Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mission Impossible 4 in wrong aspect ratio? And more...

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Mission Impossible 4 in wrong aspect ratio? And more... (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Mission Impossible 4 in wrong aspect ratio? And more...

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 02-02-2012 10:54 AM

quote: Brad Miller
The fact most of these "premium eXperience auditoriums" fail to meet DCI specifications by ignoring the most simple thing in the world...proper masking...tells me the manager may not have even understood the picture SHOULD have been larger.

All most of these X auditoriums are doing is throwing up a huge sheet that is wall to wall (trying to get the initial "oooooooooh wow" from people walking in), only to DISAPPOINT when the picture DOES NOT FILL THE SCREEN! It doesn't fill it in flat, and it doesn't fill it in scope. It is false advertising, but who is to say just HOW big it is SUPPOSED to be? I don't necessarily fault the manager.

Side effects of a lack of masking are perceived by the human eyes as a lower contrast, less sharp and lower color saturation image too...yet the bean counters are ignoring this and intentionally putting on a lower quality show, bullshitting the customers as if it is a higher quality auditorium, and many are doing it to simply get out of spending the money for proper masking.

I'm sure there are people out there who will disagree with me on this, but that is presentation done wrong in my book. Why even have the DCI spec if the studios won't enforce it? At least they should refuse to pay a VPF for movies played in those auditoriums.

HAH! and now I know why I feel jipped when a 2.35 film doesn't fill an entire 4:3 15/70 IMAX screen [Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-02-2012 07:42 PM

Maybe things will get worse until top management realizes that digital equipment is NOT always idiot-proof, does NOT necessarily run all by itself and is NOT maintenance-free. At this point the bean-counters are in La-La Land thinking they've saved $ in booth labor. When things start to go horribly wrong they might start rethinking that strategy.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-03-2012 12:52 AM

quote: Mike Blakesley
scope vs flat is simply picture shape, and the size is controlled by zooming the lens.)

Makes you wonder if it's time to do a rename of the old 'scope standard since no anamorphic attachments are used in the majority of the cinemas...

...even though, the file image can be squeezed to where the squeezed image will be scaled up to fill the chip completely to make it a true HD image and thus, anamorphic attachments has to be used for a true 'CinemaScope' presentation.

...but that's too complex of an operation for simple DCinema installs..

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-03-2012 02:57 AM

Anamorphic attachments are THE way to go with digital cinema, but nobody wants to pay the extra $10k+ for them.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 02-03-2012 09:59 AM

^ would that solve the problem with curved screens where the image edges bow inwards - it's so apparent and distracting on the Uptown screen.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 02-03-2012 10:20 AM

I don't it would fix it but may reduce it a little.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 02-03-2012 10:40 AM

it also doesn't help when the image from the dual Christie setup displays a slight double image during the trailers but not for the actual feature [Confused]

why AMC has decided to go this route for the Uptown or even their ETX screen over at Tysons and not install a Solaria projector (or a Barco for that matter) is beyond me, the light output for the latter is exceptional.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-03-2012 01:54 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Anamorphic attachments are THE way to go with digital cinema

I'm curious as to why this is. Can you explain it Brad?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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

posted 02-03-2012 02:25 PM

More vertical resolution. Kind of like an anamorphic DVD vs a letterbox DVD. Do they even make anamorphic digital cinema content?

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 02-03-2012 02:51 PM

It gets rescaled to fit the aspect ratio of the chip,it ends up a bit stretched vertically which the anamorphic lens widens back out.
So like a scope film you use all of the frame(pixels)and all of your lamp output.

| IP: Logged

Matthew Prince
Film Handler

Posts: 4
From: Croydon Surrey England
Registered: Jan 2012

posted 02-03-2012 04:11 PM

Thanks for your overwhelming help!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 02-03-2012 04:47 PM

Mike, let me speak just this once for Brad as I am the Anamorphic poster child for DCinema. IF (and only if) you have side movable masking such that Scope is WIDER than flat (as opposed to less-tall for scope), then using an anamorphic will NET you 23% more light for scope than merely zooming the lens. This will greatly close the gap between the light requirement between the two formats and often can allow one to move to a smaller lamp size since Scope requires so much more than Flat when scope is (properly) larger than Flat.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-03-2012 04:55 PM

But true, anytime you zoom up light, you lose the brightness.

Try that with your tabletop digital projectors and you'll see that when you zoom up how much the luminance falls off.

Height would be the 1080 but the width be (using 1.33:1 as the width) 1435 of an anamorphic image on the chip prior going through the attachment.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 02-03-2012 06:16 PM

What are you babbling about Monte? If an anamorphic is used in DCinema, then the whole chip is used 2048x1080 (or 4096x2160)...the anamorphic is only 1.25x (or 1.26, depending on the label you believe...but 1.26 yields a 2.39:1 final ratio).

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-03-2012 06:28 PM

My babbles is the full frame size image for 35mm ..

"whoops, my bad.." didn't think through on the chip size.

I'll get it yet...l.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

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.