|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

I guess about 40% scope at present but in the mid - 1980's it must have dropped to something like 10%.

Sharp anamorphic pictures are still the best cinema presentation on 35mm. I just can't understand Spielburg's idea of using 1.85 - very underwhelming. Whilst the majority of theatres have c/s as the largest picture, more light is produced and the resolution is greater. Why shoot w/s?

I understand the compromises in speed of lenses and size, but the directors and DOP's should spend more time in average theatres to see what looks more impressive to the paying customer.

___________________________________________
Scope 1.5X -- Squeezing Even Higher Quality from 35 mm Prints

by: John P. Pytlak

The trend to larger, wall-to-wall theatre screens has made film's superior image quality all the more important. Movie audiences expect bright, colorful, sharp, and steady images on these huge screens, but are sometimes disappointed, especially for the most commonly used 35 mm 1.85:1 "flat" format. Recent surveys by the Lucasfilm Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) and the KODAK SCREENCHECK Experience program have shown that many theatres fall far short of the 16 footlambert screen luminance aim specified in standard SMPTE 196M.

Today, two 35 mm print formats specified in standard SMPTE 195 are most commonly used for theatrical presentation. About 70 percent of feature films use the 1.85:1 "flat" non-anamorphic format, having an image area of only 0.825 x 0.446 inches. About 30 percent of feature films use the 2.39:1 "scope" format, with a much larger image area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches, using a 2X anamorphic lens to fill the wider screen. Because of the larger image and more efficient utilization of the film image area and projector light, the "scope" format is almost always brighter, sharper, steadier, and less grainy than the "flat" format.

The origin of the "scope" format was the very successful introduction of 20th Century Fox's CinemaScope format in 1953. By using an anamorphic lens, CinemaScope was able to fully utilize the image area on the film to fill larger screens, without significantly changing the well-established and standardized infrastructure of 35 mm film with 4-perforation pulldown, shown at 24 frames per second. The "simple elegance" of using an anamorphic lens to more efficiently use the film image area was a remarkable engineering achievement.

Can the same approach be used to improve the less efficient "flat" format? Yes! In 1984, Glenn Berggren proposed and demonstrated "IscoVision", a 35 mm print format that used a 1.5X squeeze anamorphic lens to produce a 1.85:1 aspect ratio using the larger "scope" image area on the print. The new format offered improved brightness, steadiness, color contrast, and depth of focus. Presentations to the MPAA, Inter-Society Committee, and SMPTE clearly showed the advantages over the normal "flat" format. Despite initial enthusiasm from the movie industry, the format was never adopted. Many believe it was a "chicken or egg" problem: lens manufacturers would not design and build 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses unless there was an established market, and there was no market because theatre owners would not equip theatres with new lenses unless productions were made in the new format.

The recent proliferation of huge screens in "megaplex" theatres has created a renewed interest in this improved 35 mm print format. Recent trends to "Super 35" production allow the use of available non-anamorphic camera lenses for the 2.39:1 "scope" format. The same could be done for the "Scope 1.5X" format, doing the anamorphic "squeeze" during printing.

This paper will reexamine and demonstrate the many advantages of a "Scope 1.5X" format, and explore ways in which this format could be implemented today.

_____________________________________________

The idea of printing various aspect ratios inside the 2.39:1 "scope" format is a good one too. (Don Helgeson of Chicago is a long-time proponent of this idea on the SMPTE Projection Technology Committee). The advantage is that every theatre already has a 2X "scope" lens, so there's no cost to the theatre, other than a new aperture plate and having to reset the masking. And it could be used to provide a variety of aspect ratios (e.g., like the 1.37:1 re-release of "The Wizard of Oz" a few years ago). Unfortunately, there would still be "wasted" area on the print (the black "sidebars"), so the advantages for image quality and light efficiency would be minimal (no better than today's "scope"). And more expensive optical printing would still be needed to generate the "squeezed" duplicate negative.

