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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness (Page 6)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Author Topic: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness Steven J Hart Master Film Handler Posts: 282 From: WALES, ND, USA Registered: Mar 2004 posted 12-15-2009 07:42 AM                        We use bottom masking on the common width screen at our small single screen theater simply because its the only thing that will work as the screen is only 25 feet wide. This theater was built in 1936, way before cinemascope, so installing a wider screen is simply not an option. However, we NEVER shrink the screen for the feature. All trailers programmed for a scope feature are scope! A very simple concept. I do agree that there is no excuse for doing common width in a new build. Steve  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-15-2009 12:19 PM                     quote: John Wilson in the FITA forum We received our drives tonight (Monday) Ingesting now. It's beengoing around 80 minutes and is at 65% at 176GB so far. I seem to recall one of those "well duh" notices flying around a few days ago telling people they had to delete content on their players in order to make room to be able to load Avatar. WELL DUH!!! The number I remember seeing when I glanced at it was 365GB. Is that possibly the size if you have both types of masking and are loading a flat or scope? That would seem to be roughly double what you are reporting John. (Then again Australia might have a different file.)  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-15-2009 12:25 PM                     Wouldn't the digital 3D file be double the size of the 2D file for the doubled number of movie frames?  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-15-2009 01:27 PM                     Total file size is 271GB for the 3D version. Not sure what the difference is between 35mm and Digital versions, but according to the censors here, the digital version runs one minute longer than the 35mm. Of course, they may have gotten that wrong I guess. 2hrs 41mins 31 secs running time.  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 12-15-2009 03:24 PM                     Usually a bank decides. If the bank says 10 screens, you can't just say; well I'll only put in 8 because I need the space for side masking (unless you are ready to put up a lot more money.) There are other reasons: when I did the design work for the Glen 10 in Illinois, the developer made it clear that he wanted; "...the theater to be known by it's big screens." I did caution him that there is such a thing as, 'too big' (to no avail) but I was able to use that as a reason to get scissor masking. At least that reduced the need for the operator having to crank the framer. (Dennis) I know what you mean by customers getting upset when the screen gets smaller for scope features. When a Dolby CP50 was first installed where I worked, customers would complain because the intermission music sounded great, then a non-Dolby film would play and sound poor by comparison.  |  IP: Logged Michael Voiland Expert Film Handler Posts: 219 From: Naperville, IL US Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-15-2009 04:00 PM                     quote: John Wilson Not sure what the difference is between 35mm and Digital versions The difference is about 60 to 70 pounds  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-15-2009 04:03 PM                     So...97.6026 to 113.868 US?  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 12-15-2009 04:42 PM                    quote: Bobby Henderson Wouldn't the digital 3D file be double the size of the 2D file for the doubled number of movie frames? Not really, as DCI specs max 307mb/s total bandwidth (including sound, subtitles, etc, 250mb/s max just for the compressed image stream) for ALL their formats, be 2K, 2K 3D or 4K. Thus, all movies of similar length that decide to max out the bandwidth for quality, as pretty much all should (but don't), would take about the same space. quote: Michael Voiland The difference is about 60 to 70 pounds ... or about 67€ to 78.2€  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-16-2009 12:48 AM                     I would like to personally say THANK YOU James Cameron for making a crippled version of your movie in FLAT to try and accommodate poorly-designed theaters. I love your movies and am a huge fan, but you should have at least pulled your weight to demand they load up BOTH versions on each drive sent out for this sort of issue. Yup, I had a 50% success rate at receiving the proper drives! Can Deluxe get the correct scope drives to me in time? Will they respond with a pathetic "just take that one scope drive you have and carry it around town wasting an entire day covering up our mistake"? Stay tuned!  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-16-2009 01:13 AM                     It appears the IMAX prints are window boxed just like the trailer. Black around all edges, top, bottom, left, and right. Why put bars on the left and right when there is room on the top and bottom to make it bigger? Is this so MPX screens don't get cropped?  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 12-16-2009 02:50 AM                    Mike: I would be careful with that picture of frames from Avatar. Don't be surprised if you are sued by the Fox people and arrested for posting a reproduction of copyrighted material on the internet. The law forbids it, seamingly in ALL cases, you know. At least, you need to be tried and then the judge will decide on how much your infrigement deserves punishment. Does the $500 reward apply worldwide?  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 12-16-2009 06:06 AM                    Well that sucks for REAL IMAX theaters. What the hell? What doofus thought THAT was a good idea? It's a shame you can't put in a different lens and blow the image up to the full size of the screen anyway.  |  IP: Logged Dick Vaughan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1032 From: Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-16-2009 07:17 AM                        The IMAX Film version is 1.78:1 and "picture framed" with black edges and top and bottom. Image is framed lower than previous DMR releases , or so it seems to me , which will make for easier viewing. Still better than digimax 1.9:1  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-16-2009 12:08 PM                        James Cameron WAS my favorite director until now. George Lucas WAS my favorite director up until 1999. This situation with the AVATAR release squashed the respect I had for Mr. Cameron. So much for his "Showmanship is our Sword and Shield" speech from back in the day. My how the mighty have fallen. In case you are wondering, I lost my respect for Mr. Lucas when I had to sign a contract with him and 20th Century Fox promising I would not let anyone see that piece of trash he called "The Phantom Menace" back in 1999. I realized he wanted to make bank before anyone got a chance to give it a bad review. Wow....Akira Kurosawa is and will always be my favorite film director of ALL TIME. He's dead now, so not much room to ruin his reputation at this point....  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 12-16-2009 12:48 PM                     So your favorite director in 1998 was a guy who'd not directed anything since 1977? And even then, only having (at the time) 3 non-student-films under his belt?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

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.