Convince me to go CIH - Page 5 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 104Likes
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 201 Old 05-05-2017, 07:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
He loves films not documentaries.


Now i get it.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 201 Old 05-05-2017, 07:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
In many ways I disagree. IMAX, when it was 70mm, was in a different class to 35mm or 16mm film. It is not comparing apples to apples.

Now that IMAX has sold out to digital, it doesn't really matter because it is all just 2K projectors. And even some cinemas do the double stack for more light.
You seem to think what made IMAX was the film size it was filmed on and not the cinematography process used to construct the images. The film size was only necessary because they wanted their most immersive image to be of equally high picture quality. What is Imax at its core be it the old AR or the modern AR is increased immersion up and down as seen in comparing Sully as presented in both AR. You don’t have to change your seating distance in terms of screen width for both presentations. Some day we will have 100k cameras and it won’t change the FOV of our eyes or how we see.

If back in the day someone made 140mm film that wouldn’t mean our eyes would take in more image or IMAX would have been taller. Film or digital is just a tool to get us to a goal. They didn’t sell out they made a good decision based on the evolution of the technology. Did silent films sell out when they added sound tracks?

An Imax level of immersion based on cinematography could be shot on super 8 with the proper lens and framing. It might be hard to watch in terms of PQ but it would be Imax in content. No different than the way they cram content into TV different than they do flat. With TV the expectation is 4x to 6X SH seating.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #123 of 201 Old 05-05-2017, 03:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
You seem to think what made IMAX was the film size it was filmed on and not the cinematography process used to construct the images.
In true IMAX, there is very little panning or scene changes. In most IMAX films I have seen, these transitions are as little as 6 times in a 40min film. The IMAX footage used in the films like TRANSFORMERS 2 or THE DARK NIGHT has nothing to do with composition. It is all about the frame size and one of the shonkiest gimmicks ever. Probably worse than red/cyan filtered 3D.


Quote:
The film size was only necessary because they wanted their most immersive image to be of equally high picture quality. What is Imax at its core be it the old AR or the modern AR is increased immersion up and down as seen in comparing Sully as presented in both AR. You don’t have to change your seating distance in terms of screen width for both presentations. Some day we will have 100k cameras and it won’t change the FOV of our eyes or how we see.
The original AR sucks balls. It like a super size old style TV. It is not super cool. Please stop with the constant banter about how IMAX is the ultimate format ever. The ONLY thing it had going for it is the equivalent of what 8K video might look like. But none of that matters now anyway because ALL IMAX DIGITAL is now 2K. BFD!

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #124 of 201 Old 05-06-2017, 12:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 243 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1388 Post(s)
Liked: 1503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you go wider than Imax you are infringing on the specifications of SMPTE and others as Imax is supposed to be as wide as scope and the tallest of all AR’s.
I'm not infringing on anything. I couldn"t care less about smpte or IMAX. I passed both of those weak set of specs long ago. They have digressed while I have progressed. That goes for most of the guys posting here and around AVS. Almost all summer blockbusters have a 2.40AR. IMAX digital theaters are a joke. There's no sub bass and the surround effects are atrocious. Any mid level cinema around here has better surround effects even with 5/7.1 systems. Seriously, 5 speaker positions and you expect coverage. I like how they count individual drivers in speakers as a speakers. I like the old 4:3 IMAX but it's dated and watching 2.40 content there isn't a fun experience. At least the sound systems decent. So why would I want to use an inferior standard when what I have is a far superior audio and video experience.
CAVX likes this.

Last edited by coolrda; 05-07-2017 at 01:55 AM.
coolrda is offline  
post #125 of 201 Old 05-06-2017, 06:37 PM
Member
 
dlfurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sun City, Ca
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My decision to go with CIH was a no brainer. Our home theatre was designed, engineered and built primarily to run 35mm film and since Blu Ray is the least of what I project I really need constant height. My screen is as wide as the room width would allow since I wanted to showcase my 2:35 scope features. That allowed my to install only side automated making to reduce the screen size to 1:85. I guess I could have gone all out and installed top/bottom moveable masking but that idea presented a whole new can of worms for my automation system. Good news is that my Epson 5010 zooms to a perfect 2:35/1:85 AR to perfectly fit the screen so I have the best of both film and digital presentations. When an IMAX sequence hits my screen from the Epson, it just has to jump off the screen. I learned to get over the abrupt change. My focal point is film, not digital.
CAVX likes this.

Projectors: 35mm Kinoton PK60D/Epson 5010
Processors: Dolby CP-650
Amps: QSC's (3), and EV (1)
Speakers: JBL 3678's L-C-R (3), JBL 4645C's 18" SUBS (2) JBL 8330's SURROUNDS (4)
Screen: Harkness 3D Silver, 11x5 feet, mini-perf
dlfurr is offline  
post #126 of 201 Old 05-07-2017, 06:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
I'm not infringing on anything. I couldn"t care less about smpte or IMAX. I passed both of those weak set of specs long ago. They have digressed while I have progressed. That goes for most of the guys posting here and around AVS. Almost all summer blockbusters have a 2.40AR. IMAX digital theaters are a joke. There's no sub bass and the surround effects are atrocious. Any mid level cinema around here has better surround effects even with 5/7.1 systems. Seriously, 5 speaker positions and you expect coverage. I like how they count individual drivers in speakers as a speakers. I like the old 4:3 IMAX but it's dated and watching 2.40 content there isn't a fun experience. At least the sound systems decent. So why would I want to use an inferior standard when what I have is a far superior audio and video experience.
Finally someone that agrees with me. You did know my SMPTE reference was given tongue in cheek. Those standards and guides are set up for commercial theaters that attempt to set up the best visual for the maximum numbers of viewers. Of course we should shoot for better in our own personal theaters as we are not trying to provide a movie experience for 1000 people.

Sound quality is important and may well be something to drive people from Imax theaters, but that shouldn’t be part of this discussion as to the visual experience at home where we can use any grade of sound we want.

I find it interesting how some say “They like the old 4:3 IMAX” and others say “The original AR sucks balls.”

Clearly we all have different relationships with vertical immersion, or is it just we love the look of the long low panoramic screen.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #127 of 201 Old 05-07-2017, 01:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
In many ways I disagree. IMAX, when it was 70mm, was in a different class to 35mm or 16mm film. It is not comparing apples to apples.

Now that IMAX has sold out to digital, it doesn't really matter because it is all just 2K projectors. And even some cinemas do the double stack for more light.
Fortunately the IMAX Laser system is dual 4K, and it is *spectacular.* I have seen footage that originated as 15/70 IMAX film, scanned at 8K for processing and color correction, and then rendered out to an IMAX Laser DCP, and it was simply stunning.

I am a big proponent of seeing film done right, but I think IMAX has finally gotten to film quality with their latest digital projectors (which was the goal of their $60M R&D effort; they needed a system good enough to replace 15/70 film in all of the traditional IMAX locations at museums, science centers, etc.).
Marc Alexander likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #128 of 201 Old 05-07-2017, 06:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 243 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1388 Post(s)
Liked: 1503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I find it interesting how some say “They like the old 4:3 IMAX” and others say “The original AR sucks balls.”
Watching 4:3 content on my CIH screen is perfect. Thats the case with all AR's up to 2.37. I hated watching letterboxed 2.35 content on my old 4:3 TV. 16x9 was a big step in the right direction but eventually got old. So I went 2.35, never looked back and its been the perfect solution. So I'm both of the above, Imax looks good with 4:3 and sucks with 2.35 content. Its has nothing to do with immersion and everything to do with seeing bright letterboxed bars on 25 percent of the screen with digital and almost half with with 2.35 on the original screens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Clearly we all have different relationships with vertical immersion, or is it just we love the look of the long low panoramic screen.
Probably. Thats why its 1-3xSH as each see's fit but still CIH. Its content, content, content that drives us CIHer's.
coolrda is offline  
post #129 of 201 Old 05-08-2017, 12:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrda View Post
Watching 4:3 content on my CIH screen is perfect.
I watched some 4 x 3 content the other night. It used the centre 1/3rd of my screen. The program itself was pretty interesting, though not the greatest quality.
shivaji likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #130 of 201 Old 05-10-2017, 10:29 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,579
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3860 Post(s)
Liked: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
When I posted the IronMan images a while back, I used the same image cropped back to 16:9 (with side pillars) to better show the advantage of Scope at the same height. The image I used was the same Scope image above, so all the 16:9 version lost was some background at the sides. But what it did show was how the different ARs look with the same content and more importantly, framing of said character IronMan.
Just for the record, I created those Iron Man comparison images for this thread:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-...l#post46541817

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Composition is precisely the reason why Constant Height display is important. The rules of composition, regarding the relative sizes of objects in the frame, are the same between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The only difference between the two is that 2.35:1 has more picture on the sides.

Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere in this thread trying to explain it in words, allow me to explain it in pictures.

Here are a pair of images from two similar movies: The Avengers (1.85:1) and Iron Man 2 (2.35:1). Both images are medium shots of the same character. When displayed in Constant Height format, you'll notice that the character is basically the same size, and he's framed similarly in both shots from the top of his head to his waist.

This is the intent of scope composition. You start at the same size you would in 1.85:1, and then add extra width.




However, if you display these same images in Constant Width format, suddenly the 2.35:1 movie is greatly shrunken and diminished in impact. The character looks much smaller, and the scene is less involving.



That's not the case in Constant Height. Iron Man is the same size in both movies in Constant Height. He fills the same amount of your vision. The Avengers is not compromised or diminished in Constant Height. When done properly, 1.85:1 movies are as large as they're ever going to be on your screen. Then scope movies are even wider for added immersiveness, as intended.

Constant Width, unfortunately, will always diminish 2.35:1 movies. They will always be shrunken down so that all objects on the screen are smaller than the same objects in 1.85:1 movies. That is not how they were composed.

A Constant Width screen starts from the premise that scope movies are less important than and inferior to 1.85:1 movies. If you believe that's true, take a look at the types of movies that are photographed in each aspect ratio. Year after year after year, the directors of big budget, visual spectacle, eye candy movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope ratio. Consistently, 70% or more of that type of movie are photographed in scope.

Before you stammer, "Bu... bu... but... Why is The Avengers 1.85:1, then?" That was the decision the director of that movie made. The Avengers is one movie in a long franchise in which most of the other entries are 2.35:1. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America, Captain America 2, Thor, Thor 2, The Incredible Hulk, even Avengers 2... All of those movies are 2.35:1. This fall's Doctor Strange will also be 2.35:1.

In the Marvel franchise, only The Avengers and Ant-Man are 1.85:1. Pointedly, the premise of Ant-Man is that it's about a guy who's really small. Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America 3 were 2.35:1 in most theaters but variable ratio in IMAX. That's 14 movies, 10 of which are pure 2.35:1. That's perfectly consistent with the overall trend that 70% of these big-budget tentpole movies are photographed in scope.

Scope composition adds more breadth and dimension to the image. It gives the characters more room to move around. 1.85:1 doesn't do that, not even if you project it extra large on an IMAX screen. All that does is zoom up the whole picture and make everything oversized. Proportionally to the way objects in the frame are composed, the characters are still boxed in by limited width.

Last point: I'm sure Bud or someone else will be eager to argue in favor of Constant Area or Bud's Perfectly Arbitrary Random Zooming format. Those do not solve this problem. Constant Height is the only scenario in which Iron Man appears the same size in both of these movies.

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

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #131 of 201 Old 05-10-2017, 11:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Just for the record, I created those Iron Man comparison images for this thread
And all along I thought Jon Favreau created those images.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #132 of 201 Old 05-10-2017, 11:57 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,579
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3860 Post(s)
Liked: 2893
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
And all along I thought Jon Favreau created those images.
Har har. He didn't align them together for direct comparisons of the relative size of objects in each respective movie.

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

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #133 of 201 Old 05-23-2018, 08:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
The idea of any rectangle defining our vision and even our acute vision is not accurate. Actually if any shape would define our acute vision it would be more of a circle.

It also changes from person to person.

I don’t know why you use 45 degrees side to side most people can see 180 degrees.
The width of most people's vision -- a very small sharp field surrounded by a great blurry field -- is a bit wider than 180 degrees.

The shape of our whole visual field is more like an oval than a circle.

Sydney Pollack spoke eloquently about the uses of 'scope. There is a short re-cap of this in the Special Features of The Way We Were. He though it provided context. The audience could sometimes see how another character was reacting without cutting to the reaction, which is less subtle, saying "notice this, it's a big deal."

"What Aristotle meant by the object of sight is the oval of vision." -- Paul Goodman

Last edited by garygarrison; 05-23-2018 at 08:34 PM.
garygarrison is offline  
post #134 of 201 Old 05-24-2018, 04:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
The width of most people's vision -- a very small sharp field surrounded by a great blurry field -- is a bit wider than 180 degrees.

The shape of our whole visual field is more like an oval than a circle.

Sydney Pollack spoke eloquently about the uses of 'scope. There is a short re-cap of this in the Special Features of The Way We Were. He though it provided context. The audience could sometimes see how another character was reacting without cutting to the reaction, which is less subtle, saying "notice this, it's a big deal."

"What Aristotle meant by the object of sight is the oval of vision." -- Paul Goodman
Mapping FOV has been done many times and comes out to look like this picture. It is a old well respected and often pointed to reference of FOV along with eye overlap patterns and relative acuity. I fit the red AR rectangle into the image as one possible choice. Of course every AR could be fit inside our vision and as well our vision could be fit inside every AR also. That amount of eye movement or unused FOV is at the discretion of the viewer when he selects his seat at the theater. The seat we chose will not change our FOV only how we care to fill it.

None of this should be confused with artistic and cinematic use of different AR’s. In the movie Dunkirk as an example The AR frequently changes because the director had a vision of us watching both the real image as well as the negative black space created when framed in scope. Our eyes didn’t suddenly change in regards to FOV each time the AR switches. If they are capable of seeing the full IMAX frame they are capable of seeing the negative black when it is not illuminated. Those transitions and the scope parts of the movie are not less important or less visual because of it. Likewise when the movie transitions back to IMAX it doesn’t suddenly become giant TV as I’m so often told here.

The artistic use of AR is very important to me as it should be to any fan of motion pictures. Scope and wider narrower AR are very visual appealing and can be used in many different ways as panoramic as well as personal in film. I don’t feel having my vision filled 100% or 50% has any bearing on the impact of the image I’m looking at. Many people feel the relationship between image areas one AR to the next is tied to magnitude of the spectacle being shown. Even when the two images are seen weeks apart.

IMO too much importance is given the respective areas of different AR and not enough importance given to the visual beauty of framing the image the way the artist wanted it to be framed. And of course even artists are constrained by the industry and the equipment they have to do their job.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	FOV.JPG
Views:	34
Size:	117.8 KB
ID:	2406796  

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #135 of 201 Old 05-24-2018, 10:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

None of this should be confused with artistic and cinematic use of different AR’s. In the movie Dunkirk as an example The AR frequently changes because the director had a vision of us watching both the real image as well as the negative black space created when framed in scope.
Although I'm sure Nolan framed carefully keeping the negative black space in mind, the Dunkirk shifting aspect ratio had a lot more to do with the practicalities of camera size than anything else. Where Nolan could use the IMAX cameras, he did. In situations where he could not (because the camera was too large or too loud), he switched to Super Panavision. IMAX ratio is 1.43:1, Super Panavision is 2.20:1. And of course, with all of the footage he framed for 'scope 2.39, which was the ratio for the vast majority of cinemas in which the film played.
dschulz is offline  
post #136 of 201 Old 05-24-2018, 01:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
garygarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 1,276
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 856 Post(s)
Liked: 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I don’t feel having my vision filled 100% or 50% has any bearing on the impact of the image I’m looking at.

Berlyne found that size and brightness affected cortical arousal. Impact may be made up of several components, including size, brightness, loudness, complexity, and the rest of Berlyne's variables, as well as variables explored by others.
garygarrison is offline  
post #137 of 201 Old 05-24-2018, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
Although I'm sure Nolan framed carefully keeping the negative black space in mind, the Dunkirk shifting aspect ratio had a lot more to do with the practicalities of camera size than anything else. Where Nolan could use the IMAX cameras, he did. In situations where he could not (because the camera was too large or too loud), he switched to Super Panavision. IMAX ratio is 1.43:1, Super Panavision is 2.20:1. And of course, with all of the footage he framed for 'scope 2.39, which was the ratio for the vast majority of cinemas in which the film played.
No doubt IMAX monster cameras are not practical to fit in every place. They have taken them into space and Nolan did stick one in the nose of a Learjet as well. I think I remember reading that. Underwater in the oceans no problem. Where there is a will there is a way.

No matter if he had to switch to a smaller camera for part of the movie there still wouldn’t be a problem popping on a lens and cropping post production to get the same AR as the rest of the movie if that’s the AR he wanted. I can’t believe in a movie of that cost and magnitude he left the AR up to what camera and native film size he had to shoot it on. I like to believe in today’s world the artistic intent is the main if not only driver.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #138 of 201 Old 05-24-2018, 04:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
No doubt IMAX monster cameras are not practical to fit in every place. They have taken them into space and Nolan did stick one in the nose of a Learjet as well. I think I remember reading that. Underwater in the oceans no problem. Where there is a will there is a way.

No matter if he had to switch to a smaller camera for part of the movie there still wouldn’t be a problem popping on a lens and cropping post production to get the same AR as the rest of the movie if that’s the AR he wanted. I can’t believe in a movie of that cost and magnitude he left the AR up to what camera and native film size he had to shoot it on. I like to believe in today’s world the artistic intent is the main if not only driver.
Remember that Nolan used a complete photochemical finish, and is a stickler for absolute image quality. Cropping off part of his Super Panavision footage and then blowing it up to IMAX size for the 15/70 prints would result in additional visible grain and reduced resolution. Most of the movie was shot with IMAX cameras at their native 1.43 AR. Some of the movie was shot with Super Panavision at 2.20:1. All of the 2.20:1 parts of the movie were shot with Super Panavision cameras. The final AR is absolutely a byproduct of Nolan using the native AR of the film formats he was able to use for each shot.
dschulz is offline  
post #139 of 201 Old 06-06-2018, 09:34 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 11,349
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 1467
When designing my dedicated theater room (AT screen, 7'10" ceilings) now I know I did the right thing with 2.35:1 with two rows and theater seating (I was on the fence). I built one larger 6" riser and a smaller 4" riser that the chairs sit on and after pad/capet am just under 11" total for the riser and sitting in my rear row the 2.35:1 screen is just about perfect. I am still playing with final height to ceiling, but I just can't imagine kids in the 2nd row being able to see the bottom of a 16:9 screen unless I went with a much smaller screen.
ack_bk is offline  
post #140 of 201 Old 06-06-2018, 02:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post
When designing my dedicated theater room (AT screen, 7'10" ceilings) now I know I did the right thing with 2.35:1 with two rows and theater seating (I was on the fence). I built one larger 6" riser and a smaller 4" riser that the chairs sit on and after pad/capet am just under 11" total for the riser and sitting in my rear row the 2.35:1 screen is just about perfect. I am still playing with final height to ceiling, but I just can't imagine kids in the 2nd row being able to see the bottom of a 16:9 screen unless I went with a much smaller screen.
If I am reading this right, there is only 2" height difference between the risers?

I have 12" height difference between the front and back row. The kids like the back row, I prefer the front.

Do you have Sketch Up or similar? Your can always draw the side view of the cinema and draw in sight lines. I normally work off that a person's head will be about 900mm off the floor when seated, so if the heads (and I draw line and a circle for this) is not interfering the projection or beam lines, all good, and you can then create sight lines to see if they can see the screen.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #141 of 201 Old 06-07-2018, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New England
Posts: 11,349
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1334 Post(s)
Liked: 1467
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
If I am reading this right, there is only 2" height difference between the risers?

I have 12" height difference between the front and back row. The kids like the back row, I prefer the front.

Do you have Sketch Up or similar? Your can always draw the side view of the cinema and draw in sight lines. I normally work off that a person's head will be about 900mm off the floor when seated, so if the heads (and I draw line and a circle for this) is not interfering the projection or beam lines, all good, and you can then create sight lines to see if they can see the screen.
Sorry will be more clear.

First row is on the floor level. 2nd row consists of a 6.5' deep riser that 6" or so tall. Then I built a smaller riser that is rouhly 4" tall that is just big enough the fit the base of my 3 home theater chairs.

See attached picture. This was done to consere headroom for the projector.

ack_bk is offline  
post #142 of 201 Old 06-16-2018, 08:23 PM
Member
 
thelonghop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 5
This website is great for playing around with various ARs. www.displaywars.com
thelonghop is offline  
post #143 of 201 Old 06-18-2018, 04:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonghop View Post
This website is great for playing around with various ARs. www.displaywars.com
After setting monitor A as 150" 21:9 and monitor B as 120" 16:9 monitor, why you NOT go CIH?

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #144 of 201 Old 06-19-2018, 07:16 AM
Member
 
thelonghop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
After setting monitor A as 150" 21:9 and monitor B as 120" 16:9 monitor, why you NOT go CIH?
That's what I'm doing but I think it depends entirely on room dimensions. If your room is height limited, then yeah, the most screen will be ultra wide. If it's width limited, you might not be able to go wider, so 16:9 might be best. What's the room depth and how far back you can sit? What content is most important to me and what format is that content? All factors I considered to decide CIH was the best way to go.
thelonghop is offline  
post #145 of 201 Old 06-19-2018, 04:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,942
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 372 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonghop View Post
That's what I'm doing but I think it depends entirely on room dimensions. If your room is height limited, then yeah, the most screen will be ultra wide. If it's width limited, you might not be able to go wider, so 16:9 might be best. What's the room depth and how far back you can sit? What content is most important to me and what format is that content? All factors I considered to decide CIH was the best way to go.


Are you intending the fill wall with the screen? How bright is this projector? The reality is, the bigger, duller it gets. It should not matter if you have 8ft ceiling or 12 feet or something in between. In the end of the day, it is about being compatible with the program you watch and having enough light output to be believable. In a perfect world, we'd all have 100+nits and HDR would just work. It should depend on what you watch. If you watch movies and most seem to be presented in a letterbox these days, then you are short changing yourself staying with 16:9 just because it might look better in the room with the light on.

My screen is wall to wall, but would I want it taller? No because, then I'd have to move my seats back and lose the back row (or move to the back row and lose the front, however you wish to look at that).

Do I have the room to add a bigger 16:9 screen? Yes I do.

Would I gain anything from doing this? No I would not as the amount of content that is native 16:9 is small.

For me, when watching 16:9 is about the vertical framing. I want to see everything frame top to bottom. Do side pillars bother me? No they do not as my black floor is set that the pillars are the same level as the darkest parts of the picture. So they can blend when it is a dark scene.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #146 of 201 Old 06-25-2018, 07:51 PM
Senior Member
 
kheiden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 362
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I’ve had mine since 2006. I’m never going back to anything else.
kheiden is offline  
post #147 of 201 Old 06-26-2018, 04:20 PM
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 CAVX View Post
For me, when watching 16:9 is about the vertical framing. I want to see everything frame top to bottom. Do side pillars bother me? No they do not as my black floor is set that the pillars are the same level as the darkest parts of the picture. So they can blend when it is a dark scene.
Interesting concept to utilize dark grey for the screen border and/or screen wall to make the pillars blend with their surroundings making them non-intrusive.
jjcook is offline  
post #148 of 201 Old 06-26-2018, 04:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,521
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4652 Post(s)
Liked: 2946
It seems to me that the 2.35:1 screens are only an upgrade if your room is such that the biggest 16:9 screen you can fit does not fill the width of your room. In my case, my 16:9 screen is as wide as it can be. If I were to go scope, I'd have a screen no wider only less tall. That would gain nothing at all. Not only that, but I'd be terribly limited on what I could play back without black bars.

I suppose in a room much wider than it is tall, then you only gain by having a scope screen since you're maximizing the width.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is online now  
post #149 of 201 Old 06-26-2018, 05:19 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 868
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 519 Post(s)
Liked: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscpsycho View Post
It seems like it always ends up being people passionate about CIH vs people rational about 16:9.
Biologically speaking, if you want to max out your field of view then you should sit really close to the biggest possible 16:9 screen you can get.

Google "human vision aspect ratio":

https://biology.stackexchange.com/qu...for-human-eyes

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-as...f-human-vision

I always say for projector users: Get the biggest screen possible. By that I mean, its overall surface area.

In your case, that means don't go CIH, since your screen surface area is limited by width instead of height, and your only two real choices of aspect ratio are 16:9 or 2.37:1. CIH is kind of a cult. I played that game for a few years and realized that 16:9 is actually better.

I'll just leave this here:

BattleAxeVR is offline  
post #150 of 201 Old 06-27-2018, 06:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,580
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2021 Post(s)
Liked: 1022
@BattleAxeVR @markmon1

I agree with your opinions for the most part, and the idea of the shape of human vision. It was the reason I devised my system of presentation I call PIA.

Here is where I disagree and understand the history behind movie framing and it is not at all a cult following doing CIH it is a historically correct method given cinema from the 1950’s to the advent of IMAX. It is still a viable system of presentation today if you only watch cinema and neglect the few IMAX1.89 expanders that are out there.

Here is the one thing you are missing or haven’t thought thru. “Cinematography” Movies from the 1950 on when the industry stopped making Academy AR movies and scope AR’s became the premier frame for movies, the directors understood the shape and the seating of the theaters the movies would be shown in. Our vision isn’t simply a fixed AR and size where everything inside the shape is seen at once and seen clearly. Only a very small part of our central field of view is that. So our eyes scan the image and take in detail and fill the sides and top peripheral vision with stuff we see but don’t see clearly unless we want to move our eyes and or head to the extreme of the screen. In this way we all go to the same movie but we all see a different movie depending on where we are looking. It’s the reason when you watch a movie over and over it is always a little different, as we are noticing different things and watching a different actor more closely.

Directors know regardless of our personal like for more or less immersion we all have a range where we are comfortable scanning around for needed details and then the areas outside of that are called by some fluff. In a scope movie it is to the sides and with an IMAX movie it is top and bottom as well as the sides.

Theaters were designed for that and directors understood that for many years. People found a row in the theater they liked and they liked it equally well if the movie was scope or flat.

IMAX came along and challenged the theater design and the immersion levels and devised everything new. Right down to the film, cameras and projectors and the IMAX directors directed for total immersion on the huge square screens. There are a few directors that are still doing this and Dunkirk was a movie if you can see it in a real IMAX theater showcases that modern IMAX cinematography and there is no eye strain sitting thru a full length movie filmed this way.

Then money as it always does plays a role and there are not enough real IMAX theater or people to go to them to cover the cost of making a movie like Dunkirk to only be seen in a small number of great theaters. Cropping the movie is one method But IMAX figured out another and made a compromise with IMAX1.89, The new theaters you see popping up as conversions from older theaters. They play the changing AR movies as well as the new movies like Sully shot in scope and IMAX1.89 at the same time where the scope version is the cropped down one.

That’s not the end of the story though. We are talking about home theaters not first run movie theaters here. Many of us watch stuff other than movies. Sports, Regular TV, Old time TV, Prestige TV, Video games and the list goes on and on. The “cinematography” for lack of a better word is all over the place with all this content. The nightly news and Wheel of Fortune is shot like they think people will be watching it on a 32” TV from across the room like they always have. Game of Thrones is shot very much like the director was directing an IMAX1.89 movie.


For all the above reasons my PIA presentation takes into account a lot of variables and I recommend for those that use their home theater for more than just cinema or enjoy the expanding or full IMAX1.89 movies, to go with a screen seating distance with a 16:9 screen or a CIH+IMAX1.89 screen. and then devise your own parameters of PIA.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread 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