Projectors at CEDIA Expo 2012 - Page 12

Constant image height (CIH) is a problem any way you do it because Bluray video is constant image width (CIW), image height varies with the aspect ratio.
Projectors are 16:9 native, use a 16:9 screen and changes in aspect ratio are not a problem, no adjustments needed.

Well, there are those (many, including myself) that like the image masked so we don't see gray bars. In my case, I shift a scope image to the bottom of the 16:9 screen (it's a 1 button operation with my Mits HC3800 saved memory button), which is better than having gray bars above and below. I also fashioned a black posterboard to hang over the top portion so that scope movies are fully masked.

So for many of us, there are adjustments to be made.

Really? How many are there... half a dozen?

In any case, you have the same problem with an A-Lens (or indeed the cinema!)

If you mean auto-Lens Memory, you can just switch that on or off when you want.

...Same as what I've been doing for years, except with a black roller blind.
(You can see how easy it is by clicking on my signature below).

Since then, I've moved to a 240cm-wide screen, and a Benq W6000, which has enough zoom range to come very close to CIH.
Changing the projector and screen over from one to another takes about 30 seconds. Easy.

That said, the Lens memory on the Panasonics would make this a 20 second process.

Having a cheap & easy motorised masking would make it a 5 second process.

Masking is optional, those with high contrast projectors likely dont find it important.

Do you really get up in the middle of a movie to readjust the masking to suit a change in aspect ratio?

I have DYI electric masking with motorized roller blind and it is quite easy/fast. I use Radiance XS to shift 2.35:1 to bottom of my fixed 110" 16:9 screen and press "My Position" in the motorized roller remote; that moves a black roller shade (with 40 mm bottom "bar" covered with Protostar light trap material). All quite automatic (should tweak the roller shadfe remote control to my Pronto though) no real downsides, no grey bars etc. And costs a fraction of a commercial masking system. No lens memory needed, no focus changes, just image shifting and masking.

I'm guessing the answer is no.... as the vast, vast, vast majority of films don't change aspect midway.

Then, once in a blue moon, you watch something like The Dark Knight (one of only a handful of films that are dual-aspect).
Then you'd make a call on which shape you want and just go with it.

The movies themselves are Constant Height, so pick your poison. I'd rather not compromise the presentation of epic scope films (like for example the Indiana Jones set that just came out) by watching them 44% smaller (relatively) than they were meant to be shown (77% larger than if you view then CIW).

And 1.78 setups dont have compromises? I consider watching scope films at a fraction of their intended size which is what you are doing on a CIW setup a much bigger compromise than what you have to deal with in a CIH setup. Every room and situation is different so CIH is not the answer for everyone, but after having both in my room I would never go back to a 1.78 screen. Seeing a scope film open up as intended instead of shrink.........

As far as variable aspect, there are only 2 I can think of that we have to deal with (TDK, Tron Legacy) so not a biggie. If you have enough masking (which the JVCs dont ), both of these frame out fairly well if you mask the top/bottom of the opened up 1.78 frame which is nice.

I know, but as far as this particular aspect goes, the JVC already has nice custom masking where you can adjust all 4 sides independently from each other if it would just extend the range enough to cover variable aspect. It sure seems like this would be a simple and easy tweak, but maybe not?
Edited by Toe - 9/19/12 at 5:39am

Doesn't matter if your room isn't a true batcave. Room reflections alone will be enough to clearly light up the bars in all but the darkest scenes in a regular room. To me (Sony VW85) the masking the scope screen provides gives a HUGE boost in percieved contrast. I could never go back to an unmasked 16:9 screen.

I have JVC DLA-X3 so I think that would qualify as high contrast projector and my room is nearly full batcave and I don't find my masking optional at all; just could not live without it anymore. I watch TDK, Tron and Transformers 2 special edition with IMAX parts with grey bars top and bottom so that 16:9 parts are ok, but grey bars annoy me in those films.

I actually held a party for about 30 people a few days after I had compeleted my masking project and demoed the masking to ppl there. Pretty much everyone was telling me "what a amazing difference" (and trust me, they did not do that just to be polite) and a few of my friends who are into HT stuff were telling their wives/GFs "honey, come check what we are buying next". The difference in the perceived contrast is just that big.

A 16:9 screen can be as wide as required to accommodate any scope image, but whatever width is chosen for scope 16:9 content can be displayed taller because it has the resolution to accommodate it. Crushing 16:9's 1080 lines down to the same image height as scope's 810 lines (approx) seems like a terrible waste to me, and since the most visually impressive source is normally 16:9 (IMAX, 4K digital) I for one will never want to do that. I'll continue to project 16:9 as wide and as tall as possible for good image quality.

When true 4k source becomes a reality I expect I will want to go wider and taller to take advatage of the extra resolution, but since 4k Bluray is likely to be a 16:9 format just like 2k Bluray a 16:9 screen will continue to makes sense to me. That wont suit everyone for a variety of reasons so to each their own.

I find that that results in either a 16:9 image that is way too big or a scope image that is way too small. CIH results in an image size that (for me) is satisfying for all aspect ratios.

I only have two BDs with IMAX content, and those are only partially IMAX and were shown scope when I went to the theater to watch them. If IMAX ever becomes a significant "format" I will consider a CIH+IMAX setup (CIH setup, but with a masked 16:9 screen that I can open up for IMAX content), until then I'll stick with CIH. For me the relative presentation of the film is the most important part. I don't want to watch an epic scope film 25% smaller than some low budget, direct to BD movie or TV show (43% smaller than it should be) just because limitations of the technology available mean the low budget BD-direct movie/TV show happens has more pixels. In a CIW setup Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark will be 25% smaller than Game of Thrones, for no reason other than limitations of the technology, somehow it just doesn't seem right that an epic film, originally shown on a massive 2.3x:1 cinema screen ends up subordinate/inferior to something originally shown on TV.

Perceptions obviously vary considerably, I find a black mask makes the poor black level of the image even more noticeable and draws my attention to it. The "black bars" are just a seamless extension of the screen, in dark scenes I cant tell where the image stops and the black bars begin and that to me is not a bad think.

Scope V 16:9 issue is a very touchy subject here and in other forums, why I'm not sure. People make their own choices about what suits them and thats where it begins and ends.

A scope image will always be smaller on a 1.78 screen though which is the exact opposite way it is meant to be seen. Like I said though, every room, situation and individuals viewing habbits are different all of which will dictate what type of screen will work best in that particular situation. In my room for example, I run out of height before width due to an air duct. Due to my height restriction, I get the exact same size 1.78 image either way, but a 2.35 screen allows me to have a much bigger scope image and it has the benefit of being displayed like a true theater which is very nice. Lots of variables though as far as what aspect screen is best for a particular individual.

+1 to what Stanger89 said.

An IMAX screen is as wide or wider that the widest scope screen and twice as tall, how do you reconcile that? There are plenty of non IMAX title that look great projected as wide or wider than scope because the image quality is so good.

A projector has has the ability to project pretty much any size image desired, small for low grade TV content and huge for IMAX, 4k digital and other quality 16:9 titles shot with spherical lenses. A big dual masked 16:9 screen provides the flexibility to enjoy all content at its best no matter what the aspect ratio or source quality.

When I demo'd the older X7(RS50?) it was on a scope screen, but they left it zoomed such that 16:9 content filled the screen height, but not the width. When they showed 2.35:1 clips theimage therefore had a border on all four sides and looked poor IMHO. I was used to seeing a properly masked (by the screen borders ) 2.40:1 image so this demo weighted my opinion such that when I went home and viewed my HD350(RS10) it didn't appear to be any worse in terms of contrast: Result was I saved a bundle on an upgrade as I didn't feel tempted to change (3D isn't for me).

16:9 on my scope screen isn't quite so bad as the black bars are unprojected (unlike 2.35:1 bars) but the room does light them up some, so for 'serious' 16:9 viewing I would clip up some pieces of black velvet to mask the sides and it looked much better IMHO.

That defies logic. If the screens are the same width how does one provide a smaller scope image?


In your particular circumstances you run out of height before width, thats fine but as you say not everyone has the same limitations or preferences. In my case I run out of image quality long before I run out of height or width.
Edited by Owen - 9/19/12 at 7:43am

Like I said, there are vanishingly few IMAX titles to justify (for me) the added cost/complexity of a CIH+IMAX setup. If a significant portion of my movie/content viewing were IMAX that equation might be different.

And also introduces massive cost/complexity/manual interaction or some combination thereof. A good 4-way variable masking system can easily cost as much or more than a good lens (way more than zooming). That or it becomes a pretty massive engineering/design/construction effort. Or something you have to get up and manually adjust for each film.

This sounds like what Rich has, and it sounds like a great setup, but it's another step or two/order of magnitude more complex/costly than even a CIH setup and is something completely different than a 16:9 "CIW" setup like you were describing above.

The scope "format" was initially developed to provide a dramatically larger, wider, more immersive image while being the same height as existing theater screens in theaters, scope films (as the "format" was devised) intended to be larger than 16:9 or 4:3 content, however when you display it on a CIW setup the exact opposite happens, it's displayed smaller, shorter than the other formats. The opposite of the intent of the format. IMAX (as you pointed out) is another new format that is both taller and wider.

