Damn Black Bars!! Why are TV's 1920x1080? - Page 3 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 01:06 PM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 72 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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.
Boxofficemojo shows only theatrically released films. There are 163 films in 1983, 259 in 1993 and 506 in 2003. 40 out of 163 is a huge sample, 40 out of 259 is a pretty big sample, and 250 out of 506 is a giant sample, statistics wise. You asked for numbers and I gave you numbers. You can twist numbers all you want; movies, in general, have been historically shot mostly flat.

Of course blockbusters were shot mostly wide (I'm including in this list 70mm and other large negative formats).
antoniobiz1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 04:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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.
I show up at Harley conventions on my Ducati, and tell them my dad said Harleys were sh!t after 50 years of owning them. My wife is the MD, she is the one who will ask you to sign the organ donor card for riding a motorcycle.

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  
post #63 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 04:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
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?

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.
I think i already posted about what is expected in commercial and home use. They each have their own standards. These standards do not interchange well at all. So why try to duplicate one or the other? Watch what you got, how it was delivered.

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  
post #64 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 06:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
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.
Yes it is a misunderstanding. John, i posted the link to your video, simply because it is the best i have seen for anamorphic talk for home. The second video of Scott and Don, who is a personal friend of mine, to show what the view is on D-Cine tech, process and there view of home use, in response to R Harkness digging up a months old and closed thread.

The point i am trying to get across, is the complete difference between commercial and broadcast established norms. I know you and your company is a member of the BDA. I am not, mine is with DCI, SMPTE, NATO(owners) and as a buyer/booker all the studios, major and independent. When people bring up these black bar debates, i try, as best i can, to point out the obvious. You are moving content from it's native form to something other than native. You are taking a movie, that content creators made for presentation in a D-Cine environment, mostly on a DCP, removing it from it's native DCP environment and placing it, with many other files, and also distracting files from it, into a format suitable for display on a device designed to meet broadcast standards, your TV or CE projector. I do remember the article about BDA going to CIW, to keep from having native cinema content windowboxed, with black bars on all four sides, and i remember the TV guy's(what i call them) at SMPTE accepting 16:9 as the most future proof display to broadcast digitals future. And the outcome, letterbox. What i hark on the most is the fact that commercial cinema and TV are two different beasts in the same jungle.

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  
post #65 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 06:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked: 451
That's right everyone, you know those gorgeous, wider CIH scope images you thought you were enjoying at home? It's an illusion. Ignore the years of expeirenced CIH owners here - you can't really do this successfully, CinemaAndy tells us it won't translate.

Time to close this forum turn out the lights and go home and order those 16:9 screens. I can't wait to go back to watching Star Wars shrunk down smaller than the TV show I was just watching, along with those black bars I'd been missing so much. Why in the world did I ever want to feel
immersed in a big widescreen image to begin with? I must have been so ignorant.

CinemaAndy, whatever can we do to thank you for your sage insight here, helping us save us from ourselves?
Josh Z and pgwalsh like this.
R Harkness is online now  
post #66 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 07:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
Yes it is a misunderstanding. John, i posted the link to your video, simply because it is the best i have seen for anamorphic talk for home. The second video of Scott and Don, who is a personal friend of mine, to show what the view is on D-Cine tech, process and there view of home use, in response to R Harkness digging up a months old and closed thread.
How could it make sense that you could be "personal friends" with someone like Don, and yet make such inaccurate claims about both home and D-Cinema technology?

You claimed that TI's D-Cinema projectors used in 90 percent of commercial theaters do perfect, no light, black levels. Which is not just false, it's incredible that anyone with purported knowledge of the field could even make such a claim. Are you not aware of the current technical problems in the trade-off of higher brightness vs contrast ratio, how it is so hard to get both? Do you know why the enormously bright D-Cinema projectors - e.g. Christie Projectors using TI chips - have relatively low on/off contrast ratings that hover around 2,100:1?

Do you not understand that all these things taken together mean there is no way in hell you are getting pure black levels on D-Cinema projection?

Do you not understand that not having to light up screens 70 to 100 ft wide is an advantage for designing home theater projectors, which is one reason even cheap HT projectors reach much higher contrast ratios than you'll see in D-Cinema, and why JVC consumer projectors can actually reach *measured* contrast ratios FAR greater, between 25,000:1 up to over 100,000:1? Hence, MUCH deeper black floors are possible with such consumer home theater projectors, whereas you argued the reverse: you clearly argued that JVC projectors were at a disadvantage to the D-Cinema projectors in regards to black levels!

You also claimed that in dark conditions we should not be able to see black bars on our displays, and that if we did it was a calibration issue or implied it was a sub-standard display. That too was utterly false since until OLED virtually no consumer digital display technology could do perfect "off" black levels (Even the standard Pioneer Kuro plasmas didn't do that). As I pointed out I have the JVC which does black levels far deeper than D-Cinema, is just about the highest contrast ratio you can buy in a projector, measures better on/off contrast than most TVS, similar to the Pioneer Kuro plasmas...and black bars are still easily visible. Which is why my black velvet masking panels still provide a visible improvement to the "projected black" bars.

Why don't you just directly address the fact you were wrong about such claims?

If you are going to make such obviously false claims concerning both commercial and home cinema technical issues, why should anyone listen to what else you want to "enlighten" us about, in regards to either commercial or home cinema?

Last edited by R Harkness; 08-12-2014 at 07:33 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
post #67 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 08:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
I stand corrected. Apparently R Harkness in his 15 foot by 18 foot laboratory, has proved that billions of dollars in research and trial and error were a myth.

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  
post #68 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 10:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 12,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
I stand corrected. Apparently R Harkness in his 15 foot by 18 foot laboratory, has proved that billions of dollars in research and trial and error were a myth.
What in the world could that possibly mean???!!

Look, it's better to just admit you were wrong, rather than take the route of making a snide statement that assumes you are right and I'm wrong, but with absolutely nothing to back it up, or dispute what I wrote.

You claimed D-Cinema projectors, as used in Cinemas:

1. Produce perfect "no light on" black levels.

and

2. That they were superior in this way to consumer projectors, JVC in particular.

I explained why that is a false claim. Consumer projectors like the JVCs can produce far higher on/off contrast.
The most technically thorough consumer projector reviewers, Cine4Home, provided the actual MEASURED (not just manufacturer's claimed specs) contrast of various JVC projectors:

https://translate.google.com/transla...htm&edit-text=

https://translate.google.com/transla...htm&edit-text=

There you can see a "low" of 26,000:1 all the way up to 130,000:1 measured on/off contrast!

Now look through the contrast specs for D-Cinema projectors, from Barco and Christie (or choose anyone else):

http://www.barco.com/en/Products-Sol...ema-projectors

http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us...Projector.aspx

What do you see? Contrast numbers topping out around 2,100:1.

If you know ANYTHING about projection, you know what those numbers tell you: that the consumer projectors are capable of much higher contrast ratio. And thus if both the D-Cinema projector and the JVC projector are properly set up on their respective screens to show around 14 fL peak brightness or so, the consumer JVC projector will display significantly deeper black levels. This is not only an iron clad - and very basic! - technical fact, but the real world results are obvious to anyone who compares the black levels they can get at home with a JVC to Digital Commercial Cinema black levels which are clearly higher, more gray.

I would ask you to back up your assertions, as I have, with actual technical specs showing you are correct...but we both know you can't do that.

Here's what an intellectually honest participant would do at this point: Admit he made a mistake - OR actually engage the above argument showing how it is technically incorrect.

Here's what a troll would do:
Respond with a vague snide comment meant to convey the impression the troll feels he is still correct, but that he feels no need to actually engage details of the argument showing he is wrong.

Which will it be, I wonder?

Last edited by R Harkness; 08-12-2014 at 10:39 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
post #69 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 10:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked: 81
TO the OP:
http://www.tlvexp.ca/2013/07/are-2-3...nematic-today/

Now...here's the debate: Is 1.85 bigger than 2.35
Skylinestar is offline  
post #70 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 11:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
What in the world could that possibly mean???!!

Look, it's better to just admit you were wrong, rather than take the route of making a snide statement that assumes you are right and I'm wrong, but with absolutely nothing to back it up, or dispute what I wrote.

You claimed D-Cinema projectors, as used in Cinemas:

1. Produce perfect "no light on" black levels.

and

2. That they were superior in this way to consumer projectors, JVC in particular.

I explained why that is a false claim. Consumer projectors like the JVCs can produce far higher on/off contrast.
The most technically thorough consumer projector reviewers, Cine4Home, provided the actual MEASURED (not just manufacturer's claimed specs) contrast of various JVC projectors:

https://translate.google.com/transla...htm&edit-text=

https://translate.google.com/transla...htm&edit-text=

There you can see a "low" of 26,000:1 all the way up to 130,000:1 measured on/off contrast!

Now look through the contrast specs for D-Cinema projectors, from Barco and Christie (or choose anyone else):

http://www.barco.com/en/Products-Sol...ema-projectors

http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us...Projector.aspx

What do you see? Contrast numbers topping out around 2,100:1.

If you know ANYTHING about projection, you know what those numbers tell you: that the consumer projectors are capable of much higher contrast ratio. And thus if both the D-Cinema projector and the JVC projector are properly set up on their respective screens to show around 14 fL peak brightness or so, the consumer JVC projector will display significantly deeper black levels. This is not only an iron clad - and very basic! - technical fact, but the real world results are obvious to anyone who compares the black levels they can get at home with a JVC to Digital Commercial Cinema black levels which are clearly higher, more gray.

I would ask you to back up your assertions, as I have, with actual technical specs showing you are correct...but we both know you can't do that.

Here's what an intellectually honest participant would do at this point: Admit he made a mistake - OR actually engage the above argument showing how it is technically incorrect.

Here's what a troll would do:
Respond with a vague snide comment meant to convey the impression the troll feels he is still correct, but that he feels no need to actually engage details of the argument showing he is wrong.

Which will it be, I wonder?
http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us...s/default.aspx You can start here first off and maybe learn something about projection.

Only on any forum would anybody compare a $5,000 throw away consumer projector against a $100,000 commercial projector. A commercial projector will outshine, outlast, outperform any consumer projector. Your repeatedly comparing apples to oranges.

A Cp2220? I have one in my garage. How about a CP4230 with real world ~2,100:1 full field on/off contrast. Not the junk you're pushing. And that's what it is junk. There is not a human being alive who can perceive the contrast levels you so vividly point to. But i guess you can prove all the doctors and studies paid for by the studios wrong there as well, from your laboratory.

Commercial projectors produce the lowest level of blacks than any consumer projector ever will. D-ILA and LCoS produce some of the sorriest black levels of anything out there, there worse than CRT ever was at producing black levels. http://www.hometheaterequipment.com/...-ila-dlp-2966/

http://www.digitalprojection.com/ http://www.sim2usa.com/home/us are the only companies that makes any good consumer high-end use projectors. JVC, Sony, BenQ, Epson, etc make some of the biggest land filling junk out there. Optoma and ViewSonic regularly take home the rewards then the other junk your talking about.

After you read this, go to bed TROLL.

The human eye, at any particular instant, can perceive contrast ratio over a range of 400:1 to 10,000:1 according to numerous references. However, the human eye is a dynamic organ and can adjust, both chemically and via iris movement, over some 30 minutes in steady light conditions to perceive higher contrast ratios of up to between 1,000,000:1 and 10,000,000:1. One can think of the eye as an adaptive detector. Age is a factor influencing what contrast ratio might be perceived by the particular individual. The images displayed can affect the perceived contrast ratio with the human eye being able to detect higher contrast ratios for static images as opposed to moving images. Ambient Light Conditions Even small amounts of ambient light (one LUX - a candle flame) significantly reduces the ability of display devices to render higher contrast ratios (in the 1,000's). A black area can only be as black as whatever incident light is reflecting from it. You cannot "project" the color black. Doubly detrimental is the rapid drop off of the eyes contrast sensitivity with higher ambient light levels. Spatial Frequency The eye is sensitive to the spatial frequency which is a factor related to the distance between the contrasting image elements in relation to each degree of field of vision at the eye. Consider that the frequency is the count of the number of alternating vertical stripes of black and white across an arc of one degree with the eye as its origin. Increasing the number of vertical stripes across the arc (making them thinner) will, beyond a certain point, reduce the eyes ability to perceive contrast ratio - even though the actual contrast between the white and black stripes remains the same. For a practical demonstration of this concept try this dynamic demonstration of the eyes variation in contrast sensitivity with spatial resolution by the USD Internet Psychology Laboratory. Conclusions Differences in contrast ratios in the multi-thousands should only be a consideration in choosing between display devices when you are going to place them in a strictly controlled, very low ambient light environment - something like a windowless home theatre room with dark finishes on all walls and surfaces. For higher ambient light viewing environments brightness should be a much higher rated selection criteria than contrast ratio. There is no substitute for judging between the image quality of displays than viewing them side by side with your own eyes in a viewing environment with an ambient light level similar to where they would be located.

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  
post #71 of 153 Old 08-12-2014, 11:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
My wife, who is a MD, says you should read all of this before you spout anything off ever again about contrast and the perception of it with the human eye.

http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/people/...ions/fiser.pdf

Visual experience, which is defined by brief saccadic sampling of complex scenes at high contrast, has typically been studied with
static gratings at threshold contrast. To investigate how suprathreshold visual processing is related to threshold vision, we tested the
temporal integration of contrast in the presence of large, sudden changes in the stimuli such occur during saccades under natural
conditions....

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  
post #72 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 01:22 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
To get this, I had to employ scaling plus optics, but the end result is what the director intended.
Scaling introduces aliasing that was not there, in the disc, the SOURCE format, no matter how "powerful" the processor is, because the number of pixels you are upscaling to is not a multiple. In fact the majority of scope movies on Blu-Ray are cropped from the 2K master because rescaling pixels to a non integer divisible number gives aliasing.

Last edited by luca_frontino; 08-13-2014 at 02:50 AM.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #73 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 03:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,413
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Scaling introduces aliasing that was not here, in the disc, the SOURCE format, no matter how "powerful" the processor is, because the number of pixels you are upscaling to is not a multiple. In fact the majority of scope movies on Blu-Ray are cropped from the 2K master because rescaling pixels to a non integer divisible number gives aliasing.
Please feel free to point this out because the BD of STAR WARS - A NEW HOPE has way more issues than scaling could ever introduce.

This is how the film is meant to be seen. Film or video, the source is not relevant. What matters is that is film is presented in CinemaScope and not letter boxed.
CAVX is offline  
post #74 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 03:58 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 16
What if you had no screen and just a big white wall?
luca_frontino is offline  
post #75 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 08:45 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 16
@CAVX : You're the same guy that crops Avatar to fill his screen, when it's the 16:9 frame the biggest presentation and the director's intended ratio, but because Avatar was also shown in scope in some theaters you do it too, except those anamorphic prints were made for a matter of resolution and not screen shape, since the digital theaters had the better looking format and it was flat.
Your argument that Blu-Ray should be projected with scope as the biggest screen is flawed because IMAX scenes are supposed to be taller and also Cinerama is actually wider than your screen, so how do you project that?
The same method you use should be applied also to sound, since many movies that are 7.1 on Blu-Ray were originally 5.1, 4.0 (Dolby Surround), stereo and mono in 35mm theaters, so you should downmix them.
Scope screens in the digital domain are pointless. The full resolution is in 16:9 on Blu-Ray, so that's the biggest frame and that's the available consumer format.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #76 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
What if you had no screen and just a big white wall?
I would still want a scope presentation to be the largest and most impacting presentation. Exactly how it was artistically intended.

I half expect Rod Serling to provide a introductory monologue to this thread. So much debate on the extraneous details of how something was filmed or what we're using to reproduce it in the home. The point is that when I go to the vast majority of cinemas the screen is scope and the height is constant. My goal has been to recreate the cinema experience at home and to that end I moved to a scope screen. It's been one of the best enhancements I have made. How many films are released in which format has zero bearing on the artistic intent of using a specific aspect ratio. My scope screen is setup to maximize height available in my room so I lose NOTHING when watching a non scope film. Just like in the cinema. Do we wish there were native 2.4:1 displays or Blu Rays were anamorphic? Sure. But the resolution of the medium does not have any real correlation to how a film is intended to be viewed.

Everyone is free to view material in their own home however they see fit. There are limitations in various configurations that can make scope impractical. None of that changes the realities of how aspect ratios are intended to be viewed. And viewing them as intended in the home has added immeasurably to the experience. Not one person who's seen the difference has not been overwhelmingly positive about it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #77 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
@CAVX : You're the same guy that crops Avatar to fill his screen, when it's the 16:9 frame the biggest presentation and the director's intended ratio, but because Avatar was also shown in scope in some theaters you do it too, except those anamorphic prints were made for a matter of resolution and not screen shape, since the digital theaters had the better looking format and it was flat.
Your argument that Blu-Ray should be projected with scope as the biggest screen is flawed because IMAX scenes are supposed to be taller and also Cinerama is actually wider than your screen, so how do you project that?
The same method you use should be applied also to sound, since many movies that are 7.1 on Blu-Ray were originally 5.1, 4.0 (Dolby Surround), stereo and mono in 35mm theaters, so you should downmix them.
Scope screens in the digital domain are pointless. The full resolution is in 16:9 on Blu-Ray, so that's the biggest frame and that's the available consumer format.
I seriously doubt that CAVX is going to debate you about Avatar's intended presentation. Cropping it to fit a scope screen I'm guessing is a personal choice. If the framing follows what is done with the film in the theater for scope setups you could make an argument for it. My own preference would be just to watch it as a 1.85 presentation since that is the format the director chose to release it with (although I don't care for Avatar myself).

What is there to argue about with scope being the largest presentation? It was designed to be so by the industry. Showing a scope film on a scope screen is the intention at the cinema. Doing so in the home recreates the cinematic experience. We can't control a lot of the variables on how the sound was mastered. IMAX is it's own ratio and unless you have substantially more height in your room, it will not be the largest projected image purely due to physical limitations. If you did have the height, then 2 screens 1 scope and 1 in the IMAX ratio would be best.

jeahrens is offline  
post #78 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 6,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I seriously doubt that CAVX is going to debate you about Avatar's intended presentation. Cropping it to fit a scope screen I'm guessing is a personal choice. If the framing follows what is done with the film in the theater for scope setups you could make an argument for it. My own preference would be just to watch it as a 1.85 presentation since that is the format the director chose to release it with (although I don't care for Avatar myself).

What is there to argue about with scope being the largest presentation? It was designed to be so by the industry. Showing a scope film on a scope screen is the intention at the cinema. Doing so in the home recreates the cinematic experience. We can't control a lot of the variables on how the sound was mastered. IMAX is it's own ratio and unless you have substantially more height in your room, it will not be the largest projected image purely due to physical limitations. If you did have the height, then 2 screens 1 scope and 1 in the IMAX ratio would be best.

Sort of my idea with having 2 screens. I wanted my 2.35:1 to be wider that my 16:9, but I didn't want my 16:9 as small as it would be with a CIH screen setup. So I split the difference. Avatar looks stunning. Scope films look stunning! Everything looks great !

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 offline  
post #79 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 375 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I seriously doubt that CAVX is going to debate you about Avatar's intended presentation. Cropping it to fit a scope screen I'm guessing is a personal choice. If the framing follows what is done with the film in the theater for scope setups you could make an argument for it. My own preference would be just to watch it as a 1.85 presentation since that is the format the director chose to release it with (although I don't care for Avatar myself).

What is there to argue about with scope being the largest presentation? It was designed to be so by the industry. Showing a scope film on a scope screen is the intention at the cinema. Doing so in the home recreates the cinematic experience. We can't control a lot of the variables on how the sound was mastered. IMAX is it's own ratio and unless you have substantially more height in your room, it will not be the largest projected image purely due to physical limitations. If you did have the height, then 2 screens 1 scope and 1 in the IMAX ratio would be best.
Any thoughts on 2.35 being the smaller presentation?

Last edited by Skylinestar; 08-13-2014 at 09:59 AM.
Skylinestar is offline  
post #80 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
CRGINC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 11
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, 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.
A scope movie on DVD can be quite good if you have the proper player/video processor to extract the 24 fps film content. Most movies use depth of field to focus on the subject with the foreground and background slightly out of focus so one doesn't immediately notice the loss of resolution. Most BD players do not do a very good job with DVDs. I have an older Denon DVD transport with the SDI modification connected to a DVDO video processor. The video processor extracts the 24 fps of the film content so the DVDs are view at 24 fps. There are quite a few low budget movies in cinemascope that are not released in BD format and this setup allows a very acceptable viewing experience. I also have a Denon BD transport for BDs, but it doesn't do very well with DVDs. Once you see a DVD film based material in 24 fps, you will notice the judder of interlaced 60 fields per second of unprocessed DVDs.
CRGINC is offline  
post #81 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,198
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaQBlogs View Post
This drives me nuts.

  • Almost all movies are at a resolution of 1920x800. When viewed on 1080p TV sets there appears 280 rows of black bars on top and bottom.
  • I understand TV shows are made to cater to TV sets and hence many shows fit the screen well.
  • Some TV shows are zoomed in to fit the screen while cutting off the sides.
  • IMax are the sole exception which are at 1080p. Yet they are far few in number to even be considered.

So...Does it not make sense to make TV's at 1920x800. Hence the movie fits the screen completely while maintaining the original aspect ratio. (...and TV show creators hopefully create shows to cater to 1920x800 resolution)
It makes zero sense to make TV's at 1920x800 since 16:9 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 is a world standard on the billion + consumer video cameras out there. Show me a link to a single camera with 1920x800 resolution.
jogiba is online now  
post #82 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post
Any thoughts on 2.35 being the smaller presentation?
Without knowing the background, it looks like physical dimensions dictated a CIW setup in your photo. I have a friend that chose to remain on a 16:9 screen due to the layout of his room and I don't disagree with that choice. However neither your example or mine change the intention that scope is the largest format.


Last edited by jeahrens; 08-13-2014 at 10:35 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #83 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
Sort of my idea with having 2 screens. I wanted my 2.35:1 to be wider that my 16:9, but I didn't want my 16:9 as small as it would be with a CIH screen setup. So I split the difference. Avatar looks stunning. Scope films look stunning! Everything looks great !
I usually recommend that people maximize the height of the screen and buy 1 scope screen in that height (human vision is more tolerant of width). All content is essentially at it's best in that scenario. However there are certainly cases where the room has limitations in width where a 2 screen scenario is the best fit. In most normal cases you are looking at a 7-9' ceiling and height generally becomes the limiting factor much more quickly than width.

jeahrens is offline  
post #84 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGINC View Post
A scope movie on DVD can be quite good if you have the proper player/video processor to extract the 24 fps film content. Most movies use depth of field to focus on the subject with the foreground and background slightly out of focus so one doesn't immediately notice the loss of resolution. Most BD players do not do a very good job with DVDs. I have an older Denon DVD transport with the SDI modification connected to a DVDO video processor. The video processor extracts the 24 fps of the film content so the DVDs are view at 24 fps. There are quite a few low budget movies in cinemascope that are not released in BD format and this setup allows a very acceptable viewing experience. I also have a Denon BD transport for BDs, but it doesn't do very well with DVDs. Once you see a DVD film based material in 24 fps, you will notice the judder of interlaced 60 fields per second of unprocessed DVDs.
I agree. My wife and I just watched The Road Warrior on DVD on our 130" scope screen and really enjoyed it. Was the loss of resolution there? Of course. But I equate immersion more with size and resolution with detail. A 2k presentation of a film generally looks less detailed in the cinema than it does at home on Blu Ray due to the size it is being projected at, but certainly is not less immersive because of it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #85 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 10:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 6,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I usually recommend that people maximize the height of the screen and buy 1 scope screen in that height (human vision is more tolerant of width). All content is essentially at it's best in that scenario. However there are certainly cases where the room has limitations in width where a 2 screen scenario is the best fit. In most normal cases you are looking at a 7-9' ceiling and height generally becomes the limiting factor much more quickly than width.

