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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Drive-In Aspect Ratio's - Do They Really Matter? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Drive-In Aspect Ratio's - Do They Really Matter? Barry Floyd Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1079 From: Lebanon, Tennessee, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-02-2002 09:16 AM                        We are getting ready to place the order on our screen towers for the drive-in, and have several different quotes - each for a different size screen or aspect ratio. I've seen many drive-in screens built with a fixed 2:1 ratio, but I know that crops a scope image a bit. If we had a true 2.39:1 screen ratio, and showed a FLAT image upon it, it would leave a black border about 6 feet on each side of the image but fill the entire height of the screen. The only drawback is that the patrons could see that the image isn't entirely filling the screen, and may percieve that they aren't really getting the "BIG" picture they were expecting. So the question is: Do we order a 2:1 ration screen and loose (crop) a couple of feet of the image, and totally fill the screen with a FLAT image and loose nothing, OR order a true 2.39:1 ratio screen, and fill it completely with a SCOPE image, and end up with a smaller projected FLAT picture? There's not really enough difference in price of the towers to justify one over the other?  |  IP: Logged Josh Jones Redhat Posts: 1207 From: Plano, TX Registered: Apr 2000 posted 12-02-2002 09:22 AM                        Personally, I would go for fixed 2.39 screen an run a smaller flat image since it is harder to get light trough that small hole anyway, without damaging the film. Josh  |  IP: Logged Joe Beres Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 606 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 12-02-2002 09:45 AM                     I agree with Josh here, plus I think that you should try to show the film at, or as close as possible to, the correct aspect ratio.  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 12-02-2002 10:09 AM                        I've worked at two drive-in's with 2.35 screens and have never had a complaint about not filling the entire screen while running a flat picture. Just make sure that you file the 1.85 plates so that the picture is square on the screen.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 12-02-2002 12:27 PM                       Barry, Selby will try to sell narrow screens everytime because it has something to do with their material usage. I can attest from rote experience that a scope image on a 2:1 screen is more than a little cropped. And flat on those screens look like something is wrong yet. I would get the next size up of a narrow screen, and then just paint out the bottom to mask a correct scope ratio.  |  IP: Logged Randy Loy Expert Film Handler Posts: 156 Registered: Aug 1999 posted 12-02-2002 12:51 PM                     Barry, Debrean and I have visted about 270 drive-in theatres and seen films presented at over 80 drive-ins during the past 12 years so we've seen a lot of different screens. Some were built 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 and quite a few were built at a 2:1 ratio. We've even seen a few that were never added to after the advent of CinemaScope and still are "flat" screens even though we've seen scope films shown on them. In my opinion, the ends of a scope screen when unlit during the projection of a 1.85:1 image is not that noticeable in an outdoor setting. I doubt that most drive-in customers even pay attention to the fact that part of the screen is unused during a flat picture or not masked like many indoor screens are. In fact, now that I'm a projectionist myself I sometimes wonder how I could have missed the fact that favorite non-anamorphic films shown at drive-ins during my youth didn't fill the giant screen edge-to-edge. While it's something I think about now that I have some involvement in the industry, I never paid any attention prior to training in a booth. My guess is that most people would fall into that same category. Too much cropping is obviously a different story. I've seen a few drive-ins that use focal length lenses that are too short when doing 1.85:1 presentations. This of course results in cropping and I find that to be very noticeable. One drive-in manager explained to us that they did that because they wanted their patrons to enjoy the largest image they could provide, even with a flat picture. While I appreciated his attempt at showmanship, it just didn't work since the cropping was obvious. This past summer we saw "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimmaron" properly presented at one drive-in and then severely cropped at another. I noticed that the characters' eyes and foreheads kept disappearing off the top of the screen at the second drive-in, something that I think would have been noticeable even if I had not already seen the film properly presented. "Stallion" was followed at the second theatre by "The Sum of All Fears" and the subtitles used when the russians spoke disappeared off the right side of the screen. I have also seen a drive-in that used a flat lens that was too long and it resulted in white screen at the top and bottom as well as on both sides. That made be feel cheated more than having unfilled screen just at the sides. Fortunately, the last time I was there they had swiched to a proper focal length lens. To get back to your original question, It has been my observation that a 2:1 aspect ratio screen at a drive-in, while not preferrable to a 2.35:1 screen, is usually not too noticeably short for scope pictures as long as the proper focal length lens is used to give the proper height, top to bottom. However, if you can do the 2.35:1 screen, I think that would be the way to go. I wouldn't worry about the unused edges during flat presentations.  |  IP: Logged Michael Coate Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1904 From: Los Angeles, California Registered: Feb 2001 posted 12-02-2002 01:43 PM                     Why isn't it common (or is it?) for drive-in screens to utilize adjustable masking the way indoor/walk-in theaters have? If moveable masking (either manual or electronic) were used then certainly this screen size/aspect ratio dilemma wouldn't be a dilemma at all.  |  IP: Logged Randy Loy Expert Film Handler Posts: 156 Registered: Aug 1999 posted 12-02-2002 02:10 PM                     I'm sure Tim is right about there being substantial image loss when a scope picture is shown on a 2:1 screen. I guess that since most of the action takes place in the center of the frame the loss of the stuff at the ends probably isn't as noticeable in a lot of films. As far as masking on a drive-in screen, I've seen a few outdoor screens with fixed top and bottom masking but none with moveable side masking. I'm guessing that expense, potential problems with exposure to the elements for motorized units, and the hassles of manually moving side masking have prevented drive-ins from using side masking.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 12-02-2002 02:15 PM                        "Caring About Composition" does matter, even in a drive-in: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml IMHO, the aspect ratio of the screen should be 2.39:1, and you should fill it with the scope image. For 1.85:1 flat, fill the height of the screen and no one will complain about the side bars. Cropping the image (e.g., showing "flat" as 2.00:1) just loses light efficiency. Showing movies at the intended aspect ratio and composition are important parts of "Film Done Right".  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-02-2002 02:59 PM                        Since I'm considered to be the local "aspect ratio police" at the theatres here in my area :-) , I would definitely go with the 2.39:1 screen and file the flat plate to have a 1.85:1 image centered on the 2.39:1 screen while keeping the left and right edges as sharp and straight-looking as possible. 2.00:1 is a terrible aspect ratio to use if you plan to fill it for every movie. I always found the vertical cropping on flat films on those types of screens to be more objectionable to cropping scope to 2.00:1 since many flat films have very little leeway for further cropping to ratios larger than 1.85:1. Showing a movie in the correct aspect ratio with part of the screen unused is a lesser evil than enlarging and cropping to an incorrect screen aspect ratio. I know that it's unreasonable to expect a drive-in to have adjustable screen masking, so this is the best compromise. Fortunately, our "1.85:1-only" problem in two thirds of our Regal auditoriums here in Huntsville is supposedly being fixed this month. (Keeping my fingers crossed). It'll be great to be able to watch a scope movie in any auditorium and see the whole image instead of 77 percent of it after that work is done. (Top/bottom masking is a lesser evil than no masking at all and a 1.85:1-only screen.)  |  IP: Logged Robert E. Allen Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1078 From: Checotah, Oklahoma Registered: Jul 2002 posted 12-02-2002 03:20 PM                     I just want to add my support to what has been said here. NEVER crop the picture. You will be cheating your customers and presenting it in a different aspect ratio than was intended when the film was made. The one thing a theatre (even a drive-in) can do that TV is not yet doing (in most situations) is present the image and sound as was intended which is an excellent selling point for your ozoner. Good luck friend.  |  IP: Logged Barry Floyd Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1079 From: Lebanon, Tennessee, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 12-02-2002 04:22 PM                        My gut instinct was to go with the 2.39:1 to begin with, and most all of you seem to agree. At the Drive-In Owners Conference back in February of '02, we all drove down to a member's Florida Drive-In to watch a couple of shows. Black Hawk Down had numerous scenes that featured sub-titles, and all of them were unreadable as they were cropped off the screen. I had never noticed this before at a drive-in, but then again, I don't see too many films with sub-titles either. Thanks to all for the replies, we'll go with the 2.39:1 screens.... now we just have to decide who to build them.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 12-02-2002 06:08 PM                     Huh. You'd think they would have framed it up and cut off the top of the image... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Dave Bird Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 777 From: Perth, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jun 2000 posted 12-02-2002 06:11 PM                        There you go Barry! Having thought about it now, full scope is the way to go. Despite a possible perception problem with flat films "not filling the screen", a scope screen is the only way to show all films including flat "as big as you can" and properly. I don't even mind scope "letterboxed" top and bottom on a 2:1 screen, at least I'm seeing the whole film, but these guys who "fill it" look really bad when you can't read the opening credits or subtitles flying off into the night. Bottom line, we're the ones paying for it, and it'll bug the crap out of me to do it wrong....  |  IP: Logged Chris Erwin Expert Film Handler Posts: 195 From: Olive Hill,KY Registered: Oct 1999 posted 12-02-2002 07:04 PM                     Barry, You won't regret showing films in the correct ratio. More and more films are shot "on the line" and if you are cheating it shows. --Chris  |  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.