You are in a no-win situation if you want to fill the screen. The alternatives described are really bad options, as I think everyone has been very clear about. Ideally, you want to show the 1.85:1 ratio correctly, uncropped (NOT cropped to 2:1) and NOT stretched. If that leaves some screen uncovered on each side, find comfort that you are giving a presentation the way it's intended by the film makers. Then see if you can put a little money aside to save for side-masking.

As for xenon -- yes, it would do a very good job on your screen. Xenon will provide a more consistent and generally "whiter" light on screen than carbons. There are other variables as well -- lenses, screen type and condition, etc. that should be considered as well in such an upgrade.

Best Wishes as you move ahead,

 |  IP: Logged

As fas as I know, there are hardly any cinemas in SINGAPORE and GERMANY which use Carbon and theatres at both these locations seem to be some of the best in the world. In fact, some of the newest Multiplexes in INDIA are entirely inspired by cinemas in these locations.

FYI, of the 13600 registered single screen cinema theatres in INDIA, 13520 single screen cinemas are run on carbon as of today.

Multiplexes are not permitted under the Law except in these STATES :
NEW DELHI (15 screens opened as of now)
MAHARASTRA (Pune and Mumbai have 36 screens opened as of now)
GUJARAT ( 35 screens as of now)
All of the above screens are run on XENON only.

In my city of BANGALORE, the XENON projectors are now the newest thing to happen. In six months time, at least 10 screens should convert to XENON from Carbon. Including myself.

Let me further ask here if anyone uses the new SCHNEIDER SUPER CINELUX INTEGRATED ANAMORPHIC lens and clarify whether on a comparison, the ACADEMY AWARD for technical achievement that was bestowed on SCHNEIDER CINELUX series predates or outdates another award that was bestowed on ISCO-optic Lenses.

I ask this question because ISCO-optic lenses are believed and are claimed to allow more light on the screen than the SCHNEIDER lenses. In a brochure for ISCO that is circulated in INDIA, the light readings for ISCO vis-a-vis the SCHNEIDER lens are presented (as recorded in the ACADEMY screening room) and the ISCO lens appear to be a very clear winner.

But without any such reference, the new SCHNEIDER SUPER CINELUX INTEGRATED ANAMORPHIC lens also claim that they allow more light to pass onto the screen than any other lens.

Besides, there is much reference to how many elements are composed in a lens.

WHile ISCO stops with 6 elements SCHNEIDER claims to be of 10 elements.

As such, does anybody have a take on which one to choose -

The new ISCO INTEGRATED ANAMORPHIC LENS or
The new SCHNEIDER SUPER CINELUX INTEGRATED ANAMORPHIC LENS ?

quote:

---

FYI, of the 13600 registered single screen cinema theatres in INDIA, 13520 single screen cinemas are run on carbon as of today

---

What do they do with all those carbon trims?

 |  IP: Logged

ISCO's "Blue Star" anamorphic lens or anamorphic portion of the integrated lens uses 6 elements and is described as being an entirely new design. The integrated version will naturally be using many more than 6 elements if the elements of the conventional part of the lens are being counted as well. The number probably varies with the particular focal length.

Both are good lenses, let's face it. But I have had great results with the PLUS compared to any other lenses. While the advertising you have seen may be a little bit of a "best case scenario", I have yet to see less than a 20% increase in light throughput in the tests I've run, regardless of the lens I test against.

I'm sure Steve is right. Be careful when counting elements. The "integrated" scope lenses consist of a primary lens, generally the same lens as generally available alone, that is "close-coupled" to a small profile anamorphic. The anamorphics used in these integrated lenses are all four-elements, from what I've seen, both ISCO's and Schneiders.

ISCO's Ultra-Star * HD Cinemascope, the separate attachment, has five elements, while the top-of-the-line Blue Star Cinemascope has six. Depending on the primary lens you couple one of these adapters to, you could total 12 to 15 elements in the assembly.

Are more elements good? Depends on the design and focal length. Chances are good that they will be more expensive.

Primary lenses will vary in number of elements, generally according to focal lengths. Shorter focal lengths generally require more elements -- a 30mm focal length has a lot more complicated light bending job to do than a 70mm EF.

Pat

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged