|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Author
|
Topic: "Perfect" masking and aperture
|
|
|
|
Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays
![](/ubbmembers/137h.jpg)
Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 10-22-2002 05:58 PM
In a theatre, with release prints, I'd agree there, David - or at least take out the difference half way. But in a screening room or production environment like Steve's, I'd go strictly for the standards.------------------ Better Projection Pays!
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Walsh
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/168.jpg)
Posts: 2490
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way
Registered: Oct 1999
|
posted 10-22-2002 05:58 PM
Funny, because an installer and I were talking about just that. Apparently, when Disney does a theater, they order full open aperture plates and move in the masking, an idea I really like.I think the answer may be somewhere in between. If the projector design places the aperture close to the film plane, the aperture will be in better focus (ie; less fuzz). If farther away, more fuzz, and probably would need an over cut aperture so it's "clean" right to the 0.825 line.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-22-2002 06:49 PM
Funny this is a complaint I have the document RP-40...it never discloses "which is correct."As to using full open apertures...for what lens? You take a precut 446 x 825 aperture and chalk up several different brands and focal lengths of lenses and you'd be amazed at the variance of what is shown. The new ISCO plus series RED lenses practically look around the aperture plate trying to get all of the light! I say, anything beyond .825 on width is undefined...there is no obligation to protect beyond it (and likewise for height). Therefore I vote for option 1...that is...your plate just shows a slight portion of the line in question then mask it off for a crisp picture. There is a safe action area and I believe up to 10% crop on all directions is supposed to be safe. Steve ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/268e.gif)
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-23-2002 08:27 AM
John,But whereas anything outside of the allowable space is undefined...say beyond .825 one should never see the .825 line once the screen is masked. Now some projectors and gates allow for a much smaller fringe area but it will have a fringe area none-the-less. The only way it can make any sense is to have a safe area (10% crop) and that space is used to hide any of the mechanics of showing the image...this includes the fringe area and any keystoning anomolies. If the film makers play by the rules then no significant information is lost by the cropping and no extranious garbage (soundtrack, splice flash, pad roller scuffing...etc) is shown. Steve ------------------ "Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/331cap.gif)
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 10-23-2002 08:42 AM
Steve wrote: "But whereas anything outside of the allowable space is undefined..."But the standards DO define much of what lies outside the projectable image area. For example, SMPTE 93 and SMPTE 139 define the film perforations. SMPTE 59 defines the camera aperture. SMPTE 111 defines the printed area. SMPTE 40 and SMPTE 203 define the analog track area. RP115 defines the DTS time code area. I do agree that extraneous items may appear in the printed picture just outside the projectable image area, so filmmakers need to be diligent in keeping microphones, light stands, flags, and other items from being seen, even if only on the image that spills onto the masking. I'm sorry that you have found it necessary to sometimes crop the image by up to 10% from the standardized projectable image area for reasons other than simple keystone correction. SMPTE 195 defines the projectable image area that should be seen by the audience. SMPTE 195 states in Note 2: "In the absence of specific instructions to the contrary, it is intended that the actual projected film image area be the largest appropriately-shaped figure that can be inscribed within the specified dimensions". If "...extraneous garbage (soundtrack, splice flash, pad roller scuffing...etc) is shown...", someone is not meeting the published standards, and "violating" the standard projectable image area (that has actually been larger in the past). Taking another 10% crop seems the wrong way to go...we need to address the reasons the SMPTE 195 projectable area is "violated". (You oppose cyan dye tracks, which will completely eliminate soundtrack developer splashes and bleeding into the picture area). ------------------ John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243 e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com Web site: here
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|