Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
Scope 2.40 is curious on a 35mm print. Does it exhibit slight letter boxing? I think we showed the DCP of that last season. IMDb technical says 2.39 too. I would have assumed 2.35 on a print that was shot on film and no digital intermediate.
Hmm, I take that back, we showed the 35mm too. And I also wrote down 2.39, but I can't remember if we were seeing a matte line with our apperture plates or not.
I've removed "2.40" from my description and just left Scope. There are lots of discussions, especially on the old forum, about the specifics of different formats and their ratios/dimensions. I'm fine with just Scope.
I've removed "2.40" from my description and just left Scope. There are lots of discussions, especially on the old forum, about the specifics of different formats and their ratios/dimensions. I'm fine with just Scope.
I have also added a picture from the print I ran.
No worries, I just refreshed my memory of why the difference. I show enough classics here that 2.35 is stuck in my brain... though not typically showing vintage pre 1971 prints.
Tweet
Comment