AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIA: Constant Image Area
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CIA: Constant Image Area - Page 6

post #151 of 527
4/3/09 at 9:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Director's choice?

The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.

Every director. Every film.

Are you serious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I count 2.20 as an odd ball ratio, but even so, it SHOULD be wider and the SAME height as 1.78:1. Yet you seem want to make is shorter. And it will be on a 2.05:1 screen as used in CIA.

Umm, no, you're not understanding CIA. I would have a screen where the scope area is identical in width to a CIH setup. The screen would be taller, allowing 2.20 to be projected however I preferred.

I could project it CIH and mask the sides as if it weren't as wide as 2.35.

Or I could project it full width of the scope area, but retain the taller image as you admitted Top Gun would need.

With CIH you're limited to cropping the image, or zooming and projecting the image less wide at constant height. What good is an A-lens setup if you still have to zoom for ratios outside of 1.78 & 2.37?!

The point of Se7en was that open matte films, while not the director's intended ratio, cannot be projected even CLOSE to properly with a CIH setup. With CIA the size is much closer, and only a full scope width 1.78 screen would display it at a size doing the most justice to the original framing.

I realize the director isn't intended you to see everything, but he does intend for you to see the 2.40 framed area at a proper size!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The Dark Night is the first film that would require a taller image. I explained how to set that up in the link I posted earlier.

I heard Transformers 2 will also be shot this way, but that doesn't mean that we all need to dump our scope screens as 95% of all cinemas are not IMAX, they are CIH.

So you would admit that the future holds films being taller than scope.

Why can't I be future proof and allow an immersive scope width identical to CIH setups while retaining the ability to project taller than scope when I want to?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #152 of 527
4/3/09 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.

Every director. Every film.

Are you serious?

I didn't finalize the specs. Complain to SMPTE if you don't like it. Apart from a very smaller number of films, how many films are not Scope or Flat?
So from an artistic perspective that will be able to be seen around the world in a commercial cinema, yes, a director will have two main choices. Scope is becoming more popular as it is different from HDTV. CinemaScope was introduced for that exact reason in the 1950's and it seems that films are going back to that mind set.



Quote:


Umm, no, you're not understanding CIA. I would have a screen where the scope area is identical in width to a CIH setup. The screen would be taller, allowing 2.20 to be projected however I preferred.

So it looks like the original Top Gun (2.20:1) and limited films with a similar ARs are not going to conform to CIA after all as they will be both taller or wider than anything else you watch - IE they will have more impact filling your screen. A true CIA is 2.05:1, not 2.20:1.
Quote:


I could project it CIH and mask the sides as if it weren't as wide as 2.35.

Sorry, what AR would that be?

Quote:


Or I could project it full width of the scope area, but retain the taller image as you admitted Top Gun would need.

Depends on which version you own. The lastest version (DVD and BD) are 2.35:1, and as I don't want to see black bars top and bottom, I get to "fill" my screen
Quote:


With CIH you're limited to cropping the image, or zooming and projecting the image less wide at constant height. What good is an A-lens setup if you still have to zoom for ratios outside of 1.78 & 2.37?!

The use of the lens allows me to use the full panel. The fact that the HDTV panel is 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1 is a limit of HDTV, not CIH. And no, the idea is to NOT project the black bars. As for cropping, out of over 300 DVDs, I had one that was 2.20:1. And that was later re-issued at 2.35:1, so no cropping required.

Quote:


The point of Se7en was that open matte films, while not the director's intended ratio, cannot be projected even CLOSE to properly with a CIH setup. With CIA the size is much closer, and only a full scope width 1.78 screen would display it at a size doing the most justice to the original framing.

And what part of the "director's intended ratio" is no longer relevent?
Quote:


I realize the director isn't intended you to see everything, but he does intend for you to see the 2.40 framed area at a proper size!

And with CIH and a 2.40:1 screen, you do. I just happen to have a 2.35:1 screen (a loan screen BTW) that was made as 2.35:1.
Quote:


So you would admit that the future holds films being taller than scope.

Are you serious?
Rest assured, there is no change in the immediate future, not whilst 35mm film is still being used anyway. And so long as there are cinemas, there will always be CinemaScope. TDK is just one film Vs how many CinemaScope films?

Quote:


Why can't I be future proof and allow an immersive scope width identical to CIH setups while retaining the ability to project taller than scope when I want to?

Go for your life. I am not stopping you. I just see CIA as the future of cinema, but a compromise when a room is not wide enough for CIH. In fact there are cinemas close to where I live that that insert a 2.0:1 plate
to crop the width of Scope. It is not correct, but it gives then a slightly taller image, but it also keeps them CIH. They are just limited to 2.0:1.

I am tempted to make a system like I described in that link, but there would need to be more than 1 film for me to want to invest the cash to make the switch. Either way, the system I describe is still CIH for everything else which better refects the current status of how things are now.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 527
4/3/09 at 10:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So it looks like the original Top Gun (2.20:1) and limited films with a similar ARs are not going to conform to CIA after all as they will be both taller or wider than anything else you watch - IE they will have more impact filling your screen. A true CIA is 2.05:1, not 2.20:1.


Sorry, what AR would that be?

It would still be 2.20:1.

CIA is 2.05:1, and I can project 100% of the 2.20 frame on a 2.05 screen by zooming.

Just like 1.78, and 1.85, I would project slightly taller and slightly less wide than the full width 2.35.

It would cover the same area, offering the same overall impact.

It would retain all of the 2.2 information, as CIH would not do cropping top and bottom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Go for your life. I am not stopping you. I just see CIA as the future of cinema, but a compromise when a room is not wide enough for CIH. In fact there are cinemas close to where I live that that insert a 2.0:1 plate
to crop the width of Scope. It is not correct, but it gives then a slightly taller image, but it also keeps them CIH. They are just limited to 2.0:1.

See I view cropping the width to be FAR more detrimental to director's vision and intention than being stuck on CIH.

I'd much rather see all of the image, even if it had to be slightly smaller.

Since you were a smartass in asking me about turning my surrounds up, are you the guy who zooms scope films to a plasma/LCD's height chopping the sides off?

--

If you sat Spieldberg down in your theater and showed Saving Private Ryan on a CIH scope screen, letting him choose where to place his seat, would he leave it in place when you followed the film with Jurassic Park? Or would he move his seat closer for that film?

Even more interesting, if you sat Sam Raimi down in front of Spider-Man projected full height on a CIA 2.05 screen, again allowing him to place his seat, would he have any desire to move when you started Spider-Man 2 and expanded to the width of the screen (11% wider than SM1)?

I'd be willing to bet Spielberg, and more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers would choose to scoot their chairs closer to see Jurassic Park on CIH and be more immersed.

I'd also be willing to bet that Sam Raimi (and again more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers) would have MUCH LESS (if any) desire to move seating when watching the SM films back to back on CIA.

Reply
Reply
post #154 of 527
4/3/09 at 11:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It would still be 2.20:1.

CIA is 2.05:1, and I can project 100% of the 2.20 frame on a 2.05 screen by zooming.

So you have varing amounts of black bars. It is the height difference that I don't gel with for CIA.

Quote:


Just like 1.78, and 1.85, I would project slightly taller and slightly less wide than the full width 2.35.

Not slightly. Slightly is like the 4% difference between 1.78 and 1.85. You're talking about some 25% for CIW which you reduce to about 12% with CIA. No doubt you have done the proper maths. Actually, it would have to be more of you feel the need to sell your BenQ

Quote:


It would cover the same area, offering the same overall impact.

Not based on the documented research that prooves we are more sesitive to image height.

Quote:


It would retain all of the 2.2 information, as CIH would not do cropping top and bottom.

If that information is actually there. In most cases, it has been replaced with black bars. And I don't want to waste vertical rez there.



Quote:


See I view cropping the width to be FAR more detrimental to director's vision and intention than being stuck on CIH.

I said these cinemas are doing it. I don't do it.

Quote:


I'd much rather see all of the image, even if it had to be slightly smaller.

And I want to see the whole image at a constant height.

Quote:


Since you were a smartass in asking me about turning my surrounds up, are you the guy who zooms scope films to a plasma/LCD's height chopping the sides off?

I don't own a plasma and even if I did, I would except it for what it is and watch letterboxed images. I went CIH so I have don't have to watch black bars.

Quote:


If you sat Spieldberg down in your theater and showed Saving Private Ryan on a CIH scope screen, letting him choose where to place his seat, would he leave it in place when you followed the film with Jurassic Park? Or would he move his seat closer for that film?

You'd have to ask him that question. Both films are the same AR, so they should both be viewed from the same position and that position would be closer to 3x the image height. Do you think he would request to move the seating? I've never met the man, but I doubt that.

Quote:


Even more interesting, if you sat Sam Raimi down in front of Spider-Man projected full height on a CIA 2.05 screen, again allowing him to place his seat, would he have any desire to move when you started Spider-Man 2 and expanded to the width of the screen (11% wider than SM1)?

Would he care? He has probably watched him film on a 16:9 display manytimes.



Quote:


I'd be willing to bet Spielberg, and more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers would choose to scoot their chairs closer to see Jurassic Park on CIH and be more immersed.

You reckon? I doubt that. On a large CIH system like that friend of mine where the image is 1450mm high, the image is immersive even for 1.33:1.

Quote:


I'd also be willing to bet that Sam Raimi (and again more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers) would have MUCH LESS (if any) desire to move seating when watching the SM films back to back on CIA.


Whatever dude.

I think Sam Raimi would be more impressed watching SM films back to back if SM2 and 3 were actually much wider as he intended them to be.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 527
4/3/09 at 11:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Whatever dude.

I think Sam Raimi would be more impressed watching SM films back to back if SM2 and 3 were actually much wider as he intended them to be.

Well, the difference in size between SM1 & SM2 is what propells the reasoning behind CIA.

A majority of viewers would notice the difference between the two less on CIA than they would on CIH.

I do agree that SM1 should have been scope along with 2 & 3, at least that we can agree on.

Unfortunately, Spider-Man is smaller on the screen (go ahead, measure him!) in film one, than he is in film 2 assuming a CIH setup. Did Raimi intend for Spider-Man and the other actors to grow larger in between film 1 & 2?

Miracle-Gro ?
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 527
4/4/09 at 12:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Well, the difference in size between SM1 & SM2 is what propells the reasoning behind CIA.

I disagree with that. With CIH, both films are the same height and therefore only governed by the width. I never understood the why the director choose 1.85:1 for that film, but if SM1 was meant to be the SAME SIZE as 2 and 3, it would have been Scope.

Quote:


A majority of viewers would notice the difference between the two less on CIA than they would on CIH.

I think most people would simply except the smaller scope image as they are used to seeing LB on 16:9 displays. I doubt anyone would praise a CIA system for that bit of extra width. CIH is very obvious when the side masking opens up.

Quote:


I do agree that SM1 should have been scope along with 2 & 3, at least that we can agree on.

Phew, thanks

Quote:


Unfortunately, Spider-Man is smaller on the screen (go ahead, measure him!) in film one, than he is in film 2 assuming a CIH setup. Did Raimi intend for Spider-Man and the other actors to grow larger in between film 1 & 2?

Miracle-Gro ?

Which scenes? If the geometry is correct on a CIH system, then SM himself will appear the same size on both assuming vertical framing of the actor is the same. This is because both are the same height There is just more city in the background of 2 and 3 making it a more grand vision.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 527
4/4/09 at 12:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Which scenes? If the geometry is correct on a CIH system, then SM himself will appear the same size on both assuming vertical framing of the actor is the same. This is because both are the same height There is just more city in the background of 2 and 3 making it a more grand vision.

I see your point about vertical framing, say a headshot. I'm more referring to scenes that are horizontally sensitive, ie. having multiple characters in view spreading the width of the screen, or having Spidey swinging from one end of the screen to the other. In that case, to show the same side to side effect, the 1.85 would have to have less tall characters to fit them in a similar scene (framing would be zoomed out some, and assuming not a P&S scene).

You're saying SM1 is just a cropped version of SM2? That they wanted to show more on the sides of each scene, not that they wanted to frame things differently to have a different effect?

SM1 is simply an inferior film to SM2, and SM3 even? In the same way a P&S 1.78/1.85 framing of SM2 would be an inferior version of itself?

See, with CIH I'd look forward to watching SM3 more than I would the less wide (and hence smaller) SM1, and I hate SM3! That shouldn't be
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 527
4/4/09 at 12:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I see your point about vertical framing, say a headshot. I'm more referring to scenes that are horizontally sensitive, ie. having multiple characters in view spreading the width of the screen, or having Spidey swinging from one end of the screen to the other. In that case, to show the same side to side effect, the 1.85 would have to have less tall characters to fit them in a certain scene (framing would be zoomed out some, and assuming not a P&S scene).

That is exactly why we have CinemaScope. A wider field of view at a given height. And human vison is less sensitive to horozontal than vertical and why CinemaScope works and why IMAX is a speciality screening event.

Quote:


You're saying SM1 is just a cropped version of SM2? That they wanted to show more on the sides of each scene, not that they wanted to frame things differently to have a different effect?

I never said any such thing. I simply said that I questioned the reasoning behind filming SM1 in 1.85:1. If SM is actually smaller overall in the first film, then it would appear a way around the limiting of the width would be to reduce the height of the actors in the shot. AKA letterboxing but without black bars.

Quote:


SM1 is simply an inferior film to SM2, and SM3 even?

If that is your opinion of that film, then you entitled to it. I did not say that. It is what it is and I think SM (like The Hulk) is 1.85:1 to closer represent their comic book origins.

