Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Could this be a real B&H CinemaScope 55 anamorphic?

This is topic Could this be a real B&H CinemaScope 55 anamorphic? 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=007619

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-17-2005, 11:09 PM:

Years ago we were sold two B&H anamorphics. VERY big things with a 5in diam front element and a 4in dia rear element. They were told that these anamorphics were used for projection of CinemaScope 55 prints and that when coupled with large entry primes (4in diam front elements), they were very light-efficient and have very good resolution due to the fact that the smaller 35mm image doesn't use the extreme corners of the lens but sits in the center where acuity it better than the edges. Thing is, these two anamorphics don't say anything about being CinemaScope 55 lenses. In fact, they don't give any hint whatsoever about their monstrous size as compared to other more standard B&H anamorphics. All that is stamped on the front is CinemaScope Projector Attachment II DE958. It's got the usual red adjustment ring which focuses from 50ft out to 500ft. So was the guy who sold these to us just slinging it when he said they were CinemaScope 55 lenses? Did CS55 even play commercially? I understood it to be that once Fox printed down the 55mm negs to 35mm, the improvement in the image quality was so impressive that they abandoned the idea of CS55 release prints altogether.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-17-2005, 11:12 PM:

No. Those are just old 1950's anamorphics. We have several in the CLACO dungeon [Eek!]

. Coke bottles I say, door stops possibly!

CS55 did play in 55mm in Chicago I believe at the State-Lake Theatre. BL&S has a CS55 Century projector... or at least did at one time. I have a photo of it. Years ago I had an unused movement from one of the Century 55mm projectors. 35/55 sprocket and accelerated pull down. Its now at the Chicago Cinema Museum if you happen to be in Chicago. All in all today its a really stupid format that Fox tried to use to overcome early Cinemascope's inherent lack of resolution. By the time 55mm came out 35mm Cimemascope camera lenses and film stock had improved to a point that 55mm was rendered obsolete. "King And I" was printed up to 70mm Todd-AO for later wide spread release.

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-17-2005, 11:25 PM:

Thanks Mark. I figured as much. I hate salesmen.

So what was the point of making them so huge? Did the size actually give them any advantage over the other anamorphics of the day? Were there any actual CS55 engagements with 55mm release prints? And if so, were there actual anamorphic designed for that format?

By the way, I popped one of these B&H's in and the picture wasn't terrible.... I was able to get a decent focus, but nothing like our Schneiders or ISCOs (am getting a pair of Ultra MC Blue Stars next week for my 1.85 flat lenses -- I can't wait).

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-18-2005, 12:15 AM:

Frank said "So what was the point of making them so huge? Did the size actually give them any advantage over the other anamorphics of the day? Were there any actual CS55 engagements with 55mm release prints? And if so, were there actual anamorphic designed for that format? "
They were that large so they could couple to the 4" diameter lens that were popular in the lnger focal lengths to maintain a decent f stop

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-18-2005, 09:16 AM:

Cinemascope 55: Carousel & King & I I think were the only features. Almost no theaters were equipped. (I saw a 55mm Westrex in Memphis, TN) At home, I have a really decent VHS "King & I" with the Cinemascope 55 logo & extension.)louis

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-18-2005, 01:35 PM:

Yo, Mark - wasn't C/S-55 to give chase to Cinerama as well - anything to give chase to the "grandeur" market?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-18-2005, 01:55 PM:

CinemaScope 55:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs6.htm

quote:
As screen sizes grew, the increased magnification of the small 35mm frame produced objectionably visible grain and screen brightness suffered. Paramount had addressed this problem with their large negative VistaVision in 1953/1954. 20th Century Fox responded to the need for improved print quality in 1955 with the development of the CinemaScope 55 system. Using an Eastmancolor negative 55.625 mm wide and a frame 8 perforations high, the Fox 4x55 camera and new CinemaScope lenses recorded a picture four times the size of 35mm CinemaScope. In 1929 Fox had developed a 70mm large format system they called "Grandeur". A few feature films had been made in the process but the cameras had been shelved for 25 years when Fox engineers dusted one of them off and had it converted to handle the special 55.625mm negative. Working with Bausch & Lomb optical company, a new set of larger anamorphic lenses was developed to cover the four times larger image.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs7.htm

quote:
It's big and it's ugly and it took a gorgeous picture. The CinemaScope 55 camera started life as a Mitchell built 70mm Grandeur camera in 1929. It was far too noisy for dialog shooting, as were all cameras in 1929, and a gigantic Technicolor type blimp was built to house it when in use in the studio. The 100mm "Super CinemaScope Lens" took in the same field of view as a 50mm CinemaScope lens in 35mm.
This camera resides in the A.S.C. Museum in Los Angeles, California.

Photos courtesy of Roy H. Wagner.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 11-18-2005, 07:01 PM:

Since several people have actually seen a Cinemascope 55 projector, I guess these projectors would also have the 8 perf pulldown. That would have been something to see.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-18-2005, 07:03 PM:

There is also a 55mm camera in the Chicago Cinema Museum photos. Page one, look for the big green camera that says Mitchell NC... alas it is labeled wrong as are much of those photo pages. Its actually Fearless Camera Company piece.

quote: Larry Myers
Since several people have actually seen a Cinemascope 55 projector, I guess these projectors would also have the 8 perf pulldown. That would have been something to see.

