DCP Oppenheimer available in F-220 AND S-220

[Steve Guttag]

Now, I was assured years ago that S-220 was deprecated for new releases since F-220 has more pixels and zoomed out, will look better than S-220. My guess is that they acquiesced to the realities of the world that with an S-220 format, people will just run it scope and it will be composed correctly (give or take keystone artifacts of the pillarboxed bars).

I'll admit, I stopped setting up for S-220 in cinemas when I heard that S-220 was being dropped for new releases...so, just my "art" screening room venues are set up for it since they may get an S-220 that was originally issued. Now, eventually, they'll get Oppenheimer, someday. Well, one of those venues will be running it in 70mm; but that is for another forum.

[James Gardiner]

I heard about this a while back in that. Cinemas are expected to utilise the version that maximizes screen usage based on if its side or top masking..
Its not something I have put a lot of consideration into. My issue was that TMS systems cannot deal with this issue. It was not part of the design. So its not really going to be properly implemented. You will have to go with one of the other for all screens on a TMS.

[Steve Guttag]

James, that is not the case. Comscore with their ACE TMS has a configuration, by screen, for its native aspect ratio plus an order of preference (this applies to several picture and sound parameters, like if a screen can support Dolby Atmos).

So, in the example below, the screen supports both Flat and Scope but since Flat is above Scope, that is its preferred format. Conversely, 7.1 is above 5.1, so, if 7.1 is available, that is its preferred format for audio. Unticked boxes are not supported by that screen so it should not get those versions.

Screen Shot 2023-07-12 at 7.17.23 AM.png

[James Gardiner]

Oh, I didn't know you could change the order in that screen.

The any and default order of other items looked like it was more of a capabilities list and priority was not a consideration.

The documentation from HW software is not the best.

It ace the only TMS supporting this? How many others also do this?

J

[Ian Puffenberger]

Forgive my ignorance, but as someone with an interest in this, what would be the difference between running an S220 in scope and, say, an F200 in flat? Where there is slight letterboxing for the latter, I assume there would just be slight pillar boxing for the former? I understand that an F200 should be run using a unique lens file, but I'm having trouble conceptualizing how an S220 lens file would look different than pillar boxed scope. Assuming it's done correctly, I'm glad for the S220 option as F220 in flat looks horrific on scope screens, and that's how everyone runs it.

[Carsten Kurz]

Well, simply depends on your screen layout/masking and available presets. In 2k, S-220 would mean resolution compromise, but in 4k, guess it's acceptable. You can have a perfect F220 preset for a scope screen, if you care.

[Steve Guttag]

The idea is, if you have a 2.39:1 native screen, then use the S-220 file. It is the same lens setting. The only thing a custom S-220 preset (Macro or Channel) brings is the ability to "mask" pixels on the side to not draw attention to any keystone that may be present (or curved screen artifact). Note, masking via the screen file doesn't actually correct any of this; it just give a less obvious appearance.

This is a scaled representation if a theatre with a Scope screen runs an F-220 movie using a Scope preset:

Screen Shot 2023-07-13 at 8.20.24 PM.png



The "damage" is relatively minimal, really. I know people we've told to do this have received zero complaints and they have yet to run into a caption/subtitle issue where the minimal cropping impinged on the text (which is supposed to be 20% in for "safe title area."

As to using the "Flat" format on a Scope screen for an F-220, that is indeed suboptimal in presentation, particularly without any masking.

Screen Shot 2023-07-13 at 8.24.26 PM.png

However, the claim

I'm glad for the S220 option as F220 in flat looks horrific on scope screens, and that's how everyone runs it.

Is false. We've set up all of the theatres we install for F-220 since the first one was encountered. Those that were set up before we created the F-220 presets, we have them run them in Scope.

[James Gardiner]

Steve, Are you sure that's right?
I would expect, F-220 and S-220 mean exactly that. a 220 image fit into a F and a S framing. As 220 is between F and S aspect rations. One with have piller boxing (Scope) and one will have letterboxing (Flat)

Then based on your masking method, the more suitable version should be used. I.e. to minimize issues such as seen on curved screens.

That is my understanding of the reasons why they released 2 versions.

[Carsten Kurz]

The reason they released two versions, and included advice how to use the framing guides, was that they knew many theaters would not have optimized 220 presets, or trained staff to set them up. Essentially, the writing says: 'Play the framing guide, then switch between your standard F and S preset and see what minimizes crop or utilises your screen best.' That also takes into account non-standard screen aspect ratios.

[Steve Guttag]

Steve, Are you sure that's right?
I would expect, F-220 and S-220 mean exactly that. a 220 image fit into a F and a S framing. As 220 is between F and S aspect rations. One with have piller boxing (Scope) and one will have letterboxing (Flat)

Then based on your masking method, the more suitable version should be used. I.e. to minimize issues such as seen on curved screens.

That is my understanding of the reasons why they released 2 versions.

James, I think you are misreading or interpreting what I said. In all cases, the final AR of what is seen is 2.20:1, EXCEPT when an F-220 is run in a theatre with a 2.39 screen using its Scope preset, then and only then do you get an image that has a wider AR due to the minimal cropping of the top and bottom (and minimal pillarbox bars). That ratio is ~ 2.33.

Since Oppenheimer is offering an S-220 version, those where I haven't set up an F-220 preset, I'm recommending using the S-220, naturally, however, the pillar boxes will reveal any keystone present in the system.

Where I have set up for F-220, then F-220 is the preferred format for all native screen ratios as it will provide the greatest resolution (and illumination optimization).

Here is a test pattern that shows the resolution differences between C-220, F-220 and S-220.

Screen Shot 2023-07-14 at 7.08.58 AM.png

The differences between C-220 and F-220 are minimal but there is a notable drop in resolution between F-220 and S-220. However, I think the benefits of having a version that "just runs" in theatres that are set up for just Flat or Scope outweigh the realities that if just F-220 is offered, people will have a floating small image in the middle of their "Scope" screens...having never tied to see what it would look like if they just pressed the Scope button (see post Special above).