Damn Black Bars!! Why are TV's 1920x1080? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 02:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,315
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 62
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.
Thanks for your comments, re: the webcast I did with Scott Wilkinson.

This is a truly bizarre thread. So many people speaking at cross purposes, using different definitions, plus getting flat out hostile. Add to that the fact that so many of the posts are unclear in their points, and for that reason hard to decipher.

Based on my extremely recent experiences working directly with studios, post houses, and even filmmakers, I can say that I find some of the following assertions made in this thread to be without merit. Namely:
  • That Sony, JVC and Epson et al make "land-filling junk." JVC and Sony projectors in particular are held in high esteem by many of the technical people of the studios I have been working with. In fact, at studio XYZ (sorry, can't name the studio as I am under NDA) I was in the room as the technical crew excitedly set up a Sony 4K Consumer projector as one of the reference models for their internal testing / quality control (the VW1000). I was also personally involved with helping set up a JVC projector (along with a Panamorph UH480 lens) in the personal home theater of Michael Bay. I have the thank you letter from Mr. Bay to prove it. JVC projectors have been endorsed by many in the Hollywood filmmaking community. As far as Digital Cinema goes, there are currently more Sony SXRD projectors in Digital Cinemas than DLP projectors. That is not necessarily an argument that SXRD is better than DLP, but it does show that there is wide acceptance. The imaging chips used in Sony consumer 4K projectors are direct descendants of chips used in their commercial projectors.
  • That DLP is capable of deeper blacks than LCOS based units, particularly JVC DILA projectors. I have relationships with people at literally ALL the major projector manufacturers - SIM, JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, Optoma, etc - and I don't know of any DLP manufacturer that claims a "perfect" black level (as in lack of light output) or even that their units are capable of better blacks than say, a JVC DILA projector. They make other superiority claims for DLP, but absolute black level is not one of them. (You link to an Andrew Robinson thread that does not support your view that DLP has better blacks.)
  • That somehow Scope content is "native" within commercial DCP packages, and not on Blu-ray. Scope 2K content on DCP is at 2048 x 858. The commercial projector it is being played on has a native resolution of 2048 x 1080, so when Scope content is played back 222 vertical rows of pixels are shut off. This is almost directly analogous to Blu-ray content at 1920 x 810 being played on a consumer projector at 1920 x 1080, with 270 rows of pixels being shut off. Even if you claim that the Scope DCP file is native in that the 222 rows of "black" pixels are not hard-encoded, that is also true of Blu-ray. Rip a Scope movie off Blu-ray and you will see that the actual video file is 1920 x 817 (or 810, or whatever - it varies). DCP files are not native in other ways as well, as it is not as if the original footage the movie was edited from was captured at 2048 x 858 (it may have been edited that way, but it was not shot that way). So no matter what the "native" resolution of the original footage is going to be altered in some way or another.
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between ANSI contrast and on / off contrast, and I think those definitions are being used interchangeably here. DLP projectors are known to have considerably better ANSI contrast than their LCOS counterparts, while where it comes to on / off contrast LCOS usually performs better.

DLP is also considered superior to LCOS in the commercial world when it comes to image sharpness and absolute fidelity, since each individual is discrete and unaffected by other pixels around it. LCOS projectors tend to be softer (and have lower ANSI contrast) due to the fact that what happens to one pixel can affect the response of adjoining pixels. It is also true that DLP has fewer motion artifacts compared to LCOS. As one Digital Cinema scientist told me, it is for this reason he says that "LCOS is an extremely promising technology, and always will be."

To me, the ultimate projector would be a DLP unit with the black level performance of a JVC LCOS model. It would also be reasonably priced If I could have any projector in my home, it would be a three chip DLP. However, the price tag is just well beyond what I could justify and I WOULD miss the deep blacks of my current JVC (which isn't headed to a land fill any time soon). I have shot out 3 chip DLPs with my JVC and there are qualities that I admire from both technologies. The DLPs were without question purer, brighter, and crisper than the JVC. However, during dark scenes the DLPs looked washed out compared to the JVC, even with supposed "perfect" black test signals.

I don't claim to be an absolute authority on this stuff, but I do actively interface with both the filmmaking and consumer electronics industries, and the above reflects my best understanding of the technologies being discussed.


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

Home Theater Industry Consultant

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.

Check out my new movie!:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
John Schuermann is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,440
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
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...)
Oh man, that thread is comic gold! I was a bit surprised that no one in that thread did a Google image search on the pic Andy posted that he claimed was a copy of Spiderman on his workbench...

That is some A-level trolling there. The best part to me is the way he consistently uses both there for their, and your for you're--that's some prime bait. I bet he was hugely disappointed that no one called him on those.

-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 online now  
post #93 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 02:46 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: 4,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Thanks for your comments, re: the webcast I did with Scott Wilkinson.



To me, the ultimate projector would be a DLP unit with the black level performance of a JVC LCOS model. It would also be reasonably priced If I could have any projector in my home, it would be a three chip DLP. However, the price tag is just well beyond what I could justify and I WOULD miss the deep blacks of my current JVC (which isn't headed to a land fill any time soon). I have shot out 3 chip DLPs with my JVC and there are qualities that I admire from both technologies. The DLPs were without question purer, brighter, and crisper than the JVC. However, during dark scenes the DLPs looked washed out compared to the JVC, even with supposed "perfect" black test signals.

I don't claim to be an absolute authority on this stuff, but I do actively interface with both the filmmaking and consumer electronics industries, and the above reflects my best understanding of the technologies being discussed.

My SIM Lumis is as close to your perfect projector as possible at this time. Just don't look at the price tag !!
John Schuermann likes this.

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at
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.

Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #94 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 03:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Well, I'm sure no one here was surprised by your reply....blindly throwing out links and walls of text in an incoherent and irrelevant manner..

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
http://www.christiedigital.com/en-us...s/default.aspx You can start here first off and maybe learn something about projection.
Of course, nothing in that link supports, or even addresses, your claim that 90 percent of the D-Cinema projectors, using TI chips, can to pure "off" black levels, and are superior in that regard to consumer projectors like JVC.

I gave links to the *relevant* information: the Christie and Barco projectors using TI chips, that are used in Commercial Cinema and their contrast ratio specs, as against the actually measured far higher contrast ratios of the JVC projectors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
A Cp2220? I have one in my garage.
LOL. Don't get too obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
How about a CP4230 with real world ~2,100:1 full field on/off contrast.
As against JVC's actually measured on/off contrast between 26,000:1 up to 130,000:1


You quote contrast numbers as if you know they mean something...then forget what they mean when confronted with contrast numbers that show your claims is false.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
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.
Ok, that was simply far too obvious. I think you've blown your cover and anyone paying attention is unlikely to nibble the bait anymore. You should have been more subtle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
TROLL.
Indeed.

Rich H


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.
R Harkness is offline  
post #95 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 03:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post
Oh man, that thread is comic gold! I was a bit surprised that no one in that thread did a Google image search on the pic Andy posted that he claimed was a copy of Spiderman on his workbench...

That is some A-level trolling there. The best part to me is the way he consistently uses both there for their, and your for you're--that's some prime bait. I bet he was hugely disappointed that no one called him on those.
Yeah, in all my years on the internet I've never actually designated anyone as a troll. I have always given the benefit of a doubt. Poe's Law applies everywhere.

It's just with this guy, the bait seemed too knowing. I can't really believe someone with his purported "experience" could be that mixed up. It's just one wall-of-wrong after the other, but it's just the type of
bogus claims that seem to require some technical awareness to twist the wrong way - hits all the right bugaboos
to tweak the noses of other AV geeks. That's why it smells so strongly of troll. (And boy if trolling isn't the damned strangest thing in the world for anyone to do!)

Rich H


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.
R Harkness is offline  
post #96 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 03:51 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
What if you had no screen and just a big white wall?
What if I did? My Projector + A-Lens would still produce the biggest image for Scope. The screen just gives a nice crisp edge. Nothing else really changes. I get to run 1920 x 1080 and not 1920 x 810).

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.
When I saw AVATAR in 2D Scope, it was 35mm film. Film does not have "resolution" like digital media does. The true beauty of my system is that I can choose how to the watch that film. AVATAR is meant to be shown as large as the system will allow, and I am therefore not breaking the rules here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
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?
IMAX is compromised on BD period, so why even bring that up? If we had 4K in the home, now that would close to IMAX.

I tend to watch "modern" cinema, so I don't have any "golden age cinema" in my collection. If I had to watch Ben Hur on my system, I guess it would have letterboxing due to its extra wide AR. It is but one example of thousands that do work on my system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
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.
This is probably the silliest thing you've said. Why would I down mix my audio (from 7.1 back to what ever) when I just up-converted (from 810 to 1080) my video?

Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
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.
EVERY cinema (in Australia anyway) converted from film to digital remains CIH. Think about it. The only thing that changed was the projection system. Why re-design a cinema to emulate video if it was built originally for film and intends to show movies as if on film. Digital simply allows a scratch free presentation where film rapidly decays with use.

The ONLY thing POINTLESS is YOUR argument against CIH here.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #97 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 08:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies View Post
Oh man, that thread is comic gold! I was a bit surprised that no one in that thread did a Google image search on the pic Andy posted that he claimed was a copy of Spiderman on his workbench...

That is some A-level trolling there. The best part to me is the way he consistently uses both there for their, and your for you're--that's some prime bait. I bet he was hugely disappointed that no one called him on those.
I wonder how it got there.
GreySkies likes this.

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 #98 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 08:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Yeah, in all my years on the internet I've never actually designated anyone as a troll. I have always given the benefit of a doubt. Poe's Law applies everywhere.

It's just with this guy, the bait seemed too knowing. I can't really believe someone with his purported "experience" could be that mixed up. It's just one wall-of-wrong after the other, but it's just the type of
bogus claims that seem to require some technical awareness to twist the wrong way - hits all the right bugaboos
to tweak the noses of other AV geeks. That's why it smells so strongly of troll. (And boy if trolling isn't the damned strangest thing in the world for anyone to do!)
"Post count, does not equal IQ count. They're similar numbers, but very different"

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 #99 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post
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
If you want to pull calculators out and cram numbers you will find this. 1.85 is taller. 2.39 is wider. 1.85 shows more above and below screen center. 2.39 shows more to the left and right of screen center.

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 #100 of 153 Old 08-13-2014, 09:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
My view has not changed. Letterbox is the same way the movie was made to be seen. Why change from CIW to CIH just to be rid of black bars? Why all the talk about 5K CE projectors against, up to 350K D-cine's. Apples to oranges. Bisquit to Pizza.

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 #101 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 01:12 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 CinemaAndy View Post
If you want to pull calculators out and cram numbers you will find this. 1.85 is taller. 2.39 is wider. 1.85 shows more above and below screen center. 2.39 shows more to the left and right of screen center.
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?

It has nothing to do with it showing more height and everything to do with the cinematographer wanting to capture a little more width. The extra height comes in as a bi-product of capturing a long or WIDE (key point of Scope) shot.

In the AR, the height is described as one, so how does the one in 1.85:1 become taller than the one in 2.39:1? It doesn't. The width however is certainly very different.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #102 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 03:10 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 jeahrens View Post
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.
Vistavision is a bigger format than anamorphic 35, hence the bigger screen.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #103 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 03:41 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
When I saw AVATAR in 2D Scope, it was 35mm film. Film does not have "resolution" like digital media does. The true beauty of my system is that I can choose how to the watch that film. AVATAR is meant to be shown as large as the system will allow, and I am therefore not breaking the rules here.
That is hypocritical double standard. The biggest image for Avatar on Blu-Ray is 16:9. You crop that, you lose resolution and photography. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
IMAX is compromised on BD period, so why even bring that up? If we had 4K in the home, now that would close to IMAX.
Hypocritical double standard again: 1st you say that scope should be bigger no matter the resolution, then that IMAX on Blu-Ray is castrated, so it should be ignored and/or cropped even more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
I tend to watch "modern" cinema, so I don't have any "golden age cinema" in my collection. If I had to watch Ben Hur on my system, I guess it would have letterboxing due to its extra wide AR. It is but one example of thousands that do work on my system.
Hypocritical double standard: 1st you say that scope movies should be projected like in theaters, then you say that everything wider than 2.39:1 should be letterboxed, just because YOU say so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
This is probably the silliest thing you've said. Why would I down mix my audio (from 7.1 back to what ever) when I just up-converted (from 810 to 1080) my video?
1st: you cannot magically make 800 pixels into 1080, you're just upscaling and introducing aliasing because 1080 is not a multiple of 800. You are just watching a worse image than one projected by a 16:9 projector and that is a fact. Just try a test pattern and if you don't see aliasing, then it's your eyesight that doesn't work.
2nd: my example of 7.1 downmixed comes from the fact that you are altering the content of the Blu-Ray by projecting an 800 lines frame bigger than a 1080 lines frame, just because on 35mm theaters scope is bigger than flat; then you should also downmix the audio, because in 35mm theaters movies had different mixes than what is on Blu-Ray today: some movies have been remixed from stereo to 5.1 and from 5.1 to 7.1. If you don't do that, then you're using, again, an hypocritical double standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
EVERY cinema (in Australia anyway) converted from film to digital remains CIH. Think about it. The only thing that changed was the projection system. Why re-design a cinema to emulate video if it was built originally for film and intends to show movies as if on film. Digital simply allows a scratch free presentation where film rapidly decays with use.

The ONLY thing POINTLESS is YOUR argument against CIH here.
D-Cinema's DCPs are native 1.9:1. Altering the presentation from what is on print/file in an attempt to still retain a screen meant for anamorphic 35mm, when today cinematography comprises higher frames, like from IMAX cameras, is wrong. Even the DCI is against the use of anamorphic lenses, because the content is not anamorphic and upscaling introduces aliasing.

And just as a reminder the majority of modern scope movies are shot with spherical lenses, just like flat ratio movies, so projecting them wider is wrong. They were just meant for anamorphic 35mm prints to allow more celluloid to be used, since 35mm prints projected in theaters look way too softer than the original negative.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #104 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 03:44 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Vistavision is a bigger format than anamorphic 35, hence the bigger screen.
Vistavision only existed as a negative format. Prints were always standard 35mm 4 perfs, projected at 1.85 (with very very few exceptions). So, nothing special (except for a better negative, so less grain). The fact that they advertised as bigger means nothing.

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv1.htm
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #105 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 04:01 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
(...) then you should also downmix the audio, because in 35mm theaters movies had different mixes than what is on Blu-Ray today: some movies have been remixed from stereo to 5.1 and from 5.1 to 7.1.
This really does not seem to make any sense. If you downmix you don't magically go back to the original 4-track or 6-track or Dolby Stereo or SR or Ultra stereo or whatever. You are just introducing another alteration.

Sometimes original soundtracks are ported. On laserdiscs and some dvds and blu-rays you can find the original mixes, plus an upmix or a remix.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #106 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 04:03 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 antoniobiz1 View Post
This really does not seem to make any sense. If you downmix you don't magically go back to the original 4-track or 6-track or Dolby Stereo or SR or Ultra stereo or whatever. You are just introducing another alteration.

Sometimes original soundtracks are ported. On laserdiscs and some dvds and blu-rays you can find the original mixes, plus an upmix or a remix.
Exactly! You are altering the content, the same way you alter the content (quality-wise) when upscaling 800 pixels to 1080. You are just proving MY POINT. Thanks.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #107 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 04:08 AM
Member
 
antoniobiz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Exactly! You are altering the content, the same way you alter the content (quality-wise) when upscaling 800 pixels to 1080. You are just proving MY POINT. Thanks.
That's not what I said. Downmix on your receiver = FURTHER (as in second, ulterior, worse) alteration.
antoniobiz1 is offline  
post #108 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 05:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tvted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 3,573
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
If you want to pull calculators out and cram numbers you will find this. 1.85 is taller. 2.39 is wider.
The problem here is that you are switching references. For an accurate comparison of ratios you have to have a common reference. 1.85:1 is taller when the width is the common reference (CIW); 2.39 is wider when the height is the common reference (CIH). In this forum we have made our decision as to the common reference.
tvted is offline  
post #109 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 06:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,825
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 69
LG 34UM95 34" UltraWide Widescreen 21:9 Monitor

Here is a 34" 21:9 UltraWide monitor with 3440x1440 resolution.
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34U...rawide-monitor


jogiba is offline  
post #110 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 06:42 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 13
3440 is not a multiple of 1920. Expect aliasing on that.
luca_frontino is offline  
post #111 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 07:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
Vistavision is a bigger format than anamorphic 35, hence the bigger screen.
That picture shows the native aspect ratio of the screen to be 1.85:1. Which is not the largest cinema aspect ratio. Likely the facility pictured lacked the width necessary to setup a scope screen and compromised. 1.85:1 is very close to 16:9 (1.78:1) so it's not hard to extrapolate that to a home 16:9 screen and see the obvious compromise when showing a scope film. Have you really not noticed the side masking of a scope screen when showing a 1.85:1 film? The vast majority of cinemas feature a scope screen so I would think this would be something you would already be aware of.

Really it seems like you are confusing film stock with intended size and impact of the film. Resolution creates detail and size creates immersion. I can have a 4:3 still shot at 13MP on my phone and a Widescreen DVD blown up on my screen. The latter has far less resolution, but far more impact.


Last edited by jeahrens; 08-14-2014 at 07:48 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #112 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 07:41 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I tend to watch "modern" cinema, so I don't have any "golden age cinema" in my collection. If I had to watch Ben Hur on my system, I guess it would have letterboxing due to its extra wide AR. It is but one example of thousands that do work on my system.
.
It's funny that films like Ben Hur are being brought up in this discussion. A CIH setup gives us a FAR closer approximation of what that film looked like in the theater than a 16:9 setup ever could.
GreySkies likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #113 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GreySkies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Formerly Chicagoland, now Doylestown, PA
Posts: 2,440
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino View Post
3440 is not a multiple of 1920. Expect aliasing on that.
True but pedantic.

-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 online now  
post #114 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 10:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 291 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
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.
"CinemaAndy" claims to be in the cinema exhibition industry, and yet he repeatedly posts absolutely moronic things that suggest he's never actually been to a movie theater.

"Commercial projectors produce the lowest level of blacks"? What a joke. Go to any commercial digital cinema in the world and you will 100% of the time see flat contrast with milky black levels far, far, far inferior to what is available in home consumer displays. Anyone with functioning eyeballs (and more importantly, functioning brain cells) can easily see that for themselves.

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 #115 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 01:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
"CinemaAndy" claims to be in the cinema exhibition industry, and yet he repeatedly posts absolutely moronic things that suggest he's never actually been to a movie theater.

"Commercial projectors produce the lowest level of blacks"? What a joke. Go to any commercial digital cinema in the world and you will 100% of the time see flat contrast with milky black levels far, far, far inferior to what is available in home consumer displays. Anyone with functioning eyeballs (and more importantly, functioning brain cells) can easily see that for themselves.
That has been my experience as well. Similar black floor to an upper tier hometheater DLP projector.

jeahrens is offline  
post #116 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
That has been my experience as well. Similar black floor to an upper tier hometheater DLP projector.
And as I pointed out, it's not just obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain: it's irrefutable on technical grounds as well, where actual measured on/off contrast of some home theater projectors far exceed the specs of D-Cinema projectors.

(Again, not that the original challenge to these facts is to be taken seriously at all - but it's always possible less informed viewers of these threads could be led astray by bogus information, especially by people claiming industry experience, which is why it can be useful to correct bogus claims).

Rich H


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.

Last edited by R Harkness; 08-14-2014 at 02:33 PM.
R Harkness is offline  
post #117 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 02:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
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?

It has nothing to do with it showing more height and everything to do with the cinematographer wanting to capture a little more width. The extra height comes in as a bi-product of capturing a long or WIDE (key point of Scope) shot.

In the AR, the height is described as one, so how does the one in 1.85:1 become taller than the one in 2.39:1? It doesn't. The width however is certainly very different.
No one in 1.85 becomes taller, for the pan shots the zoom is back up ever so slightly giving more above and below coverage. In 2.39 it's zoomed ever so slightly in, giving more left and right coverage. It's all about lensing the format.

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 #118 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 02:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
"CinemaAndy" claims to be in the cinema exhibition industry, and yet he repeatedly posts absolutely moronic things that suggest he's never actually been to a movie theater.

"Commercial projectors produce the lowest level of blacks"? What a joke. Go to any commercial digital cinema in the world and you will 100% of the time see flat contrast with milky black levels far, far, far inferior to what is available in home consumer displays. Anyone with functioning eyeballs (and more importantly, functioning brain cells) can easily see that for themselves.
So you and R Harkness in your laboratories and 100 inch screens, can dictate what a billion dollar industry should do with it's colors and presentations? More importantly you mock the billions spent on studies that prove, you know nothing. Cuckoo Cuckoo.

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 #119 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 03:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniobiz1 View Post
Vistavision only existed as a negative format. Prints were always standard 35mm 4 perfs, projected at 1.85 (with very very few exceptions). So, nothing special (except for a better negative, so less grain). The fact that they advertised as bigger means nothing.

http://widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingvv1.htm
Even though you added a foot here or there, all the visions were the same. But 2.75, that was huge. In todays digital world, Cinerama would look awesome.

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 #120 of 153 Old 08-14-2014, 04:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,981
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 322
CinemaAndy,

I will re-state the question I've asked of you more than once already:

Do you know how projector contrast works, in terms of it's relationship to black levels? If so, the following question should be easy.
In a test in which competent set up conditions are assumed in each....

Take two projectors:

Projector A
Projector B

Projector A is capable of producing 2,100:1 native on/off contrast

Projector B is capable of producing 60,000:1 native on/off contrast

Project both projectors on to the screen sizes for which each was designed, such that both are producing industry-standard brightness of 14 fL +/-3

Compare/observe and measure the black levels. Under such conditions:

Which one of the two projectors will produce the LOWER (darker) black levels? Projector A or B?

If you work in the professional projection industry as you claim, then you should have the basic understanding of contrast allowing you to easily answer this question.

Can you answer the question, directly, please?

Rich H


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.

Last edited by R Harkness; 08-14-2014 at 04:43 PM.
R Harkness 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