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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Five formats in one program (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Five formats in one program Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 08-10-2009 02:58 AM                        Thank goodness for a versatile automation. We are running My Sister's Keeper with two trailers and (as John Wilson advised) an attached trailer. First trailer is for a Scope feature and it is letterboxed flat. Next trailer is for a Scope feature and it is 1.85 flat. Attached trailer is for a flat feature and requires a lens change coz it is anamorphic. Trouble is the 10 second classification tag preceding it is Scope 2.35. So we compromise and leave the masking in till the Scope feature starts. This means that the tag info is contained ok within the masking but the rest of the tag image provides a yellow splash on the masking. It doesn't look good but I decided it would look silly if we went to full screen for the tag then closed masking for the trailer then opened up for the feature. How do constant width cinemas cope with this situation?  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 08-10-2009 03:08 AM                     quote: Ron Curran Attached trailer is for a flat feature and requires a lens change coz it is anamorphic Interesting that the attached trailer needs a lens change...being that the feature is in scope. It should be formatted for the scope lens as well. quote: Ron Curran Trouble is the 10 second classification tag preceding it is Scope 2.35. .. splice in the classification tag after the attached trailer to match the feature's ratio. Thus, you'll have a better opening presentation that way .. In all due actuality, any policy tags should be after your trailer paks - it should separate the trailers from the feature. -Monte  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2009 03:16 AM                     quote: Monte L Fullmer Interesting that the attached trailer needs a lens change He didn't say that. I find it amazing that they can't just blow the flat versions of the scope trailers up to fill the frame. Obviously there would be SOME trailers that would not work for, but come on. How prescious is your movie that you'd prefer an abundance of black top and bottom to a full frame image? Same goes for Scope versions of a flat trailer where it's 'pillarboxed' Fill the damn frame for goodness sake. Just dumb and I wish they would stop it.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 08-10-2009 03:53 AM                        quote: John Wilson Fill the damn frame for goodness sake. So, how do you watch DVDs on your 4:3 TV? Go for the pan and scan?  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2009 04:07 AM                     I'm not talking about the movie, just the trailers. We never had this issue before TITANIC came out it seems. Fox brought out that great trailer for TITANIC in scope only here. Then when they found out there were locations not playing them because they were in scope they shot out the flat version in letterbox format. It's never been the same since. They managed for years to have scope movies' trailer fill the flat frame. Seems to me they've simply taken the easy road instead of having to 'scan' a problem scene to make it fit. Right now I'm looking at a trailer for some slop called 'Charlie And Boots' with Paul Hogan. It's letterboxed and I can't see a single frame on the trailer that justifies it being letterboxed. There's miles of image there that would be better served not being there instead of having to put up with letterboxing black. I'm not saying ALL trailers should do this, but come on. Does EVERY trailer need to be letterboxed? I seriously doubt it.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-10-2009 08:21 AM                     Sadly, I have the impression that Somebody Out There actually believes that people like black bars, and think they are an indicator of something good. I keep saying we should get a "letterboxed" lens that's longer than our flat lens exclusively for the purpose of blowing up these letterboxed flat trailers so they fill the height properly...Somebody's old cokebottle... --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2009 09:29 AM                     Psssst...you meant "shorter" lens for blowing the image up.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 08-10-2009 09:34 AM                     Indeed, indeed, thanks. (With a longer lens we could make all films windowboxed! Sadly some fools might like that. ) --jhawk  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 08-10-2009 11:30 AM                        My inner geek-nerd wants scope source material to be letterboxed when projected flat, whether it needs it or not.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2009 11:52 AM                     I actually agree. If it is letterboxed on the film, then letterbox it on the screen. But what I think John is saying is to merely magnify the whole image so that it is shown in on the "scope" screen. Steve  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-10-2009 04:56 PM                     I agree with that. Flat is crappy enough without blowing it up further. No, indeed I mean blow it up to fill the 1.85 frame or blow the 1.85 image up to fill the scope frame.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 08-10-2009 07:41 PM                        The other rotten thing about letterboxed trailers is this: If we have an all-flat program, I feel that some of the audience will assume that the letterbox image indicates how our Scope features will be presented. Just to clarify: the classification tag is legally required to run before the trailer. One thing I could do is attach a flat tag (for the following trailer) to the end of the flat trailer then do a lens change after that then open the masking for the feature. As for Flat trailers filling the Scope screen, I remember Saving Private Ryan had such a trailer specially produced. However, as a customer, I would be disappointed if I saw the feature was flat after seeing a Scope trailer.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-11-2009 11:48 AM                        Digital will fix all this.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 08-11-2009 03:45 PM                     Right. Features are now to be letterboxed.  |  IP: Logged John Koutsoumis Master Film Handler Posts: 261 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Aug 2003 posted 08-12-2009 06:14 PM                     Scope films in IMAX Digital are letterboxed. I hate scope trailers and prefer letterboxed ones anyday. Only the feature should be in scope.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

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.