Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs?

William Kucharski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 244
From: Louisville, Colorado, United States of America
Registered: Oct 2012

posted 04-17-2013 02:12 AM

On a different thread, a manager at Alamo Drafthouse in Littleton, CO said that the reason they played The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in the wrong AR is that they were sent the wrong format DCP.

Are studios/bookers really producing DCPs for 2.35:1 films (at least for repertory titles) in multiple ARs?

I obviously know they make pan & scan 16:9 versions for HBO/cable but didn't know they distributed them on DCP as well.

The DCP in question apparently came from Park Circus, as their logo preceded the presentation.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-17-2013 10:16 AM

A year ago I would have said "no way." Nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-17-2013 05:18 PM

It's certainly not normal. Some new releases sometimes come out in different ARs. Most prominent example probably AVATAR, but that was planned and shot that way.

I would say, normally you only have different AR between 'standard' and 'IMAX' releases, when special footage has been shot for an IMAX dedicated release.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-17-2013 06:46 PM

It's not really something new actually.

Stanley Kubrick for example, extensively used open matte. Also Steven Spielberg and Terry Gilliam have used it. Those movies were shot with different aspect ratios in mind.

I'm fine with DCPs for multiple aspect ratios if the movie was made for it. That way the venue can choose the most optimal aspect ratio for their screen.

In any case, Pan & Scan should really be avoided...

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 04-18-2013 12:16 PM

There were two ARs for the recent release Escape from Planet Earth:
1.85:1 for the 2D prints
2.39:1 for the 3D prints with black bars on the sides, specifically so certain 3D effects appeared to look as if they were "popping" off the screen.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-18-2013 12:45 PM

There is no excuse for the The Good, The Bad & The Ugly having anything other than one DCP in 'scope aspect ratio. Any other ratio is wrong.

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly was shot in the 2-perf 35mm Techniscope process. It only has a 'scope aspect ratio. There's no extra top & bottom to the image where it can be opened up to 1.85:1 or 1.77:1 like modern 3-perf & 4-perf Super 35 imagery.

Likewise, anything shot in 4-perf anamorphic 35mm should only have a 'scope ratio DCP. Anything more narrow is panning and scanning.

In the past, I've only seen Super35 movies restore top & bottom imagery for use on home video, either for old 1.33:1 TV sets or 1.77:1 HD monitors. Still, you can watch "full screen" versions of Super35 lensed movies like The Matrix or Titanic and see numerous shots that are still panned and scanned. Sometimes the severe cropping is done to maintain a dramatic close-up shot and not have it look like the camera has pulled out to a medium close shot. Lots of visual effects sequences in Super35 movies are rendered in 2.39:1 ratio, which forced heavy panning and scanning for 1.33:1 TV sets.

Just about all new Hollywood movies are post-produced using digital intermediate work flows. If the digital intermediate is rendered only in a 2.39:1 ratio then it will be best only to make DCPs based on that, especially if it is just a very common 2K resolution digital intermediate. A 1998 X 1080 extraction of a 2048 X 852 pixel image would involve artificially enlarging the image 126% and then lopping off the sides. The end result would be noticeably softer looking. Very bad practice.

With more movies being shot using video cameras, it's not surprising to see some movies being output in multiple aspect ratios. The 1.77:1 ratio is native to most video cameras and HDTV sets. 2.39:1 would merely be an extraction out of the middle of the frame.

Ultimately, I think the 'scope aspect ratio is going to come under some serious pressure. The 'scope format sucks under D-cinema. It's basically the lowest resolution image out of the various formats that can be played. The only advantage I see with the 'scope format in d-cinema is it doesn't require as much render time or hard disc space. People think the super wide frame looks cool, so very few people mind just what's really happening.

Long term, I see a slow trend toward everything going taller. First there will be growth with 1.85:1 stuff and then just about everything will be 1.77:1. Too many new movie theaters feature wall to wall screens where 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or even 1.66:1 is showing off the whole screen and 'scope has to be top masked. That way Driving Miss Daisy can be bigger than Die Hard. IMAX Digital and similar theaters just take the flat ratio wall to wall screen concept to a slightly bigger scale. Because those premium priced screens are generating more profit, a lot more movies will be geared to look best on those kinds of screens. That means more flat ratio stuff and less of 'scope.

Most viewers at home still don't like black bars on 'scope movies, even if the black bars are small on a HDTV monitor. For now, networks like Shotime & HD Net Movies are tending to show movies in their original aspect ratios, letter-boxing 'scope movies. I think they'll eventually go the route HBO has chosen for many years: pan and scan the 'scope movies for the 1.77:1 frame.

The future doesn't look good for the 'scope format.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-18-2013 09:24 PM

What you say makes sense, but on the other hand I just looked at the list of the 45 most recent movies on I.M.E. (after that, a few films don't have their format listed). Of those 45 movies, only 10 are in flat -- all the rest are scope. It seems more movies than ever are in scope these days. But with the proliferation of Imax I can see the trend toward a taller picture.

The savior of Scope might be the moviemakers themselves, who prefer the wide format.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-18-2013 10:25 PM

I agree 'scope is very prevalent. But I think its use is part of a trend more than a decade old. Since the late 1990s there were many instances where the Carmike 8 theater here in town would be playing nothing but 'scope movies.

The 'scope format was used quite a bit in the 1970's. I'm not absolutely certain, but am pretty sure 'scope use dropped off a lot during the mid to late 1980's when the home video rental boom got going. Movie studios became more concerned about making new movies home video friendly. The Super35 format and DVD replacing VHS as the primary movie rental platform helped 'scope make a comeback.

I also have a theory 'scope has been used as a sort of cost cutting measure in digital formats. Letter-boxed movies use up less data bandwidth and disc capacity on DVD and Blu-ray discs. The lower pixel counts mean shorter rendering times for CG effects, compositing and digital intermediate work.

With the 'scope format not properly treated in d-cinema and other previously mentioned trends I would not be surprised to suddenly see a lot of flat ratio only movies being released.

But who knows? We could end up with a situation where lots of movies routinely send out flat and scope ratio DCPs for theaters using either side masking or top masking. I don't particularly like that idea though. I think cinematography looks a lot better when the shots are composed for only one aspect ratio rather than trying to play it safe across 2 or more aspect ratios.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-19-2013 01:46 AM

For a long time, european movies basically all were shot flat (except for big budget UK productions maybe). That has changed and we see a lot of local stuff being produced in scope. In recent years, even romantic comedies, arthouse, etc. is shot and released in 2.35. Yes, this may only be a 'trend', but I can't see why it shouldn't last.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-19-2013 09:07 AM

The problem with 'scope is its continued popularity is based 100% on aesthetics and little else.

'Scope had certain technical advantages with 35mm film. The entire 4-perf frame was being used. When done right that meant better image quality when the frame was being photographed and a brighter image when being projected. Those technical advantages 'scope had with 35mm film are gone with d-cinema. The reverse is true now. Fewer pixels being rendered in the DCP. Fewer pixels being projected (and zoomed up to a bigger size if projected on a common height screen).

IMHO, 'scope in d-cinema should have been treated the same way widescreen content was treated on DVD: anamorphic squeeze. Establish the 1080 pixel tall imager as common height for all aspect ratios. Use a moderate squeeze to fit 2.39:1 content into the 2048 X 1080 imager's frame. Of course this would make for a more complicated digital projector setup. But 35mm handled dual lenses on turrets for decades. It would seem like digital technology, as great as it is hyped to be, would have no problem adapting to that.

Instead, we're stuck with projectors using only one lens. The biggest, super-wide format in movies is now the smallest format.
[Frown]

I think if enough theaters are built with common width screens we're going to see the popularity of 'scope really decline over the next few years. If nothing is done to improve how 'scope is recorded onto DCPs and how it is projected I don't see 'scope even surviving at all in commercial theaters beyond the 2020 to 2025 time frame. By then everything may be shown in a 16:9 ratio.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 04-19-2013 12:47 PM

Aesthetics is as good a reason as any.

Shame we can't ask David Lean if he's still shoot Lawrence of Arabia in widescreen if he did it with a 4k digital camera.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 04-19-2013 01:07 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
'Scope had certain technical advantages with 35mm film. The entire 4-perf frame was being used. When done right that meant better image quality when the frame was being photographed and a brighter image when being projected. Those technical advantages 'scope had with 35mm film are gone with d-cinema.

Bobby - nothing of the above was the idea behind scope - it was the WIDER picture. These other advantages came with it, but the ultrawide image is still preferred nowadays because of it's massive impression. And that is still there with digital.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-19-2013 01:20 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
...in digital formats. Letter-boxed movies use up less data bandwidth and disc capacity on DVD and Blu-ray discs. The lower pixel counts mean shorter rendering times for CG effects, compositing and digital intermediate work.

There's your answer Bobby, shorter rendering times cost less money; the bean-counters and "cheaper" always will win out.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-19-2013 01:27 PM

quote: Edward Havens
Shame we can't ask David Lean if he's still shoot Lawrence of Arabia in widescreen if he did it with a 4k digital camera.

Back in the day David Lean chose to shoot Lawrence of Arabia in Super Panavision 70mm, as opposed to taking the much easier & cheaper approach of shooting it in 35mm CinemaScope like he did with his previous film, The Bridge on the River Kwai. He chose to film L.O.A. in the highest quality film format available. If Lean was alive today and about to produce L.O.A. he might try to shoot it in 15/65mm IMAX.

quote: Carsten Kurz
These other advantages came with it, but the ultrawide image is still preferred nowadays because of it's massive impression. And that is still there with digital.

Not really. Not when 16x9 is basically the biggest and widest image for a growing number of movie screens -particularly the more profitable IMAX Digital screens and its wannabe counterparts. 'Scope is just a mere letterboxed image inside of that wall to wall screen. Basically the experience of watching a movie in 'scope at home, letterboxed on a TV set, is being transferred into the commercial movie theater. That's pretty backward.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 04-19-2013 05:22 PM

I might be a bit biased, scope is my favorite AR for most movies and I really want it to stay. Many modern multiplexes have wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling screens in scope format. The whole auditorium was built with that format in mind.

The DCI specs should be upgraded to allow true anamorphic DCPs. Also, since price for proper equipment will come down and manufacturers are already starting to push Ultra-HD TVs, I hope the era of 2K acquisition, intermediates and post-production will come to an end rather quickly and 4K or even 5K will be the norm.

I don't really believe that any large studio, director, etc. will choose scope, because it will save a "few bytes" during production or release. I do believe that, in some cases, the release formats (like Digital IMAX, some "premium experience" formula and the "rental" release) do have an impact on the choice of the aspect ratio.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.