|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-20-2015 01:33 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Movies with 9-figure production & advertising budgets still have various people looking for cost savings everywhere. Any jobs that can be jobbed out overseas for less money are. They shoot the movie wherever they can get the best location deals (Hollywood is losing lots of work over this). Pinching pennies over pixels is not out of the question either. After all, they need enough money to pay the 8-figure salaries of all those actors, producers and other douche-bags that consume most of the budget.
While it might be something on some peoples mind, I don't think this was the reason for the oddball aspect ratio here.
First of all, IMDB still lists the aspect ratio as 1.90:1 for (Digital) IMAX, since it doesn't include the qualifier "some scenes", I expect the whole movie to be in that aspect ratio. This 1.90:1 is the native aspect ratio of 2K and 4K imagery. So, they already did all the filming, special effects and post production in this resolution. The pixels are already there.
I guess they could easily have gone from 1.90:1 to flat, just shaving off a few pixels left and right probably won't hurt the image composition at all, but for whatever reason they decided the "poor non-IMAX schmucks" can't have the whole pie and will be getting a trimmed version in this 2.20:1 aspect ratio.
This is also the primary problem I have with this kind of concepts. This is simply not a widescreen release. A movie using a wide screen format should be shot and framed with this wide screen in mind. Shots should be composed to look wide, it should not end up as a letterboxed version of the original movie...
Most likely, this movie was intended to be a scope release and a "larger than scope" (yuck) release for IMAX, just like all three of those Hobbit movies for example. But during production, someone forgot about it and the end result was a large amount of shots not fitting within a scope frame and the decision to go for 2.20:1 was born.
Another, but very unlikely reason might be a leftover from the apparently canned 3D conversion. Maybe many shots were composed with a floating window in mind and someone decided to leave the "safe zones" at the left and right edges out of the 2D version.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-20-2015 02:39 PM
The situation is what it is, but there is no justifiable excuse for it. The problem is like failing Graphics Design 101.
One of the most basic principals in design is this: tailor your design for the output device & size/shape of the display. If the finished design is going to be on a standard letter-sized piece of paper you design for that size and shape, and take into account the printer's capabilities.
Every design medium requires this, be it newspapers, magazines, signs, billboards, TV screens, web page banners, LED displays or even a freaking movie screen. All have a visual footprint described in some kind of numerical value, be it inches, points, picas or even pixels. Bonus points go to the people who bother to take into account how the finished design is going to be viewed, be it held in the hands up close, viewed from a speeding car or viewed from a seat in a movie theater.
The thing going on now is a little like someone throwing together a design in MS Publisher on a letter sized piece of paper, but he really wants the design to go on a wide, rectangular 14' X 48' billboard. This is an extreme example, but not in principal.
Too many people think that just because something is "digital" they can do whatever the hell they want to do. They think digital equates to being flexible and versatile when that's not really the case.
Movies need to be made in mind for how theaters are going to be playing them right at the start of production. With digital they know all the numbers up front. That's why there is no excuse for the nonsense going on now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-20-2015 04:59 PM
Well, I was watching some of the music videos of this years "Eurovision Song Festival" candidates on Youtube (lots of crappy music, but kind of a big deal in Europe and for whatever reason in Australia too right now...). One of it (and I don't remember which country it was and neither do I care) featured a title card proudly mentioning the video was shot entirely on cellphone cameras...
We've had plenty of those fake found footage drivel the last decade and a half, so I'm pretty sure, there must be this visionary director out there, just waiting to shoot his first movie entirely on cellphones and in 9:16...
I can't wait for the first phone featuring vScope... Vertical Scope. More height for your crappy cellphone videos, just what you've been waiting for.
quote: Mike Blakesley
Most directors don't know the challenges of the exhibition side of things
While there is an almost infinite list of directors of which I'd expect just that, I would've expected better from someone like Brad Bird and his team. So, maybe he's not the one to blame right here..?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Every design medium requires this, be it newspapers, magazines, signs, billboards, TV screens, web page banners, LED displays or even a freaking movie screen. All have a visual footprint described in some kind of numerical value, be it inches, points, picas or even pixels. Bonus points go to the people who bother to take into account how the finished design is going to be viewed, be it held in the hands up close, viewed from a speeding car or viewed from a seat in a movie theater.
Movie screens are like web pages... an infinite amount of aspect ratios and sizes. The only thing that's missing are the scroll bars. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I've never really understood the fetish for odd aspect ratios, especially this constant switching between aspect ratios which has become increasingly popular.
In my opinion, aspect ratios are merely a product of the technology being used and are, in many cases, more like a trade-off. Luckily, most technologies offer multiple standard or de-facto standard aspect ratios to choose from, so choose one of those standard ratios that best fits the composition of your picture and leave it there.
I also agree with Steve on this, if you want to go for maximum resolution, which you should almost always do and which is also implied in the DCI specs, the only *right* way to do it is to release it as C-220... That's also how anything converted from 5/70 should be done.
And if you want to avoid your presentation getting all screwed up due to lack of "care and knowledge" on the exhibition side of things, you should just stick with F or S in the first place...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic