HTF DVD REVIEW: Columbia Pictures: The Best Picture Collection - Page 3

Re: HTF DVD REVIEW: Columbia Pictures: The Best Picture Collection

There is a big difference between Cinemascope and widescreen. Also, Kazan was a hired hand at Columbia - he and his cameraman would have been told that the studio had gone widescreen and all films were being shot in 1.85:1 - auteur though he may be considered now, he was a working director then and was not calling the shots about how films were made - the studios were.

Re: HTF DVD REVIEW: Columbia Pictures: The Best Picture Collection

And there you have it. And I'm sure people will still find it peculiar for all the reasons given earlier in this thread. Can't deny what's in front of your eyes, however. Thanks, Bob!

Re: HTF DVD REVIEW: Columbia Pictures: The Best Picture Collection

Remember too that CinemaScope productions cost extra because 1) the extra step in stereophonic recording, mixing and stock, and 2) the added expense of the lenses on each shoot.

Shooting flat simply meant using wide angle lenses and sticking some colored cellophane on the viewfinder. Far more economical than CinemaScope.

In fact, many of the post-ROBE era CinemaScope titles shot both flat and 'scope were marked off for flat wide-screen. Running CinemaScope at your theater for a time not only meant that you had to install a new screen, but that you had to buy new lenses (only at $1,400 a set!) and install penthouses on your projector (as well as additional speakers and amps, and running lines to them).

So having a flat version of a film such as THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH, which was shot full-ap for a 2-1 matting, had benefits in theaters that could afford installing a wide screen, but couldn't afford to install proprietary lenses and stereo installations.

Re: HTF DVD REVIEW: Columbia Pictures: The Best Picture Collection

Fox also would have insisted it was filmed in color.