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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 4.3 dcp in flat container pillarboxing (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: 4.3 dcp in flat container pillarboxing Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-07-2019 10:20 AM                     Hello family, I am a Portuguese projecionist for about 20 years,but i am having a discution with one portuguese director about maskings in a 4.3 dcp,what happens is i am having pillarboxing ,the projector is on flat container and projects the black bars in the 2.39 screen,so he says i must change the projector to 4.3,the cinema doesnt have any kind of screen masking like curtains,we have the image light with much power because they want to much contrast,the tecnician said to me that the dlp chip always project that image size ,because the digital masking in the projector for croping doesnt help to much because i can see the 2048x1080 container light,what can i do ,can i project only 4.3 image in a dcp 1998x1080 with black bars?, without more light in screen?  |  IP: Logged Sascha F. Roll Expert Film Handler Posts: 140 From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany Registered: Sep 2015 posted 11-07-2019 10:25 AM                     Correct, no other way to do it. Besides: installing proper masking. Btw, what is especially ridiculous on those unmasked constant height screens: with F-200 or even F-220 content: black bars on all sides and the smallest possible image.  |  IP: Logged Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-07-2019 10:41 AM                     thanks for the help,this guys are in the 35mm age .  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-07-2019 11:31 AM                     Tell the director that all digital cinema projectors are inherently flat/1.85 projectors (in reality, it's a few pixels more left and right - 2048 vs. 1998). The only way to reduce the side effects of that fact for 4:3 content is to use adjustable/moveable masking on the screen. With no masking, yes, it won't look pretty on a scope screen - ambient light grey on the left- and rightmost parts of the screen, and 'DLP-grey' on the inner left and right pillarboxed parts neighbouring the 4:3 content. Ugly. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-07-2019 05:07 PM                     Thanks guys.  |  IP: Logged Pete Naples Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1565 From: Dunfermline, Scotland Registered: Feb 2001 posted 11-08-2019 03:33 AM                     If I had a pound for every time I've had this discussion with cinemas and film makers! Carsten has absolutely hit the nail on the head. I do tend to setup up 1.85, 1.78, 1.66, 1.375 and 1.33 screen files, so at the very least you don't see the effects of keystone. Thankfully the cinemas I deal with who run a lot of different aspect ratios do ahve fully mobile masking.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-08-2019 07:09 AM                     I don't set up 1.37 any more. 4x3 (1.33) suffices for both, in my opinion. It is such a crapshoot on how such movies are authored to begin with.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-08-2019 10:54 AM                     Pete, you should come to germany. I'd be glad here to see just flat and scope being set up properly for the average installation... - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Brian Mendelssohn Film Handler Posts: 17 From: Pittsburgh, PA, United States Registered: Oct 2015 posted 11-08-2019 07:23 PM                     We installed a square screen (fixed width) where we adjust the masking for scope, flat, 1.33, and 1.37. We show a lot of old movies and its amazing when it fills the entire wall for a 1.33 We use a flat DCP file zoomed in then cropped on either side.  |  IP: Logged Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-09-2019 04:59 AM                     Hi,its true,its not the first time to have this discussion too, but, no money to screen masking full auto,so ,its possible to have a masking auto in the projection Windows? I have tried with old school paper kkk, but its just not right and pratical,because we play diferent movies for sesson.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-09-2019 08:20 AM                     If you mask on the port glass, it will create a strong vignetting into the visible picture, or have no effect at all, due to projection geometry. For 4:3, it may be possible to blend the transition of the scope areas into the projection area. That MAY make it more acceptable for the director. Yes, if you put too much light on the screen, it will make it worse. Are you sure your brightness is around spec? Can you try to lower lamp current for the 4:3 picture? Maybe some measures combined will make it acceptable. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-09-2019 08:26 AM                     Thanks,today my boss came to the cinema and i just Said that,i Will Turn the light a litle to see it,he was saying that the projector must have masks,what can i say more,the director Said to him that vídeo projectors do 4.3. Só. I Guess his projector projects scope too without bars too.😄  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 11-09-2019 10:21 AM                        quote: Steve Guttag I don't set up 1.37 any more. 4x3 (1.33) suffices for both, in my opinion. I'm afraid I do, if specifically asked for either; and I will offer 1.19 as well. In that case, I will explain the difference (1.19 - originated on 35mm between 1929-1933 approx.; 1.37 = originated on 35mm between 1933-late 1950s, depending on territory; 1.33 = silent movies originated on 35mm, plus all movies originated on 16mm or smaller, or standard definition video), and ask which lens and screen files the customer would like, or all of them. Agreed on the mastering issue, though. Consumer (BD and streaming) releases in particular tend to crop 1.37 to 1.33, and sometimes these transfers show up on DCPs. However, if a 1.37 DCP is done properly (1,485 x 1,080 for 2K, as distinct from 1,440 x 1,080 for 1.33), I'd like the end user to be able to play all of it. 1.19 done wrong is a pet peeve of mine. Try watching Sunrise or M cropped to 1.33 or 37, and the some of the compositions look as bad as they would in a 1.37 movie cropped to 16x9 or 1.85.  |  IP: Logged Ricardo David Film Handler Posts: 13 From: Lisbon, lisbon/lisbon, portugal Registered: Jan 2016 posted 11-09-2019 11:09 AM                     The bigest problem is that the dark on the movie 4.3 blends with 1.85 (container)black,so the movie is all dark and sometimes seams that is not im the right format.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 11-09-2019 01:11 PM                     That's why god created adjustable masking. - Carsten  |  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.