>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.<---------
Well, the manager at my local multiplex assures me that MAVERICK and SPEED,
for two examples, require anamorphic lenses all the way through the film.
They may not make Cinemascope films any more, but they do distribute