PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 82Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 311 Old 05-31-2016, 03:52 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.

Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.

I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...

You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...
Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie?

Television broadcast at least in this country are not reruns of I love Lucy and the news. Television is 1080P and many people have several hundred stations and differing content to pick from. Add to that the vast amount of material that can be reached on line. I don’t have a clue what people want to watch or how “relatively close they want to sit to the screen” (Zoom). It is not for me to decide what they watch or how. I know people that have a projector and its main usage is to watch sports huge.

PIA is about being able to select your seating distance based on content and mood, but even if we want to view it in terms of just movies I think I have listed enough examples in previous posts of examples of movies in all different AR that for some people would demand a change in immersion.
rossandwendy likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 311 Old 05-31-2016, 08:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Well Bud, first happy Memorial Day weekend and second, PIA seems like what switching masking around would be with an inexpensive projector and a appetite for current and classic movies/TV. I could see employing your technique in the future with a better projector/larger wall and push button focus.

For me, TCM Memorial Day movies always bring home the issue of changing aspect ratios since they try to show the war movies (40s to 70s/80s) in the proper theatrical ratio when cost allows. For example, 1965's Battle of the Bulge is in 2.76:1 only to be followed by The Longest Day in 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 depending on which version TCM ran which in turn was followed by Men in War in 1.85:1 and others in 1.37:1. I'm sorry but as a child of the 60s and 70s, I want the largest possible Flying Leathernecks even if it is in 1.37:1.

While some limit their content to movies only (and there is nothing wrong with that), what a waste of a good or even a bad projector. The other night I lost count of the aspect ratio changes during the American version of the show Top Gear. While I usually don't watch commercials, I did notice that they switched from 4:3 to 2.35:1 to 16:9. Even in the show for impact there were several switches from the standard 16:9 to 2.35:1 to highlight the certain car segments. I also like to see my movie trailers in the largest way possible.

I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours. I told her that as the room is around 3K not counting the other projectors and sound systems. I'm not going to say what her response was, but I liked it...a lot. (As I have said before, she could be lying since she will want that college check in a few months.)

So as I enjoy hours of old war movies in my own house free to do what I want today, the only thing that makes me sad as is that my 92 year old (well in 10 days) father can't be here watching it with me (700 miles away). To him WWWII opened the world up for a farm boy from Tennessee who gladly enlisted at 17 to sail around the world and fight for freedom. In his nursing home, he has his service records and photos up from back then to highlight the stories he loves to tell over and over and over. Thank you for your service, Dad and to all the others who gave up so much for us to have the freedom to enjoy this weekend.
Steve you keep missing that size is relative to seating, measurements are pretty much meaningless. If that home theater of the month has the seating/size distances setup correctly (and I'm sure they do), then all the AR's will be seen with the proper impact. Nothing is shortchanged. I would much prefer to watch a movie in that setup. The Battle of the Bulge and The Flying Leathernecks would both be excellent. In your setup unless your moving the furniture a lot, Batte of the Bulge would a lot less impressive than it should be. Commercials can be in any AR they want, they have 0 relevancy.

Would a 1.37:1 film in my setup have the same measurements as yours? Nope. Does it matter? No, because my seating is much closer. Is the impact the same? It's probably pretty darn close. Does a 10' billboard appear bigger than the 4x6" photo? You would say yes. I would say where are they in relation to me. If the 10' billboard is 1/2 mile away and the photo is at the end of my nose. The photo IS bigger.

You solve the issue of scope being diminished by moving furniture. Which is not practical in the majority of setups and does impact speaker calibration. You have every right to be proud of your budget setup. But you need to understand how AR, seating distance and size all interact to create the presentation. You did your daughter no favors by implying that your setup offered a better presentation based solely on measurements of the screen. As a child of the '60's your memories should be the same as mine growing up in the '70's. Golden Age cinema having the same height as the epics of the time. You can argue against preserving that in the home and I'm fine with that. But the theatrical presentation was CIH.

No one is right or wrong on the subject of what you decide to watch on your projector. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to watch TV on theirs. We simply don't care to.


Last edited by jeahrens; 05-31-2016 at 01:35 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #33 of 311 Old 05-31-2016, 02:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.

Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.

I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...

You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...
Gary we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I like big and I don't feel cheated in any way with my simple setup, and to be honest I really don't look at HT the same way you do or the way the home theater of the month guys do.

The best advice I ever got as a young man was "Own the house don't let the house own you." I've tried to pass that along to my kids, so it is nice when they reflect my values back to me with a positive comment about our 3k room vs the 39k room (really 45k but I was trying to be nice). I don't doubt that it is an awe inspiring room but it is not my style.

On a bad projector, yes my blacks could be better and maybe the image could be sharper, but I kind of enjoy having a simple little room and my tacky junk around the room. Knock down the projector, break a speaker or fry the avr and it is a simple/cheap Amazon order to replace. I wouldn't be comfortable with a "fancy" room with a lot of moving parts. Not that there is anything wrong with one, but it is just not me.

I wasn't being insulting to the owner of the room. It looks great and what ever aspect ratio screen a person goes with is great as long as they are happy. I looked at the last five HTs of the month and screen size is obviously an individual choice even for the "big boys". (I would never post in one of those threads unless I was going to say something nice.)

