8mm Forum: Question for Edwin re: Beaulieu 16x9 Gate

This is topic Question for Edwin re: Beaulieu 16x9 Gate 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=010950

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on September 06, 2016, 09:20 PM:

Hi Edwin-
Just recently one of our members here purchased a Beaulieu HTI 708 which had a 16x9 Gate. This was something I have never seen before.
Here is a video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XS8ROooHDw

And here is a pic of it: 5th picture down.

http://www.s8profis.de/beaulieu-stereo-p-371.html

Is this something that you can fabricate?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on September 06, 2016, 09:45 PM:

Alan, can you tell me what is the benefit of having this 16:9 gate?

I believe this is used for adapted scope (film that is already have black bars on top and bottom so we do not need an anamorphic lens), right?

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on September 06, 2016, 09:59 PM:

I believe..(which means I'm guessing!) that films that are not in Cinemascope i.e: anamorphically compressed and then unsqueezed) when shown in the theaters uses a 16x9 film gate to give the impression of Cinemascope.
I know that when I was a projectionist for a film lab when I had to do a screening I had to know which film gate to use. If I didn't use the correct one sometimes you would see the boom mic at the top of the screen and then the client would pound on the projection booth and yell! Haha....learning the craft under pressure was fun!
But it looks like Beaulieu made a 16x9 gate for the 708 in the same way that the 35mm projectors had different gates. So in theory you could watch "Jurassic Park" on Super 8 and with the proper gate it should like Cinemascope minus the focusing issues. (Blurry edges.) I like the idea and would like to see my films that way. Obviously it would only be the later films that would be improved upon as the older films were designed to be projected as 1:33 ratio.
Our member, the "other" Alan, Mr. Gouger has this gate for his 708. If its possible to be re-manufactured that would be fantastic.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on September 06, 2016, 11:19 PM:

I see...

Yes I was thinking that blurry edges too if we use this 16:9 gate.

I am happy with the original black and bottom bars since it gives us clear straight lines. Not to mention a little dust coming from the film, if it get trapped on the gate will not be seen due to this black bars.

But with this gate, any dust trapped between the gate will be projected...and I hate to see this [Mad]

Anyway overall, for me, to project film meant for widescreen presentation (16:9) is best way projected through scope prints and unsqueezed with an anamorphic lens. This means we do not suffer less resolution compared with this adapted scope.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 06, 2016, 11:24 PM:

It would need to be made of steel Alan. Something so far, Edwin hasn't ventured into so far as I can make out.
All parts tend to be 3D made from polymer.
I think when Beaulieu introduced these changeable gate parts for both the later HIT machines as well as their later high end cameras, it was a with the film maker in mind rather than the commercial film home projectionist, from what I've read in their commercial promotion booklets.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 01:33 AM:

Interesting, Alan. It could be a nifty idea if the gate was easily interchangeable, but don't think that would be possible.

Features that spring to mind are "Aliens", which is hard masked already, whereas prints such as "Predator" would benefit from 1.85:1 gate masking as they are printed "open gate" and include picture area top and bottom which should really be masked by a 35mm projector 1.85:1 gate.

With variable screen masking, you can change the masking to 1.85:1 and zoom out the image to fit (black velvet screen masking helps to absorb light from the top and bottom overspill).

Most modern trailers would benefit also as a lot are printed open gate.

But also, some "flat" features (say Disney's "Aladdin" or "The Lion King" are printed form negatives that are already adapted; actually the sides of the 1.85:1 image are missing, so for these the normal super 8 frame is the way to go.

Also, scope shouldn't really have blurry edges. [Confused]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 07, 2016, 02:16 AM:

The one on Alan G's machine just clips in and out Rob.
Very simple switchover.

Quite a few late models featured this add on.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 03:12 AM:

Oh wow! Didn't know that. (Doh! Should have watched the video!!)

Not a bad idea then if, like you say Andrew, a steel one could be made. [Smile]

I have a lot of trailer reels that would benefit from this. Sadly, don't think the gate on mine is so easy to change. [Frown]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 07, 2016, 03:41 AM:

No the standard rear sprung pressure plate and fixed plate are not the same from memory. You'd need all the parts to make the changeover I think.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 07, 2016, 04:05 AM:

There is no real point in having a wide-screen aperture plate in a 16mm projector. Bell & Howell tried having a variable aperture plate in some models of their 16mm sound projectors but the idea was soon dropped.

