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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness (Page 7)

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

Author Topic: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-16-2009 12:57 PM                        quote: Chris Slycord 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? Yes. George Lucas is the reason I decided to go into the movie theatre business. I *was* a STAR WARS dork for many years. Then I grew up.....  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 12-16-2009 03:01 PM                        Kurosawa-sensei. I just finished editing and putting up an English transcript of a conversation between Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, Living and Loving Movies which aired on NTV back in 1993, right as Maadadayo was hitting the screens. Kurosawa had some funny stories to tell, like about having to hand-draw the optical recorder tracks for the screams on Seven Samurai since he wasn't satisfied with the recorded real ones. Intense! One of these days we'll flesh out that transcript enough to use it as subtitles for that hour-long NTV special. * * * * * I'm not really a Cameron fan, but still Avatar looks interesting. Planning to catch it at the Brenden IMAX here.  |  IP: Logged Jon P. Inghram Expert Film Handler Posts: 124 From: Wichita, KS USA Registered: Jan 2007 posted 12-16-2009 07:17 PM                     In our theater our screens are a mix of side and top masking, with one using both side and top masking to switch between flat and scope. Heck, one screen even has the projector in the ceiling which means the lens can't be zoomed when changing between scope and flat. It's set to show the full 2048x858 (minus some cropping) scope image with the side masking out, but with flat the projector has to scale the 1998x1080 image down to 1587x858. We've got two screens setup for 3D (but only one Master Image unit,) the larger screen using side masking and the smaller using top masking.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 12-17-2009 12:18 PM                     Sounds like the best way to see the film will be in 1.78, whether in digital 3-D or in IMAX 3-D. The "extraction" of a 2.39 aspect ratio means throwing away c. 26% of the image height - hard to see how the composition can remain ideal in those circumstances. Interestingly, the poor practice of cropping a 1.37 image to 1.85 in projection results in a similar loss of image height.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-17-2009 12:45 PM                        Saw it this morning. The movie is GREAT. He takes elements from his other films and intertwines them in this one. One of my favorite films is "The Abyss". A lot of elements taken from that film. You have to see it on as big a screen as possible.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-17-2009 02:06 PM                        quote: Brian Guckian Interestingly, the poor practice of cropping a 1.37 image to 1.85 in projection results in a similar loss of image height. Who does this? And why aren't they in jail?  |  IP: Logged Matt Skilton Film Handler Posts: 43 From: Bromley, Kent, UK Registered: May 2009 posted 12-17-2009 05:17 PM                        Anyone else been having sticking and/or static issues with their Avatar prints (there's probably a technical term for it, sorry)? What I mean is, as the film runs through on the feeding platter, lots of layers of the film get dragged towards the feeder units arm, causing the platter to go a bit wild as it corrects itself. This caused one of our prints to get thrown off the platter with 30 mins left on its first show. As I was making the film-up, it did sound like it had been treated with something, as if it had been cleaned. It seems to be affecting one print much more then the other.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-17-2009 05:27 PM                     Two words...Film Guard. Two more...get some. All your problems will be over.  |  IP: Logged Joe Tommassello Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 547 From: Coatesville, PA, USA Registered: Jan 2008 posted 12-17-2009 05:48 PM                  quote: Mike Olpin 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? I wonder if this has something to do with the 3D and an attempt to make a sharp edge where both images end together vs. getting that - what I'll call for lack of a better word - fringing on the edges that sometime occurs with 3D.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-17-2009 10:44 PM                        OR....could this be that process that we talked about before where they allow the images that are meant to be converged in front of the screen be able to break that "virtual" edge of the hard matte, assuming that the enveloped image is not masked so it fills the entire screen top to bottom, but rather sits in the middle of the actual screen? If they maintain the hard matte so the image under normal circumatances throughout the film is seen to be smaller than the actually screen, they can then allow certain images meant to come into the foreground and appear closer to the viewer, can do so by going past the bottom or top of that hard-matte so the edge of the real screen won't intersect it. The problem is, the illusion that a 3D image is closer to the viewer than the screen will be ruined if it is intersected by the screen edge. The minute it is intersected, the viewer's brain says, that object can't be closer to me than the object which it touched, which is farther away -- the illusion and the 3D field collapses. BUT, if they can have the object break only the hard-matte, the illusion stays intact. Didn't we talk about this before? Has anyone watched this start to finish? Is this indeed what they do in certain scenes?  |  IP: Logged Alex Edwards Expert Film Handler Posts: 114 From: Iowa Registered: Aug 2009 posted 12-17-2009 10:50 PM                  Havn't seen Avatar yet but you'd think Cameron is above using 3D to flash things out of the screen at the audience. From what I've heard, he used the 3D effect to compliment the movie rather then throw at the screen.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-17-2009 11:47 PM                     Frank, I thought that might be a possibility. However, nothing in the 2D scope version I just ran had anything that felt like it needed to extend beyond the front of the screen. The film works really well in scope, by the way. Looking forward to comparing the FLAT and 3D versions.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-17-2009 11:48 PM                     quote: Dennis Benjamin The movie is GREAT. ..and it's in good ol' 2.40:1, 3D .. not the letterbox version as heard earlier.. I forgot that I was wearing glasses. The 3D effects, esp in the CGA sections, were so natural looking - none of that "in your face" problems with this movie.  |  IP: Logged Sam King Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Oct 2006 posted 12-18-2009 12:56 AM                     Wow, what a lovely response for providing what was, AT THE TIME, correct information coming from Cameron himself while he was here at my theatre doing the post audio mix.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 12-18-2009 12:58 AM                     Just saw a bit of Avatar from the booth while picking up a film. I put some Real D glasses on and it looked like great 3D but they were showing it scope though the file was for flat! They did not know how to switch the lens! I was asked to help if it was a problem so i hung around till start up and the fox logo was cropped but as the thing progressed it seemed fine including subtitles. I am only a film guy at this point but i was ready to turn the lens to the flat position. So why would only the fox logo look wrong?  |  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.