Harrison's Reports (1954)

Entered as seoond-class matter January 4, 1921, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1879. Harrison’S Reports Yearly Subscription Kates : United States $16.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.60 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.50 35c a Copy 1270 SIXTH AVENUE New Yorlc 20, N. Y, Published Weekly by Harrison’s Reports, Inc., Publisher A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXVI SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1954 No. 11 A CLARIFICATION OF THE LATEST SCREEN PROCESSES Much has been written this past week in the trade papers and in exhibitor association bulletins about Paramount’s new Vistavision process, and from what has been said it is understandable if an exhibitor who relies on these reports is left with the impression that Vistavision is a revolutionary new process for the production and exhibition of motion pictures. For example, a resolution adopted last week by the board of directors of the Southern California Theatres Association acclaims Paramount for making Vistavision available to the entire motion picture industry “at no profit whatsoever to Paramount,” adding that “the potential of Vistavision is such that it can aid materially all of us, individually and collectively, in keeping our theatres in operation, making possible the full enjoyment of wide-screen entertainment to millions of film patrons, at no extra cost either to them or to the exhibitors of America . . . Paramount’s new creation, in our opinion, may well prove to be what all of us in exhibition need, to afford us new life. . . .” Just what there is about “the potential of Vistavision” that “can aid materially all of us” and afford the exhibitors “new life” is not made clear by the SCTOA board. Other comments by exhibitor leaders, as well as in trade paper reports, see Vistavision as being in competition with CinemaScope. Weekly Variety, for instance, sees Paramount, with Vistavision, and 20th Century-Fox, with CinemaScope, contending for the “King of the Scopes” title, and it adds this to its report: “On the basis of public and private statements by exhibs, it’s apparent that the unveiling of Vistavision has further intensified resistance against C’Scope in some theatre .quarters. Theatre ops haven’t made up their minds as a single group on favoring 20th or Par, but many of those so far unequipped with C’Scope are asking: Why C’Scope if Vistavision is proved to be equally effective and involves considerably less money?” All the foregoing is an indication of the type of comments and reports that are leaving many exhibitors with the impression that Vistavision is a new wide-screen production and projection system. But, as this paper pointed out in last week’s issue, Vistavision is nothing more than a photographic technique, one that appears to provide a sharper and clearer picture in that it seems to eliminate the grain and fuzziness that result in pictures that are shot with a conventional camera and then blown up for projection on wide screens. And, as it has been pointed out by Film Bulletin, Vistavision “does not seem to be directly competitive to CinemaScope in that it is not anamorphic and, therefore, does not have the exciting panoramic scope of the 20th Century-Fox process.” The March 5 organizational bulletin of Allied Theatres of Indiana serves as another example of what is causing exhibitor confusion with regard to Vistavision. In describing the process, the bulletin states partly that Paramount will make its Vistavision pictures available “in both the normal prints and the Vistavision prints; pictures photographed with a normal lens can be printed in the Vistavision method.” An exhibitor who reads the Allied Indiana statement will either scratch his head in bewilderment or take it for granted that the difference between a normal print and a Vistavision print is that the Vistavision print will enable him to project the picture in anamorphic form. The fact of the matter is that the Vistavision process itself offers only a standard 35mm release print. There is no such thing as a normal print and a Vistavision print. The standard 35mm print that comes from Vistavision can be shown by the exhibitors with the standard projection equipment they now possess. No additional equipment needs to be purchased. This print may be projected in the normal 1.33 to 1 aspect ratio or in a wide-screen aspect ratio as high as 1.85 to 1. For wide screen presentations, the exhibitor will require proper aperture plates and additional wide-angle lenses. It is when the print is shown on a wide screen that it offers the advantage of a sharply defined picture. The Vistavision camera, as it was explained in these coli umns last week, uses a horizontal double frame negative that photographs images on an area two and one-half times the regular 35mm camera frame. This large negative is then compressed, by printing, to a standard 35mm release print. The net effect of this process is to eliminate the grain and fuzziness that is apparent in blown-up pictures that have been shot with a conventional camera. For a clearer understanding of what Vistavision means to the exhibitor, let us assume that an exhibitor has already installed a screen that is as high and as wide as he can make it, and that he has been showing his current pictures on such a wide screen. To such an exhibitor, the only difference he will find in playing a Vistavision feature is that the quality of the picture will be sharper and clearer than pictures shot with normal cameras. Insofar as his patrons are concerned, it is doubtful if the greater clarity of the picture will make much difference to them, even if it is noticed by them. In other words, Vistavision, in the opinion of this paper, is undoubtedly a fine technical photographic improvement, but it is not one that will excite the picturegoers and draw them to the box-oflfice. Vistavision pictures can be shown also in anamorphic form, such as CinemaScope, but this cannot be done with the same print that is used for the standard showings, as many exhibitors have been led to believe. What is required is a special “squeeze” or anamorphic print, and the development of such a print has nothing to do with the Vistavision process. Such prints are processed through the Tushinsky SuperScope variable anamorphic system which, by a process of optical printing, develops anamorphic prints from negatives photographed by any conventional camera, as well as by Paramount’s Vistavision camera. Paramount has announced that it will make its Vistavision pictures available to the exhibitors both in the standard 35mm. print and the anamorphic print, leaving it to the exhibitor to decide on which form he prefers. If the exhibitor uses the anamorphic print, he will, of course, require an anamorphic lens and a wider screen. What seems to be competitive to CinemaScope is, not Vistavision, but the Tushinsky SuperScope process which, according to the claims made for it, is more practical for the exhibitors in that the anamorphic projection lens used in the system can do whatever the CinemaScope lens can do, and has the added advantage of adaptability to any ratio desired by an exhibitor. In other words, if an exhibitor (Continued on bacl[ page)