# PIA setup (personal image area) with sub sets of CIH, CIW, CIA, CIH+MAX



## bud16415

Latest edit 12/10/22 per request of @rvsixer.



The CIH forum is gracious enough to host this thread and I wish to thank them for the continued support of all film presentations.



CIH for many years going back to film was founded around the concept of anamorphic projection.



denoting or relating to a distorted projection or drawing that appears normal when viewed from a particular point or with a suitable mirror or lens.



It was originally film based and two lens were used one for capture (compressed) and another for projection (expanded) this way the full film frame could capture a full image wider than the frame could hold at full height. For reasons of simplicity the same projector could be used with and without an A-lens and project two different AR images of the same height only different widths. The directors of movies embraced this idea and adjusted their cinematography in a way that made the scope version the same in terms of vertical immersion as the flat version only wider. This was pretty much genius for its time and continued for many years with variations along the way. The concept of CIH for the most part continued though today.



What has changed and what we do as home theater has mainly changed over the last 15-20 years. The beginning of digital HT began following the idea of anamorphic projection even though film was no longer our media. Scope movies are encoded inside a 16:9 container with empty data left blank where the black bars would appear. Some smart people figured out a way to take the data and compress it and reprocess it in a way that it becomes a full frame anamorphic image and then can be expanded with a lens like they did with film. This was also pretty genius. And is still used today in many high end home theaters. The lens is a very expensive item costing more than the very best projectors for HT.



With the advent of 1080p and 4k resolutions many people without the budgets gave up on anamorphic projection but not CIH and instead use a method called zooming to achieve CIH between different ARs. Projectors are now both bright enough and have fine enough pixel density that no one can tell the difference between zooming and anamorphic projection for the most part.



With CIH one uses a screen with most commonly a 2.4:1 AR and almost everything motion picture fits inside it. The modern exception is IMAX movies that over the last 10 years have been growing in popularity for some people and they are intended to be as wide as scope only taller. Then in todays world of FP home media rooms our theaters are often used for things other than motion pictures.



With zooming we are throwing away a large amount of the capability of our projectors where the black bars appear in a scope movie above and below the image. The purpose of PIA is to use our projectors to their fullest capability.



My proposal I’m going to call CIH+MAX in how to do a presentation true to the history and intent of directors and at the same time allow for more vertical screen surface for IMAX movies as well as all things non motion picture that may require greater height.



The mechanics of how it works are this. Determine the full vertical immersion you desire for CIH and then calculate the width of a 2.4:1 screen to maintain that. Then expand the height of the screen to equal the native AR of your projector. That’s the size screen you will need. Now acquire two masking panels of equal height one for the top one for the bottom that can be easily removed that mask the screen down to 2.4:1. Leave those panels in place for all motion picture viewing as if you had a CIH setup. Remove them for IMAX motion picture viewing or other non motion picture use when you want a taller AR. As an example maybe NFL and sports or maybe immersive gaming etc.

The name is CIH+MAX the MAX stands for maximum image your projector is capable of. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m editing this opening post 2/11/19 to simply start off with what I’m doing now in term of PIA presentation. Below will be the original postings with edits. I want anyone finding this to find a simple to follow post and if they want to learn more then can dig in.

I am about budget and flexibility along with the best presentation that suits my needs. This will apply to anyone wanting to use more expensive projectors with powered and programmable zoom, focus and lens shifts also.

I’m using a Viewsonic 1080p, Pro7827HD that I bought new for $499. My screen is a DIY painted wall that is a simple neutral gray .5-.6 gain, no boarders I call a stealth screen wall. My room is small about 10’ from the screen to the back wall. Single row seating for 4 people eyes to screen distance of 8’. My ceiling is black and my walls a very dark gray. No windows and 99% light proof for any outside light making it in. Sound is high quality but a simple 5.2 with 2 12” subs. The projector is ceiling mounted with a special rig DIY.

For my PIA presentation to work I needed a good deal of zoom and vertical image shift way more than the projector had built in and more than almost all budget entry level projectors have, so I built an inclined slide to hold the projector mounting that allows me to zoom and shift at the same time by moving the projector. More about that.
Low cost CIH+IMAX presentation method.

PIA is simply put being able to have full control over how large and immersive you want the viewing experience. We are at a point in time where IMAX1.89 movies are becoming the new most immersive movies we will watch and for many years Scope held that distinction. People have preference in how close they like to sit when they go to a movie theater, and with a single row without PIA there is no adjusting the immersion. So with my above specs my largest image I can show is 110” 16:9 the smallest is 65” 16:9. That range reflects every row of seats in both IMAX and a conventional scope theater I may want to ever sit in. I covered my own likes as well as my guests. It allows CIH+IMAX as well as many others methods of presentation anyone may care to follow. I also use the ability to reduce the size of poor movies or older movie I may have on DVD or by way of TV or streaming. A DVD scaled up to 110” might look awful but around 80” will look good.

A benefit of the slide zoom I do is as the image gets smaller it gets brighter. I use that ability for sports viewing where I might want to turn on some lights in the room.

I have eliminated all masking and just let the dark chip 3 self mask on the dark screen. The freedom to change size in less than 10 seconds outweighs no masking for me.

Below is a more detailed explanation. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all know what CIH looks like for the benefit of the newcomers I made a picture that depicts both CIA (constant image area) and the system I use that I call PIA (Personal Image Area) both these systems use a 16:9 projectors and a 16:9 screen.

The image shows a red, green & blue rectangles and they are scope, 16:9 and 4:3 respectively and are what is the classic CIA setup. I didn’t include CIH & CIW as we all know what that looks like

If your beliefs are area and immersion relate to AR and some AR have more importance than others and also the human field of view stops in height at some point but because it is close to 180 degrees right to left that says there would be never a screen wide enough to run out of FOV in that direction Then CIH should be your screen of choice.

If you come to the conclusion as I have that there are practical limits to FOV and also perhaps we watch with both FOV and also eye movement to some small amount instead of a fixed center gaze. Then maybe CIA or PIA should be in your thought process. The only difference is the screen you would purchase. Any projector that can be used for CIH will also work for CIA and PIA (given enough zoom adjustment) and at any time you don’t feel want this setup you can revert back to CIH. In fact a person with wife, kids or friends could run their system for themselves as CIH day to day but the other people might desire something different and you could indulge them with their wishes for group movie night.

So what is PIA? The best way to explain it is I don’t like to move furniture. When I go to the local cinema I go in and pick my seat. The selection is sometimes made for myself and sometimes it is made with the people I’m with. For myself it depends on what I’m seeing and my expectations of the movie I will be seeing. Sometimes I want max immersion sometimes I don’t. At home your seating distance never changes and the selection is done with the zoom lever. I have one row of seating and some people have 2 or even 3 rows and the extra screen area could benefit there also making compromises, but my explanation of the colored rectangles here is just for me in my perfect seat.

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

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

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

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


(On edit) 6/14/16

Anyone coming here and reading this thread for the first time, I laid out my concept and it wasn’t taken as a free option for someone trying to decide what size and AR screen to buy that is having questions about CIH vs the other methods of presentation. Many strongly felt this is a direct assault on the system they believe to be best and that is CIH. I would like to apologies in advance for all the back and forth that takes place in the next 100 or so posts in the thread. There is a lot of great information and advice intermixed in the mixture of back and forth, pros and cons and I would hope you wade thru it because there is all the historical good information about why many feel CIH is the best system and it is worth taking a look at.

I will try and make some updated and edits to this first post to highlight the main points on both sides when I get time and save you from looking thru all the posts unless you want to.

Here is my first edit as it shows a major manufacture of screens solution for masking a PIA setup. If I had a lot of money I would without a doubt buy this system but it can also be done on a poor man’s budget just not in such a fast and cool way. The video points out quickly everything I do with my setup and why however and I think it is an interesting view. Well worth the 6 minutes to watch it.







On Edit 2. 7/19/2016

I just viewed two movies in the same day not exactly back to back as there was an intermission between for dinner but close enough to feel if the first movies presentation had any effect on the second movies appeal or if I was insulting ether movies cinematography by the presentation of the other. More importantly was I getting the best movie going experience for me out of each movie viewing.
The two movies were both recent released movies within the last couple years and as such both movies in terms of video quality were perfect BD copies. No dust or fuzzy edges like a film transfer might have just perfect pixel structure we have grown to love.

Like most families we watch a variety of movies types that suit different tastes and not all movies are intended to be as immersive as others. The two movies we watched were Remember (2015) 1.85:1 Drama starring Christopher Plummer & About Last Night (2014) Comedy 2.35:1 Starring Kevin Hart.
I watched both trailers and had a good idea about the cinematic quality of both movies and it was clear to see the director of Remember chose 1.85:1 because it lent itself to the type of movie he was making best. It was wonderfully shot making use of the extra height the frame provided. I was not quite sure why the director shot About Last Night in scope other than a couple clips showing the immensity of a major league ballpark for about 2 minutes or the numerous bed sequences shot from the side that better framed the bodies in bed. The majority of the movie the sides were filled whatever happened to be on the set or street images where we saw people passing in and out of the frame, kind of a distraction more than adding to the visual I thought. At any rate I watched them both close to CIH and the feeling of being cheated by the presentation was there. Quite similar to what is often expressed by those in favor of scope when comparing Ben Hur being smaller than the 40 year old virgin if watched in CIW and I would agree even to the point of that combination being worse than my two movies even though reversed.

In my mind there was nothing in the zany comedy remake About Last Night that needed the full field of vision scope provides and in making it that large for me it distracted from the humor of the movie. The gigantic adult images seemed less funny and more pornographic for me being so huge. On the other hand, the cinematography of Remember was such that it left you wanting more in terms of scale.

All in all, it was a great contrary comparison of what I normally hear as to How scope AR by its very nature is used to command the biggest screen size available. For me it is not always the case. I will watch Remember again it will be taller than CIH would allow and about 50% of the way to Imax size and if I watch About Last Night again it will be diminished some maybe 75% of CIH size. For me both of these movies clearly point out why I like PIA as a presentation method.

On Edit 9/2/2016 Problem with the word (Perfect) in the title.
From the first day I posted this thread the name PIA raised a lot of concern in the forum. Below is a copy of a post I added today in the body of the thread explaining or trying to explain my using the word perfect to describe this concept. I hope this helps those that understand perfect to mean something different.
-------------------------------

There is presentation and there is immersion and they are two different things plain and simple.

Presentation is constant in any given commercial theater and is the wish of the director of the movie to be done correctly. He wants the best presentation possible. He wants a flawless screen and an accurate projector system. He wants a true sound system. He wants the guy in the first row and the last row to be able to see the image and hear the sound clearly.

We know commercial theaters cram people in to rows too close or too far and stick seats in the corners because buildings are rectangles and ideal seating is more of a cone shape. We are not talking about those seats as none of us have those kinds of seats in our home theater. In terms of immersion and PIA as it pertains to this thread we are talking about the seats all of us would be ok with getting at the world premiere of a long awaited block buster. We are not Shelden Cooper pinging the room for the ultimate sweet audio spot to sit. We are talking about seats we would enjoy sitting in not perfect but by far good enough. Perfect never happens in a commercial theater unless we happen to be quite lucky, like getting a hole in one in golf it requires skill but also some luck. So in a 100 row theater maybe rows 30 to 60 back and side to side plus or minus 10 seats are where PIA lives. Possibly even more subtle changes if you like.

I know audiophiles that tweak sound down to infinitesimal levels. I watch them do this and wonder if they really can tell the changes they are making but I accept they can even though I can’t. Videophiles do the same thing they bring in professional adjusters and equipment and tune every aspect of their projector to match the screen and the room to perfection. To some of us that seems extreme and we wonder if they can really see a difference compared to adjusting by eye but I accept they can even though maybe I can’t.

We all know and never question that different people like to adjust the audio level of their systems. We have big subwoofers and rows of horns and some movies we tune it all down and don’t require the chest pounding subs we are seeking out the quiet voices coming from the actors on the screen. Some movies and concerts we want the room to shake. Then there are the slight changes we make to the volume controls. “Honey can you turn it up one click.” “How’s that Babe.” “Oh that’s Perfect!” That is adjusting sound immersion to a single persons perfect. Have you ever left the theater and overheard someone saying great movie but it was just too loud? Or you left the Block Buster disappointed it was toned back because the people in the next theater were complaining about the bass and you felt you didn’t get your money’s worth. We have no control over sound immersion in a commercial theater we do at home.

Visual immersion is a bit different we have some control over that in the theater and regardless with what I will be told many people have a preference for seating distance and given an empty theater will pick different seats according to their likes. Some people like less visual immersion and always like it less and I believe it is true most people will always migrate to the same seats in a theater as their belief is their tastes don’t change. One reason for a PIA setup would be to accommodate guests that have a need for lesser visual immersion. I myself have found with time I have grown to like a higher level than I used to and I might not want to turn off my less movie watching friends by seating them too close, just like I might not want to give them a heart attack by driving the subs too hard.

The director of the movie may have a preference for how loud we hear his movies and he may know the theater will accommodate a wide range of visual levels of immersion but I think they also understand people will want to adjust those things. Have you ever been setting at a red light and had a kid pull up next to you with the bass so loud that your car was shaking. A case could be made that the young man next to you was playing it at a level that the artist intended it to be heard at during his concert and therefore proper presentation dictates he have that in his car.

Here is where I’m at with this. I realize video immersion plays a big role in my enjoyment of some media. Given my free will I like to change that level of immersion no different than adjusting the level of my sound system. Yes mood plays a part and so does the nature of the content. I get a great deal more pleasure and excitement filling or even overfilling my vision with a movie like Avatar than a scope movie of a bunch of people’s zany antics and bathroom humor. Just like Steve likes to push up his couch and watch rollercoaster movies I like to pull back the projector and watch planet earth.

That’s what this is about giving only one person control over one attribute of their visual presentation and having the ability to make it their personal “Personal Image Area”.

-------------------------

On Edit: September 6, 2016

Extra Extra Read all about it!

The name has changed. I repeat the name has changed. Come one come all to the new PIA thread. From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area. That’s right after hundreds and hundreds of concerned complaints about the name of the system being to bombastic for the masses the “P” in PIA is going from Perfect To Personal.

I had always explained that a system that contained every form of everyone’s Personal Perfect would have to be perfect for all. That lofty logic was a bit much for many to accept and I have to admit some people can only see perfect in their narrow range of personal perfect and of course that might not include all others perfects. In conclusion the summation of all things perfect to individuals cannot equal a perfect to the masses. Or so it seems.

By decree of the masses and thru the OP’s wishes “Personal” is the better word and Personal it shall be from this point forward. Personal is a word without repute it places PIA not above or below any other method anyone wishes to use in their home theaters or media rooms. As has been stated 1000 times if it has been stated once no one cares what another does in the privacy of their home theater. Under that statement of personal freedom to chose PIA will be. All those looking to find answers to your personal presentation needs feel free to think outside the box of structure and extract what you can from this thread knowing you will be going against long standing convention and will be doing this only, and I can’t overstate this ONLY for your intense personal presentation pleasures.

We are to be a system of inclusion of all the other systems of presentation. And as such no other system should be lessened. The second poster to this thread hit the nail on the head. He said (paraphrasing) You put out there what you do and how you do it and if someone wants to gain insight into what might works for them then that is a good thing.

If someone finds this thread and is drawn into thoughts that maybe they have a personal way they would like to operate their presentation please post here and hopefully a like minded will share meaningful communications with you.


Just as the Personal computer opened the world up to freedom of how you use your computer over the ridged world of mainframes. Personal image presentation in the name of PIA will do that for home theater.

On Edit 9-13-2016

The ongoing debate will go on for years pertaining to the AR of 2.35:1 as being the gold standard of presentations. No one should debate the intent of the motion picture industry in their selection of AR’s over the years or their decision on the system of presentation they want to use in commercial theaters. It is their industry and we buy and view their products as we see fit to do.

It is quite a bargain when you think about it a company spends 100 of millions of dollars to create a movie and allows us to buy it and own it for just a few dollars. Of course that is made possible by economy of scale because millions of people all want to own a copy of the movie.

No one is to debate that the industry has the right to present the movie in any method they want and we sometimes complain as we might not agree it is for them to what they like.

The question arises if we at home on a personal level can gain an improved enjoyment out of a movie by showing it at a different size relative to the last movie we showed. In other words do all movies we personally watch need to be the exact same height or more correctly occupy the same amount of our vertical field of vision (FOV). The widely accepted viewpoint is that there is a comfortable up and down point to our vision as well as a comfortable side to side point. Those that are proponents of CIH feel two reasons for this method of presentation as being best. The first is it is the method the motion picture industry chose to use in commercial theaters and our home theaters want or should want to closely emulate whatever happens in a commercial theater. I can’t argue that point as it is valid and if that is important to you then that is what you should do. The second point is that along with being the gold standard of AR’s 2.35:1 is also a near perfect match with human FOV. If that is the case then there is nothing left to think about, if the scope ratio is the pleasant point of vision both up and down and right and left and is the FOV most of us have then CIH is the perfect method of presentation and also the perfect AR and a huge mistake was made 20 years ago when the TV standard and projectors were set to 16:9. Just for the record I don’t think 16:9 is anymore the perfect AR for human FOV than scope and I hope to explain my thoughts here.

The supporters of CIH will tell you there is a few simple tests that prove 2.35 is close to our FOV. The most common is the finger test. It goes something like this. Stand or sit in a fixed location and stare straight ahead at a spot on a blackboard. Now with your arms out to your side move your arms in slowly from behind out of your FOV until the point you very first can detect the motion of your hand and fingers. Mark that point on the blackboard with chalk for both sides. Now repeat it above and below and mark those points as well. now using the up and down points for horizontal lines and the right and left points for vertical lines make a rectangle. What you will find is you drew a long skinny rectangle much longer than 16:9 without even measuring and even longer than a 2.35:1 AR. The next experiment they won’t tell you to try is the above test but with some level of acuity added in. instead of just seeing motion maybe try and detect a 1” tall letter is it an A or a B type of thing. When that test is tried the AR produced gets shorter and becomes closer to 2.35:1.
Then there is the test with allowing eye movement first to the extremes and then to what you feel is comfortable again with acuity. When I do these tests I find I have a rectangle closer to 16:9 maybe even taller. I suggest each person try their own experiments with this. The next test would be with eye and head movement but I think we all agree for movie watching most of us don’t want to move our heads like at a tennis match. But you do have to take head movement into the calculations and what you will find with the level gaze test is your FOV is roughly the same side to side but not up and down. With eyes level we have greater FOV down than up. For some reason we like our monitors slightly below eye level at work because of this but we like our HT projector screen slightly above center. Part of that is conditioning from going to movies where the screen was higher so all could see over the head in front and most theater seats allow for an upward angle of view by reclining.

So do we view fixed gaze or with comfortable eye movement. If you are honest with yourself, you will know daily life has our eyes moving nonstop. It is hard for instance to look at one word on this page and try and read the word two lines above. Here is a study done showing how a group of people viewed a movie with eye movement. 



 There is much more reading on the subject if you want to search. Here is a report done by NASA in 1964 on the limits of vision and the degree of acuity and it shows mapping of each eye and the combined vision of both eyes. http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/64vision/17.htm if you scroll down about one quarter you will find what NASA thinks the FOV with eyes fixed within a useful range of acuity. The image is 17-13 Binocular Visual Fields With Head and Eyes Fixed. I will try and copy that information and post a photo below with a common AR superimposed.

It was based on this information and my own preference on two things that lead me to this system of personal presentation first is personal immersion and the second is personal acuity. If the image is good and it is a type of image I might want to have a heightened sense of immersion like I am not just Viewing but rather I’m involved in it then I set my level of personal immersive view high. If the image lacks the detail my acuity requires or is an image I don’t care to feel like I’m in a heighten state of immersion then I go the other direction and set my level low. In knowing my limitations are both height and width limited just not at a AR of 2.35:1 and knowing my projectors native source is 16:9 I can and you can develop a system that works best.

Just for fun I’m attaching an image that has been shown around lately called Dots. It will point out how our eyes are required to move around on even a small image to see detail. There are 12 black dots in the image try viewing them all at once.

-------------------------------
On edit 12/6/2016

It has been brought to my attention that the controversy over running a CIH single row home theater with an adjustability factor for immersion actually has limits suggested by the commercial theater standards organizations. The way they recommend how many rows the theater should have based around screen size involves a lot of angles factoring in immersion side to side and keeping the screen height the same for all AR with some guidelines for vertical image size and placement and such gets a little complicated. But SMPTE and CEDIA to mention a couple also have boiled it down in terms of screen height as related to acceptable human variability. These theaters must provide seating within a range based on screen height and in doing such everyone will have a good seat. Maybe not the seat you prefer but a good seat for someone in the populist. As a home theater can’t have 10 or more rows of seats the solution I pose as PIA allows one row of seats to replicate a SMPTA / CEDIA in terms of multi rows. It is after all up to the viewer to select the row of seats he wants to sit in.

So here it is and the limiting factor you should use when designing your PIA presentation theater.

Where X is the height of your screen at any given time, the recommended seating distance / zoom range should be.
(3X +/- 1X)
So a range between 2X and 4X where 2X is the most immersive and 4X the least immersive. Of course at home you don’t move your seat or select a different seat you simply do it with the reverse method of zooming in or out.

This is important as in selecting equipment you need allow zoom capabilities for CIH zoom method if that is what you are doing and then additional zoom to control immersion within the range of
(3X +/- 1X).


----------



## NxNW

Awesome! I always said your approach needs a catchy name. 

Refreshing to see someone simply asserting a positive message, as in "Here's what I'm doing- I love it. Feel free to try it yourself". 

(As opposed to all the other posts that boil down to "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!")

Sharing is Caring.


----------



## jeahrens

That's an awesome diagram! I do wish that you would have stuck with "flexible image area". In my setup emphasizing 4:3 like you are would diminish the presentation of other formats. Since I don't watch a lot of 4:3 content, that wouldn't be a good compromise. So it's perfect for you, but I'm not sure that I would say it's perfect. 

Sorry I don't mean to be a negative Nancy. It's a great post and I love that you included the diagram and legend. I'm sure it will offer ideas to folks searching for an out of the ordinary solution.


----------



## bud16415

NxNW said:


> Awesome! I always said your approach needs a catchy name. PIH - why not?
> 
> Refreshing to see someone simply asserting a positive message, as in "Here's what I'm doing- I love it. Feel free to try it yourself".
> 
> (As opposed to all the other posts that boil down to "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!")
> 
> Sharing is Caring.


NxNW Thanks, I thought why not start a thread everyone is free to do that and show what works for me. You are absolutely correct if it is for you great if not that’s great to. There were computers and then there was personal computers PC. The difference to me was the addition of personal to the name and that unleashed the idea that it is your tool not to be shared and run it and manage it anyway you want. To me likewise there were theaters we all shared and now there is personal theaters to use anyway that makes us happy. 

I first started out with PIH but I don’t watch the height of my image I watch the area of my image so I coined the term PIA perfect image area.


----------



## NxNW

One thing worth noting is this system can be done very cheaply. It only really *requires* a zoom capability and a projection surface that is borderless. Anyone with a projector and a blank wall can try this. 

Gray overspill bugging you? Adjustable masking (on all four sides) will solve it for a price. 

The system does "require" (or shall we say "accommodate") a judgement call for each different thing being watched and a willingness to adjust the zoom as necessary. Inconvenient? Lens memory will solve it for a price. 

And light levels may drop a bit in the biggest sizes. Bothersome? Adjustable iris will solve it for a price. 

But we all know you there is no upper limit to what you can spend on any system. This system is a good reminder that you can have as much (or *more*) flexibility with the very simplest projectors and room setups.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> That's an awesome diagram! I do wish that you would have stuck with "flexible image area". In my setup emphasizing 4:3 like you are would diminish the presentation of other formats. Since I don't watch a lot of 4:3 content, that wouldn't be a good compromise. So it's perfect for you, but I'm not sure that I would say it's perfect.
> 
> Sorry I don't mean to be a negative Nancy. It's a great post and I love that you included the diagram and legend. I'm sure it will offer ideas to folks searching for an out of the ordinary solution.


Nancy err I mean jeahrens, I thought of the FIA name as I know you have suggested that. I went with the word Perfect actually because of you also. I know you would agree that your CIH setup produces perfect for you, and guess what your exact CIH setup is included within my PIA system. So in theory with the PIA mentality you would view everything perfect to you also. Of course you wouldn’t want to do it this way you fall into what I describe in paragraph 3 as the person perfectly suited to a CIH screen. Having researched it enough you know for yourself you would go years and years and never change the masking above and below the red line so of course why have something you would never use. 

Being a screen painted wall person for so many years I was never troubled with screen placement and aligning the projector to the screen. If I want the image 6” higher or lower, I just change it. if I want it bigger or smaller I just change it. I guess I have read too many thread about help me pick a screen size over the years and related it to someone saying help me find the right seat in a movie theater. Both questions are basically the same question. 

Thanks for liking the diagram and legend.


----------



## bud16415

NxNW said:


> One thing worth noting is this system can be done very cheaply. It only really *requires* a zoom capability and a projection surface that is borderless. Anyone with a projector and a blank wall can try this.
> 
> Gray overspill bugging you? Adjustable masking (on all four sides) will solve it for a price.
> 
> The system does "require" (or shall we say "accommodate") a judgement call for each different thing being watched and a willingness to adjust the zoom as necessary. Inconvenient? Lens memory will solve it for a price.
> 
> And light levels may drop a bit in the biggest sizes. Bothersome? Adjustable iris will solve it for a price.
> 
> But we all know you there is no upper limit to what you can spend on any system. This system is a good reminder that you can have as much (or *more*) flexibility with the very simplest projectors and room setups.


 My screen is borderless but a 16:9 frame will capture it all. My projector I just bought 6 months ago was $365 it has a very tiny amount of zoom almost not enough to say it has zoom, but I mounted it to an in and out slide that cost me about $5 to make and it gives me more zoom than anything out there. I could motorize it but in all honesty once I move it I’m planning on sitting on my butt for 2 hours, I think the exercise is good for me to stand up for a minute or less. I do adjust brightness but more so because of sometimes wanting more or less ambient light in the room than for zoom. Even the cheap projectors have different preset modes now. 

As to the blank wall and whatever methodology you use with changing AR’s and even if you really want a professional screen, I always advise people to start out on a wall. it is the best way I know to judge how immersive you like. Within a week or two most people say I think I could go a little bigger and within a month or two you will know exactly what size screen you want to buy.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Nancy err I mean jeahrens, I thought of the FIA name as I know you have suggested that. I went with the word Perfect actually because of you also. I know you would agree that your CIH setup produces perfect for you, and guess what your exact CIH setup is included within my PIA system. So in theory with the PIA mentality you would view everything perfect to you also. Of course you wouldn’t want to do it this way you fall into what I describe in paragraph 3 as the person perfectly suited to a CIH screen. Having researched it enough you know for yourself you would go years and years and never change the masking above and below the red line so of course why have something you would never use.
> 
> Being a screen painted wall person for so many years I was never troubled with screen placement and aligning the projector to the screen. If I want the image 6” higher or lower, I just change it. if I want it bigger or smaller I just change it. I guess I have read too many thread about help me pick a screen size over the years and related it to someone saying help me find the right seat in a movie theater. Both questions are basically the same question.
> 
> Thanks for liking the diagram and legend.


Well the term "perfect" is just hard to get around. There's so many different variables, preferences and opinions that on screen size and presentation that stating this is perfect seems a bit disingenuous. I mean I have my preferences, but for example Steve in the other thread watches mostly TV. Would CIH work for him? I'm sure it could, but I wouldn't call it perfect for his use case. It certainly isn't perfect for yours.

I wouldn't go into the speaker forum and start a topic of "I have the perfect speaker". Everyone's definition of a perfect speaker is going to vary and it would only cause problems. And it seems just as controversial to propose you have the perfect screen setup in a forum that this proposal runs contrary to. 

I was being honest when I said it's a great an informative post. It does a fine job of explaining how it works and why you choose it. I think it has a lot of value for folks looking for a different approach. I just don't think it's named appropriately and is misleading.


----------



## bud16415

Well I can’t speak for Steve but we can wait and see what he says. 

I wouldn’t go into the speaker section and claim perfection also. To do so it would have to be a speaker that does all things for all people and does it at a lower cost than everything else. That would be a tall order to fill. 

Perfect in my use of the word is saying this method can make the perfect size image for my needs and your needs and everyone’s needs. If you look at it as the Swiss Army Knife of methods it is all systems rolled into one CIH, CIW, CIA. It isn’t a thing that is perfect it is a way of thinking that is all inclusive of all the above. Actually a perfect tool for someone wondering what they want to do. Run it as CIH for a month. Then run it as CIW for a month, then CIA. You will then have an education on what is right and perfect for your personal needs. Who knows maybe you will adapt to it in a way similar to what I do and want PIA and diminish the SD content down to a size that looks better even. I might be the only person still alive that has a VHS player still attached to a projector and a couple times a year some old person will say to me I wish I could see these family movies one more time. I set the projector to the yellow frame and pop in the tape and we watch 45 minutes of kids opening Christmas gifts together. I then offer to dub it to a DVD that they can play it at home on.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Well I can’t speak for Steve but we can wait and see what he says.
> 
> I wouldn’t go into the speaker section and claim perfection also. To do so it would have to be a speaker that does all things for all people and does it at a lower cost than everything else. That would be a tall order to fill.
> 
> Perfect in my use of the word is saying this method can make the perfect size image for my needs and your needs and everyone’s needs. If you look at it as the Swiss Army Knife of methods it is all systems rolled into one CIH, CIW, CIA. It isn’t a thing that is perfect it is a way of thinking that is all inclusive of all the above. Actually a perfect tool for someone wondering what they want to do. Run it as CIH for a month. Then run it as CIW for a month, then CIA. You will then have an education on what is right and perfect for your personal needs. Who knows maybe you will adapt to it in a way similar to what I do and want PIA and diminish the SD content down to a size that looks better even. I might be the only person still alive that has a VHS player still attached to a projector and a couple times a year some old person will say to me I wish I could see these family movies one more time. I set the projector to the yellow frame and pop in the tape and we watch 45 minutes of kids opening Christmas gifts together. I then offer to dub it to a DVD that they can play it at home on.


Bud I see and appreciate the idea of using this as a springboard to determine what type of setup best suits someone's tastes, but it's still not a good way to phrase it. And it's really not all systems rolled into one when 4:3 has the tallest image height. It can't be a Constant Image Height system when the height is not constant. 4:3 being emphasized like this isn't likely to be most folks definition of perfection in this forum.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Bud I see and appreciate the idea of using this as a springboard to determine what type of setup best suits someone's tastes, but it's still not a good way to phrase it. And it's really not all systems rolled into one when 4:3 has the tallest image height. It can't be a Constant Image Height system when the height is not constant. 4:3 being emphasized like this isn't likely to be most folks definition of perfection in this forum.


It is about freedom of choice. As an example if I buy a new corvette it is capable of going 200 MPH. when I’m driving it down the road at 35 MPH the police won’t pull me over and write me a ticket for going 200 MPH just because my car could do that. 

PIA is the same idea. You can make 4:3 the biggest height or width or area if you wanted to but if you believe it should be the smallest then so be it and that’s how you should watch it. I guess in that way you are correct it isn’t perfect because it doesn’t force you to do anything in particular, but on the other hand most people feel freedom of choice is more perfect than being made to do something. 

It would require some discipline though if you experiment with it for a time and decide that you want to be a CIHer and then you watch something like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure at an epic size because you just can’t control yourself and you want to be totally immersed in the big adventure, well then you might have to relinquish your CIHer status. Now on the other hand if you had your kids or grandkids over for a showing of Jurassic Park 1.85:1 or Jurassic World 2.0:1 and you really want to wind the kids up a bit and you crank the image larger by 5%-10% and turn the sound up the same amount maybe even crank the subs a little. You would be allowed to do that and still keep your CIHer status, because you didn’t do it for yourself you did it for the kids. Of course the next time you watched it alone you would have to shrink the height down. The only possible exception that would be allowed and still be a CIHer would be if the movie was clearly labeled IMAX. In that case some say you could go taller with that content as the stuff above and below the CIH FOV is just fluff material and not really intended to be viewed. The other exception I believe is if the movie was a foreign movie shot in scope and you are watching it with subtitles you could display the subtitles in the gray bar below the image and still remain a CIHer. Our FOV down is enough to take in the subtitles.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> It is about freedom of choice. As an example if I buy a new corvette it is capable of going 200 MPH. when I’m driving it down the road at 35 MPH the police won’t pull me over and write me a ticket for going 200 MPH just because my car could do that.
> 
> PIA is the same idea. You can make 4:3 the biggest height or width or area if you wanted to but if you believe it should be the smallest then so be it and that’s how you should watch it. I guess in that way you are correct it isn’t perfect because it doesn’t force you to do anything in particular, but on the other hand most people feel freedom of choice is more perfect than being made to do something.
> 
> It would require some discipline though if you experiment with it for a time and decide that you want to be a CIHer and then you watch something like Pee Wee’s Big Adventure at an epic size because you just can’t control yourself and you want to be totally immersed in the big adventure, well then you might have to relinquish your CIHer status. Now on the other hand if you had your kids or grandkids over for a showing of Jurassic Park 1.85:1 or Jurassic World 2.0:1 and you really want to wind the kids up a bit and you crank the image larger by 5%-10% and turn the sound up the same amount maybe even crank the subs a little. You would be allowed to do that and still keep your CIHer status, because you didn’t do it for yourself you did it for the kids. Of course the next time you watched it alone you would have to shrink the height down. The only possible exception that would be allowed and still be a CIHer would be if the movie was clearly labeled IMAX. In that case some say you could go taller with that content as the stuff above and below the CIH FOV is just fluff material and not really intended to be viewed. The other exception I believe is if the movie was a foreign movie shot in scope and you are watching it with subtitles you could display the subtitles in the gray bar below the image and still remain a CIHer. Our FOV down is enough to take in the subtitles.


I understand it's all about flexibility, but the example and explanation isn't really a CIH solution. Maybe it could be considered CIW? If you're going to go with a constant image height, then you're really not using your solution to it's potential (that's assuming that you decide this is the solution for you). 

I think a fundamental here that bears repeating is that a lot of us have a screen/seating distance that was chosen based on what is comfortable to view. I chose mine when I was getting a CIW screen years ago (before I understood what CIH even did). I simply expanded the dimensions horizontally when I went with a CIH screen. So I don't find myself wishing that the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection or The Seven Samurai was taller. Nor do I find myself wishing for The Breakfast Club to be taller/more expansive. They all look great. Just like they did before. I am totally immersed. The screen border is invisible when the lights are off.

Looking at your setup and diagram I see a width limited room or seating that needs adjusted. But then I'm someone that feels there is an optimal height/distance to base things off of. I get the impression from your posts in various threads that the cinema you treasure is from the golden age. Where 1.33:1 was king. And regardless of this paper or that study you want that to be an epic experience that overshadows other formats. That's completely fine. And maybe I'm reading things wrong to. Regardless of whether I'm correct, I'm someone who's first cinematic experiences started in the 70's. So I've spent my entire life watching content in all manner of aspect ratios. So I've never had any one AR that defined cinema. I did however come to the realization of just how much we lose by displaying scope material on 16:9 screens, which lead me here. For me CIH has never been about emphasizing scope AR's to the detriment of others, it's about not compromising any of them and preserving the intended presentation of the filmmaker.

What you're doing is unique and the forum is certainly better for your presenting it. It's not a perfect solution for everyone (such a thing doesn't really exist) and I wouldn't apply that moniker to it. But as long as the folks reading this understand the concept, the title is probably not all that important. The beauty of home theater is we get to control how we experience film.

Edit: I have a 2.0 lens memory setting I made for Jurassic World. Looks great and adds to the presentation from simply using the 1.85:1 preset.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I understand it's all about flexibility, but the example and explanation isn't really a CIH solution. Maybe it could be considered CIW? If you're going to go with a constant image height, then you're really not using your solution to it's potential (that's assuming that you decide this is the solution for you).
> 
> I think a fundamental here that bears repeating is that a lot of us have a screen/seating distance that was chosen based on what is comfortable to view. I chose mine when I was getting a CIW screen years ago (before I understood what CIH even did). I simply expanded the dimensions horizontally when I went with a CIH screen. So I don't find myself wishing that the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection or The Seven Samurai was taller. Nor do I find myself wishing for The Breakfast Club to be taller/more expansive. They all look great. Just like they did before. I am totally immersed. The screen border is invisible when the lights are off.
> 
> Looking at your setup and diagram I see a width limited room or seating that needs adjusted. But then I'm someone that feels there is an optimal height/distance to base things off of. I get the impression from your posts in various threads that the cinema you treasure is from the golden age. Where 1.33:1 was king. And regardless of this paper or that study you want that to be an epic experience that overshadows other formats. That's completely fine. And maybe I'm reading things wrong to. Regardless of whether I'm correct, I'm someone who's first cinematic experiences started in the 70's. So I've spent my entire life watching content in all manner of aspect ratios. So I've never had any one AR that defined cinema. I did however come to the realization of just how much we lose by displaying scope material on 16:9 screens, which lead me here. For me CIH has never been about emphasizing scope AR's to the detriment of others, it's about not compromising any of them and preserving the intended presentation of the filmmaker.
> 
> What you're doing is unique and the forum is certainly better for your presenting it. It's not a perfect solution for everyone (such a thing doesn't really exist) and I wouldn't apply that moniker to it. But as long as the folks reading this understand the concept, the title is probably not all that important. The beauty of home theater is we get to control how we experience film.
> 
> Edit: I have a 2.0 lens memory setting I made for Jurassic World. Looks great and adds to the presentation from simply using the 1.85:1 preset.


If you measured the width of your scope screen right now and replaced it with a 16:9 screen of that exact same width. Never touched your projector or your presets, and put Jurasic World into your BD player and selected your 2.0 lens memory setting, what size would the movie play in compared to your current screen? Would it be the exact same size your CIH screen would have shown it. If you put Basil Rathbone in and selected your 4:3 lens memory would that also be the same as before? You would still have your CIH setup completely unchanged from what it is today once the lights went out and you couldn’t see the AR of the screen just the movie everything would be the same. 

This setup doesn’t take away anything it only offers the chance for more. It might be as small as watching The Life of Pi and seeing the fish jump out of the AR for a split second. Or Batman going all IMAX on you for a split second. It might never be used once in your theater and that’s ok too. But what it wont do is lessen anything CIH related in terms of sizes of anything. The only thing it would lessen is you might want some masking top and bottom. 

What it would do maybe not for you but for someone is let them go crazy and go an inch or two taller if they felt the urge on 16:9 or 2.0:1 or 4:3 it would open more immersion possibilities in lesser AR if they wanted. I agree they could try it and say they hated it and they would never try it again and still be a CIHer but if they say ya know I kind of liked Jurassic World 1” taller I think I will watch it that way from now on, they are done they cant be a CIHer any longer and they have to be called a PIAer from then on. As soon as we get 2 more people signed up we are going to try and get our own forum.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous. 

Gary


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous.
> 
> Gary


 Preposterous: completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish:

I will add you to the list of strong opponents of PIA setup then.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> If you measured the width of your scope screen right now and replaced it with a 16:9 screen of that exact same width. Never touched your projector or your presets, and put Jurasic World into your BD player and selected your 2.0 lens memory setting, what size would the movie play in compared to your current screen? Would it be the exact same size your CIH screen would have shown it. If you put Basil Rathbone in and selected your 4:3 lens memory would that also be the same as before? You would still have your CIH setup completely unchanged from what it is today once the lights went out and you couldn’t see the AR of the screen just the movie everything would be the same.


Why would I do that? What's the point of having unused screen real estate? I get that you're trying to make an example of sizing the image anywhere on your canvas, but the screen is already sized as large as is comfortable. So that's a pointless exercise.



bud16415 said:


> This setup doesn’t take away anything it only offers the chance for more. It might be as small as watching The Life of Pi and seeing the fish jump out of the AR for a split second. Or Batman going all IMAX on you for a split second. It might never be used once in your theater and that’s ok too. But what it wont do is lessen anything CIH related in terms of sizes of anything. The only thing it would lessen is you might want some masking top and bottom.


Your diagram shows that you are indeed favoring one AR over another. That's a conscious choice and it works for you. This does indeed diminish the impact of the other ARs. Unless you feel that the vast majority of cinemas having been doing it incorrectly of decades. I've never seen a theater that has a huge hump in the middle of the screen to make 1.33:1 films taller than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And in your own diagram 1.85:1 is the same width as 2.35:1, which we've pointed out many times absolutely diminishes the presentation of the latter. 



bud16415 said:


> What it would do maybe not for you but for someone is let them go crazy and go an inch or two taller if they felt the urge on 16:9 or 2.0:1 or 4:3 it would open more immersion possibilities in lesser AR if they wanted. I agree they could try it and say they hated it and they would never try it again and still be a CIHer but if they say ya know I kind of liked Jurassic World 1” taller I think I will watch it that way from now on, they are done they cant be a CIHer any longer and they have to be called a PIAer from then on. As soon as we get 2 more people signed up we are going to try and get our own forum.


If you have the urge to go taller then you didn't size your screen properly to begin with. As I said before I have not had that urge, because my screen is sized properly with regards to seating distance. I certainly think there is merit to your approach, but there are certainly advantages to a fixed screen as well.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> Preposterous: completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; absurd; senseless; utterly foolish:
> 
> I will add you to the list of strong opponents of PIA setup then.


Considering how much this has been discussed in another thread with documents showing how to correctly present all aspect ratios, and has been pointed out on numerous occasions that once you have set your seating distance to image height correctly, you don't need to vary the height ever again (except for maybe half a dozen partial pseudo IMAX movies), I've no idea why you want to suggest this, or think for a second that it is even remotely 'perfect'.

Perfect for you maybe, but not for anyone in this sub forum, or for someone who wants to follow the guidelines.

16:9 was developed as a compromise format for tv and fits the bill for that, so there's no need for you to try and reinvent the wheel.

Gary


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Why would I do that? What's the point of having unused screen real estate? I get that you're trying to make an example of sizing the image anywhere on your canvas, but the screen is already sized as large as is comfortable. So that's a pointless exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> Your diagram shows that you are indeed favoring one AR over another. That's a conscious choice and it works for you. This does indeed diminish the impact of the other ARs. Unless you feel that the vast majority of cinemas having been doing it incorrectly of decades. I've never seen a theater that has a huge hump in the middle of the screen to make 1.33:1 films taller than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And in your own diagram 1.85:1 is the same width as 2.35:1, which we've pointed out many times absolutely diminishes the presentation of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have the urge to go taller then you didn't size your screen properly to begin with. As I said before I have not had that urge, because my screen is sized properly with regards to seating distance. I certainly think there is merit to your approach, but there are certainly advantages to a fixed screen as well.


I said in an earlier post that you are clearly a person I described in paragraph 3 OP and of course you are best suited to a scope AR screen. I was only pointing out to others reading that even in your case having a 16:9 sized to match your scope width would allow all the benefits of your scope screen with potential for more. Not for you but for others that have a wider vertical FOV or have a viewing style that allows for eye movement, maybe play total immersion games. Watch movies with subtitles, watch IMAX as it was intended or even want to degrade image size smaller than what CIH allows for less than stellar content etc. etc. I know you are not that person I just wanted to show that your scope screen is inside this PIA screen. There is no point for you to have unused real estate but that doesn’t mean there could be a point for others like myself that watch 90% of the time as CIH. 

You are correct no screen in no commercial theater has a bump up for old 4:3 AR movies. They were built for the ever changing new released wider formats. Rarely do you go to the multi theater in the mall and they are “Now showing Gone with the Wind”. Just one more example of what I said earlier that a “movie theater” is different than a “personal movie theater”.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Considering how much this has been discussed in another thread with documents showing how to correctly present all aspect ratios, and has been pointed out on numerous occasions that once you have set your seating distance to image height correctly, you don't need to vary the height ever again (except for maybe half a dozen partial pseudo IMAX movies), I've no idea why you want to suggest this, or think for a second that it is even remotely 'perfect'.
> 
> Perfect for you maybe, but not for anyone in this sub forum, or for someone who wants to follow the guidelines.
> 
> 16:9 was developed as a compromise format for tv and fits the bill for that, so there's no need for you to try and reinvent the wheel.
> 
> Gary


16:9 was developed as a compromise AR you are correct, and an industry was built around it. All TV sets are now 16:9 and all home theaters projectors are built around that AR also. I didn’t invent 16:9 it is just the ratio of the canvas everything has to fit inside of now. I don’t know of one person that watches a 16:9 TV in a CIH manner even though some of them are approaching projection screen sizes now. I have never even heard of anyone watching one CIH. Immersion isn’t even talked about in terms of TV hardly. 
With front projection comes immersion when and if you want it. I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born. Your claim is that FOV is much wider than it is tall and I even mentioned above FOV is often stated as 180 degrees side to side and I agree with that and if you think about it at 180 that is saying your screen can have a width of infinity. And height will always restrict before width. We can argue about up and down FOV limits but we all agree it is less than 180 a lot less than 180 in fact and therefore has a limit of less than infinity. CIH is still holding strong at this point. 

Here is where people like Rich and I look at it a bit differently. This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do. We factor in a couple things one being eye movement and also acuity of vision. Your 180 degrees of side to side vision isn’t a waste as a warning system but it also isn’t a very accurate area of vision. We look at comparable area based on the same level of acuity up and down right and left and because we have two eyes set side by side there is a FOV formed that has a different shape. Think about where you could first tell a square from a circle or one finger compared to two fingers. Your threshold of vision suggestion will tell you the human field of vision in terms of an aspect ratio would be a rectangle of (infinity : one) our method and the method described by the science of Ophthalmology and confirmed by NASA and the like based around similar matches in acuity. Say the FOV is 1.5:1 without eye movement and greater with eye movement. 

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

The area of discussion then takes place around level of immersion and practical limits of FOV. 

I can’t describe to a blind person what vision looks like. I can’t describe to a color blind person what color looks like. I can’t describe to a person that hits the limit of vertical FOV sooner than I do that someone else might have vision beyond what they find comfortable. 

Then there is the secondary issue of presentation and stature and importance of one man made AR over another. This is the area the movie standards organizations and you and Josh and others feel strongly about. I may not believe it completely but I respect and will uphold your right to those beliefs. It is however a totally different issue than what we can see by the nature of our eyes. It states scope is to always be the most important and most immersive of images we are ever to see and it always has to dominate our field of vision over all other ARs. That’s a great belief and I don’t have an issue with it if that’s the reason you want to have CIH. It’s like believing in God it is not my place or anyone else place to say you are right or wrong. I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document. Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether. If a movie is important and the content is enhanced by increased immersion then my personal belief is I want to be shown to me and me only as I’m watching it at home alone in a size that best fills my FOV to the level I want. I know for you that will be in a 2.35:1 rectangle as it meets your FOV perfectly. Our FOV is one thing and Scope AR is another.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I said in an earlier post that you are clearly a person I described in paragraph 3 OP and of course you are best suited to a scope AR screen. I was only pointing out to others reading that even in your case having a 16:9 sized to match your scope width would allow all the benefits of your scope screen with potential for more. Not for you but for others that have a wider vertical FOV or have a viewing style that allows for eye movement, maybe play total immersion games. Watch movies with subtitles, watch IMAX as it was intended or even want to degrade image size smaller than what CIH allows for less than stellar content etc. etc. I know you are not that person I just wanted to show that your scope screen is inside this PIA screen. There is no point for you to have unused real estate but that doesn’t mean there could be a point for others like myself that watch 90% of the time as CIH.
> 
> You are correct no screen in no commercial theater has a bump up for old 4:3 AR movies. They were built for the ever changing new released wider formats. Rarely do you go to the multi theater in the mall and they are “Now showing Gone with the Wind”. Just one more example of what I said earlier that a “movie theater” is different than a “personal movie theater”.


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

If by total immersion you mean having to move your head and neck to encompass the image, I doubt you'll get many takers. Any taller and I would have to do just that. No thanks. That's not comfortable or relaxing.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> I get that many of you find your vertical immersion max and size your width to that number and thus the CIH is born.


We didn't invent CIH - it came about when Fox introduced Scope and the spec back in '53 was that it should be the same height and twice the width of the existing academy screen. All current docs still show CIH as the correct method and it's often referred to as 'the traditional method'.



bud16415 said:


> Here is where people like Rich and I look at it a bit differently. This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do. We factor in a couple things one being eye movement and also acuity of vision.


Don't for a minute think that you and Rich have discovered something that the likes of SMPTE etc haven't realised for the past 60 years or more. If you can watch a taller image, you simply aren't sitting close enough to start with.



bud16415 said:


> Your 180 degrees of side to side vision isn’t a waste as a warning system but it also isn’t a very accurate area of vision. We look at comparable area based on the same level of acuity up and down right and left and because we have two eyes set side by side there is a FOV formed that has a different shape. Think about where you could first tell a square from a circle or one finger compared to two fingers. Your threshold of vision suggestion will tell you the human field of vision in terms of an aspect ratio would be a rectangle of (infinity : one) our method and the method described by the science of Ophthalmology and confirmed by NASA and the like based around similar matches in acuity. Say the FOV is 1.5:1 without eye movement and greater with eye movement.


You talk as if you know more about the HVS than the people who have already done extensive research and produced the standards. You don't. You never mention the height limitation of 15 degrees an the lack of with restrictions. Regardless of width, keep the vertical under 15 degrees for comfort. That's your height limitation right there. THXs back row is 36 degrees. 36/15 = 2.4:1. THXs optimal based on acuity immersion and image quality is 52 degrees = 3.4:1. Front row is determined by the max vertical viewing angle of 35 degrees which would not be the most comfortable place to sit for a 2 hour movie.



bud16415 said:


> That’s the factual part of it then there is the practical part of it as no one wants to be engulfed in an image to those extremes except maybe a fighter pilot training for his mission on a sym.
> 
> The area of discussion then takes place around level of immersion and practical limits of FOV.


The factual part is looking up for prolonged periods causes neck ache. Looking side to side or down is easier which is why screens are that shape. IMAX has been discussed and the horizon line is well below the center of the screen because of that.



bud16415 said:


> Then there is the secondary issue of presentation ...


Secondary to you perhaps.



bud16415 said:


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


This isn't a religion, it's science.



bud16415 said:


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


Like I say, it's not a belief, it's already based on science.



bud16415 said:


> I am also entitled to my belief that AR has nothing to do with importance of a film document.


Of course you are, but this is avscience, not avreligion If you want to ignore the existing research and standards and come to very different conclusions based on your own interpretations and agenda, you're perfectly entitled to do that. But don't get upset if no one else wants to believe you over those who set the standards or how things have been done historically.



bud16415 said:


> Not only doesn’t AR play a part in importance size doesn’t ether.


In your opinion. Seating distance is more important than physical size if the size of the image on your retina is important to you.

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



bud16415 said:


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


And you still believe you have reinvented the wheel 

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

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

Gary


----------



## jjcook

bud16415 said:


> So what is PIA? ... Sometimes I want max immersion sometimes I don’t. At home your seating distance never changes and the selection is done with the zoom lever. I have one row of seating and some people have 2 or even 3 rows and the extra screen area could benefit there also making compromises, but my explanation of the colored rectangles here is just for me in my perfect seat.
> 
> Red = scope movies of the highest quality BD and of cinematic status judged by myself to deserve the best my screen can offer. Example Ben Hur on BD
> Green= 16:9 movies of highest quality and cinematic status that demand immersion. Example Avatar on BD, Planet Earth (PBS).
> Blue= 4:3 classics movies of highest quality and cinematic status painstakingly remaster. Example Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind.
> Purple= scope movies that don’t rise to the highest quality (poor transfers) or movies that in no way demand immersion to benefit the viewing experience. Example Deliverance DVD transfer and Mom’s night out and a 1000 other similar movies you be the judge. Making them bigger doesn’t make them better.
> White= General TV viewing, poor transferred 16:9 movies and 16:9 movies that fall into the Mom’s Night Out category. Example. The 40 year old virgin comes to mind.
> Yellow= Old 4:3 TV content, poor transferred 4:3 movies of old. Example 1950’s TV series Bat Masterson and movies like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Original King Kong, DVD, Family movies copied from super 8 or VHS.
> Orange= Then there is orange the whole frame pushing the level of immersion to the max or even past. When would you ever use all the real estate? Well you could use it for an in your face viewing of high quality IMAX movie or for a special showing of IMAX like content such as a movie like Avatar or even The planet earth series. Maybe to give your kids a super immersive version of the animated features they love to watch. Or for events where others might be viewing from seats deeper in the room than your theater seats, like a super bowl party.
> 
> These are not exact sizes I’m only showing them as points of reference, where different circumstances dictate different levels of immersion or in terms of a commercial theater a different seat. At any time you can put a black masking at the upper and lower red line and you have CIH again and without moving that masking you can benefit from downsizing the lesser content.
> 
> If masking is important to you and it is sometimes important to me you will need to sort out some sort of 2 way or 4 way masking system to go along with it. but some masking system is needed in all the different viewing plans anyway.
> 
> I posted this in the CIH forum as it contains all the aspects of a CIH setup except the look of the 2.35:1 hanging on the wall and most people tell me CIH has little to do with style and all about image presentation. This one screen selection embodies CIH, CIW, & CIA all into one idea called PIA (perfect image area) it is not about the shape of the screen it is about how you manage the area.





Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think CIH+IMAX is perfect, this just seems Preposterous.
> 
> Gary


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


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Sorry. your post quoted mine and was worded as if you were addressing me. So it seemed like you were asking me directly. There is no "potential for more" if your screen is sized correctly for your seating distance. If you can comfortably view a taller image, use that as your basis for CIH. If you can't do that, you're width limited. The fundamental here is you want 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 content to be able to have more impact according to your diagram. Which is fine for you. But the point of this discussion area is to restore the intended impact and presentation of scope formats. Which if sized right does not diminish the other formats.
> 
> If by total immersion you mean having to move your head and neck to encompass the image, I doubt you'll get many takers. Any taller and I would have to do just that. No thanks. That's not comfortable or relaxing.


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

jjcook said:


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


For wheel of fortune stuff I just watch on my tv. The projector is for movies.

Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.
> 
> As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.
> 
> The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.
> 
> It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.
> 
> With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.


Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...

Gary


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Then we are physically different in our vision. If I take a 2.35:1 image to the max height I would ever want to view as total vertical immersion, I am out of my range of horizontal immersion. The image is wider than I would be comfortable viewing.
> 
> As basic as that sounds that should be the test of if you will max out on a scope screen or not.
> 
> The excellent film to use would be Avatar. Put it in and adjust the height to your max overall level of immersion pull out that BD and put in any immersive scope movie you have and without moving anything if the scope is still a comfortable view to the sides then CIH would be your best system.
> 
> It could be our visions are all not the same or it could be how we process visual imagery.
> 
> With that said I can more than enjoy a CIH setup and I could enjoy more height in a narrower image but it wouldn’t be necessary for my enjoyment. With you on the other hand you have not reached your width limit with scope so you are ether comfortable with that information out there being in your non accurate side vision or you have a different ability to discern more accuracy to the sides than most people.


Bud I have told you in multiple posts that is exactly how my screen size was arrived at. I threw a 16:9 image up on the wall and zoomed my projector (back then an Infocus IN76) to as big as I wanted it. Bought a screen that matched that size. It would not be as enjoyable any taller. You keep repeating this idea that I may want a 1.85:1 film taller as if I had never done any experimentation or put any thought into sizing my screen. Please let me assure you one last time, this is not the case.

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

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


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Our most accurate/focused vision is around 5 degrees IIRC, yet we can move our eyes if we want to...
> 
> Gary


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

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

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

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


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


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


You talk as if you're the only one who knows this. Some of us have been having these kinds of discussions before you joined here. I think I even pointed out saccades to you in a PM.



bud16415 said:


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


Everyone in the industry talks about immersion. It's the one of the main ideas behind wider ARs.



bud16415 said:


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


Some of us have been using that exact approach for a long time - tv for tv, projector for movies. Same concept. You may be doing it using a pj but again it's nothing new except you think it's innovative.



bud16415 said:


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


I agree. Hearing a great set of speakers can totally change how you view the sound delivery in a home theatre to enhance the movie experience. I recently heard some ATC 300 something or others (£35k a pair IIRC). They make your average commercial cinemas sound like HTIB

Gary


----------



## steve1106

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

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

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

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

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


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.
> 
> Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.
> 
> I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...
> 
> You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...


Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie? 

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

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


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> Well Bud, first happy Memorial Day weekend and second, PIA seems like what switching masking around would be with an inexpensive projector and a appetite for current and classic movies/TV. I could see employing your technique in the future with a better projector/larger wall and push button focus.
> 
> For me, TCM Memorial Day movies always bring home the issue of changing aspect ratios since they try to show the war movies (40s to 70s/80s) in the proper theatrical ratio when cost allows. For example, 1965's Battle of the Bulge is in 2.76:1 only to be followed by The Longest Day in 2.20:1 or 2.35:1 depending on which version TCM ran which in turn was followed by Men in War in 1.85:1 and others in 1.37:1. I'm sorry but as a child of the 60s and 70s, I want the largest possible Flying Leathernecks even if it is in 1.37:1.
> 
> While some limit their content to movies only (and there is nothing wrong with that), what a waste of a good or even a bad projector. The other night I lost count of the aspect ratio changes during the American version of the show Top Gear. While I usually don't watch commercials, I did notice that they switched from 4:3 to 2.35:1 to 16:9. Even in the show for impact there were several switches from the standard 16:9 to 2.35:1 to highlight the certain car segments. I also like to see my movie trailers in the largest way possible.
> 
> I was showing my daughter 1 of the amazing home theaters of the month as we watched a 16:9 Hallmark movie yesterday, and she asked how big the screen was and I let her read that it was 120 inch wide which puts the 2.35:1 movie diagonal measurement at 130 inches and 16:9 (TV) at 104 inches with 4.3 taking a hit at 85 inches. She asked how big ours was and I told her 16:9 is 151.5, 2.35:1 is 143.5 and 4:3 is 123.75. Then she asked how much did the HT of the month cost and I let her read 39K, so the next question was how much was ours. I told her that as the room is around 3K not counting the other projectors and sound systems. I'm not going to say what her response was, but I liked it...a lot. (As I have said before, she could be lying since she will want that college check in a few months.)
> 
> So as I enjoy hours of old war movies in my own house free to do what I want today, the only thing that makes me sad as is that my 92 year old (well in 10 days) father can't be here watching it with me (700 miles away). To him WWWII opened the world up for a farm boy from Tennessee who gladly enlisted at 17 to sail around the world and fight for freedom. In his nursing home, he has his service records and photos up from back then to highlight the stories he loves to tell over and over and over. Thank you for your service, Dad and to all the others who gave up so much for us to have the freedom to enjoy this weekend.


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

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

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

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


----------



## steve1106

Gary Lightfoot said:


> For some people the size and numbers is all they see and understand, but as long as they are happy, I guess that's all that matters.
> 
> Changing aspect ratios on a CIH system certainly isn't an issue, and you ensure everything is seen correctly and in relation to each AR. It's inherent in the design.
> 
> I've seen a lot of expensive home theatres (costing way more than $39k) many of which have bright decor and very little thought into other aspects of image reproduction or presentation. But they're often nice looking rooms (some aren't!) It's certainly not a measure of quality. Many are just 16:9 and 'big tv', so hardly something to aspire to, but again, at least the owner is happy. Just don't tell them how they could have done it properly... Some people also think that projecting a big image onto a wall is better than a more expensive system simply because their screen is bigger...
> 
> You lessen the visual impact of movies by showing tv content on the same screen which then reduces the overall experience, which is why it's better to use a tv for tv, and projector for movies. That way the movie experience is vastly improved. Otherwise it's just a waste of a good or bad projector...


Gary we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I like big and I don't feel cheated in any way with my simple setup, and to be honest I really don't look at HT the same way you do or the way the home theater of the month guys do. 

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

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

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

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


----------



## steve1106

jeahrens said:


> Steve you keep missing that size is relative to seating, measurements are pretty much meaningless. If that home theater of the month has the seating/size distances setup correctly (and I'm sure they do), then all the AR's will be seen with the proper impact. Nothing is shortchanged. I would much prefer to watch a movie in that setup. The Battle of the Bulge and The Flying Leathernecks would both be excellent. In your setup unless your moving the furniture a lot, Batte of the Bulge would a lot less impressive than it should be. Commercials can be in any AR they want, they have 0 relevancy.
> 
> Would a 1.37:1 film in my setup have the same measurements as yours? Nope. Does it matter? No, because my seating is much closer. Is the impact the same? It's probably pretty darn close. Does a 10' billboard appear bigger than the 4x6" photo? You would say yes. I would say where are they in relation to me. If the 10' billboard is 1/2 mile away and the photo is at the end of my nose. The photo IS bigger.
> 
> You solve the issue of scope being diminished by moving furniture. Which is not practical in the majority of setups and does impact speaker calibration. You have every right to be proud of your budget setup. But you need to understand how AR, seating distance and size all interact to create the presentation. You did your daughter no favors by implying that your setup offered a better presentation based solely on measurements of the screen. As a child of the '60's your memories should be the same as mine growing up in the '70's. Golden Age cinema having the same height as the epics of the time. You can argue against preserving that in the home and I'm fine with that. But the theatrical presentation was CIH.
> 
> No one is right or wrong on the subject of what you decide to watch on your projector. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to watch TV on theirs. We simply don't care to.


But you have to admit as a child of the 60s and 70s, what a disappointment it was to buy your ticket only to discover you were stuck in one of the smaller theaters at the multiplex. Usually near the end of the run so you could sit anywhere, but I still always felt cheated. 

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jeahrens

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## steve1106

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


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> Can someone show me where it is printed by the standard setting originations that I shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the front 1/3 of the commercial theater for movies that I feel I want to indulge in immersive quality of one movie and sit in the back 1/3 when I want to view a less immersive movie?


You can sit where you like, but research shows that most people gravitate to the same area in a theatre whenever they go to see a movie, what you're suggesting is unusual. 



bud16415 said:


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


Tvs, even today, are small and usually viewed from a relativly fair distance, so the image is small. I think most people see sports events as something different to normal tv and would like it larger, maybe to give them more of feeling of 'being there' - more immersive again.



bud16415 said:


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


It's an unusual approach, and most people who go to a movie theatre don't usually determine their seats that way. Most people don't watch tv there either. Watching wheel of fortune the same size as a Hollywood blockbuster probably doesn't appeal to many people, and they probably wouldnt want to pay for it either. It certainly doesn't qualify as an event for a big screen for most people I would think.

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

Gary


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


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


No arguments on the impact of size. I'm a big proponent of people getting into a budget DLP rather than a big flat panel if they have a room they can do it in. And image quality wise, most of the budget projectors today throw a very nice picture.

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


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> This is where NASA and the Ophthalmologist look at vision differently than the commercial theater standards people do.


The last I checked, NASA and your ophthalmologist don't make movies. I fail to see the relevance of continually bringing them up in a discussion of movie presentation.

Hmm, I wonder what shape movie screen my garbage man prefers...


----------



## Josh Z

I think I've found Bud's new favorite movie. 

https://vimeo.com/81799280


----------



## steve1106

I actually think Bud would enjoy this video more on his setup. We pull the chairs up to ten feet and enjoy the full effect of 16:9 in 151.5 inches , but I'll admit after about an hour and half of sampling the world's coaster via blu-ray we tend to get a little nauseated. For the record, the best we've sampled is Roller Coasters in the Raw HD volume 1.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I think I've found Bud's new favorite movie.



Josh : I would have to say that might better be your favorite movie as it was presented in CIH. Steve’s example is a very good one where a person may chose to use the benefits of the increased level of immersion PIA would allow. Actually in my theater I would have the option with my 16:10 projector to view it taller than CIH would allow and even how 16:9 would allow. I doubt I would adjust my setup for a 10 second long movie though. 

I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has. 

If anyone reading along wants more info on Josh’s reference to vertical cinema here is a video. Who knows it may turn up in a church or tall building near you.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

steve1106 said:


> I actually think Bud would enjoy this video more on his setup. We pull the chairs up to ten feet and enjoy the full effect of 16:9 in 151.5 inches , but I'll admit after about an hour and half of sampling the world's coaster via blu-ray we tend to get a little nauseated. For the record, the best we've sampled is Roller Coasters in the Raw HD volume 1.


That's a seating distance ratio (screen height to seating distance) of around 1.62:1. On my set up, my 'IMAX' setting has me at 1.52:1, so although my screen is physically smaller, it looks larger than yours does. Is that a double eek?

Science, it's amazing isn't it...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

steve1106 said:


> Gary we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I like big and I don't feel cheated in any way with my simple setup, and to be honest I really don't look at HT the same way you do or the way the home theater of the month guys do.


As I've just pointed out, you only see big, but my set up can be visually bigger than yours. Plus, I don't have to move my seats.



steve1106 said:


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


I own my house and I've made it what I want it to be like many people. I also don't need to spend thousands to achieve a decent movie experience (just like Josh). You just need to understand how things work and after that it's easy and can be cheap to achieve if you want it to be.



steve1106 said:


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


A lot of moving parts? Like seats you mean? 



steve1106 said:


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


No, you're just trying to be smug because you can project a big image and nothing more. No other image attributes appear to be important to you. That's not something most people here would usually brag about or be happy with, but each to his own.



steve1106 said:


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


It's not an argument, it's science based on research and standards. 



steve1106 said:


> Kind of looks like a room straight out of a science fiction movie.


What science fiction movie is that then?


----------



## steve1106

Gary Lightfoot said:


> That's a seating distance ratio (screen height to seating distance) of around 1.62:1. On my set up, my 'IMAX' setting has me at 1.52:1, so although my screen is physically smaller, it looks larger than yours does. Is that a double eek?
> 
> Science, it's amazing isn't it...


Actually we can move closer, so yes science is amazing. 

This isn't a competition. I've lost. I only have a $549 projector and another $1300 in sound, but I used the coaster example to illustrate that I don't use my cheap room for only movies like many of you do. I may be wrong but I imagine Bud uses his the same way. For use, it is a mix of TV, movies, old shows/movies, a once in a blue moon video game and any of the garbage we like to watch. We use the treadmill or work out or even have meals in the room. It is not a home theater. It is just a room with a projector and a 151.5 inch TV that we love.

Replying to your follow up post. I wasn't being smug with a $549 projector and the house comment was my attempt to explain what I am comfortable with spending. I guess the truth is I'm a little sensitive about my cheap room. While I could spend much more I really want to tell them to "take this job and shove it" in a few months knowing I still have to pay tuition for 2 girls to go to college and I promised them that I would pay for grad school if they want to go.

On the science fiction comment. Many movies and shows have the wall light up with an image and no screen visible. I'm sure some here have voice activated by now while I still press buttons.

Guys I really like CIH. As I have said if I could do a 200 inch 2.35:1 screen I would be all in since really 151.5 inches of 16:9 is right at my sweet spot in my room. Go any bigger and ouch.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has.


Bud, you should do whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, enjoy it.

Every home theater brings its compromises, and it's up to each individual to decide which compromises they're willing to make.

Personally, the idea of constantly moving my projector forwards and backwards and side to side and up and down and zooming in and out so that every single movie or TV show I watch will be a different size than the last one sounds like madness to me. I would _never_ want to do anything like that in my home theater. 

Rather than "PIA," I would call your system "PitA," as in "Pain in the..." But if doing that really rocks your socks, you should have a blast with it.

Just keep in mind that you're posting in the Constant Image Height forum, and those of us who use CIH have what we feel are sound reasons for doing so.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Josh : I would have to say that might better be your favorite movie as it was presented in CIH. Steve’s example is a very good one where a person may chose to use the benefits of the increased level of immersion PIA would allow. Actually in my theater I would have the option with my 16:10 projector to view it taller than CIH would allow and even how 16:9 would allow. I doubt I would adjust my setup for a 10 second long movie though.
> 
> I would guess if you showed 100 people the roller coaster clip as a CIH presentation where the height is optimized for proper immersion of movies in general and then the IMAX-like presentation and asked their opinion of the experience most would tell you it was much more intense and realistic IMAX like. That clip and a million others movies and video content are IMAX-like and are not produced by IMAX. With PIA the viewer has the freedom of choice to watch them exactly as you would in CIH or if they want to go for total immersion watch then IMAX-like if they have a PIA setup like Steve has.
> 
> If anyone reading along wants more info on Josh’s reference to vertical cinema here is a video. Who knows it may turn up in a church or tall building near you.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoICTcokhK4


Umm how does a 16:10 panel allow it to be taller? Yes it has more vertical pixels, but the image height is a function of lens capability and seating distance. I could get a 640x480 business projector with a short throw lens and move the seats up ridiculously close to get an IMAX image that would spill onto the ceiling. Panel AR or even resolution isn't really relevant to perceived image size.

If the person has sized their CIH setup right, they get "total immersion" anyway. Unless total immersion means I'm moving my head and neck to take in the image, then no thanks. That to me isn't "total immersion" that's fatiguing and unpleasant.


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> Actually we can move closer, so yes science is amazing.
> 
> This isn't a competition. I've lost. I only have a $549 projector and another $1300 in sound, but I used the coaster example to illustrate that I don't use my cheap room for only movies like many of you do. I may be wrong but I imagine Bud uses his the same way. For use, it is a mix of TV, movies, old shows/movies, a once in a blue moon video game and any of the garbage we like to watch. We use the treadmill or work out or even have meals in the room. It is not a home theater. It is just a room with a projector and a 151.5 inch TV that we love.
> 
> Replying to your follow up post. I wasn't being smug with a $549 projector and the house comment was my attempt to explain what I am comfortable with spending. I guess the truth is I'm a little sensitive about my cheap room. While I could spend much more I really want to tell them to "take this job and shove it" in a few months knowing I still have to pay tuition for 2 girls to go to college and I promised them that I would pay for grad school if they want to go.
> 
> On the science fiction comment. Many movies and shows have the wall light up with an image and no screen visible. I'm sure some here have voice activated by now while I still press buttons.
> 
> Guys I really like CIH. As I have said if I could do a 200 inch 2.35:1 screen I would be all in since really 151.5 inches of 16:9 is right at my sweet spot in my room. Go any bigger and ouch.


Steve, if you are happy with your setup and it does what you want then you're winning. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you watch mostly 16:9 material (TV) then you probably chose just fine. All I'm trying to do is get you to understand the concept of image size and how it relates to seating distance. You're not really width limited and could do CIH, but it doesn't really make a compelling case for you based on how you use your setup. And that's just fine.

Again, cost isn't really what this discussion is about. I'll give you an example. We have some friends we do a "Bad Movie" event with. We went to the couples home and they were excited to show us their "home theater". Being a HT nut, I was excited too. Turns out it was a wall mounted 70" 4K flat panel. No sound system. It was a very nice TV, but to me it really didn't feel like a HT. On the flip side last fall I saw a Benq 1070 with a large 16:9 screen, with a 7 speaker Andrew Jones Pioneer setup and 2 DIY subs. I bet the total outlay for that system was comparable to the large flat panel and man was it an awesome setup for the money. Waaay better experience. So never think that being budget makes your setup 2nd class or your opinion less valued.


----------



## Josh Z

jeahrens said:


> Umm how does a 16:10 panel allow it to be taller? Yes it has more vertical pixels, but the image height is a function of lens capability and seating distance. I could get a 640x480 business projector with a short throw lens and move the seats up ridiculously close to get an IMAX image that would spill onto the ceiling. Panel AR or even resolution isn't really relevant to perceived image size.


Not to mention that, even if his projector has a 16:10 pixel panel, any content he feeds it from Blu-ray or HDTV will be encoded as a 16:9 image. It will either appear letterboxed on his screen (negating the extra height), or he'd have to stretch or crop it to fill the odd-shaped projector panel.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Bud, you should do whatever you want to do. If it makes you happy, enjoy it.
> 
> Every home theater brings its compromises, and it's up to each individual to decide which compromises they're willing to make.
> 
> Personally, the idea of constantly moving my projector forwards and backwards and side to side and up and down and zooming in and out so that every single movie or TV show I watch will be a different size than the last one sounds like madness to me. I would _never_ want to do anything like that in my home theater.
> 
> Rather than "PIA," I would call your system "PitA," as in "Pain in the..." But if doing that really rocks your socks, you should have a blast with it.
> 
> Just keep in mind that you're posting in the Constant Image Height forum, and those of us who use CIH have what we feel are sound reasons for doing so.


In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup. 

He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here. 

I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker. 

I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well. 

Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup.
> 
> He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here.
> 
> I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker.
> 
> I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well.
> 
> Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.


Bud, I truly don't have anything against you or against the system you've installed. Although it isn't something I would want in my own theater, I find it interesting and would certainly never begrudge you from trying to do something unusual and innovative. 

I have a non-standard, Frankensteined audio system in my theater that requires 15 speakers and 2 A/V receivers to operate. Most people think that's nutty and overkill, but I like the results.

What you have to keep in mind is that Constant Image Height is a very small niche in the home theater community, and we regularly face tremendous criticism from people who don't understand what we do or why we'd want to do it. This means that we constantly need to explain ourselves over and over to people who are at best indifferent and at worst downright hostile to the notion of ever using anything other than a 16:9 screen for home theater.

So, yes, we get a little defensive sometimes. Sorry about that.


----------



## Josh Z

Josh Z said:


> This means that we constantly need to explain ourselves over and over to people who are at best indifferent and at worst downright hostile to the notion of ever using anything other than a 16:9 screen for home theater.


If you think I'm exaggerating, take a peek at the incessant "CIH is for morons!" trolling from a jackass calling himself "freakyguy666" in the comments after this article:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/blockbuster-aspect-ratio-chart/


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> In post number 2 of this thread NxNW made a very nice comment and stated it was nice to see someone simply put forth their idea and how it works and that it is free to try for yourself if you are an information seeker coming here looking for different ways of managing the vast immersive area of a front projection setup.
> 
> He then said as opposed all the other posts stating "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!" I didn’t really at the time I read that think that statement was true but now I have to say I agree with NxNW as that is most of what I have seen in in the way of elitist comment here.


We're not elitist here and neither were all the commercial cinemas that were scope until the multiplexes came along. In fact you could say we're mindless because we're just following the guidelines and specs for a system that has been round since the 50s - now commonly referred to as 'traditional CIH' within the industry, we're trying to do things 'as designed' and intended, so we're not trying to reinvent anything.

I think what is elitist is when someone comes along with something they think is better based on nothing other then their personal preference and then try to argue the point, even dismissing all the bodies of research and technical documents that support how we do things here - because they think they know best.

And you wonder why you're met with disdain after a while?

As Josh has said, it's not unusual and we see people like that all the time here and elsewhere. I know a guy in the UK that is a teacher who also thinks he knows best too. He ignores all the documentation, dismisses the likes of THX, Dolby etc and his main arguments against CIH are that some theatres back in the 50s couldn't fit screens to the Fox specs (two times the width of the academy screen), so often went for 2:1 - a compromise (and some of those theatres cropped everything to fit), and that if you go to commercial cinema and can't get your favourite seat you end up not seeing things as immersive as you'd like - so a compromised seat. In other words, a compromised screen and seating distance is his 'standard' and the main reason why his set up is better - and he also completely dismisses the design spec the industry supports. However, he does change his mind after a few years (with some other things he's argued against when he realises what he was told was right all along), doesn't admit he was wrong and continues to put himself on a pedestal. 

You're doing much the same - thinking your idea is 'perfect' for example.



bud16415 said:


> I had thought about posting my thoughts and explanations again over the weekend about how to make PIA an effortless as possible way of watching lots of variety of content that for some may require different positive and negative levels of immersion but I won’t as it is clear no matter what anyone will say the topic will be directed in an opposite direction with ether pseudoscience or beliefs that there is a level of importance to a film presentation based around the AR it was filmed in. I can handle that range of discussion. What I can’t handle is junior high school mentality of some that are into name calling or making judgments based around self-proclaimed expertise and is in a semiprofessional status as a “Writer/Editor” advising others. Degrading comments like what shape screen his garbage man would prefer would relate somehow to an intelligent conversation about screen management techniques or that a viewing system nicknamed PIA in a hobbyist forum should be called PITA is insulting to me and my sanitation worker.


Somehow you see only yourself as intelligent here. You come here with an idea, we point you to technical docs etc as to how things should be done, yet you ignore that and continue to argue about it. That doesn't sound too intelligent to me. That's more like trolling or wanting to get your own way.

As Josh said, we often see people like yourself here who are pretty much trolling for an argument so no wonder you eventually end up with short shrift - it's because you're ignoring all the docs and white papers and telling us we are wrong and you are right. Most people would look at what the industry says and think that is how it should be done if you want to do it right, not dismiss all the bodies of research and the people who make the standards and think you're more intelligent and informed than everyone else.

Josh's comments referring to asking hs garbage man are much the same as you telling us what is better - who are you and what are your credentials so that we should listen to you and not SMPTE?

You are just a guy in the street, like the garbage man.



bud16415 said:


> I will take your advice and enjoy what makes me happy as I thought I made that clear in the first post as it does rock my socks pretty well.
> 
> Now the forum can pretty much go back to talking about nothing new.


Talking about building and viewing to the specs and guidelines may be old, but at least it's correct and proven. That's why there is a forum for it. 

Maybe you should try your ideas in another forum where people might actually be interested in what you have to say. Those that don't understand CIH may actually listen to you there.

As for me, I'll stick to watching tv shows on the tv, and movies in my dedicated room. that's perfect for me thank you.


----------



## bud16415

Gary

In most ways I am following the standards closer than most of you that has always been my point. When you walk into any theater designed to SMPTE specs or any of the other specs we follow you are immediately confronted with a question. Where do I sit? 

If I sit in the front row or the back row there is a huge factor of zoom thrown into the immersion of the image, I am about to view. I have watched people file into movie theaters for over 50 years and select their seats. I have seen people run for the very back row and also the front row and I have seen people leave and ask for a refund if forced to sit to close. I don’t have to have accreditation to know that when I go into a well-designed theater I will have a choice of seat selection facing me and the people I go with. 

All the time when showing movies to friends and family I am asked if I can increase or decrease the sound level. It is often a case of personal preference for me to do so also depending on the level of sound immersion I feel I want. The same is true for immersion in a SMPTE theater as I get to select my seat. 

I never advised anyone that wishes to view CIH to do otherwise. There are often people that come here and pose the question should I go CIH, CIW, CIA and of course they will always get the advice to go CIH. If I go to a VW forum and ask if VW is a good automobile I will get the answer they are the best. When I suggested a 16:9 screen and PIA mindset would allow a newcomer to try all three methods and see for themselves and I commented (again for myself only) that I watch the majority of my viewing as CIH. I was basically called an imbecile and told the “C” in CIH stood for constant not most of the time. I was very glad that was explained so I could understand it. I also have a TV in the kitchen and I watch the morning news when eating breakfast on it and it goes a good part of the day as a background buzz. But to me there is a reason why I would watch TV shows in my media room on my projector and maybe I will start a survey on another forum and find out if others watch TV content on their projectors. But why wouldn’t I go into the nice room I built with the most comfortable seating and by far the best sound and PQ and enjoy a quality TV show or internet content show. The room was designed to be the go to place to do just that. If I select to make my TV show image much smaller than CIH and make it look more like an expensive 60” flat panel TV would look if I had one and watch Dancing With the Stars. Then the next day go back to SMPTE CIH watching a block buster 2.35 epic what is the big deal? It would be as if I went to my local cinema and watched it sitting in the back row because I didn’t feel I wanted immersion and it was better to eat my pizza pie back there. Not to mention when I zoom the way I do I get higher FL’s and in turn tolerate more selected ambient lighting to eat said pizza pie by. 

If a couple come over for a movie and I ask them, where do you normally sit when you go to a proper designed SMPTE theater and they say oh you will think we are crazy but we like to sit close or we like to sit back. I tell them no problem my theater is designed to exacting SMPTE specs and I have the capability of duplicating the visual experience of a SMPTE theater where I can replicate any one of the 1000 seats in the cinema with a push of a button. 

I’m not here as an opponent of CIH. I’m sorry people come here to troll and look for a fight if that is what you all feel is going on. The one thing everyone seems to agree on it is about the image not the size or shape of the screen when the house lights are on. So if it is truly about presentation and relative sizes of movies in different AR we are in agreement and I have read 1000 times it is then about relative seating distance what is wrong with being able to select your seating distance at home just like you would in a commercial theater. I know you and others have said they always sit in the same seat in a commercial theater is it a stretch of logic to think some of us may like to move around based on the content or the mood we are in. (This is where you guys jump in about FOV again and the conversation changes direction.)

I don’t have a screen boarder for a very good reason. My boarder is in my mind’s eye. I don’t just go immersive for some 16:9 stuff sometimes I go extra immersive for some 2.35 stuff. But I know many people feel the need for a screen on the wall or the quality a screen has over a DIY solution. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I would buy the largest screen I could fit on my wall and I wouldn’t care what AR it was in. That’s pretty much what all the SMPTE retrofitted theaters did. The AR is in the mind’s eye.


----------



## jeahrens

Bud I don't see how you would be following the standards Gary points out closer than most of us. What you have in your home doesn't really conform to that. Which is fine, because it's what you want. I've been seeing movies a long time as well and the overwhelming evidence is people tend to sit slightly behind the mid point in a theater and gravitate towards the center. The majority don't have a clue what AR they will be treated to in the viewing, but that's where they sit. You may move around, but you would be the exception and not the rule. Our home theater seating distance is setup to mimic where we sit to enjoy films in the theater.

I don't think anyone called you an "imbecile" or meant to infer it. You just kept repeating over and over that your setup is or contained a "CIH" setup. But the explanation of how it works includes both Academy and 1.85:1 movies as being taller than scope. Which means the height is not constant in your setup. Thus it can't be CIH. You may mimic that type of setup a lot of the time as you say, but wanting that "total immersion" as you call it changes the nature of the setup. Which again is fine, but you can't call it CIH. It's misusing the term. That's why we keeping bringing it up.

Your borderless screen gives you the flexibility you crave in your presentation. You believe Casablanca should have more impact than Chinatown. That is your prerogative. Aspect Ratio does not determine a films importance. However it is a tool used by the director to determine its visual impact. In same way a painter decides the sizing of their canvas. We can agree and disagree about whether it is used properly, but it does not negate the intent. The director does not choose 2.4:1 with the artistic intent of it having a lesser impact than 1.33:1 or 1.85:1. That's simply a fact. 

Really I think that may be at the heart of your setup. I'm thinking you believe that regardless of the filmmakers intention, the importance you assign to a given film should determine how it's sized (and thus it's visual impact). Whereas we're the opposite. Regardless of how much importance we assign a given film, we are striving to recreate the visual intent of the filmmaker and preserving the presentation. And maybe I'm reading you wrong. 

Really I don't think anyone in here is upset that you like something different. I think calling your solution "perfect" wasn't a good way to present it. That title alone implies that other methods are imperfect (including the method this subforum is here for). I know you likely meant it as somewhat tongue in cheek (perfect for you), but it's still not a neutral way to present it.


----------



## bud16415

All the standards such as SMPTE describe a theater design with ranges of attributes they allow or that meet their standards. In effect they describe a multi row multi seat wide auditorium with screen ratios that are determined to all match up to proper viewing. They show a sweet spot they have relegated and then the acceptable range around that seat, and true from any given seat in any SMPTE theater all presentations will be shown at CIH to that one person in that one seat. That is not to say all the people in that theater will be viewing that same show at the same height in their vision however. Everyone seems to agree that the individual’s perfect height is selective and that is accomplished by finding the seat the right distance from the screen for you. The guy that sits in the back row is not being cheated if he watches two movies of different AR’s from the back row if that is what he likes because he is seeing them both as CIH. 

So just in that one regard PIA allows me to suit the back row guy and the front row guy as well as the SMPTE sweet spot guy all from the one and only seating distance I have in my home theater. If you go back to my original drawing and legend you will see I have the classis CIH included as red, white & yellow at the max width any screen will allow. So that is the CIH included. The orange AR is what Gary has and he calls it (plus IMAX) my blue AR could be called (plus original IMAX) or the orange could be called (plus subtitles) Just because there is the potential to project to an area doesn’t mean you have to!

It is true most casual viewers walk into a movie theater and try and figure out where to sit that suits them. Most don’t know the AR of the film they will see and most don’t know if the showing will be masked down or left with gray bars, most do that now. They just take a look at the screen and say that looks good and then live with the choice once the movie starts. That is a hit or miss method and if you get there late it is even worse as you will be stuck off in the wings too close or too far away for your liking. That’s why at home we have the option of picking our perfect seat. 

The thought process that goes into seat selection and screen size to seating distance I think is different for guys like Rich and I than others that want to follow the long established well documented method set forth by outfits like SMPTE. We understand those ideas and respect them and sometimes even follow them, but we add in one more element we like to alter and in terms of going to a movie we are allowed to do it and at home we want to be able to do it and that is pick our seat. In an SMPTE theater we can get there early with their big scope screen and knowing the movie we are about to see sit 10 rows closer than we did the week before if we want. We believe our eyes can take it in or have the image overtake our vision range if we want it to even. If we are allowed to pick our seat at a SMPTE certified theater, we also want to pick our seat at home and we do that with our zoom. We are not asking for more than SMPTE advises just that we want the same as it offers.


----------



## jeahrens

Bud you're just being stubborn and difficult at this point. *You can't claim to have a constant image height setup when you vary the height.* Do you need us to link the definition of constant? I get that you could make a CIH setup in your array of rectangles, but you aren't doing that exclusively. Thus the height is not constant. I've tried very hard to be fair to your opinion, but this is just getting silly. You don't have a CIH setup. Constant variable. Why even argue the point? 

Yes I understood in your first post you think that your array of sizes is somehow closer to keeping with theater design specifications because people can sit closer or further. But the fact is the majority of people tend to sit where I described regardless of AR (which is what Gary's standards support). You do have some that will sit out of the norm, but those are outliers (or more likely they got their late). I have never had anyone at any time in a group seeing a movie say "this movie is 1.85:1 let's sit closer". In fact I can find friends at the theater if we arrive at different times based on the fact they usually sit in the same general area. I haven't had anyone suggest sitting in first few rows since I was 10 either. The simple reality is that cinemas have many seats that aren't optimal because it gets more viewers per showing. These corner cases aren't going to twist the facts Gary presents to support having a wall where presentation size is at the viewers preference. The guidelines lay out viewing angles and optimal distances based on screen size. The size changes, the rest changes. That's how the math works. The idea that somehow you have hit upon something perfect and the entire industry is doing it wrong just doesn't fly. The idea it's perfect for you, I have no issue with. 

Again I completely respect you doing something you love that fits how you want to watch it. I wouldn't want you to experience it any other way.


----------



## bud16415

I guess not having a screen of some AR nailed up on my wall makes me “silly” not sure about stubborn and difficult though. 

When I look at my blank gray wall I don’t see any definition of and AR, I don’t see definition of a screen size & I don’t see definition of a screen location. When I look at my projector by its design it has a defined AR of 16:10 some people have 4:3 and most have 16:9. Almost no one has 2.35:1 as a defined AR. But to me the AR of the projector is just a Max image AR to work within. If I want 2.35:1 I can cut that out of any size rectangle and I can zoom whatever I want to be any size. Even CIH. 

I think that is where we differ in our view points for me CIH is a thought process. Just as PIA is a thought process. I could just as easily have a CIH setup with a 4:3 projector as a 16:9 projector. 
For others CIH isn’t a thought process it is a real thing embodied in a 2.35:1 screen hanging on the wall. In your case you have to make a decision at the time of ordering a screen what your seating distance is and what height your CI”H” is going to be for you. Then you order a screen and then you are locked into your unique version of CIH perfect for you. I hear many times the advice of using a wall to get a feel for what CI”H” will work best for an individual then order your screen and enjoy watching different AR as they were and are intended to be watched. Everything will be sized properly from then on in CIH. If you don’t want to experiment to what “H” is right for you turn to the data and select the screen “H” that matches the sweat spot in terms of angles even if you are a person that has always sat 2/3 of the way back at the movies. 

In actuality the “H” isn’t as important as the fact everything you watch once you get started is all CIH. 

I can say the same thing about all the people I know that have flat panel 16:9 TV sets I have never once heard them say OMG this movie is in scope let’s move the furniture closer. The fact people don’t move closer or comment in a movie theater in no way means things are perfect for them. People are creatures of habit and the truth is most people never give presentation area or height a second thought because we have been conditioned to disconnect from the fact it is even a movie and be transported into that it is a story. Like reading a good book we don’t see pages of words we see a story in our mind. It is only a small subset of people that worry or discuss any of this and it is true in more than just visual imagery. Sound quality is another. I have a feeling the people that enjoy both the most are people that don’t give the technical side of it a second thought. 

As I have said a million times the beauty of any AR is in the presentation. I took a panoramic photo the other night of a sunset on our Bayfront. AR ended up about 15:1 and it was beautiful on the little screen on my cam. It was beautiful on my monitor at home as well and I threw it up on the wall with the projector and it was equally as beautiful. I couldn’t project a 15:1 image as CIH but I made it as wide as I could and it was amazing the beauty was in the image first and the AR second. The lack of height didn’t diminish the beauty.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Either you're 'silly' or SMPTE etc and all the CIH theatres that have and still existed are silly. 

You can do what you like in your own home of course if it's legal and makes you happy. 

Just like a 16:10 or 16:9 pj has that particular ratio as it's native format, doesn't mean things should be presented that way. Those are just compromise formats.

Look at 35mm film and widescreen - just by using an anamorphic lens in front of the camera and using the whole 35 mm frame, you can project it with another A lens and get 2.35:1. The capture format and delivery are two entirely different things. Digital is no different but people don't understand that, especially when the multiplexes are no better, and that's why they don't feel cheated or want to move their seats closer. They usually just say they hate the black bars. You're using ignorance as a means to promote your personal preference.

You say that the beauty of any AR is in the presentation, then try to convince us that your way is better even though it's contrary to the design criteria for presentation. 

You also say it's a thought process (because Fox, SMPTE, THX etc obviously aren't capable of thinking), but in actuality it's a design criteria. Same as the wheel. You may think a hectagonal wheel is better than a round one in your own personal thought process but in reality it isn't. Maybe better for you, but not for everyone who understands why round is better.

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince the most though, us or yourself. With us, you're wasting your time because we're following the design and intent that's existed since the 50s. You won't change our minds that your method is anything than just denial of the way things should be.

But if doing it your way makes you happy, by all means carry on, just please do it quietly in your own home.

Adding a wink at the end of your post again suggests you have discovered something unique and game changing. Instead the opposite is true. 

You can stop trying to convince us that you have thought of something no one else has, or that you are some kind of genius who has discovered something no one else has. Just like the teacher guy in the UK, you think you know better than everyone else and that you're going to make us all step back in wonderment at your new discovery.

Think again


----------



## jeahrens

Bud not having a screen attached to the wall does not make you stubborn or silly. Trying to argue that the term constant is somehow malleable on the other hand does. I said twice in the post you quoted that I'm glad you enjoy your unique setup. And I was sincere in that. You may be able to cut out a CIH rectangle and display everything at that height, but you don't. So you're free to type more explaining about how you view AR's as a state of mind, but constant height does not equal variable height. And that's simply a fact. 

I doubt many people move their chairs to watch a certain AR. I also doubt that the majority of people change where they prefer to sit at the cinema based on AR too. You implied that cinema goers would move their seating based on AR, not I. Which was to support your contention that your ever changing screen size was somehow closer to the established formulas to calculate optimal screen size and angle in relation to seating distance. People may be creatures of habit, but the fact that almost everyone gravitates towards the same basic seating area says something very telling. No one has told them this is an optimal area, yet they gravitate to it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you or anyone else embracing an open area screen to show things how they want to. I also believe strongly that a properly setup CIH system is the best way to view cinema in a home. But there's certainly room for all manner of preferences and anyone is free to setup their rooms as they like.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> But if doing it your way makes you happy, by all means carry on, just please do it quietly in your own home.


I have no desire to convince anyone actively participating on this thread to change anything they are currently doing or wish to do. Just like I have the freedom of doing in my home any form of presentation I want so do all the others here. 

I don’t place myself above FOX SMPTE THX etc. nor do I feel they are wrong in anything they suggest. I have been enjoying movies presented to those specs for years and have no complaints at all, just as I have no complaints going to an IMAX theater and enjoying those presentations or even going to Disney and watching some amazing screen presentations. I like the idea of replicating them all at home if I can. 

If you think I’m arguing some point similar to what Josh suggested I can say I’m not. I do believe this is an open forum to discuss any and all related topics and PIA contains all that is needed to have a successful CIH setup and as there are no CIA forums or PIA forums I started a thread here. 

The main reason for starting the thread isn’t an opposition to CIH at all as mentioned it is the method I watch the most. It wasn’t started to convince a few people in the thread to change their religion. 

It was started for the 1000’s of lurkers and guests that surf in here and the few posters brave enough that title their thread “Is CIH right for me” for every post there is 10 views and over the next year who knows how many people will learn so much about FOX SMPTE THX etc. from reading this.

If they make it this far and are still reading I will give a shout out, TRY CIH FOR YOURSELF IT IS A GREAT METHOD OF VIEWING MOVIE CONTENT !!! 

I only take exception to one statement and that’s the one I quoted, If I read it correctly I was being politely told to shut up, stop posting in the CIH forum and keep my thoughts to myself at home. If that is coming in a formal AVS manner from the admin I will be more than happy to comply. 

“sometimes a wink is just a wink” to paraphrase SF….


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> I have no desire to convince anyone actively participating on this thread to change anything they are currently doing or wish to do. Just like I have the freedom of doing in my home any form of presentation I want so do all the others here.


You say that, but not only do you suggest your way is better, you even start a new thread suggesting it is perfect.

The amount of content you've posted promoting your 'thought process' etc suggests you do wish to change how people do things. Otherwise you wouldn't be constantly posting as much as you are or starting new threads about it. 



bud16415 said:


> I don’t place myself above FOX SMPTE THX etc. nor do I feel they are wrong in anything they suggest.


Then why are you saying your way is perfect? That more than suggests you think your way is better than anything else, because everything else isn't perfect.



bud16415 said:


> I have been enjoying movies presented to those specs for years and have no complaints at all, just as I have no complaints going to an IMAX theater and enjoying those presentations or even going to Disney and watching some amazing screen presentations. I like the idea of replicating them all at home if I can.


Then that would be CIH+IMAX. No new 'thought process required there.



bud16415 said:


> If you think I’m arguing some point similar to what Josh suggested I can say I’m not. I do believe this is an open forum to discuss any and all related topics and PIA contains all that is needed to have a successful CIH setup and as there are no CIA forums or PIA forums I started a thread here.


You can't have CIH if you vary the height.

You could have just posted it in the screen forum.

If you're not arguing the point why are you constantly posting about it?



bud16415 said:


> The main reason for starting the thread isn’t an opposition to CIH at all as mentioned it is the method I watch the most. It wasn’t started to convince a few people in the thread to change their religion.


It's not a religion, it's a design criteria.



bud16415 said:


> It was started for the 1000’s of lurkers and guests that surf in here and the few posters brave enough that title their thread “Is CIH right for me” for every post there is 10 views and over the next year who knows how many people will learn so much about FOX SMPTE THX etc. from reading this.


There is more than enough info from the above bodies already here, don't think you have somehow arrived on the scene and allowed people to become educated because of you. It's been discussed to death in the past.



bud16415 said:


> If they make it this far and are still reading I will give a shout out, TRY CIH FOR YOURSELF IT IS A GREAT METHOD OF VIEWING MOVIE CONTENT !!!


Thanks for that, because we desperately need your approval. Without your contribution I'm sure no one would have ever reached that conclusion already. Who knows, they may even make a sub forum specifically for CIH now that you've given it approval. Oh, hang on...



bud16415 said:


> I only take exception to one statement and that’s the one I quoted, If I read it correctly I was being politely told to shut up, stop posting in the CIH forum and keep my thoughts to myself at home. If that is coming in a formal AVS manner from the admin I will be more than happy to comply.
> 
> “sometimes a wink is just a wink” to paraphrase SF….


I'm sure I'm not the only one finding it _perfect_ly tiresome now.


----------



## bud16415

I understand for some CIH and CIH + IMAX is perfect for others CIW may be perfect because of its simplicity and still others CIA is perfect because they find that the best mix. I’m in no way saying those systems are not perfect for those individuals. But I’m sure CIW is not perfect for you. The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup. If it evolves for them to be CIH + IMAX then so be it. 

My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion. 

It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat. 

Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom. 

It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup.


No. I don't want my wall to be completely painted with a screen mixture. Even with the excellent black level of my JVC the unused panel area would be visible and detract from the presentation. You have people supporting you and people disagreeing. So it is obvioulsy not perfect for everyone.



bud16415 said:


> My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion.


Bud either you do not understand what constant means or you are purposefully trolling at this point. You do not have nor are you using a CIH setup. Maybe a CIW argument could be made (I'd have to look at the diagram again). Continuing to say this is simply undermining your opinion at this point.



bud16415 said:


> It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat.


Which for the vast majority of viewers is the same general area regardless of AR of the film and curiously happens to coincide with the theater design formulas that have been pointed out.



bud16415 said:


> Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom.
> 
> It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.


Right you could use your setup as CIH, but you don't. We don't need 50 rows. We are getting 1-2 rows just right. In fact the more rows you have, the less seating you have in the optimal area.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> I understand for some CIH and CIH + IMAX is perfect for others CIW may be perfect because of its simplicity and still others CIA is perfect because they find that the best mix. I’m in no way saying those systems are not perfect for those individuals. But I’m sure CIW is not perfect for you. The system I’m illustrating is perfect for everyone as each person can use it for their perfect setup. If it evolves for them to be CIH + IMAX then so be it.


You're suggesting preference over reference, which is fine for some.



bud16415 said:


> My preferred embodiment of PIA for me is what I depicted in the OP. it not only allows for CIH, CIW,CIA but for me it also embodies “reduced image area” RIA for times when content is less than stellar or when the assist of a brighter image is desired. It is a form of negative immersion.


That sounds like a compromised room or tv material which would be better suited watched on a direct view display. Otherwise quality shouldn't be an issue if the set up is correct (calibration, reflectance, room decor for example). It sounds like you don't know how to set things up to the standards as your method is constantly deviating from them.



bud16415 said:


> It is no different than I have been doing in the proper designed movie houses of the 50’s on. it is called picking my seat.


That suggests you know the quality and aspect ratio of the movie before you go into the movie theatre, and if it has ambient lighting issues etc. That's something 99.9% of the public have no dea about before they go there.

Also, as Josh and I have pointed out, research shows that most people gravitate to same place in a theatre and do not randomly pick a different seat. You can read it in white papers from the likes of Dolby. They may of course be given a seat where they don't like but that's a different issue. 

Most people will pretty much sit in the same place, and at home we can design the optimal seating for us s we don't sit in a bad seat. I don't know anyone who moves their seats. If you move your seats due to the aspect of the movie, there's a good chance you are running a visual CIH system the same that Steve does by moving his seats closer for scope. He zooms himself rather than the projector lens.



bud16415 said:


> Every aspect of home theater can be shown to be as good or better than the very best commercial theater except one thing. Unless you are Bill Gates or one of his rich friends I doubt your home theater won’t have 50 row deep seating. The very best home theaters have real restriction on seat selection compared to commercial theaters. PIA gives you that freedom.


Who needs freedom when you have already designed the perfect seating distance for yourself? If you have to move your seats it probably means there's something wrong with your set up.



bud16415 said:


> It can be CIH but it doesn’t have to be because it is PIA.


It doesn't sound cool to me. It sounds like someone doesn't know how to set up their theatre because there are too many variables out of their control, so they have to keep changing things to get something to be visually acceptable to them.

With a correctly set up and calibrated projector and room, everything should look pretty much OK and watchable. At least it always has been for me once I'd learnt about those things.


----------



## bud16415

I’ll let you guys have the last word. I enjoy point and counter point as much as the next guy, but after multi iterations of the same points it is “pointless” to continue the repetition. 

For the record I’m not advocating that anyone use a DIY screen painted screen on their wall as a screen here. Everything that PIA has can be contained in a 16:9 screen in fact the same screen Gary Lightfoot advocates for CIH + IMAX would work perfect. 

That being said DIY screen being in no way necessary for any projector setup as there are wonderful commercial screens out there. There are equally as wonderful screens to be had for those that want to put forth the DIY effort. Some love the idea of a stealth screen some want 2 way or 4 way masking or a frame with masking and that is a personal choice as to what you want to do for masking. I personally have a 4 way masking system that happens away from the screen and works very well for my needs. That is documented in other places and has nothing to do with this thread and the idea put forward. 

Any last words on the definition of constant are welcome.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> For the record I’m not advocating that anyone use a DIY screen painted screen on their wall as a screen here. Everything that PIA has can be contained in a 16:9 screen in fact the same screen Gary Lightfoot advocates for CIH + IMAX would work perfect.


If everything can be contained in a 16:9 screen than it is essentially a CIW setup that you shrink certain content based on the importance you assign it. I'll let Gary detail his reasoning. My guess is he has setup he masks 99% of the time and then opens up for the odd 4:3 IMAX film. Not really a strict CIH setup, but certainly much closer than your flexible image concept if that's the case. Although both are what you personally desire, so enjoy it. 



bud16415 said:


> That being said DIY screen being in no way necessary for any projector setup as there are wonderful commercial screens out there. There are equally as wonderful screens to be had for those that want to put forth the DIY effort. Some love the idea of a stealth screen some want 2 way or 4 way masking or a frame with masking and that is a personal choice as to what you want to do for masking. I personally have a 4 way masking system that happens away from the screen and works very well for my needs. That is documented in other places and has nothing to do with this thread and the idea put forward.


I don't think anyone is stating that you have to have a DIY screen. Although unless the assortment of rectangles and squares you are presenting fit a commercially available unit, you'd either be having a custom one built or doing DIY. Your mirror setup is a great way to do the masking, but not all rooms have that flexibility. So you'd be stuck trying to make an assortment of custom masks to fit the various squares and rectangles you decide on or be forced to see the unused panel area (which may or may not be a big issue).



bud16415 said:


> Any last words on the definition of constant are welcome.


Glad you've maintained a sense of humor. The back and forth on this was simply to encourage you to quit misusing the term. Your setup stands on it's own merits and doesn't need the distraction of implying it is something it isn't.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> If everything can be contained in a 16:9 screen than it is essentially a CIW setup that you shrink certain content based on the importance you assign it. I'll let Gary detail his reasoning. My guess is he has setup he masks 99% of the time and then opens up for the odd 4:3 IMAX film. Not really a strict CIH setup, but certainly much closer than your flexible image concept if that's the case. Although both are what you personally desire, so enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is stating that you have to have a DIY screen. Although unless the assortment of rectangles and squares you are presenting fit a commercially available unit, you'd either be having a custom one built or doing DIY. Your mirror setup is a great way to do the masking, but not all rooms have that flexibility. So you'd be stuck trying to make an assortment of custom masks to fit the various squares and rectangles you decide on or be forced to see the unused panel area (which may or may not be a big issue).
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you've maintained a sense of humor. The back and forth on this was simply to encourage you to quit misusing the term. Your setup stands on it's own merits and doesn't need the distraction of implying it is something it isn't.


I know I said you guys can have the last word but your last statement made me realize I was wrong in my initial naming of my system of viewing and it should be changed perhaps before people get the wrong idea as to what I’m doing. 

I think a better name will be CPIA (constant perfect image area) 

I do see now how 99% of the time could be constant but 85% of the time couldn’t be constant. 

If we don’t keep sense of humor, we don’t have anything.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I know I said you guys can have the last word but your last statement made me realize I was wrong in my initial naming of my system of viewing and it should be changed perhaps before people get the wrong idea as to what I’m doing.
> 
> I think a better name will be CPIA (constant perfect image area)
> 
> I do see now how 99% of the time could be constant but 85% of the time couldn’t be constant.
> 
> If we don’t keep sense of humor, we don’t have anything.


I didn't say 99% of time = constant. I said it was certainly closer and not strictly CIH. If you want to have the argument about what Gary considers his setup, please direct it at Gary.

Your system, in my opinion, would be best named "Flexible Image Area" or "Desired Image Area". Perfect implies everyone will find it so, which clearly isn't the case.


----------



## Josh Z

jeahrens said:


> Your system, in my opinion, would be best named "Flexible Image Area" or "Desired Image Area".


Other suggestions:

CRIA
Constantly Random Image Area

AGIA
Anything Goes Image Area

TAISS
Totally Arbitrary Image Size & Shape


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I don't see why there is any confusion about my proposed set up, because it's very very simple, but just for Bud..

As most people on this forum know, Scope should be the widest most immersive format other than IMAX.

Although I have the screen material for a 2.35 screen so I can watch all formats correctly as CIH (2.20:1, 2:1, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 1.37:1 etc etc), I thought that as I had the room, I could fit a taller screen of the same width so that I could watch the few (6 or 7?) pseudo IMAX aspect changing movies. I have an anamorphic lens so I have a choice how I can watch them, but as IMAX is supposed to be taller (and is the only 'large' format that should be), it makes sense to watch those movies that way.

So, even though the screen is now going to be 16:9, 99.999% of the time it will be masked for CIH viewing. Even if I occasionally remove the masking for an aspect changing movie, without moving my seat, I will be seeing absolutely everything correctly as intended and in proportion - just as designed.

Front row at around 2x the screen height for CIH, and around 1.5xSH for IMAX - and without zooming or moving my seats. Perfect 

None of this is my 'idea' by the way. It's all there in the specs, you only have to read them.

HTH.

Gary


----------



## boothman

It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It's not a religion, and it's certainly not for 'elitists'. It's science and a design intent and anyone can do it if they want. It's simple 

Just because you can sit in a bad seat in a commercial theatre doesn't mean you have to sit in a bad seat at home, but you can if you want in both cases.

Just because a lot of multiplexes now use 16:9 screens doesn't mean we have to either.

Just because a lot of multiplexes don't do it right doesn't make it OK. Do we complain? Kinda, we don't go there, or we make sure we go to the one CIH screen and sit in the best row for the best experience. When I first saw a scope movie in a multiplex get masked down for scope I was dumbfounded, disappointed and felt cheated, so I don't go to those screens any more. No point in complaining because they're not going to knock the multiples down and rebuild it just for you.

You will find a lot of people in the industry don't like the way multiplexes present movies these days and they will tell you that the art of presentation has been lost. If you speak to one of the few remaining old timer projectionists they will tell you the same. They will also tell you that they would present everything before the main movie smaller to make sure the main movie was the largest most epic presentation of the day. It's all about presentation but in multiplexes you will find that is no longer a consideration. It's all about bums on seats.

What usually happens here is that people come into this forum and don't understand what CIH/Scope is all about. When they find out they often then start to argue about it, usually because their screen isn't 2.35 and they feel like they have an inferior set up, so try to defend it. That's when it becomes tiresome and then we're being told we're elitist 

You can do what you like at home, and if you enjoy it, that's fine, but if you come here and try to argue about the way we do it, then you're going to be presented with a lot of facts etc to show why you are wrong. If you continue to argue the point, then you may find exasperation sets in.

You might not care that the smaller format (16:9) is bigger than the larger format (scope), and that you're losing out on the presentation, but some of us do. Just like most people moved on from 4:3 tvs to 16:9 tvs, some of us with projectors have moved on to 2.35 screens and won't go back to 16:9. Would you go back to a 4:3 tv?

If you don't like or agree with CIH/Scope then fine, don't do it, but you won't convince us that doing it any other way is better, so please move along 

Gary


----------



## bud16415

boothman said:


> It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.


Thanks for reading boothman.

I would go back to 4:3 projector and screen in a heartbeat if I could find one with the horizontal resolution at least as good as 1080P and priced reasonable and suited for home theater, given my ceiling height allowed me to go as wide as I needed for a comfortable CIH mode and not spill onto the ceiling. I would find the extra height very useful for a number of non-cinema uses I have for my projector photography being one of them. Just like you can’t complain to the Cineplex to change their building to make all theaters scope you can’t force the projector industry or TV to change what they deem the right AR. 16:9 is what we mostly get if you want any kind of pricing and something optimized for home theater. 

Boothman highlights my intent exactly when he asks the question if I go into a cinama and find a 16:9 screen and I know the movie is presented in scope is going to be masked down or worse will have black bars. It is not that hard in today’s world to read a movie review before going to see it and watch a trailer. Around here our big movie complex has mixed AR theaters and the new release plays in the big scope theater first and if you go to see it early in the release you get the best presentation and you also get to watch it with a bunch of jerks mixed in with the true movie goers. The jerks can be identified by the usage of cell phones and texting devices along with talking as if they were watching at home. I wait a week and take the hit on the theater sometime to avoid the jerks at least most of them. And many times I walk in and understand the presentation and simply sit 8 to 12 rows closer, use my zoom feature to right size the image. The sound normally takes a slight hit as well in the 16:9 theater but they are still good. The fact that a scope movie is being shown on a 16:9 screen masked down given I get there soon enough to pick a closer seat has zero impact on my personal presentation of a movie I want to see immersive that is filmed in scope. If when watching the trailer and I’m being dragged to a cinematic masterpiece filmed in scope like Mom’s Night Out because I’m sure the director found the scope AR the best format to convey the zany antics of a bunch of mom’s partying and those panoramic images of the inside of a bar were too important to be clipped from the movie. Call me crazy but when I am dragged to such a movie see it is in a 16:9 theater and knowing the movie is in scope I suggest 8 to 12 rows back from the center of the theater. Once again using my zoom to control the experience. Making a bad movie larger won’t make it better. Keep in mind Mom’s night out isn’t a bad movie to everyone in the world, it made millions I’m sure and people are laughing, I even laughed at it. It is however bad for me and in no way for me did it live up to being a cinematic masterpiece worthy or needing a widescreen scope presentation. I don’t decide or have a say in how a film is made, but I do have a say of how I watch it or if I even watch it at all. 

That is the fundamental difference between PIA and CIH or even CIH + Imax. CIH is a set of rules set forth by organizations and people that come together and decide such things for the industry. Go to the SMPTE site and look around you can even join if you want they discuss everything and anything about media presentation. The true followers of CIH will sit thru Mom’s Night Out at epic scale because that is how it was intended to be viewed. The CIH +Imax people will do the same but allow themselves a very slight ability to go taller with only 7 movies deemed to be true Imax because they claim the extra few inches at the top and bottom were carefully filmed to contain nothing but fluff and there is never a reason for the eyes to go there. A presentation of Planet Earth on the other hand is very Imax like or even the movie Avatar where the director selected that AR because the taller format gave the immersion factor that made the illusion of flight stronger and very much intended it to be Imax like in that regard have to be shown smaller because they don’t carry the Imax logo on the BD. 

PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch that understand the history of cinema but also understand that cinema is an ever changing ever improving art form, and as such respect the premise of CIH but like the + Imax guys see exceptions in going both more and less immersive when their personal level of immersion calls for it. 

So in closing 99.999% is close enough to be constant but 89.999% can’t be Constant or constant + anything else. That’s why the name PIA doesn’t have a “C” in its name.


----------



## Josh Z

I see that Bud's understanding of the phrase "I’ll let you have the last word" is about as clear as his understanding of the word "constant." 



bud16415 said:


> PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch


"PIA people"? There's no "bunch," Bud. It's just you.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> I see that Bud's understanding of the phrase "I’ll let you have the last word" is about as clear as his understanding of the word "constant."
> 
> 
> 
> "PIA people"? There's no "bunch," Bud. It's just you.


I was replying to boothman actually as far as the endless debate over immersion and human FOV as far as I’m concerned all that can be presented has been, and we all have had our last words. 

I don’t actually see a huge growing bunch of CIH converts. The bunch that is growing rapidly I would say are the bunch that Steve is a member of and they are a bunch perhaps looking for a name and a direction. Every day I read threads where people are looking for a way to project ungodly sized images and following whatever size suits their needs it is truly chaos for some. If anything I have attempted to make some order out of chaos by showing MCIH (Mostly CIH) is a sound way to go for the large share of viewing and an excellent base for seating distance and screen width. I then illustrated when and why someone might want to deviate from that system with positive and negative immersion factors. 

Understanding a problem is the first step in solving it. By spelling out a system that might approximate what they are doing anyway would give someone new a chance to reflect on what equipment they would need to do that in advance of buying it. It is pretty common here to advise someone wanting CIH zoom method just how much zoom range they need and then talk about throw distance and such. It is the same thing. 

Most folks are buying a 16:9 projector and screen and using it as CIW because that’s how TV works. It ends up with them hating scope because it wastes so much screen and is too small. I’m trying to show them a way to think about it so they are not disappointed in anything.


----------



## jeahrens

boothman said:


> It seems reading this thread if you don't accept the established "religion" of the elitists of how your screen should present different aspect ratios of films you're talked down to in a very condescending manner. When you guys walk into a movie theater do you measure your field of view in degrees to pick the "correct" seat? All the preaching on here about how scope HAS to be wider than 16:9 is a joke. If you buy a ticket for a scope film and see that the screen is about 16:9 and scope will be smaller than if a 1.85 film was shown do you walk out? Even watching the 1.85 film on that screen do you complain to management that watching it diminishes the impact because scope films will not be wider? You watch one film at a time. I'm not thinking about a scope sized image and feeling bad that it's not wider than my 16:9 image while watching a 1.78 blu ray. If I can only fit a certain width screen (say 130") in my room I will use that for scope however I'll take the 16:9 being taller. In a home theater 12-13' back is it really that big of a deal for an extra 9.5" above and below the scope size to crucify people over and act like they've committed an unforgivable sin? That's the way it's done now in a LOT of theaters.


I'm sorry you see it as elitist or condescending. That's not the intent. There's nothing really to preach, scope was invented by the studios to be the largest format with the most impact. Directors choose it with that intent. Nothing says you have to follow suit in your own home, but this forum is a place to ask questions about doing so.

I don't walk out of a theater that displays scope poorly, but I do try to avoid them. If I'm going with a group I've never made any sort of fuss if someone chooses a crappy theater. Unfortunately if they have skimped on the screen, they usually skimp on the sound too. I doubt anyone measures anything when they go into a theater, but we all tend to pick the same sweet spot we prefer. Which is generally more or less where the measurements match up. Thankfully in most home theaters even if the owner opts for a 16:9 screen (which is perfectly fine if that's what they want) they usually have a nice sound system to back it up. And a better picture than the bargain multiplex. 

If you are typing that you can't see why this is a big deal, then I'd encourage you to read more on what CIH does for presentation and impact. If you set your seating up properly with a CIH setup you don't have to lose anything when watching 1.85:1 or 1.33:1, but scope takes a *massive* jump in size. In my own setup other formats lost a few % (I lost 3" in height going to 2.35:1) but scope is 63% larger. There's certainly nothing wrong deciding your viewing habits don't justify the hurdles of 2.35:1, but the difference is not subtle. You should seek out such a setup and see it for yourself. You may still decide it's not for you, but at least you would have a better idea why some of us prefer this viewing method. 

From the sounds of it, if you decided to do this you probably could. If the room allows you could move your seating forward some to make the perceived image size of 1.85:1 content on the 2.35:1 screen the same as it is on your 16:9 screen, but you would now have scope about 70% bigger than what it was. Movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, etc would have a whole new impact. But maybe you're like Steve and you watch a lot of TV or Game on your setup and it just isn't worth it to you. That's fine too.

From your tone you seem very upset. Keep in mind the method being pitched has "perfect" in the name. That right there is going to ruffle feathers. There's nothing wrong with Bud wanting to do something different, but you have understand that his ideas run contrary to what this subforum is trying to educate people on. Kind of like posting that BMW is perfect in an Audi forum. So there will be conflict. I doubt you'll find many people even other forums that want Academy aspect ratio formats (1.33:1/4:3) to have the most emphasis or shrink or expand content based on the importance they assign it (and mask it bouncing off a mirror). Be honest does that sound perfect to you? Again Bud is free to do what makes him happy and I'm sure there will be folks that get inspiration from what he's doing. And his solution is pretty ingenious when you look at what he wants.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I was replying to boothman actually as far as the endless debate over immersion and human FOV as far as I’m concerned all that can be presented has been, and we all have had our last words.
> 
> I don’t actually see a huge growing bunch of CIH converts. The bunch that is growing rapidly I would say are the bunch that Steve is a member of and they are a bunch perhaps looking for a name and a direction. Every day I read threads where people are looking for a way to project ungodly sized images and following whatever size suits their needs it is truly chaos for some. If anything I have attempted to make some order out of chaos by showing MCIH (Mostly CIH) is a sound way to go for the large share of viewing and an excellent base for seating distance and screen width. I then illustrated when and why someone might want to deviate from that system with positive and negative immersion factors.
> 
> Understanding a problem is the first step in solving it. By spelling out a system that might approximate what they are doing anyway would give someone new a chance to reflect on what equipment they would need to do that in advance of buying it. It is pretty common here to advise someone wanting CIH zoom method just how much zoom range they need and then talk about throw distance and such. It is the same thing.
> 
> Most folks are buying a 16:9 projector and screen and using it as CIW because that’s how TV works. It ends up with them hating scope because it wastes so much screen and is too small. I’m trying to show them a way to think about it so they are not disappointed in anything.


It's funny you say that. With more and more manufactures including lens memory and integrated blanking for scope, I see the numbers growing slightly. Not saying it will ever overtake CIW or get adopted in huge numbers, but interest is increasing.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Thanks for reading boothman.
> 
> I would go back to 4:3 projector and screen in a heartbeat if I could find one with the horizontal resolution at least as good as 1080P and priced reasonable and suited for home theater, given my ceiling height allowed me to go as wide as I needed for a comfortable CIH mode and not spill onto the ceiling. I would find the extra height very useful for a number of non-cinema uses I have for my projector photography being one of them. Just like you can’t complain to the Cineplex to change their building to make all theaters scope you can’t force the projector industry or TV to change what they deem the right AR. 16:9 is what we mostly get if you want any kind of pricing and something optimized for home theater.
> 
> Boothman highlights my intent exactly when he asks the question if I go into a cinama and find a 16:9 screen and I know the movie is presented in scope is going to be masked down or worse will have black bars. It is not that hard in today’s world to read a movie review before going to see it and watch a trailer. Around here our big movie complex has mixed AR theaters and the new release plays in the big scope theater first and if you go to see it early in the release you get the best presentation and you also get to watch it with a bunch of jerks mixed in with the true movie goers. The jerks can be identified by the usage of cell phones and texting devices along with talking as if they were watching at home. I wait a week and take the hit on the theater sometime to avoid the jerks at least most of them. And many times I walk in and understand the presentation and simply sit 8 to 12 rows closer, use my zoom feature to right size the image. The sound normally takes a slight hit as well in the 16:9 theater but they are still good. The fact that a scope movie is being shown on a 16:9 screen masked down given I get there soon enough to pick a closer seat has zero impact on my personal presentation of a movie I want to see immersive that is filmed in scope. If when watching the trailer and I’m being dragged to a cinematic masterpiece filmed in scope like Mom’s Night Out because I’m sure the director found the scope AR the best format to convey the zany antics of a bunch of mom’s partying and those panoramic images of the inside of a bar were too important to be clipped from the movie. Call me crazy but when I am dragged to such a movie see it is in a 16:9 theater and knowing the movie is in scope I suggest 8 to 12 rows back from the center of the theater. Once again using my zoom to control the experience. Making a bad movie larger won’t make it better. Keep in mind Mom’s night out isn’t a bad movie to everyone in the world, it made millions I’m sure and people are laughing, I even laughed at it. It is however bad for me and in no way for me did it live up to being a cinematic masterpiece worthy or needing a widescreen scope presentation. I don’t decide or have a say in how a film is made, but I do have a say of how I watch it or if I even watch it at all.
> 
> That is the fundamental difference between PIA and CIH or even CIH + Imax. CIH is a set of rules set forth by organizations and people that come together and decide such things for the industry. Go to the SMPTE site and look around you can even join if you want they discuss everything and anything about media presentation. The true followers of CIH will sit thru Mom’s Night Out at epic scale because that is how it was intended to be viewed. The CIH +Imax people will do the same but allow themselves a very slight ability to go taller with only 7 movies deemed to be true Imax because they claim the extra few inches at the top and bottom were carefully filmed to contain nothing but fluff and there is never a reason for the eyes to go there. A presentation of Planet Earth on the other hand is very Imax like or even the movie Avatar where the director selected that AR because the taller format gave the immersion factor that made the illusion of flight stronger and very much intended it to be Imax like in that regard have to be shown smaller because they don’t carry the Imax logo on the BD.
> 
> PIA people I see as a less fervent more modern thinking bunch that understand the history of cinema but also understand that cinema is an ever changing ever improving art form, and as such respect the premise of CIH but like the + Imax guys see exceptions in going both more and less immersive when their personal level of immersion calls for it.
> 
> So in closing 99.999% is close enough to be constant but 89.999% can’t be Constant or constant + anything else. That’s why the name PIA doesn’t have a “C” in its name.


Bud you really do love 4:3. I haven't talked to anyone else that isn't glad that format is gone as display ratio, but at least you have been consistent in your support of it. I think anyone reading this needs to understand a big part of your love of this setup is the emphasis you put on this ratio. And you love classic cinema, so it's understandable. There are a lot of awesome classics (I just started my way through The Thin Man movies).

As we've said before you may move where you sit, but the vast majority don't. They sit in roughly the same place regardless of AR every time. This area also happens to coincide with the design criteria of the experts. Which I don't think is a coincidence.

I don't see much forward thinking in a viewing method that emphasizes an aspect ratio that is essentially dead (4:3). Cinema is still roughly 50/50 split between 2.4:1 and 1.85:1. With the majority of blockbusters being 2.4:1. This shows little signs of changing.

I do watch films as the director intended and with intended impact whenever possible. You keep bringing up scope films you view as lesser and feel their presentation should reflect that. That's fine for you. The thing is I don't feel that a middle of the road 2.4:1 movie is somehow made a more important film than say Saving Private Ryan in 1.85:1 based on the image size. The importance of the film is in it's content. However I do think that I get the most out of each experience by watching each film as they were meant to be shown. 

Aspect Ratios are chosen for a variety of reasons. It's a tool chosen by the filmmaker to control the viewing experience. In our homes we can view a film however we see fit.


----------



## bud16415

I do love 4:3 movies but that has nothing to do with why I would want a 4:3 projector. One is a vintage AR of old classic movies of a bygone era. The other is a tool to project stuff on a screen. I can project 4:3 content with any AR projector just as I can project scope on a 4:3 projector one has no bearing on the other. 

If I was doing a slide presentation on a 4:3 projector The Last Supper would have the same impact as The Mona Lisa. All the projector and screen are being a blank canvas to be filled with as little or as much as you want. It is just a rectangle and if Edison had found film in a 4:4 AR chances are all the classic movies would be square now. Scope is just a rectangle and was a way of making movies different than TV and get people back in the movies. Imax is just a rectangle to get people away from movies. Scope was made wide for a reason but the reason was never based around human FOV. It is a beautiful format and allows beautiful movies to be made in it. The Last Supper painted in a 4:3 frame wouldn’t have been much to look at. The Mona Lisa painted on a scope canvas wouldn’t have worked. There are good movies and poor movies made in every AR every year. 

TV went to 16:9 the device matching the media and 16:9 was picked because it was half way between 4:3 and scope


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I do love 4:3 movies but that has nothing to do with why I would want a 4:3 projector. One is a vintage AR of old classic movies of a bygone era. The other is a tool to project stuff on a screen. I can project 4:3 content with any AR projector just as I can project scope on a 4:3 projector one has no bearing on the other.
> 
> If I was doing a slide presentation on a 4:3 projector The Last Supper would have the same impact as The Mona Lisa. All the projector and screen are being a blank canvas to be filled with as little or as much as you want. It is just a rectangle and if Edison had found film in a 4:4 AR chances are all the classic movies would be square now. Scope is just a rectangle and was a way of making movies different than TV and get people back in the movies. Imax is just a rectangle to get people away from movies. Scope was made wide for a reason but the reason was never based around human FOV. It is a beautiful format and allows beautiful movies to be made in it. The Last Supper painted in a 4:3 frame wouldn’t have been much to look at. The Mona Lisa painted on a scope canvas wouldn’t have worked. There are good movies and poor movies made in every AR every year.
> 
> TV went to 16:9 the device matching the media and 16:9 was picked because it was half way between 4:3 and scope


Yup 16:9 was a compromise of all the various ARs. Other than classic cinema I can't fathom any reason to prefer a 4:3 panel as you wouldn't get a lot of panel fill the majority of the time. So you'd just about have to have some good masking compared to a 16:9 setup. There's certainly a point where resolution ceases to matter and you're just looking at the picture, but with the need to mask and pixelization being apparent in lower resolution I still couldn't see anything compelling about one. You'd need a pretty capable lens to get the size up there too. But again, your house, your preference. I don't see anyone making anything in 4:3 anymore (maybe some specialty market?), so unfortunately you probably aren't going to get your wish. Which sucks . 

I won't get into the debate about wide vs. tall as it relates to vision again. Only that even in markets where a 4:3 display is still offered it has not done anything but decline. I don't think there's a vast conspiracy at work here. Nor is there a high level of education about aspect ratios. People are just getting what they prefer. We also have probably 70% of our desktops using multi-monitor setups. All of them are horizontal and none stacked vertically. So read into that whatever you like. My opinion is there is an obvious preferences for wider display areas. If you interpret the data differently, no worries. We're not going to agree here.


----------



## steve1106

Bud, I like my 4:3 projector even with 800x600 resolution. The only side effect of watching a 150 inch 800x600 image for hours is that I actually dreamed one night in screen door effect. I knew then I needed a 1080p for 150 but for 92 to 120 inches no problem, and the 300ish Viewsonic projector still spanks my 70 inch Sharp on the family room wall.


----------



## R Harkness

I have been doing essentially this since 2008 and since virtually no one else was doing it, or at least hadn't coined a term, I had termed it "*VIS*" or "_*V*ariable *I*mage *S*ize"_ system. (Hence, my signature links). That to me still feels like the most accurate description of what I'm doing.

I'd set out originally following the standard CIH rule of thumbs usually promulgated here, but found for various reasons they did not work for me. And in fact, in some ways didn't work even for some CIH devotees. There used to be threads, when the forum was busier, where a number of CIH owners, even after following CIH advice, talked about favoring scope movies over 16:9 because once they designed their system to show scope larger than 16:9, going back to 16:9 (or 1:85:1) felt more disappointing in comparison. I argued this was totally understandable due to the contrast effect, which just reverses the sense of image shrinking that one gets with a 16:9 set up. Even if one started by keeping an apparently satisfying 16:9 size, once you see your picture expanded for a scope movie, that 16:9 size is going to feel smaller. That's one big reason older, well respected member Bjoern Roy came up with the Constant Image Area approach, where scope was still wider, but a sense of immersion was kept more constant and satisfying across all aspect ratios). 

I certainly get that it's not for everyone - in fact far from the right thing for everyone, since most people would prefer to limit the choices they want to make when putting on a movie. But I've always been about maximizing my choice. It still for me is the single best decision I made in my home theater. I can maximize the viewing angle combination of immersion and image quality (in other words, not all transfers and sources are the same quality or resolution - some benefit from being larger, others smaller). And there are always trade offs between a larger and smaller image, so not being stuck with one I go with what I feel like. And 4:3 movies, which I love, are larger than they would be if I stuck with CIH. (The "choose the right height for every movie and every movie AR will feel right" mantra did not work out in practice, for me).

Altering the image AR and size is always one button push away. 

(I had intended to get back to the other thread with the FOV discussion, but it had become very repetitive on both sides, to the point of likely causing deep existential angst for anyone sorry enough to happen upon it...)


----------



## boothman

Sorry to go against the CIH commandment and its disciples. In most rooms there's going to be a maximum width for a screen. In my case it's 130". That's the biggest my scope width can be period. However I don't like the fact that my 16:9 content has to be much smaller because it would go against the Cinemascope creationists to do otherwise. Sure you can go ooh and ahh when the screen opens up for scope and you get a bigger picture. I get that. But like I said you watch one film at a time. Why are you guys so hung up on watching a large 16:9 image? In my case if I use CIW with 130" what's the crime in watching 16:9 in that width? Maybe I move back to a second row of seats if It doesn't match the golden rule(s) of FOV. I'm not thinking about scope and its history while I'm watching a 16:9 program. Because Bud used the word perfect is your excuse to relentlessly criticize him? Gary said CIH + IMAX = perfect. I would do the same except the CIW is already "IMAX" ready. To even use the term IMAX in relation to CIH and pretend they're compatible is ridiculous. Hardly "perfect" but I see no criticism when used by someone other than Bud. A little hypocritical. IMAX frame is 10 times the size of 35MM. You guys talk about how scope MUST, HAS TO BE, CAN"T BE ANYTHING BUT LARGER than 16:9. How do you propose IMAX is shown in a home theater with its 1.44 or 1.9 ratio? It should dwarf scope but I don't hear any comments about that. Lets shoehorn IMAX content into our screens somehow even if it's not "the way it was intended" but lets not EVER have 16:9 content larger than scope (even if 4K cinemas do it all the time).


----------



## boothman

If I go to a theater and the biggest screen say 70' wide is 16:9 and scope will be masked down or with black bars visible and they do have an older CIH screen at 40' scope I'm going with the bigger image even if it's not "correct". How am I "losing out" on the presentation watching the biggest image possible? Oh that's right because that's not the way it was mean't to be. With CIA you can enjoy whatever is the right size for you in your HOME theater. CIH was designed for a MOVIE theater where the 16:9 or scope image is so large to try to compare it to a home setting and spout the virtues of its methodology is absurd.


----------



## bud16415

I lived thru the day of transitional cinema. The movie experience was more than one movie like it is now. They would have cartoons PSA’s sometimes a double feature and sometimes a short feature and the showmanship was carefully planned to build up to the main feature. As a kid I didn’t even try and analyze what was going on you just sat back and enjoyed it, but looking back it was a planned experience from start to finish to highlight the premier product the scope movie. Even ambient light levels were played with. The projectionist’s were masterful at making it all seamless. But the routine was always similar ending with the main feature starting and the massive curtains opening wider and wider and at the same second the house lights dimmed to black and you were confronted with a massive image with amazing contrast and an actual point of reference to a lesser format. Boothman is correct you were not comparing something you saw the week before to what you were seeing that moment. There was some smoke and mirrors to all of this and always the first thing you saw expanded was the “Brought to you in Panavision” or what ever format you were seeing logo. It was constructed to impress and it did. 

I think Imax could do the same thing now if they wanted and show you a short scope movie and then lift the masking and we would all gasp at the immense height of the image. 

I gather that is what is being tried with the varying AR movies and if done correctly I can see where there could be impact in doing so. With digital and all the enhancements in cinematography these days I can see more and more movies in the future playing around with transitions in AR. I don’t care too much for sudden abrupt changes of slight amounts but I see faded transitions becoming more common. It is not a new idea by any stretch but the new methods are much more polished. I really like how it was done in the Grand Budapest Hotel. Maybe we will see more maybe not. Just like everything else in cinema we have no control over what we get. 

As far as PIA or VIS as Rich has called it. I have been doing it with all my digital projectors starting in 2006 but as a kid in the early 60’s my dad was big into 8mm movies and we were always messing around with trying to project images different ways for different reasons. 

People need to keep a perspective that this is a fun hobby and should be experimented with in all kinds of ways if you feel you want to. Have fun with it and enjoy it. 


Thanks for everyone’s thoughts and comments. 

I think if the great movie moguls of the 1950 were to name a system of viewing different AR content they would have went with a bombastic name such as PIA to draw attention to it. Look at the names they gave their products. They could have displayed on the screen “Brought to you in Wider Aspect Ratio”


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Seating distance 

That's the factor that usually isn't thought about and causes most problems (you're sat too far back). You just need to sit close enough so that the height is the limiting factor (many people don't), and then no room is width limited.


----------



## jeahrens

boothman said:


> Sorry to go against the CIH commandment and its disciples. In most rooms there's going to be a maximum width for a screen. In my case it's 130". That's the biggest my scope width can be period. However I don't like the fact that my 16:9 content has to be much smaller because it would go against the Cinemascope creationists to do otherwise. Sure you can go ooh and ahh when the screen opens up for scope and you get a bigger picture. I get that. But like I said you watch one film at a time. Why are you guys so hung up on watching a large 16:9 image? In my case if I use CIW with 130" what's the crime in watching 16:9 in that width? Maybe I move back to a second row of seats if It doesn't match the golden rule(s) of FOV. I'm not thinking about scope and its history while I'm watching a 16:9 program. Because Bud used the word perfect is your excuse to relentlessly criticize him? Gary said CIH + IMAX = perfect. I would do the same except the CIW is already "IMAX" ready. To even use the term IMAX in relation to CIH and pretend they're compatible is ridiculous. Hardly "perfect" but I see no criticism when used by someone other than Bud. A little hypocritical. IMAX frame is 10 times the size of 35MM. You guys talk about how scope MUST, HAS TO BE, CAN"T BE ANYTHING BUT LARGER than 16:9. How do you propose IMAX is shown in a home theater with its 1.44 or 1.9 ratio? It should dwarf scope but I don't hear any comments about that. Lets shoehorn IMAX content into our screens somehow even if it's not "the way it was intended" but lets not EVER have 16:9 content larger than scope (even if 4K cinemas do it all the time).


Disagreeing with Bud does not make anyone a zealot or a follower of a "religion" as you put it. We simply don't agree. Do you find his solution perfect? You didn't answer that. Do you not see how that can cause conflict? I'm not relentlessly criticizing his setup. As I've said I'm fine with Bud doing what he likes. He just has preferences that I don't.

If you wanted to do IMAX in those ratios at home properly, you would probably best be served buying a screen in that ratio as neither 16:9 or 2.35:1 would replicate what you're likely looking for. Personally I don't have any content like that. All the IMAX scenes I have are cropped and look great on my screen. You probably don't hear much about it because it's basically non-existent in those ratios on home video formats.

As Gary points and I also politely mentioned. If you went with a scope screen and moved the seating distance closer in your scenario to where *16:9 has the exact same perceived image height you lose nothing in it's presentation* and scope cinema is now roughly 70% bigger. So you're really you're not width limited, you would simply need to adjust your seating. If that's appealing to you, great. If it isn't no problem, keep doing what you're doing.

The director intends scope films to have the largest presentation when they select the format. No commandments or religion. We're just recreating that in our homes as best we can. You're free to do whatever makes you happiest.


----------



## jeahrens

boothman said:


> If I go to a theater and the biggest screen say 70' wide is 16:9 and scope will be masked down or with black bars visible and they do have an older CIH screen at 40' scope I'm going with the bigger image even if it's not "correct". How am I "losing out" on the presentation watching the biggest image possible? Oh that's right because that's not the way it was mean't to be. With CIA you can enjoy whatever is the right size for you in your HOME theater. CIH was designed for a MOVIE theater where the 16:9 or scope image is so large to try to compare it to a home setting and spout the virtues of its methodology is absurd.


Very easy answer. You like most movie viewers probably sit just past the midpoint of the theater towards the center. The perceived image size could very easily be bigger on the smaller scope screen at your normal seating position (the theater with the 40' is almost certainly smaller).

It's easy to get caught up in measurements and forget that image size is a product of screen size and seating distance.


----------



## boothman

You say the director selects scope for the biggest presentation in the cinema. Obviously that isn't true anymore. Most scope films in these "premium" theater experiences are smaller than 1.85. The director chooses scope because of composition of what's IN the frame not how big that frame will be in a movie theater. The composition is paramount to the director/cinematographer. Size in a movie theater already comes with the territory.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I just glanced over most of the replies because it's all much of the same, but I'll reply to this because it might be helpful.



boothman said:


> Sorry to go against the CIH commandment and its disciples.


Like said, it's not a religion but science and standards.



boothman said:


> In most rooms there's going to be a maximum width for a screen. In my case it's 130". That's the biggest my scope width can be period. However I don't like the fact that my 16:9 content has to be much smaller because it would go against the Cinemascope creationists to do otherwise.


But 16:9 won't be smaller if you set your seating distance so that the height to seating relationship is correct. This is usually the bit that people can't get their head round:

For example, for you, lets say that you sit about 15 feet back from your 130" wide (73" tall) screen. That's a seating distance to screen height ratio of 2.46:1

If you had a 2.35 screen that was 130" wide and 55ins tall, to preserve the seating to screen height relationship you currently have you would move your seats to around 136 ins or a tad over 11 feet away and run a 130" wide 55" tall CIH set up. That way 16:9 now visually looks the same as your current set up, but scope will now be 77% larger and more immersive, just as designed.



boothman said:


> Sure you can go ooh and ahh when the screen opens up for scope and you get a bigger picture. I get that. But like I said you watch one film at a time. Why are you guys so hung up on watching a large 16:9 image?


Because it's supposed to be smaller and have less visual impact that scope. It does the format a great disservice. It's all part of the presentation too..



boothman said:


> In my case if I use CIW with 130" what's the crime in watching 16:9 in that width?


No one is saying it's a crime, you can do what you like, but we're just pointing out that it's the wrong way round if presentation and intent is of any importance to you.



boothman said:


> Maybe I move back to a second row of seats if It doesn't match the golden rule(s) of FOV.


Some people actually do that, and don't realise they're kinda running a CIH system using a 16:9 screen and zooming themselves in and out rather than zooming the projector on a 2.35 screen and staying sat in the same seat.



boothman said:


> I'm not thinking about scope and its history while I'm watching a 16:9 program.


Or the intent or design, obviously. But neither are we, we just sit down and watch movies as designed and intended - we don't have to think about it because it's already been designed that way.



boothman said:


> Because Bud used the word perfect is your excuse to relentlessly criticize him?


Buds method is not perfect and he knows it, he's just trolling due to what happened in a previous thread. If someone had square wheels on their car instead of round ones, and they were saying their car was perfect would you agree with them because other people were trying to explain till they were blue in the face why round is better (unless of course you prefer a bumpy ride)?



boothman said:


> Gary said CIH + IMAX = perfect.


Perfect compared to anything else going at the moment unless you do something ridiculous with a 4k pj (see below), but it's not far off if you don't mind LIMAX 



boothman said:


> I would do the same except the CIW is already "IMAX" ready.


No it isn't, because with CIW you would watch 16:9 taller than 2.35 which does a great disservice to the scope format, and you would also watch the pseudo IMAX movies exactly the same size - and that's ridiculous too. IMAX and 16:9 shouldn't be seen the same size either should they.

For a 16:9 screen to be considered 'IMAX' or LIMAX you'd have to watch 16:9 content the same height as you would 2.35 on that screen (so not use the full height), and make sure you were sat close enough so that the height of the 2.35 image was the height that determined how close you would sit, but you would also have to make sure that you were within the IMAX seating range too.



boothman said:


> To even use the term IMAX in relation to CIH and pretend they're compatible is ridiculous.


Not entirely if you know the specs. 

To use IMAX in relation to 16:9 is ridiculous, but that's how those IMAX aspect changing movies are seen on most peoples tvs - the same size as 16:9 content which should be smaller than both IMAX and 2.35.



boothman said:


> Hardly "perfect" but I see no criticism when used by someone other than Bud. A little hypocritical. IMAX frame is 10 times the size of 35MM. You guys talk about how scope MUST, HAS TO BE, CAN"T BE ANYTHING BUT LARGER than 16:9. How do you propose IMAX is shown in a home theater with its 1.44 or 1.9 ratio? It should dwarf scope but I don't hear any comments about that. Lets shoehorn IMAX content into our screens somehow even if it's not "the way it was intended" but lets not EVER have 16:9 content larger than scope (even if 4K cinemas do it all the time).


You sound perturbed 

We've been saying that scope should the largest most epic format other than IMAX for a long time, but there is no IMAX content out there for the home - it's all 16:9 and HD and presented exactly the same as 16:9 - and that's how it's seen at home by almost everyone and people don't complain about that either. 2K IMAX exists and is often referred to as LIEMAX or LIMAX IIRC 

But funnily enough I have actually pointed that out on another forum but with respect to IMAXs forerunner VistaVision which was a large format higher res film and was promoted as being the same width or wider than Ben Hur (IIRC) but much taller - back in the 50s when all the new formats were being developed and promoted so that all the studios would adopt the new format. Scope was the one that survived and became one of the standards. In that thread I said that to do that at home you would need a 4k pj and source only for IMAX/VV, and 1080 for HD, and it should be larger. But who would do that for literally a handful of films - use a 4k pj and source that contains genuine IMAX content (albeit still in 16:9 format) with a larger screen and use pixel to pixel for 1080 material window boxed for 2.35 (or something in between depending on seating distance for the height/width you want) and zoom smaller for 16:9 conforming to CIH standards. And of course seating distance for the combination of 1080 CIH + 4K IMAX would be key for it to work. That would work but what a waste of a 4k pj.

The most practical method would be CIH on a 16:9 screen masked to 2.35, and then watch the pseudo IMAX/LIMAX aspect changing films full height by removing the masking - the key aspect for it to work is to make sure the seating distance is arranged correctly - IMAX is usually seen from between 1 and 1.5 screen heights back, so when designing CIH + IMAX ensure you can meet the design criteria. Like I said, it's science and standards. 

So if you designed a set up with the front row at around 2xSH or closer for CIH (2.35 and 16:9) and take into account vertical viewing angles while you're at it, when you remove the masking for the IMAX stuff, you'll then be at around 1.5xSH, so within the range that you'd be sat at in an IMAX/LIMAX movie theatre. 

See, science


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> You say the director selects scope for the biggest presentation in the cinema. Obviously that isn't true anymore. Most scope films in these "premium" theater experiences are smaller than 1.85. The director chooses scope because of composition of what's IN the frame not how big that frame will be in a movie theater. The composition is paramount to the director/cinematographer. Size in a movie theater already comes with the territory.


The director usually has no control over how his movies are presented unless he sends out specific requirements, and usually they only get directly involved on special occasions. If they do, they'd probably make sure it was a scope screen. Sometimes they visit and check things or speak to the projectionist - asking for a specific foot Lambert level for example (like the DCI spec of 14fL)

Multiplexes were designed to get more screens into the space to get more bums on seats and increase revenue at the expense of presentation - hardly a 'premier' experience. For a Premier experience you'd probably like to do it on the screen they use for the Oscars:

http://www.oscars.org/about/facilities/samuel-goldwyn-theater

You'll find a lot of directors and people in the industry aren't very happy about that but multiplexes have helped increase revenue. Brad Bird calls them small crappy screens IIRC and complains that the art of presentation has been lost, and Tarentino hates digital presentation full stop and calls it public tv.

So, just because the multiplexes aren't doing it right and are compromising presentation to make more money, doesn't mean we should too, because at home we're not trying to make money, we're trying to get the best home cinema experience. Well, at least some of us are...


----------



## boothman

Gary, I guess something like this is heresy.

I'm not talking about the many small screens in a multiplex. I said premium theaters that are promoted as large screen experience. All the big chains have their own version for large screens. When I said CIW is IMAX ready I was referring to what you actually suggested for the scope to 16:9 transitions on blu ray. If I have a CIH scope screen of 55x130 that makes my 16:9 55x98. You can "percieve" size all you want but 7150 square inches is bigger than 5390. Using those numbers how do you get scope is 77% larger than 16:9? I get just under 33%. Cinemascope was developed as a way to compete with Cinerama and TV (4:3) not 1.85. Using this 2.35 vs 1.78 debate and saying it was part of the "design" is misconstruing history. You're taking a concept designed for very large spaces and trying to equate it with very small ones. I don't think home theaters were in vogue in the 1950's when the design and intent of Cinemascope came about. So to say their concept must apply to home theater design also is wishful thinking. Something like the Stewart Director's Choice above makes a lot of sense for the HOME. If I'm watching films on that kind of system who am I really doing a disservice to? This mantra of CIH scope has to be bigger or I'm disrespecting someone, something or maybe the ghost of Cinemascope past is laughable.


----------



## bud16415

boothman said:


> You say the director selects scope for the biggest presentation in the cinema. Obviously that isn't true anymore. Most scope films in these "premium" theater experiences are smaller than 1.85. The director chooses scope because of composition of what's IN the frame not how big that frame will be in a movie theater. The composition is paramount to the director/cinematographer. Size in a movie theater already comes with the territory.


This was always my feeling about AR as an artistic contribution to film. It is a frame that beautifully frames quite a bit of what a director may want to try and show us. I have always felt it had little to do with human FOV and less about the size it is presented in relative to any other AR. IMHO there are a lot of really great movies shot in every AR and a lot of stinkers shot in every AR. A totally different concept is the state of immersion we should or would like to have with a specific film or any media for that matter. 

I don’t believe as jeahrens said above that the director intends scope films to have the largest presentation when they selected it. They could have thought that but I don’t see that being 100% of the case. If that was the case I would think all movies would be shot in scope. I can’t see someone saying I’m going to make a movie and call it Avatar and I want it to be a mediocre movie and not really be good enough to be 70% more impressive than that really great classic Mom’s night out, it should be the same size as The 40 year old virgin that will be big enough. 

Can someone please post the link to the exact standard that that shows the science behind AR presentation? I have looked around the SMPTE site some and found articles where a few directors talk about how they feel it should be but I cant seem to find the real scientific discussion. 

A couple interesting links have been shared with me and it seems PIA is being supported by Stewart Filmscreen to some extent. The other link is an interesting makeover of one of the classic movie houses of the 20’s and much the way I remember wider AR coming into their own.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nNmvEx0X-k
> 
> Gary, I guess something like this is heresy.


He starts of saying that CIH is the preferred and most popular method of delivery, and then explains that because some people compromise the image with poor quality sources, this variable masking screen allows them to reduce the image down to give a more acceptable image. It's nothing new and SF are like any other company when trying to sell as many products to as many people as they can - don't limit yourself to a smaller market than you have to. It's a good idea if you don't have a tv.



boothman said:


> I'm not talking about the many small screens in a multiplex. I said premium theaters that are promoted as large screen experience. All the big chains have their own version for large screens.


That depends on what you mean by a 'premium theatre'. If it's not CIH it's not 'premium' to me. Of course they're going to promote themselves as premium because Joe Public will buy it and pay for it, even if it's a compromise screen. You'll find the VIP seating isn't in the best place most of the time either - I would never sit there because it's too far back, but some people will pay more for less. 



boothman said:


> When I said CIW is IMAX ready I was referring to what you actually suggested for the scope to 16:9 transitions on blu ray. If I have a CIH scope screen of 55x130 that makes my 16:9 55x98. You can "percieve" size all you want but 7150 square inches is bigger than 5390.


Some people just can't see past the numbers. Scale may be more important to some than the image size on your retina and how close you are to it.

What looks bigger, a 10ft wide screen viewed from 10 feet back, or a 15 foot wide screen viewed from 20 feet back?

If you go to a cinema with a 30ft wide screen and sit in the back row and find the image too small, do you move and sit in a closer seat to make the image bigger, or drive round to find a cinema that has a bigger screen and still sit in the back row there? To some, scale is more important than immersion, but most people just find a seat that give them the best experience. We can do that at home too.

What you often find is that if you have a screen in a room with other things visible in your field of view that give away the scale, then that can have a negative impact on your viewing experience. If you only have the screen visible, that removes the other size references and helps the perception. If you wear 3D glasses that darken the environment further you may find that helps too.



boothman said:


> Using those numbers how do you get scope is 77% larger than 16:9? I get just under 33%.


The image size of scope screen the same height as your current 16:9 screen will be 77% larger than the scope image you will watch letterboxed on your 16:9 screen. In a CIH setup, scope will always be 77% larger than if shown on a CIW screen of the same height



boothman said:


> Cinemascope was developed as a way to compete with Cinerama and TV (4:3) not 1.85. Using this 2.35 vs 1.78 debate and saying it was part of the "design" is misconstruing history.


The movie industry wanted to get a wider more immersive image and also wanted to get people back into cinemas and away from their tvs, so needed to change. A lot of them came up with different ideas like Cinerama which was a wake up call because of it's visual impact and others wanted to follow suit, so they all tried to find something similar. VistaVision, Cinemascope, and all were vying for the market and in competition with each other and that even included cropping 35mm down t give a wider image. Scope was the easiest cheapest way to do it well - better and simpler than three projectors like Cinerama.

I'm not misconstruing history - if you look at the design spec for CinemaScope back in '52/'53 you will see on page 20 (IIRC - I've posted the link a few times here already) that they specify a screen of twice the width of the existing (Academy) screen. That gives you 2.66:1. 

1.85 came after 2.35 but wasn't designed to be shown larger than scope because it wasn't designed to be larger either technically or visually, - the 1.85 area of the image on 35mm film was smaller but it was an even cheaper method of getting widescreen just like Shane was at 1.66:1. If you projected the image larger, image quality issues come into play (greater visible grain, scratches, dirt, projector mechanics etc) and pushed the immersion/quality crossover point further back in the auditorium, plus you would again have to increase the height of your theatre and screen and give patrons a worse viewing experience - not to mention more seats with an unacceptable vertical viewing angle. By doing that you reduce the best seats in the house to a much smaller number, and even today you will find people like Harkness trying to promote their screens by suggesting they increase the amount of good seats.

VV used a larger area of film so could either be shown larger (their initial promotion), or you improved the image quality over existing 35mm by showing it CIH. Film stock/grain size improved soon after, making VV less of an advantage and is why it didn't last that long main stream. Even 2.20:1 movies should be shown in the CIH envelope.



boothman said:


> You're taking a concept designed for very large spaces and trying to equate it with very small ones. I don't think home theaters were in vogue in the 1950's when the design and intent of Cinemascope came about. So to say their concept must apply to home theater design also is wishful thinking. Something like the Stewart Director's Choice above makes a lot of sense for the HOME. If I'm watching films on that kind of system who am I really doing a disservice to? This mantra of CIH scope has to be bigger or I'm disrespecting someone, something or maybe the ghost of Cinemascope past is laughable.


Not just me - the home theatre industry are too and have been for a long time now. They do it because it works. We do it here because it works, it's hardly wishful thinking, it's very much a reality, and easy to do.

Why is trying to do something correctly laughable? Doing it like big tv CIW is more laughable IMHO.

You can apply the commercial specs to the home easily - with 1080 digital we are very close to 2k DCI res and the rules transpose very well - seating distance ratios are just that - ratios, and you can apply them to smaller screens with no problems until you get to tv size screens. I first started with a 720 pj and an anamorphic lens with my seating at 3xSH. Audio is probably more of an issue in smaller spaces.

Cinemascope is hardly a ghost as it's one of the two main formats - if you look at any of the white papers etc provided by the likes of Dolby, THX, SMPTE, CEDIA etc they will tell you much the same, and often refer to CIH as 'the traditional method'. 2.35 and 1.85 are the most common screen ratios today so scope is hardly dead. It may be being killed off by the multiplexes or other venues that have a compromised screen and presentation, but that doesn't mean that because compromise is becoming more common that we have to do that at home too. The design spec still exists and it's up to you if you want to adhere to it or not. 

John Schuermann will tell you that many people in the industry are not happy that scope is presented smaller than flat, and Dolby have white papers that state the same thing.

All the theatres I went to as a kid were CIH and presented it as the largest format - as designed and intended. Multiplexes were designed to get more revenue and it worked - sales increased. With that business model of course it's going to mean more multiplexes, but even in multiplexes they often have one big CIH screen for first runs while the rest are 16:9. Many don't even have masking any more. Because it's been like that for while now, we have generations of people that have no idea how good it could be. Like many here, they just get a big 16:9 screen and think that's fine and that's how it should be done because that's how they see it on their tv or how they see it at the multiplex, and get upset because they hate the black bars and have no idea why the are there...

This sub forum is for people who are interested in replicating the correct experience at home, but it's true to say that we get a lot of people who don't understand it or who don't like the idea that CIH may be better than they have, and then the arguments/denial start. Usually they can't get past the screen size idea - to them bigger numbers are better despite the fact they quite often sit a lot further back than they should.

But you don't have to do it this way, you can do what you like at home, and as long as you are happy and enjoying it that's just fine. We are too, except you seem to have a problem with that.


----------



## steve1106

It is the way you say it Gary. You stomp on toes and they stomp back. 

Who cares what a person has as long as it works for them?

16 HToM winners i.e. the best of the best

2.35:1 7
16:9 4
2.40:1 2
2.37:1 1
2.125:1 1
1.85:1 1 

Even the HToM members don't agree.


----------



## boothman

As I said before my room is limited to 130" width screen so there will not be a 77% improvement if I can't use it. 73x171.5 as you suggest if I keep 16:9 at 73" height.
I think you took the Stewart video comments a little out of context to support your position. Just because something is more popular or preferred certainly doesn't make it the best by default. Bose speakers anyone?


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Buds method is not perfect and he knows it, he's just trolling due to what happened in a previous thread.



The reason I started this thread about my method was two fold. First I was told on several occasions if I want to talk about this subject I should start a thread about it. The second reason was I felt I was doing a disservice to the people that start other threads in this forum asking a simple question of “Is CIH right for me?” or some variation of that exact quotation. I didn’t like to turn anyone off to any aspect of home theater including CIH but I know they want some opinions and information and all that posting a 100 back and forth point and counter points would drive them away. They now have a thread that they can read the first post or all the posts if they want and get that without all the mud going into the water. If someone on any forum asks for opinions on what system of managing AR and content I can simply point a link to this and they will have a nice point and counter point read to help make up their minds. 

What I didn’t do is start this thread as a form of trolling based on the fact I felt stomped on in another thread. I really take exception to anyone calling me a troll and if the mod’s want to go back and read my 4,438 posts over 10 years with this forum they will see they were all written with the intent learning, teaching, helping and advancing front projection for home use and trying to do it in a way that makes the hobby accessible to everyone. 

I would ask the mod’s to take a look at long standing members calling others Trolls. It is uncalled for.


----------



## R Harkness

Gary Lightfoot said:


> 1.85 came after 2.35 but wasn't designed to be shown larger than scope because it wasn't designed to be larger either technically or visually, - the 1.85 area of the image on 35mm film was smaller but it was an even cheaper method of getting widescreen just like Shane was at 1.66:1. If you projected the image larger, image quality issues come into play (greater visible grain, scratches, dirt, projector mechanics etc) and pushed the immersion/quality crossover point further back in the auditorium, plus you would again have to increase the height of your theatre and screen and give patrons a worse viewing experience - not to mention more seats with an unacceptable vertical viewing angle. By doing that you reduce the best seats in the house to a much smaller number, and even today you will find people like Harkness trying to promote their screens by suggesting they increase the amount of good seats.


Did you mean to reference the screen company "Harkness" as promoting their screens?

I don't recognize what you wrote as having connection to what I've written, which is why I ask.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> This was always my feeling about AR as an artistic contribution to film. It is a frame that beautifully frames quite a bit of what a director may want to try and show us. I have always felt it had little to do with human FOV and less about the size it is presented in relative to any other AR. IMHO there are a lot of really great movies shot in every AR and a lot of stinkers shot in every AR. A totally different concept is the state of immersion we should or would like to have with a specific film or any media for that matter.


A lot of people have a lot of opinions, but here we try to deal in standards. Immersion is often part of the requirements and is mentioned in many white papers etc. I often post them but people either don't read them or choose to ignore the data.



bud16415 said:


> I don’t believe as jeahrens said above that the director intends scope films to have the largest presentation when they selected it. They could have thought that but I don’t see that being 100% of the case. If that was the case I would think all movies would be shot in scope.


Well, they do, the fact that you don't like or want to believe it is a different matter. I posted a link for you in another thread that explains that 1.85 movies are usually used for more personal/intimate/people driven movies but you choose to continue with your own 'beliefs', and yet we're the ones being accused of making this a religion. 



bud16415 said:


> I can’t see someone saying I’m going to make a movie and call it Avatar and I want it to be a mediocre movie and not really be good enough to be 70% more impressive than that really great classic Mom’s night out, it should be the same size as The 40 year old virgin that will be big enough.


Cameron wanted it shown in the biggest screens at each auditorium, so if 2.35 was the biggest, that was the movie AR they were sent. I think we posted that video for you in the other thread.



bud16415 said:


> Can someone please post the link to the exact standard that that shows the science behind AR presentation? I have looked around the SMPTE site some and found articles where a few directors talk about how they feel it should be but I cant seem to find the real scientific discussion.


We posted some 101 links and others in the other thread along with other documents but I guess you didn't read them or look a the pictures.



bud16415 said:


> A couple interesting links have been shared with me and it seems PIA is being supported by Stewart Filmscreen to some extent. The other link is an interesting makeover of one of the classic movie houses of the 20’s and much the way I remember wider AR coming into their own.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hI-TeqsY-k
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nNmvEx0X-k


A lot of theatres couldn't fit screens that conformed to the Fox specs for Cinemascope, so they compromised (a lot were 2:1). Some people seem to want to use a compromised set up as some kind of standard above others, like the compromise that is 16:9 CIW.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> The reason I started this thread about my method was two fold. First I was told on several occasions if I want to talk about this subject I should start a thread about it. The second reason was I felt I was doing a disservice to the people that start other threads in this forum asking a simple question of “Is CIH right for me?” or some variation of that exact quotation. I didn’t like to turn anyone off to any aspect of home theater including CIH but I know they want some opinions and information and all that posting a 100 back and forth point and counter points would drive them away. They now have a thread that they can read the first post or all the posts if they want and get that without all the mud going into the water. If someone on any forum asks for opinions on what system of managing AR and content I can simply point a link to this and they will have a nice point and counter point read to help make up their minds.
> 
> What I didn’t do is start this thread as a form of trolling based on the fact I felt stomped on in another thread. I really take exception to anyone calling me a troll and if the mod’s want to go back and read my 4,438 posts over 10 years with this forum they will see they were all written with the intent learning, teaching, helping and advancing front projection for home use and trying to do it in a way that makes the hobby accessible to everyone.
> 
> I would ask the mod’s to take a look at long standing members calling others Trolls. It is uncalled for.


Well, considering what happened in the other thread, and then you post a thread headed 'Perfect Image Area' in the CIH forum, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect you were trolling. Otherwise you would have just posted it in the screen forum and not this subforum, and you would have called it something other than 'Perfect'.

If you look at all my posts here dating back around 15/16 years you will see that I just try and post facts and data as well as learning about the subject matter too. I've not come here thinking I know better than the people who drive the industry and make the standards and can invent a better way to present movies.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> As I said before my room is limited to 130" width screen so there will not be a 77% improvement if I can't use it. 73x171.5 as you suggest if I keep 16:9 at 73" height.


But with a 130" wide scope scren and correctly placed seating it would work.



boothman said:


> I think you took the Stewart video comments a little out of context to support your position. Just because something is more popular or preferred certainly doesn't make it the best by default. Bose speakers anyone?


I've done nothing of the sort - they support CIH primarily because it's an industry standard supported by SMPTE, THX, Dolby, CEDIA etc, and that is the best way t present movies, not strictly due to popularity. If you had read any docs from those people you would know that too.

On the other hand, 16:9 is more popular despite it being a compromise format designed for tv rather than movies on a big screen.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

R Harkness said:


> Did you mean to reference the screen company "Harkness" as promoting their screens?
> 
> I don't recognize what you wrote as having connection to what I've written, which is why I ask.


Yeah sorry about that Rich, I forgot that was your last name and that it could potentially cause confusion. it was the company, not you.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> If I go to a theater and the biggest screen say 70' wide is 16:9 and scope will be masked down or with black bars visible and they do have an older CIH screen at 40' scope I'm going with the bigger image even if it's not "correct". How am I "losing out" on the presentation watching the biggest image possible? Oh that's right because that's not the way it was mean't to be. With CIA you can enjoy whatever is the right size for you in your HOME theater. CIH was designed for a MOVIE theater where the 16:9 or scope image is so large to try to compare it to a home setting and spout the virtues of its methodology is absurd.


I think it's absurd that you think CIH can not be implemented at home, so compromise your home set up because you don't realise you can do it exactly like a real cinema if you want to.

That's why this sub forum exists


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

steve1106 said:


> It is the way you say it Gary. You stomp on toes and they stomp back.


It usually starts after you point out the specs, guidelines and links to white papers or industry sites that support CIH and then people who don't like the idea that CIH may be a better method that the problems arise. That's hardly my fault.



steve1106 said:


> Who cares what a person has as long as it works for them?


Then why do we have so many anti CIH posters in the CIH forum if it doesn't work for them? They seem to care very much about it 



steve1106 said:


> 16 HToM winners i.e. the best of the best
> 
> 2.35:1 7
> 16:9 4
> 2.40:1 2
> 2.37:1 1
> 2.125:1 1
> 1.85:1 1
> 
> Even the HToM members don't agree.


I don't see how that is even relevant to the specs. Much like saying because most people have a 16:9 tv that must be the best way to do it.

My first screen was 16:9 and I sat where the seats were. I didn't like the black bars but like a lot of people I didn't realise I could have a 2.35 screen like a real theatre. When I looked into it more, that's when I changed to a 2.35 screen and moved my seating closer. 

Sometimes for some it's a bit of a technical challenge so they stick with what is easier. Sometimes it's because they can't move the seats so have to do the best with what they have. Too many variables and compromises. But the specs still exist and it's up to you what you want to do in your own home. 

How many people calibrate their displays to D65? If accuracy is important to you that's what you will do, but of it isn't that's your choice but how is an uncalibrated display better than a calibrated one?


----------



## boothman

I never said CIH could not be implemented in the home. Obviously it has been. Also real cinemas do CIW. Been to one lately?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> I never said CIH could not be implemented in the home. Obviously it has been. Also real cinemas do CIW. Been to one lately?


'Real' cinemas do CIH like the Samuel Goldwyn Theatre I pointed out earlier. Been to one lately? 

I try not to go to any of the multiplexes unless it's to their single CIH screen because the 16:9 ones aren't real cinema, they're just public tv


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> What I didn’t do is start this thread as a form of trolling based on the fact I felt stomped on in another thread.


Sorry poor choice of words on my part.  With stomped on toes, I was referring to some of the more hostile posts or the posts with the little "dig" at the end which is something I've never seen you do.


----------



## steve1106

Gary Lightfoot said:


> 'Real' cinemas do CIH like the Samuel Goldwyn Theatre I pointed out earlier. Been to one lately?
> 
> I try not to go to any of the multiplexes unless it's to their single CIH screen because the 16:9 ones aren't real cinema, they're just public tv


But some of us like our TV big.  Just not the public part.


----------



## Josh Z

boothman said:


> As I said before my room is limited to 130" width screen


Some of us are getting awfully tired of hearing certain people in this thread whine about their 130" wide screens being too small for CIH.


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> Sorry poor choice of words on my part.  With stomped on toes, I was referring to some of the more hostile posts or the posts with the little "dig" at the end which is something I've never seen you do.


Snarky is the word I think you are looking for. 

Thanks for noticing. I try and not throw digs.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

steve1106 said:


> Sorry poor choice of words on my part.  With stomped on toes, I was referring to some of the more hostile posts or the posts with the little "dig" at the end which is something I've never seen you do.


Really? You should read the other thread.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Some of us are getting awfully tired of hearing certain people in this thread whine about their 130" wide screens being too small for CIH.


One man’s meat is another man’s poison. 

I remember the days when the saying was life begins at 100. Inches that is. 
Now that will soon be the flat panel mantra.


----------



## boothman

Josh Z said:


> Some of us are getting awfully tired of hearing certain people in this thread whine about their 130" wide screens being too small for CIH.


Both of you need a refresher in reading comprehension. I didn't whine about it. Gary said if I went bigger (wider) at 73" height I could have my CIH setup. I already said before 130 is max I can go. Also where did I say my 130" screen is too small for CIH. I never said I wanted to do CIH. By the way I loved your comments about what films or programs should be seen smaller than others in your own forum. The content size police state is here and thriving and benefits us all. Just don't express a different viewpoint or you'll feel their wrath.


----------



## bud16415

There has been a lot of consternation in this thread from the beginning both about the name and the intent of the thread. It seemed to leave the realm of civil discussion of a topic and become a sticking point of the endless heated debate of any amendment to the strong beliefs of some members here. 

The main reason for the thread was to provide a location for the discussion to take place without it being hashed and rehashed over and over in a 100 different threads. I also wanted to provide my thoughts in an opening thread post that would remain. Something anyone else is free to do as to their personal preferences and people can come and talk about their ideas relevant to what the OP states. The problem I had always had is if you voice an opinion contrary to the strong belief it is instantly disputed by a few dozen posts and is lost in a thread where the OP leaves because the topic goes so wrongly off topic. 

Here again is what I started in the OP condensed. 

CIH is a great method of presentation with front projection and not disputed by almost anyone it is superior to CIW. The only advantage of CIW is it is the simplest of methods to do as it is truly the big TV idea I hear used to describe anything but CIH. Another system that can be debated with pro’s and con’s is CIA, and let’s not forget the method of CIH + Imax. 

I never said anyone should try this or change from what they love or respect or believe is the ultimate Perfect solution for themselves. 

I did say with masking and following the PIA solution one could try all 4 methods and decide for themselves what worked for them and what was their own personal “perfect” solution. I even included a 5th solution and that is my personal perfect solution

When a solution contains all the known personal perfect solution then it has to be the universal perfect solution.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> Both of you need a refresher in reading comprehension. I didn't whine about it. Gary said if I went bigger (wider) at 73" height I could have my CIH setup.


I think you're the one that needs a refresher - please read my posts again (91 and 95), because I was trying to explain to you how scope is 77% larger than 16:9 when viewed correctly on a CIH set up. You didn't understand why that was from my previous explanation so I was just using your set up as an example in the hope you would understand it - I had previously explained with numbers relating to your current set up using seating distance examples (because I don't know how far back you actually sit), how you could do that so that visually 16:9 would still fill exactly the same field of view on your retina that you currently see (130" x 77") with a 130" wide (55" tall) CIH set up, but you didn't understand that:

By moving your seats closer you can make a 16:9 image that is 55" tall by 98" wide look exactly the same size as a 77" by 130" wide 16:9 image (when viewed from further back). Except now, you can see scope movies 33% larger than you do currently, and have a far more immersive viewing experience that has cost you nothing to achieve -a free upgrade.

It's like going from a 15 foot wide screen viewed from 15 feet to a 10 foot wide screen viewed from 10 feet. Hope that's a bit clearer now.



boothman said:


> I already said before 130 is max I can go. Also where did I say my 130" screen is too small for CIH. I never said I wanted to do CIH. By the way I loved your comments about what films or programs should be seen smaller than others in your own forum. The content size police state is here and thriving and benefits us all. Just don't express a different viewpoint or you'll feel their wrath.


I know it's the widest you can go, that's why I used an example of 130" wide CIH with a 55" tall screen.

Ours isn't a viewpoint as such, because it's a design criteria as well as an intent by the director on how to correctly present things if presentation is important to you, and is backed up by all the main bodies of research and people in the industry - it's not our idea or invention, it's a design criteria that has already been established that we wish to follow. If CIW or CIA was the correct way to display things, we'de be doing that instead, but it isn't so we aren't. Those that don't understand that (or don't want to) seem to want to argue the point.

That's why I used the example of calibrating to D65 - if an accurate image is important to you, you will calibrate your display (or get someone to do it for you if you can't DIY). If it isn't, you won't bother and you'll never know if how you're seeing things is correct or not.

Of course not all theatres can or want to do it properly for various reasons (like making more money) and that's up to them, but because they may compromise movie presentations doesn't mean we have to, or that we should use bad examples to follow.


----------



## boothman

You keep saying 77% larger scope image than 16:9 on a correct CIH screen. It's about 33% the way that's written. You only get the 77% by taking someone's 16:9 screen and assume they can go wider for CIH. They might not be able to do that for a number of reasons. Since you want to appropriate a cinema concept and say it has to be used in the home or else anything done differently is wrong I guess anyone not using an AT screen is doing it wrong also. The speakers MUST be behind the screen or you're disrespecting the theatrical design concept and doing a disservice to the presentation. Funny I don't see the same kind of outrage over that even though that was the intent to have the sound coming from the screen, not below or to the sides of it. Don't you agree?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

boothman said:


> You keep saying 77% larger scope image than 16:9 on a correct CIH screen. It's about 33% the way that's written. You only get the 77% by taking someone's 16:9 screen and assume they can go wider for CIH.


I see you've changed your original text compared to the email notification, but yes, although you are making the image 33% taller and wider (so can use 33% zoom when using the zoom method for example), the image area going from a letterboxed 2.35 image on a 16:9 screen will become 77% larger when viewed at the same height as that 16:9 screen but 33% wider. That's always been my point.



boothman said:


> They might not be able to do that for a number of reasons.


Don't forget seating distance as has been explained earlier, but yes I understand home cinema is usually full of compromises for most people. Mine certainly is.

The other point you are missing is that this is the CIH forum, so to come here and argue that CIH is wrong or whatever reason you have for arguing the point is probably the wrong place to do it. This forum is for those that can or want to do it correctly and understand why. If you come here trying to tell us it's wrong or something else is better, you're in the wrong place.



boothman said:


> Since you want to appropriate a cinema concept and say it has to be used in the home or else anything done differently is wrong I guess anyone not using an AT screen is doing it wrong also. The speakers MUST be behind the screen or you're disrespecting the theatrical design concept and doing a disservice to the presentation.


I agree, though the visual impact of scope is far greater than the audio difference is with AT IMHO. I agree that having your speakers correctly placed behind the screen ensures that the audio is being reproduced a close as possible to the original movie, and if it was mastered that way will be more accurate.

Ideally you want compression drivers and horns, and the speakers mounted in a baffle wall as recommended by THX.

You also want the acoustic center of the speakers between halfway and 5/8ths the height of the screen as you're tying the audio to the screen images. There are technical guidelines for that too.



boothman said:


> Funny I don't see the same kind of outrage over that even though that was the intent to have the sound coming from the screen, not below or to the sides of it. Don't you agree?


Yes I agree, which is why I am doing just that 

Are you?


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> The other point you are missing is that this is the CIH forum, so to come here and argue that CIH is wrong or whatever reason you have for arguing the point is probably the wrong place to do it. This forum is for those that can or want to do it correctly and understand why. If you come here trying to tell us it's wrong or something else is better, you're in the wrong place.


The reason I posted the PIA (perfect image area) thread in the CIH forum was first off it contains everything needed to do CIH, CIH + Imax, along with CIW & CIA. Of course it is not based on a 2.4:1 screen so the potential for it being used that way is only one in five, but it can be. CIH + Imax has no trouble being discussed in this forum and it utilizes a 16:9 screen also along with a masking system of some sort if the user deems it is needed. 

The other reason it is posted here is that people come here not committed to CIH, but asking the question is should I do 16:9 or 2.4:1? The common answer normally started out with the statement something like do you want to watch Gilligan’s island larger and more immersive than Star Wars. The assumption was there are two methods only to run a front projection system in CIH or CIW. I explained early on in the thread that with a 16:9 screen or no screen at all a person could experiment with all five methods and find out for themselves what they liked best. The screen wasn’t required but the understanding of the methods was if they wanted to educate themselves to each method. If a person just shoots the largest 16:9 image they like on a wall and then never touch the projector they are doing CIW and not learning a thing about presentation. In reading and understanding this information up front before buying a projector they will understand the type of features they will need in a projector to do what they may want to do by just pushing a few buttons. Or if they are a person like me and not mind making a few adjustments there are other ways. 

The real purpose of this thread is to educate that 16:9 does not equal CIW only. 

People come to one of three places with the above question. They come here, They go to the screen forum, Or they go to the sub 3000 forum. I saw this as a good location because everyone on the fence about presentation will be looking here for advice at some point and this thread would be here to point them in a direction of informing that will give them a way to experiment on their own and come to their own conclusion what form of presentation they like best. If it is CIH I’m fine with that as I’m told all the time here, ”If it works for you that’s great and I’m happy for you.”


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You keep talking to me about it as if I care 



bud16415 said:


> The reason I posted the PIA (perfect image area) thread in the CIH forum was first off it contains everything needed to do CIH, CIH + Imax, along with CIW & CIA. Of course it is not based on a 2.4:1 screen so the potential for it being used that way is only one in five, but it can be. CIH + Imax has no trouble being discussed in this forum and it utilizes a 16:9 screen also along with a masking system of some sort if the user deems it is needed.


But you call it perfect when really it's just a wall with someone experimenting with different ratios etc. It's something that has been suggested by many people over many years here. Maybe you should call it EIA - Experimental Image Area. But ideally it should probably be in the screen forum since the people here can already help with this info 



bud16415 said:


> The other reason it is posted here is that people come here not committed to CIH, but asking the question is should I do 16:9 or 2.4:1? The common answer normally started out with the statement something like do you want to watch Gilligan’s island larger and more immersive than Star Wars. The assumption was there are two methods only to run a front projection system in CIH or CIW.


Don't forget CIA, that's often recommended too (yes I do suggest other formats to people both here and elsewhere). Things only become problematic when people try to argue against CIH as has been the case again recently.



bud16415 said:


> I explained early on in the thread that with a 16:9 screen or no screen at all a person could experiment with all five methods and find out for themselves what they liked best.


As I mentioned before, it's something that has been suggested many time by many people - project onto a wall experimenting with various image sizes, aspect ratios, and importantly, seating distance, and then buy the screen to match (if you want, a wall can work quite well). You seem to think you've discovered something new and you're educating the masses.



bud16415 said:


> The screen wasn’t required but the understanding of the methods was if they wanted to educate themselves to each method. If a person just shoots the largest 16:9 image they like on a wall and then never touch the projector they are doing CIW and not learning a thing about presentation. In reading and understanding this information up front before buying a projector they will understand the type of features they will need in a projector to do what they may want to do by just pushing a few buttons. Or if they are a person like me and not mind making a few adjustments there are other ways.


Like I say, it's kind of you to point that out but you're not reinventing the wheel.



bud16415 said:


> The real purpose of this thread is to educate that 16:9 does not equal CIW only.


Which is what this forum is all about - you can use a 16:9 pj and run CIH. Radical thinking huh? A bit like using 35mm and an anamorphic lens to do 2.35 since the early 50s, yet you think you're the one doing the educating.



bud16415 said:


> People come to one of three places with the above question. They come here, They go to the screen forum, Or they go to the sub 3000 forum. I saw this as a good location because everyone on the fence about presentation will be looking here for advice at some point and this thread would be here to point them in a direction of informing that will give them a way to experiment on their own and come to their own conclusion what form of presentation they like best. If it is CIH I’m fine with that as I’m told all the time here, ”If it works for you that’s great and I’m happy for you.”


Why are you telling _me_ this? 

If you're happy in your world, why were you arguing so much against CIH in the other thread and now posting your 'new' idea as 'perfect' here directly after? It sounds like you're not happy about something to go to all this trouble in a niche forum when it would probably be better received in the screen forum. In that forum most people probably have no idea about the other format options so would be a better place to start - after all, most newbies buy a 16:9 pj and a 16:9 screen. Most people here already understand it and can help with any questions, yet you seem to think you know better - hence your arguing in the other thread and your need to start this one, along with your presumption that you're doing the educating.


----------



## bud16415

Most people do buy a 16:9 projector as that’s almost all there is and there are no scope projectors. Many people buy a 16:9 screen and size it such as if they were to do a CIW setup and in doing such are then stuck with CIW. You bought a 16:9 screen without the intention of hardly ever filling the whole screen and bought it with the intention of 99.999% of the time using it as CIH. I actually think that is great. I’m not fighting against anything or any system. You are one of the people using PIA setup and you have found your like in 2 of the five ways it can be used. Rich uses his much the way I do and he is someplace between CIA and PIA, as the only thing I don’t see him doing is diminishing size for lesser content things like 480 content off line or general bad TV content. 

I would venture a guess your viewing on your 16:9 screen is perfect for you. And it is a subset of other things you could use your setup for if you ever wished to do those things. I’m not telling you that you should play angry birds on your screen at a reduced size but that doesn’t mean the next guy may want to. Motion picture societies care little about how we watch tv or if we watch tv on our systems or if we play stupid bird games or complex immersive war games. They don’t care if we watch cell phone movies off the internet or what the presentation of them should be. You don’t have to use your theater in any of those modes but a lot of people chose to do just that. It is a lot like is it a theater or a media room or is it both?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> You are one of the people using PIA setup and you have found your like in 2 of the five ways it can be used.


According to you then, everyone is using some form of your PIA set up. You must think you'e changed the world... 

I'm using CIH +IMAX, not any form of your 'PIA' and considering that the idea of CIH+IMAX (it's not my idea or concept) was around long before you're supposed idea of 'PIA' then you're doing it our way, we're not doing it your way. Nice try though 



bud16415 said:


> I would venture a guess your viewing on your 16:9 screen is perfect for you.


And there was you trying to tell me you're not a troll...


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> According to you then, everyone is using some form of your PIA set up. You must think you'e changed the world...


Quite a few people are not using PIA. If you have a 2.4:1 screen and are using the zoom method to do scope you can never go larger in height than the height of your screen. for example you could not do CIH+Imax. So no everyone is not using PIA as a screen strategy. 

Likewise all the people doing CIW with a seating distance sized to 16:9 viewing and watching scope to small are also not doing PIA. Those people are left with very few good choices and are only watching 16:9 at the perfect size everything else is not perfect at all. 

Actually most people are not doing PIA presentation because of seating distance.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> Actually most people are not doing PIA presentation because of seating distance.


That made me almost spit my tea.


----------



## sonichart

Gary Lightfoot said:


> That made me almost spit my tea.


Gary, thank you for the wealth of information and being the voice of reason here.

I'm fast approaching the time when i'll be purchasing a screen for my room. 130" CIH AT screen-- was wondering how you execute CIH + Imax? Do you have a seperate pulldown for 16x9 content?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi sonic,

I wouldn't go as far too say I was the voice of reason - just saying what the design spec is, but thanks all the same. 

All I'm doing is making a 16:9 fixed screen and masking it to 2.35. I'll be watching pretty much everything CIH, and only removing the masking for TDK, Interstellar etc if I should ever watch them again. I think the next Avengers movies will be IMAX to some degree so they will probably be the first ones that actually get me to remove the masking. All the masking will be is velvet covered frames held in place by velcro.


----------



## sonichart

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Hi sonic,
> 
> I wouldn't go as far too say I was the voice of reason - just saying what the design spec is, but thanks all the same.
> 
> All I'm doing is making a 16:9 fixed screen and masking it to 2.35. I'll be watching pretty much everything CIH, and only removing the masking for TDK, Interstellar etc if I should ever watch them again. I think the next Avengers movies will be IMAX to some degree so they will probably be the first ones that actually get me to remove the masking. All the masking will be is velvet covered frames held in place by velcro.


And here I thought this entire time that you were advocating a CIH setup as the superior setup. Though I was discussing this concept with my brother just the other night. Rather than getting a 130" 2.35:1 screen... get a 130" wide 1.78:1 screen but keep the masking on 95% of the time.. 

It's still the same surface area right?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

sonichart said:


> And here I thought this entire time that you were advocating a CIH setup as the superior setup. Though I was discussing this concept with my brother just the other night. Rather than getting a 130" 2.35:1 screen... get a 130" wide 1.78:1 screen but keep the masking on 95% of the time..
> 
> It's still the same surface area right?


Not sure what you mean by _"And here I thought this entire time that you were advocating a CIH setup as the superior setup."_

CIH is for everything other than IMAX. Only IMAX should be taller than 2.35. IMAX and 16:9 are not the same. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

A 130" wide 16:9 screen masked down to 2.35 will give a 130 x 55.3 screen,which is exactly the same as a 130" wide 2.35 screen which would also be 55.3" tall. Within either method (CIH or CIH+IMAX), 16:9 movies will be 55.3" tall as well, but around 97.5" wide.


----------



## sonichart

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Not sure what you mean by _"And here I thought this entire time that you were advocating a CIH setup as the superior setup."_
> 
> CIH is for everything other than IMAX. Only IMAX should be taller than 2.35. IMAX and 16:9 are not the same. I thought I was pretty clear about that.
> 
> A 130" wide 16:9 screen masked down to 2.35 will give a 130 x 55.3 screen,which is exactly the same as a 130" wide 2.35 screen which would also be 55.3" tall. Within either method (CIH or CIH+IMAX), 16:9 movies will be 55.3" tall as well, but around 97.5" wide.


Well I'll have to beg your pardon for my ignorance on this-- I don't know how you make IMAX taller than 2.35 on a fixed screen 2.35 screen.

You mentioned you're masking a 16:9 screen, that's an IMAX screen?


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> And here I thought this entire time that you were advocating a CIH setup as the superior setup. Though I was discussing this concept with my brother just the other night. Rather than getting a 130" 2.35:1 screen... get a 130" wide 1.78:1 screen but keep the masking on 95% of the time..
> 
> It's still the same surface area right?


I don’t want to speak for Gary as he is the voice of reason here. But it is my understanding he has a 16:9 screen The exact same one I would suggest to someone doing PIA and his masking is much the same it covers all but the 2.35:1 area needed to do CIH. Gary’s figure is 99.999% of the time I believe. 

The thing no one seems to get in my PIA suggestion is you don’t buy a 16:9 screen to the height you want to watch 16:9 content on with this setup. You buy it to the width you would need to do CIH. If you buy your screen in the height you want to watch 16:9 content in you then have a CIW setup like 75% of the people with projectors have. Right now the only people buying a 16:9 screen in the width required to do CIH at any given seating distance are very few. I have only heard of a few people doing CIH + Imax and a few doing CIA or some variation of it such as Rich does and he calls his setup variable image area I believe and of course myself with what I called PIA much to the chagrin of some here. 

My guess is I watch in something close to CIH 85% of the time, but every time I say that I’m told anything less than 99.999% is not considered “constant” in CIH. The times I don’t watch CIH are for things like Imax and things that are not movies at all like Sporting events sometimes or shows that are not movies and not Imax but are very much Imax like. The example I give are shows like planet earth or anything I want to immerse in the image. All the standards are built around the recommendations of the standard organizations that address the needs of the motion picture industry in commercial theaters. Commercial theaters also give you the option of immersion as they are 50 to 100 rows deep in seating, something you don’t get at home unless you allow yourself an option for it. That’s on the going larger than CIH will allow side of things. There are times I also go smaller than CIH allows. Classic movies shot in Academy ratio in the day before scope were shown quite large and in grand theatres. The trouble with these movies is some are restored and brought to digital with amazing quality but most are just copied from the best 75 year old film they can find. They are still great movies but show better when not shown as large. Likewise regular network TV now comes to us as 1080P but it is a rare PBS special that rises to my level of wanting to immersive watch it. I personally like to watch music performances that are not movies at all and shouldn’t fall under the guidelines of the motion picture standards as they are not movies and don’t have any bearing on movie presentation. I personally like to watch them Imax size and crank the sound up to Imax levels as well. That is my perfect way to watch them and what makes PIA perfect for me. You decide what size you want to watch things for yourself and then it will be your perfect size as well. 

I agree with you and your brother by the way just remember if you keep the masking on 95% of the time you won’t be allowed to say you have CIH.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

sonichart said:


> Well I'll have to beg your pardon for my ignorance on this-- I don't know how you make IMAX taller than 2.35 on a fixed screen 2.35 screen.
> 
> You mentioned you're masking a 16:9 screen, that's an IMAX screen?


You're right, can't make IMAX taller on a fixed 2.35 screen. That's why I'm using a fixed 16:9 screen that is pretty much permanently masked to 2.35, and everything will be watched as CIH 99.9999% of the time. Only IMAX should be taller than 2.35, so only those few aspect changing pseudo IMAX movies will be watched taller. Everything else will be CIH. This way everything conforms to the specs.

The 2.35 CIH area of the screen will be roughly 106" wide by 45" tall. If I watch a movie like TDK that has scenes that were shot for IMAX, I will remove the top and bottom masking so that the screen area now becomes 106" wide but 59.6" tall - so now it is CIH + IMAX. Usually I would watch TDK as 2.35 because the taller 'IMAX' parts don't add anything to the movie, they are just fluff and filler, but as this is a new room it is easy to build this way.

But other than those half a dozen or so movies, everything will be seen CIH on the 106 x 45 screen area. My front row seating will have my eyes at around 90 inches from the screen (2xSH), the second row will be 128 inches back so 2.84xSH (I'm using theatre seating). IMAX from the front row will be 1.51xSH, second row will be 2.12xSH.

Hope that helps.


----------



## sonichart

Gary Lightfoot said:


> You're right, can't make IMAX taller on a fixed 2.35 screen. That's why I'm using a fixed 16:9 screen that is pretty much permanently masked to 2.35, and everything will be watched as CIH 99.9999% of the time. Only IMAX should be taller than 2.35, so only those few aspect changing pseudo IMAX movies will be watched taller. Everything else will be CIH. This way everything conforms to the specs.
> 
> The 2.35 CIH area of the screen will be roughly 106" wide by 45" tall. If I watch a movie like TDK that has scenes that were shot for IMAX, I will remove the top and bottom masking so that the screen area now becomes 106" wide but 59.6" tall - so now it is CIH + IMAX. Usually I would watch TDK as 2.35 because the taller 'IMAX' parts don't add anything to the movie, they are just fluff and filler, but as this is a new room it is easy to build this way.
> 
> But other than those half a dozen or so movies, everything will be seen CIH on the 106 x 45 screen area. My front row seating will have my eyes at around 90 inches from the screen (2xSH), the second row will be 128 inches back so 2.84xSH (I'm using theatre seating). IMAX from the front row will be 1.51xSH, second row will be 2.12xSH.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Perhaps "Voice of reason" was a bit too strong-- but I can certainly appreciate your contribution to the discussion. You definitely know your stuff.

So I believe I understand you correctly now-- You have a 106" wide screen that is constantly masked to 2.35, unless you're watching something presented in IMAX.

That means, if you're watching The Big Lebowski with AR of 1.85:1, you're still leaving you screen masked for 2.35:1 and thus have pillar boxes on the left/right.

The only time you will remove the masking is for movies the TDK, or Tron Legacy where AR's switch between 2.35 and imax.

My room will be 20'x15' when its done with 1 row of seating. Though from the screen to back row is about 18' and the plan is that the main viewing area is about 12' from the screen. 

With a 2.35 fixed screen at 130" wide, I will have 141" diag or 112" diag for 16x9 material.

I've thought about a 130" wide 16x9 screen, which is 143" diag and I would still have 141" diag for 2.35 material.

Is a 16x9 143" diag screen TOO big from that seating distance? I've still kinda got my heart set on a 2.35 screen. The way my brother and I rationalized it is that i've got a screen for 16x9 material... it's my plasma tv in the other room. Looking at my Blu-Ray collection, 90% of my material is 2.35 or 2.4.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

sonichart said:


> So I believe I understand you correctly now-- You have a 106" wide screen that is constantly masked to 2.35, unless you're watching something presented in IMAX.
> 
> That means, if you're watching The Big Lebowski with AR of 1.85:1, you're still leaving you screen masked for 2.35:1 and thus have pillar boxes on the left/right.


Yes, that's correct.



sonichart said:


> The only time you will remove the masking is for movies the TDK, or Tron Legacy where AR's switch between 2.35 and imax.


Exactly.



sonichart said:


> My room will be 20'x15' when its done with 1 row of seating. Though from the screen to back row is about 18' and the plan is that the main viewing area is about 12' from the screen.
> 
> With a 2.35 fixed screen at 130" wide, I will have 141" diag or 112" diag for 16x9 material.
> 
> I've thought about a 130" wide 16x9 screen, which is 143" diag and I would still have 141" diag for 2.35 material.
> 
> Is a 16x9 143" diag screen TOO big from that seating distance? I've still kinda got my heart set on a 2.35 screen. The way my brother and I rationalized it is that i've got a screen for 16x9 material... it's my plasma tv in the other room. Looking at my Blu-Ray collection, 90% of my material is 2.35 or 2.4.


As you've seen, there are guidelines for seating and it's often down to personal preference where you sit, but I would think that if you went for a 16:9 screen to use it for IMAX in the same way I am, then you will be fine.

If you watch most things as CIH that will mean you have a screen that is 130" wide by 55.3" tall, and sitting 12 feet away gives you a seating distance ratio of 2.6. IMAX will be around 2:1.

If you can move your seating, you can always experiment by projecting onto the wall to see what sizes and seating distances give you the best results, and then buy a screen to match.

HTH


----------



## jeahrens

You could probably get away with being a bit closer than 12'. We're between 9-10' from a 130" scope screen (120" wide).

We don't do anything special for the shifting AR films. There aren't many and since the IMAX scenes are cropped, we just watch at 16:9. Works fine for us


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I don’t want to speak for Gary as he is the voice of reason here. But it is my understanding he has a 16:9 screen The exact same one I would suggest to someone doing PIA and his masking is much the same it covers all but the 2.35:1 area needed to do CIH. Gary’s figure is 99.999% of the time I believe.
> 
> The thing no one seems to get in my PIA suggestion is you don’t buy a 16:9 screen to the height you want to watch 16:9 content on with this setup. You buy it to the width you would need to do CIH. If you buy your screen in the height you want to watch 16:9 content in you then have a CIW setup like 75% of the people with projectors have. Right now the only people buying a 16:9 screen in the width required to do CIH at any given seating distance are very few. I have only heard of a few people doing CIH + Imax and a few doing CIA or some variation of it such as Rich does and he calls his setup variable image area I believe and of course myself with what I called PIA much to the chagrin of some here.
> 
> My guess is I watch in something close to CIH 85% of the time, but every time I say that I’m told anything less than 99.999% is not considered “constant” in CIH. The times I don’t watch CIH are for things like Imax and things that are not movies at all like Sporting events sometimes or shows that are not movies and not Imax but are very much Imax like. The example I give are shows like planet earth or anything I want to immerse in the image. All the standards are built around the recommendations of the standard organizations that address the needs of the motion picture industry in commercial theaters. Commercial theaters also give you the option of immersion as they are 50 to 100 rows deep in seating, something you don’t get at home unless you allow yourself an option for it. That’s on the going larger than CIH will allow side of things. There are times I also go smaller than CIH allows. Classic movies shot in Academy ratio in the day before scope were shown quite large and in grand theatres. The trouble with these movies is some are restored and brought to digital with amazing quality but most are just copied from the best 75 year old film they can find. They are still great movies but show better when not shown as large. Likewise regular network TV now comes to us as 1080P but it is a rare PBS special that rises to my level of wanting to immersive watch it. I personally like to watch music performances that are not movies at all and shouldn’t fall under the guidelines of the motion picture standards as they are not movies and don’t have any bearing on movie presentation. I personally like to watch them Imax size and crank the sound up to Imax levels as well. That is my perfect way to watch them and what makes PIA perfect for me. You decide what size you want to watch things for yourself and then it will be your perfect size as well.
> 
> I agree with you and your brother by the way just remember if you keep the masking on 95% of the time you won’t be allowed to say you have CIH.


Bud your original post has a bunch of rectangles of varying height. You have stated you zoom things smaller based on your opinion of the quality of the film itself and if the video quality is low. You have also stated you like to watch Academy ratio films taller than scope. You've just recently started stating percentages of what you do when. I guess to convince us that you're "close enough" to CIH. 

There's nothing wrong with what you are doing and as I said earlier it's an ingenious solution for what you want. But based on what you originally put forth and your own statements on how you use it, it's easy to see why we would call you on referring to your "P"IA as constant image height. No one is attempting to unjustly persecute you, just trying to keep you from calling your setup something it isn't by your own description. Honestly I don't know why this even matters to you at this point. Enjoy what you've created.


----------



## jautor

jeahrens said:


> You could probably get away with being a bit closer than 12'. We're between 9-10' from a 130" scope screen (120" wide).
> 
> We don't do anything special for the shifting AR films. There aren't many and since the IMAX scenes are cropped, we just watch at 16:9. Works fine for us


+1 - I'm ~9ft from at 136" scope screen (although my main row is at 15').

How many changing AR (IMAX) on Blu-Ray are we up to now? Isn't it still just over a dozen? I wonder what the total minutes of IMAX screen time there are in those films. When I looked at the list of films a while back, there were only a few of them I'd even want to see again myself, let alone spend $$ to get a few minutes of additional scenery. 

Which is what folks need to remember about the theatrical IMAX footage - it is just additional scenery (and it does look good in IMAX!), but the 'action' is still contained in the 2.35 "safe" zone. Which is also why if you do a CIH+IMAX screen, the screen should be larger than the correct CIH - because the IMAX footage is intended to be more immersive without changing your comfort level. Meaning you won't get close-ups filling the whole IMAX height for example - or anything else that would make you suddenly feel the image was uncomfortably large. 

Which is why it's correct to mask that (larger) screen down for CIH. Normal 16x9 content would then be sized correctly for the seating distance, and 2.35 material is just wider. 

Jeff


----------



## sonichart

jeahrens said:


> You could probably get away with being a bit closer than 12'. We're between 9-10' from a 130" scope screen (120" wide).
> 
> We don't do anything special for the shifting AR films. *There aren't many and since the IMAX scenes are cropped, we just watch at 16:9.* Works fine for us


When its all said and done, we will likely be closer to 11' viewing distance. I'm going with an AT screen, so anything closer than 10' is a non-starter.

Would you describe your setup? When you say 'since IMAX scenes are cropper', are you saying that you just watch the IMAX scene in a 2.35:1 AR?

The widest I can go in my theater is 130" wide-- and I just made it by about 6" using a JVC projector. So it's either a screen that is 55" tall (2.35:1) or 73" tall (1.78:1).

If I were to go with the taller screen-- I would do CIH+IMAX and leave the masking in place 96% of the time. There will be no cable/dish hook up to the theater.. therefore no sports, no tv. My plasma does a great job at those things and the theater is to be used for viewing movies and occasional concert footage.

Only thing I'm not really feeling-- is if i'm masked down to 2.35:1... and then 1.85:1 content is to be viewed, I would worry about pillar-boxes being visible or being annoyed about them anyway.

If I go with a 2.35:1 screen, I will be purchasing masking for those pillar boxes.

We honestly don't watch anything IMAX now-- but with a big screen I'd like to think we would be obliged to watch more. From 11' away, will I really notice a 2.35 screen masked to 16x9? That's a 112" diag image... and larger than my last screen which was 16x9 (I think I had 108" diag 16x9 back in the days when grey screens were king).

I really need to take inventory of my blu-rays and see.


----------



## sonichart

Quick Blu-ray inventory...

2.35/2.40 - 25 movies

Mixed AR - Star Trek: ITD, Interstellar, Tron Legacy, Batman TDK

1.85 - 9 movies (3 of them are the Back to the Future Trilogy) and SURPRISINGLY the Avengers!!!


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Bud your original post has a bunch of rectangles of varying height. You have stated you zoom things smaller based on your opinion of the quality of the film itself and if the video quality is low. You have also stated you like to watch Academy ratio films taller than scope. You've just recently started stating percentages of what you do when. I guess to convince us that you're "close enough" to CIH.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with what you are doing and as I said earlier it's an ingenious solution for what you want. But based on what you originally put forth and your own statements on how you use it, it's easy to see why we would call you on referring to your "P"IA as constant image height. No one is attempting to unjustly persecute you, just trying to keep you from calling your setup something it isn't by your own description. Honestly I don't know why this even matters to you at this point. Enjoy what you've created.


I have been saying I watch CIH mode about 85% of the time long before this thread started. The percentage of time should really have nothing to do with this nor the fact there are X number of classic original Imax movies and Y number of new Imax movies and Z number of Imax changing aspect ratio movies. 

I do watch some Academy Ratio movies larger than CIH I watch them relative to CIA height. I also watch the majority of my Academy movies at less than CIH. I watch network tv mostly equivalent to smaller than CIW size. I even watch some internet feed at 480p smaller yet. 

Saying the top and bottom of Imax is filled with fluff could well be correct and I could easily show you hundreds of scope movies where everything outside the 16:9 center is also fluff. Mom’s night out and a 1000 movies like it are shot in scope god knows why and they gross a lot of money at the box office and are intended to be chopped down at some point and stuck on HBO because people watching there on flat panels call the cable provider every day and say if you don’t stop sending them black bars I’m canceling my cable. A year later they show up on lifetime and over the air. Sure there are classics and new that entertain us with the full width of the scope frame. 

Now lets talk about that that isn’t movies. Should a person be allowed to watch tv on his projector? How about sports? How about music concerts? How about made for tv documentaries? How about foreign films with sub titles? Most sports the action is in the center of the playing field quite small, the bottom and top are full of stats. I have actually had friends come over to watch NASCAR racing and auto racing isn’t a favorite of mine but I asked them how do you want to watch it with mild immersion low immersion or in your face immersion. With all the graphics on the screen and excellent 1080P quality they all agreed the Imax like race was what was perfect. A sport I do watch and really like the floor to ceiling immersion is golf. Winter Olympics is another. The Warren Miller ski movies are not Imax but they cry out to be watched with total immersion like you would an Imax movie. For me perfect is feeling the cold and the snow pelting my face and that comes from max immersion for this type of content. If someone else has a CIH + Imax setup and watches Chasing Shadows as CIH and that is perfect for them then it is perfect also. PIA is about leaving your option open along with your mind. If any of the above is too tall for you then don’t watch it that way. If you know everything taller than CIH is too tall then get a scope screen. If you can get excited watching Imax and enjoying stretching your immersion in both directions not just one then it is just silly to think if it doesn’t say Imax on the case then it cant be something that you could like taller also. If you are the kind of person that once in a while you go sit in your normal seat at a theater and think to yourself dang this is an awesome movie and I’m coming back to see it again and you know what I’m moving 15 rows closer next time, then you might just be a PIA person.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> If I were to go with the taller screen-- I would do CIH+IMAX and leave the masking in place 96% of the time. There will be no cable/dish hook up to the theater.. therefore no sports, no tv. My plasma does a great job at those things and the theater is to be used for viewing movies and occasional concert footage.
> 
> Only thing I'm not really feeling-- is if i'm masked down to 2.35:1... and then 1.85:1 content is to be viewed, I would worry about pillar-boxes being visible or being annoyed about them anyway.


In my first theater I took the just movies and nothing but movies attitude and also had a great flat panel display for all the rest. The more I thought about it I wondered why I built such a nice place to entertain and we were cramming into a smaller room watching a smaller image with friends and family just because it was a non movie form of entertainment. I have a bunch of friends that loved UFC and I had them over many times for UFC pay per view and they begged me to use the theater. So I ran a cable over and I found out the nicest viewing room in the house was nice for that also. You mentioned concerts why wouldn’t you want to do that in the room with the best sound system. I don’t get up in the morning and fire up the theater to watch the weather before work. we have the one hour rule, don’t turn on the projector unless you plan on using it at least an hour. You can view use your theater however you want. I like to figure out more ways to use it not less. I have over 4000 movies on media and I still find lots of other things that I need the projector for. 

With PIA your masking system would have the provisions for + Imax so all the spill has a place to go and you don’t have to worry about over shooting the scope screen and hitting the wall with it. If you have a 16:9 projector PIA keeps your options open even if you do CIH 100.000000% of the time.


----------



## sonichart

bud16415 said:


> In my first theater I took the just movies and nothing but movies attitude and also had a great flat panel display for all the rest. The more I thought about it I wondered why I built such a nice place to entertain and we were cramming into a smaller room watching a smaller image with friends and family just because it was a non movie form of entertainment. I have a bunch of friends that loved UFC and I had them over many times for UFC pay per view and they begged me to use the theater. So I ran a cable over and I found out the nicest viewing room in the house was nice for that also. You mentioned concerts why wouldn’t you want to do that in the room with the best sound system. I don’t get up in the morning and fire up the theater to watch the weather before work. we have the one hour rule, don’t turn on the projector unless you plan on using it at least an hour. You can view use your theater however you want. I like to figure out more ways to use it not less. I have over 4000 movies on media and I still find lots of other things that I need the projector for.
> 
> With PIA your masking system would have the provisions for + Imax so all the spill has a place to go and you don’t have to worry about over shooting the scope screen and hitting the wall with it. If you have a 16:9 projector PIA keeps your options open even if you do CIH 100.000000% of the time.


I'm all for making the image be exactly the size that you want and that is pleasing to the eye. I just don't have the option of projecting onto a wall without a frame and I don't care enough to shell out the money for an electro-mask system etc. I agree, some material you just want to be BIGGER for the immersive effect. I don't like 3D content on my 65" plasma because for this reason. Though i'm pretty sure I'm not 100% sure I care too much about 3D. Which leaves me hoping if I go 130" wide scope screen that the imax material at 55" height will be immersive enough. Do I really need 18 more inches of height to enjoy the experience? Will the extra image just blur to my peripheral anyway?

I've had a 4:3 screen, 16:9,... i think I have to go 2.35 on this one.

Which reminds me I have a perfectly good 16x9 carada frame and grey screen from years ago.. Think I should post that in the classfied section?


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> I've had a 4:3 screen, 16:9,... i think I have to go 2.35 on this one.


Nothing wrong with going with the scope screen one thing we shouldn’t talk about is the cool factor of walking into a beautifully done theater and seeing the long scope screen. people will say a 16:9 looks like a huge tv hanging on the wall. In my case I don’t have the distraction of a frame but I really don’t pull off the stealth screen also as it is pretty obvious the room is setup for projection. I helped design a true stealth media room for a doctor in town and his wife wanted no clues as to it being a theater. It just looked like a beautiful richly decorated social room. The only clue if any was the master control pad that did it all closed black out blinds switched lighting modes and did slow dimming the projector was stealth and people couldn’t figure it out one minute you are in a room the next sound was coming from places you couldn’t see and you had this beautiful image in front of you. The presentation of the system was almost like a magic show of its own. 

Of course you should list the gray screen. You mentioned before that the days of gray were over. I don’t think that is ever going to be a reality at least not for me. I like hearing too much from people that they thought a room had to be pitch black for projectors. 

FOV is a funny thing when you get the image out there at 130” x 55” tall it will be a beautiful thing for sure from your seating distance. Will you ever want taller and not so wide for Imax like stuff you will just have to find out. If you really only think 95% is your number or like Gary at 99.999% I don’t think I would ever do a 16:9 screen for that light of usage.


----------



## steve1106

sonichart said:


> I'm all for making the image be exactly the size that you want and that is pleasing to the eye. I just don't have the option of projecting onto a wall without a frame and I don't care enough to shell out the money for an electro-mask system etc. I agree, some material you just want to be BIGGER for the immersive effect. I don't like 3D content on my 65" plasma because for this reason. Though i'm pretty sure I'm not 100% sure I care too much about 3D. Which leaves me hoping if I go 130" wide scope screen that the imax material at 55" height will be immersive enough. Do I really need 18 more inches of height to enjoy the experience? Will the extra image just blur to my peripheral anyway?
> 
> I've had a 4:3 screen, 16:9,... i think I have to go 2.35 on this one.
> 
> Which reminds me I have a perfectly good 16x9 carada frame and grey screen from years ago.. Think I should post that in the classfied section?


Now I am completely the opposite with 95% or more being TV content with the last three movie nights featuring "Everest", "The Good Dinosaur" and "Ted 2" all of which the premium channels decided to broadcast in 16:9. Since I can only do 132 inches in width and 74.25 in height for 151.5 inches or 143.5 in scope, I need the extra 36.93 inches for free 16:9 movie nights to feel like "movie nights" and still have the same 143.5 inches scope for real movie nights.

I recently got pulled back into 3D so like Bud's PIA next month (July 19th) I'll watch the new Captain America and Superman v Batman at 15 feet in 2D, then without my family (girls) at 10 feet in 3D for the hit you in the face feeling. 

As the writer at projectorcentral.com said a few years ago.

"The bottom line is this: you are the director in your home theater. You can decide how you want various format images to be screened. Some people love that feeling of the screen opening super wide for 2.35, and would prefer to limit the size of 16:9 and 4:3 material in order to make the 2.35 films look larger. Some prefer to take advantage of a taller screen that allows a larger presentation of 16:9 and 4:3 images. The only relevant question is--how do you want to set up your own theater?"
http://www.projectorcentral.com/235_home_theater.htm


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> The percentage of time should really have nothing to do with this nor the fact there are X number of classic original Imax movies and Y number of new Imax movies and Z number of Imax changing aspect ratio movies.


Sure it does. You don't see anyone here claiming a 2.76 screen would be a good option - because there simply isn't enough content to justify building a home theater optimized for it. IMO, the same is true for the "theatrical IMAX" stuff - a few minutes of extra footage (all filmed 2.35-safe) on a dozen or so titles, doesn't warrant the investment in the setup or the hassle to deal with it. If "traditional IMAX" films (meaning the ~30 minute documentaries intended for total immersion) were available in that format for home use, my answer might be different. 



> I do watch some Academy Ratio movies larger than CIH I watch them relative to CIA height. I also watch the majority of my Academy movies at less than CIH. I watch network tv mostly equivalent to smaller than CIW size. I even watch some internet feed at 480p smaller yet.


Yes, we know, you've said it over and over again. And that's fine. I personally don't understand why you go through the trouble, even 480p content viewed on my screen from my front row looks acceptable - but no it's not going to blow anyone's socks off... But a proper upscaling and $200 of Darbee enhancement and it can still look pretty darn good.



> Saying the top and bottom of Imax is filled with fluff could well be correct and I could easily show you hundreds of scope movies where everything outside the 16:9 center is also fluff.


The difference is there's hundreds of scope films where that's not true. For the theatrical IMAX (is there a better term for this? Non-native IMAX?) they're all shot that way. 



> Now lets talk about that that isn’t movies. Should a person be allowed to watch tv on his projector? How about sports? How about music concerts? How about made for tv documentaries? How about foreign films with sub titles?


Red herring (again). No one is saying you shouldn't. I watch GoT every week on my projector. UFC fight nights, Football, Super Bowl, etc. absolutely. I don't shrink the picture down for those, either. 



> PIA is about leaving your option open along with your mind.




Dude, do whatever you want, and while it's an interesting way to adjust immersion, it's far from perfect, as it introduces its own set of trade-offs. To keep spouting this "if you don't agree with me, you're stubborn" logical fallacy is tiresome.


----------



## bud16415

All the Imax documentaries are available for home consumption going back into the 1980’s with the 1.44 AR. I own quite a few of them. 

Dude


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> You can decide how you want various format images to be screened. Some people love that feeling of the screen opening super wide for 2.35, and would prefer to limit the size of 16:9 and 4:3 material in order to make the 2.35 films look larger.
> http://www.projectorcentral.com/235_home_theater.htm


Steve I know this isn't something you said, so this isn't directed at you (it's just in your post). This bears addressing. A properly sized scope screen at the right seating distance does not compromise 16:9 or 4:3. CIW, on the other hand, always compromises scope. Honestly I'm surprised to see someone professional write something like that.



steve1106 said:


> Since I can only do 132 inches in width and 74.25 in height for 151.5 inches or 143.5 in scope, I need the extra 36.93 inches for free 16:9 movie nights to feel like "movie nights" and still have the same 143.5 inches scope for real movie nights.


Not really. As we've discussed before. You could easily *move your seating closer and have exactly the same perceived 16:9 image size* with a CIH setup. Only now scope films would be have a massive gain in impact (as intended). I understand why you don't and I'm not trying to sway you to do otherwise. But you are still getting caught up in measurements and not thinking about how distance interacts with size. And anyone reading this needs to understand that interaction to make an informed decision.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

jeahrens said:


> Steve I know this isn't something you said, so this isn't directed at you (it's just in your post). This bears addressing. A properly sized scope screen at the right seating distance does not compromise 16:9 or 4:3. CIW, on the other hand, always compromises scope. Honestly I'm surprised to see someone professional write something like that.


I'm pretty sure that link has already been posted in one of the recent threads here and I said much the same about it. Unfortunately it's not unusual for people who don't fully understand things or that have an agenda to latch onto misinformation and continually post it to try and support their position.




jeahrens said:


> Not really. As we've discussed before. You could easily *move your seating closer and have exactly the same perceived 16:9 image size* with a CIH setup. Only now scope films would be have a massive gain in impact (as intended). I understand why you don't and I'm not trying to sway you to do otherwise. But you are still getting caught up in measurements and not thinking about how distance interacts with size. And anyone reading this needs to understand that interaction to make an informed decision.


Yeah, I've lost count now the amount of times I've pointed that to Steve (and others) with actual numbers etc. He actually does move his seats closer (he's posted it here that he moves to around 10 feet from the screen), so he is running a CIH system using a CIW screen, he just zooms himself/seating rather than the pj lens on a 2.35 screen. 

Unbelievable, but true!


----------



## ahmedreda

I have a few points regarding this subject. 

First, I don't believe moving the seating is always going to be a magical solution.

To achieve a 70 degree angle with a smaller screen (~120-130"), you probably need to be in the 6-8 foot range. That would likely compromise the audio in several ways (ex. surround backs too far away, Atmos speakers above mains, speaker dispersion, etc..). Also, a lot of screens especially AT screens have a minimum distance of 9' and sometimes, it goes up to 13'. @Gary Lightfoot , did you run into any issues like that with your setup?

Second, I believe a larger screen still has a visual impact regardless of the angle. If the angle was the only governing factor, then everyone can sit close enough to a 70" TV and claim they have the same experience as a FP.








jeahrens said:


> Steve I know this isn't something you said, so this isn't directed at you (it's just in your post). This bears addressing. A properly sized scope screen at the right seating distance does not compromise 16:9 or 4:3. CIW, on the other hand, always compromises scope. Honestly I'm surprised to see someone professional write something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. As we've discussed before. You could easily *move your seating closer and have exactly the same perceived 16:9 image size* with a CIH setup. Only now scope films would be have a massive gain in impact (as intended). I understand why you don't and I'm not trying to sway you to do otherwise. But you are still getting caught up in measurements and not thinking about how distance interacts with size. And anyone reading this needs to understand that interaction to make an informed decision.


----------



## jeahrens

ahmedreda said:


> I have a few points regarding this subject.
> 
> First, I don't believe moving the seating is always going to be a magical solution.
> 
> To achieve a 70 degree angle with a smaller screen (~120-130"), you probably need to be in the 6-8 foot range. That would likely compromise the audio in several ways (ex. surround backs too far away, Atmos speakers above mains, speaker dispersion, etc..). Also, a lot of screens especially AT screens have a minimum distance of 9' and sometimes, it goes up to 13'.
> @Gary Lightfoot , did you run into any issues like that with your setup?
> 
> Second, I believe a larger screen still has a visual impact regardless of the angle. If the angle was the only governing factor, then everyone can sit close enough to a 70" TV and claim they have the same experience as a FP.


There will be practical limits for sure, but in the cases we are discussing this isn't an issue. In a case like Steve's you can easily move the seating from 15' to something like 10' and accomplish what I've outlined. Once the lights are down, I don't really have any perceptive difference between my screen and a larger screen further back. Sitting 3' from a 70" flat panel would obviously have some trade offs. And you would eventually get to a point with FP that it isn't feasible to get any closer. 

Audio wise I have only received complements on my setup. One of my top concerns with this setup was audio presentation. Multichannel audio and concert Blu Rays are a priority for me (as well as 2ch listening). I get very good clean imaging and a spacious soundstage. The L/R are at the edge of the screen (it is not AT) angled just outside the center seat and the center is on a stand at the very bottom edge of the screen angled slightly up. The center is right at 9' from the center seat (the screen is maybe a foot behind). Luckily I don't seem to have any issues with any reflections from the wall. The rear 4 channels are as close to equidistant to listening position as the room allows. I haven't done ATMOS yet.

One of my chief concerns for chair moving solution others have proposed is that it would most certainly have a detrimental effect on speaker delay and levels. Which, for me, would be a deal breaker.


----------



## jeahrens

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Yeah, I've lost count now the amount of times I've pointed that to Steve (and others) with actual numbers etc. He actually does move his seats closer (he's posted it here that he moves to around 10 feet from the screen), so he is running a CIH system using a CIW screen, he just zooms himself/seating rather than the pj lens on a 2.35 screen.
> 
> Unbelievable, but true!


Oh yes, I've discussed the chair moving in either this thread or the other. I understand why he does it, but it's certainly not a normal practice. I've had the good fortune from theater crawls to see a lot setups, none have moved seating though. Also I care to much about the audio presentation to deal with the compromise with the speaker delay and levels. Or the hassle of resetting them with each move. But I'm probably way more anal with that then a lot of folks.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I'm probably way more anal with that then a lot of folks.


Oh I don’t think so. I have run across quite a few folks that I have thought where quite anal with home theater design. I would venture a guess that you are average when it comes to such matters.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

ahmedreda said:


> I have a few points regarding this subject.
> 
> First, I don't believe moving the seating is always going to be a magical solution.
> 
> To achieve a 70 degree angle with a smaller screen (~120-130"), you probably need to be in the 6-8 foot range. That would likely compromise the audio in several ways (ex. surround backs too far away, Atmos speakers above mains, speaker dispersion, etc..). Also, a lot of screens especially AT screens have a minimum distance of 9' and sometimes, it goes up to 13'.
> @Gary Lightfoot , did you run into any issues like that with your setup?
> 
> Second, I believe a larger screen still has a visual impact regardless of the angle. If the angle was the only governing factor, then everyone can sit close enough to a 70" TV and claim they have the same experience as a FP.


If you design for the seating distance it shouldn't be a problem, but I think a larger room is better for audio - no speakers are too close to the ears of any of the audience for example.

Of course when you get to a smaller screen like a laptop things fall apart due to obvious scale, and especially if your feet end up under the screen. If the screen is visible relative to other things in the field of view scale plays a bigger part - sometimes when watching 3D at a commercial theatre with the glasses on, it can be difficult to judge the screen size because everything else in the auditorium is much dimmer too, so harder to compare. I found that especially odd with the recent Star Wars movie for example as there were no people in the seats in front of me, so nothing to compare scale too. That's a good reason to use black velvet everywhere if possible.

If the screen is AT you make sure you use a material that isn't visible (Seymour XD can be depending on the visual acuity of the people watching and how bright the image is for example). There are plenty that aren't from those kinds of closer seating distances.

My first theatre room was a loft conversion, and the first screen was a 7ft wide 16:9 screen. I never liked that scope was smaller and experimented with some options like CIA but in the end tried an 8ft wide 2.35 screen and moved my seating closer so that I was at the same seating distance ratio as before. 16:9 (now 6ft wide) then looked visually the same as before, but now scope was that much wider and more immersive, so in that case closer seating worked very well for me and bore out the theory.

My current build is underway and not completed yet but my only concern was as you say the rear speakers, and I hope the side surrounds do not behave too much like a point source (I can experiment with bipoles if they are). Atmos speakers are at the correct angles to the MLP and not close to the screen/LCR so they should be fine. As the rears are going to be set for the front row I think they should be audible enough too, but too loud for the second row. As the rears don't get much use (in a 7.1 system) it shouldn't be a big deal IMHO. Maybe with a matrixed or DSU mix they may get more use but I'll just make sure they're optimized for the front row.

If I have any problems with my new room it will be a learning experience and what I do to fix the issues will be useful for the future.


----------



## steve1106

Scope setups are waste of a good 16:9 projector. A person must be unintelligent to use a small scope setup. How can a person not look at a big beautiful 16:9 screen and not realize that is the way to go? People with 2.35:1 have a agenda and they don't understand that 16:9 is the way to go. How can anyone not look at 150 inches and not realize it is bigger than 100? Why can't they get that you can move a chair closer to a big 16:9 and have much more immersive 16:9 experience? Why do they post the same 2.35:1 nonsense over and over? Who are they trying to convince? Why are they going against the industry? Projectors have native 16:9 for a reason. It is what people want.


Did I say any of that? No. Do I think it? No...ish. 

Did I attack scope? No. I think my last post here implied "real movies" are in scope.

Did I attack anyone's point of view, country or way of life?

Do any of us get paid or benefit from recommending a scope screen or a 16:9? I only have a point of view and express it. Lose that right and ouch.

Move the chair closer. Sit in a different row. Move the projector. Scope v 16:9. Who cares what a person does as long as it works for them. I do Bud's PIA thing and some of you do as well. 

Now imagine how boring this forum would be if we all thought exactly alike. I looked at some of the prior threads here and discussions on CIH safe movies are great, but don't you want a little back and forth instead of move along nothing to see here? 

I'm not anal. Not anymore. Life is too short. I pop on the wireless headphones for audio when I move the chair up for 3D unless we are riding...viewing a roller-coaster blu-ray. It all sounds and looks good to me because I am "the master of my own domain." Could it be better? Absolutely!

So am I narrow minded (look it up if you are unsure of the definition)? I don't think so. I would love to have a big 180 2.35:1 screen in my next house or maybe 200 inches would be better. This is America and bigger is better or so I've heard.

So now for the attacks since reasonable discussions are hard.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Now THAT is the voice of reason


----------



## bud16415

Not the voice of reason. Steve is reasonable, he realizes there is a difference between a home theater and a theater. His room is deep and he has a treadmill at the back of the room, he’s at home and he can run on the treadmill and watch a movie. He can make noise and get away with it. Last I checked SMPTE didn’t have a standard for screen placement when operating a treadmill. He doesn’t want to duplicate anything he is a free thinker and wants to make it up as he goes. What he knows instinctively is his projector is 16:9 AR he knows movies come other sizes and if he wants to go crazy with his kids watching roller coaster DVD and with experimenting he and his kids love having the image so big and even exceeding their FOV it gives them the sensation of reality That’s great and it is perfect at that moment in time for those people. Steve knows he can at any moment take his couch and nail it to the floor he can then frame a scope screen on the wall and start watching CIH. I think he gets that and with a huge 16:9 screen he can do that today or tomorrow or next week if he wants. But he is the kind of guy that doesn’t drive to work every day the exact same way. Some days he goes for the gusto and takes the long way for a change of pace. Some mornings he eats pancakes and some he eats cereal. He can do that as he’s a free thinker and keeps his options open. 


There are two ways to look at scale and yes a bigger screen is different than sitting closer to a smaller screen. Just like standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon is even greater than watching the perfect sized Imax version of Grand Canyon, or watching the Imax version on a laptop. The 3 are different but Imax gives it a good go at impressing and seeing as how when I’m standing on the edge of the real thing I cant take flight Imax sometimes has the edge in impressing. 

There is also the beauty of an image captured in an AR that does the subject justice. Our minds digest the image and the AR of the window it is in regardless of the height, width, or area. A beautiful painting is beautiful and enjoyed regardless the size or where you stand. 

We have theaters at home for as many reasons as there are people, and some of us have many different reasons. We try and build our systems to meet our desires. Once we reach our goal it then becomes our perfect.


----------



## sonichart

bud16415 said:


> There are two ways to look at scale and yes a bigger screen is different than sitting closer to a smaller screen. Just like standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon is even greater than watching the perfect sized Imax version of Grand Canyon, or watching the Imax version on a laptop. The 3 are different but Imax gives it a good go at impressing and seeing as how when I’m standing on the edge of the real thing I cant take flight Imax sometimes has the edge in impressing.


LOL man did you just compare a bigger screen to standing on the actual edge of the Grand Canyon? 

Cmon now!


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> All the Imax documentaries are available for home consumption going back into the 1980’s with the 1.44 AR. I own quite a few of them.


Yes, the content is available (Fires of Kuwait is one of my last remaining Laserdisc treasures!), but it's not available in the full IMAX resolution glory that would allow us to fire up the giant screen. The BD versions are cropped to 16x9, or at least the ones I have are all done that way. Which makes perfect sense for IMAX to do for home video release...

Now, with 4K BD it would be very cool if and when IMAX re-releases those titles in 4K if they would offer multiple aspect formats (since they'd certainly have room on the disc to store two copies) - a 16:9 and a 1.44 IMAX original. That would be something worth zooming out to a larger-than-theatrical-normal size for viewing.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> LOL man did you just compare a bigger screen to standing on the actual edge of the Grand Canyon?
> 
> Cmon now!


Not exactly I compared the cost of a plane ticket a car rental and a couple of nights in a hotel and meals that would actually cost about twice what my home theater cost me including the Imax version of Grand Canyon. That and being able to see it as a birds eye view you would have to throw in the helicopter ride. No there is no comparison to the real Grand Canyon and anything else but Imax did a fine job for the level of technology of the day when it did those movies. 

Kind of my point about PIA and future proofing. In my life I saw the invention of television to what we have today and if you write a standard today it will be tested to its limits tomorrow by a a new technology. 

I know a young guy that does upscale real estate videos in Florida for the rich and famous. He takes out his boat and launches a drown and does an aerial fly-over of properties. He is no Spielberg and doesn’t have a 500 pound camera strapped to the belly of a chopper. But the HD presentations he puts together in less than 24 hours are breathtaking. We are in a media driven world now and it is changing by the hour. You are going to be bombarded with all kinds of stuff Imax like from all kinds of directions. The internet is only getting faster and better and it won’t be long you will be streaming everything real time if you want. Immersion will take on a new meaning. 

There is nothing saying you or I will stop watching the old stuff, I plan on it anyway and CIH methods will be fine for doing that. But to say there are only 12 movies that will be the only thing that the larger screen should be opened for looking 10 years into the future IMHO is short sighted. Technology is progressing at an accelerated rate some say exponentially. Look back 10 years to now and it’s hard to project 10 years to the future as it will be a rate of change closer to the last 100 years in scope. Chances are projectors we won’t even relate to. They will be like the first color set I saw as a kid or your first VHS player. I think we are going to see some crazy stuff in not a heck of a lot of years.


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> Yes, the content is available (Fires of Kuwait is one of my last remaining Laserdisc treasures!), but it's not available in the full IMAX resolution glory that would allow us to fire up the giant screen. The BD versions are cropped to 16x9, or at least the ones I have are all done that way. Which makes perfect sense for IMAX to do for home video release...
> 
> Now, with 4K BD it would be very cool if and when IMAX re-releases those titles in 4K if they would offer multiple aspect formats (since they'd certainly have room on the disc to store two copies) - a 16:9 and a 1.44 IMAX original. That would be something worth zooming out to a larger-than-theatrical-normal size for viewing.


All of my older Imax are 1.44 on DVD. I haven’t bought any in a few years I will have to refresh myself on what is out there. Hard to believe a company that went to the expense of making those would chop them down and not make both formats available.


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> All of my older Imax are 1.44 on DVD. I haven’t bought any in a few years I will have to refresh myself on what is out there. Hard to believe a company that went to the expense of making those would chop them down and not make both formats available.


Not hard to believe at all... They published them in the aspect ratio to best fill the home video screen as much as possible, to get the most immersive experience they could (which in turn, would be the best way to sell lots of them $$$). In the LD/DVD era, that meant a (roughly) 4:3 image, but as the HDTV transition changed the format to 16x9, IMAX did the same for the BD and now 4K releases. 

It would be cool of them to also ship the 1.44 version on 4K BD - but that would only truly be useful to projector folks who could zoom out to re-create the IMAX experience.


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> But to say there are only 12 movies that will be the only thing that the larger screen should be opened for looking 10 years into the future IMHO is short sighted.


I didn't say that, nor did anyone else. You keep misquoting people and twisting the words. I said there are ~12 movies on BD with the mixed-aspect IMAX "feature", so using those few minutes of footage as the basis for a screen was not, in my opinion, worth it. And I'm not looking 10 years into the future - I want to use my theater today (see how I did that!).



> Technology is progressing at an accelerated rate some say exponentially. Look back 10 years to now and it’s hard to project 10 years to the future as it will be a rate of change closer to the last 100 years in scope.


Wow! You don't say!?!   

Stating that you're "Future-proofing" a projector setup by putting in a larger 16x9 screen is a real stretch. Because of the pace of change and technology, doing anything based on "belief" rather than the available roadmap of products isn't likely to be fruitful. The best you can hope for is to probably plan out 3-4 years at best. First, by the time something else comes around to provide "more immersive" home experience, you're likely to have changed homes (average US household moves every 7 years). Second, the technology may not be screen-based at all. And third, the projector and screen could be obsolete - we probably unroll the display and stick it to the wall...


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> There are two ways to look at scale and yes a bigger screen is different than sitting closer to a smaller screen. Just like standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon is even greater than watching the perfect sized Imax version of Grand Canyon, or watching the Imax version on a laptop. The 3 are different but Imax gives it a good go at impressing and seeing as how when I’m standing on the edge of the real thing I cant take flight Imax sometimes has the edge in impressing.
> 
> There is also the beauty of an image captured in an AR that does the subject justice. Our minds digest the image and the AR of the window it is in regardless of the height, width, or area. A beautiful painting is beautiful and enjoyed regardless the size or where you stand.
> 
> We have theaters at home for as many reasons as there are people, and some of us have many different reasons. We try and build our systems to meet our desires. Once we reach our goal it then becomes our perfect.


Not arguing against "perfect" being what the owner defines it to be. And AR is a presentation tool just like the canvas an artist chooses. But in a normal room with the lights down the differences in screen size simply don't impart a real sense of scale. In an actual theater where there is a large differential in physical size and distance your mind will interpret this and you will get a sense of that scale. Like standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon will impart a real sensory feeling of a vast scale. I don't get that when you're talking 5 ish feet and a few feet/inches difference in screen size. I have been in several home theaters and have never gotten any real sense of differences in distance (without asking or measuring). When the lights are down you're watching the floating image. The size of that image is certainly something you do take notice of.

I've never really given much thought to at what point does your brain trigger the thought "this thing is really big and a ways away", but it's not something that happens in a typical theater room. So this new critique that I'm going to still somehow get a tangible sensation that one screen is really a foot smaller even though I'm sitting a few feet closer and the perceived image is equal doesn't gel with my actual experiences.


----------



## bud16415

Edited OP with information i feel supports the idea behind PIA presentation.


----------



## steve1106

Since they said stick with your thread...."I'm Back..."

You use PIA and some use 4 way masking to allow them to decide what size a movie should be, and I guess I do as well since I sometimes adjust my seating depending on the content (3D). While I disagree with the whole CIH is the only way to go when talking about smaller screens, I do think it is a matter of individual tastes and budget in some cases. I also will never get comparing a commercial cinema to a home cinema when talking about how the director wanted a movie presented since very few can even compete in size with the smallest screen in the smallest commercial cinema. I don't think any major movie director wanted his/her vision shown on my little 143.5" 2.35:1, so lets assume these directors want us to go to 50 foot screens while TV/TV movie directors are shooting for the smaller screen TV/HT market.

Also, the whole you don't take in to account the way the director wanted it to be seen when talking about scope goes out the window when you think about IMAX and all the aspect ratios that have been used and are being used. You can't say you represent what the director wanted and then refuse to do it for all aspect ratios. I am impressed with the directors who step out of the studio/cinema box and show the movie the way they want it presented be in IMAX or 1.85 or 2.76. (I hate commercial IMAX but at home a few scenes of a movie rock in IMAXish.) For a person to make the argument that 1932's The Mummy shouldn't be "larger" than a scope movie is crazy. I watched two movies this past weekend. The Fifth Wave in 2.35:1 and The Heart of the Sea in 1.78. After watching them both, to me the second movie needed to be larger than the first and with your PIA setup or 4 way masking or even what I do which is move the chairs up/back, a person can decide. 

I think you have said you prefer scope and I know I do, but at the end of the day studios experimented with many different aspect ratios and some directors still use different aspect ratios. Tonight, I plan on watching the original Oceans 11 on TCM and before that The Mummy which I taped from TCM over the weekend (excellent restoration of the first 15 minutes pulled us in). I know one will be in 4:3 and the other in scope or 16:9, but the difference between myself and the CIHers is that I want to honor the director of The Mummy and watch it as large as my very..very.. very humble setup will allow while still not short changing Oceans 11 even if I am stuck with watching it in 16:9.

By the way, I want my "Big Bird" large so I don't totally agree with you, Bud. I do think we stick closer to the director's vision than some do.


----------



## jautor

steve1106 said:


> While I disagree with the whole CIH is the only way to go


NO ONE HERE SAID THAT. Over and over the folks in the forum have tried to explain the purpose of a CIH setup, and if it't not for you, that's fine.



> I also will never get comparing a commercial cinema to a home cinema when talking about how the director wanted a movie presented since very few can even compete in size with the smallest screen in the smallest commercial cinema. I don't think any major movie director wanted his/her vision shown on my little 143.5" 2.35:1, so lets assume these directors want us to go to 50 foot screens while TV/TV movie directors are shooting for the smaller screen TV/HT market.


Not about overall "size" at all. Note that "director's intent" applied to home theater usually means a discussion of original aspect ratio (OAR) vs. pan/scan/cropped/etc. presentations. In this context, though, it's about how we consumers obtain non-16:9 content and how we deal with it in a generally 16x9 signal chain and display. If we got our movies by deliveries of film canisters, this would all be taken care of for us.



> Also, the whole you don't take in to account the way the director wanted it to be seen when talking about scope goes out the window when you think about IMAX and all the aspect ratios that have been used and are being used. You can't say you represent what the director wanted and then refuse to do it for all aspect ratios.


Correct, except that's exactly what we're all talking about. The setup of a constant height screen allows all ratios to be presented correctly. Now, the rare ratios above 2.35 are normally not dealt with natively and therefore are "compromised" from the director's intent - but there's only so far we can go. But just like the mixed-AR IMAX footage, building our home theaters for sub-fractional-percents of the available content isn't a good economic solution (unless, for example, you're a huge Dark Knight fan - see other thread!). 



> For a person to make the argument that 1932's The Mummy shouldn't be "larger" than a scope movie is crazy.


Again, no one said that. A scope film will be wider - because that's how it was made.

When I've shown Dracula (1931), the 4:3 height was exactly the same as every other movie I show. That height was chosen to be the correct size for my room and seating distance(s). There is no compromise there. And again, most folks don't change their seating position based on the content - but there's nothing wrong with that...



> Tonight, I plan on watching the original Oceans 11 on TCM and before that The Mummy which I taped from TCM over the weekend (excellent restoration of the first 15 minutes pulled us in). I know one will be in 4:3 and the other in scope or 16:9, but the difference between myself and the CIHers is that I want to honor the director of The Mummy and watch it as large as my very..very.. very humble setup will allow while still not short changing Oceans 11 even if I am stuck with watching it in 16:9.


Size the CIH screen correctly and The Mummy would be as big as you'd want it. That's what "the CIH'ers" are trying to explain - set it up once, and you're done. But sure, if you want to fiddle with the screen size, CIH isn't for you.


----------



## steve1106

jautor said:


> Size the CIH screen correctly and The Mummy would be as big as you'd want it. That's what "the CIH'ers" are trying to expla - set it up once, and you're done. But sure, if you want to fiddle with the screen size, CIH isn't for you.


Edit: CIH is not for me at my currently screen size. No way. No how. But I do do a version of PIA.


I have no issue with CIH except with the way other aspects are treated. Equal rights for all aspect ratios within the confines of a width limited setup. I get it that I am fiddling with screen size on 3D or the occasional Roller-coaster Blu-ray. It is not my normal way of doing it since I am fairly happy with my width limited 143.5" of scope or 151.5" of 16:9 or 147.625" of 2:1 or 123.5" of 4:3. Where I differ is that I am not really height limited so I chose to use it. If a blu-ray has different aspect ratios, it works just fine in my limited setup. The same thing with TV. If a show changes aspect ratios during certain scenes, no problem, but I have the added advantage of adjusting three of my four seats for the wow factor of certain things.

You can talk perspective all you want and setting up the seats permanently closer. That dog doesn't hunt as far as I am concerned when you are talking about the typical home theater with a small under 150" screen size. If that dog hunted, I would've stuck with my 70" TV and slid the chairs up for movie nights. 

So, if I went with a CIH setup, for one thing my projector wouldn't work. For another, I am leaving inches on the table. I think some of the best entertainment content can be found on Amazon or Netflix or cable channels, and I am going to maximize the size be it with 16:9 or moving up my chair for "more" when I want to. 

Stranger Things on Nexflix would be 2:1 in 123.75" in CIH vs the 147.625" I get with a 16:9 screen. If I want it to feel like IMAX, I move the chair up. Why leave inches on the table when many of us are already limited by our rooms/projectors/budgets? If I pull up my chair and pop on the wireless head phones, how is that hard? What have I lost vs what have I gained in image size? Bud's way looks better than mine, but it is the same concept...right, Bud?

So if you aren't height limited:

http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16x9-vs-143,5-inch-235x1 Plug your numbers in to see how many inches you might be leaving on the table when putting 2.35:1 above all other aspect ratios. The site will tell you exactly what you are losing in image area.


----------



## jautor

steve1106 said:


> I have no issue with CIH except with the way other aspects are treated. Equal rights for all aspect ratios.


Not following that - what ratio do you think is not being treated properly? 



> Where I differ is that I am not really height limited so I chose to use it.


For what? Like I said, if you do the screen height correctly to begin with, you don't need to make adjustments. The exception to this is true IMAX content, which has been composed to be shown much taller than a regular film. But we get very little of this "original IMAX" footage available to us currently - that content is cropped / reformatted to 16x9 for home video. Zooming that out to IMAX height will not recreate the original immersive experience. It may feel right, though - but will be "zoomed" compared to the original.



> If a show changes aspect ratios during certain scenes, no problem, but I have the added advantage of adjusting three of my four seats for the wow factor of certain things.


Note that the IMAX footage inserted in the dozen or so films is the exception, not the rule, to changing aspect ratios in film. In the majority of cases, those changes are done explicitly to convey a change of scale, and should NOT be adjusted to "compensate".



> You can talk perspective all you want and setting up the seats permanently closer. That dog doesn't hunt as far as I am concerned when you are talking about the typical home theater with a small under 150" screen size. If that dog hunted, I would've stuck with my 70" TV and slid the chairs up for movie nights.


Screen size isn't the issue - it's the angles. We're much closer to the screen than any commerical theater seating - but the angles of view are the same - we just shoot for the sweet spot, and adjust for personal preference. If your preference changes based on content (which, again, isn't the experience of the majority of folks) then zooming the image larger or changing the seating location both accomplish that goal.



> So, if I went with a CIH setup, for one thing my projector wouldn't work.


Because? Any projector CAN do CIH - it just may not be practical, or the screen size/throw distance differences may preclude the zooming required. 



> For another, I am leaving inches on the table. I think some of the best entertainment content can be found on Amazon or Netflix or cable channels, and I am going to maximize the size be it with 16:9 or moving up my chair for "more" when I want to.
> 
> Stranger Things on Nexflix would be 2:1 in 123.75" vs the 147.625" I get with a 16:9 screen. If I want it to feel like IMAX, I move the chair up. Why leave inches on the table when many of us are already limited by our rooms/projectors/budgets? If I pull up my chair and pop on the wireless head phones, how is that hard? What have I lost vs what have I gained in image size?


4th time. You get the screen size correct, and it's the right size. Get it wrong, and it's not. I watched Stranger Things and again, wouldn't have made it any larger.


----------



## steve1106

jautor said:


> Not following that - what ratio do you think is not being treated properly?
> 
> 4th time. You get the screen size correct, and it's the right size. Get it wrong, and it's not. I watched Stranger Things and again, wouldn't have made it any larger.


Let's agree to disagree. I would have to get into the 190" inch range to consider a CIH set up (along with moving, buying a much better projector, having the kids out of college, not retiring forever in 56 days at my 54 b'day ), but I will agree that I tend to be different with many on the forum opting for a $549 projector (well a couple). Also, black levels don't bother me and I am more than happy with 7.3 sound, but what does bother me is screen size and aspect ratio size. So we are very different. 

Bud has what is perfect for him. You have what is perfect for you and I have what is perfect for me. I just don't think a large 4:3 or 2:1 or 16:9 diminishes 2.35:1 in my room. I just happen to like everything big...well, as far as image size. I can remember going to the large grand theaters and loving the balconies which scope and multiplex theaters more or less killed.

Edit: Sorry for bragging about retirement, but my goal from day one of going to work was to retire as soon as possible. I went to work on Monday found out I needed to be in another state on Tuesday for a "special" and went to bed finally late Tuesday, so they can kiss...me goodbye.


----------



## jautor

steve1106 said:


> So we are very different.


And yet we're both in a CIH forum... 



> Edit: Sorry for bragging about retirement, but my goal from day one of going to work was to retire as soon as possible.


Congratulations! As many smart people have said over the years, "no one ever died wishing they had spent more time in the office!".

I'd like to retire immediately, too, but (as I steal a joke from a good friend) I don't like the taste of cat food.


----------



## steve1106

jautor said:


> And yet we're both in a CIH forum...
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations! As many smart people have said over the years, "no one ever died wishing they had spent more time in the office!".
> 
> I'd like to retire immediately, too, but (as I steal a joke from a good friend) I don't like the taste of cat food.


For the record, I was in the PIA section of the CIH forum.

Well, I would like to agree to the whole taste of cat food thing, but I spent the last three years eating tuna or chicken at my desk to fund the college/rainy day/next house/retirement fund. Just like the job, I decided I hate tuna a couple of months ago, and I'm still afraid...very afraid of a "fixed income", but also very very tired. I just can't do another fit test with 20 somethings.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

There is no 'PIA' section, it's just a thread so named by someone who likes to think their idea is better than CIH.

I retired over two years ago at 51. It's wonderful isn't it 

Gary


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> Let's agree to disagree. I would have to get into the 190" inch range to consider a CIH set up (along with moving, buying a much better projector, having the kids out of college, not retiring forever in 56 days at my 54 b'day ), but I will agree that I tend to be different with many on the forum opting for a $549 projector (well a couple). Also, black levels don't bother me and I am more than happy with 7.3 sound, but what does bother me is screen size and aspect ratio size. So we are very different.


Once again no you don't. You simply have to install a scope screen in the existing width. And move your seating from 15' to where the perceived image size of the 16:9 image equals your current setup. Then you would lose no apparent image impact for non-scope content, but scope content would be much larger. 

Now we've gone round and round on this, I know you watch a lot of TV and I wouldn't push you to change what you are happy with. However we do need to get past this idea you would need new hardware or an expensive setup. *The main concept being missed is that a smaller physical 16:9 image can appear as large as a larger one when sitting closer.* It would make CIH perfectly workable in your case. But, again, I certainly understand it doesn't fit your use case.

As Gary said this thread doesn't really constitute a section. But its premise is one some may find appealing for sure.


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> For the record, I was in the PIA section of the CIH forum.



 Well said. The CIH forum doesn't get enough traffic for a thread to simply be a thread. A thread with no action after a month should be well into the archives. So i will go with Steve and consider this the PIA section of the CIH forum.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> There is no 'PIA' section, it's just a thread so named by someone who likes to think their idea is better than CIH.
> 
> I retired over two years ago at 51. It's wonderful isn't it
> 
> Gary


I never said my idea was better than CIH in fact in the title and the opening post I point out PIA includes CIH and I should edit it to include CIH-Imax. It is a system of presentation that allows for any and all systems of presentation to be tried and evaluated and once a person figures it out they can use it exclusively as CIH if they want because CIH is the backbone it is built on. You yourself have a PIA setup that you chose to use as CIH+Imax. Others could use it as CIA or one I haven’t heard of but would be CIA+Imax. 

If in the persons evaluation process with their PIA sized screen they decide to go rouge as I did or Steve does then they are free to say I have a PIA sized screen and I run my system of presentation as PIA. 

This methodology in selecting a screen size, seating distance and projector would allow anyone to try every method of presentation and come to a conclusion as to what is best for them. As I have now said 101 times I love CIH and I view 80%-90% of my content in that manner. The response to that statement is always constant means 100% of the time. If you really think about that you will see how silly it is as then CIH+Imax wouldn’t be allowed also. So I call myself a PIA person rather than a CIH most of the time person.


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> By the way, I want my "Big Bird" large so I don't totally agree with you, Bud. I do think we stick closer to the director's vision than some do.


Steve 
Congrats on the retirement. I could have retired last year with a great pension and 42 years of service with a one year’s pay as a bonus. But I decided to stay a few more years. Just like we all have different likes when it comes to front projection presentation we all have different reasons to like to work and or want to retire. Like you my goal as a young man was to retire as soon as I could but in thinking it thru would I rather retire early doing something I hated for say 30 years or doing something I enjoyed for 40 or 50 years. I was lucky enough to reset my goals to not feel at the end I spent 30 years not happy with what I was doing rather at the end think I wish I didn’t really have to retire. Everyone is not so lucky as I have been in enjoying my work though I know that. 

I guess you are right I think Big Bird in epic Imax wouldn’t be so bad if it was 1080p. I would default to PIA with a substantial size reduction for Mr. Rodgers though. He would scare me even at CIH size I don’t want to be immersed when he changes his shoes.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> I never said my idea was better than CIH in fact in the title and the opening post I point out PIA includes CIH and I should edit it to include CIH-Imax.


Well, perfect suggests that other systems aren't, and perfection is usually considered the best of something. So if the system you are promoting isn't better than others, it can't be perfect. I think you need to change the name


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Well, perfect suggests that other systems aren't, and perfection is usually considered the best of something. So if the system you are promoting isn't better than others, it can't be perfect. I think you need to change the name


What could be more perfect than something that can be all things to all people. It will work perfect for the guy that wants CIH, it will work perfect for the guy that wants CIA, it will even work for the guy that wants CIW. Now CIW is not to be confused with using an Imax size screen to do it using the full screen because that would be ridicules showing normal 16:9 content at Imax scale. CIW would use the central 16:9 area of the masked CIH panel (true CIW). Of course the screen could also be totally unmasked to do true Imax just as you do. 

All things to all people and for those that don’t yet know what they like it would allow learning. How much more perfect could it be? 


It doesn’t come without some problems both CIH and CIW require 2-way masking if you are a person that needs masking and are troubled by black bars. With PIA and CIA you need 4-way masking. Of course Imax would only require the fixed masking of the screen.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> What could be more perfect than something that can be all things to all people. It will work perfect for the guy that wants CIH, it will work perfect for the guy that wants CIA, it will even work for the guy that wants CIW. Now CIW is not to be confused with using an Imax size screen to do it using the full screen because that would be ridicules showing normal 16:9 content at Imax scale. CIW would use the central 16:9 area of the masked CIH panel (true CIW). Of course the screen could also be totally unmasked to do true Imax just as you do.
> 
> All things to all people and for those that don’t yet know what they like it would allow learning. How much more perfect could it be?
> 
> 
> It doesn’t come without some problems both CIH and CIW require 2-way masking if you are a person that needs masking and are troubled by black bars. With PIA and CIA you need 4-way masking. Of course Imax would only require the fixed masking of the screen.


Well it obviously isn't all things to all people. Personally I have no need of a taller screen. A taller image would not be pleasant at my seating distance either. And I certainly don't want a wall painted with area I have no intention to use (or the need to mask it). That doesn't make your concept bad or wrong. Just not everyone's idea of perfect. And Gary's point stands that by calling it "perfect" it does imply best. I know, I know, this is going down the road of getting very picky about things. But alas calling anything perfect simply invites this sort of thing. Certainly no one can fault your enthusiasm


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Well it obviously isn't all things to all people. Personally I have no need of a taller screen. A taller image would not be pleasant at my seating distance either. And I certainly don't want a wall painted with area I have no intention to use (or the need to mask it). That doesn't make your concept bad or wrong. Just not everyone's idea of perfect. And Gary's point stands that by calling it "perfect" it does imply best. I know, I know, this is going down the road of getting very picky about things. But alas calling anything perfect simply invites this sort of thing. Certainly no one can fault your enthusiasm


It might not be perfect for you because you sometimes don’t want to project the presentation in the way the director intended. When you watch an Imax movie you make the choice to watch it smaller and less dramatic than the director intended, or when you watch an expanding AR movie in scope that goes back and forth with Imax you clip the top and bottom with your masking when the AR changes. That’s ok as it is your personal theater and you don’t enjoy the added height to the image even though proper presentation would demand you do it that way. I have said all along and in the OP I said this is what I do and it may not be for everyone. 

I know people that watch AR other than 16:9 on their flat panels with one of the gimmick modes that stretches the image to fit or clips the image to fit the full screen. They feel perfect is using every pixel of the display and don’t mind losing data or distorting the image to do so. 

Everyone has a different definition of perfection that’s for sure. I’m sure you feel your setup is perfection and it is for you. If I brought an Imax enthusiast to your theater he might not think it was perfect for his tastes, but it is perfect for you. 

I will consider changing the name or at least adding a disclaimer to the OP listing the posts numbers where people took offence to the name more than the concept.


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> Steve
> Congrats on the retirement. I could have retired last year with a great pension and 42 years of service with a one year’s pay as a bonus. But I decided to stay a few more years. Just like we all have different likes when it comes to front projection presentation we all have different reasons to like to work and or want to retire. Like you my goal as a young man was to retire as soon as I could but in thinking it thru would I rather retire early doing something I hated for say 30 years or doing something I enjoyed for 40 or 50 years. I was lucky enough to reset my goals to not feel at the end I spent 30 years not happy with what I was doing rather at the end think I wish I didn’t really have to retire. Everyone is not so lucky as I have been in enjoying my work though I know that.


Nothing about PIA but:

Bud, I totally agree that it is all about doing a job...career that you love. 

I love my career but the technical and physical skills are fading after three decades and it is time for someone else to have their dream job.


----------



## steve1106

9


jeahrens said:


> *The main concept being missed is that a smaller physical 16:9 image can appear as large as a larger one when sitting closer.* It would make CIH perfectly workable in your case. But, again, I certainly understand it doesn't fit your use case.


To show I understand the concept what your are saying is that if I sit closer all aspect ratios would appear larger. Kind of like sitting in a theater. If you sit closer the smaller screen will appear larger. I get it...but

I have a cheap simple HT room. I think I am fairly close to "standards" and the viewing angle seems okay. Fifteen feet from 151.5" 16:9 or 143.5 2.35:1 or 147.625" of 2:1 or 123.75 of 4:3. I can live with those numbers and all aspects seem large and immersive. Now once in a while I want 3D larger or my 16:9 roller-coaster blu-rays larger, so I slide up the HT chairs and my wife's Lazy Boy while using headphones. I wouldn't want that level of immersion all the time. It is kind of like Bud's PIA. I want wow for some and normal large for most. Kind of like changing rows.

Here is where we differ. I think using a 16:9 native projector for 16:9 makes the most sense in my width limited room. Remove the width limit and then the height limit would mean that I would need CIH like a commercial cinema. I have the numbers somewhere but I think a 190" 2.35:1 screen would give me exactly the same size 16:9 and 4:3 that I currently enjoy. I could live with that.

While I could do CIH fairly easy even in my current room by mounting one Epson (or my Viewsonic higher to the ceiling) closer for 16:9/4:3 or putting it on a stand while putting my other Epson farther back for only 2.35:1 use. I could even hook up my 2.1 200 watt computer speakers or my old 5.1 AVR/Take Classic 5.1 speakers or just use the projector's little speaker for 16:9/4:3 to avoid diminishing scope movies by using my best sound system for both. 

I get that many feel a CIW/16:9 diminishes scope presentations. I just don't agree that it applies to my simple room. A 143.5" of 2.35:1 is 143.5" of 2.35:1. I can't change it, but I can slide my chair for PIA which makes all aspect ratios more epic when I desire epic.


----------



## jautor

steve1106 said:


> Here is where we differ. I think using a 16:9 native projector for 16:9 makes the most sense in my width limited room.


I don't know what else you would do that would make any sense... 



> Remove the width limit and then the height limit would mean that I would need CIH like a commercial cinema. I have the numbers somewhere but I think a 190" 2.35:1 screen would give me exactly the same size 16:9 and 4:3 that I currently enjoy. I could live with that.


Your room is not width-limited per se. Your seating is at a distance that causes you to run out of width. If you moved the seating closer, as you point out, you wouldn't want as tall an image, and then the width problem goes away. This assumes you only have one row - it's really multiple-row theater setups where we really see truly "width limited" situations. 

But all of our rooms are compromises in one way or another, and moving your seats closer probably isn't a solution (I assume you have them where you do for perfectly good reasons, be they audio/visual or just plain practicality). So yes, given your setup, CIH may not be a good fit. 

Most folks come into this hobby wanting a big screen, usually quoting something like "I want a 150" screen" before they even know where their seats are going to be. Instead, we tell folks to figure out their seating, and then choose the correct screen size.



> While I could do CIH fairly easy even in my current room by mounting one Epson (or my Viewsonic higher to the ceiling) closer for 16:9/4:3 or putting it on a stand while putting my other Epson farther back for only 2.35:1 use. I could even hook up my 2.1 200 watt computer speakers or my old 5.1 AVR/Take Classic 5.1 speakers or just use the projector's little speaker for 16:9/4:3 to avoid diminishing scope movies by using my best sound system for both.


If you have two projectors you could just split the HDMI output from your AVR and just only turn on the one projector you need for a given use. No need to duplicate everything else - and there are folks here who have dual projector setups for this or other use cases... 



> I get that many feel a CIW/16:9 diminishes scope presentations. I just don't agree that it applies to my simple room. A 143.5" of 2.35:1 is 143.5" of 2.35:1. I can't change it, but I can slide my chair for PIA which makes all aspect ratios more epic when I desire epic.


It does diminish scope presentations, that's just a simple fact of the medium. The same way "letterboxing" did for 1.85 films on home video back in the 4x3 days... And HBO still crops 2.35 films to 16x9 to avoid this at the expense of the lost footage... 

But the vast majority of home video viewers have to live with that, too. Starting with everyone who uses a TV... They're all 16x9, so scope films are letterboxed and therefore smaller on the screen. And even in PJ setups 2.35 screens and CIH are the exception. I suspect that with the lens memory features now common and the scaling modes being built into projectors, though, that we'll see more vendors push the CIH concepts simply as a way to further differentiate PJ setups from "just TV"...

Jeff


----------



## steve1106

Each weekend I check the premium channels/Amazon for a new free movie on Friday and Saturday nights. I promise you that to us a free movie is in no way diminished as we gather for family night watching. Maybe that is the key difference. I can watch "The Heart of the Sea" on HBO and never even realize that it was shot in 1.85:1 since I get it in 151.5" of 16:9. I don't feel cheated because all the aspect ratios seem epic to us at only 3 years into projection. Same with our sound and contrast/black levels. It all spanks our largest TV. Maybe we are like the kid with his first car. It might be a pile of .... but to him, it is amazing.


----------



## jautor

steve1106 said:


> Each weekend I check the premium channels/Amazon for a new free movie on Friday and Saturday nights. I promise you that to us a free movie is in no way diminished as we gather for family night watching. Maybe that is the key difference.


We all enjoy watching movies with family and friends... I don't know what "difference" you're referring to.



> I can watch "The Heart of the Sea" on HBO and never even realize that it was shot in 1.85:1 since I get it in 151.5" of 16:9.


1.85:1 vs. 16x9 is a trivial difference (1.78:1 - an inch or two on a projection screen), and not what I was talking about. HBO shows 2.35:1 "scope" films cropped to 16x9. That does make a difference. 

Given the choice I'd rather watch 2.35 content letterboxed on a large 16x9 screen than have it cropped to fit. But I did CIH so I could remove the letterboxing and get back to the correct screen size...



> I don't feel cheated because all the aspect ratios seem epic to us at only 3 years into projection. Same with our sound and contrast/black levels. It all spanks our largest TV. Maybe we are like the kid with his first car. It might be a pile of .... but to him, it is amazing.


Again, this is the CIH forum so we're talking only about how 2.35:1 scope content gets presented in our otherwise-16x9 home video world. The quality of equipment we have available today makes it possible to get amazing setups at a very reasonable cost compared to the not-too-distant-past. Put even the cheapest budget projector is a light-controlled room with any AVR and remotely decent speakers and it's awesome...


----------



## bud16415

There is presentation and there is immersion and they are two different things plain and simple.

Presentation is constant in any given commercial theater and is the wish of the director of the movie to be done correctly. He wants the best presentation possible. He wants a flawless screen and an accurate projector system. He wants a true sound system. He wants the guy in the first row and the last row to be able to see the image and hear the sound clearly. 

We know commercial theaters cram people in to rows too close or too far and stick seats in the corners because buildings are rectangles and ideal seating is more of a cone shape. We are not talking about those seats as none of us have those kinds of seats in our home theater. In terms of immersion and PIA as it pertains to this thread we are talking about the seats all of us would be ok with getting at the world premiere of a long awaited block buster. We are not Shelden Cooper pinging the room for the ultimate sweet audio spot to sit. We are talking about seats we would enjoy sitting in not perfect but by far good enough. Perfect never happens in a commercial theater unless we happen to be quite lucky, like getting a hole in one in golf it requires skill but also some luck. So in a 100 row theater maybe rows 30 to 60 back and side to side plus or minus 10 seats are where PIA lives. Possibly even more subtle changes if you like. 

I know audiophiles that tweak sound down to infinitesimal levels. I watch them do this and wonder if they really can tell the changes they are making but I accept they can even though I can’t. Videophiles do the same thing they bring in professional adjusters and equipment and tune every aspect of their projector to match the screen and the room to perfection. To some of us that seems extreme and we wonder if they can really see a difference compared to adjusting by eye but I accept they can even though maybe I can’t. 

We all know and never question that different people like to adjust the audio level of their systems. We have big subwoofers and rows of horns and some movies we tune it all down and don’t require the chest pounding subs we are seeking out the quiet voices coming from the actors on the screen. Some movies and concerts we want the room to shake. Then there are the slight changes we make to the volume controls. “Honey can you turn it up one click.” “How’s that Babe.” “Oh that’s Perfect!” That is adjusting sound immersion to a single persons perfect. Have you ever left the theater and overheard someone saying great movie but it was just too loud? Or you left the Block Buster disappointed it was toned back because the people in the next theater were complaining about the bass and you felt you didn’t get your money’s worth. We have no control over sound immersion in a commercial theater we do at home. 

Visual immersion is a bit different we have some control over that in the theater and regardless with what I will be told many people have a preference for seating distance and given an empty theater will pick different seats according to their likes. Some people like less visual immersion and always like it less and I believe it is true most people will always migrate to the same seats in a theater as their belief is their tastes don’t change. One reason for a PIA setup would be to accommodate guests that have a need for lesser visual immersion. I myself have found with time I have grown to like a higher level than I used to and I might not want to turn off my less movie watching friends by seating them too close, just like I might not want to give them a heart attack by driving the subs too hard. 

The director of the movie may have a preference for how loud we hear his movies and he may know the theater will accommodate a wide range of visual levels of immersion but I think they also understand people will want to adjust those things. Have you ever been setting at a red light and had a kid pull up next to you with the bass so loud that your car was shaking. A case could be made that the young man next to you was playing it at a level that the artist intended it to be heard at during his concert and therefore proper presentation dictates he have that in his car. 

Here is where I’m at with this. I realize video immersion plays a big role in my enjoyment of some media. Given my free will I like to change that level of immersion no different than adjusting the level of my sound system. Yes mood plays a part and so does the nature of the content. I get a great deal more pleasure and excitement filling or even overfilling my vision with a movie like Avatar than a scope movie of a bunch of people’s zany antics and bathroom humor. Just like Steve likes to push up his couch and watch rollercoaster movies I like to pull back the projector and watch planet earth. 

That’s what this is about giving only one person control over one attribute of their visual presentation and having the ability to make it their personal “perfect”.


----------



## DavidHir

jeahrens said:


> Well it obviously isn't all things to all people. Personally I have no need of a taller screen. A taller image would not be pleasant at my seating distance either. And I certainly don't want a wall painted with area I have no intention to use (or the need to mask it).


That's exactly what I experienced yet again with testing (per my post in the IMAX vs 2.4:1 thread)


----------



## bud16415

DavidHir said:


> That's exactly what I experienced yet again with testing (per my post in the IMAX vs 2.4:1 thread)


David

Clearly you and jeahrens have a similar field of view limit. It seems some people do and some don’t and different degrees in between. I have jokingly referred to the groups of people with less up and down tolerance as lowbrow and highbrow because of course our brow line is what develops our ability to comfortably look higher without tilting the head. 

One thing I always point out that a lot of people never think about is just how little of our central vision is really acute. Our eyes are always moving and scanning and we put together an image in our brain based on a lot of fuzzy vision around this central good spot. Try looking at one word on this page and read the word just 2 lines up without moving your gaze. It is hard to do and will point out how little of our vision is critical. The more you go out the worse it is, but that non acute vision is still really important. Try walking around looking thru a paper towel tube and you will see that. If the goal is immersive viewing and scope is all about immersive because without eye movement the edges of the screen will be like what we see out of the edges of our vision (important but not acute). 

When you made your image taller you made it a lot taller and you expected that height to be an acute area of vision and forcing your vision to the top of the screen. How often do you really force your vision to the sides of the screen now that you are used to watching your scope presentation? 

Here is something to think about and for example I will use 120” scope screen 46x110. With CIH you will get a 16:9 image of 46x82. Now without going crazy you just add one inch to the top and bottom the screen size will be 48x85. That is not a great deal of extra work on the eyes going up 1” and most likely you won’t go up that inch it will just expand your FOV. That 1” will result in an image that is 8% more area. That is quite a bit and is noticeable. If you add 2” top and bottom the screen size would be 50x89 and you will have added 18% more area to your overall FOV. That is very noticeable and much more immersive. 

Adding 1 or 2 inches isn’t doing a disservice to some future scope movie but it is possibly enhancing a 16:9 movie that you would like to see as a more immersive presentation. I don’t feel all 16:9 movies need that and 99% of them don’t need to be Imax large as it has been pointed out many times Imax is careful to only put fluff up there as they know your eyes won’t want to stay up that high much. But Imax also knows our less acute vision likes to know there is something up there other than a black boarder. 

If you ever want to try your experiment again try adding just an inch of height. Or better yet just slide your chair up a small amount on a 16:9 presentation. 
If you still don’t see any value then you will know you are firmly in the scope camp and that’s ok too.


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> To show I understand the concept what your are saying is that if I sit closer all aspect ratios would appear larger. Kind of like sitting in a theater. If you sit closer the smaller screen will appear larger. I get it...but
> 
> I have a cheap simple HT room. I think I am fairly close to "standards" and the viewing angle seems okay. Fifteen feet from 151.5" 16:9 or 143.5 2.35:1 or 147.625" of 2:1 or 123.75 of 4:3. I can live with those numbers and all aspects seem large and immersive. Now once in a while I want 3D larger or my 16:9 roller-coaster blu-rays larger, so I slide up the HT chairs and my wife's Lazy Boy while using headphones. I wouldn't want that level of immersion all the time. It is kind of like Bud's PIA. I want wow for some and normal large for most. Kind of like changing rows.


Your personal immersion preference is fine. It does not negate that you aren't width limited. You can easily take your existing perceived size 16:9 image size and replicate it on a scope screen by moving your seating distance. 16:9 would then be unchanged and scope 75% larger as intended. It's absolutely fine that this isn't your preference. 



steve1106 said:


> Here is where we differ. I think using a 16:9 native projector for 16:9 makes the most sense in my
> width limited room. Remove the width limit and then the height limit would mean that I would need CIH like a commercial cinema. I have the numbers somewhere but I think a 190" 2.35:1 screen would give me exactly the same size 16:9 and 4:3 that I currently enjoy. I could live with that.


Steve you clearly aren't understanding the point. *You don't need that size of a scope screen.* You keep putting up measurements while ignoring how viewing distance effects perceived size. Is a 50' screen image from the front row smaller than a 60' image from the back row of an average theater? Of course not.

You need to move your seating closer to maintain your existing image size preference. Then 4:3 and 16:9 are exactly the same as you perceive them now, but scope now has the intended presentation. The aspect ratio of the panel is irrelevant.



steve1106 said:


> While I could do CIH fairly easy even in my current room by mounting one Epson (or my Viewsonic higher to the ceiling) closer for 16:9/4:3 or putting it on a stand while putting my other Epson farther back for only 2.35:1 use. I could even hook up my 2.1 200 watt computer speakers or my old 5.1 AVR/Take Classic 5.1 speakers or just use the projector's little speaker for 16:9/4:3 to avoid diminishing scope movies by using my best sound system for both.


You don't really need any of that. Just zoom the projector to fit the scope film and use a cheap scaler or an Oppo Blu Ray player to scale the other content to fit the 16:9 image into the scope height. Or buy an inexpensive prism lens for your projector if it has an anamorphic mode. Both would be simple and inexpensive.




steve1106 said:


> I get that many feel a CIW/16:9 diminishes scope presentations. I just don't agree that it applies to my simple room. A 143.5" of 2.35:1 is 143.5" of 2.35:1. I can't change it, but I can slide my chair for PIA which makes all aspect ratios more epic when I desire epic.


It's not a feeling. It's math. A wider rectangle must be shrunk to fit into a narrower one. A scope screen will show scope material 75% larger. Again that's math. Nothing to debate, it simply is.

Of course it applies. You slide your chair to where the 16:9 image on that 143" scope screen appears as large as it is now and you've just eliminated your imagined width limitation. Rerun your room correction and never worry about moving your chair again. All aspect ratios are now being displayed as intended.
And moving seating isn't practical for most theaters and somewhat compromises your audio fidelity. Again, I'm not saying your system is wrong or bad. I'm a big fan of budget setups. But it needs to be said that most can't and won't be moving the seating to address the compromise of scope material on a CIW setup.


----------



## DavidHir

bud16415 said:


> When you made your image taller you made it a lot taller and you expected that height to be an acute area of vision and forcing your vision to the top of the screen. How often do you really force your vision to the sides of the screen now that you are used to watching your scope presentation?
> 
> Here is something to think about and for example I will use 120” scope screen 46x110. With CIH you will get a 16:9 image of 46x82. Now without going crazy you just add one inch to the top and bottom the screen size will be 48x85. That is not a great deal of extra work on the eyes going up 1” and most likely you won’t go up that inch it will just expand your FOV. That 1” will result in an image that is 8% more area. That is quite a bit and is noticeable. If you add 2” top and bottom the screen size would be 50x89 and you will have added 18% more area to your overall FOV. That is very noticeable and much more immersive.
> 
> Adding 1 or 2 inches isn’t doing a disservice to some future scope movie but it is possibly enhancing a 16:9 movie that you would like to see as a more immersive presentation. I don’t feel all 16:9 movies need that and 99% of them don’t need to be Imax large as it has been pointed out many times Imax is careful to only put fluff up there as they know your eyes won’t want to stay up that high much. But Imax also knows our less acute vision likes to know there is something up there other than a black boarder.
> 
> If you ever want to try your experiment again try adding just an inch of height. Or better yet just slide your chair up a small amount on a 16:9 presentation.
> If you still don’t see any value then you will know you are firmly in the scope camp and that’s ok too.


Bud,

In my test, I made it quite a bit taller because otherwise it didn't make sense to me. Adding an inch or two wouldn't make it worth it to replace my scope screen as the images are close enough in size. I could just sit a bit closer to make up that kind of difference if you know what I mean. But, I'm pretty much at the maximum preference of height in all reality (based on the context of my post in that thread). I've also experimented with sitting closer.

I also have a couch, so it's not so easy to just slide up a chair nor would I want to keep moving back and forth. My audio system is also Audyssey pro calibrated (with REW measured) to my viewing positions on the couch.


----------



## bud16415

DavidHir said:


> Bud,
> 
> In my test, I made it quite a bit taller because otherwise it didn't make sense to me. Adding an inch or two wouldn't make it worth it to replace my scope screen as the images are close enough in size. I could just sit a bit closer to make up that kind of difference if you know what I mean. But, I'm pretty much at the maximum preference of height in all reality (based on the context of my post in that thread). I've also experimented with sitting closer.
> 
> I also have a couch, so it's not so easy to just slide up a chair nor would I want to keep moving back and forth. My audio system is also Audyssey pro calibrated (with REW measured) to my viewing positions on the couch.


Oh I totally agree if you have a screen and are setup it wouldn’t be cost effective to buy a new screen to get a couple more inches unless you had some desire to watch Imax or something like that from time to time and then the rest of the time maybe benefit from 20 or 30% more immersion on 16:9 or 4:3 materials. 

The question is would someone new buying that first screen benefit having not already invested in a scope screen? From your previous post #189 it would suggest they wouldn’t find any value in a more immersive image say 20% more area as it would attack the limits of their vision. I knew from the post you made on the other thread you were not experimenting with a slight change like that you were going much larger. I was just clearing that up and also asking if there wasn’t the deterrent of the investment cost in the screen already if a slightly larger image could be tolerated and even enjoyed with 16:9 or 4:3. The reason I say that is because it might have been you on the other thread or someone that mentioned they were not sure but felt a little underwhelmed with a 16:9 after watching some scope. 

The only way I would ever suggest going full bore 16:9 would be if you had an Imax BD and wanted to have the “Imax experience”.:grin: Most 16:9 movies will assault the eyes viewing that big.


----------



## DavidHir

bud16415 said:


> Oh I totally agree if you have a screen and are setup it wouldn’t be cost effective to buy a new screen to get a couple more inches unless you had some desire to watch Imax or something like that from time to time and then the rest of the time maybe benefit from 20 or 30% more immersion on 16:9 or 4:3 materials.
> 
> The question is would someone new buying that first screen benefit having not already invested in a scope screen? From your previous post #189 it would suggest they wouldn’t find any value in a more immersive image say 20% more area as it would attack the limits of their vision. I knew from the post you made on the other thread you were not experimenting with a slight change like that you were going much larger. I was just clearing that up and also asking if there wasn’t the deterrent of the investment cost in the screen already if a slightly larger image could be tolerated and even enjoyed with 16:9 or 4:3. The reason I say that is because it might have been you on the other thread or someone that mentioned they were not sure but felt a little underwhelmed with a 16:9 after watching some scope.
> 
> The only way I would ever suggest going full bore 16:9 would be if you had an Imax BD and wanted to have the “Imax experience”.:grin: Most 16:9 movies will assault the eyes viewing that big.


If I wanted to, I could add a pulldown screen for bigger 1:85 or that IMAX effect (which I am not super fond about), but even if I were buying from scratch, I would still stick with what I have: scope. It just makes the most sense at the end of the day for movies (for me) when it's all said and done.


----------



## jeahrens

I really don't see any reason to get excited about IMAX as it's currently used. It's used in a tiny percentage of films. It's cropped to 1.78:1. It's resolution is 1080. 

Granted I watch the handful of titles out there it in 1.85:1 mode on my setup, so I am preserving the intention of the IMAX scenes being larger. Overall I just find the constant height changes an annoying distraction. And did so before I had a CIH setup as well. So for me IMAX just isn't worth any special consideration. I certainly wouldn't invest (or encourage others to) in a screen and masking just so >1% of the films get a boost in size.

But to each their own. That's simply my opinion on it.


----------



## steve1106

jeahrens said:


> It's not a feeling. It's math. A wider rectangle must be shrunk to fit into a narrower one. A scope screen will show scope material 75% larger. Again that's math. Nothing to debate, it simply is.


Maybe in many rooms, but I don't have a wider rectangle shrunk to fit a narrower one. I have a couple of large rectangles and what I do have is a width limit of 132" which would limit any scope screen to 143.5". I do a 151.5" 16:9 which gives me a 143.5" scope presentation, and you say a 143.5" scope screen will show material 75% larger than a 143.5" scope presentation in a 151.5" box. Sorry but it doesn't work in my case since I can move my chairs and put on headphones.

We can debate it endlessly, but it will not change the fact that 143.5" is 143.5" of scope. What it comes down to is screen preference and seating preference. In the standard HT with two rows of fixed seats a scope presentation might work better, but in my case, I like to come down the stairs and be wowed by the size of the 16:9 image. As one co-worker put it, you almost feel like you are on the field with the football players. I wouldn't ask that co-worker to sit 12 from my 70" for the same effect. The beauty of my screen size means my scope is exactly the same as a scope screen would give me.

As to math, I can go to http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16x9-vs-143,5-inch-235x1 and see that the reality is scope limits 16:9 in my room. It does the math for me. 

Stats 151.5 inch 16x9 143.5 inch 2:35x1
Width 132.04 inches 132.04 inches
Height 74.27 inches 56.19 inches
Area 9807.49 inches² 7419.21 inches²
As a 4:3 Display	123.79 inches 93.65 inches
As a 16:9 Display	151.50 inches 114.61 inches
*As a 2.35:1 Display	143.50 inches 143.50 inches*


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> As one co-worker put it, you almost feel like you are on the field with the football players.


Steve I get where you are coming from. We may apply PIA in different and some similar ways but sure why not blow them away with size when you can. That aspect of PIA was one I talked about several times and have done in the home theaters I have. If you have people sitting deep in the room for a sporting activity why not give the illusion they are walking out into the stadium. 

At my old house I had my tension screen made to run floor to ceiling the image was actually 1” off the floor and ceiling. I remember 10 years ago watching Golf the masters tournament and the guys I had over flipped out as the fairway shots looked just like you were standing 10’ behind the player. Same with UFC fights. No one wanted to host a party I had to do them all because of the cool factor.


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> Maybe in many rooms, but I don't have a wider rectangle shrunk to fit a narrower one.


Yes you do. Every single CIW setup is doing just that. Again this is not a debatable point. It is a mathematical certainty.



steve1106 said:


> I have a couple of large rectangles and what I do have is a width limit of 132" which would limit any scope screen to 143.5". I do a 151.5" 16:9 which gives me a 143.5" scope presentation, and you say a 143.5" scope screen will show material 75% larger than a 143.5" scope presentation in a 151.5" box. Sorry but it doesn't work in my case since I can move my chairs and put on headphones.


That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you move your seating position to where the 16:9 image in the 144" scope screen is as large as it currently is on the 152" 16:9 screen that the 16:9 image loses nothing and scope image is 75% larger. You are not width limited. You simply aren't grasping the concept of moving your seating to size the image to work with a CIH setup. Once done, you would not need to change seating again.



steve1106 said:


> We can debate it endlessly, but it will not change the fact that 143.5" is 143.5" of scope.


It certainly won't change the dimensions. No one is saying it will.



steve1106 said:


> What it comes down to is screen preference and seating preference. In the standard HT with two rows of fixed seats a scope presentation might work better, but in my case, I like to come down the stairs and be wowed by the size of the 16:9 image. As one co-worker put it, you almost feel like you are on the field with the football players. I wouldn't ask that co-worker to sit 12 from my 70" for the same effect. The beauty of my screen size means my scope is exactly the same as a scope screen would give me.
> 
> As to math, I can go to http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16x9-vs-143,5-inch-235x1 and see that the reality is scope limits 16:9 in my room. It does the math for me.


Yes that math does show you what the screen sizes are for a given width. And since you are only considering your current seating point you would get a larger 16:9 image with the 152" screen. To bad that isn't what I'm trying to get across. 

I'm sure your setup looks great. But you continue to think only in measurements. If the 16:9 image looks as big from 10' on a 144" scope screen as it does from 15' on your 152" screen *you will have exactly the same experience you do today watching non-scope content.* Only scope would be much larger. 

You are correct that if you don't adjust the seating to image height ratio scope image size doesn't change. But that completely misses the point.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Yes you do. Every single CIW setup is doing just that. Again this is not a debatable point. It is a mathematical certainty.


Of course you are correct that is the whole premise behind PIA as well. it is a mathematical certainty as well that every CIW 16:9 screen is also a CIH+Imax screen with just moving your seating closer. Just as Steve never seems to get your argument none of the CIH people seem to get mine. It is frustrating isn’t it. 


I think in a rather reverse logic both groups not seeing the forest for the trees is because just as Steve is interested in dimensions not ratios so are those deeply ingrained in other methods of presentation. 

Steve is not about FOV and all that malarkey he is about height and brute size. He wants his friends to come down his stairs and say Holy Crap, and is willing to push the couch Back to have that experience. The guys coming for football have no idea he watches scope movies all they know is he has the biggest bad ass 16:9 home theater they have ever seen. There is sometimes something to be said about size for the sake of size. Steve has a few other tricks in his PIA setup as well. He pulls the couch back for football with the guys on the mega screen. He pushes it up for scope movies with the family. Kind of an unorthodox CIH but it works but here is the kicker. He leaves the couch pushed up and watches rollercoaster movies like they are Imax. He could also watch real Imax from up there to but even though rollercoaster movies are not Imax branded he watches them at Imax immersion and the experience I hear is great.

I figured that out about Steve’s set after reading his first post in 2 minutes. He doesn’t have a room wide enough to wow his buddies as tall as he wants and also do Imax like stuff so he did a bit convoluted PIA setup that works “Perfect” for his needs. 

It was said the Native American built a small fire and sat close and the white man came along and built a big fire to sit far back.


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> It was said the Native American built a small fire and sat close and the white man came along and built a big fire to sit far back.


That's a good analogy. Both people will be "equally warm", but building the big fire requires a lot more wood (money). And just like a fire, there are issue with being "too close", but getting close enough is generally the right answer. 

Lots of folks come into these forums with their initial "I want to build a theater with a 150" screen" statement, before they even know where their seats will be, or thought anything about it.


----------



## bud16415

Extra Extra Read all about it! 

The name has changed. I repeat the name has changed. Come one come all to the new PIA thread. From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area. That’s right after hundreds and hundreds of concerned complaints about the name of the system being to bombastic for the masses the “P” in PIA is going from Perfect To Personal. 

I had always explained that a system that contained every form of everyone’s Personal Perfect would have to be perfect for all. That lofty logic was a bit much for many to accept and I have to admit some people can only see perfect in their narrow range of personal perfect and of course that might not include all others perfects. In conclusion the summation of all things perfect to individuals cannot equal a perfect to the masses. Or so it seems.

By decree of the masses and thru the OP’s wishes “Personal” is the better word and Personal it shall be from this point forward. Personal is a word without repute it places PIA not above or below any other method anyone wishes to use in their home theaters or media rooms. As has been stated 1000 times if it has been stated once no one cares what another does in the privacy of their home theater. Under that statement of personal freedom to chose PIA will be. All those looking to find answers to your personal presentation needs feel free to think outside the box of structure and extract what you can from this thread knowing you will be going against long standing convention and will be doing this only, and I can’t overstate this ONLY for your intense personal presentation pleasures. 

We are to be a system of inclusion of all the other systems of presentation. And as such no other system should be lessened. The second poster to this thread hit the nail on the head. He said (paraphrasing) You put out there what you do and how you do it and if someone wants to gain insight into what might works for them then that is a good thing.

If someone finds this thread and is drawn into thoughts that maybe they have a personal way they would like to operate their presentation please post here and hopefully a like minded will share meaningful communications with you.


Just as the Personal computer opened the world up to freedom of how you use your computer over the ridged world of mainframes. Personal image presentation in the name of PIA will do that for home theater.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area.


Perfect!


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> That's a good analogy. Both people will be "equally warm", but building the big fire requires a lot more wood (money). And just like a fire, there are issue with being "too close", but getting close enough is generally the right answer.
> 
> Lots of folks come into these forums with their initial "I want to build a theater with a 150" screen" statement, before they even know where their seats will be, or thought anything about it.


Lots of people only understand scale in terms of a single direction. For example in terms of front projection I have a 110” screen setup and of course it is PIA so that is based around if I had a screen 16:9 screen at my seating distance 110” would be what I would have I think at 110” in our little theater with single row seating we comfortable seat 4 adults. To go to 5 or 6 people wide the width of the seating would grow on a single direction’ but the area of the screen would grow in two directions, or by the square of the increase. Light output etc. would need to increase by the square. When you put that into terms of a commercial theater you can see how fast projectors need to become monster light cannons. Of course commercial theaters combat that inefficiency with many rows of seats and as the screen size goes up seating goes up and the relative size of a person goes unchanged. The level of immersion between row 51 and row 52 in a 100 row theater is tiny and almost imposable to notice. In contrast a 2 row theater at home and most have a far greater seat spacing at home than the 100 row would have. Row 1 being equal to row 50 in immersion level row 2 at home might be row 75 or 80. 

We sometimes host another couple for a movie and say they bring their kids we toss down the bean bags and the kids can recline and watch down front. Down front in a 110” home theater is not a huge amount of space. If we went to their home and they had a 60” flat panel we would likely be sitting 4X to 5X screen height in the living room as do most of the people in the world. And the kids in front on bean bags would be no big deal. I have a theater designed around controlling immersion and allowing a high level of immersion. Say I am at 2X immersion for the 4 adults and then the kids come along. I am not about to make the kids endure 1.25X screen height immersion. Having PIA I can draw the kids back to 2X and the adults to 3X and we are watching a movie much more immersed than they normally would at home the kid general gravitate to greater immersion and love the 2X. And when the adults leave they say I don’t know what it is but it feels so much different watching at your house more like going to the theater. I tell them it must have been the extra butter on the popcorn.


----------



## sonichart

bud16415 said:


> Extra Extra Read all about it!
> From this day forward anyone that wishes to follow my system of image presentation is to refer to it as PIA as short for Personal Image Area.


I always thought you should have called it "Variable Image Area" since that's exactly what you're doing--varying the image area for each presentation.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Of course you are correct that is the whole premise behind PIA as well. it is a mathematical certainty as well that every CIW 16:9 screen is also a CIH+Imax screen with just moving your seating closer. Just as Steve never seems to get your argument none of the CIH people seem to get mine. It is frustrating isn’t it.
> 
> 
> I think in a rather reverse logic both groups not seeing the forest for the trees is because just as Steve is interested in dimensions not ratios so are those deeply ingrained in other methods of presentation.
> 
> Steve is not about FOV and all that malarkey he is about height and brute size. He wants his friends to come down his stairs and say Holy Crap, and is willing to push the couch Back to have that experience. The guys coming for football have no idea he watches scope movies all they know is he has the biggest bad ass 16:9 home theater they have ever seen. There is sometimes something to be said about size for the sake of size. Steve has a few other tricks in his PIA setup as well. He pulls the couch back for football with the guys on the mega screen. He pushes it up for scope movies with the family. Kind of an unorthodox CIH but it works but here is the kicker. He leaves the couch pushed up and watches rollercoaster movies like they are Imax. He could also watch real Imax from up there to but even though rollercoaster movies are not Imax branded he watches them at Imax immersion and the experience I hear is great.
> 
> I figured that out about Steve’s set after reading his first post in 2 minutes. He doesn’t have a room wide enough to wow his buddies as tall as he wants and also do Imax like stuff so he did a bit convoluted PIA setup that works “Perfect” for his needs.
> 
> It was said the Native American built a small fire and sat close and the white man came along and built a big fire to sit far back.


I think the majority of folks in here understand you can semi-permanently mask a 16:9 screen to use it as a CIH+IMAX application. Some of us either don't want the extra height or have the space for it. Or don't find the handful of pseudo IMAX films to be worth the fuss. Or both. I don't really have anything against those who want that sort of setup. I simply fall into the "both" category. I don't want the extra height as it isn't comfortable to view and the handful of films with pseudo IMAX don't really merit changing the screen. Add to that a CIH+IMAX type setup would, for me, reduce the screen dimensions to be tolerable and therefore lessen the impact of all non-IMAX content. Which is 99.9% of what I watch. It's simply a lose-lose situation all the way around for me. But again, that is MY preference and I can understand others feeling differently.

As far as Steve goes, the average layman sees a 8'+ wide screen and they are impressed. I doubt most would even grasp the AR until they saw the unused side pillars when the game came on. Not all home theaters have the option of moving their furniture (most don't that I have been in) and if you care about the audio fidelity it's not a good option. So while it works for Steve, I don't believe it should be presented like it is a practical choice for most of us.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> I always thought you should have called it "Variable Image Area" since that's exactly what you're doing--varying the image area for each presentation.


Variable image area would be a perfectly logical name except it would assume a set of rules just as all the other methods of presentation have. CIH has a specific way you go about it there is a choice you make of a personal selection at first and that is determining your level of immersion. Once you make that choice all presentation is set in stone. CIH+Imax is the same it is a spin off of CIH. CIA is a similar situation where you select a vertical immersion for scope and then all other AR sizes fall into place based on area. 

My first name had perfect in the title as it was to be understood nothing is perfect for everyone. We don’t all walk into a movie house and all want the same seat. Or for some of us our favorite contents we want a different level of immersion than other content of the same AR to make it perfect for us. Perfect used in that way was a great name I thought but it wasn’t a universal perfect it was a personal perfect. This system I felt was perfect insomuch as once you had your screen size and masking worked out it could be run as anyone of the 4 main ways people present media on a screen. It allowed a person with a wall painted gray or white that had an area the size of an Imax screen to practice all the methods of presentation so I thought that was pretty perfect also. 

But in the end the fact I’m saying it is ok to mix and match presentation methods and even invent some areas that don’t comply with any system and to do that the system has to be personal to work. It is not endorsed by anyone but the user. It is only similar to the established method of presentation by the industry if you take those established methods and add in the fact that the very last thing you do when you go to a commercial CIH theater is a “personal” element to the movie experience. That is you select your seat. The range of immersion in a commercial theater from the front row to the back row is great, and every time you go to one you select your seat. Some people sit in the same row every time and that is making a personal selection also. At home many have one row and if they are a person that always makes the same row selection they are doing PIA and for them PIA works out to be CIH. If you have 3 seats you like to sit in and they are in 3 rows and the area of the screen happens to be the same for 3AR’s then they are using PIA and it happens to be CIA. 

So because the only part of the movie experience we have personal freedom to pick is our seat / immersion I now call it personal image area.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I think the majority of folks in here understand you can semi-permanently mask a 16:9 screen to use it as a CIH+IMAX application. Some of us either don't want the extra height or have the space for it. Or don't find the handful of pseudo IMAX films to be worth the fuss. Or both. I don't really have anything against those who want that sort of setup. I simply fall into the "both" category. I don't want the extra height as it isn't comfortable to view and the handful of films with pseudo IMAX don't really merit changing the screen. Add to that a CIH+IMAX type setup would, for me, reduce the screen dimensions to be tolerable and therefore lessen the impact of all non-IMAX content. Which is 99.9% of what I watch. It's simply a lose-lose situation all the way around for me. But again, that is MY preference and I can understand others feeling differently.
> 
> As far as Steve goes, the average layman sees a 8'+ wide screen and they are impressed. I doubt most would even grasp the AR until they saw the unused side pillars when the game came on. Not all home theaters have the option of moving their furniture (most don't that I have been in) and if you care about the audio fidelity it's not a good option. So while it works for Steve, I don't believe it should be presented like it is a practical choice for most of us.


The suggestion of PIA using an Imax sized screen is just a suggestion. This goes way back to some of my first talks with you here on the topic. I mentioned I liked a taller AR projector because I had extra height in pixels and I personally found a 16:10 projector good for me as it gave me extra height in 4:3 projection without zooming. I know you have no desire ever for expanding height beyond what CIH gives you and that is great for you and you are following the tried and true guidelines of CIH. 

The bottom line is to do CIH+Imax and also CIA you need an Imax size screen. To do PIA to its full potential you would also need a 16:9 screen of Imax size. That doesn’t mean you need an Imax screen if your personal height requirements never go full blown Imax in height. In fact a 2.0:1 screen would work out well for a lot of people. I can’t say for certain about Rich but from what I have read I think he and I could be pretty happy with a 2.0:1 screen. The only drawback for us would be the expanding ratio scope movies. We would get a little spill with. 

Again I know this isn’t for you and I am in no way trying to convince anyone that loves CIH to change. If you were a person that felt you like more immersion on taller AR movies and had the width for CIH in your room but not the height for a Imax screen maybe a 2.0:1 screen or something like that could help you, or you could do what you often suggest to Steve and that is move closer and leave your couch there. 

What works for Steve works for Steve and it is his personal way of doing things. I don’t like moving furniture also and thus the reason for this thread. I have chosen to use zoom instead. The zoom method may be changing for me shortly though as a have a different plan in the works to get PIA in the future. More on that to come.


----------



## bud16415

I have been experimenting over the last couple week with alternate methods of doing changes to immersion levels of presentation as well as ways to switch between different AR’s when watching strictly as CIH. 

I know about A-lens and zoom and some people have devices that allow scaling images etc. I was also thinking about the future of presentation methods with UHD projectors and all that. 

As most know I am projecting on a shoe string cheap 16:10 crossover business projector, DIY painted stealth screen wall. With a mirror reflected method of masking and large zooming abilities by moving the projector on a DIY slide I built. I also have every type of cable the projector will support ran up to it and feed it media from all kinds of sources. One of them is a laptop computer that is about 5 years old with only DVD no BD. But a good deal of my media is on DVD and my BD player does a great job of upscaling it and presenting it to the projector as does my computer displaying it to the monitor and the projector. I run a media player called VLC Player that I downloaded. What I always used to do was connect my computer to the projector and set the projector to be a copy of my computer screen, call up the movie on VLC and then hit the full screen button on the player and it removed all but the movie. It worked well like that but if I wanted to adjust the size of the window I got the boarder of the player and all the buttons and also all the icons on my desktop around the image. I switched the way the monitors configured so the projector was an extension of my PC screen I changed my desktop background to be 0,0,0 black and I placed the VLC window as the only thing on the second monitor position / projector. I could now display the movie to any size I wanted and the only distraction was the VLC media window itself. I started looking around the VLC site and found the site encourages a lot of open source stuff and they have all kinds of people writing new skins for the media player. I downloaded the whole collection not sure what I wanted and got about 150 skins for the player. With a few hours of going thru them (and I haven’t tried them all yet) I found a skin called Darkvoodoo that is very minimalist the whole thing is 0,0,0 black except a thin dark gray bar top and bottom containing just what you need to stop and start and run the player the buttons are just a few shades darker than the bar and nothing in the window is distracting even though it is visible. The window is sizable and movable within the Imax size workspace I’m projecting to. If I send it a scope movie and stretch the window top to bottom I can make the image any size keeping the control bars well away from the image top and bottom. With the desktop 0,0,0 and the media player the same there is nothing but the image to be viewed framed perfectly with no blackish bars against a different blackish projected image. Without a doubt this is the best self-masking I have seen so far and one I could very easily watch. 

Here is where my thoughts are evolving on the way to someday owning a UHD projector. If I have a setup where I feel I have adequate resolution and brightness to show an Imax feature why should I worry about an A-lens or zooming. I have watched a few movies this way on worst resolution and find it very acceptable, this method of masking is also acceptable and it can only get better with higher resolution. 

I will attach a screen shot from the skin makers site of the window I’m using darkvoodoo. If you play with these skins let me warn you some of them are poorly done and the VLC player once set to a skin will default to it each time it is opened you change the skin from within the player and some of the bad players won’t let you revert back to the default player to try another. What I did was save the source program and when a skin would lock it up (happened a couple times) I would uninstall VLC and then reinstall it. The darkvoodoo skin seems to be pretty stable. It has only 2 corners that work lower right sizes and upper left moves it. 

I see my next move will be to higher resolution and a HTPC with BD and TV tuner, and a graphical method of something like this built in with a stealth screen and most likely zero masking. I may put my front mains on rollers or on a track so I can move them in and out with the screen width. 

If you like to experiment and have a PC hooked to your projector give this dual monitor set up with something like VLC a try. I realize this isn’t breaking news to a lot of people doing scaling. It was a low budget way that works for the cheap HT people reading to try.


----------



## jeahrens

Bud I think a UHD projector with HTPC backing it isn't a bad way to go. We use Win7 box upstairs to drive the TV and act as a DVR. The only thing I haven't been totally happy with is the software players for Blu-Ray. I've gotten VLC to work with some finagling on some discs. PowerDVD works until they release a new version and they try to dump the old and get you to buy the new. You may want to consider a cheap player to supplement the HTPC. Or rip the media to a storage array. For the home theater we use a WD Live TV for non-disc based viewing. There's no TV source in the home theater,

As far as the other comment, you mentioned being frustrated with people not understanding that you can use a 16:9 screen as a CIH+PIA setup. I was pointing out most of us do indeed understand this concept. It's simply something that some of us don't desire. Which, at least to me, is different than the back and forth explaining why CIH could work in Steve's scenario. That's a case of not grasping what is being explained. Now I don't have any desire for him to switch from what obviously works for him. He's certainly happy and that's what really matters. The only reason that the back and forth is still going on is for folks reading the thread. It's important to understand the concept of screen size as it relates to viewing distance.


----------



## bud16415

I do have a BD player Sony 5500 I believe it is and it does a great job over hdmi and I can still zoom if it is anything other than scope. I think the last 20 BD I bought were scope though. Other than that DVD’s will go into my HTPC / laptop with the darkvoodoo VLC and I can watch them CIH or any PIA I want without turning the BD player on. She has a bit of trouble with much more than the BD setup or the TV feed setup so for now she can just play her DVD’s in the BD player as CIW that she likes that size anyway. I should buy a dedicated HTPC with all the bells and whistles or make one. But I would more than likely do another laptop with a BD drive and search out a good player if the VLC BD version isn’t so hot. I like the skin idea as you can make it work and look well suited for a dark theater. The skins are funny I think most are made by a bunch of kids that want their player to look like a Xbox controller or a iPhone. I might have to try my hand at skin making or get an avid HT person here that knows programing to make a good one. 

I guess I won’t know until I get a BD drive in a computer. I also only had windows 10 on my computer for a few hours and didn’t give it a try. Don’t know if the new players are any better. I know I like the simplicity of sizing the movie with the mouse. Even Josh might be surprised if mid movie I drag the image down 10% because it was looking grainy without pausing the movie. I know I have turned the sound up and down many times without pausing. 

I haven’t even seen a 4k projector yet but from seeing the flat panels I’m very sure scaling will be all that is needed to run CIH or any other method you want. 

What should really happen is some projector maker should add image scaling and position to the projector. That would be simple and for sure would be nice in UHD projectors. I even think that method would be good enough for most with 1080P. 

As to Steve I think he understands the concept in fact I know he does. He knows immersion but he also knows size and he likes size. He likes to put into comparison how high his walls are and how tall he is in context to his screen height doing something like a football game. I’m big enough for a 4 seat theater with a 110” Imax screen just sitting closer. But then again we all are enamored with size a little or we would just build a room with 4 comfortable seats and have a 40” UHD display hanging in front of it for our theater. I’m seeing all kinds of 70” flat panel TV’s being sold those people could buy 50’s and sit a little closer too. I’m not quite sure what there is about size regardless of immersion that attracts people. I take Steve for his word when his buddies come down the stairs he wants them to feel like they are walking out into a stadium. I even find that kind of cool.


----------



## jeahrens

VLC will play the Blu-Ray content beautifully. It's the hoops the copy protection imposes that cause the issues. You have to download some files to get past the encryption and the studios change their encryption schemes often enough that you aren't guaranteed it will work with that shiny new disc you want to watch. Or at least that was my experience. If you do your research you may be able to find a software player that does BD and UHD BD nicely that doesn't play the upgrade game. PowerDVD worked fine until the next version came out and support went off a cliff. Luckily we don't watch many BD's up there so we get by alright. I have thought about buying a cheap player just to get rid of the headache. Building a PC isn't a bad route to go. The AMD APU's have a pretty capable integrated video chip and are a nice budget build option. We built ours around 3 years ago and it still chugs along nicely.

Although probably out of your price range the new JVC's do an amazing job with 4K and have programmable lens memory that would allow you to position the image wherever you like in the size you want.

You know I thought Steve was on the same page, but then his last post was again only looking at the raw measurements and not seeming to grasp his seating distance is his only hurdle. No slight intended towards him. I've tunnel visioned on issues and just not been able to wrap my head around another viewpoint. It happens. Or maybe he does understand and it just didn't come across in his post. Again not terribly important for him, because he's not really someone whose use case fits a CIH setup.


----------



## steve1106

jeahrens said:


> You know I thought Steve was on the same page, but then his last post was again only looking at the raw measurements and not seeming to grasp his seating distance is his only hurdle. No slight intended towards him. I've tunnel visioned on issues and just not been able to wrap my head around another viewpoint. It happens. Or maybe he does understand and it just didn't come across in his post. Again not terribly important for him, because he's not really someone whose use case fits a CIH setup.


I spent the last couple of days searching the internet/forums for discussions on the merits of CIH vs other setups and the end is always the same. A person wanders in and expresses a different view which leads to conflict and then they depart possibly soured on even considering a CIH setup in the future. I don't want to be that guy, so I pulled out just to peruse the CIH from time to time as a silent lurker...but, with you guys mentioning me so much I feel like Ruprecht...









The point is we are speaking different languages right now. We both understand each other a little but we aren't to the level where we can actually communicate. Remember everything is simple about my setup from the speakers to the projector to using it like a big TV which is perfect for me and maybe only me. The chair slide is for "more" once in a blue moon or next Tuesday when Captain American comes out in 2D/3D blu-ray. I doubt I'll even notice the aspect change during the 3D for the "IMAX" effect since TV does aspect changes all the time now, and I don't recall it in the Guardians of the Galaxy 3D viewing.

Ruprecht out.


----------



## VideoGrabber

bud16415 said:


> *Everyone* has a different definition of perfection that’s for sure. I’m sure you feel your setup is perfection and it is for you.


My emphasis added, above. I think that's a pretty clear argument right there for avoiding that word completely in the description of a system or methodology. It is 100% subjective. As a result, it almost invites objections, based solely on the claims implied by the name. If you want to start an argument, that seems like a really good way to do it.  But it focuses attention away from the useful aspects that provide real benefits, to what you're calling it. A lot of attacks on the nomenclature, met with a spirited defense, ad infinitum. All wasted effort, and a distraction from the real issues.

Back when many folks were using CIW systems (and many still do), they could easily have labeled it as "the Best Damn Screen Shape of All Time".  But they didn't. And when a growing awareness of how the capabilities of projection systems transcended previous limitations of fixed displays made CIH a real option, many embraced that screen shape with enthusiasm (after many similarly long-winded exchanges with the CIW crowd, defending it). They could have called their new system "perfect" too, but they didn't. (Well, mostly not. )

For some of us, even though CIH was a major improvement over CIW, it still wasn't the best fit. Which is why a few of us have been doing CIA for around a decade. Myself ever since Bjoern Roy suggested the approach long ago (right here in the AVS Forum), and I discovered it worked well for me. Still, no claims to be "perfect", and for myself, I've wound up using some extensions to that over the years that bear similarities to what you've been suggesting here. But I've always considered them to be CIA+FS (flexible size), or just FIA (Flexible Image Area). With the emphasis on _flexibility_, an objective term.

Which is what Rich (Harkness) devised as a great solution to his needs. His focus was on being able to vary the size, so a VIS system worked extremely well for him (Variable Image Size). Combined with his 4-way masking (something I'm still trying to figure out how to do well, both easily and at a reasonable cost), that allows him not only to do any aspect ratio, but at whatever size is most appropriate to the content and his needs. That certainly comes about as close as you can get to "perfect" (on the axis of adaptability)... yet he made no such claims.


IMHO, your simple decision to interject a subjective term in place of what has previously always been an objective one, has resulted in extensive and animated discussions that generated more heat than light, and distracted from (sometimes totally obscured) the positive attributes you were trying to promote.


----------



## bud16415

VideoGrabber said:


> My emphasis added, above. I think that's a pretty clear argument right there for avoiding that word completely in the description of a system or methodology. It is 100% subjective. As a result, it almost invites objections, based solely on the claims implied by the name. If you want to start an argument, that seems like a really good way to do it.  But it focuses attention away from the useful aspects that provide real benefits, to what you're calling it. A lot of attacks on the nomenclature, met with a spirited defense, ad infinitum. All wasted effort, and a distraction from the real issues.
> 
> Back when many folks were using CIW systems (and many still do), they could easily have labeled it as "the Best Damn Screen Shape of All Time".  But they didn't. And when a growing awareness of how the capabilities of projection systems transcended previous limitations of fixed displays made CIH a real option, many embraced that screen shape with enthusiasm (after many similarly long-winded exchanges with the CIW crowd, defending it). They could have called their new system "perfect" too, but they didn't. (Well, mostly not. )
> 
> For some of us, even though CIH was a major improvement over CIW, it still wasn't the best fit. Which is why a few of us have been doing CIA for around a decade. Myself ever since Bjoern Roy suggested the approach long ago (right here in the AVS Forum), and I discovered it worked well for me. Still, no claims to be "perfect", and for myself, I've wound up using some extensions to that over the years that bear similarities to what you've been suggesting here. But I've always considered them to be CIA+FS (flexible size), or just FIA (Flexible Image Area). With the emphasis on _flexibility_, an objective term.
> 
> Which is what Rich (Harkness) devised as a great solution to his needs. His focus was on being able to vary the size, so a VIS system worked extremely well for him (Variable Image Size). Combined with his 4-way masking (something I'm still trying to figure out how to do well, both easily and at a reasonable cost), that allows him not only to do any aspect ratio, but at whatever size is most appropriate to the content and his needs. That certainly comes about as close as you can get to "perfect" (on the axis of adaptability)... yet he made no such claims.
> 
> 
> IMHO, your simple decision to interject a subjective term in place of what has previously always been an objective one, has resulted in extensive and animated discussions that generated more heat than light, and distracted from (sometimes totally obscured) the positive attributes you were trying to promote.


Well said. Totally in agreement. 

With a little back history on the subject. I had interjected opinions and comments here and there in dozens of threads always when a OP came to this forum being tired of TV like projection CIW and asked questions about how do I do this and that zooming or lens, what if I want Imax and the same information was always given straight down the CIH party line and any suggestion of deviation of the way film was intended to be presented was quickly shot down. I was told 100 times this is the CIH forum and why would I have the gall to come into a forum on that subject and talk about something that goes directly about the motion picture associations guidelines. I pointed out there was no forum for this topic and I was basically told that is not the problem of the CIH forum and to get out. A couple of the less abrasive individuals told me no one here wants to hear this dribble as they have all made up their minds years ago on the topic and new people coming here wouldn’t be coming here if they didn’t want CIH. I should stay out of threads and start my own thread in a more appropriate place. I thought about screens or projectors less than $3000 but figured threads here move off the list so slow a new thread would stay on the front page for a year without a bump and I would outline my ideas in a first post anyone coming to the forum to read could consult it and ask a question there. 

The idea of perfect is reflected in the title as for a new comer wondering what kind of screen to shuck out his money on and understanding the concept could do one of two things. They could assign an area of their wall to a Imax size screen and set seating accordingly and then test out all the methods of presentation on one screen. in a year or 6 months when they knew what suited them they could stay with this system or buy a screen that fit what they liked. The second method is they could buy the Imax sized screen and experiment with it as above and when they found what they liked put some semi fixed masking up and be done. Maybe take it down a couple times a year for a Imax movie or expanding movie if they like CIH. The reason perfect was in the title was the fact it could and does contain all things for all people (short and simple) it can be any and all forms of presentation rolled into one.

I don’t know what AR screen Rich uses it could be a 2.0:1 and allow for variable image size. I have a stealth wall so my screen has no AR or size and I only recently realized my zoom ability and seating distance allowed for a proper CIH presentation of the Hateful Eight so I even expanded on what I thought I had. What could be more perfect some director invented a new AR and I was ready for it without changing my seat locations. 

The draw back to my following the advice of staying out of the threads coming to the forum and starting a new thread for anyone that wanted to follow my crazy system was everyone followed me to my new thread to tell me the same things again. That’s ok as now at least we have 200 plus posts of point and counter points all in the same thread rather than a 1000 examples mixed into dozen of threads. If anyone wants to read this like a book they should get a good cross section of CIH along with ideas on why they might want to think outside the box. 

I changed the name on the first post title to personal but the title that shows in the forum hasn’t changed. If any mod is reading and wants to change that to Personal that would be great. I never intended on stepping on anyone’s toes with the name and now that I know Rich coined the VIS name I will add that information and a link early on in the thread with a link to his comments. I really don’t care what anyone calls it or if it has a name at all. I actually think if I dig thru all the presentation standards for commercial theaters I could find an early reference name other than CIH. If Personal is too subjective then we may have to change the name again. I relate this all to selecting my seat at a well designed CIH commercial theater. In an ideal world I would go to the theater and no one will be seated yet. I walk in and make my personal selection of a seat that I want to sit in for the movie. I sit down and say no it’s not quite immersive enough so I get up and move down 10 rows and I say nope too immersive I move back 5, nope a little too close still, I move back one more and I sit down and at last I feel I am in my perfect seat based on my personal likes. If I go to a movie with my friend and we debate and compromise on a seat that is good for both of us as we would like to sit together then we made a group personal choice on immersion and it is the perfect location to share. When I go to a movie with my sister it is a rare treat and her level of desired immersion is way less than mine and as big sisters can be they are in control. We talk it over and of course she wins and we sit in the back. It is by far not my personal level of immersion but it is perfect being able to talk my sister into going to a movie and enjoying it together. That’s what a perfect seat is.


----------



## coolrda




----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


>


A great movie shot in 1.85. I don’t quite understand what your question or comment is though. I gather an attempt at some humor of some type. 

It is interesting when a thread has over 200 posts and only about 40 of them can even vaguely considered on topic. 

My personal copy of fatal attractions is on DVD it is I would consider a fair copy and up scales fairly well. It is no where near a flawless presentation and the content of the movie being shot 1.85 does in no way beg for immersion. It is a good solid highly entertaining movie for me it would be best shown in terms you will understand as a CIH presentation with a seating distance of 3X screen height. That of course would be my Personal Image Area and yours could vary. Put in simpler terms if I went to a commercial theater in 1987 and it had 100 rows of seat I might have set around row 50. that was 30 years ago movies were film and many trade offs were put into seating distance. In the last 30 years massive changes have taken place in how movies are recorded and projected and the level of immersion someone may chose to watch in. If you don’t believe me go to imdb and watch the trailer and watch the commercial they make you watch before the trailer. I don’t want to watch a cat food commercial fully immersive as I could as the quality is there. The movie trailer is 30 years old I could stand to watch it fully immersive if the quality was as good as the cat food commercial but it isn’t and the DVD wont be also. If I dial back my seating distance to 1987 the DVD is very nice to watch and the type of movie it is I’m not feeling any loss in quality by not being so immersive. The net goal for me using PIA is to maximize the viewing experience as best I can given what I got.

An interesting side note on a movie like Fatal Attractions where I might want to slightly diminish the immersion I see very little difference in the quality if I do the size change with zoom or if I do it with scaling thru my HTPC method.


----------



## bud16415

The ongoing debate will go on for years pertaining to the AR of 2.35:1 as being the gold standard of presentations. No one should debate the intent of the motion picture industry in their selection of AR’s over the years or their decision on the system of presentation they want to use in commercial theaters. It is their industry and we buy and view their products as we see fit to do. 

It is quite a bargain when you think about it a company spends 100 of millions of dollars to create a movie and allows us to buy it and own it for just a few dollars. Of course that is made possible by economy of scale because millions of people all want to own a copy of the movie. 

No one is to debate that the industry has the right to present the movie in any method they want and we sometimes complain as we might not agree it is for them to what they like. 

The question arises if we at home on a personal level can gain an improved enjoyment out of a movie by showing it at a different size relative to the last movie we showed. In other words do all movies we personally watch need to be the exact same height or more correctly occupy the same amount of our vertical field of vision (FOV). The widely accepted viewpoint is that there is a comfortable up and down point to our vision as well as a comfortable side to side point. Those that are proponents of CIH feel two reasons for this method of presentation as being best. The first is it is the method the motion picture industry chose to use in commercial theaters and our home theaters want or should want to closely emulate whatever happens in a commercial theater. I can’t argue that point as it is valid and if that is important to you then that is what you should do. The second point is that along with being the gold standard of AR’s 2.35:1 is also a near perfect match with human FOV. If that is the case then there is nothing left to think about, if the scope ratio is the pleasant point of vision both up and down and right and left and is the FOV most of us have then CIH is the perfect method of presentation and also the perfect AR and a huge mistake was made 20 years ago when the TV standard and projectors were set to 16:9. Just for the record I don’t think 16:9 is anymore the perfect AR for human FOV than scope and I hope to explain my thoughts here. 

The supporters of CIH will tell you there is a few simple tests that prove 2.35 is close to our FOV. The most common is the finger test. It goes something like this. Stand or sit in a fixed location and stare straight ahead at a spot on a blackboard. Now with your arms out to your side move your arms in slowly from behind out of your FOV until the point you very first can detect the motion of your hand and fingers. Mark that point on the blackboard with chalk for both sides. Now repeat it above and below and mark those points as well. now using the up and down points for horizontal lines and the right and left points for vertical lines make a rectangle. What you will find is you drew a long skinny rectangle much longer than 16:9 without even measuring and even longer than a 2.35:1 AR. The next experiment they won’t tell you to try is the above test but with some level of acuity added in. instead of just seeing motion maybe try and detect a 1” tall letter is it an A or a B type of thing. When that test is tried the AR produced gets shorter and becomes closer to 2.35:1. 
Then there is the test with allowing eye movement first to the extremes and then to what you feel is comfortable again with acuity. When I do these tests I find I have a rectangle closer to 16:9 maybe even taller. I suggest each person try their own experiments with this. The next test would be with eye and head movement but I think we all agree for movie watching most of us don’t want to move our heads like at a tennis match. But you do have to take head movement into the calculations and what you will find with the level gaze test is your FOV is roughly the same side to side but not up and down. With eyes level we have greater FOV down than up. For some reason we like our monitors slightly below eye level at work because of this but we like our HT projector screen slightly above center. Part of that is conditioning from going to movies where the screen was higher so all could see over the head in front and most theater seats allow for an upward angle of view by reclining. 

So do we view fixed gaze or with comfortable eye movement. If you are honest with yourself, you will know daily life has our eyes moving nonstop. It is hard for instance to look at one word on this page and try and read the word two lines above. Here is a study done showing how a group of people viewed a movie with eye movement. https://vimeo.com/19788132 There is much more reading on the subject if you want to search. Here is a report done by NASA in 1964 on the limits of vision and the degree of acuity and it shows mapping of each eye and the combined vision of both eyes. http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/al/papers/64vision/17.htm if you scroll down about one quarter you will find what NASA thinks the FOV with eyes fixed within a useful range of acuity. The image is 17-13 Binocular Visual Fields With Head and Eyes Fixed. I will try and copy that information and post a photo below with a common AR superimposed. 

It was based on this information and my own preference on two things that lead me to this system of personal presentation first is personal immersion and the second is personal acuity. If the image is good and it is a type of image I might want to have a heightened sense of immersion like I am not just Viewing but rather I’m involved in it then I set my level of personal immersive view high. If the image lacks the detail my acuity requires or is an image I don’t care to feel like I’m in a heighten state of immersion then I go the other direction and set my level low. In knowing my limitations are both height and width limited just not at a AR of 2.35:1 and knowing my projectors native source is 16:9 I can and you can develop a system that works best. 

Just for fun I’m attaching an image that has been shown around lately called Dots. It will point out how our eyes are required to move around on even a small image to see detail. There are 12 black dots in the image try viewing them all at once.


----------



## jeahrens

Bud that's nonsense. Our eyes do not move "non-stop". Try it. You'll get nauseous. They move to a point focus and move on. The length they stay on that point varies widely (it can be less than a second). Which is exactly what that video is showing. FOV has been discussed to death and moved the conversation very little, so no point in arguing it again.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Is he still trying to convince people that CIH is bad voodoo?


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Bud that's nonsense. Our eyes do not move "non-stop". Try it. You'll get nauseous. They move to a point focus and move on. The length they stay on that point varies widely (it can be less than a second). Which is exactly what that video is showing. FOV has been discussed to death and moved the conversation very little, so no point in arguing it again.


Here is a basic read. http://study.com/academy/lesson/saccade-eye-movement-definition-test.html
Bit more of an advanced read. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10991/

Our eyes move nonstop they even move when we sleep and there is no science that says it will cause nauseous conditions. The point has been discussed to death but never to resolution as far as I know here. My main reason for adding the information here was to have the “to death” conversation logically laid out in one place and in the OP of this thread. I doubt anyone looking here for opinions will have the stomach to read the whole thread. Now that could cause nauseous conditions.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Is he still trying to convince people that CIH is bad voodoo?


Just the opposite I believe CIH is good voodoo. I have often said CIH is a far better system of presentation than CIW and that is what most are using. I also believe it is a better system than CIA because making area a constant forces an increase in immersion by design. In my system CIH is the starting point for all changes in immersion positive and negative. 

The only bone of contention between CIH and PIA boils down to the idea that when you walk into a empty commercial theater are you allowed to sit in any seat you want in the theater? If the answer is yes then the next question is. Do you want your single row home theater to replicate as close as possible the presentation of a commercial theater? If the answer to that is yes then you have to endorse PIA 

Your system is CIH + Imax and mine in actuality is CIH + Immersion. 

CIH + Immersion = PIA


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> The only bone of contention between CIH and PIA boils down to the idea that when you walk into a empty commercial theater are you allowed to sit in any seat you want in the theater? If the answer is yes then the next question is. Do you want your single row home theater to replicate as close as possible the presentation of a commercial theater? If the answer to that is yes then you have to endorse PIA
> 
> Your system is CIH + Imax and mine in actuality is CIH + Immersion.
> 
> CIH + Immersion = PIA


That isn't a bone of contention at all. That's just normal - even CEDIA CEB23 says that in its guidance.

Like I said before, seating distance is key, and making sure you see everything correctly in relation to each other is best done via CIH. You don't have to of course.

If I am sitting close enough in my set up, why is that not immersion?

If you can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where you sit, then you're not sitting close enough.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> That isn't a bone of contention at all. That's just normal - even CEDIA CEB23 says that in its guidance.
> 
> Like I said before, seating distance is key, and making sure you see everything correctly in relation to each other is best done via CIH. You don't have to of course.
> 
> If I am sitting close enough in my set up, why is that not immersion?
> 
> If you can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where you sit, then you're not sitting close enough.


That’s not true for a couple of reasons.

The first being all people are not comfortable with the same level of immersion. I think full immersion is an acquired taste and the times I have shown movies to guests that are not as avid an immersive viewer as myself they much preferred less immersion. 

The other factor is that your horizontal and vertical immersion max out at the same point at the same comfort level and they max out around a AR of 2.35:1. What I’m saying and the scientific studies on FOV state is that if I max out my horizontal comfortable limit I will not have yet reached my comfortable full immersion level in the vertical. That is very hard to measure because our horizontal vision actually goes to infinity in both directions as our FOV in that direction is 180 degrees. So what needs to be measured is at what point we want to set a limit due to acuity. In your case I believe you have maxed your vertical and let the horizontal fall where it may. I have often heard you claim some high immersion numbers based around X screen height in terms of seating. I could easily also go 1.5 X screen height also if not for the discomfort of a scope width. I really think we are both on the same page but you may be neglecting the width as like I said we can see to infinity in width. 

Have some guests over and seat them at 1.5X for a scope movie and see what they say. 

Then there is times someone might want negative immersion. We never seem to talk about that but I watch a lot of stuff from 3X seating distance.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

We've been through all this before Bud, and we max out vertical long before horizontal, that's why the guidelines recommend no more than 15 degree vertical viewing angle, and up to 61 degrees horizontal in the case of SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance. It's just your misguided version of the studies that says different rather than reality.

Even IMAX has the horizon line well below the center line.

I think you're just trolling again.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> We've been through all this before Bud, and we max out vertical long before horizontal, that's why the guidelines recommend no more than 15 degree vertical viewing angle, and up to 61 degrees horizontal in the case of SMPTEs closest recommended seating distance. It's just your misguided version of the studies that says different rather than reality.
> 
> Even IMAX has the horizon line well below the center line.
> 
> I think you're just trolling again.


Again the key word is guideline. They recommend a range and a minimum / maximum seating distance. Totally agree with everything you just said. Then a theater is built around those specs. 

Theaters have many rows of seats. Have you ever been to a theater with a single row of seating? People have preferences as to how close or far they want to sit away from the screen we do not all like the same level of immersion. 

I will go as far as some of us don’t like the same level of immersion from one day to the next or one movie to the next. 

Poor images are improved by viewing them from a greater distance. 

Some content is more exciting and appealing with increased immersion some benefit not at all by being closer. 

No “trolling” here I assume you are using it in this context. If you can point out the exact statements I made eliciting anger I will be happy to apologies and remove them. It could be said calling someone a troll is exactly trolling. 
Trolling:
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Trolling - as in bringing up the same old arguments time and time again that have been done to death just to get a response. Like this thread from the start for example.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> Trolling - as in bringing up the same old arguments time and time again that have been done to death just to get a response. Like this thread from the start for example.


I was actually advised by quite a few people to start this thread just as I did. I can’t remember in fact but I believe you even suggested as such. If I remember correctly people coming to the forum asking about feeling cheated with CIW presentations sizing scope to small wanted advice on what and how to do it. Any talk of not following CIH to the tee was not tolerated or as I remember was too confusing to the poster I was told. It was suggested I start a thread and keep all related topics there and out of the main stream CIH forum. The only problem was this thread soon took on at least 150 posts of “Trolling” against the ideas presented. No one is going to ever read 224 pages of this stuff so what I have been doing is editing the OP with thoughts on alternate ways to spin a CIH setup not unlike spinning it into CIH+Imax. 

I have no intention of regurgitating the same points over and over any more than you do. 

Some night you will get ahold of some classic Academy AR nugget and want to view it only to find out it was transferred with dust and scratches and the urge to pull back on the zoom and enjoy it 2/3 size. Just remember I would do it in a heartbeat but watching that less in height would be disrupting the cosmic karma.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think PIA was purely your own idea because of what happened in another thread, that's why you called it 'perfect'. Trolling...

CIH is a very simple concept and should usually only require a few images and an explanation, but then people like yourself come along and say we don't see wider than taller and don't understand the original design intent, or simply don't like the idea of CIH so try and prove that it's wrong. Trolling...

You're not the first, and you won't be the last.


----------



## bud16415

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I think PIA was purely your own idea because of what happened in another thread, that's why you called it 'perfect'. Trolling...
> 
> CIH is a very simple concept and should usually only require a few images and an explanation, but then people like yourself come along and say we don't see wider than taller and don't understand the original design intent, or simply don't like the idea of CIH so try and prove that it's wrong. Trolling...
> 
> You're not the first, and you won't be the last.


I never said we don’t see wider than taller I just twice said we can see to infinity in with without obstruction. 

CIH is a simple concept and an excellent method of presentation. I don’t not like the idea of CIH in fact I love the idea of CIH it is by far the best of all simple solutions. 

It had nothing to do with another thread it had to do with quite a few other threads, actually every other thread where there are hundreds of them where anyone, not just myself talked about changing immersion within a CIH setup. 

Unlike you I don’t believe your CIH should originate with the most immersive image in height you can humanly tolerate and then be locked into it. I would rather base it around an image height set to an average viewer just like the sweet seat in any multi row commercial theater and then allow myself and my guests to select their seat with the use of the zoom control. 

You are correct I’m not the first and many more will come after me that might want to have control over their level of immersion.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Here is a basic read. http://study.com/academy/lesson/saccade-eye-movement-definition-test.html
> Bit more of an advanced read. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10991/
> 
> Our eyes move nonstop they even move when we sleep and there is no science that says it will cause nauseous conditions. The point has been discussed to death but never to resolution as far as I know here. My main reason for adding the information here was to have the “to death” conversation logically laid out in one place and in the OP of this thread. I doubt anyone looking here for opinions will have the stomach to read the whole thread. Now that could cause nauseous conditions.


No they don't Bud. Try it. Move you eyes without stopping to focus on anything. Your eyes don't work that way. They stop and focus however brief. Acknowledging this does not strengthen or diminish your argument.

And how much do you view in REM sleep? That is completely unrelated to this discussion. That's a product of brain activity and you are processing zero visual stimulus.

FOV won't get resolution here. We've proven that.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> No they don't Bud. Try it. Move you eyes without stopping to focus on anything. Your eyes don't work that way. They stop and focus however brief. Acknowledging this does not strengthen or diminish your argument.
> 
> And how much do you view in REM sleep? That is completely unrelated to this discussion. That's a product of brain activity and you are processing zero visual stimulus.
> 
> FOV won't get resolution here. We've proven that.


I don’t dispute they stop and focus. They are constantly doing both that is my point. When watching a movie no one takes a central gaze and watches a movie. The range of eye motion is important in all media viewing and as the image becomes more immersive the amount of movement becomes greater. Nonetheless even at 4X screen height there is a good deal of movement. I never said we view anything in our sleep just that there was movement. The interesting thing about eye movement is they will move during head movement and body movement to actually maintain a still image. that’s why we can watch tv or read a book on a treadmill. 

FOV wont get resolved here. I agree because everyone has a preconceived notion and unwilling to even think about it. We haven’t proven anything.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

bud16415 said:


> You are correct I’m not the first and many more will come after me that might want to have control over their level of immersion.


Trolling I mean, but you knew that, and that's another example of trolling..


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> I don’t dispute they stop and focus. They are constantly doing both that is my point. When watching a movie no one takes a central gaze and watches a movie. The range of eye motion is important in all media viewing and as the image becomes more immersive the amount of movement becomes greater. Nonetheless even at 4X screen height there is a good deal of movement. I never said we view anything in our sleep just that there was movement. The interesting thing about eye movement is they will move during head movement and body movement to actually maintain a still image. that’s why we can watch tv or read a book on a treadmill.
> 
> FOV wont get resolved here. I agree because everyone has a preconceived notion and unwilling to even think about it. We haven’t proven anything.


non-stopI don’t dispute they stop and focus.

I think we've thought about it and formed conclusions based on our own findings. REM sleep is fascinating, but not relevant to this discussion in any way.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Unlike you I don’t believe your CIH should originate with the most immersive image in height you can humanly tolerate and then be locked into it. I would rather base it around an image height set to an average viewer just like the sweet seat in any multi row commercial theater and then allow myself and my guests to select their seat with the use of the zoom control.


No according to your own words you base the image height on how much importance you assign a movie regardless of AR. Which works for you. As far as the sweet seat goes, I think most us feel we have that without arbitrarily deciding on a picture height. But again, you are absolutely entitled to enjoying your setup the way you want.

Why wouldn't I want the height based on what I can comfortably tolerate? What point would there be in making it smaller? Even a poorly mastered DVD has not made me want to change the zoom settings on the projector. If I want a smaller image I can go upstairs. I have yet to do so.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> A great movie shot in 1.85. I don’t quite understand what your question or comment is though. I gather an attempt at some humor of some type.
> 
> It is interesting when a thread has over 200 posts and only about 40 of them can even vaguely considered on topic.


Actually that was pretty funny. Not as funny as your post above though. If only one fifth of posts are on topic and vaguely as you put it, then what's that saying about the topic. Do you really expect this will make a difference either way? You started this in the worst way possible, I suspect more out of frustration than anything else, then try to spin this further and in the act come off condescending to the few left that are trying to give you a fair shake and have been patient trying to talk you off the ledge, despite your grasping at straws and the continuous spinning of the argument bringing in commercial theater and whatever else you thrown in your posts. Clearly this is a case of Planet Bud, Population 1. I don't see a point in further posts on this topic. Good day to you sir.


----------



## sonichart

bud16415 said:


> The only bone of contention between CIH and PIA boils down to the idea that when you walk into a empty commercial theater are you allowed to sit in any seat you want in the theater? If the answer is yes then the next question is. Do you want your single row home theater to replicate as close as possible the presentation of a commercial theater? If the answer to that is yes then you have to endorse PIA


If I am lucky enough to walk into an empty theater EVERY single time, then I would definitely choose the same row of seating EVERY single time. The only time I switch seats is if the seats I want are occupied.

Since i've had projectors my screens have been 4:3, 16:9, and now I have a 2.35:1 CIH setup. I absolutely love my scope screen and glad I decided against a CIW or CIH+IMAX. I was worried 16:9 content would be too small. Yep, compared to 2.35, it is definitely smaller-- but still extremely enjoyable. The other night while watching Mr. Robot and Stranger Things the size of the screen did not detract from our enjoyment. Later in the evening we watched Enders Game and was just blown away. 

I didn't setup my theater so that I must tinker with it before every single movie or show we watch. If I'm going to make adjustments and test various settings, I like to get my system to point where I'm happy and then pop in a movie and enjoy. CIH, for me, is PERFECT in that sense.


----------



## bud16415

sonichart said:


> If I am lucky enough to walk into an empty theater EVERY single time, then I would definitely choose the same row of seating EVERY single time. The only time I switch seats is if the seats I want are occupied.
> 
> Since i've had projectors my screens have been 4:3, 16:9, and now I have a 2.35:1 CIH setup. I absolutely love my scope screen and glad I decided against a CIW or CIH+IMAX. I was worried 16:9 content would be too small. Yep, compared to 2.35, it is definitely smaller-- but still extremely enjoyable. The other night while watching Mr. Robot and Stranger Things the size of the screen did not detract from our enjoyment. Later in the evening we watched Enders Game and was just blown away.
> 
> I didn't setup my theater so that I must tinker with it before every single movie or show we watch. If I'm going to make adjustments and test various settings, I like to get my system to point where I'm happy and then pop in a movie and enjoy. CIH, for me, is PERFECT in that sense.



Thanks for a nice reply and assessment of your personal needs. It is great you found what is best for your needs. And “perfect” for your needs. You fall directly into the CIH category of viewers as most of them also say they would never sit in a different seat given free choice at a theater. All your friends and family must like that row best as well. 

It doesn’t sound like you watch a lot of old 4:3 content as I do. Maybe you would enjoy that just as much CIH as well. 

I never said 16:9 or 4:3 wasn’t enjoyable at any level of immersion. Heck I have enjoyed 1000’s of movies on old CRT TV’s where my level of immersion was 8X screen height seating distance over the last 50 years. There are a 100 things that make a movie great and enjoyable and immersion is only one of them. 

I’m in no way trying to change your mind about your selection as it is clear you are enjoying it and I think it is great. I’m only trying to point out for some of us our lineup of movies like you had watched the other night had a different effect on us and thus our logic as to presentation. Say my line up of movies for a weekend was first we watched Avatar and then PBS planet earth 1080P, then we switched to scope and watched a DVD of Deliverance 1972 shot on 35mm and it looks about like this trailer please watch it and pay attention to the quality of the digital commercial they put on before the trailer. It’s only 3 minutes long and a great movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/ 

In 1972 I don’t remember what seat I sat in but I completely enjoyed the movie, but the picture quality I do know was nowhere near the digital quality we see now. I remember many times having to sit too close I’m sure we were around 2X screen height and I remember not being as happy and enjoyable up there. I know now it wasn’t the immersion it was the PQ that caused that. Now a day we are going between very great digital 1080P and soon to be even greater 4k content and 80 years of equally great movies that didn’t have those levels of PQ. Deliverance is a relatively new movie in the life of cinema. 

I could easily set up a CIH setup and select 3 or 3.5 X screen height viewing distance and watch everything from Edison’s first movie thru all the academy classics thru all the years of B&W TV all the way up to today’s best shot Imax features and tomorrows 4k digital features and enjoy them all. Immersion is only a tiny part of my pleasure of media watching. 

For some of us though it is a part. I would say if I could be transported back to 1972 and into a theater showing Deliverance that was somehow shot using the best 2016 technology and presented with digital equipment I would have sat closer and enjoyed that movie even more. For us that like to vary immersion we go both directions many movies I have watched with and without the really new good sharp perfect eye candy movies and there was a different level of excitement in the movie dependent on the level. And old movies like Deliverance on DVD I have watched different ways and even if I wanted more immersion the PQ would hold me back. 

I agree I don’t like all the fiddling around just like you wouldn’t like it. for the last month I have been watching everything HTPC and doing all my scaling digitally with the mouse just like adjusting the sound on the fly. Took all the fiddling out of it for sure. I would be surprised if when 4k comes down to the masses everyone will be scaling rather than lens or zoom. 

Thanks for telling us what you like you didn’t change my mind and I’m sure I didn’t change yours but it sure was nice having a civil conversation.


----------



## bud16415

Last night we had a movie night and went with a couple different types of movie I wouldn’t call old but they certainly were not new. We watched Never Been Kissed a lighthearted comedy with Drew Barrymore 1999 presented in 2.35:1 and we also watched Mississippi Burning Gene Hackman, Willem Dafoe 1988 presented in 1.85:1. Both were great copies on DVD and up scaled well.

It was interesting when I fired up Never Been Kissed it gave me an option to play it in original AR or pan and scan. I wasn’t super interested in watching the movie but I didn’t mind seeing it again and selected original presentation thinking I can keep my eye out for any dramatic changes that would be forced in pan and scan. Or if there would be some dramatic images lost. I was also curious having not seen Mississippi Burning in many years how the director Alan Parker used the taller framing and likewise why director Raja Gosnell picked scope for NBK. I understand it was each directors right to make a movie anyway they want but I was wondering if the reason would quickly become apparent when I watched the movies. 


After watching the entire NBK movie I didn’t find one spot where I really thought the pan and scan would have changed the intent of the movie or even clipped off anything mildly important. It was easy to see why they offered the dual presentations on the DVD and it was to please people watching on TV’s without black bars and a case could be made that was even thought about at the time of filming. 

On the opposite side of the coin I didn’t have to get past the opening sequence of the movie to see the impact of the taller AR in MB. The close personal shots used the frame to compress the drama and there was an equal number of expansive scope like landscapes that were shot with wide lens to take in that wide FOV and at the same time showing huge tall sky or long deep landscapes. It was framed a lot like an Imax would be and even when extreme close ups were shot of faces it didn’t seem at all wrong as the screen was filled with a face that wanted to be studied. Dialog scenes were shot back to not over blow the image with size.

This movie MB to me calls out for immersion and NBK really had no reason to be made in scope it would have been just as good IMO without the width.

The way we watched them NBK was fine at the height and width of CIH scope it seemed more film like being wider but if I watched it on the regular TV I would do it pan and scan. We did MB at an increased height and area closer to CIA and it felt amazingly film like. 

Truly a situation where personal choice came into play for me.


----------



## R Harkness

I watched The Dark Knight Rises a couple nights ago and it was absolutely magnificent with the extra screen size for the IMAX scenes.
Over the years I've gone back and forth as to whether I watch shifting AR movies in 16:9 size or cropping to fit to 2:35:1 (e.g. using my A-lens and/or zooming using the masking feature on the Lumagen etc). 

One reason I would sometimes choose to crop to 2:35:1 is that, even as good as the JVC projectors have been, the "black bars" still gave away some lack of contrast and I'm just so used to having those masked away.

But my current JVC RS600 has such killer contrast that the black bars - while not perfectly black (I view in a bat cave so projected black will never look perfect) - they are darker than any previous projector and rarely distract. So I could blow up the image size larger than if I stayed CIH, for a "fall into it" sense of immersion. The additional light output of this year's JVC projectors also makes those larger images all the more brilliant and punchy. It was nirvana!


----------



## bud16415

R Harkness said:


> I watched The Dark Knight Rises a couple nights ago and it was absolutely magnificent with the extra screen size for the IMAX scenes.
> Over the years I've gone back and forth as to whether I watch shifting AR movies in 16:9 size or cropping to fit to 2:35:1 (e.g. using my A-lens and/or zooming using the masking feature on the Lumagen etc).
> 
> One reason I would sometimes choose to crop to 2:35:1 is that, even as good as the JVC projectors have been, the "black bars" still gave away some lack of contrast and I'm just so used to having those masked away.
> 
> But my current JVC RS600 has such killer contrast that the black bars - while not perfectly black (I view in a bat cave so projected black will never look perfect) - they are darker than any previous projector and rarely distract. So I could blow up the image size larger than if I stayed CIH, for a "fall into it" sense of immersion. The additional light output of this year's JVC projectors also makes those larger images all the more brilliant and punchy. It was nirvana!


Rich

If they could some how magically make all black bars become totally black it would be wonderful. The funny part is at least in my case no one pays any attention to them in my theater except me. For the most part it is a curse of the person that studies and understands PQ I think. 

Being a family theater we watch a mixture of movies and to be honest at least half the movies I watch I’m not super excited about watching them and seeing how no one seems to care I don’t waste the time to set the masking. Of the movies I don’t get engaged in the black bars are a constant focus of my attention and I do the comparisons to other blacks in the image. Once in a while I get fooled and a movie I didn’t think was going to be one I would become engrossed in I will watch the movie like everyone else and pay no attention to the black bars. 

I have been scaling movies lately leaving the zoom out at Imax size and doing it with the PC and the way I’m doing it creates the same level of black all around the image. it isn’t absolute black in any way but it is consistent on all 4 sides and I’m noticing it almost totally takes my mind off the subject.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Gary Lightfoot said:


> If you can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where you sit, then you're not sitting close enough.


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

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


----------



## jeahrens

VideoGrabber said:


> You really need to revise that bold and unequivocal statement, Gary. It should say, _"If _I_ can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where _I_ sit, then _I'm_ not sitting close enough."_.
> 
> Because it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to many others. Some of you CIH-purists are just as guilty as you're claiming Bud to be. Talkative pots & kettles.  Not everyone is willing to join the Church of the OTAR. Nor should they have to.


Why revise it? I've yet to run into content I've thought "gee I wish this image was significantly smaller than what I'm comfortable with". Bud started out saying his solution was "perfect" (he's wisely revised it). A statement that was only going to invite controversy. I have yet to see anyone claim that about CIH (or CIW for that matter). If CIH doesn't line up with your preferences, no problem. As long as you understand the pros and cons of the AR choices then you've got what you need to make your theater work best for you.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Why revise it? I've yet to run into content I've thought "gee I wish this image was significantly smaller than what I'm comfortable with". Bud started out saying his solution was "perfect" (he's wisely revised it). A statement that was only going to invite controversy. I have yet to see anyone claim that about CIH (or CIW for that matter). If CIH doesn't line up with your preferences, no problem. As long as you understand the pros and cons of the AR choices then you've got what you need to make your theater work best for you.


 If there was a projector that had a pixel array of 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 I would gladly advocate buying a screen of 1:1 AR. If that projector had enough brightness to properly illuminate a 1:1 screen of any desired size and that size fit on your wall and be as wide as you need, why would you do anything but turn on the projector and play whatever came out of it scaling it electronically to whatever size you desired. If your deal is CIH then watch everything CIH. If your deal is CIW then go for it. if you like CIA why not. If an Imax pops up and you are a CIH+Imax guy go for it. if you are showing a photo slide show you could have landscape and portrait photos presented as the same area. If someone sends you a iPhone movie and they do like 99% of iPhone people do and hold the phone upright then you would display a million pixel high image. Every single image would have a constant pixel density and a constant image area brightness. Everyone’s presentation needs would be met and everyone could use as few or as many of the pixels as they want for any given image. That would be “perfect” presentation IMO. 

We don’t live in a world of such projectors yet but the day will come. We live in a world of 16:9 projectors for the most part when it comes to home theater. We are quickly approaching a 16:9 image with a pixel density that will make even people with the best of vision unable to be at all able to see a pixel. For most of us that day is already here. 

A large percentage of rooms are wider than they are high and 16:9 seems to fit better into people’s needs better than 4:3 or 1:1 would fit. Who knows maybe that was in the back of someone’s mind when they said the world is 16:9. It doesn’t matter it is what it is. 

When brightness was important and pixels were larger than people liked it was quite logical to use an A-lens and compress an image and use all the lumens the projector could make and all the pixels the projector had and watch scope in that manner. It also seemed logical to zoom so the reverse would be true watching 16:9 content. I feel those days are quickly going to be behind us. 

Anyone that has watched Youtube knows there is a button you can click on that makes the video play full screen. I can’t believe you have never blown up a poor video on there and said God that looks bad and zoomed it back down to compress it and make it look much better. DVD and VHS look bad sometimes too large or even let’s say CIH. That’s the reason PIA allows to diminish the image size. Well that and sometimes when I go to a commercial theater I want to sit in the back row or sometimes the person I go with likes the back row and different immersion level. That I believe is what prompted VideoGrabber to correct Gary saying that might be true for him but not for all. 

Again PIA is not changing the classic method of presentation in a commercial movie house as compared to at home. In fact PIA is allowing for presentation at home closer to what you have in a commercial theater because within the range of PIA it allows for selection of what row you could sit in at the commercial theater.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

VideoGrabber said:


> You really need to revise that bold and unequivocal statement, Gary. It should say, _"If _I_ can watch normal 16:9 content any taller than scope from where _I_ sit, then _I'm_ not sitting close enough."_.
> 
> Because it certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to many others. Some of you CIH-purists are just as guilty as you're claiming Bud to be. Talkative pots & kettles.  Not everyone is willing to join the Church of the OTAR. Nor should they have to.


Like jeahrens, I don't think it needs revising.

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


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> If there was a projector that had a pixel array of 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 I would gladly advocate buying a screen of 1:1 AR.


I have yet to see a room where that would not be a TERRIBLE setup. You want a square screen? In my room it would be a ~5'x5' screen. It would be a big step down in every way and a miserable viewing experience.



bud16415 said:


> A large percentage of rooms are wider than they are high and 16:9 seems to fit better into people’s needs better than 4:3 or 1:1 would fit. Who knows maybe that was in the back of someone’s mind when they said the world is 16:9. It doesn’t matter it is what it is.


A very large percentage. In my experience I have yet to visit a theater room custom or otherwise that was taller than it is wide.



bud16415 said:


> Anyone that has watched Youtube knows there is a button you can click on that makes the video play full screen. I can’t believe you have never blown up a poor video on there and said God that looks bad and zoomed it back down to compress it and make it look much better. DVD and VHS look bad sometimes too large or even let’s say CIH. That’s the reason PIA allows to diminish the image size. Well that and sometimes when I go to a commercial theater I want to sit in the back row or sometimes the person I go with likes the back row and different immersion level. That I believe is what prompted VideoGrabber to correct Gary saying that might be true for him but not for all.


I have blown up poor videos. Most of the B-movie sessions we do are at best non-anamorphic DVD and at worst poor VHS. Do they look good? Heck no. Do I have any desire to shrink them to a smaller size? Nope. Making them smaller just makes them harder to watch, the warts are there either way.



bud16415 said:


> Again PIA is not changing the classic method of presentation in a commercial movie house as compared to at home. In fact PIA is allowing for presentation at home closer to what you have in a commercial theater because within the range of PIA it allows for selection of what row you could sit in at the commercial theater.


Well I don't know of anyone that changes where they sit based on a film's AR or how important a viewer feels it is. Most sit just past the mid point in the center regardless. Go to any cinema you can reserve seating and check the sold seats. Those seats go first (they also generally match the optimum measurements for the theater). The aisle seats in the same area seem to go next.


----------



## steve1106

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


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> In my experience I have yet to visit a theater room custom or otherwise that was taller than it is wide.



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

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


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


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


Great example of when you would benefit from a smaller presentation. I agree there is no logic to why some converted to digital is so much better than others in PQ.


----------



## bud16415

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/sittin-in-the-front-row


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> You should check them out. Quite a few still around that are as tall as they are wide. People actually paid more to sit off angle and that far back.
> 
> These same theaters were converted to scope by dropping masking and no seats were moved. The 50's and 60's came along with urban sprawl and strip malls and the low wide modern theaters were born to suit scope and downplay the older AR's.


Gee and that's relevant to a home theater and your 1:1 suggestion how? Read what you wrote and what I wrote neither of us were talking about professional venues. 1:1 would be awful in 100% of the home theater rooms I have been in.


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> You should check them out. Quite a few still around that are as tall as they are wide. People actually paid more to sit off angle and that far back.
> 
> These same theaters were converted to scope by dropping masking and no seats were moved. The 50's and 60's came along with urban sprawl and strip malls and the low wide modern theaters were born to suit scope and downplay the older AR's.


Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday.  I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .


----------



## jeahrens

steve1106 said:


> Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday.  I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .


Thankfully stage plays/operas and musicians keep a lot of these places alive. The wife and I were able to see a Beatles tribute, The Fab Four, at local venue Hoyt Sherman Auditorium on Sunday. An old mansion with a stage/theater. Wonderful acoustics and a beautiful venue. One of our local favorites. The pinnacle for old theater venues for me was seeing David Gilmour perform at the Auditorium Theater in Chicago in April. Amazing show and the facility was spectacular. The acoustics were sublime.

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


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> Gee and that's relevant to a home theater and your 1:1 suggestion how? Read what you wrote and what I wrote neither of us were talking about professional venues. 1:1 would be awful in 100% of the home theater rooms I have been in.


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> Nothing to do with home theater but it is kind of sad that many have never experienced the grand theaters of yesterday.  I can remember going with mom or as a school outing to see movies like Bambi, Old Yeller and Gone with the Wind at the 1920's Alabama Theater. It was always an entirely different experience from the more modern 1960/1970/1980 theaters. You always wanted to be up high and the side balconies always seemed like the place to be .


Look at the front row distance to that Huge Academy screen in the photos you posted. Watching the Wizard of Oz from down there no one is ever going to tell me that isn’t IMAX plus immersion. When those same AR movies moved to the 60’s theaters designed to showcase scope movies they were greatly diminished in grandeur. Not the theaters did anything wrong those movies had their day in their venue and the theaters and the motion picture industry did what they do best and that is they sold their newest product. What didn’t happen IMO was that human vision suddenly changed. You as a kid may have not seen what they did lowering the ceiling 20 foot and making the theater 90 foot wider. We were treated to a different kind of immersion this time in width. 

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


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> Relevant or irrelevant what I wrote was 1:1 is not a ratio of any projector, and the world for good or bad has settled on 16:9 as the gold standard. That ratio only matters as to what size ratio we are trying to fit inside it. in fact you can fit any ratio rectangle inside any other ratio rectangle that’s simple geometry. What is important is utilization of the shape of the ones we have projectors built to be native. For the most part it is 16:9 with a dab of offerings in 16:10 and 4:3 but anything serious for home theater is 16:9. A few attempts were made at scope projectors and I thought that was a wonderful idea and they should have made 16:9 based media to go with it but that never became reality.
> 
> So the talk surrounds 16:9 projectors and the size of peoples walls to contain a 16:9 image. It is clear your room doesn’t have the height to do a 16:9 image as wide as your CIH scope with requires. OK before you reply I know you would also not want to ever watch anything that large as Imax would be in CIH. All I’m saying is your room if you did want Imax wouldn’t work because you are height limited. Of course we could apply the same logic you often tell Steve because he claims being width limited, is that you could move your seating and archive CIH+Imax if you wanted ( and I know you don’t want that) but you could. As no house can be height or width limited by definition and simple math.
> 
> But in reality lots of people have vast expanses in their basements and may only have 7’ ceilings and might have a desire to sit back 15’ or more just because. So in practical terms they are also height limited. I know center speakers and all that factor in also.
> 
> Then there are people with first floors ceiling height of 10’ that is not that uncommon these days and might have a room that’s 12x16 they want to use as a small home theater. They are in no way height limited along the 12x10 screen wall. We also now have to believe that I’m not the only person in the world that has a FOV that can if I want encompass an Imax like FOV or anything greater than CIH. We have Steve and Rich and VideoGrabber plus myself. 4 people out of the 7 trillion people on the earth with the vision expansion to handle it. who knows there could be a dozen more even. We are the people like Roger Ebert that maybe have reason to like different seats for different reasons. We have a hard limit of immersion it is Imax except for Steve maybe because I think he would try bigger if he could. But of the 4 of us and oh ya the guy from Stewart Screens that sells the variable masking system that costs so much no one can afford it him too. We feel we can watch CIH on a 16:9 screen. And from time to time adjust that for the 100 reasons I have typed here a 1000 times. OK hold it I know you are reading Josh and I get it, You can’t have Constant IH if the image height isn’t “Constant”. Sometimes when I watch a movie CIH I lean forward a little at the movie theater to eat some popcorn and it dawns on me I just made the image larger mid movie and it pretty much ruins the rest of the movie for me. Then there are the ridicules people that say they have a CIH home theater and have two rows of seats. Who do they think they are kidding.
> 
> Well I hope I painted a picture of a room in some house that could support an imaginary 1:1 projected image and for sure a reality 16:9 image.


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

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

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

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


----------



## bud16415

Edited first post with setup information 12/6/2016

Merry Christmas all!


----------



## bud16415

Another thread on this CIH forum brought a question to mind for me and I thought I would ask it in this thread. 

What is CIH? 

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

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


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


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


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


Well, you can't use the term in the definition of the term... 

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



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


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


Jeff


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


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


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

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


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


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


I don't know what there is to agree on since "Image" is in the term! It's not called CSH...



> The shape and size of the screen is important to many as the look of the theater you are trying to get.


Size and shape, different things. Lots of folks want "a big screen", but I suspect that most people that use a 2.35 screen instead of a 1.85 are doing that with an understanding of the presentation history/methods. Folks doing 2.35 just because the wider screen "looks cool" are the exception. 



> And of course, the absolute black around the image sets a black reference point for our eyes to compare to. I’m not ever sure about the perception part of it as some people put bias lighting around the screen frame and say that helps with perception as well.


It's "perceived contrast", since it looks better to our eyes, but to an instrument, neither of those things will move the needle...


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> It's "perceived contrast", since it looks better to our eyes, but to an instrument, neither of those things will move the needle...


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

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

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


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

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


----------



## DLCPhoto

bud16415 said:


> My understanding of perception of contrast is what triggers the brain to adjust the iris in our eyes. If the iris is told to close because the unit brightness or central brightness changes the closed aperture f-stops down just the same way a projector stops down for improved black levels on dark images. Less total light is able to enter the eye the brain reacts to the ANSI like contrast and sees the brightness with less background brightness in the black. Thus we perceive better contrast than what a light meter would show.
> 
> Perception of contrast is very real even when it can’t be measured directly. It is how we see every day and every night with a range of about 22 f-stops in our vision.
> 
> It always seems perplexing that both a dark frame and background around our image or a lighted frame around our image such as bias lighting can both turn on the ability of perception.


I'm confused about what you're trying to say here, as the projector iris and the iris in our eye behave in opposite ways.

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

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

Please clarify what you're trying to say about the relationship between iris behavior in projectors and our eyes.


----------



## bud16415

DLCPhoto said:


> I'm confused about what you're trying to say here, as the projector iris and the iris in our eye behave in opposite ways.
> 
> As I understand it, the projector iris will stop down, i.e., get *smaller*, in darker scenes, to make the blacks appear even blacker.
> 
> When our eyes are exposed to dark scenes, the iris gets *larger* to allow more light to be captured.
> 
> Please clarify what you're trying to say about the relationship between iris behavior in projectors and our eyes.


You are exactly correct in how each work and it is logical a projector puts out light and our eyes take in light so it is an inverse relationship. 

In the case of a screen and projector say without an iris and given a black boarder around the screen and also a halo of light around the screen from some rope lights put behind the screen. We are often told the black boarder or the bias lighting around the screen both improve our perception of contrast. If perception is caused by our iris in the eye closing on a dark part of a movie when we need perception as there is little ANSI like contrast in the image to evoke perception. A black boarder wont do anything except point out what black is supposed to be. Light around the image will close our eyes down a few f-stops as our eyes don’t just see the image they see what’s in all vision. I understand a black boarder works great to define the edge of the image and will absorb artifacts along the edge and such. I’m curious how it improves perception and makes blacks look darker. Both jautor and Gary Lightfoot seem to think it helps and I wonder what the science is behind that. Gary says adding a thin strip of black wont effect our eyes very much but will help perception and then in that case what about the people with a whole back wall behind the screen painted black. Is that throwing off their perception as it is too much black. 

For me the black boarder could be seen as a distracter to perception in a way as it alerts the brain and tells it this is absolute black and sets a goal for black. If nothing else it draws my attention to start comparing blacks in the image to out of the image. 

For the last 6 months of so I have been watching a lot of my DVD collection with my HTPC setup instead of playing them thru my BD player. I use a player called VLC media player and unlike windows media player that has a frame around the window this player allows you do make or download different skins. I downloaded one called dark voodoo and it is a frame that is all 0,0,0 black and disappears once the mouse isn’t moved for a second. So it is just a image no frame no artifacts. I call my projector monitor 2 and I have no icons or anything on that screen except VLC. I set my background color to 0,0,0 black and I have an image I can size any size I like and drag around to any location I want to suit my PIA method of viewing. Because my screen wall is painted 50% gray and set to an Imax size image with the zoom, I can change the boarder color to anything I want from black to white, blue green or red if I like by simply changing the computers background color. So if I want I can make the boarder an illuminated 255,255,255 white. As you would expect that throws a lot of light into the room and some ends up being ambient hurting true CR. Making it a color is fun but also for the same reason gives the image a color push. Where I have been playing around is with background set to say 245,245,245 a very dark gray but nonetheless brighter than the best black in the image.

So my question is what is the science of perception that makes a black boarder work for those that say they see improved perception with it. I’m not saying they don’t I’m just wondering what it is as bias lighting is exactly the opposite and it claims to do the same.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think it's just the brains interpretation of what it is seeing - like the old optical illusion of two grey shadows that look different shades but are exactly the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg


----------



## steve1106

I am going to stick to Bud's thread since it kind of straddles the IMAX vs scope argument. First Bud, I don't agree with you on scope before almost all others, but on the IMAX digital (or scope plus as it should be called) is a gimmick question, I do. It can add to the HT experience/cinema without lessening scope if it is done right. Something they do not do right for the home market as of yet. (You should have the option of watching it either in scope or "IMAX" throughout the movie at home.)

For example, watch the 3D version of Avengers: Civil War in 2D on a 16:9 screen/TV and the airport fight scene is enhanced by the "IMAX" blowup....but then it switches back to scope for the rest of the movie and it just lessens the rest of the movie. I recently watched the fight scene in "IMAX" and then in scope (after reading the posts in the IMAX gimmick thread). I was surprised at how much IMAX added for me. (Gunn sums it up better than I can.)
As usual I got interested in the movie, and was jarred by the swap back to scope which lessened the rest of the movie for me. Going from scope plus in 151.5" to scope in 143.5" in my room really took me out of the rest of the movie...something that didn't happen when I watched the 2D scope version with the family and not as much when I later watched the 3D version because the 3D distracted me from the aspect ratio change. Now if the final battle had expanded back to IMAX that would've changed the experience.


----------



## bud16415

I agree Steve and the only way to do that with a screen anyway is to have a PIA screen or the same thing a CIH+IMAX 1.89 screen. 

Iâ??m not a huge fan of the expanding and shrinking going on and off thru the movie I would rather they do what Eastwood did with Sully and expand it and leave it expanded if it is the IMAX version. But as soon as they do that some people will say oh that movie is flat and think it has to be shown smaller than scope. Thatâ??s how Avatar was perceived. 

You are correct there is no technical reason at all that Sully couldnâ??t have been sold on BD as a IMAX 1.89 movie and with a click of the remote be turned into the scope version for those with CIH setups. It will be interesting to see how Dunkirk will be released to the home market. At some point there will be an epic movie that goes out that way and it will be a game changer. 

Thanks for the attachments they make the point very well. And as mentioned a few times this thread is where the members would like to see this kind of talk going on. 

As a side note between this thread and the IMAX Gimmick thread I have been getting a bunch of PMâ??s from as far away as Russia with people wanting to show me similar comparisons and how much they are into the more immersive vertical viewing of both IMAX 1.89 and scope movies where they are getting released open matte. When I tell them to go ahead and post their thoughts on the subject they feel intimidated or something in doing so. I have been surprised though at how many are reading along. 
When I get time I will post the stuff they send to this thread.


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> As a side note between this thread and the IMAX Gimmick thread I have been getting a bunch of PMâ??s from as far away as Russia with people wanting to show me similar comparisons and how much they are into the more immersive vertical viewing of both IMAX 1.89 and scope movies where they are getting released open matte. When I tell them to go ahead and post their thoughts on the subject they feel intimidated or something in doing so. I have been surprised though at how many are reading along.
> When I get time I will post the stuff they send to this thread.


Please do.  We really need a forum section for open discussion on the pluses and minuses of the different ways of presentation which doesn't step on any toes in a dedicated section.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

The key for CIH+IMAX is to make sure you are sat close enough so the 16:9 and 2.35 presentations are as tall as you like them and look big enough. Then the IMAX stuff looks so much larger without everything else looking too small. I find two times screen height seating distance works really well, and IMAX is then 1.5xSH. You really need a fauK or 4K pj for that though IMHO.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Gary Lightfoot said:


> I find two times screen height seating distance works really well...


Yes, for you. You've said that *a lot*, here and elsewhere. A few others here have seconded that personal preference. And I'm glad you have, so folks are exposed to, and thinking about that point of view.

On the flip side, it should also be noted there are people for whom seating at 2x screen height (for scope films at least*) *simply doesn't work, at all*. I happen to be one of them. For me, whether at home or in a commercial theater, that's definitely WAY too close. That's a 62-degree viewing angle, and *the absolute closest* SMPTE-recommended viewing distance. (SMPTE 'Reference' is at 3H.) Obviously, your mileage varies (and is measured in kilometers ).

Folks should be aware that there's a broad range of preference in this area, and encouraged to try things for themselves. And seek out their own "best practices". Not simply rely on opinions stated here, no matter how many times, or by how many people. (For example, SMPTE Recommended ranges from 2H at one extreme to 4H at the other.)

_[* Now seating at 2x height for the old IMAX at 1.44 AR is something else entirely.  That I can enjoy from 1.5x screen heights, or even less. But the purpose and content there is dramatically different.]_


----------



## bud16415

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, for you. You've said that *a lot*, here and elsewhere. A few others here have seconded that personal preference. And I'm glad you have, so folks are exposed to, and thinking about that point of view.
> 
> On the flip side, it should also be noted there are people for whom seating at 2x screen height (for scope films at least*) *simply doesn't work, at all*. I happen to be one of them. For me, whether at home or in a commercial theater, that's definitely WAY too close. That's a 62-degree viewing angle, and *the absolute closest* SMPTE-recommended viewing distance. (SMPTE 'Reference' is at 3H.) Obviously, your mileage varies (and is measured in kilometers ).
> 
> Folks should be aware that there's a broad range of preference in this area, and encouraged to try things for themselves. And seek out their own "best practices". Not simply rely on opinions stated here, no matter how many times, or by how many people. (For example, SMPTE Recommended ranges from 2H at one extreme to 4H at the other.)
> 
> _[* Now seating at 2x height for the old IMAX at 1.44 AR is something else entirely.  That I can enjoy from 1.5x screen heights, or even less. But the purpose and content there is dramatically different.]_




Your comment exactly reflects the reason I started this thread. 

With the ability to control immersion and I’m on occasion like Gary and like a 2X scope immersion level watching a movie alone. I have family members and friends that like less immersion however. I in no way dislike lesser immersion levels and very much enjoy a movie at 2.5x or 3x or with my one sister who hates immersion 4x. It is just a different experience like you suggest in watching IMAX 1.44. 

None of that diminishes the importance of those that have CIH screens and setups and chose to watch that way. it just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like. It would be as if you went to a commercial theater and all the seats were missing except one row where the majority of the people like to sit at say 2.8x. Gary would go in and say where is my seat looking up front my sister would climb to the back of the theater and say the same thing. 

PIA is like putting the rest of the seats back in the theater. 

Multi row seating has always been a problem in HT because each successive row is a radical change in immersion compared to a huge commercial screen. With a two row HT where the front row is 2x being perhaps too close for many the second row is stretching the limits of not being close enough. For that reason, I turned my room sideways and opted for a longer single row and the ability to fine tune immersion based on my guests and the content. In a commercial theater none of us could tell the difference if we sat in row 49 or row 50. 

I was hammered pretty good in this thread for suggesting this as an option that includes within it CIH if that is what the person decides they like best. Or CIH+IMAX 1.89 if they want to go out on the ledge watching 12 movies. Or all the rest I won’t go into again. 

Thanks for posting.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

VideoGrabber said:


> Yes, for you. You've said that *a lot*, here and elsewhere. A few others here have seconded that personal preference. And I'm glad you have, so folks are exposed to, and thinking about that point of view.
> 
> On the flip side, it should also be noted there are people for whom seating at 2x screen height (for scope films at least*) *simply doesn't work, at all*. I happen to be one of them. For me, whether at home or in a commercial theater, that's definitely WAY too close. That's a 62-degree viewing angle, and *the absolute closest* SMPTE-recommended viewing distance. (SMPTE 'Reference' is at 3H.) Obviously, your mileage varies (and is measured in kilometers ).
> 
> Folks should be aware that there's a broad range of preference in this area, and encouraged to try things for themselves. And seek out their own "best practices". Not simply rely on opinions stated here, no matter how many times, or by how many people. (For example, SMPTE Recommended ranges from 2H at one extreme to 4H at the other.)
> 
> _[* Now seating at 2x height for the old IMAX at 1.44 AR is something else entirely.  That I can enjoy from 1.5x screen heights, or even less. But the purpose and content there is dramatically different.]_


I agree with you. THXs optimal 2.4xSH is more suitable than 2xSH (THXs recomended range is 2.4 to 3.68xSH) for most people, and the more common 3xSH is a good starting point for most people (3xSH,+or-1xSH as shown in SMPTE and CEDIA docs for example).

With my set up, my second row is around 2.8 to 2.9xSH, bit if I watch an IMAX movie, the front row is then 1.5xSH when I remove the masking, just like in an IMAX theatre, so again, works well for me (but won't for everyone of course). 

One of the reasons I like to mention closer seating distances is because I, like many others, did not understand the seating distance relationship when I got my first projector, but once I realised that, I thought it would be useful for other people to know the usual kind of range you can find in a theatre. Immersion is important so I thought pointing it out to others would be a good thing.

A lot of people buy a big screen which is often an improvement on their tv (and in ther lounge), but are still sitting further back than if they were at a theatre. Unfortunatley it's not unusual for people to get very defensive and argumentative if you try pointing out where people usualy sit in a commercial theatre, even after you show them various documents from the likes of SMPTE, THX, Dolby, CEDIA etc. I don't know why some people are so against being able to sit closer if you want to or ltting others do that if it suits them.

It's always good to know the specs and experiment to see what works best for each individual IMHO so you can get it right first time, rather than think the screen is too small and want to buy a bigger one later (which is often what happens with tvs). Some people don't even think that moving their seats permanently closer can work just as well (if they are able to do that, and it doesn't compromise the audio too much).


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> _It just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like._
> 
> 
> I was hammered pretty good in this thread for suggesting this as an option that includes within it CIH if that is what the person decides they like best. Or CIH+IMAX 1.89 if they want to go out on the ledge watching 12 movies. Or all the rest I won’t go into again.


You were hammered because, (1)your posting info thats irrelevant to CIH and has no place here and yet you insist on continued posting because you can't find any other subforum to post to, and (2)your continue condescending attitude here as demonstrated above, with your Limited Immersion level blast(I can hear your excuses fly). Actually I think all the fellas here have been particularly tolerant of your IMAX mumbo jumbo and the rest of your posts. Your continual diatribe, however nicely you think you present it, is tiring. Watching widescreen 2.35/2.40 content on a widescreen 2.35/2.40 CIH system is the most immersive you can get, regardless of viewing distance.Thats a fact not open to discussion. Show a little respect.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> You were hammered because, (1)your posting info thats irrelevant to CIH and has no place here and yet you insist on continued posting because you can't find any other subforum to post to, and (2)your continue condescending attitude here as demonstrated above, with your Limited Immersion level blast(I can hear your excuses fly). Actually I think all the fellas here have been particularly tolerant of your IMAX mumbo jumbo and the rest of your posts. Your continual diatribe, however nicely you think you present it, is tiring. Watching widescreen 2.35/2.40 content on a widescreen 2.35/2.40 CIH system is the most immersive you can get, regardless of viewing distance.Thats a fact not open to discussion. Show a little respect.


Your comments are mildly disconcerting coming from a well-meaning knowledgeable long time member of the forum. Really so after being told many times by other well-meaning knowledgeable long time member of the forum to keep such discussion to my own threads and out of others unless they address interest in presentation methods with increased vertical immersion beyond scope. This is the one and only thread I have in this forum and I have been doing just that. 

What is much more disconcerting is your post was liked by Gary Lightfoot a very well-known knowledgeable long time member of the forum and one that has a CIH+IMAX 1.89 HT. He posts right above you how in his words “ bit if I watch an IMAX movie, the front row is then 1.5xSH when I remove the masking, just like in an IMAX theatre” That’s a direct quote from post #269 just above your post #270 where you tell me such dribble and diatribe is irrelevant to CIH and a bunch of IMAX mumbo jumbo. 

Where is the outrage to Mr. Lightfoot, and more so why would Mr. Lightfoot like your post if it was not to hammer. 

Once again I have no bone to pick with the breathtaking beauty and magnificent immersion of a well-directed film in the scope AR. Many of my favorites are shot just that way. I also have no problem with anyone having a totally CIH presentation theater at home it is all excellent and much better IMO than CIW. I will point out CIH+IMAX 1.89 is an option that has long been accepted in this forum and one that Gary Lightfoot just minutes before your post once again talked about without issue as he has for many years. His screen is exactly the same shape and size/immersion as what I’m talking about and used as CIH+IMAX 1.89 mumbo jumbo method. 

So the real question comes down to hammering as off topic as that is. If the above quoted post is not hammering I don’t know what it is. 
(Peace)


----------



## jeahrens

I think we need to take a step back here. Is Bud's thread on topic for this forum? No, but there really isn't a place for him to post on this topic. At this point I'm not really bothered by this thread being here or people talking about an alternative way to enjoy movies. Not my cup of tea, but it doesn't need to be. I've called Bud out for being off topic in other threads, but this thread is as on topic as it can be for the subject. If you don't agree with the subject matter, I'd suggest you just don't read the thread. I generally don't and only took a peek after seeing some surprising people posting in here. If thread being in this forum bothers you enough, contact the mods and try to get them a more appropriate place to post. Until then I don't really see what it hurts for these folks to have a place discuss their preferred method to view films.


----------



## bud16415

jeahrens said:


> I think we need to take a step back here. Is Bud's thread on topic for this forum? No, but there really isn't a place for him to post on this topic. At this point I'm not really bothered by this thread being here or people talking about an alternative way to enjoy movies. Not my cup of tea, but it doesn't need to be. I've called Bud out for being off topic in other threads, but this thread is as on topic as it can be for the subject. If you don't agree with the subject matter, I'd suggest you just don't read the thread. I generally don't and only took a peek after seeing some surprising people posting in here. If thread being in this forum bothers you enough, contact the mods and try to get them a more appropriate place to post. Until then I don't really see what it hurts for these folks to have a place discuss their preferred method to view films.


No one seems to bother to understand the premise of this thread. 

In the first line of this thread I indicate that this method of presentation has subsets and one of the subsets is CIH. I clearly say this system can run year in and year out for the family member that likes CIH presentation as CIH, and if another family member has a preference for CIA that person could watch all content as prescribed by what ever rules there are for CIA. It takes nothing away from the enjoyment of person “A” if person “B” watches something different when person “A” isn’t around.

There is also person “C” that is new to FP and is trying to figure out what they like with this size screen and a projector to do this they can try for themselves and seeing is believing what system is best for them and their friends and family. As it is now people mostly buy a screen for CIW that’s what all the other forums tell them to do and they get in a height right for 1.85 AR. And they watch scope movies saying they are too small. They do this because they come from the world of TV and that’s how it is done. If you have the room for CIH+IMAX 1.89 and they buy that screen and they have a method to mask or find they don’t need to mask. They can do CIH on that screen till the end of time. PERFECT CIH. What is the one and only thing that’s not PERFECT CIH? It is when they walk in the room they don’t see a scope screen and the cool factor. Many member have said that cool factor is important to them. In that case by all means go with a 2.4:1 screen. I think they look cool too. I read all the time new members wanting a curved screen for the same reason, and they are dismayed when they find out a projector without a lens is designed to project a perfect rectangle on a flat surface. There is nothing about PIA that is not CIH if that is what a person wants except the shape of the screen with the lights on. 

Well if we get the truce to take place can I tell the couple people that PM me each week that they can feel safe posting here. Gary is always welcome if he wants to talk about immersion and CIH+IMAX 1.89 to bring those discussions over here to continue them. and of course Josh can move his Variable AR movies thread over here, he is more than welcome. As are the owners of the IMAX Gimmick thread and the Understanding IMAX threads, to name a few. Anyone want to talk about Dunkirk come on down. If we do it all here anything except scope I can comment here and us immersive guys wont pop up in those lens discussion threads. Sounds good to me. should we vote on it or what? 

I will try doing better and not talk about IMAX in the IMAX is a gimmick threads. Or at least only comment if I have negative comments about IMAX er LieMAX.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> Your comments are mildly disconcerting coming from a well-meaning knowledgeable long time member of the forum. Really so after being told many times by other well-meaning knowledgeable long time member of the forum to keep such discussion to my own threads and out of others unless they address interest in presentation methods with increased vertical immersion beyond scope. This is the one and only thread I have in this forum and I have been doing just that.
> 
> What is much more disconcerting is your post was liked by Gary Lightfoot a very well-known knowledgeable long time member of the forum and one that has a CIH+IMAX 1.89 HT. He posts right above you how in his words “ bit if I watch an IMAX movie, the front row is then 1.5xSH when I remove the masking, just like in an IMAX theatre” That’s a direct quote from post #269 just above your post #270 where you tell me such dribble and diatribe is irrelevant to CIH and a bunch of IMAX mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Where is the outrage to Mr. Lightfoot, and more so why would Mr. Lightfoot like your post if it was not to hammer.
> 
> Once again I have no bone to pick with the breathtaking beauty and magnificent immersion of a well-directed film in the scope AR. Many of my favorites are shot just that way. I also have no problem with anyone having a totally CIH presentation theater at home it is all excellent and much better IMO than CIW. I will point out CIH+IMAX 1.89 is an option that has long been accepted in this forum and one that Gary Lightfoot just minutes before your post once again talked about without issue as he has for many years. His screen is exactly the same shape and size/immersion as what I’m talking about and used as CIH+IMAX 1.89 mumbo jumbo method.
> 
> So the real question comes down to hammering as off topic as that is. If the above quoted post is not hammering I don’t know what it is.
> (Peace)


Gary's never made a condescending post. Gary has never said our Variable AR movie experience is limited because of being CIH. There guys here that can display a 150" 16x9 in a 2.35 screen. I will fight you to the death, figuratively speaking, on the pros and cons of why CIH reigns supreme when viewing widescreen content, even VAR. I won't tell you how your way is less immersive, that your stupid for not going CIH. Your room is your choice and I respect that. That's what I ask of you. Even though widescreen movies outnumber Var's about ten thousand to one and ninety eight percent of my viewing is 2.40 content, I still appreciate other option out there. Your right, I have been around here along time, since I bought my first a lens, summer of 2004. I've seen my share of guys that come in here, trolls, that blast away, laughing the whole time, and disappear. I don't believe you to be that but be mindful of the history. 

Another thing, you still seem to still have a chip on your shoulder. You as well as others have, have commented repeatedly of CIHers being elitists. We are. We're driven by video excellence and take it serious. Were told we're the minority. In this case it's not bad or dumb. We're passionate about this, but, we still have a sense of humor. Your probably the top poster on this forum and you don't even have a CIH system. Now that's funny. My point is, it may be in your best interest to take less offense to things posted here, at the least, put yourself in a CIHer's shoes, so to speak. This isn't Bud agagainst all CIHers or CIHers Unite against Bud. Remember that. I like guys that are passionate even if we differ in opinion. You cross the line with a condescending comment, I'll hammer you everytime.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> Gary's never made a condescending post. Gary has never said our Variable AR movie experience is limited because of being CIH. There guys here that can display a 150" 16x9 in a 2.35 screen. I will fight you to the death, figuratively speaking, on the pros and cons of why CIH reigns supreme when viewing widescreen content, even VAR. I won't tell you how your way is less immersive, that your stupid for not going CIH. Your room is your choice and I respect that. That's what I ask of you. Even though widescreen movies outnumber Var's about ten thousand to one and ninety eight percent of my viewing is 2.40 content, I still appreciate other option out there. Your right, I have been around here along time, since I bought my first a lens, summer of 2004. I've seen my share of guys that come in here, trolls, that blast away, laughing the whole time, and disappear. I don't believe you to be that but be mindful of the history.
> 
> Another thing, you still seem to still have a chip on your shoulder. You as well as others have, have commented repeatedly of CIHers being elitists. We are. We're driven by video excellence and take it serious. Were told we're the minority. In this case it's not bad or dumb. We're passionate about this, but, we still have a sense of humor. Your probably the top poster on this forum and you don't even have a CIH system. Now that's funny. My point is, it may be in your best interest to take less offense to things posted here, at the least, put yourself in a CIHer's shoes, so to speak. This isn't Bud agagainst all CIHers or CIHers Unite against Bud. Remember that. I like guys that are passionate even if we differ in opinion. You cross the line with a condescending comment, I'll hammer you everytime.



The condescending statement you didn’t like you quoted just a small part of my longer statement to make it sound condescending.

You quoted “ it just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like.”

The full statement “None of that diminishes the importance of those that have CIH screens and setups and chose to watch that way. it just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like. It would be as if you went to a commercial theater and all the seats were missing except one row where the majority of the people like to sit at say 2.8x. Gary would go in and say where is my seat looking up front my sister would climb to the back of the theater and say the same thing.”


What I was saying is when a screen is sized properly for one persons tastes in immersion that would be perfect for them there is not adjustment for someone that wants different immersion in a ridged method of presentation whatever it is. 

Every movie theater in the world doing scope CIH presentation has many rows of seats to suit all desires. All I was saying again is in this case zooming allows the same thing as having 50 rows of seats. 

I don’t see what was condescending in that statement. 


I don’t see what it matters if a guy has a 100” or 200” screen if he likes 2X immersion and he has 10 friends over for a movie and they like 2.5X immersion what would be different with him adjusting his zoom no different than if they went to a movie house and he plunked down in the 3rd row and they all said come on we want to sit in the middle. 

Again not condescending just a fact that if we want to copy the ways of cinema and we don’t have a room 300’ square for 75 rows of seats we can do the same at home with the zoom lever. It is still CIH it is just a different row we are sitting in based around two different peoples desires for the row they like best. 

No one says you have to do it only it is an option if you have PIA.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> The condescending statement you didn’t like you quoted just a small part of my longer statement to make it sound condescending.
> 
> You quoted “ it just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like.”
> 
> The full statement “None of that diminishes the importance of those that have CIH screens and setups and chose to watch that way. it just means they have limited the immersion level to one point they like. It would be as if you went to a commercial theater and all the seats were missing except one row where the majority of the people like to sit at say 2.8x. Gary would go in and say where is my seat looking up front my sister would climb to the back of the theater and say the same thing.”
> 
> 
> What I was saying is when a screen is sized properly for one persons tastes in immersion that would be perfect for them there is not adjustment for someone that wants different immersion in a ridged method of presentation whatever it is.
> 
> Every movie theater in the world doing scope CIH presentation has many rows of seats to suit all desires. All I was saying again is in this case zooming allows the same thing as having 50 rows of seats.
> 
> I don’t see what was condescending in that statement.
> 
> 
> I don’t see what it matters if a guy has a 100” or 200” screen if he likes 2X immersion and he has 10 friends over for a movie and they like 2.5X immersion what would be different with him adjusting his zoom no different than if they went to a movie house and he plunked down in the 3rd row and they all said come on we want to sit in the middle.
> 
> Again not condescending just a fact that if we want to copy the ways of cinema and we don’t have a room 300’ square for 75 rows of seats we can do the same at home with the zoom lever. It is still CIH it is just a different row we are sitting in based around two different peoples desires for the row they like best.
> 
> No one says you have to do it only it is an option if you have PIA.


Why do you keep referring to commercial theater when this is a home theater forum, always has been and always will be. Commercial cinema is inferior in all ways to my room. Why would I want to copy that. I read your whole post and you were condescending, no doubt. No it doesn't matter the screen size, its all about view angles. In fact, it really doesn't matter what the screen AR is if your sitting 2xSH or whatever the preferred SH. Therefore your statement is wrong. Immersion isn't limited with 2.35 screens, even with VAR content. Now a person could say 16x9 content doesn't fit a 2.35 screen as well as a 16x9 screen and that would be an accurate statement. My friends don't care about ratios so I don't concern myself with it. We watch movies. Ninety five percent of those movies are 2.40. IMAX VAR's make up about 0.0001 percent compared to 50 percent of movies made today being 2.40. Its makes far more sense to go CIH as opposed to Imax's 16x9 HDTV shaped AR screens. Anyway I'm not gonna waste anymore time with this. Spin it as you see fit.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> Why do you keep referring to commercial theater when this is a home theater forum, always has been and always will be. Commercial cinema is inferior in all ways to my room. Why would I want to copy that. I read your whole post and you were condescending, no doubt. No it doesn't matter the screen size, its all about view angles. In fact, it really doesn't matter what the screen AR is if your sitting 2xSH or whatever the preferred SH. Therefore your statement is wrong. Immersion isn't limited with 2.35 screens, even with VAR content. Now a person could say 16x9 content doesn't fit a 2.35 screen as well as a 16x9 screen and that would be an accurate statement. My friends don't care about ratios so I don't concern myself with it. We watch movies. Ninety five percent of those movies are 2.40. IMAX VAR's make up about 0.0001 percent compared to 50 percent of movies made today being 2.40. Its makes far more sense to go CIH as opposed to Imax's 16x9 HDTV shaped AR screens. Anyway I'm not gonna waste anymore time with this. Spin it as you see fit.


This forum is not about commercial theaters correct. It is also not just about you and your friends that watch movies 95% scope movies 4.9999% flat movies and .0001% VAR movies. 

This forum also should include the guy who watches 20% sports 20%TV 20% scope movies 20% flat and academy movies and 20% plays games. He is just as much interested in a big fully immersive scope movie as you are and would also like to watch his flat movie the same height as his scope movie. 

You yourself in this quoted post just said “it really doesn't matter what the screen AR is if your sitting 2xSH or whatever the preferred SH.”

The (preferred SH) is the key. We don’t all have the same (preferred SH). Some of us don’t have the same (preferred SH) day to day or movie to movie. But forget that lets talk about person to person. In this thread Gary has said he likes 2xSH and maybe closer, others like 2.5xSH and still others like 3xSH all like CIH. In a commercial theater (not trying to be commercial we are better, correct) but in a commercials scope theater the 2x, 2.5x, 3x people all have a seat. In my single row humble HT they all have a seat. Mind you not all at once but the option. If I took my girlfriend on a first date to a movie theater to see a romantic movie and she told me she likes to sit in the center of the theater because she is a 2.5x kind of a girl and I said well isn’t that a fine thing I’m a 2x person. Well go sit in row 48 I’m going down to row 22 see you after the movie we will go get pizza, what do you mean you like Asian? I wouldn’t get very far. 

As a (preferred SH 2x) person myself I find my friends and family in majority are not. I could make them suffer watching slightly uncomfortable high immersion for my benefit but I would much rather make them feel they have the best seat in the theater and I don’t feel at all put out watching slightly less immersive than I would if I watched alone.

The funny thing is when I invite a few guys over to watch football that would not like the cinematic scope blockbuster (Moms Night Out) at 2x screen height immersion and I show them football at 3xSH immersion at least double what they would have at home on their TV sets, they yell is that all you got. I go to 2.5xSH and they yell bigger. And when I hit 2xSH they yell now we are talking. Why because they want to feel like they have tickets to the game and are in the stadium and taking in total immersion of reality. They don’t sit at a football game and look straight ahead they move their eyes and heads and jump up and down when their team scores.

It is the same reason Steve pushes his couch closer to his 150 something screen when he watches roller coaster movies. 

Now I could tell my buddies on game day that we can’t zoom up the immersion of football because later that evening we plan on watching Moms Night Out at our families agreed level of vertical immersion and that is 2.8xSH and in doing so we would diminish the impact of the scope presentation for my family that isn’t even in the room watching football at this time. I guess I could do that. They would still enjoy the game but just not feel like they were there in the stadium.


----------



## VideoGrabber

Gary Lightfoot said:


> One of the reasons I like to mention closer seating distances is because I, like many others, did not understand the seating distance relationship when I got my first projector, but once I realised that, I thought it would be useful for other people to know the usual kind of range you can find in a theatre. Immersion is important so I thought pointing it out to others would be a good thing.


I definitely agree. Many first coming to projection don't have any good frame of reference.



> A lot of people buy a big screen which is often an improvement on their tv (and in ther lounge), but are still sitting further back than if they were at a theatre.


Also very true. The other thing that often happens is that a particular size screen is chosen, because it's MUCH bigger than what folks are used to. Then after having it a while, they come to realize it's actually _too small_.  And if they can't move their seating forward, they're less than satisfied, and need to start thinking of replacing the screen. You could chalk that up as a learning experience, but its not a very comfortable one. Best avoided if possible.

So, as I said, I'm glad to read your posts letting people know that 2H is a really enjoyable option for some (i.e., optimal). Even if they disagree, and wind up at 2.5H or 3H or whatever, they won't have fallen into the trap of something closer to 4H (or worse!), and have to start over. Knowledge is a good thing, and people who share their experiences here benefit everyone.


----------



## bud16415

VideoGrabber said:


> I definitely agree. Many first coming to projection don't have any good frame of reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Also very true. The other thing that often happens is that a particular size screen is chosen, because it's MUCH bigger than what folks are used to. Then after having it a while, they come to realize it's actually _too small_.  And if they can't move their seating forward, they're less than satisfied, and need to start thinking of replacing the screen. You could chalk that up as a learning experience, but its not a very comfortable one. Best avoided if possible.
> 
> So, as I said, I'm glad to read your posts letting people know that 2H is a really enjoyable option for some (i.e., optimal). Even if they disagree, and wind up at 2.5H or 3H or whatever, they won't have fallen into the trap of something closer to 4H (or worse!), and have to start over. Knowledge is a good thing, and people who share their experiences here benefit everyone.


I also agree with you and one of the reasons I often advise starting with a painted blank wall as a screen. the process of trial and error will lead you to that size where scope feels right. When you know that scope width and if you like your flat that height and if you ever want to watch anything IMAX 1.89. Once you know those things you can select a screen and a presentation method. You can buy one of two screens based on needs a scope screen or a IMAX 1.89 screen. 

I always tell people you will learn best about presentation and application best on a DIY wall screen. for 10 bucks a pop you can make your wall reference white or shades of neutral grays. And then only buy one screen the right size when you do it.


----------



## VideoGrabber

coolrda said:


> You were hammered because, (1)your posting info thats *irrelevant to CIH and has no place here* and yet you insist on continued posting because you can't find any other subforum to post to,


Ha ha ha ha ha. That's both hilarious, and sad, at the same time. 

As a long-time advocate of CIH myself, I've been around here long enough to remember the early days of that discussion. CIW reigned supreme, and almost no one could understand WHY anyone would even _suggest_ another aspect ratio for a projection screen? It was outrageous! Obviously, CIW was the best. And that was a "fact". So the CIH guys took a beating, on a regular basis. Not to mention having to constantly defend their choice, due to the intolerance of the CIW crowd. That gets both tiring, and old after a while.

So when this CIH thread was created here, it was the first and only (still is) *screen-aspect ratio specific* discussion area. It finally provided a safe-haven for all those who really loved scope films (a perfect match for CIH). And those curious about that alternative, and wanting to learn more. Which frankly was a huge relief.

Unfortunately, this Forum (or some of it's more stalwart 'defenders') is no more tolerant of different points of view, even when they differ only slightly. _"We fought hard for it, we're not going to lose control of it, it's not welcome here, so get out."_  That's the general tone that I have gotten, from at least a handful of people here. Which is discouraging.



> I think all the fellas here have been particularly tolerant of *your IMAX mumbo jumbo* and the rest of your posts.


I disagree, with your characterization of "all". Many have been, but a few most definitely have not. Some have been on the defensive, even when no defense was called for. I had to shake my head though, at the juxtaposition of the comment you made about _"show a little respect"_, next to _"tolerant of your IMAX mumbo jumbo"_.  Seems a bit incongruous.



> Your continual diatribe, however nicely you think you present it, is tiring.


There's a rumor going around, unsubstantiated, that folks who don't enjoy reading certain material at AVS are not *forced* to do so.  That still hasn't been confirmed yet, so stay tuned. 



> Watching widescreen 2.35/2.40 content on a widescreen 2.35/2.40 CIH system is the most immersive you can get, regardless of viewing distance.Thats a fact not open to discussion.


Fascinating. That overlooks the fact that 2.35/2.40 is NOT the most immersive content that is available. You're writing off 2.55, 2.76, 2.89, etc. because that doesn't "fit" into your preconceived "best" scenario. So as a CIH-true believer, you're being just as dogmatic as the CIW folks who rode us out of town on a rail. 

And when directors choose to shoot in the new "Imax" format, bouncing between ARs, the whole reason they do so is... *for immersion!* (As a side note, I have to admit I am not personally a big fan of this style of film composition. Though I do accommodate for it's presentation.) But it exists now, and will continue to be experimented with, in future films. James Gunn, the director of Guardians stated, _"Those who have followed me a while know that IMAX is the optimal way to view a Guardians movie. I personally oversee the 3D, crafting every shot, and only in IMAX do we shift aspect ratios during big scenes so that you get nearly 30% more screen size than anywhere else. Unlike many other films today where screen size shifts and 3D are afterthoughts, we plan our aspect ratios during the script stage, and every single shot is tailored for 3D as we shoot it. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is *designed to be a fully immersive experience*."_

Some CIH advocates will simply mask things off, and preserve a "pure" CIH presentation. They CAN'T do anything else, because their pure-CIH screens simply won't allow it. So they feel a need to defend their choice. Others, like Gary, preserve the option to remove their horizontal masks, open the frame, and expose the entire film, at Imax proportions. He's a closet-Bud disciple, but shsssh! Don't let anyone know.  The CIH-police may show up at his door, and take away his CIH-card.

But your claims that it's a fact, and not open to discussion, simply betrays your bias. You've "bought into" CIH as the best possible compromise. And I agree with you on that. IF you have to compromise, CIH is sure a great way to do it! But some of us (very, *very* few, from what I can tell) would prefer NOT to compromise. Even if that extends only to what is currently a handful of varying AR filmography.

Back when a lot of scope films were being cropped to narrower ARs (and still are daily, on places like HBO) to fill 1.78 screens (because filling screens IS the MOST important thing, doncha know?), the hue and cry was that *it violated the director's intention*. Which it obviously did. It changed the experience, often in a dramatic way. But now, as new ARs are being experimented with, the pure-CIH crowd is suddenly perfectly satisfied with *discarding* the director's intent. 



> Show a little respect.


I think Bud has, for the most part. Sometimes I feel he pushes a bit too hard, but he's simply trying to advocate for something he believes in. Isn't that exactly what we CIH people did in the beginning?

The biggest mistake he made (IMO), was his use of the word "perfect". And he's already explained that to death, and apologized for it. He meant it one way, but everyone (rightly so) took it a different way. He looked at the denotation of the word, but failed to recognize it's connotation. A lot of the backlash he got was a direct result of that error, and he's paid the price for that.

The big question is: if this isn't the proper place for such a discussion, where is? I can certainly see where Bud would consider this to be appropriate, considering that it too is outside what was once considered "mainstream". And included CIH not only within it's confines, but also at it's core. He may have anticipated he would be greeted by others open to considering different possibilities. But I think the reaction here has indicated otherwise. I went looking through all the other subfora for a more appropriate place, but not seeing much. In retrospect though, he might have been a lot better off *in the Screens forum*. The alternatives he's outlining are not locked specifically to CIH, and considering the reception he's gotten here (frequently generating more heat than light), that may have been a better choice.

But I must say that he's done an exemplary job of confining such discussions to this single thread. All too often I have seen proponents of some product, idea, or POV spread that message through every thread they inhabit. Ugg. That's *a lot* more disruptive, and to his credit, Bud hasn't done that.


----------



## VideoGrabber

bud16415 said:


> If I took my girlfriend on a first date to a movie theater to see a romantic movie and she told me she likes to sit in the center of the theater because she is a 2.5x kind of a girl and I said well isn’t that a fine thing I’m a 2x person. Well go sit in row 48 I’m going down to row 22 see you after the movie we will go get pizza, what do you mean you like Asian? I wouldn’t get very far.


 LMAO. Thanks for that bit of levity. And also true.


----------



## bud16415

VideoGrabber said:


> LMAO. Thanks for that bit of levity. And also true.


Now I am worried people are showing up in the forum with a sense of humor.


----------



## coolrda

VideoGrabber said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha. That's both hilarious, and sad, at the same time.
> 
> As a long-time advocate of CIH myself, I've been around here long enough to remember the early days of that discussion. CIW reigned supreme, and almost no one could understand WHY anyone would even _suggest_ another aspect ratio for a projection screen? It was outrageous! Obviously, CIW was the best. And that was a "fact". So the CIH guys took a beating, on a regular basis. Not to mention having to constantly defend their choice, due to the intolerance of the CIW crowd. That gets both tiring, and old after a while.
> 
> So when this CIH thread was created here, it was the first and only (still is) *screen-aspect ratio specific* discussion area. It finally provided a safe-haven for all those who really loved scope films (a perfect match for CIH). And those curious about that alternative, and wanting to learn more. Which frankly was a huge relief.
> 
> Unfortunately, this Forum (or some of it's more stalwart 'defenders') is no more tolerant of different points of view, even when they differ only slightly. _"We fought hard for it, we're not going to lose control of it, it's not welcome here, so get out."_  That's the general tone that I have gotten, from at least a handful of people here. Which is discouraging.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, with your characterization of "all". Many have been, but a few most definitely have not. Some have been on the defensive, even when no defense was called for. I had to shake my head though, at the juxtaposition of the comment you made about _"show a little respect"_, next to _"tolerant of your IMAX mumbo jumbo"_.  Seems a bit incongruous.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a rumor going around, unsubstantiated, that folks who don't enjoy reading certain material at AVS are not *forced* to do so.  That still hasn't been confirmed yet, so stay tuned.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascinating. That overlooks the fact that 2.35/2.40 is NOT the most immersive content that is available. You're writing off 2.55, 2.76, 2.89, etc. because that doesn't "fit" into your preconceived "best" scenario. So as a CIH-true believer, you're being just as dogmatic as the CIW folks who rode us out of town on a rail.
> 
> And when directors choose to shoot in the new "Imax" format, bouncing between ARs, the whole reason they do so is... *for immersion!* (As a side note, I have to admit I am not personally a big fan of this style of film composition. Though I do accommodate for it's presentation.) But it exists now, and will continue to be experimented with, in future films. James Gunn, the director of Guardians stated, _"Those who have followed me a while know that IMAX is the optimal way to view a Guardians movie. I personally oversee the 3D, crafting every shot, and only in IMAX do we shift aspect ratios during big scenes so that you get nearly 30% more screen size than anywhere else. Unlike many other films today where screen size shifts and 3D are afterthoughts, we plan our aspect ratios during the script stage, and every single shot is tailored for 3D as we shoot it. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is *designed to be a fully immersive experience*."_
> 
> Some CIH advocates will simply mask things off, and preserve a "pure" CIH presentation. They CAN'T do anything else, because their pure-CIH screens simply won't allow it. So they feel a need to defend their choice. Others, like Gary, preserve the option to remove their horizontal masks, open the frame, and expose the entire film, at Imax proportions. He's a closet-Bud disciple, but shsssh! Don't let anyone know.  The CIH-police may show up at his door, and take away his CIH-card.
> 
> But your claims that it's a fact, and not open to discussion, simply betrays your bias. You've "bought into" CIH as the best possible compromise. And I agree with you on that. IF you have to compromise, CIH is sure a great way to do it! But some of us (very, *very* few, from what I can tell) would prefer NOT to compromise. Even if that extends only to what is currently a handful of varying AR filmography.
> 
> Back when a lot of scope films were being cropped to narrower ARs (and still are daily, on places like HBO) to fill 1.78 screens (because filling screens IS the MOST important thing, doncha know?), the hue and cry was that *it violated the director's intention*. Which it obviously did. It changed the experience, often in a dramatic way. But now, as new ARs are being experimented with, the pure-CIH crowd is suddenly perfectly satisfied with *discarding* the director's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Bud has, for the most part. Sometimes I feel he pushes a bit too hard, but he's simply trying to advocate for something he believes in. Isn't that exactly what we CIH people did in the beginning?
> 
> The biggest mistake he made (IMO), was his use of the word "perfect". And he's already explained that to death, and apologized for it. He meant it one way, but everyone (rightly so) took it a different way. He looked at the denotation of the word, but failed to recognize it's connotation. A lot of the backlash he got was a direct result of that error, and he's paid the price for that.
> 
> The big question is: if this isn't the proper place for such a discussion, where is? I can certainly see where Bud would consider this to be appropriate, considering that it too is outside what was once considered "mainstream". And included CIH not only within it's confines, but also at it's core. He may have anticipated he would be greeted by others open to considering different possibilities. But I think the reaction here has indicated otherwise. I went looking through all the other subfora for a more appropriate place, but not seeing much. In retrospect though, he might have been a lot better off *in the Screens forum*. The alternatives he's outlining are not locked specifically to CIH, and considering the reception he's gotten here (frequently generating more heat than light), that may have been a better choice.
> 
> But I must say that he's done an exemplary job of confining such discussions to this single thread. All too often I have seen proponents of some product, idea, or POV spread that message through every thread they inhabit. Ugg. That's *a lot* more disruptive, and to his credit, Bud hasn't done that.


Sorry man, your post was wasted on me. I just don't care and I have no issue with you. Don't take it personal.


----------



## coolrda

bud16415 said:


> Now I am worried people are showing up in the forum with a sense of humor.


Always had one Bud, always will. On a serious note, I accept your apology and I'm moving on. Continue to do your thing here. Just know I'm watching you and expect no more "limited immersive" blasts. Be on your best behavior.


----------



## bud16415

coolrda said:


> Always had one Bud, always will. On a serious note, I accept your apology and I'm moving on. Continue to do your thing here. Just know I'm watching you and expect no more "limited immersive" blasts. Be on your best behavior.


After wasting a year on the topic of immersive viewing along with starting threads in other forums gathering thoughts on other screen size seating distance elements of FP and how they differ from the rapidly growing flat panel explosion in the country. I think I’m just about done talking about the subject anyway. 

I will tell you guys (the old guard of CIH) I have received a lot of response from people afraid to post here or ask their questions and other long time members and frequent posters to other forums that tell me they just ignore this forum or lurk at best. 

I would like to thank VideoGrabber and a couple others for understanding my intentions accurately and taking the time to understand why I named the thread what I did and also read my explanation of that naming mistake and the change I made to it. 

From what I can see for every one projector sold in the >3000 forum there are a hundred being sold in the


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

usually I don't read long posts these days unless they contain something I consider valuable, but my name in this one just happened to catch my eye.



VideoGrabber said:


> Unfortunately, this Forum (or some of it's more stalwart 'defenders') is no more tolerant of different points of view, even when they differ only slightly. _"We fought hard for it, we're not going to lose control of it, it's not welcome here, so get out."_  That's the general tone that I have gotten, from at least a handful of people here. Which is discouraging.


I think it's fairer to say that we don't really care what other people do, it's when they come here and say it's the wrong way etc and then argue the point forever and a day despite being presented with white papers etc. That's why Bud got a hammering in another thread.

Then, on the back of that other thread, to troll his point further he created this thread claiming his approach was 'perfect'. His idea was to vary the size of the image depending on mood and image quality. That should have been in the screen forum, not here because there's nothing constant about it



VideoGrabber said:


> Some CIH advocates will simply mask things off, and preserve a "pure" CIH presentation. They CAN'T do anything else, because their pure-CIH screens simply won't allow it. So they feel a need to defend their choice. Others, like *Gary*, preserve the option to remove their horizontal masks, open the frame, and expose the entire film, at Imax proportions. *He's a closet-Bud disciple*, but shsssh! Don't let anyone know.  The CIH-police may show up at his door, and take away his CIH-card.


There's no need to be insulting. 

I went CIH back in 2004 and with an A lens because zooming wasn't good enough. In my new room I decided I could accomodate IMAX as well, so I did that too. In the mean time, Bud was arguing against CIH and promoting his own agenda and then this thread to upset this sub forum. Now he seems very much in the CIH+IMAX camp, *after* I had mentioned it, so if anything, Bud is Gary desciple, and he's very much out of the closet now.

I'm trying to follow some standards, not an individual with an ego and an agenda.



VideoGrabber said:


> The biggest mistake he made (IMO), was his use of the word "perfect". And he's already explained that to death, and apologized for it. He meant it one way, but everyone (rightly so) took it a different way. He looked at the denotation of the word, but failed to recognize it's connotation. A lot of the backlash he got was a direct result of that error, and he's paid the price for that.


No, he was trolling with this thread simply because he got a hammering in another.



VideoGrabber said:


> The big question is: if this isn't the proper place for such a discussion, where is?


In the screen forum, not the CIH forum. He posted here for a reason, and it was to troll/argue against scope like a lot of people do, you only to be able to read to see that. He's now trying to make out he's the injured party but you could see his agenda a mile off from the beginning.


----------



## coolrda

Gary Lightfoot said:


> usually I don't read long posts these days unless they contain something I consider valuable, but my name in this one just happened to catch my eye.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fairer to say that we don't really care what other people do, it's when they come here and say it's the wrong way etc and then argue the point forever and a day despite being presented with white papers etc. That's why Bud got a hammering in another thread.
> 
> Then, on the back of that other thread, to troll his point further he created this thread claiming his approach was 'perfect'. His idea was to vary the size of the image depending on mood and image quality. That should have been in the screen forum, not here because there's nothing constant about it
> 
> 
> 
> There's no need to be insulting.
> 
> I went CIH back in 2004 and with an A lens because zooming wasn't good enough. In my new room I decided I could accomodate IMAX as well, so I did that too. In the mean time, Bud was arguing against CIH and promoting his own agenda and then this thread to upset this sub forum. Now he seems very much in the CIH+IMAX camp, *after* I had mentioned it, so if anything, Bud is Gary desciple, and he's very much out of the closet now.
> 
> I'm trying to follow some standards, not an individual with an ego and an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he was trolling with this thread simply because he got a hammering in another.
> 
> 
> 
> In the screen forum, not the CIH forum. He posted here for a reason, and it was to troll/argue against scope like a lot of people do, you only to be able to read to see that. He's now trying to make out he's the injured party but you could see his agenda a mile off from the beginning.


Excellent post.


----------



## jeahrens

bud16415 said:


> No one seems to bother to understand the premise of this thread.
> 
> In the first line of this thread I indicate that this method of presentation has subsets and one of the subsets is CIH. I clearly say this system can run year in and year out for the family member that likes CIH presentation as CIH, and if another family member has a preference for CIA that person could watch all content as prescribed by what ever rules there are for CIA. It takes nothing away from the enjoyment of person “A” if person “B” watches something different when person “A” isn’t around.
> 
> There is also person “C” that is new to FP and is trying to figure out what they like with this size screen and a projector to do this they can try for themselves and seeing is believing what system is best for them and their friends and family. As it is now people mostly buy a screen for CIW that’s what all the other forums tell them to do and they get in a height right for 1.85 AR. And they watch scope movies saying they are too small. They do this because they come from the world of TV and that’s how it is done. If you have the room for CIH+IMAX 1.89 and they buy that screen and they have a method to mask or find they don’t need to mask. They can do CIH on that screen till the end of time. PERFECT CIH. What is the one and only thing that’s not PERFECT CIH? It is when they walk in the room they don’t see a scope screen and the cool factor. Many member have said that cool factor is important to them. In that case by all means go with a 2.4:1 screen. I think they look cool too. I read all the time new members wanting a curved screen for the same reason, and they are dismayed when they find out a projector without a lens is designed to project a perfect rectangle on a flat surface. There is nothing about PIA that is not CIH if that is what a person wants except the shape of the screen with the lights on.
> 
> Well if we get the truce to take place can I tell the couple people that PM me each week that they can feel safe posting here. Gary is always welcome if he wants to talk about immersion and CIH+IMAX 1.89 to bring those discussions over here to continue them. and of course Josh can move his Variable AR movies thread over here, he is more than welcome. As are the owners of the IMAX Gimmick thread and the Understanding IMAX threads, to name a few. Anyone want to talk about Dunkirk come on down. If we do it all here anything except scope I can comment here and us immersive guys wont pop up in those lens discussion threads. Sounds good to me. should we vote on it or what?
> 
> I will try doing better and not talk about IMAX in the IMAX is a gimmick threads. Or at least only comment if I have negative comments about IMAX er LieMAX.


Bud I don't really want to turn this discussion in a negative direction. But some points you need to reconsider:

- The IMAX gimmick thread was specifically about the 1.89:1 format. No one was attacking IMAX as an overall format. There's no need for your statements to infer otherwise.

- There are a lot of reasons people go with a scope screen, the screen looking "cool" is not one I've really heard anyone outside of a few curved screen queries nor does it have anything to do with my own choice. It's a pretty inflammatory statement and is disappointing to see in a response to trying to support you.

- We've gone over why most of us feel that PIA CIH. I would encourage you to focus on the merits of what you enjoy without trying to recycle this debate. Neither side is going to be swayed to other's point of view. 

I would really like there to be a place for you to discuss what you enjoy, but you don't make it easy with responses like that.


----------



## bud16415

New projector new method. 

I hung a new bargain projector yesterday and took the opportunity to change my zoom extender to the new design I have been wanting to try. Along with lengthening my zoom range I added the drop feature to my track. Right now I’m still playing with that feature and to get started I only allowed about 4” of drop. Once I rework the upper mount to accommodate a greater angle I will lower the angle such that the zoom rate and the drop match. Right now the projector has vertical lens shift and the combination of the vertical shift and the drop I have more than enough to cover the range I need. 

If you remember my old setup with a reflecting mirror I built the vertical image shift into the mirror adjustment so I didn’t require the slide to slope. 

The only feature I lost is the on mirror masking and the gain is any mirror artifacts I might have been getting. As of late I had been using the masking less and less anyway and the expanding movies make it imposable anyway. The .5 gain neutral gray screen did a good enough job on the old projector at self masking and with the new projector in its movie rec. 709 mode super RGBRGB color wheel and dark chip 3 chip the cut in between screen, projector mask and image is almost inappreciable. None of my guests ever seemed to care about masking or notice if I set it anyway, and now I’m fine with forgetting about gray bars. 

The new projector being shorter throw will exceeded my IMAX1.89 and scope zoom range without the mirror so it was time to go slightly more conventional. 

The best news is with 4k all the rage the Viewsonic pro7827hd is now selling for $498.59.

I could do my PIA presentation with just the zoom and shift but with it being a manual projector the slide makes it a lot easier as I can make a change now in about 10 seconds and always maintain the wide aperture and max brightness. 

Sorry for the poor quality cell pic it is hard to get it to focus in such a dark room.


----------



## bud16415

Like it or hate it this movie it is a reminder of the changing face of modern cinema. 

The movie is A Ghost Story (2017) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6265828/

David Lowery the director has the whole movie in 1.33:1 AR and has rounded the corners off to make them kind of a old slide show feel. He talked in an interview how now with digital it is easy to do such things and even mentioned Wes Anderson and how much he liked his use of changing AR and considered it for this movie also but he settled in on wanting the tight framing 1.33 provided constant in the movie. He mentioned he was a fan of the Academy AR and wanted to follow that style of composition in this movie. He was aware it would be shown everyplace with black bars at the sides and in that way he gave a nod to CIH as the form of presentation he approved. 

So I was thrown a bit of a curve with my “Wacky show everything as big as I can” approach some think I employ. I watched a preview before screening the movie to get a feel for the cinematography and thought about knowing the framing of the movie where would I want to sit in a scope theater to watch this movie. I didn’t want to watch it thru to decide before my guests arrived and I know the immersion I normally set for a well-mastered Academy movie and went with that. It was if we all sat 15% closer to the screen from the middle of the theater than normal. I got to pick our seats. Two of the people that came were less immersive folks and won’t hesitate saying something if they feel overly immersed. It was a bit of a social experiment for me to see if they were adverse to the added height given the diminished width of a modern framed academy movie. I was not surprised no one had a problem with the height.

I really liked the rounded corners. Kind of glad I wasn’t trying to mask them. Movies like this are interesting as we get a little insight into what directors are thinking in this digital world.


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> Like it or hate it this movie it is a reminder of the changing face of modern cinema.
> 
> The movie is A Ghost Story (2017) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6265828/
> 
> David Lowery the director has the whole movie in 1.33:1 AR and has rounded the corners off to make them kind of a old slide show feel.
> 
> I really liked the rounded corners. Kind of glad I wasn’t trying to mask them. Movies like this are interesting as we get a little insight into what directors are thinking in this digital world.


Based on your post, I just finished the movie and you can put me in the mostly dislike column. I can deal with a standard 4:3 movie but the rounded corners, washed out blacks and faded image were major distractions in a slow paced movie. While I understand why the director wanted to paint the movie like a old faded photograph/memory, the canvas (faded/rounded corners) was too distracting. 

When a movie makes the bars around the image much darker than the darkest black in the movie, it might be better suited to a smaller screen...but at least it was free via Amazon.


----------



## bud16415

I agree @steve1106 Like many movies the appeal isn’t there for everyone. This movie seemed like it got no average ratings from viewers it got 1’s and it got 5’s. 


My point was more in showing that directors are going their own way with AR and that it is now very easy to do in a digital world. Movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel were reviewed both ways as well in terms of the movie, But I feel it hit a homerun with the shifting AR’s. This movie was an experiment in that way also. Maybe not a homerun but worthy of mention. 

So far most of the transitions happen between one frame and the next. I’m waiting to see more where the transition does a slow morphing change. 

With my setup now I just go with the flow.


----------



## TSHA222

I’m a bit late to the party. This is a really eye opening thread. I am currently running a 16 foot wide CIH setup but am building a new home. I’ve been trying to determine what to do in the new theater. I am going with a 20 foot wide screen. My only complaint with CIH has been smaller 4:3 as I watch a lot of classic film. I accidentally did a quasi constant image area with my very first home theater system because I ordered a 2:1 screen instead of scope (this was in 1991). What I ended up doing was masking the sides for 1.33 and 1.85 and masking the bottom for anything scope or wider. My intention had been to recreate the early runco arc iv scope setup on a very limited budget (a budget as in I was standing on a ladder and manually zooming my early sharpvision LCD projector). Anyway my first upgrade was to a new pj and 16:9 screen. I didn’t like the 16:9 screen at all from a presentation standpoint. When we moved the theater to a bigger room years later I went with the widest CIH screen I could fit which was 16 foot wide. Now after 26 years with various systems, I think honestly my first accidental 2:1 setup served my personal needs best. After much consideration I think I’m going with 20 foot wide by 10 foot high. The room is 21.5 feet wide with 12 foot ceiling at the screen (will have stadium seating with 10 foot ceiling on back row, 11foot on second row and 12foot front row to screen). I’ll have masking for the sides and bottom so only three way masking. The idea is for Scope or wider to fill the entire width, shifted up so the top edge of the image is aligned with the top of the screen and masking the bottom (Star Wars would be 20 foot wide x approximately 8.5 feet high) 1.85 will be 17.5 feet wide x 9.5 feet high with the bottom and sides masked and 1.33 would be 13 feet wide x 10 feet high with the sides masked. I could do IMAX a couple of ways. I could either crop it to 2:1 which is no biggie I don’t think since with my CIH setup I end up just watcing IMAX (Dark Knight for example) cropped to 2.35 now or I could zoom to fill the screen height and mask the sides. I will most likely do the former. 

I’m DIY til I die so initially, I’ll just manually adjust the masking but I’ll figure a motorized solution out at some point. In the end, if this just does not work, I can permanently mask the screen to scope and I’ll have exactly what I have now. Personally though I think I really like the idea of CIA or PIA as you called it. Keep keepin’ on!


----------



## bud16415

@TSHA222 Thanks for posting and grasping the concept in your own unique way. For me that is what PIA is about. Giving yourself sufficient screen area and AR to solve your personal issues with presentation that suit you best. With modern projectors and their abilities to be programmed to zoom and shift, why not if you have desires for different levels of immersion for different media and have a room such as yours with ample headroom make it possible. 

With multi row seating being able to even shift the image based on what rows are filled is sometimes an advantage also. 

Like you I watch a fair amount of Academy AR classics and conventional wisdom says they are intended to be shown CIH on a scope screen. That was the industry standard after the advent of Scope wide screen presentation. What other option is there given the industry moved on to wider theaters. Truth is in the days of Academy there was no scope to compare to, and theaters / movie palaces of that era had the ability to be very immersive and a case could be made much closer to CIA than CIH would ever allow. In fact a lot of those theaters because of having stages and live shows had seating every bit as immersive as IMAX if someone wanted to sit up there. Most also had balconies that gave the stadium seating feel to movies. There is nothing wrong with indulging a taller Academy AR movie.

2.00:1 is a great compromise AR and back in 1991, 27 years ago things were really a lot different than now in terms of HT and resolution driven immersion. I could be pretty happy with 2.00:1 but just given the native AR of the projector and media being 1.77:1 and planning a new theater where everything is still adjustable I would maybe move the seating a few inches closer or whatever it took to fit in an IMAX screen and still not loose the horizontal immersion and not waste any of the vertical immersion with a movie like Dunkirk. 

Thanks for some positive feedback and when you get it done I hope you share your thoughts again and even a few photos.


----------



## bud16415

Looks like 2019 might be the year for some taller ARs hitting the market place with the IMAX Enhanced upgrades attached. IMAX has already put two of their nature movies out there and some major studios have signed on for half dozen more. Most of the talk is about the IMAX Enhanced audio that will be selectable if your equipment has its updates. Image quality will Enhanced thru IMAX DMR and most pertinent to this thread they will most likely release the taller version of the movie that was shown in IMAX1.89 theaters “LieMAX” with what ever added footage and such that cut had. There will also be streaming content of the enhanced IMAX features. 

People that have seen and heard it seem positive. 

The question remains if this takes hold, how will the projector community embrace it? TV community is simple they will fill their CIW screen fully and much enjoy not having black bars in their image. My hope is the projector community will not endorse a CIW mentality with this content and rather a CIH+IMAX mentality to the presentation. I really hope the CIH community adapts that way and doesn’t suggest cropping to scope or shrinking to flat mentality for all this new content and new old content that’s on the way. 

This is posted just as this thread was started for those thinking about presentation methods and if you agree or not with PIA as I stated in the first post PIA contains CIH+IMAX within its boundaries. If I wanted I could switch from my “wacky zoom everything all the time PIA” method some call it to CIH+IMAX with the push of a button. 

Below are a few links I found talking about IMAX Enhanced for those contemplating presentation methods. 

https://www.imaxenhanced.com/

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/fandangonow-imax-enhanced-movies-sony-venom-alpha-1203100056/


----------



## nanoodhaliwal

bud16415 said:


> Looks like 2019 might be the year for some taller ARs hitting the market place with the IMAX Enhanced upgrades attached. IMAX has already put two of their nature movies out there and some major studios have signed on for half dozen more. Most of the talk is about the IMAX Enhanced audio that will be selectable if your equipment has its updates. Image quality will Enhanced thru IMAX DMR and most pertinent to this thread they will most likely release the taller version of the movie that was shown in IMAX1.89 theaters “LieMAX” with what ever added footage and such that cut had. There will also be streaming content of the enhanced IMAX features.
> 
> People that have seen and heard it seem positive.
> 
> The question remains if this takes hold, how will the projector community embrace it? TV community is simple they will fill their CIW screen fully and much enjoy not having black bars in their image. My hope is the projector community will not endorse a CIW mentality with this content and rather a CIH+IMAX mentality to the presentation. I really hope the CIH community adapts that way and doesn’t suggest cropping to scope or shrinking to flat mentality for all this new content and new old content that’s on the way.
> 
> This is posted just as this thread was started for those thinking about presentation methods and if you agree or not with PIA as I stated in the first post PIA contains CIH+IMAX within its boundaries. If I wanted I could switch from my “wacky zoom everything all the time PIA” method some call it to CIH+IMAX with the push of a button.
> 
> Below are a few links I found talking about IMAX Enhanced for those contemplating presentation methods.
> 
> https://www.imaxenhanced.com/
> 
> https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/fandangonow-imax-enhanced-movies-sony-venom-alpha-1203100056/
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGnoypS78U4


What would be the best screen size for my basement ?

I have 10.5ft W X 21ft L x 7.2Ft H to play with. I will watch 70% movies and 30% Sports&Games.
Any help is appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## bud16415

nanoodhaliwal said:


> What would be the best screen size for my basement ?
> 
> I have 10.5ft W X 21ft L x 7.2Ft H to play with. I will watch 70% movies and 30% Sports&Games.
> Any help is appreciated.
> 
> Thanks


That would depend on what wall you will be projecting to and what your seating distance will be? Will you have more than one row of seats and if you do the riser won’t be able to be too high because of the low ceiling? Then there is what projector will you be using because a longer throw has a lesser angle and you can get a situation where the viewers heads cast a shadow on the screen area? Lastly how much immersion do you enjoy when you go to a movie theater? What row would you normally sit in? Do you go to IMAX movie theaters? 

Sorry to answer your question with a lot of questions, but personal preference plays a big part.


----------



## nanoodhaliwal

bud16415 said:


> That would depend on what wall you will be projecting to and what your seating distance will be? Will you have more than one row of seats and if you do the riser won’t be able to be too high because of the low ceiling? Then there is what projector will you be using because a longer throw has a lesser angle and you can get a situation where the viewers heads cast a shadow on the screen area? Lastly how much immersion do you enjoy when you go to a movie theater? What row would you normally sit in? Do you go to IMAX movie theaters?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to answer your question with a lot of questions, but personal preference plays a big part.




Thanks for you reply Bud. 
- I will be projecting on 10.5ft wall.
- Projector is JVC NX5
- Seating distance is flexible as I am finishing my basement.
- One seating row for now.
- I sit in front 3rd or 4th row in AMC recliner row. 
- I do go to IMAX but not very often.

Thanks for your reply in advance, much appreciated. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bud16415

nanoodhaliwal said:


> Thanks for you reply Bud.
> - I will be projecting on 10.5ft wall.
> - Projector is JVC NX5
> - Seating distance is flexible as I am finishing my basement.
> - One seating row for now.
> - I sit in front 3rd or 4th row in AMC recliner row.
> - I do go to IMAX but not very often.
> 
> Thanks for your reply in advance, much appreciated.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your 10.5’x7.2’ wall is 126”x86” and assuming you are going to do acoustically transparent (AT) screen you could use any or all of that area. If you are going to go with a conventional screen where you need to leave room for your RLC speakers we would need to know what you are using there so the screen area will be reduced. Then there is the question if you want masking and will you be doing 2way or 4way manual or automatic or some form of self masking like I do. 

Once you know screen size for IMAX I would recommend a seating distance of 1.5 times the height of the screen for starters. If you find no desire for IMAX or high immersion for non movie content like sports and want a CIH setup I would recommend 2.0 times the height of your CIH screen. 

A great way to start is to paint the end wall to be a screen and use that for figuring out projector placement, seating and screen size and AR.


----------



## nanoodhaliwal

bud16415 said:


> Your 10.5’x7.2’ wall is 126”x86” and assuming you are going to do acoustically transparent (AT) screen you could use any or all of that area. If you are going to go with a conventional screen where you need to leave room for your RLC speakers we would need to know what you are using there so the screen area will be reduced. Then there is the question if you want masking and will you be doing 2way or 4way manual or automatic or some form of self masking like I do.
> 
> Once you know screen size for IMAX I would recommend a seating distance of 1.5 times the height of the screen for starters. If you find no desire for IMAX or high immersion for non movie content like sports and want a CIH setup I would recommend 2.0 times the height of your CIH screen.
> 
> A great way to start is to paint the end wall to be a screen and use that for figuring out projector placement, seating and screen size and AR.


Thanks for your reply bud.
Yeah I will be using AT screen
Masking would be manual panels if done.

My basement is not finished yet and will setup projector in one of the bedroom for now, so true screen size can not be determined. So, you are saying go with 16:9 aspect ratio ?


----------



## bud16415

nanoodhaliwal said:


> Thanks for your reply bud.
> Yeah I will be using AT screen
> Masking would be manual panels if done.
> 
> My basement is not finished yet and will setup projector in one of the bedroom for now, so true screen size can not be determined. So, you are saying go with 16:9 aspect ratio ?


That would be my choice with the number of IMAX AR switching movies there are and the upcoming IMAX enhanced releases coming out. Not to mention many sporting events that are in 16:9 play pretty well IMAXed as they use the top and bottom of the screen for graphics. Then there is the streaming content Josh Z has been chronicling that is TV but in ARs like 2.00:1 and could benefit having screen space for the extra height to be projected to. 

Having a 16:9 screen does not mean everything should be played as large possible. It only is there for content that deserves it. I would suggest in your planning phase experimenting with screen sizes and seating distance you play Dunkirk and Aquaman maybe The Dark Knight. As the changing between Scope and IMAX can be thought about in the same movie. View them as IMAX immersion and then how they would be framed down if fit into a scope AR screen. Some people also crop them using the blanking feature some projectors have and you could try that and see if the IMAX experience is something you could give up for the convenience of a scope screen. 

Your room is not lacking height as some people have that forces them in the direction of a scope screen. 

I don’t know if you watch old classics Academy AR movies but if you do play something like The Wizard of OZ (original) or Citizen Kane and you can compare them fit into scope framing or allowed to be taller with a 16:9 window. 

As you can see there isn’t an easy answer rather a path you can follow to determine what works best for you. As an example we watched an early Robin Williams film Seize the Day (1986) the other day. It was filmed in 1.33:1 on 35mm and the transfer to digital along with it coming from a streaming site left a lot to be desired in PQ. I would have loved to play it as CIH immersion level but the quality was not there. So I zoomed it down so in effect it was like we were sitting in the back third of a theater instead of the front third. That type of movie impact isn’t based around in your face immersion and very little if any is lost in doing a smaller presentation. What is impacted by going smaller is PQ and even playing it as small as my setup allows is still quite a bit larger than the largest flat panel TVs. 

That’s the essence of PIA if it is important to you then it is an option to conceder.


----------



## nanoodhaliwal

bud16415 said:


> That would be my choice with the number of IMAX AR switching movies there are and the upcoming IMAX enhanced releases coming out. Not to mention many sporting events that are in 16:9 play pretty well IMAXed as they use the top and bottom of the screen for graphics. Then there is the streaming content Josh Z has been chronicling that is TV but in ARs like 2.00:1 and could benefit having screen space for the extra height to be projected to.
> 
> Having a 16:9 screen does not mean everything should be played as large possible. It only is there for content that deserves it. I would suggest in your planning phase experimenting with screen sizes and seating distance you play Dunkirk and Aquaman maybe The Dark Knight. As the changing between Scope and IMAX can be thought about in the same movie. View them as IMAX immersion and then how they would be framed down if fit into a scope AR screen. Some people also crop them using the blanking feature some projectors have and you could try that and see if the IMAX experience is something you could give up for the convenience of a scope screen.
> 
> Your room is not lacking height as some people have that forces them in the direction of a scope screen.
> 
> I don’t know if you watch old classics Academy AR movies but if you do play something like The Wizard of OZ (original) or Citizen Kane and you can compare them fit into scope framing or allowed to be taller with a 16:9 window.
> 
> As you can see there isn’t an easy answer rather a path you can follow to determine what works best for you. As an example we watched an early Robin Williams film Seize the Day (1986) the other day. It was filmed in 1.33:1 on 35mm and the transfer to digital along with it coming from a streaming site left a lot to be desired in PQ. I would have loved to play it as CIH immersion level but the quality was not there. So I zoomed it down so in effect it was like we were sitting in the back third of a theater instead of the front third. That type of movie impact isn’t based around in your face immersion and very little if any is lost in doing a smaller presentation. What is impacted by going smaller is PQ and even playing it as small as my setup allows is still quite a bit larger than the largest flat panel TVs.
> 
> That’s the essence of PIA if it is important to you then it is an option to conceder.


Thanks for your detailed reply bud, much appreciated  Looks like I will build 16:9 and mask when needed. JVC 4K projectors have masking feature in built which would help. 

What size I should go for? 126" ? Should I aim for 30fl's ?


----------



## bud16415

nanoodhaliwal said:


> Thanks for your detailed reply bud, much appreciated  Looks like I will build 16:9 and mask when needed. JVC 4K projectors have masking feature in built which would help.
> 
> What size I should go for? 126" ? Should I aim for 30fl's ?


If I personally had a 126” 16:9 screen and that were my max sized screen for IMAX I would want to be right around 8’-9' eyes to screen for all my viewing. 

I would start out for sure seeing how the JVC blanking / masking feature would work. If that is good enough that would be a fantastic method. I have found and you can experiment and find out for yourself, but none of my guests ever notice slight black bars or complain about them. It is a curse for those of us really into the hobby to analyze presentation rather than watch the movies. I showed Dunkirk a dozen times to friends and family after it was released for home, and when I asked people if they were annoyed by the AR changing none of them knew what I was talking about and many argued it didn’t even happen. I had to replay and show them and then they said well no one would ever notice that if you didn’t point it out. 

As to is 30FL enough I would say yes, but I’m not into the whole HDR hysteria yet in a lights out theater watching movies. I’m told tone mapping is more important with HDR content. I would suggest go to the JVC thread and see how others are handling the brightness thing. When my room is light tight and my eyes adjust for the lower light level I find film-like SDR at 15FL to fill my vision with wonderful bright colors. I know I’m told all the time I don’t know what I’m missing and maybe that is the case, but I feel my image is more than satisfying compared to all the movie viewing I have done thru my life. Something I think everyone needs to find out for themselves. 

As your room progresses please feel free to add to this thread with photos and opinions on what you think and how the presentation method works for you. The thread is for anyone wanting to post.


----------



## Ladeback

bud16415 said:


> If I personally had a 126” 16:9 screen and that were my max sized screen for IMAX I would want to be right around 8’-9' eyes to screen for all my viewing.
> 
> I would start out for sure seeing how the JVC blanking / masking feature would work. If that is good enough that would be a fantastic method. I have found and you can experiment and find out for yourself, but none of my guests ever notice slight black bars or complain about them. It is a curse for those of us really into the hobby to analyze presentation rather than watch the movies. I showed Dunkirk a dozen times to friends and family after it was released for home, and when I asked people if they were annoyed by the AR changing none of them knew what I was talking about and many argued it didn’t even happen. I had to replay and show them and then they said well no one would ever notice that if you didn’t point it out.
> 
> As to is 30FL enough I would say yes, but I’m not into the whole HDR hysteria yet in a lights out theater watching movies. I’m told tone mapping is more important with HDR content. I would suggest go to the JVC thread and see how others are handling the brightness thing. When my room is light tight and my eyes adjust for the lower light level I find film-like SDR at 15FL to fill my vision with wonderful bright colors. I know I’m told all the time I don’t know what I’m missing and maybe that is the case, but I feel my image is more than satisfying compared to all the movie viewing I have done thru my life. Something I think everyone needs to find out for themselves.
> 
> As your room progresses please feel free to add to this thread with photos and opinions on what you think and how the presentation method works for you. The thread is for anyone wanting to post.


For me setting 8'-9' from a 126" 16:9 screen would be to close. I am good at 10' and have tried 9'. It was to close. I sit 11' from my 120" 16:9 screen for 1080p and like that. I use 2.25 x screen height to figure eyes to screen distance. Some like it closer and some like it father back. I would play with your seating distance to see what feels comfortable to you.


----------



## bud16415

Ladeback said:


> For me setting 8'-9' from a 126" 16:9 screen would be to close. I am good at 10' and have tried 9'. It was to close. I sit 11' from my 120" 16:9 screen for 1080p and like that. I use 2.25 x screen height to figure eyes to screen distance. Some like it closer and some like it father back. I would play with your seating distance to see what feels comfortable to you.


I’m with you that seating distance would be for IMAX content only or scope where there are black bars top and bottom. 

The content plays a huge part 99% of most 16:9 TV content would be awful at that immersion. 

My point is without a screen projector combo that allows for that immersion then you can never get it when you would like IMAX immersion. Just having the screen size available doesn’t force you to use it. All presentation involves some discipline except CIW like a TV. That method is the simplest but also the worst it makes scope smaller than TV and it makes TV and IMAX the same size.


----------



## Ladeback

bud16415 said:


> I’m with you that seating distance would be for IMAX content only or scope where there are black bars top and bottom.
> 
> The content plays a huge part 99% of most 16:9 TV content would be awful at that immersion.
> 
> My point is without a screen projector combo that allows for that immersion then you can never get it when you would like IMAX immersion. Just having the screen size available doesn’t force you to use it. All presentation involves some discipline except CIW like a TV. That method is the simplest but also the worst it makes scope smaller than TV and it makes TV and IMAX the same size.


You could go with a 144" 2:1 screen. The 131" 16:9, a 140" 2.35:1, 138" 1.91:1 and a 131" 1.78:1 would fit inside of it. That is if you have the ceiling height and width. The screen would be 128.80" wide x 64.40" high. Eyes to screen in the front row would be 12'. That would kind of cover a lot of aspects maybe. I may need to look into that as well.


----------



## bud16415

Ladeback said:


> You could go with a 144" 2:1 screen. The 131" 16:9, a 140" 2.35:1, 138" 1.91:1 and a 131" 1.78:1 would fit inside of it. That is if you have the ceiling height and width. The screen would be 128.80" wide x 64.40" high. Eyes to screen in the front row would be 12'. That would kind of cover a lot of aspects maybe. I may need to look into that as well.


Keep in mind this line running thru this thread was originated by @nanoodhaliwal in post 296 when he asked what size screen would work for him in his room. 

Because this thread is the only place on AVS it is truly safe to talk about variable AR presentation I nicknamed PIA we get many a thread within a thread when someone posts here. Or I have a chain of PMs with someone that then doesn’t benefit the community at large. 

So it is his screen size and AR we are talking about here. 

As to 2.0:1 AR screens go. I know there are more than a few members here that had hoped that the TV standard when it changed from 4:3 to 16:9 had instead made it 2.0:1 That as an AR would have been fine with me as well. But it didn’t it is 16:9 and unless someone persuade the world to once again spend billions switching to something new it will stay 16:9 1.77:1 IMO. It is the shape of TV it is the field of most projectors and it is the container media is formatted to. IMAX is 1.89 in theaters but much of it when extracted to home media is being done as 16:9. That’s up to the filmmakers if we get thin black bars or not, but the package is 1.77:1. 

With my screen being a stealth wall of nondescript size and AR, I guess I could go thru all my antics of viewing and zooming for a year and marking all the widths and heights I use and come up with a screen AR and size that would include all. I know if I watched Dunkirk or Aquaman once the frame would be 1.77, but if I watched The Hateful Eight 2.76:1 just once it might be closer to 2.0:1 as I like to view that movie the same height I view most scope movies for no other reason than because I can. 

So ya I guess I can see using any screen AR you want as long as it will hold everything you want to watch at the size you like to watch it. That statement even holds true for the guys here that have and love a 2.35:1 screen because I have been told many times Dunkirk or Aquaman look perfect fit into their screens. 

So if more people didn’t mount their projector at a fixed distance at first and used a painted wall much larger than needed as a test screen for a while and for 6 months or so just played with sizes without moving their seats they to could come up with a custom AR to suit their needs. For simplicity I suggest a 16:9 screen if space permits sized to IMAX and then hopefully most everything else will fit in.


----------



## Ladeback

My plan or dream is to have a AT 163" 2.35:1 screen where a 130" 16:9 inside of it sitting with my eyes 12' from the screen. With using and Epson or JVC projector with lens memory this should be possible. 

For now I will live with my 120" 16:9 screen. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## bud16415

Ladeback said:


> My plan or dream is to have a AT 163" 2.35:1 screen where a 130" 16:9 inside of it sitting with my eyes 12' from the screen. With using and Epson or JVC projector with lens memory this should be possible.
> 
> For now I will live with my 120" 16:9 screen.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


Sounds awesome and it is good to have plans and dreams for sure. You will eventually get there I’m sure. 

Most of us start with the hand we are dealt. That being some given budget and the room we would like to use. We look up to the lucky ones that seem to have a huge budget and then go off and construct a place to fit it. My plan and dream going back 20 years now was just do the best with what I have at the time and enjoy the hell out of it until something better comes along and I can afford it. Making more out of less in a way. sometimes I think it is as much fun tinkering with things as watching, and the real fun for me is watching others enjoy it. 

I figure no need typing the sad or angry face as I know there will always be a next step but until I get there what I have now is really good too. So it is all :grin: for me.


----------



## Ladeback

bud16415 said:


> Sounds awesome and it is good to have plans and dreams for sure. You will eventually get there I’m sure.
> 
> Most of us start with the hand we are dealt. That being some given budget and the room we would like to use. We look up to the lucky ones that seem to have a huge budget and then go off and construct a place to fit it. My plan and dream going back 20 years now was just do the best with what I have at the time and enjoy the hell out of it until something better comes along and I can afford it. Making more out of less in a way. sometimes I think it is as much fun tinkering with things as watching, and the real fun for me is watching others enjoy it.
> 
> I figure no need typing the sad or angry face as I know there will always be a next step but until I get there what I have now is really good too. So it is all :grin: for me.


That wasn't supposed to be an angry face, but a big smile. Some of these emojis I can't always t ell what they are. I have been working on my current theater since we bought our house in 2007 and still not done. Live can get in the way. I think I may get it completed, I just keep second guessing what way I want to go and have. Thanks for the encouragement.


----------



## bud16415

Ladeback said:


> That wasn't supposed to be an angry face, but a big smile. Some of these emojis I can't always t ell what they are. I have been working on my current theater since we bought our house in 2007 and still not done. Live can get in the way. I think I may get it completed, I just keep second guessing what way I want to go and have. Thanks for the encouragement.


That was something I said about the PIA approach to presentation way back in the first post, even the title of the thread. 

I know you are not a beginner but for a beginner or a veteran this method contains all other known methods of presentation given you have a projector to support it. If you had two or more users that had different preferences for presentation methods they could both do as they like. Or in my case I have family members that are totally not comfortable with anything close to high immersion, especially when it comes to action movies both in sound and image size. They are back row people who avoid overly loud modern theaters in their opinion. I just tone it all back. On the other hand I have a nephew that wants to feel like he’s in the movie and we play a lot of new release action movies loud and big. 

I had a bunch of guys over for a UFC fight and I asked them how big should we go. They kept saying bigger, bigger. I told them to go any bigger I need to turn some lights out and they all said no problem bigger! So we watched UFC/IMAX. 

The only way I know to do all this is have a screen large enough and then just use what you need.


----------



## bud16415

We watched (The Aeronauts) streaming last night in all its IMAX glory as an expander and it was visually splendid. 

If you like or hate the new IMAX AR and if you like or hate movies that vary AR with changing height IMO they are here to stay. I was not bothered by the changing AR and as I always do after the movie was over I ask the other viewers if they noticed or were bothered by it and as always no one knew what I was asking or even realized the AR had changed many times throughout the movie. 

IMO this movie would lose a lot of impact if it were cropped down to CIH by the end user in his HT. It would lose even more impact if it were fit fully into the CIH framework. 

Clearly a great example movie of what is IMAX immersion. 

I personally think this short track process from theater to home is a great thing. It also shows how movies can be directed with both markets in mind, even IMAX, conventional theaters and home.


----------



## Philnick

Glad to find a home where it's safe to like Variable Aspect Ratios! 

As I was explaining in the thread listing variable aspect ratio films, I have a basement theater with a painted screen based on a recipe called Cream and Sugar Ultra that I got from the Home Theater Shack website. It's equal parts Valspar Flat White latex paint (with a tiny amount of magenta added to make it color neutral) and Basics brand Acrylic Silver. Thin it with a little distilled water and roll or spray it over a base of Kilz Premium primer coat. It has a wide angle of view and enough contrast that the black bars are invisible, avoiding any need for masking.

This means you can have an unmasked screen as large as your wall. My projector, a JVC DLA-RS1000, has native 4K panels capable of a 17:9 aspect ratio. Normally, it shows stuff as 16:9 but there's a Zoom setting that makes images take the whole width, an increase of 6.5% - which shaves off 3.125% from the top and bottom. On scope material that's just shaving off black bars, but on anything narrower than 17:9 (1.91:1), you're going to lose image.

My 17:9 image area is 11' by 5' 10". Scope films, zoomed, take most of it. (2.35:1 is 11' by 4'8".) 16:9 and IMAX variable films are a bit narrower, but they're still 10' 4" wide - and 5' 10" tall.

I sit ten to eleven feet from the screen. The projector does have zoom and shift memories if I wanted to show things smaller, but I haven't had the desire to do so yet. Anything in low resolution can be watched on a 50" flat panel. I save the theater for things that should feel immersive.

When I watch _Star Trek Into Darkness_ in variable aspect ratio, I want the volcano to engulf me when I'm in there with Spock, and the Mirror dimension to do so when I watch the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_.

It feels very natural to have the image shift from scope when indoors with a low ceiling to IMAX when outdoors there's "Above Us, Only Sky" (to quote John Lennon). When you're in the ships in _Interstellar_, it's scope. When you're out on one of the planets it's IMAX.

In fact, I'll gladly trade the 4K resolution of a scope version of a film for the variable aspect 1080 3D version, if that's the only way to get the VAR version, since my setup upscales 1080 very nicely.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Glad to find a home where it's safe to like Variable Aspect Ratios!
> 
> As I was explaining in the thread listing variable aspect ratio films, I have a basement theater with a painted screen based on a recipe called Cream and Sugar Ultra that I got from the Home Theater Shack website. It's equal parts Valspar Flat White latex paint (with a tiny amount of magenta added to make it color neutral) and Basics brand Acrylic Silver. Thin it with a little distilled water and roll or spray it over a base of Kilz Premium primer coat. It has a wide angle of view and enough contrast that the black bars are invisible, avoiding any need for masking.
> 
> This means you can have an unmasked screen as large as your wall. My projector, a JVC DLA-RS1000, has native 4K panels capable of a 17:9 aspect ratio. Normally, it shows stuff as 16:9 but there's a Zoom setting that makes images take the whole width, an increase of 6.5% - which shaves off 3.125% from the top and bottom. On scope material that's just shaving off black bars, but on anything narrower than 17:9 (1.91:1), you're going to lose image.
> 
> My 17:9 image area is 11' by 5' 10". Scope films, zoomed, take most of it. (2.35:1 is 11' by 4'8".) 16:9 and IMAX variable films are a bit narrower, but they're still 10' 4" wide - and 5' 10" tall.
> 
> I sit ten to eleven feet from the screen. The projector does have zoom and shift memories if I wanted to show things smaller, but I haven't had the desire to do so yet. Anything in low resolution can be watched on a 50" flat panel. I save the theater for things that should feel immersive.
> 
> When I watch _Star Trek Into Darkness_ in variable aspect ratio, I want the volcano to engulf me when I'm in there with Spock, and the Mirror dimension to do so when I watch the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_.
> 
> It feels very natural to have the image shift from scope when indoors with a low ceiling to IMAX when outdoors there's "Above Us, Only Sky" (to quote John Lennon). When you're in the ships in _Interstellar_, it's scope. When you're out on one of the planets it's IMAX.
> 
> In fact, I'll gladly trade the 4K resolution of a scope version of a film for the variable aspect 1080 3D version, if that's the only way to get the VAR version, since my setup upscales 1080 very nicely.


Welcome to the thread. I don’t know how safe it is here but you are more than welcome to come and talk PIA / Variable here as I’m the OP and also a fan of that. 

You have a stealth screen wall exactly what I do also. I didn’t paint Cream n Sugar but I remember the guys that came up with it before they got chased away from our DIY screen forum here many years ago. I’m a fan of the same concept stealth / self-masking. I like my room to function as dual purpose as it is more of a media room even though it is fully treated as a lights out theater would be. So we watch TV and sports in here with some lights for eating and such. No one wants to sit in pitch black with a bunch of guys watching sports. The reason we switched from old home dedicated theater to new home media concept was that it is the most comfortable room to sit and watch in the house without a doubt it has the best sound, projectors seem to become obsolete before they wear out technology changes so fast etc. We have been here 5 years and even though we talk about a living room TV and they have come down in price so much we really don’t think we would use it. Sure keeps the living room furniture looking nice though. We have a 32” TV built into the kitchen wall and it gets a work out with news and background when cooking or not to miss something when you go for a snack during the game. Being retired we stay up late watching movies so even a bedroom TV is not something we would use. 

As to when to lessen image size or what I like to call sitting back more rows in a virtual multi row theater is mostly around others likes combined with lesser media in terms of resolution or just plain quality. We have 3000+ DVDs still and still watch them not to mention streaming of old Academy content. Academy movies were made long before scope was ever invented and my recollection is those movie palaces allowed for very immersive viewing if so desired. Granted the quality was not as high, but then again there was no 4k TV sets to compare it to. In some ways for some people it was the IMAX of the day. At least that’s how I remember it. Placing Academy into a CIH frame is like sitting in the balcony of a movie palace IMO and I sometimes watch them that size when the transfer was made from an obscure reel of film that had sat someplace for 80 years and there is not enough interest in the movie to spend millions on correcting it frame by frame. Then there are other widely acclaimed Academy films that IMO are better quality now than they ever were in the era. Why not play them as immersive as I remember that type of movie playing at. Some by recollection and some by studying the theater designs. 

Early on in my HT life DVD was king and at that time I had XGA projectors and 4:3 screens and along with Academy movies that fit the DVD canister better IMAX also had released all their Science and Nature 45 minute long extravaganzas movies to DVD. It was not the high resolution film-like experience you would get in IMAX, but compared to what most people had a SD 26” TV to watch these 120” XGA showings with some good immersion were pretty impressive in the basement HT. 

Stepping up from that to WXGA still allowed some extra head room in the AR and I used that for about 3 years to help with taller films like above. 

We now live in a 16:9 world those of us that would like taller have to for the most part suck it up just as those that wish for 2.4:1 projectors have to live with what is offered. The great news is IMO resolution has made all this a moot point. I can cut a 1.375:1 out of a HD 16:9 image just as easily as I can cut a 2.4:1 image out and with UHD it is really a moot point IMO. So now that resolution is far good enough for me in all practical ways its about zooming whatever part of the 16:9 panel I happen to want to use to the size I want it to be. Let the Directors and the Cinematographers play as they like and I will deal with it on the other end as I can do any form of presentation to best suit the film. I’m really left not wishing for much. 

If I had a wish I guess it would be those couple directors that are still filming on IMAX film cameras and showing first runs of movies like Nolan’s Dunkirk at 1.43:1 at least make the 1.43 version in its entirety available for home media, and IMAX if you are going to do IMAX Enhanced versions of your original Science and Nature movies put out a 4k 1.43:1 version and give us the option if even twice the price. I will take the black bars on the sides if it means I get the full un-cropped original. 

I don’t know if you have streamed The Aeronaut yet from Amazon yet but I think you will enjoy the changes from scope to IMAX. I have watched it twice now. It defiantly is what the reviewers claimed a movie best seen in IMAX theaters or the next best thing IMAX immersion at home. 

The idea of stealth screens and self masking I have been testing around the forum the last 6 months or so and there is almost no traction on the subject so I have given up mostly. It is odd because I’m told the idea is becoming more and more popular with people having high end screens painted for them professionally. Some of the new 4k projectors are having more problems with it as they have a light boarder problem or something. I’m hoping for all that to get worked out and the price come down before I jump into 4k. 

Well thanks for coming over and posting. Hope to hear more of your ideas and comments.


----------



## Philnick

With the current true 4K lamp-based JVCs (the DLA-RS1000/N5/NX5 RS2000/N7/NX7 RS3000/N9/NX9*) there's no visible border unless you use a highly reflective screen, which gives a brighter image by gathering the light into a narrow seating area. 

*Why each of these three models has three names itself is beyond me. The only difference between the RS and N/NX versions is that the RS versions have a decorative gold ring around the lens to signify that it's the "installer" version. (I bought my RS1000 from a JVC dealer who supplies installers - I guess - though I didn't use one myself.)

With the Cream and Sugar paint screen, which was designed to improve the contrast in black areas, the borders are invisible, and because it scatters the light uniformly, it also disperses the projector's polarization, making the choice of active-shutter 3D glasses more flexible, as whether they are horizontally or vertically polarized doesn't matter. I've never liked 3D in theaters, but I've become a convert with this system, which uses a radio transmitter plugged into the projector to alternately darken each lens twice the 2D frame rate (and thus way above the "flicker fusion" rate) in synch with the projector's alternating the images. Mechanical shutters can't work that fast, so each lens is actually an LCD.

All of these projectors got a firmware upgrade this past fall that added the ability to turn on Dynamic Tone Mapping to adjust the brightness range of the incoming HDR images to match what the projector can handle, on a frame-by-frame or scene-by-scene basis, which just happens to be the main claim to fame of DolbyVision (which is not offered for projectors because the use of a customer chosen screen size and material makes it impossible for the manufacturer to configure the not-user-adjustable DolbyVision). To cope with the varying environments they're used in, the JVCs DTM has High, Medium, and Low (as well as Auto) brightness settings. I use High, given the size of my image and my low-reflectivity screen.

My basement theater is, in fact, light-treated in the front half of the room, with flat black paint on the ceiling and side walls most of the way back to the couch to avoid loss of contrast from light reflected back at the screen. And I have a 7.2.4 sound system, with "quad on the ceiling" speakers in Atmos positioning, for use as well by DTS:X and Neural:X upmixing of 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks, and a pair of diagonally-opposed subwoofers. It's a good thing I was able to find an old AVR that still had the traditional multichannel analog input (to connect to the main AVR's preamp outputs), so I could use it simply as an amplifier to drive the ceiling speakers, since not even flagship AVRs have the full 11 power amps needed for a 7.1.4 system. This approach conserves all of the main AVR's power for the traditional seven speakers, while the main AVR still does room-correction for the whole system.


----------



## Dennis Moore

I'm going to do a new screen... can't paint the wall, so I'm planning on a 2:1 screen. Currently have one that is 80" x 40", but want bigger/better.

I use a PC with custom resolution, and the setup basically allows each aspect ratio to fill as much of the screen as possible. It's basically Constant Image Centered, or your PIA thing.

I am in love with the idea of anamorphic lenses, but I don't think they work with my setup, and I really can't afford the nicer ones that might.

2:1 is the choice for simplicity, as an 8' x 4' sheet is the most readily available. But I could splurge and order a 5' x 10'... 

What do you guys think? A 60" x 106" is basically the biggest I think I could get away with... anything more is going to be almost too big at my seating distances. And even that is maybe too big.

I suppose the added height would help with older films and 16:9 stuff. And the width would give me the scope that I want. Hmmm. Maybe that's the way to go? Most possible visible area within the projector's native resolution? It's a JVC RS45.


----------



## steve1106

Bud, I would call it a "variable" aspect ratio world these days. I never know what aspect ratio I might get when I tune in to TV, Amazon, Netflix or some other service. Shows like "The Expanse" jump back and forth between ratios.

Also, some of these shows have budgets that rival "blockbuster" movies and really deserve to be watched as large as possible.


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick 

When I make the move to 4k I will be looking at projectors that have the qualities yours has. I understand HDR and tone mapping I’m not 100% convinced of the need for it in a lights out theater or even the expanded gamut for that matter. The basics are still most important to me. 

I’m also a fan of 3D even though it is in decline. I have a few pairs of glasses and a few dozen movies. My biggest problem is brightness with my .5 gain screen. I had given a 1.0 white roll down screen a lot of thought just for 3D, but never bought it. with my projector on a slide mount I can move it closer to the screen wall thus improving brightness and if I take the image to 75% size I have my 3D brightness and that’s not a bad work around. The extra brightness at that setting is also nice for ambient light viewing of casual TV I don’t want so large anyway. 

Your setup sounds well thought out. The room reflections is good no matter what light conditions you need down at the viewers end. My side walls are a 50% gray and I’m thinking of going darker. 

As to sound I’m still old school 5.2 but they all pack a punch and I still just have 2 ears. LOL. Yours sounds pretty solid. 
@Dennis Moore

2.0:1 is a pretty common compromise AR for a lot of today’s media and if it is a size you can readily get a piece of material to DIY a screen that’s a bonus. If you are going with self masking like Phil and I are doing there is no such thing as too large as there is nothing saying you have to fill it. Not being large enough is the real problem. I have found immersion tends to grow on people and with the resolution now there is nothing limiting you except your taste for it. New people to FP almost always underestimate the immersion they will like within 6 months of watching 2 movies a day compared to 2 movies a month at the theater. That’s a big part of why I did the PIA thing was my guests don’t watch it every day and when my sister and brother in law come over they say don’t you think that’s a little too big. It is great to easily make an adjustment and move us all back to the middle of the virtual theater. 

With today’s projectors the only real need of an A-lens IMO is for brightness as resolution is so good. With HDR being the push if that is important then maybe the lost lumens an A-lens will recover is logical. Depends so much on screen size and the projector. I like IMAX enough that I need enough brightness for that and if it covers IMAX I’m the same setting for scope. I don’t think the A-lens will ever die but it is way less in demand and factoring in the cost and now they are saying the older lens are not optically pure enough to do 4k justice. I just don’t know. 
@steve1106

It has been a while that we have talked my friend. 

Just over the last few years you and I have been talking about this stuff you are absolutely right. Media has changed so much and so many lines have been blurred. I watched a commercial last night that started out as 8:1 AR and slowly in real time expanded to scope then it started frame breaking into the black bars. It had as many AR tricks in 60 seconds as The life of Pi had in the whole movie. 

It is so great now to size up my content for what I’m watching in general and who I’m watching with and just sit back and enjoy whatever they throw at me. 

For sure there is TV now that is on par with movies and even IMAX movies. sure you can find a sequence in anything to take a snap shot and say see conventional TV framing. But I can search thru movies and do the same. 

Media is changing faster than people will adapt after all the push is to have everyone with an 85” TV they can afford right? Even TV immersion is on the uptake. 

When I saw Amazon producing IMAX movies showing them at IMAX and a week later there it is on Prime for me to watch, I know it is a changing world.


----------



## Philnick

*Bud,*

My Cream and Sugar Ultra screen paint is an 0.93 gain - which works great, even for 3D. Not as bright as the roll-down 1.0 screen you were thinking about, but pretty close, with the added benefits I described in my post.

The reason for tone-mapping is that the UHD (4K) disks are mastered assuming that the display can put out a lot more light than a projector can. Without tone mapping to reduce the total brightness range, either dark areas would have no visible detail or the highlights would end up completely blown-out, the photographer's term for flat white with no details left.

Until this fall, the answer for projector users was either computer software assisted tone-mapping or the Panasonic 4K players that have manual slider-based tone mapping that was developed in conjunction with JVC. The firmware upgrade to the projectors makes the player-based manual tone mapping unnecessary, and goes it one better by analyzing the actual brightness range of the incoming images to set the tone mapping on the fly.

I was about to buy a $1,000 Panny disk player for that, when JVC announced this free upgrade to their lamp-based native 4K projectors. (It doesn't apply to their less expensive e-shift models or their more expensive laser-based models.) That allowed me to stay with my Oppo UDP-203, saving me mucho bucks. 

As I had just been allowed by my JVC dealer to trade in the year-old e-shift JVC I'd bought but not unboxed (because of delays in building my theater) for credit against the native 4K model, the firmware update effectively made my upgrade $1,000 cheaper!

*Dennis,*

Your 2:1 screen idea is quite workable - with the JVC native 4K projectors, their imager's 17:9 actual aspect ratio is very close to that: 1.91:1. In their menus there's a setting called Aspect. When set to Auto it uses only the 16:9 area of the imager. When set to Zoom it enlarges the image to use the full width of the imager. The reason that's not the default setting is that it shaves off anything that extends above and below the imager. For scope films, that's just black bars, but for anything narrower than 1.91:1, that's picture being cut off.


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick

That was pretty much my understanding of the HDR function of 4K projectors as well and the reason I’m not in a big hurry to embrace 4k for at least a while. That and I’m pretty happy with my PQ and as I’m told all the time here ignorance is bliss. Maybe my eyes work different than others or I’m just not that susceptible to focusing on pixels or my seating distance is just right given my vision but I have to say BD 1080p still amazes me after all these years. Almost all my guests have UHD HDR TVs at home in the 55”-65” range and most watch streaming content and cable or satellite only and their reactions to movies here is amazing for me to see. So they are watching 4 times the size at half the distance with one quarter the pixels and maybe one fifth the brightness and likely one fourth the CR and they go on and on about the PQ and wishing they had this at home. 

Even our rental place in town Red Box has mostly DVD that are sold out and BD that I rent. It costs $1 DVD and $2 for BD for new releases. My movie buying has drastically went down over the last 2 years it has to be really something I want, but I mostly rent the BD or download and stream and then in 6 months when the price is half I will buy the BD. 

I know the future means change I’m just no longer an early adopter and this is a guy that owned the first VHS player recorder in our town and I paid 800 bucks for it when 800 bucks was about 5X what it is now. I will get there I’m sure in the next year or two. I would also go with a lighter screen like CnS if I didn’t like the ambient light abilities of the darker screen. The nice thing about a stealth wall screen is it can change in an afternoon if the next projector requires it.


----------



## Philnick

Actually, while I have an end-to-end 4K setup with HDR, when I play a standard 1080p Blu-ray it looks just about as good, which is why I'd rather watch the 3D 1080p SDR version of a movie than the 2D 4K HDR version! [Shh!]

The Oppos have always been champion upscalers.

I'm happy doing this particularly since my AVR (a Yamaha RX-A3070, from a few years ago) lets me use DTS' Neural:X upscaling to derive "ceiling speaker" channels from 5.1 and 7.1 soundtracks even from Dolby-encoded films. (I find Neural:X clearer-sounding than the Dolby Surround Upscaler.)


----------



## Dennis Moore

HDR stuff is definitely not completely sorted out... but the difference between an SDR film and its HDR version, when properly tone-mapped with MadVR, is night and day. I will go HDR whenever I can, and imagine that it will only improve as the software stuff gets figured out.

Attaching two pictures to demonstrate... you can guess which file is which.


----------



## Dennis Moore

And you're right... bigger is always better. I just don't know how much bigger than 60" tall I can go.


----------



## Philnick

*Dennis*, when you take into account that jpegs shown on computer screens are not HDR but are SDR, anything jpegs on this forum can show us on standard monitors can be encoded onto rec.709 (SDR) Blu-rays - so while the second image is clearly superior, it's just as valid to say that the first is clearly sub-par.

JPEGs use 8 bit numbers to express the brightness of each of the three primary colors, while the 10 in HDR10 signifies the use of 10 bit numbers.

Each bit represents a doubling of the brightness range for that primary, so the jump from 8 to 10 bits means a a quadrupling. Multipled by 3 primaries, that means 4 cubed, or 64 times the color range. 

8 bit numbers top out at 256. 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 colors

10 bit numbers top out at 1024. 1024 x 1024 x 1024 = 1,073,741,824 colors

Or in other words, HDR can capture a billion colors instead of jpeg's sixteen and three-quarter million.

No projector - or any other output device - is capable of showing a billion colors - tone mapping shrinks the total brightness range for each color down to what it can handle, which is probably still within what jpeg can handle.

The same thing is true of color printers - and as a photographer who shoots RAW - which uses 12 bit numbers, for 68,719,476,736 (nearly 69 billion) colors! - the reason to capture with such a wide gamut is to avoid having your sensor's output overload the encoder's range. When it comes to creating output photos, you're choosing a subset of the color values (or squeezing the range) down to what your output device can handle. 

The same is true of audio recording. Studios record using 24 bit numbers so they can run their mikes hot to avoid having the music having to contend with circuit hiss - without exceeding what their equipment can record. When it comes to mixing it down, they use a much more limited dynamic range that's easily contained within what a CD's 16 bits can handle.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Those are screen grabs straight from the player... it's how they look when projected. The first image is an SDR rip. The second image is an HDR rip.

MadVR converts HDR to SDR.


----------



## Philnick

Dennis Moore said:


> Those are screen grabs straight from the player... it's how they look when projected. The first image is an SDR rip. The second image is an HDR rip.
> 
> MadVR converts HDR to SDR.


Exactly what I was saying. The Blu-ray was simply encoded too dim. Blu-ray is certainly capable of containing the SDR output of MadVR. 

The only thing Blu-ray can't do is match the raw detail of a 4K camera - but since most 4K disks use 2K (i.e. 1920 - 1080's horizontal resolution) "internegatives" in the editing process, most UHD disks are upscaled to 4K just like Blu-rays can be by a good 4K system.

Therefore, QED: A well-made Blu-ray can look as good as most UHD disks.


----------



## Philnick

Dennis Moore said:


> And you're right... bigger is always better. I just don't know how much bigger than 60" tall I can go.


I actually have 11 and a half feet of horizontal wall space to project onto and an 8' high ceiling, but throwing up the focus grid, which shows the entire 17:9 area, I noticed funny stuff happening at the bottom of the image, which I quickly realized was the shadow of my hair, with me sitting on the couch!

So, since I already had the top of the image right below the ceiling, the only choice was to shrink the image a hair. (I can never resist making that joke!) 

That's how I ended up with an image area 5' 10" (70") tall by 11' wide. 
2.35:1 films are zoomed to 4' 8" tall by 11' wide.
16:9 films are shown 5'10" tall by 10' 4" wide.


----------



## bud16415

I’m bald and it’s not so bad. Given the loss of screen area or shaving my head I would take it off.. 

Your description of SDR HDR reminds me of in DVD days the movie would have a promo for HD BD. It always looked so much more vibrant than the rest of the DVD and I always thought Huh it looks that good coming off a DVD. Fast forward I rented a BD a while back and there was the promo for 4K HDR and guess what it looked amazing on the BD. 

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in all of this. There are 1080p projectors that “do” 4k HDR. Too many variables and not enough equations I think.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Philnick said:


> Exactly what I was saying. The Blu-ray was simply encoded too dim. Blu-ray is certainly capable of containing the SDR output of MadVR.
> 
> The only thing Blu-ray can't do is match the raw detail of a 4K camera - but since most 4K disks use 2K (i.e. 1920 - 1080's horizontal resolution) "internegatives" in the editing process, most UHD disks are upscaled to 4K just like Blu-rays can be by a good 4K system.
> 
> Therefore, QED: A well-made Blu-ray can look as good as most UHD disks.


Maybe this one was too dim... but I could pull up similar comparisons for any HDR title. They can't all be "encoded too dim."

Whether or not the data is truly 4K (these certainly aren't, as my PC resolution is 1080) is irrelevant, I think?


----------



## bud16415

Dennis Moore said:


> Maybe this one was too dim... but I could pull up similar comparisons for any HDR title. They can't all be "encoded too dim."
> 
> Whether or not the data is truly 4K (these certainly aren't, as my PC resolution is 1080) is irrelevant, I think?


I’m far from an expert on this matter, but it seems to me HDR is a signal that a projector doesn’t have the range to properly replicate. So processing is employed where someone figures out a way to change the information to try and give detail where detail would other wise be clipped. These type of things are always subjective to how good the correcting device is and how much we like the way it works. 

When HDR first hit the market there was all this talk about nits and how to be properly displayed I would need 1000 or 5000 nits capability to really make it work like it does in a flat panel TV. My thoughts were but I’m sitting in a bat cave because I understand that’s how I get blacks and how I get a film-like experience and that is what I want I don’t want a 100+ inch super bright flat panel blinding me in the bat cave. I was told the nits are only for small highlights and all I saw was that then driving down the efficiency as I need to block all this brightness most of the time except when I need it for a highlight. Then I started hearing about tone mapping instead of brightness. I still don’t totally understand the objective in terms of projectors. 

For me there are two methods of making brightness one being lumens and the other being my eyes iris opening more and I perceive brightness. I have always liked my projectors set up a little on the hot side or at least the ability to come off eco mode for a brightness bump for some content. Movies I like at the classic levels around 12 FL in a pitch black setting. As long as my eyes and brain perceive the brightest levels I ever see in real life in the illusion of projection I don’t really get where I’m losing much. I get how it works in a bright living room with a flat panel HDR device. 

I’m sure I’m wrong as I don’t read anyone else thinking this and all I hear is how amazing tone mapped HDR looks.


----------



## Dennis Moore

It does look amazing.

My projector isn't a light cannon, but when properly configured to dynamically tone-map an HDR source, it looks like a totally different projector. It has nothing to do with nits anymore... it's all about tailoring the source material to fit the display.

As for making brightness... I guess you could say the difference here is that HDR sources make the brightness, and tone-mapping it to your projector's capabilities creates a noticeable difference. Your eyes see things the same, but there is a wider range between white and black in HDR than there is in SDR, basically.


----------



## bud16415

Dennis Moore said:


> It does look amazing.
> 
> My projector isn't a light cannon, but when properly configured to dynamically tone-map an HDR source, it looks like a totally different projector. It has nothing to do with nits anymore... it's all about tailoring the source material to fit the display.
> 
> As for making brightness... I guess you could say the difference here is that HDR sources make the brightness, and tone-mapping it to your projector's capabilities creates a noticeable difference. Your eyes see things the same, but there is a wider range between white and black in HDR than there is in SDR, basically.


I’m with you there has to be improvement everyone is talking about it. It just seems to me there are all these intermediate steps when for years all I did was take a projector out of the box and feed it a BD and it pretty much looked perfect. Now we need to invoke a filter cut light output and then reprocess the feed and hire a calibrator and it looks more perfect. 

I get one BD and it looks not so hot and the next one I swear it is 8k super HDR or something. A lot of it is maybe done for effect and some is just poorly done I think. 

Bottom line is if it’s a major improvement to your eyes then it is all good. I think this kind of stuff also keeps getting better as time rolls on and also gets more baked into the equipment to where it is plug n play.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Right... it's definitely the wild west right now. I think this kinda stuff will just get integrated as time goes on.


----------



## Dennis Moore

This is a good read, if you're curious:

http://cine4home.de/dynamisches-hdr-bei-heimkinobeamern-ein-user-event-schafft-endlich-klarheit/


----------



## steve1106

bud16415 said:


> Bottom line is if it’s a major improvement to your eyes then it is all good. I think this kind of stuff also keeps getting better as time rolls on and also gets more baked into the equipment to where it is plug n play.


Bud, based on my limited experience with 4K for 44 hours I think "plug and play" is out the window with my entry level faux 4K projector. Unlike the old 1080p which I set up, dialed in quickly and enjoyed, the 4K"ish" girl needs a bit more attention to get her to purr. When fed 4K she is good to go, anything think below quality "HD" and she is finicky in regards to color/tint, artifacts appearing, black levels/shadow detail and sharpness. I've already ended up using 5 of the ten memory spots for settings trying to adjust the projector for different "quality" content. This isn't even addressing flaws with my wall/screen that are suddenly noticeable with 4K"ish" but never popped up during 7 years of 1080p.

Next is equipment. A new true 4K player had to be purchased to enjoy 4K disks and 4K streaming. Now I'm starting to think my AVRs 4K pass thru might be a bottleneck to getting all the performance out of faux 4K. The other thing is the 4K data requirements. Between my steaming all the 4K I can and the three other people in the house using the internet along with everything else on the "home" network, the 4K streaming overwhelms what is available. While I'm sure for a price I can improve the "net speed" in my home and grab a AVR (Atmos would be nice), it is a bit of a "plug and play" letdown. 

Now I have yet to sample one of my 4K disks instead sampling 4K via Amazon, Netflix, YouTube and enhanced blu-rays. The little pj is another light cannon so I'm hoping it will not appear "dim" and if it does I can crank up the pj's light out put. 

Still the 4K experience has turned me into a addict after only a week, but I do miss the "plug and play" aspect of my other projectors. I need to get more 4K content. It just makes regular cable's "HD" seem so much less now. I equate it to watching an old DVD vs a blu-ray. I can do it but....


----------



## Philnick

Dennis Moore said:


> This is a good read, if you're curious:
> 
> http://cine4home.de/dynamisches-hdr-bei-heimkinobeamern-ein-user-event-schafft-endlich-klarheit/


Is there an English language version, or will I have to become "fluent in Google Translate" as Doctor Strange said in his first film? (Great film, BTW, and one of the all time best special effects films, particularly in 3D.)


----------



## Dennis Moore

Philnick said:


> Is there an English language version, or will I have to become "fluent in Google Translate" as Doctor Strange said? (Great film, BTW, and one of the all time best special effects films, particularly in 3D.)


Just have Google translate it. It translates very well.


----------



## bud16415

steve1106 said:


> Bud, based on my limited experience with 4K for 44 hours I think "plug and play" is out the window with my entry level faux 4K projector. Unlike the old 1080p which I set up, dialed in quickly and enjoyed, the 4K"ish" girl needs a bit more attention to get her to purr. When fed 4K she is good to go, anything think below quality "HD" and she is finicky in regards to color/tint, artifacts appearing, black levels/shadow detail and sharpness. I've already ended up using 5 of the ten memory spots for settings trying to adjust the projector for different "quality" content. This isn't even addressing flaws with my wall/screen that are suddenly noticeable with 4K"ish" but never popped up during 7 years of 1080p.
> 
> Next is equipment. A new true 4K player had to be purchased to enjoy 4K disks and 4K streaming. Now I'm starting to think my AVRs 4K pass thru might be a bottleneck to getting all the performance out of faux 4K. The other thing is the 4K data requirements. Between my steaming all the 4K I can and the three other people in the house using the internet along with everything else on the "home" network, the 4K streaming overwhelms what is available. While I'm sure for a price I can improve the "net speed" in my home and grab a AVR (Atmos would be nice), it is a bit of a "plug and play" letdown.
> 
> Now I have yet to sample one of my 4K disks instead sampling 4K via Amazon, Netflix, YouTube and enhanced blu-rays. The little pj is another light cannon so I'm hoping it will not appear "dim" and if it does I can crank up the pj's light out put.
> 
> Still the 4K experience has turned me into a addict after only a week, but I do miss the "plug and play" aspect of my other projectors. I need to get more 4K content. It just makes regular cable's "HD" seem so much less now. I equate it to watching an old DVD vs a blu-ray. I can do it but....


Steve in a way and you know my MO as well as anyone here and my reluctance to forge ahead with the next technology. In this case I’m actually thinking ignorance is bliss. 

Thinking back when I was at 720p and downscaling BD and upscaling DVD it was a pretty good happy place for quality at the time. I saw a little downside to DVD when I went to 1080p and when you think about 4k and a really big screen size sitting close that’s a hell of a lot of data to try and invent and doing it even from 1080 to 4k has to be a taxing task. Not to mention trying to change the data from SDR to HDR. 

All this is in part about my PIA as sometimes scaling back the immersion can make lemonade out of lemons. 

I always remember our conversations about how amazing we felt some of the now old really poor by today’s standards of resolution were back then. I know our eyes haven’t improved it’s more like our expectations have improved. I still go to a commercial movie now and then and it still makes me really happy when I fire up my theater. For me the enjoyment has always mostly been in the content. I guess I’m happy I see it that way.


----------



## Philnick

I guess I just lucked out with my first 4K projector, since JVC's current true 4K lamp-based projectors _are_ pretty much plug and play, once you have this fall's firmware in place and set them to frame-by-frame or scene-by-scene Dynamic Tone Mapping for HDR, which relies not on the metadata coming with the image but on the content of the image itself to do the tone mapping, which is, in essence "contrast scaling." 

You don't need the tone mapping done by the Panasonic players or by MadVR or Lumagen - unless you just _love_ to tweak.

The only tweak I've made, since I have a big, low gain (0.93) screen, is that on the projector's DTM setup screen I selected "High" instead of Auto, Medium, or Low. 

That makes the image a bit brighter. 

These days, 0.93 gain is considered low - most of the folks in the forum on those projectors use 1.3 gain screens, which concentrate the light into a narrower viewing area, and make the choice of 3D glasses more critical, because those screens preserve the projector's polarization - and some glasses are polarized horizontally and some vertically. 

JVC used to be an outlier, using the opposite polarization from everyone else, but with these models they fell into line - so the glasses that worked with the older JVCs will yield a dimmer image. With my painted screen this isn't an issue, as my screen disperses the polarization, so both orientations work equally well.


----------



## Philnick

Today I started experimenting with my projector's Installation Modes (setup memories). (It can save 10 setups.)

I'll call my original setup "16:9." I'll use the 16:9 setting for IMAX variable aspect ratio films and anything narrower than 1.91:1.

I cloned my setup to the second line - which I'll call "SCOPE" - and I set the projector's motorized optical zoom to its widest setting (though it was already most of the way there) and I turned on its digital "Zoom" setting in the "Aspect" setting, which further enlarges the image, to use the full width of the projector's 17:9 imager. (A bit of the letterbox bars get shaved off as they extend off the top and bottom of the imager, which is why I can't use that setting for 16:9 material - it would shave off image.)

Then I used the projector's motorized Shift control to move the top of the scope image up to the ceiling to once again make sure it clears my hair. I'll fine tune this alignment using Stanley Kubrick's _2001_, shot in 2.20:1, that tallest of scope formats.

I can switch between all of these settings as a named group - 16:9 versus SCOPE - by just changing from one preset to the other. 

It's actually fewer steps than just toggling the digital zoom on or off, because the mode choice is the field you land in when you get to the page to make either change.

I may end up with an ACIH setup (A for Almost - at least for 2.20:1). I'll have to measure.

Doing some arithmetic, I may end up with an 11' 6" by 5' 3" Kubrick image, and an 11' 6" by 4' 11" 2.35:1 image, versus a 10' 4" by 5' 10" 16:9 image. 

Not really CIH, but at least closer, and the scope formats will be over a foot wider than 16:9. Certainly not CIW!

Another benefit of this: My projector disables the digital zoom when in 3D, but with the lens zoom of the SCOPE setup, 3D scope films will be almost as wide (10' 10") as digitally-zoomed scope films were in my original setup (11').


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick

Very cool. It sounds like you are in exactly the right thread here. 

My method of zooming now is all done mechanically with sliding and lowering the projector at the same time. Eventually I might start marking my slide with a pointer and making presets. It is really fun to just watch the image change though and stop when it feels correct. 

ACIH I will have to add that one to the name of the thread.


----------



## Philnick

Dennis Moore said:


> This is a good read, if you're curious:
> 
> http://cine4home.de/dynamisches-hdr-bei-heimkinobeamern-ein-user-event-schafft-endlich-klarheit/


I read it last night. It's pretty strong advocacy for madVR.

I thought about it until I realized that it's a very expensive path to go - either build a rig suitable for gaming to devote to madVR or buy their upcoming standalone device - and pricing is not even quoted, which brings to mind the old expression "if you have to ask, you can't afford it."

I'm happy enough with my JVC RS1000's built-in dynamic frame-by-frame tone mapping that I'll pass on madVR.


----------



## Philnick

Just did the math on the NASA plot in the first post in this thread. 

17:13 works out to - wait for it - 1.307:1, narrower even than 1.33:1 classic "Academy" format movies and TV, which were shaped like an old proscenium arch theatrical stage! 

It seems that each new technology apes the preceding one until it reaches adolescence and moves past it. It took a while to progress beyond filmed stage shows to the "you are there" approach of modern film.

Even the Oppo Blu-ray players prior to their UHD models show a picture of a vinyl LP being played by a tonearm _while they play digital music_.

Part of what held back surround music recording (in addition to the format war between DVD-Audio and SACD disks, both now supplanted by Blu-ray and downloads) was the objection of traditionalists to placing the instruments all around the listener (with the greater clarity that makes possible) - they wanted to reproduce the experience of sitting in an auditorium with the musicians in the front of the room, relegating the surround speakers to reproducing room reflection. (Maybe throw in the sound of an occasional snack being unwrapped a few feet away, a coughing neighbor, or even a nudgy infant?)

Don't hold your breath for full-length IMAX versions of dramatic films, however, since I've heard that a major reason for the shift to scope aspect when indoors - along with the stylistic reason - is that IMAX cameras are relatively unwieldy and hard to maneuver indoors.


----------



## Dennis Moore

Philnick said:


> I read it last night. It's pretty strong advocacy for madVR.
> 
> I thought about it until I realized that it's a very expensive path to go - either build a rig suitable for gaming to devote to madVR or buy their upcoming standalone device - and pricing is not even quoted, which brings to mind the old expression "if you have to ask, you can't afford it."
> 
> I'm happy enough with my JVC RS1000's built-in dynamic frame-by-frame tone mapping that I'll pass on madVR.


If you've got the right projector (you do) and you are satisfied... of course you're fine.

Personally, I can't imagine NOT using a PC... being able to save, back up, and play all my media through one device is great. And with the right setup and GPU, madVR can do so many cool things. Total cost for my HTPC setup was about $400... it's a small box that looks like a receiver, connected to external hard drives inside my media cabinet. Very clean and simple. But I'm at the bare minimum for 4K playback... will probably have to upgrade the GPU if I ever get a 4K projector. But by then, the high end cards will be cheaper, so. The only caveat is that it only works with a handful of players, and getting everything precisely how you want it can be some tedious trial and error (it gives you 'tweakitis') but oh well. The standalone device is said to be upwards of six figures... I'm sure it will be amazing, but not in my cards, especially since the software is free.


----------



## Philnick

*Tip for charging 3D glasses*

Since I now have four pairs of 3D glasses (my couch holds four folks), I had to figure out how to keep them charged.

They come with USB charging cables - so I did an experiment with my PC. Plugging in a set of glasses did not make it chime, and no new device - known or unknown - showed up in the list, so they didn't appear to make a data connection, just a power connection.

I have two USB Jacks on the back of my Oppo, and one each on my projector and cable box. None of them gave any indication that they noticed that I had plugged the glasses into them, though the charging light lit up on each pair of glasses.

In addition to saving space and outlets, this also saves power, since most AC to DC converters consume more power than they put out to their client devices - and consume that power even when the client isn't attached.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> Steve in a way and you know my MO as well as anyone here and my reluctance to forge ahead with the next technology. In this case I’m actually thinking ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Thinking back when I was at 720p and downscaling BD and upscaling DVD it was a pretty good happy place for quality at the time. I saw a little downside to DVD when I went to 1080p and when you think about 4k and a really big screen size sitting close that’s a hell of a lot of data to try and invent and doing it even from 1080 to 4k has to be a taxing task. Not to mention trying to change the data from SDR to HDR.
> 
> All this is in part about my PIA as sometimes scaling back the immersion can make lemonade out of lemons.
> 
> I always remember our conversations about how amazing we felt some of the now old really poor by today’s standards of resolution were back then. I know our eyes haven’t improved it’s more like our expectations have improved. I still go to a commercial movie now and then and it still makes me really happy when I fire up my theater. For me the enjoyment has always mostly been in the content. I guess I’m happy I see it that way.


I stayed with my 1080p Panasonic PT-AE2000 for ten years, from the summer after Blu-ray won the format war against HD-DVD in February 2008 until I dismantled my theater in the summer of 2018, only going to a JVC because I was rebuilding my theater with a bigger screen area that the Panasonic woudn't have enough oomph to fill.

I initially bought their entry-level e-shift projector because the price of the true 4K model was out of reach.

And then a year's delay in construction and a sympathetic dealer allowed me to trade in the still-unopened e-shift model for 75% of what I had paid for it towards the entry-level true 4K machine.

And then the introduction of their dynamic tone mapping by free firmware update to the projector saved me from buying a $1,000 tone-mapping Panasonic - letting me use for HDR disks the Oppo UDP-203 I had bought last year as they left the business of making players, effectively reducing the cost of the projector upgrade by that $1,000. (I would have kept the Oppo regardless, since there are things it does in terms of network play of surround music that the Panny might not have done.)


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> I stayed with my 1080p Panasonic PT-AE2000 for ten years, from the summer after Blu-ray won the format war against HD-DVD in February 2008 until I dismantled my theater in the summer of 2018, only going to a JVC because I was rebuilding my theater with a bigger screen area that the Panasonic woudn't have enough oomph to fill.
> 
> I initially bought their entry-level e-shift projector because the price of the true 4K model was out of reach.
> 
> And then a year's delay in construction and a sympathetic dealer allowed me to trade in the still-unopened e-shift model for 75% of what I had paid for it towards the entry-level true 4K machine.
> 
> And then the introduction of their dynamic tone mapping by free firmware update to the projector saved me from buying a $1,000 tone-mapping Panasonic - letting me use for HDR disks the Oppo UDP-203 I had bought last year as they left the business of making players, effectively reducing the cost of the projector upgrade by that $1,000. (I would have kept the Oppo regardless, since there are things it does in terms of network play of surround music that the Panny might not have done.)



This is the evolution projectors need to keep undergoing. Being able to update firmware as they figure out better ways of processing is going to be great. 

There are so many features IMO they should have built into projectors like this. Scaling control is another I’m hoping they get. The cheap little projector I have now allows for 4way independent corner stretching. Even though I don’t use it and understand all these things degrade the quality a little it is an amazing feature to have and I could even see using it with a curved screen. They put it on my projector and then the replacement when they discontinued mine has none of it. 

Digital shift I had on my first projector an XGA DLP Sharp XR10X I could raise and lower a flat or scope image in the 4:3 frame. The projector I have now has the feature but for some stupid reason they limit you to 10 pixels is all. 

When I’m looking for a projector it is like there are a hundred things I look at and now I will be adding tone mapping built in. 

Every DLP has a different color wheel configuration and TI 10 years ago reported how the additional secondary colors was supposed to widen the gamut. There are 100s of DLP with alternate wheels but none of them do anything except make higher claimed lumens and worse color palette. 

Bottom line is they keep getting better so that’s what counts.


----------



## Philnick

My JVC has 100% vertical shift and probably as much horizontally - with the proviso that the more you use on one axis the less is available on the other. This is not digital but actually an optical shift - much like the "rising and falling back" cameras used for architectural photography, so you can take picture of a tall building without tilting the camera and distorting the building's shape. What makes this work is that the lens and imager (or film or sensor, in the case of a camera) are kept parallel.

I had to mount it low enough to so its image isn't blocked by a support beam a foot deep running across the width of the ceiling halfway to the screen (which means the projector is actually just about vertically centered on the image!), and I could position the projector only a foot to the left of the middle of the room horizontally, so I have most of the shift available in both planes. 

Since both lens zoom and shift controls (as well as focus) are motorized and memorizable, does that count as "scaling"?

And while I've never used it, I've noticed chatter in the forum on this series of machines saying that it can also mask off the black bars if you need it to, though I don't know how customizable that is.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> My JVC has 100% vertical shift and probably as much horizontally - with the proviso that the more you use on one axis the less is available on the other. This is not digital but actually an optical shift - much like the "rising and falling back" cameras used for architectural photography, so you can take picture of a tall building without tilting the camera and distorting the building's shape. What makes this work is that the lens and imager (or film or sensor, in the case of a camera) are kept parallel.
> 
> I had to mount it low enough to so its image isn't blocked by a support beam a foot deep running across the width of the ceiling halfway to the screen (which means the projector is actually just about vertically centered on the image!), and I could position the projector only a foot to the left of the middle of the room horizontally, so I have most of the shift available in both planes.
> 
> Since both lens zoom and shift controls (as well as focus) are motorized and memorizable, does that count as "scaling"?
> 
> And while I've never used it, I've noticed chatter in the forum on this series of machines saying that it can also mask off the black bars if you need it to, though I don't know how customizable that is.


Yes I would call it “scaling” and the best kind is optical over digital IMO. Although digital is closing the gap as resolution keeps getting higher. My thoughts are sometime geared to trying to give newcomers with limited budgets a way to work around and still get advanced presentation methods if they can do some easy DIY solutions. 

For 3 years I had a cheap projector that’s throw length was a bit long for my room and desired screen size and I started off experimenting with a mirror as a way of extending the image against my stealth screen wall. I mounted the projector backwards and just like you I had some background in photography and quickly figured out the mirror angle and projector angle worked much like a view camera where I could twist the focal plane and in effect produce my own optical image shift much like the expensive projectors had. I even had my mirror hinge around the topside and had an adjusting screw on the bottom and I could dial in image shift. The entire spill light from that projector came out the front and turning it around the spill went to the back wall and CR was brought up turning it backwards. I then set out putting a steel frame around the mirror and making flat black masking panels for the mirror that were attached with magnets for 4-way masking away from the screen to block even more light spill from the room and kill any chance of seeing black bars on the screen. Because the mirror/masking wasn’t at the focal point the masking edge was fuzzy so I held it back just enough that the edge of the gradient was just outside the image edge. I was doing this and using the projectors small zoom and I also incorporated a slide into the projectors mounting distance to increase the zoom range to give me my early version of DIY PIA. It worked great but before I did a proper showing I had to fiddle around for 15 minutes or so setting it up and that I came to find was 14.5 minutes more than I wanted to do. The other only really minor drawback and it was something I was the only one that saw it was a cheap 2nd surface mirror and even some good 1st surface mirrors produce very slight banding that shows up when the whole screen is a solid color. When I finally found a projector that was cheap and had a shorter throw I switched to my inclined slide non-mirror method. I fully thought I would have to at least refocus when changing the throw length but to my surprise with the smaller optics I had a DOF enough to not have to touch anything over full zoom. 

Some people really miss the mirror setup and they often ask why did you go away from that sighting the cool factor of the setup. I guess they don’t see a cool factor in my slide rig. Of course it would be nice to sit and do it from my remote with preset selections. Or doing it with digital scaling from my HTPC is also cool. I have thought about a motor drive for the slide but it is so simple to move with the counterbalance weight I haven’t worked on it anymore. 

If you are doing good without selecting the self masking feature in the projector for black bar elimination I wouldn’t use it also. Most the people that use it have CIH screens and the over shoot of the black bars to the wall behind the screen is the issue. They turn it on and then have issues with some movies putting sub titles down there. I actually like the subs in the black bars as to on the screen I think the CR in the text is easier to read and I can read faster with it consistent. Plus it leaves the image alone. Others say it distracts looking the extra distance. As to something I still might build and try would be a slider or wheel that has blinders that sit a few inches in front of the projector for scope movies to kill some of the stray light 

The nice thing about your low angle is you are getting max benefit of your screen in many ways. I always liked a low angle like that for a high depressive screen . If you had more gain you would likely start hot spotting quicker.


----------



## Philnick

When I set up my very first projector in 2002, a 640x480 Dell DLP projector designed for PowerPoint presentations, but which was compatible with 480p from a progressive scan DVD player, I had to deal with a 10% grey box it threw up around the whole image.

So I got some flat black cardboard from an artists supply store to frame the 640x480 image. The 10% grey border didn't show up on that black cardboard.

Before I even got to that point however, I had tried to use large 4'x8" drymount boards as the screen.

That was a total failure, since they not only hot-spotted but were curved, and since I needed more height than 4', taping across the seam of two of them didn't look good either.

So I used some plumbing parts to construct a rectangular frame and stretched photographers' background paper (which comes in very wide rolls) across the frame.

That would look good for a few hours, but the tape holding the paper would soon weaken and it would sag. Re-tighten it and it would sag again.

That's the point at which I discovered the Cream and Sugar screen paint recipe at Home Theater Shack. (It even sidestepped the DLP "rainbow" effect that the shiny drymount boards allowed.)

I've now painted screens with it three times (the second time being to repair the screen after my wife fell against it holding a black barbell in one hand, at which point the recipe had morphed to the Ultra formulation using Valspar). 

The thread about that recipe is pretty much dead, so I downloaded the key info last year so I would have it this year when I finished re-building my theater. This time I turned the room layout 90 degrees for a longer throw onto a different wall, increasing my screen width (_not_ diagonal) from 9' 6" to 11' 6" which is a screen _area_ nearly 50% larger - motivating me to get a brighter and much more capable projector. (A multiple of over 1.21 in each dimension, squared)

Cream and Sugar has served me well through three projectors, from seven years with the 480p portable Dell to a decade with the 1080p Panasonic PT-AE2000 model and now since last fall with my new true 4K JVC DLA RS1000 (also known as the DLA N5 and NX5 - go figure!).

Last night, for a birthday celebration, I showed my wife and the couple who are our best friends the 3D Blu-ray of _Avatar_.

Outstanding. But for "ultimate special effects film" I nominate the 3D version of _Doctor Strange_, which is also the only VAR version of that film.


----------



## bud16415

I didn’t get going till 2006 but was helping a friend around 2002 with a 480 projector. When I got started was on a whim at SAMs club the had an XGA 1024x768 sharp business projector / crossover for 800 bucks and I said what the heck. Zero research was done got it home ironed a king size bed sheet and hung it in the basement with a PVC pipe for a weight bar at the bottom. Set up two old speakers and a stereo amp and a DVD player and 4 lawn chairs and in two hours I had home theater. We watched that thing for a month non stop and the PQ was really amazing. It hung about a foot off the wall and one day I noticed the picture on the back was as good as the one on the front side of the sheet. I thought half my lumens or more are going to waste. I built my first screen with canvas stretched over a self tensioning wood frame I designed it had bolts that forced heavy die springs to push all 4 sides out constantly. I painted the big 6’x8’ canvas just like Jackson Pollock would have done for a surface to paint on. I used it as white for a while and started studying neutral grays and gain etc and ended up painting it a Munsell 7-8 gray with just a smidgen of sheen beyond Lambertian reflectance. That was at my old house and the screen is still hanging in that basement as tight and flat as the day I made it. I would take it as it’s been offered but I would have to pull about a 1000 staples to get it apart and up the stairs. At that time 1024x768 was considered the first of HD resolutions and it was when I found of all the factors that go into FP resolution was only one small factor. A member here on AVS happened to live in the same town and he just bought one of the first 1080p projectors and asked if he could bring it over and test it on my screen. I agreed and he came over and we rigged his projector just below mine on a tripod and we could swap cables between the two. I had the DVD of (A River Runs Through it) that has some breathtaking images and I suggested we watch mine first we were watching on my 120” screen a 110” image and my seating was 14’ that seemed close in those days. He watched my sharp play it for about 20 minutes and was blown away by the light canon and the vivid colors off the gray screen. we switched over to his 1080p and it kind of lacked the lumens to really pop the gray screen and I remember going up to the screen and commenting look how small these pixels are trying to make him feel better. we tried a bunch of settings and he said who cares about pixels I can’t see them on ether projector from where we sit. He actually then hooked mine back up and then his again. I told him he needed a 1.3 white screen if going as big as mine and that’s what he did. We used to talk about “pop” a lot on the forum long before HDR was a term. I figured that sharp was doing about 30 FL and at least 20 FL was getting back to our eyes. So kind of a poor mans HDR and something really different than what we all were used to in commercial theaters. 

Avatar is a great visual movie to show 2D or 3D and the IMAX framing is great. I haven’t seen Doctor Strange but it is now on my 3D list to get.


----------



## Philnick

Just re-jiggered my "stealth" screen sizes. 

I had initially standardized on a 16:9 grid size of 10' 4" wide by 5' 9.75" tall to avoid my hair shadowing the bottom of the image. That setting (excuse me, "Installation Mode"), which doesn't use any digital zoom ("Aspect: Auto"), is now my "IMAX Small" setting, to use when I have a tall friend over, to avoid hair shadows. 

I've since found that by moving my couch back a few inches I can use my maximum optical zoom size for a 16:9 image 10' 8" wide by 6' 1.2" tall. That's now my standard "IMAX Large" setting, which still foregoes the digital zoom.

The projector actually has an imager that's not 16:9 but 17:9 and shows grid lines for both sizes when in focus, zoom, and shift modes, with an inner pair of verticals for the 16:9 box. 

I've set up a new "SCOPE" setting that uses the maximum optical zoom (like in IMAX Large) but also uses the digital zoom ("Aspect: Zoom") which rescales the incoming 16:9 image by enlarging it in both directions by 1/16th (6.25%) to use the full width of the panel, for a 17:9 grid 11' 4.375" wide by 6' 1.2" tall.

That shaves off 3.125% (2.2875") at the top and bottom of the incoming image, which is fine for scope films, where that's just part of the black bars anyway.

The resulting image height for scope films varies from 5' 2" for 2.20:1 Kubrick (_2001_) aspect ratio to 4' 9" for 2.40:1. (A 2.35:1 image would be 4' 10" high.)

When my projector is in 3D mode, the digital zoom doesn't work, so the image uses the 16:9 area of that grid, which is 10' 8" wide, so 3D scope films' heights range from 4' 5.333" for 2.40:1 films to 4' 6.47" for 2.35 to 4' 10.18" for 2.20:1 (_2001_).


----------



## bud16415

Have been seeing a lot of interesting commercials in all kinds of ARs lately.

Here is one with every cinematography trick in the book compressed into one minute. Changing AR in real time, frame breaking, using the negative space for sub titles. Etc etc. 

It has been done in movies before but my guess is with the ease of digital movie making we will be seeing more of this stuff brought into IMAX content even. 

Check it out. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ZpsW/fasenra-bigger-life


----------



## Philnick

Cool seeing objects breaking the frame - at the price of reducing the image to a very short scope aspect ratio.

A lot better than the cardinal sin of 3D of having dangerous objects flying off the screen towards the viewer but then just disappearing harmlessly - which takes me right out of the movie.

After hating 3D in theaters, I've gotten enamored with 3D with my new setup, particularly as some 3D films preserve VAR while the UHD versions are pure scope (like _Black Panther_, _Captain Marvel_ and _Doctor Strange_). It turns out that modern CGI-heavy films can be converted by the studios to 3D very well, since all the objects in the film are already separate and can thus be readily placed at different distances in producing the 3D version - there's no need to mask individual objects frame-by-frame out of a flat original in order to do this.

My Yamaha AVR's DTS Neural:X does a great job of upconverting soundtracks to use the overhead speakers, so I play the 3D versions in preference to the pure scope UHD versions.


----------



## bud16415

I’m also a fan of 3D and I was very late coming to it as I no sooner got my glasses and AVS pronounced 3D dead. I say never say never as you mentioned in this digital world now stuff like 3D may just be simple enough to do and more impressive than ever before. 

In my old house with the mini IMAX setup I had a wall I made covered in thin shelves holding about 1000 DVDs in the cases. I had just got my two 12” subs made and hooked them to an old Carver amp that really had some punch. I had my nephew and brother in law over for the first Iron Man movie and it was going pretty good until Iron Man made his first suit and blasted out of prison. Those subs slammed and caused a shock wave in the room that caused all the 1000 DVDs to become airborne and rain down on my brother in law. At the same time my screen shook and the image looked to be throwing harmless rocks at us. He got up and said this is ridicules no one needs this realism and left. 

As to the frame breaking I love how it was done in The Life of Pi and a few others and without a large enough screen area you can’t enjoy these effects and still have the immersion. 

The more I study cinematography and how it is changing and evolving over time. I’m learning to love all ARs as an artistic tool and how the negative space is used in conjunction with the framing. This little TV commercial points out how infinitely narrow a AR can be in telling a story with the vantage point moved far enough back. There is no right or wrong about the extra head room in modern dual IMAX/scope crops it is really the directors intent and I would hope more directors wont just make open matte IMAX versions just to pander to IMAX as some here say they do. 

I also wouldn’t mind seeing more directors play with the slow transfer between ARs when it suits the movie.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> I had my nephew and brother in law over for the first Iron Man movie and it was going pretty good until Iron Man made his first suit and blasted out of prison. Those subs slammed and caused a shock wave in the room that caused all the 1000 DVDs to become airborne and rain down on my brother in law. At the same time my screen shook and the image looked to be throwing harmless rocks at us. He got up and said this is ridicules no one needs this realism and left


Reminds me of the scene near the beginning of the first _Back to the Future _film, where Marty McFly plugs his guitar into Doc Brown's equipment, turning the CRM-114 discriminator - a nod to _Dr. Strangelove_, by the way - all the way up, and strums one chord, bringing a whole bookshelf down on himself.

"Rock and roll," quoth the hero.


----------



## R Harkness

Been watching some 4:3 movies recently. Going with a flexible VIS system, allowing me to enlarge 4:3 material as I desire (or any other AR) is still probably the best single decision I made for my home theater!


(Back out for a few more years...see ya!...)


----------



## bud16415

R Harkness said:


> Been watching some 4:3 movies recently. Going with a flexible VIS system, allowing me to enlarge 4:3 material as I desire (or any other AR) is still probably the best single decision I made for my home theater!
> 
> 
> (Back out for a few more years...see ya!...)


Hi Rich. 

Thanks for posting. I have long been a fan of your theater. I have never claimed the invention of PIA or variable size and aspect ratio control. I came to that rational mostly on my own as an evolutionary process because nothing ever seemed to be totally correct with all the other presentation methods I tried. I later learned you went thru a similar process, as have a few others. Together there is a small nexus of individuals interested in this. 

I really thought with the advent of IMAX at home and resolution of home equipment no longer limiting presentation in any way and then add in some tremendous non classified TV and streaming media we are getting now, more would be seeing limits to some media while seeing it restrictive on other media.

I have come to the conclusion even among the really dedicated folks to enjoying the best they can at home Variable immersion isn’t high on most peoples list. So we are a subset of a subset within home theater. 

You built a wonderful system of 4way masking and that is quite an accomplishment and something to be proud of. I did a manual version for a number of years. Most folks don’t have the skills or funds for automated 4way and don’t have the patience for manual. Myself included. When I got the RGBRGB dark chip 3 projector and I had my low gain dark gray screen I slowly convinced myself self masking was good enough or at least good enough to allow the free form zooming I liked even more. It also suited my cheap and lazy desires for fully automatic. I know some maybe even most of the aficionados of HT don’t agree, but I found 100% of casual moviegoers never notice the difference. 

Years ago I left the forums for 6 years and the reason was I wanted to regain my casual moviegoer status. I studied enough to know what I wanted and liked and I got tired off evaluating PQ rather than enjoying movies. It is kind of an on going battle actually and recently we have been watching two little boys (family members) part time the one is going on 3 and is totally mesmerized watching movies like Shrek with his uncle Bud. I watch him absorb the movie totally without a clue to the magic involved in the presentation. That’s my goal always to narrow it all down to a single experience. 

Don’t stay away 2 years heck pop in at least once a year and say hi.


----------



## Philnick

Bud - 

If you have an Amazon Prime subscription, be sure to watch _The Aeronauts_, which is a very recent "Amazon Original."

It's set in 1862 and is about a balloon ascent by a young scientist who has styled himself a "meteorologist" and wants to study the air to figure out how to predict the weather, to much ridicule from other members of the scientific academy. He prevails upon a young woman who is a balloon pilot to take him up higher than anyone has gone before so he can take measurements.

It's a VAR film that needs to be seen through a projector to be fully appreciated.

Thrills and chills. (As Khan Noonian Singh noted, "It's very cold in space.")


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Bud -
> 
> If you have an Amazon Prime subscription, be sure to watch _The Aeronauts_, which is a very recent "Amazon Original."
> 
> It's set in 1862 and is about a balloon ascent by a young scientist who has styled himself a "meteorologist" and wants to study the air to figure out how to predict the weather, to much ridicule from other members of the scientific academy. He prevails upon a young woman who is a balloon pilot to take him up higher than anyone has gone before so he can take measurements.
> 
> It's a VAR film that needs to be seen through a projector to be fully appreciated.
> 
> Thrills and chills. (As Khan Noonian Singh noted, "It's very cold in space.")


Phil I have watched it 3 times now. Really enjoyed it as well. It is a great example for anyone on the fence about IMAX framing as it could be watched forced into scope and then as IMAX. IMO there is no comparison that the extra height changes the feeling of watching the movie with proper immersion. True it will be totally enjoyable as scope as well you just won’t find yourself grabbing the armrests to stay in the balloon. 

The other thing I liked about the move is how it was produced and by who and the path it took thru IMAX theaters to TV in a couple weeks not months.

My prediction is media, as we know it is under a rapid change. It is evident in the 100s of TV shows Josh is keeping track of that he calls wider than 16:9. If it is truly TV it is actually shorter than 16:9. I agree with those that say 2.0:1 TV can be shown wider even thought there is no mandate that it is intended to be shown like that. Likewise I’m open-minded enough to know that some can be shown taller. 

For me media is becoming a blur look at The Irishman top tier director and production made by netflix with a very limited release and almost immediate release to the TV market. It even had some AR changing going on if I remember correctly. 

Movies are no longer uncomfortably long if the story doesn’t get told in under 2 hours I took an intermission when we watched The Irishman. Some they call limited mini series. Are they just really long movies. 

The other factor I always talk about is TV that is just TV is even evolving they know it is getting played at home now at least 1080p and is on screens at least 50”. If you watch any 60s TV it is clear they know people expect more now.


----------



## R Harkness

bud16415 said:


> I have come to the conclusion even among the really dedicated folks to enjoying the best they can at home Variable immersion isn’t high on most peoples list. So we are a subset of a subset within home theater.



That's for sure!


It looked a while back like the "beyond 2:35:1" systems - e.g. which could expand for IMAX and generally use zoom/masking for more flexibility - were going to start taking off. As in some commercial AV companies were starting to push the idea. But from what I saw the commercial versions were wildly expensive - for rich guys-who-cared. I haven't followed the latest trends for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if it petered out.


But, as I say, I still get a kick out of the flexible system as do my guests. My room is always packed for watching the UFC and I usually start with most of the fights at an average size - say 102" to 105" 16:9 diagonal. But for the big final match I often press a button and the image/masking zooms the image far larger, moving in to more IMAX-like immersion, like we are "there," and that's always fun!


----------



## bud16415

R Harkness said:


> That's for sure!
> 
> 
> It looked a while back like the "beyond 2:35:1" systems - e.g. which could expand for IMAX and generally use zoom/masking for more flexibility - were going to start taking off. As in some commercial AV companies were starting to push the idea. But from what I saw the commercial versions were wildly expensive - for rich guys-who-cared. I haven't followed the latest trends for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if it petered out.
> 
> 
> But, as I say, I still get a kick out of the flexible system as do my guests. My room is always packed for watching the UFC and I usually start with most of the fights at an average size - say 102" to 105" 16:9 diagonal. But for the big final match I often press a button and the image/masking zooms the image far larger, moving in to more IMAX-like immersion, like we are "there," and that's always fun!


Sadly most people think FP in general is wildly expensive and companies that cater to the non DIY community like to take the project to the max and I think they saw the IMAX at home theater as the next step in the uber-rich market. 

There has been some progress with people going to CIW as it is simple and they understand TV so its just larger, but then TV jumped larger to at least 85” and toned down FP. Now it seems there is a belief that FP can go enormous and given a magic screen it can work well in almost daylight conditions. 

CIH was and still is wrapped in just enough mystery and added cost with talks of special lens and all kinds of processing equipment and higher end projectors it scares a lot of folks off because it sounds expensive and also like it involves a lot of brain work. 

Now you look at CIH+IMAX or any system like we use that involves changing ARs as well as image size and you throw in variable masking and most people assume huge costs and complexity.

There is a thread running in the dedicated theater forum now on what did you spend? There are something like 30 people here that posted they have spent upwards of $100k and I did a rough calculation that on average people spend $44k. That’s here and those that post there, but for someone doing their homework it doesn’t look like a cheap date. 

At my old house in my IMAX basement theater of almost 20 years ago I had seating for a dozen people. My nephew talked me into hosting UFC early on and the guys would bring the pizza and beer and they all chipped in for the pay per view cost passing the hat. I normally made a few bucks on the deal. We had so much fun down there and even set up side betting on the bouts. I had the ability and it was only XGA back then to change the size and without a doubt every guy wanted it as big and life-sized as I could get it. Those days might have planted some ideas in my head as to non movie sizing. Super bowls were another packed house event down there. My nephew like the whole thing enough he eventually built a HT for himself and the UFC parties moved over there. 

Like you I have expanded to show people more immersion, but I also have had a few times have someone say I was viewing just too large for their likes. My sister is one such person. It is also nice when I get a person that likes the middle back seating locations to be able to adjust for them as well. 

I do enjoy masking and only worked around not using it as a way to simplify the process and show others the simplicity PIA can have. Like I have said before 99 out of 100 people don’t realize Dunkirk is changing AR dozens of times during the movie.


----------



## Philnick

In my 17:9 setup (my projector's native image shape), which I've described above, the letterbox and pillarbox bars are not noticeable, so I don't bother with masking or anamorphic lenses.

All I do is switch between two modes: full lens zoom, which gets me an image area 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" for 16:9 material, and turning on the projector's 6.25% digital zoom to take the width out to 11' 4", which I do for anything 1.85:1 or wider, which loses at most 1% of the image off the top and bottom of the imager, and for true scope films just part of the letterbox bars.

No real added complexity involved, and no added expense. All I do is use the projector's remote to toggle the digital zoom on or off.

My fancy screen is just skim-coated drywall, with a layer of Kilz Premium primer and a few coats of a paint mix called Cream and Sugar Ultra, the recipe for which I found at Home Theater Shack. It's a 1:1 mix of flat white Valspar latex paint and Basics acrylic silver paint (mixed together with a drill), with a tiny amount of magenta added to the Valspar by the paint store for color neutrality. (And I painted the ceiling and side walls with matte black paint to minimize splashback that reduces contrast.)

It has the virtue of not reducing viewing angles like high gain screens do, and it allows 3D glasses to work equally well regardless of their polarization.

For films that change aspect ratio, I just leave the digital zoom off and enjoy the show!


----------



## Philnick

Bud, 

You might enjoy my post just now in my projector's thread.

It tales a lot to rile me up, but after a morning of feeling like I was re-enacting _The Three Musketeers_ responding to attacks from numerous obnoxious CIH adherents, I responded by a post with links to a group of the most obnoxious posts they had made this morning. The last straw was after I had posted a "different strokes for different folks" plea when someone said asked incredulously "we're oppressing you?"

I'm wondering what their reaction will be to having the mirror held up to their conduct.


----------



## satyab

I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably. 
Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.


----------



## Philnick

satyab said:


> I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
> For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably.
> Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.


What you're doing will work fine for scope content, but for anything narrower than the projector's native 17:9 panels (which are 1.888:1), using Aspect:Zoom - which is a 6.25% digital zoom - will push some of the actual picture beyond the top and bottom of the imager, shaving it off.

Personally, I'll use the Aspect:Zoom for anything wider than 1.85:1, since at 1.85:1 I'm only losing 1% of the image at the top and bottom, but at 16:9 (1.78:1) the loss is more like 3.125% at each of the top and bottom, which I'm not quite willing to do. Many say that this is ok since filmmakers allow for more loss than that in composing shots, but I'm not sure.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Bud,
> 
> You might enjoy my post just now in my projector's thread.
> 
> It tales a lot to rile me up, but after a morning of feeling like I was re-enacting _The Three Musketeers_ responding to attacks from numerous obnoxious CIH adherents, I responded by a post with links to a group of the most obnoxious posts they had made this morning. The last straw was after I had posted a "different strokes for different folks" plea when someone said asked incredulously "we're oppressing you?"
> 
> I'm wondering what their reaction will be to having the mirror held up to their conduct.


Phil;

I think your reply to @mkerdman were very good. You pointed out to him the features the projector you both own have that many others don’t and how to best utilize those features. Years ago I had a WXGA projector 16:10 or 1.6:1 I used for similar reasons. The extra height I used for my Academy AR movies 1.37:1 as well as the original IMAX movies 1.43:1. The extra pixels and extra brightness they provided were a benefit over having a 720p projector that was 16:9. The WXGA back in that time frame was like rolling a 720p and a XGA together. It may have been the roots of my PIA thoughts. 



Murray said one thing in his post you quoted that all the naysayers neglected to notice. He asked about preserving the full 16:9 height as a benefit for viewing sports. This is one aspect of PIA I often talk about as last I checker the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did not list baseball, football (both types), basketball or any sports presentation under the heading of motion pictures. Also as far as I know TV shows like GOT don’t fall into the same cinematic category as Wheel of Fortune even though they both are clearly not motion pictures and they are intended to be TV viewed. It is a little ironic the naysayers will elevate a TV show like Stranger Things shot as 2.0:1 to fully fill the height of their scope screens thus giving it some extra immersion and prestige even though it is clearly TV and not a motion picture and if you want to follow the CIH law the director intended the show to be TV size with a couple black bars. 

You might ask why would they do this? The answer is simple it is because they can and it is more enjoyable that way. Pose the same question to why do you and I and Murray and some others go past that point at times? Again the answer is because we can and more importantly is because we enjoy it. Watching GOT more immersive or the NBA in no way says we will find Wheel of Fortune or The Beverly Hillbillies more enjoyable that size. 
@satyab has lucked upon something in ordering a screen too large for his room and hopefully he has adjusted his seating distance to suit the sizes he is now getting. But with that extra screen he has in effect done what we know and like the freedom to right size his content. He can still force himself to maintain all his content into a CIH framework if he wants. CIH isn’t about the size screen you have it is about the discipline of the relative sizes viewed. I think a lot of people though given the extra usable area will find times they want to use some of it. In his case sports. I think I have a picture of how a lot of sports is framed like it is scope and how they put graphics in the top and bottom area a lot. Squeezing that down to CIH from IMAX is giving away a lot of immersion. After all where are the most expensive seats at an NBA game? They are the front row at center court. Talk about immersive. 

On edit: I was a little confused when I typed the above and I see it as @satyab that bought the too large screen.


----------



## bud16415

satyab said:


> I just found this thread in JVC owners thread. I got JVC NX7. Initially I have miscalculated throw distance and ended up with 16:9 135"Dia*(66"H 118"W) screen.
> For 13ft I can only throw 125" for 16X9 content. One way this seems to be working in my favor. Scope movies (2.35:1) content covering 49"H 116"W & 16:9 content covering 61"H 109"W (61"H 115"W by using Aspect Zoom). There are borders on all sides(With JVCs blacks I hardly see them), but am able accommodate varying ARs comfortably.
> Any suggestions to further fine tune is welcome.


The only other advice is to adjust your seating distance for the sizes you can make max and know that a movie like Dunkirk or Aquaman in the new IMAX AR will be the greatest immersion in both vertical and horizontal and Scope will be the limit you like max horizontal, then feel free to go smaller when the circumstances dictate using the presets and zoom. We use our projector/media room for it all sometimes not turning the projector on when just playing music. It has the best picture in the house the best sound and the most comfortable seating. So if I want to watch an old grainy documentary on PBS that’s where I will watch it. That type content is not made better watching it like IMAX or even like watching it like a 1.85 movie sometimes, so I zoom it down where the PQ improves based on my seating distance and it is more like TV. In my case I can go as small as 75”. I even still watch DVD. It looks awful as immersive as I would like new BD media but making it 20% smaller does the trick. I like to think of it as sitting a few rows back if it was in a real theater. PIA is like having the ability to virtually change rows without changing seating distance. 

You now have the ability if you like more immersion you can up it when watching alone and back it off when watching with others that don’t care for as much immersion.


----------



## bud16415

As to not muddy the water over in the JVC thread Phil had quoted  @blake had quoted @Josh Z , and I think both these comments have some merit here. 

Josh said “Realistically, how much IMAX content do you actually watch? TV shows are not IMAX. 1.85:1 movies are not IMAX. (Even if they played in IMAX theaters, they were not composed any differently than rom-coms or low-budget indies.) The amount of material actually photographed in IMAX format and composed for the added vertical immersion of IMAX is infinitesimal compared to the many thousands of movies and TV shows photographed by traditional means.

The problem with installing an oversized 16:9 screen is that it treats anything 16:9 or 1.85:1 as if it were IMAX, so suddenly The Bachelor is the most epic and immersive thing you can watch in your home theater.”
@blake then replied “And the other issue is your vertical field of view fatigues much quicker (than horizontal) and should be 25 degrees or less upwards from the level. Imax deals with this by using stadium seating - you are floating in the middle of the screen, height wise. Few home theaters can do this.” 

As to Josh’s comment he always incorrectly conflates having a screen tall enough to contain IMAX 1.89 movies as to automatically means everything else close to that AR should become IMAX sized. No one has ever suggested that nor has anyone suggested The Bachelor is an epic presentation. There may be a few minutes of footage in each episode where it is a long shot of a nature setting where the show is being made that might look pretty amazing as IMAX but the way a show would need to be graded is on it as an entirety and all the close up work would lead me away from viewing it IMAXed.

He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall. They also employ their very expensive IMAX DMR process to media if they intend to show it more immersive. Not unlike how I suggest PIA applies a different factor to DVD or BD or UHD BD. 

Blake makes an honest observation about vertical FOV. IMAX1.89 true IMAX1.89 this headroom displays non-critical content and is intended above and below to round out your upper and lower peripheral vision. This is no different than how the sides of a scope movie are shot giving us more lifelike side peripheral content. Studies have been done and some are linked in the opening post as to where our eyes look when watching movies. We walk around every day in real life with our peripheral vision fully filled in all directions and we don’t find it at all fatiguing. The reason is we don’t and can’t take it all in at once and there is no reason to expect we will watching an illusion of real life. 

IMAX does have very high stadium seating but so do many of the modern commercial theaters. Seating recline has to be factored in as well as viewing upright to some extent. Most home seating recline way more than normal seating and having the feet out makes row spacing way greater. 

If someone wants to explore at home IMAX immersion they will have to be willing to think about a lower screen bottom and if they want two-row seating they should think about the second row being more of a conventional upright seat style. There is little IMAX immersion to a second row if you place them 6’ back from the first row anyway at home unless you really have a massive screen. People willing and wanting IMAX immersions have to be willing to maybe only raise their feet half way during IMAX movies. That shouldn’t be a big problem as I’m always told they are less than 1% of the movies we watch. Watching the NBA IMAXed isn’t a problem you can look around your toes to see the score. 

I will attach a couple pics showing real IMAX and IMAX at home recommendations along with one showing what is included in IMAX 1.89 that is not in scope and what is left out of true IMAX 1.43.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall.


Have you ever actually been to an IMAX theater, Bud? IMAX theaters do not reduce the size of normal 1.85:1 movies. They fill the entire 1.90:1 IMAX screen (with a slight bit of cropping), wall-to-wall. Never have I seen a 1.85:1 movie reduced in size and projected only into the middle of the screen.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Have you ever actually been to an IMAX theater, Bud? IMAX theaters do not reduce the size of normal 1.85:1 movies. They fill the entire 1.90:1 IMAX screen (with a slight bit of cropping), wall-to-wall. Never have I seen a 1.85:1 movie reduced in size and projected only into the middle of the screen.


Yes I have and I don’t remember ever seeing a Flat 1.85 movie in IMAX. 

Most of the time they are scope 2.4 played wall to wall or IMAX 1.89 or IMAX AR switching movies or 3D. 

Have a lot of flat 1.85 movies played in IMAX venues? If displayed floor to ceiling that would be pretty immersive. I know Jurassic Park 3D played in IMAX venues has the 2D version also? 

It is IMAX business if they are showing flat movies IMAXed in their theaters I can’t remember seeing one, but we are talking home theater here and you are right if someone has a screen suited for IMAX at home and they want to watch flat content that large they certainly could if they wanted. I personally wouldn’t do it I would rather have some black bars around the movie. That’s really up to the individual. 

I guess if IMAX played Saving Private Ryan that way and the director/studio of the movie approved then there could be a case for adding SPR to the list of IMAX movies. Can we also assume Jurassic Park is an IMAX movie?


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> Yes I have and I don’t remember ever seeing a Flat 1.85 movie in IMAX.
> 
> Most of the time they are scope 2.4 played wall to wall or IMAX 1.89 or IMAX AR switching movies or 3D.
> 
> Have a lot of flat 1.85 movies played in IMAX venues?


Plenty of 1.85:1 films have played in IMAX theaters. Recently: Joker, Dumbo (remake), The Lion King (remake), Doctor Sleep, Gemini Man.

The fact that it feels like most of the movies playing in IMAX theaters are 2.40:1 letterboxed on the screen just goes to prove the argument we've had many times that the majority of directors making these immersive visual spectacle movies prefer the 2.40:1 format to deliver that immersion.



> I guess if IMAX played Saving Private Ryan that way and the director/studio of the movie approved then there could be a case for adding SPR to the list of IMAX movies. Can we also assume Jurassic Park is an IMAX movie?


Neither Saving Private Ryan nor Jurassic Park were photographed or composed to take advantage of IMAX's extra height. So, no, they are not really IMAX movies, even if they played in IMAX theaters. 

Anything can play in an IMAX theater if you really want it to. Playing an episode of Match Game on an IMAX screen doesn't make it actual IMAX content.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> Plenty of 1.85:1 films have played in IMAX theaters. Recently: Joker, Dumbo (remake), The Lion King (remake), Doctor Sleep, Gemini Man.
> 
> The fact that it feels like most of the movies playing in IMAX theaters are 2.40:1 letterboxed on the screen just goes to prove the argument we've had many times that the majority of directors making these immersive visual spectacle movies prefer the 2.40:1 format to deliver that immersion.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Saving Private Ryan nor Jurassic Park were photographed or composed to take advantage of IMAX's extra height. So, no, they are not really IMAX movies, even if they played in IMAX theaters.
> 
> Anything can play in an IMAX theater if you really want it to. Playing an episode of Match Game on an IMAX screen doesn't make it actual IMAX content.


I guess I will have to make a few more trips to IMAX 1.9 venues and take in a few of these “flat” movies. Over the last few years we have enjoyed our HT actually greatly enjoyed and learned to despise local cinemas for any number of reasons. The greatest is putting up with the people that don’t have a clue as to how to act in public. The short wait for media to make it to our home isn’t that long for the pleasure of not having it ruined by some idiot checking his phone every two minutes. 

I took the time to think about these flat blockbusters and what was going on with these IMAX showings I also read some IMAX reviews and tried to focus mainly on IMAX haters take on these presentations that I found to be positive. 

First off if we look at a couple on your suggested list from last year two top movies with awards to their credit made by two top companies with premier directors and appealing to two different genre. Joker and Dumbo. Can’t get much different or much bigger and we are talking Warner Brothers and Disney all A-list players. 

All this firepower and not complaining about IMAX showing but rather condoning them and in some cases recommendations being made if you want to see these movies in the best settings see them in IMAX. I might also add seeing them at a premium price. 

Why would these directors and studios allow this? Of course one answer is money. The other might be even though these are not “IMAX” movies they play well in these venues. I would hate to think the directors and studios would sell themselves out just to help IMAX.

This is somewhat proven out by the user reviews as it was pretty hard for me to find anyone professional or casual reviewers that didn’t like or complain about the IMAX immersion. 

I’m going to take this as a positive for my PIA presentation and say if these studios and directors don’t care if Dumbo is shown more immersive than say Forrest Gump then it isn’t going lessen/change my thought process of watching Dumbo taller than CIH would allow me. 

I will keep looking for comments on this practice of endorsing flat movies being shown in IMAX venues and see if I can find any protest to the practice by those creating the content or even moviegoers opposed to it. So far it is mostly positive.


----------



## bud16415

Here is a movie I noticed mentioned in a different thread and it fall into the AR changing category. I don’t see any mention of it being associated with IMAX and IMDb lists it as 2.35:1, but it is clearly not that. It was reported that the movie starts as 16:9 and does a slow and constant morph ending at 2.55:1. The preview does this also and I will attach it so all can watch. 

The cinematography to my eyes seems to morph with the AR. 

Would be very difficult to watch effectively as CIH, would be imposable to mask, and would be a natural for viewing as PIA. The only question is what size I would want to start at knowing the ending cinematography and AR. If I can find it to watch and I will try playing the trailer in my HT to see what I think. My starting point would be to start it IMAXed and let it slowly become a super wide scope. 

It is called (True History of the Kelly Gang) looks like an interesting both in content and in its cinematography. If I can get a hold of it it will be one to show to guests and see if anyone notices the morph.


----------



## Philnick

When I watch a variable aspect ratio film I project it as my large 16:9 image: 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" wide.

That's immersive in either ratio. It's always 10' 8" wide, with its height varying from some flavor of scope (2.35:1's 4' 6 1/2" to 2.4:1's 4' 5 1/3" - or in the case of this film's extreme 2.55:1, 4' 2 1/5") to the full six foot height of my screen area.

PS Kubrick (_2001, Lawrence of Arabia_) ratio (2.2:1) is 4' 10 1/5". The new 2.0:1 ratio is 5' 4" tall.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> When I watch a variable aspect ratio film I project it as my large 16:9 image: 6' 1" tall by 10' 8" wide.
> 
> That's immersive in either ratio. It's always 10' 8" wide, with its height varying from some flavor of scope (2.35:1's 4' 6 1/2" to 2.4:1's 4' 5 1/3" - or in the case of this film's extreme 2.55:1, 4' 2 1/5") to the full six foot height of my screen area.
> 
> PS Kubrick (_2001, Lawrence of Arabia_) ratio (2.2:1) is 4' 10 1/5". The new 2.0:1 ratio is 5' 4" tall.


Sounds immersive to me. 

What I find interesting is now with digital processing there really will be no standard on shape all we will know is the full container will be 16:9 in shape and they can fill as little or as much of the container as suits them. Movies like this are not even changing AR movies they are continually changing AR movies. It is a little like fade to black only it is fade to a different AR. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of my favorites because I love the story but I also love how the story is told with changing ARs. That movie changes in both height and width and it shows how the shape of the container causes us to see it from a different point in time. 

Like any movie trickery it can be over done and I’m sure some directors will do that. I have always liked the split screen and montage effects in movies they are just so much easier to do now. Multiple parallel story lines like trying to watch a 3 ring circus and changing ARs within ARs. I watched a great example of that the other night on Better Call Saul. They use the montage to great effect in that series. And breaking the landscape 16:9 AR into two portrait 9:16 ARs and seamlessly going back to one landscape when the two people are together at the same time was something worth watching more than once. 

All these things combined is what I see more and more each day and why it is IMO getting harder to fix an AR and immersion down for a full presentation.


----------



## Josh Z

bud16415 said:


> I’m going to take this as a positive for my PIA presentation and say if these studios and directors don’t care if Dumbo is shown more immersive than say Forrest Gump then it isn’t going lessen/change my thought process of watching Dumbo taller than CIH would allow me.


It was not my intention to intrude into your thread, Bud. I only came because you called me here with your mention. You said: "He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall."

This is not correct. My understanding of your "PIA" system is that you zoom content to whatever size you feel is appropriate depending on your personal opinion of the movie and your mood that day. Some TV shows or 1.85:1 movies would be smaller than scope while others would be blown up to IMAX size.

That is not what IMAX theaters do. They are not PIA in any respect. IMAX theaters are a straightforward Constant Image Width presentation, much like a really oversized flat panel TV. The theater cannot and does not differentiate between regular movies or those shot with actual IMAX cameras. It all fills the width of the screen wall-to-wall just the same.


----------



## bud16415

Josh Z said:


> It was not my intention to intrude into your thread, Bud. I only came because you called me here with your mention. You said: "He is correct other non-IMAX movies are shown in IMAX theaters and even TV shows a few times. IMAX handles these showing very much on a PIA method of presentation. Everything shown at IMAX is not wall-to-wall."
> 
> This is not correct. My understanding of your "PIA" system is that you zoom content to whatever size you feel is appropriate depending on your personal opinion of the movie and your mood that day. Some TV shows or 1.85:1 movies would be smaller than scope while others would be blown up to IMAX size.
> 
> That is not what IMAX theaters do. They are not PIA in any respect. IMAX theaters are a straightforward Constant Image Width presentation, much like a really oversized flat panel TV. The theater cannot and does not differentiate between regular movies or those shot with actual IMAX cameras. It all fills the width of the screen wall-to-wall just the same.


This sounds correct and if say Warner or Disney licenses the rights to show their movie there they would do so knowing IMAX presentation methods and also understand IMAX seating requirements are more immersive than the rest of the industry. So they are saying OK to IMAX that their movie will be able to be shown at those levels without negative blowback from viewers. 

I never said IMAX was doing PIA presentations except where I misguidedly assumed they would adhere to something like CIH+IMAX presentation that you pointed out I was wrong about. So now I know IMAX handles all media as CIW and I doubt IMAX plays any Academy AR material in their 1.89 venues where the AR would top out before it came to width. 

What I was saying is these movies (The 1.85:1 ones shown in IMAX venues.) have been given the go ahead by companies like Disney, Warner Brothers and others to show them at these immersion levels. This IMO is setting a precedent or guide for those of us doing PIA if we wish to follow it. I further have been reading reviews of these movies shown in these theaters looking for clues as to how people felt the immersion was and most are positive. Even some professional reviews saying this is the way to see these movies if you can. I have read a lot of pro reviews of scope movies shown in LieMAX saying save your money and go to a regular theater. Makes me wonder a little if black bars and not filling a screen throws up red flags no matter what direction they run. 

Of course no one is going to jail for watching any movie they want sitting as close or far away as they want, and no permission is needed. It is merely a clue as to what the industry is thinking about these matters. IMO having an IMAXed size screen that places scope as wide as I’m comfortable with would most likely find Dumbo overly immersive full on IMAXed and much more to my liking around CIA height. This then tells me if I make it to an IMAX venue to watch Dumbo or any other recent flat movie I would want to sit around 5/8 of the way back or more.


----------



## Philnick

PS When I know a film is full-time at least 1.85:1, I kick in my JVC's 6.25% digital zoom to take advantage of the full width of its rather unorthodox 17:9 imaging panels. (I don't use this zoom with 16:9 material, since that would shave off not just black bars but 3.125% of the actual image at each of the top and bottom.)

This results in the image being 11' 4" wide, and anywhere from 2.40:1's 4' 8 2/3" tall to 2.2:1's 5' 1.8" tall to 2.0:1's 5' 8" to 1.85:1's 6' 1" tall, which uses the entire imaging panel.

PS I've never heard of 2.55:1 before!


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> PS When I know a film is full-time at least 1.85:1, I kick in my JVC's 6.25% digital zoom to take advantage of the full width of its rather unorthodox 17:9 imaging panels. (I don't use this zoom with 16:9 material, since that would shave off not just black bars but 3.125% of the actual image at each of the top and bottom.)
> 
> This results in the image being 11' 4" wide, and anywhere from 2.40:1's 4' 8 2/3" tall to 2.2:1's 5' 1.8" tall to 2.0:1's 5' 8" to 1.85:1's 6' 1" tall, which uses the entire imaging panel.
> 
> PS I've never heard of 2.55:1 before!


If you ever have to go back to a 16:9 projector you will be lost. CIH people always have a secret wish for 2.40 media and projectors and that is logical based on their needs and ideas. I have always said I don’t care what the AR is as long as the resolution is great enough and each pixel is bright enough, I’ll just use the ones I need and zoom to the size I want. A 1:1 projector or 4:3 is ok with me if it meets those needs. I like old Academy movies so for me some extra height in the frame is ok and why I liked 16:10 but we live in a 16:9 world so why fight city hall. 16:9 was a compromise AR and that’s ok because everything fits ok in 16:9 also. People have a hard time seeing that every AR will fit inside every other AR. it just boils down to what is the most efficient use of as many pixels as you can and as much of the light as you can. With the way ARs jump around on TV and in movies and 16:9 1.77 is the shape and the biggest image is IMAX at 1.89 that’s close enough. 

One of the latest 2.55:1 was La La Land. The Hateful Eight was 2.76:1. because I have virtually unlimited zoom as I can move my projector throw distance and virtually unlimited screen area as I’m using a stealth painted screen wall without boarders I can project these super wide movies as CIH with my scope movies. I did it with The Hateful Eight and it was quite the presentation. 

We call Scope / CinemaScope 2.35, 2.39, 2.4 etc, but that is a carryover jargon from what started out as 2.66 when what they are is Panavision. 

Over the years this idea that 2.35 etc are designed around human vision FOV and such. It really had little to do with it. Edison got the ball rolling and was looking for a still film to make into movie film and 35mm was out there with a 1.33 AR later when they added sound they used some of the width and Academy came about 1.375. 

Where it gets interesting is when this Greek guy Spyros P Skouras comes along and wants to get people into his theaters at 20th Century Fox and he finds some German guy making lens that squeeze a wider picture onto a narrow film and then a reverse lens to stretch it out when projected. It just happened to be 2.66:1 as a finished image and that was enough different than anything around to really wow people and get them into the theaters again. None of it was real scientific in terms of human vision it was more showmanship than science. 

It got more scientific in the 60s when IMAX came along and invented movie cameras that could record almost all human vision could resolve. The problem was their cameras were the size of a car and cost a fortune to make and use and they ended up having to make their own movies that were 45 minutes long about nature. The 1.44 AR along with immense immersion levels and out of this world “resolution” did a fantastic job of capturing the full range of human vision and FOV. 

Then this new IMAX 1.89 came along and is trying to become mainstream and compete just like Skouras did in 1953. 

There is some interesting reading if you want to dig into this Skouras guy.


----------



## Philnick

Just realized that the 1.89:1 of the new IMAX is my JVC's panel size with the Aspect:Zoom setting.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, the periodic "Scope Uber Alles" religious war broke out again at the JVC forum this past week.

I actually called it that (without the German).

That was my final riposte after over several days of debate - but this time I wasn't alone, as at least two others took the same position I did, as - as usual - I only jumped in to defend someone else who was being attacked for his choice not to use a scope-limited setup.

He pointed out that in moving towards a scope image until it filled his vision horizontally he still had lots of room left vertically, but with a 1.85:1 image it filled his vision in both directions at about the same point - which gives the lie to the whole basis of their argument that with our two eyes placed side-by-side scope best mimics human vision. Turns out it doesn't.


----------



## Philnick

Just figured out the root of this dispute - the scope fanatics all use anamorphic lenses - and I posted that epiphany in the JVC thread. Can't wait for the response.


----------



## steve1106

Philnick said:


> Just realized that the 1.89:1 of the new IMAX is very close to my JVC's 1.91:1 panel size with the Aspect:Zoom setting.
> 
> Meanwhile, back at the farm, the periodic "Scope Uber Alles" religious war broke out again at the JVC forum this past week.
> 
> I actually called it that (without the German).
> 
> That was my final riposte after over several days of debate - but this time I wasn't alone, as at least two others took the same position I did, as - as usual - I only jumped in to defend someone else who was being attacked for his choice not to use a scope-limited setup.
> 
> He pointed out that in moving towards a scope image until it filled his vision horizontally he still had lots of room left vertically, but with a 1.85:1 image it filled his vision in both directions at about the same point - which gives the lie to the whole basis of their argument that with our two eyes placed side-by-side scope best mimics human vision. Turns out it doesn't.


Thanks for pointing out the "conflict" in the other thread. These days I only briefly skim the forum and it was enjoyable reading the back and forth...again.


----------



## bud16415

NxNW said:


> Awesome! I always said your approach needs a catchy name.
> 
> Refreshing to see someone simply asserting a positive message, as in "Here's what I'm doing- I love it. Feel free to try it yourself".
> 
> (As opposed to all the other posts that boil down to "Imbecile! You're doing it wrong!")
> 
> Sharing is Caring.


 @Philnick
I once jokingly compared the human FOV AR rectangle as a variable between High-Brow and Low-Brow individuals. Some of us High-Brows of course have increased vertical FOV as we don’t have a Neanderthal brow line blocking our up vision. 

Seriously the visual FOV has been studied by the Air Force and NASA along with numerous medical institutions for many years and has been plotted and written about in detail. The bottom line is it involves static and also eye movement as well as ultimately head and body movement. Most people feel movies shouldn’t require body movement and even though people are willing to watch live tennis for 4 hours at a time with head movement they feel an hour or two in a movie should only require eye movement. Then there is the degree of eye movement. I have been told by CIH folks no eye movement should be made when watching movies it is only fixed gaze. That has been debunked as it is almost imposable not to move our eyes even during sleep. So it is a question of how much movement is comfortable and to what degree we need to move then to see what it is we need to see in a movie and what area of the screen is mainly there to fill out our vision with peripheral vision we never look directly at. 

I have tested my own vision and a few others out of curiosity and have found for myself with fixed gaze straight ahead a 2.4:1 rectangle kind of roughly covers it when I try and recognize something when it moves into my vision from sides, top or bottom. Not that I can see detail but maybe I can tell if it is yellow or blue, or just even to tell me there is something out there I should turn my eyes to see. 

When I start testing with eye movement and not to the point of straining in the movement but rather just comfortable scanning to see details in each direction I get a much taller rectangle more like a 2:1 AR with an expanded peripheral more like 4:3 AR. This is what IMAX also figured out back in the 1960s when they came up with their 1.43AR. and again when they wanted a more mainstream content and they moved to 1.9.

If you read the history of scope it wasn’t an investigation into the science of vision. It was more about giving motion pictures a new look and getting people back into theaters. They found a German guy making lens that could compress filming and expand showing. Screens could be made wider easier than buildings made taller and new low theaters without balconies were easy to build in the suburbs where people were moving. 

Cinematography also evolved and more to the sides didn’t mean more immersion in the center. In theaters CIH was born. Given the two types of movies of the day CIH 2.4:1 is the way to go. 

So much has changed though between then and now. Resolution, Digital, IMAX and the impact IMAX has made on other non motion picture cinematography, I could go on and on. 

This debate will or could go on forever and the reason I started the thread is summed up perfect by the second post. I will quote above. It is an alternative in today’s modern world of media. For what its worth.


----------



## bud16415

Just when I thought The Grand Budapest Hotel was made for my presentation method I watched Spike Lee’s movie Da 5 Bloods off of Netflix last night. He used at least 4 different ARs and used them at different sizes all framed within some max AR that was 16:9. It is clearly not any kind of IMAX intent as there is nothing IMAX about it. 

I read this review about the AR changing and how in some places he went from for the most part a scope movie and then the movie changed to a jungle environment and he wanted the full height of 16:9 to include the jungle ceiling not unlike how IMAX is using the height. So I decided to show it at a 1.7 screen height seating distance immersion level and it played very well. 

https://slate.com/culture/2020/06/da-5-bloods-aspect-ratios-explained-spike-lee-movie.html

There were quite a few flash back parts to the 60s and they were handled in 4:3 except the 4:3 looked to be the full height of the 16:9 frame and some other odd grainy ARs that looked to be taken on an old super 8mm hand held of the 60s with all the artifacts of an old home movie. 

The other interesting thing is some of the changes between ARs were not instantaneous but were done with the AR doing a slow morph. 

It will not become one of my favorite all time movies it was entertaining in parts but with too much social commentary for my tastes in general, but strictly from an exploratory study of what the future may hold in usage of ARs as part of the story telling it was great. 

For me it was a good example of why something doesn’t have to carry the IMAX logo to be IMAX like and why it wouldn’t play as well at anything less than IMAX like immersion. I know it was intended for TV play even though it was made as a motion picture. (The crossing lines I often talk about.) It is no different than any of these prestige TV shows we like to watch FP at home in our theaters. Some judgment calls need to be made on a personal level. 

Just curious for how others did the presentation on this one?


----------



## Philnick

Bud - 

Did you ever check out _Doctor Strange_? The 3D version is Marvel's current masterpiece of psychedelic VAR filmmaking.

The opening sequence sets the scene. It starts out in scope at night in the library of an occult religious order in Katmandu, Nepal, where a group of renegade sorcerers murder the librarian to steal a page from a spellbook. They're confronted by the head of the order, who pursues them through a dimensional portal they open up to escape, and we end up in IMAX on the daytime streets of Manhattan, where the head of the order puts everyone into "the mirror dimension" - an M.C. Escher-like environment with buildings and streets rotated in space at all angles - and with gravity going in all different directions.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Bud -
> 
> Did you ever check out _Doctor Strange_? The 3D version is Marvel's current masterpiece of psychedelic VAR filmmaking.
> 
> The opening sequence sets the scene. It starts out in scope at night in the basement library of an occult religious order's library in Katmandu, Nepal, where a group of renegade sorcerers murder the librarian to steal a page from a spellbook. They're confronted by the head of the order, who pursues them through a dimensional portal they open up, and we end up in IMAX on the daytime streets of Manhattan, where the head of the order puts everyone into "the mirror dimension" - an M.C. Escher-like environment with buildings and streets rotated in space at all angles - and with gravity going in all different directions.


Phil; I haven’t seen it and it has been on my list for a while. I gather to get the IMAX version you need the 3D version. That is so stupid IMO. 

Maybe I will make it my father’s day gift. I have slowed down to a crawl buying media as there is just so much to watch and my 3D viewing has taken a break as well. It sounds amazing and I will let you know what I think.


----------



## Philnick

Finally, almost a year after setting up my rebuilt theater with new everything but speakers (and more of those, adding a second subwoofer and quad on the ceiling), I calibrated the projector. After losing my appointment with a professional, I bought a used OEM color probe for a quarter of the price of a new brand-name one (but really the same unit - it even has the brand name on the bottom!), and I teamed it with the even cheaper gamma probe and the free Autocal program from the projector's manufacturer. (Total was less than what one visit from the calibrator would have cost, and I'll be able to do it whenever I want to as the projector's bulb ages.)

It took a few hours to learn how to do it (the actual calibration takes less than an hour, including setting up the equipment, including my laptop), but the benefit is subtle but real. Now I'm trying to figure out how to toggle back and forth to show others the benefit.


----------



## Philnick

Asked around and was told what setting to vary very slightly to put the projector out of the range where it's calibrated, so I can do that to instantly toggle the color calibration on and off for demo purposes.

At least for my JVC, it's like the difference between Kodachrome (uncalibrated) and Ektachrome (calibrated). If you remember those two varieties of Kodak-brand slide films, Ektachrome had more brilliant colors. The uncalibrated JVC had somewhat understated reds, calibrated it looks much nicer and more realistic.

I bought the Spears & Munsil UHD calibration disk last year, and never used it until now. It has a 12 minute demo section of nature scenes. The most obvious difference is on a close-up of a peacock feather. Before calibration its colors looked quite subdued. Now it glows.


----------



## Philnick

This post in the thread for my projector has a pair of images showing the effect of my calibration. Enjoy!


----------



## Philnick

How about calling this Variable Image Dimensions? ("PID" has unfortunate connotations.)


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> How about calling this Variable Image Dimensions? ("PID" has unfortunate connotations.)


Well it started off as PIA Perfect Image Area and the word perfect set off a flurry of controversy even though I clearly pointed out perfect is a subjective word and it is a personal view of each persons perfect. The objectors to the word perfect would always tell me what they had in CIH was what was perfect and I would tell them there perfect is nicely contained within the solution. It was endless so I wanted to keep the 3 letter form the same so I had it changed to Personal Image Area. I like the word area as the media dictates the AR and not wanting to constrain height or width per the viewers likes that then is area.

It was always interesting to me CIH or CIW isn’t really constant say when a CIH person plays a movie wider than 2.40:1 they then revert to CIW as the screen isn’t wide enough. Or when they play an IMAX movie they are fine with cropping the top and bottom off to make it fit the mold of CIH, but some play it CIH and greatly diminish the immersion that makes it IMAX. Much of this new 2.0:1 media is intended for TV and we know TV is CIW but they play it as taller than TV keeping it CIH, but then the re-mastered 4k Wizard of Oz that is 1.37:1 that was theatrical in 1939 long before CIH was thought about, and if I was a kid back then I know how immersive I would have viewed it. Well it is wrong to give that one more height / area.

So I like well enough PIA.
Your calibration I meant to comment on. I’m sure it is subtle but I’m also sure it is quite noticeable. I even notice I from time to time do my brightness check and it sneaks up on you and after you correct it I go wow. I have messed around with it a little but have never did a pro job on it.


----------



## Philnick

That's why I came up with the value-neutral term "Variable Image Dimensions" - to avoid any claim to perfection.

I don't know if your projector has a program available from its manufacturer to automate the calibration process. JVC has a free Windows program called Autocal that has access to internal registers in the projector that are not on any menu. 

You connect the PC and the JVC to your LAN and enter the JVC's IP address into Autocal. 

You plug in a Datacolor Spyder X to the PC by USB and mount that on a tripod, pointed up at the center of the screen from a foot away. 

You turn off the JVC's automatic Iris and automatic tone-mapping and tell Autocal to run a gamma calibration, which makes sure that it follows a black to white curve accurately and without introducing color casts. It starts by writing out the original calibration tables in the projector into an ini file that you would be wise to put in a safe place as it's the only way to get back to factory calibration, and then flashes light on the screen for a while and reads the results, adjusts things, and writes out a copy of the modified tables.

The same process is done for the color calibration with a (now-discontinued) device from X-Rite called, variously, an i1Pro2, an i1Pro Rev.E, or its OEM name, the EFI ES-2000 (which has the X-Rite logo on its bottom!). That you get on eBay. The final calibration result is written out as well.

Neither device is good enough for both purposes. The result of using both of them is quite satisfying, and the price of both light sensors is less than the cost of one professional calibration visit - and I can now do it whenever I want as the bulb ages.

And, as I am also a photography hobbyist, I may be able to use the color meter to calibrate the monitor of the PC I edit photos on. (There's a link to a small number of my photos in my signature block here.)


----------



## bud16415

In 2004 I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the masters golf tournament for the Friday and Saturday round. Being an avid golfer and a big fan and how hard it is to attend something like this unless you are in a small group of the select few who have access to tickets it was really a once in a lifetime experience. I had watched it for years on TV and TV can’t do justice to how beautiful and amazing the grounds really are. The only way I can explain it is if you have ever saw the Grand Canyon in person how even the best done TV won’t show you even close to the real thing and The IMAX movie of it comes pretty close.

I have been watching the Masters this week off streaming services via my HTPC setup on to my home theater and sized the image to what I’m now calling BudMAX, that being an IMAX like immersion level on my home theater. I call it BudMAX because Josh often correctly points out I in no way have an IMAX theater in my house. So I call it BudMAX and I would encourage others doing this to feel free to have JoeMAX or BillMAX or even PhilMAX as a description for this type of taller than scope presentation. I’m fairly sure there will never be a JoshMAX though.

I don’t think cinematography is the correct term for how golf is sent out as streaming TV but it is often a wide panoramic view where the participants are shown in a way that is not hard to take more immersive and the beauty of the image IMO is enhanced engulfing more of my FOV.

This year the Masters was called off in the spring because of covid19 and they are calling this the November Masters. I won’t go as far as saying this is as good as being there or even as real as an IMAX flyover of the Grand Canyon, BudMAX Masters Golf is a very special treat for me this November with everyone doing their best to stay at home. 
Here is hoping all my CIH friends are all safe and healthy this holiday season.


----------



## Philnick

PhilMax (actually, my theater is called "Stellar Cartography," after the computer-driven spherical starmap room seen only once - in _Star Trek Generations,_ the film that passed the baton from Kirk to Picard) is about to get a firmware update to its projector.

After revolutionizing projector HDR last October with a free firmware update that built dynamic tone mapping into the projector to fit the HDR signal to what the projector can actually do frame-by-frame on the fly by analyzing the actual images - otherwise folks use outboard converters - this week JVC made available another free firmware update that improves last year's Frame Adapt by having the owner input the screen's size and relative gain (reflectivity) into its new Theater Optimizer so it can tune the image's brightness and contrast to your screen, and it also - every 100 hours of runtime (and on request as well) - tweaks its settings to compensate for the aging of the projector's lamp.

I calibrated the projector a month ago, and that's supposed to survive the update, though most user settings are wiped back to default, so I'll go through all the menus and take pictures of all my tweaks (not many) so I can re-enter them.

Gonna be a fun afternoon.


----------



## Philnick

Well, that went off without a hitch. Downloaded the firmware update, copied it to a thumb drive, and after some spelunking of the menus and taking pictures I turned the beast off, plugged in the drive and turned it back on, navigated to the update option in its menu and gave it the go-ahead, after seeing that it would take twenty minutes. Had my phone "cast" my favorite jazz station to the system over wifi through my streamer, and spent the time perusing my printout of the setup instructions and reading email.

After it signaled that it was done by stopping the blinking of its pilot lights, I turned it on, copied back in some of the settings that had been wiped, and configured the new "Theater Optimizer" function.

Then I made an important setup change. Instead of changing my image size by using lens memories - which are fast to access but take a long time to swap in - I discovered that the effect of simply changing that single setting directly was instantaneous, even if it took a few clicks to get to it.

So instead of lens memories named "16:9" and "Scope" I just use _one_ named - you guessed it - "PhilMax" and I keep the menu for choosing aspect ratio on screen when starting a film whose image shape I don't remember, so I can set it quickly once I see what I'm dealing with.

The Theater Optimizer's effect is good but not as dramatic as some of the users say in raving about it. It gives a bit better local contrast - and thus more three-dimensionality - than Frame Adapt did on its own, and it's designed to keep the image consistent as the bulb ages.

Not bad for a free update.


----------



## bud16415

Sounds great @Philnick and I’m glad you went with the naming convention lol.

Being able to make software updates at home is really great and I hope the trend will continue. Over the last couple years I have even seen it trickle down into some of the budget projectors. I’m not a big fan of just pushing out upgrades like Apple does to my phone, but getting notified and then selecting what you want as things improve is great.

Glad the experience was good and the updates were meaningful.

Over the weekend watching the golf I noticed my picture seemed a little dim. I hadn’t noticed it off of OTA, BD or ROKU, but from my PC it was. I checked my lamp hours and I’m at 4,000 kind of surprised they racked up pretty fast. So I set it on full power lamp and it looked great. Later in the day the coverage went to network so I switched to OTA and the brightness jumped up. Normally when I’m in HTPC mode I have my image smaller than BudMAX so it might be why I never noticed the brightness drop. My PC doesn’t have HDMI out so I’m using a VGA to HDMI dongle that picks up the audio off of my audio output. It works great. In the past I went straight to the projector with the VGA and that seemed to work ok as well except I had to do input changes with the AVR and projector both and making it all HDMI was much simpler. So I’m not sure what’s going on there but I have always felt it was good for lamp life to go off of eco from time to time.
As to the golf it is always hard waiting a year for the next Masters now I only have to wait 5 months. I’m sure there will be lots of other BudMAX programming before then.


----------



## Philnick

In October and early November, I had occurrences of a thin green stripe down the center of the screen, and was advised by a member here who had experienced the same thing with his projector, to try turning off the power strip the projector is plugged into for a few minutes to let any excess static charge bleed off through the power strip's ground wire. I've adopted the practice of turning the projector off normally and, once it has cooled itself down and shut itself off, I simply turn off the power strip until the next time I use the theater. (This also has the side benefit of turning off the power amp that drives my ceiling speakers - the only other thing plugged into that strip. I've divided my equipment up that way because plugging everything in through the same 15A circuit was routinely tripping the breaker.) There have not been any recurrences of the vertical stripe since then - it had appeared three times at two week intervals before that, and it's now been about two months.

So a few nights ago I was distressed to see a tiny vertically-oriented sparkle at about one third down and one third over from the right, which changed position as I moved my head, so it wasn't on the surface of the screen. My wife, sitting next to me, didn't see it at all, but she's not as critical a viewer as I am.

I had a devil of a time trying to photograph it with my phone, since it came and went, and the one shot I got of it was wildly out of focus.

Last night, when I was back in the theater, I saw it again, and managed to keep it from going away by pausing the video. It looked like a reflection of the lens, so I tried working the projector's iris open and shut manually (a technique which folks have used to cure problems), but that had no effect. As I stood up, about to turn around to look at the projector, I saw the sparkle suspended in midair a few inches in front of my face. I reached for it - and it disappeared for good.

It must have been a reflection on a single strand of spiderweb! I couldn't find any trace of such, but that would certainly explain it.

Anyone know of a way to prevent spiders from nesting in a basement theater?


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> In October and early November, I had occurrences of a thin green stripe down the center of the screen, and was advised by a member here who had experienced the same thing with his projector, to try turning off the power strip the projector is plugged into for a few minutes to let any excess static charge bleed off through the power strip's ground wire. I've adopted the practice of turning the projector off normally and, once it has cooled itself down and shut itself off, I simply turn off the power strip until the next time I use the theater. (This also has the side benefit of turning off the power amp that drives my ceiling speakers - the only other thing plugged into that strip. I've divided my equipment up that way because plugging everything in through the same 15A circuit was routinely tripping the breaker.) There have not been any recurrences of the vertical stripe since then - it had appeared three times at two week intervals before that, and it's now been about two months.
> 
> So a few nights ago I was distressed to see a tiny vertically-oriented sparkle at about one third down and one third over from the right, which changed position as I moved my head, so it wasn't on the surface of the screen. My wife, sitting next to me, didn't see it at all, but she's not as critical a viewer as I am.
> 
> I had a devil of a time trying to photograph it with my phone, since it came and went, and the one shot I got of it was wildly out of focus.
> 
> Last night, when I was back in the theater, I saw it again, and managed to keep it from going away by pausing the video. It looked like a reflection of the lens, so I tried working the projector's iris open and shut manually (a technique which folks have used to cure problems), but that had no effect. As I stood up, about to turn around to look at the projector, I saw the sparkle suspended in midair a few inches in front of my face. I reached for it - and it disappeared for good.
> 
> It must have been a reflection on a single strand of spiderweb! I couldn't find any trace of such, but that would certainly explain it.
> 
> Anyone know of a way to prevent spiders from nesting in a basement theater?


That’s a good story and not all that uncommon as I must be like you and I go nuts over similar stuff I can’t explain. From time to time I get a fruit fly or some other flying spec I can’t see in the dark. Worst is in summer if a fly gets in they like to land on my stealth screen wall. The temptation is so high for others to swat them and mess up my perfect screen surface forever with bug guts.

Try home defender sprayed around the base of the room when you won’t be using it for a day. I spray the outside foundation each spring and we don’t get many spiders. The spray is indoor outdoor but I try and just use it outdoors.
Right now I have a little dust blob that is out of the scope frame and not visible on normal APL only real bright or real dark. I have been thinking about getting after it for a few months now. I keep getting told I will only make it worse. She is likely correct haha.


----------



## bud16415

Rather than causing stress in the thread dedicated to “Titled: Variable Aspect Ratio Movies put on BD” in talking about methods of presentation of variable aspect ratio movies put on BD. I thought moving the conversation here the only place on AVS dedicated to variable presentation would lower the anxiety levels a little and not clutter a thread that is really just to document movies that do it with the implied believe all these movies just need to be cropped to a center cut version of scope safe regardless of any evidence otherwise.

There is little that can be done with IMAX movies or IMAX expanding movies given a CIH scope HT. As it has been pointed out you can center crop it or you can show it quite undersized within the full 16:9 container and the scope parts will have black bars on all 4 sides.

Some argue the expansions are annoying and take you out of the movie and others like myself find them exciting and not annoying and in fact hardly noticeable because a properly sized scope screen fills a good part of my FOV and the expansions fully fill it. So I agree watching an expanding IMAX movie on a small TV not very immersive might be annoying when done fully immersive it is a totally different thing. I would even argue those that crop like to use a device or projector that has blanking as they say the over-scan on the wall when zooming is annoying. If the scope image was fully immersive I would suggest you wouldn’t notice the over-scan, as it would be outside your FOV. 

I have always said CIH is a lovely method of presentation and it covers a large percentage of motion pictures ever made. Just the look of the framed 2.35 rectangle tells you that you are in for a theatrical experience. Nothing at all wrong with doing such and a much better experience than trying to do a typical CIW presentation that leaves flat to large or scope to small or worse yet a compromise that makes nothing what you would like. Unfortunately most people doing CIW do the compromise.
IMAX, some prestige TV, some Academy AR, sports, etc with these formats and a CIH setup is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Yes it can be done it can even be enjoyed but it also may contain some compromise. As an example I watched the Super Bowl the other day including the half time and including the commercials as if it was IMAX. There were some compromise to some parts there always is, but as a whole it was a major improvement over showing it with CIH immersion. Would I still have enjoyed it? Sure I would have. I just enjoyed it more BudMAXed and the full sound fit the size better even. It wasn’t the same as being there it was just a little bit closer to that.


----------



## Philnick

Not really on point, because this is about a standard scope film, but I just stumbled across a really fun ten year old film - _Knight and Day_ - a spy film with totally unrealistic cartoon violence that's designed to be funny that's also a romantic comedy. It stars Tom Cruise as a globe-trotting superspy on the run because his partner has framed him as having gone rogue, and Cameron Diaz as a Bostonian who restores old cars and gets swept up into his adventure. According to the extra features, they both did all their own stunts (and could have gotten jobs as stunt people if they weren't already stars) - and she was only disappointed that she didn't get as many dangerous stunts to do as he did.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Not really on point, because this is about a standard scope film, but I just stumbled across a really fun ten year old film - _Knight and Day_ - a spy film with totally unrealistic cartoon violence that's designed to be funny that's also a romantic comedy. It stars Tom Cruise as a globe-trotting superspy on the run because his partner has framed him as having gone rogue, and Cameron Diaz as a Bostonian who restores old cars and gets swept up into his adventure. According to the extra features, they both did all their own stunts (and could have gotten jobs as stunt people if they weren't already stars) - and she was only disappointed that she didn't get as many dangerous stunts to do as he did.


Not at all off topic my friend. What PIA is all about is being able to enjoy any and all ARs the way they were intended to be watched and 2.4:1 certainly comprises a lot of great action movies.

We saw Knight and Day when it came out and I believe we have a DVD so will give it a new watch if I cant find it to stream.
The movie has Marc Blucas in it also and he is a local kid that grew up down the street from us and his family was good friends with my sisters family as the had kids of similar ages in school. We watched him play basketball from a really young age and he was quite a talented ball player and smart and someone we knew would make it big doing something. So we watch everything we see him in. When he got married he wanted to have it on the lake about a block from my home and they did it very quietly bringing a bunch of A-list actors and such in without a single media leak. Those of us that don’t have any celebrity don’t know how lucky we are.


----------



## Philnick

Checked on IMDB and it turns out that your friend had a major role on _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ for a year or two twenty years ago as Riley Finn, an undercover military anti-demon agent Buffy has an affair with. My daughter was so devoted to that series that she took her stepmom (my current wife) on a forced-march through all seven seasons of it. That and _Supernatural,_ about a pair of demon-hunting orphaned brothers.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Checked on IMDB and it turns out that your friend had a major role on _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ for a year or two twenty years ago as Riley Finn, an undercover military anti-demon agent Buffy has an affair with. My daughter was so devoted to that series that she took her stepmom (my current wife) on a forced-march through all seven seasons of it. That and _Supernatural,_ about a pair of demon-hunting orphaned brothers.


Yes he was. He’s been in a few pretty good movies. The Buffy thing was not my cup of tea as well but my sister and her daughter followed it pretty close as they like that stuff and he being in it was plus for them. I always thought he would end up in the NBA as good of a ball player as he was maybe if he was a little taller. He was clearly a natural leader type and that was what amazed me with his high school playing. He managed to bring out the best in the rest of the team. The movie Hoosiers (1986) came out right around the time he started playing high school hoops and his team going on to state finals as they did was very much like the movie right down to the long train of cars heading out to pack the gyms of all the away games. It was about as unlikely of a feat as in the movie.

You mentioned watching all the seasons of a show and we have been binge watching some like that as well. Breaking Bad kind of hooked me on the idea. We have started a few and after a few hours said enough. Even though they are TV after watching a few well done series you go back to regular TV and realize a lot of it is really pretty poor.


----------



## Philnick

If you have Amazon Prime, I can recommend two series that used to be free there but are well worth paying to add to your library. Both are very well-written and acted, and are in 1080 with 5.1 sound;

_Firefly_ - a very short lived series (14 episodes) by Joss Whedon, the guy behind _Buffy_. It was set aboard a small non-weaponized ship whose rear end lit up when it went to high speed, hence the nickname "firefly" for those ships. The crew were a motley group of about six or seven headed up by a pair of veterans from the losing side of a war where the outer planets in a system resisted being dominated by the richer inner planets. It was canceled by Fox TV, who did everything to sabotage it, including showing the episodes out of order, because it was too progressive in its outlook. A year or so after being canceled, they all got back together and made a film made called _Serenity_ (the name of the ship) to conclude the story. (The film summarized what came before, for those who hadn't seen the show.)

_Warehouse 13_ - Indy Jones meets The X Files. The Warehouse exists to sequester "artifacts" - objects handled by people in moments of great stress that become dangerous as a result - they can cause harmful possessions, dangerous magical effects, etc. The Warehouse's agents work in pairs, investigating suspicious events to find what artifact might be responsible, and rescuing folks by neutralizing the artifacts to store them safely in the Warehouse - and the agents frequently get "whammied" by the artifacts themselves and have to save each other as well. There's some humor and pathos involved because of the relationships that develop between the agents. This series, which was produced by the SciFi channel around the beginning of this century, lasted about five years, and is a continuing story, with a succession of villains who span a number of episodes in their story arcs.


----------



## Philnick

Plus, if you like _Star Trek_, the new serialized shows are very good: _ST: Discovery_ (3 seasons so far of about a dozen episodes each) and _ST: Picard_ (one season so far).

_Discovery,_ set a few years before the original series with Kirk and Spock, follows the career not of a captain but of a young black woman, Michael Burnham, the adopted daughter of Sarek (Spock's father), who starts the series serving with Captain Philippa Georgio (played by the actress who played the older female heroine in _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_). In its second season, a young Spock and Captain Pike - Kirk's predecessor on the Enterprise - came aboard and so won the hearts of the fans that a new series, _Strange New Worlds_ is being made starring them.

_Picard_ stars Patrick Stewart as an elderly embittered ex-Starfleet Admiral, who takes to the stars again with a ragtag non-Starfleet crew to save the universe.

These new Trek series - and there are more in the works - are available through CBS All Access (which I get through Amazon Prime Video - CBS' own streaming app is defective). CBS AA is about to be renamed Paramount +.


----------



## Philnick

One thing you'll notice about my favorite films and tv shows is that their protagonists grow and show empathy for others throughout.


----------



## Philnick

@bud16415, the aspect ratio discussion has resumed in the thread for my projector.

What was the Air Force or NASA study about human field of view?


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> @bud16415, the aspect ratio discussion has resumed in the thread for my projector.
> 
> What was the Air Force or NASA study about human field of view?


Hi Phil

Strangely the link to the NASA paper I have in the OP is no longer working. Never trust the internet to not change I guess. I will look around and see if I can find that information again. Here are some slides that go a long way to explain VOF and acuity at the same time. It is a matter of how clear do you want what you are seeing and how much you wish to move your eyes. I tend to neglect head and body movement when thinking about film but eye movement should be a part.
This subtle distinction is a large part of what makes a movie experience so different than a TV experience and even what makes an IMAX experience different from a regular movie experience. Our vision is so refined that it is hard to convince people they are not seeing the whole image at once. As you know I have tried.


----------



## Philnick

The first graph seems to suggest that 16:9 matches human vision pretty well - as long as it's based on both eyes, not just one. 

PS The guy who taught most of the JVC users how to use JVC's free Autocal software, and seldom posts in the AVS forum, stepped in and asked for the bickering to be taken somewhere else. The CIH guys seem to have shut up for a moment.


----------



## Sam Ash

bud16415 said:


> Hi Phil
> 
> Strangely the link to the NASA paper I have in the OP is no longer working. Never trust the internet to not change I guess. I will look around and see if I can find that information again. Here are some slides that go a long way to explain VOF and acuity at the same time. It is a matter of how clear do you want what you are seeing and how much you wish to move your eyes. I tend to neglect head and body movement when thinking about film but eye movement should be a part.
> This subtle distinction is a large part of what makes a movie experience so different than a TV experience and even what makes an IMAX experience different from a regular movie experience. Our vision is so refined that it is hard to convince people they are not seeing the whole image at once. As you know I have tried.


Hi Bud, this is very interesting. I've been looking for such information for some time now.

Is there clear and comprehensive information pertaining to min and max view angles for both flat and scope screens?

Max view angles are more important to understand clearly for both aspects.


----------



## bud16415

Sam Ash said:


> Hi Bud, this is very interesting. I've been looking for such information for some time now.
> 
> Is there clear and comprehensive information pertaining to min and max view angles for both flat and scope screens?
> 
> Max view angles are more important to understand clearly for both aspects.


Hi Sam

The thread and information has been here for a while now glad you found it helpful.

I put the thread in this forum as CIH scope movies tax the visual limits horizontally and that is a big part of motion picture history. Then with the new IMAX AR 1.89:1 and how some new IMAX1.89 movies change between 2.39 and 1.89 maintaining CIW during the movie it is fairly straight forward to assume the directors intent as to how immersive one part should be to the other.

For a few of us that like the IMAX immersion we agree the new IMAX1.89 should be the width of scope we also enjoy. So in finding ones personally perfect immersion level for one is finding it for the other.

There will always be controversy as to how immersive was Academy intended way back before scope was a thing. In reviewing the screen sizes and seating of that era of theatres it becomes apparent there was a very wide range of immersions allowed. Many of these theaters of the 20s and 30s also had stages and were used for live performances so we don’t know if the closer seating may not have been intended for the Academy movies or not. All I know is I have memories as a kid of where we sat in our local Movie Palace and the screen size and I know I had enjoyment more immersive in height than what a 3.39:1 CIH setup would be for me. I have reproduced that at home with classic re-mastered Academy movies like Wizard of OZ and it seems to prove out.

Then there is what is not motion picture and isn’t really TV also even though it comes into most homes streaming and gets played on TVs. That whole mix IMO is something left for the individual to best deal with by how they feel about it.

Based on all that I felt a variable presentation method time had come and it needed a name and maybe even some ground rules if for nothing more than for people to understand the history of presentation and a way to make it best work for them.
TV works as CIW because 99% of the time everything is under immersive compared to cinematic standards. When doing HT CIH quickly becomes apparent it has short comings with immersion.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> The first graph seems to suggest that 16:9 matches human vision pretty well - as long as it's based on both eyes, not just one.
> 
> PS The guy who taught most of the JVC users how to use JVC's free Autocal software, and seldom posts in the AVS forum, stepped in and asked for the bickering to be taken somewhere else. The CIH guys seem to have shut up for a moment.


Yes 16:9 as strange as it seems is pretty close to comfortable human vision.

If you are a fighter pilot and seeing is life and death you may want to expand your comfortable vision some and what you find is in doing that the AR grows taller into something more like 4:3 or the original IMAX AR. Maybe the reason the IMAX movies left you a little drained and why they were only 45 minutes long.
I agree bickering isn’t needed to explore the science behind vision. Wish people could just talk on the subject instead of making it more than it is.


----------



## Philnick

@bud16415 The only reason you see the bickering in projector forums is that the "Nothing should be taller than scope!" CIH faction can't stop themselves from telling those with taller screens that they're doing it wrong.

They even go so far as to implement digital masking in their projectors to block off any imagery higher or lower than the frames of their scope screens in VAR films!

The most recent such debate in the thread for the current lamp based true 4K projectors was called a halt when I likened their cropping of tall images to the Greek myth of the Procustean bed, which was used to kill travelers by stretching or chopping them to fit.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> @bud16415 The only reason you see the bickering in projector forums is that the "Nothing should be taller than scope!" CIH faction can't stop themselves from telling those with taller screens that they're doing it wrong.
> 
> They even go so far as to implement digital masking in their projectors to block off any imagery higher or lower than the frames of their scope screens in VAR films!
> 
> The most recent such debate in the thread for the current lamp based true 4K projectors was called a halt when I likened their cropping of tall images to the Greek myth of the Procustean bed, which was used to kill travelers by stretching or chopping them to fit.


Well IMHO there is nothing wrong with a CIH home theater and given the vast number of scope and flat movies it is a better presentation method than CIW where you size your immersion to the flat and then watch the scope smaller like a TV would do it. some home theaters (a lot of them) are built in basements where people have lower ceilings and wanted to try and get two rows of seats without head interference and spent lots of money on doing a scope CIH setup.

At that point it is easy to become locked in and easy to feel there might not be enough media to force a very costly change if it would even be possible. They know that commercially IMAX movies are shown at a lesser AR by cropping as lets face it the movie theaters are faced with a similar problem being locked to a screen AR and IMAX has some pretty strict rules for their theaters as far as immersion. These same people don’t seem to use their HT for sports and other viewing non motion picture like some of us do that would benefit from the greater height, even some prestige TV shot to be more like IMAX than they will admit like GoT.

But again IMHO that is doing a bit of disservice to people coming and thinking about starting with a blank slate at home. PIA takes nothing away from CIH presentation as I said in the OP and even in the title of the thread it is a full sub set within PIA.

I don’t care if someone new decides to build a scope CIH HT. I even encourage them to do it if it is what they want and fits their room best. I do like to point out the option that there is another way to look at it and with a couple black masking panels they can do CIH+IMAX if they like with the ability to do PIA at any time even if only for pesky subtitles.
I don’t know but I think part of it is being unable to change and needing to think what you have built is best and defending that. I have seen photos of some CIH HT here that I would gladly trade with people for my meager makeshift PIA HT. Folks spend 10s and 100s thousands dollars even on HT built around CIH presentation. I might be resistant to having someone tell me I didn’t make the screen tall enough also. But that still doesn’t factor in the new guy that loves movies and also loves NFL and IMAX and his wife loves GoT. The answer will be well they can love all that just fine on a CIH screen and that is correct, just as correct as they could love all that on a CIW screen or even a 60” TV. It is not the end of the world. We are just talking about that next little bump in perfection.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @bud16415 The only reason you see the bickering in projector forums is that the "Nothing should be taller than scope!" CIH faction can't stop themselves from telling those with taller screens that they're doing it wrong.
> 
> They even go so far as to implement digital masking in their projectors to block off any imagery higher or lower than the frames of their scope screens in VAR films!
> 
> The most recent such debate in the thread for the current lamp based true 4K projectors was called a halt when I likened their cropping of tall images to the Greek myth of the Procustean bed, which was used to kill travelers by stretching or chopping them to fit.


No you made an incorrect statement about CIH and got corrected. That started the discussion. Then you signed off with this:

_Good luck. Most such discussions are within the Constant Image Height forum in AVS, where that religion dominates. That is as it should be - it is only when they start hectoring others in projector forums that they start to be outvoted and become intransigent in response, until someone steps in to stop the debate so the CIH fans aren't too badly humiliated. _

First, calling it a religion shows a very petty attitude. Films outside of IMAX are expressed as ratios with height as a constant. If you don't understand how ratios work, I can't help you. That's not a religion that is an established standard for cinema. I can't recall ever having felt humiliated in any of these discussions. Also it's "heckling".

I've tried to be civil in these discussions. I've never said you're doing anything wrong and generally appreciate your contributions to the owners threads.

As for our field of view, wrap around sunglasses keep the sun bothering our eyes where normal ones don't. Check out the coverage. Sit in your car and tell me you see a only a 1.6:1 viewport. You see your windshield, driver window and the passenger window while only seeing the visors and part of the footwell. I can also move my head to where my 16:9 monitor fills my vertical FOV and still see past it on the sides to the adjacent monitors.

I don't plan on derailing this thread. I just didn't want to reply to you in the owners thread since that has calmed down. In the future if you don't want start another AR discussion in there, then I'd suggest refraining from false statements on how CIH is intended to work.


----------



## 5mark

Philnick said:


> @bud16415 The only reason you see the bickering in projector forums is that the "Nothing should be taller than scope!" CIH faction can't stop themselves from telling those with taller screens that they're doing it wrong.
> 
> They even go so far as to implement digital masking in their projectors to block off any imagery higher or lower than the frames of their scope screens in VAR films!
> 
> The most recent such debate in the thread for the current lamp based true 4K projectors was called a halt when I likened their cropping of tall images to the Greek myth of the Procustean bed, which was used to kill travelers by stretching or chopping them to fit.


Using words like "faction" and "religion" is not the best way to get your points across. 

I recently posted about how much native 4k content there is on platforms like Netflix that is taller than scope. And how going to a 16:9 or even 2.0:1 screen has the advantage of displaying this content wider and getting all the benefits of the native 4k. This is from someone who has had CIH setups for years. So in this respect I'm on your "side". 

I'm effectively using around a 1.9:1 screen at the moment, but I also have the ability to mask it for scope content. So I can run the setup as CIH+IMAX and I have the option to watch VAR films at basically full height. This is a cool option to have, even though I'm not a big fan of watching scope unmasked with black bars. Watching VAR films on a scope screen with digital masking is still a very valid choice. In fact, if I could only do it one way I would likely pick that one. 

I've heard you say that the black bars don't bother you watching scope films. But I would highly recommend coming up with some type of masking, even if it is just crude for testing purposes. When a scope film is properly masked, I find it to almost appear larger and more immersive, even though the actual size hasn't changed. Something about your brain thinking you have gone from watching scope on a large tv to an actual movie screen.


----------



## jeahrens

5mark said:


> Using words like "faction" and "religion" is not the best way to get your points across.
> 
> I recently posted about how much native 4k content there is on platforms like Netflix that is taller than scope. And how going to a 16:9 or even 2.0:1 screen has the advantage of displaying this content wider and getting all the benefits of the native 4k. This is from someone who has had CIH setups for years. So in this respect I'm on your "side".
> 
> I'm effectively using around a 1.9:1 screen at the moment, but I also have the ability to mask it for scope content. So I can run the setup as CIH+IMAX and I have the option to watch VAR films at basically full height. This is a cool option to have, even though I'm not a big fan of watching scope unmasked with black bars. Watching VAR films on a scope screen with digital masking is still a very valid choice. In fact, if I could only do it one way I would likely pick that one.
> 
> I've heard you say that the black bars don't bother you watching scope films. But I would highly recommend coming up with some type of masking, even if it is just crude for testing purposes. When a scope film is properly masked, I find it to almost appear larger and more immersive, even though the actual size hasn't changed. Something about your brain thinking you have gone from watching scope on a large tv to an actual movie screen.


A lot of Netflix content is 2.00:1 and some is 2.20:1. A lot of Disney content is 2.35:1. A scope screen that fills your desired vertical height will show all of this with more immersion than a 16:9 screen (or 2.00:1). But since it's not really theatrical content, it's not really following any presentation standard. I personally think the Mandalorian and the Marvel content in 2.35:1 is awesome viewed on a scope screen. But that's simply my opinion.

Masking on a narrower screen helps a lot with perceived contrast and is definitely worthwhile when letterboxing. Masking the pillarboxing on a scope setup doesn't have the same benefit since the pillarboxed areas for content wider than 1.85:1 isn't lit by the projectors panel. 2.00:1 setups are a really nice compromise between a TV AR and scope.


----------



## Philnick

jeahrens said:


> No you made an incorrect statement about CIH and got corrected. That started the discussion.


Here's the "false statement" that kicked off the row:
"... I don't use a standard framed screen. A 16:9 screen keeps you from going large with Aspect:Zoom for scope films, while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically. My screen area is 17:9 to match the imagers."

Since there is no way to fit a 16:9 image onto a scope screen - even one slightly wider to match the JVC Aspect:Zoom setting - without reducing the lens zoom to make it fit vertically, to say my original statement was false is to insist that the zoomed down 16:9 image is not made smaller.

iI was actually astounded by the suggestion to instead make it fit by having the projector mask off vertically outside the scope frame, hence my reference to Greek mythology.

PS On a 0.93 gain 17:9 screen six feet tall, letterbox bars are essentialy invisible.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> Here's the "false statement" that kicked off the row:
> "... I don't use a standard framed screen. A 16:9 screen keeps you from going large with Aspect:Zoom for scope film's, while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically. My screen area is 17:9 to match the imagers."
> 
> Since there is no way to fit a 16:9 image onto a scope screen - even one slightly wider to match the JVC Aspect:Zoom setting - without reducing the lens zoom to make it fit vertically, to say my original statement was false is to insist that the shrunken 16:9 image is not made smaller.
> 
> iI was actually astounded by the suggestion to instead make it fit by having the projector mask off vertically outside the scope frame, hence the reference to Greek mythology.


No it was this:

_Philnick said:_
_while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically._

It doesn't and shouldn't. Properly setup they should have the exact same immersion.

All I suggested was that you could move closer to a scope screen of the same width you are currently using. Which would maintain your immersion for narrow content and dramatically increase it for wider content. Your response was that you couldn't do this as it would cast shadows on the screen. Which doesn't seem like it would be the case since other posters with 16:9 screens that as tall or taller than the image height discussed (53" would be your scope screen height with your current width) are sitting at the distance I outlined 7.5'. I didn't argue that point since you seem perfectly content with what you have.

And of course you have to change the focus/zoom for differing aspect ratios. Most of us using scope screens with the NX lineup are using aspect zoom for images 1.90:1 or wider.

FWIW I'd prefer your solution of 17:9 over a 16:9 screen. Uses all the light of the panel.


----------



## Philnick

QED.
"It's not smaller if you move closer."
But unless you move your seats, it is smaller.

It's the defensiveness that forces CIH folks to "correct" such inoffensive statements of fact that leads to calling these religious wars.

PS No 16:9 user felt the need to object to what I had said.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> QED.
> "It's not smaller if you move closer."
> But unless you move your seats, it is smaller.


No one is saying it's not smaller if you don't adjust seating. In a perfect world you would just be able to expand horizontally. The scenario I offered is for someone that has a limitation to this. In my case no movement was necessary of anything as the scope screen matched the height of what it was replacing. I would however prefer to adjust my seating to accommodate a scope screen vs a narrow screen because of the benefits I feel it has.



Philnick said:


> It's the defensiveness that forces CIH folks to "correct" such inoffensive statements of fact that leads to calling these religious wars.
> 
> PS No 16:9 user felt the need to object to what I had said.


There didn't need to be any discussion on it. You could have just said "yeah point taken" and edited your post to not be an absolute. No 16:9 user responded because there was nothing false being claimed about that aspect ratio setup. A lot of people have never thought about or setup a scope screen, so your post was challenged so someone reading it didn't wrongly assume it was correct.

You see it as defensive, I see it as attempting to educate. I don't boycott visiting a friends theater because of the screen they've chosen. When setting up a room I will discuss with them the pros and cons of what screen they may want to use. Too many people see a wall and think they need to fill it with the biggest TV AR screen they can without thinking of things like image brightness and use case.


----------



## Philnick

Outside of an anamorphic setup, insisting that fitting a 16:9 image into a scope screen does not mean shrinking it is lying.

That lie may be supported by the insistence that the height is "supposed" to be the same across aspect ratios so it's not smaller, but that's dogma, not fact. The fact is that the image for a 16:9 image from disk or streaming is taller than a scope image and must be made smaller to fit.

If the "correctors" said "For my anamorphic lens setup I have scope images stretched to the full height of the imagers - so I use the same lens zoom level for both" that might be true - but that expensive special case doesn't make my statement false in the usual case and needing correction.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> Outside of an anamorphic setup, insisting that fitting a 16:9 image into a scope screen does not mean shrinking it is lying.


You stated an absolute that isn't accurate. I didn't shrink any content moving to a scope screen since it had the same height as the 16:9 screen it replaced. The settings used for 1.85:1/16:9 didn't change at all except maybe shifting the image to accommodate the screen border differences. I don't think I've been a scope home theater that wasn't setup to maintain the immersion level of 1.85:1/16:9 material. 



Philnick said:


> That lie may be supported by the insistence that the height is "supposed" to be the same across aspect ratios so it's not smaller, but that's dogma, not fact. The fact is that the image for a 16:9 image from disk or streaming is taller than a scope image and must be made smaller to fit.


At home it's up to the viewer to decide how to view content. However it is not dogma to state the cinematic standards (aside from IMAX) are based around height as the constant. You not wanting to accept that doesn't make it false. A scope film is intended by the director to be seen at the same height as a 1.85:1 film only wider. Again you choose whatever you'd like in your own room. Honestly it's not hard to simply accept that cinematic standards are one thing and what you prefer is something different.



Philnick said:


> If the "correctors" said "With my anamorphic lens setup I have scope images stretched to the full height of the imagers - so I use the same lens zoom level for both" that might be true - but that expensive special case doesn't make my statement false in the usual case and requiring of correction.


I'm not entirely sure what your getting at here? It sounds like your trying to equate the panel resolution with how something should be viewed maybe? If that's case then, no it doesn't. The panels used in commercial cinemas don't generally match the screen. People were using different screens even back in the CRT 4:3 projector days. An anamorphic lens in the home has no practical difference vs. zooming the imaging as far as what you see. It just scales the image to the panel height, which the lens then corrects, to get more light.

A properly thought out scope setup is not designed to diminish (shrink) the viewing experience of narrower aspect ratio films. I don't view 1.85:1 or Academy films as lesser content and want them to have every bit of the impact they deserve. Moving to a scope screen was done to restore the intended impact of wider aspect ratio films. And I accomplished this with no change to the impact of narrower aspect ratios. My goal has always focused on recreating the theater aspect of the hobby. So cinematic standards are something I strive to follow. And, for me, the impact of seeing something like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Blade Runner 2049 being shown in this fashion is well worth the setup needed to make it all work.

I'm not looking to change your mind. You have a setup you enjoy and it does what you want it to do. That's beauty of having it be our own space.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens I'll say it very specifically. With a JVC set to maximum image size on a borderless wall in my room, and with no anamorphic lens in use, the height of a 16:9 image in Aspect :Auto - 6' - is greater than the 4'8" height of a 2.35:1 image zoomed with Aspect:Zoom.

Draw a hard 2.35:1 frame, and 16:9 images would have to be reduced in size with lens zoom to fit within it.

This is simple fact. Saying it's false won't make it so.

Perhaps you weren't using as large a 16:9 screen as possible (or were limited by a lower ceiling) so when you replaced it with a scope screen the height was unchanged - but don't say that what I said was false.


----------



## bud16415

Well guys it looks like there is still passion and spirited conversation surrounding alternate presentation methods. That’s good to see.

Few things that are truths about all this. The container that media comes in today is a 16:9 box of pixels 1.77:1 AR.

Some media fills it perfect some fills to the width but not the height and some the height and not the width.

Then we got projectors some 16:9 (1.77) some 16:10 (1.6) some 17:9 (1.88) some even 4:3 (1.33) and they can take what ever is in the 16:9 can and fit it as large as it can be in the projectors can.

Why wouldn’t you want to use as much of the projectors can as possible. When I had a 4:3 projector and later a 16:10 projector I used the extra height for a few things back then. One was viewing photos. Photos come two ways landscape and portrait why would I want to view landscape photos much more immersive than portrait photos. When I hand someone a packet of photos to look at they don’t hold the pictures in portrait at arms length and the ones in landscape up close. They turn them and look at them all the same area.

So it is simple the screen ideally should be the AR of the projector and sized to both the widest and tallest you would ever need and then have enough zoom to be the smallest you will ever want to view.

What could be simpler than just a large area that covers that range and even more.

The only problem is all these pesky black bars that are not really black and need masked. If that is true then you have a problem to decide if that 4way masking is worth the effort.

If someone tells you in their room with their projector and their screen they can’t notice or have learned to not notice the bars, you have to trust they are being honest. I will come out and say I can notice black bars on my setup and I am zero bothered by them or distracted and I feel they have zero impact on my perception of black if anything they may help in real terms and also mental terms with perception. Without trying it in person, it is hard for anyone with an open mind to make an opinion on it.
PIA is about us outliers that are pushing the envelope of home theater for our unique needs. No one is saying it is for everyone. We want to know and understand correct presentation and then examine it to the next level as media progresses and be ready for it.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @jeahrens I'll say it very specifically. With a JVC set to maximum image size on a borderless wall in my room, and with no anamorphic lens in use, the height of a 16:9 image in Aspect :Auto - 6' - is greater than the 4'8" height of a 2.35:1 image zoomed with Aspect:Zoom.
> 
> Draw a hard 2.35:1 frame, and 16:9 images would have to be reduced in size with lens zoom to fit within it.
> 
> This is simple fact. Saying it's false won't make it so.


Who's saying that's false? The only comment I made on your specific setup was that you could accommodate a scope setting by changing the room interaction to maintain your desired perceived image size for narrow content while dramatically increasing your immersion for wider. And that was really to demonstrate what a person can do, not something I expected you to entertain.

This is not what started this. I posted the statement that kicked this off. You made an absolute generalized statement that is demonstrably false.



Philnick said:


> Perhaps you weren't using as large a 16:9 screen as possible (or were limited by a lower ceiling) so when you replaced it with a scope screen the height was unchanged - but don't say that what I said was false.


Not really any limitations on the 16:9 screen. I setup my seats where I wanted them and then taped out a screen that was as big as I wanted it and bought it. The scope screen was just finding one that matched the height and moving the speakers a bit.

And again if faced with a room where I could fill the wall with a 16:9 screen vs. adjust seating to accommodate a scope screen, I'd pick the latter every time. But that's MY preference and it's fine if it isn't what someone else wants. I'd probably not even mention scope as an option to someone who mainly games on their projector or watches more TV than anything else. But too many people just measure the wall and fill it with no thought to what they really want out of the room or what kind of image brightness they'll be getting. I'm not saying that's you (that you have a 17:9 screen shows you put some thought into it), just that I see it a lot.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens The statement you labeled as "false" was that I don't use either a 16:9 or scope framed screen because either one would reduce maximum image size for the other.

Grant that was not a falsehood requiring "correction" and we'll be getting somewhere.

Your own initial choice to use less than maximum image size for 16:9 is irrelevant to whether what I said is true.

PS The other advantage of the borderless approach is that it makes a well thought out variable aspect ratio film a joy rather than an annoyance.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> But the statement you labeled as "false" was that I don't use either a 16:9 or scope framed screen because either one would reduce maximum image size for the other.
> 
> Grant that was not a falsehood requiring "correction" and we'll be getting somewhere.


I'm not following this. The only statement I'm aware of I've referred to as being false was what I posted on the previous page. And it is.



Philnick said:


> Your own initial choice to use less than maximum image size for 16:9 is irrelevant to whether what I said is true.


I was pointing out there wasn't a limitation in play in direct response to you postulating that may have been the case. And you're not grasping the fundamental concept that image size is an interplay of the physical size of an image and our distance from it. So, yes the 16:9 image size was the maximum I desired before scope was even on my radar as an option.


Philnick said:


> PS The other advantage of the borderless approach is that it makes a well thought out variable aspect ratio film a joy rather than an annoyance.


Borderless really doesn't make a difference to me for a VAR film. If you had a framed 17:9 screen (or added trim to your current painted in area) it wouldn't do anything to what is being displayed. However the aesthetics can certainly appeal. And nothing wrong if you prefer it that way.

I don't advocate setting up a room or making screen choices for a niche format like VAR (IMAX). It makes up a miniscule portion of what's out there. Also people generally view it the same distance as TV/16:9. Which makes it not really any more impactful in my opinion. I watch some VAR/IMAX content in 16:9 and some I watch in 2.20:1 with masking. I just find the technique as a whole ugly as the shifting takes me out of the experience. That's not advocating for one AR over the other either. I wouldn't mind at all if they could just film it in all IMAX and eliminate the shifting.

Probably 98-99% of the films released are still 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 and so scope is the obvious choice to maximize film viewing in my opinion.


----------



## Philnick

Philnick said:


> Here's the "false statement" that kicked off the row:
> "... I don't use a standard framed screen. A 16:9 screen keeps you from going large with Aspect:Zoom for scope films, while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically. My screen area is 17:9 to match the imagers."





jeahrens said:


> No it was this:
> 
> _Philnick said:_
> _while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically_


Agree that my statement wasn't false and I'll happily discuss relative "immersion" - but that's not the same as size.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> Agree that my statement wasn't false and I'll happily discuss relative "immersion" - but that's not the same as size.


I can't because it IS false. This:

_while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically_

is not true. That is what I responded to.

Are you seriously not grasping that your statement was an absolute? Does the idea of a scope screen that takes up the available height of a wall not even register? In my own case I shrunk nothing. How is this not sinking in at this point?

If you had said you may or can, then nothing would have been said.


----------



## Philnick

jeahrens said:


> I can't because it IS false. This:
> 
> _while a scope screen forces you to shrink 16:9 films to fit vertically_
> 
> is not true. That is what I responded to.
> 
> Are you seriously not grasping that your statement was an absolute? Does the idea of a scope screen that takes up the available height of a wall not even register? In my own case I shrunk nothing. How is this not sinking in at this point?
> 
> If you had said you may or can, then nothing would have been said.


Here's the qualification I would add: "If you want maximum image size for all types of images, and aren't restricted by a low ceiling... "

Your choice to go for less than that is, I submit, a special case.

I am not a gamer, and do not use my projector for routine TV viewing - I have a 50" LED TV in the living room for that. I use my theater for movies and things produced to cinematic quality levels, whether from disk or streaming.

This includes variable aspect ratio films.

I'm not willing to sacrifice image size for those to privilege scope films when I can maximize image size for all, including scope, by using a borderless screen.


----------



## maximus74

Hi 



I am about to replace my screen with a new one , having problems with my 10 years old fabric.



For that reason i am contemplating to change from 16:9 to 2.35:1 screen....my room is 5.2 m (15 ft) long with 13 ft wide

My JVC X5500 projector mounted at 12 feet from the screen place.

My previous screen was 110" diagonal 16:9 screen.

I also have a Lumagen processor with his non linear scalling (NLS) to adapt a 16:9 picture to a 2.35:1 screen...is worh the transition to a scoope screen?



How much in size can i do for my scoope screen ?


----------



## bud16415

maximus74 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> I am about to replace my screen with a new one , having problems with my 10 years old fabric.
> 
> 
> 
> For that reason i am contemplating to change from 16:9 to 2.35:1 screen....my room is 5.2 m (15 ft) long with 13 ft wide
> 
> My JVC X5500 projector mounted at 12 feet from the screen place.
> 
> My previous screen was 110" diagonal 16:9 screen.
> 
> I also have a Lumagen processor with his non linear scalling (NLS) to adapt a 16:9 picture to a 2.35:1 screen...is worh the transition to a scoope screen?
> 
> 
> 
> How much in size can i do for my scoope screen ?


Well if you were happy now with the size of your screen for your seating distance conventional wisdom says to stick with that height and make the 2.35 screen wider.

We don’t know what degree of immersion you like.
Do you plan on doing zoom to change between different ARs or will you be adding an A-lens.


----------



## Philnick

maximus74 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> I am about to replace my screen with a new one , having problems with my 10 years old fabric.
> 
> 
> 
> For that reason i am contemplating to change from 16:9 to 2.35:1 screen....my room is 5.2 m (15 ft) long with 13 ft wide
> 
> My JVC X5500 projector mounted at 12 feet from the screen place.
> 
> My previous screen was 110" diagonal 16:9 screen.
> 
> I also have a Lumagen processor with his non linear scalling (NLS) to adapt a 16:9 picture to a 2.35:1 screen...is worh the transition to a scoope screen?
> 
> 
> 
> How much in size can i do for my scoope screen ?


You don't say whether the scope screen would be as tall as you have room and magnification for. If so, why not. 

But if it would limit image height for non-scope films, ask yourself:

Do you like films that change aspect ratio, like _Interstellar _and_ Star Trek Into Darkness? _

A scope screen would interfere with enjoying them. Same for IMAX films, which would lose their vertical immersion.

On a blank wall, see what the vertical and horizontal measurements are of the projector's focusing grid. A screen that shape preserves flexibility in showing everything at its largest. Anything else means privileging one aspect ratio over others.

If you are annoyed by black framing bars, you can put movable black mask over them. Whether this is even needed depends your setup


----------



## ScottAvery

maximus74 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> 
> I am about to replace my screen with a new one , having problems with my 10 years old fabric.
> 
> 
> 
> For that reason i am contemplating to change from 16:9 to 2.35:1 screen....my room is 5.2 m (15 ft) long with 13 ft wide
> 
> My JVC X5500 projector mounted at 12 feet from the screen place.
> 
> My previous screen was 110" diagonal 16:9 screen.
> 
> I also have a Lumagen processor with his non linear scalling (NLS) to adapt a 16:9 picture to a 2.35:1 screen...is worh the transition to a scoope screen?
> 
> 
> 
> How much in size can i do for my scoope screen ?



Given that you have a lumagen I see no reason NOT to go scope unless you really want a max height 16x9 like Mr. Philnick.

60" by 144" is probably the reasonable maximum. You did not say whether you are planning on using acoustically transparent material, which will make a difference in planning speaker placement.

Simply extending your current height screen out to 2.4:1 would yield about 129.5" wide by 54" tall. That would leave 1 foot on either side. 140.5" diagonal.

It would be a 138" diagonal 2.35, which might be easier to find if you are looking for a pre-made manufactured product.


----------



## ScottAvery

Philnick said:


> You don't say whether the scope screen would be as tall as you have room and magnification for. If so, why not.
> 
> But if it would limit image height for non-scope films, ask yourself:
> 
> Do you like films that change aspect ratio, like _Interstellar _and_ Star Trek Into Darkness? _
> 
> A scope screen would interfere with enjoying them. Same for IMAX films, which would lose their vertical immersion.
> 
> On a blank wall, see what the vertical and horizontal measurements are of the projector's focusing grid. A screen that shape preserves flexibility in showing everything at its largest. Anything else means privileging one aspect ratio over others.
> 
> If you are annoyed by black framing bars, you can put movable black mask over them. Whether this is even needed depends your setup


Why are you in this forum? You have stated repeatedly you want to always project images at their largest, ignoring the historical and artistic "Truth" that scope is intended to be displayed wider than flat. It was almost universally displayed as such until multiplex theaters switched to CIW projection in order to pack in more screens in their floorplan.


----------



## Philnick

@ScottAvery I was invited here by @bud16415 (who started this thread for dissenters from the CIH point of view), when he saw me being criticized for praising particular VAR films in the VAR film thread. Silly me, I didn't know that thread had been set up to help avoid them.


----------



## ScottAvery

Philnick said:


> @ScottAvery I was invited here by @bud16415, who started this thread for dissenters from the CIH point of view.


Okay, understand. Did you at some point previously make a case for why projecting largest is best? It seems like the argument I see in the last couple pages is that it is recorded as such on the media, which ignores the fact that that is a compromise the industry made to prevent all the whining from consumers who could not understand anamorphic DVD. Two generations later, we still suffer.


And as for Bud, he at least plays along with the CIH viewpoint and acknowledges it has merit. And he takes the abuse heaped on him without much complaint.


----------



## Philnick

ScottAvery said:


> Okay, understand. Did you at some point previously make a case for why projecting largest is best? It seems like the argument I see in the last couple pages is that it is recorded as such on the media, which ignores the fact that that is a compromise the industry made to prevent all the whining from consumers who could not understand anamorphic DVD. Two generations later, we still suffer.
> 
> 
> And as for Bud, he at least plays along with the CIH viewpoint and acknowledges it has merit. And he takes the abuse heaped on him without much complaint.


If you aren't interested in going big, why use a projector? More seriously, I like vertical immersion as much as horizontal immersion, and am not willing to sacrifice either for the other, particularly when there are films that use vertical expansion to convey a different environment for some scenes, like the ones I mentioned above.

I like to set things up so that neither format is compromised.


----------



## bud16415

ScottAvery said:


> Okay, understand. Did you at some point previously make a case for why projecting largest is best? It seems like the argument I see in the last couple pages is that it is recorded as such on the media, which ignores the fact that that is a compromise the industry made to prevent all the whining from consumers who could not understand anamorphic DVD. Two generations later, we still suffer.
> 
> 
> And as for Bud, he at least plays along with the CIH viewpoint and acknowledges it has merit. And he takes the abuse heaped on him without much complaint.


I believe in the freedom of choice and the understanding of presentation. My goal was to do projection in a way that could include any and all methods of presentation and cover all media that we know today.

Phil doesn’t watch sports or TV on his system and I do. He mainly watches movies and does streaming. I do that also. When you talk streaming that opens a world of content both motion pictures (movies) and made for TV content that for all intent and purposes can be “movie” some of it is even 2.4:1 TV/movies. Who the heck knows what the director of scope TV show was thinking about immersion. He knows 99.99% of the people will watch it shorter than TV and he also knows almost no one sits as close to a TV to come close to theater immersion, but he still recorded it that way. I give it a try as big as I can make it also some might say I’m watching TV to large. I know they would if I watched a 16:9 TV show like it was IMAX.

Phil was shocked that the motive here in documenting IMAX movies was to basically warn people of them and talk about how to crop them to scope. I have to say I wondered about that myself as when a new one comes out I get excited to again fill my screen. So I said the only place I know of on the forum that talks about variable movies is my one thread in a forum about CIH, come over and expect to be followed my folks that detest the thought of filling your vertical immersion fuller.

Rob Hahn (home theater of the millennium) does something close to CIA and he is an A-list cinematographer with a HT second to none. He also wouldn’t have a forum dedicated to his form of presentation and if he ever wanted to talk about CIA as far as I’m concerned he can come here and talk about it with Phil and myself. CIA is in the title in fact. Rob being more than a film buff feels similar to me that the classic Academy movies 1.37:1 were intended in the days before wide screen to be more immersive vertically. I have tried to research that and it could be the case. Really doesn’t matter though because it is what he likes that matters.

Now to the matter of height and everything as big as it can be. That is not my preference but the word “personal” in the presentation name IMO allows for that option. Many of my friends and family may say I like much more immersion than they do so in their minds I’m watching things as large as I can also.
I like to explain it in terms of a real movie theater with many rows of seats and in selecting a row to sit in with others you are making an immersion choice. Every movie theater in the world from the time of Edison has offered variable immersion. If Phil went to Edison’s first movie I don’t doubt he would sit in the front row. If our goal is to recreate the cinema experience at home why wouldn’t you want to pick the row you want to sit in virtually at least.


----------



## ScottAvery

Rob leaned into CIA specifically because he loves old Academy pictures. I don’t own any academy ratio films, at least not intentionally. I was comparing scope to flat, and so was Philnick as far as I can tell.

For me the last 50 years of film is FAR more likely to get playtime the first 50. I took film appreciation in school, and I do know there are great old films. I just don’t to build my theater around them. Just like I wouldn’t build it around a handful of oddball variable AR movies. I didn’t actually build my ultra panavision screen for The Hateful Eight, but don’t tell Quentin!


----------



## Philnick

The beauty of the borderless approach is that all formats are shown in their full glory - there's no need to throw any of them under the bus.

I don't often watch TV in the theater because it's a waste of bulb life - my 50" LED TV is usually good enough for that.

PS I got into this hobby because I was the projectionist for the film society in college 50 years ago.

I'll never forget the Parents' Weekend when I showed a rented copy of _West Side Story. _ After playing Bill Evans and Theonious Monk on the the PA while the school's auditorium filled (I was also a jazz dj on the school radio station), I was horrified to discover that the rental house had sent us an anamorphic print without the expansion lens! It was the ballet of the tall thin people.


----------



## bud16415

A handful of this and a handful of that and pretty soon you are talking good amount. I understand if a person watches nothing but scope and flat motion pictures them being 100% happy with a CIH setup and there isn’t a thing wrong with that. In fact I’m 100% happy doing the exact same thing with those movies as CIH is included in PIA fully. When something like a Nolan movie comes along or Quentin or Spike Lee gets the urge something wild like The Hateful Eight or Da 5 Bloods I’m ready also. Maybe it is Wes Anderson going crazy with The Grand Budapest Hotel or Cameron Liking the IMAX cut and leaving it alone on Avatar. Then if you stream you have Amazon of all places making a great movie The Aeronauts for IMAX release and streaming it at the same time. I’m sure Phil has a list of his favorites as well that stretch the boundaries of CIH also.

Again why would you do this can be as simple as you liking to sit about 10 rows back in a theater and your wife liking 20 rows back. When you go to a movie with her of course she gets her way and you sit back with her not caring because you are also seeing a romantic comedy and it doesn’t need to be all that immersive it is not like Tom Cruise is going to be climbing a 100 story building with suction cups and you want to get that rush along with him as if you were there. When you go see that movie alone you know what seat you want.

Phil chooses to not watch TV on his front projection setup and I did the same thing for many years in my last house. When I built out this HT I decided where are my most comfortable seats, where is my best sound system, where is the best outside light and sound control. The cost of lamps is not a huge issue and I normally don’t wear a projector out before I’m ready for a new one. My next projector will likely have solid state light and will never need a lamp. Sure we have a TV 42” in living room and a 32” kitchen and they get used a lot. So when I say TV if it is the news with breakfast its in the kitchen. Years ago when I first got into FP I had a cable box and HBO etc connected into the projector thru a DVD player recorder and could watch regular 4:3 TV at the time. back then we talked a lot about does it spoil the movie experience watching TV as large as cinema? I felt it did and still do. My projector back then had a scaling feature to turn the 4:3 display to 16:9 and then a 4:3 TV show would be framed in that 16:9 as CIH and I did that some and that may have been the beginning of my PIA idea. I remember having a super bowl get together and putting the game on that size and people that had seen IMAX1.44 movies on it said what are you doing blow it up. So I did to the astonishment of everyone that couldn’t believe how big it was already compared to their 25” TVs at home 120” was amazing for them. It’s been 20 years and they still say that was an amazing super bowl party.

We have two little nephews 2 and 4 we watch sometimes they are growing surrounded by amazing media. When they come over they beg me to play dinosaur movies in the theater. I tease them saying lets watch them in the living room and they say no big dinosaurs. We make popcorn and get the room dark and IMAX their streaming dinosaurs movies they like and a few BD I have picked up that they don’t get on their puny 60” TV at home. Big picture big sound. So far it is the only movie theater experience they know.

Again PIA is not taking anything away from being able to fully enjoy CIH it is in there and for me it is not always watching everything as big as I can only as big as I want. I watch some poor resolution old classic TV and I go the other way also watching it less immersive because one it looks better and two when it was made it was made to watch less immersive because TVs were 19” or smaller and B&W. I’m still likely watching it 3-4 times larger than in the day.
I wonder how many people just watch scope and flat motion pictures and nothing else today. ☕


----------



## bud16415

For anyone feeling the need to criticize the intent of this thread I will have you look back to post #433 and my answer #434 where @maximus74 inquired about switching from a 16:9 screen to a 2.35:1 screen.

No one else made any suggestions and I assumed he chose this thread as he had read the presentation concept and felt CIH scope met the need. I have always said if you like the idea of a scope screen and it fits your room best with how your seating has to be then do it.
Many people believe it or not enjoy full immersion that formats like IMAX1.89 provide and in trying CIW found ether scope seemed under immersive or flat seemed overly immersive. So they try CIH and find it much better maybe feeling a little under immersive for flat and Academy and say what about IMAX1.89 what about on screen controls and subtitles or what about non motion picture stuff like games and TV sports and streaming shows like GoT they may thing could be larger. When I see people asking those questions I like to say there is an alternative. Maximus74 didn’t ask that although with a screen name like Maximus I would think he should.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> Here's the qualification I would add: "If you want maximum image size for all types of images, and aren't restricted by a low ceiling... "


Then you would still be mistaken. But certainly better than what you originally posted. Ceiling height can play a factor, but a low ceiling restriction doesn't necessarily force a choice. Nor does a high one.



Philnick said:


> Your choice to go for less than that is, I submit, a special case.


I didn't go less though. And, there are a lot of very good reasons not to simply measure the wall and fill the space. Desired image brightness, speaker placement, projector placement, seating constraints and room usage all play a part in setting up the room.



Philnick said:


> I am not a gamer, and do not use my projector for routine TV viewing - I have a 50" LED TV in the living room for that. I use my theater for movies and things produced to cinematic quality levels, whether from disk or streaming.
> 
> This includes variable aspect ratio films.


OK. You're concentrating on showing film by picking a ratio closest to TV shows. Interesting take on "cinematic".



Philnick said:


> I'm not willing to sacrifice image size for those to privilege scope films when I can maximize image size for all, including scope, by using a borderless screen.


So by shrinking wider content to a fraction of it's intended size you've "maximized" it. And that is because you filled all the space on your wall. Got it. So scope is privileged when someone shows it as intended by the filmmaker, but 1.85:1 and Academy aren't privileged when you show them much larger than the intended. Again, because you got to fill all your wall space. Got it. I hope you "maximize" a scope film when you go to the theater by sitting in the very back row to ensure it takes up as little of your field of view possible. Wouldn't want to start privileging it in the theater.

Maybe at some point you'll lose this fixation on physical dimensions being the end all of immersion and presentation and actually experiment. You haven't hit upon something the rest of us haven't done or experienced with putting up a screen that fills as much of your wall space as possible. And if you don't, nothing wrong with that as long as you're happy.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens
You had specifically said that your 16x9 setup was set smaller than you had the height for, and you then expanded it horizontally for 2.35x1. That's what I meant when I said you chose a lesser size than possible.

Since my scope size - 11'4" x 4'8" - is the largest I can get from my JVC in my theater, is wider than my 16x9 image, and I sit at the same 10' regardless, all of which which I've made clear repeatedly, your saying I've shrunk scope to smaller than its intended size is "counterfactual" - to put it politely.

To "privilege" something is to take something away from something else. Only the fixation that "nothing should be taller than scope" is cast aside by my setup. Scope projection itself is maximized.

Home theater does not have to be a zero sum game with other formats losing so that scope can "win."


----------



## bud16415

I have long pondered the relationship and the history of CIH and scope. It was created by a motion picture industry and showmanship and actually practicality as they only needed side masking and the drama of the curtains opening after the short movie played first. Sitting there watching the short and then the feature comes on and the curtain opens and it grows and grows.

IMAX came along in the 60s and really did it again pushing the limits in every direction and also in raw size. They went so immersive they had to invent a whole new way of filming and went so immersive it was for some a strain to watch. They also had to make their own movies. Then years later they reinvented it again and took on a more natural AR to be viewed and less taxing on the vision.
Here we are today not the 1950s not in a movie theater but at home watching amazing 4k content. Who is to say CIH is what fits today’s HT best. Some people a lot more into this than say CIA is better.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> You had specifically said that your 16x9 setup was set smaller than you had the height for, and you then expanded it horizontally for 2.35x1. That's what I meant when I said you chose a lesser size than possible.


No I said I sat in my seat and taped out the maximum size I felt was comfortable and bought the screen that fit that size. A very common way to determine screen sizing. I can't think of a room that hasn't approached the setup as a system. I don't know anyone personally that filled the wall and tried to make the room work around that.



Philnick said:


> Since my scope size - 11'4" x 4'8" - is the largest I can get from my JVC in my theater, is wider than my 16x9 image, and I sit at the same 10' regardless, all of which which I've made clear repeatedly, your saying I've shrunk scope to smaller than its intended size is "counterfactual" - to put it politely.


Yay! We're still playing the physical dimensions of the screen are all that matter game. If you read carefully the posts were that you're shrinking scope dramatically according to the cinema standards and the artistic intent of the director. Since you pointed out you're only interested in movies in your theater, it seems like that might be something you care about. You could make this work, but _GASP_ the physical screen dimensions would decrease! And that just wouldn't do. Doesn't matter that you would still have the same perceived image size for narrow content and a lot more immersion for wider.

Scope IS intended to fill your vertical immersion (height is the constant), so yes what you are doing is the same as physically sitting a lot further away when watching scope (which shrinks the image). I know you don't want to wrap your head around the idea that scope is not intended be a thin ribbon floating in a larger narrow AR screen.



Philnick said:


> To "privilege" something is to take something away from something else. Only the fixation that "nothing should be taller than scope" is cast aside by my setup. Scope projection itself is maximized.
> 
> Home theater does not have to be a zero sum game with other formats losing so that scope can "win."


Home theater does not have to be a zero sum game with other formats losing so that 1.85:1 and TV commercials can "win."

You continually state this "privilege" fallacy as if those of us with a CIH setup view Academy and 1.85:1 as "lesser". We don't. They aren't any less impactful on a properly setup scope screen.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens What do you suggest I do to improve my scope experience, since I can't make the scope image any larger? On my 0.93 gain screen there aren't noticeable letterbox bars. I can't use an anamorphic lens since my throw isn't long enough, my wall isn't wide enough, and I'm not willing to double the cost of my $6K projector.

i know! You want me to put a 2.35:1 box around the image. (That doesn't even fit most scope films - for which there's no one standard.)

What, precisely would that accomplish other than disadvantaging everything else?

Kindly quit your patronizing proselytizing for your obsession with scope _uber alles_.

The whole point of this thread is freedom of choice, or hadn't you noticed?


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> What do you suggest I do to improve my scope experience, since I can't make the image any larger? On my 0.93 gain screen there aren't noticeable letterbox bars. I can't use an anamorphic lens since my throw isn't long enough, my wall isn't wide enough, and I'm not willing to double the cost of my $6K projector.


Honestly, you're happy so I don't want you to do anything.

Your wall is plenty wide. You can adjust your seating to compensate for reducing the physical height, which maintains your perceived image size for narrow content. But I think you want to cling to filling the dimensions of your wall rather than entertain a different way of doing things. And again, if you're happy no reason to.



Philnick said:


> i know! You want me to put a 2.35x1 box around the image (That doesn't even fit most scope films.)


The differences are just a few inches. It's inconsequential.



Philnick said:


> What, precisely would that accomplish other than disadvantaging everything else?


Again, you aren't disadvantaging anything. I'm not sure how the idea that your distance from an image directly impacts with how large you perceive it. None of the suggestions I've made with regards to your setup have been with the intention to diminish the experience of narrow AR content.



Philnick said:


> Kindly quit your patronizing proselytizing for your obsession with scope _uber alles_.
> 
> The whole point of this thread is freedom of choice, or hadn't you noticed?


I'm going to skip past the rude comment implying fascism and fanaticism since it doesn't add anything to respond.

This is not about prioritizing scope no matter how much you keep regurgitating that opinion. It's about cinematic presentation. For some of us the goal of the room is to attempt to recreate the theater experience as best we can. I didn't see Raiders of the Lost Ark or Empire Strikes back as a thin ribbon on a tall narrow screen in the theater. And Kershner and Spielberg certainly didn't intend either be shown as smaller than the narrower ratios they could choose.16:9 (and to a lesser degree 17:9) was a compromise ratio. It was never intended to be the end all of cinematic presentation, it was meant to be an in-between for 4:3 and 2.35:1. And man was it a welcome change from the square screens we were living with at the time.

There are so many amazing films out shot in scope and watching them as intended is certainly a fulfilling experience. There are also many amazing films shot in Flat or Academy and it was never my intention to diminish that experience either.

I choose to respond to you in here to continue the discussion in the JVC owners thread. My goal isn't to tell anyone that their setup is wrong. Merely to educate on how and why one may choose an AR in their room. And correct some mistaken ideas on how CIH is intended to work.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens One parting shot. CIH came from the theaters' convenience in only wanting to have to mask horizontally and not vertically as well, plus their existing screening setups.

It wasn't handed down by God or any standards body - if there was one, scope aspect ratios wouldn't be all over the lot.

I submit that the meaning of "cinematic" is in the eye of the beholder, not a holy writ.

Oh, and on my borderless wall, there's just the image - there's no tall frame to make it look like a thin ribbon. It simply is what it is.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @jeahrens One parting shot. CIH came from the theaters' convenience in only wanting to have to mask horizontally and not vertically as well, plus their existing screening setups.
> 
> It wasn't handed down by God or any standards body - if there was one, scope aspect ratios wouldn't be all over the lot.
> 
> I submit that the meaning of "cinematic" is in the eye of the beholder, not a holy writ.
> 
> Oh, and on my borderless wall, there's just the image - there's no tall frame to make it look like a thin ribbon. It simply is what it is.


It came from wanting to differentiate from TV, which copied Academy ratio (1.33:1 vs 1.37:1). So did Flat.

Scope is an established standard ratio. You're trying to make something out of what is the margin of error for different cameras and lenses. It makes no practical difference.

You can submit whatever you like. Theatrical presentation is not something nebulous. Directors and DPs choose a ratio and know exactly how they intend it to be presented. You are free to do whatever you like in your own room.

It's a thin ribbon because it's occupying a small fraction of your vertical immersion rather than all of it (and lot less of your horizontal on top of it). Whether you have a screen border or not makes no difference. It is the equivalent of going into a scope theater and moving several rows back from where you would normally sit.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens How far are you sitting from your screen, and what are its dimensions? You have still never said, though I've told you my setup.

I'm sitting as close as possible to as large as possible a scope image - your statement that I'm sitting way back to get a less immersive picture is simply insulting as well as dishonest, and discredits everything you say.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @jeahrens How far are you sitting from your screen, and what are its dimensions? You have still never said, though I've told you my setup.
> 
> I'm sitting as close as possible to as large as possible a scope image - your statement that I'm sitting way back to get a less immersive picture is simply insulting, and discredits everything you say.


The screen is 120x51" and I'm sitting at about 8.5-9'. 

I ran the numbers on your setup and you would need to sit about 7.5' from your current width to make up for the reduction in physical height. Which is doable as several posters in the thread during the discussion were sitting that close or closer to taller images (your scope height was about 54"). 

I don't think you grasp the analogy I was making and it doesn't discredit any of the discussion. Filling a fraction of the intended vertical and horizontal immersion is the equivalent of sitting a lot further back than normal in a theater with a scope screen.


----------



## Philnick

jeahrens said:


> The screen is 120x51" and I'm sitting at about 8.5-9'.
> 
> I ran the numbers on your setup and you would need to sit about 7.5' from your current width to make up for the reduction in physical height. Which is doable as several posters in the thread during the discussion were sitting that close or closer to taller images (your scope height was about 54").
> 
> I don't think you grasp the analogy I was making and it doesn't discredit any of the discussion. Filling a fraction of the intended vertical and horizontal immersion is the equivalent of sitting a lot further back than normal in a theater with a scope screen.


I ran the numbers on our respective scope images and seating distances. Assuming you are sitting 8.75 feet from your 120" wide screen, what you're getting is pretty comparable to what I'm getting sitting 10 feet from a 136.5" wide screen, which would look (proportionally) like it's 119.5" wide - an insignificant difference.

My scope image is thus no different from yours, in terms of immersion.

To keep my IMAX and 16:9 images as immersive as at present, you'd have me shrink them to fit a scope screen, move my seating, and recalibrate my sound system to end up with the same image - while losing the ability to enjoy VAR films.

No deal. Occam's razor says the simplest solution is the best.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> I ran the numbers on our respective scope images and seating distances. Assuming you are sitting 8.75 feet from your 120" wide screen, what you're getting is pretty comparable to what I'm getting sitting 10 feet from a 136" wide screen, which would look (proportionally) like it's 119" wide - an insignificant difference.
> 
> My scope image is thus no different from yours, in terms of immersion.


We aren't the same person. My image dimensions and seating distance are set to my preference. Just like some people like to sit in the back of the theater and some the front row. Your current setup I would find overwhelming for narrow content as it would be to tall for me. I'm sitting over 10% closer to comparable image, so even comparing things as they are my scope image is larger.

If I wanted a taller image I could either adjust my seating distance or buy a larger screen. Since I want to hit the brightness targets I'm at, I would adjust seating. Thankfully my current image height is fine for me. Just as it was for the 16:9 screen.



Philnick said:


> To keep my IMAX and 16:9 images as immersive as at present, you'd have me shrink them to fit a scope screen, move my seating, and recalibrate my sound system to end up with the same image - while losing the ability to enjoy VAR films.
> 
> No deal. Occam's razor says the simplest solution is the best.


Again you miss the point. I'm suggesting changing your seating distance to 7.5' to account for the 54" high image to achieve 2 things: 1 to preserve your current immersion for TV/16:9 and 2 to increase your immersion for wider content. So you're not losing immersion, only gaining. Narrow content would only "shrink" if you stayed at the same seating distance.

Well the simplest solution is the simplest for sure.


----------



## bud16415

I’m so glad to see all the interest in PIA presentation.

So if I understand correctly a scope screen size should be determined by first finding the max height of your vertical FOV then use that height to determine the size of your scope screen. That way your flat content will be as large as you could ever want it within your FOV and scope will automatically fill your horizontal FOV.

That’s a wonderful premise as long as some science tells me that human FOV is a 2.4:1 AR. The science does not tell us that though. In fact the science tells us quite a few different things than that. We have been thru all that before.
In actuality IMAX was the only film making process that even attempted to fill our FOV fully and then later fill our FOV comfortably. They at least started with a scientific approach based on actual human vision.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens You're sitting 87.5% the distance from an image 88% the width, for essentially the same image size I'm seeing. We're both happy with it.

If I did what you suggest, my couch would be blocked by a post that supports the main beam in my basement, I'd have to relocate my surround and ceiling speakers, and would lose the ability to enjoy VAR films - unless I stayed borderless, in which case you'd still say I was showing scope as a thin ribbon across a narrow aspect ratio screen.

My scope immersion is essentially the same as yours, so let it go, and stop telling folks that optimizing their setups for flexibility degrades scope. I think I've shown that it doesn't have to.


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @jeahrens You're sitting 12.5% closer to an image 88.5% the width, for essentially the same image size I'm seeing. We're both happy with it.


We sure are.



Philnick said:


> If I did what you suggest, my couch would be blocked by a post that supports the main beam in my basement, I'd have to relocate my surround and ceiling speakers, and would lose the ability to enjoy VAR films - unless I stayed borderless, in which case you'd still say I was showing scope as a thin ribbon across a narrow aspect ratio screen.


You didn't mention anything about a post earlier, just that you thought you would cast a shadow on the screen. I can't picture how the post isn't an issue now, but I'll take your word for it. IF you were able to relocate as suggested your immersion for VAR would be unchanged with the proposed distance/size.



Philnick said:


> My scope immersion is the same as yours, so let it go, and stop telling folks that optimizing their setups flexibly degrades scope. I think I've shown that it doesn't.


Not really, your comfortable vertical immersion is taller than mine. So it's not apples to apples. Right now 16:9 is filling 100% of your desired vertical immersion while scope is filling ~75% of it. In my case both are filling 100%.

There's nothing optimized about a TV AR screen if theatrical presentation is important and nothing inherently more flexible with a borderless screen. You have a screen area with a width, length and AR just like everyone else. You just choose not to frame it. If it fits your needs, that's great.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens In a VAR film, the taller image generally signifies "outdoors" with the scope image signifying "indoors" (a ceiling overhead) with the people the same size either way. CIH presentation prevents this, forcing either frequent changes in magnification or heavy masking of the taller images, in either case destroying the artistic intent of the director.

If you don't believe that there are many VAR films, check out the VAR thread here - there are a lot of them. It's a pity that thread is maintained as a way to avoid instead of appreciating them!


----------



## jeahrens

Philnick said:


> @jeahrens In a VAR film, the taller image generally signifies "outdoors" with the scope image signifying "indoors" (a ceiling overhead) with the people the same size either way. CIH presentation prevents this, forcing either frequent changes in magnification or heavy masking of the taller images, in either case destroying the artistic intent of the director.


So I'll try explaining this a different way. Your current screen height represents 100% of your desired image height. Right now you are watching VAR content filling this height. A scope setup in your room would necessitate reducing the physical height of your screen. To compensate for this reduction your seating would need to be moved to 7.5' (yes I know there is a post in the way, this is just to explain the concept). By moving your seating closer the reduced physical height has now been compensated for and the vertical size is again at 100% of your desired image height. So VAR content is filling the same percentage of your field of view it always did on the scope screen. Scope would continue to be letterboxed in the 16:9 image area when watching this content just as it is now. No one is suggesting you change installation modes for AR changes during a VAR presentation. It would make the average Nolan film about 6 hours with all the changes if you did .

I generally watch VAR content in the 16:9 mode. So I'm not doing anything to the directors intent in those cases. In a few I will mask the IMAX framing simply because the constant AR changing is something I find a distraction and brings me out of the film. I realize this is not an optimal choice and freely offer that when discussing IMAX.

In my opinion the cropped IMAX we get isn't worth considering when making decisions for a room. It makes up a tiny fraction of content out there. IMAX is lucky if it's even 1% of my collection. The Nolan box set and a handful of others are it. At least 50% of that same collection is wider than 1.85:1. So if someone wants to "privilege" IMAX (to use your terms) that's their prerogative. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone build their setup around a niche format. But in the end it's ultimately everyone's choice how they setup a room.


----------



## bud16415

I don’t find it hard to believe that some people have the ability to have more peripheral vision in the vertical direction or maybe less restricted eye movement in the vertical direction. Not to mention screen height placement and seating recline angle. Most of us level headed people can adjust our eyes downward easier than upward. The reason IMAX tilts seats and also builds high stacked stadium seating.

Then we see people that when resolution improves and they get more seat time crave more immersion than less. Is our vision evolving that fast. To think evolution takes many,many centuries but in just a few months some peoples eyes evolve to allow more immersion. I don’t think so.
I don’t know how hard it is to walk outside and see how immersive our vision really is in real life. Then compare that to how much of your vision is used in your theater.


----------



## Philnick

@jeahrens I'm glad that you do sometimes watch VAR films unaltered. Whether I use Aspect:Auto or Zoom depends on whether the tall sections are 16:9 or 1.85:1 (which isn't as badly cropped by Zoom) and if the film is in 3D, for which Zoom is simply unavailable. Marvel's 3D _Doctor Strange_ is a psychedelic VAR masterpiece.


----------



## Philnick

Excuse this cross-post, but I figure this group would be interested in it:

After looking at the specifications for the raft of Disney+ IMAX-enhanced films (all from Marvel) that appeared yesterday - using my phone app, since the web app is silent about the specs - I was horrified that they were all listed as "HD 5.1" instead of "UHD Atmos" as they had been when they were straight scope-formatted.

Then I went to my theater, fired up my Nvidia Shield and was relieved to see that they are indeed still UHD (confirmed by the Shield, which expressly declines to apply upscaling to 4K material) and DD+ Atmos (confirmed by my AVR). The one film I tested out, _Doctor Strange,_ is VAR, opening up vertically to 1.90:1 in the IMAX scenes - so I can use my 4K JVC's Aspect:Zoom setting, since 1.90:1 is the projector's native aspect ratio. (With the 3D VAR film, I can't use Aspect:Zoom because that mode is unavailable when showing 3D.)

I have both the UHD (VAR) and 3D (scope) disks of _Star Trek: Into Darkness_ and I always watch the VAR UHD version so I can see Spock dwarfed by the leaping lava inside the volcano and benefit from the bigger, brighter, sharper picture and discrete overhead sound. The new Disney+ IMAX-enhanced version of _Doctor Strange_ will lead me to watch that version instead of the VAR 3D disk - a bigger, brighter, sharper image with discrete overhead channels makes 3D less of a draw. And the same will apply to my other 3D Marvel disks once they're available this way.


----------



## Philnick

One film that none of the above applies to - and that I heartily recommend - is an unjustly-neglected ten year old Steven Spielberg - Peter Jackson collaboration, _The Adventures of Tintin_. 

When the first Indiana Jones film came out, Spielberg was mystified to see many European reviews of the newly-released _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ comparing it to Tintin, which he'd never heard of.

So he did some research, found the Tintin graphic novels that had been written in the early 20th century (back when they were simply called "comic books") by the Belgian writer Hegre, and decided they were drawn so cinematically that he wanted to film them.

He put the idea on the shelf but eventually wrote to Peter Jackson, who had made the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy, to ask if Jackson could create a motion capture dog (the way he had created Gollum) that Spielberg could include in a live-action film. Jackson - who turned out to be a lifelong fan of Tintin - responded with a short comic film including not only such a dog but himself playing (by motion capture) one of the other characters in the Tintin books.

They ended up making a completely motion-capture animated movie together that is quite wonderful. I initially bought the normal Blu-ray, which my wife and friends all fell in love with, so I sprang for the 3D version, which brings the animation even more fully to life. The attention to detail, including subtle reflections in panes of glass, is stunning.


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick

I think it’s great Disney is taking a positive step in bring the IMAX-enhanced versions of these Marvel movies out to the streaming market. What is the point of creating a format like IMAX if the only place it hardly is available is within the brick and mortar of an IMAX theater. I think the whole motion picture industry is coming around to realizing that the days exclusively watching movies in theaters is a thing of the past. Might be one bright spot Covid lockdowns helped bring around.

The other thread that’s running now in the forum on the topic is taking on the same negatives you would expect from folks deeply invested in a presentation method that won’t allow for this format. It is hard to subjectively look at this issue for some because it is like trying to pound a 1.9:1 plug into a 2.4:1 hole. To paraphrase the old adage.

From the day I started this thread I couldn’t figure out why one new format should have any impact on another format. They are unique things just as I can love Academy AR movies from the 20s-50s and equally love scope movies along with IMAX movies. They are similar but different and why not watch them all in the grand manner they deserve.

I have zero issues with someone wanting a scope CIH screen and presentation method. I think it is wonderful in fact. But don’t then complain that IMAX doesn’t fit your presentation. Go ahead and crop it as they claim it is safe and ok to do, and watch Academy IMO and others less immersive than it may feel right to us who remember it as the big screen. Just don’t tell me IMAX is better cropped than not. When you have the option to watch it both ways everyone I know says it is ok scope safe but it is IMAX full sized.

It will be interesting to hear the input from those watching these Marvel IMAX on regular TVs. Does anyone really think people watching on TVs will pick the scope version over the IMAX. The OP in the other thread was fearing these were a new take on pan n scan and cropping the sides off the scope movie to make it IMAX. No one would condone that.
Also thanks for reminding me of The Adventures of Tintin. We watch two young boys (nephews) and they live in a house that only streams to a TV and they are mystified by projected movies that come from plastic discs in little blue boxes they can look thru. They are just about at the perfect age for this movie and uncle bud giving them a big bowl of popcorn to eat during the show in the dark. The memories I formed in the Warner Theater as a kid I’m conveying to them in my theater.


----------



## Philnick

Well Max (remember _Annie Hall_?), I don't think I've clued you in on my latest adventures in theater configuration. If your equipment is connected to your LAN, whether by ethernet or wifi, and it's from many of the most commonly-used manufacturers here, there's a free app called HTWebRemote written by a member here who goes by the handle "SirMaster" and has created a support thread for it here (linked to from its name in this sentence and in my signature block).

It runs on any always-on Windows PC on your LAN. It has menus (1) to tell it where to find each of your devices on your network and what sort of device each is (it also lets you give them nicknames - useful if you have multiple similar devices), and (2) to create a set of tabbed web pages on which you can make buttons that send single commands or run macros that can span different devices, complete with programmable time delays between steps. Once you've set them up you leave the app running - it's quite small - so you can use a web browser on your phone to send the commands for you. The app acts as a web server, taking your button presses and turning them into commands it sends to your gear.

I'm lucky that all of my devices (other than my cable box and record player) can be controlled this way.

Here are the tabbed pages in the web page that my phone's homescreen shortcut brings up in its browser:





































On the Theater page that comes up by default because I was looking at it when I created the home screen shortcut, I put a global power On macro that (1) turns on my AVRs, (2) sets my Roku as the input to the main AVR (a Yamaha), so I get the Roku's animated aquarium screen saver, (3) waits six seconds (to give the Roku time to start its screen saver while the projector warms up) and then turns on my projector, (4) sets the sound processing to to default Straight, and (4) reboots my Nvidia Shield (an android box similar to a Roku) so its Prime app will give me surround sound - if the Shield's screen saver, which can't be completely disabled, has come up, Prime will only put out stereo until the Shield is rebooted.

My four overhead speakers are driven by the amplifier in an second-hand Denon AVR that predates LAN control (and ignores its own remote) - so that unit is plugged into its surge protector through a Belkin "wemo" - a wifi-controlled AC outlet that the app can turn on and off. (My LP turntable is plugged in through one of the Denon's back-panel AC outlets, to turn it off with the rest of the system.)

Since my Yamaha's physical remote doesn't light up and doesn't blink brightly enough for the Yamaha to see it when I bounce it off my screen, on the "Theater" page I've duplicated that remote's most-often used buttons, and made _named_ buttons for selecting all of my source devices (far better than the anonymous numbered buttons on the physical remote). I've also created buttons for easy switching between Full Room Stereo (all channels on each side of the room tied together, plus the center channel and subwoofers), Neural:X upmixing, and Straight (which gives normal playback of any source, analog or digital, and of any Dolby or DTS format, up to and including Atmos and DTS:X) and to manually reboot the Shield near the end of watching a disk longer than the Shield's screensaver timeout period (which I've set to its 2 hour maximum).

Switching my projector between its 16:9 and 17:9 aspect ratios (the latter is a 6 2/3% digital zoom I can use for things shorter than the screen's full height at 16:9) normally requires diving several levels deep into its menus with the physical remote - but this app can use codes from the Oppos' command set to instantly switch to one or the other with a single tap. (That's how it resets the projector to the default 16:9 on system startup.)

On the page for my Shield I've put named buttons for direct access to each of my streaming apps (no more cruising its home page looking for them). Each of those buttons also makes the Shield the active input on the Yamaha. I duplicated most of the buttons on Shield's remote because it's small and hard to find in the dark - I even gave it a button to make the Shield's physical remote beep so I can find it if it gets misplaced.

I've equipped my Oppo with one of the 3rd party plug-in cards sold on eBay that enable region-switching to play disks purchased from overseas, so on my Oppo page I created a group of macro buttons that each condenses into one button tap all the steps for switching to a region - which would otherwise require the following steps when using the physical remote: Dimmer, Dimmer, Dimmer, Mute, Region Number, Power Off, wait 15 seconds, Power On, wait 10 seconds, Open Disk Tray. Each macro button does it all with one tap and even opens the disk tray for me!

Also on the Oppo page I put a simple button that cancels any zoom set with the Oppo's remote, which otherwise would mean cycling through all of its many zoom settings in hopes of getting back to normal.

My global Power Off macro turns off the projector (after setting it to the default 16:9 aspect ratio, to make startup smoother), both AVRs, and the Oppo. You can even make a button pop up an "Are You Sure?" query - which I've done on the buttons that would cause annoying delays if pressed by accident, like rebooting the Shield, changing regions on the Oppo, or powering off one or more devices.

The Living Room page controls my older Yamaha AVR, which I moved upstairs when I upgraded my theater to Atmos - by giving similar devices different nicknames you can control them separately.

I've found SirMaster very open to suggestions to improve his app. At my suggestion, he enabled (1) easy copying of a button to make minor variants - like the various region code buttons - (2) hiding a page of buttons until needed, and (3) commenting out a setp in a macro - for troubleshooting purposes or to document how it works.

-Max(Phil)


----------



## bud16415

@Philnick Wow that sounds like you are now fully automated. I’m still sitting here with a basket full of remote controls.
I will have to dig deeper into all this. Thanks.


----------



## Philnick

bud16415 said:


> @Philnick Wow that sounds like you are now fully automated. I’m still sitting here with a basket full of remote controls.
> I will have to dig deeper into all this. Thanks.


Until a few months ago, I was a "one remote per device" guy myself, and scorned the complexity - and expense - of the Harmony systems.

I've avoided the expense and IR-repeating rigs of the Harmony system, but I've gotten elbows deep into application-level programming!

I still keep the discrete remotes for the things they do well on their own.


----------



## Philnick

@bud16415 I forgot to mention two things:

(1) When I rebuilt my basement theater two years ago for UHD and Atmos, I replaced my prior Yamaha AVR with one that could give me Atmos, so I put the prior Yamaha in my living room stereo setup. I've now added control of it to this app as well, courtesy of the app's "nickname" feature that lets you separately control multiple devices of the same sort. I gave it a much-simplified page that just lets me turn it on and off and control the volume, with named buttons for the three sources I use with it: a basic Chromecast (for TuneIn Radio, Amazon Music, and movies "cast" from my phone), my cable box, and the Yamaha's "server" input that works as a gapless renderer for my DLNA music library - better for concerts than the Chromecast.

(2) I don't have to put my phone on wifi to use this app, since I use No-IP.com, a private domain name server, that lets me access my home system over the public internet. They have free accounts that you can use - you create a nickname on their website for your system and run a small app that contacts their site every few minutes so it knows your current public address. Then, when you aim a program at that address (http://nickname.no-ip.org) it's forwarded to your system.

So I set my router to forward any incoming traffic on port 5000 (the port that HTWebRemote uses) to the machine running it, aimed my phone's browser at http://nickname.no-ip.org:5000, and put a shortcut onto my phone's home screen for that (most phone browsers have a menu option to create such a shortcut). I can control both of my systems from any place I can get onto the internet.


----------



## Philnick

Since I got into a round of "show and tell" with a guy in my Oppo thread, where we each put up images of our remote control pages, I decided to update my post here with them - to give you a taste of what's possible with this free app.


----------



## Philnick

It took a lot of experimenting with time delays, but last night I got the remote tab for my living room Yamaha AVR to give me one-button access to nearly a dozen internet radio stations - some local and some not. It's an older unit (the RX-A1030) that still uses the vtuner service (which charges the princely sum of $4 a year). The macros have to go through nested menus and then walk down the station list to start the one I want - but they work - they even turn the system on in the process, so it really is one tap!

The first two lines are local Boston-area stations, including the college station (WBRS-FM) where I did a jazz show as an undergrad from 1969-72, the next line are full-time jazz stations (in New York, San Fran, and LA), and then the reknowned independent WBAI-FM in Manhattan and an internet classical station my wife likes.


----------



## bud16415

Last night I watched some old reruns of Green Acres 1960s in my theater and the show was old an grainy but it was just so entertaining I had to watch it larger than IMAX. Even though it was blurry and washed out it was just so great seeing Mr. Haney’s nostrils at least two foot tall. Not to mention Arnold Ziffel the pig’s close-ups were just so IMAX. It was wonderful.



Of course I didn’t do that, but the perception of that viewing practice as of late is being widely spread around the forum as PIA is the same thing as watching anything and everything as large as humanly possible. Just because you can. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I want to redirect this thread into a deeper dive into why those of us that utilize a variable presentation method do such. My own reasons are spattered thru this thread and from the beginning I have said my form of variable and the rules I may set for myself are not what may be correct for everyone.

Some of the recent posts in the other thread got me thinking about folks with what I will call width limited rooms. At my old house and before I started thinking about using zoom as a variable I built a width limited CIW 4:3 theater 20 years ago with a front row of seats and behind that a riser with a row of actual 1930’s movie theater seating. The projector I had did a scaling feature converting 4:3 down to 16:9. so I would view flat and scope as CIW in the 16:9 window and then as IMAX was still 1.43 or 1.33 on DVD. I could expand to the full screen for my IMAX DVD collection. It was quite impressive after getting used to the 16:9 area to have an IMAX night in the little HT and expand the image to 6 foot tall. Of course my scope presentation suffered the most being CIW and that always bothered me but my room was narrow and my seating was dictated by the shape of the room throw distances and a few others. We used the room a lot for cable TV and sourced a lot of 16:9 and 4:3 content from places like HBO and I soon found some 4:3 sports were to the liking of my guests so I played them like IMAX.

Thru the desire for more immersive scope and the changeover of TV from 4:3 to 16:9 I started looking to CIH and it left me feeling shorted a little on my loved Academy movies I moved to a 16:10 projector with enough zoom and using the taller display and in my new home a little wider room. There was a good compromise to be made. It was no longer CIW that I hated and not quite CIH that I was going for with a projector that had limited manual zoom and focus and no image shift. I found a stealth painted screen wall with a manual masking system that I sometimes used was an improvement. Scope was much better as was flat as was academy. IMAX1.89 was not on my radar yet. At least in terms that it should more immersive in relationship than I could handle.

I have been beginning to realize that quite a few people have rooms that could benefit from a compromise screen area as a type of PIA. I also feel there are quite a few people that have no issues with splitting the difference some amount between scope and flat say where it takes on a somewhat CIA feel or maybe a CIA+IMAX.

Lets face it hardly any of us start with a foundation and build a theater from the ground up. We have some spare room or part of a basement. We want to build a HT for some number of people, etc. If we have some form of zoom that is automated why not make it work to our benefits.
If you have a special case dictated by the room or have a preference for variable immersion tell us your thoughts.


----------



## nathan_h

While I’m working on building my new theater (a multi year project since the building doesn’t exist, and the budget is out of reach for now) I’ve got a temporary setup in a bedroom.

It is not only width limited, which I hate because I got used to having a 2.37 screen sized to make 16:9 inside of it ideal and then expanded the sides further in my last room — where I still had extra space even after sizing it that way.

I also have a limited a throw. So the project is sitting in an open closet and the screen is on the opposite wall and still had to be even smaller than the wall width due to throw distance limitations and not being able to use an acoustically transparent woven screen since I needed an ALR (because the walls and ceilings are light in color.)

There are photos in my sig.

Compromises upom compromises but one does what one can / must. First world problems for sure of course.


----------



## bud16415

nathan_h said:


> While I’m working on building my new theater (a multi year project since the building doesn’t exist, and the budget is out of reach for now) I’ve got a temporary setup in a bedroom.
> 
> It is not only width limited, which I hate because I got used to having a 2.37 screen sized to make 16:9 inside of it ideal and then expanded the sides further in my last room — where I still had extra space even after sizing it that way.
> 
> I also have a limited a throw. So the project is sitting in an open closet and the screen is on the opposite wall and still had to be even smaller than the wall width due to throw distance limitations and not being able to use an acoustically transparent woven screen since I needed an ALR (because the walls and ceilings are light in color.)
> 
> There are photos in my sig.
> 
> Compromises upom compromises but one does what one can / must. First world problems for sure of course.


I agree if you are starting with a blank slate building a theater the options are limitless. My guess is the percentage doing that is not that large. There are a lot of people with unfinished basements that have some room to spread out but many of them are height constrained. With limited height I have often seen people that wanted to do IMAX have issues.

As you mentioned when free space is found upstairs the throw length sometimes dictates projecting to the short wall in a bedroom or such and often the door forces the seating back to where immersion gets hurt.

When we moved to this house I left my basement theater behind and we had a nice room off the living room that I could totally light control. What I found and hoped would happen is having the media room connected more to the living area would make it get used more, and it has. The problem I had was to get the size I wanted and immersion with a single row I had to project to the long wall. That forced me for 3 years to do a mirror setup to extend the throw. When I stepped up in resolution I was lucky to find a shorter throw projector that worked and I got rid of the mirror. Sometimes I actually miss the mirror setup just because it worked so good and was so unique and always a conversation starter.

I don’t know why more projectors are not made to hang directly over the viewer’s head and be able to provide immersion that people want with the higher resolutions. Then have some sort of zoom feature to cover that range of CIH or CIH+IMAX. I actual feel a digital zoom that uses scaling with 4k would be a good option. My logic is if the brightness and resolution is good enough for scope/IMAX it will be the same scaled smaller. There is no reason a flat movie has to be brighter per square foot than a scope movie.

If someone were to build a solid state light engine with those capabilities with a decent black level into a shorter throw projector that had digital sizing and digital image shift. All stuff that doesn’t have to be invented the features have been around for years.
I think they would sell a lot of them. Especially if it were bright enough to support a .5 gain simple gray screen at 120” or an ALR screen for those that can’t treat the room.
Get rid of the onboard speakers and all the smart TV dongles and stuff they keep thinking we want. Price it between $1k-1.5k.
Bedroom to HT in the box.


----------



## bud16415

Here is a weird irony of what is going on in our wacky world of streaming media.

Tonight we were watching in the living room on our 40” TV and she was browsing on demand movies we could watch for free and Yesterday (2019) popped up for free with limited commercials. I checked on Prime and it cost 3 bucks commercial free and told her I could fire up the projector. Neither of us had seen it and she said I’m ok with the living room as we had the fireplace going and the Christmas tree up. So we went for the free version. Before the movie started they posted a disclaimer the movie has been altered to fit the TV. Yesterday is 2.39. I thought here we go. Thinking I’m about 11’ from a 40” TV what will it matter and I can get a feel for what will be lost butchering the scope movie and it is free. It actually wasn’t that bad and it seemed most of the shots still had lots of open space on at least one side and mostly both sides. So I don’t know what was cropped and if I watch it again I will in the HT and watch it as scope.

The ironic part was not the movie but the commercials. About 7 out of 10 commercials were shot in 2.39:1 AR. So the premium movie channel that was showing it felt the need to crop the movie for TV but the cable company that was paying them with commercial revenue was fine as were their sponsors with scope ads.
It is for sure a strange time for presentation.


----------



## bud16415

Another movie to be thankful for if you have a variable presentation method such as PIA.

Wes Anderson movie The French Dispatch is filmed in a similar AR changing as he did The Grand Budapest Hotel. The French Dispatch will alternate between 1.37 full height in the 16:9 container and 2.39 full width of the 16:9 container. The Grand Budapest Hotel switched between 1.37,1.85 & 2.39 based around the time period depicted in the movie. I suspect something similar with this movie. Also looks like he is switching between B&W and color.

I watch Academy movies full height in my IMAX setting now and it is no problem as I feel Academy in the days before wide screen allowed for that immersion level and I watch scope the full width of IMAX so I feel I will be complying with the directors intent as well as my personal preference.

This movie as far as I can tell is not at all scope safe as some of the IMAX movies are filmed to be. Watching the previews will point out some of the humor missed if cropped down.

Here is a link to the trailer.


----------



## Philnick

Looks like fun!


----------



## Philnick

Bought it in UHD through VUDU on your recommendation and have watched and enjoyed about the first 15 minutes of it. It's framed within a 1.85:1 (possibly even shorter) box, so I can use my JVC's 6.667% Aspect:Zoom feature on it, to use the screen's full height (for the 1.37 sections) and width (for the scope sections).

Is it wrong to refer to 1.37 as Academy?

His use of color is wonderful, as is his sense of humor.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> Bought it in UHD through VUDU on your recommendation and have watched and enjoyed about the first 15 minutes of it. It's framed within a 1.85:1 (possibly even shorter) box, so I can use my JVC's 6.667% Aspect:Zoom feature on it, to use the screen's full height (for the 1.37 sections) and width (for the scope sections).
> 
> Is it wrong to refer to 1.37 as Academy?
> 
> His use of color is wonderful, as is his sense of humor.


Academy is technically 1.375:1 it started out as 4:3 1.33:1 based on film size for silent movies and when they added sound they took a strip of the film to add the sound track changing the AR a little. Most commonly called 1.37:1

Yes I love his movies and the color pallet always bring you back to another time when everything in motion pictures was more than reality.

Thanks for the details on the movie and I’m tempted to jump on and stream it as well but will likely wait a bit. Lately I have been renting the stuff I can’t wait to see on our corner Red Box for a couple bucks. They load the machine up heavy with the ones that will rent a lot and then about a month later they will sell the rental BDs for four bucks. At first the rental was stripped of all extras so I didn’t buy them but lately they have been the same as what the stores sell. 

Those of us with options for immersion outside the box (Should have named this thread Thinking outside the box.) I think this movie will be great to enjoy outside the box.
Report back when you have more comments on the movie.


----------



## Philnick

How about "Breaking Out of the Box" or "Coloring Outside the Lines?"

Or to put a sharper point on it, "Beyond the Pale" - which uses the metaphor of being outside the government's jurisdictional limits (the Pale) to mean uncontrolled by any rules of conduct.

I posted some observations on _The French Dispatch_ in the VAR thread. It's very good, and has led me to order a Blu-ray copy of _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ for $8 - less than the $15 VUDU and Amazon are charging to put it in their streaming libraries - and a UV streaming code is included with the disk! (Whether that will still work remains to be seen.)


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> How about "Breaking Out of the Box" or "Coloring Outside the Lines?"
> 
> Or to put a sharper point on it, "Beyond the Pale" - which uses the metaphor of being outside the government's jurisdictional limits (the Pale) to mean uncontrolled by any rules of conduct.
> 
> I posted some observations on _The French Dispatch_ in the VAR thread. It's very good, and has led me to order a Blu-ray copy of _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ for $8 - less than what they're charging to put it in a streaming library - and a UV streaming code is included! (Whether that will still work remains to be seen.)


Thanks for the suggestions on names I like them all.

Media platforms are very strange when it comes to pricing. I think the area one lives in is also a factor. We have no video stores left. Not sure there are any anyplace maybe mom and pop locations. Red Box here is still going as is streaming but many have just enough bandwidth for simple things and not video so renting is still a thing. I do the rental on line and then just go to the Red Box and grab the disc in ten seconds it shows me on line what is in and out and 9 out of 10 times the DVD is out but the BD is in. Even though they rent for the same amount of maybe 50 cents different. The odd thing is I can stream from Red Box also and that is twice the BD rental price or to own the Streaming title is like 10 times the price. The really odd part is once the movie has been out a couple weeks I can buy the BD for only a buck more than to rent the BD. so for 4 bucks I can keep it forever but if I want a streaming forever it is 20 bucks.

Kind of tells me hard media isn’t going away but people heavy into streaming don’t even have equipment to play hard media.
All the way around if you need to see it when it is new it will cost a bit for that but the price comes down fast.


----------



## Philnick

I think the reason is they don't want to have to warehouse multiple copies of disks that are no longer renting well, so they clearance them to make room for newer titles - while it costs them almost nothing to keep the digital stream available, since they only need one copy.

I browsed what they had available for sale and couldn't find anything I didn't have already - or they only had the few I was interested in (like the new Aretha Franklin biopic _Respect_) on DVD.

I have a 1 Gigabit connection for my theater and arranged for a 1/4 gig connection at my wife's apartment (we've each had our own condos since long before we met - she's a founder of her community and I won't give up my theater, so we each keep our own place). With subscriptions to Prime, Netflix, Criterion, and others, and a library at VUDU, I have almost everything to watch online, as well as a UHD player.


----------



## Philnick

My $8 Fox Blu-ray of _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ came with not an UltraViolet but a Movies Anywhere code, which worked fine and put into my linked Amazon Prime Video and my VUDU libraries. While the Prime Video copy had no extra features, the VUDU copy has three! Not as many as if I had spent the $21.50 for the Criterion Collection reissue of the film (with the same transfer), but still a bargain. 

Oh, and this time my wife enjoyed the film, which she didn't recall seeing at all. When I reminded her that she'd disliked it when we watched it several years ago she said not to be afraid to try her again!


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> My $8 Fox Blu-ray of _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ came with not an UltraViolet but a Movies Anywhere code, which worked fine and put into my linked Amazon Prime Video and my VUDU libraries. While the Prime Video copy had no extra features, the VUDU copy has three! Not as many as if I had spent the $21.50 for the Criterion Collection reissue of the film (with the same transfer), but still a bargain.
> 
> Oh, and this time my wife enjoyed the film, which she didn't recall seeing at all. When I reminded her that she'd disliked it when we watched it several years ago she said not to be afraid to try her again!


I find I have to be in the mood for certain type of movies and some movies for me are more enjoyable watching with others. I’m old enough to remember packed movie theaters full of nice people that were as excited and polite being at a show. It did add to the experience IMO. I can’t say this is true over the last 15-20 years and became so not the case if I do get to a theater once or twice a year it has to be to watch something the mainstream annoying people wont want to go to. Not that everyone that goes to movies is a negative most are not but it only takes a couple.

I can see watching Budapest after a long day when you were tired or preoccupied and not getting into it.

I never got into the digital codes and all that and I probably should have as I have maybe 3000 DVDs and a few hundred BDs with codes. Maybe some day. 
I got to know the guy that ran the movie rental at our grocery store years ago and I would go in and he would have 10 almost new releases stacked up for me and tell me 10 for $10. They pile up pretty fast. All were the same movies you could buy just lightly used.


----------



## bud16415

The activity in a recent thread on the same topic as this thread has me thinking and reevaluating what this new IMAX is and what it means to me.

Don’t get me wrong I love the idea of great vertical immersion combined with scope like horizontal immersions that this format offers and I love how the new IMAX AR is close enough to the shape of most projector displays to call them the same. What makes IMAX1.89 different than Flat1.85? Well they both conform nicely to human FOV when you compare fixed head comfortable eye movement and with two eye vision and comparable acuity out to similar levels of peripheral acuity. (I have done my own testing as well as reports I posted early on done by NASA the armed services and medical institutions.) The shape is an odd shape but is more 16:9 than other common resolutions.

So what is the difference of IMAX1.89 and Flat1.85? I have to believe it is the cinematography and that evokes the best of immersion level. So in theory you can sit closer to an IMAX image without feeling you might be too close to a Flat image.

The next question that came to me is why can’t a Flat movie use that same cinematography and entice moviegoers to sit that little bit closer? The answer is they could.

My next question is are some of them doing just that? I don’t know for sure but I suspect with better resolutions and better digital processing like IMAX is doing with IMAX Enhanced there is no reason to not do it.

What is the downside to IMAX1.89 if there is one? I believe the downside to both IMAX1.89 and IMAX1.44 when used to make commercial Hollywood type movies is that the IMAX movies are put under a pressure to make them Scope Safe and causing a big difficulty to the director as who is his master. I think about how hard it would be to want to add interest into the scope safe areas but knowing you will only have to chop it off for most of the people to never see. If you really fully utilize the full frame and make that your desired framing and then be told oh for BD and TV markets lets give them black bars. There is a disincentive built into IMAX in some ways because of scope safe.

Who cares what it is called IMAX or Immersive Flat give me the Immersive Flat as it wont ever be cropped and anyone can sit anywhere they want in a theater.

I have long wondered why I desire many Academy movies taller and why did they fit my vision good with greater vertical immersion. Today I found a lot of examples of old and recent Academy movies where the directors stuck out their neck with panoramic cinematography that was quite IMAX1.44 like. Even movies as old as The Wizard of Oz in 1939 and some of the close-ups didn’t ruin my more immersive viewing. Citizen Kane is another.

I’m not saying directors can’t make close tight TV like flat movies that you might not want to watch super immersive, but they could also loosen the ropes and do more wide open cinematic movies that would beg for immersion. Why should IMAX rule that entirely especially when they are being constrained with scope safe.
I have a feeling this is underway and it is not being lead by the movie industry as much as the changing TV industry. TV sets are growing and rooms are staying the same so TV immersion is growing and the media is changing. I thought it was something when Amazon Prime made an IMAX movie with limited and short distrabution. Amazons base is people with TVs in their house and what they really made was a flat movie that handled IMAX immersion very well. They showed no concern about scope safe and all that nonsense.


----------



## bud16415

It is interesting a thread started in this forum titled General Why Should (or Shouldn’t) I Do Constant Height? Discussion
General "Why Should (or Shouldn't) I Do...
I link it here as in one day it went 7 pages and 132 posts at my last check. For a cross reference maybe someone in the future will find interesting. 

I find this odd as the topic is roughly the same as this thread and the CIH forum normally doesn’t get this many posts in 6 months to all the threads. I have seen a couple weeks pass without a single post.
So is there a newfound interest in deviating away from CIH as most of the proponents in this thread are not pushing CIW even the title isn’t comparing CIH to CIW.

What I’m seeing mostly is people stating they dislike CIW and found CIH a great improvement and the simplest of the alternatives but CIH left them feeling a little shorted with flat content and maybe even more shorted with Academy content. They also feel if they go a little into variable then it is a easy next step to include IMAX and that then solves the subtitle problem. There was a little talk also about non motion picture content like sports and maybe some applications for the extra screen height there.
Basically some people are finding their way to what I called PIA presentation.


----------



## mattsteg

bud16415 said:


> So is there a newfound interest in deviating away from CIH as most of the proponents in this thread are not pushing CIW even the title isn’t comparing CIH to CIW.
> 
> What I’m seeing mostly is people stating they dislike CIW and found CIH a great improvement and the simplest of the alternatives but CIH left them feeling a little shorted


What I've found frustrating about the discussion there, is that it seems like it is half CIH fans disparaging CIW and half people just interested in arriving at the best possible presentation for their content.

NO ONE is really laying out a coherent position for CIH (which is really quite straightforward) and WHY you would want to make that choice and live with that set of tradeoffs vs other alternatives, and that's really killing the quality of the discussion.

The biggest reason people "shouldn't" do CIH isn't that CIW is better (it generally isn't), but rather that with generally the same investment in equipment you can resolve most of the downsides of CIH with a taller screen.

Drawbacks of a taller "PIA" screen (and reasons to go CIH) would include slightly worse center speaker positioning if not using an AT screen, masking complexity if doing masking, etc. but no one's bothering to make those points in that thread - instead fixating on ultimately meaningless minutia like reproducing the face of Robert Downey Junior the exact same size across different films.


----------



## bud16415

mattsteg said:


> What I've found frustrating about the discussion there, is that it seems like it is half CIH fans disparaging CIW and half people just interested in arriving at the best possible presentation for their content.
> 
> NO ONE is really laying out a coherent position for CIH (which is really quite straightforward) and WHY you would want to make that choice and live with that set of tradeoffs vs other alternatives, and that's really killing the quality of the discussion.
> 
> The biggest reason people "shouldn't" do CIH isn't that CIW is better (it generally isn't), but rather that with generally the same investment in equipment you can resolve most of the downsides of CIH with a taller screen.
> 
> Drawbacks of a taller "PIA" screen (and reasons to go CIH) would include slightly worse center speaker positioning if not using an AT screen, masking complexity if doing masking, etc. but no one's bothering to make those points in that thread - instead fixating on ultimately meaningless minutia like reproducing the face of Robert Downey Junior the exact same size across different films.


I agree and was dumbfounded after several years of the same thing here someone with well set opinions would start a dumpster fire over this topic.

If you go back to post #6 I think in that thread I did exactly what you suggest and I noticed you have done a few times and that is to post all the positive reasons to do CIH over CIW. The OP could have simply said well done it is why we like it also and been done. But sadly no comment was made. He seemed more interested in luring others into a debate over this silliness.

The people that really get hurt are the unsuspecting new buyers of projectors that have a budget and are unaware of what a projector needs to do other than CIW. Or if they think they will need 4way masking etc.

I like doing more with less it is almost an obsession with me and I like showing people how they can possibly push the limits of a cheap setup. That’s partly the reason I did the proof of concept with the projector inclined slide zoom for zoom and shift.

The same with the stealth screen concept. Almost no one on the forums are doing it, but if you go to the DIY screen forum everyone is about it.

It sounds like you and I are quite close in what we like. When I started this thread one of the first replies was that they liked that I wasn’t telling anyone what to do just that I was explaining what I was doing and if you like it you like it and if you don’t that’s ok. That sentiment was short lived.
Welcome to the thread.


----------



## mattsteg

bud16415 said:


> If you go back to post #6 I think in that thread I did exactly what you suggest and I noticed you have done a few times and that is to post all the positive reasons to do CIH over CIW. The OP could have simply said well done it is why we like it also and been done. But sadly no comment was made. He seemed more interested in luring others into a debate over this silliness.
> 
> The people that really get hurt are the unsuspecting new buyers of projectors that have a budget and are unaware of what a projector needs to do other than CIW. Or if they think they will need 4way masking etc.


CIH is a good choice and great starting point. Escaping from the mental block of CIW is a great step.

Investing in hardware that can make CIH happen is a good choice. Understanding what that hardware can and can't do is a great choice.

Seems like a thread on "why should or shouldn't I do CIH" shouldn't be treated as a "why you should do CIH instead of CIW
thread, and that ANYONE advocating taking control over your presentation should be on the "same side" (if there should even be "sides"). We all use the same/similar tools and techniques and face many of the same challenges and wrinkles.


----------



## bud16415

mattsteg said:


> CIH is a good choice and great starting point. Escaping from the mental block of CIW is a great step.
> 
> Investing in hardware that can make CIH happen is a good choice. Understanding what that hardware can and can't do is a great choice.
> 
> Seems like a thread on "why should or shouldn't I do CIH" shouldn't be treated as a "why you should do CIH instead of CIW
> thread, and that ANYONE advocating taking control over your presentation should be on the "same side" (if there should even be "sides"). We all use the same/similar tools and techniques and face many of the same challenges and wrinkles.


Again I agree when I first saw the thread I thought what an odd title to a thread. The thread was as you stated titled (What are the pros and cons between CIH and CIW). I would have asked for it to be a sticky thread. That would be a great starting point for anyone surfing in here.

Part of the reason I started this thread and I believe it was mentioned in the OP but I have redone that post several times trying to explain what happed to the thread. But I put in there that this method even if someone didn’t adopt it as their method it contained all the methods of presentation and a new user could try them all out and see with their own eyes if they wanted to settle into one and buy a screen and/or masking to suit that method. I also mentioned with a stealth screen concept it lets them find an immersion level / seating distance that suits them. Most people I have found after watching what seemed big enough for a few months wish they had gone larger. It is also important to figure out family members likes and dislikes early on. Some people select a screen around a comprise immersion level others like myself adjust immersion to suit my likes when viewing alone and the others when viewing together.
Think back to all the times you went to a movie with friends and someone suggests the front of the theater and a couple people say no that’s too close. Eventually you find a spot that is ok with everyone.

When it comes to immersion like you I like 2.0 for most stuff and 1.5 for IMAX. It in no way ruins the movie for me to watch it with someone else that likes 2.5 or even 3 it is just not as immersive taking away that element. I often watch DVD or 720p material and shrinking it to 2.5 along with some good up scaling does the trick also. I have almost all the original IMAX1.44 nature and science movies and they only came out on DVD in that AR. I used to play them on a 4:3 XGA projector and they were great fun 20 years ago. Once in a while I still do blowing them up as much as I can and scaling them. They are not as sharp as I would like but still fun with the immersion factored in.
One thing about sliding the projector is when I go smaller I also go a lot brighter. Much of regular TV is just fine smaller and the added brightness works against having some light on in the room. Makes it a little more social like a living room.


----------



## Philnick

I can enlighten you about why that thread got started. In the thread about the line of true 4K JVC lamp-based projectors that I have the entry level model of, a new owner asked about screens and the debate started up there. Josh said - don't talk about that here, take it to the CIH forum, to which I replied, "Sure, if he wants to be attacked for talking about a non-scope screen" and said that asking about screen sizes was perfectly appropriate in that projector forum.

So to prove that the CIH thread could support a healthy discussion of the subject, Josh set up that new thread, where the CIH fanatics are finding the fallacies in their arguments being picked apart as fast as they post them.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> I can enlighten you about why that thread got started. In the thread about the line of true 4K JVC lamp-based projectors that I have the entry level model of, a new owner asked about screens and the debate started up there. Josh said - don't talk about that here, take it to the CIH forum, to which I replied, "Sure, if he wants to be attacked for talking about a non-scope screen" and said that asking about screen sizes was perfectly appropriate in that projector forum.
> 
> So to prove that the CIH thread could support a healthy discussion of the subject, Josh set up that new thread, where the CIH fanatics are finding the fallacies in their arguments being picked apart as fast as they post them.


I understand that as if anyone feels the urge to read this thread it is all here as well. Maybe a couple times actually. I think the moving chairs around has surfaced here as well.
It is nice to have a few others chiming in.


----------



## dschulz

mattsteg said:


> Drawbacks of a taller "PIA" screen (and reasons to go CIH) would include slightly worse center speaker positioning if not using an AT screen, masking complexity if doing masking, etc. but no one's bothering to make those points in that thread - instead fixating on ultimately meaningless minutia like reproducing the face of Robert Downey Junior the exact same size across different films.


I'm sorry, that's a _really_ aggressive misreading of what Josh is trying to convey with his screen grabs, which is that in a CIH system nothing is _smaller_ than it ought to be whereas in a CIW system Scope movies are, in fact, smaller than they ought to be. And that is, in a nutshell, the positive case for CIH that you claim no one is trying to make. The only material that is presented arguably incorrectly in a CIH system is the VAR IMAX stuff. I think the amount of such material is still small enough as to not really impact theatre design decisions, but of course YMMV.


----------



## dschulz

bud16415 said:


> What is the downside to IMAX1.89 if there is one? I believe the downside to both IMAX1.89 and IMAX1.44 when used to make commercial Hollywood type movies is that the IMAX movies are put under a pressure to make them Scope Safe and causing a big difficulty to the director as who is his master.


I think you are right about the pressure on filmmakers, but I suspect it's in the opposite direction - filmmakers who want to make a Scope film are told they need to make an IMAX version as well, because IMAX needs something to differentiate it from every other PLF and represents a significant chunk of the box office. The reason I believe this to be the case is that the filmmakers could choose to simply compose for Flat and release it that way, giving everyone the taller AR, and yet, over and over again, they go Scope for 99% of the cinemas plus the home video release (Christopher Nolan excepted).

What I would really like to know is if there are any filmmakers who wanted to make a Flat movie but were told to go Scope so as to preserve IMAX's uniqueness in their AR, but everyone I know in the industry who could confirm or deny such a conspiracy theory is under too many NDAs to tell me...


----------



## bud16415

dschulz said:


> I'm sorry, that's a _really_ aggressive misreading of what Josh is trying to convey with his screen grabs, which is that in a CIH system nothing is _smaller_ than it ought to be whereas in a CIW system Scope movies are, in fact, smaller than they ought to be. And that is, in a nutshell, the positive case for CIH that you claim no one is trying to make. The only material that is presented arguably incorrectly in a CIH system is the VAR IMAX stuff. I think the amount of such material is still small enough as to not really impact theatre design decisions, but of course YMMV.


I understand the concept and the history behind CIH presentation where one week a theater may be showing a scope movie and the next a flat movie or even in the days of old may have shown a short flat or academy movie before a scope feature. Some times cartoons. Now we get a bunch of trivia questions or popcorn ads and local car dealer ads. CIH was a logical way to do all this.

Today movies are shown in these crudely designed multi theater complexes that kind of put the largest screen they can in an AR that fits best and fit movies to them as best they can. The opening week it will show in the better scope theater and then move to what ever theater is sized for the expected turnout. No real masking is done and folks don’t care or really know better.

I’m of the mindset that at home things are a little different and from talking to many people about this and fitting HT to their rooms that a good deal of people are somewhat adverse to screen width just as others are height. This sometimes is brought on by room constraints and other time it is just the preference of man and his individual comfortable vision. When the two or three AR were come upon there was no magical golden ratio type thing that interrelated them all in the way of CIH. It was done because it worked pretty good and was easy to do. Just like 16:9 was picked for TV someone said do it and it was done and now some people say 2:1 would have been better. Better for what?

I also believe people get used to things and they become the norm CIH is better and it is what we have all grown to feel is the norm. Same with 16:9 and 4:3 before that.

PIA is about personal like a PC is a personal computer and you are free to arrange your windows and programs and icons as you like. We are all different and what is to say when viewing two different movies at two different times of different ARs we might extract two faces out of the center of the frame and they would be the same size, That would be great. But the face doesn’t depict the total width we are being asked to absorb of the movie. What if the image changes to an expansive landscape and it is more or less in size that suits our comfort zone. I know our vision goes out and out in width so why are we fine with 2.35:1 why not make some movies 5:1. Would people then say stop that’s just too wide. 2.0:1 is becoming very popular is that saying for some 2.35:1 is just a little too wide for their “personal” tastes.

The debate that took place with Josh wasn’t about extreme differences I was hearing 10% number thrown around enough Josh visually didn’t even know they were not the same. That’s kind of how I feel about say the fine tuning someone may have done to come upon say a 2.0:1 screen vs a 2.35:1 screen and letting scope still be the top dog in immersion but giving over just a smidgen more to flat. I think this is what Rob Hahn was telling me about his theater and how he felt academy fit in.
I truly believe given a scope movie in one theater and a flat movie in another 1.85 theater people might actually pick a different vertical immersion seat by 3-4 rows.


----------



## bud16415

dschulz said:


> I think you are right about the pressure on filmmakers, but I suspect it's in the opposite direction - filmmakers who want to make a Scope film are told they need to make an IMAX version as well, because IMAX needs something to differentiate it from every other PLF and represents a significant chunk of the box office. The reason I believe this to be the case is that the filmmakers could choose to simply compose for Flat and release it that way, giving everyone the taller AR, and yet, over and over again, they go Scope for 99% of the cinemas plus the home video release (Christopher Nolan excepted).
> 
> What I would really like to know is if there are any filmmakers who wanted to make a Flat movie but were told to go Scope so as to preserve IMAX's uniqueness in their AR, but everyone I know in the industry who could confirm or deny such a conspiracy theory is under too many NDAs to tell me...


I think some of this was felt by the movie buffs when IMAX1.89 came out and they dubbed it LieMAX. IMAX had built this brand on these monster venues where the building was as much of the experence as the movie. Then add in a film quality that no one had in the 60-70s and now we are being taken into the old theater down the street with it being called IMAX and basically to our eyes being shown a flat movie format with wider camera angles and the seating moved up a little, but there is still the same seating distance we used to sit at if we wanted and we were being charged 50% more. For in our minds the name on the outside.

The subtle differences were not being explained to well and then we find out the director was being forced/told the movie has to be just as good with the top and bottom cut off so don’t put much in those areas.

Maybe this is why I’m drawn in by some of these movies like Wes Anderson and others make that are not locked into the cinematography school of thought for the last 80 years as to composition. We have modern technology that is just asking and making people want to sit more immersive. Kind of like the logic behind IMAX1.89 only that logic may be failing because it is being driven by two ARs.
There are quite a few scope movies I have watched that I’m sure scope was used just because it could be or the director was told to. Now if they are being told scope and by the way lets throw in IMAX that’s just absurd.


----------



## bud16415

I have talked a lot about the changing face of media and how presentation methods such as my PIA variable could be used to benefit new and different ways media is being delivered. Last night I watched a few minutes of the History channels new series Abraham Lincoln (2022) it is a documentary that uses variable ARs and switches between 16:9 documentary and I’m told 2.69:1 re-enactments. The re-enactments are the real bread and butter and shot as if they were epic films showing wide landscapes and the battlefields etc. The documentary are people talking and lots of today’s views of historic locations. They are clearly not IMAX but I have IMAX headroom with my method of presentation. The documentary parts are in no way any kind of 2.69:1 “scope safe”.

So today I watched the first episode and I had a choice to make. If I had a CIH scope screen I would be forced to use the 16:9 setting and then the 2.69:1 parts would be ridiculously under immersive in height for the way they were filmed. I don’t try and understand the rational of directors doing TV this way knowing it will likely be seen on a 16:9 TV, but I have to assume they valued the wide AR as the showcase enough to take it over immersion. I know others here zoom a show like Stranger Things that is 2.0:1 to maintain CIH. So that is what I did with Lincoln to showcase the epic re-enactment parts. Much of the rest was ok being IMAX sized and the bits where people were talking were not overly sized given the benefits of the rest being epic.

This is just another example of what is being done today routinely That IMO requires rethinking presentation for those that watch all this new media.


----------



## bud16415

Yesterday we drove down to Pittsburgh for the day and took in the Immersive Van Gogh.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s quite the PIA experience it was shown in reworked old factory building and the main showroom was roughly the size of a basketball court with 4 wall about 30’ high all 4 walls and the floor are screen surfaces for 100s of projectors hanging from the ceiling structure that are all synchronized to produce one seamless image you are inside of. The image is not static and scans and moves causing the feeling of movement to the viewer. Sometimes you get the feeling you are in a huge elevator sometimes that you are floating in a lake surrounded by moving water.

It is not an action movie or an IMAX movie it is visual art showcasing the works of Van Gogh in motion.

It is a great indicator of visual immersion limits as this in no way could be taken in all at once as you would need 360 FOV to do that. Instead you are encouraged to move around and view it from different vantage points with different levels of immersion even different angles to get the full experience. People seated together often were looking in opposite directions and no one was complaining of neck issues from having to spin their heads around. I found it in some ways like IMAX immersion where you look where you want to see.
Here is a video someone took at a different venue that is similar if you would like to get a feel for it. Very hard to capture something like this on a home movie.


----------



## Philnick

WOW!


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> WOW!


Ya at first I thought it might be annoying having people wandering around in my vision when I’m trying to take it all in, but it wasn’t and kind of added to the experience as it even made it more surreal. Kind of like a shared dream where no one was talking.

One of the amazing parts was unless you were smack up to the walls there were no shadows. It was hard to tell what the screen surfaces were as they were always being projected to in motion and I did touch it and it felt like a texture.
The projectors all hung on edge or pointing straight down none that I saw were flat like we would hang a HT projector. Almost nowhere would the projector beam hit you in the eyes. I found that interesting also.


----------



## Philnick

It looked like stars overhead, though I wondered whether the "stars" were the projectors.


----------



## bud16415

Philnick said:


> It looked like stars overhead, though I wondered whether the "stars" were the projectors.


Yes those are projectors. You have to be within a couple feet of a wall and looking up to get any annoying eye flash from a projector. So not UST but very ST I would say.


----------



## bud16415

It’s official my new go to movie to show off BudMAX presentation at home is Top Gun Maverick.  Also good to see others directors embracing the IMAX framing for the home market and not being bothered about AR shifting. IMO watching this cropped to one height is taking a lot of impact away from the flight experience.
What say you all?


----------



## flyers10

bud16415 said:


> It’s official my new go to movie to show off BudMAX presentation at home is Top Gun Maverick.  Also good to see others directors embracing the IMAX framing for the home market and not being bothered about AR shifting. IMO watching this cropped to one height is taking a lot of impact away from the flight experience.
> What say you all?


I think for many that saw it in theaters we only saw it in scope. Seems as more directors do changing aspect ratios that more theaters are cheapening out on the experience for the viewer and only showing in a scope safe format and they are not likely to change that. I'd think directors would be aware of that and reduce the amount of changing ratios since the theaters will do what they want. Then the viewer gets confused seeing aspects change on their relatively small 65/75 inch tvs sitting 12' away.


----------



## bud16415

flyers10 said:


> I think for many that saw it in theaters we only saw it in scope. Seems as more directors do changing aspect ratios that more theaters are cheapening out on the experience for the viewer and only showing in a scope safe format and they are not likely to change that. I'd think directors would be aware of that and reduce the amount of changing ratios since the theaters will do what they want. Then the viewer gets confused seeing aspects change on their relatively small 65/75 inch tvs sitting 12' away.


Well the premiere way of viewing it would be in a real IMAX theater and the older scope theaters ether have to adapt or settle for knowing their viewers know they are only getting the cropped version. As we have talked about many times here the director knew there would be different venues and provided a scope safe version to the older scope theaters and nothing is lost in the intent of the movie. It should be fully enjoyed in scope, just less vertically immersive than it would be in IMAX. IMO that extra immersion adds a lot to the experience especially in action shots like flying and such.

I agree TV viewers are never going to get an IMAX experience and not even what I call a BudMAX experience just because for two reasons one the immersion isn’t great enough and two the screen isn’t large enough. Sitting immersive to a 60” TV is nice but it isn’t IMAX. Sitting immersive to a 120-150” screen is starting to feel it.

I really don’t think many TV viewers get too confused by changing ARs but I think they normally like an image that fits their TV better with less black bars. Some will say that framing the whole movie to IMAX AR will spoil the scope parts as it has too much of the screen filled with non important information. I can see that in some cases and in others not.
I respect what the director thinks is best and I’m never bothered and in fact hardly notice the changes in AR even when watching on a TV. I have tested it with several times having guests that are casual moviegoers over to watch an IMAX changing movie on my BudMAX theater and when asked after the movie about the changes they never know what I’m talking about. The folks that comment to me about it the most are avid movie buffs that read and study about cinematography and such. When it comes to TV most people just like their big TV filled.


----------



## bud16415

I was getting ready to watch Jurassic World Dominion and got to thinking about CIH compared to CIH+IMAX with this new 2.0:1 AR thing.

So I asked the question where and how was the movie shown commercially and what showing did the movie sites recommend. By most accounts the IMAX theater release was given great reviews and it not being an IMAX1.89 film how did they show it? They presented it full width on their 1.89 AR screens with tiny black bars top and bottom. I even found some photos confirming this. So then I wondered this movie is defiantly not filmed to be scope safe so I wondered how much impact is lost in terms of immersion between small black bars top and bottom and with scope to the sides, given two setups the same width that will produce the same scope image between CIH and CIH+IMAX.

I did the math and was kind of surprised when I took the area of JWD as CIH+IMAX and divided it by the area of JWD fit into scope, I came up with 1.86.

Wow That’s huge I thought almost twice the visual treat.
So I watched it both ways from my preferred seating distance and the movie looked amazing IMAXed and a little under impressive as scoped.


----------



## bud16415

As things change in my belief in my PIA presentation method I have in other threads ran into a lot of opposition to a term I widely use here and one I have always felt would be the system of choice for many that strongly adhere to CIH with a 2.4:1 AR screen and love that classic presentation excepting the advent of the modern IMAX movies in 1.9:1 Most crop and blank them to scope and there is always issues when the director shifts the scope extraction up and down and at home the best we can do is a central extract.



The solution was a CIH screen that has extensions above and below that are kept masked until a IMAX movie was played. The then screen area was normally expanded to a 16:9 area that also happens to be the same as my PIA screen size and shape. We called this presentation at home CIH+IMAX.



True the bluray being played is branded IMAX, but truly at home we don’t have an IMAX theater. Just like if you played the movie on a 16:9 TV it would not be an IMAX experience.



So from now on I’m cloning a new term. For a while I was calling my presentation BudMAX as a personal name explaining my somewhat close to IMAX experience.



The new term will be CIH+MAX and has nothing to do directly with IMAX. Here is what the concept is. You figure out the height you like for all motion picture content scope and flat and then use that height to determine the width of a 2.4:1 screen area. This is the same as anyone doing CIH. Now that you know the width you compute a new height based on the AR of your projector 16:9 is common but it could also be 16:10 or 17:9 or even 4:3 etc. That will be the size of the screen you will need and then you will also need two masking panels to keep your screen CIH. When do you remove the panels? Anytime you want to watch anything motion picture taller like a IMAX framed movie. Or anytime you want to watch content that is not motion pictures and you feel you need more immersion. Maybe even drop the lower masking when a movie has subtitles below the scope frame.

So from now on I will be using CIH+MAX!


----------



## rvsixer

@bud16415 - Are you going to add the new CIH+MAX update to the first post, so people know about this gem  ?


----------



## bud16415

rvsixer said:


> @bud16415 - Are you going to add the new CIH+MAX update to the first post, so people know about this gem  ?


Sounds like a good idea. Sure and thanks for reading.


----------



## bud16415

I’m always on the lookout for TV that utilizes the MAX in CIH+MAX. I had the chance to start watching the new Kevin Costner 4 part documentary on Fox News called Yellowstone 150.



The series is about the history and Costner retracing the steps of the original party that was sent out by the government to access the lands and make recommendations on how it best be used. Of course there are shots of him talking and he narrates a lot of the landscape shots that IMO are beautifully done. The cinematography is spectacular and shown MAX works very well. I sampled it both as CIH and MAX and it is easy to put up with a few close-ups of Costner to enjoy the immersion of the landscape.

The show is a mixture of the original photos and artwork of the explorers and how untouched it is for the most part today. All of that plays very will with great MAX immersion.


----------

