OBSESSION < Aspect Ratio Alert! >

[Jim Cassedy]

Here we go again!
I had an early preview of this recently and they've released it in in
"F-150". I think I saw about 8 different versions on our server - -
- - but for some reason, Deluxe did not include a Framing Chart.

Here's what it looks like on screen with the house lights up a bit,
so you can see the difference between the image size & the masking.
ObsessionAspectPic.jpg

[Dustin Grush]

A framing chart should be MANDATORY for anything outside of standard Scope or Flat... This xxx in xxx container nonsense is amateurish needs to stop.

[James Gardiner]

So, for most cinemas, we should expect a flat-style aspect ratio, with the old 4:3 television format sitting in the middle.

Wow, that is going to generate a lot of consumer questions.

I find it hard to believe they will not create a more centred “Flat” presentation version, perhaps only shifting to 4:3 when absolutely required.

Otherwise, I feel the constant 4:3 presentation could become distracting for audiences who are now so accustomed to Flat and Scope cinematic experiences. Differences in presentation tend to draw attention to themselves, and distraction often leads to an annoyed customer, HFR being a major example.

[Jim Cassedy]

A framing chart should be
MANDATORY for anything outside of standard Scope or Flat...

I checked our "Deluxe Box" and TMS and looked all over the Deluxe One
website and in the release notes for this flick, and there there is no A-R
chart anywhere. I think I saw about 6 different DCP versions of the movie
though, including captioned, non-captioned, 5.1, 7.1, Atmos, DolbyVision,
HDR, and even a Spanish version- - but no friggin' test chart. - -

According to someone who sat through the entire movie, the aspect ratio
is 'fixed' for the enire feature, and doesn't change at any time during the
movie. Here's the CPL for the version we're playing here:
Obsession_FTR-11-BarcoHDR_F-150_EN-XX-CCAP_US_IAB-HI-VI_4K_FF, etc,etc

> I sat and watched about an hour of it during a preview, and personally,
I'm not a big fan of the style of lighting they used in this flick. It's shot
mostly in very 'low key' lighting - - with the characters faces very often in
shadow, yet the room behind then lit much brighter. In fact, in my opinion
the 'standard' version actually looks better than the HDR version which only
seems to accentuate lousy lighting. (my opinion) - - and just FYI, two
BARCO techs were in here less than a week ago, to do some scheduled
maintenance on the HDR projector, and I seriously doubt it has drifted
outta specifications in 6 days.

Between my dislike of both the lighting and the aspect ratio, I just couldn't
bring myself to sit through the whole movie. but maybe that's just 'me'

This is the closest thing to a "focus chart' on the DCP- At least it's in the
same aspect ratio as the feature, which is often not the case with some of
these odd aspect ratio releases. (house lites are turned up slightly for the photo)
FocusFeatF150.jpg

[Ryan Gallagher]

Yeah studio cards in the containers ratio (and forcing the label to be wrong relative to the feature) is one of my pet peeves with many of the classics I play.

[Agnius Acus]

I don't get it. Image doesn't fill the whole height?

[Jim Cassedy]

I don't get it. Image doesn't fill the whole height?

No- it's the WIDTH that's the problem. I do notice that in my photos it doesn't appear
to fill the height, but I think that's because you're looking at it from the booth perspective.
When sitting down in the auditorium it looks correct. Although I have two control panels
with push-buttons for about half-a-dozen assorted 35 and 70mm film aspect ratios on
the wall in the booth, the way they designed the system, the only two presets that can
be triggered by the automation system are 1:85 and 2:39. This isn't a problem when
running film, because I will be there to manually push the proper buttons. But I can't
be there to manually adjust the masking properly for for every show that has a non
standard aspect ratio. And if I'm not there, there is nobody else who can work the
masking, because the the company I work for is too cheap to have two union
projectionists on staff. So OBSESSION, will just be shown horizontally 'undersized'
as you see it in the photos. That's not my fault or my problem.

I recently was hosting a live Q and A session with another fairly young director who
managed to get one of his films released by a major company, albeit in yet another
aspect ratio nobody has ever heard of . In answer to one question, I actually heard
him say something like that with all the technical advances in (digital) cameras and
the vast assortment of editing software now available it wasn't really necessary to use
the services of professional studios or editing rooms, or even go to a film school,
because you could pretty much now accomplish all that work at home, and can do
anything you want. And that's why, except at film festivals and rep theaters that still
have regular projection people on staff, his movie will be seen un-masked on a large
screen. ( and that's also why several of his 'static' end credit screens have one or
more names partly cut off at the top or bottom of the screen, because apparently they
don't teach the concept of "safe image area" composition at film schools any more, or
maybe he just ignored it because now 'film-makers can do anything they want' . )

< end of rant>

[Marcel Birgelen]

They told me to always look on the bright side of things... So... At least the IMAX release on those native 1.43 screens wil look absolutely fabulous and will fill ALMOST the entire screen!

[Chris Haller]

They told me to always look on the bright side of things... So... At least the IMAX release on those native 1.43 screens wil look absolutely fabulous and will fill ALMOST the entire screen!

Most imax features, unless they have some native 1.44:1 imax imagery, are mastered for the standard 1.90:1 digital imax container.

i saw Nosferatu in dual 4K laser at the scotiabank Toronto theater in 1.66:1 in a 1.90:1 container. Black bars on all sides. Not great! But I suppose having to make one less DCP is cheaper for the parties involved. lol.

[Agnius Acus]

No- it's the WIDTH that's the problem. I do notice that in my photos it doesn't appear
to fill the height, but I think that's because you're looking at it from the booth perspective.
When sitting down in the auditorium it looks correct. Although I have two control panels
with push-buttons for about half-a-dozen assorted 35 and 70mm film aspect ratios on
the wall in the booth, the way they designed the system, the only two presets that can
be triggered by the automation system are 1:85 and 2:39. This isn't a problem when
running film, because I will be there to manually push the proper buttons. But I can't
be there to manually adjust the masking properly for for every show that has a non
standard aspect ratio. And if I'm not there, there is nobody else who can work the
masking, because the the company I work for is too cheap to have two union
projectionists on staff. So OBSESSION, will just be shown horizontally 'undersized'
as you see it in the photos. That's not my fault or my problem.

I recently was hosting a live Q and A session with another fairly young director who
managed to get one of his films released by a major company, albeit in yet another
aspect ratio nobody has ever heard of . In answer to one question, I actually heard
him say something like that with all the technical advances in (digital) cameras and
the vast assortment of editing software now available it wasn't really necessary to use
the services of professional studios or editing rooms, or even go to a film school,
because you could pretty much now accomplish all that work at home, and can do
anything you want. And that's why, except at film festivals and rep theaters that still
have regular projection people on staff, his movie will be seen un-masked on a large
screen. ( and that's also why several of his 'static' end credit screens have one or
more names partly cut off at the top or bottom of the screen, because apparently they
don't teach the concept of "safe image area" composition at film schools any more, or
maybe he just ignored it because now 'film-makers can do anything they want' . )

< end of rant>

Oh, I see. I was wondering why you just don't adjust the masking.

Maybe some people are so used to letterboxing and pillarboxing, including that young director, that they simply don't care about it. I certainly didn't. For years.

Actually, with current OLED technology, it's less noticeable while watching in a dark room.

Partly cut-off credits sound really ironic.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Although I have two control panels
with push-buttons for about half-a-dozen assorted 35 and 70mm film aspect ratios on
the wall in the booth, the way they designed the system, the only two presets that can
be triggered by the automation system are 1:85 and 2:39. This isn't a problem when
running film, because I will be there to manually push the proper buttons. But I can't
be there to manually adjust the masking properly for for every show that has a non
standard aspect ratio. And if I'm not there, there is nobody else who can work the
masking, because the the company I work for is too cheap to have two union
projectionists on staff. So OBSESSION, will just be shown horizontally 'undersized'
as you see it in the photos. That's not my fault or my problem.

How hard is it to re-program either your 185 masking or 239 automatable preset?

Cause one workaround (other than getting the system to have the other ones automatable), provided the period did not require one of those two, would be to overwrite one of them temporarily for 150, and when Obsession is gone restore it back.

This would have worked great in film era when rooms tended to play the same feature until it was time to change. In digital a room can play a whole slew of features before the one in question leaves.

[Dustin Grush]

I checked our "Deluxe Box" and TMS and looked all over the Deluxe One
website and in the release notes for this flick, and there there is no A-R
chart anywhere.:

I've gone to the effort to call Deluxe in the past and every time was told that none were available.

[Marcel Birgelen]

How hard is it to re-program either your 185 masking or 239 automatable preset?

Cause one workaround (other than getting the system to have the other ones automatable), provided the period did not require one of those two, would be to overwrite one of them temporarily for 150, and when Obsession is gone restore it back.

This would have worked great in film era when rooms tended to play the same feature until it was time to change. In digital a room can play a whole slew of features before the one in question leaves.

In our screening room, the masking has always been controlled by a PLC. Every side is individually movable and no less than four lidar/laser distance sensors measure the distance. Yeah, it's probably somewhat over-engineered (it was dreamed up by my late brother, overengineering was his default mode...)

Still, the lazy bastard I've been, I've never really finished the programming. But thanks to the power of AI, we now have 100% flexible masking... I just enter the desired aspect ratio and the screen opens up/closes to the maximum of any given format... You can even give special commands, like align to top or align to bottom... even left and right or left-top if you really would want to do that...

But yeah, masking is one thing, there are still two big other elephants in the booth... two projectors who still need presets...

Now imagine we would've a reliable way of communicating the actual aspect ratio of the content IN the DCP itself, Barco, NEC and Christie could sell us a "series 5" projector with automatic zoom-to-max-screen-real-estate-and-focus feature... But as long as studios keep putting oddball aspect ratios into Flat or Scope containers and ignore DCP naming conventions, that's not going to happen.

[Jim Cassedy]

How hard is it to re-program either your 185 masking or 239 automatable
preset? Cause one workaround (other than getting the system to have the
other ones automatable), provided the period did not require one of those
two, would be to overwrite one of them temporarily for 150, and when
Obsession is gone restore it back. This would have worked great in film
era when rooms tended to play the same feature until it was time to change.
In digital a room can play a whole slew of features before the one in question
leaves.

You and I think alike, and, I have, on several occasions temporarily re-programmed
the FLAT or SCOPE preset for some special event. However, as you also point
out, this is not always possible due to other shows that may be programmed in that
same auditorium, and is also sometimes not possible based on my work availability.

I can't recall which movie it was, but it had one of those unconventional aspect ratios
and during the first 9 days, when we were running it in 70mm, I had re-programmed
the 35mm 1:66 preset to accommodate it, rather than screw up my good 70mm
presets and then have to re-program them back at some point. ( I think I've only run
1:66 twice in 4 years, so if I need to 'steal' a preset, that's the button I usually use)

After the first 9 days, the 70mm engagement ended, and we started running
only the digital version of the same film. I was thinking at first that I could do what
you suggested, and simply re-program the either the automatable FLAT or SCOPE
button to accommodate the odd DCP A-R. But, that would have only worked for abt
one day, because after that, the 'exclusive' run of that title ended in that auditorium,
and then that movie alternated with another one, which would have required a
masking change that I now couldn't couldn't automate.

I had worked 8 or 9 days straight without a break while running the 70mm. I don't
have a problem occasionally doing that. It's sometimes just part of the job. But
at the end of the 70mm run, I had earned three days off, and I was NOT going
to make a trip all the way down to the theater, and back home, (30min each way)
on one of my days off after a 9 day shift, just to re-program friggin' masking stop.