or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Kevin Snyder

While I don't know the answer to your question, I do know what my dad would tell me when I would try to use that word... Irre-g*d-d*mn-gardless
I'm confused as to why you continue to make the generic argument that 2.35 images should be larger than 1.78. I completely understand the concept, and have had scope screens for many years for that very reason. No need to explain further. I've been at this game quite a while!What you don't seem to be grasping is the concept of image size as it pertains to the IMAX presentation of these few films. For these PARTICULAR films, the IMAX portions (be it 1.78 or 1.9 or...
Thanks for the input Dylan. I understand your description and get what you are trying to say. I completely agree that in most cases, it is highly desirable for the scope image to be larger than the 1.78 images. That's why I also went in that direction. I just don't know if that applies in this situation. You mention that the only reason the 1.78 image is larger in Hunger Games has to do with people's home sets having a 1.78 aspect ratio. I have never watched a...
Completely agree. This alone has made the system worth the money for me. I often find that I barely have time to watch a movie. Kaleidescape helps allow me that time by eliminating all the crap that used to surround trying to watch a movie. Love it!Kevin
Good points, Josh. I did feel like a few of the scenes were a little closed in. I'm sure not accurate, but certainly acceptable. I don't have the ability to scale to 2.2:1. I believe I would much prefer this than to have the IMAX scenes formatted smaller in the middle of my 2.35 screen.
This is why I said 'not definitely' and NOT 'definitely not'.It is very possible they took the IMAX print and merely lopped off the top and bottom for the widescreen theatrical presentations. We just don't know. And we won't know without inside information or perhaps if somebody illegally recorded the theatrical presentations with which to compare.Kevin
Not sure that is entirely accurate. I do believe there is a version of the movie that was formatted in its entirety for 2.35:1 screens, including the appropriate formatting of the IMAX scenes. We were not provided with this version on the BluRay. We are assuming the center portion of the IMAX frame is what we are supposed to be seeing, cutting off the same amount on top and bottom. This is not definitely the way these portions of the movie were formatted on the true...
I watched Hunger Games - Catching Fire last night on my 2.35:1 screen with Anamorphic lens. As you know, this is another of the films using hybrid 2.35:1 and 1.78 IMAX ratios. I don't think the film suffered by losing the top and bottom information on the IMAX scenes. Once or twice, a scene may have felt slightly 'closed in', but it didn't seem that atypical given the usual style of filming for this picture. In fact, it felt very appropriate given the situations...
For the device, search Community for Kaleidescape. You want 'Kaleidescape TCP/IP Mani' For the feedback, look through ALL of the community feedback. You want 'Kscape feedback'
Hi Scott,I have a very similar pre-correction room response to yours. I think we need some bass traps!!!My front crossovers were also set at 40hz, and I had a similar dip in corrected response centered at 100hz. Bump up your correction target to 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 and recalculate to see what happens with your curve. I ended up at 80. This setting eliminated the dip while giving the best overall response curve when compared with the other cutoffs I tried. I ended up...
New Posts  All Forums: