Native 'Scope Projectors - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 11Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 02:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,695
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
If you're lucky enough to be able to see the Nolan films projected in IMAX 15/70mm, you'll see it's not fluff. The stunning clarity and resolution of the native IMAX footage is good enough to make me forgive the too-tall aspect ratio. Dark Knight and Interstellar were both *stunning* and I'm sure Dunkirk will be the same.
I agree with you that the big format film is pure eye candy. I just think it is fluff when made into video of 1920 x 1080.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 07:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
I agree with you that the big format film is pure eye candy. I just think it is fluff when made into video of 1920 x 1080.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
All this digital stuff is eye candy or will be eye candy shortly every bit as much as the large film formats at some point in time. It is the course of technology and our vantage points are all different based around where we came from.

I have no desire or want to ride in a car that is self-driving. I even miss shifting gears myself. To me it is a ridicules way technology is turning. Because of my vantage point. Why did they ever have to invent the automatic transmission my grandfather said. Younger people now say I cant believe you used to roll your windows down to cool off and did it with a crank and you shifted gears. Someday some kid will say I can’t believe cars had a steering wheel in them.

To me fluff isn’t the quality of the image it is the content. In a perfect shot in a film my eyes should react to things on the screen and scan around just like life. There is a limit to that movement that is nice and then stuff outside that central area if vision I’m being directed to look at is the rest of the world around us. If that area becomes too un-fluff like it now becomes the thing we look to. In that way the director will include fluff to fill out the illusion of realism.

Fluff is good.

Like you I have some movies from the 30’s and 40’s that show the film flaws as they were direct film to digital. I love those movies as much for the dust and scratches as the film itself. I have some that have the mini movie first and cartoons and a war ad. They are great as a way to turn back time. I can love that and I can also shift gears and go to a different era or all the way to modern times and enjoy the digital eye candy.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #33 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 08:50 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
You are totally missing the point.

ANY 16:9 projector out of the box displaying letter boxed material is by default CIH/IMAX.

The DIFFERENCE is, menus should not be bigger than Scope and ONLY specialized programs should be taller than Scope.

The VC lens not only changes the SHAPE of the light, it forces the 16:9 content to be the SAME HEIGHT as Scope. This keeps the IMAX portion of the screen ONLY for IMAX and not the 6 oclock news.
That's just processing though. I can easily do that on a 16:9 screen by creating a custom windows desktop resolution of 1920 x 810 or so, and then normal 16:9 content will always be stuck inside that. However, it's only 56% (0.75 x 0.75) the size of my original image. Which I find dumb.

I don't think watching Game of Thrones 44% smaller on my 16:9 screen to be appropriate so that my scope content doesn't get jealous. This is a big of ideology that gets in the way of common sense. When I watch 16:9 content, I don't scale down my window to use a smaller area in my 16:9 screen based on which content I watch, to "punish" casual shows. No, I take 100% full advantage of my projector, 100% of the time. This is because...duh, why wouldn't I. Your stance would have people literally not use their full projector size 1/2 the time, if they watch 1/2 16:9 content and half Scope content. Meaning only get 75% of the value of their projectors. I think your advice is only valid if you watch 100% scope content or have an A-lens, period.

And that's ok. Most movies are scope. But most TV shows are 16:9 (some really good ones from Netflix are in 2.0). And this is the golden age of TV so I stand by my assertion that 16:9 content is not to be put in a corner and shown at only 56% of its size, light, and resolution, on purpose. If you have the extra vertical real estate available, I say use it. Buying a projector is literally about getting the biggest possible image, otherwise just get a 4K TV and end it. If you want to treat 16:9 content as second class citizen that's fine, but I find it absurd and frankly, irrational. Not to mention all the terrific animated 3D movies which are full 16:9. Having them take up my full 120 inch wide screen is fantastic and terrific fun for everyone. If I were satisfied with a tiny screen, I'd just buy a TV and get much better image quality.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
 
post #34 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 09:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
That's just processing though. I can easily do that on a 16:9 screen by creating a custom windows desktop resolution of 1920 x 810 or so, and then normal 16:9 content will always be stuck inside that. However, it's only 56% (0.75 x 0.75) the size of my original image. Which I find dumb.

I don't think watching Game of Thrones 44% smaller on my 16:9 screen to be appropriate so that my scope content doesn't get jealous. This is a big of ideology that gets in the way of common sense. When I watch 16:9 content, I don't scale down my window to use a smaller area in my 16:9 screen based on which content I watch, to "punish" casual shows. No, I take 100% full advantage of my projector, 100% of the time. This is because...duh, why wouldn't I. Your stance would have people literally not use their full projector size 1/2 the time, if they watch 1/2 16:9 content and half Scope content. Meaning only get 75% of the value of their projectors. I think your advice is only valid if you watch 100% scope content or have an A-lens, period.

And that's ok. Most movies are scope. But most TV shows are 16:9 (some really good ones from Netflix are in 2.0). And this is the golden age of TV so I stand by my assertion that 16:9 content is not to be put in a corner and shown at only 56% of its size, light, and resolution, on purpose. If you have the extra vertical real estate available, I say use it. Buying a projector is literally about getting the biggest possible image, otherwise just get a 4K TV and end it. If you want to treat 16:9 content as second class citizen that's fine, but I find it absurd and frankly, irrational. Not to mention all the terrific animated 3D movies which are full 16:9. Having them take up my full 120 inch wide screen is fantastic and terrific fun for everyone. If I were satisfied with a tiny screen, I'd just buy a TV and get much better image quality.


This is my reasoning as well and the reason I tried to lay out in a thread my logic in a system of presentation that is right for me and I felt some other people. People are really stuck in two modes of presentation CIW & CIH. I really don’t see many people going the A-lens method in the future. There will always be a few to carry on the tradition. But with the cost factor and the 4k mostly around the corner newer folks coming at this with a fresh perspective will do more zooming and scaling. I can’t put all 16:9 content or all scope content in the same category in terms of enjoyment of immersion. The fact I did that got a lot of people up in arms. The worst part is I do respect the heritage of the movie presentation methods of the past.

Where once you had a couple types of movie content to show now you watch many more types of things some movies and some not. We are not trying to satisfy a 100 rows of seats now just one.

The nice thing about home theater is that it means different things to different people. We talk about our meaning and hopefully give people reading this stuff ideas about what they want to do also.

In the end to each their own.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #35 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 10:06 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1628
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I don't think watching Game of Thrones 44% smaller on my 16:9 screen to be appropriate so that my scope content doesn't get jealous.
I don't think watching blockbuster feature films smaller on my screen to be appropriate just so that Game of Thrones doesn't get jealous.

If the makers of Game of Thrones had expected you to watch their content on a giant immersive screen, they would have made a movie, not a TV show. I guarantee you that when Game of Thrones is finished on TV and the inevitable movie spinoff is made, it will be shot scope. No question about it.

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #36 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I don't think watching blockbuster feature films smaller on my screen to be appropriate just so that Game of Thrones doesn't get jealous.

If the makers of Game of Thrones had expected you to watch their content on a giant immersive screen, they would have made a movie, not a TV show. I guarantee you that when Game of Thrones is finished on TV and the inevitable movie spinoff is made, it will be shot scope. No question about it.
I really think the makers of Game of Thrones have spent very little time thinking about what size screen it will be watched on or how close the viewer will want to sit away from the screen.

If they are smart when they make a movie from it they will shoot it exactly the way Eastwood shot Sully and pack them into those Imax theaters and the Scope theaters. I would say if some little town only has a flat theater send them the Imax version as well. Being as it is “TV” viewing (not sure when the internet became TV) but as it is TV and TV people will likely buy the DVD/BD give them the Imax copy as well.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #37 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 11:29 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I really think the makers of Game of Thrones have spent very little time thinking about what size screen it will be watched on or how close the viewer will want to sit away from the screen.
http://winteriscoming.net/2016/07/05...screens-again/
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #38 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
Interesting.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #39 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 02:20 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1628
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If they are smart when they make a movie from it they will shoot it exactly the way Eastwood shot Sully and pack them into those Imax theaters and the Scope theaters.
The majority of movies that play in IMAX theaters are projected in scope aspect ratio.

Quote:
Being as it is “TV” viewing (not sure when the internet became TV)
Game of Thrones is an HBO series. The last I checked, HBO was a TV network.

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #40 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 07:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
The majority of movies that play in IMAX theaters are projected in scope aspect ratio.



Game of Thrones is an HBO series. The last I checked, HBO was a TV network.


Why wouldn’t the majority of movies in Imax theaters be scope. The majority of blockbuster movies they cater to are in scope. The majority of movies I play on my CIH+Imax setup at home are scope also. The bigger question is when there is an Imax and scope version of a movie how many times does Imax play the scope version?



What I should have said is when has the internet and premier entertainment become just TV. There is no difference between an HBO movie or show or a Netflix movie or a Hollywood movie. For 20 bucks a month I can watch sling tv. I can watch HBO over roku and I can watch it all on my iPhone if I want. You somehow diminish the visual impact of Game of Thrones because of how it is delivered. That’s baloney. We are living in a digital age that is changing the direction entertainment is taking. If someone feels something made for cable TV or the internet proper is excellent entertainment worthy of immersive scope or even Imax presentation just because it didn’t come thru a Hollywood channel doesn’t make it just TV. We are going to get content in many new ways in the future and IMO content is content. All this stuff is ones and zeros coming in on the same wire or glass fiber. The quality of the entertainment is not tied to the method of distribution.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #41 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 09:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1628
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I can watch HBO over roku and I can watch it all on my iPhone if I want. You somehow diminish the visual impact of Game of Thrones because of how it is delivered. That’s baloney.
You just talked about how great it is to be able to watch TV shows (and yes, Game of Thrones is a TV show, not a theatrical feature) on your iPhone, and somehow I'm the one diminishing the visual impact of that show?

Let me break this down for you as clearly as I can.

1) Theatrical features play in movie theaters. Movie theaters have large screens. (Maybe some are smaller than others, but even the smallest is larger than your home theater.) A director making a theatrical feature should have every expectation that the first-run audience can watch it on a large screen. That is the venue they're made for.

2) TV shows do not generally play in movie theaters. They play on TVs. The average TV size in the United States is 42". A large percentage of the first-run audience will watch it on a screen smaller than that, perhaps even on a 6" iPhone. That is the venue.

3) Had the makers of Game of Thrones truly wanted to ensure that their audience could and would watch the program on a huge, immersive screen, they would have made a feature film. Perhaps a trilogy of them. Instead, they chose to make it as a TV show. The compromise in making a TV show is that it's no longer made for the huge cinema screen. It's made for a 42" screen, maybe an iPhone.

4) Ipso facto, feature films take visual precedence over TV shows.

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #42 of 68 Old 06-17-2017, 05:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You just talked about how great it is to be able to watch TV shows (and yes, Game of Thrones is a TV show, not a theatrical feature) on your iPhone, and somehow I'm the one diminishing the visual impact of that show?

Let me break this down for you as clearly as I can.

1) Theatrical features play in movie theaters. Movie theaters have large screens. (Maybe some are smaller than others, but even the smallest is larger than your home theater.) A director making a theatrical feature should have every expectation that the first-run audience can watch it on a large screen. That is the venue they're made for.

2) TV shows do not generally play in movie theaters. They play on TVs. The average TV size in the United States is 42". A large percentage of the first-run audience will watch it on a screen smaller than that, perhaps even on a 6" iPhone. That is the venue.

3) Had the makers of Game of Thrones truly wanted to ensure that their audience could and would watch the program on a huge, immersive screen, they would have made a feature film. Perhaps a trilogy of them. Instead, they chose to make it as a TV show. The compromise in making a TV show is that it's no longer made for the huge cinema screen. It's made for a 42" screen, maybe an iPhone.

4) Ipso facto, feature films take visual precedence over TV shows.
So following that logic the soon to be average TV set is going to be 60 inches. And as more people buy UHD TV sets and sit a little closer all the directors of TV shows are going to adopt a new standard of filming? Then in another 2 years more people buying larger TV the size moves to 80 inch as the price goes down and the demand goes up they will once again change their method of doing things.

If I put my iPhone in a VR headset it becomes more immersive than even the largest Imax screen.

Again it is baloney IMO. And the reason different programming is designed for different levels of immersion. The news really isn’t intended to be watched very immersive, Game of Thrones very well could benefit from immersion.

You are correct Hollywood features made for the big screen should be made for a big screen presentation and immersion but sometimes that are not because they know they have dual revenue streams and of course want the few million they make in the theaters but also want the millions they will make on Walmart sales on DVD.

For me this is clear and the reason I chose a presentation method that allows me to alter immersion based on what I’m watching. I watch the “TV” show Planet Earth as if it was a feature film from Hollywood and I watch Moms Night Out when forced like it was a made for “TV” movie. The beauty of this personal system of presentation someone else can do the exact opposite if they want.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #43 of 68 Old 06-17-2017, 06:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,695
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 121
What has an of this got to do with Native Scope Projectors anyway?

I'll break it down.

Scope film, full panel - 2560 x 1080.
TV show, centre 2/3s - 1920 x 1080.
IMAX on video, same - 1920 x 1080.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #44 of 68 Old 06-17-2017, 12:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1628
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Again it is baloney IMO. And the reason different programming is designed for different levels of immersion. The news really isn’t intended to be watched very immersive, Game of Thrones very well could benefit from immersion.
Why d'ya gotta go and discriminate against the nightly news like that, Bud? You got something against Lester Holt? Everybody knows that in this new digital age the news is supposed to be a total IMAX experience. How can you possibly immerse yourself in the latest Rossen Report if you watch it at less than 175"?

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

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #45 of 68 Old 06-17-2017, 01:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Why d'ya gotta go and discriminate against the nightly news like that, Bud? You got something against Lester Holt? Everybody knows that in this new digital age the news is supposed to be a total IMAX experience. How can you possibly immerse yourself in the latest Rossen Report if you watch it at less than 175"?
As I said further in the part you didn’t quote.

“ The beauty of this personal system of presentation someone else can do the exact opposite if they want.”

Some folks are fully welcome to watch Lester as large as a Transformer if they want.

As far as I know none of the cinema standards spell out what size or immersion the nightly news with Lester Holt is supposed to be shown at. I also don’t know if they mention shows like Game of Thrones.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #46 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 08:10 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,745
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2476 Post(s)
Liked: 1628
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
As I said further in the part you didn’t quote.

“ The beauty of this personal system of presentation someone else can do the exact opposite if they want.”

Some folks are fully welcome to watch Lester as large as a Transformer if they want.

As far as I know none of the cinema standards spell out what size or immersion the nightly news with Lester Holt is supposed to be shown at. I also don’t know if they mention shows like Game of Thrones.
You can do whatever you want in your own home theater, Bud. That's personal preference. No one would begrudge you for wanting to watch The View on the largest projection screen in existence if that's what you puts you in your happy place.

But please stop trying to convince others that TV shows are actually designed to be watched as large and immersively as feature films. They are not. They never have been.

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.


Last edited by Josh Z; 06-19-2017 at 08:21 AM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #47 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 09:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You can do whatever you want in your own home theater, Bud. That's personal preference. No one would begrudge you for wanting to watch The View on the largest projection screen in existence if that's what you puts you in your happy place.

But please stop trying to convince others that TV shows are actually designed to be watched as large and immersively as feature films. They are not. They never have been.
When I watch The View I have to use a lot of keystone adjustment as the show is quite left leaning.

So let me get this straight HBO is TV because it shows Game of Thrones and HBO is always TV and TV is never to be watched immersive. But wait HBO shows scope movies but they really are not movies because they are now on TV. So I should watch them in the less immersive mode of a CIH setup as flat. Oh and it is ok for me to watch them any size I want because it is my own home theater, and I assume others with their own home theaters can do the same. But it is wrong for me to agree with RLBURNSIDE when he says he likes to watch a particular TV show (Game of Thrones) larger than CIH allows. And I should never pass that information on it will just be our little secret.

Ya I think I got it now.

I’m still not clear on auto racing and like yesterday I watched the US Open Golf in nearly Imax scale. The golfers look so tiny when the backdrop was the panoramic Erin Hills Country Club and the rolling hills and the massive sky shots. Several times I forgot I was watching golf and I thought I was in an epic panoramic movie or maybe an Imax movie about golf. But I guess that is “Just TV” as well. I am glad for the personal exemption for myself. And others personal exemption. Let’s just not talk about it.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #48 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 09:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,120
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 365
No you really don't "get it".

It's perfectly clear Josh is saying that when the people making a TV show shoot and compose it they know they are composing it for television. That will likely impact how they do so. They know that the primary target for consumption is a television. A film is composed with a target AR in mind to be shown in a cinema with the intent the AR is presented properly. Home viewing is secondary to that endeavor.

We get that you like to watch things very tall and you prefer taller AR's. We know that you feel that "Mom" movie doesn't deserve to be scope. We know that you feel Cameron's version of Dances with Wolves should be larger than scope. Honestly, that's fine. Your theater, your rules. However, none of this has anything to do with the intent of this thread which is about native scope AR projectors. So unless you have something on topic to post, it feels like this re-hash of your cinematic proclivities would be better served in a relevant thread.
jautor and Josh Z like this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #49 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 09:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 22,551
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3695 Post(s)
Liked: 2055
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
The 2nd TRANSFORMERS film did the same with the intention that when the Prime stood up, he would be really tall. Again, fluff. In fact, none of the BDs here in AU even came out in dual AR. So CIH all the way there.
I still remember that from when I watched Transformers 2 in IMAX, I actually missed most of the IMAX shots, as in I only realized occasionally it happened right at the very end of a shot. They really had no impact on the experience to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
I don't think watching Game of Thrones 44% smaller on my 16:9 screen to be appropriate so that my scope content doesn't get jealous. This is a big of ideology that gets in the way of common sense. When I watch 16:9 content, I don't scale down my window to use a smaller area in my 16:9 screen based on which content I watch, to "punish" casual shows. No, I take 100% full advantage of my projector, 100% of the time. This is because...duh, why wouldn't I.
To me that "punishes" every epic scope movie I watch in my HT. In my HT, none of the 16:9 content feels "punished", but I remember before I switched to a CIH setup, watching a scope movie was always somewhat of a let down because it was so much smaller than everything else, when it's supposed to be just the opposite.

Quote:
Your stance would have people literally not use their full projector size 1/2 the time, if they watch 1/2 16:9 content and half Scope content. Meaning only get 75% of the value of their projectors. I think your advice is only valid if you watch 100% scope content or have an A-lens, period.
That math doesn't work at all, just because I'm not using the full height, doesn't mean I'm not getting full enjoyment.

Quote:
If you want to treat 16:9 content as second class citizen that's fine, but I find it absurd and frankly, irrational.
There's nothing irrational about it. There's ~70 years of film history behind it. The idea, and ability to have a cinema-sized TV is what's new. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with that, but that doesn't make everyone who likes to maintain the showmanship and relative impact irrational
stanger89 is offline  
post #50 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 09:51 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 22,551
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3695 Post(s)
Liked: 2055
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
So let me get this straight HBO is TV because it shows Game of Thrones and HBO is always TV and TV is never to be watched immersive. But wait HBO shows scope movies but they really are not movies because they are now on TV. So I should watch them in the less immersive mode of a CIH setup as flat. Oh and it is ok for me to watch them any size I want because it is my own home theater, and I assume others with their own home theaters can do the same. But it is wrong for me to agree with RLBURNSIDE when he says he likes to watch a particular TV show (Game of Thrones) larger than CIH allows. And I should never pass that information on it will just be our little secret.
Nobody's telling you what to do in your HT, do whatever you want, we don't care.

Just don't expect a warm reception in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat forum when you come here and try to tell us we're all irrational and wrong.
Josh Z likes this.
stanger89 is offline  
post #51 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
No you really don't "get it".

It's perfectly clear Josh is saying that when the people making a TV show shoot and compose it they know they are composing it for television. That will likely impact how they do so. They know that the primary target for consumption is a television. A film is composed with a target AR in mind to be shown in a cinema with the intent the AR is presented properly. Home viewing is secondary to that endeavor.

We get that you like to watch things very tall and you prefer taller AR's. We know that you feel that "Mom" movie doesn't deserve to be scope. We know that you feel Cameron's version of Dances with Wolves should be larger than scope. Honestly, that's fine. Your theater, your rules. However, none of this has anything to do with the intent of this thread which is about native scope AR projectors. So unless you have something on topic to post, it feels like this re-hash of your cinematic proclivities would be better served in a relevant thread.
There is really no scope projector the average HT enthusiast could afford. I haven’t heard any rumblings of anyone building one in the near future as all the innovation moving forward is 4k and UHD that I’m seeing. For the OP there is really only one way to get a scope projector if that is what he is interested in. One and only way and I believe CAVX and others will agree with me is to make your own by buying an A-lens and putting it in front of your projector.

That in no way means the OP can’t enjoy CIH presentation in any number of other ways and that to himself and his guests not one single aspect of the presentation won’t be nearly identical to the scope projector (A-lens) method. But until you put the lens in there you do not have a scope projector you have a 16:9 projector. I think you will agree with me on the last point.

With a 4k projector without a lens you will have more pixels in the scope field than you would with a 1080 projector and an expensive A-lens. So it could be argued the 4k could produce a better scope experience than a 1080 / A-lens combo.

Now that’s the address to the OP and his question. The link to what one does with his new 1080 / 4k with or without a lens is the next question of concern. If he wants CIH and he has an A- lens the answer is a no brainer. He needs a scope screen. If he buys a 16:9 projector and wants CIH he should buy a scope screen. The question expands and I get in trouble is maybe he might want CIH+Imax so he can watch the 12 movies as Imax that were shot that way for some reason. There is no additional cost in projector to do this and the only additional thing that is required is a taller screen. You will agree with me that no one wants a scope screen just to look cool. Others will disagree. So if you have a 16:9 projector as you do without an A-lens making it a 2.35:1 projector there is nothing in the world keeping a person from doing CIH+Imax on a 16:9 screen. That is really the suggestion I make in terms of movie watching.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #52 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 11:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,120
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
There is really no scope projector the average HT enthusiast could afford. I haven’t heard any rumblings of anyone building one in the near future as all the innovation moving forward is 4k and UHD that I’m seeing. For the OP there is really only one way to get a scope projector if that is what he is interested in. One and only way and I believe CAVX and others will agree with me is to make your own by buying an A-lens and putting it in front of your projector.

That in no way means the OP can’t enjoy CIH presentation in any number of other ways and that to himself and his guests not one single aspect of the presentation won’t be nearly identical to the scope projector (A-lens) method. But until you put the lens in there you do not have a scope projector you have a 16:9 projector. I think you will agree with me on the last point.

With a 4k projector without a lens you will have more pixels in the scope field than you would with a 1080 projector and an expensive A-lens. So it could be argued the 4k could produce a better scope experience than a 1080 / A-lens combo.

Now that’s the address to the OP and his question. The link to what one does with his new 1080 / 4k with or without a lens is the next question of concern. If he wants CIH and he has an A- lens the answer is a no brainer. He needs a scope screen. If he buys a 16:9 projector and wants CIH he should buy a scope screen. The question expands and I get in trouble is maybe he might want CIH+Imax so he can watch the 12 movies as Imax that were shot that way for some reason. There is no additional cost in projector to do this and the only additional thing that is required is a taller screen. You will agree with me that no one wants a scope screen just to look cool. Others will disagree. So if you have a 16:9 projector as you do without an A-lens making it a 2.35:1 projector there is nothing in the world keeping a person from doing CIH+Imax on a 16:9 screen. That is really the suggestion I make in terms of movie watching.
I don't really see anyone recently asking about alternatives to a native scope projector. I see you making the same arguments made in about half a dozen other threads. Arguments that have no relevance to the thread itself. I realize I'm contributing by pointing this out, but I'd rather have no new posts than the same posts with the same tired arguments injected in places where they aren't on topic. Worse the rebuttals to posts like Josh's aren't clever and don't win any points in your favor. You knew full well what he was saying about the professionals working in TV composing their work for that medium, instead you post something ludicrous like "But wait HBO shows scope movies but they really are not movies because they are now on TV".

As always I appreciate your passion for film. But anyone interested in your chosen way to view it can read your thread. Everyone you continue to argue with understands your methodology. We all know what IMAX is. There is no need for these threads to constantly devolve into you arguing with the same people and then picking apart their answers to find some way to twist them to continue the argument.
Josh Z likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #53 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I remember before I switched to a CIH setup, watching a scope movie was always somewhat of a let down because it was so much smaller than everything else, when it's supposed to be just the opposite.
I completely agree with you and I felt exactly the same watching in CIW presentation. It is by far the worst method of presentation for movies and also TV and just about all content. It is a strict unchanging rule that is based in convince not logic.

So like you I went to CIH and felt much better about 90% of my viewing. I started feeling a little robbed of immersion in my classic Academy AR collection. Movies made before SMPTE and showed in grand movie palaces to standards of the time. I started wondering if it was my memories of these movies made me think they were more immersive than they were. I went to my old movie palace with the Academy screen long removed but the opening where the screen was still clearly there. I found old photos of the theater and it showed the screen I remember. I sat in my old seat and calculated the vertical immersion I watched as a kid and I thought they wouldn’t have ever made a screen outside the range of human vision but it seemed they did and it seemed I once enjoyed it not knowing better. I went on line and tried to answer that question and I find our vision doesn’t clip the way CIH suggests. In fact I found a lot of supporting information saying you did enjoy that as a kid. Kind of an Imax before Imax was a word. I expanded my Academy collection taller and I was at 95% feeling all was right in my projection world. A few films bugged me still. I know I was stepping outside CIH but there were these epic exceptions like Saving Private Ryan and Avatar and enough more that when I compared them to the dozens and dozens of romantic comedies and crazy collage drinking movies that became too big to handle in scope. I felt reversed cheated. Not every movie and stupid TV show Josh always says I watch as Imax. I’m talking about that last 5% and raising just that last 5% to something like CIA. Sure it is a personal choice and I do it within the overall much better CIH system.

I don’t find it such a sacrilege to CIH to say when I went to watch SPR in the movie theater I sat 7 rows closer than I normally would. And when I went to see a recent showing of Casablanca on a scope screen showing I sat 9 rows closer.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #54 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 11:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
If you're lucky enough to be able to see the Nolan films projected in IMAX 15/70mm, you'll see it's not fluff. The stunning clarity and resolution of the native IMAX footage is good enough to make me forgive the too-tall aspect ratio. Dark Knight and Interstellar were both *stunning* and I'm sure Dunkirk will be the same.
Here is a quote from the threads OP.

He is clearly liking the expanded footage of the Imax clips in the Nolan films. Maybe with 4k and no A-lens we will someday be able to get that at home.

He seemed ok with expanding the topic of discussion in the thread. If he isn’t then my sincere apologies to him.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #55 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 11:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,120
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 691 Post(s)
Liked: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I completely agree with you
No you don't. You refute that yourself in the rest of the post by stating your preference for varying how tall you want an image to be based on the importance YOU assign it. That is not what Stranger89 was endorsing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #56 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 03:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
No you don't. You refute that yourself in the rest of the post by stating your preference for varying how tall you want an image to be based on the importance YOU assign it. That is not what Stranger89 was endorsing.
Let me clarify. What I completely agreed with was this,

I remember before I switched to a CIH setup, watching a scope movie was always somewhat of a let down because it was so much smaller than everything else, when it's supposed to be just the opposite.”

I remember first watching scope movies on my old 4:3 projector with CIW, 12 years ago and intuitively knowing everything was very backwards in presentation. I set my viewing distance for where 16:9 material was comfortable my 4:3 was too big and scope too small I had limited zoom so I lived with it. It felt correct about 50% of the time, and scope was under whelming 100% of the time.

If you read what I wrote instead of reacting to it you would have read that CIH was a much better system of presentation IMO and I felt it met 90% of my needs. Could I be happy with 90% of the time having something that works rather than 50% of the time? Yes. If I was forced to pick one of the two I would pick scope. When someone asks me if they should do CIW or CIH I always recommend CIH. If they ask me about simplicity I tell them CIW is the simplest as you do nothing. If there was a scope projector I would tell them to do nothing and they would have CIH a much better solution. But then I tell them there is no such thing as a scope projector. And the simplest thing to do is the zoom method and to buy a projector that has both enough zoom and programmable zoom and then CIH becomes easy with a 16:9 projector. When they ask what size and shape screen I would recommend I tell them if you are height limited as in the distance you want to sit from the screen is fixed then get a scope screen. If you are not height limited get a 16:9 screen as it matches your projector. I don’t tell them now that you have a 16:9 screen start watching everything CIW. Actually when I can I tell them don’t even buy a screen at first paint a wall white and use that because no one knows at first how much immersion they like and many people within a short time wish they had a larger screen. when they think they have it figured out I tell them get a 16:9 screen so you can watch the expanding Imax movies or if you really want to look cool get a scope screen and on those movies that expand will light up on the ceiling and be distracting.

You are correct though I should have said to Stranger89 is “I completely agree with him 90%.” Even though I agreed with him 100% that watching scope movies on a CIW setup leaves me 100% of the time wising they were larger.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #57 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 03:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,695
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
So let me get this straight HBO is TV because it shows Game of Thrones and HBO is always TV and TV is never to be watched immersive. But wait HBO shows scope movies but they really are not movies because they are now on TV.
How many of those "scope" shows were shown in the cinema?

I don't have HBO and only had a trail run with NetFlix.

GAME OF THRONES is a (very well produced) TV series covering 6 seasons. It has never had a cinematic debut. It if did, I can almost guarantee it would have been Scope for the cinema given how grand the production is.

THE CLONE WARS is also a TV series that also went to 6 seasons. However the VERY first screening is a full length feature film that WAS shown in cinemas back in 2008. They made it Scope to fit in with the other STAR WARS films and cropped it back to 16:9 for TV.

So when you watch the "Panned and Scanned" versions of THE CLONE WARS, you are meant to watch them at the same height as if they were Scope, not the same width.

I feel that because you don't own an anamorphic lens, you don't have to scale for CIH, that you don't fully understand what we are talking about.

Same can be said for the countless times people have posted that they thought their 16:9 image was too small when doing the zoom method. Then stop comparing the letter box to the zoomed image and find a full height 16:9 image to do your comparison with.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #58 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,695
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
You are correct though I should have said to Stranger89 is “I completely agree with him 90%.” Even though I agreed with him 100% that watching scope movies on a CIW setup leaves me 100% of the time wising they were larger.
Over the weekend, I watched WONDER WOMEN in a CIW cinema (I went there because it was DOLBY ATMOS) and once the feature started and the masks were in place, I did have to question why they didn't make these cinema CIH. Who cares about the pre-show filling the wall. I don't. The movie starts and suddenly the image height is way smaller than the previous add. It is not how it should be done. It was 4K though and it did look nice, but it should be the SAME height as the previous programing. It has been called "public TV" in the past and I have to agree.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #59 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 03:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,695
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
I still remember that from when I watched Transformers 2 in IMAX, I actually missed most of the IMAX shots, as in I only realized occasionally it happened right at the very end of a shot. They really had no impact on the experience to me.
This is a classic example of "fluff". It was supposed to make Prime look HUGE and yet 99% of the public didn't see the "IMAX" version at the cinema and unless you had access to a WalMart special, didn't get it on BD either.

My version is a straight letterbox and I watch it in Scope.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #60 of 68 Old 06-19-2017, 04:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,481
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

GAME OF THRONES is a (very well produced) TV series covering 6 seasons. It has never had a cinematic debut. It if did, I can almost guarantee it would have been Scope for the cinema given how grand the production is.

What if Game of Thrones happens to have a special cinematic release as some sort of a promotional thing and shows it on Imax Screens again.

I guess you missed the link RLBURNSIDE posted. Here it is again.

http://winteriscoming.net/2016/07/05...screens-again/

HBO condoned the Imax release and the fans loved it. Seems in that case the only true cinematic presentation at home should be with a CIH+Imax setup and showing it in its proper level of immersion as HBO would like you to see it in. Imax at home.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
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