AVS Forum banner

201 - 220 of 407 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Extra Extra Read all about it!
From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area.
I always thought you should have called it "Variable Image Area" since that's exactly what you're doing--varying the image area for each presentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Lightfoot

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Of course you are correct that is the whole premise behind PIA as well. it is a mathematical certainty as well that every CIW 16:9 screen is also a CIH+Imax screen with just moving your seating closer. Just as Steve never seems to get your argument none of the CIH people seem to get mine. It is frustrating isn’t it.


I think in a rather reverse logic both groups not seeing the forest for the trees is because just as Steve is interested in dimensions not ratios so are those deeply ingrained in other methods of presentation.

Steve is not about FOV and all that malarkey he is about height and brute size. He wants his friends to come down his stairs and say Holy Crap, and is willing to push the couch Back to have that experience. The guys coming for football have no idea he watches scope movies all they know is he has the biggest bad ass 16:9 home theater they have ever seen. There is sometimes something to be said about size for the sake of size. Steve has a few other tricks in his PIA setup as well. He pulls the couch back for football with the guys on the mega screen. He pushes it up for scope movies with the family. Kind of an unorthodox CIH but it works but here is the kicker. He leaves the couch pushed up and watches rollercoaster movies like they are Imax. He could also watch real Imax from up there to but even though rollercoaster movies are not Imax branded he watches them at Imax immersion and the experience I hear is great.

I figured that out about Steve’s set after reading his first post in 2 minutes. He doesn’t have a room wide enough to wow his buddies as tall as he wants and also do Imax like stuff so he did a bit convoluted PIA setup that works “Perfect” for his needs.

It was said the Native American built a small fire and sat close and the white man came along and built a big fire to sit far back.
I think the majority of folks in here understand you can semi-permanently mask a 16:9 screen to use it as a CIH+IMAX application. Some of us either don't want the extra height or have the space for it. Or don't find the handful of pseudo IMAX films to be worth the fuss. Or both. I don't really have anything against those who want that sort of setup. I simply fall into the "both" category. I don't want the extra height as it isn't comfortable to view and the handful of films with pseudo IMAX don't really merit changing the screen. Add to that a CIH+IMAX type setup would, for me, reduce the screen dimensions to be tolerable and therefore lessen the impact of all non-IMAX content. Which is 99.9% of what I watch. It's simply a lose-lose situation all the way around for me. But again, that is MY preference and I can understand others feeling differently.

As far as Steve goes, the average layman sees a 8'+ wide screen and they are impressed. I doubt most would even grasp the AR until they saw the unused side pillars when the game came on. Not all home theaters have the option of moving their furniture (most don't that I have been in) and if you care about the audio fidelity it's not a good option. So while it works for Steve, I don't believe it should be presented like it is a practical choice for most of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #203 ·
I always thought you should have called it "Variable Image Area" since that's exactly what you're doing--varying the image area for each presentation.
Variable image area would be a perfectly logical name except it would assume a set of rules just as all the other methods of presentation have. CIH has a specific way you go about it there is a choice you make of a personal selection at first and that is determining your level of immersion. Once you make that choice all presentation is set in stone. CIH+Imax is the same it is a spin off of CIH. CIA is a similar situation where you select a vertical immersion for scope and then all other AR sizes fall into place based on area.

My first name had perfect in the title as it was to be understood nothing is perfect for everyone. We don’t all walk into a movie house and all want the same seat. Or for some of us our favorite contents we want a different level of immersion than other content of the same AR to make it perfect for us. Perfect used in that way was a great name I thought but it wasn’t a universal perfect it was a personal perfect. This system I felt was perfect insomuch as once you had your screen size and masking worked out it could be run as anyone of the 4 main ways people present media on a screen. It allowed a person with a wall painted gray or white that had an area the size of an Imax screen to practice all the methods of presentation so I thought that was pretty perfect also.

But in the end the fact I’m saying it is ok to mix and match presentation methods and even invent some areas that don’t comply with any system and to do that the system has to be personal to work. It is not endorsed by anyone but the user. It is only similar to the established method of presentation by the industry if you take those established methods and add in the fact that the very last thing you do when you go to a commercial CIH theater is a “personal” element to the movie experience. That is you select your seat. The range of immersion in a commercial theater from the front row to the back row is great, and every time you go to one you select your seat. Some people sit in the same row every time and that is making a personal selection also. At home many have one row and if they are a person that always makes the same row selection they are doing PIA and for them PIA works out to be CIH. If you have 3 seats you like to sit in and they are in 3 rows and the area of the screen happens to be the same for 3AR’s then they are using PIA and it happens to be CIA.

So because the only part of the movie experience we have personal freedom to pick is our seat / immersion I now call it personal image area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #204 ·
I think the majority of folks in here understand you can semi-permanently mask a 16:9 screen to use it as a CIH+IMAX application. Some of us either don't want the extra height or have the space for it. Or don't find the handful of pseudo IMAX films to be worth the fuss. Or both. I don't really have anything against those who want that sort of setup. I simply fall into the "both" category. I don't want the extra height as it isn't comfortable to view and the handful of films with pseudo IMAX don't really merit changing the screen. Add to that a CIH+IMAX type setup would, for me, reduce the screen dimensions to be tolerable and therefore lessen the impact of all non-IMAX content. Which is 99.9% of what I watch. It's simply a lose-lose situation all the way around for me. But again, that is MY preference and I can understand others feeling differently.

As far as Steve goes, the average layman sees a 8'+ wide screen and they are impressed. I doubt most would even grasp the AR until they saw the unused side pillars when the game came on. Not all home theaters have the option of moving their furniture (most don't that I have been in) and if you care about the audio fidelity it's not a good option. So while it works for Steve, I don't believe it should be presented like it is a practical choice for most of us.
The suggestion of PIA using an Imax sized screen is just a suggestion. This goes way back to some of my first talks with you here on the topic. I mentioned I liked a taller AR projector because I had extra height in pixels and I personally found a 16:10 projector good for me as it gave me extra height in 4:3 projection without zooming. I know you have no desire ever for expanding height beyond what CIH gives you and that is great for you and you are following the tried and true guidelines of CIH.

The bottom line is to do CIH+Imax and also CIA you need an Imax size screen. To do PIA to its full potential you would also need a 16:9 screen of Imax size. That doesn’t mean you need an Imax screen if your personal height requirements never go full blown Imax in height. In fact a 2.0:1 screen would work out well for a lot of people. I can’t say for certain about Rich but from what I have read I think he and I could be pretty happy with a 2.0:1 screen. The only drawback for us would be the expanding ratio scope movies. We would get a little spill with.

Again I know this isn’t for you and I am in no way trying to convince anyone that loves CIH to change. If you were a person that felt you like more immersion on taller AR movies and had the width for CIH in your room but not the height for a Imax screen maybe a 2.0:1 screen or something like that could help you, or you could do what you often suggest to Steve and that is move closer and leave your couch there.

What works for Steve works for Steve and it is his personal way of doing things. I don’t like moving furniture also and thus the reason for this thread. I have chosen to use zoom instead. The zoom method may be changing for me shortly though as a have a different plan in the works to get PIA in the future. More on that to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #205 ·
I have been experimenting over the last couple week with alternate methods of doing changes to immersion levels of presentation as well as ways to switch between different AR’s when watching strictly as CIH.

I know about A-lens and zoom and some people have devices that allow scaling images etc. I was also thinking about the future of presentation methods with UHD projectors and all that.

As most know I am projecting on a shoe string cheap 16:10 crossover business projector, DIY painted stealth screen wall. With a mirror reflected method of masking and large zooming abilities by moving the projector on a DIY slide I built. I also have every type of cable the projector will support ran up to it and feed it media from all kinds of sources. One of them is a laptop computer that is about 5 years old with only DVD no BD. But a good deal of my media is on DVD and my BD player does a great job of upscaling it and presenting it to the projector as does my computer displaying it to the monitor and the projector. I run a media player called VLC Player that I downloaded. What I always used to do was connect my computer to the projector and set the projector to be a copy of my computer screen, call up the movie on VLC and then hit the full screen button on the player and it removed all but the movie. It worked well like that but if I wanted to adjust the size of the window I got the boarder of the player and all the buttons and also all the icons on my desktop around the image. I switched the way the monitors configured so the projector was an extension of my PC screen I changed my desktop background to be 0,0,0 black and I placed the VLC window as the only thing on the second monitor position / projector. I could now display the movie to any size I wanted and the only distraction was the VLC media window itself. I started looking around the VLC site and found the site encourages a lot of open source stuff and they have all kinds of people writing new skins for the media player. I downloaded the whole collection not sure what I wanted and got about 150 skins for the player. With a few hours of going thru them (and I haven’t tried them all yet) I found a skin called Darkvoodoo that is very minimalist the whole thing is 0,0,0 black except a thin dark gray bar top and bottom containing just what you need to stop and start and run the player the buttons are just a few shades darker than the bar and nothing in the window is distracting even though it is visible. The window is sizable and movable within the Imax size workspace I’m projecting to. If I send it a scope movie and stretch the window top to bottom I can make the image any size keeping the control bars well away from the image top and bottom. With the desktop 0,0,0 and the media player the same there is nothing but the image to be viewed framed perfectly with no blackish bars against a different blackish projected image. Without a doubt this is the best self-masking I have seen so far and one I could very easily watch.

