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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 (Page 4)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 Stephan Shelley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 854 From: castro valley, CA, usa Registered: Nov 2014 posted 05-21-2015 10:33 PM                     Same late notice on the short. UPS tried to deliver at 9:30 am when no one is at the theatre. Ended up downloading it via the internet from deluxe.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-21-2015 10:40 PM                     Why is 2.0 happening with DCPs? Considering the damned tools that are available, for cheap even, a 5.1 or 7.1 mix in LPCM or even encoded in a lossy format like Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus should be very easy. Right now I could record some burps and farts, pan them around in a 7.1 layout in Adobe Audition CC and encode it in LPCM or Dolby Digital Plus, all without paying anything extra for any plug-ins. However, for a feature movie project $1500 to encode DTS-HD Master Audio for the Blu-ray isn't bad. Are these guys just cheap, lazy or both? The only rational defense I can see is the final edit on that project, or any other 2.0 project, is they were working on it up to the very last minute. And then they were so burned out on all the laborious shit they didn't feel like going back and building up a proper 5.1 track.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 05-22-2015 02:25 PM                     Been watching some of "Tommorowland" in our 4K house... Yes, image is a bit on the letterbox size, but can't really see the 4K resolution as a big thing since it looks like 2K stuff.... "Mad Max:Fury Road" looked better in this house and that was just 2K content.. go figure. Looks like a good popcorn movie though ... - Monte  |  IP: Logged Jure Maticic Film Handler Posts: 18 From: Ljubljana / Slovenija Registered: Sep 2012 posted 05-23-2015 02:59 AM                     Tested it yesterday - i think it looks great in 4K, and our Sony really didn't need any new macros. We just ran the Flat settings. It is strange though with the extra pixels on the top and bottom ..... But as far as the image goes, it is as close to a good 35 mm as you can get.....  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 05-23-2015 11:10 AM                     this is a slight thread digression question, but why has Deluxe dropped Disney titles from it's DCP listings on it's website?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-23-2015 11:21 AM                     Please start a new thread for that diversion.  |  IP: Logged Gary Lightfoot Film Handler Posts: 20 From: Caterham, Surrey, UK Registered: Apr 2015 posted 05-24-2015 09:39 AM                     So, talking purely as a guy with only home cinema experience, would I be right in saying that what the directors etc need to start doing, is ensuring that if they want scope to continue to be the biggest/widest image with the most resolution (ignoring IMAX), they need to insist that all of the 1.9 frame is used with anamorphics on the camera, and kept that way for the rest of the production chain to the final release, so that it forces theatres to use a 1.25 anamorphic lens to show the film in it's correct aspect ratio and with the highest pixel density? If that's the case, can't people like Brad Bird who has openly stated his dislike for the way movies are currently shown (small crappy screens in his word), just insist on this and maybe eventually get the DCI spec to change so that scpe is delivered via anamorphics for at least the primary release? In the multiplexes, if they have a large scope screen for new releases, they would just need an A lens for that screen, and then when it goes down to the smaller screens, do they get a new master that is letterboxed, or does the imager scale down the height to get the correct aspect? If the latter, I can see that happening to anamorphic movies anyway, so they don't have to buy an A lens... Just the thoughts of a novice  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-24-2015 11:43 AM                     Adding an amamorphic lens to a system will cost in the $10-15k range per machine. Plus the prime lens, which can be $5-8k may also have to be changed out. It's all about the money. Nobody wants to pay for it. The industry is headed full throttle towards a "good enough" attitude (just like with being so cheap as not to install proper masking). It's these things that will kill first run exhibition as time continues on.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-24-2015 12:48 PM                     I would tend to say that it would be on the low end of that range. Also, the prime lens wouldn't need to be changed out since the zoom range needed would be effectively zero. Set the prime lens for Flat and merely use the anamorphic lens for scope. For constant width theatres, the ICP should be able to scale down for scope (set anamorphic factor to .75.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 05-25-2015 12:12 PM                     I know this isn't digital, but since we're discussing aspect ratios, here's a shot frame-shot from a 35mm "Tomorrowland" print. The 35mm's were printed in anamorphic SCOPE, but as you can see there is a slight bit of pillarboxing at the sides, and the frame-lines are thicker than normal. You'll also notice there's no DTS or SDDS tracks. ( I did several private advance preview screenings before the movie opened last week, mostly for people who work in the movie industry, and I guess the studios still don't fully trust the digtialstuff to work right, so they made sure I had a 35mm 'backup print', in case something crashed)  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 05-25-2015 02:55 PM                     quote: Jim Cassedy You'll also notice there's no DTS or SDDS tracks. Actually no I didn't notice that there wasn't an SDDS track in your picture above.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-25-2015 08:08 PM                        So,two posts above mine, the author is referencing a 35mm frame of "Tomorrowland". But it is a 35mm frame of "Mad Max: Fury Road". ?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2015 08:11 PM                        The current 35mm prints of 2001 are printed this way, too. Scope image with side pillars to produce a 2.2:1 image on screen.  |  IP: Logged Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 05-25-2015 08:21 PM                        My favorite part of Tomorrowland was the George Clooney v. Immortan Joe fight.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 05-25-2015 08:28 PM                     [QUOTE] The author is referencing a 35mm frame of "Tomorrowland". But it is a 35mm frame of "Mad Max: Fury Road". OMG Dennis- You're right! I uploaded the wrong scan. ( Extremely embarrassed) I had back-up prints of both sitting around here. It's too late for me to edit the original post but I'll upload the correct picture when I get bak home. I didn't catch it because I actually haven't seen either movie. (I only run them. Nobody ever said I actually had to WATCH them)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

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.