Jump to content


Photo

Scope techniscope?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:17 AM

I've been thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of my Techniscope system. A thread on horizontal bokeh in 90 degree rotated anamorphic lens got me thinking about solving a certain presentation problem:

Many theaters have a compromise screen that favors 1.85:1. They soft matte and scroll down a curtain for 2.40:1. This really just means that the width of the two images is the same but the scope image looses some screen real estate top and bottom.

How sensible might it be to shoot horizontal anamorphic to achieve 1.85:1 eventual film-out but keep the savings of 2-perf production? Would you go with 2:1 or 1.5:1 squeeze lenses? It's all going DI. So, don't worry about adding in optical post factors.
  • 0

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:28 AM

Theaters [Cinemas] that do that shouldnt be allowed to show scope films its terrible as for your idea i cant get my old head around that .
  • 0

#3 alex mitchell

alex mitchell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:36 AM

Theaters [Cinemas] that do that shouldnt be allowed to show scope films its terrible as for your idea i cant get my old head around that .


You know how using anamorphic optics lets you project a wider frame? If you shot your project with the lens rotated 90 degrees, and projected it the same way, you'd get a taller frame. This way, you could shoot 2-perf Super35 and save money on film stock costs while retaining your ability to use 1.85, or something. Frankly I don't think I'd go to that much trouble; I'd just shoot 2-perf and go DI to reduce grain for the conversion to another aspect ratio. Mind you, that might offset the cost savings of shooting 2-perf in the first place.
  • 0

#4 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:46 AM

I don't know enough about anamorphic lenses to know if I could cut my 2-perf gate all the way over to the other perf line. Can a horizontally mounted anamorphic lens cover a wider Techniscope frame from perf to perf? Wouldn't that framing better math-out to 1.85:1 on a vertical stretch? If so, this could add about 10% or so to the film real estate and the optical illusion inherent in anamorphic lenses would make the 2-perf image look much sharper than it really is. It might look sharper than an S35 image. What's your opinion on this?

How about SuperScope as a name?
  • 0

#5 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 August 2008 - 11:57 AM

You can get 2-perf ground glass with 1.85/1 etchings. If you frame and film out in that aspect ratio with 2-perf, there's very little blowup involved to the 1.85/1 projection format. Your negative area is surprisingly close to that which you'd use with standard 4-perf.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 05 August 2008 - 12:00 PM

Paul my personal opinion is that Techniscope only ever looked [ and will never again ] look good if Technicolor started their dye transfer process back which included a special process to increase the contrast in the prints . SuperScope umm , i think if anyone still alive from Republic Pictures might see you in court if you used that logo .
  • 0

#7 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 05 August 2008 - 12:09 PM

SuperScope umm , i think if anyone still alive from Republic Pictures might see you in court if you used that logo .


Darn.

Horizontal anamorphic. How about Ho-Scope? I could make up a gansta' rap theme fanfare to roll behind the logo.
  • 0

#8 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 August 2008 - 12:22 PM

Darn.

Horizontal anamorphic. How about Ho-Scope? I could make up a gansta' rap theme fanfare to roll behind the logo.

There'd be some bitchin' if you went with Ho-Scope... Dawg.
  • 0

#9 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 August 2008 - 12:47 PM

Would you go with 2:1 or 1.5:1 squeeze lenses? It's all going DI. So, don't worry about adding in optical post factors.

Given that you want to use all your negative area, start by figuring out how much there is. Full silent width is 0.980", the two perf stroke is 0.373". Most full width formats leave some safety margin on the sides, and use 0.945" wide. Given that you aren't going to make splices, you can take nearly the full height, say 0.370", without much danger of seeing the frame lines. That gives you a native aspect ratio of 2.55:1. Dividing by 1.85 gives you the squeeze you want, 1.38:1.

All in all, though, the hassle of messing with anamorphics probably makes this not worth doing. For just a little more money, you could shoot flat three perf, and make extremely efficient use of a 50% bigger image area.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#10 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 05 August 2008 - 01:00 PM

All in all, though, the hassle of messing with anamorphics probably makes this not worth doing. For just a little more money, you could shoot flat three perf, and make extremely efficient use of a 50% bigger image area.



-- J.S.


As you say, the cost of lights, wire and lens rental might be higher than the savings in film and lab. I'd have to sit down and do some math to weigh the two approaches out. It was just an idea, after all. That's why I bring them up here as soon as they come to me so I can find out from you fellas what's dumb and why.

Has anyone seen how the horizontal 1-perf stuff looks?
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 August 2008 - 12:47 PM

Hmmm -- I've never heard of 1-perf. There was a guy in the projector business a while back working on two and a half perf. When you're doing everything with sprockets rather than pulldown claws, that becomes practical.




-- J.S.
  • 0


Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

The Slider

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

CineLab

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies