Has anyone compiled a list of available HD movie releases (HD-DVD or Bluray) which are 2.35:1 (or higher) OAR on the disc?

TIA :)

Most of them.

Real cinemascope? Hmm.

Batman Begins
The Thing
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman
The Prestige
Phantom of the Opera
Species
Million Dollar Baby
Unforgiven
Speed
Superman 1 & 2
Lethal Weapon 2

There's probably more.

The other 2.35:1 films are Super-35.

There's a sticky on the HD DVD software page that lists all the 16:9 discs for both HD DVD and BD I believe. All you have to do is compare what has been released to that list and you've got your 2.35 or wider list :)

I think Forbidden Planet is scope.

I think Forbidden Planet is scope.

Yup.

2.35:1 itself isn't usually scope . Scope usually comes in at 2.40:1 . 2.35:1 is super35.

2.35:1 itself isn't usually scope . Scope usually comes in at 2.40:1 . 2.35:1 is super35.

Uuhh, sorry, but, no.

(The following ratios are rounded up...)

The exposed negative in 'scope photography is 2.35:1. SMPTE spec for aperture in commercial projection calls for 2.40:1. The purpose for the slight decrease in height is to cover any splice lines that make it through printing.

Super 35 is a non-anamorphic (flat) photography format using 35mm film exposed full frame height and perf to perf. The DP (or Director) composes shots using marks on the viewfinder/video monitor showing the 2.35:1 area. When the negative is printed, the 2.35:1 area is extracted and printed to 35mm using the standard 2:1 anamorphic squeeze. Prints taken from Super 35 photography are no different than prints taken from anamorphic 'scope photography as far as the active image area.

Or something like that.

Don't forget Mutiny on the Bounty. Ultra Panavision 70. Its 2.76:1 aspect.

Don't forget Mutiny on the Bounty. Ultra Panavision 70. Its 2.76:1 aspect.


Which is 70MM 'scope (65MM film with an anamorphic squeeze) :)

Also:

Mission Impossible I, II, III
First Blood
Space Cowboys
Pearl Harbor


Sometimes you can go by director. 2.35 films by Clint Eastwood, Christopher Nolan, and Michael Bay use Panavision anamorphic lenses. (Bay is a fairly recent convert to Scope, "The Rock" was filmed Super35).

2.35:1 itself isn't usually scope . Scope usually comes in at 2.40:1 . 2.35:1 is super35.
Yes it is.

2.35:1 (or higher) OAR on the disc?

Cinerama or Ultra Panavision 70:

Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
How the West Was Won
Greatest Story Ever Told
Battle of the Bulge
Hallelujah Trail
Khartoum

Saw M4World at the Cinerama dome as a youth. Does that make me a classic? :p

OK. Here's your ticket to more than you ever wanted to know about widescreen, including the various 2.35:1 and greater film processes. Turns out, the list of Cinemascope releases is pretty huge.

Clearly a labor of love.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

Turns out, the list of Cinemascope releases is pretty huge.

Believe me, it's even huger than you imagine. There's thousands of these things, dating back to the turn of the 20th century... ;)

Believe me, it's even huger than you imagine. There's thousands of these things, dating back to the turn of the 20th century... ;)

So I've discovered! Did you check out the website? The moniker Cinemascope was apparently limited to titles from 1953 (an excellent year!) thru 1967, though it shows Anastasia in 1997(!) The site lists many other widescreen formats with details of their implementation, filmographies and other obscure info.

So I've discovered! Did you check out the website? The moniker Cinemascope was apparently limited to titles from 1953 (an excellent year!) thru 1967, though it shows Anastasia in 1997(!) The site lists many other widescreen formats with details of their implementation, filmographies and other obscure info.

The website is an excellent resource for newcomers and veterans alike, and anyone with even a passing interest in the subject will find hours of entertainment therein. Still, there's thousands more scope movies (and dozens more scope formats) that aren't listed at the site, because it's concerned primarily with those processes which popularized 'widescreen' filmmaking, and it doesn't really go into anything produced since the early 1970's. That's not a fault of the site, merely the limits of its focus, and it makes for fascinating reading. But if the proprietor was to list everything filmed in Techniscope, Cromoscope, Super 35, Panavision, Daieiscope, Arriscope, Hammerscope, Franscope, et al, there wouldn't be much room for anything else on the site!!...

Thanks Vincent! Now I know who to turn to with my next obscure format question :)

Ken

Thanks Vincent! Now I know who to turn to with my next obscure format question :)

Just don't ask me about SuperDuperSillyScope! You'll have to Google that one, I'm afraid!!... :D

Uuhh, sorry, but, no.

(The following ratios are rounded up...)

The exposed negative in 'scope photography is 2.35:1. SMPTE spec for aperture in commercial projection calls for 2.40:1. The purpose for the slight decrease in height is to cover any splice lines that make it through printing.

Super 35 is a non-anamorphic

Or something like that.
:rolleyes:

If you maybe have another look at what you've written then you might possibly see you've actually confirmed what I said rather than disputed it. Scope films are usually transferred at 2.40:1 , super35 are usually no wider than 2.35:1 .
2.35 as I've said is super35.

I am quite familiar with film formats thanks awfully.

Scope is hardly ever used these days as the benefits of it are somewhat mitigated by improvements in filmstock and the use of the soundtrack area for image capture in super35.

The exposed film area with scope is essentially the full academy film frame. Its the squish that makes it 2.35 and you the punter never sees 2.35 from scope only 2.40:1. Super35 does get mastered to 2.35. Anamorphic transfer to print has no bearing on the video mastering of super35 .

If you maybe have another look at what you've written then you might possibly see you've actually confirmed what I said rather than disputed it.

Hmmm...I'll look.

No, I don't think so.

2.35:1 is a film format and 2.40:1 is a projection format. That's what I said.

Could I possibly clear up some of the confusion here (I'll butt out immediately afterward - promise!)? All scope movies - whether originated in Super 35 or anamorphic - are 2.35:1 on the print (when unsqueezed). But since 1971, the projected ratio has been 2.39:1 to hide splice lines, as was suggested in an earlier posting. The 'wider' ratio is achieved by an aperture plate on the projector, but the shape of the image on the print remains the same. Hope that clarifies!

There, I'll butt out now...

OK ... my goodness, this is all so detailed ... and there is so much misinformation out there all the time.

I'm no authority. But I did my HS senior year term paper on this very subject. Majored in Film in college. Was a commercial film editor for 12 years ... cutting 16 and 35 spots mostly. Dealt with all the major NYC labs as a post production manager.

Soooooo ... you have to simply keep in mind that there are two "domains" we're dealing with here. The AR of the recorded image ... the camera negative. And the intended AR of the release print.

From 1953 until about 1956, CinemaScope productions were shot and released in a squeezed format that was intended to produce an AR of about 2.55 to 1. Then, in '57, they decided that for soundtrack technology requirements, they would cut that back to 2.35 ... in both the camera negative and the release print. In 1970, it was changed again to 2.39 (for splice hiding purposes). And all the above, I beleive, applied to both the camera neg and the relase print in "CinemaScope compatible" productions.

During this time, there were other widescreen production formats that were not CinemaScope. You had horizontal formats like Technirama as well as other 65mm camera formats with both spherical and squeezed optics ... and in the final analysis, all these non-CinemaScope original cameria negative elements had to be somehow printed in what was called "CinemaScope compatible" format for their general release. So that everyone in the world could see the film ... since CinemaScope was the established world-wide standard. Yes, they may have been given a "Roadshow" run in some special release format (Camera 65, Technirama 70, Panavision 70) ... but for general release, they had to be release printed in CinemaScope.

Today, most "Scope" releases are shot using that abomination called Super 35 ... which simply means that they use spherical lenses and use all the 35mm neg area they can. They forget about the soundtrack ... which was an important limiting factor before quality optical printing and now digital finishing came along.

And if the intended release format is Scope, they will frequently use special Super 35 3-perf pulldown cameras so as not to waste so much film. If they don't use 3-perf, then the camera neg contains much more info top and bottom than is ever going to be used. That gives the distributor/finishing lab some flexibility ... but that flexiblity, I suspect, is rarely used.

Meanwhile, there are some directors (Eastwood for example)who are committed to the original CinemaScope production-to-release format trail. They still shoot with Anamorphic lenses creating a squeezed image in the original camera negative. By doing so, they are using a much larger camera negative area. That makes for a better picture.

All of this is so detailed yet not really very complicated. The bottom line is that however it gets shot, it has to be released in a "CinemaScope compatible" format. Today, that is 2.39 to 1.

And of course, all the above relates only to film. Digital Cinema is another different story ... similar in many ways ... but different.

I give up. You can lead a horse to water...
And there is nothing wrong with super35 compared with "scope".

I give up. You can lead a horse to water...
And there is nothing wrong with super35 compared with "scope".

Oh yes there is.

Added grain, less resolution.

Finally: LAZY COMPOSITION!

And there is nothing wrong with super35 compared with "scope".

Well, that's your opinion, and not one that a good many very capable cinematographers share. Anamorphic photography uses a lot more negative than S35 resulting a a much finer grain print. Anamorphic lenses have their drawbacks compared to flat lenses, but given the proper conditions, true 'scope photography will result in a denser image which is generally desirable when you are blowing up the image to 40 or 50 feet wide.

I give up. You can lead a horse to water...
And there is nothing wrong with super35 compared with "scope". ... and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I've shot a lot of motion picture film in my time. Even though I was an editor, in addition to my Moviola, I owned an Eclair NPR and used it a lot. I know first hand how comfortable a light weight camera and lens can feel and how many more types of shots you can get with that sort of rig.

I've never shot with a 35mm camera ... but I can appreciate the benefit of the lower light levels, lighter gear, added depth of field that S35 bring. Still, for epics like "Apollo 13", "Titantic", "Seabiscuit" I would have preferred the added image integrity of an anamorphic shoot.

This is all way off topic. Sorry.

This is all way off topic. Sorry.

Well, defending anamorphic photography in a thread titled "Cinemascope" is right on target by me. :tu: :cool:

Super-35 and scope both have advantages and drawbacks. Anyway, they both suck compared to 70mm, so there. ;)

Well, defending anamorphic photography in a thread titled "Cinemascope" is right on target by me. :tu: :cool:Yep ... anytime. :)

Anyway, they both suck compared to 70mm, so there. ;)

Amen to that.
It is telling that studios will blow dozens of millions on marketing for big movies but at the same time they are not willing to cope with the much smaller additional expense of shooting in 70 mm.

Amen to that.
It is telling that studios will blow dozens of millions on marketing for big movies but at the same time they are not willing to cope with the much smaller additional expense of shooting in 70 mm.
Quality does not sell the film, advertising does. Sad but true. Blame the masses that do whatever their TV tells them to do.

Large format photography would be a wonderful thing, but on the other hand, I can understand a studio's reticence to front the expense of 65mm production. I doubt it is a bout how much it actually costs to shoot 65mm, but there are so few venues left that can actually show 70mm prints. Also, with the proliferation of digital projection, we are barely getting 35mm resolution anymore.

It's not so much expense (and it is a lot more expensive to shoot 65MM), but the bulk of the cameras themselves. Lighting, setups, everything is different. There aren't a whole lot of directors and cinematographers out there familiar in shooting with it.

Lab processing, dailies, everything has to be changed.

Eventually, digital will have 70MM resolution. I think that's where the future lies.