Avatar 1.78 vs 2.27 comparison - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 328 Old 04-23-2010, 03:53 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
Great advice as always Rich. Coincidentally I have recently done exactly what you said and covered my whole screen wall in black velvet cloth ( I still have the burgundy curtains which can be powered fully back to the sides, and the powered screen masks). I immediately noticed the significant improvement in picture impact and immersiveness. I guess the ultimate is an entirely black room, but I will not go that way because I like a cosy intimate look to my theater and all black walls and ceiling is just like the cold tomb-like atmosphere of the multiplexes.
taffman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 328 Old 04-23-2010, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,041
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by b curry View Post

only if your 1.78 screen is taller that your 2.39 screen.

+1

_________________________

Frank

Franin is online now  
post #93 of 328 Old 04-23-2010, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
sotwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 343
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).
sotwell is offline  
post #94 of 328 Old 04-23-2010, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
If one wasn't fixated that one AR had to be wider/taller than the other and simply enjoyed the presentation at it's best size for the viewing distance. Take into considering that the vast majority of widescreen movies are not shot anamorphically, but matted from a taller frame........makes sense from an image quality POV.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #95 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 06:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
the movie looked great on my 2.37 screen with A-Lens.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #96 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 08:46 AM
 
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 b curry View Post

Only if your 1.78 screen is taller that your 2.39 screen.

Incorrect. I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.

Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39.

Whether your screen is capable of reproducing that or not isn't what defines the size.
LilGator is offline  
post #97 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
b curry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: on the way to Hell, Michigan USA
Posts: 2,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Incorrect. I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.

Avatar 1.78 is larger than Avatar 2.39.

Whether your screen is capable of reproducing that or not isn't what defines the size.

I understand now.

You have nanobots inside your body, reconstructing "Avatar" for your minds eye, larger than life.

Yea, that's it!

b curry is offline  
post #98 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 09:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Erik Garci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 4,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'm not referring to any specific screen size, only the source material.

What does "source material" refer to exactly?
Erik Garci is offline  
post #99 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 09:58 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Deke6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotwell View Post

so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).

It's infinitely watchable in either OAR or 2.35:1. There are subtitles, but they are placed very high in the frame (the highest I've ever seen in a film, in fact), so they are not at all affected.

In cinemascope you may notice a bit of cropping in a few scenes (the video log shots, as an example) but overall it's enjoyable either way.
Deke6 is offline  
post #100 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 11:09 AM
 
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 Erik Garci View Post

What does "source material" refer to exactly?

For us, the 1920x1080 frame on the Blu-ray- but ultimately the full 1.78 frame as it was captured. They chopped off the top and bottom to arrive at a workable 2.39 frame, therefore it is smaller.

This has nothing to do with Blu-ray, or your setup- it's just the way is was created.

Avatar 1.78 is more immersive than 2.39 because it is taller.

If someone enjoys their theater and places their seating relative to a 2.35 size that they feel is immersive, Avatar would be presented the same width, but taller. It can then only be more immersive- the shape doesn't define how immersive it is.

If Avatar is less immersive than other films to you, then your setup is at fault, not the way the film was created.

If you have to take a hacksaw to the top and bottom portions of Avatar to make it fit your screen and feel immersive, again, your setup is the issue.

I hear "more immersive" used over and over in preference to "scope", but it's just not true in this case. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy because of the limitations of CIH.
LilGator is offline  
post #101 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 11:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I don't disagree with much you have said here. The thing is though the majority of commercial theaters do exactly what we CIH guys do at home when displaying the films of various ARs.

One could say that there should be (and perhaps is) a better way but the CIH technique is validated quite well.

Art

Art, I agree completely. I think that "better" way is what I like to call "CIH+IMAX". Basically a 16:9 screen that's as wide as your scope screen would be, but for which you only use the full height for IMAX films.

I think you and I both agree that CIH not only work well, but works 'correctly' (based on cinemas historical precident) for pretty much any film. The only real exception is the IMAX/large format films.

Problem with "CIH+IMAX" is the dramatically increased cost/complexity vs just standard CIH. Frankly being a "lenser" who won't do CIH without a lens (until scope projectors come out ), I don't even know how you do CIH+IMAX in any sort of automated way without moving into some seriously big iron hardware.

You end up needing 4-way automated masking ($$$), a good lens ($$$), and a good projector with automated 1.33x or greater zoom. To do this really well that basically forces you into a DPI Titan, ISCO III and 4-way masking.

But then there's the remaining problem that if you're sitting close enough to be "too close" for scope without a lens, the IMAX content will have a pixel visibility problem.

All that is IMO just way too much cost/complexity/effort for only one movie I have in my collection (TDK) and one movie I'll rent (Avatar).

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

But I've always known that the more visual information I can remove from around the image the better. So I've been chipping away at it. For a while I've had black velvet covers fitted to my L/C/R speakers so the speakers themselves disappear with the lights out. But what was left was the dim outline of the reflections of my L/R speaker stands to the side of the movie image. This is one of those things that "normal people" would think doesn't matter on the "I can barely see it and I'm watching the movie anyway" argument. But I finally got some velvet around the speakers stands too and so now you can see absolutely nothing at all around the movie image, just pitch black.

Removing that last bit of extraneous visual detail (speaker stands) really did make a difference: the fact that you see only the picture just sucks you right into it, like a giant virtual reality portal. This was particularly true of Avatar! It also seems to help map the sound to the image better, because without seeing any visible speakers at all my brain sort of maps the sound on to the image.

I note that the more I can make the room "disappear" the more enhanced the dimensionality and sucked-into-the-image effect becomes.
So I even have a big piece of Fidelio black velvet stored in one of my ottomans that I can whip down in front of the screen area, so it looks pitch black right up to your feet on the ottomans. It's just a killer effect.

OT-ish but have we ever had a discussion here about how to make the room disappear? That's one thing I'd really like to do in my HT but I'm not really sure how to start. Especially to balance making it disappear and aesthetics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

If one wasn't fixated that one AR had to be wider/taller than the other and simply enjoyed the presentation at it's best size for the viewing distance.

That is exactly what CIH does in my experience. In contrast to standard "CIW" where you constantly go back and forth between underwhelming (scope) and overwhelming (16:9).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbase1 View Post

the movie looked great on my 2.37 screen with A-Lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deke6 View Post

It's infinitely watchable in either OAR or 2.35:1. There are subtitles, but they are placed very high in the frame (the highest I've ever seen in a film, in fact), so they are not at all affected.

That's very, very interesting. Seems almost like they did that on purpose to put the subs in the "safe" area for CIH

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #102 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spongebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca.
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
What AR was the movie produced in? I don't understand "scope" or any of the other stuff, just want to know in my Avatar BD is as I saw it in the theater
?


bob
spongebob is offline  
post #103 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 12:13 PM
 
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

But then there's the remaining problem that if you're sitting close enough to be "too close" for scope without a lens, the IMAX content will have a pixel visibility problem.

If you can see pixel structure at a full scope width 1.78 frame seating distance, then you will also see pixel structure with an A-lens.

The scaling/optical stretching involved will only reduce pixel structure visibility in one dimension, so it will be equally visible in the other dimension.

This can be illustrated. Below on the left would be the pixel structure without a lens, on the left with the lens. Sitting the same distance for both, and both projected at the same widths (the CIH+IMAX setup you describe), this is simulated pixel structure, including pixel gaps, the gray lines. This is assuming a ~90% fill rate. DLPs are in this ballpark I believe and LCoS a bit higher.

If you can make out pixel structure at a given seating distance, you will either way. Only the horizontal pixel gaps have gotten smaller, the vertical gaps remain identical (obviously, the image is always 1920 pixels wide).



In my opinion, the next phase of 2D home theater for the crowd that enjoys CIH with an A-lens will be 4K projection with automated zoom presets and 4-way masking. The A-lens will die, and the limitation to a 2.35 strict CIH setup will disappear.

Carada's Maquerade or similar could provide 4-way relatively cheap, there's just no market there yet. I'm sure we'll see affordable 4K projection before we see Blu-ray replaced by it's successor.

Maybe that successor will involve pseudo-anamorphic specifications allowing every AR film to be provided in equal resolution.
LilGator is offline  
post #104 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 12:23 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I'm sure we'll see affordable 4K projection before we see Blu-ray replaced by it's successor.

Pretty safe since there is no media successor to BD and 4K affordability is in the eye of the beholder.

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 #105 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 12:51 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
Wow, all this fuss about the correct presentation of one film! Personally, I have little if any interest in Avatar as I know it is just not my kind of movie. Sure the BD quality may be superb, but that will hold peoples interest for about 5 minutes. If the plot is mediocre, which many critics think it is, what are you left with? Just another CGI 'ride' film which is filling, like hamburger, but not satisfying like steak.
Ten years from now I bet Avatar will be seen for what it is - a novelty film which successfully exploited the 3D movie craze that lasted from 2009 to 2014.
taffman is offline  
post #106 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 01:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob View Post

What AR was the movie produced in?

The answer is "yes", and that's really the crux of the issue. Depending on where you saw it, it might have been scope or 16:9.

Then Cameron seems to change his stance on it at the drop of a hat. First it was "Scope is the best AR, except for 3D" when he was talking about theatrical presentation, but even then some theaters showed it. The consistent thread through all the confusion is that it seems Cameron always chooses for Avatar, the aspect ratio that results in the largest image on screen, 16:9 for "CIW" theaters and 2.37:1 for scope/CIH theaters.

Frankly I think looking at his comments about the BD that it's largely spin to sell them. He went through massive effort to film it in 3D and create new technologies to support it, yet he claims 2D is better now that the 2D BD is out.

Quote:


I don't understand "scope" or any of the other stuff, just want to know in my Avatar BD is as I saw it in the theater
?

Basically if you saw it 2D it was scope (2.37:1), if you saw it 3D at an "IMAX" it was 16:9, if you saw it 3D in a CIH theater it was scope (2.37:1).

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #107 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

If you can see pixel structure at a full scope width 1.78 frame seating distance, then you will also see pixel structure with an A-lens.

It doesn't matter how many times you say that, it doesn't make it true. That idea has been rebutted, dare I say disproven countless times by people like Art, Mark, CM, and many others who have actually tried it and found the lens to reduce pixel visibility.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #108 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 03:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
I personally don't see much reason to fuss about a few movies, like Avatar and maybe Dark Knight, that might ideally demand a taller image (e.g. due to IMAX formatting). It seems to me the benefits and thrill of having a CIH set up in general far outweighs the issue of the occasional movie done in a taller IMAX format or whatever.

If I had a CIH set up I'm not sure what I'd do with Avatar, either view it 16:9 or
perhaps larger as scope. I wouldn't fuss either way since it was presented with Cameron's blessing both ways in the theater. Sure Cameron has said 16:9 is the preferred format for home viewing. But I'd think that Cameron et al are going on the obvious presumption that most people will view it on a 16:9 display, so the image size will be maximised on the average display. I'm sure CIH set ups are hardly on his radar in terms of having any influence on his decision to market it for home viewing.

From what I've gathered listening to Cameron speak on this issue, in the theaters his main mission was viewer immersion. And the selection of how the film was presented depended on a theater's ability to present as immersive a version as possible. IMAX was first choice in that regard, but if a theater was set up such that it's 2:35:1 image was the bigger/better presentation, they went with that.

I see no big issue with this reasoning carrying over to home environments, at least in the case of Avatar: If it happens your home theater is set up to maximise 2:35:1 images, then you may as well view it that way. That's how they were thinking with the theater releases anyway.
R Harkness is online now  
post #109 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spongebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca.
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

The answer is "yes", and that's really the crux of the issue. Depending on where you saw it, it might have been scope or 16:9.

Then Cameron seems to change his stance on it at the drop of a hat. First it was "Scope is the best AR, except for 3D" when he was talking about theatrical presentation, but even then some theaters showed it. The consistent thread through all the confusion is that it seems Cameron always chooses for Avatar, the aspect ratio that results in the largest image on screen, 16:9 for "CIW" theaters and 2.37:1 for scope/CIH theaters.

Frankly I think looking at his comments about the BD that it's largely spin to sell them. He went through massive effort to film it in 3D and create new technologies to support it, yet he claims 2D is better now that the 2D BD is out.



Basically if you saw it 2D it was scope (2.37:1), if you saw it 3D at an "IMAX" it was 16:9, if you saw it 3D in a CIH theater it was scope (2.37:1).

Thanks,

I saw it in 3D, non-Imax (Cineart?) Santana Row in San Jose, Ca. I really don't remember if it was "scope" or not, only that it was an amazing immersion experience that I will never achieve in my living room!

BTW, what is CIH and CIW?


thx

bob
spongebob is offline  
post #110 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 06:39 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Art, I agree completely. I think that "better" way is what I like to call "CIH+IMAX". Basically a 16:9 screen that's as wide as your scope screen would be, but for which you only use the full height for IMAX films.

I think you and I both agree that CIH not only work well, but works 'correctly' (based on cinemas historical precident) for pretty much any film. The only real exception is the IMAX/large format films.

Problem with "CIH+IMAX" is the dramatically increased cost/complexity vs just standard CIH. Frankly being a "lenser" who won't do CIH without a lens (until scope projectors come out ), I don't even know how you do CIH+IMAX in any sort of automated way without moving into some seriously big iron hardware.

You end up needing 4-way automated masking ($$$), a good lens ($$$), and a good projector with automated 1.33x or greater zoom. To do this really well that basically forces you into a DPI Titan, ISCO III and 4-way masking.

I still think you overestimate on this.

You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money. I did the 4 way automated masking for around $5,000, which (as I understand it) is even less than a new ISCO 3 anamorphic lens just by itself.

Sure it doesn't have an automated memory zoom like I think you can get with a mega-expensive projector. But, jeez, it takes a mere 15 seconds
to hit one button to change the screen size, and another two buttons to zoom and shift the image into place. It would be strange to me that someone might be enthusiastic enough about the ability to do a "CIH + IMAX" set up, but would not be willing to wait the occasional 15 seconds here and there to get such a benefit. Or to save the $70,000 (or whatever it is) for a DPI Titan set up. I assure you, it's worth it.

As for an Anamorphic lens, if you are stuck on that idea sure I guess that adds expense. But it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) you could still add a lens to the type of set up I'm talking about.


-----------------------


(QUICK OT DISCUSSION):

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

OT-ish but have we ever had a discussion here about how to make the room disappear? That's one thing I'd really like to do in my HT but I'm not really sure how to start. Especially to balance making it disappear and aesthetics.

That's a subject I love because I grappled with it for so long...and I got results that I'm incredibly happy with. I'm sure folks here have some great ideas and approaches they have used. But if it's any help I'll give an account of my scenario and approach:

I had extreme aesthetic pressures on my HT design. It's not a dedicated theater; it's on our main floor, the front living room of our house, the first room you see when you walk into our house! My wife didn't give a damn about home theater so wasn't on board for the renovation. She's extremely tentative about decor changes and warned "I don't want anything that looks weird...and don't ruin the decor of the house!" She was so afraid it would look terrible she refused to look at pre-renderings, pretty much refused to be involved, and a lot of the times didn't even look at the room as she walked by it during construction, in case she saw something that freaked her out.

It was not a fun build with that kind of pressure.

But I ended up with something that even my wife had to admit worked
and looks great. Now she actually has pride in the room.

As it was a main floor room, and one I wanted to hang out in during daytime, I couldn't and didn't want to make it into a bat cave. But my high-performance-desiring AVSforum side demanded it have as close to a bat-cave level of performance when actually watching movies.

The way I solved it was to look at how to make a room transform, as easily as possible, into a non-reflective environment. I figured it would be very difficult to transform the ceiling between light in the day time to dark for movies, so that part went permanently dark: We built a bulk-head over the whole screen/seating area covered in dark brown felt (a classy look as it turned out). I figured for the walls I could go with a much lighter color, to keep the room lighter and more cheery. And I could use strategically placed velvet curtains that would pull along the walls to cover them when I watched a movie. That was a HUGE factor in allowing me to have the day-time aesthetics I wanted and the movie-watching performance as well.

I did a darker carpet for non-reflection, but the light walls, when uncovered, keep the room from feeling dark.

The screen wall was a big challenge. For quite a while I was going to have brown velvet curtains cover up the screen. My wife (who, strangely, doesn't care for curtains) thought it would look "dumb" like I'm trying to hide whole wall for some reason. Her one bit of input was to say since it was going to have a big screen...just show the big screen. And that changed my thinking around. I knew I wanted the image masked, and the whole wall to be be black material if possible, so that's what I ended up with. I was nervous about how it would work out. It was the part that I thought had the potential to look most "odd" or unsettling in a main floor room.

The end result worked out fantastic. What sells the look, I think, is trying for as clean, deliberate, coherent as possible. So I built a bulk head just over the screen that houses the electronic side-masking track. It's covered with Fidelio black velvet. Hanging down from there are the side masks (they go all the way to the floor) which are done in the same Fidelio fabric. I used the same fabric, attached to boards, as a sort of "stage" that comes out a couple feet from the screen. Then the L/C/R speakers sit on that "stage" part and are, as described before, covered in velvet.

The Fidelio velvet is particularly dark, but also luxurious (doesn't look cheap).
The sheer blackness of the velvet really does the job at making everything blend together - joints, jutting angle and what have you are hard to take in so it just looks really smooth. It has a clean, built-in look.

So, that's how I personally did it. I got the whole front of my room disappearing when I watch a movie, and most of the rest of the room (via the dark brown velvet curtains) mostly disappearing, while having a nice inviting look for non-movie-viewing hours.

Not having done this before it was nerve-wracking whether it was going to work, so I'm happy it did, and can just now enjoy the room.

Cheers,
R Harkness is online now  
post #111 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 07:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob View Post

BTW, what is CIH and CIW?

CIH = Constant Image Height which means the images just get wider as the AR increases.

Smallest to largest - 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40, 2.66:1, 2.76:1.

CIW = Constant Image Width which means that images actaully get smaller
as the AR increases, so 1.33:1 is actually the biggest image even though it is the smallest AR.

A 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #112 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 08:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spongebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca.
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

CIH = Constant Image Height which means the images just get wider as the AR increases.

Smallest to largest - 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.00:1, 2.20:1, 2.35:1, 2.40, 2.66:1, 2.76:1.

CIW = Constant Image Width which means that images actaully get smaller
as the AR increases, so 1.33:1 is actually the biggest image even though it is the smallest AR.

A 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW.

Thanks, Mark

Is this just for projectors? Any online examples?

thx

bob
spongebob is offline  
post #113 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 08:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by spongebob View Post

Thanks, Mark

Is this just for projectors? Any online examples?

thx

bob

Any film (BD DVD LD) that is presented in OAR will have some letter boxing bars once that AR exceeds the native AR of the display.

As mentioned, a 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW, so from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1, the image fills the screen top to bottom and has side pillars (except 1.78:1 which fills the display), hence it is in part, CIH.

Once the AR exceeds 1.78:1, black bars start to appear at the top and bottom with the image always filling the width of the display. So from 1.85:1 to beyond 2.40:1, the image displays constant width.

Those of use that use an anamorphic lens with our 16:9 projectors have the ability to display images in CIH out to 2.37:1. To do this, we use a combination of Scaling + Optics.

The new Phillips 21:9 TVs are also 2.37:1. The difference is that they have 2560 x 1080 pixels as native pixels.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #114 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 08:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I still think you overestimate on this.

You don't need to spend outrageous sums of money. I did the 4 way automated masking for around $5,000, which (as I understand it) is even less than a new ISCO 3 anamorphic lens just by itself.

Sure it doesn't have an automated memory zoom like I think you can get with a mega-expensive projector. But, jeez, it takes a mere 15 seconds
to hit one button to change the screen size, and another two buttons to zoom and shift the image into place. It would be strange to me that someone might be enthusiastic enough about the ability to do a "CIH + IMAX" set up, but would not be willing to wait the occasional 15 seconds here and there to get such a benefit. Or to save the $70,000 (or whatever it is) for a DPI Titan set up. I assure you, it's worth it.

The big problem for me is I'm not willing to "settle" for anything but DLP, and it's all but impossible to find a projector that would be capable of such a setup. My Planar might if I were willing to get up and physically adjust the zoom, but if I need to shift I've got to get out the tools.

Quote:


As for an Anamorphic lens, if you are stuck on that idea sure I guess that adds expense. But it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) you could still add a lens to the type of set up I'm talking about.

You could (I would) but you still need a projector capable of the 1.33x zoom, and doing it in some automated way. If you want automated zoom AFAIK your choices are Panasonic (not sufficient for me) or DPI (way over my budget).

Even just to get power zoom looks like it takes you into well into the upper mid price range. If you like the look of LCD or LCoS, more power to you, I don't fall into that category.

Quote:


(QUICK OT DISCUSSION):



That's a subject I love because I grappled with it for so long...and I got results that I'm incredibly happy with. I'm sure folks here have some great ideas and approaches they have used. But if it's any help I'll give an account of my scenario and approach:

I had extreme aesthetic pressures on my HT design. It's not a dedicated theater; it's on our main floor, the front living room of our house, the first room you see when you walk into our house! My wife didn't give a damn about home theater so wasn't on board for the renovation. She's extremely tentative about decor changes and warned "I don't want anything that looks weird...and don't ruin the decor of the house!" She was so afraid it would look terrible she refused to look at pre-renderings, pretty much refused to be involved, and a lot of the times didn't even look at the room as she walked by it during construction, in case she saw something that freaked her out.

It was not a fun build with that kind of pressure.

But I ended up with something that even my wife had to admit worked
and looks great. Now she actually has pride in the room.

As it was a main floor room, and one I wanted to hang out in during daytime, I couldn't and didn't want to make it into a bat cave. But my high-performance-desiring AVSforum side demanded it have as close to a bat-cave level of performance when actually watching movies.

The way I solved it was to look at how to make a room transform, as easily as possible, into a non-reflective environment. I figured it would be very difficult to transform the ceiling between light in the day time to dark for movies, so that part went permanently dark: We built a bulk-head over the whole screen/seating area covered in dark brown felt (a classy look as it turned out). I figured for the walls I could go with a much lighter color, to keep the room lighter and more cheery. And I could use strategically placed velvet curtains that would pull along the walls to cover them when I watched a movie. That was a HUGE factor in allowing me to have the day-time aesthetics I wanted and the movie-watching performance as well.

I did a darker carpet for non-reflection, but the light walls, when uncovered, keep the room from feeling dark.

The screen wall was a big challenge. For quite a while I was going to have brown velvet curtains cover up the screen. My wife (who, strangely, doesn't care for curtains) thought it would look "dumb" like I'm trying to hide whole wall for some reason. Her one bit of input was to say since it was going to have a big screen...just show the big screen. And that changed my thinking around. I knew I wanted the image masked, and the whole wall to be be black material if possible, so that's what I ended up with. I was nervous about how it would work out. It was the part that I thought had the potential to look most "odd" or unsettling in a main floor room.

The end result worked out fantastic. What sells the look, I think, is trying for as clean, deliberate, coherent as possible. So I built a bulk head just over the screen that houses the electronic side-masking track. It's covered with Fidelio black velvet. Hanging down from there are the side masks (they go all the way to the floor) which are done in the same Fidelio fabric. I used the same fabric, attached to boards, as a sort of "stage" that comes out a couple feet from the screen. Then the L/C/R speakers sit on that "stage" part and are, as described before, covered in velvet.

The Fidelio velvet is particularly dark, but also luxurious (doesn't look cheap).
The sheer blackness of the velvet really does the job at making everything blend together - joints, jutting angle and what have you are hard to take in so it just looks really smooth. It has a clean, built-in look.

So, that's how I personally did it. I got the whole front of my room disappearing when I watch a movie, and most of the rest of the room (via the dark brown velvet curtains) mostly disappearing, while having a nice inviting look for non-movie-viewing hours.

Not having done this before it was nerve-wracking whether it was going to work, so I'm happy it did, and can just now enjoy the room.

Cheers,

Thanks for the info, I'll have to ponder it Though fortunately for me, if I wanted to, I could just cover everything in black velvet, but I'd like the end result to be more classy than that

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #115 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 08:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spongebob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca.
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Any film (BD DVD LD) that is presented in OAR will have some letter boxing bars once that AR exceeds the native AR of the display.

As mentioned, a 16:9 display is both CIH and CIW, so from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1, the image fills the screen top to bottom and has side pillars (except 1.78:1 which fills the display), hence it is in part, CIH.

Once the AR exceeds 1.78:1, black bars start to appear at the top and bottom with the image always filling the width of the display. So from 1.85:1 to beyond 2.40:1, the image displays constant width.

Those of use that use an anamorphic lens with our 16:9 projectors have the ability to display images in CIH out to 2.37:1. To do this, we use a combination of Scaling + Optics.

The new Phillips 21:9 TVs are also 2.37:1. The difference is that they have 2560 x 1080 pixels as native pixels.


Very cool stuff.

Thanks for the education


bob
spongebob is offline  
post #116 of 328 Old 04-24-2010, 09:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 255
stanger89,

I forgot about your desire to stick with DLP. That does complicate things I guess.
My comments might be worth more to others who would consider LCDs, LCOS etc.
R Harkness is online now  
post #117 of 328 Old 04-25-2010, 04:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
The only DLP that I am aware of having greater then 1.2x zoom (less than $10K) would be the BenQ W6000/6500 that since going from 0.9" chips (W5000/20000) to 0.65" have been able to increase the zoom from 1.2x to 1.5x.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #118 of 328 Old 04-25-2010, 06:29 AM
Senior Member
 
bwhitmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bottom line for me...

Cameron really kinda ruined the experience by not releasing this in 2:35

If any movie deserved this aspect ratio, it's Avatar

my $.02
bwhitmore is offline  
post #119 of 328 Old 04-25-2010, 06:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotwell View Post

so has anyone cropped and watched this in 2.35? What did you think? I am not looking for some long technical rant on correct AR. Just did you like it? Were there subtitles?(I have the Oppo BR with subtitle shift so it should not be an issue).

I was up until about 3 AM last night watching Avatar in a variety of different ways.

I watched the movie in full at 16:9. Although I can see what Cameron is saying about certain sequences (specifically, the flying sequences) having a more immersive sense of vertigo at that ratio, for the most part the movie looked very unbalanced and awkward. There's too much dead space in the frame, especially the lower part of the frame. And the subtitles for Na'vi dialogue are way up high in the middle of the screen. Seriously, it looks ridiculous. They're practically floating in front of the characters' faces, even in medium and wide shots. I'm sure most viewers won't notice, but to me it was clear that the movie was obviously not composed for that ratio. The scope theatrical screening I saw was much better framed.

Next, I zoomed the movie to 2.35:1. Unfortunately, a straight zoom doesn't work very well. The scope portion of the frame was not a direct center extraction. It was taken a little above center. Also, certain on-screen graphics (like those for Jake's diary entries) have been repositioned a bit for the 16:9 transfer. They still float awkwardly in the middle of the 16:9 frame, but extend beyond 2.35:1. A great deal of the movie looks fine at 2.35:1, but foreheads start to get clipped in many scenes, especially most of the Na'vi scenes. I didn't find this acceptable.

I tried playing around with panning the image downward a little bit, but I couldn't find a good setting that worked to my liking.

Finally, I adjusted the aspect ratio to 2.20:1 (the 70mm ratio). This looked pretty much perfect. Faces were correcly framed, on-screen graphics just fit the screen without getting cut off or floating in the middle. And overall the movie just looked much better composed than 16:9. Even the flying sequences look fine.

If you have the ability to, I recommend watching the movie at 2.20:1. That's the best compromise for this Blu-ray.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #120 of 328 Old 04-25-2010, 06:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The only DLP that I am aware of having greater then 1.2x zoom (less than $10K) would be the BenQ W6000/6500 that since going from 0.9" chips (W5000/20000) to 0.65" have been able to increase the zoom from 1.2x to 1.5x.

But even those (well the W5000 at least) don't have power zoom, they have manual zoom. I was looking on PJC last night, searched for 1080p DLPs with power zoom, and the cheapest one was the Sim2 D80E, other than that it was largely DPI machines.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 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