Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Is masking not 'cool' anymore? (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Is masking not 'cool' anymore?
Michael Brown
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1522
From: Bradford, England
Registered: May 2001

- posted 06-09-2004 06:47 PM      Profile for Michael Brown   Email Michael Brown   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
aka I don't expect to see letterboxing at cinemas.

What's with these new cinemas who don't have masking installed?

Can someone explain to them that masking is good!

The first maskingless cinema I went to had all 2.35:1 screen. Not so bad, scope movies filled the screen, flat movies are projected onto the centre of the screen not quiet filling the width. The edges are a bit blurred but what the hey. (Although sometimes the right side would have a nice sharp edge, achieved by slightly over cutting the aperture plate).

Today I went to see a scope movie at a maskingless cinema. (So it'll fill the screen I'm assuming.)
Turns out this small auditorium has a 1.85:1 screen. The film is presented letterbox in the middle. I'll wait and rent the DVD if I want to see letterbox! [Roll Eyes] (Also seemed to be slightly cropped. It looked like 2:1 not 2.35 and the cue dots were falling off the side of the screen)

Letterboxing in a cinema. It's ok for the occasional trailer, but for a whole feature?

If your going to insist on having common width for both formats at least get some top/bottom masking.

 |  IP: Logged
Mark Hajducki
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Edinburgh, UK
Registered: May 2003

- posted 06-09-2004 07:23 PM      Profile for Mark Hajducki   Email Mark Hajducki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Only one local cinema (UGC) is currently maskingless, their screens are 2.35:1 with no moving masking (even their scope films don't always touch the masking on all four sides, and I have seen them project subtitles onto the bottom {fixed} masking).

All the 1.85:1 sites I have seen have top masking and the picture is at the bottom of the screen, in some screens the picture is so over-enlarged that scope films are watchable.

 |  IP: Logged
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

- posted 06-09-2004 07:39 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's what you get for living in England. It's punishment for what you did to those peeps in Braveheart.

 |  IP: Logged
David Favel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 764
From: Ashburton, New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 06-09-2004 11:25 PM      Profile for David Favel   Email David Favel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Political, banned. [Embarrassed]

 |  IP: Logged
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

- posted 06-09-2004 11:51 PM      Profile for Pravin Ratnam   Email Pravin Ratnam   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
THat is not as bad as multiplexes showing 2.35:1 movies on screens that are obviosuly closeer to 2:1 or some ratio. I watched the end of kill bill2 again in some multiplex after getting out of my movie. The end credits where all 5 or 6 of Oren's bodyguards show up in split screens clearly shows that the image didn't fit on the screen. Parts of two bodyguards on either end of the frame were cut off.

 |  IP: Logged
Dean Kollet
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 591
From: Florida State University
Registered: Jul 2003

- posted 06-10-2004 12:19 AM      Profile for Dean Kollet   Email Dean Kollet   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
where did you see this in KB2, I have seen the same thing around your area....

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

- posted 06-10-2004 03:58 AM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It`s also what you get for living in the US. Tons of cinemas here are cropped to 1:2, especially most of the Edwards locations. Unfortunately, we have a few of those... Resetting them to true formats is one of my favorite projects but I have always had more urgent things to do so far.

 |  IP: Logged
John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

- posted 06-10-2004 09:06 AM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Caring About Composition:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/spring2001.shtml

quote:
Movies Are an Art Form and One Size Does Not Fit All

Unfortunately, many theatres have adopted the policy of "fixed masking" for some of their screens: all movies are shown with the same size image by cropping the sides of the wide 2.39:1 scope frame, and the top and bottom of the 1.85:1 flat frame.

Aside from the aesthetics, "one size fits all" screens degrade the image quality of the flat format by requiring excessive magnification of the frame to fill the screen. Grain and unsteadiness are magnified. Cropping the height of the image not only throws away important image area, it also throws away light. For example, reducing the standard 0.446-inch height of the 1.85:1 flat format to 0.412 inches in order to fit a 2.00:1 screen decreases the image area and available light by almost 8 percent.

Let's be frank: the main reason for this "one size fits all" mentality is to save money by not installing adjustable masking. Another poor reason may be to save a bit on the cost the screen and its frame. In my humble opinion, only historic "landmark" theatres with fixed narrow prosceniums built before the advent of CinemaScope have any legitimate excuse for not installing a screen able to provide a large scope image with the full 2.39:1 aspect ratio intended by filmmakers.


 |  IP: Logged
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

- posted 06-10-2004 09:29 AM      Profile for Thomas Procyk   Email Thomas Procyk   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, at least you're seeing the whole picture. Not like at a Cobb Jobb where the smaller theaters crop everything to 1.85. The screens went almost from floor to cieling, and would be more than ample to have top/bottom masking. Hell, some of these auditoriums were actually WIDE enough to have side-masking and still have the picture a good size... but no. [Frown]

=TMP=

 |  IP: Logged
Alexander Smith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 128
From: Walney Island, Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.
Registered: Jun 2003

- posted 06-10-2004 07:42 PM      Profile for Alexander Smith   Email Alexander Smith   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm glad to say there is correct masking to 1.85 and 2.35 at my place of work.

I have witnessed a masking-less cinema; The UCI Printworks in Manchester.
[That's Manchester, in the UK, for international readers ;-) ]

It does look quite lazy, compared to cinemas with proper masking. It's a
shame because it is the one thing that spoils an otherwise good cinema.
I'm biased slightly because it's my nearest IMAX...

Alex.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

- posted 06-10-2004 08:14 PM      Profile for Michael Schaffer   Author's Homepage   Email Michael Schaffer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Thomas Procyk
Not like at a Cobb Jobb where the smaller theaters crop everything to 1.85.
Shouldn`t that be Crobb Jobb then?

 |  IP: Logged
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002

- posted 06-10-2004 09:42 PM      Profile for Martin Brooks   Author's Homepage   Email Martin Brooks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No...it should be Crop Job (or Crap Job)

 |  IP: Logged
Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

- posted 06-12-2004 11:50 AM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The trend seems to be more and more towards the "floating screen" effect. I think this thinking originated in Europe...I don't agree that it works though.

Apart from looking poor, the concern must also be with the apparent contrast when whichever ratio that doesn't fill the screen is not masked off. If you consider that the film is graded and viewed on masked screens, then theatrical projection should follow suit.

Common width screen set-ups, with Scope fitted into the 1.85 area should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (e.g where a site is restricted and the auditorium cannot be made wider or shorter)...there's much valuable discussion of the drawbacks in the archives.

Ioan Allen of Dolby Laboratories also wrote an excellent paper on the subject - "Screen Size - the Impact on Picture and Sound" - it's on Dolby's website.

 |  IP: Logged
Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

- posted 06-12-2004 12:24 PM      Profile for Richard Fowler   Email Richard Fowler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Most of my sales of screen material on projects we did not supervise has been on floating / wrap around frames. On common width rooms we usually found ourselves having to prove to a customer to at least install top making so as not to have a horrible scope presentation on the screen. The cost of a non-masked wrap around frame is so much higher that a more simple angle iron frame and masking system can price out to be near the same cost [Roll Eyes]

 |  IP: Logged
David Graham Rose
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 187
From: Cambridge, UK
Registered: Sep 2002

- posted 06-12-2004 02:20 PM      Profile for David Graham Rose   Email David Graham Rose   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A belated greetings to all from Cambridge

Floating screens are not a new innovation here in the UK. Erno Goldfinger's (yes his real name) Odeon at the Elephant and Castle, designed in 1965, had a floating screen, as did the Odeon St. Martin's Lane in 1967. The latter was then retrofitted with tableaux curtains at a later date.

With kind wishes

David

 |  IP: Logged


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

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.