|  IP: Logged

I agree that most continuous contact printers can do a fine job when printing a "short-pitch" original negative to a "long-pitch" print, especially "wet". The pin registration is needed when you have to go from camera original negative, to master positive, to duplicate negative, to release print, where you can't maintain the ideal short-pitch to long-pitch printing situation for every step. The "slippage" that occurs is where the loss of sharpness and steadiness can creep in. Even the highest speed contact printers are capable of very good results when printing short-pitch negative to release print.

Unfortunately, we also have scissor masking I think the designers were just trying to go for a standard screen width, and that just meant that the biggest picture would be flat. Sort of backwards, if you ask me.

Dim pictures are also not allowed at my theatre. If a picture looks like it is getting dim, I check the hours on the bulb. If they aren't too high, I try refocusing. If that doesn't work, then the bulb gets changed.

Unfortunately, the best "compromise" between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (in the public's eye) was to maintain both aspect ratios to be "wall to wall" in all but the largest auditorium. We strive to keep scope product in that house. Our aspect ratios are correct.

I realize that scope is (was intended to be) more dramatic in appearance, but the simple fact is that these guys know their films will eventually be shown on TV. Thus they still use 1.85.

We either standardize the aspect ratio of film, or we standardize the aspect ratio of TV (to what we want).

Either way, we will finally have a finite dimension to use when we build a theater.

The contractor problem is easy enough to fix (on our last 11 plex, we sent back 20 of the 22 lenses ordered before construction was completed).

These cinematographers seem like pretty smart guys to me. They might just appreciate an honest effort on the part of exhibition to secure the integrity of their images on our screens.

Contractors simply do NOT understand how critical the required dimensions are.

Until they do, or until the industry agrees upon a standard aspect ratio, Magna-Com stock should be a safe bet.

We didn't compromise aspect ratios this time, but we were honestly tempted.

It's one thing to preach purity to the congregation. It is another thing to be up at 4:00 A.M. cutting plates knowing that you have to be bright eyed and bushy tailed the next day at grand opening.

Yes, I am management (don't hate me!). I also have to cut plates and set A-Chains and equalizers the night before. I just lack the luxury of having a tech department to blame when things go south (or management to blame when I am lacking parts or equipment).

Viewing this from both sides of the fence, just pick an aspect ratio and stick with it. It is simpler for management, and from the tech side, "The fewer moving parts, the better".

I am new here so feel free to squash me, but I have noticed a definate devision between management and projection. HELLO!!!!? Why do you think people come to the theater? It is the film. Nobody gets a craving for popcorn and gets drawn to your popcorn popper! (I fix those too). They come to see movies. Their desire to see a film is what sells your popcorn.

They might not even know what aspect ratio they are looking at, but they DO notice if something isn't right.

All they really know is that if they sit down to watch U-571, they are subjected to honestly being afraid because the projection and sound systems deployed against them are fully capable of placing them in that place, and at that time in history.

That's what we do.

Guys, agree on a picture aspect ratio and live with it! (grin)

Anyone cutting plates at 4:00 AM is OK by us!

I think that we should have at least two ratios. I would no sooner get rid of that than I would force painters to only have one size frame and canvas. Designing a theater to properly show 1.85, 2.39 and even 2.21 is not rocket science. Even the new TV's have multiple ratios. Contractors must be made to understand- by putting the specs in the original design bid and rejecting anything that's not to spec. Also I find that, if properly set up for a given screen, there is less than a 3% difference between flat and scope (SMPTE allows 5%.) So I find that Magna-Com's not only reduce light and are expensive, but are not even needed. (There are times when they are needed, but it's very rare, and not in a regular "two aspect-ratio only" multiplex.)

If your theater has mostly adjustable top masking, but everthing else is done correctly, I would still think it was a good place. It's when several problems are put together that wigg people out!

Regarding theatres with cropped images: I have (unfortunately) run films in a few auditoriums that horribly cropped both 2.39:1 and 1:1.85 and it amazed me that customers put up with it. What they complained about was the temperature and the volume.

 |  IP: Logged

I was kidding!!! The question asked on that morning at 4:00 AM was "Do we want a Magna-com, or a beer!!?"

As a group, we would NEVER compromise!! Every individual in that room also thought, "I'd really like to go to sleep now!" *grin*

We actually had (with tape measure in hand) Mitch Bryson on the phone saying "Okay, here's the REAL throw!"

"Next Day Air" is a beautiful thing!

I guess my real question is: Wider or taller? Which is the best compromise between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1?

Talk amongst yourselves,

Russ