Another Assinine Aspect Ratio Decision

[Jim Cassedy]

The DCP CPL for the upcoming movie "Opus" sez it's FLAT:
Opus_FTR_F_EN-XX-CCAP_OV_51-HI-VI_4K_A24_etc, etc

But the studio release notes say:
"This film should be played as a Flat 1.85 DCP. Note: A majority of the film is
in the aspect ratio 2.35. However, the picture shifts to a 1.85 aspect ratio in
the last reel of the film. "

[Chris Haller]

I guess we're going to have to run this one flat, as I would suspect the intended decision to make thue image bigger in the final reel for impact???? Having 7 scope screens and two flat screens means this WILL look dumb in most of our houses. Shame it couldn't be the other way around.

One could I suppose trigger a flat macro seconds before the switch, but I suspect it will look silly running most of the feature in scope, and then shrink it for the finale.

Dumb dumb dumb. Oh well.

[Ryan Gallagher]

We had one like that two years ago at the festival. It was not marked nearly as clearly and played in the room with a scope screen. It bit the less experienced operator that was shift sharing with us. Gotta bounce through once you have keys, especially if the DCP label says something you are not seeing on screen.

For that film anyway, the aspect change played a narrative purpose that I actually found agreeable.

In other aspect complaints, the same festival just gave us our preroll content, packaged as Flat and Scope. However the bulk (but not all) the Flat versions are F190. I typically remake them for our weird aspect films to fit inside the masking. Have not convinced myself stretch their F190 versions to a true F185 yet, though I probably should.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I guess we're going to have to run this one flat, as I would suspect the intended decision to make thue image bigger in the final reel for impact???? Having 7 scope screens and two flat screens means this WILL look dumb in most of our houses. Shame it couldn't be the other way around.

One could I suppose trigger a flat macro seconds before the switch, but I suspect it will look silly running most of the feature in scope, and then shrink it for the finale.

Dumb dumb dumb. Oh well.

Yeah I expect the visual intent is to have the top and bottom grow from 2.35 to 1.85 at the transition point. That was how the other one I had behaved. That doesn't work so well if you set up for full size scope... the grow just never happens and you end up cropping or blasting the masking instead. Flat presets would be the way to go, and live with letter boxing for the bulk of the film.

[Chris Haller]

I've moved our presales from a mid-size scope to a mid-size flat. Don't think its going to change our numbers for the day, but I'm interested enough in it.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I've moved our presales from a mid-size scope to a mid-size flat. Don't think its going to change our numbers for the day, but I'm interested enough in it.

Those lucky devils with top and bottom programmable masking could really make this one pop with a mid film masking cue.

[Paul Finn]

So, do you run the scope image in the middle of the screen with the top and bottom unmasked (gross), or at the bottom of the screen (much preferred) with the top unmasked? And, how does this work with the 1.85:1 expansion?

Paul Finn

[Ian Puffenberger]

I know this is preaching to the choir, but the idea that flat is "bigger" than scope and so should be switched to for maximum visual impact is a perfect example of the "TV in public" devolving of cinema that Tarantino first talked about with the switch from film to digital. The cheaper tv-shaped screens that became ubiquitous in the megaplex era--culminating of course with lie-max--have contributed greatly to this.

[Stefan Scholz]

Why not test screen it, and add a scope command at the position.
Oh, against the intention in an old scope is largest house.
Well, dumb decision in the first place to make such a "movie" that way.

[Leo Enticknap]

Is the scope part actually scope on the DCP (2048 pixels across if 2K), or pillarboxed into the flat container (1998 pixels across)? If the latter, you'd have to make a dedicated F-239 lens position and screen file to enable an automated transition in a house with a common height screen. And even then, you'd have to close the dowser for a few seconds while the lens zooms and refocuses, in order for that not to be visible to the audience. If there is a fade to black at the transition it could be do-able, but if it's a hard cut, it'll look messy however you do it.

Excepting Wes Anderson's fetish with multiple aspect ratios in a single movie, the last pic I can remember that did something this irritating was The Horse Whisperer (we nicknamed it The Horse [unprintable]), that changed from flat to scope about an hour in. The print was anamorphic throughout, so we only needed a masking cue, but I was working in a theater at the time that didn't have foil sticky label automation triggers, and so that was one more thing to have to remember to do.

[Tony Bandiera Jr]

Is the scope part actually scope on the DCP (2048 pixels across if 2K), or pillarboxed into the flat container (1998 pixels across)? If the latter, you'd have to make a dedicated F-239 lens position and screen file to enable an automated transition in a house with a common height screen. And even then, you'd have to close the dowser for a few seconds while the lens zooms and refocuses, in order for that not to be visible to the audience. If there is a fade to black at the transition it could be do-able, but if it's a hard cut, it'll look messy however you do it.

Excepting Wes Anderson's fetish with multiple aspect ratios in a single movie, the last pic I can remember that did something this irritating was The Horse Whisperer (we nicknamed it The Horse [unprintable]), that changed from flat to scope about an hour in. The print was anamorphic throughout, so we only needed a masking cue, but I was working in a theater at the time that didn't have foil sticky label automation triggers, and so that was one more thing to have to remember to do.

Leo, we can use the adult words here..I think you were using "Bugger(er)" to put it in UK vernacular.

On topic, one thing I absolutely despise about the digital switchover is nonsense like this. Aspect ratio changes have become a new crutch in storytelling...remember Jurrasic Park was 1:85 and look how well it did, and how impactful it was visually. And Tarentino did "Hateful Eight" in one aspect ratio...even the intimate scenes held up in Super Panavison 70. (Because he knows how to tell stories and shoot them right.)

[Ryan Gallagher]

My last encounter of such a beast was indeed a 2.39:1 letter boxed within a 1998x1080 flat container, until it wasn't. It had a "reveal" moment where the top and bottom expanded to the flat height over a visual moment. Not something that would permit shutter shenanigans. Even landing it on the bottom masking for the letter-boxed part would entail a nasty ILS motor move once it was time to go flat.

Best option is to do as intended (on TV screen ideally), and just show it as a flat film, exposed screen be damned. Then it morphs to actual flat as the director intended down the line.

Did a tech check for "The Studio" (AppleTV+ mini series) today. They too went from letterboxed in flat, to flat. But it was only the opening sequence, not the bulk of the presentation. Showed it as described above with studio reps present and all were happy.

Our house is weird, we have a flat screen but can't use all of it, flat is presented slightly narrower than scope because at maximal image sizes the curved proscenium arch starts to come into play. (1.66 and 1.33 look great ). Flat is taller and Scope is wider, but neither are really "bigger" in terms of square footage, I would speculate flat wins by a hair on our DCI setup. On our 35mm setup scope is even wider (and wins), but they opted to draw it in slightly for historic sightline issues with digital. Would be nice to size them the same, new lenses perhaps... then my digital backups would be less of an entirely dedicated set of DCI presets!

[Ryan Gallagher]

Also teched one of several F200 films in this festival today. It is common enough now I should really give it a larger preset, similar to how we go wider for scope. But up till now it's the same width as flat, just adjusted down and top masked. Our weird use of our available screen means I could actually go bigger with F200.

[Jim Cassedy]

Best option is to do as intended (on TV screen ideally), and
just show it as a flat film, exposed screen be damned. Then
it morphs to actual flat as the director intended down the line.

That's probably what we'll wind up doing here, rather than attempt an
aspect ratio circus on screen.

Also, the new Barco HDR LS4k we have, blanks out and takes quite a
while to change aspect ratios 'live' on screen.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Hello from festival land, just a note to say the 235 to 185 transition in ATV/Lionsgate “The Studio” is hella clever and fun for film fans. But like others perhaps, definitely requires the non-masked 185 frame to work.

Series is very watchable comedy for Hollywood insiders or general film fans, making movies is the subject of course!!

Tons of historical references burried on set decoration etc, even a Cinerama reference.