AVS Forum banner

241 - 260 of 387 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
You really need to revise that bold and unequivocal statement, Gary. It should say, "If _I_ can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where _I_ sit, then _I'm_ not sitting close enough.".

Because it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to many others. Some of you CIH-purists are just as guilty as you're claiming Bud to be. Talkative pots & kettles. ;) Not everyone is willing to join the Church of the OTAR. Nor should they have to.
Like jeahrens, I don't think it needs revising.

If you're watching a 16:9 image, be it on a 16:9 screen or a 2.35 screen, if it's too small for you, then you're sitting too far back - you need to either move your seats closer so that its big enough for you, or zoom the image larger/get a larger screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
If there was a projector that had a pixel array of 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 I would gladly advocate buying a screen of 1:1 AR.
I have yet to see a room where that would not be a TERRIBLE setup. You want a square screen? In my room it would be a ~5'x5' screen. It would be a big step down in every way and a miserable viewing experience.

A large percentage of rooms are wider than they are high and 16:9 seems to fit better into people’s needs better than 4:3 or 1:1 would fit. Who knows maybe that was in the back of someone’s mind when they said the world is 16:9. It doesn’t matter it is what it is.
A very large percentage. In my experience I have yet to visit a theater room custom or otherwise that was taller than it is wide.

Anyone that has watched Youtube knows there is a button you can click on that makes the video play full screen. I can’t believe you have never blown up a poor video on there and said God that looks bad and zoomed it back down to compress it and make it look much better. DVD and VHS look bad sometimes too large or even let’s say CIH. That’s the reason PIA allows to diminish the image size. Well that and sometimes when I go to a commercial theater I want to sit in the back row or sometimes the person I go with likes the back row and different immersion level. That I believe is what prompted VideoGrabber to correct Gary saying that might be true for him but not for all.
I have blown up poor videos. Most of the B-movie sessions we do are at best non-anamorphic DVD and at worst poor VHS. Do they look good? Heck no. Do I have any desire to shrink them to a smaller size? Nope. Making them smaller just makes them harder to watch, the warts are there either way.

Again PIA is not changing the classic method of presentation in a commercial movie house as compared to at home. In fact PIA is allowing for presentation at home closer to what you have in a commercial theater because within the range of PIA it allows for selection of what row you could sit in at the commercial theater.
Well I don't know of anyone that changes where they sit based on a film's AR or how important a viewer feels it is. Most sit just past the mid point in the center regardless. Go to any cinema you can reserve seating and check the sold seats. Those seats go first (they also generally match the optimum measurements for the theater). The aisle seats in the same area seem to go next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
I often adjust the size of 4:3 (and when my tablet is my projector's video source) depending on the content and quality. For example, I might watch an episode of Star Trek in one of three different sizes since the image quality seems to change depending on the episode. Also, it gets rid of the advertisement for the station. (For the record, I took these over the weekend before Bud's post.)
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #244
In my experience I have yet to visit a theater room custom or otherwise that was taller than it is wide.

You should check them out. Quite a few still around that are as tall as they are wide. People actually paid more to sit off angle and that far back.

These same theaters were converted to scope by dropping masking and no seats were moved. The 50's and 60's came along with urban sprawl and strip malls and the low wide modern theaters were born to suit scope and downplay the older AR's.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #245
I often adjust the size of 4:3 (and when my tablet is my projector's video source) depending on the content and quality. For example, I might watch an episode of Star Trek in one of three different sizes since the image quality seems to change depending on the episode. Also, it gets rid of the advertisement for the station. (For the record, I took these over the weekend before Bud's post.)
Great example of when you would benefit from a smaller presentation. I agree there is no logic to why some converted to digital is so much better than others in PQ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
You should check them out. Quite a few still around that are as tall as they are wide. People actually paid more to sit off angle and that far back.

These same theaters were converted to scope by dropping masking and no seats were moved. The 50's and 60's came along with urban sprawl and strip malls and the low wide modern theaters were born to suit scope and downplay the older AR's.
Gee and that's relevant to a home theater and your 1:1 suggestion how? Read what you wrote and what I wrote neither of us were talking about professional venues. 1:1 would be awful in 100% of the home theater rooms I have been in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
You should check them out. Quite a few still around that are as tall as they are wide. People actually paid more to sit off angle and that far back.

These same theaters were converted to scope by dropping masking and no seats were moved. The 50's and 60's came along with urban sprawl and strip malls and the low wide modern theaters were born to suit scope and downplay the older AR's.
Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday. :( I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday. :( I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .
Thankfully stage plays/operas and musicians keep a lot of these places alive. The wife and I were able to see a Beatles tribute, The Fab Four, at local venue Hoyt Sherman Auditorium on Sunday. An old mansion with a stage/theater. Wonderful acoustics and a beautiful venue. One of our local favorites. The pinnacle for old theater venues for me was seeing David Gilmour perform at the Auditorium Theater in Chicago in April. Amazing show and the facility was spectacular. The acoustics were sublime.

There aren't many movie houses like this anymore (none around here), but at least you can still experience this type of venue. There's a vibe to them that is very special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #250
Gee and that's relevant to a home theater and your 1:1 suggestion how? Read what you wrote and what I wrote neither of us were talking about professional venues. 1:1 would be awful in 100% of the home theater rooms I have been in.
Relevant or irrelevant what I wrote was 1:1 is not a ratio of any projector, and the world for good or bad has settled on 16:9 as the gold standard. That ratio only matters as to what size ratio we are trying to fit inside it. in fact you can fit any ratio rectangle inside any other ratio rectangle that’s simple geometry. What is important is utilization of the shape of the ones we have projectors built to be native. For the most part it is 16:9 with a dab of offerings in 16:10 and 4:3 but anything serious for home theater is 16:9. A few attempts were made at scope projectors and I thought that was a wonderful idea and they should have made 16:9 based media to go with it but that never became reality.

So the talk surrounds 16:9 projectors and the size of peoples walls to contain a 16:9 image. It is clear your room doesn’t have the height to do a 16:9 image as wide as your CIH scope with requires. OK before you reply I know you would also not want to ever watch anything that large as Imax would be in CIH. All I’m saying is your room if you did want Imax wouldn’t work because you are height limited. Of course we could apply the same logic you often tell Steve because he claims being width limited, is that you could move your seating and archive CIH+Imax if you wanted ( and I know you don’t want that) but you could. As no house can be height or width limited by definition and simple math.

But in reality lots of people have vast expanses in their basements and may only have 7’ ceilings and might have a desire to sit back 15’ or more just because. So in practical terms they are also height limited. I know center speakers and all that factor in also.

Then there are people with first floors ceiling height of 10’ that is not that uncommon these days and might have a room that’s 12x16 they want to use as a small home theater. They are in no way height limited along the 12x10 screen wall. We also now have to believe that I’m not the only person in the world that has a FOV that can if I want encompass an Imax like FOV or anything greater than CIH. We have Steve and Rich and VideoGrabber plus myself. 4 people out of the 7 trillion people on the earth with the vision expansion to handle it. who knows there could be a dozen more even. We are the people like Roger Ebert that maybe have reason to like different seats for different reasons. We have a hard limit of immersion it is Imax except for Steve maybe because I think he would try bigger if he could. But of the 4 of us and oh ya the guy from Stewart Screens that sells the variable masking system that costs so much no one can afford it him too. We feel we can watch CIH on a 16:9 screen. And from time to time adjust that for the 100 reasons I have typed here a 1000 times. OK hold it I know you are reading Josh and I get it, You can’t have Constant IH if the image height isn’t “Constant”. Sometimes when I watch a movie CIH I lean forward a little at the movie theater to eat some popcorn and it dawns on me I just made the image larger mid movie and it pretty much ruins the rest of the movie for me. Then there are the ridicules people that say they have a CIH home theater and have two rows of seats. Who do they think they are kidding.

Well I hope I painted a picture of a room in some house that could support an imaginary 1:1 projected image and for sure a reality 16:9 image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #251
Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday. :( I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .
Look at the front row distance to that Huge Academy screen in the photos you posted. Watching the Wizard of Oz from down there no one is ever going to tell me that isn’t IMAX plus immersion. When those same AR movies moved to the 60’s theaters designed to showcase scope movies they were greatly diminished in grandeur. Not the theaters did anything wrong those movies had their day in their venue and the theaters and the motion picture industry did what they do best and that is they sold their newest product. What didn’t happen IMO was that human vision suddenly changed. You as a kid may have not seen what they did lowering the ceiling 20 foot and making the theater 90 foot wider. We were treated to a different kind of immersion this time in width.

We have a restored Warner Theater in my town that I take every opportunity to visit. From time to time they reshow classics there it is always a treat. As a side note when they did the restoration in the 80”s they sold many of the cast iron and velvet art deco seats to a local playhouse. When the playhouse remodeled they gave a bunch of the seats to a community playhouse and when they went under I was able to buy a row of 7 seats with the light in the aisle seats. I was only able to use 6 of the seats as a back row I built to be a balcony on a riser. The funny thing was 6 seats fit in the same width as two modern theater seats for home theaters. People were much smaller in the 1920’s I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,587 Posts
Relevant or irrelevant what I wrote was 1:1 is not a ratio of any projector, and the world for good or bad has settled on 16:9 as the gold standard. That ratio only matters as to what size ratio we are trying to fit inside it. in fact you can fit any ratio rectangle inside any other ratio rectangle that’s simple geometry. What is important is utilization of the shape of the ones we have projectors built to be native. For the most part it is 16:9 with a dab of offerings in 16:10 and 4:3 but anything serious for home theater is 16:9. A few attempts were made at scope projectors and I thought that was a wonderful idea and they should have made 16:9 based media to go with it but that never became reality.

So the talk surrounds 16:9 projectors and the size of peoples walls to contain a 16:9 image. It is clear your room doesn’t have the height to do a 16:9 image as wide as your CIH scope with requires. OK before you reply I know you would also not want to ever watch anything that large as Imax would be in CIH. All I’m saying is your room if you did want Imax wouldn’t work because you are height limited. Of course we could apply the same logic you often tell Steve because he claims being width limited, is that you could move your seating and archive CIH+Imax if you wanted ( and I know you don’t want that) but you could. As no house can be height or width limited by definition and simple math.

But in reality lots of people have vast expanses in their basements and may only have 7’ ceilings and might have a desire to sit back 15’ or more just because. So in practical terms they are also height limited. I know center speakers and all that factor in also.

Then there are people with first floors ceiling height of 10’ that is not that uncommon these days and might have a room that’s 12x16 they want to use as a small home theater. They are in no way height limited along the 12x10 screen wall. We also now have to believe that I’m not the only person in the world that has a FOV that can if I want encompass an Imax like FOV or anything greater than CIH. We have Steve and Rich and VideoGrabber plus myself. 4 people out of the 7 trillion people on the earth with the vision expansion to handle it. who knows there could be a dozen more even. We are the people like Roger Ebert that maybe have reason to like different seats for different reasons. We have a hard limit of immersion it is Imax except for Steve maybe because I think he would try bigger if he could. But of the 4 of us and oh ya the guy from Stewart Screens that sells the variable masking system that costs so much no one can afford it him too. We feel we can watch CIH on a 16:9 screen. And from time to time adjust that for the 100 reasons I have typed here a 1000 times. OK hold it I know you are reading Josh and I get it, You can’t have Constant IH if the image height isn’t “Constant”. Sometimes when I watch a movie CIH I lean forward a little at the movie theater to eat some popcorn and it dawns on me I just made the image larger mid movie and it pretty much ruins the rest of the movie for me. Then there are the ridicules people that say they have a CIH home theater and have two rows of seats. Who do they think they are kidding.

Well I hope I painted a picture of a room in some house that could support an imaginary 1:1 projected image and for sure a reality 16:9 image.
Bud you typed you would advocate and buy a 1:1 AR screen and projector in your post. I responded that this would be a terrible setup for every home theater setup I have seen in person. You then went on a tangent pointing out old style auditoriums, which aren't relevant to a home scenario, simply so you could show that rooms do exist that have as much height as width. We know that. Doesn't change that a 1:1 ratio is a horrible option for most. Yes there are houses with 10' ceilings on the main floor. How many are suitable for a home theater? I certainly haven't seen any. They are all vaulted showpiece rooms with a ton of natural lighting. Also what content is going to shine on this 1:1 setup? The only thing even close to that ratio is Academy and older IMAX. Which, whether you like it or not, is a tiny portion of what is out there. And the percentage gets smaller every day.

So looking at this from a purely technical angle, not only would you have the majority of a 1:1 panel (which has to pass QC for dead pixels and such) going unused for probably 90+% of the content out there you would also have most homes not able to support a 1:1 screen. All that adds up to a really bad idea.

I don't really care where person X sits. The Pope can prefer front row center. I was talking about the majority of movie goers. You can find an outlier for about anything. It does not negate that the majority flock to the sweet spot.

We've all got a good grasp on CIH+IMAX. No need to rehash it. And no, my setups image height doesn't equate to Steve not understanding how CIH would work in his case (and no I'm not suggesting he change from what he is happy with). I know very well how to adjust my image size by changing the relation of seating seating distance to the screen. I simply see zero reason to bother making compromises or changes for cropped IMAX that constitutes a very small portion of my viewing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #254
Another thread on this CIH forum brought a question to mind for me and I thought I would ask it in this thread.

What is CIH?

