Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How to stretch the width of a 1.85 : 1 image ?

This is topic How to stretch the width of a 1.85 : 1 image ? 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=003820

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 08-06-2002, 09:22 AM:

My theatre in INDIA is no different from others. India produces more than 1023 films each year. Not one of it in 1.85 : 1 except when the movie is produced for outside INDIA.

My theatre is a single screen with 1152 seats. There is a balcony with 362 seats and 790 seats below it.

My screen size is :
Width - 51.6 Feet (Not possible to stretch further)
Height - 21.5 Feet (Not possible to stretch further)

Most theatres in INDIA refuse to play 1.85 : 1 format films. Obviously because 100 % of Indian theatres are designed keeping in mind only the 2.39 : 1 format film.

But then, with my theatre playing more and more AMERICAN films and with DISNEY and SONY mostly releasing most of their films in 1.85 : 1 format, I wonder if it is possible to stretch the width of the image from a 1.85 : 1 print without significantly distorting the image characteristics.

Screen coverage on a 1.85 : 1 print is as under :

WIDTH - 39.75 Feet
Height - 21.50 Feet

So, I want to know if I can extend the 39.75 feet to cover my complete screen width.

I have 3 Westrex projectors. I use SANKOR lens which as a focal length of 85 mm. We have currently ordered the new SCHNEIDER SUPER CINELUX INTEGRATED ANAMORPHIC lens for our projectors.

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

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 08-06-2002, 09:38 AM:

Kamakshipalya, welcome to Film-Tech!

If you literally want to "stretch" your image using an anamorphic lens, then I would say that there will not be any way to avoid distortion.

I can think of two potentially viable options off the top of my head: figure out a way to hang additional masking on the sides to crop the screen for proper 1.85 presentation, or just run the 1.85 image within the scope image area. Obviously, the first option is the better of the two, but I think that it is most important to maintain the "flat" image and try to show the film as close as possible to the intended aspect ratio.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-06-2002, 09:48 AM:

NO! NO! NO! It is your job to present the movie as it was intended, not to alter it to fit your screen. To do what you want would require showing cropping the height of the picture to acheive the Scope aspect ratio and enlarging the remainder so as to fill both the height and width of your screen. This would be horrible as you would be showing only about 77% of the height of the picture. There are some very bad theatres that attempt to show all films to about 2:1, cropping 1.85 films vertically and Scope films horizontally. That is bad enough and what you propose is far worse. (We won't even discuss the idea of literally stretching the picture horizontally.)

What you should do is arrange to have black masking curtains that can be moved in at each side of the screen to hide the portion that is not used when running 1.85. While you're at it they should have the capacity to move in even farther so you can project the 1.66 aspect ratio should the need arise. Perhaps even for 1.37. All films would be projected with the same image height and only the width changes.

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-06-2002, 10:05 AM:

Kamakshipalya,
going to 2/1 for 43 feet with an additional 12% loss of light and lower image quality is the result. Using a variable prism adapter on the front of the lens to stretch the image would give unpleascent distorsion in the picture ( watch your leading stars gain 100 pounds in girth

) and major light loss. Since many Indian cinemas do not use screen masking and the size of your house, I understand why the desire for a larger image other than changing your screen to a taller one ( if conditions permit ) with a 28 foot height to properly display the 1.85 image.....again if your lamphouse can handle this size image since I assume you are on carbon.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-06-2002, 11:20 AM:

I was actually in a horrible theatre back in the early 70's in Oakland, my FIRST triplex, where the theatre had full scope screens, but ran flat films to fill the scope screen. The result was terrible. It was the original Jack London Square cinemas not to be confused with Signature's theatres there today. There was also a twin in oakland at the Rockland (or rOCKRIDGE) shopping center that used trhe correct ratio for The Exorcist in thetare 1. Theatre 2, however, showed it in a scope ratio (very narrow theatre, I think no more than 6 seats per row. the changeover house used angled projectors with MIRRORS because the room wasn't wide enough to use dead-on projection.

The other solution that was used in Bakersfield was to run flat cartoons in scope if the feature was in scope. On theplus side, the pre-wide screen cartoons could be seen with all their image intyact (instead of beibng cropped to 1.85). The negative was that you had a badly DISTORTED image.

NEITHER SOLUTION WORKS! I demand OAR on my DVD's AND at the movies.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-06-2002, 02:41 PM:

Paul Thompson likes to watch all Road Runner cartoons in scope. I can agree the results are hilarious.

Josh

Posted by Rick Sanjurjo (Member # 1365) on 08-06-2002, 05:48 PM:

Kamakshipalya,

Stretching the image would be a bad idea as others have said it would distort the image significantly. The best thing to do would be to add side masking and make the screen smaller for 1:85 so that image looks like it fits the whole screen.Maskings are common in most US theaters.

Rick

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-06-2002, 06:48 PM:

We want pictures of your theatre!!!! (Well, I do at least.)

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 08-07-2002, 12:37 AM:

For as many years we can remember, we have run 1.85 : 1 prints without enlarging the same to fit the width of the screen. All the while, audience always complain about 1.85 : 1 image area and so, we used to wonder if there is a way around it.

We did play SPIDERMAN and are currently playing MEN IN BLACK-2. A remarkable feature about the trailers for both these films was that they were presented not in 1.85 : 1 format but some other that they looked great with an anamorphic lens.

For all 2.39 : 1 prints, we use a back lens and a front lens attachment. For all 1.85 : 1 prints, we use a single (but a separate and distinct from that used for 2.39 : 1) back lens.

The trailers of SPIDERMAN and MIB-2 were played out on 2.39 : 1 lens and they looked more impressive than even regular 2.39 : 1 trailers like MINORITY REPORT or AUSTIN POWERS.

So, how was this done at all ? I believe the answer to this question could help thousands upon thousands of movie theatres in INDIA.

To the question whether my projectors are run on carbon, the answer if yes. We always wanted to change over to XENON but an unique feature in INDIAN theatres is that prints are shifted between theatres.

To illustrate, the city of BANGALORE has 135 single screen theatres. There are no multiplexes here. Yet. MIB-2 plays at 15 different theatres with 6 prints. Each theatre is allowed to screen only a maximum of 4 shows in a day under the Law.

So, if my theatre starts a show at 1.30, another theatre which starts at 3.00 will receive REEL 1 and 2 from me and so on..

However, with assurances from distributors these days that I will be given a separate print for all future films, I am planning to go in for a KINOTON FP 30 E with a XENON 5000 watts projector ( 2 numbers)

I also forgot to mention that our screen is curved and the measurement of this curve is quite like the RECOMMENDED type (so described in the SCHNEIDER LENS SELECTION SOFTWARE).

That some doubts were expressed if XENON projectors are suitable for screens of my size, will somebody please clarify if XENON projectors are not suitable for larger screens.

There are theatres in BANGALORE with screen sizes like 72 or 80 feet in width and featuring 1400 or more seats. They too want to switch over to XENON after they see I do it. FYI, there are no XENON projectors anywhere in my STATE. BANGALORE population - 7.5 million. STATE POPULATION - 50.5 million.

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

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-07-2002, 12:45 AM:

When do you plan to install the Kinoton equipment and is Monee or Vikas doing the project? You should be pleased with the results.
Richard Fowler
TVP-Theatre & Video Products Inc. www.tvpmiami.com

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 08-07-2002, 03:14 AM:

Most of the trailers for Spiderman and MIB2 were already cropped on a flat lense to reflect the scope ratio. When I played most of these trailers on screen here at my theatre, you would see the black bands across the top and bottom. That is probably why it turned out properly on your screen!!

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-07-2002, 04:50 AM:

but spiderman and mib2 are flat films, not scope, so there would be no reason for the trailers to be matted down to a scope ratio. indeed, we played the mib2 trailer in 1.66 (or so) and it filled the frame. Kamakshipalya must have played scope versions of the trailers with the image cropped and optically squished to look right through the scope lens. and since no prints of these flat films would ever be struck this way (or do they do this in india?) it wouldn't help in solving the original problem of filling the screen with a flat film. which of course he should not do.

when did india stop producing flat films? all the satyajit ray films i've seen are flat, and he worked into the 90's (although the most recent one i've seen is from the 70's). i suppose ray's films were intended for the international market though, unlike most bollywood product.

i saw lagaan not too long ago, and yes, it is scope. interestingly, it had no cue marks, even though most indian theaters, as we just learned, run changeover.

carl

Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-07-2002, 09:30 AM:

The Jacey cinema circuit, with mostly old small News Theatre halls in London, became solely Cartoon Theatres, running 1 hour shows, on the demise of the newsreels. The flat cartoon reels would be stretched to 2.35 scope by using the anamorphic lens with the wide ratio lens, with the Kalee Varamorph, adjusted to a x 1.5 squeeze.

When the supply of cartoons dried up, the cinemas ran for a few years on single and double bill re-runs, continental and sex exploitation movies.

On the closure of the Jacey, Trafalgar Square, all the seats and equipment went to the Regal Cranleigh. The seats were later specialist refurbished. I also took the Italian Fedi projectors with RCA sound from the closed Jacey, Leicester Square, and sold them to a cinema in Africa. I also managed to sell 350 old seats to a cinema in Iceland.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-07-2002, 09:40 AM:

The print should be projected at the aspect ratio intended by the filmmakers:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-07-2002, 10:38 AM:

What JP said.

The best theater in Eugene in terms of presentation is house #3 at Regal Cinema World 8. This is a decent-sized room: 480 seats. But the screen is quite small. I've eyeballed it at 24 feet flat, 30 feet scope (common-height, movable side masking). When it's masked for flat, I've heard customers comment that "the screen is too small here". Well, duh, sit a little closer and the screen will look larger. Actually, the relatively small size of the screen really helps improve 35mm image quality. Sharpness and detail can be amazingly good. "Signs" was extraordinarily sharp on that 24' screen. I also saw "Signs" on a 36-foot common-width screen (movable top masking) and the image quality definitely suffered in comparison.

Anyway, my point is that if Regal suddenly decided to stretch the flat image out to make it "bigger" on that screen, it would be an unforgivable abomination. I would never go there again if they did something like that. Not saying they would ever do it, in fact I'm sure they wouldn't. But they could, and the result would be completely unacceptable.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 08-07-2002, 12:34 PM:

Welcome as well to Film-Tech. You'll find this can be a helpful forum.

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,

Pat

Posted by Alex Grasic (Member # 1371) on 08-07-2002, 12:58 PM:

My mistake, I must have gotten them confused with other trailers!

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 08-07-2002, 11:53 PM:

What percentage of movie theatres in the United States still illuminate their projectors on Carbon ? I guess the percentage must be very small.

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 ?

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

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-08-2002, 12:14 AM:

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?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-08-2002, 04:10 AM:

So let me get this straight....there are more screens in India still being lit by carbon arc than all the screens combined that are being lit by xenon in the US?!! Then what is this myth that carbons are not being manufactured any more and all that bulderdash about, "Oh, if you know what's good for you will be install xenon before it's impossible for you to get carbons any more," that I keep hearing? HUH?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2002, 08:53 AM:

If the carbons made in India are available in the same sizes as those that were available elsewhere, perhaps there is an opportunity to export them, if the quality is good.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-08-2002, 11:20 AM:

If Schneider is claiming 10 elements then surely you are referring to an integrated lens and counting all elements. The anamorphic portion presumably uses 4 elements (2 cylindrical doublets).

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.

I love my Blue Stars. I'm on screen with them right now as I write this. Too bad it's a Super 35 blowup and not "real" scope but rest assured that every grain in the blowup is in precise focus.

Posted by Pat Moore (Member # 380) on 08-08-2002, 03:58 PM:

Hi; Both ISCO and Schneider received technical achievement awards for lens design in the same year. I do feel the ISCO developments were more deserving of recognition.

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

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-08-2002, 04:18 PM:

Sorry to say that I have used a supply of Carbons , which the manager brought back from India and they were not the best , although there could better manufacturers than the type we used , but these ones keep spitting and sent me up the wall as I tried to keep a steady light on the screen

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

Posted by Torsten Jasper (Member # 1860) on 09-03-2003, 11:45 PM:

"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."

No way, in Germany there are only a few theaters still using carbon.
Remember, famous Osram short arc lamps are made in Germany.

"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."
We use both, Schneider and ISCO, its hard to tell I believe ISCO is better, best is ISCO Blue-Star Anamorphic Lens. They are also made in Germany.

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-04-2003, 09:54 AM:

When I read this thread this morning, I found it somewhat humorous, since it's the old Cobb problem in reverse. Cobb built theatres to crop scope to 1.85:1 in 2/3 of their auditoriums here, a mess that Regal went in and fixed, thankfully. I'd never think a theatre would have the opposite problem -- cropping or stretching flat films to fill a scope screen. Many flat films are so tightly composed that cropping them vertically and magnifying them more would cut off many titles and important parts of the images. A Cobb theatre that used to be here in Huntsville from 1982 to 2000 had one screen with adjustable masking and the other 7 were 2.00:1 where both formats were cropped. Flat films often had their titles cut off and there were many Warner Brothers haircuts in flat films at that place. It would be far worse if they were cropped to 2.39:1.

I'd hate to see a new trend toward ignoring the original format and composition of a movie and making all movies fit whatever screen is in place. Cobb did that for many years (and hopefully they're not still doing it in their new theatres). The only good thing that could come out of making flat films fit scope screens is maybe the studios would start making all scope films and abandon the flat format, which was a kludge from the start. It seems there are more scope films being made nowadays.