|
Author
|
Topic: Super 8 Cinemascope Hmmm.........
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted November 02, 2017 08:19 PM
Following on from Osi's thread on super 8 stereo.....what do members feel about S8 Cinemascope?
I have several S8 scope films, and I find that scope really adds to the impact of some of them, particularly when combined with a re-recorded stereo track. Example of this are ' Grease, and Lady and The Tramp.
But some other scope shorts and featurette's that I have do not do so well. The main problem is that S8 scope prints crop the vertical height of the picture, so that heads get truncated or cut off entirely. My print of the Carousel promo has a nearly headless Gordon McRae singing If I Love You to the gorgeous Shirley Jones...kind of creepy! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Also the anamorphic lens tends to produce a softer image on all but the sharpest prints, and you also have a dimmer image.
So just like super 8 stereo, it seems that Super 8 scope is a mixed bag.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted November 03, 2017 11:17 AM
I think that both super 8 stereo and super 8 scope are stretching the capability of super 8 to its limit. Let's face it, Kodak had neither of these technologies in mind when they designed super 8 film. Stereo super 8 came about because projector manufacturers found out that the narrow balance stripe could in fact record and reproduce a pretty good sound, and twin track and stereo projectors were hot sellers. Similarly super 8 scope came about as a result of amateur widescreen filming, and some enterprising package film companies, like Derann, offering anamorphic titles.
That is not to say that super 8 stereo and super 8 scope are bad ideas, just that for either one to really enhance the impact of the film everything has to be near perfect, from the print and stripe quality down to the projector and the lens on it.
--------------------
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 03, 2017 12:23 PM
This is why I TOTALLY love those Cineavision scope prints that one company, "Animex" actually took the time to produce as, they are usually pretty darned sharp, (though, as some people have correctly stated, to make said prints, they have to make one extra dupe which means a marginal loss in quality) and they do give you the full scope image ...
... but even THEN, you can run into problems.
While i love the Cineavsion digest of "Rooster Cogburn" (and it still has vintage color ... YAY!), when projected, you get a little bit of the actual splice lines showing up on the top or bottom as a slight flash of white, so a slight irratent there.
Also, as some have stated, a lot can be cut off on the top and bottom by coming into the image ...
but boy, when it comes to those great sci-fi films like "STAR WARS", you really HAVE to see them in thier original scope to really get that "immersive effect" that you get with scope!
Great topic, BTW! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Melvin England
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 707
From: Hull, East Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Feb 2016
|
posted November 03, 2017 01:15 PM
Even before reading this subject or discussing it with fellow collectors, I have always been of the opinion that Super 8 cinemascope went and shot itself in the foot for several reasons.
The big one, as Paul mentions,is the cropping of the vertical image,leaving some heads half cut off. Graham mentions altering the framing button slightly. That is all well and good, but the anamorphic image should have been transferred correctly in the first place. I cannot see a reason to justify this. It cannot be put down to the original film being in a slightly different scope ratio, as I have several cineavision prints that quite shamelessly have black borders at each side of the image if it wasn't quite right.
Super 8mm was fundamentally a flat ratio. At its height of popularity,companies could produce projectors of various qualities and,more to the point, cheap lenses for the masses that could produce a reasonably large picture from a few feet away. Remember, this would have been in the days of televisions being a maximum of 26". The frustration I had with a lot of flat prints is the pan and scan technique that is used quite a lot, and knowing that there was other action going on to the left and right of what I was seeing. Oh, how I wished I had cinemascope. But,hey ho,I wanted to see my movies on celluloid and,as a sixth former with a Saturday job at the time, I was just grateful that my films had sound!
Then came cinemascope lenses and prints. Another problem. The projector room was all set up to cope with a flat image being projected onto a flat screen from a set distance at the back of the room. Stick the bulky cinemascope lense into the projector and suddenly the image travelled half way around the side walls too. So the projector had to be switched off, stand number 2 was dusted down and placed closer to the screen so as to be able to see the whole image across the width of the academy ratio screen.
