Aspect Ratio Documentation (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

John, we've gone through thousands of pages of studio documents/industry trade journals from that time. The term "projection safe" is a new one on me. I'd like to see some period documentation on that practice.

A quick review of INTERNATIONAL PROJECTIONIST from 1953 to the late 1950's illustrates that important theaters and chains - with the proper matched lenses and aperture plates - were VERY attentive to presenting films in the correct aspect ratio.

These were dedicated professionals who took their craft very seriously. Of course, there were some sloppy operators but they were the exceptions to the rule.

As an example, note the precise detail on aperture plates in this July 1956 article:

 

[John Hodson]

Thank you Bob.

 

[antoniobiz1]

As an example, note the precise detail on aperture plates in this July 1956 article:

Apertures.gif

It might be interesting to note that the specs are to 1/1000 of an inch. If one considers the width of the frame in a spherical widescreen film, on an 80 feet screen, one has a precision of 1/825*80(feet)*12(inches) = 1.16 inches. So the width of the projected image is specified for a +-1.16 inches precision. Pretty precise!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

My pleasure, I'm always glad to share the documentation.

I should point out that in theaters where keystoning was an issue, careful filing of the aperture plates and screen masking were utilized to present the optimum image.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

It might be interesting to note that the specs are to 1/1000 of an inch. If one considers the width of the frame in a spherical widescreen film, on an 80 feet screen, one has a precision of 1/825*80(feet)*12(inches) = 1.16 inches. So the width of the projected image is specified for a +-1.16 inches precision. Pretty precise!

Yes and that article is just one of many examples detailing the fine attention to detail that was expected (and usually presented) to audiences at the time.

Theaters were battling television and in order to stay in business, they had to remain competitive with a quality presentation. That's one reason why the standard ratio disappeared so quickly once widescreen was introduced.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Yes and that article is just one of many examples detailing the fine attention to detail that was expected (and usually presented) to audiences at the time.

Theaters were battling television and in order to stay in business, they had to remain competitive with a quality presentation. That's one reason why the standard ratio disappeared so quickly once widescreen was introduced.

Oh great, that means on my 8-foot screen at home I have about a tenth of an inch leeway on my masking. I am banning all rulers and calipers from my next screening.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Oh great, that means on my 8-foot screen at home I have about a tenth of an inch leeway on my masking. I am banning all rulers and calipers from my next screening.

Doesn't matter because the studio have already lopped off more than that before it hits blu ray.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oh great, that means on my 8-foot screen at home I have about a tenth of an inch leeway on my masking. I am banning all rulers and calipers from my next screening.

Thankfully, you don't have to worry about a keystone problem.

Of course, you could install this Proscenium Package from 1954. You'd never have to leave your booth!

 

[moviebuff75]

How much of the frame was cropped for a 1.37 film during projection?

 

[Gary Couzens]

And it's a bit odd that even with that documentation from the end of 1979/early 1980 that Criterion still presented 1979's Love on the Run in 1.66:1. Doesn't seem to square with what Truffaut is strongly implying is his preferred ratio in this interview.

According to Truffaut's regular DP Nestor Almendros (see the filmography in his book The Man with a Camera) all the features he shot for Truffaut are 1.66:1, Love on the Run among them.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

How much of the frame was cropped for a 1.37 film during projection?

Very little should have been cropped, if the theater was careful and projecting to specs. The 1.37:1 aperture was proposed and adopted as standard in 1932.

Here's an article from two years earlier which illustrates the issues faced with projection when sound was introduced.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

ATTENTION​

​

I would like to apologize that it has taken me far too long to step in this thread and correct some problems most of you have noticed for quite some time.

We feel very fortunate to have Bob Furmanek on our forum. We consider him to be an expert within his field. I have met Robert on many occasions, he has been to our HTF meet where he has met many of you, and all of us consider him not only a friend, but a very reputable individual.

I recently found out that someone has been continually challenging Mr. Furmanek -- not just here, but on another forum as well. It seems that wherever Mr. Furmanek attempts to share information and answer questions, there is someone intent on challenging his authority at every turn.

When it becomes painfully apparent that there's an individual with such a strong agenda that he needs to stalk Mr. Furmanek across sites, it's time for something to be done.

First, we have suspended the member for two weeks. This gets the message out that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated on HTF.

Secondly, thanks to the stalking member should be given. He enticed us to re-implement an old feature on HTF where we can now ban such members from threads altogether. That means when the member returns, he will not be able to read or participate in this thread any longer.

I apologize again for taking so long to react. The Moderators had been on top of this for quite some time. Warnings were given. Apparently, I wrote a personal letter of warning to the individual some time back. Things just got to the point where something needed to be done.

I am certain we can move forward in discussions within this topic without someone making it an uneasy read for everyone.

Thanks for being here with us, Mr. Furmanek. We value your friendship and participation.

 

[DVDvision]

I think there's a confusion here between 60's and beyond TV and film.

This isn't the TV shows gone W I D E thread, let's keep this separate. Action safe for TV didn't apply to films.

There's a new one on me - what's a 'projection safe' area? Anybody?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Thank you, Ron.

I welcome debate on any issue concerning widescreen or 3-D. However, I only ask that you please bring something to the table other than your personal opinions and long-standing myths.

The whole point of this thread from day one has been to get the facts out there and set the record straight. Hopefully, we are slowly achieving that goal.

Thank you very much and I am extremely grateful for the individuals that have been so helpful in this ongoing endeavor.

Onward and upward!

 

[theonemacduff]

Was wandering along my shelves last night looking for something to watch, and settled on Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter. This is a film that got so-so reviews, if memory serves, and I immediately noticed why on spinning up the disc: it has an intelligent woman in it, in fact, a woman who is more intelligent than the male lead in some serious ways; awesome acting work from both Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. But that's not why I bring it up. What I had forgotten until I looked at the special features, is that there is a cool 5-minute featurette in which the director, Pollack, explains why he thinks Pan-n-Scan is foolish and wrong, because it sidesteps the director's intent, and in the course of which he explains why a scope picture on DVD in its OAR actually gives you more picture, not less. I would suggest that the same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the recent crop of 1.66 transfers of films originally shot for 1.85. Anyway it's a nice little feature, and recommended. Pollack's frustration is almost palpable.

 

[Robert Crawford]

With disciplinary action taken and the final warning posted, certain posts over the last several days will not be visible to the general membership.

 

[Gary16]

ATTENTION​

​

I would like to apologize that it has taken me far too long to step in this thread and correct some problems most of you have noticed for quite some time.

We feel very fortunate to have Bob Furmanek on our forum. We consider him to be an expert within his field. I have met Robert on many occasions, he has been to our HTF meet where he has met many of you, and all of us consider him not only a friend, but a very reputable individual.

I recently found out that someone has been continually challenging Mr. Furmanek -- not just here, but on another forum as well. It seems that wherever Mr. Furmanek attempts to share information and answer questions, there is someone intent on challenging his authority at every turn.

When it becomes painfully apparent that there's an individual with such a strong agenda that he needs to stalk Mr. Furmanek across sites, it's time for something to be done.

First, we have suspended the member for two weeks. This gets the message out that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated on HTF.

Secondly, thanks to the stalking member should be given. He enticed us to re-implement an old feature on HTF where we can now ban such members from threads altogether. That means when the member returns, he will not be able to read or participate in this thread any longer.

I apologize again for taking so long to react. The Moderators had been on top of this for quite some time. Warnings were given. Apparently, I wrote a personal letter of warning to the individual some time back. Things just got to the point where something needed to be done.

I am certain we can move forward in discussions within this topic without someone making it an uneasy read for everyone.

Thanks for being here with us, Mr. Furmanek. We value your friendship and participation.

Thank you Ron for taking action. And thank you Bob for your continued expertise on this thread.

 

[Worth]

What I had forgotten until I looked at the special features, is that there is a cool 5-minute featurette in which the director, Pollack, explains why he thinks Pan-n-Scan is foolish and wrong, because it sidesteps the director's intent, and in the course of which he explains why a scope picture on DVD in its OAR actually gives you more picture, not less. I would suggest that the same is true, mutatis mutandis, for the recent crop of 1.66 transfers of films originally shot for 1.85. Anyway it's a nice little feature, and recommended. Pollack's frustration is almost palpable.

I fully support presenting films as they were shot, but there's no comparison between between a pan-and-scan version of a scope film and a 1.85 film opened up a little to 1.66.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Glad to hear that the offending HTF member who's been stalking Bob here has been finally put in his place...now we can continue with a CIVILIZED AND INFORMED discussion about the topic at hand...

 

[Jari K]

"I fully support presenting films as they were shot, but there's no comparison between between a pan-and-scan version of a scope film and a 1.85 film opened up a little to 1.66."Here here. Pan&scan has always been the ultimate evil, even from the early days of DVD.During the 80s, many 1.85:1 were "opened up" and the open matte 4:3 was released on VHS or shown on TV. That created also some arguments, especially with the horror/action films from that era (when people compared old VHS tapes to the DVD releases).