Anyone going wider than 2.4? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 Old 03-08-2013, 02:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I'm a zoomer and probably going to move to a 2.89:1 scope screen so films like How the West Was Won and Ben Hur are larger than say a new hollywood 2.4:1 comedy. This way, I can rid myself of the top and bottom black bars and mask ONLY on the sides.

Is anyone else using a screen wider than 2.4?

Tom

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 Old 03-08-2013, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

I'm a zoomer and probably going to move to a 2.89:1 scope screen so films like How the West Was Won and Ben Hur are larger than say a new hollywood 2.4:1 comedy. This way, I can rid myself of the top and bottom black bars and mask ONLY on the sides.

Is anyone else using a screen wider than 2.4?

Tom

I have never heard of anyone going wider than 2.4, but I think that is a cool idea. The concern, in my mind, would be brightness, as your asking your zoomed projector to fill a MUCH larger screen area. Of course, that also depends on how big a screen overall you plan to use.

Would love to see some pics if you do this.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #3 of 18 Old 03-08-2013, 05:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
It will be my current 40" in height. I currently use a 40"x96" 2.4 screen. My 11'x13' room is covered in black velvet with black carpet so light output should be fine.

Tom

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #4 of 18 Old 03-08-2013, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
If I had the width in my room, I might consider this. The projector/lens will allow zooming, however pincushion increases.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 18 Old 03-10-2013, 12:54 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
Didn't Vern Dias use a 1.5 x ISCO lens to give him the wider ratios?

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 online now  
post #6 of 18 Old 03-10-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
You are correct. He bought a now discontinued ISCO D-Cinema A-Lens with a Horizontal Expansion of 1.5x. He then HAD to use external scaling and or HTPC to keep the geometry correct. Also, what we take as "full panel use" did not happen on his system unless he was filling the screen. His system also requires the lens to be left in the light path all the time and scaling for all ARs.
Gary Lightfoot likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 18 Old 03-14-2013, 09:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Well, I zoomed out "How the West Was Won" to fit my 40" tall screen and the width was 117" so that's the size I'm going with. Watching that BD at full height was a blast from my normal 8' viewing distance. Even viewing at much less than 1x screen width the picture looked great.

Tom

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #8 of 18 Old 03-22-2013, 12:32 PM
Newbie
 
peliculero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"How the West Was Won" Smilebox version projected with anamorphic lens, it looks great. I have a 120 inch. and believe me that is total immersion.
peliculero is online now  
post #9 of 18 Old 03-22-2013, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Posts: 2,051
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 41
I've got about 2.6:1. Didn't really plan it that way but I figured I could mask down from wherever the screen ended up. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World fits just about perfectly.

My ideal setup would be:
  • 4k native projector (1.78).
  • 1.5x lens resulting in 2.62.
  • 2.62 screen.
  • scaler that will fill the full screen height with whatever I throw at it. Automagically.
  • scaler that knows what the resulting aspect ratio is and will announce changes to the world.
  • screen masking system that will listen for a shout-out from the scaler and adjust the masking accordingly.

Native resolution of the system exceeds current 1080p, so no information is lost in scaling. If 4k content ever is a reality, we're still pretty close to native resolution although at some aspect ratios we might be scaling down to a lower resolution.

High Desert Theater - work in progress
Building Bass - Subs

Surrounds - Easy as Pi

Storage - unRAID unDELL

petew is offline  
post #10 of 18 Old 04-07-2013, 09:59 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I couldn't be happier with my 2.925 screen.

If you watch Ben Hur or some others super wide films, 2.35 shouldn't be considered CIH in my opinion.

Tom

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #11 of 18 Old 04-08-2013, 12:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

I couldn't be happier with my 2.925 screen.

If you watch Ben Hur or some others super wide films, 2.35 shouldn't be considered CIH in my opinion.

Tom

This would mean that a huge number of scope films in your setup would be badly cropped top and bottom as very few films are shot in the same ratio as Ben Hur. 70MM films would even look worse, you would be lucky to even get the casts eyes in the frame.
2.37 really is a good in-between format to get most scope images fitting the screen.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #12 of 18 Old 04-08-2013, 07:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I'm zooming so ALL films are shown at the same height in the proper aspect ratio.NO movie is cropped on my screen. Now I only have to use side masking.

A film like Ben Hur is supposed to be larger than a 2.35 film. If watching on a 2.35ish screen it is NOT. The whole point of going scope is to view films as they were intended.

IMHO a 2.37 screen is not constant height as films 2.55 and wider will not be the same height. If one doesn't watch these wider films then I guess a 2.37 screen would be CIH for that individual.

Tom

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #13 of 18 Old 04-08-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

I'm zooming so ALL films are shown at the same height in the proper aspect ratio.NO movie is cropped on my screen. Now I only have to use side masking.

A film like Ben Hur is supposed to be larger than a 2.35 film. If watching on a 2.35ish screen it is NOT. The whole point of going scope is to view films as they were intended.

IMHO a 2.37 screen is not constant height as films 2.55 and wider will not be the same height. If one doesn't watch these wider films then I guess a 2.37 screen would be CIH for that individual.

Tom

Sorry I didn't know you were zooming.

After more than 35+ years as a cinema projectionist, working in top 70MM houses right down to Art House cinemas, I've screened film in every ratio imaginable 1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.35. Every ratio requires a different lens and a different aperture plate which masks the 35MM frame. Masking the ratios frame crops the image on the film, it has to, or sprocket holes, sound tracks or rough edges are screened. There is no cinema that can successfully screen any ratio without first cropping it, some do it more, some not enough.

Cinemas have always cropped film so I don't see a problem in also doing the same at home, within reason so long as full heads, eyes and subtitle films are not cropped.

If one wants motorised masking with stops its quite difficult to screen all the ratios we have without cropping some films. I have three stops on my motorised masking, 4:3, 16:9 and 2.37. If I screen a film like Ben Hur, I use my Lumagen to fill the height, yet crop a small amount from the sides of my scope screen (no zooming)

Ben Hur has always looked fine on my 2.37 screen.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #14 of 18 Old 04-09-2013, 02:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post



If one wants motorised masking with stops its quite difficult to screen all the ratios we have without cropping some films. I have three stops on my motorised masking, 4:3, 16:9 and 2.37. If I screen a film like Ben Hur, I use my Lumagen to fill the height, yet crop a small amount from the sides of my scope screen (no zooming)

Just to be clear (because I'm curious): You mean difficult only when employing one type of masking (horizontal or vertical), is that right?

4-Way automated masking masks every AR perfectly. (In my system I can make as many pre-sets as I want, currently up to around 20 or so...though I can always jog the masking to fit as necessary as well).

BTW, boy that sounds like a fun and rewarding job. (Well, it would be so long as you like film, which you clearly do).
R Harkness is offline  
post #15 of 18 Old 04-09-2013, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Just to be clear (because I'm curious): You mean difficult only when employing one type of masking (horizontal or vertical), is that right?

4-Way automated masking masks every AR perfectly. (In my system I can make as many pre-sets as I want, currently up to around 20 or so...though I can always jog the masking to fit as necessary as well).

BTW, boy that sounds like a fun and rewarding job. (Well, it would be so long as you like film, which you clearly do).

Correct it is difficult with just one movable masking system, but with two its always easier to not crop any aspect ratio. I have worked in many cinemas that employed movable top and side masking, these were usually cinemas that had the facility to screen 70MM. 70MM always looks more impressive if one has movable top masking as one really wants to project 70MM on a larger screen than scope.

I only had room for movable side masking with stops in my cinema at home, but I can jog the masking to any size if I want and screen all films in exactly the correct ratio without any cropping, why I don't is simple..... Coming from a background in the cinema, I want to do the same at home in keeping the smaller ratios like 4:3 physically smaller than 16:9, and 16:9 smaller than scope. If I was to screen say a 70MM film like Lawrence of Arabia in its true ratio, I would have to screen it smaller than my scope image, that's why I crop like cinemas do.

Many70MM cinemas that never had movable top masking cropped the sides of their 70MM films to fit their scope screen just like me, they didn't want to end up with a smaller 70MM screen by just bringing in the side masking. Its all about impact, scope and 70MM films should look as they were designed, larger than 4:3 and 16:9. In a cinema one was showing many different formats within the one programme, following those rules works when you are aiming for impact.

It however can differ at home when some may just screen a feature only, no trailers, shorts etc etc....Playing a "feature only" 16:9 movie (no scope trailers, shorts) and raising ones movable top masking to make the 16:9 larger is absolutely fine, the audience is not seeing say a smaller scope in the same programme. Its all about presentation and there are absolutely no rules to follow. I'm only speaking about the rules that used to apply in top run cinemas of yesterday, supermarket screening rooms (cinemas) of today don't follow any rules, they don't know or even care, its a sad state of affairs.

I follow those old rules we once had in the cinemas at home and presentation like we once had in the cinemas I also duplicate in my cinema at home.....bring back the magic I say!

Times have changed sadly:rolleyes:
Gary Lightfoot likes this.
RapalloAV is online now  
post #16 of 18 Old 04-28-2013, 12:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Sorry I didn't know you were zooming.

After more than 35+ years as a cinema projectionist, working in top 70MM houses right down to Art House cinemas, I've screened film in every ratio imaginable 1.33, 1.66, 1.85, 2.35. Every ratio requires a different lens and a different aperture plate which masks the 35MM frame. Masking the ratios frame crops the image on the film, it has to, or sprocket holes, sound tracks or rough edges are screened. There is no cinema that can successfully screen any ratio without first cropping it, some do it more, some not enough.

Cinemas have always cropped film so I don't see a problem in also doing the same at home, within reason so long as full heads, eyes and subtitle films are not cropped.

If one wants motorised masking with stops its quite difficult to screen all the ratios we have without cropping some films. I have three stops on my motorised masking, 4:3, 16:9 and 2.37. If I screen a film like Ben Hur, I use my Lumagen to fill the height, yet crop a small amount from the sides of my scope screen (no zooming)

Ben Hur has always looked fine on my 2.37 screen.

You crop Ben Hur to 2.37: eek.gif

I want to watch films in the AR they were meant to be viewed in. Ben Hur was shot wider than your average scope films for a reason. If the BD came out in 2.37 instead of it's oar, people would have been throwing a fit on this forum.

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #17 of 18 Old 04-28-2013, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RapalloAV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post

You crop Ben Hur to 2.37: eek.gif

I want to watch films in the AR they were meant to be viewed in. Ben Hur was shot wider than your average scope films for a reason. If the BD came out in 2.37 instead of it's oar, people would have been throwing a fit on this forum.

That might be the case, but those very same people would have never seen any movies in exactly the correct ratio (as they were shot) without some cropping in any cinema all over the world, past or present, its absolutely impossible to do so. Limitations with lenses, throw, screen sizes, masking sizes, Proscenium size/shape, sight lines etc etc etc, the list is endless....

I know was in a projection room for over 35 + years. Those films are designed to crop small amounts from, you have to crop to hide crap edges, and scope today is designed to crop even more than what they did in the past.
Cinemas don't have zoom lenses, so its impossible to match all the lenses for the different ratios needed for the auditorium, the audience always sees a cropped image, like it or not;)
RapalloAV is online now  
post #18 of 18 Old 04-28-2013, 07:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,731
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Thankfully, we don't have to crop in our own HT's now if we so choose.

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan 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