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 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

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

Dave Macaulay
Film God

Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-04-2012 05:52 PM

Nope. I will work for whatever place will pay me, basically. I don't decide about masking.

I actually prefer to have movable masking, it looks more professional to me. But with digital, and sharp cutoff lines, it isn't much required for a decent looking picture.
I know techs who hate floating screen no-masking setups too: some predicted the management would be forced to install masking because of the flood of complaints. Nope.

I've read the DCI specs a few times and the only mention of masking refers to a required automation interface to allow controlling stuff like dimmers, curtains, masking etc. Please point me to where masking is required.
I have yet to see DCI police come checking on compliance with requirements that I do know of. So that seems moot anyway.

Realistically, with a sharp edged digital image and the savings from eliminating the screen hardware, rigging time, extra power and control wiring, and maintenance... movable masking is hard to sell on a new build.
And the screen size can be maximized for the room, you don't need to have stacking space for masking cloth. having the flat image full height with some pillarboxing & scope image full width with letterboxing obviously offends you but It's the way of the future I think. What I prefer is one thing, what the owners decide thay will pay for is quite another.

Sam, I don't see how a bit of white is reducing contrast. I understand what causes contrast loss, and theoretically having a white surface reflects light back to the window which reflects it back to the screen... but unless you painted the auditorium white the additional light on screen is trivial. Letting the audience see on a big unmasked space how bright your "black" is seems a mistake to me but I see a lot of rooms with LED stair lights that destroy the black level anyway and my advice to correct that is usually ignored, particularly by chains. Independents seem to care a lot more about the presentation.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 02-04-2012 06:02 PM

quote: Dave Macaulay
I have yet to see DCI police come checking on compliance with requirements that I do know of.

Bingo! That's the problem. The studios are getting everyone's panties in a wad over the DCI spec, and NOBODY is checking and NOBODY is getting penalized for not following it.

quote: DCI spec
8.3.3.3 Screen Characteristics

The screen is required to be non-specular and equally reflective over the entire visible spectrum. The screen is required to have variable black masking, adjustable to tightly frame the projected image. This is required to minimally include 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 image formats. Masking for other formats is optional.

The issue is some theater owners are "deciding" what a proper presentation is, cutting costs and providing a worse presentation while charging more with a silly X name to the auditorium. They are doing it because they know they can get away with it. All they have to do is create some silly branding and the public is so stupid they will continue to come like lemmings.

In fairness I totally understand the theater owner's point of view in respect to costs. After all they have just had digital forced down their throat, whether they wanted to switch or not and money is probably tight...but a new build is a new build. They are simply using the sharp edge of digital as an excuse to not design the auditorium properly.

Then again most people don't install baffle walls either, yet they brag about their big sound system (that kinda sucks without it).

And while they're at it, let's hang the projector from the ceiling and to hell with precise calibration since "nobody complains", right?

This isn't an attack at you Dave. Sadly this is the way the industry is heading...and it will be its death. Presentations will get worse and worse at the majority of the theaters. Fortunately I don't have to deal with this much, as our clients tend to be the ones that properly analyze what they are getting with a system and want to do the job right.

Your comment on led stair lighting is dead on target. It is SO EASY to fix it by mounting them on the walls with a proper light baffle to angle the light down and away from the screen...but they just don't listen.

Getting back to our original debate though, I don't know what you are using to measure contrast, but I can assure you the difference is plainly visible with my eyes. Want to know what else kills contrast? Those awful HB lenses Christie is sending out with their series 2 projectors! Compare one to a series 1 HC lens...it is night and day with respect to contrast. Color fringing is so awful on the short lenses it is impossible to precisely align the convergence. [puke]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-04-2012 08:47 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Then again most people don't install baffle walls either, yet they brag about their big sound system (that kinda sucks without it).

Baffle walls are one of the key features separating THX certified auditoriums from the premium priced ones with some bullshit wannabe THX acronym. But who gives a damn about THX anymore?

quote: Brad Miller
Presentations will get worse and worse at the majority of the theaters. Fortunately I don't have to deal with this much, as our clients tend to be the ones that properly analyze what they are getting with a system and want to do the job right.

One thing I don't understand is why the good theaters don't beat up on the shitty theaters in certain types of advertising.

If I was running a top notch theater I'd be a real obnoxious dick toward my competition, unless they were good enough to be worthy of respect. Most big theater chain auditoriums are not worthy of that respect. I wouldn't necessarily call the bad theaters out by name, but I would make a point of why my theater was better and even be specific about it. I would want the customers to feel like they made a very smart choice of visiting my theater and that it would be a very stupid move on their part to go elsewhere.

In other industries various competitors sling mud at each other on why they're better. I don't think I've ever seen a movie theater do that.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-04-2012 09:48 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
competitors sling mud at each other on why they're better. I don't think I've ever seen a movie theater do that.

I've seen it, and it's actually funny to watch, yet you(and the public notices this as well..) lose respect for the owner(s) of the one who actually think that they are better than the competition down the road or across town.

These kind of operators fail to do the obvious: to compete within themselves but instead, they worry on being the better of the two cinemas in town....and find ways to hamper the operation of that other business...and it backfires from time to time.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-04-2012 11:41 PM

The problem, unfortunately, is the general public wouldn't ever figure out the difference between a truly good movie theater versus one that was pretending to be good unless the differences were spelled out to them in a very obvious manner.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 02-05-2012 12:39 PM

quote: Brad Miller
Mike, have you considered moving the image in scope up to the top and bringing in something that sits in front of the screen to mask the bottom 30" off for scope movies?

I hadn't thought about that but it's a great idea. Currently, the bottom of the screen is masked with 1x12 wood structure that is attached to the stage and is about 2" in front of the screen itself. Might be possible to attach something to that to extend the masking up higher. [Putting thinking cap on]

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

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

posted 02-05-2012 01:45 PM

Why I mentioned the fabric " Duvetyne " (misspelled the first entry..sorry on that..)- the flannel masking material where you prob want to have it removable when you do flat presentations.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 02-05-2012 03:05 PM

Make a "flap" out of plywood and hinges. The flap has to be tall enough mask off for scope and not so tall that it can't fit when it is flapped down. The better systems I've seen are such that when the flap is in the up position it is effectively sitting on top of the lower masking board.

-Steve

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 02-05-2012 04:24 PM

Anyone using "zoom" lenses on anything has no right to complain. Louis

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 02-07-2012 07:46 PM

What is everyone doing with The Artist?
Our manual masking was adjustable but when we installed the motorised set-up we hadn't seen other ratios for years. So we settled on 1.85 and 2.39.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 02-09-2012 05:08 PM

We still have our side masking set for the three major ARs. If you are missing one close to Academy, you will have to live with the pillarbox bars. Depending on your 2D brightness and ambient lighting, this could be annoying or not.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011

posted 02-13-2012 11:44 PM

There's a huge difference between masked and un-masked screen even with digital's sharp "masking" (pixel-blanking). On our matte screen the digital picture's edges are a dull grey before the physical maskings are brought in, and it is a perceivable reduction in image contrast. I shudder to think what unmasked gain screen looks like.

Common-width screens turned me off the multiplexes long before I found my current employment with it's wonderful moveable-masked common-height screen.

Regarding THE ARTIST: said moveable masking is infinitely-positionable at the sides and bottom to give 2.80:1 right down to silent, let alone Academy... so we'll have no problems. Standard-in-1.85 is stupid though.

| 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.