Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Use this form if the comment contains offensive or otherwise inappropriate content. An email message will be sent to our moderators who will take appropriate action if necessary.
|
|||||||
"The reason the image doesn't get taller (or shorter) is that the height of the frame of the film, which determines the height of the projected image, is the same for both scope and flat formats. The width of the "native" scope image was compressed when it was filmed to fit into the standard 4:3 35mm film frame. Using an anamorphic lens on the theater projector that matches the lens that was on the camera when the movie was filmed (on 35mm stock) stretches the image width back to “normal” (2.35:1)."
The above isn't entirely true.
Since it used to be that scope films were pretty rare and screens were fairly expensive, many theater owners decided to go with screens that were shaped with 1.85:1 for their dimensions (that's the apsect ratio of flat). Then when you have a scope movie, a masking on the top moves down to make the image shorter. So with these systems you have your width fixed and you lower the height to make it so the width is 2.39 times larger than tall (note: I used 2.39 because scope movies haven't been 2.35:1 since the early 70s).
With these systems you switch to an anamorphic lens and also switch to a different aperture plate that is cut to specifically for the needed size of the scope image that'll be used on the specific screen.
Also, I've heard of some places using a moveable bottom masking instead of top because while it still makes scope smaller the advantage is that it doesn't lower the apparent center of the image as much as when you switch from flat to scope with top masking moving.
Note: I'm not making this up; I've worked projection at a theater for a few years now.