This is topic How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens? 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=010317
Posted by Jason Schmidt (Member # 4526) on November 12, 2015, 09:42 AM:
I'm considering buying a scope print that seems to be a decent price for a film I'd really like, but the trouble is I don't have a scope lens and likely won't get one for awhile. My question is, are scope prints watchable without the scope, or do they look completely terrible? Are there any pictures of what a scope print looks like projected without a scope lens?
Also, has anyone tried any of the ussr 35mm lens that are for sale on ebay? (for instance see link: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/35-NAP2-4-80-120mm-60-2-PROJECTOR-ANAMORPHIC-Attachment-Lens-Russian-Big-USSR-/171993392511?hash=item280b9ae57f:g:hzYAAOSwhcJWQGVC) Do they work well with super 8 scope prints?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 12, 2015, 10:07 AM:
Hello Jason,
I project scope Super 8mm films quite regularly without a scope lens
In fact, in some ways, I would rather project them without an anamorphic lens because they remain brighter and sharper without the lens in front of your projector lens, than with.
If you snoop around on similar forums to this, you will see some screenshots of mine of one or two features in scope without an anamorphic used.
They obviously look slightly distorted and squeezed in their aspect, but they are still enjoyable and highly watchable in my book as sharpness and brightness is everything to me with Super 8mm projected images.
Even the very best anamorphic lenses like a Kowa 8-Z have a dramatic effect on the sharpness and brightness of the resultant projected image.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 12, 2015, 10:11 AM:
One of my first Derann prints fell into this category. I may not have even known about CinemaScope at the time. (Gimme a break! I was collecting only silents two months before that!).
They are watchable: maybe a little comical at worst. People look a little lanky. Car tires are oval instead of round. People riding horses look about 20 feet tall, fat people like they've been on a diet!
The lenses are a pretty decent price: probably down in the range where it would be worth taking a chance.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 12, 2015, 10:13 AM:
And Oliver Hardy looks like a regular guy! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 12, 2015, 10:25 AM:
-but imagine what Stan looks like!
That 'scope print cost me quite a lot over the years. First I found a 'scope lens, but then my screen was too narrow to show it well. Then I got a wider screen, but then I decided I really liked 'scope!
So over the years a film being 'scope was a factor in its favor when I saw it and I've gotten quite a few!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 12, 2015, 10:38 AM:
Andrew is right on about Scope lenses. Even the best will lower contrast and sharpness, the result of more glass being thrown in front of the lens. In the home digital projection forums, there are people who insist that putting a scope lens in front of the digital PJ is better than zooming the image out to the same size picture. I have never bought into that philosophy based on what I have seen with projecting scope films, and I get a superb digital scope picture just by zooming the lens to the same picture height as 4:3 films.
I have found that you can project most scope cartoons and animated films just as well without the scope lens and you get a much brighter and sharper and more contrasty image. In fact I am not much of a fan of S8 scope, it's a bit too much of a 'stretch' for me!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 12, 2015, 12:11 PM:
I equally, would never dream of placing an anamorphic lens in front of a digitally projected image. There are so many options for adjusting the frame aspect ratio on my projector, why even bother?
Makes no sense to me. Ultimately both for Blu Ray and Super 8mm projection, my favourite aspect for home cinema is letterbox ratio.
To my mind, it's the perfect aspect for screen sizes that fit the average British home at least.
You get impact filling depth to the image while maintaining a decent, but not impractical width of image for the average house sized living room.
Cinemascope is spectacular in the cinema where it can be accommodated correctly with impact filling depth to the picture though.
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on November 12, 2015, 02:59 PM:
Jason
I will repeat what I have said many times.
Anamorphic lenses used in cinemas to show 35mm scope prints may not focus down sufficiently to use in the home.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 12, 2015, 03:06 PM:
errrr, well, scope films were designed to be watched with a scope lens in order to give you a "scope" picture and enjoy the very wide screen & it does look much more like the cinema.
Of course placing a lens over the existing one will take away a little of the sharpness and a little of the brightness, but take a couple of the following titles we have,
Star Wars,(not a fanatic or SW nut)
Capricorn one 600 footer
Grease feature.
The whole point of the films in scope is to enjoy the action spread across the whole screen, no way would i want to watch them with everybody looking like there in the hall of mirrors
If you dont like to lose the quality purchase the 4:3 versions,
The only time you can,(in my view ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) watch a scope film without the scope lens is when its a cartoon because the difference is virtually un noticeable. In fact if you have a scope lens and lots of normal cartoons watch them through a scope lens, its great. The only down side is that scope films are only good if the quality of the print is 1st class but when it is the scope image is great.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 12, 2015, 03:13 PM:
True,
There is this one 'Scope Bugs Bunny we have that my son often requests.
-sometimes if it's been a long day I just let it stay squished!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 12, 2015, 04:34 PM:
The lenses I use Maurice, were never designed to be placed in front of a 35mm projector, but you're absolutely correct,they don't work well on Super8 mm Images, not even the very best of them.
I had a £4000 Schneider Cinema anamorphic once and it was not nearly as sharp as the Kowa in front of a Xenovaron lens.
The lenses I use are sharp and completely focussed, just not sharp enough for my liking when you get used to a watching prints through very fast quality lenses already fitted to the projector itself.
Each to their own of course Tom and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but to fill my 10ft diagonal screen in width,means I end up with more top and bottom portions of the screen masked than the actual vertical height that the image occupies.
Not great for me watching a two foot deep image when supposedly a "Big Screen" event.I have a telly for that.
I honestly don't believe any of the live action scope prints I have look at all bad when projected in the usual Super 8mm format.
Certainly John McClain doesn't look 20ft tall with matchstick legs for example.
Anyhow, each to their own I say.
I do use the scope lenses but would really need a 16ft wide screen minimum, to feel anything like satisfied with the depth of the picture I reckon.
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on November 12, 2015, 04:46 PM:
My first scope film was projected onto a small cardboard screen at 45 degrees to the projector bad trapezoid distortion but gave some good effects.
I also remember a Widex convention when one of the amateur films that was in a competition had to be stopped a couple of times to get the right expansion factor anamorphic lens on the projector. They didn't have the right one 1.5:1 and 2:1 did not work it must have been filmed with the rare (Henri Cretien) Hypogonar 1.75:1 real Cinemascope lens that gives 2.35: screen ratio from 4:3 film.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 12, 2015, 07:51 PM:
Sorry folks but I disagree about not using a Scope lens on a Scope film. If you want to watch a Scope film, then a Anamorphic lens is a must. Films like "She Flies" on the Concorde.... "The Never Ending Story".....MGM "Good Will To Men" are just some examples of films that must be projected with the proper lens.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 12, 2015, 08:18 PM:
Yes Graham, I agree, but perhaps more so for the larger gauges than ever for super 8mm.
That is of course, unless you can accommodate a 16ft wide screen in your screening room, unlike me.
I've tried the Sound Of Music on 8 at 21ft width, and although totally immersive as an image, it is very grainy at this magnification it has to be said.
I'm sure 16mm is the gauge to project if you love scope films.
Better still, 35mm.
Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on November 12, 2015, 08:23 PM:
Jason,
Screening scope films without an anamorphic lens isn't really bad, especially for checking out newly acquired films for overall quality and/or flaws; but eventually you'll want to get one to enjoy the full cinemascope experience... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 13, 2015, 01:06 AM:
Andrew
There is a lot of good stuff on Super8 as mentioned above that I project on a screen that's only 11ft wide. In fact its really got nothing to with how big your screen is, its to do with projecting film at the "correct ratio".
Considering the cost of buying Super8 prints, why would anyone not project it as it should be? is beyond me ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
PS. Projecting "The Sound Of Music" on a 21ft screen of course will look grainy ....try something smaller
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 02:45 AM:
I am truly shocked that any of us would be happy to watch a 'scope print projected flat or vice-versa. I rate 'scope projection of any real film guage as the epitome of what our hobby has to offer - please at least tell me you don't subject audiences to watch your 'scope films this way?
Kevin
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 03:48 AM:
Kevin,I don't give public screenings unfortunately to anyone in the family or outside,you'll be pleased to hear ha ha.
Nobody other than my collecting friends locally are even remotely interested in film sadly.
They all watch the digital projectors I have and have done from day one, just not cine film.
To Graham. I agree entirely with your comments of course Graham, problem is, for modest living room friendly widths, then we are back to no depth to the image and more area of screen not used than that occupied by the picture. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's just preferences and opinions at the end of the day,just as many other aspects of the hobby are. It's good to hear all others opinions here. That's what it's all about and I value everyone's here.
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 04:18 AM:
Hello Andrew
Just a thought then - when projecting to friends and family using the VP do you also use horizontally squished non-anamorphic 4:3 or 16:9 ratios only as surely the full 'scope picture ratio of Cinemascope Blurays and DVDs would still give you reduced picture depth regardless of whether cine or video projectors are used?
Kevin
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 05:04 AM:
I do tend to either use the 16:9 version of the disc or use the "just fit" option on the menu to fill the screen completely into its borders.I like every pixel of the panels utilized wherever possible.
I otherwise do put up with the blank bars if the film particularly lends itself to scope. Depends what it is really.
Most of the animated Blu Ray discs I have fill the screen natively I have found.
As I already said,for me personally,the main thing to me is the quality, sharpness,contrast and vibrancy of an image over and above a slight bit of cropping here and there or some squeezing if necessary.
If I had a bigger screen, I'd always use the scope lens where appropriate, but as I have the largest I can accommodate, I prefer the depth of the screen to be filled first and foremost.
If I could get an odd ratio scope lens, say 1.75:1 for example, then I would use that to fill the screen completely and have almost the correct width of image.
2.35 is just too wide for my preferences.
[ November 13, 2015, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on November 13, 2015, 06:00 AM:
Andrew, you had better avoid the Blu Ray of Ben Hur then in its original 2.7:1 ratio.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 06:08 AM:
Ha ha ha. I would need two of my screens side by side to show that one then Brian!
I have the 3x400ft letterbox S8 version, so I will stick with that then.
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 13, 2015, 06:43 AM:
Using a ten foot screen is one big pic, that's brill, my Brother uses a ten foot to. In my home my permanent film room uses a 6 foot screen for the 4:3 then when doing scope the 8 foot wide 16:9 screen goes up,then you do see a huge difference between the normal and scope films. Have to say i fully understand that if you use such a big screen as normal then using the same screen for scope would have the reverse effect and actually make the film look smaller.
The reason i use the more modest size is simply because not using the lens on full or almost full zoom gives a much better image in terms of brightness, contrast and sharpness.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on November 13, 2015, 06:54 AM:
Andrew is right about the smaller size of a scope print on your normal screen. My scope projections are better (regarding the size) projected on my (white) wall.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 07:10 AM:
Thanks Dominique, but it's all about preferences and opinions I reckon.
No right or wrong here as with many many discussions to do with our hobby. It's simply just whatever people prefer when they are viewing their favourite films.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on November 13, 2015, 07:20 AM:
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.
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 08:27 AM:
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
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 13, 2015, 08:37 AM:
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...)
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 08:56 AM:
Steve, the solution is out there, all that needs to be done is to develop and market it:
ANAMORPHIC GLASSES
Kevin
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 09:13 AM:
I shall promise to use my scope lens more often Kevin.
I consider myself well and truly told off! Ha ha ha
Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on November 13, 2015, 09:15 AM:
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
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 09:21 AM:
Andrew
Your method of un-decompressed 'scope projection really needs a trade name:
Ladies & Gentlemen I give you....... Woodyvision !
Kevin
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 09:22 AM:
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.
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 13, 2015, 09:46 AM:
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!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 09:53 AM:
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 10:13 AM:
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
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on November 13, 2015, 10:40 AM:
'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!
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 11:23 AM:
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!
I thought "Dolly" always looked like that Kevin btw!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 13, 2015, 11:57 AM:
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.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 13, 2015, 12:03 PM:
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.
Posted by Jason Schmidt (Member # 4526) on November 13, 2015, 12:05 PM:
Ben Hur did use the Camera 65/Ultra Panavision with 2.76:1 aspect ratio
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 12:37 PM:
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
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 13, 2015, 02:39 PM:
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.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 02:57 PM:
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.
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 04:39 PM:
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
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 04:49 PM:
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.
Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 13, 2015, 05:08 PM:
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
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 13, 2015, 05:25 PM:
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.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 14, 2015, 07:27 PM:
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?
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 14, 2015, 07:32 PM:
"the best" apparently Paul.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 15, 2015, 10:00 AM:
Thanks Andrew, that's good to know. Isco anamorphic lenses seem to enjoy a good reputation, particularly the ones made for home digital projectors, where they start at over $10,000! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 15, 2015, 10:10 AM:
A little out of my league Paul, just a bit!! Ha ha. Excellent though Paul from all accounts for those with the money.
Still don't believe they're necessary for digital projectors though, unless you're an absolute purist and perfectionist perhaps. At 10K I will be doing without one for mine.
[ November 15, 2015, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 15, 2015, 10:32 AM:
I also use the Isco Cottington anamorphic lens, i think i bought mine brand new ,(i still have the box and the unused stand it came with) for around £60
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on November 15, 2015, 04:37 PM:
Fabulous purchase Tom at that price! (I think it may be an Isco Gottingen BTW )
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2