Damn Black Bars!! Why are TV's 1920x1080? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-11-2014, 08:50 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I already knew how an anamorphic lens captures the image. The problem is many, many 2.39:1 movies are shot without ever using the anamorphic lens. And other movies are even hybrid composites of anamorphic and spherical photography. Also, field of view changes constantly during movies, so much that basing your screen on that is pointless. Most of the times shots are reframed in the editing room, placing the center of the original frame, corresponding to the center of the lens, away from the center of our screens.
We're better off basing the screen format on source resolution, rather than anything else.
luca_frontino is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-11-2014, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 76
I'm not following you. I understand what you are saying from a technical point of view, but don't see how this relates to what Stanger89 stated so well:

While mathematically correct, this ignores the history of movie capture, where the scope format was created specifically to be larger/wider than the existing smaller ratio flat filming technologies.


What he said is (for the most part) true. I don't see what that has to do with resolution.

And, speaking of resolution, we are literally in talks right now with a major studio and a major CE manufacturer to develop high resolution Scope Blu-rays (1920 x 1080 vs. 1920 x 810). How would this factor into your comments?

Scope was developed with the specific intent to engage the viewers peripheral vision and give them a greater sense of immersion. While it's true that genuine anamorphic cinematography is not all that popular anymore (though many films still are shot that way), I still don't see how that really relates to the Scope "philosophy."

Digital Cinema also has lower resolution for Scope films (2048 x 858) than for flat films (1998 x 1080), but that doesn't change the fact that the largest theaters in most multiplexes are still constant height. In fact, just last year I was discussing the fact that Scope films are shown at lower resolutions with one of the chief scientists at Digital Cinema, and he said many filmmakers and DPs resent that fact. According to him (and my own experiences dealing with the studios), most of the filmmakers themselves still desire 2.39:1 / Scope to be the largest projected format.

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  
Old 08-11-2014, 10:25 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
I'm not following you. I understand what you are saying from a technical point of view, but don't see how this relates to what Stanger89 stated so well:

While mathematically correct, this ignores the history of movie capture, where the scope format was created specifically to be larger/wider than the existing smaller ratio flat filming technologies.


What he said is (for the most part) true. I don't see what that has to do with resolution.
Exactly, the scope format was created with the expressed purpose of capturing and reproducing a larger image, an image substantially wider than the existing "flat" formats. Since then the technicalities of how that content is capture has changed, but the fundamental purpose/reasons a creator chooses a scope for their feature has not changed.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
I already knew how an anamorphic lens captures the image. The problem is many, many 2.39:1 movies are shot without ever using the anamorphic lens. And other movies are even hybrid composites of anamorphic and spherical photography. Also, field of view changes constantly during movies, so much that basing your screen on that is pointless. Most of the times shots are reframed in the editing room, placing the center of the original frame, corresponding to the center of the lens, away from the center of our screens.
We're better off basing the screen format on source resolution, rather than anything else.
Post-production or in-camera alterations have always been part of the pre-release process. Source resolution in fact could be a mix of film stocks, lenses, et al.
I will stick with the release presentation as my reference.

t
tvted is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
ASPECT RATIO does not indicate the size of the frame or of the screen. It's just a frame SHAPE. The RATIO between width and height, not how much "wide" is the image, because it can also be narrower in relation to a fixed width, like on Blu-Ray or 70mm IMAX theaters or digital cinemas.
2.39:1 can also be called 1:0.416, because they mean the same thing.
What really counts is the number of pixels or the amount of celluloid composing the frame. On Blu-Ray, 1.85:1 has more pixels than 2.39:1. The IMAX 1.33:1 frame is bigger than the 35mm 1.195:1 frame (2.39:1 squeezed to half).
Anyone using a CIH screen is just misusing the source format, Blu-Ray, which we all know what ratio and resolution it has. You don't possess 35mm anamorphic prints, where 2.39:1 is actually bigger than 1.85:1, so what you are doing is delusional.
This is what happens when you watch movies only from a technical/scientific viewpoint without understanding that motion picture photography is an artistic endeavor, and that the aesthetic qualities of the presentation are more important than pixel counting.

