quote: Brian DeCiancio

---

Does yours, or am I missing something here? And do they actually expect me or my staff to putz around with lens files? What do you call it, "half-flat"?

---

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

Bobby, I've been thinking about this recently regarding Avengers 1 vs Avengers 2, and wondering why the aspect ratio change between the two movies and if it has anything to do with what you said about how the chip is utilized in flat vs.scope

---

My guess is the choice of going flat on the first Avengers movie was probably more of a philosophical choice on Joss Whedon's part. It might have been an acknowledgment about the trends of how modern movie theater screens are configured. Most new theaters have crappy, common width screens where flat is the bigger image.

Why revert back to 'scope? The obvious reason is popularity. People seem to love the 'scope format more that flat. The anamorphic look is very popular; even some TV series not shown in 'scope aspect ratio are being shot with anamorphic lenses for the visual style. When DVD was the dominant home video format for retail movie sales separate "full screen" and anamorphic widescreen versions were common. I can't recall seeing any of that on the Blu-ray platform. Customers don't seem to mind the black bars. I guess they think it makes the movie look more like a movie than a TV show.

I am also suspicious the very widespread use of 'scope in feature movie productions is motivated by cutting costs. The 'scope format is now the lowest resolution production and exhibition format. That also makes 'scope the cheapest format. There are fewer pixels to render, fewer pixels to store and fewer pixels taking up bandwidth during playback.

Even a major "tent pole" studio project with a $200 million production budget will have all sorts of cost and corner cutting taking place. Why bleed away money making the image look better on screen when you can do something "good enough" and pocket the difference?
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-19-2015, 03:53 PM:
 
Here's another whole curve ball:

I just found out I'm doing at least one show of this in 35mm.

Of course, I won't get the print till the last minute.

Anybody have any idea of what the 35mm aspect ratio will be?

>ALSO- - I went out to one theater very early this morning to try & figure out
a way to solve this aspect ratio issue in way that won't make the regular
staff have to pull their heads outta their i-phones long enuf to miss a tweet.

As most of you already know, is that if you set the masking according to
Disney's preferred framing chart, the pre-show FLAT trailers will have some
cut-off at the top and the bottom of the image.

BUT- - I discovered that (at least at this location) - - if I build them a
playlist using the SCOPE trailer versions, things actually looked OK.

. . .and I don't have to make new lens macros, or set up new cues, or write
special instructions to the staff. (which would require doing it in a least 4
different languages and they'd still screw it up)

It's a wacky solution, but it seems to work.

I've got an advance, private (4k, Digital Atmos) screening tomorrow, but
fortunately, I've already got all the projector macros & screen settings I need:

 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-19-2015, 04:43 PM:
 
I'm thinking about Bobby's comments, and I can't help wondering if cost would really be a factor in choosing Scope over Flat, rather than it being an artistic choice. I get that fewer pixels means smaller storage requirements and less rendering time. But I can't help wondering if this is significant enough to dictate choosing one format over another. It just seems like the extra cost would be an insignificant portion of a multi million dollar budget.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-19-2015, 04:46 PM:
 
I have Barco 4K 32B units in two of my big houses and the flat container image fills the screen completely.

Thus, it looks like to me that the 2:20/1 image within that container will still look great .. for all to witness.

I trust the reason for doing this container usage is to take advantage of the 4K resolution for a wide screen image.

I'm leaving things alone.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-19-2015, 05:10 PM:
 

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

I get that fewer pixels means smaller storage requirements and less rendering time. But I can't help wondering if this is significant enough to dictate choosing one format over another. It just seems like the extra cost would be an insignificant portion of a multi million dollar budget.

---

quote: Jason Metcalfe

---

Then again I think we forget that many of these aspect ratio choices are a combination of some technical but also primarily artistic choices

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Movies with 9-figure production & advertising budgets still have various people looking for cost savings everywhere. Any jobs that can be jobbed out overseas for less money are. They shoot the movie wherever they can get the best location deals (Hollywood is losing lots of work over this). Pinching pennies over pixels is not out of the question either. After all, they need enough money to pay the 8-figure salaries of all those actors, producers and other douche-bags that consume most of the budget.

---

While it might be something on some peoples mind, I don't think this was the reason for the oddball aspect ratio here.

First of all, IMDB still lists the aspect ratio as 1.90:1 for (Digital) IMAX, since it doesn't include the qualifier "some scenes", I expect the whole movie to be in that aspect ratio. This 1.90:1 is the native aspect ratio of 2K and 4K imagery. So, they already did all the filming, special effects and post production in this resolution. The pixels are already there.

I guess they could easily have gone from 1.90:1 to flat, just shaving off a few pixels left and right probably won't hurt the image composition at all, but for whatever reason they decided the "poor non-IMAX schmucks" can't have the whole pie and will be getting a trimmed version in this 2.20:1 aspect ratio.

This is also the primary problem I have with this kind of concepts. This is simply not a widescreen release. A movie using a wide screen format should be shot and framed with this wide screen in mind. Shots should be composed to look wide, it should not end up as a letterboxed version of the original movie...

Most likely, this movie was intended to be a scope release and a "larger than scope" (yuck) release for IMAX, just like all three of those Hobbit movies for example. But during production, someone forgot about it and the end result was a large amount of shots not fitting within a scope frame and the decision to go for 2.20:1 was born.

Another, but very unlikely reason might be a leftover from the apparently canned 3D conversion. Maybe many shots were composed with a floating window in mind and someone decided to leave the "safe zones" at the left and right edges out of the 2D version.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-20-2015, 12:34 PM:
 
So basically part of the sales pitch of digital projection would be that everything would be standardized so that things wouldn't get messed up and now directors are introducing non-standard aspect ratios which will either be pillar and letter boxed or require a new zoom setting so there is something else to get screwed up?!?
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 05-20-2015, 02:01 PM:
 
If cost was the reason for this AR, they certainly would not have chosen to go 4k in the first place.

The movie was shot full-frame on the F65, and then cropped to 1.9 for IMAX and 2.2 for general release. They had all options to begin with. And I guess the spread between 1.9 and 2.39 was just too much for them to simply be done in post.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-20-2015, 02:01 PM:
 
We have to keep in mind:

Most directors don't know the challenges of the exhibition side of things

Studios tend to give directors free reign with things like the aspect ratio. (The only thing they really seem to care about is bringing the picture in on time and with the rating they want.)

And studios might know a little more about exhibition than the directors do, but only technical requirements; they have no concept of how difficult it might be to put some of their ideas into practice in the real world.

All of this adds up to the nonsense we're seeing lately.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-20-2015, 02:39 PM:
 
The situation is what it is, but there is no justifiable excuse for it. The problem is like failing Graphics Design 101.

One of the most basic principals in design is this: tailor your design for the output device & size/shape of the display. If the finished design is going to be on a standard letter-sized piece of paper you design for that size and shape, and take into account the printer's capabilities.

Every design medium requires this, be it newspapers, magazines, signs, billboards, TV screens, web page banners, LED displays or even a freaking movie screen. All have a visual footprint described in some kind of numerical value, be it inches, points, picas or even pixels. Bonus points go to the people who bother to take into account how the finished design is going to be viewed, be it held in the hands up close, viewed from a speeding car or viewed from a seat in a movie theater.

The thing going on now is a little like someone throwing together a design in MS Publisher on a letter sized piece of paper, but he really wants the design to go on a wide, rectangular 14' X 48' billboard. This is an extreme example, but not in principal.

Too many people think that just because something is "digital" they can do whatever the hell they want to do. They think digital equates to being flexible and versatile when that's not really the case.

Movies need to be made in mind for how theaters are going to be playing them right at the start of production. With digital they know all the numbers up front. That's why there is no excuse for the nonsense going on now.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-20-2015, 04:00 PM:
 
I can't wait for that first artistic choice movie shot on a cell phone in vertical mode.

(At least IMAX would finally have a suitable movie to play though. )
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 05-20-2015, 04:39 PM:
 
Mike - the crew that made this film shot 'Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol' on IMAX and 35mm for IMAX 1.44 and Scope. They also made

- Benjamin Button
- Life of PI
- Oblivion
- Tron Legacy
- Zodiac
- Ratatouille

There's Walter Murch in the editing department.

It's ridiculous to think they did not know what they were doing. They are not high-school filmmakers.

They may not know how to operate a popper, but they sure know about aspect ratio.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-20-2015, 04:59 PM:
 
Well, I was watching some of the music videos of this years "Eurovision Song Festival" candidates on Youtube (lots of crappy music, but kind of a big deal in Europe and for whatever reason in Australia too right now...). One of it (and I don't remember which country it was and neither do I care) featured a title card proudly mentioning the video was shot entirely on cellphone cameras...

We've had plenty of those fake found footage drivel the last decade and a half, so I'm pretty sure, there must be this visionary director out there, just waiting to shoot his first movie entirely on cellphones and in 9:16...

I can't wait for the first phone featuring vScope... Vertical Scope. More height for your crappy cellphone videos, just what you've been waiting for.

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Most directors don't know the challenges of the exhibition side of things

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Every design medium requires this, be it newspapers, magazines, signs, billboards, TV screens, web page banners, LED displays or even a freaking movie screen. All have a visual footprint described in some kind of numerical value, be it inches, points, picas or even pixels. Bonus points go to the people who bother to take into account how the finished design is going to be viewed, be it held in the hands up close, viewed from a speeding car or viewed from a seat in a movie theater.

---

Movie screens are like web pages... an infinite amount of aspect ratios and sizes. The only thing that's missing are the scroll bars.

I've never really understood the fetish for odd aspect ratios, especially this constant switching between aspect ratios which has become increasingly popular.

In my opinion, aspect ratios are merely a product of the technology being used and are, in many cases, more like a trade-off. Luckily, most technologies offer multiple standard or de-facto standard aspect ratios to choose from, so choose one of those standard ratios that best fits the composition of your picture and leave it there.

I also agree with Steve on this, if you want to go for maximum resolution, which you should almost always do and which is also implied in the DCI specs, the only *right* way to do it is to release it as C-220... That's also how anything converted from 5/70 should be done.

And if you want to avoid your presentation getting all screwed up due to lack of "care and knowledge" on the exhibition side of things, you should just stick with F or S in the first place...
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-20-2015, 05:19 PM:
 
If there's a consolation to this, it appears the aspect ratio will be used more than once. From what I can tell, Jurassic World will be in this same aspect ratio. Maybe that will justify making all the necessary configuration changes in the LMS and servers to have this be it's own format.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-20-2015, 05:38 PM:
 
Wasn't Jurassic World supposed to be in 2:1? At least the trailers seem to be in exactly this aspect ratio and IMDB also seems to be in agreement with this.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-20-2015, 05:39 PM:
 
unless it changed (again) Justin, 'Jurassic World' is 2.0, not 2.20 - which is strange since some of the film was shot with 65mm camera's (why not retain that AR?)
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-20-2015, 05:51 PM:
 
I'm just going by the trailer. The flat version perfectly fits the screen configuration for Tomorrowland. Granted, I didn't play the trailer with the crop removed, so I don't know for sure it isn't being cropped to some extent.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-20-2015, 05:57 PM:
 
I'm pretty sure you cropped the image. Maybe you can show the movie the same way. It's not like anybody will miss something significant.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

unless it changed (again) Justin, 'Jurassic World' is 2.0, not 2.20 - which is strange since some of the film was shot with 65mm camera's (why not retain that AR?)