Quote:


In the same way a P&S 1.78/1.85 framing of SM2 would be an inferior version of itself?

No. Pan and Scan is just wrong period I say Ban Pan and Scan...
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 527
4/4/09 at 12:53pm
I use CIH, but I have concluded, particularly after reading this thread, that a lot of people here are obsessed with CIH simply for CIH sake. It's as if no film can be enjoyed unless it is on a CIH set up, and there are no films worth showing unless they are 2.35:1. This philosophy of course is absolute nonsense. For one thing, any real film buff will tell you that the overwhelming majority of excellent films are not 2.35 or even 16:9, but are 4:3! So if you want the best 4:3 then CIA certainly has a whole lot to recommend it. But the CIH guys don't want to hear this. They are so obsessed with impressing their friends with that big scope screen and that Isco lens, that they cannot see that CIA has some positive aspects, and they are totally missing the boat in terms of watching the best films (4:3) ever made. Many CIH people are reluctant to , or even refuse to watch 4:3, and if its in black and white forget it! To them the whole CIH exercise has come down to attaining what they perceive as technical superiority in home theater. They will watch absolute garbage films like 'Quantum of Solace' simply because it looks so impressive to them onthat big 2.35 scren, while totally ignoring the truly wonderful 4:3 films of Hollywoods golden age. So I think a case can be made that many CIH people have totally lost the whole point of home theater, which is simply to watch great movies , in ALL formats.
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 527
4/4/09 at 1:30pm
So if people don't like the kinds of films you do, they're "missing the boat" and not "real film buffs"

Reply
Reply
post #161 of 527
4/4/09 at 2:32pm
I found some notes from CEDIA dating back to 2000. The interesting point is a reference to the screen size where it says that a room should be divided by 4 to find the height and then that number multiplied by the AR of the screen. At that time 1.78:1 was still fairly new and 1.33 was the norm, but even this example suggests CIH, not CIA.

As for what films work. All films work on CIH because the image height is based on the room depth and seating distances. QOS was an awesome action film and yes it scope and fills my screen (and my panel too ) but I have a few films that are 1.33:1 in my collection and I enjoy them as much as anything Scope simply because of the image height/seating distance relationship only CIH can have.

The only reason CIH would be an issue is room width limitations as Lilgator mentions in the early posts of this thread and hence why he want to try out CIA. He states he can't have the image height in the room that we wants based on the fact that room is small.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 527
4/4/09 at 4:00pm
Wikepedia:

"The Dog in the Manger is a fable attributed to Aesop, concerning a dog (CIH) who one afternoon lay down to sleep in the manger (AVS forum). On being awoken (reading this thread's original question), he ferociously kept the cattle in the farm (us) from eating the hay (the ability to have any screen size we want) on which he chose to sleep, even though he was unable to eat it himself (without building a whole new screen), leading an ox to mutter the moral of the fable:

People often begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves.

The phrase is proverbial, referring to people who spitefully prevent others from having something that they themselves have no use for."


Its not about if CIH is the gold standard, its about us (not them...why don't they get that) having the ability to have custom screen sizes. It has nothing to do with height, it has to do with personal choices.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 527
4/4/09 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

So if people don't like the kinds of films you do, they're "missing the boat" and not "real film buffs"


No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 527
4/4/09 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.

And what's wrong with that?!? I'm an engineer for crying out loud!!!

By the way, which films that are "the very best" is a very subjective opinion. While there are old films that are good I still very much enjoy new films and the very best in my opinion are not that old. For example Big Lebowski, Office space, Snatch, Hot Rod, The Matrix and other films I very much enjoyed seeing.
Reply
Reply
post #165 of 527
4/4/09 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I've been following this thread because it's very intersting but I have to say your post is the silliest out of the lot of them.

Ah, I dunno.

Been doing CH for a good four years now, first with a Prismasonic HT1000 and have been using a UH380 for the past two - nothing special about my equipment but the experience is there.

Haven't participated hereabouts for quite some time and frankly in my never so humble opinion there are elements of truth in what taffman posted.

Anyone purchasing Last Year at Marienbad on BD?

ted
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 527
4/4/09 at 8:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvted View Post

Ah, I dunno.

Been doing CH for a good four years now, first with a Prismasonic HT1000 and have been using a UH380 for the past two - nothing special about my equipment but the experience is there.

Haven't participated hereabouts for quite some time and frankly in my never so humble opinion there are elements of truth in what taffman posted.

Anyone purchasing Last Year at Marienbad on BD?

ted

No I read it again I deleted mine as he is right in a way.
Reply
Reply
post #167 of 527
4/4/09 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.

Who exactly is restricting themselves to "modern Scope films" when about 80% of modern films are Scope!?! I try and go to the cinema at least once a month and in the past 2 years, (ready?) I've seen just two films that were not CinemaScope! The most recent was a lame commedy about a mall cop and was presented in 1.85:1. Do I care? No because the cinemas I go to are CIH and this film actually had a Scope trailior before it. It proved the point that I stated a few pages back - that cinemas are CIH and not CIA and can play both CinemaScope and 35mm Flat. It was odd to see the curtains open for the trailor and then close after, but there it is.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 527
4/4/09 at 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.

Every director. Every film.

Are you serious?



I don't believe that this is at all true. In my life, every always etc is simply not part of my language. This type of thought is doomed.

I do believe that scope images are meant to be the widest. All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 527
4/4/09 at 10:58pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I don't believe that this is at all true. In my life, every always etc is simply not part of my language. This type of thought is doomed.

I do believe that scope images are meant to be the widest. All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.

Art

It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.

So far, no one has responded to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Regardless, even if we wanted to model a theater, it still comes down to personal preference and NOT director's intention. Even if "all" cinemas implement CIH for whatever reason, it doesn't change the fact that seating is arranged from too close to too far away. No one dictates where you must sit, and ANY sort of director intention for one ratio to look smaller or larger than another ratio is thrown out the window- director's simply CANNOT have that intention, unless only one row of seating per theater were allowed along with a distance and screen size on spec to go along with the CIH projection.

You know this isn't the case, so how can any director logically imply that he wants his 2.40 film to look wider, and his 1.85 film to look smaller when it relies directly on which seat in the cinema the audience member chooses? At best, only 1/3 of a cinema is even CLOSE to the sweet spot for seating which means that the MAJORITY of viewers may be viewing a 1.85 film MUCH larger than they did when they saw the last 2.40 film (1/3 too close, and then 1/3 too far away).

Even within the safe seating zone's by SMPTE & THX, which by the way are how "director's intentions" are realized (assuming they actually exist as you argue), there is an allowance for seating closer for 1.85 films and further back for 2.35 films.

Anyone can have that preference, and still be completely following cinema specs and "director's intent"!

CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.

Reply
Reply
post #170 of 527
4/4/09 at 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.

I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 527
4/4/09 at 11:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.

Art

How does one not imply the other?

By picking scope because the director wants a wider movie (this is what I'm assuming you are confident happens), isn't he choosing not to shoot 1.85 because it would be "smaller"?
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 527
4/4/09 at 11:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.

Well said
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 527
4/5/09 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.

Often the "asrtisic intent" does not require the extra width from which CinemaScope allows. You so need to get over your "small image" issue. It is not smaller, it is just not as wide.

Quote:


So far, no one has responded to this:



Even within the safe seating zone's by SMPTE & THX, which by the way are how "director's intentions" are realized (assuming they actually exist as you argue), there is an allowance for seating closer for 1.85 films and further back for 2.35 films.

In a cinema, there are multiple rows to cater for many people.

Quote:


Anyone can have that preference, and still be completely following cinema specs and "director's intent"!

CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.

Not sure how often you go to a cinema, but I try and sit in the same row (and even seats) if I can regardless of the film's AR. I find that many other people do the same with most people I know wanting to sit closer to the back of the cinema. So I am struggling to see your point. Are you suggesting that some people are going to move closer for a film in 1.85:1 or move back for a Scope film? I seriously doubt that, epecially if they are over 21.
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 527
4/5/09 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.

Art

Art, I'd beg to differ. I've worked with many directors. I would say that in general, or at least in a significant number of cases, my impression is that the AR is not chosen specifically because the director expects the film to be much bigger or smaller in size. Rather I am of the impression it's the shape of the image - the Aspect Ratio - that is the first consideration, in terms of it's compositional qualities and/or the "vibe" for lack of better word it brings to the movie. (I've read interviews with cinematographers that speak the same way about shooting scope).

For instance, not long ago I worked on a movie about a man who has Agoraphobia and is trapped in his small apartment for most of the film. The whole subject is intensely claustrophobic and most of the shots were very claustrophobic as well. There could hardly be a movie that is further from the type of content and approach envisioned when CinemaScope was first introduced. So why did the director choose to shoot such a movie in scope? I talked to the director about his choice of shooting in scope and he (he shoots lots of commercials as well as some features) simply preferred the AR for it's compositional qualities for movies. It felt "more like a movie," whatever it happened to be projected on. He wasn't shooting scope with the expectation "my movie will be a larger image than non-scope movies" - the movie is going to end up shown "wherever it is shown," be it a CIW or a CIH theater, or a big theater or small theater. (Most mixing theaters of my acquaintance do not have a CIH set up but use CIW...which doesn't stop the directors and producers being very happy when they see their movie projected in it's AR even on CIW screens).

I believe that the rationale for shooting scope is no longer the same as it was envisioned when it first came out (actually, that's a fact, if you look at how the inventors of scope thought movies were to be shot for scope). Since then I think it's just become another AR - another image shape - in the toolbox. Which is why THX specifies both CIH and Constant Image Area theaters.

I think there certainly have been many movies in which the film-makers chose CinemaScope with the mind that the image will indeed be shown wider than non-scope, and hence more "epic." (The Rings Trilogy is only one of a huge number of examples). But it's no longer a consistent motivation across the board. Spielberg shot a Goldy Hawn romp in 2:35:1 and a highly anticipated "event movie" action blockbuster about huge dinosaurs - Jurassic Park - in 1:85:1. Surely the motivation for choosing that AR is, as Spielberg said, it's compositional quality (he felt that AR would emphasize the dinosaur's height relationships against the shorter actors better than the 2:35:1 AR - a choice based strictly on the image shape), and not "I don't want this to feel as impactful and epic as my Goldy Hawn picture."

Cheers,
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 527
4/5/09 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Often the "asrtisic intent" does not require the extra width from which CinemaScope allows. You so need to get over your "small image" issue. It is not smaller, it is just not as wide.

It's not an "issue", it's just a fact. A less wide image at the same height is smaller. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

In a cinema, there are multiple rows to cater for many people.

Not sure how often you go to a cinema, but I try and sit in the same row (and even seats) if I can regardless of the film's AR. I find that many other people do the same with most people I know wanting to sit closer to the back of the cinema. So I am struggling to see your point. Are you suggesting that some people are going to move closer for a film in 1.85:1 or move back for a Scope film? I seriously doubt that, epecially if they are over 21.

I explained that here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.

You obviously fall into the crowd of people having the preference to stay in the same seat regardless of film.

I prefer to be fully immersed by both, and sit accordingly.

Sitting 3x or greater back from 1.85 results in a "large TV" effect, and not theater impact for me.

For you it may be different, but both of us are within spec for seating distances, and are within "director's intent" if it were to exist.

Even if all directors intend for their 1.85 movies to be projected the same height and less wide (smaller) than scope, I'm still following this intent by seating well within SMPTE, 20th Century Fox, and THX spec, albeit closer for 1.85.

As far as your typical audience goes, they are going to find a seat where they find one. This is where how the theater is designed (according to the same specs) comes into play. (Keep in mind, these people aren't building home theaters. We are!)

Only 1/3 of the audience will be near the spec'd sweet spot.

2/3 of the audience will be too close, or too far away.

Your typical viewer may go see "I Love You, Man" (1.85) and sit at 2x screen height, then they'll go see "Fast and Furious" (2.35) and sit 4x screen height, if only for the reason that's where they found seats.

The director can only intend so much as his intentions can be realistically "enforced".

The same showing of "I Love You, Man" can have people sitting 4x screen height, and follow the other people to "Fast and Furious" where they will sit 2x screen height.

In neither case (which is the majority of the time!) is the director's intent of having an identical height image but wider (or less wide) coming across even close.

This only proves that the director cannot intend to have his 2.35 film wider than 1.85 films (in cinemas), and of course he fully realizes that the vast majority of viewing of his film will take place at home on DVD/Blu-ray where his 2.35 film is shown incredibly smaller!

He still prefers to shoot 2.35 for the shape, which is preserved on 1.78 displays at home, and has nothing to do with the size.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 527
4/5/09 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It's not an "issue", it's just a fact. A less wide image at the same height is smaller. Period.

And that is clearly an issue for you hence why you feel you need need to make that image larger by either sitting closer to the screen at a cinema or wanting to impliment CIA at home.

Quote:


You obviously fall into the crowd of people having the preference to stay in the same seat regardless of film.

And that is 99.9999% of the public. I've never observed "adults" relocating themselves closer once the film started. I have seen teenagers do that though.
Quote:


I prefer to be fully immersed by both, and sit accordingly.

Then this only reienforces the comment I made a few pages back about arriving at the cineme BEFORE the lights go out. How could you possibly know what AR every film is going to be and therefore choose a seating distance prior to the main feature starting?
Quote:


Sitting 3x or greater back from 1.85 results in a "large TV" effect, and not theater impact for me.

The screens in the cinemas I go to are least 30'. That is bigger than TV...
Quote:


For you it may be different, but both of us are within spec for seating distances, and are within "director's intent" if it were to exist.

These cinemas are short as in 3.7x the image height deep. As long as I am further back than 2x the image height, I am "in spec" regardless of where I sit. I just like the elevation of the floor that also places me centred vertically as well as choosing a seat centre of the row.

Quote:


Even if all directors intend for their 1.85 movies to be projected the same height and less wide (smaller) than scope, I'm still following this intent by seating well within SMPTE, 20th Century Fox, and THX spec, albeit closer for 1.85.

Hmmm ok.

Quote:


As far as your typical audience goes, they are going to find a seat where they find one. This is where how the theater is designed (according to the same specs) comes into play. (Keep in mind, these people aren't building home theaters. We are!)

Actually I find many people seem to sit towards the edges and I generally seem to find a centre row seat far enough back.
Quote:


Only 1/3 of the audience will be near the spec'd sweet spot.

And less than that 1/3 care.

Quote:


2/3 of the audience will be too close, or too far away.

And they don't know any better.
Quote:


Your typical viewer may go see "I Love You, Man" (1.85) and sit at 2x screen height, then they'll go see "Fast and Furious" (2.35) and sit 4x screen height, if only for the reason that's where they found seats.

But if they get there when the lights are up, and the film is not predictable (like the latest Bond film) how would one know what AR the film is. In fact, how many people even know why the curtains open at the start of a CinemaScope film.

Quote:


The director can only intend so much as his intentions can be realistically "enforced".

By design, something has to give and 1.85:1 is not as wide as Scope

Quote:


The same showing of "I Love You, Man" can have people sitting 4x screen height, and follow the other people to "Fast and Furious" where they will sit 2x screen height.

Not really. Most people aim for the back rows. It is just human nature.

Quote:


In neither case (which is the majority of the time!) is the director's intent of having an identical height image but wider (or less wide) coming across even close.

Would Peter Jackson really choose anything else but CinemaScope for Lord Of The Rings?

Quote:


This only proves that the director cannot intend to have his 2.35 film wider than 1.85 films (in cinemas), and of course he fully realizes that the vast majority of viewing of his film will take place at home on DVD/Blu-ray where his 2.35 film is shown incredibly smaller!

Not on MY home cinema

Quote:


He still prefers to shoot 2.35 for the shape, which is preserved on 1.78 displays at home, and has nothing to do with the size.

Sure it doesn't. And why you read many posts (in this forum too BTW) that ask "why doesn't the picture fit my screen?" Why do I see black bars at the top and bottom of the image?"

Having CinemaScope wider makes it look very different from the TV shape screen of 1.85:1 which means to see this type of presentation, one need to get away from their TV. This is why CinemaScope was introduced in the first place.
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 527
4/5/09 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Art, I'd beg to differ. I've worked with many directors. I would say that in general, or at least in a significant number of cases, my impression is that the AR is not chosen specifically because the director expects the film to be much bigger or smaller in size. Rather I am of the impression it's the shape of the image - the Aspect Ratio - that is the first consideration, in terms of it's compositional qualities and/or the "vibe" for lack of better word it brings to the movie. (I've read interviews with cinematographers that speak the same way about shooting scope).

For instance, not long ago I worked on a movie about a man who has Agoraphobia and is trapped in his small apartment for most of the film. The whole subject is intensely claustrophobic and most of the shots were very claustrophobic as well. There could hardly be a movie that is further from the type of content and approach envisioned when CinemaScope was first introduced. So why did the director choose to shoot such a movie in scope? I talked to the director about his choice of shooting in scope and he (he shoots lots of commercials as well as some features) simply preferred the AR for it's compositional qualities for movies. It felt "more like a movie," whatever it happened to be projected on. He wasn't shooting scope with the expectation "my movie will be a larger image than non-scope movies" - the movie is going to end up shown "wherever it is shown," be it a CIW or a CIH theater, or a big theater or small theater. (Most mixing theaters of my acquaintance do not have a CIH set up but use CIW...which doesn't stop the directors and producers being very happy when they see their movie projected in it's AR even on CIW screens).

I believe that the rationale for shooting scope is no longer the same as it was envisioned when it first came out (actually, that's a fact, if you look at how the inventors of scope thought movies were to be shot for scope). Since then I think it's just become another AR - another image shape - in the toolbox. Which is why THX specifies both CIH and Constant Image Area theaters.

I think there certainly have been many movies in which the film-makers chose CinemaScope with the mind that the image will indeed be shown wider than non-scope, and hence more "epic." (The Rings Trilogy is only one of a huge number of examples). But it's no longer a consistent motivation across the board. Spielberg shot a Goldy Hawn romp in 2:35:1 and a highly anticipated "event movie" action blockbuster about huge dinosaurs - Jurassic Park - in 1:85:1. Surely the motivation for choosing that AR is, as Spielberg said, it's compositional quality (he felt that AR would emphasize the dinosaur's height relationships against the shorter actors better than the 2:35:1 AR - a choice based strictly on the image shape), and not "I don't want this to feel as impactful and epic as my Goldy Hawn picture."

Cheers,

My point is that (at least historically perhaps not now) the choice the wider image was part of the grand scale filmmakers using it had in mind. Perhaps this is no longer the case.

I still am stuck in the past in a lot of ways and, at my age ,my theater is my portal since, although I may be stuck there, I love it.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 527
4/5/09 at 6:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And that is clearly an issue for you hence why you feel you need need to make that image larger by either sitting closer to the screen at a cinema or wanting to impliment CIA at home.

And that is 99.9999% of the public. I've never observed "adults" relocating themselves closer once the film started. I have seen teenagers do that though.

Then this only reienforces the comment I made a few pages back about arriving at the cineme BEFORE the lights go out. How could you possibly know what AR every film is going to be and therefore choose a seating distance prior to the main feature starting?

The screens in the cinemas I go to are least 30'. That is bigger than TV...

These cinemas are short as in 3.7x the image height deep. As long as I am further back than 2x the image height, I am "in spec" regardless of where I sit. I just like the elevation of the floor that also places me centred vertically as well as choosing a seat centre of the row.

Hmmm ok.

Actually I find many people seem to sit towards the edges and I generally seem to find a centre row seat far enough back.

And less than that 1/3 care.

And they don't know any better.

But if they get there when the lights are up, and the film is not predictable (like the latest Bond film) how would one know what AR the film is. In fact, how many people even know why the curtains open at the start of a CinemaScope film.

By design, something has to give and 1.85:1 is not as wide as Scope

Not really. Most people aim for the back rows. It is just human nature.

Would Peter Jackson really choose anything else but CinemaScope for Lord Of The Rings?

Not on MY home cinema

Sure it doesn't. And why you read many posts (in this forum too BTW) that ask "why doesn't the picture fit my screen?" Why do I see black bars at the top and bottom of the image?"

Having CinemaScope wider makes it look very different from the TV shape screen of 1.85:1 which means to see this type of presentation, one need to get away from their TV. This is why CinemaScope was introduced in the first place.

My point isn't that the majority of people know better and relocate after the see the film's AR.

My point is that the majority of people don't know better!

And thus, since the director can't enforce where people choose to sit, he also can't have the intention of making scope feel wider than 1.85.

A 30ft screen is meaningless if you're sitting 50ft away. It WILL feel like a big TV experience, and not a cinema experience.
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 527
4/5/09 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

M
I still am stuck in the past in a lot of ways and, at my age ,my theater is my portal since, although I may be stuck there, I love it.

Art

Hey, tell me about it. I'm still awaiting the completion of my theater room, with the JVC RS20 sitting in a box in my bedroom. I can't freakin' wait to start watching black and white movies. I literally feel like I want to go through my whole film education again, adding in all the old movies I've never seen. I'm just as excited about that as I am about watching Blu Ray movies on the system (most of which, of course, are newer films).

It's fun that my son is now 10 and we are watching movies together. Right now we are going through the first season of Twilight Zone (he's absolutely blown away by that series, and btw: what a great re-mastering job they did!). I can't wait to have the projector up and running and then get my hands on the Ray Harryhausen Blu Rays. Yep...we can't escape re-living our childhood can we?

Rose...bud....
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 527
4/6/09 at 3:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

My point isn't that the majority of people know better and relocate after the see the film's AR.

Even though you've suggested that they might

Quote:


My point is that the majority of people don't know better!

Too true

Quote:


And thus, since the director can't enforce where people choose to sit, he also can't have the intention of making scope feel wider than 1.85.

Sorry dude, that is the silliest thing you've said. It is the director's vision and he/she can make that vision as wide as they like (within the limits of the technology) which means using CinemaScope.

Quote:


A 30ft screen is meaningless if you're sitting 50ft away. It WILL feel like a big TV experience, and not a cinema experience.

Is that 30 foot high or wide?

The screen in Cinema 2 at the complex I like to go to is about 25 foot tall. Therefore if your seated 3x the image height, your at about 75 feet from the screen and your still off the back wall! So no, it does not feel like a big TV at all.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIA: Constant Image Area