Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Custom Aspect Ratios

This is topic Custom Aspect Ratios 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=002826

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-01-2016, 03:00 PM:

Two films we've shown lately, Cafe Society and Little Men, both labeled as Flat and no indication of a special aspect ratio had their images letter/pillar boxed to something that didn't seem to correspond to any regular ratio.

Cafe Society had dark bars on the top and bottom. No where near enough for a 2.37 ratio.
Little Men is pillar boxed to what may be a 1:66 ratio, but I couldn't tell without measuring.

We played flat trailers before both and they properly filled the screen. We have movable side and top masking, so can bump it for Little Men, but there is nothing we could do about Cafe Society.

Anybody run into this with other films? There's much conversation about big budget movies, but both of these are small indies that won't get the IMAX treatment.

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 10-01-2016, 03:33 PM:

Cafe Society DCP was listed on the drive as F200, here in the UK, so I was expecting it to look about the same as Jurassic World did, for which we made a custom ratio. However the black at the top and bottom were much narrower than the preset we made of Jurassic.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-01-2016, 05:21 PM:

Just re-checked both films and both our versions are straight "F".

No matter what you think of his films, Woody usually has good cinematographers, so I guessing the letter boxing is a deliberate choice.

Felling conspiratorial, I wonder if it has anything to do with being distributed by Amazon Studios.

And I notice IMDB has it listed 2.00:1, though Little Men is listed 1:85.

Posted by Mike Schulz (Member # 4297) on 10-01-2016, 07:44 PM:

I did a bit of searching around to find out why they used a strange aspect ratio on "Cafe Society" and it seems to be a specific trait of cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who created a new film format with his son called Univisium that has an aspect ratio of 2.00:1. Apparently he shoots all of his films with that ratio now.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-02-2016, 01:26 PM:

Yes, I remembered reading that Storaro had gone a bit David Icke in evangelizing about his perfect film format. One aspect of it struck me, though:

quote: Wikipedia article on Univisium
The format also calls for shooting 25 frames per second, which eliminates problems associated with transferring film to video in the PAL and SECAM system and is still fairly simple to transfer to the NTSC video format.

This means that you're buggered as far as transferring it to an Interop DCP is concerned, aren't you? OK, at least some server and projector combos will play Interop DCPs with a non-24 frame rate without complaining, but by no means all.

He was clearly thinking only in terms of standard def video when he decided on 25, and never imagined that when LCD screens did away with the need for interlacing (and thus locking the TV frame rate to the AC cycle rate), the broadcast world would move towards the cinema world's use of 24.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-04-2016, 07:28 AM:

We downloaded 'Little Men' from SDC Screenfast a few weeks ago.

LittleMen_FTR_F-1.66_EN-EN_51_2K_20160719_SDC_IOP_OV

It's ingesting at this moment, screening on the 18th and the 20th.

We've had several new 1.66 films recently, I think 'Childhood of a Leader' just a week or two ago was the last. It used to be quite common in the '70s, 'The Railway Children' for example, and possibly 'A Clockwork Orange', but I'm not sure about that one. We've had about half a dozen in the last couple of years or so.

Also getting quite a lot of 1.78; low budget stuff shot on HD video.

Thanks for the warning about 'Café Society'. That will need to be set up while I'm away in Yorkshire for a few days, so I'll warn whoever is going to be doing it.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-04-2016, 07:59 AM:

So, why do the British versions of films get properly labeled and the American don't? Is it just assumed the Americans don't give a damn and/or can't do anything about it?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-04-2016, 08:55 AM:

I don't know Martin. I did see both the download and disk versions of one DCP, and the CPL names were different; I can't remember what the difference was now. Did abybody here in the UK receive this on disk? Was the aspect ratio included in the name?

'El Sur' arrived about five minutes ago. It's also 1.66, and shown as such. This one did arrive on disk. It's an older film of course, 1983 if our programme flyer is correct, but still quite late for 1.66. Maybe it lasted longer in Spain than in the UK.

Posted by James Biggins (Member # 8574) on 10-04-2016, 09:31 AM:

quote: Stephen Furley
...while I'm away in Yorkshire for a few days

Bradford by any chance Stephen?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 10-04-2016, 11:55 AM:

Yes, hoping to see 'Cinerama's Russian Adventure', I've only ever seen clips from it.

I've then got three more days to do whatever I like. I normally go to Bradford two or three times each year for a few days. Never decide in advance where to go each day, decide on the day, mainly depending on the weather.

I like the North, and Bradford is very well situated to get to just about any of it in a day trip.

Will also stock up on various things from Booths supermarket in Ilkley; much better than any supermarket we have down South.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-04-2016, 12:05 PM:

As I noted in another post, the recently released "American Honey"
is in either 1:33 or 1:37 aspect ratio, within a FLAT container,
but this fact is not indicated in the CPL or any of the paperwork.
I discovered this before one of my press screenings, so I was able
to set the masking accordingly, as we never run trailers or ads.
But, it would have been nice if they labeled it correctly.
Where are the DCP naming police when you need them? [Wink]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-04-2016, 07:18 PM:

quote: Mike Schulz
I did a bit of searching around to find out why they used a strange aspect ratio on "Cafe Society" and it seems to be a specific trait of cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who created a new film format with his son called Univisium that has an aspect ratio of 2.00:1. Apparently he shoots all of his films with that ratio now.

That means Storaro has painted himself into a proverbial corner. Hasn't he?

If he created this format, Univisium, and wants to evangelize its use then he MUST use that format, himself, or else his proposal will be seen as mere empty words.

If his proposed format made sense, more directors/producers would use it but, as others have said above, it's half baked at best. Even so, he has to keep using it or else he could be seen as little more than a blowhard.

Posted by Matt Smith (Member # 9425) on 10-11-2016, 04:26 PM:

Cafe Society is indeed marked as F-200 in the UK, as is The Girl With All The Gifts.

I believe American Honey is marked F-137, at least the trailer is...

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 10-11-2016, 09:12 PM:

Home video tangent - Netflix's "Stranger Things" was also a 2.00:1 AR show.

I'm not sure what's driving this mini-surge in this AR, but it might have something to do with a desire for a wider-than-16:9 image, while recognizing that because most cinemas are constant-width rather than constant-height, coupled with the fact that home video is now 16:9, something a little taller than 2.35 yields a larger final image. Just a thought.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-12-2016, 12:02 PM:

quote:
We've had several new 1.66 films recently, I think 'Childhood of a Leader' just a week or two ago was the last. It used to be quite common in the '70s, 'The Railway Children' for example, and possibly 'A Clockwork Orange', but I'm not sure about that one.

CLOCKWORK is indeed 1.66AR

Posted by Sascha F. Roll (Member # 9043) on 10-12-2016, 06:34 PM:

quote: Matt Smith
Cafe Society is indeed marked as F-200 in the UK, as is The Girl With All The Gifts.

I believe American Honey is marked F-137, at least the trailer is...

German DCP name for American Honey:

AmericanHoney_FTR-2_F-133_EN-DE_DE_51_2K_UP_20160920_MPS_IOP_VF

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-13-2016, 11:57 AM:

Storaro's vision for Univisium is that 2-1 is the best balance between the 2.2-1 and 1.78-1 aspect ratios—not sure that I quite agree with it, but his original outline for the process comes from the 35mm release days, in which he was a main proponent of 3-perf shooting and prints.

The 2-1 aspect ratio, incidentally, is not anything new, and was one of the four flat widescreen formats rolled out in 1953 by Hollywood. Universal used it in their viewfinders for all of their films up to at least 1960, and Paramount suggested it as the maximum ratio for VistaVision productions. The idea, I believe, was to get maximum real estate on fixed ratio screens that were mostly being installed at 2-1. Many theaters were cropping 'scope titles on the sides and 1.85 titles on the top and bottom.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-03-2017, 10:10 PM:

20th Century Women is marked Flat, but also has the letter boxing, although it is somewhat sloppy, the top "frameline" coming and going throughout the feature.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-03-2017, 11:21 PM:

La La Land is 2.55:1, but letter boxed for Scope. I wonder if any common height theatres are able to open their masking wider than Scope so they could play this without letter boxing.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-05-2017, 11:21 AM:

They included a note saying not to blow it up to fill screen height but naturally they are assuming doing so would lose the sides and defeat the 2.55 : 1 effect. At some old movie palace with a 2.55 screen that could do so without cropping it would be great.

It's unfortunate that no chart was included. Even "Jackie" (1.66 : 1) had a chart. There was nothing I could do about my first screening for press but for subsequent guild screenings I added masking to the bottom of the screen (we are common height) and moved the image to the top for a perfect 2.55 : 1.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 02-07-2017, 06:46 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
The 2-1 aspect ratio, incidentally, is not anything new

It's certainly not new. It was used in 1929-30 for the few Fox Grandeur titles, and possibly some of the other wide film formats of the same era. It was also used for the original Superscope format in the '50s.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-09-2017, 10:28 AM:

Jackie is 1:66 and marked F-166, so, Yay, someone is doing it right. It also contains a 1:66 test pattern, which is helpful as the feature is locked so we can't test it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-10-2017, 07:34 AM:

It certainly sounds like directors and cinematographers these days are no longer terribly concerned about screen masking in the theatres -- if they are so cavalier about using nonstandard ARs, they must be award that masking stops are not configurable to any random, odd positions. Bottom line, with so many theatres not bothering to use mask at all (just saw HACKSAW RIDGE with a big swath of black at least a foot above the bottom mask and ONLY at the bottom of the screen -- what was THAT about?), and when the public sees images that are letterboxed on their TV screens all the time, they have become conditioned to see it as not being "wrong" at all when they see it in theatres. Why worry about your nonstandard AR not fitting within a masked frame, when standard films with standard ARs don't fit either? Just let those pillar bars and letterboxed images sit were wherever they may....I guess as long as the all the image lands on SOME part of the screen, it's all good.

Admittedly, this negative trend was born directly out of digital presentation; you never saw this kind of sheet with digital -- visible missing picture was anathema in exhibition.

I guess the industry tried, but for all the effort to correctly identify ARs with those long, unnecessarily human-unfriendly ID code strings (really, they couldn't add a file with unambiguous, human language to alert the end-user as to any and all unusual oddities about the attached feature? It's not like we didn't do it with film...remember those frames in the leader: "Play this feature X amount above average sound level for this theatre"?.

End result is, way too many questions still seem to be posted on these pages relating to "why the hell doesn't this picture fit on my screen properly." And there is no reason for it -- and given there IS a DCI spec for screen masking, why isn't one of them, "The image perimeter shall meet black masking on all four sides" and be done with it.

BTW, I guess no one was worrying about a little thing like bottom-only letterbox on the screen at the HACKSAW RIDGE screening, since they also weren't worrying about the 1/3rd of the image being washed out with red light hitting it from a needlessly super-intense EXIT sign a few feet way. That sign, if anyone took a moment to care about it, could easily have been dimmed down to about 1/5th of its intensity and still been effective. It also could have been aimed AWAY from the screen; there's no reg that says the exit signs have to be flush with the wall they are on. I guess management was busy making sure everything was 100% perfect at the block long concession bar -- whatever is going in those ugly, tortured "cinemas" rooms is just an insignificant, second thought.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-10-2017, 08:07 AM:

Frank, I think you are making great assumptions about what filmmakers know or care about. They tend to see their films in screening rooms that are set up to meet their exact specs, or at exclusive premieres, also tech checked to death (if they even watch their films at premieres where they are probably working the press).
Granted a few know what it is like in the real world, but they are a small minority.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 02-10-2017, 08:31 AM:

Perhaps Cafe Society 2.0:1 was Woody Allen's choice.

I ran Woody Allen's Manhattan back in 1979, and this scope/anamorphic film came with a letter in the film cans asking theatres to adjust their masking to 2.0:1. I remember this because I saved the letter, and came across it a few years ago while cleaning the basement.

Like most venues, we did not have aperture plates for 2.0 Anamorphic, so we just ran it at 2.35. I don't remember any SuperScope like black bars on the sides, but that was almost 40 years ago, so my memory on this may be suspect.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-10-2017, 09:03 AM:

The cinematographer of Café Society is Vittorio Storaro.

Now, concerning aspect ratios, read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univisium

- Carsten

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-10-2017, 02:06 PM:

Manhattan is getting a 4k re-release right now. I'm curious to see what the actual aspect ratio will be.

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 02-10-2017, 05:41 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
It also contains a 1:66 test pattern, which is helpful

I've been offloading & saving all these "off" aspect ratio framing charts to a USB
thumb drive whenever I encounter one. Never know when it might come in handy.

As for "Univision"- - I guess I'd better hold on to that spare 3-perf Simplex
intermittent movement I've got. I might need that again too.

I used it quite a bit some years back to run super-35 dailies that
were later up-printed to full frame anamorphic.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-21-2017, 11:54 AM:

What the actual hell has Michael Bay done with Transformers 5?
It has a mix of about 12 different aspect ratio's in one film. As well as not being in scope (like the last 4 were).

Watching the aspect ratio changes in the trailer gave me a headache, a 2 hour film is going to be a nightmare.

Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 06-21-2017, 12:09 PM:

Yes we got an email about it stating:

"The aspect ratio setting on your projector should be set to a standard 1.85 FLAT
Much of Transformers: The Last Knight was filmed with IMAX cameras.

During playback the picture will occasionally change from letterbox to non letterbox.
This was intentional by the filmmaker."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-21-2017, 12:20 PM:

Well good, maybe that'll contribute to it being a big flop and we can be done with The Most Annoying Franchise of All Time.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 06-21-2017, 12:27 PM:

I just watched the first five minutes because they have actually sent the kdm through today and it swaps between full flat and very small black bars (like a 1.95:1 aspect or something) virtually between every shot. It looks weird. [Smile]

. I fast forwarded and in the action scenes in the middle it swaps between full and 2:35.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-21-2017, 12:47 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
we can be done with The Most Annoying Franchise of All Time.

EXACTLY, perfectly put!

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 06-21-2017, 08:20 PM:

quote: Philip Jones
This was intentional by the filmmaker.

Well, something intentional in Transformers, at last...

- Carsten

Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 06-21-2017, 09:56 PM:

Just a 'heads-up': Sofia Coppola's "The Beguiled" which I
did several press screenings for a few weeks ago & comes
out later this month is 1:66.

The drive I got did not contain a framing chart, but often
the 'per-release' drives I get have content that differs
than the 'final release drives' that go out to the theaters.

(and I've got a collection of 'off' framing charts anyway)

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 06-23-2017, 05:45 PM:

The changing aspect ratios in Transformers 5 look terrible. When I previewed it I felt like I was watching an SFX workprint. It makes the whole thing feel unfinished.

It looks like all the shots were composed with Scope in mind... I wonder if any theaters will just opt to crop it. I think I'd prefer to watch that version, if I was going to watch this at all.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-29-2017, 05:45 PM:

And this just in for Menashe:

quote:
This feature is in a flat 2.0 aspect ratio. When projecting please ensure this is being played in 2.1 Scope. If not and projected in 1.85 Flat, this will create letterboxing and if projected in 2.39 scope it will cut off the subtitles. If you do not have a 2.0 setting on your projector please reach out to the manufacturer to obtain.

I asked and they do not have a framing slide.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-29-2017, 08:42 PM:

Wait, so they are obviously aware they are sending an odd AR but then they don't include a framing slide? Then they deserve whatever they it looks like -- letterboxed, no subtitles...hey, maybe even both.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-29-2017, 08:55 PM:

Betcha the key doesn't work until the day before the show. As I already have this booked, I've got a reminder to myself to get a QC key.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 07-31-2017, 10:14 PM:

At least one cinema ran Dunkirk windowboxed (black bars all 'round), and told complaining patrons that "the movie was just filmed that way."

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2017, 06:50 AM:

In a sense, it WAS. There is a sheet that says RUN IT FLAT. So if you have a scope screen, and like all modern theatres, you have no adjustable masking, when you follow directions, you have a floating image that fills the screen in no directions!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-01-2017, 07:09 AM:

Well, especially if you do not have adjustable masking, you should at least try to fill the screen either horizontally or vertically.

Window-boxed content really looks like amateur hour, like somebody showing me a bunch of PowerPoint slides.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-01-2017, 09:38 AM:

No masking is amateur hour. I know a site, all common height that HAD manual pull side masking. When new management came in, they removed the movable masking so what are they supposed to do (at the theatre level)?

Sure, ideally, every format should have a proper screen/preset file for it. But "Flat" and "Scope" is what 99% of the theatres get.