Author
|
Topic: How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 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.
-------------------- The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection, Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|