8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » 8mm Forum   » How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: How bad does a scope print look without a scope lens?
Jason Schmidt
Film Handler

Posts: 99
From: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Registered: Nov 2014


 - posted November 12, 2015 09:42 AM      Profile for Jason Schmidt   Email Jason Schmidt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm considering buying a scope print that seems to be a decent price for a film I'd really like, but the trouble is I don't have a scope lens and likely won't get one for awhile. My question is, are scope prints watchable without the scope, or do they look completely terrible? Are there any pictures of what a scope print looks like projected without a scope lens?

Also, has anyone tried any of the ussr 35mm lens that are for sale on ebay? (for instance see link: http://www.ebay.ca/itm/35-NAP2-4-80-120mm-60-2-PROJECTOR-ANAMORPHIC-Attachment-Lens-Russian-Big-USSR-/171993392511?hash=item280b9ae57f:g:hzYAAOSwhcJWQGVC) Do they work well with super 8 scope prints?

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 12, 2015 10:07 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Hello Jason,
I project scope Super 8mm films quite regularly without a scope lens
In fact, in some ways, I would rather project them without an anamorphic lens because they remain brighter and sharper without the lens in front of your projector lens, than with.

If you snoop around on similar forums to this, you will see some screenshots of mine of one or two features in scope without an anamorphic used.

They obviously look slightly distorted and squeezed in their aspect, but they are still enjoyable and highly watchable in my book as sharpness and brightness is everything to me with Super 8mm projected images.

Even the very best anamorphic lenses like a Kowa 8-Z have a dramatic effect on the sharpness and brightness of the resultant projected image.

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

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 12, 2015 10:11 AM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of my first Derann prints fell into this category. I may not have even known about CinemaScope at the time. (Gimme a break! I was collecting only silents two months before that!).

They are watchable: maybe a little comical at worst. People look a little lanky. Car tires are oval instead of round. People riding horses look about 20 feet tall, fat people like they've been on a diet!

The lenses are a pretty decent price: probably down in the range where it would be worth taking a chance.

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 12, 2015 10:13 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
And Oliver Hardy looks like a regular guy! [Big Grin]

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

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 12, 2015 10:25 AM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
-but imagine what Stan looks like!

That 'scope print cost me quite a lot over the years. First I found a 'scope lens, but then my screen was too narrow to show it well. Then I got a wider screen, but then I decided I really liked 'scope!

So over the years a film being 'scope was a factor in its favor when I saw it and I've gotten quite a few!

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 12, 2015 10:38 AM      Profile for Paul Adsett     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Andrew is right on about Scope lenses. Even the best will lower contrast and sharpness, the result of more glass being thrown in front of the lens. In the home digital projection forums, there are people who insist that putting a scope lens in front of the digital PJ is better than zooming the image out to the same size picture. I have never bought into that philosophy based on what I have seen with projecting scope films, and I get a superb digital scope picture just by zooming the lens to the same picture height as 4:3 films.
I have found that you can project most scope cartoons and animated films just as well without the scope lens and you get a much brighter and sharper and more contrasty image. In fact I am not much of a fan of S8 scope, it's a bit too much of a 'stretch' for me! [Big Grin]

--------------------
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

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 12, 2015 12:11 PM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
I equally, would never dream of placing an anamorphic lens in front of a digitally projected image. There are so many options for adjusting the frame aspect ratio on my projector, why even bother?

Makes no sense to me. Ultimately both for Blu Ray and Super 8mm projection, my favourite aspect for home cinema is letterbox ratio.

To my mind, it's the perfect aspect for screen sizes that fit the average British home at least.

You get impact filling depth to the image while maintaining a decent, but not impractical width of image for the average house sized living room.

Cinemascope is spectacular in the cinema where it can be accommodated correctly with impact filling depth to the picture though.

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

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted November 12, 2015 02:59 PM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jason
I will repeat what I have said many times.
Anamorphic lenses used in cinemas to show 35mm scope prints may not focus down sufficiently to use in the home.

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

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


 - posted November 12, 2015 03:06 PM      Profile for Tom Photiou     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Big Grin]
If you dont like to lose the quality purchase the 4:3 versions,
The only time you can,(in my view [Wink] ) 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

Steve Klare
Film Guy

Posts: 7016
From: Long Island, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 12, 2015 03:13 PM      Profile for Steve Klare   Email Steve Klare   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
True,

There is this one 'Scope Bugs Bunny we have that my son often requests.

-sometimes if it's been a long day I just let it stay squished!

--------------------
All I ask is a wide screen and a projector to light her by...

