AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › What is the reason to do 2.35:1 constant height
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the reason to do 2.35:1 constant height - Page 3

post #61 of 208
4/22/09 at 11:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

You're the one who made the assertion, not me - the burden of proof lies with you. Since you required that Art poll every theater in the world to get an accurate figure to back his claim about how many theaters are CIH vs CIA, it's only fair that you should acquire numbers for all scope films ever shot throughout the world before we consider your claim. Considering your "list" of scope movies is about 10% of the sample size that Art provided, I'm shocked that you even offered it up.

Again, so you claim - until you can provide numbers for all scope movies in existence to show legitimate trend data, your statement is nothing more than speculation and is worthless.

You're boring me now.

Here's most every "scope" film from 2009 released so far:

Code:
12 Rounds                                                                                       United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
17 Again                                                                                        United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Assassination of a High School President                                                        United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Confessions of a Shopaholic                                                                     United States   2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Duplicity                                                                                       United States   2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Explicit Ills                                                                                   United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Fast & Furious                                                                                      United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Fifty Dead Men Walking                                                                          Canada          2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Fired Up                                                                                        United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Friday the 13th                                                                                 United States   2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Gomorrah                                                                                        Italy           2.40:1 (Super 35) 
He's Just Not That Into You                                                                     United States   2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Hunger                                                                                          United Kingdom  2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Il Divo                                                                                         Italy           2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Knowing                                                                                         United States   2.40:1 (4K Redcode)
London to Brighton                                                                              United Kingdom  2.40:1 (Super 16) 
Monsters vs. Aliens                                                                             United States   2.40:1 (Digital 3D) 
Notorious                                                                                       United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Push                                                                                            United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Race to Witch Mountain                                                                          United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Shuttle                                                                                         United States   2.40:1 (Super 35)
State of Play                                                                                   United States   2.40:1 (Anamorphic) 
Sunshine Cleaning                                                                               United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Taken                                                                                           France          2.40:1 (Super 35) 
The Class*(Entre les murs)                                                                      France          2.40:1 (HDV) 
The Good the Bad the Weird*(Joh-un Nom, Nappun Nom, Isanghan Nom)                               South Korea     2.40:1 (Super 35) 
The Haunting in Connecticut                                                                     United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
The International                                                                               United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Three Monkeys*(Uc Maymun)                                                                       Turkey          2.40:1 (HDV) 
Watchmen                                                                                        United States   2.40:1 (Super 35) 
Welcome to the Sticks   (Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis)                                             France          2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Only 7 of 31 were shot anamorphically. How's that for a trend.

For those claiming "2.35 is the future!", the other 31 films in 2009 have been 1.85.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 208
4/22/09 at 11:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You're boring me now.

Here's most every "scope" film from 2009 released so far:

12 Rounds* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
17 Again* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Assassination of a High School President* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Confessions of a Shopaholic* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Duplicity* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Explicit Ills* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fast & Furious* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fifty Dead Men Walking* Canada 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Fired Up* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Friday the 13th* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Gomorrah* Italy 2.40:1 (Super 35)
He's Just Not That Into You* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Hunger* United Kingdom 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Il Divo* Italy 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Knowing* United States 2.40:1 (4K Redcode)
London to Brighton* United Kingdom 2.40:1 (Super 16)
Monsters vs. Aliens* United States 2.40:1 (Digital 3D)
Notorious* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Push* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Race to Witch Mountain* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Shuttle* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
State of Play* United States 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)
Sunshine Cleaning* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Taken* France 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The Class*(Entre les murs)* France 2.40:1 (HDV)
The Good the Bad the Weird*(Joh-un Nom, Nappun Nom, Isanghan Nom)* South Korea 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The Haunting in Connecticut* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
The International* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Three Monkeys*(Uc Maymun)* Turkey 2.40:1 (HDV)
Watchmen* United States 2.40:1 (Super 35)
Welcome to the Sticks*(Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis)* France 2.40:1 (Anamorphic)

Only 7 of 31 were shot anamorphically. How's that for a trend.

For those claiming "2.35 is the future!", the other 31 films in 2009 have been 1.85.

Wow, you're really slow aren't you? Try to keep up.

You told Art that unless he presented data for every theater in the world, his sample wasn't valid. I'm holding you to that same standard - in order to prove that most scope movies are cropped and not anamorphic, you need to present data for all movies since the inception of scope.

Unless you don't hold others to the same stringent standards that you hold them, which would be right in line with the rest of your drivel around here.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 208
4/22/09 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Wow, you're really slow aren't you? Try to keep up.

You told Art that unless he presented data for every theater in the world, his sample wasn't valid. I'm holding you to that same standard - in order to prove that most scope movies are cropped and not anamorphic, you need to present data for all movies since the inception of scope.

Unless you don't hold others to the same stringent standards that you hold them, which would be right in line with the rest of your drivel around here.

Amusing rebuttal of my data.

The difference is that I provided a THX rep's stats to offset Art's stats.

To keep this laughable analogy up, you need to provide stats contradicting mine- I'm waiting...

Tick ... tock.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 208
4/22/09 at 11:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Amusing rebuttal of my data.

The difference is that I provided a THX reps stat's to offset Art's stats.

To keep this laughable analogy up, you need to provide stats contradicting mine- I'm waiting...

Tick ... tock.

Your data doesn't amount to anything because it's a cluster all occurring within a single year - hardly sufficient to support your first claim about all scope movies, let alone to show a trend. You told Art that his sample wasn't relevant because the theaters he sampled were all within 150 miles of his house - too localized. You expect Art to provide worldwide data to prove his assertion, yet when you make one no such requirement befalls you as well?

The hypocrisy is just staggering...
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 208
4/23/09 at 12:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Your data doesn't amount to anything because it's a cluster all occurring within a single year - hardly the entire picture. You told Art that his sample wasn't relevant because the theaters he sampled were all within 150 miles of his house - too localized. You expect Art to provide worldwide data to prove his assertion, yet when you make one no such requirement befalls you as well?

The hypocrisy is just staggering...

Poor confused little HogPilot.

Do you want to know why my data is a cluster of RECENT films? Do ya?

It's because you asked specifically for that.

That's right, you challenged my assertion that TODAY MOST 2.35 films are shot flat and not anamorphic. You bolded my statement "and today, most" emphatically referring to it with your question: "Is this another opinion or do you have actual numbers to back this assertion?".

I've proved that with the most recent data possible.

Indeed, exactly as I said, today, most 2.35 films are shot 35mm flat, not anamorphic.

"Anamorphically shot 2.35 is a trend that is dying", another statement you wanted numbers for, is also proven with this data.

Still waiting on your contradicting data to fulfill your weak, pointless analogy. C'mon, now...

Reply
Reply
post #66 of 208
4/23/09 at 12:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Poor confused little HogPilot.

Do you want to know why my data is a cluster of RECENT films? Do ya?

It's because you asked specifically for that.

That's right, you challenged my assertion that TODAY MOST 2.35 films are shot flat and not anamorphic. You bolded my statement "and today, most" emphatically referring to it with your question: "Is this another opinion or do you have actual numbers to back this assertion?".

I've proved that with the most recent data possible.

Indeed, exactly as I said, today, most 2.35 films are shot 35mm flat, not anamorphic.

"Anamorphically shot 2.35 is a trend that is dying", another statement you wanted numbers for, is also proven with this data.

Still waiting on your contradicting data to fulfill your weak, pointless analogy. C'mon, now...


I asked for nothing more than proof of two statements that YOU made. I'll say it again - YOU made the statements, not me. The burden of proof lies on you. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? If your second point was that literally fewer movies are being made in anamorphic scope "today" (when you said "today" per your own admission, why you only chose this year to illustrate your point is beyond me), then my response is "so what"? It's cooler today than it was yesterday. It's cooler the last two years than it was for decades before that. Who cares. You've proven that short term, random fluctuations happen in any complex system. Welcome to the modern age.

If your intent was to speak to the future of scope - which you attempted to do at one point, then I ask have you even taken a stats class? Do you know how taking a sample for the sake of extrapolating data about the population at large works? Data for a single year does nothing to prove your first assertion that most scope films are cropped and not anamorphic. You need data spanning the entire existence of scope to prove that. Data for a single year also is meaningless for showing a trend beyond that single year. When you claimed that scope is trending more and more towards disuse, you provided data covering 1/4 of a single year - that doesn't strike you as odd or flawed in any way? Again, the less data you have (and the less time it spans), the more prone your extrapolated outcome is to inaccuracy due to the short-term fluctuations in whatever it is you're attempting to predict.

Since all of this is way over your head you'll reply with another banal request for some kind of data on my end, when you're the one who's made both assertions and provided absolutely no concrete data to support either of them as of yet.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 208
4/23/09 at 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Why is it that you're the one who gets to provide a couple paltry data points, but the other guy has to poll every person in the world before you concede a point? I feel like a broken record here - you are a HYPOCRITE.

Because the claim was that WORLDWIDE, CIH is in the vast majority of theaters. He did not provide worldwide data, but very localized data.

I provided THX stats that said WORLDWIDE, CIH is only 50/50 at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Have you even taken a stats class? Do you know how taking a sample for the sake of extrapolating data about the population at large works? Data for a single year does nothing to prove your first assertion that most scope films are cropped and not anamorphic. You need data spanning the entire existence of scope to prove that. Data for a single year also is meaningless for showing a trend beyond that single year. When you claimed that scope is trending more and more towards disuse, you provided data covering 1/4 of a single year - that doesn't strike you as odd or flawed in any way? The less data you have (and the less time it spans), the more prone your extrapolated outcome is to inaccuracy due to the short-term fluctuations in whatever it is you're attempting to predict.

Yes. I've taken a stats class. You're completely missing the point, because you don't care to admit you you're completely wrong.

Quote for me, if you can, where I made ANY assertion that most of ALL scope films are cropped.

You can't, can you.

I asserted that TODAY, most are flat, not anamorphic. To verify my claim I provided all 2009 2.35 films for you.

I don't need any more data than TODAY to prove this, so I provided present box office films, and upcoming ones in addition to those from the beginning of 2009.

I can also do 2008 for you if that's what you need, but somehow I believe you'd rather me not do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

Since all of this is way over your head you'll reply with another banal request for some kind of data on my end, when you're the one who's made both assertions and provided absolutely no concrete data to support either of them as of yet.

No need for me to request anything, because I know you have nothing. You keep responding to stall, but have come up empty.

Reply
Reply
post #68 of 208
4/23/09 at 1:05am
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post16324827

Enjoy the arguing!
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 208
4/23/09 at 1:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post16324827

Enjoy the arguing!

Goodbye HogPilot, you will be sorely missed!
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 208
4/23/09 at 1:35am
Aw shucks. I missed an argument!
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 208
4/23/09 at 4:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

Aw shucks. I missed an argument!

A line from a famous song...

"everybody's talkin at me,I don't hear a word they're sayin, only the echos of my mind"

Art
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 208
4/23/09 at 5:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

It has as much relevance as someone cares to make it for themselves. It just happens to not have relevance to you.

Personally I'd reserve the capability just because of IMAX films (which consist of one at the moment! with more to follow), but being able to do it for the classic 2.20 70mm films I mention earlier is icing on the cake.

Now, most people probably couldn't care less about the old films I listed, and don't care what size they're projected at.

I'd wager that (if) by the time 3-4+ IMAX films are on Blu-ray within a couple years (assuming it catches on, and it looks like it will starting with HP, TF2, & the next Batman), some CIH users would start to feel the heat.

You personally may not, but it is still relevant to anyone that wants to make it relevant to themselves.

If technology advances, entire films may be done in 70mm, who knows- but in any case a setup like this would be ready for an extreme future of 95% 2.35 films and 5% taller or less wide formats. Being ready for anything is a plus for some just as it would equally be ready for a 50/50 split, or something radical in the opposite direction.

CIH can't pretend to be the supreme king method like many advocate (there isn't one), it can only be a preferred method for one particular individual's tastes.



Just a reminder of where this conversation started. If 2001 has wide written all over it as you say (and I agree it does) then how does CIH and the "less than 2.35 wide" do it justice?



Now why would they do that if 70mm 2.20 was supposed to be the same height and less wide- smaller than 2.35 anamorphic?

And if that's not the case as some CIH'ers claim (save for Art), then why would they do that if it's not relevant?

I still think that you are grasping at straws for justification for coming into a thread that asks why do 2.35:1 to slam CIH. In this case one film has some IMAX inserted. I wager back that in the next few years there aren't another couple of films with IMAX inserted and then you will never hear about it again.

A screen anything the size of mine won't work in CIA in my room not to mention the implementation of CIA complexity. I'd use an example of Ben Hur. This is in fact one of my favorite films of all time but I'd not design a screen and room around 2.76:1. Even if there were ten great films in that AR.

My room was deigned and built after I watched way way too many scope AR films(2.40:1) that were smaller than 1.85:1 films and the football game and it obviously was not the way they were intended to be seen. I decided to see the grand wide films wide and I've done that and I put a massive screen in my room for that purpose. By choosing the size I did I was also able to watch the 16x9 material at the same size as my old screen.

Essentially none of this could have been achieved with CIW or CIA.

I actually can see where a CIA screen and system could have some merit if the game is more important and I had a 15' ceiling at 20' width.This ,however, doesn't at all fit my viewing preferences.

I believe we all see that you feel that CIA is the way to go. Most of us do not and it is at least in a general way for exactly the same reasons.



Art
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 208
4/23/09 at 9:36am
OK you guys sure know to debate it to death. You like what you like and he likes what he likes....I can see where someone may like CIA but I enjoy my good movies wider. Just me.

But it comes down to the actual name Scope, Cina"WIDE"... And the numbers they are attached to...2.40 parts (WIDTH) to every 1 part (HEIGHT), 1.85 parts (WIDTH) to every 1 part (HEIGHT)...so on and so on.

Nate
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 208
4/23/09 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob View Post

Aw shucks. I missed an argument!

Even worse, you missed an INTERNET argument. That's the best kind!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I still think that you are grasping at straws for justification for coming into a thread that asks why do 2.35:1 to slam CIH. In this case one film has some IMAX inserted. I wager back that in the next few years there aren't another couple of films with IMAX inserted and then you will never hear about it again.

A screen anything the size of mine won't work in CIA in my room not to mention the implementation of CIA complexity. I'd use an example of Ben Hur. This is in fact one of my favorite films of all time but I'd not design a screen and room around 2.76:1. Even if there were ten great films in that AR.

My room was deigned and built after I watched way way too many scope AR films(2.40:1) that were smaller than 1.85:1 films and the football game and it obviously was not the way they were intended to be seen. I decided to see the grand wide films wide and I've done that and I put a massive screen in my room for that purpose. By choosing the size I did I was also able to watch the 16x9 material at the same size as my old screen.

Essentially none of this could have been achieved with CIW or CIA.

I actually can see where a CIA screen and system could have some merit if the game is more important and I had a 15' ceiling at 20' width.This ,however, doesn't at all fit my viewing preferences.

I believe we all see that you feel that CIA is the way to go. Most of us do not and it is at least in a general way for exactly the same reasons.



Art

Art, the only reason I've brought up CIH's flawed approach at handling 70mm Panavision is because you stated this: "A great example is 2001 ASO, that film has wide written all over it."

If it has wide written all over it, why would you make it less wide?

I know a screen anything the size of yours won't fit in your room, but we aren't talking about your room. We're talking about the OP's.

His question explained that he has a 2.35 screen the size he wants, but he wants 1.78/1.85 to "have more area". CIW is not a better approach, I think (and I'm sure you would agree) that CIA offers less compromise an is more accurate than CIW, especially considering he has already tried CIW at a smaller size and didn't like it. As a bonus, his projector makes CIA an easy task with zoom/shift memory.

I feel CIA is the way to go for me. You feel CIH is the way to go for you. Both are irrelevant.

My opinion is that CIA is something for the OP to consider. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am completely justified in bringing up CIA here as a suggestion, as well as pointing out the fact that "a film that has wide written all over it" isn't as wide as "Confessions of a Shopaholic" on anyone's CIH setup.

CIH has compromises. CIA has compromises.

Nobody can pretend any differently, it's simply a matter of which fits your personal preference for sizes between AR's.

CIH is not supreme, not the king, and not the only "way it's meant to be seen".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasty N8 View Post

OK you guys sure know to debate it to death. You like what you like and he likes what he likes....I can see where someone may like CIA but I enjoy my good movies wider. Just me.

But it comes down to the actual name Scope, Cina"WIDE"... And the numbers they are attached to...2.40 parts (WIDTH) to every 1 part (HEIGHT), 1.85 parts (WIDTH) to every 1 part (HEIGHT)...so on and so on.

Nate

Just you. Your preference. Yes.

The actual name cinemascope is no longer used. The aspect ratio and anamorphic projection are ideas we've carried over from those days. Besides, the name isn't Cine"wider-than-1.85". Regardless, 2.35 is wider than 1.85 on a CIA setup because it has a wider ratio, just not the amount you prefer.

The ratios relate to 1 for convenience in format comparison, there is no size intended here.

No connection there, and another lame CIH argument that is, as Art would say, "grasping at straws for justification".
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 208
4/23/09 at 10:21am
Nate, I don't think you understand what a ratio is.

Having seen photos of Arts home theater, which looks awsome by the why, I can fully understand him using constant height. The scope screen is almost a perfect match for his wall. He also has the advantage of multiple rows of seats so he can choose the viewing distance to match what he is watching.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 208
4/23/09 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffY View Post

Nate, I don't think you understand what a ratio is.

Having seen photos of Arts home theater, which looks awsome by the why, I can fully understand him using constant height. The scope screen is almost a perfect match for his wall. He also has the advantage of multiple rows of seats so he can choose the viewing distance to match what he is watching.

JeffY, Can you explain what a ratio is to me?
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 208
4/23/09 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oggythemoggy View Post

JeffY, Can you explain what a ratio is to me?

A comparison of two numbers by division.

Hence, a screen 16 units wide by 9 units tall is 16/9 = 1.7777777...

All ratios, once divided, will be in comparison to 1.

The dimensions of one table top can be 48 inches by 20 inches. The ratio is 48/20 =
2.4.

The dimensions of another table top can be 42 inches by 24 inches. The ratio is 42/24 = 1.75.

This does not imply that a table top with a ratio of 2.4:1 is the same width as a table with a ratio of 1.75:1 and just longer. The two aren't related dimensionally, ratio's don't have units; however the shape can be compared. The 48 inch long table has a longer ratio than the 42 inch long table, but it does not share the same width.

A 2.35 movie has a wider ratio than a 1.85 movie, but they aren't required to share the same height because of that 1.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 208
4/23/09 at 2:06pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (ex: "Why me, Lord?")[1] Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?"; no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 208
4/23/09 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oggythemoggy View Post

no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.

Were you asserting something, or being sarcsatic?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 208
4/23/09 at 2:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffY View Post

Nate, I don't think you understand what a ratio is.

Having seen photos of Arts home theater, which looks awsome by the why, I can fully understand him using constant height. The scope screen is almost a perfect match for his wall. He also has the advantage of multiple rows of seats so he can choose the viewing distance to match what he is watching.

Ignoring rhetorical implications, Jeffy one of the advantages of CIH is that you don't have to pick different rows based on what you are watching.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:06pm
Well, here, I'm going to attempt to interrupt the snarkiness for a moment;

My solution is that I have two screens up on the ceiling, one in 16/9 and the other in 2.4:1. I know this isn't a workable solution for everybody, but it's something to keep in mind.


The 16/9 screen is 60" in height while the 2.40:1 screen is 55", that extra height for 1.85:1 films helps mitigate the difference in impact between the two screens and allows both aspect ratios to remain exciting.

If I had my druthers I'd stick a third huge 4:3 screen in front of the other two, that would be fantastic for films like An American in Paris or Quo Vadis...

But I'm afraid my ceiling might collapse under the added weight!

Oh well, you can't have everything, where would you put it?
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

I know a screen anything the size of yours won't fit in your room, but we aren't talking about your room. We're talking about the OP's.

This stopped being about the OP a while ago I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

CIH is not supreme, not the king, and not the only "way it's meant to be seen".


I'd say it is king,it is the way scope AR films are meant to be seen and how scope films are meant to be seen in size relative to 1.85 films. Despite the fact directors may not be mentioning scope specifically for impact (perhaps it is just taken for granted) for a large chunk of it's existance they did and this is freely admitted.

It also allows larger screens in many more installs and is less complex to implement, eg. Lon Goldstein needs two screens ,custom offset, zoom,focus etc to get it done on screen my size (only a couple of projectors made right now can pull that off and they are very very expensive). My AR switching for my large screen takes less than two seconds as a press of a single button on my remote


I will ask this also, are you going to get into every CIH thread touting CIA on the CIH forum ?

Art
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

Were you asserting something, or being sarcsatic?

enigmatic
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post


I will ask this also, are you going to get into every CIH thread touting CIA on the CIH forum ?

Art

This is a bit below the belt Art. Unless you have a 4:1 screen then it's not really constant height. It's just Constant height upto 2.35:1. Even then I'd argue very few people here are doing true constant height uncropped 1.85:1.
I am using constant height up to 2.05:1 and I'm able to show all aspect ratios uncropped.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffY View Post

This is a bit below the belt Art. Unless you have a 4:1 screen then it's not really constant height. It's just Constant height upto 2.35:1. Even then I'd argue very few people here are doing true constant height uncropped 1.85:1.
I am using constant height up to 2.05:1 and I'm able to show all aspect ratios uncropped.



I didn't name the forum this is no low blow.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 208
4/23/09 at 3:58pm
It's a bit like saying you can't discuss LCOS in a DLP/LCD forum when there is no alternative. As things stand this is the correct forum to discuss CIA. In reality constant height or constant width don't really exist we just have different asptect ratio screens.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 208
4/23/09 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffY View Post

It's a bit like saying you can't discuss LCOS in a DLP/LCD forum when there is no alternative. As things stand this is the correct forum to discuss CIA. In reality constant height or constant width don't really exist we just have different asptect ratio screens.

