|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Why can't the DCI spec for picture & sound formats be force-automated?
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-27-2019 04:48 PM
In the Film Handler's Review forum in the threat re: KNIFE OUT, Jack said: quote:
The theatre was showing it in 'scope, which lopped off many of the actors from the forehead up. We went to the manager, who said the movie was "made that way". Got a refund
and Mike added: quote:
This happens a lot. It drives me crazy. I don't understand why it's so hard to project a movie in its proper aspect ratio.
And it made me wonder, since the whole idea of the DCI specs and conforming to them was mandated, why is the selection of image and sound format is left to the end-user, when the flags are all there? All that information is available in the data that is used to play the film, why can't the system have safeguards in to not allow a film authored to play in 1.85 be projected in scope? They certainly won't let the projector play a picture if it is out of the Key date/time range...why can't software be put in place that will prevent silly mistakes from being made by theatre personnel who obviously are not qualified to make up a playlist. Shouldn't the server simply refuse to play a title in the wrong aspect ratio? All the format information is right there in the metadata?
The system also has the information about what theatre the film is being played in; should that include what sound format it is capable of reproducing: wouldn't it be an easy task to only allow playback in the sound format with which the theatre is equipped, as in, if the theatre is only a 5.1 playback, then should the manager (or whoever) happens to select Dolby Altos, it would just automatically select 5.1 instead? I was going to say, without even alerting the programmer. Or possibly just graying out everything possible choice except the correct one. Any incorrect format simply wouldn't be available. It could also be used as a Pavlovian learning tool...say by giving a slight electrical shock to the programmer as soon as they touch the wrong icon, with the shock getting strong and strong with each successive wrong choice. Oh wait, that was done in that psychological experiment...I think people went to jail. But that might be a small price to pay, if it teaches these yokels how Not To Do Digital WRONG!
I would think that having a more robust control over what formats are able to end-user would go a long way to avoid the kind of asinine mistakes that seem to be happening rather routinely. And not to mention, it would also allow even the least skilled staffer to build an error-free playlist (can anyone say minimum wage employee?) -- something exhibition is ALWAYS looking for.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-28-2019 03:24 AM
problem is, you're trusting whoever made the dcp to have done it right. they can be mislabeled as to whether they're flat or scope, or they might be scope ratio within a flat container, or, or....
something i've seen a few times is a reissue of an old (from the days of film!) mono movie where the sound has been distributed across the stage channels. i presume that this is to ensure that sound will come out no matter how things are set up. but to do it right you have to either play it in format 80 to matrix lt and rt into the center channel or turn off all but the center amp.
furthermore, there seems to be no standard as to what exactly the dimensions of a 1.66 or 1.37 image actually are. and you may get hit with a 1:1.2 movie... with a 1.85 short attached to the head (lighthouse).
there's no getting away from the need for a human being (with some experience!) to figure this stuff out.
but you knew that, frank. (seriously, with all respect, love ya!)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin McCaffery
Film God
Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-28-2019 08:55 AM
Had this happen to me the day after Christmas (Regal Kingstown in VA). Took my Mom and Sister to see Little Women. Everything being shown full screen scope (ads and trailers). Did notice some clipping of top and bottom during a trailer that had titles that filled the screen, but assumed it was a one off mistake. Feature starts and it is full screen scope (ok, maybe IMDB was wrong about it being 1:85). The opening scenes seemed a little awkwardly framed, but maybe that was intentional. After a few minutes there's a title along the bottom that is cut in half and I knew I had to go find a manager.
That took some work. I had to disrupt someone behind the concession counter (sorry whomever he was serving) and have her call her. I described the problem and she appeared to know exactly what it was and the problem was fixed by the time I found my way back to the movie (totally pissed off for having to have to do this, and knowing the audience would have sat through the whole thing like that).
Worst part is, this is not like having the wrong lens or aperture plate in. This is a playlist, which means everyone who saw the film on opening day saw it wrong, and everyone watching it after our show is probably watching it wrong, because if there isn't someone who can redo the playlist between shows, it is just going to keep being shown wrong.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 12-28-2019 09:21 AM
As Carl points out, the issue would be that by automating the selection of aspect ratio and audio format, you'd be putting your professional life in the hands of the author of the DCP, by trusting them to get the metadata right.
So would you use the metadata from the ISDCF DCP name, or the fields in the CPL file? Sometimes they disagree, with one but not the other being correct. Sometimes, neither are correct. When I worked at the Egyptian, I found that many if not most DCPs we received with legacy aspect ratios were simply tagged "F," rather than F-166, F-137, etc. etc., as they should have been. Although I encountered this less often, the audio channel configuration tags were sometimes wrong, too. Often a mono movie would be tagged 51, and that could be mono duplicated on channels 1 and 2 (in which case it needs to be played through a ProLogic decoder to achieve center channel mono), or correctly placed on channel 3 only.
Admittedly, this wouldn't be a significant issue for a mainstream 'plex house, where 99.9% of DCPs played will either be F/1.85 or S/2.39, and 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos. But if you automate the process of configuring the projector and audio processor based on either the ISDCF tags or the CPL metadata, it becomes less likely that the theater will catch errors in this information, because that aspect of the ingestion QC will have been subsumed into a set-and-forget operation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 12-28-2019 03:21 PM
I think most TMS have an option to select the main feature format automatically from a DCPs ISDCF name, SMPTE metadata or image properties. But, this can go wrong. It may even be that in this case, it was the automation that did the wrong decision...
Yes, admittedly, for the average scope vs. flat feature, that SHOULD work well enough. However, it is possible that the number of errors introduced by the automatic format selection is not too far from the number of errors introduced by manual playlist building. I remember that in the very early days of digital cinema, when mostly first generation or series 1 projectors existed, features came with their own PCF file that should be used with the feature.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-30-2019 02:12 AM
You should've 'stretched' his movie into scope and when he'd complain about everybody looking "fat", you simply should've told him: Didn't you know? Everybody gains a few pounds in scope. Didn't they tell you that back in "film"school? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote: Steve Guttag
Finally, always provide for a full-manual tickbox so one can see or run whatever they think is correct.
Yes, there should always be the manual override option, especially for those cases where directors don't know in which aspect ratio they want their movie to be shown. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I guess, that for average usage, the amount of mis-framed shows could be reduced, if the switch between aspect ratios could be fully automated, as in: No separate cues needed.
The downside I see to this is that those who operate this equipment on a daily basis become even more oblivious to stuff like framing and masking...
| 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.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic