Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the www.Britmovie.co.uk forum

If this is your first time on the new forum since March 7th, 2017, please re-register with us once more.
Paypal contributions for the care and feeding of the forum may be made here:
PayPal Donations

The old bulletin board archive can be found here:
http://filmdope.com/forums/
See more
See less

Showing DUNKIRK in 2.20 ratio in UK cinemas

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post

    Films are often shot in places you wouldn't expect. Glasgow stood in for LA in World War Z
    Actually, I think it was Philadelphia, LA would be a bit of stretch for Glasgow. As for the rest, money always dictates, how many times in the '30s and 40s did we see the saw Californian backlot standing in for...well, just about everywhere.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by narabdela View Post
      I am one of those who always sits to the end, much to the annoyance of the staff who are itching to get in to sweep up the spilled popcorn.
      Sometimes after the credits or ( during it) there are scenes still to be seen and a lot of people miss them,A lot of the Marvel films always have them right at the end.


      Comment


      • #33
        Actually, I think it was Philadelphia, LA would be a bit of stretch for Glasgow. As for the rest, money always dictates, how many times in the '30s and 40s did we see the saw Californian backlot standing in for...well, just about everywhere.
        You remember correctly - it was Philadelphia. LA seemingly stands in for a load of other places - someone pointed out that there is a donut shop in LA that uses pink boxes http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...htmlstory.html- if you see them in a scene, then no matter where its supposed to be set, it was actually filmed in LA.

        California was great for locations from the 20's onwards - forest, desert, mountains, urban and rural settings etc are all available within the state, or at least not that far away from LA. They didn't always get it right, which is why there is that reference in Austin Powers to 'driving through the English countryside' when they are evidently not!

        Marvel has stuff in the credits (like them eating in a burger shop at the end of Avengers Assemble), but the trend started with Airplane, where you'd wait to see what jokes they'd thrown into the credits. And then you started getting the goofs/gag reel being shown after a action film, etc.

        CGI isn't all bad. The recent version of The Jungle Book is stunning, and obviously CGI was used a great deal. The same goes for Golem - Andy Serkis does a fantastic job of acting, but he himself says thats it the combination of both his performance and the technology that made it so good. Its when its used without thought that CGI falls down.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by PhilipW View Post
          With his love for film Christopher Nolan has shot about 75% of DUNKIRK on 70mm IMAX with the rest, where it was impractical to use IMAX, on standard 70mm.

          In the US and Canada about 125+ cinemas are showing DUNKIRK in one of the these two formats. This number is well up on the number that managed to show INTERSTELLAR in 70mm and slightly up on the number Quentin Tarantino managed to assemble for THE HATEFUL EIGHT. Although still relatively small in total, this is quite an achievement between the two of them in sustaining 70mm.

          In the UK, just three cinemas are showing DUNKIRK in 70mm IMAX, namely:
          - BFI IMAX, Waterloo
          - Science Museum, London
          - Vue, Printworks, Manchester (formerly Odeon)

          A further 4 cinemas are showing it in 70mm
          - Odeon, Leicester Square
          - Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge,
          - Filmhouse, Edinburgh
          - Glasgow Film theatre
          We seem to have lost the 70mm capability more than the US has.
          The 70mm IMAX aspect ratio will be 1.43 with presumably a switch to 2.20 for the plain 70mm scenes (but I don’t know that for a fact)
          The 70mm aspect ratio will be 2.20.

          There are also some 35mm prints in 2.39 anamorphic Scope extracted from the 70mm source. I am compiling a list. I have about 10 at the moment, all independent cinemas as all the chains seem to have scrapped their film projectors.

          So in the UK, DUNKIRK can be seen on film in 3 different formats in about 20 cinemas. That sounds very small and it is, but it is probably the largest it can get to now.

          On the digital side, DUNKIRK can be seen in two formats, one being digital IMAX in 1.90 aspect ratio. I don’t know how many digital IMAX cinemas there are but I would guess about 20.

          The other will be the main way that most people will see the film - on a standard DCP where it is encoded in 2.20 aspect ratio.
          Herein lies a problem. The standard DCP is designed to hold either a 1.85 ‘Flat’ image or a 2.39 ‘Scope’ image with the projection equipment set to show just either of those. Storing an image in another format is quite possible but it makes it difficult to project properly.

          DUNKIRK is stored as 2.20 inside a ‘Flat’ container. This is purely so that more pixels can be stored making a higher quality image. However if that image is projected ‘Flat’ it will appear letterboxed inside the 1.85 frame. Worse, if the screen is Scope shaped with no masking (as many are), the image will appear hanging midscreen letterboxed and pillarboxed with black bars.

          If that image is projected ‘Scope’ the image will certainly expand out on the sides but the top and bottom will be slightly cropped as the 2.20 image is stored with a greater height than a 2.39 Scope image.

          To resolve this Warners and Christopher Nolan have issued a Projectionist’s Letter (attached as a PDF) telling the cinemas what to do, which is, basically, to manually adjust the zoom lens.

          I probably need go no further for most of you to realise that as cinemas no longer have a resident technical projectionist, this is opening a can of worms where all sorts of problems could occur.

          I have actually been around to three of my local cinemas explaining the situation and asking what they are planning to do. I want to see DUNKIRK properly shown on a big Scope screen with just slight black bars left and right to reduce the ratio from 2.39 to 2.20. I certainly do not want to see it shown letterboxed in a 1.85 frame, just like a big TV screen.

          At Showcase Southampton, the manager I spoke to fully understood the problem and was positive to pass my concerns on. I am awaiting a response.

          At Vue Eastleigh, the Duty Manager I spoke to was semi-technical. He was aware of the problem and said that it had been discussed and assured me that everything would be alright. “All the running is now controlled remotely and it would be fine”, he said. I pressed him but he could not tell me how but I’m sure he believed that all would be OK. All the 9 Vue screens here are Scope shaped with no masking and he assured me that there was no way they were going to show a mini picture hanging in the middle. So we’ll see.

          At Odeon Port Solent, my concern was passed on the central technical department and I have had an E-Mail back from them. Sadly they said that Odeon (implying all Odeons) will be showing the film as ‘Flat’ with the image letterboxed. I have written back explaining in very clear terms that I think this cause of action is folly and that showing such a big epic as DUNKIRK on a smaller screen than the adverts is just plain wrong. We will see. So just Odeon Leicester Square and all the digital IMAX cinemas will be showing the film properly.

          That’s what I’ve discovered so far. I’ll update as I find more things out.

          On one hand I commend Christopher Nolan for using his clout to sustain film and shoot on large format celluloid. On the other hand, he has opened a can of worms to ensure that it is exhibited properly.


          Saw Dunkirk yesterday in the Vue Cribbs Causeway, Bristol, on a VUE Xtreme screen. I figured that as I was paying more to see the film on Vue Xtreme I would get the full benefits of their very large screen. But the film was shown Letterboxed and pillarboxed! There were black bars projected all around the screen and they didn't come close to filling their massive screen. I hadn't read Phil's informative post so I didn't really know what to make of it but it was a distraction to begin with and eventually I just forced myself to forget about it and enjoy the film.

          Interestingly the person I went with didn't even notice!

          I asked the cinema staff and they simply said that the projector automatically does what it does and if it's a 'flat' image then sadly it won't fill the screen. They were very nice about but they didn't seem to recognise that there was anything particularly unusual about Dunkirk's format.

          Anyway

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jcfaria View Post



            I asked the cinema staff and they simply said that the projector automatically does what it does and if it's a 'flat' image then sadly it won't fill the screen.


            The DCP for "Dunkirk" comes with clear instructions on how it should be projected. The numpty at that cinema who ingested the DCP into their server either didn't bother to read them, or couldn't be arsed to make the necessary adjustment to the projector.

            The 'projector does what it does' line is nonsense.

            Comment


            • #36
              Just to mention that there is a display of costumes from the film at Dover Castle ending August 31st

              Comment


              • #37
                Christopher Nolan Says There Was No Green Screen

                Between originally planning to shoot his experiential World War II thriller without a script and (probably unknowingly) using prison labor to build some of the sets, Christopher Nolan went all out on “Dunkirk.” As revealed at a press conference in Toronto today, he even avoided the use of green screens.

                Read More:‘Dunkirk’: ‘Prison Labor’ Was Used to Build Some of the Sets, According to the World War II Drama’s Companion Book

                “When those boys are out there on those beaches and explosions are going off, they’re going off,” said Nolan while presenting his film at Tiff. “There’s no green screen. They’re in it.” The film was shot on location in France, where the evacuation depicted in his film took place.

