Author
|
Topic: How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Photiou
Film God
Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted November 12, 2015 03:06 PM
errrr, well, scope films were designed to be watched with a scope lens in order to give you a "scope" picture and enjoy the very wide screen & it does look much more like the cinema. Of course placing a lens over the existing one will take away a little of the sharpness and a little of the brightness, but take a couple of the following titles we have, Star Wars,(not a fanatic or SW nut) Capricorn one 600 footer Grease feature. The whole point of the films in scope is to enjoy the action spread across the whole screen, no way would i want to watch them with everybody looking like there in the hall of mirrors If you dont like to lose the quality purchase the 4:3 versions, The only time you can,(in my view ) watch a scope film without the scope lens is when its a cartoon because the difference is virtually un noticeable. In fact if you have a scope lens and lots of normal cartoons watch them through a scope lens, its great. The only down side is that scope films are only good if the quality of the print is 1st class but when it is the scope image is great.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted November 12, 2015 04:34 PM
The lenses I use Maurice, were never designed to be placed in front of a 35mm projector, but you're absolutely correct,they don't work well on Super8 mm Images, not even the very best of them. I had a £4000 Schneider Cinema anamorphic once and it was not nearly as sharp as the Kowa in front of a Xenovaron lens.
The lenses I use are sharp and completely focussed, just not sharp enough for my liking when you get used to a watching prints through very fast quality lenses already fitted to the projector itself.
Each to their own of course Tom and I understand perfectly what you're saying, but to fill my 10ft diagonal screen in width,means I end up with more top and bottom portions of the screen masked than the actual vertical height that the image occupies.
Not great for me watching a two foot deep image when supposedly a "Big Screen" event.I have a telly for that.
I honestly don't believe any of the live action scope prints I have look at all bad when projected in the usual Super 8mm format.
Certainly John McClain doesn't look 20ft tall with matchstick legs for example.
Anyhow, each to their own I say. I do use the scope lenses but would really need a 16ft wide screen minimum, to feel anything like satisfied with the depth of the picture I reckon.
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Woodcock
Film God
Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012
|
posted November 13, 2015 05:04 AM
I do tend to either use the 16:9 version of the disc or use the "just fit" option on the menu to fill the screen completely into its borders.I like every pixel of the panels utilized wherever possible.
I otherwise do put up with the blank bars if the film particularly lends itself to scope. Depends what it is really.
Most of the animated Blu Ray discs I have fill the screen natively I have found.
As I already said,for me personally,the main thing to me is the quality, sharpness,contrast and vibrancy of an image over and above a slight bit of cropping here and there or some squeezing if necessary. If I had a bigger screen, I'd always use the scope lens where appropriate, but as I have the largest I can accommodate, I prefer the depth of the screen to be filled first and foremost.
If I could get an odd ratio scope lens, say 1.75:1 for example, then I would use that to fill the screen completely and have almost the correct width of image.
2.35 is just too wide for my preferences. [ November 13, 2015, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Woodcock ]
-------------------- "C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|