Yorkshire
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,390
- Real Name
- Steve
On the matting, I think it was identified earlier in the thread that Odeon had a 'house matte' of 1.66:1 and (I think) ABC at 1.75:1. My understanding is that Odeon were by far the biggest UK chain, though I stand to be corrected.EddieLarkin said:What's the evidence again that the majority of UK cinemas projected at 1.66:1 regardless of recommendation, and that they did this right through into the late 70s? I must have missed it.
Even if it is the case though, I don't think it precludes 1.75:1 being the composed for ratio. It is after all, mentioned as well. The difference is so small* that I doubt the film makers would have been beside themselves to see their compositions receive a tad bit more space. Don't forget that many of these films were being shipped over to the US as well, where 1.85:1 was completely set in stone. Better to compose at 1.75:1 and lose a sliver of image in American cinemas, than to compose at 1.66:1 and lose a fair sized chunk, even if it means UK cinemas showing too much.
On the second part, this is where it gets to be a minefield.
I think we really need to be talking about different things. You can take any legitimate 1.66:1 film and crop to 1.85:1 and you won't end up with a ridiculous image where the actor's head is cut off right through the eyes. But it will look a little tight. But actor's heads are only one part of frame composition.
On the one hand you could argue that it's simply impossible to compose for more than one ratio, though that's not something I totally agree with. I think you can compose a frame for 1.66:1, but ensure there's never anything so tight that it simply won't work in 1.85:1, indeed it's clearly very easy.
If you watch most films you'll see some shots where the camera is a little tighter and the tops of heads are clipped. As long as there's not too much clipping it shouldn't look too bad at all.
In short, it's very easy to compose for any ratio but ensure that nothing is too clipped if cropped to a wider (less-tall) ratio.
I agree about The Mummy - it looks spot on at 1.66:1, but try it at 1.85:1 and it's far from unwatchable. I think there were comments earlier in the thread that suggested projectionists would shift the matte at the start of a film so that heads weren't clipped. This would mean US audiences seeing (for example) The Mummy in 1.85:1 but with a common top with the 1.66:1. You notice the tightness less when it's someone's belt that's clipped as opposed to their head.
I think I've said before, I'd love to get some interviews with pople who worked at the time and see how they worked this, because the oner thing they definitely knew is that their films would definitely be cropped to different ratios in different cinemas. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't do what I've suggested happened with The Mummy - shoot at 1.66:1, knowing the US viewer would see the same top line, so don't put anything vital at the bottom.
Steve W