or Connect
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 12

post #331 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I'm not substituting anything. I'm not the one making the personal attacks.

Hilarious. Right after you say I'm substituting pride for intelligence, you say you don't make personal attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Exactly my point.

Ah, so you agree that you had the wrong answer being that is was completely irrelevant. Mmmkay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So you don't actualy watch movies?

Yes, I actually do. We can watch movies differently. That's what the words personal preference refer to in my question.

What, you'd like to attack my personal preference? Enjoy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I can't help that cinemas in your local area suck. The ones I go to are very high end. They even have base traps and that impresses me allot.

So you've been to them then? No?

Base traps, eh? I'm glad you're impressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Are you finally coming around to excepting that fact? I've been saying that since page 1 of this tread.

I stated that fact in post #1. Way to keep up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

No, but I can if you want.

Seeing as you agree with me, I don't think it's necessary, but since you like answering questions I didn't ask, feel free to!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

And to re-state what I just said in my last post - you asked for the pros and cons of a CIA system, and all you got was cons. It was nothing to do with the name.

I asked for feedback from people with CIA setups. Is that really so difficult to understand? I'm sorry if it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So in other words, you just wanted to have the last say.

In other words, I offered to end the merry-go-round in a reasonable way. Since you don't want to, I'll keep going! Don't say I didn't try though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

People will respond regardless to share their point if view. If you only wanted CIA owners to respond, then this subforum is the wrong place to have posted your thread.

I see, I supposed I should have posted it in the CIA sub-forum. Oh, there isn't one? Well, I should have posted it in subwoofers then, and not the only subforum on this site that deals with an alternate projection method clearing stating it probably was sketchy to place it here and fully realized mods would have moved it to the proper place, whoops.

Guess what, some CIA owners responded, as I was looking for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Unless you are the director of a film, your personal preference doesn't actually count.

Good work again. My preference doesn't count when I want to watch a movie in my home.

Brilliant.

Do you read? "If you would like to attack my preference, and tell me it's not a valid preference, etc..., don't bother responding because it's not an answer to my question. Try again."

Yet you did, yet you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

The second you posted the thread.

Aaaand wrong again, I never asked for support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Then post it already.

I have been posting thoughts on CIA applications, including some mockups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

So what exacly are you basing it on?

I didn't say I wasn't basing it on commercial cinemas, obviously front projection does by nature. I only said I'm not following your identical approach. It's amazing how much I'm repeating myself!

"For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made)."
post #332 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Hilarious. Right after you say I'm substituting pride for intelligence, you say you don't make personal attacks.

Note that this statement was made above the rest of the posts - IE it was not in response to anything you said so it could have been about myself, yet you clearly have an issue with it and why you've taken it as a personal attack and had an upset.
post #333 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Note that this statement was made above the rest of the posts - IE it was not in response to anything you said so it could have been about myself, yet you clearly have an issue with it and why you've taken it as a personal attack and had an upset.

Valiant effort.

It's not possible for you to upset me I fired right back at you in good humor.

Regardless, to call it anything but a personal attack (which it still is no matter who it is directed to) would be false.
post #334 of 527
Hold your horses guys... or the bickering is going to get this resourceful thread shut down....

A little history on 'Constant Area'...

1982-1990
A young movie buff Bjoern intuitively utilized the concept of having 'favorite seating rows' for scope (2.35:1) and academy flat (1.85:1) movies as a teenager 25 years ago...

1990
Almost 20 years ago, in the early laserdisc days i build my first HT screen. In an outlandish move, i build it in an academy flat ratio (1.85:1) when most of the few people into projection at the time had TV-centric 4:3 screens, yikes.

1995
Being dissatisfied with the fact that scope movies had less impact on my 1.85:1 screen due to reduced height, i build my first scope screen (2.35:1). Note that i did not use the term Constant Height at the time, although it was the concept motivating me. Along with all the arguments for CIH presented here. That was 14 years ago, mind you

Satisfaction with the scope screen lasted only 2 years... Not because of the limited amount of scope material on laserdisc, but because i changed my seating scenario from a single to two rows.

Huh? Let me explain:
In the movie theater, i was able to adjust seating distance to achieve the proper size sensation for any aspect ratio material...

With the scope screen at home, the only way to achieve the same 'size' satisfaction with both ratios, i had to move my seat back and forth. Having only one non-fixed seating row and bit of open space to the front, it was a little awkward yet reasonably practical to watch scope material at the actual seating row distance and move a bit forward for academy material...

When i installed a second row to increase seating capacity, the concept of adjusting seating distance via moving any of the seats became impractical. Since the seating rows where fixed now, the only viable option was to 'choose the row' like in the movie theater... Yet, this did not solve the problem.

1997
Note: This is a key moment in videophile history

I wondered... Why was 'choosing the appropriate row' intuitively feasible in the movie theater, but failed at home? Answer: Different 'seating distance granularity' between two adjacent rows!

I realized that it is the 'size' of the projected image that drives my satisfaction. Neither the width nor the height. To achieve the goal of having the same 'size' for scope (2.35:1) and academy (1.85:1) movies, i had to sit 12,7% closer for academy material.

Assuming a seating row distance of about 4', an theoretical referential row has to be about 35,5' away so that an adjacent row exists directly in front of it which is 12,7% closer. Applying common viewing cone preferences, this implies a 35,5' wide scope screen in a movie theater (distance factor 1.0 x width), a 29,5' wide scope screen in a HD home theater (distance factor 1.2 x width) and a 25,5' wide scope screen in a SD home theater (distance factor 1.4 x width).

Again: It needs a scope screen of that width to be able to accomplish the same 'size sensation' for academy flat (1.85:1) material in the same bounderies (read: with the same height) of the scope screen, by sitting a single adjacent row closer to the screen. Puh, that's a mouth full.

In movie theaters, screens are often much wider, so granularity is even finer than that. In common theaters my favorite spots for the two ratios is usually 2-3 rows apart.

In home theaters on the other side, a screen that huge is utopical even by 20k+ forum means. Assuming a large 14' wide scope screen with two rows at 16' and 12', the front row delivers an image 33% wider than the back row. A far shot from the desired 12,7%.

The consequence is this:
- Either you watch both scope and academy movies in the 16' back row, making academy movies and 16x9 sport 'too small'.
- Or you switch to the front row for academy movies, which makes them waaaay too big, relatively speaking. Actually, moving up to the front row for academy movies will lead to a perceptional bigger 1.85:1 image than even a standard 16x9 screen delivers.

I realized that image 'ratio' and 'size' are two completely seperate concerns...

Funny sidenote: Being a software architect, there are basically only three things i am paid for. Abstracting any problem to the n-th degree. Solving them at this highest or any more reasonable lower abstraction level. And keeping things apart that don't belong together (seperation of concerns).

I set out to revolutionize the image delivery concept, being neither limited by constraints a movie theater has to deal with (plenty of width available, height is limited), nor limited by constraints a home theater is plagued with (limited seating row flexibility).

Define three orthogonal concerns of an image.
A) 'Relative' image size
There are two driving forces behind this concern. In image too small lacks 'imapct'. An image too big lacks resolution and thus 'quality'. Note that i use the term 'relative' image size here, meaning the size of the image relative to the viewing distance. A 100' wide screen does look puny from 10 miles away...

B) 'Absolute' image size
While A is important, the human perception is driven by a second 'size aspect'. The larger the image is in absolute terms, the more authority it induces on us. If A would be the only size aspect influencing our perception... a movie watched on an iPod from 4" away would WOW us as much as a huge theater with 1000 seats and a 150' wide screen from 150' away. We all know this is not the case. The larger the more WOW, as easy as that.

C) Aspect ratio
Movies do have different aspect ratios. Check. The sole driving force behind the DP choosing these ratios is and should be framing, thus 'artistic intend'. All other supposed 'reasons' (impact, size, vista, peripheral vision etc) bleed over to the completely unrelated concern A.

The key observation now is, that Concern A is orthogonal from Concern C. Thus, images of different aspect ratios can and will be perceived as having the same 'relative image size'. In reality, image size sensation seems to be driven by area, not width alone, or height.

Desires:
- You want to be able to choose the relative image size so that 'impact' is to your liking, independant of aspect ratio (Concern C). And so that 'quality' doesn't suffer for your level of source material. This is acomplished through relative image size (Concern A).
- At the same time you want a screen as large as possible to achieve satisfaction through absolute image size (Concern B).

Constraints:
- Due to the 'corse seating distance granularity' issue, switching rows for different aspect ratios is not feasible...
- Due to practicability in most cases, moving seats front and back is not an option either...

Solution:
- Don't adjust seating to vary relative image size (Concern A) for different aspect ratios. Stay in your reference seat and vary the image size.
- Keep the image 'area' constant to keep the relative image size the same.

I coined the term Constant Area Screen to describe the methodology. I coined the term Constant Height Screen to seperate the methodology that i had for 2 years from the one i just invented.

The result revolutionized movie watching.... for me!

Conclusion:
I abandoned my Constant Height screen due to dissatisfaction almost 12 years ago. Ever since i only operated Constant Area screens in my theaters. There is no going back. I inspired many people all over the world to do the same. I stopped 'preaching' CA in home theater communities almost 4 years ago. Over the last 2 years, i notice an increased momentum.... thanks to people like Jeff.

Great! Anyone is welcome to join. This will be the 'last' screen methodology you ever switch to. Don't be shy!



Regards
Bjoern
post #335 of 527
Bjoern,
That would be a great start to the CIA forum.In fact , after that there would be no need for one. Great to see you back !!

Art
post #336 of 527
All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.
post #337 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.

That isn't right. I admitted that pages ago. In the case of 1.33:1 I feel that is more than large enough. In my room that height is plenty. I watched two Charlie Chan films last night and for me this is essentially perfect.

The issue is the size of the 16x9. This is why I chose a screen height in my room that was very close to the size of my old CIW screen. Yes, in comparison to 2.35 it is a let down but that is fine. The expansive look of scope eating up so much peripheral vision is just the $hit. My room could not accomodate a 16x9 screen that wide.

Of course you are right about opening up the masking. At my last home theater meet I went from 42nd Street to Corpse Bride to 300. When the masking opened up to 14' I heard lots of gasps. Not any different than owning a nice home that has a lot of show value, a nice car,etc.I'm not feeling guilty for that.

Art
post #338 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope.

That is so not true. This weekend I have been watching both Scope and 1.85:1 such as Commando and RoboCop (love the HD transfers BTW). Both are enjoyable classic 80's films. The fact that they are not as wide as films like I, Robot does not make them "less impactful". Their cheesy FX might be, but that is what was avaliable at the time when they were made and what gives these films their classic look and place in film history.
post #339 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjoern Roy View Post

A little history on 'Constant Area'...

Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!

Few questions, are you using a 1.78 screen to house 4:3 at an equal area to the other formats, or are you using the ~1.9x screen to house the wider stuff like 2.76 also at equal area?

What do you think of 2.05 screens that are somewhat common now, with the purpose being to only share area between 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 - the three primary HD formats? (For those that don't watch 4:3 much, and if they do it's usually SD).

I found some pics of your uniquely shaped room and CIA setup. Do you have any new pics of what you've done recently?

Oh, and do you have any of those pictures that you posted in the 2001 archived thread I quoted (not likely, but who knows right?)- some may be helpful in visualizing aspects of this application. I've tried recreating some comparisons, but I would be interested to see what you came up with as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Bjoern,
That would be a great start to the CIA forum.In fact , after that there would be no need for one. Great to see you back !!

Art

Much agreed. Though just like CIH, I'm sure there would be plenty of discussion for this concept, planning and application.

Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.

The difference is, the CIH crowd (by nature of the name) feel that based on a certain seating distance, all ratios can share the same impact with the proper shared height. Since their argument is that it's the way it's meant to be seen (CAVX's signature), all ratios are getting the impact they deserve, so they feel nothing is lost.

Also, they do admit that scope gets the most WOW, and they are OK with that.

We feel that impact has to do with the sizes of the image, both vertical and horizontal (area), and because of that impact is not shared between ratios on a CIH setup *for our preference*. We want all ratios (or at least 1.78 -> 2.35) to share the same WOW factor.

This was covered in post #1 in the thread.

The problem is when CAVX, and many others, tell me that my preference is wrong.

Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not? Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?
post #340 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!

It's the delivery, not the poster.

Quote:


The difference is, the CIH crowd (by nature of the name) feel that based on a certain seating distance, all ratios can share the same impact with the proper shared height. Since their argument is that it's the way it's meant to be seen (CAVX's signature), all ratios are getting the impact they deserve, so they feel nothing is lost.

Also, they do admit that scope gets the most WOW, and they are OK with that.

We feel that impact has to do with the sizes of the image, both vertical and horizontal (area), and because of that impact is not shared between ratios on a CIH setup *for our preference*. We want all ratios (or at least 1.78 -> 2.35) to share the same WOW factor.

This was covered in post #1 in the thread.

The problem is when CAVX, and many others, tell me that my preference is wrong.

Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not? Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?

It's not that your preference is wrong, it's your continued (apparent) argument that a CIH screen necessarily means an underwhelming 1.78:1 experience, that CIH means sacrificing 1.78 as a rule.
post #341 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!
Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not? Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?

Bjoern has been around along time. We all know he is a psycho mother fuucker who has been stockpiling weapons for years. I don't want to do anything to piss him off so I just suck up to him. It is demeaning yes but I have a strong self preservation instinct.

I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster. He has been to my home and he is bright but generally diplomatic. He has been a great contributer to the forum for a long time. I still think he has part of my camera tripod.

Art
post #342 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

It's the delivery, not the poster.

It's not that your preference is wrong, it's your continued (apparent) argument that a CIH screen necessarily means an underwhelming 1.78:1 experience, that CIH means sacrificing 1.78 as a rule.

Good story, but it is the poster. I've stated the exact same points he has. No CIH supporter seems willing to argue with him however.

Also, that is the case- many have stated that my preference is wrong, including CAVX.

Guess what, CIH means an underwhelming 1.78/1.85 experience for me, read post #1.

It also does for Bjoern, but you don't seem to mind that.

By the way, you've admitted these things yourselves:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'd take it but as with almost anything we do there are compromises. I often wish more films were 2.35:1 when I put in a 1.85:1 now based on my CIH choice.

What's the implication here? 2.35 has more impact. And that's fine, he's said so, that's his preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Maybe that's really the answer, CAVX, and Art and I are movie lovers first, we want scope to have more impact than 16x9, or HDTV, as it was intended to. It's not that we "don't care" about 16x9 size, we want 16x9 to have great impact like everyone else here, but contrary to some, we want scope to have even more impact than HDTV/16x9.

No implication here, you just come out and say it:

We. Want. Scope. To. Have. Even. More. Impact.

But wait ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

That is so not true. This weekend I have been watching both Scope and 1.85:1 such as Commando and RoboCop (love the HD transfers BTW). Both are enjoyable classic 80's films. The fact that they are not as wide as films like I, Robot does not make them "less impactful". Their cheesy FX might be, but that is what was avaliable at the time when they were made and what gives these films their classic look and place in film history.

You guys (CIHers) can't even keep your story straight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Bjoern has been around along time. We all know he is a psycho mother fuucker who has been stockpiling weapons for years. I don't want to do anything to piss him off so I just suck up to him. It is demeaning yes but I have a strong self preservation instinct.

I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster. He has been to my home and he is bright but generally diplomatic. He has been a great contributer to the forum for a long time. I still think he has part of my camera tripod.

Art

I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

For the record, I've only attacked posters (in addition to their post content!) when they opened up the table for such by attacking me.
post #343 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Actually I've followed the 4-way masking system thread in the DIY portion of this forum for quite some time. The manual 4-way masking system isn't expensive, but even that is probably more than a single weekend project. They're still looking for an inexpensive and practical way to motorize that system - their most recent attempts have been significantly noisier and slower than conventional systems. It seems they've solved the problem of positioning the masks using memory presets. However the scope of such a project (no pun intended) is beyond your average "handyman" level and would require some learning for your average guy. You may be familiar with most of the systems required to do this already - I would venture a guess that your average person is not. Not to mention that $500 is definitely on the low side for a fully motorized 4-way masking system with presets for a significant number of ARs like what you would get from a professional system. As I said, it's a trade between money and time.

Yes, I've followed those efforts too and agree with your assessment. Especially if one is looking for automated 4 way masking.

For those reasons, and because I'm not much of a handyman myself, I've gone for a middle option. Instead of building everything from the ground up I'm combining two professionally made systems for masking:

1. The Carada Masquerade screen masking system for vertical masking (top/bottom masks).

with:

2. A roller panel system from Goelst. This system is much like an automated curtain system, only it uses panels in a "come-along" design, so that they all stack behind one another to each side of the screen when open, and can close to cover the entire screen. This will be the side masking panels. This panel system can have up to 5 pre-set image width stopping points.


So it will all be remote controllable from the viewing seats. Total cost will be around $5,000. Pretty good when you consider 4 way masking often runs over $18,000 from the big companies. And I think $5,000 is a bargain for building such flexibility into the home theater.
post #344 of 527
Bjoern Roy,

Nice to see a great post by a pioneer!

I originally planned on doing a CIH set up. However, when used a projector on my wall to determine image sizes I came to exactly the conclusion you did. That my comfort and desire for any particular image size tended to be determined by it's overall image area, vs it's height or width. In thinking about it I came to all the same reasons you have and have been arguing such since then.

Not that others SHOULD do as I do; only that it is a choice that makes sense for some of us, with a good rational underlying the choice.

While I think Constant Image Area is a useful concept insofar as it identifies
the impact of image area over other criteria, I don't see it as a solid restriction (at least in my case) as is the case with Constant Image Height.
In other words, I don't view achieving a perfect CIA for every aspect ratio as my goal, so much as using the fundamental insight about the fact of movie going and the choice of seating (and movie theater, for that matter) and how that affects the immersion. This is what I keep pointing out about CIH; that the rational offered for CIH isn't simply the change in aspect ratio, but the "greater immersion" of the scope image. But since immersion and impact are affected by the angle of view, which is affected by where you sit, the relative "height" and size of the image is rarely constant in actual movie going.

Like many folks I've chosen which theater to attend (a huge screen theater or otherwise) and which seat to sit in, based on the movie I'm watching, my preference for immersion in that movie etc. It's this flexibility that, as you identify, most home theaters do not allow due to limited seating compared to movie theaters.

And it is this flexibility, offered in real movie-going, that I'm building into my home theater by using an extra big screen, 4 way masking, and zooming the image. I can vary the angle of view, via zooming to various image sizes, as I desire, like choosing a different cinema or a different seat in the cinema.
I will also be able to vary the image size based on the quality of the source content, to maintain image quality.

So it's not that I am trying to maintain a strict Constant Image Area. I want to be free of restrictions which is the reason I'm not going with either a standard Constant Image Width or CIH in the first place. But my decision is based on the underlying issues identified in the rational for Constant Image Area (how image sizes affect us, the choice of seats in theaters etc).

Cheers!
post #345 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yes, I've followed those efforts too and agree with your assessment. Especially if one is looking for automated 4 way masking.

For those reasons, and because I'm not much of a handyman myself, I've gone for a middle option. Instead of building everything from the ground up I'm combining two professionally made systems for masking:

1. The Carada Masquerade screen masking system for vertical masking (top/bottom masks).

with:

2. A roller panel system from Goelst. This system is much like an automated curtain system, only it uses panels in a "come-along" design, so that they all stack behind one another to each side of the screen when open, and can close to cover the entire screen. This will be the side masking panels. This panel system can have up to 5 pre-set image width stopping points.


So it will all be remote controllable from the viewing seats. Total cost will be around $5,000. Pretty good when you consider 4 way masking often runs over $18,000 from the big companies. And I think $5,000 is a bargain for building such flexibility into the home theater.

I wonder if Carada could custom build a Masquerade that did both horizontal and vertical masking since they offer both separately ($5K or under of course, which is a fairly decent amount of padding, nearly double what they ask for one or the other)? Probably a longshot I guess.

Scratch that, they don't sound interested right now:

Quote:


No unfortunately we don’t offer a 4-way Masquerade system capable of masking all sides of the image. You can get that kind of masking system from Stewart, Screen Research, or SMX, or Vutec. But sit down before you call for pricing because the sticker shock might make you a bit dizzy. :-)

Seems like they're most of the way there in providing 4-way at a reasonable price, I wonder when they'll offer it?
post #346 of 527
[quote=LilGator;16258599]"For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made)."

You claim you 'do it better than the Cinema'? Dear oh dear..

If you want to 'piss in your beer' and claim it tastes better that way, go right ahead
post #347 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post

You claim you 'do it better than the Cinema'? Dear oh dear..

If you want to 'piss in your beer' and claim it tastes better that way, go right ahead

I'm sorry you've been repressed, but really, it's ok- go ahead try it, you may like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster.

You see Art, I don't have much to work with

I could respond by explaining what the typical American cinema is really like and how easy it is to do it better (repeating myself of course), but then again, I don't think that's what he's after with this post.
post #348 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Good story, but it is the poster. I've stated the exact same points he has. No CIH supporter seems willing to argue with him however.

Also, that is the case- many have stated that my preference is wrong, including CAVX.

Guess what, CIH means an underwhelming 1.78/1.85 experience for me, read post #1.

I have, we asked you a simple question about whether you'd considered adjusting your seating, to which you responded with comments about "darting eyes". And you've continued to argue that all ARs should be the same size essentially that CIH is wrong.

Quote:


It also does for Bjoern, but you don't seem to mind that.

Because he made it clear that he wasn't happy with CIH, and wanted something different.

Quote:


By the way, you've admitted these things yourselves:

I haven't seen any of the CIH proponents "admit" that 16:9 is underwhelming. Quite the contrary, we've all stated that we find 16:9 is a pleasing size.

Quote:


What's the implication here? 2.35 has more impact. And that's fine, he's said so, that's his preference.

The implication is that he likes the 2.35:1 format better. I think R Harkness has admitted the same preference (despite wanting a CIA/Variable Size setup).

Quote:


No implication here, you just come out and say it:

We. Want. Scope. To. Have. Even. More. Impact.

"More impact" for 2.35:1 does not equate to "underwhelming" for 16:9. CAVX, I and Art I think all find that each AR has the "right" impact in our CIH setups, that we aren't left wanting for anything.
post #349 of 527
Bjoern Roy - well presented (and with a "polite" delivery).
post #350 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It began that way. CIH'ers took it beyond that, unnecessarily.

Get over the CIH forum nonsense, this thread has been here pushing a month, if it belonged somewhere else it would be there. I'm well aware, and have stated it myself.

Try to keep up

And your presence here is in my opinion obnoxious, but how is that relevant?

Would you like to discuss CIA now?

I'm calling you obnoxious because you've managed to argue with CIH-ers for 12 pages over personal preference and queep under the guise of looking for practical information on CIA setups. Either put your overactive google skills to use amassing practical information for CIA, or get out of the CIH forum.

In your original post you solicited opinions on a CIA setup because you said you wanted to install one. How's that coming along? In the last month, I have yet to see any substantive technical information posted here related to actually implementing a CIA HT setup. From the outset you chose to argue semantics, and instead of spending your time researching CIA you have googled all sorts of useless information.

If you're serious about CIA, here are some good questions to start you off:

- You will almost always have some sort of black bars without the use of a masking system. What are the PQ/budget/time tradeoffs for using masking vs not? Your screen and setup will not be optimized for any specific AR so unlike CIH, there will be no AR that completely fills your screen - so masking may be more important than in other variable AR setups. This could make CIA less practical from an HT standpoint for some.

- Have you done any research into whether a commercial or DIY masking system would better suit your needs and budget?

- What kind of options are you looking at for achieving all the different ARs you'd be viewing? Zoom only, zoom/variable expansion lens (Prismasonic)/scaling, or a fixed expansion lens (Panamorph/Schneider/ISCO) and scaling only? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each from a PQ and viewability perspective (real life vs. hypothetical)?

- Without the use of a manual iris, the only way to achieve constant brightness would be the use of zoom/variable expansion lens/scaling, which is the most complicated method. What are the real-life PQ consequences of each AR having a different brightness level from a viewability/calibration standpoint?

That's just the tip of the iceburg. I think you'll find more support and inquiry if you take things in that direction. Or you can just continue to bicker about a topic that ultimately boils down to subjectiveism and won't ever see resolute consesus.
post #351 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I have, we asked you a simple question about whether you'd considered adjusting your seating, to which you responded with comments about "darting eyes". And you've continued to argue that all ARs should be the same size essentially that CIH is wrong.

If I sit where I prefer to see 16x9, then I'm too close to see all of 2.35 comfortably on a CIH setup. This is a personal preference, you prefer 16x9 to be smaller than I do. Get it yet?

I've NEVER argued that CIH is wrong. I've only argued that CIH is not the only valid method.

You really need to pay attention, this thread is full of posts insinuating CIH's divine supremacy, NOT the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Because he made it clear that he wasn't happy with CIH, and wanted something different.

As did I, identically, in post #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

I haven't seen any of the CIH proponents "admit" that 16:9 is underwhelming. Quite the contrary, we've all stated that we find 16:9 is a pleasing size.

Will you keep up? I never said anyone called 16x9 underwhelming on CIH, only you did.

I said that I prefer shared impact. You said that you prefer 2.35 to have more impact.

CIH proponents admit that 16:9 has less impact than 2.35 on a CIH screen.

I don't prefer that. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

The implication is that he likes the 2.35:1 format better. I think R Harkness has admitted the same preference (despite wanting a CIA/Variable Size setup).

But the argument for CIH is that 2.35 vs. 1.85 isn't a matter of format, it's a matter of size, namely width.

I'm the one who said directors choose an AR based on the shape, look and feel (format) and not based on any size intended. Now you're using my argument?

Art's statement was based on his CIH choice. Because 2.35 images are projected wider (are larger) he often wishes 1.85 movies were wider (and larger).

R Harkness has said that he prefers 2.35, but his choice is based on format, and not size in relation to other ARs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

"More impact" for 2.35:1 does not equate to "underwhelming" for 16:9. CAVX, I and Art I think all find that each AR has the "right" impact in our CIH setups, that we aren't left wanting for anything.

Only because that is your preference. I prefer 1.85 and 2.35 to share impact, you don't.

It has nothing to do with extreme terms like "underwhelming" which you came up with.
post #352 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I'm calling you obnoxious because you've managed to argue with CIH-ers for 12 pages over personal preference and queep under the guise of looking for practical information on CIA setups. Either put your overactive google skills to use amassing practical information for CIA, or get out of the CIH forum.

I have argued that my personal preference shares equal validity with the CIH preference.

For the 600th time, if this thread was meant to be anywhere besides here:

IT WOULD BE THERE.

I'm sorry you don't feel that way

It's amazing how many times I've had to type this. You need a reading comprehension class or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

In your original post you solicited opinions on a CIA setup because you said you wanted to install one. How's that coming along? In the last month, I have yet to see any substantive technical information posted here related to actually implementing a CIA HT setup. From the outset you chose to argue semantics, and instead of spending your time researching CIA you have googled all sorts of useless information.

At the moment it's on hold because I can't use my DLP projector and it's limited zoom range.

I have posted technical content related to implementation, in between arguing with CIHers who would like to distract the thread from it's intended purpose. I found a quality source (old archived threads of Bjoern's) and posted them for others to glean valuable info from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

If you're serious about CIA, here are some good questions to start you off:

- You will almost always have some sort of black bars without the use of a masking system. What are the PQ/budget/time tradeoffs for using masking vs not? Your screen and setup will not be optimized for any specific AR so unlike CIH, there will be no AR that completely fills your screen - so masking may be more important than in other variable AR setups. This could make CIA less practical from an HT standpoint for some.

So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?

Yes, masking is more important for this setup than any other. CIH, CIW, and CIA all have tradeoffs, what's your point?

Budget/time tradeoffs are very similar to the zoom vs. lens method of CIH. Yes, you have to adjust zoom and vertical lens shift. Yes it takes a minute to adjust that before starting a film. Adjusting 4 masks vs. 2 masks takes a marginal amount of additional time.

I used to watch my dad setup anamorphic 2.35 DVDs for playback by going into the service menu of a 4:3 CRT and adjusting vertical compression. Masking and adjusting zoom/lens shift is no biggie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

- Have you done any research into whether a commercial or DIY masking system would better suit your needs and budget?

A DIY system most definitely better suits my needs. This is a very cheap living room setup. I will attempt to build common masks and use magnets to apply them to the screen. I've seen it done very effectively here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

- What kind of options are you looking at for achieving all the different ARs you'd be viewing? Zoom only, zoom/variable expansion lens (Prismasonic)/scaling, or a fixed expansion lens (Panamorph/Schneider/ISCO) and scaling only? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each from a PQ and viewability perspective (real life vs. hypothetical)?

Because I'm keeping it simple and cheap, zoom only.

Benefits and drawbacks for PQ will be as hotly debated and inconclusive as zooming vs. lens method for CIH. Nothing new here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

- Without the use of a manual iris, the only way to achieve constant brightness would be the use of zoom/variable expansion lens/scaling, which is the most complicated method. What are the real-life PQ consequences of each AR having a different brightness level from a viewability/calibration standpoint?

Negligible. Projected image area is identical. The adjustment between widest (2.35) and tallest (1.78) is too small for a non-light-controlled environment to matter for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

That's just the tip of the iceburg. I think you'll find more support and inquiry if you take things in that direction. Or you can just continue to bicker about a topic that ultimately boils down to subjectiveism and won't ever see resolute consesus.

If CIA was relegated to subjectivism, a personal preference equally as valid as CIH, as I intended, we wouldn't have had 12 pages of bickering.
post #353 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?

As you continue to argue CIA in a CIH forum
post #354 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

As you continue to argue CIA in a CIH forum

Yes, I'm talking about CIA, in a CIH sub-forum of Display Devices, a sub-forum of AVS Forum.

Thanks for the recap.

If this wasn't the proper place to discuss CIA, this thread would have been moved.

Guess what...

This is the third largest thread in this sub-forum.

It is currently the 29th most viewed thread in this sub-forum (which has been around since '06) already, and it hasn't even been around a month.

Sounds like it's fitting in.
post #355 of 527
[quote=LilGator;16259791]

This is the third largest thread in this sub-forum.

It is currently the 29th most viewed thread in this sub-forum which has been around since '06 already, and it hasn't even been around a month.


It's the '3rd largest' thread in this sub-forum because YOU continue to argue like a knob against anyone who does not agree with you. YOU and YOU alone made this thread the '3rd largest'.

I have never seen anyone in my years, clutch at straws the way you have.
post #356 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztheatre View Post

It's the '3rd largest' thread in this sub-forum because YOU continue to argue like a knob against anyone who does not agree with you. YOU and YOU alone made this thread the '3rd largest'.

I have never seen anyone in my years, clutch at straws the way you have.

Quite the contrary. There are at least 3x the CIH posters in this thread than CIA posters, and they continue to argue equally as much.

Sorry, it takes two (or 6-8+ in this case) to tango

Also, I'm not forcing anyone to view it, yet it's racking up views at a rate of 1500+ a week. There's plenty of interest in CIA out there.
post #357 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I have argued that my personal preference shares equal validity with the CIH preference.

You've done so ad nauseam. Everyone knows how you feel. So what's your continued purpose here? To re-iterate again and again that you have an opinion on something? THIS IS THE CIH forum. If you want to come in here and advocate something else, make the thread useful - ACTUALLY SET SOMETHING UP. Discuss technical implementation issues after you've tried it. Don't argue the same tired old reguritated crap that you have for 12 pages straight. Believe me, you're convincing no one but yourself and acting like a troll in the meantime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You need a reading comprehension class or something.

So when you post something over and over, it's acceptable, but when someone else does, it's not? Hypocracy and personal attack all in one statement - well done. Very useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

At the moment it's on hold because I can't use my DLP projector and it's limited zoom range.

So you haven't actually implemented CIA - you'd rather waste a month here arguing about it with people who don't share your viewpoint. At least you have your priorities straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I have posted technical content related to implementation, in between arguing with CIHers who would like to distract the thread from it's intended purpose. I found a quality source (old archived threads of Bjoern's) and posted them for others to glean valuable info from.

Wrong, you've used a serach tool and posted some links - anyone can do that. How can you possibly have new, useful information to conribute if you've never even attempted a CIA setup? Until you actually put your money where your mouth is, you're beating a dead horse in a forum that doesn't share your viewpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?

I did no such thing - why are you so defensive? As someone who actually owns, uses, and knows the PQ benefits of a motorized masking system, I pointed out that CIA's persistent black bars would benefit more from a masking system as compared to CIH or CIW, where the primary aspect is properly framed by a screen with black borders. Achieving this even just part of the time with CIA would require some sort of masking system, which makes it more complicated to implement. Plus, there's no simple way to mask with CIA - you either have to construct a set of masking panels for every AR, build a 4-way manual masking system, or you have to buy an aftermarket solution.

Budget/time tradeoffs are very similar to the zoom vs. lens method of CIH. Yes, you have to adjust zoom and vertical lens shift. Yes it takes a minute to adjust that before starting a film. Adjusting 4 masks vs. 2 masks takes a marginal amount of additional time.[/quote]

If you're using just zoom, then yes you "only" have to adjust lens shift and zoom every time you change ARs - a process which I can assure you gets quite tedious even with everything motorized (unless you're using a Panny 3000, but then you're limited to a single projector's performance, which is an another argument in and of itself). It only gets more complicated setup-wise once you add a scaler and/or lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

A DIY system most definitely better suits my needs. This is a very cheap living room setup. I will attempt to build common masks and use magnets to apply them to the screen. I've seen it done very effectively here.

Again, you'll have to construct separate masks for every AR - 1.33:1 and 2.40:1 will be a set of bars, all others will be full rectangles. Unless you only choose to mask a couple "main" ARs, which would ultimately show favoritism and contradict the "all are equal" idea behind CIA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Because I'm keeping it simple and cheap, zoom only.

The two hardly go hand-in-hand as I've already illustrated. A fully motorized 4-way memory masking system would be simple; magnetized masks would be cheap. The two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Benefits and drawbacks for PQ will be as hotly debated and inconclusive as zooming vs. lens method for CIH. Nothing new here.

Right - I'm trying to push this in the direction of discussing those actual benefits and drawbacks. You know, people with actual experience with CIA talking about their experiences. The fact that you admit that there will be differences and that they'll be discussed is of use to no one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Negligible. Projected image area is identical. The adjustment between widest (2.35) and tallest (1.78) is too small for a non-light-controlled environment to matter for me.

Say you have a 120"x67.4" 1.78:1 screen, and your projector outputs 600 calibrated lumens on a full D65 100IRE image. 1.33:1 would be the tallest of all images, using the full panel height, but because you'd only use 75% of the panel, you'd lose 25% of your lumens, so you'd get 10.7 ftL on said screen. 1.78:1, on the other hand, would use the full panel (full lumens) at the same area as the 1.33:1 picture, giving you 14.4 ftL. Hardly negligible. This is the kind of practical knowledge that you'd get from actually setting this up (or at least better researching it from a practical standpoint) rather than arguing symantics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

If CIA was relegated to subjectivism, a personal preference equally as valid as CIH, as I intended, we wouldn't have had 12 pages of bickering.

I never said CIA wasn't a valid method of setting up one's HT. But until you do something practical and actually set one up to provide useful info (something you've yet to do), you're just some guy with a bone to pick.
post #358 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You've done so ad nauseam. Everyone knows how you feel. So what's your continued purpose here? To re-iterate again and again that you have an opinion on something? THIS IS THE CIH forum. If you want to come in here and advocate something else, make the thread useful - ACTUALLY SET SOMETHING UP. Discuss technical implementation issues after you've tried it. Don't argue the same tired old reguritated crap that you have for 12 pages straight. Believe me, you're convincing no one but yourself and acting like a troll in the meantime.

Everyone knows how CIH proponents feel, yet they keep posting. What's their purpose here?

If my thread was worthless it would have been buried long ago.

Did you actually read my first post? I simply asked for people with CIA setups to share what they've done and what they think. Nothing more.

Yes sir, I will believe you, because I actually care what you think. Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

So when you post something over and over, it's acceptable, but when someone else does, it's not? Hypocracy and personal attack all in one statement - well done. Very useful.

Have I said it's not? If I'm repeating myself to answer your useless question, it means one thing: you can't read.

Hypocrisy would be picking on someone about personal attacks and hypocrisy, while in the same post calling them a troll. Hypocrisy recursion. Even more useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

So you haven't actually implemented CIA - you'd rather waste a month here arguing about it with people who don't share your viewpoint. At least you have your priorities straight.

Yes, that was clear in my first post. I'm glad you're realizing that on page 12. Once again, you can't read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Wrong, you've used a serach tool and posted some links - anyone can do that. How can you possibly have new, useful information to conribute if you've never even attempted a CIA setup? Until you actually put your money where your mouth is, you're beating a dead horse in a forum that doesn't share your viewpoint.

Anyone can, yet nobody did. If you read my first post, you'd realize I never claimed to have firsthand experience with CIA, because I was asking others for it- the primary and sole intention of creating the thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I did no such thing - why are you so defensive? As someone who actually owns, uses, and knows the PQ benefits of a motorized masking system, I pointed out that CIA's persistent black bars would benefit more from a masking system as compared to CIH or CIW, where the primary aspect is properly framed by a screen with black borders. Achieving this even just part of the time with CIA would require some sort of masking system, which makes it more complicated to implement. Plus, there's no simple way to mask with CIA - you either have to construct a set of masking panels for every AR, build a 4-way manual masking system, or you have to buy an aftermarket solution.

Sorry, but no one has to do anything- and we certainly don't have to do what you say.

The vast majority of FP setups here on this forum are CIW and use no masks. So I'm taking on a more challenging approach, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

If you're using just zoom, then yes you "only" have to adjust lens shift and zoom every time you change ARs - a process which I can assure you gets quite tedious even with everything motorized (unless you're using a Panny 3000, but then you're limited to a single projector's performance, which is an another argument in and of itself). It only gets more complicated setup-wise once you add a scaler and/or lens.

It's worth it to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Again, you'll have to construct separate masks for every AR - 1.33:1 and 2.40:1 will be a set of bars, all others will be full rectangles. Unless you only choose to mask a couple "main" ARs, which would ultimately show favoritism and contradict the "all are equal" idea behind CIA.

Again, I don't have to do anything, including everything you want me to do.

You must have missed my attempt at starting a discussion about 1.78 & 2.05 setups based on what you watch more.

I tend to watch 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 about 99% of the time, so there's no point in masking for 4:3. The only difference from CIH is that I'll need to mask top and bottom for 2.35.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

The two hardly go hand-in-hand as I've already illustrated. A fully motorized 4-way memory masking system would be simple; magnetized masks would be cheap. The two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

You said yourself a fully motorized 4-way would be the most complicated to implement. That's what I was referring to.

Simple & cheap refer to implementation and are one and the same. Operating speed/ease is another matter that I'm not worried about for obvious reasons..

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Right - I'm trying to push this in the direction of discussing those actual benefits and drawbacks. You know, people with actual experience with CIA talking about their experiences. The fact that you admit that there will be differences and that they'll be discussed is of use to no one.

Very good, and you asking the question adds just as little insight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Say you have a 120"x67.4" 1.78:1 screen, and your projector outputs 600 calibrated lumens on a full D65 100IRE image. 1.33:1 would be the tallest of all images, using the full panel height, but because you'd only use 75% of the panel, you'd lose 25% of your lumens, so you'd get 10.7 ftL on said screen. 1.78:1, on the other hand, would use the full panel (full lumens) at the same area as the 1.33:1 picture, giving you 14.4 ftL. Hardly negligible. This is the kind of practical knowledge that you'd get from actually setting this up (or at least better researching it from a practical standpoint) rather than arguing symantics.

Someday you'll learn to read and understand that we all aren't going to do things your way. A 2.05 setup which I referred to with 1.78 being the full height of the screen, will not share the lumen gap that you speak of.

My living room isn't a critical production screening room. It isn't light controlled.

You also completely ignored the effect zooming will have on different ratios.

Negligible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I never said CIA wasn't a valid method of setting up one's HT. But until you do something practical and actually set one up to provide useful info (something you've yet to do), you're just some guy with a bone to pick.

I never said you did. Plenty of others have. When you learn to read, you can go back through the thread and see those posts.

I'm actually just some guy who wanted some insight from CIA users, something you aren't.
post #359 of 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Everyone knows how CIH proponents feel, yet they keep posting. What's their purpose here?

If my thread was worthless it would have been buried long ago.

Did you actually read my first post? I simply asked for people with CIA setups to share what they've done and what they think. Nothing more.

Yes sir, I will believe you, because I actually care what you think. Right.

You posted an off topic thread in a forum that is at direct odds with your original topic, you personally attack people when they disagree with you (surprise! you're in the wrong spot) and talk down to everyone as if they're 5 because they don't share your viewpoint. You accuse others of getting personal, but you certainly didn't waste time lowering yourself to that level, to include whining about people disagreeing with you or telling you that your'e wrong (God forbid!). The fact that this thread is 12 pages long has nothing to do with the usefulness of the content - only the troglodytic nature of the OP who can't let any contrary opinion go ignored or un-punished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Have I said it's not? If I'm repeating myself to answer your useless question, it means one thing: you can't read.

"You can't read...", "Keep up" "Did you even read my first post?"

Such responses serve no purpose except to degrade and insult. Why are you surprised that no one here takes you seriously when you continually fall back on such responses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Hypocrisy would be picking on someone about personal attacks and hypocrisy, while in the same post calling them a troll. Hypocrisy recursion. Even more useful.

I used the term troll very literally. If you take it personally - as you have done with so many other things here - that's not my fault. Defensively accusing me of not being able to read because you can't answer a legitimate question is a personal attack. I doubt you'll figure the difference between the two out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Yes, that was clear in my first post. I'm glad you're realizing that on page 12. Once again, you can't read.

I've already addressed your propensity for statements like this that serve no purpose but to insult and dodge legitimate questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Anyone can, yet nobody did. If you read my first post, you'd realize I never claimed to have firsthand experience with CIA, because I was asking others for it- the primary and sole intention of creating the thread!

Plenty of people use the search function here every day. They just don't feel the need to create threads about how awesome they are at typing a few characters and hitting the "Search" button and then insulting anyone that posts anything contrary to their opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Sorry, but no one has to do anything- and we certainly don't have to do what you say.

If you want any respect here, you'll do it. Or you can just banter on, and maintain your current troll status. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" as you are clearly alone in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The vast majority of FP setups here on this forum are CIW and use no masks. So I'm taking on a more challenging approach, sorry.

You haven't taken anything on. You've made an excuse as to why you've spent the last month arguing with people about opinion and symantics here instead of actually producing a setup and providing information of worth to others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You must have missed my attempt at starting a discussion about 1.78 & 2.05 setups based on what you watch more.

No, I didn't, but it was unimpressive and short-lived, since you decided to dedicate this thread to arguing with those who don't agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I tend to watch 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 about 99% of the time, so there's no point in masking for 4:3. The only difference from CIH is that I'll need to mask top and bottom for 2.35.

Either your system won't be true CIA (anything less than 1.78 will have less area than everything else) or you haven't done your homework. 1.78:1 needs to be masked on all four sides in a true CIA setup. But go ahead and bend the definition of CIA to your whims in order to try to sound right in absolutely everything you say. It will impress everyone and completely fool them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You said yourself a fully motorized 4-way would be the most complicated to implement. That's what I was referring to.

Simple & cheap refer to implementation and are one and the same. Operating speed/ease is another matter that I'm not worried about for obvious reasons..

Having separate sets of masks that need to be mounted before viewing may be simple to construct, but along with the zooming/resetting lens shift/mounting the masks, it's anything but simple in implementation. A 4-way mask would take more time to build but be quicker to use. You have no real world experience with this, but you're telling everyone how easy it will be. How does that work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Very good, and you asking the question adds just as little insight.

I'm not the one trying to justify this thread's existence or placement - you're the one who needs to come up with material of substance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Someday you'll learn to read and understand that we all aren't going to do things your way. A 2.05 setup which I referred to with 1.78 being the full height of the screen, will not share the lumen gap that you speak of.

My living room isn't a critical production screening room. It isn't light controlled.

You also completely ignored the effect zooming will have on different ratios.

Negligible.

No, I didn't ignore anything - you're talking zoom-based CIA, so my numbers are based on a zoom-based, true 1.78:1 CIA setup. Let me explain this to you on a very basic level. Light off the screen is calculated by multiplying the lumen output of the projector by the screen gain and dividing by the screen area in ft^2 - this gives you the footlambers (ftL) coming off the screen. Two images of different area and/or proportions measured at the same ftL will appear idendically bright. However, when you watch a movie that uses less than the full display panel, you're not using the full lumen output of the projector - the light deflected by the pixels in the black bars gets "thrown away". A 2.39:1 image uses just under 75% of the available display panel on a 1.78:1 projector, as does a 1.33:1 image. Therefore in both situations your light output is cut by approx 25%. In a CIW setup, the viewable area decreases proportionally with the lumen output, so the percieved brightness is constant no matter what AR you watch. In a CIA setup, since the viewable area is always constant - your image area remains constant while the the effective lumen output changes based on the size of the black bars. Therefore, in the case of a true 1.78:1 screen CIA setup, 1.78:1 material will be the brightest, with all other ARs getting dimmer the further you move from 1.78:1 in either direction. In the case of a 2.05 screen, you still lose 15% of the light output at 2.39:1 or 1.78:1, and you also lose the CIA aspect of the setup if you display any AR less than 1.78:1. It's convenient that you'll claim that a 15% loss of light is negligable, but I guarantee it is not (especially from a calibration standpoint when it comes to shadow detail and blacks with respect to the CR capabilities of your projector). I'm sure you'll continue to flippantly dismiss it as unimportant just like you do everything else you dismiss that doesn't fit in with your cherry-picked, straw-grasped argument.

If you'd actually put your money where your mouth is rather than argue semantics and opinion repeatedly, a substantial lumen loss like the one you discussed above would be readily apparent upon viewing. You've made it painfully clear that your only personal choice is for a CIA setup, so what are you waiting for - ACTUALLY DO IT. Or just continue on your banal rants in the wrong forum...

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I never said you did. Plenty of others have. When you learn to read, you can go back through the thread and see those posts.

It's easy to skim when you say the same things over and over...and over...and over...

I'm actually just some guy who wanted some insight from CIA users, something you aren't.[/quote]
post #360 of 527
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You posted an off topic thread in a forum that is at direct odds with your original topic, you personally attack people when they disagree with you (surprise! you're in the wrong spot) and talk down to everyone as if they're 5 because they don't share your viewpoint. You accuse others of getting personal, but you certainly didn't waste time lowering yourself to that level, to include whining about people disagreeing with you or telling you that your'e wrong (God forbid!). The fact that this thread is 12 pages long has nothing to do with the usefulness of the content - only the troglodytic nature of the OP who can't let any contrary opinion go ignored or un-punished.

Here I go, repeating myself, because someone can't comprehend a simple concept:

If it didn't belong here, it wouldn't be here. Take it up with the mods, not me.

If you don't like it here: do something about it.

I only talk to people on their level chief.

You know how much pointless arguing you've done in similar threads to this?

Oh, and let's quote HogPilot, shall we?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

We've established that 1) you know nothing about calibration, nor do you have a desire to learn, 2) you think calibration is a bunch of crap, yet 3) you're posting in a thread about calibration. So why are you here?

You can tell someone who isn't interested in the topic at hand, only wants to argue against the topic, yet is still posting in the thread, that they have no reason to be there- yet when I do that, it's not "allowed"?

And I'm the hypocrite somehow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

"You can't read...", "Keep up" "Did you even read my first post?"

Such responses serve no purpose except to degrade and insult. Why are you surprised that no one here takes you seriously when you continually fall back on such responses?

I'm glad you comprehended that much. Since you opened the table to such responses by personally attacking me, I'm only playing your game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I used the term troll very literally. If you take it personally - as you have done with so many other things here - that's not my fault. Defensively accusing me of not being able to read because you can't answer a legitimate question is a personal attack. I doubt you'll figure the difference between the two out.

The fact that you personally attack me does not imply that I take it personally, I couldn't care less.

If I repeat myself in answering your question, you can't read. This is a rather simple concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I've already addressed your propensity for statements like this that serve no purpose but to insult and dodge legitimate questions.

Congrats, man. What purpose does this statement serve? Can you break that one down for me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Plenty of people use the search function here every day. They just don't feel the need to create threads about how awesome they are at typing a few characters and hitting the "Search" button and then insulting anyone that posts anything contrary to their opinion.

*Yawn*

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

If you want any respect here, you'll do it. Or you can just banter on, and maintain your current troll status. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" as you are clearly alone in this thread.

I see, if I want respect, I'll do as you say. Yes, my lord.

If I'm a troll, what does that make you? That's right.

Troll bait, and you bit hard- again and again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You haven't taken anything on. You've made an excuse as to why you've spent the last month arguing with people about opinion and symantics here instead of actually producing a setup and providing information of worth to others.

Neither have you. Where's your CIA setup to show us? I'm not making excuses, I can implement my setup a year from now if I so choose.

You in a hurry there bub?

Where in my initial post did I say I would be providing any sort of information?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

No, I didn't, but it was unimpressive and short-lived, since you decided to dedicate this thread to arguing with those who don't agree with you.

Well now I'm going to cry, because my goal here was to impress Mr. HogPilot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Either your system won't be true CIA (anything less than 1.78 will have less area than everything else) or you haven't done your homework. 1.78:1 needs to be masked on all four sides in a true CIA setup. But go ahead and bend the definition of CIA to your whims in order to try to sound right in absolutely everything you say. It will impress everyone and completely fool them.

Again if you learned to read, you'd see I've done my homework. The setup would be Constant Image Area because I'd only be using 3 aspect ratios. 2.35, 1.85, and 1.78. All at constant areas, all on a 2.05 screen.

Perhaps you need to do your homework?

I've said many times in this thread if you require 4:3 at constant area you would need a 1.78 screen and four-sided masking for 1.78/1.85 content. I created mockups showing these scenarios. I'm well aware, thank you.

I'm not creating a CIA setup for HogPilot to watch. I'm creating one for me to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Having separate sets of masks that need to be mounted before viewing may be simple to construct, but along with the zooming/resetting lens shift/mounting the masks, it's anything but simple in implementation. A 4-way mask would take more time to build but be quicker to use. You have no real world experience with this, but you're telling everyone how easy it will be. How does that work?

Ha, nowhere did I say 4-way masking would be easy. Nice try though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I'm not the one trying to justify this thread's existence or placement - you're the one who needs to come up with material of substance.

Nope, I don't. What are you going to do about it?

You are the one with an issue about the thread's existence and placement, not me. Have you forgotten?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

No, I didn't ignore anything - you're talking zoom-based CIA, so my numbers are based on a zoom-based, true 1.78:1 CIA setup. Let me explain this to you on a very basic level. Light off the screen is calculated by multiplying the lumen output of the projector by the screen gain and dividing by the screen area in ft^2 - this gives you the footlambers (ftL) coming off the screen. Two images of different area and/or proportions measured at the same ftL will appear idendically bright. However, when you watch a movie that uses less than the full display panel, you're not using the full lumen output of the projector - the light deflected by the pixels in the black bars gets "thrown away". A 2.39:1 image uses just under 75% of the available display panel on a 1.78:1 projector, as does a 1.33:1 image. Therefore in both situations your light output is cut by approx 25%. In a CIW setup, the viewable area decreases proportionally with the lumen output, so the percieved brightness is constant no matter what AR you watch. In a CIA setup, since the viewable area is always constant - your image area remains constant while the the effective lumen output changes based on the size of the black bars. Therefore, in the case of a true 1.78:1 screen CIA setup, 1.78:1 material will be the brightest, with all other ARs getting dimmer the further you move from 1.78:1 in either direction. In the case of a 2.05 screen, you still lose 15% of the light output at 2.39:1 or 1.78:1, and you also lose the CIA aspect of the setup if you display any AR less than 1.78:1. It's convenient that you'll claim that a 15% loss of light is negligable, but I guarantee it is not (especially from a calibration standpoint when it comes to shadow detail and blacks with respect to the CR capabilities of your projector). I'm sure you'll continue to flippantly dismiss it as unimportant just like you do everything else you dismiss that doesn't fit in with your cherry-picked, straw-grasped argument.

So, where in this wall of text do you respond to the fact that you completely ignored zoom's factor on light output. If you're going to be thorough, at least be thorough.

15% loss, even if true, is negligible for me. If it weren't, I'd be replacing my bulb every 450 hours.

Ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

If you'd actually put your money where your mouth is rather than argue semantics and opinion repeatedly, a substantial lumen loss like the one you discussed above would be readily apparent upon viewing. You've made it painfully clear that your only personal choice is for a CIA setup, so what are you waiting for - ACTUALLY DO IT. Or just continue on your banal rants in the wrong forum...

It's funny you think this is such a huge deal, but you won't go near Bjoern or other "more respected" members with this argument.

In a hurry again, eh?

Oh, the wrong forum? Really? I had no idea! Why don't you place it in the correct forum for me.

What's that, you can't? Too bad isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

It's easy to skim when you say the same things over and over...and over...and over...

Well I'm trying very hard to keep things easy for you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIA: Constant Image Area