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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » HUGO 3D in different aspect ratio (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: HUGO 3D in different aspect ratio Rob Alexander Film Handler Posts: 4 From: Palm Springs, CA Registered: Mar 2011 posted 12-12-2011 01:32 PM                  Greetings from someone who is a cinema and film lover/dork. I have an odd question for you all and I hope someone will have the answer. My local IMAX (15/70 SR system), recently added two Christie digital projectors on top of the SR systems in the booth. They use these to share product with their 14 plex across the parking lot during a lull in IMAX releases. It is NOT a digital IMAX theater but an SR Theater. They however only get 4 or 5 IMAX DMR features a year. This week, they stopped showing Happy Feet, and moved over HUGO to the big screen until MI4 opens Thursday night. (other times they show the 70mm IMAX films in tandem throughout the day with digital mainstream films). My question is that I went to see HUGO last night in the IMAX theater (they used XpanD 3D). The entire screen was used. How is that possible? I looked on IMDB, and they list the aspect ratio at 1.85. I saw Lion King in 1.85 here last month and there was unused screen above and below the picture, but not for HUGO. It looked like 1.44 aspect ratio. BTW, the image was way too dark, even with two projectors. I asked one of the staff and he looked at me as if I was from another world so I just moved on. thanks!  |  IP: Logged Dave Macaulay Film God Posts: 2321 From: Toronto, Canada Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-13-2011 09:39 AM                     It's rather easy to ovefill the screen and adjust the electronic masking in the projectors to fit. This is almost always done to some extent with digital projection, with film projection the same thing is done by filing the aperture plate to fit the screen. There's usually some keystoning to compensate for and the screen may be a bit "off size to get the best scope or flat image, leaving the other imperfect. With perfect projection geometry and a perfectly sized screen and prefectly adjusted screen masking, it's possible to use 100% of the digital image on screen, and to cut aperture plates to use the maximum safe area on the film if the throw and screen size are perfect for an available lens size (35mm lenses are almost always a fixed focal length and zoom adapters degrade the image). However, showing a 1.85:1 image on a 1.44:1 screen as you describe is a truly terrible practice. I understand that letterboxing the image bothers some people. What you describe means they're discarding a lot of picture information: cinematographers always use a safe image area that avoids having really important images at the extreme sides of the frame - mostly to accommodate standard definition TV transfers - but in a theatrical venue the full image should be projected. Also, you lose image resolution and brightness. Both are usually poor with digital 3D on a large screen, even with dual projectors. I guess they expect to get fewer complaints about a dim cropped image than they would with a letterboxed one. Or they just don't care. Maybe - hopefully? - they just picked the wrong lens (not unheard of) and this is the best they can do until a new lens arrives?  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-13-2011 11:04 AM                        About that..."35mm lenses are almost always a fixed focal length and zoom adapters degrade the image" That's always been a given, but I've never heard a decent explanation of why the same axiom doesn't apply to digital lenses. Same physics no matter what's behind the lens that it needs to focus on the screen, no? Although Schneider does have a kind of semi-zoom/semi-fixed lens that does give you some zoom to allow you to tweak enough to compensate for those situations where the fixed focal length increiments don't come out perfect for your throw. I once wrote to them and asked if that variable was enough so that I could use a single lens for both 1.85:1 and 1.66. They said they would get back to me, never did. Sure would be nice for art houses to only need to buy one lens for two aspect ratios. Certainly it would be great to need only one lens for silent and sound Academy formats. I never got the funds so I didn't pursue it. Interesting issue though.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 12-13-2011 12:04 PM                        Zoom lenses still have the same issues with digital images, just as they do with film images. But because the ultimate resolution of current digital images is rather limited compared to what's possible with film, digital lenses can "get away" with somewhat lower optical performance standards. Those standards can be met using zoom lenses. The same issue occurs in television production when compared with film production. In video, zooms are commonplace whereas with film, fixed primes are more common, though there are some film zooms that give excellent results. But one can still measure some fairly big differences in optical performance between good video lenses and good film lenses. Again, the reduced resolution requirements of 1080p production allow the use of lenses that can get by with lower optical performance specs. The same thing happens with projection. We use zooms in digital projection because we can get away with it and still achieve good quality images that are limited by the image or imager and not by the lens.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-14-2011 09:49 AM                        Ah...I get it. Mediocre begets mediocre.  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 12-17-2011 07:53 PM                     I'm confused. I saw Hugo in 3D at the Century 24 theatre in San Jose...the one with these screwed up aspect ratio problems with their digital projection. I also read on Imdb that it was 1.85, which was the only reason why I decided to go to the Century 24 to see it, since it would fit the entire screen as it should. But low and behold, they projected it in letterboxed 2.39 scope, with the black (blank screen) bars at the top and the bottom of the screen... So, is it flat or scope? Is this something else to be worried about now with digital projection and the Century 24? I am really trying to support the industry, but this is getting rediculous....  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-17-2011 08:40 PM                        Hugo is definitely flat.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-17-2011 10:28 PM                     This topic is pointing the finger at "Lion King" which was not presented in 1.85:1 for digital presentations, but the 1.66:1 as in a previous thread. The DCP file was copied from the 1.66:1 film negative, thus the DCP image on the screen had slight black vertical bars on the side for a standard DCP presentation. Now, the IMAX place that used the "SR" 15/70mm projectors, prob has a screen size of 58ft x 75ft giving us a screen ratio of 1.29:1, since one frame of 15/70mm film is at a ratio of 1.2:1 Thus "Lion King" would be projected smaller to fit within these ratio figures - why the dark top and bottom of the image. Thus, for "HUGO", it was prob presented in a full 1.33:1 (4/3) ratio to fill the screen.  |  IP: Logged Jeffry L. Johnson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 809 From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 12-18-2011 03:26 PM                        quote: Monte L Fullmer one frame of 15/70mm film is at a ratio of 1.2:1 IMAX frame is 69.6 x 48.5 mm.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-18-2011 04:46 PM                     1.44:1 ... wish some sites would get their facts straight where I picked up this above info.... sorry on the mislead.  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 12-18-2011 08:49 PM                     Went to a different theatre today, and wandered into the Hugo 3D auditorium and low and behold, it was being shown in 1.85 Flat! Yet like I said when I saw it at the Century 24 it was letterboxed 2.39 scope. I guess there are two different versions out there....  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 12-18-2011 09:22 PM                     ... or there's one version that's being played incorrectly at one particular theater...  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 12-18-2011 10:12 PM                     not really an aspect ratio comment, but, I sat through the end credits and I noticed that the Dolby Logo included "7.1" next to it - has any other film been denoted as such, it's the first time I noticed it. (The newspaper ads in the New York Times noted that 'The Muppets' was released in 7.1) If Dolby is going to include the 7.1, they should ALSO put it on the one-sheet posters. Just my two cents here.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 12-19-2011 02:24 AM                     quote: Eric Hooper Yet like I said when I saw it at the Century 24 it was letterboxed 2.39 scope. Yep, "digital booth goons" used the wrong template again with someone that made the playlist, used the scope template instead of the flat template. Why it went wide screen and can look okey, but crops the top and bottom of the image real good. Afraid, this is the next evidence of inexperienced booth operations...and this is what digital was supposed to replace film with....to end stupidity. But stupid people can't read both the build sheet that comes in the cases and on the CRU power supply case itself which clearly depicts which lens format to use. quote: Jonathan Goeldner If Dolby is going to include the 7.1, they should ALSO put it on the one-sheet posters. Just my two cents here. Not gonna happen since 7.1 isn't the main sound format yet. Where there words mentioning, "in selected theatres" next to this description in the end credits?  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 12-20-2011 12:38 AM                     Seriously, there are templates for flat or scope? It's wretched enough the Century 24 has permanetly drawn their side masking screens to FLAT, and are showing scope movies letterboxed inside the FLAT screen area, but now they can't even get FLAT movies to show correctly? I am done with them for good now...  |  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.