# CIA: Constant Image Area



## LilGator

I'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.


I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.


I want to look forward to viewing movies with both ratios and enjoy the difference in geometry rather than size.


I know this is a sketchy topic for this subforum, but I know there are a few CIA people out there, and maybe some that haven't ventured out of the 'ol closet yet.


I'd love to see some CIA setups from you people that have them, and thoughts on what you appreciate/don't care for about them!


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16064502
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.
> 
> 
> I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.



Have you tried adjusting your seating? Moving it closer?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16065350
> 
> 
> Have you tried adjusting your seating? Moving it closer?



I agree. Sit at 2x the image height and tell me that the 1.85:1 image is too small.


----------



## LilGator

Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal. Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16067092
> 
> 
> Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal. Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.



I am just amazed that people claim their 16:9 images are too small. If that was the case, then the Scope image is too small. The point is, we are more sensitive to the height of an image, and where CIH maintains that. A 16:9 image is actually 75% of the width of a Scope image. Even 1.33:1 is still very watchable on a CIH system.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16067092
> 
> 
> Moving the couch to sit in the middle of the living room isn't exactly ideal.



But again, that's not the room, it's your decision on seating placement that "limits" you.



> Quote:
> Besides, in that case, I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.



Have you tried it? I don't find myself moving my head back and forth with scope movies. The same height that yields a very pleasing 16x9 image, also yields a very pleasing/comfortable 2.35:1 image, usually at least.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16067092
> 
> 
> I'd have to move my head back and forth for scope movies. Not comfortable.



Even at 2x the image height, that doesn't happen.


----------



## LilGator

Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.


25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.


CIA can.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16068258
> 
> 
> But again, that's not the room, it's your decision on seating placement that "limits" you.
> 
> 
> Have you tried it? I don't find myself moving my head back and forth with scope movies. The same height that yields a very pleasing 16x9 image, also yields a very pleasing/comfortable 2.35:1 image, usually at least.



If this were any other room I'd be making different decisions. In a theater room perhaps very close seating and a CIH would be ideal.


This is a multi-use living room. With a couch on the back wall (average seating distance) I want sports, 1.85 and scope movies to all share the same impact. CIH would only give scope the impact.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16069897
> 
> 
> Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.



Smaller than what though? And the issue absolutely *is* whether the image size is comfortable/enjoyable. It doesn't matter (within reason) how many inches your screen is if your configured for optimum viewing distance.



> Quote:
> 25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.



This is exactly what I mean about getting hung up on inches. Everyone who cites "the room is to small" when talking about CIH is almost invariably justifying it by saying they'd have to "suffer" with a 16x9 image the size of the 16x9 area of the 2.35:1 screen, and that it would be horrible because it's "so much smaller". They're stuck on size, not viewing experience.


That argument totally misses issues like:

If you configure your seating for optimum 16:9 size, your 2.35:1 image is way too small.


If you configure your seating for optimum 2.35:1 size, your 16:9 image is probably way too big.



> Quote:
> CIA can.



No it can't though, not entirely. It can only reduce the sacrifice of 2.35:1 size (or reduce the oversized 16:9 image).



> Quote:
> If this were any other room I'd be making different decisions. In a theater room perhaps very close seating and a CIH would be ideal.



Lets be clear, CIH doesn't require "very close seating", though it can result in closer seating than you might otherwise have if you went with a 16x9 screen.



> Quote:
> This is a multi-use living room. With a couch on the back wall (average seating distance)



But again, it's not the room dimensions, it's the room design/use that make CIH not optimal. You're making other sacrifices, for example having seating along the wall is bad accoustically.



> Quote:
> I want sports, 1.85 and scope movies to all share the same impact. CIH would only give scope the impact.



That's fine, I only asked about seating because most people who think they can't do CIH came to that conclusion based on false assumptions, that they "can't" do it in their room.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16071336
> 
> 
> That's fine, I only asked about seating because most people who think they can't do CIH came to that conclusion based on false assumptions, that they "can't" do it in their room.



Well sure, I understand that- but this is the bottom line really. I know I can do CIH in my room, I just don't think it does justice to the other half of highdef material that isn't so wide.


If my focus were movies exclusively, I'd do a 2.40:1 screen and deal with 1.85:1 movies at the same height. I'd sit closer to make that possible.


If my focus were HDTV, then I'd do a 16:9 screen, sitting to where 1.78 material was very immersive, and live with the fact that scope is quite a bit smaller in rare instances I watched such films.


However, this is a dual-purpose setup, and as such neither of the above really work well for that. I want all ratios to share that same impact.


Keeping the area of both projected images the same accomplishes that.


Are you really suggesting that someone who does 50% of their viewing at 1.78:1 should do so on a 2.40:1 screen? It's 25% less wide!


It's just as absurd as someone wanting to do 50% of their viewing with 2.40:1 material to pick a 1.78:1 screen. It's 25% less tall!


Maybe I'm stuck on the numbers, but whether something feels right or not always boils down the numbers anyway.


----------



## khonfused

The Optoma HD8200 would come in handy here, having the superwide mode with a constant image area of 2:1.

Isn't that what you're looking for?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16069897
> 
> 
> Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.
> 
> 
> 25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.
> 
> 
> CIA can.



See if you can follow this:


1.33:1

1.66:1

1.78:1

1.85:1

2.00:1

2.20:1

2.35:1

2.40:1

2.55:1

2.66:1


Notice that ALL ARs have something in common - the height is the same. You might as well just stick with 16:9 if you can't accept that.


----------



## R Harkness

LilGator,


I'm in a similar "boat" as you. I'd planned on CIH but when I borrowed (and then bought) projectors to decide what size 16:9 and 2:35:1 image I wanted, my experience did not match the conventional wisdom on this forum.


I'd get the image as wide as I felt comfortable with, and 16:9 would look fairly good. But then I'd zoom 16:9 (and 1:85:1) content much bigger and LOVE it. Going back down to the 16:9 image I'd have - established by my comfort with the 2:35:1 image - was less cinematic and less engrossing. At the same time, I wouldn't be comfortable with a 2:35:1 image based on the size of 16:9 image I liked. I finally figured out that my comfort, and sense of immersion, wasn't ruled so much by keeping a constant image height, but by keeping the general overall area of the image similar between aspect ratios. Hence Constant Image Area.


And I still don't buy the "we are less sensitive to width than height" mantra. I don't find it to be the case at all. If anything the opposite. And the way movies are shot actually exacerbate the problems in going wider vs going taller. Cinematographers have long used the extra width of "scope" framing to place objects of visual and dramatic interest to the sides of the CinemaScope frame. And typical framing of conversations have one character on one side of the screen, the other on the opposite side. So there is a lot more "scanning" that has to happen to take everything in for CinemaScope. This is in fact what the original idea was for CinemaScope...but it was actually supposed to be shot in a more "sedate" manner, if you will, more like a play. Since the most common way of framing is to establish character orientation and objects of interest from side-to-side in a frame, a narrower but taller 1:85:1 image causes less "ping-pong" scanning to take in details and character interactions.


I still love scope as my favorite AR and in fact I generally have enjoyed that "eyes roaming the landscape" feel that scope gives. I just don't believe, though, the mantra that a much wider image is less problematical in terms of comfort than a taller image.


Since I found trying to make both 16:9 and 2:35:1 ARs was a compromise (not limited by my room, but the result of my testing which image sizes were satisfying) I decided why compromise? I'll go something like a Constant Area set up. In reality, it's more like a "variable image" set up because I'm buying the biggest screen I can fit and using 4 way masking to change the image size per my desire.


My home theater is now under construction so I'll be starting a "build" thread in the construction forums pretty soon. Fingers crossed that it works out.


But, I know where you are coming from. Not many of us are doing constant image area (or variable image sizes). It is a bit more finicky, but I really like the idea of the flexibility.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16072262
> 
> 
> Are you really suggesting that someone who does 50% of their viewing at 1.78:1 should do so on a 2.40:1 screen?



I'm not saying anyone else should, but I did. Actually in terms of time I probably put in more time with 16x9 content than scope, usually 2-3 movies on the weekend, mostly scope, and a good bit of HDTV during the week.


Everything is a good size, it just all seems "right" with my CIH setup. HD*TV* is plenty large, and when I fire up a scope movie it's on a whole nother level, like it was intended to be.



> Quote:
> It's 25% less wide!



It's supposed to be. Cinemascope was created to be _wider_ than other aspect ratios.



> Quote:
> It's just as absurd as someone wanting to do 50% of their viewing with 2.40:1 material to pick a 1.78:1 screen. It's 25% less tall!



I agree. But I figure that would be obvious


----------



## scottyb

I would agree with Rich H's assessment.

I know many here disagree, but I zoomed my image out to where the 16:9 would be close to the size I'm used to and the 2:35 picture was too big from my front row of seating.

I have a screen that is 92" wide but 48" high which is 1:91 ratio.

I watch the 16:9 full height and 2:35 full width by zooming my projector.

From our seating the pic looks great sizewise fro both images.


I've tried numerous times to try to convince my self to go 2:35 and now that I've typed this I may go down there and try it again, but I keep coming back to the size I have.


Scott


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16072857
> 
> 
> See if you can follow this:
> 
> 
> 1.33:1
> 
> 1.66:1
> 
> 1.78:1
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 2.00:1
> 
> 2.20:1
> 
> 2.35:1
> 
> 2.40:1
> 
> 2.55:1
> 
> 2.66:1
> 
> 
> Notice that ALL ARs have something in common - the height is the same. You might as well just stick with 16:9 if you can't accept that.



Please look up the definition of *ratio*. Thanks. It makes the values easily comparable to one another, but in no way restricts any value to a certain size.


If that were the case, 16:9 would have to be 3x taller than 4:3!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16073611
> 
> 
> I'm not saying anyone else should, but I did. Actually in terms of time I probably put in more time with 16x9 content than scope, usually 2-3 movies on the weekend, mostly scope, and a good bit of HDTV during the week.
> 
> 
> Everything is a good size, it just all seems "right" with my CIH setup. HD*TV* is plenty large, and when I fire up a scope movie it's on a whole nother level, *like it was intended to be*.



I'm not going to fire up Shawshank and say, oh well, it's too bad it's not scope, it's just a sub-standard film. I'll have to go find one that's on a whole nother level.


It's a canvas on which the director paints. Some canvases fit the art better than others. But while a scope canvas is a wider ratio, it is not bigger.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16073611
> 
> 
> 
> It's supposed to be. *Cinemascope was created to be wider than other aspect ratios.*
> 
> 
> I agree. But I figure that would be obvious



Yes, it was created to be wider ... in ASPECT RATIO ... than other ASPECT RATIOS.


No one said when it was being projected that it had to be a bigger image.


Every theater I've been in has theaters dedicated to 2.40:1 and theaters dedicated to 1.85:1.


They don't just pull back the curtains to make it wider (unless we're talking about previews). They have separate theaters where the screen is ideal for seating distances.


----------



## R Harkness

Yeah, there's this idea that gets floated around that the ARs mean that the actual height of the image will be, or is to be, kept constant. There is a certain amount of truth about it...but it is not as fundamental or widespread as some purport. The ARs (e.g. depicted in the chart given by CAVX) are fundamentally about determining the _shape_ of an image. This is particularly the case for many years now, long after CinemaScope was introduced (and it has not been used by film-makers as it was intended almost ever since).


I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's _compositional_ structure, because Spielberg wanted the _relatively taller_ shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans. It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.


Likewise, a while back I did the sound on a very claustrophobic drama about a man stuck in his apartment. The director chose to shoot in 2:35:1. It was a low budget film, he had no illusions about the movie appearing on really big screens as with blockbusters and he was not looking for epic scope, given the claustrophobia of the material. Rather, he liked the compositions open to him with the 2:35:1 _shape_.


And while a lot of film-makers still love scope for it's cinematic, sweeping vibe, since movies are going to be shown on all manner of screen sizes, with movie goers often not having a particular reference for the screen height of the last 1:85:1 movie they saw, the choice I'd say is more about the "feel" and compositional element of scope vs

"it's going to be a much bigger/wider image."


For the same reasons, many film-lovers and "videophiles" preferred widescreen transfers over 1:33:1 transfers on their TV, even though the image was actually smaller that way. Because the importance is first in the composition above all. Seeing the whole scope image instead of a pan and scan always felt more sweeping and epic, even though it was actually the smaller image vs a 1:33:1 cropped version. That's because of fundamental importance is the aspect ratio - the shape of the image - being preserved, over the idea the height has to be kept to some standard constant.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16074093
> 
> 
> Please look up the definition of *ratio*. Thanks. It makes the values easily comparable to one another, but in no way restricts any value to a certain size.



I used a ONE because it shows all ratios at the same height. If you want to swing over to 9 as in 16:9, then


1.33:1 is 12:9

1.78:1 is 16:9

2.33:1 is 21:9.


Again, the height is the same.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16074494
> 
> 
> Yeah, there's this idea that gets floated around that the ARs mean that the actual height of the image will be, or is to be, kept constant. There is a certain amount of truth about it...but it is not as fundamental or widespread as some purport. The ARs (e.g. depicted in the chart given by CAVX) are fundamentally about determining the _shape_ of an image. This is particularly the case for many years now, long after CinemaScope was introduced (and it has not been used by film-makers as it was intended almost ever since).



Look at it this way. Obviously all films aren't the same height, each theater, each screen is different. Films started out at the academy ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1). But then TV came and the industry decided they wanted something special so they changed the aspect ratio, eventually they made it all the way to 2.76:1 for some films. Why did they do that? They didn't do it to make their films shorter, they did it to make the films _larger, wider, and more impressive_ than they were before.


The evolution to Cinemascope format was not just about the shape of film, but about the *size*, the scale of the film.



> Quote:
> I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's _compositional_ structure, because Spielberg wanted the _relatively taller_ shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans.



Yes there are always exceptions, but again if you look back, 2.35:1 wider ARs came out of a desire to produce larger, more spectacular movies.



> Quote:
> It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.



It would be hard to argue what most directors want, but the fact remains that Spielberg would have to have known that on "most" cinemas, Jurassic Park would end up being smaller, screen area wise, than a 2.35:1 film (since cinemas tend to be CIH, at least the better ones).



> Quote:
> For the same reasons, many film-lovers and "videophiles" preferred widescreen transfers over 1:33:1 transfers on their TV, even though the image was actually smaller that way. Because the importance is first in the composition above all.



I don't see how that relates to CIH vs CIA, of course it's better to see the whole movie than to have (nearly) half of it removed to fit your screen.



> Quote:
> Seeing the whole scope image instead of a pan and scan always felt more sweeping and epic, even though it was actually the smaller image vs a 1:33:1 cropped version.



Frankly I don't think either (P&S or Letterbox) feel sweeping or epic. For that question it's a question of if you're missing things or not. I never felt 2.35:1 films were reproduced correctly (in my HT) until I "converted" to a CIH setup.


----------



## Drexler

My personal experience is that it is very film dependent and therefore a flexible setup like Richs makes a lot of sense. I would not say it is the screen width or height per say that determines an enjoyable size, but the way the film is shot.


You can have a huge screen completely covering your vision on all sides and it would still feel comfortable if the shot was stable enough and you were able to take in what's happening without darting around the eyes too much.

I.e. if the important stuff takes place in a restricted area of the screen (not necessarily in the center) and the rest comprises scenery that contributes to the immersion. Aka IMAX and the likes.


(Note that you can cut out a cinemascope ratio from TDK IMAX scenes without loosing any vital information, the extra height is just scenery to add to the immersion).


Many cinemascope films works in this way and you can sit very close without feeling dizzy (this is the way I think cinemascope should be used). It allows you too scan around the landscape in slow pans and scenes or just really feel immersed, like the sweeping IMAX city shots in TDK.


However, there are also cinemascope films that according to me are too zoomed in on the action or filmed in a shaky fashion







that makes sitting close very uncomfortable. For example the Bourne films.


I still have doubts of the way to go. CIH is a very elegant approach and with something like the anticipated Carada CIH masking it would make a very clean and estetic install.


The other option is a 3-way masking system (masking from the top and the sides) that would be more flexible, but it would comprise of a DIY install that would not be as elegant...







(commercial 4-way masking systems are WAY off in terms of price)


Well, that's my take of it anyway...


