Anamorphic and Cinemascope are loosely used to be synonyms at times. My effort here is to make better sense of these concepts in the context of the new age digital cinematography. The approach is to explain what each of these terms mean and the maths involved, so that the differences if any, will show up on their own.
As cinematographers, we use two types of lenses, the spherical and the anamorphic lenses. Every lens unit is made up of various optical elements which are individual pieces of lenses arranged in a tubular housing. All lenses used for imaging purposes are essentially spherical in nature, which bends the light rays entering the lens in an equal proportion on both the vertical and horizontal axes.
cross section of a standard lens
The result therefore is the formation of a circular image area. The spherical lens, just as the name suggests uses spherical elements to capture an image. As explained below, these lenses project images onto the sensor or the film stock without affecting their proportionality. So if we were to see how the image is captured on the imaging plane, it’s how we see is what we get.
The image of a circle when captured through a spherical lens looks exactly like a circle.
On the other hand, Anamorphic essentially means an intended distortion. The word anamorphic and its derivatives stem from the Greek anamorphoun (to transform), compound of morphé (form, shape) with the prefix aná (back, against). The anamorphic format involves stretching an image optically, by using cylindrical elements inside a lens, so as to fit it into a narrower imaging area. Lens manufacturers use an additional section of cylindrical elements within the housing along with the standard spherical elements. Anamorphic lenses, create a version of the image that is compressed along the longer dimension (usually by a factor ranging from 1.3 to 2.0). We shall talk about the compression factor later on but first let’s understand why filmmakers needed to use compression at all.
The image of a circle when captured through an anamorphic lens looks squeezed and elongated like an oval.
Why Anamorphic?:
During celluloid days, the objective of shooting anamorphic was to be able to use of a larger area on the film negative with a widescreen aspect ratio. This would reduce film grain and imaging area will be more than using spherical lenses. Remember the standard of projection used to be 4:3 or 1:1.33 which was more of a squarish than a wide rectangular format which have become a standard in today’s times. So, on film stock if u had to
How to project an image shot on anamorphic lens?:
No points for guessing that if the image that has been captured is squeezed, then the final projection cannot be the same, hence it has to be de-squeezed back to its original form in the post production process before the final projection. Looks like a lot of work, but as long as it is all worth the pain.
widescreen movies to enable the use of a larger area on the film negative to reduce film grain.
Most anamorphic lenses squeeze the image by a factor of two, but there are also lenses with other squeeze
factors. In order to provide a properly proportioned image to on-set monitoring, ALEXA cameras can “desqueeze”
the image for the electronic viewfinder and monitor outputs.
The image on the left is how the image is captured, the one on the right is how its projected.
History of Anamorphic:
So what was the CinemaScope again?
When the patents for the anamorphic process had already run out by 1952, Twentieth Century Fox trademarked the term ‘CinemaScope’. In the beginning, they were also the only ones in possession of anamorphic lenses. Widescreen and Cinemascope became synonymous to the audience and films that wanted to use their lenses and the CinemaScope trademark, had to pay up a lot towards licensing fees. This led to the development of other anamorphic lenses and a number of competing widescreen processes, some anamorphic and some spherical, some using 35mm film and some larger gauges. These competing processes were given more or less creative names such as Scanoscope, SuperScope, Techniscope, Arnoldscope, Vistarama or Thrillarama.
So technically CinemaScope is a Fox trademark rather than a description for the anamorphic process, even though they are often used interchangeably.
Aspect Ratios:
Up until 1952, cinema formats were easy to understand as all mainstream movies and television productions were shot and projected in the aspect ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1). When anamorphic shooting became popular after 1952, a number of aspect ratios were experimented with for anamorphic productions, including 2.66:1 and 2.55:1. The need for reducing costs even further subsequently spawned the spherical widescreen formats of
1.85:1 and 1.66:1. A SMPTE specification for anamorphic projection from 1957 (PH22.106–1957) finally standardized the aperture to 2.35:1. An update in 1970 (PH22.106–1971) changed the aspect ratio to 2.39:1 in order to make splices less noticeable. This aspect ratio of 2.39:1 was confirmed by the most recent revision from August 1993 (SMPTE 195–1993).
Unfortunately, everyone was so used to calling anamorphic films 2.35:1, that many still use that aspect ratio erroneously, even when talking about films shot after 1970. Similarly, 2.40:1 is an incorrect, unfortunate and unnecessary rounding up; a proper rounding up would be 2.4:1. The correct aspect ratio for anamorphic films shot after 1970 is 2.39:1.
Evolution of Cinema:
After the World War II, Hollywood studios faced an alarming decline in cinema attendance. Among other factors, the rise of the television was posing to be a major threat. Television sets had become more and more popular and people could bring their entertainment home. This compelled the production studios to think of new ways to lure the audience, back into those theatres. Many experimentation took place, right from 3D films (yes! 3D films were being made in the 1950s) and a few not so commercially successful innovations like the Eidophor Projector and the Smell-O-Vision among others. Failure of these above mentioned projects, to become commercially viable, led to the recall of Anamorphism , a technology that was already patented by French inventor Henry Chrétien in 1926 for producing a colour film system.
The Eidophor Projector:
This was a form of theatre television, meaning that it could project TV broadcast onto the big cinema screens. It was first demonstrated in Zurich in April 1958 though the original idea of the Eidophor was conceived in 1939. Both Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox took up interest in the technology and over 100 cinemas were set up for the project. Unfortunately, it failed because of financial losses and the refusal of the TV Commission to grant theatre owners the rights to broadcast television content.
The Eidophor Projector
The Smell-O-Vision:
Yes! it is exactly what you think. Way back in 1868, a novel effect was used in London when scent was sprayed into the theatre during a live play performance. Since then many efforts were made to use a similar effect in cinema theatres, such that during the projection of a film, the viewer could smell what was happening in the movie. The particular technique, Smell-O-Vision, made its only appearance in the 1960 film Scent of Mystery, produced by Mike Todd Jr. Smell-O-Vision did not work as intended. The problems were many, from distracting hissing noises to many in the audience seated at different distances complaining that the scents reached them much after the action was shown on the screen; in other parts of the theatre, the odours were too faint. These technical problems were mostly corrected after the first few runs, but the poor word of mouth and the general negative reviews of the film itself, marked the end of Smell-O-Vision. A 2000 Time reader survey listed Smell-O-Vision in the “Top 100 Worst Ideas of All Time. Other similar approaches used in and around the same time period were the “Smell-O-Rama”, the “AromaRama” and the “Odorama”. The same film was re-released in Cinerama, under the title Holiday in Spain without Smell-O-Vision. We will talk about the Cinerama next.
“Scent of Mystery”, released in 1960 was the First and Only Use of Smell-O-Vision
Poster for Scent of Mystery after it had been renamed and re-marketed as Holiday in Spain.
The Cinerama:
The word “Cinerama” combines cinema with panorama. It is a widescreen process that used three synchronised 35mm projectors simultaneously to project a film onto a huge, deeply curved screen. “This is Cinerama”, was the name of the first film which released in 1952, it was shot using three interlocked 35 mm cameras with 27 mm lenses (approximating the human field of view). The projected image usually had an aspect ratio of 2.65:1. Most of the films shot and presented in Cinerama format used to be travel documentaries, till the first narrative film, ‘How the West Was Won’, was released in 1962.
MGM & Cinerama
The Cinerama was equally loved by the public and reviewers, it was grand and spectacular, something the usual 4:3 televisions with their tiny sound systems simply could not deliver. However it had its own set of problems. On the production front, it was difficult to use zoom lenses as the magnification couldn’t match, and close ups appeared bent around the joints of the screen. Also the picture looked natural only from a “sweet spot.” Viewed from outside the sweet spot, the picture could look distorted. Needless to say, shooting three strips of film was cumbersome and expensive. Furthermore, converting existing movie theatres to Cinerama would have been prohibitively expensive or impossible. So the industry had to continue their search for a more economical way to duplicate the appeal of widescreen cinema.
3D Films:
Traditional motion pictures are essentially 2D images. 3D uses a technology which gives an illusion of three-dimensionality, usually with the help of special glasses worn by the audience. The earliest experimentation with 3D imagery began way back in 1915 and since then many small and experimental projects were screened in different parts of the world. The discovery of polaroid filters and its use in stereoscopic presentation was a major breakthrough towards modern day 3D technology. The “golden era” of 3D began in late 1952 with the release of the first colour stereoscopic feature, Bwana Devil. The audience used polaroid viewing glasses to enjoy the show. This was a success which led many major studios to show interest in the next few years including Warner Brothers, Universal Studios, 20th Century Fox and The Walt Disney Studios, who also used it for their Disneyland theme park presentations.
The audience using polaroid glasses to enjoy the premiere of Bwana Devil
However, the decline in the theatrical 3D craze started in 1953. Some factors which were responsible were that two prints had to be projected simultaneously and those prints had to remain exactly alike after repair (whenever required), or else the synchronisation would be lost. If either of the prints or shutters became out of sync, even for a single frame, the picture became virtually unwatchable and caused headaches and eyestrain. Nevertheless 3D films continued to be made, inventions and modernisation of the technology continues to happen. There have been multiple waves of 3D revival until very recently with the film, Avatar. It continues to be an area of experimentation with its own highs but has not been able to replace 2D cinema in totality.
Here comes Anamorphic:
The industry continued its search for a more economical way to duplicate the appeal of widescreen cinema. This is when they remembered Monsieur Henri Chrétien, who had developed and patented an optical process called Hypergonar in 1926. The process was developed by Henri Chrétien, a french inventor, during World War I to provide a wide angle viewer for military tanks.
He proposed to use anamorphic lenses to optically squeeze the image for widescreen cinema. Twentieth Century Fox were the first to reach him in Paris. They bought his Hypergonar prototypes and trademarked the whole process as ‘CinemaScope’. This gave us one of the most spectacular change in history of cinema. The Robe which released in 1953, became the first film shot in CinemaScope.
Anamorphic is here to stay:
There were some significant advantages of shooting anamorphic. By squeezing a widescreen image onto a standard piece of 35 mm film, the process allowed for the continued use of existing cameras, post production processes and projectors. Only the lens on the camera and projection had to be changed from spherical to anamorphic.
Unlike Cinerama, it would only use a single camera and a single projector, so the logistics of producing and presenting a film was simpler. Also the audience did not require to put on additional glasses as they had to in 3D films, to enjoy a larger than life widescreen projection inside the theatres. This gave the studios what they wanted, widescreen at a lower cost. Since then, many movies have been shot using anamorphic lenses.
I hope you enjoyed this essay. I sincerely value your time and I hope I could do justice. Please connect for any suggestions and clarifications, you can scan the QR code below or visit www.rijusamanta.com to get in touch. I shall leave the links to the list of references and resources used in the essay. Once again thank you for your time.
Comments