Answer the question. I'm very comfortable about the points I've made. Most of the arguments agasinst CIH are centered around if it can be shown that it isn't absolute(eg it isn't best for a single film with IMAX scenes inserted) it has clay feet therefore is second rate . This is just absurd.
As far as the LCOS /DLP analogy I'd take the same stance if there was aCLP forum and you came in and said why would anyone want DLP (there is a forum member who actually does this at every turn) I believe there should be a CIA forum and I've said that several times.


Art
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 208
4/23/09 at 4:57pm
BKSTS sells a poster (Widescreen and 3D Film Formats Wallchart) that shows what appears to be every film format or aspect ratio's close to 100 different aspect ratios, it’s quite amazing.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 208
4/23/09 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen View Post

Ignoring rhetorical implications, Jeffy one of the advantages of CIH is that you don't have to pick different rows based on what you are watching.

You do have to pick different rows if your preference is for 1.85 and 2.35 to appear the same size. Just because you don't have that preference doesn't mean you can tell me where to sit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

This stopped being about the OP a while ago I think.

I'd say it is king,it is the way scope AR films are meant to be seen and how scope films are meant to be seen in size relative to 1.85 films. Despite the fact directors may not be mentioning scope specifically for impact (perhaps it is just taken for granted) for a large chunk of it's existance they did and this is freely admitted.

It also allows larger screens in many more installs and is less complex to implement, eg. Lon Goldstein needs two screens ,custom offset, zoom,focus etc to get it done on screen my size (only a couple of projectors made right now can pull that off and they are very very expensive). My AR switching for my large screen takes less than two seconds as a press of a single button on my remote


I will ask this also, are you going to get into every CIH thread touting CIA on the CIH forum ?

Art

You can't say it is the way scope AR films are meant to be seen. If it was, you'd be able to prove this besides saying ... well, once upon a time ...

With the same budget, AR switching at the touch of a button would be just as feasible for CIA as it would be on your setup.

The major difference between CIH and CIA is the native screen ratio you choose.

Directors choose a ratio for the look and shape they want. Do you think "17 Again", and "Confessions of a Shopaholic" are meant to be larger, wider, grander films?

When a poster has tried CIW, decided it wasn't for him, then gave CIH a shot and is still looking for something more, yes I will suggest CIA. Yes, even in a CIH forum, because there is not a CIA forum to take the discussion to. I appreciate the fact that you recognize the need for a new structure for these topics.

When there is, I'll be glad to leave this area and the people that desperately need their space and are afraid of new ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

Answer the question. I'm very comfortable about the points I've made. Most of the arguments agasinst CIH are centered around if it can be shown that it isn't absolute(eg it isn't best for a single film with IMAX scenes inserted) it has clay feet therefore is second rate . This is just absurd.
As far as the LCOS /DLP analogy I'd take the same stance if there was aCLP forum and you came in and said why would anyone want DLP (there is a forum member who actually does this at every turn) I believe there should be a CIA forum and I've said that several times.

Art

The most common argument CIH has is that it is absolute, and even that can't be proved.

CIH is just as valid as CIA. I can admit that.

Can you?
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 208
4/23/09 at 7:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post


You can't say it is the way scope AR films are meant to be seen. If it was, you'd be able to prove this besides saying ... well, once upon a time ...

Even if it is in the past you know as well as I do the scope was intended to be wider and grander.I also know if I spend the time digging up data you will squirm around it , just like you did when my staff spent more than a day calling as many theaters as we could find locally. Your comment was that this wasn't every theater in the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

With the same budget, AR switching at the touch of a button would be just as feasible for CIA as it would be on your setup.

Sorry this is simply false, automated CIA for anything approaching my screen size is mutiples in cost.



Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

The most common argument CIH has is that it is absolute, and even that can't be proved.

I've not said that ,this is a straw man argument. As I said you are the one who keeps saying that and I know why. You say I need to show it as absolute to believe ity is a superior way to show films at home. I do not and have never made such statements.This is the same tact you've used in mutiple threads now. Saying I've said it but I've not, then saying I need then to prove what I've never contended.

Oh yea, why are you in the CIH forum arguing for CIA ? I think a better way is for CIA forum. I wouldn't come there and extoll the virtues of CIH.

Art
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 › What is the reason to do 2.35:1 constant height