Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: HUGO 3D in different aspect ratio

This is topic HUGO 3D in different 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=000979

Posted by Rob Alexander (Member # 6163) on 12-12-2011, 01:32 PM:

Greetings from someone who is a cinema and film lover/dork. I have an odd question for you all and I hope someone will have the answer. My local IMAX (15/70 SR system), recently added two Christie digital projectors on top of the SR systems in the booth. They use these to share product with their 14 plex across the parking lot during a lull in IMAX releases. It is NOT a digital IMAX theater but an SR Theater. They however only get 4 or 5 IMAX DMR features a year.

This week, they stopped showing Happy Feet, and moved over HUGO to the big screen until MI4 opens Thursday night. (other times they show the 70mm IMAX films in tandem throughout the day with digital mainstream films).

My question is that I went to see HUGO last night in the IMAX theater (they used XpanD 3D). The entire screen was used. How is that possible? I looked on IMDB, and they list the aspect ratio at 1.85. I saw Lion King in 1.85 here last month and there was unused screen above and below the picture, but not for HUGO.
It looked like 1.44 aspect ratio.

BTW, the image was way too dark, even with two projectors. I asked one of the staff and he looked at me as if I was from another world so I just moved on.

thanks!

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-13-2011, 09:39 AM:

It's rather easy to ovefill the screen and adjust the electronic masking in the projectors to fit.
This is almost always done to some extent with digital projection, with film projection the same thing is done by filing the aperture plate to fit the screen. There's usually some keystoning to compensate for and the screen may be a bit "off size to get the best scope or flat image, leaving the other imperfect.
With perfect projection geometry and a perfectly sized screen and prefectly adjusted screen masking, it's possible to use 100% of the digital image on screen, and to cut aperture plates to use the maximum safe area on the film if the throw and screen size are perfect for an available lens size (35mm lenses are almost always a fixed focal length and zoom adapters degrade the image).
However, showing a 1.85:1 image on a 1.44:1 screen as you describe is a truly terrible practice. I understand that letterboxing the image bothers some people. What you describe means they're discarding a lot of picture information: cinematographers always use a safe image area that avoids having really important images at the extreme sides of the frame - mostly to accommodate standard definition TV transfers - but in a theatrical venue the full image should be projected.
Also, you lose image resolution and brightness. Both are usually poor with digital 3D on a large screen, even with dual projectors.
I guess they expect to get fewer complaints about a dim cropped image than they would with a letterboxed one. Or they just don't care.
Maybe - hopefully? - they just picked the wrong lens (not unheard of) and this is the best they can do until a new lens arrives?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-13-2011, 11:04 AM:

About that..."35mm lenses are almost always a fixed focal length and zoom adapters degrade the image" That's always been a given, but I've never heard a decent explanation of why the same axiom doesn't apply to digital lenses. Same physics no matter what's behind the lens that it needs to focus on the screen, no? Although Schneider does have a kind of semi-zoom/semi-fixed lens that does give you some zoom to allow you to tweak enough to compensate for those situations where the fixed focal length increiments don't come out perfect for your throw.

I once wrote to them and asked if that variable was enough so that I could use a single lens for both 1.85:1 and 1.66. They said they would get back to me, never did. Sure would be nice for art houses to only need to buy one lens for two aspect ratios. Certainly it would be great to need only one lens for silent and sound Academy formats. I never got the funds so I didn't pursue it. Interesting issue though.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-13-2011, 12:04 PM:

Zoom lenses still have the same issues with digital images, just as they do with film images. But because the ultimate resolution of current digital images is rather limited compared to what's possible with film, digital lenses can "get away" with somewhat lower optical performance standards. Those standards can be met using zoom lenses.

The same issue occurs in television production when compared with film production. In video, zooms are commonplace whereas with film, fixed primes are more common, though there are some film zooms that give excellent results. But one can still measure some fairly big differences in optical performance between good video lenses and good film lenses. Again, the reduced resolution requirements of 1080p production allow the use of lenses that can get by with lower optical performance specs.

The same thing happens with projection. We use zooms in digital projection because we can get away with it and still achieve good quality images that are limited by the image or imager and not by the lens.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-14-2011, 09:49 AM:

Ah...I get it. Mediocre begets mediocre.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-17-2011, 07:53 PM:

I'm confused. I saw Hugo in 3D at the Century 24 theatre in San Jose...the one with these screwed up aspect ratio problems with their digital projection. I also read on Imdb that it was 1.85, which was the only reason why I decided to go to the Century 24 to see it, since it would fit the entire screen as it should. But low and behold, they projected it in letterboxed 2.39 scope, with the black (blank screen) bars at the top and the bottom of the screen...

So, is it flat or scope? Is this something else to be worried about now with digital projection and the Century 24?

I am really trying to support the industry, but this is getting rediculous....

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-17-2011, 08:40 PM:

Hugo is definitely flat.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-17-2011, 10:28 PM:

This topic is pointing the finger at "Lion King" which was not presented in 1.85:1 for digital presentations, but the 1.66:1 as in a previous thread. The DCP file was copied from the 1.66:1 film negative, thus the DCP image on the screen had slight black vertical bars on the side for a standard DCP presentation.

