Oppo UDP203’s 21x9 CIH Mode - Page 12 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 63Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #331 of 351 Old 10-24-2019, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Umm....





I'm sure I've explained this to you before, but here we go again.

Here's a typical, run-of-the-mill character shot from Game of Thrones:



And here's a comparable shot from Carnival Row, which I choose because it has a 2.39:1 ratio:



Notice the way the characters are pretty similarly framed from just above their heads to about mid-chest. That's a basic, fundamental staple of motion picture composition.

When viewed in Constant Width, the Carnival Row character is much smaller than the Game of Thrones character. However, watching in Constant Height will normalize the scale.

Great examples and we have talked about this before. If you look at the GOT example you posted the left half of the image shows nothing of consequence as does the lower 1/3 of the image unless your eyes get drawn down there for other reasons. The lower area could be easily cropped to 2.35 and the shot would be called a close up not a mid shot and wouldn’t really be uncomfortable to watch. Point being there is or could be a lot of peripheral vision used in the shot as there already is when the director pulls your eyes to the upper right quadrant of the screen. No different than how your eyes are pulled to his face in the other image.

So the question is did the GOT director envision an IMAX-like close up or a mid-frame TV like image and when he did it was he thinking ahead to the grand battle scene and the impact that would have being IMAX-like immersive. Was he planning the shot for someone watching it on an iPhone or a massive IMAX at home screen? The answer is likely all of the above or none of the above. They are clearly trying to do something different and if you don’t believe me listen to what they say on the you tube video I attached and hear it in their own words.

Now the intent of the Carnival Row director is clearer. He didn’t mess around with 2.0:1 he wanted to make a scope TV show and filmed it in scope framing. He didn’t care that his viewing audience on their 16:9 TV sets were going to get less immersion without moving closer. He clearly believes as I do a large part of the beauty of scope is in the AR and the use of the space regardless of CIH or CIW presentation. You even posted the two shots as CIW and its clear nothing is lost.

I would watch Carnival Row as if it were a scope movie just as I would watch GOT larger than regular TV. I’m sure if I scanned thru all of Stranger Things or Carnival Row I could also find close-ups just as I could find grand imagery. I wouldn’t select the presentation based on a few close-ups or a few wide grand images, rather the total overall feeling I get watching something. Unlike a movie where we shouldn’t have to guess the presentation TV is wide open for interpretation. What we really only know is it is supposed to be fit inside a CIW 16:9 rectangle and given black bars to the part that doesn’t fill. Beyond that it is up to the individual based on their experience to decide what to do with it.

Like the directors of GOT my interpretation is it displays well larger than CIH would allow and CIA is my choice. Just as I enjoy NFL, NBA and NASCAR as IMAXed. The commercials used to be overly large but now thankfully many commercials are filmed in scope or even wider ARs.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #332 of 351 Old 10-24-2019, 03:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Again you equate equal vertical immersion of 2.00:1 and 1.78:1 as somehow diminishing 1.78:1. It doesn't. Every person that I have talked with in person that has a wider AR screen is well aware of the vertical immersion level in their setup and has maximized it. Your scenario implies that 1.78:1 has room for additional vertical immersion and it does not in these cases.
That’s not exactly what I believe. You believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that you should size a scope screen based on the height and give yourself all the height/vertical immersion you would want for any 1.85 flat movie (fill your height totally) and then let scope widen your horizontal immersion as far as it goes. Doing that doesn’t change or spoil how large and immersive you would ever need for a flat movie and just improves scope movies as how the director intended.

I don’t have any issues with that at all.

Now we are talking TV and we may agree to disagree your method says “constant image height” period. Everything that gets played gets played the same height. Saving Private Ryan gets displayed the same size as any non-movie TV show you chose to watch. Now I know you will tell me you don’t watch the news or wheel of fortune in your theater and you have a TV for such things (many people do view it all on their projectors), but you do streaming and streaming is all over the place some of it is TV shows some is movies some is made to be streamed movies. It is great fun surfing around Netflix or Amazon and finding stuff to binge you maybe haven’t seen in years. The other day we started watching the first few episodes of Cheers and we binged on it for 3 hours. Cheers 1982 was a great so and fun to watch in the theater in the comfortable seats, but in no way do I want to watch it the same size as something epic like Saving Private Ryan on BD. After all one is a motion picture blockbuster filmed in 1.85AR and the other a old TV show filmed in 4:3. IMAX height or scope height is too much for that style of TV. I zoomed it down and it reminded me of TV only better and we laughed and enjoyed it much better than SPR tall.

Now that I have determined TV is not motion pictures and is on a sliding scale I will also suggest TV can be every bit as fulfilling as motion pictures and film styles of modern TV is playing to an audience with playback equipment better than most movie theaters have. Sure it is not as large but then again its only playing to a few people not hundreds. So I don’t find it far fetched to look at the Emmy award winning BBC show Planet Earth II and see a way to enjoy that as immersive as if it were filmed for IMAX. Sure once or twice Josh will find a close up of a monkey’s face that fills the screen mixed in with hours of breathtaking shots that beg me to be immersed in them. I also know it will look amazing as CIH as well. The point is it can be enjoyed larger.

I have all the original IMAX movies on DVD 1.43:1 at some time or another I have watched them all on a 19” monitor. They looked great and I enjoyed viewing them that way. But those movies are made to be shown IMAX big, and really in watching them they are not much different than Planet Earth II and that is just TV.

Last word: I think TV is evolving and has been for a long time. It can be anything the director wants. People reading along don’t take my word watch some old Cheers and some new amazing TV like Planet Earth II and then watch some IMAX like Dunkirk and figure out where it all fits for you.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #333 of 351 Old 10-24-2019, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2218 Post(s)
Liked: 1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
The point is it can be enjoyed larger.
Regardless of what AR your screen is, if you have set your seating placed where your image area fills your vertical immersion it won't be.

I've not encountered anyone that bothers to go to front projection only to size the picture smaller than they enjoy. They may exist, but it certainly isn't the norm. Again in a normal properly setup room 1.78:1 TV is not diminished by sharing the height of 2.00:1 TV. And if you have a 1.78:1 screen I don't have an opinion on watching 2.00:1 the same width either. As mentioned earlier there is no right/wrong here unless we have something definitive from the show's creator.

jeahrens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #334 of 351 Old 10-24-2019, 04:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Regardless of what AR your screen is, if you have set your seating placed where your image area fills your vertical immersion it won't be.

I've not encountered anyone that bothers to go to front projection only to size the picture smaller than they enjoy. They may exist, but it certainly isn't the norm. Again in a normal properly setup room 1.78:1 TV is not diminished by sharing the height of 2.00:1 TV. And if you have a 1.78:1 screen I don't have an opinion on watching 2.00:1 the same width either. As mentioned earlier there is no right/wrong here unless we have something definitive from the show's creator.
That’s my point exactly. I’m sitting in my theater right now and I just tested my vertical immersion sitting 8’ from my screen wall. My screen wall is 9’high and my max vertical immersion without moving my eyes is the full height of my wall. If I move my eyes and we all move our eyes when viewing a movie my vertical limits are conservatively stretched 3 more feet in both directions or to 15’ high.

Everyone at home test this. Look straight ahead and see if you are aware of the floor and ceiling in your vision.

I don’t want a 15’ high scope screen or even an IMAX screen that tall, but that is what it would take if I expected to be able to project what my eyes see walking around in daily life every day. That’s what true 1.43 IMAX was about and why the screen was 8 stories tall.

People might say they never built a theater with a screen too small but that is what everyone does, if their expectations are to fully fill their vertical immersion.

I don’t need all that no one does. The point I’m making is it is there and some media responds better to more or less of it than others. That’s what VR is all about when you think about it. You turn around and there is what was behind you.

Instead of saying IMAX-like I should call it (Beginning of VR-like).

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #335 of 351 Old 10-25-2019, 10:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2218 Post(s)
Liked: 1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
People might say they never built a theater with a screen too small but that is what everyone does, if their expectations are to fully fill their vertical immersion.
That's nonsense. They are not sizing it to overwhelm and it is filling their desired vertical immersion. That threshold will depend on the person. Most fall within 2-3x the screen height to seating distance.

jeahrens is offline  
post #336 of 351 Old 10-25-2019, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,181
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4390 Post(s)
Liked: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Great examples and we have talked about this before. If you look at the GOT example you posted the left half of the image shows nothing of consequence as does the lower 1/3 of the image unless your eyes get drawn down there for other reasons. The lower area could be easily cropped to 2.35 and the shot would be called a close up not a mid shot and wouldn’t really be uncomfortable to watch. Point being there is or could be a lot of peripheral vision used in the shot as there already is when the director pulls your eyes to the upper right quadrant of the screen. No different than how your eyes are pulled to his face in the other image.

So the question is did the GOT director envision an IMAX-like close up or a mid-frame TV like image
It's not a close-up. It's a medium shot. If you want a close-up, the show has plenty of those as well.



This is NOT how you shoot for IMAX!

You have completely missed the point I made about how in two comparable shots the sense of scale is way off if you view them in Constant Width. When cinematographers compose their shots, they use the height of the frame to determine the scale and where to place their camera in relation to the actors, not the width.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	game-of-thrones.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	61.3 KB
ID:	2632056  

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

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #337 of 351 Old 10-26-2019, 06:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
It's not a close-up. It's a medium shot. If you want a close-up, the show has plenty of those as well.



This is NOT how you shoot for IMAX!

You have completely missed the point I made about how in two comparable shots the sense of scale is way off if you view them in Constant Width. When cinematographers compose their shots, they use the height of the frame to determine the scale and where to place their camera in relation to the actors, not the width.
Thanks for posting a close up from GOT.

For anyone reading along please keep in mind all this talk about IMAX and how it is filmed I’m talking about the new IMAX films like Dunkirk and Aquaman that are in the new IMAX AR of 1.89:1 and often 1.77:1 on home media. The old IMAX that is still around but is really reserved for just a few locations and not available on home media was 1.43:1. It is very much taller and is also projected in true IMAX 1.43 theaters super tall thus super immersive.

It is widely accepted that in playing the new shorter IMAX at home it is presented at the same width as scope and only the small difference in height. If you were to compare even the close up Josh linked the area in question would be a little bit of her forehead and below her chin. That’s what would be in the IMAX framing and her eyes lips and nose would be in the scope safe area. So there may be a little pushing the cinematography calling it IMAX1.89 like and one could decide if those parts of the show outweigh the larger expansive shots that may appeal to stretching your immersion. I think that is how the fans along with the producers of GOT view this. Keeping in mind watching GOT in and actual IMAX venue will likely show it more immersive than showing it at home on what we call IMAX of scope width only taller.

It is often said if your scope screen is sized to your max vertical height immersion level then something like IMAX1.89 will be as high as needed. That may be true and I actually agree with that, but for my personal tastes doing that would make scope just a little uncomfortably large. Especially some older scope movies that may not be of the same quality as what we are getting now.

We will always disagree on the difference between IMAX , IMAX1.89 and what we do at home with IMAX1.89 content and what might be IMAX1.89-like or at least fully acceptable.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #338 of 351 Old 10-31-2019, 02:03 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,181
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4390 Post(s)
Liked: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
For anyone reading along please keep in mind all this talk about IMAX and how it is filmed I’m talking about the new IMAX films like Dunkirk and Aquaman that are in the new IMAX AR of 1.89:1 and often 1.77:1 on home media.
No, Bud, that's not what we're talking about. You said that Game of Thrones and Planet Earth were "drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely."

As I have demonstrated, just because these TV shows have a similar aspect ratio to IMAX does not mean that they are actually photographed like IMAX. That's the whole conversation we've been having for the last week.

Quote:
If you were to compare even the close up Josh linked the area in question would be a little bit of her forehead and below her chin. That’s what would be in the IMAX framing and her eyes lips and nose would be in the scope safe area. So there may be a little pushing the cinematography calling it IMAX1.89 like and one could decide if those parts of the show outweigh the larger expansive shots that may appeal to stretching your immersion. I think that is how the fans along with the producers of GOT view this. Keeping in mind watching GOT in and actual IMAX venue will likely show it more immersive than showing it at home on what we call IMAX of scope width only taller.
So now you're saying that the people who made the show were filming secret close-ups that look like medium shots but really aren't? Seriously, that's what you believe?

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

My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers, whoever they may be.
Josh Z is offline  
post #339 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 07:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
No, Bud, that's not what we're talking about. You said that Game of Thrones and Planet Earth were "drifting towards the IMAX1.89 model and filling the 16:9 frame completely."

As I have demonstrated, just because these TV shows have a similar aspect ratio to IMAX does not mean that they are actually photographed like IMAX. That's the whole conversation we've been having for the last week.



So now you're saying that the people who made the show were filming secret close-ups that look like medium shots but really aren't? Seriously, that's what you believe?
No, Josh, That is not what I’m talking about.

Of course TV is not being filmed to be IMAX and you should understand the difference as you have authored a long running thread about TV that is shot in “Wider” than 16:9 AR and the focus of the thread is to figure out these “Wider” ARs so that folks can preset their projectors to show these shows more immersive than TV intended. We all know including the directors of these shows that TV can never be wider than 16:9 by its very nature it is not CIH or CIW it is a constant 16:9 size and shape and things can only fit inside it and be shorter or not as wide but can never expand beyond the size of the TV.

We in the world of projection do not have the limitations of screen size or shape and movies have a clear direction they guide us in, and movie directors follow the standards you talk about. It is fairly clear how one movie AR relates to the others at least in the case of flat, scope and IMAX.

Here is the funny part. We agree that these oddball AR of prestige TV can play well “Wider” than TV would ever allow because we don’t have TVs we have projectors. We seldom have clues from directors of TV suggesting how to watch something on Non-TV, but we take it on ourselves to decide.

Now comes the wild and wacky world of GOT. We got the top folks in charge of making the show on camera expounding the virtues of going to a real IMAX theater and watching their TV show “Wider oh and also Taller”. They along with the fans of the show are 100% sure it is a spectacle to behold in IMAX. I don’t recall the Stranger Things folks saying similar but yet you and I both feel it is true playing it “Wider” can be a good thing.

As to your second comment I don’t think GOT were secretly filming a mid-shot to be a close-up. What I’m saying is and the directors seem to agree is that in viewing it as such is not the end of the world and the benefit of having the greater immersion in the parts of the TV show that are not filmed as classic TV can be the benefit they speak of. This is not me speculating it is the fans along with the producers and directors of the show telling us what they think.

What is me speculating about Planet Earth, no different than you speculating on a few hundred TV shows you call “Wider” than TV in your thread, is the nature of the content of the TV show Planet Earth and its ability to be both “Wider and Taller” than any TV set allows. Surely you would not be opposed to someone pushing their couch ahead 2’ to watch Planet Earth if they wanted to. Then what is the issue if someone wants to relate that they instead because they can make their screen taller and wider for the same reason.

Do you think I’m telling people they have to view Planet Earth this way? I’m not and I really don’t care if you watch it on a 32” TV from 90 feet away if that’s their thing.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #340 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,044
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 867 Post(s)
Liked: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Now comes the wild and wacky world of GOT. We got the top folks in charge of making the show on camera expounding the virtues of going to a real IMAX theater and watching their TV show “Wider oh and also Taller”. They along with the fans of the show are 100% sure it is a spectacle to behold in IMAX. I don’t recall the Stranger Things folks saying similar but yet you and I both feel it is true playing it “Wider” can be a good thing.

As to your second comment I don’t think GOT were secretly filming a mid-shot to be a close-up. What I’m saying is and the directors seem to agree is that in viewing it as such is not the end of the world and the benefit of having the greater immersion in the parts of the TV show that are not filmed as classic TV can be the benefit they speak of. This is not me speculating it is the fans along with the producers and directors of the show telling us what they think.
I think you are overthinking this. The GoT producers thought it would be super awesome for fans of the show to see an episode on IMAX screens. Fans agreed. That's all. They did not change the way they made the show. At all. The IMAX episode of GoT was composed exactly the same as every other episode of GoT (and every other episode of 16:9 television).
Josh Z likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #341 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 11:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I think you are overthinking this. The GoT producers thought it would be super awesome for fans of the show to see an episode on IMAX screens. Fans agreed. That's all. They did not change the way they made the show. At all. The IMAX episode of GoT was composed exactly the same as every other episode of GoT (and every other episode of 16:9 television).
I agree totally and I’m suggesting fans of Planet Earth might find it super awesome to watch that TV show IMAX sized at home sometimes. Maybe not every time maybe not with every audience and even maybe not every cut of the show. I have watched it several times on my 17” laptop monitor and enjoyed it. Likewise that shouldn’t make a case that it shouldn’t be played in a proper FP HT.

I think if when they suggested showing it on IMAX screens they knew everyone was going to be nauseated by the overly immersive image and cinematography pushed beyond its limits they wouldn’t have done it and the fans wouldn’t have approved. I wasn’t at the premier but I doubt everyone funneled in and fought their way to get a seat in the rear of the IMAX.

I know if I watch a new episode of The Connors or an old episode of Perry Mason with IMAX immersion it is not at all going to benefit my viewing experience and even if I watched them as full height CIH comparing them to say Saving Private Ryan I would feel them larger than I feel comfortable with, where SPR would seem very immersive correct.

Let me make this point to you as you seem to be more interested in the discussion rather than simply bashing any comment I make. Whenever someone sets up a home theater they are normally confronted with making some compromises one such thing is seating distance. Most of us build our theaters to be enjoyed and showed off and enjoyed by our friends and families. We shoot for some happy medium that most of us would enjoy. We look at commercial theater specs THX and the like. Maybe you like 2X screen height as an acquired taste and your wife likes 2.5X. When you take her to a commercial movie you stop around 1/3 back and she says lets go a few more rows. And you sit down and there you are at 2.25X she’s happy and you are happy along with being happy she’s happy. There is always some compromise and adjusting to every situation. This what I’m talking about is within the margin of compromise IMO.

GOT, Planet Earth are of course not IMAX productions but they are IMO more IMAX-like than Dr. Phil. Lately I have been watching some of these 4k and 8k demos on YouTube some of them are many hours long and made with drones flying thru jungles and mountain ranges. The imagery is breathtaking and like soaring like a bird. I don’t know what this type of media is called its not motion pictures and its basically internet media / TV. It has no connection to IMAX I know that, and because I can, I have played it at all sorts of immersion levels for all sorts of viewers. Most agree it is super realistic when viewed pushing the edges of the image well into peripheral vision the same as IMAX would. The difference amounts to riding in an airplane watching it out thru a window and riding on an ultra light perched on the end of a pole on a seat. Both are great in their own way but fully immersive is the way that gives the butterflies.

My suggestion is one of increased options is all.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #342 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 11:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I know if I watch a new episode of The Connors or an old episode of Perry Mason with IMAX immersion....
^What exactly do you mean with "IMAX immersion"?
Killroy is offline  
post #343 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
^What exactly do you mean with "IMAX immersion"?
Well true IMAX immersion and what is widely accepted as IMAX immersion are different things. At home and not in an “IMAX At Home” $500k theater for me is a screen size equal to the width I would show a scope movie at only taller. If you run a CIH presentation setup at home and you play the movie Dunkirk the scope parts of the movie will totally fit your screen when the movie expands in height for the IMAX parts it would overshoot your screen and that is the size I call IMAX immersion.

I can actually go more immersive than that as I have a stealth screen wall, so I don’t say full screen. There is no boundary with my setup just whatever I deem as CIH+IMAX when you no longer have a frame to fill you figure out it isn’t about how much space you use it is about what makes the presentation best.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #344 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you run a CIH presentation setup at home and you play the movie Dunkirk the scope parts of the movie will totally fit your screen when the movie expands in height for the IMAX parts it would overshoot your screen and that is the size I call IMAX immersion.
Isn't that just a 16:9 screen?
Killroy is offline  
post #345 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 12:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Isn't that just a 16:9 screen?
Sure is there are a few type of 16:9 screens.

There are 16:9 CIW screens there are 16:9 CIA screens and there are 16:9 CIH+IMAX screens. That’s the main ones.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #346 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 12:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Killroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ninth Circle of Hell
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Sure is there are a few type of 16:9 screens.

There are 16:9 CIW screens there are 16:9 CIA screens and there are 16:9 CIH+IMAX screens. That’s the main ones.
Do you mean 16:9 screens with moveable masking systems? Have fun watching any Transformers IMAX movie with those. Burn out the masking motors in about 15 minutes.
Killroy is offline  
post #347 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 12:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Do you mean 16:9 screens with moveable masking systems? Have fun watching any Transformers IMAX movie with those. Burn out the masking motors in about 15 minutes.
What’s this masking you speak of?

My masking system moves and changes at the speed of light with no moving parts.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #348 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 01:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2218 Post(s)
Liked: 1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post
Isn't that just a 16:9 screen?
Since it's generally cropped to 1.78:1 at home it ends up being 16:9 that you are supposed to watch at IMAX like immersion (i.e. overwhelming vertical immersion). Or about 1.5x the screen height to seating distance.

If you just watch IMAX at a conventional seating distance, it's just basically a 1.85:1 experience with odd framing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #349 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 01:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2218 Post(s)
Liked: 1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
What’s this masking you speak of?

My masking system moves and changes at the speed of light with no moving parts.
Not having a masking system on your painted wall isn't really a selling point. You'll be dealing with the contrast hit as your DLP isn't stellar here (though still a lot better than an XPR DLP).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
There is no boundary with my setup
Yes there is. Just because you didn't buy a conventional screen with a frame doesn't mean your painted screen area doesn't have definable dimensions and an AR like any other screen.

jeahrens is offline  
post #350 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 02:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,883
Mentioned: 116 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2164 Post(s)
Liked: 1088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Not having a masking system on your painted wall isn't really a selling point. You'll be dealing with the contrast hit as your DLP isn't stellar here (though still a lot better than an XPR DLP).



Yes there is. Just because you didn't buy a conventional screen with a frame doesn't mean your painted screen area doesn't have definable dimensions and an AR like any other screen.
If I stick a light meter on my screen with or without a black frame around the image I’m certain it will measure the same CR. So I’m assuming you are talking about some perceived CR improvements similar to sticking some lights behind the screen for some form of bias lighting scheme or that my eyes detecting a much darker black than my projector can make will make my whites appear brighter or something and expand my perception of CR. I have tried these things and IMO nothing works as nice as a low gain neutral gray screen surface and self masking. When the area around the image is the same or very close to the on screen black there is no longer a mental comparison going on as to what is black and what is not black trying to be black. In your case with a scope screen with a black boarder and playing a flat image with no side masking you are seeing unlit screen as a form of black then the black boarder material as black and lastly projected black giving the brain 3 potential blacks to chose from. I have even projected boarders much like what windows does with the frame around a media player. Although those are entertaining and I have some viewers that really like the idea for me nothing can beat doing nothing. Like many things projector related it is subjective to the individual viewer and their level of expectation. All I can say and the above poster alluded to it when I play Dunkirk or any of the AR switcher movies it is imposable to mask for two ARs at once. With my stealth screen and its ND gray starting point I have yet to have a casual viewer notice the transitions let alone notice black bars. I have asked dozens after the movie and no one notices. Could I spend a whole lot more money and get a projector that does a whole lot better in terms of native CR? Of course I could. I could also as you mentioned spend more and do worse. It’s not a question of equipment it is a question of is my CR of a high enough quality to please my needs? And the answer is yes.

As to if my screen has a defined boundary. I have an infinite number of sizes I can project and an infinite number of ARs. Of course I have side walls and a ceiling and a floor as boundaries but they are well outside my vision so I would have no reason to conceder them limiting or even boundaries. My projector happens to be 16:9 but that is of little consequence as I only use the pixels required to make whatever AR is required. I had a 4:3 projector and then a 16:10 and now 16:9 nothing changes all those shapes can hold all other AR.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #351 of 351 Old 11-01-2019, 03:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,283
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2218 Post(s)
Liked: 1491
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If I stick a light meter on my screen with or without a black frame around the image I’m certain it will measure the same CR. So I’m assuming you are talking about some perceived CR improvements similar to sticking some lights behind the screen for some form of bias lighting scheme or that my eyes detecting a much darker black than my projector can make will make my whites appear brighter or something and expand my perception of CR. I have tried these things and IMO nothing works as nice as a low gain neutral gray screen surface and self masking. When the area around the image is the same or very close to the on screen black there is no longer a mental comparison going on as to what is black and what is not black trying to be black. In your case with a scope screen with a black boarder and playing a flat image with no side masking you are seeing unlit screen as a form of black then the black boarder material as black and lastly projected black giving the brain 3 potential blacks to chose from. I have even projected boarders much like what windows does with the frame around a media player. Although those are entertaining and I have some viewers that really like the idea for me nothing can beat doing nothing. Like many things projector related it is subjective to the individual viewer and their level of expectation. All I can say and the above poster alluded to it when I play Dunkirk or any of the AR switcher movies it is imposable to mask for two ARs at once. With my stealth screen and its ND gray starting point I have yet to have a casual viewer notice the transitions let alone notice black bars. I have asked dozens after the movie and no one notices. Could I spend a whole lot more money and get a projector that does a whole lot better in terms of native CR? Of course I could. I could also as you mentioned spend more and do worse. It’s not a question of equipment it is a question of is my CR of a high enough quality to please my needs? And the answer is yes.
Masking is employed either to cover areas that are lit by the panel with letterbox/pillarbox bars or lens pollution (light leaking out the front of the projector around the lens area). None of what you've typed changes the point that with no masking the letterboxing or pillarboxing being lit by panel is negatively impacting perceived contrast. And having seen DC2/3 DLPs, it most definitely is whether it's good enough for you or not. I also wouldn't be surprised if you have lens pollution on the screen as most DLPs suffer with this. That isn't to say you can't still be satisfied with it. But it isn't a win or advantage compared to a setup employing masking.

Pillarboxing when viewing 1.85:1 content on my particular setup is not lit by the panel and there is no lens pollution. So, there's no difference between the border and the unused area, all of it's simply black. Letterbox bars are never in the active area and are never visible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
As to if my screen has a defined boundary. I have an infinite number of sizes I can project and an infinite number of ARs. Of course I have side walls and a ceiling and a floor as boundaries but they are well outside my vision so I would have no reason to conceder them limiting or even boundaries. My projector happens to be 16:9 but that is of little consequence as I only use the pixels required to make whatever AR is required. I had a 4:3 projector and then a 16:10 and now 16:9 nothing changes all those shapes can hold all other AR.
You can zoom/shift different sized images into a conventional screen too. Doesn't really matter how you consider it, you have a finite limit to the size of image you display whether that is determined by the zoom and throw distance of the projector or the dimension of the painted area you want to fill.

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

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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