"Vertigo" and "Rear Window" aspect ratios and film formats
Wide Gauge
Hitchcock's movies were filmed "flat" or in VistaVision.
His VistaVision films, according to Maltin, were:
To Catch a Thief (1955)
The Trouble With Harry (1955)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
Vertigo (1958)
North by Northwest (1959)
VistaVision was touted as an "all-purpose" format that supported aspect ratios
of 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2:1. The preferred aspect ratio for VistaVision
releases was 1.85:1 whether from 8 perf 35mm horizontal prints or 4 perf 35mm
normal "flat" prints. This was the original aspect ratio for "Vertigo" (1.85:1)
although the 4/35 prints have some extra height beyond the 1.85:1 frame, and
some viewers prefer to see this extra height.
The Harris/Katz restoration release was at 1.85:1 both theatrically and in the
letterbox video.
"Rear Window," currently being restored by Harris and Katz, was filmed in 1954
at the beginning of the widescreen craze but before Hitchcock's VistaVision
period. Most "flat" movies of the time were filmed with the pre-widescreen-era
1.33:1 frame but intended to be cropped during projection to a 1.85:1 screen.
We should expect the restored "Rear Window" to run theatrically and in
letterbox video at 1.85:1. A full-screen video may still be made with no
cropping to show the whole original TV frame.
One can tell if a "flat" film was intended to be cropped to 1.85:1 by
observing, in the full-screen video, how the camera almost always allows a
"dead space" of about 14% of the screen height above actors' heads -- dead
space to be cropped off above the theatrical screen during projection. A
similar 14% of dead space is present below the 1.85:1 extraction area, but
difficult to spot through casual observation.
Scott Marshall
Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
PeterH5322
>>
"Rear Window," currently being restored by Harris and Katz, was filmed in 1954
at the beginning of the widescreen craze but before Hitchcock's VistaVision
period. Most "flat" movies of the time were filmed with the pre-widescreen-era
1.33:1 frame but intended to be cropped during projection to a 1.85:1 screen.
We should expect the restored "Rear Window" to run theatrically and in
letterbox video at 1.85:1. A full-screen video may still be made with no
cropping to show the whole original TV frame.
>>
Intentionally restricting the image area is not a "restoration" at all, but is
an "adaptation" or a post-release "Interpretation" of the director's original
work product; it is an after-the-fact mucking around with that director's
original work.
Although it may enable certain cost reductions, since less than one-hundred
percent of the original negative has to be sent through the computer-aided
cleanup process (there is an image area to time trade-off, and hence an image
area to cost trade-off), the result is still a mucked-with film.
Harris/Katz did a good job on LOA, but "Vertigo" left me feeling somehow
cheated. I also was "treated", "subjected" would be a better word, to an early
version of their "adaptation", which had way too-loud stereo foleys over mono
foreground sounds, and a "Judy's Apartment" sequence that appeared to be taken
from a 16mm dupe negative; the later-appearing video release successfully
eliminated these significant defects, but maintained the image area
restriction.
I have personally handled prints of "Vertigo" that were not hard-masked in the
printing process, so it can be said that at least someone who knew what they
were doing chose to strike prints consistent with VistaVision's original
"vision" of supporting aspect ratios of 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.0, to be
determined at the time of presentation.
That "Rear Window", arguably Hitch's best film, would be subjected to an
atrocity such as hard masking a film that was never hard masked, is
astonishing.
Wide Gauge
In article <19971223163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, peter...@aol.com
(PeterH5322) writes:
>That "Rear Window", arguably Hitch's best film, would be subjected to an
atrocity such as hard masking a film that was never hard masked, is
astonishing.
"Rear Window" has every ear-mark of a film intended to be screened at 1.85:1.
I've posted a frame from it on the web as an example:
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/rearwind.html
David Mullen
>I have personally handled prints of "Vertigo" that were not hard-masked in the
>printing process, so it can be said that at least someone who knew what they
>were doing chose to strike prints consistent with VistaVision's original
>"vision" of supporting aspect ratios of 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.0, to be
>determined at the time of presentation.