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 12, 2015 04:34 PM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Brian Fretwell
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted November 12, 2015 04:46 PM      Profile for Brian Fretwell   Email Brian Fretwell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My first scope film was projected onto a small cardboard screen at 45 degrees to the projector bad trapezoid distortion but gave some good effects.
I also remember a Widex convention when one of the amateur films that was in a competition had to be stopped a couple of times to get the right expansion factor anamorphic lens on the projector. They didn't have the right one 1.5:1 and 2:1 did not work it must have been filmed with the rare (Henri Cretien) Hypogonar 1.75:1 real Cinemascope lens that gives 2.35: screen ratio from 4:3 film.

 |  IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted November 12, 2015 07:51 PM      Profile for Graham Ritchie   Email Graham Ritchie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry folks but I disagree about not using a Scope lens on a Scope film. If you want to watch a Scope film, then a Anamorphic lens is a must. Films like "She Flies" on the Concorde.... "The Never Ending Story".....MGM "Good Will To Men" are just some examples of films that must be projected with the proper lens.

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 12, 2015 08:18 PM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes Graham, I agree, but perhaps more so for the larger gauges than ever for super 8mm.

That is of course, unless you can accommodate a 16ft wide screen in your screening room, unlike me.

I've tried the Sound Of Music on 8 at 21ft width, and although totally immersive as an image, it is very grainy at this magnification it has to be said.

I'm sure 16mm is the gauge to project if you love scope films.
Better still, 35mm.

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

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Taffis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1592
From: United States
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 12, 2015 08:23 PM      Profile for Joe Taffis   Email Joe Taffis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jason,
Screening scope films without an anamorphic lens isn't really bad, especially for checking out newly acquired films for overall quality and/or flaws; but eventually you'll want to get one to enjoy the full cinemascope experience... [Smile]

--------------------
Joe Taffis

 |  IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted November 13, 2015 01:06 AM      Profile for Graham Ritchie   Email Graham Ritchie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Andrew

There is a lot of good stuff on Super8 as mentioned above that I project on a screen that's only 11ft wide. In fact its really got nothing to with how big your screen is, its to do with projecting film at the "correct ratio".

Considering the cost of buying Super8 prints, why would anyone not project it as it should be? is beyond me [Roll Eyes]

PS. Projecting "The Sound Of Music" on a 21ft screen of course will look grainy ....try something smaller

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004


 - posted November 13, 2015 02:45 AM      Profile for Kevin Clark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am truly shocked that any of us would be happy to watch a 'scope print projected flat or vice-versa. I rate 'scope projection of any real film guage as the epitome of what our hobby has to offer - please at least tell me you don't subject audiences to watch your 'scope films this way?

Kevin

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 13, 2015 03:48 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Kevin,I don't give public screenings unfortunately to anyone in the family or outside,you'll be pleased to hear ha ha.
Nobody other than my collecting friends locally are even remotely interested in film sadly.

They all watch the digital projectors I have and have done from day one, just not cine film.

To Graham. I agree entirely with your comments of course Graham, problem is, for modest living room friendly widths, then we are back to no depth to the image and more area of screen not used than that occupied by the picture. [Frown]

It's just preferences and opinions at the end of the day,just as many other aspects of the hobby are. It's good to hear all others opinions here. That's what it's all about and I value everyone's here.

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

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004


 - posted November 13, 2015 04:18 AM      Profile for Kevin Clark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hello Andrew

Just a thought then - when projecting to friends and family using the VP do you also use horizontally squished non-anamorphic 4:3 or 16:9 ratios only as surely the full 'scope picture ratio of Cinemascope Blurays and DVDs would still give you reduced picture depth regardless of whether cine or video projectors are used?

Kevin

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 13, 2015 05:04 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Brian Fretwell
Phenomenal Film Handler

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


 - posted November 13, 2015 06:00 AM      Profile for Brian Fretwell   Email Brian Fretwell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Andrew, you had better avoid the Blu Ray of Ben Hur then in its original 2.7:1 ratio.

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 13, 2015 06:08 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Ha ha ha. I would need two of my screens side by side to show that one then Brian!

I have the 3x400ft letterbox S8 version, so I will stick with that then. [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

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

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

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


 - posted November 13, 2015 06:43 AM      Profile for Tom Photiou     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Using a ten foot screen is one big pic, that's brill, my Brother uses a ten foot to. In my home my permanent film room uses a 6 foot screen for the 4:3 then when doing scope the 8 foot wide 16:9 screen goes up,then you do see a huge difference between the normal and scope films. Have to say i fully understand that if you use such a big screen as normal then using the same screen for scope would have the reverse effect and actually make the film look smaller.
The reason i use the more modest size is simply because not using the lens on full or almost full zoom gives a much better image in terms of brightness, contrast and sharpness. [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged

Dominique De Bast
Film God

Posts: 4486
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jun 2013


 - posted November 13, 2015 06:54 AM      Profile for Dominique De Bast   Email Dominique De Bast   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Andrew is right about the smaller size of a scope print on your normal screen. My scope projections are better (regarding the size) projected on my (white) wall.

--------------------
Dominique

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted November 13, 2015 07:10 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Dominique, but it's all about preferences and opinions I reckon.
No right or wrong here as with many many discussions to do with our hobby. It's simply just whatever people prefer when they are viewing their favourite films. [Wink]

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

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2