Going from 2.35 to 1.78 and back again, why must i zoom? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 6Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 02-12-2014, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
WestbrookUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

When swapping between 2 Broke Girls and Lord of the Rings, why is it that you must zoom?  On a 2.35 screen, wouldn't Broke Girls just show up at the smaller size? 

 

I'm not understanding WHY you have to zoom when you swap between the AR's.  I must've read every thread I could and I concede defeat.  Please help me figure this out. 

 

My pea brain can't figure it out, if I pick LoTR in 2.35, wouldn't it simply just show at the 2.35 AR?  And if i'm on Broke Girls, wouldn't it just show at the 1.78?  Why do I have to zoom?  Do I have to zoom or am i fundamentally misunderstanding things. 

 

 

The situation beyond the question: I'm weighing the classic 2.4 v 1.78 for a sony 55es with a 12-13' throw max.  65/35 movies/tv+games.     Good light control.  Like 3d.  Family man, 3 kids.  Reg tv exists for the crap stuff behind the screen. already have speakers and surround sound etc.  pic below is a rev old, the available width is 110" w/ 7'6" ceilings.

 

(in fact, would i be stuck zooming if i settled for CIW?) 

Thanks all, you're the best!

 

 

 

room:

WestbrookUSA is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 05:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
All BDs are based on an AR of 1.78:1. So a film presented as 1.78:1 will be "full screen" and a Scope film will be letterboxed. This means the height of the Scope image is 0.75x that of the 16:9 image.

So as it stands, you must zoom the Scope image to get the image to be the same height.

There are three ways to do Constant Image Height -
A = Zoom method is done by optically expanding the image in both directions (V and H) to make the Scope image the same height. You use your zoom on your projector.
B = Anamorphic Lens + VP. This is a 2 part process that requires electrically vertically stretching the image (AKA Scaling) to fill the image chip, then Optically expanding (in H direction ONLY) the image to restore the geometry using an anamorphic lens.
C = Shrink method. This requires a video processor.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 05:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
The other part of that is your projector is 16:9, when you line it up so that it fills a 16:9 area, it doesn't fill the 2.35:1 area, to fill the full scope screen, you need to zoom. Then if you show a 16:9 movie, it overspills the screen and you have to zoom smaller to make it fit.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 06:20 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
WestbrookUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

Thanks for your replies, I appreciate your time in doing so :)

 

 

Hypothetical case: 

 

I have a 2.4 screen and with my 16:9 projector I zoom the image to fit the height. I watch 2 Broke Girls and everybody's happy. Nobody cares about the vertical side black bars. 

 

Then, Daddy puts in Lord of The Rings in 2.4 and blammo the image fills the entire 2.4 screen and I didn't zoom anything.

 

 

 

Is the hypothetical case a correct understanding?

WestbrookUSA is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 07:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbrookUSA View Post

Thanks for your replies, I appreciate your time in doing so smile.gif


Hypothetical case: 

I have a 2.4 screen and with my 16:9 projector I zoom the image to fit the height. I watch 2 Broke Girls and everybody's happy. Nobody cares about the vertical side black bars. 

Then, Daddy puts in Lord of The Rings in 2.4 and blammo the image fills the entire 2.4 screen and I didn't zoom anything.



Is the hypothetical case a correct understanding?

Not without using an Anamorphic lens. I think you still haven't got it.

Your projector puts out a natively 16:9 shaped image, always.
Blu-Rays are encoded as 16:9, so the same shape as a 16:9 screen.

But movies as you know have different aspect ratios, some wider than 16:9. Since Blu-Ray has only an exact amount of pixels available for any movie, and those pixels make up a 16:9 shape, all movies
have to be fit within that 16:9 shape. If a movie, like LOTRs, is wider than 16:9 then it must be shrunk in size so the width fits Blu-Ray's 16:9 shape. That leaves empty space above and below the image - giving you the infamous "black bars" of unused space for wider than 16:9 movies like star wars or LOTRS. Those black bars, though, are STILL part of the projected Blu-Ray 16:9 image, but that unused space is encoded
as black, so that that part of the image appears as black bars.

So, with the Blu-Ray's set of pixels ALWAYS making for a 16:9 projected shape, if you watch 16:9 shaped movie like 2 Broke Girls then the entire 16:9 image is filled. If you watch LOTRs, then part of that 16:9 image is made into black bars above and below the shrunken LOTRs image.

So if you are projecting a 2:40:1 movie like LOTRs on your 2;40:1 shaped screen, if you are using the "zoom method" you will have zoomed those unused black bars off your screen, when fitting the movie to your screen. But if you put on 2 Broke Girls, that movie's image is a taller one on Blu-Ray, taking up the "black bar" area that was unused in LOTRs. So now you'd notice that what were once invisible black bars outside your 2;40:1 acreen (with LOTR) they are being used for the taller
image of 2 Broke Girls, hence you have portions of that movie spilling off your screen top and bottom. To see the whole image contained on your 2:40:1 screen you have to re-zoom the image down in size, to get it's height to fit within your 2:40:1
screen. This now leaves you with unused space on the side of your 2;35:1 screen.

The usual way around this is employing an anamorphic lens. But since you are first trying to grasp the zoom method, I won't go further than that.
Archaea likes this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 08:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbrookUSA View Post

Thanks for your replies, I appreciate your time in doing so smile.gif


Hypothetical case: 

I have a 2.4 screen and with my 16:9 projector I zoom the image to fit the height. I watch 2 Broke Girls and everybody's happy. Nobody cares about the vertical side black bars. 

Then, Daddy puts in Lord of The Rings in 2.4 and blammo the image fills the entire 2.4 screen and I didn't zoom anything.



Is the hypothetical case a correct understanding?

No, in addition to what Rich said, since your projector is 16:9, and you zoomed it to fill the height of a 2.40:1 screen, the image coming out of the projector does not fill the screen. There are only two ways to make a 16:9 projector fill a 2.40:1 screen, zoom so that it fills the width (which will result in 33% of the 16:9 image falling above and below the 2.40:1 screen), or using an anamorphic lens to change the shape of the projector's output to 2.40:1, thus filling the screen without overspill.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 08:16 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
WestbrookUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

R Harkness, thank you very much for breaking it down so neatly.  You explained it very well. (/aside I wish there were stickies in these forums because even though I searched and searched before posting, it still took a kind soul out there to break things down to the most basic particles for it to register /aside)

 

What a pain in the neck!  Seems crazy they don't have projectors which just shoot at the AR of the source and instead rely on the user to modulate settings or employ expensive solutions. 

 

I was actually hoping to run CIH because I strongly favor the idea of big movies and smaller tv shows.  I definitely don't want to muck around with the manual zoom on the Sony 55es each time i'm going between formats and the A lenses are damn expensive from what i've gleaned. 

 

Parade is getting rained on. 

 

I guess I'm just gonna have to live with black bars top and bottom.  Which will still be awesome, only it will seem strange shrinking the movies down to a size smaller than tv. 

 

 

WestbrookUSA is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 08:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Have you already bought the Sony?

Powered zoom/focus and lens memories, which will re-zoom an image for a 2:40:1 screen at the touch of a button, are becoming common features in protectors. Most of the JVC's have it, Panasonic, I'm not sure of the full list.
R Harkness is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 09:48 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
WestbrookUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I do already possess the Sony 55es but I haven't opened it yet, in fact it hasn't been delivered because I work for a living therefore I'm not at home to sign for it..

 

I purchased it from amazon when I didn't understand all these interesting gotcha's. 

 

My room is short on width so the manual zoom might force me into a situation.  I will fiddle with the calculators and report my findings.  

 

 

Re: the projector, I have good light control, 12-13' throw, 79" ceiling, good WAF.  65/35 movies/tv&games.  Will fiddle with the calcs and report back. 

 

Thanks again for the input everybody!

WestbrookUSA is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 11:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
This is what it looks like when you project a 16:9 image into the center of a 2.35:1 screen at minimum zoom:

Universal-logo-pillarboxed.jpg

This is what it looks like when you put in a letterboxed 2.35:1 movie without touching any of your settings:

Jaws-pillarboxed.jpg

This is what it looks like when you zoom the 2.35:1 image to fill the 2.35:1 screen. The black letterbox bars at the top and bottom spill off the screen onto your walls:

Jaws-scope.jpg

This is what it looks like when you put in 16:9 content again without reducing the zoom back to the original setting:

Dark-Knight-IMAX-scene.jpg

Read more in this Constant Image Height Tutorial.
rboster and John Schuermann like this.

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 #11 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
If you're annoyed with having to zoom in and out, you could leave the projector at maximum zoom all the time and use a video processor (such as a Lumagen Radiance 3D-Mini) to electronically shrink the size of the 16:9 picture and windowbox it in the middle of the screen with black bars on all four sides. The bars at the top and bottom will continue to spill off the screen and your image will fill the height of the screen similar to example #1 above.

However, doing so, you throw away a lot of resolution and picture detail (reducing the image from 1920x1080 to 1440x810), and your picture will be dimmer than minimum zoom because you're needlessly spreading the light over a larger area.
John Schuermann likes this.

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 #12 of 31 Old 02-13-2014, 03:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If you're annoyed with having to zoom in and out, you could leave the projector at maximum zoom all the time and use a video processor (such as a Lumagen Radiance 3D-Mini) to electronically shrink the size of the 16:9 picture and windowbox it in the middle of the screen with black bars on all four sides. The bars at the top and bottom will continue to spill off the screen and your image will fill the height of the screen similar to example #1 above.

However, doing so, you throw away a lot of resolution and picture detail (reducing the image from 1920x1080 to 1440x810), and your picture will be dimmer than minimum zoom because you're needlessly spreading the light over a larger area.

I was going to mention that option too, but I figured if he'd had (or wanted to spend) the additional money for a lumagen product he could have just bought a projector with lens memories instead. (Not to mention adding a Lumagen
is not for the faint of heart for newbies anyway)
R Harkness is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 04-05-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
If you're willing to throw away some detail, but don't want to spend Lumagen money, I think the DVDO Edge Green can support this feature as well. Looks like you can get one of those for under $400.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 04-06-2014, 09:11 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by srauly View Post

If you're willing to throw away some detail, but don't want to spend Lumagen money, I think the DVDO Edge Green can support this feature as well. Looks like you can get one of those for under $400.

Unless they've overhauled their software (I haven't checked them in a while), DVDO's aspect ratio controls are extremely rudimentary and limited compared to Lumagen.

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 #15 of 31 Old 04-13-2014, 09:48 AM
Member
 
RJW1966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Have you already bought the Sony?

Powered zoom/focus and lens memories, which will re-zoom an image for a 2:40:1 screen at the touch of a button, are becoming common features in protectors. Most of the JVC's have it, Panasonic, I'm not sure of the full list.
So, some of the JVC projectors will adjust for the AR with out the need of the anamoroph lens or zooming and loosing the picture to black bars? I am asking because I am interested in updayhing my projector soon and I dont want to mess with the lens or waste resolution on black bars. I want the projector to just do this for me as well.
RJW1966 is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 04-15-2014, 01:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJW1966 View Post

So, some of the JVC projectors will adjust for the AR with out the need of the anamoroph lens or zooming and loosing the picture to black bars? I am asking because I am interested in updayhing my projector soon and I dont want to mess with the lens or waste resolution on black bars. I want the projector to just do this for me as well.

No. The projector shines a 16:9 image. You will either have to zoom (letting the letterbox bars spill off the top and bottom of your screen) or add an anamorphic lens plus scaling. Read through this thread again and some of the articles that were linked earlier.

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 #17 of 31 Old 04-25-2014, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 87
If you use a HTPC, some of the player software has nice scaling options, so no need for a processor. JRiver, for example.

Still, you lose brightness and resolution, compared to zooming.
rcohen is online now  
post #18 of 31 Old 04-28-2014, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbrookUSA View Post

I do already possess the Sony 55es but I haven't opened it yet, in fact it hasn't been delivered because I work for a living therefore I'm not at home to sign for it..

I purchased it from amazon when I didn't understand all these interesting gotcha's. 

My room is short on width so the manual zoom might force me into a situation.  I will fiddle with the calculators and report my findings.  


Re: the projector, I have good light control, 12-13' throw, 79" ceiling, good WAF.  65/35 movies/tv&games.  Will fiddle with the calcs and report back. 

Thanks again for the input everybody!

Curious what you ended up with. The Sony does have the scaling necessary if you ended up going the lens route. What size screen did you get?

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 offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 06-11-2014, 06:34 AM
Member
 
Potatogod93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This question is a little premature and I need to try the projector to wall trick before buying a screen. In my head, though, I have an idea of what I want to do. CIH with a 141" scope screen which would give me about a 112" inch screen for 16:9. But when zoomed for 2.35:1 It'd be like having 149" inch 16:9 screen so I'd be shooting close to 9 inches above and below the screen.

With only about 7.5 feet before ceiling starts with this hypothical setup I'd be shooting some black on the center channel and the ceiling. Now my celing is planned to be flat black, but my question is would this look stupid? I mean I will test this as my room gets completed but I like to have a plan to go by and think about. Thanks!
Potatogod93 is online now  
post #20 of 31 Old 06-12-2014, 10:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatogod93 View Post
With only about 7.5 feet before ceiling starts with this hypothical setup I'd be shooting some black on the center channel and the ceiling. Now my celing is planned to be flat black, but my question is would this look stupid? I mean I will test this as my room gets completed but I like to have a plan to go by and think about. Thanks!
You should be fine. Projecting some black onto it won't hurt the speaker.

Unless the speaker is a reflective metallic color, you will most likely not notice the light projected onto it.

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 #21 of 31 Old 06-12-2014, 11:47 AM
Member
 
Potatogod93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The speaker is a gloss, but I suppose if thats a problem i can cover it with fabric or something. I guess I'm more concerned about shooting light on the ceiling. I'm sure others have done this on CIH setups just fine?
Potatogod93 is online now  
post #22 of 31 Old 06-12-2014, 12:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 974
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatogod93 View Post
The speaker is a gloss, but I suppose if thats a problem i can cover it with fabric or something. I guess I'm more concerned about shooting light on the ceiling. I'm sure others have done this on CIH setups just fine?
Light hits both my center and wall when zoomed for scope. It's not visible on either surface. The wall is a flat dark red color. The center is a satin finish. As long as your projector has a decent black floor and the wall or ceiling is dark colored and flat, it should look great.

jeahrens is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 06-21-2014, 07:42 PM
Member
 
jrm21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbrookUSA View Post
My room is short on width so the manual zoom might force me into a situation.  I will fiddle with the calculators and report my findings.  
I realize this thread is a little old, but this comment caught my eye and I had to ask.

I was definitely considering going with a 2.35 screen and looking at the CIH route. However, my room is a little short on width too. The screen wall is basically the width of the screen I am getting. (12.5 ft wall, but due to a soffit I only have about 135" to place a screen. With tension bars and case for a motorized screen, that limits me to about a 120" width screen)

Based on this it seemed more logical to simply get a 16:9 screen. In my situation that would give the largest image in all situations. No matter what I did, the width of the image was limited. That leaves me with the maximum width 2.35 image I could get. I either live with the black bars or mask them. There is no where to stretch the image since I can't fit a larger width screen.

This also gives me a 16:9 image in the size I want without having to zoom in/out or purchase special lenses.

Or am I missing something?
jrm21 is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 06-22-2014, 08:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
What you're missing is scope movies are supposed to be bigger than 16:9 movies (with the exception of the 3 that use IMAX footage). When the scope format was introduced, it was intended to be wider/larger, more enveloping than flat.

Now if you don't care about that, that's fine.

You're also not factoring in seating distance, and (like most people) aren't thinking about anything but number of inches. I know I've found that a 16:9 image that's as wide as a 2.35:1 image I'm happy with is way too big, and a scope image that's as wide as a 16:9 image I'm happy with is way too small, but if they're both the same height, and my seating distance is right, I'm happy with both.

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

Last edited by stanger89; 06-22-2014 at 08:25 AM.
stanger89 is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 06-22-2014, 04:08 PM
Member
 
jrm21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
What you're missing is scope movies are supposed to be bigger than 16:9 movies (with the exception of the 3 that use IMAX footage). When the scope format was introduced, it was intended to be wider/larger, more enveloping than flat.

Now if you don't care about that, that's fine.
It's not whether I care about it or not. Based on room size, I am projecting a scope movie as wide as I physically can.

Quote:
You're also not factoring in seating distance, and (like most people) aren't thinking about anything but number of inches. I know I've found that a 16:9 image that's as wide as a 2.35:1 image I'm happy with is way too big, and a scope image that's as wide as a 16:9 image I'm happy with is way too small, but if they're both the same height, and my seating distance is right, I'm happy with both.



Now that makes sense. CIH will provide the most pleasing picture size for both formats at the same seating distance. While I am happy with both my 16:9 and 2.35 image sizes at my seating distance, I do see your point. Thank you for clarifying.
jrm21 is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 06-23-2014, 05:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrm21 View Post
It's not whether I care about it or not. Based on room size, I am projecting a scope movie as wide as I physically can.
See, I don't believe there's any such thing as a width limited room, just width limited imaginations. What I mean is it's really all about seating distance, not raw number of inches, but we've had decades of buying TVs just by inches that it's hard for most folks to open their imaginations to see things any other way.

What I mean is, lets take your example, you've got 120" of screen width to play with. Most people will look at that like you did, and say "If I go with a scope screen, my 16:9 will "only" be 104", but if I go with a 16:9 screen, my 16:9 will be 138", 138 is way bigger than 104, and my scope will be the same size either way so I'm width limited".

The reality is in front projection (well anything really) you have to take into consideration the whole system, that includes the seating distances. Front projection systems aren't about maximum inches, they're about maximum impact, maximum immersion. To get approximately the same impact/immersion with a 104" screen as with a 138" screen, you just move your seating forward about 25%, then you have the same 16:9 impact you like, but scope gets the historically accurate increased impact over 16:9 it was intended to have.

Now all that said, everything is a compromise, and I know there are folks who for aesthetic, technical or household harmony reasons can't move their seating, and some people really just don't care about 'proper' relative presentation of scope vs 16:9 content, and that's fine. I just think people need to take a step back from their TV buying mentality where it's really all about how many inches you can get and to think about the whole system before making decision or declarations about being "width limited". I mean really all rooms are width and height limited.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #27 of 31 Old 06-24-2014, 04:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Lindahl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
See, I don't believe there's any such thing as a width limited room, just width limited imaginations. What I mean is it's really all about seating distance, not raw number of inches, but we've had decades of buying TVs just by inches that it's hard for most folks to open their imaginations to see things any other way.

What I mean is, lets take your example, you've got 120" of screen width to play with. Most people will look at that like you did, and say "If I go with a scope screen, my 16:9 will "only" be 104", but if I go with a 16:9 screen, my 16:9 will be 138", 138 is way bigger than 104, and my scope will be the same size either way so I'm width limited".

The reality is in front projection (well anything really) you have to take into consideration the whole system, that includes the seating distances. Front projection systems aren't about maximum inches, they're about maximum impact, maximum immersion. To get approximately the same impact/immersion with a 104" screen as with a 138" screen, you just move your seating forward about 25%, then you have the same 16:9 impact you like, but scope gets the historically accurate increased impact over 16:9 it was intended to have.

Now all that said, everything is a compromise, and I know there are folks who for aesthetic, technical or household harmony reasons can't move their seating, and some people really just don't care about 'proper' relative presentation of scope vs 16:9 content, and that's fine. I just think people need to take a step back from their TV buying mentality where it's really all about how many inches you can get and to think about the whole system before making decision or declarations about being "width limited". I mean really all rooms are width and height limited.
Don't forget, human eye strain when watching a movie is mostly based on the height of the image, not the width. Therefore, for maximum impact, you choose the largest HEIGHT screen (or viewing ratio: viewing distance to screen height) that is possible without human eye strain. Once you do that, you're at the maximum 16:9 size you can tolerate/enjoy. Then you can choose to either have a smaller 2.35 (16:9 screen) or a larger 2.35 (Constant Height screen). No one will ever want to arbitrarily choose a smaller screen, thus, a constant height screen is superior. The fact that it may be a bit on the wide side isn't a problem, since human's eye strain is based on the height of the image, NOT the width. This is even more true for 2.35, since usually very little action is going on in the sides of the screen - the movie is shot with the intention of filling your peripheral vision, not with the intention of your eyes scanning left to right to see all of the action.

It all comes down to our peripheral vision, really. Humans have quite a wide peripheral vision in the X-axis, but a relatively short peripheral vision in the Y-axis.
Gary Lightfoot likes this.
Lindahl is offline  
post #28 of 31 Old 06-24-2014, 07:06 PM
Member
 
jrm21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Really great information about room size, seating distance and image height. Thanks for the explanations - it makes much more sense to me now.

As stanger89 wrote - everything is a compromise. I would have liked some different dimensions to my viewing room, but was limited by a few factors. Instead of designing a space to watch movies, I had to design a way to watch movies in the space I have.

Within that space, I have a limited range for seating distance. I am about 11-12' away. Moving 25% closer, as in the example given, would put me at 8-9' away. Aside from any potential issues with seeing screen texture, that wouldn't work well in my room. M room imposed physical limits which then influenced my screen size decisions.

So at this point, I have what I feel is a good size scope image for my room and seating distance. My build is still in progress so I haven't viewed much 16:9 content. From what I have seen so far I am very happy with the size. Guess time will tell if that additional height is too much. Of course, there is nothing to stop me from zooming the picture down to a smaller 16:9 image.

Thanks again for the great explanations. I feel I have a much better understanding of the CIH concept and hope to use this information as I finish my build.
jrm21 is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 06-25-2014, 03:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
See, I don't believe there's any such thing as a width limited room, just width limited imaginations. What I mean is it's really all about seating distance, not raw number of inches, but we've had decades of buying TVs just by inches that it's hard for most folks to open their imaginations to see things any other way.

What I mean is, lets take your example, you've got 120" of screen width to play with. Most people will look at that like you did, and say "If I go with a scope screen, my 16:9 will "only" be 104", but if I go with a 16:9 screen, my 16:9 will be 138", 138 is way bigger than 104, and my scope will be the same size either way so I'm width limited".

The reality is in front projection (well anything really) you have to take into consideration the whole system, that includes the seating distances. Front projection systems aren't about maximum inches, they're about maximum impact, maximum immersion. To get approximately the same impact/immersion with a 104" screen as with a 138" screen, you just move your seating forward about 25%, then you have the same 16:9 impact you like, but scope gets the historically accurate increased impact over 16:9 it was intended to have.

Now all that said, everything is a compromise, and I know there are folks who for aesthetic, technical or household harmony reasons can't move their seating, and some people really just don't care about 'proper' relative presentation of scope vs 16:9 content, and that's fine. I just think people need to take a step back from their TV buying mentality where it's really all about how many inches you can get and to think about the whole system before making decision or declarations about being "width limited". I mean really all rooms are width and height limited.
Nicely put. Being someone who's been trying to preach much the same thing it's amazing how many people don't often get it or are against CIH because they don't understand how important seating distance is - screen size is irrelevant without taking it into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl View Post
Don't forget, human eye strain when watching a movie is mostly based on the height of the image, not the width. Therefore, for maximum impact, you choose the largest HEIGHT screen (or viewing ratio: viewing distance to screen height) that is possible without human eye strain. Once you do that, you're at the maximum 16:9 size you can tolerate/enjoy. Then you can choose to either have a smaller 2.35 (16:9 screen) or a larger 2.35 (Constant Height screen). No one will ever want to arbitrarily choose a smaller screen, thus, a constant height screen is superior. The fact that it may be a bit on the wide side isn't a problem, since human's eye strain is based on the height of the image, NOT the width. This is even more true for 2.35, since usually very little action is going on in the sides of the screen - the movie is shot with the intention of filling your peripheral vision, not with the intention of your eyes scanning left to right to see all of the action.

It all comes down to our peripheral vision, really. Humans have quite a wide peripheral vision in the X-axis, but a relatively short peripheral vision in the Y-axis.
On some forums, as soon as you try to tell people how close they can sit, many start talking in terms of head movement coming into play - Wimbledonitus was coined as a result. Yet most people don't realise that with a binocular horizontal vision of around 120 degrees, even if we sat at SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance of 2 x image height, we're only then at 60 degrees, and only using half of our horizontal viewing capability. So at worst, you may have to use a little eye movement which won't result in eye strain.

Viewing height is where we should be most careful as 15 degrees is recommended, and no more than 35 or viewing fatigue (neck strain) can set in. I know people who've put their plasma tvs above their fire places and complain about how uncomfortable it is to watch.

Gary
John Schuermann likes this.

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 #30 of 31 Old 10-11-2014, 12:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,129
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by srauly View Post
If you're willing to throw away some detail, but don't want to spend Lumagen money, I think the DVDO Edge Green can support this feature as well. Looks like you can get one of those for under $400.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by srauly 

If you're willing to throw away some detail, but don't want to spend Lumagen money, I think the DVDO Edge Green can support this feature as well. Looks like you can get one of those for under $400.


Unless they've overhauled their software (I haven't checked them in a while), DVDO's aspect ratio controls are extremely rudimentary and limited compared to Lumagen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by Josh Z 

If you're annoyed with having to zoom in and out, you could leave the projector at maximum zoom all the time and use a video processor (such as a Lumagen Radiance 3D-Mini) to electronically shrink the size of the 16:9 picture and windowbox it in the middle of the screen with black bars on all four sides. The bars at the top and bottom will continue to spill off the screen and your image will fill the height of the screen similar to example #1 above.

However, doing so, you throw away a lot of resolution and picture detail (reducing the image from 1920x1080 to 1440x810), and your picture will be dimmer than minimum zoom because you're needlessly spreading the light over a larger area.


I was going to mention that option too, but I figured if he'd had (or wanted to spend) the additional money for a lumagen product he could have just bought a projector with lens memories instead. (Not to mention adding a Lumagen
is not for the faint of heart for newbies anyway)
Interesting thread. I was searching around to see whether the DVDO EdgeGreen was a workable solution for me, and see that maybe it's not...

...but what about the iScan mini? Even less, and just for scaling 16:9 content down to fit a 2.37:1 screen without zoom and without an anamorphic lens set up..... might it work well? Anyone try?

____________________

Build Thread: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat



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