Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flat-a-morphic

This is topic Flat-a-morphic 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=002217

Posted by Tom Evans (Member # 857) on 04-28-2001, 06:52 PM:

I don't know whether anyone has ever thought of this before, and there is probably a good reason why, but why don't film makers and procesing labs make flat films using an anamorph.
If you filmed a 1.85:1 scene through an anamorphic of some kind you could at least use the same frame area as the CinemaScope image...resulting in more light efficiency and probably more detail.
Film flat films through a scope lens and you would only need one industry standard lens, but probably more apertures, to cope with 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 1.33:6 etc, etc. Anyway it's way too late in the evolution of film for this idea but has anyone got any comments on this......

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-28-2001, 07:39 PM:

John Pytlak has been wanting this for some time, but you are correct, the industry will not change now.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-28-2001, 10:36 PM:

Already been thought of.. It's called IscoVision.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-30-2001, 09:47 AM:

I gave a presentation and showed a film demo of "Scope 1.5X" at the SMPTE Technical Conference last October. As you might expect, there was a significant improvement in screen luminance (1.5 times more light than the 1.85:1 "flat" format!) Steadiness, sharpness and graininess also benefit from the larger area on the print, compared to 1.85:1 "flat". The format would offer considerable benefit to all theatres, for the cost of an additional anamorphic lens.

This good idea was first proposed and demonstrated by Glenn Berggren and IscoOptic in the early 1980's.

------------------
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 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 04-30-2001, 10:46 AM:

I can think of a couple of issues off the top of my head. How do you compensate for the reduced light levels of a true scope print in relation to the brigher image of mini-scope? How do you handle the extra lens and plate if you're running a system that already has three lenses in place? I vaguely remember some two lens turrets as well? How do you keep the minimally trained kids from using the wrong scope lens and plate? It can be hard enough to get them to swap scope and flat properly. Does this mean a whole new run of trailers needs to be made as well?

By itself, the idea is good, but introducing another standard gets to be an issue. For instance, fox holes are an example of a standard that only required minimal modification, yet caused unanticipated problems.

I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically. This would be an intermediate to 70mm with much lower costs than full 70mm.

One nice thing about the mini-scope idea though, Evans could see uncropped scope pictures in Huntsville.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-30-2001, 11:01 AM:

Jerry had several questions:

"How do you compensate for the reduced light levels of a true scope print in relation to the brigher image of mini-scope?"

If you don't need the extra light, you could trade it for a stopped-down lens having greater depth of focus.

"How do you handle the extra lens and plate if you're running a system that already has three lenses in place? I vaguely remember some two lens turrets as well?"

It could be an issue during transition to the new format. But hopefully, it would eventually replace "flat" 1.85:1.

"How do you keep the minimally trained kids from using the wrong scope lens and plate? It can be hard enough to get them to swap scope and flat properly."

Easy: the leaders would be clearly labeled with the aspect ratio and format, as they are today

"Does this mean a whole new run of trailers needs to be made as well?"

Again, it would eventually replace 1.85:1 "flat". During the transition, "dual inventories" of prints and trailers would be needed, as it's likely the largest screen theatres (who need the extra light) would be the first to convert to "Scope 1.5X".

"I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically."

IMHO, a "Super 35" release print format is even less likely to ever happen, as it requires a change in centerline, 100% reliability of digital sound, and perhaps a change in the pulldown or film transport speed.

BTW, the 1.5X "squeeze" could be done with the camera lens, on an optical printer, or with "digital intermediate".

If the current 0.825 x 0.690 inch "scope" image area were used with a 1.5X anamorphic lens, the aspect ratio would be 1.79:1, almost an exact match to the 16:9 of HD television --- so movies would not need to be cropped or letterboxed when transferred for HD video release. Of course, if you wanted to stay with 1.85:1, you could go with a 0.825 x 0.670 inch image area.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 04-30-2001, 11:27 AM:

Hi

It seems to me that SuperScope, the first real Super35 developed by RKO in the 50's (I think) does exactly the same thing. It's a 2:1 ratio. The image on the film is 2x anamorphic 7.15x7.15. I have several trailers in this format. "Gone Fishing" is one. My Devry XD has a aperture plate for this format. I know the plate was made sometime in the mid 50's

In doing a few calculations it seems to me that the jump from 1.85 flat to Anamorphic is almost the same as Anamorphic 35 to 70mm.

