My 9' wide 2.35:1 screen in action! (Braveheart, TWINE, TS2...) - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 45 Old 04-09-2001, 05:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
harlock,

sorry i forgot to get back to you on the maskable screen. If i understand correctly what you posted, then the screen is a 1.33:1 native ratio and reduces height for widescreen movies through retraction of the screen and dropping of a mask. The question is at what number of different heights the screen is maskable. If the native ratio is 1.33:1 and it can only be moved to 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 and nothing really inbetween, then you could't use this screen for a constant area scenario. If it does indeed have an unlimited number of stops, you would only have to add a horizontal mask (electrical curtain) to make a perfect CA screen. Is a curtain even an option for you? Is you screen back at the wall, or some distance into the room?

Best regards

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 45 Old 04-09-2001, 07:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomdkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hayward, CA, USA
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow!!! Sweet pix!!!! You *MUST* post a few pix of "Red Planet"....

I would LOVE to see how AMEE looks on your screen.....

http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Peace....
tomdkat is offline  
post #33 of 45 Old 04-12-2001, 12:14 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
tomdkat,

hehe, Red Planet. That one is on schedule for the next 2 weeks.

[diplomatic]
I am not really a fan of the OTHER mars movie http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
[/diplomatic]

And because of that, i am really sceptical of Red Planet. So i didn't order it yet, but i am going to rent it soon. I figure it can't be much worse than the other...

If time permits, i will take some shots. Of course only if i think the transfer is any good. THAT aspect of the OTHER mars movie was definitly its highlight http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Regards
Bjoern

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
post #34 of 45 Old 04-12-2001, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomdkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hayward, CA, USA
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bjoern Roy:
tomdkat,


hehe, Red Planet. That one is on schedule for the next 2 weeks.


[diplomatic]
I am not really a fan of the OTHER mars movie http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
[/diplomatic]


And because of that, i am really sceptical of Red Planet. So i didn't order it yet, but i am going to rent it soon. I figure it can't be much worse than the other...


If time permits, i will take some shots. Of course only if i think the transfer is any good. THAT aspect of the OTHER mars movie was definitly its highlight http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


Regards
Bjoern
</font>

Yipee!!!!! Yeah, I understand about the recent Mars movies..... Red Planet has some cool effects that I think (hope) will look AWESOME on your mammoth screen.

My advice to you: check your brain at the door before viewing..... http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Peace....
tomdkat is offline  
post #35 of 45 Old 04-12-2001, 08:20 PM
Member
 
bdschuler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bethlehem, Pa
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey, I've Been there..saw that. Down the street at the Cinemaplex. Just kidding.

Honestly, Awesome home setup! Congrats. If I had the money, I'd clone ya. Only change I would make, Get rid of the back or front seats and replace with a couch. When you have something like that... you'r bound to have alot of company over. And nothing beats a couch for the boring parts of movies. Hehe


bdschuler is offline  
post #36 of 45 Old 04-24-2001, 04:50 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi folks,

the quotes below are from a fellow HT freak, who contacted me about my setup. I will post the answer here for those who might be interested. There is also a more detailed explaination of my 'constant area projection' methodology. Have fun.

____________________


Quote:
For 2.76 aspect ration films (Ben Hur?) is your screen width then about 117 inches?
Exactly! 117" width x 42" height for 2.76:1 content.

Quote:
One other question: Is your screen (unmasked)in a 4:3 aspect ratio with a width determined by the widest aspect ratio film?
If you have a 4-way maskable screen it kinda doesn't matter how large the screen is behind the masks. The important thing you mention is that the screen has to have the width of the widest ratio film. For height, a 4:3 screen would be a lot too tall. Since the unused screenspace is masked anyway, it doesn't really matter, though.

Lets assume 2 practical scenarios here.

1) Full blown Constant Area scenario (ultimate nerd alert)
You do care for 2.76:1 movies a lot and want to use the constant area scenario for ALL formats, including 2.76:1. Then the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is 1.92:1. For example in my case: screen width is determined through the widest ratio 2.76:1, thus 117 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 117" / 61" = ~ 1.92:1. It would not make much sense to actually buy a screen in a 1.92:1 ratio, though. You would simply buy a 117' wide 1.77:1 or 1.85:1 screen and have an inch or two unused above and below.

I would suggest to implement these ratios in this full blown configuration: 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1), 2.35:1 and 2.76:1. All of these modes would use the same area on screen.

You could also implement 1.37:1, but thats too close to 1.33:1 to be worth the effort. Simply use the 1.33:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.37:1.

Same with 1.78:1 which isn't even a real format. Having a mode for 1.78:1 AND 1.85:1 is also not really worth the effort. The two are VERY close, so just choose either one. I would suggest 1.78:1. Most 1.85:1 transfers are actually framed at 1.78:1 anyway. Simply use the 1.78:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.85:1 like Starship Troopers.

2) CA 'light'
Its kinda silly to take 2.76:1 movies into account if you don't have many, if any at all. So you could simply use the modes listed in 1) but without an actual 2.76:1 mode. Then you would watch a rare 2.76:1 presentation in you 2.35:1 mode, and again, narrow the vertical masks slightly to mask the letterboxing.

In this scenario, the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is exactly 1.78:1, what a nice coincidence! Or maybe this is why they came up with 1.78:1 in the first place?

To clarify: The screen width needed here is determined through the widest ratio 2.35:1, in my case 108 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 108' / 61' = ~ 1.78:1. So you could simply buy a 1.78:1 screen. Good for resale value, too.

.
.
.

I prepared another figure to show again how the different scenarios actually look like:

http://www.peopleindustry.de/BjoernR...atioMatrix.jpg

My preference is from left to right.

I already posted a comparisson in a post above with pics comparing TS2 and Twine, so these comments here are just to further clarify these comments and bring the other formats into the discussion. I will include the pics again for convenience:

1) Constant Area
Pros: all ratios seem to have the same "size". None of them are too small or too big. You simply adjust your seating distance to you liking for, lets say, 2.35:1 movies and the others all look perfect too.
Cons: variable 4-way masking needed
http://www.peopleindustry.de/BjoernR...HT/Ratio03.jpg


2) Maximum Size within 2.35:1 screen
Pros: easier to implement than 1). Except for 2.76:1 material,only horizontal masking needed (curtains). 2.76:1 material would be slightly letterboxed and if no vertical masking is available, wouldn't have the full impact of a properly masked presentation. The need for 100% masking can't be stressed enough, really!
Cons: All formats smaller than 2.35:1 are too small for my liking, but as i already said, i still prefer this over the 16:9 solution. To make a 2.35:1 screen work, you adjust your seating distance so, that you sit a tad too close for 2.35:1 movies (lets say 1.3-1.4 times screen width, instead of my 1.5 times recommendation). Then 2.35:1 is slightly too big and 1.85:1 is slightly too small, but all in all, both look great. 1.33:1 is outright puny! But you could argue 'who cares'? 1.33:1 is not meant to be epic anyway. If you watch a lot of 1.33:1 television stuff, this might be a problem for you. But i would argue that most 4:3 material (e.g. NTSC broadcast) is terrible in quality anyway and not worth getting projected too big.
http://www.peopleindustry.de/BjoernR...HT/Ratio02.jpg


3) Maximum Size within 1.78:1 screen
Pros:Very common, pretty much straight forward.
Cons:You still need 4-way masking! So you could go the extra mile for 1) if at all possible (projector memories etc...) In scenario too, you could adjust your seating so that its a compromise between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, just like in 2). Only that now 2.35:1 look somewhat small and 1.85:1 somewhat big, which i simply don't like. So the only other option would be to adjust seating so that 2.35:1 looks perfect, but then 1.85:1 movies look enormous.
http://www.peopleindustry.de/BjoernR...HT/Ratio01.jpg


4) Constant width in 4:3 screen
Pros: If you don't watch movies, this is great http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif
Cons: Well, better don't get me started. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif


I really tried to keep it short. REALLY!

Best regards
Bjoern

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
post #37 of 45 Old 04-24-2001, 07:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomdkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hayward, CA, USA
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You know, I think you should your OWN forum or page (on AVS Forum where you just post links to pictures of various movies on your screen......

People could submit requests for screen shots.....

Then we could ALL share you screen!!!! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Peace....
tomdkat is offline  
post #38 of 45 Old 05-03-2001, 09:33 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok, i was in the mood to make some more screenshots, so i did http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

5th Element seems to be one of the favorite transfers of a lot of people here, and i love the movie, so it wasn't a tough choice.

Like with all other pictures i posted, they are simply scaled down (2160x1440 to 720x480) in Photoshop, unmodified otherwise.

Hope you enjoy them.

I removed all the screenshots i posted here. You can find them on my screenshot page:

http://home.t-online.de/home/bjoern....en/Page_01.htm

Regards
Bjoern



[This message has been edited by Bjoern Roy (edited 09-23-2001).]

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
post #39 of 45 Old 05-04-2001, 09:20 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thumbnails simply won't work here. Hmm...

Rather than posting the thunbnails here, i created a page with thumbnails and included the link in the post above. Should be more convenient to navigate them.


[This message has been edited by Bjoern Roy (edited 05-04-2001).]

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
post #40 of 45 Old 05-04-2001, 10:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomdkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hayward, CA, USA
Posts: 1,166
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Sweet!!! Thanks for the updates! By the way, how do you generate the screenshots? Do you have a digital camera or something that you use to take the pictures?



------------------
Peace....
tomdkat is offline  
post #41 of 45 Old 05-06-2001, 04:11 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Bjoern Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: German Videophile (terminally anal-retentive)
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am a photography nut. You can read about what digital camera i used in the first post of this thread. It might sound oversized to use 10k equipment to take some silly screenshots, but the resulting quality is worth it.

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Videophile.info (HD and DVD reviews, SPL measurements, my HT in action...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
Bjoern Roy is offline  
post #42 of 45 Old 05-06-2001, 04:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: the REAL cinema experience at home: THAT's the trick.
Posts: 4,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
hey Bjoern

superb as always. fabulous screenshots ( but fabulous dvd too ).
what about this: 4.5meter 2.35 curved sreen 1.8 gain microperforated, which should give you:
in 2.35: 4.5m x 1.91m (that's should be niiiiice ! )
in 1.85: 3.53 x 1.91m (still quite big for Saving Private Ryan )
in 1.33: 2.54 x 1.91meter ( for concerts mainly )

now, I know this will make some CRT die hards call this combo an heresy but I think it doable with an 8" and considering the curving brightness gain and the screen material gain ( about +50% of brightness ? )


------------------
for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.
David600 is offline  
post #43 of 45 Old 06-22-2001, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
xcel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wadsworth, IL. USA
Posts: 5,476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Bjoern:

___First off, let me apologize for being so late to this thread as well if these type of questions have been asked hundreds of times before. I am simply not one to look over to this type of forum but I think I will have to start!

___I stumbled upon this thread last night from your posting into the HT Computer forums on the ATI 4.1 player. I added it to the HTPC FAQ by the way http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif What really intrigues me is the constant area scenario you are using. I was calculating the various H (Heights) and W (Widths) with a std. 2.35:1 starting point onto your 9’ screen. Everything matched with small rounding of course to your posted heights using the initial area of 4968 (in)2 from 108/2.35*108 and H=SQRT(4986/OAR) except for the 2.76 OAR whatever that is. I have never seen a disk with that AR so I am hoping those are very rare indeed. With the various heights and widths, I am really wondering if you are using a multitude of custom T&R’s for each aspect ratio along with YXY to exactly match the mask or are you outputting a single ~ 1.78:1 (1.77) across the full size 108*61 screen and using YXY with blanking to fill in the various aspects needed? Also, I assume you are using std. square pixel topology for the ATI player so as to let the ATI player work its magic with the Andrew Chilvers enhanced YXY for the ATI player 4.0/4.1 player itself. WinDVD would appear to not cause you any trouble whatsoever with YXY for the DTS disks but an answer for this may help me as well. Also, as far as your seating distances … With the common 1.5*W approach, the 4:3 material would be best viewed from the front row at ~ 10’ and the 2.35:1 material would be best viewed in the back row at ~ 13.5’? Is this what you are doing by chance depending on OAR? Possibly 2.0 to 2.35 AR films in the back row and 1.85 to 4:3 in the front? Lastly, could you give me some close-ups of your adjustable masking for the bottom mask? I am simply not sure about the mounting scenario from your description. As you can tell, the HT build bug is upon me and its best that I see all of what is available before hitting the drafting table in the next few months.

As an edit: I see you were using YXY and the Andrew Chilvers modded YXY with the ATI player per your posts this morning. The vertical masking solution question is still foremost in my mind.

___Thanks in advance.

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___ xcel@midwest.idsonline.com


------------------
New E-Mail address for the time being ... waynegerdes@earthlink.net

[This message has been edited by xcel (edited 06-23-2001).]
xcel is offline  
post #44 of 45 Old 01-11-2002, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
VideoGrabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 2,799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
BjoernRoy wrote:
> In this scenario, the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is exactly 1.78:1, what a nice coincidence! Or maybe this is why they came up with 1.78:1 in the first place? <

It's no coincidence. These compatibility issues were being looked at 20 years ago in the early 80's, and a fellow named Kerns Powers came up with the observation that if you stacked all the possible formats (each corrected for constant area), that they all fell with a 16:9 rectangle. I.e., it was the greatest common denominator. Interestingly, it was also the lowest common denominator, with the region inside the stacked frame also being 16:9. That's why they settled on 16:9 in 1984 when they were deciding standards.

- Tim

- Tim
VideoGrabber is offline  
post #45 of 45 Old 01-11-2002, 04:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pnichols's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Gatos, CA
Posts: 2,261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bjoern,

I see you have "Freak" under your name!! I assume this means video freak and/or movie freak? Well, you'll probably think I'm beyond freak with what I'm trying to do that is related to your discussion topic.

I have a Pioneer Elite 58" diagonal 16X9 RPTV that I keep tweaked to the hilt inside it's service menu.

I sit about 10 feet from it and when images completely fill it's 1.78:1 screen I get a pretty good sense of being "part of, or within, or into, the scene" - with peripheral and heigth perception being nicely satisfied. This may be partially due to the fact that I read someplace that the 1.78:1 AR "fits the human vision nicely" because we look out of our eyes and see the world in an approximate 16X9 shape.

Now here's where I catch a lot of flack from (other) HT purists. I want to NOT move my seating and still maintain this visual set up for all movie aspect ratios. To do this I exponentially (non-linear) side-stretch the far left and far right 20% sides if 4X3 images to fill the screen's width. This leaves the middle 60% in correct geometry so perceptually it's not noticeable and all 4X3 material then appears as "1.78:1 widescreen" - very pleasing for older 4X3 movies. For 1.85:1 movies the screen is filled and the effect is spectacular at my 10 feet viewing distance. For 2.35:1 aspect ratio (the majority of modern movies are this AR) I want to enlarge the entire image somewhat and crop the sides in order to expand the height to fill the screen without distorting geometry. I've been looking for a DVD player to do this and I think I'm all by myself in this. Everyone is saying "...why would you want to destroy OAR"? Well .......... my screen size fits 8-10 feet viewing distance so well that I'm willing to take the sides off 2.35:1 images to maintain the visual perception I'm getting. I'm NOT a pan and scan advocate (I almost hate it) and if my screen size was as large as yours I'd never modify OAR.

However I think you're are on to something here that's similar to my preferences. I think screen "shape" relative to viewing situation is critical. I think it's so critical that I'm willing to modify 2.35:1 movies somewhat to achieve an ideal shape relative to my particular screen and viewing situation. Of course with extreme 2.50:1 and 2.76:1 AR's I would crop the sides only partially and live with image height less than my screen's vertical dimension.

See, I told you I'm on the lunatic fringe!

Phil
pnichols is offline  
Closed Thread DVD Players (Standard Def)

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