Convince me to go CIH - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 60Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 02:31 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
uscpsycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Convince me to go CIH

I have read quite a few debates of CIH vs 16:9. It seems like it always ends up being people passionate about CIH vs people rational about 16:9. After everything I've read I just can't get myself to commit to 2.4. It seems artificially limiting. I am actually trying to talk myself into 2.4 but I haven't seen anything persuasive enough to convince me.

Assume: 1) Room is very dark 2) Screen wall is black 3) The screen width is as big as possible 4) Seating distance is constant 5) ONLY variable is how tall the screen is

In that case isn't a scope movie going to look EXACTLY the same whether it is projected onto a 2.35 screen or a 16:9 screen? If you disagree, please explain why will the movie look better just because you eliminate the unused screen space which you can't even see? If I could get some compelling answers to this question I might be convinced.

I mean, given the above factors, what difference does it make if the screen is even 1:1 so long as the image projected onto it looks the same as on a 2.35 screen?

On the flip side, for the times you will be watching 16:9 content, if you have a CIH screen the 16:9 content will be compromised, it will not look EXACTLY the same on a 2.35 screen as on a 16:9 screen. Seems like a 16:9 literally gives you the best of both worlds without making any compromises. This is why it seems like limiting yourself with a 2.35 screen is illogical.

What am I missing? I need a rational reason. Don't tell me that 2.35 is better just because a 16:9 screen allows me to watch I Love Lucy larger than your favorite 2.35 movie. That's an emotional argument and not a logical argument. Tell me why watching your favorite 2.35 movie is better if it is projected onto a 2.35 screen rather than projected onto a 16:9 screen. I'm hoping some logical and rational responses to this could convince me to go with a 2.35 screen.

The most persuasive thing I can think of is with the lights on a scope screen will look more theater-like and possibly more impressive. And yes, I do want my theater to look impressive with the lights on but it's more important for it to be impressive with the lights off.

tl;dr If a 2.35 movie is projected onto a screen that is X inches wide, what difference does it make how tall the screen is if the projected image looks the same?
uscpsycho is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 04:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Regardless if you zoom or if you use an anamorphic lens, scope images on a CIH system are 78% larger than the letter box version everyone else is watching. That is not trivial.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
rboster and shivaji like this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 04:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
You sound like your logic is quite close to mine. I started a thread and even gave my system of presentation a name I called it PIA or personal image area. If you have read a lot of the debate you have seen this thread but I will link it as it contains a lot of pro and con arguments on presentation.
PIA setup (perfect image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA
A very few people use a method they call CIH + Imax and that uses a 16:9 screen. The people that use that system are very strict with themselves to never unmask the full 16:9 frame unless the movie says Imax or it is a scope movie with expanding sequences that are intended to be shown in an Imax theater.
I follow the logic of CIH + Imax to some degree but the faithful here will tell you that you can’t call yourself CIH if you ever once consider watching something non-scope taller than scope unless it is clearly labeled Imax. I personally watch movies and all kinds of other content even photo slide shows of family vacations and I want to show them as large or small as I like. There is debate also as I watch a lot of classic old Academy ratio movies filmed before scope was ever thought about and the ones that are remastered well I like a level of immersion I remember as a kid and that exceeds what CIH would allow. There are many great things out there that are not even movies like Planet Earth Series that to me are more Imax than they are flat and I watch them at a PIA that is to my liking. A movie like Avatar is a great example of a movie that becomes better for me presented taller and more immersive than CIH would allow. The director even said he liked the movie (as he released it two different ways) in the more immersive Imax mode. You wouldn’t have had to go to an Imax Theater to see it that way just go to a regular flat presentation theater and watch it sitting closer to the screen. For me immersion is why we have FP home projection and zoom features on our projectors. We don’t have the option of selecting our row at home most of us have just one. So to change immersion we have to zoom or move our furniture. Likewise if I want to binge watch old TV shows like MASH giving that an Imax size screen does not improve the experience. I would actually watch that at a size smaller than CIH would allow.
Here is where I come down on the issue CIH is much better than CIW. CIH + Imax is an improvement over CIH. The size screen you would use for CIH + Imax is the perfect size screen if you feel you need a screen and not just a projection wall as a screen. You have a projector with a field of 16:9 why wouldn’t you want a screen to match it even if you rarely ever used the top and bottom of it. The exception would be a room with a low ceiling and you wanted to accommodate some number of viewers in a wide seating array and to do that you needed a greater seating distance so you would go with a scope screen. That case the room is height limited. There really isn’t a width limited room as in that case you have to shove your seating closer or limit your immersion for scope and scope is an AR that many movies benefit by wider immersion. On the other hand you will hear a lot that 50% of all new movies are in scope and almost 100% of the action blockbusters are. There are also a lot that are released in scope just because they can be and the movie benefits very little by stretching your side to side vision to the limits. Just like no one wants to watch MASH with Imax immersion. Directors will do what directors do and it is not my place to agree or not. I should have the option to decide what row I want to sit in to watch a movie though and that’s what my system does. You have a bit of an advantage at home as we watch movies more than once and we can preview them on line first and even look at the pictures on the box to get a feel for how immersive we would like. When you go to the movies and get there late you just take the seat that is left.

I agree a scope screen looks more movie theater like to some when the lights are up. It all depends on how you see a theater in your mind. I see it as a monster 4:3 screen in a 1930’s movie palace. You are right it doesn’t matter when the lights go down.

This discussion always turns around to Human field of vision (fixed gaze and with eye movement) and what AR that comfortably fills. NASA the Air Force and numerous medical studies have been done along with tracking vision during watching of motion pictures and they suggest a taller FOV than what scope provides. Imax backs that up, but some of the motion picture associations have other contradictory ideas that support scope as the limits of FOV. That’s something you can determine for yourself.

Then there is masking 2 way, 4 way, or none at all. It can be very simple and cheap or very complex and expensive.

My suggestion is to always start if possible with a painted wall as a screen larger than what you ever think you would need. Select a projector that has a zoom range to support all the above or provide a method of moving the projector as you learn your preference for immersion and style of presentation. Watch for a few weeks as if you had a scope screen doing CIH then watch it as CIW and even try CIA and lastly experiment with PIA. Pick what works for you and go with it.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
 
post #4 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 05:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Regardless if you zoom or if you use an anamorphic lens, scope images on a CIH system are 78% larger than the letter box version everyone else is watching. That is not trivial.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
It is even worse than that assuming you are talking about people watching fixed size flat panels at home. Most of the modern world now is watching 16:9 sets and most are watching 42” to 50” TVs.

They are sitting 4,5, or 6 times the screen height away where 2 or 3 screen heights away would be a decent level of movie like immersion. Then a grand scope movie comes on and gets letter boxed and their immersion goes down to 5,6, or7 screen heights and they complain how they hate scope and then hit a button on their remote and zoom the movie up and chop off the ends and ruin the directors intent. Even with doing that they are still 200% smaller than they should be to get the full effect of immersive viewing.

To me a 50” TV is huge but not huge enough if you want a cinema experience. Those levels of immersion are pretty good though for watching a TV sitcom or the news and weather.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #5 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 06:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 97
@bud16415 When Imax was 70mm film and Scope was 35mm film + 2x Lens, then yes, Imax had an advantage. In the digital world that just is not the case any more. Now Imax is just a big TV using 2K projectors and where many cinemas projecting CinemaScope (zoom method CIH) are using 4K projectors.

There are limits to how tall a screen can or should be. Imax films were generally shorter (40min) than the 2+ hours of cinema. Why? Because of the sensory overload such tall images tend to have on the audience. There is just too much visual information to process. CinemaScope was designed to make the film presentation more immersive by being much wider, yet not fatiguing. This happens because our eyes (which are side by side on our heads) tend to be able to scan left and right all day without issue. They fatigue when you make them scan up and down.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #6 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 07:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 579 Post(s)
Liked: 307
I wouldn't try to convince anyone.

My PJ is native 16:9 and because I use 2.40 without any type of animorphic lens I am only using my setup with my HTPC (which is fine actualy) ...

In my room my 16:9 screen was as big as practical but I still had room to go on for width. Plus I got my scope screen for free.

I love the 2.40 setup but if someone was on the fence about it there's no need to even try it just keep things simple and stick to the 16:9 and live happily ever after and all that.
Brian Hampton is offline  
post #7 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
uscpsycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Regardless if you zoom or if you use an anamorphic lens, scope images on a CIH system are 78% larger than the letter box version everyone else is watching. That is not trivial.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
This is not true. In my case the scope image will be EXACTLY the same regardless of the how tall the screen is. The width is the same in both cases so I can watch 2.4 or I can watch 16:9 and they will both have the same width. Only difference is the 16:9 image will be taller.

How in the world would chopping the top and bottom off of a 16:9 screen, to make it 2.35, change anything at all? This is some kind of voodoo magic.

It's actually the reverse, people who are watching 16:9 content on a 16:9 screen actually have a much bigger picture than people watching 16:9 on a CIH. That is why I see 16:9 as best of both worlds. If you really think a scope image on a CIH screen is 78% bigger, given all the factors I listed above, please explain how that happens because to me what you are saying here is impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
A very few people use a method they call CIH + Imax and that uses a 16:9 screen. The people that use that system are very strict with themselves to never unmask the full 16:9 frame unless the movie says Imax or it is a scope movie with expanding sequences that are intended to be shown in an Imax theater.
I follow the logic of CIH + Imax to some degree but the faithful here will tell you that you can’t call yourself CIH if you ever once consider watching something non-scope taller than scope unless it is clearly labeled Imax.
This is exactly what I thought. These are people who are artificially limiting themselves because they think there is something impure about having a 16:9 screen. So then they invent something called CIH+IMAX to make themselves feel better about having that 16:9 screen.

This actually kind of proves my point, scope content looks the same on a 16:9 screen but purists will only allow it if you promise to never watch I Love Lucy any bigger than a scope movie. It really sounds like an artificial limitation so that you can be in the CIH club.

Am I wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I agree a scope screen looks more movie theater like to some when the lights are up. It all depends on how you see a theater in your mind. I see it as a monster 4:3 screen in a 1930’s movie palace. You are right it doesn’t matter when the lights go down.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. It doesn't matter when the lights go down. So the most rational reason to limit yourself to a CIH screen is because you think it looks better with the lights on. This is valid, people make all kinds of tradeoffs for aesthetics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
This discussion always turns around to Human field of vision (fixed gaze and with eye movement) and what AR that comfortably fills. NASA the Air Force and numerous medical studies have been done along with tracking vision during watching of motion pictures and they suggest a taller FOV than what scope provides. Imax backs that up, but some of the motion picture associations have other contradictory ideas that support scope as the limits of FOV. That’s something you can determine for yourself.
It shouldn't turn around to this. Ever.

I am not asking isn't if 2.35 or 16:9 is superior which is what all that FOV research is about. The question is why not watch a scope movie on a 16:9 screen so long as the scope movie will look IDENTICAL on the 16:9 screen as the 2.35 screen?

This is such a logical question that there is no need to bring in any of that other stuff. In my case (and probably for most people) we aren't looking for any kind of scientific research about aspect ratios. We're just asking what is wrong with throwing a scope image onto a 16:9 screen as long as it looks the same as if it were on a scope screen? That's it. I don't think any medical study is required to answer this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is even worse than that assuming you are talking about people watching fixed size flat panels at home. Most of the modern world now is watching 16:9 sets and most are watching 42” to 50” TVs.

They are sitting 4,5, or 6 times the screen height away where 2 or 3 screen heights away would be a decent level of movie like immersion. Then a grand scope movie comes on and gets letter boxed and their immersion goes down to 5,6, or7 screen heights and they complain how they hate scope and then hit a button on their remote and zoom the movie up and chop off the ends and ruin the directors intent. Even with doing that they are still 200% smaller than they should be to get the full effect of immersive viewing.

To me a 50” TV is huge but not huge enough if you want a cinema experience. Those levels of immersion are pretty good though for watching a TV sitcom or the news and weather.
This doesn't really apply to the 2.35 vs 16:9 debate. You're just talking about why watching scope movies on a flat panel sucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
@bud16415 When Imax was 70mm film and Scope was 35mm film + 2x Lens, then yes, Imax had an advantage. In the digital world that just is not the case any more. Now Imax is just a big TV using 2K projectors and where many cinemas projecting CinemaScope (zoom method CIH) are using 4K projectors.

There are limits to how tall a screen can or should be. Imax films were generally shorter (40min) than the 2+ hours of cinema. Why? Because of the sensory overload such tall images tend to have on the audience. There is just too much visual information to process. CinemaScope was designed to make the film presentation more immersive by being much wider, yet not fatiguing. This happens because our eyes (which are side by side on our heads) tend to be able to scan left and right all day without issue. They fatigue when you make them scan up and down.
Again, this has nothing to do with the debate. Let people have a giant 1:1 screen if they so choose. The scope movie is going to look the exact same on that screen no matter how tall it is.

The question is not what the theoretically tallest screen should be. The question is, what is wrong with watching a scope movie on a taller screen as long as that movie will look EXACTLY the same as it would projected onto a taller screen?

I am not interested in theories or any of that. It's great that some people are purists and are passionate about having a screen that has a certain aspect ratio. But as long as the screens are the same width I haven't seen anything that suggests there is a shred of difference what you project a scope movie onto. The experience with the lights off is the same. I mean, some people advocate watching movies ON THE WALL to decide what aspect ratio screen you want. Now, that wall has the crappiest aspect ratio of all, but a scope movie looks the same on a wall as on a 16:9 screen as on a 2.35 screen (yes, of course pq is better on a screen but that's not the point).

Going CIH just seems like nothing more than a personal preference. If that's what it is that's what people should say.
uscpsycho is offline  
post #8 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 09:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
@bud16415 When Imax was 70mm film and Scope was 35mm film + 2x Lens, then yes, Imax had an advantage. In the digital world that just is not the case any more. Now Imax is just a big TV using 2K projectors and where many cinemas projecting CinemaScope (zoom method CIH) are using 4K projectors.

There are limits to how tall a screen can or should be. Imax films were generally shorter (40min) than the 2+ hours of cinema. Why? Because of the sensory overload such tall images tend to have on the audience. There is just too much visual information to process. CinemaScope was designed to make the film presentation more immersive by being much wider, yet not fatiguing. This happens because our eyes (which are side by side on our heads) tend to be able to scan left and right all day without issue. They fatigue when you make them scan up and down.
The field of our vision is something the OP will have to figure out for himself. I agree our side vision without moving our eyes is 180 degrees and with eye movement we can see behind us. We are quite accustomed to that wide field of view even if what we can actually see detail with is super narrow.

Try looking at a word on your screen and without looking away from that word read the word 3 lines up from it. Most people don’t realize our eyes are scanning devices and never stop moving if the item of interest isn’t in our central vision we quickly scan to it. IMAX the original filled the extremes of our vision but kept the items of interest in a smaller frame of reference. Many new movies filmed in Imax the new AR of 1.90:1 do the same thing. After all they are going to multi release it in 2.39:1 also.

Clint Eastwood shot Sully with Arri Alexa 65 as a 6.5k source code. Of course we can’t get or play that at home the best I can do is BD. You can call the 1.90:1 version big tv but it would contain everything the 2.39:1 movie contained plus all the top and bottom that was chopped off. I don’t see any problem using a 16:9 projector and being able to give myself a somewhat Imax presentation at home. Without a 16:9 Imax sized screen I couldn’t do that. If I want to watch Sully as scope I can do that on the same screen.

I’m not advocating anyone do CIW with a 16:9 screen because that is the worst of all presentation methods and that is just a big TV.

You can see the comparison here. https://www.imax.com/news/sully-aspe...io-change-imax
They say you get 26% more image and I didn’t hear of people getting eye strain watching 96 minutes of Sully

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #9 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscpsycho View Post
I have read quite a few debates of CIH vs 16:9. It seems like it always ends up being people passionate about CIH vs people rational about 16:9.
What makes you think that 16:9 is more "rational" than CIH?

Quote:
What am I missing? I need a rational reason. Don't tell me that 2.35 is better just because a 16:9 screen allows me to watch I Love Lucy larger than your favorite 2.35 movie. That's an emotional argument and not a logical argument.
It's clear that you came here just to start an argument. You demand that people give you a rational reason, and then attempt to pre-emptively undermine that reason by dismissing it outright.

I Love Lucy is not supposed to be larger than Star Wars, or Indiana Jones, or whatever scope blockbuster you favor. It simply isn't. That isn't how either piece of content was made or how they were intended to be watched.

Quote:
This is not true. In my case the scope image will be EXACTLY the same regardless of the how tall the screen is. The width is the same in both cases so I can watch 2.4 or I can watch 16:9 and they will both have the same width. Only difference is the 16:9 image will be taller.
This is your problem right here. You're thinking of CIH all backwards. The intent of CIH is to start with the largest 16:9 picture you could possibly want, and then go even wider for scope - not to crop it down to make scope smaller.

On a proper CIH screen, Jurassic Park, Pacific Rim, Game of Thrones or whatever other 16:9 content you like should be as magnificently huge as you'd ever desire it to be - and then Lord of the Rings stays the same height but goes wider.
jautor, shivaji, appelz and 2 others like this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #10 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 10:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscpsycho View Post

Am I wrong?

When scope was invented the intent was to be a grand wide image and look different than the less wide same height image people were used to and to also look different than TV AR that was then 4:3.

I can respect that tradition. It is not a whole lot different than people putting curtains on the side of their screen or building a little stage below it, or eating popcorn out of a red and white box. It is the way things were and for many how they feel is the way it should always be. I don’t have issues with wanting to maintain a tradition.

In general scope should take center stage to flat because the director had the AR in mind or should have when he picked it. Just like TV had 4:3 in mind for many years and now has 16:9 in mind. If you watch prime time TV as CIW on a projector set up to present epic scope movies as nicely immersive the TV shows will quickly make you want to throw up. They are thinking about the guy with a 42” tv setting 12’ back when they film them. It is your right to do that if you want and I’m not one that will say doing that will deprive you of your next block buster scope experience. I will just tell you the TV that large sucks for me. So in that way I will say there is something to CIH presentation. And in the next breath I will tell you the TV series Planet earth works pretty well as Imax size.

I’m a proponent of do what you like and buy a screen to match the AR of your projector, but not the size you will need it all to watch normal TV on.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #11 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
shivaji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,718
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 654 Post(s)
Liked: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscpsycho View Post
I have read quite a few debates of CIH vs 16:9. It seems like it always ends up being people passionate about CIH vs people rational about 16:9. After everything I've read I just can't get myself to commit to 2.4. It seems artificially limiting. I am actually trying to talk myself into 2.4 but I haven't seen anything persuasive enough to convince me.

Assume: 1) Room is very dark 2) Screen wall is black 3) The screen width is as big as possible 4) Seating distance is constant 5) ONLY variable is how tall the screen is

In that case isn't a scope movie going to look EXACTLY the same whether it is projected onto a 2.35 screen or a 16:9 screen? If you disagree, please explain why will the movie look better just because you eliminate the unused screen space which you can't even see? If I could get some compelling answers to this question I might be convinced.

I mean, given the above factors, what difference does it make if the screen is even 1:1 so long as the image projected onto it looks the same as on a 2.35 screen?

On the flip side, for the times you will be watching 16:9 content, if you have a CIH screen the 16:9 content will be compromised, it will not look EXACTLY the same on a 2.35 screen as on a 16:9 screen. Seems like a 16:9 literally gives you the best of both worlds without making any compromises. This is why it seems like limiting yourself with a 2.35 screen is illogical.




What am I missing? I need a rational reason. Don't tell me that 2.35 is better just because a 16:9 screen allows me to watch I Love Lucy larger than your favorite 2.35 movie. That's an emotional argument and not a logical argument. Tell me why watching your favorite 2.35 movie is better if it is projected onto a 2.35 screen rather than projected onto a 16:9 screen. I'm hoping some logical and rational responses to this could convince me to go with a 2.35 screen.



The most persuasive thing I can think of is with the lights on a scope screen will look more theater-like and possibly more impressive. And yes, I do want my theater to look impressive with the lights on but it's more important for it to be impressive with the lights off.

tl;dr If a 2.35 movie is projected onto a screen that is X inches wide, what difference does it make how tall the screen is if the projected image looks the same?
What size 16x9 screen do you have now? What size 2:35 screen could you fit on your wall if you wanted one? The best of both worlds "in my opinion" is to have the biggest 2:35 image that will work for you in your room and also have the perfect size 16x9 within that screen size.
shivaji is online now  
post #12 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 10:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This is your problem right here. You're thinking of CIH all backwards.

The counter argument is the largest 16:9 image I would ever want would be an Imax presentation of some content that the director planned in advance for it to be shown in Imax theaters. Take Sully as an example or Avatar. If I say that is the max 16:9 image I would ever want, then my scope screen will be impossibly wide. If I selected Jurassic Park at the max height size my scope screen would be still too wide. If I picked reruns of MASH for my perfect height then my scope screen would be too small.

For me there is no interconnection between AR’s it is content and image quality that determines size. With one other factor personal preference. Many of my guests don’t enjoy the same level of immersion I do.

But to the OP’s question you leave yourself the options with the 16:9 screen.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #13 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 11:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Take Sully as an example or Avatar. If I say that is the max 16:9 image I would ever want, then my scope screen will be impossibly wide.
The Sully Blu-ray and UHD are both constant height 2.40:1, so that's a moot point.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #14 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 11:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 1,810
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 222
@uscpsycho

There are some things I don't think you are considering here. You are asking about being convinced to CIH. Which is Constant Image Height. Emphasis on the constant. With a constant height scope will be 78% larger. That's a mathematical fact. The arguments about 16:9 being larger simply aren't accurate

You are also not considering how seating distances play into the equation. You are looking at a scope scenario with the same width as 16:9 and as others point out that isn't how you would set this up. You would use the image height and go from there as others have pointed out. In your scenario you infer that the width is a constant and you can't do this. So that is where the seating distance comes into play. For example, say you have an 8' practical width and you are seated 10' back, you can install the scope screen of the same width and adjust your seating closer (say to 8') until the perceived image is every bit as big as it is now. Except scope is 78% larger.

CIH certainly requires a bit more effort. But it's well worth it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #15 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 02:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The Sully Blu-ray and UHD are both constant height 2.40:1, so that's a moot point.
It might be a moot point now as it is an initial recent movie offering is still going on. I will be surprised if the three or 4 disc set wont come up at some point offering the unseen Imax version. Otherwise why spend the money on shooting it with that equipment if it will never be offered past the first release at a limited number of Imax locations.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #16 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 02:11 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It might be a moot point now as it is an initial recent movie offering is still going on. I will be surprised if the three or 4 disc set wont come up at some point offering the unseen Imax version. Otherwise why spend the money on shooting it with that equipment if it will never be offered past the first release at a limited number of Imax locations.
Because the movie was actually composed for 2.40:1 - as most of Clint Eastwood's directorial efforts are.

Several other scope movies have played in IMAX theaters with special open-matte, screen-filling versions exclusive to IMAX. Skyfall, Prometheus, and Oblivion all did that. Yet the home versions for all were 2.40:1 because that was their directors' actual preference. The open-matte versions were an IMAX-exclusive gimmick, only to ever be seen in IMAX theaters.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #17 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,566
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscpsycho View Post
This is not true. In my case the scope image will be EXACTLY the same regardless of the how tall the screen is. The width is the same in both cases so I can watch 2.4 or I can watch 16:9 and they will both have the same width. Only difference is the 16:9 image will be taller.
So you are just click baiting? Why come to the CIH forum if you have already made your mind up about how glorious your 16:9 screen is? It makes me wonder did you do the same in 4 x 3 days?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!

Last edited by CAVX; 04-23-2017 at 05:32 AM.
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 03:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drunkpenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 4,116
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1330 Post(s)
Liked: 1333
Convince you? Why? What do I care if you do it or not? If you wanted to be cool and popular you would already have a CIH setup.
dlinsley, Josh Z, coolrda and 5 others like this.

Just 'cause you're right doesn't mean I'm wrong
drunkpenguin is offline  
post #19 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 04:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,861
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Honestly, the OP lost me at calling CIH users "passionate" and 16:9 users "rational". Give me a break. You came here to start an argument, but I'll bite anyway. In your case, no, I wouldn't suggest a CIH setup. You are width limited. End of story.

But why did I choose CIH? One reason was that I was height limited and could go very wide. Also, with projection your seating distance really should be determined by the height of the screen. In general, I would sit around 1.5x the screen height away. So, if you go with CIH, you're sitting as close as you should no matter whether it's a 16:9 picture or a 2.35:1 picture. Your peripheral vision will be OK with the extra width and, yes, LOTR should look bigger than Wedding Crashers, for example, and I'm going to go so far as to say you're wrong if you feel differently. I also have a lens, so I don't zoom because I have no desire to see overspill above and below the screen (yes, you can still see it with a black wall I don't care what anyone says).
mtmason likes this.
blastermaster is offline  
post #20 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 05:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 1,615
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 584 Post(s)
Liked: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It might be a moot point now as it is an initial recent movie offering is still going on. I will be surprised if the three or 4 disc set wont come up at some point offering the unseen Imax version. Otherwise why spend the money on shooting it with that equipment if it will never be offered past the first release at a limited number of Imax locations.
http://www.slashfilm.com/sully-shot-on-imax/ Sounds like Eastwood wanted to give it a try.

https://www.imax.com/news/sully-aspe...io-change-imax
bud16415 likes this.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...eap-build.html
My width limited HT: Epson HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 13/15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.3; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 2 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 4 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 04-21-2017 at 05:41 PM.
steve1106 is online now  
post #21 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 06:39 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
yes, LOTR should look bigger than Wedding Crashers, for example,
Wedding Crashers is also a scope movie. Maybe Sleepless in Seattle?
blastermaster likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #22 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 06:41 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
The graphic on that page is a totally BS comparison purposefully misleading to make it look like the scope version of the scene crops out most of the airplane, when in fact the camera pans down to show the entire plane in both versions of the shot.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #23 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 07:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,861
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Wedding Crashers is also a scope movie. Maybe Sleepless in Seattle?
I didn't know that. I have a crappy blu ray double feature of Wedding Crashers and the Wedding Singer and they're both in 16:9.
blastermaster is offline  
post #24 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 08:38 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,432
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2266 Post(s)
Liked: 1509
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
I didn't know that. I have a crappy blu ray double feature of Wedding Crashers and the Wedding Singer and they're both in 16:9.
Really? The standalone Blu-ray of Wedding Crashers from Warner Bros. is definitely scope. The Wedding Singer, on the other hand, was always 1.85:1, which Warner has a policy of opening up to 16:9.

Is your double-feature disc the Canadian release from Alliance? Unfortunately, they're known for sometimes dumping cropped HDTV broadcast masters onto disc.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is online now  
post #25 of 133 Old 04-21-2017, 11:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,861
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Really? The standalone Blu-ray of Wedding Crashers from Warner Bros. is definitely scope. The Wedding Singer, on the other hand, was always 1.85:1, which Warner has a policy of opening up to 16:9.

Is your double-feature disc the Canadian release from Alliance? Unfortunately, they're known for sometimes dumping cropped HDTV broadcast masters onto disc.
Yup, it is. And I've actually come to really enjoy the movie especially because of Rachel McAdams (Omigosh she is awesome) so now that I know this I am going to get the scope version of the movie. Sorry to derail the thread a bit here.

For the record, though, there is definitely a rationale for going CIH that has nothing to do with passion although I doubt anyone here is not passionate about movies.
blastermaster is offline  
post #26 of 133 Old 04-22-2017, 06:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The graphic on that page is a totally BS comparison purposefully misleading to make it look like the scope version of the scene crops out most of the airplane, when in fact the camera pans down to show the entire plane in both versions of the shot.
Are you saying that Imax intentionally doctored that footage of the movie with some kind of pan and scan to make it look like Imax is more immersive than scope? Are you telling us that if we went and saw both presentations of those two clips side by side they would be different than what is shown on their web page? Of course they cherry picked that footage they could have shown a hundred other places in the movie that showed more immersion in just the same way. Eastwood shot the movie in 1.9:1 and made an Imax movie and he then had to crop it for scope. He didn’t want to show half of Sully’s head so he cropped the other main character in the movie the airplane. In the Hudson river footage he wanted to show the immensity of the river and the relative smallness of the airplane again he shot the perfect shot he wanted in 1.9:1 and I’m sure had a quandary as to foreground or background to eliminate. He eliminated the horizon because he wanted to maintain the feeling of distance in the shot. The Imax version without a doubt has more impact and it is not straining the viewers with them trying to take it all in a split second it is just filling out the immersion and telling a story. It is not BS it is what it is. A scope version could have contained all that the Imax version shows us and also included more of the land to each side. The problem with doing that the airplane would be so small the viewer wouldn’t know what he was supposed to be looking at. You cant judge one bit of footage by what is shown a few seconds later.

Unfortunately they might not give us the chance to watch Sully at home as Imax. To me it seems like there would be more money to be made releasing it both ways on BD as it would fit 99.99% of the TV’s better that way once the initial Imax theater showing was done. If I had a new 80” flat panel and knew I would loose no image watching Sully as 1.9:1 or letter boxed as scope I would feel cheated, same would be true for someone with CIH + Imax.


As to LOTR and comparing it to other movies it should dwarf in immersion you know my feeling is sit in whatever row of the theater you like. A better comparison of film being shot to be seen in an epic immersive scope presentation my two favorites would be LOTR and Mom’s Night Out. I just can’t get enough of Trace Adkins playing Bones the wacky biker dude and filling up my FOV with cinemascope splendor.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #27 of 133 Old 04-22-2017, 07:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MovieSwede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 6,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 85
One other important aspect of CIH is that you remove the letterbox bar from the projection screen it will look like you get added contrast to the image

I was given a demo of this in a store and by removing grey letterbox bars your eyes adapt and the image just looked better. I would guess that your eyes/brain adapt to the brightness of the image and to the dark frame that surrounds it.
uscpsycho likes this.
MovieSwede is offline  
post #28 of 133 Old 04-22-2017, 07:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post
One other important aspect of CIH is that you remove the letterbox bar from the projection screen it will look like you get added contrast to the image

I was given a demo of this in a store and by removing grey letterbox bars your eyes adapt and the image just looked better. I would guess that your eyes/brain adapt to the brightness of the image and to the dark frame that surrounds it.
You are very correct. I have found also different people have different levels of distraction by gray bars. Many come to my theater and if I’m too lazy to adjust my 4 way masking never mention it and when asked about it after the movie say they never noticed. Over the last few years even commercial theaters around here don’t bother with masking.

The biggest thing I have found about gray bars and masking is if the seating distance is fairly immersive they bother me a lot less. That is the reason I think people say they are not bothered with side gray bars on a scope screen but are very bothered with top and bottom gray bars when watching scope on a CIW screen. it is not so much the location of the bars as it is when you show scope on a CIW screen you diminish the immersion quite a bit.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #29 of 133 Old 04-22-2017, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny Okanagan
Posts: 1,861
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 470 Post(s)
Liked: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
As to LOTR and comparing it to other movies it should dwarf in immersion you know my feeling is sit in whatever row of the theater you like. A better comparison of film being shot to be seen in an epic immersive scope presentation my two favorites would be LOTR and Mom’s Night Out. I just can’t get enough of Trace Adkins playing Bones the wacky biker dude and filling up my FOV with cinemascope splendor.
But what if your "theater" only has one row (like mine)? When I made the comparison of LOTR with Wedding Crashers, I thought the rom-com was in 16:9. So what I meant was that where I'm sitting (which is where I always sit because it's my HT) I feel like LOTR should be bigger in scope than a rom-com shot in 16:9.

As far as going to an actual theater is concerned, I'm sure most of us know the ideal place to sit in terms of sight and sound. So arguing that you can move wherever you want to make the movie more immersive doesn't hold water for me. At the ideal location, an epic movie like LOTR should be bigger than Sleepless in Seattle (thanks JoshZ).
blastermaster is offline  
post #30 of 133 Old 04-22-2017, 09:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,136
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 902 Post(s)
Liked: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastermaster View Post
But what if your "theater" only has one row (like mine)? When I made the comparison of LOTR with Wedding Crashers, I thought the rom-com was in 16:9. So what I meant was that where I'm sitting (which is where I always sit because it's my HT) I feel like LOTR should be bigger in scope than a rom-com shot in 16:9.

As far as going to an actual theater is concerned, I'm sure most of us know the ideal place to sit in terms of sight and sound. So arguing that you can move wherever you want to make the movie more immersive doesn't hold water for me. At the ideal location, an epic movie like LOTR should be bigger than Sleepless in Seattle (thanks JoshZ).
I 100% agree. I also have a one row theater at home, something I prefer. Because of the scale of the screen size to the seating distance at home compared to a movie theater one row difference at home is equal to about 30 rows in a commercial theater. So it will always be a compromise at home dialing in a level of immersion for both rows.

This idea of being able to pick your seat and level of immersion is the reason I started the thread on the method of presentation I like best and I called it PIA. Here is the thread if you want to talk about that it would be a good place to do it as we are getting a little off topic here. PIA setup (perfect image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA

The idea is with zoom and a Imax size screen for your seating distance you can have the equivalent to 50 rows of seats at home with a single row of seats. When I watch LOTR I watch it full blown scope presentation. When I watch Sleepless in Seattle I watch it as CIH. When I watch Avatar I watch it as if I was in an Imax theater fully immersed. When I watch reruns of MASH I watch it non immersive as if it was on a big TV. If I watch a poor transfer of a classic B&W western movie I watch it like I was in the back 1/3 of the seats in a movie theater. On the same note if I watch a perfect re-mastered movie like Citizen Kane I watch it like I was sitting in the front 1/3 of a 1920 movie palace. Auto Racing in 1080p I will watch Imax size with all the graphics they plaster around the screen. Regular TV is a modest size.

The big advantage to a projector over a flat panel TV isn’t the size of the image you can project. It is that you have control over the size with the touch of the zoom. In terms of movie watching you change your seat row with the touch of the same button. That can only happen if you start off with the biggest screen you will ever need. IMO.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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