|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DCP Named "C"
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 04-23-2016 08:28 AM
I won't rehash the "C" meaning that other have. But the usefulness of full container is there. For instance, one can create policy CPLs (Fire Exits and such) in a full container so they work either way...just make sure your text is constrained to 1998 x 858 (for 2K) and let the background (whatever it may be) be cropped as the feature format so needs. You only have one version then. Those that have the original DLP CPL have "C" versions despite someone trying to make flat and scope names for them, the SMS player (and projector) know it is a 1.90 ratio CPL, it doesn't go by the name but by the data in the CPL.
As others have noted, some ratios are better handled by "C" than "F" or "S". To Leo's comments, Lawrence of Arabia is F-220, as I recall and if not, I know there are some because, in their minds, you get more pixels by using the Flat container. But in reality , those SHOULD be C-220 to get maximum pixels representing an image of higher resolution than the 4K system showing it. 4096x1862 beats 3774x1716 (S Container) or 3996x1816 (F container). I claim that if you release such a classic title in "C-220" that if people play it in Scope, they will merely crop slightly ...just like they did when they did print downs to 35mm scope from these titles. And, honestly, if you are going to be in the business of showing classic titles of 70mm features, then create the format for it. Regardless, unless you have masking stops for it, it isn't going to fit your screen just right since the ratio isn't flat or scope.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-23-2016 01:07 PM
The Larry DCP we've always had has been in an "S" container:
quote: Steve Guttag
and if not, I know there are some because, in their minds, you get more pixels by using the Flat container.
The number of pixels is not the only factor you have to take account, of, sadly. If you've got a typical multiplex screen in which only the vertical, side masking curtains are adjustable, and where the projectionists on site do not have the ability and/or authorization to create bespoke lens and screen files in their projectors, then a F-220 container means playing the movie letterboxed within 1.85. S-220 gives you pillarboxed within 2.39, which, although you're watching fewer pixels at a greater magnification, does at least mean a smaller area of black screen.
It's the same syndrome as the occasional re-release on 35mm of an iconic 1.37 title being printed pillarboxed within a 1.85 matte. Image quality wise it was effectively 16mm, but distributors had to face the reality that theaters weren't going to invest in 1.37 plates and lenses, and take the risk of minimum wage operators trying to swap and align them in and out of turrets, for one show every couple of years.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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