CIA: Constant Image Area - Page 15

Originally Posted by CAVX

How many titles are actually full frame anyway?

Originally Posted by stanger89

No it's not. It's a compromise of one possible implementation of CIH.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

No, it's quite relevant since you were asking about the effect of cropping a couple percent off of the sides of a picture in the name of fixing overspill or underscan. I provided the above info to illustrate that most movies are shot with quite a bit more overscan in mind, making the cropping of a couple percent of picture info for specific reasons even more trivial.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

It wasn't because you lumped all CIH into one category when that would be like lumping all CIA - which probably has even more possible implementations, each with their own individual compromises - into one category.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

You keep talking about miniscule amounts of cropping or scaling being a compromise for CIH, yet you also dismiss the significant changes in screen brightness that I clearly illustrated with your hypothetical CIA zoom setup as "insignificant." The best part is, you haven't even seen the two setups in person to actually compare the impact of the compromises necessary for any method of either setup to make an informed decision. I've used a scaler and lens to adjust ARs on a CIH setup, and let me be the first to tell you that it is orders of magnitude easier than adjusting the zoom and lens shift every time. I'm sure now you'll pull your standard "well that's your opinion" BS that you try to use to dismiss anyone who has legitimate experience that flies in the face of your untried and hypothetical opinions.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

You constantly re-iterate the downsides of CIW and CIH while downplaying their benefits based on your personal preferences, and then sing CIA's praises while casually dismissing its equally significant shortcomings.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Are you looking to accomplish anything real here or are you just here to try to spurn a CIA masturbation-fest? Meanwhile you're arguing over in a CIH thread about whether a couple 2.2:1 70mm films should somehow gain priority over a massive library of scope films in someone's HT, and then you're in another thread talking about how JVC just still can't reach CRT black levels. Have you even seen any RSX or CRT properly set up and in action before? I haven't seen someone talk out his a$$ this much since getting spoonfed uniform BS in a combat zone by some first sergeant who's never even been on a single combat sortie, let alone flown one.

Originally Posted by CAVX

So therefore your saying that CIH is correct when projecting at 2.40:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1. 2.0:1. 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 provided that the full height of the image is projected.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

I want to know how anything you say is relevant to anything but you arguing for the sake of arguing. You talk as if whatever you say is right - you defend your position with opinion if numbers and facts don't agree, and vice versa. You misconstrue what others say, and when presented with facts that are contrary to your position, you don't address them. Things are significant when you want it to be, it's insignificant when you want them to be. All the while you have no real experience to back this. That's called talking out your ass.

I ask you once again - amidst all of your inept bantering, what real-world experience do you bring to the table on any of these subjects? Anything at all? I would LOVE to hear it all.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Or you could keep talking with no experience - which is called talking out your ass, since you obviously don't know the meaning of the expression.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Wow...really, you played with the zoom button on your W20K? That's so impressive! That lends legitimacy to EVERY SINGLE THING you've argued here! Don't pull out all the stops all at once, you have to save something for later to wow us with again!

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Sorry, I was thinking of my older model - read previous generation - W10K that had motorized everything. But hey, some people like to pay more for less, no worries.

I'm sure anyone looking to get info on CIA will find your post above VERY useful. "Oh, I'll try the zoom on my projector and see what that does..." Purely brilliant.

Originally Posted by CAVX

LilGator,

You stated in the earlier post that the "full frame" is what we get on BD. So why now are you going back to 70mm film formats?

Do you actually have a 70mm projector in your house?

Originally Posted by HogPilot

You're the only one here who's said that. Straw man argument, anyone?

Even if someone offered me a 20K for under $2K (unless you go refurb or used, you barely find a 5K for that little from a legitimate retailer), I'd still take the 10K.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Sorry, I was thinking of my older model - read previous generation - W10K that had motorized everything. But hey, some people like to pay more for less, no worries.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Just curious, what exact improvements do you think you got in the more expensive 20K over the 10K? Aside from highly over-inflated contrast numbers due to a DI (which the 10K doesn't need) and Brilliant Color which is absolutely worthless, what is better? You get manual zoom/focus/lens shift instead of motorized, a louder machine, and firmware that just finally got fixed. Please, oh wise one, tell me all that is better!

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Higher resolution? Of course, as I've said a million times before, that whole argument goes out the window once you transfer both formats to BD, which has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower resolution than either 35mm or 70mm. At that point you've optimized your seating distance based partially on pixel visibility, which is fixed. You can blow a picture up as large as suits you, that doesn't mean it will look good.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Ok seriously now...it's been fun to mess with you LilGator. Maybe it's because you're so easy to screw with, maybe it's because you'll try to argue just about any inane point until the end of time no matter how wrong you are or how badly you're burning the candle on both ends. But my deployment free time has come to an end, and unfortunately I must spend my time on AVS pursuing only fruitful discussions. I do, after all, have a REAL HT to enjoy.

But good luck with...well, whatever it is that you think you're doing here - arguing? Yes, good luck arguing. That will assemble your CIA theater in no time.

Originally Posted by Jeff Smith

Most childish thread I've ever seen, I thought it was finally forgotten.

It only exists to bicker. If there were any real desire to get anywhere it would be done in a new thread.

...but maybe you enjoy the arguing.

Originally Posted by Warbie

Handbags at dawn is the only way to settle this

Originally Posted by sonofdbn

What sort of aspect ratio screen have people tried for CIA? Let's say we've decided how wide the screen should be for 2.35:1. Then to keep a CIA for 16:9, we narrow the width and increase the height. Obviously there are mathematically an infinite number of possibilities for 16:9 with different widths and heights that would have the same image area as the original 2.35:1, but what have people used and liked?

I read somewhere that 2:1 has been used. That would give a 16:9 image that is 15% narrower (than the 2.35:1 image) and 18% taller. Any thoughts?

(Let's not get into a debate about WHY I want to do CIA. If we focus on the HOW, this thread would be much more constructive.)

Originally Posted by http://www.cinemasource.com/

The Father Of 16:9

The most prevalent aspect ratios filmmakers deal with today are: 1.33 (The Academy standard aspect ratio),
1.67 (The European widescreen aspect ratio), 1.85 (The American widescreen aspect ratio), 2.20
(Panavision), and 2.35 (CinemaScope). Attentive videophiles may note that 1.77 (16:9) isn't on this list and
may ask: "If 16:9 isn't a film format, then just exactly where did this ratio come from". The answer to this
question is: "Kerns Powers".

The story begins in the early 1980s when the issue of high definition video as a replacement for film in movie
theaters first began to arise. During this time, the Society Of Motion Picture And Television Engineers
(SMPTE) formed a committee, the Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, to look into
standards for this emerging technology. Kerns H. Powers was then research manager for the Television
Communications Division at the David Sarnoff Research Center. As a prominent member of the television
industry, he was asked to join the working group, and immediately became embroiled in the issue of aspect
ratios and HDTV. The problem was simple to define. The film community for decades has been used to the
flexibility of many aspect ratios, but the television community had just one. Obviously a compromise was
needed.



As the story goes, using a pencil and a piece of paper, Powers drew the rectangles of all the popular film
aspect ratios (each normalized for equal area) and dropped them on top of each other. When he finished, he
discovered an amazing thing. Not only did all the rectangles fall within a 1.77 shape, the edges of all the
rectangles also fell outside an inner rectangle which also had a 1.77 shape. Powers realized that he had the
makings of a "Shoot and Protect" scheme that with the proper masks would permit motion pictures to be
released in any aspect ratio. In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group
and soon became the standard for HDTV production worldwide.

Ironically, it should be noted, the High-Definition Electronic Production Committee wasn't looking for a display
aspect ratio for HDTV monitors, but that's what the 16:9 ratio is used for today. "It was about the electronic
production of movies," Kerns Powers states, "that's where the emphasis was". Interestingly, today, there is
little talk today about the extinction of film as a motion picture technology, but there is a lot of talk about
delivering HDTV into the home. And, as a testament to Kern H. Powers clever solution, it's all going to be on
monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio.

Originally Posted by oztheatre

Have you actually done any of this?

By the amount of arguing you've done, you come across like the CIA master. Surely you have the best CIA setup of all time. Pics please, no mockups or examples. Show us your setup please.