# Should I go for a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen?



## Kain

My front wall is about 12 ft wide and the viewing distance will be around 8 ft. The maximum horizontal width of a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen is the same in my room. They only difference each aspect ratio will offer me is a difference in height. We are talking about an AT screen, by the way. Is there any reason for me to get a 2.35:1 screen over a 16:9 screen since displaying a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen, in my room, will offer an image size that would be equal to what could be displayed on a 2.35:1 screen? One advantage I can think of is there will be no black bars with a 2.35:1 screen but it will result in a smaller 16:9 image size.


----------



## shivaji

I say go 2:35. A movie displayed 2:35, using the biggest screen you are comfortable with is so much more immersive than the movie within a 16x9 screen.. With a 12' wall, you can go pretty big too. From an 8 foot viewing distance, your 16x9 content displayed within the 2:35 screen will still feel big, and in my opinion will be big enough.


----------



## tbase1

Go with a 2.37:1......you will get the mid range of the scope movie formats. i.e 2.40 & 2.35


----------



## kmhvball

I have a 2.35:1, but I was more 'height' limited given my design choices... so, for me the wider screen was a no brainer.

In your case, if you are width constrained and not height constrained, I would lean towards the 16:9, particularly if you have a light controlled room (black bars are less noticeable in complete dark). I have considered doing my own Masking panels, but the black bars don't bother me that much... although, the majority of my viewing is 2.35:1.

I have an 11' wide screen and my 1st row is about 9' eyes to screen... I think it is a little large for that distance, although, not too bad.


----------



## Jedi940

I would recommend a 16:9 with masking if height is not a problem. I currently have a 120" 2.4:1 screen that I built from Spandex and it is awesome. However I am using a W1070 for a projector so no a-lens. While I don't watch a ton of 16:9 content, It is a huge pain when I do because it requires re-adjusting the projector. I have to zoom the lens back out, refocus, and re-angle the mount. When my screen moves to a dedicated room, I will probably just start over and make a 16:9 screen along with some DIY masking for the top and bottom. This will allow me to never touch my projector again and just slide the masking in to place.


----------



## bud16415

If you go by the chart a 70” 16:9 screen would be the max recommended size from that viewing distance. 

I don’t actually believe in the chart and I think 2x screen height = seating distance is about as big as you would want to go. If your seating is 8’ 96”/2 = 48” so something like 48x124 for a scope screen would be max if your projector has enough zoom to do it. That would be pushing the pixel size to the max by anyone’s measure on the scope screen.

Whenever possible I suggest painting the wall white and using it for a screen for a few weeks and experimenting with different sizes to see what you like before investing in a screen.


----------



## jjcook

Since I have a similar viewing distance, here is my current plan and setup:

I sit about 8-8.5' eyes to screen and I plan to upgrade to a DIY 2.0-aspect screen with 4-way variable masking:
** 2.4-aspect content to be 50"x120"
** blockbuster 16:9 content at 60"x107"
** casual 16:9 content at 43"x76"

I currently use a 42.5"x100" 2.35 screen without masking: both 2.35 and 16:9 content is very comfortable size but I'd like to go larger for the cinematic content.


----------



## Josh Z

Here's a question: Do you watch a lot of soap operas and get giddy with excitement at the prospect of projecting As the World Turns much larger than, say, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or over 70% of all blockbuster movies released each year? If so, you should definitely install a 16:9 screen. That's what they're good for.


----------



## Brian B

I always assume the biggest advantage of a larger 1.78:1 screen is sports.

B.


----------



## drummermitchell

Watch a 16x9 screen beside a 235.1 and you will see how much more immersive 235 is.
I had both and for me no comparison for immersion with the 235, huge difference.


----------



## kendog

2.35 screen for me every day of the week over 16.9
Why, I want more wow factor from movies not TV or Sport.


----------



## Jedi940

As the OP stated, going 2.35:1 is not going to offer a larger screen for scope content. He is simply stating that he has the additional vertical space to make a scope screen into a 16:9. If it were a choice between a smaller (width) 16:9 screen versus a larger (width) scope screen, I would agree that 2:35:1 would be the way to go. But since he has the additional vertical space, why not go 16:9? Scope content will be the same size either way, 16:9 will look way better (important for movies like Avatar and pretty much any animated film if he has kids) and it has the added bonus of allowing him to not have to screw with the projector every time he wants to change the aspect ratio. It also sounds like this might be going in a dedicated space (correct me if I am wrong) so some simple DIY masking will take care of the bars on the top and bottom creating that immersive experience of a scope screen.


----------



## trmoore2

Get the biggest 16:9 screen you can fit in your room. The majority of the media is in this format. I have a 134" screen and the "bars" don't bother me in the least! Masking is not necessary for most of us, and I'm picky.


----------



## Josh Z

Jedi940 said:


> But since he has the additional vertical space, why not go 16:9?


Because if Dance Moms is bigger than Lord of the Rings on your screen, you don't have a home theater. You just have an oversized TV. IMO.


----------



## Jedi940

Josh Z said:


> Because if Dance Moms is bigger than Lord of the Rings on your screen, you don't have a home theater. You just have an oversized TV. IMO.


LOL, you may have a point there.


----------



## kmhvball

I still say go with a 16:9... I know for example the Bacon Race theater recently switched from a 2.35:1 to a 16:9 screen... he had the height available, but was maxed out on width, so, just added height... he said he likes the new screen. BrolicBeast also is doing something like a 16:9 screen (although, it might be some tweener size like 2:1)... 

My projector has automated zoom, so, switching back and forth isn't a big deal... If I had to manually do it, i would 100% go with the 16:9 screen, it would always be set to the right size and never have to mess with it.


----------



## gskinusa

Why not cover the entire wall, basically it would be variable ratio. This way you can maximize for wide screen aspect as well as for 16:9. I have a 160" wide 2.37:1 screen and I love it. I would say by covering the entire wall basically you hit the maximum height as well as the maximum width. In my case I was trying to do that but with the soffit the max height I could get matches with the 160" wide 2.37:1 screen so I went with that. My screen is wall to wall and the experience I get is really good. I wish I could remove the soffit and increase the height but for now even the 16:9 with this set up is pretty good. Anyway thought would provide this option as well if it is not already being considered.


----------



## Kain

gskinusa said:


> Why not cover the entire wall, basically it would be variable ratio. This way you can maximize for wide screen aspect as well as for 16:9. I have a 160" wide 2.37:1 screen and I love it. I would say by covering the entire wall basically you hit the maximum height as well as the maximum width. In my case I was trying to do that but with the soffit the max height I could get matches with the 160" wide 2.37:1 screen so I went with that. My screen is wall to wall and the experience I get is really good. I wish I could remove the soffit and increase the height but for now even the 16:9 with this set up is pretty good. Anyway thought would provide this option as well if it is not already being considered.


Wouldn't that be too big? I am planning a 8 ft horizontally wide 16:9 screen. My wall is 12 ft wide. The seating distance is roughly 8 ft.


----------



## gskinusa

Kain said:


> Wouldn't that be too big? I am planning a 8 ft horizontally wide 16:9 screen. My wall is 12 ft wide. The seating distance is roughly 8 ft.


The way I approached the problem was rather would start with the big one and then if required can mask it. Having said that, once I saw the image that big I did not want to mask anything. With the 14' wide screen I have the front row at 12' from the screen and the 2nd row around 15'-16' from the screen. I do use the 2nd row as the primary but have used 1st row seats and initially it will be little overwhelming but it becomes more engaging than straining the eye.

Anyway, my thought was once you have the screen area available to display then you can resize and mask as required based on your interests/comfort.

-Sen


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> My front wall is about 12 ft wide and the viewing distance will be around 8 ft. The maximum horizontal width of a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen is the same in my room.


First off, you're not width limited. At your seating distance, and using the full 12 feet for a screen you'd be at 0.67 screen widths, that is very, very close. For a 2.37:1 screen, that's less than 1.6 picture heights. For 16:9 that's less than 1.2 picture heights. Do you sit that close at the theater? In the front couple rows?

Industry recommendations are for seating distances of 2-4 picture heights:









Based on your seating distance, your screen size options are basically unlimited. FWIW, I think sitting 1.2 picture heights would be overwhelming for most content. 1.6 might even be pushing it for me.



> Is there any reason for me to get a 2.35:1 screen over a 16:9 screen since displaying a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen, in my room, will offer an image size that would be equal to what could be displayed on a 2.35:1 screen? One advantage I can think of is there will be no black bars with a 2.35:1 screen but it will result in a smaller 16:9 image size.


IMO people get way, way too hung up on the number of inches their screen is, I think it's ingrained in us from the days of buying TVs where your only choice was size, but when you're designing a home theater, you should be thinking about the overall presentation, and that includes the relative aspect ratios of different content.

Josh posed the question I usually do, in *your* theater do you want 40 Year Old Virgin to be bigger than Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Lawrence of Arabia, etc? Answer that question, and you have your answer.

I'd go scope, any day, and probably in just about any theater I build regardless of size. IMO "width limited" is a mental issue, not a physical one. Now, if you really like IMAX movies you could go for a 16:9 screen, and have semi-permanent masking down to a scope screen, and basically run a scope setup, except for the four or five IMAX movies out there.


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies.

Some more questions...

1. I won't be watching any TV on this setup. It will be purely for disc-based movies. However, I am thinking about the possibility of hooking-up a gaming PC to the setup and playing PC games on it. Will a 16:9 screen be more beneficial for gaming?

2. Is an anamorphic lens worth it if I get a CinemaScope screen?

3. If I get a CinemaScope screen and do not use an anamorphic lens, will I have black bars projecting above and below the screen? Won't that be quite annoying/distracting?

4. Since there is not just one CinemaScope format (i.e. 2.35:1 and 2.40:1), how does, say, a 2.35:1 screen deal with 2.40:1 (and the other ratios)?


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> Some more questions...
> 
> 1. I won't be watching any TV on this setup. It will be purely for disc-based movies. However, I am thinking about the possibility of hooking-up a gaming PC to the setup and playing PC games on it. Will a 16:9 screen be more beneficial for gaming?


Maybe maybe not, that's sort of a personal question. I game on my scope screen and it's great.



> 2. Is an anamorphic lens worth it if I get a CinemaScope screen?


It's the way to go, no doubt, but the lenses worth considering IMO are rather expensive which makes the value proposition a bit more difficult these days. And with the proliferation of lens memory the practicality advantage is much less as well. If you've got the budget for a Panamorph UH480 or ISCO/Scheider, I'd say go for it, but if not I wouldn't worry about it.



> 3. If I get a CinemaScope screen and do not use an anamorphic lens, will I have black bars projecting above and below the screen? Won't that be quite annoying/distracting?


That will depend on your room and your projector, for example it probably wouldn't be an issue with a JVC in most any room, or probably any projector if you've got a well treated (black) front wall.



> 4. Since there is not just one CinemaScope format (i.e. 2.35:1 and 2.40:1), how does, say, a 2.35:1 screen deal with 2.40:1 (and the other ratios)?


It's all within the margin of error, people put way too much thought into it. For a 100" screen, the difference in height between 2.35 and 2.40 is only about 3/4". Meaning you'd have bars of just 3/8", you just overscan the sides or leave the bars.


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the reply. 

1. You stated you game on your CinemaScope screen. I assume you game in 16:9 or do you actually game in CinemaScope format (with a PC?)?

2. Don't anamorphic lenses degrade picture quality no matter how good they are?

3. If I don't have a black front wall, will I be able to see the black bars being projected above and below the screen? I assume, based on what you stated, I won't be able to with a JVC projector but might with any other projector?

4. Alright, thanks.

By the way, I found the following video on YouTube. If you skip to 1:45 you'll see that his reason for going 2.35:1 over 16:9 (even though he is not height limited) is the same as the other responses in this thread (i.e. wanting CinemaScope movies to be the largest image instead of 16:9 movies). Secondly, since I cannot and do not want to build a baffle wall for my AT screen, I was pondering on how to mount the screen in front of the LCR speakers. I pretty much decided on getting a stand for the screen. However, I really like the way this guy mounted the screen. I wonder if I can do something similar.


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> 1. You stated you game on your CinemaScope screen. I assume you game in 16:9 or do you actually game in CinemaScope format (with a PC?)?


16:9 Xbox



> 2. Don't anamorphic lenses degrade picture quality no matter how good they are?


In theory yes, but the good ones won't provide any visible degradation, but as I noted, you have to pay a lot for that.



> 3. If I don't have a black front wall, will I be able to see the black bars being projected above and below the screen? I assume, based on what you stated, I won't be able to with a JVC projector but might with any other projector?


All I can say from experience is with a near black wall and JVC, it's not an issue.



> By the way, I found the following video on YouTube. If you skip to 1:45 you'll see that his reason for going 2.35:1 over 16:9 (even though he is not height limited) is the same as the other responses in this thread (i.e. wanting CinemaScope movies to be the largest image instead of 16:9 movies). Secondly, since I cannot and do not want to build a baffle wall for my AT screen, I was pondering on how to mount the screen in front of the LCR speakers. I pretty much decided on getting a stand for the screen. However, I really like the way this guy mounted the screen. I wonder if I can do something similar.


I have mine hung from the ceiling.


----------



## Kain

Thanks.

How much do good anamorphic lenses (that do not degrade picture quality) generally cost? The main advantage of using an anamorphic lens is that you get to use the full resolution of your projector (for CinemaScope movies) while also increasing the brightness of the picture?


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> How much do good anamorphic lenses (that do not degrade picture quality) generally cost? The main advantage of using an anamorphic lens is that you get to use the full resolution of your projector (for CinemaScope movies) while also increasing the brightness of the picture?


Probably $3000+, look into the Panamorph UH480, Xeit, or ISCO/Schneider. You also get increased pixel density, which can be beneficial for 1080p still, but less so for 4K, though when you factor in HDR, maybe the brightness advantage is again useful.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Because if Dance Moms is bigger than Lord of the Rings on your screen, you don't have a home theater. You just have an oversized TV. IMO.


I understand both sides to the debate and also what a width limited room is like. I don’t know if the OP is limited or not as I don’t know where his front main speakers are or how he has them located. I also don’t know how set he is with seating locations but some people just push their chair up a couple feet if they want a greater image size. I liked Brian B’s post about sports and there is a lot of fine content to be enjoyed other than IMAX in 16:9. It is a personal choice and I always hear the analogy of Dance Moms compared to Lord of the rings. But then again I don’t even know what Dance Moms is and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t watch it. I would watch the Emmy winning series Planet Earth in 16:9 and enjoy it every bit as much as an IMAX. 

I could also ask the OP the question would you rather watch (That’s My Boy) Epic classic staring Adam Sandler in 2.35:1 AR or the Super Bowl or the Masters Golf tournament in a more engulfing 16:9, or if he was a real classic buff like am how about a much larger Citizen Kane in 4:3. 

With cable networks putting out more and more of their own context we are seeing great cinematography in both AR’s and some of it is pretty good. 

I love scope cinematography and the overall concept of CIH even though I cant call my setup CIH because I don’t have a screen just a blank expanse of a screen wall much larger than I would ever be able to view in any AR and the ability to make any AR as big as I have a liking for on any given day. Sometimes 16:9 rules the screen sometimes scope.


----------



## stanger89

bud16415 said:


> It is a personal choice and I always hear the analogy of Dance Moms compared to Lord of the rings.


That's why it's always asked as a question. Do _you_ want Dance Moms to be bigger than LOTR? The reason to ask yourself the question is because it seems a lot of folks are hung up on the number of inches their screen is, that more is always better. Many people come here with the "buying a TV" mindset, that it's all about getting the most inches possible. The purpose of the question is to get you to think about what you watch, and if you really want your 16:9 content (which tends to be sitcom/drama/low budget/made-for-tv type content) bigger than your scope content (which tends to be epic/blockbuster motion picture type content).



> But then again I don’t even know what Dance Moms is and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t watch it. I would watch the Emmy winning series Planet Earth in 16:9 and enjoy it every bit as much as an IMAX.


The question is, how much of your viewing does that make up? And how important is that? Is it important enough to have scope content be the _least impressive, least immersive_ content shown in your theater? Or is it important enough to build/buy/manage a horizontal masking system to keep other 16:9 content smaller (CIH+IMAX)? 

These are the questions you should ask yourself. 

For me, I can see the value of having the extra height for stuff like that. But it's almost 0% of what I watch, most of the movies I watch are scope, and the 16:9 content I watch isn't important enough and/or shouldn't be larger than scope so that makes going with a 16:9, or CIH+IMAX setup the wrong choice for me.



> I could also ask the OP the question would you rather watch (That’s My Boy) Epic classic staring Adam Sandler in 2.35:1 AR or the Super Bowl or the Masters Golf tournament in a more engulfing 16:9, or if he was a real classic buff like am how about a much larger Citizen Kane in 4:3.
> 
> With cable networks putting out more and more of their own context we are seeing great cinematography in both AR’s and some of it is pretty good.


I've found that with a scope screen, none of the other ARs feel cheated, or diminished. But with a 16:9 screen, scope content does very much feel cheated.


----------



## coolrda

Josh Z said:


> Because if Dance Moms is bigger than Lord of the Rings on your screen, you don't have a home theater. You just have an oversized TV. IMO.


I know this is coming in late but the Dance Moms blast was epic.


----------



## kmhvball

stanger89 said:


> I've found that with a scope screen, none of the other ARs feel cheated, or diminished. But with a 16:9 screen, scope content does very much feel cheated.


So, since the OP said he is going as wide as he can... I think 8' wide... do you think an 8' wide 2:35:1 ratio screen is any more immersive than an 8' wide 16:9 screen?

I would think 8' wide is 8' wide either way...

I would argue, having sat in my front row for Star Wars Force Awakens last night, with a 9' viewing from eyes to screen (when reclined), and an 11' wide 2.35:1 screen... that the OP should maybe push go go wider than 8', but if 8' is the absolute widest the OP will go, then I would also add in the height available .


----------



## stanger89

kmhvball said:


> So, since the OP said he is going as wide as he can... I think 8' wide... do you think an 8' wide 2:35:1 ratio screen is any more immersive than an 8' wide 16:9 screen?


For me

I think a 16:9 screen the same width as my current scope screen would be too much for 99.9% of the 16:9 content I watch, it would be overwhelming.

Even if not it would still leave the issue that 16:9 content would be bigger than scope content, and outside of a handful of movies intended to be that way (IMAX), that's just not right IMO, the vast majority of 16:9 content isn't meant to be larger than scope content.

The general idea with CIH, is find the 16:9 size you're happy with, and then get a screen 33% wider, and you're set for both.



> I would think 8' wide is 8' wide either way...


But that means Alvin & The Chipmunks is larger than Star Wars TFA.


----------



## bud16415

In a perfect world I would agree with your method totally find the proper 16:9 height distance relationship you want and then add the length for the scope format. That runs into snags when your room is narrow and you have two rows of seating as only one row can be optimum. The other place is like my room with 4 seats across when I find the ideal screen size for 16:9 I don’t have enough width unless I put my front mains above or below the screen or go AT going at I would have to move the screen closer the image would be smaller and I wouldn’t need the added width I pick up. I do zoom as much as I can with scope and don’t find I’m short changing any AR. Eyes are both height and width sensitive and scope was never invented to fill both equally. 

For every Alvin & Chipmunks reference there is I can find you 2 equally as annoying movie filmed in scope and 2 stellar 16:9 PBS specials or the like. That’s why I chose to have no screen dimensions and zoom everything to the size I feel does it justice.


----------



## stanger89

bud16415 said:


> In a perfect world I would agree with your method totally find the proper 16:9 height distance relationship you want and then add the length for the scope format. That runs into snags when your room is narrow and you have two rows of seating as only one row can be optimum.


The OP doesn't have that problem.



> The other place is like my room with 4 seats across when I find the ideal screen size for 16:9 I don’t have enough width unless I put my front mains above or below the screen or go AT going at I would have to move the screen closer the image would be smaller and I wouldn’t need the added width I pick up. I do zoom as much as I can with scope and don’t find I’m short changing any AR. Eyes are both height and width sensitive and scope was never invented to fill both equally.


But you don't have, nor are you advocating a 16:9 screen. You've thought about it and come to your own conclusion, which is the right thing to do.



> For every Alvin & Chipmunks reference there is I can find you 2 equally as annoying movie filmed in scope and 2 stellar 16:9 PBS specials or the like. That’s why I chose to have no screen dimensions and zoom everything to the size I feel does it justice.


It's not about being annoying or not, it's about the "scale" of the movie and what it was intended for. Outside of large format theaters (IMAX/mini-IMAX/70mm/etc) scope is the largest projected format available at the cinema (we're talking proper cinemas, not the discount multiplexes). Movies shot on scope are expected to be the largest format available (normal cinemas) while 16:9 content is expected to be smaller. You don't even need two hands (at least not all of two) to count the number of movies that don't fit that convention. 

If you don't care about that convention, no problem, if you watch a lot of IMAX content, great. I just want people to consider presentation and think about it beyond just "But, but 16:9 would be bigger, but scope would be the same size."

For me, I don't own anything 16:9 that deserves to be bigger than the mass of scope content I own (at least nothing that wasn't shown in scope in normal theaters), and I'm not going to go through the extra trouble/effort/expense of horizontal masking for the rare rental case that does. PBS may be great, but the quality is not there (overcompressed) to be that large.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I'm with Stanger and Josh.

There's also the point of correct presentation - scope _should_ be wider than 16:9 so that those movies are wider, more immersive and more epic than the smaller formats - that's by design and intent. All the names in the industry (Dolby, THX, CEDIA, SMPTE etc) will tell you that. Otherwise (as Josh and Tarentino say), it's just big tv....

IMAX is also meant to be taller than scope, so as Stanger alluded earlier, the OP could go for the largest 16:9 screen he can fit, and semi permanently mask the top and bottom for 2.35, and watch all movie content that way as CIH. Then, if he wants to watch an aspect changing movie like The Dark Knight or Interstellar, or he likes his sports to be full height 16:9 too, he can just remove the top and bottom masking. For that to work he will have to ensure that his seating distance is fine for that. 8ft from an 8ft wide 2.35 screen is almost optimal if you follow THX guidelines too.

Anamorphic lenses - compared to zooming, the good ones (as mentioned by Stanger) will give you an improved image compared to zooming (that's why those who do the comparisons usually buy them), but I don't know if your room will allow an A lens to work there - how deep is the room? You have the seating at 8 feet but I assume that's not at the back wall.

Also, the vertical viewing angle will be greater with a 16:9 screen, and according to SMPTE, discomfort can begin if the vertical viewing angle starts to exceed 15 degrees. IMAX will be OK as those movies are framed and shot with that in mind, along with closer seating distances. So an 8ft wide 16:9 screen from 8ft back would support CIH + IMAX better.

I would also consider possibly going wider for scope/CIH - if you can experiment with different screen sizes and layouts before buying a screen, you'll know for sure what size you would like best.

I like sitting at around 2x the screen height with a CIH set up which makes 16:9 even more immersive, so experimenting by projecting onto the wall you may be able to determine which size suits you best from where you sit. In your case, a 9ft wide 2.35 screen may work even better for you (and you can still go CIH + IMAX if you want).

Closer seating can tend to promote the use of anamorphic lenses or 4k/eshift projectors though.

Gary


----------



## jeahrens

Going along with what has been said. Decide on a screen height that is comfortable and pleasing. If you have the width to make that height work with a scope screen, then it's the way to go. Nothing is shortchanged. Scope features will see a huge boost in image size.

As someone who has used an inexpensive lens and has seen a Panamorph in action on a Sony 55ES, I would not recommend an expensive lens unless you absolutely need the light output. A good lens will smooth out the picture with negligible impact in quality. It will use the full panel and increase light output (it does not create any new picture information though). But comparing the 55ES and Panamorph to my RS46 zoomed I would be very hard pressed to recommend the cost for what you're getting (again unless you really need the lumens). The pixel structure isn't visible or distracting on the zoomed setup. At least to my eyes. Looking forward, UHD has enough pixel density that a lens is not needed. Light output on the latest projectors has climbed to the point where only the largest screens would really need a boost from a lens. And lumen output continues to increase. UHD Blu Ray is not anamorphically encoded, so there's no extra information to be had with a lens. And projectors are excluding anamorphic scaling for certain 4K modes. So while a good lens would certainly offer a tangible benefit on today's material, I can't say it would be worth it in the long run. And the gain over a good zoomed setup isn't worth the cost IMO.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I've found much the same - hard to tell the difference with 1080 and a lens vs eshift or 4k on the same set up. A friend of mine sold his ISCO II after comparing with his RS49 because he couldn't see a difference. The money effectively made his projector $1000 cheaper.

Gary


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies.

The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it. The seating location is a little behind the middle point of the room (around 9 ft from the front wall). I've been thinking and it seems I'd prefer a CinemaScope screen over a 16:9 screen for reasons already mentioned in this thread. I basically want CinemaScope movies to be the largest image possible instead of 16:9 images.

My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.

Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.


----------



## jeahrens

Kain said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it. The seating location is a little behind the middle point of the room (around 9 ft from the front wall). I've been thinking and it seems I'd prefer a CinemaScope screen over a 16:9 screen for reasons already mentioned in this thread. I basically want CinemaScope movies to be the largest image possible instead of 16:9 images.
> 
> My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.
> 
> Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.


We sit about 9-10' from our 130" 10' wide screen. We feel it's great. Width is generally easier for us to take in than height, so I think you'll be fine. One easy thing to do is grab some painters tape and mask off the screen dimensions and have a seat. See how you like it.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

With the screen lower to the floor so that you don't have too high a vertical viewing angle, you may be fine with a 10ft wide screen, but I would try and test first like I mentioned. The height to viewing distance is around 1.9 x the screen height - a dealer near me has a 3m wide 2.35 screen and the eyes to screen distance is 2.5m, which is 1.95 x SH, and I find that perfectly watchable - I completely watched Terminator Genysis on it, as well as many other demo pieces before hand with no issues. The screen is close to the floor but I think that helps make it more comfortable, which is why I suggest that for your set up. 

Gary


----------



## Kain

Now that I am pretty much set on a CinemaScope screen, are most CinemaScope movies in 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1? I know the difference is not much but I still want to know. If I get a 2.35:1 screen, will 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 movies have very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen? I prefer to have the ratio where all movies will be equal to the screen ratio or "undershoot" the screen ratio slightly. Don't want to have a ratio that will result in some movies "overshooting" the screen ratio.

Edit: I think my thought process is wrong here for how different CinemaScope ratios are displayed on a 2.35:1 screen as it's called CIH for a reason.


----------



## wnielsenbb

I ran 2.35 till I realized half my movies were 16x9 anyway, and not just Dance Moms  There are a lot of really good tv shows that are worthy of projector viewing too, even if you don't think so now. 
Today's projectors have good enough black levels that masking isn't really that important. What is really cool is watching the Wal-Mart version of Transformers (the first one) in 2.35 till the big fight in the forest and it kicks into full screen for the i-max scenes to catch the height of the giant robots fighting. That is pretty dang cool. 
Warren.


----------



## stanger89

jeahrens said:


> Looking forward, UHD has enough pixel density that a lens is not needed. Light output on the latest projectors has climbed to the point where only the largest screens would really need a boost from a lens. And lumen output continues to increase. UHD Blu Ray is not anamorphically encoded, so there's no extra information to be had with a lens.


But UHD (at least UHD Blu-ray) all seems to be HDR, and you can use ever scrap of light you can get. Not that necessarily offsets the cost of a $3000+ lens, but it's something to consider.



Kain said:


> The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it.


Are these in-wall speakers? If so, you might be able to go with a woven screen (like the new AVS "V6" material) and not have to leave any space between speaker and screen.



> My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.


I have a much lower ceiling, but that's what I did.



> Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.


You're really going to need to test it for yourself. The standards and recommendations can give you a starting point, but only you know how big you really like.



Kain said:


> Now that I am pretty much set on a CinemaScope screen, are most CinemaScope movies in 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1? I know the difference is not much but I still want to know. If I get a 2.35:1 screen, will 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 movies have very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen? I prefer to have the ratio where all movies will be equal to the screen ratio or "undershoot" the screen ratio slightly. Don't want to have a ratio that will result in some movies "overshooting" the screen ratio.
> 
> Edit: I think my thought process is wrong here for how different CinemaScope ratios are displayed on a 2.35:1 screen as it's called CIH for a reason.


In theory, you'd probably want a 2.76:1 screen since there are a couple movies out there that wide. Though at a practical level, that's sort of like CIH+IMAX, probably not worth it. I'd probably go 2.39/2.40:1 as that's actually what the standard is. However it's really a crapshoot what you actually get on disc, but you can save lens memories for 2.35 and 2.40 that don't overscan anything. Though frankly for the 3/8" you'd end up overscanning, I'd not bother.



wnielsenbb said:


> I ran 2.35 till I realized half my movies were 16x9 anyway, and not just Dance Moms  There are a lot of really good tv shows that are worthy of projector viewing too, even if you don't think so now.


FWIW, it's not about whether there's "good" content, it's about the type of content, but more importantly, it's about how, when properly setup, a CIH setup doesn't "cheat" the narrower ARs.
Avengers is a blast on my CIH setup, and doesn't feel underserved or anything. But at the same time, Nova dwarf Star Wars 7.



> Today's projectors have good enough black levels that masking isn't really that important. What is really cool is watching the Wal-Mart version of Transformers (the first one) in 2.35 till the big fight in the forest and it kicks into full screen for the i-max scenes to catch the height of the giant robots fighting. That is pretty dang cool.
> Warren.


Funny, I watched that at a 70mm IMAX when it was out, and the IMAX scenes were pretty much over before ever noticed they were higher, that's what you get when you sit at IMAX seating distances in an IMAX theater, the extra height is very much in the periphery.


----------



## DavidHir

Another crucial factor to me with CIH that I see rarely discussed is 'eye level to screen'. I prefer having my eyes at about the bottom 1/3 or slightly above on the screen. With a 16x9 screen, this is impossible because you get letterbox bars with scope movies which places the actual movie higher - so you're forced to look up more and not see every movie at the same height with your eye level. Some people might not care, but for me this is important; I like consistency in my viewing in this regard.


----------



## bud16415

DavidHir said:


> Another crucial factor to me with CIH that I see rarely discussed is 'eye level to screen'. I prefer having my eyes at about the bottom 1/3 or slightly above on the screen. With a 16x9 screen, this is impossible because you get letterbox bars with scope movies which places the actual movie higher - so you're forced to look up more and not see every movie at the same height with your eye level. Some people might not care, but for me this is important; I like consistency in my viewing in this regard.


I kind of agree. I like my eyes centered on the screen half way across and half way up. That is also lucky as it stays the same for every aspect ratio. If you do like looking up from 1/3 point when you zoom to do your scope you will also have to do a shift so you can make it where you want it height wise. Nothing says a scope image has to be anywhere on a larger screen you could put it to the bottom mask and only have to mask the top.


----------



## DavidHir

bud16415 said:


> Nothing says a scope image has to be anywhere on a larger screen you could put it to the bottom mask and only have to mask the top.


True, but it's possible the required amount of lens shifting would negatively affect the image and/or geometry if one wanted to shift the scope image down to the bottom of the 16:9 screen. I suspect it would depend on the set-up (screen size, how much zoom is used, throw, etc.). It may not be an issue, but in some cases with a large screen and throw maybe it could be. It might also still look a little awkward even with masking.


----------



## Tom Monahan

I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Tom Monahan said:


> I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.


I agree - that's how it was meant to be. If I had the room, I'd do something similar and use an array of anamorphic lenses to get the geometry right while still using the full display panel. But that would be a costly way to do it.

At my preferred seating distance of two times the screen height that would put my eyes at a tad under 6.5 feet from the screen, which is probably a little too close for the audio and possibly screen weave visibility. Something to try maybe 

Gary


----------



## DavidHir

Tom Monahan said:


> I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.


You're a true CIH purist.  I guess I am a CIH "lite" as I went with a 2:35 screen to give me the largest ~1:85 and 2:35 movie sizes possible yet staying within "scope".


----------



## stanger89

Well reality does enter into the equation. Not much point getting a 2.76:1 screen if you never watch movies that wide.


----------



## Kain

stanger89 said:


> But UHD (at least UHD Blu-ray) all seems to be HDR, and you can use ever scrap of light you can get. Not that necessarily offsets the cost of a $3000+ lens, but it's something to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> Are these in-wall speakers? If so, you might be able to go with a woven screen (like the new AVS "V6" material) and not have to leave any space between speaker and screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a much lower ceiling, but that's what I did.
> 
> 
> 
> You're really going to need to test it for yourself. The standards and recommendations can give you a starting point, but only you know how big you really like.
> 
> 
> 
> In theory, you'd probably want a 2.76:1 screen since there are a couple movies out there that wide. Though at a practical level, that's sort of like CIH+IMAX, probably not worth it. I'd probably go 2.39/2.40:1 as that's actually what the standard is. However it's really a crapshoot what you actually get on disc, but you can save lens memories for 2.35 and 2.40 that don't overscan anything. Though frankly for the 3/8" you'd end up overscanning, I'd not bother.
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, it's not about whether there's "good" content, it's about the type of content, but more importantly, it's about how, when properly setup, a CIH setup doesn't "cheat" the narrower ARs.
> Avengers is a blast on my CIH setup, and doesn't feel underserved or anything. But at the same time, Nova dwarf Star Wars 7.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I watched that at a 70mm IMAX when it was out, and the IMAX scenes were pretty much over before ever noticed they were higher, that's what you get when you sit at IMAX seating distances in an IMAX theater, the extra height is very much in the periphery.


Thanks.

Here are the LCR speakers I'm considering. They are about 8.5 inches deep: http://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crmsc/

You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?

Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.


----------



## jeahrens

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Here are the LCR speakers I'm considering. They are about 8.5 inches deep: http://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crmsc/
> 
> You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?
> 
> Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.


As others have said the screen size difference between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 aren't much. And the specified ratio on packaging and sites aren't always accurate. I have a 2.35:1 screen and just overscan a smidge. Don't notice it and most all widescreen films either fill the screen or are so close you have to be right up to the screen to tell. So my advice is just find the screen you like that fits your budget and don't sweat the small differences.


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?


I don't have any good pictures handy, but I have this one in the gallery:
http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18903&cat=2083878



> Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.


2.35:1 is most often used as a name, not as an accurate measurement. When you get a scope movie, it's a crapshoot what exact ratio it will be and it's a bigger crapshoot if it will be documented accurately.


----------



## Kain

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## Tom Monahan

DavidHir said:


> You're a true CIH purist.  I guess I am a CIH "lite" as I went with a 2:35 screen to give me the largest ~1:85 and 2:35 movie sizes possible yet staying within "scope".


I was stuck with a small 8' wide max 2.40 scope screen due to short throw of my Benq 3d projector. The new JVC 500/600 models have great 3d so it would give me enough zoom with my conversion lens to use a 9' wide 2.40 screen. Unfortunately, I'm not looking to replace my projectors until JVC comes out with a native 4k projector.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Go cinemascope! Movies are amazing without the black bars!


----------



## DavidHir

Tom Monahan said:


> I was stuck with a small 8' wide max 2.40 scope screen due to short throw of my Benq 3d projector. The new JVC 500/600 models have great 3d so it would give me enough zoom with my conversion lens to use a 9' wide 2.40 screen. Unfortunately, I'm not looking to replace my projectors until JVC comes out with a native 4k projector.


My 2:35 screen is 9 feet wide and I am likely sticking with my JVC RS4810 (zoom method) until they come out with a native 4K projector and the entire HDR thing is worked out with standards.


----------



## CMRA

*A wonderful compromise*



Kain said:


> My front wall is about 12 ft wide and the viewing distance will be around 8 ft. The maximum horizontal width of a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen is the same in my room. They only difference each aspect ratio will offer me is a difference in height. We are talking about an AT screen, by the way. Is there any reason for me to get a 2.35:1 screen over a 16:9 screen since displaying a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen, in my room, will offer an image size that would be equal to what could be displayed on a 2.35:1 screen? One advantage I can think of is there will be no black bars with a 2.35:1 screen but it will result in a smaller 16:9 image size.



Of the two, I lean in the 2.35:1 direction.


However, a 2.0:1 screen offers a nice compromise. Almost all projectors have at least a 1.2 zoom so fitting both aspect ratios on the screen is a snap. You'll still get 'smaller' less distracting black bars, however you'll maximize image size for both formats.


Just a thought.


----------



## Kain

Off-topic question, but...

Say I were to start putting together my new home theater at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. Would it be a good idea to get a good 1080p projector with a Blu-ray Disc player while I wait for 4K/UHD projectors and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc players to "mature"? There should be more options available towards the end of 2017 as well. Or, should I just go ahead with getting a 4K/UHD projector and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc player from the start?


----------



## rboster

Kain said:


> Off-topic question, but...
> 
> Say I were to start putting together my new home theater at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. Would it be a good idea to get a good 1080p projector with a Blu-ray Disc player while I wait for 4K/UHD projectors and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc players to "mature"? There should be more options available towards the end of 2017 as well. Or, should I just go ahead with getting a 4K/UHD projector and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc player from the start?


That's a question that shouldn't be answered till the fall. There are announcements that will come out at CEDIA in Sept.  What someone may suggest today maybe completely different if this question was posed before you are ready to buy. Too many develops when we are on the cusp of 4k in both projectors, blu ray players and the media/movies. Dolby Vision is another variable. Concentrate on items that you know will not change....this topic of which aspect ratio is one of them.


----------



## Kain

rboster said:


> That's a question that shouldn't be answered till the fall. There are announcements that will come out at CEDIA in Sept. What someone may suggest today maybe completely different if this question was posed before you are ready to buy. Too many develops when we are on the cusp of 4k in both projectors, blu ray players and the media/movies. Dolby Vision is another variable. Concentrate on items that you know will not change....this topic of which aspect ratio is one of them.


I guess you're right. 

I'm pretty much set on getting a 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 screen so I thought I would ask that question too. I think I'll just have to wait and see how things turn out though.


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> Off-topic question, but...
> 
> Say I were to start putting together my new home theater at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. Would it be a good idea to get a good 1080p projector with a Blu-ray Disc player while I wait for 4K/UHD projectors and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc players to "mature"? There should be more options available towards the end of 2017 as well. Or, should I just go ahead with getting a 4K/UHD projector and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc player from the start?


rboster is correct, but with that said, here is my answer based on my thought process:

The Samsung player is available today, and works well enough, that I wouldn't tell someone with a compatible* display to wait. With your holiday 2016 timeline, I would pick up whatever UHD player best meets your needs and price point, I'd also not consider any projector that's not HDR/WCG compatible*. 

*Compatible means HDCP 2.2, HDR10 (at least) and WCG (Rec.2020) support. I know zombie is enjoying his UHD setup, with his 2016 JVC. For me, with a 2014JVC (RS4910) (pending some change based on some just announced Integral updates) I think the benefit just isn't there for displays that don't support HDR/WCG.


----------



## rdeyoung

I too have been asking the same question as the OP... To go with 2.35:1 or 16:9? I love the look of the super wide screen - however... Some of my favorite movies change aspect ratio throughout the film, ie Interstellar. How would moves like this work if you are limited to 2.35:1 screen? Seeing the image in that movie transition from 2.35:1 to 16:9 is awesome, and I would be ultra sad if I did not see that take up a massive screen. You can also get away with a bigger image in general with a 16:9 screen due to taking advantage of your room height... 

Therefore I have settled on 16:9. If I want I can make my own magnetic masking panels and just remove them for certain films... best of both worlds.


----------



## stanger89

rdeyoung said:


> Therefore I have settled on 16:9. If I want I can make my own magnetic masking panels and just remove them for certain films... best of both worlds.


Yup, CIH+IMAX: 16:9 screen, semi-permanently masked to scope and run in CIH, except for a few IMAX movies. I like the idea, but for my setup, it's too much trouble for the handful of movies that are like that.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

That's the approach I'm taking in the room I'm building now - a 16:9 screen masked semi permanently to 2.35 and I will watch everything on that as CIH, so my seating will be set accordingly to the CIH screen height (2xSH). But for the aspect changing movies I can remove the top and bottom masking.

I was thinking that for just 10 or 12 movies, is it worth it, bit as it's so easy to do, I might as well.

But to be clear, I won't be watching 16:9 moves as full height, just the 10 or so IMAX style ones, because scope should be the widest most epic format and larger/wider than 2.20:1, 4:3, 1.85:1 etc.

Gary


----------



## Josh Z

rdeyoung said:


> Some of my favorite movies change aspect ratio throughout the film, ie Interstellar. How would moves like this work if you are limited to 2.35:1 screen? Seeing the image in that movie transition from 2.35:1 to 16:9 is awesome, and I would be ultra sad if I did not see that take up a massive screen.


One thing to keep in mind is that the handful of movies with variable aspect ratios only played that way in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they were projected at a constant 2.40:1. As such, they all had to be composed so that the important image is contained in the 2.40:1 area. The added height is mostly needless dead space just for the sake of making the screen look bigger.

With an anamorphic lens and scaler, you crop off the excess picture and watch the entire movie at scope aspect ratio. Having watched the Blu-ray that way, I can tell you that Interstellar is 100% safe for scope projection. At no point did any shots look misframed or was it noticeable that anything was missing. 



> You can also get away with a bigger image in general with a 16:9 screen due to taking advantage of your room height...


Yes, but you're still watching The Bachelorette larger than The Force Awakens.


----------



## rdeyoung

Josh Z said:


> As such, they all had to be composed so that the important image is contained in the 2.40:1 area. *The added height is mostly needless dead space just for the sake of making the screen look bigger*.















Josh Z said:


> Yes, but you're still watching The Bachelorette larger than The Force Awakens.


Not sure im getting the soap opera joke thing... Feels more like a soft way to make fun of people who have 16:9 screens. Whats the difference of having a 16:9 TV (like every tv you can buy in stores) than a 16:9 projector screen?


----------



## stanger89

rdeyoung said:


> Not sure im getting the soap opera joke thing... Feels more like a soft way to make fun of people who have 16:9 screens. Whats the difference of having a 16:9 TV (like every tv you can buy in stores) than a 16:9 projector screen?


It's to illicit _thought_. Lots of people come to projection with the "buying a TV" mindset. When you buy a TV, you don't (except for one or two examples) have a choice of aspect ratio, your only choice is size. People are used to buying the most inches of TV they can get. Then people see CIH and scope screens, and quite often thing it's just a way to get a bigger screen, or about "eliminating black bars". But they're still of the mindset of getting the most inches they can. So if they have an extra 33% height free for a given image size you see lots of "but I could just have a bigger 16:9 image" comments, and "width limited" comments.

The reality is Constant Image Height, scope screens, is not about eliminating black bars, or about getting a larger image (more inches) it's about retaining expected relative size/immersion/presentation of various ARs. Scope was created to be the same height as the then standard 4:3 movie screen, but much, much wider. Throughout the history of the motion picture industry, outside of the special large format experiments (70mm, IMAX, etc), when someone would go to shoot a movie they would know that scope (~2.39:1) would be the largest format presented in a theater.

The "soap opera joke" as you call it, is intended to get people to break loose from the "what's the most inches I can get" mindset, and think about presentation. Buying a projector is not like buying a TV, it's designing a whole system, and you have complete control over the presentation, the aspect ratios, the relative size of everything you watch in your theater. The intent of the "joke" is to get people to think about how different content will look, how it will feel compared to other content you watch. 

For example, I like blockbuster/action/epic type movies, _Star Wars, Lord or the Rings, The Matrix_, etc. The vast majority of these are scope, and in the theater these were thus the largest, most immersive content shown. I watch a lot of different content in my HT, in fact, by pure hours, 16:9 TV is by far the majority of what's viewed. Some would say, that means I should have a 16:9 screen (I do have the height), however that ignores presentation. 

I'm having friends over to watch _Star Wars 7 _tonight, we will probably watch some classic TV and/or play some Xbox One. I don't want, I don't think (in my theater), _Star Wars Episode VII _should be the smallest, least impressive thing we see tonight, quite the contrary, I think _Star Wars _should be the largest, most impressive, most immersive part of the evening. My system can pull random new trailers from the internet, it could decide to show a trailer for _The Secret Life of Pets _(16:9), I don't think the trailer for a silly (I don't mean that in the derogatory way) animated feature should outshine the main feature of _Star Wars _by being 33% bigger.

Now sure, there are silly animated features that are scope, and there are epic blockbusters that are 16:9, but on balance, the reverse is generally true, epic blockbusters are generally scope, and flat/16:9/1.85:1 features are generally not epic blockbusters.

So it's all about asking yourself the question, do you think _The Secret Life of Pets_ should be bigger than _Star Wars Episode VII_? What would you think if you went to the cinema to watch _Star Wars _and a trailer _The Secret Life of Pets_ was bigger? What if _Star Wars_ was the smallest thing you saw on that outing?

If you don't care, if it doesn't bother you? No problem, get a 16:9 screen and enjoy it, it's definitely the simpler, easier, cheaper way to go. But if you're like most of us in the CIH forum, and do think that epic scope movies shouldn't be outdone by animated comedies, or reality TV, the the solution is obvious, get a scope screen. Unless you're really serious about retaining presentation for everything, including IMAX, and then the solution is CIH+IMAX (semi-permanent horizontal masking, removed just for those IMAX type movies).


----------



## rdeyoung

stanger89 said:


> It's to illicit _thought_. Lots of people come to projection with the "buying a TV" mindset. When you buy a TV, you don't (except for one or two examples) have a choice of aspect ratio, your only choice is size. People are used to buying the most inches of TV they can get. Then people see CIH and scope screens, and quite often thing it's just a way to get a bigger screen, or about "eliminating black bars". But they're still of the mindset of getting the most inches they can. So if they have an extra 33% height free for a given image size you see lots of "but I could just have a bigger 16:9 image" comments, and "width limited" comments.
> 
> The reality is Constant Image Height, scope screens, is not about eliminating black bars, or about getting a larger image (more inches) it's about retaining expected relative size/immersion/presentation of various ARs. Scope was created to be the same height as the then standard 4:3 movie screen, but much, much wider. Throughout the history of the motion picture industry, outside of the special large format experiments (70mm, IMAX, etc), when someone would go to shoot a movie they would know that scope (~2.39:1) would be the largest format presented in a theater.
> 
> The "soap opera joke" as you call it, is intended to get people to break loose from the "what's the most inches I can get" mindset, and think about presentation. Buying a projector is not like buying a TV, it's designing a whole system, and you have complete control over the presentation, the aspect ratios, the relative size of everything you watch in your theater. The intent of the "joke" is to get people to think about how different content will look, how it will feel compared to other content you watch.
> 
> For example, I like blockbuster/action/epic type movies, _Star Wars, Lord or the Rings, The Matrix_, etc. The vast majority of these are scope, and in the theater these were thus the largest, most immersive content shown. I watch a lot of different content in my HT, in fact, by pure hours, 16:9 TV is by far the majority of what's viewed. Some would say, that means I should have a 16:9 screen (I do have the height), however that ignores presentation.
> 
> I'm having friends over to watch _Star Wars 7 _tonight, we will probably watch some classic TV and/or play some Xbox One. I don't want, I don't think (in my theater), _Star Wars Episode VII _should be the smallest, least impressive thing we see tonight, quite the contrary, I think _Star Wars _should be the largest, most impressive, most immersive part of the evening. My system can pull random new trailers from the internet, it could decide to show a trailer for _The Secret Life of Pets _(16:9), I don't think the trailer for a silly (I don't mean that in the derogatory way) animated feature should outshine the main feature of _Star Wars _by being 33% bigger.
> 
> Now sure, there are silly animated features that are scope, and there are epic blockbusters that are 16:9, but on balance, the reverse is generally true, epic blockbusters are generally scope, and flat/16:9/1.85:1 features are generally not epic blockbusters.
> 
> So it's all about asking yourself the question, do you think _The Secret Life of Pets_ should be bigger than _Star Wars Episode VII_? What would you think if you went to the cinema to watch _Star Wars _and a trailer _The Secret Life of Pets_ was bigger? What if _Star Wars_ was the smallest thing you saw on that outing?
> 
> If you don't care, if it doesn't bother you? No problem, get a 16:9 screen and enjoy it, it's definitely the simpler, easier, cheaper way to go. But if you're like most of us in the CIH forum, and do think that epic scope movies shouldn't be outdone by animated comedies, or reality TV, the the solution is obvious, get a scope screen. Unless you're really serious about retaining presentation for everything, including IMAX, and then the solution is CIH+IMAX (semi-permanent horizontal masking, removed just for those IMAX type movies).


I see what you mean. 

I guess if that is your priority (presentation within the relationship of aspect ratio) then I absolutely see that point and in that sense would agree. I never thought of it that way. Unfortunately, atleast for me, I have always been width limited because older houses here in southern California are relatively small and laid out in bizarre ways that make having a decent size wide screen impossible. You could do it but then if you watch something in the 16:9 content it gets smaller to the point where its the same size as a regular 60" tv. So for me I see CIH 2.35:1 as providing a very limited experience. If I had a large home with optimal wall space - no doubt id go with CIH. 

FWIW - when you go to a movie theater they dont scale down a 16:9 movie - they scale it up to fit the screen. Same thing happens on all tvs... 16:9 content is bigger than content in 2.35:1. It personally does not bother me - I can see why it might for some. Honestly if I had a projector I wouldnt use it for regular tv viewing. Id use my LED tv for that and switch over to the projector for movies or epic gaming


----------



## Josh Z

rdeyoung said:


>


It's not just my opinion that the extra height for these alternating aspect ratio movies is filled with inessential picture. It's a fact. Those movies only play with alternating ratios in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they play as constant 2.40:1. By necessity, the directors have to compose their movies to be fully safe for 2.40:1 projection. That means when those handful of IMAX shots appear, they can't have anything important extend beyond the 2.40:1 region. Thus, you get shots like this, with lots of headroom and footroom above and below the characters.













> Not sure im getting the soap opera joke thing... Feels more like a soft way to make fun of people who have 16:9 screens. Whats the difference of having a 16:9 TV (like every tv you can buy in stores) than a 16:9 projector screen?


That's exactly my point. With a 16:9 screen, what you have is just a big TV. Any garbage TV content you play on it will be prioritized as the largest, most immersive picture possible, relegating thousands of scope features to 2nd rate status. That's not how I want to watch movies in my home theater. YMMV.


----------



## rdeyoung

Josh Z said:


> It's not just my opinion that the extra height for these alternating aspect ratio movies is filled with inessential picture. It's a fact. Those movies only play with alternating ratios in IMAX theaters. In all other theaters, they play as constant 2.40:1. By necessity, the directors have to compose their movies to be fully safe for 2.40:1 projection. That means when those handful of IMAX shots appear, they can't have anything important extend beyond the 2.40:1 region. Thus, you get shots like this, with lots of headroom and footroom above and below the characters.


IMO, its not inessential. Its not like the director hit a random button that would pick and choose scenes to use the entire screen - its a deliberate, art directed decision. Id rather watch a film the way the director intended the film to be seen than to cut it off myself. Just my opinion, man


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

rdeyoung said:


> IMO, its not inessential. Its not like the director hit a random button that would pick and choose scenes to use the entire screen - its a deliberate, art directed decision. Id rather watch a film the way the director intended the film to be seen than to cut it off myself. Just my opinion, man


But with a 16:9 screen, you're seeing just those 10 or so pseudo IMAX movies correctly, and scope movies too, but if you're watching all 16:9 presentations full height, then they aren't being shown as the director intended as they are now larger than scope and they shouldn't be if correct presentation is important to you. Scope should be the largest most epic movie presentation format other than IMAX, not the smallest which it will be on a 16:9 screen.

http://www.cedia.org/blog/aspect-ratios-101



CEDIA said:


> The most common aspect ratios used in theaters today are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. The former befits a more intimate scale where people tend to be most prominent in the frame, which is why many dramas and comedies are shot in 1.85:1 (known as Academy Flat in the movie industry).
> 
> *Significantly wider and more epic in scope, 2.35:1* is used for most of today's big-budget blockbusters because the panoramic presentation engages peripheral vision and makes viewers feel more immersed in the action.


http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/video-aspect-ratios

The RED 101 shows how to correctly present movies, and how to capture them on their cameras too.

There are plenty of other docs and white papers out there from the main bodies of research that say much the same thing, but you get the idea.

Gary


----------



## stanger89

rdeyoung said:


> I see what you mean.
> 
> I guess if that is your priority (presentation within the relationship of aspect ratio) then I absolutely see that point and in that sense would agree. I never thought of it that way. Unfortunately, atleast for me, I have always been width limited because older houses here in southern California are relatively small and laid out in bizarre ways that make having a decent size wide screen impossible. You could do it but then if you watch something in the 16:9 content it gets smaller to the point where its the same size as a regular 60" tv. So for me I see CIH 2.35:1 as providing a very limited experience. If I had a large home with optimal wall space - no doubt id go with CIH.


I don't have big rooms, but I've always made CIH work. My first CIH setup was just 96"x40", my current one is "only" 110"x46", but for both I had seating located so that it provided a satisfying experience for 16:9 and and awesome one for scope content.



> FWIW - when you go to a movie theater they dont scale down a 16:9 movie - they scale it up to fit the screen. Same thing happens on all tvs...


If you go to a proper theater, (not the mass produced, crammed in megaplexes), the screen will be a scope screen and the scope content is larger than flat, it's the opposite of what happens with TVs.


----------



## bud16415

Everyone has a there own take on the question. I don’t personally feel height is the ultimate controlling factor in an image. Our peripheral vision extends to close to 180 degrees. And eye movement alone includes a bit more. Also the state of immersion in the image is relative to the viewing experience you are going for. 

I have always wished for a true scope projector where all the light the projector produced would be used with all the pixels. Such projectors have been made but not at a cost I could ever afford or want to pay. I don’t require more than 1080 resolution and could be happy with a scope projector of 800 resolution. So that would be in effect what running a CIH setup would be. That is perfect for movie and tv people and watch star wars bigger than dancing with the stars. But then there are other times you may be packing more people in the room or deeper in the room when folks have a media room and are having a super bowl party and you just want a booming big screen. When I used to have a dozen guys over to view a UFC night they wanted it huge bigger than star wars even screen. There are other times and I know some will say I’m wrong but I personally want a classic 4:3 feature like citizen kane to be taller than what a scope CIH would allow. Gone with the wind is another. Both those movies for me garner higher esteem than star wars, and again I personally enjoy them taller than a scope screen would allow and even taller than a 16:9 screen would allow. Another very common use I have for my media room is showing high def photo slide shows and height balances portrait and landscape photos better. 

All these factors for me is what brought me to the convoluted way I have my room set up and it works for me. My screen is my wall the bigger the better in all directions and my projector has a smallish zoom but is on a slide that allows me even more zoom than some of the long zoom projectors. My day to day viewing is more of a CIH set up but if I want I pull her back and go as tall as I want. 

So in that regard if I had to buy a screen of some given AR I think I would go with a 4:3 screen and make it as wide as needed for a CIH scope screen. If I needed masking I would deal with that how ever I wanted. I would still say I had a CIH as that’s how I would mostly deal with day to day TV and movies. But really I don’t know if there is even a name for how I have my setup. I totally relate to the CIH ideal though.


----------



## Kain

I just got back from viewing The Jungle Book in 3D in an IMAX with Laser with the new 12-channel audio system. First time in an IMAX with Laser theater. Holy crap! The best audio and video I've heard and seen so far in a commercial theater. FREAKING loud sound. Loved the theater and movie. 

One question though...

Some face/head close-up shots took up nearly the whole height of the IMAX screen. How will this translate to a 2.39:1/2:40:1 conversion? I haven't seen the movie in a "regular" theater.


----------



## Josh Z

Kain said:


> I just got back from viewing The Jungle Book in 3D in an IMAX with Laser with the new 12-channel audio system. First time in an IMAX with Laser theater. Holy crap! The best audio and video I've heard and seen so far in a commercial theater. FREAKING loud sound. Loved the theater and movie.
> 
> One question though...
> 
> Some face/head close-up shots took up nearly the whole height of the IMAX screen. How will this translate to a 2.39:1/2:40:1 conversion? I haven't seen the movie in a "regular" theater.


I haven't seen it, but according to IMDb, Jungle Book is entirely a 1.85:1 movie.


----------



## Kain

Josh Z said:


> I haven't seen it, but according to IMDb, Jungle Book is entirely a 1.85:1 movie.


Doh! 

Even the trailer on YouTube is entirely in 1.85:1. I seem to miss the obvious stuff these days.


----------



## Josh Z

rdeyoung said:


> IMO, its not inessential. Its not like the director hit a random button that would pick and choose scenes to use the entire screen - its a deliberate, art directed decision. Id rather watch a film the way the director intended the film to be seen than to cut it off myself. Just my opinion, man


In the case of The Dark Knight, the first movie to use the alternating aspect ratio gimmick, I might agree with you that the ratio shift was used in a purposeful, artistic manner to highlight the action scenes and certain establishing shots. However, later movies that have used the effect, including Transformers 2 & 4, Star Trek into Darkness, and even The Dark Knight Rises, have basically shifted ratios at random for no discernible purpose. 

Star Trek and the two Transformers movies have rapid-fire editing and will flit back and forth between ratios even within a single scene. From shot to shot, what ratio you get is entirely dependent on what camera happened to be available on the day of shooting. Many of the IMAX shots in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen literally only last 2 seconds or less. 

When The Dark Knight Rises came out, Christopher Nolan stated that he shot in IMAX whenever he could fit the IMAX camera into a location. From watching the movie, it's clear that there's no design or intent behind which shots are IMAX and which aren't. In one scene, the ratio randomly switches to IMAX for a single shot when Anne Hathaway walks down a staircase. There's nothing particularly important or impressive about that shot, but Nolan shot it in IMAX anyway just because he could.

As for the question of director intent, Brad Bird confirmed on Twitter that he instructed Paramount to transfer Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol to Blu-ray in Constant Height 2.40:1 because he found the variable ratio annoying, and only ever intended that effect to be an IMAX theatrical exclusive. The Blu-ray for Star Wars: The Force Awakens is also Constant Height, even though it played in IMAX with variable ratio.

Several other of these movies, including the two Transformers, Star Trek into Darkness, and Guardians of the Galaxy, are Constant Height in their primary Blu-ray editions, with the variable ratios relegated either to retailer exclusives, double-dip reissues, or 3D copies as a sales incentive.


----------



## coolrda

What will be interesting is in twenty years when IMAX introduces Imax Wide Extended Dimension 2.40 Extreme too bring people back into theaters. While we're standing in line shaking our heads the younglings will be going nuts over this brand new experience. "What took them so long. They should have done this years ago".


----------



## AMartin56

I love my 2.35 screen!

My wife and her mother tried out our new theater last night for the first time and I was actually disappointed that their choice of film was 1.85! But I hear they still enjoyed themselves.


----------



## jeahrens

If the cinema you are attending masks for scope content, you need to find a better cinema. The last place I went to that did that was for Rush. Haven't been back there since. If I'm going to drop cash on a movie I may as well go to a place that cares about the presentation and not the numbers they can shove through in a day. Big surprise the audio was mediocre as well. We now hit our local Flix Brewhouse cinema if we're going to go to a theater.

If you're width limited, then I totally get a 16:9 setup. However if you can match your optimal height to the width needed for CIH, you really don't have to sacrifice any formats impact. And scope gets a huge boost in presence and immersion. I see some conversation on field of vision. At least to me, what we should be interested in is our field of view when our eyes are focused on a certain point. Though our field of vision expands if we count eye movement, it creates a fatiguing experience if the screen is sized to require constant scanning to take in. So, to me, the height and width should be something you can comfortably view focused on the center of the screen.

The shifting aspect ratio films aren't many. Which is a good thing. I find them a distracting annoyance. Not because I zoom for scope. I'm perfectly fine watching them in 16:9. I just don't care for the constant shift. If they want to use the extra height I'd prefer it if they would simply display everything in 16:9. Either way, I wouldn't size a setup based on a handful of films that employ this (although Gary's approach is a good way to go if you do).


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I see some conversation on field of vision. At least to me, what we should be interested in is our field of view when our eyes are focused on a certain point. Though our field of vision expands if we count eye movement, it creates a fatiguing experience if the screen is sized to require constant scanning to take in. So, to me, the height and width should be something you can comfortably view focused on the center of the screen.


Many of us wish we could comfortably focus on the center and take in the image and I think we sometimes think we are but in reality our eyes are always scanning and the brain is painting the image.

Try just looking at the center of your monitor and see what you see in the corners. Look at any one word of text on a printed page and try and read a word just an inch above without taking your eyes off that point in the screen. Our vision is automatic and with head and eye movement.

When you take into account eye movement up and down and right and left the ideal of AR starts to change and a taller image can be every bit as immersive as wider. I love the vast expanses to a scope movie regardless if I’m on top of it or away a little. Some movies fit increased immersion better than others , as do some 16:9 or even 4:3 content. The Wizard of Oz in its original AR before they cropped it for TV into 16:9 is a good example of one I like larger than a scope image height would give me. Based on eye movement. 

My thought example is what would you rather see larger wheel of fortune or wizard of oz.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Many of us wish we could comfortably focus on the center and take in the image and I think we sometimes think we are but in reality our eyes are always scanning and the brain is painting the image.
> 
> Try just looking at the center of your monitor and see what you see in the corners. Look at any one word of text on a printed page and try and read a word just an inch above without taking your eyes off that point in the screen. Our vision is automatic and with head and eye movement.
> 
> When you take into account eye movement up and down and right and left the ideal of AR starts to change and a taller image can be every bit as immersive as wider. I love the vast expanses to a scope movie regardless if I’m on top of it or away a little. Some movies fit increased immersion better than others , as do some 16:9 or even 4:3 content. The Wizard of Oz in its original AR before they cropped it for TV into 16:9 is a good example of one I like larger than a scope image height would give me. Based on eye movement.
> 
> My thought example is what would you rather see larger wheel of fortune or wizard of oz.


The height in my setup is optimal. So 1.33:1 is as big as I would want it if I had a separate screen. Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Star Trek: TNG, etc all look great. I never feel like I'm missing anything. Same with 1.85:1 or 16:9 material. 

The majority of the time I spend watching a film I am fixed/focused on the center, but the edges are still within my peripheral vision. My brain is processing the whole frame. So I can't agree with the idea that I'm constantly scanning. In fact when I am in a theater (like an IMAX dome or sitting far to close to the screen in a conventional theater) and am forced to scan the picture to take it in, it is definitely not a pleasant experience. 

Certainly when there is a small detail I must focus on, like text on the screen I will move my eyes and concentrate on it. But that's not how I'm watching a visual medium like a film or TV program most of the time. Everyone is different, and it may be that you do constantly find your eyes moving around the frame. And if that is your preference than you should construct your theater with that in mind.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> The height in my setup is optimal. So 1.33:1 is as big as I would want it if I had a separate screen. Casablanca, Seven Samurai, Star Trek: TNG, etc all look great. I never feel like I'm missing anything. Same with 1.85:1 or 16:9 material.
> 
> The majority of the time I spend watching a film I am fixed/focused on the center, but the edges are still within my peripheral vision. My brain is processing the whole frame. So I can't agree with the idea that I'm constantly scanning. In fact when I am in a theater (like an IMAX dome or sitting far to close to the screen in a conventional theater) and am forced to scan the picture to take it in, it is definitely not a pleasant experience.
> 
> Certainly when there is a small detail I must focus on, like text on the screen I will move my eyes and concentrate on it. But that's not how I'm watching a visual medium like a film or TV program most of the time. Everyone is different, and it may be that you do constantly find your eyes moving around the frame. And if that is your preference than you should construct your theater with that in mind.



Most of us I feel don’t really use a center gaze when watching any content and if eye movement was taxing reading a book would be an exhausting experience. 

We do center gaze more with classic TV of 20 year ago where we watched a 18 to 32 inch tv from across the room but that viewing was anything but immersion viewing. I do agree you can get too much of a good thing and I think what most people think of causing eye strain is excessive eye movement, like full sweep eye movement. 

They have been doing eye gaze studies for a few years and some are actually using it as a tool in editing film or in making film. Here are a couple links about one study done. It’s interesting to watch the movie with the tracking of many eyes. Because the movie is in scope most of the movement is right and left. I would love to see the study done on the wizard of oz before and after cropping it for tv. 

Like I said I love scope movies and the concept of CIH even but my personal tastes allow me to sometimes go larger in the case of classic movies shot in 4:3 and also stuff like IMAX. I also sometimes go smaller when the transfer is not the best. 

Here are the links. 

http://www.slashfilm.com/video-eyes-move-watching-movie/

http://mentalfloss.com/article/27230/what-11-pairs-eyeballs-watching-movie-looks

PS I also think it explains why sometimes I can watch the same movie 20 times and get something different from it each time. each time we view a movie it really is a different experience.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Most of us I feel don’t really use a center gaze when watching any content and if eye movement was taxing reading a book would be an exhausting experience.
> 
> We do center gaze more with classic TV of 20 year ago where we watched a 18 to 32 inch tv from across the room but that viewing was anything but immersion viewing. I do agree you can get too much of a good thing and I think what most people think of causing eye strain is excessive eye movement, like full sweep eye movement.
> 
> They have been doing eye gaze studies for a few years and some are actually using it as a tool in editing film or in making film. Here are a couple links about one study done. It’s interesting to watch the movie with the tracking of many eyes. Because the movie is in scope most of the movement is right and left. I would love to see the study done on the wizard of oz before and after cropping it for tv.
> 
> Like I said I love scope movies and the concept of CIH even but my personal tastes allow me to sometimes go larger in the case of classic movies shot in 4:3 and also stuff like IMAX. I also sometimes go smaller when the transfer is not the best.
> 
> Here are the links.
> 
> http://www.slashfilm.com/video-eyes-move-watching-movie/
> 
> http://mentalfloss.com/article/27230/what-11-pairs-eyeballs-watching-movie-looks
> 
> PS I also think it explains why sometimes I can watch the same movie 20 times and get something different from it each time. each time we view a movie it really is a different experience.


I couldn't get the slashfilm link to load, but the mental floss link was very interesting. It shows most everyone's attention fixed on the main action with flits to other areas of interest. And maybe I'm not articulating my opinion well enough, but that's what I'm trying to say. We aren't constantly scanning the entire frame edge to edge or moving our head to encompass it. We're generally concentrated on where the action is. For example around 1:30 the conversation at the table, my eyes are slowly switching slightly between who is talking. It's not a large amount of movement and I'm still taking in the rest of the frame. I said we're usually fixated on the center of the frame, because that's usually where the action of the frame is. 

It is fatiguing to sit to close to a normal screen or to go to an IMAX dome presentation that extends beyond the field of vision. The IMAX presentation can induce nausea in folks too (I get a small bit, my wife is worse). I should clarify, this is mainly (at least for me) when they show widescreen and not IMAX ratio material on the dome. The dome usually distorts it on the ends which also doesn't help. 

There's probably an amount of eye/head movement we all tolerate. And maybe that's where I'm failing to explain myself, the amount of movement needed to take in the information has a threshold of comfort. The book analogy you used is a good example of a very small amount of eye travel. Which is not strain inducing. IMAX poorly projected is on the other end of the spectrum. Heck you have to move your head there. In the "There Will Be Blood" example I don't find my eyes moving much (they only need to shift slightly left/right to move between the actors and the height is within my fov) and my head is stationary. Which is relaxing to me.

If having an additional 4:3 screen gives you additional impact and you enjoy it, then there's no downside. And that is the right solution for you. But it doesn't negate that basing a CIH setup on the optimal height for you and your viewing area ends up showcasing all the main aspect ratios and shortchanges none of them. I love all cinema and love to visit a new film regardless of the era it was made or aspect ratio. So while I agree that scope is intended by the director to have the largest presentation, that does not make it more important than other aspect ratios. I look forward to viewing Chinatown and Hateful Eight as much as I do Metropolis and the rest of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Blu Rays I've been slowly going through. One screen may not always be the best the choice for every setup, but if you have the width to do it CIH is (in my opinion of course) the best route for majority of setups.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I couldn't get the slashfilm link to load, but the mental floss link was very interesting. It shows most everyone's attention fixed on the main action with flits to other areas of interest. And maybe I'm not articulating my opinion well enough, but that's what I'm trying to say. We aren't constantly scanning the entire frame edge to edge or moving our head to encompass it. We're generally concentrated on where the action is. For example around 1:30 the conversation at the table, my eyes are slowly switching slightly between who is talking. It's not a large amount of movement and I'm still taking in the rest of the frame. I said we're usually fixated on the center of the frame, because that's usually where the action of the frame is.
> 
> It is fatiguing to sit to close to a normal screen or to go to an IMAX dome presentation that extends beyond the field of vision. The IMAX presentation can induce nausea in folks too (I get a small bit, my wife is worse). I should clarify, this is mainly (at least for me) when they show widescreen and not IMAX ratio material on the dome. The dome usually distorts it on the ends which also doesn't help.
> 
> There's probably an amount of eye/head movement we all tolerate. And maybe that's where I'm failing to explain myself, the amount of movement needed to take in the information has a threshold of comfort. The book analogy you used is a good example of a very small amount of eye travel. Which is not strain inducing. IMAX poorly projected is on the other end of the spectrum. Heck you have to move your head there. In the "There Will Be Blood" example I don't find my eyes moving much (they only need to shift slightly left/right to move between the actors and the height is within my fov) and my head is stationary. Which is relaxing to me.
> 
> If having an additional 4:3 screen gives you additional impact and you enjoy it, then there's no downside. And that is the right solution for you. But it doesn't negate that basing a CIH setup on the optimal height for you and your viewing area ends up showcasing all the main aspect ratios and shortchanges none of them. I love all cinema and love to visit a new film regardless of the era it was made or aspect ratio. So while I agree that scope is intended by the director to have the largest presentation, that does not make it more important than other aspect ratios. I look forward to viewing Chinatown and Hateful Eight as much as I do Metropolis and the rest of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Blu Rays I've been slowly going through. One screen may not always be the best the choice for every setup, but if you have the width to do it CIH is (in my opinion of course) the best route for majority of setups.


I think we agree in theory. We watch and focus normally on the action or who’s speaking and a great amount of the image is outside our sharp focus. We let the brain fill in the blanks just as we do every day in real life. If we are walking down the street we see what’s in front of our vision and the rest blends out to both sides like scope and up and down like IMAX. We are used to that and in our daily vision we disregard the side image until something in the brain triggers it, a person coming up to us or a car passing us etc. We go to a tennis match and sit mid court and the action is widely spaced and we are forced to have eye movement and it seems quite natural. Other activities lend themselves to us using up and down vision. Agreed if the action is taking our full range of vision in either direction with sufficient changes between the extremes there will be eye strain. The max movement of our eyes in each direction without a head movement is what I was saying would define a rectangular AR. If a person stands in front of a blank wall and looks at an X marked straight ahead with eyes centered and then without moving their head looks right and left and up and down to a point where they can still get a focus on 4 other X’s then draw a rectangle that’s the full response AR of the eyes. Now how far you move back from that rectangle determines the comfort factor for that AR image. 

My point was for me wide screen scope sitting where my comfort point up and down height results in a wider than comfort right and left. The same is true for me with 4:3 AR when I max my height I am left wanting more right and left. 

I haven’t done the experiment for myself other than having a feel what that AR is based on the variety of different images I watch at different sizes. 

All these AR are just arbitrary things man has come up with. Edison picked 4:3 based around 35mm film and the spacing of sprocket holes and what size rectangle fit them best. Scope came about to be different than TV and fit more people in wider movie theaters. And 16:9 was a compromise going roughly half way between. 

I don’t think it diminishes the grandeur of the panoramic beauty of scope at all depending on the size or height of the image. It is the content and the ratio of width to height that makes it amazing not just the size. I was out to the Grand Canyon a few years ago and there is no vantage point to take it in from except maybe the space shuttle but nonetheless it is a thing of beauty. 

CIH is a really great way to go if you have to draw the line at a screen size someplace. Now that I have given myself the freedom to expand any image to the size I feel is proper for the content, I find myself going bigger with some than CIH would allow and smaller with other.


----------



## bud16415

I just took 5 thumbtacks and stood 3 foot from a blank wall and stuck one right at eye level and then stuck 4 more as described above. I put one at each point where I wouldn’t want to look past without turning my head and this is quite a bit closer than I would ever think to view that size screen. Was just trying to measure my AR without head movement. I measured 70” across and 52” up and down. 70/52=1.35:1 I was kind of surprised in fact.


----------



## NxNW

Josh Z said:


> In the case of The Dark Knight, the first movie to use the alternating aspect ratio gimmick [snip]As for the question of director intent [ ... ] Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol [ ... ] Star Wars: The Force Awakens [ ... ] the two Transformers, Star Trek into Darkness, and Guardians of the Galaxy


Here's a link you may have seen but I just stumbled across yesterday. This guy cites a film in 1927 that did it, or if that's a little too recherche, people have definitely heard of Around the World in Eighty Days (a favorite of mine because it was filmed not just in widescreen but also 30 fps). 

https://tadleckman.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/shapeshifiting-films/ 

Not disagreeing with your main point: Dark Knight was basically the first time in the post-HDTV world where the masses started really wondering how to exhibit changing aspect ratios at home. (All the other movies you mentioned are shown in that guy's blog as well. But even his list is probably not exhaustive.)


bud16415 said:


> My day to day viewing is more of a CIH set up but if I want I pull her back and go as tall as I want. [ ... ] But really I don’t know if there is even a name for how I have my setup.


I would say your setup, while unique, falls in the category of Constant Image Area. Or if not Constant, at least Flexible Image Area, where the emphasis is on Area. Your determinant is basically how big an image do you feel like presenting at the moment. Anyway I recall seeing "Constant Image Area" discussed periodically on AVS (for most folks it basically boils down to deploying a good 4-way masking solution, lens or no lens).


jeahrens said:


> It is fatiguing to sit to close to a normal screen or to go to an IMAX dome presentation that extends beyond the field of vision. The IMAX presentation can induce nausea in folks too (I get a small bit, my wife is worse). I should clarify, this is mainly (at least for me) when they show widescreen and not IMAX ratio material on the dome. The dome usually distorts it on the ends which also doesn't help.


I started paying more attention to this thread when people mentioned Star Wars Force Awakens multiple times without noting it too uses IMAX for a single scene, the Millennium Falcon vs TIE fighter chase scene on Jakku. (Josh set this straight finally in the post I quoted above.) 

Intrigued by the prospect of seeing this exhibited the way JJ Abrams shot it, I sought out places to see it in IMAX. In addition to seeing it in regular widescreen and 3d widescreen, I also saw it in digital laser IMAX and celluloid 70mm IMAX. I had the misfortune of seeing the 70mm version in a dome. Very poor experience for all the reasons you cited. 

As for whether IMAX material is usually intended to contain information essential to the story or just for atmosphere, I can honestly say I did not recall noticing when the IMAX portion of Force Awakens even began, and I had reminded myself to look for it. But honestly, if you are caught up in the story, it's not really what your brain is focused on. The second time I made extra sure to watch for the transition and successfully detected it, but the extra effort took me out of my immersion in the *chase*. At that point I was consciously watching the *exhibition* of a movie, not the movie. Here on AVS we may enjoy that, but we might want to remember when showing movies to friends and family it is very very rare that a typical person engrossed in an engaging story will ever stop and say, 'whoa hey did the aspect ratio just change there?'

(Not related to this thread: Laser IMAX was BY FAR THE BEST presentation. First rule of display devices, it's all about the blacks. Laser IMAX currently has the best blacks I have ever seen in a theater. Period. If you haven't seen this technology and live anywhere near one of the (very few) of theaters that have it, go. Doesn't matter what's playing, just go. Before the first trailer is over you will be blown away.)


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I just took 5 thumbtacks and stood 3 foot from a blank wall and stuck one right at eye level and then stuck 4 more as described above. I put one at each point where I wouldn’t want to look past without turning my head and this is quite a bit closer than I would ever think to view that size screen. Was just trying to measure my AR without head movement. I measured 70” across and 52” up and down. 70/52=1.35:1 I was kind of surprised in fact.


Yes indeed. There's been posts where people have posted a FOV chart that is around that number. But when your eyes are relaxed and focused on a point the AR is beyond 2.0:1 (not sure how far though). My peripheral vision extends beyond the 16:9 monitor if I move my head in until the top and bottom are at the edge of my vision. So while the AR of your field of vision is close to Academy when taking into account movement range, it is not when your eyes stop moving and focus. Which metric is more meaningful I don't have the expertise to say. I will say that a large scope image is something I find easier to watch than an IMAX one (1.4:1 IMAX). And that's within reason. When an IMAX dome turns a widescreen image into a bow tie I have to move my head side to side just take in the center of the frame I am not comfortable. So I'm in the camp that our wide set eyes find it easier to digest a wider image vs. a taller one.

As far as screen height goes, I zoom the projector to attain scope. When 16:9 content comes on zoomed it spills over. My eyes will widen to take in the additional height and it's not a sensation I would want for an entire film. It's not "holy cow is this bad". But it's not optimal. Watching scope at the same width is quite pleasant. Watching Academy or 1.85:1 is also fine in the border of the screen. So in my case, the height really is optimal. Obviously there's going to some deviation here due to biology. I have no doubt that you saying you can enjoy a 1.33:1 image with a larger height than you would get with a CIH setup is true.


----------



## jeahrens

-NxNW

Great post. Didn't want to quote the whole thing, but I think whether the average viewer notices the aspect ratio would be affected by how often it changes. Movies like the second Hunger Games or The Force Awakens where you have 1 or 2 transitions will not stick out. Nolan films where the aspect ratio changes as often as a ping pong ball changes sides of the table, now those even a casual viewer will probably eventually notice. I personally find them really distracting and wish Nolan would just open the matte up to 1:85:1. But then since Blu Ray is limited to 2K resolution I guess there would be nothing to make the IMAX shots standout more.

And now I want to check out Laser IMAX. Although my trusty JVC does a fair job with blacks, I'm sure that seeing inky blacks on a screen that size has to be jaw dropping.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> As far as screen height goes, I zoom the projector to attain scope. When 16:9 content comes on zoomed it spills over.


I think that may be an advantage of my masking on my mirror. If I turn around and look at the mirror I can see the overspill but I leave it all on the back wall rather than the front wall. 

Now I know what kind of screen I have any way it’s a FIA setup. I might have to start my own sub forum called the FIA Chat. I will be able to go there and talk to myself.


----------



## Kain

My room's depth is about 15 ft and the projector will be on a shelf mounted to the back wall (that's about 1 ft of space taken up by the projectors depth). The screen will be roughly 1 ft off the front wall to allow space for the LCR speakers. So that leaves about 13 ft between the projector's lens and the screen. Will I be able to find a projector that will be able to project a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope image from 13 ft?


----------



## jeahrens

Kain said:


> My room's depth is about 15 ft and the projector will be on a shelf mounted to the back wall (that's about 1 ft of space taken up by the projectors depth). The screen will be roughly 1 ft off the front wall to allow space for the LCR speakers. So that leaves about 13 ft between the projector's lens and the screen. Will I be able to find a projector that will be able to project a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope image from 13 ft?


What price range? The new JVC's won't quite do it at that distance. They'll do 111" max horizontal at 13'. The Sony 4K VW665ES comes a bit closer, but still can't (it maxes out at 114" horizontally and it's pretty pricey). Give us a budget and we can narrow it down. I'm sure someone in here is more familiar with a short throw option.


----------



## Kain

jeahrens said:


> What price range? The new JVC's won't quite do it at that distance. They'll do 111" max horizontal at 13'. The Sony 4K VW665ES comes a bit closer, but still can't (it maxes out at 114" horizontally and it's pretty pricey). Give us a budget and we can narrow it down. I'm sure someone in here is more familiar with a short throw option.


About $10,000-$15,000.

Length of the room is about 15 ft and the LCR speakers are 8.5" deep. I guess I would need maybe an inch between the LCR speakers and the screen so that makes 9.5" gone from the front of the room. So, now I have 14.2 ft left in the room. I would have to subtract the depth of the projector (which will be mounted on the back wall on the shelf). Viewing distance will be around 8 ft. If a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen is not possible, I could go with a 9 ft horizontally wide screen. I think it should still be plenty immersive from a 8 ft viewing distance.


----------



## Josh Z

NxNW said:


> Here's a link you may have seen but I just stumbled across yesterday. This guy cites a film in 1927 that did it, or if that's a little too recherche, people have definitely heard of Around the World in Eighty Days (a favorite of mine because it was filmed not just in widescreen but also 30 fps).
> 
> https://tadleckman.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/shapeshifiting-films/
> 
> Not disagreeing with your main point: Dark Knight was basically the first time in the post-HDTV world where the masses started really wondering how to exhibit changing aspect ratios at home. (All the other movies you mentioned are shown in that guy's blog as well. But even his list is probably not exhaustive.)


While there were previous movies that played around with aspect ratio changes, The Dark Knight was the first movie to initiate the modern fad of expanding in height to fill an IMAX screen. The earlier movies cited on that page were all Constant Height and expanded (or contracted) in width but not height.


----------



## jjcook

Kain said:


> My room's depth is about 15 ft and the projector will be on a shelf mounted to the back wall (that's about 1 ft of space taken up by the projectors depth). The screen will be roughly 1 ft off the front wall to allow space for the LCR speakers. So that leaves about 13 ft between the projector's lens and the screen. Will I be able to find a projector that will be able to project a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope image from 13 ft?


If your room is 15' deep and if you need about 1 foot for front screen wall and about 2 feet for projector depth + small margin for rear air flow leaves you about 12 feet. Assuming you're not using an anamorphic lens, maximum image is ~102" wide for a JVC or Sony VW665 (1.4 TR) and about ~112" wide for an Epson LS10000 or Sony VW1100 (~1.28 TR).

I recommend that you use a Navitar HDSSW08 Screenstar lens (non-anamorphic) to increase your image size without pincushion or other artifact on the JVC/Sony VW665 and hit your 120"-wide goal. Another option is to use a mirror to increase your throw distance but a high quality one will cost about the same as the lens and is a bit more awkward (I currently use a mirror instead of lens for several reasons, for brevity you can PM me if you'd like more details).


----------



## Kain

jjcook said:


> If your room is 15' deep and if you need about 1 foot for front screen wall and about 2 feet for projector depth + small margin for rear air flow leaves you about 12 feet. Assuming you're not using an anamorphic lens, maximum image is ~102" wide for a JVC or Sony VW665 (1.4 TR) and about ~112" wide for an Epson LS10000 or Sony VW1100 (~1.28 TR).
> 
> I recommend that you use a Navitar HDSSW08 Screenstar lens (non-anamorphic) to increase your image size without pincushion or other artifact on the JVC/Sony VW665 and hit your 120"-wide goal. Another option is to use a mirror to increase your throw distance but a high quality one will cost about the same as the lens and is a bit more awkward (I currently use a mirror instead of lens for several reasons, for brevity you can PM me if you'd like more details).


I think the 102" horizontally wide screen of the JVC could be good enough. 102" wide would be 8.5 ft wide. I'll be sitting roughly 8 ft away from the screen. Ultimately, 9 ft wide would be perfect but even with a 8.5 ft wide screen from 8 ft away, I'd have to move my eyes around to view each corner of the screen.


----------



## jjcook

Kain said:


> I think the 102" horizontally wide screen of the JVC could be good enough. 102" wide would be 8.5 ft wide. I'll be sitting roughly 8 ft away from the screen. Ultimately, 9 ft wide would be perfect but even with a 8.5 ft wide screen from 8 ft away, I'd have to move my eyes around to view each corner of the screen.


Your ratio of 8.5' wide to 8' distance (~1.06) is the sweet spot IMO. I sit about 8.5-9' eyes-to-screen and currently have a 100" wide screen and plan to go to at least 110-115 to meet my desired width so will be building variable masking up to 120-wide


----------



## Kain

Thanks. 

A 8.5 ft wide 2.39:1 screen will be 102" wide. This will result in a 111" diagonal screen size/width, correct?


----------



## jjcook

Kain said:


> Thanks.
> 
> A 8.5 ft wide 2.39:1 screen will be 102" wide. This will result in a 111" diagonal screen size/width, correct?


Yes, specifically 2.35-aspect is 110.85" diagonal and 2.40-aspect is 110.5" diagonal


----------



## Mike_WI

Kain said:


> My front wall is about 12 ft wide and the viewing distance will be around 8 ft. The maximum horizontal width of a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen is the same in my room. They only difference each aspect ratio will offer me is a difference in height. We are talking about an AT screen, by the way. Is there any reason for me to get a 2.35:1 screen over a 16:9 screen since displaying a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen, in my room, will offer an image size that would be equal to what could be displayed on a 2.35:1 screen? One advantage I can think of is there will be no black bars with a 2.35:1 screen but it will result in a smaller 16:9 image size.


2.35 to 2.40 for movies

16:9 is better for TV and sports

Mike


----------



## Kain

jjcook said:


> Yes, specifically 2.35-aspect is 110.85" diagonal and 2.40-aspect is 110.5" diagonal


Thanks.

How large will a 16:9 image be on those screens?


----------



## Kain

One more question...

My front wall is about 12 ft wide. If I have a 8.5 ft wide AT screen, should I place all three of the LCR speakers behind the screen or should I place the front left and right speakers outside the screen and only the center speaker behind the screen?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

For movies, all three should be behind the screen. Dolby's Atmos white paper shows you where to put them (page 2):

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-specifications.pdf

Gary


----------



## Kain

Thanks.

So, having the left and right side surround speakers slightly wider apart (as they will be mounted on the side walls of the room) than the left and right front speakers will cause no issue? Seems it won't be based on that white paper as it shows the side surround speakers are placed slightly wider apart than the endmost front speakers.

Lastly, it's actually preferable to have the left and right front speakers out of the corners, correct?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Page 2 shows how the LCR (ignore the left center and right center) speakers should be laid out behind the screen, and page 4 shows the side surrounds wider than the screen in a commercial theatre set up. You can use the home version of the Atmos white paper for the other speakers if you want.

I think it's often recommended not to have speakers in corners, but sometimes the room and screen layout may mean it can't be helped. You can toe them in if you want to.


----------



## Kain

Thanks.

Today I watched Holidays (2016) which is a movie made up of several horror comedy short stories (great movie by the way). Some of the short stories were in CinemaScope while others were in 16:9. If I have a CinemaScope screen with an anamorphic lens, what would happen to the image when one of the 16:9 portions come on?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

If the 16:9 content is presented taller than the 2.35 content, then an A lens will just cut off the top and bottom, so will look just like any other 2.35 movie, but perhaps badly framed from time to time.

Gary


----------



## jjcook

If you use a video processor that can auto-detect the content aspect ratio (such as a Lumagen 2020 or newer) then you can have it automatically disable anamorphic stretch and enable anamorphic shrink so that all your content appears in the correct aspect ratio and without clipping. With a Lumagen Mini 3D you can also achieve this without moving the lens but would need to manually press a button on the remote and which may not be initially obvious from the content when you should do so.


----------



## VideoGrabber

bud16415 said:


> I think that may be an advantage of my masking on my mirror. If I turn around and look at the mirror I can see the overspill but I leave it all on the back wall rather than the front wall.


I'd appreciate seeing a larger picture of your unique mirrored setup than the tiny one in your avatar. Perhaps you've posted it elsewhere already, and I just missed it.



> Now I know what kind of screen I have any way it’s a FIA setup. I might have to start my own sub forum called the FIA Chat. I will be able to go there and talk to myself.


I wouldn't be so sure about that.  I ran a FIA setup for years, and if I ever get settled into the new house, plan to set up my next media room in a FIA configuration as well. I believe Rich Harkness would be another attendee. You may not be as much of a lone-wolf as you think you are.


----------



## kucharsk

Josh Z said:


> Because if Dance Moms is bigger than Lord of the Rings on your screen, you don't have a home theater. You just have an oversized TV. IMO.


If only that weren't true of just about any movie theater built in the past decade.


----------



## bud16415

VideoGrabber said:


> I'd appreciate seeing a larger picture of your unique mirrored setup than the tiny one in your avatar. Perhaps you've posted it elsewhere already, and I just missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure about that.  I ran a FIA setup for years, and if I ever get settled into the new house, plan to set up my next media room in a FIA configuration as well. I believe Rich Harkness would be another attendee. You may not be as much of a lone-wolf as you think you are.


Here is a thread with some photos. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/110-d...extender-mirror-throw-extender-tiny-room.html


I suspect there are quite a few actually with the FIA setup you are correct. 


I think too many people are fixated on the size of different AR comparing one to the other. To me size is only one of many factors. The beauty of a panoramic scope image to me isn’t in the size as much as the sheer beauty of that wide all-encompassing image. Years ago I used to have a panoramic film camera that shot an extra wide photo with a wider angle lens. The prints were only 4 inches high but amazing in content. On the other hand, if I wanted a big screen flight simulator I would want a 4:3 setup as it closely fits the range of my eye movement. 

That’s what makes this such a great hobby we can all suit our own desires.


----------



## Kain

How large will a 16:9 image be on a 110" 2.40:1 screen?


----------



## stanger89

It will be 75% of the width.


----------



## DLCPhoto

Kain said:


> How large will a 16:9 image be on a 110" 2.40:1 screen?


This calculator will let you determine everything you need to know.


----------



## k3nnis

Hi All,

My room is 11.1' wide and 13.3' long.

The screen will be on the 11.1' wall.

Should I even bother with scope screens? Or just go a 16:9?

Throw range will be 11.5' to 110" diagonal for 16:9, I think if I went with scope screen would have be a touch smaller than 110" diagonal. Maybe 100" diagonal

Thanks,
K.


----------



## kmhvball

k3nnis said:


> Throw range will be 11.5' to 110" diagonal for 16:9, I think if I went with scope screen would have be a touch smaller than 110" diagonal. Maybe 100" diagonal
> 
> Thanks,
> K.


It sounds like you want your screen to be about 8' wide, regardless of whether 16:9 or 2:35:1, right?

I am also guessing you'll have 1 rows of seats? 

I would definitely go 16:9 in that scenario... your 2.35:1 image will be the exact same with in both cases, but if you go with a 2.35:1 screen, you 'lose out' on very roughly 12" of height. 

I have a 2.35:1 screen and love it, but in my case... going with a 16:9 screen, would have made my screen width smaller (due to 2nd row site lines, and subwoofers below screen - restricting height of screen, etc). I watched Game 7 of the NBA Finals on Sunday night, and definitely liked as big of a picture as possible. 

Also, unless you go with an A-lens, or have a projector with "auto-zoom", then switching back & forth aspect ratio's can be a challenge. Of course, I specifically selected a projector with auto-zoom, given I was going with a 2.35:1 screen... If your projector doesn't have auto-zoom and you don't have an a-lens, I would absolutely go 16:9.

Of course, this is all personal opinion... so, I am sure the next reply will be "go 2.35:1..."


----------



## stanger89

k3nnis said:


> Hi All,
> 
> My room is 11.1' wide and 13.3' long.
> 
> The screen will be on the 11.1' wall.
> 
> Should I even bother with scope screens? Or just go a 16:9?
> 
> Throw range will be 11.5' to 110" diagonal for 16:9, I think if I went with scope screen would have be a touch smaller than 110" diagonal. Maybe 100" diagonal
> 
> Thanks,
> K.


I've got a 110" wide scope screen in my HT, it's about the same width as yours, it's great. I don't buy the idea of "losing out" on height. Actually with your room size/seating distance a 16:9 screen might be overwhelming at the same width as scope.


----------



## jeahrens

Move your seating to where the 16:9 picture is the size you'd like it on the scope screen. we sit about 9-10' from a 130" scope screen. No complaints at all on the 16:9 sizing. It's essentially the same height as the 110" 16:9 screen it replaced.


----------



## stanger89

The OP's only got 13' of depth, by the time you move the seating forward to leave some space for rears and acoustics, you've only got about 8-9' from seating to front wall. It will not be hard at all to get a satisfying 16:9 size in a CIH screen at that distance.


----------



## k3nnis

Thanks Kevin, yes approx 8 foot wide. I haven't got a PJ yet so I can get one with auto zoom and memory, but worried about when watching sports or tv programs on a 2:39:1 screen it will look too small since I think I can only get a 100" or 105" scope screen since throw distance will be an issue at 11.5'.

Yes only 1 row of seats and subwoofer will be placed under the screen in the corner somewhere. I'm using satellite speakers on top of an entertainment unit. a slim line one. B&W MT30



kmhvball said:


> It sounds like you want your screen to be about 8' wide, regardless of whether 16:9 or 2:35:1, right?
> 
> I am also guessing you'll have 1 rows of seats?
> 
> I would definitely go 16:9 in that scenario... your 2.35:1 image will be the exact same with in both cases, but if you go with a 2.35:1 screen, you 'lose out' on very roughly 12" of height.
> 
> I have a 2.35:1 screen and love it, but in my case... going with a 16:9 screen, would have made my screen width smaller (due to 2nd row site lines, and subwoofers below screen - restricting height of screen, etc). I watched Game 7 of the NBA Finals on Sunday night, and definitely liked as big of a picture as possible.
> 
> Also, unless you go with an A-lens, or have a projector with "auto-zoom", then switching back & forth aspect ratio's can be a challenge. Of course, I specifically selected a projector with auto-zoom, given I was going with a 2.35:1 screen... If your projector doesn't have auto-zoom and you don't have an a-lens, I would absolutely go 16:9.
> 
> Of course, this is all personal opinion... so, I am sure the next reply will be "go 2.35:1..."


----------



## bud16415

You mentioned sports. Sports is not movies and it sounds like your room falls into more of a media room than it does classic home theater. With a 16:9 screen and the ability to zoom you can do CIH just fine on a 16:9 screen. Sometimes sports depending on what you watch is fine larger as they put the banners all around the image. 

With one row of seats you can’t move closer without moving furniture but you can move closer with the zoom. Just keep in mind you don’t have to watch things as big as they can be just watch them at the size that is perfect for you.


----------



## k3nnis

Do they sell 16:9 screens with manual masking for scope films? Or is this a DIY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sonichart

jeahrens said:


> Move your seating to where the 16:9 picture is the size you'd like it on the scope screen. we sit about 9-10' from a 130" scope screen. No complaints at all on the 16:9 sizing. It's essentially the same height as the 110" 16:9 screen it replaced.


This will be my setup almost exactly... except I intend to be 10'-11' away from the screen. We will get as close as possible without being able to see the AT weave of the screen.

Question-- Have you watched any 16x9 3D material from this distance? How was the immersion? I have a 65" 3D plasma that we sit about 13'-14' from... We never use the 3D because the screen is too small.


----------



## jeahrens

sonichart said:


> This will be my setup almost exactly... except I intend to be 10'-11' away from the screen. We will get as close as possible without being able to see the AT weave of the screen.
> 
> Question-- Have you watched any 16x9 3D material from this distance? How was the immersion? I have a 65" 3D plasma that we sit about 13'-14' from... We never use the 3D because the screen is too small.


Sorry, 3D never hooked me. I don't see why it wouldn't though. Once the lights are down the fact that the picture is pillarboxed doesn't really register. As long as you have enough brightness and your projector is decent at 3D you should be great.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> With a 16:9 screen and the ability to zoom you can do CIH just fine on a 16:9 screen.


Umm..what? No, that's not how that works.


----------



## sonichart

jeahrens said:


> Sorry, 3D never hooked me. I don't see why it wouldn't though. Once the lights are down the fact that the picture is pillarboxed doesn't really register. As long as you have enough brightness and your projector is decent at 3D you should be great.


No need to apologize, I'm in the same boat-- just not that impressed with 3D which is why I want a projector that will produce the best blacks. Though if that same projector is decent at 3D, we'll probably take it for a spin a couple times.

All I worry about is 16x9 content being 'too small' like the 65" plasma.


----------



## jeahrens

sonichart said:


> No need to apologize, I'm in the same boat-- just not that impressed with 3D which is why I want a projector that will produce the best blacks. Though if that same projector is decent at 3D, we'll probably take it for a spin a couple times.
> 
> All I worry about is 16x9 content being 'too small' like the 65" plasma.


I can certainly see that. Several folks have mentioned that concern in here recently. In my case I sized my 16:9 screen by finding that height/size that worked for me. I ended up with a 110" 16:9 screen based on what I ended up liking. I don't even think I was really considering seating distance or angles. I just got the picture as big as I was comfortable with and went with that. My scope screen is simply the closest off the shelf screen to matching the screen height of the 16:9 (16:9 was 96x54" and 2.35:1 is 120x51"). So I did end up loosing a small amount of height. I think it figures out to be 7% less screen area for 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 material, but scope jumped up almost 70% in screen area. It's really a huge difference. But because the screen is pretty much the same for other formats I never feel like Saving Private Ryan or The Avengers is small. 

So here's what I would do. If your room is narrow enough you're worried about how wide you can go, figure out the screen height of the scope screen. So just to use a lazy example, let's say you can do a 10' wide scope screen (120x51"). That gives you a 91x51" 16:9 area. Take some painters tape and mark that on your wall. Take a chair and move it until that image is as big as you feel like you want it. Or if you have the projector already, throw a 16:9 image that size and figure where your sweet spot is for that size. Now 16:9 is as big as you want and scope is simply wider. The other scenario would be you have a room you aren't worried about width in and you have a seating spot you like. In this case I'd take a few screen sizes you think would work and again tape them out on the wall. With a little time you'll figure what works. Or if you have a projector, throw the image up on the wall and get it to where you like it. And get your screen based on that sizing (or the closest you can come). The basic formula ends up around 2x screen height, but some like it closer and some like further back. Which is why I encourage some experimentation in your room.

Funny you mention that with 3D. That's very close to my criteria and why I decided to get the JVC RS46. Mediocre 3D, but wonderful color saturation and nice deep blacks. Except in my case I don't have the glasses or emitter. So I couldn't tell you how it looks even to dabble. Of course now both the Sony and JVC models offer amazing blacks and excellent 3D.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Umm..what? No, that's not how that works.


 You wrote a wonderful explanation to sonichart as to how you went about determining your screen size and seating distance and finally came upon a size for a scope screen based around the size of the 16:9 that held the correct height for you. That’s also what I did and what Gary Lightfoot did and at the end of that computation we had a size for a scope screen in our head and we extrapolated that one more time saying now that we know the width of the scope screen what if we used that width for a 16:9 screen once again and covered the part that wasn’t the scope screen in black masking. In Gary’s case he unmasks it .0001% of the time and watches Imax movies or changing aspect ratio movies. In my case I unmask it 15 to 20% of the time because things like football and NASCAR and music concerts and nature documentaries and slide shows of photos and even some movies like avatar look good a bit more immersive. 
It could be because with immersive viewing be it scope or Imax like it engulfs more of my peripheral viewing or it causes additional eye movement that heightens the visual experience from being a passive experience to an active experience. In either case it is not something I find necessary or enjoyable when watching the 40 year old virgin that does just fine in CIH, but on the other hand some of the above get a boost from 2 axis immersion just as some scope movies get a boost from single axis immersion. 

Just sitting here looking at my screen I see sonichart’s avatar photo of I assume himself and he has on sunglasses or 3D glasses and the lens are a nice 4:3 like AR and that’s how our eyes like to move around and see things. 

If you are a passive viewer one that always sits and mainly keeps a center gaze CIH is perfect. If you are an active viewer that can also be a passive viewer based on the content then PIA would be what you would want. 

That is how it works.


----------



## bud16415

k3nnis said:


> Do they sell 16:9 screens with manual masking for scope films? Or is this a DIY
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are both masking systems you can buy and some simple DIY options. Black velvet is the best thing to cover any DIY masking strips with. The fully automatic systems are really nice but also very expensive. Depending on what I’m watching and what I will be watching next I sometime just put up with the gray bars. 

The funny thing about gray bars on top, bottom or to the sides is everyone has different tolerances for them. Some people don’t care at all and others have to have them always covered. My screen is a dark gray with low gain and I find then not that bothersome and my guests have never once mentioned them at all, but if I have a planned show for company I take the few minutes and set up my masking.


----------



## k3nnis

Ok thx. Can I ask do I need a jvc to utilise the masking system? Ie anamorphic lens. Or will a Epson 5030 work fine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> You wrote a wonderful explanation to sonichart as to how you went about determining your screen size and seating distance and finally came upon a size for a scope screen based around the size of the 16:9 that held the correct height for you. That’s also what I did and what Gary Lightfoot did and at the end of that computation we had a size for a scope screen in our head and we extrapolated that one more time saying now that we know the width of the scope screen what if we used that width for a 16:9 screen once again and covered the part that wasn’t the scope screen in black masking. In Gary’s case he unmasks it .0001% of the time and watches Imax movies or changing aspect ratio movies. In my case I unmask it 15 to 20% of the time because things like football and NASCAR and music concerts and nature documentaries and slide shows of photos and even some movies like avatar look good a bit more immersive.
> It could be because with immersive viewing be it scope or Imax like it engulfs more of my peripheral viewing or it causes additional eye movement that heightens the visual experience from being a passive experience to an active experience. In either case it is not something I find necessary or enjoyable when watching the 40 year old virgin that does just fine in CIH, but on the other hand some of the above get a boost from 2 axis immersion just as some scope movies get a boost from single axis immersion.
> 
> Just sitting here looking at my screen I see sonichart’s avatar photo of I assume himself and he has on sunglasses or 3D glasses and the lens are a nice 4:3 like AR and that’s how our eyes like to move around and see things.
> 
> If you are a passive viewer one that always sits and mainly keeps a center gaze CIH is perfect. If you are an active viewer that can also be a passive viewer based on the content then PIA would be what you would want.
> 
> That is how it works.


Bud that's a nice post expressing your opinion on how you believe our eyes work, but *it does nothing to explain how you think you're going to achieve a CIH setup with a 16:9 screen.* Which you can't unless you never watch anything wider than 16:9.

Let's keep the pro 4:3 AR chat in your "P"IA thread and keep this one on track on whether the poster would prefer a 16:9 or scope screen.


----------



## jeahrens

k3nnis said:


> Ok thx. Can I ask do I need a jvc to utilise the masking system? Ie anamorphic lens. Or will a Epson 5030 work fine?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A manual or DIY masking system will work with any projector. It's a function of the screen and not the projector.


----------



## kmhvball

k3nnis said:


> Ok thx. Can I ask do I need a jvc to utilise the masking system? Ie anamorphic lens. Or will a Epson 5030 work fine?


If you go with a 16:9 screen, you most likely won't be zooming in or out, and then the Epson 5030 would work fine. Then, when you project a 2.35:1 image on the screen, you don't have to do anything to your projector... you'll just get the gray bars on top/bottom of the screen. You can then choose whether to mask or not.

The zoom capability (or anamorphic lens), really comes more into play if you have selected a 2.35:1 screen. Essentially, when you get the 'gray bars', you then 'zoom in', and move the bars above/ below the screen area. The projector is really still projecting a 16:9 image, with gray bars on top & bottom... but you have 'zoomed' the actual remaining image to fit the screen, and shifted the gray bars off the screen material. 

I have yet to make masking panels, in part because the gray bars (in my case, on the left & right vs top & bottom) don't bug me that much... in part because the majority of the content I watch is 2.35:1... so the 'bang for the buck (or time)' isn't as large. If you have a 16:9 screen and watch a lot of 2.35:1 content, then you'll need to to decide if is worth the time (to make frames) or cost to mask.

I did my entire theater in Fabric Frames which I made myself, so, making masking panels probably wouldn't be too hard, but just haven't gotten around to it. One of those things "once you hang the projector & screen, work comes to a screeching halt".


----------



## jeahrens

Very good explanation Kevin. I haven't done side masking for much the same reason. It just doesn't bother me enough to do it.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Bud that's a nice post expressing your opinion on how you believe our eyes work, but *it does nothing to explain how you think you're going to achieve a CIH setup with a 16:9 screen.* Which you can't unless you never watch anything wider than 16:9.
> 
> Let's keep the pro 4:3 AR chat in your "P"IA thread and keep this one on track on whether the poster would prefer a 16:9 or scope screen.


Maybe someone else can explain this for me it is about the 100th time I have tried to explain how you can watch CIH on a 16:9 screen or any ratio screen for that matter even a 4:3 screen that I did for many years. 

You get a screen the width you need for CIH to suit your movie watching perfect height and then you mask everything but the 2.35 / 2.39/ 2.40 / whatever scope you watch : 1 ratio. 

I can and do watch CIH on a wall that has irregular shapes to it even and the wall is much wider than what I use for CIH. I can even watch movies in wider AR as CIH if I want to. 

Again you don’t buy a 16:9 screen in the height you want as CIH if you do that you will have a CIW setup. You buy a 16:9 screen in the width you need for CIH and mask the top and bottom. 

You can leave that masking there till the end of time if you want or you can take it off and watch Imax that is supposed to be taller. That’s CIH + Imax. If you want to go against the laws of film presentation once in a while when using your projector for more than just film presentation or even the really radical idea that someone other than Imax could produce something based on the Imax ideal of vertical immersion, then you could be a law breaker and watch it that way. If you start watching everything that way you are now possibly going to go to Hades. If not, you are not sitting close enough and you are a CIW viewer. Remember CIW also has a strict set of rules. 

I don’t know how else to explain there is a difference in the size of two 16:9 screens one being used for CIW and the other being used for PIA.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Maybe someone else can explain this for me it is about the 100th time I have tried to explain how you can watch CIH on a 16:9 screen or any ratio screen for that matter even a 4:3 screen that I did for many years.
> 
> You get a screen the width you need for CIH to suit your movie watching perfect height and then you mask everything but the 2.35 / 2.39/ 2.40 / whatever scope you watch : 1 ratio.
> 
> I can and do watch CIH on a wall that has irregular shapes to it even and the wall is much wider than what I use for CIH. I can even watch movies in wider AR as CIH if I want to.
> 
> Again you don’t buy a 16:9 screen in the height you want as CIH if you do that you will have a CIW setup. You buy a 16:9 screen in the width you need for CIH and mask the top and bottom.
> 
> You can leave that masking there till the end of time if you want or you can take it off and watch Imax that is supposed to be taller. That’s CIH + Imax. If you want to go against the laws of film presentation once in a while when using your projector for more than just film presentation or even the really radical idea that someone other than Imax could produce something based on the Imax ideal of vertical immersion, then you could be a law breaker and watch it that way. If you start watching everything that way you are now possibly going to go to Hades. If not, you are not sitting close enough and you are a CIW viewer. Remember CIW also has a strict set of rules.
> 
> I don’t know how else to explain there is a difference in the size of two 16:9 screens one being used for CIW and the other being used for PIA.


Bud please keep this in your thread. There's no need to derail this one up with your ideas on "perfect" image areas or sometimes doing size X based on your own preference. Anyone that is interested in your ideal setup has a wealth of information to look at in there.

The main intent of this particular thread is CIW vs. CIH. Which with how these two terms are defined doesn't include some semi permanent masking in order to use a 16:9 screen for CIH with the idea you'll do some changes based on what you view as important.


----------



## kmhvball

Basically everything I have seen on CIH, is that the intent is you don't 'mask' the top & bottom of the screen... that, in my view, defeats the purpose of CIH... it is no longer constant by definition, you are changing the height based on what masking you do.

In my CIH set up, using a 2.35:1 screen, whether I watch 16:9 or 2.35:1, or frankly even 4:3, all of them display (after zooming) the same 'height' of viewable image, thus the nomenclature calling it a "CIH" set up. Moving from 2.35:1, to 16:9, to 4:3 (via zoom or a-lens or lumagen), the image gets progressively more narrow and thus 'gray bars' on the left & right become wider, but the height of the viewable image never changes.

I guess if you define the 'image', to be inclusive of the gray/black bars above the viewable material image in a 2.35:1 movie, as part of the 'image'... then, I guess you can say a 16:9 screen is CIH, because you define the image to include the gray bars. 

Similarly, with a "CIW", the intent is that you never have to mask the right & left sides of the screen, since the image is always the full width of the screen. You likely then never really need to 'zoom', as if your starting point is a 16:9 screen, and you zoom, viewable image then spills of the left & right sides of the screen. Conversely, if your starting point of "CIW" is a 2.35:1 image, which completely covers the screen with viewable image... if you change to 16:9 content, then the viewable image spills out over the top & bottom of the screen.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Bud please keep this in your thread. There's no need to derail this one up with your ideas on "perfect" image areas or sometimes doing size X based on your own preference. Anyone that is interested in your ideal setup has a wealth of information to look at in there.
> 
> The main intent of this particular thread is CIW vs. CIH. Which with how these two terms are defined doesn't include some semi permanent masking in order to use a 16:9 screen for CIH with the idea you'll do some changes based on what you view as important.


It sounded to me to be a question of a width limited room. And I know there is no such thing as a width limited room if you move the seating closer. 

If the question is then limited to CIH or CIW where the height of both screens is going to be the same the question is a no brainer you would always select the scope screen. I can’t think of one reason anyone would want to do CIW. The scope movies would look way to small.


----------



## jeahrens

kmhvball said:


> Basically everything I have seen on CIH, is that the intent is you don't 'mask' the top & bottom of the screen... that, in my view, defeats the purpose of CIH... it is no longer constant by definition, you are changing the height based on what masking you do.
> 
> In my CIH set up, using a 2.35:1 screen, whether I watch 16:9 or 2.35:1, or frankly even 4:3, all of them display (after zooming) the same 'height' of viewable image, thus the nomenclature calling it a "CIH" set up. Moving from 2.35:1, to 16:9, to 4:3 (via zoom or a-lens or lumagen), the image gets progressively more narrow and thus 'gray bars' on the left & right become wider, but the height of the viewable image never changes.
> 
> I guess if you define the 'image', to be inclusive of the gray/black bars above the viewable material image in a 2.35:1 movie, as part of the 'image'... then, I guess you can say a 16:9 screen is CIH, because you define the image to include the gray bars.
> 
> Similarly, with a "CIW", the intent is that you never have to mask the right & left sides of the screen, since the image is always the full width of the screen. You likely then never really need to 'zoom', as if your starting point is a 16:9 screen, and you zoom, viewable image then spills of the left & right sides of the screen. Conversely, if your starting point of "CIW" is a 2.35:1 image, which completely covers the screen with viewable image... if you change to 16:9 content, then the viewable image spills out over the top & bottom of the screen.


You're not really missing anything. Bud's statement about doing CIH with 16:9 is partly using his own methods to view content how he sees appropriate (see his thread for details) and partly trying to pull in outliers that either use multi screen setups or semi-permanent masking for IMAX. Which, I suppose, is understandable as IMAX is its own animal. Personally I don't own any 4:3 AR IMAX and the 16:9 cropped stuff that shows up on the multi AR discs doesn't look different enough from vanilla 1.85:1 to warrant special treatment. But I can see why folks do it.

Doesn't change the fact that going by the normal definitions CIH and CIW are exactly as you describe them.


----------



## k3nnis

Thanks Kevin for the explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damelon

Just to add my personal $0.02 on the topic. I built my theater now almost 5 years ago, and at the time, I absolutely wanted a scope screen based on the design of my theater, and the fact that I watch mostly movies. So I decided to purchase a 130" wide SMX Scope screen. I loved it. I purchased a Sony projector that had lens memory to make AR changes easier. If you look at the first page of my build thread. (linked in sig) You can see the screen in scope vs 16:9. The scope screen "fit" the space better visually... it went with the format of the build design. The 16:9 looks sort of like an IMAX screen. It is more impressive to see, but the scope screen fit in better.

The biggest thing I liked though was that scope movies gave the feel of "Growing" when the AR changed, so they felt bigger. Still, changing AR was somewhat annoying, especially since I used a HTPC which filled the full screen in 16:9 format. So I was shifting all of the time. Later though, once movies like TDK, Interstellar, etc came out with multiple Aspect Ratios, I started to get frustrated. In the end, I re-measured my space, and found that a 16:9 with the exact same width could fit perfectly in my space without a major overhaul to my theater. Now I don't have to do any shifting at all, my scope movies are just as big as they always were, and multi-AR movies work just like an IMAX does. For the most part, it is a lot easier, and my TV events are much better than before. I don't mind that the 16:9 is bigger, because the scope size was already the size I wanted. The only downside I have, is that I have to put on masking panels for better contrast to scope movies. When in a scope screen, I usually didn't bother with masking panels for 16:9 movies, because they usually were comedies, or movies that weren't so dark. Putting up horizontal masking panels is harder, primarily since there are 4 of them, and you end up doing it more often. I don't bother half of the time, and it still only takes 30 seconds to do.  I would say that I am much happier with the 16:9 screen I have now, but that's only because I could fit it, and that my projector could support it. Height limitations usually force this decision the other way. If I would have had to shrink my width of my screen to 120" from 130", I wouldn't have changed it. (I have a soffit and a stage) I could still install a scope screen that was a good 2 feet wider, but I don't think I could find a projector that would throw that image in my space without bleeding light either. Plus, it would just be too wide. 

In the end, I think it comes down to what your optimal screen size would be based on your seating distance, and then seeing if that size would fit in a 16:9 format vs a scope format. Also, keep in mind that the extra height also means the extra possibility of people in the back row being in your way, so it has to be high enough on your wall to see over people in the front row! 

There is nothing technical, it is just my experience with both. I loved both formats, and the feel in both, but little annoyances with the details shifted me back to CIW from CIH, but I would not have changed if I had to make my width any smaller than my previous CIH screen.


----------



## bud16415

damelon said:


> Just to add my personal $0.02 on the topic. I built my theater now almost 5 years ago, and at the time, I absolutely wanted a scope screen based on the design of my theater, and the fact that I watch mostly movies. So I decided to purchase a 130" wide SMX Scope screen. I loved it. I purchased a Sony projector that had lens memory to make AR changes easier. If you look at the first page of my build thread. (linked in sig) You can see the screen in scope vs 16:9. The scope screen "fit" the space better visually... it went with the format of the build design. The 16:9 looks sort of like an IMAX screen. It is more impressive to see, but the scope screen fit in better.
> 
> The biggest thing I liked though was that scope movies gave the feel of "Growing" when the AR changed, so they felt bigger. Still, changing AR was somewhat annoying, especially since I used a HTPC which filled the full screen in 16:9 format. So I was shifting all of the time. Later though, once movies like TDK, Interstellar, etc came out with multiple Aspect Ratios, I started to get frustrated. In the end, I re-measured my space, and found that a 16:9 with the exact same width could fit perfectly in my space without a major overhaul to my theater. Now I don't have to do any shifting at all, my scope movies are just as big as they always were, and multi-AR movies work just like an IMAX does. For the most part, it is a lot easier, and my TV events are much better than before. I don't mind that the 16:9 is bigger, because the scope size was already the size I wanted. The only downside I have, is that I have to put on masking panels for better contrast to scope movies. When in a scope screen, I usually didn't bother with masking panels for 16:9 movies, because they usually were comedies, or movies that weren't so dark. Putting up horizontal masking panels is harder, primarily since there are 4 of them, and you end up doing it more often. I don't bother half of the time, and it still only takes 30 seconds to do. I would say that I am much happier with the 16:9 screen I have now, but that's only because I could fit it, and that my projector could support it. Height limitations usually force this decision the other way. If I would have had to shrink my width of my screen to 120" from 130", I wouldn't have changed it. (I have a soffit and a stage) I could still install a scope screen that was a good 2 feet wider, but I don't think I could find a projector that would throw that image in my space without bleeding light either. Plus, it would just be too wide.
> 
> In the end, I think it comes down to what your optimal screen size would be based on your seating distance, and then seeing if that size would fit in a 16:9 format vs a scope format. Also, keep in mind that the extra height also means the extra possibility of people in the back row being in your way, so it has to be high enough on your wall to see over people in the front row!
> 
> There is nothing technical, it is just my experience with both. I loved both formats, and the feel in both, but little annoyances with the details shifted me back to CIW from CIH, but I would not have changed if I had to make my width any smaller than my previous CIH screen.


Well said. I like the look of the Imax screen personally. 

If you have your scope masking up and want to watch a less immersive 16:9 movie I would just zoom it and do it CIH like you had before. if the movie begs to be immersive take the masking off and watch it Imax like. 

Beautiful theater.


----------



## damelon

bud16415 said:


> Well said. I like the look of the Imax screen personally.
> 
> If you have your scope masking up and want to watch a less immersive 16:9 movie I would just zoom it and do it CIH like you had before. if the movie begs to be immersive take the masking off and watch it Imax like.
> 
> Beautiful theater.


Thanks! While true, I could just leave the panels up and be back where I started like before, I think I'd just get frustrated when I started the next movie and they were in the way of the top and bottom of my XBMC console. I take it the other way and just put them up when I think the scope movie needs it.


----------



## bud16415

damelon said:


> Thanks! While true, I could just leave the panels up and be back where I started like before, I think I'd just get frustrated when I started the next movie and they were in the way of the top and bottom of my XBMC console. I take it the other way and just put them up when I think the scope movie needs it.


That’s the way I do it also. I have a dark screen and I go unmasked maybe 75% of the time. When I do mask I do it for myself on darker movies and everyone else that views say they don’t care one way or the other. I think those of us that study this stuff become more critical than the average viewer.


----------



## cdy2179

What do you watch? If it's 90% movies a widescreen may make sense. If you game , watch TV series and Blu-ray I'd say 16:9 all the way. The 16:9 gives you a nice wide image in any format. A 2.35:1 screen will be great in that format but 16:9 images will be tiny with no width in comparison.

Personally I want it all to be immersive. Blu-ray, Walking Dead or gaming I want the most immersive screen I can comfortably get. So I went with a 165" XD screen. 

So ask your self are you all Blu-ray? Or are you diversified.. the question of screen format will answer it self.

If the room is dark with little reflections and you have a good projector with decent blacks the bars IMO aren't a bother. I never notice them.


----------



## damelon

cdy2179 said:


> What do you watch? If it's 90% movies a widescreen may make sense. If you game , watch TV series and Blu-ray I'd say 16:9 all the way. The 16:9 gives you a nice wide image in any format. A 2.35:1 screen will be great in that format but 16:9 images will be tiny with no width in comparison.
> 
> Personally I want it all to be immersive. Blu-ray, Walking Dead or gaming I want the most immersive screen I can comfortably get. So I went with a 165" XD screen.
> 
> So ask your self are you all Blu-ray? Or are you diversified.. the question of screen format will answer it self.
> 
> If the room is dark with little reflections and you have a good projector with decent blacks the bars IMO aren't a bother. I never notice them.


Yeah I only notice the bars on dark movies. On a lot of movies I don't notice them at all. +1 though to the comment in general.


----------



## cdy2179

damelon said:


> Yeah I only notice the bars on dark movies. On a lot of movies I don't notice them at all. +1 though to the comment in general.


Yeah I've never once noticed them unless I'm looking. The room is light controlled and the Sony 55es has good blacks. 

The only way I'd even use a masking system is if someone paid for it and installed it and it added no input on my part to go between ratios. If someone bought it for me I'd sell it. It's just not a bother to me to spend time on in any way. And i build my own subs (for almost 2 decades), speakers, built my room.. if it's something I want... I'll build it so it's not a too lazy issue.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> A 2.35:1 screen will be great in that format but 16:9 images will be tiny with no width in comparison.


No, it won't. How many times does this need to be explained?

The point of CIH is to start with the largest 16:9 image you could possibly want (make it 20 feet tall and sit 3 inches from it if you have the space and want to), and then add additional width to that for scope.

The only circumstance in which the 16:9 images will be "tiny" in CIH is if you have no idea what you're doing and do it completely wrong.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> No, it won't. How many times does this need to be explained?
> 
> The point of CIH is to start with the largest 16:9 image you could possibly want (make it 20 feet tall and sit 3 inches from it if you have the space and want to), and then add additional width to that for scope.
> 
> The only circumstance in which the 16:9 images will be "tiny" in CIH is if you have no idea what you're doing and do it completely wrong.


 Well that's opinion.. I agree. Some want an IMAX like image when they can get it and don't want to lose that width and impressiveness on 16:9. But hey I've only been running projectors for 20 years.

Here's an example..
Take a 2:35 screen 10' wide say that's about as wide as that makes sense in the room, and as much head turning left to right as you want to do. I'd recommend THX angles to be safe. It will give you a 130" diagonal in 2.35:1, in 16:9 you're stuck with a 104" screen.. which IMO is puny. Going with such a narrow height has limited you greatly.


Now taking that same width of 10'.. if you go with a 10' wide 16;9 screen you get the same 130" 2.35:1 image and a still huge 137.6" 16:9 image.

So basically we can both have a 130" 2.35:1 image but you can watch you're 104" 16:9 image and I'll watch my 137" 16:9 image..

When you place such a short vertical restriction on the formats well some end up having a small diagonal. http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/customsizecalculator.aspx There's a calculator
if you want to see for yourself.

As for the CIH option..Look at the pic in my avatar.. do you really think I have enough room or light output to add additional width .. nor would I want to. Why turn my head any more left or right adding even more viewing angle? 

And and you also loose a lot of light using the zoom feature with your CIH option.


----------



## R Harkness

cdy2179 said:


> Yeah I've never once noticed them unless I'm looking. The room is light controlled and the Sony 55es has good blacks.
> 
> The only way I'd even use a masking system is if someone paid for it and installed it and it added no input on my part to go between ratios. If someone bought it for me I'd sell it. It's just not a bother to me to spend time on in any way. And i build my own subs (for almost 2 decades), speakers, built my room.. if it's something I want... I'll build it so it's not a too lazy issue.


That's pretty much the opposite of my experience with masking. My masking system is perhaps the most important part, in terms of "things I'd make sure to do again" for a home theater. Even though I have a projector with the best available black levels and a black pit room, the difference between unmasked and masked is so obviously better for the masked image.

My friend always buys my previous projector from me so I often see a projector I just owned on an unmasked screen, and it always amazes me how much better the image looked when it was masked. (scope movies in particular, obviously).

Fortunately I have it down to a one button press to change the projector's zoom size and the masking. I don't know if that would be "too much bother" for you or not.


----------



## R Harkness

Josh Z said:


> No, it won't. How many times does this need to be explained?
> 
> The point of CIH is to start with the largest 16:9 image you could possibly want (make it 20 feet tall and sit 3 inches from it if you have the space and want to), and then add additional width to that for scope.
> 
> The only circumstance in which the 16:9 images will be "tiny" in CIH is if you have no idea what you're doing and do it completely wrong.


Josh,

As *cdy2179* points out, your post appears to neglect that the variation in people's viewing preferences can apply to scope width as well, hence it can be reasonable to set one's screen size based on width comfort level too. Some people like full immersion so that the image borders go outside their peripheral vision; others don't like this and prefer to keep the full image comfortably in easy view (which is, of course, why there are variances in seating preferences at theaters).

In other words, comfort with a 16:9 image may not necessarily dictate comfort with the same height scope image. One may have a comfort level for a certain width of image, and wish to set their scope images at that viewing angle. Especially if they love the scope AR. (I do, especially for composition reasons). But that may not produce an optimal 16:9 size that they want.
This is why a solution like *cdy2179* 's can make sense.

And mine. I went as wide as I wanted with scope, but I like a larger 16:9 image than is produced using CIH, hence I choose to vary my image height. 

You may wish to say "Well, then CIH isn't for you" but that would be the point: why the "just determine your scope screen via your perfect 16:9 size, and everything will be fine" doesn't work out for everyone.


----------



## cdy2179

R Harkness said:


> That's pretty much the opposite of my experience with masking. My masking system is perhaps the most important part, in terms of "things I'd make sure to do again" for a home theater. Even though I have a projector with the best available black levels and a black pit room, the difference between unmasked and masked is so obviously better for the masked image.
> 
> My friend always buys my previous projector from me so I often see a projector I just owned on an unmasked screen, and it always amazes me how much better the image looked when it was masked. (scope movies in particular, obviously).
> 
> Fortunately I have it down to a one button press to change the projector's zoom size and the masking. I don't know if that would be "too much bother" for you or not.


I'm sure if I masked and looked at it I would easily notice it. I'm just saying it's one of those things that I have no itch to try as I seriously never notice it. 

The audio is where I get nuts and nit picky. Low noise floor, proper speaker placement, acoustic treatments, response measuring, subs phasing and eq, speaker eq etc.

For video, I just build an acoustic screen, get a good projector, calibrate and enjoy.

Just different priorities.


----------



## damelon

R Harkness said:


> That's pretty much the opposite of my experience with masking. My masking system is perhaps the most important part, in terms of "things I'd make sure to do again" for a home theater. Even though I have a projector with the best available black levels and a black pit room, the difference between unmasked and masked is so obviously better for the masked image.
> 
> My friend always buys my previous projector from me so I often see a projector I just owned on an unmasked screen, and it always amazes me how much better the image looked when it was masked. (scope movies in particular, obviously).
> 
> Fortunately I have it down to a one button press to change the projector's zoom size and the masking. I don't know if that would be "too much bother" for you or not.


It is absolutely true that masking makes it look better. I'd use it 100% of the time if it was automated, but it being a manual process, I do let it go sometimes with movies where it doesn't stick out to me. The automated masking systems are perfect for that, they just cost a lot. I also don't have room for one. My screen is literally from my stage to my soffit! Washed out projector images (from light or masking) is usually what people remember when they say they don't like projectors. When you have a dark room with masking, people say it looks like a plasma and wonder how it works, even though they've been to a movie theater before.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> Well that's opinion.. I agree. Some want an IMAX like image when they can get it and don't want to lose that width and impressiveness on 16:9. But hey I've only been running projectors for 20 years.
> 
> Here's an example..
> Take a 2:35 screen 10' wide say that's about as wide as that makes sense in the room, and as much head turning left to right as you want to do. I'd recommend THX angles to be safe. It will give you a 130" diagonal in 2.35:1, in 16:9 you're stuck with a 104" screen.. which IMO is puny. Going with such a narrow height has limited you greatly.


It's only "puny" if your seating distance is too far, or you're focused only on how many inches your screen is.



> Now taking that same width of 10'.. if you go with a 10' wide 16;9 screen you get the same 130" 2.35:1 image and a still huge 137.6" 16:9 image.
> 
> So basically we can both have a 130" 2.35:1 image but you can watch you're 104" 16:9 image and I'll watch my 137" 16:9 image..


This ignores almost 70 years of motion picture history: Scope being the largest format (other than IMAX). And that relative size is more important than absolute size. Which is why I always say, the first and most important question to ask yourself in the scope vs 16:9 screen debate is:
Do you think epic scope films should be larger than TV, and run of the mill 16:9 moves, like they are at the theater? 

ie do you think Star Wars should be among the largest, most impressive, most majestic content shown in your theater, or the smallest and least impressive.

If the answer is no, well that's simple, get a 16:9 screen. If the answer is yes, then go for the scope screen, unless you watch or care greatly about IMAX content, in which case consider a CIH+IMAX setup: 16:9 screen, semi-permanently masked to scope, opened up just for the IMAX content.





> When you place such a short vertical restriction on the formats well some end up having a small diagonal. http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/customsizecalculator.aspx


IMO people spend far too much time worrying about how many inches their screen is, I assume it comes from years of buying TV sets where that was the only meaningful metric of size. People forget that projection is a system, a system that consists of not just the screen, but also the room, which includes seating distance. The "size" of the image has as much to do with the seating distance as the number of inches.



> As for the CIH option..Look at the pic in my avatar.. do you really think I have enough room or light output to add additional width .. nor would I want to. Why turn my head any more left or right adding even more viewing angle?


The idea is to setup your seating so that it gives you a satisfying 16:9 image, while allowing a 33% wider scope screen.



I went with CIH a long time ago, because I was always not satisfied with how "puny" my favorite epic scope films appeared since they were so much smaller than everything else on my 16:9 screen. So I got a scope screen, adjusted my seating and 16:9 content is a similar perceptual size as it was with a 16:9 screen, but now scope is perceptually over 70% larger than it was before, and now scope movies are spectacle they were always intended to be.

I don't think there's a right or wrong decision to which option anyone chooses for their own HT, but I don't buy the idea that the size/shape of your room should be the most important factor. I don't think you should put a 16:9 screen in, just because you have the height, or a scope screen because you have the width. I believe you can put a CIH system in any room if you have the interest, motivation, and design flexibility. I believe you should choose scope vs 16:9 based on if you think scope movies should be bigger than normal 16:9 content.


----------



## jautor

R Harkness said:


> That's pretty much the opposite of my experience with masking. My masking system is perhaps the most important part, in terms of "things I'd make sure to do again" for a home theater. Even though I have a projector with the best available black levels and a black pit room, the difference between unmasked and masked is so obviously better for the masked image.


+1. I feel the same way. While the masking is not a requirement, it's one of those things that once you have it, you really notice the blank areas when there's no masking. It's not that it would bother me, but gee it does look better with the masks. The Carada Masquerade system was the only thing in my theater I paid "full price" for, and it (or something like it) would be part of any future setup for me, too.



> Fortunately I have it down to a one button press to change the projector's zoom size and the masking. I don't know if that would be "too much bother" for you or not.


Same here - one button to change projector scaling, move the A-lens and deploy the masks. Given current state of the art you wouldn't want anything "more automatic" than that.


----------



## jautor

cdy2179 said:


> I'm sure if I masked and looked at it I would easily notice it. I'm just saying it's one of those things that I have no itch to try as I seriously never notice it.


Yeah, don't try it! Then it'll bug you!


----------



## cdy2179

stanger89 said:


> It's only "puny" if your seating distance is too far, or you're focused only on how many inches your screen is.
> 
> 
> 
> This ignores almost 70 years of motion picture history: Scope being the largest format (other than IMAX). And that relative size is more important than absolute size. Which is why I always say, the first and most important question to ask yourself in the scope vs 16:9 screen debate is:
> Do you think epic scope films should be larger than TV, and run of the mill 16:9 moves, like they are at the theater?
> 
> ie do you think Star Wars should be among the largest, most impressive, most majestic content shown in your theater, or the smallest and least impressive.
> 
> If the answer is no, well that's simple, get a 16:9 screen. If the answer is yes, then go for the scope screen, unless you watch or care greatly about IMAX content, in which case consider a CIH+IMAX setup: 16:9 screen, semi-permanently masked to scope, opened up just for the IMAX content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO people spend far too much time worrying about how many inches their screen is, I assume it comes from years of buying TV sets where that was the only meaningful metric of size. People forget that projection is a system, a system that consists of not just the screen, but also the room, which includes seating distance. The "size" of the image has as much to do with the seating distance as the number of inches.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea is to setup your seating so that it gives you a satisfying 16:9 image, while allowing a 33% wider scope screen.
> 
> 
> 
> I went with CIH a long time ago, because I was always not satisfied with how "puny" my favorite epic scope films appeared since they were so much smaller than everything else on my 16:9 screen. So I got a scope screen, adjusted my seating and 16:9 content is a similar perceptual size as it was with a 16:9 screen, but now scope is perceptually over 70% larger than it was before, and now scope movies are spectacle they were always intended to be.
> 
> I don't think there's a right or wrong decision to which option anyone chooses for their own HT, but I don't buy the idea that the size/shape of your room should be the most important factor. I don't think you should put a 16:9 screen in, just because you have the height, or a scope screen because you have the width. I believe you can put a CIH system in any room if you have the interest, motivation, and design flexibility. I believe you should choose scope vs 16:9 based on if you think scope movies should be bigger than normal 16:9 content.



I think some of you are missing the point. Not all of us all strictly blu-ray. This isn't a cinema that runs striaght film. This is our rooms and many of us watch sports, TV series and game in our rooms. So why would we want to compromise on the size of a format we use a lot. 

Now yea I said compromise. THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle for immersiveness and comfort. http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html I like to go around 40 and past that side to side head turning becomes a big deal IMO. So If my front wall can fit a 12' screen max and from my seat that gets me at my desired angle well....I don't have to compromise and go more or less on either format. I can have both formats at the same width and both will be huge. Call it CIW (constant width) if it makes you happy. The point is if we want every format to be immersive we can have that. At that point 2.35:1 can't be any wider or we don't want it to as it's already at the limits of the room or comfort and it's already very immersive.

Sure we can make the biggest widescreen format our room or comfort will allow, and then live with a much less immersive 16:9.. but the point is we can keep that same width, make the screen a 16:9 and now both formats are the same width, both huge, both have the same viewing angles and both are very immersive. If you say a 12' 2.35:1 screen at 12' is going to be awesome and immersive.. great.. why not keep the width, make it taller and have both formats the same width. You lose nothing. Then you don't have as you said "puny epic scope screen" experience.. nor do you have a puny Walking Dead experience. It's a win win. 


Now by all means if Blu-ray is all you watch or if you have a 7' ceiling but want a 14' wide screen a 16:9 that's the same width as the 2.35:1 may no be for you. But for some having a small 16:9 and a huge 2.35:1 just may not make them as happy as having every format they project to be huge and as immersive as the room and their necks allow.

It's all personally taste.


----------



## cdy2179

Here's my last two theaters and both had the widest angles I can comfortably fit and about as wide as the room allows.. going wider isn't really possible.. it's already "there". As you can see no matter what format I throw at it.. it's going to be an immersive experience. As far as that goes there are no compromises.. of course some would like to see masking..


----------



## bud16415

I find it interesting the strong support for CIH and the true fans and believers of the system that has been the standard method of presentation for 75 years in the motion picture industry. I agree with all that in fact. Then most CIH supporters will acknowledge CIH + Imax as Imax is a special case and will remove the masking not move their seat or zoom the image smaller and now Imax is the perfect size as it was intended by the Imax standards setting people. Even a few people will put forth a plausible argument as to why it is ok to watch Imax taller and more immersive than Scope and it goes something like this. Imax intentionally looks at the movie as if it was going to be a scope movie and then fills the top and bottom with fluff image content knowing that it will be outside your normal viewing area and for the most part isn’t intended to actually be looked at. If we don’t look up there and down, there and it is out of our useful FOV then there wouldn’t be any need to mask those areas as distracting when watching a scope movie because there is nothing less eye catching than a dark gray bar. If you even buy into CIH + Imax then I don’t see why you can’t see home theater projectors are used to watch many things that are not even movie content and the director of those things or the programmers of those games could very well have intended it to be seen as a fully immersive viewing experience. 

Many here have told me many times my repeated explanation of this idea has grown old and tiresome. But I always read and I just read again to paraphrase what should be larger and more impressive Ben Hur and Star Wars or the 40 year old virgin. I get it I agree in that case Star Wars wins. But then again it is content and size / immersion we are talking about and I can easily counter each of those examples with one of my own like should Mom’s Night Out (scope) blow away Avatar in immersion. There are two sides to every coin. 

So the debate comes down always to two factors one is content and AR and we are to believe every director that shoots a movie in scope wants that movie to dominate the visual experience unless he really wants it to and then he will shoot for Imax, and any director shooting in 16:9 is shooting a piece in that ratio with the intent it is not supposed to engulf the viewers just entertain. At no time is the decision to decide what is what for the viewer to be under his own control at home, even though it is under his control when going to a commercial theater because he is free to pick his seat (and immersion level) from 50 to 100 rows of seats. 
Then there is the second factor to all this and immersion viewing and that is human FOV with and without eye movement. We don’t see a FOV no matter what your beliefs are in the shape of a rectangle. We also don’t have the same acuity of vision over our entire FOV. We have a very small almost circular area in the center of our gaze that has hopefully 20/20 vision and then stages of diminishing acuity outward to the extremes of our peripheral vision. None of the AR we see movies in took into account FOV when they were selected with the exception of maybe Edison in the beginning from what I have read and then the original Imax format they used for producing the documentary movies. Even though there might have been some thought put in in terms of FOV it isn’t real clear what they were shooting for in terms immersion and eye movement. I have posted links to studies where they had 100’s of test viewers watch movies in different AR with devises in place that would track where their eyes were looking on the screen and the duration of time they looked at those spots. People don’t all look at the same thing on the screen at the same time a reason why a movie is a unique experience each time we watch it. but the studies do show we watch movies in the same way we go thru life visually moving our eyes and reacting to our peripheral vision for clues as to what to look at along with sound triggering our eye movement. It is almost impossible to train our eyes not to move involuntary. 

I for myself worked out my system based on both content and FOV with the two combining to have a system that I control the immersion level at home very much as if I went to a theater and picked my seat. I want control of my immersion very much in the same way I want control of my audio. Immersion is like audio not just in terms of volume but also do I want surround or single or stereo, and do I want engaged full on chest pounding subwoofers depending on the content I listen to. More is not always better with sound and also with immersion. Allowing myself the freedom to decide looking at the content of what I think I will watch and then selecting a level of immersion to match my expectations of that content in terms of immersion. I don’t even know my own FOV but I do know adding more range of eye movement can be tiring going out into a greater range of our peripheral vision in both directions can be tiring (if that is even the correct word) but pushing those limits also adds increased realism to the experience. I for sure don’t want to watch some Michael Moore documentary with full on audio or full on immersion that’s for sure, and if I was forced to watch one in a movie theater I know it would be from the back row. 

I don’t support 16:9 as the perfect AR it is just the one the world is mostly stuck with for now. if your projector puts out 16:9 I can’t think of any logical reason to not have a 16:9 screen. That does not mean I think everything 16:9 needs to be shown full screen or everything 4:3 needs to be shown full height. With a 16:9 screen sized to the width you would select if you did a CIH setup you can have CIH, CIW, CIA, CIH + Imax and you can also have what I view PIA setup. PIA is all inclusive of all styles of presentation along with the opposite of immersion viewing and that is diminished viewing when the content calls for it. 

One screen pick your poison.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> I think some of you are missing the point. Not all of us all strictly blu-ray. This isn't a cinema that runs striaght film. This is our rooms and many of us watch sports, TV series and game in our rooms. So why would we want to compromise on the size of a format we use a lot.


Not really, by just hours, I probably watch less than 10% scope content in my HT. And frankly that's part of the reason to go CIH, it keeps the big movies "special". When I throw in SW7 after a week of watching TV and playing games, it's still a special, epic experience because it's 33% larger than anything else I've seen that week.



> Now yea I said compromise. THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle for immersiveness and comfort. http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html I like to go around 40 and past that side to side head turning become a big deal IMO.


Most seating distance recommendations you see floating around the internet and consumer publications are based on 16:9 not scope screens, since that's what consumers generally have access to. Those recommendations take different shape into account, since height can become overwhelming with a 16:9 screen before a scope screen. 36 degrees is the *farthest* recommended seating distance by THX, they SMPTE and Fox all recommend closer seating distances (43+ degrees):











> So If my front wall can fit a 12' screen max and from my seat that gets me at my desired angle well....I don't have to compromise and go more or less on either format. I can have both formats at the same width and both will be huge. Call it CIW (constant width) if it makes you happy. The point is if we want every format to be immersive we can have that. At that point 2.35:1 can be any wider or we don't want it to as it's already at the limits of the room or comfort and it's already very immersive.
> 
> Sure we can make the biggest widescreen format our room or comfort will allow, and then live with a much less immersive 16:9.. but the point is we can keep that same width, make the screen a 16:9 and now both formats are the same width, both huge, both have the same viewing angles and both are very immersive.


But now the scope experience is diminished, because it is now the smallest thing shown in your theater rather than the largest. When you watch Jeopardy, and The Amazing Race all week, and then pop in Star Wars 7 at the end of the week, it's no longer special, and epic, it's not even like another TV show, smaller than everything else. Smaller than Sharknado.



> Now by all means if Blu-ray is all you watch or if you have a 7' ceiling but want a 14' wide screen a 16:9 that's the same width as the 2.35:1 may no be for you. But for some having a small 16:9 and a huge 2.35:1 just may not make them as happy as having every format they project to be huge and as immersive as the room and their necks allow.


Like I said, if you don't care about scope being presented as the special, majestic format it was meant to be, that's fine. But don't try to argue that that that's the way it _should_ be shown, just because of the shape of your room.


----------



## Ricoflashback

trmoore2 said:


> Get the biggest 16:9 screen you can fit in your room. The majority of the media is in this format. I have a 134" screen and the "bars" don't bother me in the least! Masking is not necessary for most of us, and I'm picky.


I agree on the 16:9 screen for your situation, but while masking might not be necessary - - it is a very nice feature. 

Before you buy or install anything - - shine your picture on your blank wall. That way, you can really see what it will look like. 

If I had to do one thing different with my BenQ W1080ST setup (100" 16:9 motorized screen - horizontally challenged room) - - I would have invested more in a quality screen. I did my project on the "cheap" to compliment my 65" LCD (screen over by LCD when it's movie time.) The picture quality in combination with the Darbee Darblet is awesome! 

There is nothing quite like watching a movie with a big screen projector. Especially in your own home where the popcorn, drinks and ability to pause a movie is a great benefit. Oh, the restrooms are not as crowded as the movie theater, either!


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> As far as that goes there are no compromises.. of course some would like to see masking..


The compromise is that scope is no longer special, in fact it's the least immersive format shown, which is the exact opposite of the format's intent.



bud16415 said:


> Many here have told me many times my repeated explanation of this idea has grown old and tiresome. But I always read and I just read again to paraphrase what should be larger and more impressive Ben Hur and Star Wars or the 40 year old virgin. I get it I agree in that case Star Wars wins. But then again it is content and size / immersion we are talking about and I can easily counter each of those examples with one of my own like should Mom’s Night Out (scope) blow away Avatar in immersion. There are two sides to every coin.


Sure you can find counter examples, but if you look at the content in aggregate, 16:9/1.85:1 is overwhelmingly made for TV and drama/comedy/romance type stuff, while scope is overwhelmingly blockbusters.

I also like that you mention Avatar, it's actually the perfect example of this issue. Cameron wanted that to be as large as possible, and to that end, a scope version of the film was produced, which was shown at all commercial theaters other than IMAX ones, for the very reason's we (CIH proponents) have been giving, scope is supposed to be the largest format other than IMAX. If you went to see Avatar at an IMAX, it was 16:9, when I saw it at a "normal" theater, it was scope.

And like I've said before, it just comes down to, do you care about this or not. If you do, look into a CIH system, or CIH+IMAX, if you don't care, just get a 16:9 screen and be done with it. It doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the room, or visual acuity, or FOV. And then pick the size (seating distance) based on what size is comfortable to you.


----------



## cdy2179

stanger89 said:


> Not really, by just hours, I probably watch less than 10% scope content in my HT. And frankly that's part of the reason to go CIH, it keeps the big movies "special". When I throw in SW7 after a week of watching TV and playing games, it's still a special, epic experience because it's 33% larger than anything else I've seen that week.
> 
> 
> Umm so you suffer with a small 16:9 so that scope is special...what??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now the scope experience is diminished, because it is now the smallest thing shown in your theater rather than the largest. When you watch Jeopardy, and The Amazing Race all week, and then pop in Star Wars 7 at the end of the week, it's no longer special, and epic, it's not even like another TV show, smaller than everything else. Smaller than Sharknado.
> 
> No it's the smallest aspect because of it's format ratio.. if the room or distance won't allow you to make it any larger you're already maxed out. You can't knock down the side walls to make it bigger. I'm talking about large 16:9 and 2.35:1 screens.. it's already as wide as it can be
> 
> 
> Like I said, if you don't care about scope being presented as the special, majestic format it was meant to be, that's fine. But don't try to argue that that that's the way it _should_ be shown, just because of the shape of your room.
> 
> Ummmm.. no I don't care about kicking one format to the curb to make another special. I prefer to have them all awesome and special. Again why compromise and make myself watch a small 16:9 so I can keep widescreen "special".... I'm not saving myself for marriage here.. I want to enjoy my room.. Where you may put in a 12' wide scope screen i'll also have a 12' scope image just on a 16:9 screen. We'll have the same experience. Heck Mine may even be bigger.. I have a 12' from 12' and 17' so even in scope it's pretty awesome.


Again.. it's all preference. There is no right or wrong. But one screen format (2.35:1) will drastically reduce the size of another.. where as the other screen format (16:9) keeps all formats immersive. I'm not sure why that's anything to argue. If it's not a big deal to anyone, or they feel they don't need all formats to be maximum size.. cool. It's just the way it is.


----------



## kmhvball

I have a 2.35:1 and love it.... 

Having said that, however, if in my setting (combination of bottom of screen height requirement, 2nd row site lines, bulk heads dropping my ceiling), I was not limited by height... I would go with the 16:9. 

It could be that "Scope" is supposed to be the largest format, but I am on the side of folks who say 'why not have the largest possible of all formats'.... if space allows. I don't think I would personally feel I was missing out on the 'scope' experience, just because my 16:9 image was just as wide. I do feel at times with my 2.35:1 screen, that I am missing out on some 16:9 image... 

The fact that with 16:9, you don't need a projector that is capable of auto-zoom or needing an A-lens, is a side benefit in my mind. I think it opens up a lot more options, particularly if someone doesn't have as much money to spend on a projector.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> Umm so you suffer with a small 16:9 so that scope is special...what??


My 16:9 image is only small if you only consider the number of inches. My seating is placed such that 16:9 is about as large as I would ever want it to be.



> No it's the smallest aspect because of it's format ratio.. if the room or distance won't allow you to make it any larger you're already maxed out. You can't knock down the side walls to make it bigger. I'm talking about large 16:9 and 2.35:1 screens.. it's already as wide as it can be


But you can adjust your seating so that 16:9 is the same size (viewing ratio/degrees) as you like, but scope is wider.



> Ummmm.. no I don't care about kicking one format to the curb to make another special. I prefer to have them all awesome and special. Again why compromise and make myself watch a small 16:9 so I can keep widescreen "special".... I'm not saving myself for marriage here.. I want to enjoy my room.. Where you may put in a 12' wide scope screen i'll also have a 12' scope image just on a 16:9 screen. We'll have the same experience. Heck Mine may even be bigger.. I have a 12' from 12' and 17' so even in scope it's pretty awesome.


But it's not the same experience. Sure, if you bring someone in cold, off the street, never been in your theater, and show them scope masked on your screen, vs a scope screen the same width, that's the same. But we don't use our theaters cold off the street, we watch multiple things on our screens, and this means that relative size of different content comes into play.

I'm not saying your wrong for using a 16:9 screen, but I don't agree with your argument that the experience is the same. With CIH, scope is the largest thing shown, and with 16:9/CIW it's the smallest, and in a mixed use theater that's a real thing to consider.



> Again.. it's all preference. There is no right or wrong. But one screen format (2.35:1) will drastically reduce the size of another.. where as the other screen format (16:9) keeps all formats immersive. I'm not sure why that's anything to argue.


The argument is, what you say is only true if you ignore seating distance. By the above logic absolute size is all that matters, which means that a home theater can never match a commercial theater because commercial theater screens are much larger.

Reality is that it's the seating distance _ratio_ that's important. We can have great, immersive experiences at home, only because it's the viewing ratio that's important. And when you factor that into CIH theater design, you end up with 16:9 that while being physically smaller than it would be with a 16:9 screen, perceptually it's the same size.


----------



## jeahrens

R Harkness said:


> Josh,
> 
> As *cdy2179* points out, your post appears to neglect that the variation in people's viewing preferences can apply to scope width as well, hence it can be reasonable to set one's screen size based on width comfort level too. Some people like full immersion so that the image borders go outside their peripheral vision; others don't like this and prefer to keep the full image comfortably in easy view (which is, of course, why there are variances in seating preferences at theaters).
> 
> In other words, comfort with a 16:9 image may not necessarily dictate comfort with the same height scope image. One may have a comfort level for a certain width of image, and wish to set their scope images at that viewing angle. Especially if they love the scope AR. (I do, especially for composition reasons). But that may not produce an optimal 16:9 size that they want.
> This is why a solution like *cdy2179* 's can make sense.
> 
> And mine. I went as wide as I wanted with scope, but I like a larger 16:9 image than is produced using CIH, hence I choose to vary my image height.
> 
> You may wish to say "Well, then CIH isn't for you" but that would be the point: why the "just determine your scope screen via your perfect 16:9 size, and everything will be fine" doesn't work out for everyone.


Certainly there will always be folks with different viewing preferences. However I yet to meet anyone in person that sizing the 16:9 image and going wider has created a problem for. It does for you and I respect that. But that doesn't mean it's the norm. And so that will still be the standard recommendation for those inquiring about CIH.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Many here have told me many times my repeated explanation of this idea has grown old and tiresome.


It has. We get it. You change sizes based on the personal importance you assign a film and you feel 1.33:1 Academy cinema should have precedence. Anyone interested in your ideas is free to read your thread.

Your theories on how our eyes work are well documented in there as well.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Again.. it's all preference. There is no right or wrong.


Completely agree. If you're view habits are majority TV/Sports etc then a 16:9 screen makes sense.



cdy2179 said:


> But one screen format (2.35:1) will drastically reduce the size of another.. where as the other screen format (16:9) keeps all formats immersive. I'm not sure why that's anything to argue. If it's not a big deal to anyone, or they feel they don't need all formats to be maximum size.. cool. It's just the way it is.


Nope. Why is there anything to argue? Well because what you are saying is essentially backwards. Scope does not have to compromise 16:9 or 4:3, *16:9 ALWAYS compromises scope*. As it has been said in this thread several times you simply set your seating to screen distance ratio to where the 16:9 picture is where you want it. Then the 16:9 image has the exact same impact it had on the 16:9 screen. Except now the scope image is now 70+% larger than it was. Pretty simple concept. Works fantastic in the home and cinema.


----------



## bud16415

stanger89 said:


> The compromise is that scope is no longer special, in fact it's the least immersive format shown, which is the exact opposite of the format's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can find counter examples, but if you look at the content in aggregate, 16:9/1.85:1 is overwhelmingly made for TV and drama/comedy/romance type stuff, while scope is overwhelmingly blockbusters.
> 
> I also like that you mention Avatar, it's actually the perfect example of this issue. Cameron wanted that to be as large as possible, and to that end, a scope version of the film was produced, which was shown at all commercial theaters other than IMAX ones, for the very reason's we (CIH proponents) have been giving, scope is supposed to be the largest format other than IMAX. If you went to see Avatar at an IMAX, it was 16:9, when I saw it at a "normal" theater, it was scope.
> 
> And like I've said before, it just comes down to, do you care about this or not. If you do, look into a CIH system, or CIH+IMAX, if you don't care, just get a 16:9 screen and be done with it. It doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the room, or visual acuity, or FOV. And then pick the size (seating distance) based on what size is comfortable to you.


I guess I don’t know why you would want to watch Avatar at home in scope with the top and the bottom of the movie missing just because that’s how you had to watch it in your city because you didn’t have an Imax theater. At home with a 16:9 screen you can treat yourself to the Imax experience with your 1.78:1 BD. 

As to making scope a special event that’s exactly what I do with PIA. It also makes Imax and Avatar and Planet Earth special events. Network TV is shown normally smaller than CIH. Old network TV smaller yet. Of course I have exceptions and some of the 1080p content I get over the air begs to be shown Imax like. PBS shows some really amazing content some of the time. 

If I had to pick between CIH and CIW knowing how much content is ether good content and poor quality or poor content of good quality I would always pick CIH. Fortunately, there are more ways to view it all, and a 16:9 screen sized in width for correct CIH will do it all.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I guess I don’t know why you would want to watch Avatar at home in scope with the top and the bottom of the movie missing just because that’s how you had to watch it in your city because you didn’t have an Imax theater. At home with a 16:9 screen you can treat yourself to the Imax experience with your 1.78:1 BD.
> 
> As to making scope a special event that’s exactly what I do with PIA. It also makes Imax and Avatar and Planet Earth special events. Network TV is shown normally smaller than CIH. Old network TV smaller yet. Of course I have exceptions and some of the 1080p content I get over the air begs to be shown Imax like. PBS shows some really amazing content some of the time.
> 
> If I had to pick between CIH and CIW knowing how much content is ether good content and poor quality or poor content of good quality I would always pick CIH. Fortunately, there are more ways to view it all, and a 16:9 screen sized in width for correct CIH will do it all.


And I don't know why you want a 1.78:1 movie taller than scope if you have your screen/seating distance sized appropriately. Yes, some folks feel cropped IMAX images deserve special treatment. And a lot of us don't. I don't know what the ratio is, but I suspect that most folks with a scope screen don't make special allowances for cropped IMAX. The 3 other CIH owners I have met locally don't. So while there are outliers, they are just that: outliers. You keep bringing up IMAX ever since Gary brought up this is how he does it as support for you "P"IA idea (which I doubt Gary believes is a perfect method, but he can chime in with his own thoughts). IMAX is an extremely small % of the possible content we can view. In my opinion I would not buy/size a screen based on a handful of content. And personally it wouldn't be all that pleasant to view. If it were as tall as my screen is wide my center channel would need to be essentially on the floor and the top border would be right at the ceiling (not to mention having to move my head and neck to take it in).

I understand you size content based on the personal importance you assign it. And I honestly I think what you're doing is great for you. I watch content as it was intended by the director and cinematographer whenever possible. I don't feel that Saving Private Ryan, Casablanca or Cosmos are less of an "event" because my screen/seating is optimal. It was essentially the same size on my old 16:9 screen.


----------



## stanger89

bud16415 said:


> I guess I don’t know why you would want to watch Avatar at home in scope with the top and the bottom of the movie missing just because that’s how you had to watch it in your city because you didn’t have an Imax theater. At home with a 16:9 screen you can treat yourself to the Imax experience with your 1.78:1 BD.


I was talking about commercial theater's not home. And I bet if you look at ticket sales, far, far more people saw Avatar in scope than IMAX.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I guess I don’t know why you would want to watch Avatar at home in scope with the top and the bottom of the movie missing just because that’s how you had to watch it in your city because you didn’t have an Imax theater. At home with a 16:9 screen you can treat yourself to the Imax experience with your 1.78:1 BD.


Because James Cameron actually composed and photographed the movie for scope before he later changed his mind and opened the mattes for IMAX and Blu-ray. If you watch the deleted scenes on the Collector's Edition Blu-ray, they're all letterboxed to scope. Changing the movie to 16:9 was a decision he made after-the-fact.

The movie's composition is superior in scope ratio. In 16:9, the shots have too much awkward headroom and footroom above and below the important action.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> I think some of you are missing the point. Not all of us all strictly blu-ray. This isn't a cinema that runs striaght film. This is our rooms and many of us watch sports, TV series and game in our rooms. So why would we want to compromise on the size of a format we use a lot.


Yes, each person has their own priorities and preferences, and their personal home theaters should be designed with that in mind. If it's super-important to you that watching competitive Olympic ribbon dancing be the hugest and most immersive thing you ever see in your theater, you should absolutely install a 16:9 screen and enjoy the hell out of it. No one will ever begrudge you for that.

Now, with that in mind, perhaps you can explain to us why you're trolling the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site when you clearly have no interest at all in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height?


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> It has. We get it. You change sizes based on the personal importance you assign a film and you feel 1.33:1 Academy cinema should have precedence. Anyone interested in your ideas is free to read your thread.
> 
> Your theories on how our eyes work are well documented in there as well.


Likewise, the 75 year old commercial theater standards of presentation are well documented in hundreds of posts here for all to read. I gather all the information that’s worth saying has been said on every aspect of FP by now, so we should just stop talking and advise people to just read away it is well documented already. 

It is refreshing to see some converting some really great looking home theaters over to 16:9 from scope for a lot of the reasons I have chosen to do the same. What was best practice 75 years ago is now getting a rethink as media is no longer driven by the size of film stock or how to best process the best image on strips of plastic film with exposure to light and developed with chemicals. Film is now reduced to ones and zeroes and stored electronically. The digital world of film allows anything to be possible and if some director wants to make a movie without AR at all he can if he wanted. Changing AR could be continual changing AR where the masking never stays in one place if they want. Movies are shot in AR according to what the director feels best shows the intent. Movies are also made up of lots of small bits connected together. If shooting the cramped inside of a spaceship looks tighter in 16:9 or god forbid 1:1 and the next shot he wants to show us the immensity of space in Imax and then they land on Mars and he wants to show the vast horizon of the planet in scope he can now have all 3 in the same movie and morph between AR in a slow transition if they want to. I have even seen fish jump out of the water over the boat and right out of the AR of the scope movie and into a Imax size frame. 

You are somehow obsessed with the fact that given a perfect AR if the height of the room allowed I would go with an image wide enough to do perfect CIH presentation for my given seating and then have the height to do Academy AR across the whole width. I may never choose to show Academy that high or maybe I would but I would love to have the choice. One thing I miss about my 4:3 projector is that I could use all that height to digitally move my scope image up and down on the frame. 

Unused pixels are just that unused as long as the ones I’m viewing are bright enough I don’t care how many are turned off above and below my image.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> Yes, each person has their own priorities and preferences, and their personal home theaters should be designed with that in mind. If it's super-important to you that watching competitive Olympic ribbon dancing be the hugest and most immersive thing you ever see in your theater, you should absolutely install a 16:9 screen and enjoy the hell out of it. No one will ever begrudge you for that.
> 
> Now, with that in mind, perhaps you can explain to us why you're trolling the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site when you clearly have no interest at all in 2.35:1 Constant Image Height?


Uhhh because the guy asked what screen to go with 16:9 or 2.35:1. Mabye he posted in the wrong forum section.

But I see your point.. seems like some close minded guys in here that don't seem to understand the 16:9 screen in no way makes the image of the 2.35:1 smaller. It will be just as big and immersive as it would on a 2.35:1 screen. No one is changing the size of cinema scope as it would be in a given room with either screen. The argument that I like the 16:9 to be small so the 2.35:1 feels "special"... well that sounds crazy IMO.. when both can be equally as "special".. but that's just me.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Because James Cameron actually composed and photographed the movie for scope before he later changed his mind and opened the mattes for IMAX and Blu-ray. If you watch the deleted scenes on the Collector's Edition Blu-ray, they're all letterboxed to scope. Changing the movie to 16:9 was a decision he made after-the-fact.
> 
> The movie's composition is superior in scope ratio. In 16:9, the shots have too much awkward headroom and footroom above and below the important action.


In his own words. “I fell in love with the movie in the 16:9 ratio and I prefer to watch it in the 16:9 ratio.”


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> Uhhh because the guy asked what screen to go with 16:9 or 2.35:1. Mabye he posted in the wrong forum section.


What forum are you reading this thread in? It's posted in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum.



> But I see your point.. seems like some close minded guys in here that don't seem to understand the 16:9 screen in no way makes the image of the 2.35:1 smaller. It will be just as big and immersive as it would on a 2.35:1 screen. No one is changing the size of cinema scope as it would be in a given room with either screen.


We understand what you are saying, but we disagree with it, because it is false. Letterboxing scope movies on a 16:9 screen reduces their height and immersiveness compared to other movies, TV shows or videogames.

The purpose of directors shooting movies in scope format is that those movies should be larger and wider than 1.85:1 movies - and certainly much larger and wider than TV content. That's why the directors of big-budget, eye candy blockbuster movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope format, because they want those movies to be bigger and more impressive than rom-coms, indie dramas, or TV shows.

No director has ever photographed a $100 million action epic in scope format hoping that viewers would watch it on a screen where it's dwarfed in size by episodes of Dancing with the Stars. Ever. That has never happened, and never will happen.



> The argument that I like the 16:9 to be small so the 2.35:1 feels "special"... well that sounds crazy IMO.. when both can be equally as "special".. but that's just me.


The argument that you like Star Wars or Star Trek or Lord of the Rings or The Matrix or James Bond to be small so that playing Wii Bowling feels "special"... well, that sounds crazy, IMO. To each their own.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> In his own words. “I fell in love with the movie in the 16:9 ratio and I prefer to watch it in the 16:9 ratio.”


A decision that he made after the movie was completed. During photography, the movie was composed for scope. Watch the deleted scenes.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> But I see your point.. seems like some close minded guys in here that don't seem to understand the 16:9 screen in no way makes the image of the 2.35:1 smaller.


We understand it's physically the same size. But physical size isn't that important, it's perceptual/relative size that's meaningful:
http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm



> It will be just as big and immersive as it would on a 2.35:1 screen. No one is changing the size of cinema scope as it would be in a given room with either screen.


It issue is twofold, first, relative size of scope is much smaller than 16:9, which is the opposite of the format's intent. And second, if you set your seating for comfortable 16:9 viewing, in a CIW/16:9 screen, scope is generally too small.



> The argument that I like the 16:9 to be small so the 2.35:1 feels "special"... well that sounds crazy IMO.. when both can be equally as "special".. but that's just me.


Which is fine, I don't find both equally special with CIW, but I do with CIH. But you asked yourself the question I referenced above, and found your answer.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> What was best practice 75 years ago is now getting a rethink as media is no longer driven by the size of film stock or how to best process the best image on strips of plastic film with exposure to light and developed with chemicals. Film is now reduced to ones and zeroes and stored electronically.


Bud, your argument makes no sense at all. What medium a movie is shot on has no bearing on what aspect ratio it's composed for or how it's intended to be presented.

The directors of big-budget, epic, visual spectacle movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope ratio. More than 70% of those type of movies are composed for scope, regardless of whether they're shot on film or digital.

That's not just something that happened 75 years ago. It happens right now, today. At this very moment, dozens of directors are shooting next year's summer tentpole movies in scope format. Directors will continue to shoot that type of movie in scope format for decades to come.



> The digital world of film allows anything to be possible and if some director wants to make a movie without AR at all he can if he wanted. Changing AR could be continual changing AR where the masking never stays in one place if they want. Movies are shot in AR according to what the director feels best shows the intent. Movies are also made up of lots of small bits connected together. If shooting the cramped inside of a spaceship looks tighter in 16:9 or god forbid 1:1 and the next shot he wants to show us the immensity of space in Imax and then they land on Mars and he wants to show the vast horizon of the planet in scope he can now have all 3 in the same movie and morph between AR in a slow transition if they want to.


That's a lovely dream you have. How many directors actually do it?


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Likewise, the 75 year old commercial theater standards of presentation are well documented in hundreds of posts here for all to read. I gather all the information that’s worth saying has been said on every aspect of FP by now, so we should just stop talking and advise people to just read away it is well documented already.
> 
> It is refreshing to see some converting some really great looking home theaters over to 16:9 from scope for a lot of the reasons I have chosen to do the same. What was best practice 75 years ago is now getting a rethink as media is no longer driven by the size of film stock or how to best process the best image on strips of plastic film with exposure to light and developed with chemicals. Film is now reduced to ones and zeroes and stored electronically. The digital world of film allows anything to be possible and if some director wants to make a movie without AR at all he can if he wanted. Changing AR could be continual changing AR where the masking never stays in one place if they want. Movies are shot in AR according to what the director feels best shows the intent. Movies are also made up of lots of small bits connected together. If shooting the cramped inside of a spaceship looks tighter in 16:9 or god forbid 1:1 and the next shot he wants to show us the immensity of space in Imax and then they land on Mars and he wants to show the vast horizon of the planet in scope he can now have all 3 in the same movie and morph between AR in a slow transition if they want to. I have even seen fish jump out of the water over the boat and right out of the AR of the scope movie and into a Imax size frame.
> 
> You are somehow obsessed with the fact that given a perfect AR if the height of the room allowed I would go with an image wide enough to do perfect CIH presentation for my given seating and then have the height to do Academy AR across the whole width. I may never choose to show Academy that high or maybe I would but I would love to have the choice. One thing I miss about my 4:3 projector is that I could use all that height to digitally move my scope image up and down on the frame.
> 
> Unused pixels are just that unused as long as the ones I’m viewing are bright enough I don’t care how many are turned off above and below my image.


Odd I generally see people going from 16:9 to scope, but I'm sure there are folks who go back for one reason or another. I can certainly see reasons for switching to both formats. What exactly is refreshing here? If you watch mostly TV programs and don't really care about AR presentation then 16:9 was probably right for you to begin with. Or is it refreshing because you believe it lends support to your particular viewpoint? This forum is meant to answer questions for theater owners on what CIH is, will it work for them and why they may want to consider it. The information is out there from other sources, but it can be helpful to talk to people who've actually done it and how they like it. Your repeating your idea of perfection however is simply re-hashing what is covered in detail in your own thread. And, at least in my opinion, just adds noise to a lot of these discussions since the majority of the questions aren't centered on how to make a wall of ratios based on user preference.

Digital projection so far has shown very little change in the preferred AR's: 1.85:1 and 2.4:1. There are a few releases that have IMAX scenes, but not many make it to the home market with shifting ratios. The most recent one was the second Star Trek film which got shifting AR's in the 4K release and special edition set. That's the only one this year I can think of. Which is fine with me as I find the constant shifts annoying and distracting (I watch them in 16:9). I prefer they either open them up to 1.85:1 (if possible) or just fix the ratio at 2.4:1. But that's simply my opinion. I respect the filmmaker's choices and watch accordingly.

I'm not obsessed with anything really. Director A chooses scope because he wants that framing and the impact it makes on viewing. I recreate that as best I can. I would worry more about IMAX if it wasn't cropped significantly for home viewing and it made up more than a small fraction of my viewing. I don't decrease or increase the size of what I view based on how important I feel the film is. I also don't feel Casablanca loses a thing when viewed at the same height as Chinatown. You are free to watch how you like.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> We understand what you are saying, but we disagree with it, because it is false. Letterboxing scope movies on a 16:9 screen reduces their height and immersiveness compared to other movies, TV shows or videogames.
> 
> .


No I don't think you do understand. The Scope image is exactly the same size on either screen. Geez... there's absolutely no difference in the size you can make the 1.35:1. None... it can be made the identical size.. same experience... no difference no matter the screen format. The only difference is the 16:9 allows the 16:9 to also be just as immersive... it doesn't make the 2.35:1 smaller than it would be on it's native screen... that's just goofy. Of course given the same width one is taller.. but seriously that can't be you're reason to make one format tiny so the other can feel huge.

Now If you're saying you purposely want the small 16:9 image so the 2.35:1 can feel "superior" well that makes no sense to me at all and is like.. na I want to eat food with no flavor so when I do have seasoning I'm WOWed more. 

But you guys already said you do watch 16:9.. some even more than scope... so you purposely go small to make scope feel "special" well enjoy that .. I'll enjoy it all being "special"..


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Uhhh because the guy asked what screen to go with 16:9 or 2.35:1. Mabye he posted in the wrong forum section.
> 
> But I see your point.. seems like some close minded guys in here that don't seem to understand the 16:9 screen in no way makes the image of the 2.35:1 smaller. It will be just as big and immersive as it would on a 2.35:1 screen. No one is changing the size of cinema scope as it would be in a given room with either screen. The argument that I like the 16:9 to be small so the 2.35:1 feels "special"... well that sounds crazy IMO.. when both can be equally as "special".. but that's just me.


So we're closed minded. 

110" 16:9 screen 
Dimensions - 96x54"

16:9 screen area = 36 sq ft
4:3 area = 27 sq ft
2.35:1 screen area = 27.2 sq ft

138" 2.35:1 screen
Dimensions - 127x54"

16:9 screen area = 36 sq ft
4:3 area = 27 sq ft
2.35:1 screen area = 47.6 sq ft

So your opinion is that this math is wrong and a 16:9 screen which limits scope to about the same screen area as 4:3 is actually making it bigger. And the 75% increase in image area for the scope screen is non-existent or unimportant.

Now your next argument will be but my room only goes X ft wide!

To which we respond move your seating up to where the 16:9 image is as big as it is now (quit thinking of raw measurements) and you will have *the exact same perceived image size*. Except now scope has the intended presentation. We keep saying that for a reason.

16:9 ALWAYS limits scope. It's a mathematical certainty that shrinking a wider rectangle to fit into a narrower one will result in it being smaller. 

If you're happy with a 16:9 screen, by all means enjoy it! We're just making our point clear.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Bud, your argument makes no sense at all. What medium a movie is shot on has no bearing on what aspect ratio it's composed for or how it's intended to be presented.
> 
> The directors of big-budget, epic, visual spectacle movies overwhelmingly choose to shoot them in scope ratio. More than 70% of those type of movies are composed for scope, regardless of whether they're shot on film or digital.
> 
> That's not just something that happened 75 years ago. It happens right now, today. At this very moment, dozens of directors are shooting next year's summer tentpole movies in scope format. Directors will continue to shoot that type of movie in scope format for decades to come.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lovely dream you have. How many directors actually do it?


I don’t know how many are doing it or will do it. I don’t know how many directors are shooting crappy movies in scope hoping to get released in the larger seating multi-plex theaters. Why not shoot in scope as simply as James Cameron pushed a button and got a scope movie out of an Imax movie they can now push a button and make the scope movie Mom’s night out into a ready for TV 16:9 movie. Most of the time they will pander to TV viewers and push the button before making the BD copy for Walmart. 

It was not so easy to do with film stock and it is not so easy to do with a true scope movie where you are cutting out real content. If Imax can fill the top and bottom with fluff so can the makers of crappy scope movies. 

To think the state of the art isn’t changing just look at animated features. 

I don’t know what the future holds any more than you do. The grandeur of movie going bus left the station 40 years ago for the most part. With 70” flat screens of 4K nature coming down to the every man and movies streaming to us so close to the release dates, the movie companies know where their bread and butter is coming from and they will cater to it. No one wants a scope movie on their new flat panel with black bars. No one is sitting closer and using flat panels as CIH. Directors and all of us cringe at thinking of lopping off the ends of scope movies of real epics. They will have to figure out a way to fit into the 16:9 world. 

Ask anyone under 30 when was the last time they bought a music CD in a plastic case or a LP in a cardboard cover. That’s the progression we are seeing. 

Many people are using their projectors for a lot of different stuff. I am dead against CIW I find it the worst of all the presentation methods but it is the simplest that’s all it has going for it. But given the increase in 16:9 quality material that could deserve immersion I like a balanced approach to leaving a way to watch it. The only thing I can think of worse than watching Mom’s Night out in Scope would be watching a cropped version of it in Imax presentation. 

So the real question is Avatar a 16:9 BD or is it an Imax BD.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> So we're closed minded.
> 
> 110" 16:9 screen
> Dimensions - 96x54"
> 
> 16:9 screen area = 36 sq ft
> 4:3 area = 27 sq ft
> 2.35:1 screen area = 27.2 sq ft
> 
> 138" 2.35:1 screen
> Dimensions - 127x54"
> 
> 16:9 screen area = 36 sq ft
> 4:3 area = 27 sq ft
> 2.35:1 screen area = 47.6 sq ft
> 
> So your opinion is that this math is wrong and a 16:9 screen which limits scope to about the same screen area as 4:3 is actually making it bigger. And the 75% increase in image area for the scope screen is non-existent or unimportant.
> 
> Now your next argument will be but my room only goes X ft wide!
> 
> To which we respond move your seating up to where the 16:9 image is as big as it is now (quit thinking of raw measurements) and you will have *the exact same perceived image size*. Except now scope has the intended presentation. We keep saying that for a reason.
> 
> 16:9 ALWAYS limits scope. It's a mathematical certainty that shrinking a wider rectangle to fit into a narrower one will result in it being smaller.
> 
> If you're happy with a 16:9 screen, by all means enjoy it! We're just making our point clear.



If you're room can only handle a 10' wide screen and you install a 10' screen how does that limit scope? No matter the height the width can only be 10'. You could project on a blank wall with no screen. Of course surface area is smaller on scope than 16:9...it's a much shorter aspect so that argument makes no sense..


Here's an example..
Take a 2:35 screen 10' wide say that's about as wide as that makes sense in the room, and as much head turning left to right as you want to do. I'd recommend THX angles to be safe. It will give you a 130" diagonal in 2.35:1, in 16:9 you're stuck with a 104" screen.. which IMO is puny. Going with such a narrow height has limited you greatly.


Now taking that same width of 10'.. if you go with a 10' wide 16;9 screen you get the same 130" 2.35:1 image and a still huge 137.6" 16:9 image.

So basically we can both have a 130" 2.35:1 image but you can watch you're 104" 16:9 image and I'll watch my 137" 16:9 image.

Neither of us can have more than a 10' image.. in scope we have the same experience. I'm not sure how you plan on having a larger (wider image ) than the room allows.

Again these two rooms have screens that are limited by the width of the room and viewing angles .. you can't go wider. No matter the format of the screen 2.35:1 would be the exact same size.


















I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult and claims keep getting made how a 16:9 makes scope smaller than it should be. This just gives all formats the WOW factor.


----------



## bud16415

I know jeahrens likes the math and hates talk of FOV. But the discussion always boils down to find the 16:9 screen size that suits you best and record that height and use that height to calculate the scope screen width. You then have both the biggest 16:9 screen you could ever want and the most immersive scope screen possible. That is all based on the assumption our field of vision is 2.35:1. That’s why scope fill your needs to the max in both directions. 

Mr. Imax tells us no your max FOV is what we say it is and we used to tell you it was 1.44:1 one but we changed our mind and now we think it is 16:9 because Hollywood and TV’s like that size better. And oh ya 1.44:1 was better for nature and stuff but people tend to fit better in 16:9. 

The truth or my truth is FOV depends on how far you want to dig into your vision that isn’t so good off to the sides and how much you like to move your eyes and or even head if you are that into immersion. You get different FOV ratios for all of the above. Imax must be on to something as they are gaining ground and as the vid I posted above even one of the big money directors says some movies look better with that kind of immersion. 

If your projector is 16:9 and your field of vision is 2.35:1 then you must pick 2.35:1.


----------



## cdy2179

bud16415 said:


> I know jeahrens likes the math and hates talk of FOV. But the discussion always boils down to find the 16:9 screen size that suits you best and record that height and use that height to calculate the scope screen width. You then have both the biggest 16:9 screen you could ever want and the most immersive scope screen possible. That is all based on the assumption our field of vision is 2.35:1. That’s why scope fill your needs to the max in both directions.
> 
> Mr. Imax tells us no your max FOV is what we say it is and we used to tell you it was 1.44:1 one but we changed our mind and now we think it is 16:9 because Hollywood and TV’s like that size better. And oh ya 1.44:1 was better for nature and stuff but people tend to fit better in 16:9.
> 
> The truth or my truth is FOV depends on how far you want to dig into your vision that isn’t so good off to the sides and how much you like to move your eyes and or even head if you are that into immersion. You get different FOV ratios for all of the above. Imax must be on to something as they are gaining ground and as the vid I posted above even one of the big money directors says some movies look better with that kind of immersion.
> 
> If your projector is 16:9 and your field of vision is 2.35:1 then you must pick 2.35:1.



Now that post makes sense. unlike the constant argument that 16:9 makes scope smaller which is only true if you let height limit you instead of viewing angles and comfort side to side. Ohh and I want 16:9 smaller so scope feels "special" .. I just would rather have the same viewing angles making both formats the same width. My largest 16:9 image happens to be as wide as the room allows and at the point just before head turning is an issue. This gives you the widest and largest images in any format. It's almost an IMAX like experience when in 16:9 mode and as large as the room and angles allow in scope. Neither format is limited in any way by the screen format itself... it's a pretty simple concept.

As for FOV.. I agree it's up in the air. I find however that side to side is where it gets fatiguing. The vertical eye movement even in 16:9 is just over half as much as the horizontal angles.. being that 16:8 would be half. So you've got very little vertical screen to scan vs almost 2x the horizontal to scan. So IMO the vertical height is irrelevant. I just go as wide as possible and let all formats use what they can with that width. No format is limited by anything other than the room and viewing angles... But that's me.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> No I don't think you do understand. The Scope image is exactly the same size on either screen. Geez... there's absolutely no difference in the size you can make the 1.35:1. None... it can be made the identical size.. same experience... no difference no matter the screen format. The only difference is the 16:9 allows the 16:9 to also be just as immersive... it doesn't make the 2.35:1 smaller than it would be on it's native screen...


You continue to look at this backwards. Take everything you've just said and swap the two ratios. The intent of CIH is not to make 16:9 small, but to start with the 16:9 image size you want and then go wider for scope. In no way is 16:9 compromised when you do this.

Doing it your way, you start with the 2.35:1 image size you want (sounds good so far) and then make 16:9 taller (not good). The problem with this is that now 16:9 content is *too* large. The majority of content made in that ratio (TV shows, videogames, rom-coms and indie dramas) do not justify the extra size and immersiveness. In what way does The Real Housewives of Orange County deserve to be watched at 165"? 

On the other hand, movies shot in scope ratio were specifically made that way because their directors wanted them to be huge and immersive.

Now, Bud will once again argue that a movie like Moms' Night Out was needlessly shot in scope. And I'm sure you'll point to a handful of summer blockbuster movies shot at 1.85:1 (Jurassic Park, Avengers 1). It's true that examples of both exist, but they are outlier exceptions. By majority, epic eye candy spectacle movies are mostly shot in scope, and 1.85:1/16:9 is mostly used for more intimate or less visually compelling content. That's how it's been for decades. That's how it will continue to be for decades.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I don’t know what the future holds any more than you do. The grandeur of movie going bus left the station 40 years ago for the most part. With 70” flat screens of 4K nature coming down to the every man and movies streaming to us so close to the release dates, the movie companies know where their bread and butter is coming from and they will cater to it. No one wants a scope movie on their new flat panel with black bars. No one is sitting closer and using flat panels as CIH. Directors and all of us cringe at thinking of lopping off the ends of scope movies of real epics. They will have to figure out a way to fit into the 16:9 world.
> 
> Ask anyone under 30 when was the last time they bought a music CD in a plastic case or a LP in a cardboard cover. That’s the progression we are seeing.


This is such a tired and false argument. People have been saying this for 35 years, ever since the home video boom of the early 1980s. "Movies should fit my TV! I don't want them ugly black bars! Directors are gonna have to start shooting their movies in TV shape because that's where the future is!!"

And yet, what actually happened over the last 35 years? There has been no movement at all in the filmmaking community to abandon the scope format. 50 years ago, half the movies were made in scope format and half in narrower ratios. Today, half the movies are made in scope format and half in narrower ratios. 

If anything, the advent of the summer blockbuster genre that started with movies like Jaws and Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark has pushed Hollywood to heavily favor the scope format for "event" movies. These days, we're getting to the point where event movies will be all that Hollywood makes anymore. The studios are pouring more and more resources into making $150 million tentpole movies while cutting way back on smaller scale movies. Studio executives don't want to make a modest profit on a small movie. They expect every movie to be a huge monster blockbuster.

And those huge monster blockbusters are mostly scope ratio.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> Doing it your way, you start with the 2.35:1 image size you want (sounds good so far) and then make 16:9 taller (not good). The problem with this is that now 16:9 content is *too* large. The majority of content made in that ratio (TV shows, videogames, rom-coms and indie dramas) do not justify the extra size and immersiveness. In what way does The Real Housewives of Orange County deserve to be watched at 165"?
> 
> On the other hand, movies shot in scope ratio were specifically made that way because their directors wanted them to be huge and immersive.
> 
> .


I get your argument. But yes I do think 16:9 deserves 165".. absolutely...I've had 120" then 135" now 165" and Yes yes yes. When I play XBOX or watch Walking Dead I want it that size.. it's very comfortable... it's almost IMAX like.. so absolutely and extremely immersive. Do I wish scope was as tall.. naa, not really, as it would be too wide and too much head turning.. but that would be much wider than my room will allow so it's not an option. But I'm sure my scope screen is just as immersive as most on this section of the forum.... maybe even wider viewing angle than the average here. In the same room none of you could go any bigger, some may not even want a 12' wide scope at 12' or 17'.

I'm just saying scope is huge and immersive.. I can't really go any bigger as the room doesn't allow for it .. nor do I want that wide of a viewing angle. So I am getting what the director intended. It's a scope screen 12' wide and I can sit at 12' or 17'. So I'm not seeing the part where I'm missing anything. I have the immersive scope screen and my room won't really allow it to go bigger, I just opt for the format that also gives me the largest 16:9 as that's also important to me.. I like IMAX!


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> If you're room can only handle a 10' wide screen and you install a 10' screen how does that limit scope? No matter the height the width can only be 10'. You could project on a blank wall with no screen. Of course surface area is smaller on scope than 16:9...it's a much shorter aspect so that argument makes no sense..
> 
> 
> Here's an example..
> Take a 2:35 screen 10' wide say that's about as wide as that makes sense in the room, and as much head turning left to right as you want to do. I'd recommend THX angles to be safe. It will give you a 130" diagonal in 2.35:1, in 16:9 you're stuck with a 104" screen.. which IMO is puny. Going with such a narrow height has limited you greatly.
> 
> 
> Now taking that same width of 10'.. if you go with a 10' wide 16;9 screen you get the same 130" 2.35:1 image and a still huge 137.6" 16:9 image.
> 
> So basically we can both have a 130" 2.35:1 image but you can watch you're 104" 16:9 image and I'll watch my 137" 16:9 image.
> 
> Neither of us can have more than a 10' image.. in scope we have the same experience. I'm not sure how you plan on having a larger (wider image ) than the room allows.
> 
> Again these two rooms have screens that are limited by the width of the room and viewing angles .. you can't go wider. No matter the format of the screen 2.35:1 would be the exact same size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult and claims keep getting made how a 16:9 makes scope smaller than it should be. This just gives all formats the WOW factor.



So did you just not read the part where I mention *moving your seating position to make the 16:9 image the same perceived size* or not comprehend it? 

The concept is simple. A 16:9 screen limits the size of scope. That's math and geometry. A scope screen, conversely, does not have to limit 16:9.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> I get your argument. But yes I do think 16:9 deserves 165".. absolutely...I've had 120" then 135" now 165" and Yes yes yes. When I play XBOX or watch Walking Dead I want it that size.. it's very comfortable... it's almost IMAX like.. so absolutely and extremely immersive. Do I wish scope was as tall.. naa, not really, as it would be too wide and too much head turning.. but that would be much wider than my room will allow so it's not an option. But I'm sure my scope screen is just as immersive as most on this section of the forum.... maybe even wider viewing angle than the average here. In the same room none of you could go any bigger, some may not even want a 12' wide scope at 12' or 17'.
> 
> I'm just saying scope is huge and immersive.. I can't really go any bigger as the room doesn't allow for it .. nor do I want that wide of a viewing angle. So I am getting what the director intended. It's a scope screen 12' wide and I can sit at 12' or 17'. So I'm not seeing the part where I'm missing anything. I have the immersive scope screen and my room won't really allow it to go bigger, I just opt for the format that also gives me the largest 16:9 as that's also important to me.. I like IMAX!


Which is fair enough. If you want to prioritize The Walking Dead or XBOX, then CIH is not for you. No one is forcing you to do it. CIH is for people who prioritize movies, and for whom the prospect of watching a TV show or playing a game at 165" would be uncomfortable or fatiguing.

There's no reason for this discussion to devolve into an argument. The reason it so often does is that, quite frankly, we're sick of people who don't understand CIH and have no interest in it coming into the CIH forum to tell us that we're stupid for doing it. This isn't just you; it's a widespread problem, and it's extremely frustrating to go through this again and again and again.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> Which is fair enough. If you want to prioritize The Walking Dead or XBOX, then CIH is not for you. No one is forcing you to do it. CIH is for people who prioritize movies, and for whom the prospect of watching a TV show or playing a game at 165" would be uncomfortable or fatiguing.
> 
> .


That's it right there.. I don't prioritize one over the other. Scope is as big as it can be in the room as well. If it was a scope format screen it would still give me the same size image. I want both to be as big as possible. My limiting factor is the width allowed by the room. My scope screen from 12' is probably a much larger image than most on this forum section.  I personally like to give priority to both equally and let both be as large as the room, viewing angle allows.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I know jeahrens likes the math and hates talk of FOV. But the discussion always boils down to find the 16:9 screen size that suits you best and record that height and use that height to calculate the scope screen width. You then have both the biggest 16:9 screen you could ever want and the most immersive scope screen possible. That is all based on the assumption our field of vision is 2.35:1. That’s why scope fill your needs to the max in both directions.
> 
> Mr. Imax tells us no your max FOV is what we say it is and we used to tell you it was 1.44:1 one but we changed our mind and now we think it is 16:9 because Hollywood and TV’s like that size better. And oh ya 1.44:1 was better for nature and stuff but people tend to fit better in 16:9.
> 
> The truth or my truth is FOV depends on how far you want to dig into your vision that isn’t so good off to the sides and how much you like to move your eyes and or even head if you are that into immersion. You get different FOV ratios for all of the above. Imax must be on to something as they are gaining ground and as the vid I posted above even one of the big money directors says some movies look better with that kind of immersion.
> 
> If your projector is 16:9 and your field of vision is 2.35:1 then you must pick 2.35:1.


I don't hate talking about FOV, I hate rehashing discussions that have been driven into the ground. That one has. Anyone interested in the FOV discussions and our opinions on it can look it up. There's no point in bringing it back up.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> So did you just not read the part where I mention *moving your seating position to make the 16:9 image the same perceived size* or not comprehend it?
> 
> The concept is simple. A 16:9 screen limits the size of scope. That's math and geometry. A scope screen, conversely, does not have to limit 16:9.


Yea, but why do that? I have rows at 12' and 17' the screen is 12' wide. Yes a 16:9 screen that's small for the room and seating distance will limit scope. But.. if you use viewing angles from x seating distance you've set the max you want to move your neck side to side.. at 12 feet at the first row i'm well beyond the recommended at 17' I'm just over THX recommended 35-40 degree angle for scope .https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=thx recommended viewing angle









So I'm in no way limited. My seating is based on viewing angles and having gone through several sizes and viewing angles of screen to determine I like a screen both 16:9 and scope thats on the more immersive side. And that's what I have. If one of you were to install a screen in the same room you couldn't make the scope screen any wider.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> That's it right there.. I don't prioritize one over the other.


Well, actually you do, because The Walking Dead is 30% larger than World War Z. Consequently, _any_ TV content you watch is 30% larger than any scope movie.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> Well, actually you do, because The Walking Dead is 30% larger than World War Z. Consequently, _any_ TV content you watch is 30% larger than any scope movie.


That's not priority, that's the max viewing angles the room can fit. Both formats are limited by the room width. That's the difference in 16:9 and scope. Scope can only be so big in my room. I've given both formats the same width.. the limited height of one doesn't mean I prioritize the other. To me it makes no sense to make 16:9 purposely smaller with a much less viewing angle. It doesn't change the size of scope if I did that anyways.. scope is limited by the room width.

Trust me when I want a scope image that makes me turn my head side to side .... I have a front row. When I want a scope size that's just over THX recommended angles.. I sit in the back row.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> This is such a tired and false argument. People have been saying this for 35 years, ever since the home video boom of the early 1980s. "Movies should fit my TV! I don't want them ugly black bars! Directors are gonna have to start shooting their movies in TV shape because that's where the future is!!"
> 
> And yet, what actually happened over the last 35 years? There has been no movement at all in the filmmaking community to abandon the scope format. 50 years ago, half the movies were made in scope format and half in narrower ratios. Today, half the movies are made in scope format and half in narrower ratios.
> 
> If anything, the advent of the summer blockbuster genre that started with movies like Jaws and Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark has pushed Hollywood to heavily favor the scope format for "event" movies. These days, we're getting to the point where event movies will be all that Hollywood makes anymore. The studios are pouring more and more resources into making $150 million tentpole movies while cutting way back on smaller scale movies. Studio executives don't want to make a modest profit on a small movie. They expect every movie to be a huge monster blockbuster.
> 
> And those huge monster blockbusters are mostly scope ratio.


You actually kind of support my assumption when you said a greater and greater the new movies made are the studios shooting for the big score with the summer blockbusters. Going for the big payday and in scope. There is a void and the void is being filled for the other entertainment less grand stuff and being made for the non movie going people and the direct to you the consumer over cable or internet or satellite. HBO etc are no longer just showing Hollywood movies they are making their own quality entertainment and marketing it thru those channels and also DVD &BD. Every night someone sits at home and watches Game of Thrones on their projector is one night the movie theater is not having a paying costumer walk thru their doors. If you don’t think the consumption of media is changing ask anyone over 50 when they last went to see a movie. These are people that went once a week when younger. 

The vast majority of this media is movie like and much is Imax like in enjoying it in dual immersion, and most of it is made to fit the growing number of very large flat panel 16:9 TV’s that are selling like hotcakes. 

So if you look at the film releases from film studios you are correct and I know you have compiled all that data and it makes a compelling case for things not changing, but factor in the entertainment people are getting and watching from other directions and don’t count movies and AR, but count hours of viewing whatever it is and you might paint a different picture. 

This alternate entertainment is in direct competition with movie theaters even in terms of the actors and directors they get, and it isn’t Housewives of Beverly Hills. It is quality cinema like stuff.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> That's it right there.. I don't prioritize one over the other. Scope is as big as it can be in the room as well. If it was a scope format screen it would still give me the same size image. I want both to be as big as possible. My limiting factor is the width allowed by the room. My scope screen from 12' is probably a much larger image than most on this forum section. I personally like to give priority to both equally and let both be as large as the room, viewing angle allows.


Well you're certainly making scope quite a bit smaller, so I would say your priorities are for gaming and TV. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with picking the screen for how you use it. 

I would guess my 120" wide scope screen gets close at 9-10' to your 143" wide one at 12'. And I give each AR a fair shake. My scope screen is essentially the same height as the 16:9 it replaced. You could move your seats up a few feet, go with a 150" scope screen, and have very nice CIH setup. 16:9 would be the exact same size as you see it today, but scope would be about 75% bigger. But, again like JoshZ said above and I said in the first paragraph. *There is nothing wrong with picking your screen based on what you want to do with it.* In your case, I don't see a big reason for you to be interested in CIH.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Yea, but why do that? I have rows at 12' and 17' the screen is 12' wide. Yes a 16:9 screen that's small for the room and seating distance will limit scope. But.. if you use viewing angles from x seating distance you've set the max you want to move your neck side to side.. at 12 feet at the first row i'm well beyond the recommended at 17' I'm just over THX recommended 35-40 degree angle for scope .https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=thx recommended viewing angle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm in no way limited. My seating is based on viewing angles and having gone through several sizes and viewing angles of screen to determine I like a screen both 16:9 and scope thats on the more immersive side. And that's what I have. If one of you were to install a screen in the same room you couldn't make the scope screen any wider.


Why would you want to do that? Well to allow scope films to have the intended impact and immersion (about 75% bigger). A 16:9 image at my seating distance is exactly as immersive as it was when I had a 16:9 screen. And it's as large as I would want it. I don't move my head at all for any content. I have yet to be in any home theater (regardless of screen AR) where your eye movement isn't sufficient to scan the screen. I would find requiring head/neck movement uncomfortable, like sitting far to close in an actual theater.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> Well you're certainly making scope quite a bit smaller, so I would say your priorities are for gaming and TV. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with picking the screen for how you use it.
> 
> .



The scope is as big as I can go. At 12' it's almost too much head turning. Most adults prefer the back row as it's more comfortable and more along the lines where most visitors sit at an actual theater.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> *There is nothing wrong with picking your screen based on what you want to do with it.* In your case, I don't see a big reason for you to be interested in CIH.


I agree and that was my point. A scope screen wouldn't give me a bigger scope image.. just a much smaller 16:9 image. When one like viewing angles that are as wide for both formats it works nicely .


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> Why would you want to do that? Well to allow scope films to have the intended impact and immersion (about 75% bigger). A 16:9 image at my seating distance is exactly as immersive as it was when I had a 16:9 screen. And it's as large as I would want it. I don't move my head at all for any content. I have yet to be in any home theater (regardless of screen AR) where your eye movement isn't sufficient to scan the screen. I would find requiring head/neck movement uncomfortable, like sitting far to close in an actual theater.


Yes but I do move my head in scope on the front row. from what you describe in yours I'm sure my 16:9 is much larger than yours with much greater viewing angles.. I like IMAX! 

As for my scope it sounds like my scope image is also a larger image than yours when I'm in my front row with a more immersive image. In the back we may be similar or I may be a tad smaller or even larger. Im not sure your screen width and distance to the seats.

My whole point is for those who like IMAX and don't want to lose screen width between formats they can have a scope just as big or bigger than yours and have a IMAX like 16:9 as well with the same viewing angles in both.

It's all preference.. some like IMAX... some don't. But It's possible to have just as large scopes as you guys (or larger) and have the large 16:9.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> No I don't think you do understand. The Scope image is exactly the same size on either screen. Geez... there's absolutely no difference in the size you can make the 1.35:1. None... it can be made the identical size.. same experience... no difference no matter the screen format.


What you're not understanding is that it's *not* the same experience, everything we perceive is greatly impacted by what's around it, and what's shown before/after it. I posted a link but apparently nobody looked. The green lines below are exactly the same size, yet one is perceived as significantly longer than the other:








http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm



> The only difference is the 16:9 allows the 16:9 to also be just as immersive... it doesn't make the 2.35:1 smaller than it would be on it's native screen... that's just goofy. Of course given the same width one is taller.. but seriously that can't be you're reason to make one format tiny so the other can feel huge.


But that's exactly what letterboxing does. It makes scope feel tiny, because it necessarily is 25% smaller than 16:9 when shown on a 16:9 screen. This is exactly the opposite of the intent of scope, which was supposed to be huge an immerssive.

Scope on a 16:9 screen is by definition not as immersive as 16:9 because it is made much smaller with bars. 



> Now If you're saying you purposely want the small 16:9 image so the 2.35:1 can feel "superior" well that makes no sense to me at all and is like.. na I want to eat food with no flavor so when I do have seasoning I'm WOWed more.
> 
> But you guys already said you do watch 16:9.. some even more than scope... so you purposely go small to make scope feel "special" well enjoy that .. I'll enjoy it all being "special"..


As we've said over and over again, 16:9 is *not small* in a CIH setup. Yes it is fewer inches in size, but the seating is configured accordingly for the CIH design that the perceived size of 16:9 is the same as it would have been in a 16:9 setup.



bud16415 said:


> I don’t know how many are doing it or will do it. I don’t know how many directors are shooting crappy movies in scope hoping to get released in the larger seating multi-plex theaters. Why not shoot in scope as simply as James Cameron pushed a button and got a scope movie out of an Imax movie they can now push a button and make the scope movie Mom’s night out into a ready for TV 16:9 movie. Most of the time they will pander to TV viewers and push the button before making the BD copy for Walmart.


You can't just push a button, you have to film the whole movie with scope framing in mind. If you don't do that you end up with badly cropped scenes, "chopped foreheads".



> It was not so easy to do with film stock and it is not so easy to do with a true scope movie where you are cutting out real content.


Sure you can, lots of movies were shot on Super 35.



> So the real question is Avatar a 16:9 BD or is it an Imax BD.


For the record, if I had a CIH+IMAX setup, I would watch it "IMAX mode".



bud16415 said:


> That is all based on the assumption our field of vision is 2.35:1.


It has nothing to do with FOV, FOV arguments are a Red Herring. The recommendation is simply the easiest way to get people to understand that you need a different design philosophy for CIH. Far too many people new to CIH think like cdy2179, that you can only go CIH if you have a room of unlimited width. Most people have a 16:9 setup, the easiest way to explain both the design, and impact of a CIH system, is with the "16:9 but wider" analogy. It's also based on the design intent of CinemaScope in the 50's (same height as existing theaters but twice as wide) and many, many years of experience of numerous CIH theater owners and what they're comfortable with.



cdy2179 said:


> I get your argument. But yes I do think 16:9 deserves 165".. absolutely...I've had 120" then 135" now 165" and Yes yes yes. When I play XBOX or watch Walking Dead I want it that size.. it's very comfortable... it's almost IMAX like.. so absolutely and extremely immersive.


The CIH argument is this: Take your current seating distance, divide it by your current screen height, and that's your Viewing Ratio. Now, get a scope screen, take the height of that screen, multiply it by your Viewing Ratio, and place your seating there. Now your 16:9 experience is the same as it was before, but scope is 76% bigger, as it was intended.



> Do I wish scope was as tall.. naa, not really, as it would be too wide and too much head turning..


Have you tried it?



> ...but that would be much wider than my room will allow so it's not an option.


That's irrelevant, you're forgetting the seating location is part of the system. 



> But I'm sure my scope screen is just as immersive as most on this section of the forum.... maybe even wider viewing angle than the average here. In the same room none of you could go any bigger, some may not even want a 12' wide scope at 12' or 17'.


That's not the point, the point is that because you watch all 16:9 33% larger screen area than scope, scope is thus diminished in impact, where as it's meant to be the opposite, 33% larger than 16:9.



> I'm just saying scope is huge and immersive.. I can't really go any bigger as the room doesn't allow for it .. nor do I want that wide of a viewing angle. So I am getting what the director intended. It's a scope screen 12' wide and I can sit at 12' or 17'. So I'm not seeing the part where I'm missing anything. I have the immersive scope screen and my room won't really allow it to go bigger, I just opt for the format that also gives me the largest 16:9 as that's also important to me.. I like IMAX!


And like I've said a number of times, first question is do you care to retain the proper theatrical presentation of scope being 33% larger than 16:9. You don't, and that is a 100% valid reason to choose 16:9 over scope. I don't buy any of your other arguments, they're all just rationalizations or misunderstandings IMO.




cdy2179 said:


> Yea, but why do that? I have rows at 12' and 17' the screen is 12' wide. Yes a 16:9 screen that's small for the room and seating distance will limit scope. But.. if you use viewing angles from x seating distance you've set the max you want to move your neck side to side.. at 12 feet at the first row i'm well beyond the recommended at 17' I'm just over THX recommended 35-40 degree angle for scope
> 
> 
> 
> 36 degrees is THX's *minimum* recommended viewing angle. That's the angle for the *back* row, and how many of us watch from there?
> *"THX recommends having a 36 degree viewing angle from the farthest seat in the auditorium."*
> http://www.thx.com/professional/cinema-certification/thx-certified-cinema-screen-placement/
> 
> They don't have a maximum recommended viewing angle. Fox and SMPTE actually recommend being much closer, 45-60 degrees:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THX's _home _recommendations are also based on the relatively low resolution/high SDE of consumer displays, neither of which are issues for high end projectors, especially 4k/4k-shift projectors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm in no way limited. My seating is based on viewing angles and having gone through several sizes and viewing angles of screen to determine I like a screen both 16:9 and scope thats on the more immersive side. And that's what I have. If one of you were to install a screen in the same room you couldn't make the scope screen any wider.
> 
> 
> 
> But we would position the seating differently (closer). If you like being 12' from a 12' wide 16:9 screen, then we'd place your seating 9' from a 12' wide scope screen. Your 16:9 experience would be the same, but your scope experience would be much, much better (76% larger, perceptually).
> 
> Again, you're not interested in retaining scope's theatrical relative size which is 100% fine, no one will argue with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> My whole point is for those who like IMAX and don't want to lose screen width between formats they can have a scope just as big or bigger than yours and have a IMAX like 16:9 as well with the same viewing angles in both.


Have you missed all the discussion of CIH+IMAX? The point is not all 16:9 content is IMAX, it's possible to have a the same 16:9 experience of a 16:9 screen with a scope screen. And for those that really like IMAX content, but also value the relative presentation of scope content (being bigger than TV, romcoms etc), there's a solution for that CIH+IMAX.



> It's all preference.. some like IMAX... some don't.


I like IMAX, but 99.99% of 16:9 content is *not* IMAX, and I don't want that 99.99% of 16:9 content to be that big. 



> But It's possible to have just as large scopes as you guys (or larger) and have the large 16:9.


What you're missing is that it's possible to have the same 16:9 experience you have today, in a CIH setup, it just takes proper seating placement. Seating distances is just as important as how many inches your screen is.


----------



## bud16415

What if I did the experiment with a room with all the width and height I could ever ask for so I picked a seating distance that I felt worked good in my room, and I played with a 16:9 screen size until I felt it was perfect for me in terms of height immersion. After I found that height I then calculated a scope size based off that seating distance and height and when I did I felt the scope screen was too wide to comfortably view from that distance?

That is the exact thing many of us would find to be true. 

What size screen or viewing method would then be best? CIW? CIA? Etc…


----------



## cdy2179

16:9 isn't imax.... Of course not. I just mean if you like that full huge image you'll want a large 16:9.


And yes I could move my seats... But why. I have a huge scope and huge 16:9 as is. Moving seats is not an option I'd think many would want. My scope size is as the director intended if you will. 

I see absolutely no negative impact doing it this way using viewing angles to set the screen width in scope size and using the width to get a 16:9 screen that's the same. If some see having a large 16:9 as a negative... Well that's their opinion. For me I see the smaller 16:9 as a negative. 

It's personal taste. I'm my system was masked and any of you saw it you'd all think wow great size scope. Of course as soon as I went to Xbox or satellite it sounds like yall would all switch to negativity telling me I did it wrong and the 16:9 is too big. However everyone loves it... Including me. Tough crowd.. Haha.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> And yes I could move my seats... But why. I have a huge scope and huge 16:9 as is. Moving seats is not an option I'd think many would want.


It's not "moving" your seats, not back and forth, it's consider seating distance as part of the design of the screen, and the screen size choice. Many seem to want to just pick screen size in isolation, based purely on the size of the room.



> My scope size is as the director intended if you will.


It's not as the director _expected_ if it's smaller than 16:9.



> I see absolutely no negative impact doing it this way using viewing angles to set the screen width in scope size and using the width to get a 16:9 screen that's the same. If some see having a large 16:9 as a negative... Well that's their opinion. For me I see the smaller 16:9 as a negative.
> 
> It's personal taste. I'm my system was masked and any of you saw it you'd all think wow great size scope. Of course as soon as I went to Xbox or satellite it sounds like yall would all switch to negativity telling me I did it wrong and the 16:9 is too big. However everyone loves it... Including me. Tough crowd.. Haha.


Nobody's trying to tell you your setup is wrong, but some of your statements about CIH setups are just incorrect and or incomplete, and I know I've just been using your setup to illustrate a different way to look at things when building a CIH setup.


And yeah, I suspect I'd feel 16:9 is too big for most content in your setup.


----------



## cdy2179

I'm pretty sure the director could care less about 16:9 if my scope screen is displaying 2.35:1 with proper viewing angles to give the presentation he intended. Why would he care about something not even being displayed while watching his movie? There's some odd assumptions around here. 

And yes my seating is laid out perfectly for my screen. Home theater design, acoustics is my my thing. Nothing was overlooked including room modes, rt60, noise floor etc. The seats are right where they need to be.


----------



## steve1106

You know as a fan TV/Sports/Movies in 16:9 and getting the largest possible image in all aspect ratios a scope screen would still look mighty nice in cdy2179's room. I can see the perception argument better with a little primitive editing.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> The scope is as big as I can go. At 12' it's almost too much head turning. Most adults prefer the back row as it's more comfortable and more along the lines where most visitors sit at an actual theater.


You'll really have to explain this to me. At 12' wide, you say you turn your head too much when watching scope movies. Yet you also watch 16:9 movies and TV shows at that same 12' width. How are you not turning your head too much both side-to-side and up-and-down when watching those? It seems to me, when playing XBox at that screen size you'll be frantically shaking your head all over the place.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> You actually kind of support my assumption when you said a greater and greater the new movies made are the studios shooting for the big score with the summer blockbusters. Going for the big payday and in scope. There is a void and the void is being filled for the other entertainment less grand stuff and being made for the non movie going people and the direct to you the consumer over cable or internet or satellite. HBO etc are no longer just showing Hollywood movies they are making their own quality entertainment and marketing it thru those channels and also DVD &BD. Every night someone sits at home and watches Game of Thrones on their projector is one night the movie theater is not having a paying costumer walk thru their doors. If you don’t think the consumption of media is changing ask anyone over 50 when they last went to see a movie. These are people that went once a week when younger.


What you're telling us with this is that you care more about TV shows than movies. Fine. Enjoy that. Nothing wrong with it. If TV shows are most important to you, a CIH screen would probably suck for you. (And no, Bud, your *non-constant*, variable height screen is in no way Constant Image Height no matter how many times you keep insisting that it sort-of is.

However, you say it yourself right there: This is "less grand stuff." If the content you're talking about is less grand, why would you ever project it larger than the feature films that are supposed to be the "more grand stuff"?

What do you want us to tell you here, Bud? Do you think you're going to win the rest of us over to your way of thinking? I'm sorry, but that's never going to happen. We have fundamental differences in the way we believe that movies and TV shows should be consumed. If your way works for you, then we're all happy for you. But continuing to proselytize it in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum is growing very wearying.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> You'll really have to explain this to me. At 12' wide, you say you turn your head too much when watching scope movies. Yet you also watch 16:9 movies and TV shows at that same 12' width. How are you not turning your head too much both side-to-side and up-and-down when watching those? It seems to me, when playing XBox at that screen size you'll be frantically shaking your head all over the place.


Because I sit in the back row. The kids like the front row. I was just getting that I have options. Both rows are on the larger side of recommended viewing angles but the back row is very comfortable.

I do still enjoy the front row but it's on the verge of being too much any wider and I wouldn't like it. It's like sitting 1/4 back in a movie theater vs sitting about 2/3 back.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> Because I sit in the back row. The kids like the front row. I was just getting that I have options. Both rows are on the larger side of recommended viewing angles but the back row is very comfortable.
> 
> I do still enjoy the front row but it's on the verge of being too much any wider and I wouldn't like it. It's like sitting 1/4 back in a movie theater vs sitting about 2/3 back.


It seems to me that you've just admitted that your 16:9 image size is too big, that you actually have to move back a row to watch it comfortably. 

Or, conversely (if the back row is your preferred distance), your 2.35:1 image is too small, that you have to move forward a row to make it feel as immersive as 16:9 does from the back row.

Effectively, you're already doing a perceptual form of Constant Image Height by moving forward so that 2.35:1 fills the same vertical field of view from the front row as 16:9 does from the back row.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just install a real CIH screen so that both 16:9 and 2.35:1 are the right size and immersiveness in relation to one another from the same primary seating position?


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> It seems to me that you've just admitted that your 16:9 image size is too big, that you actually have to move back a row to watch it comfortably.
> 
> Or, conversely (if the back row is your preferred distance), your 2.35:1 image is too small, that you have to move forward a row to make it feel as immersive as 16:9 does from the back row.
> 
> Effectively, you're already doing a perceptual form of Constant Image Height by moving forward so that 2.35:1 fills the same vertical field of view from the front row as 16:9 does from the back row.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier to just install a real CIH screen so that both 16:9 and 2.35:1 are the right size and immersiveness in relation to one another from the same primary seating position?


What he is doing is not at all compensating for CIW by changing rows and making his system a CIH. What he is doing is using his seating to more of a CIA, and that would be if he did it consistently. He says he does not do it consistently though and sometimes he enjoys the front row and its Imax like immersion. He also says his children prefer the front row something I have also found to be true with children and immersion. So what I’m hearing when he changes seating as a desire from time to time based on the content is he is in effect using his seating to create a form of PIA presentation. It is the exact same thing any of us can do or do when going to a commercial theater and pick our seat. 

In regards to the post above. You don’t know what I care about watching and I happen to have a video collection of movies that is approaching 4,000 movies so I wouldn’t say I’m obsessed with TV content. That is not to say there are not many wonderful things very worthy of proper presentation that never found their way to the big screen. If you want to think days of cinema are not evolving and changing from 1950 to today you are free to think that, and if you want to think there is not any alternative uses for a projection system other than movies, and that the content of the work presented isn’t every bit as high as what’s coming out of the movie industry you are free to believe that as well.

It is true it is only my opinion and I have absolutely zero desire to change your mind about anything. I might have a spec of a chance changing cdy2179 mind of when his immersion level seems a tad strong for him in the front row and a tad not enough in the back row for a certain piece of media he is watching he could in effect move a half a row back with the touch of the zoom button. He wouldn’t have to change seats or move seats around in his theater, just touch a button and all of a sudden he would have the perfect image area for him for the hour or two he would be watching that media. The movie he watched the next day in scope would be in no way diminished in grandeur by watching something 16:9 taller the day before. It would be like going to a movie theater two days in a row and sitting in a different seat each day. 

Many of us have just one row of seats at home. Commercial movie houses are designed to provide a wonderful experience to 1000 or more people at once. The larger the screen in total the more people can fit into the accepted sweet spot of a theater. The reason being people don’t change size when the screen gets bigger. At home our screen are much smaller so a row change in seating becomes much greater. Everyone says find the right size for your seating distance and then go from there with figuring out your CIH setup. I agree with that 100%. The only difference is you do it once and are locked in forever to that one seating distance and screen size. I select my seat each and every time I watch something new. Do I change it every time? No I often don’t change it for weeks at a time and I may put it right back after watching one thing I desire to watch with more or less immersion. Stanger89 said the other day that if he had a CIH + Imax setup he would watch Avatar as Imax with the masking down. That comment to me said that the content of the media along with a person’s desires should be what dictates presentation size/ immersion level on any given day.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> It seems to me that you've just admitted that your 16:9 image size is too big, that you actually have to move back a row to watch it comfortably.
> 
> LOL... man it's like an interrogation around here. Some like the front row in a movie theater.. some like the back. I like the front row.. I said any bigger even in scope and I think it would be too wide. I sit in the back because that where my Atmos and all other speakers are calibrated too. Both rows sound awesome but with Atmos you have to pick a row.. unless you want to drop $30k on Trinov.
> 
> I spend quite a while between rows when deciding which to make the money seat row. Ulitimately my wife said she like the back a little better so there we have it. I've had smaller screen (smaller viewing angles) This is by far my favorite and I don't wish it smaller or larger.
> 
> Or, conversely (if the back row is your preferred distance), your 2.35:1 image is too small, that you have to move forward a row to make it feel as immersive as 16:9 does from the back row.
> 
> When I'm watching scope I could care less about 16:9.. I'm watching scope. The scope image (like I've said over and over) is on the larger size of "what the director intended". Try and forget 16:9 for just a minute here.. I know it being the same viewing angles makes some of you break out in hives.. but just try.. Now .. with scope in mind .. From the front row it's 53 degrees viewing angle which would be closer to the front in a professional cinema and well over what THX recommends for the home, The back is 38.9 degrees which is around 2/3 of the way back which is where I sit when I go to the movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no reason to move seats or anything. I'm already there with two option to choose from both well within the intended viewing angles... like I've said I probably have a more immersive scope than some of you guys and visa versa. So the argument that 16:9 is limiting my scope is hogwash. If you layout from viewing angles and install a 16:9 screen neither format limits the other at all.
> 
> Effectively, you're already doing a perceptual form of Constant Image Height by moving forward so that 2.35:1 fills the same vertical field of view from the front row as 16:9 does from the back row.
> 
> I don't move forward for scope. My back row is about 2/3 of the way back in a movie theater viewing angle wise. Both rows give theater like angles and would be "as the director intended" viewing experiences.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier to just install a real CIH screen so that both 16:9 and 2.35:1 are the right size and immersiveness in relation to one another from the same primary seating position?
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't. I've had several screens and sizes and viewing angles. I would absolutely hate a smaller viewing angle on either format. To go with a CIH I would go from my 165" 16:9 to a 125" one. That IMO would be a waste. The front row would be about like my back row is now viewing angle wise and the back row would be useless IMO. I'd hate it. And I couldn't go any wider in scope. Sure scope would be the same but 16:9 would be sad and I'd end up upgrading back to the screen I have now.
> 
> It's like someone telling someone who's spend 2 decades finding their favorite flavor of gum and you keep saying that's not the best flavor try this one.. which I've already tried and didn't like.
> 
> I could have gotten a CIH setup. I looked at the Panny 8000, anamorphic lenses etc.. I see the smaller 16:9 as a huge negative. My first projector was a DIY projector I built in 2000 and in 2001 I bought my first brand name projector.. Infocus X1. I've had years of this and designed 2 rooms from the dirt for myself and a few for friends. I base my viewing on viewing angles and comfort.
> 
> .


I get why you do what you do.. I just disagree that one can't or "shouldn't " have both formats at the same viewing angle and have no desire to what in my mind is a downgrade on any format. When I'm watching 16:9 I could care less about scope, when I'm watching scope I could care less about 16:9. It doesn't hurt my feelings that xbox or walking dead is an IMAX like experience, while scope is as immersive as the theater


----------



## bud16415

cdy2179 said:


> LOL... man it's like an interrogation around here.



Yep it’s the old heat in the kitchen idea here. 

I agree with you 100% about your horizontal viewing angles being able to encompass both AR’s at the same width. It defies logic to think is a 12’ wide screen is perfect width for scope why wouldn’t you be able to see the same width comfortably with a 16:9 image. What proves that out is that is what Imax is and it is excepted as an ok method of presentation by everyone. The staunch CIH supports will point out Imax is slightly different though and they will tell you with Imax there is a decision made by the director to use the height of the image slightly different knowing the viewer wants an immersive FOV but they don’t cram a lot of active detail into the extremes of the FOV. I do agree with that also for the most part. 

For instance, a director of a scope movie if faced with a close up of two people talking has a couple of choices. He can put them close together in the center and then add interesting stuff to the edges not to be critically viewed but to just frame the faces in the center. He can also put them apart to show they are not as intimate and have us do the tennis match thing with our eyes. It gives us a whole different set of feelings about the drama. And of course when the scene changes to outside he can show a vast expanse etc. 

Imax has always lent itself so well to vast expanses in both direction and not so well with two giant heads talking face to face filling the screen. It’s like trying to view mount Rushmore from too close. So content plays a role for me. Imax and TV might share an AR but TV is directed with the intent of not Imax like immersion. Where my ideas diverge from others here and agree with you for the most part is anyone can direct a 16:9 image to be Imax like. PBS does it all the time. You mentioned games many of them are like that and can be viewed Imax like with no issues and should be. Planet Earth is a TV series and it should be viewed Imax like if at all possible. Angry Birds is a game and I don’t think many people have a desire to play it much larger than an iPhone screen. Realistic Action games yes. If I had your theater I would watch Planet Earth from the front row and love it. if I tried to watch a soap opera from the front row with all the close ups of the pretty faces I would want to get TV distance away. Super Bowl heck ya I would try the front row and sure some of the commercials might be a little in my face to large but the game would be wonderful. 

For me content plays a big role. 

I agree when my mind blends into the movie I’m watching I give little thought to the AR or the size of the presentation as long as it is in the comfort zone for viewing. I have never agreed with the idea that something I saw a day ago or a week ago had any bearing on what I was watching currently. I have even gone as far as with some movies in scope I feel the presentation being smaller than I would normally watch a scope where I wanted immersion adds to the enjoyment. I think movies that the director uses the whole scope frame to his advantage and fills it with detail is like going to a 3 ring circus and sitting ring side at the center ring and trying to watch it all. Our critical central viewing can only take in so much. Sometimes backing away helps and sometimes diving in is great.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> I get why you do what you do.. I just disagree that one can't or "shouldn't " have both formats at the same viewing angle and have no desire to what in my mind is a downgrade on any format. When I'm watching 16:9 I could care less about scope, when I'm watching scope I could care less about 16:9. It doesn't hurt my feelings that xbox or walking dead is an IMAX like experience, while scope is as immersive as the theater


As long as you understand the concept, I certainly don't have a problem with you enjoying your theater the way you like it. The intention of threads like these are to educate on why you may consider a CIH setup. Ultimately it's the theater owners choice and I'm all for that.


----------



## stanger89

cdy2179 said:


> I get why you do what you do.. I just disagree that one can't or "shouldn't " have both formats at the same viewing angle and have no desire to what in my mind is a downgrade on any format. When I'm watching 16:9 I could care less about scope, when I'm watching scope I could care less about 16:9. It doesn't hurt my feelings that xbox or walking dead is an IMAX like experience, while scope is as immersive as the theater


First and foremost, you have answered the important (IMO) question, you don't care how scope is presented relative to 16:9, and that is 100% OK, nobody here is arguing with that decision.



That said, I/we do take issue with some of your arguments:


> From the front row it's 53 degrees viewing angle which would be closer to the front in a professional cinema and well over what what THX recommends for the home...


THX's home recommendations are for televisions and account for low quality home sources, and are based on assumptions about the visibility of pixels and noise from those, as such they don't apply to projection home theater systems.



> I don't move forward for scope. My back row is about 2/3 of the way back in a movie theater viewing angle wise. Both rows give theater like angles and would be "as the director intended" viewing experiences.


Take a step back for a minute, don't think about your theater and pretend you're making a movie that will be shown in quality commercial cinemas worldwide. The standard setup for quality commercial cinemas for the last three quarters of a century has been CIH. Now you have to choose between 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 for your new film. One thing you will have to consider is that in commercial theaters worldwide, 2.39:1 will be the largest format available, so if you want the largest image possible, you'll need to shoot scope.

Conversely, any director/producer who chooses to shoot 1.85:1 (non-IMAX) will know that their film will be shown substantially smaller than scope in most quality commercial theaters in the world.

Your theater is the opposite of that.



> So the argument that 16:9 is limiting my scope is hogwash. If you layout from viewing angles and install a 16:9 screen neither format limits the other at all.


It is not hogwash. You don't care about the relative presentation of 16:9 vs scope (which is fine), but there are a lot of us that do, and for those that do care about the relative presentation. For those who don't want the main scope feature to be 25% smaller than the trailers that came before it, or the 16:9 pre-movie activity, then a 16:9 screen is absolutely diminishing the scope presentation. 

When I host a movie night for Star Wars (for example), we usually watch something before hand over food, and then have some gaming. Then we fire up the feature sequence and some trailers play, and finally when Star Wars actually starts, the picture expands 33% to the sides, revealing the full majesty of the movie, just the way it was in the theater.

It would be the opposite in a 16:9 screen, we'd go from watching some 16:9 TV full size, some other activities, trailers, and then finally when the main feature, the most important part of the night came on, Star Wars would now be the smallest, and thus least impressive thing of the night. *THIS* is why those of us with CIH systems have them. And also what we continue to try and explain/educate people about. If you don't care, that's absolutely fine. But a lot of people come to CIH asking similar question "but I could have the same size scope image on a 16:9 screen" without having ever though about things like seating placement, or relative presentation.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> As long as you understand the concept, I certainly don't have a problem with you enjoying your theater the way you like it. The intention of threads like these are to educate on why you may consider a CIH setup. Ultimately it's the theater owners choice and I'm all for that.


Well yea the concept is easy.. but it's not the only way. My only issue was the constant argument that 16:9 limits scope. Well yes if you do it the way you guys do it. But when you use viewing angles and set both to your desired viewing angle no format effects the other in any way. But yes.. this means 16:9 will be IMAX like in size.. which some really like while still staying in the desired viewing angle.


----------



## damelon

All of you are just repeating yourselves at this point. Just agree to disagree, neither of you is going to win each other over.


----------



## cdy2179

stanger89 said:


> First and foremost, you have answered the important (IMO) question, you don't care how scope is presented relative to 16:9, and that is 100% OK, nobody here is arguing with that decision.
> 
> 
> Bingo.. I care about what's on the screen at the time I watch it.
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I/we do take issue with some of your arguments:
> 
> 
> THX's home recommendations are for televisions and account for low quality home sources, and are based on assumptions about the visibility of pixels and noise from those, as such they don't apply to projection home theater systems.
> 
> That's why I put a large pic of the cinema standard viewing angles.. I have a row at 53 degrees and 39 degrees so if you have any questions you can refer back to the viewing angle chart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a step back for a minute, don't think about your theater and pretend you're making a movie that will be shown in quality commercial cinemas worldwide. The standard setup for quality commercial cinemas for the last three quarters of a century has been CIH. Now you have to choose between 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 for your new film. One thing you will have to consider is that in commercial theaters worldwide, 2.39:1 will be the largest format available, so if you want the largest image possible, you'll need to shoot scope.
> 
> And again refer to the chart... I'm probably more immersive than some on this page at 53 degrees and even 39 is quite immersive.. refer to the chart. I'm sure any director would be very happy with my viewing angles and how they represent their work!
> 
> Conversely, any director/producer who chooses to shoot 1.85:1 (non-IMAX) will know that their film will be shown substantially smaller than scope in most quality commercial theaters in the world.
> 
> Your theater is the opposite of that.
> 
> My theater has viewing angles that equate to the angles I prefer when I go the movies with an options for a 1/4 seating distance and around 2/3.. again see the chart. Heck it may be more immersive than yours.. what's your viewing angle? Is your theater also opposite of that?.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not hogwash.
> 
> That was in reference to your claim 16:9 limits scope. When viewing angle determines width of all formats this is hogwash.. the claim is false. Please don't take words out of context, or maybe read more thoroughly.
> 
> You don't care about the relative presentation of 16:9 vs scope (which is fine), but there are a lot of us that do, and for those that do care about the relative presentation. For those who don't want the main scope feature to be 25% smaller than the trailers that came before it, or the 16:9 pre-movie activity, then a 16:9 screen is absolutely diminishing the scope presentation.
> 
> 
> That's how you feel and that's fine... I want all images to be immersive from both rows and share the same viewing angles.
> 
> When I host a movie night for Star Wars (for example), we usually watch something before hand over food, and then have some gaming. Then we fire up the feature sequence and some trailers play, and finally when Star Wars actually starts, the picture expands 33% to the sides, revealing the full majesty of the movie, just the way it was in the theater.
> 
> Mine will have the same Majestic picture. But when I switch to gaming it's equally as impressive. Again I don't want any format to suffer to make another seem superior. I like them both immersive and could care less about a format I'm not using at that particular time. Of course this is personal opinion.
> 
> It would be the opposite in a 16:9 screen, we'd go from watching some 16:9 TV full size, some other activities, trailers, and then finally when the main feature, the most important part of the night came on, Star Wars would now be the smallest, and thus least impressive thing of the night. *THIS* is why those of us with CIH systems have them. And also what we continue to try and explain/educate people about.
> 
> I really don't think pounding your personal taste to not like immersive 16:9 just because it's taller than scope is education. The proper way would be to say there's two ways to do it. Make both the same viewing angle (width) which will be a very large 16:9 (imax like) while remaining in the comfortable viewing angle you've set , or placing the 16:9 inside the scope screen dimensions giving you a much smaller 16:9 . both will result in the same size scope as both methods use viewing angle to determine width. This is totally an opinionated choice. And should be explained .. sure.. but education..really??
> 
> If you don't care, that's absolutely fine. But a lot of people come to CIH asking similar question "but I could have the same size scope image on a 16:9 screen" without having ever though about things like seating placement, or relative presentation..
> 
> When you use viewing angles ( which is based on distant to screen) All formats are immersive and at a comfortable viewing angle. The size of the screen should be based on viewing angles and personal taste.. again see the chart way up there^^ I see little education going on and a lot of defending of choice. I mean the constant claim the 16:9 makes scope small is a flat lie.. sure it's smaller in comparison (duh.. it's taller) but the scope size doesn't change at all between a scope screen or a 16:9 (16:9 limits nothing).. using viewing angles to determine width it's identical.


Do you like IMAX? Do you primarily watch Blu-ray or is it a mix of all formats? Do you want immersive gaming and TV series and sports. These questions are what should be asked when someone says.. which format should I choose. If they like immersive TV series, gaming, sports, IMAX..the recommendation is easy. Scope size will not be effected no matter the screen choice as viewing angle would determine width and this gives all formats the same priority. Both will be as large as the viewing angle allows.

I see little education and actually helping people as it seems little attention goes to the OPs actual use. If they want as large a 16:9 as possible (again it doesn't effect scope).. I feel it's wrong to keep hammering your opinions .. it is helping no one.

And yes I agree this horse is dead!


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Well yea the concept is easy.. but it's not the only way. My only issue was the constant argument that 16:9 limits scope. Well yes if you do it the way you guys do it. But when you use viewing angles and set both to your desired viewing angle no format effects the other in any way. But yes.. this means 16:9 will be IMAX like in size.. which some really like while still staying in the desired viewing angle.


Well from a geometry/math standpoint it always will. But as you point out, there are other factors and how you want your setup to function is ultimately what matters. Your theater, your preference. I know several guys in our local thread who prefer a big 16:9 screen. It just fits their usage and they don't have an interest in the hassle of CIH.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> Well from a geometry/math standpoint it always will. But as you point out, there are other factors and how you want your setup to function is ultimately what matters. Your theater, your preference. I know several guys in our local thread who prefer a big 16:9 screen. It just fits their usage and they don't have an interest in the hassle of CIH.


Well with that train of though the front wall limits it. What should limit it is viewing angle. If you do it that way.. the proper way, to claim 16:9 limits it is non sense. The edges of the screen limit it based on your preferred viewing angle... so even with a scope screen.. it's limited by the screen width..the width is the same in either format.. the scope size is unaffected. This is so far of a stretch it's down right laughable. I can't even believe that's your defense of that claim.


----------



## cdy2179

bud16415 said:


> Yep it’s the old heat in the kitchen idea here.
> 
> I agree with you 100% about your horizontal viewing angles being able to encompass both AR’s at the same width. It defies logic to think is a 12’ wide screen is perfect width for scope why wouldn’t you be able to see the same width comfortably with a 16:9 image. What proves that out is that is what Imax is and it is excepted as an ok method of presentation by everyone. The staunch CIH supports will point out Imax is slightly different though and they will tell you with Imax there is a decision made by the director to use the height of the image slightly different knowing the viewer wants an immersive FOV but they don’t cram a lot of active detail into the extremes of the FOV. I do agree with that also for the most part.
> 
> For instance, a director of a scope movie if faced with a close up of two people talking has a couple of choices. He can put them close together in the center and then add interesting stuff to the edges not to be critically viewed but to just frame the faces in the center. He can also put them apart to show they are not as intimate and have us do the tennis match thing with our eyes. It gives us a whole different set of feelings about the drama. And of course when the scene changes to outside he can show a vast expanse etc.
> 
> Imax has always lent itself so well to vast expanses in both direction and not so well with two giant heads talking face to face filling the screen. It’s like trying to view mount Rushmore from too close. So content plays a role for me. Imax and TV might share an AR but TV is directed with the intent of not Imax like immersion. Where my ideas diverge from others here and agree with you for the most part is anyone can direct a 16:9 image to be Imax like. PBS does it all the time. You mentioned games many of them are like that and can be viewed Imax like with no issues and should be. Planet Earth is a TV series and it should be viewed Imax like if at all possible. Angry Birds is a game and I don’t think many people have a desire to play it much larger than an iPhone screen. Realistic Action games yes. If I had your theater I would watch Planet Earth from the front row and love it. if I tried to watch a soap opera from the front row with all the close ups of the pretty faces I would want to get TV distance away. Super Bowl heck ya I would try the front row and sure some of the commercials might be a little in my face to large but the game would be wonderful.
> 
> For me content plays a big role.
> 
> I agree when my mind blends into the movie I’m watching I give little thought to the AR or the size of the presentation as long as it is in the comfort zone for viewing. I have never agreed with the idea that something I saw a day ago or a week ago had any bearing on what I was watching currently. I have even gone as far as with some movies in scope I feel the presentation being smaller than I would normally watch a scope where I wanted immersion adds to the enjoyment. I think movies that the director uses the whole scope frame to his advantage and fills it with detail is like going to a 3 ring circus and sitting ring side at the center ring and trying to watch it all. Our critical central viewing can only take in so much. Sometimes backing away helps and sometimes diving in is great.


Well I'm happy someone is able to see the green grass on the other side too. I agree 100 percent with what you've said. It's simple yet some seem to have trouble grasping those that want it all as immersive as possible and special and aren't hung up on one being taller than the other. I saw this thread in the Active Topics list. I didn't realize I was entering such a communistic environment..lol. Hopefully the OP found some actual help with all options laid out so he could determine what's best for him based on what he likes and not what some think should be kept "special". Ohh then him reading 16:9 limits scope size... some of the "education" here is laughable.


----------



## bud16415

Here it is in a nutshell.

If you go into a commercial theater and they have a scope screen and 50 rows of seats and they play an Imax movie full height, Is it and Imax experience? 

If you sit in the first 5 rows the answer is yes it is an Imax experience. 

If you sit 25 rows back and you sat 25 rows back the week before and in fact you sit 25 rows back every time you have ever been to that theater, then it is a CIH experience. 

If you walk in and size up the theater and know it is an Imax movie and you can see the height of the screen and you wander up and down the aisle and talk it over with the friend you are with and you agree on a seat and then sit down and say are you sure this is right and finally you both say yes and you get your tub of popcorn on your lap and a drink in the cup holder and the lights go down and you watch the movie without giving your seat location another thought then you are having a PIA experience.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Well with that train of though the front wall limits it. What should limit it is viewing angle. If you do it that way.. the proper way, to claim 16:9 limits it is non sense. The edges of the screen limit it based on your preferred viewing angle... so even with a scope screen.. it's limited by the screen width..the width is the same in either format.. the scope size is unaffected. This is so far of a stretch it's down right laughable. I can't even believe that's your defense of that claim.


Sorry? I'm not defending anything. Just the basic math that a wider rectangle must be shrunk to fit into a narrower one. So that simple fact does indeed show that a scope image will be shrunk by necessity to fit into the confines of a 16:9 screen. Scope is certainly impacted. I also said that there are other factors in your setup that make you prefer what you have and that's fine. I don't see any reason to be adversarial.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Well I'm happy someone is able to see the green grass on the other side too. I agree 100 percent with what you've said. It's simple yet some seem to have trouble grasping those that want it all as immersive as possible and special and aren't hung up on one being taller than the other. I saw this thread in the Active Topics list. I didn't realize I was entering such a communistic environment..lol. Hopefully the OP found some actual help with all options laid out so he could determine what's best for him based on what he likes and not what some think should be kept "special". Ohh then him reading 16:9 limits scope size... some of the "education" here is laughable.


Nothing Communistic about it. Most of us simply don't subscribe to your idea of perfection. 16:9 does indeed limit scope presentation. Very simple to grasp. Not everyone cares or wants to deal with CIH which is fine.

And as we've pointed out time and again we do have everything as immersive as we want it.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Here it is in a nutshell.
> 
> If you go into a commercial theater and they have a scope screen and 50 rows of seats and they play an Imax movie full height, Is it and Imax experience?
> 
> If you sit in the first 5 rows the answer is yes it is an Imax experience.
> 
> If you sit 25 rows back and you sat 25 rows back the week before and in fact you sit 25 rows back every time you have ever been to that theater, then it is a CIH experience.
> 
> If you walk in and size up the theater and know it is an Imax movie and you can see the height of the screen and you wander up and down the aisle and talk it over with the friend you are with and you agree on a seat and then sit down and say are you sure this is right and finally you both say yes and you get your tub of popcorn on your lap and a drink in the cup holder and the lights go down and you watch the movie without giving your seat location another thought then you are having a PIA experience.


And this again. Bud go to any given theater and you will find people gravitating towards the center just past the mid point. I have not met a single person that changes their seating preference based on AR (most go in not knowing the AR at all). I know this is your preference, but it's certainly is not the norm.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> Sorry? I'm not defending anything. Just the basic math that a wider rectangle must be shrunk to fit into a narrower one. So that simple fact does indeed show that a scope image will be shrunk by necessity to fit into the confines of a 16:9 screen. Scope is certainly impacted. I also said that there are other factors in your setup that make you prefer what you have and that's fine. I don't see any reason to be adversarial.


Well yea but you don't have a wider rectangle when you use viewing angle to determine width. They have the same width. That's the point. 

The math says two rectangles the same width but different heights don't restrict each others width.. it's impossible. There is no narrower rectangle.

Take a scope as big as you want and add height to take make the 16:9.. That's basically what you're doing. So that scenario makes no sense here. You don't have a smaller rectangle restricting the scope.. you've determined how big you want scope. If you like scope a certain size (viewing angle) it'll be the same size in either method. You keep ignoring that one important part. When using viewing angle they are both as wide as you "want " them to be. There aren't "other" factors.. it's the only factor used to determine size.. viewing angles... that's the math used. if you want more scope then fine.. make a wider viewing angle for the screen.

Therefore.. If simply using viewing angle to calculate size..16:9 in no way limits scope. if you choose to make a 16:9 smaller than your desired scope viewing angle well that's not at all what is being discussed here.

I'm sure there's no way you'd say OK.. my direct statement that 16:9 limits scope isn't true when you use the same width for both formats.. so maybe I shouldn't keep telling people it does and explain it does only if you don't make the width as wide as you want scope to be. I won't hold me breath...


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> And this again. Bud go to any given theater and you will find people gravitating towards the center just past the mid point. I have not met a single person that changes their seating preference based on AR (most go in not knowing the AR at all). I know this is your preference, but it's certainly is not the norm.


I always sit 2/3 or so because the viewing angle is comfortable for me. As long as they always use the entire width of the screen I agree I wouldn't move. If they went with an IMAX film on a scope and didn't extend to the side of the screen I'd move up as I like the viewing angles I like. But that's me. We all have different preferences.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> Well yea but you don't have a wider rectangle when you use viewing angle to determine width. They have the same width. That's the point.
> 
> The math says two rectangles the same width but different heights don't restrict each others width.. it's impossible. There is no narrower rectangle.
> 
> Take a scope as big as you want and add height to take make the 16:9.. That's basically what you're doing. So that scenario makes no sense here. You don't have a smaller rectangle restricting the scope.. you've determined how big you want scope. If you like scope a certain size (viewing angle) it'll be the same size in either method. You keep ignoring that one important part. When using viewing angle they are both as wide as you "want " them to be. There aren't "other" factors.. it's the only factor used to determine size.. viewing angles... that's the math used. if you want more scope then fine.. make a wider viewing angle for the screen.
> 
> Therefore.. If simply using viewing angle to calculate size..16:9 in no way limits scope. if you choose to make a 16:9 smaller than your desired scope viewing angle well that's not at all what is being discussed here.
> 
> I'm sure there's no way you'd say OK.. my direct statement that 16:9 limits scope isn't true when you use the same width for both formats.. so maybe I shouldn't keep telling people it does and explain it does only if you don't make the width as wide as you want scope to be. I won't hold me breath...


They may not restrict each others widths, but viewing area is certainly much smaller with scope on a 16:9 screen. I understand what you're saying, but it simply doesn't translate into reality. Unless my seating distance changes, scope will be much smaller on a 16:9 screen of the same height. Optimal seating distance is calculated by height. I sit in the same general area regardless of AR, as does everyone else I got to the cinema with. I have not been in any cinema (except IMAX) where a 16:9 screen has not resulted in a diminished scope experience. Nor have I been a home theater.

There's nothing wrong with doing what you like, but the wider rectangle will have shrink to fit into the narrower one. I'm not an elitist on the subject by any stretch. I certainly go to friends houses for movie nights where they have chosen a CIW setup. Nothing wrong with choosing what you like.


----------



## cdy2179

jeahrens said:


> . I understand what you're saying, but it simply doesn't translate into reality. Unless my seating distance changes, scope will be much smaller on a 16:9 screen of the same height. .


If you let viewing angle set the size it is your reality. I know several people with setup like mine. If you choose to let height set it.. then yes you limit yourself.


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> Well yea but you don't have a wider rectangle when you use viewing angle to determine width. They have the same width. That's the point.
> 
> The math says two rectangles the same width but different heights don't restrict each others width.. it's impossible. There is no narrower rectangle.


You keep talking about viewing angle only in terms of width. You're neglecting to acknowledge that vertical viewing angle also effects your perception of the content. 

You've said repeatedly that you don't prioritize any type of content in your home theater. And yet, you absolutely do. On your screen, 16:9 content will always be dominant, with the largest and most impressive picture. 

Which is fine, if that's the type of content that's important to you. 

Others of us in this forum do not feel that way, and continuing to berate us with talk about horizontal viewing angles is not going to change our minds.



> Take a scope as big as you want and add height to take make the 16:9.. That's basically what you're doing. So that scenario makes no sense here. You don't have a smaller rectangle restricting the scope.. you've determined how big you want scope. If you like scope a certain size (viewing angle) it'll be the same size in either method. You keep ignoring that one important part. When using viewing angle they are both as wide as you "want " them to be. There aren't "other" factors.. it's the only factor used to determine size.. viewing angles... that's the math used. if you want more scope then fine.. make a wider viewing angle for the screen.
> 
> Therefore.. If simply using viewing angle to calculate size..16:9 in no way limits scope. if you choose to make a 16:9 smaller than your desired scope viewing angle well that's not at all what is being discussed here.
> 
> I'm sure there's no way you'd say OK.. my direct statement that 16:9 limits scope isn't true when you use the same width for both formats.. so maybe I shouldn't keep telling people it does and explain it does only if you don't make the width as wide as you want scope to be. I won't hold me breath...


Are you not at all able to see this from the other perspective? Let me take what you've said and swap some words around:

--
Take a *16:9* image as big as you want and add *width* to make the *2.35:1*... You don't have a smaller rectangle restricting the *16:9*.. you've determined how big you want *16:9*. If you like *16:9* a certain size (viewing angle) it'll be the same size in either method. When using viewing angle they are both as *tall* as you want them to be. 

Therefore.. If simply using viewing angle to calculate size.. *CIH* in no way limits *16:9*. 
--

You see how that works?

Listen, you have a nice home theater. You've obviously put a lot of money and effort into it. If it's giving you what you feel is the best possible presentation, that's terrific.

But you're posting in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum and you've come here to repeatedly tell us that we're all morons for doing 2.35:1 Constant Image Height. Don't act surprised when we take issue with that.

We don't require that you agree with us about CIH. However, if you're going to post here, it would be nice if you could at least respect that, even though we have a different viewpoint than your own, it's also an equally legitimate viewpoint that we have thought through just as thoroughly as you have. We just came to a different conclusion than you did.

Personally, when I look at your photos, I see a really nice viewing environment with an oversized TV in the front of the room, not a movie screen. That isn't what I want in my home theater. You are free to feel differently.


----------



## bud16415

cdy2179 said:


> If you let viewing angle set the size it is your reality. I know several people with setup like mine. If you choose to let height set it.. then yes you limit yourself.


There are two directions to viewing angles. Right and left off of center and then up and down off your level fixed gaze. The right and left angles are the same both static and with eye movement, but the up and down angles vary somewhat and you also have to take into account the angle of recline of your seating. Some theaters also change the angle of recline for the seating closest to the screen. 

The strong believers in CIH feel that an image immersive in width with a scope screen is also borderline immersive up and down and in doing 16:9 at that width you exceed the limit of up and down vision unless you subject your eyes to undo amounts of up and down eye travel. Imax I’m told works only because there is never content outside the scope window that your eye will want to move and see. I’m also told movies like Avatar are carefully shot in 16:9 with the intent of chopping the top and bottom off without changing the movie at all. That way they have a version to show in Imax theaters and eventually on TV sets off of BD and DVD that people won’t complain about black bars. But the true movie is the one chopped down. This is true even though the director of the movie said he fell in love with the un-chopped version. 

I have tested my own vision quite a few times in different ways both static gaze and with average eye movement. Using a testing method that the trigger isn’t just when I can detect something but when I can detect something of the same level of clarity. Your vision extends past 180 degrees side to side if you just test for awareness so that says a screen could have infinite width. But when I test for comparable vision acuity I get roughly the same results NASA got in their testing program and the same results the medical profession believes. 

This data runs contrary to what the motion picture standards people say. But then again they are setting a standard for theaters with 50 to 100 rows of people in overlapping configurations and at home we are 1-6 people viewing.


----------



## cdy2179

I see you're perspective I just don't share it. You guys prioritize scope, I prioritize neither. Yes one is taller, that doesn't mean I prioritize it. You can twist to say I do, but I'll just say I don't. They both are given the same width to work with.. so we can round and round there.

I could have installed a scope, and like you are with a 16:9 , when I see a scope I see a waste of front wall. But that's just my opinion. But again I'm a guy that like IMAX, scope and that over sized TV. If my theater was done by some else with a scope i'd yank it out... again preference. I want to feel "in the movie" in all formats.

I saw this post on the active threads window.. I saw a guy asking what to chose 16:9 or scope, I didn't pay attention to the section. He obviously IMO shouldn't have asked in a section that has already made their decision and doesn't like all formats to share width so they all have the most immersiveness possible. He may or may not want a large 16:9, he may hate IMAX... the vibe around here seems to very very biased vs giving all the options with pros and cons and backing off to let him make a decision based on what he likes and how he'll use his room.


Here's a link to an article by Nyal Mellar (one of the top High end HT designers in the nation) on screen size in relation to seating and viewing angles.http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/

Someone here said vertical angle is used to determine where seats go ... this is untrue, it's always been horizontal viewing angle as also seen in the cinema seating charts. Notice in his showroom he uses a 16:9 with around a 50 degree viewing angle. This setup has been accepted by many.. but this as you said this is not the forum for that.. so off I go! http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/


----------



## cdy2179

bud16415 said:


> There are two directions to viewing angles. Right and left off of center and then up and down off your level fixed gaze. The right and left angles are the same both static and with eye movement, but the up and down angles vary somewhat and you also have to take into account the angle of recline of your seating. Some theaters also change the angle of recline for the seating closest to the screen.
> 
> The strong believers in CIH feel that an image immersive in width with a scope screen is also borderline immersive up and down and in doing 16:9 at that width you exceed the limit of up and down vision unless you subject your eyes to undo amounts of up and down eye travel. Imax I’m told works only because there is never content outside the scope window that your eye will want to move and see. I’m also told movies like Avatar are carefully shot in 16:9 with the intent of chopping the top and bottom off without changing the movie at all. That way they have a version to show in Imax theaters and eventually on TV sets off of BD and DVD that people won’t complain about black bars. But the true movie is the one chopped down. This is true even though the director of the movie said he fell in love with the un-chopped version.
> 
> I have tested my own vision quite a few times in different ways both static gaze and with average eye movement. Using a testing method that the trigger isn’t just when I can detect something but when I can detect something of the same level of clarity. Your vision extends past 180 degrees side to side if you just test for awareness so that says a screen could have infinite width. But when I test for comparable vision acuity I get roughly the same results NASA got in their testing program and the same results the medical profession believes.
> 
> This data runs contrary to what the motion picture standards people say. But then again they are setting a standard for theaters with 50 to 100 rows of people in overlapping configurations and at home we are 1-6 people viewing.


I agree with you there. Vertical fatigue approaches much faster if you go too large or sit too close. Of course even with 16:9 the vertical angle is just over half the horizontal. I have no issues with vertical fatigue, none of my family nor guest ever have. I've watched TV series and gamed for hours straight many many times and it's great. 15 years with projectors and various viewing angles has definitely been a great experiment.


----------



## jeahrens

cdy2179 said:


> I see you're perspective I just don't share it. You guys prioritize scope, I prioritize neither. Yes one is taller, that doesn't mean I prioritize it. You can twist to say I do, but I'll just say I don't. They both are given the same width to work with.. so we can round and round there.


Nope. Not prioritizing any AR. Just no longer shortchanging one that comprises a lot of my viewing. 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 content are essentially the same size as they were in my 16:9 setup. Everything looks great except on the scope screen, scope is no longer much smaller than 1.85:1 (and essentially equal in screen area to 1.33:1). The ~70% gain in picture area with the scope screen with scope content is not subtle.



cdy2179 said:


> I could have installed a scope, and like you are with a 16:9 , when I see a scope I see a waste of front wall. But that's just my opinion. But again I'm a guy that like IMAX, scope and that over sized TV. If my theater was done by some else with a scope i'd yank it out... again preference. I want to feel "in the movie" in all formats.


You're certainly entitled to your preference, but I certainly feel "in the movie" with all content I watch. To be anymore "in the movie" my center channel would have to be almost on the floor and the top border would about on the ceiling. Not to mention having the discomfort of moving my head around to try to take it in. I don't sit that close in a theater and have no desire to do so at home.



cdy2179 said:


> I saw this post on the active threads window.. I saw a guy asking what to chose 16:9 or scope, I didn't pay attention to the section. He obviously IMO shouldn't have asked in a section that has already made their decision and doesn't like all formats to share width so they all have the most immersiveness possible. He may or may not want a large 16:9, he may hate IMAX... the vibe around here seems to very very biased vs giving all the options with pros and cons and backing off to let him make a decision based on what he likes and how he'll use his room.


So better to ask in a forum where most have not used a CIH setup? And no, CIW does not offer optimal immersion for all ARs. You can't drastically decrease the screen area of an AR to fit it in a narrower width and claim it offers equal immersion to its intended size.

Yes the bias is terrible . I've only told you at least twice that you should do what you enjoy in your own theater. I've also said several times that the use case for an individual may not support CIH. I guess I shouldn't point out the virtues of CIH in this forum? I know those virtues aren't important to you, but they should be to anyone genuinely curious about it.



cdy2179 said:


> Here's a link to an article by Nyal Mellar (one of the top High end HT designers in the nation) on screen size in relation to screen width. Notice in his showroom he uses a 16:9 with around a 50 degree viewing angle. This setup has been accepted by many.. but this as you said is not the forum for that.. so off I go! http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314viewing-angles/


And CIH is in all the premium theaters around here as well the best HTs I've been in. There was a lot of thought put into those designs as well.

No one is telling you what you are doing is wrong. Seriously you have very nice looking theater. Enjoy it!


----------



## Josh Z

cdy2179 said:


> He obviously IMO shouldn't have asked in a section that has already made their decision and doesn't like all formats to share width so they all have the most immersiveness possible.


See, there you go, trying to belittle us again.

You talk about wanting everything to have the "most immersiveness" as if that so obviously should be everyone's goal. It's not, and there's a good reason why not.

Take a look at what type of content is made in each aspect ratio. Big-budget visual spectacle movies are primarily made in scope. TV shows, rom-coms and indie dramas are primarily made in 16:9/1.85:1. Which of these types of content screams "This deserves to be immersive!"?

You will say that everything deserves to be immersive. That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Not all of us agree with that.

You love IMAX. Great, but even IMAX has limitations on what types of movies play on its screens. Not every movie plays in IMAX. You'll never go to the IMAX theater to catch the latest Woody Allen flick. The IMAX corporation only allows blockbuster movies to play on its screens, because those movies are most suited for showing off the huge screen size and powerful audio system.

(Ironically, the vast majority of those blockbuster movies are scope format and are projected letterboxed on the IMAX screen, making no use at all of the extra height.)

Small movies don't need or deserve IMAX. TV shows don't need or deserve IMAX. Not even The Walking Dead (which is shot in 16mm and has terrible picture quality, especially when it's super-compressed for the cable broadcast). Videogames very rarely need or deserve IMAX. Most of them top out at 720p resolution with poor frame rates.

A 16:9 screen gives the lowest quality and least deserving content the biggest picture. To us, that seems so obviously backwards and makes no sense at all.


----------



## cdy2179

Josh Z said:


> S
> 
> You talk about wanting everything to have the "most immersiveness" as if that so obviously should be everyone's goal. It's not, and there's a good reason why not.



And that's all I was getting at. It's my goal not yours. You're confirming what I said. That's all I meant.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Take a look at what type of content is made in each aspect ratio. Big-budget visual spectacle movies are primarily made in scope. TV shows, rom-coms and indie dramas are primarily made in 16:9/1.85:1. Which of these types of content screams "This deserves to be immersive!"?


We watched another cinematic masterpiece last night shot in 2.35:1 This work of art only grossed $105 million at the theaters but is still selling off the shelf in both DVD & BD so that number is sure to keep going up and I’m sure the sequel will be equally as cinematic in the wide scope format it demanded. 

This movie called Sisters (2015) stars Tina Fey and Amy Poehler but the real awards should go to James Brolin for I have never seen finer acting or mastery of the F bomb drop. It’s just a zany 2 hour long SNL skit filleed with lots of antics involving body fluids and vandalisim of a nice house. 

I especially enjoyed viewing it to see what would pop up next in the unused half of the scope frame. This movie should be a bit easier to pan and scan than Ben Hur though. 

I don’t want this to come across as a bad review as even though it wasn’t my favorite type of movie it got a lot of laughter from the folks in my theater and obviously made a lot of money compared to what it cost to make. My point is it is a reflection of the changing face of the epic scope movie it released the same day as The Force Awakens and held it’s own and in terms of cost to produce compared to return it maybe more than held its own. My point is just because it is released in scope has nothing to do with its need to be in that AR or that the AR gives it any special importance. 

In my PIA world it would be shown diminished in grandeur, and with a little thought I could find you a dozen made for TV 16:9 shows that would kill it in terms of watching immersed. I would actually hate watching that movie from the center seat where most people try and sit I’m told in a commercial scope theater. Back row I would most likely laugh a lot more.


----------



## sonichart

I love this thread BTW. Everyone here has already invested good chunks of money into their setup, so obviously we will all defend our choices until our last breath. I can certainly see where CDY is coming from, I'm in a similar spot. The largest scope screen I can accommodate is 130" wide. Technically I think my screen+PJ can go up to 136" wide due to throw distance. 

Most of my movies are 2.35:1. I won't game on my PJ (waste of bulb hours and I have a better display for gaming. I actually prefer sitting closer to a small screen... like 21" monitor) and I'd rather watch sports on my plasma. 

I'm not sure who pioneered the CIH+IMAX, but that is what makes the most sense to me. I will buy the widest 16x9 screen I can fit (130" wide) and leave it masked at 2.35:1 the entire time. The only time I will remove the masks are for IMAX source materials. If I watch something like the big lebowski or mallrats, the masking will stay up. The first row in my theater will be at 10-11ft and I'm still figuring out if I can add a 2nd row... (not a priority).

My concern is this: from 10' away, is 149" diagonal 16x9 screen TOO large? My last screen was a 108" diagonal 16x9 and at no point did I think it was small. With a 130" wide scope screen, my 16x9 image will be 113" diagonal... I struggle to think it will seem small or somehow be less enjoyable than a 149" diagonal screen.

I guess the real reason for going 130" wide 16x9 screen is for an insurance policy on immersion in the event that CIH doesn't produce a satisfying image in 16x9.

I really think I need to go audition some screens before pulling the trigger.


----------



## stanger89

sonichart said:


> I love this thread BTW. Everyone here has already invested good chunks of money into their setup, so obviously we will all defend our choices until our last breath. I can certainly see where CDY is coming from, I'm in a similar spot. The largest scope screen I can accommodate is 130" wide. Technically I think my screen+PJ can go up to 136" wide due to throw distance.
> 
> Most of my movies are 2.35:1. I won't game on my PJ (waste of bulb hours and I have a better display for gaming. I actually prefer sitting closer to a small screen... like 21" monitor) and I'd rather watch sports on my plasma.
> 
> I'm not sure who pioneered the CIH+IMAX, but that is what makes the most sense to me. I will buy the widest 16x9 screen I can fit (130" wide) and leave it masked at 2.35:1 the entire time. The only time I will remove the masks are for IMAX source materials. If I watch something like the big lebowski or mallrats, the masking will stay up. The first row in my theater will be at 10-11ft and I'm still figuring out if I can add a 2nd row... (not a priority).
> 
> My concern is this: from 10' away, is 149" diagonal 16x9 screen TOO large? My last screen was a 108" diagonal 16x9 and at no point did I think it was small. With a 130" wide scope screen, my 16x9 image will be 113" diagonal... I struggle to think it will seem small or somehow be less enjoyable than a 149" diagonal screen.
> 
> I guess the real reason for going 130" wide 16x9 screen is for an insurance policy on immersion in the event that CIH doesn't produce a satisfying image in 16x9.
> 
> I really think I need to go audition some screens before pulling the trigger.


Your post sums up exactly what Josh and I and I think most of the CIH proponents here are trying to do. Provide information, education about the reasoning behind CIH, the theory behind designing a CIH theater, so that you, a HT owner/builder can make an informed decision about what *you* want to do in *your* HT. If you read through the explanations and examples and decide CIH is for you, great. If you decide it's not, no problem. The point is you thought about it and made a decision. We're not going to fault anyone for their choice. But we will argue the theory, and against misguided, uninformed, or incorrect arguments/statements about CIH, like that it shortchanges narrower ARs, or that CIW doesn't shortchange scope.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> I'm not sure who pioneered the CIH+IMAX, but that is what makes the most sense to me. I will buy the widest 16x9 screen I can fit (130" wide) and leave it masked at 2.35:1 the entire time. The only time I will remove the masks are for IMAX source materials. If I watch something like the big lebowski or mallrats, the masking will stay up. The first row in my theater will be at 10-11ft and I'm still figuring out if I can add a 2nd row... (not a priority).
> 
> My concern is this: from 10' away, is 149" diagonal 16x9 screen TOO large? My last screen was a 108" diagonal 16x9 and at no point did I think it was small. With a 130" wide scope screen, my 16x9 image will be 113" diagonal... I struggle to think it will seem small or somehow be less enjoyable than a 149" diagonal screen.
> 
> I guess the real reason for going 130" wide 16x9 screen is for an insurance policy on immersion in the event that CIH doesn't produce a satisfying image in 16x9.


Nice post and it sounds like you will keep all options open that way. All the questions you ask will also be solved if you think about your CIH + Imax screen as PIA screen. 

I personally think 149” from your seating distance might be to big even for Imax and for certain for 99% of 16:9 content. You don’t have to look at it as an either / or situation keep in mind you will have a 149” thru 114” 16:9 screen hidden behind that masking not just a 149” in your face Imax screen. I would be watching Avatar at 135” and Mall Rats at 110” but that’s just me.


----------



## steve1106

sonichart said:


> My concern is this: from 10' away, is 149" diagonal 16x9 screen TOO large?


*It will be too big at 10 feet*. After sliding up a HT chair and measuring, I just tried getting comfortable at 10 feet from my 151.5 inch image and couldn't. The scope was a little better at 143.5 inches with the reduction in height.

As a 16:9 guy, it pains me to say the 149" wouldn't work for your front row and it is like getting stuck on the front row of a commercial theater. I suspect while you might forget about it during a movie, you would come out with red eyes and a strange feeling in your stomach.


----------



## sonichart

bud16415 said:


> All the questions you ask will also be solved if you think about your CIH + Imax screen as PIA screen.
> 
> I personally think 149? from your seating distance might be to big even for Imax and for certain for 99% of 16:9 content. You don?t have to look at it as an either / or situation keep in mind you will have a 149? thru 114? 16:9 screen hidden behind that masking not just a 149? in your face Imax screen. I would be watching Avatar at 135? and Mall Rats at 110? but that?s just me.


Except I don't want to think of it as PIA because that's not what it will be. I don't want to spend any more time (other than hitting a lens memory button) to adjust the image area before watching a movie. If I watch Avatar it will be at 149" or 114" diagonal. Nothing in-between.

The horizontal masking will be up at all times unless I need a taller screen for IMAX which sounds like 149" just might be too big.


----------



## sonichart

steve1106 said:


> sonichart said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern is this: from 10' away, is 149" diagonal 16x9 screen TOO large?
> 
> 
> 
> *It will be too big at 10 feet*. After sliding up a HT chair and measuring, I just tried getting comfortable at 10 feet from my 151.5 inch image and couldn't. The scope was a little better at 143.5 inches with the reduction in height.
> 
> As a 16:9 guy, it pains me to say the 149" wouldn't work for your front row and it is like getting stuck on the front row of a commercial theater. I suspect while you might forget about it during a movie, you would come out with red eyes and a strange feeling in your stomach.
Click to expand...

Wow! Was scope too big for you at that distance? I read need to a find a shop to audition these formats.


----------



## steve1106

sonichart said:


> Wow! Was scope too big for you at that distance? I read need to a find a shop to audition these formats.


No scope is fine for me, I might drop the image a couple of inches.

I gave up on photos since I can find my tripod attachment to keep the images constant.


----------



## stanger89

sonichart said:


> Except I don't want to think of it as PIA because that's not what it will be. I don't want to spend any more time (other than hitting a lens memory button) to adjust the image area before watching a movie. If I watch Avatar it will be at 149" or 114" diagonal. Nothing in-between.


I know the whole AIA (Arbitrary Image Area) thing works for Rich and bud, but I'm with you, when I want to sit down and watch a movie, I don't want to have to pre-audition/pre-evaluate the content to see what size looks best. I went CIH a long time ago because I wasn't satisfied with how scope is diminished on a 16:9 screen, and haven't gone CIH+IMAX for two reasons, first because I hardly ever watch any IMAX content, and second when I setup my system I was using an HE anamorphic lens and CIH+IMAX was not even a possibility. 

I'm pondering rebuilding my screen (new/better material) and may go CIH+IMAX since I've been using lens memory with my RS4910, and the cost will probably be a wash.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> Except I don't want to think of it as PIA because that's not what it will be. I don't want to spend any more time (other than hitting a lens memory button) to adjust the image area before watching a movie. If I watch Avatar it will be at 149" or 114" diagonal. Nothing in-between.
> 
> The horizontal masking will be up at all times unless I need a taller screen for IMAX which sounds like 149" just might be too big.


Well maybe you will get lucky and the perfect size Imax for you will be the same width as the perfect size scope. Most of the people here believe that to be true and also the perfect height 16:9 movie will work out to be the height of the perfect size scope. That also seems to be true for most people here. 

I don’t know what you are going to use for masking or where you are going to put it during the once or twice a year most people watch an Imax movie or a changing AR movie. If you like that width of scope as Steve seems to think might be ok but the Imax ends up being too large as he and I think could be the case at that distance you could set you Imax preset to something smaller than the full screen and then store your masking above and below at a height to mask that Imax size. 

It would still be CIH + Imax just Imax wouldn’t be the whole enchilada. 

I do mine without presets and all that so there is a bit more messing around but still changing a setup when I’m in the mood for something just right takes about 3 minutes. I figure that’s my exercise for the day as I’m going to sit for a few hours and watch afterwards. 

Going and testing is a good idea. The best idea IMO is to paint the wall white or gray and taking a few months watching at different sizes, then buy a screen if you want one. What I have found with most people the more they watch the more they wish they had went bigger.


----------



## bud16415

stanger89 said:


> I know the whole AIA (Arbitrary Image Area) thing works for Rich and bud, but I'm with you, when I want to sit down and watch a movie, I don't want to have to pre-audition/pre-evaluate the content to see what size looks best. I went CIH a long time ago because I wasn't satisfied with how scope is diminished on a 16:9 screen, and haven't gone CIH+IMAX for two reasons, first because I hardly ever watch any IMAX content, and second when I setup my system I was using an HE anamorphic lens and CIH+IMAX was not even a possibility.
> 
> I'm pondering rebuilding my screen (new/better material) and may go CIH+IMAX since I've been using lens memory with my RS4910, and the cost will probably be a wash.


Anyone with an A-Lens I would wholeheartedly advise to go CIH. That lens for all intent and purpose converts your projector to a 2.35:1 machine and why wouldn’t you then match your screen to your projector. In fact I never really understood why people used a sled and moved the lens in and out. If the picture quality was ok for scope why wouldn’t the center of it be ok for 16:9. 

I think the days of lens are about over kind of like film and film cameras replaced with digital. That’s been my point all along pretty much if your pixel density is where you cant see it or at a level that is acceptable people are going to forget about all this zooming business and just fill a screen with whatever AR the projector is and then electronically trim out whatever AR the movie is. My Sharp XR10X had that 10 years ago it was a 4:3 projector with a button that made it 16:9 you hung a 16:9 screen and if you wanted to watch a 4:3 movie framed inside the 16:9 you hit a button and you had a little 4:3. 

With UHD resolution why would anyone mess around with zooming. Zoom it to fit the screen and never touch it again if You want CIH + Imax all you would need is 3 buttons. 

One thing I did like about the old Sharp projector was when showing 16:9 you could digitally move the image up and down.


----------



## lurchtt

The only reason not to go 2:35 is budget. Done properly there is no comparison between the two. 2:35 blows away 16:9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bud16415

lurchtt said:


> The only reason not to go 2:35 is budget. Done properly there is no comparison between the two. 2:35 blows away 16:9
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


2.35 may well blow away 16:9 in any given cinematic release, but I don’t see how budget has anything to do with it. In the simplest of home theater to the most expensive I don’t see screen cost being that great between the two. Unless you are taking about doing scope with an A-lens of some sort and then yes there is a big cost factor involved. To do the zoom method it can be done with a manual zoom projector even.


----------



## Ricoflashback

lurchtt said:


> The only reason not to go 2:35 is budget. Done properly there is no comparison between the two. 2:35 blows away 16:9
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Question for you and maybe I'm missing something. If you have a narrow room (width challenged versus height challenged) - - why wouldn't you find the biggest 16 X 9 screen you could to fit in the room?

Wouldn't the width be the same even if you had a 2:35 screen? (Any wider and it wouldn't be viewable.) Since I occasionally watch sports (16 X 9) and some movies are 16 X 9 format, I find this solution to work the best for my room. It would be great to have masking but I've gotten used to the black bars (as black as I can get out of my projector!) when watching widescreen movies.


----------



## stanger89

Ricoflashback said:


> Question for you and maybe I'm missing something. If you have a narrow room (width challenged versus height challenged) - - why wouldn't you find the biggest 16 X 9 screen you could to fit in the room?


That's what this whole thread has been about.



> Wouldn't the width be the same even if you had a 2:35 screen? (Any wider and it wouldn't be viewable.) Since I occasionally watch sports (16 X 9) and some movies are 16 X 9 format, I find this solution to work the best for my room. It would be great to have masking but I've gotten used to the black bars (as black as I can get out of my projector!) when watching widescreen movies.


To put it simply:


Scope was designed, and is intended to be larger than 16:9, larger than anything but IMAX
When you show scope on a 16:9 screen it is diminished because it's the smallest thing shown
With proper seating placement, 16:9 can be just as immersive on a scope screen, while having scope be perceptually 76% larger than if shown on a 16:9 screen
There's more to a viewing experience than the number of inches diagonal your screen is


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: To put it simply:



Scope was designed, and is intended to be larger than 16:9, larger than anything but IMAX. Comment: O.K - understood.
When you show scope on a 16:9 screen it is diminished because it's the smallest thing shown. Comment: I do not understand.  The width of my screen is constant, period. It can be no greater than what it is with my 16 X 9 setup. Why and where is it "diminished" with widescreen material. Height wise? Certainly not width wise - - that's the maximum width available to me. 
With proper seating placement, 16:9 can be just as immersive on a scope screen, while having scope be perceptually 76% larger than if shown on a 16:9 screen. Comment: Again, I do not understand. Native 16 X 9 is native 16 X 9. Are you saying a football game shot in 16 X 9 will look better or more immersive on a scope screen than a 16 X 9 screen?
There's more to a viewing experience than the number of inches diagonal your screen is. Comment: Huh??? I always thought the larger the screen, within reason, the more immersive the experience. Are you trying to say the wider the screen, the more immersive it is REGARDLESS of native content?


Sorry for my questions. I'm trying to get my head around how I'm missing something in my environment based on my width limitations (narrow room.) Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated. 

P.S. - I tried to quote the OP's original message but kept on getting "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters."


----------



## lurchtt

bud16415 said:


> 2.35 may well blow away 16:9 in any given cinematic release, but I don’t see how budget has anything to do with it. In the simplest of home theater to the most expensive I don’t see screen cost being that great between the two. Unless you are taking about doing scope with an A-lens of some sort and then yes there is a big cost factor involved. To do the zoom method it can be done with a manual zoom projector even.




Yes when I said done properly I meant using an A lens and yes that puts quite a dent in your budget 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lurchtt

Ricoflashback said:


> Question for you and maybe I'm missing something. If you have a narrow room (width challenged versus height challenged) - - why wouldn't you find the biggest 16 X 9 screen you could to fit in the room?
> 
> Wouldn't the width be the same even if you had a 2:35 screen? (Any wider and it wouldn't be viewable.) Since I occasionally watch sports (16 X 9) and some movies are 16 X 9 format, I find this solution to work the best for my room. It would be great to have masking but I've gotten used to the black bars (as black as I can get out of my projector!) when watching widescreen movies.




If your width is fixed I think you answered your own question so you are better off maxing out 16:9. Most people are height limited and run out of height before width. If you are telling me you have more height than width than I'd be a bit concerned about room acoustics but that's another subject matter 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kain

Ricoflashback said:


> RE: To put it simply:
> 
> 
> 
> Scope was designed, and is intended to be larger than 16:9, larger than anything but IMAX. Comment: O.K - understood.
> When you show scope on a 16:9 screen it is diminished because it's the smallest thing shown. Comment: I do not understand.  The width of my screen is constant, period. It can be no greater than what it is with my 16 X 9 setup. Why and where is it "diminished" with widescreen material. Height wise? Certainly not width wise - - that's the maximum width available to me.
> With proper seating placement, 16:9 can be just as immersive on a scope screen, while having scope be perceptually 76% larger than if shown on a 16:9 screen. Comment: Again, I do not understand. Native 16 X 9 is native 16 X 9. Are you saying a football game shot in 16 X 9 will look better or more immersive on a scope screen than a 16 X 9 screen?
> There's more to a viewing experience than the number of inches diagonal your screen is. Comment: Huh??? I always thought the larger the screen, within reason, the more immersive the experience. Are you trying to say the wider the screen, the more immersive it is REGARDLESS of native content?
> 
> 
> Sorry for my questions. I'm trying to get my head around how I'm missing something in my environment based on my width limitations (narrow room.) Thanks for your feedback. Much appreciated.
> 
> P.S. - I tried to quote the OP's original message but kept on getting "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters."


Just chiming in here for one of your questions.


[*]When you show scope on a 16:9 screen it is diminished because it's the smallest thing shown. Comment: I do not understand.  The width of my screen is constant, period. It can be no greater than what it is with my 16 X 9 setup. Why and where is it "diminished" with widescreen material. Height wise? Certainly not width wise - - that's the maximum width available to me. 

Basically, what is trying to be said is if you have a 16:9 screen, CinemaScope content will be smaller than your 16:9 content (thus making it the smallest thing shown) when, ideally, it should be the other way around.


----------



## Ricoflashback

RE: "Basically, what is trying to be said is if you have a 16:9 screen, CinemaScope content will be smaller than your 16:9 content (thus making it the smallest thing shown) when, ideally, it should be the other way around."

-True IF you have an ideal environment or at least a room that would accommodate more width than height. Then, it totally makes sense. 

RE: "If your width is fixed I think you answered your own question so you are better off maxing out 16:9. Most people are height limited and run out of height before width. If you are telling me you have more height than width than I'd be a bit concerned about room acoustics but that's another subject matter."

-Still more width than height, but not to the extent that I could go beyond a 100" screen that is 16 X 9 anyway. So, in my case, scope movies are maximized for my environment and a 16 X 9 screen is the best choice. If I could go wider - - that would be a different story. As far as acoustics, it is what it is and I enjoy my 9.1.2 Dolby Atmos setup with Front Wides & Front Heights. Ceiling installation wasn't an option (older house.)

To me, the best setup would be a 16 X 9 screen that maximizes width and has masking. That would be the best of both worlds. Thanks for your responses - - it has clarified the position on CinemaScope for future reference if I am in the position to take advantage of a larger room.


----------



## stanger89

Ricoflashback said:


> I do not understand. The width of my screen is constant, period. It can be no greater than what it is with my 16 X 9 setup. Why and where is it "diminished" with widescreen material. Height wise? Certainly not width wise - - that's the maximum width available to me.


Scope is supposed to be the largest thing shown in a given theater (look at commercial theaters ever since the invention of Cinemascope in the 50's). If you show scope on a 16:9 screen, instead of being 33% larger than 16:9 content, it is now 25% smaller. Instead of being the largest thing, it is now the smallest thing.

Imagine you pop in a Blu-ray, you're watching the trailers before, the trailer for Alvin & The Chipmunks will take up your whole 16:9 screen, after which the trailers are done, and Star Wars comes on, and it's now 25% smaller than the Alvin & The Chipmunks trailer. I'd say the the Star Wars experience has been diminished. This is why I think just about everyone here with a CIH setup has it, we weren't happy with how scope was shrunk to fit the narrower screen.



> Again, I do not understand. Native 16 X 9 is native 16 X 9. Are you saying a football game shot in 16 X 9 will look better or more immersive on a scope screen than a 16 X 9 screen?


I'm saying that it can be just as immersive on a scope screen as it is on a 16:9 screen. The fact that the scope screen may not be as tall is inconcequential when you factor in seating distance and make any adjustments necessary.



> Huh??? I always thought the larger the screen, within reason, the more immersive the experience. Are you trying to say the wider the screen, the more immersive it is REGARDLESS of native content?


I'm saying seating distance is just as important as diagonal inches. Most folks come here are just used to buying TVs for their living room. In that situation seating distance is generally fixed (furniture layout), and all TVs are the same shape, so the only variable affecting perceptual image size is the diagonal inches.

However a projection home theater is a system. It's a system that you are designing, and seating distance is just as important as screen size, it's the two together that determine the immersiveness, the experience of the image. There's also image shape (aspect ratio) to consider, and how different aspect ratios are presented relative to each other. With TV's we're stuck with scope being shrunk to fit within the 16:9 TV, but with projection and lens memory and anamorphic lenses we're not confined to that anymore, so we're able retain the proper scope experience of it being 33% larger than 16:9 like it was intended.

Say you can fit a 10' wide screen. Say you're comfortable sitting about 16 feet from that screen. You could have the same 16:9 experience (Alvin & The Chipmunks) on a 10' wide scope screen by placing the seating at 12'. But scope content (Star Wars) would be 76% larger, perceptually.



> P.S. - I tried to quote the OP's original message but kept on getting "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters."


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> Anyone with an A-Lens I would wholeheartedly advise to go CIH.


The only reason to have an A-lens is for doing a CIH setup... 



> In fact I never really understood why people used a sled and moved the lens in and out. If the picture quality was ok for scope why wouldn’t the center of it be ok for 16:9.


The lens is used in conjunction with an image scaler (in the PJ or externally) for 2.35 content. Scale the image up vertically to remove the black bars, then the A-lens stretches the image horizontally to restore the image, now in 2.35 - and using all the pixels and light output of the projector. 

But for 1.85/16x9/4x3 content, you turn the scaler off, move the lens out of the way. That gets you 100% of the PJ's pixels and light output, again.



> I think the days of lens are about over kind of like film and film cameras replaced with digital. That’s been my point all along pretty much if your pixel density is where you cant see it or at a level that is acceptable people are going to forget about all this zooming business and just fill a screen with whatever AR the projector is and then electronically trim out whatever AR the movie is.


That's not how it works...

The zooming is required to get 2.35 content to fill the screen from our BD (or any other) home video sources that will provide that content as letterboxed on 16x9 media. Again, this is for a CIH setup.

A-lens usage may go away (or move to the high, high end only) with native 4K projectors with ample brightness and fast&good lens memory. 



> With UHD resolution why would anyone mess around with zooming. Zoom it to fit the screen and never touch it again if You want CIH + Imax all you would need is 3 buttons.


CIH setup. 2.35 screen - gotta zoom or use an A-lens.


----------



## kendognz

Ricoflashback said:


> To me, the best setup would be a 16 X 9 screen that maximizes width and has masking. That would be the best of both worlds. Thanks for your responses - - it has clarified the position on CinemaScope for future reference if I am in the position to take advantage of a larger room.


I have a narrow room and spent a fair bit of time researching 16x9 vs scope. I also marked both sizes on the wall and projected onto the wall before buying a screen. 
A scope screen is easily the best option if you watch movies. We watch a lot of TV and Sports that are 16x9, they are awesome on the scope screen from our seating distance. Seating distance is key, it is based on screen height. 
But, as has been said here, when you watch a movie it gives that wow factor, because it's bigger than TV and sport, as it should be.


----------



## R Harkness

stanger89 said:


> I know the whole AIA (Arbitrary Image Area) thing works for Rich and bud,


Ha, AIA..I like it!



stanger89 said:


> but I'm with you, when I want to sit down and watch a movie, I don't want to have to pre-audition/pre-evaluate the content to see what size looks best.


Completely understandable. That's why I've always said my set up is idiosyncratic and a niche, though I have my own good reasons for going that route.

A couple nights ago I rented Soylent Green on Apple TV (in scope). I don't know what the source was, I doubt HD, but it was fairly poor and looked quite awful at 114" wide. With a button press I reduced the size to 102" wide, which made it much better looking, less artifact-ridden and smeary, it still felt cinematic, and was perfectly masked so it actually looked pretty good. I was once again happy to have that flexibility a button press or two away.


----------



## William L Carman

Richard Harkness started talking about this many, many years ago. 2010 to be exact. He even posted many pictures in June of that year (if I remember correctly) of his fantastic home theater. You can look this thread up by searching "Rich's Variable Image Size System." 

I thought this was well discussed way back then, and I believe many of the same arguments against came up then also. Do I remember correctly Rich?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Some embarrassingly simple math makes it clear there is only one correct response to this "debate" which is founded on rational thought.

Assuming you watch 50-50 Cinemascope and 16:9 content:

50% of the time, you aren't giving up any surface area of using a 2.37 inch screen in a width limited scenario.

However 50% of the time, you are giving up 0.75 * 0.75 = 0.56 of your possible surface area, whilst watching 16:9 content on a CIH setup. 

50% of 0.56 is 0.28. 

So your total surface area usage is 0.5 + 0.28 = 0.78. 

For absolutely no reason whatsoever, you have given up 22% of your viewing surface area. 

Put it this way : Imagine being able to buy a 55 inch television *for the same price* as a 43 inch TV, with *identical specs* otherwise. Would be kinda dumb to buy that, right? Right.

Unlike politics or religion, the beauty of mathematics is that there is one correct answer, and all others are incorrect. The correct answer is objectively provable too. Once it is clear, it is the end. You end it. Case closed.

So when one asks : "should I go for a 16:9 screen of a 2.35:1 screen", given the fact that you are width limited and want the biggest possible size, the *one and only correct answer* is: 16:9. 

Objectively, rationally, logically, incontrovertibly and unarguably 16:9 is the only correct answer to the OP's question. Any other answer is wrong. Period. Because...math. 

I'm sorry but this is a science website and debating primary school level maths is out of scope and beneath dignifying further. 

There is one correct and one incorrect answer here.


----------



## stanger89

RLBURNSIDE said:


> Some embarrassingly simple math makes it clear there is only one correct response to this "debate" which is founded on rational thought.


Only if all you care about is raw number of inches, and don't consider any other factors.

You clearly haven't read anything in this forum.



> Put it this way : Imagine being able to buy a 55 inch television *for the same price* as a 43 inch TV, with *identical specs* otherwise.


We're not buying TVs.



> There is one correct and one incorrect answer here.


You're the only one saying there's only one correct answer


----------



## kendognz

RLBURNSIDE said:


> So when one asks : "should I go for a 16:9 screen of a 2.35:1 screen", given the fact that you are width limited and want the biggest possible size, the *one and only correct answer* is: 16:9.
> 
> Objectively, rationally, logically, incontrovertibly and unarguably 16:9 is the only correct answer to the OP's question. Any other answer is wrong. Period. Because...math.
> 
> I'm sorry but this is a science website and debating primary school level maths is out of scope and beneath dignifying further.
> 
> There is one correct and one incorrect answer here.


Except you are wrong. How is that possible with your 100% accurate maths? Simple, We want movies to look bigger and more emersive than TV shows and sport.


----------



## bud16415

R Harkness said:


> A couple nights ago I rented Soylent Green on Apple TV (in scope). I don't know what the source was, I doubt HD, but it was fairly poor and looked quite awful at 114" wide. With a button press I reduced the size to 102" wide, which made it much better looking, less artifact-ridden and smeary, it still felt cinematic, and was perfectly masked so it actually looked pretty good. I was once again happy to have that flexibility a button press or two away.


I agree it is not about area alone. If that was the logic given all projectors one would consider for home theater are 16:9 and without an A-lens the logic of maximizing area would advise everyone that CIW would be the best approach. There is logic to be used and all logic isn’t directly related to mathematics. 

Rich gave a great reason to diminish area in the case of a poor source. An example I like to use is my copy of the movie Deliverance. Soylent Green is also a good example as both movies given a great 1080p copy I would love to watch in full immersive scope glory. But making a poor video source larger doesn’t make it better. On my 110” possible scope viewing area I watch Deliverance at about 100” and like Rich it is the best of all possible worlds that way even though I wish I had a better source. In effect I move myself back about 10 rows if in a commercial theater. Yes it does take some pre-thought and planning to do. 

For me there is another reason at home to alter presentation size away from CIH and that is content and it is subject to my personal preference of size regardless of the image quality of the movie. Over the weekend I watched two fairly new release movies both in perfect BD quality in terms of image and the thought that went into presentation was based solely on content. The two movies were Remember (2015) 1.85:1 and About last night (2014) 2.35:1. Remember with Christopher Plummer and Martin Landau and About last night with Kevin Hart are about as opposite as two movies can be in terms of wanting to watch them and react to what you are watching. I watched About last night as wide as my setup would allow and what it would be watched in by anyone watching CIH because that system dictates scope moves are the biggest you should ever see as it was the director intent that they be. 10 minutes into the movie I wished I was watching it the same size I watch Deliverance but for a far different reason. There was no big epic feel to that movie and no logical reason it was done in scope except to lend it a feel of importance. I enjoyed it less do to the fact it was too overpowering for all the wrong reasons again IMHO. And being my personal movie theater I’m glad I have the option of size. On the other hand the movie Remember was shot in 1.85 because of the close interpersonal style the director wanted. The AR added to the movie and of the two movies it was by far the most cinematic and it deserves more of my vision than CIH would have allowed. I watched it in a height that would have classic CIA size and about 10 minutes into the movie I was thinking larger would even be better. I would have enjoyed it out to near Imax size despite there wasn’t any vast landscapes and such. When I watch it again I will take it just a bit closer in terms of seating or larger than CIA size. 

It does take some effort thinking about a showing in advance to do this and the on line trailer in both cases would have told me all I needed to set up the size prior to starting the movie. Rarely would I ever stop a movie to change size once started. I wish I had the push of the button ability Rich has but it is really not too hard to figure it out ahead of time and do the 2 minute adjustments.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

stanger89 said:


> You're the only one saying there's only one correct answer


In math there is indeed only one correct answer. Incorrect answers do not merit equal air time, that's not how science works. This is a science website, right? Right. It's up there in the title bar of your browser.


----------



## bud16415

RLBURNSIDE said:


> In math there is indeed only one correct answer. Incorrect answers do not merit equal air time, that's not how science works. This is a science website, right? Right. It's up there in the title bar of your browser.


Setting up a theater is very much about science and numbers. Enjoying a home theater is about knowing about the science or at least ignoring the science and allowing yourself to indulge in less scientific pursuits and more sensual pursuits. 

Music as an example can’t be reproduced without a great deal of science. But like visual reproduction the science is only a tool to get you to the pleasure of hearing. Music is subjective to the individual. What I hear as music could be annoying noise to another. The level of sound volume is also subjective to the choice of the user. To one loud music is just annoying to another it is how it is intended. When we go to a rock concert the director of that concert has an audio level in mind. That doesn’t mean we have to always listen to it reproduced at home at that level at home we have the freedom of choice. 

Video is much the same. The size we watch it at home is subject to what best suits our needs at that time for that piece of video.


----------



## Josh Z

RLBURNSIDE said:


> 50% of the time, you aren't giving up any surface area of using a 2.37 inch screen in a width limited scenario.
> 
> However 50% of the time, you are giving up 0.75 * 0.75 = 0.56 of your possible surface area, whilst watching 16:9 content on a CIH setup.
> 
> 50% of 0.56 is 0.28.
> 
> So your total surface area usage is 0.5 + 0.28 = 0.78.
> 
> For absolutely no reason whatsoever, you have given up 22% of your viewing surface area.


96.7% of home theaters are height limited before they're width limited. Most home theater owners project onto a wall that is wider than tall. It is very rare that someone would choose to install a home theater at the end of a long hallway in a room with cathedral ceilings.

I still find the idea of someone with a 130" wide screen complaining about being "width limited" to be grossly absurd.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

I live in a loft with 14 foot high ceilings, but the max width of my projection surface in my theater area is only 10 feet. Is it okay that I choose to have the biggest screen that will fit? That's my recommendation : 16:9, if you are width limited. Like the OP.

I consider it grossly absurd to not take advantage of my ultra-cheap projector's complete ease at filling that entire 16:9 area with light, given that's exactly why I bought it and why in general people buy projectors instead of flat panels : for the biggest possible image per dollar. 

The value I get out of my projector is literally 78% greater than I would get, dollar / sq. inch, by using a 16:9 screen in my area rather than going CIH like many here are advocating. That's like, pretty *bad advice*. Even if I watch 50% of the time Scope movies, I am still getting more value out of my projector. For any % of time greater than 0% watching 16:9 content, I am better off not getting a Scope screen and doing CIW / standard projection.

Width limited is the OP's scenario. We're not talking about height limited. Obviously, for height limited scenarios which most people are, they are better off with Scope if they want to maximize their viewing surface area. Which they should, since that's the entire _raison d'etre_ of using a projector in the first place.

If you're not after a big image, you're doing it wrong. The only issue here is the non-sequitur of people saying 16:9 footage should be arbitrarily limited to 56% of its max size just so that by comparison when they watch scope content it looks bigger. That's neither here nor there. I am already maxing out my Scope content usage for my space as well. I am just not leaving any square footage on the table, unused, for no reason. I think it's totally absurd and irrational, frankly. And bad advice to give people. It's founded on emotion and not reason. That's why they need all kinds of digressions about Ben Hur vs watching Seinfeld on their projectors to make their point. btw, I watch Seinfeld in pillarbox and it's great. Do my movie nights feel any less spectacular? No, not at all. Because one has nothing to do with the other. When I watch shows like Game of Thrones or play The Witcher or even Mario Kart on my projector, trust me, the extra vertical space used in 16:9 is very much appreciated and a crowd pleaser.

CIH ignores the fact that there is a whole world of content out there other than movies. Video games, for example, are a bigger market than Hollywood now. A 100 billion per year industry. But I don't make my decisions based on whether Ben Hur needs to look more Epic than Game of Thrones. For one, I watch plenty more shows like Game of Thrones these days, and Scope movies still look plenty impressive on a ten foot wide screen, even if 16:9 content is that much bigger.


----------



## dalto

Josh Z said:


> 96.7% of home theaters are height limited before they're width limited. Most home theater owners project onto a wall that is wider than tall. It is very rare that someone would choose to install a home theater at the end of a long hallway in a room with cathedral ceilings.


In this situation width limited doesn't mean that your wall is wider than it is tall, it means that it is exceeds a ratio of 16:9, or perhaps a ratio of 2.35:1 depending on what you are trying to maximize. Considering the walls in my own house, I would agree that width would frequently be an issue on the type of wall I would project a surface onto.


----------



## jeahrens

RLBURNSIDE said:


> I live in a loft with 14 foot high ceilings, but the max width of my projection surface in my theater area is only 10 feet. Is it okay that I choose to have the biggest screen that will fit? That's my recommendation : 16:9, if you are width limited. Like the OP.
> 
> I consider it grossly absurd to not take advantage of my ultra-cheap projector's complete ease at filling that entire 16:9 area with light, given that's exactly why I bought it and why in general people buy projectors instead of flat panels : for the biggest possible image per dollar.
> 
> The value I get out of my projector is literally 78% greater than I would get, dollar / sq. inch, by using a 16:9 screen in my area rather than going CIH like many here are advocating. That's like, pretty *bad advice*. Even if I watch 50% of the time Scope movies, I am still getting more value out of my projector. For any % of time greater than 0% watching 16:9 content, I am better off not getting a Scope screen and doing CIW / standard projection.
> 
> Width limited is the OP's scenario. We're not talking about height limited. Obviously, for height limited scenarios which most people are, they are better off with Scope if they want to maximize their viewing surface area. Which they should, since that's the entire _raison d'etre_ of using a projector in the first place.
> 
> If you're not after a big image, you're doing it wrong. The only issue here is the non-sequitur of people saying 16:9 footage should be arbitrarily limited to 56% of its max size just so that by comparison when they watch scope content it looks bigger. That's neither here nor there. I am already maxing out my Scope content usage for my space as well. I am just not leaving any square footage on the table, unused, for no reason. I think it's totally absurd and irrational, frankly. And bad advice to give people. It's founded on emotion and not reason. That's why they need all kinds of digressions about Ben Hur vs watching Seinfeld on their projectors to make their point. btw, I watch Seinfeld in pillarbox and it's great. Do my movie nights feel any less spectacular? No, not at all. Because one has nothing to do with the other. When I watch shows like Game of Thrones or play The Witcher or even Mario Kart on my projector, trust me, the extra vertical space used in 16:9 is very much appreciated and a crowd pleaser.
> 
> CIH ignores the fact that there is a whole world of content out there other than movies. Video games, for example, are a bigger market than Hollywood now. A 100 billion per year industry. But I don't make my decisions based on whether Ben Hur needs to look more Epic than Game of Thrones. For one, I watch plenty more shows like Game of Thrones these days, and Scope movies still look plenty impressive on a ten foot wide screen, even if 16:9 content is that much bigger.


CIH doesn't ignore other formats. *Size your screen and set your seating distance* to get the 16:9 image as large as you want it and then simply make the scope image wider. You're not losing anything when watching 16:9 and scope is presented as intended. 

It's not for everyone. If you're viewing habits skew heavily towards TV/Sports/Gaming then it may not make sense for you. For movies, I believe it's hands down the best way to go. Scope does not have to compromise 16:9, but 16:9 always compromises scope.


----------



## kmhvball

To be this whole 'debate', has changed my opinion ever-so-slightly, in certain situations.

I think the big question for me, is how many people plan & design all elements of their theater in advance. I know myself, and several people I have spoken with, 'planned' the general lay-out of their theater... room dimensions, seating locations/ number of rows, speaker locations, all of that... and then end up choosing the screen size. If this is the process someone has followed, and this then virtually 'fixes' their seating distances (its' not just seats that need moved, it is speaker locations, riser dimensions, acoustic treatment for reflection points, lighting locations, etc, etc)... Then I stick with my initial answer "if you are comfortable with the size of a 16:9 image, which is as wide as you can fit in your theater... go with 16:9". 

I will freely admit, some folks will sternly side on the fact that they would never want a 16:9 image to be 'larger' than a 2.35:1 image... if that is you, you probably aren't asking the question which to go with!! Although, I think sharing that perspective is nice and can lead someone to change their mind or help them decide that is how they believe as well. That type of dialogue, is after all what influenced my decision. When I first planned my theater, I wanted a 16:9, but based on a variety of decisions I made and A LOT of reading about folks who loved their 2.35:1 screens, I ended up with a 2.35:1 screen... so, sharing thoughts is always good.

My slight opinion change comes in if I were just starting my overall theater design, and still had full flexibility of seat placement, speaker placement, riser depth, acoustic treatment placement, lighting placement, etc., etc. In that case, after having read a bunch of points of view on this, if I 'perceived' my room to be width limited, I would now lean towards instead choosing to place my seats closer.. to where the size of a 16:9 screen utilizing full height & width would be uncomfortable, and then go with a 2.35:1 screen, which used the full width of the theater - but, made the 16:9 image as large as I was comfortable with.

It certainly seems there is lots of arguing about 'right', and I don't perceive there to be a universal right for everyone... what is right, is what you feel is right for you. It reminds me of 'screen size/distance', and 'best speaker' 'iOS vs Android" debates... everyone has different preferences, so, there simply is constructive input as to why one chooses what they choose, and let the reader determine which of those POVs fits theirs most closely.


----------



## stanger89

Josh Z said:


> 96.7% of home theaters are height limited before they're width limited. Most home theater owners project onto a wall that is wider than tall. It is very rare that someone would choose to install a home theater at the end of a long hallway in a room with cathedral ceilings.
> 
> I still find the idea of someone with a 130" wide screen complaining about being "width limited" to be grossly absurd.


It's not worth arguing with someone who says "There is one correct and one incorrect answer here.", and who clearly has no interest in trying to learn.



kmhvball said:


> To be this whole 'debate', has changed my opinion ever-so-slightly, in certain situations.
> 
> I think the big question for me, is how many people plan & design all elements of their theater in advance. I know myself, and several people I have spoken with, 'planned' the general lay-out of their theater... room dimensions, seating locations/ number of rows, speaker locations, all of that... and then end up choosing the screen size. If this is the process someone has followed, and this then virtually 'fixes' their seating distances (its' not just seats that need moved, it is speaker locations, riser dimensions, acoustic treatment for reflection points, lighting locations, etc, etc)...


I will just say that, IMO, screen size (and aspect ratio) should be part of that planning effort. If you're going through all that trouble to get everything just right, then how can you just leave the screen size and presentation as an afterthought?



> Then I stick with my initial answer "if you are comfortable with the size of a 16:9 image, which is as wide as you can fit in your theater... go with 16:9".


The problem there is, as most of us CIH users have found, is that leaves you with a very underwhelming 2.35:1 presentation. That's what motivated me to buy a (used) anamorphic lens initially, I was happy with my 16:9 size, but I was quite disappointed with how scope was presented. And lest anyone think I had tons of room, or an elaborate HT system, this in my parents basement and I had limited design options. I went from a 85x48" 16:9 screen to a 96x41" 2.35:1 screen. It was a great improvement in overall experience.

Once I got my own house (HT friendlyness was a criteria, but small house budget did limit things), I still had to make choices. I ended up with an AT screen since I knew to get the image size I wanted it would have to be basically wall to wall. I don't have nearly the HT that some folks here have, but it was basically designed from the ground up, within the confines of the existing structure (10.5' wide, 7.5' tall, and ~40' deep). Most here would say that's "width limited" (wall is 1.4:1), but I designed everything to work together with a 110" wide scope screen, and 16:9 and every other AR are a satisfying size, and scope is the spectacle it was meant to be.

If I put a 16:9 screen in, the same width as I have now, most 16:9 content would be way, way too big for the seating distance I have.



> I will freely admit, some folks will sternly side on the fact that they would never want a 16:9 image to be 'larger' than a 2.35:1 image... if that is you, you probably aren't asking the question which to go with!! Although, I think sharing that perspective is nice and can lead someone to change their mind or help them decide that is how they believe as well. That type of dialogue, is after all what influenced my decision. When I first planned my theater, I wanted a 16:9, but based on a variety of decisions I made and A LOT of reading about folks who loved their 2.35:1 screens, I ended up with a 2.35:1 screen... so, sharing thoughts is always good.


I'm glad we could help! In then end I don't think either choice is wrong, 16:9 is definitely easier, but CIH/Scope is consistent with the history/convention/expectations of movie presentation. There are really only two things I don't agree with, first that there's one right answer, and second, that the size/shape of your room dictates the answer. The size/shape may influence it, but I just don't agree with the "width limited" idea. IMO "width limited" is an excuse or a rationalization. I think a lot of "width limited" people just didn't care about scope in the first place, and there's nothing wrong with not caring about scope.



> My slight opinion change comes in if I were just starting my overall theater design, and still had full flexibility of seat placement, speaker placement, riser depth, acoustic treatment placement, lighting placement, etc., etc. In that case, after having read a bunch of points of view on this, if I 'perceived' my room to be width limited, I would now lean towards instead choosing to place my seats closer.. to where the size of a 16:9 screen utilizing full height & width would be uncomfortable, and then go with a 2.35:1 screen, which used the full width of the theater - but, made the 16:9 image as large as I was comfortable with.


Yup, and I know this is my goal with my posts here, to get folks to *think* about it. Don't just pick a screen because it's convenient, or because it "matches" the shape of your room. First consider how you want your content to be presented, and if you prefer scope to be bigger, you can probably make that work.



> It certainly seems there is lots of arguing about 'right', and I don't perceive there to be a universal right for everyone... what is right, is what you feel is right for you. It reminds me of 'screen size/distance', and 'best speaker' 'iOS vs Android" debates... everyone has different preferences, so, there simply is constructive input as to why one chooses what they choose, and let the reader determine which of those POVs fits theirs most closely.


Yup, I'm sure I fail sometimes, but I really intend my arguments to be not that CIH is right (though I am happy to explain the historical/theatrical reasoning behind it, and why I prefer it), but that it's _possible_, in just about any HT, if you have the interest to try it.


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

Resorting to insults now?

/reported.


----------



## R Harkness

RLBURNSIDE said:


> The value I get out of my projector is literally 78% greater than I would get, dollar / sq. inch, by using a 16:9 screen in my area rather than going CIH like many here are advocating. That's like, pretty *bad advice*.


It's not "bad advice." This is the CIH forum for people who HAVE THE GOAL of going CIH, and therefore this is a place where people EXPLAIN how to set up CIH systems. What else would you expect if you show up in a Constant Image Height forum? The advice here is generally very good for people who have the goal of CIH.

A great many people have benefited from the information supplied here, and probably a majority were coming from 16:9 screens to begin with. But they had their own reasons why they would prefer scope movies to always be larger than 16:9. And it's not as you claim "founded on emotion and not reason."
Aside from being needlessly insulting, that's just not accurate. No matter how big your 16:9 screen is, scope movies will always be diminished in size relative to your 16:9 content so for someone who likes scope to be the most impressive content they view, they have good reasons for a CIH system with a 2:35:2 screen.




RLBURNSIDE said:


> The only issue here is the non-sequitur of people saying 16:9 footage should be arbitrarily limited to 56% of its max size just so that by comparison when they watch scope content it looks bigger. That's neither here nor there. I am already maxing out my Scope content usage for my space as well. I am just not leaving any square footage on the table, unused, for no reason.
> 
> I think it's totally absurd and irrational, frankly.


Because people have different goals than you do doesn't mean they are "absurd and irrational." People who go for CIH tend to be more focused on movie presentation. I personally don't give a damn about video games - never played one, never going to, on my projector. It would therefore be irrational of me to focus on maximizing my system for games. I wanted to ensure I could make scope the widest image. 

As it happens, I actually did install as tall and wide a screen as my room would permit, so I have a screen that can do very big 1:85:1 images (and 16:9) - over 140" diag depending on how I use my masking system. And I can to up to 125" wide for scope.

But I rarely watch 16:9 and 1:85:1 content at that large a size because: 1. I often just don't want to view an image that large - though it's great sometimes - and..2. A lot of hi-def sources aren't high enough quality to look really great at that size, and..3. I really like scope images being wider than the 16:9 images.

Some people just think more is better, and there's a market for that. Which is why, I guess, companies put out things like double-stuffed Oreos. _"For those who think the inside of an Oreo tastes good...we've doubled the amount! It must be better!" _ I like single stuffed because it's a better balance and hence nicer quality cookie IMO. Same with the way I like to run my set-up. I prefer to maximize image quality, which means not projecting everything as large as it will go, and also making scope images wider is more satisfying and theatrical-feeling. 

The difference is that I am not going to call your choice "absurd and irrational" because I recognize you have your own likes, dislike, and goals. CIH isn't for you, that's fine. It wasn't quite for me, which is fine. But for some people it' really suites their goal of wanting scope films to feel more special to them than non-scope. And it doesn't matter if TO YOU a big 16:9 screen doesn't seem to diminish scope, it matters TO THEM and their goals, that they perceive this issue. I get that you are happy with TV content being larger than, say, Star Wars. But I personally really dislike that in many instances. Different strokes...


----------



## stanger89

Well said.



R Harkness said:


> Which is why, I guess, companies put out things like double-stuffed Oreos.


Hey, Double Stuff Oreos are awesome


----------



## Kain

To keep everyone happy (hopefully), would you guys say the best option in a width limited room is to have the largest 16:9 screen you can get and have it permanently masked for 2:35:1 (so even "regular" 16:9 content won't take up the full 16:9 screen space)? Then for IMAX ratio movies or movies that have a VAR, you can remove the masking and experience the movie as intended?


----------



## sonichart

Kain said:


> To keep everyone happy (hopefully), would you guys say the best option in a width limited room is to have the largest 16:9 screen you can get and have it permanently masked for 2:35:1 (so even "regular" 16:9 content won't take up the full 16:9 screen space)? Then for IMAX ratio movies or movies that have a VAR, you can remove the masking and experience the movie as intended?


I believe what you are describing is considered CIH+IMAX and is an acceptable way to implement CIH.

Now, keeping everyone happy? Best of luck to you in that endeavor.


----------



## Skylinestar

Kain said:


> To keep everyone happy (hopefully), would you guys say the best option in a width limited room is to have the largest 16:9 screen you can get and have it permanently masked for 2:35:1 (so even "regular" 16:9 content won't take up the full 16:9 screen space)? Then for IMAX ratio movies or movies that have a VAR, you can remove the masking and experience the movie as intended?


Yes. That's the correct way to view the Batman trilogy ... or Interstellar.


----------



## jautor

Skylinestar said:


> Yes. That's the correct way to view the Batman trilogy ... or Interstellar.


It's *a* correct way...

You can also just show them CIH if you're using an A-lens or zooming with a scaler that will mask off 2.35, and just not worry about the few minutes of extra bits of IMAX footage shot outside the "2.35 safe" boundary. For those using 2.35 screens, that is the better option... 

Aside question - have there been any more mixed AR (IMAX scenes) films released on BD? Or are we still at like ~10 total?


----------



## Kain

If I am width limited, is there any reason for me to not go CIH + IMAX vs. just CIH?


----------



## bud16415

Kain said:


> If I am width limited, is there any reason for me to not go CIH + IMAX vs. just CIH?


None that i can think of.


----------



## stanger89

Kain said:


> If I am width limited, is there any reason for me to not go CIH + IMAX vs. just CIH?


That's a question only you can answer.

The Reasons to not do it generally include:


It's not worth the trouble for the handful of movies that would benefit (movies which were shown Scope in most theaters anyway)
Don't want the trouble/effort/expense of horizontal masking
Using an HE anamorphic lens, especially when you don't have lens memory and/or enough zoom range


----------



## DavidHir

Kain said:


> If I am width limited, is there any reason for me to not go CIH + IMAX vs. just CIH?


I have a CIH set-up and every once in a great while have considering perhaps getting a drop down screen for "IMAX"-like viewing. But to Stanger89's point: is it worth it? It would be such a rarity for me to watch something like that. It would be hard to justify the cost of a high quality drop down screen for a handful of movies a year. I rather just save those dollars to use for the cost of eventually upgrading my projector.


----------



## DavidHir

jautor said:


> It's *a* correct way...
> 
> You can also just show them CIH if you're using an A-lens or zooming with a scaler that will mask off 2.35, and just not worry about the few minutes of extra bits of IMAX footage shot outside the "2.35 safe" boundary. For those using 2.35 screens, that is the better option...


The new JVCs (RS400/500/600) have a feature that perform such kind of masking which is very cool for people without video processors and have scope screens (zoomers). I tested it on an RS400 and it works great.


----------



## jautor

DavidHir said:


> I have a CIH set-up and every once in a great while have considering perhaps getting a drop down screen for "IMAX"-like viewing. But to Stanger89's point: is it worth it? It would be such a rarity for me to watch something like that. It would be hard to justify the cost of a high quality drop down screen for a handful of movies a year. I rather just save those dollars to use for the cost of eventually upgrading my projector.


Yeah, that's my take, too. And it's worse than "a handful of movies" - it's a moderate number of minutes of content in each of those - and in all of those cases, the composition was filmed "2.35 safe", so what's in that extended space is not critical to the film. Does it look good? Sure. Worth the hassle? IMO, no. 

And I'll ask again because I'm curious - has there been any more BD releases with the mixed-AR IMAX footage?


----------



## jautor

DavidHir said:


> The new JVCs (RS400/500/600) have a feature that perform such kind of masking which is very cool for people without video processors and have scope screens (zoomers). I tested it on an RS400 and it works great.


Agreed. With the lens memory features and the switching time improvements (along with 4K), I think we'll see that feature become more common as it makes CIH so simple and inexpensive.


----------



## R Harkness

DavidHir said:


> The new JVCs (RS400/500/600) have a feature that perform such kind of masking which is very cool for people without video processors and have scope screens (zoomers). I tested it on an RS400 and it works great.


I've been loving that feature!


----------



## sonichart

R Harkness said:


> I've been loving that feature!


I've heard about this feature as well, it's called 'blanking' correct? Can you point me in the direction of how to accomplish this so that I may reference it at a later time? I'm planning a CIH setup


----------



## Josh Z

jautor said:


> And I'll ask again because I'm curious - has there been any more BD releases with the mixed-AR IMAX footage?


As far as I'm aware, this is the current list of Blu-rays with IMAX variable ratio:

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Guardians of the Galaxy (3D version only)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Interstellar
Star Trek into Darkness ("Compendium" Blu-ray only)
Transformers: Age of Extinction (3D version only)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart "Big Screen Edition" only)
Tron Legacy 

The following movies also played in IMAX theaters with a variable ratio, but the Blu-ray editions are Constant Height only:

The Amazing Spider-Man 
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

The following movies played (or will play) in IMAX theaters with a variable ratio, but haven't been released on video yet. How the Blu-rays will be presented is not yet confirmed:

Captain America: Civil War
Ghostbusters (2016)
Dunkirk (2017)
Star Wars: Episode VIII (2017)


----------



## jautor

Josh Z said:


> Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice


I'm surprised by that one - regardless of content, that title would seem like one the marketing folks would have pushed the IMAX point on...

Seems like nails in the coffin of this concept since we haven't seen any new releases (that were filmed for it). Dunkirk will be the true test - if the next Nolan film isn't a mixed-AR release, put a fork in it...


----------



## Kain

If I am using a CIH screen without an anamorphic lens, is there a way to crop the IMAX ratio scenes so the whole movie stays within the CIH ratio or will I have to deal with the IMAX scenes spilling over and under the screen?


----------



## stanger89

The current JVCs apparently have a masking option.


----------

