|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: So are DCPs usually available in multiple ARs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
![](/ubbmembers/840f.jpg)
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|