It also seems that theaters jump from anamorphic to flat without the customers getting very upset. They really just come to see the movie. Unless the presentation is really bad, no one will complain. I can see why 70mm is on the outs.

Again any improvement needs to be advertised otherwise the viewing public really won't know or care about any visual differences from one format to the next. Maybe call it something modern such as Super Icon Technology. You know, this theater is Super Icon Certified.

Larry

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-30-2001, 11:52 AM:

Typically, the 2X scope format has slightly more light on the screen than the much less efficient 1.85:1 "flat" format. But using a 1.5X anamorphic lens with the full 0.825 x 0.690 inch image area puts MUCH (1.5 times) more light on the screen. Check out the table in the article I wrote four years ago:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/february97/pytlak.shtml

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 04-30-2001, 01:46 PM:

Hi

Again this might be wrong but I am thinking of total square inches at the aperture plate.

I am using old Devry plates for my measurments. Flat being .440x.835 at .367sq inchs. Scope .835x.715 at .597 sq inchs and 70mm I got a published figure of 1.913x.866 for a total of 1.656 sq inches.

The jump from flat to scope takes 1.27x average magnification and is 1.62 as large in sq area. Scope to 70mm is another 1.66x magnification which is 2.77 times as large in sq area. Not exactly equal in jumps but very close.

Remember, with 2x enlargement of a 1 inch sq area positive image equals 4 sq inches. So with a 2x enlargment, the image is 2 times the size but 4 times the area.

So my point is, the difference in quality from flat to scope is just about the same as between anamorphic 35 and 70mm.

Larry

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-30-2001, 03:35 PM:

And that's a big step up in quality!

Taken the other way, no one in their right mind would try to fill a 60-foot wide screen with a 16mm print. Size DOES matter, and using the entire 35mm "scope" area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches makes sense, while requiring no change in centerlines or sound formats. And 70mm prints make even more sense for huge screens, but they do cost more to make.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 04-30-2001, 04:27 PM:

Hi

Yes there is a big jump in quality between flat and scope just as in scope to 70mm. Quality though can have some drawbacks.

Sometime back we were talking about lens quality. Everyone was saying the older Kollmorgen lenses were less then perfect in contrast and resolution to modern lenses. An example of a modern lens would be the Schneider Super Cinelux. I purchased the Super Cinelux to test any resolution difference between the lenses. Sure enough, in bench testing, I found the Super Cinelux had a little more then twice the resolution of the Kollmorgen.

In actual use I have found something different. Using a 4x10 screen with the Cinelux I found that I can actually see quality differences from scene to scene in a typical feature. The Kollmorgen with it's lower quality tended to even out all the scenes to about the same quality.

I hate to say it but the Kollmorgen give a better overall result then the Super Cinelux. This is even though the Kollmorgen had half the image sharpness of the Cinelux.

Larry

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 04-30-2001, 07:12 PM:

John Pytlack-

My technical knowledge is very limited, but I still do not understand why/how a 70mm picture would be brighter than a 35mm scope one. The way I pictue this in my mind is that there is a cone of light from the lamphouse, focused at the aperture for greatest efficiency. It seems that a nearly square 'scope frame would be better able to take advantage of a round source of light (since a slice of a cone is a circle) than would a wider 70mm frame. To put it another way, a square will occupy more room within a circle than would a rectangle. So why would a 70mm frame use more light?

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 04-30-2001, 07:28 PM:

Many theatres also used beam expanders, which is a lens that would stretch the circular spot of light and turn it into an elipse. also, since there is more area on the 70mm, more light can be pushed through it before focus flutter becomes apparent. Thus 70mm presentations are typically brighter, sharper, and steadier, than its 35mm counterpart. The thing that I dont like about scope is that since it is magnified 2x horizontally, sidesway becomes more noticable, especially on video transfers.

Hope that helps, Brett.

Josh

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-30-2001, 10:57 PM:

The way I understand it is that the aperture has a bigger hole in it, thus you can put more light through it.

It would be analagous to the difference between pumping water through a garden hose versus a fire hose.

Posted by Tom Evans (Member # 857) on 05-01-2001, 06:09 AM:

Hi,

You would probably only need one aperture plate for the common aspect ratios (2.35:1, 1.85:1 and 1.66:1) seeing that the frame size stays the same, this would reduce shadow edges (aperture plate overlaps) as the plate wound be locked behind the gate. The only disadvantage is that you need three lenses, but seeing that most cinemas only use 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 there isn't much change to projector lenses turrets. Couldn't cinemas with the modified equipment request theses special 1.5x prints.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-01-2001, 07:21 AM:

Hi

To a Director, increasing image quality on a the screen may not be such a good thing. In reading the Imax Film Directors guide, it cautions about background litter such as half eaten donuts, candy wrapers and footprints. Normally in flat 35mm work, these elements read as background noise. In higher and higher resolution, these elements become a real problem meaning expensive reshoots.

I am sure these kinds of things cross the Directors mind when he or she selects the final format presentation.

Like it or not, it's the Directors vision that dictates what is up on the screen. The 1.85 flat format is a very comfortable format to work in. It also gives the widest possible distribution. It won't go away simply because a anamorphic 1.85 format exists.

Also, since the flat 35 to 35 scope is about about equal increase quality step as to 35 scope to 70mm, it would put an additional smaller quality step between flat 35 to scope. A complication many worker bees in the system may not what to deal with.

Larry

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-01-2001, 07:33 AM:

One more potential issue with the "1.85 anamorphic" format that should probably be mentioned here is that (as far as I know) no one is proposing this as a camera format. It's supposed to be an exhibition format only. This means that the entire film has to be optically printed from the camera negative onto intermediate stock. Unfortuantely, optical printing would be cost-prohibitive for many medium-budget productions (low-budget productions are usually shot on 16mm, so an optical stage is required anyway) and also often introduces artifacts of its own.

I do agree that the concept is a good one, and that it does make sense for certain applications (special-venue, etc.), but I really don't see it happening for regular theatrical use, since "flat 1.85" isn't going to go away, and introducing another format will just add to the cost for exhibitors (they'll need another set of lenses, and also probably will need trailers in a third format), as well as general confusion.

If theatre owners are going to be required to equip themselves for another format, I would vote that the format should be 1.37 Academy. There are too many theatres that run older films occasionally and butcher them terribly when showing them at 1.85 because they don't have the proper lenses, plates, and masking settings for Academy. I'd like to see new Academy-format productions, too...as much as I like the widescreen formats, Academy really "works" for some types of subject matter as well.

Of course, I would also advocate more 70mm releases. I have a very incomplete list on my web site of well over 250 70mm-capable theatres (some with multiple 70mm auditoria) in the US who can't get current titles in that format. This is shameful, considering how much 70mm product was available in the 1980s.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2001, 08:45 AM:

Anamorphic camera lenses could be developed for "Scope 1.5X" (AKA "IscoVision"), and would take advantage of the larger image area on the negative (better sharpness, less graininess), and would not require optical printing. But convincing camera lens manufacturers to design and build a family of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses is a "chicken or egg" proposition until most theatres can show the format. So to ease the transition, it was proposed that original photography could use non-anamorphic lenses (preferably Super-35 format), and the squeeze done in an optical printer or via "digital intermediate". This would also allow "dual inventory" prints for the transition.

Unfortunately, in today's economic climate, a new format is a "hard sell", even if it does offer significant advantages.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-01-2001, 10:57 AM:

A R%D design for a 1.5 anamorphic would be at least 1 million dollars before the first production lens is installed on a projector. Most lens design and production houses have very high overhead. Even Kodak's lens production and design division has a 600% to 1500% overhead.

I would expect a production of 7000 lenses for 3500 theaters would cost about 10 million dollars.

In these days of 400+ million dollar gross pictures, that 10 mil doesn't seem like much but the motion picture industry has the expense account down to an art form. The end result is, a 400 million gross dollar picture loses money.

It's much easer to spend money on fancy hotels then pieces of glass you don't understand and with the public not knowing the difference.

Larry

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2001, 11:23 AM:

AFAIK, much of the design work for 1.5X anamorphic projection lenses is already done.

IscoOptic has offered "ISCORAMA" 1.5X anamorphics for many years, and has developed 1.5X anamorphics for DLP-Cinema digital projectors. Isco was the vendor for the 1.5X anamorphic lenses used in the optical printer and on the projector for my demo of "Scope 1.5X":
http://www.iscooptic.de/english.html

Likewise, Schneider has developed 1.5X "CINE-DIGITAR" anamorphics for digital projection:
http://www.schneideroptics.com/projection/digital/digitarthrow.htm

In quantity, the cost of 1.5X anamorphic projection lenses for 35mm film would likely be comparable to normal 2X "scope" lenses. For that price, the theatre would get 1.5X more light on the screen, and an image of much better quality than 1.85:1 "flat".

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2001, 11:41 AM:

Randy answered Brett's question about why 70mm can be brighter: "The way I understand it is that the aperture has a bigger hole in it, thus you can put more light through it."

Simply stated and correct . The primary advantage of 70mm prints for huge screens is that it allows you to spread the light (and heat) of a large lamp over a larger area of film. With less heating, the film stays cooler and less likely to have "focus flutter" or heat damage. The longer focal length lens used also has greater depth of focus. The discussion was all in the article I wrote:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/march99/pytlak.shtml

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-01-2001, 07:13 PM:

The 1.5 Anamorphic might be better image quality but how much better? It seems to me that the quality fit would be somewhere between flat and 35 scope although it might be slightly better then scope fitting between 35 scope and 70mm.

If the R&D is already done then sure, one million bucks are saved. You still need the lens production at $1000 to $2000 each. I think at least 7000 lenses will need to be made. Many theaters won't like spending that kind of money. Although, Kodak might get the ball rolling by making these lenses and giving them away.

I say this because I understand that of all the photographic film produced by Kodak, 70% is used in the motion picture industry. The other 30% is used in the consumer(15%) scientific(10%)and professional(5%)markets.

Just one feature film uses almost 10 million feet of 35mm film from production to distribution. Just about as much as all the professional photographers shoot in a year.

Kodak has lots to lose if somehow 70% of their market dries up.

Again quality issues may mean different things to different directors. You still have the candy wrapper issue. Not to say anything about better set designs and so on.

The Imax manual gives real insight into all the problems improved image quality creates. This is not to say 35mm 1.5 anamorphic would reach Imax level. It's just that improved image quality may not be a Directors friend with his presentation.

Larry

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-01-2001, 08:22 PM:

>> It's just that improved image quality may not be a Directors friend with his presentation. <<

Then that director needs to learn to do his job better or just shoot on DV and distribute his crappy work on the internet.

</rant>

I started to read the Imax LF "Bible". I have seen many instances where they don't even follow their own guidelines when producing films. I guess I'll have to have a more serious look at it tomorrow.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2001, 11:34 PM:

It seems like the 1.5x anamorphic method put into practice, particularly as a camera format, would be a good thing and not impossible to do.

I recall 15 years ago when it was very rare to see a movie made in Super 35 or Super 1.85. Yet now, there are multiple camera and lens packages well suited to it. It also seems there are more Super 35 originated 'scope films these days (particularly for their "home video friendly" 2.35:1 approach).

But the visual problems with Super 35 and Super 1.85 are why I would want a 1.5x anamorphic 1.85:1 system made both as a camera filming and projection format. You can do direct printing without generational loss from an optical step. Super 35 can look pretty decent, but I've never found it to look better than anamorphic 2.35:1 photography. It doesn't look completely great on DVD either, at least not quite as good as an anamorphic 2.35:1. The color just seems drained. I've only found 70mm blowups of Super 35 elements to look particularly good.

The brightness problem with 1.85:1 is real, especially on large screens. When I saw "Jumanji" for the first time (at an opening for a Cinemark theater in Grapevine, Texas), it was shown on a very large screen. I'd say it was at least 60 feet across. The picture just looked terrible. Perhaps there was a possibility the projector (using a custom reflector and 7000 watt lamp) was not well set up, but I think the primary blame for the dim and blurry image was just that small 1.85:1 35mm image being blown up so big on a giant screen.

Another comment was made earlier about "warnings" for filming in large formats like IMAX (with the same thing being reasonable to apply to 70mm filming as well). Sure, a movie set may get extraneous pieces of trash on it. But I think it is really a sad thing if someone is going to say it is a "benefit" to use a smaller gauge just so the production can be a little less organized in its management of film sets.

I don't work in a projection booth. I'm just an incurable film fan with what some may consider is an unhealthy fascination about the mechanics of making and showing movies. But I do distinctly know the pleasure of seeing an extremely well-photographed movie like "Lawrence of Arabia" presented on a 70mm print with very sharp detail. I can recall seeing "Rolling Stones: At The Max" with a full body shot of Keith Richards playing guitar on the stage --and with an image so sharp you could practically see the time on his watch. I think film photography of such high definition should be something that Hollywood promotes instead of giving off an impression of "warning, do not use."

I don't want DLP at 1024 X 768 pixel resolution. I'd like 70mm projection for widescreen films. The 1.5x anamorphic 1.85:1 method sounds like a great idea for 35mm. I wish that Cinemark theater had it for that terrible showing of "Jumanji".

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-02-2001, 10:02 AM:

Larry -- the primary advantage of a "Scope 1.5X" print format is MORE LIGHT on the screen. A movie projected at the 16 footlambert aim looks better than one projected at a sub-standard 11 footlamberts, it's as simple as that. As Bobby H. notes, some theatres with huge screens just can't achieve 16 footlamberts with the 1.85:1 "flat" format because it is so inefficient for light and image area. "Scope 1.5X" would give them 1.5 times more light for the cost of a lens, WITHOUT putting more heat on the film.

If a "Scope 1.5X" format is used for the camera negative as well, you also have a significant improvement in sharpness and graininess, even compared to "Super-35", plus the advantage of not having to use an optical printer.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-02-2001, 01:54 PM:

John please don't get me wrong. I think the 1.5 scope idea is a good one. Even more so if it included the camera.

I am trying to look at both sides of the issue. On one side you have the Director who is trying to tell a story and meet production cost. The other side you have the theaters who want at least to have a reasonably good visual presentation.

The think one Director who tried to improve image quality was RIT grad Dug Trumble and his Showscan system. I understand with the showing of his movie Brainstorm, he wanted two types of projectors. One being a 70mm Showscan projector and the other being a standard projector using the standard flat .440x825 aperture plate.

All the normal scenes would be 1.85 35mm standard flat projector and all the Brainstorm scenes would be 70mm Showscan. A real changeover nightmare for the projectionist.

The idea was to show the big quality difference with his Showscan system. Something like the introduction to "This is Cinerama" but all through the picture.

Well it got nixed by producers and theater owners alike. Although Brainstorm did hit the theaters, it was usually shown in all standard 35mm scope with cropped normal scenes with full scope Brainstorm scenes. Not sure, but several 70mm prints might have been made.

No one ever got to see his Brainstorm vision of this super quality jump from 35mm 1.85 flat to 70mm 35+fps Showscan.

Larry

Posted by Stefan Scholz (Member # 147) on 05-02-2001, 02:09 PM:

I have recently upgraded an arthouse theatre from 1938 projectors with absolutely poor lamps (worn out vertical reflectors) to a Bauer U4 1981 (drive in gear) horizontal 1600 W projector. The benefits: absolutely even illumination, 18 fl - 12% to corners etc. vs. 4 fl with the old projector at 65 Amp. As we had no new design 115 mm lens on hand, it was tested with existing base lens and new attachments. As the picture quality and color schemes improved so drastically - we're out of the eyes night vision, which basically is the reason for poor image quality, as at night "all cats are grey", and you don't have sharpness, contrast and color reception.

By just gaining proper light levels, the picture was about 400 % better than before, so the owner now stopped ordering a new base lens, and thinks of keeping the original Isco Kiptar (4 elements ca. 1952) lens.
The transisition to dye soundtracks is there, all projectors made after 1995 are basicly red light, and therefore only older gear may give problems. The heads of our national theatre owner's association, think it is going to be a major problem, and that theatres can generally not afford the $700 retrofit investment."Who orderes, who pays?"
Do you really believe, that another projection lens, not only needed for those theatres using older gear, can be introduced in such a climate.
Benefits are one thing, fighting any investment, is the real thing.
I have always supported the 1.5 compression idea, since it first came out.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-02-2001, 02:12 PM:

