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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: "70mm" DCPs and their formatting (and other classic titles converted to DCP) Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-09-2013 08:38 PM                     Similar to another topic...the DCP conversions of 70mm titles with 2.2 ratios. I've seen Lawrence of Arabia and know that they chose to have it fit within the "Scope" pixel range. It was 4K so it was 3774 x 1716. I'm sure this was done for universal acceptance by all cinemas. However, it would have been better, image wise, to use all of the width and had a 4096 x 1862. The resolution is there on the film and most any cinema that was going to run "rep" titles could have another lens preset to deal with the "70mm" format. It still would have had universal acceptance. My question is...can anyone confirm a 70mm title that uses the full pixel width and retains the 2.2 ratio?  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-09-2013 09:01 PM                     I've yet to have one that was full width. They're typically 2.2 inside 2.39. IIRC "2001" was 2.2 inside 16x9.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-09-2013 10:02 PM                     These people suck!  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 09-10-2013 05:31 AM                     Well I come across many sites and operators who would never touch their formats, not even dare to operate the manual controls for zoom and focus because they are too afraid screw something they don't understand. I guess distributors take this into account and will avoid any formats that cause 'real' issues on these sites. That is, they will probably always accept some letterboxing or pillarboxing in favor of other more serious issues. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Jock Blakley Expert Film Handler Posts: 218 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Oct 2011 posted 09-10-2013 09:09 AM                     It's been a long time since we ran it but I do have a vague recollection that SOUTH PACIFIC was 2.20:1 at full height, as I think THE SOUND OF MUSIC was too. We'll be getting WEST SIDE STORY soon so I'll be able to check that.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-10-2013 12:21 PM                     Ben-Hur 2.76 inside 2.39 Looked pretty good, but we experienced lip-sync issues . 2001: A Space Odyssey 2.2 inside 1.85 77GB total for both parts Allegedly a glorified Bluray but we've played actual Blurays that didn't look this bad up close.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 09-11-2013 06:17 AM                     Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution?  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-11-2013 09:04 AM                     If they truly cared they would have 2 versions of the movie on the drive and keys to unlock both with the booking. Then again keys for rep content is just stupid. It's already out on bluray and such.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-11-2013 07:17 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag Can you try to get less resolution? Oh! But they did. Look again at that file size. 77GB for *both* parts. It was clearly pixillated from up close.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-11-2013 10:26 PM                     I can only assume they are doing those small file sizes as a means to cut costs in duplication. Surely it isn't one price per drive, that it is per GB to duplicate since it takes longer to duplicate a drive with 350GB on it vs one that is 77GB.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-17-2013 06:54 PM                     Do you really think it's because of the time it takes to duplicate the content to disk? I'd rather think it's just a lack of clue and dedication. Because, would it really matter for repertoire titles? How many disks are out there in distribution? For first run releases, this would make more sense to me, than for titles with just a handful of disks in circulation. But, maybe I'm missing something, like the first run content being duplicated in some automated process and repertoire content being done by hand?  |  IP: Logged Michael Kurtzke Film Handler Posts: 45 From: Ashburn, VA, USA Registered: Feb 2013 posted 09-17-2013 07:45 PM                     The small file size is probably not for saving time. We run a ton of older movies and usually the DCP's are between 110-190GB for 2K full-length features. Tonight, American Graffiti was 152GB, Last week Kindergarten Cop was 127GB, Real Genius was 141GB. These films [aside from maybe American Graffiti] aren't as well known as 2001. I would have thought it would be a nice 4K DCP due to it being a 70mm feature. I'm actually worried because I'm playing it October 2nd [Space-oriented month because Gravity's coming out].  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 09-17-2013 09:46 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag Jeeze these people must not really care about the classic titles at all...2001 within a 1.85 frame letterboxed? Can you try to get less resolution? [steps on soapbox] and don't get me started how stupid the studios are for not encoding the original five front channel mixes from these classic 70mm movies, when DCI specs actually take into account and could implement the left/center and right/center channels. Oh how I wish DATASAT would step in and do their magic and retain these mixes as they have done with 5/70mm releases... [sigh]oh what's the point, it's like barking up the wrong tree... come on folks let's get it together the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke.  |  IP: Logged Manny Knowles "What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???" Posts: 4247 From: Bloomington, IN, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-18-2013 01:17 AM                     I really did have such high hopes that we would see proper treatment of 70mm titles. The conspiracy theorist in me has occasionally wondered if film's reputation may have been deliberately sabotaged to make it that much easier for d-cinema to gain a foothold. If that were the case, it would explain a lack of interest in showing off virtues of the medium when it was at its best. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't honestly believe it was an "inside job." I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection. The real shame of it (for me) is that the last cinema I worked at, and the current one, are capable of "five across" and I've never had the pleasure of running something that actually used them in that way.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 09-18-2013 06:38 PM                     quote: Jonathan Goeldner the preserving of 70mm films on DCP's both in terms of the image AND the audio is an utter joke. I actually don't hope anybody considers DCPs as a serious form of long-time storage. A DCP is a lossy compressed "medium" that's designed for ease of distribution, security and presentation only, not for archival purposes. I do think it might be very worthwhile to store digital copies of analog content, but they need to be at a very high resolution and uncompressed/loss-less compressed. A digital copy, if handled correctly, has the potential to live forever, without any loss whatsoever. quote: Manny Knowles I do, however, believe that circumstances conspired to make it so that a 2K DCP "looked better" than 35mm prints and projection. "Looking better" is extremely subjective. The way 35mm was being treated by the average multiplex did make 2K digital look and sound better in almost any possible way, at least for a while. Many digital installs are beginning to show a fair share of neglect already.  |  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.