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

[Graham Ritchie]

For me its Scope

[Graham Ritchie]

Yep, to watch this film in any other way than Scope just wouldn't work for me, this extract shown below, is from a past screening of the full feature I hope to watch again very soon. The image below is 11 foot wide masking adjusted to suit, projected from a distance of around 22 feet from the projector.

[Rob Young]

Melvin makes a good point. Why was super 8 'scope designed to use 2:1 anamorphic lenses and simply double the frame width?

I know 1.5:1 lenses existed as I owned one for a while, but that was only good for shooting and projecting with the same lens, giving you an image 50% wider.

If super 8 had gone down a similar route, ie. using a 1.5:1 compression and 1.5:1 projection lenses, then ok, the projected image wouldn't be as wide, but it would be a closer match theatrical 'scope releases and not drop the frame top and bottom, whilst still being impressive to watch at home.

Maybe it was just too much optical shenanigans to make this a sensible option (cineavision got the ratio right, but did arguably lose definition by going through additional optical process).

All this said, going back to 1982 when I was unaware of 'scope and saw my first "masked" 400ft print of "Raiders of the Lost Ark", it was quite something to use an 11mm lens and zoom to a bigger image, then compare even this with 4:3 pan and scan TV.

Later, after discovering the glory of 'scope, I vividly remember watching my 400ft pan & scan super 8 of "Alien" (which I'd been more than happy with previously) and thinking...that is quite frustrating...the sides are all missing!

[Rich Malmsten]

I have several scope prints, no features but some cartoons and several digests. I find the hassle of the scope set-up far outweighs the cool factor of the ultra-wide image. As was mentioned, for me, too, it’s an entirely different set-up from projecting flat prints. For that reason I generally avoid scope, except for special films.

My preference is either flat or adapted scope.

It appears I’m in the minority on this. Interesting.

I wonder if it’s a matter if those who collect features vs. those who primarily collect shorts…?

[Osi Osgood]

Rob brought up Star Wars and boy, talk about a film that truly is a "must see" in scope! I had both the scope and flat Star Wars part 2, and the experience of seeing the Death Star trenches is a totally, immersive experience in scope. There there are those film-makers that, though making their films in anamorphic scope, don't bother to space out the characters on screen as, they were already thinking of it playing OK on the flat TV screen, and so, those films are OK in academy ratio. A shame not to look that scope image for all it's worth.

[Rob Young]

Yes, actually Osi, my very first 'scope screening at home (when I was about 15) was in fact the Ken Star Wars Pt.2 in 'scope.

I'd hired a 'scope lens and the Ken Pt. 2. Back in those days there were several hire companies that would rent out super 8 movies for a week, and this one also sent out 'scope lenses. It was the only way to afford such things back then.

I had the flat versions of Star Wars and had "built" a 'scope screen by carefully sticking together lots of A4 white sheets to extend my normal screen.

And boy, yes, it did feel like my little home cinema (in my bedroom!!) had suddenly become a big screen cinema!

Osi, the trench scenes are indeed a great example where no other format will really do.

Happy days. Hire copies of "Neverending Story", "Raise the Titanic", "Superman II", etc. would follow...all looking spectacular back in 1986 and a world apart from our 21inch 4:3 tele...

I had friends who would ask why I bothered with half hour versions of movies on film when I could hire the VHS. Then they'd see it and say, "Oh..."

[Steve Klare]

My introduction to 'scope was kind of an accident. I discovered Derann in 2002 (-things the Internet do for us!) and one of my first new prints was Sounds of Arizona. So this great film showed up and I enjoyed it, but everyone in the movie looked about 7 feet tall and about 110 pounds! This is how I learned about 'scope projection. ("ana...what?")

Maybe a year later I got an anamorphic lens. It was Royal Navy surplus, an old British friend from this forum helped get it for me (-what I said about the Internet above.). This changed my Arizona problem without really fixing it. For one thing I had no bracket, so I went through this series of kludge solutions down to this...shelf-thing I made out of scrap lumber which held both my Eumig 810 and the lens and aligned them (sort-of) using the machine's front foot. I tilted the whole assembly for elevation on-screen.

The other thing was I was still working with my Dad's tripod slide screen at the time, which was 4 feet wide. On this screen my 'scope presentation was a less than stunning maybe a foot and a half tall: shallow-screen instead of wide-screen!

The answer was obvious: I needed a wider screen.

Eventually I found an 8 foot wide pull down and hung it in the front window.

Did this solve my 'scope problem?...Nnnooooo! Once again, it only changed it.

I expected a nice 3'6" by 8 foot image, but got more than I bargained for. Because of the geometry of the room, I couldn't zoom tight enough and I wound up with something more like 4 feet by 9 and it spilled off the screen.

-as I wrote above, I could pull the machine forward onto the dining room table, dragging power and audio connections behind, but good family PR meant when I was done for the night I had to retreat. (I never suggested taking the reels off and folding the arms so we could at least see each other during dinner, but...)

While I was in Germany I picked up two Anamorphotenhalter from FFR. (-most people bring home a green felt hat with a feather or a beer stein!) When I got home I threw the shelf-thing in the fireplace.

A friend at CineSea found me an auditorium lens in Japan for a much tighter zoom.

OK, so now I had an 8 foot wide picture from my normal projection spot and setup was much simpler: Problem(s) solved!

Along the way I really grew to enjoy projecting 'scope, so I got a whole bunch of other films. I have no 'scope features, but as I found opportunities, I got a second pair of anamorphic and auditorium lenses, and I'd already imported the two brackets (I had a feeling about this...). If that day ever comes, I stand prepared.

In a very special way, Sounds of Arizona is the most expensive print I've every owned! The print itself set me back a little over 50 bucks, but it's all these side-effects!

-but I also have 16mm now...(Will it ever end?)

[Osi Osgood]

No, it will never end, Steve, lucky man that you are! 😀

[Steve Klare]

A hobby is much better when it comes with challenges!

-plus you get the tale to tell in years to come.

It's the kind of a story I might tell around a campfire some night, but I doubt my camping friends will really like it! (-for most people, it's right up there with "I had this dripping going on underneath the kitchen sink: ruined my good dish towels!")

As far as 16mm goes, I have no plans on going 'scope there.

-on the other hand, it pays to remember: at the beginning none of this was any kind of a plan!

(In my teens and twenties, I never planned to get sound either!)

[Phil Moors]

Argh!

[Paul Adsett]

I only have two feature length scope prints, Grease and Lady and The Tramp. Both are Derann prints and both are pin sharp with gorgeous fully saturated color, which is what is required for a super 8 scope print to succeed in projection. I also have many Scope trailers, again all Derann prints.
I enjoy the experience of projecting these prints to almost 10ft wide in my home. It really is special, especially when accompanied by stereo sound. But there is no doubt that both scope and stereo sound are a bit of a stretch (pun intended!) on super 8. To get a good scope image, which is twice as wide as your normal Academy image, you need all the brightness you can muster. This means a very fast lens, preferably f1.0, a 2-blade shutter, and a very bright bulb. All of which I have done on my GS1200, and also by upgrading to the 250w ELC lamp driven by an external power supply. But there is no denying that the scope lens softens the image and reduces brightness. And I think letterboxed prints are pointless, defeating the whole purpose of scope, which is a much wider picture not a half height picture!
I have mixed feelings about stereo sound on super 8. There is no doubt that it can be of stunning quality, but only if the stripe is perfect on both tracks and the track recordings are well balanced. something not always achievable on later Derann prints. And although listening via headphones provides beautiful depth and space to the sound track, I find it very difficult to replicate those properties on my 5.1 surround system, so I often switch my stereo tracks to combined mono and avoid the hassle of balance adjustment during projection.
Both scope and stereo sound are pushing the super 8 format beyond anything it was really designed for. The fact that. by and large, this can be successfully done is pretty amazing.

[Phil Moors]

Paul, you are spot on. Many years ago at Derann Derek asked the people in the auction room upstairs what they would like and someone called for Stereo on Super 8 and I clearly remember Derek Simmonds, the Walt Disney of super 8 saying ‘you are really pushing the boundaries of Super 8, you really are’. I know that there are some very good Stereo prints about, I have ‘Mickey’s Christmas Carol’ in Stereo and it is excellent. But not all prints achieve that level of quality.

I assume that the new release of Alice in Wonderland may also be in stereo? I wonder how good the sound is, excellent I believe.

[Oliver Feld]

I remember a special sentence from the time, when the first videotapes presented the widescreen experience: „Widescreen-As it was meant to be seen“!
I never understood why Super 8 Distributors produced flat films from a scope source?
The 3-parter cutdown “Doctor Zhivago“ is one of these bad examples for a flat version. In some scenes no actor/actress is visible, but talking. The director intended this feature in widescreen. In 70mm, I think. And the best way to recreate this image is a scope version.
I like flat movies to be flat and Scope features to be in Scope. My Scope print of „Once Upon a Time in the West“ is excellent and I don’t want to think to miss so much image by watching it flat.

[Brian Fretwell]

Early on they only made pan and scan prints of 'scope films because there weren't many film collectors with anamorphic lenses and the sales would be low. Thanks to Tony Shapps sales of them both went up.

[Ed Gordon]

Early on they only made pan and scan prints of 'scope films because there weren't many film collectors with anamorphic lenses and the sales would be low. Thanks to Tony Shapps sales of them both went up.

I agree Brian. Back in the 70's none of my digests were offered in Scope. Then I bought a 200 footer of miscellaneous trailers, and one turned out to be a Scope trailer of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. That got me interested in Scope! I was able to talk myself into buying the lens when I realized it would work with my S8 camera as well. The lens was just under $200 (or about $1400) in today's prices. Ouch!