Tenet DCP

[Ian Puffenberger]

I'm curious if anyone has any insight regarding the image formatting for the Tenet DCP. I've seen some info from WB France saying the 2.2:1 image was formatted in flat, as was Dunkirk. However a representative from Alamo said they would be masking and showing it at 2.2:1 in their PLF houses, and at 2.35:1 in all others. I know that for Dunkirk the instructions for all side-masked/constant height screens were to zoom the projector lens such that the 2.2:1 image filled the entire height of the screen--which anecdotally was not done in most cases--I don't remember ever reading that it had a scope-formatted DCP. So I'm wondering if WB and/or Nolan went a different route on Tenet, or if there are two different DCPs depending on screen configuration. I know Avatar went that route, and that would seem to make the most sense for a film shot/formatted at 2.2:1.

[Steve Guttag]

If you have a constant width screen, then run it flat and things will look normal...just a little less scopey. If you have constant height screens (scope bigger than flat), then you're hosed. If you run the movie Flat...it i looks silly with a little rectangle in the middle of your screen. If you run it scope (likely the best alternative), it won't quite fill the width of your screen (constrained to 3996 pixels instead of 4096) and you'll crop it in height some (1714 in height instead of 1816) divide everything by 2 if you are using a 2K projector. Ideally, use the provided test target (it is on whatever source has your Tenet feature and I' see it on sources that have the trailers), then someone with the proper authority/training can create a custom lens/screen file so show it at its best.

[Ian Puffenberger]

Thank you Steve for that explanation. I'm not a professional, just someone who appreciates cinema done correctly. Unfortunately most major corporate exhibitors don't seem to understand how to handle aspect ratios taller than scope but shorter than flat.

[Frank Cox]

Which is why, when a filmmaker is creating his next masterpiece, the answer to using unusual aspect ratios is, "Don't do that!"

If the director cares about how his presentation looks in a cinema, he should stick to standard cinema aspect ratios; anything other than scope or flat is going to look sub-standard in most theatres, even if it could be theoretically shown "right", because it just won't happen.

[Marcel Birgelen]

To Christopher Nolan's defense: The movie was shot entirely in 65mm, both vertical and horizontal (15/65 IMAX). The 2.2 AR comes natural with 5-perf 70mm.

The reason to put it into a FLAT container is most likely based on having the highest resolution, although if that was the ultimate goal, it should've been put into a FULL container:

2.2 AR in each respective container in 2K:
FULL: 2048x931 = 1,906,688 pixels
FLAT: 1998x908 = 1,814,184 pixels
SCOPE: 1888x858 = 1,619,904 pixels

I guess the reason not to opt for FULL is because most cinemas will not have any macros for such a thing, let alone for 2.2 in FULL. I guess it's still better to have letterboxed FLAT projected than having stuff potentially overshoot the screen, given the fact that proper masking is a luxury those days, the results would probably be even more awful in many cases.

[Carsten Kurz]

There is an ISDCF recommendation on how to deal with non-standard aspect ratios. At and below 2.3:1, flat is recommended. 'Full' is not to be used for actual public content.

---
ISDCF recommended practice that for aspect ratios under 1.85 (such as academy aperture 1.33) pillar box in a flat package. For aspect ratio from 1.85 to 2.30 letter box in a flat package. For aspect ratios above 2.30 letter box in a scope package.
---

There have been quite a few 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 releases in the past years (e.g. Green Book, and all recent Woody Allen movies were 2.0:1). Cinemas should advise their techs to create suitable presets for them. We have created 1.77:1/16:9, 2.0:1 and 2.2:1 stops for our adjustable masking as well.

[Steve Guttag]

ISDCF's recommendation for 2.20 and like ARs is pretty arbitrary. Any theatre that is capable of setting up for F-220 is capable of setting up for C-220 and the resolution benefit of Full container is non-debatable (due to math and all).

I have no problem that he shot in 65mm and used a 2.20 AR...however, he should protect for scope and since F-220 was not a DCI format and a LARGE number of theatres are not set up for it, there should be the option of showing it in Scope using existing systems. This would be consistent for how 65mm features were dealt with for 35mm theatres. Theatres didn't re-lens to handle the odd format like that. Heck, in the end, for 1.37 features they were hard matting those within 1.85 apertures...knowing most theatres were not going to set up for a special/rarely used format. I do remember, for The Wizard of Oz, if you WERE set up for 1.37, you had access to the Technicolor prints so you looked better than the "average" cinema in more ways than one.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I don't know how many 35mm prints were struck for this one, but IMDB lists the aspect ratio for it as 2.39 (anamorphic), so I guess they cropped the image top and bottom. It may be a glitch, not uncommon for IMDB, but if it's true, I wonder why the DCP version couldn't also be released in 2.39.

[Frank Cox]

I still think that any wise filmmaker will stick with either flat or scope and leave it at that. "It can be set up to..." "It should be set up to...." No. Bad! Perhaps it can be set up to and perhaps it should be set up to, and neither of those things will happen in the average movie theatre (and probably not in most above-average theatres, either.)

If a filmmaker wants to provide the best possible experience for his audience in theatres around the world, he needs to make his movie in either flat or scope. He can make all of the "artistic statements" that he wants to within the movie itself, but the movie needs to be made to fit the screens and screen ratios that exist in the real world.

[Martin McCaffery]

Of course, if the filmmaker is going to shoot for the format most people will see it in, then Wide Screen TV is the way to go.

[Marcel Birgelen]

I'd go for an aspect ratio of 0.56, compliant with most phone screens.

I still think that any wise filmmaker will stick with either flat or scope and leave it at that. "It can be set up to..." "It should be set up to...." No. Bad! Perhaps it can be set up to and perhaps it should be set up to, and neither of those things will happen in the average movie theatre (and probably not in most above-average theatres, either.)

If a filmmaker wants to provide the best possible experience for his audience in theatres around the world, he needs to make his movie in either flat or scope. He can make all of the "artistic statements" that he wants to within the movie itself, but the movie needs to be made to fit the screens and screen ratios that exist in the real world.

I mostly agree that filmmakers shouldn't unnecessarily indulge in Aspect Ratio fetish and think they have the right to their own, unique, oddball AR, but 2.20 is a pretty common AR. It's also not based on some arbitrary decision by a fancy-pants filmmaker, but one that has technical origins. Theaters should step-up their game and should be able to play those kind of aspect ratios correctly, it's not like it's rocket science to do it right.

[Jim Cassedy]

someone with the proper authority/training can create a custom lens/screen file so show it at its best.

I was assigned to two different venues to run all of their 70mm showings of HATEFUL EIGHT and DUNKIRK.
They ran 70mm for the 1st 2 or 3 weeks, and then switched to the DCP version. Both times, I offered to create
special macros & playlists so that these DCP's could be shown in their optimum aspect ratios. I even showed the
manager at one venue the difference on screen between projecting it "the studio way", or with a special lens file.
- but both times I was told to just leave things the way they were, "because anything other than 'FLAT' or 'SCOPE'
would be too confusing for the projection staff."

In the interest of wanting them to have a proper presentation, I even offered to create the macro files & show
playlists on my own time, and remove them at the end of each of the films engagement run, also on my own time,
(not that it takes that much time to to do) but I but still got the same answer. Oh well. . . I tried.

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

Of course, if the filmmaker is going to shoot for the format most people will see it in, then Wide Screen TV is the way to go.

While I am not with a definite opinion on the matter, that was not what Frank said and nobody here talked about how shooting should be. What he said, in TV terms would be that, when a broadcaster shows a no-matter-what-aspect-ratio, they convert the video accordingly, so to have the HD 1.77 aspect ratio letterboxed or pillarboxed. Cinema distribution have the (easiest) option of two dominant aspect ratios to fit everything in.
We may agree that such a solution wouldn't be the best in terms of resolution, as the F-220 is not, since the C-220 would be even better and a C with anamorphic lens would be the best, but it totally bears reason, as it would have saved many people of dilemmas and many customers of frustration.

[Steve Guttag]

C-220 with an anamorphic lens has an issue...available anamorphic lenses for DCInema are 1.25...you don't have enough pixels to magnify the height (you'd need to have a 2328 tall chip...not exactly off-the-shelf.

What I think should be done is offer the title both ways...F-220 for the "directors cut" and perhaps put some sort of bonus footage or feature to entice that format and to have a "S" for everyone else. Just like with a 5.1 soundtrack, there should be a standard ratio available to ensure that EVERYONE has a solution. Those that want to go the extra mile, perhaps use some masking, they get the better show.

[Benjamin Ruder]

Of course, if the filmmaker is going to shoot for the format most people will see it in, then Wide Screen TV is the way to go.

but then letterbox it so it looks "cinematic"