Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is it time to abandon 1.77/1.78/1.85:1/Etc for 2.35/2.39:1 widescreen cinema? +other

W

Wayne Morellini

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
6,157
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Should we go away from formats below 1.85:1 to 2.35/2.39:1 widescreen.

Firstly, I don't really see the wider screened format as superior. But the revamping of screens here by the biggest chain in the country is making 1:85:1 releases look terrible. The chain is high end and controls probably the majority of the market, so I imagine this is happening in the US too.

The screens here are getting smaller, even bazzarly so, and to get a good feild of view you have to sit so far forward that there are less rows left before the walkway that have a premium fov. In the older style theaters with continuose sesting, the screen is eet eo high there are only a few rows of so so view befire you have to crane your neck. The screen seems to be set so that an 8 foot person can sit infront of you without blocking your view, or a short person can walk by in the next row without blocking your view. This is when most recent of the population is below 6 foot 2 and so few people are in the theater to make it easy to dodge a tall person.

For instance, in the small refurbed cinema I was in last night (maybe over 200 contnouse seating) watching Lady in the Van, the physical screen could be 6 foot wider, and lowered from the bottom by at least 3 feet. This would probably double the number of rows of barely adequate so so, seating, and allow a couple more of rows with an adequate premium fov. I am actually saying adequate premium for 1:85+ releases, 16:9 less so. The screen depth also seems to not be set for narrower formats. It might be so you go to the premium priced screens, but in reality it means a less than enjoyable experience, and less reason to come at all. Even on the biggest news non premium screen, 16:9 would be a disappointment for me.

The screens should be set to provide the widest projected frame for any modern widescreen format, such as 16:9+, to preserve the industry. But as this is not so, what can we do.

So, based on the above, should we just abandone anything cubema narrower than 2.35:1, except for TV?

Now, on another past topic, black levels. I find I very intolerable to have grey blacks. On the Lady in the Van film, we actually had 3 levels of grey as black striped on the border of the frame at once. One the unused screen, one in the scene, and one bordering the scene in the frame. Pretty bad on top of the narrow feild of view. These underwhelming showings should worry anybody doing cinema, people pay a premium to come to the cinema, if the showing is less impressive than staying at home and watching it, it becomes pointless to pay to watch it in cinema. So, a cinema even might cost somebody $40-50AU (including fuel, and food not including1/2 hour -1 hr or travel and waiting). For a family of four this might be 35-45 one adult, 40-60 two children. That's $125-165 + time, compared to watching it at home for $5 + $5-15 of food for a family of four. There is an element of depending in well heeled patrons paying, but at those prices even well heeled people are likely to stay at home much more often and save the hassle.

So for us, the wider screen would be less underwhelming, but onntje other hand, potentially more underwhelming on many TV's, due to the frame hight becoming shorter.

Thanks.
 
Not really related to features but I 'm thinking of framing 4:3 Instagram ;) It's what 99% of people under 30 are use to these days...
 
Social media and sharing apps like Instagram and Vine have, indeed, brought back the narrower aspect ratio, that's true. Not only that, but Super 8mm is back, and unlike Super 16mm, there is no wide version. On top of that you have the resurgence of instant film, some of which is square. OTOH, the Lomokino has a Techniscope aspect ratio. And anamorphic lenses are in fashion now.

As for cinema, I have already written about how IMAX features are the future of cinema. That is effectively without an aspect ratio as it almost dominates your entire peripheral vision. It's a good thing we have the Dragon, otherwise we'd have no digital alternative to 9-perf or 15-perf 65mm film. (I think film is superior, but where IMAX is concerned, I think the RED is the way to go, unless 4-perf S35 5203 is good enough).

The cool thing about the IMAX format is that you can partly replicate it at home with a 4K projector and a blank wall. Even a good HD projector could be good enough. It won't dominate your peripheral vision to the extent that IMAX does, but it would still be impressive. And IMAX features will be CHEAP AS CHIPS to make, as you won't need CGI to impress audiences. Editing style will have to change, as well as the definitions of 'close-up', but that's a given.
 
I personally like Imax. The problem is what we have to work with, not any of the online mentioned or the few that use super 8 (unless u really want to do an indie for Imax).
 
