(I dedicate this article to Evans Criswell, who is a strong advocate of showing movies in the correct aspect ratio. )

As you've pointed out in another thread, the relevant SMPTE standard for head leaders does specify that the ratio should be marked on them. But, frankly, it's a specification that everyone ignores. I simply can't remember the last time I've shown a print which has had this information printed (as distinct from written on by a projectionist) onto the leader.

I've used a search engine to find possible organizations:
http://www.editorsnet.com/
http://www.ace-filmeditors.org/
http://www.nenm.com/filmedit.htm
http://www.sullivanballou.com/strock/index.html

I am very opposed to the showing of scope movies at the flat aspect ratio (Regal Theatres in Huntsville in two thirds of the auditoriums) and the showing of both formats at 2.00:1 (like the old Cobb Cinema 8 did in 7 of their 8 auditoriums).

However, I don't mind the use of top masking in smaller auditoriums as much. There are many smaller auditoriums out there that are 28 feet in width that have high ceilings. In such auditoriums, having a screen with side masking would provide scope images that are up to 26 feet in width, but would limit flat images to a width of about 20 feet. With top masking, the flat images can be made 26 feet wide. It isn't an optimal situation, but at least the aspect ratios are preserved and each image is as large as possible. The real solution is to not build long narrow auditoriums that are 28 feet in width. Build them 32 feet in width (or more) and make the auditoriums less deep so that side masking can be accommodated with good results.

The only practical way that Regal can fix the screens in their 28-foot auditoriums here in Huntsville is to install adjustable top masking. That way, their flat setup would not change, requiring them to buy new lenses for their scope setup. New aperture plates would be needed unless the ones they have could be filed out to show the entire image. I wish someone at Regal would realize how unprofessional the "scope at 1.85:1" practice is here in Huntsville and make it a priority to fix it. It just shows that large theatre companies just don't give a hoot about presentation quality details or adhering to ANSI/SMPTE standards.

If top masking is used, I think it is very important to not let the audience see the masking in the flat position if a scope feature is to be shown. Have the masking set for scope when the audience comes in and leave it that way. Never let the audience see it in the flat position first and have it go down to make the screen smaller afterwards.

About showing flat movies on scope screens: I dislike that practice. If I go to a theatre and the side masking is not pulled in when I see a flat film, due to the fuzzy edges, I usually count off 4 points. The highest grade for such a presentation is typically 96. I'm talking about indoor theatres here, and not drive-ins.

About lack of adjustable masking: I do not deduct for lack of adjustable masking on a per-movie basis because doing so would require that I actually watch a realistic percentage of scope movies shown at 1.85:1. which I prefer to avoid like the plague. Also, deducting for lack of adjustable masking on a per-move basis would allow me to let a theatre's rating be higher or lower based on how many "wrong ratio" presentations I attend at the theatre. Instead, I calculate a facility deduction and apply it after I calculate the average for such a facility. That is, if I see a scope movie at 1.85:1 and everything else is perfect, I give it a 100. If the theatre's overall average is 98.0, and two thirds of the screens lack masking and are 1.85:1-only, then 7.5 points are deducted from the average, giving a 90.5 rating. Another beneficial aspect of using this method is if the problem is corrected in all auditoriums, the theatre's rating instantly goes up and is an accurate reflection of presentation quality at the time, rather than taking 2 to 4 years to slowly move up to the proper value.

Evans A Criswell

These ratings can be seen on my site. In the ratings table, click the theatre name to see lists of rated showings:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~criswell/theatre/

It is criminal what some operators do, to the projected image, on the screen. It seems to me that some of the film distributor's are also derelict, in their responsibilities to the director's and producers, of the film when they permit it to go to a theatre, that does not present it properly. There was a time in exhibition that presentation was of paramount importance to both exhibition and distribution. I know, at least in New York first run the film companies send in their technicians to work with the exibitor's technician to insure the film is played properly. Many of the distributor's hire the Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) personnel to check these theatres for compliance. Pre 1975 the film distributor's use to have us repair seats, change carpeting, put in new curtains or maskings before booking a picture into an auditorium. This was in the days of the Red Carpet and Blue Ribbon bookings.

By the way, the TAP guidelines are now available for download in the manuals section under "Instructional Documents".

(Oops, I just realized Ted just started a thread specific to the TAP guidelines. Please post your responses on that thread to keep things together.)

In 1982, Bob Maar was the general manager at the theater company where I was projectionist/ technician.

We had just finished a 70mm installation in a newly twined (and completely renovated)theater. After projecting some 35PA test film, I was unhappy with the way the lenses and screen sizes had been set up.

1.85 was OK, but scope (although masked to the correct ratio) had a 12% crop. And 70mm was being made to fit on the same ratio screen as scope. Also, the rectifiers were too small (not enough wattage.)

It's tough to get theaters to spend money at any time; even more so to replace new stuff that was just installed. But, as soon as I demonstrated to Bob that it was not right, he approved about $4000 worth of replacement lenses, rectifiers, and labor.

So, while some people will SAY they want screen ratios, etc. done correctly, Bob will actually find the funds to DO it.