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> I'd argue Film-makers mostly choose ARs for their compositional "feel." Who really thinks that Spielberg chose 1:85:1 for Jurrasic Park because he wanted the movie to feel less epic, impactful and smaller than his other movies, including the Goldie Hawn romp Sugarland Express? (Which was 2:35:1). No, the ratio was chosen not on the basis of a constant image height, but on it's _compositional_ structure, because Spielberg wanted the _relatively taller_ shape of the frame to emphasize the height relationships of the dinosaurs towering over the humans. It would be hard to argue Spielberg wanted the film to be seen as a much smaller image than other block busters.



We've been down this road before. Jurrasic Park (1993) is but one example that might support a taller image for a 1.85:1 screen based on the height of the dinosaurs, but by the time we get to the 3rd film, the main dinosaur is now longer than it is tall. Whilst I am glad the trilogy has consistancy, I can't help but to think that Scope might have worked better for that film.


If we start changing the height of the screen for certain films in 1.85:1, does that make it correct for ALL films presented in 1.85:1 to be taller? Maybe this idea works with War Of The Worlds as well (the machines are tall), but would Water World benift? What about a commedy like The Mask? How about Aliens which is supposed to feel closed in? Should the first Terminator film be presented taller than the more popular sequal?


In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.


----------



## taffman

As Stranger89 correctly points out, the intent of CinemaScope was to create greater immersion of the audience through its much greater size. It was the poor-mans Cinerama where it tried to put the audience into the picture. Remember the original CinemaScope ads - ' you see it without special glasses' where they implied a 3D effect which of course was just not there. But if you look at all the CinemaScope advertising graphics of that period it all implied immersion in the picture. It had nothing to do with composition, as a matter of fact nearly all the film directors of the 1950's hated the CinemaScope format because of the difficulty of framing subjects - and many still do.

On the subject of shaky films, like the Bourne series, if I have to endure one of these again I swear I will demand my ticket back at the theater. It seems fashionable right now, for directors to dispense with tripods and steadicams to get a supposed Cinema-verite look to their films. Its time audiences let it be known that they will not endure this type of cheap shoddy camerawork in feature films.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16076520
> 
> 
> In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.




Yep ! I think after seeing so many of these threads here perhaps it's time for a CIA forum since I've never seen a conversion either way. I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer.


Art


----------



## CRGINC

My first projector was a Sharp 4/3 with a 16/9 screen. When I migrated to a Sony Pearl I used 2.16:1 for a constant area setup. Worked OK but I still had to zoom. Somewhat time consuming. Added a video processor to fill the whole screen by croping the sides of the cinemascope features. The next logicial step was to go with constant height with an A/Lens. I would never go back. I watch plentyof 70s DVD of TV series in 4/3 format with no issues at all. I rate view method as the following:


C: 16/9 screen (constant width between 16/9 and cinemascope)

B: Constant Area

A: Constant Height


Charles


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16077861
> 
> 
> I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer. Art



Yea Art,

I could say that if my theater and screen were the size of your.

















Scott


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16077861
> 
> 
> Yep ! I think after seeing so many of these threads here perhaps it's time for a CIA forum since I've never seen a conversion either way. I like to have 16x9 being bigger at times as well but I still feel very good that for my taste and install CIH is the answer.
> 
> 
> Art



Maybe a sub forum like the DIY section he have for CIH.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16075456
> 
> 
> I used a ONE because it shows all ratios at the same height. If you want to swing over to 9 as in 16:9, then
> 
> 
> 1.33:1 is 12:9
> 
> 1.78:1 is 16:9
> 
> 2.33:1 is 21:9.
> 
> 
> Again, the height is the same.



Impressive.


666:500.75

666:374.16

666:285.84


Look, I made the exact same ratios share a certain number. THEY'RE CLEARLY ALL SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME WIDTH!


CIW, woohoo!










Are you serious, or just playing with me now?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16076520
> 
> 
> In the end, CIA is a personal choice but not one I'd be convinced is the be all to end all soloution for the projection of different ARs of films in a HT. I choose CIH simply because it provides a more accurate represntation to how the films were seen in the cinema (unless your local cinema is CIW) where the curtain roll back to reveal a wider screen for CinemaScope which is still my favourite film format for 35mm.



Do you watch movies back to back in theaters and see this transition, or are you speaking of the previews to feature transition (with the curtains moving out).


Theaters I've been in all have separate theaters for movies in each ratio, with proper seating for each sized screen. Not the same theater that switched between the two with curtains.


There are, I'm sure, a few that are CIW as you say, but how can seperate theaters designed for 2.40 & 1.85 respectively NOT be the best option?










Transitioning this model to the home theater, only CIA would replicate that idea without having separate rooms.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16083038
> 
> 
> Do you watch movies back to back in theaters and see this transition, or are you speaking of the previews to feature transition (with the curtains moving out).



Both. I have a preferred cinema that I like to go to - it has bass traps in it 2 biggest screens. And it plays loud and clean! I usually find a good seat well before the lights dim - movie pending of course as sometimes you just take what you can for block busters but I do aim for a seating distance of about 3x the image height.


We also have what is called a movie marathon here for public holidays where for one ticket price, you get to see 3 or sometimes 4 films in one go! The movies start at 9PM and run until the 5am, so an all night affair.

Teenagers have killed it of course with their constant mobile phone use - or is that abuse? I can't tell. And because not all films are in Scope, you get to see the masking curtains open and close between films.



> Quote:
> Theaters I've been in all have separate theaters for movies in each ratio, with proper seating for each sized screen. Not the same theater that switched between the two with curtains.



But you just asked me if I was talking about the pre-show and opening of the side masking - sounds like CIH to me.


I go to the cinema allot and even worked in projection, and I've never heard of that before. Maybe you should try and arrive before the lights go out







The seats are in rows and they range from way closer than 2x to about 5x in older cinemas with the newer cinemas limited to about 4x the image height.



> Quote:
> There are, I'm sure, a few that are CIW as you say, but how can seperate theaters designed for 2.40 & 1.85 respectively NOT be the best option?



Sorry that does not happen. A cinema that can not run a film because of its aspect ratio is a cinema that will not make any money for that complex. At about 100K for a 35mm projector, you bet it will run every film that comes to through the complex, not just films in one aspect ratio. As a result, all cinemas can run both Scope and 35mm flat as well as multi format digital sound. The only exception of course is D-Cinema that can only run a D-Cinema file and not film and these are being used now for the special 3D screening.


American cinema chain Reddings decided to start CIW in the 1990's because they considered the number of 1.85:1 films in the 1990s was higher than what was coming in Scope. I bet they are having a re-think now







And I refuse to go to their cinemas becuase of the this fact.


All other cinemas are CIH including Hoyts, AMC, BCC, and the indies.



> Quote:
> Transitioning this model to the home theater, only CIA would replicate that idea without having separate rooms.



Ahh no. Only CIH replicates REAL cinema which DOES change ARs.


OH and they USE anamorphic lenses for CinemaScope too


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/16082368
> 
> 
> Yea Art,
> 
> I could say that if my theater and screen were the size of your.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott




That's actually was one of the reasons I picked the scren size I ended up using,it made 16x9 about the same size as my old screen before I went CIH.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16083790
> 
> 
> That's actually was one of the reasons I picked the scren size I ended up using,it made 16x9 about the same size as my old screen before I went CIH.
> 
> 
> Art



There is nothing wrong with that







I think that being able to maintain the same size 16:9 screen is the idea. Then add a lens and experience the 33% increase in width


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16083814
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that being able to maintain the same size 16:9 screen is the idea. Then add a lens and experience the 33% increase in width



Nothing wrong....it's awesome !










Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16083872
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong....it's awesome !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



I know and I don't even have a cylindrical lens - yet


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16083872
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong....it's awesome !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



I know and I don't even have a cylindrical lens - yet


----------



## stanger89

And I did it slightly differently. I made my screen as wide as possible (while remaining centered in the room) and scope, and then configured the seating appropriately. It's quite possible that if I had started with a 16x9 screen in this house that that screen would have been taller, and my seating further back. But even then I could easilly have gone scope without sacrificing 16x9 by moving my seating to where it is now.


----------



## RonC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16076520
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In the end, CIA is a personal choice ...



I think this is the most accurate statement of the whole thread, and would be just as accurate if it said CIH, CIW or any other method you can imagine.


For my assessment of what *I* like best--- resulted in CIA. At least imagewise (there are other factors such a masking which may bear in a decision too).


I felt the 1.78 image at the same height as the 2.35 image was too small _for me_, and I don't care what the director or anybody else intended, desired, planned or implemented. I don't care what the theaters did, or do, either (they aren't my favorite place anyhow). I just liked CIA better than either CIH or CIW.


I make no argument about CIA being better or worse than other methods. I think everybody should find out for themselves and go for what they like or want, regardless of all the debate this subject brings.


However, it does insure lively discussion!










Happy Viewing,

Ron


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RonC* /forum/post/16087731
> 
> 
> I think this is the most accurate statement of the whole thread



Thanks











> Quote:
> I felt the 1.78 image at the same height as the 2.35 image was too small _for me_



Hmm intersting. When I first got into front projection (CIW) at the time, the Scope image was what I found too small. I tried zooming, but that just made the pixel structure too large. And whilst I had a 16:1 screen, I found myself drawn to watching films in 1.85:1 over 2.35:1 becuase of the fact that the 4% black bars were better than about 25%.


Then one day (after reading about Runco's Cinewide) I accidently hit zoom when switching from 4 x 3 to 16:9 and the film became VS'd with no black bars. I knew there and then that I needed to source an anamorphic lens to be able to correct the geometry. I would now be able to have my scope image at the same height as my 16:9 image.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16084134
> 
> 
> And I did it slightly differently. I made my screen as wide as possible (while remaining centered in the room) and scope, and then configured the seating appropriately. It's quite possible that if I had started with a 16x9 screen in this house that that screen would have been taller, and my seating further back. But even then I could easilly have gone scope without sacrificing 16x9 by moving my seating to where it is now.



It is all a learning curve. There are many things that I would not do again if given the choice - one would be not to limit the height of the screen to what I did. But I would always stay CIH.


----------



## Jeff Smith

I've been around a here a long time and just made the jump to digital, have an ISCO III on order, made my own torus screen, and just talked with Don Stewart (the "screen" Stewart) yesterday. In other words, I'm no expert, but I know enough to contribute. I'm an enthusiast and "middle class videophile" (I want the best but get what I can afford).


I just lowered my opinion of the validity and objectiveness of any advice CAVX has offered.


I would think if he invented a lens, he would understand the importance of obtaining the maximum size on any image, not just the one he felt was the most important (WS - 2:35-2;40...whatever)


I have a 16x9 size NOW of 107"x60". My setup will not allow a WS with that height (doesn't matter why, its just a fact). But just because I want a bigger WS doesn't mean I want to accept REDUCING MY HDTV FROM WHAT IT IS NOW JUST TO GET BIGGER MOVIES.


CIH takes effort compared to living without it. CIA takes even more effort. If he (or I) want to try CIA (and the effort involved) in the name of giving HT buffs another way of pushing the envelope...for gods sake either help him or shut up.


CAVX - tell me there weren't people who told you it wasn't worth the effort (when you started going CIH as a pioneer). You forged ahead and were glad of it.


Quote all the numbers you want, but you "live" with a smaller HDTV (16x9) size than he wants.


You have "a small one"...period...deal with it...don't make excuses because you can't have a bigger one (referring only to relative screen size, of course).


Seriously, all CIA takes is a willingness to do the work the "zoom method" folks do every time, combined with the extra money it takes to buy the lens of your choice. Why is anyone trying so hard to talk him out of it just because you haven't done it. Its the best of both worlds, but its still a work in progress (just like CIH once was).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> I have a 16x9 size NOW of 107"x60". My setup will not allow a WS with that height (doesn't matter why, its just a fact). But just because I want a bigger WS doesn't mean I want to accept REDUCING MY HDTV FROM WHAT IT IS NOW JUST TO GET BIGGER MOVIES.



So the limiting factor here is your room which means you have to reduce the image height to fit in a wider screen. And that is my fault because?


Congrats on the purchase og an ISCO though


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16090541
> 
> 
> I have a 16x9 size NOW of 107"x60". My setup will not allow a WS with that height (doesn't matter why, its just a fact). But just because I want a bigger WS doesn't mean I want to accept REDUCING MY HDTV FROM WHAT IT IS NOW JUST TO GET BIGGER MOVIES.



Again, we're hung up on the numbers. If you go CIH, no your screen will not be 60" high. But you can quite easily compensate for that by moving your seating and thus *retaining the same 16x9 effect* while gaining the larger 2.35:1 image.


That's the whole point, I see this over and over. People get hung up on the idea that their 16x9 image won't be as many inches tall if they go CIH, but never seem to consider adjusting their seating to compensate. This is what I have a problem with, people who _think_ going CIH means they can't have a large enough 16x9 image, but only think that based on the numbers, not actually trying it and moving seating around.


Now if you've tried moving your seating, and are one of the ones who feels that you can't get _both_16x9 and 2.35:1 to feel right with CIH, (ie 16x9 has to be too small or 2.35:1 too large for the other to feel right) then that's fine. I can completely understand and respect that position.


My "problem" is people that dismiss/don't even try CIH because they get hung up with the number of inches their 16x9 area would be being smaller, when they've not tried it.





> Quote:
> Quote all the numbers you want, but you "live" with a smaller HDTV (16x9) size than he wants.



But again, it's not about the inches, it's about the viewing ratio. A 120" 16x9 screen isn't going to feel bigger than a 92" one if you sit twice as far back from the larger screen.



> Quote:
> You have "a small one"...period...deal with it...don't make excuses because you can't have a bigger one (referring only to relative screen size, of course).



I could quite easily have a 110x60" 16x9 screen in my HT if I wanted one. But I "make due" with an 82x46" 16x9 area that's 100% satisfying because of where I have my seating. With where my seating is 16x9 is plenty large and 2.35:1 is even better. If I had that 110x60" 16x9 screen, I'd have to have my seating far further back and the 2.35:1 image would then be too small.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16092217
> 
> 
> Again, we're hung up on the numbers. If you go CIH, no your screen will not be 60" high. But you can quite easily compensate for that by moving your seating and thus *retaining the same 16x9 effect* while gaining the larger 2.35:1 image.
> 
> 
> That's the whole point, I see this over and over. People get hung up on the idea that their 16x9 image won't be as many inches tall if they go CIH, but never seem to consider adjusting their seating to compensate. This is what I have a problem with, people who _think_ going CIH means they can't have a large enough 16x9 image, but only think that based on the numbers, not actually trying it and moving seating around.
> 
> 
> Now if you've tried moving your seating, and are one of the ones who feels that you can't get _both_16x9 and 2.35:1 to feel right with CIH, (ie 16x9 has to be too small or 2.35:1 too large for the other to feel right) then that's fine. I can completely understand and respect that position.
> 
> 
> My "problem" is people that dismiss/don't even try CIH because they get hung up with the number of inches their 16x9 area would be being smaller, when they've not tried it.
> 
> 
> But again, it's not about the inches, it's about the viewing ratio. A 120" 16x9 screen isn't going to feel bigger than a 92" one if you sit twice as far back from the larger screen.
> 
> 
> I could quite easily have a 110x60" 16x9 screen in my HT if I wanted one. But I "make due" with an 82x46" 16x9 area that's 100% satisfying because of where I have my seating. With where my seating is 16x9 is plenty large and 2.35:1 is even better. If I had that 110x60" 16x9 screen, I'd have to have my seating far further back and the 2.35:1 image would then be too small.



So your simple answer is move your seating closer.


You realize that I have a projection setup so that more than one person can enjoy it?


Smaller screen and closer seating means less people can see it, bottom line.


And no one said anything about not having proper seating for that larger 16x9 size. It could be the exact same ratio distance as the smaller CIH setup (seating moved closer).


----------



## Jeff Smith

You 2 still don't get it.


Its no ones "fault" the room dimensions dictate screen or seating properties. Nor is it easy to move seating in all cases (I have 5 wide seating from Roman, and the row probably weighs a thousand lbs). Besides, who would move their seats each time they changed ARs (if you don't, you are right back at square 1 with feeling one ratio suffers).


The point is, this is a "Home" theater, so you can set it up as you wish. I think most agree that the lenses provide a huge option, but if someone can get both ARs to be bigger and high quality - power to them. If you don't care about that, fine. But - instead of talking someone out of it right away - give appropriate warning about the difficulties (once - not post after post of negative opinions) and then either put on your thinking cap and brainstorm, or sit back and follow along (if you wish).


I get the posts about how great CIH is. What I don't get are the posts about how bad (or useless) CIA is. I have had horizontal masking for my CRT "movies". I now will have vertical masking for my CIH "TV", having both is not that big a deal.


If I could find a way to make a DIY curved masking 9' wide for a torus screen, I could easily do 4 way masking.


Now, mine would be manual (OH NO! I have to get up!!!!), but I wager (seriously) that once its in place, even with room lights on, it looks just as good as Art's (I kind of use you as a high water mark, Art).


IF (big "IF") I went CIA, all it would take are:


- 2 long thin masking strips at the top and bottom, which would be so thin that if you had a non-curved screen you could literally hinge them to flip up and down, side masks are easy. The effort to adjust them is minimal, as I don't generally go "movie-TV-movie-TV-etc" I may switch once, maybe twice, a night.


- Zooming (but not even as much as needed to zoom to CIH). You would simply zoom DOWN some when you add your lens. People with the new Panny should actually try this, they have presets. This, BTW, is the only thing holding me back and thinking of living with the smaller "TV" as I haven't figured how to zoom an RS20 with the picture in place, only with a grid (I suppose I could pre mark some sot for the grid to hit).


- more importantly, a screen with a weird size (in my case 10.7' wide, 5' high). Interestingly, you would never use the corners as one mask would chop of a bit of the top and bottom, the other mask...a bit more of the sides. This screen size is no big deal either to order (if you have the money) or DIY (if you don't).


BTW, your ft lamberts would be about equal if the area was the same.


It doesn't even have to be an exact constant area. Just think if is as wanting one ration screen a certain size, and the other ratio screen a certain size, then just making it so.


Again, I would have never even thought of CIA until I started jumping on the CIH thing and realized that although my movies would be much bigger, my Superbowl would actually be smaller than it is now...which I don't like.


I have to admit, I was about to give up the CIA and live with the "teeny" Superbowl, but this thread has stirred up my creative juices...and I'm talking high gain torus with 4 way (manual) masking. I'm a doctor, not a carpenter (but its in my genes) so if I can do it, you can too. I'm trying like crazy to just add width to my 9x5' screen, but no matter how I plan, there's always "an issue" (ie enough throw distance at 9x5' for the lens to work well). Not all rooms are so easily adjustable. All the suggestions are nice, if they will work in our rooms. If they won't, for whatever reason, this is just another fancy HT "tweak" that if done right, gives satisfaction to the owner.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16093117
> 
> 
> So your simple answer is move your seating closer.
> 
> 
> You realize that I have a projection setup so that more than one person can enjoy it?



As do I, I've got two rows of 3, plus a bar behind that (which will have seating for two.



> Quote:
> Smaller screen and closer seating means less people can see it, bottom line.



How does moving the seating a foot or two closer (and that's really what we're talking about here, tops) make it so less people can see it?


Your seating is limited by the room, not the screen.



> Quote:
> And no one said anything about not having proper seating for that larger 16x9 size. It could be the exact same ratio distance as the smaller CIH setup (seating moved closer).



So then I'm even more lost. Your 16x9 image will look the same from the seating position in either case, so where's the "too small" 16x9 image come from?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16093122
> 
> 
> You 2 still don't get it.
> 
> 
> Its no ones "fault" the room dimensions dictate screen or seating properties. Nor is it easy to move seating in all cases (I have 5 wide seating from Roman, and the row probably weighs a thousand lbs). Besides, who would move their seats each time they changed ARs (if you don't, you are right back at square 1 with feeling one ratio suffers).



Nobody's talking about moving seating _each time_ the AR changes (which is what you'd have to do to get proper seating distance in a CIW setup BTW). We're talking about repositioning your seating *once* when you configure your HT for CIH.


It's a simple answer to the "If I go CIH, my 16x9 screen will be smaller". You move your seating up (once, and leave it) to the same ratio as it was originally, and your 16x9 image is the same relative size and you've now got a CIH theater.



> Quote:
> The point is, this is a "Home" theater, so you can set it up as you wish. I think most agree that the lenses provide a huge option, but if someone can get both ARs to be bigger and high quality - power to them. If you don't care about that, fine.



Our point is, seating positioning can compensate for the absolute size of the screen. As it should.



> Quote:
> But - instead of talking someone out of it right away - give appropriate warning about the difficulties (once - not post after post of negative opinions) and then either put on your thinking cap and brainstorm, or sit back and follow along (if you wish).
> 
> 
> I get the posts about how great CIH is. What I don't get are the posts about how bad (or useless) CIA is.



Nobody ever said it's useless. But some of us question the thought process that goes into the idea that CIH == small 16x9.

The idea that because your room prevents you from going to a 2.35:1 screen that's 33% wider than your current 16x9 screen results in a 16x9 image that's too small, and thus you can't go CIH, is a flawed one. And that's the primary argument against CIH in almost every thread where someone is looking for an alternative. The simple fact is repositioning your seating can easily compensate for that, _if you're willing._



> Quote:
> Again, I would have never even thought of CIA until I started jumping on the CIH thing and realized that although my movies would be much bigger, my Superbowl would actually be smaller than it is now...which I don't like.



Again, and this is really the only reason this thread is still going:

*It doesn't have to be*, even if your room prevents a 33% larger scope screen, simply moving your seating incrementally closer to the screen will result in the same 16x9 "Superbowl" experience you have today, yet you'd still get the larger scope movie experience and not have to deal with the added complexities of CIA.


There only difference going CIA would be the number of inches your 16x9 screen area is (but exactly the same viewing angle/ratio), and your scope movies would appear larger in the CIH config.



> Quote:
> I have to admit, I was about to give up the CIA and live with the "teeny" Superbowl, but this thread has stirred up my creative juices...and I'm talking high gain torus with 4 way (manual) masking.



Again, CIH, even in a "width limited" room, does not mean "teeny" 16x9. It's the propagation of the CIH="teeny" 16x9 idea that keeps threads like this going. It's simply not true.


----------



## Jeff Smith

OK, I don't know how many times someone has to explain this to you, but in some cases (and here you just have to trust that the person telling you this) MOVING THE SEATING MAY NOT BE AN OPTION.


I know you mean well, but to just keep harping on that without knowing all the details of an individuals room is condescending. Both of us, I'm sure, have listened to that point, looked at our rooms (in my case, done measurements, plans, etc) and just can't do what you say. Why can't you just accept that? In my case, my room narrows toward the screen, which limits both the seating position (that's a fixed width) and screen width (there's brick walls and outside doors in the way). Maybe LilGator has decor or WAF issues. It matters to him, and he has his reasons. I'm sure he has thought of trying your ideas too. Neither of us are saying they are without merit. They just won't work for us.


I keep coming back to the thought of how many said CIH was a waste of effort/money/etc. Look through the archives.


Both CAVX and stranger89 have been here long enough to remember (you have combined over 10 times my posts even thought I've been active 3 years longer...so I know you keep up over the years).


It took a lot of figuring out (still does). Lenses and prisms evolve, screens evolve, some curve to offset lens issues, CINERAMAX is trying torus for digital PJs in the $20,000+ forum with dramatic claims (I'm trying it too on a substantially reduced budget...ask Mike Parker how my current torus screen looks.) PJs certainly have come a long way.


I just don't get why such effort in trying to talk someone out of what may be a really cool idea. This is a hobby and labor of love for many of us...I certainly assume for you. CIA is just another idea. Its not the 2nd coming or anything like that. But unless you want "one touch" AR change (and I get that some do, and can afford it...that's cool) - CIA isn't that hard! Heck, if you had a flat screen and a Panny with AR memory, A DIY setup with 4 way manual masking would take about 1 extra day's labor and less than $100 more in materials to do the whole project, start to finish, compared to CIH.


Look, the simple fact that more than one person wants the size of both their screens the size they do means that not everyone thinks its OK to have such a smaller 16x9 screen. We get that you're not one of them. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. I'm just about trying new ways to push the envelope to advance our HT hobby.


Rodney King said it all, "Can't we all just get along?"


Now, really, you 2 guys are smart. Come up with different ideas than the ones you've suggested. That can't be all you have to contribute.


----------



## Jeff Smith

I just watched some HD hoops.


Watched the end of Battlestar Galactica last night ((I'm a shameless scifi nerd, and if you haven't seen BSG, rent it from season 1, BluRay if you can find it, it is maybe the best scifi series ever. Start from the beginning, don't try to skip any).


BSG had amazing PQ. I would have still enjoyed it if it were smaller, but why anyone would want to if they had the option is beyond me.


Ditto the Superbowl, Final 4, etc.


All are 16x9.


There is no way I will concede that they don't have bigger impact with a bigger screen . Just like any good quality material (like WS films) you want the biggest size at the best PQ you can achieve given your situation.


Planet Earth was 16x9. All sports are too. So is HDNet and all HDTV (granted most is junk, but some is essential to many of us).


BTW - right under stranger89's screen name it says "Living the PVR Life", so he watches enough 16x9 material he records it. Now if we could just get him to stop thinking in terms of how big it is relative to his WS movies, and just get him to think in terms of how big it is...period.


I should stop using terms like "tiny". My bad. Obviously 8' wide isn't tiny at all, but 9' wide is bigger (argue with that math), and if we can achieve good PQ at the larger size its a good thing.


Every argument about how movies are supposed to look bigger assumes 2.37:1 movies are the only thing that matters. BTW - isn't IMAX 4:3 or something "ancient" like that.


If you used your room just for WS movies, I see the point better, but still can't see why you wouldn't want to encourage others to reach their goals (esp you CAVX).


My room too is multi use. I bet most are. But I would put my "experience" (once your butt is in the seat) up against anyone here and not be ashamed. That includes HDTV too, not just film.


I have shaded windows, but don't care during the day. After dark I have a bat cave, dark decorative screen area, EQ'd sound with 3 18" basetraps (also DIY) and plenty of accoustic treatments, nice speakers, plenty of power, blah, blah, blah.


Is it of Art's quality...No - If I turn around, I have a pool table and really big but odd shaped/low ceiling room behind the HT "side".


The point of all my childish self-praise is, I take what I have and make the most of it...and I've done it well. Once I'm planted, it is totally absorbing...and I think I can do even better now. Each of us real enthusiasts tries to do the same in their own way. I almost gave up on CIA 'till this thread. Now, I want to brainstorm with Rich, LilGator, and others.


I enjoy the planning and dreaming, and am at the stage I can go either way. I would love to get others "positive" suggestions and ideas.


I just thought of this, but if I just buy the screen "sized" for CIA, and later decide to just go CIH, all I have to do is leave my top and bottom screen masking in place.


That's it, I'm done, no big effort, and the only cost I'm out for trying CIA (if it doesn't work out) is the extra few sq ft of screen material I would then have forever covered (and I know I could make it look so "finished" no one would ever know).


_______________________________


I just reread this thread from the start.


The 2 naysayers made their sole contributions in 1 sentence each in their first 2 posts...everything from then on was just saying the same thing over and over (which simply boils down to their not caring that much about their own 16x9 size viewing and spending all this effort to convince others not to either).


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16094241
> 
> 
> OK, I don't know how many times someone has to explain this to you, but in some cases (and here you just have to trust that the person telling you this) MOVING THE SEATING MAY NOT BE AN OPTION.



Which is absolutely fine, and very helpful if they relate that in describing their situation.



> Quote:
> I know you mean well, but to just keep harping on that without knowing all the details of an individuals room is condescending.



But that's part of the issue. Look at it from the other side, some of us have gone CIH, many of us have tried it and know that with proper seating (moving it if necessary relative to a 16x9 screen config) that 16x9 can be just as gratifying as on a 16x9 screen.


So when we have repeated questions/posts saying something to the effect of "I can't make CIH work because my room is too narrow (period)." With no explanation of any additional criteria that led to that decision. That it (appears at least) to perpetuate this myth that room dimensions alone can make a room suitable or not to CIH.


The fact is almost any room has dimensions such that one could put a taller 16x9 screen in than 2.35:1. You've got to have a very wide room (or very short ceilings) to actually have 2.35:1 be the largest screen that will fit on the wall.


Yet many of us have configured HTs that do use 2.35:1 screens, and we don't feel that we've got "teeny" 16x9. My only interest in these discussions is for the people asking for info, and for the people reading (and thinking about this themselves) to think about more than just the dimensions of the room when considering CIH. Think about screen material (AT allows wider screens without affecting speaker placement), think about seating distance....


I think if that's done, you'll find that the only real choice left is whether you like the size of both 16x9 and 2.35:1 at a constant height. Not everyone does, RonC doesn't (and if you notice, I haven't questioned that choice). And some are more willing to compromise relative 2.35:1 size rather than seating changes or the like.


I've tried (to the best of my ability) to limit my comments to the ideas that CIH results in unsatisfying 16x9 size, or that CIH won't "fit" in a room. Neither of which are inherently true.



> Quote:
> Both of us, I'm sure, have listened to that point, looked at our rooms (in my case, done measurements, plans, etc) and just can't do what you say. Why can't you just accept that?



I can, but at least to my view, neither of you made that clear. Most of your responses were simply along the lines of "CIH makes the image too small". Which I just can't figure out in isolation since I've done CIH in two rooms now, both of which I think most would question whether it was possible.


The first was a (IIRC) about 12' square (12x14 tops) 7' ceiling room where I had a 96" wide 2.35:1 screen. And then my current which is 11.5' wide, 7.5' high ceiling, and basically unlimited depth (40' or so).



> Quote:
> In my case, my room narrows toward the screen, which limits both the seating position (that's a fixed width) and screen width (there's brick walls and outside doors in the way).



Interesting, had you said said that earlier most of this discussion would have not occured.



> Quote:
> Maybe LilGator has decor or WAF issues. It matters to him, and he has his reasons. I'm sure he has thought of trying your ideas too. Neither of us are saying they are without merit. They just won't work for us.



Maybe it is, if you notice my original post was simply asking if LilGator had *considered* moving the seating, in order to find if the thought you and I have been discussing had gone into the choice.



> Quote:
> I keep coming back to the thought of how many said CIH was a waste of effort/money/etc. Look through the archives.



CIH (and CIA) is for enthusasts for sure.




