|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Ghostbusters (2016) Aspect Ratio
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-08-2016 10:02 PM
quote: Gordon McLeod
I am getting a little tired of the same people bemoaning that scope is now inferior to flat. The public has chosen to patronize stadium theatre over sloped floor and the geometry of those rooms vs the cost to build will favor a squarer screen format. And this is a business not a high art form so some of you get off the high horses Digital Imax even though not as good as 15/70 is here to stay fixed width screens are here to stay and will only change if the customers choose to stay away end of rant
The public made their preference for stadium seating known way back in the mid 1990's, back when movies were projected on film. Back when the 'scope format was the best format on 35mm. That all happened before digital. The public has no idea how they're getting duped technology wise with the travesty that is 'scope in d-cinema. It's the lowest pixel count, lowest resolution format. The public doesn't know that, but it's the truth. Since the public does not know this truth there is no way to infer they prefer that lower quality truth.
I'm not against d-cinema. But I really dislike the cost cutting, quality reducing short cuts they made with the format. Very few movies are produced in the flat format. The prevailing majority of them are made in 'scope aspect ratio. The powers that be could have used a 1.25x anamorphic system to make the most of the 2048 X 1080 and 4096 X 2160 imagers, but they didn't. Instead they chose to treat 'scope just like it is at home on the TV screen: letter-boxed. I think the movie producers really like this approach since it equates to far fewer pixels to render.
I'll happily beat up on IMAX for popularizing the no-masking approach to flat ratio screens. I was willing to overlook it for true IMAX theaters that had 15-perf 70mm film projectors and giant sized screens. I'm not going to overlook it for digital-based theaters with smaller screens and projectors that throw a HDTV resolution image. Inferior common width screens have been around far longer than d-cinema, but in the past most of them at least had vertical masking. Today new theaters with common width screens rarely have masking. It's like they're trying to copy IMAX of decades past while being cheapskates at the same time.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
A few years back, it seemed like scope was dying as an aspect ratio, but I'd say it's the dominant format for big budget Hollywood productions right now. Many of those Digital IMAX and PLF thingies are showing scope movies, which are supposed to be shown BIGGER than flat, in unmasked letterboxed form. Therefore it's major pita scope being treated so poorly.
The flat format grew dominant in the 1980's when the VHS home video rental and sales boom hit. Suddenly it was really important to make movies more geometrically friendly to TV screens. I remember a lot of 70mm blow-ups in the 1980's that were flat, like Total Recall, Back to the Future, etc. The trend began to reverse itself in the 1990's. By the time DVD grew into popularity 'scope was the dominant format. Even in the early 2000's I remember our theaters having nothing but 'scope ratio movies. Genre didn't matter either. Indie movie: 'scope. Comedy: 'scope. Drama: 'scope. Everything was in 'scope. Today damned near everything still is in 'scope. That's regardless of the fact a great deal of "modern" theaters are not built and equipped to display 'scope properly.
quote:
Presentation quality can still exist in the modern digital era of exhibition but it first requires somebody to care, and as you have pointed out, most do not :Frown:
Showing 'scope properly is largely out of the hands of people in the projection booth. The format has been goofed up by higher powers. The movie studios and deciders at movie theater chains turned 'scope into the cheapest, lowest quality format. The projection systems and theater construction designs just aren't friendly to 'scope, despite just how often the 'scope ratio is used in movie production.
With a TV-screen shaped setup, I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all by watching movies at home. On my 65" HDTV screen those letter-boxed movies look just like they do on the unmasked, letter-boxed commercial movie theater screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-08-2016 11:32 PM
• My sound system at home is pretty damned good. It packs a healthy wallop. I'm willing to drive out of town to see movies shown with Dolby Atmos, provided the mix is more than Atmos in name only. Very few theaters are equipped with that due to the expense.
• Commercial theater screens are bigger, but the ratio of viewing distance is much farther. In my living room I'm viewing my 65" HDTV screen at a distance of about 72". That screen is filling my field of view just as much as commercial theater screens I'm viewing from roughly 10 times the distance. Even though the home image I'm seeing (hopefully) isn't authored to the same standards as the DCP on a hard disc the image on that HDTV screen looks tack sharp, not soft.
• I don't spill my popcorn all over the place, not even at commercial movie theaters. I carry out my own trash. I have respect for the venue and its staff. I'm not a disgusting pig, unlike a lot of the cattle moving in and out of theaters.
• The shared audience experience is both pro and con. Yes, it's great when the audience reacts in unison to a big movie moment. I remember the audience breaking out in applause at the climax of the The Untouchables action sequence on the steps of Union Station, inspired by the Odessa Steps scene in Battleship Potemkin. That was one of my favorite 70mm Dolby mag viewing experiences (at the Loews New York Twin in Manhattan). Great stuff. But that group experience has been traded for people who won't get the fuck off their damned mobile phones. I feel like carrying a damned Mag-lite into the theater along with a few laser pointers to visually assault the shit out of some of these idiots who can't keep their digital toys in their pockets. I don't have to put up with that crap at home. The experience is more controlled. IMHO movie theaters need to take a very hard-line stance on mobile phone use and other distracting behavior in movie theaters.
• When I was younger, I had to wait a whole lot longer to see a hit movie debut on home video. We are talking a year or more. Do you remember how long it took for Saving Private Ryan to finally show up on DVD? Remember how long it took for E.T. to arrive on videotape? Fucking Spielberg! 90 days is nothing, even back then. Today, 90 days is practically a few blinks of the eye. And with all the vast choices we have for entertainment now, it's totally impossible to keep up with it all. It's almost like playing Farmville. You finish one assignment only to get greeted by four more. That's why I quit all that Zynga shit and abandoned so many Facebook friends still caught up in it. So if a movie studio says it's going to punish us viewers by delaying a release for a month or 3 months or whatever, I'll happily tell them to lick my soiled jock strap. I couldn't care less. Especially when the movies they're making are paint by numbers, "Save The Cat!" template dog shit clip art. Series TV on cable is beating the hell out of movies these days in terms of dramatic quality.
• Movies aren't the only choice of fun and entertainment outside of the house. Even in little Lawton, OK we have plenty to do besides going to the show. I can party at the lake, go swimming, go hunting, go to a local community play via Lawton Community Theater, go to an art gallery opening party Saturday night and on and on from there. Movies aren't the only game in town for entertainment and fun. It's time for the movie industry the big media industry who owns it to start realizing this fact. These stock trader types who now control with tight fists the movies, music and TV shows we experience have sucked the soul out of the product. They have reduced it to something we can take or leave without any emotional attachment to it anymore. To them the product is just a "widget" they're trying to sell to us. Unfortunately for them those idiots don't realize we know this. So people like me, who used to really love movies with a passion, don't really give all that much of a shit about it anymore. There is no more "magic" in it. They sold it.
I can't even remember the last movie I bought on Blu-ray since it has been at least a year or more since I bought something on disc. Our last good video store in town is probably going to be closing soon since Hastings filed for Chapter 11 in June. The company folds this coming Wednesday unless a buyer rescues the operation. So I probably won't be renting any movies on Blu-ray discs anymore. It's a win for Netflix, Amazon Prime, streaming lower quality product and fucking the brick and mortar retail sector that actually helps pave the roads, pay police and keep schools open. Online retailers ain't doing dick about that. But the stock traders love it anyway and I guess that's all that matters. IT'S A BUSINESS AFTER ALL.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-11-2016 07:15 PM
quote:
• My sound system at home is pretty damned good. It packs a healthy wallop.
Doesn't matter how wallopy your system is, when you're sitting in a living-room environment it's still a lot smaller. You can turn up a stereo to concert levels at home but it's still a lot smaller sound than you'd get at an actual concert. It's not the same.
• Commercial theater screens are bigger, but the ratio of viewing distance is much farther. In my living room I'm viewing my 65" HDTV screen at a distance of about 72". That screen is filling my field of view just as much as commercial theater screens I'm viewing from roughly 10 times the distance. [/quote]
I have a big TV at home too, but even sitting 6' away from it, our 30 foot screen at the theater still just SEEMS bigger even when I'm sitting halfway back. It doesn't fill any more of my field of vision when I'm sitting farther away from it but it still SEEMS bigger because it IS bigger. Don't ask me to explain this phenomenon because I can't. Again, it's just not the same.
quote:
• I don't spill my popcorn all over the place, not even at commercial movie theaters.
Kudos for that, but I'm betting you deposit your trash in a lobby trash can [/i]which an employee carries out for you.[/i] And you don't have to make your own snacks.
quote:
• that group experience has been traded for people who won't get the fuck off their damned mobile phones.
No argument there, but how many phones are being used obnoxiously in a typical screening? A couple? It IS possible to ignore them unless they're REALLY obnoxious. I agree theaters need to educate people about this. We don't have much of a problem here because we're pretty strict about it, but it still can happen because there is a constant stream of new phone owners growing up all the time.
I'm kind of surprised that the whole idea of using phones in theaters hasn't taken on the stench of being "not socially acceptable," since the vibe is pretty strong against the practice. But people who are on phones think they are (a) being unobtrusive, even when they aren't; or (b) think THEIR conversation/text/tweet/whatever is more important than anything in the world so they think it's OK. It's a weird phenomenon. Even when I'm watching a movie in the theater all by myself I still turn my phone off. I don't want it interrupting me.
quote:
• When I was younger, I had to wait a whole lot longer to see a hit movie debut on home video. We are talking a year or more. Do you remember how long it took for Saving Private Ryan to finally show up on DVD? Remember how long it took for E.T. to arrive on videotape? Fucking Spielberg! 90 days is nothing, even back then. Today, 90 days is practically a few blinks of the eye.
No argument here either, the studios are screwing the entire industry on this one. BUT, 90 days is still 90 days and if a movie is super-hot and has high Star-Wars-ish want-to-see, that's going to seem like a long time on Day 1.
quote:
• Movies aren't the only choice of fun and entertainment outside of the house. ...
people like me, who used to really love movies with a passion, don't really give all that much of a shit about it anymore. There is no more "magic" in it. They sold it.
I think part of that might just be a function of you getting older. I don't flip open the covers of the newest Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone with the same eagerness I once did either, because there's not as much content that interests me. It's not because the content is getting bad, it's just that the world is moving on and I'm still me.
Movies are just one of many options, it's true. But people like us are expecting/demanding movies to be the perfect experience, but things can go wrong anywhere, whether it be movies or something else. Look at that list of fun things you posted.... Your day at the lake might get wrecked by rain. A play might have a bad performance, or somebody's kicking your seat. A concert might be too loud or too soft, or you have a lousy seat (with somebody kicking it). An art gallery might have a group of unruly teenagers being noisy. On and on. People get so butt-hurt because the movie experience they paid 8 bucks for isn't always this pristine experience. It SHOULD be perfect all the time but it isn't. Nothing is. When it works though, it's still great.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 07-12-2016 01:46 AM
To add to this sound thing:
We were playing "ID4-R" in one of our ATMOS houses.
Customer came out and said that our ATMOS isn't working correctly.
I go check the rack and found out that I had just lost an VOG amp that runs four speakers up in the ceiling.
Unit was total gone outside of the green light that surrounds the power button (Crown DriveCore 8/300 amp).
He really rants on us on us that he really knows ATMOS and he's an audio guru, yet didn't have any Dolby credentials on him on how he knew about ATMOS.
Found out that he just studied it via information on the web, and he has a wiz bang audio system at home for his home cinema.
("OH BROTHER, here we go again"-another self righteous home freak that expects the cinema to sound as good as his home system).
I bounced into him that he may have the greatest sound system for his home cinema, but I simply reminded him that Hollywood and the cinema began and perfected the cinema multi-channel sound experience in all of these years, and home cinema is a distant second to what we have. Home cinema has always mimicked what we have experienced and perfected, but will always be a second banana to the real thing.
(I always get the rap from home cinema gurus that the surround speakers are not working. I ask them how they are not working. They tell me that the voice isn't coming from all channels. I tell them that Hollywood mixes the voice tracks to come from center channel, which all channels are discrete channels when it comes to the cinema experience, not a matrix sound like some some home audio units when the source is just two discrete channels.)
But, to play it safe to not get another home theatre audio guru, is that after the flawed feature was over with, I changed the SPL to play the 5.1 version of the same feature (I had both contents loaded in my ATMOS servers for this very reason where if one acts up, I do the backup file) so the ATMOS doesn't kick in ... and 99.9% of the people didn't even notice the flawed ATMOS performance.
Plus the next audience didn't even know that I was playing 5.1 sound.
All they cared is that is sounded great and were pleased.
Fun ... - Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leslie Hartmier
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 100
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Registered: Jul 2012
|
posted 07-13-2016 07:03 PM
I grant that the customer is the reason we are open, and in this case, yes, he was correct that all advertised aspects of the viewing was not met.
That said, a audio 'guru,' who has a kickass setup in his mancave, and learns everything he needs from the intertubes, yet advertises himself as being some sound messiah does not move the conversation forward, is much like a bike mechanic who's never opened a car hood (I love bicycles, so say nothing - it's an analogy) telling a car mechanic that he knows everything necessary about cars, and that the car he borrowed needs everything replaced, when his only experience is reading a book with a boat in it.
Was the guy wrong? Not at all. Should Monte have dealt with it differently? I think so. Does the fact that the guy owns a set of headphones build his case? I'm going to say no.
Me, if he was right, I would try to satisfy him (even if all he wants to do is rage, as long as it doesn't get personal). If he was wrong, I wouldn't have wasted the time arguing with him, and found some way to let him/her down easy.
I would have done the equivalent of what I used to do when someone who has owned at least one half of a set of eyes for all their lives, and therefore 'clearly' (like that? Ho! Ho! I made a funny!) a master of the image, would tell me that the movie was out of focus. I'd get the lead out, get upstairs, check the focus to find them:
right, in which case, I would fix it, and feel embarrassed that I failed at such an important yet basically simple responsibility, thanking the individual when I saw them next, or
wrong, in which case, I would shift it out of focus just enough to be barely obvious, then put it back, and leaving the situation be, unless they came back to yell at me, where I would simply point out that I needed to shift it out just to be sure, and that his invalid complaint reduced the quality of the show until I returned it to the place I had it.
A dick move? Sometimes. Sometimes, if it was a private booking, where a director would complain, I would allow them to adjust the focus, where (and I don't think I misremember), invariably someone would complain, I would put it back (because c'mon! Like I wouldn't make sure the film wasn't in focus when a filmmaker was going to be in evidence!), and the director would understand the difference between what a filmmaker does, and what an exhibitor does.
Anyway, it seems the guy was right, but deluded. Monte dealt with it correctly, if being a bit unkind about the fellow's credentials, but I'd sure dislike it if someone who likes steak was telling me how to raise a steer, and I'm not certain that it was useful for the guy to bring up his sound skillz. The fact that he paid is enough for him to be able to bring up his concern, and telling Monte that he should listen to him because of some likely illusionary opinion of his abilities with audio really only muddies the situation.
My five cents (we no longer have pennies),
Leslie
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic