Jump to content

New 2.20 Aspect Ratio Standard for Tomorrowland


Recommended Posts

Hey everyone, just thought I'd mention this interesting development.

 

I work in projection and when I received the trailers for Tomorrowland I found it interesting that it did not fill the scope frame, instead being shown cropped to 2.20:1.

 

In fact I just received the film and I find out that it must be shown like this. The first modern film to be shown in this format. Not only that after setting it up you can enter a contest as a projectionist if you set it up properly. Very interested to see if this is a new trend, as I cannot see Regal being exact in their projection of this film, instead they will just run it in flat.

 

What do you think of the new format? Personally I feel it is the perfect framing, not to wide or tall, about perfect for my eyes. However there is no natural way to capture this aspect ratio besides cropping the final image for most cameras so it's a bit of an acquisition nightmare.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love seeing so many filmmakers going beyond the boundaries of 1.85 and 2.35.

 

So do you know if Tomorrowland will be projected on film, and if so, will it be projected in anamorphic or spherical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No film prints for tomorrowland. :(

Wel that's a shame...but to be honest, it was shot on digital and it's full of CGI, so it probably isn't that big of a deal.

 

Perhaps "Tomorrowland" might encourage more filmmakers to start using 65mm. Or the Alexa 65, if that counts - after all, Lubezki is using the Alexa for "The Revenant".

Edited by Leon Liang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's not unusual to mix the two, "A Million Ways to Die in the West" did that too -- they are both Sony cameras for one thing, but the main reason for switching to the F55 is usually they need a smaller, lighter camera for something like Steadicam work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with using a non standard aspect ratio is that cinemas arn't going to be set up to deal with it. As fewer cinemas have competent projectionists there will be know one on site to make the necessary adjustments as most cinemas just have macros for 2.39:1 or 1.85:1.

 

From what I read on Film-Tech (so it could be wrong) they are formatting the 2.20:1 image letter boxed within the 1.85:1 DCP container. So its not using the full width of the chip.

 

I assume common width screens in cinemas without masking (e.g. imax) will be fine.

My local Odeon cinema has 2.39:1 shape screens with no masking. 1.85:1 films are shown pillarbox on the screens, with black bars on the side (masking is not moved). If Tomorrowland is coming from a 1.85:1 DCP with a 2.20:1 letterbox within the 1.85:1 frame - the worse result could be a tiny postage stamp image with blackbars on all sides.

 

Hopefully that won't happen and they will create a new projector macro to resize the image to better fill the screen - but I've met the "projectionist" so I don't expect that will happen. I saw Citizen Kane projected at another branch on the chain in 1.85:1 at a rep screening because they didn't have the right lens "but its ok because nobody will notice".

 

I wonder how many cinemas will crop the image down to 2.39:1 to fill the screens as most don't have constantly variable masking.

 

Seems a risky choice using non standard format - especially in these days of automated cinemas. Personally I like the 2.20:1 ratio but wish it was being done properly with a proper DCP spec that uses the full width of the DLP chip rather then just letterboxing/pillerbox it within a flat or scope container.

 

Be interested to see how cinemas are going to cope with the extreme aspect ratio of "Hateful Eight" and the requirement to project 70mm with anamorphic lens's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The only reason the studios went for 2.35:1 in the first place was:

 

A. It gave audiences something they couldn't experience on TV

B. There was little or no scope for increasing the height of the screen, but since in the early days many cinemas were converted drama theatres, there was usually plenty of scope for widening the screen by lopping off the "wings" (you know, the things wot understudies were always waiting in :rolleyes: )

 

Basically they went for widescreen because they could!

The simple reality is, most lay people can't even tell the difference between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, and even fewer punters seem to care.

 

Anamorphic was just another in the long sad line of answers-to-questions-that-nobody-was-really-asking....

 

You know, like AM stereo, Quadrophonic LPs, the DCC tape format, the DAT format (as a domestic product anyway), stereo TV, 3D movies, 4K TVs, S-VHS and ED-Beta.

 

The only difference was that with movies, the consumer didn't really get a lot of say in the matter. Except perhaps for not showing any particular preference for Digital projection over film prints.....

 

About the only real advantage of 4K projectors is they make letterboxing more practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, 2.39 might have emerged at random but it shouts "cinema" to so many and seeing as most people experience films at home with 16:9 screens they can very much tell the difference between 1.85 and 2.39.

 

For the man on the street sometimes just adding a 2.39 letterbox to badly filmed footage makes it seem more professional. That's not a good thing but it's true.

 

I for one love the scope aspect ratio and always can't help but smiling when I see the cinema curtains pull back fully from exit door to exit door after the trailers end.

 

As for anamorphic being an answer to a question no-one asked, I have grown up with a love for 2x anamorphic lenses that I could never even explain until I was a teenager and began to discover filmmaking technically. Even as I child I knew I loved the flares, the barrel distortion and the odd 3D feeling the format gives to shallow focus shots. I really do wish that people would except that we have two great standard aspect ratios and concentrate more on what they are putting in that rectangle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unusual to mix the two, "A Million Ways to Die in the West" did that too -- they are both Sony cameras for one thing, but the main reason for switching to the F55 is usually they need a smaller, lighter camera for something like Steadicam work.

 

Makes sense - thanks. Think there'll be a visible difference? I couldn't tell with "Ex Machina" but that was shot anamorphically and finished at 2K.

 

From what I read on Film-Tech (so it could be wrong) they are formatting the 2.20:1 image letter boxed within the 1.85:1 DCP container. So its not using the full width of the chip.

 

I assume common width screens in cinemas without masking (e.g. imax) will be fine.

My local Odeon cinema has 2.39:1 shape screens with no masking. 1.85:1 films are shown pillarbox on the screens, with black bars on the side (masking is not moved). If Tomorrowland is coming from a 1.85:1 DCP with a 2.20:1 letterbox within the 1.85:1 frame - the worse result could be a tiny postage stamp image with blackbars on all sides.

 

That's unfortunate. One would hope that DCPs/digital projectors would be "smart" enough to let filmmakers use as much of the frame as they felt necessary and zoom in or out accordingly. But I've seen 2.2 projected twice: once on a large 2.39 screen and once on an oversized 1.85 screen. For whatever my opinion's worth, 2.2 on an oversized 1.85 screen is brilliant while 2.2 on a 2.39 screen is boxy, so, if that's their intention, it may be a good move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Keith, 2.39 might have emerged at random but it shouts "cinema" to so many and seeing as most people experience films at home with 16:9 screens they can very much tell the difference between 1.85 and 2.39.

 

.

Of course they can; the black areas at the top and bottom of the screen are a dead giveaway.

 

"As for anamorphic being an answer to a question no-one asked, I have grown up with a love for 2x anamorphic lenses that I could never even explain until I was a teenager and began to discover filmmaking technically. Even as I child I knew I loved the flares, the barrel distortion and the odd 3D feeling the format gives to shallow focus shots. I really do wish that people would except that we have two great standard aspect ratios and concentrate more on what they are putting in that rectangle"

 

Yes but the industry is not financed by people who love making films (or would like to). It's financed by billions of people who really couldn't give a rat's arse about that sort of thing.

People who for example decided that the money they were spending on movie tickets might be better put toward buying a TV set, VCR, DVD player etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unusual to mix the two, "A Million Ways to Die in the West" did that too -- they are both Sony cameras for one thing, but the main reason for switching to the F55 is usually they need a smaller, lighter camera for something like Steadicam work.

That's what the new AC says: About 95% of the movie F65s, with F55s used for lighter-weight stuff like Steadicam, cablecam and certain effects requirements.

 

Also, according to Film-Tech this is getting some 35mm prints (I think one is showing at the Fine Arts Theatre in Maynard, MA), and unlike the DCP, which letterboxes 2.20 in flat, the print pillarboxes it in scope.

Edited by Shawn Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Saw Tomorrowland last night, they had the screen setup for 1:85 and simply showed a matted image on the screen with black bars at the top and bottom. A bit disappointing for Arclight, the premiere theater chain in So Cal. However, the projector looked pretty good and the movie looked even better.

 

A side note, Claudio Miranda did a stellar job. It's unfortunate the film has so much SFX because I really just wanted to see more of his live action stuff. Stephen Nakamura color'd it and as always, he did a great job, I mean stellar work. I was so depressed when they went to the CG world of Tomorrowland because those were the only scenes that looked totally different then the live action stuff.

 

Gotta admit, there were some aliasing issues, especially around patterns of clothing. Claudio did a great job evening out the light so the dynamic range issues these cameras have, wasn't so obvious. Then Nakamura brought in some blacks and accentuated the highlights. It's the first film I've seen in a while where the digital photography didn't bother me too much. I wasn't constantly pulled out of the movie nit picking on stuff. Sure, you could tell it was digital right away, first shot of the film. However, they did so much work to cover it up, it worked OK and didn't take me away from the story.

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The logic behind the 2K DCP for a 1.85 movie being 1998 x 1080 and for a 2.40 movie being 2048 x 858 is that the total 2K size possible is 2048 x 1080, so 1.85 maximizes the chip vertically at 1080 pixels and 2.40 maximizes the chip horizontally at 2048 pixels.

 

Since a 2K DCP 2.20 movie cannot be 2376 x 1080, it would have to be 2048 x 931, but I guess that's not supported in DCI yet -- it would probably spill out of the top & bottom of the screen set-up for 2048 x 848 unless resized in some manner to fit. But all of that should be possible in theory at the DCP end and at the projector end of things. But I guess for now, the simpler thing is to just letterbox it within a 1.85 DCP, which means the 2.20 image itself is only 1998 x 908 pixels. Another motivation I guess to find a 4K DCP being screened, if one exists... maybe the digital IMAX version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claudio did a great job evening out the light so the dynamic range issues these cameras have, wasn't so obvious.

 

Without wishing to derail the thread, I'm curious as to what issues you think the F65 has? I have never known anyone to comment on it as lacking, although that might not be what you meant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the digital IMAX version?

 

I was wondering that, too. From what I've read, "lie-max" is mostly or all 2K but one in my city advertised 4K screenings of Interstellar. According to IMDB, IMAX screenings will be 1.90, so they're presumably using the full width of the chip, at least, at whichever resolution.

 

I find Tyler's report of aliasing interesting - not much should alias supersampled 4K, right? Perhaps it was caused by resampling, if they shot full width?

Edited by cole t parzenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I assume the issues are related to post processing and converting a 4k master to 2k. I saw similar problems with Ex Machina using the same camera. Both movies I saw in 2k, so it's most likely not the camera. I wonder if Claudio Miranda uses a similar shutter angle because Oblivion had similar motion blur issues.

 

Hmm… it's interesting for sure. That's just how nit picky I am! LOL :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the issues are related to post processing and converting a 4k master to 2k. I saw similar problems with Ex Machina using the same camera. Both movies I saw in 2k, so it's most likely not the camera. I wonder if Claudio Miranda uses a similar shutter angle because Oblivion had similar motion blur issues.

 

Hmm… it's interesting for sure. That's just how nit picky I am! LOL :D

 

Also you might have seen Tomorrowland on a 2K projector, but the film was distributed in 4k to theaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...