From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jun 15 2009 - 11:44:05 PDT
Thanks Kathryn,
I looked up the term "movietone ratio" and I guess it is not quite as
common as I thought.
I had found this format on what is called "threading leader" and used
this leader to directly make a hand-worked film (because frame lines
were conveniently apparent to my eye), without, at the time, quite
realizing all this complexity about various 35mm formats.
So as I understand it presently, the terms "1:33 full", "Super
35mm" , and "Edison Silent" (my term sort of), all utilize the full
area between sprockets including the soundtrack area.
Another question: Are 35mm venues any better equipped to show this
1:33 silent format?
Myron Ort
"E. Summer" wrote:
> Some years ago a knowledgeable friend mentioned to me in passing
that Rene
> Clair's Le Million was shot using a peculiar French process that
had frames
> more than 4 perforations tall. This came up in conversation
recently and
> I've been trying to track down what this might be.
>
> Does anyone have any information on such a format? It would imply
that the
> image was projected on a special screen that was slightly taller
than it
> was wide (such a thing was demonstrated by the National Film Board of
> Canada at the Montreal World's fair utilizing a 70mm frame taken and
> projected sideways).
>
> Thanks!
>
> ES
This is doubtful. As a pre-1931 film it was undoubtedly shot in what
has come
to be known as "Movietone" ratio, which uses the silent full frame
top to
bottom (with thin frame lines) and lops off the left side of the
frame to
accommodate the sound track.
"Movietone" ratio is best accomplished today by using a "Scope"
aperture plate
with a "flat" lens.
-- Bob Birchard (address suppressed) http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Kathryn MacKay wrote: > 1:33 "full" usually means the full area of the film between > sprockets including the area in which the soundtrack is now > printed, it is the original silent film ratio. Academy Ratio is > 1:37 which has a slightly thicker black mask between frames at the > top and bottom. From the sounds of it your film is what is known as > Movietone ratio. And yes the solution is to use the scope aperture > plates with (usually) a different lens so that the picture is small > enough to fit on the screen. You will be most certainly depending > on the ingenuity and insight of the projectionist, and the support > of the institution or theatre for which they are projecting. > > Kate > > > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:34:20 -0700 > From: email suppressed > Subject: Re: 35mm projection options > To: email suppressed > > Thanks for the response. I does sound like I would have to rely on > the ingenuity of projectionists to make sure my film was properly > presented. My "1:33 full" is a little different that the print you > describe since it does not have the black bars top and bottom but > goes all the way to the "thin" frame line. > From what I understand even the thinness of these frame lines has > many variations, over and above the obvious black bars you mention. > > The other question is whether today's venues can show full > aperture silent 35mm? (which I believe is equivalent to today's > "Super 35mm" format --not usually meant for projection as is.) > > Myron Ort > > > > On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:44 AM, mat fleming wrote: > > > > We ran Eric Rhomer's "L'Amour D'Astre et Celadon" last night in our > cinema. The film was made a couple of years ago in 1:1.33 (blow up > from std 16mm). It had been printed at thought it was 1:1.85 with > black bars up the side as well as top and bottom which i'd never > seen done before. It is a neat solution. We have no 1.33 aperture > but with the scope apeture (which is taller than 1:33) and the > right lens and proper screen masking it's really the same thing. I > would have thought festival venues and venues used to showing old > films and art films should have no trouble at all as long as > they're made aware of the aspect in advance. > > It's a great film if you the chance to see it. > > Mat > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Ed Inman <email suppressed> > wrote: > A regular scope aperture plate with a flat lens would theoretically > give you about 1:1.18 which might be close enough. You would still > need a longer lens (or perhaps a zoom attachment that can reduce) > to fit the frame vertically in the screen. > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Myron Ort <email suppressed> > >Sent: Jun 14, 2009 4:43 PM > >To: email suppressed > >Subject: Re: 35mm projection options > > > >That is discouraging news. I was hoping that "1:33 full" was not that > >uncommon. This is the format which A) has a soundtrack area, and B) > >uses the frame all the way to the h/v edges (eg. not cropped down). > >Do I have my nomenclature correct by calling this "1:33 full"? > >I was hoping to be able to show it as a film. But it does emphasize > >the point to me that digital projection avoids all this. Once > >transferred to digital, these aspect ratio issues seem so much easier > >to deal with. > > > >Myron > > > >On Jun 14, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Ed Inman wrote: > > > >> Only a few specialty cinemas will likely be set up for anything > >> other than 1.85 flat or 2.35 scope, although most cinema equipment > >> dealers can easily enough order the necessary additional aperture > >> plates for whatever projector is being used. > >> There is also no shortage of older used lenses sitting around in > >> warehouses for $50 or $100 a pop, although new ones can cost > >> thousands of dollars. > >> If you know the exact footage from the projector to the screen > >> there is a lens calculator downloadable at film-tech.com that will > >> guide you as to what length lenses are needed for various formats. > >> Ed > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Myron Ort <email suppressed> > >>> Sent: Jun 14, 2009 2:49 PM > >>> To: email suppressed > >>> Subject: Re: 35mm projection options > >>> > >>> Do venues which show 35mm film usually have all the gate options? > >>> > >>> Say, If I have a print which is "1:33 full" (with soundtrack), > can I > >>> assume venues which show 35mm can accommodate? Say I have a film > >>> which is "Super 35mm raw" that is to say "Ye Olde Edison silent > >>> format" ? > >>> Seems like a big can of worms to me at this point. Maybe I am > making > >>> this more complicated than it is. > >>> > >>> (much of my thinking here is due to economics, that is, avoiding > >>> expensive optical reformatting lab work) > >>> > >>> What 35mm format is "Garden of Earthly Delights", for example. > >>> > >>> Myron Ort > >>> > >>> > >>> __________________________________________________________________ > >>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > >> > >> > >> __________________________________________________________________ > >> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > >> > > > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > > > __________________________________________________________________ > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > > __________________________________________________________________ > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > > > __________________________________________________________________ > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. > > __________________________________________________________________ > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.