On Thu, 9 Jun 1994, Richard J. Leskosky wrote:
> On 6/8/94 John G. Thomas wrote:
> > As far as "scope" is concerned, I'm a pretty hard-working
> >filmmaker and I don't know of ANYONE who's shooting in any kind of
> >compressed format.
> Whatever else it may or may not be, MAVERICK is in scope. When I saw it at
> a local multi-plex on its opening day, the film began minus the anamorphic
> lens on the projector, so everything in the opening lynching scene was
> stretched, not just the lynchee's neck.
IF the opening lynching scene(I haven't scene the film)was over
titles, then yes, it was "scope-ed" in the lab. The only point I was
trying to make is that it most probably wasn't shot in an anamorphic
format, that is, with an anamorphic lens that squeezes the information in
one 90 degree direction(vertical), which is then un-squeezed to the
horizontal when projected in a theater. The anamorphic lenses, BTW are
quite interesting in their design, and quite simple too. Just imagine
some kind of cylinder(a hot dog or a sausage will do). Now, instead of
cutting a slice of it off to make a round, flat, slice, angle the knife
about 45 degrees as you cut and the cylinder. Now the end of the
cylinder, when viewed from the end, has an oval shape to it.
In the developed image recorded on film, everything is compressed
from the sides and stretched in the vertical direction. You could then
take the same lens you shot with, (for instance) and if you could affix
it to the front of the movie projector, and most important, rotate the
lens 90 degrees to the left or right, the image would be uncompressed and
the image would look "normal".
-------->from John G. Thomas([log in to unmask])in Hollywierd,Calif.<---------