A Few Words About A few words about...™ Aspect Ratios (2 Viewers)

[Alan Tully]

The big aspect ratio problem now is TV channels showing 'scope films zoomed in to 16:9, I don't know about America, but it happens a lot in the UK.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Do not confuse the generally high standards of Golden Age cinema projection (curtains, masking, aperture plates, footlights, showmanship, etc) with the slow decline that began in the multiplex era, starting in the late 1960's/early 1970's.

Fall 1953: La Vezzi aperture plates for the conscientious exhibitor.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do not confuse the generally high standards of Golden Age cinema projection (curtains, masking, aperture plates, footlights, showmanship, etc) with the slow decline that began in the multiplex era, starting in the late 1960's/early 1970's.

Fall 1953: La Vezzi aperture plates for the conscientious exhibitor.

View attachment 44117

Wonderful image.

The point should be made, however, that the plates would have to be further tuned (filed) to fit the specific theater / throw / projector / angle.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

As we know, most theaters in the 1950's had a VERY severe pitch as the booth was usually above the first or second balconies, depending on the size of the house. Other than drive-ins, New York's immense Roxy was one of the select few theaters with the booth very close to screen level.

Aperture filing (and judicious use of masking) were essential for minimizing keystone. The general rule of thumb in the 1953 conversion to widescreen was to install the biggest screen possible within the confines of the proscenium.

Here's a typical circa 1950's projection angle in a medium-size house; the 1,824 State in Easton, PA.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Wonderful image.

The point should be made, however, that the plates would have to be further tuned (filed) to fit the specific theater / throw / projector / angle.

For that reason - as stated in the advertisement:

"Also furnished in undersizes to allow filing for Keystone effect."

When the transition took place to widescreen in 1953/54, most exhibitors were dedicated to presenting the film as intended by the studio. That's the reason why important trade journals (Variety, Boxoffice, Exhibitor) were especially proactive with listing individual AR data for exhibitors.

 

[SteveJKo]

>

...They're doing a modern version of that today. At the Regal 24 in Chamblee, GA, the smaller theaters stay masked at 1:85 even if they're projecting a 2:35:1 film, so you get bars at the top and bottom. At the Midtown Art Cinema (art cinema!) in Atlanta they have a brand new policy of no longer masking to fit the films. Their big room stays fixed at 2:35:1 (so when I saw The Shape of Water in that auditorium, it had huge bars on the side) and all the other theaters are masked at 1:85 -- or should I say, something approximating that...

The first Cinemark Theater in my area added one of their XD screens a few years ago. It's definitely big, but it's a 1.85:1 screen with no adjustable masking, and the blank screen during scope films just reminds me of old movie houses that were on their "last legs" back in the day.

On a much more positive note, Cinemark has recently converted two auditorium (to XD) at another multiplex near me. Both theaters have VERY BIG constant image height screens with proper side masking. In fact, every auditorium I've been in at that theater has had CIH screens with side masking. It's now my first choice for where I see a movie.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I remember going to a small, locally owned theater in the Adirondacks a few times that still had a 1.37:1 screen. They'd show spherical shot movies (1.85:1 or Super 35) open matte with the more or less full frame on the screen. Sometimes there'd be rough matting burned into the prints, that looked like tape or something. But usually you'd just see far more of the frame than you were supposed to. For whatever reason, Me, Myself & Irene stuck in my mind as being a more or less constant parade of boom mics and the like.

 

[Worth]

It's always been a pet peeve of mine when I see complaints about 1.78 transfers not being 1.85, as if you'd have seen anything that precise in the cinema.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

In case anyone is wondering:

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

As we know, most theaters in the 1950's had a VERY severe pitch as the booth was usually above the first or second balconies, depending on the size of the house. Other than drive-ins, New York's immense Roxy was one of the select few theaters with the booth very close to screen level.

Aperture filing (and judicious use of masking) were essential for minimizing keystone. The general rule of thumb in the 1953 conversion to widescreen was to install the biggest screen possible within the confines of the proscenium.

Here's a typical circa 1950's projection angle in a medium-size house; the 1,824 State in Easton, PA.

Wow! I worked at the State in Easton for about 6 months back in 1993. Those same projectors with carbon arcs were still installed, but we had to get lenses, plates, rectifiers and amplifiers as those had been removed many years earlier. The venting up there was poor and you'd come out of the booth looking almost like a coal miner. Hated that down angle, made focusing a constant battle.

 

[haineshisway]

I would love to have a revival house with carbon arcs - then we could actually see films that were timed for carbon arcs the way they're supposed to look. And then people might understand about accurate color

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Go to the Capitol in Rome, NY for Capitolfest each year: Carbon arc, reel to reel and an original installation 1928 Moller pipe organ!

https://www.romecapitol.com/capitolfest/

 

[gadgtfreek]

I never notice really, just want to watch the movie or program as intended which is why I have always set my display to a 1:1 pixel mode when it was an option, some earlier HD sets just had some overscan. I also want the disc version to be as the original was if possible, I want to see it how the creator expected me to see it.

What I can't stand is there has been a rash lately of people complaining at AVS because they can't zoom letterbox, and feel cheated because they can't use the whole 65" or 75" of their display. That is one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read on an AV forum.

Then some constantly complain about going from letterbox to imax full screen and back. I couldn't care less, I'll take as much imax as I can get.

 

[Jack Theakston]

As guidelines, aperture areas are supposed to be what you try to attain to, not a general guideline. In a full-height installation, the idea is to have the lenses fit the vertical guidelines as close as possible, and then fix the rest with aperture plate filing and masking. There are, in fact, a few standard formulae we adhere to in ordering lenses in order to maintain constant accuracy of height.

However, to think that there's no reason to carefully present a film within guidelines that were set by the filmmakers to the best possible ability, particularly when the tools for doing so are there, is glib.

 

[Alan Tully]

It's always been a pet peeve of mine when I see complaints about 1.78 transfers not being 1.85, as if you'd have seen anything that precise in the cinema.

Yes, & those tiny slivers of black lines are going over picture info, so it's not like you're seeing more picture, not that it troubles me at all, but I don't know why they bother to do it.

 

[Dave H]

RAH,

What are your thoughts for home projection owners and constant image height? There is a debate about this on some projection owner forums that movies should be watched (as intended by the filmmaker) at the same height with only width varying (as Bob's image clearly shows above) where as most commercial theaters today toss this notion out the window using ~1:85 screens. I'm wondering how modern filmmakers look view this today.

 

[OliverK]

I never notice really, just want to watch the movie or program as intended which is why I have always set my display to a 1:1 pixel mode when it was an option, some earlier HD sets just had some overscan. I also want the disc version to be as the original was if possible, I want to see it how the creator expected me to see it.

What I can't stand is there has been a rash lately of people complaining at AVS because they can't zoom letterbox, and feel cheated because they can't use the whole 65" or 75" of their display. That is one of the DUMBEST things I have ever read on an AV forum.

Then some constantly complain about going from letterbox to imax full screen and back. I couldn't care less, I'll take as much imax as I can get.

While I share your taste for presentation I think that it is very important to allow people to manage picture size as easily as possible. People who can fill their screen at the click of a button are less likely to demand that content gets cropped in order to conform to their preferred aspect ratio.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I would love to have a revival house with carbon arcs - then we could actually see films that were timed for carbon arcs the way they're supposed to look. And then people might understand about accurate color

But then what would dumps like Original-trilogy.com have to endlessly whine about?

 

[Mike Frezon]

I remember going to a small, locally owned theater in the Adirondacks a few times that still had a 1.37:1 screen.

It didn't happen to be The Carol in Chestertown, did it, Adam?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It didn't happen to be The Carol in Chestertown, did it, Adam?

It was indeed! IIRC, it was the transition to digital projection that finally killed it off. They simply didn't have a large enough loyal local base of customers to finance the hundreds of thousands it would have cost to upgrade to digital, since most of their ticket buyers were summer tourists.