On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, Richard J. Leskosky wrote:
> >On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Richard J. Leskosky wrote:
> I don't get it. Why would a title sequence be "scope-ed" in the lab? That
> would mean that either the image behind the titles was meant to look
> squeezed or that the projectionist would have to change lenses right after
> the titles. The second possibility is hardly likely these days (when the
> "projectionist" is probably not even in the booth during the film but
> selling popcorn at the concession stand instead), if ever. The first
> possiblity might occur, but then presumably the rest of the film would not
> look squeezed. Since, in the case of this screning of MAVERICK, I ran out
> to complain (at the concession stand of course) and an obvious change of
> lenses followed this, I have to conclude that the whole film required an
> anamorphic lens on the projector.
> By the way, VARIETY and the film's own credits say that it was in
> PANAVISION widescreen.
PANAVISION refers to the camera itself. Panavision, a company
in Burbank that manufactures the equipment. Widescreen, as I mentioned
before, refers to the aspect ratio when the film's projected. It's
interesting, you can't BUY a Panavision camera, you can only lease or
rent one. You can buy an Arriflex or UltraCam for instance. Arriflex
always likes to point out that most all of the Oscars for Best
Photography were won using Arriflex cameras, not Panavision.
Perhaps I was confused about the screw-up when you saw
"Maverick." Again, I doubt it was due to any anamorphic-related issue.
This morning I asked a timer friend of mine at a lab here in town, CFI,
about films that might be anamorphic productions. He just said, "It's
been a long, long time."
-------->from John G. Thomas([log in to unmask])in Hollywierd,Calif.<---------