CIA: Constant Image Area - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 527 Old 03-17-2009, 02:39 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'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.

I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.

I want to look forward to viewing movies with both ratios and enjoy the difference in geometry rather than size.

I know this is a sketchy topic for this subforum, but I know there are a few CIA people out there, and maybe some that haven't ventured out of the 'ol closet yet.

I'd love to see some CIA setups from you people that have them, and thoughts on what you appreciate/don't care for about them!
LilGator is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 527 Old 03-17-2009, 04:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.

I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.

Have you tried adjusting your seating? Moving it closer?

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #3 of 527 Old 03-17-2009, 05:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Have you tried adjusting your seating? Moving it closer?

I agree. Sit at 2x the image height and tell me that the 1.85:1 image is too small.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #4 of 527 Old 03-17-2009, 09:24 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
Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal. Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.
LilGator is offline  
post #5 of 527 Old 03-17-2009, 09:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal. Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.

I am just amazed that people claim their 16:9 images are too small. If that was the case, then the Scope image is too small. The point is, we are more sensitive to the height of an image, and where CIH maintains that. A 16:9 image is actually 75% of the width of a Scope image. Even 1.33:1 is still very watchable on a CIH system.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #6 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 06:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal.

But again, that's not the room, it's your decision on seating placement that "limits" you.

Quote:


Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.

Have you tried it? I don't find myself moving my head back and forth with scope movies. The same height that yields a very pleasing 16x9 image, also yields a very pleasing/comfortable 2.35:1 image, usually at least.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.

Even at 2x the image height, that doesn't happen.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #8 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 10:04 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
Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.

25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.

CIA can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

But again, that's not the room, it's your decision on seating placement that "limits" you.

Have you tried it? I don't find myself moving my head back and forth with scope movies. The same height that yields a very pleasing 16x9 image, also yields a very pleasing/comfortable 2.35:1 image, usually at least.

If this were any other room I'd be making different decisions. In a theater room perhaps very close seating and a CIH would be ideal.

This is a multi-use living room. With a couch on the back wall (average seating distance) I want sports, 1.85 and scope movies to all share the same impact. CIH would only give scope the impact.
LilGator is offline  
post #9 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.

Smaller than what though? And the issue absolutely is whether the image size is comfortable/enjoyable. It doesn't matter (within reason) how many inches your screen is if your configured for optimum viewing distance.

Quote:


25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.

This is exactly what I mean about getting hung up on inches. Everyone who cites "the room is to small" when talking about CIH is almost invariably justifying it by saying they'd have to "suffer" with a 16x9 image the size of the 16x9 area of the 2.35:1 screen, and that it would be horrible because it's "so much smaller". They're stuck on size, not viewing experience.

That argument totally misses issues like:
If you configure your seating for optimum 16:9 size, your 2.35:1 image is way too small.

If you configure your seating for optimum 2.35:1 size, your 16:9 image is probably way too big.

Quote:


CIA can.

No it can't though, not entirely. It can only reduce the sacrifice of 2.35:1 size (or reduce the oversized 16:9 image).

Quote:


If this were any other room I'd be making different decisions. In a theater room perhaps very close seating and a CIH would be ideal.

Lets be clear, CIH doesn't require "very close seating", though it can result in closer seating than you might otherwise have if you went with a 16x9 screen.

Quote:


This is a multi-use living room. With a couch on the back wall (average seating distance)

But again, it's not the room dimensions, it's the room design/use that make CIH not optimal. You're making other sacrifices, for example having seating along the wall is bad accoustically.

Quote:


I want sports, 1.85 and scope movies to all share the same impact. CIH would only give scope the impact.

That's fine, I only asked about seating because most people who think they can't do CIH came to that conclusion based on false assumptions, that they "can't" do it in their room.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #10 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 03:08 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 stanger89 View Post

That's fine, I only asked about seating because most people who think they can't do CIH came to that conclusion based on false assumptions, that they "can't" do it in their room.

Well sure, I understand that- but this is the bottom line really. I know I can do CIH in my room, I just don't think it does justice to the other half of highdef material that isn't so wide.

If my focus were movies exclusively, I'd do a 2.40:1 screen and deal with 1.85:1 movies at the same height. I'd sit closer to make that possible.

If my focus were HDTV, then I'd do a 16:9 screen, sitting to where 1.78 material was very immersive, and live with the fact that scope is quite a bit smaller in rare instances I watched such films.

However, this is a dual-purpose setup, and as such neither of the above really work well for that. I want all ratios to share that same impact.

Keeping the area of both projected images the same accomplishes that.

