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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Solution to expose theaters cheating on aspect ratio (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Solution to expose theaters cheating on aspect ratio Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-12-2002 12:51 PM                     When Cineplex opened their first US Theatre "Beverly Center 14" in Los Angeles. One of the auditoriums seated 75 people. The flat screen was about around 8 feet wide. In the booth you had a sign that said "NO SCOPE". A few years later they added scope to that auditorium. It looked like you were watching a large screen TV for $9.00. Got to love the Beverly Center .  |  IP: Logged Mike Williams Master Film Handler Posts: 255 From: Knoxville, TN Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-12-2002 01:03 PM                     At least they kept the aspect ratio. They could have just as easily cropped the scope image down and charged $9.00.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 12-12-2002 05:38 PM                     Actually, the Beverly Center opened with 14 screens. When they expanded with two large balconied theatres on the roof, the first three closed to make room for the new hallway and stairway leading to the new rooms. (If I remember corectly, the two largest pre-expansion creens sat 140 and 125, both with Dolby Stereo). Eventually Dolby went into all auditoriums, and waterfall curtains were added to all except the NEW theatre 3 (on the main theatre floor), which had red parting curtains. 1 and 2 (new) had waterfall red curtains, all others had new waterfall mauve curtains. Originally, Cineplex Odeon had female floor staff wear matching mauve lipstick. Pretty grotesque, if you ask me. I believe one of the auditoriums actually sat 40.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-12-2002 08:46 PM                     Then you can reach into your pocket and use your coins to "measure" the aperture plates...yes it can be done! Steve  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-13-2002 02:13 PM                        quote: Then you can reach into your pocket and use your coins to "measure" the aperture plates...yes it can be done! I found a WWW site with coin diameters: penny 0.750 inch nickel 0.835 inch dime 0.705 inch quarter 0.955 inch Assuming these are correct, the nickel's diameter is one hundredth of an inch larger than the aperture width of 0.825 inch. Since the height of a scope aperture is 0.690 inch, the dime is just 0.15 inch too big. If a dime will fit in it, it's too large by a slight bit. If the thicknesses (on the average) were known, you could probably figure out a combination of coins when stacked that would give you something that is exactly the right distance (or very close) as well.  |  IP: Logged John Moriarty Film Handler Posts: 50 From: Cambridge, UK Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-13-2002 02:30 PM                     A while ago I remeber seeing a film (not sure which, but seem to remember something about frames from 'adult' films into childrens titles) that pointed out the cue dots to the audience. I wonder could a film (probably not taking itself too seriously) include a scene that made it very obvious if the aspect ratio wasn't right. Perhaps someone on screen could point to and describe things in the edges of the image explaining that if you can't see them then the aspect ratio is wrong. It would have to be mainstream so that the appropriate cinemas show it, and the scene would have to be important enough or well enough known that 'projectionists' couldn't cut it.  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 12-13-2002 02:55 PM                     It was the "Fight Club" from Fox.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-17-2002 10:00 AM                        Remember, standard SMPTE 195 specifies the Projectable Image Area, which is not always the same as the physical dimensions of the aperture because of optical image spread. Image area should be evaluated by projecting a test film like the SMPTE 35-PA (RP 40) Projector Alignment Film, and not simply measuring the hole in the aperture. http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/test_materials/  |  IP: Logged Andrew Lee Film Handler Posts: 99 From: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2002 posted 12-18-2002 12:00 PM                     Excuse my ignorance somewhat, but why do theatres cheat on ratios to begin with. Is it the fact they built flat screens with no movable masking in the first place?  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 12-18-2002 03:34 PM                        Wasn't there some informal discussion at some SMPTE committee meetings to change the artwork of the MPAA Rating tag or trailer tag or studio logos as a framing aid? Couldn't this idea also be used to show onscreen cropping? I envision a rectangle with an outer border that is the projectable image area and an inner border that is 5% in from the defined projectable image area. Does this sound feasible?  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-18-2002 03:57 PM                        quote: Excuse my ignorance somewhat, but why do theatres cheat on ratios to begin with. Is it the fact they built flat screens with no movable masking in the first place? That's precisely the reason in some theatres! They save the money of having to put adjustable drapes on the screens. That's about all they save, since they still have to have 2 lenses and apertures. Cobb Theatres was one chain that did this in many of their smaller auditoriums. For example, 7 of the 8 screens at the now defunct Cobb Cinema 8 here in Huntsville were 2.00:1 (20 feet by 10 feet) with no movable masking. At Hollywood 16 (now 18), when built, only 4 screens had adjustable masking, and at Madison Square 12, only 4 had it. All these screens at these two theatres were 1.85:1-only, with scope cropped 23 percent on the sides. Hell must be about to freeze over, because these screens are currently being upgraded to have movable masking, with proper lenses and apertures! Yes! You read that correctly. 6 of the screens at Hollywood 18 have been upgraded (bringing the total having adjustable masking to 10). 2 of the screens at Madison Square 12 have been upgraded, bringing their adjustable masking total to 6. Other screens are in the process of being upgraded or are being upgraded soon! Major kudos to Regal for fixing this problem that was inherent in the theatres here that were acquired from Cobb. If you live in an area where the theatres were built this way, by all means complain about it. It may take 5 and a half years to get anything done about it, but you never know -- you might actually cause improvements to be made. I've already modified the data on my WWW site to include the improved screens and have removed much of the negativity concerning the problem, since it's being corrected. Evans A Criswell http://hsvmovies.com/  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-18-2002 04:15 PM                     The studios should put something like this at the beginning of the featre! That'd fix their little red wagons!  |  IP: Logged Thomas Procyk Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1842 From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-18-2002 06:05 PM                     I'd like to see that $100 tag on something like "Santa Clause" or "Treasure Planet" and seeing a little 4 year old girl tugging on the managers coat asking for her hundred dollars because she "couldn't read what was in the green". =TMP= P.S. Personally, I can't read what's in the RED! Focus!! Focus!!  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-18-2002 10:04 PM                     Well, it's pretty good for a 12 KB file. I squashed the hell out of it so it would upload faster. Of course, this increases "Mosquito" distortion but I figured the better speed was worth it.  |  IP: Logged Brad Haven Master Film Handler Posts: 300 From: fremantle, West Australia Registered: Aug 2001 posted 12-18-2002 11:04 PM                     On our main screen, for W/S ours is 1.88:1 and our screen dimensions for scope is 8.6 metres wide and 2.64 metres high, can anyone help me with working out the ratio for our scope image? (see edit) Our building was restricted by the council in height(and depth) while building, the cinema is very wide with a low ceiling, seats 334, i guess the original owner wanted to give his customers a larger screen. EDIT : the height measurement doesn't look right, even with my maths abillities! i'll measure it myself on the weekend, sorry!  |  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.