| |
Introduction to Projection and Wide Film (1895-1930)
Early Wide Film Experiments | Read more at
in70mm.com The 70mm Newsletter
|
Written by: Rick Mitchell
Film Editor/ Film Director/ Film Historian. Work published posthumously | Date:
15.03.2014 |
Rick
Mitchell passed away in September 2011. Photograph by Tom March.
Rick Mitchell and I corresponded a lot over the years, and he was a very
active writer on this
web site. Some days before he passed away in 2011, we talked about his book
about Wide Screen, which had been in-progress for many years.
In 2004, he sent me this chapter outline of his book:
I. Introduction
II. Prologue
A. W.K.L. Dickson and the Establishment of the
1.33:1 Frame (1891-1908)
III. Commercial Wide Screen Processes and Systems (1929-1963)
A. Why a wider image became desirable in the Twenties
B. Magnascope (1926-53)
C. Early Wide Film (1929-31)
D. The development and introduction of Cinerama (1936-52)
E. The development and introduction of CinemaScope (1927-53)
F. Non anamorphic alternatives to CinemaScope
1. Masked projection (1.66:1, 1.85:1, etc.)(1953- )
2. VistaVision (1953-60)
G. Photographic and optical anamorphic alternatives to CinemaScope
1. Vistarama (19530
2. Cinepanoramic, Naturama (1953-@65)
3. Superscope and later uses of the technique (1954-@65)
4. Panavision (1957- )
5. Techniscope (1963-75)
H. The return of wide film (1953-65)
1. Todd-AO (1953- )
2. CinemaScope 55 (1955-56)
3. Camera 65/Ultra Panavision (1956-66)
4. Super Panavision (1958- )
5. Dimension 150 (1965-70)
6. "Wide Frame"
I. Horizontally projected VistaVision (1954-57)
II. Technirama (1956-67)
IV. Wide Screen's effect on other areas of production and exhibition
A. On editorial, visual effects, and the laboratory
B. On theatrical documentaries and shorts
C. On nontheatrical exhibition and amateur filmmaking
V. Economic aspects
VI. Wide screen aesthetics
VII. Epilogue (1970- )
His book was far from
finished when he suddenly passed away, but he did finalize the first
chapter: Projection and Wide Film (1895-1930).
Here's his e-mail from 9. September 2011
I realized that it would probably take ten years to do the book I want to
do and who knows if there will still be books then or enough people
interested in this subject to get someone to publish it. I'll have to think
about doing the first two chapters on in70mm.com when I'm feeling better, if
that ever happens.
Rick Mitchell
Film Editor/Film Historian
.....and 3 days later, 12 September 2011, Rick sent me his finished chapters
for in70mm.com
Thomas, in70mm.com
| More in 70mm reading:
•
Prologue to Projection and Wide Film
•
Projection and Wide Film (1895-1930)
•
Rick Mitchell,
interview, July 2008
•
Who is Rick Mitchell?
•
Rick Mitchell - A
Rememberance
•
Wide Screen Motion Pictures
•
70MM Come Back!!!
•
The Wide Screen Revolution
•
"The Bat Whispers" in 65mm
Internet link:
|
Early Wide Film Experiments
| |
It is the intention of this book to deal with the subject of “Wide Screen“
as it relates to the mainstream theatrical motion picture industry and its
history, with reference, where appropriate, to its effect upon such related
areas as documentary, industrial, and non-theatrical production and
exhibition. Notable techniques and processes, the events and situations
within the industry which precipitated their introduction, and the
subsequent loss of popularity of some them will be covered mostly in
chronological order as new developments were generally founded upon, or a
reaction to, a previous one.
What is meant by “Wide Screen” and why is it important in the study of
theatrical motion pictures?
The term “Wide Screen” has had three basic meanings since it was first
introduced into the industry’s lexicon in January, 1953 . Initially it
referred to the projection of a motion picture image onto a screen wider
than the squarish 1.33:1 (or, since the introduction of sound, 1.37:1)
aspect ratio that had been standard since the beginning of projected movies.
Later in 1953, it was applied to the practice of projecting a wider image
for films photographed at 1.37:1 by masking off the top-and-bottom of the
frame to aspect ratios ranging from 1.66:1 to 2:1 in projection onto screens
of corresponding width. Since the latter has become the standard method for
the theatrical presentation of films photographed with spherical, or
non-anamorphic lenses, today the term “Wide Screen,” when applied to
theatrical presentation, usually refers to those films requiring an
anamorphic lens for 35mm projection regardless of their method of original
photography. , though in recent years, primarily with regard to video, it
has again been colloquially applied to any frame wider than the basically
square one.
Motion pictures are a technological medium and the course of its over 110
year history has been significantly altered by two technological
developments, the introduction of sound in the late Twenties and the
adoption of Wide Screen in the early Fifties. The latter did change the look
of motion pictures, but it proved only a temporary hedge against the post
World War II boxoffice decline, unlike sound had done just before and during
the Depression. But for many young moviegoers who grew up in the Fifties and
Sixties, trade names like Cinerama, Cinema-Scope, Panavision, and Todd-AO
were “open sesames” to the most magical vistas the motion picture screen
could present, especially the latter which was associated with the
spectacular roadshow films shown in opulent downtown movie palaces. Those
who were lucky enough to become filmmakers as adults would embrace the
various Wide Screen formats; some, like John Carpenter and George Lucas,
working in it exclusively.
| |
Wide-Screen Cinema &
Stereophonic Sound by Michael Z. Wysotsky (Hastings House)
Unfortunately, only recently have contemporary audiences been able to enjoy
an approximation of this experience with current films, shown in those
theaters that have replaced many of the tiny multiplex shoebox auditoriums
of the Seventies and Eighties. Unfortunately this is also a compromise as
the “large screens” of newer theaters are being designed to favor the
“taller” 1.85:1 ratio, with films in the “wider” 2.40:1 anamorphic ratio
being projected in an overall reduced size in their center, just like video
“letterboxing!”
This is the source of current curiosity and interest about “Wide Screen”.
This stems from the incompatibility between the old square TV tube and the
wide anamorphic or 70mm image. In order to present as much as possible of
the full width of the latter within in the former, it is necessary to reduce
the size of the overall image. This is the antithesis of the intent of
filming in those formats and severely reduces the impact of the images,
especially when viewed on very small screens, such as those of a laptop
computer. Many of the video oriented can’t understand why an image filling
only 2/3rd of their screens is more desirable than the normal one that fills
it and cannot comprehend their elders’ enthusiasm for films like LAWRENCE OF
ARABIA (Columbia; 1962), HOW THE WEST WAS WON (MGM-Cinerama; 1962), or
2001:
A SPACE ODYSSEY (MGM; 1968) when they’ve only viewed them on the tube. The
decreased availability of 35mm or 16mm anamorphic prints of older films has
limited the opportunity for the even film students, much less the general
public, to view most “Wide Screen” classics in any approximation of the way
they were meant to be seen and has also hampered the ability of scholars to
properly study them to deal with many of the conflicts, confusions, and
errors that have arisen over the years. (Video, both “pan/scan” and
“letterboxed”, is useless, particularly for studying some highly technical
aspects such as image resolution, for example.)
This problem is rooted in the love/hate relationship theatrical exhibition
has long had with television. One of the reasons the industry jumped on the
Wide Screen bandwagon was an attempt to attract audiences with a visual
experience different from that they could obtain from the tiny tube sets of
the time. This point was made emphatically, for example, in the 1954 version
of 20th Century-Fox’s annual product reel for exhibitors, with a sequence
showing how a spectacular wide shot from Broken Lance would look on TV, at
1.85:1, and finally at the then standard 2.55:1 of CinemaScope.
At this time the thinking was that films made after mid-1948 would never be
shown on TV, as American International so advertised its 1958 double bill of
The Bonnie Parker Story and Machine Gun Kelly, released theatrically in the
anamorphic ratio, though the original photogra-phy was spherical. But,
because the Hollywood studios found new sources of revenue in selling or
licensing their old libraries to the new medium, making newer releases
available was inevitable, facilitated by concessions made with the Screen
Actors Guild during a 1960 strike.
| |
Widescreen Cinema
by John Belton (Harvard University Press; 1992)
Unfortunately, an aesthetic problem cropped up with regard to anamorphic or
70mm films: an FCC ruling requiring the full 1.33:1 frame be broadcast over
the air. This meant only a selected half of the total width of such images
could be telecast, as opposed to an overall reduction of the image in order
to broadcast it at full width or a representative portion thereof, as was
being done for the 16mm non-theatrical market .
Film fans tolerated this unsatisfying approach until the rise of cable
services and the availability of films on videotape and laserdisc in the
late Seventies. As these distribution mediums were not bound by the FCC
rule, which was rescinded in the 1980s, purists clamored for video versions
of anamorphic and 70 mm films in the “letterbox” format, which became so
popular, especially on laserdisc, that nonanamorphic post-1953 35mm films
were also released “letterboxed” to match their theatrical 1.66:1-1.85:1
theatrical projection format.
And in 1976 when Japan’s NHK began its work on High Definition Television,
they chose the wider 16x9 or 1.77:1 aspect ratio. (Interestingly, a decade
earlier production designer Tony Walton and/or art director Syd Cain had
chosen a similar ratio for the futuristic view-screens in Francois
Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451.) Though in subsequent years there have been
arguments in favor of both wider and narrow aspect ratios for HDTV, 16x9 has
stuck and has been accepted for “Wide Screen” displays for standard TV
presentations. Since what works on a large screen in a large auditorium does
not necessarily work in the smaller environments in which TV is viewed, in
recent years the compromise between the needs of the two mediums has
negatively affected the use of wider aspect ratios for theatrical release,
especially with regard to original photography using anamorphic lenses or
higher resolution 65mm negative for 70mm prints. The majority of “Wide
Screen” features released in the last few years have been photographed in
the Super 35 format, squeezed optical or digital extractions from spherical
photography with all important action kept within the 2.40:1 aspect ratio
from which taller 16x9 HDTV and 1.33:1 regular video transfers can be easily
made.
Like most of motion picture history, over the years a lot of misinformation
has encrusted the truth about the various techniques the industry has
adopted or experimented with to achieve a “Wide Screen” image, especially
since it has only been in the last thirty years that the technological
history of the art and industry has been researched and written about by
people who had enough of a working knowledge of the subject to deal with it
properly. Since the late Fifties the subject has been dealt with in passing
in most film histories with only three books devoted exclusively to it.
| |
Wide Screen Movies by Robert E. Carr and R.M. Hayes (MacFarland,
1988)
The first was published in the United States in 1974, the English
translation of a book originally published in Russia, Wide-Screen Cinema &
Stereophonic Sound by Michael Z. Wysotsky (Hastings House). While
interesting in its look at the use of various wide screen techniques in the
U.S.S.R., though there has been some debate about its honesty, the first
section of the book dealing with Western developments was primarily gleaned
from articles in publications like the Journal of the Society of Motion
Picture (and Television) Engineers and the American Cinematographer.
In the last twenty years there have been two more books devoted to the
subject of Wide Screen. Widescreen Cinema by John Belton (Harvard University
Press; 1992) places the subject in an historical sociological context but
deals primarily with the unsuccessful attempt to introduce Wide Film in
1929-30 and the development of Cinerama, CinemaScope, and
Todd-AO. It is
enriched by Belton’s access to the archives of
Earl I. Sponable now housed
at Columbia University in New York. Mr. Sponable headed the Fox Film
Corporation and later 20th Century-Fox’s research department and was not
only involved in the development of Grandeur, CinemaScope, and
CinemaScope 55, but was a member of the S.M.P.(T.)E. and other professional
organizations and kept abreast of all technological developments going on in
the industry, including those in which he and his company were not directly
involved.
Such references do not inform the third and most controversial book on the
subject, Wide Screen Movies by Robert E. Carr and R.M. Hayes (MacFarland,
1988), a work ridden with errors and suppositions by the authors. If they
did do any research in Los Angeles, it’s significant that their
acknowledgements do not list anyone from Panavision, Technicolor, or 20th
Century-Fox, a necessity if one’s goal is to do an accurate study of the
subject.
That is the goal of this book, which began as a potential article for the
American Cinematographer that was serialized in The Operating Cameraman
magazine in the Nineties. It is one of the first such works to be written by
someone actually employed in the industry, as a film editor in this case,
who not only has pursued information on this subject of lifelong interest
throughout his career, but has actual working experience with some of the
technologies discussed, primarily as assistant film editor on "Star Trek-The
Motion Picture" (Paramount; 1979), whose principal photography was done in
35mm anamorphic with Panavision equipment, while visual effects elements for
it were shot in both 65mm and VistaVision. The author has also shot
extensive anamorphic footage in Regular 8mm, 16mm, and in one instance,
35mm.
The author is fortunate in having the following agree to be advisors on the
book in verifying its accuracy: visual effects cinematographer Peter
Anderson, ASC; John Belton; historian Robert S. Birchard; Michael Coate of
fansofshowmanship.com; visual effects artist Jim Danforth; Herbert E.
Farmer, professor emeritus of the University of Southern California School
of Cinema; Martin Hart of
widescreenmuseum.com; Thomas Hauerslev of
in70mm.com; cinematographer John Hora, ASC; historian and preservationist
Scott MacQueen; Richard P. May, former vice-president in charge of
preservation for Warner Bros. and Turner Entertainment; Gary J. Prebula,
producer and professor in the Film and Electronic Arts Department of the
California State University Long Beach,
Paul Rayton, historian and chief
projectionist for the American Cinematheque; and engineer Daniel J.
Sherlock, who is like his namesake detective in determining the accuracy of
technical aspects of the various processes. Other professionals have
expressed interest in vetting specific aspects of the work.
It is my hope to straddle the line between providing reasonably in-depth
knowledge to students and others interested in this subject while also being
informative and entertaining to the general reader.
• Go to
W.K.L. Dickson and the Establishment of the 1.33:1 Frame
• Go to Projection and Wide Film (1895-1930)
|
Wide
Screen Movies Corrections, Revision 2.0 - Revised December 2004
Copyright Daniel J Sherlock, 2004
|
| | Go: back - top - back issues - news index Updated
28-07-24 | | |