Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jurassic World : Flat Format

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Jurassic World : Flat Format (Page 3)

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

Author

Topic: Jurassic World : Flat Format

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 06-10-2015 06:59 AM

quote: Dennis Benjamin
All new build Theatres (in the U.S.) that I have been in have NO MASKING.

Better than that, my local AMCs have stopped moving their masking as it's easier to just leave the "letterbox bars" on the screen for anything wider than 1.85:1.

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 06-10-2015 07:40 AM

Thanks for the feedback Steve. It was primarily just for my use to give me a visual. I figured it was worth sharing since it worked. I didn't even notice the name and label said 2.2:1 instead of 2:1.

One thing I notices is the 1x1 grid was too fine to be much use in focusing. Although I was able to see the checker pattern, it really wasn't much help. I figure a 4x4 pattern will be better.

Based on your suggestions and my own observations, I've made some revisions.
2:1 Flat Container Framing Chart for Jurassic World

| IP: Logged

Mark Strube
Master Film Handler

Posts: 322
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 06-10-2015 10:21 AM

Any word if the 3D flat version of the trailer is the exact same ratio as the feature release? I could get a head start on adjusting a lens file as needed.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-10-2015 11:00 AM

The 3D trailer I downloaded yesterday has exactly the same aspect ratio - 1998*999. We also received a 2D trailer with footage from a TV promo, that was different. But the cinematic trailers seem to use the exact framing of the feature, both 2D and 3D.

You can actually open the trailer MXF video file in VLC (>v2.0) and do a single-frame capture for reference.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 06-10-2015 09:05 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Why would you bother filming part on 65mm and then release it in 2K?

Yeah, no shit. That makes no sense at all. Are there really no 4k prints of this? What do the 35mm prints look like, assuming there actually are some?

quote: William Kucharski
Better than that, my local AMCs have stopped moving their masking as it's easier to just leave the "letterbox bars" on the screen for anything wider than 1.85:1.

William, I live fairly close to you (Broomfield) and I drive out to Harkins Northfield for anything showing on their 70 foot "Cine Capri" screen (passing up at least 3 AMC theaters that are closer). They put on a pretty good show (for this day and age). They end the pre-show crap by closing the curtains and re-opening them for the trailers & feature. Masking, focus, brightness, and audio (Atmos) have all been good in that auditorium. FYI

| IP: Logged

Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010

posted 06-10-2015 10:38 PM

Outrageous. It's like dominoes. Exhibitors slip a little, production slips a little, exhibition slips a little more... Production slips a little more..............

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 06-10-2015 10:58 PM

so are the DCP's for the IMAX-laser 2K as well then?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-10-2015 11:26 PM

There's maybe a handful of laser-based IMAX systems installed in North America. That's hardly enough to justify rendering a separate 4K version.

Maybe Universal will release a 4K version on Blu-ray Ultra HD.
[Razz]

| IP: Logged

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 06-11-2015 03:11 AM

quote: Geoff Jones
I live fairly close to you (Broomfield) and I drive out to Harkins Northfield for anything showing on their 70 foot "Cine Capri" screen (passing up at least 3 AMC theaters that are closer). They put on a pretty good show (for this day and age). They end the pre-show crap by closing the curtains and re-opening them for the trailers & feature. Masking, focus, brightness, and audio (Atmos) have all been good in that auditorium. FYI

Thanks for the hint.

For the most part if I want to see (at least what passes for) presentation I usually go to the IMAX at Colorado Center or the RPX at the Continental. (The pre-show at the latter is badly broken - only one channel of audio works - but at least the movie sound itself is wonderful.)

| IP: Logged

Aron Toplitsky
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 113
From: Gardena, CA, USA
Registered: May 2012

posted 06-11-2015 06:33 AM

No Atmos presentation for this movie?? Are you FREAKING kidding me!!

I started looking around LA and Orange County for showtimes in Atmos and couldn't find any. Usually most theaters don't advertise it, but the Arclight Sherman Oaks, Arclight La Jolla, Kirkorian Buena Park 18 and Chinese Theater Six (specifically screen 1) almost always indicate that info. I knew something wasn’t right when I saw that none of those theaters listed an Atmos showing, so I stopped by to get some info on this site.

What the hell is going on? How on earth could Universal not support an Atmos release? A film like this is just begging for an Atmos mix! How can they be so incredibly stupid? I’m also reading on this thread how the aspect ratio has issues too. And I can't forget to mention they spent the money to shoot in 35MM, 70MM, 5K, 6K and master it in 4K (according to IMDB) and there are no 4K presentations? I had no idea 3D doesn't get a 4K master. Now I really am done with 3D! I just don’t get it? What a damn waste!! I’d love to contact the right people and voice my opinion. They really hit an all time low if the IMAX laser version is 2K.

This is all SO VERY disappointing!

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 06-11-2015 06:46 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've had the impression for some time if a movie had a 3D version then it was only 2K.

All the more reason to hate 3D and keep hoping people will stop paying the upcharge so it can die a quick death. That gets added to how the 3D version is normally on the Atmos equipped screens (when Atmos is applicable) making it difficult to see anything in 2D Atmos in Florida.

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008

posted 06-11-2015 09:31 AM

Aron - at one point, Dolby had 'Jurassic World' up on their master Atmos List - but then it was dropped. This is the second Universal title that hasn't been mixed/released in Atmos - the first one being 'Furious 7' - yes, yes, the sound mixing aspect of the filmmaking process is one of the last things the director/sound team does but this instance makes no sense. Did they not have enough time to do a proper mix? (I don't know) but for Dolby to actually think (and post) that an Atmos mix was to occur, but then suddenly axed makes Universal look foolish (and hypocritical of supporting the format)

secondly as I understand it (and as Bobby pointed out) - 3D has never been encoded/distributed in 4K DCP form - I thought that was a given.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-11-2015 10:47 AM

So I guess it makes no sense now to even refer to ANY aspect ratio as "flat" or "scope." The director & cinematographer can pretty much choose whatever AR they like. Scope and Flat nomenclature only made sense when each had it's own different lenses & app plate sets (how's that for sneaking in digital jargon to refer to an aperture plate?). Now, while there are different containers into which you can place an image, evidently that image can be whatever the filmmaker wants it to be, aspect ratio-wise. Who's to say not? Evidently not the DCI spec; not the SMPTE Projection Practices Committee. Why even bother with the old flat and scope termiology at all if you can have a variety of different aspect ratios?

Come to think of it, even BFD (before film died), in the art house world flat could mean any number of non-anamorphic aspect ratios: 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, 1.85 :1 maybe even more and at least two anamorphic ARs - 2.55, 2.4/2.35, and you could throw in a few 2:1s Even more if you add in 70mm. Flat and Scope were a pretty sloppy and lazy way of talking about AR distinctions even for film. In fact, that sloppiness today still causes consternation for retro film exhibitors when trying to figure out the correct aspect ratio of titles filmed during that transition period from the Academy Aspect ratio of 1.37:1 to the illusive moving target of "flat" 1.85 (about 1952 to early 1960s when they were still shooing for a safe area of about 1.66:1). Some A-hole writing "Flat" on film leaders for a film made in 1955 is about as useful as a roll of splicing tape in a digital booth.

Wasn't (isn't) it Disney who had some of their 3D titles framed in a faux-window that really wasn't the actual end of the image but just a black boarder frame that was moved to allow the illusion of objects not breaking the screen "frame" but actually coming out past it? Thus the frame can change size throughout the film? What can you call THAT aspect ratio!? Didn't they even have some training YouTube with a Mousekateer explaining the movie aspect ratio concept? Ah...yes they did: Timmy the Mousekateer projectionist

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-11-2015 11:52 AM

For floating windows, there is a clear technical/perceptual justification.
For all others, it is just artistic wisdom...

That said - life with flat and scope alone is pretty boring in the digital age. We will actually play both 'A World beyond' and 'Jurassic World' - and I'm looking forward to create those custom presets for our projector and constant-height screen masking.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Steve Moore
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 211
From: Leeds, West Yorks, UK
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 06-11-2015 12:21 PM

The same letter here too emailed to us in the UK.
It sort of sounds like an apology; don't worry about it - it will do sort of thing.

I thought i read in one article that it was to emphasise the height of the dinosaurs so I don't understand why it would be a smaller height!

A new ratio created here to fill the height and set my w/s masking slightly wider.

I guess if I keep this CP2000 projector long enough eventually i will have some use for all the channel presets on the TPC!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

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

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.