Aspect Ratio Questions From a Newbie

If one watches TDK on "a CinemaScope setup" (Constant Image Height with vertical stretch and anamorphically stretched), the top and bottom of the IMAX scenes would be cropped off ... and that's how it was presented in commercial CIH 'Scope theaters.

As to wathcing 1.78 HD content, Yes I would (and do) remove the lens (actually, I put mine in Passthrough ... same thing) and cover up the pillar bars ... see my pictures.

At this time, I don't think anyone is producing a native 2.39 projector. Lots of AVSers talk about how neat that would be ... but I don't think there is one right now. I'm not positive though.

Like Mr. Brown said on a CIH setup the 16x9 image is pushed off the bottom of the screen.

Masking would be the way to watch HDTV or any other 1.78/1.85 ratio material.

You can do a scope screen by zooming without a lens. It is a hotly debated topic here, and there are pros and cons to each. If you search for "zooming" I'm sure there will be a ton of info.

Here's a large discussion thread on the changing aspect ratio's of "the Dark Knight" from this forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ghlight=knight

Should be an interesting read for you. Though the idea of changing aspect ratio's and how scope setups manage those rare films is a point of controversy....which would be better served by bumping an existing thread to continue the debate...otherwise your thread will get derail.

When zooming is used, the letterbox bars are still there; they're just off the screen, onto the screen frame, wall, whatever, where, ideally, you can't see them. BUT... you're using a fair amount (33% IIRC) of real estate of the image panel(s) in the proj to project blackness. You're not able to use that real estate to improve the resolution of the actual image. With an anamorphic lens and a projector or scaler that can prep the image for the lens's one dimensional stretch (or compression), you're using the entire panel(s) for the actual image: Higher resolution, i.e. better pix.
Admittedly a poor explanation. Others here have explained it better, but that's the jist of it.

Like steve said you won't be using the full panel of the 16x9 projector.

The other thing to consider about using a lens is that you would need a fairly good scaler, because you have to create the image data so you can use the full panel of the projector. Scalers are like upscaling DVD players in a way, some are very good and some are poor.

While I've never seen either in action (zooming or lens), browsing the forum can give you a good idea of the capabilities of both.

I'm planning on zooming (with the AE4000, or the next gen) once I get my HT done/started, mostly because of the added cost of lenses, scalers, and a better projector.

Well said. A 1920x1080 native 16:9 projector, when you use the zoom method, effectively only displays 1920x817 or thereabouts for 2.35:1. Moreover, because you are losing about 25% of the pixel resolution, you are also losing about 25% of your light output. Not huge problems for many, but you need to be aware of it so that you don't go too large on your screen and effectively go beyond the limitations of the projector.

Yeah the "zoom method" allows you to have it all ways.


Not only brightness, but also "screen door effect" of pixels i.e. if you project too big or sit too close, you might see those little guys.

I wanna say the zoom method is a no-brainer, particularly for first-time owners, but no you do still need a brain to get screen size and pj features and mounting location et. al. correct!

Indeed...often people who want 2.35:1 go too big for their equipment...the whole setup needs to come together well in order to achieve a pleasant viewing environment.

Been "zooming" for several weeks now. It certainly is effective in delivering "scope wow" at no additional cost. I've built in some software to the HT control that zooms-and-shifts in and out of scope format. But I can see that there's an A-lens in my future to reclaim the wasted display panel real estate, image brightness, and reduce wear and tear on the PJ's (JVC950) motorized lens. Like Kelvin1965S on this subforum says "Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...

There are some who prefer zooming, but from my experience the vast majority end up with a lens at some point or another.

In the forties everyone went to the movies twice a week and saw a movie in Academy Aspect Ratio which was related to size shape of the the 35mm film frame. When TV came on the scene in the fifties the movie industry fought back with technologies not then available at home - 3D, stereophonic sound and (my favorite) Smell-O-Vision. Early 3D had lots of problems and there soon arose a technology that gave an immersive experience and didn't require the audience to wear glasses. As they said at the time - This is Cinerama.

Cinerama was surround images analogous to surround sound. The screen wrapped around the audience - at least if you were in the good seats. Originally they showed only travelogues like IMAX was to do years later. There were a few features made but only downtown reserved seat theaters had the big wrap around screens and the three cameras. In the suburbs and small towns you couldn't see real Cinerama.Widescreen seemed to draw the public but something else that utilized the installed base of cameras and projectors was needed.

So they came up with a compromise (kludge) technology of compressing the wider image so as to fit on a standard 35mm frame with a special camera lens and then employing a reciprocal expanding lens on the projector. This technique yielded a wider screen image - not truly immersive like Cinerama (very wide) or like IMAX (very tall) but certainly different from what was seen on a home TV. And that was enough.

CinemaScope aspect ratio screens have been installed in most US theaters so many movies especially expensive movies are made in this shape. A lot of hobbyists like to overlook that origins of CinemaScope and claim that wider is somehow better, or more natural, or fights global warming, or saves the whales. The only reason why you might want a 2.40:1 screen is if the movie was originally composed in 2.40:1. If the shots were designed around that aspect ratio, all things being equal, it will look better when seen that way.

But the only reason movies are made in 2.40:1 is the legacy of Hollywood's efforts to get people out from their TVs in the fifties. That may change.

Movies are still shot to be seen in movie theaters but movie theaters are closing fast. Hollywood makes most of it's money nowadays from DVDs, Blu-ray disks, and cable TV. All of these and the new digital TVs prefer the 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio. We can expect that fewer and fewer new movies will be shot in these troublesome extra wide aspect ratios.

On the other hand new digital technologies now allow gamers to use three projectors and curved screens to bring back a true Cinerama-like experience. In the future we will look back on the second half of the twentieth century as the period when there was CinemaScope.

Good post, but this excerpt is debatable. The clear majority of the movies I watch are "wider" than 16:9. Now we are seeing the first 21:9 T.V.'s. The first of a wave of 2.35:1 projectors is hitting the market. Installers I know are using more and more 2.35:1 screens. It's not clear to me that these wide screen formats are in decline. That said, I would love to see a standard aspect ratio!

It does all that and more

Its just progress. Did you go through this much pain when looking at a new 1.78:1 display in a time when all other TVs were 1.33:1?
It took time, however we now live in a 16:9 world and as we progress the technology will change. A new and even wider version should be looked on as good thing, not bad.

10 years from now, we all have 21:9 displays and laugh about the "compromise (kludge) technology" we know as 16:9 used to bridge the gap from the original 1.33:1 to 2.37:1.

I don't know who the overlookers are, but a lot of us here are quite aware of the origins. this link for example has a lot of that info:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

And the original spec for CinemaScope for example, is here:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide...sb2-page00.htm

Gary

There are a lot of things changing about the ways movies are produced these days, aspect ratio is generally not one of them. For motion pictures it is still 1.85 and 2.35 and this is not changing anytime soon (though one could imagine 1.85 being replaced by 1.77 should film ever totally die out -- most digital sensors are 16:9 sized). Partially because look of 2.35 has become common and sought after, especially anamorphic photography and partially because the general attitude in feature productions is to not make it TV-like. It's actually television's production values that have moved closer to that of features in the last 20 years. A show like 'Lost' couldn't have been possible 25 years ago. The other thing to remember is that 16:9 was chosen as a compromise between film ratios and 4:3, not necessarily to replace either. (You're going to have a hard time convincing Michael Bay or Chris Nolan to produce their new epic in anything other than anamorphic 2.35).

Even with the proliferation of home video and the change in distribution cycles, motion picture exhibition isn't nearly in the grave yet. It's kinda like saying if the majority of people consume music off iTunes there is no longer a need for concerts. Big commercial studio films need as much money from as many different resources as possible to meet their bottom line. Phasing out exhibition does not help this one bit, if anything the studios are breathing life into the exhibition market with gimmicks like 3D and digital projection technologies.

HD is 1920 x 1080 or 1.78:1 and 2K is 2048 x 1080 or 1.89:1.

I'm referring specifically to RED (24.4mm x 13.7mm), Canon 5D/7D (downsampled to 1920x1080) Arri D-21 (23.76mm x 13.365mm) and the Arri Alexa (2880 x 1620 pixels). The CCD imagers like Genesis and F35 and of course any 2/3" CCD's are 1.78 sized.