---

Visionary director chooses visionary new aspect ratio for his visionary new dinosaur movie and leads the way in a visionary and artistic vision.

That's why.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-20-2015, 06:16 PM:
 
^
 

---

Posted by Brian DeCiancio (Member # 1422) on 05-20-2015, 08:35 PM:
 
They can "shoehorn" all they want. Not gonna happen at my theatres.

Totally ridiculous and unacceptable. I will not make new lens and screen files 4 days before a movie is released.

Done...
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-20-2015, 09:13 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

I can't wait for that first artistic choice movie shot on a cell phone in vertical mode

---

Too late. I already ran one at the Telluride Film Festival last year.

Don't know if it was actually shot on an i-phone, but 98% of the movie was
in a 1:1 "I-phone Format" I had a 35 foot wide screen with a 10ft square
image right in the center. I spent the first 10min of the movie dealing with
floor staff calling me on the radio saying that customers are complaining
that I'm running the movie with "the wrong lens" Some of them walked out.

The next day I was chatting with someone downtown, and when they found
out who I was and where I worked, they said "Oh,so you're the guy who ran
the movie with the wrong lens last night" D'oh!
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 05-21-2015, 02:55 AM:
 
To be honest, if I would be fed such b.s., without knowing, I would also first and foremost blame the staff and not the film maker...

But I bet the movie was Mommy? Because it has been discussed right here before.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

---

^

---

Well, if you have a better explaination I'm all ears.

But I bet there is none. The aspect ratio of this movie is as stupid as everything else in this movie, like the story... And I haven't even seen the movie, just the trailers.

For example, what's the deal with shooting your movie on 35mm, 65mm and in digital on RED cameras? Almost every one of those scenes will include loads and loads of CGI, so what are you wasting 65mm film for? You will first create a 4K or 6K scan of it, put it trough all kinds of digital mangling, paste in your CGI dinosaurs and stuff and ship it as a digital release... Also, this movie will NEVER see a 5/70 release nor an IMAX film release anyway. It's a f*cking waste of perfectly good film stock, just to please the ego of some wannabe big shots.

That's also how this aspect ratio came into being: Look at how great this looks! Yeah! It's awesome!Iit's something never seen before! Yeah! Let's just fcking do it all right!

Mind you, we're talking Jurrassic World here, not Tomorrowland... or "Project T" as it was recently rebranded right here (because we Europeans don't have a Tomorrowland at our local Disney theme park).
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 05-21-2015, 03:57 AM:
 
I think a lot of directors and cameramen simply WANT to do some 65mm shooting before it's gone forever now. And it seems to be good for some extra advertizing or money/support from IMAX.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-21-2015, 12:59 PM:
 
I've had a 35mm back-up print of TOMORROWLAND for some of the special
screenings I've been doing this week.

The 35mm is is printed as SCOPE (anamorphic), but they've pillerboxed
it with a black borders on the left & right sides of the image.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-21-2015, 07:19 PM:
 

quote: Jim Cassedy

---

Don't know if it was actually shot on an i-phone, but 98% of the movie was
in a 1:1 "I-phone Format" I had a 35 foot wide screen with a 10ft square
image right in the center.

---

You know, if you turned that "eye-fone" ninety degrees to the left (or right so when playback, the image isn't upside down), you can have the nicest wide screen 1.78:1 movie that you ever shot with a hand held, esp when them things are doing HD video.

When I shoot videos with my Android, I turn the fone ninety degrees to the left to make wonderful wide screen videos.

And guess what? You get a lot of imagery captured that way!

Try it and see.

- Monte
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 05-21-2015, 07:26 PM:
 
So, any on else get a last minute addition of a short which is apparently meant to be a prologue to the feature? Gee, can't these people tell us ANYTHING in advance? Received the following e-mail today:

Good day,

We come in this morning to a last minute filmmaker request for our ‘presentation house’ locations on TOMORROWLAND… there is a 3 1/2 minute animated introductory piece that we’re asking to have programmed before the film. We’d like this to remain part of the program throughout the run of engagement.

Still working out details of how the content will be delivered (thumb drive sent overnight maybe?)… will follow up with further info as we have it…

Thanks
Matt

Matt Kalavsky
Executive Director of Sales, Distribution
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

So, I just got this thing in today on a USB stick. I reckon we must be a "presentation house," eh?
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-21-2015, 07:46 PM:
 
I almost hate to ask this, but- -

What aspect ratio is the short in?
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 05-21-2015, 07:47 PM:
 
You gotta know it's the same as the feature, although not listed as F-220, only as F. And, for some dumb reason, the soundtrack is 2.0!
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-21-2015, 08:34 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-21-2015, 08:36 PM:
 

quote:

---

And, for some dumb reason, the soundtrack is 2.0!

---

If you have worked for a "film" festival lately, this should come as no surprise--I am seeing nearly 50% of DCP-format shorts (and many features) come in with left/right-only mixes (though I would expect better from a real distributor, of course).

It is pretty sad how DCP--which should have been the best thing to happen to movie sound quality in years--has, up to this point, generally caused more issues with sound than any other format.
 

---

Posted by Stephan Shelley (Member # 8587) on 05-21-2015, 10:33 PM:
 
Same late notice on the short. UPS tried to deliver at 9:30 am when no one is at the theatre. Ended up downloading it via the internet from deluxe.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-21-2015, 10:40 PM:
 
Why is 2.0 happening with DCPs? Considering the damned tools that are available, for cheap even, a 5.1 or 7.1 mix in LPCM or even encoded in a lossy format like Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus should be very easy. Right now I could record some burps and farts, pan them around in a 7.1 layout in Adobe Audition CC and encode it in LPCM or Dolby Digital Plus, all without paying anything extra for any plug-ins. However, for a feature movie project $1500 to encode DTS-HD Master Audio for the Blu-ray isn't bad.

Are these guys just cheap, lazy or both? The only rational defense I can see is the final edit on that project, or any other 2.0 project, is they were working on it up to the very last minute. And then they were so burned out on all the laborious shit they didn't feel like going back and building up a proper 5.1 track.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-22-2015, 02:25 PM:
 
Been watching some of "Tommorowland" in our 4K house... Yes, image is a bit on the letterbox size, but can't really see the 4K resolution as a big thing since it looks like 2K stuff....

"Mad Max:Fury Road" looked better in this house and that was just 2K content.. go figure.

Looks like a good popcorn movie though ... - Monte
 

---

Posted by Jure Maticic (Member # 7197) on 05-23-2015, 02:59 AM:
 
Tested it yesterday - i think it looks great in 4K, and our Sony really didn't need any new macros. We just ran the Flat settings. It is strange though with the extra pixels on the top and bottom ..... But as far as the image goes, it is as close to a good 35 mm as you can get.....
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-23-2015, 11:10 AM:
 
this is a slight thread digression question, but why has Deluxe dropped Disney titles from it's DCP listings on it's website?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-23-2015, 11:21 AM:
 
Please start a new thread for that diversion.
 

---

Posted by Gary Lightfoot (Member # 8842) on 05-24-2015, 09:39 AM:
 
So, talking purely as a guy with only home cinema experience, would I be right in saying that what the directors etc need to start doing, is ensuring that if they want scope to continue to be the biggest/widest image with the most resolution (ignoring IMAX), they need to insist that all of the 1.9 frame is used with anamorphics on the camera, and kept that way for the rest of the production chain to the final release, so that it forces theatres to use a 1.25 anamorphic lens to show the film in it's correct aspect ratio and with the highest pixel density?

If that's the case, can't people like Brad Bird who has openly stated his dislike for the way movies are currently shown (small crappy screens in his word), just insist on this and maybe eventually get the DCI spec to change so that scpe is delivered via anamorphics for at least the primary release?

In the multiplexes, if they have a large scope screen for new releases, they would just need an A lens for that screen, and then when it goes down to the smaller screens, do they get a new master that is letterboxed, or does the imager scale down the height to get the correct aspect? If the latter, I can see that happening to anamorphic movies anyway, so they don't have to buy an A lens...

Just the thoughts of a novice
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-24-2015, 11:43 AM:
 
Adding an amamorphic lens to a system will cost in the $10-15k range per machine. Plus the prime lens, which can be $5-8k may also have to be changed out.

It's all about the money. Nobody wants to pay for it. The industry is headed full throttle towards a "good enough" attitude (just like with being so cheap as not to install proper masking). It's these things that will kill first run exhibition as time continues on.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-24-2015, 12:48 PM:
 
I would tend to say that it would be on the low end of that range. Also, the prime lens wouldn't need to be changed out since the zoom range needed would be effectively zero. Set the prime lens for Flat and merely use the anamorphic lens for scope.

For constant width theatres, the ICP should be able to scale down for scope (set anamorphic factor to .75.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-25-2015, 12:12 PM:
 
I know this isn't digital, but since we're discussing aspect ratios, here's
a shot frame-shot from a 35mm "Tomorrowland" print. The 35mm's were
printed in anamorphic SCOPE, but as you can see there is a slight bit of
pillarboxing at the sides, and the frame-lines are thicker than normal.

You'll also notice there's no DTS or SDDS tracks.

( I did several private advance preview screenings before the movie opened
last week, mostly for people who work in the movie industry, and I guess the
studios still don't fully trust the digtialstuff to work right, so they made sure
I had a 35mm 'backup print', in case something crashed)
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-25-2015, 02:55 PM:
 

quote: Jim Cassedy

---

You'll also notice there's no DTS or SDDS tracks.

---

Actually no I didn't notice that there wasn't an SDDS track in your picture above.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-25-2015, 08:08 PM:
 
So,two posts above mine, the author is referencing a 35mm frame of "Tomorrowland". But it is a 35mm frame of "Mad Max: Fury Road".

?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-25-2015, 08:11 PM:
 
The current 35mm prints of 2001 are printed this way, too. Scope image with side pillars to produce a 2.2:1 image on screen.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 05-25-2015, 08:21 PM:
 
My favorite part of Tomorrowland was the George Clooney v. Immortan Joe fight.
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 05-25-2015, 08:28 PM:
 
[QUOTE] The author is referencing a 35mm frame of "Tomorrowland". But it is a 35mm frame of "Mad Max: Fury Road".

OMG Dennis- You're right! I uploaded the wrong scan. ( Extremely embarrassed)

I had back-up prints of both sitting around here. It's too late for me to edit the original post but I'll upload the correct picture when I get bak home.

I didn't catch it because I actually haven't seen either movie.

(I only run them. Nobody ever said I actually had to WATCH them)
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 05-27-2015, 11:15 AM:
 
so is Disney releasing 2K and 4K DCP's of this?

I thought the brightly lit scenes had tremendous pop to the image.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-28-2015, 06:28 PM:
 
It's interesting that one of the selling points for digital cinema was/is that it would simplify exhibition to the point where there would no longer be a need for projectionists.

And then we start getting these "special" releases in non-standard formats. At a typical cinema, who's supposed to be making these modifications? Managers?

And I agree with Steve -- C-220 would be the best way to go for a release like this, or (more commonly) a d-cine re-release of an older 70mm title.
 

---

Posted by Rachael Barbash (Member # 5158) on 05-29-2015, 03:15 AM:
 
Is anyone here playing Tomorrowland in scope or actually zooming for each show? Currently we're just playing it as flat with letter boxing on the top and bottom but it looks annoying IMHO - even though no one has complained that we're playing the movie incorrectly.
I'm not up to making new screen files for this and the film moves around to different projectors too much to easily zoom for each show, depending on what projectionist is working.
I think someone mentioned that only a bit would end up getting cut off on the top and bottom playing in scope but how does this look to anyone doing it?

BTW we played Mommy as well with the 1:1. Ugh.
 

---

Posted by Jason Whyte (Member # 1433) on 05-29-2015, 03:29 AM:
 
Just as a presentation update: every cinema playing this movie in this city is playing it letterboxed to 2.20:1, set with a flat cue and on a screen set with flat masking.

At the very least they're all on top-masking screens, but still...
 

---

Posted by Gary Lightfoot (Member # 8842) on 05-29-2015, 03:49 AM:
 
I think the problem here is that the directors etc want to present their movies in a particular way/aspect ratio (like they could in the old days), but the multiplexes and even the DCI format it seems are more interested in saving money and have no interest in the art of presentation.

Here in the UK (and probably everywhere else) there no longer seem to be dedicated projectionists any more, so there is no longer the skill available to ensure all movies are presented correctly. If the manager or even the guy who sells the popcorn is being relied upon to play the movie, it seems there's little chance that they will be able to get things correct for anything that is not flat or scope, and even then there seems room for mistakes.

It's all well and good them sending out people to ensure the movie house can do their movie justice by checking the audio and video before a particulr presentation, but if the projectionist is being relied upon to make files for the movie and doesn't have the skill/training, there seems little point in checking the theatre IMHO. or do they check the staff for ability as well?

I think the directors etc have got to start getting involved in the presentation side of things and making a fuss, as currently DCI movies aren't being presented a great deal differently to Blu Ray at home on tv,so then many people may start thinking what's the point paying to watch a big tv when they can do something similar at home for a lot cheaper and without the hassle or inconvenience.

It's not surprising that Joe Public doesn't understand why they have black bars at home or in the theatre for scope movies - they think that's how they should be presented and then ask that all movies should be 16:9 because scope is too small and they don't like black bars. They don't understand that it should be the other way round.

Just my point of view but it feels like we're getting further away from cinema and closer to big tv now. I don't know what can be done about it either...

Gary
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-29-2015, 05:33 AM:
 

quote: Gary Lightfoot

---

I think the problem here is that the directors etc want to present their movies in a particular way/aspect ratio (like they could in the old days), but the multiplexes and even the DCI format it seems are more interested in saving money and have no interest in the art of presentation.

---

quote: Gary Lightfoot

---

With digital, there is only 1.9 and however many vertical pixels you want to use for the ratio you want

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Not exactly. For whatever reason, when they did the DCI specs, they made flat use the entire height of the imager but not the entire width and scope use the entire width but not the entire height.

---

You could say that those DCI specs where "somewhat influenced" by what the market had to offer in terms of DMD chip availability.

I guess 2K ended up being 2048K pixels in width*, because it's a power of 2, which often makes stuff easier in discrete logic design. And it fits flat just right if you take 1080 pixels (an industry standard) as height.

* Actually, it's the DCI definition of 2K, some other definitions are also floating around...
 

---

Posted by Joris Springer (Member # 4175) on 05-29-2015, 07:28 PM:
 
Why don't we all just say as projectionists that it looks like shit in a Flat container and that even though as much as we would have liked to have given Disney a better quality of image nobody is going to adjust their masking to create a perfect 2.20 image on our screens because hardly anyone has the knowledge in house to create a macro and adjust the masking in that macro for a 2.20 movie.

It is a ridiculous decision from Disney to release a movie in that format and I wonder how many cinemas are really creating a macro just for this movie (though I heard rumors we can expect the same thing with Jurassic World).
 

---

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 05-30-2015, 01:35 AM:
 
Sooooooooooo Who should we tell?

I feel like there's a lot of garbage we as a group of professionals could at least influence if we took all this energy and direct it through the proper channels.

But to be honest, that's a pipe dream of mine that perhaps someday if I have my own theater, that I can present things properly and actually not be bottlenecked with the content I receive.
 

---

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-02-2015, 07:26 AM:
 
Same thing now for Jurassic World...1:2.20 in Flat for both 2D and 3D.

They were releasing all their children flics in 1,77 so they'd fit nicely on DVD and BluRay.

Now it seems they found something new, trying to please both epic scope and IMAX screens.

- Carsten
 

---

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-02-2015, 08:50 AM:
 

quote:

---

every cinema playing this movie in this city is playing it letterboxed to 2.20:1,

---

I was at a theater last week to do some work, and as I walked around to
check out their various auditoriums, I noticed they had TOMORROWLAND
playing in two auditoriums. In one it was playing FLAT, and in the other
it was SCOPE. I could not get any kind of coherent explanation as to why
they did this. In fact, even they seemed to be unaware of the difference.

The closest I came to an explanation was someone who told me:
"That's just the way it is"
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-02-2015, 09:26 AM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Same thing now for Jurassic World...1:2.20 in Flat for both 2D and 3D.

---

quote: Jim Cassedy

---

I was at a theater last week to do some work, and as I walked around to
check out their various auditoriums, I noticed they had TOMORROWLAND
playing in two auditoriums. In one it was playing FLAT, and in the other
it was SCOPE.

---

quote: Joris Springer

---

Why don't we all just say as projectionists that it looks like shit in a Flat container and that even though as much as we would have liked to have given Disney a better quality of image nobody is going to adjust their masking to create a perfect 2.20 image on our screens because hardly anyone has the knowledge in house to create a macro and adjust the masking in that macro for a 2.20 movie.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Now it seems they found something new, trying to please both epic scope and IMAX screens.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It would make a much bigger difference in terms of image quality if the image was 1080 pixels tall and anamorphically encoded for a 1.25x projector lens. A whole lot more detail would get on screen.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

In all seriousness, why don't you work with Brad and other experts on this site and actually create this proposed format. You can name it and come up with a logo. I assume IMAX doesn't use DCI compliant DCPs since they are using the whole imager for the 1.9:1 ratio so that shouldn't be a major issue.

---

There's nothing non-DCI compliant about using the full imager width, it just doesn't fit in one of the two common Flat and Scope containers.

But I've been advocating a new "Seal of Quality" for a while now, since THX went further south than the South Pole, there's been a void there which has been filled with various snake oil offerings.

If I look at how big the home cinema "community" is, there must be quite a population out there that still cares about quality, so I'm pretty sure such a brand could succeed if a critical mass can be created.

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Didn't they shoot some on IMAX film so wouldn't the taller ratio work better for that anyway?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

TI has already created a DLP chip that is native 2.40:1, which is what SHOULD have been done all along.

Series 3 simply needs to move to that standard.

---

And why not make anamorphic lenses and non-square pixels for scope a mandatory requirement for all "Series 3" equipment? Wouldn't that be the most efficient solution? It worked well for decades...

Sure, it would ruin the single inventory concept, but I guess we know where those good intentions went.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-02-2015, 03:35 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

TI has already created a DLP chip that is native 2.40:1, which is what SHOULD have been done all along.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

And why not make anamorphic lenses and non-square pixels for scope a mandatory requirement for all "Series 3" equipment? Wouldn't that be the most efficient solution? It worked well for decades...

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

On the presentation side of things, you don't need any "software enhancement" at all to make it work.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Guys, what are you dreaming about? The world is nearly 100% digital now, based to the largest part on 1:1.9 DLP and zoom lenses. It's done forever. This is like 100years ago when 35mm was becoming standard.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Funny, for all those IMAX haters, they will be the only ones using anamorphics regularly on their 4k laser installations - just not actually for scope...

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

What is the pixel dimensions of the chip? Does it support 2.40:1 while maintaining 1080p or 2160p image heights for 2K/4K (or even go higher rez than that)?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Has there ever been a single, unchanging, unimproving standard for anything "digital"?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

1080p tall

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Adding an anamorphic lens is far from 'digital'.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Current equipment is a longterm investment, due to the rather short digital rollout, series-II has the largest installed base. This won't be replaced before 8-10 years.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

It's easier to go 4k to pacify those resonerds.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The average person isn't going to know the difference between 12-bit or 10-bit video versus some highly compressed 4:2:0 stuff he's watching on the TV set at home.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Digital cinema will stay at 2k and some 4k at 1:1.9 base AR for a very long time. Probably as long as digital cinema will exist.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Digital systems evolve because software evolves. Lenses are not software. It's expensive hardware.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

But you expect cinema operators to invest +10.000US$ for an anamorphic lens (and, that anamorphic has to be good for 4k at future laser-induced increased contrast ratios of +4000:1).

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Again - where is that corporate greed you fancy so often here when it comes to shell ing out that money 'for nothing'? Won't happen. Anamorphics make sense to increase light-output, but not image quality.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Digital cinema will stay at 2k and some 4k at 1:1.9 base AR for a very long time. Probably as long as digital cinema will exist.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

We have a new generation that has different demands now for visual entertainment.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

where is that going to leave movie theaters?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

You're deliberately ignoring my previous examples proving that anamophics would improve image quality. You're crazy or blind if you think there would be no quality difference between a cropped 2048 X 852 image versus an anamophic 2048 X 1080 image sourced from a 2560 X 1080 original.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Scope 4k is available NOW at 4096*1716 without hurting DCI specs. If someone is interested in increased image quality, shouldn't he better go for 4k instead of 2k + anamorphics?

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

I'm not saying it couldn't make sense. I'm saying it won't happen... Ten years after DCI disapproved non-square-pixel containers, and with ever growing numbers of DCP versions shipping, it is more than unlikely.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

I'm not saying it couldn't make sense. I'm saying it won't happen... Ten years after DCI disapproved non-square-pixel containers, and with ever growing numbers of DCP versions shipping, it is more than unlikely. If you want to save light - you can do that already now based on existing technology AND DCI compliant. There is your business case for energy saving or light increase - but only for that. It's the rare occasion where anamorphics are still being used today for projection.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Yes, there are also loads of movies released in 1:2.39, believe it or not. But just like on 21:9 TVs, they don't need anamorphics to be presented.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

The extra costs for the anamorphic lenses are most likely easily recouped in other savings.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I'll say this...unlike 2:1 and 2.2:1, an anamorphic based scope format would not require theatres to do anything more than apply a scaled format in their projector to make it 100% compatible with existing systems. That is, put in a .75 anamorphic factor in the projector and your existing lens/screen settings all still work. If you buy the anamorphic, then you get the light and resolution benefit.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The larger point with that existing 21:9 hardware in computer monitors and HDTV sets is there is infrastructure in place to support 2.5K and 5K 'scope digital intermediate production. Hollywood studios wouldn't really be wasting any efforts on doing 'scope right for d-cinema because they would have a possible consumer channel for the same true 'scope material.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

In my somewhat engineering based background, I'd always opt for the better solution, especially if at the end of the line, the costs for the better solution probably are about the same. The extra costs for the anamorphic lenses are most likely easily recouped in other savings.

Also, in my humble opinion, you should try to optimize the way the light flows trough your projector as much as possible. If you end up throwing away a huge amount of light and resolution for a large part of your presentations, I'd consider this design as deficient.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Light efficiency is only ONE aspect of that equation. And it only has that benefit for scope presentations. Then you will need to supply all scope features in square and non-square DCPs to cinemas with and without anamorphics.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Sounds like another Technicolor 3D to me. I do not even know why I'm writing in this thread. It's nothing but silly to think this would ever happen.

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

How does it come anamorphics are now considered virtually transparent devices? How could an anamorphic, considering all aspects of their use (up until automatic movers) be the optimum way for light through a projector? I want to see the anamorphic than can cope with 4k and +4000:1 contrast...

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Light efficiency is only ONE aspect of that equation. And it only has that benefit for scope presentations. Then you will need to supply all scope features in square and non-square DCPs to cinemas with and without anamorphics. Both for 2D and 3D. Now how may studios will get on that train?

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

And some multiplexes may have screens with and without them and need to assign the right version and playlist to corresponding screens.

---

Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it?

In all honesty, I don't think this single inventory thing will ever fly... It never really was and never really will. In the history of exhibition, there has almost never been a true "single inventory" system.

I guess it's part of the business. Exhibition done right isn't easy, it still takes a lot of work, knowledge and showmanship. If it was as easy as playing a DVD or a movie on YouTube, most of us would be out of business rather soon.

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

Sounds like another Technicolor 3D to me. I do not even know why I'm writing in this thread. It's nothing but silly to think this would ever happen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Again, non-square pixels are not needed. Also a dual inventory of real scope and fake scope DCPs would be unnecessary either. That is unless a d-cinema server is less advanced than a fucking DVD player made in 1998 that could make an anamorphic DVD work on a square TV set.

---

I'd still go for non-square pixels in the source. Why is everybody so afraid of them? Even the Lisa had them, although we know where that went.

If you go for optimal quality, you don't want to have your cinema server or any other thing digitally stretching or "deforming" your content. No matter if you use linear, bilinear, Lanczos, bicubic or outer-space filtering, you will lose detail and you should know that.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2015, 07:23 AM:
 

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

How does it come anamorphics are now considered virtually transparent devices? How could an anamorphic, considering all aspects of their use (up until automatic movers) be the optimum way for light through a projector? I want to see the anamorphic than can cope with 4k and +4000:1 contrast...

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

This summer we have F-220 and F-200 releases almost on top of each other

---

quote: Carsten Kurz

---

But some here actually think that there is a 'picture quality' business model based on the combination of anamorphics with non-square pixel 2k DCPs and increased vertical resolution over the classic 2048*858 spherical way of doing scope.

---

Carsten, obviously you're calling me out in passive-aggressive manner.

I never said anything ever about using non-square pixels on a DCP. No current hardware in use is compatible with non-square pixels. Non-square pixels died with old 4:3 TV sets. My ideas about Super 2K and Super 4K involve using normal square pixels. The square pixel imagery on the DCP is simply made in a different manner during post production. They render a 2K 'scope image in 2560 X 1080 and digitally re-sample it to fit 2048 X 1080. 4K is 5120 X 2160 scaled to fit 4096 X 2160.

You're throwing this business model crap around in an attempt to support a claim there wouldn't be any quality difference between 2048 X 858 fake scope and 2048 X 1080 Super 2K sourced from a 2560 X 1080 image. A full 2048 X 1080 frame has 2211840 pixels. A fake scope frame has only 1757184 pixels. That's a difference of 454656 pixels just for 2K. That's a damned huge difference. Scaled to 4K the difference is quadrupled.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-06-2015, 09:13 PM:
 
Have I missed something? A reply to Brad's question about a thousand posts ago: is anybody showing this feature in Scope with just a slight trim off the picture height?
Also, would converting to anamorphic or to 4K be the better option?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2015, 11:51 PM:
 
I don't know anyone showing it in scope. If you did, it wouldn't quite fill the screen in width while cropping a bit in height. I have one theatre, for sure, that is running it in 2.20:1.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-06-2015, 11:56 PM:
 
The theaters I've installed are running it in scope, but then again my targets are always dead on without having to blank pixels. Even though I'm losing a few pixels on the top and bottom, it's less than a typical theater would crop on a normal 1.85 or 2.40 target and it looks FAR better than that "just run it in flat" nonsense.

Yes there are small pillarbox bars on the side, but that's always preferable to the evil letterbox.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-06-2015, 11:57 PM:
 
I now know of someone running it in scope!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-07-2015, 12:16 AM:
 

quote: Ron Curran

---

Also, would converting to anamorphic or to 4K be the better option?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No current hardware in use is compatible with non-square pixels.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Bobby,anamoprhic Super 4K would be desirable but I am asking what would be the best option given existing choices.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

That's not true actually. Every current D-Cinema system with an anamorphic lens or attachment would be perfectly suitable to play back a DCP with "squeezed" and thus non-square pixels in the DCP. If you play it as a full container and switch to your anamorphic lens, you're already there. It works for both 2K and 4K.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No, it doesn't. The pixels on all DLP imagers are square. There is no projection hardware that natively supports the display of non-square pixels. When the Super 2K and Super 4K imagery I describe is re-sampled to fit full frame on a 2048 X 1080 imager or a 4096 X 2160 imager all of those pixels are square. None of the d-cinema cameras in use are recording non-square pixels. None of the post production systems are messing around with non-square pixels. In the past the only reason why people needed to mess with non-square pixels was because SD TV sets only used non-square pixels.

---

quote:

---

Bobby, you're just not understanding what I'm writing... you're essentially saying the same as I am.
The "non square pixel thing" refers to the DCP, NOT the imager, the actual DMD.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

So, if you create a DCP by taking a 2560x1080 source and squeeze it to 2K, or maybe you film something with an 1.25 anamorphic lens, your end result would be a "squeezed DCP", containing "squeezed" and thus "non-square" pixels.

---

No. The pixels never get non-square. Only the imagery takes taken out of normal proportions. When an image is squeezed from 2560 X 1080 image to 2048 X 1080 every 5th column of square pixels is removed. It is not preserving a 2560 X 1080 image in a 2048 X 1080 space. The image is re-sampled to correspond with that more narrow space and map properly to the hardware that will be projecting the image.

Here's some visual examples if you're still not understanding it.


Image #1: This represents the starting 2560 X 1080 image with its content in normal looking proportions.


Image #2: This is the image reduced to 80% of its original width, re-sampled to the fit the 2048 X 1080 full frame space of the d-cinema imager.


Image #3: This is a blow-up from part of that squeezed image. Notice the pixels are still perfectly square.

The only thing that is made "non-square" is the pixels of detail after they are stretched by the anamorphic lens and projected on the screen. There is nothing non-square going on before then.

Nevertheless, this approach is indeed compatible with current d-cinema projection systems. That's really the easy part, despite what theaters would have to pay for anamorphic lenses.

The harder part would be getting movie productions to go along with this approach. They would have to render 'scope images 157.3% the size of the current ones they're producing -over 1 million more pixels for 2K and over 4 million more pixels for 4K. A Super 4K source image would have over 11 million pixels per frame.

I think there is also a race against time element with this. Many of us prefer common height screens. Those are real movie screens. But those kinds of screens are in danger and the 'scope format is in danger in the long term. If too many movie theater screens have the same shape as a home HDTV set movie makers will eventually shift to fill the extra height of those screens. Scope will go bye bye then.

Stadium seated theater designs deserve some of the blame for the popularity of common width with theater operators. You can make what seems like a big screen without building as huge an auditorium; the screen is just taller. But 'scope ends up being smaller. It never seems epic in any of those rooms. IMAX launched the trend of installing these common width screens without any masking or curtains. D-cinema seems like it was tailored for common width screens and flat ratio movies. It's really disappointing Dolby would reinforce the common width trend in their new Dolby Cinema theaters. They had a real opportunity to correct this situation of 'scope being done wrong.

I don't think the trend of theaters building common width screens will be stopped unless there is a way for 'scope to be presented as the best quality, highest resolution option.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-08-2015, 01:31 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No. The pixels never get non-square.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

When an image is squeezed from 2560 X 1080 image to 2048 X 1080 every 5th column of square pixels is removed.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The only thing that is made "non-square" is the pixels of detail after they are stretched by the anamorphic lens and projected on the screen. There is nothing non-square going on before then.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Bobby, that's just a definition. In the concept of a DCP, this would be considered non-square pixels. The end result would be non-square pixels on screen and that's the thing that matters.

---

quote:

---

The second picture you posted essentially contains "non square pixels", but because you encoded it as a simple JPEG lacking the necessary metadata uncommon aspect ratio of the pixels, every viewer/renderer/browser will interpret it as square pixels and thus the squeezed result.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

If you do that without some form of averaging, the end result WILL look dreadful. Just like scaling without filtering looks dreadful while projecting a movie. Visible vertical scaling artifacts will be the result, especially in scenes with lots of panning and zooming.

---

quote: Marcel Birgelen

---

Thus, you could easily state: The pixels were non-square already when you put them in the DCP. The only thing that defines how a pixel should be rendered is standards, conventions and settings.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Suggesting the pixels are non-square is trying to claim more pixels are there in that specific space.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

This kind of scaling of 2.5K/5K to 2K/4K has to happen on the post production side, prior to DCP authoring in case there are any nasty looking scaling artifacts present in the imagery. If the theater were to receive a 'scope DCP in 2.5K/5K resolution and leave it to hardware to do the scaling chances would be greater to have nasty reduction artifacts hitting the screen.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No. You can't state that at all. Both the hardware and software from production to exhibition, and not to mention simple laws of geometry, is defining those pixels to be square. The imagery hitting the d-cinema projector and its 2048 X 1080 chips has to have nothing but square pixels to map to it 1:1. Nothing in the digital realm is making any of it non-square. It is only after the digital image has been converted into analog light that the pixels are getting stretched out of normal, square proportions.

---