Aspect Ratio Documentation (2 Viewers)

[Stephen_J_H]

This reminds me of materials received while I was working at a 14 screen theatre while putting myself through law school. Brother Bear came with documentation with respect to its changing aspect ratios (starts out 1.85:1, then expands to 2.39:1 within a scope frame), Some Kind of Monster (1.37:1 in a 1.85:1 frame) and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (volume setting of 7.0). Personally, I really appreciated it when distributors would go to this kind of effort.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Its definitely needed for Budapest. There are brief 1.85 sections that are pillarboxed which may confuse some theaters to zoom the picture in, which would then crop the 1.37 sequences which comprise a majority of the film.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Mark-P]

The most interesting tid-bit of information I find in that brochure is that the resolution for 2K DCP is 1998 X 1080! I assume then that 4K DCP would be 3996 X 2160?

 

[ROclockCK]

After the recent discussion about filmmakers who choose to reframe Academy clips for insertion into their widescreen films, by sheer coincidence, the very next film up in my queue was Woody Allen's Crimes and MIsdemeanors...which, as it turns out, contained some rather flagrant reframings of classic flicks, including crops awkward enough to make any purist wince.

Although I've noticed this creative liberty before, I never paid attention to it quite like I did during this recent viewing. But it occurred to me that if a filmmaker of Allen's stature has never been called out over this practice, there must be many other examples throughout film history...

 

[EddieLarkin]

Over here in the U.K., StudioCanal are shortly bringing two films from 1954 to Blu-ray for the first time: The Belles of St Trinian's and Hobson's Choice. I believe discussion regarding the latter has already taken place here, with no consensus on which aspect ratio may be correct. How about the former? Is there any documentation, Bob? Looks like the film has been 1.33:1 on all previous DVD releases, but so have its first two sequels, which were released in 1957 and 1960 respectively! StudioCanal can not be trusted.

 

[FoxyMulder]

The most interesting tid-bit of information I find in that brochure is that the resolution for 2K DCP is 1998 X 1080! I assume then that 4K DCP would be 3996 X 2160?

2K native would be 2048x1080, 1998x1080 is flat and cropped aka 1.85:1, the former being 1.90:1.

Native 4K cinema is 4096x2160 lines, it can be 3996x2160 if flat and cropped, it can also be 4096x1716 if Cinemascope.

P.S. No i'm not an expert, i knew about the native formats but Googled the flat and cropped part of the info above.

 

[ahollis]

Hmm, if only we had these for every film:

They did and do. This is basically standard shipment for every theatre if not a print out as elaborate as this, a least a letter is included with DCP. Disney used to send out letters in the reel cans with what the correct aspect ratio was and most prints had the aspect ratio listed on the heads. The problem today is that a lot of people don't want to believe that information they feel they understand the directors intention better than the studio. There is also a complete breakdown of investigation of the proper ratios for films in the early and mid 50's today. Thank goodness for Bob and Jack.

 

[Greg_D_R]

The picture is from a Reddit post, and several of the following comments essentially said 'I am / was a projectionist, and we ignore those.' So that would explain the experience in most modern theaters. Also, 7.0 is apparently louder than most theaters tend to have their volume.

As a projector owner, the 14FL requirement makes me want to get a light meter.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Over here in the U.K., StudioCanal are shortly bringing two films from 1954 to Blu-ray for the first time: The Belles of St Trinian's and Hobson's Choice. I believe discussion regarding the latter has already taken place here, with no consensus on which aspect ratio may be correct. How about the former? Is there any documentation, Bob? Looks like the film has been 1.33:1 on all previous DVD releases, but so have its first two sequels, which were released in 1957 and 1960 respectively! StudioCanal can not be trusted.

BELLES was reviewed by Variety on October 13, 1954.

I don't know when it was filmed but on 12/17/53, British-Lion was filming for 1:8. By 3/16/54, they were 1.65:1.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Thanks Bob. Smells like widescreen to me. Clips on YouTube most definitely support that suspicion:http://youtube.com/watch?v=OUPpu4iX87QI'll be very surprised if SC come through.

 

[ROclockCK]

Smells like widescreen to me. Clips on YouTube most definitely support that suspicion:

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oh, that's a widescreen film for sure!

Notice how the camera tilts up at 1:55 to keep the actors safe for widescreen?

Somebody should reach out to them.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Precisely. At 1.20 as well.

I've just noticed that their other British Lion release this spring, An Inspector Calls, is 1954 as well. According to imdb it premiered March 1954, a month before Hobson's Choice. The whole film is on youtube and I am quite certain that it's widescreen. Hobson's Choice less so; there's nothing that screams widescreen to me, but at the same time there's nothing that screams 1.37:1 either.

All of these are due in the next month or so so there is no changing them now, but SC have not published specs as far as I can see. I'll email them and see if they want to share how these will be released.

 

[John Hodson]

Precisely. At 1.20 as well.

I've just noticed that their other British Lion release this spring, An Inspector Calls, is 1954 as well. According to imdb it premiered March 1954, a month before Hobson's Choice. The whole film is on youtube and I am quite certain that it's widescreen. Hobson's Choice less so; there's nothing that screams widescreen to me, but at the same time there's nothing that screams 1.37:1 either.

All of these are due in the next month or so so there is no changing them now, but SC have not published specs as far as I can see. I'll email them and see if they want to share how these will be released.

With admittedly only DVD transfers to go on, Hobson's Choice appears to be Academy to me, it certainly frames much better. 'Belles' is undoubtedly framed wide, but I'm not expecting it, or An Inspector Calls, to be anything other than full frame. Still we live in hope; this is a company that put a 1950 film (Seven Days To Noon) out wide, then realised their error and re-released it properly.

 

[EddieLarkin]

But who also released The Ladykillers (from 1955!) open matte, despite it previously being available on DVD 1.66:1, which everyone was happy with. It's like they wanted to mess with it out of spite.

 

[theonemacduff]

StudioCanal can not be trusted.

The studio which brought out a BR of Ladykillers at 1.37, I believe. Oops, just saw the post immediately above. Well, it's nice to have agreements, isn't it?

 

[Sam Posten]

This made it to the front page of Reddit today:http://imgur.com/a/sMNDVhttp://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/20dr5y/i_compiled_a_visual_explanation_of_the_flat_vs/Thought you guys who are experts might be interested...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The picture is from a Reddit post, and several of the following comments essentially said 'I am / was a projectionist, and we ignore those.' So that would explain the experience in most modern theaters.

Yeah, that sounds about right, unfortunately.

I feel like if you saw Grand Budapest Hotel at an dedicated art cinema, you'd probably see it projected properly, but might have less luck at a multiplex. One of the things that digital prints have allowed for is the switching of auditoriums very, very quickly. So if a movie is booked in larger rooms on a Friday and sells three tickets all day, they can very easily move it into the tiniest room by Saturday. Will the newer room be calibrated properly as the original room had been? My experience says not necessarily. And some theaters also switch what's playing in a given room multiple times throughout the day, so that the first showing might be in Auditorium 1, while the second could be in Aud 3, and the third in Aud 7, etc., etc. If a film is sharing its screen with other films, then all bets are off. The idea of the letter being addressed to projectionists is quaint and a little sad - because there aren't many full time projectionists left. DCP has allowed the projectionist to be replaced by the kid at the popcorn stand just stepping upstairs to flip a switch at showtime. I remember as a kid and young adult, that if a film began and the focus was off or there was some other problem, if you turned your head around you'd see someone in the booth trying to fix it, and that by ten minutes in you'd have the problems ironed out. Now, there's no one in the booth, and if you get up to say something, you'll either get a blank stare back, or the promise that there's nothing wrong with the image and you're just imagining it.

I don't see a lot of films being projected with the wrong lens anymore, thankfully - used to see more scope with flat lenses (or vice versa) than I care to remember. But I do still see rampant examples of misframed images, and the curtains being closed or opened to proper proportions is often the first mistake to be made. I remember growing up in the 80s (gasp!) and that all the theaters I went to had this ideal that you would never see a blank screen - before the movie, the curtains would be closed completely, and only open at the start of trailers. It helped with the illusion of cinema that you never saw a dead white screen while you waited for it to start. Nowadays, you'll get stuff improperly cropped, or with too much dead space because they haven't closed the curtains at all. I wish I wasn't as bothered by it, but it drives me a little crazy. If I have one complaint about the IMAX format (which I otherwise love), it's that it's helping accustom audiences to seeing lots of blank, exposed screen area during a movie.

It used to be someone's job - a lot of someones - to make sure that what was projected onscreen matched what the filmmakers had created. Now, it seems at a lot of places like the only job is to get people to buy the tickets and popcorn, and that's where their responsibility ends. If I was running a movie studio, I might want to do some micromanaging here - why would I spend $200 million or more on making and advertising a movie, and then nothing to ensure that the movie was actually being shown correctly? If I was running a studio I'd do random spot checks of theaters, and enforce that films were being shown correctly. I'd say, "The Avengers sequel is coming next Summer and it's probably going to be the biggest opening weekend to date. We're doing six random spot checks of your chain during the year; fail more than two, your chain can't have The Avengers, and we'll make damn sure to let everyone know what the reason was that you're not getting it." It'll never happen, but it would be nice. If I'm paying $15-20 for a movie ticket these days, I'd like it to not be my job to also be doing the QC at the theater on my night out.

 

[seangood79]

The picture is from a Reddit post, and several of the following comments essentially said 'I am / was a projectionist, and we ignore those.' So that would explain the experience in most modern theaters. Also, 7.0 is apparently louder than most theaters tend to have their volume.

As a currently employed projectionist, I can tell you I don't pay that much attention to these sheets. Not that they don't contain valuable information, it's that they all have the same information. 14 fl is the SMPTE standard for all 2D features. Framing charts and audio levels are standardized too. I usually skim them to see if anything is out of the ordinary, then toss it aside.
Also, many theater chains lock out certain projector functions so no one at the theater level could make any necessary adjustments.
Though I probably would pay more attention to Grand Budapest Hotel's sheet, as it has the changing aspect ratios.
On that note, I am disappointed that it's not a 4K release. With a good portion of the frame being black bars, would have been nice to cram in as much resolution as possible. I imagine it was shot on film in Academy ratio, which uses more of the frame than 1.85.

 

[Vic Pardo]

It used to be someone's job - a lot of someones - to make sure that what was projected onscreen matched what the filmmakers had created. Now, it seems at a lot of places like the only job is to get people to buy the tickets and popcorn, and that's where their responsibility ends. If I was running a movie studio, I might want to do some micromanaging here - why would I spend $200 million or more on making and advertising a movie, and then nothing to ensure that the movie was actually being shown correctly? If I was running a studio I'd do random spot checks of theaters, and enforce that films were being shown correctly.

You're assuming that the people running studios these days have any idea what you're talking about. I'll bet that most of them can't tell the difference between "scope" and "flat." Or 2K and 4K. Or whatever...

It's not like when Jack Warner, Harry Cohn, Darryl Zanuck and Louis B. Mayer were running the studios and sat in their screening rooms at the end of the day and watched every single film their studios made and gave orders on what to fix. Back in the 1960s and '70s, the studios were taken over by businessmen from other industries who didn't know a Goddamn thing about movies. Today, the heads of production are often people who come out of television.

I work at a TV station and I see problems with aspect ratios all the time as we transition from standard def to high def. Do you think the boss can tell the difference? No, he can't. Nor can many of the program suppliers. On PBS, any time a documentary uses standard Academy ratio archival footage, that footage is now either stretched out anamorphically or cropped at top and bottom. It's so frustrating that I hardly watch new TV shows anymore, just old shows on tape or disc.