What are you talking about? Just because VistaVision had the potential to be
cropped to a wide variety of aspect ratios (it actually has a shape close to
1:1.50), doesn't mean that it should be released with the idea that
projectionists can choose their own aspect ratio. Obviously Hitchcock had to
choose one aspect ratio for his framing - and being that time in America, it
probably was 1.85. Not determining your aspect ratio until presentation
time is garbage.
Many filmmakers who shot in the current 1.85 format WISH they could could hard
matte the negative to at least 1.66 but studio policy generally restricts
this. And shooting open matted and "protecting" for TV/1.33 is not the same
thing as framing for TV. As for adding a matte during printing (in the IP/IN
stages), it seems a haphazard decision by most studios.
Releasing "Vertigo" in 70mm required that Katz/Harris stick to one ratio
(1.85) - you can't put the full negative area on a 70mm print and ask
projectionists to hard mask parts of it. And a 70mm release was the only way
of showing off the splendors of VistaVision photography.
As for that Judy apartment scene, it's well documented on the laserdisc
commentary track as to the problems they had in restoring it. It only existed
as b&w separations made off a scene that had been duped once - so they final
restored scene is several generations away from the original negative.
David M.
JohnW248
In article <19971223141...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wide...@aol.com
(Wide Gauge) writes:
>VistaVision was touted as an "all-purpose" format that supported aspect
>ratios
of 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2:1. The preferred aspect ratio for
>VistaVision
releases was 1.85:1 whether from 8 perf 35mm horizontal prints or
>4 perf 35mm
normal "flat" prints.
All is true, but did you know that Technicolor had different mattes for each
Vistavision film? They were clearly visible in a slide that was presented in a
special Technicolor SMPTE presentation at USC three or four years ago. They
were marked WC (White Christmas) SAC, etc. So there was slight variation in the
aspect ratio and reduction ratio for various titles. I have seen various
reference to 8 perf 35mm horizontal prints in the literature. I've only seen a
projector at Boss Films for viewing dailies of optical effects. Where were
these shown? What did they do for sound? How were they printed (Eastman
color?).
It would seem to have been very cumberson and required double system
projection, so I would doubt it happened outside of Hollywood/New York/London
and may have happened only once.
Any information would be appreciated.
John
FilmGene
All of this aspect ratio talk is high-flown technical niggling. Except for true
wide-screen films (1:85 or wider), flat presentation is perfectly fine and was
routinely used during the fifties.
What everyone seems to forget is that each individual theater filed its own
aperture plates NOT according to SMPTE standards, but according to the size of
their screen and the distance from the booth.
Except in some screening rooms, ratios were quite loose in the actual
presentation of the films.
I recognize the desire for people to try to match the "wishes of the director",
but in the absence of some statement from the director, we are only going to
make educated guesses. In my opinion, directors and DP's in the fifties and
sixties added some non-standard "breathing room" around the images they wanted
to convey to compensate for the real world of projection.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Martin Hart
In article <19971223163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
peter...@aol.com says...
<HUGE SNIP>
> I have personally handled prints of "Vertigo" that were not hard-masked in the
> printing process, so it can be said that at least someone who knew what they
> were doing chose to strike prints consistent with VistaVision's original
> "vision" of supporting aspect ratios of 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.0, to be
> determined at the time of presentation.
Paramount's specs for VistaVision most certainly did NOT support a
projected 1.33:1 aspect ratio. They were no more in love with that shape
than any of the other major studios and had played with wide screen in
1930 and had recommended that their 1.33:1 films be shown with a masking
of 1.66:1 around 1952.
The VistaVision specifications specifically identify printer and
projector aperture dimensions for aspect ratios of 1.66, 1.85, and 1.99.
No VistaVision 4 perf 35mm film could be shown at 1.33 unless you cut an
aperture plate to crop the sides off the image because the print
contained a frame of approximately 1.66:1. The system design for 8 perf
horizontal prints included the full camera aperture, with the top chopped
off to make room for the optical soundtrack. The specific aspect ratios
recommended for 8 perf were 1.85:1 and 1.99:1, which tossed out a huge
amount of the bottom and some of the sides of the available image. While
Paramount did provide aperture dimensions for 1.99:1 (They just couldn't
quite go for 2:1), those dimensions would not be useable because splices
would show unless the screen masking significantly cropped the projected
image.
I am currently preparing a set of VistaVision 8 perf frames with the
Paramount drawings laid over them to illustrate this. I'll put a note in
the newsgroup when the illustrations are added to the WideScreen Museum.
Copies of the Paramount drawings will be available at that time also.
> That "Rear Window", arguably Hitch's best film, would be subjected to an
> atrocity such as hard masking a film that was never hard masked, is
> astonishing.
There are atrocities and then there are atrocities. "Rear Window" was
made during the period just before the advent of VistaVision when
Paramount was recommending a screen ratio of 1.66:1, knowing full well
that the film could be shown full frame, or cropped down to 1.75:1, or
1.85:1 depending on which studio a given theater listened to. Hard
matting has the benefit of taking some decision making out of the hands
of the projectionist (popcorn girl). I can certainly think of a lot worse
things to do to a film.
Marty
--
(Remove "nospam." from address to reply)
Interested in the history of Wide Screen
Movies or Old Color Movie Processes? Visit
http://home.att.net/~m.b.hart
THE AMERICAN WIDESCREEN MUSEUM Online
Robert Harris
On 23 Dec 1997 16:37:39 GMT, peter...@aol.com (PeterH5322) wrote:
>
>>>
>"Rear Window," currently being restored by Harris and Katz, was filmed in 1954
>at the beginning of the widescreen craze but before Hitchcock's VistaVision
>period. Most "flat" movies of the time were filmed with the pre-widescreen-era
>1.33:1 frame but intended to be cropped during projection to a 1.85:1 screen.
>
>We should expect the restored "Rear Window" to run theatrically and in
>letterbox video at 1.85:1. A full-screen video may still be made with no
>cropping to show the whole original TV frame.
>>>
>
>Intentionally restricting the image area is not a "restoration" at all, but is
>an "adaptation" or a post-release "Interpretation" of the director's original
>work product; it is an after-the-fact mucking around with that director's
>original work.
>
>Although it may enable certain cost reductions, since less than one-hundred
>percent of the original negative has to be sent through the computer-aided
>cleanup process (there is an image area to time trade-off, and hence an image
>area to cost trade-off), the result is still a mucked-with film.
>
>Harris/Katz did a good job on LOA, but "Vertigo" left me feeling somehow
>cheated. I also was "treated", "subjected" would be a better word, to an early
>version of their "adaptation", which had way too-loud stereo foleys over mono
>foreground sounds, and a "Judy's Apartment" sequence that appeared to be taken
>from a 16mm dupe negative; the later-appearing video release successfully
>eliminated these significant defects, but maintained the image area
>restriction.
>
>I have personally handled prints of "Vertigo" that were not hard-masked in the
>printing process, so it can be said that at least someone who knew what they
>were doing chose to strike prints consistent with VistaVision's original
>"vision" of supporting aspect ratios of 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.0, to be
>determined at the time of presentation.
>
>That "Rear Window", arguably Hitch's best film, would be subjected to an
>atrocity such as hard masking a film that was never hard masked, is
>astonishing.
>
You have no idea what you are talking about. There are too many
errors of fact in your discussion to even comment more than to say
that you are wrong on almost each and every count.
RAH
Robert Harris
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 09:24:15, eri...@ucla.edu (David Mullen) wrote:
>
>What are you talking about? Just because VistaVision had the potential to be
>cropped to a wide variety of aspect ratios (it actually has a shape close to
>1:1.50), doesn't mean that it should be released with the idea that
>projectionists can choose their own aspect ratio. Obviously Hitchcock had to
>choose one aspect ratio for his framing - and being that time in America, it
>probably was 1.85. Not determining your aspect ratio until presentation
>time is garbage.
>
>Many filmmakers who shot in the current 1.85 format WISH they could could hard
>matte the negative to at least 1.66 but studio policy generally restricts
>this. And shooting open matted and "protecting" for TV/1.33 is not the same
>thing as framing for TV. As for adding a matte during printing (in the IP/IN
>stages), it seems a haphazard decision by most studios.
>
>Releasing "Vertigo" in 70mm required that Katz/Harris stick to one ratio
>(1.85) - you can't put the full negative area on a 70mm print and ask
>projectionists to hard mask parts of it. And a 70mm release was the only way
>of showing off the splendors of VistaVision photography.
