On Sep 27, 2:12 pm, Martin Hart <emai... at (no spam) thewidescreenmuseum.com
wrote:
SNIP

"Historically Accurate?" Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off?  What an idiot!

I think Art was nagging about how pillarboxing the image can cause
such a significant decrease in screen size.

But of course, so many screens today are much bigger than their
original variants, that after the compromise, an average multiplex cut
down to 1.37 is probably an accurate representation of the screen
sizes in most theaters in 1939. I was surprised when I read that the
Roxy's original screen was only something like 25' wide.

J. Theakston

On Sep 27, 4:12 pm, Martin Hart <emai... at (no spam) thewidescreenmuseum.com
wrote:
Do you think that it would be better with the
top and bottom of the picture chopped off?

Whoa, hang on Marty! The top & the bottom of the picture don't have
to get chopped off!
Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!

For you, always, The Special Treatment.

I looked at the screen caps on one of those sites, and I don't know if
the jpg compression of the captures, or the digital processing of the
image in the chain ending at the disc, or some other thing has
contributed to it, but they just look so flat, flat, flat. Like the
Fleischers did it animating with cels. So un-photographic, so
lacking in depth.

On Sep 28, 5:19 am, rotoflexSPAMT... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!

Rotate that lens 90 degrees.
Negamorphic.
"Unhanced for narrowscreen"

Wizard of Oz.
Now in Minimascope.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Theatre screens were amazingly small, even in the largest houses in
major cities.  In 1953 when Bosley Crowther reviewed "Shane" at the
Radio City Music Hall, he mentioned that he was not impressed with the
new screen and its 1.66:1 "wide" aspect ratio, but he was pleased that a
much larger screen had been installed.

The introduction of CinemaScope in late 1953 and VistaVision in late
1954 provided the impetus for theatres to install substantially larger,
meaning taller and wider, screens.

The introduction of CinemaScope in late 1953 and VistaVision in late
1954 provided the impetus for theatres to install substantially larger,
meaning taller and wider, screens.

In article <76bb47ce-89d1-4015-b86a-338fa0288740
at (no spam) r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, email4... at (no spam) yahoo.com says...





On Sep 28, 5:19 am, rotoflexSPAMT... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:

Let me just put in the scope lens, that's all we have to do!

Rotate that lens 90 degrees.
Negamorphic.
"Unhanced for narrowscreen"

Wizard of Oz.
Now in Minimascope.

--
Regards, Bob Niland                        mailto:n... at (no spam) ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn          email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Now that's a novel idea worth looking into.  In fact there was a Soviet
system that used variable anamorphic lenses, automatically operated a
control track on the film. The picture could be virtually any shape. One
film was made with this system. It didn't catch on in the West.

While some scenes might be best served by a tall image rather than a
wide image, altering screen shape during the presentation always becomes
a jarring experience. That can be a good thing, such as when Cinerama
films used a normal 1.37:1 prologue then going to the full three panel
wide screen.

As for "The Wizard of Oz", a presentation in "Minimascope" might be
welcomed by those people that thought Judy Garland was too fat for the
role. (I'm not one of those people, by the way.)

Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museumhttp://www.widescreenmuseum.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"RD in Kennesaw" <2ndle... at (no spam) bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:208f68f4-f4db-4f9c-a234-798947ff1743 at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Disney also used a variable anamorphic lens when they released the so-
called "SuperScope" version of "Fantasia" in 1956, again using a
control track.  See the article by Norman Wasserman, “Special
Projection Process Gives Fantasia New Look,” International
Projectionist, March 1956, p. 14-15.

Any details on how this was accomplished?  Was the print a standard sound
aperture release or anamorphic? What were the various ratios during the
presentation?  Seems like a very Rube Goldberg kind of thing to do on
Disney's part.  Much simpler to have the projectionist set up the anamorphic
lens one time for a specific squeeze for widescreen and print in the various
changes.

Morgan

According to
the article, they then used 2.00 for most of the animation. This
resulted in obviously round objects like the sun, planets, etc. having
an oval shape due to the horizontal stretch (I can state this for a
fact from my own recollections).

Has anyone actually seen the 3 disk Emerald Edition in stores?  I saw a web
posting that said that Warner Bros. cancelled it.