When I ran the 50th Anniversary print, it was Academy full frame. It even came with a big instruction card in the can saying the print HAD to play in 1.37 with the proper lens and the screen HAD to be masked correctly. It gave the correct aperture dimensions as well as the TAP number to call if projecting it in an aspect ratio that had been the standard for almost 50 years was too difficult for the multiplex guys to figure out. They even supplied a roll of RP40 test film. They also went to great length to say that under no circumstances could the film be played in mono sound because of all the phase distortion that would cause.

Could this same company so meticulous in 1989 to present it correctly, now be offering ONLY 1.85 conversion prints of this, arguably Disney's greatest achievement? When did they make THESE 1.85 abortions? Surely there was no major re-release between the 50th and now.

Has anyone seen or know if there is such a print? I know it is not beyond them because they re-released CINDERELLA in an actual 1.85 vertical pan and scan, not even a conversion. I have a file an inch thick going back and forth trying to convince Phil Barlow that I needed to have a full frame, and it a 1.85 pan & scan WASN'T as good the original 1.37 version (you remember Phil Barlow....the guy who thinks DLP is as good as it needs to be and would put them in 10,000 theatres today if it weren't for the price).

So my question is, has the info gotten garbled along the way? And will I luck-out and actually get a 50th Ann 1.37 print, or will I actually have to play this with 1.85 lenses and loose half my light to the black surround? I would even prefer a converted anamorphic print -- at least the blowup won't be as severe. And ironically that's what they FIRST said this was....an anamorphic print, then they switched to 1.85. So I am just hoping that some doe-doe along the way just doesn't know what he's talking about. Or maybe I can get Phil on the line and get the fight going again, about why I should be able to show Disney films the way they were originally made if I am going to show them at all, lest ole Walt throws some pretty nasty haunts on him.

Anyone know about a conversion version of this title floating around? Say it ain't so.

Stand by to be disappointed

We ran a series of new prints this spring specially struck for Walt's hundredth birthday.

Even if you accept that for a mass-release Academy title nowadays (and there are some, e.g. Blair Witch Project or those strange Danish films which are made according to a set of production rules called something like Windows 95), the reduced frames are about the only feasible way of showing it without cropping, I can't believe that it would be impossible to run a small dual inventory of full-frame prints which theatres that can show Academy could book.

But this would cost more, which is probably why the distributors don't do it.

quote:

---

13 reels, MGM/Warner Bros. The recent prints were dye-transfer Technicolor printed with the Academy frame squeezed within the scope image area. You run it with the scope lens and plate, but pull the masking in to Academy (assuming that you have side masking).

---

Surely this would be a far better system than within 1.85.

I first saw Fantasia early 1960s at the Studio One, Oxford Circus in a blown up SuperScope version, say no more. The 4 track magnetic sound was very good though.

quote:

---

Surely this would be a far better system than within 1.85.

---

It would for common-height screens.

But not for common-width screens, where you'd end up with 1.37 windowboxed in 2.39 letterboxed on a 1.85 screen.

Windowboxing at all is already a concession to the format inflexibility of multiplexes. Windowboxing in 1.85 would just be an additional compromise -- dimmer image in return for a larger image on common-width screens.

If you're talking about 1.37-within-1.85 I don't have a problem with it. I'd prefer true Academy but this is a very practical solution to real world issues. Modern intermediate and print stock should have no problem delivering adequate resolution given the limitations of the 1930's SE (or was it three strip?) negative. If you can show a regular 1.85 movie with a high quality, sufficiently bright picture then what's the problem?

quote:

---

But not for common-width screens, where you'd end up with 1.37 windowboxed in 2.39 letterboxed on a 1.85 screen.

---

This is exactly what happened in our multiplex when we ran Gone With The Wind. At first, it was on a common-height screen. We were told only to put a policy trailer on it, and nothing else. So, when the film started, the masking would open up all the way to Scope, the loud blaring Policy Rollercoaster (!) trailer would run it's course, and then just a blank screen with the quiet overture. Naturally, people thought something was wrong. Then when the feature started, it was a small box with the full masking open. Complaints, again. Especially when everyone expected the title card to "boom" across the whole screen.
Later, it moved to a common-width screen and, you guessed it, the curtains came down and the Academy image was just slightly bigger than a big-screen TV squished in that little space. People asked us why we didn't "just leave the curtains up and use the whole screen" I would have loved to. This was horrible treatment for such a classic.
When they re-released the Wizard Of Oz a little while later, they printed the Academy frame inside a hard-matte 1.85:1 frame, which looked a lot better on those common-width screens.

=TMP=

So what did they do, BANDSAW all those 50th prints in favor of the bastardized version? Surely they kept just a FEW -- what if Lincoln Center or The Museum of Modern Art or The AMPAS wanted to run this -- would Disney send them a 1.85 windowed print?

The stupid thing is, all the plexes HAVE the correct lenses -- just unscrew the anamorphot and you've got a prime that is close enough. If it is a common height (which the majority are) then at the very most, you might see is a little band on top and bottom and you might need to get a new set of aperture plates if they are severely cropping their scope sides, but all-in-all, if you are running scope, you can run an Academy print with a lot less compromise than running a windowbox 1.85.

Tao said: >

Surely this would be a far better system than within 1.85.
----------------------------------------
It would for common-height screens.

But not for common-width screens, where you'd end up with 1.37 windowboxed in 2.39 letterboxed on a 1.85 screen. <

Now THAT's a compromise!

Besides, common width setups make the cinema gods weep.

When I first ran FANTASIA in the late-70s, I was desperate to play it in the original stereo. I knew there was that abominable Superscope version they did in the late 50s to cash in on scope and stereo sound. Since we had mag, I begged Buena Vista for that Superscope print. Thing is, Disney got so burned by the critics on that particular re-release that they denied that any prints even existed. I promised the NY office that if they got me a print, I would play it in the correct Academy ratio. BV capitulated and got me a print from Europe someplace (made me pay for shipping, of course). How did I play this scope version in Academy, you ask?

Easy. I rented two Hilux variable anamorphics and when the animation sequences came on the screen (90% of the film), I just set the stretch to zero (the animation was not manipulated at all on the film -- it was straight Academy -- evidently the Disney geniuses thought no one would "notice" that the animation was stretched by a factor of 2 and all the bubbles were now ovals). But when the live action came on the screen, they did an optical where the image compressed so that Deams Taylor was an Academy window in the scope frame. I got the timing so good covering the transitions, that when the optical compression took place, I followed it with the anamorphic knob on the lens and you almost couldn't see any transition at all -- the picture just remained Academy through out. Plus I got 4 track mag sound, which was my goal in the first place.

What we won't do for presentation, eh? Tippy Spirty (his real name, I swear), the guy in the NY office said, "Officially, you are getting a standard Academy/mono print; you tell anyone any different and I'll deny it and you'll never get a picture out of me again."

Ironically, that's all they were releasing at the time -- a straight Academy/mono track print -- if only I could get my hands on that now, I'd give up the stereo sound.

....or maybe sync the Irwin Kostel CD recording to it! Now there's a thought!

Frank

The Bing Theatre at the Los Angeles County museum of Art recently held a Disney tribute in which they claimed to show the ROADSHOW version of Fantasia that had not been shown since the original 1940 release (presumably what is on the DVD). How exactly this apparently unique print was produced (windowboxed or original format), I don't know.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

The problem is the same problem that I have with 1.85 in general -- it is. was and always will be an ill-conceived system from the outset. For films shot in it, I am stuck -- I HAVE to use it. But when you are talking about a film shot full frame, no matter how good the intermediate stocks are, there will always be the difference in magnification and visible grain between an 1.37 academy image and a blowup to 1.85. One will always look better than the other, stocks and printing quality all being equal. Why should an audience of 3000 have to see the blowup with its step-up in grain and hence the step down in rez, when the full frame is readily available? I don't get it. Why can't I get the print that will present the better looking image of the two? Would the 1.85 windowbox thing run through the projector and give me picture that's as good as what my 1.85 lens projects? Yes, but my point is, the full frame 1.37 image will look BETTER. Why do I have to compromise for mediocre when I can have stellar?

What's more, I can't get past this idea that the producers capitulate in such a major way -- they literally make a nonstandard print to accommodate theatres that are don't have the right equipment to play their pictures -- why not just insist they get the right lens to play the picture? They don't make spherical 1.85 reduction prints of scope picture just so theatres don't need to buy anamorphic lenses, do they? And as I mentioned, theatres HAVE the right lens -- it's the anamorphic prime -- it will get them an image that's right in the ballpark.

Frank