The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by J. Philip

I saw the Exorcist at the "Drive-In" the year it came out. No way do I remember if it filled the screen or not.

People ain't supposed to be lookin at the sides/borders of the friggin screen anyway!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

On my 32" Sony Bravia which is of course 1.78:1 like the vast majority of widescreen TV's are 1.85:1 seems to fill the screen. Do I have a problem?

On a 1.78:1 HD TV, a film that has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 should leave thin black bars on the top and bottom. Is that what you're referring to? You might have the over scan on which doesn't need to be.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by ditcin

Pardon me but when one grows up with a B&W TV a trip to the theater is special. Very special. Imagery mixed with the experience tends to stick on one's mind. Going to the movies was more of an experience then compared to anyone growing up today. It's a completely world with too much taken for granted. Even worse people making calls on what's impossible simply because it's impossible for them.
Remember, Beethoven was deaf.
Don't be so quick to put down or doubt people for what you may lack. Be a little more respectful and open minded.

Why attack me? Would you like me to destroy you? I prefaced my post as a sincere question, or are you a dunce?

I don't care that you were poor and had a black and white TV. Memory can't be trusted, we've gone over this ad nauseum in every - every thread.

[MichaelR]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Of course I can tell what an aspect ratio is at home on my TV as a grown man in his 40's, but I didnt know what an aspect ratio was as a child going to the movies in the 80's, nor would i be able to remember what a films aspect ratio would have been had i cared . . .

Not everyone here was a child in the 80s. Some of us weren't even a child at "The Exorcist" in 1973.

...especially because 1.78 and 1.85 in a theater probably seemed similar, considering the screen was huge and the theater took it upon themselves to pull open or pull closed the side curtains to alleviate negative space on the sides

1.78:1 isn't a theatrical exhibition ratio. As a practical matter, there have only been two choices in mainstream American theaters since the late Fifties, leaving aside exceptions such as revival houses and specialty venues. Those two choices are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (technically, since 1971, 2.39:1). If a film made a strong impression, and especially if you were someone who was interested in cinema as visual art -- and such people were around long before home video -- then it's not hard to recall at which of those two ARs the film was projected.

[Liquid_Swords]

Originally Posted by J. Philip

I saw the Exorcist at the "Drive-In" the year it came out. No way do I remember if it filled the screen or not.

Too busy trying to score with the G/F eh!?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Yeah, I hate how Warner's opens their 1.85:1 films to 1.78:1. Even as crappy as Universal's transfers are, at least they always transfer in OAR.

Although I don't think of myself as an anal person and even though 35mm AR in most theatre, even most screening rooms, are never very accurate due to projection lenses only available in certain focal lengths, parallax distortion and other factors, this used to drive me bonkers.

But I once communicated with Robert A. Harris, the film restorer, about this and he told me that opening up a 1.85 film to 1.78 was no big deal. And so I felt that if it's good enough for him, it should be good enough for me.

It still bugs me a bit though. Even though it's just a few pixels top and bottom, there's something about that slight difference in the shape that makes it less theatrical for me.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

On my 32" Sony Bravia which is of course 1.78:1 like the vast majority of widescreen TV's are 1.85:1 seems to fill the screen. Do I have a problem?

Probably not. While you might have an overscan problem (make sure the set is set to "full pixel" or "1:1" or something similar), chances are you're just watching 1.85 films that have been opened up to 1.78.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Now, pardon my ignorance, and I mean that. I'm sincere when I ask, how do you guys know, or better yet, how can you tell and remember what an old film's theatrical aspect ratio was just by sitting in the theater XX years ago?

Of course I can tell what an aspect ratio is at home on my TV as a grown man in his 40's, but I didnt know what an aspect ratio was as a child going to the movies in the 80's, nor would i be able to remember what a films aspect ratio would have been had i cared...especially because 1.78 and 1.85 in a theater probably seemed similar, considering the screen was huge and the theater took it upon themselves to pull open or pull closed the side curtains to alleviate negative space on the sides

You never would have seen 1.78 in a theatre in the 35mm days. 1.78:1 (actually 16:9) is an AR that was created for HDTV. You would have seen 1.85, 2.35 and 2.2:1 if the theatre also showed 70mm. If it played spherical foreign films and played them properly, it would have played those, if they weren't 1.85, at either 1.66 (many) or 1.75 (a few), depending upon the film. But many theatres would have simply chopped off some top and bottom and played them 1.85. Also, there were some theatres that simply played everything at 2.0:1 as a matter of policy (but that really sucked).

Having said that, most theatres never projected the absolute exact aspect ratio for reasons I get into in my other post.

As for whether you could tell/remember the AR, I was very into movies and the technology even when I was a young kid and while I can't say that I remember the AR for every movie I've ever seen, I remember many of them. And even aside from the shape, I could tell whether a film was spherical (1.85) or anamorphic (2.55 in the initial Cinemascope days, 2.35 by 1956 or so and 2.39 once DTS digital sound came in) by the projectionist's dots - those little circles on the upper right that told the projectionist when to change reels in the days before platters. If the circles were round it was spherical, but if they were elliptical, it was anamorphic. Whenever those dots appeared on the screen, I would turn around and watch the projectionist switch projectors.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

From what I understand, and I don't know if this 100 percent true, is they started doing this because of the overscan that TV's used to do. With overscan you would lose something like 3 to 5 percent of the picture so they opened up the Matte's to account for that so you wouldn't be losing anything. Now, they should transfer in OAR since there's not any over scanning anymore.

IMO the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is negligible. Hence, they just opt to fill the top and bottom with image. I don't mind, since 1) you can't really tell the difference, and it's not enough of added image to alter the intended composition, and 2) the way 35mm film is projected, it's hardly ever the same "framing" from screening to screening, since the projectionist had to try and line up the top and bottom of the frame with the mattes on the screen. You were almost always seeing a little too much headroom or footroom, depending on the projectionist. Which goes by what Zoet said - "Most theatres never projected the absolute exact aspect ratio for reasons I get into in my other post."

[Member-260138]

Originally Posted by Liquid_Swords

Too busy trying to score with the G/F eh!?

You got me pegged man!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

IMO the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is negligible. Hence, they just opt to fill the top and bottom with image. I don't mind, since 1) you can't really tell the difference, and it's not enough of added image to alter the intended composition, and 2) the way 35mm film is projected, it's hardly ever the same "framing" from screening to screening, since the projectionist had to try and line up the top and bottom of the frame with the mattes on the screen. You were almost always seeing a little too much headroom or footroom, depending on the projectionist. Which goes by what Zoet said - "Most theatres never projected the absolute exact aspect ratio for reasons I get into in my other post."

I know that there's hardly any difference but it bugs me a bit when 1.85 films are opened to 1.78. Its like you're watching a tv show rather than a film or something.

[kidglov3s]

Re 1.78/1,85, I feel like if you're looking for tiny little bars at the top and bottom of the screen what's in the middle must not be all that compelling.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

Re 1.78/1,85, I feel like if you're looking for tiny little bars at the top and bottom of the screen what's in the middle must not be all that compelling.

You have a good point but it still bugs me a little nonetheless.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

Not everyone here was a child in the 80s. Some of us weren't even a child at "The Exorcist" in 1973.



1.78:1 isn't a theatrical exhibition ratio. As a practical matter, there have only been two choices in mainstream American theaters since the late Fifties, leaving aside exceptions such as revival houses and specialty venues. Those two choices are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (technically, since 1971, 2.39:1). If a film made a strong impression, and especially if you were someone who was interested in cinema as visual art -- and such people were around long before home video -- then it's not hard to recall at which of those two ARs the film was projected.

Thank you. That's how one answers a question.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You never would have seen 1.78 in a theatre in the 35mm days. 1.78:1 (actually 16:9) is an AR that was created for HDTV. You would have seen 1.85, 2.35 and 2.2:1 if the theatre also showed 70mm. If it played spherical foreign films and played them properly, it would have played those, if they weren't 1.85, at either 1.66 (many) or 1.75 (a few), depending upon the film. But many theatres would have simply chopped off some top and bottom and played them 1.85. Also, there were some theatres that simply played everything at 2.0:1 as a matter of policy (but that really sucked).

Having said that, most theatres never projected the absolute exact aspect ratio for reasons I get into in my other post.

As for whether you could tell/remember the AR, I was very into movies and the technology even when I was a young kid and while I can't say that I remember the AR for every movie I've ever seen, I remember many of them. And even aside from the shape, I could tell whether a film was spherical (1.85) or anamorphic (2.55 in the initial Cinemascope days, 2.35 by 1956 or so and 2.39 once DTS digital sound came in) by the projectionist's dots - those little circles on the upper right that told the projectionist when to change reels in the days before platters. If the circles were round it was spherical, but if they were elliptical, it was anamorphic. Whenever those dots appeared on the screen, I would turn around and watch the projectionist switch projectors.

I like this. See? Another great answer, and I learn something

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I know that there's hardly any difference but it bugs me a bit when 1.85 films are opened to 1.78. Its like you're watching a tv show rather than a film or something.

Considering a lot of TV is better than movies these days, maybe that's a good thing.

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

On a 1.78:1 HD TV, a film that has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 should leave thin black bars on the top and bottom. Is that what you're referring to? You might have the over scan on which doesn't need to be.

Yes that's what I'm referring to. A 1.85:1 movie has no black bars on the top and bottom of my screen. What exactly do I do to turn the over scan off?

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

Yes that's what I'm referring to. A 1.85:1 movie has no black bars on the top and bottom of my screen. What exactly do I do?

Go into the menu of your TV settings and make sure 'overscan' is turned off.

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

Go into the menu of your TV settings and make sure 'overscan' is turned off.

Looked all over my TV for over scan and I can't find it anywhere.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

Looked all over my TV for over scan and I can't find it anywhere.

Just set it to normal mode inside your screen mode or whatever it's called on your tv.