> I just don't get why such effort in trying to talk someone out of what may be a really cool idea. This is a hobby and labor of love for many of us...I certainly assume for you. CIA is just another idea. Its not the 2nd coming or anything like that. But unless you want "one touch" AR change (and I get that some do, and can afford it...that's cool) - CIA isn't that hard! Heck, if you had a flat screen and a Panny with AR memory, A DIY setup with 4 way manual masking would take about 1 extra day's labor and less than $100 more in materials to do the whole project, start to finish, compared to CIH.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to talk anyone into, or out of anything. Just point out other options/thoughts. It's clear you and LilGator have given some thought to what you want. But, well see below....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Look, the simple fact that more than one person wants the size of both their screens the size they do means that not everyone thinks its OK to have such a smaller 16x9 screen. We get that you're not one of them. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. I'm just about trying new ways to push the envelope to advance our HT hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I (and CAVX) have been trying to explain (unsuccessfully), it's not that we are "OK" with a "such a smaller" 16x9 screen. My 16x9 area is anything but small. We've configured our theaters that way through seating, screen material choice, etc.
> 
> 
> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if my 16x9 are is larger than many of those with projectors, viewing angle wise at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16094938
> 
> 
> I just watched some HD hoops.
> 
> 
> Watched the end of Battlestar Galactica last night ((I'm a shameless scifi nerd, and if you haven't seen BSG, rent it from season 1, BluRay if you can find it, it is maybe the best scifi series ever. Start from the beginning, don't try to skip any).
> 
> 
> BSG had amazing PQ. I would have still enjoyed it if it were smaller, but why anyone would want to if they had the option is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Ditto the Superbowl, Final 4, etc.
> 
> 
> All are 16x9.
> 
> 
> There is no way I will concede that they don't have bigger impact with a bigger screen . Just like any good quality material (like WS films) you want the biggest size at the best PQ you can achieve given your situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But raw inches aren't the only measure of "size", not by a long shot. This is what
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Planet Earth was 16x9. All sports are too. So is HDNet and all HDTV (granted most is junk, but some is essential to many of us).
> 
> 
> BTW - right under stranger89's screen name it says "Living the PVR Life", so he watches enough 16x9 material he records it. Now if we could just get him to stop thinking in terms of how big it is relative to his WS movies, and just get him to think in terms of how big it is...period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, I do watch a lot of 16x9. Easily more (by quantity) than scope. Watching Terminator (the show) as I type this, and I'm going to watch the BSG finale next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I should stop using terms like "tiny". My bad. Obviously 8' wide isn't tiny at all, but 9' wide is bigger (argue with that math), and if we can achieve good PQ at the larger size its a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's all relative. Yes I could have a 9' wide 16x9 image, but my seating would have to be farther back then. Right now I'm sitting approximately 12' from a 96" (diag) 16x9 image, that's 1.5x seating distance (3x screen height). That's plenty big enough for me, not relative, not in relation to, period, that's big enough.
> 
> 
> What sort of viewing ratio do you consider "big"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Every argument about how movies are supposed to look bigger assumes 2.37:1 movies are the only thing that matters. BTW - isn't IMAX 4:3 or something "ancient" like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, and regarding IMAX, I believe it's actually 1.25:1, but IMAX followed a different evolution than the rest of cinema. Like "normal" movies increased AR, making them wider and wider, larger and larger, IMAX was _intended to be taller_ from the start.
> 
> 
> This has come up before, and what I said then still holds. IMO if you want to present IMAX right in your HT, you need (basically) a 4x3 (ideally 1.25:1) screen/display that's bigger than anything else you show. But I don't watch any IMAX at home, so I don't need to worry about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> If you used your room just for WS movies, I see the point better, but still can't see why you wouldn't want to encourage others to reach their goals (esp you CAVX).
> 
> 
> My room too is multi use. I bet most are. But I would put my "experience" (once your butt is in the seat) up against anyone here and not be ashamed. That includes HDTV too, not just film.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine too, I watch a lot of HDTV, play a good bit of Xbox 360, and watch movies in my HT. Though seating is layed out, optimized for viewing (two rows of three seats).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> I have shaded windows, but don't care during the day. After dark I have a bat cave, dark decorative screen area, EQ'd sound with 3 18" basetraps (also DIY) and plenty of accoustic treatments, nice speakers, plenty of power, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> Is it of Art's quality...No - If I turn around, I have a pool table and really big but odd shaped/low ceiling room behind the HT "side".
> 
> 
> The point of all my childish self-praise is, I take what I have and make the most of it...and I've done it well. Once I'm planted, it is totally absorbing...and I think I can do even better now. Each of us real enthusiasts tries to do the same in their own way. I almost gave up on CIA 'till this thread. Now, I want to brainstorm with Rich, LilGator, and others.
> 
> 
> I enjoy the planning and dreaming, and am at the stage I can go either way. I would love to get others "positive" suggestions and ideas.
> 
> 
> I just thought of this, but if I just buy the screen "sized" for CIA, and later decide to just go CIH, all I have to do is leave my top and bottom screen masking in place.
> 
> 
> That's it, I'm done, no big effort, and the only cost I'm out for trying CIA (if it doesn't work out) is the extra few sq ft of screen material I would then have forever covered (and I know I could make it look so "finished" no one would ever know).
> 
> 
> _______________________________
> 
> 
> I just reread this thread from the start.
> 
> 
> The 2 naysayers made their sole contributions in 1 sentence each in their first 2 posts...everything from then on was just saying the same thing over and over (which simply boils down to their not caring that much about their own 16x9 size viewing and spending all this effort to convince others not to either).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, and I realize that I'm repeating, but it seems not to be getting across, and the only reason why I've continued posting in this thread, you've got completely the wrong interpretation of our position:
> 
> 
> "their not caring that much about their own 16x9 size viewing and spending all this effort to convince others not to either"
> 
> 
> That is _absolutely not true_, not by a mile. If it were, I would watch HDTV, and other 16x9 stuff on an HDTV in my living room. I do care about the size of my 16x9. That's why I got started in HT. My first setup was a 16x9 projector on a 16x9 screen, nothing fancy. I went that route because no TV could satisfy my desire for _size_. The problem with that setup was scope content was still too small.
> 
> 
> So I've since gotten a lens, and a scope screen, and I've now got a CIH system. In the process have I given up anything in my 16x9 presentation? Absolutely not, if anything as my theater has evolved my 16x9 presentation has gotten better, bigger. My 16x9 image is the perfect size, very big. Yes it could be more inches in size, but it doesn't need to be because of where I put my seating.
> 
> 
> The only thing even close to a sacrifice I had to make to make this work was I needed an AT screen so I could fully utilize the width of my front wall. But having gone AT, I wouldn't have it any other way in the future.
> 
> 
> So again, to summarize:
> 
> *I do* care about the size of my 16x9 content.
> *I am not* forsaking 16x9 for the sake of 2.35:1 content.
> 
> CIH does not require sacrificing your 16x9 presentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## LilGator

I think we're still missing the main point. Yes, you may have a great 16x9 size for your seating distance, perhaps even better than most 16x9 CIW setups! But with CIH, 2.40 will be bigger.


Bigger is better, no?


After seeing the much wider (and therefore bigger) 2.40 screen filled out, 16x9 (no matter how large relative to seating) will always feel smaller.


Always.


I'm not talking about large and small. I'm talking about larger and smaller. 1.78 is SMALLER than 2.40 on CIH, every single time, period. I don't like that, just as I don't like 2.40 being SMALLER than 1.78 on a CIW screen.


CIA will not come across the same way; regardless of seating, regardless of sizes chosen and any numbers- *BOTH ratios will feel the same size*.


That's the biggest plus to CIA.


Let's take two setups.


On one hand, we have your CIH setup. Let's say *10ft* wide scope. This gives *7.4ft* wide 16x9.


Now we have a similar CIA setup. Again, *10ft* wide scope. Both are equal here.


Now, with CIA, I have a *8.7ft* wide 16x9.


You see? I get your same scope size, same seating distance even, but I don't sacrifice 16x9!


I don't see how that isn't better.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16095974
> 
> 
> I think we're still missing the main point. Yes, you may have a great 16x9 size for your seating distance, perhaps even better than most 16x9 CIW setups! But with CIH, 2.40 will be bigger.
> 
> 
> Bigger is better, no?



To a point.



> Quote:
> After seeing the much wider (and therefore bigger) 2.40 screen filled out, 16x9 (no matter how large relative to seating) will always feel smaller.
> 
> 
> Always.
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about large and small. I'm talking about larger and smaller. 1.78 is SMALLER than 2.40 on CIH, every single time, period. I don't like that, just as I don't like 2.40 being SMALLER than 1.78 on a CIW screen.
> 
> 
> CIA will not come across the same way; regardless of seating, regardless of sizes chosen and any numbers- *BOTH ratios will feel the same size*.
> 
> 
> That's the biggest plus to CIA.
> 
> 
> Let's take two setups.
> 
> 
> On one hand, we have your CIH setup. Let's say *10ft* wide scope. This gives *7.4ft* wide 16x9.
> 
> 
> Now we have a similar CIA setup. Again, *10ft* wide scope. Both are equal here.
> 
> 
> Now, with CIA, I have a *8.7ft* wide 16x9.
> 
> 
> You see? I get your same scope size, same seating distance even, but I don't sacrifice 16x9!
> 
> 
> I don't see how that isn't better.



This is where we part ways, and if if this is what Jeff was trying to argue I apologize for dragging this out (he seemed to be arguing only about absolute size, and the "conversion" to CIH, at least that's how I read it). I disagree, I don't feel 16x9 is "sacrificed" relative to a larger scope screen. And likewise, I think with CIA I would feel 2.35:1 is sacrificed. But that was not what I'd intended to be arguing.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16096141
> 
> 
> To a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where we part ways, and if if this is what Jeff was trying to argue I apologize for dragging this out (he seemed to be arguing only about absolute size, and the "conversion" to CIH, at least that's how I read it). I disagree, I don't feel 16x9 is "sacrificed" relative to a larger scope screen. And likewise, I think with CIA I would feel 2.35:1 is sacrificed. But that was not what I'd intended to be arguing.



How is CIA sacrificing 2.35:1 if it's the EXACT SAME size as your CIH setup? With the EXACT SAME seating distance?


The two setups @ 2.35 would be IDENTICAL.


The ONLY difference is 16x9 is now bigger, and the same size as the scope (in area of course).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16096153
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY difference is 16x9 is now bigger



And there it is - Scope films which should be projected bigger than HDTV are going to be smaller than the evening news







(based on their height).


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16096403
> 
> 
> And there it is - Scope films which should be projected bigger than HDTV are going to be smaller than the evening news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (based on their height).



And larger (based on their width).


What dost thou prove?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16096602
> 
> 
> And larger (based on their width).
> 
> 
> What dost thou prove?



What it proves is that the Scope image won't be 33% wider than HDTV but only about 15% wider - hardy the intent







and it won't be as tall, so it will never be as grand. Hey but its your system







do as you will.


----------



## Jeff Smith

First I want to apologize for any rude comments.


Next, I would plead to abruptly stop any discussion of the merits of CIH vs CIA as all that involves too much opinion (and lets face it, AVSers are nothing if not passionate about their opinions).


Finally...and seriously, I would like to ask CAVX and stranger89 if they have any ideas to help achieve the goal of "adjusting the size of the 16x9 image in a HT setup using an anamorphic lens". You 2 obviously have some experience here.


I welcome criticism about why a certain idea won't work well because of lens physics or PJ electronics, etc. but ask them to understand that we are simply trying to find a way of making both images custom sizes. Equal area is just a rough range to shoot for...the area doesn't have to be equal at all.


The idea of being able to have both ARs the size we want is what appeals to us. Its not about which should be what size relative to each other, I don't think that even enters into it for me. I just have an idea of how big I want each to look from where I sit. That's all, no science, just a personal vision of what I think looks best.


Maybe the whole name CIA should be tossed for this discussion.


What if this thread had never happened and someone well respected in the CIH community had said "Hey, I just discovered a really cool way for all us CIH guys to indepentently adjust the size of our 16x9 image."


Forget ratios, I even hear Art saying he wondered about the relative size at first, then later found it was "big enough".


Art, what if you could just push a button and have your HDTV size whatever you wanted (any size,as defined by you, not some dogma about either height or area)...wouldn't it appeal to you? It would to me.


I realize this goal is easier to achieve when starting anew, as it requires a different screen size than either 2.35 or 1.78, but for those of us in that stage its worth thinking about.


The only person who ever sees the difference in screen sizes anyway (and really cares) is US. Would any of your wives or friends come over and watch a movie and say, "Wow, I notice that the movie isn't that much bigger relative to the Superbowl, I'm disappointed." Nope, Pam would roll her eyes and wonder why I even thought of such a thing. Friends come to watch a game, or a movie, not to compare between the relative sizes of the 2. Face it, in almost every case the person posting almost certainly already has the best setup in their circle of family or friends.


Its not about whether its right or wrong or blasphemy to want it, but about how to achieve it.


It obviously can be done, its just about how much work needs to be done...both in the planning of the setup and in the actual AR change each time you go back and forth.


Its mainly the work going back and forth that holds me back...but this thread had gotten me thinking about trying again. I really had given it up (honestly), because I DID accept that I could live with the HDTV size that CIH dictates and didn't want to do the work to change that. Now I'm not sure, I haven't bought my screen yet.


Again, stop thinking the argument is that area matters more or less than height (that's another whole philosophical debate with no answer). Think about ways to make both ARs any size you want within your own HT limitations (whatever they may be).


Last, I want to repeat my first point and apologize for being too fired up or rude.


----------



## CAVX

Apology accepted Jeff










Maybe THIS LINK might be of interest to you. It decribes a system that is both CIH and CIW using a VC lens, a 4 way masking system and a really big 16:9 screen. It is one possible answer to the topic under discussion and I thought this might be the only way to fully address the problem that came as a result of the IMAX footage being added a A Dark Night on BD.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16097823
> 
> 
> 
> Art, what if you could just push a button and have your HDTV size whatever you wanted (any size,as defined by you, not some dogma about either height or area)...wouldn't it appeal to you? It would to me.
> 
> 
> 
> The only person who ever sees the difference in screen sizes anyway (and really cares) is US. Would any of your wives or friends come over and watch a movie and say, "Wow, I notice that the movie isn't that much bigger relative to the Superbowl, I'm disappointed."



I'd take it but as with almost anything we do there are compromises. I often wish more films were 2.35:1 when I put in a 1.85:1 now based on my CIH choice.


The thing about the superbowl is interesting. I had a superbowl party and there were a few who had not been here before. I demoed the system using some scope films. Later when the game was on I was asked why I couldn't make the game bigger. The answer to them was never satisfactory.They couldn't have cared less about movies being wide.


Art


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16097823
> 
> 
> First I want to apologize for any rude comments.
> 
> 
> Next, I would plead to abruptly stop any discussion of the merits of CIH vs CIA as all that involves too much opinion (and lets face it, AVSers are nothing if not passionate about their opinions).



My last post was intended to be my last one, as I hope I finally explained my position.



> Quote:
> Finally...and seriously, I would like to ask CAVX and stranger89 if they have any ideas to help achieve the goal of "adjusting the size of the 16x9 image in a HT setup using an anamorphic lens". You 2 obviously have some experience here.



Arguably the best way would be with a variable stretch lens (like the Prismasonic), a good video processor, and a 4-way masking system. You'd get a 2.0:1 screen (or there abouts) and adjust the lens to give enough stretch to fill that screen.


Then you configure the Video Processor with the 2.0:1 display aspect ratio, and it either automatically (or through presets) applies the right stretch/padding to fill out that screen correctly. And then the masking to mask it correctly.


The downsides of course being:
Variable stretch lens required, thus you can't get by with the cheaper/DIY, and the better cylindrical (fixed stretch) lenses aren't options
No projectors have the sort of custom stretch needed
A "good" VP is necessary, an inexpensive/entry level one (like the Edge) won't do.



> Quote:
> What if this thread had never happened and someone well respected in the CIH community had said "Hey, I just discovered a really cool way for all us CIH guys to indepentently adjust the size of our 16x9 image."
> 
> 
> Forget ratios, I even hear Art saying he wondered about the relative size at first, then later found it was "big enough".
> 
> 
> Art, what if you could just push a button and have your HDTV size whatever you wanted (any size,as defined by you, not some dogma about either height or area)...wouldn't it appeal to you? It would to me.



We've been through this already (I thought you were asking for this discussion to be left to rest). Most of us (CAVX and I for sure) find nothing lacking with our 16x9 size, so no, that wouldn't appeal to me as I'm completely satisfied with the size I have now.



> Quote:
> Its mainly the work going back and forth that holds me back...but this thread had gotten me thinking about trying again. I really had given it up (honestly), because I DID accept that I could live with the HDTV size that CIH dictates and didn't want to do the work to change that. Now I'm not sure, I haven't bought my screen yet.



I realize you're talking about your room, or more accurately limitations you impose on going CIH, but _CIH doesn't dictate HDTV size._ HDTV (16x9) size can be anything you want in a CIH system. You're just unwilling to make changes (seating, screen) to achieve that, and that's fine, but it's not clear from your posts that that's the case. Which is what keeps this discussion going, the continued implication/statement of the idea that CIH inherently limits your 16x9/HDTV size.



> Quote:
> Again, stop thinking the argument is that area matters more or less than height (that's another whole philosophical debate with no answer). Think about ways to make both ARs any size you want within your own HT limitations (whatever they may be).



They _are_ all the size I want in my HT.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16098351
> 
> 
> The thing about the superbowl is interesting. I had a superbowl party and there were a few who had not been here before. I demoed the system using some scope films. Later when the game was on I was asked why I couldn't make the game bigger. The answer to them was never satisfactory.They couldn't have cared less about movies being wide.



Maybe that's really the answer, CAVX, and Art and I are movie lovers first, we want scope to have more impact than 16x9, or HDTV, as it was intended to. It's not that we "don't care" about 16x9 size, we want 16x9 to have great impact like everyone else here, but contrary to some, we want scope to have *even more impact* than HDTV/16x9.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16096899
> 
> 
> What it proves is that the Scope image won't be 33% wider than HDTV but only about 15% wider - hardy the intent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and it won't be as tall, so it will never be as grand. Hey but its your system
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do as you will.



See, I don't buy into this cult-like thinking.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16098749
> 
> 
> Maybe that's really the answer, CAVX, and Art and I are movie lovers first, we want scope to have more impact than 16x9, or HDTV, as it was intended to. It's not that we "don't care" about 16x9 size, we want 16x9 to have great impact like everyone else here, but contrary to some, we want scope to have *even more impact* than HDTV/16x9.



I believe that's why I started this thread. Yes, there are some people that want scope movies to have more impact than HDTV and 1.85 movies. Why they're here in this thread, I don't know?


My very first post explained that I want BOTH ratios to SHARE the same impact!


Am I not allowed to want that?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16098979
> 
> 
> My very first post explained that I want BOTH ratios to SHARE the same impact!
> 
> 
> Am I not allowed to want that?




Yes you are ,just not here.

















Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16099204
> 
> 
> Yes you are ,just not here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



I figured as much.


----------



## Jeff Smith

CAVX - I had lost that link but seen it before. I just reread it, thanks. Also reviewed several AVS threads.


LilGator - I agree. All we want is to have both sizes the size we want. You started this thread with questions. I don't have all the answers, but have already thought a lot about it.


IF THIS THREAD IS REALLY IN THE WRONG SPOT WOULD SOME MODERATOR PLEASE TELL US WHERE TO MOVE IT TO IN ORDER TO BE MORE WELL RECEIVED AND KEEP THE GENERAL PEACE. IT IS A QUESTION ABOUT HOW TO ACHIEVE CUSTOM SCREEN SIZES IN DIFFERENT ASPECT RATIOS - NOTHING ELSE.


Here's a starting point. I'm sure there are things I haven't thought of, correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone can plug in their own numbers.


Step 1 - Make your screen width the size you want your WS (I'm using 2.37 for my numbers), and your screen height the size you want your HDTV or 16x9 image (for the sake of less typing I'll just say "TV").


My current screen is 9'x5' in 16x9 (TV) size. My max screen width possible is 10.7'. This makes my WS movies 10.7'x4.5' - so the actual screen will be 10.7'x5'.


We'll get into masking later.


FYI - I never started out to achieve constant area, just to get the biggest images I could, but the sq footage in my case works out to about 48 sq ft WS and 45 sq ft TV. This is why I keep callling it CIA. It just happened that it was an AVS Forum "term" that required the same system planning.


I'm not anal about the "area" at all, it just works out that if I continue to use my torus screen frame with high gain material (another entire topic, just go with it please) all I had to do was add 10 inches to each side of my box and I could still use the same double curved frame, vaccuum fan, ceiling hangers, accoustic treatment on the back of the screen...the list goes on.


Obviously this is not a common screen size, which is only a problem if you are not making a DIY screen frame (which is really not hard if you go with a fixed mount).


I've already shopped various screen materials. Dalite HP is most economical in the Model C, cut to fit on a DIY frame. Stewart can be ordered any size in just the material for DIY frames. Don't know about others.


Step 2 - The PJ is mounted at the optimum distance for your eventual TV size (9'x5' for me). Your image is now at the size you want for TV.


Step 3 - To get to WS slide lens in place and zoom the image smaller to 8'x4.5'. I ordered an ISCO, don't mind moving it - but realize there are lenses or prisms that can stay in place.


- If I just added a lens to the 5' tall screen, it would make my WS size 11.85' wide (which can't be done, please just accept that).

- Since my WS width is 10.7' this makes the needed image size 8'x4.5' before the lens is placed.

- This requires zooming the image slighly down from 9'x5' to 8'x4.5'. Shrinking the image makes your throw ratio better (larger) for your lens.

- This amount of zooming smaller is much less than the amount needed to zoom the image larger to fit a WS if you don't use a lens (ie the "Zoom Method")

- Disadvantage # 1 - You have to accept that you will zoom with each AR change.

- This may be too much trouble for most...maybe for me even, but the "Zoom" folks do it every time. Not for those who want 1 touch AR changes (yet).

- You don't need a processor at all if your PJ does anamorphic (most every one we would be using does).

- If you have the Panny with memories - bonus! My RS20 doesn't, I'm making myself do it everytime I switch ARs now to test my patience.

- Zooming smaller makes the pixel structure tighter before the lens (a small consolation plus - helps make up for lack of room width for 11.85' wide CIH .)

- This is the opposite of the Zoom Method where the pixel structure becomes looser (a commonly cited negative to that method.)


Step 4 - Need 4 way adjustable masking


- Disadvantage # 2 - you need masking on the sides for TV and top and bottom for WS.

- But...the top and bottom masks are small (only 3 inches each in my case). For a non-torus screen, I would make them solid, hinged, and flip them in and out of place

manually each time (5 seconds work) and make them felt covered both sides for appearance. With 16x9 TV the back becomes the top and bottom masking.

- Side masking is a fact of CIH life anyway so no extra work there, slide over the top and bottom masking for 16x9.

- I'm sure auto masking could be done, but at a huge cost...and I bet my install would look as clean anyway (much less hardware visible).


Yes, its more work, but wasn't everything about every facet of HT as each new idea came out? I figure I'll do the work myself before guests come over. I always startup the movie anyway to skip the warnings, etc. so it adds 2-4 minutes at most, half for masking changes, half for zooming. If I'm watching alone this would always be worth it to me personally. My main priority is PQ.


BTW - I can zoom my RS20 the required distance with no focus or shift issues and have read on the forum that others have found the same to be true.


If Pam is watching it would be TV only, and she wouldn't even bother to change the setup to watch. If it were in WS, she'd just move the lens out and push the aspect change button on the remote. She doesn't care about movies if I'm not there, and would agree that 8'x4.5' is plenty big for American Idol if I'm not there to set it up for her.


That's all I have so far. Obviously easier to do if you have't bought your screen material, and takes more work planning the masking. But for the DIY types, I think its not that much extra over what I would do anyway for CIH...and it would make my Superbowl bigger.


I can't find it , but there was a good thread (or maybe a link to another site) where it was pointed out that a taller 16x9 makes the lack of width a non-issue...just like a wider WS makes the lack of height a non-issue.


I can see that if I switch back and forth with CIH the 16x9 definetely looks smaller, ala Art's Superbowl friend's comments.


DANGER - WARNING - CAUTION - I DID NOT SAY "TOO SMALL".


Same with my current 16x9 screen, movies look "smaller" than TV (which I agree isn't right). But I've enjoyed movies for years, currently masked to 9'x3.8' which is still darned big to most people.


I already made the choice to go CIH to make movies better (my huge dollar committment for the ISCO shows that) so I am pro-CIH, not anti and I didn't mean to come across that way. Doing the additional work I'm thinking of doesn't detract from my eventual WS size (or viewing pleasure) one bit. It just gives me an added dimension of having the biggest WS and the biggest HDTV I could reasonably physically build (and afford).


Please, I beg you stranger89, don't take a sentence or two in here and take it as anything mean-spirited or negative toward you or CIH. I just can't get my (admittedly un-polished) ideas across without using examples that have somehow struck a nerve with you...and yes, I'm being defensive. I already tried to change the tone of this thread to a positive one. I really think the idea has merit, I just haven't actually tried all these ideas yet.


God I hope this post goes thru, the AVS site just went down temporarily.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16095974
> 
> 
> I think we're still missing the main point. Yes, you may have a great 16x9 size for your seating distance, perhaps even better than most 16x9 CIW setups! But with CIH, 2.40 will be bigger.
> 
> 
> Bigger is better, no?
> 
> 
> After seeing the much wider (and therefore bigger) 2.40 screen filled out, 16x9 (no matter how large relative to seating) will always feel smaller.
> 
> 
> Always.
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about large and small. I'm talking about larger and smaller. 1.78 is SMALLER than 2.40 on CIH, every single time, period. I don't like that, just as I don't like 2.40 being SMALLER than 1.78 on a CIW screen.
> 
> 
> CIA will not come across the same way; regardless of seating, regardless of sizes chosen and any numbers- *BOTH ratios will feel the same size*.
> 
> 
> That's the biggest plus to CIA.
> 
> 
> Let's take two setups.
> 
> 
> On one hand, we have your CIH setup. Let's say *10ft* wide scope. This gives *7.4ft* wide 16x9.
> 
> 
> Now we have a similar CIA setup. Again, *10ft* wide scope. Both are equal here.
> 
> 
> Now, with CIA, I have a *8.7ft* wide 16x9.
> 
> 
> You see? I get your same scope size, same seating distance even, but I don't sacrifice 16x9!
> 
> 
> I don't see how that isn't better.



If you 'did it properly' you wouldn't be sacrificing your 16:9 image to begin with... You would have the ideal 16:9 image size and a 33% wider scope image. Wow, it would be just like the cinemas are doing all over the world : )


The very idea of wanting 16:9 to have the same impact as cinemascope is the problem in itself. Perhaps you could accept the fact that scope will always have more impact because it's one third wider... ?? It doesn't present a problem for me at all...


IMO this is a prime example of butchering what the professionals have given us. Why people continue to try and improve on perfect and change things around because 'they think they can' is beyond me. Fact is if you did it right the first time your 16:9 image would be correct for your PJ and seating distance.


What would you be doing if there were no cinemascope films? Would you be wanting a bigger and bigger 16:9 image? Based on what?


16:9 it seems is rather jealous of it's wider brother : )


Sorry if that sounds too harsh.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16099848
> 
> 
> CAVX - I had lost that link but seen it before. I just reread it, thanks. Also reviewed several AVS threads.



I did have a really long response typed out with suggestions, but the thing crashed just as I was about to post and I lost the lot.


Anyway, here is a brief version based on what I would need to do if I was to mod my system to allow CIH.


1. Keep the width of the screen but increase the height.

2. Add a top masking panel for Scope. Side masks would not be really necessary.

3. Move the lens for all non scope material.

4. Use the projectors ZOOM for 16:9.


The only times, and I state this in the link, I would think the 16:9 image needs to be larger is for IMAX films and maybe music videos on HD, other wize I think the size of the 16:9 I get with CIH is perfect.


----------



## GG386

Being 3 months into my first CIH setup, basically the only comments that surface is why the 16x9 stuff is not full screen. My viewers range from my kids and their friends, parents of said friends, my gang, customers, family etc. On the whole, an educated lot but completely AV deprived. By simply saying that 16x9 stuff was shot that way (pillar boxed) they just shrug their shoulders and say "OK", end of story. Point being that they just don't care, accept it and say they like the scope stuff better- it's all good.


I can see where the guys with over 10' screens can run into some problems seating wise, there is something to be said for the CIA approach. Truthfully, I fall in with the ranks of my formentioned guests with respect to the mechanics of CIA, but it does make for some lively debate. Anyway you look at it, we're way ahead of those lowly 16x9 guys







, JK of course.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16099951
> 
> 
> If you 'did it properly' you wouldn't be sacrificing your 16:9 image to begin with... You would have the ideal 16:9 image size and a 33% wider scope image. Wow, it would be just like the cinemas are doing all over the world : )
> 
> 
> The very idea of wanting 16:9 to have the same impact as cinemascope is the problem in itself. Perhaps you could accept the fact that scope will always have more impact because it's one third wider... ?? It doesn't present a problem for me at all...
> 
> 
> IMO this is a prime example of butchering what the professionals have given us. Why people continue to try and improve on perfect and change things around because 'they think they can' is beyond me. Fact is if you did it right the first time your 16:9 image would be correct for your PJ and seating distance.
> 
> 
> What would you be doing if there were no cinemascope films? Would you be wanting a bigger and bigger 16:9 image? Based on what?
> 
> 
> 16:9 it seems is rather jealous of it's wider brother : )
> 
> 
> Sorry if that sounds too harsh.



Why is it that my preference for 16x9 HDTV, 1.85, and 2.40 movies to ALL share the same impact is a problem?


That's pretty lame, man.


What's worse is you have this elitist attitude that pretends that people have to prefer scope movies being larger, and if not, they're second class not doing it "right".


It's a good little story though.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GG386* /forum/post/16100474
> 
> 
> Being 3 months into my first CIH setup, basically the only comments that surface is why the 16x9 stuff is not full screen. My viewers range from my kids and their friends, parents of said friends, my gang, customers, family etc. On the whole, an educated lot but completely AV deprived. By simply saying that 16x9 stuff was shot that way (pillar boxed) they just shrug their shoulders and say "OK", end of story. Point being that they just don't care, accept it and say they like the scope stuff better- it's all good.
> 
> 
> I can see where the guys with over 10' screens can run into some problems seating wise, there is something to be said for the CIA approach. Truthfully, I fall in with the ranks of my formentioned guests with respect to the mechanics of CIA, but it does make for some lively debate. Anyway you look at it, we're way ahead of those lowly 16x9 guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , JK of course.



See, with CIA, neither would look better than the other- everything would get a WOW! Scope would be identical in size and impact, but 16x9 would be larger.


So simple. Why is this unwanted around here?










I refuse to believe that one movie's shape tells a completely different movie (and different shape) what size it "has" to be relative to the other movie.


----------



## Altimeter88

I am glad someone pointed me to this thread. I am looking at getting the Pany AE3000U and with my dual purpose room a CIA screen makes total sense.


Before finding this thread I had decided I would try out a 2:1 format slightly curved screen about 104" wide hopefully giving me the best of both worlds when using the zoom feature with the Panasonic. I have no intention of getting an external lens but as others have stated, if your seating is fixed and you are limited on width (my max is 104") then a CIA screen makes total sense if you do a lot of 16:9 stuff which I do.


I have been used to a 102" diag 16:9 screen (sitting at about 12'-13') and this would drop down to about 89" diag (for a CIH screen) at the same seating distance and unless I tell everyone to sit on the floor (my seating is fixed) I think I will miss the 102" size I am used to in that format.


Anyway this project is a few weeks out to I will update on how things turn out.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16100603
> 
> 
> See, with CIA, neither would look better than the other- everything would get a WOW! Scope would be identical in size and impact, but 16x9 would be larger.



They'd still ask why HDTV wasn't full screen. Just like they'd asky why scope isn't full screen. Just like while people with HDTVs wonder why "Blu-ray doesn't fill the screen".


----------



## Jeff Smith

..."IMO this is a prime example of butchering what the professionals have given us. Why people continue to try and improve on perfect and change things around because 'they think they can' is beyond me."


Obviously is...and that horseless carriage thing will never catch on either.


----------



## Jeff Smith

OK - I give up. What do you guys who think your way is the only way want us to do?


Seriously, should we start another thread, or will you just put down that one too.


Why are you even posting if you have nothing to answer to the original posted question? I bet you couldn't even say what it was without looking.


At this point, enough have tried to talk the original poster out of trying something you haven't even tried. Further comments to that effect are just a rude waste of forum space. If you can help with his question, chime in. Otherwise please just read this thread, hope we'll fail, and think your condescending but narrow-minder posts to yourself.


Maybe I'm just old fashioned and still open doors for people and don't see the point in this anonymous web forum insulting...unless you're in middle school.


Who are you guys anyway? I'm just a 57 year old ER doc in Virginia Beach who uses my real name, has a love for HT and isn't afraid of trying and failing.


CAVX built an optical device...have any of the rest of you even tried anything as complex as building a torus high gain screen. Do you even know what it is and why it's good or bad, what's involved in the math, construction, materials, etc.?


I knew nothing of it, but pulled it off. Well known forum members have seen it.


I am now aware that many can't see the concept or advantages of having (oh no!) A CHOICE IN HOW BIG EITHER OF YOUR ASPECT SCREEN SIZES CAN BE...WHAT WILL BE NEXT?...3D?


Edit: yes, I've stooped to a lower level. It seems the thing to do here.

Oh yeah...I no longer play vinyl records either...just so you know how uncouth I am.


----------



## Jeff Smith

"They'd still ask why HDTV wasn't full screen. Just like they'd asky why scope isn't full screen. Just like while people with HDTVs wonder why "Blu-ray doesn't fill the screen".


...were not talking about the uneducated Best Buy shopper. We're talking about people who care enough to join AVS. Oh, and BTW - I thought Blu-ray does fill the screen...I thought someone who had CIH and 12,000+ posts would know that.


I give up. I'm going to bed...you can obviously do more to put down this idea than I can to brainstorm about it.


Goodnight all.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16100973
> 
> 
> Why are you even posting if you have nothing to answer to the original posted question? I bet you couldn't even say what it was without looking.



I gave an answer on the last page but it was ignored.



> Quote:
> Who are you guys anyway? I'm just a 57 year old ER doc in Virginia Beach who uses my real name, has a love for HT and isn't afraid of trying and failing.
> 
> 
> CAVX built an optical device...have any of the rest of you even tried anything as complex as building a torus high gain screen. Do you even know what it is and why it's good or bad, what's involved in the math, construction, materials, etc.?



What does that have to do with anything. Now who's being childish.



> Quote:
> Edit: yes, I've stooped to a lower level. It seems the thing to do here.



Who ever threw insults at you?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16101038
> 
> 
> "They'd still ask why HDTV wasn't full screen. Just like they'd ask why scope isn't full screen. Just like while people with HDTVs wonder why "Blu-ray doesn't fill the screen".
> 
> 
> ...were not talking about the uneducated Best Buy shopper. We're talking about people who care enough to join AVS.



But the reactions of the uneducated to seeing a CIH setup were given as reasons CIA is better. My point was twofold, we don't do this for others, and neither is immune from questions from the uneducated.



> Quote:
> Oh, and BTW - I thought Blu-ray does fill the screen...I thought someone who had CIH and 12,000+ posts would know that.



2.35:1 BDs don't fill a 16x9 screen (nor does 16x9 BD fill a scope or CIA screen), and I can't count how many times that question has come up in the HD Software section of the forum, that is what I was referring to.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16100603
> 
> 
> Why is it that my preference for 16x9 HDTV, 1.85, and 2.40 movies to ALL share the same impact is a problem?
> 
> 
> That's pretty lame, man.
> 
> 
> What's worse is you have this elitist attitude that pretends that people have to prefer scope movies being larger, and if not, they're second class not doing it "right".
> 
> 
> It's a good little story though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, with CIA, neither would look better than the other- everything would get a WOW! Scope would be identical in size and impact, but 16x9 would be larger.
> 
> 
> So simple. Why is this unwanted around here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse to believe that one movie's shape tells a completely different movie (and different shape) what size it "has" to be relative to the other movie.




16:9 is Cinemascope's *****, and always will be


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16100973
> 
> 
> CAVX built an optical device...have any of the rest of you even tried anything as complex as building a torus high gain screen. Do you even know what it is and why it's good or bad, what's involved in the math, construction, materials, etc.?



Yeah I did one of those too, in Scope none the less. Cinemax (Peter) kindly dubbed it the "Rouge Torus" as I also borrowed his "gull wing" masking system design - which worked a treat by the way. It certainly drew attention and there was an interesting conversation with doubt the system even worked, but it did have the two different radius for both H and V directions, so having not actually seen a real Torus, I think I was close.


It was an interesting project to say the least, but in the end, I really wanted a Curved AT screen which I doubt could be made Torus. Curving a "flat" screen was fun







My AT screen (in storage at the moment) has adjustable curvature to precisely "dial in" the pincushion correction to actually match the lens and throw being used. It is kinds cool, but like everything, the next one I do will be modified from the mistakes learned from this one.


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16102197
> 
> 
> 16:9 is Cinemascope's *****, and always will be










I like that.


----------



## CRGINC

I had a 54 x 96" screen for a long time. When I went CIH I could widen the screen to only 108' do to the room width so I had to decrease the height to 45.57". After less the one week I couldn't even remember the old height and I had such a pleasent viewing exerience watching cinemascope in its native format. I also watch a lot of old TV shows on DVD 4/3 without any viewing issues. However I did move the seating a little closer to the screen.


Charles


----------



## Art Sonneborn

I still think constant area and it's implementation should be a forum.



Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16102197
> 
> 
> 16:9 is Cinemascope's *****, and always will be



Compelling argument, thanks for that.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16104369
> 
> 
> I still think constant area and it's implementation should be a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Art



You're probably right, this is getting as heated as Plasma vs. LCD


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16104475
> 
> 
> Compelling argument, thanks for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right, this is getting as heated as Plasma vs. LCD



The 'argument' is lilfella you are trying to do more with your 16:9 image by way of increasing it's size, past the 'sweet spot' or 'ideal size' to try and emulate the scope ratio image. You can try all you want, it can't be done and shouldn't be messed with imo. Sorry if that's elitist or whatever, it's my opinion and if you don't like it don't ask the question to begin with.


No need to get all worked up when people don't agree with your idea or tell you not to mess with the art...


The fact remains scope will always be 33% wider when using an A lens (and 77% larger than when watching scope on a 16:9 screen; 1 becomes .75 because of the grey bars - X 1.78 = 1.33 squares - same size as 4x3. Scope with an A lens is 2.37 X 1 = 2.37 squares - 1.33 goes into 2.37 1.77 times...People often talk about scope being only 33% larger, it's actually 77% larger when you compare it to it's small 16:9 letterboxed counterpart of the same screen height)


Like I said if you had of done it right the first time, this thread would not exist. You have what one would call 'the perfect' 16:9 image height for your viewing room VS an oversized, over the top 16:9 image because you want it to be as immersive as scope - that is the problem right there. Scope will always be more immersive.. I don't see that as a problem.. It's widely accepted.


It's a strange way of looking at things... I have come across many who just 'don't get it' so you're not alone..and there's nothing wrong with that.. I get people calling often asking for 5 metre wide screens (15+ feet) because that's how wide the room is. Not being elitist, just stating it how I see it.


Go back to the drawing board and crunch some numbers. How wide is your room? depth? seating distance? PJ model? My room for example is 6 metres deep, my screen is a 135 inch scope screen, which is a 107 inch 16:9 screen for HDTV and any 16:9 films. I have never once complained about the size or wished it to be larger, nor has anyone who has been thru my showroom. I can sit in either row of seats at 4 and 5 metres from the screen. It's perfect for that room. Sure you can go bigger, you will also vastly deteriorate your image quality at the same time.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16106604
> 
> 
> The 'argument' is lilfella you are trying to do more with your 16:9 image by way of increasing it's size, past the 'sweet spot' or 'ideal size' to try and emulate the scope ratio image. You can try all you want, it can't be done and shouldn't be messed with imo. *Sorry if that's elitist or whatever, it's my opinion and if you don't like it don't ask the question to begin with.*
> 
> 
> No need to get all worked up when people don't agree with your idea or tell you not to mess with the art...
> 
> 
> The fact remains scope will always be 33% wider when using an A lens (and 77% larger than when watching scope on a 16:9 screen; 1 becomes .75 because of the grey bars - X 1.78 = 1.33 squares - same size as 4x3. Scope with an A lens is 2.37 X 1 = 2.37 squares - 1.33 goes into 2.37 1.77 times...People often talk about scope being only 33% larger, it's actually 77% larger when you compare it to it's small 16:9 letterboxed counterpart of the same screen height)
> 
> 
> Like I said if you had of done it right the first time, this thread would not exist. You have what one would call 'the perfect' 16:9 image height for your viewing room VS an oversized, over the top 16:9 image because you want it to be as immersive as scope - that is the problem right there. Scope will always be more immersive.. I don't see that as a problem.. It's widely accepted.
> 
> 
> It's a strange way of looking at things... I have come across many who just 'don't get it' so you're not alone..and there's nothing wrong with that.. I get people calling often asking for 5 metre wide screens (15+ feet) because that's how wide the room is. Not being elitist, just stating it how I see it.
> 
> 
> Go back to the drawing board and crunch some numbers. How wide is your room? depth? seating distance? PJ model? My room for example is 6 metres deep, my screen is a 135 inch scope screen, which is a 107 inch 16:9 screen for HDTV and any 16:9 films. I have never once complained about the size or wished it to be larger, nor has anyone who has been thru my showroom. I can sit in either row of seats at 4 and 5 metres from the screen. It's perfect for that room. Sure you can go bigger, you will also vastly deteriorate your image quality at the same time.



Yadda, yadda, yadda.










I didn't ask any questions that would yield the response you just gave.


I simply asked CIA owners if I could see their setups, and what they thought of the advantages and disadvantages. Go read my initial post.


Why you are here defending CIH's honor, I don't know.







Bored?


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16064502
> 
> 
> I'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.
> 
> 
> I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.
> 
> 
> I want to look forward to viewing movies with both ratios and enjoy the difference in geometry rather than size.
> 
> 
> I know this is a sketchy topic for this subforum, but I know there are a few CIA people out there, and maybe some that haven't ventured out of the 'ol closet yet.
> 
> 
> I'd love to see some CIA setups from you people that have them, and thoughts on what you appreciate/don't care for about them!



No, you said one was too small on one ratio screen and the other too small on the other ratio screen. And that you're thinking of creating a different ratio screen to 'get the best of both worlds' I don't know about you but that sure looks like you're asking 'the question'. I'm just stating my opinion on why I think you should not mess with it. Sorry I don't agree with you, and there is no need to be rude.


----------



## GoCaboNow

I am nearing the end of my dedicated theater construction. Early on I made the decision to go with a 2.35 screen as I wanted scope movies to have more impact than the non scope. The reason I got into this whole process was because it seemed so wrong to put an exciting new movie in the bluray player only to have it feel smaller and less impactful than the lame sitcom my wife was just watching.










My screen finally arrived and I have been testing it. It is a 10 foot wide, manual Da-lite High power that my plan was to cut out and mount the fabric on a diy frame. At first I was rolling the screen out so the Zoomed image was 51x120. Just awesome! The image quality did not suffer at that size - even compared to zooming it down to 40"s high. My goal was accomplished! Now to make the frame. But just on a whim I decided to raise the screen a bit so I could have a 59" high 16x9 image. The golf and basketball were much more impactful at 59 high as compared to 51 and now I am a CIA convert. I will not build the frame yet and just leave the screen variable as to the height. The proscenium is built so the screen frame is hidden so not as much of an eyesore as it could be. Perhaps, down the road, I may get a lens and have to change but in the mean time I am enjoying my CIA setup.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16104369
> 
> 
> I still think constant area and it's implementation should be a forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Art



CIA and Zooming should each have their own sub forum, and I promise I'll stay out both of them


----------



## Jeff Smith

Its sad that it is even needed that we have a subforum in the first place, simply because of narrow-minder members. I remember when CRT and digital folks would try to wreck each others ideas way back then in AVS, so the jerks will just find you anywhere it seems (I'm sure none of them are the ones using the current fake names).


Someone asked about how to do something and all of a sudden several people invade the thread who have nothing to add to the question but insist on arguing why the knowledge should not be sought in the first place. CAVX, you have been civil, thank you.


What does it take to get the others to just leave the thread to those who want to share constructive ideas?


Read the first question!!!


BTW - I am now committed to trying to see if this will work. those who want to also we can still share ideas. I think the basics will be not that hard, take more effort with each AR change, and accomplish our goals.


If this is not your goal, simply don't post here.


If those with desire want, lets start a new thread and hope this one dies. I can adjust my goal at this stage with minumal effort and cost.


----------



## Jeff Smith

"2.35:1 BDs don't fill a 16x9 screen (nor does 16x9 BD fill a scope or CIA screen), and I can't count how many times that question has come up in the HD Software section of the forum, that is what I was referring to."


It fills a CIH screen...any idiot on this thread knows that, try counting how many times the question has come up here...(hint - you don't need any toes or fingers).


If you want to discuss less informed people go somewhere else.


As to who we are and what our qualifications are...well, who are you, what is your name, where are you from, what do you do, and what are your qualifications?


What have you actually built in the HT world as a DIY enthusiast? What have you contributed to forward the state of the hobby? What have you tried to figure out or build that wasn't already easily available given enough money?


Seriously, why should we believe you?


All you say is that you're happy with the way your screen sizes are now and think everyone else should too?


No one asked you that. Read every post if you don't believe it. No one who wants the answer to the original question cares.


OTOH - unlike you, no one is thinking bad of you for liking it that way, ..I realize you are only in this thread to say negative things, but can't see why. Why do you insist on criticizing and belittling those who want to try new ideas?


stranger89 , you said, "we don't do this for others". Yes, that's the whole point you don't do it for me, I don't do it for you. I really hope you meant that.


NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET YOU TO CHANGE !!!!!! WE'RE HAPPY YOU ARE HAPPY WITH CIH - THAT WASN'T THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, NOW STOP TRYING TO CHANGE US.


Oztheater - you have all of 9 posts...see the above questions about who the heck you are and what are your qualifications...and get back to us.


CAVX tried to steer the thread to a positive tone. And I agree with Art about a sub-forum...but it's only needed right now because a selfish few keep trying to turn it from the question of how to do something into why someone would even want to try something diffeerent than they want.


If you don't agree, don't post.


Even better, don't follow this thread so you won't be tempted to disrupt it.


BUT BEST OF ALL - THINK OF IDEAS TO HELP US AND CONTRIBUTE...THAT I WOULD TRULY WELCOME!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16107031
> 
> 
> No, you said one was too small on one ratio screen and the other too small on the other ratio screen. And that you're thinking of creating a different ratio screen to 'get the best of both worlds' I don't know about you but that sure looks like you're asking 'the question'. I'm just stating my opinion on why I think you should not mess with it. Sorry I don't agree with you, and there is no need to be rude.



Um, did you see a question mark in that original post? No? Interesting.










If you don't agree with my assessment, that 16x9 is too small on a CIH screen for ME- then why are you here?


----------



## Jeff Smith

Back on point.


So if you want to set up a screen for "possible" CIA (or simply the flexibility to pick your own screen sizes independently), you still have the option of giving it up and just staying with CIH if you don't like it.


All you need to do is build your screen frame 5-6" taller to start (4.5 sq ft extra material @ $20/sq ft for Stewart = $90 in my case).


After that, if you don't like it, you just leave the top and bottom masking in place and voila - you have CIH, and it cost you a Benjamin to try. Oh yeah, if you want to try again later...you still can! Nothing you do limits your options! Since your side masking for CIH will always be bigger than the top and bottom masks, who would ever know?


As soon as my lens arrives and I can do actual size experiments, I'll let you know.


This is not hard to do folks. It takes the money of a lens buyer and the dedication to time of a "zoomer" (so you have to have cash to burn, yet be willing to zoom like a peon)...and you can always change your mind (as many times as you want, in fact, with no additional cash outlay).


----------



## Jeff Smith

LilGator (and anyone else interested) I'd love to get on the phone and talk this out.


----------



## oztheatre

What I find some people doing is creating a 16:9 image size that is clearly too big in order get a larger CIW scope image happening. They lose 25% of their image height and try to compensate for this by going too large with their 16:9 image and end up deteriorating their image as a result. The same thing happens with CIA... I say settle on the ideal 16:9 image size, and if you don't like the black bars taking up 25% of the image height for scope fims, use a lens and a scope screen.. logical no? You can't then say the 16:9 image is too small on the scope screen can you? You've just created the ideal 16:9 image size correct? It's not meant to be as wide as scope. If you want to muck around with it, go for it. It's not my setup. I'm just saying I cannot see how it's possible after you've created the correct 16:9 image for your room. Why try and fix something that isn't broken?


I don't really like CIW either, I feel like i've been ripped off, the scope image is smaller than the 6 o'clock news where in fact it's meant to be the same height but 33% wider. This is how it's presented to us all over the world in Cinemas.


I have the best of both worlds, I have a scope screen with a good A lens, and the ideal 16:9 image size. It truly is perfect.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16108929
> 
> 
> Back on point.
> 
> 
> So if you want to set up a screen for "possible" CIA (or simply the flexibility to pick your own screen sizes independently), you still have the option of giving it up and just staying with CIH if you don't like it.
> 
> 
> All you need to do is build your screen frame 5-6" taller to start (4.5 sq ft extra material @ $20/sq ft for Stewart = $90 in my case).
> 
> 
> After that, if you don't like it, you just leave the top and bottom masking in place and voila - you have CIH, and it cost you a Benjamin to try. Oh yeah, if you want to try again later...you still can! Nothing you do limits your options! Since your side masking for CIH will always be bigger than the top and bottom masks, who would ever know?
> 
> 
> As soon as my lens arrives and I can do actual size experiments, I'll let you know.
> 
> 
> This is not hard to do folks. It takes the money of a lens buyer and the dedication to time of a "zoomer" (so you have to have cash to burn, yet be willing to zoom like a peon)...and you can always change your mind (as many times as you want, in fact, with no additional cash outlay).



Definitely a fair idea, I would most likely project on the wall with maybe some masking tape and try every option out to know what I'm wanting and see it in action.


I just wanted to see a few examples of this type of setup, and didn't realize it was so extremely rare and controversial


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16108468
> 
> 
> Its sad that it is even needed that we have a subforum in the first place, simply because of narrow-minder members.



I do think sub forums have their place. Is the CIH forum not a sub-forum of the display devices of AVS?



> Quote:
> AVS Forum > Display Devices > 235:1Constant Image Height Chat





> Quote:
> I remember when CRT and digital folks would try to wreck each others ideas way back then in AVS, so the jerks will just find you anywhere it seems (I'm sure none of them are the ones using the current fake names).



Two very different technologies, each their pros and cons and like everything, the group will be divided. I have my real name in my signature. Can I change my user name without resetting my post count?



> Quote:
> Someone asked about how to do something and all of a sudden several people invade the thread who have nothing to add to the question but insist on arguing why the knowledge should not be sought in the first place. CAVX, you have been civil, thank you.



Again, your suggesting something new and allot of people are very afraid to step outside the square. To answer your question from page 1, yes, I did meet heaps of resistance when I first wanted to go scope - simply becuase not too many understand it. CIA is even further outside that square. I am sorry if I appear to be taking sides, but all I see from wanting to go CIA is that you have maxed out your screen for your room when you were using a CRT and CIW, got very used to the vertical image height and don't want to reduce that due to room restrictions or limitations. Art had too reduce his and I am sure he more than happy with his 1.78:1 and 1.33:1 image sizes.



> Quote:
> What does it take to get the others to just leave the thread to those who want to share constructive ideas?



A difference of opinion is what makes the world go around...



> Quote:
> Read the first question!!!
> 
> 
> BTW - I am now committed to trying to see if this will work. those who want to also we can still share ideas. I think the basics will be not that hard, take more effort with each AR change, and accomplish our goals.
> 
> 
> If this is not your goal, simply don't post here.
> 
> 
> If those with desire want, lets start a new thread and hope this one dies. I can adjust my goal at this stage with minumal effort and cost.



I shall be interested to see what you come up with once you get a 1.33x lens.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16108701
> 
> 
> "2.35:1 BDs don't fill a 16x9 screen (nor does 16x9 BD fill a scope or CIA screen), and I can't count how many times that question has come up in the HD Software section of the forum, that is what I was referring to."
> 
> 
> It fills a CIH screen...any idiot on this thread knows that, try counting how many times the question has come up here...(hint - you don't need any toes or fingers).
> 
> 
> If you want to discuss less informed people go somewhere else.



I didn't bring up less informed people. Art mentioned one of his experiences, and LilGator cited that question as evidence of CIAs superiority. I simply pointed out that questions about AR will come up regardless of CIH, CIA, CIW or whatever AR you choose, and aren't evidence of one's superiority over the others.



> Quote:
> As to who we are and what our qualifications are...well, who are you, what is your name, where are you from, what do you do, and what are your qualifications?



What I say won't make any difference.



> Quote:
> What have you actually built in the HT world as a DIY enthusiast? What have you contributed to forward the state of the hobby? What have you tried to figure out or build that wasn't already easily available given enough money?



Go back and read my posts (throughout the forum).



> Quote:
> Seriously, why should we believe you?
> 
> 
> All you say is that you're happy with the way your screen sizes are now and think everyone else should too?



No, I said I think everyone else *could* too.



> Quote:
> No one asked you that. Read every post if you don't believe it. No one who wants the answer to the original question cares.



All I asked was if the OP had *considered* moving his seating. And then you and LilGator started bring up things like CIH dictating small 16x9 and "darting eyes". Which to me indicated a missunderstanding/inexperience with CIH.



> Quote:
> OTOH - unlike you, no one is thinking bad of you for liking it that way, ..I realize you are only in this thread to say negative things, but can't see why. Why do you insist on criticizing and belittling those who want to try new ideas?



I don't think bad of anyone for wanting CIA. My questions comments have been trying to see if you two had really tried CIH, or understood how to setup a CIH system.


If you go back and look, RonC gave a well-reasoned explantion of why he _preferred_ CIA, and I never questioned that. Only things I've questioned were some blanket comments about CIH that appear inaccurate. I also accept your an LilGator's choice, you've both explained why you want CIA. But neither of you appear willing to "let go" and move on (like CAVX and I have).



> Quote:
> stranger89 , you said, "we don't do this for others". Yes, that's the whole point you don't do it for me, I don't do it for you. I really hope you meant that.
> 
> 
> NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET YOU TO CHANGE !!!!!! WE'RE HAPPY YOU ARE HAPPY WITH CIH - THAT WASN'T THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, NOW STOP TRYING TO CHANGE US.
> 
> 
> Oztheater - you have all of 9 posts...see the above questions about who the heck you are and what are your qualifications...and get back to us.
> 
> 
> CAVX tried to steer the thread to a positive tone. And I agree with Art about a sub-forum...but it's only needed right now because a selfish few keep trying to turn it from the question of how to do something into why someone would even want to try something diffeerent than they want.
> 
> 
> If you don't agree, don't post.
> 
> 
> Even better, don't follow this thread so you won't be tempted to disrupt it.
> 
> 
> BUT BEST OF ALL - THINK OF IDEAS TO HELP US AND CONTRIBUTE...THAT I WOULD TRULY WELCOME!



So, care to read post 57 and comment, or are you just going to continue to hurl attacks and insults:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...4&postcount=57


----------



## taffman

Rarely have I seen so many words wasted on such a trivial subject. And why are AV forums so testy at times? I frequent film forums where everybody is always treated with respect no matter what their opinions. After all this is just a hobby ! Lighten up everybody!

I have tried CIA and it is great. It has all the advantages that the original poster states, namely it maximizes the viewing experience for all formats. However, I prefer CIH simply because MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE is for scope to have more impact than 16:9.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16111076
> 
> 
> Rarely have I seen so many words wasted on such a trivial subject. And why are AV forums so testy at times? I frequent film forums where everybody is always treated with respect no matter what their opinions. After all this is just a hobby ! Lighten up everybody!
> 
> I have tried CIA and it is great. It has all the advantages that the original poster states, namely it maximizes the viewing experience for all formats. However, I prefer CIH simply because MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE is for scope to have more impact than 16:9.



See, that I can respect ... why is it that a personal preference for scope is kosher ... but a personal preference for CIA just can't be right, and needs fixing?










For this particular setup, I want all ratios to have the same impact. CIH does not do this; it's not debatable.


----------



## GKevinK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16111076
> 
> 
> ...I prefer CIH simply because MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE is for scope to have more impact than 16:9.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16114545
> 
> 
> ...I want all ratios to have the same impact.



This is really the core of the issue... do we want different 'impact' for different material, or do we want to have them all on an equal footing? My own choice lines up with taffman's (as most in this CIH sub-forum). I do like the ongoing ability to have the different sensation of 'going large' for the 2.35:1 'movie event'. I've been CIH for about 1.5 years now, and the only thing I can personally point to as a minor bummer is when I note that some movie that I want to watch and enjoy is 'only' 1.85:1... or the director decided to be sly and switch between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 dynamically (like the last Batman movie)... then I get the worst of both worlds.


----------



## RonC

Hey LilGator,


I went back and read your original post and, while I don't have a photo of my setup, I can describe it fairly quickly and list the steps I went thru in settling on a modified CIA method.


First my setup:

A JVC RS-1 mounted on a rear wall ~22-23ft throw distance. Screen is a 60"x122" Dalite High Power (Snap-On Model fixed screen). I use one of CAVX's Aussiemorphic prism lens with a slide mount. Additionally, I have a DVDO Edge (formerly a Key Digital HDMI4x1, older model) for stretch/squeeze capability.


Experimenting:

I got the projector first and just cast the image on the front wall (11'6" wide) which was white. I experimented with zooming to whatever I felt like at the moment. Guess what? I liked bigger images better than smaller ones. No matter what the aspect. (Note: all images can get too big, or dim, when you go to extremes. No surprise there.) I liked a wide 2.35 image that was almost the width of the wall.


Next, I tacked up some 54" wide blackout cloth all across the front wall. Again, with zooming as desired I viewed all aspect material and settled on the fact that I liked the 2.35 image to be about 10ft wide with seating about 13' from the screen. (Note: I experimented with seating distance too.) That 10' wide image was about 51" high, so it all fit on the blackout cloth. That width also allowed room for my tower right/left front speakers. Basically, it's as wide as I can go in the room without going to an AT screen. But I liked that image size and used it as the basis for further fooling around.


I further experimented to see what CIH would look like (I read about it on AVS Forums







) based on my preferred 2.35 image size of 51"x120". For 1.78 material that put the image at approx 51" high by 91" which I felt was kind of smallish. For 1.33 material, the image was about 51" x 68" and looked very small to me. I didn't like what I saw, and I didn't want to move the seats closer.


So I played around with CIA sizes. After all, I read about it, too, on AVS Forum







and tried it out. I liked what I saw for 1.78 material (the image now was approx 60" x 106+"). Even though the image was spilling off the top and bottom of the blackout cloth I still had a white wall so I could still evaluate what I needed to.


Continuing on to CIA of 1.33 material however led to a still taller image which didn't appeal to me because it appeared too tall for my liking from my preferred seating distance. That image was around 68"x90". To compensate, I then experimented using CIH for the 1.78 and 1.33 material and that worked to my liking. 1.33 image was now approx 60" tall by 80" wide.


So with all my messing around, I found what I liked which was a compromise







. I liked CIA between 2.35 and 1.78 material, and I liked CIH between 1.78 and 1.33 material. That's what I settled on then, and what I still use today.


Eventually, I got the screen, A-lens and scaler due to advantages over only zooming (please, let's not get that debate going in this thread!). Yes, I have to zoom some and sometimes move the lens. It doesn't bother me.


Drawbacks:

You need 4-way masking to mask properly. No doubt about it. And yes, others have asked why the image doesn't fill the screen. I tell them it's the same reason as for their TV..."because there's different sized film and TV formats".


I will say that I've been blessed with two advantages:

1) I'm not distracted by, and don't mind, the unmasked black bars (eat your heart out







), so I haven't used any masking in 2+ years.

2) Wife has no problem either (Thank You, Lord







).


If I can be of further help, or answer any other questions, please PM me as I don't go through the threads regularly these days.


Happy Viewing,

Ron


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16114545
> 
> 
> For this particular setup, I want all ratios to have the same impact. CIH does not do this; it's not debatable.



Why should they have the same impact. I referenced CIA to Panamorph's cool video with the statement "smaller than the evening news" and it is so true.


It is also documented that in audio, we are less sensitive to vertical misalignment - this is why we can place out speaker below or above a screen and not HAVE to use an AT screen. With video, we are more sensitive to vertical rez than horizontal and why the scaling process of CIH works - we are able to use the full vertical rez of the projector even when we are not using the full horizontal (IE otpically stretched 16:9).


So when it comes to image size, seating should be based on image height, not width. If that image height changes, then the smaller (shorter) image looses impact at a given seating distance, unless you can move your seats...


With CIH, that height does not change, and therefore the impact of the film or program does not change either.


----------



## ilsiu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16116099
> 
> 
> Why should they have the same impact.



I think it has already been answered - because he (they) prefer it that way.


You can give a million technical reasons why his preference is "wrong*", but it's unlikely to change what he likes, so why continue?



* In contrast to oztheatre, I'm of the opinion that there's no absolutely right or wrong way.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ilsiu* /forum/post/16116812
> 
> 
> I'm of the opinion that there's no absolutely right or wrong way.



Right and wrong can be fairly strong, so there is one way and there is a better way


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16116935
> 
> 
> Right and wrong can be fairly strong, so there is one way and there is a better way



I'm not debating whether they _should_ share the same impact or not.


I'm also not building a theater. This is a multi-use living room setup with lots of HD sports, HD TV shows, and casual films (read 1.85 chick flicks and comedies for the wife). In fact, I'd say it's closer to 66% sports, TV, and 1.85 films, vs. 33% scope than 50/50. If it helps, think of this as a CIW setup (typical to most FP users) where I want scope films to be wider and be as impactful (same area) as the 16x9 area, instead of less (bars on top and bottom). That's really how this started.


I think you got the impression that this was a CIH setup and I was somehow not satisfied with 16x9. Quite the opposite, as I want to go from a 16x9 screen and just give scope a little more that it deserves.


Also, due to a limited 12ft throw (actually only 11ft taking out the projector length) I would have to downsize 16x9 to somewhere I don't want it at the 12ft seating distance (due to it being a living room, and not wanting a couch in the middle of the room) if I maxed the zoom (assuming roughly 2x for most LCD/LCoS projectors, DLP just won't do much in this area) for a CIH setup.


In my case I want to max the zoom, use that as the scope width on a 2.05:1 screen (best I can do, CIA or CIH doesn't matter), and adjust the zoom/lens shift a tad to fit vertical height on the screen for 1.78 and 1.85.


I don't have the money for a HE lens and scaler if needed, again this is a simple living room setup. I also don't mind making adjustments for scope movies as the PJ will be rear shelf mounted (if manual). I'd leave the PJ set up for 16x9 vertical height on the 2.05:1 screen most of the time, and adjust wider for scope at night when it's movie time.


I hope this makes sense, and if anyone has a better suggestion than CIA for my particular setup, I'm all ears. I just don't see how I can get better results.


Someday in a dedicated room I may go the A-lens route, CIH screen, and of course have flexibility with seating perfectly. This would only be because I'd use the room for scope films primarily and only occasionally 1.85 films, with nearly no HDTV.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16117790
> 
> 
> Also, due to a limited 12ft throw (actually only 11ft taking out the projector length) I would have to downsize 16x9 to somewhere I don't want it at the 12ft seating distance (due to it being a living room, and not wanting a couch in the middle of the room) if I maxed the zoom (assuming roughly 2x for most LCD/LCoS projectors, DLP just won't do much in this area) for a CIH setup.



If your room is approx 12 feet deep, just how tall do you want your screen?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16117899
> 
> 
> If your room is approx 12 feet deep, just how tall do you want your screen?



For scope, as big as I can get it (comfortably, I don't want to buy a screen that requires the back of my HDMI ports on the projector to be digging some drywall to hit the black velvet, if you know what I mean








)


Assuming an FPJ1, zoom at 1.92 leaving some play room for depth of projector, where I place on shelf, and cabling, max would be 96" wide.


A 2.37 screen would be ~41" tall.


Viewing at 11ft on couch would be ~3.3x screen height viewing distance (40° viewing angle).


If I did a 2.37 screen & CIH my 16:9 area would be 72" wide and would be again ~3.3x height viewing distance of course (though 30.5° viewing angle).


If I do a 2.05 screen (CIA), my scope area would be 96" wide (identical), but my 16:9 area would be ~84" wide. Now ~2.8x screen height viewing for 16:9 (35.3° viewing angle).


Basically 16x9 is perfect for the seating distance, and 2.37 is as wide as I can get it.


Obviously I could just do 96" wide 1.78 CIW, but that even I would feel is too large, especially in comparison to the scope area.


Am I making sense, or missing something obvious?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16117955
> 
> 
> 
> If I did a 2.37 screen & CIH my 16:9 area would be 72" wide and would be again ~3.3x height viewing distance of course (though 30.5° viewing angle).



As I said in an earlier post, it is your system and you have to watch it, but there is nothing wrong with the image size you have worked out for the veiwing distance. I think the whilst the larger image might be great for HD, how much SD do you watch? I think you'll find that larger size pushing the limits for SD.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Makes sense to me, I'm in the same boat, proportion-wise.


I may have missed it, but what PJ do you have (or are you still shopping...I didn't know what "FPJ1" meant)? Most now already do the anamorphic stretch for you, so no scaler needed. The lens/PJ combo seems to largely dictate limits and directions on throw distances and screen sizes.


I find the rare times I watch SD I don't care so much about PQ (ie local news) - its either that or nothing. Dish has an HDTV only package I subscribe to, I don't need all the other channels (even many of these are junk...just HD junk). 9x5' at 13' viewing distance is fine. I've watched that size for years with CRT and found it good enough that I didn't want to take a step backwards in size just to make my WS bigger (and I agree with everyone that I should make it bigger than I have now - it should be special).


One thing I'm sure of is you are better off if you plan as many of you purchases in advance to match their properties, strengths, weaknesses etc.


Nothing replaces seeing when choosing, but so many people here have bought or tried so many combos of PJ, screen, lens that learning from their exoeriences saves a lot of headache...and money.


CAVX knows better, but I would think it smarter to have the PJ + scaler combo at least fairly well spec'd out to make sure it works with a given screen size. Also, can you live with a fixed wall mounted screen, and are you handy at all building things?


The more I think about this, the more it seems like the only downsides are how easy it is to zoom a bit with each AR change and mask both sizes. Same question...is there anything obvious in the mechanics (not the philosophy) of doing this that I'm missing?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16118852
> 
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, it is your system and you have to watch it, but there is nothing wrong with the image size you have worked out for the veiwing distance. I think the whilst the larger image might be great for HD, how much SD do you watch? I think you'll find that larger size pushing the limits for SD.



It wouldn't be terrible, I agree. I maxed out DLP with approximately that identical 16x9 size. I didn't find it very immersive though, more like a large TV (obviously scope was just tiny, being CIW).


