CIA: Constant Image Area - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Being closer than 2x for some ARs isn't a problem for CIA or THX spec at 36° horizontal viewing angle.

umm, you think? Have another look at that chart you posted. And the letters S M P T E mean anything to you?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Why exactly are you selling your BenQ?

Zoom range. I have too short of a throw for DLP, even though I prefer the look

I can only get an 84" diagonal 16x9 with it, too small for any AR or method
LilGator is offline  
post #273 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Zoom range. I have too short of a throw for DLP, even though I prefer the look

I can only get an 84" diagonal 16x9 with it, too small for any AR or method

Interesting given our rooms (throws) are about the same size. I've got the W5000 working for CIH

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #274 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

umm, you think? Have another look at that chart you posted. And the letters S M P T E mean anything to you?

Yes, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.

The chart I posted confirms my math. At 36° horizontal, I can't be closer than 2x image height for any aspect ratio.

I'm still not getting what your point is.

My CIA setup proposed of 40, 37, and 36 degree viewing angles with image heights from 3.3x to 2.8x is well within the spec of that chart.

If I did CIA, my scope would be within spec, but 1.85 and 1.78 would be outside THX's furthest recommended.

No option would leave me too close, or 2x as you are saying.
LilGator is offline  
post #275 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
So what exactly is the problem?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #276 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:30 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Interesting given our rooms (throws) are about the same size. I've got the W5000 working for CIH

Well, I only have 12ft room depth, so my throw is approx. 11ft. Seating is 11ft as well (couch on back wall).

You must have your seating closer, so that a smaller image is acceptable, and you are probably using an HE lens, correct?

Moving my couch to the middle of the living room (on top of the coffee table?) isn't realistic, neither is having an anamorphic lens setup. It's just the nature of the room I'm using (non-dedicated).
LilGator is offline  
post #277 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So what exactly is the problem?

You were the one with the problem, remember? Something about 36° leaving you closer than 2x for some AR's?

I was just throwing some math out disproving your theory.

THX certifies CIH, CIA, and CIW theaters because they are all valid and within spec
LilGator is offline  
post #278 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You were the one with the problem, remember?

Not at all. I'm satified with the image height in my current room I accept that if I want a bigger image that I need a larger room or I just sit closer

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #279 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not at all. I'm satified with the image height in my current room I accept that if I want a bigger image that I need a larger room or I just sit closer

Would you like a cookie?
LilGator is offline  
post #280 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Would you like a cookie?

I've got something better than a cookie.

I'VE GOT CIH!!!

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #281 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 07:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I've got something better than a cookie.

I'VE GOT CIH!!!

It must be better if it's in all caps.

By the way, I don't think I've see your room dimensions, screen size, and throw length. What are they?
LilGator is offline  
post #282 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 09:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It must be better if it's in all caps.

And don't forget the larger font

Quote:


By the way, I don't think I've see your room dimensions, screen size, and throw length. What are they?

This room is small only 3m deep deep, so the screen is small at just 1610mm x 685mm [2.35:1]. The screen is a loaner (used at CEDIA as a part of a Sceen display) until I move to new place and can take my Curved AT screen out of storage or new room pending, I may even get that new 3500mm wide AT Scope I have wanted for a while.

For now, the BenQ W5000's focus ring is about 2530mm off the screen. The Aussiemorphic MK3 Lens is shelf mounted in front on that on a custom EQ Rack. Therefore the TR is 2530/[1610x0.75]= 2.09:1.

I sit at around 2300mm off the screen or about 3.35x the image height. I sometimes sit slightly closer depending on how I feel or the film I am watching. The interesting thing is, if I do sit closer (might go to 2.5x), it for a Scope film, not HDTV or similar AR.

So the point is, it works and provides good image size for the limits of the room. This system would have been ideal for the last unit I was in as well.

What this proves if that CIH can work in small spaces as well as large rooms.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #283 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 10:35 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

THX certifies CIW, CIH, and CIA theaters. They are all valid.

Maybe but CIA is hard to find ,can you name a few theaters using this ? I can't find them.

Oh and by the way dismissing me isn't a valid technique in argument.

I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #284 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 10:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.

Given the added expense Cinema would have to cover (zoom lens for smaller ARs and 4 way masking systems), you have wonder why they would even bother. There are cinemas on the Gold Coast that use an apperature plate to try and even up the difference in ARs, but all this does is limit the width of Scope from 2.39:1 back to about 2.0:1. They still use the 2x anamorphic lens for Scope films, but they can now have a taller image in a given width cinema. No one (except me) seemed to notice, so I guess ignorance is bliss in this case. It does not make it right and given the strong lean towards CinemaScope in modern film, I can only hope that they will reduce the image size slightly vertically to allow the full Scope width to be projected?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #285 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 11:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

What this proves if that CIH can work in small spaces as well as large rooms.

But only if that is your preference. CIA can work in small spaces as well as large rooms if that is preferred as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Maybe but CIA is hard to find ,can you name a few theaters using this ? I can't find them.

Oh and by the way dismissing me isn't a valid technique in argument.

I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.

Art

Besides the one referenced in the blog post, and the one CAVX mentioned, no I can't name any CIA cinemas I know of.

Art, unlike you, I don't need commercial cinemas to validate what I do with my own home theater. After all, I have one because it doesn't take much to be superior to the average cinema and improve upon it's shortcomings.

Look, I get it, CIH is way more popular than CIA probably ever will be. I'm not denying that. It doesn't mean that CIA is any less valid a way to view films.

I haven't dismissed you in any way, I have answered your questions, and responded to any direct comments.

CIH is only the best way to project in the home if that is what your preference entails.

I find it interesting that the $20K+ community is very open minded about CIA:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

Lon, I had never thought of the need for equal area on cinemascope and hdtv, interesting point.

The current and upcoming slate of Blue Ray movies is just a sampling from the bottom half of all the great films out there, I am very dissapointed in the quantity of quality offerings. Turner Classic Movies, and Fox Movie Channel one day will start transmitting in full hd. At that time I suspect you will see a scramble for CIA.

Congratulations for being ahead of the pack.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=13886359

Also, look what I dug up in the archive from '01, some CIA on CRT love. Oh, and yes, they used the term "constant area", even 8 years ago, because that is what it is :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post

As i explained above, i am using a 'constant area' methology for my screen. To show the difference of the 3 common widescreen ratio concepts, i prepareded some images. For simplicity, I only used the two most popular widescreen ratios: 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, while in reality i implement the concept for all ratios 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and 2.76:1.

1) 'constant width' on a 16x9 screen. This is the most common concept. The problem with this popular setup is that you either:
a) sit at a distance so that 1.85:1 movies look perfect, but then 2,35:1 movies look somewhat puny and loose a lot of their impact.
b) or you sit at a distance so that 2.35:1 movies look perfect, but then 1,85:1 movies look somewhat intimidating, a bit too large.

2) 'constant height' on a 2.35:1 screen. I prefer this setup over 1 by a long shot. Its like in the theaters, scope movies open up wider to give a more epic, eh, scope. I used this methology for a long time. I either adjusted my seating distance so that 2.35:1 look immersive, but then 1.85:1 movies looked a bit tiny, although acceptable. Or i adjusted my seating distance so that 1.85:1 look just right, but then i ended up with a seating distance of a lot closer than 1.5 times screen width for 2.35:1 movies, which is IMHO simply too close for DVD , let alone other sources. For HDTV material, this would probably be the ideal setup.

3) So i decided to go the 'constant area' route, which projects every format so that the same area on screen is occupied. This results in having a almost equal size-sensation, no matter what ratio you display. I am very happy with the results, because i don't get 'somewhat small' feeling for any format, like i did with the other methologies. The actual sizes of the different ratios in my setup are described in an earlier post.

Very few people operate their FP system in a 'constant area' scenario, perhaps because it is mandatory to have a real 4-way masking system to implement it. If done right, its amazing.

Hope this is insightful to people who are in the planning stages of a HT room (and others as well, of course). Feel free to ask whatever questions you have, here or through email.

Best regards
Bjoern

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post

Alan,

i just love 2.35:1, too! Since most of my viewing is done in 2.35:1 these days anyway, my screen is in that ratio most of the time anyway. And i wholeheartly agree, entering my HT with the screen in 2.35:1 mode gives me goosebumps every time. My theater is designed to give the perfect experience for 2.35:1 material. So its not different to a 'pure' 2.35:1 screen in that regard. Its just that i use a few percent more screen area for movies in the 1.85:1 ratio than you would with a 2.35:1 screen. You would have to try it to get a believer in this. In a movie theater its quite different for me, because i usually sit at 1 times screen width or closer, so no matter what ratio the movie is, its HUGE

http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/s...threadid=15649

What is interesting, pre Blu-ray, is his comment about CIH, DVD and HD sources. I wonder what Bjoern now thinks of CIA and seating distances. What he may not have anticipated, is how fast our eyes adjusted to seeing a majority of HD sources!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Given the added expense Cinema would have to cover (zoom lens for smaller ARs and 4 way masking systems), you have wonder why they would even bother. There are cinemas on the Gold Coast that use an apperature plate to try and even up the difference in ARs, but all this does is limit the width of Scope from 2.39:1 back to about 2.0:1. They still use the 2x anamorphic lens for Scope films, but they can now have a taller image in a given width cinema. No one (except me) seemed to notice, so I guess ignorance is bliss in this case. It does not make it right and given the strong lean towards CinemaScope in modern film, I can only hope that they will reduce the image size slightly vertically to allow the full Scope width to be projected?

You bring up another point about why a home theater can, and must, be set up differently than a commercial cinema. If modern film is leaning heavily scope (as you say), it is commercial cinema's interest to project CIH.

If I projected a vast majority of scope, I'd probably feel the same way.

The problem is, I don't watch modern films exclusively, and the history of films leans exactly the opposite way!

AFI's top 100 has more 1.85 films than 2.35 films (this isn't even counting the 1.37 films).

Funny thing is, the average ranking of the 1.85 films is slightly higher than the average ranking of the 2.35 films

I know this is trivial, I'm only poking, but it doesn't change the fact that home theater has to be balanced in both directions if you plan on experiencing all of film over time, and not just very recent film.

Now, you may prefer seeing these all at the same height, and that's fine.

I don't, and that is just as fine
LilGator is offline  
post #286 of 527 Old 04-10-2009, 11:39 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I found another great post by Bjoern in that archived thread that may help others looking to implement CIA:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post


Hi folks,

the quotes below are from a fellow HT freak, who contacted me about my setup. I will post the answer here for those who might be interested. There is also a more detailed explaination of my 'constant area projection' methodology. Have fun.
____________________

Quote:


For 2.76 aspect ration films (Ben Hur?) is your screen width then about 117 inches?

Exactly! 117" width x 42" height for 2.76:1 content.

Quote:


One other question: Is your screen (unmasked)in a 4:3 aspect ratio with a width determined by the widest aspect ratio film?

If you have a 4-way maskable screen it kinda doesn't matter how large the screen is behind the masks. The important thing you mention is that the screen has to have the width of the widest ratio film. For height, a 4:3 screen would be a lot too tall. Since the unused screenspace is masked anyway, it doesn't really matter, though.

Lets assume 2 practical scenarios here.

1) Full blown Constant Area scenario (ultimate nerd alert)
You do care for 2.76:1 movies a lot and want to use the constant area scenario for ALL formats, including 2.76:1. Then the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is 1.92:1. For example in my case: screen width is determined through the widest ratio 2.76:1, thus 117 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 117" / 61" = ~ 1.92:1. It would not make much sense to actually buy a screen in a 1.92:1 ratio, though. You would simply buy a 117' wide 1.77:1 or 1.85:1 screen and have an inch or two unused above and below.

I would suggest to implement these ratios in this full blown configuration: 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1), 2.35:1 and 2.76:1. All of these modes would use the same area on screen.

You could also implement 1.37:1, but thats too close to 1.33:1 to be worth the effort. Simply use the 1.33:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.37:1.

Same with 1.78:1 which isn't even a real format. Having a mode for 1.78:1 AND 1.85:1 is also not really worth the effort. The two are VERY close, so just choose either one. I would suggest 1.78:1. Most 1.85:1 transfers are actually framed at 1.78:1 anyway. Simply use the 1.78:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.85:1 like Starship Troopers.

2) CA 'light'
Its kinda silly to take 2.76:1 movies into account if you don't have many, if any at all. So you could simply use the modes listed in 1) but without an actual 2.76:1 mode. Then you would watch a rare 2.76:1 presentation in you 2.35:1 mode, and again, narrow the vertical masks slightly to mask the letterboxing.

In this scenario, the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is exactly 1.78:1, what a nice coincidence! Or maybe this is why they came up with 1.78:1 in the first place?

To clarify: The screen width needed here is determined through the widest ratio 2.35:1, in my case 108 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 108' / 61' = ~ 1.78:1. So you could simply buy a 1.78:1 screen. Good for resale value, too.

.
.
.

I prepared another figure to show again how the different scenarios actually look like:

My preference is from left to right.

I already posted a comparisson in a post above with pics comparing TS2 and Twine, so these comments here are just to further clarify these comments and bring the other formats into the discussion. I will include the pics again for convenience:

1) Constant Area
Pros: all ratios seem to have the same "size". None of them are too small or too big. You simply adjust your seating distance to you liking for, lets say, 2.35:1 movies and the others all look perfect too.
Cons: variable 4-way masking needed

2) Maximum Size within 2.35:1 screen
Pros: easier to implement than 1). Except for 2.76:1 material,only horizontal masking needed (curtains). 2.76:1 material would be slightly letterboxed and if no vertical masking is available, wouldn't have the full impact of a properly masked presentation. The need for 100% masking can't be stressed enough, really!
Cons: All formats smaller than 2.35:1 are too small for my liking, but as i already said, i still prefer this over the 16:9 solution. To make a 2.35:1 screen work, you adjust your seating distance so, that you sit a tad too close for 2.35:1 movies (lets say 1.3-1.4 times screen width, instead of my 1.5 times recommendation). Then 2.35:1 is slightly too big and 1.85:1 is slightly too small, but all in all, both look great. 1.33:1 is outright puny! But you could argue 'who cares'? 1.33:1 is not meant to be epic anyway. If you watch a lot of 1.33:1 television stuff, this might be a problem for you. But i would argue that most 4:3 material (e.g. NTSC broadcast) is terrible in quality anyway and not worth getting projected too big.

3) Maximum Size within 1.78:1 screen
Pros:Very common, pretty much straight forward.
Cons:You still need 4-way masking! So you could go the extra mile for 1) if at all possible (projector memories etc...) In scenario too, you could adjust your seating so that its a compromise between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, just like in 2). Only that now 2.35:1 look somewhat small and 1.85:1 somewhat big, which i simply don't like. So the only other option would be to adjust seating so that 2.35:1 looks perfect, but then 1.85:1 movies look enormous.

4) Constant width in 4:3 screen
Pros: If you don't watch movies, this is great
Cons: Well, better don't get me started.

I really tried to keep it short. REALLY!

Best regards
Bjoern

I just wish all of the images he posted were still available

Edit: I found his webpage housing some more info and pics of his CIA setup: http://www.videophile.info/Screen/Page_01.htm
LilGator is offline  
post #287 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 12:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:


1) Constant Area
You simply adjust your seating distance to you liking for, lets say, 2.35:1 movies and the others all look perfect too.

And this applys to CIH as well but LilGator says on page 1 that he can't or doesn't want to move his seating. It is all about image height, not width.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #288 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 12:08 AM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And this applys to CIH as well but LilGator says on page 1 that he can't or doesn't want to move his seating. It is all about image height, not width.

Um, no, if it did he wouldn't have created his CIA setup.

He seems to have a different opinion from yours ... which I share

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post

'Constant area' projection is IMHO by far the best methology, because the brains 'size sensation' is perceived through area, not width or height.

Also read what he wrote about CIH:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post

Cons: All formats smaller than 2.35:1 are too small for my liking, but as i already said, i still prefer this over the 16:9 solution. To make a 2.35:1 screen work, you adjust your seating distance so, that you sit a tad too close for 2.35:1 movies (lets say 1.3-1.4 times screen width, instead of my 1.5 times recommendation). Then 2.35:1 is slightly too big and 1.85:1 is slightly too small, but all in all, both look great.

If you're fully moving your seats for CIH closer for 1.85 films, then you are doing CIA anyway, just in a round about way!

CIA allows you to set your seats once, and all AR's share the same viewing area at that seating distance, no seat moving required, and exactly what I'm trying to do.

It's not just about image height, it's about both. That's my preference.

You have yours.
LilGator is offline  
post #289 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 12:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I decided to construct some mockups of what a CIA setup would look like on a standard 16x9 screen. This setup would be ideal as Bjoern mentions, if you view a lot of 4:3, 1.85, and 2.35.

It's hard to justify for me over a 2.05 screen (common denominator for 1.78, 1.85, 2.35), since I don't do 4:3 as much as the others, or care to see it at that size all the time ... but, the following post I think makes up for it

It's interesting that in the 80's 16x9 was created since it could house all aspect ratios, being both the greatest common denominator and the least common denominator of possible ratios shown in constant area!

Yes, 16x9 was created on the constant area concept, oh ... nearly 30 years ago.

Where we went wrong since then, was forcing 16x9 displays to be CIW (not that I blame them, based on the tech), which throws the AR's all out of whack

This is how stretched 4:3 and zoomed 2.35 came about with HDTV as well

With home front projection and masking easily done, why can't we go back to the roots of the 16x9 screen housing all aspect ratios (OAR!) at constant area idea?

The Wages of Fear (1953) shown in 1.37:


Prison Break: Season 1 (2005) shown in 1.78:


Doubt (2008) shown in 1.85:


Quantum of Solace (2008) shown in 2.40:

LL
LL
LL
LL
LilGator is offline  
post #290 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
And, drumroll..... the best part about this setup, besides the fact that 1.37/1.78/1.85/2.35 are all shown constant area ... is that The Dark Knight can be projected exactly as intended in relation to all AR's!


I know CAVX, one of your blog posts mentions this as the best way for this film.

Future proof, ain't it And yet it gives old 1.37 & 1.85 films all the justice they deserve.

The Dark Knight (2008) shown in 2.35:


The Dark Knight (2008) IMAX scene shown in 1.78:

LL
LL
LilGator is offline  
post #291 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 07:30 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Art, unlike you, I don't need commercial cinemas to validate what I do with my own home theater.

Nor do I, you are the one using the THX certification as a means of vaidating CIA.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I find it interesting that the $20K+ community is very open minded about CIA:

Yes they are, I'm one. Peter,Bjoern and Lon are also as I've mentioned.


Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #292 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 10:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Nor do I, you are the one using the THX certification as a means of vaidating CIA.

I'm using THX certification to prove that CIH is not the only valid way to watch films.

I'm not the one calling hundreds of theaters to see what they do.
LilGator is offline  
post #293 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 12:33 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'm using THX certification to prove that CIH is not the only valid way to watch films.

I'm not the one calling hundreds of theaters to see what they do.

You mentioned a 50:50 split in an earlier post which is just false.When I said that my local theaters were CIH you said that my local theaters don't mean all the theaters in the world or some such. I know better but I was willing to go the extra mile to show you. Instead of admitting that you were wrong you ridicule my efforts.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #294 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 02:09 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

That's great, but even then your local areas don't comprise every cinema in the world.

.

Here it is. I could call every cinema in the world but I don't think that will be necessary.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #295 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

You mentioned a 50:50 split in an earlier post which is just false.When I said that my local theaters were CIH you said that my local theaters don't mean all the theaters in the world or some such. I know better but I was willing to go the extra mile to show you. Instead of admitting that you were wrong you ridicule my efforts.

Art

Um, I quoted a THX rep who stated it was 50/50 CIW & CIH with a small percentage of CIA.

You can take it up with him if you'd like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Here it is. I could call every cinema in the world but I don't think that will be necessary.

Art

You could, and until then you can't say for sure what the ratio of formats is.

I'm not seeing the difference it makes though, THX certifies all three.

Why are you still going on about this?
LilGator is offline  
post #296 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 03:31 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post


I'm not seeing the difference it makes though, THX certifies all three.

Why are you still going on about this?

The difference is you stated that my contention that CIH was by far the most commonly used technique was not adequately supported ,it is.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #297 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 03:31 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

With home front projection and masking easily done, why can't we go back to the roots of the 16x9 screen housing all aspect ratios (OAR!) at constant area idea?

Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either very expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and lots of work, but certianly not both.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #298 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 07:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The difference is you stated that my contention that CIH was by far the most commonly used technique was not adequately supported ,it is.

Art

Maybe, maybe not. THX rep disagrees with you.

Accurately, the theaters in a decent radius around your area use CIH as the most common technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either very expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and lots of work, but certianly not both.

Sorry, I was making a comparison to masking typical 16:9 displays (since the 80's when the concept of 16:9 came about).

A home theater is more flexible now with FP, and though very expensive or lots of work, it can be done. Masking other displays over the years was never practical, and as such CIA was never practical until now.
LilGator is offline  
post #299 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either very expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and lots of work, but certianly not both.

The difficulty of DIY 4-way masking is always overstated on this forum. The fact is that anybody with basic handyman skills can put together a motorised 4-way masking system for about $500.00, and it looks and works just as good as a professional system costing $10k.
You have to realize that to a large extent AVS Forum is a promotional marketplace for all kinds of high-end equipment, so it easy to get the impression that you can't get good results with anything less. In the case of 4-way masking, nothing could be farther from the truth.
taffman is offline  
post #300 of 527 Old 04-11-2009, 08:12 PM
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey taffman,
Can you PM me plans for this system. I only need two way masking.

Thanks,
Scott
scottyb is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off