Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cave of Forgotten Dreams DCP Aspect Ratio

This is topic Cave of Forgotten Dreams DCP Aspect Ratio in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000815

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-04-2011, 04:07 PM:

Technicolor DCP info sheet for "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" specifies 2.39AR but the intro logos and end titles appear cropped in that format.

Bluray backup is 16x9 (full frame).

Tested the DCP in 1.85 and the picture information is 1.85.

Phoned Technicolor - the 35mm film prints are 1.85. Apparently, there has been some miscommunication about how the DCP should be presented. We have been "okay'ed" to run the DCP (3D) as 1.85.

Posted by Travis Cape (Member # 466) on 06-04-2011, 04:55 PM:

Manny,

A theater here had the same problem. The DCP looks best as 1.85 regardless of what Technicolor believes.

Travis

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-04-2011, 05:41 PM:

As of this afternoon, Technicolor is aware of the error.

Of course, it is anyone's guess whether the corrected information will trickle down to theatres that are still showing the film...or whether that will happen in a timely fashion. That's why I started this thread.

Technicolor has okay'ed us to run this at 1.85 and that is in fact what we are doing.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-04-2011, 07:37 PM:

On film, I would show it 1.78:1 (16:9). It is hard matted and 1.85 is definitely not its best ratio.

I'm curious on the DCP if it fills the entire width of the 1.85 image.

-Steve

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-04-2011, 10:35 PM:

when I saw the first show of the film at AMC Hoffman (opening day) they projected the film at 2.35 - and the cropping was VERY apparent - needless to say I was very annoyed. I brought up the problem to the manager after the screening

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-04-2011, 11:57 PM:

Steve - Yes, the DCP fills the 1.85AR width. I wondered if there was more information above/below the 1.85 frame but I did not have time between our only 2 shows to investigate.

Clarify - Is the 35mm version hard matted as 1.78 or 1.85?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2011, 02:44 AM:

Another quick Chris Slycord impersonation...

If you ran the DCP in 1.85, then there couldn't possibly have been any extra information above or below the 1.85 frame since you were using the entire height of the DMD.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-05-2011, 02:16 PM:

Doh!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-05-2011, 02:59 PM:

Geez, five plus years into digital and they haven't standarized simple specs like aspect ratios yet? How difficult is it when there are only two different ratios to get right? When would we ever need to ask whether or not the 1.85 image fills the entire width of the frame in film?

Just seems to me like a lot of fudging going on, and especially when digital was supposed to make booth operation pretty much a turn-key, low-tech or even no-tech operation. So why is there so much guess-work at the end-user level when we know that can easily be no more tech savvy than an assistant manager...maybe even a glorified usher/"booth attendant"?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-05-2011, 04:18 PM:

Frank, it was a typo. No need to create a rant about something that isn't there. It is no worse than if you got a 35mm print in of a movie that was scope but the paperwork said 1.85

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-05-2011, 04:24 PM:

Ah, ok. But it does seem like there are quite a few issues revolving around aspect ratios projected incorrectly in this forum. Just made me wonder as all.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-05-2011, 04:42 PM:

Personally, I think it might have been hard matted 1.78 on 35mm film, definitely no more than 1.85. One thing is for sure, you won't have any "fringe" from the aperture plate showing on the top and bottom on the masking...It will be crisp! Better frame it PERFECTLY and hope the bi-directional printing was all biased the same for your print.

-Steve

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-05-2011, 04:53 PM:

I have seen scope digital on a 16:9 screen without top and bottom masking adjusted and the picture is, as you say, so sharp edged that as long as the room has low ambient light like as it is supposed to, you can almost forget that the screen is not properly masked; the optical illusion can convince you that it's a hard masked image -- not that it's what you want theatres to do, but it's not nearly as obvious or annoying as film that's not masked properly.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 06-06-2011, 12:30 PM:

I saw Cave on opening night at a Century Theatre in Walnut Creek about a month ago, and it was in 1.85:1. Don't know if they called it in or just saw it was the correct format, but it was a beautiful presentation considering how it was shot, and it's a movie I urge everyone to see.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-06-2011, 09:12 PM:

Edward; I assume the screening you saw was digital 3D - right?

off topic - interesting that some well established indie directors are taking the 3D plunge - I'm looking forward to seeing Wim Wender's dance film: 'Pina'

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-06-2011, 09:54 PM:

No the director said in a interview that except for this cave art he is not a fan of 3d and he also said he wont shed a tear for traditional film art houses!