2.0 (3840x1920) Aspect Ratio DCP

[Doke]

Hello! I am creating a DCP for a film with a 2.0 aspect ratio (originally 3840x1920) that has been exported as 1920x1080, so it has black bars on top and bottom. I was wondering what the best settings would be in this particular instance? I've attached an image of what it looks like with 1.78 (16:9 or HD) selected and a DCI Flat container. Is this how it should look? Should I crop? And if so, where and by how much? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

[Carsten]

Can you activate the checkbox 'outline content' below the preview and repost a screenshot?

From what I see, you should crop symmetrically top and bottom until left and right hit the frame borders. Also, on the left under Scale To: set it to 'no stretch'.

You could have used the 3840/1920 master directly.

[Doke]

Thank you for your reply!

I started over with the 3840x1920 master and checked 'Outline Content' and set it to 'No Stretch.'

Also, this is still in a 'DCI Flat' container.

Should I now crop the top and bottom, or are the black bars okay to leave?

[Carsten]

It's okay like that. What you see within the red lines is your content. You can not crop away these remaining black bars, they are defined by the container choice (flat, which is correct in this case). This is the way commercial 2.0:1 DCPs are mastered as well.

You may also create a 4k DCP (adjust from 2k to 4k under the DCP tab). All proper DCI projectors will play 4k DCPs, even if they only display 2k. However, some few software players, which some festivals or very small underfinanced club cinemas use, may not be able to play 4k, due to performance or license restrictions.

[Doke]

Thank you, Carsten! I really appreciate your help.

[dff.ffm]

@ Carsten
How about arranging that movie in a Scope-Container? regards! G.

[Carsten]

Not a good idea for 2.0:1 content. There is an explicit recommendation by ISDCF to use flat for content up to 2.3:1

---
ISDCF recommended practice that for aspect ratios under 1.85 (such as academy aperture 1.33) pillar box in a flat package. For aspect ratio from 1.85 to 2.30 letter box in a flat package. For aspect ratios above 2.30 letter box in a scope package.
---


The flat container for the 2.0:1 content also maximizes resolution. Some cinemas have dedicated special presets for 2.0:1 and 2.2:1. But those who don't have that option must show this content in either flat or scope masked format, or unmasked.

[IoannisSyrogiannis]

Not a good idea for 2.0:1 content. There is an explicit recommendation by ISDCF to use flat for content up to 2.3:1
---

While I agree, I should mention that, from time to time and depending on who-is-who, the creator may have the final word.
An example for that is a recent title coming from Hamlet's home country that was pillar boxed scope, taken from a 2:1 video.

Even though that brought the resolution down, I have to admit that I was somewhat relieved that I didn't have to create yet another extraordinary preset, like the 2.2:1 that is used from time to time.
It is a procedure that involves, not only the projectors and servers of a cinema (if there are more than one) but the hypothetical TMS also.

I suppose that the reason behind that decision was that a number of cinemas do not bother creating another preset and screen the picture on Flat. Bringing on screen a window boxed picture that -depending on the positioning of the projector in relation to the screen- may also introduce the keystone effect.

Edit: This is not a defence for pillar-boxed 2:1. I wouldn't argue in favour, but I can see what the reason would be for someone to make that choice, given they already went for such an aspect ratio.

[Carsten]

Of course it also heavily depends on wether you consider seeing this on a masked/constant height screen vs. on an unmasked multiplex screen. All scope formats will typically be displayed much 'smaller' on typical unmasked multiplex screens.

And a pillarboxed 2:1 feature in scope will then be shown with bars on the sides AND on top/bottom. I would think that most film makers would not like this presentation, because it would appear obvious that something is misconfigured.

Also, it is not just a loss of resolution, but also light loss. Imagine how little of the imager estate is actually being used for 2:1 in scope.