my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » DCP Creation -1.78 (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: DCP Creation -1.78 Eugene Lehnert Film Handler Posts: 11 From: New York, NY Registered: Jul 2012 posted 08-21-2014 11:10 AM                        Is it best to place a 1.78 film into a 1998x1080 container or a 2048x1080 container? Thanks!  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-21-2014 12:03 PM                        Wouldn't the result be the same (a 1920x1080 image)?  |  IP: Logged Eugene Lehnert Film Handler Posts: 11 From: New York, NY Registered: Jul 2012 posted 08-21-2014 12:19 PM                        Yeah. I guess I'm trying to figure out if one resolution or the other can affect the size of the image during playback? Is a projector zoomed into the screen differently for the different resolutions? Would a 1.78 in a 1998x1080 look larger on the screen than a 1.78 in a 2048x1080 container?  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-21-2014 03:20 PM                     Both aspect ratios (1.85 and 1.78) use the maximum height of the full (2K) container -- 1080 pixels. So, they are the same, in terms of height. Since 1.78 is not as wide as 1.85, it will appear smaller in that dimension, which is to be expected.  |  IP: Logged Stefan Vogels Film Handler Posts: 48 From: Aarle-Rixtel, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands Registered: Jan 2010 posted 08-21-2014 03:29 PM                     It would look the same, however not every cinema probably will have the 2048x1080 preset configured. They do have 1998x1080 as Flat ratio.  |  IP: Logged Eugene Lehnert Film Handler Posts: 11 From: New York, NY Registered: Jul 2012 posted 08-21-2014 03:35 PM                        Right. But when you have a projector set to 1998x1080 do you through a larger image onto the screen if you fill the screen horizontally? If you were to fill the screen horizontally with a 2048x1080 the vertical length would be shorter? So a 1.78 in a 2048x0180 container would have to be enlarged where a 1.78 in the 1998x1080 container would not need as much enlarging? I haven't worked as a projectionist so I was guessing that theaters are set with a standard setting for 1.85 and 2.39. I'm just worried how this 1.78 will be interpreted on the big screen by projectionists.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-21-2014 03:45 PM                     According to DCI spec, you're supposed to fill either height, width, or both. Full width is not an option for this aspect ratio. For 1.78, you need to use the full height dimension. There's no real difference between packing it within 1.85 versus full container. You will end up with the same resolution, and the same amount of unused container on either side. I think you're worrying needlessly.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 08-21-2014 04:25 PM                     According to DCI specs you're quite right, you shouldn't have to worry... The problem is the reality out there. Many locations don't have any presets for "full container", just scope and flat... If you deliver them content in another container they might start to do stupid things. So, if you're not going to be present at the screening(s) yourself, I think it's best to put it in a 1998x1080 container, to avoid the locations with "limited skill-sets" messing up.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2014 04:34 PM                     Marcel is right on the money. It is absolutely safest to list it as "F" or you will get unpredictable results in the cinemas. Current naming conventions would have you put in an "F-178" into its name. While the actual ratio is an "optional" piece, it would go a distance to ensure that when the image didn't fill the width of the 1.85 masking setting, the reason would be known.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-21-2014 04:35 PM                        quote: Marcel Birgelen So, if you're not going to be present at the screening(s) yourself, I think it's best to put it in a 1998x1080 container, to avoid the locations with "limited skill-sets" messing up. What could they do wrong? The picture size would be the same either way.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-21-2014 09:19 PM                     When using the "DCP-o-Matic" DCP creation program, it give you the option to choose how your file will look in certain containers and will gives you a description, in words and sample image, of how the container is filled. Thus, a 1.78 formatted file being ready to be placed in a FLAT container will show to the user of the image having slight black bars on the side since it's filling the vertical part, being the 1080p, to top and bottom of the frame. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-21-2014 09:54 PM                     Scott...not knowing what "C" means, they could also use "Scope" and thus would have an 858 x 1920 image cropped in height and not filling the width of the image. Calling it "F-178" removes all ambiguity including for automated TMS systems.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-21-2014 11:54 PM                     With the above comment, the program mentioned also puts the lens (_F_, _S_)factor in the content file naming string when all the presets in making the DCP is completed. Thus, removing any possibility of wrong lens format used with the produced content when used within an assembled SPL. -Monte  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-22-2014 01:42 AM                     I'll agree that the uncommon (yet legal) "C" designation could confuse some users. However, for the record, the OP was not asking about how best to name the DCP. Essentially/technically, placing 1.78 inside 1.85 is the same as placing it inside the full container. Labeling also has no real effect. The result would be the same either way. As others have pointed out, labeling is an important consideration, in terms of short-circuiting user error. But only in that regard. I would recommend "F-178" as Steve suggested.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-22-2014 05:30 AM                     Manny, Since the OP clarified that a concern was the size/magnification of final result as it would appear in theatres...how an end-user, that may be an automated TMS too, using "C" sets one up to have an unpredictable result. While within the DCP itself, it is the same regardless of F or C. Now I wish for 65/70mm dupes that they would use C-220 as the format! But that is another discussion.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.