8mm Forum: Aspect ratio in S/8 'scope prints

This is topic Aspect ratio in S/8 'scope prints 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=004857

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on September 27, 2009, 09:08 AM:

Dear fellow S/8 enthusiasts, after purchasing an Elmo xenon, I started turning these thoughts in my mind, which I'd like to share with you.

First of all, S/8 Scope Prints are struck in such a way as to fill up the whole standard frame, in the vast majority of cases (the only exception I know of is the Derann stunnigly sharp short "Trail Mix-Up"). To achieve this, given the different aspect ratio of the non-desqueezed 35 mm scope frame (which is somewhere near 1:1,2), the lab must cut tiny portions of the original frame above and below. This way, the standard S/8 frame is full BUT when projecting you don't get a 1:2.35 aspect ratio as it should be, but 1:2.66; in my opinion not only is such an aspect ratio too stretched horizontally and thus not always suitable for living-room screenings (or even home movie theatre set ups); you also have to take into account the possibility that some details near the horizontal edges got lost during the process of optical reduction/printing. Indeed this is all too obvious if you see the opening titles of "Alien": one card is really too close to the lower edge. And I take it for granted there can be more examples.

This does not happen with the above mentioned short, which has black sides on the left and right portions of the image, yelding a perfect 1:2.35 aspect ratio. That would be perfect if the frame masking in the projector were cut accordingly.

So I think that in the future perhaps new scope prints (???) should be done like this short; in the meanwhile, people with aklnowledgeable skills in manual manufacturing might perhaps 'concoct' a system to switch the frame aperture from standard S/8 (1:1.33) to scope S/8 (1:1.2). I presume this might be easier with the Elmo xenon as the frame aperture is on the pressure plate, not on the gate as is the case with the 99% of projectors. Perhaps there is a way to replicate the original pressure plate with a system enabling a rapid change from one A/R to another: probably it should be possible to rely on a two-set of plates, one for each A/R and a system to mount the needed one in place before projection.

So I was wondering if any you has ever had 'insane' [Big Grin]

thoughts like this. Do you think it might be doable or not? Do you know any facilities that can replicate the wonderfully machined Elmo pressure plate?

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 27, 2009, 09:35 AM:

The very first Cinemascope films were, of course, 2.66:1. It was only when the need was felt to incorpoate all the sound tracks on the same strip that the smaller aperture was employed.
Because of the physical size differences it is much easier both to make and handle exchangeable aperture plates for 35mm machines. Some of the earlier Eumigs used exchangable apertures for Standard and Super 8; in retrospect it should not be too difficult with them. However, prints have to be used with ALL makes of machines, so I think we have to resort to real showmanship... mask the prints to the correct ratio and use movable (or, dare I say it, remotely variable) masking on the screen in the true tradition of proper presentation.
Martin

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on September 27, 2009, 09:53 AM:

Maurizio, you are correct, the Super 8 aspect scope ratio is 2.66:1. It follows the 16mm scope aspect ratio and whilst not perfect with the crop top and bottom, it was adopted in the 1950's and was the easiest way to do it.

Super 8 of course did have other processes (Dr van Tetering)where the black wings adapted the aspect ratio to its more correct 2.35:1 ratio. These however were not always perfect in quality.

Martin, original 4 track mag scope was 2.55:1 before the optical track reduced the ratio to 2.35:1 (now 2.39:1). Ultra Panavision 70 was a squeezed 70mm format that had a 2.76:1 aspect ratio and original three strip Cinerama had an aspect ratio of 2.59:1, so Super 8 in the home is almost as wide an aspect ratio as has ever been seen.

You can see some of my Ultra Panavision 70 and Cinerama 70 frames and other formats on Marty Harts fabulous American Widescreen Museum site.

The American Widescreen Museum

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on September 27, 2009, 10:41 AM:

I support your ideas 100% and I will NEVER give up on super 8 sound as a format. I just love it too much.

Some Kempski prints were done on super 8 scope at 2.35. One of them I have is Kubrick's 2001. The problem with this print is between the 400 foot reels during the feature, the vertical letter boxing is not the same. It shifts back and forth left and right and is rarely perfectly centered.

And, I feel the best way to get the most out of the 2.35 effect, is to add video projection. As far as I know, most cinemascope prints in theaters are 16 x 9 encoded nowadays. Just read the back of the DVD package for this information. If it was scope in theaters and indicates 16 x 9 on the package, then you're all set.

Now this is not cast in stone. Sometimes a director shoots the movie in SUPER 35. Which I believe, is a flat version at the time of shooting, but allows for scope prints to be released in theaters, but flat versions to be released on other formats. I'm not an expert with this so I really do not know for sure how that works. But I've heard of it. And in rare cases, they shoot the movie twice, one for each given format.

It will be far easier to bite the bullet, jump on the band wagon, and add video projection to your super 8 set up than to try and organize a movement to get more scope features done on the expensive film format. You'll be sitting around watching reruns waiting for that to happen.

I've made this change with no regrets. Obviously, the menu of titles in the stores are endless! And so easy to purchase price-wise and locate!

Long live super 8 sound as well!

Chip G

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 27, 2009, 10:43 AM:

David,
The Widescreen Museum Site you quote confirms what I said...
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cinemascope_oar.htm

You are forgetting the ORIGINAL format of "The Robe" (which I am old enough to have seen when it first came out!) which used a Sepmag sound film to carry the necessary tracks. This was actually installed and used in a number of leading cinemas in the US and UK, but abandoned quickly in favour of 2.55:1. But the picture was actually shot at 2.66:1 and later trimmed to the new ratio.
The change to 2.55:1 was because smaller cinemas (theaters) objected to the cost of the SepMag equipment.
As enthusiasts cannot carry all the different ratio anamorphics that would be needed for all the different formats standardization on 2:1 "squeeze" with print and screen masking is the only sensible option.
I used to use a Magnarama for the "squeeze" filming I used to do; this gives a close approximation to 2.35:1 on projection from the 8mm frame.
Martin.

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on September 27, 2009, 12:11 PM:

Do you know of any companies specializing in screen masking? I sthare a (at least somewhat) ready-made solutions which can be used or adapted to the needs of the S/8 enthusiast?

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on September 27, 2009, 01:04 PM:

TRAIL MIX-UP was actually a 1:85 short and squeezed up using the top and bottom frame line of the 1:85 as the top and bottom frame line of the scope frame, thus bringing black in on both sides. This is called "Disney squeeze'. At CFI we called it SRS or 'special reduction scope'.
Super 35mm is actually shot flat as Chip says and final theatrical film is squeezed up to full frame anamorphic. Super 35mm was also used for 65/70mm blowups. This was the case for T2 using a common top 9 field of a 12 field chart as top of the frame 5 field on the bottom. There is also common center using 7 field to 7 field.

This is the way TRAIL MIX UP would look 1:85 with a 12 field chart.

Here's the way it would look on film:

Here's super 35mm extraction if shot for scope extraction:

16x9 is 1:85. Anamorphic films are letterboxed even in 16x9.

I too have some scope super 8mm prints where top of heads are cut off. The 3 prints I have only FIRST MEN IN THE MOON I object to. T2 seems to have enough head room, maybe because of all the action. FANTASTIC VOYAGE there is no problem at all.

I have a few Cineavision prints, mostly cartoons, but some have complained about seeing splices. They should have reduced the frame to 2:40 instead of 2:35, this is the full frame, top and bottom and that is why you see splices.

Does anyone know if there is a 'legal' reason why the frame cannot be reduced the Cineavision way or is it because there is an extra charge for a special setup?

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 27, 2009, 01:08 PM:

Google "Cinema screen masking" for leads.
A traditional cinema near me has variable vertical masks operated by a simple, hand operated, concealed wire rope and pulley system (I'm serious, it works beautifully!) Marks on the rope inside the projection box identify the ratios.
Or buy a two corded curtain tracks, put one at top, the other at bottom. Fix the masking to the sliders and either operate the cords together by hand or by a motor driven drum.
Martin.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 27, 2009, 03:32 PM:

Sadly, i don't think, (except for occasional CHC releases, and the german labs, which CHC uses anyhow), there will be anymore of a chance for scope features coming out. The End has already passed for that.

We're down to shorts, ads and cartoons, but we have had a most excellent run!

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on September 27, 2009, 06:46 PM:

Martin, I was aware of the development work on original scope, but was unaware that a theatre (outside of the Fox studio) was ever equipped to run it. Do you know which theatres?

Things constantly changed during those early months of The Robe and scope, including production commencing in standard (flat) aspect ratio.

I have never seen or known to exist outside the studio a 2.66:1 scope 35mm print. We'd love to find evidence of this.

During Super Panavision/Ultra Panavision 70 development many other aspect ratios were considered and of course Vista Vision could be almost anything depending on the theatre.

Having said all of this I don't mind 2.66:1 16mm scope prints, but am not always pleased with the quality on Super 8 2.66:1 prints; the frame is too small to get consistently sharp prints. I do have some, but others are terrible.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 27, 2009, 09:18 PM:

The image quality has continued to improve over the years on Super, really stunning me a lot of the time.

Cinevision started out really good, (they were, I believe, one of the first to make consistent scope releases), but there were some truly awful scope prints. I remember having a scope 200ft of "Diamonds are a Girls Best Friend", which looked like it was taken from some Marilyn Monroe documentary, and the image was awful, (as well as pretty dark).

The Kempski prints were pretty darned good, along with the Derann's. My recent aquisition of "Revenge of the Sith" (first 30 minutes) has an exquisite image, great focus, and I have had a lot of fun seeing just how wide and sharp I can make it, (covering outside on the side of a barn in the middle of the night ... awesome)!

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 28, 2009, 03:47 AM:

David,
I am working mainly from my own recollections of reports in ACW at the time. I would think the ROXY in New York, where it was first shown in September 1953 for one. It subsequently premiered in UK in November 1953....

http://www.hifimuseum.de/sound-restoration-teil-10.html

SCROLL down to 10.6 "Four Channel recordings in the cinema" where it points out that the 4-channel Sepmag was already in existence for "House of Wax" (which I also saw in it's original 2 strip form).
I haven't found specific UK cinemas by searching the web; but I was 16 at the time and intensely interested in all the new innovations. Being at College in London (yes,at 16!) I was right in the middle of where it all was going on and my memories of those days are pin sharp.
I didn't see "The Robe" until 1954, when the local cinema in Southampton converted, with FULL Stereophonic sound (WOW!)...
and a screen about half the height of the previous one to accomodate the new ratio! I missed the opening in London as I couldn't afford London prices, moving to Southampton for 8 months Practical as part of the course in January 1954, but I presume the cinema would have been whichever one was associated with 20th Century Fox.

EDIT; This is of interest...

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9D06E0D71339E23BBC4F52DFBF668388649EDE

Note the screen dimensions quoted: 68 x 24 feet. Now work out the ratio!!!
Martin

[ September 28, 2009, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: Martin Jones ]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 28, 2009, 09:17 AM:

A question for the experts, (as I'm not) ...

I had a laserdisc of "BEN HUR" at one time, I was quite struck by how wide the image was, as I hadn't seen that wide of a wide screen image, certainly not on Laserdisc. I'm not sure, but I think it was screened or shot on 65MM originally?

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 28, 2009, 09:47 AM:

Osi,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/
2.76:1 aspect ratio 6 track 70mm prints so probably shot on 65mm
Martin

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on September 28, 2009, 12:04 PM:

BEN HUR was shot on 65mm with a quarter squeeze. Here is an article:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/c65story.htm

Some of the Civil War footage from RAINTREE COUNTY was used in HOW THE WEST WAS WON.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 28, 2009, 03:44 PM:

Thanks Martin for that additional info, as well as that great article Larry. A fun read.

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 696) on September 28, 2009, 05:16 PM:

All 4 track mag 35mm release prints, both Scope or flat, had smaller sprocket holes than the normal size used on optical prints.

These sprocket holes were square, and naturally you had to use smaller toothed sprockets. These were known as Fox Hole sprockets.

This meant that all sprockets had to be changed on the projector before showing 4 track mag, and changed back for projecting optical prints.

Failure to do this caused sprocket hole damage that impinged onto the mag track, and made the film unrunnable.

Also we had to degauss the machines every morning, and keep the film away from any electrical fields to ensure that the mag track was not wiped.

Super 35mm ratio test film can be seen here www.cinephoto.co.uk/misc_film_super_35__2_35_1_ratio_.htm

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on September 30, 2009, 10:18 AM:

A funny item about the sprocket holes for mag sound 35mm prints. The sprocket hole size was reduced in width to allow more room for the magnetic stripes and all over town (Hollywood) these prints were called Fox Hole prints.

But at 20th Century-Fox and Deluxe-General they called these C/scope perf prints.

Also the optical center line of the print changed when the optical sound track was added. Originally the dead center of the film was the centerline for the projection lens/gate/screen. When the optical track was added back, the centerline was moved back to the Academy standard. Technicolor correctly made prints which had the proper centerline, but many other labs did not which can account for some "off-center" titles.

The ideal solution for projection would be to change the lens holder and move the projector, most theatres that did make any change at all between 4-track and mag/opt would just change the plate and rotate the projector to center the image on the screen.
John

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 696) on September 30, 2009, 11:54 AM:

Quite right John. I had forgotten about the optical centre changing.

I do now remember working at one cinema where we had concentric lens collars. By turning the lens inside this collar it moved the optical centre to the correct position.

In fact we used exactly the same method to move the optical centre when converting the projector from 35mm to 70mm projection

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on September 30, 2009, 11:32 PM:

Hugh and John, we used concentric collars on 70mm Victoria 8's. They had a turret so the 70mm was always centered and the 35mm was always right when we rotated the turret.

I recall somebody one day used a regular 35mm tape splicer on a Fox Hole print - oops!

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 696) on October 01, 2009, 05:40 AM:

Hello David.

I used the concentric collars on both Victoria 10s, and Vic 8s, and Philips DP70s.

At one cinema we owned a mag sound copy of the CinemaScope promotional film. Pictures of Roller Coaster stuff etc.

I foolishly lent this to another cinema. When they returned it they complained that the picture was jumping, and where was the sound track.

Yes, they had run it on standard sprockets, and even did not have mag sound capability. In fact they had never seen a mag stripe film.
My fault, as I should have checked first that they were able to run mag film.
A salutary lesson for me.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2