8mm Forum: Poltergeist

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Poltergeist - Red Fox (Page 2)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Poltergeist - Red Fox

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted May 19, 2017 02:26 PM

Thanks David

Here is a another short video but this time 35mm

https://youtu.be/LCz5v-Z5gvI

[Smile]

| IP: Logged

Brian Fretwell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1785
From: London, UK
Registered: Jun 2014

posted May 19, 2017 02:53 PM

The only review of a Pan & Scan version of an edited 400ft film verses the scope edit that came in favour of the P&S was that when I dialogue scene where the two speaking were either side of the fame was edited in the P&S version to hide the jump cuts by only showing one or other of the faves at a time.

The possible gain in a scope version is that the Pan & Scan might be one more generation down from the original increasing grain and contrast.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted May 19, 2017 06:43 PM

Crikey, I am completely lost there Brian? [Confused]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted May 19, 2017 07:08 PM

Jason

If you are on Facebook there is about 1 minute worth demo on the Poltergeist Super8 Scope print....its on the BFCC page [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted May 19, 2017 07:11 PM

Seen it Graham and it's a winner...until you see the sharpness of a none overly magnified print!

Nowt missing of note, despite all of the claims! [Wink]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Alan Rik
Film God

Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 19, 2017 09:13 PM

Awesome Dances with Wolves clip. Makes me want to get into 35mm!
I like to project movies in Scope as they really give a cinematic -theatre like feel to your presentation. But sometimes the prints are not that sharp. They are "reasonably" sharp but not as good as a flat print in most cases.
"The Fog" does look great in scope! Not the sharpest print but good. "Poltergeist" in scope is not the sharpest print in scope either. "Halloween" in scope was one of the softest prints I have seen in Scope. But "Titanic" in scope is very sharp. One of the best scope prints I have ever seen. The screenshots of the flat "Poltergeist" look sharper than my scope print. But then again the scene with the Clown and the Boy on either ends of the screen..that needs to be seen in Scope! ah.. Apples and Oranges...

| IP: Logged

David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015

posted May 20, 2017 04:42 AM

Graham thanks again. I already watched it and subscribed to
your channel.
Great stuff and I would like you post more if you can.
[Smile]

--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "

| IP: Logged

David Ollerearnshaw
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1373
From: Penistone Sheffield UK
Registered: Oct 2012

posted May 20, 2017 05:48 AM

Do like scope on any format, the only problem with super 8 is its the wrong shape, and maybe 16mm too. That's why 'Cinevision' came about.

One of the worst I've seen for pan & scan is The Return Of The Pink Panther. It involves a panning shot following a character who is walking to the right faster than the pan. The p&s then keeps him in frame by scanning left. It looks really weird.

--------------------
I love the smell of film in the morning.

http://www.thereelimage.co.uk/

| IP: Logged

David Hardy
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 955
From: Johnshaven Village , Montrose, Scotland
Registered: Jan 2015

posted May 20, 2017 05:54 AM

You are correct there David. Scope is the wrong shape on 8mm
and 16mm. Its a pity the Cineavision/ Animex reductions never
became the standard for both. That way nothing would have been
lost image wise when reducing from 35 mill !
[Smile]

--------------------
" My equipment's more important than your rats. "

| IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted May 20, 2017 06:04 AM

I wonder why the cinevision thing never became the standard. I have to say that the cinevision image was very good and as you say if it was possible to do scope without losing anything why on earth wasn't it done as standard? Why the reduction of image in the common scope format on 8?

| IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 20, 2017 06:49 AM

Although many members here have mentioned this many times, I honestly still don't understand why Cineavision is the most ideal way for scope presentation.

Can someone enlighten me in a simple explanation please.

Cheers,

--------------------
Winbert

| IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted May 20, 2017 07:07 AM

very simply, there is no cropping of heads on the cinevision prints. No reduction. My scope screen is sized up for the remaining 400ft cinevision prints we have, in a simple terms, if i project a normal scope print, then put on a cinevision print i have to zoom up to enlarge the image and it not only fills the scope screen the image is actually bigger.

My scope screen is made in a way that when i project the cinevision print the whole screen left to right and top to bottom is totally filled. When i put on a normal scope print the screen is full left to right but approx 4/6 inches top to bottom shorter due to the cropping.

To be fair we have many titles in scope but rarely notice the cropping. It's never really bothered me but you do see a vast difference when you view a scope film then put on a cinevision film. [Wink]

Hope this makes sense [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Oliver F. R. Feld
Master Film Handler

Posts: 447
From: Berlin, Germany
Registered: Jan 2010

posted May 20, 2017 07:09 AM

I guess, that it has to do with the actual seize of the Super-8-material: if there is only a space of approx. 6mm for the image You will lose more image when You think of the bars on both sides of the Cineavision version.
I own 2001 in Cineavision and the details are not the best.
The Cinemascope trailer is much better in focus and details.
My POLTERGEIST Scope print is also not very sharp. But You should see in Scope, because it was meant to be seen like that when it was made.
Another sad example of a flat Super-8-version is BARBARELLA!

| IP: Logged

Alan Rik
Film God

Posts: 2211
From: New York City, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 20, 2017 08:00 AM

I used to own the Star Wars Scope Cinevision print. While it did have the entire image complete with black bars the image wasn't very sharp. I think its just too much information for that little frame. The Derann Scope Print while it did crop the top of a few heads was much sharper.

| IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012

posted May 20, 2017 08:08 AM

I've never been troubled too much from any cropping on the scope features I have, I have to say.
I certainly cannot recall seeing the tops of heads missing too often anyhow, if at all from the films I have.

