Avoiding TV cut-off?

[Daniel Tan]

Hey,

 

Is there any way to avoid the TV cutoff when having a film shot in 16mm in 1:85 ratio? I meant after telecine and editing, the final film shown on TV will have some edges crop off, is there a way to present to the audience the original framing of the film?

 

THanks for any help given.

 

Regards,

Daniel

[John Pytlak RIP]

Standard SMPTE 96M specifies the image areas on 16mm and 35mm film that are transferred to video for all the common 4:3 and 16:9 video configurations (letterbox, pillarbox, full-frame). You should get a copy:

 

http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/

[David Mullen ASC]

The whole point of overscan is that not all TV sets show the same amount of signal -- some even show the entire signal with no cutoff. Some are slightly offset (my TV set picture is).

 

So while you could shrink the 1.85 image down on all sides with a windowbox (borders on the sides as well) so that even on the worst TV set with the most overscan, there is no cutoff, each person would see different amounts of the black borders on the sides -- on my TV set, I'd see more of one side than the other, which is annoying.

 

Some early Super-35 movies were "windowboxed" on laserdisc, like on "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "The Two Jakes" (both shot in "Super 1.85" by Vilmos Zsigmond.) So it was a 1.85 letterbox with side borders too. But on my TV set, I only saw one of of the side borders.

 

Anyway, most broadcasters won't allow windowboxing except for title sequences (like for old 1.37 Academy movies, which did not compose the titles with 4:3 TV overscan in mind.) You should be prepared to make both a 1.85 windowbox version, a 1.85 letterbox, and a 4:3 full-frame version.

[Marc Levy]

This topic is confusing to me. If we are framing both for t.v. overscan and theatrical projection, it seems as if there is a compromise in framing, which is an area that demands extreme precision. How does one frame with confidence?

[Mitch Gross]

Welcome to the world of sloppy exhibition. For both broadcast and theatrical projection, the precise frame is essentially NEVER respected. Walk up to the front of a movie theater and look at how much of the image gets projected onto those black curtains. Sometimes it can be quite frightening. So one should always be aware of providing a little bit of safety area around the edges of the frame since no projectionist and no broadcaster will ever show the whole picture.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can only plan on precise framing up to a point -- you HAVE to allow for some "slop" on the edges. For example, with a letterboxed image shown on a TV set with overscan, your letterboxing means that you have exact control over the vertical framing but you have variable widths being seen. While at most theaters, you have variations in both the vertical and horizontal framing, particularly with the 1.85 format (with 2.35 prints, the framelines are so thin that the next frame starts to become visible soon if misframed vertically -- however, many scope films are trimmed on the sides at various theaters.)

 

Doesn't mean you can't create beautifully composed images but you do have to take into account that the edges might get trimmed. You can't, for example, do a frame where someone's eyeballs or feet are touching the bottom of the screen and hope for that to be shown correctly everywhere it plays (however, in a letterboxed video version, you could.)

 

You can put the whole image in a windowbox on video if you want -- just don't surprised if some broadcaster rejects it.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Caring about composition:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newslett...pring2001.shtml

 

The black screen masking is supposed to define the projectable image area with crisp edges. There SHOULD be a bit of overshoot, but what falls on the masking was never intended to be seen on the screen, as specified by standard SMPTE 195.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

In defence of projectionists, lining up a projector, backing plate, two rotating lenses, projection port, screen and four pieces of masking is far from trivial. The ability to trim a little at each of these stages is absolutely required to make it practical. I've only ever set up all of these things in sequence twice, and it takes hours. Much as one does one's best to respect the image on the print, there's always going to be some slop.

 

Phil

[Daniel Tan]

Hey,

 

Thanks for the input and advices on this issue.

 

Regards,

Daniel