Here is where my thoughts are evolving on the way to someday owning a UHD projector. If I have a setup where I feel I have adequate resolution and brightness to show an Imax feature why should I worry about an A-lens or zooming. I have watched a few movies this way on worst resolution and find it very acceptable, this method of masking is also acceptable and it can only get better with higher resolution.

I will attach a screen shot from the skin makers site of the window I’m using darkvoodoo. If you play with these skins let me warn you some of them are poorly done and the VLC player once set to a skin will default to it each time it is opened you change the skin from within the player and some of the bad players won’t let you revert back to the default player to try another. What I did was save the source program and when a skin would lock it up (happened a couple times) I would uninstall VLC and then reinstall it. The darkvoodoo skin seems to be pretty stable. It has only 2 corners that work lower right sizes and upper left moves it.

I see my next move will be to higher resolution and a HTPC with BD and TV tuner, and a graphical method of something like this built in with a stealth screen and most likely zero masking. I may put my front mains on rollers or on a track so I can move them in and out with the screen width.

If you like to experiment and have a PC hooked to your projector give this dual monitor set up with something like VLC a try. I realize this isn’t breaking news to a lot of people doing scaling. It was a low budget way that works for the cheap HT people reading to try.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Bud I think a UHD projector with HTPC backing it isn't a bad way to go. We use Win7 box upstairs to drive the TV and act as a DVR. The only thing I haven't been totally happy with is the software players for Blu-Ray. I've gotten VLC to work with some finagling on some discs. PowerDVD works until they release a new version and they try to dump the old and get you to buy the new. You may want to consider a cheap player to supplement the HTPC. Or rip the media to a storage array. For the home theater we use a WD Live TV for non-disc based viewing. There's no TV source in the home theater,

As far as the other comment, you mentioned being frustrated with people not understanding that you can use a 16:9 screen as a CIH+PIA setup. I was pointing out most of us do indeed understand this concept. It's simply something that some of us don't desire. Which, at least to me, is different than the back and forth explaining why CIH could work in Steve's scenario. That's a case of not grasping what is being explained. Now I don't have any desire for him to switch from what obviously works for him. He's certainly happy and that's what really matters. The only reason that the back and forth is still going on is for folks reading the thread. It's important to understand the concept of screen size as it relates to viewing distance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #207 ·
I do have a BD player Sony 5500 I believe it is and it does a great job over hdmi and I can still zoom if it is anything other than scope. I think the last 20 BD I bought were scope though. Other than that DVD’s will go into my HTPC / laptop with the darkvoodoo VLC and I can watch them CIH or any PIA I want without turning the BD player on. She has a bit of trouble with much more than the BD setup or the TV feed setup so for now she can just play her DVD’s in the BD player as CIW that she likes that size anyway. I should buy a dedicated HTPC with all the bells and whistles or make one. But I would more than likely do another laptop with a BD drive and search out a good player if the VLC BD version isn’t so hot. I like the skin idea as you can make it work and look well suited for a dark theater. The skins are funny I think most are made by a bunch of kids that want their player to look like a Xbox controller or a iPhone. I might have to try my hand at skin making or get an avid HT person here that knows programing to make a good one.

I guess I won’t know until I get a BD drive in a computer. I also only had windows 10 on my computer for a few hours and didn’t give it a try. Don’t know if the new players are any better. I know I like the simplicity of sizing the movie with the mouse. Even Josh might be surprised if mid movie I drag the image down 10% because it was looking grainy without pausing the movie. I know I have turned the sound up and down many times without pausing.

I haven’t even seen a 4k projector yet but from seeing the flat panels I’m very sure scaling will be all that is needed to run CIH or any other method you want.

What should really happen is some projector maker should add image scaling and position to the projector. That would be simple and for sure would be nice in UHD projectors. I even think that method would be good enough for most with 1080P.

As to Steve I think he understands the concept in fact I know he does. He knows immersion but he also knows size and he likes size. He likes to put into comparison how high his walls are and how tall he is in context to his screen height doing something like a football game. I’m big enough for a 4 seat theater with a 110” Imax screen just sitting closer. But then again we all are enamored with size a little or we would just build a room with 4 comfortable seats and have a 40” UHD display hanging in front of it for our theater. I’m seeing all kinds of 70” flat panel TV’s being sold those people could buy 50’s and sit a little closer too. I’m not quite sure what there is about size regardless of immersion that attracts people. I take Steve for his word when his buddies come down the stairs he wants them to feel like they are walking out into a stadium. I even find that kind of cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
VLC will play the Blu-Ray content beautifully. It's the hoops the copy protection imposes that cause the issues. You have to download some files to get past the encryption and the studios change their encryption schemes often enough that you aren't guaranteed it will work with that shiny new disc you want to watch. Or at least that was my experience. If you do your research you may be able to find a software player that does BD and UHD BD nicely that doesn't play the upgrade game. PowerDVD worked fine until the next version came out and support went off a cliff. Luckily we don't watch many BD's up there so we get by alright. I have thought about buying a cheap player just to get rid of the headache. Building a PC isn't a bad route to go. The AMD APU's have a pretty capable integrated video chip and are a nice budget build option. We built ours around 3 years ago and it still chugs along nicely.

Although probably out of your price range the new JVC's do an amazing job with 4K and have programmable lens memory that would allow you to position the image wherever you like in the size you want.

You know I thought Steve was on the same page, but then his last post was again only looking at the raw measurements and not seeming to grasp his seating distance is his only hurdle. No slight intended towards him. I've tunnel visioned on issues and just not been able to wrap my head around another viewpoint. It happens. Or maybe he does understand and it just didn't come across in his post. Again not terribly important for him, because he's not really someone whose use case fits a CIH setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
You know I thought Steve was on the same page, but then his last post was again only looking at the raw measurements and not seeming to grasp his seating distance is his only hurdle. No slight intended towards him. I've tunnel visioned on issues and just not been able to wrap my head around another viewpoint. It happens. Or maybe he does understand and it just didn't come across in his post. Again not terribly important for him, because he's not really someone whose use case fits a CIH setup.
I spent the last couple of days searching the internet/forums for discussions on the merits of CIH vs other setups and the end is always the same. A person wanders in and expresses a different view which leads to conflict and then they depart possibly soured on even considering a CIH setup in the future. I don't want to be that guy, so I pulled out just to peruse the CIH from time to time as a silent lurker...but, with you guys mentioning me so much I feel like Ruprecht...


The point is we are speaking different languages right now. We both understand each other a little but we aren't to the level where we can actually communicate. Remember everything is simple about my setup from the speakers to the projector to using it like a big TV which is perfect for me and maybe only me. The chair slide is for "more" once in a blue moon or next Tuesday when Captain American comes out in 2D/3D blu-ray. I doubt I'll even notice the aspect change during the 3D for the "IMAX" effect since TV does aspect changes all the time now, and I don't recall it in the Guardians of the Galaxy 3D viewing.

Ruprecht out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,053 Posts
Everyone has a different definition of perfection that’s for sure. I’m sure you feel your setup is perfection and it is for you.
My emphasis added, above. I think that's a pretty clear argument right there for avoiding that word completely in the description of a system or methodology. It is 100% subjective. As a result, it almost invites objections, based solely on the claims implied by the name. If you want to start an argument, that seems like a really good way to do it. :) But it focuses attention away from the useful aspects that provide real benefits, to what you're calling it. A lot of attacks on the nomenclature, met with a spirited defense, ad infinitum. All wasted effort, and a distraction from the real issues.

Back when many folks were using CIW systems (and many still do), they could easily have labeled it as "the Best Damn Screen Shape of All Time". ;) But they didn't. And when a growing awareness of how the capabilities of projection systems transcended previous limitations of fixed displays made CIH a real option, many embraced that screen shape with enthusiasm (after many similarly long-winded exchanges with the CIW crowd, defending it). They could have called their new system "perfect" too, but they didn't. (Well, mostly not. :D)

For some of us, even though CIH was a major improvement over CIW, it still wasn't the best fit. Which is why a few of us have been doing CIA for around a decade. Myself ever since Bjoern Roy suggested the approach long ago (right here in the AVS Forum), and I discovered it worked well for me. Still, no claims to be "perfect", and for myself, I've wound up using some extensions to that over the years that bear similarities to what you've been suggesting here. But I've always considered them to be CIA+FS (flexible size), or just FIA (Flexible Image Area). With the emphasis on flexibility, an objective term.

Which is what Rich (Harkness) devised as a great solution to his needs. His focus was on being able to vary the size, so a VIS system worked extremely well for him (Variable Image Size). Combined with his 4-way masking (something I'm still trying to figure out how to do well, both easily and at a reasonable cost), that allows him not only to do any aspect ratio, but at whatever size is most appropriate to the content and his needs. That certainly comes about as close as you can get to "perfect" (on the axis of adaptability)... yet he made no such claims.


IMHO, your simple decision to interject a subjective term in place of what has previously always been an objective one, has resulted in extensive and animated discussions that generated more heat than light, and distracted from (sometimes totally obscured) the positive attributes you were trying to promote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #211 ·
My emphasis added, above. I think that's a pretty clear argument right there for avoiding that word completely in the description of a system or methodology. It is 100% subjective. As a result, it almost invites objections, based solely on the claims implied by the name. If you want to start an argument, that seems like a really good way to do it. :) But it focuses attention away from the useful aspects that provide real benefits, to what you're calling it. A lot of attacks on the nomenclature, met with a spirited defense, ad infinitum. All wasted effort, and a distraction from the real issues.

Back when many folks were using CIW systems (and many still do), they could easily have labeled it as "the Best Damn Screen Shape of All Time". ;) But they didn't. And when a growing awareness of how the capabilities of projection systems transcended previous limitations of fixed displays made CIH a real option, many embraced that screen shape with enthusiasm (after many similarly long-winded exchanges with the CIW crowd, defending it). They could have called their new system "perfect" too, but they didn't. (Well, mostly not. :D)

For some of us, even though CIH was a major improvement over CIW, it still wasn't the best fit. Which is why a few of us have been doing CIA for around a decade. Myself ever since Bjoern Roy suggested the approach long ago (right here in the AVS Forum), and I discovered it worked well for me. Still, no claims to be "perfect", and for myself, I've wound up using some extensions to that over the years that bear similarities to what you've been suggesting here. But I've always considered them to be CIA+FS (flexible size), or just FIA (Flexible Image Area). With the emphasis on flexibility, an objective term.

Which is what Rich (Harkness) devised as a great solution to his needs. His focus was on being able to vary the size, so a VIS system worked extremely well for him (Variable Image Size). Combined with his 4-way masking (something I'm still trying to figure out how to do well, both easily and at a reasonable cost), that allows him not only to do any aspect ratio, but at whatever size is most appropriate to the content and his needs. That certainly comes about as close as you can get to "perfect" (on the axis of adaptability)... yet he made no such claims.


IMHO, your simple decision to interject a subjective term in place of what has previously always been an objective one, has resulted in extensive and animated discussions that generated more heat than light, and distracted from (sometimes totally obscured) the positive attributes you were trying to promote.
Well said. Totally in agreement.

With a little back history on the subject. I had interjected opinions and comments here and there in dozens of threads always when a OP came to this forum being tired of TV like projection CIW and asked questions about how do I do this and that zooming or lens, what if I want Imax and the same information was always given straight down the CIH party line and any suggestion of deviation of the way film was intended to be presented was quickly shot down. I was told 100 times this is the CIH forum and why would I have the gall to come into a forum on that subject and talk about something that goes directly about the motion picture associations guidelines. I pointed out there was no forum for this topic and I was basically told that is not the problem of the CIH forum and to get out. A couple of the less abrasive individuals told me no one here wants to hear this dribble as they have all made up their minds years ago on the topic and new people coming here wouldn’t be coming here if they didn’t want CIH. I should stay out of threads and start my own thread in a more appropriate place. I thought about screens or projectors less than $3000 but figured threads here move off the list so slow a new thread would stay on the front page for a year without a bump and I would outline my ideas in a first post anyone coming to the forum to read could consult it and ask a question there.

The idea of perfect is reflected in the title as for a new comer wondering what kind of screen to shuck out his money on and understanding the concept could do one of two things. They could assign an area of their wall to a Imax size screen and set seating accordingly and then test out all the methods of presentation on one screen. in a year or 6 months when they knew what suited them they could stay with this system or buy a screen that fit what they liked. The second method is they could buy the Imax sized screen and experiment with it as above and when they found what they liked put some semi fixed masking up and be done. Maybe take it down a couple times a year for a Imax movie or expanding movie if they like CIH. The reason perfect was in the title was the fact it could and does contain all things for all people (short and simple) it can be any and all forms of presentation rolled into one.

I don’t know what AR screen Rich uses it could be a 2.0:1 and allow for variable image size. I have a stealth wall so my screen has no AR or size and I only recently realized my zoom ability and seating distance allowed for a proper CIH presentation of the Hateful Eight so I even expanded on what I thought I had. What could be more perfect some director invented a new AR and I was ready for it without changing my seat locations.

The draw back to my following the advice of staying out of the threads coming to the forum and starting a new thread for anyone that wanted to follow my crazy system was everyone followed me to my new thread to tell me the same things again. That’s ok as now at least we have 200 plus posts of point and counter points all in the same thread rather than a 1000 examples mixed into dozen of threads. If anyone wants to read this like a book they should get a good cross section of CIH along with ideas on why they might want to think outside the box.

I changed the name on the first post title to personal but the title that shows in the forum hasn’t changed. If any mod is reading and wants to change that to Personal that would be great. I never intended on stepping on anyone’s toes with the name and now that I know Rich coined the VIS name I will add that information and a link early on in the thread with a link to his comments. I really don’t care what anyone calls it or if it has a name at all. I actually think if I dig thru all the presentation standards for commercial theaters I could find an early reference name other than CIH. If Personal is too subjective then we may have to change the name again. I relate this all to selecting my seat at a well designed CIH commercial theater. In an ideal world I would go to the theater and no one will be seated yet. I walk in and make my personal selection of a seat that I want to sit in for the movie. I sit down and say no it’s not quite immersive enough so I get up and move down 10 rows and I say nope too immersive I move back 5, nope a little too close still, I move back one more and I sit down and at last I feel I am in my perfect seat based on my personal likes. If I go to a movie with my friend and we debate and compromise on a seat that is good for both of us as we would like to sit together then we made a group personal choice on immersion and it is the perfect location to share. When I go to a movie with my sister it is a rare treat and her level of desired immersion is way less than mine and as big sisters can be they are in control. We talk it over and of course she wins and we sit in the back. It is by far not my personal level of immersion but it is perfect being able to talk my sister into going to a movie and enjoying it together. That’s what a perfect seat is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #213 ·
A great movie shot in 1.85. I don’t quite understand what your question or comment is though. I gather an attempt at some humor of some type.

It is interesting when a thread has over 200 posts and only about 40 of them can even vaguely considered on topic.

My personal copy of fatal attractions is on DVD it is I would consider a fair copy and up scales fairly well. It is no where near a flawless presentation and the content of the movie being shot 1.85 does in no way beg for immersion. It is a good solid highly entertaining movie for me it would be best shown in terms you will understand as a CIH presentation with a seating distance of 3X screen height. That of course would be my Personal Image Area and yours could vary. Put in simpler terms if I went to a commercial theater in 1987 and it had 100 rows of seat I might have set around row 50. that was 30 years ago movies were film and many trade offs were put into seating distance. In the last 30 years massive changes have taken place in how movies are recorded and projected and the level of immersion someone may chose to watch in. If you don’t believe me go to imdb and watch the trailer and watch the commercial they make you watch before the trailer. I don’t want to watch a cat food commercial fully immersive as I could as the quality is there. The movie trailer is 30 years old I could stand to watch it fully immersive if the quality was as good as the cat food commercial but it isn’t and the DVD wont be also. If I dial back my seating distance to 1987 the DVD is very nice to watch and the type of movie it is I’m not feeling any loss in quality by not being so immersive. The net goal for me using PIA is to maximize the viewing experience as best I can given what I got.

An interesting side note on a movie like Fatal Attractions where I might want to slightly diminish the immersion I see very little difference in the quality if I do the size change with zoom or if I do it with scaling thru my HTPC method. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #214 ·
The ongoing debate will go on for years pertaining to the AR of 2.35:1 as being the gold standard of presentations. No one should debate the intent of the motion picture industry in their selection of AR’s over the years or their decision on the system of presentation they want to use in commercial theaters. It is their industry and we buy and view their products as we see fit to do.

