AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › CIH or not? Pros and cons...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CIH or not? Pros and cons...

post #1 of 92
9/22/11 at 11:07am
Thread Starter 
Guys,

I just bought my Mitsubishi HC4000 projector and I just love the picture it thows up. I have a 15x19ft room and the projector will be mounted at 13.5 ft. At this distance, the biggest 16:9 image I can get is 130" diagonal (64" x 115"). Seating is between 14 to 16 feet.

Now, my dilemma is whether to keep this image size or do a CIH where the screen size will be 49" x 115" i.e. 125" diagonal 2.35 aspect ratio.

Pros of 16:9 screen:

1. Huge IMAX like effect when watching 1.78 content (XBMC, TV Shows etc).
2. Can play subtitles of 2.35 movies since black borders are not cut off while zooming under CIH system.
3. Full 1080p panel of projector is used. Brightness is a bit higher.

Cons of 16:9 screen:

1. Placement is more difficult due to the offset and huge image size. I haven't ceiling mounted it yet, so I don't know whether I can accommodate this picture size.
2. Black bars on top and bottom when watching 2.35 content
3. Non HD content or poorly encoded content will not be impressive as flaws get magnified.

Pros of 2.35 screen (under CIH mode):

1. No black bars when watching 2.35 content.
2. Cinema Scope screen will look more cinematic than a 16x9 screen in a home theatre. However this is more of a novelty factor because I will continue to watch 2.35 content at 49 x 115 size, so the image size will not change irrespective of screen size.

Cons of 2.35 content:

1. 16:9 content is shrunk down when the screen size is set as Cinemascope. The image size is 49" x 87" which is 100" diagonal. When compared to the original 16:9 130" diagonal screen, this significantly seems smaller. Definitely no IMAX effect.
2. Subtitles get cut off when watching 2.35 content when the subtitles are placed in the black bars.
3. Full panel of the projector is not used and there is a slight dip in brightness.
4. Black bars on the side when watching 16:9 content.

From the above arguments, the 16:9 screen seems to be in the lead and the CIH seems to be a tough call. How did you guys work this out?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 92
9/22/11 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

Guys,

I just bought my Mitsubishi HC4000 projector and I just love the picture it thows up. I have a 15x19ft room and the projector will be mounted at 13.5 ft. At this distance, the biggest 16:9 image I can get is 130" diagonal (64" x 115"). Seating is between 14 to 16 feet.

Now, my dilemma is whether to keep this image size or do a CIH where the screen size will be 49" x 115" i.e. 125" diagonal 2.35 aspect ratio.

Pros of 16:9 screen:

1. Huge IMAX like effect when watching 1.78 content (XBMC, TV Shows etc).
2. Can play subtitles of 2.35 movies since black borders are not cut off while zooming under CIH system.
3. Full 1080p panel of projector is used. Brightness is a bit higher.

Cons of 16:9 screen:

1. Placement is more difficult due to the offset and huge image size. I haven't ceiling mounted it yet, so I don't know whether I can accommodate this picture size.
2. Black bars on top and bottom when watching 2.35 content
3. Non HD content or poorly encoded content will not be impressive as flaws get magnified.

Pros of 2.35 screen (under CIH mode):

1. No black bars when watching 2.35 content.
2. Cinema Scope screen will look more cinematic than a 16x9 screen in a home theatre. However this is more of a novelty factor because I will continue to watch 2.35 content at 49 x 115 size, so the image size will not change irrespective of screen size.

Cons of 2.35 content:

1. 16:9 content is shrunk down when the screen size is set as Cinemascope. The image size is 49" x 87" which is 100" diagonal. When compared to the original 16:9 130" diagonal screen, this significantly seems smaller. Definitely no IMAX effect.
2. Subtitles get cut off when watching 2.35 content when the subtitles are placed in the black bars.
3. Full panel of the projector is not used and there is a slight dip in brightness.
4. Black bars on the side when watching 16:9 content.

From the above arguments, the 16:9 screen seems to be in the lead and the CIH seems to be a tough call. How did you guys work this out?


You need to decide what you watch the most of. Is the room going to be used for casual TV use & gaming over movies? What's the ratio between them? I think knowing this would make the decision much easier. My room will be used for about 80% movies and the ones I tend to watch are all 2.x format. Since having a kid, my wife & I just don't ever get to go to the movies anymore for a night out so that's sort of the reasoning behind me building this. Or at least that's what I tell her LOL

Easy choice for me.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 92
9/22/11 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post


Pros of 2.35 screen (under CIH mode):

1. No black bars when watching 2.35 content.
2. Cinema Scope screen will look more cinematic than a 16x9 screen in a home theatre. However this is more of a novelty factor because I will continue to watch 2.35 content at 49 x 115 size, so the image size will not change irrespective of screen size.

Pro #3: CinemaScope 2:35:1 films will have a "wow" factor that they won't have if you stay with a 16:9 screen. The fact that your 2:35:1 image size would stay the same whether you go 16:9 screen or 2:35:1 screen misses this fact. If you watch lots of content at 130" 16:9 all the time, and then put on a wide-screen movie, the image will shrink relative (<--key word!) to your 16:9 image and in that sense it will "lose impact" and immersion compared to your 16:9 image. Some people just think it's too odd, and somewhat disapointing, to go from watching a TV show at 16:9 to putting on an epic Cinemascope movie, only to see the image shrink rather than expand. It takes some of the specialness out of the widescreen movie eftect.

And if you are including TV watching, given the quality of most compressed TV channels these days (HD included) a 100" image will be a lot kinder and look much better on lots of material. And then when you go put on a Cinemascope movie you get an enhanced "Now I feel like I've gone to the cinemat" experience.

So it tends to boil down to what type of experience you want to create for yourself. Do you want more wow factor and cinematic impact for TV and 16:9 content, or do you want to get the "wow" effect from putting on widescreen movies?

(BTW, some of us couldn't decide, so for instance I bought a huge screen and just mask it 4 ways to keep all the options open, but that's not too typical).
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 92
9/22/11 at 3:27pm
Your "proposed" scope screen size (49x115) is exactly the same as mine. Like several posted above, it will depend on what you watch most: scope/2.3x or HDTV/1.78. But several other considerations: Where are your L and R speakers? do you have room "outside" the scope screen? Or are you doing an AT screen (Highly recommended IMO)? Also, how dark is your room under typical viewing conditions? If you go with a scope screen and watch 1.78 content, can you tolerate the pillar bars or is the room so dark that they get lost? Masking is an option built adds $$ to the mix.
I always recommend the owner try each AR out using a suitably sized piece of polyester from a fabric shop, bed sheet, or whatever tacked up on the screen wall. Live with both ARs for awhile by refolding the fabric and viewing whatever content - HDTV, film... before deciding on a screen size and AR.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 92
9/22/11 at 4:24pm
I had a very similar situation with my HC 3800 and 13 ft throw, i decided on a CIH setup with an AT screen and LCR behind, i sacrificed sieze for 1.78 content but gain'd a lot for 2.35, i am a big movie fan and most of my favorite movies are 2.35-2.40 so that made the CIH more attractive, my best advice is to read the other comments, decide what content you watch the most and what suits your needs better.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 92
9/22/11 at 9:42pm
I've been in the same situation only it was the room width that was the limiting factor. Could only fit a 41x95 103" 2.35 screen in the room. Even with a 18ft+ deep room and two rows of seating, I preferred the CIH setup. In my case the 106" 16x9 fit the room better appearance wise. A 125" is a big screen and would feel like such even in a room the size of yours. Try watching nothing but 1.78 content for a couple days to see if you can get used to it. You will have better picture quality and a better picture as the bulb ages. I assume the limiting factor is your at max projector zoom. Can you place the projector outside the room, adjacent closet,etc? A 1.5-2x expansion lens is an option.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 92
9/22/11 at 11:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Pro #3: CinemaScope 2:35:1 films will have a "wow" factor that they won't have if you stay with a 16:9 screen. The fact that your 2:35:1 image size would stay the same whether you go 16:9 screen or 2:35:1 screen misses this fact. If you watch lots of content at 130" 16:9 all the time, and then put on a wide-screen movie, the image will shrink relative (<--key word!) to your 16:9 image and in that sense it will "lose impact" and immersion compared to your 16:9 image. Some people just think it's too odd, and somewhat disapointing, to go from watching a TV show at 16:9 to putting on an epic Cinemascope movie, only to see the image shrink rather than expand. It takes some of the specialness out of the widescreen movie eftect.

And if you are including TV watching, given the quality of most compressed TV channels these days (HD included) a 100" image will be a lot kinder and look much better on lots of material. And then when you go put on a Cinemascope movie you get an enhanced "Now I feel like I've gone to the cinemat" experience.

Harkness, you're dead right about this. "Expanding" the image for a 2.35 movie certainly creates a wow factor especially when the selection is through a 1.78 xbmc htpc. Also, as you said, when the 1.78 content is not encoded well or is of lower qualty, the huge 130" screen magnifies it and the picture looks fuzzy and soft.

P.S. I love your theatre!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHorn View Post

Your "proposed" scope screen size (49x115) is exactly the same as mine. Like several posted above, it will depend on what you watch most: scope/2.3x or HDTV/1.78. But several other considerations: Where are your L and R speakers? do you have room "outside" the scope screen? Or are you doing an AT screen (Highly recommended IMO)? Also, how dark is your room under typical viewing conditions? If you go with a scope screen and watch 1.78 content, can you tolerate the pillar bars or is the room so dark that they get lost? Masking is an option built adds $$ to the mix.
I always recommend the owner try each AR out using a suitably sized piece of polyester from a fabric shop, bed sheet, or whatever tacked up on the screen wall. Live with both ARs for awhile by refolding the fabric and viewing whatever content - HDTV, film... before deciding on a screen size and AR.

SteveHorn, my speakers are exactly outside the 115" width, so I'm going to avoid the AT screen. Currently my room is all whitish, but I'm planning to darken it considerably, so the perceived contrast and brightness should improve. What projector do you have and what is the screen material? My dealer says that I should go for a high contrast screen but I feel that I should go for a high gain screen instead, considering that the projector is at max zoom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

I've been in the same situation only it was the room width that was the limiting factor. Could only fit a 41x95 103" 2.35 screen in the room. Even with a 18ft+ deep room and two rows of seating, I preferred the CIH setup. In my case the 106" 16x9 fit the room better appearance wise. A 125" is a big screen and would feel like such even in a room the size of yours. Try watching nothing but 1.78 content for a couple days to see if you can get used to it. You will have better picture quality and a better picture as the bulb ages. I assume the limiting factor is your at max projector zoom. Can you place the projector outside the room, adjacent closet,etc? A 1.5-2x expansion lens is an option.

Coolrda, I can definitely get used to watching 1.78 content on a 100" screen because I was doing so all along on a 110" screen using my Infocus IN72. So that's not a big step down for me. My projector is at max zoom and has very limited flexibility. And A-Lens is ruled out for budget reasons. What screen are you using and what do you recommend? High gain or high contrast?

I tried comparing samples of the high gain and high contrast fabric and personally preferred the higher gain. This is also due to the new projector calculator in the other thread, which shows that my image brightness is only 9.5fL!!! So I'm scared that I will continue to lose brightness as the lamp gets older.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 92
9/23/11 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

...
SteveHorn, my speakers are exactly outside the 115" width, so I'm going to avoid the AT screen. Currently my room is all whitish, but I'm planning to darken it considerably, so the perceived contrast and brightness should improve. What projector do you have and what is the screen material? My dealer says that I should go for a high contrast screen but I feel that I should go for a high gain screen instead, considering that the projector is at max zoom.

Using a JVC HD950 projecting onto Seymour Center Stage XD AT fabric (LCR speakers behind... obviously). My darkness point was related to how apparent the pillar bars would be using your PJ (and its ability to project blacks) vs, room brightness when watching 1.78 content on a scope screen. The JVC does blacks well and in a dark room the bars are barely visible and not a distraction.
You may want to post something over on the screen forum to get input on options.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 92
9/23/11 at 7:37am
Pros of a 2.35:1 screen:

It's bigger for scope films and you can come on here and talk about having a scope screen.

Cons of a 2.35:1 screen:

You can come on here and talk about having a scope screen.

I just looked through my (then) DVD collection and found that only a very small amount of my discs were 1.85:1. I'm not into sport and only watch a small amount of 'TV' on my projector, so I realised that most of my viewing is 2.35:1. Therefore I replaced my 16:9 screen with a slightly bigger 2.35:1 one.

Everyone is different in their viewing habits though...I don't search out 2.35:1 films, but when they turn up (online rental) they are nearly always 2.35:1, so it's just the type of films I watch. You just need to analyse your viewing habits and preferences to see which option to go for.

Re some of your 2.35:1 cons:

You can shift subtitles on an Oppo BluRay player (and maybe others too), so that solves this issue...I have an Oppo BDP-93 that does this. Even if you don't have this option, if you zoom then the subtitles will appear on the lower black bar. I added a wider section of black velvet to mine before I bought my lens and it's surprising how easy it is to read white text against black velvet.

You mention a slight dip in brightness for 2.35:1, but this only applies comparing zoomed 2.35:1 at the same height as unzoomed 16:9. If it's a CIW setup then 2.35:1 is exactly the same brightness (apart from the black bars of course ). However, when zooming the aperture of the projector's lens changes and you may find the increase in brightness compensates, so it's not always the issue you might think. With a JVC projector, you can just set the iris differently for the two ARs and match them if you wish as I do.

Whatever you chose, just enjoy it and don't worry about trying to argue or justify it as there are so many different opinions on here.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 92
9/23/11 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Pro #3: CinemaScope 2:35:1 films will have a "wow" factor that they won't have if you stay with a 16:9 screen. The fact that your 2:35:1 image size would stay the same whether you go 16:9 screen or 2:35:1 screen misses this fact. If you watch lots of content at 130" 16:9 all the time, and then put on a wide-screen movie, the image will shrink relative (<--key word!) to your 16:9 image and in that sense it will "lose impact" and immersion compared to your 16:9 image. Some people just think it's too odd, and somewhat disapointing, to go from watching a TV show at 16:9 to putting on an epic Cinemascope movie, only to see the image shrink rather than expand. It takes some of the specialness out of the widescreen movie eftect.

And if you are including TV watching, given the quality of most compressed TV channels these days (HD included) a 100" image will be a lot kinder and look much better on lots of material. And then when you go put on a Cinemascope movie you get an enhanced "Now I feel like I've gone to the cinemat" experience.

So it tends to boil down to what type of experience you want to create for yourself. Do you want more wow factor and cinematic impact for TV and 16:9 content, or do you want to get the "wow" effect from putting on widescreen movies?

(BTW, some of us couldn't decide, so for instance I bought a huge screen and just mask it 4 ways to keep all the options open, but that's not too typical).

Couldn't have been said any better Rich... right on the money!


...Glenn
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 92
9/23/11 at 11:31am
Well, by far the most films that I watch are in 4:3 and 16:9 format. But I still have a 2.35 CIH set up. And I would have it no other way. I watch mainly films from the golden age of Hollywood (30's , 40's and 50's) and even with the CIH set up I find that the 4:3 and 16:9 is still plenty big enough. Then when I do put on a scope film and roll the masking back for the full 2.35 screen, the effect is awesome.
So ,for me, CIH is the only way to go.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 92
9/23/11 at 12:22pm
I was one of the few crazy people buying a plasma when they first came out (around 3rd generation Panasonic). That meant I was the only person I knew with a "real widescreen TV!" (16:9, obviously). It certainly made a difference to the presentation, appearing much more cinematic than the ubiquitous 4:3 square everyone else was watching, and that I was used to watching.

But now of course all TVs are 16:9, hence that shape has become "just TV" for all of us.

One way of getting the cinematic experience is just going with a bigger screen size, e.g. projection over a flat panel, to begin with. But even then, it's still just typically a 16:9 shape and can have that TV-association to it.

A CIH system is one way to get back to that special cinematic feel, where watching movies (CinemaScope anyway) have an extra special awesome factor that differentiates it from watching TV, or even from "the other guy's" projection system down the street.

Even someone with a regular 16:9 projection screen will be wowed when that widescreen image opens up for a CinemaScope movie. It's a factor you can't get with a 16:9 screen. The 2:35:1 screens even look better on the wall with the projector off.

I had some friends and work mates over (who also work in the film industry), some of whom have projectors at home. I gave them a little CIH-type demo and they were just blown away...even the guys who already owned projectors. The comments were "Now this...THIS...feels like I'm at the cinema. It's incredible!"

The main point being, that one someone has decided to go down the road of CIH, very few (if any?) regret it and most stay thrilled with having done so.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 92
9/23/11 at 2:20pm
I'm not going to break any new ground that hasn't already been covered already, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

Pros of 16:9 screen:

1. Huge IMAX like effect when watching 1.78 content (XBMC, TV Shows etc).

Cons of 2.35 content:

1. 16:9 content is shrunk down when the screen size is set as Cinemascope. The image size is 49" x 87" which is 100" diagonal. When compared to the original 16:9 130" diagonal screen, this significantly seems smaller. Definitely no IMAX effect.

IMO you have these reversed. TV shows aren't supposed to have the IMAX effect, Star Wars should be larger than Big Bang Theory IMO. Only IMAX content really should have the IMAX effect.

Now you mention brightness a couple times:
Quote:
[pro of scope setup]
3. Full 1080p panel of projector is used. Brightness is a bit higher.
[con of scope setup]
3. Full panel of the projector is not used and there is a slight dip in brightness.

These are actually just incorrect. I think you're confusing yourself with the lens vs zoom discussion. In both of your proposed configurations, regardless of the screen size, your projected image size will be 115"x64". The brightness will be identical between the two because you are projecting the same area in either setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by secondhander View Post

You need to decide what you watch the most of.

That is IMO, the wrong question, the right question is do you believe/agree that epic scope films (Star Wars, Ben Hur, The Matrix, etc) should be larger than TV, or other regular 16:9 content.

If you don't agree, or don't care, then just get a 16:9 screen and you're done.

If you do, then a scope screen is what you want. Then you may want to factor in if it's worth it based on how much scope you watch.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 92
9/23/11 at 5:09pm
The goal of a CIH system is to recreate the dramatic cinema presentation of the finest commercial theater in the confines of the home theater environment. It's not for everyone though.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 92
9/23/11 at 7:46pm
if you like the cinema feeling there are no cons for CIH
the only limits are the extra bucks.
no other problems!

i wish i had an 10' cinemascope screen

^^just my $0.02
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 92
9/24/11 at 7:06am
Can you move your seating closer than the 14 feet distance you mention?

Your current seating distance of 14 feet with the 16:9 screen you're thinking of gives you a seating distance to image height ratio of around 2.6 (THX recommend 2.4 so you're close to that). If you get a 115" wide 2.35 screen and sit 10.5 feet back, the 16:9 image will look the same as it does from 14 feet back on the 115" wide 16:9 screen - the seating distance to image height is what is key to giving you the same field of view.

A mistake that is often made is that people set their seating for the width of the scope screen, and then 16:9 looks too small.

Gary
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 92
9/24/11 at 4:02pm
Pure CIH is limiting. One needs CIH Plus to cater for IMax type material as well....or 4 way masking as Rich H has.

IE: All 2.35:1 to be wider than most 16:9, but some(IMax) 16:9 to be as wide but taller than all 2.35:1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GUtwl4xRk

View full screen.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 92
9/24/11 at 4:31pm
Only 1.x movies available makes that limitation not such a big deal
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 92
9/24/11 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Only 1.x movies available makes that limitation not such a big deal

Ahhhh!....but those 1.x movies add the OMG factor that make the eyes widen, the heart race, the respiration rate increase, the skin flush......
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 92
9/24/11 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Pure CIH is limiting. One needs CIH Plus to cater for IMax type material as well....or 4 way masking as Rich H has.

IE: All 2.35:1 to be wider than most 16:9, but some(IMax) 16:9 to be as wide but taller than all 2.35:1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GUtwl4xRk

View full screen.

The IMAX concept is not traditional cinema at all really. Having enjoyed the true Imax films for 20 years, its like nothing else. However, I've viewed my last feature there, I'm afraid. Viewing in anything but OAR is UNACCEPTABLE. Remember how offensive Pan and Scan was! Imax is incredible for the 40 mins feature done in the 1.44 format. But 2.40 doesn't work in Imax. Watching Inception(my last feature in Imax) was ridiculously annoying. 1.85 movie are better but still not prefect. I realize size matters but with the picture quality and OAR compromised its hardly ideal and definitely in conflict with what CIH is all about. Having watched in Imax then at the Newport Edwards flagship theater (80ft wide still biggest on west coast I believe), there's no comparison, Newport wins! Imax should always playback at OAR, despite the screen dimensions. So CIH isn't limiting, The content is. 2.35 content needs 2.35 viewing, 1.44 needs 1.44. A 2.35 in Imax is a compromise for 2.35 and 2.35 is a compromise for 1.44, its that simple. This is the CIH forum, not the CIA or CIW forum. Give me a true 2.35/2.40 Imax theater and this would be the ultimate for Hollywood's features because of Imax's attention to detail, i.e., the best sound and picture.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 92
9/24/11 at 5:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

Coolrda, I can definitely get used to watching 1.78 content on a 100" screen because I was doing so all along on a 110" screen using my Infocus IN72. So that's not a big step down for me. My projector is at max zoom and has very limited flexibility. And A-Lens is ruled out for budget reasons. What screen are you using and what do you recommend? High gain or high contrast?

I tried comparing samples of the high gain and high contrast fabric and personally preferred the higher gain. This is also due to the new projector calculator in the other thread, which shows that my image brightness is only 9.5fL!!! So I'm scared that I will continue to lose brightness as the lamp gets older.

I was talking about an expansion or zoom lens, not an A-Lens.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 92
9/24/11 at 5:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

Ahhhh!....but those 1.x movies add the OMG factor that make the eyes widen, the heart race, the respiration rate increase, the skin flush......

I agree as long as were talking about original made for Imax content. But can you imagine a feature shot in Anamorphic Scope with the Imax camera for playback on an 50ft by 120ft screen. Incredible. I would love to see a RED Epic 5K shot and displayed on that screen with the traditional Imax sound.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 92
9/24/11 at 8:34pm
There is also another pro with CIH with video games, which is hardly mentioned at all. Not console games mind you, but PC games, with the use of a monitor control panel (like Powerstrip), you can set a custom resolution, many games allow the game to actually be seen WIDER based on the width times height of the signal. I play alot of Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike, as well as a few others. Heck, I think I clocked about 50 hours for TF2 on my 12 foot wide CIH screen.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 92
9/24/11 at 8:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor2010 View Post

There is also another pro with CIH with video games, which is hardly mentioned at all. Not console games mind you, but PC games, with the use of a monitor control panel (like Powerstrip), you can set a custom resolution, many games allow the game to actually be seen WIDER based on the width times height of the signal. I play alot of Team Fortress 2 and Counter Strike, as well as a few others. Heck, I think I clocked about 50 hours for TF2 on my 12 foot wide CIH screen.

If that's so, I would love to play Call of Duty on a CIH setup!
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 92
9/24/11 at 9:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by contentedbloke View Post

If that's so, I would love to play Call of Duty on a CIH setup!

It's easy really, and work pretty seamless with many games. I even captured screen shots of some of the games. Check it out.

http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197976772214

Well, I only played a trial for black ops, the Call of Duty franchise recently on PC has usually been finicky on widescreen support. It's pretty easy to do with many games however, not all of them support it, often requiring a hack (I had hell with Black Ops, you need to use widescreenfixer and keep it activated). If you are interested, here is a thread explaining this.

Note: The thread is made for multi-monitor users in mind, but it's still as relevant to CIH users.

http://widescreengamingforum.com/node/14028

Plug ins for use in games like black ops (read forums first).

http://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Note: One of the pics made me feel cynical about the new Call of Duty game. Don't take offense.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 92
9/26/11 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post

Viewing in anything but OAR is UNACCEPTABLE. Remember how offensive Pan and Scan was! Imax is incredible for the 40 mins feature done in the 1.44 format. But 2.40 doesn't work in Imax. Watching Inception(my last feature in Imax) was ridiculously annoying. 1.85 movie are better but still not prefect. I realize size matters but with the picture quality and OAR compromised its hardly ideal and definitely in conflict with what CIH is all about. Having watched in Imax then at the Newport Edwards flagship theater (80ft wide still biggest on west coast I believe), there's no comparison, Newport wins! Imax should always playback at OAR, despite the screen dimensions.

Other than the first couple of IMAX conversions (Apollo 13 and Attack of the Clones), which were reformatted for the 1.44:1 IMAX ratio, all subsequent movies played in IMAX theaters should be OAR, letterboxed on the screens.

Keep in mind that digital IMAX theaters have a screen ratio of about 2:1, so there will be less letterboxing than in 15/70 film IMAX theaters.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 92
9/26/11 at 8:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post


Keep in mind that digital IMAX theaters have a screen ratio of about 2:1, so there will be less letterboxing than in 15/70 film IMAX theaters.

Sorry, what is 15/70 film?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 92
9/27/11 at 1:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Sorry, what is 15/70 film?

15 perf/70mm horizontal feed.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 92
9/27/11 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Sorry, what is 15/70 film?

The original film-based IMAX format, which has an aspect ratio of 1.44:1. Digital IMAX screens have a ratio of about 2:1. The digital screens are also generally much smaller.



http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier...comparison.png



http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2009/05/...max-comparison
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 92
10/20/11 at 10:52pm
Thread Starter 
Guys, having started this thread, I thought it would be appropriate to close it by stating that I finally went the CIH way. Here is my post on the Official Mitsubishi HC4000 forum so that anyone who is interested can have a look at it.

Thanks for all your help!
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 › CIH or not? Pros and cons...