|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 'The Maze Runner' will be shown in three-screen panoramic format
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-23-2014 12:31 PM
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
Should the standards for an industry be based, not what the technology is capable of in terms of quality of presentation, but on on the perception of the public and on the lowest quality they will tolerate or care about? If that were the case, all the small mulitplex screens could be using 16mm with DTS tracks and the public would be fine with it.
The exhibitor should be the one to decide how high he wants to push his presentation quality based on his economic model, not a standards committee. If he thinks he can get away with lower quality and still make a profit while cheating the public, then that's between him and his customers. But a standards committee should set the highest standards for the digital technology and then let all the other factors sort themselves out in the real world.
Anamorphics allow the entire chip to be used with ALL the pixels displaying the image and much better light throughput to the screen. Sure the lenses are expensive, but they were expensive with scope for film as well. The exhibitor wasn't given a choice with film and he survived. Now he's got a choice but I think the DCI should have been pushing in the direction of using the best of the technology rather than giving its blessing for second best. I'm just sayin...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-23-2014 06:10 PM
quote: Frank Angel
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
Well, that's the commonly accepted truth right there, isn't it?
If they really wanted to be digital to be somewhat equal to 35mm, they would've made 4K mandatory. They would also have included non-square pixels into the specs, with mandatory anamorphics, just like the 1.3K machines had.
The problem was, back in 2005 or so, when this finally came together to something akin a standard, 4K was not entirely there yet, at least not in any affordable form. Still, those studios were driven by the money they potentially could save and companies like Barco were very eager to push into a lucrative new niche.
quote: Manny Knowles
Knowing that they're going to need the home-video market to make a profit, how much important stuff are they really going to put in those side images?
Well, this Maze Runner release apparently has only 5 to 7 minutes of content actually using those side panels. You're spending about $150k+ on this and the first movie already gives you the finger. I've already seen the movie, although not in "Escape", but it was clear to me which scenes were "Escapified".
There are just two short scenes that use it: The Elevator scene right at the start of the movie and an actual "Maze Runner Scene" somewhat at the end of the movie. Both scenes can be easily extended using CGI-only. I guess that was the main requirement, as nobody really shot two extra perspectives on set.
quote: Bobby Henderson
It makes me wonder if the parent global media companies want to spin all this tiresome movie making stuff off to Netflix yet still expect to make even more money.
I've been waiting for the announcement of one of them buying Netflix before their cash runs out or Netflix becomes finally too big to buy. Those big media companies are collectively stuck in the past, others slowly eating their lunch while they keep burning their cash in bundles on b.s. like suing half the world for copyright infringement and schmoozing with corrupt politicians around the globe. We have to wait until one of those massive telcos/cablecos or one of their parents gets into action, further establishing their already stringent grip on the content market.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 09-23-2014 11:23 PM
quote: Frank Angel
So what you are saying is what I was saying, that the DCI committee was writing technical specs not solely for setting a standard for the highest quality of presentation that the technology could achieve, but on economic and political factors such as helping the digital roll-out, which to me is the WORST reason and there again there's the IGE factor (It's Good Enough) -- i.e., everyone bowing at the alter of mediocrity.
The DCI standard was the perfect balance as a good enough alternative to 35mm film presentations. IMO, I do not miss 35mm presentations compared to the consistency of what I know I am getting with DCI. The 99% of the public who pay for movies do not care, a digital presentation is good enough for them.
If I were the one signing the bills, I would not waste my time with anamorphic lenses. As a fan boy I would care if I were getting an anamorphic presentation but unless I am upstairs in the booth, how do I really know? So I do not worry about it.
quote: Frank Angel
If that were the case, all the small mulitplex screens could be using 16mm with DTS tracks and the public would be fine with it.
I believe the Eaton Center in downtown Toronto used to run 16mm, I do remember the theaters being sold out in the early 80s.
quote: Frank Angel
The exhibitor should be the one to decide how high he wants to push his presentation quality based on his economic model, not a standards committee.
Agreed, however if I were paying the bills, I would rather have "good enough" 2K zoom lenses than installing anamorphic lenses across my network that could be 10, 20, 100 or even a 1000 screens.
quote: Frank Angel
Anamorphics allow the entire chip to be used with ALL the pixels displaying the image and much better light throughput to the screen.