                Source Linked : https://whereyouwatch.com/movies/dunkirk/
                News and updates on Dunkirk and if it has leaked as a download or stream, or released on retail.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by orpheum View Post
                  Can I suggest that you use less argumentative language.You state that what I am saying is misleading then admit that what I am saying is correct..
                  No, I pointed out that your absolutist claims - i.e. "the [air battles] took place over land not over sea" and "It was the British army who mainly fought the rearguard action to stop the Germans not the French" - were not accurate.
                  Last edited by Nick Cooper; 1st January 2018, 08:47 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I finally got round to watching the BD a few days ago, and while some individual scenes and performances were very good, overall I just wasn't even remotely as impressed as all the hype suggested I should have been. I didn't have any difficulty with following the three-stranded narrative, but I can appreciate how some viewers could have been, especially if they were not familiar with the actual history. To my mind the BBC's 3-part drama-documentary of the same name from 2004 did it a whole lot better, and more accurately.

                    Oh, and to be brutally honest, whoever OKed the lingering shot of the burning wooden mock-up Spitfire at the end - with the lack of engine plain to see - should be shot.
                    Last edited by Nick Cooper; 1st January 2018, 08:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I found the film to have average good effects but as a storyteller it was a big let down and felt the film was a waste of our time and money. I think the time between release and dvd release is a very good indicator of a films content. 2/10 bad film in my view.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I think the time between release and dvd release is a very good indicator of a films content. 2/10 bad film in my view.
                        That makes no sense in this context. Dunkirk got a theatrical release on the 21st July and the disc release was on Dec 19th - so about 5 months. By comparison, The Force Awakens had a gap of about 4 months, and Spectre had a gap of about 3 months. Hacksaw Ridge (a WW2 film, so nearer in content and audience) was released in Nov 2016 and got a disc release in Feb 2017, so roughly four months. For a film which is less of a blockbuster than the other two, but is also playing in 70mm and IMAX, thats a reasonable release gap, and isn't any particular indication of quality.

                        Actually, you could argue that smaller films tend to be released quicker on DVD, to maxmise revenue after theatrical runs have finished, especially if they've not done well. But the usual period is roughly 17 weeks, although studios have increasingly tried to squeeze that for certain films, but its often resisted by theatres.

                        BTW - 'average good effects'? Famously, Nolan didn't use CGI, so which effects were these?
                        Last edited by Bonekicker; 8th January 2018, 02:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Soap Talk View Post
                          I found the film to have average good effects
                          Originally posted by Soap Talk View Post
                          think the time between release and dvd release is a very good indicator of a films content. 2/10 bad film in my view.
                          I would have to agree with Bonekicker. Neither of these points make much sense tbh.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The CGI was average as CGI goes and that was the only good part of the film. For me the release date is still quick to DVD. Great comparisions that really surprised me but the ones quoted were available on pirate dvd long before the release date. I wonder if they take that into account nowadays.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The CGI was average as CGI goes and that was the only good part of the film
                              But which bits? I've only seen some of the film on Blu Ray and 4K, but the dogfight looked very good. However, since Nolan did his best not to use CGI (and arguably could have used more, for the burning oil tanks and the number of troops on the beaches), which parts?

                              For me the release date is still quick to DVD
                              The industry average of 17 weeks between theatrical and DVD release is just over 4 months, so why is 5 months suddenly 'so quick'?

                              Seriously? Your taking into account pirate DVD's? Because DVD pirates are film critics? Or official releases? I'm pretty sure that film companies dont take into account pirate DVD releases, apart from from trying to stamp them out.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bonekicker View Post
                                But which bits? I've only seen some of the film on Blu Ray and 4K, but the dogfight looked very good. However, since Nolan did his best not to use CGI (and arguably could have used more, for the burning oil tanks and the number of troops on the beaches), which parts?
                                I think Nolan eschewing CGI is part of the problem. Despite having a thousand extras available, the beach still looks virtually deserted of both men and vehicles.
                                A friend really nailed it yesterday, when he said it was a small scale story shot in a large scale way. With a fraction of the budget, the BBC series achieved far more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X