This is topic Solution to expose theaters cheating on aspect ratio in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001532

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-09-2002, 07:46 PM:
 
Directors need to compose titles such that it will be OBVIOUS that some screens are capable of displaying only 2:1 for a 2.35 ratio.

I saw Punch drunk Love on a screen which I am guessing is 2:1(the 1.85:1 trailers were filling up a good portion of the width). THis is AMC's Phipps Plaza in Atlanta- one of their better theaters.

While it was obvious to the trained eye, that shoulder and noses weer egetting cut off in some shots, causal viewers were not bothered because they just assumed the actor was intended to be shown that way. What Paul Anderson should do is put his titles all the way to the end. This way if there is some serious cropping, the theater will generate more complaints. And just like product placement is done in movies, why not frame some important shots where a really important object is right on the edge of the screen that even a moron would be able to tell that they are being cheated by the theater.

This won't affect the pan and scan version as much since you could pan one end in one scene and the other end in another scene.

I was so mad after the movie and I couldnt find anyone to complain about except for a security officer. It was the final show of the night. I even asked one of the guys before the movie if the small screen was capable of showing the entire aspect ration. The guy said yeah.

THe problem is even if I boycott AMC, other chains are just as bad here. I cant boycott everyone. No wonder I have no problem supporting those who choose to sneak in another movie after paying for one. If the theaters are determined to slip in sneakily a video experience, the patron might as well get video type prices and compensate themselves since a lot of the customer service has gotten worse lately.

I saw The Truth About Charlie at AMC MAnsell in Atlanta. The sound was like my old spare 20 inch tv turned loud. It was clear, but definitely not played in the right sound format and sounded with less oomph than even good mono. The manager was some dumb lady who claimed at first the sound was in surround and was fine. When I met her again after the movie and challenged the surround claim, she said that it was in dolby surround and that the auditorium was probably not compatible. I looked at the paper and it said the ad said was in DTS with no other optional sound types. Shouldn't the theater have played it only a compatible auditorium or warned us about the sound?
The lady didnt even seem apologetic, let alone even bother to give me a pass.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-09-2002, 08:50 PM:
 
Unfortunately, most anamorphic subjects are composed so that the majority of action (and often title placement) will remain unaffected, when the movie is transferred to video.
 

---

Posted by Darren Crimmins (Member # 1116) on 12-09-2002, 10:11 PM:
 
I have noticed many theaters who advertise a specific digital sound format and then end up playing it in analog. The managers tend to care more about how many seats are in specific theaters and thier convenience with cleaning schedules than to make sure that the film playing in the theater has the digital soundtrack that corresponds with the digital sound in the theaters. I have many times asked GM's when they do the movie schedule or print moves to make sure that the prints correspond with the digital in the theaters. I usually get some response like, "the customers can't tell the difference", or "
Why are you being so difficult? This theater has 5 more seats we can sell."
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-09-2002, 10:24 PM:
 
For what it's worth.. John P had a neat idea.. hold a (US) dollar bill in front of your view of the screen. The "aspect ratio" of a dollar bill is close to 2.39. Although, this wouldn't tell you if the wrong lenses were being used.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2002, 07:14 AM:
 
And a typical USA business card is 2 x 3.5 inches.

3.5 / 2 = 1.75:1 (just slightly less wide than 1.85:1)
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-10-2002, 12:46 PM:
 
The dollar bill & business card trick is the coolest thing I've learned in months!

How can you tell a film-techer is in the audience? No he's not admiring the oodles of cash he makes in this business or his fancy new business cards - he's checking to see if your aspect ratio sucks so he can "out" your poor presentation on Film-Tech.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-10-2002, 01:00 PM:
 
I worked at an 8-plex that had 4 auditoriums with movable side masking, and the other 4 with fixed 1.85:1.

Two very memorable complaints were for "Dogma" (The opening featured text that reached almost all the way across the screen) which was chopped off on the sides, and "The World is Not Enough" when the words "### Million Dollars" became just "Million Doll". The films were promptly moved to the 2.39:1 capable houses regardless of how many seats were in there. Those last few customers that came at the end of the film's run deserved a "complete" picture just like those who came on opening day.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-10-2002, 01:34 PM:
 
Thomas, was this a Cinemuck house?
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-10-2002, 01:40 PM:
 
If you go to one of these theaters, you should cut the sides off of your money before paying!
And just to rant a bit here, I worked at a 6-plex with only 2 DTS screens and analog on the other 4- they played the Star Wars reissue (which was in DTS) on one of the analog screens while both DTS screens were running films that were only in Dolby Digital, hence they were also being played in analog.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-10-2002, 02:20 PM:
 
Tim -- Nope. It was something else before it was Cobb, then it went Regal, and now it's Phoenix Theatres. Phoenix completely remodeled the place, adding new concession equipment, carpeting, bathrooms, sound systems, speakers, screens.... but no vertical masking!!!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-10-2002, 06:40 PM:
 
I've been outing two local theatres (Regal hollywood 18, Madison Square 12) for years on my www site hsvmovies.com . At least I've heard from someone important that the work to install vertically-moving masking on the 1.85:1-only screens is supposedly being done between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I haven't had a chance to check them out yet since I've been busy with the end of the semester at school.

Evans A Criswell

"The Aspect Ratio Police"
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 12-10-2002, 06:56 PM:
 
Jesse, that's a good idea. Then tell them it is still too much money to spend to buy a ticket to watch a cropped movie.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-10-2002, 09:23 PM:
 
If you did have a 1.85:1 fixed-width house ... how difficult would it be to re-do the lenses & plates so that the Scope would just utilize a 2.35:1 area of the screen and just have some unmasked screen showing?
 

---

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 12-10-2002, 09:40 PM:
 
What about the theaters that don't have a scope lens, much less movable masking
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-12-2002, 10:51 AM:
 
Jesse Skeen wrote: "If you go to one of these theaters, you should cut the sides off of your money before paying!"

That's a great idea! Certainly would get the attention of the theatre management to their substandard presentation. While you're at it, give them a copy of my article:

Caring About Composition
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-12-2002, 12:51 PM:
 
When Cineplex opened their first US Theatre "Beverly Center 14"
in Los Angeles. One of the auditoriums seated 75 people. The flat
screen was about around 8 feet wide. In the booth you had a sign
that said "NO SCOPE". A few years later they added scope to that
auditorium. It looked like you were watching a large screen TV
for $9.00. Got to love the Beverly Center .
 

---

Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 12-12-2002, 01:03 PM:
 
At least they kept the aspect ratio. They could have just as easily cropped the scope image down and charged $9.00.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-12-2002, 05:38 PM:
 
Actually, the Beverly Center opened with 14 screens. When they expanded with two large balconied theatres on the roof, the first three closed to make room for the new hallway and stairway leading to the new rooms. (If I remember corectly, the two largest pre-expansion creens sat 140 and 125, both with Dolby Stereo). Eventually Dolby went into all auditoriums, and waterfall curtains were added to all except the NEW theatre 3 (on the main theatre floor), which had red parting curtains. 1 and 2 (new) had waterfall red curtains, all others had new waterfall mauve curtains. Originally, Cineplex Odeon had female floor staff wear matching mauve lipstick. Pretty grotesque, if you ask me. I believe one of the auditoriums actually sat 40.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-12-2002, 08:46 PM:
 
Then you can reach into your pocket and use your coins to "measure" the aperture plates...yes it can be done!

Steve
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-13-2002, 02:13 PM:
 

quote:

---

Then you can reach into your pocket and use your coins to "measure" the aperture plates...yes it can be done!

---

quote:

---

Excuse my ignorance somewhat, but why do theatres cheat on ratios to begin with. Is it the fact they built flat screens with no movable masking in the first place?

---

That's precisely the reason in some theatres! They save the money of having to put adjustable drapes on the screens. That's about all they save, since they still have to have 2 lenses and apertures.

Cobb Theatres was one chain that did this in many of their smaller auditoriums. For example, 7 of the 8 screens at the now defunct Cobb Cinema 8 here in Huntsville were 2.00:1 (20 feet by 10 feet) with no movable masking. At Hollywood 16 (now 18), when built, only 4 screens had adjustable masking, and at Madison Square 12, only 4 had it. All these screens at these two theatres were 1.85:1-only, with scope cropped 23 percent on the sides.

Hell must be about to freeze over, because these screens are currently being upgraded to have movable masking, with proper lenses and apertures! Yes! You read that correctly. 6 of the screens at Hollywood 18 have been upgraded (bringing the total having adjustable masking to 10). 2 of the screens at Madison Square 12 have been upgraded, bringing their adjustable masking total to 6. Other screens are in the process of being upgraded or are being upgraded soon!

Major kudos to Regal for fixing this problem that was inherent in the theatres here that were acquired from Cobb.

If you live in an area where the theatres were built this way, by all means complain about it. It may take 5 and a half years to get anything done about it, but you never know -- you might actually cause improvements to be made. I've already modified the data on my WWW site to include the improved screens and have removed much of the negativity concerning the problem, since it's being corrected.

Evans A Criswell

http://hsvmovies.com/
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-18-2002, 04:15 PM:
 
The studios should put something like this

at the beginning of the featre!

That'd fix their little red wagons!
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-18-2002, 06:05 PM:
 
I'd like to see that $100 tag on something like "Santa Clause" or "Treasure Planet" and seeing a little 4 year old girl tugging on the managers coat asking for her hundred dollars because she "couldn't read what was in the green".

=TMP=

P.S. Personally, I can't read what's in the RED! Focus!! Focus!!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-18-2002, 10:04 PM:
 
Well, it's pretty good for a 12 KB file. I squashed the hell out of it so it would upload faster. Of course, this increases "Mosquito" distortion but I figured the better speed was worth it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 12-18-2002, 11:04 PM:
 
On our main screen, for W/S ours is 1.88:1 and our screen dimensions for scope is 8.6 metres wide and 2.64 metres high, can anyone help me with working out the ratio for our scope image? (see edit)

Our building was restricted by the council in height(and depth) while building, the cinema is very wide with a low ceiling, seats 334, i guess the original owner wanted to give his customers a larger screen.

EDIT : the height measurement doesn't look right, even with my maths abillities! i'll measure it myself on the weekend, sorry!
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 12-19-2002, 09:34 AM:
 
Brad, with the figures you gave, that would be 3.26:1, so I hope your height measurement is wrong.
 

---

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 12-19-2002, 10:04 AM:
 
Yes, it must be wrong, i measured the width (which is correct), but i used an existing measurement for height, assuming it was correct.
To my eyes, i would say it would be close to 2.5:1 - 2.6:1 (cropped top and bottom)
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-20-2002, 12:24 PM:
 
This is what I think.

1.In the end credits they should credit the image format so that the text fills the full width of the image.
For exampe:

F I L M E D I N P A N A V I S I O N
so that it fills the full image width.

2.Why did they stop crediting Panavision (or other aspect ratio's) in the opening titles of film. They should start doing that as well.

3. Panavision should make a tag to go before the film. So you have a nice Panavision tag, then your sound system tag, then the film.

A Panavision tag would work well in cinemas (like frequenty in the UK) where masking opens after the 1.85:1 adverts and trailers play.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-20-2002, 06:08 PM:
 
You might be waiting a long time, Michael. But why wait? Just make one up yourself...

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 12-20-2002, 09:44 PM:
 
Of course, many theater owners would not want (and would try to block) anything that shows any short commings. What cheap owner wants to demonstrate his improperly-masked images?
 

---