Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs?

This is topic So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs? 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=001471

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 04-17-2013, 02:12 AM:

On a different thread, a manager at Alamo Drafthouse in Littleton, CO said that the reason they played The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in the wrong AR is that they were sent the wrong format DCP.

Are studios/bookers really producing DCPs for 2.35:1 films (at least for repertory titles) in multiple ARs?

I obviously know they make pan & scan 16:9 versions for HBO/cable but didn't know they distributed them on DCP as well.

The DCP in question apparently came from Park Circus, as their logo preceded the presentation.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-17-2013, 10:16 AM:

A year ago I would have said "no way." Nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-17-2013, 05:18 PM:

It's certainly not normal. Some new releases sometimes come out in different ARs. Most prominent example probably AVATAR, but that was planned and shot that way.

I would say, normally you only have different AR between 'standard' and 'IMAX' releases, when special footage has been shot for an IMAX dedicated release.

- Carsten

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-17-2013, 06:46 PM:

It's not really something new actually.

Stanley Kubrick for example, extensively used open matte. Also Steven Spielberg and Terry Gilliam have used it. Those movies were shot with different aspect ratios in mind.

I'm fine with DCPs for multiple aspect ratios if the movie was made for it. That way the venue can choose the most optimal aspect ratio for their screen.

In any case, Pan & Scan should really be avoided...

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-18-2013, 12:16 PM:

There were two ARs for the recent release Escape from Planet Earth:
1.85:1 for the 2D prints
2.39:1 for the 3D prints with black bars on the sides, specifically so certain 3D effects appeared to look as if they were "popping" off the screen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-18-2013, 12:45 PM:

There is no excuse for the The Good, The Bad & The Ugly having anything other than one DCP in 'scope aspect ratio. Any other ratio is wrong.

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly was shot in the 2-perf 35mm Techniscope process. It only has a 'scope aspect ratio. There's no extra top & bottom to the image where it can be opened up to 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 like modern 3-perf & 4-perf Super 35 imagery.

Likewise, anything shot in 4-perf anamorphic 35mm should only have a 'scope ratio DCP. Anything more narrow is panning and scanning.

In the past, I've only seen Super35 movies restore top & bottom imagery for use on home video, either for old 1.33:1 TV sets or 1.77:1 HD monitors. Still, you can watch "full screen" versions of Super35 lensed movies like The Matrix or Titanic and see numerous shots that are still panned and scanned. Sometimes the severe cropping is done to maintain a dramatic close-up shot and not have it look like the camera has pulled out to a medium close shot. Lots of visual effects sequences in Super35 movies are rendered in 2.39:1 ratio, which forced heavy panning and scanning for 1.33:1 TV sets.

Just about all new Hollywood movies are post-produced using digital intermediate work flows. If the digital intermediate is rendered only in a 2.39:1 ratio then it will be best only to make DCPs based on that, especially if it is just a very common 2K resolution digital intermediate. A 1998 X 1080 extraction of a 2048 X 852 pixel image would involve artificially enlarging the image 126% and then lopping off the sides. The end result would be noticeably softer looking. Very bad practice.

With more movies being shot using video cameras, it's not surprising to see some movies being output in multiple aspect ratios. The 1.77:1 ratio is native to most video cameras and HDTV sets. 2.39:1 would merely be an extraction out of the middle of the frame.

Ultimately, I think the 'scope aspect ratio is going to come under some serious pressure. The 'scope format sucks under D-cinema. It's basically the lowest resolution image out of the various formats that can be played. The only advantage I see with the 'scope format in d-cinema is it doesn't require as much render time or hard disc space. People think the super wide frame looks cool, so very few people mind just what's really happening.

Long term, I see a slow trend toward everything going taller. First there will be growth with 1.85:1 stuff and then just about everything will be 1.77:1. Too many new movie theaters feature wall to wall screens where 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or even 1.66:1 is showing off the whole screen and 'scope has to be top masked. That way Driving Miss Daisy can be bigger than Die Hard. IMAX Digital and similar theaters just take the flat ratio wall to wall screen concept to a slightly bigger scale. Because those premium priced screens are generating more profit, a lot more movies will be geared to look best on those kinds of screens. That means more flat ratio stuff and less of 'scope.

Most viewers at home still don't like black bars on 'scope movies, even if the black bars are small on a HDTV monitor. For now, networks like Shotime & HD Net Movies are tending to show movies in their original aspect ratios, letter-boxing 'scope movies. I think they'll eventually go the route HBO has chosen for many years: pan and scan the 'scope movies for the 1.77:1 frame.

The future doesn't look good for the 'scope format.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-18-2013, 09:24 PM:

What you say makes sense, but on the other hand I just looked at the list of the 45 most recent movies on I.M.E. (after that, a few films don't have their format listed). Of those 45 movies, only 10 are in flat -- all the rest are scope. It seems more movies than ever are in scope these days. But with the proliferation of Imax I can see the trend toward a taller picture.

The savior of Scope might be the moviemakers themselves, who prefer the wide format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-18-2013, 10:25 PM:

I agree 'scope is very prevalent. But I think its use is part of a trend more than a decade old. Since the late 1990s there were many instances where the Carmike 8 theater here in town would be playing nothing but 'scope movies.

The 'scope format was used quite a bit in the 1970's. I'm not absolutely certain, but am pretty sure 'scope use dropped off a lot during the mid to late 1980's when the home video rental boom got going. Movie studios became more concerned about making new movies home video friendly. The Super35 format and DVD replacing VHS as the primary movie rental platform helped 'scope make a comeback.

I also have a theory 'scope has been used as a sort of cost cutting measure in digital formats. Letter-boxed movies use up less data bandwidth and disc capacity on DVD and Blu-ray discs. The lower pixel counts mean shorter rendering times for CG effects, compositing and digital intermediate work.

With the 'scope format not properly treated in d-cinema and other previously mentioned trends I would not be surprised to suddenly see a lot of flat ratio only movies being released.

But who knows? We could end up with a situation where lots of movies routinely send out flat and scope ratio DCPs for theaters using either side masking or top masking. I don't particularly like that idea though. I think cinematography looks a lot better when the shots are composed for only one aspect ratio rather than trying to play it safe across 2 or more aspect ratios.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-19-2013, 01:46 AM:

For a long time, european movies basically all were shot flat (except for big budget UK productions maybe). That has changed and we see a lot of local stuff being produced in scope. In recent years, even romantic comedies, arthouse, etc. is shot and released in 2.35. Yes, this may only be a 'trend', but I can't see why it shouldn't last.

- Carsten

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2013, 09:07 AM:

The problem with 'scope is its continued popularity is based 100% on aesthetics and little else.

'Scope had certain technical advantages with 35mm film. The entire 4-perf frame was being used. When done right that meant better image quality when the frame was being photographed and a brighter image when being projected. Those technical advantages 'scope had with 35mm film are gone with d-cinema. The reverse is true now. Fewer pixels being rendered in the DCP. Fewer pixels being projected (and zoomed up to a bigger size if projected on a common height screen).

IMHO, 'scope in d-cinema should have been treated the same way widescreen content was treated on DVD: anamorphic squeeze. Establish the 1080 pixel tall imager as common height for all aspect ratios. Use a moderate squeeze to fit 2.39:1 content into the 2048 X 1080 imager's frame. Of course this would make for a more complicated digital projector setup. But 35mm handled dual lenses on turrets for decades. It would seem like digital technology, as great as it is hyped to be, would have no problem adapting to that.

Instead, we're stuck with projectors using only one lens. The biggest, super-wide format in movies is now the smallest format.
[Frown]

I think if enough theaters are built with common width screens we're going to see the popularity of 'scope really decline over the next few years. If nothing is done to improve how 'scope is recorded onto DCPs and how it is projected I don't see 'scope even surviving at all in commercial theaters beyond the 2020 to 2025 time frame. By then everything may be shown in a 16:9 ratio.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 04-19-2013, 12:47 PM:

Aesthetics is as good a reason as any.

Shame we can't ask David Lean if he's still shoot Lawrence of Arabia in widescreen if he did it with a 4k digital camera.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-19-2013, 01:07 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
'Scope had certain technical advantages with 35mm film. The entire 4-perf frame was being used. When done right that meant better image quality when the frame was being photographed and a brighter image when being projected. Those technical advantages 'scope had with 35mm film are gone with d-cinema.

Bobby - nothing of the above was the idea behind scope - it was the WIDER picture. These other advantages came with it, but the ultrawide image is still preferred nowadays because of it's massive impression. And that is still there with digital.

- Carsten

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-19-2013, 01:20 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
...in digital formats. Letter-boxed movies use up less data bandwidth and disc capacity on DVD and Blu-ray discs. The lower pixel counts mean shorter rendering times for CG effects, compositing and digital intermediate work.

There's your answer Bobby, shorter rendering times cost less money; the bean-counters and "cheaper" always will win out.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2013, 01:27 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Shame we can't ask David Lean if he's still shoot Lawrence of Arabia in widescreen if he did it with a 4k digital camera.

Back in the day David Lean chose to shoot Lawrence of Arabia in Super Panavision 70mm, as opposed to taking the much easier & cheaper approach of shooting it in 35mm CinemaScope like he did with his previous film, The Bridge on the River Kwai. He chose to film L.O.A. in the highest quality film format available. If Lean was alive today and about to produce L.O.A. he might try to shoot it in 15/65mm IMAX.

quote: Carsten Kurz
These other advantages came with it, but the ultrawide image is still preferred nowadays because of it's massive impression. And that is still there with digital.

Not really. Not when 16x9 is basically the biggest and widest image for a growing number of movie screens -particularly the more profitable IMAX Digital screens and its wannabe counterparts. 'Scope is just a mere letterboxed image inside of that wall to wall screen. Basically the experience of watching a movie in 'scope at home, letterboxed on a TV set, is being transferred into the commercial movie theater. That's pretty backward.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-19-2013, 05:22 PM:

I might be a bit biased, scope is my favorite AR for most movies and I really want it to stay. Many modern multiplexes have wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling screens in scope format. The whole auditorium was built with that format in mind.

The DCI specs should be upgraded to allow true anamorphic DCPs. Also, since price for proper equipment will come down and manufacturers are already starting to push Ultra-HD TVs, I hope the era of 2K acquisition, intermediates and post-production will come to an end rather quickly and 4K or even 5K will be the norm.

I don't really believe that any large studio, director, etc. will choose scope, because it will save a "few bytes" during production or release. I do believe that, in some cases, the release formats (like Digital IMAX, some "premium experience" formula and the "rental" release) do have an impact on the choice of the aspect ratio.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2013, 04:37 PM:

Look at a movie like Skyfall. Bond movies hadn't been produced in the flat ratio since the early 1970's (Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun). They had all been produced specifically for the 'scope format, until this last one. Skyfall was opened up in the vertical (and basically made "flat") for digital IMAX screens. Not so premium priced theaters got it cropped back down to 'scope ratio.

My point with this is the James Bond movie series is heavily identified with the 'scope aspect ratio -even if the first 3 movies (including Goldfinger) were shot flat. The business interest of making more money at the theater has pushed Bond into at least a dual aspect ratio arrangement.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-21-2013, 05:29 PM:

Bobby, I'll repeat myself. Humans have TWO eyes that are positioned beside each other. We see wider than we do tall. Everyone is accustomed to 16:9 at home. The scope ratio gives something people can't get at home and is more "cinematic".

Just because there are people out there designing their largest screen wrong doesn't mean that movies should start being made taller again. The so called "premium" auditoriums make more money because they are the biggest rooms in the building and they are playing the newest movie at the prime showtimes...NOT because they are better. I've yet to see one that impressed me. In fact a big trend recently is to skip the masking all together. That's the bean counters there, not showmanship.

Scope isn't going anywhere. The problem is the auditoriums aren't being designed properly. Making movies in the flat ratio is like making movies in HFR. That's just making them "home video-like".

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-22-2013, 09:02 AM:

I'm not saying flat is better than 'scope. I like movies in the super wide aspect ratio rather than flat (at least most of the time).

Unfortunately d-cinema did not properly accommodate the 'scope format at all. They put the most pixels behind the flat format. That's backwards. On 35mm film 'scope had a lot more film negative real estate than the cropped flat image. The reverse is true now for d-cinema. Wall to wall common width screens are making 'scope seem more like it does at home rather than in a properly designed movie theater with a common height screen.

I just think some serious changes need to be made in future digital cinema system designs as well as movie production and post production work flows so that 'scope can be both the most aesthetically pleasing and technically superior presentation format. Since these systems are changing every few years it would seem like future designs could handle getting 'scope done right.

I'm just concerned with all the various pieces of video production technology, post production technology and digital projection technology working their best in the flat format it's going to lead to a serious drop in 'scope use.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-22-2013, 03:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Look at a movie like Skyfall. Bond movies hadn't been produced in the flat ratio since the early 1970's (Live & Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun).

This discussion isn't really new, but at least now it is in the correct thread [Wink]

.

But you're right, some movies you would expect to be in scope are released in flat (or 1.78:1) those days. You might also be right regarding the sad fact that scope might have peaked, mostly because of the reasons you've pointed out.

Also, if some directors nowadays consider scope a cropped version of "flat", then things are going the wrong way...

Still, I hope that scope will survive and the technical shortcomings of the current implementation will be resolved in the years to come. The easiest way would probably be the anamorphic route (nothing wrong with non-square pixels), I don't think "ultra-wide" sensors and DMDs will ever become standard.

Maybe we can get J.J. Abrams to sign a petition to save the non-CGI anamorphic lens flare [Smile]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-23-2013, 12:41 AM:

Bobby, what needs to happen is for TI to make a 2.4 ratio chip. Their current chip ratio doesn't actually work for any established ratio. A 2.4 ratio chip would put an end to the issues over the next 10-15 years or so as the equipment got into the market.

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 04-23-2013, 05:35 AM:

When we installed our new screen in 1997 we installed the largest non-IMAX screen in Australia. Now, it's the largest matte screen in the country. ~63 feet wide.

We moved the entire screen assembly - and with it the proscenium- forward by nearly 30 feet to achieve the greatest possible width for 'scope and 70mm presentations.

It cuts both ways. Just because some new installs are choosing flat, or even 1.77:1 for new screens doesn't make 'scope a bad format; it just makes the exhibitors who are putting in 1.85 screens a bit crappy.

If people making movies want to back that, well, it's their call. I'm happy to say though that we can show LAWRENCE OF ARABIA in 4K or BARAKA in 70mm at the fullest possible screen width.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2013, 12:21 PM:

It was about this time last year when The Avengers was released. That release really got me wondering just what the hell was going on in certain movie studio offices.

All of the previous superhero movies leading up to that one were distributed in 'scope: Iron Man (Super 35), The Incredible Hulk (Anamorphic 35), Iron Man 2 (Super 35), Thor (Anamorphic 35) and Captain America (Digital Video).

It came totally out of left field for The Avengers to be released only in the flat format. I wasn't surprised it was shot mostly on video. But it seemed crazy for the movie not to stay consistent in aspect ratio with the five movies that led up to it. My guess is the taller, more flat aspect ratio of Digital IMAX screens and other similar premium priced screens played a part in that aspect ratio choice. I doubt director Joss Whedon had a problem with 'scope considering Serenity was filmed in the Super35 format. I think the drive of making more profit played a part in that decision.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 04-23-2013, 04:19 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
what needs to happen is for TI to make a 2.4 ratio chip.

Are there any camera image sensors built around this ratio?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-23-2013, 08:44 PM:

There could be others, but the other d-cinema camera image sensor chip I've seen that fits the 'scope ratio is the proposed Red 617 Mysterium Monstro image sensor. On paper the sensor has a whopping 186mm X 56mm size with 28000 X 9334 resolution. I wonder if there are any working copies of this thing. If so, the sensor would surely be expensive as hell but not quite as staggering in price as the lenses needed to fully expose it.

Red is about to launch the Red Epic Dragon, featuring a 6144 X 3160 resolution sensor. Its 1.94:1 aspect ratio is wider that 1.85:1 flat but a ways off from true 'scope. It supports spherical acquisition only at 6K (2:1 & cropped 2.4:1 ratios). Anamorphic lenses can be used at 5K, 4K, 3K & 2K settings. But less of the sensor is being used than just cropping to 'scope in normal spherical modes. With the Red Epic Dragon the best choice would be to shoot cropped 2.4:1 at 6K.

Posted by Ian Freer (Member # 1940) on 04-23-2013, 09:27 PM:

Projection Designs makes a projector (the F35) that uses a TI 2560 x 1600 DLP chip. This enables them to do 2560 x 1080 scope projection, effectively 2K non-anamorphic. (OK for home theatre the source gets scaled from 1920, but all I'm getting at is there is already the TI technology there to do this at the projector level for 2K at least).
For whatever reason TI and the manufacturers haven't gone this route with our cinema projectors which is a shame, but as Brad mentions, it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a slow migration in future generations of technology... if only...

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-24-2013, 04:56 AM:

Why make a dedicated 2k 2.4AR imager when the 4k imager basically can do the same?

- Carsten

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-25-2013, 01:04 AM:

In projection systems, I'd like to see a common height metaphor applied to the imaging chip. For instance 'scope in 2K is currently 2048 X 852 -cropped on a 2048 X 1080 pixel imager. In a perfect world, 2K 'scope would 2592 X 1080.

I have seen some online videos come close to doing just that. The short science fiction movie True Skin turned out to be bigger than normal HD. The version I downloaded was 2541 X 1080 pixels. It refused to play in a couple of the usual video player apps, but PowerDVD played it alright.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 04-25-2013, 06:31 PM:

To bring this full circle, I did what I should have originally and called Park Circus, who confirmed they distribute the DCP of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in one AR, 2.35:1, so Alamo Drafthouse erred here and somehow screened a 2.35:1 DCP at 1.85:1.