Question about 16:9 image quality with fixed Cinevista lens. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 19Likes
  • 2 Post By helmsman
  • 2 Post By GreySkies
  • 2 Post By CAVX
  • 2 Post By CAVX
  • 3 Post By GreySkies
  • 1 Post By CAVX
  • 1 Post By GreySkies
  • 1 Post By Josh Z
  • 2 Post By Josh Z
  • 1 Post By stanger89
  • 1 Post By CAVX
  • 1 Post By GetGray
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 Old 07-21-2014, 06:47 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
vachief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Question about 16:9 image quality with fixed Cinevista lens.

I'm in the market for my first projector and am looking for some "real world" feedback from those of you with a fixed lens. How noticeable is the drop in image quality when viewing 16:9 content with the fixed lens in place? Specifically, I am thinking about getting the Sony HW55 projector with the Cinevista lens. It will be projecting on a 130" wide 2.35 screen. I realize that 16:9 content will lose some of the horizontal resolution, but since I've never viewed the difference first-hand, I'm really unsure of how big a deal this is. I will still be viewing quite a bit of 16:9 content, so I don't want to be disappointed with the image quality.
vachief is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 Old 07-21-2014, 11:10 AM
Member
 
helmsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 21
vachief - I have a fixed lens and can honestly say that I don't see any decrease in image quality when I'm watching 16:9 content. I'm not suggesting there technically isn't a degradation, I just don't think it's noticeable. The reason I didn't mess with a motorized sled is primarily because I have my PJ behind my back wall in a separate room, and this 6 inch wall has a hole in it to accommodate my lens (it sit's inside the wall cavity).

I can't speak to the equipment you're looking at, but for reference I'm using a Sim2 HT3000e PJ with a Panamorph UH380 anamorphic lens, and my screen is 120 inches wide inside my border/frame.

By the way, I didn't mess with any side masking and quite frankly when I watching 16:9 movies you often get the illusion that it's in 2.4:1, particularly during dark scenes. In addition your eyes phase out what's on the sides of your screen much more so than what's higher or lower on the screen, so I find that black bars top and bottom are incredibly distracting, black bars on the side not at all.
bluecinema and vachief like this.
helmsman is offline  
post #3 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 12:25 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by vachief View Post
I'm in the market for my first projector and am looking for some "real world" feedback from those of you with a fixed lens. How noticeable is the drop in image quality when viewing 16:9 content with the fixed lens in place? Specifically, I am thinking about getting the Sony HW55 projector with the Cinevista lens. It will be projecting on a 130" wide 2.35 screen. I realize that 16:9 content will lose some of the horizontal resolution, but since I've never viewed the difference first-hand, I'm really unsure of how big a deal this is. I will still be viewing quite a bit of 16:9 content, so I don't want to be disappointed with the image quality.
Actually the picture quality is not going to degrade anymore than when you watch cinemascope (2.40) movies as the number of horizontal pixels will be the same for both formats. You just won't see an improvement in resolution as the lens is in place all the time. Mine is too and I watch 1.33,1.78,1.85 and 2.40 ratio movies with no issues. Also the brightness per square inch of the screen area will be the same for all the formats as well.

Last edited by CRGINC; 08-14-2014 at 12:26 PM. Reason: sp
CRGINC is offline  
post #4 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 02:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGINC View Post
Actually the picture quality is not going to degrade anymore than when you watch cinemascope (2.40) movies as the number of horizontal pixels will be the same for both formats. You just won't see an improvement in resolution as the lens is in place all the time.
No, this is not correct. When you place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector, it stretches the 1920x1080 pixel panel to a 2.35:1 ratio (technically, 2.37:1). When you electronically scale 16:9 content to be pillarboxed in the center of that, it reduces the active content resolution to 1440x1080, with black bars using up the rest of the pixels on the sides. The vertical resolution stays the same, but the horizontal resolution is decreased.

In my experience, the difference is noticeable, but not necessarily enough to be a deal-breaker if you're not too critical.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #5 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 09:22 PM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
No, this is not correct. When you place an anamorphic lens in front of the projector, it stretches the 1920x1080 pixel panel to a 2.35:1 ratio (technically, 2.37:1). When you electronically scale 16:9 content to be pillarboxed in the center of that, it reduces the active content resolution to 1440x1080, with black bars using up the rest of the pixels on the sides. The vertical resolution stays the same, but the horizontal resolution is decreased.

In my experience, the difference is noticeable, but not necessarily enough to be a deal-breaker if you're not too critical.
Josh,

What I meant to say is the number of pixels per inch shown on the screen does not change with a fixed lens setup. Of course the other issue I did not mention is digital scaling. In the case of cinemascope the vertical is scaled up by 1.33 and with widescreen/1.85/1.78 the horizontal is scaled down by .75 with a fixed lens setup. Scaling creates artifacts and that is for another day. To some it is problematic and to others it is not noticeable. It certainly is to be avoided in displaying computer text displays but we mostly watch digitized movie media.

Last edited by CRGINC; 08-14-2014 at 09:23 PM. Reason: sp
CRGINC is offline  
post #6 of 25 Old 08-15-2014, 05:38 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
So, you also go as far as to downscale 16:9 content, introducing aliasing, just to make scope larger? Shouldn't this be a videophile forum?
luca_frontino is offline  
post #7 of 25 Old 08-15-2014, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
So, you also go as far as to downscale 16:9 content, introducing aliasing, just to make scope larger? Shouldn't this be a videophile forum?
Actually, as you seem to be rather fond of pedanticism, this is a 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum, where discussion pertains to achieving a more theater-like presentation of cinema in the home setting. The part of this that you seem to be having a difficult time understanding is that because of the limits of the source materials affordably available, there are compromises with which one must deal in order to effectively reach this more theater-like approach.

And it is important to remember that watching a 'scope film via 1920x1080 source pixel-for-pixel on a 1920x1080 device is also a compromise—one that is often unacceptable to those of us who truly love film versus fetishizing resolution numbers.
Josh Z and John Schuermann like this.

-Joe


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GreySkies is offline  
post #8 of 25 Old 08-16-2014, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
It would be nice is Mr luca_frontino sourced himself a high end ananmorphic lens, set it up properly and actually watched some films in Scope rather than just troll these treads.
Josh Z and GreySkies like this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 25 Old 08-16-2014, 08:10 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
If you leave your lens in place to watch 16:9, then you are effectively taking your original 16:9 content, downscaling it to 4:3, then optically stretching it back to 16:9. A double whammy on picture quality. You both throw away 33% of your original resolution, and then add otherwise unneeded optics to stretch it back to 16:9. If you can't afford a lens transport, make one. There's just no sense in leaving a lens in place for 16:9.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #10 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 01:43 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post
And it is important to remember that watching a 'scope film via 1920x1080 source pixel-for-pixel on a 1920x1080 device is also a compromise—one that is often unacceptable to those of us who truly love film versus fetishizing resolution numbers.
So, you call my goal of preserving Blu-Ray original image quality fetishism, but projecting on a scope screen everything that has black bars, without researching if it was really shot anamorphically or just cropped from a taller frame, and also movies with hybrid cinematography (The Dark Knight Rises was shot with 4 different film formats) or open matted (Avatar or The Voyage of the Dawn Treader), through incorrect upscaling/downscaling, which introduces visible aliasing, is not fetishism?

Also, @CAVX , you should know that Tobey Maguire IS actually "taller" on Spider-Man 1, because the 2nd and 3rd movie were shot with spherical lenses like the 1st and they were just cropped to scope to be printed on anamorphic 35mm, because, of the theatrical exhibition lousing 35mm prints quality, anamorphic is the lesser of 2 evils.

Last edited by luca_frontino; 08-18-2014 at 02:19 AM.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #11 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 02:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I don't know about anyone else here, but if I wanted to watch BD at 1:1 and therefore watch Scope films with a letterbox, I would be in the 16:9 flat panel forum, NOT the 2.35 CIH forum.

How ridiculous to make a statement that framing suddenly makes an actor or the character they play taller or shorter. From a viewing perspective, the top of the frame is the top of the frame regardless of AR and with CIH, that frame is the SAME HEIGHT!
John Schuermann and GreySkies like this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #12 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 02:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
So, you call my goal of preserving Blu-Ray original image quality fetishism...
I'm saying that you're watching a blu-ray; I'm watching a movie. You're missing the forest for the trees--or rather, the film for the pixels.
John Schuermann, CAVX and helmsman like this.

-Joe


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GreySkies is offline  
post #13 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 03:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post
I'm saying that you're watching a blu-ray; I'm watching a movie. You're missing the forest for the trees--or rather, the film for the pixels.
YES! Couldn't have said that any better.

I'm off to watch something in Scope on my CIH system
John Schuermann likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #14 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 04:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
How ridiculous to make a statement that framing suddenly makes an actor or the character they play taller or shorter. From a viewing perspective, the top of the frame is the top of the frame regardless of AR and with CIH, that frame is the SAME HEIGHT!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
That is more to do with how an image is framed. Take films like ALIENS and SPIDERMAN where both were shot to be projected at 1.85:1 so please tell me why Riply and Spiderman would suddenly be taller than they appear in the other films that are Scope?
Now you even attack me with your own words, which I was making fun of?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post
I'm saying that you're watching a blu-ray; I'm watching a movie. You're missing the forest for the trees--or rather, the film for the pixels.
You are watching a movie, yes, but formatted on Blu-Ray, in the digital domain. You don't possess anamorphic 35mm prints. You stretch/squeeze a digital picture, you're degrading it. Period.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #15 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 04:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
You are watching a movie, yes, but formatted on Blu-Ray, in the digital domain. You don't possess anamorphic 35mm prints. You stretch/squeeze a digital picture, you're degrading it. Period.
Actually, I have friends who do possess 35mm prints. Don't underestimate your audience in this forum. I can quite easily tell that you've never seen a setup like many of us have, had, or are building. If you had, you would not be continuing your pedantic patter, because otherwise, you'd realize that the 'degradation' you're decrying can be all but imperceptible in a quality setup.

And don't try to claim that you could tell the difference, because that would simply be quite untrue.
John Schuermann likes this.

-Joe


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GreySkies is offline  
post #16 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 05:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Luca,

I think some elucidation might be in order. What sort of rig are you running so that you can preserve "Blu-Ray original image quality"?

I mean, the only image I've seen you share was of a 1440x900 pixel computer monitor. Surely you've something better, eh?

-Joe


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GreySkies is offline  
post #17 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 06:57 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have a FullHD monitor now, thanks for asking.

The 1440x900 was a temporary economical solution to substitute a CRT monitor that died, back in the day, and at the time I only watched DVDs. When I upgraded to 1080p downloads (before Blu-Ray players were affordable) I had to bow down to some compromises, due to the non-standard resolution: it was either downscale with aliasing or cropping for 1:1 pixel mapping; I regretted buying that monitor.
Then, my father bought a FullHD 40" TV and I moved my 1080p downloads viewing there, but I found frustrating the low pixel response time during dark scenes, which added motion blur.
In fall 2012, I decided to buy a 1080p monitor, along with a Blu-Ray player; now I have no motion blur and better color reproduction (tested with a calibration disc with the monitor set to 14 fL DCI standard). In comparison to the TV, black level is a little worse and it lacks 24Hz refresh rate, but the image is better and, also, it was the only upgrade I could afford.

I may not have the same "resources" you guys got, but, at least, even if I had the money, I wouldn't waste it on gear that diverts from the Blu-Ray specifications.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #18 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 07:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
I have a FullHD monitor now, thanks for asking.

...

I may not have the same "resources" you guys got, but, at least, even if I had the money, I wouldn't waste it on gear that diverts from the Blu-Ray specifications.
Ahh—now we're getting somewhere. 1080p downloads in advance of 'affordable' Blu-Ray players sounds like you could have been pirating movies, am I correct? And I understand that you "own" DTS-HD Master Audio Suite? Seems an odd, expensive thing to purchase unless you're in the film business—I have a suspicion that this may not have been a legitimate acquisition. If this is true, what does that make you?

I don't and would never decry your limited resources at all—many people here have built rather impressive systems with very limited resources—perhaps even more limited than those with which you protest constraint. The great equalizing and uniting factor here is that we all love cinema.

What I do decry is a slavish devotion to the resolution of a media format at the expense of the art and how it was meant to be presented (and really, no concern for the bit rate? low bit rate could explain the poor dark scene performance of your 'downloads').

And I decry the dismissive arrogance (which smacks of jealousy) of claiming that we're wasting money "on gear that diverts from the Blu-Ray specifications," without ever having experienced how it more faithfully reproduces the director's intent, and gives a truer presentation of the art—even at the possible expense of a handful of pixels, which again, is imperceptible on quality gear. This makes you a philistine.

-Joe


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GreySkies is offline  
post #19 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 10:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
I have a FullHD monitor now, thanks for asking.

The 1440x900 was a temporary economical solution to substitute a CRT monitor that died, back in the day, and at the time I only watched DVDs. When I upgraded to 1080p downloads (before Blu-Ray players were affordable) I had to bow down to some compromises, due to the non-standard resolution: it was either downscale with aliasing or cropping for 1:1 pixel mapping; I regretted buying that monitor.
Then, my father bought a FullHD 40" TV and I moved my 1080p downloads viewing there, but I found frustrating the low pixel response time during dark scenes, which added motion blur.
In fall 2012, I decided to buy a 1080p monitor, along with a Blu-Ray player; now I have no motion blur and better color reproduction (tested with a calibration disc with the monitor set to 14 fL DCI standard). In comparison to the TV, black level is a little worse and it lacks 24Hz refresh rate, but the image is better and, also, it was the only upgrade I could afford.

I may not have the same "resources" you guys got, but, at least, even if I had the money, I wouldn't waste it on gear that diverts from the Blu-Ray specifications.
Wait a second, you're watching movies on a computer monitor? How large it is? 25"? 30"? Is it even that large?

You don't even have an HDTV, much less a projector, and you have the gall to lecture those of us watching Blu-rays in dedicated home theaters with screens 8-10 times larger than yours that we're doing it wrong?

You are way out of your depth here, kid. You're arguing the best way to swim with Olympic high-divers while you're sitting in a kiddie wading pool with floaties on your arms.

If you had come here with the intention of learning something from people vastly more knowledgeable and experienced than yourself, we would have welcomed you with open arms. Instead, all you've done is embarrass yourself. Please, quit now and stop wasting our time.
GreySkies likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #20 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 12:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I knew, with you, it would have eventually come down to insults and measuring how deep are someone's pockets and how big is someone's house. But when dealing with spoiled rich brats, I should have seen it coming (... and I did).

The screen dimension argument is flawed, @Josh Z , it all comes down to field of view and image accuracy. I went to theaters encompassing my vision completely and hated them, because when something happens at the sides of the image, all you see is a geometrically distorted mess, so I chose a screen big enough that, from where I'm sitting, would avoid any geometric distortion at the corners of the frame (unlike you). Choosing the correct width first is the best way to preserve the proportions of all the elements that will compose the cinematography, instead of going as tall as possible and enlarging the frame till you don't see the sides of it and then seeing squeezed characters/faces or other things when our attention is called in those parts of the frame during a movie.

The image quality my screen gives is undoubtedly superior to many HDTVs with unfixable clipping in the gray scale or with poor pixel response time (especially the bigger ones) or anyone using rescaling in their 21:9 TVs or projector systems, no matter how good is their video processor, because it's a scientific fact that rescaling introduces aliasing, so much that even movie studios don't rescale their digital masters into 1920x1080, but crop 64+64 pixels from the sides of 2048 and, eventually (uselessly) mask with additional black bars to emulate the aspect ratio of the master.

@GreySkies : I have 22 Blu-Rays. They may not be much to you, but they are the movies I actually thought deserved to be bought after seeing the 1:1 Blu-Ray copies I downloaded (no lowered bitrate rips, sorry). Everything else I don't buy, I simply think it sucks. I can only afford to support the industry that way.

The DTS-HD Master Audio Suite I downloaded has only been used to encode pink noise on the various channels of the many multichannel track options available, so I can correctly calibrate at Reference Level and check for eventual level attenuation or augmentation.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #21 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 01:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,081
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
I knew, with you, it would have eventually come down to insults and measuring how deep are someone's pockets and how big is someone's house. But when dealing with spoiled rich brats, I should have seen it coming (... and I did).
Please do not be so hypocritical as to complain about other people insulting you while you toss out insults to anyone and everyone around you.

Quote:
The screen dimension argument is flawed, @Josh Z , it all comes down to field of view and image accuracy.
If you had a larger screen, you'd know that's not true. No matter how close you sit to a small screen, your brain always knows that it's small and processes the visual information with the relative sizes in mind.

I notice that you still haven't told us exactly how small your monitor is. Is it not even 25"? Geezus...

Quote:
I went to theaters encompassing my vision completely and hated them, because when something happens at the sides of the image, all you see is a geometrically distorted mess, so I chose a screen big enough that, from where I'm sitting, would avoid any geometric distortion at the corners of the frame (unlike you).
Geometric distortion? What terrible theaters are you going to?

Quote:
Choosing the correct width first is the best way to preserve the proportions of all the elements that will compose the cinematography, instead of going as tall as possible and enlarging the frame till you don't see the sides of it and then seeing squeezed characters/faces or other things when our attention is called in those parts of the frame during a movie.
Do you have two eyes on your head or just one? If you have two, are they side-by-side, or one on top of the other?

Let's presume for a moment that you are a normal human being with two eyes and functional vision. If that's the case, then your human visual system has developed via millions of years of evolution to take in your environment horizontally by constantly scanning from side to side. This is how your brain processes visual stimuli. Scanning up and down for long periods of time is actually uncomfortable and tiring.

When watching a movie, a wider image is more natural to how we take in and process visual information. That is why, when CinemaScope was invented with the intention of creating a more enveloping and immersive film experience, it was developed in a widescreen format, not a narrow but tall portrait format.

The whole point of CinemaScope was to present a film at the same height as other movies, but wider. Our current 16:9 HDTV standard reverses that dynamic, and presents scope movies smaller than other aspect ratios. It's the exact opposite of the artistic intention of the filmmakers. The purpose of Constant Image Height projection is to restore these movies to the proper, artistically intended presentation.

Quote:
The image quality my screen gives is undoubtedly superior to many HDTVs with unfixable clipping in the gray scale or with poor pixel response time (especially the bigger ones) or anyone using rescaling in their 21:9 TVs or projector systems, no matter how good is their video processor, because it's a scientific fact that rescaling introduces aliasing, so much that even movie studios don't rescale their digital masters into 1920x1080, but crop 64+64 pixels from the sides of 2048 and, eventually (uselessly) mask with additional black bars to emulate the aspect ratio of the master.
As I said before, had you come to this forum to have an honest discussion and learn from people more knowledgeable than yourself, we all would have welcomed you, even if you ultimately chose to do something different than we do. However, given that your actual objective here is purely obnoxious trolling, I see no reason to be polite to you.

What do you think you're accomplishing here? Do you think you're going to turn us to your side? All you've managed to do is make us laugh at you.

Go away. You're neither needed nor wanted here.
GreySkies and GetGray like this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #22 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 04:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,390
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Choosing the correct width first is the best way to preserve the proportions of all the elements that will compose the cinematography...
That is inconsistent with the history of cinema.

Quote:
...instead of going as tall as possible and enlarging the frame till you don't see the sides of it and then seeing squeezed characters/faces or other things when our attention is called in those parts of the frame during a movie.
You clearly do not understand the concept of CIH. I suggest you do a bit more reading before you continue your uninformed condemnations.

[quote]The image quality my screen gives is undoubtedly superior to many HDTVs with unfixable clipping in the gray scale or with poor pixel response time (especially the bigger ones)...[QUOTE]

Don't base your

Quote:
...or anyone using rescaling in their 21:9 TVs or projector systems, no matter how good is their video processor, because it's a scientific fact that rescaling introduces aliasing...
I think you need to go review your signal processing theory. If you're basing this off the aliasing idea off the results of test patterns, those tests are flawed as single pixel dimension on/off test patters are not representative of real world content and cannot be scaled at all.

Quote:
@GreySkies : I have 22 Blu-Rays. They may not be much to you, but they are the movies I actually thought deserved to be bought after seeing the 1:1 Blu-Ray copies I downloaded (no lowered bitrate rips, sorry). Everything else I don't buy, I simply think it sucks. I can only afford to support the industry that way.
No one is suggesting you buy every movie, but there is no legal source for 1:1 Blu-ray downloads (other than the Kaleidescape Store), and lack of funds is not a valid reason to violate copyright. This line of thinking/acting is a significant contributing factor to the use of AACS/HDCP/etc that makes things much harder for those of us who do respect copyright than it should be.

Quote:
The DTS-HD Master Audio Suite I downloaded has only been used to encode pink noise on the various channels of the many multichannel track options available, so I can correctly calibrate at Reference Level and check for eventual level attenuation or augmentation.
It doesn't matter what you use it for, it's still not legal.
GreySkies likes this.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is offline  
post #23 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Now you even attack me with your own words, which I was making fun of?
So its OK for you to "make fun of" someone on the net from behind the safety of your keyboard?
GreySkies likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #24 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 07:20 PM
Scott Horton, techht.com
 
GetGray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mid-South USA
Posts: 5,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Stop feeding the troll. It's just pushing (y)our buttons.
GreySkies likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GetGray is offline  
post #25 of 25 Old 08-18-2014, 10:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by GetGray View Post
Stop feeding the troll. It's just pushing (y)our buttons.
Good call Getgray.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX 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