Poor man's CIH for cheap? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 09:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
b_scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 7,527
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Although a room and mounting point can be the ultimate limitation on what screen can work, always remember that the size of the image is a function of the physical dimensions and the distance we view it from. If seating distance is fluid, a smaller scope screen viewed from a closer seating distance will offer a superior movie experience vs. a larger 16:9 screen viewed further back. Remember you would fill your vertical immersion in either of these scenarios. Viewing the larger 16:9 screen from the same distance as the scope screen in this scenario would result in exceeding 100% of your vertical immersion, which is like sitting in the front rows of a theater and not comfortable for the majority.

If all that is confusing let's show it in math.

So let's say you have room for a width of 113". That gives you room for a 130" 16:9 screen or a 123" 2.35:1. So let's say your vertical immersion threshold is 2.5x the screen height to your seating (most people fall in the 2-3x range). So you would be sitting at 157.5" (2.5 * 63" screen height) or 13' from the 16:9 screen. For the scope screen you would be at 120" (2.5* 48" screen height) or 10'. In both of these examples the perceived image size for 16:9 material would be the same. But like in the diagram I posted above, on the scope screen wider material is now filling more and more your total field of view, instead of less and less. The 16:9 screen again compromising anything wider.

The seating distance to screen height ratio that works is up to individual preference. But you simply need find yours and plug in the numbers.
Yeah, I do get what you're saying, but we will have fixed seating. Basically the ratios will always be the same at all times (except for kids who use beanbags closer to the screen, so height, throw, and seating will never change. In this instance, it's just better to utilize the entire width and height possible. We will be in seats about 10' back, always. We've sat and watched at that distance and both ratios are acceptable.
b_scott is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 11:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
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.
@anjunadeep 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.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #33 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 12:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post
Yeah, I do get what you're saying, but we will have fixed seating. Basically the ratios will always be the same at all times (except for kids who use beanbags closer to the screen, so height, throw, and seating will never change. In this instance, it's just better to utilize the entire width and height possible. We will be in seats about 10' back, always. We've sat and watched at that distance and both ratios are acceptable.
I thought exactly like you in my first theater at my old house. The screen doesn’t move, the seats don’t move, and the biggest screen based on the height and width is what I had to live with.

20 years ago there was a lot of talk about should TV be even shown in the theater as people worried about expensive lamp life and more about watching TV movie size lessened the movie experience and that kind of stuff. IMO there is something to this and when I built my new media room in the new house I thought a lot about presentation. I didn’t want to move my seats and I wanted scope movies to be something special to look forward to in terms of immersion and with these IMAX movies I wanted them even to be more immersive and special beyond scope even. I decided zoom on the projector was going to be my way of changing my seating distance. Virtual rows if you will.

So I started out picking my largest zoom/screen size to be IMAX and work down from there. Sure I can watch Survivor IMAX sized and it’s not so bad but it takes the edge then off of watching an IMAX movie like The Aeronauts the same size. Or a great blockbuster scope movie even smaller than Survivor.

So I manage my expectations by doing a variable immersion method of presentation that isn’t exactly CIH but far from CIW.

CIW made me feel I was cheating Scope and CIH seemed much better but a little like I was cheating a 1.85 movie like Saving Private Ryan. So I allow myself some freedom to bump SPR up to CIA constant image area just because it seems right.

You can do this only if you start with IMAX immersion. you say you have 10’ seating distance now. moving up to 8’ and then scaling back some of your content would be doing that with a one time seat move.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post
Yeah, I do get what you're saying, but we will have fixed seating. Basically the ratios will always be the same at all times (except for kids who use beanbags closer to the screen, so height, throw, and seating will never change. In this instance, it's just better to utilize the entire width and height possible. We will be in seats about 10' back, always. We've sat and watched at that distance and both ratios are acceptable.
The point is if you can utilize the width for a scope with the proper seating distance you don't have to compromise by going 16:9. But if in the end that makes you happiest, then no worries.

jeahrens is online now  
post #35 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 02:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
@anjunadeep 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.
I don't assume them to be the same at all. I just know the majority of the rooms I visit do not treat IMAX differently than 16:9 (even though they should).

If you want to build a room around a minuscule amount of content and understand how to do it properly than it's certainly a valid solution.

jeahrens is online now  
post #36 of 50 Old 04-13-2020, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I just know the majority of the rooms I visit do not treat IMAX differently than 16:9 (even though they should).

If you want to build a room around a minuscule amount of content and understand how to do it properly than it's certainly a valid solution.
Then the discussion is good maybe some people will read this and understand IMAX1.89 movies are a different animal than 1.85 movies. Because the majority of them are AR changing movies you would think people would wonder what’s up when suddenly their movie gets shorter when actually it was supposed to get taller.

Not having a lot of friends with scope screens I assumed everyone just blanked the IMAX parts or let them scan off the screen. It seems odd for people to play them inside the 1.85 window and let the scope parts be tiny.

I agree if a person has a great desire for the IMAX movies made to date to be shown correctly that might be one reason to do what @anjunadeep was thinking about. The number is limited and a small percentage of all movies ever made but new ones are still being made every year and if IMAX enhanced ever takes off maybe a lot of the ones shown in IMAX venues as 1.89 could be put on disc in the full AR like Avatar was and not cropped like they have been doing. IMAX Enhanced could change the number of titles greatly. I will say they are taking their time doing it.

But if your room is not a dedicated HT that only plays theatrical released motion pictures the advantage of an IMAX sized screen that is used as CIH for all movies can also be used for other things non movie related like immersive gaming to name one. Giving a place for subtitles to play on streaming foreign TV shows might be another. I can think of dozens of times I was glad to have the extra screen area sometimes just to see the play pause interface when streaming a scope movie.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #37 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 08:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Then the discussion is good maybe some people will read this and understand IMAX1.89 movies are a different animal than 1.85 movies. Because the majority of them are AR changing movies you would think people would wonder what’s up when suddenly their movie gets shorter when actually it was supposed to get taller.

Not having a lot of friends with scope screens I assumed everyone just blanked the IMAX parts or let them scan off the screen. It seems odd for people to play them inside the 1.85 window and let the scope parts be tiny.

I agree if a person has a great desire for the IMAX movies made to date to be shown correctly that might be one reason to do what @anjunadeep was thinking about. The number is limited and a small percentage of all movies ever made but new ones are still being made every year and if IMAX enhanced ever takes off maybe a lot of the ones shown in IMAX venues as 1.89 could be put on disc in the full AR like Avatar was and not cropped like they have been doing. IMAX Enhanced could change the number of titles greatly. I will say they are taking their time doing it.

But if your room is not a dedicated HT that only plays theatrical released motion pictures the advantage of an IMAX sized screen that is used as CIH for all movies can also be used for other things non movie related like immersive gaming to name one. Giving a place for subtitles to play on streaming foreign TV shows might be another. I can think of dozens of times I was glad to have the extra screen area sometimes just to see the play pause interface when streaming a scope movie.


IMAX Enhanced really hasn't gained any traction and the number of titles being released in IMAX AR for the home market is on the decline. Your posterchild, Dunkirk, is 3 years old at this point.

The extra height is great except for that fact that basing your vertical FOV around it means that every wide AR movie is smaller than it should be now.

Here's what we've watched in the last couple weeks:

Jumanji The Next Level
Toy Story 4
Shazam
Big Hero 6
Midway
Knives Out
Star Wars: Solo
Star Wars: Rogue One
Hidden Figures
Ford vs. Ferrari

2.35:1 films: 9
1.85:1 films: 1
IMAX films watched: 0

Films shown with the intended immersion on a scope screen: 10
Films shown with intended immersion on a 16:9 screen: 1 (you could even argue that 1.85:1 is somewhat lessened)

Coming up:
Star Wars IV
Star Wars V
Star Wars VI
Star Wars VII
Star Wars VIII
Star Wars IX
The Lighthouse

Films shown with the intended immersion on a scope screen: 7
Films shown with intended immersion on a 16:9 screen: 1
IMAX films watched: 0

If your priority is watching film it's very plain what format brings the most to the table. If your interest is primarily sports or gaming then it can certainly shift. But IMAX is essentially a non factor. It's not gained any traction. Shifting AR releases have declined. Again if you really enjoy the format, then a proper CIH+IMAX setup can make sense. But I wouldn't endorse building around such a small fraction of what's out there (and getting smaller).

If it's gaming and sports then obviously a TV AR screen works fine for TV AR material.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-14-2020 at 08:31 AM.
jeahrens is online now  
post #38 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
IMAX Enhanced really hasn't gained any traction and the number of titles being released in IMAX AR for the home market is on the decline. Your posterchild, Dunkirk, is 3 years old at this point.
I will have to start talking about Tenet I guess, or Top Gun: Maverick, or Wonder Woman 1984.

Maybe they will come on 16:9 media cropped down to 2.35:1. That seems to be what make people with 85” TVs happy.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #39 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 09:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I will have to start talking about Tenet I guess, or Top Gun: Maverick, or Wonder Woman 1984.

Maybe they will come on 16:9 media cropped down to 2.35:1. That seems to be what make people with 85” TVs happy.
Depends on whether they get released in shifting ARs. Since TG and WW are likely completely scope safe like the last MI film was, they're hardly a sticking point. But you will likely have Tenet to talk about.

I've never been concerned about keeping the fill my TV screen crowd happy. That led to decades of pan and scan awfulness. Now if it so happens that cropped IMAX fills their screen and makes them happy, no harm there. A shame we can't see the full IMAX framing if we want to.

jeahrens is online now  
post #40 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 10:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
b_scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 7,527
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Depends on whether they get released in shifting ARs. Since TG and WW are likely completely scope safe like the last MI film was, they're hardly a sticking point. But you will likely have Tenet to talk about.

I've never been concerned about keeping the fill my TV screen crowd happy. That led to decades of pan and scan awfulness. Now if it so happens that cropped IMAX fills their screen and makes them happy, no harm there. A shame we can't see the full IMAX framing if we want to.
I feel like there's no reason they can't release IMAX cuts digitally if people will buy them. No stamping or shipping costs lost.
b_scott is online now  
post #41 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post
I feel like there's no reason they can't release IMAX cuts digitally if people will buy them. No stamping or shipping costs lost.
I think the main reason we don't see more IMAX cuts is that some filmmakers do them because the studio wants the revenue from releasing it in IMAX, not because they prefer the framing. So when it comes time to release the film they choose the framing they prefer. Not that IMAX can't look great as Mr. Nolan's films illustrate. And there's nothing wrong with having a choice.

I still wouldn't plan or build a room around a format with such little content. But to each their own.
dschulz likes this.

jeahrens is online now  
post #42 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 03:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by b_scott View Post
I feel like there's no reason they can't release IMAX cuts digitally if people will buy them. No stamping or shipping costs lost.
I have been saying for years why not have a selection window when you drop the BD or UHD BD in the player. (Click here for IMAX) (Click here for scope) They did it all the time back in the DVD days. Some of the first ones had both sides of the disc encoded and if you wanted the full picture wide screen and didn’t like the cropped version you just flipped the DVD over.

As much as our friend jeahrens doesn’t care about the TV folks the TV folks buy about 99.9% of the discs made. If only people with projectors could use BDs a movie would cost about 500 bucks.

Go to any BD forum and listen to the TV folks complain when they know there is an IMAX version out there because they went and watched it in an IMAX venue and now they spend their 25 bucks and get black bars.

I agree if the director wants to make a scope movie and it is the AR he feels tells the story best then he should make the movie in scope. They can play scope movies just fine in IMAX theaters. Why in the world should a person go and pay 50% more for a ticket and watch a movie in a IMAX theater only to find out a couple months later that the director feels the scope version is the better one.

I can see it where IMAX is going back with older movies and going frame by frame doing their IMAX Enhanced deal that takes months and months to do a single film, but these new movies are shot ready to go. Put them out both ways and let me pay 3 bucks more so IMAX gets a piece of the pie.

There is more to it than just that IMO. When you can’t figure something out I always say follow the money.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #43 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 03:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Depends on whether they get released in shifting ARs. Since TG and WW are likely completely scope safe like the last MI film was, they're hardly a sticking point. But you will likely have Tenet to talk about.

I've never been concerned about keeping the fill my TV screen crowd happy. That led to decades of pan and scan awfulness. Now if it so happens that cropped IMAX fills their screen and makes them happy, no harm there. A shame we can't see the full IMAX framing if we want to.
I agree pan and scan was an awful thing, but with IMAX there is nothing being panned or scanned. If anything the scope version is a crop, but it is a crop the director intended. So they coined the term scope safe.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #44 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 04:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dschulz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,112
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 925 Post(s)
Liked: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post

I agree if the director wants to make a scope movie and it is the AR he feels tells the story best then he should make the movie in scope. They can play scope movies just fine in IMAX theaters. Why in the world should a person go and pay 50% more for a ticket and watch a movie in a IMAX theater only to find out a couple months later that the director feels the scope version is the better one.
I think the reverse question is just as interesting: if the director wants a taller aspect ratio, why limit that to only IMAX screens? Why not release flat everywhere? Most PLF screens are flat, not scope, anyway.

The fact that they do not do this, and usually release scope in 99% of cinemas, tells you what their preferred aspect ratio is.

You can release Scope in IMAX, but if you want to improve your odds of locking in an IMAX screen for more than one week then you need to give IMAX an exclusive version at either 1.90 or variable. So for box office reasons, they give IMAX what they want.

I am sticking by my assertion that virtually *all* IMAX 1.90 releases are best viewed in their principal Scope framing, the exceptions being the films of Christopher Nolan, which are framed according to the film formats he is using.
Josh Z likes this.
dschulz is offline  
post #45 of 50 Old 04-14-2020, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by dschulz View Post
I think the reverse question is just as interesting: if the director wants a taller aspect ratio, why limit that to only IMAX screens? Why not release flat everywhere? Most PLF screens are flat, not scope, anyway.

The fact that they do not do this, and usually release scope in 99% of cinemas, tells you what their preferred aspect ratio is.

You can release Scope in IMAX, but if you want to improve your odds of locking in an IMAX screen for more than one week then you need to give IMAX an exclusive version at either 1.90 or variable. So for box office reasons, they give IMAX what they want.

I am sticking by my assertion that virtually *all* IMAX 1.90 releases are best viewed in their principal Scope framing, the exceptions being the films of Christopher Nolan, which are framed according to the film formats he is using.
I understand your point, but there is a great difference or should be a great difference between flat 1.85 and IMAX 1.89. The flat movie is not “scope safe” and if anyone cropped it and showed it as scope we would be the first to tar and feather them. If you want to amuse yourself play Saving Private Ryan as scope and turn on your blanking. You will destroy the movie doing that. Likewise play Saving Private Ryan in an IMAX theater at IMAX immersion and you will want to sit in the back third of the theater.

On the other hand IMAX 1.89 movies are “scope safe” and when watching them in an IMAX venue the entire scope movie is there to be seen with additional materials above and below that scope movie to enhance your peripheral vision. The movie could well look better as scope and if doing so the viewer has to agree that black negative space is more entertaining than something visual. Nolan doesn’t put action into those areas sometimes it is just more sky and more ocean. To not like that better you have to say I like black better than more sky and ocean.

I have similar pet peeves about scope movies that should be flat. It is done a lot to give some credit as a movie is bigger than it is. I have often seen the focus of interest in the center of the frame and then a lot of distractions off to the side. What happens for me if the movie is engaging I treat the sides as peripheral filler. If the movie hasn’t hooked me it allows my eye to wander over to bum sitting at the next table to see what he’s doing.

For me there is a world of difference in IMAX 1.89 and Flat 1.85 and it all has to do with immersion.
jeahrens likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #46 of 50 Old 04-15-2020, 06:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,538
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2411 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I agree pan and scan was an awful thing, but with IMAX there is nothing being panned or scanned. If anything the scope version is a crop, but it is a crop the director intended. So they coined the term scope safe.
No, the scope portion is not generally a crop. The non-IMAX scenes are composed for scope from the onset and the unused portion of the frame will often contain extraneous set equipment and the effects are never finished in any other ratio.

"Scope safe" is just that. The composition is opened up for IMAX but the essential framing is still for the scope portion which will show on far more theaters. My definition of "scope safe" is if I can blank out the IMAX portion and see exactly what I did in a normal theater. Generally Nolan is the only director that doesn't frame IMAX to be scope safe.

Agreed on Flat vs. IMAX. They are definitely different in presentation or at least they should be.

jeahrens is online now  
post #47 of 50 Old 04-15-2020, 07:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,436
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2426 Post(s)
Liked: 1289
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
No, the scope portion is not generally a crop. The non-IMAX scenes are composed for scope from the onset and the unused portion of the frame will often contain extraneous set equipment and the effects are never finished in any other ratio.

"Scope safe" is just that. The composition is opened up for IMAX but the essential framing is still for the scope portion which will show on far more theaters. My definition of "scope safe" is if I can blank out the IMAX portion and see exactly what I did in a normal theater. Generally Nolan is the only director that doesn't frame IMAX to be scope safe.

Agreed on Flat vs. IMAX. They are definitely different in presentation or at least they should be.
We also agree on what scope safe means. There is a great difference between IMAX and Open Matte. Or at least there should be.

When a director is shooting a movie with one IMAX camera of some type maybe the digital version, he is not composing just a scope movie and having little care what is in the IMAX frame like he would in the open matte area. He is composing two movies at once and I would hope he or she is equally concerned with the impact of both framings. Of course they are knowledgeable that some of the image will be cropped but they should be equally knowledgeable the additional area should have increased impact on the movie.

There is still a thin open matte area even with IMAX we never get to see. They overshoot everything so they have some wiggle room post production to make adjustments.

Nolan shooting film IMAX is shooting 1.43 and knowing it will be cropped twice once at 1.89 and then again 2.35. These movies greatly lose impact even the 1.89 cut. Wouldn’t it be great to see a 1.43 release to the home market of these movies.

Any time I have seen open matte used for putting a scope movie on TV I have felt the movie was awkward in its framing and that unnecessary stuff was being shown. When I watch an IMAX 1.89 movie I don’t have any feeling of the image being awkward. Watching it at the same immersion as the scope version I have yet to see one that isn’t more engaging with the extra image. Of course that is just my opinion and I suggest others try the movie both ways and see how they feel about it.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #48 of 50 Old 04-20-2020, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
bungi43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW INdiana
Posts: 267
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Back to OP...did you decide on a screen size that fits yet based on the dimensions of your room?

bungi43 is offline  
post #49 of 50 Old 04-22-2020, 05:31 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sound dropouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 1,418
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by bungi43 View Post
Back to OP...did you decide on a screen size that fits yet based on the dimensions of your room?
I'm still working through what I want to do...I've started a thread in the dedicated theater sub-forum: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ter-build.html


I'm currently considering a 48 inch height DIY 2.35 screen.
sound dropouts is offline  
post #50 of 50 Old 04-24-2020, 01:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 871 Post(s)
Liked: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound dropouts View Post
I'm still working through what I want to do...I've started a thread in the dedicated theater sub-forum: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ter-build.html


I'm currently considering a 48 inch height DIY 2.35 screen.
If you are indeed DIYing it, consider building to 2.4:1 at a minimum. manufacturers choose 2.35 for marketing reasons when 2.39 or 2.4 is the true AR of most scope content. Don't sell yourself short of the option of a perfect fit.
Crantastic likes this.
ScottAvery 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