Originally Posted by Owen
There are plenty of very high quality 16:9 titles that are not IMAX sourced and deserves to be displayed taller than scope, in fact anything shot with an anamorphic lens is at an inherent disadvantage for sharpness and encoding scope to only 810 lines (approx) does not help.
But who determines if a film "deserves" to be bigger or smaller? I base my decision on what the film maker chose, a decision based on the knowledge that at the theater
a scope image will be displayed larger than a 1.85:1 image, not off the technology used to deliver that film.
I think we're largely arguing semantics, if you like
you view pretty content larger that's fine, but that's different than saying it "deserves" it.
A dual masked VIA setup is ideal but not compulsory. I personally dont see a cinema as any sort of referance, some are large, some are small but all are ordinary. I dont go to the cinemas becuase the image and sound quility are sub par and I demand better performance at home.
I don't see any particular theater
as reference either. My refirence is "cinema", the idealized construct based on the historical design goals and conventions and not any specific implementation that may have many compromises.
If scope video had higher resolution than 16:9 to support extra width I would be all for displaying it wider, but thats not the way it is. At the 43% viewing angle I use going 30% wider for scope (56 degrees) results in an unaccepably soft image via zoom or A-lens so ZI have no interst in doing so on quality grounds.
Others may not be bothered by a soft image of have a more modest viewing angle so wont notice.
If that were my experience I would run 16:9 smaller then. I sit a little farther back than you (think it comes out to be about 37 degrees, roughly 1.5 screen widths). My screen is 2.39:1, if it were 16:9 at that width I would find it overwhelming for just about everything at that height. Right now I find the 16:9 size very comfortable/satisfying, and scope is 33% bigger just like it should be.
Originally Posted by Owen
At home we are free of the limitations and conventions of a commercial cinema and have different source to work with which is not natively scope.
I consider viewing 1920x1080 content the same height as 1920x810 content an unnecessary and undesirable limitation, it can be displayed the same width and 30% taller while looking just as good if not better for many titles.
Well I find viewing epic scope movies smaller than run-of-the-mill TV or direct-to-disc movies and unnecessary and undesirable limitation.
Unnecessarily limiting height of 16:9 titles that need it is like shooting your self in the foot, the outcome is less than best IMHO.
Well I think the industry shot itself in the foot when they didn't support anamorphic encoding for scope but that's just me.
Get hold of "The art of flight" on BD and see if you think it looks better displayed the same height as scope.
I built my HT to get the most enjoyment out of the type of content I like to watch, to put it another way, I bend my HT setup and the technology to make the most of my favorite movies/content. I'm not going to bend my tastes to match limitations in the technology.
To be clear, I'm very much "to each his own" in regards to if you want to run a CIH, CIW, or VIA setup, that's up to you, but to state/imply that "Constant image height (CIH) is a problem...", that it's any more of a problem than any other presentation "technique" I don't agree with at all.
CIW, you sacrifice the relative presentation/impact of scope for simplicity/optimal size (vs quality) of 16:9
CIH you sacrifice cost/complexity/optimal quality (vs size) of 16:9 for the appropriate relative impact of scope
VIA you sacrifice more cost/complexity for doing whatever you want
None are more or less of a "problem" than any of the others, it comes down to which you value most, theatrical presentation, pretty pictures, or money, pick two.