Hello guest, if you like this forum, why don't you register? https://forum.fanres.com/member.php?action=register (December 14, 2021) x


From Film to Delivery.

43 Replies, 31089 Views

Is there such a thing as Anamorphic 1:35:1?
Or any other varient besides 2:35:1 or close?
Well I guess I'll chime in again since no one else has.

BTW I think a film thread like this is a good idea. We have had need of this for awhile now.

There are 3 major presentation aspect ratios for 35mm anamorphic film: the short used 2.55, 2.35 and 2.39/2.40.

The original anamorphic process was called Cinemascope which started in 1953/54 and primary championed by Fox. Its why we still use the word scope today. Anyway, the early process used Bausch and Lomb (yep the contact guys) to produce a 2.55:1 picture when projected. It also includes 4 channel magnetic sound (3/1).

After that a couple things happen. They found the B&L captured undesirable image in parts of the frame so while still in the 50s, it was decided to crop down to 2.35 to hide errors. This was mostly done with a film gate and not by some filming process. They also found out the mag strips deteriorated only after a few runs in the projector so they switched back to (mostly mono) optical sound, which turned out to be a hell of a lot more robust.

The major problem with the B&L lenses is that they didn't evenly stretch the image. If you look at either end of the film there is an optical roll off.

(Side Note: That roll off can also be seen in any cheap scope process outside of Cinemscope, just look at the Shaw Brothers films and Japanese films until Goyokin)

The film also distorted the center image by stretching it out. To many actors (like Frank Sinatra) in close up looked like they had a case of the mumps. So that look became know as the "anamorphic mumps". Actors hated it. Luckily, in the 60s Panavision developed new lenses the almost did away with all the major distortions. Panavision basically took over the scope business. At this point Panavision lenses were still in the 2.35 ratio.

In the late 70s it was decide to change the aspect ratio to 2.39 aka 2.40 when rounded up. The reason being is in the theater people were seeing the lines at the top or bottom when a shot changed. These are the negative splices lines from tape or cement. To hide these they simply cropped down the image a bit in the film gate.

So the anamorphic ratio (and by default S35) is 2.39 nowadays. People, marketing material and even pros still call it 2.35 or 'scope for short but in reality its 2.39.
Also to add, this is a great guide for IDing film types (even if its 16mm):

http://www.paulivester.com/films/filmstock/guide.htm
You sir are a Legend.
Do you know what point the sound options are added to a film strip?
I gathered it was during the final striking of the Release Print.
(2017-04-13, 02:04 AM)spoRv Wrote: Don't get the point of the second 16mm "path" with "reverse" frames...

I've worked out what that is now. It's a double-width/wide film on which two copies of the film are simultaneously struck. Then you cut the print down the middle and you have two prints ready to go. Ie...

[Image: RwtfA5S.jpg]
Sound options are usually printed onto their own negative(s) separate from the OCN and IP (like in post 7) and then printed directly to the release print. It is basically two exposures onto the same piece of film, once for the image and once again for the sound (optical, DD, DTS, SDDS).
(2017-04-14, 05:05 PM)Valeyard Wrote:
(2017-04-13, 02:04 AM)spoRv Wrote: Don't get the point of the second 16mm "path" with "reverse" frames...

I've worked out what that is now. It's a double-width/wide film on which two copies of the film are simultaneously struck. Then you cut the print down the middle and you have two prints ready to go. Ie...

[Image: RwtfA5S.jpg]

Yeah sorry that's what I said in post 7, higher volume printing but I wasn't that clear
(2017-04-14, 05:07 PM)PDB Wrote: Sound options are usually printed onto their own negative(s) separate from the OCN and IP (like in post 7) and then printed directly to the release print. It is basically two exposures onto the same piece of film, once for the image and once again for the sound (optical, DD, DTS, SDDS).

Was this ever used as a back up method for the sound elements at any point, Like the sound fx, music ect?
For 6-Track mag 70mm the prints have to be 'striped' ie the magnetic strip that holds the audio has to be applied after the film is developed, once cured the soundtrack is recorded directly onto it (in sync, obviously). It made an already expensive format even more so. Nowadays 70mm tends to use the digital audio formats.
(2017-04-14, 05:08 PM)PDB Wrote:
(2017-04-14, 05:05 PM)Valeyard Wrote:
(2017-04-13, 02:04 AM)spoRv Wrote: Don't get the point of the second 16mm "path" with "reverse" frames...

I've worked out what that is now. It's a double-width/wide film on which two copies of the film are simultaneously struck. Then you cut the print down the middle and you have two prints ready to go. Ie...

[Image: RwtfA5S.jpg]

Yeah sorry that's what I said in post 7, higher volume printing but I wasn't that clear

No, it's just me that I haven't understood it!  Big Grin
Sadly my projects are lost due to an HDD crash... Sad
Fundamental Collection | Vimeo channel | My blog

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Same film, printed by two different makers... spoRv 8 1,835 2021-02-14, 01:32 AM
Last Post: SpaceBlackKnight
  Apertures, Aspect Ratios, Film Formats spoRv 3 3,051 2017-07-03, 03:57 PM
Last Post: Koopa Luath
  How to build a film scanner (need advise & help, please) monks19 0 1,917 2015-11-01, 07:23 PM
Last Post: monks19
Thumbs Up PDF about film resolution spoRv 0 2,041 2015-06-28, 05:00 AM
Last Post: spoRv



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)