I think I'd be right in saying (somebody back me up/correct me here) that the SMPTE have never adopted 2.39:1 officially, it's being used as a guide by installers to reduce the occurence of flashing neg joins and that annoying flashing you see when the DTS track wanders into what really oughta be the picture area. 2.35:1 was the ratio in use way back in the days of four track mag CinemaScope.

 |  IP: Logged

I suppose if you're running lots of archive prints, you'd want to have an extra set of 'scope plates cut to the older standard...

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!
-27

quote:

---

Most DVD's are burned with the 2.35 standard on scope films regardless of its actual ratio, unless the producers specifically call for the correct ratio.

---

The difference in 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 wouldn't be much in terms of scan lines. 268 scan lines would be used for 2.39:1 and 272 for 2.35:1 for Laserdisc and non-anamorphic DVD. For anamorphic DVDs, 363 would be used for 2.35:1 and 357 for 2.39:1. I'd almost bet that 360 are used, since it's such a nice round number, and halfway between those values, since the resolution would be 720x360 (remember, puixels are not square on DVDs).

After all, .825/.690 times 2 comes up on my handy dandy TI-83 calculator as a 2.39 ratio. Moreover, the .838 x .690 comes out to 2.42 ratio.

I think 2:35 (.825 x .700) is the standard. As stated, the 2.39 was .825 X .690 and it was still active as far back as 1967. When it was dropped in favor of the 2.35, I don't know.

When I cut a scope aperature, I elect the 2:39 ratio using the .825 width. This gives .010 inches on the top and bottom as a fudge factor to play with.

Another benefit for cutting it to a 2.39 fit is it sure helps hide frame line flashes in the scope format.

The 2.35 (.825 X .700) is just too close. One mis-judged cut with the aperature file when you ary trying to run it out at .825 x .700 renders that plate useless.

Year ago, you could spend some time cutting an aperature, and then accidently goof it up with a single stroke of a file. Those mis-judged aperature plates could be simply tossed in the trash.

With today's auto lense changers, many of those aperature plates can get mighty expensive. You don't want to screw them up.

In addition, whether you are running a cinemascope print in the 2.39 or the 2.35 format, nobody will no the difference. You lose more in masking spill-over than a lousy .010 inch.

Just my buffalo's nickle worth....(That is a 4-cent nickel.)

(Only Bob Maar would understand that one.)

From 1957 through today, there have been a number of small changes to the anamorphic projector aperture recommended standards. John P. Pytlak of Eastman Kodak dug through countless back issues of the SMPTE Journal in order to provide the following chronology of the changes to the standards:

The March 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.104-1957, the standard for 2.55:1 anamorphic (no optical track), with an aperture size of 0.912 X 0.715 inches. Notice of withdrawal of this standard was in the January 1964 Journal.

The December 1957 SMPTE Journal has PH22.106-1957 for 2.35:1 anamorphic, with an aperture of 0.839 X 0.715 inches. It was unchanged in the September 1964 Journal. The November 1965 SMPTE Journal published PH22.106-1965 still with the 0.839 X 0.715 aperture size.

In the September 1970 SMPTE Journal, a new draft of PH22.106 was proposed, with an aperture size of 0.838 X 0.700 inches, to minimize the flashes at splices. This was republished as standard PH22.106-1971 in the October 1971 issue.

In the June 1976 SMPTE Journal, the two (flat and scope) projectable image area standards (PH22.58 and PH22.106) were consolidated into one standard and renamed PH22.195. The publication of PH22.195-1984 in the October 1984 Journal still had the scope area as 0.700 X 0.838 inches.

The June 1992 SMPTE Journal published a proposed revision, with a scope area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. In August 1993, the standard was published as SMPTE 195-1993, with the current area of 0.690 X 0.825 inches. So August 1993 is when the two formats became the same width of 0.825 inches.

BTW, with the current projectable area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches specified by SMPTE 195, and EXACTLY a 2X anamorphic squeeze, the on-screen aspect ratio calculates to 2.39:1.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

I wish we had the same kind of time-line for cropped spherical wide screen. For a rep house like ours, trying to figure out what crop should be used when there is no hard matte and no infomation on the print itself (printed in the emulsion, not handwritten) is best informed by the film's release date. For a good number of years cropping was all over the place. My rule of this for those years, between 1955 and 1970, is to go with the less severe crop -- 1:66 unless that crop shows set gack (it almost never does). But I would love to know when 1.85 was followed in earnest.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Pre-1953: Use 1.37:1 unless hard-matted to something wider
1953 to Present: Use 1.85:1 for US films, 1.66:1 for Euro films

I imagine the above is probably an over-simplification. 1953 is significant as that was the year the NTSC-II met to declare war on theaters by forcing us to buy "tint" knobs for our TVs.

Mag 'scope: No choice but 2.55:1 and Fox sprockets
Other 'scope: 2.39:1

For me the delta between 2.39 and 2.35 is minor unless the client asks about it

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Unemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!
-24