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   » Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Author Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20
Justin Hamaker
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1951
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 05-18-2015 08:29 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Although this is being discussed in another thread, I figured it needs it's own thread.

Tomorrowland's aspect ratio is 1:2.20, in a Flat container - meaning it's letterboxed (black bars top and bottom). The ingest letter for the movie says you should use the flat settings on your projector and then zoom as needed.

What I am going to do is create an alternate set of lens and screen files which I will apply to my flat format while Tomorrowland is in the auditorium. I just have to be sure that if Tomorrowland shares auditoriums at any point in the run that it is always with a scope picture.

If you do change your lens files, the other issue is going to be playing scope versions of trailers - especially for any movies which are in flat. Otherwise the trailers will be cropped top to bottom.

The package does come with a framing chart for the 1:2.20 aspect ratio. When you ingest, this should be dropped into the Test category of your content. The framing chart is called "Tomorrowland Dlx51 2d FramingChart".

 |  IP: Logged

Jason Metcalfe
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Austin, TX, U.S.
Registered: May 2010


 - posted 05-18-2015 08:42 PM      Profile for Jason Metcalfe   Email Jason Metcalfe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We were actually told by our sales rep to adjust top and bottom masking to fit, just thought I'd throw that out there

It seems like they would rather have letterboxing that pillarboxing right? That's why they mastered it in a scope frame?

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Thomas
Master Film Handler

Posts: 255
From: Pearland, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012


 - posted 05-18-2015 10:04 PM      Profile for Andrew Thomas   Email Andrew Thomas   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think Brad Bird tweeted about it, that because of the restrictions of the DCI, the highest resolution way to present the movie is to letter box it in a flat container and then zoom. I could be doing the calculations wrong, but if they chose a scope container the image would be closer to 3775x1716, where as using the flat container it is 3996x1816. So a little extra horizontally and vertically.

 |  IP: Logged

Brian DeCiancio
Film Handler

Posts: 43
From: Warren, OH, USA
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 05-19-2015 12:12 AM      Profile for Brian DeCiancio   Author's Homepage   Email Brian DeCiancio   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Am I the only one who thinks this is totally ridiculous--1:2.20?
My masking doesn't stop half way between flat and scope. Does yours, or am I missing something here? And do they actually expect me or my staff to putz around with lens files? What do you call it, "half-flat"? Not gonna happen.
My bet is that very few theatres will show it in the way it was meant to be.

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17549
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 05-19-2015 01:01 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
ASSUMING you don't have any cropping on your screen, running it in scope only shaves about a dozen pixels off of the top and bottom...well within safe area.

Just sayin'

If these nitwits can't stick to established formats, and can't properly utilize the container for odd formats...it is what it is.

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1959
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 05-19-2015 01:25 AM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
What's the reason for this 2.20 aspect ratio anyway? Was it filmed in 65 mm or is it just another "visionary director" doing something oddball just for the sake of it?

And if the "IMAX" version is in 1.90, why can't the normal theatrical release not just be in flat? This looks just like a cheap "wide screen" release made by just chopping off a bunch of "crap" tops and bottoms...

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1951
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 05-19-2015 02:28 AM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just did screen files for this on one of my projectors and it was about a 10 minute job to change. The screen dimensions wind up being ~2000 x 909 (or 4000 x 1818 for 4K). Top of the screen is ~85 and bottom is ~995.

I have side moveable masking and found the set point was about 1/3 in from the Scope position, or 2/3 out from the Flat position. If you have motorized masking and are not able to easily change the set points, then you have to decide if you want to have it pillar boxed in Scope, or letter boxed in Flat (meaning don't make any changes).

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 11449
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 05-19-2015 05:07 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Since "C" is a DCI container...that would have been the largest pixel count C-220. As I've said in other threads, those without a "C-220" format (meaning those that can't or refuse to create it), could run it "scope" and merely crop the height a little bit.

quote: Brian DeCiancio
Does yours, or am I missing something here? And do they actually expect me or my staff to putz around with lens files? What do you call it, "half-flat"?
Actually, quite a few people have multi-stop masking motors so setting a 2.20 setting is certainly doable but your point is taken that not EVERYBODY that has motorized masking as more than 2-stops.

As for what they "expect" you to do...they expect you to present the movie properly. Your theatre or management's choice not do is not withstanding. Mind you, I'm neither endorsing or condemning the concept of the ratio.

I question why this movie needs this ratio. My guess is that since it is an established ratio and numerous theatres running some classic titles filmed in 65/70mm have dealt with it on DCP...they decided that it framed the picture best.

For all of the constant width theatres without masking...this is a non-problem anyway...it will just appear less letterboxed than scope.

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 3096
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 05-19-2015 06:44 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
My guess is that it was a tradeoff between a 'director/camera' department choice for Scope, and a money department choice for a taller IMAX image.

2.39 to 1.9 would probably have created too many problems. Although I guess few people have actually complained about all the different aspect ratios of 'Interstellar'.

http://www.interstellarmovie.com/formats/

Now it's safe to assume that most cinemas (that's nearing 99%) will simply use the standard F preset and thus present it letterboxed, which hardly anyone will notice on those cheap unmasked screens.
How many projectionists are actually educated or allowed to build their own formats? With the central playlist building on the larger chains, that's no option anyway.

Silly.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 7808
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 05-19-2015 08:22 AM      Profile for Scott Norwood   Author's Homepage   Email Scott Norwood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
How are the 35mm prints of this title made? Are they scope with side pillars?

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10422
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-19-2015 09:29 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It makes no sense for the DCI people to mandate a 2.20:1 aspect ratio be shoe-horned into another container, other than compromising that format due to improperly designed digital projectors and movie theater screens. The 2.20:1 image needs to be as big as it can be for the projector's imaging chips. That means it needs to be full width.

Numbers, using 2K as a reference:
2.20:1 max size on chip: 2048 X 930 = 1904640 pixels
2.20:1 in flat container: 1998 X 908 = 1814184 pixels
2.20:1 in scope container: 1888 X 858 = 1619904 pixels

Obviously, putting 2.20:1 in a 'scope container is actually an even worse approach than sticking it into a flat container. Both approaches are inferior to allowing the 2.20:1 format to go full width on the imaging chip.

I've been beating the drum lately on just how much 'scope sucks in d-cinema compared to how great it was on 35mm -going from the biggest, brightest, highest resolution format on 4-perf 35mm to the smallest, lowest resolution format in d-cinema. It's really a shame. The DCI folks ought to be embarrassed by this considering how so many movies (I'd dare say a large majority) are framed in 'scope format. Making 'scope look its best should have been a top priority for d-cinema standards rather than being the lowest priority.

How would 2.20:1 do in a 1.25x anamorphic approach? The answer: even though it isn't as wide as full 2.39:1 scope it would still come out better than any of the approaches I listed above.

A 2.20:1 movie rendered for 1.25x anamorphic "Super 2K":
2K master: 2376 X 1080 = 2566080 pixels
After 1.25x squeeze = 1900 X 1080 - 2052000 pixels

I think the DCI folks must have been stuck in some 1980's VHS style thinking by not going with an anamorphic approach in exhibition. They're protecting the 1.85:1 format at the expense of the other bigger formats. Flat was dominant 30 years ago. Scope currently dominates and it has been dominant for at least 15 or more years.

1.85:1 (1998 X 1080) in 1.25x anamorphic: 1598 X 1080 size = 1725840 pixels.

That's over 400,000 pixels less than the current flat container. The problem is not many movies are using the flat format. Scope is dominant. The sad thing is a 2K scope image, 2048 X 858 has 1757184 pixels. That's LESS pixels than 1.85:1 after it is put into a 1.25x anamorphic squeeze.

The DCI folks probably ran these numbers and chose to go spherical only anyway. It's probably all about cutting costs on lenses and what not, regardless of how much customers like myself are paying for the damned tickets at the box office.

The materials shown in a commercial movie theater need to be on a quality level significantly better than what someone can see on TV in the home. Right now d-cinema is not doing that. It really is too damned close to TV standards. Factor in some soft focus projection and the TV image at home might actually look better. As 4K starts to proliferate in home theater that's going to become a bigger problem. There are no focus & moire issues with a huge LED TV set.

 |  IP: Logged

Jason Metcalfe
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 120
From: Austin, TX, U.S.
Registered: May 2010


 - posted 05-19-2015 02:19 PM      Profile for Jason Metcalfe   Email Jason Metcalfe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby, I've been thinking about this recently regarding Avengers 1 vs Avengers 2, and wondering why the aspect ratio change between the two movies and if it has anything to do with what you said about how the chip is utilized in flat vs. scope

Then again I think we forget that many of these aspect ratio choices are a combination of some technical but also primarily artistic choices, until D-cinema came along I always thought of scope as the "western/landscape" format and flat for films that take place primarily in interiors/close-up

 |  IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1951
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004


 - posted 05-19-2015 02:43 PM      Profile for Justin Hamaker   Author's Homepage   Email Justin Hamaker   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Another consideration to keep in mind for theatre with LMS systems is how much control they have in setting up new automation cues. Unless you already have it set up, creating a true 1:2.20 format will require a new format cue, which means a new template. Then creating corresponding cues on your servers(s). This is a lot to ask for any theatre without a technician in house - especially in a window of 3-4 days before the movie opens.

I'm pretty irritated with Disney for not letting us know about this requirement a few weeks ago, and providing proper test content at that time so we have time to properly set this up an test - and I'm talking about a 2-3 minute clip from the movie as well as the framing chart.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10422
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 05-19-2015 02:49 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Jason Metcalfe
Bobby, I've been thinking about this recently regarding Avengers 1 vs Avengers 2, and wondering why the aspect ratio change between the two movies and if it has anything to do with what you said about how the chip is utilized in flat vs.scope
My guess is the choice of going flat on the first Avengers movie was probably more of a philosophical choice on Joss Whedon's part. It might have been an acknowledgment about the trends of how modern movie theater screens are configured. Most new theaters have crappy, common width screens where flat is the bigger image.

Why revert back to 'scope? The obvious reason is popularity. People seem to love the 'scope format more that flat. The anamorphic look is very popular; even some TV series not shown in 'scope aspect ratio are being shot with anamorphic lenses for the visual style. When DVD was the dominant home video format for retail movie sales separate "full screen" and anamorphic widescreen versions were common. I can't recall seeing any of that on the Blu-ray platform. Customers don't seem to mind the black bars. I guess they think it makes the movie look more like a movie than a TV show.

I am also suspicious the very widespread use of 'scope in feature movie productions is motivated by cutting costs. The 'scope format is now the lowest resolution production and exhibition format. That also makes 'scope the cheapest format. There are fewer pixels to render, fewer pixels to store and fewer pixels taking up bandwidth during playback.

Even a major "tent pole" studio project with a $200 million production budget will have all sorts of cost and corner cutting taking place. Why bleed away money making the image look better on screen when you can do something "good enough" and pocket the difference?

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Cassedy
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1452
From: San Francisco, CA
Registered: Dec 2006


 - posted 05-19-2015 03:53 PM      Profile for Jim Cassedy   Email Jim Cassedy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here's another whole curve ball:

I just found out I'm doing at least one show of this in 35mm.

Of course, I won't get the print till the last minute.

Anybody have any idea of what the 35mm aspect ratio will be?

>ALSO- - I went out to one theater very early this morning to try & figure out
a way to solve this aspect ratio issue in way that won't make the regular
staff have to pull their heads outta their i-phones long enuf to miss a tweet.

As most of you already know, is that if you set the masking according to
Disney's preferred framing chart, the pre-show FLAT trailers will have some
cut-off at the top and the bottom of the image.

BUT- - I discovered that (at least at this location) - - if I build them a
playlist using the SCOPE trailer versions, things actually looked OK.

. . .and I don't have to make new lens macros, or set up new cues, or write
special instructions to the staff. (which would require doing it in a least 4
different languages and they'd still screw it up)

It's a wacky solution, but it seems to work.

I've got an advance, private (4k, Digital Atmos) screening tomorrow, but
fortunately, I've already got all the projector macros & screen settings I need:
 -

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
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.

© 1999-2016 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.