Now, the IMAX place that used the "SR" 15/70mm projectors, prob has a screen size of 58ft x 75ft giving us a screen ratio of 1.29:1, since one frame of 15/70mm film is at a ratio of 1.2:1 Thus "Lion King" would be projected smaller to fit within these ratio figures - why the dark top and bottom of the image.

Thus, for "HUGO", it was prob presented in a full 1.33:1 (4/3) ratio to fill the screen.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 12-18-2011, 03:26 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
one frame of 15/70mm film is at a ratio of 1.2:1

IMAX frame is 69.6 x 48.5 mm.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-18-2011, 04:46 PM:

1.44:1 ... wish some sites would get their facts straight where I picked up this above info.... sorry on the mislead.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-18-2011, 08:49 PM:

Went to a different theatre today, and wandered into the Hugo 3D auditorium and low and behold, it was being shown in 1.85 Flat!

Yet like I said when I saw it at the Century 24 it was letterboxed 2.39 scope.

I guess there are two different versions out there....

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-18-2011, 09:22 PM:

... or there's one version that's being played incorrectly at one particular theater...

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 12-18-2011, 10:12 PM:

not really an aspect ratio comment, but, I sat through the end credits and I noticed that the Dolby Logo included "7.1" next to it - has any other film been denoted as such, it's the first time I noticed it. (The newspaper ads in the New York Times noted that 'The Muppets' was released in 7.1) If Dolby is going to include the 7.1, they should ALSO put it on the one-sheet posters. Just my two cents here.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-19-2011, 02:24 AM:

quote: Eric Hooper
Yet like I said when I saw it at the Century 24 it was letterboxed 2.39 scope.

Yep, "digital booth goons" used the wrong template again with someone that made the playlist, used the scope template instead of the flat template.

Why it went wide screen and can look okey, but crops the top and bottom of the image real good.

Afraid, this is the next evidence of inexperienced booth operations...and this is what digital was supposed to replace film with....to end stupidity. But stupid people can't read both the build sheet that comes in the cases and on the CRU power supply case itself which clearly depicts which lens format to use.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
If Dolby is going to include the 7.1, they should ALSO put it on the one-sheet posters. Just my two cents here.

Not gonna happen since 7.1 isn't the main sound format yet. Where there words mentioning, "in selected theatres" next to this description in the end credits?

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-20-2011, 12:38 AM:

Seriously, there are templates for flat or scope?

It's wretched enough the Century 24 has permanetly drawn their side masking screens to FLAT, and are showing scope movies letterboxed inside the FLAT screen area, but now they can't even get FLAT movies to show correctly?

I am done with them for good now... [fu]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-20-2011, 12:58 AM:

Yep. Depending on the server, they'll either have a macro that changes masking and lenses (and whatever else needs to be done for their house at start) for them or have a separate cue for each of the items.

Though did you mention this to the manager?

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-20-2011, 02:26 AM:

True, if a complex or company decides to use LS/TMS operations, then they'll have "templates" set up with necessary cues embedded within for each format. Otherwise, when one builds a playlist, the format cue is the first format cue that is to be used in the playlist string after the "Black" cues.

...and sadly, there is no way to tell it on the screen unless you know what to look for since the image isn't squeezed or stretched if the wrong template is used.

When you see a "letterboxed" presentation on the screen is when the opposite template is used - a flat template for a scope feature and you know the cinema has adjustable maskings for scope....and that's the result of bad attentiveness to DCP playlist assemblies.

Betcha 10 to 1 that one goes and tells the one in charge that the picture is wrong on the screen, a dumb look will be the result from that individual and a "I'll tell the one in charge" will be the reply .. and it stops right there.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-20-2011, 04:47 AM:

It would seem simple enough to make the TMS software read the metadata and flag up when something is being played with the wrong settings.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-22-2011, 10:52 AM:

So DMD's use letterboxing for scope? They are not using their full pixal compliment when showing scope? Why not use the whole DMD height and anamorphize the image with and appropriate anamorphic lens in projection? With the issue of resolution being such a bone of contention in digital vs. film, one one thing it is stupid to purposely throw away a chunk of pixels on scope titles just to avoid needing to change a lens -- didn't they ever hear of motorized turrets?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-22-2011, 12:59 PM:

The scope lenses are about 10 grand I think?

Posted by Bob Bregazzi (Member # 5623) on 12-22-2011, 01:31 PM:

'hugo' is being shown 1.85 at the odeon leicester sqare, london, uk.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-22-2011, 09:12 PM:

Anamorphics are available for DLP but not popular due to the price (about $10K plus the apparatus to move it in/out). They were more popular before the zooms had such a wide range in focal length and before everything was motorized.

Personally, I think any commercial theatre that has side masking that isn't using an anamorphic is "doing it wrong." The anamorphic improves the light by about 23%.

Note, one does NOT get more resolution...the source image is only 857 pixels tall...scaling them to 1080 doesn't add more information...it just makes the light more efficient.

Barco no longer supports the anamorphic on their house projectors though the possibility is there (they have the 3D XLR connector to power/control an anamorphic turret. Christie and NEC both offer anamorphic still though they are in a "while they last" state since they really are not selling well.

-Steve