Print

Print


>On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Richard J. Leskosky wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/94 John G. Thomas wrote:
>> > As far as "scope" is concerned, I'm a pretty hard-working
>> >filmmaker and I don't know of ANYONE who's shooting in any kind of
>> >compressed format.
>>
>> Whatever else it may or may not be, MAVERICK is in scope.  When I saw it at
>> a local multi-plex on its opening day, the film began minus the anamorphic
>> lens on the projector, so everything in the opening lynching scene was
>> stretched, not just the lynchee's neck.
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>
>        IF the opening lynching scene(I haven't scene the film)was over
>titles, then yes, it was "scope-ed" in the lab.  The only point I was
>trying to make is that it most probably wasn't shot in an anamorphic
>format, that is, with an anamorphic lens that squeezes the information in
>one 90 degree direction(vertical), which is then un-squeezed to the
>horizontal when projected in a theater. ________________
>
>-------->from John G. Thomas([log in to unmask])in Hollywierd,Calif.<---------
>____________________________________________________________________________
 
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.
 
--Richard