Originally Posted by jeahrens
When you use the height of a 16:9 screen to base your vertical immersion off of, the wider a given film is the smaller it will be. The exact opposite of how it is intended to be displayed. The diagram below shows two screens with the same vertical height. It illustrates this problem. All masking does is create illusion of a too small scope screen. A scope screen, like a 16:9 screen should be sized to fill your vertical field of view. If sized this way, 16:9 is just as big on the scope screen as it is on the 16:9 screen. The 16:9 screen by it's nature will always compromise wider material.
asked a pretty straight forward question and your answer is great as far as how to size a CIH screen and why a CIH approach is better than CIW when viewing flat and scope movies. He also asked about leaving masking up on a 16:9 screen and only removing it for IMAX content.
There is a HUGE difference between CIW presentation and CIH+IMAX presentation and it always seems you assume them to be the same.
Just because you select a 16:9 image size as high as is vertically comfortable for you with flat media and then make the scope image that height only wider, that is the limits of your vision (or most peoples vision). IMAX1.89 isn’t even the limits of our vertical vision as it is cropped from IMAX 1.43 in many cases. IMAX 1.43 with center of the theater seating immersion is getting close to what our vision can handle with eye movement only. Of course if we want to talk about head and body movement then our vision is 360 degrees.
It is common for motion pictures to look at FOV as where we can see with comfortable eye movement and where that eye movement takes us then with peripheral vision. It is not common to assume head movement and that is what IMAX1.43 is based around. True these movies could be quite taxing if they used all the screen area for rapid moving action and that’s why these IMAX1.43 movies are slow panning dealing with critical visuals in a different cinematographic way than a flat movie intended to not be as immersive. It is also the reason IMAX came out with this new IMAX1.89 format to closer fit Hollywood type movies.
They for the most part are scope safe movies with just added peripheral image above and below.
The question is does this extra peripheral material help the visual enough to help the visual experience be more. Even if you never once call on your eyes to look directly up or down at those areas? My opinion is yes it does improve the visual experience. Your opinion may be it doesn’t.
Because I have the screen area to show movies this way I have shown Avatar a dozen times to people when I had my 4way masking in place as IMAX and as Scope and every single person that saw it both ways liked the more immersive taller image better. I did the same thing with Dunkirk and again everyone liked the expansion parts better expanding than scope even though they didn’t actively notice the expansions until we went back and scope cropped them.
Is it worth the effort or not for the number of movies out there is a valid question. Is your room height or width limited is another valid question if you are forced into seating locations. But if you like these few movies and you like seeing all the cinematography un cropped, have the height to include a masked area to expand to and don’t mind taking a couple minutes to unmask for these movies, then there is no logical reason in the world not to do as anjunadeep suggests.