GWTW(too BIG a movie for 4:3)
cin...@hotmail.com
In 1989 I attended a 50th anniversary revival of GONE WITH THE WIND
at a cinema here in Sydney.It was shown in the old 4x3 format, and
all through the movie I was thinking that it was too big and too
good a movie to be shown on this pathetic square shaped little screen.
I know that this is the format the film was photographed in back in
1939, but this is 1998 and the last generation of viewers to even
remember going to see movies in this format must be getting close
to sixty.
Some time after I saw the same restored print at another cinema
that projected it at 1.75:1,and the difference was like chalk and
cheese. There were no heads cut off(and the projectionist did not
have to adjust the rack throughout the picture) and altogether it
was a far more impressive presentation, that a BIG motion picture
like GONE WITH THE WIND deserves.
It absolutely amazes me that the Distributors have gone to all
the trouble to make specially squeezed TECHNICOLOR matrixes so
that it can end up on some postage-stamp size screen with the
old fashioned almost square shape . Thirty years ago they blew
it up to 70MM and admittedly the picture didn't look that good,
mainly because the original negatives had to go through three
generations of printing using the then available duplicating
stocks(First generation EASTMAN 5253 Intermediate stock).With
the magnificently sharp and fine grained stocks available today
(Eastman 5244 Intermediate and the new Fuji Intermediate)a 70MM
print off a Blow-Up Internegative would look superb.
Another complaint about the last 70MM version was that the
so called stereophonic sound wasn't proper stereo, which it wasn't.
This was because the separate dialogue,music and effects tracks
couldn't be located at the time but more than twenty years later
when the 1989 restoration was done they were located and I assume
are still available for a proper stereo remix.
Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
sized screens we have not grown accustomed to. GWTW and its audience
deserve much,much more.
REGARDS,
Peter Mason.
the resulting 70MM print would look superb
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
w...@mindless.com
> In 1989 I attended a 50th anniversary revival of GONE WITH THE WIND
> at a cinema here in Sydney.It was shown in the old 4x3 format, and
> all through the movie I was thinking that it was too big and too
> good a movie to be shown on this pathetic square shaped little screen.
>
> that projected it at 1.75:1,and the difference was like chalk and
> cheese.
But then that's not Gone With The Wind. It's a cropped version, & you're not
seeing the picture the guy took.
I think what you're observing is the problem which led them to release it
this time in scope. Most theaters no longer have a lens which will project a
1.37 picture the full height of the screen. The first theater used the backup
from the scope lens to show the entiret image, so you got the little postage-
stamp splat. The second theater used its regular flat lens (since flat films
these days are 1:1.85), & got a large, but cut-down picture.
We show lots of 1.37 here, we must use a different lens from the 1.85. Movies
are just as impressive in 1.37 as 1.75 or 1.85, if they're projected utilizing
as much of the screen as possible. The prosc here is right at 1.85, & when we
mask the sides for 1.37, it just looks, well, less wide, but still full movie-
size. Umm, I'm having trouble explaining this perceptual phenomenon. Trust
me, if it goes full height of the screen at 1.37, it doesn't look diminutive.
> Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
> and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
> sized screens we have not grown accustomed to.
Here, let me get you a seat further down front. Usher!
--
===================================
William Hooper <w...@mindless.com>
David Mullen
> Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
> and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
> deserve much,much more.
Audiences deserve to see it in the aspect ratio that it was shot in. Cropping
it and enlarging to to a wider shape is not "improving" the picture.
Next thing you'll be saying that audiences deserve to see black & white movies
in color, since that's what they've gotten accustomed to seeing.
David M.
cin...@hotmail.com
w...@mindless.com wrote:
>
> > In 1989 I attended a 50th anniversary revival of GONE WITH THE WIND
> > at a cinema here in Sydney.It was shown in the old 4x3 format, and
> > all through the movie I was thinking that it was too big and too
> > good a movie to be shown on this pathetic square shaped little
screen.
> >
> > Some time after I saw the same restored print at another cinema
> > that projected it at 1.75:1,and the difference was like chalk and
> > cheese.
>
> But then that's not Gone With The Wind. It's a cropped version, & you're not
> seeing the picture the guy took.
>
Does that also mean that BEN HUR, SHANE and countless other films are not
the films they purport to be, simply because they have been cropped for
exhibition. BEN HUR was filmed in MGM Camera 65 with a ratio of 2.76:, and
yet this movie has not been available for cinema viewing at this ratio for
years. The only currently available 70MM print has 20% of its width
removed,since only the spherical 70MM version is available. Also SHANE was
shop for 4:3 but was never shown at theatres in this format.In fact it was
the first cropped for widescreen 35MM movie to be shown.
Regards
Peter Mason
> I think what you're observing is the problem which led them to release it
> this time in scope. Most theaters no longer have a lens which will project a
> 1.37 picture the full height of the screen. The first theater used the backup
> from the scope lens to show the entiret image, so you got the little postage-
> stamp splat. The second theater used its regular flat lens (since flat films
> these days are 1:1.85), & got a large, but cut-down picture.
>
> We show lots of 1.37 here, we must use a different lens from the 1.85. Movies
> are just as impressive in 1.37 as 1.75 or 1.85, if they're projected utilizing
> as much of the screen as possible. The prosc here is right at 1.85, & when we
> mask the sides for 1.37, it just looks, well, less wide, but still full movie-
> size. Umm, I'm having trouble explaining this perceptual phenomenon. Trust
> me, if it goes full height of the screen at 1.37, it doesn't look diminutive.
>
> > Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
> > and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
> > sized screens we have not grown accustomed to.
>
Jeremy Bond Shepherd
cin...@hotmail.com a écrit dans le message <6sik0m$f12$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>:
>
> Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
> and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
> deserve much,much more.
I couldn't disagree more. GWTW is a work of art and industry, and an indelible
part of our culture. Altering it to suit modern sensibilities would be vulgar,
tasteless, and an insult to the memory of its creators.
- Jeremy
Scott Norwood
Agreed. Although I did watch a couple of reels yesterday afternoon,
in both mono and Dolby, and found that (even on our not-so-hot 1950's
sound system) the Dolby mix was far superior in every way to mono; thus,
I don't object to showing this film in Dolby.
But to seriously crop the picture would be a crime worthy of hanging
(with a noose made of polyester film, of course!). I'd suggest the same
punishment to the idiot who sent us a GWTW print which was missing head
and tail leaders on every reel and had many repair splices made with
yellow opaque tape!
[I'm not even particularly fond of the GWTW as a film, but it's one of that
group of "universally beloved" films that deserve extra-special care in
presentation.]
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net, sen...@mail.wm.edu
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
SprocketOil
in IB Technicolor and only booked in theatres that have a screen over 15
ft. tall. The mono track cleaned up and presented in mono.
So, There!
--
REMOVE NOSPAM from address to reply. Thank You.
SGuttag
>in IB Technicolor and only booked in theatres that have a screen over 15
>ft. tall. The mono track cleaned up and presented in mono.
>
>So, There!
Agreed!
George Shelps
wrote:
<We show lots of 1.37 here, we must use a different lens from the 1.85.
Movies are just as impressive in 1.37 as 1.75 or 1.85, if they're
projected utilizing as much of the screen as possible. The prosc here is
right at 1.85, & when we mask the sides for 1.37, it just looks, well,
less wide, but still full movie- size. Umm, I'm having trouble
explaining this perceptual phenomenon. Trust me, if it goes full height
of the screen at 1.37, it doesn't look diminutive>
True. I saw it at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta and at Radio City Music
Hall, both in 1989. With a big enough screen, the original ratio is
appropriately grand.
PeterH5322
>>
With a big enough screen, the original ratio is appropriately grand.