Indeed. "CIW" is easy, that's why that's what most people use. CIH is the next step towards matching the intent/design of real theaters where scope content is displayed wider than narrower aspect ratios, however it is more costly/complex/fiddly than CIW and why most people don't bother with it, but make no mistake it's a step closer to the theater.

Lastly there is VIA (Variable Image Area, including CIH+IMAX) which is probably the closest to reproducing what you get at theaters (note the plural), allowing you to recreate various formats (flat/16:9, scope, IMAX, etc) different seating positions in the different theaters, etc. However this is the most complicated/costly/fiddly setup by far, and why only a very few implement this.

CIH is pretty easy in the scheme of things, there are lots of products (including very reasonably priced ones) that make going CIH relatively painless, and can be relatively well automated.

VIA is just on a different planet though, it requires going with a 16:9 size way larger than you probably normally would, finding a projector that can light that size. Then you also need a projector with a pretty massive zoom range so you can shrink the image down as appropriate. But the real kicker is you need a 4-way masking system and as I noted above these are either stratospherically expensive to buy off the shelf, or a relatively advanced engineering project to DIY, or very manual fiddly (manual masking panels). And there's really no way to automate it.

A scope image on a 1.78 screen is smaller than a 1.78 image on that same screen which is the exact opposite way a traditional theater works since a traditional theater is CIH.

I am certainly not preaching CIH for everyone as I mentioned. There are compromises to both CIH and CIW.

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.


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.
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.

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.
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.

Get hold of "The art of flight" on BD and see if you think it looks better displayed the same height as scope.

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.

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 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.

Well I find viewing epic scope movies smaller than run-of-the-mill TV or direct-to-disc movies and unnecessary and undesirable limitation.

Well I think the industry shot itself in the foot when they didn't support anamorphic encoding for scope but that's just me.

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.

To summarize:
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.

Compromises either way. For me there are less compromises in a 2.35 setup, for you a 1.78.....its all good. I echo what Stanger is saying as me and him are on the same page.

Even if I dont share your perspective/opinion on CIH vs CIW, I think we can both agree that The Art of Flight is one gorgeous disc.....I own it as well.

I share your thought about not wanting to limit the 16x9 pic if one chooses a 2.35 screen.    Because of this I was swayed by Rich Harkness' preaching about the virtues of an intermediate AR screen (thanks again, Rich!), and chose to go this route.    (One can of course consider this to have the worst of BOTH CIH and CIW, but it's been great for my situation.)

 

I wanted the widest possible screen my room could handle for 2.35 pics, but didn't want the smaller 16x9 pic that this would cause.   E.g.,  144"W is the max my room can take, but a 2.35 screen of this width would be 'only' ~61" H, thus giving a 110x61 16x9 pic, while the room could easily have a 16x9 pic of 72"H.    So I chose a 144x72 (HP2.4) screen, have loved it:    I zoom out to 144"W for 2.35 pics and lens shift the pic down to the bottom edge of the screen, so the black bar is only at the top (which causes me no problem, though some might like to mask it).     For 17x9 (the Sony1000's version of 16x9) I zoom in to a 136x72 pic.   I lens shift this to the right side of the screen (which works good for me since my chair is actually not the dead center of the screen) and thus have a 8" wide black bar on the left side, which I do mask with a panel I slip inside the screen frame.

 

Everybody's room situation and limitations are of course different, but a hybrid AR screen such as this can sometimes work out very well.

All of this OT has been (and probably still is) discussed in other threads; could we please keep it to new pj's?

As far as I am concerned the viewed decides what deserves to be bigger.


37 degrees is very modest, no wonder you have no issues with the image quality of scope at that viewing angle. I am happy to view 2k scope at as much as 50 degrees for good transfers and 16:9 at even larger viewing angles as its typically higher quality then scope, the size of the image is no problem at all. With higher quality source I would go to 57 degrees for scope without hesitation.


I dont view TV of any kind on a projector, quality BD content only.


Maybe so, but it is the way it is so I choose to work with what I'm given not fight it. The upcoming 4k format is almost certainly going to be 16:9 along will 4k projectors so it seems Sony and hardware vendors have not leaned anything.


CIH is a "problem" because video is CIW, some people may not be concerned about this "problem" but others are and I am one. I cant view scope 33% wider than 16:9 because image quality drops too much for my liking.


We only sacrifice impact if the screen is too small. With a suitable screen width for scope some people may find the 16:9 image too big but others wont.


We also sacrifice the impact and immersion of quality 16:9 content, thats acceptable to some but not to others and definitely not me.


Yep.

My HP is electric. I raise it up to eliminate the bars, then raise it back down if the film is in 1.85 or 1.78. Works perfectly for me

Sorry for asking since I am sure this has been covered, but what are the differences between the 48 and 4810?

About '10' and an extra QC check before shipment AFAIK. There might be a difference in warranty too, but not completely sure.