"Nope" - flat?

[Steve Guttag]

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.

Frank, the problem with your position is that it presumes all theatres are made correctly with a larger scope screen. The realities are, in the majority of new builds for the last few decades, most of the screens have flat as the largest (theatres are more box shaped rather than wide). So, F-220 is actually a bigger image than "S" in those theatres. It is the more traditional theatre with a "scope" screen that runs into difficulty with F-200 and F-220.

See for yourself. Which is bigger?

Screen Shot 2022-07-23 at 4.28.59 PM.png

Now, the dilemma for those with "Scope" screens is how to contend with F-200 and F-220. The studios will always say just run "Flat."

Screen Shot 2022-07-23 at 4.34.20 PM.png

For F-200 that will lead to small letterbox bars that many can live with...even on the "Flat" picture. Ideally, one will zoom out and create a proper preset:

Screen Shot 2022-07-23 at 4.36.32 PM.png

The difference in image size is not too great. This is not the case for F-220. Most will find that F-220 ran as "Flat" will get complaints and just plain look weird. Again, ideally, a custom format is created:

Screen Shot 2022-07-23 at 4.38.29 PM.png

I'm recommending that for those that do not have a custom preset to test run the content playing it in "Scope." The amount of cropping is relatively minimal and the amount of pillar boxing is also relatively minimal:

Screen Shot 2022-07-23 at 4.40.43 PM.png


This is likely why Peter thinks it looks like Scope. The tell-tale sign that it isn't will be that it does not quite fill the screen in width (particularly at the top, where keystone will have the least amount of impact). If it DOES fill one's screen, that speaks more to how the theatre is set up (or mis-set up) than the compromise. Note, these figures presume an orthogonal projection (no keystone). If you have some keystone, the pillarbox bars will reveal it without a custom screen file in the projector.

Back in the day, movies shot on 65mm with a 2.2:1 ratio would, routinely, be slightly enlarged so 35mm theatres could play the same title in "Scope." And, vice-versa for blow up prints where movies shot with a 2.39:1 AR would routinely be slightly magnified to avoid letterbox bars on the top and bottom. A notable exception was The Untouchables that hard matted the bars in.

[Marcel Birgelen]

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.

Jurassic World was in 2.0 (aka F-200) and not 2.20 (aka F-220).

[Carsten Kurz]

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

One should probably also test a standard scope framing guide to be reminded of how one's own scope format is actually set up. Not every scope format/screen shows the full scope container, so, it may be that in some locations, a 2.2:1 DCP actually fills the full screen, thus looking like scope - but actually it's a 2.2:1 screen. A scope framing guide will show the actual cropping configured in the scope macro. Depending on some minor screen measure differences, 2.2:1 and 2.39:1 can look very close to each other - especially if the screen has been transformed from a former 35mm 2.35:1 setup.

[Peter Mork]

Projecting on a built-flat 1.85 screen (with drop-down masking for scope).

Running Nope flat, it does fill the screen side to side, as I'd expect, with gaps on the top and bottom - this is how they say to do it.

Switching to scope (with masking down) gives the same picture only moved lower, a very small gap now at the top and bottom (could be the masking needs adjusting), no picture cut off in either case - none - the picture is zoomed so it just fits side-to-side, nothing spilling over or gaps on the sides.
And it sure doesn't look like 2.20:1, I know the difference. If Sara or others see it differently, I either have a different DCP of that title or there's some fault with my setup that I somehow missed for four years.

I will do a check tomorrow and see. If some kind soul could remind me how to get a test grid on-screen with an NEC NC900c, it would help. I'll also try it in a different house with scope screen with side masking.

[Carsten Kurz]

You should probably dig up scope and 2.20 framing guide DCPs somewhere. Barcos have a default basic framing guide test pattern that is good enough for flat and scope and is usually on every Barco. Don't know if NECs have similar patterns and wether it's simple to bring them on screen without the use of DCC S2 software. Our Barco has a button on it's keypad to bring up test images, and the framing guide is the first to show up, so it's very quick to check the setup.

The last 2.20 framing guide DCP I remember was for Dunkirk, I still have it stored.



ISDCF has a collection of free framing charts, however, they are all in one big ZIP, unnecessarily large, they are currently discussing to rework them, and currently there are no 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 versions.

https://www.isdcf.com/site/smpte-dcp...framing-chart/



They are usefull, though, as they have triangles hitting the container boundaries, and when their tips are cut off, you immediately notice applied cropping.

https://isdcf.com/t/FramingCharts/IS...K_r1-9_RGB.jpg

[Sara Meyers]

One should probably also test a standard scope framing guide to be reminded of how one's own scope format is actually set up. Not every scope format/screen shows the full scope container, so, it may be that in some locations, a 2.2:1 DCP actually fills the full screen, thus looking like scope - but actually it's a 2.2:1 screen. A scope framing guide will show the actual cropping configured in the scope macro. Depending on some minor screen measure differences, 2.2:1 and 2.39:1 can look very close to each other - especially if the screen has been transformed from a former 35mm 2.35:1 setup.

My scope is spot on. I ended up making new masking and projector macros for 2.20. Those reference images Steve posted are great, thanks!!

[Jon Dent]

What they should've done is release it as scope and slightly crop the sides to get the 2.20 ratio. Telling theaters to play all these oddball ratios in 'flat' seems like a waste.

[Peter Mork]

Really, all cinemas need to be supplied with rubber screens.

[Sara Meyers]

What they should've done is release it as scope and slightly crop the sides to get the 2.20 ratio. Telling theaters to play all these oddball ratios in 'flat' seems like a waste.

YES!! was thinking the very same. It's probably futile but I'm going to try to somehow get this suggestion to Universal... they seem to be the main culprits behind this decision

but also thinking more about it, if folks mostly have their largest ratio as flat, then their scope is "shrunk" and so a 2.20 would be letter and pillar boxed on their screens making a floating awkward rectangle (correct me if I'm wrong Steve). how many of you guys have screens with the largest ratio as 1.85? I am lucky to have full scope/adjustable masking on my 3 screens

[Steve Guttag]

In the past 2 years (yes we started before C19 and worked through it...as theatres took "advantage" of C19 to do construction/renovation work while the industry was shut down):

• 10-plex: 7 screens 1.85, 3 screens 2.39 (no masking on any screens)
• 3-plex: 2 screens 1.85, 1 screen 2.39 (masking on all screens, grand drape in the largest theatre with the 2.39 screen)
• 3-plex: all three have 4-way masking for best image size for all formats. Scope always is the widest, 4:3 is always the tallest.
• 3-plex: 2-screens 1.85 (top drop masking), 1-screen 2.39 (multistop masking).
• 10-plex: 5-screens 1.85ish (I didn't do it), 5-screens 2.39ish (again I didn't do it but two of the screens that got new frames, those are 2.39)...no movable masking on any screen.

So, discounting the 4-way masking auditoriums (3), we're at better than 60% use 1.85 screens. I'd consider only one of the locations above to be a ground-up new build and that one is 67% 1.85 screen. 9 out of 29 screens got masking (31%) and just one got a grand drape (3%).

[Peter Mork]

Obvious compromise: make two versions available, one "project flat" and one "project scope", let the end user decide which is best for the screen they're using.

Would any distributor ever do that? Maybe, maybe not but it's worth suggesting.

[Steve Guttag]

Not only would not not do that, DCinema was founded on the notion of "single-inventory" movies. That worked fine, until 3D...which forced those variants. And then the whole caption thing...so two versions turn to four versions...and then there are the special sound formats, like Atmos...which gets you up to 8 versions...though that genie may be put back into the bottle with IAB and if you don't have the whizbang sound format, you will run 5.1 or 7.1...oops...we have two versions there because 5.1 is required...so back to 8 or 16 versions...add a flat versus scope variant and you get up to 32 versions...it's ridiculous.

While I don't hope any movie tanks, I do hope that 3D slithers back under the rock from which it came. So, if Avatar 2 does really well in 2D but tanks in 3D...I'll be happy.

Again, the realities are, running F-220 in Scope on a common height screen will be fine 99% of the time and near 100% of the time run flat on a common width screen. So, that would be a solution in search of a problem. I'd rather that the filmmaker take a reality check and for major distribution, just issue it as Scope...just like with film. There is no way those extra pixels are what are making the movie 100% instead of 95%. Likewise, 2:1 over 1.85:1 just isn't significant enough a difference...how many pixels are you saving?

If you really want to drive the point home...and don't mind some mild aliasing, most projectors could "scale" a 2:1 up to 1.85 (keeping the things square) and, likewise on 2.2 up to 2.39 but that sort of scaling is frowned upon though the ICP and it's descendants can do it. Heck, I've used ICPs to scale up standard definition (e.g. DVD) to DCP resolutions...with and without anamorphic lenses.

[Peter Mork]

Did the comparison, and with the scope framing chart (recommended by Carsten above) projected on my 1.85 screen, top masking in place, I'm seeing all of the chart, nothing cut off on the sides. So I have a correctly set projector, a screen properly masked, everything that's supposed to be seen is seen - and Nope (the DCP they sent me) likewise fits that ratio, so - what else can I say?

I'll take pictures if anyone still thinks I'm making this up.

[Sara Meyers]

Did the comparison, and with the scope framing chart (recommended by Carsten above) projected on my 1.85 screen, top masking in place, I'm seeing all of the chart, nothing cut off on the sides. So I have a correctly set projector, a screen properly masked, everything that's supposed to be seen is seen - and Nope (the DCP they sent me) likewise fits that ratio, so - what else can I say?

I'll take pictures if anyone still thinks I'm making this up.

Does your CPL say F-220? I read online that they have released this film in 2.20, 1.43, and 1.90 (which is weird- if someone can explain why they'd do this let me know).. and my version definitely has a small amount of cropping when run as scope. did you blow up the flat version and compare a frame to the scope version? That's how I checked it. If so then maybe something fishy is up with your version. Either way as Steve said, there is very little cropping that occurs if you are unable to adjust your ratio

[Jon Dent]

Does your CPL say F-220? I read online that they have released this film in 2.20, 1.43, and 1.90 (which is weird- if someone can explain why they'd do this let me know)..

The movie was shot in 65mm so 1.43 and 1.9 are IMAX formats. Otherwise called 'true IMAX' and 'lieMAX' by some.