Given that lenses are made in specific focal length increments (generally 5mm, sometimes 2.5mm) it is unlikely that one will be able to precisely size and mask the image over different formats with whatever screen dimension is being held constant (preferably a constant height) and the proper amount of spill onto the masking without some small adjustment of the aperture.

>What would the hard matting be anyway? The difference between 2.35 and 2.39<

Exactly. The 2.39 frameline is a bit thicker than what you usually see on scope prints and if your optical system is projecting EXACTLY 2.35, then a print that IS hard matted to 2.39, will project frame lines, albeit slight, on the top and bottom of the screen.

As Steve points out, this difference will not usually be correctable by changing the prime lens. With lenses manufactured for the most part in 5mm increments, the next FL step would be to much to make that slight correction. The easy way around this problem would be to replace the prime lens with the new Schneider variable FL prime which is adjustable to about 7% of the mean focal length. That would allow you to make the slight adjustment that would be needed to eliminate the visible frame lines of a hard matted 2.39 print. This is an expensive proposition, however, especially for a non-profit like us.

We will probably wind up doing the simplest option, and that is dropping the top mask to compensate -- a lot cheaper than buying two new lenses. Dropping the mask, however, will mean cropping our 1.37 a bit, but it actually will help our 1.85 since that was a tad overcut (maybe like 1.83 or something). It would be really nice if ALL lenses had that 7% variable option.

Frank

PS -- Has anyone ever considered mechanizing that laborious plate filing job? While filing plates for 4 formats and two projectors, I had plenty of time to think of ways to make this job easier. I pictured rigging the file to a reciprocal saw using the saw blade clamp to hold the file; then I'd put the saw on a jig to keep it immobile. It just might work and believe me, the next time I have to file a complete set, I will give this a try.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

...Then there must be a conspiracy to conceal this top priority from the readers of American Cinematographer. I don't wish to be contrary, but switching from spherical to anamorphic isn't quite as easy as changing lenses on a 35mm still camera. And shooting in 65mm introduces even more problems with depth of field issues. I have to face the fact that much of the know-how which was used to shoot the 65mm masterpieces of the 1960s has been lost. I think Far and Away is a prime example of what happens when an over-confident cinematographer decided it would be easy to switch to 65mm and get great results. I doubt there are very many cinematographers working today who'd like to make such a high-profile stumble... especially when the industry (on both the production and exhibition side) believes that 35mm is good enough.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

quote:

---

Whenever you have lens flares in anamorphic, you get these straight lines all the way across the frame. Some people like those, but I think they're ridiculous and don't correspond to anything in the way the human eye sees things. People associate that effect with 'big movies,' but that's just because for a long time big movies were all shot in anamorphic. So some people think a picture has that 'big movie' look because the headlights on a car create these white lines that go from one edge of the frame to the other. That doesn't correspond to anything I see in my daily life ... Super 35 just lacks certain anamorphic artifacts that I think are detriments, and I much prefer that look.

---

 |  IP: Logged

I am very close to perfecting a secret invention (patent pending) that easily installs in the front dash; it senses those super bright "designer" headlights while they are still miles away and aims a cryaton particle beam at them, creating a sympathetic vibration of the filaments which causes them to EXPLODE before they get anywhere near my car. The deluxe model will also immediately jam any "On-Star" transmitter should it be used to call for help.

Oh, and excuse me, James (King-of-the-World) Cameron, are you saying that spherical lenses have no flare? How about those shots made with a spherical lens where a bright light will produce a line-up of dots that radiate progressively outward from the light source, and if the light source moves, the line of dots swings around the radius -- do we see THAT in real life? Some of these artifacts are a given in cinematography. Years ago such shots might have been re-done; in recent years this kind of artifact is more and more tolerated. It's really a matter of taste and what bothers or doesn't bother the director and/or cinematographer. If Mr. Cameron is annoyed by the flare caused by anamorphic lenses as opposed to the flare caused by spherical lenses, you really can't argue with him; but as far as the audience is concerned, if polled, they probably would say that anyone arguing about which is the better kind of flare, needs to change their medication or just say no to drugs all together.

I've never seen the anamorphic flare occur anywhere else in real life.

Besides, a lot of scope projection lenses suck. I'm running test loops in all of my projectors to determine which (if any) of the scope lenses are still any good. So far...I'd say they all need to be replaced for one reason or another. Mainly it's a focus problem.