Tweet
This is true, Gordon, it was a variable anamorphic (incredible light hog too), but Superscope films were shot for a specific aspect ratio and to be played back at that specific AR, although I never encountered any film that didn't require 2x magnification, i.e., standard CinemaScope prints. The manual even said you could mimic the way VistaVision logo opened, by setting the control on the device to 0x magnification, and when you hit the curtains, turned to control knob to the picture stretched horizontally to the full width of the screen either for 2.35:1 for scope pictures, or 2:1 for Superscope. I tried that once or twice just to see how it looked and to me it looked hokey. After that, I never used it on anything by 2.35:1 scope films.
That's different than Vistavision which is a purely spherical process from camera to projector which seemed to be claiming that you could play a VV print in any ARs between the two extremes, cropping to any AR that suits the projectionists fancy (and available lens and aperture plate). Theoretically, they could have issued any of their titles as an anamorphic release print at 2:1 with a pillared image to be shown anamorphcially. But I never came across an anamorphic VV print, although I was once told that there were some anamorphic prints of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS extracted from the spherical negative, but that's only hearsay...never saw one myself, and I doubted it even back then because the whole idea of Paramount's spherical wide screen process was because they decided that their spherical VV was superior to Fox's anamorphic scope process. Plus, I am sure they didn't at all relish having to put "CinemaScope is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox" in the credits as I saw on a Warner Brother's film (MR.ROBERTS, I think -- I bet THAT made the veins in Jacks forehead pop!) .
My 60 some-odd year old skepticism/complaint is about the VV spherical release print, while matted at 1.66:1 in the Academy window, was claimed to basically be able to be cropped to anything the theatre desired, between 1.66:1 to 2:1. I said back then and still believe, that is just sloppy thinking. Only ONE image in that viewfinder can be the composition the cinematographer frames for and composes as "correct," everything else is a compromise of it and more importantly, there's no reason for it. Almost every flat film I've ever run was either wide-open full frame or hard matted at 1.66, and you cropped to the INTENDED AR which most often was 1.85 or less often, 1.66. There was no ambiguity. Sure, if a film was intended to shown at 1.85 and you showed it a 1.66 just because you could, sure it would play that way, but no one would say you were presenting it correctly, just because you could. Why didn't Paramount just leave it at that -- it's a 1.85:1 title to be played at 1.85 instead of all that hogwash about it can be played at 2:1 or 1.66:1 or anything in between, as if it's all the same, when IMHO, clearly it is not as, for the reasons I stated above re: the aesthetics and the "feel" of a film. I know...I am nitpicking, but isn't that what we are supposed to do here?
That's different than Vistavision which is a purely spherical process from camera to projector which seemed to be claiming that you could play a VV print in any ARs between the two extremes, cropping to any AR that suits the projectionists fancy (and available lens and aperture plate). Theoretically, they could have issued any of their titles as an anamorphic release print at 2:1 with a pillared image to be shown anamorphcially. But I never came across an anamorphic VV print, although I was once told that there were some anamorphic prints of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS extracted from the spherical negative, but that's only hearsay...never saw one myself, and I doubted it even back then because the whole idea of Paramount's spherical wide screen process was because they decided that their spherical VV was superior to Fox's anamorphic scope process. Plus, I am sure they didn't at all relish having to put "CinemaScope is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox" in the credits as I saw on a Warner Brother's film (MR.ROBERTS, I think -- I bet THAT made the veins in Jacks forehead pop!) .
My 60 some-odd year old skepticism/complaint is about the VV spherical release print, while matted at 1.66:1 in the Academy window, was claimed to basically be able to be cropped to anything the theatre desired, between 1.66:1 to 2:1. I said back then and still believe, that is just sloppy thinking. Only ONE image in that viewfinder can be the composition the cinematographer frames for and composes as "correct," everything else is a compromise of it and more importantly, there's no reason for it. Almost every flat film I've ever run was either wide-open full frame or hard matted at 1.66, and you cropped to the INTENDED AR which most often was 1.85 or less often, 1.66. There was no ambiguity. Sure, if a film was intended to shown at 1.85 and you showed it a 1.66 just because you could, sure it would play that way, but no one would say you were presenting it correctly, just because you could. Why didn't Paramount just leave it at that -- it's a 1.85:1 title to be played at 1.85 instead of all that hogwash about it can be played at 2:1 or 1.66:1 or anything in between, as if it's all the same, when IMHO, clearly it is not as, for the reasons I stated above re: the aesthetics and the "feel" of a film. I know...I am nitpicking, but isn't that what we are supposed to do here?
Comment