The
Widescreen Revolution
Expanding Horizons--The Spherical
Campaign
by Rick Mitchell
Hollywood was not too alarmed by Cinerama.
Its unique three-lens filming process was poorly suited for exhibition
in regular movie houses because it required the installation
of three separate projectors which could run in interlock with
the soundtrack. Instead, it was CinemaScope, the widescreen process
introduced by Twentieth Century-Fox in 1953, that sent shock-waves
throughout the industry.
In CinemaScope, a cylindrical, or anamorphic,
lens was used to "squeeze" picture information onto the negative.
Almost any theater could show a CinemaScope picture by simply
swapping its projection lenses for ones that could unsqueeze
the release print.
This easy widescreen process was cause for
general panic. Fox's rivals had amassed large unreleased inventories
of 1.37:1 aspect ratio films. They feared the nightmare of twenty-five
years earlier--when the overnight success of The Jazz Singer and Lights
of New York made silent films obsolete--would be repeated.
Paramount Pictures was particularly disturbed.
Paramount had over a year's worth of unreleased features in its
vaults. While other companies could exhaust their inventories
as they produced their first CinemaScope films, Paramount was
faced with the unattractive prospect of writing off a significant
number of pictures.
As early as January 1953, Paramount assigned
the head of its research department, Loren Ryder, to investigate
the feasibility of obtaining a "widescreen effect" by masking
off the top and bottom of the projected image and using a shorter
focal length spherical lens to throw the image onto a wider than
normal screen.
Warner Brothers had already rejected this technique,
after privately screening a widescreen version of Night and
Day (1946), because they felt it compromised the visual
integrity of the film. But Paramount's Ryder felt that by using
an aspect ratio of 1.66:1, favoring the upper two-thirds of the
image, most films could be shown without too disturbing a loss
in composition.
Of course, Ryder's conclusions may have been
based in part on the fact that image composition in the fifties
was considerably looser than it is today. First, since feature
films were customarily shown on large screens, cinematographers
and directors preferred wider shots. Second, non-reflex cameras
that used side finders were less precise so a margin of safety
was added to the original composition. And third, many movie
theaters habitually masked the projected images much tighter
than industry recommendations. As a result, tight "choker" close-ups
were rarely used.
The most common camera set-ups were the medium
shot, the two shot and the over-the-shoulder. Rarely was important
information placed at the extreme top or bottom of the frame.
THE SEARCH FOR A SPHERICAL WIDESCREEN
STANDARD
Spherical widescreen responses to CinemaScope
came swiftly. The day after Fox presented its first public demonstration
of CinemaScope, Paramount screened Shane in a 1.66:1
aspect ratio on a huge, slightly curved screen specially set
up on stage 15.
The viewers were impressed.
As a result, Paramount boldly announced that Shane would
premiere on the wide screen. Not to be outdone, Universal answered
Paramount the following week by holding a press screening of Thunder
Bay in a wider-screen 1.85:1 version, using a separate interlocked
three-channel stereo sound track. A week later, Columbia also
came out in favor of the wider 1.85:1 image. MGM opted for a
third wide-screen size, 1.75:1, and premiered Julius Caesar that
way in New York with a separate stereo sound track.
By the summer of 1953, most "A" features first-run
engagements in major cities were shown in one of the three widescreen
ratios, even though all had been originally composed for 1.37:1
in the camera.
Many films, especially those shot in 3-D, were
shown with stereophonic sound by using a separate "dummy" soundtrack
reel running in interlock with the standard monaural optical
track on the release print. In most instances, the dialog track
was monaural and obvious sound effects and music were in stereo.
The search for the perfect aspect ratio was
only just beginning. At its Thunder Bay screening, Universal
also had presented test footage composed for projection at a
2:1 aspect ratio. Near the end of April 1953, Universal announced
that all its feature pictures would be composed for projection
at the wider ratio, claiming that 2:1 would preserve the height
of the original 1.37:1 image. In contrast, Paramount announced
all of its feature pictures would be composed for the 1.66:1
image.
Soon all the other studios followed suit. RKO
and Republic decided to shoot their pictures in 1.66:1. Disney,
MGM and Warner Bros chose 1.75:1. Allied Artists and Columbia
went with the wider 1.85:1. United Artists, because it was primarily
a distributor for independent producers, left the choice of aspect
ratio up to the individual producing company. And in the Fall
of 1953, Fox--even though it had announced it would not make
any more spherical pictures--set up a subsidiary, Panoramic Pictures,
headed by Leonard Goldstein, to produce a series of spherical
"B" pictures in 1.66:1.
After the successful opening of Fox's CinemaScope
release of The Robe (1954), most theaters began to install
wider screens. They adopted masked projection techniques for
spherical releases, thus establishing masking as the new standard
for 35mm non anamorphic projection. According to exhibitor periodicals
of the time, 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 appear to have been the most popular
aspect ratios.
Consequently, it is somewhat unclear how, in
time, 1.85:1 came to be the accepted industry standard. In fact,
the earliest reference to 1.85:1 as the predominant medium appeared
as late as 1956 in a paper read to the SMPTE by Merle Chamberlain,
then head of projection for MGM.
To this day, however, there is no consistent
adherence to the 1.85:1 standard. In truth, the projected aspect
ratio in any given screening facility is based on a combination
of three elements: (1) the projector-to-screen distance, (2)
the size of the screen, and (3) the focal length of the projection
lens. Where possible, theater designers try to come as close
as possible to 1.85:1. But there are many older theaters that
still project images at 1.66:1 or 1.75:1. Some of the newer,
smaller multiplex auditoriums use a 2:1 ratio for spherical features.
And some theaters even show all features--whether spherical or
anamorphic--at one ratio, by masking anamorphic features down
to 2:1 or 1.85:1.
THE OPTICAL SQUEEZE
Initially, Fox hoped to establish CinemaScope
as the feature film standard and secured the rights to the anamorphic
lens patents filed in the 1920s by Professors Henri Chrétien
and H. Sydney Newcomer. Fox also hired Newcomer to be its CinemaScope
advisor. Unfortunately, Fox soon learned it had merely purchased
scientific rights. The basic design patents for the anamorphic
process were, in fact, legally considered to be in the public
domain.
Consequently, as soon as Fox had demonstrated
CinemaScope and articles about the principles behind the process
had been published, a number of competing lens systems were announced
by various sources, including the developer of the first anamorphic
lens, Professor Ernst Abbe.
Robert E. Gottschalk, who first became interested
in the underwater use of anamorphic lenses, formed Panavision,
Inc., to manufacture projection lenses. Gottschalk had come up
with a new idea for developing lenses using prisms instead of
cylindrical elements, thereby allowing the squeeze of the image
to be varied by the turn of a knob.
Unbeknownst to Gottschalk, Irving and Joseph
Tushinsky of RKO's camera department were working on the same
principle, which they called "SuperScope." Both Panavision and
RKO publicly demonstrated their new line of anamorphic lenses
in March 1954. Most significantly, both companies also introduced
optical printer lenses which could be used to either un squeeze
anamorphic footage or squeeze spherical material.
Aside from The Robe, which was photographed
in both anamorphic and spherical versions, Fox filmed all its
productions in CinemaScope. Other studios, however, still felt
the need to protect their investments by concurrently filming
two versions so the spherical version could be shown in theaters
that were not yet converted to anamorphic projection. With the
advent of the new optical printer lenses, it was no longer necessary
to film two versions. In addition, studios could now incorporate
spherical stock footage into CinemaScope pictures.
The Tushinskys took their innovation a step
further by proposing the use of SuperScope optical printer lenses
to make CinemaScope-compatible prints from spherical photography.
Under this process, a studio could use standard cameras and lenses
so long as all important action was kept within a 2:1 aspect
ratio. The 2:1 image was chosen because it was the widest aspect
ratio that could be handled by the majority of theaters at the
time. After principal photography, the 2:1 picture information
would be optically extracted and then given a two-times squeeze
during the making of the matrices at Technicolor, the lab that
printed all the color films released in this process.
Since the Tushinskys did not impose a color-only
limitation on SuperScope, the optical squeezing process became
attractive to low-budget companies who would make release prints
from a fine-grain squeezed dupe negative to minimize grain and
contrast.
Allied Artists released three films in this
process, including Don Siegel's original Invasion of the
Body Snatchers (1956). American Releasing, a precursor to
American International Pictures, also released optically squeezed
films. In England, a reissue of Henry V (1945) used
optical squeezing. And Disney used the process in a most unusual
manner in its 1956 reissue of Fantasia, in which the
orchestra and "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" sequences maintained
their original 1.37:1 aspect ratio and proper image shapes, while
the other cartoon sequences were stretched to fill the wide screen.
TECHNISCOPE
In 1963 two engineers at Technicolor Italiana,
Rome, Doctors Giulio Monteleoni and Giovanni Ventimiglia, developed
a variation on the SuperScope idea. They altered their cameras
to pull down film stock two perforations at a time. By using
half of the height of the full aperture frame, they were able
to photograph a 2.35:1 aspect ratio image that could later be
given a two-times optical squeeze when preparing the Technicolor
matrices. Monteleoni and Ventimiglia called the process Techniscope.
Techniscope became extremely popular with European low-budget
filmmakers who have continued to employ this technique until
as recently as 1985.
In contrast, Techniscope was not as popular
in the United States, where it was used primarily by Universal.
Only a few American low-budget producers used it in the sixties,
but by the mid-seventies, its use has so declined that Technicolor
stopped printing it.
THE 70MM RELEASE PRINT
During the seventies, high-quality lenses were
developed which finally made it possible to make acceptable spherical
negatives. The spherical negatives, however, presented some unique
problems. Initially, spherical negatives were blown up to the
full 2.2:1 projection aspect ratio of 70mm. Unfortunately, this
resulted in a noticeable loss of sharpness and increase in grain.
Then in 1978, 70mm release prints of Days
of Heaven were made retaining the 1.85:1 aspect ratio
by using black borders at the sides of the frame. This yielded
a higher quality image, despite the fact that it was slightly
narrower. Over the next four years, more and more producers
used this approach for spherical blowups. Then after Stephen
Spielberg used the process on E.T.-The Extraterrestrial (1982),
it became the industry standard.
SUPER 35
Also in 1982, widescreen buff and equipment
dealer Joe Dunton planned to make a 35mm "rockumentary," Dance
Fever, on which he wanted full-width 70mm release prints.
Remembering SuperScope, he shot the film to fill the full aperture
by re centering the spherical lenses and scribing new viewfinder
markings. In this manner, he was able to frame the important
action for a 2.2:1 aspect ratio.
Dunton's work came to the attention of Les
Ostinelli of Technicolor London who was dealing with a similar
problem in the production of the film Greystoke: The Legend
of Tarzan of the Apes. Producer Warner Brothers wanted to
release full-frame 2.2:1 70mm prints, but cinematographer John
Alcott hated anamorphic lenses. Alcott additionally felt the
slower anamorphic lenses would be impractical under the difficult
lighting situations he would face in the dense jungles of Africa.
As a result, Ostinelli and Alcott made tests with re centered
lenses and chose to shoot the film with them, a technique they
called "Super Techniscope."
The success of Greystoke interested
many other cinematographers and directors who wanted a widescreen
image, but either disliked anamorphic lenses or planned to shoot
in low-light situations. The new process soon became generally
known as "Super 35." Producers also became interested in the
format because they could use the same negative to make a 35mm
anamorphic print, a full-frame 70mm print and a video release
that would not require the images to be "panned and scanned."
Super 35 release prints are made on modern,
fine-grain film stocks by an updated version of the basic method
used in SuperScope. First, a timed contact interpositive is made
from the cut original negative. Second, a squeezed internegative
is extracted. For a small number of 70mm prints, the prints are
made optically from a 35mm squeezed internegative. If a larger
print run is desired, a 65mm internegative is optically made
so the 70mm prints may be contact printed.
One notable exception to this scheme was Silverado (1985)
for which a 65mm interpositive was first made from the cut original
negative, form which the 65mm and 35mm squeezed internegatives
were struck.
There are three major considerations to filming
in Super 35. First, the width of the extracted image can only
be as wide as the narrowest aperture plate on any camera used
in the production. While most cameras have a frame width of .980",
some, such as the Arriflex, are narrower. To accommodate the
possibility of negative damage in the perforation area, some
manufacturers and labs recommend using a slightly smaller extraction:
Panavision recommends .945" while Technicolor prefers .930".
Second, it is unsettled whether the lens mounts
need to be re centered to prevent vignetting. John Bailey, ASC,
for example, did not re center the lenses used on Silverado.
For Bailey, it was important to be able to press into service
cameras such as Eyemos for a stampede sequence. By avoiding re
centering, Bailey was able to use prime lenses as short as 17mm
and the
5:1 Cooke zoom lenses at 20mm without encountering any vignette
problems.
Third, a decision must be made about vertical
composition and how it affects theatrical and video releases.
The image can either be composed between scribed frame lines
equidistant from the center of the full aperture ("common center"
or "symmetrical") or from the top frame line downward ("common
top line"). Symmetrical was the preferred approach for SuperScope
films and recently was used on Top Gun (1986) because
it was easier to line up jet-mounted cameras for a centered frame.
Director James Cameron, currently the industry's
foremost exponent of Super 35, prefers the common top line approach
because a medium shot in a theatrical version becomes a tight
full shot on video. Common top line additionally eliminates the
problem of keeping the microphone further away from the actors
to protect for video.
Both John Bailey and special effects cinematographer
Peter Anderson agree that when shooting in Super 35 it is important
to have a rich, fully exposed negative to minimize grain and
increase contrast. Forced development should be avoided. The
fine-grain high speed stocks recently developed by Eastman, Agfa
and Fuji have helped to minimize many of the problems of optical
extraction inherent in Super 35 photography. There are no longer
valid objections to using Super 35 for pictures with a lot of
optical effects. This has been adequately proven by such action
and effects pictures as Deepstar Six, The Abyss, Star Trek
V, and, most notably, Terminator 2.
During production, a Super 35 matte and realigned
projector are all that's necessary for previewing a contact work
print. If a Super 35 matte is not available, film dailies may
be projected satisfactorily with a 1.85:1 matte. Squeezed dailies
are not recommended because the optical printer and ink coding
may risk the negative, something that became a nightmare for
the producer of Greystoke.
For editing, Super 35 picture modules have
been developed for KEM editing machines. And if the venerable
Moviola is being used, the editor may mask off the proper area
with tape and simply turn the film over if she needs to view
part of the image in the former soundtrack area.
SUPER 35 AND HDTV
Ten years ago it looked like Super 35 might
be a passing fancy--the "thrill of the moment"--soon to be discarded
for more established formats. Yet with the advent of high-definition
television (HDTV) looming on the horizon, Super 35 has gained
greater acceptance. Super 35 may be the best format for creating
"all purpose" negatives, an idea first advanced by the Russians
in the late seventies. By filming a full-aperture image on a
frame three perforations high, filmmakers can easily protect
height for theatrical releases and width for conventional or
high-definition television.
Despite the fact that Super 35 is a great process
to protect a wide range of distribution channels from theaters
to videotapes, its use for high-quality theatrical films is still
a subject of debate. While the quality of release prints form
the six major laboratories making Super 35 prints has continued
to improve, no Super 35 release print can compare to one struck
from a negative made with state-of-the-art anamorphic lenses.
Thus, after forty years of anamorphic and spherical widescreen
photography, the choice is still not easy. In the end, the most
important consideration is the degree of image quality the decision
maker--whether producer, director or cinematographer--wants for
the theatrical release.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to extend special thanks
to all those who provided insight and guidance: Peter Anderson;
Fred Austin, DeLuxe Labs; John Badham; John Bailey, ASC; John
Baptista, Anthony Bruno, James George, Trent Hilton, Chester
Luton and Roger Mayer, formerly of MGM Labs; Doug Knapp; Sal
Lomita, Orion Pictures; Takuo Miyagishima, Phil Radin, Panavision,
Inc.; Joseph W. Schmit and Drake Woodworth, Technicolor, Inc.;
Phil Scott, formerly of Universal Pictures; Film Editor Howard
Smith; Bill Taylor, ASC; and Joseph Tushinsky.
|