Scope vs letter box vs flat, which one you like most?

[Winbert Hutahaean]

Hello all,

This question is absolutely for movies shot in cinemacope.

As per title...

I am not suprised if scope is prefered by most of us (for those who has large screen and scope lens).. but between letter box vs flat what is pros vs cons between them?

I am not concerned with other formats, this is only for film printed on 8mm.

Please your opinion.

[Brian Fretwell]

As full letterbox means a lot of light is wasted, even on a smaller screen I prefer the squeezed 'scope prints.

[Steve Klare]

Yes, and so much film area wasted just pretending to be darkness and forcing that narrow band to be the whole image. Then again if you get even the slightest scratch through the emulsion, now you have a bright spike above and below the picture.

-more convenient, I guess.

My 'scope setup includes either changing to an auditorium lens or before I got one, moving the machine forward into the middle of the dining room table (-this made for a really odd centerpiece! My wife is very tolerant sometimes!), because if I don't, I can't zoom the lens tight enough to get the picture completely on-screen. With a letterboxed print I could just zoom wider (-like my letterboxed 16x9s).

As things stand, going 'scope is involved enough that it's a real decision. Very often when I do, I rig one machine for 'scope and leave the other one alone. This influences the choices of films I can show and I operate this way for a few days or a week and...de-'scope. I rigged both S8 machines for 'scope once: I don't think that lasted more than a weekend.

Sometimes I think about rigging my 16mm machine for 'scope, with its fixed focal-length lens and the landscape of the room where I do this. After I've thought about that for a while, I give up and start to think about simpler things like bringing World Peace and finding Amelia Earhart. (.....)

[Douglas Meltzer]

I love scope, however there can be some sharpness issues with the addition of a second lens plus there is also some light loss. A letterboxed image is ok unless there is some fade, which results in red tinged dark areas.

Flat is fine! I get a kick out of filling the entire screen with a Super 8mm frame.

[Ed Gordon]

I prefer scope. Our eyes capture two images and stitch them together to produce a single wide image. Anamorphic images mimic what our eyes do naturally; it give us a wide view. Framing matters; a wide image is ideal for large landscape, but adds nothing to a close-up.

Would the image below look better if it was wider?



Would the image below look better if it was wider?

To me, photography is an art of observation. It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place…. I’ve found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.

- Elliott Erwitt

The Fabelmans (2022) - Meeting John Ford Scene

[Douglas Meltzer]

Ed,

Good points. I hadn't thought about scope mimicking our POV. I'm glad you used a shot of the Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It's accessible by mule ride, so I thought I'd combine your two pictures. Plus....it would probably look better in scope!

[Steve Klare]

An old friend from here filmed with Super-8 as 'scope. He also owned a boat. He told me he tried filming 'scope from the bow and the rocking motion of the boat was almost nauseating up on-screen.

-so in that particular case: Academy it is!

[Ed Gordon]

Ed,

Good points. I hadn't thought about scope mimicking our POV. I'm glad you used a shot of the Phantom Ranch at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It's accessible by mule ride, so I thought I'd combine your two pictures. Plus....it would probably look better in scope!

Brilliant!

[Ed Gordon]

An old friend from here filmed with Super-8 as 'scope. He also owned a boat. He told me he tried filming 'scope from the bow and the rocking motion of the boat was almost nauseating up on-screen.

-so in that particular case: Academy it is!

I filmed in Super-8 scope, but having to focus two lenses for every shot was such a pain. I tended to use it more for sports where I could focus once and forget about it. It was very good for soccer games where so much of the game's action was not on who had the ball, but who was setting up to take it away.

[Steve Klare]

I had the end of a cartridge to use up once and felt a little experimental, so I took a camera and one of the anamorphics I use for projection and I went to the park. I didn't have a camera bracket, so I just two-handed it the best I could.

It sort-of worked, but it was just a little surreal!

-alignment is kind of a must-have for anamorphic lenses!

[Phil Moors]

The trouble with Super 8 scope it that the frame is cropped top and bottom. This causes peoples heads to get dangerously close to the edge or beyond it. I have a few scope films and this is a big problem. How anyone can buy a full length scope film and still be getting less than the full frame is beyond me. Only Cinevision showed the complete frame, but these have all faded these days. Some time back someone took the trouble to compare Derann’s Pod Race extract with the Blu Ray, what is missing is alarming.

[Osi Osgood]

Not all Cineavision prints have faded, but in most cases, yup, fade! I've been pretty lucky. With my Cineavision scope prints still having good color. It all depends on (for me), What was the film originally shot in? Scope? I'd rather see it in scope. Other films were shot academy ratio, so letterboxing is just fine for me, especially if the image is good. Unfortunately, most letterboxed prints, like the Universal 8 digests, tend to be extremely grainy and somewhat soft focus.

[Larry Arpin]

The trouble with Super 8 scope it that the frame is cropped top and bottom. This causes peoples heads to get dangerously close to the edge or beyond it. I have a few scope films and this is a big problem. How anyone can buy a full length scope film and still be getting less than the full frame is beyond me. Only Cinevision showed the complete frame, but these have all faded these days. Some time back someone took the trouble to compare Derann’s Pod Race extract with the Blu Ray, what is missing is alarming.

I agree with Phil. However, I do have scope films both super 8mm & 16mm. It's something you just accept. I also have a letterbox film that cuts off the sides. So what can we do?

[Rob Young]

Talk of 'scope on boats raises the interesting subject of "Jaws". According to documentaries, apparently Spielberg was adamant to shoot in 'scope to get a sense of the size of the shark, but in his naivety (hard to believe Spielberg was ever naive, but there we are) he wanted the cameras on the Orca locked down on tripods.

DP Bill Butler and legendary camera operator / DP Michael Chapmen had to pursued him that such an approach would make the audience sea sick, with the horizon swaying side to side, so they filmed most of it hand held, with Chapmen doing an amazing job of constantly moving with boat to keep shots steady, in such a way that until you look for it, it is so well done that it goes unnoticed, which is the idea. A fine example of just how important a great camera operator is.

Back to topic; I'd always prefer a 'scope version of a 'scope movie. Yes, super 8 does crop height but it's rarely a significant issue. Back when I was a student and I used to run Star Wars in 'scope on super 8, I had a friend who would constantly comment, "I just can't believe how WIDE it is". Of course those where the days of 4:3 TV and VHS.

'scope can be difficult to focus, but I think like all things in this hobby, it makes it so much more gratifying when you get it a nice sharp 'scope image; you feel like you've achieved something!

[Melvin England]

What a thought provoking topic this is !

Scope vs Letterbox Vs Flat

Let me see what my thoughts are on each of them. No doubt I will come up with a few more once I have posted this but... Ho Hum !


FLAT
-----

For the vast majority of people who have ever tried this hobby, this is the ratio that was meant to be for super 8. Being a relatively large picture on a screen in a living room with restricted space in terms of distances to the screen, width of the room and, indeed, general clutter. The masses, in the day, whether they be the "baby on the lawn" film makers or package movie collectors, or both, would probably not even have considered, or even known about, any other ratio and were just satisfied that "this was it." Why should they have worried about alternative ratio's? The largest TV screen in the UK in the 1970's, for example, was a lousy 26"...... and IT was flat, too! A lot of people were still watching in black and white and here, through this wonderful medium that is super 8, they could maybe watch a huge 4 foot square COLOUR image that may even have had the luxury of having sound too!
On a technical level, I find the biggest drawback to watching flat versions of scope films is the dreaded "pan and scan," particularly if the original film had a huge scope ratio and was impossible to include all the action within academy limits. Such a pain, but is naturally perfect for films specifically shot in that ratio. I have also recently found that when comparing two identical films, one being flat and another identical one in scope, the scope version has much better definition. I am not too sure if this is consistent with all these "double ratio" films, but the one I am specifically referring to is the 3x 400' version of Dr. Zhivago. I may have just inadvertently opened a can of worms with that remark. Sorry.
I shot many hundreds of feet of super 8 film in my life, ALL in academy ratio and don't regret it a bit. I have spoken to people who tried fixing a scope lens in front of their camera and it seems to me to be one hell of a hassle. Apart from the fact that if one uses the wider end of the zoom the image tended to bend and one could see the black barrel of the lens on the perimeter of the picture. I am pretty certain no one ever produced a specific cinemascope camera which is a pity (I will stand corrected if I am wrong) as the image, barring the above problem, is impressive.


LETTERBOX
-------------

Oh Boy! Long before I journeyed into "real" cinemascope, can you imagine my joy on projecting the 400' "The Amityville Horror" for the first time and seeing an image in the widescreen ratio..... just like at the cinema !?....... and without an additional lens !
Fast forward 40 years to present day and I am a bit undecided about this format. Certainly one gets a bit more of the original action onscreen, but assuming one always sets the image to fill the screen, the effect is it is chopped top and bottom. One can't make the image any bigger or the side of the image would overshoot the screen. Plus, as Steve has mentioned, the widescreen effect is totally spoilt if one gets tramline scratches on the print and there are marks all over the area where there is no image. I do have other films in this format including, surprisingly, a 16mm letterbox version of The Deer Hunter of all films!
I think the verdict is...... Tolerable !


CINEMASCOPE
----------------

Without doubt the best cinema experience one can have in ones own home, particularly if it also comes with stereo sound !
I have found the prints are just stunning, both with the colour and the definition, regardless of the fact that there is twice as much information on that tiny frame that has to be stretched out and projected. I have wallowed in the glory of the likes of Ben Hur, Gigi, West Side Story and several others.
The major drawback to this ratio is picture size. When cinema's were built properly, the height of the screen always remained the same and suddenly the sides of the screen got wider and wider....and wider!* I doubt many collectors have this luxury in their own homes. I don't. I am fortunate to have a dedicated film room with a 5 foot wide academy screen with no chance of expansion on either side. The net result is a very wide image across an academy screen resulting in a massive loss of height at the top and bottom of the screen resulting in a smaller picture which wasn't the intended idea for the format. A great pity.
Also, as Steve Klare mentions, in order to show 'scope films, the whole projector set up has to be moved in order to accommodate the different focal point of the lenses, which means that these shows have to be planned as opposed to being spontaneous.
I also feel, and here is the controversial bit, that super 8 has shot itself in the foot as far as this ratio is concerned. The main bug bear is, as Phil Moors pointed out, the cropping of the image top and bottom on a lot of prints. Why ? Oh why ? Oh why ? Yes, it can be irritating when half his head is missing when one knows it shouldn't, but surely, if the ratio of the original film wasn't compatible with the lens, why wasn't a leaf taken out of the Cineavision catalogue and have the black bars either side. At least one sees everything on these. Granted mostly in pink and white nowadays, but that is another issue for another day.!
This also beggars another question, and maybe someone can comment on this...... Why wasn't there lenses of various ratio's available in the first place instead of having to resort to both these practices ? On that point I think super 8 missed a trick. Then Cineavision could fill the frame with ALL the original picture, knowing there is a lens available to stretch it correctly and the person responsible for "chopping" could have saved their time and energy.**
I must say, though, after watching cinemascope on an academy screen and returning to flat prints, they suddenly appear to be bigger than before! Just an illusion!



* I say "built properly" as nowadays cinema screens appear to be of a standard size. Even when scope is projected, sometimes the image isn't even framed correctly to fill the screen. Very slovenly habits.

** I suspect I know who the culprits are but feel I must refrain from mentioning them just in case A) I am wrong, and B) If it is them, I have otherwise got tremendous respect for them.