Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When was the 2:1 Aperature used?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » When was the 2:1 Aperature used?

Author

Topic: When was the 2:1 Aperature used?

Adam Fraser
Master Film Handler

Posts: 499
From: Houghton Lake, MI, USA
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 08-02-2002 11:32 PM

I was wondering when the 2:1 aperature was used for projecting flat films? Isnt the current plate reccomended 1.85:1? What would the difference be in the projected image of a 1.85 movie with a 2:1 aperature? Just curious.

------------------
Adam Fraser www.pinestheatre.com

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-03-2002 12:13 AM

I know Vistavision films were designed to be projected at either 1.66, 1.85, or 2.0, althought the actual frame dimensions were closer to 1.5. Various studies in the early 50's made "suggestions" of crop ratios that could be all over the map, based on analyzing films on an individual basis. Then they started coming up with ratios and sticking with them (some 1.66, others 1.75, and others 1.85). Somewhere along the line, the accepted U.S. crop ratio became 1.85, while Britain sometimes used 1.75 or 1.66, and the rest of Europe 1.66.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-03-2002 06:20 AM

2.0 was also used for Superscope, square print with 2:1 anamorphic ratio in the '50s, and also in 1929 for the Fox Grandeur process on 70mm film.

Used on 35mm flat films of couse it is even less efficient in its use of film area than 1.85.

2.0 isn't the most extreme ratio used; at one time 16mm prints of scope films were made with the frame cropped to 2.35, in most cases ansmorphic prints were also available, so you had a choice when booking a film.

| IP: Logged

Bernard Tonks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 619
From: Cranleigh, Surrey, England
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-03-2002 06:25 AM

Looking up my records I can tell you a Disney film in 1985 that was definitely 2.1:1 flat, being “RETURN TO OZ”. I remember it well, fortunately the print was consistent in framing, and was letterboxed within 1.85:1 ratio in sharp black frame with rounded corners.

Only one of its type I’ve ever seen. Must have looked awful projected 1.66:1.

| IP: Logged

Ken Layton
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: Olympia, Wash. USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 08-03-2002 12:58 PM

I've seen theaters that have 2:1 ratio screens AND the wrong size lenses to boot. I look in the projector and they have 2:1 aperture plates.

| IP: Logged

Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 08-03-2002 01:31 PM

quote:
I've seen theaters that have 2:1 ratio screens AND the wrong size lenses to boot. I look in the projector and they have 2:1 aperture plates.

The Cobb Cinema 8 that closed here in Huntsville in May of 2000 (opened in 1982) had 2:1 screens in all auditoriums but one and showed both flat and scope cropped to that shape in 7 auditoriums. This is probably common in theatres built on the lowest budget possible.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-03-2002 01:31 PM

Adam asked: >What would the difference be in the projected image of a 1.85 movie with a 2:1 aperature? <

Adam, the answer is: the difference is that it makes the picture look like crap. Aside from loosing even more light than is lost cropping to 1.85, and needing more magnification of an even smaller piece of film geography, you would be cropping more image than the filmmaker intended. You could be loosing the tops of people's heads and what their hands are doing in medium shots, and in close-ups you would be imparting an unintended, very claustrophobic look to the picture. Now do theatres do this? Yup. Theatres do a lot of stupid things that are unacceptable for "film done right." Cropping both anamorphic prints and flat prints to produce a 2:1 for both, just so you don't have to buy a piece of track for your side masks and in effect compromise the director's composition in both formats, is one of them. These exhibitors should wake up every night with crumbs in their beds.

| IP: Logged

Dick Prather
Master Film Handler

Posts: 259
From: Portland, OR, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 08-03-2002 04:51 PM

I agree it did look like crap. The theatres I saw running 2:1 ratio had the false thinking that everyone wanted to see the biggest picture all the time so both flat and scope were the same size. Flat was cropped top and bottom and scope side to side. The worse possible combination. The most important use to me for a 2:1 aperature plate was to file it to fit some unusual 1:85 angle.
Dick

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-07-2002 10:34 AM

Caring About Composition

History of "flat" aspect ratios:
Evolution of "Flat" Ratio
Aperture Dimensions

VistaVision aspect ratios:
VistaVision

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.