Jump to content

2.55:1 vs 2.39:1


Recommended Posts

On Barry Lyndon, didn't Kubrick use a 12-240mm 16mm Angenieux zoom with a 1.6X extender that covered 1.66:1 but not 1.33:1? (Not not S35 either?)

Edited by M Joel W
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Premium Member
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Ok ok, it's a new company. They literally bought the plant in April of 2021 and launched the website in 2022 lol 

Sorry I'm not perusing the internet constantly to determine if companies that are long out of business, get re-born. 

But yes, looks like you can buy perforated magnetic media again, tho have you tried to? A lot of companies like this are vaporware. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Again wrong. In Créteil Pyral has sold Pyrolac recording disc blanks from 1926 to 1951. The enterprise goes back to the poudrerie du moulin blanc in the Costour valley, which was founded in 1876. From around 1950 on European film production moved from optical sound to magnetic recording. That was a chance for the company. Later move to Avranches.

The Film Processing Corporation of Mountain City, Tennessee, got wound down in 2014 by Kodak.

ATR in York, Pennsylvania, manufactures magnetic recording tapes. Basically, they could also make magnetic film. Their PET foil is 0,036 mm or 0.001417" thin.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Simon Wyss said:

Again wrong. In Créteil Pyral has sold Pyrolac recording disc blanks from 1926 to 1951. The enterprise goes back to the poudrerie du moulin blanc in the Costour valley, which was founded in 1876. From around 1950 on European film production moved from optical sound to magnetic recording. That was a chance for the company. Later move to Avranches.

Why are you so quick to say "wrong" when I clearly said; " They literally bought the plant in April of 2021". 

In the United States (which does not have the best English dialect), this comment infers I know the factory already existed and that a new company purchased said "old" factory. 

So yes, you're right and I even said so in my first post. Today you can buy full coat perforated mag film once more.  I spent many years working for the distributor of editorial products in the US and we were unable to get NEW full coat perforated mag stock. 

1 hour ago, Simon Wyss said:

The Film Processing Corporation of Mountain City, Tennessee, got wound down in 2014 by Kodak.

Correct, there has been NO new perforated magnetic stock in the United States since 2014. 

1 hour ago, Simon Wyss said:

ATR in York, Pennsylvania, manufactures magnetic recording tapes. Basically, they could also make magnetic film. Their PET foil is 0,036 mm or 0.001417" thin.

ATR does not make perforated film stock. 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Personally I think 2.39:1 is about as wide as you can go before it becomes too wide. It already limits the choice of compositions, and requires a good eye to frame an entire story interestingly without wasted space at the edges. It favours landscapes and groups over individual shots or tall objects for instance. A good composition in 2.39 is pretty exciting though.

2020967277_2.39image2.thumb.jpeg.eb835651fe095ef3b873419aa785ef30.jpeg

2.39:1

These days, in modern viewing environments where the width is fixed, 2.55:1 would just seem less tall rather than wider.

1038534864_2.55image3.thumb.jpeg.52d1795e53ce8135fe1368a6269475c3.jpeg

2.55:1

The Widescreen Museum site is a great resource for info on all things widescreen. Here's a good page on the evolution of widescreen aspect ratios and why they chose those ratios:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cinemascope_oar.htm

Best answer I've gotten on this thread thus far. Thanks as always Dom! I have no idea how this topic devolved into this giant argument about something else entirely. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Why are you so quick to say "wrong" when I clearly said; " They literally bought the plant in April of 2021".

Because the takeover took place in January 2015.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Again wrong. In Créteil Pyral has sold Pyrolac recording disc blanks from 1926 to 1951. The enterprise goes back to the poudrerie du moulin blanc in the Costour valley, which was founded in 1876. From around 1950 on European film production moved from optical sound to magnetic recording. That was a chance for the company. Later move to Avranches.

The Film Processing Corporation of Mountain City, Tennessee, got wound down in 2014 by Kodak.

ATR in York, Pennsylvania, manufactures magnetic recording tapes. Basically, they could also make magnetic film. Their PET foil is 0,036 mm or 0.001417" thin.

I've bookmarked them under "Pyral", because you never know, and everyone's heard of Pyral, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

No, I don’t. RTM is only a cloak, the company which holds that brand is Mulann.

https://trademarks.justia.com/880/48/recordingthemasters-88048226.html

Oh come on, semantics. 

All that matters is that perforated stock was not available for several years "NEW" manufacture. 

Now it's available again and it's very clear you can buy it as of 2021. 

It doesn't matter, because all the other things I mentioned like recording 6 track, playing back 6 track in theaters, the proper sprocket drive for optical printers, the proper masking/mattes for the projectors, none of those things are really doable on a scale that would be needed for any release outside of a single one-off screening. 

That is my point. 

At this moment, you really can't magically bring back Fox Cinemascope. It's just not a possibility. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 7/22/2022 at 7:05 AM, Simon Wyss said:

In view of wide images we should perhaps ban vertical videos.

I do not believe "ban" is a strong enough term.  I believe thumbscrews and perhaps a little light kneecapping would be appropriate for offenders.

Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...