Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NetFlix goes for non-standard: F-210 movie "The Midnight Sky."
Here is a recent theatre we did and they have 2-way masking (top/bottom as well as sides)...so how is that supposed to work for them? Show 4x3 small? Crop 4x3? Do an ugly lens zoom/screen file change mid-movie? Dumb. As it is, we went out of our way to keep Left/Right speakers unobstructed (and it is acoustically transparent masking) but 4x3 was rationalized to have the least chance of a stereo track of the other possibilities. The masking cord (it is supported top and bottom) is just past the center of the horn for 4x3 but not by much. All other supported formats have no horn obstruction.
I'd say that any lens-adjustments mid-movie are simply out of question, at least not without an intermission or some other kind of break that allows you ample time to change formats and put the dowser on... Even changing masking around mid-movie still feels a bit stupid, it feels more like a theme park attraction (show starts around 5:18) to me that way...
I've done masking changes between previews and feature (flat to scope, never the other way) back in the day. If a Curtain was available, yes, I did a curtain call on the masking change. We have theatres that definitely can change masking mid show but not mid-movie. Only Christie has lenses fast enough to not make it look strange. At the site depicted in my earlier post, they could do it as image sized were partially chosen to minimize lens movement though 4:3 to 1.85 is going to be a bit. There is pretty much no movement between Flat and Scope (just to compensate for more stretch of the image due to down angle. Again, on purpose to keep lens settings a bit tighter longer.
I close the curtains between trailers and feature, so I can easily switch aspect ratios. In this case, going from 1.85 to 1.37. They share a common height, so the change is obvious to the audience and I hope gets their attention.
I think that going from "flat" to "scope" between previews and the main feature always looks grand, at least on common-height screens, even without a curtain. It's like the screen is opening up for you and this is why you're here and not watching this on your TV at home.
I guess in a movie like The Grand Budapest Hotel, the changing aspect ratio is part of the artistic fabric of that movie. Trying to match your masking to the ever-changing aspect ratios would make for some hilarious, almost geeky details, so kudos for everybody who tried doing it.
But what about movies like Transformers: The Dark Knight? Have you ever looked at that trainwreck? I bet even Disney Imagineering couldn't come up with a masking system fast enough to catch up with this hot mess... not that it would even make sense trying to do so...
I know I've told the horror story of a film I ran in a 'vertical aspect ratio' at a major film festival several years ago, so I won't repeat it here. ( I can't locate the post on the old forum- but if someone finds it, feel free to post the link) One of the biggest problems was that even though we had a masking control with enough memory registers to program 10 different aspect ratios, there just wasn't enough masking material to create an aspect ratio this narrow. About the only place I can think of where I might have been able to pull this off is in one of the Dolby screening rooms I've worked at, where, in addition to the usual presets, I had complete manual control of all 4 masking curtains. (There were 4 separate motors and controls for top, bottom, and left and right side masking curtains) But even then- - I'm not sure there would have been enough masking material in the side masking travelers available for me to create a vertically oriented aspect ratio. They just weren't made to do that because conventional thinking at the time they were designed and installed is that nobody in their right mind would make a film in such a f---ing ridiculous format.
So I must be late to the party or something because I just put it all together. This movie was directed (and stars) George Clooney. He shot it on an Arri Alexa 65 and, as per Arri's advertisements, it uses a "slightly larger" imager than a traditional 65mm film camera. The imager measures 54.12 mm x 25.58 mm. Which, if you do the math is 2.11:1. I guarantee you this is how this stupid release format came to be. I don't know who to be more disappointed with. The camera manufacturer that has such an imager (though I'm sure it is so one can see beyond the frame and was intended to be cropped to standard ratios) or Clooney and company for thinking "I want to show every pixel". I'm going to stick with the the latter.
Yea, I knew about this imager size when the camera was released. and wondered WTH! They brag about the 65mm sensor that's not the correct ratio.... I just don't get why a company that makes one hell of a 65mm camera can't get the digital counterpart correct.
Yea, I knew about this imager size when the camera was released. and wondered WTH! They brag about the 65mm sensor that's not the correct ratio.... I just don't get why a company that makes one hell of a 65mm camera can't get the digital counterpart correct.
And btw... The movie sucks.
Nobody is forcing you to use the full sensor. Any self-respecting cinematographer and director would choose one of the common aspect ratios from their tool-chest. I guess the idea of a self-respecting director is out-of-the window, since this movie must be one of the most boring ones I've seen in quite a while. Maybe Clooney should focus on his acting career instead of his directing career...
Projectionists have been doing mid-show aspect ratio changes since at least Portrait of Jenny (1948). If you need to do a mid-show transition, use dowser close/open and pause/play cues.
I mid-movie, I wouldn't want to introduce a pause and also break up the continuity of the show. I question the sanity of most directors/DPs that want format changes, with the exception of movies like Zelig or More American Graffiti where you wouldn't move the masking since the change in aspect ratio is not only cooked into the movie, you are masked, at all times, for the largest ratio and the smaller ratios are deliberately designed to look smaller.
If you need to do a mid-show transition, use dowser close/open and pause/play cues.
Be more than happy to if the Director/editor/DP provides a smooth transition to allow break in the film, and the DCP supplier gives us the exact frame count and length of transition so I can set it up without having to watch the whole film all the way through to try to guess where this takes place. Also, it would be nice if the keys activated more than 24 hrs in advance in case I have something else to do. Of course, I don't have a multiplex, so rarely have more than one movie to deal with at a time. People running 8 new films a week may need a little more incentive to provide for a five minute slice of a film that a handful of people, at best, are going to notice.
Back in my days working as projectionist (and everything else), our fellow employees did QCs: Free movie, which you're the first to see, drinks and popcorn on the house. We also did intermissions, and since only a handful of movies in the last 40-or-so years actually provided for an intermission, it had to be planned anyway.
Yet, I can't remember a single movie we ever changed masking for during the show.
While it may be some form of good showmanship, my problem with all of this is that it's breaking the 4rth wall for me. Yeah, some movies may be doing this intentionally, but I think a movie should still primarily rely on good storytelling, directing and good cinematography and not on gimmicks.
That theme-park attraction I posted earlier, did intentionally break the Fourth wall and it had one of the speediest masking systems I've ever seen, you can't see it on the video, but it even adjusted in between most of the short shots that changed in aspect ratio.
But, for me, the aspect ratio of a movie is something the DP and director decide once and then keep it to it. Anything else is mere distraction. I don't need to be reminded that I'm watching a movie every time a shot changes. There is also no need to come up with some outlandish aspect ratios, only because you're that hipster new director that needs to make a point. While the AR can have a big impact on how a movie is perceived, there is nothing fancy about it. It's a technical limitation you need to make a decision on.
Tweet
Comment