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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Digital: Scope inside Flat? (Page 8)

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

Author Topic: Digital: Scope inside Flat? Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 05-14-2011 02:01 AM                     Ugh, Returned to the scene of the crime today. Still showing the scope image letterboxed inside the flat screen with the side masking curtains closed.... Even worse their lighting system in auditorium #1 (left side) is wired incorrectly. During the previews the overhead lights (which shine on the screen by the way) are supposed to go to low dim with the side wall sconces remaining at medium dim. And then when the feature starts, the overhead lights are to go off and the wall sconces to go to low dim. (This is how it operates in auditorium #2 (right side) and this is what makes sense.) However, someone screwed up and now during the trailers the overhead lights remain on medium bright (which is shining on the screen and you can't see the trailers being shown) and the wall sconces go to low dim. Then when the movie presentation comes on, the overhead lights go to low dim and the wall sconces go completely off. It's wired reversed. WHY, WHY, WHY? This place is truly a disgrace to everyone else who does it right! I guess it was my fault for going there. I had hoped they had fixed the scope movie presentations, but now they've even gone and fucked up the lighting...  |  IP: Logged Manny Montes Master Film Handler Posts: 270 From: United States Registered: Feb 2010 posted 05-14-2011 04:05 PM                     quote: Tom Petrov Saw True Grit tonight DLP Ultra AVX. The Cineplex in my area masks all DLP screens except the Ultra AVX. This is intentional. I believe IMAX does this as well? (can anyone confirm?) Staff and manager at the cinema made it clear that UltraAVX is "like" IMAX. Yep, every digital IMAX i've seen has wall to wall, ceiling to floor screen with no masking. Yet the image never fills from ceiling to floor anyway so i'm not sure why they didn't put masking. Same with ETX (AMC). I haven't seen a cinemark XD screen, but I know regal's RPX actually uses masking (which makes it just a tad better)  |  IP: Logged Bajsic Bojan Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Ljubljana, Si, Eu Registered: Aug 2008 posted 05-15-2011 02:34 PM                     hijacking thread, but ontopic question: if i'm specing a NEW hall, is common width not better than common height screen? on common height i am essentially zooming out alot and there are more pixels per frame. quality wise a 1.85 screen with top/bottom masking for cs is thus better, right? (of course without cropping the 50 pixels of width)  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-15-2011 05:27 PM                     I prefer the scope image to be bigger than the flat image, but that's your decision. Pixels per image don't change. The flat image is 1998x1080, scope is 2048x858. You are not supposed to scale this image, some zoom and shift is required to switch from scope to flat unless you have pretty complicated masking. So... common width is popular because the picture is as big as it can be in most houses whether scope or flat. Common height does make the flat image look pretty small in most screens. Unmasked screens are always, in my experience, common width. Rooms with a very wide stage area and relatively low ceiling (most older non-stadium houses) will use common height.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 05-15-2011 07:00 PM                        I'm certainly not an expert of any kind, but it seems to me that if you go with a common width you're not using your screen size to its maximum potential. I actually just went though this with the tech who was here setting up my digital cinema. He asked what I wanted for screen size/masking and I told him that I want a cinemascope screen and the flat picture can be centered inside of that. That's the arrangement that I had with film, too, and I like it. I don't have movable masking so the flat picture has a couple of feet of "blanK" on each side but it really doesn't bother me, especially with the clean edge that you get with digital.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 05-16-2011 04:40 PM                     The late John Pytlak had an excellent post on this subject in this thread from several years back: Is common width sometimes better? quote: 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. Other very useful posts can be found if one does a search.  |  IP: Logged Eric Robinson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 538 From: Santa Rosa, CA Registered: Jan 2005 posted 11-05-2011 01:06 AM                     quote: Steve Guttag you get a 1920x movie and need to play that in your 2048 theatre Are digital movies still produced in this format? (1920x)  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-05-2011 07:38 AM                     Some are, some not. Usually those thet are shot with HD cameras have a native resolution of 1920, with their sensors having a native 16:9 aspect ratio, so it's essentially FullHD like on HDTV. Movies shot with 'real' digital cinema cameras or on film+scanned will more likely have the native DCI resolutions and aspect ratios. One could always rescale a 1920 to 2048 - but upscaling by such a small amount is often considered useless or even bad, so very often, a slight 'pillarbox' seems to be the better choice. Signalwise, I really wouldn't care about a few pixels less. But the proper masking is another issue. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 11-22-2011 06:24 PM                     Hello all, So I see the Century 5 (CineArts) in Pleasant Hill, CA, which has one of the original large Century Domes still in operation, has gone all digital (according to Fandango). Has anyone been to this location, or have any information, on the digital installation in the dome? Did they do it right, or is it all fucked up like at the Century 24 in San Jose? I'm curious because if it's done right, then could the Century 21-22-23 in San Jose then be converted to digital projection the right way too?  |  IP: Logged Ron Funderburg Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 814 From: Chickasha, Oklahoma, USA Registered: Nov 2007 posted 11-22-2011 06:29 PM                        I personally find it disturbing when the scope picture jumps to full IMax size for special effect scenes then back to scope size. I'm like why do that?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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

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.