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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Screen: Common Height or Common Width? (Page 9)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

Author Topic: Screen: Common Height or Common Width? Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 06-06-2014 10:55 PM                     quote: Jonathan Goeldner I approve this statement. I am confused. Didn't you say earlier... quote: Jonathan Goeldner personally I like taller screens ???  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 06-16-2014 02:50 AM                        Until the Common Width people outlaw Scope, could we traditionalists please have Scope files for movies that include a substantial amount of Scope scenes. A case in point is The Grand Budapest Hotel. It changes aspect ratio throughout, everything from 1.37 to 2.35, but the file is flat. How hard would it be to render it 2.35, then everything else would fall neatly inside. Is this designed to make Common Height rooms look inferior?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-16-2014 06:04 AM                     It would have lost too much resolution if pillarboxed within Scope in the Flat and Academy parts. They would only have been 1587*858 / 1175*858. And I guess Wes Anderson himself wouldn't call it a Scope movie just because a few framing scenes are in 2.35 ratio. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-16-2014 11:49 AM                     Wes Anderson has been watching too much tv.  |  IP: Logged Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 06-16-2014 04:30 PM                     Or perhaps he's watching a lot of Academy Ratio films. About 85% of The Grand Budapest Hotel is in 1.37, and to gain the most resolution out of these sequences is in the flat container. If TGBH was in a scope container, there would be a waste of space on the sides and the 1.37 majority of the film will look worse than an Academy ratio film on Blu-ray. The 2.35 scenes may fill up the screen, looking better than 2.35 in flat, but 2.35 appears for only about 10% of the film, defeating the purpose of a MAR film in scope. So the HDTV-esque AR of 1.85 and resolution of 1998x1080 works perfect for this film. It's also interesting to note that through Rushmore and The Life Aquatic, Wes Anderson was a proponent of the 2.35 AR, despite being material another director would shoot in 1.85. Anderson's recent films are contained in 1.85 for different reasons. Fantastic Mr. Fox was shot with DSLR cameras, Moonrise Kingdom was shot in Super 16, and the majority of The Grand Budapest Hotel is in 1.37:1.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 04-21-2015 08:43 PM                        "Perhaps we should admit defeat on Scope and adopt the 70mm ratio of 2.2 within the DCI envelope, using 2048x931.  |  IP: Logged Jesse Skeen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1517 From: Sacramento, CA Registered: Aug 2000 posted 04-28-2015 01:58 AM                     Was wondering about how that movie looked in theaters- further proof that the digital cinema format is retarded.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-28-2015 10:33 AM                     Common width screens, no masking and perhaps a blue glowy glowy halo thing behind equates to TV in public. 'Scope is literally a joke with how it is being treated in d-cinema. It is the lowest quality, lowest resolution format when it should only be the biggest and best. The only area where 'scope is getting any respect at all in "digital" is certain kinds of anamorphic based photography and the new Arri Alexa 65, whose 6K imaging chip has the same aspect ratio as a 5/65mm film frame.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-28-2015 06:19 PM                        I get that Scope is lower quality than it should be and I agree that should have been the starting point with D-cinema. But, having said that, I think our digital picture looks great -- although our screen is only 30 feet. If I could change anything about DC it would be to fix the contrast. I hate the way the picture looks during dark scenes. And, I would make the software in the server more intelligent - in my perfect world, things like the 7.1 version or the 6fl version or the Auro version wouldn't even show up on the ingest menu. And I'd be able to click on a "range" of files to delete. And movie files would auto-delete after the KDM expires (but could be flagged not to, if preferred). There are SO many useful features they could have built into these things but didn't. It's a shame.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-28-2015 07:02 PM                     Mike, Dolby Vision will get you your high contrast picture...scary high contrast...CRT like high contrast...high enough that the light level can be darn near triple standard projectors. At the moment, that high contrast will come with a high price tag too. Depending on your server (or TMS) company, you can do bulk deletes. With a Dolby DSS server, for instance, shift-click and control-click behave as in a Windows environment for selecting items. I think that most wouldn't like the delete content when KDM deletes feature you want. However, I could see an auto delete feature based on available space and content type/age. That is, trailers, features, shorts would be auto deleted if space runs short based on a FIFO status. One could always tick a "never auto delete" check box. To me that would be a more universally accepted type of auto delete. I absolutely agree on servers should be configured to know what features the screen can handle and "pick" the content that works on that screen. We should be WAY past having to figure out which content works best for a particular screen. But back on topic. You may think your image looks great and all but think how much better it would/should be if Scope got to use all of the pixels available...like it did with the grains on film. The big disgrace is on the 70mm "restored" movies where instead of using a "C" container to get as many pixels on there as possible...they have opted for fitting it in either the "F" or "S" containers thereby not really attaining even 35mm resolution for 70mm features. Same goes for the sound...LC/RC have been in the DCI spec since day one but the 70mm features with 6.0 sound mixes have been dumbed down to 5.1, typically. It would nice if there these DCP things called "Version Files" so one could run the version that their cinema is capable of handling...if only  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 04-30-2015 06:16 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley I get that Scope is lower quality than it should be and I agree that should have been the starting point with D-cinema. But, having said that, I think our digital picture looks great -- although our screen is only 30 feet. Its often lower quality but sometimes flat is lower quality than scope depending on the theater set up. The current scope/flat digital set up is the ideal compromise for all parties involved. I doubt most customers will see the benefit from an anamorphic set up, and I say that because customers just don't seem to care that masking is been eliminated. So I doubt an anamorphic set up is going to do any justice.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 04-30-2015 06:47 PM                     Terry, I pulled one of your precious dual projector IMAX installs out and replaced it with a single DLP projector with an anamorphic...got a bigger image and on top of it the resulting image absolutely blew the IMAX image to shit and back. It was brighter, sharper and had more saturated colors. Heck, it didn't even have the geometric distortion that was in the IMAX image. Everyone saw the before and after and fully agreed the new install made the IMAX one look like a joke. Anamorphics ALWAYS make the image better. One of these days maybe you will learn something from this forum if you would just pay attention.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-30-2015 07:04 PM                        quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens I doubt most customers will see the benefit from an anamorphic set up, and I say that because customers just don't seem to care that masking is been eliminated. Hate to break this to you, but the masking (or lack thereof) doesn't change the image itself at all. It makes the presentation as a whole look shitty to a more sophisticated viewer when there is no masking, but the picture still looks the same. I wish we had the anamorphic setup here - but can't have everything. (Although my stage curtain is nearing the top of our to-do list!)  |  IP: Logged Michael Putlack Expert Film Handler Posts: 187 From: Fort Collins, Colorado Registered: Sep 2011 posted 04-30-2015 07:38 PM                        I saw a preview of Inside Out yesterday (great btw. Made me cry a little )and the theatre never bothered adjusting the masking for the flat film. On top of that, the short before the film, Lava, was scope placed inside of a flat frame. So not only was that presented with lots of empty screen on each side of the picture, but also with lots of empty screen on the top and botom of the image. Super lame  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 04-30-2015 07:39 PM                     What I don't understand is that you don't have masking yourself? You would think that someone like yourself would have it, but then again you also said that nobody has ever complained. I never said it changes the picture and if you read some of my past posts, you would see that I want masking. I also would want an anamorphic set up but people are still going to the movies with a lack of it, so to the masses it may just not matter. Does this make sense to you?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13

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.