[snooktarpon]

I would like to get some feedback to see if people with a CH 2.35 setup without masking wish they had a masking systems for 16:9 and 4:3 video content.

 

[acksnay]

I was planning for it, but after installing a 2.35 Firehawk, masking turned out to be a non-issue.


So count me in the Nope column. Say now ... where is that poll?

 

[Tukkis]

I would say its less critical and not as distracting with a 2.35 screen because all the black bars are on the side. In saying that though, it does add another dimension to the PQ by having masking. Every digital display will struggle to display black bars black enough.

 

[snooktarpon]



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


So count me in the Nope column. Say now ... where is that poll?

I screwed up on setting this up as an official poll. Sorry.

 

[CAVX]



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


I screwed up on setting this up as an official poll. Sorry.

Your forgiven

I did have masking on my last set up and it worked quite well. I don't currently have it and do miss it for the smaller ARs of 1.78:1 and 1.33:1. When I go AT, I'll make sure that I get new masking...


Mark

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I do have adjustable masking curtains to the sides, but as I'm currently doing the zoom with my AE900, there's no light to the sides anyway so I don't bother. Top and bottom are either black velvet valances or dark wall, so no bars appear there.

 

[BOSS10L]

Can I ask a dumb question? If you have a CIH screen, a scaler and an anamorphic lens, then what would the need be for a masking system? Any non 2.35 content would be scaled so by the video processor, and then correctly sized by the lens, no?

 

[rombullterrier]

Don't have it; don't miss it. I scale most material to fit the screen anyway. Once in a while, something looks better with pillarboxes, but they are not really bothersome to me.

 

[TSHA222]

I don't currently have a masking system, BUT I am going to install one. It's not a HUGE deal, but 16:9 would look better framed on the sides as well as the top. So put in me in the "don't have 'em, wish I did, will be getting some" column.

 

[snooktarpon]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSS10L /forum/post/0


Can I ask a dumb question? If you have a CIH screen, a scaler and an anamorphic lens, then what would the need be for a masking system? Any non 2.35 content would be scaled so by the video processor, and then correctly sized by the lens, no?

Masking for CH 2.35 systems mask the pillar box (black bars on both sides of the image) as a result of watching 16:9 or 4:3 video content on a 2.35:1 screen.

 

[BOSS10L]



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


Masking for CH 2.35 systems mask the pillar box (black bars on both sides of the image) as a result of watching 16:9 or 4:3 video content on a 2.35:1 screen.

So even having a scaler (a la DVDO) and an anamorpic lens will still result in pillar box bars?

 

[Jack Gilvey]



Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSS10L /forum/post/0


So even having a scaler (a la DVDO) and an anamorpic lens will still result in pillar box bars?

A central tenet of CIH is that 1.85:1 is presented as narrower than 2.35:1, so on a 2.35:1 screen you'll get unused screen on the sides with 16:9 material. With a scaler/lens, these bars are still projected by the pj as the material is scaled narrower.

 

[mustang5o]

Also (correct me if I am wrong), in an ideal CIH setup you would move the lens out of the way or get a lens with a pass thru mode so that 16x9 material was displayed natively and therefore the projector would not be putting out black pillar box bars. Having side masking in this case makes more sense so that you don't see the unused sides of the screen. Which could be reflecting light as well.

 

[snooktarpon]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mustang5o /forum/post/0


Also (correct me if I am wrong), in an ideal CIH setup you would move the lens out of the way or get a lens with a pass thru mode so that 16x9 material was displayed natively and therefore the projector would not be putting out black pillar box bars. Having side masking in this case makes more sense so that you don't see the unused sides of the screen. Which could be reflecting light as well.

Yes, you are correct. I guess I should have stated previously stated that the lens moves out of the way for 16:9 or 4:3 content. The pillar box is not from the projector but a result of projecting a 16:9 image on a 2:35 screen. So masking to 16:9 or 4:3 makes it looks like the screen is dedicated for that particular aspect ratio.

 

[Gary Lightfoot]

Initially I didn't have side masking, but now that I have and the difference is obvious, I wouldn't be without it.


Gary

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mustang5o /forum/post/0


in an ideal CIH setup you would move the lens out of the way or get a lens with a pass thru mode

Not necessarily. The point to Constant Image Height is that you always use the full vertical rez of the projector for all Aspect Ratios, so all of your projected images remain at the same height. You will (at times) not use the full horizontal rez, but this is OK as we are more sensitive to vertical rez then we are to horizontal rez anyway.


I have been through various stages - started out zooming, moved up to a lens that I could rotate the prisms for a pass mode (my water prisms), decided that was a PITA and just started scaling, then moved to the optic crystal prisms (The Aussiemorphic Lens) that are fixed in the case.


Given that about 70% of my DVD collection is "scope", I simply scale the other ARs using either the projector or the scaling modes on the Samsung HD950. One day I will invest in a proper scaler though...


Mark

 

[Andy64]



The point to Constant Image Height is that you always use the full vertical rez of the projector for all Aspect Ratios

Actually, I think the goal should be to use full vertical rez, horizontal rez, and available brightness from the projector. I don't think its good to throw something away just because we're more sensitvie to something else.


If you use a scaler to compress the image horizontally, masking will likely be more important than it is if you move the lens or use a pass thru mode.


I use a lens with pass thru mode and still use side masking to reduce light from relections within the room. To me, its fairly easy to do and very worth while - plus, you can completely close the curtains when the screen isn't in use.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy64 /forum/post/0



Actually, I think the goal should be to use full vertical rez, horizontal rez, and available brightness from the projector. I don't think its good to throw something away just because we're more sensitvie to something else.

Fair call when the image fills the panel, but not so for smaller ARs.


Side masking is very useful in my application (and why I want it back) as it soaks up the light from the panel that does get wasted when viewing the smaller ARs...


Mark

 

[pcarey]

I have got side masking and curtains which together make the screen appear to be whatever ratio you are projecting. It was a real PITA to put up but I do like the appearance. It is slightly cleaner looking as the black velvet masking absorbs all gives a crisp edge. It just doesn't look quite as complete without it. I certainly wouldn't pay $$$ for it though.

 

[Vern Dias]



Quote:
Actually, I think the goal should be to use full vertical rez, horizontal rez, and available brightness from the projector. I don't think its good to throw something away just because we're more sensitvie to something else.

All very fine if you make the assumption that there are only 2 standard AR's out there. However, if you make this assumption, you are so very incorrect.......


So far we have HD and/or DVD and/or LD released in the following AR's:


1.20:1

1.33:1

1.66:1

1.77:1

1.85:1

2.0:1

2.20:1

2.35:1

2.40:1

2.55:1

2.76:1


Please tell us how a simple lens slide is going to achieve your goals of always using every pixel on the projectors panel 100% of the time while maintaining the image at the full height of the screen for all AR's????


Thats why my lens in in a fixed mount and has a horizontal expansion factor of 1.5X. 1.5 x 1.77 = a 2.65:1 projected image. I have a 2.65:1 curved screen that allows me to accomplish the goal of maintaining a constant height for all commercially available AR's. 2.76 is the exception, however I simply follow the practice of almost every theatre that originally had a UP install and project it at 2.65:1 by cropping an inch or two off each edge of the image.


Vern