I just don't buy into the argument that one size fits all be it projector/screen/sound/room or that scope is greatly diminished on a large 16:9 screen. Sorry, but I actually like the rooms which only have an image projected on a wall and are not tied down by a screen. Kind of looks like a room straight out of a science fiction movie.
rossandwendy likes this.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 311 Old 05-31-2016, 03:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Steve you keep missing that size is relative to seating, measurements are pretty much meaningless. If that home theater of the month has the seating/size distances setup correctly (and I'm sure they do), then all the AR's will be seen with the proper impact. Nothing is shortchanged. I would much prefer to watch a movie in that setup. The Battle of the Bulge and The Flying Leathernecks would both be excellent. In your setup unless your moving the furniture a lot, Batte of the Bulge would a lot less impressive than it should be. Commercials can be in any AR they want, they have 0 relevancy.

Would a 1.37:1 film in my setup have the same measurements as yours? Nope. Does it matter? No, because my seating is much closer. Is the impact the same? It's probably pretty darn close. Does a 10' billboard appear bigger than the 4x6" photo? You would say yes. I would say where are they in relation to me. If the 10' billboard is 1/2 mile away and the photo is at the end of my nose. The photo IS bigger.

You solve the issue of scope being diminished by moving furniture. Which is not practical in the majority of setups and does impact speaker calibration. You have every right to be proud of your budget setup. But you need to understand how AR, seating distance and size all interact to create the presentation. You did your daughter no favors by implying that your setup offered a better presentation based solely on measurements of the screen. As a child of the '60's your memories should be the same as mine growing up in the '70's. Golden Age cinema having the same height as the epics of the time. You can argue against preserving that in the home and I'm fine with that. But the theatrical presentation was CIH.

No one is right or wrong on the subject of what you decide to watch on your projector. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to watch TV on theirs. We simply don't care to.
But you have to admit as a child of the 60s and 70s, what a disappointment it was to buy your ticket only to discover you were stuck in one of the smaller theaters at the multiplex. Usually near the end of the run so you could sit anywhere, but I still always felt cheated.

On not doing my daughter a favor. As I said in a the previous post "Own the house don't let the house own you", so she was only echoing what I have taught them since they were little and the little neighbor girl announced one day that her dad had said we make to much money for Brown Circle. His observation was based on our jobs and toys. So I used it as a teachable moment and pointed out to the kids that if we lost our jobs tomorrow we still own the house free and clear. I still wish I had that little paid for house.

I get that if you move the chairs up you get the same impact, but I would still feel cheated. I'm also sure that the quality in most home theaters is better much better than mine, but I bet I use mine more than any of you do. Mine has a different purpose. First, I like cheap and it fits the bill. Second, I like bang for the buck and it fits the bill. Third, I like big and it fits the bill with my limited space. Fourth, I like what I like and it fits the bill. Fifth, I love having a 151.5 inch TV and a 143.5 inch theater in my home.

Really no wrong answer other than to say someone else is wrong and I really do cringe when I see perfectly good walls being torn down and months/years being spent on building the perfect HT. It is not wrong it any way, but I couldn't do it. For me that is a cruise for the family or months/years of lost enjoyment or three months tuition or the difference between retiring any day now and working to mandatory at 57.

I never share my views in the big guy sections but I do try to represent the little guy when a big guy says wait until you can afford a better projector, sound or a better room. I am astounded by the number of my friends who originally thought that a HT was too much work or too much money or too complicated for them/wife/kids to use. It is as simple as room, wall and projector/sound.

Nothing wrong with PIA or CIH or what you/I perceive/enjoy or my projecting the largest possible image for all aspect ratios as allowed in my width limited "cheap" room. One size does not fit all.
bud16415 and rossandwendy like this.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.
steve1106 is offline  
post #35 of 311 Old 06-01-2016, 10:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Steve you missed the point of what I was saying. It had nothing to do with a budget setup being a bad idea (it isn't). In fact it had nothing to do with the cost of either setup at all. You sad this:

I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours.

The implication is clear that you believe and implied that because the your screen has bigger measurements it was a better presentation. My post was pointing out why this isn't the case. It had nothing to do with bang per buck nor was implying anyone should spend beyond their means.

CIH does not have to be expensive. My budget DLP with an inexpensive lens was around $1200 total investment. It would be cheaper today with the current crop of budget DLP projectors. I don't have a custom room. My screen is a simple Monoprice scope screen. That DLP/Lens combo did a very nice job while I had it. Again as I said in another post, your budget setup probably wows 90% of the people that see it. And it fits how you use it just fine. Not a thing wrong with that.

So in a nutshell my post had nothing to do with the $$ differential. It was the implication that your screen measurements made the presentation in your room better. A teachable moment in home theater should have included why AR sizing is important and why the HT of the month went with the screen AR and size they did (and how seating distance affects this). It should also include why you decided on the screen setup you did as well (not every use case fits CIH). Along with the cost lesson of course. That can't be stressed enough.

P.S. Most of our cinemas were one screen up until around high school. But I know what you mean on getting the crappy theater. We saw Rush a few years ago in CIW and off center at one of the 16 screen monstrosities. Terrible presentation.


