AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 407 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born.
We didn't invent CIH - it came about when Fox introduced Scope and the spec back in '53 was that it should be the same height and twice the width of the existing academy screen. All current docs still show CIH as the correct method and it's often referred to as 'the traditional method'.

Here is where people like Rich and I look at it a bit differently. This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do. We factor in a couple things one being eye movement and also acuity of vision.
Don't for a minute think that you and Rich have discovered something that the likes of SMPTE etc haven't realised for the past 60 years or more. If you can watch a taller image, you simply aren't sitting close enough to start with.

Your 180 degrees of side to side vision isn’t a waste as a warning system but it also isn’t a very accurate area of vision. We look at comparable area based on the same level of acuity up and down right and left and because we have two eyes set side by side there is a FOV formed that has a different shape. Think about where you could first tell a square from a circle or one finger compared to two fingers. Your threshold of vision suggestion will tell you the human field of vision in terms of an aspect ratio would be a rectangle of (infinity : one) our method and the method described by the science of Ophthalmology and confirmed by NASA and the like based around similar matches in acuity. Say the FOV is 1.5:1 without eye movement and greater with eye movement.
You talk as if you know more about the HVS than the people who have already done extensive research and produced the standards. You don't. You never mention the height limitation of 15 degrees an the lack of with restrictions. Regardless of width, keep the vertical under 15 degrees for comfort. That's your height limitation right there. THXs back row is 36 degrees. 36/15 = 2.4:1. THXs optimal based on acuity immersion and image quality is 52 degrees = 3.4:1. Front row is determined by the max vertical viewing angle of 35 degrees which would not be the most comfortable place to sit for a 2 hour movie.

That’s the factual part of it then there is the practical part of it as no one wants to be engulfed in an image to those extremes except maybe a fighter pilot training for his mission on a sym.

The area of discussion then takes place around level of immersion and practical limits of FOV.
The factual part is looking up for prolonged periods causes neck ache. Looking side to side or down is easier which is why screens are that shape. IMAX has been discussed and the horizon line is well below the center of the screen because of that.

Then there is the secondary issue of presentation ...
Secondary to you perhaps.

and stature and importance of one man made AR over another. This is the area the movie standards organizations and you and Josh and others feel strongly about. I may not believe it completely but I respect and will uphold your right to those beliefs.
This isn't a religion, it's science.

It is however a totally different issue than what we can see by the nature of our eyes. It states scope is to always be the most important and most immersive of images we are ever to see and it always has to dominate our field of vision over all other ARs. That’s a great belief and I don’t have an issue with it if that’s the reason you want to have CIH. It’s like believing in God it is not my place or anyone else place to say you are right or wrong.
Like I say, it's not a belief, it's already based on science.

I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document.
Of course you are, but this is avscience, not avreligion If you want to ignore the existing research and standards and come to very different conclusions based on your own interpretations and agenda, you're perfectly entitled to do that. But don't get upset if no one else wants to believe you over those who set the standards or how things have been done historically.

Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether.
In your opinion. Seating distance is more important than physical size if the size of the image on your retina is important to you.

Some people who want a bigger image on their retina want a bigger screen rather than move their seating closer. Some people want a bigger screen and then move their seats further back because it's now taller. Some people get a bigger screen because it was too small in the first place (they didn't know about viewing angles and seating distance)

If a movie is important and the content is enhanced by increased immersion then my personal belief is I want to be shown to me and me only as I’m watching it at home alone in a size that best fills my FOV to the level I want. I know for you that will be in a 2.35:1 rectangle as it meets your FOV perfectly. Our FOV is one thing and Scope AR is another. :)
And you still believe you have reinvented the wheel :)

Yes, do what you like at home, that's up to you and that's fine, but don't come preaching that you are right about your preference which is very personal to you, and no one else, and everyone else is doing it wrong because you think you have discover something no one else has.

This is the CIH forum. If you want to watch your movies in a different way, this probably isn't the best place to suggest it ;)

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
So what is PIA? ... Sometimes I want max immersion sometimes I don’t. At home your seating distance never changes and the selection is done with the zoom lever. I have one row of seating and some people have 2 or even 3 rows and the extra screen area could benefit there also making compromises, but my explanation of the colored rectangles here is just for me in my perfect seat.

Red = scope movies of the highest quality BD and of cinematic status judged by myself to deserve the best my screen can offer. Example Ben Hur on BD
Green= 16:9 movies of highest quality and cinematic status that demand immersion. Example Avatar on BD, Planet Earth (PBS).
Blue= 4:3 classics movies of highest quality and cinematic status painstakingly remaster. Example Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind.
Purple= scope movies that don’t rise to the highest quality (poor transfers) or movies that in no way demand immersion to benefit the viewing experience. Example Deliverance DVD transfer and Mom’s night out and a 1000 other similar movies you be the judge. Making them bigger doesn’t make them better.
White= General TV viewing, poor transferred 16:9 movies and 16:9 movies that fall into the Mom’s Night Out category. Example. The 40 year old virgin comes to mind.
Yellow= Old 4:3 TV content, poor transferred 4:3 movies of old. Example 1950’s TV series Bat Masterson and movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Original King Kong, DVD, Family movies copied from super 8 or VHS.
Orange= Then there is orange the whole frame pushing the level of immersion to the max or even past. When would you ever use all the real estate? Well you could use it for an in your face viewing of high quality IMAX movie or for a special showing of IMAX like content such as a movie like Avatar or even The planet earth series. Maybe to give your kids a super immersive version of the animated features they love to watch. Or for events where others might be viewing from seats deeper in the room than your theater seats, like a super bowl party.

These are not exact sizes I’m only showing them as points of reference, where different circumstances dictate different levels of immersion or in terms of a commercial theater a different seat. At any time you can put a black masking at the upper and lower red line and you have CIH again and without moving that masking you can benefit from downsizing the lesser content.

If masking is important to you and it is sometimes important to me you will need to sort out some sort of 2 way or 4 way masking system to go along with it. but some masking system is needed in all the different viewing plans anyway.

I posted this in the CIH forum as it contains all the aspects of a CIH setup except the look of the 2.35:1 hanging on the wall and most people tell me CIH has little to do with style and all about image presentation. This one screen selection embodies CIH, CIW, & CIA all into one idea called PIA (perfect image area) it is not about the shape of the screen it is about how you manage the area.:)
I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous. :)

Gary
I see value in (some of) the multiplicity of image scales proposed for a multi-purpose viewing theater room (i.e., casual television in addition to movies and documentaries) -- I don't want wheel of fortune (16:9) to be the same size as Pacific Rim (16:9) as it diminishes the presentation not unlike CIW. If you have a multi-row theater, then its easy to just sit in the back row when you want less immersive. I am on board with CIH+IMAX for movies and documentaries. So overall CIH+IMAX+SSfWoF (smaller scale for wheel of fortune).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Sorry. your post quoted mine and was worded as if you were addressing me. So it seemed like you were asking me directly. There is no "potential for more" if your screen is sized correctly for your seating distance. If you can comfortably view a taller image, use that as your basis for CIH. If you can't do that, you're width limited. The fundamental here is you want 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 content to be able to have more impact according to your diagram. Which is fine for you. But the point of this discussion area is to restore the intended impact and presentation of scope formats. Which if sized right does not diminish the other formats.

If by total immersion you mean having to move your head and neck to encompass the image, I doubt you'll get many takers. Any taller and I would have to do just that. No thanks. That's not comfortable or relaxing.
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
I see value in (some of) the multiplicity of image scales proposed for a multi-purpose viewing theater room (i.e., casual television in addition to movies and documentaries) -- I don't want wheel of fortune (16:9) to be the same size as Pacific Rim (16:9) as it diminishes the presentation not unlike CIW. If you have a multi-row theater, then its easy to just sit in the back row when you want less immersive. I am on board with CIH+IMAX for movies and documentaries. So overall CIH+IMAX+SSfWoF (smaller scale for wheel of fortune).
For wheel of fortune stuff I just watch on my tv. The projector is for movies.

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.

As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.

The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.

It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.

With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.
Bud I have told you in multiple posts that is exactly how my screen size was arrived at. I threw a 16:9 image up on the wall and zoomed my projector (back then an Infocus IN76) to as big as I wanted it. Bought a screen that matched that size. It would not be as enjoyable any taller. You keep repeating this idea that I may want a 1.85:1 film taller as if I had never done any experimentation or put any thought into sizing my screen. Please let me assure you one last time, this is not the case.

No one has complained about the image being to wide. In fact I had several compliments on the theater crawl I hosted last spring that it was an excellent size. That was over 30 hobbyists. We all process imagery in our peripheral vision. If the action shifts to the periphery our eyes will move and focus on it.

P.S. I don't own a copy of Avaturd ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...

Gary
It is around 5 degrees and we all move our eyes, some movement is intentional and controlled by us consciously and some movement is involuntary. Our FOV is a complex arrangement of actions of the eyes and analyses of the input by the brain.

To me immersion is a variable I want to have control over. Really immersion is another way to think about our peripheral vision and how we want it implemented in our movie watching. I’m not selecting AR the film is in as the trigger of my level of immersion. Rather I am assigning the content and my mood the job of dictating my level of immersion. Again sometimes it is content sometimes it is my mood.

I think jjcook grasped the idea quite well in his above post.

I even think the audio half of the equation plays a similar roll. Sometimes some content and my mood make me want more audio volume. There is visual immersion and also audio immersion and I want to control both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
It is around 5 degrees and we all move our eyes, some movement is intentional and controlled by us consciously and some movement is involuntary. Our FOV is a complex arrangement of actions of the eyes and analyses of the input by the brain.
You talk as if you're the only one who knows this. Some of us have been having these kinds of discussions before you joined here. I think I even pointed out saccades to you in a PM.

To me immersion is a variable I want to have control over. Really immersion is another way to think about our peripheral vision and how we want it implemented in our movie watching. I’m not selecting AR the film is in as the trigger of my level of immersion. Rather I am assigning the content and my mood the job of dictating my level of immersion. Again sometimes it is content sometimes it is my mood.
Everyone in the industry talks about immersion. It's the one of the main ideas behind wider ARs.

I think jjcook grasped the idea quite well in his above post.
Some of us have been using that exact approach for a long time - tv for tv, projector for movies. Same concept. You may be doing it using a pj but again it's nothing new except you think it's innovative.

I even think the audio half of the equation plays a similar roll. Sometimes some content and my mood make me want more audio volume. There is visual immersion and also audio immersion and I want to control both.
I agree. Hearing a great set of speakers can totally change how you view the sound delivery in a home theatre to enhance the movie experience. I recently heard some ATC 300 something or others (£35k a pair IIRC). They make your average commercial cinemas sound like HTIB

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Well Bud, first happy Memorial Day weekend and second, PIA seems like what switching masking around would be with an inexpensive projector and a appetite for current and classic movies/TV. I could see employing your technique in the future with a better projector/larger wall and push button focus.

For me, TCM Memorial Day movies always bring home the issue of changing aspect ratios since they try to show the war movies (40s to 70s/80s) in the proper theatrical ratio when cost allows. For example, 1965's Battle of the Bulge is in 2.76:1 only to be followed by The Longest Day in 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 depending on which version TCM ran which in turn was followed by Men in War in 1.85:1 and others in 1.37:1. I'm sorry but as a child of the 60s and 70s, I want the largest possible Flying Leathernecks even if it is in 1.37:1.

While some limit their content to movies only (and there is nothing wrong with that), what a waste of a good or even a bad projector. The other night I lost count of the aspect ratio changes during the American version of the show Top Gear. While I usually don't watch commercials, I did notice that they switched from 4:3 to 2.35:1 to 16:9. Even in the show for impact there were several switches from the standard 16:9 to 2.35:1 to highlight the certain car segments. I also like to see my movie trailers in the largest way possible.

I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours. I told her that as the room is around 3K not counting the other projectors and sound systems. I'm not going to say what her response was, but I liked it...a lot. (As I have said before, she could be lying since she will want that college check in a few months.)

So as I enjoy hours of old war movies in my own house free to do what I want today, the only thing that makes me sad as is that my 92 year old (well in 10 days) father can't be here watching it with me (700 miles away). To him WWWII opened the world up for a farm boy from Tennessee who gladly enlisted at 17 to sail around the world and fight for freedom. In his nursing home, he has his service records and photos up from back then to highlight the stories he loves to tell over and over and over. Thank you for your service, Dad and to all the others who gave up so much for us to have the freedom to enjoy this weekend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.

Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.

I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...

You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,123 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.

Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.

I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...

You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...
Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie?

Television broadcast at least in this country are not reruns of I love Lucy and the news. Television is 1080P and many people have several hundred stations and differing content to pick from. Add to that the vast amount of material that can be reached on line. I don’t have a clue what people want to watch or how “relatively close they want to sit to the screen” (Zoom). It is not for me to decide what they watch or how. I know people that have a projector and its main usage is to watch sports huge.

PIA is about being able to select your seating distance based on content and mood, but even if we want to view it in terms of just movies I think I have listed enough examples in previous posts of examples of movies in all different AR that for some people would demand a change in immersion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
Well Bud, first happy Memorial Day weekend and second, PIA seems like what switching masking around would be with an inexpensive projector and a appetite for current and classic movies/TV. I could see employing your technique in the future with a better projector/larger wall and push button focus.

For me, TCM Memorial Day movies always bring home the issue of changing aspect ratios since they try to show the war movies (40s to 70s/80s) in the proper theatrical ratio when cost allows. For example, 1965's Battle of the Bulge is in 2.76:1 only to be followed by The Longest Day in 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 depending on which version TCM ran which in turn was followed by Men in War in 1.85:1 and others in 1.37:1. I'm sorry but as a child of the 60s and 70s, I want the largest possible Flying Leathernecks even if it is in 1.37:1.

While some limit their content to movies only (and there is nothing wrong with that), what a waste of a good or even a bad projector. The other night I lost count of the aspect ratio changes during the American version of the show Top Gear. While I usually don't watch commercials, I did notice that they switched from 4:3 to 2.35:1 to 16:9. Even in the show for impact there were several switches from the standard 16:9 to 2.35:1 to highlight the certain car segments. I also like to see my movie trailers in the largest way possible.

I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours. I told her that as the room is around 3K not counting the other projectors and sound systems. I'm not going to say what her response was, but I liked it...a lot. (As I have said before, she could be lying since she will want that college check in a few months.)

So as I enjoy hours of old war movies in my own house free to do what I want today, the only thing that makes me sad as is that my 92 year old (well in 10 days) father can't be here watching it with me (700 miles away). To him WWWII opened the world up for a farm boy from Tennessee who gladly enlisted at 17 to sail around the world and fight for freedom. In his nursing home, he has his service records and photos up from back then to highlight the stories he loves to tell over and over and over. Thank you for your service, Dad and to all the others who gave up so much for us to have the freedom to enjoy this weekend.
Steve you keep missing that size is relative to seating, measurements are pretty much meaningless. If that home theater of the month has the seating/size distances setup correctly (and I'm sure they do), then all the AR's will be seen with the proper impact. Nothing is shortchanged. I would much prefer to watch a movie in that setup. The Battle of the Bulge and The Flying Leathernecks would both be excellent. In your setup unless your moving the furniture a lot, Batte of the Bulge would a lot less impressive than it should be. Commercials can be in any AR they want, they have 0 relevancy.

Would a 1.37:1 film in my setup have the same measurements as yours? Nope. Does it matter? No, because my seating is much closer. Is the impact the same? It's probably pretty darn close. Does a 10' billboard appear bigger than the 4x6" photo? You would say yes. I would say where are they in relation to me. If the 10' billboard is 1/2 mile away and the photo is at the end of my nose. The photo IS bigger.

You solve the issue of scope being diminished by moving furniture. Which is not practical in the majority of setups and does impact speaker calibration. You have every right to be proud of your budget setup. But you need to understand how AR, seating distance and size all interact to create the presentation. You did your daughter no favors by implying that your setup offered a better presentation based solely on measurements of the screen. As a child of the '60's your memories should be the same as mine growing up in the '70's. Golden Age cinema having the same height as the epics of the time. You can argue against preserving that in the home and I'm fine with that. But the theatrical presentation was CIH.

No one is right or wrong on the subject of what you decide to watch on your projector. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to watch TV on theirs. We simply don't care to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.

Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.

I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...

You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...
Gary we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I like big and I don't feel cheated in any way with my simple setup, and to be honest I really don't look at HT the same way you do or the way the home theater of the month guys do.

The best advice I ever got as a young man was "Own the house don't let the house own you." I've tried to pass that along to my kids, so it is nice when they reflect my values back to me with a positive comment about our 3k room vs the 39k room (really 45k but I was trying to be nice). I don't doubt that it is an awe inspiring room but it is not my style.

On a bad projector, yes my blacks could be better and maybe the image could be sharper, but I kind of enjoy having a simple little room and my tacky junk around the room. Knock down the projector, break a speaker or fry the avr and it is a simple/cheap Amazon order to replace. I wouldn't be comfortable with a "fancy" room with a lot of moving parts. Not that there is anything wrong with one, but it is just not me.

I wasn't being insulting to the owner of the room. It looks great and what ever aspect ratio screen a person goes with is great as long as they are happy. I looked at the last five HTs of the month and screen size is obviously an individual choice even for the "big boys". (I would never post in one of those threads unless I was going to say something nice.)

I just don't buy into the argument that one size fits all be it projector/screen/sound/room or that scope is greatly diminished on a large 16:9 screen. :eek: Sorry, but I actually like the rooms which only have an image projected on a wall and are not tied down by a screen. Kind of looks like a room straight out of a science fiction movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Steve you keep missing that size is relative to seating, measurements are pretty much meaningless. If that home theater of the month has the seating/size distances setup correctly (and I'm sure they do), then all the AR's will be seen with the proper impact. Nothing is shortchanged. I would much prefer to watch a movie in that setup. The Battle of the Bulge and The Flying Leathernecks would both be excellent. In your setup unless your moving the furniture a lot, Batte of the Bulge would a lot less impressive than it should be. Commercials can be in any AR they want, they have 0 relevancy.

Would a 1.37:1 film in my setup have the same measurements as yours? Nope. Does it matter? No, because my seating is much closer. Is the impact the same? It's probably pretty darn close. Does a 10' billboard appear bigger than the 4x6" photo? You would say yes. I would say where are they in relation to me. If the 10' billboard is 1/2 mile away and the photo is at the end of my nose. The photo IS bigger.

You solve the issue of scope being diminished by moving furniture. Which is not practical in the majority of setups and does impact speaker calibration. You have every right to be proud of your budget setup. But you need to understand how AR, seating distance and size all interact to create the presentation. You did your daughter no favors by implying that your setup offered a better presentation based solely on measurements of the screen. As a child of the '60's your memories should be the same as mine growing up in the '70's. Golden Age cinema having the same height as the epics of the time. You can argue against preserving that in the home and I'm fine with that. But the theatrical presentation was CIH.

No one is right or wrong on the subject of what you decide to watch on your projector. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to watch TV on theirs. We simply don't care to.
But you have to admit as a child of the 60s and 70s, what a disappointment it was to buy your ticket only to discover you were stuck in one of the smaller theaters at the multiplex. Usually near the end of the run so you could sit anywhere, but I still always felt cheated.

On not doing my daughter a favor. As I said in a the previous post "Own the house don't let the house own you", so she was only echoing what I have taught them since they were little and the little neighbor girl announced one day that her dad had said we make to much money for Brown Circle. His observation was based on our jobs and toys. So I used it as a teachable moment and pointed out to the kids that if we lost our jobs tomorrow we still own the house free and clear. I still wish I had that little paid for house.:(

I get that if you move the chairs up you get the same impact, but I would still feel cheated. I'm also sure that the quality in most home theaters is better much better than mine, but I bet I use mine more than any of you do. Mine has a different purpose. First, I like cheap and it fits the bill. Second, I like bang for the buck and it fits the bill. Third, I like big and it fits the bill with my limited space. Fourth, I like what I like and it fits the bill. Fifth, I love having a 151.5 inch TV and a 143.5 inch theater in my home.

Really no wrong answer other than to say someone else is wrong and I really do cringe when I see perfectly good walls being torn down and months/years being spent on building the perfect HT. It is not wrong it any way, but I couldn't do it. For me that is a cruise for the family or months/years of lost enjoyment or three months tuition or the difference between retiring any day now and working to mandatory at 57.

I never share my views in the big guy sections but I do try to represent the little guy when a big guy says wait until you can afford a better projector, sound or a better room. I am astounded by the number of my friends who originally thought that a HT was too much work or too much money or too complicated for them/wife/kids to use. It is as simple as room, wall and projector/sound.

