my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » ISCOVISION - Making it happen

Author Topic: ISCOVISION - Making it happen Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 08-21-2003 06:27 AM                     ...continuing from the "Will the industry ever give up on 24fps" thread - If "varomorph" / prismatic lenses are a no-go, is there potential nowadays for some kind of adaptor that could be slipped on / off the standard anamorphic, which would reduce the "squeeze" from 2X to ISCOVISION's required 1.5X? The beauty of that would be that within a multi, the adaptor would move from house to house with the print, and the theatre would only have to invest in more than one adaptor if they're regularly interlocking or showing multiple prints. Again, it would obviate the need for changing out lenses, or replacing the existing anamorphics, as well as also retaining the spherical lens for "flat" 1.85 prints. It would be quite a challenge not only optically but physically, as you'd have to accurately locate the adaptor in all planes. But has not lens design moved on considerably since the original demo, with CAD, new materials, coatings, etc.? Also since this is a kind of "reverse anamorphic", could camera lens manufacturers have an input? I guess you've still got problems where houses only have two-stop masking systems, but maybe there's a mod for that as well. Any comments?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2003 06:43 AM                        IT'S ONLY A FREAKIN ANAMORPHIC. Make the cheap SOBs buy the damn lenses. Give the public better presentation for their ever-increasing ticket price instead of talking about buying into the wonderful world of video....real expensive video. My guess would be than any adaptors added to an anamorphic would be labor intensive an require proper alignment -- it wouldn't be like sticking a spherical adaptor over a spherical lens where the rotation of the adaptor isn't an issue; with an anamorphic adaptor the perpendicular alignment would have to be perfect -- try to get the popcorn kid to be able to do that. Plus, how easy would it be to scratch and damage an adaptor if it had to be schleped around from projector to projector? How complicated would it be if a theatre had to swap format lenses between screens because they don't have enough lenses to go around? Not a good idea. Getting them to understand the improved quality they get on the screen and it could put more butts in the seats is another story -- THAT would help. Tell them they might even be able to run their xenons at reduced wattage, reducing electric consumption and saving them money in the long run. They understand increasing ticket sales (and junk snack "food" sales) plus saving on their electric bills. Talk their language and tell them you can get the lenses for them at wholesale. Frank  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-21-2003 09:30 AM                     I saw a demo once of it here in Toronto on a Cnetury with the sliding magnacom and anamorphic adapter on the front and all they did was put the ISCORAMA lens in the magnacoms spot  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-21-2003 09:35 AM                        As my SMPTE presentation noted, Isco and Schneider were both ready to make new 1.5X anamorphic projection lenses if Scope 1.5X took off. Obviously, they would use "state of the art" modern lens design. At first, origination would have been done using spherical lenses, likely Super-35, with the "squeeze" being done either in an optical printer or digital intermediate. Designing a family of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses would be the best option, since then you also take advantage of a larger image area on the 35mm camera negative, significantly reducing granularity.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2003 07:21 PM                     Just a thought, how about a lens that could do both? A lever on the side of the lens would switch it from 2X to 1.5X. I have seen "scope" lenses that are varrible, could this be done somewhat the same way? This way you could still have the 1.85 "flat" lens, and the 2X / 1.5X lens in a two lens turret. Yes, you would have to buy new "scope" lenses, but you would not have to change out all screens at once.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-21-2003 11:16 PM                     Variable anamorphics are prismatic and eat light read the thread on abandoning 24fps  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-23-2003 08:26 AM                     Well then lets find a different way to do it. How about an extra element that swings out of the light path within the lens?  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 08-23-2003 01:52 PM                    Okay, time to debunk ISCOVision. This is for the newcomers; the rest of you have heard it probably more than once. ISCOVision as a shooting and projection format would be probably be superb but it's unrealistic to expect filmmakers to accept anamorphic photography to accomplish 1.85 when they largely regect it even when they want the 2.40 aspect ratio (given the very high proportion of Scope format releases that are Super 35 blowups). It's true that some of the things that filmmakers dislike about 2X anamorphics would be less with 1.5X lenses but I think it is safe to say that it aint gonna happen. So we're back to 1.85 or Super 1.85 origination and blowing up to 1.5X squeezed prints. Which leads to the crux of the dismissal of ISCOVision: Why bother? Oh, bigger frames, more light, etc. Most of this can be easily accomplished much less drastically via the same 1.85-within-(2X)Scope format seen on many trailers. No need for new lenses (thus you can see why lens makers would have little interest in promoting it), no need for 3 lens turrets, etc. In fact, taken to the extreme, if it were universally adopted on all films you could get rid of turrets and flat lenses altogether. (Now you can see why lens makers would really hate the idea!). Everything in 2X Scope with only the active frame dimension changing between 1.85 and 2.39. No, the 1.85 format would not be as light efficient as the ISCOVision format but so what? If you can project a properly illuminated full Scope frame then you're already got that covered. Why would you need more light?  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-23-2003 03:09 PM                        Steve: I disagree. You are correct that IF you get 16 footlamberts for 2.39:1 scope, "Scope 1.5X" would give you an overly bright 21 footlamberts. But you can trade the extra efficiency for another advantage, like using a smaller f/number lens to get better depth of focus. But unfortunately, many theatres now get LESS than 16 footlamberts, even in scope. So Scope 1.5X would really help them with a brighter image that is closer to SMPTE standard, at least for 1.85:1 (or 1.79:1). Where Scope 1.5X would really help are those theatres that fill the screen wall-to-wall, such that 1.85:1 is actually projected to a bigger image. In those cases, having 1.5X more light and more image area on the print would be a significant advantage. I do agree that printing 1.85:1 "windowboxed" in the 2.39:1 Scope image area offers some advantage over "flat", but not nearly as much as using a 1.5X anamorphic would offer. Your fellow Chicagoan Don Helgeson and I often discussed the pros and cons of each format in SMPTE Projection Technology Committee meetings, as he was a proponent of the 1.85:1 windowbox format.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-23-2003 04:43 PM                     Yes, I am one of those people who would like things to be as good as they could be, but then I remember that there are just too many of what I refer to as "management-morons" out there that care only about $$$$$$$. One problem I see with projecting 1:85 as 2X scope, is that you would need a different aperature plate to cover the side pannels, just in case there was a scratch in that area (it would show on the screan otherwise).  |  IP: Logged Kevin Wale Expert Film Handler Posts: 167 From: Guymon, OK USA Registered: Aug 2003 posted 08-23-2003 05:38 PM                     What would be so bad about two aperenger plates? You have to switch them now anyway. At least if the flat was in scope you wouldn't have to change lenses and the image would be better overall. Still, when a trailer is in scope and the movie advertised is a flat movie, you don't change plates for that preview and then back for the feature do you? Why would you need to if the whole film was done that way? Maybe if you don't have motorized masking but it seems to me that if you are careful with the film, you aren't going to scratch the black window box any more than you would if it was viewable frame space.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 08-24-2003 03:16 AM                    Don Helgeson used to staff the booth of the screening room I now own & operate.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-25-2003 01:31 AM                        quote: I do agree that printing 1.85:1 "windowboxed" in the 2.39:1 Scope image area offers some advantage over "flat", but not nearly as much as using a 1.5X anamorphic would offer. Just to veer off topic - this weekend we ran Wizard of Oz 1.33 windowboxed inside 1.85 and Gone With the Wind 1.33 windowboxed inside scope. Two different ways of getting the same aspect ratio (1.33) into the modern multiplex 1.85 or scope formats. Gone with the Wind was the screwiest-looking - even with more light efficiency on a scope picture, GWTW was still only about 2/3 of the frame. 1/3 of the light at least was just hitting the black.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 08-25-2003 06:03 AM                        When it comes to image quality and light efficiency, "Size DOES Matter"!: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/feb97.shtml http://www.film-tech.com/manuals/H5041.pdf (My October 1996 article about the advantages of the "scope" format)  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 08-25-2003 12:17 PM                     Reluctantly I'd have to agree with your comments Steve re. the aversion of filmmakers to using even genuine anamorphic origination for 2.39. Bad enough as we believe things to be in exhibition, it seems a lot worse in production! Cost-cutting appears to be some kind of badge of honour ("my movie's cheaper than yours - hah!"). Plus standardisation in the industry is actually a barrier to introducing new formats - how many machines have three-lens turrets in the multis? Mind you it wasn't a problem with Red LED readers and digital sound. If an engineering solution could be found that would facilitate the format without disrupting the existing setups too much, and it could be sold among the production community then there'd be some hope. Right, back to "reality"...  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.