Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | my password | register | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP) (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP)
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12083
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-09-2013 08:38 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Similar to another topic...the DCP conversions of 70mm titles with 2.2 ratios.

I've seen Lawrence of Arabia and know that they chose to have it fit within the "Scope" pixel range. It was 4K so it was 3774 x 1716. I'm sure this was done for universal acceptance by all cinemas. However, it would have been better, image wise, to use all of the width and had a 4096 x 1862. The resolution is there on the film and most any cinema that was going to run "rep" titles could have another lens preset to deal with the "70mm" format. It still would have had universal acceptance.

My question is...can anyone confirm a 70mm title that uses the full pixel width and retains the 2.2 ratio?

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-09-2013 09:01 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've yet to have one that was full width.

They're typically 2.2 inside 2.39.

IIRC "2001" was 2.2 inside 16x9.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12083
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-09-2013 10:02 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
These people suck!

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 3680
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 09-10-2013 05:31 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well I come across many sites and operators who would never touch their formats, not even dare to operate the manual controls for zoom and focus because they are too afraid screw something they don't understand.

I guess distributors take this into account and will avoid any formats that cause 'real' issues on these sites. That is, they will probably always accept some letterboxing or pillarboxing in favor of other more serious issues.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Jock Blakley
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 218
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 2011


 - posted 09-10-2013 09:09 AM      Profile for Jock Blakley   Email Jock Blakley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's been a long time since we ran it but I do have a vague recollection that SOUTH PACIFIC was 2.20:1 at full height, as I think THE SOUND OF MUSIC was too.

We'll be getting WEST SIDE STORY soon so I'll be able to check that.

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-10-2013 12:21 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ben-Hur 2.76 inside 2.39
Looked pretty good, but we experienced lip-sync issues .

2001: A Space Odyssey 2.2 inside 1.85
77GB total for both parts
Allegedly a glorified Bluray but we've played actual Blurays that didn't look this bad up close.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12083
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 09-11-2013 06:17 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution?

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-11-2013 09:04 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
If they truly cared they would have 2 versions of the movie on the drive and keys to unlock both with the booking.

Then again keys for rep content is just stupid. It's already out on bluray and such.

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-11-2013 07:17 PM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
Can you try to get less resolution?
Oh! But they did.

Look again at that file size. 77GB for *both* parts. [Eek!]

It was clearly pixillated from up close.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17662
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 09-11-2013 10:26 PM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
I can only assume they are doing those small file sizes as a means to cut costs in duplication. Surely it isn't one price per drive, that it is per GB to duplicate since it takes longer to duplicate a drive with 350GB on it vs one that is 77GB.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 2523
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 09-17-2013 06:54 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Do you really think it's because of the time it takes to duplicate the content to disk?

I'd rather think it's just a lack of clue and dedication. Because, would it really matter for repertoire titles? How many disks are out there in distribution? For first run releases, this would make more sense to me, than for titles with just a handful of disks in circulation.

But, maybe I'm missing something, like the first run content being duplicated in some automated process and repertoire content being done by hand?

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Kurtzke
Film Handler

Posts: 42
From: Ashburn, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2013


 - posted 09-17-2013 07:45 PM      Profile for Michael Kurtzke   Email Michael Kurtzke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The small file size is probably not for saving time. We run a ton of older movies and usually the DCP's are between 110-190GB for 2K full-length features. Tonight, American Graffiti was 152GB, Last week Kindergarten Cop was 127GB, Real Genius was 141GB. These films [aside from maybe American Graffiti] aren't as well known as 2001.

I would have thought it would be a nice 4K DCP due to it being a 70mm feature. I'm actually worried because I'm playing it October 2nd [uhoh] [Space-oriented month because Gravity's coming out].

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1313
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008


 - posted 09-17-2013 09:46 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution?
[steps on soapbox] and don't get me started how stupid the studios are for not encoding the original five front channel mixes from these classic 70mm movies, when DCI specs actually take into account and could implement the left/center and right/center channels. Oh how I wish DATASAT would step in and do their magic and retain these mixes as they have done with 5/70mm releases...

[sigh]oh what's the point, it's like barking up the wrong tree... come on folks let's get it together

the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke.

 |  IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 09-18-2013 01:17 AM      Profile for Manny Knowles   Email Manny Knowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I really did have such high hopes that we would see proper treatment of 70mm titles.

The conspiracy theorist in me has occasionally wondered if film's reputation may have been deliberately sabotaged to make it that much easier for d-cinema to gain a foothold. If that were the case, it would explain a lack of interest in showing off virtues of the medium when it was at its best.

But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't honestly believe it was an "inside job."

I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection.

The real shame of it (for me) is that the last cinema I worked at, and the current one, are capable of "five across" and I've never had the pleasure of running something that actually used them in that way.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 2523
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 09-18-2013 06:38 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke.
I actually don't hope anybody considers DCPs as a serious form of long-time storage.

A DCP is a lossy compressed "medium" that's designed for ease of distribution, security and presentation only, not for archival purposes.

I do think it might be very worthwhile to store digital copies of analog content, but they need to be at a very high resolution and uncompressed/loss-less compressed. A digital copy, if handled correctly, has the potential to live forever, without any loss whatsoever.

quote: Manny Knowles
I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection.
"Looking better" is extremely subjective. The way 35mm was being treated by the average multiplex did make 2K digital look and sound better in almost any possible way, at least for a while.

Many digital installs are beginning to show a fair share of neglect already.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



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.

© 1999-2018 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.