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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs? Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-21-2013 04:37 PM                     Look at a movie like Skyfall. Bond movies hadn't been produced in the flat ratio since the early 1970's (Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun). They had all been produced specifically for the 'scope format, until this last one. Skyfall was opened up in the vertical (and basically made "flat") for digital IMAX screens. Not so premium priced theaters got it cropped back down to 'scope ratio. My point with this is the James Bond movie series is heavily identified with the 'scope aspect ratio -even if the first 3 movies (including Goldfinger) were shot flat. The business interest of making more money at the theater has pushed Bond into at least a dual aspect ratio arrangement.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-21-2013 05:29 PM                     Bobby, I'll repeat myself. Humans have TWO eyes that are positioned beside each other. We see wider than we do tall. Everyone is accustomed to 16:9 at home. The scope ratio gives something people can't get at home and is more "cinematic". Just because there are people out there designing their largest screen wrong doesn't mean that movies should start being made taller again. The so called "premium" auditoriums make more money because they are the biggest rooms in the building and they are playing the newest movie at the prime showtimes...NOT because they are better. I've yet to see one that impressed me. In fact a big trend recently is to skip the masking all together. That's the bean counters there, not showmanship. Scope isn't going anywhere. The problem is the auditoriums aren't being designed properly. Making movies in the flat ratio is like making movies in HFR. That's just making them "home video-like".  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-22-2013 09:02 AM                     I'm not saying flat is better than 'scope. I like movies in the super wide aspect ratio rather than flat (at least most of the time). Unfortunately d-cinema did not properly accommodate the 'scope format at all. They put the most pixels behind the flat format. That's backwards. On 35mm film 'scope had a lot more film negative real estate than the cropped flat image. The reverse is true now for d-cinema. Wall to wall common width screens are making 'scope seem more like it does at home rather than in a properly designed movie theater with a common height screen. I just think some serious changes need to be made in future digital cinema system designs as well as movie production and post production work flows so that 'scope can be both the most aesthetically pleasing and technically superior presentation format. Since these systems are changing every few years it would seem like future designs could handle getting 'scope done right. I'm just concerned with all the various pieces of video production technology, post production technology and digital projection technology working their best in the flat format it's going to lead to a serious drop in 'scope use.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 04-22-2013 03:22 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson Look at a movie like Skyfall. Bond movies hadn't been produced in the flat ratio since the early 1970's (Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun). This discussion isn't really new, but at least now it is in the correct thread . But you're right, some movies you would expect to be in scope are released in flat (or 1.78:1) those days. You might also be right regarding the sad fact that scope might have peaked, mostly because of the reasons you've pointed out. Also, if some directors nowadays consider scope a cropped version of "flat", then things are going the wrong way... Still, I hope that scope will survive and the technical shortcomings of the current implementation will be resolved in the years to come. The easiest way would probably be the anamorphic route (nothing wrong with non-square pixels), I don't think "ultra-wide" sensors and DMDs will ever become standard. Maybe we can get J.J. Abrams to sign a petition to save the non-CGI anamorphic lens flare .  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-23-2013 12:41 AM                     Bobby, what needs to happen is for TI to make a 2.4 ratio chip. Their current chip ratio doesn't actually work for any established ratio. A 2.4 ratio chip would put an end to the issues over the next 10-15 years or so as the equipment got into the market.  |  IP: Logged Jock Blakley Expert Film Handler Posts: 218 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Oct 2011 posted 04-23-2013 05:35 AM                     When we installed our new screen in 1997 we installed the largest non-IMAX screen in Australia. Now, it's the largest matte screen in the country. ~63 feet wide. We moved the entire screen assembly - and with it the proscenium- forward by nearly 30 feet to achieve the greatest possible width for 'scope and 70mm presentations. It cuts both ways. Just because some new installs are choosing flat, or even 1.77:1 for new screens doesn't make 'scope a bad format; it just makes the exhibitors who are putting in 1.85 screens a bit crappy. If people making movies want to back that, well, it's their call. I'm happy to say though that we can show LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 4K or BARAKA in 70mm at the fullest possible screen width.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-23-2013 12:21 PM                     It was about this time last year when The Avengers was released. That release really got me wondering just what the hell was going on in certain movie studio offices. All of the previous superhero movies leading up to that one were distributed in 'scope: Iron Man (Super 35), The Incredible Hulk (Anamorphic 35), Iron Man 2 (Super 35), Thor (Anamorphic 35) and Captain America (Digital Video). It came totally out of left field for The Avengers to be released only in the flat format. I wasn't surprised it was shot mostly on video. But it seemed crazy for the movie not to stay consistent in aspect ratio with the five movies that led up to it. My guess is the taller, more flat aspect ratio of Digital IMAX screens and other similar premium priced screens played a part in that aspect ratio choice. I doubt director Joss Whedon had a problem with 'scope considering Serenity was filmed in the Super35 format. I think the drive of making more profit played a part in that decision.  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 04-23-2013 04:19 PM                     quote: Brad Miller what needs to happen is for TI to make a 2.4 ratio chip. Are there any camera image sensors built around this ratio?  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-23-2013 08:44 PM                     There could be others, but the other d-cinema camera image sensor chip I've seen that fits the 'scope ratio is the proposed Red 617 Mysterium Monstro image sensor. On paper the sensor has a whopping 186mm X 56mm size with 28000 X 9334 resolution. I wonder if there are any working copies of this thing. If so, the sensor would surely be expensive as hell but not quite as staggering in price as the lenses needed to fully expose it. Red is about to launch the Red Epic Dragon, featuring a 6144 X 3160 resolution sensor. Its 1.94:1 aspect ratio is wider that 1.85:1 flat but a ways off from true 'scope. It supports spherical acquisition only at 6K (2:1 & cropped 2.4:1 ratios). Anamorphic lenses can be used at 5K, 4K, 3K & 2K settings. But less of the sensor is being used than just cropping to 'scope in normal spherical modes. With the Red Epic Dragon the best choice would be to shoot cropped 2.4:1 at 6K.  |  IP: Logged Ian Freer Expert Film Handler Posts: 135 From: Wellington, New Zealand Registered: Oct 2003 posted 04-23-2013 09:27 PM                     Projection Designs makes a projector (the F35) that uses a TI 2560 x 1600 DLP chip. This enables them to do 2560 x 1080 scope projection, effectively 2K non-anamorphic. (OK for home theatre the source gets scaled from 1920, but all I'm getting at is there is already the TI technology there to do this at the projector level for 2K at least). For whatever reason TI and the manufacturers haven't gone this route with our cinema projectors which is a shame, but as Brad mentions, it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a slow migration in future generations of technology... if only...  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-24-2013 04:56 AM                     Why make a dedicated 2k 2.4AR imager when the 4k imager basically can do the same? - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-25-2013 01:04 AM                     In projection systems, I'd like to see a common height metaphor applied to the imaging chip. For instance 'scope in 2K is currently 2048 X 852 -cropped on a 2048 X 1080 pixel imager. In a perfect world, 2K 'scope would 2592 X 1080. I have seen some online videos come close to doing just that. The short science fiction movie True Skin turned out to be bigger than normal HD. The version I downloaded was 2541 X 1080 pixels. It refused to play in a couple of the usual video player apps, but PowerDVD played it alright.  |  IP: Logged William Kucharski Expert Film Handler Posts: 244 From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America Registered: Oct 2012 posted 04-25-2013 06:31 PM                     To bring this full circle, I did what I should have originally and called Park Circus, who confirmed they distribute the DCP of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in one AR, 2.35:1, so Alamo Drafthouse erred here and somehow screened a 2.35:1 DCP at 1.85:1.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

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.