Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP)

This is topic "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP) 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=001622

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2013, 08:38 PM:

Similar to another topic...the DCP conversions of 70mm titles with 2.2 ratios.

I've seen Lawrence of Arabia and know that they chose to have it fit within the "Scope" pixel range. It was 4K so it was 3774 x 1716. I'm sure this was done for universal acceptance by all cinemas. However, it would have been better, image wise, to use all of the width and had a 4096 x 1862. The resolution is there on the film and most any cinema that was going to run "rep" titles could have another lens preset to deal with the "70mm" format. It still would have had universal acceptance.

My question is...can anyone confirm a 70mm title that uses the full pixel width and retains the 2.2 ratio?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-09-2013, 09:01 PM:

I've yet to have one that was full width.

They're typically 2.2 inside 2.39.

IIRC "2001" was 2.2 inside 16x9.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2013, 10:02 PM:

These people suck!

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-10-2013, 05:31 AM:

Well I come across many sites and operators who would never touch their formats, not even dare to operate the manual controls for zoom and focus because they are too afraid screw something they don't understand.

I guess distributors take this into account and will avoid any formats that cause 'real' issues on these sites. That is, they will probably always accept some letterboxing or pillarboxing in favor of other more serious issues.

- Carsten

Posted by Jock Blakley (Member # 6552) on 09-10-2013, 09:09 AM:

It's been a long time since we ran it but I do have a vague recollection that SOUTH PACIFIC was 2.20:1 at full height, as I think THE SOUND OF MUSIC was too.

We'll be getting WEST SIDE STORY soon so I'll be able to check that.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-10-2013, 12:21 PM:

Ben-Hur 2.76 inside 2.39
Looked pretty good, but we experienced lip-sync issues .

2001: A Space Odyssey 2.2 inside 1.85
77GB total for both parts
Allegedly a glorified Bluray but we've played actual Blurays that didn't look this bad up close.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-11-2013, 06:17 AM:

Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2013, 09:04 AM:

If they truly cared they would have 2 versions of the movie on the drive and keys to unlock both with the booking.

Then again keys for rep content is just stupid. It's already out on bluray and such.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-11-2013, 07:17 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Can you try to get less resolution?

Oh! But they did.

Look again at that file size. 77GB for *both* parts. [Eek!]

It was clearly pixillated from up close.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2013, 10:26 PM:

I can only assume they are doing those small file sizes as a means to cut costs in duplication. Surely it isn't one price per drive, that it is per GB to duplicate since it takes longer to duplicate a drive with 350GB on it vs one that is 77GB.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-17-2013, 06:54 PM:

Do you really think it's because of the time it takes to duplicate the content to disk?

I'd rather think it's just a lack of clue and dedication. Because, would it really matter for repertoire titles? How many disks are out there in distribution? For first run releases, this would make more sense to me, than for titles with just a handful of disks in circulation.

But, maybe I'm missing something, like the first run content being duplicated in some automated process and repertoire content being done by hand?

Posted by Michael Kurtzke (Member # 7512) on 09-17-2013, 07:45 PM:

The small file size is probably not for saving time. We run a ton of older movies and usually the DCP's are between 110-190GB for 2K full-length features. Tonight, American Graffiti was 152GB, Last week Kindergarten Cop was 127GB, Real Genius was 141GB. These films [aside from maybe American Graffiti] aren't as well known as 2001.

I would have thought it would be a nice 4K DCP due to it being a 70mm feature. I'm actually worried because I'm playing it October 2nd [uhoh]

[Space-oriented month because Gravity's coming out].

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 09-17-2013, 09:46 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution?

[steps on soapbox] and don't get me started how stupid the studios are for not encoding the original five front channel mixes from these classic 70mm movies, when DCI specs actually take into account and could implement the left/center and right/center channels. Oh how I wish DATASAT would step in and do their magic and retain these mixes as they have done with 5/70mm releases...

[sigh]oh what's the point, it's like barking up the wrong tree... come on folks let's get it together

the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-18-2013, 01:17 AM:

I really did have such high hopes that we would see proper treatment of 70mm titles.

The conspiracy theorist in me has occasionally wondered if film's reputation may have been deliberately sabotaged to make it that much easier for d-cinema to gain a foothold. If that were the case, it would explain a lack of interest in showing off virtues of the medium when it was at its best.

But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't honestly believe it was an "inside job."

I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection.

The real shame of it (for me) is that the last cinema I worked at, and the current one, are capable of "five across" and I've never had the pleasure of running something that actually used them in that way.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-18-2013, 06:38 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke.

I actually don't hope anybody considers DCPs as a serious form of long-time storage.

A DCP is a lossy compressed "medium" that's designed for ease of distribution, security and presentation only, not for archival purposes.

I do think it might be very worthwhile to store digital copies of analog content, but they need to be at a very high resolution and uncompressed/loss-less compressed. A digital copy, if handled correctly, has the potential to live forever, without any loss whatsoever.

quote: Manny Knowles
I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection.

"Looking better" is extremely subjective. The way 35mm was being treated by the average multiplex did make 2K digital look and sound better in almost any possible way, at least for a while.

Many digital installs are beginning to show a fair share of neglect already.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-18-2013, 07:24 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
"Looking better" is extremely subjective.

Hence the "quotation marks" in my comment:

quote: Manny Knowles
circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-05-2013, 04:20 PM:

John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982)

2.39 inside 16x9
2-channel Lt/Rt
Sounded great decoded, but it required me to re-wire.

10-sec of black after final logo fades out. (I hate when they do this.)

Since this is a Universal Pictures release, I thought I'd link to this related topic:

Mono Sound on Universal Pictures

To clarify - "The Thing" is NOT mono, but it's another example of Universal making this mistake with a DCP conversion. DCP audio should be discrete.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-05-2013, 05:48 PM:

"Dracula" (1931 Spanish version with English Subtitles). Listed as 1.33 within the FLAT format.
DRACULA-SPANISH_FTR-2-1931_F-133_ES-EN_INTL-TD_10_C_2K_UP_20120803_DLA_VF

In genuine "mono" 1.0

Note, the "VF" is for the English subtitles. One has to also get the OV version too.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-14-2013, 07:43 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
2-channel Lt/Rt
Sounded great decoded, but it required me to re-wire.

Can you explain? Was the Lt/Rt matrix encoded?!?

- Carsten

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-15-2013, 05:50 PM:

Lt/Rt = matrix encoded, by definition.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 10-15-2013, 07:39 PM:

Wow. In a DCP? What are they thinking? Did they indicate this, and if, how?

- Carsten

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-15-2013, 08:27 PM:

They did not indicate it. The DCP file name just referenced "20" instead of, say, "51."

No specific mention that it is an Lt/Rt.
No mention of matrix encoding/decoding.

Just "20"

People making these DCP's are either ignorant or evil. Either they don't know that they're doing it wrong. Or they know, but they don't care. Ignorant or evil.

Posted by Lincoln Spector (Member # 6835) on 10-18-2013, 07:14 PM:

Here's my guess about what happened with Warner & 2001:

Warner released the Blu-ray pretty early, and made some mistakes that seem stupid today. Consider the audio: They included the same 5.1 mix in Dolby Digital (very lossy) and PCM (no compression, but only 16-bit).

My guess is they made a 2K scan because, well, it was a 2K medium. But a 2K scan isn't near enough to capture a 65mm negative, even for a 2K release medium.

Then, when someone asked for a DCP, they just transferred the 2K Blu-ray master.

So now they have it on DCP and Blu-ray and why would they need to do anything better?

Of course, what they really need to do is an 8K scan and a 4K master, like Lawrence.

Lincoln

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-18-2013, 11:34 PM:

Unfortunately, Grover Crisp doesn't work for Warners.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-19-2013, 11:07 AM:

I got some news for you...I've seen the 4K DCP of Lawrence...it looks like dog-crap. Or how do you all put it [bs]

I'm telling you, the DCPs I've seen of classic titles are just awful. Both picture AND sound...could they try to do a crappier job? I suppose. My jaw just dropped when I saw it.

Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 10-21-2013, 02:15 AM:

Regarding the 2.0 / LtRt issue: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the Digital Cinema Naming Convention doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of a 2.0 LoRo (discrete stereo) audio track. According to it, "20" in the CPL always means 2.0 LtRt.