For me, while scope is impressive in terms of size, I’m just not satisfied with the edge-to-edge brightness and focus with Super 8 scope. Is 16mm any better?

Thanks!

I have a scope lens for my 16mm. I am planning to buy an adapter from Van Eck to use it on my Super 8 (I have one scope Super 8 film and have watched it twice holding the lens manually). It might be that my scope lens is not the best (seems to have a slight fungus problem), but I never get a good sharpness all over. Therefore I am not too happy about scope. All things that require more lenses will in the end lessen the sharpness. I therefore prefer flat, but I am aware that it could be that I don't have the best lens setup.

I think you have to have the best possible lenses for any scope presentation and some scope films aren't the best prints also but get the combination right and you get some fantastic results. I am happy to watch either,sometimes I watch scope without a anamorphic lens and the same if I'm rerecording a print. I think it's pretty much the same with 16mm as experienced a few prints that were soft on the edges but have had some very nice edge to edge screen images on others,Mark

I've only scope facilities for 16mm and have no complaints about overall focus of the picture, although the ratio of 16mm scope is a trifle too wide.
However, it is most important that the scope lens and the backing lens are correctly focussed.

I love Super 8 scope. I have a Kowa 8Z branded Bell & Howell. It produces an evenly lit and uniformly focused image but it takes a while to set up correctly. I've found that the combination of a Schneider 1.1, Kowa 8Z and a Derann or Kempski print can produce pretty impressive pictures.

I only have 3 films in Scope, as I prefer the older films that were made in the academy ratio. As I don't have much, it is nice to have the film in it's original format. Using the standard 2" lens, I only fill the same size screen in width, so for me the picture is smaller. The main thing is to get the correct measurement from the screen to the projector to set the scope lens. I have to say that one of those 3 is one of the sharpest prints I have; sharper than many flat prints, so the statement I read somewhere that scope prints are not as sharp as flat prints isn't true.

I may have posted this before, but here is a YouTube link to a short clip of my Kowa 8Z in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBVvKWn2sU0

That looks perfect to me, what sized screen is that, it looks huge?

Scope when the film was shot in Scope. Period!!!

It's 6.4ft wide, Robert, and the Eumig S938 lights it up pretty well despite people on forums saying it's not a bright enough PJ. I think an efficient scope lens really helps though.

John, i do agree 100%,
I have always been fine with super 8 scope but you do definatly lose some brightness and a little bit of focus purely because your placing another lens in front of the projectors lens. (obviously), but while 16mm uses the same principle the fact your using a standard 250w lamp the image is brighter and with frame being larger the images tend to be as sharp as the flat 16mm prints. We only have two scope 16s, Waterloo and Kidnapped, both are pin sharpe edge to edge.
I do enjoy scope but the quality on super 8 can vary, i have had one or two that were pretty poor, soft in focus, move on a few years and films such as the fog, grease and T2 are very good, excellent in fact.
These days, having seen Dances with Wolves and Witness in the flat format, i am now no longer bothered if a film i buy is scope as the flat images are so very good.

I agree. Mark is right. It depends on finding the 'right' scope lens as some anamorphic lenses are not as sharp focus as others. Also the prime lens behind needs to be excellent, usualy a long-throw prime lens to reduce the picture size to accommodate the stretched out width of the anamorphic image.

I have "Sink the Bismarque" in scope I had a pan and scan version before upgrading to a scope copy. It is great to watch in black and white and the scope format is utilised well with the sea battles.

Ian

Yes i agree on the lens. We use a 38mm prime lens and the larger size sankor scope lens for the 16mm. This combination give us a good bright and very sharp image edge to edge and fills our 7ft screen which, in an 13 foot long room, is more than enough.
For the super 8s we use the isco cottingen lens with the elmo 1:1 which is perfectly sharp. The difference is,(& i know you already know this), is that super 8 scope films vary with scope from crappy soft image to excellent on the later releases,titles already mentioned. But with 16mm the images seem to be pin sharp every time.

I agree with you Tom, I use my Sankor scope lens attached to my standard 50mm lens for 16mm and my scope images are excellent - for super 8 - I use my Kowa 8Z and whichever projector I'm using - usually my Eumig 824 or Elmo or Fumeo - however the images are fine flat but can be slightly softer with scope - but never the less still enjoyable whichever format I use.

Try it through a xenon lamp projector and again another level, you wouldn't think it would make such a difference but it does, a good black and white print through a xenon looks stunning,it seems to sharpen things up,Mark

Mark,

not got anything with a Xenon lamp - just my collection of Super 8 machines - none of which are xenon and my bell and howell 655 TQ1 16mm

Love the 655 TQ1 David.

Hi Robert,

its the only 16mm projector ive got - but since acquiring it - ive bought more 16mm features than super 8mm

Hi David; do you have the door that covers the gate area. Some people remove and dispose of them?. I was very pleased when I got mine, and saw how easy it was to thread, plus B&H have a reputation for gentle handling of film. My dream machine.
[[File:B&H1.jpg|none|auto]]

Hi Robert,

That is how I bought it from David Guest - so I don't have a cover on the gate - mine is automatic thread and so far it has been very kind to all my 16mm films

They are all automatic David; I was looking for something equivalent to my Eumig, which is automatic, and kind to film.

There was a system named Superscope that turned flat prints into scope prints; R.K.O, used this on features, such as 'Son of Sinbad', and Jane Russell in 'Underwater'. The process was also used for the Richard Widmark film 'Run for the Sun', another version of 'The Most Dangerous Game'. All but one of the Ray Harryhausen films were shot flat, then masked for widescreen.

I kinda like letterboxed myself, less hassle than scope lens and you get the whole picture

Hope someday I can have my cinema and all rigged at all times, then scope would be great

Thanks Robert,

I wasn't aware of them all being automatic - the 655 - but then this projector as I said is my 1st 16mm - but so far it's been like a workhorse and is very quiet.

That's what surprised me David, that it's a quiet runner. The Eumig can be quite noisy when it just plugged in and idle.

At this point I cannot really say if I prefer one or the other. I only have two scope features on Super 8, and one odd-reel scope film in 16mm.
I have a scope lens for the Eiki SSL, and one for the Kodak CT-1000. I need to order a bracket for the Elmo ST-1200 to use with the Kowa 16-S lens to confirm how/if the two lens work together well, as for now it is just held in place...

Not sure if I would want to (or have to) trade image sharpness for expanded picture....I do like the larger image of scope but almost all of the 16mm films I have (TV shows, L&H,a few features, and cartoons) aren't scope anyway....so no preference here as I still need to sort things out.

It is very helpful for me to learn from the posts of the much more experienced members here on this topic.