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
| Jeremy G. Butler - - - - - - - - - - | Internet : [log in to unmask] |
| SCREEN-L Coordinator | BITNET : JBUTLER@UA1VM |
| Telecommunication & Film Dept * The University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa |