|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Top Down Masking
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 04-16-2004 08:42 AM
Caring About Composition:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml
quote:
Scope" Is Meant to be Wider than "Flat"
Filling the full width of the screen for both 2.39:1 scope pictures and 1.85:1 flat pictures is almost as bad as "one size fits all" screens. This poor practice has become a popular trend in modern theatre designs, especially those with stadium seating. The misguided idea is to fill the front wall of the theatre with the biggest image possible, regardless of the intended format. So instead of maintaining the same image height for the scope and flat formats by using adjustable side masking, both formats are projected with the same width. The top and bottom masking are adjusted to letterbox the scope format, and actually project a much smaller image than the flat format.
What's wrong with this picture? Plenty! First, the wider 2.39:1 scope format is usually chosen to give pictures greater impact, than the more intimate 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Letterboxing it to a smaller image often violates the intent of the cinematographer and director in telling a big story.
Image quality of the flat format suffers in comparison to the scope format, especially when common width screens are used. The projectable image area of the 1.85:1 flat format is only 65 percent of the much larger and efficient scope format. It makes no sense to project the much smaller flat film image area on the print to a much larger picture than scope on the screen. It simply magnifies the grain and greatly reduces the light level. For example, a theatre that is getting the SMPTE aim of 16 footlamberts for scope on a 25 x 60 foot screen, will typically get only about 13 footlamberts for the less efficient flat format on a 25 x 46 foot screen, which is still within the tolerances allowed by the standard. But if they try to magnify the flat image to fill a 32 x 60 foot screen, they will only get a sub-standard 8 footlamberts, since the light must be spread over a much larger screen area. When you project flat and scope films to the same width on the screen, bigger is definitely not better!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-16-2004 09:15 AM
as mentioned by several people, the real issue is optimizing the brightness for both formats. if that can be done, making flat and scope equally bright, then you're good. why make the flat image smaller than it could be solely to make the scope image larger in comparison? in the vast majority of cases, there won't be a side-by-side comparison; the whole program plays in one format. you wouldn't purposely make your flat image smaller than the scope image at another theater, would you?
but since the easiest way to keep the brightness consistent is to use movable side masking (between 1.85 and scope), that's the best way to do it. for the full complement of ratios, i like scott's solution, though i might want to make 1.66 taller than 1.85.
carl
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 04-16-2004 02:00 PM
I definitely prefer side masking, but over a year ago, Regal finished installing top/bottom masking in their smaller auditoriums. The image center stays in the same place in those auditoriums for both formats. Before this change, scope movies were shown at 1.85:1. Although top/bottom masking is not optimal, it's infinitely better than cropping scope to 1.85:1, which was done before the vertically-moving masking was installed in two-thirds of the auditoriums. One third of the auditoriums were built with side masking, but Cobb, in their infinite wisdom, chose 1.85:1-only in the others. Regal fixed it.
I can say that scope movies, although small, are very bright and sharp in those smaller auditoriums. I just sit closer when a scope movie is being shown in those.
I saw a scene from a movie recently in which top masking was obviously used in the auditorium in which the scene was filmed. Can't remember if it was "Win a Date With Tad Hamilton" or some other movie that had that scene. Has anyone noticed Carmike's current "fire marshall" trailer that shows side masking opening up on the screen?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
NOT. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic