Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jurassic World : Flat Format

This is topic Jurassic World : Flat Format 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=002319

Posted by Christopher Lani (Member # 7952) on 06-09-2015, 03:42 AM:

Just a quick question. Why would Universal Studios spend untold millions of dollars to produce a film in the flat
format. Why not Scope?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-09-2015, 04:46 AM:

First of all, it is not flat, but 2:1. Second, because flat is not the cheaper brother of scope.

- Carsten

Posted by Ian Freer (Member # 1940) on 06-09-2015, 05:55 AM:

Also, the three previous 'Jurrasic' films have all been Flat, so it's in keeping with the rest of the series....

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2015, 08:58 AM:

There is also this belief that a less-wide frame gives the illusion of taller dinosaurs. That was SS's reason for shooting the first one in 1.85. However, SS tends to prefer 1.85 anyway. Yes, he has shot in Scope (Raiders of the Lost Ark series, Close Encounters...etc.) but if you look at the bulk of his movies, he seems to like that frame better.

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 06-09-2015, 10:08 AM:

I ingested this last night, and what i found disturbing is not so much the 2:1 aspect ratio, but the lack of an included framing chart on the drive.

At least when Disney released Tomorrowland in 2.20:1, they included a framing chart where we could create new lens files and screen files so we could properly fill our screens.

To me, the notion of having "black bars" on the top and bottom of the picture for something so big as Jurassic World is just unacceptable. The included projectionist letter even states "the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are completely normal".

My intention is to build my playlist like normal on Thursday night, and hit pause somewhere in the middle of Jurassic World and make my lens adjustments, and save them to a new "2:1 Flat" macro.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-09-2015, 10:13 AM:

Are these two films the start of a whole slew of titles that are shot in non-standard aspect ratios? (God, I hope not!)

How is the JP DCP formatted? Flat letterbox, full-container letterbox, or scope pillarbox? And are the 35mm prints flat or scope?

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 06-09-2015, 10:31 AM:

Something I've always wondered: what's the ratio between Flat and Scope screens in the US? Here in Italy only very small community theatres have Flat screens, and I don't think this is much different in the rest of Europe. Multiplexes and first-tier cinemas, those that make the bulk of our box office, have been almost Scope only for the last 15 years.

I'm asking that because I genuinely cannot understand why Flat movies are still around. Even when proper masking is applied (and this is very uncommon here), I don't perceive a 1.85:1 frame as "taller" on a correctly sized 2.39:1 screen: it's just much smaller and less immersive.

"Uncommon" ARs like 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 only take this silliness to the next level.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2015, 11:00 AM:

Barry, It sounds like a big deal, but it isn't (the lack of framing chart). If you know how to make screen files on your projector, then create a screen file with the dimensions you need. Put up a white pattern, zoom/shift until centered. Check with a focus target of some sort to ensure that focus, zoom, shift all agree with each other.

You can then trim the screen file to "mask" any keystone or curvature artifacts. I did verify with Tomorrowland that my 2.20 screen file exactly masked their framing chart.

A friend of mind also made targets for 2.0 and 2.2 for me (he is a graphical artist so he did it while we were talking on the phone...something that would have taken me forever).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-09-2015, 12:48 PM:

quote: Christopher Lani
Just a quick question. Why would Universal Studios spend untold millions of dollars to produce a film in the flat
format. Why not Scope?

You could call Steven Spelieberg and ask him why the original Jurassic Park was done that way too. And his answer will be because it is more believable in flat. The smaller flat format focus's your attention better on what he wanted you to be watching at any given moment.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-09-2015, 12:57 PM:

JP is not Flat, but anyway Flat is close to 16/9 which is where the big money comes from

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-09-2015, 02:20 PM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
First of all, it is not flat, but 2:1. Second, because flat is not the cheaper brother of scope.

So, if flat and scope are brothers, that leaves 2:1 to be the bastard?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-09-2015, 02:51 PM:

quote: Pietro Clarici
Something I've always wondered: what's the ratio between Flat and Scope screens in the US?

Effectively every US screen, both film and DLP, will support both "flat" and "scope" ratios. I have seen "flat" screens that range from 1.66 through 1.85 and there are some 2:1 fixed screens still out there as well. Any theatre built after 1965-ish should be reasonably close to 1.85 and 2.35/2.39, though. Sometimes, the screen is common-height, some are common-width, and some have moveable masking on all four sides.

What varies in the US is support for Academy (1.37) and European widescreen (1.66) formats. Generally, they are only found in art houses and special venues. Sometimes a multiplex with art-housey tendencies may support these formats but not on all screens. Silent and Movietone ratios are even less common.

What these nonstandard-aspect-ratio titles indicate to me is that the future of masking systems will require more than the two stops that a standard multiplex often has.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 06-09-2015, 03:16 PM:

The problem that I see:

All new build Theatres (in the U.S.) that I have been in have NO MASKING.

So, you are going to have pictures on a screen with black borders and no masking.

Making the experience that much worse.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-09-2015, 03:37 PM:

Scott,

I believe what Pietro asked was the ratio between cinemas featuring a Flat screen and cinemas featuring a scope screen. Of course both formats are supported worldwide.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-09-2015, 03:38 PM:

What are the pixel dimensions of Jurassic World? Is it 2048 x 1024?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-09-2015, 03:48 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
What are the pixel dimensions of Jurassic World? Is it 2048 x 1024?

That would be too logical. It's probably more like 2:1 in a flat container at 1998 X 999.
[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-09-2015, 03:59 PM:

what does 'Image Format: 1998x1080 Flat' mean

Universal releasing only 2K DCP's of this (considering this was filmed in 35mm and 65mm) doesn't amount to a hill of beans - they've already shortchanged the audio aspect to only 7.1 (5.1 is a given but come on) ... what the hell??

Posted by Tom Tomlinson (Member # 703) on 06-09-2015, 04:08 PM:

Will the dcp that Imax makes be 2:1 as well??

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-09-2015, 04:17 PM:

^ one would hope - of the three times I've seen the trailer on the IMAX-laser screen at the Airbus IMAX Theater / Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center it has that aspect ratio.

Posted by Eric Richard (Member # 8635) on 06-09-2015, 04:50 PM:

quote: Tom Tomlinson
Will the dcp that Imax makes be 2:1 as well??

DKP has stated "JW" is 1.90:1, which was the same as "Tomorrowland" IMAX. I was impressed with the IMAX "Tomorrowland" presentation on our IMAX screen. We have a screen designed for 15/70, but have since gone to the series II digital IMAX system(Christie). Of course this means even IMAX shot films will no longer fill my screen. I still maintain my MPX 15/70 projector just in case they ever want to give me a film!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-09-2015, 05:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's probably more like 2:1 in a flat container at 1998 X 999

That makes sense. Trying to slap together a quick framing chart to use for my screens.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-09-2015, 07:53 PM:

No framing charts for germany as well. Distributor says: 'Use the trailer as a reference, the main feature will be exactly like it'.
Well, the 2D trailer is actually 1920*960 letter- AND pillarboxed in 1998*1080...

These jerks...

So what will we see when the KDM becomes valid? 1998*999, or do we need to setup a third format to make the Dinosaurs as tall as they are meant to be...

- Carsten

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-09-2015, 08:11 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Universal releasing only 2K DCP's of this

Are you sure it isn't 4k? From IMDB:

Cinematographic Process
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Panavision Super 70 (source format) (some scenes)
Redcode RAW (5K) (6K) (source format)
Super 35 (source format)

If it is 2k, either IMDB is wrong or they wasted money on both 65mm film and 4k DI.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-09-2015, 08:30 PM:

Are any movies being distributed in 4K and 3D at the same time? I've had the impression for some time if a movie had a 3D version then it was only 2K. Jurassic World had a 3D version.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-09-2015, 10:13 PM:

from Deluxe - all of them denote 2K for the 2D/3D - 5.1/7.1 files:

File Name:

JurassicWorld_FTR-4-2D_F-20_EN-XX-CCAP_US-13-INT-TD_51-HI-VI-DBOX_2K_UP_20150526_DLA_IOP_OV

JurassicWorld_FTR-4-2D_F-20_EN-XX-CCAP_US-13-INT-TD_71-HI-VI-DBOX_2K_UP_20150526_DLA_IOP_VF

JurassicWorld_FTR-5-3D_F-20_EN-XX-CCAP_US-13-INT-TD_51-HI-VI-DBOX_2K_UP_20150526_DLA_IOP-3D_OV

JurassicWorld_FTR-5-3D_F-20_EN-XX-CCAP_US-13-INT-TD_71-HI-VI-DBOX_2K_UP_20150526_DLA_IOP-3D_VF

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-09-2015, 10:37 PM:

Why would you bother filming part on 65mm and then release it in 2K?

Posted by Annli Com (Member # 8266) on 06-09-2015, 11:24 PM:

Dear All

This is INDIAN Version CPL On Jurrasic World
JurassicWorld_FTR-3-3D_F-20_EN-XX_IN_51-DBOX_2K_UP_20150519_DUK_IOP-3D_OV

With Instruction Note

JURASSIC WORLD
ATTENTION
THEATER MANAGERS & PROJECTIONISTS:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING
“JURASSIC WORLD” DCP
SET UP FOR A FLAT SHOW (1.85:1), BUT THE
FEATURE CONTENT IS 2.00:1 ASPECT RATIO.
THE SMALL BLACK BARS ON THE TOP AND
BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN ARE NORMAL.
THANK YOU!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-10-2015, 01:49 AM:

I just programmed my screens for the Jurassic World 2.0:1 ratio. It was actually a bit easier than for Tomorrowland. Maybe because I just did Tomorrowland and wasn't having to refresh my memory as I went.

One thing I discovered is you will definitely want to use the flat version for all trailers. Flat trailers for flat movies fill the frame completely with minimal cropping. But a scope trailer for a flat movie only fills about 2/3 of the screen. With scope movies there was virtually no difference between flat and scope trailers - both contained pretty much the exact same amount of letterboxing and filled the screen side to side.

For anyone in need of a framing chart, I threw one together this afternoon. This is my first attempt at a framing chart and it could use some tweaking, but it works.
2.0:1 Framing Chart

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 06-10-2015, 03:39 AM:

THE SMALL BLACK BARS ON THE TOP AND
BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN ARE NORMAL.
THANK YOU!

Translates to: We don't give a flying f*ck about presentation quality. Thank you!

quote: Lyle Romer
Why would you bother filming part on 65mm and then release it in 2K?

Because bigger pixels make bigger dinosaurs!

But the real reason is probably because it was targeted as a 3D release right from the get go.

Also, the lack of an Atmos mix is just another sign they really couldn't bother much about the quality of the release.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-10-2015, 05:46 AM:

Justin,

The title in the target as well as the file name are for 2.2:1 but the target dimenions out for 2:1.

As for commentary on the target...not bad for a quickie. Generally the dimension lines should not have any anti-aliasing on them. Your horizontal lines are fine, though 5 pixels tall. The vertical lines are anti-aliased and 6 pixelish wide. Also, consider a single primary color (e.g. GREEN) for your focus targets (grids). You don't want convergence or chromatic aberrations to skew ones judgement on where focus is.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-10-2015, 06:59 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
All new build Theatres (in the U.S.) that I have been in have NO MASKING.

Better than that, my local AMCs have stopped moving their masking as it's easier to just leave the "letterbox bars" on the screen for anything wider than 1.85:1.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-10-2015, 07:40 AM:

Thanks for the feedback Steve. It was primarily just for my use to give me a visual. I figured it was worth sharing since it worked. I didn't even notice the name and label said 2.2:1 instead of 2:1.

One thing I notices is the 1x1 grid was too fine to be much use in focusing. Although I was able to see the checker pattern, it really wasn't much help. I figure a 4x4 pattern will be better.

Based on your suggestions and my own observations, I've made some revisions.
2:1 Flat Container Framing Chart for Jurassic World

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 06-10-2015, 10:21 AM:

Any word if the 3D flat version of the trailer is the exact same ratio as the feature release? I could get a head start on adjusting a lens file as needed.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-10-2015, 11:00 AM:

The 3D trailer I downloaded yesterday has exactly the same aspect ratio - 1998*999. We also received a 2D trailer with footage from a TV promo, that was different. But the cinematic trailers seem to use the exact framing of the feature, both 2D and 3D.

You can actually open the trailer MXF video file in VLC (>v2.0) and do a single-frame capture for reference.

- Carsten

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 06-10-2015, 09:05 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Why would you bother filming part on 65mm and then release it in 2K?

Yeah, no shit. That makes no sense at all. Are there really no 4k prints of this? What do the 35mm prints look like, assuming there actually are some?

quote: William Kucharski
Better than that, my local AMCs have stopped moving their masking as it's easier to just leave the "letterbox bars" on the screen for anything wider than 1.85:1.

William, I live fairly close to you (Broomfield) and I drive out to Harkins Northfield for anything showing on their 70 foot "Cine Capri" screen (passing up at least 3 AMC theaters that are closer). They put on a pretty good show (for this day and age). They end the pre-show crap by closing the curtains and re-opening them for the trailers & feature. Masking, focus, brightness, and audio (Atmos) have all been good in that auditorium. FYI

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 06-10-2015, 10:38 PM:

Outrageous. It's like dominoes. Exhibitors slip a little, production slips a little, exhibition slips a little more... Production slips a little more..............

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-10-2015, 10:58 PM:

so are the DCP's for the IMAX-laser 2K as well then?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-10-2015, 11:26 PM:

There's maybe a handful of laser-based IMAX systems installed in North America. That's hardly enough to justify rendering a separate 4K version.

Maybe Universal will release a 4K version on Blu-ray Ultra HD.
[Razz]

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-11-2015, 03:11 AM:

quote: Geoff Jones
I live fairly close to you (Broomfield) and I drive out to Harkins Northfield for anything showing on their 70 foot "Cine Capri" screen (passing up at least 3 AMC theaters that are closer). They put on a pretty good show (for this day and age). They end the pre-show crap by closing the curtains and re-opening them for the trailers & feature. Masking, focus, brightness, and audio (Atmos) have all been good in that auditorium. FYI

Thanks for the hint.

For the most part if I want to see (at least what passes for) presentation I usually go to the IMAX at Colorado Center or the RPX at the Continental. (The pre-show at the latter is badly broken - only one channel of audio works - but at least the movie sound itself is wonderful.)

Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 06-11-2015, 06:33 AM:

No Atmos presentation for this movie?? Are you FREAKING kidding me!!

I started looking around LA and Orange County for showtimes in Atmos and couldn't find any. Usually most theaters don't advertise it, but the Arclight Sherman Oaks, Arclight La Jolla, Kirkorian Buena Park 18 and Chinese Theater Six (specifically screen 1) almost always indicate that info. I knew something wasn’t right when I saw that none of those theaters listed an Atmos showing, so I stopped by to get some info on this site.

What the hell is going on? How on earth could Universal not support an Atmos release? A film like this is just begging for an Atmos mix! How can they be so incredibly stupid? I’m also reading on this thread how the aspect ratio has issues too. And I can't forget to mention they spent the money to shoot in 35MM, 70MM, 5K, 6K and master it in 4K (according to IMDB) and there are no 4K presentations? I had no idea 3D doesn't get a 4K master. Now I really am done with 3D! I just don’t get it? What a damn waste!! I’d love to contact the right people and voice my opinion. They really hit an all time low if the IMAX laser version is 2K.

This is all SO VERY disappointing!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-11-2015, 06:46 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I've had the impression for some time if a movie had a 3D version then it was only 2K.

All the more reason to hate 3D and keep hoping people will stop paying the upcharge so it can die a quick death. That gets added to how the 3D version is normally on the Atmos equipped screens (when Atmos is applicable) making it difficult to see anything in 2D Atmos in Florida.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-11-2015, 09:31 AM:

Aron - at one point, Dolby had 'Jurassic World' up on their master Atmos List - but then it was dropped. This is the second Universal title that hasn't been mixed/released in Atmos - the first one being 'Furious 7' - yes, yes, the sound mixing aspect of the filmmaking process is one of the last things the director/sound team does but this instance makes no sense. Did they not have enough time to do a proper mix? (I don't know) but for Dolby to actually think (and post) that an Atmos mix was to occur, but then suddenly axed makes Universal look foolish (and hypocritical of supporting the format)

secondly as I understand it (and as Bobby pointed out) - 3D has never been encoded/distributed in 4K DCP form - I thought that was a given.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-11-2015, 10:47 AM:

So I guess it makes no sense now to even refer to ANY aspect ratio as "flat" or "scope." The director & cinematographer can pretty much choose whatever AR they like. Scope and Flat nomenclature only made sense when each had it's own different lenses & app plate sets (how's that for sneaking in digital jargon to refer to an aperture plate?). Now, while there are different containers into which you can place an image, evidently that image can be whatever the filmmaker wants it to be, aspect ratio-wise. Who's to say not? Evidently not the DCI spec; not the SMPTE Projection Practices Committee. Why even bother with the old flat and scope termiology at all if you can have a variety of different aspect ratios?

Come to think of it, even BFD (before film died), in the art house world flat could mean any number of non-anamorphic aspect ratios: 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.75, 1.85 :1 maybe even more and at least two anamorphic ARs - 2.55, 2.4/2.35, and you could throw in a few 2:1s Even more if you add in 70mm. Flat and Scope were a pretty sloppy and lazy way of talking about AR distinctions even for film. In fact, that sloppiness today still causes consternation for retro film exhibitors when trying to figure out the correct aspect ratio of titles filmed during that transition period from the Academy Aspect ratio of 1.37:1 to the illusive moving target of "flat" 1.85 (about 1952 to early 1960s when they were still shooing for a safe area of about 1.66:1). Some A-hole writing "Flat" on film leaders for a film made in 1955 is about as useful as a roll of splicing tape in a digital booth.

Wasn't (isn't) it Disney who had some of their 3D titles framed in a faux-window that really wasn't the actual end of the image but just a black boarder frame that was moved to allow the illusion of objects not breaking the screen "frame" but actually coming out past it? Thus the frame can change size throughout the film? What can you call THAT aspect ratio!? Didn't they even have some training YouTube with a Mousekateer explaining the movie aspect ratio concept? Ah...yes they did: Timmy the Mousekateer projectionist

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-11-2015, 11:52 AM:

For floating windows, there is a clear technical/perceptual justification.
For all others, it is just artistic wisdom...

That said - life with flat and scope alone is pretty boring in the digital age. We will actually play both 'A World beyond' and 'Jurassic World' - and I'm looking forward to create those custom presets for our projector and constant-height screen masking.

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 06-11-2015, 12:21 PM:

The same letter here too emailed to us in the UK.
It sort of sounds like an apology; don't worry about it - it will do sort of thing.

I thought i read in one article that it was to emphasise the height of the dinosaurs so I don't understand why it would be a smaller height!

A new ratio created here to fill the height and set my w/s masking slightly wider.

I guess if I keep this CP2000 projector long enough eventually i will have some use for all the channel presets on the TPC!

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-11-2015, 08:16 PM:

The way most theatres are built today, it wouldn't surprise me if they decided they wanted something wider than 1.85:1 but didn't want the "smaller picture" 2.35:1 brings in today's constant-width screen environment. [Frown]

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-11-2015, 09:36 PM:

Can I just say that Universal really sucks for doing this. And not making the keys good until midnight the night before - effectively giving an 18 hour window to test that this is working as expected. Plus, they didn't even send out any information to indicate there was anything special about this movie.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 06-11-2015, 10:00 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
All the more reason to hate 3D and keep hoping people will stop paying the upcharge so it can die a quick death.

It'll be REALLY sad if 3D "dies a quick death" from refusal to pay the upcharges, rather than just stopping the upcharges! This'll probably be the first Jurassic Park I DON'T see at the theater, but I'll certainly be buying the 3D Blu-Ray! Off to watch another one right now! [Smile]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-11-2015, 10:21 PM:

from what I could tell seeing 'Jurassic World' tonight, it looks like 'Ant-Man' is 1.90 for the IMAX engagements as well.

Posted by Andrew Armstrong (Member # 8494) on 06-12-2015, 02:54 AM:

I worked as a projectionist full time from 1987-01 and strictly part time 01-03, before calling it quits. Unlike many, digital didn't kill my job off, it made it so damn boring i couldn't take it. I have not paid a lot of attention to what is coming out as far as the tech side of things, until the past two years or so. I went with a friend to a event here in my home town of Galveston, Tx at a former IMAX theater at Moody Gardens now called the MG 3D theater as the IMAX licinessing has expired .http://www.moodygardens.com/ One of the resons i even went was to see these laser lamphouse projectors i was hearing and reading about as Chrisite and Barco were showing theirs off at the 2nd Annual Digital Cinema Symposium. 3D3 Cinema made a good showing. Douglas Trumbull was the speaker, and others and had a really good head to head on a 70 foot large screen. 4K versus 15/70 film, laser versus lamp, 3D sound and a host of 3D glasses and new process. The 72 fps short that was shown in the Barco 6P was astonishing. Well here we are 2 years later, laser lamphouses, 3D audio, HFR, HDR and hollywood is still kicking out ho-hum features meant to attract kids to a show there parents saw. I lost a lot of respect of Steven with his and George's last Indiana Jones, talk about killing a movie franchise. I'm kind of glad JJ is at the helm with Star Wars and not George. Then i am reading here and elsewhere that Universal has no plans to release Jurassic World mixed in ATMOS, HFR, HDR or even 4K? Hello! A long time friend of the family who works for Universal was telling me it plans a ATMOS or DTS:X 4K Blu-Ray? Hello again. My question to any owner is why even bother to show this feature? You got a blockbuster, no doubt, but if you upgraded to all the new tech toys, there idle. Who is going to pay for a "prime" or "premium" showing to a non prime or premium feature? If i owned a cinema i would run The Hobbit movies in it's place, at least the upteen thousands in upgrades would be utilized. Crazy.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-12-2015, 04:10 AM:

That's nonsense to a certain degree.

Audiences go to an IMAX screening for a bigger screen - you could play the movie off an actual Blu-ray disc and they'd still pay the premium for the bigger screen.

Note near me though the lboth the local AMC "LieMAX" showings as well as the IMAX showing at an actual real IMAX-sized screen theater were sold out, with the latter already having two sold out shows for tomorrow.

The ETX showings at a different AMC also sold out first.

Most people know presentation format as screen size only, not resolution unfortunately,

Then there are people like me that went to a special Fathom Events screening of Interstellar after it was otherwise gone from theatres only to see it projected in 2K, bleah; so glad I got to see it in 70mm IMAX and 4K digital first.

Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 06-12-2015, 04:55 AM:

Jonathan - I'd love to know the reason why Universal decided to abandon Atmos. The more I think about it, the more I'm in disbelief.

Does anyone know for sure if the IMAX laser version got the IMAX 4K treatment?

Was this by any chance released with a 15/70 print for remaining true IMAX theaters? I would assume not.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-12-2015, 05:38 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Can I just say that Universal really sucks for doing this. And not making the keys good until midnight the night before - effectively giving an 18 hour window to test that this is working as expected. Plus, they didn't even send out any information to indicate there was anything special about this movie.

Actually Universal did send out a letter, and that explains the other issues - they say, the black bars are normal. That is, don't change fomats, play it in flat.

That's why there is no framing chart and no advance KDM.

It's on the ISDCF mailing list now, Disney and Universal staff is reading it. We'll see...

- Carsten

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 06-12-2015, 06:00 AM:

Who actually decides what aspect ratio a film gets shot in?

Using 2:1 would makes things easier in a few years if somebody decides to issue a re-release of it in Superscope or Fox Grandeur [Roll Eyes]

Wasn't 2:1 also the widest ratio for Vistavision films?

I've seen 'Scope films cropped to 2:1 on non-anamorphic 16 mm prints.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-12-2015, 06:21 AM:

Normal and proper are two different things. If you have a constant height screen, playing 2:1 with the masking (another item that differentiates between normal and proper) set to flat as it look as if you have something set wrong and more like an amateur home set up.

Someone at the studio should have told the film maker to protect to 1.85 and we'll "recommend" that it be shown in 2:1 for "maximum" effect and we'll see who runs it that way. I bet if you ran it both ways in test audiences...unless they are DPs and such, nobody would know the difference.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-12-2015, 06:22 AM:

They always tend to SHOOT in higher aspect ratios today, that is, using at least 16:9 full imagers. Unless they are actually shooting with anamorphic lenses.

Wether the movie then is released in 1.85 or 1.9 or 2.0 or 2.39 or whatever, is a different question. They certainly planned for 2:0 during the shooting, because the camera department needs framing guides. But for some releases e.g. with IMAX deals, they need to take these into account as well (sometime as much as 1:1.43 or so...).

I am quite sure that World Beyond and Jurassic World ARs have been actually screwed up with the IMAX deals.

- Carsten

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-12-2015, 09:36 AM:

Aron - I don't know who at Universal okay's and decides which movies get the Atmos mix - but they haven't entirely abandoned it - 'Minions' is getting mixed as such. IMAX laser thankfully did retain the side and rear sound channel sound cues of the 7.1 mix.

as to the image quality I saw on the IMAX laser system it was a mixed bag. Dark levels were excellent,as was the 3D.

With much being made that select scenes were shot in 65mm - all the long shots of the island, trees, foliage looked out of focus smeary.

Now, it may have been the projector, but around five times or so, faces in medium shots displayed a flicker double image - it was a jarring unintended effect - of the three other IMAX-laser presentations I saw this anomaly did not occur - so I'm not sure if it was the encoded file that was corrupted or if the projector was doing something wonky

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-12-2015, 11:20 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Someone at the studio should have told the film maker to protect to 1.85 and we'll "recommend" that it be shown in 2:1 for "maximum" effect and we'll see who runs it that way

I basically agree, but it should've just been full container. This way the people that aren't going to alter anything just run in 1.85 without tiny letterbox bars and those willing to make a custom file would show the little bit of extra on the sides (outside of the flat container) and shave just a tiny bit off of the top and bottom in their blanking file. Plus it wouldn't have lowered resolution by using the flat container.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2015, 05:36 PM:

quote:
It'll be REALLY sad if 3D "dies a quick death" from refusal to pay the upcharges, rather than just stopping the upcharges!

