PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA - Page 13 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 94Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 380 Old 02-22-2020, 11:06 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,225
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2844 Post(s)
Liked: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

I have come to the conclusion even among the really dedicated folks to enjoying the best they can at home Variable immersion isn’t high on most peoples list. So we are a subset of a subset within home theater.

That's for sure!


It looked a while back like the "beyond 2:35:1" systems - e.g. which could expand for IMAX and generally use zoom/masking for more flexibility - were going to start taking off. As in some commercial AV companies were starting to push the idea. But from what I saw the commercial versions were wildly expensive - for rich guys-who-cared. I haven't followed the latest trends for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if it petered out.


But, as I say, I still get a kick out of the flexible system as do my guests. My room is always packed for watching the UFC and I usually start with most of the fights at an average size - say 102" to 105" 16:9 diagonal. But for the big final match I often press a button and the image/masking zooms the image far larger, moving in to more IMAX-like immersion, like we are "there," and that's always fun!
R Harkness is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 380 Old 02-23-2020, 06:35 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
That's for sure!


It looked a while back like the "beyond 2:35:1" systems - e.g. which could expand for IMAX and generally use zoom/masking for more flexibility - were going to start taking off. As in some commercial AV companies were starting to push the idea. But from what I saw the commercial versions were wildly expensive - for rich guys-who-cared. I haven't followed the latest trends for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if it petered out.


But, as I say, I still get a kick out of the flexible system as do my guests. My room is always packed for watching the UFC and I usually start with most of the fights at an average size - say 102" to 105" 16:9 diagonal. But for the big final match I often press a button and the image/masking zooms the image far larger, moving in to more IMAX-like immersion, like we are "there," and that's always fun!
Sadly most people think FP in general is wildly expensive and companies that cater to the non DIY community like to take the project to the max and I think they saw the IMAX at home theater as the next step in the uber-rich market.

There has been some progress with people going to CIW as it is simple and they understand TV so its just larger, but then TV jumped larger to at least 85” and toned down FP. Now it seems there is a belief that FP can go enormous and given a magic screen it can work well in almost daylight conditions.

CIH was and still is wrapped in just enough mystery and added cost with talks of special lens and all kinds of processing equipment and higher end projectors it scares a lot of folks off because it sounds expensive and also like it involves a lot of brain work.

Now you look at CIH+IMAX or any system like we use that involves changing ARs as well as image size and you throw in variable masking and most people assume huge costs and complexity.

There is a thread running in the dedicated theater forum now on what did you spend? There are something like 30 people here that posted they have spent upwards of $100k and I did a rough calculation that on average people spend $44k. That’s here and those that post there, but for someone doing their homework it doesn’t look like a cheap date.

At my old house in my IMAX basement theater of almost 20 years ago I had seating for a dozen people. My nephew talked me into hosting UFC early on and the guys would bring the pizza and beer and they all chipped in for the pay per view cost passing the hat. I normally made a few bucks on the deal. We had so much fun down there and even set up side betting on the bouts. I had the ability and it was only XGA back then to change the size and without a doubt every guy wanted it as big and life-sized as I could get it. Those days might have planted some ideas in my head as to non movie sizing. Super bowls were another packed house event down there. My nephew like the whole thing enough he eventually built a HT for himself and the UFC parties moved over there.

Like you I have expanded to show people more immersion, but I also have had a few times have someone say I was viewing just too large for their likes. My sister is one such person. It is also nice when I get a person that likes the middle back seating locations to be able to adjust for them as well.

I do enjoy masking and only worked around not using it as a way to simplify the process and show others the simplicity PIA can have. Like I have said before 99 out of 100 people don’t realize Dunkirk is changing AR dozens of times during the movie.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #363 of 380 Old 03-10-2020, 05:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 346
In my 17:9 setup (my projector's native image shape), which I've described above, the letterbox and pillarbox bars are not noticeable, so I don't bother with masking or anamorphic lenses.

All I do is switch between two modes: full lens zoom, which gets me an image area 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" for 16:9 material, and turning on the projector's 6.25% digital zoom to take the width out to 11' 4", which I do for anything 1.85:1 or wider, which loses at most 1% of the image off the top and bottom of the imager, and for true scope films just part of the letterbox bars.

No real added complexity involved, and no added expense. All I do is use the projector's remote to toggle the digital zoom on or off.

My fancy screen is just skim-coated drywall, with a layer of Kilz Premium primer and a few coats of a paint mix called Cream and Sugar Ultra, the recipe for which I found at Home Theater Shack. It's a 1:1 mix of flat white Valspar latex paint and Basics acrylic silver paint (mixed together with a drill), with a tiny amount of magenta added to the Valspar by the paint store for color neutrality. (And I painted the ceiling and side walls with matte black paint to minimize splashback that reduces contrast.)

It has the virtue of not reducing viewing angles like high gain screens do, and it allows 3D glasses to work equally well regardless of their polarization.

For films that change aspect ratio, I just leave the digital zoom off and enjoy the show!
bud16415 likes this.

Phil
True 4K/HDR10/3D JVC DLA-RS1000 (NX5) projector, 7.2.4 Paradigm/Boston Acoustics/Onkyo speakers, fed by Yamaha RX-A3070 w/ Denon 2307CI to power 4 overheads. Sources: Oppo UDP-203, 4K Roku Ultra, Dell Win 10 PC via HDMI for Amazon Music HD and sampled grand piano.
My water-themed landscape photography website - only 24 pix up so far.
Philnick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #364 of 380 Old 03-10-2020, 12:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Bud,

You might enjoy my post just now in my projector's thread.

It tales a lot to rile me up, but after a morning of feeling like I was re-enacting The Three Musketeers responding to attacks from numerous obnoxious CIH adherents, I responded by a post with links to a group of the most obnoxious posts they had made this morning. The last straw was after I had posted a "different strokes for different folks" plea when someone said asked incredulously "we're oppressing you?"

I'm wondering what their reaction will be to having the mirror held up to their conduct.

Phil
True 4K/HDR10/3D JVC DLA-RS1000 (NX5) projector, 7.2.4 Paradigm/Boston Acoustics/Onkyo speakers, fed by Yamaha RX-A3070 w/ Denon 2307CI to power 4 overheads. Sources: Oppo UDP-203, 4K Roku Ultra, Dell Win 10 PC via HDMI for Amazon Music HD and sampled grand piano.
My water-themed landscape photography website - only 24 pix up so far.
Philnick is offline  
post #365 of 380 Old 03-10-2020, 03:55 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably.
Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.
satyab is offline  
post #366 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 06:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyab View Post
I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably.
Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.
What you're doing will work fine for scope content, but for anything narrower than the projector's native 17:9 panels (which are 1.888:1), using Aspect:Zoom - which is a 6.25% digital zoom - will push some of the actual picture beyond the top and bottom of the imager, shaving it off.

Personally, I'll use the Aspect:Zoom for anything wider than 1.85:1, since at 1.85:1 I'm only losing 1% of the image at the top and bottom, but at 16:9 (1.78:1) the loss is more like 3.125% at each of the top and bottom, which I'm not quite willing to do. Many say that this is ok since filmmakers allow for more loss than that in composing shots, but I'm not sure.
satyab likes this.

Phil
True 4K/HDR10/3D JVC DLA-RS1000 (NX5) projector, 7.2.4 Paradigm/Boston Acoustics/Onkyo speakers, fed by Yamaha RX-A3070 w/ Denon 2307CI to power 4 overheads. Sources: Oppo UDP-203, 4K Roku Ultra, Dell Win 10 PC via HDMI for Amazon Music HD and sampled grand piano.
My water-themed landscape photography website - only 24 pix up so far.
Philnick is offline  
post #367 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 07:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post
Bud,

You might enjoy my post just now in my projector's thread.

It tales a lot to rile me up, but after a morning of feeling like I was re-enacting The Three Musketeers responding to attacks from numerous obnoxious CIH adherents, I responded by a post with links to a group of the most obnoxious posts they had made this morning. The last straw was after I had posted a "different strokes for different folks" plea when someone said asked incredulously "we're oppressing you?"

I'm wondering what their reaction will be to having the mirror held up to their conduct.
Phil;

I think your reply to @mkerdman were very good. You pointed out to him the features the projector you both own have that many others don’t and how to best utilize those features. Years ago I had a WXGA projector 16:10 or 1.6:1 I used for similar reasons. The extra height I used for my Academy AR movies 1.37:1 as well as the original IMAX movies 1.43:1. The extra pixels and extra brightness they provided were a benefit over having a 720p projector that was 16:9. The WXGA back in that time frame was like rolling a 720p and a XGA together. It may have been the roots of my PIA thoughts.



Murray said one thing in his post you quoted that all the naysayers neglected to notice. He asked about preserving the full 16:9 height as a benefit for viewing sports. This is one aspect of PIA I often talk about as last I checker the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did not list baseball, football (both types), basketball or any sports presentation under the heading of motion pictures. Also as far as I know TV shows like GOT don’t fall into the same cinematic category as Wheel of Fortune even though they both are clearly not motion pictures and they are intended to be TV viewed. It is a little ironic the naysayers will elevate a TV show like Stranger Things shot as 2.0:1 to fully fill the height of their scope screens thus giving it some extra immersion and prestige even though it is clearly TV and not a motion picture and if you want to follow the CIH law the director intended the show to be TV size with a couple black bars.

You might ask why would they do this? The answer is simple it is because they can and it is more enjoyable that way. Pose the same question to why do you and I and Murray and some others go past that point at times? Again the answer is because we can and more importantly is because we enjoy it. Watching GOT more immersive or the NBA in no way says we will find Wheel of Fortune or The Beverly Hillbillies more enjoyable that size.

@satyab has lucked upon something in ordering a screen too large for his room and hopefully he has adjusted his seating distance to suit the sizes he is now getting. But with that extra screen he has in effect done what we know and like the freedom to right size his content. He can still force himself to maintain all his content into a CIH framework if he wants. CIH isn’t about the size screen you have it is about the discipline of the relative sizes viewed. I think a lot of people though given the extra usable area will find times they want to use some of it. In his case sports. I think I have a picture of how a lot of sports is framed like it is scope and how they put graphics in the top and bottom area a lot. Squeezing that down to CIH from IMAX is giving away a lot of immersion. After all where are the most expensive seats at an NBA game? They are the front row at center court. Talk about immersive.

On edit: I was a little confused when I typed the above and I see it as @satyab that bought the too large screen.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG-8751.JPG
Views:	26
Size:	1.86 MB
ID:	2696372  
satyab likes this.

Bud

Last edited by bud16415; 03-11-2020 at 07:53 AM.
bud16415 is offline  
post #368 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 08:11 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by satyab View Post
I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably.
Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.
The only other advice is to adjust your seating distance for the sizes you can make max and know that a movie like Dunkirk or Aquaman in the new IMAX AR will be the greatest immersion in both vertical and horizontal and Scope will be the limit you like max horizontal, then feel free to go smaller when the circumstances dictate using the presets and zoom. We use our projector/media room for it all sometimes not turning the projector on when just playing music. It has the best picture in the house the best sound and the most comfortable seating. So if I want to watch an old grainy documentary on PBS that’s where I will watch it. That type content is not made better watching it like IMAX or even like watching it like a 1.85 movie sometimes, so I zoom it down where the PQ improves based on my seating distance and it is more like TV. In my case I can go as small as 75”. I even still watch DVD. It looks awful as immersive as I would like new BD media but making it 20% smaller does the trick. I like to think of it as sitting a few rows back if it was in a real theater. PIA is like having the ability to virtually change rows without changing seating distance.

You now have the ability if you like more immersion you can up it when watching alone and back it off when watching with others that don’t care for as much immersion.
satyab likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #369 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 09:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
As to not muddy the water over in the JVC thread Phil had quoted
@blake had quoted @Josh Z , and I think both these comments have some merit here.

Josh said “Realistically, how much IMAX content do you actually watch? TV shows are not IMAX. 1.85:1 movies are not IMAX. (Even if they played in IMAX theaters, they were not composed any differently than rom-coms or low-budget indies.) The amount of material actually photographed in IMAX format and composed for the added vertical immersion of IMAX is infinitesimal compared to the many thousands of movies and TV shows photographed by traditional means.

The problem with installing an oversized 16:9 screen is that it treats anything 16:9 or 1.85:1 as if it were IMAX, so suddenly The Bachelor is the most epic and immersive thing you can watch in your home theater.”

@blake then replied “And the other issue is your vertical field of view fatigues much quicker (than horizontal) and should be 25 degrees or less upwards from the level. Imax deals with this by using stadium seating - you are floating in the middle of the screen, height wise. Few home theaters can do this.”

As to Josh’s comment he always incorrectly conflates having a screen tall enough to contain IMAX 1.89 movies as to automatically means everything else close to that AR should become IMAX sized. No one has ever suggested that nor has anyone suggested The Bachelor is an epic presentation. There may be a few minutes of footage in each episode where it is a long shot of a nature setting where the show is being made that might look pretty amazing as IMAX but the way a show would need to be graded is on it as an entirety and all the close up work would lead me away from viewing it IMAXed.

He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall. They also employ their very expensive IMAX DMR process to media if they intend to show it more immersive. Not unlike how I suggest PIA applies a different factor to DVD or BD or UHD BD.

Blake makes an honest observation about vertical FOV. IMAX1.89 true IMAX1.89 this headroom displays non-critical content and is intended above and below to round out your upper and lower peripheral vision. This is no different than how the sides of a scope movie are shot giving us more lifelike side peripheral content. Studies have been done and some are linked in the opening post as to where our eyes look when watching movies. We walk around every day in real life with our peripheral vision fully filled in all directions and we don’t find it at all fatiguing. The reason is we don’t and can’t take it all in at once and there is no reason to expect we will watching an illusion of real life.

IMAX does have very high stadium seating but so do many of the modern commercial theaters. Seating recline has to be factored in as well as viewing upright to some extent. Most home seating recline way more than normal seating and having the feet out makes row spacing way greater.

If someone wants to explore at home IMAX immersion they will have to be willing to think about a lower screen bottom and if they want two-row seating they should think about the second row being more of a conventional upright seat style. There is little IMAX immersion to a second row if you place them 6’ back from the first row anyway at home unless you really have a massive screen. People willing and wanting IMAX immersions have to be willing to maybe only raise their feet half way during IMAX movies. That shouldn’t be a big problem as I’m always told they are less than 1% of the movies we watch. Watching the NBA IMAXed isn’t a problem you can look around your toes to see the score.

I will attach a couple pics showing real IMAX and IMAX at home recommendations along with one showing what is included in IMAX 1.89 that is not in scope and what is left out of true IMAX 1.43.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	imax comparison fov.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	114.0 KB
ID:	2696416   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMAX-Private-Theatre-Rendering-2-Custom.jpg
Views:	15
Size:	26.2 KB
ID:	2696418   Click image for larger version

Name:	Imax4.jpg
Views:	14
Size:	36.4 KB
ID:	2696420  

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #370 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 12:23 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,900
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4993 Post(s)
Liked: 3983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall.
Have you ever actually been to an IMAX theater, Bud? IMAX theaters do not reduce the size of normal 1.85:1 movies. They fill the entire 1.90:1 IMAX screen (with a slight bit of cropping), wall-to-wall. Never have I seen a 1.85:1 movie reduced in size and projected only into the middle of the screen.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #371 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 02:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Have you ever actually been to an IMAX theater, Bud? IMAX theaters do not reduce the size of normal 1.85:1 movies. They fill the entire 1.90:1 IMAX screen (with a slight bit of cropping), wall-to-wall. Never have I seen a 1.85:1 movie reduced in size and projected only into the middle of the screen.
Yes I have and I don’t remember ever seeing a Flat 1.85 movie in IMAX.

Most of the time they are scope 2.4 played wall to wall or IMAX 1.89 or IMAX AR switching movies or 3D.

Have a lot of flat 1.85 movies played in IMAX venues? If displayed floor to ceiling that would be pretty immersive. I know Jurassic Park 3D played in IMAX venues has the 2D version also?

It is IMAX business if they are showing flat movies IMAXed in their theaters I can’t remember seeing one, but we are talking home theater here and you are right if someone has a screen suited for IMAX at home and they want to watch flat content that large they certainly could if they wanted. I personally wouldn’t do it I would rather have some black bars around the movie. That’s really up to the individual.

I guess if IMAX played Saving Private Ryan that way and the director/studio of the movie approved then there could be a case for adding SPR to the list of IMAX movies. Can we also assume Jurassic Park is an IMAX movie?

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #372 of 380 Old 03-11-2020, 02:31 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,900
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4993 Post(s)
Liked: 3983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Yes I have and I don’t remember ever seeing a Flat 1.85 movie in IMAX.

Most of the time they are scope 2.4 played wall to wall or IMAX 1.89 or IMAX AR switching movies or 3D.

Have a lot of flat 1.85 movies played in IMAX venues?
Plenty of 1.85:1 films have played in IMAX theaters. Recently: Joker, Dumbo (remake), The Lion King (remake), Doctor Sleep, Gemini Man.

The fact that it feels like most of the movies playing in IMAX theaters are 2.40:1 letterboxed on the screen just goes to prove the argument we've had many times that the majority of directors making these immersive visual spectacle movies prefer the 2.40:1 format to deliver that immersion.

Quote:
I guess if IMAX played Saving Private Ryan that way and the director/studio of the movie approved then there could be a case for adding SPR to the list of IMAX movies. Can we also assume Jurassic Park is an IMAX movie?
Neither Saving Private Ryan nor Jurassic Park were photographed or composed to take advantage of IMAX's extra height. So, no, they are not really IMAX movies, even if they played in IMAX theaters.

Anything can play in an IMAX theater if you really want it to. Playing an episode of Match Game on an IMAX screen doesn't make it actual IMAX content.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #373 of 380 Old 03-12-2020, 03:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Plenty of 1.85:1 films have played in IMAX theaters. Recently: Joker, Dumbo (remake), The Lion King (remake), Doctor Sleep, Gemini Man.

The fact that it feels like most of the movies playing in IMAX theaters are 2.40:1 letterboxed on the screen just goes to prove the argument we've had many times that the majority of directors making these immersive visual spectacle movies prefer the 2.40:1 format to deliver that immersion.



Neither Saving Private Ryan nor Jurassic Park were photographed or composed to take advantage of IMAX's extra height. So, no, they are not really IMAX movies, even if they played in IMAX theaters.

Anything can play in an IMAX theater if you really want it to. Playing an episode of Match Game on an IMAX screen doesn't make it actual IMAX content.
I guess I will have to make a few more trips to IMAX 1.9 venues and take in a few of these “flat” movies. Over the last few years we have enjoyed our HT actually greatly enjoyed and learned to despise local cinemas for any number of reasons. The greatest is putting up with the people that don’t have a clue as to how to act in public. The short wait for media to make it to our home isn’t that long for the pleasure of not having it ruined by some idiot checking his phone every two minutes.

I took the time to think about these flat blockbusters and what was going on with these IMAX showings I also read some IMAX reviews and tried to focus mainly on IMAX haters take on these presentations that I found to be positive.

First off if we look at a couple on your suggested list from last year two top movies with awards to their credit made by two top companies with premier directors and appealing to two different genre. Joker and Dumbo. Can’t get much different or much bigger and we are talking Warner Brothers and Disney all A-list players.

All this firepower and not complaining about IMAX showing but rather condoning them and in some cases recommendations being made if you want to see these movies in the best settings see them in IMAX. I might also add seeing them at a premium price.

Why would these directors and studios allow this? Of course one answer is money. The other might be even though these are not “IMAX” movies they play well in these venues. I would hate to think the directors and studios would sell themselves out just to help IMAX.

This is somewhat proven out by the user reviews as it was pretty hard for me to find anyone professional or casual reviewers that didn’t like or complain about the IMAX immersion.

I’m going to take this as a positive for my PIA presentation and say if these studios and directors don’t care if Dumbo is shown more immersive than say Forrest Gump then it isn’t going lessen/change my thought process of watching Dumbo taller than CIH would allow me.

I will keep looking for comments on this practice of endorsing flat movies being shown in IMAX venues and see if I can find any protest to the practice by those creating the content or even moviegoers opposed to it. So far it is mostly positive.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #374 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 08:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Here is a movie I noticed mentioned in a different thread and it fall into the AR changing category. I don’t see any mention of it being associated with IMAX and IMDb lists it as 2.35:1, but it is clearly not that. It was reported that the movie starts as 16:9 and does a slow and constant morph ending at 2.55:1. The preview does this also and I will attach it so all can watch.

The cinematography to my eyes seems to morph with the AR.

Would be very difficult to watch effectively as CIH, would be imposable to mask, and would be a natural for viewing as PIA. The only question is what size I would want to start at knowing the ending cinematography and AR. If I can find it to watch and I will try playing the trailer in my HT to see what I think. My starting point would be to start it IMAXed and let it slowly become a super wide scope.

It is called (True History of the Kelly Gang) looks like an interesting both in content and in its cinematography. If I can get a hold of it it will be one to show to guests and see if anyone notices the morph.


Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #375 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 08:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 346
When I watch a variable aspect ratio film I project it as my large 16:9 image: 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" wide.

That's immersive in either ratio. It's always 10' 8" wide, with its height varying from some flavor of scope (2.35:1's 4' 6 1/2" to 2.4:1's 4' 5 1/3" - or in the case of this film's extreme 2.55:1, 4' 2 1/5") to the full six foot height of my screen area.

PS Kubrick (2001, Lawrence of Arabia) ratio (2.2:1) is 4' 10 1/5". The new 2.0:1 ratio is 5' 4" tall.

Phil
True 4K/HDR10/3D JVC DLA-RS1000 (NX5) projector, 7.2.4 Paradigm/Boston Acoustics/Onkyo speakers, fed by Yamaha RX-A3070 w/ Denon 2307CI to power 4 overheads. Sources: Oppo UDP-203, 4K Roku Ultra, Dell Win 10 PC via HDMI for Amazon Music HD and sampled grand piano.
My water-themed landscape photography website - only 24 pix up so far.
Philnick is offline  
post #376 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 10:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post
When I watch a variable aspect ratio film I project it as my large 16:9 image: 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" wide.

That's immersive in either ratio. It's always 10' 8" wide, with its height varying from some flavor of scope (2.35:1's 4' 6 1/2" to 2.4:1's 4' 5 1/3" - or in the case of this film's extreme 2.55:1, 4' 2 1/5") to the full six foot height of my screen area.

PS Kubrick (2001, Lawrence of Arabia) ratio (2.2:1) is 4' 10 1/5". The new 2.0:1 ratio is 5' 4" tall.
Sounds immersive to me.

What I find interesting is now with digital processing there really will be no standard on shape all we will know is the full container will be 16:9 in shape and they can fill as little or as much of the container as suits them. Movies like this are not even changing AR movies they are continually changing AR movies. It is a little like fade to black only it is fade to a different AR.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favorites because I love the story but I also love how the story is told with changing ARs. That movie changes in both height and width and it shows how the shape of the container causes us to see it from a different point in time.

Like any movie trickery it can be over done and I’m sure some directors will do that. I have always liked the split screen and montage effects in movies they are just so much easier to do now. Multiple parallel story lines like trying to watch a 3 ring circus and changing ARs within ARs. I watched a great example of that the other night on Better Call Saul. They use the montage to great effect in that series. And breaking the landscape 16:9 AR into two portrait 9:16 ARs and seamlessly going back to one landscape when the two people are together at the same time was something worth watching more than once.

All these things combined is what I see more and more each day and why it is IMO getting harder to fix an AR and immersion down for a full presentation.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #377 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 11:18 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,900
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4993 Post(s)
Liked: 3983
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I’m going to take this as a positive for my PIA presentation and say if these studios and directors don’t care if Dumbo is shown more immersive than say Forrest Gump then it isn’t going lessen/change my thought process of watching Dumbo taller than CIH would allow me.
It was not my intention to intrude into your thread, Bud. I only came because you called me here with your mention. You said: "He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall."

This is not correct. My understanding of your "PIA" system is that you zoom content to whatever size you feel is appropriate depending on your personal opinion of the movie and your mood that day. Some TV shows or 1.85:1 movies would be smaller than scope while others would be blown up to IMAX size.

That is not what IMAX theaters do. They are not PIA in any respect. IMAX theaters are a straightforward Constant Image Width presentation, much like a really oversized flat panel TV. The theater cannot and does not differentiate between regular movies or those shot with actual IMAX cameras. It all fills the width of the screen wall-to-wall just the same.

Josh Z
Television and Home Theater Writer/Editor, Primetimer.com

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whomever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #378 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It was not my intention to intrude into your thread, Bud. I only came because you called me here with your mention. You said: "He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall."

This is not correct. My understanding of your "PIA" system is that you zoom content to whatever size you feel is appropriate depending on your personal opinion of the movie and your mood that day. Some TV shows or 1.85:1 movies would be smaller than scope while others would be blown up to IMAX size.

That is not what IMAX theaters do. They are not PIA in any respect. IMAX theaters are a straightforward Constant Image Width presentation, much like a really oversized flat panel TV. The theater cannot and does not differentiate between regular movies or those shot with actual IMAX cameras. It all fills the width of the screen wall-to-wall just the same.
This sounds correct and if say Warner or Disney licenses the rights to show their movie there they would do so knowing IMAX presentation methods and also understand IMAX seating requirements are more immersive than the rest of the industry. So they are saying OK to IMAX that their movie will be able to be shown at those levels without negative blowback from viewers.

I never said IMAX was doing PIA presentations except where I misguidedly assumed they would adhere to something like CIH+IMAX presentation that you pointed out I was wrong about. So now I know IMAX handles all media as CIW and I doubt IMAX plays any Academy AR material in their 1.89 venues where the AR would top out before it came to width.

What I was saying is these movies (The 1.85:1 ones shown in IMAX venues.) have been given the go ahead by companies like Disney, Warner Brothers and others to show them at these immersion levels. This IMO is setting a precedent or guide for those of us doing PIA if we wish to follow it. I further have been reading reviews of these movies shown in these theaters looking for clues as to how people felt the immersion was and most are positive. Even some professional reviews saying this is the way to see these movies if you can. I have read a lot of pro reviews of scope movies shown in LieMAX saying save your money and go to a regular theater. Makes me wonder a little if black bars and not filling a screen throws up red flags no matter what direction they run.

Of course no one is going to jail for watching any movie they want sitting as close or far away as they want, and no permission is needed. It is merely a clue as to what the industry is thinking about these matters. IMO having an IMAXed size screen that places scope as wide as I’m comfortable with would most likely find Dumbo overly immersive full on IMAXed and much more to my liking around CIA height. This then tells me if I make it to an IMAX venue to watch Dumbo or any other recent flat movie I would want to sit around 5/8 of the way back or more.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #379 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 04:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Philnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 346
PS When I know a film is full-time at least 1.85:1, I kick in my JVC's 6.25% digital zoom to take advantage of the full width of its rather unorthodox 17:9 imaging panels. (I don't use this zoom with 16:9 material, since that would shave off not just black bars but 3.125% of the actual image at each of the top and bottom.)

This results in the image being 11' 4" wide, and anywhere from 2.40:1's 4' 8 2/3" tall to 2.2:1's 5' 1.8" tall to 2.0:1's 5' 8" to 1.85:1's 6' 1" tall, which uses the entire imaging panel.

PS I've never heard of 2.55:1 before!

Phil
True 4K/HDR10/3D JVC DLA-RS1000 (NX5) projector, 7.2.4 Paradigm/Boston Acoustics/Onkyo speakers, fed by Yamaha RX-A3070 w/ Denon 2307CI to power 4 overheads. Sources: Oppo UDP-203, 4K Roku Ultra, Dell Win 10 PC via HDMI for Amazon Music HD and sampled grand piano.
My water-themed landscape photography website - only 24 pix up so far.
Philnick is offline  
post #380 of 380 Old 03-13-2020, 08:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,239
Mentioned: 120 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2319 Post(s)
Liked: 1218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philnick View Post
PS When I know a film is full-time at least 1.85:1, I kick in my JVC's 6.25% digital zoom to take advantage of the full width of its rather unorthodox 17:9 imaging panels. (I don't use this zoom with 16:9 material, since that would shave off not just black bars but 3.125% of the actual image at each of the top and bottom.)

This results in the image being 11' 4" wide, and anywhere from 2.40:1's 4' 8 2/3" tall to 2.2:1's 5' 1.8" tall to 2.0:1's 5' 8" to 1.85:1's 6' 1" tall, which uses the entire imaging panel.

PS I've never heard of 2.55:1 before!
If you ever have to go back to a 16:9 projector you will be lost. CIH people always have a secret wish for 2.40 media and projectors and that is logical based on their needs and ideas. I have always said I don’t care what the AR is as long as the resolution is great enough and each pixel is bright enough, I’ll just use the ones I need and zoom to the size I want. A 1:1 projector or 4:3 is ok with me if it meets those needs. I like old Academy movies so for me some extra height in the frame is ok and why I liked 16:10 but we live in a 16:9 world so why fight city hall. 16:9 was a compromise AR and that’s ok because everything fits ok in 16:9 also. People have a hard time seeing that every AR will fit inside every other AR. it just boils down to what is the most efficient use of as many pixels as you can and as much of the light as you can. With the way ARs jump around on TV and in movies and 16:9 1.77 is the shape and the biggest image is IMAX at 1.89 that’s close enough.

One of the latest 2.55:1 was La La Land. The Hateful Eight was 2.76:1. because I have virtually unlimited zoom as I can move my projector throw distance and virtually unlimited screen area as I’m using a stealth painted screen wall without boarders I can project these super wide movies as CIH with my scope movies. I did it with The Hateful Eight and it was quite the presentation.

We call Scope / CinemaScope 2.35, 2.39, 2.4 etc, but that is a carryover jargon from what started out as 2.66 when what they are is Panavision.

Over the years this idea that 2.35 etc are designed around human vision FOV and such. It really had little to do with it. Edison got the ball rolling and was looking for a still film to make into movie film and 35mm was out there with a 1.33 AR later when they added sound they used some of the width and Academy came about 1.375.

Where it gets interesting is when this Greek guy Spyros P Skouras comes along and wants to get people into his theaters at 20th Century Fox and he finds some German guy making lens that squeeze a wider picture onto a narrow film and then a reverse lens to stretch it out when projected. It just happened to be 2.66:1 as a finished image and that was enough different than anything around to really wow people and get them into the theaters again. None of it was real scientific in terms of human vision it was more showmanship than science.

It got more scientific in the 60s when IMAX came along and invented movie cameras that could record almost all human vision could resolve. The problem was their cameras were the size of a car and cost a fortune to make and use and they ended up having to make their own movies that were 45 minutes long about nature. The 1.44 AR along with immense immersion levels and out of this world “resolution” did a fantastic job of capturing the full range of human vision and FOV.

Then this new IMAX 1.89 came along and is trying to become mainstream and compete just like Skouras did in 1953.

There is some interesting reading if you want to dig into this Skouras guy.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off