Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SamPeckinpah.com The Sam Peckinpah Forum
  Welcome to SamPeckinpah.com, a forum for fans of Sam Peckinpah!
  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events (Read 19775 times)
Novecento
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 264
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #18 - 10/23/15 at 8:05pm
 
Wow - I can't believe I hadn't noticed this until now:

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mike bishop
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Sam Peckinpah Fan

Posts: 247
Sindelfingen
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #19 - 10/24/15 at 3:59am
 
Yes, that is good news. I didn't see it for 30 years.

And funny those 1:1,85 / 1:1,66 discussions still going on. The one thing they almost ALWAYS forget is the major issue: Was the cinematographer composing for 66 or 85 (or higher). But to sense that one must have a good feeling for visuals. Which unfortunately few people have.
Back to top
 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
 
IP Logged
 
Stanton
Senior Member
****
Offline


Sam Peckinpah Fan

Posts: 138
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #20 - 10/25/15 at 9:21am
 
mike bishop wrote on 10/24/15 at 3:59am:
Yes, that is good news. I didn't see it for 30 years.

And funny those 1:1,85 / 1:1,66 discussions still going on. The one thing they almost ALWAYS forget is the major issue: Was the cinematographer composing for 66 or 85 (or higher). But to sense that one must have a good feeling for visuals. Which unfortunately few people have.


Shouldn't there be a clear instruction with every copy of a film for which aspect ratio a film has to be masked?

It can't be the job of the projectionist to guess which aspect ratio is correct.

As far as I know VistaVision wasn't restricted to 1,66:1, but allowed for any format between 1,66 and 1,85:1.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Novecento
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 264
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #21 - 10/25/15 at 5:35pm
 
Stanton wrote on 10/25/15 at 9:21am:
Shouldn't there be a clear instruction with every copy of a film for which aspect ratio a film has to be masked?

It can't be the job of the projectionist to guess which aspect ratio is correct.

As far as I know VistaVision wasn't restricted to 1,66:1, but allowed for any format between 1,66 and 1,85:1.


I think you are talking about this thing:

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register

The question then is which of the three should be chosen for the blu-ray?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mike bishop
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Sam Peckinpah Fan

Posts: 247
Sindelfingen
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #22 - 10/25/15 at 8:54pm
 
Stanton, you forget that once the film left the care of the director & his team it was on its own. The studios didn't care much, the cinema's even less. There's a reason why Kubrick observed his releases that close! He knew the situation, as it was common. I grew up in times that equalled the 50s & 60s. It happened quite often the screenings were messy - lights on, wrong format, mixed reels, curtain not opened wide enough, out of focus etc. etc.  I was always the first guy to complain, knowing that sometimes nobody realizes what's wrong and then you'd have to live with it for half an hour or even the whole show.
But coming back to your question, in fact very often the right format was written on the boxes or included paperwork. But regarding widescreen it didn't make a big difference since most cinemas did not have 1,66 AND 1,85 but either one. We only had 1,66 until 1982 as I recall. Which sometimes presented a problem when screening masked 1:1,85 prints like ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN or IL GRANDE SILENZIO. On the other hand poor Americans obviously had to see everything in 1:1,85 although many widescreen films had been composed for 1:1,66 (foreign DP's and also looking through the old 4:3 viewfinders one rather went for a less drastic composition than 1:1,85. In Locarno they screened CABLE HOGUE 1:1,33 ! Since it is open (4:3 camera negative) they probably didn't dare to screen it 1:1,85. But 1:1,33 is even worse. I once saw SEARCHES open matte, 1:1,33. At first I liked it because I saw so much information I never saw before. But the vista just isn't right. No cinematic feeling. It IS a difficult subject. I projected many of my 35mm prints at our cinema for years and had to live with chopped heads since by that time projector's weren't equipped with 1:1,66 anymore.
Back to top
 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
 
IP Logged
 
Novecento
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 264
Re: Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid: The Film vs. The Historical Events
Reply #23 - 10/27/15 at 11:53pm
 
mike bishop wrote on 10/25/15 at 8:54pm:
In Locarno they screened CABLE HOGUE 1:1,33 ! Since it is open (4:3 camera negative) they probably didn't dare to screen it 1:1,85.


Surely at a big event for cinephiles someone would have known how to properly mask it? 1.33:1 for a 1.85:1 film is a pretty big difference.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5