I think if the surcharges disappeared today, the 3-D numbers wouldn't change much, except maybe at first. Hardly anyone has complained to me about the surcharge (ours is $2) but they DO dislike wearing the glasses and/or having to try to force the kids to wear them.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-12-2015, 05:41 PM:

I thought Kids LOVE to wear the glasses. Or is that already over?

- Carsten

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 06-12-2015, 05:42 PM:

When it comes to 3D, it's really about product. San Andreas had pretty respectable 3D numbers for the first two weeks, and so far we've had a strong turn out for Jurassic World 3D.

I think the studios have made a mistake of thinking that just because a movie CAN be in it should be in 3D. As I've said before, 3D will draw a crowd when it's a movie where the 3D is perceived to add something of value to the experience. With other movies where the 3D is effective, it takes word of mouth to let people know it is worth seeing in 3D (Life of Pi and Gravity are two that fit this). If the 3D doesn't actually add anything perceptible to the experience, then it should not be released in 3D - or at least not required to have any 3D showings.

One last thought on playing Jurassic World in flat. By my calculations the picture is about 7% smaller when played in flat, rather than setting the 2:1 aspect ratio. At least on a screen with side moveable masking.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-12-2015, 09:09 PM:

SO what's the audience's reaction as they are coming out of this movie? Are they all like "Wow I don't know what it was but everything just looked better than every other movie ever made. Something just clicked!"

I guarantee you no one in the public will notice it unless they are informed beforehand. Waste of time. If you're gonna mess with aspect ratios, mess with them for the better.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-12-2015, 11:11 PM:

It looks great here because our screen is 2:1 so it fits perfectly.

Carsten -- kids DO love to wear glasses... for about 2 minutes.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-13-2015, 07:14 AM:

Oh. Then they should stop with the 3D 2min into the movie and play a slide: 'Put down your glasses NOW'. With the NOW jumping at them and some Urukai chief yelling it.

- Carsten

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-13-2015, 04:44 PM:

This aspect ratio was completely pointless. I saw it on a common height screen with side masking that played it in normal flat. The black at the top and bottom was so insignificant I don't understand why they did this. If they had just filmed in 1:1.85, it would have had the exact same visual effect.

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-15-2015, 02:05 AM:

I don't think most viewers care about aspect ratio, they just want to see the movie.

As far as why 3D (and IMAX, and RPX, and ETX, even if it's only 2K), this from Variety:

quote:
The Indominus rex, basically a T-rex on steroids, demanded to be seen on the biggest, widest, most souped up screens possible. That meant that “Jurassic World” got a major boost from premium large format and Imax screens, along with 3D showings. The sequel took in 48% of its domestic opening weekend receipts from 3D screens, while setting new high-water marks for Imax and private label (Premium Large Format) screens.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-15-2015, 05:45 AM:

quote:
The sequel took in 48% of its domestic opening weekend receipts from 3D screens

This is a completely meaningless stat without knowing what percentage of screens were 3D. An unscientific look at area showtimes indicates that OVER half the screens are 3D at the big chains.

Also, all of the IMAX and over 80% of the "PLF" showings are in 3D. So the vast majority of people that want the biggest screen (and are willing to pay extra) are going to see it in 3D by default.

An argument can be made that based on available seats, 3D should have been a higher percentage of the gross. I personally can't stand 3D. It adds nothing to the enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a movie. It is distracting when they do 3D tricks. It forces me to wear glasses and my wife glasses over glasses. The worst thing for me personally is that I can almost never see a movie on the biggest screen or in Atmos (n/a in this case) if it is in 3D because they use those screens for 3D.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-15-2015, 06:03 AM:

So even if the screen count/show offerings are about 50/50...given the up-charge, the 3D take SHOULD have been a much higher percentage. For it to be under 50% indicates that it likely didn't add ticket sales and possibly discouraged sales to the excessive cost or not wanting to see the movie in 3D.

Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 06-15-2015, 12:00 PM:

ASPECT RATIOS [beer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 06-15-2015, 01:00 PM:

ASPIC RATIOS!

quote:
A general rule for a liquid with no natural gelatin in it is to add, for a delicate aspic, 1 teaspoon of powdered gelatin per cup of liquid and for a sliceable aspic, 1 tablespoon of powdered gelatin.

Sorry, couldn't resist [Wink]

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 06-20-2015, 01:12 PM:

Why don't we compile a list of all the theaters we know that are properly presenting the film in the 2:1 ratio?

For example, I just got out of my second viewing of Jurassic World, but at the Alamo Drafthouse in One Loudoun, screen #4. I personally met the theater's IT guy (who visits here) on Wednesday and we discussed technical stuff, and he told me that Theaters #2 and #4 are set up to screen Jurassic World with no cropping or black bars. Those dinguses at Universal who claimed "the black bars are normal" have been proven wrong by a kid around my age. Sad that a handful of projectionists know how to handle a major tentpole movie more than the executives!

And on another note, I really like the 2:1 ratio and wouldn't mind it being used for more films afterwards. Next time, maybe use the full container.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2015, 01:40 PM:

I couldn't disagree more. The difference in 1.85:1 and 2:1 is so slight it's just stupid to stick to what everyone has properly setup and ready to go.

If someone is serious about making a movie, just shoot in the well established scope format (or if they kinda suck as a director, shoot in the well established 1.85 format).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-20-2015, 04:01 PM:

If you are going to go away from 1.85 or 2.39...THEN don't sneak up with it. Give advance warning and targets (and I mean months in advance) so theatres can prepare for it. Don't slough it off that "run the movie in flat and the black bars are normal."

With Tomorrow land, they did include a framing chart...which people got the week of the show. For Jurassic World...nothing.

I do agree with Brad that 2:1 versus 1.85 was not worth the effort or the piss-poor presentations that it resulted in.

Oddly enough, we had some theatres set up for 2.2:1 for "Classic" 70mm titles already...kind of the same way some theatres are set up for 1.33/1.37 (and we need just one of those too).

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-20-2015, 05:30 PM:

Oh, well, you know, it was an artistic decision - being that Spielberg wanted flat and director and DOP wanted scope. So, the artistic decision was to use 'something in the middle'.

Plus, it was cool:

http://www.panavision.com/devising-new-aspect-ratio-dinosaurs-jurassic-world

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-20-2015, 06:01 PM:

quote:
It's a 2.00 aspect ratio in what would be called a 1.85 container for the DCP (Digital Cinema Package), which means if the theaters set up their screens at 1.85, there will be a very small letterbox top and bottom and the good screens can adjust their cutters to maximize the picture. Coming up with our own aspect ratio was cool.”

What is a "cutter"? Are we expected to climb our screens and chop the screen off with a stanley knife?

Plus, no, it is not cool. I can't believe I read that.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-20-2015, 06:30 PM:

Wow, no kidding Marco. If that cinematographer wanted to shoot scope and he wasn't permitted to, he should've just taken another job.

What they really should've done was to create a new sound format...just for this movie! They could've used the unused channels on the DCP track and laid the room out with 5 channels on the rear surround wall, 2 on each side wall and just used the center channel without left or right behind the screen to "focalize the on-screen action, but create terror with immersive dinosaur movement behind the audience".

Then the paper that came with the drives could've stated "if you don't have the capability to setup the additional channels and rewire your surround arrays for it, the movie will play in conventional center/stereo surround without some of the sound effects. This is normal."

It would've been the same stupid shit, just with audio.

I wonder if the next movie those guys shoot will be at 26 1/2 FPS "to simulate high framerate without losing the classic cinematic feel". [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 06-20-2015, 07:11 PM:

They even admitted "The good screens will [adjust their masking]" implying that there is INDEED SOMETHING WRONG with presenting it with letterboxing...

HOW ABOUT INSTEAD, YOU JUST FUCKING NOT DO THIS SHIT?

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-20-2015, 11:49 PM:

wow - reading everyone's comments... and the director's intent ... and Universal's - what a clusterf**k of a release ... but what do the two latter care ? they made a boatload of money.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-21-2015, 05:10 AM:

I simply cannot believe that that actually happened. You would expect a bunch of professionals to work behind the scenes. I would expect such comments from a bunch of kids working on a YouTube project.

Besides that using 2:1 is a nonsense, as Steve said the least that should have happened was to come up with a framing chart way in advance.
Also, they should have mastered TWO DCP's, one using the intended format, and one zoomed out to 1.85:1 for cinemas which don't have 'cutters'/can't be bothered.

What was done is just plain wrong.

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 06-21-2015, 07:25 AM:

quote:
“The 65mm film negative gave ILM an incredibly high-resolution image for effects shots,”

Too bad no one will ever get to see any of that!

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-21-2015, 09:50 AM:

I'm curious. And I'm surprised I didn't experiment with it...Set up a new PCF (or input file, depending on how you configure your projectors) file. Set the input to 1848x999 for 2K or 3696x1998 with a 1.85 ratio.

What should happen is that the projector will scale the image and it will fill the 1998x1080 raster (and crop the sides of the image) and fill your "Flat" screen. Use the SAME screen file as your normal 1.85 so you don't have to do any "cutting."

Likewise for Tormorrowland...but choose the scope since that will result in less cropping. Define the input/PCF as 1998x836 and a 2.39:1 ratio. It should scale the image out to fill your scope screen (use your Scope Screen File).

If I get the opportunity, I do plan to try it to see how it goes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2015, 11:37 AM:

I guess what I don't understand about all this is, why are they putting the picture in a "flat" container? We have a 2:1 screen here, so JW fits perfectly if I run it in Scope format and zoom it out to eliminate those pesky black bars. If I use Flat as instructed, it looks like a small image floating in the middle of the screen. I'd think even with a properly proportioned screen you'd want to use Scope, so that you get your full height and just have the image slightly pillarboxed if you don't have movable masking.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-21-2015, 12:07 PM:

2:1 in Scope would only have 1716*858 pixels visible resolution. Now imagine that projected on a large format premium screen...

They wanted the best compromise for their rotten idea, that's why the chose a flat container. And obviously they did not want to release different versions for different screens.

- Carsten

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-21-2015, 12:14 PM:

"Large format premium screen"?

Well first off, there is no such thing as "large format" anymore. 15/70 is gone forever. 5/70 is the only thing deserving of that title from this day forth.

Second "premium screen"? You mean the ones too cheap to install masking? That's NOT premium at all.

I know there is still a good size chunk of the idiot-going public who are still be suckered into the "BS-X" bogus systems with a big trampoline on the wall for a screen and fancy branding, but I'm seeing more and more that people ARE wising up to the scam and that number is steadily increasing! Every week there is someone else who asks me why theaters are cutting corners so much as to downgrade the movie, because that's why they went in the first place. Sure they all appreciate and acknowledge the better seats, but the complaints are almost always the same and they revolve around the presentation. The picture doesn't fill the screen and nobody understands why (masking people, masking)...and either the sound is too quiet and not impressive (because they are too lazy to turn it down at the trailers and up for the feature) or the sound is too loud and hurts their ears (crappy speakers and/or poorly tuned systems...can anyone say IMAX?)

This "BS-X" craze is just marketing bullshit and it WILL catch up to them. Just like any other change for the worse, they don't see immediate loss of revenue, so the suits pat themselves on the backs and give themselves a raise for "lowering their construction and operating costs".

Meanwhile look several years down the road when people stop patronizing those theaters. They won't take the time to stop and write letters to the exhibitors explaining why, they will just simply not go anymore. Then the exhibitors won't be able to keep the doors open and they won't have much of a chance to get them back.

Now before some smart-ass pops on here and starts to quote numbers for Jurassic World, allow me to make my point clear. Several years down the road only a major movie like Jurassic World will get people back. This is because they want to see the movie so bad they have no other choice (which is why it did well this month), but overall these issues I've pointed out is one more thing that will kill the industry.

The solution? More advertising and even higher prices. Oh yeah, that's the way to solve it. [Roll Eyes]

Again in the IMMEDIATE the fancy branding and higher prices and up-charges will give the illusion of making things better, but it will just kill it even more.

By that point the studios will have started releasing to the home market on the same day as the theatrical release because the cinemas won't be bringing in the bucks like they used to, and there won't be a damn thing the cinemas will be able to do about it but die off.

You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming. You just have to use your brain a little bit. Cheap out now, die later.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-21-2015, 12:54 PM:

Come down, Brad, and stick to the thread...

If you show me the encyclopedia britannica definition of 'Large Format Premium Screen', I'm open to follow that. Until then, it's just a 'very large screen'.

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 06-21-2015, 01:06 PM:

it was a little off topic but I so agree with Brad here I'm going to put a 'like'.

The keyword here is "brain".

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-21-2015, 01:17 PM:

Carsten, I was quoting YOU on that. You are the one who steered the topic off the road by using the bogus "large format premium screen" term instead of the more appropriate "very large screen". The latter is accurate. The former is a blatant lie.

However on a side note, if you have to see the definition of "Large Format Premium Screen" printed in the encyclopedia britannica to see what's happening to the industry and the trend that is actually downgrading the presentations, then you should go get a job as a corporate guy in a cinema circuit where you would fit right in. [Razz]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-21-2015, 01:48 PM:

I think the offensive word here is "format" as if the BS-X theatres get something that the normal theatres don't There is no large format about it like 15/70 was (or 8/70) was to 35mm or even 5/70.

The notion of a large format is that the source material is somehow superior (and larger) than standard. So lets say the PLF theatres get a 16K version of a movie that was shot 16K and the standard theatres still just get the 2K or 4K versions...THEN you have a Large-Format theatre that should put out a superior picture on their large screens than the standard theatre...much like 15/70 IMAX could do with their nature movies. Or even 8/70 as compared to smaller gauges. At least with 70mm, you had a significant improvement over standard 35mm houses (2-3X on the image) on what you were starting with, all else being equal.

The BS-X theatres don't enjoy that...they just say they are better using the same source material.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2015, 02:22 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
You don't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming. You just have to use your brain a little bit. Cheap out now, die later.

What's really infuriating is, the big chains which have the most money are the ones cheaping out and reaping the big bucks, while little guys who refuse (as much as possible) to compromise on quality are spending more money on the things that count, but will probably get screwed in the end.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-21-2015, 02:50 PM:

That discussion is here:

http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f14/t000269.html

- Carsten

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-21-2015, 02:54 PM:

No Carsten, this discussion definitely doesn't belong in the 8/70 and 15/70 forum. This is the "digital cinema forum" and threads do sometimes wander a bit.

Let it go.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-21-2015, 11:37 PM:

We have masking set for flat and scope (common height, of course) but I do feel guilty that we don’t have intermediate stops for the occasional 1.37 and 2.2 classics such as Casablanca or Lawrence of Arabia.
However, we did ask for a price on variable masking and it was thousands of dollars higher than I expected.
At my request, our tech set up lens files for Jurassic World and Tomorrowland when he carried out the regular service. Pillarboxing is far more acceptable than letterboxing.
I am disappointed that there is no easy answer to the letterboxed short on the front of Inside Out. Even if we could run it in Scope, I never like making the image smaller for the main feature.
While the showman in me demands that we should properly mask everything, I feel that the cost would be unjustified. Why should a film-maker’s whim force exhibitors to fork out thousands when the end result is hardly Cinerama?
Back in the 50s, exhibitors were forced to spend a fortune to install CinemaScope and stereophonic sound but the results were spectacular.
So variable masking is down the pecking order after new seats (underway) and a slightly larger screen.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-22-2015, 07:46 AM:

@Ron: Our masking has three stops, closed for 1.37, then flat, then scope. Before our digital install, there was a wall rotary switch that could only move it to these positions. The actual positions are set through switches on the motor shaft and there is no way to add additional contacts there.

When we went digital, the rotary switch was paralleled with three individual relays. We found out that by switching on the relays only for a specific amount of time, then dropping it, we were now able to get to any intermediate position, while the original stops could be considered as hard 'safety stops'.

We can now adjust the horizontal masking to any intermediate position by simply dropping the relay from the server playlist after a specific number of seconds, and we have specific macros/SPLs set up for 2:1 and 2.2:1 including these timings.

It's quite accurate, and we still have the fixed positions for standard flat/scope. You should inquire with your installer wether something similar is possible with your masking system. They may not count in the possibility that your server based cues allow for timed position changes. Depending on load, temperature, humidity,etc these intermediate positions may not always be accurate to the cm, but who cares. The installer may tell you it's not done properly this way, but as long as the standard stops still work...

- Carsten

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-22-2015, 10:22 AM:

I did a press screening of an upcoming movie the other day. The director,
who is fairly well-known, flew up from Los Angeles to be at the event.

Before the show, the first thing he did was come up into the booth and ask me
to run some of his movie so he could check the aspect ratio, becuase, he said:
"The last two movies I went to see were projected in the wrong aspect ratio"

When I inquired what movies they were, he said Tomorrowland & Jurassic World.
Duh! Why am I not surprised? (I should have asked what theater he saw them at)

We then had a several minute interesting conversation on aspect ratios.
He seemed genuinely surprised to find out that most theaters no longer have 'real'
(dedicated staff) projectionists and are usually only set up to show the two most
common aspect ratio formats. Perhaps they should start teaching this little, but
apparently widely unknown fact in 'director's school' !

He also sort of apologized for "making" me do the aspect ratio test for him,
because , he said. "you clearly know what you are doing".

(Hey, I wouldn't come down to a film set and tell him how to direct a movie, so
I don't always appreciate it when one of these guys tells me how to project one)

But, overall, he was a nice guy.
. . . and as long as he thinks I 'know what I'm doing", I gave him my card. LoL

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-24-2015, 04:01 PM:

Our masking setup also has a three position hard stops -- Scope (full open) 1.85 and 1.37. But what to do about 1.66? Well with a projectionist in the booth, that was easy. He just pushes the STOP button at the appropriate time. This has to be done with the curtain open, which is something I don't like, I'd rather have the masking set to position while the curtain is closed so the audience doesn't see it move. They watch a cartoon at 1.37, the curtain closes, the mask moves to 1.85 or scope, the curtain opens and the audience sees a screen obviously wider than what they were just watching. With the "push the stop button for 1.66 or 1.75 (some Disney classics), he has to see the size of the picture with the curtain open so he stops at the right place.

If as Carsten says, the playlist can be accurate enough in terms of time in seconds, in order to stop the mask motor at any specific spot,. i.e., replacing the projectionist pushing the stop button, then the problem is really solved.

Perhaps if it is going to be a regular thing that studios are releasing titles with off-standard widths, then the easiest way to deal with it would be to have masking that can be set to any variable width the exhibitor desires, no matter what the studio sends out. At the very least, this would be a way to force exhibitors to have functioning masking. Or maybe not.

I agree with our own resident Nostradamus, Mr. Miller -- if it keeps going the way it is, there'll not be any reason to be fretting about such things masking stop points. You don't need masking on a smart phone or and iPad or computer monitor. And you don't need masking on a flat panel TV...all you have to do is just set the picture to the STRETCH setting!

Sometime when I see what the public puts up with -- ala RPissX underlite, disgusting hotspotting, horrific contrast and soft focus images, where the ONLY thing "premium" about these BS venues is the premium price which they seem all too happy to PAY EXTRA FOR -- I hang my head in despair and think, the public deserves whatever shit it gets.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 06-28-2015, 01:50 PM:

I understand the sentiment, Frank, but I have to say as a moviegoer in this current digital climate, I have no other choice in my city besides these standards. It's either pay for it and take it, or don't go to the movies.

I have no choice if it's only showing in the "extreme" screen.
I have no choice if I don't want to see it in 3D.
I have no choice if I want to see it on a masked screen.
With LED lighting now, I have no choice if I want to see it in an auditorium where the lights still dim without just turning off.

Now the concession prices have been jacked up again and the sizes have been downsized.

I love going to the movies so much that I put up with it, but it sure is starting to even alienate me. What other choice is there?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-28-2015, 02:32 PM:

When I saw JURASSIC WORLD last Tuesday, it was projected on a fully exposed scope screen and the sides were not masked at all. Normally, this kind of presentation would bother me but for some reason, it did not with this movie. The fact that I saw this movie in 3D could be the reason.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2015, 09:10 PM:

quote: Andrew McCrea
I have no choice if I don't want to see it in 3D.

I thought 3-D was dead or something -- are you saying there are no 2-D shows of 3-D movies in a town the size of Winnipeg???

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-29-2015, 03:10 AM:

Hey, I wanted to see JURASSIC WORLD in black and white, and I can't understand why theatres aren't offering it in both color AND black and white versions so that people like me who don't like watching movies in color will have a choice. If that sounds facetious, the idea that a filmmaker has to offer a film in a process other than how he/she intended an audience to experience it is just as facetious.

Mike, what makes you think 3D is dead? That's really getting to be a tired old cliché. If you want to go back as far as IMAX 3D films starting in the mid-1990s, or even if you want to be more conservative and start with the main-stream, digital 3D presentation of stereoscopic commercial feature films in 2008 with JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH or if you want to place the marker at 2009 with UP and TOY STORY and of course the landmark AVATAR in 2009, 3D to date has outlasted the 50s "fad" by 4 times as many years with no signs of it "dying."

Look, no question, 3D feature production has leveled off, but it has found its place in what films work with it and which do not. Yes, certain genre of films don't lend themselves to stereoscopic presentation, but others definitely do, and it just so happens that films which do, coincidentally or not, are the tentpoles which are usually are very profitable -- many are blockbusters. So as long as films that are made in 3D like JURASSIC WORLD are raking in LOTS of money, the 3D process is not about to evaporate into thin air any time soon.

Face it -- 3D has now become just another tool in the lexicon of technology that the producers and filmmakers can decide to use when making deciding how to make a film, no different than choosing Atmos or scope, or for that matter, color. And for whatever technical shortcomings one can point out in today's digital 3D technology, it's MILES above the original foray in the 50s (which lasted less than 2 & 1/2 years) and the single projector/xenon light source system ala RealDim 3D, is a technology still in flux and will most likely improve, especially with laser light sources or dual 4K projectors -- improvements that will only strengthen the 3D tool, not weaken it as a desirable presentation system.

For those Winnipeg who don't like watching movies in 3D, they can always wait for the 2D video version to come out.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 06-29-2015, 03:36 AM:

That's telling them, Frank! [Smile]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-29-2015, 05:17 AM:

Okay big-boy...want to see how well 3D is liked. Lets see how well a tent-pole feature does if it is released ONLY in 3D in this day and age now that the novelty has worn off. I'd just about guarantee that its numbers will fall way below expectations if there wasn't a 2D version available.

3D remains a fad that is liked by a comparatively small percentage of people.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-29-2015, 08:55 AM:

OK, but let's make your challenge fair -- are you going to release your test 3D title at the same price point as the 2D version, or are you going to bias it with a surcharge that people find heinous as is currently the case?

Let's apply your test this way -- offer a feature in two theatres -- one showing it in 5.1 stereo and one in Atmos, but put a 4 dollar upcharge on the Atmos version. Better yet, offer it in 5.1 stereo in one theatre and in mono and another, but again, put that surcharge on the stereo version. Would you really want to judge how efficacious an enhancement technology is by that kind of a front-loaded test? This 3D roll-out from the get-go in 2008 has always been tainted by that mercenary albatross.

Then again, even WITH the hefty surcharge, people STILL chose to see JURASSIC WORLD in IMAX 3D and shell out their outrageous price-tag over the 2D "regular" screen version when IMAX was ONLY offering it in 3D. And the IMAX engagements STILL represent a good chunk of the way-over-the-top profit margin realized on JW. Bottom line and to your point, people did vote with their pocket books for 3D. True, that won't be the case with every 3D release, but you can be sure that even if that kind of positive monetary incentive only happens on a handful of titles a year, it's enough that stereoscopic releases will continue to be produced well into the future.

So yah, you can call it a "fad" if you like, but money talks and that fad will remain a staple in the industry for the foreseeable future, IMHO.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-29-2015, 10:39 AM:

quote:
Mike, what makes you think 3D is dead? That's really getting to be a tired old cliché.

I was being sarcastic. I know it's not dead. But he made it sound like he has no choice but to see movies in 3-D in Winnipeg, which I think is probably not the case. (Maybe he meant, 'on the biggest screen.')

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 06-30-2015, 05:36 AM:

Just as an aside, this, from the latest American Cinematographer (July 2015) with a quote from cinematographer John Schwartzman regarding Director Colin Trevorrow and EP Spielberg and the unique aspect ratio:

quote:
“I wanted to shoot this movie ’Scope,” attests Schwartzman. “Most of my career I've shot ’Scope, and I love that format. But [Jurassic World executive producer] Steven Spielberg was very against the [2.40:1] aspect ratio — he felt we needed more image height for the dinosaurs. It was Colin who came up with the idea of a compromise at 2.0:1.”

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-02-2015, 11:36 PM:

^ the same article notes that the most of the 65mm shot scenes (35%) were shot plates for the SFX guys to add visual effects to. Downrezzing the image to 2K was most likely done for the stereo 3D work. To bad Universal didn't cull 4K DCP's for theater's not showing the movie in 3D.

I saw this again with a friend over at Angelika Mosaic on their second largest screen (4K projector) and while it was still 2K (and not a 3D presentation) they managed to decrease the screen vertically to only have a sliver of black bordering on the bottom of the image. The 7.1 soundmix though was the real star and really amped up the fun intensity factor - and in one instance made one death even more unsettling as the victim's screaming is placed directly behind you, as Claire's nephews watch on in horror facing us the audience.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-09-2015, 06:46 PM:

Thought they were up to this again with Ant Man because the flat trailers we have been running have very thin letterboxing similar to Jurassic Word - however turns out Ant Man is just regular Flat.

(It's shot by a director who seems to favour Flat - although for a big summer movie like this you might have thought he'd give Scope a try. One of his other movies is Scope, so he's worked with that once before.)

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 07-09-2015, 07:16 PM:

quote: Michael Brown
turns out Ant Man is just regular Flat.

I can confirm that. I've done a couple of press screenings and FLAT, it is.

Unfortunately, I couldn't sit out in the auditorium to hear the ATMOS mix.

I'm doing another private screening next Tuesday, and mabye I can sneak
a seat in the back during that one.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-16-2015, 11:37 PM:

^ just saw 'Ant-Man' in IMAX-laser - the image and sound were just out of this world! (and the movie itself was a blast).