|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Is common width sometimes better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 12-02-2005 01:07 PM
Been there, done that. I wrote about it years ago:
Kodak: Caring About Composition
quote:
"Scope" Is Meant to be Wider than "Flat"
Filling the full width of the screen for both 2.39:1 scope pictures and 1.85:1
flat pictures is almost as bad as "one size fits all" screens. This poor practice
has become a popular trend in modern theatre designs, especially those with
stadium seating. The misguided idea is to fill the front wall of the theatre with
the biggest image possible, regardless of the intended format. So instead of
maintaining the same image height for the scope and flat formats by using
adjustable side masking, both formats are projected with the same width. The
top and bottom masking are adjusted to letterbox the scope format, and
actually project a much smaller image than the flat format.
What's wrong with this picture? Plenty! First, the wider 2.39:1 scope format is
usually chosen to give pictures greater impact, than the more intimate 1.85:1
aspect ratio. Letterboxing it to a smaller image often violates the intent of the
cinematographer and director in telling a big story.
Image quality of the flat format suffers in comparison to the scope format,
especially when common width screens are used. The projectable image area
of the 1.85:1 flat format is only 65 percent of the much larger and efficient
scope format. It makes no sense to project the much smaller flat film image
area on the print to a much larger picture than scope on the screen. It simply
magnifies the grain and greatly reduces the light level. For example, a theatre
that is getting the SMPTE aim of 16 footlamberts for scope on a 25 x 60 foot
screen, will typically get only about 13 footlamberts for the less efficient flat
format on a 25 x 46 foot screen, which is still within the tolerances allowed by
the standard. But if they try to magnify the flat image to fill a 32 x 60 foot screen, they will only get a sub-standard 8 footlamberts, since the light must
be spread over a much larger screen area. When you project flat and scope
films to the same width on the screen, bigger is definitely not better!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 12-02-2005 01:10 PM
If tearing down walls is not an option, the scope picture will be the same size either way. It will be as wide as possible and the height will be width/2.39. The issue is with flat.
For example, lets say a 6-6, 180 seat auditorium. So we're talking about 27 feet wide, and 55 or so feet long. Let's assume the widest screen that can be put in is 25 feet.
With common height, the scope image will be 10'5.5" x 25' and the flat image will be 10'5.5" x 19'4.2". This image will appear tiny because you have people (improperly) sitting over 5 screen heights away that will have a lot of black in their field of view.
The scope image will be too small either way but if you made the screen common width, the flat image would be 13'6" x 25'. Now for flat images, people will only be around 4 screen heights back which is more ideal.
Contrast this to a properly designed 180 seat auditoruim. Scope of 17' x 40'7.56" and Flat of 17' x 31'5.4".
So, if knocking down walls isn't an option, is it better to go common width and at least present flat at the right screen to seating ratios?
Edit:
John, I was writing this post when you posted yours. I'll leave this post and see if there is any comment to it with my more specific example.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-02-2005 01:45 PM
There's a building that is long and narrow. You want to put in an upscale restaurant. Once you put in the kitchen, the only room left is narrow swath of space that can only accommodate bar stools and a narrow bar on which a full size dinner plate will barely fit. Do you say, "Yah, that's great---no one will notice that that we can't fit any tables in there and waiters bump into patrons as they pass them carrying the trays"? NO. You say this place simply WON'T WORK. If you are planning to rent, you find another place to put your restaurant; if you own that long narrow building, you sell it for use as a bowling alley or as Louis says, you TEAR IT DOWN.
Does a curator hang huge Monet paintings in a gallery only 3ft wide so people have to stand 2 feet in front of them to view them? Do you build a car wash that is not wide enough for cars to fit? Do you make donuts with no holes?
How does compromising the very thing that a theatre owner expects to make his livelihood at (selling the movie going experience), ever make an sense? You think The Four Seasons would substitute horse meat for prime rib and no one would notice? Or anyone would come back? How can serious, extreme compromises ever be "OK" in any business, theatres included? To think that it would some how be "better" is a serious, extreme error. Can it be done physically? Sure; then again, lots of businesses are run badly -- thing is, everyone knows which they are and everyone avoids them. Just because a business is run by imbeciles doesn't mean it's OK or that it will even survive. Besides, who wants to have to tell his friends, "Hey guys, come on over to my restaurant; the meal's on me....but I wouldn't recommend ordering the prime rib."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic