Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flat/Scope & Super35

This is topic Flat/Scope & Super35 in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001119

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 06-24-2000, 01:44 AM:

I've been tinkering around with an idea that must have flaws I'm not thinking of. Why not print flat (1.85) in the scope format like they do in trailers? According to my quick and dirty calculations (using an approximate 1.8:1 scope frame) regular flat film utilizes 64% of the frame, but flat printed scope uses 78% of the frame. That means there would be 14% more light on the screen and a generally higher quality image. Theaters would then need only a single lens and 1 aperture plate, cutting costs. The only reason I can think of why this is not being done is because of top masking. Theaters that have a larger flat image than scope would then have a tiny image, but is that the only reason?Feel free to shoot the idea down or correct my figures...

The second issue I have is with the increasingly popular Super35 filming format. What is the point of shooting a film flat (albeit with a slightly larger frame area) and then cropping it to the 2.4 aspect ratio instead of just using an anamorphic lens? With super 35 you get more grain and lower resolution, not to mention I dislike the fact that you actually see more image on video than you do in theaters. It can't be a cost issue- Titanic, Independence Day and Gladiator used it. So WHY??

I'm done. Thank you.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-24-2000, 04:41 AM:

Have a search of the archives and look for a topic called 'flat films'. You'll find some reasoning and opinions there.

------------------
"I could never be a woman. I'd just sit at home and play with my breasts all day."

Steve Martin - L.A. Story

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2000, 04:42 AM:

Brett,

This will NEVER happen!!!!!!!!! Why not? because it makes sense! Our industry frowns upon things that make sense.

Of course, I would still rather have two aperatures and one lens. But the REAL solution would be to eliminate anything but scope!

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 06-24-2000, 06:20 AM:

John Pytlak would love to comment on this, I'm sure. A pet peeve of so many of us has been the wasted real estate in a film image where those big black frame lines never made any sense. John's pushing a new "Flat" format that would use the entire film frame that would (almost) give us a "one aperture, two lens" situation. I'm all behind the creative community that says they need the 1.85 ratio, but let's make it as good as we can.

Pat

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-24-2000, 06:27 AM:

Personally, I really like the idea of the 1.5x squeeze ratio for 1.85:1 films (print format only; the camera format would remain the same), but, alas, that will probably never happen, either.

I also think that every screen of every theatre should be properly equipped to show all four common formats: 1.37 flat/Academy, 1.66 European widescreen, 1.85 American Widescreen, and 2.40 CinemaScope, but that won't happen, either...

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 06-24-2000, 07:02 AM:

The major advantage of filming in flat is that using spherical lenses you have greater depth of field. Also Spherical lenses are faster (smaller f-stops - or better T-stops)than the anamorphic equivalent and therefore need less light to "write" on film.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-24-2000, 08:13 AM:

Christos has hit on the reasons Super 35 is popular. Some directors do not like the look of anamorphic adapters.

I copied this from a posting by a guy (David Mullen) at r.a.m.t. I would like to meet him someday; he seems very knowedgable and is always very clear with explanations;

-------------------
"-snip-.....[anamorphic lenses like] Arriscopes, Hawks, Powerscopes, Technovision, Todd-AO, Clairmont, JDC, etc. They all vary in terms of sharpness, speed, distortion, matching, breathing, flaring, minimum focus, etc. You make tests to determine which you want to use.

For example, I know someone who tested the Arriscopes and said they were incredibly sharp (sharper than Hawks) with no flare problems but were also really big & heavy and breathed badly when focused -- while the Hawks flared badly but hardly breathed when focusing."
---------------------

Anyway, the point is that some directors would rather sacrifice grain for the "look" of flat. I don't think this is a *really* bad thing, if other factors are carefully done (copying the negatives, good optical printer lenses when formating for release prints, etc.) Carefully done, film can yeild a very high quality image, even after blowing it up.
Hey, shooting in 65mm would be my choice, but that's not going to happen.

I used to really like the idea of release prints with 1.5 squeeze for 1.85. And, it still not a bad idea. But now its just too much work for all the theater.

70mm is already in theaters; why pay to develop and roll out another format? And the theaters are where the image improvement has to be. Maxivision (3 perf format,) Iscovision (1.5 squeeze for 1.85) are good ideas, but are too hard to implement and don't improve the image enough to continue to make film *the* viewing medium for the next 100 years.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-24-2000, 09:52 AM:

There's too much to quote right now, but if you can find the issue of American Cinematographer magazine which discusses Titanic you'll find a lot of information about Super 35 and why James Cameron prefers it. He also goes into detail about how he works with film labs to address the issues of grain and contrast. He makes an excellent case for his choice of Super 35.

Then find the issue which discusses Saving Private Ryan and you'll discover why Steven Spielberg has abandoned the 2.4 aspect ratio. He doesn't make such an excellent case for his choice, but at least he explains it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-24-2000, 02:41 PM:

Isn't Stevey-boy worried about how his films will look on video? Remember, video presentation is much more important than film presentation.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-24-2000, 02:59 PM:

Actually everything should be shot on either 65mm neg for scope releases and VistaVision for flat releases
Paramount in conjunction with rank tried to get a 1.5:1 squeezed vistavision prints back in the fifties
That was what the variable anamorphic was developed for turn the dial and do both

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 06-25-2000, 01:12 AM:

Greg,

I did find the Saving P. Ryan issue, couldn't track down the Titanic issue though. For the benefit of our beloved readers:

From AC, August 1998, Quothe Spielberg:

"To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950's. I find widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we seeas high to low as we do from side to side. If I hadto make a choice, I'd rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I've chosen 1.85:1 for my last four pictures because they were intended tobe more lifelike."

To each his own, I guess. But I wonder what he means by "slick." Personally, I prefer the look of anamorphic. I don't know what it is but I think it just looks better then super35- depth of field? I dunno. If you compare a couple of DVDs (I admit I bought one) like Mask of Zorro with Mystery Alska, thelatter just LOOKS cropped, and zorro doesn't. What is it exactly between spherical and anamorphic that results in such a different look?

I hadn't heard of the 1.5x squeeze before, and what a fantastic idea! That ain't gonna happen, but why not the trailer format? There isn't a single change that would be needed.

Thanks all-

Brett

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 06-25-2000, 03:43 AM:

Brett

The term "depth of field" has nothing to do with screen dimensions. It is related with the focal distance of a certain lens. If you are involved somehow with photography it is easy to understand. By closing the aperture (less light passes through the lens) more area behind - and front from the subject is in focus. On the contrary by opening the aperture only the subject remains sharp and the rest is out of focus.
An anamorphic lens uses many elements (spherical plus anamorphic - cylidrical- adapter), so the light passing through it
is less than a standard lens. Considering this you have to open the aperture (more area out of focus) or put more and stronger light sources to have the same results with a flat lens.

The Titanic issue of American Cinematographer is Vol.78 No 12, december 1997.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-25-2000, 04:00 AM:

So it seems Steven Spielberg's 'little' films will continue to be 1.85:1. At least he's consistant, I guess.

Indiana Jones 4 will be in scope though, thank goodness...can you imagine a 1.85:1 Indy? AAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.....!

Phew!

------------------
"I could never be a woman. I'd just sit at home and play with my breasts all day."

Steve Martin - L.A. Story

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 06-25-2000, 08:11 AM:

Of course it's up to him, but isn't Spielberg missing the point here? I don't know if the human eye sees 1.85:1 (I rather think it's more with peripheral vision). I suppose most of you know before hand or see in trade screenings if a film is going to be scope or flat. But as a fan, I know when the show starts - AND IT'S SCOPE - I always think wow, this is a REAL movie. I just can't imagine any of those great westerns (or of course John - INDY) in flat. The point of movies to me, is they're better than TV. A scope movie always looks better, or at least has that WOW appeal. Don't they know they're only hurting themselves? Let's bring on the wide-screen, 48 fps format and keep using film for the next century. No?

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-25-2000, 01:36 PM:

Well.... Books on film theory go into how different aspect ratios make for different ways of composing a shot. It's easy to have an intimate two-person shot (top of head to neck) in 1.33 or 1.66, but 2.35? There's going to be a lot of empty space on both sides. Do these finer points really make a difference in how the movie is perceived? Maybe. In any case, some movies aren't epics designed to have your entire field of vision awash in imagery, but still deserve to be seen on something bigger than a TV screen. It's just too bad that filmmakers can't have a free range of choices for aspect ratios without sacrificing image quality.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-25-2000, 03:28 PM:

It's great to watch some of the earliest CinemaScope films... like How to Marry a Millionaire and stuff like that. It's an entirely different shooting style from what's done today. It's great! Oh, how I long for the days when films used the entire canvas and there was no temptation to worry about how things would look on video.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-25-2000, 06:49 PM:

Interestingly scope is easier to scan to video than super 35 is

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 06-26-2000, 06:37 AM:

Anyone have figures on the amount of release prints in 'scope Vs widescreen?

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.

David Kilderry

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-27-2000, 12:40 PM:

I will be presenting a technical paper at the fall technical conference of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in Pasadena on October 20. Here is the synopsis that was sent to the SMPTE:

___________________________________________
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.

_____________________________________________

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-27-2000, 01:23 PM:

In reply to Brett Rankin's original post:

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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-27-2000, 04:59 PM:

I have run many location dailies shows in Super 35 such as "Crazy In Alabama", "A Family Thing",and including some of "True Lies" which was the highest quality super 35 show I have seen to date. Alot of DP's like to have a large depth of field which even todays best anamorphic camera lenses cannot afford so spherical lenses must be used. There are also a large number of available camera lenses that are spherical that allow far more flexibility in what the DP can do. This includes a far greater range of macro lenses, zooms, and fixed primes. Custom lenses can even be made up to cover a Super 35 format if needed for a certain job. Clairmont Camera has done this many times for a number of productions. Many of the available spherical lenses are also faster than even the best anamorphics available today and they are also far lighter in weight. One look at "True Lies", even at the night scenes would convince you to shoot in this format. This show was done right from the start and even the lab work was done very meticlous for this show. Remember how good the 70mm blow ups looked!!
BUT.......Super 35 can also be a dog format in the hands of an inexperienced DP, and without proper lab supervision. If done wrong it can look grainy, muddy and not sharp. The dailies film for the shows I have worked on have looked great and sometimes even the release prints look darn good, but for this process to work properly extreme care must be excercised in all areas due to the extra lab steps required.
As far as doing 1.85 anamorphically goes......its a great idea that should have been done years ago. Such waste is generated with todays flat prints. The camera stock waste is not really a factor here though. More light, sharper pictures when the lab does the job right and far less waste. So much waste that that if this format existed Digital Projection would not really be needed so soon.
Mark

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 06-27-2000, 06:35 PM:

John;
Sign me on the campaign list. It was a great idea years ago that got put aside because the thought was theatres were going to smaller screens and not larger ones -- and no one wanted to spend money on such things anyway. Too bad, Mark's right as well; had this been introduced back then, digital projection might be that much further down the road.
I wish you luck and whatever support I can lend. Be nice to see the film industry do a few things to improve quality rather than compromise it.
Just don't bring up 30 frames/second projection rate...

Pat

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 06-27-2000, 07:02 PM:

By boy stevie must have tunnell vision. If most people see in the 1.85 format, then I must be a mutant or something. I have 215 degree peripheral vision. I HATE ANYTHING LESS THAN THE 2.4 format. I want my own personal "depth of field" to have nothing but movie screen in it.

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

------------------
"If it's not worth doing, I have allready been there and done it"

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 06-28-2000, 07:32 AM:

Speaking of digital projection, and I'm sorry, I bet you guys have discussed this to death, but what is the realistic expectation
for this. Will it take over? 10, 20, 30 years? I fail to understand why we must always try to re-invent the wheel. They now test supermarket lanes where you scan your own items. This is just dumb, and costs real people's jobs. With film, we have an art and technique that has been pefected for 70 plus years. It's reliable, simple (beaming light through a picture), virtually idiot proof. Hard to steal or pirate. Digital? You all work with computers. You will never, ever, get computers to be as reliable as film, resulting in lost shows. The films will be much more theft-prone. And I had heard that they were running comparisons between film at 3K to digital at 7K Xenons and still not getting the brightness of the film. Of course, I'm a "film novice", but as a general consumer, I'm just getting so sick of the mediocrity being pushed my way because it's easier for the guy at the top. I think it'll bite 'em.
Any thoughts? GO FILM!

------------------
Dave Bird

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-28-2000, 12:10 PM:

I hate to be a naysayer, but I feel Iscovision is a "too-little-too-late" idea. Of course I am for *any* improvement in picture quality, but I feel Iscovision would only be an interim solution. How long will it take to get it accepted? I would guess at least 5-7 years.

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.

Ten years (or so) from now, current projectors are going to be replaced. Do you want it to be with e-projectors or 70mm? Because, I feel there's no third choice.

Posted by Tyler Skinner (Member # 229) on 06-28-2000, 02:30 PM:

Its too bad many of the newer theaters (like mine) are using what I call "Pseuso-Scope" which has the masking squeeze in from the top and bottom to create a "wider" image rather than opening from the sides. (only a few of my smaller screens do this) Otherwise it would be very easy to make theaters show everything in Matted Scope, as stated before all you would need are new aperture plates, Automations, and masking systems...

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.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 06-29-2000, 09:01 AM:

I have to agree with Tyler. Too many theatres companies are more woried with the "all mighty buck" than they are presentation quality. I mean if they were worried about presentation, we would have better isolated houses, real scope screens (ie. no drop masking) with a full 120 degree curve, and better treatment for projectionists.

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

"Do or do not, there is no try."

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-29-2000, 11:19 AM:

Barring IMAX, I still believe that nothing has ever topped the visual splendor of Lawrence of Arabia. Hollywood has had almost 40 years to try to top it but that has never happened. We've had 40 years of technical "progress" and nobody can top that movie! What gives?

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 06-29-2000, 11:31 AM:

What films are printed in 70mm? Are they only special runs? What is 5/70 and 15/70?
I'm assuming that if I were Joe Blow, with a little backwoods theatre, that 70 would not be available to me. Thanks.

------------------
Dave Bird

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 06-29-2000, 12:13 PM:

15/70 is a large format used by IMAX and iWerks among others. It is 70mm film printed horizontally (ran that way too, go figure) with the frame taking up 15 perforations.

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

"Do or do not, there is no try."

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 06-29-2000, 03:06 PM:

Thanks Dave, and actually I happen to have a couple sample scraps of each out in the box of goodies - trailers, etc. Yah, it looks like you could really pound alot of light through that IMAX stuff. John mentioned that 70mm may be the future for film in the war with digital. I'd be interested in hearing folks opinions on what format. I suppose the more traditional vertical 5/70?
Thanks again.

------------------
Dave Bird