8mm Forum: Scope vs. Flat Super 8?

This is topic Scope vs. Flat Super 8? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003526

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 10, 2008, 02:17 PM:

Would there be a tendency for scope Super 8 to have a sharper visual quality than flat super 8, as the squeezing of the image would allow for at least the "appearance" of more "density" to the image?

Just curious folks. I ask as I have noticed that, as a general rule, my scope prints tend to be sharper than my flat prints.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 10, 2008, 04:04 PM:

I find the opposite Osi- my flat prints usually screen sharper than my scope prints. My best scope print is 'Grease', a really excellent print which looks great in scope. But whenever I remove the anamorphic lens and go back to flat print projection I always notice the increase in sharpness of the best flat prints. You have to remember that scope projection cuts screen illumination and resolution by a factor of two, plus the extra light loss and contrast loss through the scope lens. Scope can look great on super 8, but you need a GS1200 preferably with a 2-blade shutter, even better with the xenon or HTI lighting, and of course the Elmo f1.0 lens.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 10, 2008, 04:49 PM:

That was interesting Paul, I didn't realize that scope prints project darker, but come to think of it, (recollecting), I did notice that scope prints seemed slightly dark.

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on March 11, 2008, 06:23 AM:

Just going through the additional anamorphic lens is going to reduce the brightness. Then of course the picture is stretched over twice the area thereby reducing brightness further.

The best flat print will always be better than the best 'Scope print simply because of this stretching of the image. Get yourself a print of 'Predator' or 'Commando' to see the best available on 8.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on March 11, 2008, 06:32 AM:

I prefer full frame flat. I do love Super 8 scope for the wow factor, but the light fall-off is a real minus. I do not like widescreen (letter boxed Super 8) as it is low resolution and unless it is masked correctly top and bottom, shows all the bounce and jitter of Super 8 projection.

Interestingly, 35mm scope is brighter than flat widescreen 35mm! It uses a much larger frame and more light can be put through the much larger aperture. This is especially so as most lamphouses in cinemas today do not adjust the xenon alignment when the format is changed going from w/s to c/s so even more light is lost on w/s.

David

Posted by Gary Crawford (Member # 67) on March 11, 2008, 07:22 AM:

It's interesting, but to my eyes ( and I've asked my audience members at various times) the scope prints seem shaper. I'm not sure why, but when I take the scope lens away and refocus, yes, the picture is brighter, but for some reason, appears less sharp. This seems to be true of both my 16 and super 8 prints. I know it's not optically possible, but there is some quality the scope lens seems to give that makes it appear to many people to be sharper. I have a lot of top quality flat and scope prints , but the scope print of Thunderball is sharper, has better crispness and contrast and looks more like 35mm than anything I've ever seen on 8mm. Most people assume it's 16mm.
Steve Osborne of the Reel Image in Ohio has helped me get the most out of my ST1200HD....his superb screen paint, the Elmo 1.1 prime lens, the huge, but ultra sharp scope lens he sells...plus the Osram Xenophot bulb.....all combine to make scope a viable option . I've shown Thunderball outdoors on a 16 foot wide screen and it was quite adequate....with audience members telling me it was like being in a theater. Frankly , I was amazed that there was enough light on the screen. ( three coats of that screen paint helped)

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 11, 2008, 08:39 AM:

I have "Predator" in Super 8 and that film is truly a beautiful print. Super sharp...you set the focus once and that's it. You never have to touch it again.
The best Scope print I have is "Grease" as well. Very, very sharp but I also think that a flat print will always be sharper than the best scope print. However...Super 8 in scope just seems more theatre like. "Star Wars" is not the sharpest print but the added screen image, even though smaller vertically, just seems to be a more impressive EXPERIENCE. I personally wish all films would have come out in scope!

Posted by Frank Picaro (Member # 811) on March 11, 2008, 08:51 AM:

I have to agree with Alan. Scope IS more theater like, and it immerses you deeper into the projected image, while showing everything the director of the feature wanted you to see. The trade off of brightness, and some small loss of sharpness, seems a small price to pay for the enjoyment of widescreen!!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 12, 2008, 06:37 PM:

A top notch Scope print will always look better than "flat" due to the size of picture I have a Red Fox print of "Goodwill To Men" stunning colour very sharp and great sound, other fine examples are the Derann release of "The Neverending Story" one other "She Flies" the maiden flight of the Concorde its films like that suit the Scope format for visual impact, even your humble Tom and Jerry looks good.

Graham. [Smile]

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on March 12, 2008, 08:39 PM:

There's just nothing like watching the last 20 minutes of STAR WARS in super 8 scope! Talk about a WOW factor. Also, particular scenes from THE ABYSS, SOUND OF MUSIC, and others, look so good in scope, the viewer won't notice the slightly less perfect image.

James.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on March 12, 2008, 10:29 PM:

Could the lack of sharpness be due to the scope lensse used?

After all, two instead of one lenses are used in most cases, with two potentially different focal points altogether. I have noticed that when I have a scope print that won't entirely seem to focus, when I take thew scope lense off and use the projector's lense to re-focus (not stretched out), the focus is perfect.

Could this be a factor? If the lense is properly situated AND set the for the proper distance, the image should have it's proper focus.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 13, 2008, 02:03 AM:

Osi
You are right I think the scope lens has to be a good quality one its a pity Elmo and Eumig did not make a range of non-zoom lenses, I am sure that would help one thing you mention about focus made me think [Roll Eyes]

that as you say you can get sharp on the projector lens then try moving the scope focus ring around and see what it does on the screen as an experiment irrespective of what it is supposed to be set at.

Graham. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2