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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially) Steve Moore Expert Film Handler Posts: 211 From: Leeds, West Yorks, UK Registered: Apr 2008 posted 11-23-2014 08:16 AM                     Brad; I think Bugs Bunny's saying in this instance would suit better.. "What an ultra-maroon"  |  IP: Logged Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 11-23-2014 09:03 AM                        I agree with the sentiments and would rather he project in 2.4:1. But let me ask this: Didn't I read somewhere that there a lot of (lousy) theatres that just have 2:1 screens with no masking? (And crop the sides for scope and the top/bottom for flat) Is he playing to the lowest common denominator here?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 11-23-2014 12:03 PM                     The "ultra-maroon" director probably has only been to those crappy new theaters too cheap to put in masking and thinks that's some sort of quality presentation. The industry is not setup for this. It will look bad in 1.85 and it will look bad in 2.40 I'm tempted to just run it in scope and to say the hell with it. I know many of my customers will NOT be happy one bit about letterboxing or pillarboxing and will end up essentially demanding I "fix it" anyway. Perhaps I should just get ahead of the game and setup cropped 2.0 "flat" and cropped 2.0 "scope" formats and then just decide which format the movie plays best in upon a test QC. Like I said, he's a moron.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-23-2014 02:27 PM                        I seem to remember somebody on this forum (not sure who) saying that if you don't have masking and you have a choice, it's better to have the flat picture pillarboxed than it is to have the scope picture letterboxed. I assume it's because the pillarboxing is on the sides of the picture, thus more out of your field of attention. So, I would run it at scope, make it fill the screen top to bottom and let it be pillarboxed a little on the sides.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-23-2014 02:48 PM                     It is all up to how they author it. Since the imager has a native aspect ratio of 1.896:1...the "best" resolution will be letterboxed full-container. So I could see a "C-2.00 designation You could create a special PCF (or input file) that defines the resolution. You'll need a dedicated lens and screen setting for it. I'm sure all of the automated TMS systems out there are all ready for the new format they have chosen. If they are looking for existing DCP compatibility, they have no choice but to use the Scope format since any ratio over 1.896 will be wider than flat and would appear to be a floating image in a 1.85 ratio screen. Thus far, only the 70mm people have tried to use the Flat container to hold a 2.20 image. It does get more pixels on the screen but it also does require a "special" lens setting...special doesn't do so well in the masses.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-23-2014 06:36 PM                     I don't know why they're choosing to shoot in a ratio other than 1.85:1. All the previous movies in this saga were shot flat. Why change? It kind of drives me up the wall when a series of movies changes the aspect ratio from one installment to the next.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-23-2014 07:04 PM                     So, this year alone we had directors with egos that didn't fit in a single aspect ratio, now we have directors with egos that won't fit in a standard aspect ratio. What's next? Directors with egos that don't even fit on a single screen? Hmm... Wait...  |  IP: Logged Sam King Expert Film Handler Posts: 120 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Oct 2006 posted 11-23-2014 07:38 PM                     So is this Sclat or Flope? You decide!  |  IP: Logged Buck Wilson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 894 From: St. Joseph MO, USA Registered: Sep 2010 posted 11-23-2014 10:36 PM                     Well as long as he's comfortable, who cares what it looks like, right?! It'll look SO GOOD cropped on every screen in the country! Just the way the director intended!  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 11-23-2014 11:45 PM                     The new teaser trailer is out, it is a pretty damn good tease... the music from the original is heard  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-24-2014 04:27 AM                        What I think this no-name director is trying to do is make a name for himself. People will see the movie in 2:1 aspect ratio and realize just how brave and wonderful whats-his-name is. In fact, whats-his-name pioneered the new standard format which is nicknamed "comfortable". Now directors no longer need to decide of flat or scope, they can just shoot it comfortably. Everyone wins! Give whats-his-name an award and also hire whats-his-name to direct many more great movies because whats-his-name definitely knows what he's doing. Fame will soon be his and he'll have his handprints in front of the Chinese within a few months at the latest.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-24-2014 09:02 AM                     Yeah, because people remember movies mostly by the aspect ratio they are in. I wonder when the first movie entirely shot on iPhones comes out, entirely composed in 0.56:1! With all the shaky camera "found footage" crap out there, someone must have thought about such an ingenious concept. quote: Just the way the director intended! The only way to see it as the director intended will be in a theater built especially for the movie. You need to set your standards high!  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-24-2014 10:41 AM                        quote: Marcel Birgelen I wonder when the first movie entirely shot on iPhones comes out, entirely composed in 0.56:1! I have actually shown an iPhone video (converted to DCP), in that ratio, on a theater screen. It was of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was to have done a Q & A after a screening of The Terminator, apologizing for wussing out, because he had a cold. No prizes for guessing what he said at the very end of the video... Even upscaled to 2K, it actually didn't look that bad. It was weird seeing such a vast expanse of blank screen either side of it, though. Our masking doesn't go in far enough to mask that picture, so I just left it on 1.85 for the entire evening. I have a vague memory of Sergei Eisenstein once writing something advocating the use of "portrait" format aspect ratios. I don't know of one ever having been used for a feature film, though. But as you say, it's surely only a matter of time before some experimental/arty type tries it.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Wood Expert Film Handler Posts: 206 From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom Registered: Jan 2008 posted 11-24-2014 02:05 PM                     There is a very good practical reason directors choose not to shoot entirely in 65mm and instead opt to shoot some scenes on 35mm and that's running time . If you shoot 1000 foot of 35mm you get around 9mins, whereas in 65mm iits around half that, in other words it's a little kinder on the actors . Especially those (and som e directors for that matter,) who are bought up on digital acquisition where the custom is to keep running until you get what you want or drop , whichever is sooner! To the best of my knowledge the largest available camera magazine still only holds 1000 feet of negative.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 11-24-2014 02:44 PM                     Jonathan, good points. There are a whole bunch of other limitations. 35mm is the best compromise format.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

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.