In response to some of Chris Worsnop's remarks: The use of multiple aspect ratios is clearly the largest problem faced in cinemas today: to understand why this has come about it's necessary to go back in time a little bit. It all started in the 1920s, with the arrival of sound. The one and only ratio in use at that time was 1:1.38: the frames spanned the entire width of the film and had a height of four perforations: exactly the specification which W.K.L. Dickson had settled on in 1899 and which had remained the standard up until then. The Fox-Movietone optical sound system took a strip of that frame on the right hand side of the print out of the picture: the ratio then changed to about 1:1.15. For the first time, projectionists found themselves having to deal with two different picture shapes: the old silent ratio (which was also used for sound-on-disc) and the Movietone ratio. Up until that point, a projection box would only have had one plate and lens per machine. To recap on some theory, there are two variables which determine the shape of a projected image from a 35mm projector: 1. The shape of the aperture plate in use, which is determined by the film format 2. The focal length of the lens in use, which is determined by the shape and size of the screen, and the distance between the projector and the screen Thus, the unique combination of three variables - the shape of the film frame, the shape of the screen and the distance between projector and screen - necessitate a seperate aperture plate and lens for every ratio you intend to support. Once Movietone came along, there was a broad concensus among critics and exhibitors that the almost perfect square shaped screen it gave did not look very nice (despite Eisenstein commenting on its aesthetic possibilites on a trip to Hollywood in 1929). So projectionists started to take things into their own hands, and cut new plates which masked off the top and bottom of the frame, and used a lens with a slightly shorter focal distance, in order to restore the shape of the silent frame (this also had the advantage that variable screen masking was no longer needed). The production side of the industry started to get alarmed by this trend, and, once it became clear that sound-on-film would supercede sound-on-disc, it was decided to reduce the height of each frame a little bit, and to put a blank space in between each frame, to retain the four-perf motion in cameras and projectors (to do anything else would mean new intermittent mechanisms for every single camera and projector in use anywhere in the world - far too expensive!). This was the Academy Ratio - or 1:1.33 (it's actually nearer 1:1.37, but for some reason is always referred to as 1:1.33). Thus, no problem for another twenty years. The next developments - the ones we are still dealing with today - as Chris Worsnop mentions - came with the widescreen revolution. Anamorphic cinematography - or CinemaScope, to give it the first of its many trademarks - worked by squeezing a frame of between 1:2.35 and 1:2.55, depending on the sound format, horizontally into a full-height frame (so a 'scope frame and a Movietone frame are almost identical in physical shape/size). Thus a different plate and lens was needed for 'scope and Academy. Rival companies then tried to do widescreen on the cheap, by simply expanding the principle used by those projectionists back in the 20s. They just lowered the height of the frame even more and used even shorter lenses to blow it up even further. But since there was no definite standard for this, complete with a name and a trademark, there was no co-ordination between producers and exhibitors as to what ratio was being used. Various conventions have sprung up, for example 1:1.66 in European studios and 1:1.85 in Hollywood, but there is nothing set in stone, no way of knowing for sure what the d/p intended unless the distributor tells you - hence all the boom mike problems. As there are definite standards for silent, scope and Academy, there is no ambiguity there. Of course, if you encounter technical problems at a film show, the impulse is to blame the projectionist, as (s)he is the nearest link in the technical chain to the spectator. Walter Lassally (see the last "Image Technology") has argued that one single w/s ratio ought to be standardised across the film and television industries, as this would solve all the problems both with theatrical presentation and the televising of w/s films, HDTV and so on. He has suggeted 16:9 (about 1:1.77 in my language). In other words, he wants a sort of Academy ratio for the next century. My own view is that that is a bit restrictive and that the system ought to be capable of supporting a wide range of rations. If that technical chain were somewhat better integrated, then the results would be positive all round: the good projectionists would be able to put on almost perfect shows, and the bad ones would be less likely to make severe aspect ratio cock-ups (for example, the West End venue which showed a re-release of 'Casablanca' in 1:1.85 would not have done). Leo __________________________________ Leo Enticknap Postgraduate Common Room School of English and American Studies University of Exeter Queen's Building, The Queen's Drive Exeter Devon EX4 4QJ United Kingdom email: [log in to unmask] ---- To sign off SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]