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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Jurassic World : Flat Format (Page 6)

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

Author Topic: Jurassic World : Flat Format Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-20-2015 06:30 PM                     Wow, no kidding Marco. If that cinematographer wanted to shoot scope and he wasn't permitted to, he should've just taken another job. What they really should've done was to create a new sound format...just for this movie! They could've used the unused channels on the DCP track and laid the room out with 5 channels on the rear surround wall, 2 on each side wall and just used the center channel without left or right behind the screen to "focalize the on-screen action, but create terror with immersive dinosaur movement behind the audience". Then the paper that came with the drives could've stated "if you don't have the capability to setup the additional channels and rewire your surround arrays for it, the movie will play in conventional center/stereo surround without some of the sound effects. This is normal." It would've been the same stupid shit, just with audio. I wonder if the next movie those guys shoot will be at 26 1/2 FPS "to simulate high framerate without losing the classic cinematic feel".  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 06-20-2015 07:11 PM                     They even admitted "The good screens will [adjust their masking]" implying that there is INDEED SOMETHING WRONG with presenting it with letterboxing... HOW ABOUT INSTEAD, YOU JUST FUCKING NOT DO THIS SHIT?  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 06-20-2015 11:49 PM                     wow - reading everyone's comments... and the director's intent ... and Universal's - what a clusterf**k of a release ... but what do the two latter care ? they made a boatload of money.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-21-2015 05:10 AM                     I simply cannot believe that that actually happened. You would expect a bunch of professionals to work behind the scenes. I would expect such comments from a bunch of kids working on a YouTube project. Besides that using 2:1 is a nonsense, as Steve said the least that should have happened was to come up with a framing chart way in advance. Also, they should have mastered TWO DCP's, one using the intended format, and one zoomed out to 1.85:1 for cinemas which don't have 'cutters'/can't be bothered. What was done is just plain wrong.  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 06-21-2015 07:25 AM                     quote: “The 65mm film negative gave ILM an incredibly high-resolution image for effects shots,” Too bad no one will ever get to see any of that!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-21-2015 09:50 AM                     I'm curious. And I'm surprised I didn't experiment with it...Set up a new PCF (or input file, depending on how you configure your projectors) file. Set the input to 1848x999 for 2K or 3696x1998 with a 1.85 ratio. What should happen is that the projector will scale the image and it will fill the 1998x1080 raster (and crop the sides of the image) and fill your "Flat" screen. Use the SAME screen file as your normal 1.85 so you don't have to do any "cutting." Likewise for Tormorrowland...but choose the scope since that will result in less cropping. Define the input/PCF as 1998x836 and a 2.39:1 ratio. It should scale the image out to fill your scope screen (use your Scope Screen File). If I get the opportunity, I do plan to try it to see how it goes.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-21-2015 11:37 AM                        I guess what I don't understand about all this is, why are they putting the picture in a "flat" container? We have a 2:1 screen here, so JW fits perfectly if I run it in Scope format and zoom it out to eliminate those pesky black bars. If I use Flat as instructed, it looks like a small image floating in the middle of the screen. I'd think even with a properly proportioned screen you'd want to use Scope, so that you get your full height and just have the image slightly pillarboxed if you don't have movable masking.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-21-2015 12:07 PM                     2:1 in Scope would only have 1716*858 pixels visible resolution. Now imagine that projected on a large format premium screen... They wanted the best compromise for their rotten idea, that's why the chose a flat container. And obviously they did not want to release different versions for different screens. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-21-2015 12:14 PM                     "Large format premium screen"? Well first off, there is no such thing as "large format" anymore. 15/70 is gone forever. 