Talk:Frame line
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Frame lines in 1.85
[edit]Problem is that most 1.85 prints that I've projected are not hard-matted (ie, not masked in the print itself) - they are 1.37 images which are then given a soft matte via the aperture mask in the projector. It's not to say that 1.85 hard matte prints don't exist - I've seen them a fair number of times, but in my experience, more of them are soft matted than not. So perhaps the article should be re-worded to take this into account. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, of the prints I've seen, the majority are hard-matted. The reason is that if the print is not matted, the projectionist may frame the picture in any way he likes, cutting off heads or feet, depending on his frame line setting. So, unmatted 1.85 prints invite trouble! However, one interesting example of mixed mattes was Disney's "Rescuers" back in 1976, where there was a mix of full-frame, academy and 1.85 mattes even in a single reel! Feel free to add info about different practises, though! But I do feel most films shot in 1.85 are mostly hard-matted. Older material, and stuff shot for TV may be academy, and soft-matted in theatres - cutting off part of what the director wanted us to see... --Janke | Talk 18:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- The framing concern usually is solved by using calibrated framing loops or a frame leader so that the projectionist knows what to frame to. Additionally, sometimes films aren't centered (though this is rarer than not) - a good example is Mulholland Drive, where famously a letter direct from David Lynch was placed in all prints asking the projectionist to slightly rack it up. As for hard matting vs soft matting - it has nothing to do with directorial intentions - if it's supposed to be 1.37, it should say so and be projected as such. And vice versa. But really, I don't think that most 1.85 films are hard mattes. That being said, it would be nice to get some official sources one way or the other... --Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I added a reference and wikilinked to an existing article, "hard matte", so now no misunderstandings should be possible. --Janke | Talk 08:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- The framing concern usually is solved by using calibrated framing loops or a frame leader so that the projectionist knows what to frame to. Additionally, sometimes films aren't centered (though this is rarer than not) - a good example is Mulholland Drive, where famously a letter direct from David Lynch was placed in all prints asking the projectionist to slightly rack it up. As for hard matting vs soft matting - it has nothing to do with directorial intentions - if it's supposed to be 1.37, it should say so and be projected as such. And vice versa. But really, I don't think that most 1.85 films are hard mattes. That being said, it would be nice to get some official sources one way or the other... --Girolamo Savonarola 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)