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   » DUNKIRK DCP 2.20:1 inside flat container? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: DUNKIRK DCP 2.20:1 inside flat container?
Jason Whyte
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 132
From: Victoria, BC, Canada
Registered: Sep 2002


 - posted 07-07-2017 03:58 PM      Profile for Jason Whyte   Author's Homepage   Email Jason Whyte   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
According to my Twitter pal and Film-Tech member Daniel Schulz, the upcoming DCP of DUNKIRK will pull a TOMORROWLAND and be letterboxed to 2.20:1 inside a flat container, instead of being shown inside a scope container at 2.39:1 framing with black bars on both sides of the frame.

This is absolutely frustrating as one of my local cinemas booking this movie is playing it on a side masking screen, so the image will be letterboxed within the 1.85 masking.

Rather surprised if this is all true, and I am surprised that Nolan didn't issue a seperate DCP for side masking theaters.

JW

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 3273
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 07-07-2017 04:55 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Many cinemas created custom presets for Tomorrowland (2.2:1) and Jurrassic World (2.0:1) when this BS came up. Ask you local cinema wether they adjust for that. I would expect quite a few more movies to come out in these formats. Even Woody Allen settled on 2.0:1 recently. Having 2.2:1 inside flat is according to current ISDCF recommendations.

---
ISDCF recommended practice that for aspect ratios under 1.85 (such as academy aperture 1.33) pillar box in a flat package. For aspect ratio from 1.85 to 2.30 letter box in a flat package. For aspect ratios above 2.30 letter box in a scope package.
The suggestion is to inform the theaters of the actual aspect ratio of the feature and not request/require masking - but if someone wanted to - great! BUT you must not mess up the trailers - so the masking would need to be automated before the feature.
---

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2496
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007


 - posted 07-07-2017 05:03 PM      Profile for Marco Giustini   Email Marco Giustini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
so is the only reason a 2.20:1 is released in Flat to avoid people from playing it in 2.39 scope cropping top and bottom?

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 3273
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 07-07-2017 05:43 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's to optimize available resolution/imager estate. Some people would say this could be overcome by issuing 4k DCPs - however, as the majority of cinemas is still 2k, they would still play in 2k, and that would result in only 1887*858 for the scope DCP. Yes, in flat it is not that much more at 1998*908 - but it's enough to make an educated choice. That's why the ISDCF recommendation turns over at 2.3:1

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Pietro Clarici
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 135
From: Foligno (PG) Italy
Registered: Sep 2008


 - posted 07-08-2017 05:18 AM      Profile for Pietro Clarici   Author's Homepage   Email Pietro Clarici   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Carsten Kurz
It's to optimize available resolution/imager estate.
2.20:1 still seems pointless to me, but I'd understand that reasoning if they released a full-width 2048x930 DCP. Letterboxing it into a Flat container is just plain annoying.

 |  IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 356
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003


 - posted 07-08-2017 11:52 AM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Pietro Clarici
2.20:1 still seems pointless to me, but I'd understand that reasoning if they released a full-width 2048x930 DCP. Letterboxing it into a Flat container is just plain annoying.
At least for Dunkirk there is a good reason for the 2.20:1 aspect ratio; apart from the 15/70 IMAX prints, you can think of the "native" release of this film as being the 5/70 film prints, which are of course 2.20:1.

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Cox
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1748
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011


 - posted 07-08-2017 01:04 PM      Profile for Frank Cox   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Cox   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But everyone who has a "proper" Cinemascope screen ends up playing this movie as a much smaller image than it could or should be.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 11746
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-08-2017 03:06 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not everyone, just the ones that didn't do the extra effort to create a 2.20 preset that utilizes the screen real estate the best.

That said, I'm in favor of a C-220 format that utilizes the full container. You get the most pixels for those that set up for it and minimal cropping for those that don't.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8161
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 07-12-2017 07:22 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
format that utilizes the full container.
For it gets the full 1990x1080 container and can be called "High Definition" instead of the sub definition of 858x2048 as with the scope container along with only using part of the chipset.

 |  IP: Logged

Aron Toplitsky
Film Handler

Posts: 87
From: Gardena, CA, USA
Registered: May 2012


 - posted 07-12-2017 10:40 PM      Profile for Aron Toplitsky   Email Aron Toplitsky   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, well it's going to be interesting to see how my local theater (AMC Del Amo 18 Torrance CA) shows their 70MM print. As far as I know, their larger screens are common height, (side masking) but does that mean they are going to frame it for 2.20:1 or show it in a Flat container? And what about a reputable theater like Arclight? How will they present their 70MM print?

Not sure if this question makes sense, is it possible to properly side mask a 2.20:1 70MM film on a Common Height Scope screen? And without seeing any black bars on top or bottom of the frame? Can those side curtains be precisely adjusted to that aspect ratio?

Ooops, am I not supposed to post a 5/70 question here?

 |  IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 356
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003


 - posted 07-12-2017 10:56 PM      Profile for Daniel Schulz   Author's Homepage   Email Daniel Schulz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Aron Toplitsky
As far as I know, their larger screens are common height, (side masking) but does that mean they are going to frame it for 2.20:1 or show it in a Flat container? And what about a reputable theater like Arclight? How will they present their 70MM print?

Not sure if this question makes sense, is it possible to properly side mask a 2.20:1 70MM film on a Common Height Scope screen? And without seeing any black bars on top or bottom of the frame? Can those side curtains be precisely adjusted to that aspect ratio?

"Container" doesn't pertain to the 70mm prints. The aspect ratio for the film print is what it is, 2.20:1. They'll definitely be able to project on a CIH 'scope screen and fill the screen from top-to-bottom. Adjusting the side masking *shouldn't* be an issue, although nowadays with the lack of projection staff who knows?

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 11746
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-13-2017 08:56 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
For it gets the full 1990x1080 container
For so few words, so many mistakes. A FLAT container is 1998x1080 (2K). A FULL Container (as I referenced) is 2048x1080 (2K) or 4096x2160 (4K) meaning that if Dunkirk was issued in C-220 it would have a resolution of 4096x1862 as compared to F-220 3996x1816 or S-220 3775x1716.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8161
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 07-13-2017 06:24 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Agree above, but just referencing to what we at the locations have to use being we're kinda stuck with the Flat container.

But, thx for the added info.

-Monte

 |  IP: Logged

Bill Brandenstein
Master Film Handler

Posts: 304
From: Santa Clarita, CA
Registered: Jul 2013


 - posted 07-14-2017 12:41 PM      Profile for Bill Brandenstein   Email Bill Brandenstein   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Confirmed as F-220, now that the Projectionist's letter is online from Deluxe.

quote:
We are writing to you in regards to the presentation ratio of ‘DUNKIRK’.
Filmmakers have finished the DCP in the 2.2:1 ratio.
The active image is 3996x1818 (2.2:1) within a 3996x2160 (1.85:1) container.
The film is intended to play in a FLAT presentation.
For SCOPE shaped screens, see below:
• Present the film in the Flat 1.85:1 aspect ratio
• Open side masking, Zoom lens to fit image top to bottom of screen, leaving bars left and right
• Do not present in the Scope 2.40:1 ratio, this could result in top and bottom of the image being cropped
On your DCP or DCDC download a framing chart will be included to help set up your screens (see below).

Then, oddly enough, on the second page the summary box below the poster image is wrong, claiming "Image Format: 4096x1716 4K Flat." Old information?

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8161
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 07-14-2017 04:01 PM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting how the studios think that all Cinemas have 4k projectors where these pixel ratios relate to a 4k presentation.

Lot of us will have to use the 1080x1998, 2k settings.

Now, if we only had either drop width maskings, or scissor maskings to matt this image the way it's supposed to be presented ....

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
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.