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 3)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 10 11

Author

Topic: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 12-12-2009 09:17 PM

quote:
He should take it a step further and say "My scope movie does not play in ANY common-width auditoriums EVER!"

I wish he would. This industry needs to quit making those shitty auditoriums.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-12-2009 09:45 PM

But he said that he thinks the 3D version looks better in 1.85. Here's his exact quote:

quote:
For AVATAR, we're shooting in a 16:9 ratio. We're extracting a Cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition. And for 3D theatrical exhibition, the theaters that can will be in the 16:9 format, and the theaters that can't will be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I'm actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the 1.85 format, and now saying 1.85, or actually it's 1.78:1, actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 12-12-2009 09:52 PM

...so he's basically targeting this movie for home HD theatre then...since he'll prob bank three times in DVD/BR sales than on tix sales...

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-12-2009 10:22 PM

If that's the case, then why would he say that he only likes the flat ratio for 3D, and not 2D?

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 12-12-2009 10:30 PM

I would say it is more to do with digital imax 3D than home technology when he said that. 30% larger image is what he really wants.

What filmmaker wants the screen to shrink as their film starts after the preshow? Thats what would happen in most cinemas here in Australia and the UK! with 1.85 ads etc.

Good on him for giving a rats arse about the presentation [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-12-2009 11:54 PM

I don't understand the knock on top masking? We have top masking in our two smallest auditoriums. The scope picture pretty much goes wall to wall. If we used side masking, the flat picture would be tiny.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-13-2009 12:04 AM

I don't understand why poorly designed auditoriums make top masking good.

Now, I know you likely had nothing to do with the room design and are doing with what you got.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 12-13-2009 12:58 AM

quote: Justin Hamaker
I don't understand the knock on top masking?

Its because traditionally the small intimate films were shot in flat and the epic blockbusters were shot BIG in scope which is wider to fill the periferal vision.

In many wall to wall cinemas, the intimate films loose there compositional qualities as the audience has to now move there heads both left /right and up/down to watch the film in a way that the director never intended nor shot it to be experienced like that.

It is now clear that the inconsistantcy of cinema construction is only now effecting filmmakers and the way films are made. Flat is the new epic [Confused]

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 12-13-2009 01:29 AM

Cameron's right.

Traditionally, flat composition was preferred for intimate subjects, dialogue driven stories and comedies and the 'scope ratio preferred for epics, roadshows and outdoor scenery driven stories.

Ever seen a 'scope dialogue-driven show and wondered why every shot is a close up? It is rare that dialogue requires the full 'scope width for dramatic effect whereas the flat ratio enables a more intimate yet uncluttered frame composition. That was the whole point in CinemaScope &tc in the first place.

..and to have a top masking drop down and SHRINK the picture size is just plain cheap'n'nasty apart from negating the whole reason for 'scope in the first place.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-13-2009 02:42 AM

quote: Ian Parfrey
..and to have a top masking drop down and SHRINK the picture size is just plain cheap'n'nasty apart from negating the whole reason for 'scope in the first place.

If the screen already runs wall to wall, it's not like the scope picture could be any bigger. Whether you use side or top masking, it's the flat picture size that changes.

I guess I can understand this complaint if the scope picture only uses 75% of the auditorium width.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 12-13-2009 02:46 AM

If the scope screen runs wall to wall, then the flat screen should not get any taller. The drop ceiling should have been brought down lower. This will help the acoustics AND will keep the proper eyeline within the composition the same between formats.

Top masking is simply an auditorium done WRONG.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 12-13-2009 03:10 AM

What shape are your smallest auditoriums Justin? Does the scope picture also feel small? I can understand that in very badly designed auditoriums that this large flat can be the best compromise possible, but keep in mind that it's not a good cinema and it's fundementally compromised.

Even worse is a well designed auditorium where they have gone for the wall to wall common width screen, 1.85 is like IMAX but lacks the picture quality, one can not get far enough away from the screen for comfortable viewing, yet for scope the picture is FANTASTIC! If these cinemas had a common height screen the experience would be first class. It's the main reason I avoid going to Reading Cinemas here in Australia.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-13-2009 03:47 AM

Cameron, our smallest auditoriums are more rectangular (with the long wall running from port window to screen), but they aren't significantly longer than they are wide. I guess when I think about it, the larger auditoriums are more square.

When I think about the the last comments by you and Brad, I'm starting to get a sense of the issue. I'll have to watch a movie in these auditoriums to see if I can notice a major difference. I tend to not see movies in the small houses just because I usually watch them before the opening and they usually open in the larger houses.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 12-13-2009 06:14 AM

quote:
I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.

So there you have it. James Cameron says to run all of his scope movies with a flat lens.

So, what is the IMAX 3D film aspect ratio going to be? Anyone know? We never seem to put the IMAX format info in the FITA forum for some reason.

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

posted 12-13-2009 10:14 AM

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So, what is the IMAX 3D film aspect ratio going to be? Anyone know? We never seem to put the IMAX format info in the FITA forum for some reason.

Maybe because from a technical standpoint it really doesn't matter? IMAX doesn't use any masking on the screens, only has one lens setting and the frame size is always the same, regardless of how much image takes up that frame.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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.