There were a lot of 70mm prints of Brainstorm at least up here in canada.
Showscan is 60fps.
THe only stumbling block is apathy on the quality issue by the theatre circuits with a good enough attitude.
There is minimal cost increase in production (slightly higher light levels are required for any form of anamorphic photography due to the fact that the lens are slightly slower)
No change is cost fro the labs the only cost is the theatre buying the lens
i am suprised some cheapo owner didn't sujest resurecting the old varmorphic panatars and the likes

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-02-2001, 03:02 PM:

Hi

Are you saying those 70mm Brainstorm prints are in Showscan? I remember reading several articals about Showscan and how it was nixed for the Brainstorm project. In the theater I went to, the film was in 35mm scope.

There is also a listing of all original 70mm films on the net from 1955 to present. Brainstorm is not in that listing.

I know Showscan is faster then Todd-AO but I wasn't sure how much faster. I did see "Niagara" Showscan presentation at the falls. Again it was out of focus.

Larry

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-02-2001, 03:22 PM:

Brainstorm was regular 70mm 24fps dolbyA

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-02-2001, 06:39 PM:

The stories I had heard about "Brainstorm" was that Trumbull wanted to film the whole movie in Showscan. While that would have been a little more costly than straight 65mm/24fps, there wouldn't have been any projector changeover for showing different formats. In the end, Trumbull had to make the movie in a hodge-podge of 65mm/24fps and 35mm anamorphic/spherical processes. And I guess he has not been back to mainstream feature films since then.

I read another story about the Showscan process where Disney was looking into using it but rejected the process because the resulting image did not look like a movie. "It looked too real," to paraphrase their quote.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-02-2001, 09:57 PM:

Hi

I wonder if too real means the same thing as in the Imax user manual. "Half eaten donuts, candy wrappers and footprints can be a real problem and may mean expensive reshoots."

Larry

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 05-03-2001, 01:06 AM:

Another obstacle that it might be neccessary to overcome for a 1.85 anamorphic camera format:

I think I remember reading a couple of places that some had made decisions to shoot lower quality but spherical super-35 in order not to deal with anamorphics. Chicken, bok bok bok.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-03-2001, 07:26 AM:

Some directors and cinematographers prefer Super-35 over using anamorphic camera lenses for a variety of reasons. As Gordon McLeod noted, the anamorphic lenses require more light to obtain the desired depth of field. Anamorphic lenses have characteristic aberrations and distortions (e.g., out of focus highlights are ovals rather than circles). Spherical camera lenses tend to be smaller and lighter. Compared to anamorphic cinematography, "Super-35" gives more flexibility in composition and aspect ratio when transferred to video.

But, because it takes maximum advantage of the image area available on the 35mm negative, shooting "scope" with anamorphic camera lenses can produce images with superior sharpness and graininess. For example, the images in "The Thin Red Line" were spectacular.

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 05-04-2001, 04:37 PM:

I seem to remember seeing a vast VistaVision and well illuminated picture at the old Gaumont Hendon some 45 years ago. The UK Rank Organisation introduced a anamorphic 1.5 squeeze Vistavision process. Could this have been the first flat-a-morphic ? Visit www.widescreenmuseum.com - VistaVision page 6 which displays the Varamorph.

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

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-04-2001, 05:52 PM:

Well, there's also the Ultra Panavision 70 process (best known for its use in "Ben Hur") which uses a 1.25x squeeze for 70mm film, in order to achieve a 2.75:1 aspect ratio. Someday, I would love to see this title in its original format; I've seen two 35mm prints of it, one in mag CinemaScope (and IB Tech!) and one regular Eastman optical print; it's great in 35mm, but I'm sure that 70mm would be a totally different experience (much as is the case with Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-04-2001, 07:46 PM:

Technicolor introduced an anamorphic play off of VistaVision called Technirama. A roughly 1.5x anamorphic compression lens was used during filming on horizontal 8-perf 35mm. Films like Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" used it. Normally, Technirama would be reduced to 35mm 4-perf, or it would enlarged slightly for 5-perf 70mm --as was the case with "Spartacus". Terms like "Technirama 70" and "Super Technirama 70" were applied to such films.