5/70 is the only thing deserving of that title from this day forth. Second "premium screen"? You mean the ones too cheap to install masking? That's NOT premium at all. I know there is still a good size chunk of the idiot-going public who are still be suckered into the "BS-X" bogus systems with a big trampoline on the wall for a screen and fancy branding, but I'm seeing more and more that people ARE wising up to the scam and that number is steadily increasing! Every week there is someone else who asks me why theaters are cutting corners so much as to downgrade the movie, because that's why they went in the first place. Sure they all appreciate and acknowledge the better seats, but the complaints are almost always the same and they revolve around the presentation. The picture doesn't fill the screen and nobody understands why (masking people, masking)...and either the sound is too quiet and not impressive (because they are too lazy to turn it down at the trailers and up for the feature) or the sound is too loud and hurts their ears (crappy speakers and/or poorly tuned systems...can anyone say IMAX?) This "BS-X" craze is just marketing bullshit and it WILL catch up to them. Just like any other change for the worse, they don't see immediate loss of revenue, so the suits pat themselves on the backs and give themselves a raise for "lowering their construction and operating costs". Meanwhile look several years down the road when people stop patronizing those theaters. They won't take the time to stop and write letters to the exhibitors explaining why, they will just simply not go anymore. Then the exhibitors won't be able to keep the doors open and they won't have much of a chance to get them back. Now before some smart-ass pops on here and starts to quote numbers for Jurassic World, allow me to make my point clear. Several years down the road only a major movie like Jurassic World will get people back. This is because they want to see the movie so bad they have no other choice (which is why it did well this month), but overall these issues I've pointed out is one more thing that will kill the industry. The solution? More advertising and even higher prices. Oh yeah, that's the way to solve it. Again in the IMMEDIATE the fancy branding and higher prices and up-charges will give the illusion of making things better, but it will just kill it even more. By that point the studios will have started releasing to the home market on the same day as the theatrical release because the cinemas won't be bringing in the bucks like they used to, and there won't be a damn thing the cinemas will be able to do about it but die off. You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming. You just have to use your brain a little bit. Cheap out now, die later.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-21-2015 12:54 PM                     Come down, Brad, and stick to the thread... If you show me the encyclopedia britannica definition of 'Large Format Premium Screen', I'm open to follow that. Until then, it's just a 'very large screen'. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-21-2015 01:06 PM                     it was a little off topic but I so agree with Brad here I'm going to put a 'like'. The keyword here is "brain".  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-21-2015 01:17 PM                     Carsten, I was quoting YOU on that. You are the one who steered the topic off the road by using the bogus "large format premium screen" term instead of the more appropriate "very large screen". The latter is accurate. The former is a blatant lie. However on a side note, if you have to see the definition of "Large Format Premium Screen" printed in the encyclopedia britannica to see what's happening to the industry and the trend that is actually downgrading the presentations, then you should go get a job as a corporate guy in a cinema circuit where you would fit right in.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-21-2015 01:48 PM                     I think the offensive word here is "format" as if the BS-X theatres get something that the normal theatres don't There is no large format about it like 15/70 was (or 8/70) was to 35mm or even 5/70. The notion of a large format is that the source material is somehow superior (and larger) than standard. So lets say the PLF theatres get a 16K version of a movie that was shot 16K and the standard theatres still just get the 2K or 4K versions...THEN you have a Large-Format theatre that should put out a superior picture on their large screens than the standard theatre...much like 15/70 IMAX could do with their nature movies. Or even 8/70 as compared to smaller gauges. At least with 70mm, you had a significant improvement over standard 35mm houses (2-3X on the image) on what you were starting with, all else being equal. The BS-X theatres don't enjoy that...they just say they are better using the same source material.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-21-2015 02:22 PM                        quote: Brad Miller You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming. You just have to use your brain a little bit. Cheap out now, die later. What's really infuriating is, the big chains which have the most money are the ones cheaping out and reaping the big bucks, while little guys who refuse (as much as possible) to compromise on quality are spending more money on the things that count, but will probably get screwed in the end.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-21-2015 02:50 PM                     That discussion is here: http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f14/t000269.html - Carsten  |  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

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.