>
Your post is correct. We do not (choose not to) work in a vacuum.
Working from the original VVLA elements, tests were run very
early on in the restoration to prove out (or disprove) the need
to go with 1.85:1 AR.
Even at with the hard matte at 1.75:1 centered, one is looking at the
mockup (fake) car interiors above and at a black rear screen (below).
1.85 was the correct AR for "Vertigo." We cannot assume that it is
correct for all VVLA produced films. Each should be tested.
As a note, the gentleman in an earlier post noted that at least one
lab technician "knew what he was doing" when he exposed the
entire VVLA area in the production of a 35/4 print of "Vertigo."
These prints, made in the early 70s are TV prints at 1.33:1, and
dutifully lop off the sides of the picture as well as most of what
would be matte protected in a standard 35/4 Vista print.
RAH
Robert Harris
>In article <19971223163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>peter...@aol.com says...
>
><HUGE SNIP>
>
>> I have personally handled prints of "Vertigo" that were not hard-masked in the
>> printing process, so it can be said that at least someone who knew what they
>> were doing chose to strike prints consistent with VistaVision's original
>> "vision" of supporting aspect ratios of 1.33, 1.66, 1.85 and 2.0, to be
>> determined at the time of presentation.
>>
>> That "Rear Window", arguably Hitch's best film, would be subjected to an
>> atrocity such as hard masking a film that was never hard masked, is
>> astonishing.
>
>There are atrocities and then there are atrocities. "Rear Window" was
>made during the period just before the advent of VistaVision when
>Paramount was recommending a screen ratio of 1.66:1, knowing full well
>that the film could be shown full frame, or cropped down to 1.75:1, or
>1.85:1 depending on which studio a given theater listened to. Hard
>matting has the benefit of taking some decision making out of the hands
>of the projectionist (popcorn girl). I can certainly think of a lot worse
>things to do to a film.
>
>Marty
>
>
Marty is totally correct here. While "Rear Window" was shot
at 1.33:1, it was never intended to be projected at that ratio.
The negative is one of the filthiest I've encountered, not so
much for ground in dirt, which is horrendous on what remains
of this negative, but rather camera aperture dirt which in some
cases goes into the frame well beyond the 1.66 range. One must
believe that if there was ever even the slightest feeling that the
film might be projected wide open, the camera aperture might
have been cleaned at some point during production.
RAH
Robert Harris
On 23 Dec 1997 17:32:47 GMT, john...@aol.com (JohnW248) wrote:
>In article <19971223141...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wide...@aol.com
>(Wide Gauge) writes:
>
>All is true, but did you know that Technicolor had different mattes for each
>Vistavision film? They were clearly visible in a slide that was presented in a
>special Technicolor SMPTE presentation at USC three or four years ago. They
>were marked WC (White Christmas) SAC, etc. So there was slight variation in the
>aspect ratio and reduction ratio for various titles. I have seen various
>reference to 8 perf 35mm horizontal prints in the literature. I've only seen a
>projector at Boss Films for viewing dailies of optical effects. Where were
>these shown? What did they do for sound? How were they printed (Eastman
>color?).
>
Most were printed in Eastmancolor with a standard width 35mm
optical track at the top of the frame. Generally an equal amount
of real estate top and bottom were discarded and the printed
section of the frame was extracted from the center.
The entire 1.50:1 AR was used for the Technirama process.
RAH
Robert Harris
On 23 Dec 1997 14:19:50 GMT, wide...@aol.com (Wide Gauge) wrote:
>Hitchcock's movies were filmed "flat" or in VistaVision.
>snip
>VistaVision was touted as an "all-purpose" format that supported aspect ratios
>of 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2:1. The preferred aspect ratio for VistaVision
>releases was 1.85:1 whether from 8 perf 35mm horizontal prints or 4 perf 35mm
>normal "flat" prints. This was the original aspect ratio for "Vertigo" (1.85:1)
>although the 4/35 prints have some extra height beyond the 1.85:1 frame, and
>some viewers prefer to see this extra height.
>
The AR of the 35/4 prints was closer to 1.55:1, with the extra
information shown below the normal 1.85 cutoff. Unfortunately,
this exposed areas below rear screens, etc.
>The Harris/Katz restoration release was at 1.85:1 both theatrically and in the
>letterbox video.
>
>"Rear Window," currently being restored by Harris and Katz, was filmed in 1954
>at the beginning of the widescreen craze but before Hitchcock's VistaVision
>period. Most "flat" movies of the time were filmed with the pre-widescreen-era
>1.33:1 frame but intended to be cropped during projection to a 1.85:1 screen.
>
The earlier films, including Rear Window were set to be projected
at 1.66:1.
>We should expect the restored "Rear Window" to run theatrically and in
>letterbox video at 1.85:1. A full-screen video may still be made with no
>cropping to show the whole original TV frame.
>
RW will be 1.66.
>Scott Marshall
>Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly
RAH
JohnW248
In article <34a5755d...@news.cloud9.net>, flmp...@popt.ix.netcom.com
(Robert Harris) writes:
>Most were printed in Eastmancolor with a standard width 35mm
optical track
>at the top of the frame. Generally an equal amount
of real estate top and
>bottom were discarded and the printed
section of the frame was extracted from
>the cente
Then if my math is correct (and there is probably a drawing on this somewhere)
after subtracting the track width from the guide edge and an equal .112 from
the bottom we wind up with an image "height" of .764 inch and a "length" of 8 x
.1870 or 1.496 inch. Allowing for a frame line (.036 ?) it would result in .764
x 1.46 or a printed aspect ratio of 1.91.
What was the recommended projection aspect ratio of the 8 perf Roadshow
VistaVision release? (that 180 fpm sound track should have had good frequency
response. Did they ever print a control track on the other side for Perspecta
or a volume level control?)
John
PeterH5322
>>
What was the recommended projection aspect ratio of the 8 perf
RoadshowVistaVision release? (that 180 fpm sound track should have had good
frequency response.
>>
As a consequence of Perspecta "in-band" encoding (on many, but certainly not
all VistaVision releases from Paramount) the audio was limited on the low end
by a 60 Hz high-pass filter, whether 8/35 or 4/35.
The high end was certainly capable of better response in 8/35 than in 4/35.
Whether that was achieved in practice is another matter.
A palpable reduction in "noise" would be one definite benefit of 8/35, however.
A 60 Hz low frequency cut-off is certainly not "high fidelity".
Scott Norwood
In article <34a1709...@news.cloud9.net>,
Robert Harris <flmp...@popt.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>RW will be 1.66.
Will there be any efforts made to ensure that it gets presented with the
proper cropping and in the original aspect ratio?
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu
Cool Home Page: http://www.resnet.wm.edu/~senorw/ <-- new URL!
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Jeff Joseph
Martin Hart wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> And this brings up a point that's always bothered me. Since "The Ten
> Commandments" had been shown in 8 perf horizontal runs, possibly as wide
> as 1.96:1, why was the 2.2:1 70mm blowup so vilified? I didn't happen to
> see that print, but I would imagine that the blowup was not made with any
> attention paid to the common headroom that VistaVision relied on, and
> possibly the maximum useable width of the negative was not printed. The
> camera negative didn't carry the framing crosses, so pure ignorance, and
> sloppy work might have been the cause of heads being cut off in the 70mm
> version.
>
> Marty
>
> --
The 70mm blow up of "The Ten Commandments" was one of the most
embarrassing prints I've ever sat through.
1. It was cropped--badly--on all four sides.
2. It was very bad fake stereo, and at some points the surrounds
came out the front, and the fronts came out the surrounds.
3. The color was horribly timed, and since much of the film is
opticals, there was a blue "haze" during much of the presentation.
4. It was quite grainy.
About a year after I saw this, we ran a 35mm I.B. print at Los Angeles
City College. Much better! It was one of the prettiest I.B.'s that
Technicolor struck in the 50's.
Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions
Wide Gauge
In article <34a1709...@news.cloud9.net>, flmp...@popt.ix.netcom.com
(Robert Harris) writes:
>"Rear Window" will be 1.66.
I'm fascinated to hear that this has been chosen for the restoration. I'd also
like to know:
1) Will there be 70mm prints?
2) Will 70mm prints have even larger "black bars" on the sides than the 1.85:1
prints of "Vertigo?"
3) Will the 35mm prints be implemented with black bars on the sides to fit into
the 1.85:1 area, or be full width with extra height cropped off at our average
theater?
Re: VistaVision, a recent issue of "Weltwunder der Kinematographic" (4/97)
reproduces a promotional photo of screens marking off various aspect ratios
from the April 1954 "International Photographer" that clearly shows Paramount
was pushing 1.85:1 (not 1.66:1) for VistaVision release in early 1954. Evidence
is accumulating that VistaVision was revised several times in its life span,
even supporting the ironic supposition that every film in VistaVision was in
its very own format.
In other words, THEY KEPT CHANGING THEIR MINDS!
Scott Marshall
Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
Martin Hart
In article <19971228025...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wide...@aol.com says...
> Re: VistaVision, a recent issue of "Weltwunder der Kinematographic" (4/97)
> reproduces a promotional photo of screens marking off various aspect ratios
> from the April 1954 "International Photographer" that clearly shows Paramount
> was pushing 1.85:1 (not 1.66:1) for VistaVision release in early 1954. Evidence
> is accumulating that VistaVision was revised several times in its life span,
> even supporting the ironic supposition that every film in VistaVision was in
> its very own format.
>
> In other words, THEY KEPT CHANGING THEIR MINDS!
No doubt about it that Paramount had no hard, fast rule for VistaVision
but I don't think it was entirely a matter of changing their minds. The
very early drawings for the process (available on my web site on the last
section of the VistaVision exhibit), offered recommended aspect ratios
for 8 perf in both 1.96:1 and 1.85:1. For 4 perf they produced a print
which contained a hard matted 1.66:1 image but they knew that projection
at 1.75 and 1.85 was much more common, which is why the VistaVision
framing crosses were placed to follow each reel changeover. By
maintaining a common headroom in all ratios they were covered by the
protected frame areas hopefully adhered to in photography.
And this brings up a point that's always bothered me. Since "The Ten
Commandments" had been shown in 8 perf horizontal runs, possibly as wide
as 1.96:1, why was the 2.2:1 70mm blowup so vilified? I didn't happen to
see that print, but I would imagine that the blowup was not made with any
attention paid to the common headroom that VistaVision relied on, and
possibly the maximum useable width of the negative was not printed. The
camera negative didn't carry the framing crosses, so pure ignorance, and
sloppy work might have been the cause of heads being cut off in the 70mm
version.
Marty
--
Robert Harris
On 28 Dec 1997 02:52:30 GMT, wide...@aol.com (Wide Gauge) wrote:
>In article <34a1709...@news.cloud9.net>, flmp...@popt.ix.netcom.com
>(Robert Harris) writes:
>
>>"Rear Window" will be 1.66.
>
>I'm fascinated to hear that this has been chosen for the restoration. I'd also
>like to know:
>
>1) Will there be 70mm prints?
No. Prints will be in 35mm dye transfer.
>
>2) Will 70mm prints have even larger "black bars" on the sides than the 1.85:1
>prints of "Vertigo?"
>
>3) Will the 35mm prints be implemented with black bars on the sides to fit into
>the 1.85:1 area, or be full width with extra height cropped off at our average
>theater?
>
No.
>Re: VistaVision, a recent issue of "Weltwunder der Kinematographic" (4/97)
>reproduces a promotional photo of screens marking off various aspect ratios
>from the April 1954 "International Photographer" that clearly shows Paramount
>was pushing 1.85:1 (not 1.66:1) for VistaVision release in early 1954. Evidence
>is accumulating that VistaVision was revised several times in its life span,
>even supporting the ironic supposition that every film in VistaVision was in
>its very own format.
>
>In other words, THEY KEPT CHANGING THEIR MINDS!
>
During research on the title we did establish that early in production
(late in pre-prod.) footage was shot in VVLA of the apartments
across the way, apparently with the concept that when we
viewed the goings on with one of the leads in the foreground,
the bg would be a VVLA process plate.
This was never used during production however, being
dropped in the testing stage. The early VVLA cameras were
referred to on daily production notes as "Chinese Cameras."
RAH
Robert Harris
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:58:07 -0800, Jeff Joseph <sab...@sabucat.com>
wrote:
>The 70mm blow up of "The Ten Commandments" was one of the most
>embarrassing prints I've ever sat through.
>
>1. It was cropped--badly--on all four sides.
>2. It was very bad fake stereo, and at some points the surrounds
>came out the front, and the fronts came out the surrounds.
>3. The color was horribly timed, and since much of the film is
>opticals, there was a blue "haze" during much of the presentation.
>4. It was quite grainy.
>
>About a year after I saw this, we ran a 35mm I.B. print at Los Angeles
>City College. Much better! It was one of the prettiest I.B.'s that
>Technicolor struck in the 50's.
>
>Jeff Joseph
>SabuCat Productions
From what I understand, the new dupe of "TC" was
created from the 8 perf separation masters, reduction
printed to 35/4, with extremely poor registration of
records and a field of illumination extremely uneven
from side to side. Of course, the 70s would have
been produced from the 35 dupe, hence the grain
so large that some people could actually make out
the the lettering "wilson" on many grains.
When this was placed in a theatre (the Dome as
I recall) the marketing folks at Paramount had
Chuck Heston go in and pronounce it the most
beautiful print he'd ever seen -- which is his
job and he was correct to do so, except it doesn't
exactly move film restoration forward to a new plateau.
RAH
David Mullen
>Re: VistaVision, a recent issue of "Weltwunder der Kinematographic" (4/97)
>reproduces a promotional photo of screens marking off various aspect ratios
>from the April 1954 "International Photographer" that clearly shows Paramount
>was pushing 1.85:1 (not 1.66:1) for VistaVision release in early 1954.
Interesting. My impression was the Paramount was the most cautious in widening
the aspect ratio of their films, recommending that 1.66 become the standard
while companies like Universal were implementing 1.85. The VistaVision format
was the least wide-shaped of all the large negative or anamorphic formats to
come out in the 1950's (or should I say, to be RE-introduced.)
David M.
Robert Harris
On 26 Dec 1997 14:59:31 GMT, snor...@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood)
wrote:
>In article <34a1709...@news.cloud9.net>,
>Robert Harris <flmp...@popt.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>RW will be 1.66.
>
>Will there be any efforts made to ensure that it gets presented with the
>proper cropping and in the original aspect ratio?
We certainly do what we can, however, beyond the half dozen
"premier" houses t hat are set up for us, there is no way to
keep some "projectionist" in a mall from giving change for
goobers with one hand and running the film 2:1 (same as
all scope films in malls) with the other.
RAH
Steve Kraus
Robert Harris wrote:
> We certainly do what we can, however, beyond the half dozen
> "premier" houses t hat are set up for us, there is no way to
> keep some "projectionist" in a mall from giving change for
> goobers with one hand and running the film 2:1 (same as
> all scope films in malls) with the other.
Unless you're sure this release will not venture
much beyond the art and prestige/premiere houses
into ordinary theatres you can be certain that
the 1.66 will be shown as 1.85. That's why it
would make sense to make prints for general
release as 1.66 within 1.85 while the premiere
houses with proper lenses & plates can run
"real" 1.66 prints.
PeterH5322
What made the "restoration" of "Vertigo" so frustrating (well one of the things
anyway) is the rep house here in my town presents all films in 1.66 if it's
"flat wide screen" and 2:35 if it's 'scope, so when "Vertigo" came in
hard-matted at 1.85, it got presented at 1.66.
Therefore, we all had the rare treat of seeing the VistaVision framing "F"s in
all their glory framed precisely at 1.66, which at least told me that the
operator knew what he was doing when he framed the projector.
Robert Harris
The 35mm prints of "Vertigo" were produced from the same
array of 35/8 elements that produced the 65/5 version.
Generally, in the original VV 35/4 prints, while a bit was removed
from the top of the frame to produce varous ARs, most of the
frame was lopped off the bottom.
In the 1996 version, the 35/4 prints were hard-matted to 1.85.
If a projectionist had the necessity to run it 1.66, he or she would
merely have exposed black negative matte, as there was no
picture to be overcut by the aperture plate.
RAH
RAH