Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness (Page 2)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11

Author

Topic: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness

Demetris Thoupis
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1240
From: Aradippou, Larnaca, Cyprus
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-12-2009 06:09 AM

I think the movie will do shit in boxoffice. Nowhere near where people expect it to be.
Demetris

| IP: Logged

John Walsh
Film God

Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 12-12-2009 10:12 AM

Well, I think is's actually an interesting idea; what's wrong with trying to get the best image on screen? Except, I'd like the idea to be whatever gives the largest image (I think Cameron wants whatever gives the highest quality image.) It's been proven many times the public wants size more than resoultion.

This reminds me a little of when 'Cocoon' came out in 70mm - 1.85. It wasn't hard to figure out, but some service people thought it was too much work.

At this point, I'm glad for almost any consideration from the studios about a theater's image.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-12-2009 10:45 AM

quote: John Walsh
what's wrong with trying to get the best image on screen?

In theory anyway, the "best" image will be in the aspect ratio the film was composed for. If the digital versions all maintain the same aspect ratio, then this makes sense (in theory). Otherwise the film is not being shown the way it was intended.

Of course, these days very few films are composed for anything other than television, so what happens on the screen is pretty unimportant.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-12-2009 12:18 PM

Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 12-12-2009 12:35 PM

It's entirely possible to compose a shot for multiple aspect ratios (Dark Knight anyone?). I can also attest to the fact that filmmakers have become disillusioned with the small screen sizes in today's "wall-to-wall" multiplexes. They want to create the most immersive experience they can.

BUT here's the problem. How do you maintain quality control in this situation? Beyond the obvious questions of who will make sure the correct version is played on the screen, mid day auditorium swaps, and licensing and ingesting two copies of a single film, there may be more specific issues at each site.

Take the first theater I worked at. 15 screens with a varied assortment of top masking and side to side masking, plus a few auditoriums with both.

Screens 2*, 3, 4, and 5 were all top only masking. In scope, they presented a proper 2.39 ratio, however flat was something that was closer to 1.95. So, for Avatar in this specific theater Scope should be used since a proper 1.85 is not possible.

Auditoriums 7-13 all had a weird combo masking. In flat, the top mask was set all the way up and the sides were drawn in. In scope, the sides were pulled out and the top was lowered. Both formats in these auditoriums are large appearing. So I wonder which they will go with?

*2 recently had installed a silver screen and a non movable side mask. It now has correct AR for both scope and flat.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-12-2009 12:46 PM

Demetris, why do you harbor negative feelings about a movie you probably had not seen yet with your negative comment "I think the movie will do shit at the boxoffice"?
It almost sound like you have a deep hatred for James Cameron and his movies.

I must admit I was disappointed AVATAR is not a full live action 3-D movie but I had always planned to see it. The majority of film critics who had seen the film had praised it in their reviews and that is good enough for me.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-12-2009 12:57 PM

I'm absolutely certain a lot of d-cinema theaters are going to screw up and show the wrong version of the movie, even if all of their site's auditoriums have only one type of masking.

quote: Mike Olpin
It's entirely possible to compose a shot for multiple aspect ratios (Dark Knight anyone?).

The Dark Knight is not the best example to mention since its IMAX-based footage is the only material where framing for multiple aspect ratios is involved. Most of the movie was shot in anamorphic 35mm, which forces the filmmaker to frame for 2.39:1.

Most Super35 based movies are kinda sorta shot with multiple aspect ratios in mind. They're splitting differences between old 1.33:1 TV, 1.77:1 HDTV and 2.39:1 'scope. In trying to be all things to all ratios the shot compositions often look like a lot of loose, bland crap.

Much more often than not, movies shot in true anamorphic 'scope have more interesting, dynamic shot compositions than movies shot in Super35. Simple as that.

Over the years, James Cameron has proven an exception to the rule. Movies like The Abyss, T2 and True Lies feel more like real 'scope movies even though they were shot in Super35. Hopefully Avatar will maintain that trend. From what I've seen so far in the trailers it looks pretty good.

I'm not too worried about the framing being goofed up at the theater where I see the movie. I'll either watch it here in Lawton at the local Carmike or check it out in Moore at the Warren Moore 14. If the show is good enough I may see it at both places. It might be a good way to see how the RealD and Dolby 3D presentations compare.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 12-12-2009 01:06 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm absolutely certain a lot of d-cinema theaters are going to screw up and show the wrong version of the movie, even if all of their site's auditoriums have only one type of masking.

Wrong. Fox is only sending one file/hard drive per auditorium design, so theaters that are all one type of masking can't screw it up. (Well, they CAN, but shouldn't.) Its the multiplexes with both types under one roof that will screw it up.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 12-12-2009 01:51 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

And yet the previews being shown on network television are being letterboxed to "scope" width.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-12-2009 02:00 PM

Yea, one HDD with both 2D and 3D files on them ... been there before with "G-Force".

And if one isn't too well trained on playlist building can easily build the wrong one if they don't know how to read the files too well.

Then, the mgr accuses of you screwing up the playlist since his film list shows the movie in scope and he notices the system set for 1998 3D flat. You have to, then, correct his dumbass ignorance by telling him that, for some 3D movies, that the movie was formatted for letterbox flat presentations and the film is the one in true scope.

Wish the downstairs "suits" would stay downstairs and leave us who knows what the flip we're doing .. alone. [Mad]

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-12-2009 02:44 PM

Monte, given what we know about who they have in many plex booths, would YOU trust that monkey if you were a manager?

Multipe composing for mutliple screen aspect ratios isn't a new issue -- it's been around since VistaVision.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-12-2009 03:51 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Wrong. Fox is only sending one file/hard drive per auditorium design, so theaters that are all one type of masking can't screw it up.

I thought the d-cinema theaters were going to get both 'scope and 'flat files and then figure out the right choice for themselves. At least that's what the original starting post on this topic implied.

If they're sending only the 'scope version to theaters with all side masking and flat to sites with all top masking then that will go a long way to "idiot proof" the presentation. Although, like you said, there are still ways they can goof up the framing.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 12-12-2009 04:05 PM

In this industry? Puuleeeeez. If there is a way to screw it up, THEY WILL.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 12-12-2009 04:21 PM

quote: Frank Angel
would YOU trust that monkey if you were a manager?

..never in a minute would I ...I'd make sure that no monkeys exist under my roof.. lol

..but some mgrs love to have them around...

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-12-2009 05:16 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

He should take it a step further and say "My scope movie does not play in ANY common-width auditoriums EVER!" That would create far fewer screens that the movie would play on, but it would also increase demand to see it, longer lines (which increases hype) and as a result it would be much more of an "event movie".

quote: Steve Guttag
In this industry? Puuleeeeez. If there is a way to screw it up, THEY WILL.

No shit, right?

Also, what about auditoriums that have side and top masking (or side and scissor masking) leaving the screen real estate approximately the same in both formats?

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 9 10 11

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.