Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 70MM STAR WARS ROGUE ONE

This is topic 70MM STAR WARS ROGUE ONE 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=012072

Posted by David J Hilsgen (Member # 2614) on 10-13-2016, 01:07 AM:

Anybody here ,if Disney is going to cut any 5/70 prints

Posted by Eric Richard (Member # 8635) on 10-15-2016, 08:41 PM:

A few months ago there was a lot of chatter about doing a 70mm release. I have not heard anything recently. The last trailer was amazing! Beautiful job shooting the film.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-15-2016, 11:05 PM:

I thought at one point the aspect ratio was going to be 2.76 - guess that went by the way side.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-15-2016, 11:09 PM:

The movie originally was suppose to be shot on 70mm, but the more exotic locations they used, were too far away from the labs. So they decided to shoot digitally thanks to the lack of labs. The critical element is the fact they re-shot 40% of the movie because the original cut was too "star wars" for the average viewer.

I doubt highly they will make 70mm prints.

Though on a funny side note, Episode 9 is shooting soon and they are suppose to be shooting the whole movie in 5/70 with film prints. So we'll see!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2016, 05:29 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I thought at one point the aspect ratio was going to be 2.76 - guess that went by the way side.

That confusion revolved around the use of Ultra Panavision lenses. Some of the same lenses used on The Hateful Eight were apparently being used in the production of Rogue One. The catch is those lenses are being used on the Arri Alexa 65 camera system.

It turns out the UP70 lenses are being used just to bake an anamorphic look into the movie since the Star Wars saga traditionally has an anamorphic look. The Arri Alexa 65 has an image sensor roughly the same size as a 5-perf 65mm film frame. The movie's final rendered image will not have a 2.76:1 aspect ratio. They're chopping a little off the ends of the image to crop it inward to a 2.39:1 ratio.

Considering the last Star Wars movie (Ep. VII) had only a 2K DCP, thanks in part to 3D, I'm concerned this movie could have its final render output in puny 2K quality as well. That's all despite using a camera system that can shoot 6.5K imagery. IMAX 3D and Real D are being pimped on the movie posters and trailers.

I was about to call 2K DCP "TV quality," but 3.8K UHDTV sets have taken over the electronics stores. I still think the Ultra HD Blu-ray format launch has been a joke. It seems like the prevailing majority of all UHD BD titles are fake 4K releases, bullshitted up from 2K sources. I would use the term "uprez," but bullshitted seems much more appropriate.

BTW, I'll be shocked if there are any 70mm prints made for this movie release. Chances are there won't be any point to it. The only way there would be a point to it is if the production actually rendered a higher resolution 6K digital intermediate and preserved the 2.76:1 imagery captured by the Arri Alexa and UP70 lenses.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 10-16-2016, 07:46 PM:

I just hope we can get a 4K Dolby Vision release this time. Most of the people I work with were NOT happy with every version of E7 being released at 2K. If you're capturing with either 5/65 film or Alexa65 cameras, WTF is the point if you're going to master the thing at 2K?

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-16-2016, 08:08 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I was about to call 2K DCP "TV quality," but 3.8K UHDTV sets have taken over the electronics stores. I still think the Ultra HD Blu-ray format launch has been a joke. It seems like the prevailing majority of all UHD BD titles are fake 4K releases, bullshitted up from 2K sources. I would use the term "uprez," but bullshitted seems much more appropriate.

I think you're being way too hard on the UHD Blu Ray releases. The resolution is in most cases a phantom gain (although a controlled upscale at mastering is probably better than the real-time upscaling in UHD displays); but don't forget we're also getting a superior video compression codec, expanded color space and on many titles HDR.

quote: Bobby Henderson
BTW, I'll be shocked if there are any 70mm prints made for this movie release. Chances are there won't be any point to it. The only way there would be a point to it is if the production actually rendered a higher resolution 6K digital intermediate and preserved the 2.76:1 imagery captured by the Arri Alexa and UP70 lenses.

I think you are correct. I no longer have any inside information, but Disney as a studio is pretty much all-in on D-Cinema and I don't see them supporting any film other than a handful of 35mm prints where necessary.

Warner Bros. will continue to support 70mm film, in part because of their relationship with Christopher Nolan. IMAX, WB and Nolan have a mutual agreement to keep 15/70mm IMAX alive, and that pact serves as life support for Kodak and the film lab to keep the ecosystem up and running. The occasional 5/70 release serves to keep the machinery humming on standby so it can be revved up for the release of Dunkirk.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-17-2016, 09:56 AM:

The agreement between Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. probably explains why there will be a limited run of 5/70mm prints for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and why there was a limited run of 5/70mm prints for Batman vs. Superman. Side note: HBO has been playing I Am Legend lately; I thought it was funny that movie from 9 years ago had a huge Batman vs. Superman billboard rendered into a deserted Times Square of the future. Maybe the movie was in "development hell" for a really long time.

I think 70mm print production equipment could be humming a lot better if movie studios would bother keeping the top end resolution of new d-cinema camera systems intact rather than down-sampling or cropping the imagery to 4K or 2K. Red, Sony and Arri all have camera systems that go well beyond 4K. The studios are still hell-bent on selling 3D, regardless of 3D being all but dead in home theater. 3D releases also have a nasty habit of dumbing a movie down to 2K resolution.

quote: Mike Schulz
I just hope we can get a 4K Dolby Vision release this time. Most of the people I work with were NOT happy with every version of E7 being released at 2K. If you're capturing with either 5/65 film or Alexa65 cameras, WTF is the point if you're going to master the thing at 2K?

My guess would be that it's all about saving money. Supposedly the new laser-based projection systems in Dolby Cinema theaters and IMAX with Laser locations can do dual projector 4K 3D. AMC now has 29 locations with a Dolby Cinema screen. IMAX has 15 laser-based locations in North America. That's not very many screens to justify quadrupling the render time, bandwidth and storage space needed for 4K 3D versus 2K 3D. And the movie studios and theaters are still getting the same high ticket price money for those movies even if they're only rendered in 2K.

I think the studios are also counting on people to still be bowled over by that "digital" buzz word even though there's no real selling point for "digital" anymore. Almost all forms of audio-video entertainment are being sold or presented in some kind of digital format, save for exceptions like vinyl LPs. They're counting on the general public to continue ignoring details, such as native resolution levels, audio format, compression levels, etc. The "digital" buzz word is enough as far as they're concerned.

quote: Daniel Schulz
I think you're being way too hard on the UHD Blu Ray releases. The resolution is in most cases a phantom gain (although a controlled upscale at mastering is probably better than the real-time upscaling in UHD displays); but don't forget we're also getting a superior video compression codec, expanded color space and on many titles HDR.

Unfortunately UHD and "4K" (3.8K really) is the big selling point for the Ultra HD Blu-ray format. Most of the titles are not delivering on that point. They don't really look noticeably better than their 1080p Blu-ray counterparts. HDR only seems to pay off well with animated movies or movies that bother to include brilliant color in the imagery. So many movies are heavily color graded with a bent on desaturation.

If it seems like I'm being harshly critical of the Ultra-HD Blu-ray format I'm only doing so for its sake. If the movie studios want this format to survive they're going to have to do a hell of a lot better with its supply of titles. With the studios releasing so many fake 4K titles on this format it's as if they want to deliberately sabotage the format in favor of selling virtual copies of movies via downloads or streaming. I don't think the sell-through market for downloads and streaming is all that great, not with so many people happy to just wait until a movie to shows up in their Netflix queue.

I think there's a pretty big difference between native UHD material and 1080p material, when the imagery is photographed well. The Revenant is one of the few stand-out titles on the Ultra HD Blu-ray format that really looks ultra high def. The movie had a lot of deep depth of field shots, some taken with the Arri Alexa 65 and 6K Red Epic Dragon. For movies with shallow depth of field the resolution increase won't be so obvious, especially if the focus is softened slightly to hide flaws in actors' faces.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-17-2016, 10:52 AM:

Barco's Alchemy module will allow 4K/3D up to 30fps on a single projector. Not that I'm promoting 3D.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-18-2016, 01:16 PM:

Hey Bobby, the reason why films are "finished" in 2 or 4k is all about time and money. "Finishing" is generally a rushed process and the time it takes to render everything at 4k vs 2k, is actually not worth it for most studio's. Even on big movies with plenty of money, they still render everything out at 2k in most cases. I remember Sony bragging a few years ago about rendering everything in 4k for some stupid superhero movie. Yet Nolan has been rendering his effects/cleanup shots in 8k for three movies now.