I'm not that big on IMAX, it looks great in the theatre but it doesn't really translate back to the home nearly as well as 2:35:1 does. I've never been big on 4:3 either there are some places I think it works and I don't loath it the way I used to but my preferred ratio will always be scope. Nothing quite like a cinemascope film on a huge screen.
I haven't run into the sorts of problems listed here but I do think Cinemas should strive to provide the sort of quality you won't get at home, or at least most people won't get at home. I once was really disappointed when I went to see a movie because I was expecting 35mm projection only to see it was quite clearly played off of a DVD.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
But the revamping of screens here by the biggest chain in the country is making 1:85:1 releases look terrible. The chain is high end and controls probably the majority of the market, so I imagine this is happening in the US too.
Click to expand...
My answer would be: go to better theaters. We're kind of getting split into low-end theaters that have a mediocre presentation, middle-of-the-road theaters that aren't terrible, and then "premium theaters" (aka Fake Imax, XD, ETX, Dolby Cinema, XME, UltraScreen, etc.) that charge about 50% more money for a much bigger screen -- 90' wide in the case of Imax -- and nowadays, a brighter, sharper picture and Dolby Atmos or Barco Auro surround sound. The intent is to give you a huge cinema experience you can't get at home... very similar to the efforts of Cinerama, Todd-AO, and CinemaScope in the 1950s.

Trust me, 1.85 looks fine in the theaters I go to. I routinely go to 2 or 3 different middle-to-high-end theaters in LA, and 1.85 looks fine, scope looks fine, it's all reasonably decent. And these are not the Chinese or the El Capitan or anything as fancy as that.

I think getting wrapped up with aspect ratios is a distraction. I think great storytelling is not about an aspect ratio, and it's more about story and character, and one hopes that lighting and lenses and all that stuff will dovetail with that and help tell the story better. I also think there are projects where widescreen works and others where it doesn't. I also think there are a lot of filmmakers who get enamored of a 2.40 (or wider) frame and never stop to think whether it really works visually for the project. I believe they wind up trying to shoehorn the story into that frame when it's very likely the story would work better if the actors were closer together in a conventional 1.78 or 1.85 frame. I also think 1.78 plays better for streaming, online, and so on.

Note that many, many 2.40 widescreen filmmakers taking their projects to home video wind up having to create a 1.78 pan/scan version because the distributors specifically ask for it. Believe it or not, there are channels out there that balk at playing 2.39/2.40 movies. I do think there are spectacles that have to be seen in 2.40 or 2.66 or even 2.76 (like Hateful 8 or Ben Hur), but I think the vast number of stories being told might benefit more from more picture height.
 
I did say they were the top chain in the country controlling most of the market I think, and the premium chain. They are the only cinema within 50km with around 17 screens accross three locations. You generally don't find better even in the capital. But this thread was about what you have to work with to sell tickets to your audience. If you want them to pay 50% more or have a bad experience, don't be surprised if 90% don't want to come.

Marc, realistically, the aged tend to be more easily overwhelmed and prefer a lower FOV, like all those nuts who objected to TV's bigger than 32 inch or closer than 20 feet away. The younger market just walked over their delusions. As people realise bigger is better we are likely to get bigger screens than what we were used to. Sure the decreased feild of view might be adequate in 6-8 rows, but I'm talking about premium seating as a yard stick. Now, maybe they have deeper screens in your cinemas, but the point is the reductions happening elsewhere.

Now, lets be real. As an owner of an early THX speaker system (cheap) and a calibrated viewsomic TV, they were better than cinema several years ago. Except for age, the speakers are still a better experience. This problem is only going to increase and REGULAR cinema has to at least match the home experience.

I actually agree with many of your points Marc, but things are being forced by inadequate theaters that are sizing for wide releases and undersizing height (even width). Unless theaters stop, then wide to fit the most popular screen ratios is the way to go to maximise audience enjoyment. I personally would prefer IMax l you can put anything on, 3:2, 16:9, but it seems reality is slipping away from us.

I have an auto stereoscopic cinema screen and theater solution design that can solve these solutions (been working on a suitable solution for many years) with better economics, but I have more serious things to finish. But these things get so frustrating. Wide, wide, dynamic range, true blacks, near 100% of human vision color gamut, cheaper, 10 times more enjoyable on average. Seriously.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Should we go away from formats below 1.85:1 to 2.35/2.39:1 widescreen.
Click to expand...

Frame aspect is a creative choice which affects framing and composition and how the story is told and perceived and today's technology allows using any.

Last feature we finished was shot in 4:3.
On Epic.
 
I recently saw The Witch which was presented in 1.66 aspect ratio and it was perhaps one of the worst presentations I've seen (the 2nd worse was the 70mm version of Hateful Eight). I have a decent home theater and I built my own masks to use for top/bottom black bars on a 2.40 projection on my 16:9 screen which really helps with the contrast. I wish the theaters had employed something similar. The Witch had gray bars left/right side of the screen that wasn't being projected on, then another set of even grayer bars within the projected frame, coupled with very poor blacks in the film itself. It was truly terrible. Like watching a projected VHS tape even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top