AMAZING INFO, LOVED IT!!!

I appreciate your very imformative videos on film production. 5 stars.

Fantastic again. I learn so much from your videos. Please post more!

I agree, parts 3 to 5 would be good. I'm fascinated by this "series"

Thanks for the video. great job!!! very helpful!

Great job again man!

Very good, guys! Don't sweat the nitpickers; the audience gets the idea, that's all that matters.

Well documented. Good to see a projectionist who knows what he's doing and understands the technology fully. Parts 3-5??

Can you PLEASE post the last 3 parts? I just love it! My dad worked in a cinema when he was 17 (that was 36 years ago :)). I really like his explanations, but i like this serie too. I regularly go see a movie, so i'm interested in the technology behind it aswell.

I would also like to see parts 3- 5 :)

Nice video indeed. The "2.35:1 " frame actually uses 0.690 of an inch height, as per the SMPTE Line up film : RP 35 PA. I fully appreciate Victor's comments about scope over super 35 : however, some directors /dp'S don't like the edge focus issues, lens flares ( check out all the car headlights in Christine ) : and many theatres,sadly have poor or mal-aligned 'scope lenses ( another 5 to 6 pieces of glass to possibly detoriate the image further ) Nice video , nice work . Regards Kev P

i really like this series, hopefully you can finish it somehow

Great video, though I must point out that 1.33 does not use the same frame area as 2.35 scope. With the introduction of sound the width was reduced to accommodate the soundtrack and so the frame height was reduced correspondingly. 2.35 uses a frame 0.715 inches high (almost the full 0.75 pulldown). The 1.33 frame is 0.60 high. Further masking of Scope to 2.39 is used to hide joins in the negative which can show on the screen when projected at 2.35. Best regards, John W

One little thing not mentioned in the video is that scope/anamorphic release prints aren't 2.35:1 but are actually 2.39:1 (that changed in the early 70s). But for some reason people call it 2.35:1 for "historical purposes."

I wish I could finish the other parts for all you out there... but the issue is time and money. I have very little of either right now. I know it has been a long time and this is a very popular series. I really need to find a way to finance more videos like this.

In London Ontario Canada.

In London Ontario.

I'm certainly happy for "historical purposes" (and force of habit) to refer to Scope as 2.35. A nominal 2.39:1 will usually be enough to mask splices in the negative (that show as white flashes) from which the print was made. While it's desirable to use as much of the frame as possible, overcutting should be avoided - I've even seen the edge of dts tracks projected where the width is overcut.

Fantastic work.. looking forward to seeing the remaining parts.. Quick question: Where is Hyland Cinema located? Thanks Again!!

NICE

I meant to say that anamorphic movies are more detailed with less grain but have what James Cameron calls a slight smear which spherical lenses do not have.I was not all there that day.Yet anamorphic is sharp vertically,with smear horizontally but it is beautiful none the less.

When are you going to post the last 3 parts of this documentary?

As soon as I find time. I have been quite tied up lately. Thank you for your patience.

RIP This guy's job :(