The other unfortunate side note is that MOST movies are shot with sub 4k cameras. Arri's Alexa has only 3.2k worth of active pixels. This means, almost all Alexa shows are finished at 2k, which is just a generic thing to do with that camera. Yes it's true the Arri 65 is 6k, but very few people have been able to afford the rental fee. With the Bayer pattern color issues, most finishing experts would rather down-res to help fill in the missing red and blue channels.

Of course, 4 perf 35mm camera negative can deliver upwards of 5k. It can also be scanned with pure R G B raw signal, no bayer pattern associated. So what comes out of a film scanner, already has the appropriate FULL RGB color space and greater resolution then any digital projection system on the market today. 5 perf 65mm camera negative has around 8k of resolution, so you can imagine how easy it is to make that look even better.

So these are the reasons why we still see movies finished in 2k and 4k. It's the technology gap we have today and honestly, I don't see it changing anytime soon. It's a real shame to be printing all these 70mm movies from 4k digital masters, HALF the resolution of the display format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-18-2016, 10:52 PM:

When I'm getting charged upwards of $20 for a movie ticket before I have even purchased a damned drink and popcorn, I'm kind of expecting a little more than imagery akin to what my big HDTV at home can deliver. In the long run I think these global media people who now run all the movie studios are cutting their throats in the long term.

The studios' refusal to invest in higher standards is a direct insult to their customers and their long term heritage, provided the movie industry has any strategy of long term survival in the future.

My theatrical movie-going attendance has really dropped off quite a lot in the past few years. And this is despite some big technological developments such as laser projection and Dolby Atmos. Those two things I just mentioned are largely useless on most releases. Those two features are still exceedingly rare in theaters as well.

HDR? Dolby Vision? Let me laugh out loud at that with movie color schemes akin to features shot through a bag of yellow urine or desaturated to the brink of Book of Eli. Unless you're watching a kid's cartoon the HDR thing is probably going to be totally unnoticeable. Dolby Atmos? Once in awhile you'll get a great mix where the sound designers go for broke with the object oriented panning features, such as Gravity. Most of the time it's just Atmos in name only. It's like the bastards just mixed the movie in 7.1 and "up-rezzed" it to Atmos just to get the logo on the movie poster -if they bothered to put it on the poster at all. Lazy ass shit-heads.

Most movies are framed in "CinemaScope" format. But I think it's all a scam. Fewer pixels to render than any other format. Lower cost. Lower quality. Yet the aspect ratio is still popular. D-cinema has infected movie theaters with fake 'scope. Commercial theaters have compounded the problem with horrible common width screens. If the image is going to be effectively letter-boxed in the commerical theater environment then why should someone who prefers to watch movies at home even bother to give commercial theaters a chance?

The studios and theater chains could have embraced a higher quality standard using anamorphic projection lenses, but they chose the TV style route instead via letter-boxing the image on HDTV ratio imaging chips instead. And that makes me feel like I'm not missing anything at all when I watch a certain movie at home on my TV set.

This doesn't even get into the much more obvious problem of sequels, remakes and other derivative scams where the studios are trying to re-sell the same old ideas again and again and again. They not only have zero ability to come up with something original. They have zero desire to so as well -all thanks to their Wall Street investors.

