PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 82Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 09:22 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
But if doing it your way makes you happy, by all means carry on, just please do it quietly in your own home.
I have no desire to convince anyone actively participating on this thread to change anything they are currently doing or wish to do. Just like I have the freedom of doing in my home any form of presentation I want so do all the others here.

I don’t place myself above FOX SMPTE THX etc. nor do I feel they are wrong in anything they suggest. I have been enjoying movies presented to those specs for years and have no complaints at all, just as I have no complaints going to an IMAX theater and enjoying those presentations or even going to Disney and watching some amazing screen presentations. I like the idea of replicating them all at home if I can.

If you think I’m arguing some point similar to what Josh suggested I can say I’m not. I do believe this is an open forum to discuss any and all related topics and PIA contains all that is needed to have a successful CIH setup and as there are no CIA forums or PIA forums I started a thread here.

The main reason for starting the thread isn’t an opposition to CIH at all as mentioned it is the method I watch the most. It wasn’t started to convince a few people in the thread to change their religion.

It was started for the 1000’s of lurkers and guests that surf in here and the few posters brave enough that title their thread “Is CIH right for me” for every post there is 10 views and over the next year who knows how many people will learn so much about FOX SMPTE THX etc. from reading this.

If they make it this far and are still reading I will give a shout out, TRY CIH FOR YOURSELF IT IS A GREAT METHOD OF VIEWING MOVIE CONTENT !!!

I only take exception to one statement and that’s the one I quoted, If I read it correctly I was being politely told to shut up, stop posting in the CIH forum and keep my thoughts to myself at home. If that is coming in a formal AVS manner from the admin I will be more than happy to comply.

“sometimes a wink is just a wink” to paraphrase SF….

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 09:47 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
I have no desire to convince anyone actively participating on this thread to change anything they are currently doing or wish to do. Just like I have the freedom of doing in my home any form of presentation I want so do all the others here.
You say that, but not only do you suggest your way is better, you even start a new thread suggesting it is perfect.

The amount of content you've posted promoting your 'thought process' etc suggests you do wish to change how people do things. Otherwise you wouldn't be constantly posting as much as you are or starting new threads about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I don’t place myself above FOX SMPTE THX etc. nor do I feel they are wrong in anything they suggest.
Then why are you saying your way is perfect? That more than suggests you think your way is better than anything else, because everything else isn't perfect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I have been enjoying movies presented to those specs for years and have no complaints at all, just as I have no complaints going to an IMAX theater and enjoying those presentations or even going to Disney and watching some amazing screen presentations. I like the idea of replicating them all at home if I can.
Then that would be CIH+IMAX. No new 'thought process required there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you think I’m arguing some point similar to what Josh suggested I can say I’m not. I do believe this is an open forum to discuss any and all related topics and PIA contains all that is needed to have a successful CIH setup and as there are no CIA forums or PIA forums I started a thread here.
You can't have CIH if you vary the height.

You could have just posted it in the screen forum.

If you're not arguing the point why are you constantly posting about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
The main reason for starting the thread isn’t an opposition to CIH at all as mentioned it is the method I watch the most. It wasn’t started to convince a few people in the thread to change their religion.
It's not a religion, it's a design criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It was started for the 1000’s of lurkers and guests that surf in here and the few posters brave enough that title their thread “Is CIH right for me” for every post there is 10 views and over the next year who knows how many people will learn so much about FOX SMPTE THX etc. from reading this.
There is more than enough info from the above bodies already here, don't think you have somehow arrived on the scene and allowed people to become educated because of you. It's been discussed to death in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If they make it this far and are still reading I will give a shout out, TRY CIH FOR YOURSELF IT IS A GREAT METHOD OF VIEWING MOVIE CONTENT !!!
Thanks for that, because we desperately need your approval. Without your contribution I'm sure no one would have ever reached that conclusion already. Who knows, they may even make a sub forum specifically for CIH now that you've given it approval. Oh, hang on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I only take exception to one statement and that’s the one I quoted, If I read it correctly I was being politely told to shut up, stop posting in the CIH forum and keep my thoughts to myself at home. If that is coming in a formal AVS manner from the admin I will be more than happy to comply.

“sometimes a wink is just a wink” to paraphrase SF….
I'm sure I'm not the only one finding it perfectly tiresome now.

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 #63 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 10:39 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 understand for some CIH and CIH + IMAX is perfect for others CIW may be perfect because of its simplicity and still others CIA is perfect because they find that the best mix. I’m in no way saying those systems are not perfect for those individuals. But I’m sure CIW is not perfect for you. The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup. If it evolves for them to be CIH + IMAX then so be it.

My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion.

It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat.

Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom.

It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 11:28 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
The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup.
No. I don't want my wall to be completely painted with a screen mixture. Even with the excellent black level of my JVC the unused panel area would be visible and detract from the presentation. You have people supporting you and people disagreeing. So it is obvioulsy not perfect for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion.
Bud either you do not understand what constant means or you are purposefully trolling at this point. You do not have nor are you using a CIH setup. Maybe a CIW argument could be made (I'd have to look at the diagram again). Continuing to say this is simply undermining your opinion at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat.
Which for the vast majority of viewers is the same general area regardless of AR of the film and curiously happens to coincide with the theater design formulas that have been pointed out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom.

It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.
Right you could use your setup as CIH, but you don't. We don't need 50 rows. We are getting 1-2 rows just right. In fact the more rows you have, the less seating you have in the optimal area.

jeahrens is offline  
post #65 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 11:35 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
I understand for some CIH and CIH + IMAX is perfect for others CIW may be perfect because of its simplicity and still others CIA is perfect because they find that the best mix. I’m in no way saying those systems are not perfect for those individuals. But I’m sure CIW is not perfect for you. The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup. If it evolves for them to be CIH + IMAX then so be it.
You're suggesting preference over reference, which is fine for some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion.
That sounds like a compromised room or tv material which would be better suited watched on a direct view display. Otherwise quality shouldn't be an issue if the set up is correct (calibration, reflectance, room decor for example). It sounds like you don't know how to set things up to the standards as your method is constantly deviating from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat.
That suggests you know the quality and aspect ratio of the movie before you go into the movie theatre, and if it has ambient lighting issues etc. That's something 99.9% of the public have no dea about before they go there.

Also, as Josh and I have pointed out, research shows that most people gravitate to same place in a theatre and do not randomly pick a different seat. You can read it in white papers from the likes of Dolby. They may of course be given a seat where they don't like but that's a different issue.

Most people will pretty much sit in the same place, and at home we can design the optimal seating for us s we don't sit in a bad seat. I don't know anyone who moves their seats. If you move your seats due to the aspect of the movie, there's a good chance you are running a visual CIH system the same that Steve does by moving his seats closer for scope. He zooms himself rather than the projector lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom.
Who needs freedom when you have already designed the perfect seating distance for yourself? If you have to move your seats it probably means there's something wrong with your set up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.
It doesn't sound cool to me. It sounds like someone doesn't know how to set up their theatre because there are too many variables out of their control, so they have to keep changing things to get something to be visually acceptable to them.

With a correctly set up and calibrated projector and room, everything should look pretty much OK and watchable. At least it always has been for me once I'd learnt about those things.

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; 06-08-2016 at 11:42 AM.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #66 of 311 Old 06-08-2016, 03:47 PM - 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’ll let you guys have the last word. I enjoy point and counter point as much as the next guy, but after multi iterations of the same points it is “pointless” to continue the repetition.

For the record I’m not advocating that anyone use a DIY screen painted screen on their wall as a screen here. Everything that PIA has can be contained in a 16:9 screen in fact the same screen Gary Lightfoot advocates for CIH + IMAX would work perfect.

That being said DIY screen being in no way necessary for any projector setup as there are wonderful commercial screens out there. There are equally as wonderful screens to be had for those that want to put forth the DIY effort. Some love the idea of a stealth screen some want 2 way or 4 way masking or a frame with masking and that is a personal choice as to what you want to do for masking. I personally have a 4 way masking system that happens away from the screen and works very well for my needs. That is documented in other places and has nothing to do with this thread and the idea put forward.

Any last words on the definition of constant are welcome.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #67 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 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 bud16415 View Post
For the record I’m not advocating that anyone use a DIY screen painted screen on their wall as a screen here. Everything that PIA has can be contained in a 16:9 screen in fact the same screen Gary Lightfoot advocates for CIH + IMAX would work perfect.
If everything can be contained in a 16:9 screen than it is essentially a CIW setup that you shrink certain content based on the importance you assign it. I'll let Gary detail his reasoning. My guess is he has setup he masks 99% of the time and then opens up for the odd 4:3 IMAX film. Not really a strict CIH setup, but certainly much closer than your flexible image concept if that's the case. Although both are what you personally desire, so enjoy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
That being said DIY screen being in no way necessary for any projector setup as there are wonderful commercial screens out there. There are equally as wonderful screens to be had for those that want to put forth the DIY effort. Some love the idea of a stealth screen some want 2 way or 4 way masking or a frame with masking and that is a personal choice as to what you want to do for masking. I personally have a 4 way masking system that happens away from the screen and works very well for my needs. That is documented in other places and has nothing to do with this thread and the idea put forward.
I don't think anyone is stating that you have to have a DIY screen. Although unless the assortment of rectangles and squares you are presenting fit a commercially available unit, you'd either be having a custom one built or doing DIY. Your mirror setup is a great way to do the masking, but not all rooms have that flexibility. So you'd be stuck trying to make an assortment of custom masks to fit the various squares and rectangles you decide on or be forced to see the unused panel area (which may or may not be a big issue).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Any last words on the definition of constant are welcome.
Glad you've maintained a sense of humor. The back and forth on this was simply to encourage you to quit misusing the term. Your setup stands on it's own merits and doesn't need the distraction of implying it is something it isn't.

jeahrens is offline  
post #68 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 08:19 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 jeahrens View Post
If everything can be contained in a 16:9 screen than it is essentially a CIW setup that you shrink certain content based on the importance you assign it. I'll let Gary detail his reasoning. My guess is he has setup he masks 99% of the time and then opens up for the odd 4:3 IMAX film. Not really a strict CIH setup, but certainly much closer than your flexible image concept if that's the case. Although both are what you personally desire, so enjoy it.



I don't think anyone is stating that you have to have a DIY screen. Although unless the assortment of rectangles and squares you are presenting fit a commercially available unit, you'd either be having a custom one built or doing DIY. Your mirror setup is a great way to do the masking, but not all rooms have that flexibility. So you'd be stuck trying to make an assortment of custom masks to fit the various squares and rectangles you decide on or be forced to see the unused panel area (which may or may not be a big issue).



Glad you've maintained a sense of humor. The back and forth on this was simply to encourage you to quit misusing the term. Your setup stands on it's own merits and doesn't need the distraction of implying it is something it isn't.
I know I said you guys can have the last word but your last statement made me realize I was wrong in my initial naming of my system of viewing and it should be changed perhaps before people get the wrong idea as to what I’m doing.

I think a better name will be CPIA (constant perfect image area)

I do see now how 99% of the time could be constant but 85% of the time couldn’t be constant.

