Carada's New CIH Masking System

I'm looking forward to it

Very nice! Is there a price on it yet?

Haven't committed to anything yet. I think it will depend on final cost, my cash reserves, and how well my current PJ is behaving/what's available to replace it.

But masking is something I've been looking for for a while, and I've not been happy with the price, features, construction and/or "finishedness" of anything I've seen so far.

The Carada CIH masking system sound very nice indeed, and if it comes in under $4000.00 then it's a lot less expensive than the competition. Even so, doing powered side panel masking is no big deal to DIY. I was able to make a remote powered CIH masking system for less than $500.00. I am sure the Carada will be a whole lot better built than mine, and it will probably be much quieter. But you can save a bundle by making your own if you are just an average handyman. I am very pleased with the way mine turned out and I am sure it frames the picture just as well as any professional masking system. And yes, it does have that WOW factor when you power the masks out for CinemaScope.

My main "problem" with the DIY solutions has been the lack of configuration. If you want to be able to have more than two preset position, open and closed, it seems to get horribly complicated, very quickly.

I'm looking for (at least) 1.33 (closed), 1.78 and 2.35/2.39 (open), and I need it to be IR controlable. I haven't found a nice DIY solution for that yet.

I emailed them and they said they will be introducing it in August . I bought a system from HTIQ but it was more DIY and he is (to my knowledge now out of the business) it works okay and uses curtains with blackened shields but it has its flaws.

I think it is hot product and will sell well. the alternatives from Stewart are very expensive and I do not know of anyone else that produces a true CIH system that is reasonably priced and is made for any screen. Its amazing how many different formats are out there.

My $500.00 rf controlled DIY masking system has a closed 1.33 position, and an open 2.35 position. The intermediate 16:9 position is obtained by visually stopping the motor - no big deal really since I just turn on the 16:9 movie menu, and power the side masks in to exactly frame the picture. I have adjusted the motor speed so that the masks move slow enough that I can stop the masks where I want very easily. Not quite as elegant as a 16:9 preset I agree, but still very quick and easy in practice. I also have powered top masking so that I can accomodate any ratio format up to about 3:1 .

Yeah, I could get powered curtains and setup the stops to make that happen. Problem is 1.78 and 2.35 are my most common ARs, so I want something more automated than "jogging" to one of the most common positions. That and I want to be able to have my MX-880 automatically trigger the masking based on AR I choose.

I do not use an anamorphic lens. My masking is powered 3-way, with the bottom mask fixed. For 2.35 I zoom out the projector lens until the width of the picture exactly touches the 2.35 left and right screen masks(fully open position). Then I use the projectors electronic centering feature to raise the picture so that the bottom of the picture exactly touches the bottom FIXED mask on the screen. The top masking is black velvet cloth rolled onto a 1.5 ins dia wooden roller, and powered by an RF controlled curtain motor through a pulley reduction system to get a slow movement of the top mask. The bottom free edge of the top mask is a thin wooden strip to weight the masking and to get a really sharp edge. For 2.35 films I do not have to operate the top masking at all, since I have constructed the screen, and positioned the projector, to get a true CIH set up. But there are many films which have 2.4, 2.55,2.65 and even 2.85 formats, so for those I still zoom to the same width as for 2.35, but then lower the top masking to exactly frame the picture.
It takes a lot longer to explain the operation than to do it - which only takes a few seconds. It all works great and I am extremely happy with the results.

So let me see if I have this straight...I'm kinda learning about CIH and its benefits and I want to go to that setup I think...
Here is what I have right now:
110" 16:9 Da-lite fixed frame screen
Panny AE3000

So I could get the existing horizontal framing system and install that over my current screen, correct? That would be cheaper than buying a new screen and the new CIH masking system that is coming in August. For either setup, I can use the zoom method with my projector.
But, on other hand, if I got a new 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen, I could go a bit bigger and make that aspect ratio stand out more. It's just going to be much more costly.

Do I have this all right?

If i'm understanding you right, what you describe here is "CIW" constant width, you wouldn't do any zooming at all.


