quote:

---

Attached please find the Quick Time of the G-Force 3D Framing Chart.

G-Force 3D employs a 3D technique that makes use of breaking the frame, in which the black letterboxes at the top and bottom of the image are usable pixels, and the image will, on occasion, employ these pixels for 3D effect. In order to project the G-Force 3D framing Chart and G-Force 3D feature properly, it is mandatory that your projector is set to 2K 3D FLAT 1.85 (1998x1080).

https://www.RelayIt.net/?c=hvGdf2pHRsKq4Bj89zDPw7s3b9DGDHbSCkKf


Please note 2D and 35mm will be projected scope.

---

Does anybody else find this crazy?
Let's take a scope movie and project it in flat, so we can have an extra small image!

If this doesn't make sense, follow this link and watch the video.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-08-2009, 07:45 PM:
 
Heard that James Cameron's epic coming out this winter will be using the dual format as well - Scope for 35mm prints and 1.77:1 for the 3D releases.

Looks like the usage of Super35mm is really taking a stronghold in the industry.

Or, it's all based from the 16:9 usage of home HD screens which is at the 1080i resolution.

For, 2k digital in 2.39:1 widescreen falls under the HD resolution and the 2k chip is only being partly used if the film presented in the 2.39:1 format (which is 2048 x 857) and this "857" is what under the 1080i HD requirements.

This might be the going trend on 3D digital movies - having both aperture formats assigned to each presentation format.

Now 4k is a different animal entirely ...

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-08-2009, 08:16 PM:
 
This movie (as well as Avatar) are all-digital. Very little Super35mm (and other film formats) anymore and only to scan them to 2K DI

G-force is not a real 3D movie. It was shot 2D and then "converted".

quote:

---

But one combination CG/live-action film, Disney's August release "G-Force," took a unique approach as the scenes were converted to 3-D in postproduction, rather than shot with a 3-D rig.

The reason is that "G-Force" originally was planned as a 2-D title.

"The decision to release in 3-D was made halfway through shooting," recalls visual effects supervisor Scott Stokdyk of Sony Pictures Imageworks, which created a virtual second camera for the CG 3-D, then combined the elements in post with the live action 3-D (created by In-Three, a Westlake Village, Calif.-based company that calls its proprietary service "dimensionalization"). "We had a variety of camera rigs and setups and very tight quarter shooting, so we had to be extremely flexible."

This approach allowed director Hoyt Yeatman to work with his editorial staff and VFX crew in a normal way and deal with the stereo issues at the very end of the proces. The live-action material then went through a 3-D post conversion process at In-Three.

"You have to plan ahead when you are composing 3-D shots, but it's not so much of an imposition as when you have to work on the right and left eye throughout the process," Stokdyk says.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Clever. Effective. Nice. Done before more subtly (called floating window).

---

I disagree. I will NOT watch this movie in 3D because of this stupid gimmick and it is bound to cause lots of confusion and angry customers. When the customers see the screen they EXPECT for the image to fill it! (I am so tempted to run the digital version in "scope" anyway.)

Archive link here.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-09-2009, 06:49 AM:
 
So...if you have horizontal masking such that Scope is bigger...you must then force people to see a SMALLER image on the FLAT screen dimensions...making the audience think YOU screwed up "excuse me...something is wrong with your picture...it doesn't fill the screen"

Oh and to add insult to injury...if you have a curved screen...the letterbox bars are going to look like bannanas!

Steve
 

---

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 07-09-2009, 07:34 AM:
 
Well, thankfully we don't have a curved screen, but it's still going to look like

Unfortunately, most of our patrons are not savy enough to bitch, but I could be wrong. We have several screens where the Screenvision pre-show does not fill the whole screen, and I can only recall one or two complaints in the two plus years we have had it. However, this is a feature that folks are going to have to sit through.

Should be interesting. Too damned bad we all have to deal with this.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2009, 11:11 AM:
 
The reason is because nobody, and yes I do mean NOBODY gives a flying shit about Screenvision ads. They could be running upside down and the customers would not complain because they paid their hard earned money to get into the theater to see the movie. They did NOT pay to be "forced" (which is really what it is) to sit through commercials.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-09-2009, 11:22 AM:
 
Except, Brad, on the occasion where the person complaining erroneously thinks that the ads playing wrong means that the movie will too.

I remember having a movie that wasn't threaded yet (since it didn't start for another 15-20 minutes) yet I got a call on the radio saying that the auditorium was out-of-frame all because the slide projector didn't fill up the entire screen.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2009, 12:56 PM:
 
Ok, fair enough, that is an issue occasionally.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-09-2009, 02:04 PM:
 
I had a shakey slide projector once and customers were afraid the movie would be shakey.

Anyway, why is whoever is releasing G-Force thinking that everyone has top masking? Whoever made this movie is an idiot. Or a bunch of idiots. Not that the movie would be worth watching in any form... looks ultra-retarded.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-09-2009, 02:57 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Heard that James Cameron's epic coming out this winter will be using the dual format as well - Scope for 35mm prints and 1.77:1 for the 3D releases.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Not that the movie would be worth watching in any form... looks ultra-retarded.

---

quote: Darryl Spicer

---

but after waking up I was still able to follow the plot, if that tells you anything.

---

quote:

---

Daily use of the Framing Chart will help ensure that all your guests see G-FORCE 3D the way it was meant to be seen!

---

Yeah, right. A daily check? As if any of the projectionists/managers have the knowledge, capability or authority to make the necessary adjustments without screwing up their systems worse than doing nothing.
 

---

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-22-2009, 08:50 PM:
 
Watched that framing chart today and it starts off with some clips showing the "breaking the framing" effect. IMHO, it did seem to improve the sense of depth in the image. And just to be clear, I'm not saying the movie is going to be watchable, just saying the 3D effect looked better.

Also, the framing chart (the one with Up! in this case) did come in handy at least once. Our techs left the flat 3D channel on our CP2000-ZX at 1920x1080 (apparently they forgot that it can do full frame 3D.) I bumped it up to 1998x1080 and tweaked the masking using the Up! framing chart.
 

---

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 07-23-2009, 07:36 AM:
 
Is this "letterbox to get a 3D effect" like what happened in the end credits of "Monsters vs Aliens"? I didn't see it in 3D, but there was a scene where black bars appeared top and bottom with the W.R. Monger character extending beyond the frame.
 

---

Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 07-23-2009, 02:02 PM:
 
I saw the movie last night and it was pretty good. 3D was ok... kids will like it.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2009, 02:32 PM:
 
Problem with 3D has always been that when you are trying to make an object converge closer to the audience than the screen plane, yes, the 3D illusion will work fine placing it in front of the screen UNTIL any portion of the object touches the screen frame. Then, although the convergence tells your brain that the object is in front of the screen, the fact that it is cropped by the frame edge also tells your brain, "hey, wait a minute, that stupid rat isn't in front of the screen at all," and the illusion collapses at the screen plane. Problem is, there are very few things in real-life that can hang in mid-air and not be intersected by the edge of the image window -- underwater fish work great, balloons, yah, but for most stuff in most compostions the objects of importance usually are intersected by the image frame. This forces the DP to either keep the 3D depth to behind the screen and then be very judicious about what shots he converges so that objects are closer than screen plane. Usually those shots in which objects need to come toward the audience are quick and fast so that they are over before the brain can figure out that the object touching the screen edge can't be closer to them than the screen.

This letterboxing thing allows the filmmaker to converge objects closer to the audience by having them break the virtual "frame" without actually touching the physical frame. Pretty clever in light of the omnipresent 3D screen edge problem, but pretty lame in terms of all the techincal issues. Of course with the 2D version there is no need for the virtual frame.
 

---