"Nope" - flat?

[Peter Mork]

The feature is marked as flat, but the picture seems to be in scope ratio. At least when I spot checked it.

[Carsten Kurz]

Is it actually named 'F' - or 'F-220'?

Another one on the list of unusual aspect ratios: 'Nope' is 2.20:1, so, like a classic 70mm title. Time to have a few more macros added to your projector.

See here: http://www.film-tech.com/vbb/forum/m...stie-projector





- Carsten

[Frank Cox]

Nope_FTR-20a_F-220_EN-XX-CCAP_US-R-CA_51-HI-VI-DBOX_4K_UP_20220708_DLX_SMPTE_OV-a8f1bda9-cb9d-49d0-8602-e8c188188c46

It is named F-220.

I still think it's (insert appropriate word here) to make a movie in an aspect ratio that will result in it being shown as a smaller and less immersive picture than it could otherwise be in 99.9% of movie theatres.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Well, it was filmed in 65mm (both Super 70 and IMAX), so the 220 AR does make sense, as it comes naturally with the Super 70 format. Unlike many of those "F-200" movies as of late, which were almost all entirely digitally acquired and as such, the aspect ratio has been more of an "artistic choice" than a technical choice.

The F-220 container gives it more resolution than the scope equivalent, so even that makes sense and it certainly isn't the first movie being shown in "F-220". Every self-respecting cinema that didn't open yesterday should have presets for F-220 by now.

[Mike Blakesley]

You should have titled this thread "'Nope' - scope?" and we all could have replied, "Nope."

[Peter Mork]

Funny, because it didn't look like 2.20/1 to me when I projected it flat. I ran it up to the credit scroll and paused, taking note of where the top and bottom text was being cut off, then switched to scope, and the picture actually didn't quite reach the top and bottom masking - if anything it's shorter height-wise than a standard scope picture (2.39 these days?).

Did another spot check and it seems to all be the same. But I will continue to run it as flat on the off-chance there's some fancy business with changing aspects that I missed - anyone who's watched the whole thing might like to comment.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Did another spot check and it seems to all be the same. But I will continue to run it as flat on the off-chance there's some fancy business with changing aspects that I missed - anyone who's watched the whole thing might like to comment.

You shouldn't run it as "FLAT" but as "F-220". Zoom it in, so at least one dimension fills the screen entirely and adjust your masking accordingly...

[Peter Mork]

Well, the sheet that came with it said to run it flat, not that those are always accurate, but it's a starting point. And my personal observation is that the DCP version I got is not a 2.20:1 ratio - perhaps it was shot that way, but cropped for scope and someone forgot to pass that information on. Can't say, but there have been films like Dunkirk that exist in more than one format, all authorized, all "official".

[Marcel Birgelen]

As far as I know, the only DCI-compliant DCP of Dunkirk also came as F-220 and nothing else (yeah, there are IMAX DCPs that flip-flop around in AR, but those are hardly DCI compliant), but it included a framing chart and proper instructions. If the accompanying "projectionist's letter" simply states that you should run it in "FLAT" whereas the DCP is clearly labeled as F-220, that should be considered as incompetence from the studio and the distributor.

I don't think the credits are a good reference for framing, if they didn't include a proper framing chart, then I'd consider a light frame that clearly exposes the edges of the frame as a reference. We deal with many independent productions here, if stuff is labeled at all, you can't always trust it... it's somewhat ironic how that seems to trancend to "professionally produced" DCPs too nowadays.

[Peter Mork]

I ran Dunkirk as 35mm. The print was anamorphic scope, framed as such so there were no black bars on the left and right. I know there was an Imax version but I don't know what the ratio of that was, anyway the point I wanted to make was some titles get reformatted for different media and each is approved by the filmmaker so there's more than one correct version.
But as far as Nope goes, I can only say project the US DCP yourself and see if you think it looks like a 2.20:1, like Jurassic World did (which they also put out as a "flat" DCP, and it had the black bars on the top and bottom; you could zoom it to fill the screen better if you wanted) or something closer to a standard scope ratio.

[Sara Meyers]

On my one sheet from deluxe for Nope, it says explicitly to show it in 1.85 and that "black bars on the top and bottom are normal"... I watched it in it's entirety last night to see what the reason for this could be, thinking maybe at some point it jumps to full frame- which happens for like 2 minutes halfway through Marcel the Shell (from 1.55 to 1.78) which I'm also currently screening. There was no change in the floating 2.20 ratio in the flat container that I saw... I am entertaining a theory that the choice to show the black bars is one of the many visual metaphors/references to digital cinema and aspect ratios made in the movie and is aesthetic intention? (which would be very annoying for projectionists haha and unfortunate for the cinematography.)

Alternatively, maybe they were simply worried that folks would play it in scope and crop the image and so cut their losses and told everyone 1.85. I reached out to my booker today to see if they could find some answers from Universal... I'd much rather show it in full 2.20, if this latter reason is the case!

Please chime in if you have thoughts :-)

[Peter Mork]

So it stays in one ratio, with no surprises, good to know.

But (he said once more) it ain't 2.20. It's plain old scope, 2.39 or thereabouts. I don't care what Universal calls it. Maybe there was a mistake made somewhere in the chain, if that's so they should be notified so it can be corrected, but the version I have is scope and nothing else.

[Sara Meyers]

If you run it in scope the image will be cropped.

[Peter Mork]

It would be if it were actually 2.20:1 but it isn't. Try it for yourself.

[Sara Meyers]

I just did again, and yes it crops the image slightly on top and bottom.