It is quite a bargain when you think about it a company spends 100 of millions of dollars to create a movie and allows us to buy it and own it for just a few dollars. Of course that is made possible by economy of scale because millions of people all want to own a copy of the movie.

No one is to debate that the industry has the right to present the movie in any method they want and we sometimes complain as we might not agree it is for them to what they like.

The question arises if we at home on a personal level can gain an improved enjoyment out of a movie by showing it at a different size relative to the last movie we showed. In other words do all movies we personally watch need to be the exact same height or more correctly occupy the same amount of our vertical field of vision (FOV). The widely accepted viewpoint is that there is a comfortable up and down point to our vision as well as a comfortable side to side point. Those that are proponents of CIH feel two reasons for this method of presentation as being best. The first is it is the method the motion picture industry chose to use in commercial theaters and our home theaters want or should want to closely emulate whatever happens in a commercial theater. I can’t argue that point as it is valid and if that is important to you then that is what you should do. The second point is that along with being the gold standard of AR’s 2.35:1 is also a near perfect match with human FOV. If that is the case then there is nothing left to think about, if the scope ratio is the pleasant point of vision both up and down and right and left and is the FOV most of us have then CIH is the perfect method of presentation and also the perfect AR and a huge mistake was made 20 years ago when the TV standard and projectors were set to 16:9. Just for the record I don’t think 16:9 is anymore the perfect AR for human FOV than scope and I hope to explain my thoughts here.

The supporters of CIH will tell you there is a few simple tests that prove 2.35 is close to our FOV. The most common is the finger test. It goes something like this. Stand or sit in a fixed location and stare straight ahead at a spot on a blackboard. Now with your arms out to your side move your arms in slowly from behind out of your FOV until the point you very first can detect the motion of your hand and fingers. Mark that point on the blackboard with chalk for both sides. Now repeat it above and below and mark those points as well. now using the up and down points for horizontal lines and the right and left points for vertical lines make a rectangle. What you will find is you drew a long skinny rectangle much longer than 16:9 without even measuring and even longer than a 2.35:1 AR. The next experiment they won’t tell you to try is the above test but with some level of acuity added in. instead of just seeing motion maybe try and detect a 1” tall letter is it an A or a B type of thing. When that test is tried the AR produced gets shorter and becomes closer to 2.35:1.
Then there is the test with allowing eye movement first to the extremes and then to what you feel is comfortable again with acuity. When I do these tests I find I have a rectangle closer to 16:9 maybe even taller. I suggest each person try their own experiments with this. The next test would be with eye and head movement but I think we all agree for movie watching most of us don’t want to move our heads like at a tennis match. But you do have to take head movement into the calculations and what you will find with the level gaze test is your FOV is roughly the same side to side but not up and down. With eyes level we have greater FOV down than up. For some reason we like our monitors slightly below eye level at work because of this but we like our HT projector screen slightly above center. Part of that is conditioning from going to movies where the screen was higher so all could see over the head in front and most theater seats allow for an upward angle of view by reclining.

So do we view fixed gaze or with comfortable eye movement. If you are honest with yourself, you will know daily life has our eyes moving nonstop. It is hard for instance to look at one word on this page and try and read the word two lines above. Here is a study done showing how a group of people viewed a movie with eye movement. https://vimeo.com/19788132 There is much more reading on the subject if you want to search. Here is a report done by NASA in 1964 on the limits of vision and the degree of acuity and it shows mapping of each eye and the combined vision of both eyes. http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/64vision/17.htm if you scroll down about one quarter you will find what NASA thinks the FOV with eyes fixed within a useful range of acuity. The image is 17-13 Binocular Visual Fields With Head and Eyes Fixed. I will try and copy that information and post a photo below with a common AR superimposed.

It was based on this information and my own preference on two things that lead me to this system of personal presentation first is personal immersion and the second is personal acuity. If the image is good and it is a type of image I might want to have a heightened sense of immersion like I am not just Viewing but rather I’m involved in it then I set my level of personal immersive view high. If the image lacks the detail my acuity requires or is an image I don’t care to feel like I’m in a heighten state of immersion then I go the other direction and set my level low. In knowing my limitations are both height and width limited just not at a AR of 2.35:1 and knowing my projectors native source is 16:9 I can and you can develop a system that works best.

Just for fun I’m attaching an image that has been shown around lately called Dots. It will point out how our eyes are required to move around on even a small image to see detail. There are 12 black dots in the image try viewing them all at once.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Bud that's nonsense. Our eyes do not move "non-stop". Try it. You'll get nauseous. They move to a point focus and move on. The length they stay on that point varies widely (it can be less than a second). Which is exactly what that video is showing. FOV has been discussed to death and moved the conversation very little, so no point in arguing it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
Is he still trying to convince people that CIH is bad voodoo? :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #217 ·
Bud that's nonsense. Our eyes do not move "non-stop". Try it. You'll get nauseous. They move to a point focus and move on. The length they stay on that point varies widely (it can be less than a second). Which is exactly what that video is showing. FOV has been discussed to death and moved the conversation very little, so no point in arguing it again.
Here is a basic read. http://study.com/academy/lesson/saccade-eye-movement-definition-test.html
Bit more of an advanced read. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10991/

Our eyes move nonstop they even move when we sleep and there is no science that says it will cause nauseous conditions. The point has been discussed to death but never to resolution as far as I know here. My main reason for adding the information here was to have the “to death” conversation logically laid out in one place and in the OP of this thread. I doubt anyone looking here for opinions will have the stomach to read the whole thread. Now that could cause nauseous conditions.

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #218 ·
Is he still trying to convince people that CIH is bad voodoo? :)
Just the opposite I believe CIH is good voodoo. I have often said CIH is a far better system of presentation than CIW and that is what most are using. I also believe it is a better system than CIA because making area a constant forces an increase in immersion by design. In my system CIH is the starting point for all changes in immersion positive and negative.

The only bone of contention between CIH and PIA boils down to the idea that when you walk into a empty commercial theater are you allowed to sit in any seat you want in the theater? If the answer is yes then the next question is. Do you want your single row home theater to replicate as close as possible the presentation of a commercial theater? If the answer to that is yes then you have to endorse PIA

Your system is CIH + Imax and mine in actuality is CIH + Immersion.

CIH + Immersion = PIA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
The only bone of contention between CIH and PIA boils down to the idea that when you walk into a empty commercial theater are you allowed to sit in any seat you want in the theater? If the answer is yes then the next question is. Do you want your single row home theater to replicate as close as possible the presentation of a commercial theater? If the answer to that is yes then you have to endorse PIA

Your system is CIH + Imax and mine in actuality is CIH + Immersion.

CIH + Immersion = PIA
That isn't a bone of contention at all. That's just normal - even CEDIA CEB23 says that in its guidance.

Like I said before, seating distance is key, and making sure you see everything correctly in relation to each other is best done via CIH. You don't have to of course.

If I am sitting close enough in my set up, why is that not immersion?

If you can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where you sit, then you're not sitting close enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,135 Posts
Discussion Starter · #220 ·
That isn't a bone of contention at all. That's just normal - even CEDIA CEB23 says that in its guidance.

Like I said before, seating distance is key, and making sure you see everything correctly in relation to each other is best done via CIH. You don't have to of course.

If I am sitting close enough in my set up, why is that not immersion?

If you can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where you sit, then you're not sitting close enough.
That’s not true for a couple of reasons.

The first being all people are not comfortable with the same level of immersion. I think full immersion is an acquired taste and the times I have shown movies to guests that are not as avid an immersive viewer as myself they much preferred less immersion.

The other factor is that your horizontal and vertical immersion max out at the same point at the same comfort level and they max out around a AR of 2.35:1. What I’m saying and the scientific studies on FOV state is that if I max out my horizontal comfortable limit I will not have yet reached my comfortable full immersion level in the vertical. That is very hard to measure because our horizontal vision actually goes to infinity in both directions as our FOV in that direction is 180 degrees. So what needs to be measured is at what point we want to set a limit due to acuity. In your case I believe you have maxed your vertical and let the horizontal fall where it may. I have often heard you claim some high immersion numbers based around X screen height in terms of seating. I could easily also go 1.5 X screen height also if not for the discomfort of a scope width. I really think we are both on the same page but you may be neglecting the width as like I said we can see to infinity in width.

Have some guests over and seat them at 1.5X for a scope movie and see what they say.

Then there is times someone might want negative immersion. We never seem to talk about that but I watch a lot of stuff from 3X seating distance.
 
201 - 220 of 407 Posts
Top