8mm Forum: Which screenformat is better

»	8mm Forum » 8mm Forum » Which screenformat is better

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

Author

Topic: Which screenformat is better

Jeroen van Ooijen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 823
From: The Netherlands
Registered: Mar 2008

posted May 15, 2009 03:54 PM

Hello everybody,

Which screenformat is the best for cinemascope(16:9)and also for flat(4:3)
I don't want a screen with a motor,but one with a tripod.
who has the best advise. [Wink]

It is for super8 movies!

--------------------
Super8 that's the greatest hobby in my life,i was 9 to have my first viewer from GAF.

| IP: Logged

Jean-Marc Toussaint
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: France
Registered: Oct 2004

posted May 15, 2009 04:44 PM

Jeroen, originally cinemascope was 2.66:1, nowadays it is 2.39:1 (it was 2.35:1 until recently). It is a wider image than 16:9 which is 1.78, and 16:9 is a tad smaller than US "Flat" (1.85:1).

So get a larger screen (or build one to cinemascope size) as if you project scope on a 4:3 academic screen, you will have a much smaller letterboxed image.

Here's a good page for film formats.

--------------------
The Grindcave Cinema Website

| IP: Logged

Jeroen van Ooijen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 823
From: The Netherlands
Registered: Mar 2008

posted May 15, 2009 05:01 PM

i want cinemascopesize but also flat,so all in one,but what is the best size for in the house! [Smile]

--------------------
Super8 that's the greatest hobby in my life,i was 9 to have my first viewer from GAF.

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted May 15, 2009 05:37 PM

I suppose it just depends what ratio you like. I prefer 4/3 for large screen watching.
My Video projector is 4/3 so I even watch 16/9 anamorphic prints in 4/3 not pulled out each way if you will so full screen.

On my cine films, the scope prints I have on super 8 ( trailers) I have always watched 4/3 and really like the look of them that way.

Best Mark.

| IP: Logged

Jeroen van Ooijen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 823
From: The Netherlands
Registered: Mar 2008

posted May 15, 2009 05:54 PM

Okay Mark,but i think it is for the effect of it better to have it bigger and greater to watch it.
But i want to know can i watch a movie on a screen like this link : http://www.beamershop24.nl/statief-projectiescherm/statief-projectiescherm_celexon-economy-projectiescherm-met-statief-219-x-219-cm.html
This is the one i maby want to buy! [Razz]

--------------------
Super8 that's the greatest hobby in my life,i was 9 to have my first viewer from GAF.

| IP: Logged

Steven J Kirk
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 873
From: Southern England
Registered: Apr 2008

posted May 15, 2009 06:25 PM

I have a screen set to 16:9 and this what I will paint on the final version. Then have boards top and bottom for scope and on the sides for 4:3. Not perfect and purists may quibble but it works.

--------------------
VistaVision
Motion Picture High-Fidelity

| IP: Logged

David Kilderry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 963
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted May 16, 2009 01:11 AM

I am dealing with this dilemma right now too. I am repalcing the tripod screens with ceiling mounted retracables. I have decided on a classic 1.37:1 and another in front of it for 2.39:1.

The other formats (1.85:1 2.66:1) will just have to comply with these. My difficulty is that I run 8mm, Super 8, 9.5mm, 16mm flat and scope and most 35mm aspect rations. Short of having movable side masking, that I can't have due to the screen needing to retact, I can come up with no other solution.

I have never understood why widescreen TV was formatted at 16 x 9 or 1.78:1 as Jean-Marc points out. It is neither theatrical widescreen 1.85:1 or scope 2.39:1. If it was made at one or the other there would not be the need to letterbox scope and crop widescreen on 16 x 9 TV.

David

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2