In my case, I have a 12' 6" seating distance, and I only have a 14' throw . I'm able to comfortably watch a 118" wide 2.35:1 screen, which makes my 16:9 only around 50" tall. I prefer my 120" diagonal 59" tall 16:9 screen. Plus, since I need to use an electric screen, buying 2 screens in 2 formats was less expensive than an electric screen with masking. Anyway, I prefer my set up - nothing is too small. It's just right ! And using an A lens is problematic with a short throw like I have.

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 offline  
post #86 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
In my case, I have a 12' 6" seating distance, and I only have a 14' throw . I'm able to comfortably watch a 118" wide 2.35:1 screen, which makes my 16:9 only around 50" tall. I prefer my 120" diagonal 59" tall 16:9 screen. Plus, since I need to use an electric screen, buying 2 screens in 2 formats was less expensive than an electric screen with masking. Anyway, I prefer my set up - nothing is too small. It's just right ! And using an A lens is problematic with a short throw like I have.
Every setup is different. That is a very smart solution to the limitations of the room. Our seating area is about 10' from 120" wide screen (130" diag.) and we love it. Not sure if I would want to go any wider, but it's a moot point since to go any higher the center speaker and screen would be so low the reclined seating would start to block it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #87 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 11:27 AM
Member
 
Blindman0v0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I think most of us consumers are just looking for some sort of standardization so we can have one screen fits all. It is so annoying to have a 16:9 screen and have to watch 2.35:1 on it. I prefer the 16:9 but if studios want to go with 3.25:1 thats fine. Go that way then and let us get the proper screens for watching it.
I think a lot of times these studios are their worst own enemies.
Blindman0v0 is offline  
post #88 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 11:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 6,463
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindman0v0 View Post
I think most of us consumers are just looking for some sort of standardization so we can have one screen fits all. It is so annoying to have a 16:9 screen and have to watch 2.35:1 on it. I prefer the 16:9 but if studios want to go with 3.25:1 thats fine. Go that way then and let us get the proper screens for watching it.
I think a lot of times these studios are their worst own enemies.

I still like watching some classic 4:3 movies, so having a " standardized " aspect ratio is a pipe dream.

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 offline  
post #89 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindman0v0 View Post
I think most of us consumers are just looking for some sort of standardization so we can have one screen fits all. It is so annoying to have a 16:9 screen and have to watch 2.35:1 on it. I prefer the 16:9 but if studios want to go with 3.25:1 thats fine. Go that way then and let us get the proper screens for watching it.
I think a lot of times these studios are their worst own enemies.
That's why a 2.35:1 screen that is maximized for the height of the room is such a beautiful thing. 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 are all as large as they can be. Providing the most immersion and impact. I've been slowly making my way through the Trek: TNG seasons and the Basil Rathbone Sherlock films and their 4:3 presentation with the lights turned down is wonderful. Same thing with watching The Green Mile on Friday. Its 1.85:1 presentation is as big as it can get and looked just great.


Last edited by jeahrens; 08-13-2014 at 11:44 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #90 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 12:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cardoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Beyond The Wall.
Posts: 1,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 245 Post(s)
Liked: 153
DIY masking.

Now that I have a PJ setup I look forward to black bars,I really love the immersive feel.

James Reid:D
cardoski is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
Gear in this thread - 1920x1080? by PriceGrabber.com

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