0R: net33: @69 [00:00 06/08/94] 0R: net33: @69 (via @6969) [09:56 06/07/94] On Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:28:24 -0700 John G. Thomas said: > > "Scope", as we knew it in the 50's, 60's and 70's is rarely used >today. If you glance through any edition of the American >Cinematographers Manual, you'll see diagrams of this. Has anyone seen stats of how many films are shot with some kinda anamorphic process? I've guessed that it might be 5% of U.S. theatrical releases, but even that number may be high. Any facts on this? > Now, Techniscope was a compromise, and not a very bad >idea....EXCEPT when the film would later be shown on TV. By pulling down >just the three perfs at a time, (or so the idea goes), the normally >"wasted" image at the top and bottom of the of the film frame would not >be exposed at all. The idea was that you'd save a lot of bucks in raw >stock that way...and you can save some. But, in the long run, the need >to have the full frame (1.33:1) aspect ratio won out. Other non-standard Interesting! I've never heard of that before, but it makes sense. If you're going to crop out the top/bottom of an image, why expose it? Actually, I'm kinda surprised it hasn't caught on considering that 1.85 is now the de facto standard for U.S. theatrical releases. > I'd go on and on with this, but I'd bore most of the folks on >this list to death. If you'd like more info, give me jingle. Not at all, John! Thanks for the info! ---------- Percentage of the papers presented to the Organization of American Historians in 1993 whose subject is a historical figure: 5 ---------- | Jeremy G. Butler - - - - - - - - - - | Internet : [log in to unmask] | | SCREEN-L Coordinator | BITNET : JBUTLER@UA1VM | | | | Telecommunication & Film Dept * The University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa |