<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<meta charset="utf-8">Hi Stefan,<div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">I've not got my bits of paper with me at the moment, but taking each of your points:</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-indent: 0px !important; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; ">Have you been aware of the fact that the aspect ratio 2.35, we are all referring to as Cinemascope, </span></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-indent: 0px !important; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></span></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">CinemaScope was out of use by the 70s anyway, but just checking Wikipedia: "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-indent: 0px !important; line-height: 19px; font-family: sans-serif; ">In order to better hide so-called "negative assembly" splices, the ratio of the image was later changed by others to 2.39:1 and, finally, to 2.40:1, although all professional cameras are capable of shooting 2.55:1 (special 'Scope aperture plate) or 2.66:1 (standard "Full"/"Silent" aperture plate, preferred by many producers and all optical houses)... 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 is simply a hard-matted version of the others."</span><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-indent: 0px !important; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; ">Can you break it down to these four “different formats” in Japan?</span></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">There were a few more mentioned in a 1955/6 Kinema Junpo, article. Can't remember off the top of my head.</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">DaieiScope was essentially VistaVision, so a non-quite-so-wide non-anamorphic system whose aspect ratio could be varied, but average around 1.85:1.</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">That said, I noticed my BFI DVD of an Actors Revenge is 2.35:1, so this means the image is either cropped or, more likely, Daiei had abandoned the system by this point, as indeed everyone else in the world had. Anyone know?</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="text-indent: 0px !important; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; ">Now I guess the lenses were made by Cineovision, Kowa or Shiga.</span></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">I've certainly seen lots of references to Kowa or Shiga both in Kinema Jumpo and Eiga Nenkan.</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">I'd be grateful if you could let me know your sources Stefan. I'm pretty certain the lenses were made in Japan.</div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; "><br style="text-indent: 0px !important; "></div><div style="text-indent: 0px !important; ">Jasper</div><br><br>Jasper Sharp: Writer & Film Curator Homepage<br>http://jaspersharp.com/<br><br>Midnight Eye: The Latest and Best in Japanese Cinema<br>http://www.midnighteye.com<br><br>Zipangu Fest: Japanarchy in the UK<br>http://zipangufest.com/<br><br><br><br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:45:53 +0200<br>From: nuzumaki@gmx.net<br>To: KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<br>Subject: AW: Equipment and ratios<br><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<style>
.ExternalClass p.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.ecxMsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.ecxMsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.ecxMsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
.ExternalClass p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman','serif';}
.ExternalClass span.ecxE-MailFormatvorlage18
{font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D;}
.ExternalClass .ecxMsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;}
.ExternalClass div.ecxSection1
{page:Section1;}
</style>
<div class="ecxSection1">
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Jasper,</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Have you been aware of the fact that the aspect ratio 2.35, we
are all referring to as Cinemascope, is wrong. </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Actually the ratio was enlarged by .05 in the seventies. So the
correct ratio is actually 2.39:1 and not 2.35:1. </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Funny that everybody stuck to 2.35:1 even though this is
actually not true. </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Can you break it down to these four “different formats”
in Japan?</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Daiescope</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Nikkatsu Scope</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Tohoscope</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Toeiscope</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">But was Daiescope just referring to the way of projecting or
also the way the actual film was recorded on?</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">While doing some more research on this subject I found out that
my guess with Lomo is maybe totally wrong. </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Now I guess the lenses were made by Cineovision, Kowa or Shiga. Às
all three of them were based in Japan and producers for anamorphic glass.</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Unfortunately I couldn’t really track down a lot of
reliable information on these, as all of these glasses are no longer
manufactured. </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Best,</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D">Stefan</span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">Von:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
owner-KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu [mailto:owner-KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Jasper Sharp<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 13:28<br>
<b>An:</b> kinejapan<br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: Equipment and ratios</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">Stefan,</span></p>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">Am
still looking into these areas (or rather, will be doing so soon) - not really
up on the 1960s yet.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From
what I understand though, Shochiku developed its own CinemaScope rival
Grandscope by reverse engineering Fox's system in the early 50s, although i
don't know who supplied the lenses, but presumably a Japanese company like
Nikon rather than Bausch and Lomb, who created the lenses for Fox's system.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">Sadly
tis all I can tell you at the moment, but come back to me in a year or so...</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">best</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="ecxMsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Tahoma','sans-serif'">jasper<br>
<br>
<br>
Jasper Sharp: Writer & Film Curator Homepage<br>
http://jaspersharp.com/<br>
<br>
Midnight Eye: The Latest and Best in Japanese Cinema<br>
http://www.midnighteye.com<br>
<br>
Zipangu Fest: Japanarchy in the UK<br>
http://zipangufest.com/<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 21:59:38 +0200<br>
> From: nuzumaki@gmx.net<br>
> To: KineJapan@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<br>
> Subject: Equipment and ratios<br>
> <br>
> Dear List,<br>
> <br>
> Yesterday, when watching Lead Tombstone by Wakamatsu Koji here at the Far
East Film Festival, I recognised that some if the night scenes were extremly
soft and sometimes out of focus as well. <br>
> As the aspect ratio was 2.35 Cinemascope I was wondering where to get more
information on how and with which equipment Wakamatsu shot this film. <br>
> I know that the older anamorphic lenses, made in Russia, named Lomo (used
by Kubrick, Solaris), have been unsharp unless not stopped down to a certain
higher exposure level. Which leads me towards the conclusion that Wakamtsu shot
on Russian lenses. <br>
> <br>
> Still I was wondering, as Japan was also a producer for anamorphic, which
equipment has been used in the 60's ad later. <br>
> <br>
> Is there literature on that subject? <br>
> Jasper, do you have any idea? I know you have done a lot of research
regarding this. <br>
> <br>
> All the best,<br>
> <br>
> Stefan<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> </span></p>
</div>
</div> </body>
</html>