Is it a system of presentation where all images are shown in proper CIH method that occupies the same area bound within a 2.35:1 rectangle where everything is shown at the same height?

Or is it having a physical screen or a boarder in the AR of 2.35:1 hung or rolled down to define that area?


Is it possible for a person to view their content in CIH presentation if all they have for a screen is a big blank screen wall?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,866 Posts
What is CIH?

Is it a system of presentation where all images are shown in proper CIH method that occupies the same area bound within a 2.35:1 rectangle where everything is shown at the same height?
Well, you can't use the term in the definition of the term... :D

The term itself is pretty self-explanatory. Constant Image Height. Regardless of how wide the image is, the height of the projected/displayed image is always the same ('constant'). You do whatever is necessary to process the image / adjust the projector / etc. to meet that height.

Is it possible for a person to view their content in CIH presentation if all they have for a screen is a big blank screen wall?
Sure. The whole concept is that you choose the correct height for your room and seating distance, and the width varies based on content. The screen border serves to help with perceived contrast (and decor), but it's not a hard requirement - hence word "image", not "screen" height!


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #256
Sure. The whole concept is that you choose the correct height for your room and seating distance, and the width varies based on content. The screen border serves to help with perceived contrast (and decor), but it's not a hard requirement - hence word "image", not "screen" height!


Jeff
Glad to see we agree if your preferred method of presentation is CIH we are talking about image height image not screen height.

The shape and size of the screen is important to many as the look of the theater you are trying to get. And of course, the absolute black around the image sets a black reference point for our eyes to compare to. I’m not ever sure about the perception part of it as some people put bias lighting around the screen frame and say that helps with perception as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,866 Posts
Glad to see we agree if your preferred method of presentation is CIH we are talking about image height image not screen height.
I don't know what there is to agree on since "Image" is in the term! It's not called CSH...

The shape and size of the screen is important to many as the look of the theater you are trying to get.
Size and shape, different things. Lots of folks want "a big screen", but I suspect that most people that use a 2.35 screen instead of a 1.85 are doing that with an understanding of the presentation history/methods. Folks doing 2.35 just because the wider screen "looks cool" are the exception.

And of course, the absolute black around the image sets a black reference point for our eyes to compare to. I’m not ever sure about the perception part of it as some people put bias lighting around the screen frame and say that helps with perception as well.
It's "perceived contrast", since it looks better to our eyes, but to an instrument, neither of those things will move the needle...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,556 Posts
Discussion Starter #258
It's "perceived contrast", since it looks better to our eyes, but to an instrument, neither of those things will move the needle...
My understanding of perception of contrast is what triggers the brain to adjust the iris in our eyes. If the iris is told to close because the unit brightness or central brightness changes the closed aperture f-stops down just the same way a projector stops down for improved black levels on dark images. Less total light is able to enter the eye the brain reacts to the ANSI like contrast and sees the brightness with less background brightness in the black. Thus we perceive better contrast than what a light meter would show.

Perception of contrast is very real even when it can’t be measured directly. It is how we see every day and every night with a range of about 22 f-stops in our vision.

It always seems perplexing that both a dark frame and background around our image or a lighted frame around our image such as bias lighting can both turn on the ability of perception.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
That depends. Just adding a 2" or 3" black border to an image can change our perception of contrast, but that amount of black will do very little if anything to make our eyes adapt. Like adding or not adding side or top and bottom masking to a 2.35 or 16:9 screen. Although it's adding black, it's only making what was already a dark part of the image a little darker, so unlikely to make a great deal of difference, if any, to eye adaption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
My understanding of perception of contrast is what triggers the brain to adjust the iris in our eyes. If the iris is told to close because the unit brightness or central brightness changes the closed aperture f-stops down just the same way a projector stops down for improved black levels on dark images. Less total light is able to enter the eye the brain reacts to the ANSI like contrast and sees the brightness with less background brightness in the black. Thus we perceive better contrast than what a light meter would show.

Perception of contrast is very real even when it can’t be measured directly. It is how we see every day and every night with a range of about 22 f-stops in our vision.

It always seems perplexing that both a dark frame and background around our image or a lighted frame around our image such as bias lighting can both turn on the ability of perception.
I'm confused about what you're trying to say here, as the projector iris and the iris in our eye behave in opposite ways.

As I understand it, the projector iris will stop down, i.e., get *smaller*, in darker scenes, to make the blacks appear even blacker.

When our eyes are exposed to dark scenes, the iris gets *larger* to allow more light to be captured.

Please clarify what you're trying to say about the relationship between iris behavior in projectors and our eyes.
 
241 - 260 of 387 Posts
Top