Manual zoom CIH w/ short-throw projector? (W1080ST) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 Old 08-11-2014, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Manual zoom CIH w/ short-throw projector? (W1080ST)

So I've started thinking about getting a Benq W1080ST and using that on a coffeetable because it would also give me the flexibility of using it in my backyard when the weather is nice.

However, I considered that this might also give me the chance to do CIH 2.35 at a very low budget too, since the projector would simply be sitting on a table with the zoom control easily available.

Any thoughts on pulling this off with a 2.35 aspect ratio screen? So long as I'm not moving the projector, focus should be relatively unaffected by zoom, right?
sumitagarwal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 Old 08-12-2014, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Usually zooming also affects the centering of the image. In other words, a projector will not usually zoom evenly in the vertical - the image may shift up or down. Since I don't think this projector has lens shift, you would have to tilt the projector when zooming as well - not a good idea.


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  
post #3 of 25 Old 08-12-2014, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Usually zooming also affects the centering of the image. In other words, a projector will not usually zoom evenly in the vertical - the image may shift up or down. Since I don't think this projector has lens shift, you would have to tilt the projector when zooming as well - not a good idea.
Thanks John, I guess its either that or shift the screen up/down using whatever additional black drop it has, right?

I've never had a tensioned electric screen before, do they allow you to retract to arbitrary positions or only full-up and full-down?
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #4 of 25 Old 08-12-2014, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
Thanks John, I guess its either that or shift the screen up/down using whatever additional black drop it has, right?

I've never had a tensioned electric screen before, do they allow you to retract to arbitrary positions or only full-up and full-down?
Sure on the black drop.

The only screens I know of that have multiple up / down positions are rather pricey ones from Stewart. However there are tons of screen options out there I have never evaluated.


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  
post #5 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 09:14 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
My previous 2 projectors were both DLP's with no lens shift and John is completely correct. The image would not remain centered when zooming in and out. I would look at one of the inexpensive Epson's with manual shift. That would do what you want it to.

jeahrens is offline  
post #6 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 09:33 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
My previous 2 projectors were both DLP's with no lens shift and John is completely correct. The image would not remain centered when zooming in and out. I would look at one of the inexpensive Epson's with manual shift. That would do what you want it to.
Thanks guys, I'm feeling like either it makes sense for me to step up to a JVC LCOS for CIH 2.35 or just stick with standard CIW and an inexpensive projector. Monkeying around with screen position, lens adjustment, etc while I have guests over would just be annoying and silly.

Think I'll probably pull the trigger on a W1070 (only $609 refurbished direct from BenQ!) and ceiling mount. Sure, a JVC X35 is very attractive and I can afford it, but at more than 4x the price (plus more expensive 2.35:1 screen) there's absolutely no way I can justify it, especially when the BenQ has better motion resolution, brightness, and gaming lag anyway. The money saved means I can upgrade far sooner if I'd like to. The other high-performance non-CIH option is the Sony HW40, but again can't justify it at 3x the price. The other powered-lens CIH option is the Panasonic AE8000, but again can't justify it at over 3x the price and aging performance. I think if the HW40 had a powered lens I'd go for it.
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #7 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 10:31 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 sumitagarwal View Post
Thanks guys, I'm feeling like either it makes sense for me to step up to a JVC LCOS for CIH 2.35 or just stick with standard CIW and an inexpensive projector. Monkeying around with screen position, lens adjustment, etc while I have guests over would just be annoying and silly.

Think I'll probably pull the trigger on a W1070 (only $609 refurbished direct from BenQ!) and ceiling mount. Sure, a JVC X35 is very attractive and I can afford it, but at more than 4x the price (plus more expensive 2.35:1 screen) there's absolutely no way I can justify it, especially when the BenQ has better motion resolution, brightness, and gaming lag anyway. The money saved means I can upgrade far sooner if I'd like to. The other high-performance non-CIH option is the Sony HW40, but again can't justify it at 3x the price. The other powered-lens CIH option is the Panasonic AE8000, but again can't justify it at over 3x the price and aging performance. I think if the HW40 had a powered lens I'd go for it.
As an RS46 (which is the same as an X35) owner I will tell you the motion and brightness of the unit are very good. I came from an Infocus DLP and I can't find any real fault in the motion handling. The brightness is just fine lighting up my 130" scope screen. In fact the iris is stopped down. About the only way brightness would be an issue would be 3D. I'm projecting onto a $300 Monoprice scope screen and it looks great. So you don't have to break the bank for a screen if you don't want to.

I do get what you are saying. The cost is definitely there. Gaming would be better on the BenQ. 3D would certainly be better. I recently went to a Home Theater crawl in Eastern IA and saw a Sony 55ES, a Sony VW 600ES (4K) and a JVC RS49. The RS46 holds up well in comparison when watching non-3D Blu Ray. In my opinion it and the Sony 55ES are both bargains for the picture quality you are getting at the price. The RS46 will certainly hold me over until there is a native 4K unit that is close in price and features.

jeahrens is offline  
post #8 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 10:40 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
As an RS46 (which is the same as an X35) owner I will tell you the motion and brightness of the unit are very good. I came from an Infocus DLP and I can't find any real fault in the motion handling. The brightness is just fine lighting up my 130" scope screen. In fact the iris is stopped down. About the only way brightness would be an issue would be 3D. I'm projecting onto a $300 Monoprice scope screen and it looks great. So you don't have to break the bank for a screen if you don't want to.

I do get what you are saying. The cost is definitely there. Gaming would be better on the BenQ. 3D would certainly be better. I recently went to a Home Theater crawl in Eastern IA and saw a Sony 55ES, a Sony VW 600ES (4K) and a JVC RS49. The RS46 holds up well in comparison when watching non-3D Blu Ray. In my opinion it and the Sony 55ES are both bargains for the picture quality you are getting at the price. The RS46 will certainly hold me over until there is a native 4K unit that is close in price and features.
Yea, this is for a living room with decent light control. I think once I have a dedicated space, which may be in a couple years, I'll go whole hog CIH with the JVC equivalent at that time and, hopefully, 4K. My viewing is generally very "social" and with people who are generally content to watch Netflix on their laptops, certainly not people who will compare their LCOS to my DLP and make notes...
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #9 of 25 Old 08-14-2014, 11:43 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 sumitagarwal View Post
Yea, this is for a living room with decent light control. I think once I have a dedicated space, which may be in a couple years, I'll go whole hog CIH with the JVC equivalent at that time and, hopefully, 4K. My viewing is generally very "social" and with people who are generally content to watch Netflix on their laptops, certainly not people who will compare their LCOS to my DLP and make notes...
Sure. Most people equate projectors with what they saw in school or the boardroom, so even the BenQ will blow them away. To bad the BenQ doesn't have an anamorphic mode. An inexpensive 2 prism lens makes a nice setup option without breaking the bank.

jeahrens is offline  
post #10 of 25 Old 08-17-2014, 05:03 AM
Senior Member
 
Keith AP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Sure. Most people equate projectors with what they saw in school or the boardroom, so even the BenQ will blow them away. To bad the BenQ doesn't have an anamorphic mode. An inexpensive 2 prism lens makes a nice setup option without breaking the bank.
The BenQ W1070 does have the ability to stretch the image vertically for use with an anamorphic lens, as well as a 4:3 mode to compress a 16:9 image for the same.
Keith AP is offline  
post #11 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:20 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 Keith AP View Post
The BenQ W1070 does have the ability to stretch the image vertically for use with an anamorphic lens, as well as a 4:3 mode to compress a 16:9 image for the same.
Hmm that contradicts what I read in Art's review:

"Anamorphic Lens - Wide Screen

The W1070 doesn’t support an anamorphic lens. Why? Because it’s sort of silly to pair a $1500 - $4000 anamorphic lens with a $1000 projector."

If it does, hopefully the original poster considers that option. Having used a 2 prism lens the compromises don't outweigh the gains in my opinion.

jeahrens is offline  
post #12 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:23 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Hmm that contradicts what I read in Art's review:

"Anamorphic Lens - Wide Screen

The W1070 doesn’t support an anamorphic lens. Why? Because it’s sort of silly to pair a $1500 - $4000 anamorphic lens with a $1000 projector."

If it does, hopefully the original poster considers that option. Having used a 2 prism lens the compromises don't outweigh the gains in my opinion.
This is very interesting, although I'm completely unfamiliar with 2-prism lens setups... got a link to product info/prices?

Also, I've ordered the W1070!
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #13 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:28 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
This is very interesting, although I'm completely unfamiliar with 2-prism lens setups... got a link to product info/prices?

Also, I've ordered the W1070!
Nevermind... Googled it and reading up!
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #14 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Keith AP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Hmm that contradicts what I read in Art's review:

"Anamorphic Lens - Wide Screen

The W1070 doesn’t support an anamorphic lens. Why? Because it’s sort of silly to pair a $1500 - $4000 anamorphic lens with a $1000 projector."

If it does, hopefully the original poster considers that option. Having used a 2 prism lens the compromises don't outweigh the gains in my opinion.
I see the OP mentioned the 1080ST and not the 1070 (I missed that). I think the 1080ST is the "short throw" version and likely wouldn't work because the 1070 is right on the borderline for use with a lens. I should know, I'm using the Panamorph Cinevista with mine and the best throw ratio I can get with the 1070 is about 2.5+ - the Cinevista's minimum and a good amount of pincushion.
Keith AP is offline  
post #15 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:36 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith AP View Post
I see the OP mentioned the 1080ST and not the 1070 (I missed that). I think the 1080ST is the "short throw" version and likely wouldn't work because the 1070 is right on the borderline for use with a lens. I should know, I'm using the Panamorph Cinevista with mine and the best throw ratio I can get with the 1070 is about 2.5+ - the Cinevista's minimum and a good amount of pincushion.
Correct, although I (the OP) did end up ordering the W1070 instead ($610 refurb direct from BenQ was too good to pass up).

I see here that they sell pre-aligned mounted prism pairs, but I would assume these are not the right size for what I need? http://www.thorlabs.com/newGroupPage...ctGroup_id=149
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #16 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:43 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
Unfortunately I don't think that the 1070 has the necessary mode to use a lens (I can see where Keith got confused). I did a quick search and could not find any evidence that it does. I used a $300 CAVX 2 prism lens with my previous Infocus X10 and it put out a very nice scope (2.35:1) picture. There may be an inexpensive way to get the necessary scaling. Maybe someone else will chime in with a suggestion.

*Edit it looks like some Oppo BD players can do the anamorphic stretch for use with a lens.


Last edited by jeahrens; 08-19-2014 at 02:48 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #17 of 25 Old 08-19-2014, 02:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Keith AP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 291
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
Correct, although I (the OP) did end up ordering the W1070 instead ($610 refurb direct from BenQ was too good to pass up).

I see here that they sell pre-aligned mounted prism pairs, but I would assume these are not the right size for what I need? http://www.thorlabs.com/newGroupPage...ctGroup_id=149
That would be outside my realm of experience - can't comment on that.
Keith AP is offline  
post #18 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 08:50 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am very much surprised how many releases now have shifting aspect ratios during the feature! There's the obvious Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises, but also now The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and even Wes Anderson's Grand Budapest Hotel (which includes a specific on-screen instruction to set your screen to 16x9). Added to this are some releases in pure 16x9 instead of 1.85:1 (Avengers) and I'm thinking the most forward-looking option may indeed be a simple 16x9 CIW screen.

What do you guys think? Shifting aspect ratios just a fad? 16x9 Blu-ray releases also just a fad?

For older films (especially European ones) I'd like to see more Blu-ray releases that open up the image closer to the original European 1.66:1 release instead of the American 1.85:1... of course 16x9 neatly splits this difference and is probably an ideal option for older non-anamorphic international films.
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #19 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 09:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
What do you guys think? Shifting aspect ratios just a fad?
Yes, while there's "more" the rate at which they come out hasn't really changed.

Quote:
16x9 Blu-ray releases also just a fad?
No. There's no sign that the scope/flat split is going to change any time soon.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stanger89 is online now  
post #20 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 10:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
I am very much surprised how many releases now have shifting aspect ratios during the feature! There's the obvious Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises, but also now The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and even Wes Anderson's Grand Budapest Hotel (which includes a specific on-screen instruction to set your screen to 16x9).
The depends on your definition of "many." The only Blu-rays with shifting aspect ratios for greater height during IMAX scenes are:

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart "Big Screen Edition" only)
Tron Legacy
Star Trek into Darkness (upcoming "Star Trek Compendium" box set only)

Of these, the primary retail release of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is 2.35:1 CIH, as is the original Blu-ray release of Star Trek into Darkness.

