American cinematographer (Jan-Dec 1956)

parcel of movie making technique, and always will be. It is desirable, therefore, that a com¬ promise be effected for the best presenta¬ tion of non-anamorphic films. CinemaScope is excellent in its own field, and its extreme aspect ratios should be util¬ ized, wherever possible, for full pano¬ ramic scope. But the more sensitive dramatic photoplay is still best pre¬ sented in less extreme aspect ratios, and, we may add, in monochrome in¬ stead of color. In expressing these views, the writer is merely echoing the opinions of many 'highranking movie producers who are increasingly revert¬ ing to the wider dramatic scope of the conventional aspect ratio and more or less ignoring the wider visual scope of the panoramic screen. If the old conventional aspect ratios of 1.333/1 and 1.375/1 are considered a bit too restricted as regards the horizon¬ tal dimension, then certainly the 1.65/1 and 1.66/1 ratios represent the maxi¬ mum (and perhaps the most desirable) width-to-height ratio that preserves the “fluidity” of screen drama — the use of closeups intercut into medium shots, “dollying” of the camera, etc. And yet these aspect ratios are wide enough to enhance the visual grandeur of pano-' ramie long shots. This writer definitely agrees with those motion-picture producers who ad-' vocate standardization of the 1.65/1 a.r. in the interests of pictorial framing. But universal exclusive use of the 1.65/1 ratio for regular, non-anamorphic prints gives rise to technical problems of film waste due lo overly thick framelines, overworked projector intermittents, heat¬ ing of the film by the arc lamp, and the number of frames per second needed to provide smooth, flicker-free projec¬ tion at the highest light levels. As previously stated, the conventional 1.375/1 a.r. results in a waste, due to frameline thickness, of 15% of the total length of the film, while the 1.65/1 a.r. wastes fully 25%. The waste of film footage caused by the unused frameline areas is reduced in CinemaScope projection by the com¬ paratively large apertures. CinemaScope framelines, being relatively thin, result in only 3.5% of unshown film length. The larger picture areas of Cinema¬ Scope films increase image definition and improve the focusing characteristics (depth) of the projection lens. By employing an intermittent pull¬ down of 3, instead of the standard 4, perforations per frame of film, the re¬ sulting filmshift distance of 9/16 inch (0.5625'') is enough to accommodate the 1.65/1 a.r. projector aperture (0.825" x 0.500") and permit the use of a necessarily larger camera, or printer, aperture (proposed dimensions: 0.87" x 0.55"). These dimensions re¬ sult in an unused film-length in the camera of only 1.25%, and in the pro¬ jector of only 6.25%. These figures compare favorably with the unusedlength percentages in silent-film stand¬ ardization, namely, 3% in the camera, 7.05% in the projector. Figure 1 is a side-by-side visual com¬ parison of standard non-anamorphic release print and the proposed “3-hole” release print intended to be shown in aspect ratios of 1.65/1 and greater. Note that the 1.65/1 (or 1.66/1) a.r. projector aperture now in use for 4-hole film is to be used for 3-hole film. The picture area is NOT reduced by reduc¬ ing the thickness of the framelines! A number of projection technologists have advocated the 3-hole frame shift for 35mm film. There is nothing new in the proposal. It is worthy of serious consideration, however, first because of the necessity to restandardize the a.r. of normal-film projection, and secondly be¬ cause the 3-hole pulldown offers several distinct advantages in addition to utiliza¬ tion of practically all of the picture area of the film. There are 16 frames per foot on stand¬ ard 4-hole film. On 3-hole film there are 211/3 frames per foot, or 64 frames per 3 feet. If the present 24 frames persecond rate of exposure is kept, 3-hole film will travel only % as fast as 4-hole film, with a running time per reel 1% times that of present film. Instead of 11/2 feet per second (90 feet per min¬ ute), the travel rate of 4-hole film, the 24 frame/sec. 3-hole film will run at the rate of 1% feet per second, 67 % fe^t per minute) . If, on the other hand, the linear running rate and showing time per reel is preserved in 3-hole film, the frame rate will be increased from 24 to 32 frames per second, the more rapid trame rate will result 111 a field rate on the screen of 64 exposures per sec¬ ond when regular 2-cutoif projector shutters are used. Projected pictures are virtually llickerless, regardless of light level, at 64 exposures per second. Yet another alternative exists, and one which is apt to be of greater interest to television engineers than to theatremovie technologists. “If the frame rate of professional film is increased,” argue the TV people, “it should be changed to 30 frames per second, the exact sub¬ multiple of the American TV field rate of 60 interlaced scannings per second.” Let’s see how the 30 irame/sec. rate affects running time and film consump¬ tion in the case of 3-hole film. It will change the travel rate from the present 1%> ft. /sec. (90 ft./min.) to 1 M ft./sec. (84% feet./min.l. Therefore, 30 frame/sec. 3-hole film will run if as fast as 24 frame/sec. 4-hole film, and the running time per reel will be 1-1/15 that of present film. The principal disadvantage of 3-hole film standardization is the non-inter¬ changeability with present-day 4-hole CinemaScope prints. The anamorphic process could be readily adapted to 3hole film, however; and by utilizing the whole 0.825" x 0.500" projector aper¬ ture and an anamorphic expansion factor of 11/2, very high quality images in an aspect ratio of 2,475/1 would be obtained. (As an alternative, and with a slight sacrifice of picture quality and brightness, two 0.1-inch strips could be subtracted from the frame width for 3channel stereophonic sound, leaving a projector aperture measuring 0.625" x ( Continued on Page 496) CAMERA APERTURES s F 'l l > 3 3 PROJECTOR APERTURE 0.825 "X 0.500 " Aspect ratio 1.65/l O O CD O CD O O □ a o o o □ CD □ CD erf CD -Q. CD -0.87 >0 6 3 3 ZD ZD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 FIG. 2 — Printing differences in 4-hole and 3-hole frame placement. Note that the same 1.66/1 (or 1.65/1) aspect ratio wide-screen aperture is used with both kinds of pro¬ jection prints. Higher aspect ratios may, of course, be used with the 3-hole frame shift. American Cinematocrapher August, 1956 487