>>
In fact 4:3 (1.33:1) later changed to 1.37:1 is the so-called "magic rectangle"
used by the masters (in painting) for hundreds of years.
cin...@my-dejanews.com
was 5:3(1.66:1), Didn't AATON conduct an add campaign for its
Super 16 cameras a few years ago based on that concept?
REGARDS
Peter Mason
Wide Gauge
>I was always under the impression that the "magic rectangle"
> was 5:3(1.66:1), Didn't AATON conduct an add campaign for its
> Super 16 cameras a few years ago based on that concept?
I've found numerous references that assert that the "golden rectangle" (aka
"golden ratio" or "golden section") that is supposedly aesthetically pleasing,
is approximately 1.618:1 (in fact an irrational number). The term "golden
section" is precisely defined in most large dictionaries. I'm not certain if
the golden rectangle and the magic rectangle are one and the same.
The aesthetics of the rectangular form of a movie screen are perhaps irrelevant
to classical widescreen cinema, because the purpose of wide screen was to fill
our vision, not to produce a pleasantly-shaped frame. The angular aspect ratio
of human vision is about 2.67:1 -- about the same as Cinerama, early
CinemaScope, and Camera 65.
Edison's choice of 4:3 was apparently arbitrary.
Scott Marshall
Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly
http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
JohnW248
(Wide Gauge) writes:
>Edison's choice of 4:3 was apparently arbitrary.
Arbitrary no doubt, but influenced by the width of the material Eastman made
and the cost of the material. Since they liked to work in "easy numbers" the
picture area was one inch wide by three quaters of an inch tall. Edison didn't
envision screen projection initially, so peep hole viewing would direct all
attention to the availabe picture size.
John
cin...@hotmail.com
wide...@aol.com (Wide Gauge) wrote:
> In article <6tl6rc$8o6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cin...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >I was always under the impression that the "magic rectangle"
> > was 5:3(1.66:1), Didn't AATON conduct an add campaign for its
> > Super 16 cameras a few years ago based on that concept?
>
> I've found numerous references that assert that the "golden rectangle" (aka
> "golden ratio" or "golden section") that is supposedly aesthetically pleasing,
> is approximately 1.618:1 (in fact an irrational number). The term "golden
> section" is precisely defined in most large dictionaries. I'm not certain if
> the golden rectangle and the magic rectangle are one and the same.
>
> The aesthetics of the rectangular form of a movie screen are perhaps
irrelevant
> to classical widescreen cinema, because the purpose of wide screen was to fill
> our vision, not to produce a pleasantly-shaped frame. The angular aspect ratio
> of human vision is about 2.67:1 -- about the same as Cinerama, early
> CinemaScope, and Camera 65.
>
>
Edison's choice was to a large extent based on the fact that
the only real future that he saw for "Film" was as a product
to be used in "Peephole machines" in amusement parlours.
I'm sure that if he had envisaged the future of the invention,
he and his associate Dickson would not have chosen that pathetic
little squarish shape.The hardest thing to change, however is the
"status quo" and once 4:3 was established as the norm it remained
so untill CINERAMA shaked everybody out of their seats and forced
the Distributors to reconsider the future viability of 4:3.
To all those people who say that 4:3 looks better on a BIG screen
then a small screen, I agree BUT on a BIG SCREEN with a wide-Screen
picture it's better still.Just read some of those reviews in VARIETY
and NEW YORK TIMES for SHANE(shot and composed for 4:3) when shown
on the 50x30ft screen at RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL and THUNDER BAY which
apparently was the first film actually composed for wide-screen pro-
jection.
I know all you "purists" out there say that a film should be projected
as it is composed by the Cinematographer. What does this mean? For the
past 30 years all wide screen films(non-anamorphic)have been composed
for the cinema screen and the Television screen at the same time.
What is the "definitive" compositional aspect ratio for TITANIC
for example? Panavision and other anamorphic ratio films are routinely
panned and scanned and most of the general public prefer this to the
"Letterbox" wide screen which has become increasingly popular over
the last few years.How many people in the audience for SHANE complained
about the missing top and bottom of the picture. The part the cinema-
tographer framed but got masked out in the projection room? SHANE has
to the best of my knowledge never been shown(apart from 16MM prints)
in any format but Wide-Screen.It is, I believe, looked upon as one of
the "classic" Westerns.
Let's not let Edison's lack of foresight to the possibilities of
"film" enslave us in "Peep-Hole" machine mentalities.Let's try to
look at the Broad horizon and the BIG picture and put that pathetic
looking 4:3 picture firmly where it belongs, in the past.
REGARDS
Peter Mason.
> Scott Marshall
> Wide Gauge Film and Video Monthly
> http://members.aol.com/widegauge/
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
cin...@hotmail.com
David Mullen
> I know all you "purists" out there say that a film should be projected
> as it is composed by the Cinematographer. What does this mean?
As a cinematographer, I can tell you exactly what that means: you have a frame
line in the camera and you compose an image around that. In 1938, there were
no multiple aspect ratios to worry about, so there should be no confusion as
to how GWTW should be shown. 1.37 Academy.
> What is the "definitive" compositional aspect ratio for TITANIC
> for example?
In a movie theater, it is 2.35 : 1. Since the prints are anamorphic, it
doesn't matter that the negative was Super35; you can only see the
'scope image in the theater. Cameron has gone on record as well stating that
when he shoots a movie, he just concentrates on the theatrical framing and
deals with the home video problems later.
And it should be shown in 2.35 in home video. The same mentality that says it
is OK to show 1.37 films cropped to 1.85 also must endorse the idea that 2.35
films should be panned & scanned for TV, as if composition were
arbitrary.
> Let's not let Edison's lack of foresight to the possibilities of
> "film" enslave us in "Peep-Hole" machine mentalities.Let's try to
> look at the Broad horizon and the BIG picture and put that pathetic
> looking 4:3 picture firmly where it belongs, in the past.
Hate to point this out to you, but GWTW also belongs to the past. We are not
"enslaved" to 1.37 Academy presentations - it is pretty much non-existent
these days. I'm not suggesting that modern film shot composed in 1.85 should
be shown in 1.37, but I'm also not suggesting that pre-1950's films should be
shown in 1.85. And most pre-1950's films are not "pathetic looking", even
though when shown in Academy 1.37. Von Sternberg's "Scarlett Empress" is
pathetic looking because it has a 4:3 picture?
By your logic, we should be showing Buster Keaton's "The General" in 1.85 or
"Sunrise" or "All's Quiet on the Western Front" or "Citizen Kane" in 1.85 as
if it doesn't matter. Composition is a key element of art and narrative
storytelling. The frame size is not arbitrary. If "Shane" looks OK when
cropped even though it wasn't intended to be, then that's a matter of luck.
It SHOULD be shown in the format it was composed for.
It's a simple concept. How often are we going to have this problem,
anyway? How many pre-1950's movies are going to get a wide re-release?
What's wrong with people seeing these properly in the aspect ratio they were
composed in?
I LOVE widescreen movies - but I don't feel a need to turn non-widescreen
movies into them. To me, that's the same thinking that produces colorization
- i.e. I love color movies, why can't those old b&w films be shown in color?
B&W belongs in the past, let's colorize "Citizen Kane" so that modern
audiences can appreciate the film! Let's not bother telling them that most
pre-1950 films were in 1.85 and in b&w - let's crop it to 1.85 and colorize it
so they'll think it is a modern film! They'll enjoy it more! Let's not be
enslaved to the past, after all...
David M.
w...@mindless.com
> Just read some of those reviews in VARIETY
> and NEW YORK TIMES for SHANE(shot and composed for 4:3) when shown
> on the 50x30ft screen at RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL and THUNDER BAY which
The RCMH screen was 50x30 in 1953?
--
===================================
William Hooper <w...@mindless.com>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
cin...@my-dejanews.com
eri...@ucla.edu (David Mullen) wrote:
>
> > I know all you "purists" out there say that a film should be projected
> > as it is composed by the Cinematographer. What does this mean?
>
> As a cinematographer, I can tell you exactly what that means: you have a frame
> line in the camera and you compose an image around that. In 1938, there were
> no multiple aspect ratios to worry about, so there should be no confusion as
> to how GWTW should be shown. 1.37 Academy.
>
> > What is the "definitive" compositional aspect ratio for TITANIC
> > for example?
>
> In a movie theater, it is 2.35 : 1. Since the prints are anamorphic, it
> doesn't matter that the negative was Super35; you can only see the
> 'scope image in the theater. Cameron has gone on record as well stating that
> when he shoots a movie, he just concentrates on the theatrical framing and
> deals with the home video problems later.
>
the microphone boom in the non-widescreen video version of
the film. Of course we don't because the cinematographer is not
just composing for 2.35:1, he is composing for TV safe-action
area as well.
> And it should be shown in 2.35 in home video. The same mentality that says it
> is OK to show 1.37 films cropped to 1.85 also must endorse the idea that 2.35
> films should be panned & scanned for TV, as if composition were
> arbitrary.
>
the wide-screen letter-boxed home video is 2:1 not 2.35(or should
that be 2.4:1).Surely if Cameron thought that his movie's artistic
integrity was being compromised by this reduction in aspect ratio
he would not have consented to this change.I understand that he
exercises ultimate control over how his films are transferred to
video.He probably thought that a little extra headroom wouldn't
make that much diffence,which it doesn't.
> > Let's not let Edison's lack of foresight to the possibilities of
> > "film" enslave us in "Peep-Hole" machine mentalities.Let's try to
> > look at the Broad horizon and the BIG picture and put that pathetic
> > looking 4:3 picture firmly where it belongs, in the past.
>
> Hate to point this out to you, but GWTW also belongs to the past. We are not
> "enslaved" to 1.37 Academy presentations - it is pretty much non-existent
> these days. I'm not suggesting that modern film shot composed in 1.85 should
> be shown in 1.37, but I'm also not suggesting that pre-1950's films should be
> shown in 1.85. And most pre-1950's films are not "pathetic looking", even
> though when shown in Academy 1.37. Von Sternberg's "Scarlett Empress" is
> pathetic looking because it has a 4:3 picture?
>
have been made in the past but it is one of those rare gems like
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA that defies the passing of time.It is for this
reason that I like to see it presented as impressively as possible
so that the grandeur of the film comes across on the screen.
I remember when I saw it at its 50th anniversary revival in 1989,
I heard quite a few comments from the audience to the effect of
"What happened to the rest of the picture". Most of today's
audience are so accustomed to wide-screens(at least 1.66:1) that
they believe that small squarish pictures only belong on the TV.
I must admit that when I viewed the film then, the smallness of the
screen and the shape of the screen substantially detracted from my
enjoyment of the film. On the other hand when I saw it presented
some time later in the Wide-Screen format it was like the difference
between seeing a film at the cinema as apposed to looking at it
on television.
> By your logic, we should be showing Buster Keaton's "The General" in 1.85 or
> "Sunrise" or "All's Quiet on the Western Front" or "Citizen Kane" in 1.85 as
> if it doesn't matter. Composition is a key element of art and narrative
> storytelling. The frame size is not arbitrary. If "Shane" looks OK when
> cropped even though it wasn't intended to be, then that's a matter of luck.
> It SHOULD be shown in the format it was composed for.
>
Most of those films could be shown at a moderate Wide-Screen ratio,
say between 1.66 to 1.75:1 with very little if any noticeable
loss to picture composition. As I stated in another posting,
BEN HUR was filmed in MGM Camera 65 with a aspect ratio of 2.76:1,
and yet for the last 25 years ,at least, all the available 70MM
prints have been spherical 2.2:1, a 20% loss in picture width.
I haven't exactly heard shouting from the rooftops about this
desecration of the 11 ACADEMY AWARD winning film.THE FALL OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 again with an
aspect ratio of 2.76:1, it was originally intended for CINERAMA
presentation but that didn't come off, so all the 70MM release prints
were in spherical at AR 2.2:1. Again 20% of the width missing.
I never heard anybody complain about the missing picture.Did you?
Even when 1.37:1 films are shown on television they are automatically
cropped by the transmission process itself.
> It's a simple concept. How often are we going to have this problem,
> anyway? How many pre-1950's movies are going to get a wide re-release?
> What's wrong with people seeing these properly in the aspect ratio they were
> composed in?
>
> I LOVE widescreen movies - but I don't feel a need to turn non-widescreen
> movies into them. To me, that's the same thinking that produces colorization
> - i.e. I love color movies, why can't those old b&w films be shown in color?
> B&W belongs in the past, let's colorize "Citizen Kane" so that modern
> audiences can appreciate the film! Let's not bother telling them that most
> pre-1950 films were in 1.85 and in b&w - let's crop it to 1.85 and colorize it
> so they'll think it is a modern film! They'll enjoy it more! Let's not be
> enslaved to the past, after all...
>
> David M.
>
I'm not advocating colourising CITIZEN KANE and I'm not saying that
many films can't be shown in their original aspect ratio. What I am
saying is that certain films deserve the Big wide screen in order to
be seen at their best and I believe that GONE WITH THE WIND is one
of those films.
REGARDS
Peter Mason.
cin...@hotmail.com
w...@mindless.com wrote:
>
> > Just read some of those reviews in VARIETY
> > and NEW YORK TIMES for SHANE(shot and composed for 4:3) when shown
> > on the 50x30ft screen at RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL and THUNDER BAY which
>
> The RCMH screen was 50x30 in 1953?
>
> --
of 21st May 1953. Although reviewing THUNDER BAY the review does
refer to the RADIO CITY MUSIC HALL's presentation of SHANE on the
50x30 ft flat screen.
REGARDS
Peter Mason.
> ===================================
> William Hooper <w...@mindless.com>
Dave Garrett
dejanews.com says...
> As I stated in another posting,
> BEN HUR was filmed in MGM Camera 65 with a aspect ratio of 2.76:1,
> and yet for the last 25 years ,at least, all the available 70MM
> prints have been spherical 2.2:1, a 20% loss in picture width.
> I haven't exactly heard shouting from the rooftops about this
> desecration of the 11 ACADEMY AWARD winning film.
Then you haven't been reading this newsgroup very long. This has
been a topic of discussion several times in the recent past.
Dave
PeterH5322
>>
Even when 1.37:1 films are shown on television they are automatically cropped
by the transmission process itself.
>>
Yes and no.
The A/R is automatically changed from 1.37:1 to the 1.33 A/R of the television
system (assuming the print is 35mm) by the telecine. If the print is 16mm, then
there is no such change in the television system as the "loss" occurred
previously in the optical printer.
Any "cropping" is due to overscanning in your TV receiver/monitor, so there is
no "loss" in the transmission process, just in the display process, which is
completely under your control.
Scott Norwood
PeterH5322 <peter...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Any "cropping" is due to overscanning in your TV receiver/monitor, so there is
>no "loss" in the transmission process, just in the display process, which is
>completely under your control.
Has anyone seen a home TV receiver that didn't have horrible overscan
problems? Even the so-called "high-end" sets (over 27") are bad.
PeterH5322
>>
Has anyone seen a home TV receiver that didn't have horrible overscan
problems? Even the so-called "high-end" sets (over 27") are bad.
>>
Agreed.
The problem as I see it is TV sets aren't very flexible, and will need to have
the "convergence" adjusted if you muck with the "width" and "height" controls
in order to accomplish a "full" scan or an "underscan", assuming the sets have
enough range in these controls in the first place.
Monitors used in TV stations certainly have the capability to under-scan, and
some are operated that way continually for quality control purposes.
My high-end Sony monitor can have the width and height adjusted all over the
place and never loose convergence, as convergence data is programmed at the
factory and is kept in an EEROM.
David Scanes
> Has anyone seen a home TV receiver that didn't have horrible overscan
> problems? Even the so-called "high-end" sets (over 27") are bad.
Both our sets at home. I deliberately set them that way. Just to make sure that
we can read all the credits on old movies. The trouble is, with later telecine
transfers of old movies, it appears trendy to shrink the titles in size and so
leave a border of black or grey or worse around the image. Might have to rethink
the scanning ! :-(
David Scanes
PeterH5322
>>
The trouble is, with later telecine transfers of old movies, it appears trendy
to shrink the titles in size and so leave a border of black or grey or worse
around the image.
>>
Mainly early (say, pre-war) films, and almost all new transfers of 3-strip
films.
Eric Grayson
wrote:
edges of the image a little bit and earlier films did not, many of the
titles are in the "unsafe" area for transfer, meaning that they could be
cropped out of the picture on some television sets.
The border around the picture guarantees that this will not happen.
Eric
PeterH5322
>>
There is a reason this is done! Since television is designed to crop the
edges of the image a little bit and earlier films did not, many of the
titles are in the "unsafe" area for transfer, meaning that they could be
cropped out of the picture on some television sets.
The border around the picture guarantees that this will not happen.
>>
Of course.
And, as a side "benefit", it is quite easy to tell if a "flat" film was
intended for other than 1.37:1 presentation ... the composing of the title
cards.
Most pre-war films will not pass the titles through the TV "safe" area.
Beginning in, say, 1953 and later, most titles were composed with TV "safe"
areas in mind. But there are significant exceptions, primarily 3-strip films.
I guess at that time, it was inconceivable that there would ever be a practical
color TV system, so no attention was paid to TV requirements for 3-strip
sourced films.
It's the 3-strip features that get most of the picture-framing of the titles.
Incidently, check-out some of the earliest 'scope features. The titles were
apparently tightly composed for 2.55:1, and the latest TV transfers, from the
original elements, make a horizontal shift after the opening title cards and
again before the ending title card(s).
cin...@hotmail.com
> In 1989 I attended a 50th anniversary revival of GONE WITH THE WIND
> at a cinema here in Sydney.It was shown in the old 4x3 format, and
> all through the movie I was thinking that it was too big and too
> good a movie to be shown on this pathetic square shaped little screen.
> 1939, but this is 1998 and the last generation of viewers to even
> remember going to see movies in this format must be getting close
> to sixty.
> Some time after I saw the same restored print at another cinema
> that projected it at 1.75:1,and the difference was like chalk and
> have to adjust the rack throughout the picture) and altogether it
> was a far more impressive presentation, that a BIG motion picture
> like GONE WITH THE WIND deserves.
>
> It absolutely amazes me that the Distributors have gone to all
> the trouble to make specially squeezed TECHNICOLOR matrixes so
> that it can end up on some postage-stamp size screen with the
> old fashioned almost square shape . Thirty years ago they blew
> it up to 70MM and admittedly the picture didn't look that good,
> mainly because the original negatives had to go through three
> generations of printing using the then available duplicating
> stocks(First generation EASTMAN 5253 Intermediate stock).With
> the magnificently sharp and fine grained stocks available today
> (Eastman 5244 Intermediate and the new Fuji Intermediate)a 70MM
> print off a Blow-Up Internegative would look superb.
>
> Another complaint about the last 70MM version was that the
> so called stereophonic sound wasn't proper stereo, which it wasn't.
> This was because the separate dialogue,music and effects tracks
> couldn't be located at the time but more than twenty years later
> when the 1989 restoration was done they were located and I assume
> are still available for a proper stereo remix.
> Let's make GONE WITH THE WIND the BIG picture it deserves to be
> and not let the standards of the past limit us to postage stamp
> sized screens we have not grown accustomed to. GWTW and its audience
> deserve much,much more.
>
> Peter Mason.
>
>
>
>
>
> the resulting 70MM print would look superb
>
>
> Many people say that a film should be projected in the same aspect ratio
it was filmed. However BEN HUR(1959) was filmed in MGM Camera 65 also known as Ultra Panavision 70 with an aspect ratio of 2.75 :1 and between 1969 until after the year 2000 the only available 70mm prints were 2.2:1 70mm spherical prints with 20% of the picture width missing.
The Fall of The Roman Empire(1964) was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 and all
the 70mm prints were 2.2:1(spherical) Not even one 70mm Anamorphic print.
I did not hear one person complain.
Shane was filmed in 1'37:1 and it received a great reception when it played on The Radio City Music Hall's 50x 30ft screen an aspect ratio of 1'66:1.
These days most people are used to Wide screen TV and 4x3 looks strange to them. Most TV shows are gradually being converted to 1.78:1 and most of the times the films are improved by this.
If GWTW is released in 1.78:1 I believe it would prove to be very pop[ular and the biggest increase in market will be young people.
Many people think of the 1967 70mm release and are put off by this.
In 1967 an Interpositive was made from the three-strip original Negatives
and the idea was to make a 65mm Inter-negative from the 35mm Eastman Intermediate, TYPE 5253 FILM USING THE "Tilt and Scan" technique and using one of nine different positions which were)
available.(see the article in the November 1967 American Cinematographer.)
Unfortunately KODAK did not have sufficient stock othe 65mm Intermediate film, Type 5253 and apparently there was going to be a 3 month delay for KODAK to manufacture the 5253 stock.
Rather than wait 3 months a really dumb decision was made. They decided that they would make the 65mm Internegative using 65mm Eastman Color Negative Type 5251 camera stock.
This stock was much grainier than the Intermediate 5253 stock which had a speed of 2-3 ASA as opposed to 50 for the camera film.
Also the contrast/gamma was wrong. The Gamma of the 5253 Intermediate stock was one(or unity) The camera film, 5251 had a gamma of .65 and was way too low to yield proper looking prints.
GWTW was restored again in 1988 and a new Interpositive was made on the much improved 5243 Intermediate film(Type "A") which had much greater sharpness and Far finer grain than the old 5253 Intermediate film.
The Scenes that may have caused a problem back in 1954 for a !.75:1 presentation have been solved. New duplicate Safety negatives have been cut into the original negatives and these are preserved in 1988 Duplicate 35mm
Interpositive.
Ther are only 14 years left before the COPYRIGHT expires on GWTW(1939)
and remembering that most people reacted positively to the 1954 and 1961 WideScreen editions.
May i Suggest to The Copyright Holder if it is MGM that a Wiescreen release in 1.78:1 which is almost identical to the 1.75 Releases in 1954 and 1961
would be very welcome by the general public and a great source of revenue to The Copyright Holder whether that be MGM or some other entity.
I strongly suggest that as well as Blu-ray the new release should be made available in 4K.
In my opinion the best quality DVD of GWTW(1939) was the one contained on The "Flipper" DVD release of November 2000.
The Color and sharpness are extraordinary and in my opinion this is the
best quality and has more natural color and superior sharpness than any other release including Blu-Ray releases.
Please ask the Colorist to emulate the color in This release and The Wide-Screen(1.78:1) blu-ray, and 4k Release of Gone wIth The Wind in 2021 should be
absolutely extraordinary.
Best Regards,
Peter Mason
Not many people realise that at least three of the re-releases of Gone With The Wind(1939) were in fact in wide-screen.
In 1954 David O'Selznick sat down with MGM's executives and viewed a copy of
GWTW(1939) to see what changes would need to be made to show GWTW in 1.75:1 aspect ratio. HE DECIDED THAT MOST OF THE PICTURE would sail through the conversion without any problems, there were four or five scenes that needed