Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: CROPPED SCOPE

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » CROPPED SCOPE (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: CROPPED SCOPE

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 05-24-2002 03:32 AM

Although it was rare that we performed lens changes at the Northpark, we always tried to have 2 operators handling the task whenever possible. One person would be holding the anamorphic and close the douser, while the second person immediately pulled the flat lens. Then as quick as the first person got the anamorphic in and set in place, the second person had the aperture changed and opened the douser. We had that procedure down to 3-4 seconds! That's almost as quick as the fastest turrets.

Oh well, the good old days are long gone.

| IP: Logged

Brian Tristam Williams
Film Handler

Posts: 93
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 05-24-2002 04:38 AM

Surely the question of closing curtains and playing background music for a frikkin' lens change doesn't appy to those machines with automatic turrets and automation? I mean, our machines take around 2,5 seconds for a lens and aperture change, so surely you can't mean *those* lens changes?

------------------
"One man can make a difference."

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 05-24-2002 04:54 AM

When I was doing lens changes with the film still running, I would deliberately use clear spacing rather than black (with the douser closed, of course!). This was so that, in a dimly-lit projection box, it was easy to see where the spacing ended and the head leader of the feature started.

| IP: Logged

Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

posted 05-24-2002 05:36 AM

quote:
The black is about 12 seconds, so we don't do anything other than close the douser on the lamp whilst we do it (and count to fifteen to allow for nerves).
John

I'm going to have a go at this after the summer. There is a scope dolby snipe before the feature. An incase I fumble i could eat into the start of the running time of that and it wouldn't really matter.

| IP: Logged

Peter Kerchinsky
Master Film Handler

Posts: 326
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-24-2002 05:52 AM

Hey Brad:
When I worked in a single screen booth many years ago just outside Boston we used to call that "featherbedding".
How many projectionists does it take to change a lenes and a plate?
(just kidding, of course)

| IP: Logged

Brian Tristam Williams
Film Handler

Posts: 93
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 05-24-2002 06:41 AM

Well, how many projectionists does it take to change a lamp? Lots, 'cos many hands make light work.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-24-2002 09:54 AM

Brad,

I sure would like to see two of those concessionaire/assistant manager/projection attendants perform that transition! (UA, btw, no longer calls the people who they put in the booths "projectionists" they are "projection attendants." I kid you not.

Frank

| IP: Logged

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 05-24-2002 07:31 PM

You know, a few years back, we where shown in Washington DC a fine scope style system called ISCOVISION Mr. Glenn Bergen had helped invent it! It was said that then most scope configurations mesured in theatres where about 2 to 1 ratio,chopping the scope 2:35 down, loads of screens where stretching the 1.85 to 2 to 1 cropping shamelesly. Iscovision was proposed to be one only ratio with a 2 to 1 squeeze with film running at 30fps. We had seen a demonstration in an older Cinerama theatre in Washington, results where quite good! to bad it did not cath on,, the full frame (4 spockets) was used utilizing the full picture (available),only optical soundtrack was used.

------------------

| IP: Logged

Steve Kraus
Film God

Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000

posted 05-25-2002 02:13 AM

I think you are mistaken. Iscovision involved a 1.5X squeeze ratio which would result in 1.85 images from (approximately) Scope dimensioned frames, resulting in greater light efficiency and greater resolution (for films actually shot that way as opposed to being blow up to this format) owing to the considerably greater frame area. I don't recall any discussion of a different frame rate. See John Pytlak's posts in this thread.

| IP: Logged

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 05-25-2002 02:26 PM

Maybe your right on the squeeze, but I think that I do recall talk about 30fps??? I also remember that The film had to be shot in this format???

------------------

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-25-2002 06:43 PM

30fps was proposed at the same time but there was nothing said it had to be 30fps

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 05-26-2002 02:56 PM

A few months ago, John Pytlak revisited the Iscovison format at the New York SMPTE section meeting, giving a very informative demonstration which clearly showed the significant,visible improvement in the screen image which the 1.85 anamorphic system produces. His demo pointed out how easy it would be to impliment this system with minimum cost on both the production end and exhibtion end.

Alas, it doesn't have the word DIGITAL slapped all over it so it is probably doomed. Big question is, will exhibitors spend the $2000 per screen for the new anamorphic lens needed so they can improve their 1.85 image? Not many. But the industry expects these same miserly exhibitors will be lining up to shell out $180,000 to buy Digital Light Projectors which offer NO improvement in screen image! I can't stop laughing.

| IP: Logged

Tom Fermanian
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 05-26-2002 03:13 PM

Very Simply, It will take a long time for me to believe that any compressed Audio/video signal or data, be it via satelite,cable or disc will be "pirate proof", nothing is pirate proof, still 3000 4000? 35mm prints to check on in north america is to my knowledge still easier to supervise than the above mentioned, So I firmly believe that 35mm film should be improved i.e. iscovision or something else, even DTS 70MM, And leave a proprietary format "FILM" exclusive to cinemas! Digital projection could be instaled in smaller venues for film availability, or smaller screens in multiplexes for specialised films & events. Hey I can dream as cheap in 35 that in digital?

Hey let's call Iscovision Digital Iscovision!

------------------

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.