Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness

This is topic Avatar's Aspect Ratio Craziness 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=010203

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-11-2009, 01:48 PM:

It's being reported in the FITA forum that Avatar will have both a flat and a scope version in DLP and that the theaters are required to figure out which version will get the maximum screen size in each auditorium.

In an effort to keep the chit-chat out of the "no chit-chat" forum... let me be the first to say... "what the hell are they thinking?" I can think of a couple of theaters that will not surprise me in the least if they get this wrong.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-11-2009, 03:13 PM:

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-11-2009, 03:44 PM:

Everyone all together now: "Avatar in a theater with top masking sucks!!!" [Razz]

Posted by Jeremy Spracklen (Member # 18) on 12-11-2009, 04:31 PM:

Wouldn't it just be safer/easier to release it as "full container"?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2009, 04:37 PM:

So will each theater also get flat and scope prints (and by "prints" I mean real, actual 35mm film if any of you guys remember that horseshit) and be forced to play whatever is biggest in any given auditorium? It only seems logical to me.

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 12-11-2009, 05:45 PM:

2D is SCOPE, any version of 3D (be in IMAX or digital) is FLAT. The End. Not all too confusing

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-11-2009, 05:45 PM:

Sam - WRONG! Everyone ignore his post.

Digital prints shown in quality, thoughtfully designed auditoriums with proper side masking will get a scope presentation. Digital prints shown in shitty auditoriums with suck-ass top or scissor masking will be presenting a craptacular flat presentation. Theater complexes with a mixture of masking types will fuck it all up.

Joe, I actually asked that question. All 35mm prints will be in the proper aspect ratio, scope.

Jeremy! OMG!!! JEREMY!!! Your yearly posting! [Smile]

Full container wouldn't work too well because the eyeline of the compositions would then be off. If you look at the special features of the Terminator 2 laserdisc you will see how they frame down for a 16:9 ratio to preserve decent composition.

Wait, did I just say laserdisc? Who am I kidding, nobody has those anymore.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-11-2009, 05:48 PM:

Just me!

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-11-2009, 06:40 PM:

Why can't Cameron just make a NORMAL movie like everyone else?

[bs]

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-11-2009, 07:28 PM:

I still have my T2 laserdisc box set. The one with the silver T2 logo - and a DVL-700 that still works. How many people have the Abyss box set where Cameron calls home video "Crap Vision VHS tape" [Smile]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-11-2009, 07:46 PM:

quote:
I still have my T2 laserdisc box set. The one with the silver T2 logo ... How many people have the Abyss box set where Cameron calls home video "Crap Vision VHS tape"

I also have "the Abyss" LD boxed set in the CAV format...and two copies of "T2", but in the CLV format.."Dang!" finding them cheap in thrift stores....

Yea, just like with Disney's "G-force" having the letterbox, flat version for the 3D release against where the film version was in good ol' anamorphic format....a go-figure thing ...

quote: Jack Theakston
Why can't Cameron just make a NORMAL movie like everyone else?

He did..why you'll see it on DVD and BR for home video..along with tonnage of other cinemas playing the film version.
-Monte

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-11-2009, 09:32 PM:

So then this why Fox called us back in September to find out what type of masking we had on both of our digital screens.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-11-2009, 10:17 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Jeremy! OMG!!! JEREMY!!!

Hey! What's up? [thumbsup]

oh... nevermind

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-12-2009, 01:45 AM:

I was wondering that too, Joe. I think AMC should request all scope movies to be available in flat also since someone over there thought top movable masking was such a fantastic idea.

What's "full container"?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-12-2009, 01:51 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
Why can't Cameron just make a NORMAL movie like everyone else?

Because then he can't hype the film by saying "it is a TOTALLY NEW film experience never seen before" or some such pile of bragerty nonsense that they have been using in the promotion. Oh wait.....I forgot; he can say any total [bs]

he wants in hype, especially when he's king of the effin world and all.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 12-12-2009, 06:09 AM:

I think the movie will do shit in boxoffice. Nowhere near where people expect it to be.
Demetris

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-12-2009, 10:12 AM:

Well, I think is's actually an interesting idea; what's wrong with trying to get the best image on screen? Except, I'd like the idea to be whatever gives the largest image (I think Cameron wants whatever gives the highest quality image.) It's been proven many times the public wants size more than resoultion.

This reminds me a little of when 'Cocoon' came out in 70mm - 1.85. It wasn't hard to figure out, but some service people thought it was too much work.

At this point, I'm glad for almost any consideration from the studios about a theater's image.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-12-2009, 10:45 AM:

quote: John Walsh
what's wrong with trying to get the best image on screen?

In theory anyway, the "best" image will be in the aspect ratio the film was composed for. If the digital versions all maintain the same aspect ratio, then this makes sense (in theory). Otherwise the film is not being shown the way it was intended.

Of course, these days very few films are composed for anything other than television, so what happens on the screen is pretty unimportant.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2009, 12:18 PM:

Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-12-2009, 12:35 PM:

It's entirely possible to compose a shot for multiple aspect ratios (Dark Knight anyone?). I can also attest to the fact that filmmakers have become disillusioned with the small screen sizes in today's "wall-to-wall" multiplexes. They want to create the most immersive experience they can.

BUT here's the problem. How do you maintain quality control in this situation? Beyond the obvious questions of who will make sure the correct version is played on the screen, mid day auditorium swaps, and licensing and ingesting two copies of a single film, there may be more specific issues at each site.

Take the first theater I worked at. 15 screens with a varied assortment of top masking and side to side masking, plus a few auditoriums with both.

Screens 2*, 3, 4, and 5 were all top only masking. In scope, they presented a proper 2.39 ratio, however flat was something that was closer to 1.95. So, for Avatar in this specific theater Scope should be used since a proper 1.85 is not possible.

Auditoriums 7-13 all had a weird combo masking. In flat, the top mask was set all the way up and the sides were drawn in. In scope, the sides were pulled out and the top was lowered. Both formats in these auditoriums are large appearing. So I wonder which they will go with?

*2 recently had installed a silver screen and a non movable side mask. It now has correct AR for both scope and flat.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-12-2009, 12:46 PM:

Demetris, why do you harbor negative feelings about a movie you probably had not seen yet with your negative comment "I think the movie will do shit at the boxoffice"?
It almost sound like you have a deep hatred for James Cameron and his movies.

I must admit I was disappointed AVATAR is not a full live action 3-D movie but I had always planned to see it. The majority of film critics who had seen the film had praised it in their reviews and that is good enough for me.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2009, 12:57 PM:

I'm absolutely certain a lot of d-cinema theaters are going to screw up and show the wrong version of the movie, even if all of their site's auditoriums have only one type of masking.

quote: Mike Olpin
It's entirely possible to compose a shot for multiple aspect ratios (Dark Knight anyone?).

The Dark Knight is not the best example to mention since its IMAX-based footage is the only material where framing for multiple aspect ratios is involved. Most of the movie was shot in anamorphic 35mm, which forces the filmmaker to frame for 2.39:1.

Most Super35 based movies are kinda sorta shot with multiple aspect ratios in mind. They're splitting differences between old 1.33:1 TV, 1.77:1 HDTV and 2.39:1 'scope. In trying to be all things to all ratios the shot compositions often look like a lot of loose, bland crap.

Much more often than not, movies shot in true anamorphic 'scope have more interesting, dynamic shot compositions than movies shot in Super35. Simple as that.

Over the years, James Cameron has proven an exception to the rule. Movies like The Abyss, T2 and True Lies feel more like real 'scope movies even though they were shot in Super35. Hopefully Avatar will maintain that trend. From what I've seen so far in the trailers it looks pretty good.

I'm not too worried about the framing being goofed up at the theater where I see the movie. I'll either watch it here in Lawton at the local Carmike or check it out in Moore at the Warren Moore 14. If the show is good enough I may see it at both places. It might be a good way to see how the RealD and Dolby 3D presentations compare.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2009, 01:06 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm absolutely certain a lot of d-cinema theaters are going to screw up and show the wrong version of the movie, even if all of their site's auditoriums have only one type of masking.

Wrong. Fox is only sending one file/hard drive per auditorium design, so theaters that are all one type of masking can't screw it up. (Well, they CAN, but shouldn't.) Its the multiplexes with both types under one roof that will screw it up.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-12-2009, 01:51 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

And yet the previews being shown on network television are being letterboxed to "scope" width.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2009, 02:00 PM:

Yea, one HDD with both 2D and 3D files on them ... been there before with "G-Force".

And if one isn't too well trained on playlist building can easily build the wrong one if they don't know how to read the files too well.

Then, the mgr accuses of you screwing up the playlist since his film list shows the movie in scope and he notices the system set for 1998 3D flat. You have to, then, correct his dumbass ignorance by telling him that, for some 3D movies, that the movie was formatted for letterbox flat presentations and the film is the one in true scope.

Wish the downstairs "suits" would stay downstairs and leave us who knows what the flip we're doing .. alone. [Mad]

-Monte

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-12-2009, 02:44 PM:

Monte, given what we know about who they have in many plex booths, would YOU trust that monkey if you were a manager?

Multipe composing for mutliple screen aspect ratios isn't a new issue -- it's been around since VistaVision.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-12-2009, 03:51 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Wrong. Fox is only sending one file/hard drive per auditorium design, so theaters that are all one type of masking can't screw it up.

I thought the d-cinema theaters were going to get both 'scope and 'flat files and then figure out the right choice for themselves. At least that's what the original starting post on this topic implied.

If they're sending only the 'scope version to theaters with all side masking and flat to sites with all top masking then that will go a long way to "idiot proof" the presentation. Although, like you said, there are still ways they can goof up the framing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-12-2009, 04:05 PM:

In this industry? Puuleeeeez. If there is a way to screw it up, THEY WILL.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2009, 04:21 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
would YOU trust that monkey if you were a manager?

..never in a minute would I ...I'd make sure that no monkeys exist under my roof.. lol

..but some mgrs love to have them around...

-Monte

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-12-2009, 05:16 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Yes, Cameron wants the largest screen possible. That is what he is doing.

He should take it a step further and say "My scope movie does not play in ANY common-width auditoriums EVER!" That would create far fewer screens that the movie would play on, but it would also increase demand to see it, longer lines (which increases hype) and as a result it would be much more of an "event movie".

quote: Steve Guttag
In this industry? Puuleeeeez. If there is a way to screw it up, THEY WILL.

No shit, right?

Also, what about auditoriums that have side and top masking (or side and scissor masking) leaving the screen real estate approximately the same in both formats?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-12-2009, 09:17 PM:

quote:
He should take it a step further and say "My scope movie does not play in ANY common-width auditoriums EVER!"

I wish he would. This industry needs to quit making those shitty auditoriums.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-12-2009, 09:45 PM:

But he said that he thinks the 3D version looks better in 1.85. Here's his exact quote:

quote:
For AVATAR, we're shooting in a 16:9 ratio. We're extracting a Cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition. And for 3D theatrical exhibition, the theaters that can will be in the 16:9 format, and the theaters that can't will be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I'm actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the 1.85 format, and now saying 1.85, or actually it's 1.78:1, actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2009, 09:52 PM:

...so he's basically targeting this movie for home HD theatre then...since he'll prob bank three times in DVD/BR sales than on tix sales...

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-12-2009, 10:22 PM:

If that's the case, then why would he say that he only likes the flat ratio for 3D, and not 2D?

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-12-2009, 10:30 PM:

I would say it is more to do with digital imax 3D than home technology when he said that. 30% larger image is what he really wants.

What filmmaker wants the screen to shrink as their film starts after the preshow? Thats what would happen in most cinemas here in Australia and the UK! with 1.85 ads etc.

Good on him for giving a rats arse about the presentation [Smile]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-12-2009, 11:54 PM:

I don't understand the knock on top masking? We have top masking in our two smallest auditoriums. The scope picture pretty much goes wall to wall. If we used side masking, the flat picture would be tiny.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-13-2009, 12:04 AM:

I don't understand why poorly designed auditoriums make top masking good.

Now, I know you likely had nothing to do with the room design and are doing with what you got.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-13-2009, 12:58 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
I don't understand the knock on top masking?

Its because traditionally the small intimate films were shot in flat and the epic blockbusters were shot BIG in scope which is wider to fill the periferal vision.

In many wall to wall cinemas, the intimate films loose there compositional qualities as the audience has to now move there heads both left /right and up/down to watch the film in a way that the director never intended nor shot it to be experienced like that.

It is now clear that the inconsistantcy of cinema construction is only now effecting filmmakers and the way films are made. Flat is the new epic [Confused]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-13-2009, 01:29 AM:

Cameron's right.

Traditionally, flat composition was preferred for intimate subjects, dialogue driven stories and comedies and the 'scope ratio preferred for epics, roadshows and outdoor scenery driven stories.

Ever seen a 'scope dialogue-driven show and wondered why every shot is a close up? It is rare that dialogue requires the full 'scope width for dramatic effect whereas the flat ratio enables a more intimate yet uncluttered frame composition. That was the whole point in CinemaScope &tc in the first place.

..and to have a top masking drop down and SHRINK the picture size is just plain cheap'n'nasty apart from negating the whole reason for 'scope in the first place.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-13-2009, 02:42 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
..and to have a top masking drop down and SHRINK the picture size is just plain cheap'n'nasty apart from negating the whole reason for 'scope in the first place.

If the screen already runs wall to wall, it's not like the scope picture could be any bigger. Whether you use side or top masking, it's the flat picture size that changes.

I guess I can understand this complaint if the scope picture only uses 75% of the auditorium width.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-13-2009, 02:46 AM:

If the scope screen runs wall to wall, then the flat screen should not get any taller. The drop ceiling should have been brought down lower. This will help the acoustics AND will keep the proper eyeline within the composition the same between formats.

Top masking is simply an auditorium done WRONG.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 12-13-2009, 03:10 AM:

What shape are your smallest auditoriums Justin? Does the scope picture also feel small? I can understand that in very badly designed auditoriums that this large flat can be the best compromise possible, but keep in mind that it's not a good cinema and it's fundementally compromised.

Even worse is a well designed auditorium where they have gone for the wall to wall common width screen, 1.85 is like IMAX but lacks the picture quality, one can not get far enough away from the screen for comfortable viewing, yet for scope the picture is FANTASTIC! If these cinemas had a common height screen the experience would be first class. It's the main reason I avoid going to Reading Cinemas here in Australia.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-13-2009, 03:47 AM:

Cameron, our smallest auditoriums are more rectangular (with the long wall running from port window to screen), but they aren't significantly longer than they are wide. I guess when I think about it, the larger auditoriums are more square.

When I think about the the last comments by you and Brad, I'm starting to get a sense of the issue. I'll have to watch a movie in these auditoriums to see if I can notice a major difference. I tend to not see movies in the small houses just because I usually watch them before the opening and they usually open in the larger houses.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-13-2009, 06:14 AM:

quote:
I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection.

So there you have it. James Cameron says to run all of his scope movies with a flat lens.

So, what is the IMAX 3D film aspect ratio going to be? Anyone know? We never seem to put the IMAX format info in the FITA forum for some reason.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-13-2009, 10:14 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So, what is the IMAX 3D film aspect ratio going to be? Anyone know? We never seem to put the IMAX format info in the FITA forum for some reason.

Maybe because from a technical standpoint it really doesn't matter? IMAX doesn't use any masking on the screens, only has one lens setting and the frame size is always the same, regardless of how much image takes up that frame.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-13-2009, 10:21 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
So, what is the IMAX 3D film aspect ratio going to be? Anyone know? We never seem to put the IMAX format info in the FITA forum for some reason.

I'm pretty sure it's 1.78 or thereabouts.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 12-13-2009, 01:11 PM:

Top making is a must in those old single screen theatres that were twinned to create two long and narrow auditoriums.

Example: Belmont Theatre, Belmont, CA

Aud #1 & 2 90 long X 28 feet wide.

Scope image = 25 X 11
Flat image = 25 X 13.5

In this example, the scope image is so small raising the top masking to create the flat image is the only realistic option.

Mike

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-13-2009, 01:31 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I don't understand why poorly designed auditoriums make top masking good.

Posted by Matt Skilton (Member # 5288) on 12-13-2009, 04:34 PM:

We got some paperwork through the other day and all it said was that the digital 3D copy will be scope. Guess we'll find out what's what on Wednesday, probably 10 minutes before its first show [Wink]

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-13-2009, 05:03 PM:

Your problems are only beginning with this movie!

What about the holographic version?

Whereby the concept of an aspect ratio itself will be rendered completely redundant!

(Cue maniacal laughter)

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-13-2009, 07:01 PM:

90 feet long and 28 feet wide isn't an auditorium, it's a hallway.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2009, 03:56 AM:

quote: Sam King
2D is SCOPE, any version of 3D (be in IMAX or digital) is FLAT. The End. Not all too confusing

Apparently, it is for you. Why on earth would you post such an inaccurate statement as fact? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-14-2009, 06:50 AM:

quote: Bill Enos
90 feet long and 28 feet wide isn't an auditorium, it's a hallway.

Not to worry, we've got a neighborhood theatre out here in Brooklyn that used to be a really nice sized single screen, about 700 seats in it's day -- nicely appointed....not a movie "palace" by any means, but as was done in those days, it had its own individual style, interesting and comfortable.

Then they turned it into a 3 plex, after a few months, it was a 5 plex, then shortly after that it was tortured into a 7-plex. So whereas you find theatres that are just hallways, this place has rooms that are no more than closets, or maybe they are using the restrooms as theatres also -- you know, hanging LCD screens on the stall doors. They can call them "digital" to boot!

And talking about digital, this one particular place decided that muliplexing that poor single screen like so many horny rabbits wasn't enough to survive, so they pulled out all the film projectors and replaced them with digital. How a digital projector can fix all the horrible twisted boxes in this place that they call "theatres" is the real question.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2009, 10:41 AM:

Because digital is perfect, duh! [Razz]

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-14-2009, 02:12 PM:

Frank, your description of that theater made me think of the end of the movie "Bachelor Party"

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 02:33 PM:

LOL! I think they should have gone for 56 to make the joke a little better, but that's still great. I love how it is in a strip mall.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2009, 02:47 PM:

Well, in 1984 36 was today's 56.

You have to adjust for inflation. [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 03:07 PM:

Oh I thought it was a recent movie.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 12-14-2009, 03:35 PM:

We received our hard drive of Avatar 3D today... it's scope (and only scope) and ghost busted (since we have RealD). Looks like it's mostly up to the film booker to make sure you get the right version? Our 3D house is common height, so scope was the best choice.

(All of our screens are common height, for that matter... which makes me happy.)

By the way, does anyone know where the term "common height/width" comes from? Wouldn't the word "constant" make a lot more sense?

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 12-14-2009, 03:42 PM:

Well... The height ot width is the "common" factor in each format.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2009, 03:58 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Oh I thought it was a recent movie.

You've never seen 'Bachelor Party'? [Eek!]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-14-2009, 05:26 PM:

Ya, 1984 .. MANN took a nice cut from the studios for use of their location .. I think (if my memory served me correctly since I was working for MANN at the time), that location was in Simi Valley which was built in 1978.

Think it was a 10 plex that was dolled up to be that 36plex.

(They loved ORC consoles with V5's and ORC platters there..and opaque tape usage)

MANN was big in the red/white striped concession area, the gold chandeliers over the boxoffice,the white walls with blue trim and the checkered carpet back then in the late 70's and mid 80's.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 06:16 PM:

WTF is "ghost busted"? I understand that this has something to do with the image ghosting in each eye, but WTF?

John, I've never even heard of it. Is it a John Belushi movie or something? Sounds like it would be.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2009, 06:20 PM:

It was a Tom Hanks comedy...remember them? One of my guilty pleasures and a lot of fun.

Put it on your list, Joe. [thumbsup]

"Jesus! Look at my TITS!" [Wink]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-14-2009, 07:22 PM:

Joe,

Ghostbusting is the digital way to try to avoid the problems Bachelor Party had with 3-D in '84

http://www.strimoo.com/video/14895882/Bachelor-Party-Best-3D-Dailymotion.html

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 07:43 PM:

It was a 3D movie? Crazy. Yeah, it's been a long time since Tom Hanks did a comedy.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-14-2009, 07:44 PM:

Whoa!

I am stating to notice a very bad trend in the exhibition industry. Since when did the theatre chains start dictating this kind of stuff to the film companies? Oh yeah, it's been a while now.

I HATE UP AND DOWN MASKING.When I am sitting in a theatre and the screen GETS SMALLER for the feature film. I think it's good that people seeing AVATAR won't notice the screen getting smaller, so they won't complain. HOWEVER, I think it SUCKS that it came to this.

I am glad my theatre doesn't have up and down masking. But I bet my next location will. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-14-2009, 07:50 PM:

If only the preshow was in the same format as the feature, then more people wouldn't notice the viewable portion of the screen was smaller than the entire screen. I've heard rumors that this is in the works.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 07:58 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
I bet my next location will.

Probably, about 90% of newer locations (re: built in the last decade or so) seem to.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-14-2009, 08:11 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
It was a 3D movie?

No, it wasn't. It just had that scene inside a 3D auditorium showing that movie.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-14-2009, 08:45 PM:

I just don't share this hate of adjustable top masking. It's certainly not ideal, but it gives you the largest possible screen for each format. Does it make sense to have a flat picture with unused 'black' all around it?

Let's go after the people who run with fixed 2:1 ratio first!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 09:09 PM:

If you want the largest possible screen image for each format, then you will ALWAYS have top/scissor masking because the width will always need to go wall to wall. But like Brad said, from a composition standpoint it's not that simple.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-14-2009, 09:10 PM:

John,
I've been lucky enough to have never managed a theatre that has top and bottom masking. I've helped open a few. I understand that the purpose of this is so the audience is able to see the whole scope picture as the director intended. Much like the widescreen format on DVDS. So I get why it's there and I understand it's purpose. The flip side of this is the reason theatre chains do this - because the auditorium is not wide enough to accomodate the proper aspect ratio without changing the height of the picture. It is always a huge let down when the height of the picture changes right when the projectionist hits the start button. Especially when it causes the picture to literally be smaller. Kinda like watching a widescreen DVD on the 'ole square box TVs (Thank God they are going away).

I hope you were able to understand my point.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 12-14-2009, 10:38 PM:

...."Does it make sense to have a flat picture with unused 'black' all around it?"

I much enjoy this. The picture has the appearance of "floating" in mid air and there is no stray light illuminating the side walls.

Mike

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 11:19 PM:

Waaaaay back when I worked at the Greenwood Plaza 12, all of our automations commanded the masking to reset to flat in each auditorium after each show. We did not have any kind of pre-show at all, not even slide projectors (though those were added eventually). The problem was that our 6 small screens used scissor masking. So I programmed the automations in the small auditoriums never to switch masking unless it was specifically told to. The large houses I left alone in this regard because I liked seeing the screen get wider. However on the large houses I did add a MUTE command during the lens change because otherwise you'd listen to leader as it switched. We used the Strong BCA-10 barcode automations which were a lot better than the normal UA barcode stuff (with the exception of lacking a "lights mid" button on the panel).

Posted by Steven J Hart (Member # 2340) on 12-15-2009, 07:42 AM:

We use bottom masking on the common width screen at our small single screen theater simply because its the only thing that will work as the screen is only 25 feet wide. This theater was built in 1936, way before cinemascope, so installing a wider screen is simply not an option. However, we NEVER shrink the screen for the feature. All trailers programmed for a scope feature are scope! A very simple concept.

I do agree that there is no excuse for doing common width in a new build.
Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2009, 12:19 PM:

quote: John Wilson in the FITA forum
We received our drives tonight (Monday) Ingesting now. It's beengoing around 80 minutes and is at 65% at 176GB so far.

I seem to recall one of those "well duh" notices flying around a few days ago telling people they had to delete content on their players in order to make room to be able to load Avatar.

WELL DUH!!!

The number I remember seeing when I glanced at it was 365GB. Is that possibly the size if you have both types of masking and are loading a flat or scope? That would seem to be roughly double what you are reporting John. (Then again Australia might have a different file.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2009, 12:25 PM:

Wouldn't the digital 3D file be double the size of the 2D file for the doubled number of movie frames?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 01:27 PM:

Total file size is 271GB for the 3D version.

Not sure what the difference is between 35mm and Digital versions, but according to the censors here, the digital version runs one minute longer than the 35mm. Of course, they may have gotten that wrong I guess.

2hrs 41mins 31 secs running time.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-15-2009, 03:24 PM:

Usually a bank decides. If the bank says 10 screens, you can't just say; well I'll only put in 8 because I need the space for side masking (unless you are ready to put up a lot more money.)

There are other reasons: when I did the design work for the Glen 10 in Illinois, the developer made it clear that he wanted; "...the theater to be known by it's big screens." I did caution him that there is such a thing as, 'too big' (to no avail) but I was able to use that as a reason to get scissor masking. At least that reduced the need for the operator having to crank the framer.

(Dennis) I know what you mean by customers getting upset when the screen gets smaller for scope features. When a Dolby CP50 was first installed where I worked, customers would complain because the intermission music sounded great, then a non-Dolby film would play and sound poor by comparison.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 12-15-2009, 04:00 PM:

quote: John Wilson
Not sure what the difference is between 35mm and Digital versions

The difference is about 60 to 70 pounds [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 04:03 PM:

So...97.6026 to 113.868 US? [Wink]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-15-2009, 04:42 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Wouldn't the digital 3D file be double the size of the 2D file for the doubled number of movie frames?

Not really, as DCI specs max 307mb/s total bandwidth (including sound, subtitles, etc, 250mb/s max just for the compressed image stream) for ALL their formats, be 2K, 2K 3D or 4K. Thus, all movies of similar length that decide to max out the bandwidth for quality, as pretty much all should (but don't), would take about the same space.

quote: Michael Voiland
The difference is about 60 to 70 pounds

... or about 67€ to 78.2€ [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-16-2009, 12:48 AM:

I would like to personally say THANK YOU James Cameron for making a crippled version of your movie in FLAT to try and accommodate poorly-designed theaters. I love your movies and am a huge fan, but you should have at least pulled your weight to demand they load up BOTH versions on each drive sent out for this sort of issue.

Yup, I had a 50% success rate at receiving the proper drives! [Mad]

Can Deluxe get the correct scope drives to me in time? Will they respond with a pathetic "just take that one scope drive you have and carry it around town wasting an entire day covering up our mistake"? Stay tuned!

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-16-2009, 01:13 AM:

It appears the IMAX prints are window boxed just like the trailer. Black around all edges, top, bottom, left, and right. Why put bars on the left and right when there is room on the top and bottom to make it bigger? Is this so MPX screens don't get cropped?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2009, 02:50 AM:

Mike:

I would be careful with that picture of frames from Avatar. Don't be surprised if you are sued by the Fox people and arrested for posting a reproduction of copyrighted material on the internet.

[Razz]

The law forbids it, seamingly in ALL cases, you know. At least, you need to be tried and then the judge will decide on how much your infrigement deserves punishment. Does the $500 reward apply worldwide? [Wink]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-16-2009, 06:06 AM:

Well that sucks for REAL IMAX theaters. What the hell? What doofus thought THAT was a good idea?

It's a shame you can't put in a different lens and blow the image up to the full size of the screen anyway.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 12-16-2009, 07:17 AM:

The IMAX Film version is 1.78:1 and "picture framed" with black edges and top and bottom.

Image is framed lower than previous DMR releases , or so it seems to me , which will make for easier viewing. Still better than digimax 1.9:1

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-16-2009, 12:08 PM:

James Cameron WAS my favorite director until now.

George Lucas WAS my favorite director up until 1999.

This situation with the AVATAR release squashed the respect I had for Mr. Cameron. So much for his "Showmanship is our Sword and Shield" speech from back in the day. My how the mighty have fallen.

In case you are wondering, I lost my respect for Mr. Lucas when I had to sign a contract with him and 20th Century Fox promising I would not let anyone see that piece of trash he called "The Phantom Menace" back in 1999. I realized he wanted to make bank before anyone got a chance to give it a bad review.

Wow....Akira Kurosawa is and will always be my favorite film director of ALL TIME. He's dead now, so not much room to ruin his reputation at this point....

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-16-2009, 12:48 PM:

So your favorite director in 1998 was a guy who'd not directed anything since 1977? And even then, only having (at the time) 3 non-student-films under his belt?
[Wink]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-16-2009, 12:57 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
So your favorite director in 1998 was a guy who'd not directed anything since 1977? And even then, only having (at the time) 3 non-student-films under his belt?

Yes. George Lucas is the reason I decided to go into the movie theatre business. I *was* a STAR WARS dork for many years. Then I grew up.....

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-16-2009, 03:01 PM:

Kurosawa-sensei. I just finished editing and putting up an English transcript of a conversation between Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, Living and Loving Movies which aired on NTV back in 1993, right as Maadadayo was hitting the screens.

Kurosawa had some funny stories to tell, like about having to hand-draw the optical recorder tracks for the screams on Seven Samurai since he wasn't satisfied with the recorded real ones. Intense! One of these days we'll flesh out that transcript enough to use it as subtitles for that hour-long NTV special.

* * * * *

I'm not really a Cameron fan, but still Avatar looks interesting. Planning to catch it at the Brenden IMAX here.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 12-16-2009, 07:17 PM:

In our theater our screens are a mix of side and top masking, with one using both side and top masking to switch between flat and scope. Heck, one screen even has the projector in the ceiling which means the lens can't be zoomed when changing between scope and flat. It's set to show the full 2048x858 (minus some cropping) scope image with the side masking out, but with flat the projector has to scale the 1998x1080 image down to 1587x858.

We've got two screens setup for 3D (but only one Master Image unit,) the larger screen using side masking and the smaller using top masking.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-17-2009, 12:18 PM:

Sounds like the best way to see the film will be in 1.78, whether in digital 3-D or in IMAX 3-D.

The "extraction" of a 2.39 aspect ratio means throwing away c. 26% of the image height - hard to see how the composition can remain ideal in those circumstances.

Interestingly, the poor practice of cropping a 1.37 image to 1.85 in projection results in a similar loss of image height.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-17-2009, 12:45 PM:

Saw it this morning.

The movie is GREAT.

He takes elements from his other films and intertwines them in this one. One of my favorite films is "The Abyss". A lot of elements taken from that film.

You have to see it on as big a screen as possible.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2009, 02:06 PM:

quote: Brian Guckian
Interestingly, the poor practice of cropping a 1.37 image to 1.85 in projection results in a similar loss of image height.

Who does this? And why aren't they in jail?

Posted by Matt Skilton (Member # 5288) on 12-17-2009, 05:17 PM:

Anyone else been having sticking and/or static issues with their Avatar prints (there's probably a technical term for it, sorry)? What I mean is, as the film runs through on the feeding platter, lots of layers of the film get dragged towards the feeder units arm, causing the platter to go a bit wild as it corrects itself. This caused one of our prints to get thrown off the platter with 30 mins left on its first show. As I was making the film-up, it did sound like it had been treated with something, as if it had been cleaned.

It seems to be affecting one print much more then the other.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-17-2009, 05:27 PM:

Two words...Film Guard.

Two more...get some.

All your problems will be over.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-17-2009, 05:48 PM:

quote: Mike Olpin
It appears the IMAX prints are window boxed just like the trailer. Black around all edges, top, bottom, left, and right. Why put bars on the left and right when there is room on the top and bottom to make it bigger? Is this so MPX screens don't get cropped?

I wonder if this has something to do with the 3D and an attempt to make a sharp edge where both images end together vs. getting that - what I'll call for lack of a better word - fringing on the edges that sometime occurs with 3D.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2009, 10:44 PM:

OR....could this be that process that we talked about before where they allow the images that are meant to be converged in front of the screen be able to break that "virtual" edge of the hard matte, assuming that the enveloped image is not masked so it fills the entire screen top to bottom, but rather sits in the middle of the actual screen? If they maintain the hard matte so the image under normal circumatances throughout the film is seen to be smaller than the actually screen, they can then allow certain images meant to come into the foreground and appear closer to the viewer, can do so by going past the bottom or top of that hard-matte so the edge of the real screen won't intersect it.

The problem is, the illusion that a 3D image is closer to the viewer than the screen will be ruined if it is intersected by the screen edge. The minute it is intersected, the viewer's brain says, that object can't be closer to me than the object which it touched, which is farther away -- the illusion and the 3D field collapses. BUT, if they can have the object break only the hard-matte, the illusion stays intact.

Didn't we talk about this before?

Has anyone watched this start to finish? Is this indeed what they do in certain scenes?

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 12-17-2009, 10:50 PM:

Havn't seen Avatar yet but you'd think Cameron is above using 3D to flash things out of the screen at the audience. From what I've heard, he used the 3D effect to compliment the movie rather then throw [bs]

at the screen.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-17-2009, 11:47 PM:

Frank, I thought that might be a possibility. However, nothing in the 2D scope version I just ran had anything that felt like it needed to extend beyond the front of the screen.

The film works really well in scope, by the way. Looking forward to comparing the FLAT and 3D versions.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-17-2009, 11:48 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
The movie is GREAT.

..and it's in good ol' 2.40:1, 3D .. not the letterbox version as heard earlier..

I forgot that I was wearing glasses. The 3D effects, esp in the CGA sections, were so natural looking - none of that "in your face" problems with this movie.

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 12-18-2009, 12:56 AM:

Wow, what a lovely response for providing what was, AT THE TIME, correct information coming from Cameron himself while he was here at my theatre doing the post audio mix.

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-18-2009, 12:58 AM:

Just saw a bit of Avatar from the booth while picking up a film.
I put some Real D glasses on and it looked like great 3D but they were showing it scope though the file was for flat!
They did not know how to switch the lens!
I was asked to help if it was a problem so i hung around till start up and the fox logo was cropped but as the thing progressed it seemed fine including subtitles.
I am only a film guy at this point but i was ready to turn the lens to the flat position.

So why would only the fox logo look wrong?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2009, 01:12 AM:

They prob didn't have the playlist with the correct format - used the previous format (prob in flat)

..or they didn't swing the attachment in front of the lens for scope pictures.. For the "Fox Fanfare" trademark was okey in the presentation that I viewed in the fill 2.40:1 (2084p) format.

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 02:16 AM:

UPDATE - Deluxe sent out new SCOPE/NGB replacement drives since they sent us FLAT/NGB versions. Oops, nope! They were SCOPE/GB drives. Their attempt to correct the initial 50% failure rate has resulted in this second attempt being a 100% failure rate. (Plus one of the drives never even showed up. UPS lost it!)

They have also spent all day moving the ONLY SCOPE/NGB drive in Dallas all around town to each location. The last location is still ingesting and I don't have proper keys yet since I received GB keys.

Lovely. [Roll Eyes]

In all fairness, they are having to deal with SIX different formats because of this mess. Had they just put both flat and scope on each drive, this wouldn't have been a problem. Also if Real-D didn't require GB drives, we wouldn't be having this problem of GB vs. NGB drives. I guess we will see if any shows are missed due to this. From what I can gather they are swamped beyond belief right now dealing with all sorts of similar Avatar problems. Hopefully they will learn from this situation and prepare for the future with larger drives and such for future releases.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-18-2009, 02:51 AM:

I guess I'm wrong, but I would've thought the Ghost-Busted version would play fine on a system like you've got that doesn't need it to be Ghost-Busted.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 12-18-2009, 03:25 AM:

I've yet to call them, our 3D house is Common height, and they sent us a flat version. They had called about 3 weeks ago to confirm that we had side masking. A lot of good that did.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-18-2009, 09:22 AM:

It took 5 phone calls to get everything all up right. 3 of them had me on hold for more than 30 minutes. Clearly they were swamped yesterday.

We initially received a drive for Scope/3DNGB, but we don't have a 3D system. A Scope 2D was rushed to us.

Keys never showed up for the 2D or 3D copy. I had to call twice to get them emailed out to us.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 11:18 AM:

And 9 hours later I am still waiting on keys. They sent ONE set of keys for SCOPE/NGB, but there are some theaters that won't be making their first show if someone doesn't wake up and do it quick. Grrrrrrr.

[Mad]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2009, 11:24 AM:

Well, THAT'S not going to help the opening weekend numbers.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 11:27 AM:

The security is really getting out of hand when they don't have enough people to address the legitimate issues to deal with them promptly. Is this movie on the internet as of this morning?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-18-2009, 12:00 PM:

We had a bad drive. Halfway through the ingest it came up with bad sectors or something and it failed to complete the ingest. When we tried to reconnect the portable drive the doremi wouldn't even recognise the portable drive. This was at 4 am in the morning. I was doing a QC screening of the 35mm while the hard drive was ingesting. I came up after the screening was over and found the problem. So I am on the phone at 4 am in the morning with deluxe to get them on it. The next morning our booking department is arranging with Fox to get a hard drive to us. They had someone bring one down from another theatre in Cincinnati. They said that was the closest drive that was a flat file. Later in the day when I get to the theatre I am told the drive is ingesting. So I go about getting other things done. When I go to check the status of the download, that is almost complete, I realize that the drive they sent us was not the right one. It was for an Imax...What the F! After calming down in my head and getting over the fact that they didn't realize what drive it was....I got on the phone and sent emails to our booking department, I spent the next hour with deluxe as they arranged to allow us to go a couple of miles down the street and borrow a Scope 3D drive from another theatre. All in all at 10 minutes until the midnight show I completed the play-list.

Now tonight I have to do it again because they are sending us the flat 3-D drive. They overnight it, but there was no way that drive could be loaded and ready by the first showing. So we are living with the scope 3-D for one day.

My biggest complaint is not with the different formats but with the fact that they waited until Wednesday to get the drives to us. We don't have a central library server at this time we only have one digital screen. It is possible to ingest on a doremi while a feature is playing but is highly not recommended. The ingests can be extremely slow and there is the risk of a program playing freezing up. So we have to do it after the last show playing.

If they could have gotten the drives to us by Monday or Tuesday this problem could have been solved more smoothly. I don't know why they can not do that other than last minute changes causing delays in a release. You can't play it without a key anyway. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2009, 12:10 PM:

Now, really have to ask this: Why of the two lens formats released?

Ours were the scope versions..

Looks like major chaos with this release - who gets what..

-Monte

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2009, 12:15 PM:

Anyone regretting their switch to digital yet?

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 12-18-2009, 02:28 PM:

Does anyone happen to have the correct start time for the end credits?

I've been told that our lights came up too late into the credits on the midnight show... the time given to us was 2:36:33.

I'll end up timing this myself later, but just thought I'd check if anyone has a different number. Thanks!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 02:29 PM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
You can't play it without a key anyway.

That is PRECISELY my point! Its bad enough as it is normally, but when they are making a ton of different versions of the movie and are foolish enough to only provide one version per hard drive, they were just asking for this...begging really.

I finally got my keys. The problem was rectified by them basically just sending keys for ALL formats since they couldn't get it straight. We barely made the first show.

They really should also just have one key that fits all. Either you are booked to play the movie or you aren't.

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-18-2009, 02:50 PM:

Credits start at 2:35:00

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 03:28 PM:

Is that the real credit start? All too often the credit offset number that is provided by the studios isn't the REAL beginning of the credits.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2009, 03:39 PM:

SHeeesh. I have sorta been wishing we were digital but reading through this thread, I think I'll go give my film projector a hug.

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 12-18-2009, 03:47 PM:

Yes that is the real credit offset. I never trust the time provided by the studios. I always watch the last few minutes of the movie to find the correct credits offset. Unfortunately, I always ruin the movie for myself becuase I know how they end.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-18-2009, 03:48 PM:

Mike -- No shit, right?

There was a place in Germany that wasn't able to start the show because they couldn't get enough keys, so they had to refund the show.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 12-18-2009, 03:54 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
SHeeesh. I have sorta been wishing we were digital but

FWIW - all 4 of our locations had no issues getting the content and KDMs. We actually got the content earlier in the week via satellite and I saw that the KDMs came through on Wednesday.

Of course since we are RealD and fixed height we needed the scope/GB version which may have been the most common.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-18-2009, 04:30 PM:

2:36:33 is when below the line credits start.

Above the line credits, complete with flashy graphics, start sooner.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 04:43 PM:

From an insurance and liability standpoint, most theaters must bring the lights up at the REAL beginning of the credits. The studios need to list both if they are going to continue to play this game.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2009, 05:51 PM:

Gee, and they used to complain about dual-inventory 2D/3D film prints or mono/stereo film prints....how many inventory is this?

2D Flat
2D Scope
3D Flat GB
3D FLAT
3D SCOPE GB
3D SCOPE
2D IMAX
3D IMAX

That is just plain silly!

There is NO reason the drives and the KDMs shouldn't have been sent to the theatre as they were made. You CAN'T SHOW THE MOVIE UNTIL THE KDM says you can so what is the effin worry? At least if you have the data on your system you know what you have (provided the file has the right gibberish in its name and don't get me started on those names).

**ck it...just release everything in 70mm...either you have the equipment or go out of business! (and yes you HAVE to have BOTH mag and DTS.

Who didn't see this cluster-**ck coming when they knew they were going to have many different types?

Steve

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2009, 07:35 PM:

Gee Mike, you're missing the fun having so much to choose from

2D Flat
2D Scope
3D Flat 1990
3D Flat 1998
3D Scope 2048

Oh,but the fun hasn't really started: you get into AUX video inputs via DVI with the right adapters and such and you've got some fantastic DVD/BR presentations as well.

Can any 35mm projector do that? Woo...just think: hook a HD to a server, start injesting and walk away for a couple of hours. After injesting, you build the playlist with startup MOS, trailers, feature, credits-both beginning and end, and end of show credits, save the show, give it a test run by fast forwarding through each insert to make sure the key and cues are correct, let it run right before the credits so the automation can close it down..and you're DONE.

"DANG! didn't have to make one splice, and I can even have this thing start itself and can keep my employees downstairs at all times."

Oh, and watching "AVATAR" in 2D, even though it's nice and bright with extreme sharpness with no sense of shutter present, STILL isn't the same as watching this film in 3D.

Finally, 3D done extremely right.

Okey, enough shooting the mouth off on how all this is fun to work with. Comes a serious question with this discussion on the keys: Who's responsible on this to ensure that the proper keys are delivered-either via USB key, or the .xml file that comes down via email: is it the film studios, bookers, or shipping agents to make sure that every base is covered in this matter?

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-18-2009, 08:08 PM:

Well I have some interesting news to report. In looking at some numbers where there are two options for customers (3D and 2D), the 2D on 35mm is outselling the 3D digital presentations.

This has nothing to do with seat counts or turning away people either. Neither sold out.

To add insult to injury, the 3D showtimes are the better showtimes too. The crappier showtimes were given to the 35mm print.

This just reinforces my belief that people do not want to watch a 3 hour movie with the 3D glasses. Yes it is 3D done extremely well, but not for 3 hours.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-18-2009, 08:09 PM:

Oh my...I forgot about the E-FIB/F-FIB thing...yes you have to add another 4 permutations! (FLAT and SCOPE, Ghost busted and proper).

This isn't VistaVision, choose your aspect ratio Mr. Director and DP and go with it!

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 12-18-2009, 09:54 PM:

We should put together a form for everyone to print out. It would be a waiver form, so that anytime the film companies have listed when they want the credits to start, we simply fax them the waiver form that makes the film company liable for any and all damages should a patron fall. They of course will never sign and return it, but maybe it would get the point through that the lights come up for safety. Or perhaps the phone numbers of a person high up in each company. Or the directors home number. Something for them to see how stupid and self indulging they are being by trying to make everyone sit and look and their names.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2009, 10:27 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
After injesting, you build the playlist with startup MOS, trailers, feature, credits-both beginning and end, and end of show credits, save the show, give it a test run by fast forwarding through each insert to make sure the key and cues are correct, let it run right before the credits so the automation can close it down..and you're DONE.

Yeah, but can it run my antique 35mm "merry Christmas" tag? Didn't think so. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-18-2009, 10:34 PM:

Until they do a 100% 3D only release on a new highly anticipated film such as Avatar, there will more than likely always be more tickets sold to the 2D version where there is an extra charge for the 3D.

After dealing with dual inventory on both Up! and Ice Age 3 we no longer carry both.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-18-2009, 10:38 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
This just reinforces my belief

quote: Jeremy Weigel
likely always be more tickets sold to the 2D version

...well, maybe at some places, but we're running a 2D 35mm version & a 3D digital version, neither sold out, the digital for the day more than doubled the 35mm attendance.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-18-2009, 11:03 PM:

So where is Technicolor's film-based 3D system through all this?
They have missed a huge opportunity here.

Now whether or not Cameron would have bent to suit the formatting of the Technicolor system as he did for the others remains unanswered.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 12-18-2009, 11:39 PM:

quote: Kevin Fairchild
Credits start at 2:35:00

Thank you Kevin, you were spot on!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-19-2009, 05:53 AM:

We just got home from a 2am IMAX screening & an early breakfast. I am a huge fan of 3D, and was extremely impressed with the IMAX system save one thing -- they are going to HAVE to do something about the screen brightness. There were scenes where I just wanted to shout at the characters to turn some lights on the set on. There were many scenes where the detail just faded away because it was just too damn dark. This IMAX was using two projectors so I would have thought they would get plenty of light on the screen, but I am afraid not. I can't imagine what this looks like with a single Dprojector trying to do 3D. I want to see it again in 35mm just to see it in a well lit presentation, not to mention the extra expansive feeling the wider image will give.

They didn't ever break the virtual envelope like I thought might be the case. Also, happily there were only minimal scenes where the convergence was in front of the screen and even then it was only used so things that could float could come closer to the audience in the foreground. This is easy to do with floating objects because they can be kept from being intersected by the screen. When it was done, it was very effective and carefully choreographed.

And the best thing was, there was never a shot change where the convergence point changed abruptly from one extreme to another (always a cause for eye strain when your muscles are forced to have to pull your eyeballs closer together or farther apart in an instant). In fact, there were times I barely was aware I was watching 3D, it felt so natural, but then some incredibly spectacular shot appeared that looked like a futuristic Impressionist painting only with incredible depth and I'd catch my breath at the beauty of it. This really is one incredible accomplishment. I have some reservations but they are subject aesthetic stuff not proper for this forum. See you in the review forum.

Question: were there 70mm prints and thus 70mm engagements? The credits seem to indicate this.

Posted by Philip Wittlief (Member # 1724) on 12-19-2009, 12:54 PM:

Anybody notice that the Projection Spec sheet for 3D says that you can't crop the top and bottom of the picture but you can crop the sides? Isn't that opposite of every other 3d framing chart. Did they just write this wrong or was it composed differently?

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-19-2009, 01:49 PM:

There are some 70mm 15/70 prints of AVATAR, most are 3D. They run right to the edge of their biggest platter. One person on another site said each print uses 20 miles of film!

