|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: Flat-a-morphic
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-30-2001 09:47 AM
I gave a presentation and showed a film demo of "Scope 1.5X" at the SMPTE Technical Conference last October. As you might expect, there was a significant improvement in screen luminance (1.5 times more light than the 1.85:1 "flat" format!) Steadiness, sharpness and graininess also benefit from the larger area on the print, compared to 1.85:1 "flat". The format would offer considerable benefit to all theatres, for the cost of an additional anamorphic lens.This good idea was first proposed and demonstrated by Glenn Berggren and IscoOptic in the early 1980's. ------------------ 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
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/660a.jpg)
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 04-30-2001 10:46 AM
I can think of a couple of issues off the top of my head. How do you compensate for the reduced light levels of a true scope print in relation to the brigher image of mini-scope? How do you handle the extra lens and plate if you're running a system that already has three lenses in place? I vaguely remember some two lens turrets as well? How do you keep the minimally trained kids from using the wrong scope lens and plate? It can be hard enough to get them to swap scope and flat properly. Does this mean a whole new run of trailers needs to be made as well?By itself, the idea is good, but introducing another standard gets to be an issue. For instance, fox holes are an example of a standard that only required minimal modification, yet caused unanticipated problems. I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically. This would be an intermediate to 70mm with much lower costs than full 70mm. One nice thing about the mini-scope idea though, Evans could see uncropped scope pictures in Huntsville. ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-30-2001 11:01 AM
Jerry had several questions:"How do you compensate for the reduced light levels of a true scope print in relation to the brigher image of mini-scope?" If you don't need the extra light, you could trade it for a stopped-down lens having greater depth of focus. "How do you handle the extra lens and plate if you're running a system that already has three lenses in place? I vaguely remember some two lens turrets as well?" It could be an issue during transition to the new format. But hopefully, it would eventually replace "flat" 1.85:1. "How do you keep the minimally trained kids from using the wrong scope lens and plate? It can be hard enough to get them to swap scope and flat properly." Easy: the leaders would be clearly labeled with the aspect ratio and format, as they are today ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif) "Does this mean a whole new run of trailers needs to be made as well?" Again, it would eventually replace 1.85:1 "flat". During the transition, "dual inventories" of prints and trailers would be needed, as it's likely the largest screen theatres (who need the extra light) would be the first to convert to "Scope 1.5X". "I think that since platters and the horizontal feed of film are common, and audio no longer needs to be on film, a variation of the old 8 perf horizontal vistavision system makes a lot of sense. With stronger polyester stock, the whole perf design could be reworked to minimize the size and number of perfs and bring them closer to the edge of the film, increasing projected area dramatically." IMHO, a "Super 35" release print format is even less likely to ever happen, as it requires a change in centerline, 100% reliability of digital sound, and perhaps a change in the pulldown or film transport speed. BTW, the 1.5X "squeeze" could be done with the camera lens, on an optical printer, or with "digital intermediate". If the current 0.825 x 0.690 inch "scope" image area were used with a 1.5X anamorphic lens, the aspect ratio would be 1.79:1, almost an exact match to the 16:9 of HD television --- so movies would not need to be cropped or letterboxed when transferred for HD video release. Of course, if you wanted to stay with 1.85:1, you could go with a 0.825 x 0.670 inch image area. ------------------ 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
| IP: Logged
|
|
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-30-2001 11:27 AM
HiIt seems to me that SuperScope, the first real Super35 developed by RKO in the 50's (I think) does exactly the same thing. It's a 2:1 ratio. The image on the film is 2x anamorphic 7.15x7.15. I have several trailers in this format. "Gone Fishing" is one. My Devry XD has a aperture plate for this format. I know the plate was made sometime in the mid 50's In doing a few calculations it seems to me that the jump from 1.85 flat to Anamorphic is almost the same as Anamorphic 35 to 70mm. It also seems that theaters jump from anamorphic to flat without the customers getting very upset. They really just come to see the movie. Unless the presentation is really bad, no one will complain. I can see why 70mm is on the outs. Again any improvement needs to be advertised otherwise the viewing public really won't know or care about any visual differences from one format to the next. Maybe call it something modern such as Super Icon Technology. You know, this theater is Super Icon Certified. Larry
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-30-2001 01:46 PM
HiAgain this might be wrong but I am thinking of total square inches at the aperture plate. I am using old Devry plates for my measurments. Flat being .440x.835 at .367sq inchs. Scope .835x.715 at .597 sq inchs and 70mm I got a published figure of 1.913x.866 for a total of 1.656 sq inches. The jump from flat to scope takes 1.27x average magnification and is 1.62 as large in sq area. Scope to 70mm is another 1.66x magnification which is 2.77 times as large in sq area. Not exactly equal in jumps but very close. Remember, with 2x enlargement of a 1 inch sq area positive image equals 4 sq inches. So with a 2x enlargment, the image is 2 times the size but 4 times the area. So my point is, the difference in quality from flat to scope is just about the same as between anamorphic 35 and 70mm. Larry
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-30-2001 03:35 PM
And that's a big step up in quality! ![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/smile.gif) Taken the other way, no one in their right mind would try to fill a 60-foot wide screen with a 16mm print. Size DOES matter, and using the entire 35mm "scope" area of 0.825 x 0.690 inches makes sense, while requiring no change in centerlines or sound formats. And 70mm prints make even more sense for huge screens, but they do cost more to make. ------------------ 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
| IP: Logged
|
|
Larry Myers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 371
From: Herndon, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 04-30-2001 04:27 PM
HiYes there is a big jump in quality between flat and scope just as in scope to 70mm. Quality though can have some drawbacks. Sometime back we were talking about lens quality. Everyone was saying the older Kollmorgen lenses were less then perfect in contrast and resolution to modern lenses. An example of a modern lens would be the Schneider Super Cinelux. I purchased the Super Cinelux to test any resolution difference between the lenses. Sure enough, in bench testing, I found the Super Cinelux had a little more then twice the resolution of the Kollmorgen. In actual use I have found something different. Using a 4x10 screen with the Cinelux I found that I can actually see quality differences from scene to scene in a typical feature. The Kollmorgen with it's lower quality tended to even out all the scenes to about the same quality. I hate to say it but the Kollmorgen give a better overall result then the Super Cinelux. This is even though the Kollmorgen had half the image sharpness of the Cinelux. Larry
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Josh Jones
Redhat
Posts: 1207
From: Plano, TX
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 04-30-2001 07:28 PM
Many theatres also used beam expanders, which is a lens that would stretch the circular spot of light and turn it into an elipse. also, since there is more area on the 70mm, more light can be pushed through it before focus flutter becomes apparent. Thus 70mm presentations are typically brighter, sharper, and steadier, than its 35mm counterpart. The thing that I dont like about scope is that since it is magnified 2x horizontally, sidesway becomes more noticable, especially on video transfers.Hope that helps, Brett. Josh
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|