this was of little use. The film contains several sections where text could not be read by the audience and the tops of heads were chopped off throughout the entire film. I was very disappointed, but decided to write this episode off.

A few weeks after "The Wolfman", I attended a screening of "The Wizard of Oz" and to the best of my ability, this film appeared to be projected correctly, so I assumed that they have the proper projection equipment, but had just been delinquent for "The Wolfman"

Right before Christmas, I attended "It's a Wonderful Life" and had the exact same problem as "The Wolfman". Thankfully the framing of this movie is not as tight so the cropping was not as evident, but it was still clearly the incorrect ratio.

This left me very frustrated, so I decided to write an E-mail to the owner of the theater and received a reply that I'm not entirely happy with. The reply that I received explained away the problem by saying that they cannot afford to have the proper lenses for these films due to the costs and that the change over from the different aspect ratios is also cumbersome due to the projectors being calibrated for their screens. In his next paragraph he claims that the theater is incredibly successful, so the idea that they cannot afford lenses does not wash well with me.

As much as I love seeing these films on the big screen, seeing them so horribly mutilated destroys the experience for me. I'm sure that I'm in an extreme minority and thus the theater feels that they do not need to invest in more equipment. Either way, I plan to tell them that if this matter cannot be resolved that I will no longer support their screenings of academy ratio films (which is also very painful to me).

Before responding, I would like to expand my knowledge regarding the complexities of projection. Hopefully, there are some resident experts who can answer some of the following questions for me.

1. Do Academy ratio films require a specific lens, or is it just a matter of needing a lens with a different focal distance due to the height of exposed image in order to maximize the screen usage?

2. Are these lenses easy to swap on a projector and how long does it take to perform this change along with any other adjustments including the removal or replacement of the aperture plate?

3. How much would such a lense typically cost?

4. If this change is so complicated how did they manage to project "OZ" correctly? I heard from one source that some copies of "OZ" were printed on 1.85:1 film in order to solve this problem. If this is a simple solution, why don't studios print more of their classic films in this manner?

As much as I love seeing these films on the big screen, seeing them so horribly mutilated destroys the experience for me. I'm sure that I'm in an extreme minority and thus the theater feels that they do not need to invest in more equipment.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.

[Jason Seaver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson

4. If this change is so complicated how did they manage to project "OZ" correctly? I heard from one source that some copies of "OZ" were printed on 1.85:1 film in order to solve this problem. If this is a simple solution, why don't studios print more of their classic films in this manner?

I didn't know Warner had done this for The Wizard of Oz, but when New Line re-released Gone With the Wind about ten years ago, they did in fact create prints that way (it might even have been set up to use anamorphic lenses to eke a little more resolution out of it).

As to why this isn't done more often, the studios in general only keep a few archive prints of any given film around, and these mostly go to rep cinemas that are actually set up to show an Academy ratio movie. Film stock and whatever time must be spent making the new print cost money (when I worked in a theater 10-15 years ago, we were told that a print cost $8,000), too much for them to be kept around for the occasional time when a theater without the proper equipment to project these films wants to rent one.

The Wizard of Oz gets a lot of seasonal rentals, I imagine - doesn't it show up in AMC's summer movie camp line-up every year? - so it's worth Warner's money to have prints like that around. The Wolf Man and It's a Wonderful Life, not so much. It may also be the difference between Warner, Universal, and Paramount (or whoever handles prints for It's a Wonderful Life these days); how their home-video arms treat their catalog indicates that having them available is more important to Warner than most other companies.

(And, of course, even if this sort of print existed, and the theater ordered it, doesn't mean it would arrive. The Brattle here in Cambridge seems to have trouble getting a print once every couple of months, for instance.)

[Leo Kerr]

Okay, I have some informal take on this.

Respect to #1: It needs a different focal length, yes, somewhat longer than what they use for spherical 1.85:1.

Respect to #2: it depends on the projector. Some have a turret - I believe they call it that even when it's just two lenses side by side, others have a 3-position (or more) turret where they can rotate different lenses into the light-path. Worst case, they have to unscrew the lens from a threaded mount, and screw another one in - but they'd have to be doing that anyway, given that they alternate between Cinemascope and not.

Respect to #3: spherical lenses aren't horriffically expensive. I'd be surprised - but I've been wrong before - if the lens cost more than $500.

Counter-comment: I was able to be in on the official "looting" of a theater that was abandoned by its chain. Very strange, that, but, well, we were the last ones in before the bulldozers opened new doors. Anyway, for anamorphic projection, they have "long" spherical lenses onto which they screw their anamorphic adapters.

So guess what! They could just unscrew the anamorphic adapter.

Now, before the purists yell and scream, yes, I realize that Academy Silent and Academy Sound aperature plates aren't the same as the Cinemascope Sound plate. However, the Academy Sound does fit within the Cinemascope plate, and, theoretically, the black inter-frame lines shouldn't be too distracting.

I'd imagine the occassional flash/scratch outside of the picture area would be a massive improvement over loosing a big chunk of the picture.

Leo

[Eric Peterson]

Jason,

Thanks for the input. Your comments make sense that most of the classic prints go to revival house that have the equipment already. However, most of these houses also show classic widescreen films, so a lens change would still be required. In that sense, it would make sense for the studios to replace worn out copies with new prints similar to the way they did OZ. Then again, if they are actually squeezing the image in order to use an anamorphic lens, there would be additional mastering costs associated? HMMMMMMMMMM!!

Leo,

Your comments seem to line up with my thoughts that while there is some cost and effort required, neither is an extreme problem. If a successful theater cannot afford to have a correct lens around that costs $500-$1000 then they should not be showing such films (IMHO).

I'm going to spend some time trying to reply in a proper manner and see what I get in return. It would be a real shame for me to have to avoid these screenings, but a butchered projection job ruins the entire experience for me.

[Jason Seaver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson

In that sense, it would make sense for the studios to replace worn out copies with new prints similar to the way they did OZ.

You say this as if it's a common occurrence. We've got one of those revival houses in Cambridge, and while it's always cool when the "New 35mm Print!" symbol shows up next to a classic film, they also get some fairly crappy prints on a regular basis. For instance, Let's Scare Jessica to Death is a frequent request on the "stuff we want for Halloween" threads, but if the print the Brattle played a couple years ago is representative of what Paramount's got, it needs major work - it was beat up and the yellow layer was degraded to the point where the whole film looked red (of course, since it's a horror movie, much of the audience assumed this was a stylistic choice).

New exhibition prints aren't struck all the time, and I imagine they have to be very widely requested to get the sort of multiplex-friendly print that Oz and GWTW got. After all, the new prints are still mostly going to be going to revival houses which are set up to handle them. And if they've got the right lenses, wouldn't you rather the picture used the whole frame rather than the roughly 55% of it that fitting a 1.37:1 movie into the 1.85:1 "safe area" would use?

Heck, from what I've heard about other events that show older films, studios sometimes won't even rent certain films to cinemas that use platters rather than two switched projectors because you lose at least two frames per reel every time the print is assembled and disassembled. Studios are notoriously stingy about replacing prints unless they are literally falling apart or demand suddenly increases.

Remember - $8,000 to replace, ten years ago. A lot of these prints probably don't make the studio $500 a year. I don't know how much theaters pay for prints, but I've been to several screenings where the theater must have known that they would be lucky to make back shipping costs, let alone any sort of costly rental fee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson

If a successful theater cannot afford to have a correct lens around that costs $500-$1000 then they should not be showing such films (IMHO).

... It would be a real shame for me to have to avoid these screenings, but a butchered projection job ruins the entire experience for me.

I'm spoiled by what I've got near me (Brattle, Coolidge, Harvard Film Archive), but I'd still encourage you to look at the glass as being half-full and support these screenings. A few patrons more or less can be the difference between having these series and not having them, and if they're a success, the theater operators can at least perhaps be convinced to invest in the proper equipment and training.

[EricSchulz]

Eric:
Just curious...are you referring to the Music Box Theater on Southport?