Last edited by jeahrens; 06-01-2016 at 10:48 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #36 of 311 Old 06-01-2016, 02:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
jeahreans, the sad truth is my girls(wife/daughters) really don't care about image quality so a better setup/ projector would be wasted on them. I often get on to the wife for watching things in low def on the 70 inch and the girls are glued to their I-phones/tablets/computers, but they will come down for HT "big", so in that sense bigger is better for us.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 06-01-2016 at 07:47 PM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #37 of 311 Old 06-02-2016, 06:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie?
You can sit where you like, but research shows that most people gravitate to the same area in a theatre whenever they go to see a movie, what you're suggesting is unusual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Television broadcast at least in this country are not reruns of I love Lucy and the news. Television is 1080P and many people have several hundred stations and differing content to pick from. Add to that the vast amount of material that can be reached on line. I don’t have a clue what people want to watch or how “relatively close they want to sit to the screen” (Zoom). It is not for me to decide what they watch or how. I know people that have a projector and its main usage is to watch sports huge.
Tvs, even today, are small and usually viewed from a relativly fair distance, so the image is small. I think most people see sports events as something different to normal tv and would like it larger, maybe to give them more of feeling of 'being there' - more immersive again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
PIA is about being able to select your seating distance based on content and mood, but even if we want to view it in terms of just movies I think I have listed enough examples in previous posts of examples of movies in all different AR that for some people would demand a change in immersion.
It's an unusual approach, and most people who go to a movie theatre don't usually determine their seats that way. Most people don't watch tv there either. Watching wheel of fortune the same size as a Hollywood blockbuster probably doesn't appeal to many people, and they probably wouldnt want to pay for it either. It certainly doesn't qualify as an event for a big screen for most people I would think.

It's up to you what you do and how you do it, but you won't convince many (any?) people that what you're doing is perfect. Far from it, but at least it makes you happy.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #38 of 311 Old 06-02-2016, 07:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
jeahreans, the sad truth is my girls(wife/daughters) really don't care about image quality so a better setup/ projector would be wasted on them. I often get on to the wife for watching things in low def on the 70 inch and the girls are glued to their I-phones/tablets/computers, but they will come down for HT "big", so in that sense bigger is better for us.
No arguments on the impact of size. I'm a big proponent of people getting into a budget DLP rather than a big flat panel if they have a room they can do it in. And image quality wise, most of the budget projectors today throw a very nice picture.

Size is certainly important, but you can't ignore seating distance and how that determines image size. Your screen may be bigger than mine, but I sit a lot closer. So the perceived size is probably pretty close. But either way it's an experience that no flat panel is likely to match (at a sane price) for quite some time.

jeahrens is offline  
post #39 of 311 Old 06-02-2016, 10:17 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do.
The last I checked, NASA and your ophthalmologist don't make movies. I fail to see the relevance of continually bringing them up in a discussion of movie presentation.

Hmm, I wonder what shape movie screen my garbage man prefers...
Gary Lightfoot likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #40 of 311 Old 06-02-2016, 10:26 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
I think I've found Bud's new favorite movie.


Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #41 of 311 Old 06-02-2016, 02:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
I actually think Bud would enjoy this video more on his setup. We pull the chairs up to ten feet and enjoy the full effect of 16:9 in 151.5 inches , but I'll admit after about an hour and half of sampling the world's coaster via blu-ray we tend to get a little nauseated. For the record, the best we've sampled is Roller Coasters in the Raw HD volume 1.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 06-02-2016 at 06:48 PM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #42 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 03:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I think I've found Bud's new favorite movie.

Josh : I would have to say that might better be your favorite movie as it was presented in CIH. Steve’s example is a very good one where a person may chose to use the benefits of the increased level of immersion PIA would allow. Actually in my theater I would have the option with my 16:10 projector to view it taller than CIH would allow and even how 16:9 would allow. I doubt I would adjust my setup for a 10 second long movie though.

I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has.

If anyone reading along wants more info on Josh’s reference to vertical cinema here is a video. Who knows it may turn up in a church or tall building near you.


Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #43 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 04:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
I actually think Bud would enjoy this video more on his setup. We pull the chairs up to ten feet and enjoy the full effect of 16:9 in 151.5 inches , but I'll admit after about an hour and half of sampling the world's coaster via blu-ray we tend to get a little nauseated. For the record, the best we've sampled is Roller Coasters in the Raw HD volume 1.
That's a seating distance ratio (screen height to seating distance) of around 1.62:1. On my set up, my 'IMAX' setting has me at 1.52:1, so although my screen is physically smaller, it looks larger than yours does. Is that a double eek?

Science, it's amazing isn't it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #44 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 05:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Gary we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I like big and I don't feel cheated in any way with my simple setup, and to be honest I really don't look at HT the same way you do or the way the home theater of the month guys do.
As I've just pointed out, you only see big, but my set up can be visually bigger than yours. Plus, I don't have to move my seats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
The best advice I ever got as a young man was "Own the house don't let the house own you." I've tried to pass that along to my kids, so it is nice when they reflect my values back to me with a positive comment about our 3k room vs the 39k room (really 45k but I was trying to be nice). I don't doubt that it is an awe inspiring room but it is not my style.
I own my house and I've made it what I want it to be like many people. I also don't need to spend thousands to achieve a decent movie experience (just like Josh). You just need to understand how things work and after that it's easy and can be cheap to achieve if you want it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
On a bad projector, yes my blacks could be better and maybe the image could be sharper, but I kind of enjoy having a simple little room and my tacky junk around the room. Knock down the projector, break a speaker or fry the avr and it is a simple/cheap Amazon order to replace. I wouldn't be comfortable with a "fancy" room with a lot of moving parts. Not that there is anything wrong with one, but it is just not me.
A lot of moving parts? Like seats you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
I wasn't being insulting to the owner of the room. It looks great and what ever aspect ratio screen a person goes with is great as long as they are happy. I looked at the last five HTs of the month and screen size is obviously an individual choice even for the "big boys". (I would never post in one of those threads unless I was going to say something nice.)
No, you're just trying to be smug because you can project a big image and nothing more. No other image attributes appear to be important to you. That's not something most people here would usually brag about or be happy with, but each to his own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
I just don't buy into the argument that one size fits all be it projector/screen/sound/room or that scope is greatly diminished on a large 16:9 screen. Sorry, but I actually like the rooms which only have an image projected on a wall and are not tied down by a screen.
It's not an argument, it's science based on research and standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Kind of looks like a room straight out of a science fiction movie.
What science fiction movie is that then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #45 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 06:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
That's a seating distance ratio (screen height to seating distance) of around 1.62:1. On my set up, my 'IMAX' setting has me at 1.52:1, so although my screen is physically smaller, it looks larger than yours does. Is that a double eek?

Science, it's amazing isn't it...
Actually we can move closer, so yes science is amazing.

This isn't a competition. I've lost. I only have a $549 projector and another $1300 in sound, but I used the coaster example to illustrate that I don't use my cheap room for only movies like many of you do. I may be wrong but I imagine Bud uses his the same way. For use, it is a mix of TV, movies, old shows/movies, a once in a blue moon video game and any of the garbage we like to watch. We use the treadmill or work out or even have meals in the room. It is not a home theater. It is just a room with a projector and a 151.5 inch TV that we love.

Replying to your follow up post. I wasn't being smug with a $549 projector and the house comment was my attempt to explain what I am comfortable with spending. I guess the truth is I'm a little sensitive about my cheap room. While I could spend much more I really want to tell them to "take this job and shove it" in a few months knowing I still have to pay tuition for 2 girls to go to college and I promised them that I would pay for grad school if they want to go.

On the science fiction comment. Many movies and shows have the wall light up with an image and no screen visible. I'm sure some here have voice activated by now while I still press buttons.

Guys I really like CIH. As I have said if I could do a 200 inch 2.35:1 screen I would be all in since really 151.5 inches of 16:9 is right at my sweet spot in my room. Go any bigger and ouch.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 06-03-2016 at 07:29 AM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #46 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 08:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has.
Bud, you should do whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, enjoy it.

Every home theater brings its compromises, and it's up to each individual to decide which compromises they're willing to make.

Personally, the idea of constantly moving my projector forwards and backwards and side to side and up and down and zooming in and out so that every single movie or TV show I watch will be a different size than the last one sounds like madness to me. I would never want to do anything like that in my home theater.

Rather than "PIA," I would call your system "PitA," as in "Pain in the..." But if doing that really rocks your socks, you should have a blast with it.

Just keep in mind that you're posting in the Constant Image Height forum, and those of us who use CIH have what we feel are sound reasons for doing so.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Last edited by Josh Z; 06-03-2016 at 10:31 AM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #47 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 08:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Josh : I would have to say that might better be your favorite movie as it was presented in CIH. Steve’s example is a very good one where a person may chose to use the benefits of the increased level of immersion PIA would allow. Actually in my theater I would have the option with my 16:10 projector to view it taller than CIH would allow and even how 16:9 would allow. I doubt I would adjust my setup for a 10 second long movie though.

I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has.

If anyone reading along wants more info on Josh’s reference to vertical cinema here is a video. Who knows it may turn up in a church or tall building near you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoICTcokhK4
Umm how does a 16:10 panel allow it to be taller? Yes it has more vertical pixels, but the image height is a function of lens capability and seating distance. I could get a 640x480 business projector with a short throw lens and move the seats up ridiculously close to get an IMAX image that would spill onto the ceiling. Panel AR or even resolution isn't really relevant to perceived image size.

If the person has sized their CIH setup right, they get "total immersion" anyway. Unless total immersion means I'm moving my head and neck to take in the image, then no thanks. That to me isn't "total immersion" that's fatiguing and unpleasant.

jeahrens is offline  
post #48 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 08:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Actually we can move closer, so yes science is amazing.

This isn't a competition. I've lost. I only have a $549 projector and another $1300 in sound, but I used the coaster example to illustrate that I don't use my cheap room for only movies like many of you do. I may be wrong but I imagine Bud uses his the same way. For use, it is a mix of TV, movies, old shows/movies, a once in a blue moon video game and any of the garbage we like to watch. We use the treadmill or work out or even have meals in the room. It is not a home theater. It is just a room with a projector and a 151.5 inch TV that we love.

Replying to your follow up post. I wasn't being smug with a $549 projector and the house comment was my attempt to explain what I am comfortable with spending. I guess the truth is I'm a little sensitive about my cheap room. While I could spend much more I really want to tell them to "take this job and shove it" in a few months knowing I still have to pay tuition for 2 girls to go to college and I promised them that I would pay for grad school if they want to go.

On the science fiction comment. Many movies and shows have the wall light up with an image and no screen visible. I'm sure some here have voice activated by now while I still press buttons.

Guys I really like CIH. As I have said if I could do a 200 inch 2.35:1 screen I would be all in since really 151.5 inches of 16:9 is right at my sweet spot in my room. Go any bigger and ouch.
Steve, if you are happy with your setup and it does what you want then you're winning. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you watch mostly 16:9 material (TV) then you probably chose just fine. All I'm trying to do is get you to understand the concept of image size and how it relates to seating distance. You're not really width limited and could do CIH, but it doesn't really make a compelling case for you based on how you use your setup. And that's just fine.

Again, cost isn't really what this discussion is about. I'll give you an example. We have some friends we do a "Bad Movie" event with. We went to the couples home and they were excited to show us their "home theater". Being a HT nut, I was excited too. Turns out it was a wall mounted 70" 4K flat panel. No sound system. It was a very nice TV, but to me it really didn't feel like a HT. On the flip side last fall I saw a Benq 1070 with a large 16:9 screen, with a 7 speaker Andrew Jones Pioneer setup and 2 DIY subs. I bet the total outlay for that system was comparable to the large flat panel and man was it an awesome setup for the money. Waaay better experience. So never think that being budget makes your setup 2nd class or your opinion less valued.
rossandwendy and steve1106 like this.


Last edited by jeahrens; 06-03-2016 at 08:53 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #49 of 311 Old 06-03-2016, 10:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Umm how does a 16:10 panel allow it to be taller? Yes it has more vertical pixels, but the image height is a function of lens capability and seating distance. I could get a 640x480 business projector with a short throw lens and move the seats up ridiculously close to get an IMAX image that would spill onto the ceiling. Panel AR or even resolution isn't really relevant to perceived image size.
Not to mention that, even if his projector has a 16:10 pixel panel, any content he feeds it from Blu-ray or HDTV will be encoded as a 16:9 image. It will either appear letterboxed on his screen (negating the extra height), or he'd have to stretch or crop it to fill the odd-shaped projector panel.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #50 of 311 Old 06-06-2016, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Bud, you should do whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, enjoy it.

Every home theater brings its compromises, and it's up to each individual to decide which compromises they're willing to make.

Personally, the idea of constantly moving my projector forwards and backwards and side to side and up and down and zooming in and out so that every single movie or TV show I watch will be a different size than the last one sounds like madness to me. I would never want to do anything like that in my home theater.

Rather than "PIA," I would call your system "PitA," as in "Pain in the..." But if doing that really rocks your socks, you should have a blast with it.

Just keep in mind that you're posting in the Constant Image Height forum, and those of us who use CIH have what we feel are sound reasons for doing so.
In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup.

He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here.

I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker.

I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well.

Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #51 of 311 Old 06-06-2016, 10:05 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup.

He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here.

I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker.

I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well.

Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.
Bud, I truly don't have anything against you or against the system you've installed. Although it isn't something I would want in my own theater, I find it interesting and would certainly never begrudge you from trying to do something unusual and innovative.

I have a non-standard, Frankensteined audio system in my theater that requires 15 speakers and 2 A/V receivers to operate. Most people think that's nutty and overkill, but I like the results.

What you have to keep in mind is that Constant Image Height is a very small niche in the home theater community, and we regularly face tremendous criticism from people who don't understand what we do or why we'd want to do it. This means that we constantly need to explain ourselves over and over to people who are at best indifferent and at worst downright hostile to the notion of ever using anything other than a 16:9 screen for home theater.

So, yes, we get a little defensive sometimes. Sorry about that.
rossandwendy likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #52 of 311 Old 06-06-2016, 10:16 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,913
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4127 Post(s)
Liked: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This means that we constantly need to explain ourselves over and over to people who are at best indifferent and at worst downright hostile to the notion of ever using anything other than a 16:9 screen for home theater.
If you think I'm exaggerating, take a peek at the incessant "CIH is for morons!" trolling from a jackass calling himself "freakyguy666" in the comments after this article:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/bl...t-ratio-chart/

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #53 of 311 Old 06-07-2016, 02:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup.

He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here.
We're not elitist here and neither were all the commercial cinemas that were scope until the multiplexes came along. In fact you could say we're mindless because we're just following the guidelines and specs for a system that has been round since the 50s - now commonly referred to as 'traditional CIH' within the industry, we're trying to do things 'as designed' and intended, so we're not trying to reinvent anything.

I think what is elitist is when someone comes along with something they think is better based on nothing other then their personal preference and then try to argue the point, even dismissing all the bodies of research and technical documents that support how we do things here - because they think they know best.

And you wonder why you're met with disdain after a while?

As Josh has said, it's not unusual and we see people like that all the time here and elsewhere. I know a guy in the UK that is a teacher who also thinks he knows best too. He ignores all the documentation, dismisses the likes of THX, Dolby etc and his main arguments against CIH are that some theatres back in the 50s couldn't fit screens to the Fox specs (two times the width of the academy screen), so often went for 2:1 - a compromise (and some of those theatres cropped everything to fit), and that if you go to commercial cinema and can't get your favourite seat you end up not seeing things as immersive as you'd like - so a compromised seat. In other words, a compromised screen and seating distance is his 'standard' and the main reason why his set up is better - and he also completely dismisses the design spec the industry supports. However, he does change his mind after a few years (with some other things he's argued against when he realises what he was told was right all along), doesn't admit he was wrong and continues to put himself on a pedestal.

You're doing much the same - thinking your idea is 'perfect' for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker.
Somehow you see only yourself as intelligent here. You come here with an idea, we point you to technical docs etc as to how things should be done, yet you ignore that and continue to argue about it. That doesn't sound too intelligent to me. That's more like trolling or wanting to get your own way.

