A Few Words About Wide Screen cinematography shot in camera... (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

I realized that this post would not be found in the Frankenstein thread. Here it is, as a child might say... "by its ownself."

If I can find an example from another 1962 production, it will be added.

****************************

I only recall a couple of examples of hard-matting in camera. Trying to recall which. Offhand, Mockingbird and Valence come to mind. Which would lead me to believe there may have been a single camera used at Paramount and Universal, set up in that fashion. I'll see if I can find sample frames.
[/QUOTE]
Here you go:

Two examples. Same film, which is unidentified, but with far too many prints struck from the camera negative.

First, open matte, as shot:

And next, also open matte, but as cropped in camera. The frame lines, as well as some marking on the edge of the film, outboard of the perfs, identify the print as coming from the camera negative.

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence

 

[B-ROLL]

I'm pretty sure the un-named Mockingbird film was a Universal release, as I saw Boo Radley's house on the Universal Studios Tour. I believe Atticus Peck's house had been moved since 1974 as my English teacher had pictures of the two houses as they appeared in the film. But Scout's Honor it wasn't there in 1978 ...

Shooting the titles full-frame would make sense for subsequent TV presentations (and educational/and non-theatrical sales)

 

[Alan Tully]

Yes, back in those old 4x3 TV days, the TV stations loved un-matted prints, no pan & scan needed, & if the odd mike boom appeared at the top of the frame, no harm done. One I remember (at least I think I do, my memory is a wee bit unreliable these days) is a topless Angie Dickinson in the film Sam Whisky, the matt lines would have normally covered up the offending bits...& it was a Sunday afternoon too!

You can see why so many late fifties/early sixties British films are now released in 1:66. The whole 4x3 frame is scanned, & then looked at with lines set at 1:66 & 1:85 on the screen, & half the time 1:85 looks a bit tight on headroom, & 1:66 is the safe choice, & I quite like that ratio. How many cinemas showed these films is unknowable. A few years ago in the aspect ratio thread, I posted a letter from the magazine Films & Filming (from around '58/'59 I think) from a cinema projectionist who stated that his cinema only projected in 1:85 & 'scope, none of this 1:75, 1:66 stuff.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm pretty sure the un-named Mockingbird film was a Universal release, as I saw Boo Radley's house on the Universal Studios Tour. I believe Atticus Peck's house had been moved since 1974 as my English teacher had pictures of the two houses as they appeared in the film. But Scout's Honor it wasn't there in 1978 ...

Shooting the titles full-frame would make sense for subsequent TV presentations (and educational/and non-theatrical sales)

Correct. Typing out of sync with brain. Thank you.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, back in those old 4x3 TV days, the TV stations loved un-matted prints, no pan & scan needed, & if the odd mike boom appeared at the top of the frame, no harm done. One I remember (at least I think I do, my memory is a wee bit unreliable these days) is a topless Angie Dickinson in the film Sam Whisky, the matt lines would have normally covered up the offending bits...& it was a Sunday afternoon too!

You can see why so many late fifties/early sixties British films are now released in 1:66. The whole 4x3 frame is scanned, & then looked at with lines set at 1:66 & 1:85 on the screen, & half the time 1:85 looks a bit tight on headroom, & 1:66 is the safe choice, & I quite like that ratio. How many cinemas showed these films is unknowable. A few years ago in the aspect ratio thread, I posted a letter from the magazine Films & Filming (from around '58/'59 I think) from a cinema projectionist who stated that his cinema only projected in 1:85 & 'scope, none of this 1:75, 1:66 stuff.

Which is how I saw Citizen Kane my first tI’ve in 35. !.85.

Point Of this thread is that Were films shot for widescreen, at least partially matted in camera.

 

[Alan Tully]

Yeah, but it's going to be a short thread

 

[Lord Dalek]

Every print of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger I've seen online were hard matted at 1.66.

 

[Robert Harris]

Every print of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger I've seen online were hard matted at 1.66.

Correct, at least 1.66ish, if not a bit higher. I’ll post an example.

One difference, however, is that dye transfer prints are created from optically produced matrices, by which any matte can be added.

1.37 dye transfer prints had the 1.37 matte printed over the image in black & white. As photographed, the image was higher.

In this thread I’m referring to non-optically printed examples.

Mattes can be added to any pre-print element, as one had been to the shower scene in Psycho, but that necessitated a dupe being cut into the original. Optical printing affected contrast, more harshly than contact. “More harshly than I hope you can imagine.”

 

[Robert Harris]

This appears to have been taken to matrices without any change to the camera aperture, which seems to be c. 1.37

 

[aPhil]

Correct, or at least 1.66ish. I’ll post an example.

One difference, however, is that dye transfer prints are created from optically produced matrices, by which any matte can be added.

1.37 dye transfer prints had the 1.37 matte printed over the image in black & white. As photographed, the image was higher.

In this thread I’m referring to non-optically printed examples.

Mattes can be added to any pre-print element, as one had been to the shower scene in Psycho, but that necessitated a dupe being cut into the original. Optical printing affected contrast, more harshly than contact. “More harshly than I hope you can imagine.”

Yes, the original question was about the (often mythical) statement of certain films being “hard-matted in the camera” --
Any film can be “hard-matted” later in printing or whatever.

I have never seen a 35mm motion picture camera with a hard-matte in the film gate of the camera, so the interest here is films that were shot with such.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, the original question was about the (often mythical) statement of certain films being “hard-matted in the camera” --
Any film can be “hard-matted” later in printing or whatever.

I have never seen a 35mm motion picture camera with a hard-matte in the film gate of the camera, so the interest here is films that were shot with such.

Please see examples above.

 

[B-ROLL]

Yes, the original question was about the (often mythical) statement of certain films being “hard-matted in the camera” --
Any film can be “hard-matted” later in printing or whatever.

I have never seen a 35mm motion picture camera with a hard-matte in the film gate of the camera, so the interest here is films that were shot with such.

If I'm not mistaken part of the accoutrements on the camera for this un-named desert film is a Matte Box ...

 

[aPhil]

A matte-box (for keeping out stray light, holding filters, etc) is pretty much standard, yet, as we know, it is not a “hard-matte in the camera” --
I have not heard of a matte-box, which is in front of the camera lens, being used to “matte” the aspect ratio on the film -- That would be rather impractical and offer problems from lens-to-lens.

I really do want to hear more about films that were actually “hard-matted in the camera.”
Does anyone have an image of a the film gate of a camera with a matte for 1.66 or such ?

 

[Alan Tully]

A matte-box (for keeping out stray light, holding filters, etc) is pretty much standard, yet, as we know, it is not a “hard-matte in the camera” --
I have not heard of a matte-box, which is in front of the camera lens, being used to “matte” the aspect ratio on the film -- That would be rather impractical and offer problems from lens-to-lens.

It would be way out of focus as well.

 

[Robert Harris]

A matte-box (for keeping out stray light, holding filters, etc) is pretty much standard, yet, as we know, it is not a “hard-matte in the camera” --
I have not heard of a matte-box, which is in front of the camera lens, being used to “matte” the aspect ratio on the film -- That would be rather impractical and offer problems from lens-to-lens.

I really do want to hear more about films that were actually “hard-matted in the camera.”
Does anyone have an image of a the film gate of a camera with a matte for 1.66 or such ?

I’ve never physically seen one, but they did exist. Do any survive? Possibly at the ASC.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Allen Daviau, who worked with Spielberg on more than a few films, frequently shot with a 1.66:1 hard matte in the camera. He mentioned this in an interview when E.T. was being prepped for its first VHS release in 1988.

 

[Mark-P]

While I have no idea if Mary Poppins actually used an in-camera hard-matte, I have noticed over the years that none of the 4X3 presentations were open-matte, they were always side-cropped. It’s possible that the reason is because all the earlier versions were transferred from hard-matted prints, but I’ve always wondered if the OCN was actually open-matte on not.

 

[david hare]

Thank you all for a fascinating thread.

 

[Lord Dalek]

There's at least one image of a matte box on the original 1989 Batman (the only one of that series that was hard matted as far as prints go).

 

[Robert Harris]

There's at least one image of a matte box on the original 1989 Batman (the only one of that series that was hard matted as far as prints go).

But a matte box did not serve the purpose of matting the image.