Is the new standard now to show visible letterboxing and pillar bars?

[Frank Angel]

Went to see Spielberg's WEST SIDE STORY this weekend. It played in Regal's larger room, probably about 200 seats and I was surprised that there were about 20 people at the 7pm show on a Friday night. But what really surprised me and not in a good way, was that Regal Cinema Corp now seems to favor just letting letterboxing be the normal, no matter the original aspect ratio -- back bars on the screen -- just like at home. Not only letterboxing for scope, but for EVERYTHING. In other words, no matter that the aspect ratio, bars would AWAYS be visible. And then there was the bizarre two trailers which for some reason were totally "boxed," as in -- on all four sides -- with black bars.

Remember when we spent incredible amounts of energy to make sure plates were properly filed and masking motor stops were properly set to insure that each film format was presented PROPERLY MASKED? Remember when, if you saw a frame line sneaking out from the top and bottom of the masking of a hard masked 1.85 image, we'd effing FREAK OUT...dig out the 35PA and new plates and fix it? Well seems like the very idea of proper masking is Gone With The Wind in today's commercial cinemas. So I guess Regal has once again lowered the bar on presentation. And BTW, for that MUSICAL, the sound was MUCH too low, and that is not the opinion of Uncle Frank who is cuing up to get his first hearing aid, but of my nephews who are half my age and also students who are even younger. No masking, but by George, put in those giant faux leather recliner (head and hand crushing) power seats!

So what is the goal of showing a letterboxed image? Do the wine, brie and botox suits actually WANT the audience to feel like they are watching a DVD on a TV screen? Is that the feel they are going for? And do they think the recliner chairs somehow will make up for that feeling? Do they WANT me to stay home and wait for films to come to video release? Given the number of people in that theatre on a prime movie-going night and only on the second weekend of release, it certainly seems like they are getting their wish! Because at home I've got recliners; at home I've got a bright, well lit screen that is, when the lights are down, relatively the same proportionate size as that Regal screen, and at home, my sound system is a lot better as i can easily hit the proper reference level. Oh yeah, and at home, I don't have to worry about when the last time MY recliner was sanitized for viruses or disinfected for lice and bedbugs.

[Jim Cassedy]

I'm totally in your ballpark, Frank. - - I was checking some pre-show material on screen
last week and I too saw one of the 'completely boxed' trailers you spoke about. I even went
back later & checked my playlist to make sure I'd ingested the right version for that show.

The venue I'm at most of the time now, only has 'completely programmable' maskings in
two of its' 5 auditoriums. One of those two even has a movable top masking to for 70mm.

When we recently started running some 'classic' holiday titles in one of the smaller
auditoriums, I thought it would be nicer to have the masking close down to the proper 1:37
aspect ratio to match the feature film. But, I discovered that in those rooms, they had put
in only a very rudimentary (ie: inexpensive) masking motor system that only had two
mechanical stops: one for FLAT(ish) and one for SCOPE (sort of), and due to the type
of cam-stop system used for those settings, there was not an easy, or even a not so easy way
to add another aspect setting. - - and then there'd be the matter of updating the automatificated
cue library, and having to get past the fact that there aren't enough spare conductors in the
cable between the booth and behind the screen to wire something up even if I could somehow
add another mechanical stop.- - so, in short, it bugs me every time I watch an "older" title in
that room and have to deal with a 1:37 picture in a 1:85 box. But there's nothing I can really
do about it. Oh, I've pointed it out to the management, and they agree that "in a perfect world"
better, programmable masking controllers would have been installed, but for now, I've got to
work with what I've got. Fortunately, I spend most of my time lately in the 'film booth" where
the masking system has all the necessary ratios I need for digital, & film (35/70mm)
~ ~And, that masking motor system is totally programmable, so if I ever wanted to go
completely crazy I supposeI could probably come up with a setting for those "boxed in on
all sides" images, since I've got an articulated top masking on that screen too. lol

[Aaron Tucker]

Part of the fault lies with not being able to tell with the DCP name alone if a Scope trailer actually contains Flat pillarboxed content. Shown in many modern multiplexes with Flat screens and no movable masking, this results in letter-pillar-boxing on all sides despite the management correctly running a Scope trailer with the Scope macro...

The easiest solution I found was to have staff always run trailers in Flat, guaranteeing either a full Flat image or a letterboxed Scope image, and then switch to Scope for the feature if needed.

[Mike Blakesley]

Anymore I just run all trailers in Scope. If the movie is flat, the trailers are in a box, but it's not a big deal because the picture gets bigger for the feature. I don't want to run Scope trailers in Scope with a flat feature, because I don't want the feature picture to be smaller than the trailers.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Our standard implementation is to run all trailers in flat. Some trailers already come in flat, but are letterboxed. Scope trailers also end up being letterboxed, unfortunately. You can't switch formats between trailers, the pauses in between would be awkward. We usually run trailers with the house lights dimmed to about 50% and the fader at about "3" to "4". We usually select one trailer to be the feature trailer, which we run right in front of the feature. This trailer will be in the same format as the feature, with the light fully dimmed and we also raise the volume to a level comparable to the feature.

Like Mike indicated, I also don't like the screen to get smaller for the feature, I consider that to be bad showmanship. The single "fully featured" trailer in front of the feature serves an important purpose though: it's there to get people's attention and to get the room quiet.

[William Kucharski]

Sadly, pretty much.

Most theaters no longer move their masking, and many do just present everything inset one way or another on a larger screen, or letterbox on a 1.85:1 screen.

There are a few that pillarbox 1.85 on a scope screen but they're more rare.

There are also more that present the audio so quietly you can hear people munching their popcorn.

Audiences don't care.

[Frank Angel]

Makes me wonder, what all those hours and hours of our lives that we spent filing aperture plates and carefully staring endlessly at 35PR targets films was all about, and all that fretting about how important it was that 100% of the available, intended image was shown while at the same time allowing just enough of the rough edge to land over the mask so as to make the image parameter a clean,razor-sharp edge. Was that all just silliness? Perhaps we were just crazy anal retentive? And with me, spending sleepless nights upset that they wouldn't give me two fly pipes on the grid so my screen frame could be curved. So determined was I to get a curved screen, that I devised what I later would call a "perspective curve" screen, which was accomplished by making the top mask curve downward lever so slightly at the center and likewise, the bottom mask cure upward at the center ever so slightly so as to create the illusion that the flat screen had a curve in it. It is so effective that seasoned projectionists who watched a movie in the room were dumbfounded when, after the show, I opened the curtains to show them how the illusion was accomplished. Filing a plate with a curve was a headache only Todd-AO projectionists had to deal with for those "rectified" prints. Who knew we could have let everything play with wide open Academy plates and no masking at all and no one would have complained!

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

And then the theatre executives wonder why more and more people would rather stay home to watch movies.

[Frank Angel]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!

And Happy Birthday to me. I love that everyone puts up lights and decorations for my birthday (my Mom explained that to me when I was a toddler and I've chosen to believe it ever since!) Today I hit the big Eight Zero, but in my mind, I am still Twenty Something....only the something just happens to be 6 decades!

We are that we may have joy.

[Kenneth Wuepper]

Merry Christmas everyone,

Frank, You are only as old as you feel. Hope you are feeling young and feisty!

December birthdays are no fun.

KEN

[Jim Cassedy]

Quoting Frank Angel: and then there was the bizarre two trailers which for some reason were totally "boxed," as in -- on all four sides -- with black bars".

I think one of those trailers is probably "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once" - - They just had me add it to the trailer packs in two auditoriums here
the other day & It's got at least 2different aspect ratios within it, and I haven't figured out why either. I even had another projectionperson and
the manager ask me if " I was running the right version".

[Geoff Jones]

It seems to me that the problem here isn't a lack of masking, it's the fact that "Regal's larger room" is equipped with a constant width screen.

Audiences don't care.

Audiences DO care. The ones who care just aren't watching at movie theaters much any more. They're watching at home, where they know they can get a consistently good presentation. Many of them have 4k projectors shooting onto scope screens with a 7.1 or better sound system.

Shitty presentations at theaters run by AMC and Regal and other chains have driven them away.

[Martin Brooks]

The AMC Lincoln Square still uses masking on most of its screens (I saw it move!). There's no masking on the IMAX and Dolby screens, but the Dolby screen is a 2.4:1 screen so 1.85 films have pillar bars, but it's rare that 1.85 films get shown on that screen

Most people are so unsophisticated about theater presentation, I really don't think they know the difference on a conscious level. Perhaps they do on a subconscious level in that the general feeling they get from the presentation isn't as positive.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I used to visit the AMC Lincoln Square regularly back when it still was a Loews, I haven't been there in quite a few years, but I hope they retained the wacky theming in each of the normal rooms. Every screen back then still had movable masking, with the exception of the IMAX screen. I guess for the Dolby screen they demolished one or more of their original theaters and converted it into a black box with stadium seating.

I guess most major chains around the world dropped movable masking from their "minimum equipment list" ever since. Most new builds don't have them and if they're present, it's because they were there before the room went digital and because it still works... Premium formats like "IMAX" and Dolby Cinema neither seem to get any kind of movable masking. Maybe IMAX's excuse is that they never had any in the first place, but Dolby can't really use that same excuse. Not all Dolby Cinema screens are scope-sized, most of the first installs were flat. No matter what the excuse is, they're all lame, but it's the new standard we have to live with.

[Steve Guttag]

Dolby Cinema's "excuse" is that their contrast is so high, you don't see the unused screen that the masking would have covered. To me, it is like having a painting without a frame. Sure, it is still viewable, just unfinished. Then again, I'm big on grade drapes (curtains) too.