This is topic ISCOVISION - Making it happen 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=005239

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-21-2003, 06:27 AM:
 
...continuing from the "Will the industry ever give up on 24fps" thread -

If "varomorph" / prismatic lenses are a no-go, is there potential nowadays for some kind of adaptor that could be slipped on / off the standard anamorphic, which would reduce the "squeeze" from 2X to ISCOVISION's required 1.5X?

The beauty of that would be that within a multi, the adaptor would move from house to house with the print, and the theatre would only have to invest in more than one adaptor if they're regularly interlocking or showing multiple prints.

Again, it would obviate the need for changing out lenses, or replacing the existing anamorphics, as well as also retaining the spherical lens for "flat" 1.85 prints.

It would be quite a challenge not only optically but physically, as you'd have to accurately locate the adaptor in all planes.

But has not lens design moved on considerably since the original demo, with CAD, new materials, coatings, etc.? Also since this is a kind of "reverse anamorphic", could camera lens manufacturers have an input?

I guess you've still got problems where houses only have two-stop masking systems, but maybe there's a mod for that as well.

Any comments?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-21-2003, 06:43 AM:
 
IT'S ONLY A FREAKIN ANAMORPHIC. Make the cheap SOBs buy the damn lenses. Give the public better presentation for their ever-increasing ticket price instead of talking about buying into the wonderful world of video....real expensive video.

My guess would be than any adaptors added to an anamorphic would be labor intensive an require proper alignment -- it wouldn't be like sticking a spherical adaptor over a spherical lens where the rotation of the adaptor isn't an issue; with an anamorphic adaptor the perpendicular alignment would have to be perfect -- try to get the popcorn kid to be able to do that. Plus, how easy would it be to scratch and damage an adaptor if it had to be schleped around from projector to projector? How complicated would it be if a theatre had to swap format lenses between screens because they don't have enough lenses to go around? Not a good idea.

Getting them to understand the improved quality they get on the screen and it could put more butts in the seats is another story -- THAT would help. Tell them they might even be able to run their xenons at reduced wattage, reducing electric consumption and saving them money in the long run. They understand increasing ticket sales (and junk snack "food" sales) plus saving on their electric bills. Talk their language and tell them you can get the lenses for them at wholesale.

Frank
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-21-2003, 09:30 AM:
 
I saw a demo once of it here in Toronto on a Cnetury with the sliding magnacom and anamorphic adapter on the front and all they did was put the ISCORAMA lens in the magnacoms spot
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-21-2003, 09:35 AM:
 
As my SMPTE presentation noted, Isco and Schneider were both ready to make new 1.5X anamorphic projection lenses if Scope 1.5X took off. Obviously, they would use "state of the art" modern lens design. At first, origination would have been done using spherical lenses, likely Super-35, with the "squeeze" being done either in an optical printer or digital intermediate. Designing a family of 1.5X anamorphic camera lenses would be the best option, since then you also take advantage of a larger image area on the 35mm camera negative, significantly reducing granularity.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-21-2003, 07:21 PM:
 
Just a thought, how about a lens that could do both? A lever on the side of the lens would switch it from 2X to 1.5X. I have seen "scope" lenses that are varrible, could this be done somewhat the same way? This way you could still have the 1.85 "flat" lens, and the 2X / 1.5X lens in a two lens turret. Yes, you would have to buy new "scope" lenses, but you would not have to change out all screens at once.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-21-2003, 11:16 PM:
 
Variable anamorphics are prismatic and eat light
read the thread on abandoning 24fps
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-23-2003, 08:26 AM:
 
Well then lets find a different way to do it. How about an extra element that swings out of the light path within the lens?
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-23-2003, 01:52 PM:
 
Okay, time to debunk ISCOVision. This is for the newcomers; the rest of you have heard it probably more than once.

ISCOVision as a shooting and projection format would be probably be superb but it's unrealistic to expect filmmakers to accept anamorphic photography to accomplish 1.85 when they largely regect it even when they want the 2.40 aspect ratio (given the very high proportion of Scope format releases that are Super 35 blowups). It's true that some of the things that filmmakers dislike about 2X anamorphics would be less with 1.5X lenses but I think it is safe to say that it aint gonna happen. So we're back to 1.85 or Super 1.85 origination and blowing up to 1.5X squeezed prints.

Which leads to the crux of the dismissal of ISCOVision: Why bother? Oh, bigger frames, more light, etc. Most of this can be easily accomplished much less drastically via the same 1.85-within-(2X)Scope format seen on many trailers. No need for new lenses (thus you can see why lens makers would have little interest in promoting it), no need for 3 lens turrets, etc. In fact, taken to the extreme, if it were universally adopted on all films you could get rid of turrets and flat lenses altogether. (Now you can see why lens makers would really hate the idea!).

Everything in 2X Scope with only the active frame dimension changing between 1.85 and 2.39. No, the 1.85 format would not be as light efficient as the ISCOVision format but so what? If you can project a properly illuminated full Scope frame then you're already got that covered. Why would you need more light?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-23-2003, 03:09 PM:
 
Steve: I disagree.

You are correct that IF you get 16 footlamberts for 2.39:1 scope, "Scope 1.5X" would give you an overly bright 21 footlamberts. But you can trade the extra efficiency for another advantage, like using a smaller f/number lens to get better depth of focus.

But unfortunately, many theatres now get LESS than 16 footlamberts, even in scope. So Scope 1.5X would really help them with a brighter image that is closer to SMPTE standard, at least for 1.85:1 (or 1.79:1).

Where Scope 1.5X would really help are those theatres that fill the screen wall-to-wall, such that 1.85:1 is actually projected to a bigger image. In those cases, having 1.5X more light and more image area on the print would be a significant advantage.

I do agree that printing 1.85:1 "windowboxed" in the 2.39:1 Scope image area offers some advantage over "flat", but not nearly as much as using a 1.5X anamorphic would offer.

Your fellow Chicagoan Don Helgeson and I often discussed the pros and cons of each format in SMPTE Projection Technology Committee meetings, as he was a proponent of the 1.85:1 windowbox format.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 08-23-2003, 04:43 PM:
 
Yes, I am one of those people who would like things to be as good as they could be, but then I remember that there are just too many of what I refer to as "management-morons" out there that care only about $$$$$$$.

One problem I see with projecting 1:85 as 2X scope, is that you would need a different aperature plate to cover the side pannels, just in case there was a scratch in that area (it would show on the screan otherwise).
 

---

Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 08-23-2003, 05:38 PM:
 
What would be so bad about two aperenger plates? You have to switch them now anyway. At least if the flat was in scope you wouldn't have to change lenses and the image would be better overall.

Still, when a trailer is in scope and the movie advertised is a flat movie, you don't change plates for that preview and then back for the feature do you? Why would you need to if the whole film was done that way?

Maybe if you don't have motorized masking but it seems to me that if you are careful with the film, you aren't going to scratch the black window box any more than you would if it was viewable frame space.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-24-2003, 03:16 AM:
 
Don Helgeson used to staff the booth of the screening room I now own & operate.
 

---

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-25-2003, 01:31 AM:
 

quote:

---

I do agree that printing 1.85:1 "windowboxed" in the 2.39:1 Scope image area offers some advantage over "flat", but not nearly as much as using a 1.5X anamorphic would offer.

---