|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Warren Grand Infinity Auditorium
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-12-2015 08:52 PM
As long as we're not capable of reproducing entire light fields and the image is a 2D plane projected on some planar surface, there will always be some kind of distortion. Apparently, our minds are sufficiently trained not to mind this kind of distortion.
I really like the idea of deep curved screens, even though they will only add to the distortion. But, I'm afraid the biggest missing aspect here isn't the non-existing lens or even some digital warping, but the movies themselves. While Cinerama movies were evidently shot with deep curved screens in mind, normal movies weren't. So, no matter what kind of magic warping you would try, it will always look somewhat weird. It will probably work great for scenic shots, but will always be somewhat problematic for closeups.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-13-2015 08:42 PM
I don't see where "requiring head motion" has anything to do with the shape and content of the picture. It's a compositional thing, that's all. "Scope" is just better for showing grand sweeping scenes or big action. Nothing to do with whether my head is moving or not.
I like scope pictures better than flat ones just because it makes a grander looking picture. But I like to sit far enough back where I can see the whole screen at once.
If people preferred it "your way" our front five rows would be filled every night and nobody would ever sit in the balcony. In real life the opposite is true. The only time most adults sit in the front third of the auditorium is when the back sections are full.
I have here an article from 1953 when the Roxy was installing Cinemascope. Back then they were marketing the larger picture as providing a "three dimensional" viewing experience, which is ridiculous but that's marketing for ya! But no mention of overfilling the field of vision.
quote: 1953 article
This screen, when installed, will accommodate regular motion pictures, as now projected, and also the new Cinemascope method of projection, wherein the illusion of three dimensions, height, width and depth will be realistically placed before the audience without the use of colored glasses or anything other than normal vision. It is the last word in the new three dimension method of presenting motion pictures - the same method as was employed at the initial and phenomenal showing of "The Robe," which has been widely acclaimed the world over. Two and one half times as much subject matter is projected on the new wide screens as is seen on the ordinary movie screen.
Having said all of the above, I will agree with Brad and Joe that the curtains are super classy and the curve on that screen doesn't look as extreme as the closed-curtain pictures make it look.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-13-2015 09:40 PM
quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Does anyone know if the new Warren theatres is also set up for 35/70mm films?
No. Not currently.
However, an Ultra Panavision 70mm setup to show Quentin Tarantino's next movie would probably be pretty cool on that kind of giant, deep curved screen. But this is assuming QT actually follows through with filming The Hateful Eight in Ultra Panavision 70mm.
quote: Mike Blakesley
That might be true in a Cinerama production or a Disney Circle-Vision film, but modern mainstream movies are meant to have the whole picture viewed at the same time.
Yes. Traditional feature films/movies have almost always been photographed with the frame of the image in mind. There is usually some kind of image composition at work. Concepts like the rule of thirds and the Fibonacci spiral (or "golden spiral") don't work without a picture frame. The use of curtains and masking on the screens only further confirms the importance of the image frame as well as its aspect ratio.
Special venue films made specifically for true 15/70mm IMAX screens and IMAX Dome screens don't follow the same compositional rules because the screens are designed to fill peripheral vision. The screens are gigantic and positioned closer than usual to the viewer. Compositions have to be weighted more toward the lower center of the screen, especially in a dome screen theater.
It's not as important for things like curtains and masking to be installed on such screens because they're pretty much out of the field of vision of most viewers. All of these wannabe IMAX theaters, including many of the IMAX-branded ones, totally miss this point. They ditch the curtains and masking and make the screen big as possible, but do so in what is still a regular movie theater auditorium, even if it's a bigger room. Viewers can still see all the geometry of the screen. The end result is a screen that sort of looks like an IMAX screen, but is really something much smaller and cheaper looking.
quote: Jarod Reddig
Ya its getting to the point to where I wonder why Directors mess with Scope aspect at all anymore? Sure its a great format when done right, my favorite, but theres probably 1% or less theaters that can properly project Scope anymore.
IMHO, 'scope seems totally screwed in the long term. In d-cinema 'scope is now the smallest, lowest resolution format. On 35mm it was the biggest, brightest and highest resolution format. And 'scope has a close relationship with 5-perf 70mm film formats.
Movie studios, movie theaters and technology companies will have to make some fundamental changes in order for 'scope not to be a lesser quality format in d-cinema.
quote: Steve Guttag
The 1.85 ratio was for those that want a screen shape that is approximately the width of typical vision. Fortunately, we have that ratio (though it is my least favorite...I prefer 1.66 and think the industry should have struck a compromise and for DCinema made the move to 1.78 which splits 1.85 and 1.66 as well as be directly home compatible).
Give it some time. With the way 'scope is being crapped upon in d-cinema (both the way it is projected and the way it is letterboxed on a growing tide of common width screens) I see that format eventually falling out of favor. Right now lots of movies are being cropped down to fake 'scope either in the video camera or post. Eventually there will be a push to "full screen" away all that cropping crap. The fad of using the anamorphic look will die down.
It seemed like there was a big anti 'scope push going on during the 1980's with the start of the home video boom. Remember all those 1.85:1 70mm blow-up movies? The 1980's had a decent number of 'scope films, but it seemed like a lot more movies were shot flat back then. These days 'scope-like framing is very very common in feature movies. But I think those common width screens and all those video cameras are eventually going to push it all towards 1.77:1.
I personally like a variety of aspect ratios in movies. Some movies work well in formats like 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. Others are better suited to 2.2:1 or 2.4:1. Not everything needs to fit just one aspect ratio. For one thing, that's too much like the TV set at home.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic