Actually, there is an official Maple Leaf Square logo (it's kind of an abstract leaf shape made up of black/red alternating vertical lines) that I could almost see going on the top of the towers. With the visibility those towers will have it would kind of make sense to use the mechanical boxes as a place-making feature
 
whatever said:
Actually, there is an official Maple Leaf Square logo (it's kind of an abstract leaf shape made up of black/red alternating vertical lines) that I could almost see going on the top of the towers. With the visibility those towers will have it would kind of make sense to use the mechanical boxes as a place-making feature
Click to expand...

logo.gif
 
Yep, that's the one. I don't think that would look atrocious on top of the towers (or maybe just on the taller tower). It is a landmark building, I don't see why it can't be distinguished on the skyline with a logo or some kind of interesting roof treatment
 
whatever said:
Yep, that's the one. I don't think that would look atrocious on top of the towers (or maybe just on the taller tower). It is a landmark building, I don't see why it can't be distinguished on the skyline with a logo or some kind of interesting roof treatment
Click to expand...

The MAPLE LEAF SQUARE maple leaf looks better than the Toronto Maple Leaf logo on top of the building...

**thanks for explaining why the box is angled at the top of the building :) really appreciated!
 
Juma said:
The Panavision comment was a bad joke. The current aspect ratio used on the ACC screen is 1.78:1(16:9). What I was vaguely stating was the aspect ratio for the altered ACC screen, which is 2.39:1(or 2.40:1). Yes, it is not used as the television standard today but It isn't an unused format like you have stated, the bigger budget films are shot in this format as film stock costs more.
Click to expand...

OK, I think I get your point then.
Just to clarify I'm in the business, I'm aware that both scope and flat are both still used today, the 2.40:1 (or 2.39:1) aspect ratio is not used in cinemas anymore. Scope vs. flat isn't so much a cost issue as an artistic decision made by the director. Flat is becoming more and more commonly used as many directors believe that less picture (or their visual composition) is lost when their movie is eventually viewed on a 16:9 panel (like the dimensions of the one at the ACC) and many directors believe that some people hate the dreaded "black bars" on the top & bottom of the picture if they photograph their film in scope.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
OK, I think I get your point then.
Just to clarify I'm in the business, I'm aware that both scope and flat are both still used today, the 2.40:1 (or 2.39:1) aspect ratio is not used in cinemas anymore. Scope vs. flat isn't so much a cost issue as an artistic decision made by the director. Flat is becoming more and more commonly used as many directors believe that less picture (or their visual composition) is lost when their movie is eventually viewed on a 16:9 panel (like the dimensions of the one at the ACC) and many directors believe that some people hate the dreaded "black bars" on the top & bottom of the picture if they photograph their film in scope.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely more of a scope person myself. Given, flat is much better than the 4:3 standard, I personally get a better cinema experience on scope, theres just so much more background and foreground elements that add depth to the image.
 
And the image below the announcement is this:

mls.jpg


I wonder if that's a hint of what it's going to be?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top