Confusing myself about CIH, have a few questions - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 4Likes
  • 1 Post By Josh Z
  • 1 Post By bud16415
  • 1 Post By bud16415
  • 1 Post By jeahrens
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 02:00 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Confusing myself about CIH, have a few questions

To start, I am a noob. Trying to sort through this giant magnitude of info to come up with my own design. Now considering screens, projectors, and CIH. Prefer the best possible but not at the expense of a billion dollars. A few thoughts/questions...

Current plan is 19x28x12 room, JVC NX7 projector, 150-180" diagonal screen. This plan keep changes all the time as I learn more.

The way I understand CIH: Use a 2.35 screen, zoom 2.35 formatted films so that the letter boxes and pillars spill over. Other formats zoom in/out to match height of your screen. These lens formats can be saved for quick recall or good projectors. Problem is a bigger image using up your brightness. This can be fixed with an expensive anamorphic lens.

-With this zoom method can IMAX parts of a film be cut off? I hear the term "electronic scaling" for this?
-Do you have to buy a 2.35 projector? Or have a 16:9 projector? Or are these even separate/different projectors?
-Would a more expensive/brighter projector be cheaper than an anamorphic lens?
-Are anamorphic lenses ok for 4k? I seem to remember reading some issue with this.
-Could you just have 2 screens with one that lowers from ceiling for 2.35? Or does this require multiple projectors?
-When sizing screen, I read a lot about viewing angles to the width of the screen. Does this not apply to 2.35? Or is this just for 16:9? CIH seems like you would have a properly sized 2.35 screen and then 16:9 stuff would be too small and inadequately sized. Or is the artistic intention of 2.35 films meant to be the same height as 16:9 but just longer.
-Why are not more people doing CIH?
Travis Reed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 03:02 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,656
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4805 Post(s)
Liked: 3712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Current plan is 19x28x12 room, JVC NX7 projector, 150-180" diagonal screen. This plan keep changes all the time as I learn more.
That is a very large screen size that you will have a lot of trouble illuminating sufficiently, especially for HDR content (which begs for more brightness than SDR). How far away will you be sitting? Just because you have that much wall space available doesn't mean you need to fill it all with screen. In fact, sitting too close to a screen that large can be uncomfortable (like sitting in the first row of a movie theater) and will really magnify any flaws in the image quality.

Quote:
The way I understand CIH: Use a 2.35 screen, zoom 2.35 formatted films so that the letter boxes and pillars spill over. Other formats zoom in/out to match height of your screen. These lens formats can be saved for quick recall or good projectors. Problem is a bigger image using up your brightness. This can be fixed with an expensive anamorphic lens.
You've understood the basic principles.

Quote:
-With this zoom method can IMAX parts of a film be cut off? I hear the term "electronic scaling" for this?
When you zoom the projector to fill the 2.35:1 screen, any image above or below the 2.35:1 frame lines will be projected onto your walls. For a typical 2.35:1 movie, that just means the black letterbox bars that you'll probably never notice. For a movie with IMAX variable aspect ratio, such as The Dark Knight, active picture will shine onto your walls during certain scenes.

Some projectors - and the JVC NX7 is one - offer an electronic masking feature that can blank out parts of the picture and turn it into black bars. This can be used to turn a variable ratio movie into a constant height 2.35:1 movie. (Note that these IMAX VAR movies were photographed and composed to be safe for cropping to 2.35:1, which is how they played in all theaters other than IMAX.)

Quote:
-Do you have to buy a 2.35 projector? Or have a 16:9 projector? Or are these even separate/different projectors?
There are no 2.35:1 projectors on the market currently. Most home theater projectors are 16:9, either 1920x1080 pixels for HD or 3840x2160 pixels for 4k. Native 4k projectors from JVC and Sony use 4096x2160 imaging panels with a 17:9 aspect ratio. I can't speak for Sony, but on the JVC models you can set the projector to use only 3840x2160 of the pixels when watching 16:9 content, or can slightly zoom up to 4096x2160 for wider aspect ratios. You crop a little off the top and bottom when you do this, but if the content is letterboxed you only lose some black bars.

Quote:
-Would a more expensive/brighter projector be cheaper than an anamorphic lens?
Yes. You should plan for an anamorphic lens to nearly double your budget.

Quote:
-Are anamorphic lenses ok for 4k? I seem to remember reading some issue with this.
Older anamorphic lenses designed for HD will not pass 4k detail. You need a new Panamorph Paladin lens for 4k.

Quote:
-Could you just have 2 screens with one that lowers from ceiling for 2.35? Or does this require multiple projectors?
You could do this. Some people here take that approach. You do not need two projectors. The question is what you are trying to accomplish with it.

Quote:
-When sizing screen, I read a lot about viewing angles to the width of the screen. Does this not apply to 2.35? Or is this just for 16:9? CIH seems like you would have a properly sized 2.35 screen and then 16:9 stuff would be too small and inadequately sized. Or is the artistic intention of 2.35 films meant to be the same height as 16:9 but just longer.
The intention of Constant Image Height is to install a screen with as large a 16:9 image as you are comfortable with, and then expand the width for 2.35:1.

Most human beings have two eyes on their face arranged side-by-side, and have more horizontal peripheral vision than vertical. (Some people in this forum will beg to disagree with this. I suspect that they're cyclopses.)

Quote:
-Why are not more people doing CIH?
Ignorance. For the past couple of decades, people have been trained to accept 16:9 as the standard screen aspect ratio for everything they watch, even though it directly contradicts the artistic intention of motion picture photographic composition.

IMAX has further confused the issue by designing their theaters with oversized screens that are close to 16:9 in ratio, which leads people to assume that "extra big 16:9" is some sort of platonic ideal for screen shapes.

No matter how large a 16:9 screen you install, episodes of The Bachelor will always be larger and more immersive than Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, or Lord of the Rings. Think about that.

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 #3 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 03:05 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 25,656
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4805 Post(s)
Liked: 3712
Countdown to Bud butting his head in to insist that Constant Image Height is dumb and everybody should project a big 16:9 image onto a blank wall. In 3... 2...
Craig Peer likes this.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 03:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2316 Post(s)
Liked: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
To start, I am a noob. Trying to sort through this giant magnitude of info to come up with my own design. Now considering screens, projectors, and CIH. Prefer the best possible but not at the expense of a billion dollars. A few thoughts/questions...

Current plan is 19x28x12 room, JVC NX7 projector, 150-180" diagonal screen. This plan keep changes all the time as I learn more.

The way I understand CIH: Use a 2.35 screen, zoom 2.35 formatted films so that the letter boxes and pillars spill over. Other formats zoom in/out to match height of your screen. These lens formats can be saved for quick recall or good projectors. Problem is a bigger image using up your brightness. This can be fixed with an expensive anamorphic lens.
An anamorphic lens will help, but pushing a LOT over 150" is going to be tough to light properly with 4K HDR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-With this zoom method can IMAX parts of a film be cut off? I hear the term "electronic scaling" for this?
The NX7, which I own and use with a 2.35:1 screen has electronic masking that can eliminate overspill on IMAX variable aspect ratio material. I have masking set for 2.00:1, 2.20:1 and 2.35:1 installation modes. It works very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-Do you have to buy a 2.35 projector? Or have a 16:9 projector? Or are these even separate/different projectors?
No, the NX7 (which has a native 1.9:1 panel) can zoom/shift the program content to fill the height of the 2.35:1 screen. I think a lot of us would like to see a 21:9/2.35:1 native panel, but honestly with the pixel density of these projectors it really isn't needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-Would a more expensive/brighter projector be cheaper than an anamorphic lens?
Your in an interesting spot. There are a few 4K projectors that will have more light output than an NX7, but none closely priced that approaches the image quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-Are anamorphic lenses ok for 4k? I seem to remember reading some issue with this.
You do need to research whether the optics of a given lens can properly resolve 4K. Lenses that can are quite expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-Could you just have 2 screens with one that lowers from ceiling for 2.35? Or does this require multiple projectors?
No much need for multiple screens in my opinion. If you have the image height sized where you want it, than the 16:9 image will be as big as you desire. I have seen 2 screen setups where the 16:9 is an ALR for watching sports with the lights on and the 2.35:1 is neutral material for bat cave movie viewing. The setups that have 2 screens for movie viewing I've seen where the owner wants narrower content slightly taller than 2.35:1 could just as easily be served by one custom screen with the height of the 16:9 and width of the 2.35:1 screen. Usually ends up being somewhere around 2.00:1. But in most cases, you'd simply get a 2.35:1 screen in the height you want and be done with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-When sizing screen, I read a lot about viewing angles to the width of the screen. Does this not apply to 2.35? Or is this just for 16:9? CIH seems like you would have a properly sized 2.35 screen and then 16:9 stuff would be too small and inadequately sized. Or is the artistic intention of 2.35 films meant to be the same height as 16:9 but just longer.
Viewing angles still apply but seating distance should be based on height and not width. Generally speaking people fall into a range of 2-3x screen height for seating distance. So, for example, for a 50" tall screen most people would want their seating 100-150" away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
-Why are not more people doing CIH?
A lot of people are. I've been on several theater crawls and the ratio is about 50/50. Both of the local AVS members I know building theaters right now are going CIH. I think as more and more streaming content gets wider and wider you'll see more and more interest too.