There are two methods of producing 16mm projection prints from anamorphic originals. One is to reduce top and bottom frame (letterbox), this can include most of the original ratio. The second is to apply pan and scan. This has the benefit of a full screen image. To achieve this the printing equipment is programmed to move sideways to always include the main part of the action.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 05:00 AM:

Very true, Maurice. But many super prints are the full flat 35mm image that should really be masked by the projector gate to 1.85.1

As a result, often things creep into top or bottom of the image which shouldn't be seen on screen.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 07, 2016, 06:18 AM:

Yes, the Beaulieu we speak of is merely a Super 8mm projector not a 16mm one.

Even if the parts ever were to become available, the fixed plate part screwed onto the rear of the the lens barrel assembly, is the one part that ideally should never be adjusted or removed on these.Even their own service engineers apparently did not like changing out this item.
It's very very difficult to set up apparently and that was using all of the specialist equipment and test jigs etc that they had!

The rear sprung pressure plate isn't an issue, just the fixed pressure plate as I understand.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 06:35 AM:

Yes, Andrew, if it ain't broke I suppose...

I know Maurice is essentially talking about converting original scope or wide format prints to flat 16mm non-anamorphic with masking or pan & scan, a method which of course many early flat 8mm prints also adopted (and TV).

I suppose we're really addressing some Derann flat prints circa mid-1980s onwards made from 35mm negatives or 35mm prints which were designed to be exhibited 1.85:1

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 07, 2016, 06:44 AM:

I too have some of the exact prints you speak of here Rob from this later era of Derann prints.

I don't think i would be willing to alter the machine though to achieve the improvement.
Obviously, it would be perfect however to own a later top notch machine that was already built this way like what Alan G has.
Then of course, the switchable gate would be both useful in this instance and a highly desirable feature on any machine for this use.

It would be a novelty in itself to see the Super 8mm projected frame fit entirely and completely my 16:9 screen in the way a video projector panel does with no overspill.

Having only just watched the video link again this morning, which Alan R kindly posted above, plus having seen the original vendor photographs again of Alan's superb machine here in discussion, it would appear the sprung pressure plate is identical to the ones found on all later machines but the lens barrel housing has been modified in its design to allow the fit of the changeover fixed pressure plate parts.
This includes a machined scalloped shaped recess to the barrel housing as well as precision clips fitted to the top and bottom of the lens barrel housing quite besides the actual removeable gate parts.
All of course would have to fit together with extreme precision given what i was refering to earlier regarding the importance of the actual placement of the fixed pressure plate.

Not an easy thing to retro fit by any means I wouldn't have thought.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 08:05 AM:

I agree, given the painstaking precision required to run super with a steady frame.

A nice piped dream.

Best to stick with zooming out that image for a wider aspect and put in some black velvet top and bottom masking!

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 07, 2016, 08:08 AM:

Either that Rob or pay the £3k to get what Alan has!

Lucky bugger! Best put that e-type on hold Rob 😆😆😁😀

Posted by Tom Spielman (Member # 5352) on September 07, 2016, 10:41 AM:

Is the gate actually smaller in this case?

I know some modern super 8 cameras have larger gates to achieve 16:9 by using the space that was reserved for the sound stripe. It's called "Super Duper" 8 or "Mega 8". Some people modify their own gates but there are issues with the lens alignment in that case.

It's intended for scanning. Not sure how well it work to widen the gate on a projector.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2016, 01:41 PM:

Yes, Tom, a 1.18:1 projection gate for "commercial" prints would be smaller; different to filming with super 8 where certain camera gate mods make the frame larger.

[ September 08, 2016, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Rob Young. ]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on September 08, 2016, 02:40 AM:

I do remember a Council owned hall used for Theatre/cimema presentations (it's the one seen in A Clockwork Orange when Alex is shown to be "cured".) that had some masking attached to the glass in the projection port to prevent spill. It did have 35/16mm facilities and I can't remember which had the masking now. Anyone with the luxury if a separate projection box (not me) could try this.

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 08, 2016, 03:17 AM:

Masking on the projection port. Oh, yes! That's takes me back to the early 70s.

I was with Classic Cinemas when they decided to turn the cinema's derelict cafe into a mini cinema. We had the 16mm Eiki EX-1500 with 6000ft spools. For some reason the screen had no variable masking, so when 'scope films were run the picture overlapped the screen by many feet.

The solution? Simple. Cardboard uprights were stuck on the projection glass to mask off the extra picture. At the start of a 'scope film we ran the opening titles without the anamorphic lens. Very crude, but it worked.

Posted by Edwin van Eck (Member # 4690) on September 08, 2016, 06:01 AM:

I have looked at the movie and pictures of the 16/9 film gate. Producing is ofcourse possible (these have been produced before). But in low volumes in steel, this will be quite expensive.....

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 08, 2016, 06:12 AM:

Plus all of the other precision work that would have to accompany it Edwin on the lens barrel housing.

Probably makes any retro fit now both risky and prohibitive for all of the reasons given earlier.

Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on September 08, 2016, 06:51 AM:

How does this change the way a flat 8mm print is projected?, other than just cropping the top and bottom of the print, sorry I just don't get it ?. Surely that's why we fit a scope lens in front of the standard lens. Sorry gent for my ignorance, this one has baffled me.

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 08, 2016, 07:14 AM:

It doesn't Paul, it simply frames some of the later prints Rob describes,perfectly, as your video projector does in order to fit a modern day 16:9 screen perfectly.

No anamorphic is needed and therefore these prints on 8 offer some of the very best images available from the gauge. No extra planes of glass but with a nice native widescreen image, just like modern day projected DVD or Blu Ray where every pixel hits the screen area.

No projected wasted bars of stray blank light spill to top or bottom.

The issue I have with scope prints on eight, is unless you restrict your screen size drastically in its width, the frame size is so small, images can well do without that 2x stretch magnification on top of the already large magnification ratio required to get Super 8mm looking its very best on reasonable sized home cinema screens like my own.

To me, unless you are screening scope eight prints on something around 6 to 7 ft wide, anything much larger, shows up every single flaw and leads to a degree of light loss and sharpness / contrast losses that I'm never entirely satisfied no matter how extravagant the lens pairing is that is used.

By the time you're screening scope images at seven foot width, the depth of the image is just too shallow for my liking and the overall area of image appears far more salubrious imo left to the traditional aspect ratio, just on Super 8mm.

Give me a good flat print any day of the week on any ratio.

[ September 08, 2016, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 31) on September 08, 2016, 11:12 AM:

Alan having the 16x9 gate is a nice cinematic touch. I think it is actually closer to 1.85:1 to mimic the real cinema flat aperture plate ratio showing the films the way they shown in the cinema. One downside is your losing almost a third of the projectors light output, part of the aperture is blocked and now smaller in size. The light loss is noticeable.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on September 09, 2016, 03:06 AM:

Great idea if you are projecting already 'hard matted' prints but the additional appature would need to be placed close in proximity to the plane of focus or you'll just get a blurry top n bottom to the projected image.

Also unless you are 100% sure of the printing method of your film you could get in a right mess... e.g. adding a 16:9 Matt to an original non 'shoot and protected' academy ratio print would crop important image information. Same goes for full frame 'centre cutout' printing of 'widescreen' matted sources (1.66:1 to 1.85:1) where the edges are already cropped off in the optical printing... additional matting would be ludicrous!

So a great idea provided it's mounted close to the plane of focus and you know the printing and composition path of your intended material for projection.

Unless I'm mistaken I'm sure the 708EL stereo machine I once owned already had variable top/bottom matting built in!?

Best,
Rick

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 09, 2016, 03:49 AM:

I don't know about that Ricky??? [Confused]

Can't say I've seen variable built in top and bottom matting on any of these??????

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on September 09, 2016, 05:50 AM:

Ricky you put "Also unless you are 100% sure of the printing method of your film you could get in a right mess... e.g. adding a 16:9 Matt to an original non 'shoot and protected' academy ratio print would crop important image information. Same goes for full frame 'centre cutout' printing of 'widescreen' matted sources (1.66:1 to 1.85:1) where the edges are already cropped off in the optical printing... additional matting would be ludicrous!"

You didn't see the first Carlton DVD of "Carry on Camping" then. They did that to get "original screen ratio" despite the picture content being nothing like it - rightfully derided by fans on the DVD forum.

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on September 10, 2016, 05:25 AM:

Brian,

That doesn't surprise me at all!

In all my years at ITV as a Senior Telecine Colourist the understanding of Theatrical Aspect Ratios by anyone non technical and client facing was appalling... Had that title come my way there would have been no issues, but sorry to say some channels occassionally used inferior external facilities for financial reasons. You get what you pay for essentially [Wink]

Best,
Rick

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on September 10, 2016, 09:31 AM:

The really funny thing was that when they released a Carry on partwork with DVDs that film was with the first issue - correct picture content and ration for £1.99!!! I bought that quickly, but kept the original for the documentary on it>

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2