Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

style="margin-bottom: 0"> 

class="style5" Anamorphic Lens For Projection

Projection : 12th October 2004

>In "Anamorphic Q&A" David Mullen wrote :

>>Practically speaking, there are basically 1.85 matted spherical and 2.39 >anamorphic 35mm projection in first-run theatres. Projection matting to >1.66, 1.75, etc. is much less common now. It tends to be more available >in art house cinemas, museum cinemas, etc., as well as the old 1.37 >Academy format. But most first-run theatres just do 1.85 and 2.39.

>Does anyone know how many screens across the USA (or even worldwide) are capable of projecting 2.39/2.40 anamorphic films?

>If theatres are not equipped with an anamorphic lens, would a film of this format simply not be shown?

>Phil Bolles
NYC


class="Paragraph">>If theatres are not equipped with an anamorphic lens, would a film of >this format simply not be shown?

>Oh no. I've seen many creative aspect ratios at my local cinemas.

>Art Adams, DP [film|hdtv|sdtv]
Mountain View, California - "Silicon Valley"
http://www.artadams.net/


>Phil Bolles wrote:

class="Paragraph">>Does anyone know how many screens across the USA (or even >worldwide) are capable of projecting 2.39/2.40 anamorphic films?

>Probably 99.9% of the theatres in the US can do this. After all, anamorphic has been around for a long time, and a large percentage of 35mm films are anamorphic. Exceptions might be screening rooms used for TV spot dailies, but most of them are now extinct, as that stuff is rarely printed.

>Jeff "looks better squeezed" Kreines


>Almost any theatre equipped to show 35mm 1.85 is also equipped to show scope -- if not, they'd be unable to show almost half the films released by Hollywood studios.

>Now for how many of those screens actually show ALL of the 2.39 scope image versus trim the sides down to 2.35, 2.20, 2.2, 2.0..., that's unclear. A bad theatre will sort of average 1.85 and 2.39 onto a 2:1 screen.

>David Mullen ASC
Cinematographer / L.A.


>Phil Bolles wrote :

class="Paragraph">>Does anyone know how many screens across the USA (or even >worldwide) are capable of projecting 2.39/2.40 anamorphic films?

>Phil :

>I will go out on a limb and say that 100% of theatres in the US are capable of projection with an anamorphic lens for 2.39 aspect ratio.

>And worldwide I will think that the percentage is 100% or very near that. There might be some theatres somewhere that are specialized for on Flat 1:33 or 1.66/1.85 but very very few if any.

>Remember that this is the 50th anniversary (actually last year -2003) of Fox "reinventing" the anamorphic release. The lenses used by Fox for filming the first films released in 1953 were designed and built in the 1920-1930 era.

>Regards,

>Bill Hogan


Phil :

Every commercial cinema in the U.S. is equipped with an anamorphic lens. In 2002 there were 35,804 screens in the U.S., according to the National Association of Theatre owners:

>http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsscreens.htm.

EVERY one of these screens has an anamorphic lens.

>Dwight Lindsey
Senior Vice President
Schneider Optics, Inc.
285 Oser Ave
Hauppauge, NY 11788


>David :

The good news is that we've had a real boom in building new cinemas worldwide, but particularly in the U.S., since 1997. Without sitting down to count them, I believe we've replaced well over half of the old screens in the U.S., with new, Stadium Seating Multiplexes. These new screens have better construction (sound isolation, for example), better sightlines, better audio. They're just better than the old theatres.

We supplied the projection lenses for most of those new cinemas, so I can tell you that the vast majority of these Stadium Seating Multiplexes were designed with the idea to show the proper ratios.

The big problem in Stadium Seating Multiplexes is not wrong aspect ratios, it's constant width screens. When the format changes, the width of the image stays the same and the height changes. Since the Cinemascope is wall to wall and the ceilings are higher in Stadium Seating Theatres, the 1.85 picture is HUGE and usually underlit. I just measured one at 9 footlamberts. The scope in that room was 17.4 footlamberts, which is within the SMPTE standard.

Dwight Lindsey
Senior Vice President
Schneider Optics, Inc.
285 Oser Ave
Hauppauge, NY 11788


>Art, you wrote:

class="Paragraph">>Oh no. I've seen many creative aspect ratios at my local cinemas.

>Excellent.

>Brian Heller


>David Mullen writes :

class="style7">>A bad theatre will sort of average 1.85 and 2.39 onto a 2:1 screen.

>I just saw MYSTIC RIVER in such a theatre, and wondered, "Hey, I thought this flick was shot anamorphic!"

>It was still a great film, IMHO.

>Dan Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA


class="style7">>I had been told there were a mere 1,000 anamorphic-capable >screens. Good to see this is not the case. I was thinking "that can't be >right - major movies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings wouldn't make >any money."

>Could this be a confusion between 2.40:1 aspect ratio films released on 35mm neg as squeezed prints to be unsqueezed during projection (anamorphic projection) which is nearly universally available and 70mm spherical release prints made as optical blow-ups from 35mm anamorphic neg (often advertised as "70mm print" ?

>No one shoots 65mm any more (except for VFX or special venue films) but a lot of 35 scope shows are still released with 70mm prints for selected theatres so equipped.

>Partial listing at the following link.

>http://www.redballoon.net/current70mmus.html

>Mark Weingartner
LA based


>Thanks all.

>I had been told there were a mere 1,000 anamorphic-capable screens. Good to see this is not the case. I was thinking "that can't be right - major movies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings wouldn't make any money."

>Phil Bolles
NYC