Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is Scope on the way out?

This is topic Is Scope on the way out? 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=001245

Posted by James Waite (Member # 4536) on 10-15-2012, 04:24 PM:

Just curious for people's opinion on something. When we go digital we might be moving the projector to a different booth and putting up a new screen.

Currently the size of our screen is determined by two things, the width of the area where the screen hangs and the edge of the balcony which limits where the top of the screen can be where the projector is now.

We currently have side masking so the screen in bigger in scope than flat.

When we move things around we shouldn't have the height limit any more so I'm wondering whether to switch to top and bottom masking.

Part of the reason I'm considering this is I think with digital cinema scope may go away? For me the first sign of this was Avengers being Flat, there was at least one other big movie this summer that was flat when it would usually have been scope.

This is my reasoning why scope might go away-

Most multiplex theatres use top/bottom masking so the image is actually bigger for Flat.

It's my understanding that using scope on a Digital projector doesn't make full use of the pixels?

It's probably cheaper to do 3D on flat than scope?

Even things like Imax being closer to Flat than Scope may come into play.

Opinions?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 10-15-2012, 05:27 PM:

60-75% of the movies I am playing on any given week are 2.39:1. I don't think Scope is going away anytime soon.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-15-2012, 06:16 PM:

inasmuch as digital makes any ratio possible (forget standards for the moment) the best bet seems to bey 4 way masking and the biggest screen you can fit.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-15-2012, 08:27 PM:

I think scope movies will eventually all but disappear. Think about it...

New build cinemas now use letterboxing for their scope and flat is the largest image.

TV's are now 16x9.

Flat is better quality than scope (generally).

I think it's probably the main reason AVENGERS was flat.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-15-2012, 11:57 PM:

I think scope will always be an "artistic choice" on the part of the film-maker. Sometimes you just need that wider image.

Plus, TVs are getting wider, not narrower.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-16-2012, 12:19 AM:

Each year that has gone by since digital has taken over, there have been more and more scope movies. It is NOT going to go away, and it is the one thing that separates a real cinema from tv at home.

Top/scissor masking is just replicating tv.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-16-2012, 12:27 AM:

If they keep doing builds with 1.85 screens, then there's no difference except the cinema screen's size. Scope movies will be letterboxed on both.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-16-2012, 12:35 AM:

Right, and to make matters worse many theaters are saying "to hell with masking" (even though DCI requires it). By eliminating masking, they are making the cinema experience THAT MUCH CLOSER to home video.

Sure it is "just my opinion", but mark my words...

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-16-2012, 01:57 AM:

Yep, seen scope presentations look like the ones in our homes - "letterboxed" scope presentations.

Goodbye maskings for scope presentations.

And, what's interesting is that, in the Digital Realm, that the term 'scope, really isn't valid anymore since the image isn't shown through any anamorphic attachments at majority of the DC conversions.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-16-2012, 02:18 AM:

In fact I see more and more scope features - even letterboxed, scope is considered more sexy and 'cinematic' than flat. Don't count on scope disappearing.

- Carsten

Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 10-16-2012, 07:03 AM:

anyone seen a scope television? they must exist.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 10-16-2012, 07:49 AM:

Speaking of this topic:

In regards to digital - a trend that I do not like is trailers for movies that will be released in 'Scope are being re-sized in the letterbox type format when played before a flat movie. I find this really annoying.

Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 10-16-2012, 08:22 AM:

If you take a close look at "scope" features presented on commercial television note that the 1920x1080 is reformatted to 1440x1080 (after credits) to fill the 16x9 tv screen.

Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 10-16-2012, 09:28 AM:

@PaulGordon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_Cinema_21:9_TV

they stopped making them due to lack of interest.

@Dennis:

not much better than scope trailers of 1.85 movies on 35mm. or vice versa. or 35mm scope trailers in general.

the fact is that scope is the inferior format in 2k, so it makes little sense to make it worse by making it bigger, even if that is contrary to the historical reason why scope even started existing.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-16-2012, 10:08 AM:

Vizio just introduced a 21:9 TV in the US this summer:

VIZIO Begins Shipping XVT3D580CM CinemaWide 21:9 HDTV in US (Finally!) -- bigpicturebigsound.com

It's an interesting concept, and I don't think it's completely out in left field, but I can't imagine it really taking off either. Philips took the lead, and after a few years, only Vizio followed. However, in a market looking for distinction between products, going wide certainly does that.

My favorite part of Vizio's implementation is that they make use of the blank space on a 1.78:1 presentation to show extra information if you wish. For example, you could be watching a football game and have an app showing other scores, etc. This is the example given in the article above.

As someone who has a separate movie-watching system, I don't see the need for a 2.4:1 (ok, 2.37:1) screen in my living room, especially if it comes at a price premium. If all other things were equal, I would certainly consider it, as the use of the blank space has some interesting possibilities.

Now that I've had a 2.35:1 screen in my home theater for several months, going wide is a distinction between watching TV and watching a movie.

I think scope still works well as an aspect ratio, and I would never recommend to a theater to install a flat screen and do top and bottom masking. If you don't feel the image is big enough when showing flat movies on a scope screen, that's a problem with the room, not the aspect ratio. If you have a room which just can't handle the smaller size for flat presentations, then put in a 1.85:1 screen and never show scope movies in that dinky room. Your customers deserve better than a letterboxed presentation.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 10-16-2012, 03:28 PM:

When CinemaScope first came out in 1953 it was much WIDER than the 1:33 X 1 theatres were running. Both were the same height but scope was wider at 2:35 X 1. So use side masking NOT top and bottom masking. The flat ratio changed to 1:66 X 1 then 1:85 X 1 (although some now call 1:85 X 1 "widescreen"). The theatre I was working at the time had a stage arch that prohibited installing a wider screen so they made the scope picture fit inside the flat screen. It was ridiculous. They made a format that was supposed to impress the audience with its wide scope a tiny ribbon smaller than flat. You would do the same thing with top and bottom masking and it would defeat the director's purpose for using 'scope.

Posted by Dan Kessler (Member # 6607) on 10-16-2012, 03:53 PM:

Exactly right. True cinemascope never crops anything. It uses every bit of the 4-perf image height.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-16-2012, 04:03 PM:

quote: Bajsic Bojan
they stopped making them due to lack of interest.

Nope, they still make them:

http://www.philips.de/c/fernsehgeraete/cinema-219-platinum-series-147-cm-58-zoll-full-hd-3d-max-ultra-breitbildschirm-58pfl9956h_12/prd/

http://www.philips.de/c/fernsehgeraete/cinema-219-gold-series-127-cm-50-zoll-ultra-breitbildschirm-easy-3d-50pfl7956k_02/prd/

- Carsten

Posted by James Waite (Member # 4536) on 10-16-2012, 04:12 PM:

I much prefer scope when it's shown as it should be but we are one of the few theatres around here that use side masking. Our theatre is built on a diagional in a square room and the width is limited by the exit doors. Our scope image is 28 feet wide which looks fairly impressive in the relaltivly small room.

I've noticed the muliplexes have stopped using the masking. I can sort of see why as the digital make a fairly straight edge as opposed to 35mm but I still think masking looks more professional. At the very least people might wonder why the image isn't filling the whole screen.

I'm probably not the only one who looks at the size of the screen to determine where to sit as well. I like to sit in the dead center if it's stadium seating.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 5226) on 10-16-2012, 04:58 PM:

I dont see Scope on the way out, but I dont like this top masking that the nearby multi-plex uses. To watch adds or trls that are bigger than the scope movie itself makes me cringe. The three screen where I last worked had side masking for two, and top for one. The conversion on that screen to top masking I opposed, but the owners wanted a bigger picture on flat, so they won out. However the two other larger screens with side masking I would use for our Scope films and keep them away as much a possible from the other one. I like the idea of a cinema slipping into total darkness just before that scope change. The next thing you should see is.. "da da"... a big picture not a smaller one.

I am not up with the play with digital presentation, only film, but watching Doctor Zhivago, and Lawrence of Arabia on 35mm with our "side masking moving out" and using the full screen last year was amazing, it was a real treat.

Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 10-17-2012, 01:42 AM:

quote: Carsten

quote: Bajsic Bojan they stopped making them due to lack of interest.

Nope, they still make them:

Sorry for the misunderstanding then, i was looking at their press release from 25th August 2012. They do say they will keeep the 50"+ screens, but for only a limited time.

---

Philips Cinema 21:9 is dead
When the last Cinema 21:9 TVs on the market have been sold, it is over. The extra wide format TVs were not as big a success as Philips had hoped for. Therefore, Philips has decided to discontinue the Cinema 21:9 TVs definitely.