Nothing wrong with PIA or CIH or what you/I perceive/enjoy or my projecting the largest possible image for all aspect ratios as allowed in my width limited "cheap" room. One size does not fit all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
Steve you missed the point of what I was saying. It had nothing to do with a budget setup being a bad idea (it isn't). In fact it had nothing to do with the cost of either setup at all. You sad this:

I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours.

The implication is clear that you believe and implied that because the your screen has bigger measurements it was a better presentation. My post was pointing out why this isn't the case. It had nothing to do with bang per buck nor was implying anyone should spend beyond their means.

CIH does not have to be expensive. My budget DLP with an inexpensive lens was around $1200 total investment. It would be cheaper today with the current crop of budget DLP projectors. I don't have a custom room. My screen is a simple Monoprice scope screen. That DLP/Lens combo did a very nice job while I had it. Again as I said in another post, your budget setup probably wows 90% of the people that see it. And it fits how you use it just fine. Not a thing wrong with that.

So in a nutshell my post had nothing to do with the $$ differential. It was the implication that your screen measurements made the presentation in your room better. A teachable moment in home theater should have included why AR sizing is important and why the HT of the month went with the screen AR and size they did (and how seating distance affects this). It should also include why you decided on the screen setup you did as well (not every use case fits CIH). Along with the cost lesson of course. That can't be stressed enough.

P.S. Most of our cinemas were one screen up until around high school. But I know what you mean on getting the crappy theater. We saw Rush a few years ago in CIW and off center at one of the 16 screen monstrosities. Terrible presentation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
jeahreans, the sad truth is my girls(wife/daughters) really don't care about image quality :mad: so a better setup/ projector would be wasted on them. I often get on to the wife for watching things in low def on the 70 inch and the girls are glued to their I-phones/tablets/computers, but they will come down for HT "big", so in that sense bigger is better for us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,436 Posts
Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie?
You can sit where you like, but research shows that most people gravitate to the same area in a theatre whenever they go to see a movie, what you're suggesting is unusual.

Television broadcast at least in this country are not reruns of I love Lucy and the news. Television is 1080P and many people have several hundred stations and differing content to pick from. Add to that the vast amount of material that can be reached on line. I don’t have a clue what people want to watch or how “relatively close they want to sit to the screen” (Zoom). It is not for me to decide what they watch or how. I know people that have a projector and its main usage is to watch sports huge.
Tvs, even today, are small and usually viewed from a relativly fair distance, so the image is small. I think most people see sports events as something different to normal tv and would like it larger, maybe to give them more of feeling of 'being there' - more immersive again.

PIA is about being able to select your seating distance based on content and mood, but even if we want to view it in terms of just movies I think I have listed enough examples in previous posts of examples of movies in all different AR that for some people would demand a change in immersion.
It's an unusual approach, and most people who go to a movie theatre don't usually determine their seats that way. Most people don't watch tv there either. Watching wheel of fortune the same size as a Hollywood blockbuster probably doesn't appeal to many people, and they probably wouldnt want to pay for it either. It certainly doesn't qualify as an event for a big screen for most people I would think.

It's up to you what you do and how you do it, but you won't convince many (any?) people that what you're doing is perfect. Far from it, but at least it makes you happy.

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,887 Posts
jeahreans, the sad truth is my girls(wife/daughters) really don't care about image quality :mad: so a better setup/ projector would be wasted on them. I often get on to the wife for watching things in low def on the 70 inch and the girls are glued to their I-phones/tablets/computers, but they will come down for HT "big", so in that sense bigger is better for us.
No arguments on the impact of size. I'm a big proponent of people getting into a budget DLP rather than a big flat panel if they have a room they can do it in. And image quality wise, most of the budget projectors today throw a very nice picture.

Size is certainly important, but you can't ignore seating distance and how that determines image size. Your screen may be bigger than mine, but I sit a lot closer. So the perceived size is probably pretty close. But either way it's an experience that no flat panel is likely to match (at a sane price) for quite some time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do.
The last I checked, NASA and your ophthalmologist don't make movies. I fail to see the relevance of continually bringing them up in a discussion of movie presentation.

Hmm, I wonder what shape movie screen my garbage man prefers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Lightfoot

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,795 Posts
21 - 40 of 407 Posts
Top