CinemaScope was specifically invented in the 1950s to be the same height but twice as wide as the then-standard Academy Ratio 1.37:1. The much bigger, wider scope picture was such an overwhelming hit with audiences that Academy Ratio was phased out almost immediately and every studio in Hollywood transitioned to widescreen. Those who couldn't do CinemaScope used 1.85:1 as a halfway compromise. 1.85:1 movies were designed to be projected on CinemaScope screens at the same height, but not as wide.

In the history of cinema, no director has ever photographed a movie in the scope ratio hoping or wanting it to be displayed smaller than 1.85:1. That's not the purpose of scope at all.

That you are ignorant of the artistic intentions of filmmakers is a common problem. We wouldn't fault you for it if you hadn't entered this forum with such an aggressive attitude to "teach" all us CIH morons how backwards we have everything, when in fact you are completely wrong in all of your beliefs. That you have the audacity to enter a forum titled "2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat" and call anyone interested in Constant Image Height "delusional" is pure trolling, and is a violation of this site's rules.

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  
Old 08-11-2014, 11:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
By saying that 1.85 is an oddball format, I obviously meant it looking at its number. Probably the majority of films in the history of cinema are in 1.85:1.
Not really. Until the early 1950s, almost all movies were Academy Ratio 1.37:1. CinemaScope was invented in 1953, and 1.85:1 followed on its heels shortly afterwards. These two widescreen formats killed off Academy Ratio very rapidly. Since the 1950s, the number of movies produced in 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 each year has maintained a pretty steady 50/50 split that shows no sign of changing.

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  
Old 08-11-2014, 12:19 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Not really. Until the early 1950s, almost all movies were Academy Ratio 1.37:1. CinemaScope was invented in 1953, and 1.85:1 followed on its heels shortly afterwards. These two widescreen formats killed off Academy Ratio very rapidly. Since the 1950s, the number of movies produced in 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 each year has maintained a pretty steady 50/50 split that shows no sign of changing.
It is true. Before 1953, movies were produced at a much slower pace. Per IMDB, there are 64,939 feature films produced until 1952, and 228,698 from 1953 on.

The first year of widescreen, 1953, there were 161 films shot in a flat format (47 of which in 1.85) and 25 shot with an anamorphic lens. http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen . Sample every year until 2010, and you will see a similar pattern.

Truth is, except for the top Hollywood movies and those of various countries worldwide (the A productions), everything was shot flat until recently. Smaller and independent cinema almost invariably uses flat lenses. The 50/50 split is a myth born on this kind of forums, where people buy the biggest and most recent movies, for which such split is probably true.

Historically, however, it's not even close.
antoniobiz1 is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 01:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Some of you are still ignoring that many Scope movies (many more than you think) have been shot exclusively with spherical lenses, so as wide as Flat ones. Only in theaters they get a wider projection, because they're printed anamorphically on 35mm, but photographically speaking they are cropped presentations.
When I mention source format for Home Theater owners, I intend, of course, Blu-Ray. If Blu-Ray was extended with anamorphic mastering, then I'd agree that Scope movies would be wider than Flat. But right now they're not.
If I cropped a Super35 movie to 3:1 would it make it wider than 2.39:1? No.
luca_frontino is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 01:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
The first year of widescreen, 1953, there were 161 films shot in a flat format (47 of which in 1.85) and 25 shot with an anamorphic lens. http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-fir...-of-widescreen . Sample every year until 2010, and you will see a similar pattern.

Truth is, except for the top Hollywood movies and those of various countries worldwide (the A productions), everything was shot flat until recently. Smaller and independent cinema almost invariably uses flat lenses. The 50/50 split is a myth born on this kind of forums, where people buy the biggest and most recent movies, for which such split is probably true.

