Originally Posted by bud16415
To me the point isn’t if someone is using manual masking or automatic masking, the point is if they are embracing variable image sizing in some fashion.
Totally agree, which is why we make masking systems that vary in price from $349 to $142,147. And if that range isn't wide enough, we support DIY selling materials by the foot. You can do masking for maybe $50, so there's not an economic reason against it.
The "for the masses" value arguments are always a rabbit hole. When Mercedes released their C-class to get down to the $40k price class, "for the masses," both sides of the argument are still true: that lower priced market segment was much larger - massier - than where their E-class was, but could still be derided by others as not being affordable for the masses that they considered within their value class.
Our TAM screens are both considered a bargain within their product class and justifiably derided here on AVS for being silly priced. At half that price, the TRIM screen has that exact same statement. At half again of that price, the Seymour AV's Proscenium screen also has that exact same statement. And finally the magnetic masking panels at $349 are also considered a bargain for what they do, and derided by those that would prefer to wrap foam board with some velvet and technically accomplish the same thing (acoustics not withstanding). The key is to illustrate to people the benefits of masking, and then speak within their budgets of how that can be facilitated. As a Midwest-moderate dork I understand the simple joy of sticking panels into a screen, but can understand why Oprah doesn't even want to have to push buttons.
Originally Posted by bud16415
IMAX Enhanced is right around the corner and I can’t find anyone even interested in talking about it beyond the audio aspects. The movie First Man just came out with expanding IMAX sequences that were beautifully done and the CIH folks are good with cropping that out and the CIW folks are ok with watching the scope sequences under immersive. Then there are the very few variable folks that are bothered that they can’t mask for both at once. Media is changing I watched a Jeep commercial last night that changed AR 3 times in 30 seconds.
In an interview in Widescreen Review, they discussed aspect ratios for IMAX Enhanced releases. They seem clear that they'll push toward 1.78 or their digital IMAX's 1.9 ratio, but unfortunately expressly said they weren't going to pillarbox people's displays with 1.43 content. That disappoints me, as I'd love to have Dunkirk, etc, in it's floor-drops-out, ceiling-pops-out glory. Or even Ghost Protocol in 1.78. I get why those variable AR sequences infuriate people without masking systems (I can help with that
), but I'd rather see the content chopped at the user level if they so choose, so that those that want to view the entire frame can do so as they are able. The nostalgic in me would enjoy making nearly 4:3 ratio screens, too.
Here's an interesting article I read on the current state of IMAX and ratios: https://medium.com/the-projector/fir...ng-f5082b2687c
Unfortunately, many of the theaters that figured into their release count included the dreadful dome screens. While they were in fact projecting 70mm film in the native 1.43 ratio, the geometric distortion should be considered a war crime. I saw The Dark Knight in one here in Iowa and it was both astoundingly terrific (when the center slice had action, such as when the semi truck does an end-over, over your head), and poisonous. I was on ibuprofen for three days after trying to make out what the kidney-bean shaped actors and buildings were doing or where the action was taking place with 24fps chopping across ~160 degree viewing.