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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » "UP!" Image Undersized? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "UP!" Image Undersized? Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 07-01-2009 08:28 AM                     Has anyone else noticed that the image on 35mm prints is apparantly slightly horizontally undersized? I just moved the print from a large auditorum to a smaller one, which has quite a downward projection angle. I now have two annoying uneven vertical black bars on the upper edge of the screen. What makes them even more noticeable is that they are not perfectly vertical due to the steep projection angle. If I close the masking enough to put the bars into the black, then I'm cutting off a significant part of the picture at the lower end of the screen. Yes, my aperture plate is cut in a "reverse trapazoid" to compensate for the angle, and NO - I don't have it in upside down. I've run my RP-40 loop and my horizonal image area is where it should be, although that auditorium does have some slight vertical cut-off which is normal or that room. I haven't had a chance to examine the print yet, but since I've never had this problem with any other film in that auditorium and things check out OK with my test loop I can only assume that the image on the UP print is slightly undersized. For now, I'm running it with the annoying tilted vertical bars, since closing the masking to hide them cuts off too much of the lower image area. Has anybody else noticed this?  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 07-01-2009 03:14 PM                     I found that CGI movies are often printed exactly within specs, nothing more (I suppose because otherwise it would require extra rendering job). I had some screens with Flat image few centimeters smaller than PA35 image (just few centimeters at corners) and some CGI movies were just like PA35 image, projecting a small black border at corners. Maybe your screen allows projection sligthly out of specs at top, and with this movie you can see it?  |  IP: Logged Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 07-01-2009 04:08 PM                     I noticed in one of the auditoriums that you need to be very critical about your frame knob, otherwise you'll see a bit of the frame line on the top or bottom. I also noticed the frame position slightly disagrees with one of our house trailers (but it's probably the house trailer that is a little off). I guess on the bright side we should be happy they didn't send a notice to adjust lenses and light output with this pixar movie.  |  IP: Logged Victor Liorentas Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: london ontario canada Registered: May 2009 posted 07-01-2009 05:23 PM                     Going as far back as Monsters INC , the position will vary reel to reel!? This is fine if someone can re frame every reel all day long! If not it is hard to avoid getting black at the top and then the next reel at the bottom,it's harder than keeping subtitles in the safe zone.  |  IP: Logged Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 07-01-2009 05:27 PM                     Maybe they're forced into weird aspect ratios to ease development of CGI films?? I always wondered if maybe they adjusted the frame sizes so that it would transfer to DVD/Blu-ray more easily....  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-01-2009 08:26 PM                     I'm playing it now in a regular house and noticed this bar on the right side. And yes, there is a bit of keystone due to the slight downward angle of our machine. It looks like it came off of the digital release master - just like the anamporphic Pixar releases lately having a thicker frame line - also prob from a digital release master. Only thing I could recommend is to have special under cut aperture plates for PIXAR released films to remedy this keystone situation here.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 07-01-2009 09:22 PM                     Or if possible, pull your top masking in a little bit. Things might get tight, but it would be better than mattes jumping into the picture.  |  IP: Logged Jarret Chessell Master Film Handler Posts: 288 From: London, Ontario, Canada Registered: Jan 2009 posted 07-01-2009 10:30 PM                     If you have an undercut aperture plates then you would likely need to reset your masking anyways unless you want to have some shorter focal length lenses on hand.  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 07-02-2009 09:42 PM                     Here's an actual frame scan from UP! As you can see, the image IS slightly horizontally undersized. In many auditoriums this is probably not a problem, and the masking can be adjusted accordingly. But in my particular situation, we're projecting it in an auditorium with a steep downward slope which means I wind up with diverging black lines on each side of the screen. If I close the masking enough to hide the uneven lines at the top of the screen, then I loose a significant amount of image on the bottom of the screen which winds up being projected "into the black" of the masking. I've managed to find "compromise" masking setting, which still leaves me with some annoying (to me) un-parallel image edges at the top of ths screen, without cutting too much off with the masking at the bottom. It will have to do for now. I don't have the time to file a new custom undersized trapazoidal aperture plate just for the last week of this flick.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-03-2009 06:39 AM                     I'm curious...can you take a picture of your actual screen with 35PA projecting? Both with the masking full open (to see the edges of the plate) and with it set the way you like it. Steve  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-03-2009 08:16 AM                     quote: Jim Cassedy As you can see, the image IS slightly horizontally undersized. Have you actually measured the image in the frame to see if it is really "undersized"? It just looks like it is hard masked to 1.85:1 or 1.66:1. As far as I've ever noticed and going back for quite a while almost all animited and CGI films are done this way. Why spend the mondey drawing (in the case of old animation) or rendering (in the case of CGI) parts of the frame that are supposed to be maked off. My guess would be that "Up" is rendered at exactly 1.85:1 and you've never noticed this before because your masking is slightly "wide" and prior animated stuff was "zoomed" a little and printed larger than spec.  |  IP: Logged Jack Theakston Master Film Handler Posts: 411 From: New York, USA Registered: Sep 2007 posted 07-03-2009 01:08 PM                     Exactly. The above image is hard matted to exactly 1.85, which is unusual practice for this very reason. I'm betting because of the keystone, Jim's plates are a little overcut. That being said, pull in the masking, or cut a new plate.  |  IP: Logged Mike Babb Master Film Handler Posts: 250 From: Norwich UK Registered: Jul 2002 posted 07-04-2009 12:45 PM                        I wonder if this is due to the floating box and safe/green area used in the digital copies?  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-04-2009 04:00 PM                     It's certainly hard to tell from Jim's picture. Jim, when you say, "As you can see, the image IS slightly horizontally undersized," if you're referring to the black space between the DTS timecode and the left edge of the image, then that is not evidence of being undersized. DTS specifies that the center of the timecode falls 0.299" from the reference edge of the film. SMPTE 195 specifies that Dimension D, the distance from the reference edge to the projectable image area, is 0.324". So typically there is 0.025" of space there, or just under 1/32" of an inch. But with non-animation, there is the distinction between the projectable image area and the "film image area," the latter of which isn't defiend in SMPTE 195, but can be substantially larger. Typically that area extends much closer to the soundtrack, because of the camera aperture, etc. As many have said, it seems likely that UP! is matted to exactly 0.825" wide, rather than filling the extra space with slop. Your scan isn't quite high resolution to tell with precision, but let's try anyway. Assuming that that the horizontal and vertical are scanned at 1:1, measuring the top of the upper left perforation to the top of the next perforation down, we get 57 pixels. Since the perforation pitch is 0.187", then we conclude your scan is at 57/0.187 => 304.813 px/inch. Measuring the width of the image across the top, I get 248 px, which comes out to 0.814". Which is just undersized from 0.825", the specification. But it would only have to be 252 px, or four more, in order to get 0.825". And because the pixel boundaries are fuzzy, I think there could well be 2 more pixels on either side. So I don't think the measurement here is instructive. Things being what they are, I would tend to suspect that your apertures are indeed oversized, and you make use of the extra area in the camera aperture in most cases, and it's only for a film like UP! that's digitally rendered without attention to this question that you have a problem. But conceivably you might see the same effect from any Digital Intermediate film. So run some RP40 (35PA or 35IQ) and let us know! --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 07-04-2009 07:53 PM                     I'd still cut a new plate for there could be more PIXAR releases in the flat format where this printing procedure could repeat itself in those future releases. And, on this same topic - did we also notice, with the SCOPE releases of PiXAR, of the heavier framelines and the thicker edge on each side of the image on the film than a standard anamorphic release print? -Monte  |  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.