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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » DUNKIRK DCP 2.20:1 inside flat container? (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: DUNKIRK DCP 2.20:1 inside flat container? Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-20-2017 01:24 AM                        Joris, I set up my screen files for this today. After I was done configuring everything I switch the projector back to the scope format while the framing chart was still running. I was actually surprised at how close it came to fitting within the scope picture. If my math is correct you would be losing 50 vertical pixels using the scope format with no cropping. I wonder if this might come down to a difference between common height vs common width screens.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-20-2017 05:53 AM                     For common height screens, running it as "Scope" it the best choice. The cropping is minimal and well within safe-action and not even close on safe-title. Naturally, nothing beats having the proper format for the ratio within the projector/masking but if, like most theatre, you don't have that, common width screens are best served by "FLAT" and common height screens are best served by "Scope."  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 07-20-2017 06:37 AM                     Anybody else encountered problems with masking systems unwilling to do proper 2.20? I had a problem with one, where I could not go from 2.35 to 2.2, because the motors would keep running beyond the preset distance. Maybe it's some kind of duty-cycle protection? It was no problem to go from 1.85 to 2.20 though. So, now first the masking closes to 1.85 and then reopens to 2.20. Looks kind of awkward, so my advice was to put some logo in 1.85 in front of it, to get rid of the extra long masking parade, but it seems they like it the way it is.  |  IP: Logged Sascha F. Roll Expert Film Handler Posts: 140 From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany Registered: Sep 2015 posted 07-20-2017 10:15 AM                     We also have this weird 1990s style "intelligent" masking system that only goes from small --> large, means if the adverts are shown in Flat 1.85 we have to close the combined curtain / masking fully to open it again to 1.37 for example. (We also did this for LA LA LAND to open the curtain when the "PRESENTED IN CINEMASCOPE" logo extends to the full width of the screen.) It's a bit annoying but I built a little sub-show with something like 30 secs. intermission, lights comming down slowly, "gong", lights coming down completely, curtain opening on the first frame... So in the end it's nice then a regular screening where the curtain / masking would only open from Flat -> Scope when the (scope) feature starts.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 07-20-2017 09:28 PM                     We have the same systen, but we can still 'pulse drive' both directions and adjust to any intermediate position both ways by simply running the motor for a certain amount of time only. It is accurate enough for 2.0, 2.2, or even going from flat to real 16:9 masking. I use subclips with the proper lens setting and cropping combined with these masking pulses, so even our regular staff could use 16:9, 2.0 or 2.2 formats when building playlists. IF they would dare to build playlists. As a matter of fact, I programmed Transformers 5 to play in 2.0:1. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 07-20-2017 09:42 PM                        Our sister theatre has automated moveable masking which only has two positions. So I programmed the show to use the flat aspect but set the masking to scope. The movie will look pillar boxed, but at least it will fit the screen. Right now it's just in our 4 biggest auditoriums which are common height. I'll still need to do the settings for the smaller auditoriums which are common width, but I'm waiting for them to see what the framing chart looks like.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-03-2017 09:30 PM                        OK I'm confused.... We're opening Dunkirk tomorrow and I know it's supposed to play in Flat, but since we have a 2:1 screen it seems to look just fine in our Scope setting. I play some scope pictures in 2:1 with the sides cropped a little, and others in standard scope with a slight letterboxing. With this movie on the standard Scope setting, it seems like we're cropping just a little off the top/bottom but not enough to matter. Which setting should I use? I've heard there are shifting aspect ratios in the film and I've skipped around thru it but the picture looks the same everywhere I've looked. I'm not going to have time tonight to pre-screen the whole movie. Can somebody give me a couple of different times in the show where I can see the difference?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 08-04-2017 07:20 AM                     If you have a 2.0:1 screen and you play it in flat and have no adjustable masking, then it will be window-boxed, which will look absolutely stupid. My opinion: Don't do that. If you play it in scope, there will be minor cropping at the bottom, top and the sides. If you do not want to make custom lens files and zoom your projector to 2.2, then I'd prefer "scope", it will look more cinematic. Still, the proper way would be to implement the format by zooming your projector, to fill the screen vertically. Next time someone is around for maintenance, maybe ask him/her (I guess it's a him ) to create pre-sets for 2.2 and 2.0. Since we see a sort-of 70mm revival, I suspect we're going to see 2.2 more often. The 2.0 aspect ratio would also not be a bad thing to have, since a few recent releases were in this AR and in your case, they could fill the entire screen, without letter or pillar boxing.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-04-2017 11:53 AM                        quote: Marcel Birgelen If you have a 2.0:1 screen and you play it in flat and have no adjustable masking, then it will be window-boxed, which will look absolutely stupid. My opinion: Don't do that. Agreed... I looked at the frame chart, which has small triangles all around the image. On our standard scope setting it cuts off just the top third of those triangles on the top/bottom, and the sides are perfect. So we'll go that way.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 08-05-2017 08:39 AM                     I might be worthwhile checking the masking system, if necessary, with a tech. We found out, while our masking uses fixed positions, we can still set it to any intermediate position by cutting the control signal at arbitrary times, thus by setting appropriate puls times in the server. That way, we still have our preset positions, but can still fine adjust it to approx. 10cm. I prepared Sub-SPLs accomplishing that, so we can use 2:1 or 2.2:1 anytime without special arrangements. So we always fill the screen vertically. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Peter Lee Film Handler Posts: 4 From: Bryn Mawr, PA, USA Registered: Jul 2017 posted 08-10-2017 11:31 AM                     I went to an AMC Dolby Cinema show that has a screen with scope dimension and they showed it window-boxed rather than zoomed as the projectionist letter instructed. When I went outside to guest services desk, the projectionist on duty was there so I got to chatting with him why he hadn't zoomed the image. After some vague replies, he said his hands were tied because AMC policy forbid him from zooming the picture because it would violate a clause in the IMAX licensing agreement that requires the IMAX room to have the biggest picture at the complex. At this location, the Dolby Cinema screen is physically larger than the one in the IMAX room so the way to ensure the IMAX image was the biggest was not to zoom the Dolby Cinema movie. The projectionist said the no-zoom policy only applied to movies in a flat container - scope pics could continue to be projected using the full dimensions of the screen. He said this clause hadn't been enforced in the past but IMAX people noticed it wasn't being followed when they were on site during recent renovations of the IMAX room. The projectionist said the most recent Transformers movie was also shown window-boxed because of the IMAX clause.  |  IP: Logged Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 08-10-2017 01:48 PM                     Strangulation courtesy LieMax.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-11-2017 06:45 PM                     quote: Peter Lee he said his hands were tied because AMC policy forbid him from zooming the picture I would call it that AMC has a policy for personnel to leave system and location adjustments alone unless authorized and trained by home office. He was covering his bases by passing the buck to an obvious source. He definitely told you a good story to believe in. I've been there before when patrons comes in with apparent knowledge of how things work and, to them, how it supposed to work. I tell good stories also so it doesn't put me and the company I work for in target range.  |  IP: Logged Peter Lee Film Handler Posts: 4 From: Bryn Mawr, PA, USA Registered: Jul 2017 posted 08-11-2017 09:22 PM                     Well, I don't really see the need or incentive to spin such an elaborate story - he could have said he wasn't allowed and left it at that. Nor do I see how the story effectively passes the buck to IMAX. In my mind, responsibility for the clause is equally shared, IMAX did not hold a gun to AMC's head, they were both sophisticated parties who negotiated and agreed to it. In any case, I made some inquiries with folks I know within AMC afterwards and they confirmed it. They were reluctant to acknowledge the clause's existence and absolutely unwilling to discuss it but it's quite real, unfortunately. I'd be curious to know more if others could dig up more details about its parameters.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.