Historically, however, it's not even close.
I respect Bob Furmanek, but his web site is so cluttered that it's very difficult to make heads-or-tails of a lot of the information there. I see his chart for 1953, which was an early transition year. If he has stats for later years, you'll have to point me to them. Otherwise, I don't know how you are "sampling every year until 2010."

You specify the difference between "flat lenses" and "anamorphic lenses." Are you taking Super 35, digital, or other 2.35:1 widescreen formats shot with spherical lenses into consideration?

If we were really looking only at the "top Hollywood movies," the split is actually heavily weighted toward 2.35:1 by at least 70% vs. 30%. I recently went through an exercise of pulling those stats for the past two decades on my own blog.

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  
Old 08-11-2014, 02:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Scope was developed with the specific intent to engage the viewers peripheral vision and give them a greater sense of immersion.
Such is the purpose of IMAX's 1.43:1 screens, because (again!) it's not the aspect ratio that gives immersion, but image definition, which permits bigger screens.
A Scope movie on DVD is less immersive than a Flat movie on Blu-Ray. Immersivity is regardless of the aspect ratio of the feature lenght.
luca_frontino is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 02:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 5,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I respect Bob Furmanek, but his web site is so cluttered that it's very difficult to make heads-or-tails of a lot of the information there. I see his chart for 1953, which was an early transition year. If he has stats for later years, you'll have to point me to them. Otherwise, I don't know how you are "sampling every year until 2010."

You specify the difference between "flat lenses" and "anamorphic lenses." Are you taking Super 35, digital, or other 2.35:1 widescreen formats shot with spherical lenses into consideration?

If we were really looking only at the "top Hollywood movies," the split is actually heavily weighted toward 2.35:1 by at least 70% vs. 30%. I recently went through an exercise of pulling those stats for the past two decades on my own blog.

That was a very interesting read - thanks for doing that ( must have taken a bit of time ).

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Call me on my direct line - 585-671-2972, 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday
Email me at craig@avscience.com http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SIM2, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, and many more!
Craig Peer is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 02:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Some of you are still ignoring that many Scope movies (many more than you think) have been shot exclusively with spherical lenses, so as wide as Flat ones.
Because how it's shot is absolutely inconsequential.

Quote:
Only in theaters they get a wider projection...
Exactly, and since theaters are the intended medium for most feature films, creators choose their canvas (aspect ratio) knowing that scope will be larger. In other words scope moves are expected to be presented larger, intended to be presented larger. The technicalities of capture, storage, and playback are again, inconsequential.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 05:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 423
I've occasionally seen some strange arguments on AVS, but this might take the cake....

Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Such is the purpose of IMAX's 1.43:1 screens, because (again!) it's not the aspect ratio that gives immersion, but image definition,
Uh, no, it's the image size that increases immersion. That's why the word "immersion" is so often used in the context of theatrical presentation and home theater. Sort of like how you are going to have a hard time "immersing" yourself in a thimble of water, vs a larger swimming pool. It's about size (and viewing angles - obviously for any given viewing distance, a larger sized increases viewing angle/immersiveness ).


Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
which permits bigger screens.
Riiight. See? It's that "bigger screens" part that plays the integral role here. You seem to almost get it, but then you say this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
A Scope movie on DVD is less immersive than a Flat movie on Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Immersivity is regardless of the aspect ratio of the feature lenght.
Which is a meaningless statement without reference to the screen sizes involved in such a comparison!
If, for a given seating distance, the DVD scope image is shown as a larger image than the Flat AR Blu-Ray image, then the larger DVD image is that much more immersive. If you are not using the term "immersive' in this way, the way it's actually used and understood widely in theatrical and home theater presentation, then you are misusing or misunderstanding the term and only confusing yourself.

What everyone has been telling you is that in CIH scope movies are projected as MUCH LARGER images than the "Flat AR" images, and it's the MUCH LARGER IMAGE part that actually creates the immersiveness. I can easily project a scope DVD movie much wider/larger than a Flat AR movie on Blu-Ray, and hence the the DVD scope movie will be more immersive. And that's what people with CIH systems are doing.

It seems inconceivable that this basic idea could elude you, hence I can't imagine what it is you are trying to say.
R Harkness is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 06:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
It never amazes me how many people stick to there guns on screen aspect ratios "why's" on these forms. A lot of what is being discussed, i'm guilty, is for commercial presentation, not your average HT or PT. Also the fact that a movie designation does a name change after it leaves the cinema, it becomes alternative content. Yep. Have you ever noticed how a re released movie is planned and all the digital copies and disk seem to vanish? Only to be re released in something new, just to get you to rebuy the movie again. Used sales on Amazon and Ebay and other means are excluded. The other thing people seem to forget or just don't know, alternative content is released on a constant image width format. SMPTE set that standard about the time 16:9 TV's were made the broadcast standard, and the industry practice was usually a year before they hit store shelves. More so, the BDA or Blu-Ray Disk Association, mandated CIW for all widescreen content.

And in the above two things should be pointed out. SMPTE sets the standard for both TV and theater standards, and a few others, but SMPTE has more of a say. So, you have two completely different mediums, your television, your local theater and you have one standard, the movie you want to watch. The studio wants you to enjoy the movie at a theatre in either flat or scope on a constant image height presentation. When the movie becomes "alternative content" the studios want you to enjoy the movie on a device, your TV etc, and the movie is adjusted for maximum playback on your TV etc, becoming CIW and other than theater audio track. So you get to see the movie in the same format you saw at the theatre, just with black bars top and bottom. If your watching in a completely dark room, i hope you are, then you do not even see the black bars. If you do see the black bars, you have not adjusted your TV properly or need a new one.

I have heard plenty of rumors, some of them for years, about anamorphic Blu-Rays and streaming movies. I have yet to see that.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 08:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 423
I'm not sure exactly what you meant to get across, but it *seems* to be a diss at the idea of CIH - basing this in the idea that a theatrical presentation and home presentation are different animals, and treated so by the studios, and that somehow this entails that...what?...CIH systems don't make sense or something?

Of course content providers have chosen to format scope and flat ARs to fit the width of a 16:9 AR. That makes sense given this is the default AR of all HD displays.

But that says nothing about whether one can re-cover a theatrical-like presentation of those movies at home. And then it comes down to which type of theatrical presentation one favors. CIH folks tend to favor the traditional
presentation where scope was shown larger/wider than flat AR - and there are great ways to re-create this aspect of presentation at home in terrific quality. So I'm not sure what your point is on this (?).

Could you clarify?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
the movie is adjusted for maximum playback on your TV etc, becoming CIW and other than theater audio track. So you get to see the movie in the same format you saw at the theatre, just with black bars top and bottom.
Which is not how one sees the movies in CIH commercial theaters - the ones preferred by people here! In a commercial CIH theater, the scope format is shown wider than the Flat AR, and without any black bars. People here prefer that presentation, and re-create it at home.

It's not like the Studios simply want everyone to see scope movies as tinier images than Flat, and with black bars! TV manufacturers and Studios can't have been overjoyed to see so many complaints over the years about "those damned black bars!" But the fact is, they have had to produce the content within the limitations of a fixed HD TV AR format, and know they will face even more outrage if they try the pan-and-scan stuff again, or severely cropping images. Fortunately, a projection set up can get around such limitations, and surely no studio is saying "No, don't do that! No re-creating the theatrical style presentation if you can. Not acceptable!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
If your watching in a completely dark room, i hope you are, then you do not even see the black bars. If you do see the black bars, you have not adjusted your TV properly or need a new one.
Why would you wish to council us with such misinformation? Remember, this is a projection-based forum. No currently existing digital projection can do perfect "light off" black. All produce "black bars" that are visibly brighter than true black - easily perceptible as compared with the black velvet borders of most screens, not to mention blacked out rooms. Have you ever heard of "masking" and why it is used in projection, both home and theatrical?

I'm watching in close to an "ideal" room for projection: blacked out with velvet, back wall, side walls, floor, ceiling.
This reduces the light reflection back to the screen and hence minimizes as much as possible the "wash out effect" where light reflected back to the screen raises black levels. I'm using the JVC RS57 projector, with it's Dynamic Iris on, which has been professionally calibrated. I am currently seeing the darkest black levels pretty much any projector will produce (- darker than all but an elite few flat panels could match, with the black levels measured by my calibrator as comparable to the Pioneer Kuro plasmas).

The elevated light levels of the projected black bars are still clear to see (unfortunately). That's why I, and others, still employ masking systems to cover those "not really black bars" and make it truly pitch black around the scope image. All you'd need to see is a scope movie projected on this set up with the masking moved in and out, to cure you of the notion that one "does not even see" black bars on a well calibrated, high quality display.

Last edited by R Harkness; 08-11-2014 at 08:16 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 08:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
I'm not sure exactly what you meant to get across, but it *seems* to be a diss at the idea of CIH - basing this in the idea that a theatrical presentation and home presentation are different animals, and treated so by the studios, and that somehow this entails that...what?...CIH systems don't make sense or something? Could you clarify?
If you do not have D-Cine equipment, it is impossible to reproduce the theatre experience. As good as JVC's D-ILA is, there is a reason why TI's DLP has 90% of commercial cinema covered, the mirror is off, no light, complete black.

If you show only 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 content, CIH is the way to go. Why give up screen space when the majority of broadcast, cable, satellite are 16:9? CIW is the better option for home theaters. Yes you have to deploy a 4-way masking system, compared to CIH.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 08:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Hold on, first you were referring to consumer displays, that if we were seeing black bars in a dark room, then it has to do with not calibrating properly, which was false.

Now you are jumping to D-Cine equipment, which is a non-sequitur to your claims regarding consumer displays.
But even then you seem to be making an extraordinary claim:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
If you do not have D-Cine equipment, it is impossible to reproduce the theatre experience. As good as JVC's D-ILA is, there is a reason why TI's DLP has 90% of commercial cinema covered, the mirror is off, no light, complete black.
Where in the world did you get the information that the Digital projectors used in commercial projection can do perfect "no light" black levels? They can't! They are light engines, do great color etc, but they are NOT greater contrast displays. The JVC projectors are capable of significantly higher native contrast than the D-Cine projectors used in cinemas. Have you even looked at the black levels in the cinemas? It's one of the first things people who own a good home theater projector complain about!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
If you show only 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 content, CIH is the way to go. Why give up screen space when the majority of broadcast, cable, satellite are 16:9? CIW is the better option for home theaters. Yes you have to deploy a 4-way masking system, compared to CIH.
I can't make any sense of that, I'm sorry, in regards to the claims of yours I was disputing. First you said at home we shouldn't see black bars in lights out conditions, and now you are admitting masking is desirable (which only makes sense if black bars are visible)? Something is not computing here.
R Harkness is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 08:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 423
Aaah...now I recognize CinemaAndy, e.g. from this infamous thread:

Buying a commercial cinema projector for my home theater...

Ok, never mind....

(I had a hard time believing he was serious about black levels of D-Cine projectors, no need to feed further...)
R Harkness is online now  
Old 08-11-2014, 09:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Hold on, first you were referring to consumer displays, that if we were seeing black bars in a dark room, then it has to do with not calibrating properly, which was false.

Now you are jumping to D-Cine equipment, which is a non-sequitur to your claims regarding consumer displays.
But even then you seem to be making an extraordinary claim:



Where in the world did you get the information that the Digital projectors used in commercial projection can do perfect "no light" black levels? They can't! They are light engines, do great color etc, but they are NOT greater contrast displays. The JVC projectors are capable of significantly higher native contrast than the D-Cine projectors used in cinemas. Have you even looked at the black levels in the cinemas? It's one of the first things people who own a good home theater projector complain about!



I can't make any sense of that, I'm sorry, in regards to the claims of yours I was disputing. First you said at home we shouldn't see black bars in lights out conditions, and now you are admitting masking is desirable (which only makes sense if black bars are visible)? Something is not computing here.
The "so called" 1,000,000,000:1 contrast lies CE TV's and throw away projectors "claim" has completely watered down reality. The human eye can only process so much contrast, normally between 1,500-3,000:1 in any given light level. Countless studies on this were commenced over the years by both the studios, theaters and D-Cine manufactures. There is a reason the theater auditorium lights go through two levels of dimming, as well as show the same length of coming attractions before the main presentation starts. And that is to "adjust" your eyes for maximum contrast and to the ambient light of the movie.

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr...the-human-eye/

Black out of a DCI projector is a close to black as a light based source can get.

Some people, myself included, like the whir of electric motors while masking operates.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-11-2014, 09:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Perfect settings, no visible black bars. Applies for a 22 inch monitor to a 100 foot screen.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20140811_22_31_06_Pro.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	119.1 KB
ID:	208697   Click image for larger version

Name:	WP_20140811_22_31_37_Pro.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	150.9 KB
ID:	208705  

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-12-2014, 12:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 50


This is how it is meant to be seen, not letter-boxed. There is really nothing more to say.

To get this, I had to employ scaling plus optics, but the end result is what the director intended.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Old 08-12-2014, 02:14 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I respect Bob Furmanek, but his web site is so cluttered that it's very difficult to make heads-or-tails of a lot of the information there. I see his chart for 1953, which was an early transition year. If he has stats for later years, you'll have to point me to them. Otherwise, I don't know how you are "sampling every year until 2010."

You specify the difference between "flat lenses" and "anamorphic lenses." Are you taking Super 35, digital, or other 2.35:1 widescreen formats shot with spherical lenses into consideration?

If we were really looking only at the "top Hollywood movies," the split is actually heavily weighted toward 2.35:1 by at least 70% vs. 30%. I recently went through an exercise of pulling those stats for the past two decades on my own blog.
By anamorphic I meant anything projected with an anamorphic lens, no matter the source.

However, here is a link to 3 lists, for 1983, 1993, 2003. From boxofficemojo I extracted the top grossing movies for those years. These are the results:

1983 Top 40 movies: flat 30, anamorphic 10;
1993 Top 40 movies: flat 29, anamorphic 11;
2003 Top 250 movies: flat 135, anamorphic 115.
(I ignored re-issues).

Things are changing in the present decade. However, my suggestion that so far 1.85 is the most used format in history remains true.
antoniobiz1 is online now  
Old 08-12-2014, 03:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
By anamorphic I meant anything projected with an anamorphic lens, no matter the source.

However, here is a link to 3 lists, for 1983, 1993, 2003. From boxofficemojo I extracted the top grossing movies for those years. These are the results:

1983 Top 40 movies: flat 30, anamorphic 10;
1993 Top 40 movies: flat 29, anamorphic 11;
2003 Top 250 movies: flat 135, anamorphic 115.
(I ignored re-issues).

Things are changing in the present decade. However, my suggestion that so far 1.85 is the most used format in history remains true.
Flat is cheaper to film. The studios, production companies rent, not own, the cameras and lenses they use to shot the film with. I frankly don't know what the price is now, but in the 80's-2000's Scope added around 34% to the budget. And that left many to go with flat and put the money in other departments, like special effects or filming locations. And a lot of 3D movies are 1.85:1. Pacific Rim was a 1.85:1 movie.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-12-2014, 03:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 335 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Aaah...now I recognize CinemaAndy, e.g. from this infamous thread:

Buying a commercial cinema projector for my home theater...

Ok, never mind....

(I had a hard time believing he was serious about black levels of D-Cine projectors, no need to feed further...)
And my views have not changed on D-Cine in the home. Make sure you watch the videos, might learn something.



And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
Old 08-12-2014, 05:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 260 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
It never amazes me how many people stick to there guns on screen aspect ratios "why's" on these forms. A lot of what is being discussed, i'm guilty, is for commercial presentation, not your average HT or PT.
What's the difference? If I go to the theater Star Wars, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc, etc will all be shown as the largest, widest presentations at the theater. Why should it be any different in my HT?

Quote:
SMPTE set that standard about the time 16:9 TV's were made the broadcast standard, and the industry practice was usually a year before they hit store shelves. More so, the BDA or Blu-Ray Disk Association, mandated CIW for all widescreen content.
But why did they do that? Certainly not because scope content was meant to be smaller than flat content at home. No, it's because 16:9 was determined to be the "standard" size screen for home and the only way to preserve OAR on a 16:9 screen is letterboxing. In other words, letterboxing on home media is not because scope is meant to be smaller, but a compromise to preserve the integrity (OAR) of the work.

But this definitely doesn't mean that a technical limitation/compromise should dictate a reversal in presentation size. Fortunately with front projection displays, it's "easy" to remedy the situation by creating a scope display.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Old 08-12-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 464
What's with the sudden influx of trolls coming to a forum called "2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat" to "school" people who care about 2.35:1 Constant Image Height about how wrong and stupid they must be? What kind of mental illness must one suffer to think it's somehow a productive use of time to behave like such a useless, obnoxious jerk? What a waste of a life.

If Luca or CinemaAndy went to a Harley Davidson convention to lecture Harley owners about how only a dummie would ever buy a motorcycle, they'd get their f***ing teeth knocked out.

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  
Old 08-12-2014, 09:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 206 Post(s)
Liked: 423
But Josh, where else are we going to also learn that, against all evidence to the contrary, D-Cinema projectors can do perfect black levels, and that masking is simply useful for those who enjoy the whirring of the masking motors??

This is gold; I'd usually have to pay for this, along with overpriced beer, at a comedy club.
R Harkness is online now  
Old 08-12-2014, 09:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,433
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
By anamorphic I meant anything projected with an anamorphic lens, no matter the source.

However, here is a link to 3 lists, for 1983, 1993, 2003. From boxofficemojo I extracted the top grossing movies for those years. These are the results:

1983 Top 40 movies: flat 30, anamorphic 10;
1993 Top 40 movies: flat 29, anamorphic 11;
2003 Top 250 movies: flat 135, anamorphic 115.
(I ignored re-issues).

Things are changing in the present decade. However, my suggestion that so far 1.85 is the most used format in history remains true.
Looking at box office grosses can be misleading. A filmmaker can control how he shoots his movie, but he can't control whether people actually pay to see it or not. How many scope productions flopped and didn't make the Top 40 for their respective years? Those movies still exist. People may still want to watch them on video now.

What we actually need to look at, if such a thing exists anywhere, are the raw stats for all movies produced in a given year and what aspect ratio they were filmed at.

Maybe you're right and 1.85:1 movies outnumber scope. It's sort of an academic point if the majority of those 1.85:1 movies are foreign productions or micro-budget indies that never play theatrically in this country.
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  
Old 08-12-2014, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 76
This thread has become totally confusing. My guess is that people are misunderstanding each other or differing on their definitions of terms. For example, CinemaAndy posted Scott Wilkinson's interview with me above as support for what he has to say, yet the views I express in the video support what Josh, R Harkness, and Stanger89 have to say.

I'm thinking most of the conflict going on here represents some pretty basic misunderstandings.

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  
Old 08-12-2014, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 76
RE: number of films shot anamorphically. The trend has held at about 75% Scope films when you limit your list to the top grossing films of the last few decades (or of all time).

But that doesn't really matter. What I ask for people to do is to look at their OWN collections of movies - Blu-ray, HD-DVD, DVD or otherwise - then check the aspect ratio. What I have found consistently over the last 10 years of doing this is that the same "75% Scope" figure generally holds true.

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  
 
Gear in this thread - 1920x1080? by PriceGrabber.com
Thread Tools


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