In your case I would suggest going to the smaller end of your screen range and sticking with the NX7.

jeahrens is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 03:21 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
That is a very large screen size that you will have a lot of trouble illuminating sufficiently, especially for HDR content (which begs for more brightness than SDR). How far away will you be sitting? Just because you have that much wall space available doesn't mean you need to fill it all with screen. In fact, sitting too close to a screen that large can be uncomfortable (like sitting in the first row of a movie theater) and will really magnify any flaws in the image quality.



You've understood the basic principles.



When you zoom the projector to fill the 2.35:1 screen, any image above or below the 2.35:1 frame lines will be projected onto your walls. For a typical 2.35:1 movie, that just means the black letterbox bars that you'll probably never notice. For a movie with IMAX variable aspect ratio, such as The Dark Knight, active picture will shine onto your walls during certain scenes.

Some projectors - and the JVC NX7 is one - offer an electronic masking feature that can blank out parts of the picture and turn it into black bars. This can be used to turn a variable ratio movie into a constant height 2.35:1 movie. (Note that these IMAX VAR movies were photographed and composed to be safe for cropping to 2.35:1, which is how they played in all theaters other than IMAX.)



There are no 2.35:1 projectors on the market currently. Most home theater projectors are 16:9, either 1920x1080 pixels for HD or 3840x2160 pixels for 4k. Native 4k projectors from JVC and Sony use 4096x2160 imaging panels with a 17:9 aspect ratio. I can't speak for Sony, but on the JVC models you can set the projector to use only 3840x2160 of the pixels when watching 16:9 content, or can slightly zoom up to 4096x2160 for wider aspect ratios. You crop a little off the top and bottom when you do this, but if the content is letterboxed you only lose some black bars.



Yes. You should plan for an anamorphic lens to nearly double your budget.



Older anamorphic lenses designed for HD will not pass 4k detail. You need a new Panamorph Paladin lens for 4k.



You could do this. Some people here take that approach. You do not need two projectors. The question is what you are trying to accomplish with it.



The intention of Constant Image Height is to install a screen with as large a 16:9 image as you are comfortable with, and then expand the width for 2.35:1.

Most human beings have two eyes on their face arranged side-by-side, and have more horizontal peripheral vision than vertical. (Some people in this forum will beg to disagree with this. I suspect that they're cyclopses.)



Ignorance. For the past couple of decades, people have been trained to accept 16:9 as the standard screen aspect ratio for everything they watch, even though it directly contradicts the artistic intention of motion picture photographic composition.

IMAX has further confused the issue by designing their theaters with oversized screens that are close to 16:9 in ratio, which leads people to assume that "extra big 16:9" is some sort of platonic ideal for screen shapes.

No matter how large a 16:9 screen you install, episodes of The Bachelor will always be larger and more immersive than Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, or Lord of the Rings. Think about that.
Man thanks for taking the time to answer all that. I really appreciate it. I am glad you cleared up the projection stuff, sounds like they all just do 16:9 content.

I truly laughed out loud at that last sentence! I sounds like the pitch from CIH guys is to size the screen based on vertical height. Seems odd when the other guys are sizing screen strictly based on horizontal length. Your eyeball analogy makes sense though.

This is new construction. I started room size that was big and fit acoustic golden ratio. I think 180" screen is what gave my middle row the recommended 45 degree viewing angle. (2 row with bar stools in back configuration). It of course gives a high 60-65 degree angle for the front row so I am considering making the front row 45-50 degrees and thus rows behind it in the 30-40 degree. OR make the front row beanbag chairs and pillows for kids which might help. I need to run to a HT store or something and sit down and see what these angles look like. Or perhaps build my room, buy everything, hook up projector, turn it on, then size my screen. Now my head hurts.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 04:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
I wasn’t going to reply as the other guys have covered all the CIH bases, but seeing as how Josh Z invited me to I will make a brief statement.

Given CIW basically TV presentation compared to CIH classical commercial theater presentation for the last 70 years there is no comparison. As Josh would say do you want to watch Wheel of Fortune (1.77:1) larger than Ben Hur 1959 (2.76:1) or even Ben Hur 2016 (2.35:1). Then on the other hand who wants to watch Wheel of Fortune even as large as your massive screen would show it as CIH. Then you might ask how could I watch Ben Hur 1959 as CIH without cropping off the ends. These movies are rare but The Hateful Eight 2015 was (2.76:1) as well.

That said the vast history of movies fall into 3 categories Academy ratio 1.375:1 then Flat 1.85:1 and Scope 2.35:1. those 3 sizes give or take a little comprise 99% of all movies you will want to watch in your theater. Then add in some really great TV not game shows or cheesy reality TV, but some streaming content not made for network TV. Lots of it is coming as 2.0:1 on Netflix and Amazon etc. some is 16:9 like Game of Thrones and now Amazon is making movies like The Aeronauts that was made as an IMAX expander just like something Christopher Nolan would make like Dunkirk.

My point is CIH is an excellent method of presentation and much better than CIW, but there are changes going on in the TV and film industry and of course there are outliers. You can neglect or ignore or work around all these with CIH. The two I have most trouble working around are Academy and IMAX. Academy because there is a vast collection of them and in my mind CIH doesn’t give them the immersion they got in the 1920-30s in the movie palaces of the day, and more is something you can easily decide yourself is with IMAX / IMAX expanders. Watch Dunkirk and The Aeronauts both cropped and allowed to expand and judge for yourself the feeling you get.

I agree with Josh Z we have two eyes and they roll around and take in the action. Side to side with eye movement we can even slightly see behind us even so there is no width too wide if we were trying to make reality in our theater. We are limited up and down and NASA and the Air Force and the medical industry have measured our FOV and it is tall enough to take in the old IMAX 1.43:1 AR when IMAX studied our vision in the 60’s and surely will take in the 1.89:1 AR we get today on BD. Cinematography is all about the director painting a picture for us to look at some of it in critical focus and some of it stretching our peripheral vision making more realism. Scope has been doing this for 70 years side to side.

Now screen size: There are benefits to pure size if not all we would need is a 32” TV and sit real close. It again is the binocular vision thing and creating a theater experience on the other hand screens 60’ tall are mostly that size because of the number people they hope to get in the theater. You haven’t told us how many seats and how many rows you want but one of the things that helps us have better theater experiences than any commercial theaters is we don’t have to fill such a huge screen.

My suggestion on presentation is self teaching yourself with a large painted wall as a screen and a couple chairs you can move around and a projector on a table you can move around. Experiment with size and seating distance and also presentation keeping in mind where CIH will have you viewing. If everything is great inside the 2.35 rectangle then the question is solved. For all practical purposes a flat white painted wall is a 1.0 gain white screen.
Travis Reed likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 07:00 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I wasn’t going to reply as the other guys have covered all the CIH bases, but seeing as how Josh Z invited me to I will make a brief statement.

Given CIW basically TV presentation compared to CIH classical commercial theater presentation for the last 70 years there is no comparison. As Josh would say do you want to watch Wheel of Fortune (1.77:1) larger than Ben Hur 1959 (2.76:1) or even Ben Hur 2016 (2.35:1). Then on the other hand who wants to watch Wheel of Fortune even as large as your massive screen would show it as CIH. Then you might ask how could I watch Ben Hur 1959 as CIH without cropping off the ends. These movies are rare but The Hateful Eight 2015 was (2.76:1) as well.

That said the vast history of movies fall into 3 categories Academy ratio 1.375:1 then Flat 1.85:1 and Scope 2.35:1. those 3 sizes give or take a little comprise 99% of all movies you will want to watch in your theater. Then add in some really great TV not game shows or cheesy reality TV, but some streaming content not made for network TV. Lots of it is coming as 2.0:1 on Netflix and Amazon etc. some is 16:9 like Game of Thrones and now Amazon is making movies like The Aeronauts that was made as an IMAX expander just like something Christopher Nolan would make like Dunkirk.

My point is CIH is an excellent method of presentation and much better than CIW, but there are changes going on in the TV and film industry and of course there are outliers. You can neglect or ignore or work around all these with CIH. The two I have most trouble working around are Academy and IMAX. Academy because there is a vast collection of them and in my mind CIH doesn’t give them the immersion they got in the 1920-30s in the movie palaces of the day, and more is something you can easily decide yourself is with IMAX / IMAX expanders. Watch Dunkirk and The Aeronauts both cropped and allowed to expand and judge for yourself the feeling you get.

I agree with Josh Z we have two eyes and they roll around and take in the action. Side to side with eye movement we can even slightly see behind us even so there is no width too wide if we were trying to make reality in our theater. We are limited up and down and NASA and the Air Force and the medical industry have measured our FOV and it is tall enough to take in the old IMAX 1.43:1 AR when IMAX studied our vision in the 60’s and surely will take in the 1.89:1 AR we get today on BD. Cinematography is all about the director painting a picture for us to look at some of it in critical focus and some of it stretching our peripheral vision making more realism. Scope has been doing this for 70 years side to side.

Now screen size: There are benefits to pure size if not all we would need is a 32” TV and sit real close. It again is the binocular vision thing and creating a theater experience on the other hand screens 60’ tall are mostly that size because of the number people they hope to get in the theater. You haven’t told us how many seats and how many rows you want but one of the things that helps us have better theater experiences than any commercial theaters is we don’t have to fill such a huge screen.

My suggestion on presentation is self teaching yourself with a large painted wall as a screen and a couple chairs you can move around and a projector on a table you can move around. Experiment with size and seating distance and also presentation keeping in mind where CIH will have you viewing. If everything is great inside the 2.35 rectangle then the question is solved. For all practical purposes a flat white painted wall is a 1.0 gain white screen.
Man, thanks for the info. AVS is some confusing stuff with a huge learning curve. I think all my questions have been answered now about CIH though. However, I still have not decided what exactly to do! Since my theater will be 90% geared to MOVIES, I think it will be best to go CIH and get a 2.35 screen. Current plan is 28' long room, 3' behind screen for speakers giving the front row a viewing distance of 11', 2nd row 17', and final bar stool row at 21'.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old 01-22-2020, 10:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Man, thanks for the info. AVS is some confusing stuff with a huge learning curve. I think all my questions have been answered now about CIH though. However, I still have not decided what exactly to do! Since my theater will be 90% geared to MOVIES, I think it will be best to go CIH and get a 2.35 screen. Current plan is 28' long room, 3' behind screen for speakers giving the front row a viewing distance of 11', 2nd row 17', and final bar stool row at 21'.
As to particulars on immersion and my thoughts on multi rows I kind of gave you my thoughts in your other thread over in the screen forum.

It is not as much confusing as trying to find what you personally will like. We are all different in that regard.
Travis Reed likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old 01-23-2020, 07:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,410
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2316 Post(s)
Liked: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
I truly laughed out loud at that last sentence! I sounds like the pitch from CIH guys is to size the screen based on vertical height. Seems odd when the other guys are sizing screen strictly based on horizontal length. Your eyeball analogy makes sense though.
We run out of vertical FOV before horizontal. Basing things on width is built around the convention of sticking with 16:9 as AR. If you did this with a wider AR screen like 2.00:1 or 2.35:1 you'd end up with a very small and unfulfilling image size.

As far as the post above, CIH does fine with Academy AR films. Bud has long been a proponent of tall and narrow and has posted he'd prefer 4:3 monitors, so take that as you will. As far as IMAX, yes VAR IMAX like the Dark Knight exists, but makes up a tiny fraction of what's out there. The Aeronauts is the ONLY VAR film I can think of to come out in the last 6 months. Contrast that with all of the content that is coming out with wider ARs and it's obvious where you'll get more use. And honestly I think this is where the argument really ends: if you size the height of your scope screen to be as tall as you are comfortable with the 16:9 content has the same size and impact it would on a 16:9 screen of the same height
Josh Z likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old 01-23-2020, 08:54 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,334
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7616 Post(s)
Liked: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
To start, I am a noob. Trying to sort through this giant magnitude of info to come up with my own design. Now considering screens, projectors, and CIH. Prefer the best possible but not at the expense of a billion dollars. A few thoughts/questions...


-Could you just have 2 screens with one that lowers from ceiling for 2.35? Or does this require multiple projectors?
You could - I have exactly that setup.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart Cima Neve 1.JPG
Views:	38
Size:	2.60 MB
ID:	2674614   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart both screens 1.JPG
Views:	39
Size:	2.95 MB
ID:	2674616   Click image for larger version

Name:	Stewart StudioTek 130 scope screen 1.JPG
Views:	35
Size:	2.57 MB
ID:	2674618  
Craig Peer is online now  
post #11 of 13 Old 01-23-2020, 09:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
To get a little esoteric here AR has been around way back to Gutenberg and what size and shape pages he wanted to print in his press, or maybe back as far as Ugg drawing on the wall of his cave and liking to sit back and view the images he drew. We know da Vinci liked variable AR as he did the Mona Lisa in a tall AR and the last supper his cinematographer skills kicked in and he decided on scope.

I do like a 4:3 monitor for doing my computer work even though the trend is to make the computer screen look like the shape of an iPhone on edge even though 95% of all budding film makers make movies holding their phones upright. I have tested my vision based around keeping my head still and looking around a given area by moving my eyes and it comes out to be approximately a 4:3 area I scan. That’s just my physiology is all.

For the OP follow @jeahrens advice and from your main seating position as tall as you find comfortable and base your screen size around that height and compute the width then to that of scope. If that width doesn’t feel overly wide then you are good. I suggested doing this on a painted wall so you are not buying several screens as you change your mind. As long as you are doing the painted wall you can then test your other rows of seating and see what you think. Assuming your front row will be your main seating each row will be a loss in immersion. Likely your second row will be like sitting in the back of the theater and your bar seating will be like viewing from long range in terms of immersion and more like immersion people watch TV at normally.

There is also this to think about. Over the years on these forums I have noticed at least 90% (my guess) of the people that get into FP start off with what feels correct and within 6 months wished they had gone more immersive. It was true for me and over time I find I like a bit more than most of my guests now. This is one reason I moved to the variable camp as I can now make that adjustment for friends and family that don’t enjoy my immersion level.

Immersion is a funny thing everyone can still enjoy a movie with less immersion just like we watch movies on small TV sets and don’t hate it. Immersion adds an extra dimension to media that was made for it. Other media gains very little with added immersion and may actually be distracting and annoying.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old 01-23-2020, 06:41 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
To get a little esoteric here AR has been around way back to Gutenberg and what size and shape pages he wanted to print in his press, or maybe back as far as Ugg drawing on the wall of his cave and liking to sit back and view the images he drew. We know da Vinci liked variable AR as he did the Mona Lisa in a tall AR and the last supper his cinematographer skills kicked in and he decided on scope.

I do like a 4:3 monitor for doing my computer work even though the trend is to make the computer screen look like the shape of an iPhone on edge even though 95% of all budding film makers make movies holding their phones upright. I have tested my vision based around keeping my head still and looking around a given area by moving my eyes and it comes out to be approximately a 4:3 area I scan. That’s just my physiology is all.

For the OP follow @jeahrens advice and from your main seating position as tall as you find comfortable and base your screen size around that height and compute the width then to that of scope. If that width doesn’t feel overly wide then you are good. I suggested doing this on a painted wall so you are not buying several screens as you change your mind. As long as you are doing the painted wall you can then test your other rows of seating and see what you think. Assuming your front row will be your main seating each row will be a loss in immersion. Likely your second row will be like sitting in the back of the theater and your bar seating will be like viewing from long range in terms of immersion and more like immersion people watch TV at normally.

There is also this to think about. Over the years on these forums I have noticed at least 90% (my guess) of the people that get into FP start off with what feels correct and within 6 months wished they had gone more immersive. It was true for me and over time I find I like a bit more than most of my guests now. This is one reason I moved to the variable camp as I can now make that adjustment for friends and family that don’t enjoy my immersion level.

Immersion is a funny thing everyone can still enjoy a movie with less immersion just like we watch movies on small TV sets and don’t hate it. Immersion adds an extra dimension to media that was made for it. Other media gains very little with added immersion and may actually be distracting and annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
We run out of vertical FOV before horizontal. Basing things on width is built around the convention of sticking with 16:9 as AR. If you did this with a wider AR screen like 2.00:1 or 2.35:1 you'd end up with a very small and unfulfilling image size.

As far as the post above, CIH does fine with Academy AR films. Bud has long been a proponent of tall and narrow and has posted he'd prefer 4:3 monitors, so take that as you will. As far as IMAX, yes VAR IMAX like the Dark Knight exists, but makes up a tiny fraction of what's out there. The Aeronauts is the ONLY VAR film I can think of to come out in the last 6 months. Contrast that with all of the content that is coming out with wider ARs and it's obvious where you'll get more use. And honestly I think this is where the argument really ends: if you size the height of your scope screen to be as tall as you are comfortable with the 16:9 content has the same size and impact it would on a 16:9 screen of the same height

You guys are great. I have decided to go with CIH especially since my content will be greater than 75% movies.

I am glad you mentioned the immersion and screen size. I have read this a lot with regrets of going too small and almost no regrets of going too big. Hell, if you go too big cant you just mask the edges of the screen? This is why I was originally planning on a 180" screen in my 19'x28'x12' room but a lot of people here have raised a brow that it sounded too big.

Is there a calculator/recommendation on sizing a CIH screen based on height of the screen and viewing distance? I at least want to get an idea of screen size so I can size my brightness and pick a projector. But I will likely not install my exact screen until I test out different viewing sizes. It sounds like if I am considering this large of a screen, and CIH by zooming, I bet my projector is going to get mighty expensive
Travis Reed is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old 01-23-2020, 09:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,103
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2254 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
You guys are great. I have decided to go with CIH especially since my content will be greater than 75% movies.
I agree CIH is likely what you will like best. I would start with a screen size that would be about like sitting in the center row of a commercial theater. Your front row will be the “money” seats and they are going to be 11 foot from the screen. So doing the math 11’ = 132” and the screen height for CIH should be seating distance 132/2.5 = 53”

So 53” x 127” or 138” diagonal I think 140” is a common size and one you were thinking about.


Bud
bud16415 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