SCREEN-L Archives

December 1997, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Leo Enticknap <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:50:25 +0000
TEXT/PLAIN (35 lines)
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:36:14 -0500 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Can Don and/or anyone else explain why this would happen with a video
> projector?  Is more of the frame visible when using a projector than when
> running a tape on a TV?  Curious since I use a video projector for my film
> and lit classes.
It's nothing in the image itself, simply that it is being seen on such a larger
scale.  If you look at a 35mm print on a Steenbeck and then on a projector, you
will see things on the screen which did not seem to be visible on the
Steenbeck.  Probably, the people who mastered the "North by Northwest" video
did not think that anyone would be trying to watch it on a 6-foot across
screen, and thus did not worry about the matte lines being visible.
This principle is the reason why editors working on IMAX films in 35mm
workprints place a cardboard cutout of a row of seated audience at the bottom
of their Steenbeck screen, in proportion to the size of the image they are
watching - to get a sense the visceral effect of their cutting.
Leo Enticknap
Postgraduate Common Room
School of English and American Studies
University of Exeter
Queen's Building, The Queen's Drive
Devon EX4 4QJ
United Kingdom
email: [log in to unmask]
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama.