8mm Forum: Jurassic Park (Super 8 Germany)

This is topic Jurassic Park (Super 8 Germany) in forum 8mm Print Reviews at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000525

Posted by Francisco Javier Herrera (Member # 3532) on August 12, 2013, 03:47 AM:

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 12, 2013, 12:46 PM:

Could you add a review with it? Nice screenshots, though, very sharp print.

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on August 12, 2013, 03:18 PM:

I've been thinking about getting this print. It looks brilliant! And yes I second the request for a review.

For instance are there burned in subtitles? It looks to be a flat print?

Posted by Oemer Yalinkilic (Member # 86) on August 12, 2013, 04:06 PM:

The original movie is also flat and was not shot in cinemascope.

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on August 13, 2013, 05:25 PM:

Weird! It's been cropped to 16x9 for many releases then. I didn't realize that. I find that strange since so many big budget films are shot with Panavision or other widescreen deployments. Esp. Spielberg films.

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on August 14, 2013, 12:26 AM:

I recall working in a small arts centre when this came out. As we had no masking plate, we had to project the full 35mm image. I am pretty sure the only widescreen moments (1.85:1) were on some of the effects shots. The rest of the film was academy ratio (4:3).
Almost all theatres would have screened it masked at 1.85:1

Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on August 14, 2013, 03:12 AM:

Aspect 1.85:1
Remember seeing it at WB upon release in '93 and the cinema was packed full to capacity. A very memorable film which has been much messed around with ever since.

Posted by Flavio Stabile (Member # 357) on August 14, 2013, 03:55 AM:

In some months it will be re-issued again in cinemas with a 3D version...
Could it be avoided?

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on August 14, 2013, 09:00 AM:

Can't speak for Italy but the 3D release you speak.of already happened in the U.S. sometime ago.

Posted by Flavio Stabile (Member # 357) on August 14, 2013, 02:57 PM:

of course, I'm referring to Italy, where it should be presented on next winter...

[Wink]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on August 15, 2013, 01:55 PM:

Don't the call it Super 35mm. They use all the frame area, and then mask for various formats.

Probably use by the average director who is unable to be creative to use Cinemascope type frame.

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on August 15, 2013, 09:43 PM:

I think this is more on the DP's end. Many Spielberg films are CinemaScope which is what makes this strange.

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on August 16, 2013, 03:52 AM:

No I think the director would have the final say nowadays.

Back when the studios were running the show, the companies themselves would dictate the format to most productions, with the exception of the Cecil B. DeMille's Hitchcock's and a few others with more power.

James Cameron seems to be one who uses super35mm.

Have a look at these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WghZiiopS2E/Tj5mDwvS5KI/AAAAAAAABAw/5LG3MGmgD-s/s640/35+mm+-+Super+35+mm.JPG

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=super+35mm&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 16, 2013, 10:10 AM:

I have one, the sound was awful, but Derek Simmonds re-recorded
it for me, now spot on.

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on August 16, 2013, 06:23 PM:

Hugh how much was it if you don't mind me asking?

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 17, 2013, 05:32 AM:

Hi Ernie, it was a very expensive film at the time,if memory serves
me, I think it was about £350.00.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on August 18, 2013, 04:46 PM:

Spielberg shot Jurassic Park flat (flat meaning 1.85 NOT 1.33 or 4:3) because he thought it would make the dinosaurs seem "taller" by not having as much width in the image.

Also in the professional 35mm cinema world, just because there is image on the entire frame in no way means it is supposed to be projected. If you watch a 35mm JP print with a 1.33 aperture instead of the intended 1.85 aperture, you will see boom mics and matted scenes down to 1.85 because it was never supposed to be projected. That's the point of changeable aperture plates in professional 35mm equipment.

Without doing a direct comparison, there is no way to know if the 8mm print is the original full frame and should be masked, or if it is 1.33 within the intended 1.85 frame.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on August 19, 2013, 08:14 AM:

Brad is spot on there, if anyone has the "Master of The Majicks",
Vol. three, on page 231 is a superb example. I t shows a still
from "One Million Years B.C", where cavemen are perched on a
small movable stage (during the cataclysm) where the edge of
the miniature can be clearly seen, as Mike Hankin explains, this
is the full frame image that will be cropped for theatre and video
use.

Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on September 17, 2013, 11:22 PM:

I saw JP on 35mm on an ebay auction recently, it was the same, 35mm open-matte so the effects shots were wide, but the live plates where all full-frame. Very interesting!

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 18, 2013, 12:45 PM:

Not actually dealing with Jurrasic park, but just to mention ....

a number of super 8 optical features, that were originally shot 35MM flat, were printed onto super 8 optical prints without the letterboxing which would have been supplied by the individual movie theaters. A case of this is the super 8 optical feature of "Greystroke: The Legend of Tarzan" in which the last shot before credits of the jungle landscape, can be clearly seen to be a lovely matte painting, as you can see part of the "easel" in very top of the frame, (which held the matte painting in place).

Posted by Chip Gelmini (Member # 44) on September 26, 2013, 09:04 AM:

Be advised purchasing this movie on super 8. Many of the prints have trouble with the mag stripe staying on the print.

I had a copy of this movie the sound was terrible. I almost had it redone but then sold the print bought a video projector and the DVD trilogy package.

Many of you know me for loving super 8 and that has not changed. I waited such a long time (9 months after deposit) to get this film print and it was very frustrating to have received such a bad copy.

I am quite sure who ever bought it from me is pleased because he had the equipment to do the re-dub. But the soundtrack coming off the print, and I had found one section about four inches long that was fragmenting (spliced it out) really bothered me.

The picture quality however, was very good. The print appeared to be mastered on 7 X 600 foot reels of heavy thick acetate - which I believe was the same as the theater prints on 7 reels @ 2000 feet. Because the super 8 print had the original lab cues for changeovers at the end of each reel.

Sadly this was the last time I had bought a brand new super 8 feature.......not because this was a sucko of a print....but as we all know when was the last time a new feature on super 8 was available?

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 26, 2013, 01:21 PM:

I didn't buy the whole feature (as I quite frankly couldn't afford it), but I bought the first 30 minutes of the last STAR WARS feature to come out, and the picture quality really was superb!

Posted by Adam Deierling (Member # 2307) on March 21, 2014, 09:34 PM:

I am sure there are other super 8 prints made open frame. My question is, are there any ways to mask the image to the proper 1.85 ratio? I know 35mm uses aperture plates. Is there anything I could use on my gs1200?

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on March 24, 2014, 01:37 PM:

Adam, many super 8 prints were printed open gate from 35mm originals that were intended to be projected 1.85:1 in cinemas.

There is a whole old school 3:4 TV version debate here, but perhaps for another thread...!

One 8mm that always springs to mind regarding this topic is Derann's 2 x 600ft version of "Gremlins", produced form an edited 35mm print.

There is variable soft masking throughout, and during the second part, about twenty minutes or so are hard-masked (black masking top & bottom frame) to 1.85:1.

This is because one of the original 35mm release reels was hard masked at the director's request (Joe Dante - a real film fanatic; I can only guess that there were undesirable things on show in the open gate that he really didn't want to risk sneaking onto screenings due to incorrect racking; puppeteers???, etc.??)

Anyway, it serves as a great reference for where the 1.85:1 framing should be.

Sadly, there isn't really a practical way to mask an 8mmm projector gate (although I guess someone here may have a solution!!!). Masking post-lens, as it were, is not good as it degrades the entire image.

The only real solution I found was screen masking.

I've generally used black felt screen masking with the ability to alter it top / bottom / side for various presentations.

With it set to the "hard mask" sections of Gremlins, the entire print runs in 1.85:1 as it should.

Ok, if you look at the top and bottom borders, you can often see overspill, but with a good black absorbent material, most audiences don't notice and you screen the 8mm version as it was meant to be seen theatrically. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2