Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: CinemaScope = ColorScope??

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » CinemaScope = ColorScope?? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: CinemaScope = ColorScope??

Dan Bouvier
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Sylvan Lake, Alberta, Canada
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 07-18-2005 11:41 PM

This is driving me nuts. Where I work, when someone refers to the scope aspect ratio, they call it "colorscope." And so they refer to flat as "colorflat," complete with the c/f. I've always thought that scope, cinemascope, and c/s were interchangeable, but colorscope? And colorflat??? Has anyone heard of this before? Because I sure haven't.

| IP: Logged

Gilbert Travin
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 101
From: Villeurbanne / France
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 07-19-2005 01:54 AM

Hello !
I don't know colorscope [Frown]

You can ask the American Widescreen museum Curator about this ... A lot of "scope" process exist.
In France we say "flat" about Anamorphic (scope) film reduced in 1.85 format (i.e. trailers). For original 1.85 (or 1.66 ...) prints, we say "panoramique" (panoramic). For academy 1.37, we say "standard". And for all 35 mm anarmophic prints we say "scope".

| IP: Logged

Paer Hoegberg
Film Handler

Posts: 81
From: Borlänge, Sweden
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 07-19-2005 04:16 AM

Using google!

Colorscope is aspect ratio 2.35:1 by AIP Studios (NY,USA).

Here in Sweden we say scope (cinemascope) of any prints using anarmophic. 1.37 is simply Normal or Standard, 1.66 is Wide, 1.85 is American (or simply 1.85).
I had not heard of flat before joining film-tech
Pär

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 07-19-2005 07:13 AM

No wonder you are going nuts. No one refers to those two aspect ratios as, "colorscope" or "colorflat." But, of course, because you are the only person not using those terms, they will consider you to be wrong!

I encouraged staff to refer to aspect ratios/ formats as 1.85, 1.66, 1.75, 2.39 and 2.21. That covered every practical situation.

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-19-2005 09:35 AM

Many titles are labled Colour Scope or Colour Flat or BW Scope BW flat if it was a black and white title In many vaults that was the only labeling on the index cards for their print inventory
ColorScope as used by AIP used the original french anamorphic lens

| IP: Logged

Dan Bouvier
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Sylvan Lake, Alberta, Canada
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 07-19-2005 02:29 PM

The thing is, in my case, it doesn't matter if it's actually colour or black and white. Anamorphic is "colorscope" and flat is "colorflat." I asked if there was also "black-and-white-scope" and "black-and-white-flat" and they looked at me like I was crazy.

And this is with NEW prints.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-21-2005 01:22 AM

quote: Dan Bouvier
Anamorphic is "colorscope" and flat is "colorflat." I asked if there was also "black-and-white-scope" and "black-and-white-flat" and they looked at me like I was crazy.

Who are these people using this terminology? Surely they aren't projectionists or technical people who work in this industry. What are they....managers? Assistant Managers? Look at them like THEY are crazy right back. Call these formats the way the rest of the industry does and forget about those who are using incorrect terminology.

"Scope" is the nickname for Anamorphic / 2.39 There is 2.55, 2.35 as well, but for all practical purposes, 2.39 is the current aspect ratio; the others are irrelevant unless you are running older classic prints.

"Flat" refers to any NON-anamorphic, i.e., an image that has no anamorphic compression and which comes in a varitey of different aspect ratios depending on the desired amount of cropping that was intended by the filmmakers when it was shot. These can be 1.37 (no cropping at all) 1.66, 1.75, 1.85. They can also be referred to as "Flat 1.37," "Flat 1.66," or "Flat 1.85," which is the most accurate because it imparts more information about the format ("flat" but by itself isn't particularly useful).

There is also a lesser used terminolody but which I have heard on occasion referring to flat pictures: "Spherical 1.66." Spherical 1.85 etc., again distinguishing them from anamophic prints.

Occasionally the word "wide screen" will-pop up, but just ignor it -- it is pretty meaningless because it's too generic; technically, every aspect ratio (except 1.37) is wide screen to more or less extent, so it tells you nothing, unless you suffix it as in: "wide screen 1.66," or "wide screen 1.85"

Also, years ago the sublicensee house Films Inc. which distributed 16mm prints to non-theatreical outlets used the designation c/s to tell at a glance that the print was both color and scope. Perhaps this is where your crazy people got the notion that c/s means CinemaScope.

[ 07-21-2005, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]

| IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07-21-2005 09:18 AM

I think what is being missed is that the term is used as two word meaning colour and scope or colour and flat
Dan probably would not see any older titles that would be labled BW SCOPE or BW Flat
But it is the method that the index cards at the exhange were labled and makes it very quick and clear and flat in most cases means project at 185:1 as the depots typically only carry current prints older titles then it is more nebulous

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-21-2005 10:04 AM

Standard SMPTE 195-2000 recognizes the following current 35mm aspect ratios:

2.39:1 (Anamorphic)
1.85:1
1.66:1
1.37:1

quote:

1 Scope
1.1 This standard specifies the maximum dimensions
of the film image area intended for projection
from a 35-mm motion-picture film and the
placement of this area relative to the perforations
and the reference edge of the film.
1.2 This standard specifies three types of image
areas intended for theatrical projection (see
A.4):
– Style A: General theatrical release prints commonly
referred to as nonanamorphic or wide screen;
– Style B: Theatrical release prints with an anamorphic
image;
– Style C: Classic theatrical prints.

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 07-22-2005 02:40 AM

quote:
they refer to flat as "colorflat," complete with the c/f. I've always thought that scope, cinemascope, and c/s were interchangeable,

This is so obvious. Someone upstream has misconstrued "c/s" to mean Color/Scope instead of "CinemaScope". They extrapolated that to come up with "c/f"... Color/Flat.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 07-22-2005 03:13 AM

(side topic) I remember when receiving the show schedules from the manager, we would write on our schedules "C/S-M" (for magnetic), or "C/S-O" (for optical) for CinemaScope presentations.

I still use the "C/S" for my trailer band markings, whereas the new terminology is "SC" (and FL is for flat, instead of just "F").

Flat used to be called Regular, until the early 70's, when this new terminology of "Flat" was adopted.

-monte

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-22-2005 08:01 AM

I always wondered why Films Inc. felt the need to indicate if a print was color or b&w on all their leaders; it's not like either requires any different projection equipment or procedure. But if you asked them if a print was a pan&scan or a letterbox reduction, they were without a freakin clue.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 07-22-2005 08:33 AM

Does anyone in the theater industry say "spherical" instead of "flat"? I hear directors, dps, etc. say "spherical" and "anamorphic" instead of "flat" and "scope" all the time.

| IP: Logged

Dan Bouvier
Film Handler

Posts: 70
From: Sylvan Lake, Alberta, Canada
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 07-22-2005 12:14 PM

quote: Tim Reed
This is so obvious. Someone upstream has misconstrued "c/s" to mean Color/Scope instead of "CinemaScope". They extrapolated that to come up with "c/f"... Color/Flat.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Does anyone in the theater industry say "spherical" instead of "flat"? I hear directors, dps, etc. say "spherical" and "anamorphic" instead of "flat" and "scope" all the time.

I'd never heard of "spherical" until I read it on IMDB... I try to use it, but "flat" is pretty ingrained in my head.

I'm gonna try to find out where these guys heard "colorflat" in the first place, but I don't think anyone will remember. It's probably been like that for decades.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 07-22-2005 01:16 PM

Scope and flat are the most common forms of explaing the two different formats. Scope is just short for Cinemascope and that is a trademarked name that 20th Century Fox came up with. The actual technical term as many of us know is Anamorphic. There was a 70mm anamophic too. I believe it may have been called Ultra or Super panavision 70. It incorporated a slight squeeze to the image. It could have been the Todd AO proccess to0 that incorporated the squeeze. I remember seeing a frame of 70mm Oklahoma that was shown to me and it had a slight squeeze to the image.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.