True, yes, agreed. However out of the 1000 plus screens that are within 500 miles of me, I have no idea who is running zoom, who is running a fixed lense, or who is running an anamorphic, and I have no idea (aside from IMAX digital) who is running dual projection. Heck I can't even guarantee that the local multiplex near me is really playing a movie in Dolby Atmos ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif) The paying public really does not care.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 09-24-2014 12:29 AM
Bobby, you missed the point. How does one really know for absolute sure that the movie is in Atmos? 4K? Et etc. As it applies to anamorphics, how does one really absolutely super duperly know that the movie is being shown with the full chip/anamorphic lenses? The answer is THEY DON'T. The average paying movie goer really does not know and they do not give a shit.
As for the Atmos comment, don't get so riled up.
On a side note, the Dolby Atmos brand is really going to shit anyway ![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif) , home blu ray and streaming, home processors with 24.1.10 layouts, tablets, cell phones and head phones are on the way. Worst of all are those stupid speakers that bounce Atmos off the ceiling.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-24-2014 06:57 AM
Really? Schneider said that the Schneider lens was better? Did you expect any other answer? Ask someone at the ISCO factory and I'll wager you would get the opposite answer. It is all moot now though...whatever Schneider Anamorphics are out there are all that there will be. The reason I was told by Schneider that the ISCO "won" was due to its wider acceptance of all lenses/ throw ratios. I can tell you that with the ISCO you can get a tack sharp picture corner-to-corner too.
Out of curiosity...how are you swinging the lens in/out of the image? Did you get one of the Christie MALMs from somewhere? Or did you use the MIT mover or did you just come up with your own solution?
As for encoding the image in an anamorphic fashion. I really don't think it was a cost thing...it is was a quality thing. Most "scope" movies were being shot Super-35 to avoid the negative aspects of shooting in anamorphic (lens flares, differing focal planes in each dimension and I'm sure a slew of other reasons that DPs could better express). Once you put some form of scaling in...you are going to to take a hit in the image quality if you just electronically scale it back (e.g. merely apply a .8x squeeze in the vertical for constant width theatres). Remember too, the vast majority of theatres use a constant width screen, at the moment. As such you have a system that is reflective of its day...directors shooting spherical combined with theatres that primarily have 1.85 screens. Mind you, I'm not endorsing this line of thinking...just saying it wasn't necessarily all about cost but actually trying to provide a format that would effectively replicate what would be best for most theatres. If you have a constant width screen the light difference between flat and scope is negligible. With film and constant width, there was no good way to get Flat and Scope to have the same light levels...Scope would always be too bright. The solution...don't put in the stupid constant width screen. Let Scope be what it is...the "BIG" picture with the wide panoramic views.
Note DCI didn't preclude anamorphics in projection. So if you have a constant height screen, anamorphics get you a substantial amount of light back to get Flat and Scope light requirements much closer. It doesn't help in the resolution department, however.
Since DCI seems to be able to rewrite the rules willy-nilly...nothing would stop them from allowing an anamorphic process on the taking side...or perhaps just coming up with a 2.39:1 imager as we move beyond 4K. The sucky thing on the theatre side though is that our light generally starts out as a cone (round) which doesn't go through a rectangle efficiently. Perhaps lasers will help us on that front too.
For sure, at this point in time, anamorphics are the right solution for constant height theatres.
Here is the Christie MALM with an ISCO Anamorphic in front of a Christie CP4230. It is too bad they don't still make the MALM (or an improvement of it).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-24-2014 01:45 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you missed the point. How does one really know for absolute sure that the movie is in Atmos? 4K? Et etc.
I didn't miss any point. I'm just calling you out as a troll whose complaints are nothing short of hypocrisy.
You keep repeating the same old complaints how some Cineplex theaters in the Toronto area are mis-using Dolby Atmos snipes and whining about all kinds of other stuff you think is misleading. Yet you are a shameless FANBOY of IMAX. IMAX is the movie theater industry leader in terms of misleading information. They're guaranteed to pull their same old act of calling anything IMAX when Interstellar is released. They're not going to differentiate whether a theater is showing the movie in 15-perf 70mm fil or HDTV resolution 2K video. I don't expect them to call any differences to theaters equipped with 4K laser projection or regular 2K in the future either. Same goes for sound. They mislead the public into thinking it's all the same. They just stick the "IMAX" name on it and leave it at that.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Exposing misleading advertising, poor marketing, etc. isn't the point of your fake gripes. You're only taking any opportunity you see, no matter how slight or off-topic it may be, to shit on Dolby Atmos. It gets your goat that there are sound processes out there far better than the bullshit currently deployed in your beloved IMAX branded theaters.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As it applies to anamorphics, how does one really absolutely super duperly know that the movie is being shown with the full chip/anamorphic lenses? The answer is THEY DON'T.
Nobody does it correctly. What difference is there whether you know a theater is using an anamorphic setup or not? Current implementations are merely zooming a non-anamorphic image.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The average paying movie goer really does not know and they do not give a shit.
Any professional needs to do his job correctly whether the customer notices it or not. It's not the customer's job to "give a shit", notice or whatever you want to call it. If he is only going to do work based solely on what customers will notice then he needs to find another line of work or just go on welfare or something. Compromise, particularly when it isn't necessary, is unprofessional. IMHO the way 'scope is handled in d-cinema is unprofessional.
quote: Steve Guttag
As for encoding the image in an anamorphic fashion. I really don't think it was a cost thing...it is was a quality thing. Most "scope" movies were being shot Super-35 to avoid the negative aspects of shooting in anamorphic (lens flares, differing focal planes in each dimension and I'm sure a slew of other reasons that DPs could better express). Once you put some form of scaling in...you are going to to take a hit in the image quality if you just electronically scale it back (e.g. merely apply a .8x squeeze in the vertical for constant width theatres).
What I'm talking about is the same principal as how the vast majority of DVDs were encoded. "16x9 enhanced" 'scope DVDs always looked better on HDTV sets than non-anamorphic letter-boxed 'scope DVDs. It didn't matter if the 'scope movie (or "flat" 1.85:1 movie) was filmed with anamorphic or spherical lenses. The imagery had a LOT more native detail encoded onto the disc itself. A TV set only had to un-squeeze an anamorphic DVD in just one direction whereas a non-anamorphic DVD had to be zoomed both in the horizontal and vertical directions. My old, non-anamorphic copies of True Lies and The Abyss: Special Edition are pretty much un-watchable on my new 65" TV set while old 16x9 enhanced DVDs at least look about halfway decent.
In the case of 2K one would squeeze a 2592 X 1080 image into a 2048 X 1080 frame. Then the theater's projector would un-squeeze it by roughly a 1.25x ratio to get it back to 'scope proportions. That's how it should be working rather than taking a smaller, native 2048 X 852 image and blowing it up in odd ways.
A full frame 2K image (2048 X 1080) has 2,211,840 pixels. Current 2K 'scope is 2048 X 852 or 1,744,896 in terms of pixels -466,944 pixels less than an anamorphic full frame 2K image. That's a huge difference in terms of native resolution in the image itself.
Hell, the "flat" format has 2,157,840 pixels, which is still over 400,000 more pixels that non-anamorphic 2K 'scope.
Between the growing number of common width movie theater screens (where 'scope gets to be letter-boxed just like a TV set regardless of how it's projected) and the way 'scope is merely cropped down to a lower resolution image, I see the use of 'scope aspect ratios in movie production falling off big time in the years ahead.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-24-2014 04:00 PM
Educated me? There is NOTHING in any DCP that is anamorphic at all. Any use of anamorphics in current d-cinema setups is kind of like tits on a bull. You gotta have the combination of both anamorphic software and anamorphic hardware for it to be worth a damn (like the combination of a 35mm 'scope film print and a film projector with an anamorphic decompression lens). Right now there's only hardware and so it's just a different method of zooming a low resolution, non-anamorphic image. That's all.
I might be able to buy some arguments about how an anamorphic setup spreads light, but it isn't doing anything to improve 'scope image quality in terms of native resolution. The damned detail isn't there in the DCP. 'Scope is now the lowest resolution format. It sucks. It's going to stay that way until it's treated differently, or "filmmakers" and common width theaters will just transition away from it and make all movies in 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 ratios.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, hold on a second, if I recall correctly, when Warner released The Dark Knight and the The Dark Knight Rises, it was listed on the IMAX.com and Warner Bros.com where the 15/70 locations were.
Think again. IMAX was never forthcoming about that kind of information. Warner Bros. wasn't exactly clear about it either. Movie goers were at the mercy of theaters to denote if they were showing a 15-perf 70mm film print. Many of those theaters didn't bother with those kinds of specifics. Just say "IMAX". That's it. I remember having to call the Cinemark theater in Colorado Springs to verify they were showing The Dark Knight in real IMAX.
WB could have sent out a press release about IMAX prints, but other sources, such as Michael Coate's posts in this forum, have been more reliable. Sites like LF Examiner have been a better source on which theaters still had any 15/70 capability in place. IMAX itself sure as hell wasn't going to be specific about it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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