Special Instructions To Projectionist From Distributors

[Ryan Gallagher]

I ranted about this one prior, but here is the projection letter. ;-)

Thelma&Louise_ProjLetter.png

[Jesse Crooks]

Do they WANT people to give up on theaters and just watch movies on their phones?!

[Ryan Gallagher]

Do they WANT people to give up on theaters and just watch movies on their phones?!

Maybe someone with more years running DCP could speculate better. But the "why" on that one is a total mystery to me. My only two guesses were:
1. A mistake they didn't bother fixing and asked projectionists to fix.
2. A whacky director that insisted the letterboxing was the intended presentation (if you try hard enough you can almost read their instructions that way, but then they contradict it in the next paragraph).

We presented it with a one off ILS and Screen file for this oddball and showed it as 2.39:1, but not every theatre would be able to spin one up, or have the zoom range to even do so.

[Frank Cox]

What would happen if you just played it using the screen file you use for a standard scope movie?

[Steve Guttag]

You'd have an inset picture. The FLAT container limits the pixel width to 3996 (instead of 4096), so the pixel count on height will be 1672 (instead of 1716). So, if/when you use your normal Scope preset, you will find that the width of the image does NOT fill your screen in width (presuming a Scope screen) And, it won't fill it in height either. If you run it in Flat, as recommended, you'll have an even stupider image whereby it fills the width of your flat picture but will be letterboxed...so a tiny rectangle in the middle of the screen. If the screen isn't masked (movable masking), then the image will look extra tiny/stupid.

I haven't tried it myself, one might be able to use the projector to scale the image by changing just the input parameters in the PCF (or input) file. That is, use your normal Scope macro/channel. Then go into the input section and input the resolution 3996x1672 and an aspect ratio of 2.39. If the ICP has its scaler active (may need to use the ICP program), it should scale it out to fill the normal Scope area. Naturally, save this to a different channel/macro...call it "Stupid Scope" or something like that.

[Ryan Gallagher]

You'd have an inset picture. The FLAT container limits the pixel width to 3996 (instead of 4096), so the pixel count on height will be 1672 (instead of 1716). So, if/when you use your normal Scope preset, you will find that the width of the image does NOT fill your screen in width (presuming a Scope screen) And, it won't fill it in height either. If you run it in Flat, as recommended, you'll have an even stupider image whereby it fills the width of your flat picture but will be letterboxed...so a tiny rectangle in the middle of the screen. If the screen isn't masked (movable masking), then the image will look extra tiny/stupid.

I haven't tried it myself, one might be able to use the projector to scale the image by changing just the input parameters in the PCF (or input) file. That is, use your normal Scope macro/channel. Then go into the input section and input the resolution 3996x1672 and an aspect ratio of 2.39. If the ICP has its scaler active (may need to use the ICP program), it should scale it out to fill the normal Scope area. Naturally, save this to a different channel/macro...call it "Stupid Scope" or something like that.

Yeah lots of ways to skin this cat. You are correct that the only non-zoom way to "scale up" an image (at least on Christie) would be to provide it an alternative source file size. You can do some quick and dirty "scale down" using the screen file corner parameters, but that doesn't help in this case.

Our projectionist on that day knew enough to know it looked wrong, and figure something out using manual zoom and masking. But an alternate source would probably have been better, as we are a 2K house and that was a 4K DCP, definitely resolution room to have a smaller source and still be displaying a full 2K worth of detail. (unless I am not understanding something about the 4K source handling/compatibility of a DCP2K4+Christie CP2220)

[Steve Guttag]

if you have a 2K system, the server should extract the 2K portion of the DCP so the input file settings would be ½ the values I listed for 4K (in both dimensions) and again, the ICP should scale it up, if the scaler is active on the ICP).

[Ryan Gallagher]

if you have a 2K system, the server should extract the 2K portion of the DCP so the input file settings would be ½ the values I listed for 4K (in both dimensions) and again, the ICP should scale it up, if the scaler is active on the ICP).

Ahh okay, so no benefit gained from it being a 4K DCP in this weird case. In that regard the zoom solution was fine for us... in a fixed height theatre the source manipulation would be the best I expect.

[Steve Guttag]

Zoom works...it just requires a site visit. Pretend you have say 200 or more screens you need to make something work...can you get to all of those on a moment's notice? Or can you create a suitable macro/channel that accomplishes it? There is nothing wrong with your solution though, you should also reshoot the light to compensate for the extra zoom and the lowering of luminance as a result.

[Jim Cassedy]

Last week we ran a concert flick: "Usher, Rendezvous In Paris". Which, according to the CPL
was S-312, or basically 3.1. The ingest letter said nothing special about this, and just assumed
that most people know how to decode the ISDCF names. It was in one of our mid-size auditoriums
where the cheap masking motors have only two stops: FLAT & SCOPE. I'm already doing the work
of 3 people here, so I didn't have the time to play with the projector, but even that would have been
a waste of time, because there's really no way to decently fit 3:1 into a flat or scope "hole". So I ran
it in SCOPE, with a 3:1 image hovering mid screen with thick black bars above & below.
The only complaints I got all weekend were one show where someone complained the sound was
too loud, and another show where somebody said the sound was too low.
(and BOTH shows were played in the same auditorium at the same volume level)

[Chris Haller]

Last week we ran a concert flick: "Usher, Rendezvous In Paris". Which, according to the CPL
was S-312, or basically 3.1. The ingest letter said nothing special about this, and just assumed
that most people know how to decode the ISDCF names. It was in one of our mid-size auditoriums
where the cheap masking motors have only two stops: FLAT & SCOPE. I'm already doing the work
of 3 people here, so I didn't have the time to play with the projector, but even that would have been
a waste of time, because there's really no way to decently fit 3:1 into a flat or scope "hole". So I ran
it in SCOPE, with a 3:1 image hovering mid screen with thick black bars above & below.
The only complaints I got all weekend were one show where someone complained the sound was
too loud, and another show where somebody said the sound was too low.
(and BOTH shows were played in the same auditorium at the same volume level)

3:1 is crazy. Anyone who let that final image out knowing the state of mainstream theaters in 2024 needs a good talking to. None of my theaters have any masking whatsoever. If we'd booked it and had to run it in one of our tiny flat theaters? People would have to squint to see it on the screen.

[Scotty Wright]

3:1 is crazy. Anyone who let that final image out knowing the state of mainstream theaters in 2024 needs a good talking to. None of my theaters have any masking whatsoever. If we'd booked it and had to run it in one of our tiny flat theaters? People would have to squint to see it on the screen.

I saw the trailer in a small flat room without masking locally before another movie and can confirm it looked very small indeed.