|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

This good idea was first proposed and demonstrated by Glenn Berggren and IscoOptic in the early 1980's.

By itself, the idea is good, but introducing another standard gets to be an issue. For instance, fox holes are an example of a standard that only required minimal modification, yet caused unanticipated problems.

I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically. This would be an intermediate to 70mm with much lower costs than full 70mm.

One nice thing about the mini-scope idea though, Evans could see uncropped scope pictures in Huntsville.

"How do you compensate for the reduced light levels of a true scope print in relation to the brigher image of mini-scope?"

If you don't need the extra light, you could trade it for a stopped-down lens having greater depth of focus.

"How do you handle the extra lens and plate if you're running a system that already has three lenses in place? I vaguely remember some two lens turrets as well?"

It could be an issue during transition to the new format. But hopefully, it would eventually replace "flat" 1.85:1.

"How do you keep the minimally trained kids from using the wrong scope lens and plate? It can be hard enough to get them to swap scope and flat properly."

Easy: the leaders would be clearly labeled with the aspect ratio and format, as they are today

"Does this mean a whole new run of trailers needs to be made as well?"

Again, it would eventually replace 1.85:1 "flat". During the transition, "dual inventories" of prints and trailers would be needed, as it's likely the largest screen theatres (who need the extra light) would be the first to convert to "Scope 1.5X".

"I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically."

IMHO, a "Super 35" release print format is even less likely to ever happen, as it requires a change in centerline, 100% reliability of digital sound, and perhaps a change in the pulldown or film transport speed.

BTW, the 1.5X "squeeze" could be done with the camera lens, on an optical printer, or with "digital intermediate".

If the current 0.825 x 0.690 inch "scope" image area were used with a 1.5X anamorphic lens, the aspect ratio would be 1.79:1, almost an exact match to the 16:9 of HD television --- so movies would not need to be cropped or letterboxed when transferred for HD video release. Of course, if you wanted to stay with 1.85:1, you could go with a 0.825 x 0.670 inch image area.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

It seems to me that SuperScope, the first real Super35 developed by RKO in the 50's (I think) does exactly the same thing. It's a 2:1 ratio. The image on the film is 2x anamorphic 7.15x7.15. I have several trailers in this format. "Gone Fishing" is one. My Devry XD has a aperture plate for this format. I know the plate was made sometime in the mid 50's

In doing a few calculations it seems to me that the jump from 1.85 flat to Anamorphic is almost the same as Anamorphic 35 to 70mm.

It also seems that theaters jump from anamorphic to flat without the customers getting very upset. They really just come to see the movie. Unless the presentation is really bad, no one will complain. I can see why 70mm is on the outs.

Again any improvement needs to be advertised otherwise the viewing public really won't know or care about any visual differences from one format to the next. Maybe call it something modern such as Super Icon Technology. You know, this theater is Super Icon Certified.

Again this might be wrong but I am thinking of total square inches at the aperture plate.

I am using old Devry plates for my measurments. Flat being .440x.835 at .367sq inchs. Scope .835x.715 at .597 sq inchs and 70mm I got a published figure of 1.913x.866 for a total of 1.656 sq inches.

The jump from flat to scope takes 1.27x average magnification and is 1.62 as large in sq area. Scope to 70mm is another 1.66x magnification which is 2.77 times as large in sq area. Not exactly equal in jumps but very close.

Remember, with 2x enlargement of a 1 inch sq area positive image equals 4 sq inches. So with a 2x enlargment, the image is 2 times the size but 4 times the area.

So my point is, the difference in quality from flat to scope is just about the same as between anamorphic 35 and 70mm.

Taken the other way, no one in their right mind would try to fill a 60-foot wide screen with a 16mm print. Size DOES matter, and using the entire 35mm "scope" area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches makes sense, while requiring no change in centerlines or sound formats. And 70mm prints make even more sense for huge screens, but they do cost more to make.

Yes there is a big jump in quality between flat and scope just as in scope to 70mm. Quality though can have some drawbacks.

Sometime back we were talking about lens quality. Everyone was saying the older Kollmorgen lenses were less then perfect in contrast and resolution to modern lenses. An example of a modern lens would be the Schneider Super Cinelux. I purchased the Super Cinelux to test any resolution difference between the lenses. Sure enough, in bench testing, I found the Super Cinelux had a little more then twice the resolution of the Kollmorgen.

In actual use I have found something different. Using a 4x10 screen with the Cinelux I found that I can actually see quality differences from scene to scene in a typical feature. The Kollmorgen with it's lower quality tended to even out all the scenes to about the same quality.

I hate to say it but the Kollmorgen give a better overall result then the Super Cinelux. This is even though the Kollmorgen had half the image sharpness of the Cinelux.

Hope that helps, Brett.

Josh