1.85:1 within 5perf70 (and aperture plates?)

[Ryan Gallagher]

So quick question.

Would it be preferable to have custom aperture plates for "other" aspects struck on 5p70. The only 70mm JJ plates I can confirm our booth owns are ToddAO 2.20:1 plates. Though I'll have to check the piles.

This potentially will impact us at the end of the summer as we have these two films booked, and would love confirmation of the matte aspect on them:

"The Searchers" (1956) 2024 Struck 70mm Restoration (VistaVision 1.85:1 originally.. pillarboxed on new 70mm print?)

"Streets of Fire" (1984) 70mm Original Blow-Up? - Assume this will be an original vintage Mag Tracked 1984 with the original 1.85:1 aspect not using the full frame.

We have adjustable side and top masking, so we can probably "get by", but I would worry about the black levels of vintage prints and the lack of our ability to crop some of our keystone using an undersized plate. Though I don't think our existing 2.20 plates were undersized originally anyway, and they appear to blow some keystone onto the masking even when showing 2.20.

[Steve Guttag]

Back in the day...Most theatres did not cut 1.85 plates and most theatres didn't have acoustically transparent masking. As such, the recommendation was to leave the masking wide and let the hard mattes handle the rest. This begat endless questions of why the 70mm film was not filling the screen (I'll use E.T., 1982 as an example where patron complaints were continual because they KNEW that 70mm filled the screen).

The realities are,,, if you have nearly straight projection, cutting 1.85 specific plates are not entirely necessary. But if you have visible keystone, the pillar boxed matte lines will be visible and tilted. If you have a 2-projector changeover, the perspective difference between the two projectors will have the matte lines appear to jump on each changeover. So yes, it is preferable to have dedicated 1.85 plates in those situations. You can use the masking to hide a small amount of keystone or image stretch but if you have enough, it will become apparent. In a 1984 print, I wouldn't be too concerned about the matte lines being too low density however.

Almost every plate starts out as "undersized." The only time I've ever used full sized plates were on screening rooms where all lenses had lens shifters (aka PC-Cine adapters) such that zero keystone artifacts were present. Those plates were almost always special order and higher cost than the undersize. Undersized plates are not all that undersized either. They are enough to deal with most keystone issues...be it from being off-center laterally but mostly, vertically.

These were the aperture plates available at the end of production:

Screen Shot 2024-04-27 at 7.18.17 AM.png

All but one is undersized in some fashion. The PE-719-3 would be the popular one, unless you had lateral keystone issues. People would have drilled/nibbled their way out from a blank/pinhole or hole plate and then filed the rest of the way. 1.85 would go out to 1.610 so even the 12% undersized plate isn't enough.

I've definitely cut some 1.85 plates for 70mm due to the keystone or curved screen artifacts of the theatre but I've also had some run with the standard plate and just masked (if acoustically transparent). The matte line are sharp, unlike an aperture plate line.

[Brad Miller]

[B]"The Searchers" (1956) 2024 Struck 70mm Restoration (VistaVision 1.85:1 originally.. pillarboxed on new 70mm print?)

Well fair warning, unless Fotokem follows actual SMPTE standards (which was not the case on Dune 2 or the various trailers they have printed over the last year), the chances are very high that this will be a digital to 70mm print where the image is 5-10% undersized. Unless you have the wrong lenses in your system that are seriously over-cropping the image, you can expect to see a "windowboxed" image (black unused screen on all 4 sides).

Your particular theater has an extremely sharp downward angle to it, so if this print has an undersized image it will look dreadful with a slanted and warped looking frame using your standard lenses and plates. You will almost certainly need to get some extra undersized plates, a step or two shorter lens and set it all up for this print. I would recommend you request the print arrive 2 weeks ahead of the show so you can get it in your hands and find out what kind of madness you may have to go through to coordinate getting lenses in and setting it all up for a quality presentation.

The Streets of Fire will definitely have slanted left and right pillarbox sides so it could benefit from a dedicated 1.85 plate, but in this case you would not need to source new lenses.

[Ryan Gallagher]

That is super helpful Steve. I feel like our steep angle long throw house (running changeovers) would be an ideal candidate for utilizing such 1.85 custom plates, particularly for our vertical keystone. DCinema install has snorkels mirror that reduces it, no such help for the JJs. Our flat and scope plates I've used thus far correct "most" of it, but the 70mm setup with RP91 seemed mostly uncorrected.

Adding some more, and maybe some blanks, to my wishlist for the 70mm side of the equation.

A friend has a desktop CNC, I may experiment with seeing if he can cut me some blanks out of sheet stock.

Are the original plates actually brass? or copper? (Brass is my impression).

[Ryan Gallagher]

Thanks Brad, I was following the Dune thread and wondering the same thing.

I'm not crazy worried about a windowboxed situation, because we have movable masking, it would just turn into a slightly smaller overall presentation for us after tilting down a bit. Not ideal, but sourcing specific lenses for one print is perhaps a bit more than I can get out of management, but will consider it! But hearing loud and clear that at minimum custom plates might be extremely useful!!

Will definitely try to get those two prints way early and make sure we have time to bang our heads against the wall a bit.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I say will try to get them early, but then remembered that our programmer said The Searchers was going to be circuited directly to us from a Chicago Aug 11th screening. If we are lucky we might have it a week early? (Our screening is the 27th).

[Ryan Gallagher]

Good news, our TD ordered 4 blanks (NOS) as soon as he grocked the potential issue with our 1.85 screenings.
Filing them is going to be a journey but at least we'll have that option if it is warranted.

[Brad Miller]

Most JJ 70mm blanks are going to be cut open too wide to use them for 1.85 pillarboxed prints (especially if a little undersized). If your TD ordered them from Film-Tech you'll be fine, but if not you may need to check them out as soon as you get them to verify they aren't "too wide" in their undercut.

[Steve Guttag]

Technically, a "blank" is no opening (PE-719-1). A 3/8ths hole would be a good one as you can get a nibbler in there to start making rough cuts to the desired size.

Brad, does F-T have specs on the plates it offers?

[Ryan Gallagher]

Most JJ 70mm blanks are going to be cut open too wide to use them for 1.85 pillarboxed prints (especially if a little undersized). If your TD ordered them from Film-Tech you'll be fine, but if not you may need to check them out as soon as you get them to verify they aren't "too wide" in their undercut.

He did not say where he found them, but they are uncut blanks. I realize the 3/8th hole blanks are a better starting point, but we'll have to drill our own start hole.

[Steve Guttag]

He found them on eBay...Cinevision sold them.

[Ryan Gallagher]

He found them on eBay...Cinevision sold them.

Yep, He confirmed that. I didn't know Film-Tech had plates or I would have suggested that.

In general, lots of positives today during our maintenance window. Confirmed 70mm DTS and MAG 6-ch sound with what limited test stock we had handy after remounting our readers. THX 70mm Cimarron mag trailer came in handy. Our mag pink and tone loops were only pushing 3-ch, but THX confirmed all channels. Picture looks noticeably better than before lamphouse alignment efforts.

Counted our DTS 70mm offset frames and was right in the ballpark of where it has been run before in this booth. Counted 33 frames, for a 40.25 offset, XD10 had previously been set at 41. Will leave it at 41 until we check it with a print.

The only place we deviated from historical booth practice was we elected to leave the 70mm DTS readers in place when restoring to the 35mm setup. This seemed pretty doable by adding a 35mm guide roller to the 702's upper right corner position. If there are known issues with that redirect approach let me know! Leaving the DTS readers mounted shaves time and film path alignment on the format swaps.

(Although we do own 35mm DTS readers too, we don't seem to have all the quick-swap plates to make swapping back and forth that way possible, instead we have a full mount for each 35 and 70 reader, some of which have been installed with nut spacers to make up where the quick swap plate would go). Another thing to rectify one day.)

We did not remove the upper 35mm pad roller today, but we will once we have prints for sure.

[Michael Coate]

Our screening is the 27th.

Will this screening be held at the Paramount?

[Ryan Gallagher]

Will this screening be held at the Paramount?

Yep, Series opening week is published.
https://www.austintheatre.org/events/film/

SCFS2024_hero-desktop5_Cap.jpg

But the current plan is indeed The Searchers on the 27th of August.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Confirming that "The Searchers" 70mm 2024 print did seem to do that 5ish% under sizing of the 1.85 matting on 70mm, (similar to Dune2?)
Filing plates from blanks Monday. Screening Tuesday. Wish us luck.

At least that is my theory when you compare it to Streets of Fire?, an original 35mm blowup to 1.85 70mm that transferred to the full frame height.

The Searchers 1.85:1
IMG_5669.jpg

Streets of Fire 1.85:1
IMG_5668.jpg

Also the booth and storage has starting to look like a real booth again! Only like 7 flights of stairs to get em up here.

IMG_5642.jpg IMG_5667.jpg