[mmiles]

To me I do see a slight difference in sharpness perhaps but slight so I watch all HD cable in 2.37:1 [my screen format] and love it.


Sports is amazing on the 11' screen!


Not using V or H stretch and no zoom just pushing the button and letting the lens slide in front of the PJ.


PJ - DPI M260 LED

LENS - ISCO III with CineSlide. Get Gray / Scott did a great job.

Screen - dNp Supoernova 23-23 high gain.


Every Sunday and Monday night the joint is jumpin for NFL football.

 

[CAVX]

Would you not have incorrect geometry with that?


If I did have a HDTV set top box in my cinema (I don't because I appalled with the low quality of HDTV broadcast in Australia), I would still horizontally squeeze the image to keep geometry correct, because that is more important to me than just filling the screen. I'd also be watching HDTV in 1.78, not Scope.

 

[petew]

Distorted geometry would drive me nuts.

 

[mmiles]

Maybe its my "eye" but it looks good to me.

 

[R Harkness]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/19559486


Would you not have incorrect geometry with that?


If I did have a HDTV set top box in my cinema (I don't because I appalled with the low quality of HDTV broadcast in Australia),

Yeah it's truly depressing how crappy most HD content is on TV. I rarely get any "wow" factor out of it, only here and there - so much compression artifacts everywhere, and even when those artifacts aren't obvious the image often isn't particularly clear and impressive on many shows. I'm much more amazed by lots of my movies on Blu-Ray.

 

[Trogdor2010]

Mostly if I have a short (Like the muppets) put in there before I show a scope film. Makes it easier to start a movie. I never do it for dedicated screenings and move the lens away for actual 16:9 (or 4:3) content.

 

[Kelvin1965S]

I confess that I did watch Avitar in scope with the lens in place, but this was vertically stretched so the geometry was correct. For 16:9 content I will either not put the lens in place (if I'm watching a full film) or if it's after a main feature in 2.35:1 then I leave the lens in place and use H-squeeze so that the image is the right proportion. I don't feel the need to fill my scope screen if it means distorting the proportions, but each to their own.

 

[oman321]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles /forum/post/19559876


Maybe its my "eye" but it looks good to me.

We leave the lens in place and have the option to squeeze the image to restore back to 16:9 but I generally leave it set to full which in turn fills the screen for scope with 16:9 content.


For me, geometric distortion is only really noticeable with a test pattern or by having 2 displays side by side (which aint gonna happen with a 110" scope screen

) We play video games from the PS3 this way as well and it has never been an issue. Looks good to my eye as well.

 

[Aussie Bob]

I'm amazed at the number of private houses I go to where the TV's on in the background showing 4:3 material filling a 16:9 screen. You see it a lot in TV showrooms as well. Even my barber has this set-up on the little TV for customers that he provides. All those fat, short people!


As for watching 16:9 material in scope, a lot of today's movies are capable of being cropped top and bottom (as if they were letterbox) with a quite watchable scope image resulting. If it works for a few minutes I usually leave the lens in place and just enjoy the show.


My favourite for this is Band Of Brothers... much grittier and involving watched in scope. Some movies work and some don't though. The first Elizabeth movie is fine when cropped to scope, but the second Elizabeth: The Golden Age isn't at all, just doesn't work, heads chopped off everywhere (forgive the pun).


I actually contacted the cinematographer of BoB (Remi Adefarasin) by email and asked him whether he'd shot it deliberately widely so that perhaps one day it could be turned into a scope feature film. No such luck. In fact he told me off gently for cropping his work, but stopped short of sending round the anamorphic goon squad to rub me out. I didn't realise at the time that he was also the cinematographer for Elizabeth... so maybe the guy just likes to shoot wide?


Watching Forbidden Planet last night in honour of the "serious" Leslie Neilsen, I noticed that everyone was slightly wider than they should have been. Those old Bausch and Lomb camera lenses sure needed some improving. There's nothing new under the sun: we were treated to short, fat people on our screens as far back as 1956.


I've also watched Avatar in both formats, plus 3D: boring, predictable and sleep-inducing either way. I dozed off each time. I guess this proves that whether it's scope or not, content still has a lot to do with movie enjoyment (or maybe it's just me?).

 

[taffman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob /forum/post/19564328


I've also watched Avatar in both formats, plus 3D: boring, predictable and sleep-inducing either way. I dozed off each time. I guess this proves that whether it's scope or not, content still has a lot to do with movie enjoyment (or maybe it's just me?).

Remember all the buzz surrounding Avatar earlier this year. In retrospect it looks like just another run of the mill CG movie, that will certainly not stand the test of time. Yes content is everything - one reason the old 4:3 classic films are so much more entertaining than all the high tech 3D CG films being put out these days. We all love 2.35 for spectacle, but really the best films are overwhelmingly on 4:3.

 

[tvted]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob /forum/post/19564328


I guess this proves that whether it's scope or not, content still has a lot to do with movie enjoyment (or maybe it's just me?).

No, not just you.

Howdy AB ..long time.


ted

 

[mmiles]

Watching Monday Night Football in scope while PJ is in 16:9 format and love it! Both myself and neighbor can see some difference in the pregame with Mike Ditka's lapel pin and black velour type jacket as well as some of the facial detail on Keeyshan Johnson and Chris Carter but the closeups of the pregame at the stadium looked even better. That tells me the cameras and feed are probably touch better than the studio feeds.


This is not true for ALL HD but ESPN I see no reason to watch that tiny 110" diag. screen

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles /forum/post/19565869


Watching Monday Night Football in scope while PJ is in 16:9 format and love it!

Given that a football is already an oval, I'm can't help but think how long it would look when it lays horizontally

 

[CRGINC]

I always leave the lens in place but I adjust the VP to give the correct geometry. I have been known to zoom an older 1.33:1 movie to 1.66:1 as many theaters did to compete with cinemascope early on. I still maintain the correct geometry though.

 

[Aussie Bob]



Quote:
No, not just you.

Howdy AB ..long time.


ted

Teddy my boy! How've you been travelling?


For one thing: I'm annoyed that Bridge On The River Kwai seems to be available everywhere in the world except Australia.


There are 000's of copies of mind-numbingly stupid "classics" such as Toy Story, The 40 Year Old Virgin and whatever that recent zombie-vampire TV series was called, but still a dearth of decent David Lean movies, which were actually made in 70mm (except Kwai which was scope-55) and perfect for Big Screens.


Such a shame that BluRay seems to have gone for the lowest common denominator. So much was promised when HD-DVD died, and so little was delivered.


It's not just me, either. I regularly visit my local JB Hi-Fi (a large, successful Australian DVD/BluRay retailer + PCs, + flat screens etc.) and usually there is one other forlorn-looking potential customer eyeing-out the BluRay selections. I've never seen anyone buying a one of them. They sigh (like I do) in frustration, and walk out, disappointed.


I know all about Amazon and so on (and they're cheaper then retailers here in Oz), but they do insist on equating BluRays with DVDs - listing DVD region codes for BluRays and warning that anything they sell is "NTSC"... which is utter tosh when it comes to hi-def. So you don't really know whether you're buying something that's gonna even play back.


Very frustrating to be a BluRay fan here in Australia. Mostly only disposable single-view garbage available on the shelves when you're feeling like an impulse purchase. Every now and again a classic comes along, but they're few and far between.

 

[mtbdudex]

This comes up every few months....You choose:

House Fat

House correct

Ozzy Fat

Ozzy correct

For close ups/people having the correct geometry is what I perfer.


However, for wide angle sporting events, I've been know to "break the rules" and show them stretched via a-lens, simply its just more immersive seeing that, wrong geometry and all aside.

BBall in scope

 

[taffman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob /forum/post/19586232


There are 000's of copies of mind-numbingly stupid "classics" such as Toy Story, The 40 Year Old Virgin and whatever that recent zombie-vampire TV series was called, but still a dearth of decent David Lean movies, which were actually made in 70mm (except Kwai which was scope-55) and perfect for Big Screens.

Such a shame that BluRay seems to have gone for the lowest common denominator. So much was promised when HD-DVD died, and so little was delivered.

It's not just me, either. I regularly visit my local JB Hi-Fi (a large, successful Australian DVD/BluRay retailer + PCs, + flat screens etc.) and usually there is one other forlorn-looking potential customer eyeing-out the BluRay selections. I've never seen anyone buying a one of them. They sigh (like I do) in frustration, and walk out, disappointed.

Very frustrating to be a BluRay fan here in Australia. Mostly only disposable single-view garbage available on the shelves when you're feeling like an impulse purchase. Every now and again a classic comes along, but they're few and far between.

I could not agree more. 99% of the Blu-Ray titles are crap. If you want great collectors sets of old and classic films, DVD is still the place to go. I have purchased a few Blu-Ray titles of great classic films like Gone With The Wind, North By North West , How The West Was Won etc. and they are truly stunning quality when projected on my 10foot screen. Fot that I am grateful, but as Aussie Bob points out, Blu Ray could give us so much more. Unfortunately it seems that Blu Ray is predominantly modern crappy movies, and DVD has become the resource for the serious film collector.

Now they are trying to push 3D at us so we can all watch those 3D kiddie movies on our big screens! (Has anyone ever made a decent 3D drama film?)

Count me out.

 

[Oggythemoggy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Bob /forum/post/19564328


I've also watched Avatar in both formats, plus 3D: boring, predictable and sleep-inducing either way. I dozed off each time. I guess this proves that whether it's scope or not, content still has a lot to do with movie enjoyment (or maybe it's just me?).

Reminds me of the Irish comic Dara O'Briain's observation,


'I think Avatar picks up where Titanic left off,


half the cast are blue'.

 

[Bob7145]

ha ha ha ha ha, Or the old Hush Puppies commercial "We can make it cheaper but I don't think we can make it any dumber".