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-19-2009, 04:59 PM:

Given that a typical 35mm print is 2 miles, 20 miles for 3D 15/70 doesn't seem too surprising.

--jhawk

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2009, 08:42 PM:

..or, 90fpm with 35mm against 333fpm with IMAX .. Dang stuff really flies off them decks towards the Projection head units.

Oh, a full deck of film weighs in over half a ton...they got a small hyster up in those booths to scoop prints from deck to floor (or on their side)..

You oughta see the individual boxes of film (one box per roll-no reels) going up the hole in the middle of the floor via a cable hoist...

-Monte

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-20-2009, 05:55 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer

There was a place in Germany that wasn't able to start the show because they couldn't get enough keys, so they had to refund the show.

It wasn't one place. It was dozends, evenapproaching a hundred shows canceled. Big buzz in german media already. I didn't hear about the format issue so far, though. They were all KDM issues.

- Carsten

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-20-2009, 06:18 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
There are some 70mm 15/70 prints of AVATAR, most are 3D.

Anyone have a list of where these are playing?

quote:
They run right to the edge of their biggest platter. One person on another site said each print uses 20 miles of film!

Hmmm, a thrown IMAX 15/70 print of AVATAR; now THAT would be one hellofa sight to see. Has there ever been a thrown IMAX print?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-20-2009, 07:05 AM:

I believe the United Artists King of Prussia in Philly has it in 15/70.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-20-2009, 12:11 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Hmmm, a thrown IMAX 15/70 print of AVATAR; now THAT would be one hellofa sight to see. Has there ever been a thrown IMAX print?

Metal guards fastened to the edge of the print make throwing impossible.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-20-2009, 12:16 PM:

Actually it still IS possible, just highly unlikely. Those metal guards don't completely wrap around the print. They have gaps in them and toward the end of the film if the platter was to start jerking, the film could get thrown through those. Again though, it is highly unlikely.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-20-2009, 12:58 PM:

And if it jerked fast enough, the edge of the print could get thrown over the guards and get a tail wrap (but as you say, it's unlikely).

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-20-2009, 01:38 PM:

The print is SUPPOSED to have a belt around it that velcroes to the eight film clamps, which are themselves pressing against the film roll and bolted to the platter.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but with the safety systems in place, the event would have to involve some sort of catastrophic event such as operator negligence or a major earthquake.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-20-2009, 01:41 PM:

(Refering now only to 15/70mm MPX IMAX, other systems may vary)

In show mode, the platter cannot jerk like it does in thread mode. Both decks are not independently controlled by their feedplates or their take up arms. Rather, data is collected from the feedplate and take up arm. The computer slowly adjusts its speed for a given deck only if it detects an ongoing condition. The idea is that is a small bubble in the payout is present, the platter doesn't jerk to catch up with it.

In threading mode, however, the platter behaves more like a 35mm one, reacting immediately to the data collected from the feedplate.

A velcro band is used around the print. On the inside of the brackets there is also a velcro strip, so it a print starts squeezing through a gap like Brad describes, the velcro should keep it from getting far enough through the gap to create a problem.

While not impossible, I would wager that planes crash more often than IMAX prints throw.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-21-2009, 07:08 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Has there ever been a thrown IMAX print?

note the word

quote: Frank Angel was the last to post
ever

Yes there definitely has been! I've had to deal with that a couple times. The first IMAX theatre I worked at only had a couple platters with holes drilled into them for the clamps. Generally we ran without them, I think they were only used for some specially treated prints or something. Of course, eventually all the platters got fitted with clamps.

This was ten years (or so) ago, though.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-30-2009, 07:27 AM:

Saw Avatar in 3D last night at the Roxy in Santa Rosa. It was in a ~200 seat auditorium and was shown in flat. The auditorium was rather long and somewhat narrow so it was a smallish screen. Sitting about 4 rows up in the stadium section, I did not feel immersed in the picture. I might just have to watch it again at my theatre in 2D where we have a nice big scope picture.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-01-2010, 08:37 PM:

The german version of AVATAR reportedly has only 157GBytes. Someone mentioned to be playing german version and englisch (OMU) and confirms 100GB difference between the two. Could it be that they compressed two different versions from the DCDM? 157GBytes for a 162min 3D feature?

Even if it is 'only' DCI-CS, that's less than half of the allowed DCI-Datarate!?

Any clue?

- Carsten

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-01-2010, 09:00 PM:

Doesn't seem right. Legion at 100 mins and 24 fps was 160GB.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-01-2010, 10:43 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
Could it be that they compressed two different versions from the DCDM? 157GBytes for a 162min 3D feature?

Was this 157gB feature be in letterbox flat? If so, the filesize would be smaller than the full scope version which is almost 280gB in size...

Posted by Jussi Siponen (Member # 5572) on 02-02-2010, 02:44 AM:

One possible explanation for the variation in DCP size is related to subtitles: for 3D features (eg. Avatar) subtitles have to be rendered into the actual content rather than having the projector built-in system (Cinecanvas?) render them.

If DCP creation for the different language versions is handled by 3rd parties (one assumes having a native speaker of the trageted language do timing and spelling check would be helpful), they are very likely using different software packages for the JPEG2000 compression.

The compression performance varies from product to product, yet the output is still "in spec". Our copy of Avatar (scope, with Finnish subtitles) is in the 250GB ballpark in size, which is what I'd expect given the run time.

On the other hand, eg. the DCP for "Hangover" was so small I thought it was broken for sure. It wasn't, just compressed exceptionally tight. I'd like to think I'm more sensitive to quality issues than most customers, yet I couldn't find any fault with the image. (Some loss of small details may have actually occured and I just didn't notice -- hard to tell without doing A/B compare of compressed and uncompressed frame.)

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-02-2010, 05:42 AM:

We're not in the right subforum for this I guess, but wouldn't Scope DCPs actually be smaller than Flat?

One question indeed is, why is the german version so small, and another, why is the UK/OMU version 100GB larger? Rendered subtitels on an OMU version maybe could be the reason, but then why is the standard US version the same size?

Very good hint at the subtitling for the 3D version. Where is it actually placed in 3D space?

I would think that classical character animation, Pixar, etc. compresses very well and to small sizes, but even as AVATAR contains a lot of CG, it has 'liveimage' image structure and shouldn't compress that much better than 'real' live footage.

But maybe it still contains less noise components than full format camera footage?

- Carsten

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-02-2010, 07:06 AM:

I will take this aspect to 'DCP size variations...' in the 'Straight To Video' section before someone does it for me...

And sorry, I just heard it wasn't the OMU version with rendered subtling (no such thing) but the original english language version in CS, so same size as US and UK.

Still remains a miracle why the german version came out so small?

- Carsten

BTW - how can I reference forum posts or threads in postings? Do I really have to use these monsters?

DCP size discussion

[ 02-02-2010, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]