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'.I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Secondary to you perhaps.Then there is the secondary issue of presentation ...
This isn't a religion, it's science.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.
Like I say, it's not a belief, it's already based on 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.
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.I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document.
In your opinion. Seating distance is more important than physical size if the size of the image on your retina is important to you.Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether.
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)
And you still believe you have reinvented the wheelIf 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.
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