Larry, You are correct in that assumption. All those odd movements for both CS-55 and VistaVision were modified Century movements, both C and A model movments were used. The CS-55 movement was the most complex and was accelerated just slightly.

The early VV movements were built from model C movements. Those had LOTS of problems aside from the tiny star and cam wearing out quickly the taper pins secusing the sprocket to the star shaft used to shear off in the middle of a show... and they used three taper pins on those sprockets! There is alot of start/stop inertia going on there with that large diameter sprocket. The later units and CS-55 machines used modified A model movements that had the larger star and cam and the screw and nut to fasten the sprocket to the star shaft. All of these movemetns ran very reliably.

Oddly, in an attempt to prolong the useful life of the hand built early VV projectors the earler C model VV movements were ultimately scrapped in favor of a Brenkert movement(which had the largest star and cam at that time) that ran in its own tank of oil hung from the bottom of the machine. There were only a few of these machines and they were superceeded by the production model VV projector that used the A model movement. Its very possible that the Production version of the VV projector was the very first machine to use that movement which is still with us today.

Mark

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-18-2005, 08:36 PM:

quote: Larry Myers
I guess these projectors would also have the 8 perf pulldown.

No. CS55 projectors would have had 6 perf pulldown. The CS55 negative was 8 perfs, but the planned projection prints were shrunk down to allow room for mag tracks. Planned is the key word here. Almost all sources on the subject say there was no release prints made in this format.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-18-2005, 10:52 PM:

Donno Paul, The movement I had did have a 32 tooth 55mm sprocket with a 16 tooth 35mm sprocket inside that. It would also explain the need for the movement to be accelerated slightly in order to gain maximum light efficiency thorugh the projector with that tall of a film frame. Its also possible this was planned but then never executed. The movement I had was never used. Anyway, what a stupid film format this would be today [Roll Eyes]

.

Mark

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-19-2005, 04:55 AM:

could it be that there were dailies projectors with 8-perf pulldown, before the optical reduction which would have been done for release prints?

carl

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 11-19-2005, 04:07 PM:

An 8 to 6 perf reduction from negative to print would also mean the print would no longer be 55mm wide. That is if the reduction is in both directions. If not, then the Cinemascope projection lens would need to be a 3x type to correct for even a greater anamorphic then the normal 2x Anyone know if a 3x Cinemascope lens was made for a 6 perf pull down projector?

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 11-19-2005, 05:02 PM:

If I´m not mistaken, the Bauer U2 was originally supposed to
handle 35mm, 70mm - and 55mm as well. I once saw a picture of
a prototype, with no enclosure of the projector head. Anyone
with more information on this?

Thomas

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 11-19-2005, 06:10 PM:

Frank, I notice that the front page to your Brooklyn Center Cinema Website states:
Featuring DTS® state-of-the-art, THX-type Digital Stereo, Dolby SR, and Mulit-track Magnetic Stereo presented in
6 Channel Total Surround
MegaSound™
and the largest, true CinemaScope screen in Brooklyn
using Bausch & Lomb
Ultra-High Definition CinemaScope 55 Lenses

But now we find out there is actually no such thing [Wink]

Steve

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 11-19-2005, 06:24 PM:

I am wrong about the 3X anamorphic. A reduction from 8 perf to 6 perf and still keeping the film to 55mm wide would require a 1.5x anamorphic vs a 2x. I went the wrong way.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-19-2005, 11:02 PM:

quote: Larry Myers
An 8 to 6 perf reduction from negative to print would also mean the print would no longer be 55mm wide. That is if the reduction is in both directions.

Wrong. It is the frame within the 55mm that was reduced, not the film width itself.. This was to allow enough space for 6-track magnetic sound. Ecxamples can be found here on Martin Hart's Widescreen Museum site (and cited earlier in this thead by John Pytlak):

Widescreen Museum's coverage of CinemaScope

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-20-2005, 05:45 AM:

well, there's the visual evidence. note that cs55 negative and the cs55 experimental print have their perfs positioned differently. was there a reason for this? seems to me they could just as easily have used the same film format and put more hypothetical mag tracks within the perfs rather than without.

carl

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-20-2005, 06:14 AM:

Yes, it would seem so; I don't know why they proposed to do it this way. Since the print frame was smaller than the negative one, contact printing from one to the other wouldn't have been possible, so the difference in perforation position wouldn't be any real disadvantage.

I wonder how they would have made the prints if this format had caught on, by direct optical reduction from an 8-perf negative, or by contact from a 6-perf interneg. In either case, camera negatives would not need to be a shorter pitch than the print stock.

I have seen a frame of 6-perf print at a lecture by Brian Coe at MOMI sometiime during the '80s. Like the sample in the Widescreen Museum it was not striped. Has anyone here seen any striped 6-perf print?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The movement I had did have a 32 tooth 55mm sprocket with a 16 tooth 35mm sprocket inside that.

That's interesting; I've never heard of a 8-perf print format; any idea why this was made? Did they ever propose a 8-perf print format with interlock sound, and then changed from that to a reduced image size with mag stripe? Something like 65mm Todd-AO prints with interlock sound; the, mute, test material screened at Bradford this year was a 65mm print.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2005, 05:50 AM:

quote: Steven J Hart
I notice that the front page to your Brooklyn Center Cinema Website states:
Featuring DTS® state-of-the-art, THX-type Digital Stereo, Dolby SR, and Mulit-track Magnetic Stereo presented in
6 Channel Total Surround
MegaSound™
and the largest, true CinemaScope screen in Brooklyn
using Bausch & Lomb
Ultra-High Definition CinemaScope 55 Lenses

Yah, thanks for pointing that out, Steven....I was hoping no one would notice. [Wink]

I will have to change it now....that's why I asked about the lenses. But not before I find that guy who said they were CinemaScope 55 lenses and beat him silly and get a retraction. Besides, we are step by step replacing all our lenses with ISCO Blue Stars. On the other hand, as with all advertising hype, there are always some liberties taken, like "THX-type" Digital Stereo....what that means is, er, we followed as many of the THX specs as we could, but we don't actually have THX certification (which we probably wouldn't get with those B&H CinemaScope anamorphots)....we have THX-type....kinda like when soup is flavored with meat, not actually made with it....kinda like that. [Embarrassed]

And what's a "true" CinemaScope screen? Well, one where we don't crop the width like most of the mulitplexs did years ago when that copy was first written. There were lots of conversions in Brooklyn and almost all used 2:1 screens, i.e., UN-true CinemaScope. Of course by that logic, we also have a True-Academy screen. You hype whatever you can.

And then again, "6 Channel Total Surround MegaSound" is, well, really what everyone else calls 5.1 Like I said in one other post, that "point 1" nomenclature was Dolby's crummy idea, not mine; I say, a theatre owner buys a bunch of amps enough for six channels and six speaker systems and has got sound coming out of all of them, hey.... I say he gets to call it SIX channel sound. When the 70mm theatres started getting prints that didn't actually have 5 channels behind the screen screen any more, but had only 3 with the other 2 being used for extended bass, they didn't have to start saying they had 4.2 sound did they? Besides, the subbass is the most impressive channel of them all; I am not about to religate it to a measily .1 Nope, I got 6 Channels damn it and I am stickin to it!

We've also got Wide Screen Dimension...i.e., 1.85ar. which is why there is ALWAYS a cartoon before every show....so we can go from 1.33 to 1.85 with both a curtain and mask change and everything -- even going from 1.33 to 1.66 looks impressive. And now that I am getting in our new ISCO Ultra MCs, our Wide Screen Dimention monkier might have to change.... I am thinking: Blue Star Wide Screen Dimension 185. Yeah, I'm thinking about it.

Come on guys, this is the MOVIE business; we invented hype.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2005, 06:58 AM:

THX is an owned trademark of THX so it may not be used without their consent...you might get into problems there. If I were to have skirted the issue a bit I would gone for "THX Approved" equipment.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2005, 08:24 PM:

Good point. But I think it would be even more misleading to say "approved" when indeed they didn't approve it (if they DID approve it, we actually BE a THX house).

When you use a trademark in a narrative, I believe you can do so without specific permission if you say "Such-and-such is a registered trademark of the Such-and-such Corporation." You see that all the time in text about products. Now I am no lawyer (me mum brought me up an ethical person, she did) so I have no idea if putting that statement would actually protect me from the wrath of the trademark owner. On the other hand, not a whole lot of people understand THX, especially not our older audiences. It wouldn't be any big deal to drop it althought....it makes the sentence awkward anyway. However, people DO understand MegaSound. When I get around to figuring out if Warners actually has that trademarked, I'll footnote that too with the registered Trademark legalese.

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 11-27-2005, 10:23 AM:

In looking at both the examples of Cinemascope 55 reduction prints from 8 to 6 perf and 8 to 4 perf, the reductions are indeed in both directions keeping the 2x anamorphic.

Although, the 8 to 6 perf IS printed on 55mm film, the image itself is now much SMALLER then 55mm wide. Actually the original negative 8 perf image in 55mm film isn't exactly 55mm wide since room is still needed for the perfs.

If you really think about it, the 8 to 4 perf reduction could still be printed on 55mm wide film leaving lots of room for anything else someone might want to add to the film. That still doesn't make it a 55mm wide image.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 11-27-2005, 10:39 AM:

quote: Larry Myers
If you really think about it, the 8 to 4 perf reduction could still be printed on 55mm wide film leaving lots of room for anything else someone might want to add to the film. That still doesn't make it a 55mm wide image.

True, but the same applies to 35mm; the image is about only 22mm wide on sound film, Even on silent film it's only about 24mm. There's an even bigger difference on 70mm. The closest a frame came to filling the width of the film would probably be silent Pathe centre perforated 9.5mm, but even that has a very narrow margin down each edge.