Flat vs. scope

[Landon D. Parks]

"Landon,

 

The 2.39:1 amamorphic image is bigger than a 1.85:1 image on the print and negative. I don't understand what your saying!

 

Stephen"

 

Sure, it may be on the print taller, but when its projected, It's shorter than 1.85, if you knoe what I mean.

 

My point was, a wall to wall, floor to ceiling screen is awsome, and in 1.85:1 projected films, It's fairly easy (but expensive for the screen) to do that. With a 2.39:1 projected image, you would have to shring the walls of the theaters down to get a floor to floor, wall to wall image... Know what I mean?

 

It's kind of like watching an IMAX film, would they still have wall to wall, floor to ceiling screens if they projected in 2.39:1??? No, the taller format they use allows them to fill not only the wide vision, but your entire vision.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Landon D. Parks

[Stephen Williams]

Sure, it may be on the print taller, but when its projected, It's shorter than 1.85, if you knoe what I mean.

 

Hi,

 

If 2.39:1 had just been projected as a 'letterboxed' format, it would not have been sucessful. The whole point is that its as tall as 1.185:1 but wider.

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

Plus, as we keep repeating but you seem not to want to listen, the 1.85 area is SMALLER on the 35mm print than scope, so projecting it extremely large starts to look rather soft & grainy. A scope print can stand greater enlargement than 1.85. Plus for many rooms, making a 1.85 image taller would mean not being able to see the bottom of the screen for many people because of audience heads in the way.

 

If you simply went to better theaters with stadium seating and very large screens, you would be more than happy with the size of 1.85 projection, which is quite large, bordering on too large for a 35mm print to handle.

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Landon,

 

I think you need to see a side by side test shoot, with 1.85 v 2.39.

 

When the rushes are projected the look of the 2.39 is so much better for very little extra cost. (Anamorphic lenses are generally slightly more expensive). It's not something you can raelly see on a television.

 

Stephen

[Paul Bruening]

Hi Landon,

 

Another point that David has indicated in other posts is size-to-resolution. An image that is scope all the way through uses all of the films' image area and grains. This means that the image is desqueezed at projection yeilding the highest reolution with the widest possible image. Technically, it is the superior presentation form for the big screen. The only compromise is that the desqueeze projects horizontally oblong grains, which has proven to be of no significant set back.

 

For producers at our level, the issue of scope has to do with equipment and manpower costs during production.

[Landon D. Parks]

Right... I love scope, I know it uses more film grains and produces a fare better image than most 1.85 prints can. Resolution is not my point, size is. This may be more of a problem in places like LA or NY, but here a full sized (2 story tall) 1.85 screen will produce just as sharp of results as a 2.39 screen, more less because our screens are not that big.

 

all I'm saying is that I like it when I can actually be drawn into a 1.85 movie just as much as a 2.39 movie... I have included a Diagram here for you to see exactly what I saw Saturday...

 

 

Personally, I love Scope, and in a large theater, a scope screen would be ok. But when you live where I do, you end up with the raw end of the stick on a 1.85 movie. Thats why I think smaller cinemas should have a 1.85 screen, and if the cinema is large enough, a 2.39 screen. But really, why make a small screen even smaller?

 

This is just my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me... As I said, I love scope more than 1.85... If I shoot a 35mm feature, theres a 96% chance it will be shot in scope. I just think 1.85 deserves something, and in smaller cinemas, where #1 the screen is not even wall to wall, a 2.39 screen when masked to 1.85 is just too small.

 

Another thing that gets me... Showplace 11 is one of those classic theaters with drappy curtains all over the place... and well, when 1/2 of the screen wall is filled with curtains, that kind of ticks me off too. Showplace 12, you won't find any curtains on the walls, more less on the screen walls.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

Also:

 

I might want to add some pics to denote what I'm talking about...

 

 

When you have cinema like this:

A 2.39 screen is fine...

 

But when you have a cinema like this (like Showplace 11, just without the curtains):

a 2.39 screen might not cut it...

[elvworks]

No disrespect Landon, but if you simply went to better theatres as David mentioned... (which I will quote below:

 

If you simply went to better theaters with stadium seating and very large screens, you would be more than happy with the size of 1.85 projection, which is quite large, bordering on too large for a 35mm print to handle.

 

...you might be a happier camper.

 

I think it's close to insanity to gripe over a theatre's screen size if the theatre is antiquated. If you went to a new cineplex, you probably won't have a problem with either 1.85 or 2.39, because even a 1.85 gives you a good amount of screen size.

 

If there is nothing around you, then you always have the choice of moving, or you could always buy the theatre by you and replace the screens. :D

 

All the best,

Rick

 

p.s. - thanks for the diagrams

[Landon D. Parks]

I do have a new megaplex in town, problem is: they only show the blockbusters, so if you wanna see "Hoodwinked" "Brokeback Mountain" "Munich" ect, you have to go to the second rate theater. Mind you, Showplace 11 is not vintage, it maybe dates from the mid 80's or so, and not all of it's screens are that small. It just ticked me off they opened the film in the smallest screen in the oldest theater in town... Too bad, it would have been a better film had they opened it at Showplace 12 instead... We have HUGE screens there (1.85 native), so it would have been a real treat.

 

But, you can't have everything I don't guess.

 

One thing I do like though: Showplace 11 has DTS sound (at least in most of the cinemas), whereas the new Showplace 12 has Dolby 5.1/6.1, and I prefer DTS sound over Dolby... Just a personal Preference.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Landon D. Parks

[elvworks]

I feel your pain :D You the victim man!

 

That's why I'm so thankful that the correct aspect ratios are on the DVD's, usually anyway.

 

Actually, now a days, it's sometimes tough to find a theatre where you are really satisfied anyway. I usually go in knowing this, and if it turns out great, then great, otherwise I almost expect something to not be up to par. Not that I'm a pessimist, but I do go to the theatre quite a bit.

 

It goes further than what's on the screen, it could be the person behind you kicking the seat, or some one talking on their cellphone, or the popcorn tastes stale, the floor sticky, the seats don't recline or whatever. Usually it's always something, (and I'm an optimist)

 

My way of combating this is to go on a weekday, and watch a matinee while most everyone is at work and before it gets messy. I could sit wherever i want and it's almost like my living room. No one bugs me.

 

Personally, I think theatres will have to come up with something new because if this continues, people may just wait to watch stuff at home, even the bigger movies. It just might not be worth it to go to the movies, not mention all you pay for food for a family. Drive Ins where phased out, theatres can be too, especially with soaring ticket prices.

 

It may just be a matter of time before every house is equipped with a widescreen tv, an ample sound system and a microwave oven for popcorn.

 

So I think the movie going experience has to be reinvented to last or it may be a real tough business to stay in, even tougher than it is now.

 

Nothing can ever take the place of a projected picture on a big screen, but I think a good portion of people may not care about that and just watch their movie at home.

 

Rick

[Paul Bruening]

Landon,

 

We had the same problem, here, in BFE Mississippi. The four plex was really bad. I got tired of it and got a refurbished digital projector and threw rentals on my living room wall. I love it so much, that I hardly go to the newly opened Malco in town that has stadium seating and an enormous, brain sucking curved screen.

 

Oooops. This means I am contributing to the demise of the big-screen. Damn my eyes!

[John Pytlak RIP]

Seek out and support theatres that offer superior presentation quality. Complain (in writing) to theatres that don't. Here is contact information for theatre circuits:

 

 

 

http://directories.vnuemedia.com/fjiguides/exhibition/

 

Usually the VP of Operations or VP of Projection/Engineering/Facilities is the one to write. Be sure to send a copy to the manager of the theatre you are praising or criticizing.

[elvworks]

Is using anamorphic lenses another reason for having that scope feel. From my understanding, if you shoot the same shot with a spherical and with an anamorphic, (considering they have the same composition, ofcourse adjust the lighting and all that) the anamorphic picture should have more or feel more scope? Is this right pros?

 

Is that why some scope movies don't seem scope (on top of the lack of composition of the shot)?

 

I know the lenses have a big part to play.

 

I'm interested to hear from anyone who has worked with both and can explain the difference.

 

All the best,

Rick

[Dan Goulder]

Is using anamorphic lenses another reason for having that scope feel. From my understanding, if you shoot the same shot with a spherical and with an anamorphic, (considering they have the same composition, ofcourse adjust the lighting and all that) the anamorphic picture should have more or feel more scope? Is this right pros?

 

Is that why some scope movies don't seem scope (on top of the lack of composition of the shot)?

 

I know the lenses have a big part to play.

 

I'm interested to hear from anyone who has worked with both and can explain the difference.

 

All the best,

Rick

One essential point that appears to be overlooked in this thread is that, regardless of how large a 1.85 frame is blown up, it STILL contains less information than a scope frame. If you were to shoot the side of a car in scope, using the entire frame for the entire car (top to bottom and left to right), then the same shot in 1.85 would cut off the engine and the trunk, regardless of how large the projected image would be. If you still wanted to show the entire car in 1.85, you'd have to shoot a wider shot, and the car would have to appear farther away in order to horizontally fit in the frame. The same would hold true for a shot of two people talking. In order to keep both people tightly in the frame (if you so desire), you're forced to use more of an 'over the shoulder' perspective, utilizing a more selective focus along with (potentially) more cutting. With 1.85 you've got to choose more between shooting tight or shooting wide. However, if you want your shots to be both tight AND wide, then scope is more practical.

 

Another misconception seems to be that larger is automatically better. However, when you take a smaller negative area and blow it up to a larger screen area, you're also degrading the overall image. While the screen may appear taller, the projected 1.85 image appears to be suffering in the newer multiplexes. The resulting image is less sharp than the scope image. This net result is a complete reversal from the original belief that spherical lenses used in 1.85 will give the sharpest picture. This may also explain the trend toward more scope production in movies intended for wide multiplex release.

[elvworks]

Thank you, but I don't think you answered my question.

 

My question is short is, do you get a wider scope picture with 2.35 anamorphic or 2.35 Spherical?

 

And which lenses are sharper?

 

Thank you, :rolleyes:

Rick

Edited January 16, 2006 by elvworks

[Max Jacoby]

Is using anamorphic lenses another reason for having that scope feel.

Definitely. To me Super 35 just feels flat, while anamorphic has that nice three-dimensional feel. That is due to the increased sharpness and also the fact that you get the characteristics of 2 different lenses on any given anamorphic lens since the horizontal angle gets squeezed by the factor 2 while the vertical angle stays the same. So a 75mm lens gives you the vertical angle of a portrait lens and the horizontal angle of a wide lens for instance.

[Jonathan Benny]

Rick,

 

To me the "scope feel" comes more from choice of lens, angle and composition rather than a decision to shoot anamorphic or spherical. For example, if you look at some of Leone's films shot in Techniscope - using spherical lenses, he chose lenses, used angles and composed to give some of his shots incredible depth and scope. So to me, its more about those things than whether you chose anamorphic or sphereical. There are advantages to using anamorphic - you get more negative area exposed, so you're getting a higher fidelity picture. But I don't feel that necessarily adds scope - although it can sure help on wide, panoramic shots - particularly if the film hasn't been through a DI.

 

There are some films that do not seem "scope" as you say. This could be either because the filmmakers meant it that way for the story - perhaps they used longer lenses throughout the film which can reduce that sense of scope and create more of a confined feel (applicable to both anamorphic and spherical shooting), or, perhaps they did not use the wide-screen frame to its fullest potential.

 

You might also find that most films (especially the good ones), can be at times scope in their feel during some scenes, and then, very confined in their feel at others. Check out "Alien" for example. Its really about how the subjects appear within the frame and how much of the world is seen around them at any given point (which is applicable to any ratio actually, but with 2.39 the shape of the box allows for a greater manipulation of this idea).

 

A recent film that I feel uses the wide-frame well both ways is Munich (sup35) There are scenes where you get a real sense of the world around the characters and the compositions are very "scope-ish" (family lunch scene with "Papa"). But then there are scenes which are intensely claustrophobic, where the world around the characters has dissappeared and its just about their inner fears of the moment (Israelis in Helicopter during shootout).

 

AJB

 

Is using anamorphic lenses another reason for having that scope feel. From my understanding, if you shoot the same shot with a spherical and with an anamorphic, (considering they have the same composition, ofcourse adjust the lighting and all that) the anamorphic picture should have more or feel more scope? Is this right pros?

 

Is that why some scope movies don't seem scope (on top of the lack of composition of the shot)?

 

I know the lenses have a big part to play.

 

All the best,

Rick

[Jonathan Benny]

My question is short is, do you get a wider scope picture with 2.35 anamorphic or 2.35 Spherical?

 

Both formats are equal in width in terms of aspect ratio (2.35). However, an anamorphic lens of 50mm will have a wider field of view vs a spherical lens of the same length.

 

And which lenses are sharper?

 

Thank you, :rolleyes:

Rick

 

Spherical lenses in general are sharper. However, how sharp the image is when it hits the negative is on one factor in a long list of elements that come together down the line to create the final image. Ultimately, the spherical lens' sharpness is in most cases cancelled out by the reduced neg size, DI/Optical blowup, etc.

 

AJB

[elvworks]

Thank you both for your input, it was very insightful.

 

I've been going through all my dvd's and checking the IMDB site to see which were shot in spherical and/or anamorphic and try to see if I see a consistant difference between either. I also know there are a whole mess of other factors that adds up to the end product as well.

 

A tend to lean to what audiris said where super 35 can look flat at times and anamorphic gives you more of a three dimensional feel.

 

I guess it comes down to not so much as what you're using, but how you're using it.

[Max Jacoby]

The difference between anamorphic and Super35 is more pronounced in the cinema than on Dvd.

