Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Jurassic World : Flat Format (Page 5)

 
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Jurassic World : Flat Format
Justin Hamaker
Film God

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

- posted 06-12-2015 05:42 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When it comes to 3D, it's really about product. San Andreas had pretty respectable 3D numbers for the first two weeks, and so far we've had a strong turn out for Jurassic World 3D.

I think the studios have made a mistake of thinking that just because a movie CAN be in it should be in 3D. As I've said before, 3D will draw a crowd when it's a movie where the 3D is perceived to add something of value to the experience. With other movies where the 3D is effective, it takes word of mouth to let people know it is worth seeing in 3D (Life of Pi and Gravity are two that fit this). If the 3D doesn't actually add anything perceptible to the experience, then it should not be released in 3D - or at least not required to have any 3D showings.

One last thought on playing Jurassic World in flat. By my calculations the picture is about 7% smaller when played in flat, rather than setting the 2:1 aspect ratio. At least on a screen with side moveable masking.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 06-12-2015 09:09 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
SO what's the audience's reaction as they are coming out of this movie? Are they all like "Wow I don't know what it was but everything just looked better than every other movie ever made. Something just clicked!"

I guarantee you no one in the public will notice it unless they are informed beforehand. Waste of time. If you're gonna mess with aspect ratios, mess with them for the better.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 06-12-2015 11:11 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It looks great here because our screen is 2:1 so it fits perfectly.

Carsten -- kids DO love to wear glasses... for about 2 minutes.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

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

- posted 06-13-2015 07:14 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh. Then they should stop with the 3D 2min into the movie and play a slide: 'Put down your glasses NOW'. With the NOW jumping at them and some Urukai chief yelling it.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 06-13-2015 04:44 PM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This aspect ratio was completely pointless. I saw it on a common height screen with side masking that played it in normal flat. The black at the top and bottom was so insignificant I don't understand why they did this. If they had just filmed in 1:1.85, it would have had the exact same visual effect.

 |  IP: Logged
William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

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

- posted 06-15-2015 02:05 AM      Profile for William Kucharski   Email William Kucharski   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think most viewers care about aspect ratio, they just want to see the movie.

As far as why 3D (and IMAX, and RPX, and ETX, even if it's only 2K), this from Variety:

quote:
The Indominus rex, basically a T-rex on steroids, demanded to be seen on the biggest, widest, most souped up screens possible. That meant that “Jurassic World” got a major boost from premium large format and Imax screens, along with 3D showings. The sequel took in 48% of its domestic opening weekend receipts from 3D screens, while setting new high-water marks for Imax and private label (Premium Large Format) screens.

 |  IP: Logged
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

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

- posted 06-15-2015 05:45 AM      Profile for Lyle Romer   Email Lyle Romer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The sequel took in 48% of its domestic opening weekend receipts from 3D screens
This is a completely meaningless stat without knowing what percentage of screens were 3D. An unscientific look at area showtimes indicates that OVER half the screens are 3D at the big chains.

Also, all of the IMAX and over 80% of the "PLF" showings are in 3D. So the vast majority of people that want the biggest screen (and are willing to pay extra) are going to see it in 3D by default.

An argument can be made that based on available seats, 3D should have been a higher percentage of the gross. I personally can't stand 3D. It adds nothing to the enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a movie. It is distracting when they do 3D tricks. It forces me to wear glasses and my wife glasses over glasses. The worst thing for me personally is that I can almost never see a movie on the biggest screen or in Atmos (n/a in this case) if it is in 3D because they use those screens for 3D.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 06-15-2015 06:03 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So even if the screen count/show offerings are about 50/50...given the up-charge, the 3D take SHOULD have been a much higher percentage. For it to be under 50% indicates that it likely didn't add ticket sales and possibly discouraged sales to the excessive cost or not wanting to see the movie in 3D.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003

- posted 06-15-2015 12:00 PM      Profile for Steve Matz   Email Steve Matz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
ASPECT RATIOS [beer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

 |  IP: Logged
Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

- posted 06-15-2015 01:00 PM      Profile for Martin McCaffery   Author's Homepage   Email Martin McCaffery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
ASPIC RATIOS!
quote:
A general rule for a liquid with no natural gelatin in it is to add, for a delicate aspic, 1 teaspoon of powdered gelatin per cup of liquid and for a sliceable aspic, 1 tablespoon of powdered gelatin.
Sorry, couldn't resist [Wink]

 |  IP: Logged
Connor Wilson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 190
From: Sterling, VA, USA
Registered: Jan 2011

- posted 06-20-2015 01:12 PM      Profile for Connor Wilson   Email Connor Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why don't we compile a list of all the theaters we know that are properly presenting the film in the 2:1 ratio?

For example, I just got out of my second viewing of Jurassic World, but at the Alamo Drafthouse in One Loudoun, screen #4. I personally met the theater's IT guy (who visits here) on Wednesday and we discussed technical stuff, and he told me that Theaters #2 and #4 are set up to screen Jurassic World with no cropping or black bars. Those dinguses at Universal who claimed "the black bars are normal" have been proven wrong by a kid around my age. Sad that a handful of projectionists know how to handle a major tentpole movie more than the executives!

And on another note, I really like the 2:1 ratio and wouldn't mind it being used for more films afterwards. Next time, maybe use the full container.

 |  IP: Logged
Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

- posted 06-20-2015 01:40 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I couldn't disagree more. The difference in 1.85:1 and 2:1 is so slight it's just stupid to stick to what everyone has properly setup and ready to go.

If someone is serious about making a movie, just shoot in the well established scope format (or if they kinda suck as a director, shoot in the well established 1.85 format).

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 06-20-2015 04:01 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you are going to go away from 1.85 or 2.39...THEN don't sneak up with it. Give advance warning and targets (and I mean months in advance) so theatres can prepare for it. Don't slough it off that "run the movie in flat and the black bars are normal."

With Tomorrow land, they did include a framing chart...which people got the week of the show. For Jurassic World...nothing.

I do agree with Brad that 2:1 versus 1.85 was not worth the effort or the piss-poor presentations that it resulted in.

Oddly enough, we had some theatres set up for 2.2:1 for "Classic" 70mm titles already...kind of the same way some theatres are set up for 1.33/1.37 (and we need just one of those too).

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

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

- posted 06-20-2015 05:30 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, well, you know, it was an artistic decision - being that Spielberg wanted flat and director and DOP wanted scope. So, the artistic decision was to use 'something in the middle'.

Plus, it was cool:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-new-aspect-ratio-dinosaurs-jurassic-world

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

- posted 06-20-2015 06:01 PM      Profile for Marco Giustini   Email Marco Giustini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's a 2.00 aspect ratio in what would be called a 1.85 container for the DCP (Digital Cinema Package), which means if the theaters set up their screens at 1.85, there will be a very small letterbox top and bottom and the good screens can adjust their cutters to maximize the picture. Coming up with our own aspect ratio was cool.”
What is a "cutter"? Are we expected to climb our screens and chop the screen off with a stanley knife?

Plus, no, it is not cool. I can't believe I read that.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.