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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Cave of Forgotten Dreams DCP Aspect Ratio (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Cave of Forgotten Dreams DCP Aspect Ratio Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-04-2011 04:07 PM                     Technicolor DCP info sheet for "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" specifies 2.39AR but the intro logos and end titles appear cropped in that format. Bluray backup is 16x9 (full frame). Tested the DCP in 1.85 and the picture information is 1.85. Phoned Technicolor - the 35mm film prints are 1.85. Apparently, there has been some miscommunication about how the DCP should be presented. We have been "okay'ed" to run the DCP (3D) as 1.85.  |  IP: Logged Travis Cape Expert Film Handler Posts: 122 From: St. Louis, MO, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 06-04-2011 04:55 PM                     Manny, A theater here had the same problem. The DCP looks best as 1.85 regardless of what Technicolor believes. Travis  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-04-2011 05:41 PM                     As of this afternoon, Technicolor is aware of the error. Of course, it is anyone's guess whether the corrected information will trickle down to theatres that are still showing the film...or whether that will happen in a timely fashion. That's why I started this thread. Technicolor has okay'ed us to run this at 1.85 and that is in fact what we are doing.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-04-2011 07:37 PM                     On film, I would show it 1.78:1 (16:9). It is hard matted and 1.85 is definitely not its best ratio. I'm curious on the DCP if it fills the entire width of the 1.85 image. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 06-04-2011 10:35 PM                     when I saw the first show of the film at AMC Hoffman (opening day) they projected the film at 2.35 - and the cropping was VERY apparent - needless to say I was very annoyed. I brought up the problem to the manager after the screening  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-04-2011 11:57 PM                     Steve - Yes, the DCP fills the 1.85AR width. I wondered if there was more information above/below the 1.85 frame but I did not have time between our only 2 shows to investigate. Clarify - Is the 35mm version hard matted as 1.78 or 1.85?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2011 02:44 AM                     Another quick Chris Slycord impersonation... If you ran the DCP in 1.85, then there couldn't possibly have been any extra information above or below the 1.85 frame since you were using the entire height of the DMD.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-05-2011 02:16 PM                     Doh!  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-05-2011 02:59 PM                        Geez, five plus years into digital and they haven't standarized simple specs like aspect ratios yet? How difficult is it when there are only two different ratios to get right? When would we ever need to ask whether or not the 1.85 image fills the entire width of the frame in film? Just seems to me like a lot of fudging going on, and especially when digital was supposed to make booth operation pretty much a turn-key, low-tech or even no-tech operation. So why is there so much guess-work at the end-user level when we know that can easily be no more tech savvy than an assistant manager...maybe even a glorified usher/"booth attendant"?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 06-05-2011 04:18 PM                     Frank, it was a typo. No need to create a rant about something that isn't there. It is no worse than if you got a 35mm print in of a movie that was scope but the paperwork said 1.85  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-05-2011 04:24 PM                        Ah, ok. But it does seem like there are quite a few issues revolving around aspect ratios projected incorrectly in this forum. Just made me wonder as all.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-05-2011 04:42 PM                     Personally, I think it might have been hard matted 1.78 on 35mm film, definitely no more than 1.85. One thing is for sure, you won't have any "fringe" from the aperture plate showing on the top and bottom on the masking...It will be crisp! Better frame it PERFECTLY and hope the bi-directional printing was all biased the same for your print. -Steve  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-05-2011 04:53 PM                        I have seen scope digital on a 16:9 screen without top and bottom masking adjusted and the picture is, as you say, so sharp edged that as long as the room has low ambient light like as it is supposed to, you can almost forget that the screen is not properly masked; the optical illusion can convince you that it's a hard masked image -- not that it's what you want theatres to do, but it's not nearly as obvious or annoying as film that's not masked properly.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 06-06-2011 12:30 PM                     I saw Cave on opening night at a Century Theatre in Walnut Creek about a month ago, and it was in 1.85:1. Don't know if they called it in or just saw it was the correct format, but it was a beautiful presentation considering how it was shot, and it's a movie I urge everyone to see.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 06-06-2011 09:12 PM                     Edward; I assume the screening you saw was digital 3D - right? off topic - interesting that some well established indie directors are taking the 3D plunge - I'm looking forward to seeing Wim Wender's dance film: 'Pina'  |  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.