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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Early non CinemaScope stereo films (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Early non CinemaScope stereo films Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-07-2003 11:48 PM                     quote: The ratio for Superscope was 2.00:1. According to www.widescreenmuseum.com, some Superscope films were 2.00:1 and others were 2.35 (with further cropping of the original flat frame and without the side mattes of the anamorphic print). This was called Superscope 235, according to the site.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-08-2003 07:11 PM                     quote: This was called Superscope 235 Which is known today as Super 35 (aka Super-35, Super35, System 35, and Super Techniscope).  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-08-2003 09:01 PM                     But wasn't there a diffreence? Wasn't the image for the old SuperScope process carved out of an Academy frame, and not going into the area normally reserved for the optical soundtrack? A quibble, perhaps.  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 03-09-2003 09:51 AM                        No, full silent aperture. Superscope specifications  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-09-2003 01:35 PM                     My stupid mistake. It won't happen again. I should know better than to state things I know nothing about.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-10-2003 01:12 PM                     quote: My stupid mistake. It won't happen again. I should know better than to state things I know nothing about. Maybe you were misled by Carr & Hayes' assertion in their Wide Screen Movies book that Superscope was shot in Academy and Superscope 235 was shot full aperture.... On one page they show some film frame reproductions that clearly illustrate a full aperture original photography image for Superscope. Then, in text, a couple of pages later the authors contradict that by claiming: "In 1956 Superscope 235 was introduced. The only difference in photography was that the taking camera had a widened aperture that exposed over the soundtrack area and the crop factor allowed for a 2.35x1 ratio."  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-10-2003 01:21 PM                     quote: Maybe you were misled by Carr & Hayes' assertion in their Wide Screen Movies book that Superscope was shot in Academy and Superscope 235 was shot full aperture.... No, it was from my misunderstanding that the AR of the actual SUPER 35 frame (in the camera) was around 1.66 to 1. So when I read the article in www.widescreenmuseum.com that said Superscope used the original silent apeture (which I thought was 1.33), it lead to my confusion. So I mis-stated. (I hadn't read the article as carefully as I should have).  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-10-2003 02:17 PM                     quote: No, it was from my misunderstanding that the AR of the actual SUPER 35 frame (in the camera) was around 1.66 to 1. Shame on you for having not read WSR's "What So Super About Super 35?" article from a few years ago which explained all of the pertinent details of these formats.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 03-10-2003 05:47 PM                     The Carr/Hayes book is full of really stupid mistakes. however, at the time it came out, it was better than nothing. Beware of "3D Movies" by same author, it gets things mixed up even more! Corrections listed by Dan J. Sherlock can be found here: http://members.aol.com/filmteknik/wide.html  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.