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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 (Page 5)

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

Author Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 05-27-2015 11:15 AM                     so is Disney releasing 2K and 4K DCP's of this? I thought the brightly lit scenes had tremendous pop to the image.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 05-28-2015 06:28 PM                     It's interesting that one of the selling points for digital cinema was/is that it would simplify exhibition to the point where there would no longer be a need for projectionists. And then we start getting these "special" releases in non-standard formats. At a typical cinema, who's supposed to be making these modifications? Managers? And I agree with Steve -- C-220 would be the best way to go for a release like this, or (more commonly) a d-cine re-release of an older 70mm title.  |  IP: Logged Rachael Barbash Film Handler Posts: 31 From: Columbus, Ohio, US Registered: Feb 2009 posted 05-29-2015 03:15 AM                        Is anyone here playing Tomorrowland in scope or actually zooming for each show? Currently we're just playing it as flat with letter boxing on the top and bottom but it looks annoying IMHO - even though no one has complained that we're playing the movie incorrectly. I'm not up to making new screen files for this and the film moves around to different projectors too much to easily zoom for each show, depending on what projectionist is working. I think someone mentioned that only a bit would end up getting cut off on the top and bottom playing in scope but how does this look to anyone doing it? BTW we played Mommy as well with the 1:1. Ugh.  |  IP: Logged Jason Whyte Expert Film Handler Posts: 132 From: Victoria, BC, Canada Registered: Sep 2002 posted 05-29-2015 03:29 AM                        Just as a presentation update: every cinema playing this movie in this city is playing it letterboxed to 2.20:1, set with a flat cue and on a screen set with flat masking. At the very least they're all on top-masking screens, but still...  |  IP: Logged Gary Lightfoot Film Handler Posts: 20 From: Caterham, Surrey, UK Registered: Apr 2015 posted 05-29-2015 03:49 AM                     I think the problem here is that the directors etc want to present their movies in a particular way/aspect ratio (like they could in the old days), but the multiplexes and even the DCI format it seems are more interested in saving money and have no interest in the art of presentation. Here in the UK (and probably everywhere else) there no longer seem to be dedicated projectionists any more, so there is no longer the skill available to ensure all movies are presented correctly. If the manager or even the guy who sells the popcorn is being relied upon to play the movie, it seems there's little chance that they will be able to get things correct for anything that is not flat or scope, and even then there seems room for mistakes. It's all well and good them sending out people to ensure the movie house can do their movie justice by checking the audio and video before a particulr presentation, but if the projectionist is being relied upon to make files for the movie and doesn't have the skill/training, there seems little point in checking the theatre IMHO. or do they check the staff for ability as well? I think the directors etc have got to start getting involved in the presentation side of things and making a fuss, as currently DCI movies aren't being presented a great deal differently to Blu Ray at home on tv,so then many people may start thinking what's the point paying to watch a big tv when they can do something similar at home for a lot cheaper and without the hassle or inconvenience. It's not surprising that Joe Public doesn't understand why they have black bars at home or in the theatre for scope movies - they think that's how they should be presented and then ask that all movies should be 16:9 because scope is too small and they don't like black bars. They don't understand that it should be the other way round. Just my point of view but it feels like we're getting further away from cinema and closer to big tv now. I don't know what can be done about it either... Gary  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-29-2015 05:33 AM                     quote: Gary Lightfoot I think the problem here is that the directors etc want to present their movies in a particular way/aspect ratio (like they could in the old days), but the multiplexes and even the DCI format it seems are more interested in saving money and have no interest in the art of presentation. In the "old days," weren't there standard aspect ratios? I don't recall Spielberg deciding that Jurassic Park should be 2:1. Would he have wanted special aperture plates cut for that? Would it have been letterboxed flat prints or pillarboxed scope? Would he have expected the masking to be adjusted just for him? If they are going to invent a new ratio, make it 1.9:1 and use the whole imager. At least then you can say that you are truly maximizing the resolution of digital cinema. Why are they even picking these ratios? Don't they understand that the reason that 70mm was 2.2:1 was because it was the height of the frame but couldn't be wider due to the magnetic soundtrack location? Do they think that 2.2:1 was chosen for artistic reasons?  |  IP: Logged Gary Lightfoot Film Handler Posts: 20 From: Caterham, Surrey, UK Registered: Apr 2015 posted 05-29-2015 06:33 AM                     That's my point - with 2.20:1 that was a standard aspect. With digital, there is only 1.9 and however many vertical pixels you want to use for the ratio you want, and the issues that creates, so to do 2.20 means either filling the width of the 1.9 imager and using around 982 pixels for the height (kinda like on a Blu Ray - constant width), or using the same height as for scope, and having black bars down the sides - effectively window boxing the whole image a bit like the 35mm film had done for Mad Max Fury Road (as shown earlier). I get the impression there's a disconnect between the movie makers and the delivery chain so they don't understand what's happening to the movies when it gets to theatres, or what problems it's creating. Didn't Spielberg use 1.85 for Jurassic Park rather than scope to try highlight the height and size of the dinosaurs? I agree - if they use 1.9 and 1.9 anamorphic then everyone would get the best images they could for both formats (assuming the theatre has constant height capability). But again, going anamorphic means the use of an anamorphic lens and that adds cost and complexity, neither of which seem to be wanted by the multipexes. Gary  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 05-29-2015 06:55 AM                     quote: Gary Lightfoot With digital, there is only 1.9 and however many vertical pixels you want to use for the ratio you want Not exactly. For whatever reason, when they did the DCI specs, they made flat use the entire height of the imager but not the entire width and scope use the entire width but not the entire height.  |  IP: Logged Gary Lightfoot Film Handler Posts: 20 From: Caterham, Surrey, UK Registered: Apr 2015 posted 05-29-2015 10:45 AM                     Oops, yeah - flat is 1.85 so can't use the entire width. Thanks Gary.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-29-2015 11:14 AM                     And 2.2:1 could have used the entire width of the imager and extra height just like in effect70mm had a extra perf of height then it could be projected using the maximum available for its aspect ratio but to be fair many 70mm theatres cropped the 70mm frame to the same as ascope  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 05-29-2015 03:06 PM                     The "filmmakers" and their assistants are largely wasting their time bothering the movie theaters because doing the job wrong is getting baked into the movie from the start of production and into the theaters when they are built. There is a litany of things that should have been done differently with d-cinema, but were not out of cost cutting concerns and/or trying to imitate the look of an IMAX theater, but on a much smaller scale (we'll still take that premium surcharge, thank you very much).  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 05-29-2015 03:52 PM                     quote: Lyle Romer Not exactly. For whatever reason, when they did the DCI specs, they made flat use the entire height of the imager but not the entire width and scope use the entire width but not the entire height. You could say that those DCI specs where "somewhat influenced" by what the market had to offer in terms of DMD chip availability. I guess 2K ended up being 2048K pixels in width*, because it's a power of 2, which often makes stuff easier in discrete logic design. And it fits flat just right if you take 1080 pixels (an industry standard) as height. * Actually, it's the DCI definition of 2K, some other definitions are also floating around...  |  IP: Logged Joris Springer Film Handler Posts: 83 From: Almere, Flevoland, The Netherlands Registered: Feb 2007 posted 05-29-2015 07:28 PM                     Why don't we all just say as projectionists that it looks like shit in a Flat container and that even though as much as we would have liked to have given Disney a better quality of image nobody is going to adjust their masking to create a perfect 2.20 image on our screens because hardly anyone has the knowledge in house to create a macro and adjust the masking in that macro for a 2.20 movie. It is a ridiculous decision from Disney to release a movie in that format and I wonder how many cinemas are really creating a macro just for this movie (though I heard rumors we can expect the same thing with Jurassic World).  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 05-30-2015 01:35 AM                     Sooooooooooo Who should we tell? I feel like there's a lot of garbage we as a group of professionals could at least influence if we took all this energy and direct it through the proper channels. But to be honest, that's a pipe dream of mine that perhaps someday if I have my own theater, that I can present things properly and actually not be bottlenecked with the content I receive.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-02-2015 07:26 AM                     Same thing now for Jurassic World...1:2.20 in Flat for both 2D and 3D. They were releasing all their children flics in 1,77 so they'd fit nicely on DVD and BluRay. Now it seems they found something new, trying to please both epic scope and IMAX screens. - Carsten  |  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.