More unnecessary formats...Spiderman offers "F-190"

[Steve Guttag]

So, because we need more stupid not quite standard formats...Spiderman will have two offerings. Scope for theatres with constant height screens and F-190 for those with 1.85 screens (constant width). So, you get a sliver of a letterbox bar? Just keep to the standards...F (1.85) or, if you are really feeling frisky..."C" You'll get your 1.9 ratio, for those that create a special one for it and 1.85 without and pillars/letterbox bars.

[Christos Gartaganis]

I believe this a new trend inspired by the1.90 aspect ratio that has recently become the standard for Digital IMAX screens. Since the studio has already put some extra money on the 1,90 DCP version for IMAX why not making it available for the rest of the cinemas with common width screens. I would personally use the 1,90 version if I owned a cinema with a common width screen and I would crop the sides of the picture to exactly match the screen's 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

[Chris Haller]

Yeah. This is just the IMAX DCP given to us regular peons.

I'd make a new preset for this, but my masking motors at my main theater only have 1.85 and 2.39, so there's not much sense in doing the slight crop and zoom to fill the screen out. I'd have to open the masking and that just is not something I am interested in at this time. Scope it is!

[Marcel Birgelen]

I believe this a new trend inspired by the1.90 aspect ratio that has recently become the standard for Digital IMAX screens. Since the studio has already put some extra money on the 1,90 DCP version for IMAX why not making it available for the rest of the cinemas with common width screens. I would personally use the 1,90 version if I owned a cinema with a common width screen and I would crop the sides of the picture to exactly match the screen's 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Well.. imagine how difficult it would be for studios to do this... I remember the latest Avatar release that had a permutation for almost every combination imaginable...

[Steve Guttag]

I stand by that this is a stupid format. I would presume that IMAX is doing smarter by using a full-container ("C") since that is native 1.90. If they supplied theatres with a "C" version, then no big deal Run it with your normal Flat format and its none the wiser. If they want to be extra clever...compose the frame so it is both Scope and Flat safe (the way i tell exhibitors to make their preshow such that text fits either F or S. Then, the "C" version works universally in all theatres on either Flat or Scope shaped screens.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I stand by that this is a stupid format. I would presume that IMAX is doing smarter by using a full-container ("C") since that is native 1.90. If they supplied theatres with a "C" version, then no big deal Run it with your normal Flat format and its none the wiser. If they want to be extra clever...compose the frame so it is both Scope and Flat safe (the way i tell exhibitors to make their preshow such that text fits either F or S. Then, the "C" version works universally in all theatres on either Flat or Scope shaped screens.

I've only recently taught my marketing folks that trick, except I make them do title-safe for 133 all the way to 239 (when they can, for our summer series). Mostly cause we historically couldn't move side masking once set for the feature, and zoom motor was defunct on our christie.

I agree F-190 is a stupid format. It already exists with more pixels as "Custom", but most theatre's won't have presets or masking for it.