Print

Print


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
          figure:  5
----------
 
| Jeremy G. Butler - - - - - - - - - - | Internet : [log in to unmask] |
| SCREEN-L Coordinator                 | BITNET   :        JBUTLER@UA1VM |
|                                                                        |
| Telecommunication & Film Dept * The University of Alabama * Tuscaloosa |