Maybe the media people know something I don't. Perhaps the American public is just as stupid as the media executives thing they are. The old saying was, "throw up a screen and lawn chairs and an audience will show up." That must be the strategy they're pursuing. It still doesn't make me feel any better about visiting commercial movie theaters, or even bothering to upgrade my 1080p TV to a 3.8K TV set any time in the next several years.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-19-2016, 01:03 AM:

Couldn't agree with you more. Cinema's today, offer LESS then they have in the recent past. With 4k screens at home and UHD distribution for home devices, theaters no longer have the resolution hype they've had in the past. Projection companies have scrambled and thrown together HDR and "laser" projection solutions, but they all have the same issues as normal DLP projection; limited on resolution and a fixed pixel grid which is clearly visible when watching. Other gimmicks like the worthless digital IMAX system, Dolby Vision - which doesn't look good - and as you pointed out ATMOS, which you can clearly tell the speakers on the ceiling sound totally different then the one's on the side, which sound totally different then the one's behind the screen. What a friggen' joke!

Every year prior to 2010, I use to watch upwards of 4 movies at the theater a month. After 2010, things started going down hill. It went to 3, then 2 and now I struggle to watch 5 movies a year! It's not just the horrible presentation systems which are no different then my DLP projector system at home. It's also the content, which has become less and less interesting. Movies today are overly safe, making them pretty boring for a filmmaker like myself, who is interested in seeing something good, not just a way to waste time on a friday night. The high price tag also doesn't help things, but I have money, so it doesn't "hinder" me from going. I'd gladly pay $20 for a decent movie, shot and projected properly. The general public feel the same way, hence the studio's profits continuing to increase since the recession. The one number the studio's don't tell anyone is attendance, which has been down every year since the recession. In fact, outside of the two or three tent pole blockbusters each year, where people may see the movie multiple times, "unique" theater visits are at their lowest in several decades, according to a recent report I read earlier this year on 2015.

We all know the high ticket prices only exist thanks to the gimmicks theaters offer. Theaters have to buy that equipment, so I understand their desire to charge more. Yet, most of the money they gather, goes right back to the studio's, whom again, have HUGE profits. So in their mind, what they're doing is OK, but it's the death of cinema as we know it. All it will take is another financial melt down, which is coming very fast and the Wanda group will probably be looking for a buyer and once that happens, say good bye to the local multiplex. It really kills me to think multiple Chinese companies own the vast majority of theaters in this country.

Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 10-19-2016, 07:53 AM:

So can someone please tell me, what is the reasoning behind these theaters with masking capabilities, choosing not to mask their screens? For example, I saw a movie the other day that was (I'm pretty sure)showing on a common width screen with the capability to mask the image downward. Forgive me I'm not sure of the proper terminology for that. Anyhow, it was a 2.35:1 shot film. Do these theaters think we want to see a film letterboxed like at home? Why are they being so damn lazy??

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2016, 12:09 PM:

My guess is the theaters are not paying staff well enough to give a damn about showmanship. In the film days it was very common to see lens changes and masking/curtain changes from flat to 'scope during the run of trailers. Add to that the snipes for THX, DTS, etc. Building a play list in a d-cinema projector and programming automation functions is a whole lot faster and easier than the manual methods in film projection. But the staff can't be bothered with little details like getting masking framed correctly. That is if the screen has any masking at all.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 10-19-2016, 04:41 PM:

Or, in the case of our "Regal", the masking broke(needs recabled) and they won't pay to fix it... "Just leave it open" [Mad]

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-19-2016, 05:07 PM:

Soon it will be; "ohh the projector is out of calibration, whatever nobody will notice".

Wait... that happens already.

See, the nice thing about film is that, if you do a bad job people know and complain. With digital, you don't have to do anything, people just accept it because there is no alternative. That's been my biggest beef with this whole film v digital debate. I'm a filmmaker and I have no choice but to present my movies digitally.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-22-2016, 12:43 AM:

quote: Tyler Purcell
See, the nice thing about film is that, if you do a bad job people know and complain.

I have to disagree with that. In an age where people complain about every trivial thing, you'd think they'd complain about bad presentation, whether film or digital, but generally they just accept that that's the way it is and they don't complain. The only exceptions in my experience were when a lamp blew completely or the projector stopped due to a film break. I once saw a film where it was obvious that the reels were in the wrong order and I was the only one who complained.

I can't tell you the number of times I complained about presentations back in the film days and I was almost always told, "you're the only one who complained". While that might be a lie in some cases, it's not a lie in all cases because I would sit there and be enraged and storm out of the auditorium to find someone and everyone else was just sitting there.

As I've written a number of times before, I saw "The Master" in 70mm at the (late) Ziegfeld in NYC and the print had dirt end-to-end. I was the only one complaining. Decades ago, I saw the movie "Fillmore" at the Loews Kings in Brooklyn in 4-tk mag and one audio channel was completely missing. The manager of that theater did nothing and just said the usual, "that's the way it's supposed to be". I wrote to Loews and they admitted there was a problem and send me a check for one ticket. When I saw E.T. in 70mm at Movieland in NYC, there was a 60 Hz hum throughout the whole film. When I complained about that, one of the guys sitting around said, "he heard the hum" as if no one else ever did.

Bad presentation is bad presentation and it has nothing to do with whether it's film or digital. But at least with digital, idiots in the theater can't destroy the print and even in the smallest towns, people are seeing an image without dirt, scratches, weave, bad shutter sync, frames missing, wow and flutter in the audio, and they get to see the movies the same day that people get to see them in Los Angeles and New York. That wasn't the case in the film days when more often that not, except for first run theaters early in the run, you felt like you were watching films in a grind house.

On the other hand, I've also seen digital presented out-of-focus, with the center channel fed to the left speaker and especially with Sony 3D projectors, whether projecting 2D or 3D, absurdly dim images with bad color. I've also been in theaters where the sound was completely distorted and not just because the level was cranked up too high.

Etc.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-22-2016, 07:39 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
I have to disagree with that. In an age where people complain about every trivial thing, you'd think they'd complain about bad presentation, whether film or digital, but generally they just accept that that's the way it is and they don't complain.

Very few people bother to complain about presentation problems because it's far too much of a pain in the ass to do so, especially now. 20 or 30 years ago it was easier to complain. Multiplex sites weren't so big and stadium seating hadn't yet taken over theater designs.

Today if something goes wrong during a show the audience plays a waiting game, seeing who will get up first to go complain, trying to wait out each other. Sometimes no one leaves their seat. It means missing a good sized chunk of the movie.

I swear, it seems like whenever anything goes wrong I'm the one who gets to miss part of the movie to complain. I gotta leave the middle seat, stepping over other people to get to the aisle. Then I have to walk down all those stadium riser steps toward the screen and then once I hit ground level I have to walk another auditorium length to the room's entrance. Then comes the fun of walking down long hallways into the lobby and trying to find anyone there who might get in touch with a manager promptly. Like I said, it's a real pain in the ass.

Posted by Tyler Purcell (Member # 9213) on 10-23-2016, 03:41 PM:

Honestly, I can't go to regular cinemas anymore, they all look like crap to me. If I go to the cinema, which is very rare these days thanks to the crap content, I go to the best theater in town and deal with the drive/ticket expense, because they deliver the highest quality show. If they don't play the movie I want to see, then I'll just wait for the digital release and watch it on my calibrated high definition DLP projected, home theater. Since movies today are mostly shot digital and the vast majority are finished in 2k, why bother seeing it on a big screen with all the aliasing and pixilation. At least when things go bad at MY home theater, I can solve them immediately and re-start the presentation. [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-23-2016, 04:48 PM:

Aliasing and pixelation? These days most theaters I visit have such slightly out of focus imagery viewers can't tell if they're watching a movie in 2K or 4K. The picture may be rock steady and acceptably bright, but I often see more tack sharp detail from a Blu-ray at home on my 65" TV set.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-14-2016, 10:26 AM:

So.... No, I guess?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2016, 01:57 PM:

Nope. No 70mm. Just digital only.

We'll be lucky if the movie has a 4K DCP, despite the original footage being 6.5K 2.76:1 material. The studios just gotta have their IMAX 3D and Real D stuff -which almost guarantees a 2K DCP.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 11-14-2016, 03:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
We'll be lucky if the movie has a 4K DCP, despite the original footage being 6.5K 2.76:1 material. The studios just gotta have their IMAX 3D and Real D stuff -which almost guarantees a 2K DCP.

I have a feeling you are going to be right about this. Lucasfilm/Disney decided to release "The Force Awakens" only in 2K despite being shot entirely on film *and* being mastered in Dolby Vision. Through my asking around on why they didn't release any version in 4K, I was told it had to do mainly with the visual effects being created in 2K which would require upscaling, and also the 3D release had to be 2K so to save time/money and to keep it uniform, they decided to just release every version at 2K.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that "Rogue One" will be released in 4K but so far I haven't heard anything about that yet.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-14-2016, 08:25 PM:

I think I saw the 4K Rouge One trailer at the new Alamo Drafthouse in Downtown Brooklyn during their test run. The room a huge common height screen nearing the ceiling, floor, and walls, and a surprisingly bright Sony 4K projector.

I wasn't impressed. It was too soft, but that was the aesthetic Lucasfilm wanted as it takes place in between III and IV, but it's closer to IV.

I don't know if it's a compliment, or an insult, depending on how you are looking at it, but it looked a bit like the recent Silver Screen Edition of IV Team Negative 1 cooked up from original 35mm prints.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-14-2016, 09:24 PM:

quote: Mike Schulz
Through my asking around on why they didn't release any version in 4K, I was told it had to do mainly with the visual effects being created in 2K which would require upscaling, and also the 3D release had to be 2K so to save time/money and to keep it uniform, they decided to just release every version at 2K.

If that's true that just fucking pisses me off. It's fucking Star Wars for fuck's sake! The highest grossing movie and they couldn't be bothered with spending a little more to make it look as good as possible?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-15-2016, 12:23 AM:

Global media bean counters are running the show now. Any freaking thing that eats into the bottom line and "value for shareholders" is expendable, even if it affects how good and long lasting the actual product looks. These bean counters couldn't give a damn about what they're selling if they tried. It's all about the money. They might as well be selling the "widgets" they talk about in business classes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2016, 02:31 AM:

quote: Tyler Purcell
Theaters have to buy that equipment, so I understand their desire to charge more.

Believe me, there is absolutely no "desire" to charge more. It's called a "necessity" and is only done to keep the doors open. I lose sleep every time I need to raise prices.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-15-2016, 01:48 PM:

quote: Buck Wilson
Or, in the case of our "Regal", the masking broke(needs recabled) and they won't pay to fix it... "Just leave it open"

Lots and lots of broken masking issues stem from using cheap parts like garage door pulleys and springs. Even garage door openers have been converted to masking duty and most of these openers have cheap plastic gears in the. It costs way more money to use rated stage components from companies like JR Clancy and Stagecraft... often a similar size pulley is 10X or more what a garage door pulley costs at home depot, but they are never going to break nor will they cause your cabling to wear and fray! You can either chose to do it right or pay the price and always have break downs. Sadly the chains always go the cheapest route.

Mark

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-15-2016, 04:31 PM:

That's hilarious you'd say that. All our systems are, indeed, garage door opener based.

And the cable did fray to the point of near failure, because it kept slipping off the pulley.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2016, 03:34 PM:

I'm not surprised. Its not always the opener thats to blame, its usually the cheapo pulleys used that causes the cable to fray. The cable should last almost for ever if its running on proper pulleys and is not over tensioned. If cabling has to be too tight for things to work then the design is completely wrong.

Mark

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-17-2016, 07:54 PM:

All of our problems up until this point(Opened in Apr/2005) have just been fabric getting caught up in the cables/pulleys which is a mess, and has ended up in a few bent pulley brackets and whatnot. Nothing requiring any real repairs/money.

But yeah, 11 year old building, one cable needs to be replaced and Regal is like "LOL NOPE".

Posted by Edward Summerhays (Member # 9646) on 12-04-2016, 09:13 PM:

The 4K DCP trailer was a big indicator, but I just noticed Sony website officially lists Rogue One as a 4K DCP title.

I also didn't expect a Disney movie to appear on the Sony website

http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/digital-cinema-4k-movies-a-star-wars-story-2016