PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 82Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 07:09 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA

I’m editing this opening post 2/11/19 to simply start off with what I’m doing now in term of PIA presentation. Below will be the original postings with edits. I want anyone finding this to find a simple to follow post and if they want to learn more then can dig in.

I am about budget and flexibility along with the best presentation that suits my needs. This will apply to anyone wanting to use more expensive projectors with powered and programmable zoom, focus and lens shifts also.

I’m using a Viewsonic 1080p, Pro7827HD that I bought new for $499. My screen is a DIY painted wall that is a simple neutral gray .5-.6 gain, no boarders I call a stealth screen wall. My room is small about 10’ from the screen to the back wall. Single row seating for 4 people eyes to screen distance of 8’. My ceiling is black and my walls a very dark gray. No windows and 99% light proof for any outside light making it in. Sound is high quality but a simple 5.2 with 2 12” subs. The projector is ceiling mounted with a special rig DIY.

For my PIA presentation to work I needed a good deal of zoom and vertical image shift way more than the projector had built in and more than almost all budget entry level projectors have, so I built an inclined slide to hold the projector mounting that allows me to zoom and shift at the same time by moving the projector. More about that.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-di...on-method.html

PIA is simply put being able to have full control over how large and immersive you want the viewing experience. We are at a point in time where IMAX1.89 movies are becoming the new most immersive movies we will watch and for many years Scope held that distinction. People have preference in how close they like to sit when they go to a movie theater, and with a single row without PIA there is no adjusting the immersion. So with my above specs my largest image I can show is 110” 16:9 the smallest is 65” 16:9. That range reflects every row of seats in both IMAX and a conventional scope theater I may want to ever sit in. I covered my own likes as well as my guests. It allows CIH+IMAX as well as many others methods of presentation anyone may care to follow. I also use the ability to reduce the size of poor movies or older movie I may have on DVD or by way of TV or streaming. A DVD scaled up to 110” might look awful but around 80” will look good.

A benefit of the slide zoom I do is as the image gets smaller it gets brighter. I use that ability for sports viewing where I might want to turn on some lights in the room.

I have eliminated all masking and just let the dark chip 3 self mask on the dark screen. The freedom to change size in less than 10 seconds outweighs no masking for me.

Below is a more detailed explanation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all know what CIH looks like for the benefit of the newcomers I made a picture that depicts both CIA (constant image area) and the system I use that I call PIA (Personal Image Area) both these systems use a 16:9 projectors and a 16:9 screen.

The image shows a red, green & blue rectangles and they are scope, 16:9 and 4:3 respectively and are what is the classic CIA setup. I didn’t include CIH & CIW as we all know what that looks like

If your beliefs are area and immersion relate to AR and some AR have more importance than others and also the human field of view stops in height at some point but because it is close to 180 degrees right to left that says there would be never a screen wide enough to run out of FOV in that direction Then CIH should be your screen of choice.

If you come to the conclusion as I have that there are practical limits to FOV and also perhaps we watch with both FOV and also eye movement to some small amount instead of a fixed center gaze. Then maybe CIA or PIA should be in your thought process. The only difference is the screen you would purchase. Any projector that can be used for CIH will also work for CIA and PIA (given enough zoom adjustment) and at any time you don’t feel want this setup you can revert back to CIH. In fact a person with wife, kids or friends could run their system for themselves as CIH day to day but the other people might desire something different and you could indulge them with their wishes for group movie night.

So what is PIA? The best way to explain it is I don’t like to move furniture. When I go to the local cinema I go in and pick my seat. The selection is sometimes made for myself and sometimes it is made with the people I’m with. For myself it depends on what I’m seeing and my expectations of the movie I will be seeing. Sometimes I want max immersion sometimes I don’t. At home your seating distance never changes and the selection is done with the zoom lever. I have one row of seating and some people have 2 or even 3 rows and the extra screen area could benefit there also making compromises, but my explanation of the colored rectangles here is just for me in my perfect seat.

Red = scope movies of the highest quality BD and of cinematic status judged by myself to deserve the best my screen can offer. Example Ben Hur on BD
Green= 16:9 movies of highest quality and cinematic status that demand immersion. Example Avatar on BD, Planet Earth (PBS).
Blue= 4:3 classics movies of highest quality and cinematic status painstakingly remaster. Example Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind.
Purple= scope movies that don’t rise to the highest quality (poor transfers) or movies that in no way demand immersion to benefit the viewing experience. Example Deliverance DVD transfer and Mom’s night out and a 1000 other similar movies you be the judge. Making them bigger doesn’t make them better.
White= General TV viewing, poor transferred 16:9 movies and 16:9 movies that fall into the Mom’s Night Out category. Example. The 40 year old virgin comes to mind.
Yellow= Old 4:3 TV content, poor transferred 4:3 movies of old. Example 1950’s TV series Bat Masterson and movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Original King Kong, DVD, Family movies copied from super 8 or VHS.
Orange= Then there is orange the whole frame pushing the level of immersion to the max or even past. When would you ever use all the real estate? Well you could use it for an in your face viewing of high quality IMAX movie or for a special showing of IMAX like content such as a movie like Avatar or even The planet earth series. Maybe to give your kids a super immersive version of the animated features they love to watch. Or for events where others might be viewing from seats deeper in the room than your theater seats, like a super bowl party.

These are not exact sizes I’m only showing them as points of reference, where different circumstances dictate different levels of immersion or in terms of a commercial theater a different seat. At any time you can put a black masking at the upper and lower red line and you have CIH again and without moving that masking you can benefit from downsizing the lesser content.

If masking is important to you and it is sometimes important to me you will need to sort out some sort of 2 way or 4 way masking system to go along with it. but some masking system is needed in all the different viewing plans anyway.

I posted this in the CIH forum as it contains all the aspects of a CIH setup except the look of the 2.35:1 hanging on the wall and most people tell me CIH has little to do with style and all about image presentation. This one screen selection embodies CIH, CIW, CIA And lets not forget CIH+Imax, all into one idea called PIA (personal image area) it is not about the shape of the screen it is about how you manage the area.


(On edit) 6/14/16

Anyone coming here and reading this thread for the first time, I laid out my concept and it wasn’t taken as a free option for someone trying to decide what size and AR screen to buy that is having questions about CIH vs the other methods of presentation. Many strongly felt this is a direct assault on the system they believe to be best and that is CIH. I would like to apologies in advance for all the back and forth that takes place in the next 100 or so posts in the thread. There is a lot of great information and advice intermixed in the mixture of back and forth, pros and cons and I would hope you wade thru it because there is all the historical good information about why many feel CIH is the best system and it is worth taking a look at.

I will try and make some updated and edits to this first post to highlight the main points on both sides when I get time and save you from looking thru all the posts unless you want to.

Here is my first edit as it shows a major manufacture of screens solution for masking a PIA setup. If I had a lot of money I would without a doubt buy this system but it can also be done on a poor man’s budget just not in such a fast and cool way. The video points out quickly everything I do with my setup and why however and I think it is an interesting view. Well worth the 6 minutes to watch it.



On Edit 2. 7/19/2016

I just viewed two movies in the same day not exactly back to back as there was an intermission between for dinner but close enough to feel if the first movies presentation had any effect on the second movies appeal or if I was insulting ether movies cinematography by the presentation of the other. More importantly was I getting the best movie going experience for me out of each movie viewing.
The two movies were both recent released movies within the last couple years and as such both movies in terms of video quality were perfect BD copies. No dust or fuzzy edges like a film transfer might have just perfect pixel structure we have grown to love.

Like most families we watch a variety of movies types that suit different tastes and not all movies are intended to be as immersive as others. The two movies we watched were Remember (2015) 1.85:1 Drama starring Christopher Plummer & About Last Night (2014) Comedy 2.35:1 Starring Kevin Hart.
I watched both trailers and had a good idea about the cinematic quality of both movies and it was clear to see the director of Remember chose 1.85:1 because it lent itself to the type of movie he was making best. It was wonderfully shot making use of the extra height the frame provided. I was not quite sure why the director shot About Last Night in scope other than a couple clips showing the immensity of a major league ballpark for about 2 minutes or the numerous bed sequences shot from the side that better framed the bodies in bed. The majority of the movie the sides were filled whatever happened to be on the set or street images where we saw people passing in and out of the frame, kind of a distraction more than adding to the visual I thought. At any rate I watched them both close to CIH and the feeling of being cheated by the presentation was there. Quite similar to what is often expressed by those in favor of scope when comparing Ben Hur being smaller than the 40 year old virgin if watched in CIW and I would agree even to the point of that combination being worse than my two movies even though reversed.

In my mind there was nothing in the zany comedy remake About Last Night that needed the full field of vision scope provides and in making it that large for me it distracted from the humor of the movie. The gigantic adult images seemed less funny and more pornographic for me being so huge. On the other hand, the cinematography of Remember was such that it left you wanting more in terms of scale.

All in all, it was a great contrary comparison of what I normally hear as to How scope AR by its very nature is used to command the biggest screen size available. For me it is not always the case. I will watch Remember again it will be taller than CIH would allow and about 50% of the way to Imax size and if I watch About Last Night again it will be diminished some maybe 75% of CIH size. For me both of these movies clearly point out why I like PIA as a presentation method.

On Edit 9/2/2016 Problem with the word (Perfect) in the title.
From the first day I posted this thread the name PIA raised a lot of concern in the forum. Below is a copy of a post I added today in the body of the thread explaining or trying to explain my using the word perfect to describe this concept. I hope this helps those that understand perfect to mean something different.
-------------------------------

There is presentation and there is immersion and they are two different things plain and simple.

Presentation is constant in any given commercial theater and is the wish of the director of the movie to be done correctly. He wants the best presentation possible. He wants a flawless screen and an accurate projector system. He wants a true sound system. He wants the guy in the first row and the last row to be able to see the image and hear the sound clearly.

We know commercial theaters cram people in to rows too close or too far and stick seats in the corners because buildings are rectangles and ideal seating is more of a cone shape. We are not talking about those seats as none of us have those kinds of seats in our home theater. In terms of immersion and PIA as it pertains to this thread we are talking about the seats all of us would be ok with getting at the world premiere of a long awaited block buster. We are not Shelden Cooper pinging the room for the ultimate sweet audio spot to sit. We are talking about seats we would enjoy sitting in not perfect but by far good enough. Perfect never happens in a commercial theater unless we happen to be quite lucky, like getting a hole in one in golf it requires skill but also some luck. So in a 100 row theater maybe rows 30 to 60 back and side to side plus or minus 10 seats are where PIA lives. Possibly even more subtle changes if you like.

I know audiophiles that tweak sound down to infinitesimal levels. I watch them do this and wonder if they really can tell the changes they are making but I accept they can even though I can’t. Videophiles do the same thing they bring in professional adjusters and equipment and tune every aspect of their projector to match the screen and the room to perfection. To some of us that seems extreme and we wonder if they can really see a difference compared to adjusting by eye but I accept they can even though maybe I can’t.

We all know and never question that different people like to adjust the audio level of their systems. We have big subwoofers and rows of horns and some movies we tune it all down and don’t require the chest pounding subs we are seeking out the quiet voices coming from the actors on the screen. Some movies and concerts we want the room to shake. Then there are the slight changes we make to the volume controls. “Honey can you turn it up one click.” “How’s that Babe.” “Oh that’s Perfect!” That is adjusting sound immersion to a single persons perfect. Have you ever left the theater and overheard someone saying great movie but it was just too loud? Or you left the Block Buster disappointed it was toned back because the people in the next theater were complaining about the bass and you felt you didn’t get your money’s worth. We have no control over sound immersion in a commercial theater we do at home.

Visual immersion is a bit different we have some control over that in the theater and regardless with what I will be told many people have a preference for seating distance and given an empty theater will pick different seats according to their likes. Some people like less visual immersion and always like it less and I believe it is true most people will always migrate to the same seats in a theater as their belief is their tastes don’t change. One reason for a PIA setup would be to accommodate guests that have a need for lesser visual immersion. I myself have found with time I have grown to like a higher level than I used to and I might not want to turn off my less movie watching friends by seating them too close, just like I might not want to give them a heart attack by driving the subs too hard.

The director of the movie may have a preference for how loud we hear his movies and he may know the theater will accommodate a wide range of visual levels of immersion but I think they also understand people will want to adjust those things. Have you ever been setting at a red light and had a kid pull up next to you with the bass so loud that your car was shaking. A case could be made that the young man next to you was playing it at a level that the artist intended it to be heard at during his concert and therefore proper presentation dictates he have that in his car.

Here is where I’m at with this. I realize video immersion plays a big role in my enjoyment of some media. Given my free will I like to change that level of immersion no different than adjusting the level of my sound system. Yes mood plays a part and so does the nature of the content. I get a great deal more pleasure and excitement filling or even overfilling my vision with a movie like Avatar than a scope movie of a bunch of people’s zany antics and bathroom humor. Just like Steve likes to push up his couch and watch rollercoaster movies I like to pull back the projector and watch planet earth.

That’s what this is about giving only one person control over one attribute of their visual presentation and having the ability to make it their personal “Personal Image Area”.

-------------------------

On Edit: September 6, 2016

Extra Extra Read all about it!

The name has changed. I repeat the name has changed. Come one come all to the new PIA thread. From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area. That’s right after hundreds and hundreds of concerned complaints about the name of the system being to bombastic for the masses the “P” in PIA is going from Perfect To Personal.

I had always explained that a system that contained every form of everyone’s Personal Perfect would have to be perfect for all. That lofty logic was a bit much for many to accept and I have to admit some people can only see perfect in their narrow range of personal perfect and of course that might not include all others perfects. In conclusion the summation of all things perfect to individuals cannot equal a perfect to the masses. Or so it seems.

By decree of the masses and thru the OP’s wishes “Personal” is the better word and Personal it shall be from this point forward. Personal is a word without repute it places PIA not above or below any other method anyone wishes to use in their home theaters or media rooms. As has been stated 1000 times if it has been stated once no one cares what another does in the privacy of their home theater. Under that statement of personal freedom to chose PIA will be. All those looking to find answers to your personal presentation needs feel free to think outside the box of structure and extract what you can from this thread knowing you will be going against long standing convention and will be doing this only, and I can’t overstate this ONLY for your intense personal presentation pleasures.

We are to be a system of inclusion of all the other systems of presentation. And as such no other system should be lessened. The second poster to this thread hit the nail on the head. He said (paraphrasing) You put out there what you do and how you do it and if someone wants to gain insight into what might works for them then that is a good thing.

If someone finds this thread and is drawn into thoughts that maybe they have a personal way they would like to operate their presentation please post here and hopefully a like minded will share meaningful communications with you.


Just as the Personal computer opened the world up to freedom of how you use your computer over the ridged world of mainframes. Personal image presentation in the name of PIA will do that for home theater.

On Edit 9-13-2016

The ongoing debate will go on for years pertaining to the AR of 2.35:1 as being the gold standard of presentations. No one should debate the intent of the motion picture industry in their selection of AR’s over the years or their decision on the system of presentation they want to use in commercial theaters. It is their industry and we buy and view their products as we see fit to do.

It is quite a bargain when you think about it a company spends 100 of millions of dollars to create a movie and allows us to buy it and own it for just a few dollars. Of course that is made possible by economy of scale because millions of people all want to own a copy of the movie.

No one is to debate that the industry has the right to present the movie in any method they want and we sometimes complain as we might not agree it is for them to what they like.

The question arises if we at home on a personal level can gain an improved enjoyment out of a movie by showing it at a different size relative to the last movie we showed. In other words do all movies we personally watch need to be the exact same height or more correctly occupy the same amount of our vertical field of vision (FOV). The widely accepted viewpoint is that there is a comfortable up and down point to our vision as well as a comfortable side to side point. Those that are proponents of CIH feel two reasons for this method of presentation as being best. The first is it is the method the motion picture industry chose to use in commercial theaters and our home theaters want or should want to closely emulate whatever happens in a commercial theater. I can’t argue that point as it is valid and if that is important to you then that is what you should do. The second point is that along with being the gold standard of AR’s 2.35:1 is also a near perfect match with human FOV. If that is the case then there is nothing left to think about, if the scope ratio is the pleasant point of vision both up and down and right and left and is the FOV most of us have then CIH is the perfect method of presentation and also the perfect AR and a huge mistake was made 20 years ago when the TV standard and projectors were set to 16:9. Just for the record I don’t think 16:9 is anymore the perfect AR for human FOV than scope and I hope to explain my thoughts here.

The supporters of CIH will tell you there is a few simple tests that prove 2.35 is close to our FOV. The most common is the finger test. It goes something like this. Stand or sit in a fixed location and stare straight ahead at a spot on a blackboard. Now with your arms out to your side move your arms in slowly from behind out of your FOV until the point you very first can detect the motion of your hand and fingers. Mark that point on the blackboard with chalk for both sides. Now repeat it above and below and mark those points as well. now using the up and down points for horizontal lines and the right and left points for vertical lines make a rectangle. What you will find is you drew a long skinny rectangle much longer than 16:9 without even measuring and even longer than a 2.35:1 AR. The next experiment they won’t tell you to try is the above test but with some level of acuity added in. instead of just seeing motion maybe try and detect a 1” tall letter is it an A or a B type of thing. When that test is tried the AR produced gets shorter and becomes closer to 2.35:1.
Then there is the test with allowing eye movement first to the extremes and then to what you feel is comfortable again with acuity. When I do these tests I find I have a rectangle closer to 16:9 maybe even taller. I suggest each person try their own experiments with this. The next test would be with eye and head movement but I think we all agree for movie watching most of us don’t want to move our heads like at a tennis match. But you do have to take head movement into the calculations and what you will find with the level gaze test is your FOV is roughly the same side to side but not up and down. With eyes level we have greater FOV down than up. For some reason we like our monitors slightly below eye level at work because of this but we like our HT projector screen slightly above center. Part of that is conditioning from going to movies where the screen was higher so all could see over the head in front and most theater seats allow for an upward angle of view by reclining.

So do we view fixed gaze or with comfortable eye movement. If you are honest with yourself, you will know daily life has our eyes moving nonstop. It is hard for instance to look at one word on this page and try and read the word two lines above. Here is a study done showing how a group of people viewed a movie with eye movement.
There is much more reading on the subject if you want to search. Here is a report done by NASA in 1964 on the limits of vision and the degree of acuity and it shows mapping of each eye and the combined vision of both eyes. http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel...4vision/17.htm if you scroll down about one quarter you will find what NASA thinks the FOV with eyes fixed within a useful range of acuity. The image is 17-13 Binocular Visual Fields With Head and Eyes Fixed. I will try and copy that information and post a photo below with a common AR superimposed.

It was based on this information and my own preference on two things that lead me to this system of personal presentation first is personal immersion and the second is personal acuity. If the image is good and it is a type of image I might want to have a heightened sense of immersion like I am not just Viewing but rather I’m involved in it then I set my level of personal immersive view high. If the image lacks the detail my acuity requires or is an image I don’t care to feel like I’m in a heighten state of immersion then I go the other direction and set my level low. In knowing my limitations are both height and width limited just not at a AR of 2.35:1 and knowing my projectors native source is 16:9 I can and you can develop a system that works best.

Just for fun I’m attaching an image that has been shown around lately called Dots. It will point out how our eyes are required to move around on even a small image to see detail. There are 12 black dots in the image try viewing them all at once.

-------------------------------
On edit 12/6/2016

It has been brought to my attention that the controversy over running a CIH single row home theater with an adjustability factor for immersion actually has limits suggested by the commercial theater standards organizations. The way they recommend how many rows the theater should have based around screen size involves a lot of angles factoring in immersion side to side and keeping the screen height the same for all AR with some guidelines for vertical image size and placement and such gets a little complicated. But SMPTE and CEDIA to mention a couple also have boiled it down in terms of screen height as related to acceptable human variability. These theaters must provide seating within a range based on screen height and in doing such everyone will have a good seat. Maybe not the seat you prefer but a good seat for someone in the populist. As a home theater can’t have 10 or more rows of seats the solution I pose as PIA allows one row of seats to replicate a SMPTA / CEDIA in terms of multi rows. It is after all up to the viewer to select the row of seats he wants to sit in.

So here it is and the limiting factor you should use when designing your PIA presentation theater.

Where X is the height of your screen at any given time, the recommended seating distance / zoom range should be.
(3X +/- 1X)
So a range between 2X and 4X where 2X is the most immersive and 4X the least immersive. Of course at home you don’t move your seat or select a different seat you simply do it with the reverse method of zooming in or out.

This is important as in selecting equipment you need allow zoom capabilities for CIH zoom method if that is what you are doing and then additional zoom to control immersion within the range of
(3X +/- 1X).
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	PIH setup 16-9.jpg
Views:	964
Size:	38.8 KB
ID:	1457210   Click image for larger version

Name:	17-13.JPG
Views:	472
Size:	117.8 KB
ID:	1658369   Click image for larger version

Name:	Dots.jpg
Views:	416
Size:	70.3 KB
ID:	1658377  

Bud

Last edited by bud16415; 02-11-2019 at 09:48 AM.
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 08:27 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Awesome! I always said your approach needs a catchy name.

Refreshing to see someone simply asserting a positive message, as in "Here's what I'm doing- I love it. Feel free to try it yourself".

(As opposed to all the other posts that boil down to "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!")

Sharing is Caring.
bud16415 likes this.

Last edited by NxNW; 07-20-2016 at 09:24 PM.
NxNW is offline  
post #3 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
That's an awesome diagram! I do wish that you would have stuck with "flexible image area". In my setup emphasizing 4:3 like you are would diminish the presentation of other formats. Since I don't watch a lot of 4:3 content, that wouldn't be a good compromise. So it's perfect for you, but I'm not sure that I would say it's perfect.

Sorry I don't mean to be a negative Nancy. It's a great post and I love that you included the diagram and legend. I'm sure it will offer ideas to folks searching for an out of the ordinary solution.
bud16415 likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 09:13 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
Awesome! I always said your approach needs a catchy name. PIH - why not?

Refreshing to see someone simply asserting a positive message, as in "Here's what I'm doing- I love it. Feel free to try it yourself".

(As opposed to all the other posts that boil down to "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!")

Sharing is Caring.
NxNW Thanks, I thought why not start a thread everyone is free to do that and show what works for me. You are absolutely correct if it is for you great if not that’s great to. There were computers and then there was personal computers PC. The difference to me was the addition of personal to the name and that unleashed the idea that it is your tool not to be shared and run it and manage it anyway you want. To me likewise there were theaters we all shared and now there is personal theaters to use anyway that makes us happy.

I first started out with PIH but I don’t watch the height of my image I watch the area of my image so I coined the term PIA perfect image area.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #5 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 09:34 AM
Senior Member
 
NxNW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 80
One thing worth noting is this system can be done very cheaply. It only really *requires* a zoom capability and a projection surface that is borderless. Anyone with a projector and a blank wall can try this.

Gray overspill bugging you? Adjustable masking (on all four sides) will solve it for a price.

The system does "require" (or shall we say "accommodate") a judgement call for each different thing being watched and a willingness to adjust the zoom as necessary. Inconvenient? Lens memory will solve it for a price.

And light levels may drop a bit in the biggest sizes. Bothersome? Adjustable iris will solve it for a price.

But we all know you there is no upper limit to what you can spend on any system. This system is a good reminder that you can have as much (or *more*) flexibility with the very simplest projectors and room setups.
bud16415 and rossandwendy like this.
NxNW is offline  
post #6 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 09:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
That's an awesome diagram! I do wish that you would have stuck with "flexible image area". In my setup emphasizing 4:3 like you are would diminish the presentation of other formats. Since I don't watch a lot of 4:3 content, that wouldn't be a good compromise. So it's perfect for you, but I'm not sure that I would say it's perfect.

Sorry I don't mean to be a negative Nancy. It's a great post and I love that you included the diagram and legend. I'm sure it will offer ideas to folks searching for an out of the ordinary solution.
Nancy err I mean jeahrens, I thought of the FIA name as I know you have suggested that. I went with the word Perfect actually because of you also. I know you would agree that your CIH setup produces perfect for you, and guess what your exact CIH setup is included within my PIA system. So in theory with the PIA mentality you would view everything perfect to you also. Of course you wouldn’t want to do it this way you fall into what I describe in paragraph 3 as the person perfectly suited to a CIH screen. Having researched it enough you know for yourself you would go years and years and never change the masking above and below the red line so of course why have something you would never use.

Being a screen painted wall person for so many years I was never troubled with screen placement and aligning the projector to the screen. If I want the image 6” higher or lower, I just change it. if I want it bigger or smaller I just change it. I guess I have read too many thread about help me pick a screen size over the years and related it to someone saying help me find the right seat in a movie theater. Both questions are basically the same question.

Thanks for liking the diagram and legend.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #7 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 09:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxNW View Post
One thing worth noting is this system can be done very cheaply. It only really *requires* a zoom capability and a projection surface that is borderless. Anyone with a projector and a blank wall can try this.

Gray overspill bugging you? Adjustable masking (on all four sides) will solve it for a price.

The system does "require" (or shall we say "accommodate") a judgement call for each different thing being watched and a willingness to adjust the zoom as necessary. Inconvenient? Lens memory will solve it for a price.

And light levels may drop a bit in the biggest sizes. Bothersome? Adjustable iris will solve it for a price.

But we all know you there is no upper limit to what you can spend on any system. This system is a good reminder that you can have as much (or *more*) flexibility with the very simplest projectors and room setups.
My screen is borderless but a 16:9 frame will capture it all. My projector I just bought 6 months ago was $365 it has a very tiny amount of zoom almost not enough to say it has zoom, but I mounted it to an in and out slide that cost me about $5 to make and it gives me more zoom than anything out there. I could motorize it but in all honesty once I move it I’m planning on sitting on my butt for 2 hours, I think the exercise is good for me to stand up for a minute or less. I do adjust brightness but more so because of sometimes wanting more or less ambient light in the room than for zoom. Even the cheap projectors have different preset modes now.

As to the blank wall and whatever methodology you use with changing AR’s and even if you really want a professional screen, I always advise people to start out on a wall. it is the best way I know to judge how immersive you like. Within a week or two most people say I think I could go a little bigger and within a month or two you will know exactly what size screen you want to buy.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #8 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 11:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Nancy err I mean jeahrens, I thought of the FIA name as I know you have suggested that. I went with the word Perfect actually because of you also. I know you would agree that your CIH setup produces perfect for you, and guess what your exact CIH setup is included within my PIA system. So in theory with the PIA mentality you would view everything perfect to you also. Of course you wouldn’t want to do it this way you fall into what I describe in paragraph 3 as the person perfectly suited to a CIH screen. Having researched it enough you know for yourself you would go years and years and never change the masking above and below the red line so of course why have something you would never use.

Being a screen painted wall person for so many years I was never troubled with screen placement and aligning the projector to the screen. If I want the image 6” higher or lower, I just change it. if I want it bigger or smaller I just change it. I guess I have read too many thread about help me pick a screen size over the years and related it to someone saying help me find the right seat in a movie theater. Both questions are basically the same question.

Thanks for liking the diagram and legend.
Well the term "perfect" is just hard to get around. There's so many different variables, preferences and opinions that on screen size and presentation that stating this is perfect seems a bit disingenuous. I mean I have my preferences, but for example Steve in the other thread watches mostly TV. Would CIH work for him? I'm sure it could, but I wouldn't call it perfect for his use case. It certainly isn't perfect for yours.

I wouldn't go into the speaker forum and start a topic of "I have the perfect speaker". Everyone's definition of a perfect speaker is going to vary and it would only cause problems. And it seems just as controversial to propose you have the perfect screen setup in a forum that this proposal runs contrary to.

I was being honest when I said it's a great an informative post. It does a fine job of explaining how it works and why you choose it. I think it has a lot of value for folks looking for a different approach. I just don't think it's named appropriately and is misleading.

jeahrens is offline  
post #9 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Well I can’t speak for Steve but we can wait and see what he says.

I wouldn’t go into the speaker section and claim perfection also. To do so it would have to be a speaker that does all things for all people and does it at a lower cost than everything else. That would be a tall order to fill.

Perfect in my use of the word is saying this method can make the perfect size image for my needs and your needs and everyone’s needs. If you look at it as the Swiss Army Knife of methods it is all systems rolled into one CIH, CIW, CIA. It isn’t a thing that is perfect it is a way of thinking that is all inclusive of all the above. Actually a perfect tool for someone wondering what they want to do. Run it as CIH for a month. Then run it as CIW for a month, then CIA. You will then have an education on what is right and perfect for your personal needs. Who knows maybe you will adapt to it in a way similar to what I do and want PIA and diminish the SD content down to a size that looks better even. I might be the only person still alive that has a VHS player still attached to a projector and a couple times a year some old person will say to me I wish I could see these family movies one more time. I set the projector to the yellow frame and pop in the tape and we watch 45 minutes of kids opening Christmas gifts together. I then offer to dub it to a DVD that they can play it at home on.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #10 of 311 Old 05-24-2016, 12:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Well I can’t speak for Steve but we can wait and see what he says.

I wouldn’t go into the speaker section and claim perfection also. To do so it would have to be a speaker that does all things for all people and does it at a lower cost than everything else. That would be a tall order to fill.

Perfect in my use of the word is saying this method can make the perfect size image for my needs and your needs and everyone’s needs. If you look at it as the Swiss Army Knife of methods it is all systems rolled into one CIH, CIW, CIA. It isn’t a thing that is perfect it is a way of thinking that is all inclusive of all the above. Actually a perfect tool for someone wondering what they want to do. Run it as CIH for a month. Then run it as CIW for a month, then CIA. You will then have an education on what is right and perfect for your personal needs. Who knows maybe you will adapt to it in a way similar to what I do and want PIA and diminish the SD content down to a size that looks better even. I might be the only person still alive that has a VHS player still attached to a projector and a couple times a year some old person will say to me I wish I could see these family movies one more time. I set the projector to the yellow frame and pop in the tape and we watch 45 minutes of kids opening Christmas gifts together. I then offer to dub it to a DVD that they can play it at home on.
Bud I see and appreciate the idea of using this as a springboard to determine what type of setup best suits someone's tastes, but it's still not a good way to phrase it. And it's really not all systems rolled into one when 4:3 has the tallest image height. It can't be a Constant Image Height system when the height is not constant. 4:3 being emphasized like this isn't likely to be most folks definition of perfection in this forum.

jeahrens is offline  
post #11 of 311 Old 05-25-2016, 04:19 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Bud I see and appreciate the idea of using this as a springboard to determine what type of setup best suits someone's tastes, but it's still not a good way to phrase it. And it's really not all systems rolled into one when 4:3 has the tallest image height. It can't be a Constant Image Height system when the height is not constant. 4:3 being emphasized like this isn't likely to be most folks definition of perfection in this forum.
It is about freedom of choice. As an example if I buy a new corvette it is capable of going 200 MPH. when I’m driving it down the road at 35 MPH the police won’t pull me over and write me a ticket for going 200 MPH just because my car could do that.

PIA is the same idea. You can make 4:3 the biggest height or width or area if you wanted to but if you believe it should be the smallest then so be it and that’s how you should watch it. I guess in that way you are correct it isn’t perfect because it doesn’t force you to do anything in particular, but on the other hand most people feel freedom of choice is more perfect than being made to do something.

It would require some discipline though if you experiment with it for a time and decide that you want to be a CIHer and then you watch something like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure at an epic size because you just can’t control yourself and you want to be totally immersed in the big adventure, well then you might have to relinquish your CIHer status. Now on the other hand if you had your kids or grandkids over for a showing of Jurassic Park 1.85:1 or Jurassic World 2.0:1 and you really want to wind the kids up a bit and you crank the image larger by 5%-10% and turn the sound up the same amount maybe even crank the subs a little. You would be allowed to do that and still keep your CIHer status, because you didn’t do it for yourself you did it for the kids. Of course the next time you watched it alone you would have to shrink the height down. The only possible exception that would be allowed and still be a CIHer would be if the movie was clearly labeled IMAX. In that case some say you could go taller with that content as the stuff above and below the CIH FOV is just fluff material and not really intended to be viewed. The other exception I believe is if the movie was a foreign movie shot in scope and you are watching it with subtitles you could display the subtitles in the gray bar below the image and still remain a CIHer. Our FOV down is enough to take in the subtitles.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #12 of 311 Old 05-25-2016, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is about freedom of choice. As an example if I buy a new corvette it is capable of going 200 MPH. when I’m driving it down the road at 35 MPH the police won’t pull me over and write me a ticket for going 200 MPH just because my car could do that.

PIA is the same idea. You can make 4:3 the biggest height or width or area if you wanted to but if you believe it should be the smallest then so be it and that’s how you should watch it. I guess in that way you are correct it isn’t perfect because it doesn’t force you to do anything in particular, but on the other hand most people feel freedom of choice is more perfect than being made to do something.

It would require some discipline though if you experiment with it for a time and decide that you want to be a CIHer and then you watch something like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure at an epic size because you just can’t control yourself and you want to be totally immersed in the big adventure, well then you might have to relinquish your CIHer status. Now on the other hand if you had your kids or grandkids over for a showing of Jurassic Park 1.85:1 or Jurassic World 2.0:1 and you really want to wind the kids up a bit and you crank the image larger by 5%-10% and turn the sound up the same amount maybe even crank the subs a little. You would be allowed to do that and still keep your CIHer status, because you didn’t do it for yourself you did it for the kids. Of course the next time you watched it alone you would have to shrink the height down. The only possible exception that would be allowed and still be a CIHer would be if the movie was clearly labeled IMAX. In that case some say you could go taller with that content as the stuff above and below the CIH FOV is just fluff material and not really intended to be viewed. The other exception I believe is if the movie was a foreign movie shot in scope and you are watching it with subtitles you could display the subtitles in the gray bar below the image and still remain a CIHer. Our FOV down is enough to take in the subtitles.
I understand it's all about flexibility, but the example and explanation isn't really a CIH solution. Maybe it could be considered CIW? If you're going to go with a constant image height, then you're really not using your solution to it's potential (that's assuming that you decide this is the solution for you).

I think a fundamental here that bears repeating is that a lot of us have a screen/seating distance that was chosen based on what is comfortable to view. I chose mine when I was getting a CIW screen years ago (before I understood what CIH even did). I simply expanded the dimensions horizontally when I went with a CIH screen. So I don't find myself wishing that the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection or The Seven Samurai was taller. Nor do I find myself wishing for The Breakfast Club to be taller/more expansive. They all look great. Just like they did before. I am totally immersed. The screen border is invisible when the lights are off.

Looking at your setup and diagram I see a width limited room or seating that needs adjusted. But then I'm someone that feels there is an optimal height/distance to base things off of. I get the impression from your posts in various threads that the cinema you treasure is from the golden age. Where 1.33:1 was king. And regardless of this paper or that study you want that to be an epic experience that overshadows other formats. That's completely fine. And maybe I'm reading things wrong to. Regardless of whether I'm correct, I'm someone who's first cinematic experiences started in the 70's. So I've spent my entire life watching content in all manner of aspect ratios. So I've never had any one AR that defined cinema. I did however come to the realization of just how much we lose by displaying scope material on 16:9 screens, which lead me here. For me CIH has never been about emphasizing scope AR's to the detriment of others, it's about not compromising any of them and preserving the intended presentation of the filmmaker.

What you're doing is unique and the forum is certainly better for your presenting it. It's not a perfect solution for everyone (such a thing doesn't really exist) and I wouldn't apply that moniker to it. But as long as the folks reading this understand the concept, the title is probably not all that important. The beauty of home theater is we get to control how we experience film.

Edit: I have a 2.0 lens memory setting I made for Jurassic World. Looks great and adds to the presentation from simply using the 1.85:1 preset.


Last edited by jeahrens; 05-25-2016 at 12:21 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #13 of 311 Old 05-25-2016, 02:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I understand it's all about flexibility, but the example and explanation isn't really a CIH solution. Maybe it could be considered CIW? If you're going to go with a constant image height, then you're really not using your solution to it's potential (that's assuming that you decide this is the solution for you).

I think a fundamental here that bears repeating is that a lot of us have a screen/seating distance that was chosen based on what is comfortable to view. I chose mine when I was getting a CIW screen years ago (before I understood what CIH even did). I simply expanded the dimensions horizontally when I went with a CIH screen. So I don't find myself wishing that the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection or The Seven Samurai was taller. Nor do I find myself wishing for The Breakfast Club to be taller/more expansive. They all look great. Just like they did before. I am totally immersed. The screen border is invisible when the lights are off.

Looking at your setup and diagram I see a width limited room or seating that needs adjusted. But then I'm someone that feels there is an optimal height/distance to base things off of. I get the impression from your posts in various threads that the cinema you treasure is from the golden age. Where 1.33:1 was king. And regardless of this paper or that study you want that to be an epic experience that overshadows other formats. That's completely fine. And maybe I'm reading things wrong to. Regardless of whether I'm correct, I'm someone who's first cinematic experiences started in the 70's. So I've spent my entire life watching content in all manner of aspect ratios. So I've never had any one AR that defined cinema. I did however come to the realization of just how much we lose by displaying scope material on 16:9 screens, which lead me here. For me CIH has never been about emphasizing scope AR's to the detriment of others, it's about not compromising any of them and preserving the intended presentation of the filmmaker.

What you're doing is unique and the forum is certainly better for your presenting it. It's not a perfect solution for everyone (such a thing doesn't really exist) and I wouldn't apply that moniker to it. But as long as the folks reading this understand the concept, the title is probably not all that important. The beauty of home theater is we get to control how we experience film.

Edit: I have a 2.0 lens memory setting I made for Jurassic World. Looks great and adds to the presentation from simply using the 1.85:1 preset.
If you measured the width of your scope screen right now and replaced it with a 16:9 screen of that exact same width. Never touched your projector or your presets, and put Jurasic World into your BD player and selected your 2.0 lens memory setting, what size would the movie play in compared to your current screen? Would it be the exact same size your CIH screen would have shown it. If you put Basil Rathbone in and selected your 4:3 lens memory would that also be the same as before? You would still have your CIH setup completely unchanged from what it is today once the lights went out and you couldn’t see the AR of the screen just the movie everything would be the same.

This setup doesn’t take away anything it only offers the chance for more. It might be as small as watching The Life of Pi and seeing the fish jump out of the AR for a split second. Or Batman going all IMAX on you for a split second. It might never be used once in your theater and that’s ok too. But what it wont do is lessen anything CIH related in terms of sizes of anything. The only thing it would lessen is you might want some masking top and bottom.

What it would do maybe not for you but for someone is let them go crazy and go an inch or two taller if they felt the urge on 16:9 or 2.0:1 or 4:3 it would open more immersion possibilities in lesser AR if they wanted. I agree they could try it and say they hated it and they would never try it again and still be a CIHer but if they say ya know I kind of liked Jurassic World 1” taller I think I will watch it that way from now on, they are done they cant be a CIHer any longer and they have to be called a PIAer from then on. As soon as we get 2 more people signed up we are going to try and get our own forum.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #14 of 311 Old 05-25-2016, 05:27 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: 1053
I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous.

Gary
Josh Z 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 #15 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 03:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous.

Gary
Preposterous: completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish:

I will add you to the list of strong opponents of PIA setup then.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #16 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 07:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you measured the width of your scope screen right now and replaced it with a 16:9 screen of that exact same width. Never touched your projector or your presets, and put Jurasic World into your BD player and selected your 2.0 lens memory setting, what size would the movie play in compared to your current screen? Would it be the exact same size your CIH screen would have shown it. If you put Basil Rathbone in and selected your 4:3 lens memory would that also be the same as before? You would still have your CIH setup completely unchanged from what it is today once the lights went out and you couldn’t see the AR of the screen just the movie everything would be the same.
Why would I do that? What's the point of having unused screen real estate? I get that you're trying to make an example of sizing the image anywhere on your canvas, but the screen is already sized as large as is comfortable. So that's a pointless exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
This setup doesn’t take away anything it only offers the chance for more. It might be as small as watching The Life of Pi and seeing the fish jump out of the AR for a split second. Or Batman going all IMAX on you for a split second. It might never be used once in your theater and that’s ok too. But what it wont do is lessen anything CIH related in terms of sizes of anything. The only thing it would lessen is you might want some masking top and bottom.
Your diagram shows that you are indeed favoring one AR over another. That's a conscious choice and it works for you. This does indeed diminish the impact of the other ARs. Unless you feel that the vast majority of cinemas having been doing it incorrectly of decades. I've never seen a theater that has a huge hump in the middle of the screen to make 1.33:1 films taller than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And in your own diagram 1.85:1 is the same width as 2.35:1, which we've pointed out many times absolutely diminishes the presentation of the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
What it would do maybe not for you but for someone is let them go crazy and go an inch or two taller if they felt the urge on 16:9 or 2.0:1 or 4:3 it would open more immersion possibilities in lesser AR if they wanted. I agree they could try it and say they hated it and they would never try it again and still be a CIHer but if they say ya know I kind of liked Jurassic World 1” taller I think I will watch it that way from now on, they are done they cant be a CIHer any longer and they have to be called a PIAer from then on. As soon as we get 2 more people signed up we are going to try and get our own forum.
If you have the urge to go taller then you didn't size your screen properly to begin with. As I said before I have not had that urge, because my screen is sized properly with regards to seating distance. I certainly think there is merit to your approach, but there are certainly advantages to a fixed screen as well.

jeahrens is offline  
post #17 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 07:24 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: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Preposterous: completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish:

I will add you to the list of strong opponents of PIA setup then.
Considering how much this has been discussed in another thread with documents showing how to correctly present all aspect ratios, and has been pointed out on numerous occasions that once you have set your seating distance to image height correctly, you don't need to vary the height ever again (except for maybe half a dozen partial pseudo IMAX movies), I've no idea why you want to suggest this, or think for a second that it is even remotely 'perfect'.

Perfect for you maybe, but not for anyone in this sub forum, or for someone who wants to follow the guidelines.

16:9 was developed as a compromise format for tv and fits the bill for that, so there's no need for you to try and reinvent the wheel.

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 #18 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 08:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Why would I do that? What's the point of having unused screen real estate? I get that you're trying to make an example of sizing the image anywhere on your canvas, but the screen is already sized as large as is comfortable. So that's a pointless exercise.



Your diagram shows that you are indeed favoring one AR over another. That's a conscious choice and it works for you. This does indeed diminish the impact of the other ARs. Unless you feel that the vast majority of cinemas having been doing it incorrectly of decades. I've never seen a theater that has a huge hump in the middle of the screen to make 1.33:1 films taller than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And in your own diagram 1.85:1 is the same width as 2.35:1, which we've pointed out many times absolutely diminishes the presentation of the latter.



If you have the urge to go taller then you didn't size your screen properly to begin with. As I said before I have not had that urge, because my screen is sized properly with regards to seating distance. I certainly think there is merit to your approach, but there are certainly advantages to a fixed screen as well.
I said in an earlier post that you are clearly a person I described in paragraph 3 OP and of course you are best suited to a scope AR screen. I was only pointing out to others reading that even in your case having a 16:9 sized to match your scope width would allow all the benefits of your scope screen with potential for more. Not for you but for others that have a wider vertical FOV or have a viewing style that allows for eye movement, maybe play total immersion games. Watch movies with subtitles, watch IMAX as it was intended or even want to degrade image size smaller than what CIH allows for less than stellar content etc. etc. I know you are not that person I just wanted to show that your scope screen is inside this PIA screen. There is no point for you to have unused real estate but that doesn’t mean there could be a point for others like myself that watch 90% of the time as CIH.

You are correct no screen in no commercial theater has a bump up for old 4:3 AR movies. They were built for the ever changing new released wider formats. Rarely do you go to the multi theater in the mall and they are “Now showing Gone with the Wind”. Just one more example of what I said earlier that a “movie theater” is different than a “personal movie theater”.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #19 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 09:43 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Considering how much this has been discussed in another thread with documents showing how to correctly present all aspect ratios, and has been pointed out on numerous occasions that once you have set your seating distance to image height correctly, you don't need to vary the height ever again (except for maybe half a dozen partial pseudo IMAX movies), I've no idea why you want to suggest this, or think for a second that it is even remotely 'perfect'.

Perfect for you maybe, but not for anyone in this sub forum, or for someone who wants to follow the guidelines.

16:9 was developed as a compromise format for tv and fits the bill for that, so there's no need for you to try and reinvent the wheel.

Gary
16:9 was developed as a compromise AR you are correct, and an industry was built around it. All TV sets are now 16:9 and all home theaters projectors are built around that AR also. I didn’t invent 16:9 it is just the ratio of the canvas everything has to fit inside of now. I don’t know of one person that watches a 16:9 TV in a CIH manner even though some of them are approaching projection screen sizes now. I have never even heard of anyone watching one CIH. Immersion isn’t even talked about in terms of TV hardly.
With front projection comes immersion when and if you want it. I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born. Your claim is that FOV is much wider than it is tall and I even mentioned above FOV is often stated as 180 degrees side to side and I agree with that and if you think about it at 180 that is saying your screen can have a width of infinity. And height will always restrict before width. We can argue about up and down FOV limits but we all agree it is less than 180 a lot less than 180 in fact and therefore has a limit of less than infinity. CIH is still holding strong at this point.

Here is where people like Rich and I look at it a bit differently. This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do. We factor in a couple things one being eye movement and also acuity of vision. Your 180 degrees of side to side vision isn’t a waste as a warning system but it also isn’t a very accurate area of vision. We look at comparable area based on the same level of acuity up and down right and left and because we have two eyes set side by side there is a FOV formed that has a different shape. Think about where you could first tell a square from a circle or one finger compared to two fingers. Your threshold of vision suggestion will tell you the human field of vision in terms of an aspect ratio would be a rectangle of (infinity : one) our method and the method described by the science of Ophthalmology and confirmed by NASA and the like based around similar matches in acuity. Say the FOV is 1.5:1 without eye movement and greater with eye movement.

That’s the factual part of it then there is the practical part of it as no one wants to be engulfed in an image to those extremes except maybe a fighter pilot training for his mission on a sym.

The area of discussion then takes place around level of immersion and practical limits of FOV.

I can’t describe to a blind person what vision looks like. I can’t describe to a color blind person what color looks like. I can’t describe to a person that hits the limit of vertical FOV sooner than I do that someone else might have vision beyond what they find comfortable.

Then there is the secondary issue of presentation and stature and importance of one man made AR over another. This is the area the movie standards organizations and you and Josh and others feel strongly about. I may not believe it completely but I respect and will uphold your right to those beliefs. It is however a totally different issue than what we can see by the nature of our eyes. It states scope is to always be the most important and most immersive of images we are ever to see and it always has to dominate our field of vision over all other ARs. That’s a great belief and I don’t have an issue with it if that’s the reason you want to have CIH. It’s like believing in God it is not my place or anyone else place to say you are right or wrong. I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document. Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether. If a movie is important and the content is enhanced by increased immersion then my personal belief is I want to be shown to me and me only as I’m watching it at home alone in a size that best fills my FOV to the level I want. I know for you that will be in a 2.35:1 rectangle as it meets your FOV perfectly. Our FOV is one thing and Scope AR is another.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #20 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 10:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I said in an earlier post that you are clearly a person I described in paragraph 3 OP and of course you are best suited to a scope AR screen. I was only pointing out to others reading that even in your case having a 16:9 sized to match your scope width would allow all the benefits of your scope screen with potential for more. Not for you but for others that have a wider vertical FOV or have a viewing style that allows for eye movement, maybe play total immersion games. Watch movies with subtitles, watch IMAX as it was intended or even want to degrade image size smaller than what CIH allows for less than stellar content etc. etc. I know you are not that person I just wanted to show that your scope screen is inside this PIA screen. There is no point for you to have unused real estate but that doesn’t mean there could be a point for others like myself that watch 90% of the time as CIH.

You are correct no screen in no commercial theater has a bump up for old 4:3 AR movies. They were built for the ever changing new released wider formats. Rarely do you go to the multi theater in the mall and they are “Now showing Gone with the Wind”. Just one more example of what I said earlier that a “movie theater” is different than a “personal movie theater”.
Sorry. your post quoted mine and was worded as if you were addressing me. So it seemed like you were asking me directly. There is no "potential for more" if your screen is sized correctly for your seating distance. If you can comfortably view a taller image, use that as your basis for CIH. If you can't do that, you're width limited. The fundamental here is you want 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 content to be able to have more impact according to your diagram. Which is fine for you. But the point of this discussion area is to restore the intended impact and presentation of scope formats. Which if sized right does not diminish the other formats.

If by total immersion you mean having to move your head and neck to encompass the image, I doubt you'll get many takers. Any taller and I would have to do just that. No thanks. That's not comfortable or relaxing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #21 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 10:49 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: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born.
We didn't invent CIH - it came about when Fox introduced Scope and the spec back in '53 was that it should be the same height and twice the width of the existing academy screen. All current docs still show CIH as the correct method and it's often referred to as 'the traditional method'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Here is where people like Rich and I look at it a bit differently. This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do. We factor in a couple things one being eye movement and also acuity of vision.
Don't for a minute think that you and Rich have discovered something that the likes of SMPTE etc haven't realised for the past 60 years or more. If you can watch a taller image, you simply aren't sitting close enough to start with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Your 180 degrees of side to side vision isn’t a waste as a warning system but it also isn’t a very accurate area of vision. We look at comparable area based on the same level of acuity up and down right and left and because we have two eyes set side by side there is a FOV formed that has a different shape. Think about where you could first tell a square from a circle or one finger compared to two fingers. Your threshold of vision suggestion will tell you the human field of vision in terms of an aspect ratio would be a rectangle of (infinity : one) our method and the method described by the science of Ophthalmology and confirmed by NASA and the like based around similar matches in acuity. Say the FOV is 1.5:1 without eye movement and greater with eye movement.
You talk as if you know more about the HVS than the people who have already done extensive research and produced the standards. You don't. You never mention the height limitation of 15 degrees an the lack of with restrictions. Regardless of width, keep the vertical under 15 degrees for comfort. That's your height limitation right there. THXs back row is 36 degrees. 36/15 = 2.4:1. THXs optimal based on acuity immersion and image quality is 52 degrees = 3.4:1. Front row is determined by the max vertical viewing angle of 35 degrees which would not be the most comfortable place to sit for a 2 hour movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
That’s the factual part of it then there is the practical part of it as no one wants to be engulfed in an image to those extremes except maybe a fighter pilot training for his mission on a sym.

The area of discussion then takes place around level of immersion and practical limits of FOV.
The factual part is looking up for prolonged periods causes neck ache. Looking side to side or down is easier which is why screens are that shape. IMAX has been discussed and the horizon line is well below the center of the screen because of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Then there is the secondary issue of presentation ...
Secondary to you perhaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
and stature and importance of one man made AR over another. This is the area the movie standards organizations and you and Josh and others feel strongly about. I may not believe it completely but I respect and will uphold your right to those beliefs.
This isn't a religion, it's science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is however a totally different issue than what we can see by the nature of our eyes. It states scope is to always be the most important and most immersive of images we are ever to see and it always has to dominate our field of vision over all other ARs. That’s a great belief and I don’t have an issue with it if that’s the reason you want to have CIH. It’s like believing in God it is not my place or anyone else place to say you are right or wrong.
Like I say, it's not a belief, it's already based on science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document.
Of course you are, but this is avscience, not avreligion If you want to ignore the existing research and standards and come to very different conclusions based on your own interpretations and agenda, you're perfectly entitled to do that. But don't get upset if no one else wants to believe you over those who set the standards or how things have been done historically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether.
In your opinion. Seating distance is more important than physical size if the size of the image on your retina is important to you.

Some people who want a bigger image on their retina want a bigger screen rather than move their seating closer. Some people want a bigger screen and then move their seats further back because it's now taller. Some people get a bigger screen because it was too small in the first place (they didn't know about viewing angles and seating distance)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If a movie is important and the content is enhanced by increased immersion then my personal belief is I want to be shown to me and me only as I’m watching it at home alone in a size that best fills my FOV to the level I want. I know for you that will be in a 2.35:1 rectangle as it meets your FOV perfectly. Our FOV is one thing and Scope AR is another.
And you still believe you have reinvented the wheel

Yes, do what you like at home, that's up to you and that's fine, but don't come preaching that you are right about your preference which is very personal to you, and no one else, and everyone else is doing it wrong because you think you have discover something no one else has.

This is the CIH forum. If you want to watch your movies in a different way, this probably isn't the best place to suggest it

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 #22 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jjcook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
So what is PIA? ... Sometimes I want max immersion sometimes I don’t. At home your seating distance never changes and the selection is done with the zoom lever. I have one row of seating and some people have 2 or even 3 rows and the extra screen area could benefit there also making compromises, but my explanation of the colored rectangles here is just for me in my perfect seat.

Red = scope movies of the highest quality BD and of cinematic status judged by myself to deserve the best my screen can offer. Example Ben Hur on BD
Green= 16:9 movies of highest quality and cinematic status that demand immersion. Example Avatar on BD, Planet Earth (PBS).
Blue= 4:3 classics movies of highest quality and cinematic status painstakingly remaster. Example Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind.
Purple= scope movies that don’t rise to the highest quality (poor transfers) or movies that in no way demand immersion to benefit the viewing experience. Example Deliverance DVD transfer and Mom’s night out and a 1000 other similar movies you be the judge. Making them bigger doesn’t make them better.
White= General TV viewing, poor transferred 16:9 movies and 16:9 movies that fall into the Mom’s Night Out category. Example. The 40 year old virgin comes to mind.
Yellow= Old 4:3 TV content, poor transferred 4:3 movies of old. Example 1950’s TV series Bat Masterson and movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Original King Kong, DVD, Family movies copied from super 8 or VHS.
Orange= Then there is orange the whole frame pushing the level of immersion to the max or even past. When would you ever use all the real estate? Well you could use it for an in your face viewing of high quality IMAX movie or for a special showing of IMAX like content such as a movie like Avatar or even The planet earth series. Maybe to give your kids a super immersive version of the animated features they love to watch. Or for events where others might be viewing from seats deeper in the room than your theater seats, like a super bowl party.

These are not exact sizes I’m only showing them as points of reference, where different circumstances dictate different levels of immersion or in terms of a commercial theater a different seat. At any time you can put a black masking at the upper and lower red line and you have CIH again and without moving that masking you can benefit from downsizing the lesser content.

If masking is important to you and it is sometimes important to me you will need to sort out some sort of 2 way or 4 way masking system to go along with it. but some masking system is needed in all the different viewing plans anyway.

I posted this in the CIH forum as it contains all the aspects of a CIH setup except the look of the 2.35:1 hanging on the wall and most people tell me CIH has little to do with style and all about image presentation. This one screen selection embodies CIH, CIW, & CIA all into one idea called PIA (perfect image area) it is not about the shape of the screen it is about how you manage the area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous.

Gary
I see value in (some of) the multiplicity of image scales proposed for a multi-purpose viewing theater room (i.e., casual television in addition to movies and documentaries) -- I don't want wheel of fortune (16:9) to be the same size as Pacific Rim (16:9) as it diminishes the presentation not unlike CIW. If you have a multi-row theater, then its easy to just sit in the back row when you want less immersive. I am on board with CIH+IMAX for movies and documentaries. So overall CIH+IMAX+SSfWoF (smaller scale for wheel of fortune).
bud16415 likes this.
jjcook is offline  
post #23 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 11:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Sorry. your post quoted mine and was worded as if you were addressing me. So it seemed like you were asking me directly. There is no "potential for more" if your screen is sized correctly for your seating distance. If you can comfortably view a taller image, use that as your basis for CIH. If you can't do that, you're width limited. The fundamental here is you want 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 content to be able to have more impact according to your diagram. Which is fine for you. But the point of this discussion area is to restore the intended impact and presentation of scope formats. Which if sized right does not diminish the other formats.

If by total immersion you mean having to move your head and neck to encompass the image, I doubt you'll get many takers. Any taller and I would have to do just that. No thanks. That's not comfortable or relaxing.
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
rossandwendy likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #24 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 12:09 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: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjcook View Post
I see value in (some of) the multiplicity of image scales proposed for a multi-purpose viewing theater room (i.e., casual television in addition to movies and documentaries) -- I don't want wheel of fortune (16:9) to be the same size as Pacific Rim (16:9) as it diminishes the presentation not unlike CIW. If you have a multi-row theater, then its easy to just sit in the back row when you want less immersive. I am on board with CIH+IMAX for movies and documentaries. So overall CIH+IMAX+SSfWoF (smaller scale for wheel of fortune).
For wheel of fortune stuff I just watch on my tv. The projector is for movies.

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 #25 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 12:12 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: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...

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 #26 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 01:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
Bud I have told you in multiple posts that is exactly how my screen size was arrived at. I threw a 16:9 image up on the wall and zoomed my projector (back then an Infocus IN76) to as big as I wanted it. Bought a screen that matched that size. It would not be as enjoyable any taller. You keep repeating this idea that I may want a 1.85:1 film taller as if I had never done any experimentation or put any thought into sizing my screen. Please let me assure you one last time, this is not the case.

No one has complained about the image being to wide. In fact I had several compliments on the theater crawl I hosted last spring that it was an excellent size. That was over 30 hobbyists. We all process imagery in our peripheral vision. If the action shifts to the periphery our eyes will move and focus on it.

P.S. I don't own a copy of Avaturd

jeahrens is offline  
post #27 of 311 Old 05-26-2016, 05:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post
Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...

Gary
It is around 5 degrees and we all move our eyes, some movement is intentional and controlled by us consciously and some movement is involuntary. Our FOV is a complex arrangement of actions of the eyes and analyses of the input by the brain.

To me immersion is a variable I want to have control over. Really immersion is another way to think about our peripheral vision and how we want it implemented in our movie watching. I’m not selecting AR the film is in as the trigger of my level of immersion. Rather I am assigning the content and my mood the job of dictating my level of immersion. Again sometimes it is content sometimes it is my mood.

I think jjcook grasped the idea quite well in his above post.

I even think the audio half of the equation plays a similar roll. Sometimes some content and my mood make me want more audio volume. There is visual immersion and also audio immersion and I want to control both.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #28 of 311 Old 05-28-2016, 07:21 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: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It is around 5 degrees and we all move our eyes, some movement is intentional and controlled by us consciously and some movement is involuntary. Our FOV is a complex arrangement of actions of the eyes and analyses of the input by the brain.
You talk as if you're the only one who knows this. Some of us have been having these kinds of discussions before you joined here. I think I even pointed out saccades to you in a PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
To me immersion is a variable I want to have control over. Really immersion is another way to think about our peripheral vision and how we want it implemented in our movie watching. I’m not selecting AR the film is in as the trigger of my level of immersion. Rather I am assigning the content and my mood the job of dictating my level of immersion. Again sometimes it is content sometimes it is my mood.
Everyone in the industry talks about immersion. It's the one of the main ideas behind wider ARs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I think jjcook grasped the idea quite well in his above post.
Some of us have been using that exact approach for a long time - tv for tv, projector for movies. Same concept. You may be doing it using a pj but again it's nothing new except you think it's innovative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I even think the audio half of the equation plays a similar roll. Sometimes some content and my mood make me want more audio volume. There is visual immersion and also audio immersion and I want to control both.
I agree. Hearing a great set of speakers can totally change how you view the sound delivery in a home theatre to enhance the movie experience. I recently heard some ATC 300 something or others (£35k a pair IIRC). They make your average commercial cinemas sound like HTIB

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 #29 of 311 Old 05-28-2016, 09:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 821 Post(s)
Liked: 540
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.
jjcook and bud16415 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.

Last edited by steve1106; 05-28-2016 at 09:49 AM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #30 of 311 Old 05-31-2016, 01:29 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: 1053
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...

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  
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