Really? scope dissed :( IMAX Enhanced - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 66Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 281 Old 10-07-2018, 04:43 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 sdurani View Post
I've watched The Longest Day cropped to 4x3 on my old TV. None of the shots appeared poorly framed nor was there notable picture info missing.
Then I suggest you compare the WS version of films like STAR WARS to the P&S versions and tell me that nothing is missing.

Also try and centre crop a movie like SEVEN and take note how well that doesn't work.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 281 Old 10-07-2018, 08:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Then I suggest you compare the WS version of films like STAR WARS to the P&S versions and tell me that nothing is missing.
You missed the point. By saying there was nothing "notable" missing I was showing how easy it is to justify cropping, since everyone gets to decide what picture information is important and not important. It's subjective, not objective.
Quote:
Also try and centre crop a movie like SEVEN and take note how well that doesn't work.
Bad example, since the full screen version of SE7EN is open matte, not centre crop.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #153 of 281 Old 10-07-2018, 08:36 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 sdurani View Post
You missed the point. By saying there was nothing "notable" missing I was showing how easy it is to justify cropping, since everyone gets to decide what picture information is important and not important. It's subjective, not objective. Bad example, since the full screen version of SE7EN is open matte, not centre crop.
Since when do we get to decide anything? It is called the Director's vision for a reason. To say anything else is like turning up the surrounds because you think it sounds better. No wonder home theatre is not liked by the pros.

The first version of SEVEN we got on DVD in the late 1990s was panned and scanned. The scene where Morgan and Pitt are discussion the killer has the actors close to the edges of the frame. In the DVD, and VHS (if remember right) switched ends depending on which actor was speaking.

Open mat is a work around but not great.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 281 Old 10-08-2018, 07:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Since when do we get to decide anything?
Every time. You're still missing the point of my comment.
Quote:
The first version of SEVEN we got on DVD in the late 1990s was panned and scanned.
Never seen that done for a movie shot in Super35. I have the Criterion laserdisc and DVD, both of which are 2.35. I DVR'd the full frame version off TV and also have the full frame version on the Canadian Blu-ray, both of which are open matte.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #155 of 281 Old 10-08-2018, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
After reading the last couple of pages, I want to point out that this is the Constant Image Height forum. Not the "Scope is the best AR" forum. There is no this AR is better than all others. CIH is about restoring the impact lost for wider ARs when viewed on narrower screens with an obvious exclusion of IMAX. Any non-IMAX film with a wider ratio than 1.78:1 is going to suffer when being presented on a screen of that ratio.

Pan and Scan was always a blight on Home Theater and there is no justification for it coming back. If the Director wants to release their film in an IMAX ratio, that's just fine. We don't want to re-enter an age where we have to seek out the director intended presentation just because the uneducated want to see more of their TV lit up.
jautor likes this.

jeahrens is online now  
post #156 of 281 Old 10-08-2018, 12:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 631 Post(s)
Liked: 182
I'm firmly in the CIH camp and I don't think IMAX at home is that practical. However, out of curiosity I watched the 4k version of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol last night on my reasonably well setup rs540 with ISCOIIIL at 135inch 2.4:1 scale, and I felt nothing at all when Cruise went out the building to free climb up the outside. This is one of the few I had seen at IMAX that had left an impression. And what an impression. Seeing that in IMAX I felt like I was there, dangling off the building myself. I am genuinely afraid of heights, and the first look over the edge as he approached the open window started my heart racing and the anxiety went through the roof while the expletives flew out of my mouth. Absolutely terrifying. At home? Absolutely nothing.

I think I will try a little brighter and a little louder, but clearly the actual IMAX experience was infinitely more impactful.
ScottAvery is online now  
post #157 of 281 Old 10-08-2018, 09:08 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,557
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3829 Post(s)
Liked: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I think I will try a little brighter and a little louder, but clearly the actual IMAX experience was infinitely more impactful.

Also, the theater was your first time seeing the movie. This time, you were already familiar with it and knew what was going to happen.

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 #158 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 12:54 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 sdurani View Post
Every time. You're still missing the point of my comment. Never seen that done for a movie shot in Super35. I have the Criterion laserdisc and DVD, both of which are 2.35. I DVR'd the full frame version off TV and also have the full frame version on the Canadian Blu-ray, both of which are open matte.
Terminator 2 special edition pan and scan. It even shows the process where a blue 1.33:1 frame moves left and right, in and out within the super 35 frame.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #159 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 07:14 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
Terminator 2 special edition pan and scan. It even shows the process where a blue 1.33:1 frame moves left and right, in and out within the super 35 frame.
That wasn't pan and scan the way the term is traditionally used for extracting a taller aspect ratio from a widescreen movie. Instead, it was re-composing the frame using panning and tilting and zooming. But it's not like they first extracted a 2.35 image and then panned and scanned that.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #160 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 07:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Also, the theater was your first time seeing the movie. This time, you were already familiar with it and knew what was going to happen.
First time or tenth time an image that fully fills or greater fills your peripheral vision will impact your feeling of reality.

Watching on a TV less immersive than one can do with FP of course is going to be less immersive unless you are sitting right up on the TV set. Then there are other artifacts of TV screens that come into play when sitting close.

TV is TV and is only as good as it can be. We all know that as that is the reason we moved to projection in the first place.

If you want that feeling when Tom Cruise goes out a 100 story window and clings to the building IMAX framing 1.43 will do that best. 1.89 next best and 2.35 less. Then the least of all would be any AR on a small TV screen.

There are many ways IMAX can work and action such as this is one way taking your breath away. There are also less high impact ways also by just showing us more of a sunrise or more of tall buildings making us feel more that we are there rather than watching out a window.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #161 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 07:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,557
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3829 Post(s)
Liked: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If you want that feeling when Tom Cruise goes out a 100 story window and clings to the building IMAX framing 1.43 will do that best. 1.89 next best and 2.35 less.
Well, you'll just have to take that up with the director of the movie, because he feels differently.

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 #162 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
After reading the last couple of pages, I want to point out that this is the Constant Image Height forum. Not the "Scope is the best AR" forum. There is no this AR is better than all others. CIH is about restoring the impact lost for wider ARs when viewed on narrower screens with an obvious exclusion of IMAX. Any non-IMAX film with a wider ratio than 1.78:1 is going to suffer when being presented on a screen of that ratio.

Pan and Scan was always a blight on Home Theater and there is no justification for it coming back. If the Director wants to release their film in an IMAX ratio, that's just fine. We don't want to re-enter an age where we have to seek out the director intended presentation just because the uneducated want to see more of their TV lit up.
Having the “uneducated” I prefer to think of them as can’t afford a 130” scope HT, or as the people without them none of us could afford to buy the media we enjoy for the low price mass marketing allows.

But whatever the reason they watch these movies on TV, the question is if providing them the un-cropped IMAX version allowing them to fill their TV sets and making them happy isn’t the best option for everyone.

Again an IMAX version is not an open matte nor is it a pan n scan. If the scope version is center cropped it is simple for anyone to do what Josh does and black out the rest for his scope setup. If it isn’t center cropped Josh still doesn’t mind and finds it ok to watch it center cropped. Then anyone that has a 16:9 projector and an IMAX screen is also happy. So everyone can get what they want from the same piece of media. It is a win-win-win.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #163 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 08:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Well, you'll just have to take that up with the director of the movie, because he feels differently.
Here is what he said. “The effect is NOT like seeing it in an IMAX theater, which forces you to sit forward, So I chose 2.40:1,” Bird explained. “I’m not opposed to a part IMAX Blu ray, it’s just not the way I chose to have it seen @ home.”

He later tweeted “I'm not opposed to a part IMAX Blu ray, it's just not the way I chose to have it seen @ home. If enough ask, it may happen.”

He is correct and that was 7 years ago and a great deal of change has happened in what one conceders “@ home”. That is the whole point of this and many similar threads here over the last year or so in the nature of what is @ home.

Times are changing and I’m sure directors that truly embrace the IMAX concept are somewhat rethinking the at home market.

If he truly didn’t like the idea behind bigger immersive parts in his movies why did he waste the time and money doing them in the first place.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #164 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,557
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3829 Post(s)
Liked: 2880
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
He is correct and that was 7 years ago and a great deal of change has happened in what one conceders “@ home”. That is the whole point of this and many similar threads here over the last year or so in the nature of what is @ home.
Did I miss the proliferation of 5-story tall IMAX screens in people's homes? When did that happen?

Quote:
If he truly didn’t like the idea behind bigger immersive parts in his movies why did he waste the time and money doing them in the first place.
Because the IMAX Corporation supplemented the movie's budget in exchange for the rights to a version they could market as an IMAX exclusive.

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 #165 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 08:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
I'm firmly in the CIH camp and I don't think IMAX at home is that practical. However, out of curiosity I watched the 4k version of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol last night on my reasonably well setup rs540 with ISCOIIIL at 135inch 2.4:1 scale, and I felt nothing at all when Cruise went out the building to free climb up the outside. This is one of the few I had seen at IMAX that had left an impression. And what an impression. Seeing that in IMAX I felt like I was there, dangling off the building myself. I am genuinely afraid of heights, and the first look over the edge as he approached the open window started my heart racing and the anxiety went through the roof while the expletives flew out of my mouth. Absolutely terrifying. At home? Absolutely nothing.

I think I will try a little brighter and a little louder, but clearly the actual IMAX experience was infinitely more impactful.
If you had access to a taller AR of the movie and you had an as wide as you do now screen but taller and it was a 4k presentation at home and you sat at a equally immersive distance as you did in the real IMAX theater, my guess is you would get at least 90% of that feeling in the pit of your stomach. If it was a 1.77 AR screen fill maybe 75% and if as you saw it in scope you know the effect you felt.

I don’t think we will ever recreate IMAX at home or at least for a while and at some big expense. It is really all perfect in the IMAX theater. But we can get close. Companies like the one being acknowledged in the OP of this thread are pursuing that goal.

For me it is a logical step to go along with UHD HDR at home and has nothing to do with disrespecting scope as an AR.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #166 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Did I miss the proliferation of 5-story tall IMAX screens in people's homes? When did that happen?



Because the IMAX Corporation supplemented the movie's budget in exchange for the rights to a version they could market as an IMAX exclusive.
Home screens are not 5 stories tall yet, nor is your scope screen at home 3 stories tall. In the last 7 years home screens have at least doubled in height and at least doubled in resolution though, so that does have the potential for one to say people are watching up to 4 times as immersive if they want to. Will that have an impact on directors thought process? Maybe.

Your second thought I think is spot on. As he did it then because one he maybe wanted to, and two because IMAX kicked in a boat load of cash. Money is a great motivator maybe the biggest one in the movie industry. So what is IMAX up to today? Be it good or bad in your mind, They figured out if we dump a bunch of money in to make an IMAX or partly IMAX movie why let the profits end at the box office. Hell TV sets look like an IMAX1.89 screen home HT projectors look like an IMAX1.89 screen. Lets put our little IMAX logo on the BD cover and fit our product on the disc. Then give the greedy director more money to like the expanding height movie a little better @ home and we get a bigger cut of the pie for the next 20 years.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #167 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 09:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Having the “uneducated” I prefer to think of them as can’t afford a 130” scope HT, or as the people without them none of us could afford to buy the media we enjoy for the low price mass marketing allows.

But whatever the reason they watch these movies on TV, the question is if providing them the un-cropped IMAX version allowing them to fill their TV sets and making them happy isn’t the best option for everyone.

Again an IMAX version is not an open matte nor is it a pan n scan. If the scope version is center cropped it is simple for anyone to do what Josh does and black out the rest for his scope setup. If it isn’t center cropped Josh still doesn’t mind and finds it ok to watch it center cropped. Then anyone that has a 16:9 projector and an IMAX screen is also happy. So everyone can get what they want from the same piece of media. It is a win-win-win.
As I said if the director endorses and releases a film in an IMAX ratio, I have no issue.

If a film is being deliberately butchered to fit a TV screen without creative consent, then we should all have issues.
ScottAvery and bud16415 like this.

jeahrens is online now  
post #168 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 12:15 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,147
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
I'm going to express an opinion based on my enjoyment of scope films but all films for that matter irrespective of AR. I watched The Cabinet of Dr Caligari(1.2:1 AR) one night and Bad Day At Blackrock(2.55:1 AR) the next. I like scope partially because it allows the largest screen possible in the shape room I have as well as possible seating options. Even a Directors Choice type screen in my room would have resulted in larger 16x9 and IMAX but it would have made scope significantly smaller which I felt would have been a poor trade.

I think for large presentations like mine there is little to be gained with more height as far as immersion. I like the ability I have to basically fill my field of view in a way my eyes work. I think if I did have a room like Rob Hahn where he has a 20' ceiling and very tall risers that an IMAX shape as an option would be fun but probably no more than 3D which I can personally enjoy very very little over time. Even then the distance from the screen must increase to make looking down primarily ,more comfortable so there is then a trade in the immersion not as much a great gain at least in my case.

The number of scope films is quite large and impressive while IMAX/scope switches represent an almost miniscule subset and of those very few would be on my re-watch list.

I do think this will be a flash in the pan as far as films generally where most new and an extremely large library of past scope films make the potential for scope screens significantly better IMO.

Of course it can be argued that the whole theater in the home thing may be passing ,for me it's just reaching it's stride.
Josh Z and jeahrens like this.

Last edited by Art Sonneborn; 10-09-2018 at 12:36 PM.
Art Sonneborn is online now  
post #169 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 01:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
@Art Sonneborn What a great comparison of two movies from different eras of Cinema. I have seen Bad Day at Black Rock with its mega all star cast and super wide AR but it has been years ago. I added it to my list to watch with variable screen size method as I also can’t get enough of the super wide AR’s as CIH. I haven’t viewed The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, but see it is available to stream and also added it to my list as Halloween is approaching. I watched some trailers for it and even previewed it a bit to get a feel for the cinematography used on it and with its tall AR the movie seems to have been filmed with lots of wide lens shots and lots of interesting stuff being shown in the ample head room. Exactly the type of framing I often talk about and as Rob Hahn mentioned in his theater of the month interview as what reflects the grand movie palace of that time with towering screens. I will defiantly watch it taller than my CIH setup would mandate.

Anyway thanks for the suggestion of the two movies.

I disagree a little that to do Rob Hahn type theater you need to go to the extremes he has and in no way do you need 20’ high ceilings to conceder it. He has an also deep theater and has 3 or more well spaced rows of seats if I remember.

Most people are scaled down a lot more than that and many like myself have a single row. With a single row it isn’t too hard to do CIH+IMAX even with 8’ ceilings and with lens shift you can keep all the formats in a comfortable level for screen height.

This might be a flash in the pan some said that about scope also. If it were just the dozen expanding IMAX movies I would agree. That’s why I technically don’t call my presentation CIH+IMAX. All those great Academy movies in themselves for me is more than enough reason to want expanding height. That is if you believe that is how they should be shown.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #170 of 281 Old 10-09-2018, 07:27 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 sdurani View Post
That wasn't pan and scan the way the term is traditionally used for extracting a taller aspect ratio from a widescreen movie. Instead, it was re-composing the frame using panning and tilting and zooming. But it's not like they first extracted a 2.35 image and then panned and scanned that.
It is not, nor has it even been, a taller aspect ratio. Anything x:1 is the SAME height. And in video, that means a smaller image for 1.33:1.

I have been on this forum for about 13 years now and I can not believe we are still having this same bull**** conversation where I am told I have been doing it all wrong by those without a A-Lens.

I chose to invest in Constant Image Height so I could project Scope movie in Scope and not letterbox. IMAX is not even a consideration in my cinema because I chose to go scope, not IMAX. IMAX has been dying painfully for years. It doesn't suddenly make it the only way to watch movies because it embraced 2k digital projection.

The lens I own costs more than a new Epson e-shift 4k laser projector! It is not some cheap crap that I am prepared to move on because others can't afford one for themselves. Yes it is all about the money and it always has been. Look at the guys in the $20k section. When 4k came out, most moved their lenses, but now it seems they have reinstalled them. Why? Because they know better.

Sent from my CPH1701 using Tapatalk

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #171 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 06:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
OFF TOPIC WARNING.

This thread is wandering around and there is nothing wrong with that when the subject is open ended in nature as this one is. The topic was about IMAX and what is going on in the movie industry and even more importantly the home theater end of the movie industry. It is fine if your belief is that IMAX is dieing a slow death or even if it is just your hope, but it hasn’t died yet. 3D was pronounced dead last year and I still see it as a topic of interest every day in a bunch of forums and every day people are still enjoying their 3D movies.

This forum is about CIH foremost. There are several ways to enjoy CIH, zooming or A-lens are a couple. I don’t think anyone has attacked anyone for choosing the A-lens method. It is a great technology. Some a embracing it for its brightness advantage with HDR. But if there was a trend to track the vast number of people new to CIH are starting off with zooming and most remain happy with that method. Quality lens is very expensive and many don’t have the budget to go there. Projectors have got brighter and resolution better and for many on a budget zooming is now good enough.

Being as this forums goal should be to try and get people to think about proper presentation and get people involved as things in the industry change like IMAX. It seems it does a better job of trying to run anyone off trying to just have an opinion of their own.

Maybe it is time to have a new forum titled just “Presentation” where people could be free to explore these changes to the industry that took place in the motion picture industry from the 1960 to today. Things like IMAX and the changes between SD and HD TV, and the new media that we stream.

Because really everything that is acceptable conversation here is the status quo prior to 1960’s.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #172 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 07:07 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,147
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
@Art Sonneborn What a great comparison of two movies from different eras of Cinema. I have seen Bad Day at Black Rock with its mega all star cast and super wide AR but it has been years ago. I added it to my list to watch with variable screen size method as I also can’t get enough of the super wide AR’s as CIH. I haven’t viewed The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, but see it is available to stream and also added it to my list as Halloween is approaching. I watched some trailers for it and even previewed it a bit to get a feel for the cinematography used on it and with its tall AR the movie seems to have been filmed with lots of wide lens shots and lots of interesting stuff being shown in the ample head room. Exactly the type of framing I often talk about and as Rob Hahn mentioned in his theater of the month interview as what reflects the grand movie palace of that time with towering screens. I will defiantly watch it taller than my CIH setup would mandate.

Anyway thanks for the suggestion of the two movies.

I disagree a little that to do Rob Hahn type theater you need to go to the extremes he has and in no way do you need 20’ high ceilings to conceder it. He has an also deep theater and has 3 or more well spaced rows of seats if I remember.

Most people are scaled down a lot more than that and many like myself have a single row. With a single row it isn’t too hard to do CIH+IMAX even with 8’ ceilings and with lens shift you can keep all the formats in a comfortable level for screen height.

This might be a flash in the pan some said that about scope also. If it were just the dozen expanding IMAX movies I would agree. That’s why I technically don’t call my presentation CIH+IMAX. All those great Academy movies in themselves for me is more than enough reason to want expanding height. That is if you believe that is how they should be shown.
I've been in Rob's theater his steep risers emulate IMAX way more than my theater could especially the way you sit and look downward to the screen. I mean, I could see this working with an eight foot ceiling but you'd have to be sitting on a four foot riser to get the same or similar experience.

IMAX theaters have very steep risers and fewer seats for the screen size specifically so that you can look down at the screen.

Rob and I do disagree on CIH experience and that is he feels that scope wasn't meant to be larger than academy but IMO if you look at theaters during the time wide screen came in they widened the screen from the academy shape they didn't mask it vertically. This was specifically intended to combat television and reduced ticket sales. Scope was meant to be the largest and to encompass a greater field of view.

I mentioned those films not as a suggestion but simply to indicate that I like films from all ARs.

Art

Last edited by Art Sonneborn; 10-10-2018 at 08:08 AM.
Art Sonneborn is online now  
post #173 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
It is not, nor has it even been, a taller aspect ratio. Anything x:1 is the SAME height.
Resorting to semantic games. I'll play along. The two movies you mentioned (SE7EN and Termainator 2) do get taller when the aspect ratio isn't 2.35, because there is image area above & below the 2.35 frame. The vast majority of consumer displays are not 2.35, so other aspect ratios are taller (not wider). Even in commercial theatres, PLF auditoriums like IMAX and Dolby Cinema get taller (not wider) when playing non-2.35 movies. Increasing height is not my definition of "wider". YMMV.
bud16415 likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #174 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 08:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
morphinapg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,684
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked: 1768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Resorting to semantic games. I'll play along. The two movies you mentioned (SE7EN and Termainator 2) do get taller when the aspect ratio isn't 2.35, because there is image area above & below the 2.35 frame. The vast majority of consumer displays are not 2.35, so other aspect ratios are taller (not wider). Even in commercial theatres, PLF auditoriums like IMAX and Dolby Cinema get taller (not wider) when playing non-2.35 movies. Increasing height is not my definition of "wider". YMMV.
Indeed. Some aspect changes are intended to change vertically, and others horizontally. It matters what the primary framing of the image was. The primary framing should be where the constant image height happens, and then if the image expands (or contracts) vertically, it should expand (or contract) vertically beyond your initial image height, if you are capable of doing that. If it expands (or contracts) horizontally, then it should expand (or contract) along your constant image height you determined earlier. So for example, Infinity War was framed for Scope, so the width of the movie should match how you would display Scope in constant image height, and then if an IMAX version is released, it should expand vertically beyond that. This is why you would typically need a very specially designed theater to display IMAX content properly.
sdurani likes this.

Living Room: Sony XBR65X930D, Sony HTCT780, Base PS4, Philips BDP7501
Bedroom: LG OLED55C6P, Denon AVR-X1300W (5.1.2), PS4 Pro, Philips BDP7502, AV.io 4K
Check out my video game movie edits
morphinapg is offline  
post #175 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 09:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphinapg View Post
Some aspect changes are intended to change vertically, and others horizontally.
Agreed. My issue was with the attempt to turn it into a semantic argument: "Anything x:1 is the SAME height." IF the number used to describe the height of an aspect ratio is treated as an absolute (rather than relative), then by that logic a 16x9 aspect ratio must be 3 times the height of 4x3 frame. Just because the denominator in both cases can be reduced to 1, it doesn't mean there is no such thing as a taller aspect ratio. As you said, aspect changes can be vertical or horizontal. For the record, I do get the philosophical argument that "widescreen", as the term implies, was intended to be wider than other aspect ratios (even if it doesn't work out that way on most displays). I'm just not absolutist about it.
morphinapg likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #176 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 09:03 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,147
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
OFF TOPIC WARNING.

This thread is wandering around and there is nothing wrong with that when the subject is open ended in nature as this one is. The topic was about IMAX and what is going on in the movie industry and even more importantly the home theater end of the movie industry. It is fine if your belief is that IMAX is dieing a slow death or even if it is just your hope, but it hasn’t died yet. 3D was pronounced dead last year and I still see it as a topic of interest every day in a bunch of forums and every day people are still enjoying their 3D movies.

This forum is about CIH foremost. There are several ways to enjoy CIH, zooming or A-lens are a couple. I don’t think anyone has attacked anyone for choosing the A-lens method. It is a great technology. Some a embracing it for its brightness advantage with HDR. But if there was a trend to track the vast number of people new to CIH are starting off with zooming and most remain happy with that method. Quality lens is very expensive and many don’t have the budget to go there. Projectors have got brighter and resolution better and for many on a budget zooming is now good enough.

Being as this forums goal should be to try and get people to think about proper presentation and get people involved as things in the industry change like IMAX. It seems it does a better job of trying to run anyone off trying to just have an opinion of their own.

Maybe it is time to have a new forum titled just “Presentation” where people could be free to explore these changes to the industry that took place in the motion picture industry from the 1960 to today. Things like IMAX and the changes between SD and HD TV, and the new media that we stream.

Because really everything that is acceptable conversation here is the status quo prior to 1960’s.
Talk about hope.. 3D is moribund ,soon you won't be able to watch it at home for the most part with new TVs not even coming with it as an option any more. We don't need a presentation thread we need a thread in another sub-forum for just IMAX switches in scope films in the home. You are right in one thing this is the wrong forum for IMAX discussion. It doesn't take a genius to see that just as if I were to go into an IMAX thread saying wider is better than taller.


I've not wandered I described very concisely why I have a scope room and why I like it and the limitations of a much taller screen in my room.


I think that IMAX is doing as they should as a business and branch out to remain relevant. It is my opinion that this too will pass there being so many new films in Scope not to mention more than sixty years of scope catalogue makes it a much better bet for quality immersion in the home than IMAX/ scope switching AR films.

Art
bud16415 likes this.

Last edited by Art Sonneborn; 10-10-2018 at 09:07 AM.
Art Sonneborn is online now  
post #177 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 09:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Agreed. My issue was with the attempt to turn it into a semantic argument: "Anything x:1 is the SAME height." IF the number used to describe the height of an aspect ratio is treated as an absolute (rather than relative), then by that logic a 16x9 aspect ratio must be 3 times the height of 4x3 frame. Just because the denominator in both cases can be reduced to 1, it doesn't mean there is no such thing as a taller aspect ratio. As you said, aspect changes can be vertical or horizontal. For the record, I do get the philosophical argument that "widescreen", as the term implies, was intended to be wider than other aspect ratios (even if it doesn't work out that way on most displays). I'm just not absolutist about it.
Yes but in the film world the standard is width expressed per unit of height. So this isn't really something open to interpretation. The two ratios you're discussing when talking film would be expressed as 1.78:1 and 1.33:1.

While you're correct that some movies when being defaced to fit a 4:3 TV set did have the matte opened to include material not previously seen, this wasn't always the case. And it still greatly harmed the composition of the material and went against the director's intent. So there's really no reason to point out corner cases where this film's butchered 1.33:1 framing came from X part of the frame vs. Y. It is still something that should not be tolerated or endorsed under any circumstance.

jeahrens is online now  
post #178 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 10:13 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,558
Mentioned: 192 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6963 Post(s)
Liked: 5938
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Yes but in the film world the standard is width expressed per unit of height. So this isn't really something open to interpretation. The two ratios you're discussing when talking film would be expressed as 1.78:1 and 1.33:1.
Understood, for you this is not open to interpretation, so the word "taller" doesn't exist when you discuss aspect ratios. I hope you understand that not everyone is limited to that approach: the terms "4x3" and "16x9" are used routinely when discussing aspect ratios.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #179 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 10:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,568
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post
I've been in Rob's theater his steep risers emulate IMAX way more than my theater could especially the way you sit and look downward to the screen. I mean, I could see this working with an eight foot ceiling but you'd have to be sitting on a four foot riser to get the same or similar experience.

IMAX theaters have very steep risers and fewer seats for the screen size specifically so that you can look down at the screen.

Rob and I do disagree on CIH experience and that is he feels that scope wasn't meant to be larger than academy but IMO if you look at theaters during the time wide screen came in they widened the screen from the academy shape they didn't mask it vertically. This was specifically intended to combat television and reduced ticket sales. Scope was meant to be the largest and to encompass a greater field of view.

I mentioned those films not as a suggestion but simply to indicate that I like films from all ARs.

Art
First off how lucky for you to have a chance to view Rob’s theater.

Stadium seating is not only used in IMAX and I have always liked my eyes about center on a big screen regardless of immersion level. My very first home theater was close to 15 years ago. It was the days of DVD and XGA projectors were still considered acceptable. I knew less than I know now and I built the Theater in the only place I had to build it and that was an abandoned coalbunker in a 150 year old home. The ceiling ended up being 6’4” and I placed a 120” 4:3 screen in there 6’x8’. 2 inches off the floor and 2 inches from the ceiling. I was lucky and bought a 7 seat section of original seats out of our historic Warner Theater when they remodeled and sat them on a 5” riser behind a low couch that could hold 4. The front row immersion was pretty IMAX like and the second row was enough to blow people away that were used to 32-36” TVs as being huge. With time we bought as many of the 1.43 IMAX movies as we could get our hands on as DVD. We would normally show two back to back with an intermission in the middle and friends kept inviting their friends to our Mini IMAX.

For me that was proof of concept using crappy media and a crappy projector it held wow factor for what it lost in quality.

Today I realize the power of zoom and people are not as easily wowed as they once were, and all I suggest is it is possible to have it all. I can run as CIH year in and year out if I want. Just as Rob can do in his theater if he wishes. We have 100% everything it takes to be a complete CIH theater. We can also be a CIA theater if we want, or a CIH+IMAX (with some lens shift). If the urge strikes we can also free form it with media that has nothing to do with cinema. The TV show Planet Earth comes to mind. There is nothing at all wrong with Scope or CIH presentation I support it 100%. IMAX may die tomorrow we don’t know the future. Some well directed prestige TV IMO is more like IMAX and less like TV. As an example Game of Thrones and when that TV was brought to the big screen the directors chose IMAX venues. I don’t know how many things might come along in the future like that, I just know I will be able to adapt to it. You mentioned Day at Black Rock with its 2.55 AR or a more recent Hateful Eight. Both of them I can show at the same height as any other scope movie. True CIH.

To me CIH is a form of presentation and has nothing to do with the AR of the screen it is being shown on.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #180 of 281 Old 10-10-2018, 10:36 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,147
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1194 Post(s)
Liked: 1631
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Understood, for you this is not open to interpretation, so the word "taller" doesn't exist when you discuss aspect ratios. I hope you understand that not everyone is limited to that approach: the terms "4x3" and "16x9" are used routinely when discussing aspect ratios.

But not with film. Film aspect ratios are denoted as width relative to single unit height.
Art Sonneborn is online now  
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