As Josh said, we often see people like yourself here who are pretty much trolling for an argument so no wonder you eventually end up with short shrift - it's because you're ignoring all the docs and white papers and telling us we are wrong and you are right. Most people would look at what the industry says and think that is how it should be done if you want to do it right, not dismiss all the bodies of research and the people who make the standards and think you're more intelligent and informed than everyone else.

Josh's comments referring to asking hs garbage man are much the same as you telling us what is better - who are you and what are your credentials so that we should listen to you and not SMPTE?

You are just a guy in the street, like the garbage man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well.

Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.
Talking about building and viewing to the specs and guidelines may be old, but at least it's correct and proven. That's why there is a forum for it.

Maybe you should try your ideas in another forum where people might actually be interested in what you have to say. Those that don't understand CIH may actually listen to you there.

As for me, I'll stick to watching tv shows on the tv, and movies in my dedicated room. that's perfect for me thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.

Last edited by Gary Lightfoot; 06-07-2016 at 02:42 AM.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #54 of 311 Old 06-07-2016, 04:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Gary

In most ways I am following the standards closer than most of you that has always been my point. When you walk into any theater designed to SMPTE specs or any of the other specs we follow you are immediately confronted with a question. Where do I sit?

If I sit in the front row or the back row there is a huge factor of zoom thrown into the immersion of the image, I am about to view. I have watched people file into movie theaters for over 50 years and select their seats. I have seen people run for the very back row and also the front row and I have seen people leave and ask for a refund if forced to sit to close. I don’t have to have accreditation to know that when I go into a well-designed theater I will have a choice of seat selection facing me and the people I go with.

All the time when showing movies to friends and family I am asked if I can increase or decrease the sound level. It is often a case of personal preference for me to do so also depending on the level of sound immersion I feel I want. The same is true for immersion in a SMPTE theater as I get to select my seat.

I never advised anyone that wishes to view CIH to do otherwise. There are often people that come here and pose the question should I go CIH, CIW, CIA and of course they will always get the advice to go CIH. If I go to a VW forum and ask if VW is a good automobile I will get the answer they are the best. When I suggested a 16:9 screen and PIA mindset would allow a newcomer to try all three methods and see for themselves and I commented (again for myself only) that I watch the majority of my viewing as CIH. I was basically called an imbecile and told the “C” in CIH stood for constant not most of the time. I was very glad that was explained so I could understand it. I also have a TV in the kitchen and I watch the morning news when eating breakfast on it and it goes a good part of the day as a background buzz. But to me there is a reason why I would watch TV shows in my media room on my projector and maybe I will start a survey on another forum and find out if others watch TV content on their projectors. But why wouldn’t I go into the nice room I built with the most comfortable seating and by far the best sound and PQ and enjoy a quality TV show or internet content show. The room was designed to be the go to place to do just that. If I select to make my TV show image much smaller than CIH and make it look more like an expensive 60” flat panel TV would look if I had one and watch Dancing With the Stars. Then the next day go back to SMPTE CIH watching a block buster 2.35 epic what is the big deal? It would be as if I went to my local cinema and watched it sitting in the back row because I didn’t feel I wanted immersion and it was better to eat my pizza pie back there. Not to mention when I zoom the way I do I get higher FL’s and in turn tolerate more selected ambient lighting to eat said pizza pie by.

If a couple come over for a movie and I ask them, where do you normally sit when you go to a proper designed SMPTE theater and they say oh you will think we are crazy but we like to sit close or we like to sit back. I tell them no problem my theater is designed to exacting SMPTE specs and I have the capability of duplicating the visual experience of a SMPTE theater where I can replicate any one of the 1000 seats in the cinema with a push of a button.

I’m not here as an opponent of CIH. I’m sorry people come here to troll and look for a fight if that is what you all feel is going on. The one thing everyone seems to agree on it is about the image not the size or shape of the screen when the house lights are on. So if it is truly about presentation and relative sizes of movies in different AR we are in agreement and I have read 1000 times it is then about relative seating distance what is wrong with being able to select your seating distance at home just like you would in a commercial theater. I know you and others have said they always sit in the same seat in a commercial theater is it a stretch of logic to think some of us may like to move around based on the content or the mood we are in. (This is where you guys jump in about FOV again and the conversation changes direction.)

I don’t have a screen boarder for a very good reason. My boarder is in my mind’s eye. I don’t just go immersive for some 16:9 stuff sometimes I go extra immersive for some 2.35 stuff. But I know many people feel the need for a screen on the wall or the quality a screen has over a DIY solution. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I would buy the largest screen I could fit on my wall and I wouldn’t care what AR it was in. That’s pretty much what all the SMPTE retrofitted theaters did. The AR is in the mind’s eye.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #55 of 311 Old 06-07-2016, 08:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Bud I don't see how you would be following the standards Gary points out closer than most of us. What you have in your home doesn't really conform to that. Which is fine, because it's what you want. I've been seeing movies a long time as well and the overwhelming evidence is people tend to sit slightly behind the mid point in a theater and gravitate towards the center. The majority don't have a clue what AR they will be treated to in the viewing, but that's where they sit. You may move around, but you would be the exception and not the rule. Our home theater seating distance is setup to mimic where we sit to enjoy films in the theater.

I don't think anyone called you an "imbecile" or meant to infer it. You just kept repeating over and over that your setup is or contained a "CIH" setup. But the explanation of how it works includes both Academy and 1.85:1 movies as being taller than scope. Which means the height is not constant in your setup. Thus it can't be CIH. You may mimic that type of setup a lot of the time as you say, but wanting that "total immersion" as you call it changes the nature of the setup. Which again is fine, but you can't call it CIH. It's misusing the term. That's why we keeping bringing it up.

Your borderless screen gives you the flexibility you crave in your presentation. You believe Casablanca should have more impact than Chinatown. That is your prerogative. Aspect Ratio does not determine a films importance. However it is a tool used by the director to determine its visual impact. In same way a painter decides the sizing of their canvas. We can agree and disagree about whether it is used properly, but it does not negate the intent. The director does not choose 2.4:1 with the artistic intent of it having a lesser impact than 1.33:1 or 1.85:1. That's simply a fact.

Really I think that may be at the heart of your setup. I'm thinking you believe that regardless of the filmmakers intention, the importance you assign to a given film should determine how it's sized (and thus it's visual impact). Whereas we're the opposite. Regardless of how much importance we assign a given film, we are striving to recreate the visual intent of the filmmaker and preserving the presentation. And maybe I'm reading you wrong. <shrug>

Really I don't think anyone in here is upset that you like something different. I think calling your solution "perfect" wasn't a good way to present it. That title alone implies that other methods are imperfect (including the method this subforum is here for). I know you likely meant it as somewhat tongue in cheek (perfect for you), but it's still not a neutral way to present it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #56 of 311 Old 06-07-2016, 10:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
All the standards such as SMPTE describe a theater design with ranges of attributes they allow or that meet their standards. In effect they describe a multi row multi seat wide auditorium with screen ratios that are determined to all match up to proper viewing. They show a sweet spot they have relegated and then the acceptable range around that seat, and true from any given seat in any SMPTE theater all presentations will be shown at CIH to that one person in that one seat. That is not to say all the people in that theater will be viewing that same show at the same height in their vision however. Everyone seems to agree that the individual’s perfect height is selective and that is accomplished by finding the seat the right distance from the screen for you. The guy that sits in the back row is not being cheated if he watches two movies of different AR’s from the back row if that is what he likes because he is seeing them both as CIH.

So just in that one regard PIA allows me to suit the back row guy and the front row guy as well as the SMPTE sweet spot guy all from the one and only seating distance I have in my home theater. If you go back to my original drawing and legend you will see I have the classis CIH included as red, white & yellow at the max width any screen will allow. So that is the CIH included. The orange AR is what Gary has and he calls it (plus IMAX) my blue AR could be called (plus original IMAX) or the orange could be called (plus subtitles) Just because there is the potential to project to an area doesn’t mean you have to!

It is true most casual viewers walk into a movie theater and try and figure out where to sit that suits them. Most don’t know the AR of the film they will see and most don’t know if the showing will be masked down or left with gray bars, most do that now. They just take a look at the screen and say that looks good and then live with the choice once the movie starts. That is a hit or miss method and if you get there late it is even worse as you will be stuck off in the wings too close or too far away for your liking. That’s why at home we have the option of picking our perfect seat.

The thought process that goes into seat selection and screen size to seating distance I think is different for guys like Rich and I than others that want to follow the long established well documented method set forth by outfits like SMPTE. We understand those ideas and respect them and sometimes even follow them, but we add in one more element we like to alter and in terms of going to a movie we are allowed to do it and at home we want to be able to do it and that is pick our seat. In an SMPTE theater we can get there early with their big scope screen and knowing the movie we are about to see sit 10 rows closer than we did the week before if we want. We believe our eyes can take it in or have the image overtake our vision range if we want it to even. If we are allowed to pick our seat at a SMPTE certified theater, we also want to pick our seat at home and we do that with our zoom. We are not asking for more than SMPTE advises just that we want the same as it offers.
jjcook likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #57 of 311 Old 06-07-2016, 12:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Bud you're just being stubborn and difficult at this point. You can't claim to have a constant image height setup when you vary the height. Do you need us to link the definition of constant? I get that you could make a CIH setup in your array of rectangles, but you aren't doing that exclusively. Thus the height is not constant. I've tried very hard to be fair to your opinion, but this is just getting silly. You don't have a CIH setup. Constant <> variable. Why even argue the point?

Yes I understood in your first post you think that your array of sizes is somehow closer to keeping with theater design specifications because people can sit closer or further. But the fact is the majority of people tend to sit where I described regardless of AR (which is what Gary's standards support). You do have some that will sit out of the norm, but those are outliers (or more likely they got their late). I have never had anyone at any time in a group seeing a movie say "this movie is 1.85:1 let's sit closer". In fact I can find friends at the theater if we arrive at different times based on the fact they usually sit in the same general area. I haven't had anyone suggest sitting in first few rows since I was 10 either. The simple reality is that cinemas have many seats that aren't optimal because it gets more viewers per showing. These corner cases aren't going to twist the facts Gary presents to support having a wall where presentation size is at the viewers preference. The guidelines lay out viewing angles and optimal distances based on screen size. The size changes, the rest changes. That's how the math works. The idea that somehow you have hit upon something perfect and the entire industry is doing it wrong just doesn't fly. The idea it's perfect for you, I have no issue with.

Again I completely respect you doing something you love that fits how you want to watch it. I wouldn't want you to experience it any other way.

jeahrens is offline  
post #58 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 07:44 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,777
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2105 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
I guess not having a screen of some AR nailed up on my wall makes me “silly” not sure about stubborn and difficult though.

When I look at my blank gray wall I don’t see any definition of and AR, I don’t see definition of a screen size & I don’t see definition of a screen location. When I look at my projector by its design it has a defined AR of 16:10 some people have 4:3 and most have 16:9. Almost no one has 2.35:1 as a defined AR. But to me the AR of the projector is just a Max image AR to work within. If I want 2.35:1 I can cut that out of any size rectangle and I can zoom whatever I want to be any size. Even CIH.

I think that is where we differ in our view points for me CIH is a thought process. Just as PIA is a thought process. I could just as easily have a CIH setup with a 4:3 projector as a 16:9 projector.
For others CIH isn’t a thought process it is a real thing embodied in a 2.35:1 screen hanging on the wall. In your case you have to make a decision at the time of ordering a screen what your seating distance is and what height your CI”H” is going to be for you. Then you order a screen and then you are locked into your unique version of CIH perfect for you. I hear many times the advice of using a wall to get a feel for what CI”H” will work best for an individual then order your screen and enjoy watching different AR as they were and are intended to be watched. Everything will be sized properly from then on in CIH. If you don’t want to experiment to what “H” is right for you turn to the data and select the screen “H” that matches the sweat spot in terms of angles even if you are a person that has always sat 2/3 of the way back at the movies.

In actuality the “H” isn’t as important as the fact everything you watch once you get started is all CIH.

I can say the same thing about all the people I know that have flat panel 16:9 TV sets I have never once heard them say OMG this movie is in scope let’s move the furniture closer. The fact people don’t move closer or comment in a movie theater in no way means things are perfect for them. People are creatures of habit and the truth is most people never give presentation area or height a second thought because we have been conditioned to disconnect from the fact it is even a movie and be transported into that it is a story. Like reading a good book we don’t see pages of words we see a story in our mind. It is only a small subset of people that worry or discuss any of this and it is true in more than just visual imagery. Sound quality is another. I have a feeling the people that enjoy both the most are people that don’t give the technical side of it a second thought.

As I have said a million times the beauty of any AR is in the presentation. I took a panoramic photo the other night of a sunset on our Bayfront. AR ended up about 15:1 and it was beautiful on the little screen on my cam. It was beautiful on my monitor at home as well and I threw it up on the wall with the projector and it was equally as beautiful. I couldn’t project a 15:1 image as CIH but I made it as wide as I could and it was amazing the beauty was in the image first and the AR second. The lack of height didn’t diminish the beauty.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #59 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1054
Either you're 'silly' or SMPTE etc and all the CIH theatres that have and still existed are silly.

You can do what you like in your own home of course if it's legal and makes you happy.

Just like a 16:10 or 16:9 pj has that particular ratio as it's native format, doesn't mean things should be presented that way. Those are just compromise formats.

Look at 35mm film and widescreen - just by using an anamorphic lens in front of the camera and using the whole 35 mm frame, you can project it with another A lens and get 2.35:1. The capture format and delivery are two entirely different things. Digital is no different but people don't understand that, especially when the multiplexes are no better, and that's why they don't feel cheated or want to move their seats closer. They usually just say they hate the black bars. You're using ignorance as a means to promote your personal preference.

You say that the beauty of any AR is in the presentation, then try to convince us that your way is better even though it's contrary to the design criteria for presentation.

You also say it's a thought process (because Fox, SMPTE, THX etc obviously aren't capable of thinking), but in actuality it's a design criteria. Same as the wheel. You may think a hectagonal wheel is better than a round one in your own personal thought process but in reality it isn't. Maybe better for you, but not for everyone who understands why round is better.

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince the most though, us or yourself. With us, you're wasting your time because we're following the design and intent that's existed since the 50s. You won't change our minds that your method is anything than just denial of the way things should be.

But if doing it your way makes you happy, by all means carry on, just please do it quietly in your own home.

Adding a wink at the end of your post again suggests you have discovered something unique and game changing. Instead the opposite is true.

You can stop trying to convince us that you have thought of something no one else has, or that you are some kind of genius who has discovered something no one else has. Just like the teacher guy in the UK, you think you know better than everyone else and that you're going to make us all step back in wonderment at your new discovery.

Think again

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #60 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 08:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,035
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2019 Post(s)
Liked: 1296
Bud not having a screen attached to the wall does not make you stubborn or silly. Trying to argue that the term constant is somehow malleable on the other hand does. I said twice in the post you quoted that I'm glad you enjoy your unique setup. And I was sincere in that. You may be able to cut out a CIH rectangle and display everything at that height, but you don't. So you're free to type more explaining about how you view AR's as a state of mind, but constant height does not equal variable height. And that's simply a fact.

I doubt many people move their chairs to watch a certain AR. I also doubt that the majority of people change where they prefer to sit at the cinema based on AR too. You implied that cinema goers would move their seating based on AR, not I. Which was to support your contention that your ever changing screen size was somehow closer to the established formulas to calculate optimal screen size and angle in relation to seating distance. People may be creatures of habit, but the fact that almost everyone gravitates towards the same basic seating area says something very telling. No one has told them this is an optimal area, yet they gravitate to it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you or anyone else embracing an open area screen to show things how they want to. I also believe strongly that a properly setup CIH system is the best way to view cinema in a home. But there's certainly room for all manner of preferences and anyone is free to setup their rooms as they like.
Josh Z likes this.

jeahrens 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