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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Jurassic World : Flat Format (Page 1)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Author Topic: Jurassic World : Flat Format Christopher Lani Film Handler Posts: 62 From: Ely, Nevada, USA Registered: Nov 2013 posted 06-09-2015 03:42 AM                        Just a quick question. Why would Universal Studios spend untold millions of dollars to produce a film in the flat format. Why not Scope?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 06-09-2015 04:46 AM                     First of all, it is not flat, but 2:1. Second, because flat is not the cheaper brother of scope. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Ian Freer Expert Film Handler Posts: 135 From: Wellington, New Zealand Registered: Oct 2003 posted 06-09-2015 05:55 AM                     Also, the three previous 'Jurrasic' films have all been Flat, so it's in keeping with the rest of the series....  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-09-2015 08:58 AM                     There is also this belief that a less-wide frame gives the illusion of taller dinosaurs. That was SS's reason for shooting the first one in 1.85. However, SS tends to prefer 1.85 anyway. Yes, he has shot in Scope (Raiders of the Lost Ark series, Close Encounters...etc.) but if you look at the bulk of his movies, he seems to like that frame better.  |  IP: Logged Barry Floyd Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1079 From: Lebanon, Tennessee, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 06-09-2015 10:08 AM                        I ingested this last night, and what i found disturbing is not so much the 2:1 aspect ratio, but the lack of an included framing chart on the drive. At least when Disney released Tomorrowland in 2.20:1, they included a framing chart where we could create new lens files and screen files so we could properly fill our screens. To me, the notion of having "black bars" on the top and bottom of the picture for something so big as Jurassic World is just unacceptable. The included projectionist letter even states "the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen are completely normal". My intention is to build my playlist like normal on Thursday night, and hit pause somewhere in the middle of Jurassic World and make my lens adjustments, and save them to a new "2:1 Flat" macro.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-09-2015 10:13 AM                        Are these two films the start of a whole slew of titles that are shot in non-standard aspect ratios? (God, I hope not!) How is the JP DCP formatted? Flat letterbox, full-container letterbox, or scope pillarbox? And are the 35mm prints flat or scope?  |  IP: Logged Pietro Clarici Expert Film Handler Posts: 136 From: Foligno (PG) Italy Registered: Sep 2008 posted 06-09-2015 10:31 AM                        Something I've always wondered: what's the ratio between Flat and Scope screens in the US? Here in Italy only very small community theatres have Flat screens, and I don't think this is much different in the rest of Europe. Multiplexes and first-tier cinemas, those that make the bulk of our box office, have been almost Scope only for the last 15 years. I'm asking that because I genuinely cannot understand why Flat movies are still around. Even when proper masking is applied (and this is very uncommon here), I don't perceive a 1.85:1 frame as "taller" on a correctly sized 2.39:1 screen: it's just much smaller and less immersive. "Uncommon" ARs like 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 only take this silliness to the next level.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 06-09-2015 11:00 AM                     Barry, It sounds like a big deal, but it isn't (the lack of framing chart). If you know how to make screen files on your projector, then create a screen file with the dimensions you need. Put up a white pattern, zoom/shift until centered. Check with a focus target of some sort to ensure that focus, zoom, shift all agree with each other. You can then trim the screen file to "mask" any keystone or curvature artifacts. I did verify with Tomorrowland that my 2.20 screen file exactly masked their framing chart. A friend of mind also made targets for 2.0 and 2.2 for me (he is a graphical artist so he did it while we were talking on the phone...something that would have taken me forever).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-09-2015 12:48 PM                     quote: Christopher Lani Just a quick question. Why would Universal Studios spend untold millions of dollars to produce a film in the flat format. Why not Scope? You could call Steven Spelieberg and ask him why the original Jurassic Park was done that way too. And his answer will be because it is more believable in flat. The smaller flat format focus's your attention better on what he wanted you to be watching at any given moment.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-09-2015 12:57 PM                     JP is not Flat, but anyway Flat is close to 16/9 which is where the big money comes from  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 06-09-2015 02:20 PM                     quote: Carsten Kurz First of all, it is not flat, but 2:1. Second, because flat is not the cheaper brother of scope. So, if flat and scope are brothers, that leaves 2:1 to be the bastard?  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 06-09-2015 02:51 PM                        quote: Pietro Clarici Something I've always wondered: what's the ratio between Flat and Scope screens in the US? Effectively every US screen, both film and DLP, will support both "flat" and "scope" ratios. I have seen "flat" screens that range from 1.66 through 1.85 and there are some 2:1 fixed screens still out there as well. Any theatre built after 1965-ish should be reasonably close to 1.85 and 2.35/2.39, though. Sometimes, the screen is common-height, some are common-width, and some have moveable masking on all four sides. What varies in the US is support for Academy (1.37) and European widescreen (1.66) formats. Generally, they are only found in art houses and special venues. Sometimes a multiplex with art-housey tendencies may support these formats but not on all screens. Silent and Movietone ratios are even less common. What these nonstandard-aspect-ratio titles indicate to me is that the future of masking systems will require more than the two stops that a standard multiplex often has.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 06-09-2015 03:16 PM                        The problem that I see: All new build Theatres (in the U.S.) that I have been in have NO MASKING. So, you are going to have pictures on a screen with black borders and no masking. Making the experience that much worse.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 06-09-2015 03:37 PM                     Scott, I believe what Pietro asked was the ratio between cinemas featuring a Flat screen and cinemas featuring a scope screen. Of course both formats are supported worldwide.  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 06-09-2015 03:38 PM                        What are the pixel dimensions of Jurassic World? Is it 2048 x 1024?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

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.