Native 'Scope Projectors - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 11Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 68 Old 06-10-2017, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 655 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Native 'Scope Projectors

I have no idea how I missed this memo, but Barco has a couple of residential-oriented DLP projectors with native 2.37:1 DLP chips. The resolution is 2560X1080, enabling display of 'Scope motion pictures in a native widescreen format without the use of an anamorphic lens (obviously a scaler is required).

I've long thought that this would be an interesting approach. What I don't know is how these projectors compare price-wise to a 16:9 projector with anamorphic lens.
dschulz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 68 Old 06-11-2017, 03:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,688
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 478
This was tried a few years back by Projection Design IIRC, and it was just a higher res 16:9 chip masked down and used as 2.35:1. The problem was they were (and still are) very expensive, which made using a 1080 pj and good quality anamorphic lens a cheaper option.

With 4K and fauK projectors at considerably cheaper prices than the 2.35 DLPs, I can't see many people buying them, as a 4k pj with a lens or even using the shrink method, you will get more resolution, and depending on what image parameters are important to you, a better overall image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #3 of 68 Old 06-11-2017, 05:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I have no idea how I missed this memo, but Barco has a couple of residential-oriented DLP projectors with native 2.37:1 DLP chips. The resolution is 2560X1080, enabling display of 'Scope motion pictures in a native widescreen format without the use of an anamorphic lens (obviously a scaler is required).

I've long thought that this would be an interesting approach. What I don't know is how these projectors compare price-wise to a 16:9 projector with anamorphic lens.
Back in 2010, (I got to see) the projectior Gary talks about. It used a 2560 x 1440 chip with an internal mask to create a 2560 x 1080 projector. The idea was neat, but the $45000 price tag had us all thinking that even spending $9K on an ISCO + any projector less than $35K to be the better choice. Do that on a low, high brightness projector and I think it could have been a winner.

From an end user perspective, this was the same as leaving the anamorphic lens in place the entire time, which I do for simplistic use reasons. So basically, even when watching 16:9 or 4 x 3 program, the projector itself is still projecting a 2.37:1 rectangle of light.

When you move the A-Lens, you have a 16:9 image of light for 16:9 content.

As for scaling, there wasn't really any issues because it used bi-cubic scaling. Sure it is not mapped 1:1, but the same amount of vertical is applied to the horizontal. It basically just electronically zoomed the letterbox image to fill its imaging chip. Scaling to use an A-Lens requires careful remapping to work and whilst the level of scaling is very good these days, there are those that will argue the fact that it can never be as sharp as true 1:1 scaling.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
 
post #4 of 68 Old 06-11-2017, 06:03 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1385
Masking the DMD makes it impossible to do "software lens shift" which can allow you do lower the Scope image within the 16:9 frame without any artifacts. (effectively increasing lens shift range or even allowing optics-free lens shift which is sharper).

The only reason to mask a DMD instead of just run it in 16:9, it seems to me is for black level in the letterbox areas, that's it. I don't see a big advantage to DIY with some masking strips outside the projector. Some guy did it on his w1070 and it apparently works really well (like a makeshift frame outside the projector to black out parts which should be blacked out).

If I had a 1440p native 16:9 projector I'd much rather keep it as 16:9, as it would be a good improvement 1080p one, for both Windows desktop and UHD content regardless of the aspect ratio. Not to mention if you did use an a-lens you could do the anamorphic stretch and get nearly the full vertical resolution out of typical scope content (1440 vs 1600 or so lines).

We're in the era of cheap-ish 4K projectors coming upon us, so I see a-lenses being useful for lumens support for HDR or 3D or super large screens, and that's it. Or for 1080p projectors to get actual native anamorphic content (3840 x 1600 -> 1920 x 1080 fullframe downscale. Currently this is only possible in one step via a PC but an Oppo 203 + HD Fury linker can do it in two steps: anarmophic stretch at 4K, then 4K -> 1080p downscale. Not as good but still better than 1920 x 800 surely).
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #5 of 68 Old 06-11-2017, 07:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
All some manufacture has to do is call a 3840 x 2160 projector a CIH +Imax ready projector. With a push of a button you can toggle between CIH and for those expanding AR movies to Imax push the button again. Some 1080 projectors already had that feature I had something similar 11 years ago in a projector even. But now with UHD you shouldn’t need anything except a bit of enhanced control in the projector. If someone wanted the increased brightness over the 2.35 array of pixels I’m sure a moving lens inside the light path could do that as well.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #6 of 68 Old 06-11-2017, 07:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
At 3840 x 2160, it is not a CIH + IMAX projector, it is just a 16:9 projector.
To make it CIH+IMAX, you would need to incorporate a Vertical Compression lens on a sled. In CIH mode (VC in the light path) you toggle between Letterbox and 4 x3 modes. In IMAX mode, you use 16:9 or real and remove the VC lens from the light path.

If you didn't want to use the VC Lens on a sled, you could use OPPO's 0.5x zoom option which window boxes 16:9 content.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 68 Old 06-12-2017, 04:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
A million people are doing CIH without an add on lens, and could just as easily be doing CIH+Imax.

A 3840 X 2160 projector is just a 16:9 projector only if you chose to think of it that way. if you chose to think of it as a CIH+Imax projector then that is what it is. All you need to make it that is a projector manufacture to have 3 presets that turn off the pixels that don’t comply with the mode you select. That’s all they did with DVision Scope 1080p projector. It was mostly a gimmick but they added something to the light path to squeeze the light from the unused pixels down onto the 2.35:1 pixel array.

I never understood the obsession with using every pixel and every lumen of light. With these UHD projectors cropping the 2.35 image out of the array gives you more pixels still than a 1080 system with a lens and brightness in terms of unit brightness or the brightness of any given pixel is exactly the same. The vast majority of light a projector puts out is wasted and never viewed. There is all the internal wasted light because anything except pure white has some part of the light consumed inside the projector and once the light comes out and hit the screen only a very tiny amount of that lands on our optic nerve. The rest soaks up in the room. Projection by its nature has always been a wasteful process going back to film.

I get the idea wanting the best image and the most light for HDR and people that own a lens or need the most out of their system possible wanting every pixel in play when viewing scope. Some people want screens as large as they can and could be taxing the projectors lumens unless they used all the brightness. But then again projectors keep getting brighter and better resolutions. People that have been 100% happy with 1080 and an A-lens would be at least as happy with 4k and no A-lens it would seem.

I can kind of see why a $30,000 projector saying it was native scope never took off.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #8 of 68 Old 06-12-2017, 05:45 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
A million people are doing CIH without an add on lens, and could just as easily be doing CIH+Imax.
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.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #9 of 68 Old 06-13-2017, 03:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
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.
I’m getting the point exactly and with a couple lines of code in the projector, the projector all by itself can do the exact same thing, for all practical purposes. Of course with scaling to do CIH or CIH+Imax you don’t use all the pixels like you do with a lens and compression, and you also loose brightness in the scope image because it is constructed from part of the pixel array rather than all of it. There are benefits the biggest being you don’t need to spend all the money on a lens and possibly a curved screen and a motorized sled if you want the lens in and out of usage. Setup is much easier as you would just set it and forget it.

My old Sharp XR10X did this even but with a CIH mode between 16:9 and 4:3 and that was 12 years ago. I know some of the 1080 projectors had this function also for scope and 16:9. Putting it in a 4k projector and calling it a (CIH + Imax ready) projector would be simple to do. If you didn’t want the simplistic version of CIH then just forget the code is in there and use a lens.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #10 of 68 Old 06-13-2017, 05:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I’m getting the point exactly and with a couple lines of code in the projector, the projector all by itself can do the exact same thing, for all practical purposes.
It is not the same thing. A 16:9 projector is a 16:9 projector that projects a 1.78:1 rectangle of light. The DP "native" Scope projector was still a 16:9 projector. The difference here was due to an internal mask, it projected a 2.37:1 rectangle of light.

Adding an anamorphic lens (either HE or VC) turns a 16:9 projector into a projector that now projects 2.37:1.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #11 of 68 Old 06-13-2017, 08:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
It is not the same thing. A 16:9 projector is a 16:9 projector that projects a 1.78:1 rectangle of light. The DP "native" Scope projector was still a 16:9 projector. The difference here was due to an internal mask, it projected a 2.37:1 rectangle of light.

Adding an anamorphic lens (either HE or VC) turns a 16:9 projector into a projector that now projects 2.37:1.
What is the difference if I tear a DLP projector apart and cover the top and bottom rows of mirrors up to make it 2.35:1 or I send those mirrors the signal to shut down? Is it the tiny bit of stray light that might come off the inactive pixels we are talking about? Many people are dealing with that now doing zoom CIH the difference is if they want 16:9 they have to zoom as to not have it Imax size or CIW. If the projector would scale the flat image to fit in the scope image then you have a CIH+Imax projector.

