This is topic Is masking not 'cool' anymore? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006259

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-09-2004, 06:47 PM:
 
aka I don't expect to see letterboxing at cinemas.

What's with these new cinemas who don't have masking installed?

Can someone explain to them that masking is good!

The first maskingless cinema I went to had all 2.35:1 screen. Not so bad, scope movies filled the screen, flat movies are projected onto the centre of the screen not quiet filling the width. The edges are a bit blurred but what the hey. (Although sometimes the right side would have a nice sharp edge, achieved by slightly over cutting the aperture plate).

Today I went to see a scope movie at a maskingless cinema. (So it'll fill the screen I'm assuming.)
Turns out this small auditorium has a 1.85:1 screen. The film is presented letterbox in the middle. I'll wait and rent the DVD if I want to see letterbox! (Also seemed to be slightly cropped. It looked like 2:1 not 2.35 and the cue dots were falling off the side of the screen)

Letterboxing in a cinema. It's ok for the occasional trailer, but for a whole feature?

If your going to insist on having common width for both formats at least get some top/bottom masking.
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-09-2004, 07:23 PM:
 
Only one local cinema (UGC) is currently maskingless, their screens are 2.35:1 with no moving masking (even their scope films don't always touch the masking on all four sides, and I have seen them project subtitles onto the bottom {fixed} masking).

All the 1.85:1 sites I have seen have top masking and the picture is at the bottom of the screen, in some screens the picture is so over-enlarged that scope films are watchable.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-09-2004, 07:39 PM:
 
That's what you get for living in England. It's punishment for what you did to those peeps in Braveheart.[av=m]
 

---

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-09-2004, 11:25 PM:
 
Political, banned.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-09-2004, 11:51 PM:
 
THat is not as bad as multiplexes showing 2.35:1 movies on screens that are obviosuly closeer to 2:1 or some ratio. I watched the end of kill bill2 again in some multiplex after getting out of my movie. The end credits where all 5 or 6 of Oren's bodyguards show up in split screens clearly shows that the image didn't fit on the screen. Parts of two bodyguards on either end of the frame were cut off.
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 06-10-2004, 12:19 AM:
 
where did you see this in KB2, I have seen the same thing around your area....
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-10-2004, 03:58 AM:
 
It`s also what you get for living in the US. Tons of cinemas here are cropped to 1:2, especially most of the Edwards locations. Unfortunately, we have a few of those... Resetting them to true formats is one of my favorite projects but I have always had more urgent things to do so far.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-10-2004, 09:06 AM:
 
Caring About Composition:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:

---

Movies Are an Art Form and One Size Does Not Fit All

Unfortunately, many theatres have adopted the policy of "fixed masking" for some of their screens: all movies are shown with the same size image by cropping the sides of the wide 2.39:1 scope frame, and the top and bottom of the 1.85:1 flat frame.

Aside from the aesthetics, "one size fits all" screens degrade the image quality of the flat format by requiring excessive magnification of the frame to fill the screen. Grain and unsteadiness are magnified. Cropping the height of the image not only throws away important image area, it also throws away light. For example, reducing the standard 0.446-inch height of the 1.85:1 flat format to 0.412 inches in order to fit a 2.00:1 screen decreases the image area and available light by almost 8 percent.

Let's be frank: the main reason for this "one size fits all" mentality is to save money by not installing adjustable masking. Another poor reason may be to save a bit on the cost the screen and its frame. In my humble opinion, only historic "landmark" theatres with fixed narrow prosceniums built before the advent of CinemaScope have any legitimate excuse for not installing a screen able to provide a large scope image with the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio intended by filmmakers.

---

 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-10-2004, 09:29 AM:
 
Hey, at least you're seeing the whole picture. Not like at a Cobb Jobb where the smaller theaters crop everything to 1.85. The screens went almost from floor to cieling, and would be more than ample to have top/bottom masking. Hell, some of these auditoriums were actually WIDE enough to have side-masking and still have the picture a good size... but no.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Alexander Smith (Member # 1769) on 06-10-2004, 07:42 PM:
 
I'm glad to say there is correct masking to 1.85 and 2.35 at my place of work.

I have witnessed a masking-less cinema; The UCI Printworks in Manchester.
[That's Manchester, in the UK, for international readers ;-) ]

It does look quite lazy, compared to cinemas with proper masking. It's a
shame because it is the one thing that spoils an otherwise good cinema.
I'm biased slightly because it's my nearest IMAX...

Alex.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-10-2004, 08:14 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Procyk

---

Not like at a Cobb Jobb where the smaller theaters crop everything to 1.85.

---

Shouldn`t that be Crobb Jobb then?
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 06-10-2004, 09:42 PM:
 
No...it should be Crop Job (or Crap Job)
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 06-12-2004, 11:50 AM:
 
The trend seems to be more and more towards the "floating screen" effect. I think this thinking originated in Europe...I don't agree that it works though.

Apart from looking poor, the concern must also be with the apparent contrast when whichever ratio that doesn't fill the screen is not masked off. If you consider that the film is graded and viewed on masked screens, then theatrical projection should follow suit.

Common width screen set-ups, with Scope fitted into the 1.85 area should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (e.g where a site is restricted and the auditorium cannot be made wider or shorter)...there's much valuable discussion of the drawbacks in the archives.

Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories also wrote an excellent paper on the subject - "Screen Size - the Impact on Picture and Sound" - it's on Dolby's website.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-12-2004, 12:24 PM:
 
Most of my sales of screen material on projects we did not supervise has been on floating / wrap around frames. On common width rooms we usually found ourselves having to prove to a customer to at least install top making so as not to have a horrible scope presentation on the screen. The cost of a non-masked wrap around frame is so much higher that a more simple angle iron frame and masking system can price out to be near the same cost
 

---

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 06-12-2004, 02:20 PM:
 
A belated greetings to all from Cambridge

Floating screens are not a new innovation here in the UK. Erno Goldfinger's (yes his real name) Odeon at the Elephant and Castle, designed in 1965, had a floating screen, as did the Odeon St. Martin's Lane in 1967. The latter was then retrofitted with tableaux curtains at a later date.

With kind wishes

David
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-12-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
Didn't the 'Telekinema' at the Festival of Britain also have something similar.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-12-2004, 08:59 PM:
 
I personally think that any theater that shows movie in the wrong aspect ratio without warning the customer should be liable for a class action lawsuit. We got warnings for much more trivial stuff. How freaking tough is to put up a notice that certain theater numbers are not capable of displaying the right aspect ratio? Many times, I have talked to clueless managers who flat out tell me in a condescending manner that they are maintaining the exact aspect ratio when I can see the titles get cut off at the edges.

Even some TV stations say that the program you are about to watch is edited for time or to fit your tv screen.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-12-2004, 09:52 PM:
 
Well, I think you may be taking too extreme a view of this.

All theatres don't have digital sound. Nobody's suggesting a class-action suit, even if you have NO noise reduction. Many people don't even know.

All theatres aren't appropriate for stereo in the first place... many still have single speaker systems. Probably won't be seeing class-action suits there, either.

Owner morals aside, not all buildings are able to put up a 2.39:1 screen. Matter of fact, not all tv stations really do say that a picture has been formatted for television... mainly because any film that isn't letterboxed to one extent or another IS formatted for TV.

Fanatics could take argument all the way to whether a screen was being illuminated to 16fL... or whether the booth's lenses were state-of-the-art enough to put the best possible image on the screen...

...it ain't a perfect world out there... nor do all patrons see or hear things the same way.

...tis life!
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-13-2004, 12:01 AM:
 
Wrong jack. if a theater advertised digital sound in a hall and they knew digital sound was not even possible , then that is fraud. Same with aspect ratios. Besides, on tv , people generally expect pan and scan even without disclaimers. But in a theater, people assume the whole frame is being shown. It is not as clear what the aspect ratio is. I dont have the tools to conveniently monitor for myself if a screen is 2:1 or 2.35:1.

Now if the open mattes were removed to show the image in 2:1 , you wont' get much of a complaint from me. But for scope movies, NO way. Don't charge me 6.50 for a freaking matinee if I am not even going to be able to watch it in its entire aspect ratio on top of the expected downfalls of watching it in a small theater - like the screen size and the probably non digital sound. At least, put a disclaimer somewhere in the theater. There are disclaimers for so many things these days. Or at the very least, the manager should be able to answer that question for me when someone like me asks. So far, I have been unable to get a single manager to admit any failings.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 06-13-2004, 12:27 AM:
 
There's always the possibility of walking out as soon as the feature starts (or whenever you realise that the screen is incorrect) and getting a refund. If you stay and watch the whole movie you're effectivly accepting the conditions. I'm not sure legal action is the answer, because really - are you going for damages? All you should be after is your $6.50 back, which can more easily be obtained at the box office rather than the court room.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-13-2004, 02:20 AM:
 
What the theater has done is ruin my evening. If I were to choose between two multiplexes, and one happens to show it at the correct aspect ratio, but i choose the other one, then i wasted my evening because it is too late to go to the other multiplex. Saying that I have the right to walk out is obvious. What I am complaining about is when I call the theater, the manager should be able to level with me if the correct aspect ratio is being shown in a certain auditorium.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 06-13-2004, 05:43 PM:
 
But I think it goes back to explaining why the aspect ratio is important, and is part of the artistic process.

Talking to managers and saying, "this film should be shown in 1:2.39, not 1:2" is a waste of time, not because they are not interested, but because it is meaningless to people who are not Projectionists. You might as well be talking Greek!

Unfortunately in this age of the "bottom line" I guess we also have to find new ways of explaining the concept.

How do we relate the aspect ratio to the cashflow I wonder? Could you argue that cropping the image will lead to say, a 30% reduction in the box office take?
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-15-2004, 10:16 AM:
 
I used to make a lot of posts complaining about the "Cobb Jobb" (I like that!) where in the small auditoriums, everything was cropped to 1.85:1. Regal fixed those here in Huntsville (and from what I hear, in other theatres they acquired from Cobb as well). They appeared to finish it up around March 2003. It's nice to at least know the entire image is being shown, even if scope is smaller than flat. There was really no other way to fix that problem in those 28-foot auditoriums with very high ceilings.

Last night, I saw an example of how Regal is doing something stupid that is probably going to get customers that aren't aspect-ratio knowledgeable to complain. Regal Hollywood 18 now has this thing called "The 20". From the front row of the stadium section (probably more than a "flat" screen height away), the pixels from this digitalally-projected 20 minutes of one commercial after another are very obvious -- distractingly so. It runs at the "flat" aspect ratio.

So what does Regal do? They open the masking for flat in the small auditoriums and if the movie is scope, the audience sees the screen get smaller for the movie (masking comes down from the top and up from the bottom). Before the stupid "The 20" thing, they just had the screen setup properly for scope to start with, so the audience never saw the screen shrink.

The digital projector needs to be setup to fit either screen format and a much higher resolution needs to be used.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 06-15-2004, 10:33 AM:
 
When I go to the movies and anything is wrong with the presentation at all, whether it be aspect ratio, digital sound, scratches, room temperature, seat location, I always file a lawsuit against that theater. I will make sure they never do that again. As of this post, there is only one theater left in Corpus Christi, since I have sued the others so many times, they were forced to close. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-15-2004, 12:56 PM:
 
"So what does Regal do? They open the masking for flat in the small auditoriums and if the movie is scope, the audience sees the screen get smaller for the movie (masking comes down from the top and up from the bottom). Before the stupid "The 20" thing, they just had the screen setup properly for scope to start with, so the audience never saw the screen shrink."

Yep, they made me start doing that at the one I worked at for the slides- I was so against this that I left (not the only reason, but this was the final straw.) Never mind that many of the slides were outdated, they wanted them on the "biggest screen possible." (They had no concern over giving the movies the best presentation possible however.) The masking should NEVER move when customers are there to see it, only exception being if you're running a double-feature with both a flat and scope movie, which was the first time I'd seen masking move in a theater. Since top/bottom masking is a compromise as well, you shouldn't let people know that's what you've got! If you don't have it move, only the people who know how this stuff works will notice. I liked the masking on both top and bottom a lot better than most other common-width screens I've seen which just have masking come down from the top- that makes the screen seem like it's positioned too low in the auditoriums.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-15-2004, 01:45 PM:
 
When I worked (past tense!) at a theatre with both top masking and slides, I would always re-center and re-size the image (using the tilt adjustment and zoom lens on the projector) when changing between 1.85 and scope (we didn't have any other formats).

I agree strongly with Jesse's comment that the audience should never see the screen get smaller, though I love seeing the screen get wider between the trailers/short and feature in theatres with side masking (this only really works right in changeover houses).
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 06-15-2004, 03:38 PM:
 
All the top masked cinemas round here show adverts/trailers in flat format so the screen always gets smaller for scope features. One of the sites has the cheek to advertise itself as having "the biggest screens in town" unfortunately it is not possible to sit far enough away in some of these screens to be able to watch a flat film comfortably.

In one cinema there are some seperate "premium" screens with one of the screens interlocked with a "standard" screen. When this happens the standard screen is side masked when the premium screen is top masked (like most of the screens in the complex).

quote: Joe Redifer

---

That's what you get for living in England. It's punishment for what you did to those peeps in Braveheart.

---