Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Screen Ratio

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Screen Ratio (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Screen Ratio

Andrew McCrea
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 645
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 03-28-2001 06:54 PM

What is the most common screen ratio?

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

| IP: Logged

Michael Cunningham
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Anchorage, AK
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-28-2001 09:44 PM

The two common screen ratios in use today are :

1 height to 1.85 width (called FLAT)

1 height to 2.39 width (called SCOPE)

These are not the only screen ratios used, but for wide-release, first-run, American movies these are all you will need. Neither of these is more common than the other, it seems to run in cycles as to which is more prevelant at any given time. Hope this helps!

-Mike

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-28-2001 09:57 PM

I run an art house so I need a few more lenses to show more film ratio's.

We have 1.37:1 for old films like black and white films shot before the 1960s.

We have 1.66:1 to show foreign films shot in that ratio.

We have 1.85:1 and Cinemascope or 2.35:1 for all of our domestic releases.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-29-2001 06:59 AM

For a really good history of film formats, check out Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum" at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com .

Today, the trend seems to be that well over half (60-70 percent?) of the US pictures are composed for 1.85:1 "flat". (Unfortunately, the "flat" format is sometimes chosen only because it requires less severe "pan and scan" or letterboxing when the movie is released on video). "Scope" pictures with an aspect ratio of 2.39:1 may either be shot with anamorphic camera lenses, or in "Super-35", with the anamorphic squeeze done on an optical printer when making the duplicate negative.

Caring About Composition
Format Options

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Christos Mitsakis
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 242
From: Ag.Paraskevi, ATHENS, GREECE
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03-29-2001 08:02 AM

The majority of US multiplexes have the two lens turret for 1.85:1(flat) and 2.35:1 (scope) formats, because these are the standard US formats. (For those who use the extra lens for the 1.66:1 format of foreign releases, congratulations for your professionalism and belief of perfect presentation)

Here you MUST have an extra flat lens (and appropriate gate) for the 1.66:1 format since it is the standard flat European format, not to mention of course our domestic releases.
The three lens turret sould not be an option. I say "should not" because many theatres (including the new foreign based multiplexes) are projecting 1.66:1 croped to 1.85.

Regards,
Christos.

| IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-29-2001 10:16 AM

The other day I was watching AMC and they ran this short just before "The Dirty Dozen" It was an orchestra/symphony film. What was interesting is that it was letterboxed and had a "scope" ratio, but as things approached the edges of the screen they got very skinny while in the center they were normal looking. The orchestra leader if framed way over on the edge looked like anamorphic film through a flat lens. Severe distortion! What's up with that?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-29-2001 01:03 PM

I wouldn't say that the "majority" of US theatres use lens turrets, although I agree that most recently-built multiplexes do have them and are set up for only 1.85 and scope.

Lens turrets are nice if you only show two formats, but they would be more trouble than they're worth for theatres that have more lenses than spaces in the turret.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

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

posted 03-29-2001 01:49 PM

With the usual availability of trailers in both "flat" and "scope" versions, is it really necessary to automate the lens change with a turret? I would think that a turret would not hold the lens as perfectly in position as a solid, non-moving, lens mount.

Or are you often forced to show "flat" trailers and snipes with a "scope" movie, and vice-versa? Since many theatres buy the turret and aperture changer option, there must be a real or perceived need.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-29-2001 02:46 PM

John,

The short answer is we run Flat trailers with Flat films and Scope trailers with Scope films.

At our 5-plex we have manual masking so that is why we don't mix ratios. We have three machines with manual lens turrets and two machines with fixed lens mounts. In my years of experience, I have found lens turrets to be good lens mounts. They do need periodic adjustments though. I have had older Strong lens turrets become loose and need tightening. The usual symptom is a slow side-to-side weaving of the image. Up and down is usually the gate and side-to-side is usually the turret.

When I worked at a large 10-plex with Century's and Kelmar turrets and at a 12-plex with Strong's and Strong turrets I didn't like to mix the trailer ratios either. Even though the Kelmar turret changed in 3 seconds. The Strong turrets took 20 seconds to change. You had to include black mylar. That theatre also had half the auditoriums with scissor masking. So if you ran flat trailers with a scope movie and then moved it to one of the smaller auditoriums, the customers invariably came out to complain that the screen just got smaller! So we just made it policy then and there that we only show trailers in the same aspect ratio as the feature. Yes, there were some exceptions to the rule, but aren't there always?

| IP: Logged

Steven Gorsky
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 146
From: Frederick, MD, USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 03-29-2001 03:44 PM

On occassion when my theatre has a lot of flat movies, we have to run scope screenvisions with them.

Steven Gorsky

------------------
Projectionist

| IP: Logged

Michael Cunningham
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 186
From: Anchorage, AK
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-29-2001 05:51 PM

I would have to think that part of the reason we see so many turret sales these days is because of the manufacturers. They seem to be offering it as a "standard" package deal. Can you even buy a new Simplex without a turret? Looking through all the Strong manuals and catalogs I have, recent ones anyway, I can't find any without. I attempt to never mix formats on a feature due to the problems mentioned above and the fact that my Craftsman garage door opener masking only works on the first try about half of the time.

On a side note : wasn't the 2.35 to 1 SCOPE standard replaced by 2.39 to 1 a few years ago? I had read somewhere here that this was done to help better cover the framelines or some such.

-Mike

| IP: Logged

George Roher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 266
From: Washington DC
Registered: Jul 99

posted 03-29-2001 06:08 PM

Another reason theatre chains like lens turrets is that it makes it easier for them to staff the booth with unskilled (cheap) people. They don't have to worry about uncaring projectionists dropping lenses. And if a poorly trained operator accidentally starts the show in the wrong format, it's an easy fix. Just push the magic button and the picture on screen looks normal again.

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 03-29-2001 06:09 PM

Greg; I think I saw that short subject also, it was a Cinemascope demo film for the public to see before a main feature. I think it was made right about the time Cinemascope came out, and show distortions in the few lenses they had at the time.

Mike; Yes, SMPTE suggested changing from 2.35 to 2.39 (aperture opening is 0.690 x 0.825.) JP did a past search (which you can read at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com) and it shows the "history" of changes.

| IP: Logged

Pat Moore
Master Film Handler

Posts: 363

Registered: Mar 2000

posted 03-30-2001 08:46 AM

Michael; Strong still makes single-lens versions of the Simplex, Century and Ballantyne, though the turret versions of the projectors are far more prevalent in sales for today's world of multiplex cinemas. The single lens systems generally go into screening rooms and such, or to retrofit into two-projector changeover houses.

Turret systems are the most popular, though, and there are advantages to them even in manually operated cinemas. Due to volume, the price difference between turret and non-turret versions is not all that much.

| IP: Logged

Christos Mitsakis
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 242
From: Ag.Paraskevi, ATHENS, GREECE
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 03-30-2001 04:11 PM

Scott,
When I said turrets, yes, I had in mind multiplexes, convenience and the use of automation. And certainly automation works better with fewer changes ie fewer lenses.
If you run the show manually utilization or not of a turret sustem is not a subject.

For new installations, and where Kinoton equipement is used I prefer the three lens turret system which I find very reliable and steady.

Christos.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

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.