Are you really suggesting that someone who does 50% of their viewing at 1.78:1 should do so on a 2.40:1 screen? It's 25% less wide!

It's just as absurd as someone wanting to do 50% of their viewing with 2.40:1 material to pick a 1.78:1 screen. It's 25% less tall!

Maybe I'm stuck on the numbers, but whether something feels right or not always boils down the numbers anyway.
LilGator is offline  
post #11 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 03:26 PM
Newbie
 
khonfused's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Optoma HD8200 would come in handy here, having the superwide mode with a constant image area of 2:1.
Isn't that what you're looking for?
khonfused is offline  
post #12 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 04:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.

25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.

CIA can.

See if you can follow this:

1.33:1
1.66:1
1.78:1
1.85:1
2.00:1
2.20:1
2.35:1
2.40:1
2.55:1
2.66:1

Notice that ALL ARs have something in common - the height is the same. You might as well just stick with 16:9 if you can't accept that.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 06:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 309
LilGator,

I'm in a similar "boat" as you. I'd planned on CIH but when I borrowed (and then bought) projectors to decide what size 16:9 and 2:35:1 image I wanted, my experience did not match the conventional wisdom on this forum.

I'd get the image as wide as I felt comfortable with, and 16:9 would look fairly good. But then I'd zoom 16:9 (and 1:85:1) content much bigger and LOVE it. Going back down to the 16:9 image I'd have - established by my comfort with the 2:35:1 image - was less cinematic and less engrossing. At the same time, I wouldn't be comfortable with a 2:35:1 image based on the size of 16:9 image I liked. I finally figured out that my comfort, and sense of immersion, wasn't ruled so much by keeping a constant image height, but by keeping the general overall area of the image similar between aspect ratios. Hence Constant Image Area.

And I still don't buy the "we are less sensitive to width than height" mantra. I don't find it to be the case at all. If anything the opposite. And the way movies are shot actually exacerbate the problems in going wider vs going taller. Cinematographers have long used the extra width of "scope" framing to place objects of visual and dramatic interest to the sides of the CinemaScope frame. And typical framing of conversations have one character on one side of the screen, the other on the opposite side. So there is a lot more "scanning" that has to happen to take everything in for CinemaScope. This is in fact what the original idea was for CinemaScope...but it was actually supposed to be shot in a more "sedate" manner, if you will, more like a play. Since the most common way of framing is to establish character orientation and objects of interest from side-to-side in a frame, a narrower but taller 1:85:1 image causes less "ping-pong" scanning to take in details and character interactions.

I still love scope as my favorite AR and in fact I generally have enjoyed that "eyes roaming the landscape" feel that scope gives. I just don't believe, though, the mantra that a much wider image is less problematical in terms of comfort than a taller image.

Since I found trying to make both 16:9 and 2:35:1 ARs was a compromise (not limited by my room, but the result of my testing which image sizes were satisfying) I decided why compromise? I'll go something like a Constant Area set up. In reality, it's more like a "variable image" set up because I'm buying the biggest screen I can fit and using 4 way masking to change the image size per my desire.

My home theater is now under construction so I'll be starting a "build" thread in the construction forums pretty soon. Fingers crossed that it works out.

But, I know where you are coming from. Not many of us are doing constant image area (or variable image sizes). It is a bit more finicky, but I really like the idea of the flexibility.
R Harkness is offline  
post #14 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 06:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Are you really suggesting that someone who does 50% of their viewing at 1.78:1 should do so on a 2.40:1 screen?

I'm not saying anyone else should, but I did. Actually in terms of time I probably put in more time with 16x9 content than scope, usually 2-3 movies on the weekend, mostly scope, and a good bit of HDTV during the week.

Everything is a good size, it just all seems "right" with my CIH setup. HDTV is plenty large, and when I fire up a scope movie it's on a whole nother level, like it was intended to be.

Quote:
It's 25% less wide!

It's supposed to be. Cinemascope was created to be wider than other aspect ratios.

Quote:
It's just as absurd as someone wanting to do 50% of their viewing with 2.40:1 material to pick a 1.78:1 screen. It's 25% less tall!

I agree. But I figure that would be obvious

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #15 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 07:31 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
I would agree with Rich H's assessment.
I know many here disagree, but I zoomed my image out to where the 16:9 would be close to the size I'm used to and the 2:35 picture was too big from my front row of seating.
I have a screen that is 92" wide but 48" high which is 1:91 ratio.
I watch the 16:9 full height and 2:35 full width by zooming my projector.
From our seating the pic looks great sizewise fro both images.

I've tried numerous times to try to convince my self to go 2:35 and now that I've typed this I may go down there and try it again, but I keep coming back to the size I have.

Scott
scottyb is offline  
post #16 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 07:42 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

See if you can follow this:

1.33:1
1.66:1
1.78:1
1.85:1
2.00:1
2.20:1
2.35:1
2.40:1
2.55:1
2.66:1

Notice that ALL ARs have something in common - the height is the same. You might as well just stick with 16:9 if you can't accept that.

Please look up the definition of ratio. Thanks. It makes the values easily comparable to one another, but in no way restricts any value to a certain size.

If that were the case, 16:9 would have to be 3x taller than 4:3!

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I'm not saying anyone else should, but I did. Actually in terms of time I probably put in more time with 16x9 content than scope, usually 2-3 movies on the weekend, mostly scope, and a good bit of HDTV during the week.

Everything is a good size, it just all seems "right" with my CIH setup. HDTV is plenty large, and when I fire up a scope movie it's on a whole nother level, like it was intended to be.

I'm not going to fire up Shawshank and say, oh well, it's too bad it's not scope, it's just a sub-standard film. I'll have to go find one that's on a whole nother level.

It's a canvas on which the director paints. Some canvases fit the art better than others. But while a scope canvas is a wider ratio, it is not bigger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post


It's supposed to be. Cinemascope was created to be wider than other aspect ratios.

I agree. But I figure that would be obvious

Yes, it was created to be wider ... in ASPECT RATIO ... than other ASPECT RATIOS.

No one said when it was being projected that it had to be a bigger image.

Every theater I've been in has theaters dedicated to 2.40:1 and theaters dedicated to 1.85:1.

They don't just pull back the curtains to make it wider (unless we're talking about previews). They have separate theaters where the screen is ideal for seating distances.
Joe Bloggs likes this.
LilGator is offline  
post #17 of 527 Old 03-18-2009, 08:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Yeah, there's this idea that gets floated around that the ARs mean that the actual height of the image will be, or is to be, kept constant. There is a certain amount of truth about it...but it is not as fundamental or widespread as some purport. The ARs (e.g. depicted in the chart given by CAVX) are fundamentally about determining the shape of an image. This is particularly the case for many years now, long after CinemaScope was introduced (and it has not been used by film-makers as it was intended almost ever since).

I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's compositional structure, because Spielberg wanted the relatively taller shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans. It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.

Likewise, a while back I did the sound on a very claustrophobic drama about a man stuck in his apartment. The director chose to shoot in 2:35:1. It was a low budget film, he had no illusions about the movie appearing on really big screens as with blockbusters and he was not looking for epic scope, given the claustrophobia of the material. Rather, he liked the compositions open to him with the 2:35:1 shape.

And while a lot of film-makers still love scope for it's cinematic, sweeping vibe, since movies are going to be shown on all manner of screen sizes, with movie goers often not having a particular reference for the screen height of the last 1:85:1 movie they saw, the choice I'd say is more about the "feel" and compositional element of scope vs
"it's going to be a much bigger/wider image."

For the same reasons, many film-lovers and "videophiles" preferred widescreen transfers over 1:33:1 transfers on their TV, even though the image was actually smaller that way. Because the importance is first in the composition above all. Seeing the whole scope image instead of a pan and scan always felt more sweeping and epic, even though it was actually the smaller image vs a 1:33:1 cropped version. That's because of fundamental importance is the aspect ratio - the shape of the image - being preserved, over the idea the height has to be kept to some standard constant.
R Harkness is offline  
post #18 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 03:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Please look up the definition of ratio. Thanks. It makes the values easily comparable to one another, but in no way restricts any value to a certain size.

I used a ONE because it shows all ratios at the same height. If you want to swing over to 9 as in 16:9, then

1.33:1 is 12:9
1.78:1 is 16:9
2.33:1 is 21:9.

Again, the height is the same.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #19 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 04:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yeah, there's this idea that gets floated around that the ARs mean that the actual height of the image will be, or is to be, kept constant. There is a certain amount of truth about it...but it is not as fundamental or widespread as some purport. The ARs (e.g. depicted in the chart given by CAVX) are fundamentally about determining the shape of an image. This is particularly the case for many years now, long after CinemaScope was introduced (and it has not been used by film-makers as it was intended almost ever since).

Look at it this way. Obviously all films aren't the same height, each theater, each screen is different. Films started out at the academy ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1). But then TV came and the industry decided they wanted something special so they changed the aspect ratio, eventually they made it all the way to 2.76:1 for some films. Why did they do that? They didn't do it to make their films shorter, they did it to make the films larger, wider, and more impressive than they were before.

