|  IP: Logged

Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong.

But I think you have the terminolgy mixed up. The term 'matte' is used for several things, but for this use, is the black frame placed around the image. Flat has a large area (the black area between the frames) matted. Scope does not.

But in both cases, the projector has an aperture plate. That could be thought of as a matte, but it's not called that.

If I understand what you are trying to ask...

The question of hard matting and what's really on the film (as opposed to what's intended to be shown in the theatre) becomes more relevant when we're talking about transfering a film to video. Now, if you have more questions about that, it might be a good discussion too. How many projectionists have stopped to examine a "flat" film closely enough to see what's on the film but is NOT within the 1.85 area and is, therefor, not intended to be shown to the public? Usually, you'll just see the occasional microphone, but you might also see that the guy in the shower is really wearing shorts, etc. If the projectionist doesn't get the framing set correctly, the audience can see it too. But rest assured that the filmmakers DO frame for 1.85 in the theatre, whether or not the "full frame" is safe to show in the video version. I tend to like flat films which have a "hard matte" so that even a bone-head projectionist won't frame it incorrectly.

I recall that BACK TO THE FUTURE was "full frame" (or, in other words, the image extended both above and below the 1.85 image which the filmmakers wanted the audience to see). In that case, the projector plate masked off the unseen portion. However, all the effects shots which ILM did were hard matted to 1.85 (or something similar. I didn't actually measure the aspect ratio!).

 |  IP: Logged

First off, the use of an aperature plate to block part of a projected image is called matting. The way this is achieved is explained below

As mentioned by John, scope prints, squeezed horizontally in a 2:1 ratio, are unsqueezed by that same 2:1 ration (okay, 1:2 ration now) to give a normal looking image upon projection. But an aperature plate IS used here as well for a slight cropping of the image, else things like the sound track will be projected as well, particularly the DTS time code track.

Flat prints (which are shot with Spherical lenses, not Panavision lenses, which record the images on the negative squeezed) are normally printed and delivered as full frame images. The projectionists are expected to employ an aperture plate with a 1.85 width-to-height ratio, to block the top and bottom portions of the image, the part which the director didn't expect you to see. If a projector is "framed" wrong, meaning that the image of the film is not correctly centered in the opening of the projector's gate, then you will see part of the image above or below the part the director expected you to see, hence seeing a portion of the "unexpected" part. Also, some prints use 1.66 ratio plates, just to confuse this issue further. Each final projection ratio requires its own lens to give the identical projected image height on the screen, with only the width changing, at least in an ideal situation.

Older classics were filmed flat and the images projected were basically the full image from the camera negative, approx 1.37:1. No projection matting is or was employed except like in the case of Scope, with a minor blocking of the image around the edged.

Hard matted prints are prints where the image on the final film has been modified so that there is no area above or below the area that the director expected you to see. It could have been done in the camera OR during final printing. Disney animated titles are often hard matted in later reissues even though they were originally shot and projected full frame (nominally 1.33:1). To a film collector, such hard matted prints are less desirable. Afterall, some of the originally-seen image is no longer available to be seen.

In my collection, I have "odd reels" of Gone With The Wind that are very different, depending on the year of issue. (Odd Reels are orphan reels that are not presently part of a full set of reels that make up a full feature, typically say 6 reels for a 2 hour movie.) The 1967 domestic print is hard matted. Some of the other reels I have are full frame flat, which is how it was originally printed for final projection, with a camera negative in a 1.37:1 ratio and an expected projection of 1.37:1 ratio (full frame, per www.imdb.com). The 70mm prints were projected 2.20:1, hence slightly cropped. My hard-matted prints were supposed to give the illusion of a wide screen (1.85:1, I think in this case) epic, but all the audience got was a truncated or cropped view of the original movie. Presumably, this was also done so that the projectionist didn't have a chance to project the movie full frame. Why? I just can't fathom a "good" reason here

I am assuming you are referring to the electric dowser (more commonly referred to as a changeover, or the most popular trade name "Zipper®")...

If these are improperly adjusted, gravity can cause the blade of the changeover to fall into the closed position, either partially or fully, obviously messing up the picture... Or it can be caused by a malfunctioning automation or a forgotten cue from another theatre being executed by your automation system causing the changeover to close.

The other dowser would be the hand dowser on the lamphouse or console. Depending on the design of the dowser, it can fall closed for many reasons, most of them being things such as a missing or broken spring, linkage or magnet (CFS console hand dowsers have a magnet holding them in the open position).

I was training a guy, and I switched from flat to scope to show him how things should, and should not look. We were just running trailers, and I had on a flat trailer of "The Bachelor." I changed it to scope, and there was a boom mic right above their heads. That's a recent film; maybe someone still has it.

The reason they make hard-matted shots is a money issue. Effects and digital shots are cheaper to make, and animated films dont have to be drawn more than to 1:85, as the film is only 1:85 anyway.

But i STILL cant understand why they dont print all 1:85 made films as hard-matted (1:85)

1. It's cheaper (digital/effects shots and animation)
2. Easyer to get the film in frame
3. No microphones etc. will appear

All movies shot for 1:85 SHOULD be hard-matted (1:85) at least in the US as 1:85 is your standard ratio. In europe american movies (shot in 1:85) are of cause projected in 1:85 as they should, but 1:66 is more the standard ratio for european film-makers but thats another story.

Nightmare before christmas is photographed for 1:66 (please correct me if i am wrong) so the filmmakers can use the extra space still avalibel in the frame.

When a filmmaker wants to make a movie in 1:85 then he should make sure that it is also printed hard-matted. The chance that movie will be projected proberly is very high as there is no excuse for not framing a 'matted' movie right. Framing a not-matted flat film CAN be hard (you experts might find that easy but remember i am only a film collector )the picture is not always printed dead center, so how do you make sure it IS deadcenter? do you use the studio logo at the start of the film to correct in frame?

AND yes I CAN frame properly as i learnd it here on film-tech in the thread called 'framing question'

Martin

I have an awful 1959 16 print of "The Trap." If I dont frame it high, too, the audience gets to see the cut-back roof of a 1957 black Chrysler in every scene shot "in the car"

Just for my own amusement, I run both of these films low in the frame so I can see all the "goodies"

BTW i do not think Sir David Lean was thinking about how Lawrence of arabia would look like when it was to be released on video im just kidding of cause, but you get the picture todays directors think to much about getting the action in the camera so that it will fit for TV/video releases (James Cameron)