It's just the overall sharpness at times that I'm not 100% happy with but then without the Kowa or Isco scope lens in front, they all look perfectly sharp just as their flat prints always did from a certain era onwards.

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted May 20, 2017 11:43 AM

I agree David, which is why I have always loved collecting the Cineavision Animex prints. Fortunately, in most cases, the color has held up well.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 20, 2017 03:10 PM

So why the crop does not happen in 35mm print? Isn't that the proportional cell area (ratio) between 35mm vs 8mm is the same?

If it is the case, when the 8mm is made of 35mm, how some pictures are crop?

Still don't understand.

--------------------
Winbert

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted May 20, 2017 06:31 PM

Thanks David I hope to do some more in the rear future [Smile]

Alan what you need is a late model Kinton 35mm projector with large reels [Cool]

..in fact you could pick one up these days for a fraction of the cost of a GS1200. [Wink]

Winbert with 35mm the aperture plate changes for Scope. With Super 8 its fixed. The next time someone here runs some Scope films, run your framing knob up and down, you might be surprised whats on your frame but you are not seeing it due to the aperture plate. I have often thought about making a variable one that opens the top and bottom up for scope, however I doubt the lens would allow for a larger image [Frown]

| IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003

posted May 20, 2017 09:36 PM

Graham, I knew today's 35mm scope using aperture plate for scope presentation, but wasn't long time ago 35mm used squezeed print, hence the need of anamorphic for desqueezing?

[ May 20, 2017, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Winbert Hutahaean ]

--------------------
Winbert

| IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003

posted May 21, 2017 02:21 AM

Agree with Andrew and as i already mentioned the cropping on super 8 scope has never bothered us. Three best images we have on scope are the fog romancing the stone,(very good image),& grease which is one of the best but i have to say altthough i know there is slight cropping as there is with every scope print,(except cinevision) i have never noticed it or been bothered about it.
Back to poltergeist, im still looking forward to our flat print [Big Grin]

[ May 21, 2017, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Tom Photiou ]

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted May 22, 2017 11:15 AM

Hey Winbert!

To answer you're question, no, the ratio from left to right, (on a super 8 frame of film), is wider than the ratio of a 35MM frame of film, hence the special process. I don't know exactly the ratrio on super 8, and that is something those more knowledgeable than I can answer correctly.

I think it's the same as the ratio on 16MM.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted May 22, 2017 01:47 PM

To be really specific: super 8 scope (and 16mm scope) is not wider than 35mm scope: it is narrower. In 35mm the aperture for scope is approx 1:1,19 so the image is taller than the 1:1,33 image of super 8 and 16mm.
When copying from 35mm scope to super 8 or 16mm scope one loses a bit of the top and the bottom of the image.
When you project 35 scope the aspect ratio is approx1:2,39 (1,9 x 2) with super 8 and 16mm this becomes 1:2,66 (1,33 x 2). So yes it appears wider but, there is no extra with in the image, just less image top and bottom.

| IP: Logged

Stuart Reid
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 720
From: Worthing, West Sussex, UK
Registered: Feb 2009

posted May 22, 2017 04:37 PM

I believe that the Cineavision prints are softer due to having to go one generation further away from the original neg to enable the correct squeeze. At least I think I read that somewhere. [Big Grin]

Should also say, the clip of Poltergeist that was shown at the last BFCC blew my socks off. Sharp as a tack, great contrast and colour and a quality of sound I found hard to believe from that tiny mag stripe.

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted May 23, 2017 12:32 PM

There was a series of articles years ago written by John Clancy in cooperation with another fellow (who's name escapes me at this time), who stated that.

I agree to an extant, but, while the film stock hasn't always held up well, (most have), they have tended to be quite sharp prints. In fact, I have never seen a Cineavision print that didn't boast a good focus, never hard to focus.

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Alexander Vandeputte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 243
From: Belgium
Registered: Nov 2009

posted May 23, 2017 03:05 PM

I have a Cineavision print of "2001, a space odyssey" unfortunately on Kodak SP, so it's pretty brown by now. But besides that this print has good definition and is certainly as sharp as the best 'normal' super 8 scope prints I have.
Cineavision prints don't have to be one generation further away, as they only require a different set up of the optical printer to take the full height of the 35 mm frame into the super 8 frame. The squeeze factor does not change, it's always 2x for commercial scope movies.

[ May 23, 2017, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Alexander Vandeputte ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2