The evolution to Cinemascope format was not just about the shape of film, but about the size, the scale of the film.

Quote:


I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's compositional structure, because Spielberg wanted the relatively taller shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans.

Yes there are always exceptions, but again if you look back, 2.35:1 wider ARs came out of a desire to produce larger, more spectacular movies.

Quote:


It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.

It would be hard to argue what most directors want, but the fact remains that Spielberg would have to have known that on "most" cinemas, Jurassic Park would end up being smaller, screen area wise, than a 2.35:1 film (since cinemas tend to be CIH, at least the better ones).

Quote:


For the same reasons, many film-lovers and "videophiles" preferred widescreen transfers over 1:33:1 transfers on their TV, even though the image was actually smaller that way. Because the importance is first in the composition above all.

I don't see how that relates to CIH vs CIA, of course it's better to see the whole movie than to have (nearly) half of it removed to fit your screen.

Quote:


Seeing the whole scope image instead of a pan and scan always felt more sweeping and epic, even though it was actually the smaller image vs a 1:33:1 cropped version.

Frankly I don't think either (P&S or Letterbox) feel sweeping or epic. For that question it's a question of if you're missing things or not. I never felt 2.35:1 films were reproduced correctly (in my HT) until I "converted" to a CIH setup.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #20 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 07:30 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
My personal experience is that it is very film dependent and therefore a flexible setup like Richs makes a lot of sense. I would not say it is the screen width or height per say that determines an enjoyable size, but the way the film is shot.

You can have a huge screen completely covering your vision on all sides and it would still feel comfortable if the shot was stable enough and you were able to take in what's happening without darting around the eyes too much.
I.e. if the important stuff takes place in a restricted area of the screen (not necessarily in the center) and the rest comprises scenery that contributes to the immersion. Aka IMAX and the likes.

(Note that you can cut out a cinemascope ratio from TDK IMAX scenes without loosing any vital information, the extra height is just scenery to add to the immersion).

Many cinemascope films works in this way and you can sit very close without feeling dizzy (this is the way I think cinemascope should be used). It allows you too scan around the landscape in slow pans and scenes or just really feel immersed, like the sweeping IMAX city shots in TDK.

However, there are also cinemascope films that according to me are too zoomed in on the action or filmed in a shaky fashion that makes sitting close very uncomfortable. For example the Bourne films.

I still have doubts of the way to go. CIH is a very elegant approach and with something like the anticipated Carada CIH masking it would make a very clean and estetic install.

The other option is a 3-way masking system (masking from the top and the sides) that would be more flexible, but it would comprise of a DIY install that would not be as elegant... (commercial 4-way masking systems are WAY off in terms of price)

Well, that's my take of it anyway...
Drexler is online now  
post #21 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's compositional structure, because Spielberg wanted the relatively taller shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans. It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.

We've been down this road before. Jurrasic Park (1993) is but one example that might support a taller image for a 1.85:1 screen based on the height of the dinosaurs, but by the time we get to the 3rd film, the main dinosaur is now longer than it is tall. Whilst I am glad the trilogy has consistancy, I can't help but to think that Scope might have worked better for that film.

If we start changing the height of the screen for certain films in 1.85:1, does that make it correct for ALL films presented in 1.85:1 to be taller? Maybe this idea works with War Of The Worlds as well (the machines are tall), but would Water World benift? What about a commedy like The Mask? How about Aliens which is supposed to feel closed in? Should the first Terminator film be presented taller than the more popular sequal?

In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #22 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 08:24 AM
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
As Stranger89 correctly points out, the intent of CinemaScope was to create greater immersion of the audience through its much greater size. It was the poor-mans Cinerama where it tried to put the audience into the picture. Remember the original CinemaScope ads - ' you see it without special glasses' where they implied a 3D effect which of course was just not there. But if you look at all the CinemaScope advertising graphics of that period it all implied immersion in the picture. It had nothing to do with composition, as a matter of fact nearly all the film directors of the 1950's hated the CinemaScope format because of the difficulty of framing subjects - and many still do.
On the subject of shaky films, like the Bourne series, if I have to endure one of these again I swear I will demand my ticket back at the theater. It seems fashionable right now, for directors to dispense with tripods and steadicams to get a supposed Cinema-verite look to their films. Its time audiences let it be known that they will not endure this type of cheap shoddy camerawork in feature films.
taffman is offline  
post #23 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 10:12 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.


Yep ! I think after seeing so many of these threads here perhaps it's time for a CIA forum since I've never seen a conversion either way. I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer.

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 #24 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 07:30 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My first projector was a Sharp 4/3 with a 16/9 screen. When I migrated to a Sony Pearl I used 2.16:1 for a constant area setup. Worked OK but I still had to zoom. Somewhat time consuming. Added a video processor to fill the whole screen by croping the sides of the cinemascope features. The next logicial step was to go with constant height with an A/Lens. I would never go back. I watch plentyof 70s DVD of TV series in 4/3 format with no issues at all. I rate view method as the following:

C: 16/9 screen (constant width between 16/9 and cinemascope)
B: Constant Area
A: Constant Height

Charles
CRGINC is offline  
post #25 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 07:50 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer. Art

Yea Art,
I could say that if my theater and screen were the size of your.

Scott
scottyb is offline  
post #26 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Yep ! I think after seeing so many of these threads here perhaps it's time for a CIA forum since I've never seen a conversion either way. I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer.

Art

Maybe a sub forum like the DIY section he have for CIH.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #27 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 09:58 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 used a ONE because it shows all ratios at the same height. If you want to swing over to 9 as in 16:9, then

1.33:1 is 12:9
1.78:1 is 16:9
2.33:1 is 21:9.

Again, the height is the same.

Impressive.

666:500.75
666:374.16
666:285.84

Look, I made the exact same ratios share a certain number. THEY'RE CLEARLY ALL SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME WIDTH!

CIW, woohoo!

Are you serious, or just playing with me now?
LilGator is offline  
post #28 of 527 Old 03-19-2009, 10:03 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

In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.

Do you watch movies back to back in theaters and see this transition, or are you speaking of the previews to feature transition (with the curtains moving out).

Theaters I've been in all have separate theaters for movies in each ratio, with proper seating for each sized screen. Not the same theater that switched between the two with curtains.

There are, I'm sure, a few that are CIW as you say, but how can seperate theaters designed for 2.40 & 1.85 respectively NOT be the best option?

Transitioning this model to the home theater, only CIA would replicate that idea without having separate rooms.
LilGator is offline  
post #29 of 527 Old 03-20-2009, 12:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,373
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Do you watch movies back to back in theaters and see this transition, or are you speaking of the previews to feature transition (with the curtains moving out).

Both. I have a preferred cinema that I like to go to - it has bass traps in it 2 biggest screens. And it plays loud and clean! I usually find a good seat well before the lights dim - movie pending of course as sometimes you just take what you can for block busters but I do aim for a seating distance of about 3x the image height.

We also have what is called a movie marathon here for public holidays where for one ticket price, you get to see 3 or sometimes 4 films in one go! The movies start at 9PM and run until the 5am, so an all night affair.
Teenagers have killed it of course with their constant mobile phone use - or is that abuse? I can't tell. And because not all films are in Scope, you get to see the masking curtains open and close between films.

Quote:


Theaters I've been in all have separate theaters for movies in each ratio, with proper seating for each sized screen. Not the same theater that switched between the two with curtains.

But you just asked me if I was talking about the pre-show and opening of the side masking - sounds like CIH to me.

I go to the cinema allot and even worked in projection, and I've never heard of that before. Maybe you should try and arrive before the lights go out The seats are in rows and they range from way closer than 2x to about 5x in older cinemas with the newer cinemas limited to about 4x the image height.

Quote:


There are, I'm sure, a few that are CIW as you say, but how can seperate theaters designed for 2.40 & 1.85 respectively NOT be the best option?

Sorry that does not happen. A cinema that can not run a film because of its aspect ratio is a cinema that will not make any money for that complex. At about 100K for a 35mm projector, you bet it will run every film that comes to through the complex, not just films in one aspect ratio. As a result, all cinemas can run both Scope and 35mm flat as well as multi format digital sound. The only exception of course is D-Cinema that can only run a D-Cinema file and not film and these are being used now for the special 3D screening.

American cinema chain Reddings decided to start CIW in the 1990's because they considered the number of 1.85:1 films in the 1990s was higher than what was coming in Scope. I bet they are having a re-think now And I refuse to go to their cinemas becuase of the this fact.

All other cinemas are CIH including Hoyts, AMC, BCC, and the indies.

Quote:


Transitioning this model to the home theater, only CIA would replicate that idea without having separate rooms.

Ahh no. Only CIH replicates REAL cinema which DOES change ARs.

OH and they USE anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope too

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #30 of 527 Old 03-20-2009, 04:32 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyb View Post

Yea Art,
I could say that if my theater and screen were the size of your.

Scott


That's actually was one of the reasons I picked the scren size I ended up using,it made 16x9 about the same size as my old screen before I went CIH.

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  
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