8mm Forum: My scope "King and I" has 2.85 aspect ratio, is this correct?

This is topic My scope "King and I" has 2.85 aspect ratio, is this correct? 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=007516

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on October 09, 2012, 05:37 PM:

I always think that the aspect ratio for movie are 4:3 (1.33) for flat film or 16:9 (1.77) for widescreen.

And for some classic they use higher ratio until 2.35 (widescreen).

Last night I just screened "The King and I" with Isco anamorphic 2x lens.

The widest screen that was still OK to my eyes reaching 153". So I measured the height and found it was 53".

Therefore the ratio was 150:53 which comes to 2.83. So I round it up to 2.85.

Is it the correct ratio for this film?. The film is labelled as "Cinemascope".

Here are some pictures:

What do you think?

BTW, here is a picture from far when I projecting the film with 2x lens, and it filled the whole wall. The throw distance was around 6 meter.

Kidsd enjoy the movie [Wink]

cheers,

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on October 09, 2012, 07:31 PM:

I think it looks very impressive Winbert, that shows just what these
little projectors are capable of. The wide screen certainly gives
impact.As I stated in a different thread,I projected nearly 25'
wide with anamorphic (this was in a totally blacked out room)
and I was amazed at what the Elmo ST1200 was capable of.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 549) on October 09, 2012, 09:05 PM:

Winbert, most Super 8 and 16mm scope prints are 2.66:1 which is a slight crop top and bottom from their correct anamorphic ratio of 2.35:1.

Kind and I was a rare Cinemascope 55 production meant to be projected at an aspect ratio of 2.55:1. Given that it was also blown up to 70mm release prints as well as the 2.55:1 35mm anamorphic releases it probably ran in many different aspect ratios.

Cineavision Super 8 prints were printed to avoid the Super scope crop by printing a narrower image on the Super 8 print to preserve the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

Posted by Joe Balitzki (Member # 438) on October 10, 2012, 12:52 AM:

David is spot on. "The King And I" had a special aspect ratio as it was filmed in CinemaScope 55. It was indeed re-released on 70mm in 20th's "Grandeur" Format. Grandeur was 20th's experiment in widescreen nonanamorphic filming and presentation which was used in the very early sound period. Only a handful of films were shot in it due to its additional cost. And only a few theaters were able to afford installing the equipment for it. Most of the Grandeur films did poorly at the Box Office upon their release even though most prints were in 35mm from the 70mm Negative. After spending the money to equip themselves for Sound, theaters balked at spending more money for a 70mm format. Only two films were shot in CinemaScope 55 because Darryl F. Zanuck realized that it was similar enough to TODD-AO to not warrant the expense. The studio bought stock in TODD-AO and switched over to it for their Big Budget Extravaganzas. At that time, the public knew what TODD-AO was. Its reputation for quality made it extremely profitable despite the high production costs.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on October 10, 2012, 11:02 AM:

quote:
Kind and I was a rare Cinemascope 55 production meant to be projected at an aspect ratio of 2.55:1.

David, if that is the case, why my film is projected 153:50 giving the ratio to become 2.85?

So Did I incorrectly project it?

Posted by David M. Ballew (Member # 1818) on October 11, 2012, 02:37 PM:

Winbert, I would suggest three further tests.

First, project the ‘Scope print at a closer throw—that is, with the projector and screen much closer together and a much smaller overall picture size. Measure that picture and calculate that aspect ratio. If there is a discrepancy, it may mean that your anamorphic lens “unsqueezes” the picture at different proportions depending on the throw distance or the focus setting.

(By “focus setting,” I mean the focus on the anamorph itself, not the spherical lens built into the projector.)

Second, try changing the distance between the rear element of the anamorph and the front element of your spherical lens, being very careful of course not to scratch or damage any glass in the process. The size of this gap can sometimes affect compression ratios for anamorphic lenses. (I realize this test may not be possible if your anamorph is directly mounted on the projector, but off the top of my head I don’t recall what setup you use for your presentations.)

Third, project a non-anamorphic print using only the spherical lens on the projector. Measure that picture and calculate that aspect ratio. It may be that the aperture in your projector is not precisely 1.37:1 (or 1.33:1, or whatever), although I very much doubt this will turn out to be the case.

Nice, bright picture you’re getting, though, no doubt about that. And let me please add that your contributions to this forum are one major reason it is such a fun and useful resource. Thank you for being you, Winbert!

[ October 12, 2012, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: David M. Ballew ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2