Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
DCP-o-matic aspect ratio handling has changed completely with the current 2.15/2.16 release.
I guess to be able to accomodate hipster-cinema, we should stop thinking about Aspect Ratio as something that's defined on a feature level, but more like a "safe bounding box" and an aspect ratio that can change every frame.
DCP-O-MATICâ„¢ is going to have to add a few additional aspect ratios to its' library. (said with with some amount of sarcasm- - but would have come in handy for two recent events)
The current version of DCP-o-matic let's you choose ANY arbitrary aspect ratio. Even inverse ARs for vertical video. But it is usually not necessary to force source footage into a specific aspect ratio, as the best way is to assume it comes with a properly flagged aspect ratio. For those few cases where this is not true, any numerical value can be set, and any interior aspect ratio can be achieved by applying cropping in both dimensions, both symmetrically and non-symmetrically. And all completely independent of the chosen container. All scaling settings are content based, so, if necessary, you could fit an unlimited number of different interior aspect ratios into a single DCP. The DCNC name, of course, could only indicate one of them, or, the most prominent, or simply indicate the container ar.
Last edited by Carsten Kurz; 06-16-2022, 08:15 AM.
Yes. F-XXX means a ratio other than 1.85 but within the 1.85 container (so if it's wider than 1.85, with a width of 1,998 (in 2K) but a height other than 1,080; if narrower than 1.85, with a height of 1,080 but a width other than 1,998). S-XXX means a ratio other than 2.39 but within the scope container, and C-XXX would be a ratio other than 1.90 but within the full container.
At Tribeca FF in our venue we have had one 2.00 aspect ratio so far, marked as Flat. We also had what we think was a 1.90 but within a Flat wrapper and slightly justified to the top of the window. At Mountainfilm last month we had a 2.00 as well.
There have been loads of mainstream movies in 2.0:1 in recent years. Oscar winners among them:
Green Book
Another Round
A rainy day in New York (all recent Woody Allen movies are 2.0:1)
Jurassic World (both the first and the current one).
A simple favor
Men in Black: International
Last Christmas
June Again
Kimi
The Northman
The Outfit
And that's just those that we played in recent years.
"NOPE = F-220"
We can add the upcoming release of NOPE to the ever increasing list of "2.20 - Play As Flat"
releases. Of course it only matters mostly to us folks here. Most theaters these days don't
have moveable maskings, or if they do-- they never move them anyway.
Actually, it is my maskingless theatres that struggle with F-200 and F-220 the most. In particular, those with "scope" screens because now the image doesn't touch any end of the screen.
For Jurassic world...I got a significant number of emails and even paged, multiple times, that something is wrong with the projector and that the manager has verified it (customer complaints). Oddly enough, the theatres that paged did have dedicated projector presets for these formats (in particular, the F-200 for Jurassic World).
For Nope, it may be best to run the movie with the Scope preset, if one doesn't have a dedicated F-220 preset. It all depends on how tightly they framed it and if there is any vital content/text near the top/bottom.
DCI specs, originally, only called for Flat and Scope and during the bulk of the digital conversion, that is what we set up for. After all, they only had the two lenses in the film days. The exception would be the art houses where they also tended to have lenses and the ability to present many ratios (though 2.20 wasn't one of them as that is, traditionally, a 70mm format). Once, the first F-200 and F-220 titles started hitting commercial releases, we set up new theatres, with either Scope or Masked screens with F-200 and F-220 (and masked screens got the full boat if they have multi-stop masking.
Now, if you have a "Flat Screen" with a nominal aspect ratio of 1.85:1, then these formats are of no consequence as they are just another letterboxed format.
I find it more annoying that good practices regarding naming/indicating non-standard aspect ratios have gone belly up. Now often we get trailers with F-239 indicators, and main features without any indication, not in the name, not in the accompanying letter (if there is any at all).
Obviously those jerks mastering these DCPs give a shit about proper presentation in a cinema. I have probably shown already half a dozen non standard aspect ratio DCPs this year alone, and except for Jurassic World 3, not one of them was labeled properly. We recently showed 'The Electrical Life Of Louis Wain', and while it was 1.33:1, it only came labeled 'F'.
Looks as if I need to make a note and from now on check EVERY flat DCP in the future beforehand...until they start fucking up the scope container as well.
Last edited by Carsten Kurz; 07-20-2022, 09:53 AM.
To be honest, I consider the whole DCP naming convention thing to be a failure, since it's considered "optional" and a "guideline" rather than a strict standard. It also has the potential for a lot of ambiguity.
Isn't it just bonkers that nobody ever came up with the idea of properly encoding the container's aspect ratio in one of the many metadata sections a DCP offers? The same thing for the name of the actual feature... By all means and purposes, I'd consider MKV as a far superior and better engineered mediacontainer format than DCP...
The aspect ratio (and many other things) are contained in metadata for SMPTE DCPs - just that so much equipment in the field now is legacy equipment, and the manufacturers don't care about updating their software to make use of it. A major flaw of the late SMPTE transition.
Comment