CH vs. CW - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 08:17 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelscott73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First off - I reach my screen limit width-wise before height, and I am only interested in the zoom method at this time.
The more I read about the pros and cons, the more I wonder why someone would go CH.
For someone like me, pros seem to be:
1. No zooming/unzooming needed
2. Larger 16x9 image with the same max 2.35 image
3. Overspill and masking is dealt with in the same step when watching 2.35. With a CH setup you deal with overspill on 2.35 and also masking with 16x9

I haven't found any cons (in my opinion)
michaelscott73 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 221
In my opinion, going Constant Area ( one screen for 1.78:1 and one for 2.35:1 ) is even better. That way you can have the ideal size screen for both formats. For instance, I have a 106" wide 1.78:1 screen and a 118" wide 2.35:1 screen. No black bars ever, and from our seating distance ( 12 feet ) the 2.35:1 looks more immersive. And the 2.35:1 screen has slightly higher gain, which with the zoom method, makes up for the loss in brighness from the projector.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgall...ppuser/7419278

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at craig@avscience.com
http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #3 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 09:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For me, the con for CIW is that 2.4 material looks too small compared to 1.85.

For the same size 2.4 image, my preference is to sit closer and reduce the size/impact of the 1.85 image rather than independently maximizing screen size for all aspect ratios.
ilsiu is offline  
post #4 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 09:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JDLIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Marlborough, MA
Posts: 2,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Send a message via Yahoo to JDLIVE
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelscott73 View Post

I haven't found any cons (in my opinion)

Biggest con is your 2.35:1 image is smaller than 1.85:1, most people who choose CIH want the reverse to be true. May not be a "con" for you, of course.
JDLIVE is offline  
post #5 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 09:35 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelscott73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
if I'm already maxed out on my width then what's the benefit of making the
16x 9 image smaller?
michaelscott73 is offline  
post #6 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Depending on the image size and your room constraints, you can always move your seating closer so the 16:9 image looks larger. For example, if you sit 3 x your current screen height away, if you go to a 2.35 screen so the 16:9 image is smaller, you just move your seating closer so you're still 3 x the image hight back.

Of course that's not always possible for various reasons, but the idea of CIH is that your 2.35 image is the same height but wider and more immersive than 16:9, as intended.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #7 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 12:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,998
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelscott73 View Post

if I'm already maxed out on my width then what's the benefit of making the
16x 9 image smaller?

2.35:1 movies are intended to be larger and wider than 1.85:1 movies. The current home video paradigm reverses that intention.

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 #8 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelscott73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
it really boils down to seating distance... if I use the ideal seating distance for the CW "large" 16x9 screen the 2.35 image won't be immersive enough...and if I use the ideal 2.35 seating distance the 16x9 will be too close. Hope someone out there understands what I am trying to say.
michaelscott73 is offline  
post #9 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelscott73 View Post

it really boils down to seating distance... if I use the ideal seating distance for the CW "large" 16x9 screen the 2.35 image won't be immersive enough...and if I use the ideal 2.35 seating distance the 16x9 will be too close. Hope someone out there understands what I am trying to say.

That's correct.

I think we understand what you're saying - you want the largest possible image for all aspect ratios as possible. Your room dimensions constrain you to CIW in order to achieve that. That's a very common preference.

The reason some people want to do CIH is to make sure that 2.4 material is always larger than 16x9 material, even if it means not having the biggest 16:9 image possible. Fix the size of the 2.40 image, place the 16:9 image inside it. If the 16x9 image is too small, move closer until it feels just the right size. Then 2.40 will feel really large --> which is the intended effect of CIH.
ilsiu is offline  
post #10 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,372
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

The reason some people want to do CIH is to make sure that 2.4 material is always larger than 16x9 material, even if it means not having the biggest 16:9 image possible.

I find that if your seated at the closest recommended seating distance, then regardless of AR, the image will always look BIG. My room is quite small and the Scope screen is therefore wall to wall. I have 2 rows of seats (2x and 3.2x IH) and even 4 x 3 looks big in that room. I could change out the screen for a taller screen (IE 16:9) as I do have the height, however, I would not be able to have 2 rows of seating if based on the Image Height.

Sightly off topic, (but still related), the other night I went to my 12YO's school awards night and they ran their photos as a slide show along with some video on 3 large 4 x 3 screens. Even though photos are typically 1.5:1, who ever put slide show together kept most* of the images (even portrait shots) at the same height (so all images were basically letterboxed) and it was quite neat watching the presentation where only the width changed. *However every 5th photo was full screen height, and I actually became quite annoyed with the image height difference after about the third full frame photo was shown. I think maybe I became annoyed because the images were not on screen long enough and therefore the image height change was more obvious than say THE DARK NIGHT's AR changes when watching that film in 16:9

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #11 of 83 Old 11-04-2010, 04:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I know its a personal preference, but to me CIH is the only way to go. Its just so much more impressive to see movies displayed in frames that are appropriate to their aspect ratio. Plus, with CIH it takes your setup from being "a big tv" to being an actual "home theater".

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #12 of 83 Old 11-05-2010, 06:15 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelscott73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I read most of the threads on this topic and don't think I came across the distance argument...which to me is the most complleing to go CIH in my situation. I thought I was going to get away with a cheaper projector without "memory" zoom. Seems you guys are going to cost me an extra $1K to get the Panny...
michaelscott73 is offline  
post #13 of 83 Old 11-05-2010, 07:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
What PJ were you planning on getting? How far back are you going to mount it? Do you plan to use a shelf or ceiling mount?

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #14 of 83 Old 11-05-2010, 06:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelscott73 View Post

First off - I reach my screen limit width-wise before height, and I am only interested in the zoom method at this time.
The more I read about the pros and cons, the more I wonder why someone would go CH.
For someone like me, pros seem to be:
1. No zooming/unzooming needed
2. Larger 16x9 image with the same max 2.35 image
3. Overspill and masking is dealt with in the same step when watching 2.35. With a CH setup you deal with overspill on 2.35 and also masking with 16x9

I haven't found any cons (in my opinion)

The cons are mostly that you miss the main benefit and point of a CIH set up. That is: giving the CinemaScope images more impact and immersion than the "narrower" ARs like 16:9 and 1:85:1.

That's the concept behind CIH (as well as not having black bars). Keeping a Constant Height that gives CinemaScope the greatest sweep and grandeur. If you use a 16:9 screen you won't get that effect, no matter what size 16:9 screen you use, because CinemaScope images will always shrink compared to your 16:9 images. You are watching CSI or The Hangover in 1:85:1, then you put on Lord Of The Rings...and instead of getting an even more immersive cinematic experience for those epic films, you get a shrinking of the image relative to those other titles.

That bugs the hell out of a lot of people and drives many to CIH.

(Also, Constant Image Area is also a compromise to some degree, at least in light of this goal. With a Constant Image Area set up you still get a wider Cinemascope image over your 16:9 image, but in a CIH set up the difference between moving from 16:9 to CinemaScope is going to have that much more "wow" factor, due to the size differences).
R Harkness is online now  
post #15 of 83 Old 11-06-2010, 03:00 AM
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
Another option is on the two screen theme with a twist.

1. A 16:9 screen in the max size mounted furthest your seating distance will allow for the perfect resolved image with 1920 x 1080.

2. A 2.35:1 screen(motorized) of the same area as the 16:9 but mounted at the closest seating distance will allow for the perfect resolved image with 1920 x 1080/810, but move it a bit closer so the vertical viewing angle is the same for both screens.

You will have a CIA and a CIH setup by virtue of the same vertical viewing angle. I'm doing this too but with 2 16:9 screens with horizontal masking.

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 #16 of 83 Old 11-07-2010, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
michaelscott73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Posts: 290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Probably the new Epson. It's been 5 years since I've had a projector...last one being the HS51. I could probably get away with a cheaper, refurbished Epson given the advancement of technology. I'd imagine I will be blown away even with a 720 model.
Seating is between 10 and 12 feet away.
michaelscott73 is offline  
post #17 of 83 Old 11-09-2010, 03:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
This is a good discussion and I've been trying to decide CH vs. CW myself, mostly for watching movies but with an occasional HD tv show or football game. Just got an Epson 8350 and have been experimenting with various projected sizes on a white wall to make the screen dimension and size decision before I order one. Even though the Epson only has manual zoom, I have it placed on a rear shelf that is easy to access and have not found changing the zoom between sources to be a big deal.

For my eyes I'm finding an 88" width from an 11ft seating distance to be very immersive with 2.35:1 films, but overwhelmingly too big with 1.85:1 and 16:9 content due to the larger vertical image which puts a strain on my eyes much more than does additional horizontal width. In addition, 16:9 material from Comcast in HD looks far worse than Blu-ray. So going CH will have the benefit of shrinking the 16:9 and 1.85:1 sources so they do not feel too big vertically and will hide some of the artifacts visible in cable feeds.

I agree with those who noted how disappointing 2.35:1 film watching on a CW setup has been to them when it feels "shrunk" from 1.85 and 16:9 material, and letting 2.35:1 films shine with a sense of wider grandeur and no black bars in a CH setup has great appeal to me since that aspect ratio comprises the vast majority of movies I enjoy.

Cheers,
Ross
rossandwendy is offline  
post #18 of 83 Old 11-09-2010, 06:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
This is a good discussion and I've been trying to decide CH vs. CW myself, mostly for watching movies but with an occasional HD tv show or football game. Just got an Epson 8350 and have been experimenting with various projected sizes on a white wall to make the screen dimension and size decision before I order one. Even though the Epson only has manual zoom, I have it placed on a rear shelf that is easy to access and have not found changing the zoom between sources to be a big deal.

For my eyes I'm finding an 88" width from an 11ft seating distance to be very immersive with 2.35:1 films, but overwhelmingly too big with 1.85:1 and 16:9 content due to the larger vertical image which puts a strain on my eyes much more than does additional horizontal width. In addition, 16:9 material from Comcast in HD looks far worse than Blu-ray. So going CH will have the benefit of shrinking the 16:9 and 1.85:1 sources so they do not feel too big vertically and will hide some of the artifacts visible in cable feeds.

I agree with those who noted how disappointing 2.35:1 film watching on a CW setup has been to them when it feels "shrunk" from 1.85 and 16:9 material, and letting 2.35:1 films shine with a sense of wider grandeur and no black bars in a CH setup has great appeal to me since that aspect ratio comprises the vast majority of movies I enjoy.

Cheers,
Ross
Ross,

I note you just got your Epson projector. Is it your first projector (it seems so). If that's the case you might want to hold off buying a screen for a while longer and keep experimenting with image sizes.

Right now you are saying that a 100" diagonal 16:9 image is too big for you.
But frankly that's on the small size of screens these days so it's a bit odd that you'd find it too big. I'm betting it may be your unfamiliarity with having a projected image in your home. It happened to me at first as well.
When I first projected images on my wall (before I built my home theater) I felt a 94" diagonal image was plenty big. After a while I noticed I enjoyed a bigger image. Then bigger...etc. Many people have gone through this as one of the most common issues first time projector owners face is later realising they could have gone for a bigger screen (and say that's what they'll get next time).

I have a seating distance like yours, a little closer even, and I went with a variable image size system, using my zoom and a masking screen. I'm watching 2:35:1 images up to 124" wide and 16:9 images up to 120" diagonal (and sometimes over 130" diagonal) and it's tremendously cinematic. No guest ever complains (they like it). When I think back on my thinking a 94" image was plenty big, and I zoom the image down to that size, I can hardly believe what I was thinking and I'm glad I took longer to get used to having a projector before ordering a screen.

Of course we all have to go on what each of us is comfortable with. But this is just a bit of advice...from some experience.

Cheers,
R Harkness is online now  
post #19 of 83 Old 11-09-2010, 07:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Ross,

I note you just got your Epson projector. Is it your first projector (it seems so). If that's the case you might want to hold off buying a screen for a while longer and keep experimenting with image sizes.

Right now you are saying that a 100" diagonal 16:9 image is too big for you.
But frankly that's on the small size of screens these days so it's a bit odd that you'd find it too big. I'm betting it may be your unfamiliarity with having a projected image in your home. It happened to me at first as well.
When I first projected images on my wall (before I built my home theater) I felt a 94" diagonal image was plenty big. After a while I noticed I enjoyed a bigger image. Then bigger...etc. Many people have gone through this as one of the most common issues first time projector owners face is later realising they could have gone for a bigger screen (and say that's what they'll get next time).

I have a seating distance like yours, a little closer even, and I went with a variable image size system, using my zoom and a masking screen. I'm watching 2:35:1 images up to 124" wide and 16:9 images up to 120" diagonal (and sometimes over 130" diagonal) and it's tremendously cinematic. No guest ever complains (they like it). When I think back on my thinking a 94" image was plenty big, and I zoom the image down to that size, I can hardly believe what I was thinking and I'm glad I took longer to get used to having a projector before ordering a screen.

Of course we all have to go on what each of us is comfortable with. But this is just a bit of advice...from some experience.

Cheers,
Hi Rich, I appreciate your feedback since it is my first projector and I am not at all used to such a large image only 11 feet away. I do have two concerns about going bigger:

1) my projector is 14 feet away and I don't want to decrease brightness any further, as it is I cannot use the best Cinema mode on the 8350 becasue it is way darker than I can stand after having lived with a nice plasma for several years (but this is on a white wall, I really hope it's better on an actual screen)

2) at 100" diagonal and 11ft viewing distance I am already seeing all kinds of flaws in the Blu-ray transfers (grain is greatly magnified, anytime the camera slightly missed focus its glaringly obvious, a lot of CGI is no longer realistic looking, etc.) and I don't want to further lose that sense of a pristine Blu-ray picture.

According to visual acuity calculators, with a 100" 16:9 screen every pixel of a 1080p picture is already fully resolved by the human eye at 13.1 feet, so closer than that you would ideally wish for an even higher resolution format than what we have available now.

Cheers,
Ross
rossandwendy is offline  
post #20 of 83 Old 11-10-2010, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post


1) my projector is 14 feet away and I don't want to decrease brightness any further, as it is I cannot use the best Cinema mode on the 8350 becasue it is way darker than I can stand after having lived with a nice plasma for several years (but this is on a white wall, I really hope it's better on an actual screen)

I came to projection from plasma as well. I've been a Plasma fan-boy, with most of my posts taking place in the flat screen forums, since I bought mine in 2002. So I know where you are coming from. I like a bright image as well. That said, I have found the image from my JVC RS20 projector to be extremely satisfying whether I"m at 100" diagonal 16:9 or 118" wide CinemaScope (which is how I just watched Alien with guests). My screen has a bit of gain so that helps, so you might consider a screen with some gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post

2) at 100" diagonal and 11ft viewing distance I am already seeing all kinds of flaws in the Blu-ray transfers (grain is greatly magnified, anytime the camera slightly missed focus its glaringly obvious, a lot of CGI is no longer realistic looking, etc.) and I don't want to further lose that sense of a pristine Blu-ray picture.

Ok...that's a pretty subjective area. And I felt sort of that way when I first began as well. In fact one of the reasons I was going to stay at a 94" to 100" diagonal image was because I felt the image looked best. But having experienced hundreds of movies on my set up I have instead been amazed at how well the picture holds up on so many HD titles, even at very large sizes. One of the things my guests often remark if I show them a smaller vs larger image is "Wow...it's way bigger now but looks just as sharp!"

That said, I'm in the lucky position to be able to vary my screen size to the quality of the source. But I sure wouldn't want to have given up on many of the incredibly cinematic experiences I've had with a larger image. After watching Avatar at between 120" to over 130" diagonal, going back to a 100" image feels more like a "big TV" than the cinema.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post

According to visual acuity calculators, with a 100" 16:9 screen every pixel of a 1080p picture is already fully resolved by the human eye at 13.1 feet, so closer than that you would ideally wish for an even higher resolution format than what we have available now.

Cheers,
Ross

Don't get too caught up in that. Use your eyes (which is what you are doing, I see). The central viewing position on my sofa is between 10.5 to 11 feet from the screen. Although I designed my theater set up, the equipment was installed by the city's largest AV installer, who do tons of home theaters every year. When it was all finished the top installers came to my place for a demo. Watching some movie scenes at 120" diagonal they were blown away by the experience. They said they are so used to recommending and installing smaller screens - for some of the reasons you cite - that they really had rarely seen anyone use such a close viewing angle. But they were so wowed by how the image kept it's sharpness and contrast, and so amazed by the added depth and immersion of the larger image, that they said they'd be re-thinking their advice on installs afterward.

Just yesterday another guy dropped over who builds home theaters and professional studios. He said exactly the same thing. He was absolutely taken aback by how amazing the large image was, and found it enlightening.

None of this is to say YOU ought to go with a larger image, since we all have our own preferences. It's just food for thought, given your early stage with projection. If you stay with a 100" screen, you might want to design your set up for possible increases in screen size for the future.
R Harkness is online now  
post #21 of 83 Old 11-30-2010, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stepyourgameup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Maybe I am missing something but wouldn't you want to have the biggest screen possible for any AR? Width is the main limiting factor for me as I can only go 9' wide. If I were to go CIH I would have to:

1. Mask 16:9
2. Zoom, lens shift when switching back and forth.
3. Lose subtitles in some movies. I watch alot of foreign language films.
4. have a smaller 16:9 screen.
5. Films like The Dark Knight switch AR so that would essentially mess up the parts that are full screen.

With CIW, I don't have to deal with any of that. No zooming, lens shifting, masking, etc.

Alcohol. The cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
stepyourgameup is offline  
post #22 of 83 Old 11-30-2010, 05:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,372
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
You've convinced yourself why 16:9 would be better in your case, so run with that. Just remember, a true CIW will be one where the SMALLEST aspect ratio is the base for screen size, so 4 x 3 is actually the largest.

16:9 is a compromise because it is actually both CIH (everything over 1.78:1) and CIW (everything less then 1.78:1).

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #23 of 83 Old 11-30-2010, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stepyourgameup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

You've convinced yourself why 16:9 would be better in your case, so run with that. Just remember, a true CIW will be one where the SMALLEST aspect ratio is the base for screen size, so 4 x 3 is actually the largest.

16:9 is a compromise because it is actually both CIH (everything over 1.78:1) and CIW (everything less then 1.78:1).

That's true. But I don't watch much 4:3 material if any.

Alcohol. The cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
stepyourgameup is offline  
post #24 of 83 Old 11-30-2010, 10:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
zombie10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 269
I am usually reserved commenting on this topic because it's a bit subjective.

I liked the idea of CIH but didn't want to compromise on my 16x9 viewing which includes most HD TV, kids animations, etc. A number of my 3D blurays are also in 16x9 format.

I was originally looking at a 52x122 133" 2:35:1 Dalite cinema contour. I masked out the size on the wall, watched a few scope movies, then some 16x9 content. I wasn't happy with the size of the 16x9 content even on the 133" screen.

I decided to go the opposite direction. I ordered a custom sized 16x9 screen @ 70"x124.5" which is 142" diagonal. 2:35:1 movies are approximately 54x124.5" or ~135" while viewing scope movies. This is larger than most folks screens dedicated scope screens and obviously quite large in 16x9 mode as well.

I am building a set of masks for scope viewing using the pro-trim velvet that Dalite lines the Cinema Contour frame. Movies in 16x9 like Avatar 3D look fantastic (especially with the HP material) and the image is huge & immersive.

This is what works for me, attempting to get the benefits of both aspect ratios.
zombie10k is online now  
post #25 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
The main idea of 2.35 is that scope is meant to be the same height as 16:9, only wider (same as 16:9 was meant to be the same height as 4:3, only wider), so if you have CIW you're compromising 2.35 presentations, just like watching a big tv. That's what CIW is missing for those who prefer CIH

As CAVX says, if you set your seating distance correctly for 16:9, then it won't look too small, and 2.35 will look even more immersive and have more visual impact, exactly as designed. So even with a 9 foot wide screen, if you're sat something like 9 feet away, everything should look just fine.

Screen size is pretty much unimportant - it's the seating distance that is crucial for CIH to work optimally. Sitting 8 feet away from an 8 foot wide 2.35 screen is visually more immersive than sitting in the back row of a commercial theatre for example (typically 1.5 x the 2.35 screen width for CIH set ups).

CIH isn't for everyone though, so if you don't sit close enough for 16:9 to be as enjoyable for you (you can;t move your seating for example), stick with CIW or experiment with CIA - it uses a 2.05:1 screen and involves less zooming etc, but both formats use the same area, rather than one having more than the other.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #26 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 09:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepyourgameup View Post

That's true. But I don't watch much 4:3 material if any.

You just nailed it. It very much depends on what you watch. Other than TV, I watch almost no 1.78/1.85 content. If it isn't 'Scope, I'm usually not interested.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #27 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 12:48 PM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Screen size is pretty much unimportant - it's the seating distance that is crucial for CIH to work optimally. Sitting 8 feet away from an 8 foot wide 2.35 screen is visually more immersive than sitting in the back row of a commercial theatre for example (typically 1.5 x the 2.35 screen width for CIH set ups).

I agree with this in theory, but my recent experience turned out a little differently. I actually had an 8ft wide scope screen and sat 8 feet away. It was a totally blacked out room and immersion was very good.

My new theater has a 10.5ft wide screen (still scope of course) and I wound up putting my main seating at 12ft. Even with a longer viewing angle, it actually feels more immersive. The position your eyes focus in tells your brain whether something is "big" or if you're just sitting close. So in some cases bigger actually is better. I've also found that having the screen fill most of the wall width increases the perceived screen size and feeling of immersion (my room is 12ft wide). Of course every decision regarding screen size and viewing distance will have compromises (brightness, PQ, pixel visibility, immersion etc...) and every situation is different. The best advice is usually to get the projector first and experiment.
5mark is offline  
post #28 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,372
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombie10k View Post

I liked the idea of CIH but didn't want to compromise on my 16x9 viewing which includes most HD TV, kids animations, etc. A number of my 3D blurays are also in 16x9 format.

I've been watching a bit of 1.78:1/1.85:1 of late (BTTF 1~3, Toy Story 1~3, all 6 Rocky films) and because it is the same height, I find it as enjoyable as Scope. It would be even better if I made up that side masking, however I have not done so yet. What I find is that in a dark scene, the image can almost look like your watching Scope anyway. The limit to that is the moment the scene is bright and you see the side edges of the frame. And my back row (preferred seating) is 3.2x the image height.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #29 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 06:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


Screen size is pretty much unimportant - it's the seating distance that is crucial for CIH to work optimally. Sitting 8 feet away from an 8 foot wide 2.35 screen is visually more immersive than sitting in the back row of a commercial theatre for example (typically 1.5 x the 2.35 screen width for CIH set ups).

Gary

As 5mark pointed out screen size does matter. Our brains/visual system is quite good at letting us know the actual size of an image. I'm sitting in front of a 24" monitor typing this and, while it is taking up a wider field of vision than much of the 16:9 content I watch on my projection screen my brain isn't fooled into thinking the image is "big." My brain says "I'm closer to a smaller image."

You do get more immersion in moving closer, but it's not necessarily the same as the image appearing larger. Truly larger images take on an authority that smaller-closer images don't manage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hconwell View Post

You just nailed it. It very much depends on what you watch. Other than TV, I watch almost no 1.78/1.85 content. If it isn't 'Scope, I'm usually not interested.

So, your interest in movies is decided mainly by aspect ratio? That seems to me rather limiting and sort of cart-before-the-horse...well...at least from the perspective of a movie lover.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

It would be even better if I made up that side masking, however I have not done so yet.

Mark, get on that dude.

Life is short. Mask before you die.

I have the JVC RS20 projector, well known for terrific black levels. Now that I'm used to having the image set against pitch black masking, whenever I open up the masking I'm shocked at the apparent drop in image quality...that is how light the "black" bars are and how seeing them tends to wash out the image more. I think this is because with unmasked images you are adding more non-black/gray percentage to the image and the more you see of it the more washed out the blacks look. In other words, think of how in mixed scenes with dark and bright objects, how the dark objects can look really dark (because of the contrast against all the brighter areas of the image). But the more
you increase the proportion of the image that is dark (the darker the scene) the more challenging it is for a digital projector to hold up and the more revealing it is of the grayness of the "black." When you are projecting black bars along with your image you are essentially expanding the amount of projected "black" (actually gray) portion to your image. So the blacks will revealed to be more elevated.
For most images reducing the amount of visible black (masking) will increase the apparent contrast of the image. (Some quibbles aside...it isn't that cut and dried...but mostly it works).

It's true that on the right scenes unmasked projected bars can look quite dark, but as you point out it varies. There is nothing like the calming consistency and vibrancy of an image perfectly masked.

Just lighting the fire...
R Harkness is online now  
post #30 of 83 Old 12-01-2010, 07:44 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=R Harkness;19578623]

So, your interest in movies is decided mainly by aspect ratio? That seems to me rather limiting and sort of cart-before-the-horse...well...at least from the perspective of a movie lover.
/QUOTE]

It always amazes me the number of people on this forum who exclude showing of 16:9 and 4:3 movies, simply because they are not 2.35 scope.
Fact is the best films ever made are in 4:3 format, and mostly in black and white. Not watching these is denying yourself some amazingly entertaining movies.

[quote=R Harkness;19578623]

Life is short. Mask before you die.

/QUOTE]

I could not agree more - masking is like day and night.
taffman 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