|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Flat films
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 10-12-1999 05:30 AM
I can just imagine that call from the booker... "Why do you show zero gross for the blockbuster of the century" "Well, cause it was flat, so we didn't build it out of protest."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-1999 09:30 AM
Flat Format describes many formats. 1.85:1 is the US standard flat format and I agree it looks bad. 1.85:1 is the most wasteful film format. The European format is 1.66:1 and it usually looks much better. Both of these formats were developed in the 1950s to differentiate film from television. The television screen is 1.33:1, which is similar to the old Academy Format of 1.37:1.So, my two favorite film formats are Cinemascope and 1.66:1. Imagine how much more impressive scope would be if the masking moved from 1.66:1 to scope. I hate “scissor” masking that moves up and down. In my old theatre the masking always reset to flat and then when we ran a scope movie the screen got smaller before the image hit the screen. We used to get complaints all the time, “why has the screen gotten smaller?” The only way masking should move is sideways, unless you are making the screen taller for 70mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 10-12-1999 11:50 AM
One good idea Kodak is working on is to use the current anamorphic image area (0.825 X 0.690 inches) with a 1.5X squeeze anamorphic lens. This would have a 1.79:1 aspect ratio (16:9). The advantage over current 1.85:1 non-anamorphic (image area 0.825 X 0.446 inches) is the much greater image area that ends up on the screen. Sharpness, grain, and vertical steadiness would be significantly improved, and about 1.5X more light would be available. The only change required in the theatre would be the new 1.5X anamorphic lens for this format, and adjusting the screen masking to 1.79:1. Of course, the current 2X anamorphic format would still be used for pictures composed for the wider 2.39:1 aspect ratio.The idea was first proposed by Glenn Berggren in 1983 as "IscoVision", and demonstrated to the InterSociety Committee for the Enhancement of Theatrical Presentation and the MPAA in 1984. The 1.5X anamorphic prints could be achieved by using 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses, or by shooting in "Super-35" and using a 1.5X anamorphic printing lens or "digital intermediate" to produce the "squeezed" printing negative. Kodak has produced a "Super-35" film demo, and is working with a lab (Imagica USA) to produce a matched set of prints comparing the current 1.85:1 non-anamorphic format with the proposed 1.5X anamorphic format. The prototype anamorphic printing and projection lenses are from IscoOptic. Preliminary results have been very encouraging, especially the significant increase in light efficiency --- large screens that now struggle to get 11 footlamberts for 1.85:1 would easily get 16 footlamberts with the new format. ------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 10-12-1999 01:01 PM
Like you, I was very disappointed this great idea wasn't adopted by the industry when first demonstrated by Glenn Berggren in 1984. You are right that COST was a factor, as well as "the chicken or egg" dilemma of making a feature film in a new format if most theatres don't have the lens to show it. The advent of "Super-35" gives the idea new hope. Instead of requiring development of a new family of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses, the 1.5X anamorphic printer lens has already been designed. Doing the "squeeze" in printing allows making "dual inventory" flat and anamorphic prints during the transition period, with the 1.5X anamorphic prints at first going to the theatres having huge screens that need the extra light. This is a GREAT movie that has sat on the shelf for 15 years.  Now that most theatres have at least a few huge screens that need the extra light, it may be an idea whose time has come. With Kodak's help, it may finally happen. ------------------
John Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Professional Motion Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Ferreira
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 203
From: Conway, NH, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-17-1999 08:18 AM
It seems to me that the trend seems to be towards more directors working in scope. There was one point this summer when everything I had on screen was in scope. About ten years ago, scope was the exception rather than the rule. I remember being quite surprised when we made up our print of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, and found out it was in scope. Perhaps with the advent of DVD, where letterboxing is accepted, and with widescreen VHS having it's own section in video stores, directors are less likely to be scared off by a format where there's going to be image loss on video. Anybody remember when Die Hard first came out on video? Instead of using pan and scan or letterboxing, they compressed the image so that it looked like it was being projected with a flat lens. If I were Renny Harlin, and saw that on video, I'd never work in scope again. I agree that there is still too many films in the flat format, but in the case of a film like, say, Superstar, it probably wouldn't be as readily accepted in the widescreen format for it's video release. I was very disappointed that The Story Of Us is flat, but I'm willing to bet that Rob Reiner cut his teeth working with a similar aspect ratio for television.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic