Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Scorsese Promotes Widescreen Knowledge

This is topic Scorsese Promotes Widescreen Knowledge 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=002402

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-22-2001, 11:22 AM:

Here is a link to an interesting article on a project to increase awareness of proper film composition:
Scorsese Promotes Widescreen Knowledge

------------------
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 Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-22-2001, 11:40 AM:

I wish Dear MArtin would stop by Salt LAke City and help us make the local population aware that they are about to loose a gem of a theatre. Check out www.villatheatre.com
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 06-23-2001, 04:36 AM:

Scorcese's plan is definitely a good idea -- given recent news items (third item down) discussing how people still seem to prefer pan-and-scan over letterbox. I hope market pressures do not tempt studios into going cheap and providing only pan-and-scan versions of their films for home video release.

I used to think that, given how prevalent letterboxing seems to be these days, there was almost no reason reason for movies to be shot in Super-35 anymore. However, news items like the one I just linked to really make it clear how much further there is to go before letterboxing truly becomes widely accepted.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-24-2001, 01:00 AM:

Filming with Super 35 does allow a director to see how the image will be composed for several different formats.

However, I think some directors use it just to avoid the strange distortions caused by anamorphic adaptors. So even if letterboxing became the norm, some directors would still use Super35.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-24-2001, 04:09 AM:

There have been many excellent Super 35 features shot. True Lies pops into my mind right away!
Mark @ GTS

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-24-2001, 04:53 AM:

I know this may sound like a dumb question to some of you film gurus out there...How can you tell if a film was shot in Super 35 or not? I know I can probably figure it out after the video tape or DVD is released but how could you find out on current movies?

------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 06-24-2001, 08:54 AM:

I don't know much about Super 35, but the only way I can think of (to tell if a scope feature was shot using it) is to watch for scenes where a light shines directly into the camera, like a spotlight or the sun. If the light "flare" is oval, then an anamorphic lens was used. If the flare is round, then a regular lens (meaning Super 35) was used.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 06-25-2001, 08:34 AM:

Another anamorphic effect that I've noticed is unequal focus shifting, which becomes more apparent when a scene is filmed with the aperture wide-open, resulting in little depth of field. If you look at out-of-focus areas in the background, they're distorted vertically. In particular, street lights appear as vertical ovals. This only happens with anamorphic lenses -- spherical lenses cause out-of-focus street lights to look circular.

A famous example of this anamorphic effect occurs in _The Graduate_. When Ben is taking Elaine out on their first (forced) date, he's speeding along the highway. The car and its occupents are in focus, while the highway in front of them is out of focus. The highway lights in front of them show up as vertical ovals. I've also noticed this effect in _Finding Forrester_, in the scene in the baseball stadium.

I can't explain this effect. The horizontal ovals caused by lens flare make sense, since the light isn't getting compressed in filming, but is expanded in projection. However, vertical ovals would indicate that the anamorphic lens was adding MORE compression. Perhaps I'm just failing to look beyond the obvious, but could somebody else explain this effect to me?

Also, I've read somewhere that these effects occur with traditional designs of anamorphic lenses, such as those from Bausch & Lomb, Panavision, and J-D-C, but less with Technovision lenses. I've only seen one Technovision film, _The Last Emperor_, and didn't notice any anamorphic effects. Are there any anamorphic effects in _Apocalypse Now_? Or does the different lens design simply cause different effects that I'm not looking for?

--
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2001, 08:45 AM:

John Walsh is correct that one of the most obvious "give-aways" that an anamorphic lens was used on the camera is that out of focus speculars (e.g., headlights, christmas tree lights, candle flames, chandelier lights) will tend to have an oval halo, rather than circular ("oval of confusion" vs. "circle of confusion"). Some dislike that look, but I find it interesting. Recent films shot with anamorphic lenses include "Moulin Rouge" and "Pearl Harbor".

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-25-2001, 09:34 AM:

Personally, I found the anamorphic distortion (vertical elongation of out-of-focus objects in the backgrounds) to be very visually appealing in "Moulin Rouge", especially the red lights on the windmill in the background of many scenes. To me, it said, "We cared enough to put in the extra effort to use anamorphic lenses and get as much resolution out of the film as possible."

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 06-25-2001, 09:53 AM:

I think we're discussing two different anamorphic effects. John Walsh mentioned lens flare, which occurs when light shines directly into the camera. To use _The Graduate_ again as an example, there's a scene when Ben's car is approaching the camera. The headlights look like horizontal ovals. As he said, this would occur if a light were shining directly into the camera.

However, what I (and later Evans) noted as out-of-focus effects appear as vertical ovals -- specifically, out-of-focus points are twice as soft vertically as horizontally (and therefore four times as soft vertically on the film because of the 2:1 compression). This is not flare, and the lights don't have to be shining directly at the camera for the effect to occur. They don't even have to be lights -- in the baseball field scene in _Finding Forrester_, for example, everything out-of-focus in the background looks elongated vertically.

I've always been curious about this effect, as I've been able to rationalize the lens flare but not the vertical ovals (see my previous post). I'm sure if I sat down and analyzed the situation optically, I'd be able to work it out, but it isn't as intuitive as the lens flare effect.

--
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2001, 10:16 AM:

I don't think the ovals are "flare", they are probably a form of geometric distortion or lens aberration. Probably vary with the specific design of the anamorphic lens. Tak Miyagishima of Panavision would be one of the experts here:
http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/formats.htm
http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/protecting_vision.htm
http://www.adobepremiereworld.com/article/mainv/0,7220,119721,00.html

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 06-25-2001, 04:06 PM:

I realize that out-of-focus ovals are not a type of lens flare. However, anamorphic lenses DO flare differently than spherical lenses. They're two different effects that indicate anamorphic photography. At first, I myself didn't believe that these were two different effects -- when I read something talking about lens flare in an anamorphic picture, I thought, "Oh, vertical ovals." But then I saw lens flare and realized that it was horizontal. I'm sure both effects are caused by the same factor in the design of anamorphic lenses, but they do look different and provide two different ways of determining how a picture was shot.

This site describes a software package designed to add lens flare to digital images, and comes with screen shots. Anamorphic lens flare is a feature of the program, probably because it is so unique.
http://the-internet-eye.com/reviews/August99/Knoll_lens_pro/default.htm

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 06-25-2001, 09:30 PM:

It has been mentioned on another thread, but the easiest way to determine if a 'scope' print is real anamorphic or Super-35 is to look at the leaders: Super-35 prints will have all the images and writing on the leaders 'stretched' as they too go through the optical printing process that creates the scope image from S-35 negatives. Genuine anamorphic prints have completely normal looking leaders.

35mm 'blow-downs' from 65mm negs also can have the 'stretched' leaders as well.

Aaron

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-26-2001, 03:27 PM:

Seeing the "squeeze" on the leader assumes the leader was part of the original cut Super-35 negative that had the "squeeze" introduced during anamorphic optical printing. If the leader was added after the anamorphic stage of printing, circles would still be circles on the print.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-26-2001, 04:20 PM:

A couple more questions...

1. Does a scope print shot in Super 35 have a tendacy to be more grain in appearance than a print shot in a straight anamorphic manner?

2. Do changeover dots stay circular if the print is shot in Super 35 and is scope? I never really noticed but now I am thinking about it.

------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-26-2001, 04:37 PM:

All other things (film stock, exposure, etc.) being equal films shot in super-35 tend to have more grain than those shot in scope, since the same size on-screen image is derived from a smaller amount of area that is actually exposed on the original camera negative. There are also other flaws, such as optical printing artifacts, that are introduced by the super-35 process. Note that flat/1.85 prints can be made from super-35 negatives, but that is rarely done.

Cue marks on all scope prints will be elliptical, since they are either punched in an intermediate element or scratched on the release print itself, and so are created after the "squeeze" process has been done. Older films (esp. pre-1950s titles) had cue marks punched in the original camera negative, which is why you see them when the films are shown on TV, but this is almost never done today, since the original negative element is considered too valuable to punch.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-26-2001, 06:41 PM:

I kinda thought so...thanx Scott

------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV

Posted by Brett Rankin (Member # 31) on 06-26-2001, 09:16 PM:

Scott:

Why are 1.85 films rarely shot in Super35? I can't conceive of any drawbacks, only advantages in resolution and grain. So what gives?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-26-2001, 09:48 PM:

Brett asked: "Why are 1.85 films rarely shot in Super35?"

Although there is an advantage to having the much larger image area on the negative for Super-35 1.85:1, it would require an optical printing step to reformat the Super-35 image area to 1.85:1 with a soundtrack on the release prints. Optical printers are relatively slow, and can accentuate the matte and surface imperfections on the master positive unless wet optical printing is used. If the camera negative is shot normal 1.85:1, faster continuous contact printing is often used for all stages of duplication. Using a step (contact or optical) printer for the printing the master positive to the duplicate negative(s) does have the advantage of using pin registration to assure proper "film pitch" relationship and optimum steadiness:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/printing.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/programs/student/handbook/perforations2.shtml

I recall only a small handful of films shot in Super-35 for 1.85:1, including "The Fisher King", "Bonfire of the Vanities", and "Godfather 3".

For the proposed Scope 1.5X process (aka "IscoVision"), Super-35 would be a very good origination format. Scope 1.5X would use the current anamorphic print image area (0.825 x 0.690 inches) with a 1.5X anamorphic lens to give 1.5X more screen luminance, with a 1.79:1 (16:9) aspect ratio to allow exactly the same composition for eventual HD video release. In the theatre, only a new lens is needed --- unlike other proposals to improve 35mm projection formats, there would be no change in image centerlines, pulldown or sound formats. The proposed format would allow theatres struggling to get 11 footlamberts for 1.85:1 "flat" to get 16 footlamberts with this new 35mm print format.