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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » DCP Creation -1.78 (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: DCP Creation -1.78 Eugene Lehnert Film Handler Posts: 11 From: New York, NY Registered: Jul 2012 posted 08-22-2014 01:37 PM                        Ok so it doesn't really matter if I put it in a 1998 container or a 2048 container as long as it's labeled Flat it should get projected correctly? http://www.knuterikevensen.com/?p=144  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-22-2014 05:48 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag Now I wish for 65/70mm dupes that they would use C-220 as the format! But that is another discussion. Actually, it's been part of several discussions! 70mm DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP) 2.20 DCPs Off aspect ratio DCPs DCI Classic Transfers Good and Bad  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 08-22-2014 06:40 PM                     quote: Eugene Lehnert as long as it's labeled Flat it should get projected correctly? Well, with a typical booth staff these days, there's a 50% chance they'll get it right half the time.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-23-2014 02:25 PM                     The container has to match the labeling. It's obviously that a 1.78:1 file would be more appropriate to be assembled within a 1.85:1 (FLAT) container and be satisfied with the slight black bars on each side of the image. I created the same DCP - a 1.78:1 file was inserted in a 1.85:1 (FLAT) container and it looks great on the screen. Besides, if you place that file in a Scope container, you lose the HD due to the vertical pixel drops to 858 and the image is heavily cropped to fit that vertical pixel count. Then, the width of the original image will be zoomed up to fit the 2048 width of the scope container. Thus, the 1.78:1 image is not zoomed down to fit within the full vertical specs of the container, but zoomed up to match the full width of the container, thus vertical cropping has to take place to make the horizontal fit. That image will have the "letterbox" look on the screen.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 08-23-2014 04:51 PM                     quote: Eugene Lehnert Ok so it doesn't really matter if I put it in a 1998 container or a 2048 container as long as it's labeled Flat it should get projected correctly? If you put it into a flat container, it has to be labeled F-178. If you put it into a full container, it has to be labeled C-178. Ask your next-door projectionist what to do with a C-178 labeling and you will know the answer: F-178 and 1998*1080 is the only useful choice. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 08-23-2014 06:55 PM                     Like Carsten already mentioned, just use a 1998x1080 container and put F-178 into the name. If I would encounter a DCP named F-178 with a resolution of 2048x1080 I would start to scratch my head... Most people will most probably not notice it and in the end it will work just fine, but why not just do it the way it is supposed to be done? Put it in a 1998x1080 container and put F-178 into the name and it will show as it is intended to be shown, without causing confusion and a minimum of pillar-boxing. And the few locations that actually have a 16:9 preset for their masking, will show it without any pillar-boxing whatsoever.  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 09-25-2014 03:28 AM                     What's the exact reasoning behind putting 1920x1080 in a 1998x1080 container? Unless I'm mistaken, you don't need to do that unless your authoring software forces it for some reason. I have always simply used a 1920x1080 container for 16:9 material, with no added pillarboxing and with F-178 in the CPL. Never had any problems. The same goes for other less common aspect ratios, so I use a 1440x1080 container for 1.33:1 and so on. Unless I've missed something, the DCI spec only requires that either the container width is 2048 or the container height is 1080. 2048x858 and 1998x1080 are only mentioned as "example image aspect ratios" (section 3.2.1.8). dcp_inspect only seems to accept 2048x1080, 2048x858, 1998x1080 and 1920x1080; all other container sizes are reported as an "error". I'm not sure why, since it's not against the spec... wouldn't a "hint" be more appropriate?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-25-2014 05:54 PM                     Yeah, if you read the actual specs, you're supposed to fill either height or width at 2K or 4K resolution. But then there is the matter of standardized containers. So, although what you're doing usually works, it unfortunately doesn't imply it's actually according to convention . Strictly conforming DCP naming conventions, putting an "F" in the name of the DCP implies a resolution of either 1998 x 1080 or 3996 x 2160. You're supposed to pillar- or letterbox any content into that container. If you do it correctly, you provide any odd aspect ratio after the dash. There are just three standardized containers at this moment as you surely know: F = Flat S = Scope C = Full Container I'm not entirely sure why dcp_inspect also accepts 1920x1080, as it fits none one of the "known" containers, but probably because the native FullHD resolution is so commonly used, especially for commercials. I'm also not sure wether or not it should throw an error, but it should throw a warning at the least. So, what you're doing perfectly conforms to most of the DCI specs, but you could never give it a compliant name, as it conflicts with naming conventions . The guy who wrote the first part of the specs must have gotten all depressed from endless meeting with consortia and endless discussions over irrelevant details. After he hang himself someone equally depressed took over and finished it, but without reading the stuff that was already there.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 09-29-2014 01:14 AM                     On a laptop: took me 14 hrs to take a 1G .wma file and convert it to a 35G DCP file. The .wma had a video ratio of 1.50:1, thus I used the 1.66:1 container. I set the audio settings to -20dB and this level is just right for our processor volume preset settings. Glad I wasn't in a hurry - had the weekend.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-02-2014 04:21 AM                     Yeah, it's not really something to be done on your notebook if you're in a hurry . It's not really the size of the source file that matters, but the amount of frames in it and the actual resolution of the content. A 1G file in H.264 can contain a lot of frames, even at 720p or even 1080p if you go for some real high compression.  |  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.