|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-02-2015 11:14 AM
Without any film prints, shooting in 15/65mm or 5/65mm is largely a waste of time. They might as well just shoot in ordinary 4-perf 35mm if it's going to get down-rezzed to 2K TV screen resolution and converted into 3D. I guess the IMAX cameras were put into use just to fool various digital fan boys into thinking the "film makers" encoded some extra magic pixels between the actual pixels. I swear that's how IMAX fans sound when trying to claim they're seeing a whole lot more in one of those 2K digital shows than they do in a standard 2K theater.
quote: Jim Cassedy
I was at a theater last week to do some work, and as I walked around to
check out their various auditoriums, I noticed they had TOMORROWLAND
playing in two auditoriums. In one it was playing FLAT, and in the other
it was SCOPE.
In the long run we'll probably end up with movie theaters with both the screens and projectors set to show only 1.9:1. Then the "film makers" can letterbox or pillarbox the image to their heart's delight, all without any movable masking, format pre sets, etc. This will probably come along with smaller, less expensive prime lenses. No need to zoom if you're really stuck at 1.9:1 100% of the time.
quote: Joris Springer
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.
To be fair, there isn't a giant amount of difference between the 2.20 image being 1998 pixels wide versus 2048 pixels wide. The difference is 25 pixels of width on the left and right ends of the image.
It would make a much bigger difference in terms of image quality if the image was 1080 pixels tall and anamorphically encoded for a 1.25x projector lens. A whole lot more detail would get on screen.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Now it seems they found something new, trying to please both epic scope and IMAX screens.
The approach isn't too far removed from how Super35 popularized home video safe widescreen. Crop the image down to 'scope, restore some of it for the VHS 4:3 "full screen" home video release.
The problem is when movie makers try to compose for multiple aspect ratios at the same time they end up not really composing for anything. At best, they're only doing rule of thirds composition. Other compositional methods, such as golden triangle or golden spiral, don't work for multiple aspect ratios because they require a single, specific frame size be used.
This non-visual, let's make it work anywhere, bullshit is taking place in more than just movies. "Responsive" web design is a good example. "The future is responsive," they scream, demanding any web page have a single liquid layout that works on anything. Unfortunately any true responsive layout just ends up looking like a visually glorified, boxy Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with no sense of composition at all. Web viewing devices are an extreme of differences. You have vertical and horizontal screen orientations, in wide aspect ratios. Display sizes are vastly different, from a microscopic low rez vertical phone display to a 5K resolution horizontal display on a new iMac. If someone wants their web site to look good on all those different display sizes & types they have to design each page of their site multiple times, tailoring it for all those display types and triggering each layout via media queries. Giant pain in the ass.
Movie screens aren't quite so extreme in their differences, but with IMAX adding taller screens to new laser-based theaters it will threaten to least plunge movie compositions back into some of the same VHS style silliness we have seen in the 1980's and early 1990's.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 06-02-2015 03:29 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
In all seriousness, why don't you work with Brad and other experts on this site and actually create this proposed format. You can name it and come up with a logo. I assume IMAX doesn't use DCI compliant DCPs since they are using the whole imager for the 1.9:1 ratio so that shouldn't be a major issue.
There's nothing non-DCI compliant about using the full imager width, it just doesn't fit in one of the two common Flat and Scope containers. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I've been advocating a new "Seal of Quality" for a while now, since THX went further south than the South Pole, there's been a void there which has been filled with various snake oil offerings.
If I look at how big the home cinema "community" is, there must be quite a population out there that still cares about quality, so I'm pretty sure such a brand could succeed if a critical mass can be created.
quote: Lyle Romer
Didn't they shoot some on IMAX film so wouldn't the taller ratio work better for that anyway?
Maybe I missed something, which isn't unlikely because the creation of this movie seems to be one big mumbo jumbo, but afaik, there is no IMAX footage in this thing, or at least no IMAX film footage. There is, however, some 5/65mm footage in it.
quote: Brad Miller
TI has already created a DLP chip that is native 2.40:1, which is what SHOULD have been done all along.
Series 3 simply needs to move to that standard.
And why not make anamorphic lenses and non-square pixels for scope a mandatory requirement for all "Series 3" equipment? Wouldn't that be the most efficient solution? It worked well for decades...
Sure, it would ruin the single inventory concept, but I guess we know where those good intentions went.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-02-2015 11:23 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
On the presentation side of things, you don't need any "software enhancement" at all to make it work.
I'm only using the term "enhanced" to say the image on the DCP is squeezed from 2560 X 1080 down to 2048 X 1080. The pixels are still normal. It just takes a 1.25x anamorphic lens to unsqueeze the image onto the screen. Non-square pixels are not required.
Under this setup theaters without anamorphic lenses would need their servers to down-sample the image to standard 2048 X 858 resolution. This wouldn't be much different than a DVD player down-sampling a "16x9 enhanced widescreen" movie to play in normal looking proportions on a 4:3 TV set. That function shouldn't be difficult to incorporate into modern d-cinema servers.
The most difficult thing about this Super 2K concept is getting Hollywood productions to support it. They would go from rendering movies in 2K/4K to 2.5K/5K. That would impact their production costs.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Guys, what are you dreaming about? The world is nearly 100% digital now, based to the largest part on 1:1.9 DLP and zoom lenses. It's done forever. This is like 100years ago when 35mm was becoming standard.
Has there ever been a single, unchanging, unimproving standard for anything "digital"?
"Digital" can be done good and it can be done very very badly. Honestly it's about time for the stupid "digital" buzzword to take a hike. It means nothing, at least not anything useful in terms of specifics.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Funny, for all those IMAX haters, they will be the only ones using anamorphics regularly on their 4k laser installations - just not actually for scope...
They'll be using a vertical stretch instead to get to something more like the old 4:3 TV screen ratio. It should be fun shifting between that and 'scope, or just having really severe letter-boxing on a tall screen most of the time. It will be like going back 15 years watching DVD movies on the old SD CRT screen.
But not to worry, over 60 of the 70 or so laser-based setups IMAX plans to install in the near future are going in China. Few of those laser systems will show up in the United States or Europe. The vast majority of American IMAX-branded theaters will remain 2K Xenon-based, even in most new builds. I'm certain the IMAX screen Carmike is looking to build here in Lawton will be 2K. From what I've heard the issue still hasn't been totally decided, despite the site signs with the IMAX logo on them. The big screen might actually open as a single projector Big D screen.
| 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
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic