|
|
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 06-06-2015 03:51 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
How does it come anamorphics are now considered virtually transparent devices? How could an anamorphic, considering all aspects of their use (up until automatic movers) be the optimum way for light through a projector? I want to see the anamorphic than can cope with 4k and +4000:1 contrast...
I guess you only consider the anamorphic add-ons. I don't see a reason why a truly anamorphic lens, which is designed that way from the ground up, would be considerably less transparent than a spherical lens.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Light efficiency is only ONE aspect of that equation. And it only has that benefit for scope presentations. Then you will need to supply all scope features in square and non-square DCPs to cinemas with and without anamorphics. Both for 2D and 3D. Now how may studios will get on that train?
Most studios already deliver plenty of versions of many of their movies already. 2D, 3D, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos, Auro and a few permutations of that.
quote: Carsten Kurz
And some multiplexes may have screens with and without them and need to assign the right version and playlist to corresponding screens.
Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
In all honesty, I don't think this single inventory thing will ever fly... It never really was and never really will. In the history of exhibition, there has almost never been a true "single inventory" system.
I guess it's part of the business. Exhibition done right isn't easy, it still takes a lot of work, knowledge and showmanship. If it was as easy as playing a DVD or a movie on YouTube, most of us would be out of business rather soon.
quote: Carsten Kurz
Sounds like another Technicolor 3D to me. I do not even know why I'm writing in this thread. It's nothing but silly to think this would ever happen.
Don't you disqualify yourself a bit with those kind of statements? Aren't forums like this one the place to discuss something like this?
You might be right in stating that the fact that this will, most likely, not happen. Still, why can't we have a discussion about the possible benefits and downsides of an alternate approach without ridiculing it?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Again, non-square pixels are not needed. Also a dual inventory of real scope and fake scope DCPs would be unnecessary either. That is unless a d-cinema server is less advanced than a fucking DVD player made in 1998 that could make an anamorphic DVD work on a square TV set.
I'd still go for non-square pixels in the source. Why is everybody so afraid of them? Even the Lisa had them, although we know where that went.
If you go for optimal quality, you don't want to have your cinema server or any other thing digitally stretching or "deforming" your content. No matter if you use linear, bilinear, Lanczos, bicubic or outer-space filtering, you will lose detail and you should know that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-06-2015 07:23 AM
quote: Carsten Kurz
How does it come anamorphics are now considered virtually transparent devices? How could an anamorphic, considering all aspects of their use (up until automatic movers) be the optimum way for light through a projector? I want to see the anamorphic than can cope with 4k and +4000:1 contrast...
Really Carsten? No pun intended but you are sharper than that! The anamorphics available are made by ISCO, the best anamorphic company in the business (ever). They aren't junk. I have them on 4K projectors and have zero problem resolving 4K pixels (apparently a better job than some IMB/IMS systems). I can't claim to have tested how they affect contrast ratio but DCinema is not nor will EVER need to exceed a real 1000:1 (simultaneous black and white projected...the sequential BS numbers). Beyond 1000:1, no fire marshall will approve of the theatre's ambient light level...it would exceed even the Motion Picture Academy which, let me tell you, gets VERY black in the theatre when the lights go down.
The other reality is if there is a renewed interest in the use of Anamorphics as a cheap means of improving the movie going experience, just like with film anamorphics, development and competition on digital anamorphics would emerge. That is just the nature of business. As a low volume item, they are going to be expensive.
The fact (as a matter of physics) remains, getting light through round holes is more efficient than getting it through rectangular holes. With the wider ratios, if the imager were to go to a 2.39:1 ratio, then we still would need to fit the round cone of light through that rectangular imager (the return of "beam spreaders...anamorphics on the lamphouse side of things) and even then the constant width theatres would then have to zoom the lens to get Flat to fill the height and waste light on the side walls...or use an anamorphic in the other orientation.
There would NOT need to be dual inventory, ever. I can't speak to Sony but every DLP based projector has the ability to set an anamorphic factor that would either compress or expand the image vertically. It would merely become like it was for DVDs...old movies would do scope by letterboxing within 4x3 and new movies would do it by encoding it anamorphically. You add another preset to the projector. If you don't have the anamorphic lens, the anamorphic factor would be .75, if you do have the lens it would be 1.0. If it is done the "old" way, it would be 1.25. You don't even need to change the screen masking settings since how you fill the imager would be the same for any form of scope.
As for the industry doing it...it is a matter of the first person with clout saying they are going to do it and if it is a success it may stick and become the new way it is done. We are in times where the studios are clearly experimenting. This summer we have F-220 and F-200 releases almost on top of each other and NO theatre was really set up for that (except my retro houses where dealing with "70mm" releases necessitated having 2.20 formats at the ready).
What percentage of the theatres showed these 2.20 and soon 2:1 releases without the image looking properly "zoomed?"
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic