my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Brother Bear - various aspect ratios (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Brother Bear - various aspect ratios Jason Whyte Expert Film Handler Posts: 132 From: Victoria, BC, Canada Registered: Sep 2002 posted 10-26-2003 02:42 PM                        quote: I'm going to set up an automated masking opening at that point in the movie like I did with that Far and Away trailer. Interesting that you can do that with automation. I wish more automation systems would be used with these varying AR films in theaters. To clarify on Horse Whisperer's AR: quote: Disney did the same format "widening" with "The Horse Whisperer". The scene in the begining where the girl is injured is letterboxed for the entire first reel, then at the second reel when the horse is let loose (beginning of Reel 2) the picture widens to full Scope. The change from 1.85 to 2.39 occured at the beginning of reel 3, when the mother and daughter prepare to drive out to the country. It was certainly a cool effect in the theater. Another addition to all of these titles is the recent Canadian film "Falling Angels" (1.85:1), where most of the 16mm sequences in the movie are paneled in at 1.37:1. Jason  |  IP: Logged James Falloon Film Handler Posts: 72 From: Wigram, Christchurch, New Zealand Registered: Oct 2003 posted 10-26-2003 03:44 PM                     I once had the misfortune to show the Crocodile Hunter Collision Course IMDB (Mostly Scope) What a mess, mostly it was printed in 'full' scope, but some of it had bars down the sides of the picture to bring it back to W/S aspect ratio, then it would jump back into 'full' scope, and then back again. It did this about half a dozen times throughout the movie, halfway through reels etc. It was a complete disaster, I ended up playing it with the masking curtains out, which looked stupid and I considered very bad showmanship Oh well, I hope they learned their lesson.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 10-26-2003 04:26 PM                    What shape is the opening material in North of Superior? In other words, is it the "daddy of all aspect ratio changes" or the daddy of size changes. With most visitors nowadays familiar with what an IMAX picture is going to look like the surprise factor would no longer be there but at the time it must have packed a wallop.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 10-27-2003 02:21 AM                        hmm, for these show-in-progress masking changes i imagine you must have pretty quiet masking motors. ours are kinda noisy. not to mention we don't have stops on our main screen so it's a hit and miss operation. carl  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-27-2003 02:51 AM                        Steve called it -- really a size change rather than an aspect ratio change. And yeah, today IMAX is no mystery and most people will realize the small image in the middle of the screen isn't the full screen, but still, it's one spectacular effect. Frank  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-27-2003 11:44 AM                     They still jump when the picture explodes  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-27-2003 02:19 PM                     There is a similar scene in the early IMAX film TO FLY. It starts off very small and shows the preparations for a balloon launch. When the balloon takes off, the image expands to full size and the audience usually gasped in unison. One thing that helps this work is the steadiness of the Imax image.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-04-2003 03:09 PM                     In the Feature info topic for Brother Bear: quote from note in can: All screen maskings and aperture plates are to be set for normal CinemaScope projection in your auditorium for the entire showing of the film. John Pytlak said: So they don't want you to use adjustable side masking, even if you have it? Guess the worry is that some theatres will forget to open it to full 2.39:1 at the appropriate time. Then Greg Routenburg said: John, I tried adjusting the side adjustable masking today to see if it could be made to work but the first part of the film didn't fill the full width of the 1.85 aspect ratio. It appears to be 1.80 tops. This could be why they made this recommendation. ------------------------------------- Not all screens show the proper 1.85 aspect ratio, even when the masking is pulled in. (allthogh in a perfect world they should be...)  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2003 03:36 PM                     The term "aspect ratio" refers to the height/width ratio of the picture as it appears on the screen, no? Thus, the IMAX film "North of Superior" does make an aspect ratio change as well as a size change. Is this not true? The reason I say this is because of anamorphic prints. You can measure the size/height/width of the picture on the film but you won't know the true shape of the picture until you factor in the effect of the anamorphic lens. If you didn't, then a Scope-2.39 picture would have almost the same AR as a picture in the Academy AR. As far as the AR change in "Brother Bear", I thought it was annoying! I watched the ads in their usual crappy "video-to-film transfer" ratio. Then came the previews which jumped back and forth between Scope-2.39 and Hard-Matte-1.85. Then came the policy snipe, again in full Scope. Finally, the feature started and the film, which I KNEW was playing through the Scope lens showed in hard-matte 1.85 throughout the first 1-1/2 reels. Suddenly at the "magic moment" the screen widens out to where it SHOULD have been all along. The cue dot was even placed inside the regular 1.85 picture area. Even then, I knew that this is what was intended because I could see that the cue dot was "stretched out" the way it is when seen through the anamorphic lens. This made it very hard for me to enjoy the first part of the film. My eyes kept getting "caught" on the edges of the picture and I was sitting in my seat, fidgeting and waiting for the picture to open up to where it SHOULD have been! I thought the movie was fairly decent but this gimmick was not effective as far as I'm concerned. It took away from the film.  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 11-04-2003 06:16 PM                        The toughest presentation critic you'll ever find is a projectionist who cares. Really reduces the number of places you can enjoy a film without subconsciously picking things apart. That also used to be a problem in the pre-automation days... though you were more likely to observe a projectionist's style as a comparison with your own. How many of you waited for the actual changeover? Timing? Lamp balance? Focus? Framing? Pops in the sound? Overly-noticeable dips as one exciter dropped & the other came on? Oh.... and if that curtain didn't finish closing right at the moment the image faded out... Whoooooeeeee! There went the whole show!  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-05-2003 12:34 AM                     Simple question: Why did Disney do this with Brother Bear? Yeah, I know it's for artistic purposes or some crap like that, but to me it doesn't make sense. Anyone? Mike is right, you are not supposed to show any part of this feature witht the masking set for 1.85. It is supposed to be Scope the whole time.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 11-05-2003 01:58 PM                     I'll bet this movie is going over REALLY well on screens with top/bottom masking, especially at places that have the masking raised between shows for the "pre-show-entertainment"!  |  IP: Logged Peter Mork Expert Film Handler Posts: 181 From: Newton, MA, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-22-2003 07:18 PM                     Here's a very odd one: "Forty Deuce", a 1982 Paul Morrisey film. First half (3 reels?) is 1.85, shot flat and meant to be projected that way. Suddenly, at a reel change, it converts to a split screen: two images printed side-by side (the same scene shot from different angles, apparently by two 16mm cameras), on an anamorphic projection print. Stays that way to the end. You have to do a lens change mid-film. This would not be too a problem for someone doing changeovers, but where I saw it (the old Nickelodeon in Boston) they used platters and had to stop the film (for way too long, as I recall) and make the lens/plate switch. Kind of ruined the flow.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 11-22-2003 09:36 PM                    Ridiculous to release a film like that and not have the entire thing be Scope with various formats within that. However, a bit of black film would have covered a lens and plate change without any need to stop; it should only take a few seconds. Unless you have a AA-II or DP70.  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 11-23-2003 10:33 AM                        The Mystery of Picasso Mystère Picasso, Le (1956) The last reel is CinemaScope. The previous reels are 1.37:1.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.