8mm Forum: Super 8 Cinemascope Hmmm.........

This is topic Super 8 Cinemascope Hmmm......... 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=011839

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 02, 2017, 08:19 PM:

Following on from Osi's thread on super 8 stereo.....what do members feel about S8 Cinemascope?
I have several S8 scope films, and I find that scope really adds to the impact of some of them, particularly when combined with a re-recorded stereo track. Example of this are ' Grease, and Lady and The Tramp.
But some other scope shorts and featurette's that I have do not do so well. The main problem is that S8 scope prints crop the vertical height of the picture, so that heads get truncated or cut off entirely. My print of the Carousel promo has a nearly headless Gordon McRae singing If I Love You to the gorgeous Shirley Jones...kind of creepy! [Big Grin]

Also the anamorphic lens tends to produce a softer image on all but the sharpest prints, and you also have a dimmer image.
So just like super 8 stereo, it seems that Super 8 scope is a mixed bag.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 02, 2017, 11:42 PM:

Paul

Its certainly a mixed bag, however the next time you are watching the headless Gordon McRae, run the framing knob up and down, to see if his head is on the frame itself. My guess it will be, but because of the aperture plate its being blanked off.

I often think about having a variable top/bottom aperture plate, but suspect the projector lens rear elements, are to small in diameter for it to work, but do try the framing knob the next time you run some Scope and see what might be missing on your projected image.

Here is a short video I did a while ago running some Super8 Scope films.

https://youtu.be/sbGOMk52j_Q

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on November 03, 2017, 01:38 AM:

Yes a print has to be very sharp in order to look good in scope. For me only a few films fall into this category:
"Titanic" is one. Very sharp and magnificent in Scope. Here is something I uploaded on the fly because someone wanted to see it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNDvv3Esim8
Also the scope trailers I have for "The Big Boss", "Abba the Movie" are both very good. Yes my scope "Last Samurai" is a little soft.
Feature wise on the softer side is "Poltergeist", "Flash Gordon", "Halloween" (that one is really soft..almost unwatchable for me). Now I know that prints vary so it could be I have a soft focus print of the above titles but then again I am a stickler for sharpness and I have a very low tolerance for out of focus prints. It just bugs me. So sometimes its just nicer to have a masked flat print since its sharp all the way around but I do love the impact of Scope on Super 8. It just feels like your not just watching "home" movies but it feels like you are watching a movie in a cinema. It can be breathtaking if the print is right but there aren't that many prints around thats worthy of scope in my opinion. But its a good option to have.
I thought it would be good to make a list of titles that are great in scope but then again all tolerances for sharpness will vary. Its like how some people have no problem with the soft focus print of "The Little Mermaid" but they do acknowledge that it is a defect. But one member said their print had no sharpness problem. They ALL had the same problem because of the flawed negative but like tastes we all experience differently. I use to be a projectionist so maybe i'm a little more sensitive to focus than most.
I think somewhere out there is a White Box Special of "The Fog" feature that I returned to Derann,. It was printed with half of the scope image on the left side out of focus. When you put that in focus the right would go out. A few years later I got a better one. Still not "Titanic" great but much better. Its a mixed bag yes.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 03, 2017, 02:33 AM:

I also agree its very mixed. I also have the scope carousel promo and will put it through at the weekend to check the cropping as i cant recal this. Also agree i cant stand any soft image, you cannot show off the gauge if image is soft especially with todays audience who would more likely ask why not go for blu ray projection. Our fog copy reviewed here is one of sharpest scope prints wev seen along with grease and T2. Personally it does add magnificently to any item we view but like Alan i cannot watch soft focus, its pointless.another winner for us in this format is star wars, its not my favourite film but must say if it was released as a flat version like the original 400 ken release it simply would not work. As it happens that ken first 400 footer was one of the biggest selling films put out on super 8.

Posted by Mark Mander (Member # 340) on November 03, 2017, 02:53 AM:

It's really a case of if it's done well it can look great and if not you don't tend to watch the films or sell them on,I used to go for flat prints as I thought they were easier on the eye,then I gave scope another chance by buying a really good scope lens and it changed my mind,now when I buy something new I do actually set everything up to view it in the proper ratio. I still prefer my flat print of Raise the Titanic though as it looks so much better than the scope print I sold,Mark

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on November 03, 2017, 04:22 AM:

Yes the lab producing the duplication master has to be careful about the degree of reduction.
I remember the Movie Maker review of "Gold" the Roger Moore film, this was a cut down made from a projection print. It was stated that the lab had over-scanned it and several shots showed people with a lot of their heads missing.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on November 03, 2017, 11:17 AM:

I think that both super 8 stereo and super 8 scope are stretching the capability of super 8 to its limit. Let's face it, Kodak had neither of these technologies in mind when they designed super 8 film. Stereo super 8 came about because projector manufacturers found out that the narrow balance stripe could in fact record and reproduce a pretty good sound, and twin track and stereo projectors were hot sellers. Similarly super 8 scope came about as a result of amateur widescreen filming, and some enterprising package film companies, like Derann, offering anamorphic titles.
That is not to say that super 8 stereo and super 8 scope are bad ideas, just that for either one to really enhance the impact of the film everything has to be near perfect, from the print and stripe quality down to the projector and the lens on it.

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on November 03, 2017, 11:47 AM:

A 35mm frame is taller than super 8. If 35mm is 2.35 then it is only natural for super 8 to be 2.66.

And if movie shorts, promos and trailers come from flat master copies (or suppose the movie was shot flat and blown up to scope) cropping is a given.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 03, 2017, 12:23 PM:

This is why I TOTALLY love those Cineavision scope prints that one company, "Animex" actually took the time to produce as, they are usually pretty darned sharp, (though, as some people have correctly stated, to make said prints, they have to make one extra dupe which means a marginal loss in quality) and they do give you the full scope image ...

... but even THEN, you can run into problems.

While i love the Cineavsion digest of "Rooster Cogburn" (and it still has vintage color ... YAY!), when projected, you get a little bit of the actual splice lines showing up on the top or bottom as a slight flash of white, so a slight irratent there.

Also, as some have stated, a lot can be cut off on the top and bottom by coming into the image ...

but boy, when it comes to those great sci-fi films like "STAR WARS", you really HAVE to see them in thier original scope to really get that "immersive effect" that you get with scope!

Great topic, BTW! [Smile]

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on November 03, 2017, 12:57 PM:

I had the Cinevision scope print but the color and the contrast of the Derann version is much better in my opinion. The Cinevision print of Star Wars had a slightly washed out look and the sharpness was a bit under par compared. But the one good thing is that the scene with Greedo actually contains the subtitles. Its probably the closest to the original release that you can find in Super 8. Oh and its titled as Star Wars..not Episode 4 which is cool too.
Yes with Star Wars it definitely has to be SCOPE!

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 03, 2017, 12:58 PM:

Osi, ive been looking out for that scope Rooster cogburn for years, Still looking

Posted by Martin Dew (Member # 5748) on November 03, 2017, 01:01 PM:

I agree that the lens is important. This is a short clip I took of Those Magnificent Men on an 8-foot wide screen using the Eumig S938 and Kowa 8Z. Very good print obviously, but the brightness is absolutely uniform with this lens and ultra-sharp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBVvKWn2sU0

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on November 03, 2017, 01:13 PM:

That clip looks great. How far is the throw?

Posted by Melvin England (Member # 5270) on November 03, 2017, 01:15 PM:

Even before reading this subject or discussing it with fellow collectors, I have always been of the opinion that Super 8 cinemascope went and shot itself in the foot for several reasons.

The big one, as Paul mentions,is the cropping of the vertical image,leaving some heads half cut off. Graham mentions altering the framing button slightly. That is all well and good, but the anamorphic image should have been transferred correctly in the first place. I cannot see a reason to justify this. It cannot be put down to the original film being in a slightly different scope ratio, as I have several cineavision prints that quite shamelessly have black borders at each side of the image if it wasn't quite right.

Super 8mm was fundamentally a flat ratio. At its height of popularity,companies could produce projectors of various qualities and,more to the point, cheap lenses for the masses that could produce a reasonably large picture from a few feet away. Remember, this would have been in the days of televisions being a maximum of 26". The frustration I had with a lot of flat prints is the pan and scan technique that is used quite a lot, and knowing that there was other action going on to the left and right of what I was seeing. Oh, how I wished I had cinemascope. But,hey ho,I wanted to see my movies on celluloid and,as a sixth former with a Saturday job at the time, I was just grateful that my films had sound!

Then came cinemascope lenses and prints. Another problem. The projector room was all set up to cope with a flat image being projected onto a flat screen from a set distance at the back of the room. Stick the bulky cinemascope lense into the projector and suddenly the image travelled half way around the side walls too. So the projector had to be switched off, stand number 2 was dusted down and placed closer to the screen so as to be able to see the whole image across the width of the academy ratio screen.
I could not understand why these lenses had to be so big and bulky and needed brackets in the first place. Surely it would have been better for each of the bigger companies to have produced a lens the same size and fit for their machines as the ordinary ones, with a zoom facility to be able to frame up easier
on a square screen.

Then, as Tom and Alan mention.... there is the focus itself. Generally not as good as flat prints. I appreciate the anamorphic image has been squeezed onto that small square 8mm frame, therefore more information being stored on it, but even projecting it back on my square screen, where the image is probably taking up only about 33% of what a flat print would be,it just seems not quite as good.
It also feels about 10 times more difficult to focus it in the first place.

Please understand, I do like cinemascope and have several films in this format. The problem is that I feel the cinemascope format was not thought out as well as it could have been to appeal to more people. Not everyone has the space to be able to extend left and right of their existing screen and I for one, limit the time I view these films mainly because of the upheaval it can cause.

Just a quick word about stereo

Once again, why oh why do stereo soundtracks not sound as good as ones that have been re-recorded later? Another industry shortcoming?

Just a thought.... Wouldn't it have been fantastic if projectors had been manufactured having,instead of a magnetic head, a miniature rotating barrel head similar to a video recorder so the sound on the stripe would have been as good as digital stereo?

.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 03, 2017, 04:19 PM:

Heres a query regarding super 8 scope len's if you please,
I have ,as you all know, been a collector of many years and started my scope showings using the Isco gottingen that was bought as a starter kits years ago from Derann and it's still going strong and used today, always been happy with the results to. As you will see from the images here is the lens i use, with a bracket to fit the Elmo ST1200HD perfectly, one simple screw to put it on and remove. Also the original box with that universal bracket. I'm sure it will come in handy one day

Now then, i have read a lot of comments on both channels regarding scope and the scope lens's, my question to all you chaps lucky enough to own the Kowa 8Z is this, I use the Elmo 1:1 lens for projection, being very serious, if i had my scope lens then put up the Kowa 8Z is the difference in image truly that much better?

There are two things here, my old screen is now appearing a little off white, so its time to sort that out, thats easy, however, i have read all about the Kowa 8Z and the price of these is now quite high and i would be mightily peed off if i forked out a few hundred only to watch my scope films and think, Really?
Does anyone on here also use the Isco gottingen and if so how do you personally rate this lens?
It is obvious that a better lens will produce a better and brighter image but exactly how do they compare?

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 03, 2017, 06:00 PM:

Tom, sincerely the optics and illumination are so important to get the 'scope show quality right but......it has taken me about ten Kowa 8z (& 16h) lenses to get to the one I have which is as near perfect as I will ever find. The others were all excellent, but the one I have now has the edge, literally, in sharpness and contrast. Sadly they used to be available for less than £100 but have crept up to high prices now driven by the DSLR camera enthusiasts so £400 to £700 is the range at the moment.

The Elmoscopoe II lenses are also ideal for super 8 scope - again in the £400 plus bracket - and even better some of the larger Isco lenses - one I had sold for £1300 though which to me seemed like madness but the funds were handy to spend on more films.

The problem is until you get the lens and use it for projection in your own set up you will never really know if you are happy with the improvement for the cost - it is not a night and day upgrade and I could never hand on heart tell you to spend that sort of money you would really need to try the lens first.

I find it a bit sad so many on here seem unhappy with super 8 'scope - the little frame is pushed to its limits even with some larger screen 4:3 so why the quality of 'scope results (and for that matter stereo sound) has now become a moot point of such negative discussion for some long term collectors is a mystery to me.

Kevin

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on November 04, 2017, 02:06 AM:

I LOVE scope but we are just having a healthy discussion on the merits and drawbacks of this in the Super 8 format. Its helpful if you are thinking of dipping your feet into this realm of Super 8 commercial prints.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 05, 2017, 09:07 AM:

From what i gather its quite simples,
the draw backs are, early prints were very hit and miss as far as sharpness is concerned, and of course the slight cropping that does occur, i have to say we do only have 61 scope films of which 32 are trailers and promos, due to this small amount the drawbacks dont bother us, where we have had early releases that were soft we sold them on. There is no doubt when you view a super 8 in scope it does have so much more impact on the screen but to get that impact you do need a scope screen otherwise as said earlier, you loosing half the image size using your normal 4:3 [Wink]

I will also add, where i thought heads were slightly cropped i have given a very small tweak of the frame line and it more than often does improve it, you think the frame lines correct but it can still take a small adjustment.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on November 05, 2017, 09:32 AM:

61 Scope films is not a small amount! 😆 I only have around 10 Scope features left and a handful of trailers and digests but the ones I've kept are the good ones.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 05, 2017, 09:52 AM:

Thats mine and my Brothers collection, its all one these days Alan, has been for years and we just swop with eachother as and when. I'm fortunate to have a fellow family member as a collector as well [Wink]

[ November 05, 2017, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 05, 2017, 11:27 AM:

I must admit I was a bit grumpy and over critical of what I read as a negative bias in this thread to super 8 'scope projection, and can now see there are thankfully many still enjoying this aspect of the hobby.

Just a thought on the best 'scope prints to go for, Tom, my experience has been the opposite of yours, with just about every first run LPP or Agfa 'scope print I own trumping the later prints in every way, in particular Kempski and Lone Wolf prints looking so much better than the later Derann reprints.

Kevin

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on November 05, 2017, 11:43 AM:

Well I think squeezed scope prints are better than the flat letterboxed ones that some companies released such as the Marketing "Grease". These give really high grain and low brightness.

Yes scope 35mm prints used the full frame height and I suspect some labs that had adjusted equipment when using top & bottom cropped 1.85:1 masters (not 1.66:1) didn't properly reset for reduction when making the 16mm negative from a print adding to the cut off.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 05, 2017, 11:58 AM:

Tom

That confirms it, that adjusting the framing the image in many cases is there, but because of the aperture plate you just cant see it...right who is for making an adjustable aperture plate? [Smile]

Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on November 05, 2017, 01:21 PM:

What do you need Graham ?

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 05, 2017, 01:26 PM:

errrmmm, not me Graham, but there are some very clever blokes , (and ladies) on this forum who i bet could. I have been reading a couple of superb conversion threads on here. Great stuff,

Kevin, Derann scope trailers are always seem very good for quality and as for feature films or cut downs, probably the 80s onward Derann and other companies items, for example, we do have the great escape and the Magnificent 7, Great escape is "ok" magnificent 7 (for me) is a bit disappointing, a little soft, The Fog, Pearl Harbour, Gladiator and Grease in particular are 1st class, We also have the 400ft version of Dracula prince of Darkness, its good but not as good as the later stuff. Does that make sense? [Wink]

Our Star Wars is also good but some parts do seem a little on the soft side. i know on this particular film its an advantage, (same as any film i guess) to have a copy off the first run.

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on November 05, 2017, 03:51 PM:

All those sound great Tom. I was just recalling some of John & Keith's shows at the BFCC and the amazing spectacle of 'scope on the 25ft wide screen there at Ealing Town Hall - El Cid, Gladiator, Supergirl, The Matrix, Terminator 2 extracts, stacks of 'scope trailers too - all projected using the Elmo GS1200 Xenon / Elmo GS1200 HTI, Elmo F1.2 long throw lens and Kowa 8z 'scope lens - the ideal equipment shopping list for super 8 'scope shows.

Kevin

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on November 05, 2017, 07:26 PM:

Paul

Once I have finished working on my baby Bauer U4 35mm projector I might just put my thinking cap on [Roll Eyes]

as they say "where there is a will there is a way". I remember some Std8 projectors you could operate a little lever that opened and closed the gate slightly.

However as Tom mentioned, there are some very clever folk on this forum of late, which might be able to come up with really good ideas.. [Smile]

Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on November 06, 2017, 01:12 AM:

No problem Graham, get your ideas down on paper, or at least tell me what is needed i'll get my thinking cap on, 35 years in engineering and fixing cars, lends you having to come up with quick solutions when there is no one around to ask....

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 06, 2017, 06:27 AM:

Kevin, i forgot about the Matrix Freeway Frenzy excerpt, i saw this at the BFCC when it was announced and remember how good it looked and sounded on that huge screen, pure luck had it that one came up with Barry and Indi 8 so i snapped it up, this particular one is a very good example of how good scope can look on 8 and as its all action you dont notice any cropping.

Posted by Mike Blasko (Member # 5867) on November 06, 2017, 12:37 PM:

I'll have to agree that the best Scope prints out there are in my opinion the earlier/original Kempski prints. West Side Story specifically is pretty close to at least 16mm. Many of the later Scope titles (I'm looking at you Agfa) have a softer more washed out look.

LPP Derann's are good, but i'd still say 80% as sharp as a Kempski.

In general, Super 8 and 16mm scope both tend to have almost an aperture issue in my opinion. I almost wonder if slower lenses/brighter lamps contribute to the better images on 35mm. My biggest complaint even on the Kempski's isn't the print itself, it's the softness of the projection side of thing. Hard to explain, but I think it's a light/lens situation as much as the prints.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on November 06, 2017, 12:52 PM:

Kempski, is there any listing of films they released? I have heard there items were very good.

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on November 06, 2017, 01:04 PM:

I would certainly agree with that, Mike, as I have seen the original Kempski's in many cases and the later Derann reprint. A good example of this is the Kempski "Ben Hur".

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2