I could not understand why these lenses had to be so big and bulky and needed brackets in the first place. Surely it would have been better for each of the bigger companies to have produced a lens the same size and fit for their machines as the ordinary ones, with a zoom facility to be able to frame up easier
on a square screen.
Then, as Tom and Alan mention.... there is the focus itself. Generally not as good as flat prints. I appreciate the anamorphic image has been squeezed onto that small square 8mm frame, therefore more information being stored on it, but even projecting it back on my square screen, where the image is probably taking up only about 33% of what a flat print would be,it just seems not quite as good.
It also feels about 10 times more difficult to focus it in the first place.
Please understand, I do like cinemascope and have several films in this format. The problem is that I feel the cinemascope format was not thought out as well as it could have been to appeal to more people. Not everyone has the space to be able to extend left and right of their existing screen and I for one, limit the time I view these films mainly because of the upheaval it can cause.
Just a quick word about stereo
Once again, why oh why do stereo soundtracks not sound as good as ones that have been re-recorded later? Another industry shortcoming?
Just a thought.... Wouldn't it have been fantastic if projectors had been manufactured having,instead of a magnetic head, a miniature rotating barrel head similar to a video recorder so the sound on the stripe would have been as good as digital stereo?
.
--------------------
"My name is for my friends!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Photiou
Film God
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 03, 2017 04:19 PM
Heres a query regarding super 8 scope len's if you please,
I have ,as you all know, been a collector of many years and started my scope showings using the Isco gottingen that was bought as a starter kits years ago from Derann and it's still going strong and used today, always been happy with the results to. As you will see from the images here is the lens i use, with a bracket to fit the Elmo ST1200HD perfectly, one simple screw to put it on and remove. Also the original box with that universal bracket. I'm sure it will come in handy one day
Now then, i have read a lot of comments on both channels regarding scope and the scope lens's, my question to all you chaps lucky enough to own the Kowa 8Z is this, I use the Elmo 1:1 lens for projection, being very serious, if i had my scope lens then put up the Kowa 8Z is the difference in image truly that much better?
There are two things here, my old screen is now appearing a little off white, so its time to sort that out, thats easy, however, i have read all about the Kowa 8Z and the price of these is now quite high and i would be mightily peed off if i forked out a few hundred only to watch my scope films and think, Really?
Does anyone on here also use the Isco gottingen and if so how do you personally rate this lens?
It is obvious that a better lens will produce a better and brighter image but exactly how do they compare?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Photiou
Film God
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 05, 2017 09:07 AM
From what i gather its quite simples,
the draw backs are, early prints were very hit and miss as far as sharpness is concerned, and of course the slight cropping that does occur, i have to say we do only have 61 scope films of which 32 are trailers and promos, due to this small amount the drawbacks dont bother us, where we have had early releases that were soft we sold them on. There is no doubt when you view a super 8 in scope it does have so much more impact on the screen but to get that impact you do need a scope screen otherwise as said earlier, you loosing half the image size using your normal 4:3 ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I will also add, where i thought heads were slightly cropped i have given a very small tweak of the frame line and it more than often does improve it, you think the frame lines correct but it can still take a small adjustment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Photiou
Film God
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 05, 2017 01:26 PM
errrmmm, not me Graham, but there are some very clever blokes , (and ladies) on this forum who i bet could. I have been reading a couple of superb conversion threads on here. Great stuff,
Kevin, Derann scope trailers are always seem very good for quality and as for feature films or cut downs, probably the 80s onward Derann and other companies items, for example, we do have the great escape and the Magnificent 7, Great escape is "ok" magnificent 7 (for me) is a bit disappointing, a little soft, The Fog, Pearl Harbour, Gladiator and Grease in particular are 1st class, We also have the 400ft version of Dracula prince of Darkness, its good but not as good as the later stuff. Does that make sense? Our Star Wars is also good but some parts do seem a little on the soft side. i know on this particular film its an advantage, (same as any film i guess) to have a copy off the first run.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