We'll see what the new CIH masking costs, but I don't know if I'd say it's "much" more. And remember, masking is optional. Especially depending on what you watch most often. Scope is what I most often watch "seriously" and since I've got a scope screen, that AR is bordered in black velvet (my screen border) perfectly. No other ARs aren't bordered/masked, but they're 99% of the time just TV that I watch casually so it doesn't bother me to not have the sides properly masked.

This is how I've made it so long without masking. The reason I'm looking now is because my HT is finally start to come together, in a finished sense. I've got URC remote to handle the automation, I'll be moving my equipment out of sight, so I'm starting to look at putting the finishing touches on it, that's how I view masking.

Oh yeah, you're right. My current screen and a horiz. masking Carada system would not need zooming. Now I could get that and mask scope material appropriately.
Or I could do it somewhat right and get the scope screen but then I'm going to need this new Carada CIH masking system or the current vertical system.
Hmmm, decisions, decisions....

In my experience, masking a 16:9 screen for 2.35 films makes a huge difference presentation wise. But you still are left with scope films being smaller.

If you go with a wider scope screen and the appropriate seating distance, all aspect ratios can be a satisfying size. Many people find that the "side bars" when viewing 16:9 material are less distracting and not as necessary to mask.(Being more in the peripheral vision) When you zoom with your Panny 3000, the blackness of your side bars will be totally a function of your room. A batcave type room will result in very dark side bars as well as improved PQ. At that point only you can decide whether side masking is necessary (and worth the money)

Or you could just get the scope screen and do the masking later

I agree 100%. My side bars are so black (batcave/RS20), and being that they are in my peripheral vision, I sometimes wonder if it's worth the hassle/expense of installing side masking. But as Rich said - it's hard not to when you know it really could look better.

I am 100% in agreement with Rich on this one. Masking is not desirable - it is essential for a cinema-like presentation. A jet black, wide border adds immeasurably to the look of the projected image. There is no way that I would show films without the appropriate masking, and that applies to ALL formats. So if you can't DIY, then spring for the Carada system - believe me you will never look back.
In answer to Rich's question on rolling velvet:
My top mask is black velvet rolled onto a 1.5 ins dia wooden rod. A metal tube would be better as it would not sag in the center. You have to realize that the top masking only has to operate over a few inches, since even when showing a movie like 'How the West Was Won', with its 2.85 aspect ratio, the top mask only has to roll down by less than a couple of feet. So I have found the rolling of the velvet to be no problem at all over this small a range. I think the secret is to weight the bottom free end with a wooden strip. This is necessary anyway to get a sharp edge, but it also keeps the velvet under tension, which is essential for good roll up. I have counterbalanced the weight of the wooden strip by hanging a weight from the roller, winding in the opposite direction (weight winds up when mask goes down - and vice versa).

I agree 100%.

Masking is one of those things that you don't really know what you're missing until you actually see it in action. I had a CIH setup in my old apartment with an RS1 and a 136" Carada scope screen, and when I watched 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 material, the pillarbox bars were constantly noticeable but not overly distracting. Now I have a 98" 1.78:1 setup in my fiancee's basement with an FPJ1, a DIY AT screen, and a CIW Masquerade. Although I miss the old scope setup and larger screen, the impact of having the image masked off perfectly at all times is significant, in that the perceived contrast is greater and it looks "cleaner" having an ink black border around the image. Of course, the build quality and functionality of the Masquerade are both solid and professional, and it definitely adds an upscale touch to your theater. I will never have an un-masked system again.

This is great news. I have been waiting for sooooo long for a nice masking system for my 2.35 screen that is affordable for us budget minded guys.

It will be affordable...right?

Somewhat affordable. Depends on what you consider affordable.

I hope it's 240v switchable

This thing looks great. I think I will redesign my basement theater around it. I've been wanting to go with a scope setup for awhile now. Does anyone know whether the compatible screens from Carada can be ordered with an AT option? I'd like to put my center speaker behind the screen. If the answer is no, could you put this masking system over a Stewart screen?

Just seeing the update post and its projected price.....nope, not for me, hek I don't think I got that much in the whole system, well maybe...

I agree, its quite expensive and converted to AU $$ is even more expensive.

Actually it's quite inexpensive for what you get. A similar Stewart system could set you back 20K!