By MCN Editor

NATO & UNIC Asking For Uniform Projection Aspect Ratios

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 11.53.00 AM
Projection Aspect Ratio of DCP Features
Prepared by NATO/UNIC Technology Committees

Exhibition is ultimately responsible for the quality of the image and sound for theatrical
presentations. We have seen two major releases (Tomorrowland and Jurassic World)
that were delivered in non-standard aspect ratios (2.2:1 and 2.0:1) resulting in an
inferior presentation of either the feature or the accompanying trailers. We strongly
encourage distributors to prepare releases in one of the two standard formats (1.85 Flat
or 2.39 Scope) for all future releases. If new aspect ratios are anticipated we request
significant advance notice and that all trailers that might accompany the feature to also
be prepared in the same aspect ratio.

Exhibition has embraced the two standard projection aspect ratios and has created
masking to provide the best presentation for our patrons. Letter/pillar boxing of
presentations create a non-optimal presentation. It is a disservice to either the main
feature or the accompanying trailers to have a feature in a non-standard format. In the
case of the features, Tomorrowland (2.2:1) and Jurassic World (2.0:1) the intent was to
set up the presentation in Flat (1.85) and allow the black bars to show on-screen. In
some cases, especially for curved screens, the black bars are clearly visible and not
rectangular. If we masked for 2.0/2.2 the attached trailers would be cut off
top/bottom. Non-standard aspect ratios are a challenge.

We request that all features be produced in one of the two standard aspect ratios. If
new aspect ratios are being considered please allow sufficient time for notification. Also
hold an open discussion – including our partners from distribution as well as the creative
community – to determine how to satisfy the needs of the industry for both the feature
and trailers.


John Fithian, NATO
Jan Runge, UNIC

NATO / UNIC June 17, 2015

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon