Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Five formats in one program

This is topic Five formats in one program 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=010019

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-10-2009, 02:58 AM:

Thank goodness for a versatile automation. We are running My Sister's Keeper with two trailers and (as John Wilson advised) an attached trailer.
First trailer is for a Scope feature and it is letterboxed flat. Next trailer is for a Scope feature and it is 1.85 flat.
Attached trailer is for a flat feature and requires a lens change coz it is anamorphic. Trouble is the 10 second classification tag preceding it is Scope 2.35. So we compromise and leave the masking in till the Scope feature starts. This means that the tag info is contained ok within the masking but the rest of the tag image provides a yellow splash on the masking. It doesn't look good but I decided it would look silly if we went to full screen for the tag then closed masking for the trailer then opened up for the feature.
How do constant width cinemas cope with this situation?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-10-2009, 03:08 AM:

quote: Ron Curran
Attached trailer is for a flat feature and requires a lens change coz it is anamorphic

Interesting that the attached trailer needs a lens change...being that the feature is in scope. It should be formatted for the scope lens as well.

quote: Ron Curran
Trouble is the 10 second classification tag preceding it is Scope 2.35. ..

splice in the classification tag after the attached trailer to match the feature's ratio.

Thus, you'll have a better opening presentation that way ..

In all due actuality, any policy tags should be after your trailer paks - it should separate the trailers from the feature.

-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-10-2009, 03:16 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Interesting that the attached trailer needs a lens change

He didn't say that.

I find it amazing that they can't just blow the flat versions of the scope trailers up to fill the frame. Obviously there would be SOME trailers that would not work for, but come on. How prescious is your movie that you'd prefer an abundance of black top and bottom to a full frame image? Same goes for Scope versions of a flat trailer where it's 'pillarboxed' Fill the damn frame for goodness sake.

Just dumb and I wish they would stop it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2009, 03:53 AM:

quote: John Wilson
Fill the damn frame for goodness sake.

So, how do you watch DVDs on your 4:3 TV? Go for the pan and scan?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-10-2009, 04:07 AM:

I'm not talking about the movie, just the trailers. We never had this issue before TITANIC came out it seems. Fox brought out that great trailer for TITANIC in scope only here. Then when they found out there were locations not playing them because they were in scope they shot out the flat version in letterbox format.

It's never been the same since. [thumbsdown]

They managed for years to have scope movies' trailer fill the flat frame. Seems to me they've simply taken the easy road instead of having to 'scan' a problem scene to make it fit. Right now I'm looking at a trailer for some slop called 'Charlie And Boots' with Paul Hogan. It's letterboxed and I can't see a single frame on the trailer that justifies it being letterboxed. There's miles of image there that would be better served not being there instead of having to put up with letterboxing black.

I'm not saying ALL trailers should do this, but come on. Does EVERY trailer need to be letterboxed? I seriously doubt it. [puke]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-10-2009, 08:21 AM:

Sadly, I have the impression that Somebody Out There actually believes that people like black bars, and think they are an indicator of something good.

I keep saying we should get a "letterboxed" lens that's longer than our flat lens exclusively for the purpose of blowing up these letterboxed flat trailers so they fill the height properly...Somebody's old cokebottle...

--jhawk

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2009, 09:29 AM:

Psssst...you meant "shorter" lens for blowing the image up.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-10-2009, 09:34 AM:

Indeed, indeed, thanks.

(With a longer lens we could make all films windowboxed! Sadly
some fools might like that. )

--jhawk

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-10-2009, 11:30 AM:

My inner geek-nerd wants scope source material to be letterboxed when projected flat, whether it needs it or not. [Wink]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-10-2009, 11:52 AM:

I actually agree. If it is letterboxed on the film, then letterbox it on the screen. But what I think John is saying is to merely magnify the whole image so that it is shown in on the "scope" screen.

Steve

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-10-2009, 04:56 PM:

I agree with that. Flat is crappy enough without blowing it up further.

No, indeed I mean blow it up to fill the 1.85 frame or blow the 1.85 image up to fill the scope frame.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-10-2009, 07:41 PM:

The other rotten thing about letterboxed trailers is this: If we have an all-flat program, I feel that some of the audience will assume that the letterbox image indicates how our Scope features will be presented.
Just to clarify: the classification tag is legally required to run before the trailer. One thing I could do is attach a flat tag (for the following trailer) to the end of the flat trailer then do a lens change after that then open the masking for the feature.
As for Flat trailers filling the Scope screen, I remember Saving Private Ryan had such a trailer specially produced. However, as a customer, I would be disappointed if I saw the feature was flat after seeing a Scope trailer.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-11-2009, 11:48 AM:

Digital will fix all this.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-11-2009, 03:45 PM:

Right. Features are now to be letterboxed. [Mad]

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 08-12-2009, 06:14 PM:

Scope films in IMAX Digital are letterboxed.
I hate scope trailers and prefer letterboxed ones anyday.
Only the feature should be in scope.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-12-2009, 06:29 PM:

I've noticed that the letter/pillarboxing on many scope trailers for flat movies really show off how bad the keystoning is in many auditoriums these days. It's pretty bad. I am surprised such keystoning is found acceptable. It would NEVER be that acceptable in digital video, but I guess for film keystoning is OK. Is video more professional?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-12-2009, 07:53 PM:

quote: John Koutsoumis
I hate scope trailers and prefer letterboxed ones anyday.

But would you rather see a flat letterboxed trailer or a full-frame version?

Currently the flat trailers for Beautiful Kate and Fame are full frame even though the features are scope. [thumbsup]

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 08-13-2009, 12:14 AM:

Yes John or would rather see them full frame as is the case with Beautiful Kate and also Disgrace. The flat full frame trailer for Disgrace looked amazing and very sharp [Cool]

.
I was very dissapointed when we got our feature print having seen the top optical quality of the trailer.
I just think it's better presentation to not have scope trailers especially when the feature is flat or it has to change back to flat for another trailer or final ad then back to scope again.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 08-13-2009, 12:29 AM:

I agree with you there. I don't run Scope trailers on a flat feature. My screens only get bigger as the session progresses, not smaller.

If they only supply a scope trailer, it will only be played on a scope film, otherwise it stays in the can.

Ironically, I have G-Force scope trailers on 35mm (No flat trailers on this title) yet will be playing the movie in flat in digital.

Go figure.

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 08-13-2009, 12:41 AM:

Scope trailers only on scope features, you build to the biggest screen size. Only very rare exceptions for me.

Letterboxed trailers look crap, especially on a drive-in screen where the image floats withscreen visible on sides and top/bottom!

Back in my GU days we'd go w/s to scope to 70mm with the screen getting bigger all the time. In those daysthe aspect ratios were spot on. with the top masking raising from scope 2.34:1 to 70mm 2.2:1. Those were the days. No letterboxing ever!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2009, 02:46 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I am surprised such keystoning is found acceptable. It would NEVER be that acceptable in digital video, but I guess for film keystoning is OK. Is video more professional?

No....not at all. With film, yah, the keystoning presents a geometric distortion that is quite acceptable to the human eye. We normally correct for geometric distortion in real life all the time -- it's natural for us to see things in distorted perspective anytime we are looking at anything not dead on. Stand at an angle to anything and you are seeing geometric distortion and it is perfectly natural, in fact, it helps us calculate distances. So the film keystoning that we see in film projection is natural. Sure, we want the edges of the image to be parallel for aesthetic purposes so we square them off via aperture cuts and screen masking, but the geometeric distortion that remains in the image is perfectly natural and it bothers NO ONE.

But digital, on the other hand is UNNATURAL. A digital projector replaces a 35mm projector and the angle to the screen is just the same as it was for the 35mm projector, but for some reason, there seems to be this distorted notion that it must be corrected for, not they way it is done in film, i.e., masking and aperture cuts, but by digital manipulation. They seem to have no compuction about digitally manipulating the entire image to correct for the angle of the throw. Result, the ability to get a perfectly square image when it hits the screen (even thought the natural law of optics says at that angle the picture SHOULD have keystone distortion. But the method of getting that squared off image when it hits the screen with no need for corrective masking is to transpose pixel after pixel to correct for the geometric error. And that artifical messing around with interpolating pixels introduces resolution anomolies that degrade the picture quality. So digital gives you nice right angles when the picture hits the screen and which no one really gives a rats ass about at the cost of less image quality.

So digital is happy to compromise image resolution and quality just to give you nice parallel geometry by messing around with the pixals. So you tell me, which is more professional?

Rule of thumb should always be, the less digital correction the better -- compensate for the keystoning the exact same way is done in film -- masking and aperture cuts in the projector while keeping NATIVE pixal construction.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-13-2009, 05:42 AM:

Actually, Frank, You'll be happy to know that in DCinema...they don't allow digital keystone correction...only "masking" which cuts off pixels just as an aperture plate would.

However, consider this, in a multi projector installation...particularly when two film projectors were already present...the digital projector is off to the side. All is okay until you run something with subtitles...then you would beg for digital keystone correction to keep the subtitles from looking quite keystoned or possibly from being cut off because the subtitles didn't adhere to the "safe title area" (which is 20% in).

Digital Keystone correction is but one tool...it definitely is not the best tool in all situations but it definitely should be available to deal with some extreme cases when physical lens shift will not or possibly introduce worse artifacts.

So you Sony guys...why no lateral lens shift on your R220s?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-13-2009, 08:00 AM:

Subtitles are embedded in the image in DCI files? Wouldn't it make more sense to store them as separate data files (thus avoiding re-authoring the DCI files for different regions) and have the projector generate the title characters and key them over the image? That would allow the use of digital keystone correction for the subtitles, without affecting the image. (Which means that there is still an issue with regular titles and credits, but it still seems like a better option than embedding the subtitles in the image file.)

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-13-2009, 08:12 AM:

You're kidding, right, Scott?

In the first place, I don't think you're going to find any existing projectors that support the idea of overlaying two sources, much less doing keystone correction on one of them but not the other. Or DCI servers, even, if the encryption protocol would let them tamper with the image [does it?].

In the second place, every film subtitled uses different fonts and effects, and some of them seem to put an awful lot of care into it (for every one of those, there are 10 that don't, of course). Care to make sure the letters are readable on dark and bright scenes both. Or misplaced care to add stuff like shadows behind the letters making them impossible to read or focus on or both. It's hard to imagine that anyone would go to the trouble to build a subsystem to support downloadable fonts and all the crap that would be necessary to make that look good as a keystone-corrected overlay.

But watch me eat my hat.

I do wonder why Frank is so opposed to digital keystone correction. Unfortunately it loses half of your resolution (or something?), so in a perfect world, you shouldn't do it on a 2K image without a 4K projector, or a 4K image without an 8K projector. But ignoring that immense huge practical limitation, it seems like a fine thing to me.

Steve: Surely they want you to machine the lens mount yourself! Or turn the projector on its side and then put on sideways BNC tees on the HD-SDI connectors. [I suppose DCinema probably doesn't use BNC connectors for the encrypted data path... ]

--jhawk

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-13-2009, 11:27 AM:

Frank, it bothers ME. It looks bad when any lines or objects that are supposed to be straight are on screen and curved outward like the Atari logo. You are 100% wrong when you say it bothers no one. I see lots of pictures of ancient cinemas with the projectors at extreme downward angles. What shitty cinemas they must be. Oooooh, but they have a stage and a curtain, so they MUST be special!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-13-2009, 01:34 PM:

jhawk--I'm actually dead serious. It has been a while since I looked at the DCI spec, but this is something that really should have been allowed for in the beginning. As mentioned above, the D-cinema projector is likely to be off-center with respect to the screen, which makes this even more necessary than it is with film.

Obviously, it wouldn't work for films that use fancy typography in their subtitles, but most of what shows up now are regular laser-subtitled prints from LVT or Titra-Film, so a separate subtitle file would work fine if there are a couple of standard typefaces that could be used. The current sans-serif typeface that is normally seen (white with black outlines) on the laser-subtitled prints is really quite good as far as readability is concerned.

CPU cycles are cheap now, so I don't see why it would be too hard to digitally warp the (generated) subtitle image and key it over the primary image. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the math behind this (Evans?) could chime in here.

I love film as much as anyone, but subtitling is an area where digital projection would have clear benefits.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2009, 01:57 PM:

Joe, you would not have liked any process with deeply curved screens. And they had curtains too. Yuck.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-13-2009, 03:46 PM:

Now that humanity is coming out of the CRT television era, I think distortion will be less and less tolerated... but then again people stretch 4:3 images to 16:9 and love it so I guess I'll never win.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-13-2009, 05:20 PM:

Yah, but you are still hella sexy, so who cares if you don't win?!

I don't know what I hate more, the sets that stretch linearly so EVERYTHING is stretched the same amount, or the ones that do this thing were the center is kinda normal while the sides get the shit stretched out of them, so when there is any panning across the screen, it looks like you are looking thru a fisheye barrel lens. When I pointed this out to my friend about his set and him setting it to that "mode," and asked him he if he would just take out a gun and shoot me right then and there rather than have to watch an evening of tv like that, he actually claimed that he didn't see what I was talking about. So not only doesn't it bother them, they can't even SEE it when you point it out to them. Makes you wonder why we spend half our lives tweaking ANYTHING.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 01-30-2010, 09:55 PM:

We were showing Where the Wild Things Are (Scope) and the attached trailer was Bran Nue Day (flat 1.85) but with a Scope classification tag printed on front.
What was the lab thinking?

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 02-06-2010, 01:03 PM:

Scott, in DCI, the subtitles are a separate file; the projector renders them onscreen, not the server.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-06-2010, 01:10 PM:

quote: John Wilson
I'm not saying ALL trailers should do this, but come on. Does EVERY trailer need to be letterboxed?

With D-cinema your wish can become a reality on flat films by merely only programming scope trailers. [Razz]