[hifiaudio2]

Can someone help my understand the benefits of this screen setup?

I do understand that the screen size for scope movies can be larger since most people could fit a wider screen in their theater this way, but that is where the benefits stop, unless I am missing something?


With next gen projectors (JVC rs1, etc), isnt the contrast ratio high enough that black bars on 2:35 material would be gone anyway?


Isnt one of the goals to eliminate as many video processing steps as possible? Putting the "stretch" of the projector back in the signal could only degrade or soften the image.


Another set of optics in front of the lens cant help, either.


Also, with 1080p projectors, wouldnt the resolution, even in the 2:35 section of the screen, be higher than a 720p projector with anamorphic lens?


Are there other benefits that I am missing?


I dont want to bash it at all - I just want to understand, in case it is something I should be looking into.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 /forum/post/0


Can someone help my understand the benefits of this screen setup?

I do understand that the screen size for scope movies can be larger since most people could fit a wider screen in their theater this way, but that is where the benefits stop, unless I am missing something?

Not only that, but CIH allows you to project the correct AR for all movies at the same height allowing you to recreate the true cinematic feel. I remember going to T2 in 1991 on the BIG SCREEN and how the great that dream sequence was. Yet when this film came to video, that was lost. Watching the LB version was better than the original P&S versions but still did not have the visual impact I remembered from the cinema. That was until I set up my CIH (with a lens), and WOW!!!


I have since revisited almost all of my "SCOPE" films...

Quote:
With next gen projectors (JVC rs1, etc), isnt the contrast ratio high enough that black bars on 2:35 material would be gone anyway?

They are still there on a 16:9 screen - your larger SCOPE image is still smaller. Zooming on a SCOPE screen may be an OK alternative, but no where as good as having a lens to do true CIH...

Quote:
Isnt one of the goals to eliminate as many video processing steps as possible? Putting the "stretch" of the projector back in the signal could only degrade or soften the image.

Not really, scalers are already proven benefit. The point to remember is that the panel of a projector has a finite amount of pixels. Reproducing an image with every pixel available is going to be better than reproducing that same image at just 75% of the panel. The only thing about using 100% of the panel is of course the geometry - which we correct optically with the lens...

Quote:
Another set of optics in front of the lens cant help, either.

It will depend on the lens...

Quote:
Also, with 1080p projectors, wouldnt the resolution, even in the 2:35 section of the screen, be higher than a 720p projector with anamorphic lens?


Are there other benefits that I am missing?


I dont want to bash it at all - I just want to understand, in case it is something I should be looking into.

Find a CIH and experience it for yourself...


Mark

 

[Thunder]

With a scope screen I can view widescreen movies on a larger screen for a more immersive experience. I could not simply mask down a 16:9 image to accomplish this becasue the 16:9 image would simply be too large.


Case in point, I have a 125 inch wide scope screen, resulting in a 94 inch wide 16:9 screen. I am very comfortable with each of these screen dimensions from my seating position. If I did not have the scope screen, I might have increased my 16:9 screen size to about 100 inches wide but that would be the largest I could comfortably handle at a seating distance of about 1.5 X. So going with a scope screen produces a more optimal viewing experience for widescreen movies.


The ability to handle the additional width with a scope screen without being overwhelmed was a key for me to go this route because movies are my priority.

 

[kanebear]

A few simple reasons for me.

• It's the end of "Dude, it's a widescreen, why're there still black bars?"
• Less wasted screen
• Masking is easier
• More visual impact (I find a wider image more involving)
• Wider screen for a given ceiling height
• Brighter and higher resolution image

1080p or no, zooming a 2.35:1 image doesn't get you all the "there" that's there. So what if it's higher res than a 720p. You paid for 1080p! Why not use all that resolution? As for the optics; we're not talking about a $35 plastic fantastic "magic 150" screen from a 21" tube TV" fresnel lens. These are real deal lenses and unless you get the cheapest of the cheap the benefits of using all available pixels and additional light should far outweigh any chromatic aberration and/or geometric distortion introduced. Unless the lens is crappy, those will be neigh unnoticable anyway.


The biggest variable is you. How will you use it? If you're going to watch sports all the time and perhaps a movie a month, IMO you're better off with the native 16:9 screen and masking or dealing with whitespace. If you'll primarily be watching 4:3 SD, what the hell are you doing worrying about a higher end projection setup anyway??

Note that I haven't set up my theater yet. I'm just in the planning stages. These reasons are all why I'm going CIH. After seeing several decent home theaters and still feeling that something was missing, I now know what that was. 2.35:1 may sound like a simple ratio, but when it comes to movies, IMO it's magic.


One more note regarding processing: It's not an additive process unless you make it one. Ideally the outboard scaler obviates the need to employ the internal unit or at least minimizes it's impact. Especially with digital video, the processing doesn't degrade the signal. On the contrary, it markedly improves it! An outboard scaler can offer vastly better scaling than an internal unit and can provide other corrections that the internal scaler might not be able to handle and/or might butcher including correct inverse telecine, deinterlacing, etc. What benefits you derive depend on the scaler you choose. Still, a good scaler will absolutely be an improvement and should be considered even if you don't go 2.35:1. You need to see it to believe it, and no, with proper equipment the scaling absolutely does not make the image softer.