If we don’t keep sense of humor, we don’t have anything.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #69 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 08:31 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
I know I said you guys can have the last word but your last statement made me realize I was wrong in my initial naming of my system of viewing and it should be changed perhaps before people get the wrong idea as to what I’m doing.

I think a better name will be CPIA (constant perfect image area)

I do see now how 99% of the time could be constant but 85% of the time couldn’t be constant.

If we don’t keep sense of humor, we don’t have anything.
I didn't say 99% of time = constant. I said it was certainly closer and not strictly CIH. If you want to have the argument about what Gary considers his setup, please direct it at Gary.

Your system, in my opinion, would be best named "Flexible Image Area" or "Desired Image Area". Perfect implies everyone will find it so, which clearly isn't the case.
bud16415 likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #70 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 09:50 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
Your system, in my opinion, would be best named "Flexible Image Area" or "Desired Image Area".
Other suggestions:

CRIA
Constantly Random Image Area

AGIA
Anything Goes Image Area

TAISS
Totally Arbitrary Image Size & Shape

Gary Lightfoot and bud16415 like 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 #71 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 12:45 PM
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
I don't see why there is any confusion about my proposed set up, because it's very very simple, but just for Bud..

As most people on this forum know, Scope should be the widest most immersive format other than IMAX.

Although I have the screen material for a 2.35 screen so I can watch all formats correctly as CIH (2.20:1, 2:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 1.37:1 etc etc), I thought that as I had the room, I could fit a taller screen of the same width so that I could watch the few (6 or 7?) pseudo IMAX aspect changing movies. I have an anamorphic lens so I have a choice how I can watch them, but as IMAX is supposed to be taller (and is the only 'large' format that should be), it makes sense to watch those movies that way.

So, even though the screen is now going to be 16:9, 99.999% of the time it will be masked for CIH viewing. Even if I occasionally remove the masking for an aspect changing movie, without moving my seat, I will be seeing absolutely everything correctly as intended and in proportion - just as designed.

Front row at around 2x the screen height for CIH, and around 1.5xSH for IMAX - and without zooming or moving my seats. Perfect

None of this is my 'idea' by the way. It's all there in the specs, you only have to read them.

HTH.

Gary
bud16415 likes this.

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 #72 of 311 Old 06-09-2016, 05:11 PM
Senior Member
 
boothman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: southeastern PA
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 42
It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.
boothman is offline  
post #73 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 01:53 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
It's not a religion, and it's certainly not for 'elitists'. It's science and a design intent and anyone can do it if they want. It's simple

Just because you can sit in a bad seat in a commercial theatre doesn't mean you have to sit in a bad seat at home, but you can if you want in both cases.

Just because a lot of multiplexes now use 16:9 screens doesn't mean we have to either.

Just because a lot of multiplexes don't do it right doesn't make it OK. Do we complain? Kinda, we don't go there, or we make sure we go to the one CIH screen and sit in the best row for the best experience. When I first saw a scope movie in a multiplex get masked down for scope I was dumbfounded, disappointed and felt cheated, so I don't go to those screens any more. No point in complaining because they're not going to knock the multiples down and rebuild it just for you.

You will find a lot of people in the industry don't like the way multiplexes present movies these days and they will tell you that the art of presentation has been lost. If you speak to one of the few remaining old timer projectionists they will tell you the same. They will also tell you that they would present everything before the main movie smaller to make sure the main movie was the largest most epic presentation of the day. It's all about presentation but in multiplexes you will find that is no longer a consideration. It's all about bums on seats.

What usually happens here is that people come into this forum and don't understand what CIH/Scope is all about. When they find out they often then start to argue about it, usually because their screen isn't 2.35 and they feel like they have an inferior set up, so try to defend it. That's when it becomes tiresome and then we're being told we're elitist

You can do what you like at home, and if you enjoy it, that's fine, but if you come here and try to argue about the way we do it, then you're going to be presented with a lot of facts etc to show why you are wrong. If you continue to argue the point, then you may find exasperation sets in.

You might not care that the smaller format (16:9) is bigger than the larger format (scope), and that you're losing out on the presentation, but some of us do. Just like most people moved on from 4:3 tvs to 16:9 tvs, some of us with projectors have moved on to 2.35 screens and won't go back to 16:9. Would you go back to a 4:3 tv?

If you don't like or agree with CIH/Scope then fine, don't do it, but you won't convince us that doing it any other way is better, so please move along

Gary
jautor and bud16415 like this.

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 #74 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 04:49 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 boothman View Post
It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.
Thanks for reading boothman.

I would go back to 4:3 projector and screen in a heartbeat if I could find one with the horizontal resolution at least as good as 1080P and priced reasonable and suited for home theater, given my ceiling height allowed me to go as wide as I needed for a comfortable CIH mode and not spill onto the ceiling. I would find the extra height very useful for a number of non-cinema uses I have for my projector photography being one of them. Just like you can’t complain to the Cineplex to change their building to make all theaters scope you can’t force the projector industry or TV to change what they deem the right AR. 16:9 is what we mostly get if you want any kind of pricing and something optimized for home theater.

Boothman highlights my intent exactly when he asks the question if I go into a cinama and find a 16:9 screen and I know the movie is presented in scope is going to be masked down or worse will have black bars. It is not that hard in today’s world to read a movie review before going to see it and watch a trailer. Around here our big movie complex has mixed AR theaters and the new release plays in the big scope theater first and if you go to see it early in the release you get the best presentation and you also get to watch it with a bunch of jerks mixed in with the true movie goers. The jerks can be identified by the usage of cell phones and texting devices along with talking as if they were watching at home. I wait a week and take the hit on the theater sometime to avoid the jerks at least most of them. And many times I walk in and understand the presentation and simply sit 8 to 12 rows closer, use my zoom feature to right size the image. The sound normally takes a slight hit as well in the 16:9 theater but they are still good. The fact that a scope movie is being shown on a 16:9 screen masked down given I get there soon enough to pick a closer seat has zero impact on my personal presentation of a movie I want to see immersive that is filmed in scope. If when watching the trailer and I’m being dragged to a cinematic masterpiece filmed in scope like Mom’s Night Out because I’m sure the director found the scope AR the best format to convey the zany antics of a bunch of mom’s partying and those panoramic images of the inside of a bar were too important to be clipped from the movie. Call me crazy but when I am dragged to such a movie see it is in a 16:9 theater and knowing the movie is in scope I suggest 8 to 12 rows back from the center of the theater. Once again using my zoom to control the experience. Making a bad movie larger won’t make it better. Keep in mind Mom’s night out isn’t a bad movie to everyone in the world, it made millions I’m sure and people are laughing, I even laughed at it. It is however bad for me and in no way for me did it live up to being a cinematic masterpiece worthy or needing a widescreen scope presentation. I don’t decide or have a say in how a film is made, but I do have a say of how I watch it or if I even watch it at all.

That is the fundamental difference between PIA and CIH or even CIH + Imax. CIH is a set of rules set forth by organizations and people that come together and decide such things for the industry. Go to the SMPTE site and look around you can even join if you want they discuss everything and anything about media presentation. The true followers of CIH will sit thru Mom’s Night Out at epic scale because that is how it was intended to be viewed. The CIH +Imax people will do the same but allow themselves a very slight ability to go taller with only 7 movies deemed to be true Imax because they claim the extra few inches at the top and bottom were carefully filmed to contain nothing but fluff and there is never a reason for the eyes to go there. A presentation of Planet Earth on the other hand is very Imax like or even the movie Avatar where the director selected that AR because the taller format gave the immersion factor that made the illusion of flight stronger and very much intended it to be Imax like in that regard have to be shown smaller because they don’t carry the Imax logo on the BD.

PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch that understand the history of cinema but also understand that cinema is an ever changing ever improving art form, and as such respect the premise of CIH but like the + Imax guys see exceptions in going both more and less immersive when their personal level of immersion calls for it.

So in closing 99.999% is close enough to be constant but 89.999% can’t be Constant or constant + anything else. That’s why the name PIA doesn’t have a “C” in its name.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #75 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 07:27 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 see that Bud's understanding of the phrase "I’ll let you have the last word" is about as clear as his understanding of the word "constant."

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch
"PIA people"? There's no "bunch," Bud. It's just you.
Gary Lightfoot and bud16415 like this.

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; 06-10-2016 at 07:31 AM.
Josh Z is offline  
post #76 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 07:58 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 see that Bud's understanding of the phrase "I’ll let you have the last word" is about as clear as his understanding of the word "constant."



"PIA people"? There's no "bunch," Bud. It's just you.
I was replying to boothman actually as far as the endless debate over immersion and human FOV as far as I’m concerned all that can be presented has been, and we all have had our last words.

I don’t actually see a huge growing bunch of CIH converts. The bunch that is growing rapidly I would say are the bunch that Steve is a member of and they are a bunch perhaps looking for a name and a direction. Every day I read threads where people are looking for a way to project ungodly sized images and following whatever size suits their needs it is truly chaos for some. If anything I have attempted to make some order out of chaos by showing MCIH (Mostly CIH) is a sound way to go for the large share of viewing and an excellent base for seating distance and screen width. I then illustrated when and why someone might want to deviate from that system with positive and negative immersion factors.

Understanding a problem is the first step in solving it. By spelling out a system that might approximate what they are doing anyway would give someone new a chance to reflect on what equipment they would need to do that in advance of buying it. It is pretty common here to advise someone wanting CIH zoom method just how much zoom range they need and then talk about throw distance and such. It is the same thing.

Most folks are buying a 16:9 projector and screen and using it as CIW because that’s how TV works. It ends up with them hating scope because it wastes so much screen and is too small. I’m trying to show them a way to think about it so they are not disappointed in anything.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #77 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 08:16 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 boothman View Post
It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.
I'm sorry you see it as elitist or condescending. That's not the intent. There's nothing really to preach, scope was invented by the studios to be the largest format with the most impact. Directors choose it with that intent. Nothing says you have to follow suit in your own home, but this forum is a place to ask questions about doing so.

I don't walk out of a theater that displays scope poorly, but I do try to avoid them. If I'm going with a group I've never made any sort of fuss if someone chooses a crappy theater. Unfortunately if they have skimped on the screen, they usually skimp on the sound too. I doubt anyone measures anything when they go into a theater, but we all tend to pick the same sweet spot we prefer. Which is generally more or less where the measurements match up. Thankfully in most home theaters even if the owner opts for a 16:9 screen (which is perfectly fine if that's what they want) they usually have a nice sound system to back it up. And a better picture than the bargain multiplex.

If you are typing that you can't see why this is a big deal, then I'd encourage you to read more on what CIH does for presentation and impact. If you set your seating up properly with a CIH setup you don't have to lose anything when watching 1.85:1 or 1.33:1, but scope takes a massive jump in size. In my own setup other formats lost a few % (I lost 3" in height going to 2.35:1) but scope is 63% larger. There's certainly nothing wrong deciding your viewing habits don't justify the hurdles of 2.35:1, but the difference is not subtle. You should seek out such a setup and see it for yourself. You may still decide it's not for you, but at least you would have a better idea why some of us prefer this viewing method.

From the sounds of it, if you decided to do this you probably could. If the room allows you could move your seating forward some to make the perceived image size of 1.85:1 content on the 2.35:1 screen the same as it is on your 16:9 screen, but you would now have scope about 70% bigger than what it was. Movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, etc would have a whole new impact. But maybe you're like Steve and you watch a lot of TV or Game on your setup and it just isn't worth it to you. That's fine too.

From your tone you seem very upset. Keep in mind the method being pitched has "perfect" in the name. That right there is going to ruffle feathers. There's nothing wrong with Bud wanting to do something different, but you have understand that his ideas run contrary to what this subforum is trying to educate people on. Kind of like posting that BMW is perfect in an Audi forum. So there will be conflict. I doubt you'll find many people even other forums that want Academy aspect ratio formats (1.33:1/4:3) to have the most emphasis or shrink or expand content based on the importance they assign it (and mask it bouncing off a mirror). Be honest does that sound perfect to you? Again Bud is free to do what makes him happy and I'm sure there will be folks that get inspiration from what he's doing. And his solution is pretty ingenious when you look at what he wants.

jeahrens is offline  
post #78 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 08:19 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
I was replying to boothman actually as far as the endless debate over immersion and human FOV as far as I’m concerned all that can be presented has been, and we all have had our last words.

I don’t actually see a huge growing bunch of CIH converts. The bunch that is growing rapidly I would say are the bunch that Steve is a member of and they are a bunch perhaps looking for a name and a direction. Every day I read threads where people are looking for a way to project ungodly sized images and following whatever size suits their needs it is truly chaos for some. If anything I have attempted to make some order out of chaos by showing MCIH (Mostly CIH) is a sound way to go for the large share of viewing and an excellent base for seating distance and screen width. I then illustrated when and why someone might want to deviate from that system with positive and negative immersion factors.

Understanding a problem is the first step in solving it. By spelling out a system that might approximate what they are doing anyway would give someone new a chance to reflect on what equipment they would need to do that in advance of buying it. It is pretty common here to advise someone wanting CIH zoom method just how much zoom range they need and then talk about throw distance and such. It is the same thing.

Most folks are buying a 16:9 projector and screen and using it as CIW because that’s how TV works. It ends up with them hating scope because it wastes so much screen and is too small. I’m trying to show them a way to think about it so they are not disappointed in anything.
It's funny you say that. With more and more manufactures including lens memory and integrated blanking for scope, I see the numbers growing slightly. Not saying it will ever overtake CIW or get adopted in huge numbers, but interest is increasing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #79 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 09:00 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
Thanks for reading boothman.

I would go back to 4:3 projector and screen in a heartbeat if I could find one with the horizontal resolution at least as good as 1080P and priced reasonable and suited for home theater, given my ceiling height allowed me to go as wide as I needed for a comfortable CIH mode and not spill onto the ceiling. I would find the extra height very useful for a number of non-cinema uses I have for my projector photography being one of them. Just like you can’t complain to the Cineplex to change their building to make all theaters scope you can’t force the projector industry or TV to change what they deem the right AR. 16:9 is what we mostly get if you want any kind of pricing and something optimized for home theater.

Boothman highlights my intent exactly when he asks the question if I go into a cinama and find a 16:9 screen and I know the movie is presented in scope is going to be masked down or worse will have black bars. It is not that hard in today’s world to read a movie review before going to see it and watch a trailer. Around here our big movie complex has mixed AR theaters and the new release plays in the big scope theater first and if you go to see it early in the release you get the best presentation and you also get to watch it with a bunch of jerks mixed in with the true movie goers. The jerks can be identified by the usage of cell phones and texting devices along with talking as if they were watching at home. I wait a week and take the hit on the theater sometime to avoid the jerks at least most of them. And many times I walk in and understand the presentation and simply sit 8 to 12 rows closer, use my zoom feature to right size the image. The sound normally takes a slight hit as well in the 16:9 theater but they are still good. The fact that a scope movie is being shown on a 16:9 screen masked down given I get there soon enough to pick a closer seat has zero impact on my personal presentation of a movie I want to see immersive that is filmed in scope. If when watching the trailer and I’m being dragged to a cinematic masterpiece filmed in scope like Mom’s Night Out because I’m sure the director found the scope AR the best format to convey the zany antics of a bunch of mom’s partying and those panoramic images of the inside of a bar were too important to be clipped from the movie. Call me crazy but when I am dragged to such a movie see it is in a 16:9 theater and knowing the movie is in scope I suggest 8 to 12 rows back from the center of the theater. Once again using my zoom to control the experience. Making a bad movie larger won’t make it better. Keep in mind Mom’s night out isn’t a bad movie to everyone in the world, it made millions I’m sure and people are laughing, I even laughed at it. It is however bad for me and in no way for me did it live up to being a cinematic masterpiece worthy or needing a widescreen scope presentation. I don’t decide or have a say in how a film is made, but I do have a say of how I watch it or if I even watch it at all.

That is the fundamental difference between PIA and CIH or even CIH + Imax. CIH is a set of rules set forth by organizations and people that come together and decide such things for the industry. Go to the SMPTE site and look around you can even join if you want they discuss everything and anything about media presentation. The true followers of CIH will sit thru Mom’s Night Out at epic scale because that is how it was intended to be viewed. The CIH +Imax people will do the same but allow themselves a very slight ability to go taller with only 7 movies deemed to be true Imax because they claim the extra few inches at the top and bottom were carefully filmed to contain nothing but fluff and there is never a reason for the eyes to go there. A presentation of Planet Earth on the other hand is very Imax like or even the movie Avatar where the director selected that AR because the taller format gave the immersion factor that made the illusion of flight stronger and very much intended it to be Imax like in that regard have to be shown smaller because they don’t carry the Imax logo on the BD.

PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch that understand the history of cinema but also understand that cinema is an ever changing ever improving art form, and as such respect the premise of CIH but like the + Imax guys see exceptions in going both more and less immersive when their personal level of immersion calls for it.

So in closing 99.999% is close enough to be constant but 89.999% can’t be Constant or constant + anything else. That’s why the name PIA doesn’t have a “C” in its name.
Bud you really do love 4:3. I haven't talked to anyone else that isn't glad that format is gone as display ratio, but at least you have been consistent in your support of it. I think anyone reading this needs to understand a big part of your love of this setup is the emphasis you put on this ratio. And you love classic cinema, so it's understandable. There are a lot of awesome classics (I just started my way through The Thin Man movies).

As we've said before you may move where you sit, but the vast majority don't. They sit in roughly the same place regardless of AR every time. This area also happens to coincide with the design criteria of the experts. Which I don't think is a coincidence.

I don't see much forward thinking in a viewing method that emphasizes an aspect ratio that is essentially dead (4:3). Cinema is still roughly 50/50 split between 2.4:1 and 1.85:1. With the majority of blockbusters being 2.4:1. This shows little signs of changing.

I do watch films as the director intended and with intended impact whenever possible. You keep bringing up scope films you view as lesser and feel their presentation should reflect that. That's fine for you. The thing is I don't feel that a middle of the road 2.4:1 movie is somehow made a more important film than say Saving Private Ryan in 1.85:1 based on the image size. The importance of the film is in it's content. However I do think that I get the most out of each experience by watching each film as they were meant to be shown.

Aspect Ratios are chosen for a variety of reasons. It's a tool chosen by the filmmaker to control the viewing experience. In our homes we can view a film however we see fit.


Last edited by jeahrens; 06-10-2016 at 02:27 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #80 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 09:58 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 do love 4:3 movies but that has nothing to do with why I would want a 4:3 projector. One is a vintage AR of old classic movies of a bygone era. The other is a tool to project stuff on a screen. I can project 4:3 content with any AR projector just as I can project scope on a 4:3 projector one has no bearing on the other.

If I was doing a slide presentation on a 4:3 projector The Last Supper would have the same impact as The Mona Lisa. All the projector and screen are being a blank canvas to be filled with as little or as much as you want. It is just a rectangle and if Edison had found film in a 4:4 AR chances are all the classic movies would be square now. Scope is just a rectangle and was a way of making movies different than TV and get people back in the movies. Imax is just a rectangle to get people away from movies. Scope was made wide for a reason but the reason was never based around human FOV. It is a beautiful format and allows beautiful movies to be made in it. The Last Supper painted in a 4:3 frame wouldn’t have been much to look at. The Mona Lisa painted on a scope canvas wouldn’t have worked. There are good movies and poor movies made in every AR every year.

TV went to 16:9 the device matching the media and 16:9 was picked because it was half way between 4:3 and scope

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #81 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 12:13 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I do love 4:3 movies but that has nothing to do with why I would want a 4:3 projector. One is a vintage AR of old classic movies of a bygone era. The other is a tool to project stuff on a screen. I can project 4:3 content with any AR projector just as I can project scope on a 4:3 projector one has no bearing on the other.

If I was doing a slide presentation on a 4:3 projector The Last Supper would have the same impact as The Mona Lisa. All the projector and screen are being a blank canvas to be filled with as little or as much as you want. It is just a rectangle and if Edison had found film in a 4:4 AR chances are all the classic movies would be square now. Scope is just a rectangle and was a way of making movies different than TV and get people back in the movies. Imax is just a rectangle to get people away from movies. Scope was made wide for a reason but the reason was never based around human FOV. It is a beautiful format and allows beautiful movies to be made in it. The Last Supper painted in a 4:3 frame wouldn’t have been much to look at. The Mona Lisa painted on a scope canvas wouldn’t have worked. There are good movies and poor movies made in every AR every year.

TV went to 16:9 the device matching the media and 16:9 was picked because it was half way between 4:3 and scope
Yup 16:9 was a compromise of all the various ARs. Other than classic cinema I can't fathom any reason to prefer a 4:3 panel as you wouldn't get a lot of panel fill the majority of the time. So you'd just about have to have some good masking compared to a 16:9 setup. There's certainly a point where resolution ceases to matter and you're just looking at the picture, but with the need to mask and pixelization being apparent in lower resolution I still couldn't see anything compelling about one. You'd need a pretty capable lens to get the size up there too. But again, your house, your preference. I don't see anyone making anything in 4:3 anymore (maybe some specialty market?), so unfortunately you probably aren't going to get your wish. Which sucks .

I won't get into the debate about wide vs. tall as it relates to vision again. Only that even in markets where a 4:3 display is still offered it has not done anything but decline. I don't think there's a vast conspiracy at work here. Nor is there a high level of education about aspect ratios. People are just getting what they prefer. We also have probably 70% of our desktops using multi-monitor setups. All of them are horizontal and none stacked vertically. So read into that whatever you like. My opinion is there is an obvious preferences for wider display areas. If you interpret the data differently, no worries. We're not going to agree here.
bud16415 likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #82 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 01:46 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
Bud, I like my 4:3 projector even with 800x600 resolution. The only side effect of watching a 150 inch 800x600 image for hours is that I actually dreamed one night in screen door effect. I knew then I needed a 1080p for 150 but for 92 to 120 inches no problem, and the 300ish Viewsonic projector still spanks my 70 inch Sharp on the family room wall.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	roomresize.jpg
Views:	81
Size:	192.6 KB
ID:	1490145  
bud16415 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  
post #83 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 05:53 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,150
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2780 Post(s)
Liked: 2699
I have been doing essentially this since 2008 and since virtually no one else was doing it, or at least hadn't coined a term, I had termed it "VIS" or "Variable Image Size" system. (Hence, my signature links). That to me still feels like the most accurate description of what I'm doing.

I'd set out originally following the standard CIH rule of thumbs usually promulgated here, but found for various reasons they did not work for me. And in fact, in some ways didn't work even for some CIH devotees. There used to be threads, when the forum was busier, where a number of CIH owners, even after following CIH advice, talked about favoring scope movies over 16:9 because once they designed their system to show scope larger than 16:9, going back to 16:9 (or 1:85:1) felt more disappointing in comparison. I argued this was totally understandable due to the contrast effect, which just reverses the sense of image shrinking that one gets with a 16:9 set up. Even if one started by keeping an apparently satisfying 16:9 size, once you see your picture expanded for a scope movie, that 16:9 size is going to feel smaller. That's one big reason older, well respected member Bjoern Roy came up with the Constant Image Area approach, where scope was still wider, but a sense of immersion was kept more constant and satisfying across all aspect ratios).

I certainly get that it's not for everyone - in fact far from the right thing for everyone, since most people would prefer to limit the choices they want to make when putting on a movie. But I've always been about maximizing my choice. It still for me is the single best decision I made in my home theater. I can maximize the viewing angle combination of immersion and image quality (in other words, not all transfers and sources are the same quality or resolution - some benefit from being larger, others smaller). And there are always trade offs between a larger and smaller image, so not being stuck with one I go with what I feel like. And 4:3 movies, which I love, are larger than they would be if I stuck with CIH. (The "choose the right height for every movie and every movie AR will feel right" mantra did not work out in practice, for me).

Altering the image AR and size is always one button push away.

(I had intended to get back to the other thread with the FOV discussion, but it had become very repetitive on both sides, to the point of likely causing deep existential angst for anyone sorry enough to happen upon it...)
VideoGrabber and bud16415 like this.

Last edited by R Harkness; 06-10-2016 at 05:58 PM.
R Harkness is offline  
post #84 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
boothman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: southeastern PA
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Sorry to go against the CIH commandment and its disciples. In most rooms there's going to be a maximum width for a screen. In my case it's 130". That's the biggest my scope width can be period. However I don't like the fact that my 16:9 content has to be much smaller because it would go against the Cinemascope creationists to do otherwise. Sure you can go ooh and ahh when the screen opens up for scope and you get a bigger picture. I get that. But like I said you watch one film at a time. Why are you guys so hung up on watching a large 16:9 image? In my case if I use CIW with 130" what's the crime in watching 16:9 in that width? Maybe I move back to a second row of seats if It doesn't match the golden rule(s) of FOV. I'm not thinking about scope and its history while I'm watching a 16:9 program. Because Bud used the word perfect is your excuse to relentlessly criticize him? Gary said CIH + IMAX = perfect. I would do the same except the CIW is already "IMAX" ready. To even use the term IMAX in relation to CIH and pretend they're compatible is ridiculous. Hardly "perfect" but I see no criticism when used by someone other than Bud. A little hypocritical. IMAX frame is 10 times the size of 35MM. You guys talk about how scope MUST, HAS TO BE, CAN"T BE ANYTHING BUT LARGER than 16:9. How do you propose IMAX is shown in a home theater with its 1.44 or 1.9 ratio? It should dwarf scope but I don't hear any comments about that. Lets shoehorn IMAX content into our screens somehow even if it's not "the way it was intended" but lets not EVER have 16:9 content larger than scope (even if 4K cinemas do it all the time).
bud16415 and rossandwendy like this.
boothman is offline  
post #85 of 311 Old 06-10-2016, 07:25 PM
Senior Member
 
boothman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: southeastern PA
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 42
If I go to a theater and the biggest screen say 70' wide is 16:9 and scope will be masked down or with black bars visible and they do have an older CIH screen at 40' scope I'm going with the bigger image even if it's not "correct". How am I "losing out" on the presentation watching the biggest image possible? Oh that's right because that's not the way it was mean't to be. With CIA you can enjoy whatever is the right size for you in your HOME theater. CIH was designed for a MOVIE theater where the 16:9 or scope image is so large to try to compare it to a home setting and spout the virtues of its methodology is absurd.
bud16415 likes this.
boothman is offline  
post #86 of 311 Old 06-11-2016, 04:28 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
I lived thru the day of transitional cinema. The movie experience was more than one movie like it is now. They would have cartoons PSA’s sometimes a double feature and sometimes a short feature and the showmanship was carefully planned to build up to the main feature. As a kid I didn’t even try and analyze what was going on you just sat back and enjoyed it, but looking back it was a planned experience from start to finish to highlight the premier product the scope movie. Even ambient light levels were played with. The projectionist’s were masterful at making it all seamless. But the routine was always similar ending with the main feature starting and the massive curtains opening wider and wider and at the same second the house lights dimmed to black and you were confronted with a massive image with amazing contrast and an actual point of reference to a lesser format. Boothman is correct you were not comparing something you saw the week before to what you were seeing that moment. There was some smoke and mirrors to all of this and always the first thing you saw expanded was the “Brought to you in Panavision” or what ever format you were seeing logo. It was constructed to impress and it did.

I think Imax could do the same thing now if they wanted and show you a short scope movie and then lift the masking and we would all gasp at the immense height of the image.

I gather that is what is being tried with the varying AR movies and if done correctly I can see where there could be impact in doing so. With digital and all the enhancements in cinematography these days I can see more and more movies in the future playing around with transitions in AR. I don’t care too much for sudden abrupt changes of slight amounts but I see faded transitions becoming more common. It is not a new idea by any stretch but the new methods are much more polished. I really like how it was done in the Grand Budapest Hotel. Maybe we will see more maybe not. Just like everything else in cinema we have no control over what we get.

As far as PIA or VIS as Rich has called it. I have been doing it with all my digital projectors starting in 2006 but as a kid in the early 60’s my dad was big into 8mm movies and we were always messing around with trying to project images different ways for different reasons.

People need to keep a perspective that this is a fun hobby and should be experimented with in all kinds of ways if you feel you want to. Have fun with it and enjoy it.


Thanks for everyone’s thoughts and comments.

I think if the great movie moguls of the 1950 were to name a system of viewing different AR content they would have went with a bombastic name such as PIA to draw attention to it. Look at the names they gave their products. They could have displayed on the screen “Brought to you in Wider Aspect Ratio”

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #87 of 311 Old 06-11-2016, 07:01 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
Seating distance

That's the factor that usually isn't thought about and causes most problems (you're sat too far back). You just need to sit close enough so that the height is the limiting factor (many people don't), and then no room is width limited.

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 #88 of 311 Old 06-11-2016, 01:37 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by boothman View Post
Sorry to go against the CIH commandment and its disciples. In most rooms there's going to be a maximum width for a screen. In my case it's 130". That's the biggest my scope width can be period. However I don't like the fact that my 16:9 content has to be much smaller because it would go against the Cinemascope creationists to do otherwise. Sure you can go ooh and ahh when the screen opens up for scope and you get a bigger picture. I get that. But like I said you watch one film at a time. Why are you guys so hung up on watching a large 16:9 image? In my case if I use CIW with 130" what's the crime in watching 16:9 in that width? Maybe I move back to a second row of seats if It doesn't match the golden rule(s) of FOV. I'm not thinking about scope and its history while I'm watching a 16:9 program. Because Bud used the word perfect is your excuse to relentlessly criticize him? Gary said CIH + IMAX = perfect. I would do the same except the CIW is already "IMAX" ready. To even use the term IMAX in relation to CIH and pretend they're compatible is ridiculous. Hardly "perfect" but I see no criticism when used by someone other than Bud. A little hypocritical. IMAX frame is 10 times the size of 35MM. You guys talk about how scope MUST, HAS TO BE, CAN"T BE ANYTHING BUT LARGER than 16:9. How do you propose IMAX is shown in a home theater with its 1.44 or 1.9 ratio? It should dwarf scope but I don't hear any comments about that. Lets shoehorn IMAX content into our screens somehow even if it's not "the way it was intended" but lets not EVER have 16:9 content larger than scope (even if 4K cinemas do it all the time).
Disagreeing with Bud does not make anyone a zealot or a follower of a "religion" as you put it. We simply don't agree. Do you find his solution perfect? You didn't answer that. Do you not see how that can cause conflict? I'm not relentlessly criticizing his setup. As I've said I'm fine with Bud doing what he likes. He just has preferences that I don't.

If you wanted to do IMAX in those ratios at home properly, you would probably best be served buying a screen in that ratio as neither 16:9 or 2.35:1 would replicate what you're likely looking for. Personally I don't have any content like that. All the IMAX scenes I have are cropped and look great on my screen. You probably don't hear much about it because it's basically non-existent in those ratios on home video formats.

As Gary points and I also politely mentioned. If you went with a scope screen and moved the seating distance closer in your scenario to where 16:9 has the exact same perceived image height you lose nothing in it's presentation and scope cinema is now roughly 70% bigger. So you're really you're not width limited, you would simply need to adjust your seating. If that's appealing to you, great. If it isn't no problem, keep doing what you're doing.

The director intends scope films to have the largest presentation when they select the format. No commandments or religion. We're just recreating that in our homes as best we can. You're free to do whatever makes you happiest.


Last edited by jeahrens; 06-11-2016 at 02:11 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #89 of 311 Old 06-11-2016, 01:46 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by boothman View Post
If I go to a theater and the biggest screen say 70' wide is 16:9 and scope will be masked down or with black bars visible and they do have an older CIH screen at 40' scope I'm going with the bigger image even if it's not "correct". How am I "losing out" on the presentation watching the biggest image possible? Oh that's right because that's not the way it was mean't to be. With CIA you can enjoy whatever is the right size for you in your HOME theater. CIH was designed for a MOVIE theater where the 16:9 or scope image is so large to try to compare it to a home setting and spout the virtues of its methodology is absurd.
Very easy answer. You like most movie viewers probably sit just past the midpoint of the theater towards the center. The perceived image size could very easily be bigger on the smaller scope screen at your normal seating position (the theater with the 40' is almost certainly smaller).

It's easy to get caught up in measurements and forget that image size is a product of screen size and seating distance.

jeahrens is offline  
post #90 of 311 Old 06-11-2016, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
boothman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: southeastern PA
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 42
You say the director selects scope for the biggest presentation in the cinema. Obviously that isn't true anymore. Most scope films in these "premium" theater experiences are smaller than 1.85. The director chooses scope because of composition of what's IN the frame not how big that frame will be in a movie theater. The composition is paramount to the director/cinematographer. Size in a movie theater already comes with the territory.
bud16415 and rossandwendy like this.
boothman 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