SCREEN-L Archives

June 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
"John G. Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:38:14 -0700
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (34 lines)
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.
        Forgot to mention:
        This squeezing or unsqueezing process might be done to create
what is called a "text-less" background.  If you consider the fact that
non-U.S. markets might not want the english titles over the picture, they
have to create an opening title sequence without the letters on it.
        Again, since I wasn't there with you at the screening, I don't
really know what happened.  And yes, the projectionist horror stories go
on and on.
-------->from John G. Thomas([log in to unmask])in Hollywierd,Calif.<---------