Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

Our screens are top masked and we move it up and down for scope or flat but there is no moving side masking, the sides are masked but do not move.. Are we doing this wrong? Should we have side masks move also?

---

Ideally it would be best to have movable masking at both the sides and the top. The size of your screen, the size of your proscenium arch (if you have one) and the heighth and width of the room all come into play when deciding on picture size. In the perfect theatre all picture formats would be of the same height, and would only change in width as one went from flat to scope, or from one of the older aspect ratios such as 1.33 to 1, or 1.66 to 1 etc. Each time the image size was enlarged over the years it was to make the picture more overall encompassing, and was therefore made wider. When CinemaScope came out in 1953 the size of many screens had already taken up the entire width of the stage opening (the proscenium). Some theatres built new screen frames out in front of the stage over the orchestra pit to achieve the wider image. However, many didn't want to (or couldn't) alter the architectural appearance of their auditoriums and kept the same width, and therefore had to mask down the top of the screen to get the 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio for cinemascope. That defeated the whole reason for scope in the first place as they ended up with a smaller picture then they had for flat. But if there was no where else to go, there was no other choice. Therefore, what was often done was to mask both sides and the top so that it wasn't obvious that the picture size was smaller for scope.

For those of you that aren't aware of it, the practice of making trailers in scope is still a relatively new one. One that has only been around for about the past decade. Previous to that all preshow units of the program, ie: trailers, cartoon, shorts, newsreel etc. were always flat and therefore a lens and aperture plate change was required when going into a scope feature. Also remember in the earlier years theatres all had two projectors and ran twenty minute reels and would make a changeover when going from flat to scope. A theatre that had to have the same width image for both flat and scope would have another set of lenses and aperture plates for a flat image with the same heigth as their scope image. Here is what they would do. When running a flat show, everything was run with the top masking up and therefore the largest possible image was utilized. When running scope the preshow components were run the same height as scope with the side masking drawn in. Then as the feature began the side masking was pulled back and the picture grew wider in front of everyones eyes. A very impressive feat. Theatres that closed and reopened the curtain for the beginning of the feature would often readjust the masking while the curtain was closed so that when it reopened, suddenly, magically the screen had become wider. Wa La!

Today theatres try to have the widest picture possible, often wall to wall. Depending on the room width and height it is not always possible to have a large enough image for flat pictures if the same image heigth is always used. Since trailers are now all made in both flat and scope it is not necessary for the public to ever see the change in the masking.

If you plan on running classic films with the smaller aspect ratios it would be a good idea to have movable top and side maskings so that you can mask in correctly for all formats. Remember that you will need a different set of lenses and aperture plates for each aspect ratio as well.

Stay away from movable top masking.

About half the light goes through the film for 1.85:1 as it does for 2.35:1 so having a 1.85:1 image that is larger than the scope image is asking for the scope image to be four times brighter than the flat image.

Use movable side masking and do it right. If you are talking about Houlton, then now is the time to get it right. And don't think you can save money by using the 40-year-old crappy lenses because they are the right size for the screens that are in there now. Lens technology has moved with the speed of sound technology. Newer is better. You will be able to use newer lenses and a lower wattage lamp. That will pay for the lenses in two years.

So to sum up:

New screens
New lenses
New masking
New lamps
New aperture plates

You'll blow Houlton away. You don't want them driving 40 miles to that crap Holts Theatre do you?

If you care about composition and putting the best image quality on the screen, use adjustable SIDE masking and maintain a common image HEIGHT:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

---

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I'm hearing you guys loud and clear. So why at the Colonial do we have top masking? Are we giving up width? What is the loss with just top masking and no side movement?

---

The "scope" format is more efficient, both for putting light on the screen and being sharper and finer grained. "Scope" has usually been associated with "impact" pictures that use its wide vistas and eye-filling width to enhance their stories. Projecting "scope" with a SMALLER image area than 1.85:1 "flat" simply goes against the intent of the format.

The trend to common width projection today is often driven by the high ceilings of stadium style theatres, where people want to "fill the front of the auditorium with a wall-to-wall image", even if it means blowing up a flat 35mm image beyond it's capability. Unfortunately, the results are often a BIG, but dim and grainy image.

---

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

A question for John Pytlak.

John, when I started apprenticing as a projectionist back in 1966 with the local of the IATSE they taught me that the CinemaScope process that we used had an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, but that anamorphic aspect ratios fell anywhere from 2:1 through 2.55:1. I know that when Fox released "The Robe" as the first CinemaScope film that the aspect ratio for the 4-trk magnetic prints were 2.55:1. Optical prints were 2.35:1. Early on I purchased a copy of the SMPTE Motion Picture Projection and Presentation Manual published in 1969. It also states "The ratios used in today's film formats are: 1.85 for 35mm flat, 2.35 for anamorphic and 2.21 for 70mm." I also have several "Picture Size and Lens Selectors" that were given out by some of the leading lense manufacturers. Each of them list the standard anamorphic setting as 2.35:1.

As of late I have noticed both here and in film-tech that the anamorphic process is always referred to with an aspect ratio of 2.39:1. When and why did this change come about? I have to ask myself how did this change come about without me knowing it. I have asked virtually every projectionist that I know and every one still quotes CinemaScope as 2.35:1. Where and when did we miss the boat?

The "scope" aspect ratio has changed several times since its' introduction as 2.55:1 with the magnetic sound prints of "The Robe".

First, to make room for the optical soundtrack again when many theatres balked at converting to mag sound.

Second, the projected image height has been reduced slightly several times to minimize visibility of the splices in the negative at scene changes.

Third, the width was reduced slightly to match "flat", and to minimize the risk of seeing the DTS time code along the far left side of the image.

I did a search of the history of the SMPTE standards, which is posted on Marty Hart's American Widescreen Museum website:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/apertures.htm

---

John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services
Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Telephone: 585-477-5325 Cell: 585-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion