|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: A New Low in Presentation Standards
|
|
|
Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015
|
posted 01-01-2017 01:52 AM
Well it's all true and it's my business, I'm on the creative side of things and 4k is not a big deal at all. I work with Red Code, Pro Res XQ, Cinema DNG and Intraframe MPEG on a weekly basis, all of them in 4k workflows. Now my clients only need 1080p versions, but due to the ability to zoom up images and the higher color space of using the original files, I generally finish at the full resolution. Then I will down-res to match whatever the clients delivery requirements are.
This is the same workflow EVERYONE in the studio system uses. They don't convert the camera raw to 2k... no, they edit the show in a low-res proxy format. They take the project import it into DaVinci or equivalent software for finishing. They link to the original camera media which is in most cases 4k or above. They do all the finishing in that resolution. They give the effects houses colored camera original (and size) files to work with and the effects houses give them back exactly the same format they give to them in the first place. Once the whole show is complied and all the effects shots are replaced, they will export to the settings the studio requires.
This is how things are normally done. Yes I've been part of post production on many shows that shot on Alexa in 3.2k and they finished in 2k because in doing so, they fill-in the missing color information from the bayer pattern. Alexa shows are almost entirely finished in 2k as a result of this small issue. However, Red shows are always finished in 4k because the camera can't shoot less then 4k without cropping the imager. Same goes for the Sony F65 and even the new Alexa 65. Almost every digital movie made is shot with one of those 4 cameras; Alexa XT (3.2k), Alexa 65 (6k), Sony F65 (4k) or Red Dragon (6k).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-01-2017 06:06 AM
quote: Leo Enticknap
I played that Carmen Jones DCP at AFI last month. The DCP transfer is really merciless to the shortcomings of very early CinemaScope: grainy as hell and even medium close-ups have the mumps really badly.
Leo, it was certainly grainy, but I was surprised at how good the colour looked.
Interesting that you should mention the mumps. The BFI could not supply a trailer, and the several copies on Youtube were all terrible, so I went to HMV and bought the Blu-Ray. This had a somewhat better copy of the trailer, only SD, but the best that I could find. I keep a caption on the server to show before such 'bad' trailers, as we sometimes have to use for old films. The HD video of the film itself looked much better, in fact not a great deal different to the DCP unless you looked closely. Both showed signs of 'mumps', presumably they would both have been derived from the same digital transfer from film elements. However, the trailer looked much worse. Did they digitally distort the new trailer somewhat to reduce the 'mumps' effect? It would be interesting to overlay the same still frame from the trailer and the new trailer of the film.
The sound was a bit disappointing, but reasonable for its age; at least unlike an original Cinemascope print probably would have it didn't have 12 KHz tone.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler
Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 01-01-2017 11:16 AM
quote: Bill Brandenstein
Let me address Daniels's very reasonable complaint. It appears that screens 1 and 14 (the massive, balcony-equipped ones at the front left and right of the complex) have incorrect lenses. The screens are very large, the throw is modest, and the picture indeed doesn't quite fill the edges. That's just stupid. The ads are shown full-screen, then masking drops and the Rogue One scope image uses the bottom portion, meaning that the bottom corners "smile." But at least the masking is there and adjusts.
I was in one of the small auditoriums, and there was no masking at all. The screen was of modest size, as was the throw distance. I really want to like this theater, as I agree with you that their spending the money to put in Atmos on every screen and dual laser projectors suggests an intention to do right by the audience - which is why my experience with the image not filling the screen was so frustrating.
quote: Bill Brandenstein
However, to be fair Daniel, I'd love to know where you consistently enjoy going for movies. Arclight? Do you really think Arclight's images look as good as AMC Universal's lasers?
I used to like Arclight Hollywood, but it has gone *way* downhill over the years. I've been dividing my time pretty equally between the TCL Chinese IMAX, the Dolby Cinema screens at AMC Burbank or AMC Century City, the Village in Westwood (probably my favorite venue, as it is a huge non-stadium house with a huge, properly masked 'Scope screen and Dolby Atmos), and Arclight Hollywood for run-of-the-mill releases.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-01-2017 10:05 PM
quote: Brad Miller
Really the same thing could have been done with film, and was on occasion. Case in point everyone remember the Wizard of Oz reissue where most prints were 1.33 within a 1.85 "container" (to use digital lingo)?
Point taken, though with film, presenting a non-standard (as in, not 1.85 or 'scope) aspect ratio involved either the theater spending serious money (investing in a lens and plate for the desired ratio) or the distributor (creating pillarboxed prints, as you note, and which happened quite a bit in the '90s, e.g. with The Blair Witch Project and the Dogma 95 movies).
With a DCP, you don't need to spend that up-front money to avoid cropping the picture, but just because you can get the aspect ratio right in the DCP doesn't mean that the theater it goes to can mask the screen properly, or avoid presenting an unacceptably small image. If you want to be able to do the full range of ratios from 1.19 to 2.79 with an acceptable picture size, you need a native screen ratio of around 2.20 and adjustable masking on all four sides, which only a tiny handful of theaters are in a position to invest in.
quote: Stephen Furley
I keep a caption on the server to show before such 'bad' trailers, as we sometimes have to use for old films.
An excellent idea, which I fully intend to rip off - thanks Stephen! We do sometimes have to make DCP trailers for more obscure titles from less than ideal sources (including, very occasionally, ripped from YouTube), and so a snipe like that would be a good idea.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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