Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ghostbusters (2016) Aspect Ratio

This is topic Ghostbusters (2016) Aspect Ratio 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=002740

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-06-2016, 03:28 PM:

I received an email from Sony this morning indicating the aspect ratio of Ghostbusters is Flat for 3D and Scope for 2D. I don't recall any previous movie with different aspect ratios for 2D and 3D.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-06-2016, 03:40 PM:

They're probably putting 3D objects on the black bars so the movie is scope but they ask you to run it in flat so to see the black bars. That was the case with another one which I cannot remember right now.
In 2D that's not required so it keeps a proper aspect ratio.

Just my 2p opinion, haven't sent it yet

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2016, 04:05 PM:

Didn't they do that with Life of Pi?

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 07-06-2016, 04:10 PM:

Does an email like this confuse all those theaters who are running scope features letterboxed on flat 1.85 screens anyways? [Razz]

Posted by Matt Russell (Member # 8989) on 07-06-2016, 04:11 PM:

It sounds like Disney's "floating window" technique for their 3D films and in the case of a scope movie, may have black bars around the frame. It'll probably turn out as Marco described, which is why they want the 3D shown in flat.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 07-06-2016, 05:21 PM:

I remember Avatar having many different aspect ratios depending on which format it was played in, too.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-06-2016, 06:01 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
They're probably putting 3D objects on the black bars so the movie is scope but they ask you to run it in flat so to see the black bars

So the movie's gonna look letterboxed no matter what. That's ... awesome.

The closer this gets, the more it seems to have "turd" written all over it. Aside from the trailers completely sucking, even the stars and the studio don't seem all that enthusiastic about it. Even the one-sheets are terrible.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-06-2016, 07:28 PM:

The film they did this before was G-Force (3d Gini pig movie from 2009)

The 3d version will run in flat, but is letterboxed scope and 3D effects will come out over the letterboxes.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2016, 11:36 PM:

The 'scope format is a freaking sad, deplorable joke in movie theaters anymore. The biggest, best, most highest resolution format on 35mm is now the smallest and lowest resolution format. But. It's. Still. DIGITAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Burp.

I think the odd thing about the Ghostbusters all-female re-make, sequel or whatever the hell movie this is supposed to be is that it acknowledges the reality of how shitty many "modern" multiplex movie theaters have become. It's all about crappy common width screens. Not common height. In digital and common width oriented theater screens, 'scope is really the smaller and cheaper format. Yet us idiot water-brain babies at home think 'scope is always better. Hollywood is basically screwing us customers. And this gambit with Ghostbusters is a way for the global media elites to up the ante to underscore just how stupid us mindless customers really can be. Let us not forget about the lack of freaking MASKING!!!! "Oh but we're going to show some 3D movie stuff going above and below the black bars. It will be so special. You'll cream you jeans over this stuff!" This is essentially why we can be watching a TV style letterboxed movie, un-masked, in a commercial theater for 1st run ticket prices. Showmanship? Fuck you. By the way, thank you, IMAX, for really making this kind of crap standard. You really pioneered something there.

I wonder if the "IMAX" version is going to be treated the same way. Or will it be rendered differently, like a full imager 2048 X 1080 image for 2K and 4096 X 2160 for those 3 or 4 laser installations IMAX has. They don't seem to have any more than 3 or 4 laser systems installed. Otherwise they might actually list the shit specifically on their website instead of implying that all "IMAX" theaters are the same.

Posted by Matt Smith (Member # 9425) on 07-07-2016, 02:13 AM:

We got an e-mail asking us to read the projection specifications, without actually attaching the specifications but I figured it would be something like this. You can see from the trailers the effect when they fire the proton streams and they come out of the frame.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-07-2016, 03:20 PM:

Matt

The specification disappeared like a ghost... Ok, that's bad! [Wink]

So to show a few fancy proton effects they run the whole movie in letterbox. What are those people thinking?

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 07-07-2016, 06:15 PM:

How bout doing a 3D movie in 1.85, but have it be shown in 2.35 with side bars so effects can come out of those? [Razz]

I thought the "stuff in the black bars" on G-Force was done just for the Blu-Ray, at least I know now it wasn't changed from the theatrical version, as more irrelevant as that gets.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-07-2016, 06:28 PM:

The black bars allow objects to travel in front of the screen with out the odd being chopped off by the masking it actually has been often mentioned in many old 3d publications as part of the ideal 3d setup
So if one doesn't like it don't go
I am getting a little tired of the same people bemoaning that scope is now inferior to flat
The public has chosen to patronize stadium theatre over sloped floor and the geometry of those rooms vs the cost to build will favor a squarer screen format.
And this is a business not a high art form so some of you get off the high horses Digital Imax even though not as good as 15/70 is here to stay fixed width screens are here to stay and will only change if the customers choose to stay away end of rant

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-08-2016, 02:22 AM:

There are sufficient theaters out there that combine stadium seating with "scope sized" screens. Maybe most converted "sloped floor" theaters don't really have the geometry to do it properly, but that's no excuse for new builds.

A few years back, it seemed like scope was dying as an aspect ratio, but I'd say it's the dominant format for big budget Hollywood productions right now. Many of those Digital IMAX and PLF thingies are showing scope movies, which are supposed to be shown BIGGER than flat, in unmasked letterboxed form. Therefore it's major pita scope being treated so poorly.

Posted by Matt Smith (Member # 9425) on 07-08-2016, 12:24 PM:

Here is the letter that comes with the drive explaining the effect for those that are interested.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this in IMAX 3D on Monday!

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 07-08-2016, 06:06 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
And this is a business not a high art form

This attitude right here is exactly why quality control and standards have been thrown away over the years. The reason the average movie-goer keeps going to the new EDX/PDX/FUXU screens and not complain about it is because they are ignorant. Movies are absolutely an art form and we should strive to present them in the best way possible. Selling popcorn and soda keeps the lights on and the paychecks signed, but when the industry decided that had to be the most important aspect of running a movie theatre, the presentation standards got shat on because the managers only care about per-capita and don't give a damn at all about whether the movie looks and sounds good. The only bastion of hope we used to have is that film at least required a real person in the booth to run a show. That person could be an idiot and not care about presentation either, but I'd bet the vast majority of projectionists actually care if the movie looked good or not. Now everything is fully automated. The computer scheduler certainly doesn't get a flying F if the image coming out of the projector looks good or not.

Presentation quality can still exist in the modern digital era of exhibition but it first requires somebody to care, and as you have pointed out, most do not [Frown]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2016, 10:02 PM:

quote: Gordon McLeod
I am getting a little tired of the same people bemoaning that scope is now inferior to flat. The public has chosen to patronize stadium theatre over sloped floor and the geometry of those rooms vs the cost to build will favor a squarer screen format. And this is a business not a high art form so some of you get off the high horses Digital Imax even though not as good as 15/70 is here to stay fixed width screens are here to stay and will only change if the customers choose to stay away end of rant

The public made their preference for stadium seating known way back in the mid 1990's, back when movies were projected on film. Back when the 'scope format was the best format on 35mm. That all happened before digital. The public has no idea how they're getting duped technology wise with the travesty that is 'scope in d-cinema. It's the lowest pixel count, lowest resolution format. The public doesn't know that, but it's the truth. Since the public does not know this truth there is no way to infer they prefer that lower quality truth.

I'm not against d-cinema. But I really dislike the cost cutting, quality reducing short cuts they made with the format. Very few movies are produced in the flat format. The prevailing majority of them are made in 'scope aspect ratio. The powers that be could have used a 1.25x anamorphic system to make the most of the 2048 X 1080 and 4096 X 2160 imagers, but they didn't. Instead they chose to treat 'scope just like it is at home on the TV screen: letter-boxed. I think the movie producers really like this approach since it equates to far fewer pixels to render.

I'll happily beat up on IMAX for popularizing the no-masking approach to flat ratio screens. I was willing to overlook it for true IMAX theaters that had 15-perf 70mm film projectors and giant sized screens. I'm not going to overlook it for digital-based theaters with smaller screens and projectors that throw a HDTV resolution image. Inferior common width screens have been around far longer than d-cinema, but in the past most of them at least had vertical masking. Today new theaters with common width screens rarely have masking. It's like they're trying to copy IMAX of decades past while being cheapskates at the same time.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
A few years back, it seemed like scope was dying as an aspect ratio, but I'd say it's the dominant format for big budget Hollywood productions right now. Many of those Digital IMAX and PLF thingies are showing scope movies, which are supposed to be shown BIGGER than flat, in unmasked letterboxed form. Therefore it's major pita scope being treated so poorly.

The flat format grew dominant in the 1980's when the VHS home video rental and sales boom hit. Suddenly it was really important to make movies more geometrically friendly to TV screens. I remember a lot of 70mm blow-ups in the 1980's that were flat, like Total Recall, Back to the Future, etc. The trend began to reverse itself in the 1990's. By the time DVD grew into popularity 'scope was the dominant format. Even in the early 2000's I remember our theaters having nothing but 'scope ratio movies. Genre didn't matter either. Indie movie: 'scope. Comedy: 'scope. Drama: 'scope. Everything was in 'scope. Today damned near everything still is in 'scope. That's regardless of the fact a great deal of "modern" theaters are not built and equipped to display 'scope properly.

quote:
Presentation quality can still exist in the modern digital era of exhibition but it first requires somebody to care, and as you have pointed out, most do not :Frown:

Showing 'scope properly is largely out of the hands of people in the projection booth. The format has been goofed up by higher powers. The movie studios and deciders at movie theater chains turned 'scope into the cheapest, lowest quality format. The projection systems and theater construction designs just aren't friendly to 'scope, despite just how often the 'scope ratio is used in movie production.

With a TV-screen shaped setup, I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all by watching movies at home. On my 65" HDTV screen those letter-boxed movies look just like they do on the unmasked, letter-boxed commercial movie theater screen.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-08-2016, 11:00 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all by watching movies at home. On my 65" HDTV screen

I think I would miss:

- The bigger sound (provided you go to a decent cinema)

- The much bigger picture (even small theaters still have 65 inches beat by a mile)

- Not having to clean up any popcorn I spill

- The shared audience experience (assuming I'm in a courteous audience)

- Being able to see the movie without waiting at least 90 days

- Getting out of the damn house

Maybe exhibition isn't perfect but what popular-priced entertainment is?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2016, 11:32 PM:

• My sound system at home is pretty damned good. It packs a healthy wallop. I'm willing to drive out of town to see movies shown with Dolby Atmos, provided the mix is more than Atmos in name only. Very few theaters are equipped with that due to the expense.

• Commercial theater screens are bigger, but the ratio of viewing distance is much farther. In my living room I'm viewing my 65" HDTV screen at a distance of about 72". That screen is filling my field of view just as much as commercial theater screens I'm viewing from roughly 10 times the distance. Even though the home image I'm seeing (hopefully) isn't authored to the same standards as the DCP on a hard disc the image on that HDTV screen looks tack sharp, not soft.

• I don't spill my popcorn all over the place, not even at commercial movie theaters. I carry out my own trash. I have respect for the venue and its staff. I'm not a disgusting pig, unlike a lot of the cattle moving in and out of theaters.

• The shared audience experience is both pro and con. Yes, it's great when the audience reacts in unison to a big movie moment. I remember the audience breaking out in applause at the climax of the The Untouchables action sequence on the steps of Union Station, inspired by the Odessa Steps scene in Battleship Potemkin. That was one of my favorite 70mm Dolby mag viewing experiences (at the Loews New York Twin in Manhattan). Great stuff. But that group experience has been traded for people who won't get the fuck off their damned mobile phones. I feel like carrying a damned Mag-lite into the theater along with a few laser pointers to visually assault the shit out of some of these idiots who can't keep their digital toys in their pockets. I don't have to put up with that crap at home. The experience is more controlled. IMHO movie theaters need to take a very hard-line stance on mobile phone use and other distracting behavior in movie theaters.

• When I was younger, I had to wait a whole lot longer to see a hit movie debut on home video. We are talking a year or more. Do you remember how long it took for Saving Private Ryan to finally show up on DVD? Remember how long it took for E.T. to arrive on videotape? Fucking Spielberg! 90 days is nothing, even back then. Today, 90 days is practically a few blinks of the eye. And with all the vast choices we have for entertainment now, it's totally impossible to keep up with it all. It's almost like playing Farmville. You finish one assignment only to get greeted by four more. That's why I quit all that Zynga shit and abandoned so many Facebook friends still caught up in it. So if a movie studio says it's going to punish us viewers by delaying a release for a month or 3 months or whatever, I'll happily tell them to lick my soiled jock strap. I couldn't care less. Especially when the movies they're making are paint by numbers, "Save The Cat!" template dog shit clip art. Series TV on cable is beating the hell out of movies these days in terms of dramatic quality.

• Movies aren't the only choice of fun and entertainment outside of the house. Even in little Lawton, OK we have plenty to do besides going to the show. I can party at the lake, go swimming, go hunting, go to a local community play via Lawton Community Theater, go to an art gallery opening party Saturday night and on and on from there. Movies aren't the only game in town for entertainment and fun. It's time for the movie industry the big media industry who owns it to start realizing this fact. These stock trader types who now control with tight fists the movies, music and TV shows we experience have sucked the soul out of the product. They have reduced it to something we can take or leave without any emotional attachment to it anymore. To them the product is just a "widget" they're trying to sell to us. Unfortunately for them those idiots don't realize we know this. So people like me, who used to really love movies with a passion, don't really give all that much of a shit about it anymore. There is no more "magic" in it. They sold it.

I can't even remember the last movie I bought on Blu-ray since it has been at least a year or more since I bought something on disc. Our last good video store in town is probably going to be closing soon since Hastings filed for Chapter 11 in June. The company folds this coming Wednesday unless a buyer rescues the operation. So I probably won't be renting any movies on Blu-ray discs anymore. It's a win for Netflix, Amazon Prime, streaming lower quality product and fucking the brick and mortar retail sector that actually helps pave the roads, pay police and keep schools open. Online retailers ain't doing dick about that. But the stock traders love it anyway and I guess that's all that matters. IT'S A BUSINESS AFTER ALL.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-10-2016, 09:12 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's all about crappy common width screens. Not common height.

The AMC Prime Dolby Vision screen at the AMC Empire 25 in NYC is common height.

I realize it's a bit hard to see that this is actually full height, but take my word for it:

It's not that way everywhere, because I have a friend who lives in Pleasanton, CA and he complained to me that the widescreen movie he saw at a Dolby Vision theater near there was letterboxed.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-10-2016, 11:58 PM:

Just another way to make this turd even worse.

Harold Ramis needs to come back and haunt every 3D screening of this.

Posted by Matt Smith (Member # 9425) on 07-11-2016, 01:24 PM:

Well the IMAX 3D showing I went to today was shown in 2D as they had a problem with one of the projectors. I was disappointed as I really wanted to see it in 3D, the effects still exited the frame when it was shown in 2D though although they were a little distracting sometimes without wearing the glasses.

Film was very good also!

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 07-11-2016, 01:29 PM:

quote: Matt Smith
I was disappointed as I really wanted to see it in 3D, the effects still exited the frame when it was shown in 2D though although they were a little distracting sometimes without wearing the glasses.

You're The Doctor, man. Can you not fix a simple little thing like this? [Wink]

Posted by Matt Smith (Member # 9425) on 07-11-2016, 01:45 PM:

Haha I wish! I got given a complimentary ticket after the film so not all bad I guess.

They said they were waiting for a new part and should hopefully have it fixed by end of this week, which is good because I'll be going to see the new Star Trek film there when it is released...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2016, 07:15 PM:

quote:
• My sound system at home is pretty damned good. It packs a healthy wallop.

Doesn't matter how wallopy your system is, when you're sitting in a living-room environment it's still a lot smaller. You can turn up a stereo to concert levels at home but it's still a lot smaller sound than you'd get at an actual concert. It's not the same.

• Commercial theater screens are bigger, but the ratio of viewing distance is much farther. In my living room I'm viewing my 65" HDTV screen at a distance of about 72". That screen is filling my field of view just as much as commercial theater screens I'm viewing from roughly 10 times the distance. [/quote]

I have a big TV at home too, but even sitting 6' away from it, our 30 foot screen at the theater still just SEEMS bigger even when I'm sitting halfway back. It doesn't fill any more of my field of vision when I'm sitting farther away from it but it still SEEMS bigger because it IS bigger. Don't ask me to explain this phenomenon because I can't. Again, it's just not the same.

quote:
• I don't spill my popcorn all over the place, not even at commercial movie theaters.

Kudos for that, but I'm betting you deposit your trash in a lobby trash can [/i]which an employee carries out for you.[/i] And you don't have to make your own snacks.

quote:
• that group experience has been traded for people who won't get the fuck off their damned mobile phones.

No argument there, but how many phones are being used obnoxiously in a typical screening? A couple? It IS possible to ignore them unless they're REALLY obnoxious. I agree theaters need to educate people about this. We don't have much of a problem here because we're pretty strict about it, but it still can happen because there is a constant stream of new phone owners growing up all the time.

I'm kind of surprised that the whole idea of using phones in theaters hasn't taken on the stench of being "not socially acceptable," since the vibe is pretty strong against the practice. But people who are on phones think they are (a) being unobtrusive, even when they aren't; or (b) think THEIR conversation/text/tweet/whatever is more important than anything in the world so they think it's OK. It's a weird phenomenon. Even when I'm watching a movie in the theater all by myself I still turn my phone off. I don't want it interrupting me.

quote:
• When I was younger, I had to wait a whole lot longer to see a hit movie debut on home video. We are talking a year or more. Do you remember how long it took for Saving Private Ryan to finally show up on DVD? Remember how long it took for E.T. to arrive on videotape? Fucking Spielberg! 90 days is nothing, even back then. Today, 90 days is practically a few blinks of the eye.

No argument here either, the studios are screwing the entire industry on this one. BUT, 90 days is still 90 days and if a movie is super-hot and has high Star-Wars-ish want-to-see, that's going to seem like a long time on Day 1.

quote:
• Movies aren't the only choice of fun and entertainment outside of the house. ...

people like me, who used to really love movies with a passion, don't really give all that much of a shit about it anymore. There is no more "magic" in it. They sold it.

I think part of that might just be a function of you getting older. I don't flip open the covers of the newest Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone with the same eagerness I once did either, because there's not as much content that interests me. It's not because the content is getting bad, it's just that the world is moving on and I'm still me.

Movies are just one of many options, it's true. But people like us are expecting/demanding movies to be the perfect experience, but things can go wrong anywhere, whether it be movies or something else. Look at that list of fun things you posted.... Your day at the lake might get wrecked by rain. A play might have a bad performance, or somebody's kicking your seat. A concert might be too loud or too soft, or you have a lousy seat (with somebody kicking it). An art gallery might have a group of unruly teenagers being noisy. On and on. People get so butt-hurt because the movie experience they paid 8 bucks for isn't always this pristine experience. It SHOULD be perfect all the time but it isn't. Nothing is. When it works though, it's still great.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-12-2016, 01:46 AM:

To add to this sound thing:

We were playing "ID4-R" in one of our ATMOS houses.

Customer came out and said that our ATMOS isn't working correctly.
I go check the rack and found out that I had just lost an VOG amp that runs four speakers up in the ceiling.

Unit was total gone outside of the green light that surrounds the power button (Crown DriveCore 8/300 amp).

He really rants on us on us that he really knows ATMOS and he's an audio guru, yet didn't have any Dolby credentials on him on how he knew about ATMOS.
Found out that he just studied it via information on the web, and he has a wiz bang audio system at home for his home cinema.

("OH BROTHER, here we go again"-another self righteous home freak that expects the cinema to sound as good as his home system).

I bounced into him that he may have the greatest sound system for his home cinema, but I simply reminded him that Hollywood and the cinema began and perfected the cinema multi-channel sound experience in all of these years, and home cinema is a distant second to what we have. Home cinema has always mimicked what we have experienced and perfected, but will always be a second banana to the real thing.

(I always get the rap from home cinema gurus that the surround speakers are not working. I ask them how they are not working. They tell me that the voice isn't coming from all channels. I tell them that Hollywood mixes the voice tracks to come from center channel, which all channels are discrete channels when it comes to the cinema experience, not a matrix sound like some some home audio units when the source is just two discrete channels.)

But, to play it safe to not get another home theatre audio guru, is that after the flawed feature was over with, I changed the SPL to play the 5.1 version of the same feature (I had both contents loaded in my ATMOS servers for this very reason where if one acts up, I do the backup file) so the ATMOS doesn't kick in ... and 99.9% of the people didn't even notice the flawed ATMOS performance.

Plus the next audience didn't even know that I was playing 5.1 sound.

All they cared is that is sounded great and were pleased.

Fun ... - Monte

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-12-2016, 01:26 PM:

Let me get this straight ... a customer complained that the audio wasn't working properly, you verified that the audio was indeed not working properly, and you railed on the customer like he was an idiot for complaining?

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-12-2016, 07:45 PM:

I'm also wondering if you changed your advertising to indicate 5.1 instead of Atmos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2016, 01:51 PM:

It would pretty damned angry if I drove out of my way to see a movie at a specific theater advertising Atmos but really playing the show in 5.1. Usually seeing a movie with Dolby Atmos sound involves paying "large format" price premium on the ticket.

If the manager treated me like I was stupid for complaining, basically telling me "if I want your opinion I'll give it to you," I would never go back to that theater. Not only that, I just wouldn't trust any of the theaters in that area with whatever they're advertising as "premium" viewing experiences. I would end up doing even more of my movie watching at home. 2K resolution video and 5.1 audio? My 65" HDTV and stereo system does that just fine.

Posted by Leslie Hartmier (Member # 7053) on 07-13-2016, 07:03 PM:

I grant that the customer is the reason we are open, and in this case, yes, he was correct that all advertised aspects of the viewing was not met.

That said, a audio 'guru,' who has a kickass setup in his mancave, and learns everything he needs from the intertubes, yet advertises himself as being some sound messiah does not move the conversation forward, is much like a bike mechanic who's never opened a car hood (I love bicycles, so say nothing - it's an analogy) telling a car mechanic that he knows everything necessary about cars, and that the car he borrowed needs everything replaced, when his only experience is reading a book with a boat in it.

Was the guy wrong? Not at all. Should Monte have dealt with it differently? I think so. Does the fact that the guy owns a set of headphones build his case? I'm going to say no.

Me, if he was right, I would try to satisfy him (even if all he wants to do is rage, as long as it doesn't get personal). If he was wrong, I wouldn't have wasted the time arguing with him, and found some way to let him/her down easy.

I would have done the equivalent of what I used to do when someone who has owned at least one half of a set of eyes for all their lives, and therefore 'clearly' (like that? Ho! Ho! I made a funny!) a master of the image, would tell me that the movie was out of focus. I'd get the lead out, get upstairs, check the focus to find them:

right, in which case, I would fix it, and feel embarrassed that I failed at such an important yet basically simple responsibility, thanking the individual when I saw them next, or

wrong, in which case, I would shift it out of focus just enough to be barely obvious, then put it back, and leaving the situation be, unless they came back to yell at me, where I would simply point out that I needed to shift it out just to be sure, and that his invalid complaint reduced the quality of the show until I returned it to the place I had it.

A dick move? Sometimes. Sometimes, if it was a private booking, where a director would complain, I would allow them to adjust the focus, where (and I don't think I misremember), invariably someone would complain, I would put it back (because c'mon! Like I wouldn't make sure the film wasn't in focus when a filmmaker was going to be in evidence!), and the director would understand the difference between what a filmmaker does, and what an exhibitor does.

Anyway, it seems the guy was right, but deluded. Monte dealt with it correctly, if being a bit unkind about the fellow's credentials, but I'd sure dislike it if someone who likes steak was telling me how to raise a steer, and I'm not certain that it was useful for the guy to bring up his sound skillz. The fact that he paid is enough for him to be able to bring up his concern, and telling Monte that he should listen to him because of some likely illusionary opinion of his abilities with audio really only muddies the situation.

My five cents (we no longer have pennies),

Leslie

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-13-2016, 08:41 PM:

And I must apologize to the forum for my story, for I failed to be more professional with how to handle such a situation where I could have been more diplomatic and better able to be a better representative to the company I work for.

Just lessons to learn from.

Thx always - Monte

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-13-2016, 10:16 PM:

I have had several people over the years tell me our "surrounds weren't working" when they clearly are fine. Usually it's the "at home I hear them all the time" reason given. I just say that that theatrical mixes are different from home mixes and you're not SUPPOSED to hear them all the time.

I had one guy tell me that our "subs weren't working" when the movie clearly had no subwoofer-type sound material in it. Again it was "at home I hear them all the time."

It's really tempting to say something like "well ours is a professional cinema sound system, whereas yours is probably a crappy "Home Theater In A Box" system from Wal Mart, so it's YOUR system that's not working properly." But I don't, because, you know, diplomacy.

Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 07-14-2016, 12:16 AM:

Question for Martin Brooks, so the Dolby Cinema theater at Empire 25 does have masking?

On the topic of aspect ratios, so if most theaters are not bothering to mask the scope films and if HDTV at home is 16:9, why not just shoot more movies in 1.85?

I saw something at an AMC in NY that was so ridiculous. This particular theater which is almost 30 years old, has screens that are the type that are masked. I guess those would be common width? Anyway, instead of masking the 1.85 framed films, they allow the scope screen to expose the side black bars. I mean my god, how lazy can a theater get? For me that's worse than a letterboxed scope movie with bars on top and bottom.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2016, 11:30 AM:

Pillar boxing can look pretty bad, even on a HDTV screen at home. I don't think there is any excuse for it at a movie theater that has movable masking. I can forgive flat trailers, TV commercials and pre-show content being pillar boxed, but doing that with the main feature is just garbage. If I see a flat feature pillar-boxed on a 'scope ratio screen I'll figure the theater staff doesn't care about details in showmanship.

By the way, Aron, the pillar-boxing you describe happens on a common height screen. A movie in 'scope format is going to be the biggest image on a common height screen -which is how it should be. Common width screens, which are unfortunately very common in stadium seated theaters, make a flat 1.85:1 movie bigger than a 'scope movie. That arrangement is backwards since the big epic movies are made small and the smaller budget dramas and comedies one would expect in flat format are made bigger.

Pillar-boxing is hard to avoid on HDTV sets at home. Any decent HDTV will have a variety of zoom and stretch options, but IMHO that just makes things even worse. I'd rather watch an old movie or TV show in its original aspect ratio instead of cropping the image to fill the screen or distorting into a fun house mirror appearance. Sometimes cable TV networks will apply their own zooming and stretching, which absolutely sucks. And then they'll have TV commercials that are pillar-boxed anyway. I laugh at window-boxing. That's where a TV network shows a commercial or something else originally made in HD, but it got converted to SD and letter-boxed and then that spot gets aired as is on the HD channel pillar-boxed and letter-boxed. Absolute, utter garbage.

Window-boxing is why I haven't watched my DVD copies of True Lies and The Abyss in years. Non-anamorphic 'scope DVD might have been OK on a square TV set 20 years ago. It's like watching a low res YouTube video now. Painful. James Cameron is too busy deep sea diving and dreaming up umpteen Avatar sequels to bother with making a proper Blu-ray version of those classic films.

quote: Aron Toplitsky
On the topic of aspect ratios, so if most theaters are not bothering to mask the scope films and if HDTV at home is 16:9, why not just shoot more movies in 1.85?

The anamorphic 'scope format is enjoying an enduring fad. Lots of movies are videotaped using anamorphic lenses, regardless of the fact film is just about dead and there is no functional reason at all for them to be using such lenses. The whole thing is about style. That bled into the anamorphic look being co-opted by music videos, commercials and some TV shows.

I think there is a business side to it: a lot fewer pixels to render since we're now dealing with a bullshit version of 'scope. The 'scope image is smaller, not bigger like it was in the past. The lower pixel count speeds up production time and lowers cost.

Back in the late 1980's when the home video industry was enjoying its huge boom movie studios put a great deal of stress on making their movies more geometrically friendly to square TV sets of that age. That's why we had a lot of big epic movies, such as Total Recall shot flat and still have 70mm blow-up prints.

I don't see the movie industry reviving a 1.85:1 flat production trend anytime soon, not even with all the valid reasons why flat would work better.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-14-2016, 12:12 PM:

question about the sound so it's 5.1 (as denoted in the DCP encoding), Dolby Atmos, Auro 11.1

what's the IMAX laser version - 12 channel?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2016, 04:28 PM:

With so very few screens equipped with the IMAX laser-based system and 12 channel sound system stupidly exclusive to it I don't know why Hollywood productions even bother authoring in that channel layout. What's IMAX with Laser up to now? Maybe a dozen screens worldwide tops? There's only 7 or so in the United States.

If IMAX wants their 12 channel audio layout to get anywhere they better start upgrading a bunch of their existing 2K Xenon theaters to it. That would be a relatively inexpensive upgrade compared to the extreme price of those laser projectors.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2016, 11:14 PM:

I believe there is one reason and one reason only why scope is enduring in popularity: Because the picture is wider relative to its height. That's it. It has nothing to do with the number of pixels or anything like that, and nothing to do with exhibition either. It just gives the artist (director) a bigger, wider, grander-looking palette to paint on. So it's an artistic choice, not a financial one.

This might not hold true for animated movies but for live-action, I would bet I'm right.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-14-2016, 11:36 PM:

Yeah, but in a modern stadium seated theater or on a HDTV screen at home: the 'scope format is smaller. It's an arrangement that is completely backward compared to how the situation was when 'scope was a new process. The 'scope image was the biggest possible image, not just the most wide, but the largest as well. That's not true anymore. Common width screens make 'scope tiny. And so do all the HDTV screens at home.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-15-2016, 06:31 PM:

Monte, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your reply.

Geoff

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2016, 08:19 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Common width screens make 'scope tiny. And so do all the HDTV screens at home.

True but that has nothing to do with the artistic composition (due to the shape) of the image. I don't think directors can even worry about what size the picture is going to be when it's watched because there are so many variables. They probably compose the picture HOPING it's going to be 75' wide though.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-19-2016, 10:26 AM:

so yes (I'm answering my own question here) IMAX did mix for laser/12-channel.

Oddly I wasn't all that impressed with the 3D - granted a ton of stuff flys out of the framing and the one scene that truly does go full screen (on the six story tall 4:3 screen it's definitely the 'wow!' moment) the 3D conversion job is not the best I've seen.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-19-2016, 04:27 PM:

quote: Aron Toplitsky
Question for Martin Brooks, so the Dolby Cinema theater at Empire 25 does have masking?

None of the Dolby Cinema screens use movable masking. They claim because of the "Dolby Vision" light engines in the projectors and the darker-than-dark configuration of their theaters, this isn't necessary.

I don't entirely agree on that, though the black levels on the Dolby Vision system are a lot better than "vanilla" DLP and their stealth-fighter room layout helps to reduce the annoyance created by the lack of movable masking.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-19-2016, 04:36 PM:

quote: Aron Toplitsky
Question for Martin Brooks, so the Dolby Cinema theater at Empire 25 does have masking?

No. 2.39 movies take up the whole screen. 1.85 is common height. There's no masking on the sides.

As per the above post, Dolby may think that they don't need masking, but IMO, they do, although I will confess that I haven't sat through a 1.85 movie there yet. I've only seen 1.85 trailers within the 2.39 frame with the house lights partially on. My understanding was that the original intention was to get rid of lit EXIT signs and the like, but the NYC Fire Department won't let you do that and I suspect that building regulations across most, if not all of the U.S. are similar.

On the other hand, due to the nature of films that are encoded for Dolby Cinema, there might not be very many 1.85 films playing on that screen. But I will give Dolby props for showing 2.39 at full screen and not at reduced height at this theater. I've heard reports from other AMC Dolby Cinema theaters and that apparently is not the case everywhere, which is strange to me - you'd think they all would have been built the same.

Posted by Aron Toplitsky (Member # 6950) on 07-23-2016, 12:29 AM:

Thank you all for responding. Very interesting stuff! Every now and then on this site I like to point out that I’m not an expert on these topics, just more of an enthusiast, despite what my profile says. And I can’t change it for some reason.

Anyhow, fortunately and unfortunately thanks to this site, I’ve become more aware of the masking issue and the careless decisions made by theaters. As a movie goer this is a little disappointing. So my next question is, what are everyone’s thoughts on those 21:9 HD screens for home theater? And what are thoughts on theaters that mask a scope image from the top of the screen as opposed to side masking? I personally am not a fan of the downward masking, (not sure of the proper term) but I’d take that over no masking on a common width screen.