Presumably, Christopher Nolan's upcoming Interstellar will have shifting aspect ratios as well. Possibly also Guardians of the Galaxy.

But that's it. That's all of them. Every one of these movies played (or will play) at 2.35:1 CIH in all non-IMAX theaters and are composed to be safe for CIH projection.

I would consider movies like Grand Budapest Hotel and Life of Pi to be in a different category. Life of Pi is really a 1.85:1 movie with a couple of scenes that are letterboxed for effect. It's intended to be viewed at 1.85:1. The letterbox bars are part of the movie.

Similarly, Grand Budapest Hotel is primarily pillarboxed 4:3. Specific scenes shift to full-screen 16:9 or letterboxed 2.35:1. But, again, it's meant to be viewed in 16:9, and both the letterbox and pillarbox bars are an intentional part of the movie.

Quote:
Added to this are some releases in pure 16x9 instead of 1.85:1 (Avengers) and I'm thinking the most forward-looking option may indeed be a simple 16x9 CIW screen.
The difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1 is a few scan lines and is negligible. Some studios (including Paramount and Warner) open the mattes on all 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 as a matter of policy. This doesn't alter the compositional intent of the photography, and no filmmakers have ever complained about it.

I think it would be instructive for you to look through your personal movie collection to see what aspect ratio the majority of movies you own or typically rewatch are. That will help to guide your screen ratio decision.

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 #21 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 11:04 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The depends on your definition of "many." The only Blu-rays with shifting aspect ratios for greater height during IMAX scenes are:

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart "Big Screen Edition" only)
Tron Legacy
Star Trek into Darkness (upcoming "Star Trek Compendium" box set only)

Of these, the primary retail release of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is 2.35:1 CIH, as is the original Blu-ray release of Star Trek into Darkness.

Presumably, Christopher Nolan's upcoming Interstellar will have shifting aspect ratios as well. Possibly also Guardians of the Galaxy.

But that's it. That's all of them. Every one of these movies played (or will play) at 2.35:1 CIH in all non-IMAX theaters and are composed to be safe for CIH projection.

I would consider movies like Grand Budapest Hotel and Life of Pi to be in a different category. Life of Pi is really a 1.85:1 movie with a couple of scenes that are letterboxed for effect. It's intended to be viewed at 1.85:1. The letterbox bars are part of the movie.

Similarly, Grand Budapest Hotel is primarily pillarboxed 4:3. Specific scenes shift to full-screen 16:9 or letterboxed 2.35:1. But, again, it's meant to be viewed in 16:9, and both the letterbox and pillarbox bars are an intentional part of the movie.



The difference between 16:9 and 1.85:1 is a few scan lines and is negligible. Some studios (including Paramount and Warner) open the mattes on all 1.85:1 movies to 16:9 as a matter of policy. This doesn't alter the compositional intent of the photography, and no filmmakers have ever complained about it.

I think it would be instructive for you to look through your personal movie collection to see what aspect ratio the majority of movies you own or typically rewatch are. That will help to guide your screen ratio decision.
Definitely strong advice. I actually did look through my collection and was very surprised at how much of it is 2.35:1, which kicked off my search for a CIH solution. However, some of my most heavily played discs are actually in between (2001 Space Odyssey and Baraka, both of which are 2:1).

I'm considering mounting the screen slightly low such that it could be partially-retracted and give 2.35:1 at a comfortable viewing height, with the image electronically shifted up (I assume the W1070 allows this?). This would let me do an appropriate screen retraction and image shift for any arbitrary aspect ratio wider than 16x9, at CIW.
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #22 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 12:01 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 sumitagarwal View Post
Definitely strong advice. I actually did look through my collection and was very surprised at how much of it is 2.35:1, which kicked off my search for a CIH solution. However, some of my most heavily played discs are actually in between (2001 Space Odyssey and Baraka, both of which are 2:1).

I'm considering mounting the screen slightly low such that it could be partially-retracted and give 2.35:1 at a comfortable viewing height, with the image electronically shifted up (I assume the W1070 allows this?). This would let me do an appropriate screen retraction and image shift for any arbitrary aspect ratio wider than 16x9, at CIW.
Well a 2 prism lens can be had for under $500. That along with an Oppo player would allow you to use an actual scope screen and enjoy a CIH setup. The lens I am getting rid of even had a slide to allow you to easily switch back and forth. There's even instructions on the DIY subforum to build one. The BenQ may support digitally moving the picture. And while that along with masking will help with perceived contrast, it still means that scope films are MUCH smaller than a 1.85:1 presentation.

The shifting aspect ratio discs are a pretty small number. I tend to just watch them at 1.85:1 unless the changes are infrequent. The Hunger Games, for instance, just has one switch. So for that I pause the film and switch aspect ratios. The rest I just watch in 1.85:1 and enjoy it. It's no worse than being stuck with a CIW setup.

jeahrens is offline  
post #23 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sumitagarwal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Well a 2 prism lens can be had for under $500. That along with an Oppo player would allow you to use an actual scope screen and enjoy a CIH setup. The lens I am getting rid of even had a slide to allow you to easily switch back and forth. There's even instructions on the DIY subforum to build one. The BenQ may support digitally moving the picture. And while that along with masking will help with perceived contrast, it still means that scope films are MUCH smaller than a 1.85:1 presentation.

The shifting aspect ratio discs are a pretty small number. I tend to just watch them at 1.85:1 unless the changes are infrequent. The Hunger Games, for instance, just has one switch. So for that I pause the film and switch aspect ratios. The rest I just watch in 1.85:1 and enjoy it. It's no worse than being stuck with a CIW setup.
While at this point I understand that we are really only talking about a single film and getting bent out of shape about it would be ridiculous, I do want to point out the interesting fact that what you're doing actually seems like the opposite of the filmmakers' artistic intent: the full-frame portions of the film are supposed to feel bigger than the scope portions.

This is also the case for Dark Knight and other multi-aspect action films: its interesting that back in the day 'scope was implemented as a way to get a bigger experience than 1.85, but now "IMAX" ratios are being implemented as a way to get a bigger experience than 'scope! Funny how things get flipped on their head and everything that was old is new again and vice versa.

Which of course has no bearing on whether or not a theater should be set up for the majority of one's viewing (in my case 2.35). I just thought it is interesting how the norms of film presentation keep changing and in some cases folding back over itself over time.
sumitagarwal is offline  
post #24 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 12:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post
However, some of my most heavily played discs are actually in between (2001 Space Odyssey and Baraka, both of which are 2:1).
Both 2001 and Baraka were shot on 65mm film and have an aspect ratio of 2.2:1. That's very close to 2.35:1. You could zoom your projector out a little to fit their height to the screen without much effort.

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 #25 of 25 Old 08-20-2014, 12:36 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 sumitagarwal View Post
While at this point I understand that we are really only talking about a single film and getting bent out of shape about it would be ridiculous, I do want to point out the interesting fact that what you're doing actually seems like the opposite of the filmmakers' artistic intent: the full-frame portions of the film are supposed to feel bigger than the scope portions.

This is also the case for Dark Knight and other multi-aspect action films: its interesting that back in the day 'scope was implemented as a way to get a bigger experience than 1.85, but now "IMAX" ratios are being implemented as a way to get a bigger experience than 'scope! Funny how things get flipped on their head and everything that was old is new again and vice versa.

Which of course has no bearing on whether or not a theater should be set up for the majority of one's viewing (in my case 2.35). I just thought it is interesting how the norms of film presentation keep changing and in some cases folding back over itself over time.
I think you may be misinterpreting. For the majority of shifting aspect ratio films I leave the projector in its 1.85 mode, so the largest picture is the Imax picture and the scope portions occupy the same width (meaning there are bars above and below). The Hunger Games is the only exception. And in that case, the Imax frames are as large as they would be if I was using a CIW setup.

As far as intent, the Imax scenes in all of these titles are cropped to fit in the 1.78:1 frame from their original 1.37:1 ratio. So in reality you are not going to get the Imax impact in the home presentations we have thus far. And I doubt that changes. To many complaints from viewers about pillar boxing.

Because the majority of homes will be much more height limited (7-9' celings) Imax is not likely to really be a screen buying consideration even if studios started releasing content in its native ratio. So we're left with 99% of films being released in either 2.35:1 or 1.85:1, which a CIH setup is a wonderful solution for.

jeahrens is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat
Gear in this thread - (W1080ST) 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