Philips Cinema 21:9 Platinum is the last model. No new Cinema 21:9 TVs will be introduced

- “Unfortunately the demand for this screen size is not any more on par with what we regard as basic requirement for mass production. This might change in the future, but for now we have decided not to come with new 21:9 models. However, we see larger screen sizes (50”+) becoming more important,” Philips says to FlatpanelsHD.

An orbituary
Philips has released a total of 4 Cinema 21:9 models over the last few years. Initially, consumers seemed confused about the format but Philips made an effort to highlight the advantages of the extra wide cinema format with large-scale campaigns. Below you see the time line.

2009: Philips launched the first 56" Cinema 21:9 TV in 2009.
2009: Philips initiated a large-scale campaign under the name Carousel to promote the 21:9 TVs. You should spend a few minutes watching it as it is quite impressive.
2010: An updated Cinema 21:9 with 3D was released in 58 inches.
2010: Philips started the next big push for the Cinema 21:9 TVs. In a series of short movies produced by different artists, Philips tried to highlight the advantages of the extra wide format. The winner was chosen in collaboration with Ridley Scott.
2011: Philips introduced the Cinema 21:9 TVs in the US.
2011: Two updated Cinema 21:9 TVs in 58 and 50” were introduced with Philips’ most advanced picture systems. These two TVs are still available but only for a limited time.
2012: Philips stops production and development of Cinema 21:9 TVs. A new model was planned for IFA 2012 but has been cancelled.
---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-17-2012, 04:56 PM:

Allright - I guess as a consumer display, they never really had a chance. I mean, either having letterbox or pillarbox bars will not suit this target group. They want the frame to be filled as much as possible. There are a few other super wide screen displays, also in the public displays area. Anyway, it doesn't say much about the future of scope features. In europe, we see even local indie or low budget films in scope, don't we?

- Carsten

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-17-2012, 06:23 PM:

quote: Graham Ritchie
To watch adds or trls that are bigger than the scope movie itself makes me cringe.

And that is why I think it'll fade away. Perhaps not altogether, but substantially.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-17-2012, 07:10 PM:

I don't think that the people deciding about a future movies AR will consider any ads or trailers that might be shown before it. These people still consider scope as a format with a special value, not just another AR.

I have no numbers, but from my perspective, scope is more on the rise than on the decline.

- Carsten

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-17-2012, 08:26 PM:

Hey Carsten...is the Drive-In still going in Koln?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-17-2012, 08:33 PM:

Few people even know what the word "aspect ratio" means let alone differentiate between programs presented at different aspect ratios. Most people don't even notice when a 4:3 program is played on a 16:9 screen in "stretch mode."

Many people think that movies are supposed to have black bands at the top and the bottom of the screen. Many of them think that it is better to watch a movie that way but have no clue as to why. It is "just better."

Now, with the advent of wide screen TVs, the whole reason for different aspect ratios has been lost. In the past, movies were made at various ratios in order to differentiate the product from television. Today there is little or no difference between TV and movies. In fact, most movies will end up on television and most are designed with eventual viewing in television in mind.

We really don't have a need for different ratios anymore and, to be honest, if I'm going to have to live in an all-video world, I wish that different aspect ratios would just go away. My whole life would be a hell of a lot easier.

I think that, except for directors and producers who have some arty-farty reason, most movies and TV shows will eventually gravitate toward 16:9.

I can't say that scope will entirely go away but I think it will certainly get a lot more rare.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-21-2012, 11:44 PM:

there must be a new trend of stop motion animated films to be in scope since both 'The Pirates: Band of Misfits' and 'ParaNorman' were shot as such. interesting.

that was interesting to see the new version of 'Wuthering Heights' shot and projected in 1.37

somewhat related question, aren't most new theaters actually constructed in that screens have horizontal masking? side masking seems less prevalent.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-22-2012, 05:55 AM:

quote: John Wilson
Hey Carsten...is the Drive-In still going in Koln?

Hey John,

which one?

There were two - one at Porz (east bank of the rhine), one at Pulheim (outside of Cologne). The one at Pulheim (very close to where I live) closed down many years ago, they finally brought the screen down only last year.

The one at Porz is still in operation:

http://www.autokinos-deutschland.de/programm/unsere-kinos-kp.php

They still do 35mm. I don't know if/how they will continue with digital.

- Carsten