Indeed; contemporary projectionists memories are always interesting to read. As per 'grand todger' (great name) from here:
Of course, that particular thread also underlines the perils that rely on research conducted purely on the internet and on 'Chinese whispers'. This quote:
We know much of this to be complete balderdash; the implcation that as late as 1959 widescreen productions were the exception rather than the rule? I'm afraid not. The Dam Busters at 1.37:1? Proven beyond doubt to be a Metroscope production. But the BFI's admission on OARs is completely understandable. For decades they, and us, have relied on nothing other than anecdotal evidence, the repetition of half-truths that have become blurry and obfuscated with each passing year. The belief that 1.66:1 dominated Europe is very deeply ingrained to the point that any other opinion is looked on with deep suspicion.
But if that opinion is back by hard fact, by documentary evidence, then the BFI - all of us - must think again, and keep digging.
Defitely in the 'for what it's worth' folder as I realise I am wading into this very late in the day, but with regards to Dam Busters it seems potentially hasty to refer to it as a 'Metroscope' production, for the simple reason that the film was released by Warners and not MGM and said widescreen logo / brand doesn't appear on any of the posters I have seen for it, only on that Pathe Newsreel of the Royal premiere - and since it was just a system that matted an academy image, it is also possible that it was a logo added for the Royal Premiere only perhaps but not elsewhere. It in no way takes away from Anderson's comments as the decision to potentially exhibit the film matted (in Metroscope or WarnerScope, which is more likely) would have been made well after the end of filming.
Edited by BIANCO2NERO, July 16 2013 - 05:14 AM.