The Reference Standard - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 3Likes
  • 2 Post By coolrda
  • 1 Post By bud16415
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 10 Old 09-08-2017, 12:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 3,398
Mentioned: 185 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1079 Post(s)
Liked: 962
The Reference Standard

The Academy Theater is considered the Benchmark, the Reference Standard by which all others are judged. CIH is still the benchmark in commercial and residential cinema. Some of the thoughts from the Jon Bishop interview that I thought were interesting was that 2K is sufficient for cinema and that while a proper CIH setup may seem overly immersive in width, the directors intended us to move our heads from side to side.

bud16415 and craigmohead like this.
coolrda is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 10 Old 09-09-2017, 08:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 5,479
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1068 Post(s)
Liked: 409
The Samuel Goldwyn Academy Theater what a wonderful and beautiful venue. If only there were more places like that we could all enjoy.

Screen size 54’x22’ scope
Depth 124’

Assuming there to be 36’ between the last row and the back of the theater including lobby, that would work out to a 4X screen height seating distance back to the 25th row (last row). The first row looks to be a neck breaker with eye level at the bottom of the screen and something 1X screen height seating distance.

So of the 1010 seats maybe 300 would be in the ideal range for most of us and 300 might be the ones Jon Bishop is saying that directors plan for head movement. The rest of the seats to the back of the theater 2.5X to 4X wouldn’t require much more than casual normal cinema eye movement.

In my town we reconstructed our movie palace the Warner Theater built in 1931. I viewed so many great movies in until 1976 when they closed down. It seats 2260 and is an amazing venue. It is now mostly used for live performances but last year they brought in a reference screen and top of the line digital projection equipment and played a re-mastered Casablanca while our symphonic orchestra played a synchronous score to the movie. It was an amazing night seeing the place return to cinema, and they filled every seat. Hoping that glimpse might be enough to spur interest in buying a few million dollars of equipment to transfer it back full time. Doubt it will happen in my lifetime but a nice dream.

Attaching two photos of the Samuel Goldwyn Academy Theater and two of our Warner as it looks now.

I would someday love to watch a movie in the Samuel Goldwyn Academy Theater.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg warner1.jpg (358.7 KB, 31 views)
File Type: jpg warner lobby.jpg (161.4 KB, 32 views)
File Type: jpg sgt-floorplan.jpg (842.7 KB, 24 views)
File Type: jpg sgt_0.jpg (54.7 KB, 27 views)
coolrda likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #3 of 10 Old 09-25-2017, 03:12 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 coolrda View Post
CIH is still the benchmark in commercial and residential cinema
CIH will always be the reference for me, but it makes me wonder why so many new cinemas are being built as CIW.

As for 2K, it is good, but over the past week, I have got to see a bit more 4K through an anamorphic and WOW!, how good does that look? After watching the UHD version of BLADERUNNER, this might just be the closest to film digital has got. It was amazing and 1080P on the same system, whilst still impressive, looked a bit thin now.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
 
post #4 of 10 Old 09-26-2017, 08:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 675 Post(s)
Liked: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I would someday love to watch a movie in the Samuel Goldwyn Academy Theater.
Should you make it out to LA for a visit, the Academy frequently hosts public screenings there, with very affordable ticket prices. It's one of those weird well-kept secrets for folks living here.
dschulz is offline  
post #5 of 10 Old 09-26-2017, 08:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 675 Post(s)
Liked: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
CIH will always be the reference for me, but it makes me wonder why so many new cinemas are being built as CIW.
I blame the dual trends of steeply-raked stadium seating, and the popularity of IMAX (and IMAX knockoff) screens. Something about the room geometry of a stadium theatre seems to lend itself to a wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen.

The trend then accelerated with the switch to digital projection and the collapse of the film paradigm in which the 'Scope image was *higher* resolution than flat. Now that the 'Scope image has fewer pixels than flat in a weird way it makes sense to project onto a smaller image area.

I violently disagree with this paradigm shift, and I think commercial cinemas should do their best to roll with CIH & side masking.
dschulz is offline  
post #6 of 10 Old 09-26-2017, 08:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I blame the dual trends of steeply-raked stadium seating, and the popularity of IMAX (and IMAX knockoff) screens. Something about the room geometry of a stadium theatre seems to lend itself to a wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen.

The trend then accelerated with the switch to digital projection and the collapse of the film paradigm in which the 'Scope image was *higher* resolution than flat. Now that the 'Scope image has fewer pixels than flat in a weird way it makes sense to project onto a smaller image area.

I violently disagree with this paradigm shift, and I think commercial cinemas should do their best to roll with CIH & side masking.
I think it's more to do with money. You can fit more narrower screens in. At least most of the premium theaters are still installing scope. It's more the commodity multiplexs that seem to be installing "big TVs". And I don't mean Flat or IMAX, a lot appear to be 1.78:1.

jeahrens is offline  
post #7 of 10 Old 09-26-2017, 01:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 796
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 675 Post(s)
Liked: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I think it's more to do with money. You can fit more narrower screens in. At least most of the premium theaters are still installing scope. It's more the commodity multiplexs that seem to be installing "big TVs". And I don't mean Flat or IMAX, a lot appear to be 1.78:1.
That's a good point on the benefits of a narrow screen helping to fit more auditoriums into a single footprint.

I've not seen any 1.78 screens in cinemas, but I know what you mean by the "big TV" look. I see a lot of floating screens, so not only is there no masking to account for varying aspect ratios, there's no edge-masking either! The combination of floating screen, no curtain, no masking and projecting 'Scope images onto a Flat screen (with the black bars showing) just makes it all seem like TV.
dschulz is offline  
post #8 of 10 Old 09-27-2017, 01:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
That's a good point on the benefits of a narrow screen helping to fit more auditoriums into a single footprint.

I've not seen any 1.78 screens in cinemas, but I know what you mean by the "big TV" look. I see a lot of floating screens, so not only is there no masking to account for varying aspect ratios, there's no edge-masking either! The combination of floating screen, no curtain, no masking and projecting 'Scope images onto a Flat screen (with the black bars showing) just makes it all seem like TV.
Well I know the differences would be subtle. But we went to a new Cinemark to watch a live feed of Rifftrax and I swear it was 16:9. We've seen these before at another theater and there appeared to be minor pillarboxing, however at this theater both commercials (ick) and live feed filled the screen perfectly with no visible overscan. Of course I could mistaken since the difference is slight. Either way I agree the presentation here on these setups feels low rent with no masking of any kind.

jeahrens is offline  
post #9 of 10 Old 09-28-2017, 08:58 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 22,735
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2469 Post(s)
Liked: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Well I know the differences would be subtle. But we went to a new Cinemark to watch a live feed of Rifftrax and I swear it was 16:9. We've seen these before at another theater and there appeared to be minor pillarboxing, however at this theater both commercials (ick) and live feed filled the screen perfectly with no visible overscan. Of course I could mistaken since the difference is slight. Either way I agree the presentation here on these setups feels low rent with no masking of any kind.
It could be that the theater either masked the 16:9 image to 1.85:1 during projection, or set the projector to slightly overshoot the screen.

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 #10 of 10 Old 09-28-2017, 10:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 2,112
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 683 Post(s)
Liked: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It could be that the theater either masked the 16:9 image to 1.85:1 during projection, or set the projector to slightly overshoot the screen.
It was probably masked. The color of the border of the screen would likely have shown overscan. The Fandango stuff uses a lot of white backgrounds that feel like they would have been visible.

jeahrens 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