Jump to content




Photo

New 2.20 Aspect Ratio Standard for Tomorrowland

aspect ratio

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Geoff C. Bassett

Geoff C. Bassett

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chatham, MA

Posted 18 May 2015 - 04:40 PM

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.

 


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 May 2015 - 05:07 PM

It's the shape of 5-perf 65mm spherical / 70mm Todd-AO / Super Panavision 70, so it's not new -- you'd see it at any 70mm screening of "2001" or "Lawrence of Arabia" for example.  Yes, it's a nice ratio.


  • 1

#3 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 May 2015 - 11:54 PM

2.20:1 is perfect. Just wide enough! :)
  • 0

#4 Leon Liang

Leon Liang
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Student
  • Sydney

Posted 19 May 2015 - 02:35 AM

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?
  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:59 PM

No film prints for tomorrowland. :(
  • 0

#6 Josh Gladstone

Josh Gladstone
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Editor
  • Hollywood

Posted 19 May 2015 - 04:06 PM

Are they doing film prints for anything domestic anymore?


  • 0

#7 Leon Liang

Leon Liang
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Student
  • Sydney

Posted 19 May 2015 - 04:31 PM

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, 19 May 2015 - 04:32 PM.

  • 0

#8 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 May 2015 - 05:20 PM

According to IMDB, they used the F55 and F65. Anyone have an idea of why they'd mix the two?

 

Anyone anticipate problems with projection?


  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2015 - 12:27 AM

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.


  • 0

#10 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 20 May 2015 - 05:08 AM

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 


  • 0

#11 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2131 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 20 May 2015 - 07:49 AM

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.


  • 0

#12 Alex Birrell

Alex Birrell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Student
  • London, UK

Posted 20 May 2015 - 08:34 AM

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.


  • 0

#13 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 May 2015 - 11:33 AM

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.


  • 0

#14 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2131 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 20 May 2015 - 10:25 PM

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.


  • 0

#15 Shawn Martin

Shawn Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 May 2015 - 05:19 AM

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, 22 May 2015 - 05:20 AM.

  • 0

#16 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2351 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2015 - 12:11 PM

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, 23 May 2015 - 12:11 PM.

  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 May 2015 - 12:28 AM

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?


  • 0

#18 James Martin

James Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 May 2015 - 11:06 AM

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...


  • 0

#19 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 May 2015 - 11:33 AM

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, 24 May 2015 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 May 2015 - 11:42 AM

I don't think that the F65 particularly suffers from aliasing any more than other digital cameras, perhaps even less since it has a 6K-ish sensor more or less.


  • 0



Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Visual Products

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Technodolly

Pro 8mm

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Visual Products

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Abel Cine