 

Yes, spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses if you put them on a projector, but an anamorphic film still looks sharper than a spherical one on the big screen simply because it uses a larger negative, which negates the advantage of spherical lenses. So an anamorphic image is sharper than both a Super35 one and a 1.85 one.

[Jonathan Benny]

Yes, spherical lenses are sharper than anamorphic lenses if you put them on a projector, but an anamorphic film still looks sharper than a spherical one on the big screen simply because it uses a larger negative, which negates the advantage of spherical lenses. So an anamorphic image is sharper than both a Super35 one and a 1.85 one.

 

The question was "which lenses are sharper", not which image in the final print is sharper. As I indicated, the answer is that spherical lenses are in general, sharper. Then after that, there are many variables that will determine how far that initial sharpness will go. And I also believe, in terms of the original question of whether or not Anamorphics give a more "scope"-ish look; that sharpness or grain are not always the primary factors in giving a "scope"-ish look. I see it as being more about lens choice, angle and composition within a chosen format. Achieving that 3-dimensional feel is very possible in super35 through the appropriate use of lenses, lighting, camera angles and composition. That first battle scene in "Gladiator" (s35) looked pretty good to me from a depth/scope-look standpoint. It had less to do with what format they chose - more about how they used it.

 

 

 

AJB

[Max Jacoby]

Well the question might have been which lens is sharper but that by itself isn't important, it is the endresult that matters, meaning which image looks sharper on the screen.

 

Although I agree that the composition is an important element in 'showing off' the width of the scope picture, I believe that there is a discernable difference between Super 35 and anamorphic which is due to the unique design of anamorphic lenses. Certainly a shot will look different whether it is shot on a 50mm anamorphic lens or a 25mm spherical lens, even if you match the depth of field (i.e. the spherical lens is opened 2 more stops than the anamorphic one)

[Jonathan Benny]

Well the question might have been which lens is sharper but that by itself isn't important, it is the endresult that matters, meaning which image looks sharper on the screen.

 

If you re-read my original statement about sharpness/spherical lenses you will see that I covered the issue of the end result cancelling out the benefits. The question, however, does have validity and importance on its own.

 

Although I agree that the composition is an important element in 'showing off' the width of the scope picture, I believe that there is a discernable

 

In my opinion, composition, angle and lens choice are the critical factors in achieving the sense of "scope" etc. This can be achieved in both anamorphic photography and spherical photography. And I would even say that that feel can be achieved in 1.85 and 1.66 as well and certainly in IMAX. If what you are talking about is getting the exact look and characteristics that are discernable in anamorphic photography, then of course, no argument. But I don't think that achieving a sense of scope in cinema language is about making it look like it was shot with an anamorphic lens. Its about giving the audience a sense of scope in the picture - and that is something we as filmmakers must construct - the format itself does not do it - and I think thats whats at the core of the argument: How you create a sense of scope within any given frame. My belief is that the answer does not lie in format choice.

 

AJB

Edited January 17, 2006 by Jonathan Benny

[elvworks]

I really appreciate everyone's replies, I always learn so much.

 

Prior in this thread, we were talking about the composition being a major factor in a movie having a true sense of scope, and really passing that onto the audience.

 

So that's why I brought up the lenses having a part to play as well. Because if you do compose your shots with a wider field of view available (using anamorphic), I imagine you would have more scope?

 

 

 

 

 

I really do appreciate this forum where I can have questions answerd, and from different viewponts.

 

All the best,

Rick

[Jonathan Benny]

So that's why I brought up the lenses having a part to play as well. Because if you do compose your shots with a wider field of view available (using anamorphic), I imagine you would have more scope?

I really do appreciate this forum where I can have questions answerd, and from different viewponts.

 

Bringing up the lens issue is totally valid. But your comment that "Because if you do compose your shots with a wider field of view available (using anamorphic), I imagine you would have more scope?" pressuposes that spherical lenses cannot offer the field of views available in anamorphic lenses (if I understood you correctly). Actually, spherical lenses can offer fields of view just as wide as anamorphic lenses. For example: A 50mm anamorphic lens has the field of view of a 25mm spherical 35mm flat. So you see, the two have the same field of view. So if you're talking about "scope" being field of view, then you can certainly achieve that goal through the use of spherical lenses: you just have to divide the anamorphic length by 2 and that gives you the spherical equivalent on 35mm flat (there are other factors that differentiate the look of anamorphic beyond the field of view - but I don't believe they relate or effect the sense of "Scope"). Now, creating an effective sense of "scope" through composition, angles and lens choice: that's where the art is - and I don't believe its biased to any particular format.

 

Regards,

 

AJB