If the unit brightness and pixel density is good enough on a 4k projector to watch Imax then nothing changes watching flat or scope. Same FL same pixel size.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #12 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 02:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
What is the difference if I tear a DLP projector apart and cover the top and bottom rows of mirrors up to make it 2.35:1 or I send those mirrors the signal to shut down? Is it the tiny bit of stray light that might come off the inactive pixels we are talking about?
That is the difference right there. I love DLP but they don't deliver true blacks, so masking the chip is the only way to prevent that stray light leaving the via the lens. Or you scale and use an A-Lens.

Quote:
Many people are dealing with that now doing zoom CIH the difference is if they want 16:9 they have to zoom as to not have it Imax size or CIW. If the projector would scale the flat image to fit in the scope image then you have a CIH+Imax projector.
One of the zoom modes in the OPPO is a "1/2" size and it would be perfect for this. So basically, you set the 16:9 screen as IMAX, play letterbox movies on that screen (with top/bottom mask panels in place) and use this 1/2 mode for 16:9, again with the masks in place. It is probably the cheapest way to do this.

In the meantime, I will stick with my HE A-Lens and Scope screen.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 03:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 610 Post(s)
Liked: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
With 4K and fauK projectors at considerably cheaper prices than the 2.35 DLPs, I can't see many people buying them, as a 4k pj with a lens or even using the shrink method, you will get more resolution, and depending on what image parameters are important to you, a better overall image.

I'm rather uncertain or confused. Initial first impressions of the Optoma UHD 65 seem to suggest that a 2.35:1 Blu-ray will not significantly look sharper or more detailed despite the improved DMD resolution and many Oppo UDP-203 owners don't think that the upscaling of Blu-rays to UHD yields a significant improvement in terms of image resolution, either (just a handful of UHD films that appeal to my taste are not enough, yet, to make me seriously think about upgrading).


IMHO, TI missed an opportunity with the new DMD chips, i.e. a physical DMD resolution that's compatible with 2.35:1 UHD content and FullHD 1.78:1 content to be displayed "pillar-boxed" within a 2.35:1 screen would have constituted a golden compromise.


The way I see it flat screens will continue to cannibalize the projector segment, unless projector manufacturers look into means and ways to establish and promote 2.35:1 home theater projection as an exclusive you just can't get with flat screens.
bud16415 likes this.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #14 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 04:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
That is the difference right there. I love DLP but they don't deliver true blacks, so masking the chip is the only way to prevent that stray light leaving the via the lens. Or you scale and use an A-Lens.



One of the zoom modes in the OPPO is a "1/2" size and it would be perfect for this. So basically, you set the 16:9 screen as IMAX, play letterbox movies on that screen (with top/bottom mask panels in place) and use this 1/2 mode for 16:9, again with the masks in place. It is probably the cheapest way to do this.

In the meantime, I will stick with my HE A-Lens and Scope screen.
I think we are on the same page.

As to masking that is always going to be a concern to some people more than others and if it is a problem then you have to figure out a system that works for each person within their budget.

Instead of having to have an OPPO with the ½ size option there is no reason IMO that function shouldn’t be included in the projector and thus the projector could then be promoted as a CIH+Imax UHD projector. If you want a scope screen then it is a Scope projector you just never hit the Imax button. If you want to use a lens you hit the anamorphic button and it compresses the image and outputs it in full 16:9 frame and uses one of the zoom presets to fit the screen. One projector could easily be all things for all people.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #15 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 04:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,688
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked: 478
I'm using a Panasonic UB700 upscaling BD to 4k, and the image looks a little better to me than at 1080, but I do sit at 2x the screen height of the scope screen, so maybe that's why. I also prefer the image with an anamorphic lens, so will eventually add that back into the system - more pixels means smaller pixels and although scaling can soften an image, overall it's using more display resolution so gives the impression of a more solid image, with smoother transitions between pixels due to the image being less course than when using less (larger) pixels.

Ideally you need to do the comparisons yourself and see what looks better to you and then decide.
Frank714 likes this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #16 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 05:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
I'm rather uncertain or confused. Initial first impressions of the Optoma UHD 65 seem to suggest that a 2.35:1 Blu-ray will not significantly look sharper or more detailed despite the improved DMD resolution and many Oppo UDP-203 owners don't think that the upscaling of Blu-rays to UHD yields a significant improvement in terms of image resolution, either (just a handful of UHD films that appeal to my taste are not enough, yet, to make me seriously think about upgrading).


IMHO, TI missed an opportunity with the new DMD chips, i.e. a physical DMD resolution that's compatible with 2.35:1 UHD content and FullHD 1.78:1 content to be displayed "pillar-boxed" within a 2.35:1 screen would have constituted a golden compromise.


The way I see it flat screens will continue to cannibalize the projector segment, unless projector manufacturers look into means and ways to establish and promote 2.35:1 home theater projection as an exclusive you just can't get with flat screens.


There was some attempt at 2.35:1 flat screens that didn’t fly. The markets for projectors and flat panels are made up from people with far different mind sets on presentation. Talk to almost any average Joe and ask them about the experience of watching an epic movie letter boxed on their 70” panel and you will get the reply I didn’t buy a 70” TV to watch a 50” picture. People use all the preset zoom things and chop the ends off the movies rather than watching a smaller image. They have no idea of CIH they live in a CIW world of presentation. When the few people that do migrate to projectors most them use their projectors as CIW devices. There are clearly not enough people interested in FP anymore let alone CIH or scope presentations to get TI excited about building a 2.35:1 chip. As I mentioned above with UHD 16:9 chip if you want a 2.35:1 array it is right in the center of the chip they are making just program it that way and design a projector around it. I wouldn’t say TI missed the boat, more so I think the projector makers need to build products that cover more people’s desires now that the resolution is so fine people can’t tell the improvement.

Looking back to the transition from 4:3 to 16:9 in TV should shed some light on this in the days of VHS and transition to DVD many DVD’s were sold two sided cropped down to 4:3 and many people played the cropped side to fill their 4:3 sets. Then scope movies got butchered up the same way and directors everywhere were complaining about pan and scan and all that.

Now technology has an out and I hope the trend continues, but I’m not sure if it will. Clint Eastwood filmed Sully with what they are calling the new Imax camera, the Arri Alexa 65. He filmed the move framed and such to play on Imax and with the intention of being cropped to scope for those venues with no loss of important detail. In effect both movies have the same cinematic qualities and the scope movie fits right inside the Imax movie. The scope movie with proper seating distance has the immersion factor of width we all love about scope epic movies and the Imax version at the same seating distance has total immersion that some of us also love. Like double mint gum it is two movies, two movies, two movies in one. Another similar movie of recent years was Avatar. What was different was how they were released to the home market. Avatar was released with the Imax AR and Sully in scope. James Cameron said in watching both versions he liked the 1.78:1 because he felt the added material top and bottom made the feeling of flying more realistic or some such thing. It only truly appealed to the CIH+Imax folks that way and the CIW folks and a lot of complaining went on about the choice saying it wasn’t cinematic. I’m sure most of the 60” flat panel folks liked it just fine that way.

Now for my hopes for the future. Why the heck wasn’t or couldn’t Sully be released in the Imax frame as DVD, BD, UHD BD? I think we are past the days of dual siding a disc. But it seems players and projector technologies should be to the point to have a selection where you just don’t play the Imax stuff if you don’t want it. So they could have both and keep the TV people happy they won’t know they should sit a little closer when watching such a movie and projector people will have options. I would have loved to see a menu pop up before Sully asking if I wanted to watch the Imax or scope version of the BD. The directors won’t complain because now no one is altering their movie.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #17 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 05:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
IMHO, TI missed an opportunity with the new DMD chips, i.e. a physical DMD resolution that's compatible with 2.35:1 UHD content and FullHD 1.78:1 content to be displayed "pillar-boxed" within a 2.35:1 screen would have constituted a golden compromise.
Given that the "Scope Projector" was debuted 7 years ago, I am surprised that it has not been done for less by other manufactures. Surely TI didn't have a forever contract with that one manufacture.

You can buy a 1080P DLP from several hundred now. Why should a 2560 x 1440 (with a mask) still cost $45000? Surely this should be available for about $3K now.

Quote:
The way I see it flat screens will continue to cannibalize the projector segment, unless projector manufacturers look into means and ways to establish and promote 2.35:1 home theater projection as an exclusive you just can't get with flat screens.
I sadly agree. And what I am disappointed about is the LG 105" 5120 x 2160 (yes CinemaScope) TV never gained traction. That was the game changer right there. Throw in HDR and WCG and you have the best of everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I think we are on the same page.

As to masking that is always going to be a concern to some people more than others and if it is a problem then you have to figure out a system that works for each person within their budget.
Good optics are not cheap and this is one reason why we have seen projector prices go back into the 5 figures. Not because they wanted to hit hard on 4K users, but because those projectors use all glass lenses and good glass comes at a price. This is why Anamorphics still cost $7K.

Quote:
Instead of having to have an OPPO with the ½ size option there is no reason IMO that function shouldn’t be included in the projector and thus the projector could then be promoted as a CIH+Imax UHD projector. If you want a scope screen then it is a Scope projector you just never hit the Imax button. If you want to use a lens you hit the anamorphic button and it compresses the image and outputs it in full 16:9 frame and uses one of the zoom presets to fit the screen. One projector could easily be all things for all people.
That would cause much end user confusion and why the industry has not done it. Probably why they didn't make the masked down chip either. I could just imagine the complaints of people wanting to use the full width of the chip set now complaining that they can't see the score on the sports they are watching.

This CIH section is a purist home cinema forum. It is not for everyone because it comes at a cost.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #18 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,596
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2382 Post(s)
Liked: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Now technology has an out and I hope the trend continues, but I’m not sure if it will. Clint Eastwood filmed Sully with what they are calling the new Imax camera, the Arri Alexa 65. He filmed the move framed and such to play on Imax and with the intention of being cropped to scope for those venues with no loss of important detail.
This is not a new concept. Movies have been matted from a taller film frame capture image down to 2.35:1 since the Super 35 format became popular in the early 1980s. Regardless, these movies are still composed for 2.35:1, no matter how much extra picture information is available on the camera negative.
CAVX 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 offline  
post #19 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 08:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This is not a new concept. Movies have been matted from a taller film frame capture image down to 2.35:1 since the Super 35 format became popular in the early 1980s. Regardless, these movies are still composed for 2.35:1, no matter how much extra picture information is available on the camera negative.
Of course they have. It gave the director wiggle room for editing when a boom mic entered the frame and for slight changes in composition. For the most part the open matte version was not for consumer consumption. The director was directing a scope movie with this over shoot. That is quite different than what Eastwood did with Sully. He was aware of every shot that a premiere product the Imax version was being shot at the same time as the scope version. Both versions were going to be released for different venues at the same time. And if you prefer one version over the other it is a personal choice and you are doing the movie or the director no disservice in selecting one over the other.

If HBO or network TV wants to fill their image they wouldn’t have to put up the disclaimer the image has been altered from its original format.

That’s the big difference both of these versions are the real deal and could easily be sold together as a pick your on AR with a bit of technology.

Oh and by the way digital motion picture photography no longer has camera negatives.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #20 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 09:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,596
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2382 Post(s)
Liked: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Of course they have. It gave the director wiggle room for editing when a boom mic entered the frame and for slight changes in composition. For the most part the open matte version was not for consumer consumption. The director was directing a scope movie with this over shoot. That is quite different than what Eastwood did with Sully. He was aware of every shot that a premiere product the Imax version was being shot at the same time as the scope version. Both versions were going to be released for different venues at the same time.
There is a difference between protecting for a taller aspect ratio and composing for it. Directors who shot on Super 35 had to keep the excess headroom free of boom mics and lights because the movie would be broadcast open-matte on television. They had to be aware of every shot in both versions, because both versions were going to be released for different venues. Nevertheless, the 2.35:1 version was the actual composition ratio and OAR.

The open-matte version of Sully was an IMAX-exclusive sales gimmick. The movie did not play open-matte in any venue other than IMAX. When the movie came to Blu-ray, Eastwood had it transferred at his composition ratio of 2.35:1. That was his decision to make, and 2.35:1 is officially the movie's OAR.

Do you have an IMAX screen in your home? No, you do not. Until you build a full IMAX theater in your house, you can stop using IMAX as an excuse for wanting to project movies in the wrong aspect ratio.

Quote:
Oh and by the way digital motion picture photography no longer has camera negatives.
I was still talking about Super 35 in that sentence.

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 #21 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 11:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
There is a difference between protecting for a taller aspect ratio and composing for it. Directors who shot on Super 35 had to keep the excess headroom free of boom mics and lights because the movie would be broadcast open-matte on television. They had to be aware of every shot in both versions, because both versions were going to be released for different venues. Nevertheless, the 2.35:1 version was the actual composition ratio and OAR.

The open-matte version of Sully was an IMAX-exclusive sales gimmick. The movie did not play open-matte in any venue other than IMAX. When the movie came to Blu-ray, Eastwood had it transferred at his composition ratio of 2.35:1. That was his decision to make, and 2.35:1 is officially the movie's OAR.

Do you have an IMAX screen in your home? No, you do not. Until you build a full IMAX theater in your house, you can stop using IMAX as an excuse for wanting to project movies in the wrong aspect ratio.



I was still talking about Super 35 in that sentence.


None of us have a motion picture theater in our homes Imax or other. It is clear you see Imax as a gimmick “LieMAX” and that is your prerogative. In the same way, the wider scope formats were a gimmick in the 1950’s. The whole motion picture industry is gimmicky to some extent. It is also art to many and can be appreciated as art. Part of the art is the image and part of it the presentation and the two big parts to presentation are the shape of the art and the distance we view it from.

Do I have an Imax theater in my home? Absolutely not. Can I reproduce an image that is both vertically and horizontally immersive in the same way a true Imax theater would and simulate that aspect of Imax? Yes, indeed. It is the same way you watch scope movies in your simulated movie theater at home that actually isn’t a commercial movie theater.

I said Clint Eastwood made the choice on how Sully was to be released on media. I don’t know if it is the way he liked the movie best or not. As the movie industry is gimmicky maybe they are waiting for a couple years and will make a big deal of a re-release in the two-disc special addition set showing the original Imax never seen before content. Who knows?

I don’t believe I have ever said I wanted to project and watch movies in wrong AR. If I can go buy a ticket and watch a movie in a given AR that is fully condoned and welcomed by the director of the movie. Then I don’t feel I’m wrong in saying it would be great if I shell out 30 bucks to buy the movie it would be nice to buy the version I watched at the theater.

I think it is hard for you to envision it is the same panoramic image in both movies only one is more lifelike because it fills our full comfortable vision equally in all directions. Adding visual stimulus above and below a scope image does not make it a flat movie it makes it Imax.

Next time I watch a spaghetti western on AMC playing the open matte version and I see the boom mic come into frame I will smile. I will also know if I want correct presentation as it started life as a scope film I need to blow it up Imax large even though it never played in a Imax theater because they were not invented yet. Surely opening the matte doesn’t make it a flat movie does it?

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #22 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 03:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
IMAX was a speciality venue for speciality programs. The LIEMAX came about once they went digital and decided to open IMAX to the general public for Hollywood films. To me, projecting onto a screen so that they is blank screen above and below an image is the worst kind or presentation, even worse than not having side masks on a Scope screen like you see on V-MAX these days.

IMAX became a gimmick when it was used to market blockbusters - "see it in 3D and IMAX".

There was a time when cinemas had front house curtains. That was gone by the mid 90s. Now we hardly see side masks to frame the 1.85:1 pre-show. The art of cinema has really been lost. Now it is all about ripping off the public on over priced pop corn, drinks and novelty (collector's) cups. A family of four should NOT have to pay $110 to see a STAR WARS movie with some crappy tasteless treats.

The first IMAX style film since digital was probably THE DARK KNIGHT. That IMAX footage was actually shot in real IMAX, but so what. The few times it is used is just fluff. I saw that film in a standard CIH cinema and I watch that in CIH in my cinema. Out of curiousity, I have used my 16:9 mode to see what the extra footage is all about and it is fluff. There is no story telling info here. It is just a gimmick to use the name IMAX for marketing.

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.

And I think we are up to 12 films now. BIG DEAL.

What has annoyed me though is post 3D conversions like TITANIC are open mat to "fill your screen". Well not my screen, but anyway, so long as he didn't mess with the framing, I can live with that. I guess he will be doing the same with T2 later in the year.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #23 of 68 Old 06-14-2017, 07:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
The same thing can be said about a lot of scope content being produced today. My favorite example is Moms Night Out. In that whole movie there is one two second shot of walking out into a major league ball park and the width gave you the feeling of expansion for a split second. The rest of the movie was major fluff to the right and the left. The movie was so bad IMO I enjoyed looking at the fluff. It is the same deal you describe above it was shot in scope to give it status. I can name a 100 movies of late that did the same thing but I’m not calling it LieScope. The world of vision is fluff on the sides. Right now you are reading this and everything outside your screen is fluff. That’s the idea behind immersion and what makes it work. It is up to the director how he wants to frame things and use the area of the film. If it is a worthless usage of the frame it isn’t the fault of the frame size it is the directors poor choices. Knowing he has to release a scope cut is a little limiting as to how much information can be up there so quite often it is just more of the same. Avatar is a great example in scope you feel safe because you are aware of the edge of the image when they are flying. In Imax you don’t see the edges and you get the feeing of being outside the viewing window or flying with them. The original Imax AR even did a better job of doing that. They needed something so they pandered to Hollywood and hit a happy medium with what they have now. It fit into the world of scope and worked better with 3D, but also could hold its own against scope. I don’t need a movie to be Imax to enjoy it. Some of my favorite movies were shot in Academy AR and were beautifully framed that way.

I also grew up in the early 60’s watching movies in a grand movie palace where presentation was everything it could be. I do miss that no matter what AR we are talking about.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #24 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 12:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Ever since the DCI decided that anamorphics were not needed for digital and Scope became "Scope on Flat", it has been LIEScope. Letterboxing is just a piss poor way of doing this. The last trip to the cinema was to see ALIEN COVENANT on a 4K Barco Laser projector. The staff told me that even though the projector was 4K, the movie file was not 4K (2.5K?) and this cinema (clearly it had been a while since my last visit and I only went to see this 4K Laser projector anyway) was no longer showing their Scope films as CIH anymore. Yep, pre-show was bigger than the main feature and worse still, the main feature has visible black bars.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #25 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 07:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Ever since the DCI decided that anamorphics were not needed for digital and Scope became "Scope on Flat", it has been LIEScope. Letterboxing is just a piss poor way of doing this. The last trip to the cinema was to see ALIEN COVENANT on a 4K Barco Laser projector. The staff told me that even though the projector was 4K, the movie file was not 4K (2.5K?) and this cinema (clearly it had been a while since my last visit and I only went to see this 4K Laser projector anyway) was no longer showing their Scope films as CIH anymore. Yep, pre-show was bigger than the main feature and worse still, the main feature has visible black bars.
Again we agree totally on the details of the good old days was wonderful. I miss the showmanship and the presentation as much as you. I can still see in my mind the curtains rolling open for the main scope feature unveiling the beginning of the movie after watching a short movie in 4:3 or flat and a couple cartoons. It was true CIH presentation. It was great and if your goal is to replicate some of that at home my hat is off to you.

Now for the bad news it is not Barco’s fault or the fact the source was in 2k. Film copies of movies going thru an A-lens were not always amazing quality. I remember dust and scratches and splices, the glitch when they would change reels. Sometimes the picture was off from the sound. Sometime the arc lamp was getting old and the colors were off a little. Film wasn’t perfect and if you compared it side by side with the method you described above with digital, I’m sure the new method had a better PQ within the image. But the presentation sucked and it costs too much. And that is the blame of your theater and how the studios control the theaters. They can do all the right things if they were not as greedy and lazy. People are used to black bars and have grown to not care if they are there. They also don’t understand or care that the pizza shop ad is Imax size before their scope movie or even that they are putting up a pizza shop ad. It would go a long way for me when I pay 30 bucks to go to a movie if everything was done right I would say it was more worth it. People like you and I are turned off before the movie starts. The new viewers don’t care because they are on face book before the movie and half the time during the movie. Sadly it is no longer a spectacle. But that isn’t the projector and the zoom methods fault as much as it is lack of caring.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #26 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 07:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,596
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2382 Post(s)
Liked: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Next time I watch a spaghetti western on AMC playing the open matte version and I see the boom mic come into frame I will smile. I will also know if I want correct presentation as it started life as a scope film I need to blow it up Imax large even though it never played in a Imax theater because they were not invented yet. Surely opening the matte doesn’t make it a flat movie does it?
Most Spaghetti Westerns were shot in Techniscope, a budget format that only used 2 perfs of height on the 35mm film frame (rather than the standard 4) in order to obtain a native scope aspect ratio without an anamorphic lens. There are no mattes to lift with Techniscope. Any TV broadcast reformatted to 16:9 will be cropped on the sides.

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 #27 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 09:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,415
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Most Spaghetti Westerns were shot in Techniscope, a budget format that only used 2 perfs of height on the 35mm film frame (rather than the standard 4) in order to obtain a native scope aspect ratio without an anamorphic lens. There are no mattes to lift with Techniscope. Any TV broadcast reformatted to 16:9 will be cropped on the sides.
You are correct and I stand corrected. If I find any booms they had to be in there from the beginning. I will have to look in the non-spaghetti versions shot with anamorphic. Here is a good read for anyone following on the 2 perf process and then expanded to anamorphic.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingts2.htm

I wonder how this process measures up in picture quality to the Arri Alexa 65. Let’s call it Clint Eastwood in front of the camera to Clint Eastwood behind the camera change in PQ?

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #28 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 09:55 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,596
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2382 Post(s)
Liked: 1567
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I will have to look in the non-spaghetti versions shot with anamorphic.
A movie shot anamorphic will also not have any mattes to lift. Care to try again?

Quote:
I wonder how this process measures up in picture quality to the Arri Alexa 65. Let’s call it Clint Eastwood in front of the camera to Clint Eastwood behind the camera change in PQ?
Techniscope was a low-end budget process. Because a smaller area on the film negative was exposed to light, the image was typically grainy when blown up for projection on cinema screens.

When Eastwood started directing his own movies, he had Hollywood money and resources behind him, and could afford to shoot most of his movies anamorphic. I believe Jersey Boys was his first digital production.

(I realize you were just trying to be snarky, but someone out there may actually be interested in these details.)

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; 06-15-2017 at 10:01 AM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #29 of 68 Old 06-15-2017, 03:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,676
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Again we agree totally on the details of the good old days was wonderful. I miss the showmanship and the presentation as much as you. I can still see in my mind the curtains rolling open for the main scope feature unveiling the beginning of the movie after watching a short movie in 4:3 or flat and a couple cartoons. It was true CIH presentation. It was great and if your goal is to replicate some of that at home my hat is off to you.
Totally the goal. One day I will refit my side masks. The reason they are off right now is that most of what I watch is Scope, so they would spend more time open than closed anyway.

Quote:
Now for the bad news it is not Barco’s fault or the fact the source was in 2k.
The fault is of bad set up by the technicians.

Quote:
Film copies of movies going thru an A-lens were not always amazing quality. I remember dust and scratches and splices, the glitch when they would change reels. Sometimes the picture was off from the sound. Sometime the arc lamp was getting old and the colors were off a little. Film wasn’t perfect and if you compared it side by side with the method you described above with digital, I’m sure the new method had a better PQ within the image. But the presentation sucked and it costs too much. And that is the blame of your theater and how the studios control the theaters.
Interesting comments. One of the best FILM presentations for me was RAMBO from 2008. This had be sitting in my seat thinking some day, my own system will look this good. Added a cylindrical anamorphic the following year and now it does. That cinema always did have good looking images. Now it is 2K digital and I don't go there anymore, but the sound is amazing. I loved the treatments they used. Not just big thick curtains down the sides over brick.

The last FILM presentation I got to see was PREDATORS in 2010 in a different cinema. This was blurred on the edges and I initially thought, artistic intend until the BD came out, then I realized, someone didn't know how to adjust the astigmatism corrector. Cinema Anamorphics are a little different to what we use at home because a film projector only has a film loop or a glass slide plate as a test pattern. There are no single display lines and the lines on the both the slide plate (lines are usually scratched in to the glass) or SMPTE film loop are quite course. The finest line is probably still 2 display lines. And they don't actually adjust them the way we do at home, rather set the marker for the distance etched into the side of the barrel that corresponds to the length of the cinema. If the Cinema is 100 feet, you set the market to 100 feet. And done. A very different process at home and why we can see (I can anyway) see interpixel gaps of a 1080 DLP. Then I know that ANY blur is the source, not my set up.

Talking about film artifacts, the most watched file I have is my Team Negative 1 STAR WARS. This is pretty much a direct film to video transfer and has film grain, film scratches and even end of reel markers. For PQ compared to the BD, I know I wife hates it, but from a purist and SW fan, it is pure bliss and I get to see it the WAY it was meant to be seen. The BD would be nice if it didn't have excessive edge enhancement. I don't mind the floating grain, but the EE just annoys the hell out of me.

Then there is ROGUE ONE - shot with that digital 65 Alexia through an anamorphic and it is pure eye candy. Bring on the UHD version of that please!

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #30 of 68 Old 06-16-2017, 12:16 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 655 Post(s)
Liked: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
The first IMAX style film since digital was probably THE DARK KNIGHT. That IMAX footage was actually shot in real IMAX, but so what. The few times it is used is just fluff. I saw that film in a standard CIH cinema and I watch that in CIH in my cinema. Out of curiousity, I have used my 16:9 mode to see what the extra footage is all about and it is fluff. There is no story telling info here. It is just a gimmick to use the name IMAX for marketing.
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.
dschulz 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