It is now over 40 years since the so-called 'wide screen' burst upon movie audiences all over the world. Yet few people in the industry seem to remember or realise that while, CinemaScope embodied a new standard format initially 2.55: 1, now 2.35:1 - none of the alternative wide screen formats - 1.66: 1, 1.85:1 etc - were ever formalised as a recognised standard. In the theatres the screen ratios varied, and still vary, very widely from 1.5: 1 to 2: 1. Moreover 1.85:1 is not necessarily the same in two adjacent movie theatres.

Since the 1950s there has been no standard format for production or projection other than the Scope format. This has led to the intolerable situation where cinematographers have had no opportunity to compose their pictures properly with all the requirements of shoot-and-protect' and the almost universal prohibition against masking the gate to match the viewfinder format.

With the advent in Europe and Japan of the 16:9 format for television, an excellent case can be made for adopting 1.75:1 as the new production standard for both cinema and TV productions not shot in the Scope format. This format can, and should be retained as an alternative which is well established. I therefore suggest that the BSC, in conjunction with Imago, should now propose such a standard for all new European non-Scope productions, and should approach Japan with a view to that country also participating in this initiative.

I would like to emphasise that such a move would require only minimal adiustments at the camera end. The main manufacturers already offer 1:1.75 gates and gate masks, while at the cinema end only minimal adjustments of gate and screen masks would be required. Furthermore, even if no adjustments are made at the projection end, the situation would be no worse than that which already exists.

In the USA the situation is more complicated, as the ASC have decided to back a 2:1 format and it is at present not clear whether such a move can succeed. The FCC have yet to make up their minds, understandably reluctant to invest in new technology unless they can see big advantages at low cost.

Displaying the right format should be child's play for the projectionist - but it's not always his fault.
Some Background
I was recently on the jury of the Camerimage 95 Festival in Torun, Poland, where I had the opportunity to discuss this proposal with cinematographers from all over the world. There was an immediate, very favourable response - a great incentive for going ahead at once.

As a jury member I watched 21 movies from a great variety of countries, including the USA, Latin America and Eastern Europe. An unfortunate common factor of all these viewing sessions was that the majority of films were shown either in the wrong format, or in the 'correct'format, but wrongly racked. This led me to coin a new name - CinemaScalp.

The immediate reaction of a lot of this audience, including experienced professionals, was to blame the projectionist. The poor fellow was actually doing his best, but had to cope with:

1. Films wrongly marked on the leader or the can with a format for which they were obviously not framed. (Hence, CinemaScalp!) Here it must be borne in mind that the person who writes this misleading information on the cans is not necessarily aware of how the film was shot. He or she may merely be overanxious not to impede a possible release in, say, the USA.

2. Films, possibly originally made for TV, bearing subtitles placed high in the frame for 'wide-screen' projection. In this case the projectionist is often faced with the choice of cutting the titles or cutting the heads. Again the result is CinemaScalp.

3. The fact that the physical projection conditions in any one auditorium often involve a compromise, as the ideal lens required for filling the maximum screen width at any particular ratio may not be available. In the case of the Torun auditorium, for example, a 70mm lens with a 1.85 gate mask caused a considerable portion of the image to be projected on the ceiling above the screen mask, whilst a 75mm lens obtained later produced a format closer to 2: 1.

So, in addition to sitting through daily examples of CinemaScalp, we were presented with at least one film shot in 1: 1.85 but screened in Academy, plus the Storaro dance film Flamenco with the dancers having no feet!

No wonder that the cinematographers present were often pretty fed up.

Not many people appear to be aware that the vast majority of movie theatres across the world are capable of showing one 'wide screen'format only in addition to Scope. So writing the format on the can, though desirable, is not an answer.

The ideal viewing conditions for Scope i.e. filling the audience's peripheral angle of vision with the image, are not realised in the 'multiplex' cinemas which form the vast majority of auditoria today, particularly in the States. At the recent Scope event held in Dortmund, as well as at Torun, where the auditoria where not as unfavourable to Scope as those that are longer than they are wide, only the first five rows get an optimum view of the image. lt should also be recalled that the term'letterbox'was originally coined as a derogatory term for CinemaScope viewed in unsuitable conditions; not, as now, a mere description of presentation format.

When Scope productions are on the increase, the number of theatres capable of showing Scope to best advantage are reiatively few.

I find it ironic that at a time when Scope productions are on the increase, the number of theatres capabable of showing Scope to best advantage are relatively few. The cinematographers who emerge with a glow of pride from some primesite showing in LA or London should bear this in mind. They should also remember that it is very likely that more people will see their work on TV than in the cinema ! top
Further Proposals
There would seem now to be the need for a new initiative. I am proposing two separate, but linked, surveys to be carried out in both Europe and the USA to establish the facts on current practice.

The first survey, which could be undertaken by the national cinematographers' organisations of the major film producing countries, such as the ASC, BSC, AIC, etc, should determine what formats predominate in current productions in their countries, intended for cinema, TV or both. The results of this survey, should be published in the form of percentages of the total, grouped under headings of, say, 1.66, 1.85, 2.35 and other.

The second survey should determine what the predominant screen formats are in the major cinema chains. There seems to me to be quite a considerable lack of knowledge of these prevailing conditions amongst cinematographers and others on the production side of the industry. In particular, few seem to be aware of the fact that in the majority of sites outside the prime ones in the principal cities, there is onty one 'wide-screen' format apart from 2.35 Scope. This applies, for example in the MGM multiplex in Piccadilly Circus in London's West End, and only two of the seven screens are wider than 20 feet.

On the other hand, 1 was surprised to discover that three multiplexes in the West Hollywood/Century City areas of LA were equipped to show 1.33, 1.66, 1.75, 1.85 and 2.35 (anamorphic) in every one of its auditoria. But 1 also discovered that 1.85 does not necessarily mean 1.85 in each of these auditoria or cinema chains. In one chain in particular 1.85 definitely meant 2: 1.

The rather important part of Storaro's Flamenco that got CinemaScalped I am amazed that the cinematographers of the worid have put up for so long with a situation that vi'rtually prevents them from framing their images effectively.

A further question that this survey should include concerns the actual screen dirnensions for each of these formats. This would undoubtedly confirm my suspicion that screens over 20 feet wide are the exception rather than the rule, and that in quite a few multiplex situations the variable dimension is the height, whilst the width is fixed. This means the screen area for the 2.35 format is often actually smaller than that for 1.85. Even for 1.66 or 1.75 the screen area can actually be greater than for 1.85.

I am sure that the result of this second survey would provide a sobering thought for those who love a really large canvas, as the effectiveness of this strategy is dependent on the weakest link in the chain. In this case, the large number of undersized theatre screens.
top
The Power of Composition
There is another problem which lies at the root of the dissatisfaction with the current lack of standards. I am amazed that the cinematographers of the world have put up for so long with a situation that virtually prevents them from framing their images effectively. A glance at any really well composed movie, such as Ivan the Terrible or Citizen Kane would soon remind us of the tremendous power of composition. I am sure that I am not alone in considering that the policy of shoot-and-protect' is an evil that should be combated vigorously by all cinematographers. Here is some ammunition for the faint hearted:

lt should be pointed out to production executives that requiring a cinematographer to protect the area at the top and the bottom of the frame which is outside 1.85 but inside 1.33 is a time-consuming and therefore expensive exercise. This also prevents the most effective composition in the chosen format, as it often precludes the use of the ideal lens or forces the laying of tracks in less-than-ideal positions. The same goes for the ideal placement of lighting units close to the edge of frame.

In conjunction with efforts now being made to protect the cinematographer's rights as an author, contracts that stipulate the use of an Academy gate irrespective of the chosen production format should be declared unacceptable. This interferes unduly with the cinematographer's right to carry out his functions to the best of his ability. In the meantime, this stipulation can sometimes be circumnavigated by the use of camera tape masking on the matte box!

I would also strongly support proposals to give cinematographers a contractual right to be present at all video transfer sessions, or to appoint a surrogate. This would ensure the most acceptable solution to the Problems 'of television presentation, particularly where pan-and-scan is involved. In Europe today, one increasingly sees letterboxed presentations of theatrical movies on TV, and while this is not an ideal solution. it seems to me to be acceptable if seen as a transitional Phase to the new 16x9 format.

I do, however, understand the reluctance of TV channels, particularly in the USA, to accept this practice, so I agree with those who feel that until a new standard is generally accepted movies made exclusively for TV should continue to be shot in Academy. However, I think that the chances of 2:1 ever being adopted as a new TV standard are so minimal that it would be a crying shame if we didnt grasp the unique opportunity of a standard frame for cinema and TV which is currently before us.

For theatrical movies, however, there is everything to be gained by shooting in either 1.75 (preferably hard-masked) or Scope (or larger). Even if no changes are made in the theatres, we as cinematographers would be no worse off. In fact, we would be a considerabie step closer to seeing our movies projected the way we frame them.

Walter Lassally BSC,
published April 1996 in "Eyepiece"