Using a 1.5X anamorphic lens with the current "scope" aperture of 0.825 x 0.690 inches gives a 1.79:1 (16:9) aspect ratio on the screen. It uses the maximum image area on the print, and gives 1.5X more light than the current "flat" format by simply changing the lens. Production for the new format could either be normal or Super-35 non-anamorphic, with the 1.5X anamorphic "squeeze" being done when printing the master positive to duplicate negative. If the format is successful, eventually 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses may become available, further improving image quality because of the larger image area on the camera negative.

The paper "Scope 1.5X -- Squeezing Even Higher Quality from 35 mm Prints" is hopefully only the first step in reviving a really good idea. Wish me luck.

 |  IP: Logged

As for my own film projects, the one I am working on right now will be the 2.4 anamorphic. And I LOVE light flares in the picture. Just my own personal touch I suppose.

Mark, I am back in salt lake but headed to denver next sunday. I will give you a call in a couple of weeks. I think I will take you up on the use of your cameras later this year. I am going to get this thing rolling.

Dave

Iscovision will only give you a 1.85 ratio picture that is equal to 'scope in quality. Yet, e-projection is already accepted as equal to 35mm 'scope by the public (I heard very few complaints about Star Wars.) In 5-7 years it will be improved even more. So, Iscovision is a format that is only equal to, and in fact will probably be surpassed by e-projection within the next ten years.

It boggles my mind to think that the studios and theaters would ever be able to work out a hard 'cut-over' date, but let's say they do. Theaters will have to buy a new prime lens, anamorphic adapter, aperture plate, and labor to install it all. I'll guess and say it will cost about $2000 per screen.

That same $2000 could go towards improvements like a bigger lamp, maintenance, etc. Heck, for $2000, you could put a 3-bladed shutter and proper lamp, and get a nice improvment there. $2000 per screen would seriously improve any theater, yet many won't spend it now.

70mm is the kind of improvement required. (I know you were waiting for me to say that!) I feel it is the format that should be pushed. I know Iscovision is cheaper than installing 70mm, but what does it matter when ten years from now when we are complaining about picture quality again? 70mm is cheaper than e-projection, and can start to be implemented now.

People accept e-projection now. Theaters must offer something *significantly* better. That's why the public came out to see CinemaScope, Todd-AO and Cinerama. Iscovision does not offer that kind of increase in quality.

I'm sure every Theater chain would spend millions to do this all for 14% more light.

right.

I'd love to see it, just compare any scope trailer for a flat movie to the actual flat print (fantasia 2000 is a great example) and the difference is obvious. Its too bad only WE will be able to tell the difference, the majority of the movie-going crowd only want to go see whats on screen because they can't watch it on their televisions yet. Most have no concept of presentation (unless something goes wrong) and many think they are actually watching a really big video screen.

what it comes down to is:

$10 million to increase light output by 14% and present a slightly better presentation= 30% more happy projectionists (if that)= 0% more customers.

Theater owners aren't going to make it less expensive for labs to do their jobs and make a few projectionists happy (us) just to make no difference in the ammount of popcorn they sell.

I would love to see 70mm make a comeback into mainstream use. I work with 15/70 and of course there is nothing like it. Just think, if they did go back to 5/70 the image sharpness on every current screen would be incredible. I haven't ever worked with 5/70, but I have seen it, and I thought the picture was incredible. Then we could bring back Ultra Panavision, oh yeah!!

------------------
Dave Cutler

 |  IP: Logged

5/70 is theatrical 70mm. With film running and printed vertically. The frame covers 5 perforations.

There are also 2 other large formats. One which is rarly used is 10/70 (70mm, Horizontal, 10 perfs per frame), and 8/70 (70mm, Vertical, 8 perfs per frame) which is used quite a bit by iWerks among others.

Just as a side note, 15/70 runs at about 6 feet per second, still showing 24 frames. It's fun. There is also no soundtrack on the film, although DTS is capable of printing its timecode on it, which I have only seen on the DTS flying disc logo.

------------------
Dave Cutler