8mm Forum: How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens?

8mm Forum

my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home

next oldest topic

next newest topic

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens? (Page 2)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens?

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013

posted November 13, 2015 07:20 AM

Email Dominique De Bast

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

The fact is that the size of the picture is smaller with a scope lens. Of course, Everyone is free to project as he wants. If I had no large white wall I would of course still use a scope lens but I would have a very smaller picture on my screen.

--------------------
Dominique

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 08:27 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I'm still amazed that projecting 'scope prints in the wrong ratio has become OK just to fill a screen without bars. A bit like trimming the Mona Lisa to fit a frame rather than the other way 'round.

All that hard work by Kempski, Lone Wolf, Derann and others to put the very best quality 'scope image on the tiny Super 8 frame gone to waste - they might as well just have used Pan & Scan TV negs.

Everyone to their own I guess but going to the trouble and expense of buying top quality 'scope prints, having well maintained top end projectors and sound playback equipment, then distorting the image this way seems bonkers.

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 13, 2015 08:37 AM

Email Steve Klare

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Well,

The original question was are they watchable when shown squished. A lot of new collectors wind up with scope prints, very often it even takes them by surprise! It's a pretty big leap to go 'scope all at once so you live with them as they are for a while and appreciate them all the more after you've set things right later on.

Are they watchable? In an age when people are watching feature films on IPhones, yes: very watchable.

There's an ad. out there right now for a new tablet with a screen the size of a box of cereal: somehow this is supposed to be amazing. (Perspective, always perspective...)

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 08:56 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Steve, the solution is out there, all that needs to be done is to develop and market it:

ANAMORPHIC GLASSES [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 09:13 AM

Edit/Delete Post

I shall promise to use my scope lens more often Kevin. [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

I consider myself well and truly told off! Ha ha ha [Wink]

[Wink]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Timothy Ramzyk
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Milwaukee,WI,USA
Registered: Nov 2006

posted November 13, 2015 09:15 AM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Andrew, I was interested in seeing your scope VS flat images, but after some searching, came up empty handed. Could you link to them?

Thanks,
Tim

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 09:21 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Andrew

Your method of un-decompressed 'scope projection really needs a trade name:

Ladies & Gentlemen I give you....... Woodyvision !

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 09:22 AM

Edit/Delete Post

I'm not able to advertise or mention the said forum here Timothy unfortunately (forum ruling).

Perhaps if you were to PM me, I'd be able to give you the information you are seeking but I'd need Doug or one of the other moderators to tell me if this is acceptable or not?

Either way, thinking about it, as i've only recently discovered myself, you would need to join and become a member of the forum to see any of the photographs on it.Hopefully this wouldn't be an issue to you.

"Woodyvision" it is then Kevin! All the way from bonkersville. [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 13, 2015 09:46 AM

Email Steve Klare

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Anamorphic Glasses?

Great idea, but there is a danger!

If you forget you are wearing them, look at your beloved and say the first thing that springs to mind you will surely wind up on the couch a couple of nights!

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 09:53 AM

Edit/Delete Post

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 10:13 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

You're right Steve, I'm often in trouble just for giving the wrong look let alone a comment so best I bin these beauties before it's the dog house for me:

Andrew, the benefits of Woodyvision are growing on me, Marilyn and Jayne (Monroe & Mansfield) both look more athletic now, and Michael Crawford's legs are long enough to get him over the Swale Estuary by foot without using the bridge:

All in good jest of course - back to the original point and you can guess my opinion - a bright projector, a quality lens (Isco best of all, the Elmoscope II then Kowa 8z / 16H) and a solid mount / lens clamp and a few hours tinkering to get it aligned and in focus and you are away!

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 13, 2015 10:40 AM

Email Steve Klare

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

'Scope is definitely a labor of love, but it's the kind of thing that gets you closer to what this is really about: producing a theatrical experience in your own home.

-people who think Super-8 is nothing more than blurry, silent 50 footers of some kid's birthday party have no idea!

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 11:23 AM

Edit/Delete Post

Is this better Kevin? Hope you approve of my new found love for the W-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n image on just about any film, scope or otherwise! [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Wink]

I thought "Dolly" always looked like that Kevin btw! [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 13, 2015 11:57 AM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

The main problem I have with super 8 scope is the extreme aspect ratio of 2.88:1. This means that even with a 10ft wide screen the picture height is only 42 ins high. So, as Andrew points out, you lose a lot of picture height compared with a 4:3 or 16:9 presentation, and picture height is just as impactive as picture width. 2.88 is way beyond the normal 2.35 ratio of the 35mm CinemaScope prints, so most super 8mm prints are heavily cropped in vertical height, resulting in heads being literally cut off on some prints I have seen. It would have been so much better if S8 scope prints had retained the full height of the 35mm master print picture, even though the full width of the super 8mm frame would not have been utilized.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted November 13, 2015 12:03 PM

Author's Homepage

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Was Ben Hur released with an extremely wide image? I only ask as I used to have a copy of this on laserdisc, and I noticed that the image was a good deal wider than your average anamorphic image in laserdisc.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Jason Schmidt
Film Handler

Posts: 99
From: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Registered: Nov 2014

posted November 13, 2015 12:05 PM

Email Jason Schmidt

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Ben Hur did use the Camera 65/Ultra Panavision with 2.76:1 aspect ratio

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 12:37 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I agree it is a shame regarding the top / bottom cropping on Super 8 (and 16mm) 'scope frames from the 35mm masters Paul - my maths differs from yours though as a x2 lens on a 4:3 pictures surely results in a 2:66 to 1 ratio?

Andrew - Dolly looks lovely whichever format you project her in - another title transformed using Woodyvision is Titanic which then looks more like Little Toot !

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 13, 2015 02:39 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Kevin, the super 8 frame size according to Wickipedia is 5.79mm x 4.01mm, which is an aspect ratio of 1.44. This means the scope aspect ratio would be 2.88.
But I have found other references, such as the Lenny Lipton Super 8 book, where he states that the super 8 frame is 5.46mm x 4.01mm, which gives an aspect ratio of 1.36, and thus a scope ratio of 2.72.
Which is correct I have no idea, but either way you look at it the aspect ratio of super 8 scope is excessive.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 02:57 PM

Edit/Delete Post

Would love to own Titanic on 8.Scope, letterboxed or even tug boat stylie!

What a film to have on Super 8mm!!

Going back to Paul's and Kevin's Maths lesson, I am certain if I could find a 1:1.75 or even a 1:1.5 ratio anamorphic quality lens,I'd be far happier screening scope films on my particular screen set up.

The super 8 full frame width is often not seen anyhow on many projectors. The Beaulieu shows full width while the Bauer shaves a fair amount off the sides at the gate.
Therefore projected image width and therefore ratio would always differ a little from one projector to another, but agreed Paul, I too feel it's a little too wide on S8.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 04:39 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

The problem with x1.5 or x1.75 anamorphics Andrew is the current prices are high as they are very desirable to the DSLR filming community. You still would have a slightly vertically stretched appearance but it would fill your 16:9 screen without bars. As long as you are happy watching your movies I guess that's what matters but feel free to send me any 'scope prints that annoy you due to cropping or ratio and I will be happy to give them a good home.

I was referring to Raise The Titanic by the way - I don't own the DiCaprio Titanic on Super 8 (too long & expensive) but have the 16mm trailer which looks great in 'scope.

I guess the minutia of exact frame sizes could be measured and remeasured to varying accuracy on every guage Paul, I still like the letterbox look - my cinema screen is only 9 feet wide yet the 'scope frame just looks better and more natural that way to me, we will all have our own projection preferences I'm sure.

I recall the light loss from most of the Kowa & Isco 8/16mm anamorphics is about 1/3 stop so not too bad - Kowa lenses really do vary in quality though - I have owned about 10 different 8z / 16h ones over the years and only one came anywhere near to the Isco for clarity, contrast and edge to edge sharpness.

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 04:49 PM

Edit/Delete Post

As well as the Kowa 8z, I also have a Proskar that is the perfect barrel size for the in built lens adapter ring on the projector.

How do you rate the Proskar scope lens Kevin in relationship to the Isco or even the Kowa?

It looks ok to my eyes but as said, with any of these lenses I've ever tried, I'm always chasing sharpness and clarity I find.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004

posted November 13, 2015 05:08 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Hello Andrew

The Proskar is a good lens but mainly for 16mm as it will give more vignetting when used with super 8 short throw lenses - I was originally a Kowa only user until I tried a couple of Isco lenses - also the Elmoscope II is one to look out for as although it contains Kowa glassware it is 'calibrated' by Elmo for sharpness and evidently their quality control discarded many that were not to standard that would have slipped through as Kowa branded lenses.

There was a thread on here a while ago showing the superb 'scope images Winbert had achieved with an Isco lens:

http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007249

My current Isco is really a 35mm projection lens, but has focussing right down to 5 metres and no vignetting at all right through the Elmo f1.0 lens zoom range. I'm eager to mount this properly soon once Edwin finishes and sells his universal 'scope lens stands.

Kevin

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 13, 2015 05:25 PM

Edit/Delete Post

Thanks for the info Kevin, gratefully accepted and appreciated thanks!

I shall keep an eye out then for others in the future based on what you have just told me.

Edwin is doing a marvellous job it has to be said and the "one for all" scope lens adapter looks fantastic!

Let me know your thoughts on it Kevin once it arrives.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 14, 2015 07:27 PM

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

My Isco lens is labelled 'Iscomorphot 16/2x', and it focusses down to 5ft. The barrel diameter is 39mm. How does this lens rate on the ladder of scope lenses?

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted November 14, 2015 07:32 PM

Edit/Delete Post

"the best" apparently Paul.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Move Topic

Delete Topic

next oldest topic

next newest topic

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2