I watch close to zero SD- avoided at all costs.










Basically the benefits of CIH here are:
I am supposedly watching all material as it was "intended" to be shown with shared height.









Only side masking.


The downside is:
A much smaller 16x9 image (likely majority of viewing time), while I have full capability of projecting 16x9 at a much more reasonable size for my seating distance.


Both would require the same work in adjusting zoom/lens shift.


CIA would require two more masks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16119836
> 
> 
> I may have missed it, but what PJ do you have (or are you still shopping...I didn't know what "FPJ1" meant)? Most now already do the anamorphic stretch for you, so no scaler needed. The lens/PJ combo seems to largely dictate limits and directions on throw distances and screen sizes.



BenQ W20000, though looking at FPJ1's (Pioneer's clone of the JVC RS2). I'm just not looking to do an A-lens setup in the living room











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16119836
> 
> 
> CAVX knows better, but I would think it smarter to have the PJ + scaler combo at least fairly well spec'd out to make sure it works with a given screen size. Also, can you live with a fixed wall mounted screen, and are you handy at all building things?
> 
> 
> The more I think about this, the more it seems like the only downsides are how easy it is to zoom a bit with each AR change and mask both sizes. Same question...is there anything obvious in the mechanics (not the philosophy) of doing this that I'm missing?



I'd prefer to pick up a nice Carada screen, and build some masks. Keeping it simple.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Are you planning a retractable screen or fixed?


I love my RS20. At your screen size you should have lots of light, even with an aging bulb.


I may be missing a really big point here, but unless you're just going to zoom in and out with the PJ and live with the black letterboxed area shooting off the screen...don't you need a lens?


If you are doing it without a lens, then much of this thread has been off point for me...I assumed wrong. There are a zillion posts on the "zoom method". If you just zoom without a lens, you can make either AR any size your PJ can zoom to. I'm trying to gain every advantage I can in WS, hence the lens.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16123105
> 
> 
> Are you planning a retractable screen or fixed?
> 
> 
> I love my RS20. At your screen size you should have lots of light, even with an aging bulb.
> 
> 
> I may be missing a really big point here, but unless you're just going to zoom in and out with the PJ and live with the black letterboxed area shooting off the screen...don't you need a lens?
> 
> 
> If you are doing it without a lens, then much of this thread has been off point for me...I assumed wrong. There are a zillion posts on the "zoom method". If you just zoom without a lens, you can make either AR any size your PJ can zoom to. I'm trying to gain every advantage I can in WS, hence the lens.



Fixed screen.


Not really, this thread is simply about the idea of 16:9 and scope have similar areas instead of sharing height.


Whether or not this is accomplished via zooming or with a lens is beside the point. Both are valid implementations of CIA.


CIH can also be achieved either via zooming or with an anamorphic lens of course, but the main point is that a 2.35-2.40:1 screen is used, and everything fits that height.


I intend to use a 2.05:1 screen, so even zooming, this is where math gets interesting










A 96" wide 2.05:1 screen will project scope in the center of the screen. I will mask top and bottom of the viewable area.


The projector will throw a 54" tall image (41" of which is scope picture, the rest is projected black).


The viewable area of the screen (being masked) accounts for 47" of the vertical. So we have 7" of black being projected.


Using a Carada Precision series screen, 2" top and bottom is screen border, so now we only have 1.5" of projected black on the top and bottom above and below the screen. Hardly noticeable.


Using a Carada Criterion series screen, 3.25" top and bottom is screen border, so now we only have roughly 1/4-1/3" of projected black above and below the screen. Even less noticeable!


Of course a custom built screen with a 3.5-4" border (not uncommon) would take care of 100% of the projected black.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16122784
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be terrible, I agree. I maxed out DLP with approximately that identical 16x9 size. I didn't find it very immersive though, more like a large TV



And just what is HDTV if not TV?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16124187
> 
> 
> And just what is HDTV if not TV?



Well, HDTV as I'm using it refers to a source.


A large TV is not why I got into front projection.










There's nothing wrong with having a movie theater size experience for HD TV shows & sports.


Unless you're a CIH purist that is.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16125204
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having a movie theater size experience for HD TV shows & sports.
> 
> 
> Unless you're a CIH purist that is.



And good Movie theatres are CIH


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16125579
> 
> 
> And good Movie theatres are CIH



And also don't show HDTV/1.85 content primarily










Not to mention the sweet spot in a theater certainly isn't a 30° viewing angle as CIH would limit me to at 16:9.


THX spec is 36°. The back row needs to be at a minimum 26° according to spec and SMPTE requires 30° minimum!


I don't want a nearly back row experience from 16:9, especially when I have full control over how large I can make it.


A CIA setup would provide 40° for 2.37, 35° for 1.78, and 36° for 1.85.


Round and round we go...


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16125204
> 
> 
> Well, HDTV as I'm using it refers to a source.
> 
> 
> A large TV is not why I got into front projection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having a movie theater size experience for HD TV shows & sports.
> 
> 
> Unless you're a CIH purist that is.



My room is ninety percent movies and ten percent sports and documentaries.I don't have to be a CIH purist to find CIH more appealing.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16125624
> 
> 
> And also don't show HDTV/1.85 content primarily



Well that is not quite right. Whilst the last few years have seem more Scope films, there have been quite a few that have been 1.85:1 such as Burn After Reading, Ghost Town, Paul Blart Mall Cop (crap film BTW). And last decade saw way more 35mm Flat (1.85:1) than Scope.


> Quote:
> Not to mention the sweet spot in a theater certainly isn't a 30° viewing angle as CIH would limit me to at 16:9.
> 
> 
> THX spec is 36°. The back row needs to be at a minimum 26° according to spec and SMPTE requires 30° minimum!



These are based on 2.39:1, not 1.78:1 and can be found by using mutiples of the image height. THX's 36 degree thing is 3.68x the image height. That 26 degree thing is for older retrofits which tended to be longer than a modern cinema. It equates to 5.18x the image height. Anything longer than that is considered a bowling alley. You want 36 as the minimum and therefore you tend to sit closer than 3.68x the image height. You can sit as close as 2x if you like.



> Quote:
> I don't want a nearly back row experience from 16:9, especially when I have full control over how large I can make it.
> 
> 
> A CIA setup would provide 40° for 2.37, 35° for 1.78, and 36° for 1.85.



40 degrees for Scope is good.



> Quote:
> Round and round we go...



Absolutely







At least we can agree on that


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16125204
> 
> 
> Well, HDTV as I'm using it refers to a source.
> 
> 
> A large TV is not why I got into front projection.



That's probably true for most of us....



> Quote:
> There's nothing wrong with having a movie theater size experience for HD TV shows & sports.
> 
> 
> Unless you're a CIH purist that is.



IMO I have a "movie theater size experience" for HDTV (shows/sports)










And FWIW, I totally see your situation, you've got a 16x9 setup you like, and you're unhappy with your scope size, and thus are searching for a solution within the confines of fixed seating location and fixed room width, thus "Constant" Image Area is the least compromise for you.


I just think if you had more freedom (fewer fixed parameters) you'd like CIH even more










And FWIW2, I'm at 3x height, which puts me at 33° for 16x9 and 42° for scope (if my math is right).


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16126669
> 
> 
> My room is ninety percent movies and ten percent sports and documentaries.I don't have to be a CIH purist to find CIH more appealing.
> 
> 
> Art



Agree 100%.


I had always thought the screen sizes for each aspect ratio should take into consideration what you view.


Others in this thread have tried to make the case that scope films should always be wider than 1.78/1.85 regardless of how often you watch scope films. That's the only reason I made that comment in jest.


In my case, I'm viewing 1.78/1.85 almost 2/3 of the time, so that factors greatly into what size I choose for each ratio.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16127070
> 
> 
> Well that is not quite right. Whilst the last few years have seem more Scope films, there have been quite a few that have been 1.85:1 such as Burn After Reading, Ghost Town, Paul Blart Mall Cop (crap film BTW). And last decade saw way more 35mm Flat (1.85:1) than Scope.
> 
> These are based on 2.39:1, not 1.78:1 and can be found by using mutiples of the image height. THX's 36 degree thing is 3.68x the image height. That 26 degree thing is for older retrofits which tended to be longer than a modern cinema. It equates to 5.18x the image height. Anything longer than that is considered a bowling alley. You want 36 as the minimum and therefore you tend to sit closer than 3.68x the image height. You can sit as close as 2x if you like.
> 
> 
> 40 degrees for Scope is good.
> 
> 
> Absolutely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least we can agree on that



OK, even after all of that, we can throw width out the window if you want, and if you can set aside the fact that 16:9 will be taller than scope (oh noes!), I'm setting up my 16:9 at 2.88x screen height. Tad closer than SMPTE Reference, and right at 20th Century Fox ideal.


At this point, the typical CIW setup (letterboxed) would only allow me 3.84x at 2.37:1. This is beyond THX recommended furthest distance. Meh, hence the CIA thread creation.


Best I can do with my options is expand it to the width of a 2.05 screen the height of that 16:9 I created.


Now my scope is a good bit wider, and seating 3.33x screen height. Would I like scope bigger? Sure. Just not going to happen in my room, and I'm not going to bring my 16:9 size down below reference (since I _can_ do that in my room!) just to satisfy CIH purity.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16128409
> 
> 
> That's probably true for most of us....
> 
> 
> IMO I have a "movie theater size experience" for HDTV (shows/sports)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And FWIW, I totally see your situation, you've got a 16x9 setup you like, and you're unhappy with your scope size, and thus are searching for a solution within the confines of fixed seating location and fixed room width, thus "Constant" Image Area is the least compromise for you.
> 
> 
> I just think if you had more freedom (fewer fixed parameters) you'd like CIH even more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And FWIW2, I'm at 3x height, which puts me at 33° for 16x9 and 42° for scope (if my math is right).



If my room were a tad deeper allowing a throw that gave me 3x height for my seating like you have I'd probably do CIH.


I'm throwing a reference 16:9, and instead of adding the width to make it CIH, I'm adding half the width since that's all I can do.


Someday in another room perhaps I'll add the full width.


----------



## R Harkness

Re "What if you could expand your 16:9/1:85:1 image easily?"



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16098351
> 
> 
> I'd take it but as with almost anything we do there are compromises. I often wish more films were 2.35:1 when I put in a 1.85:1 now based on my CIH choice.



Art, your reply seems in line with what I've been saying about CIH: That it tends to be a "reverse compromise" in terms of image impact from a regular

16:9 screen. CIH favors the scope movies in terms of visual impact (as many insist should be the case) at the expense of the impact of narrower 1:85:1 content, because once you've optimised your screen size for 2:35:1 with a wider screen, 1:85:1 is always going to feel less impressive _in comparison_ since you are always comparing a smaller 1:85:1 image on the same screen as your larger 2:35:1 image.


It's just how our perception works. And it helps explain the many comments made over the years on this forum of people, once they've switched to CIH, commenting that they really start to wish for/prefer scope movies over 1:85:1. It's human nature to want the movie you are watching to have as much impact as it can get.


In contrast, for over a year I've been using the "zoom" method to vary image size on my wall, so I'm not limited to any particular image height.

I can watch a scope movie as wide as I care for, and then put on a 1:85:1 film and watch it at the size that gives it the impact I want. I end up with something close to a Constant Area relationship (but without hewing strictly to Constant Area).


Like many on this forum, 2:35:1 is my favorite aspect ratio. I just love the shape of the image, the grandness of that shape, the compositions that result (in the hands of a great cinematographer) etc. At the same time, the fact that I can vary my image size to give 1:85:1 images terrific immersion and impact too, means I _never_ have the feeling, often expressed on this forum, "I wish this were in scope" or "I'd prefer to watch a scope movie."

Scope movies end up wider in my set up, so I still get the "scope" vibe, but 1:85:1 films feel just as impressive, cinematic and immersive with absolutely no sense of compromise in the experience.


That's why I'm going to the trouble of the extra big screen with variable 4 way masking - to maintain this level of flexibility and satisfaction with whatever source content I watch.


As you say, everything is a compromise and that includes my proposed set up (my HT is now under construction). I think my compromise will be the added finicky-ness and complexity of my system - zooming, adjusting masking etc. Whereas with a CIH system you can get the change down to a button press or two, which is a significant factor in it's favor.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16098351
> 
> 
> The thing about the superbowl is interesting. I had a superbowl party and there were a few who had not been here before. I demoed the system using some scope films. Later when the game was on I was asked why I couldn't make the game bigger. The answer to them was never satisfactory.They couldn't have cared less about movies being wide.
> 
> 
> Art



That's mostly the same as my experience. Mostly my guests, and my family, like to see the image as big as possible, whatever we are watching.

I think there is a tendency among us film/AV devotees to dismiss this as a sort of vulgarity of the unenlightened "average joe" who just thinks "bigger is better." But I'd say that our guests are reflecting something real and significant about viewing images; as I said it's human nature to want an experience to have as much impact as we can get, and a bigger, more immersive image size tends to increase the impact of the experience for most people - whatever the content. I don't see anything particularly "wrong" with this.


I give importance to increasing the immersion of the viewer into the movie, increasing the cinematic experience, which I think is the prime goal of the movie experience, over hewing to some strict constant image height paradigm. Being able to vary the image size seems to achieve this. I have

an image width as wide as I want it for scope (up to 125" from 11 feet away - some may want even bigger, but this reaches my comfort limit). So I'm not wanting for more width. I showed some friends some of Spielberg's War Of The Worlds at the size I'd have if I went Constant Image Height. Then I zoomed out the image much larger on the wall and they all went "WOW!" It just went from "cool" to IMAX-vibe spectacular, with the sense of those Tripod machines towering over us. It absolutely increased the movie-viewing experience for all of us, over sticking with a strict image height. And for me anything that sucks you more into the movie goes to the heart of the movie-going experience, over hewing to some strict CIH paradigm.


As many have said, it's about personal choice. I don't think CIA is "better" than CIH if someone prefers a CIH set up.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16148104
> 
> 
> That's mostly the same as my experience. Mostly my guests, and my family, like to see the image as big as possible, whatever we are watching.
> 
> I think there is a tendency among us film/AV devotees to dismiss this as a sort of vulgarity of the unenlightened "average joe" who just thinks "bigger is better." But I'd say that our guests are reflecting something real and significant about viewing images; as I said it's human nature to want an experience to have as much impact as we can get, and a bigger, more immersive image size tends to increase the impact of the experience for most people - whatever the content. I don't see anything particularly "wrong" with this.



But I sort of disagree with that, the "average joe" comment. I mentioned earlier, that I'd bet Art's guests would have asked the question regardless of what his setup was. People always ask why something doesn't fit the screen. Go to the Blu-ray software forums, you'll find tons of questions along the lines of "Why doesn't Blu-ray fill my screen." I bet if he'd have had a CIA they'd have asked why the scope content wasn't as tall as the HDTV, or maybe they'd have still asked why the HDTV couldn't be as wide as the scope content.



> Quote:
> I give importance to increasing the immersion of the viewer into the movie, increasing the cinematic experience, which I think is the prime goal of the movie experience, over hewing to some strict constant image height paradigm. Being able to vary the image size seems to achieve this. I have
> 
> an image width as wide as I want it for scope (up to 125" from 11 feet away - some may want even bigger, but this reaches my comfort limit). So I'm not wanting for more width.



And I (and probably CAVX and mabye Art) are just the opposite, we've got all the height we could ever want, we aren't wanting for more height. I think 16x9 would be _too_ big if I were to go CIA. But that's just difference in perspective.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16148231
> 
> 
> And I (and probably CAVX and mabye Art) are just the opposite, we've got all the height we could ever want, we aren't wanting for more height. I think 16x9 would be _too_ big if I were to go CIA. But that's just difference in perspective.



At this point in time, my restriction to image size is due to my room. I guess it about the same size as Lilgator's room, so the image cannot be HUGE with the BenQ. I choose to use an anamorphic lens, and therefore I choose to max out the image size based on the throw that works with the lens. It allows me to sit at 3x the image height and enjoy 1.33, 1.66, 1.78 and Scope all at the same height. Most of what I watch is Scope anyway, so the need to explain to friends why a certain image does not fit the screen width is rare. The only time I am actually explaining anything is when I am explaining how the scaling and optics work for CIH. The rest of the time is spent watching HD movies


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16148231
> 
> 
> But I sort of disagree with that, the "average joe" comment. I mentioned earlier, that I'd bet Art's guests would have asked the question regardless of what his setup was. People always ask why something doesn't fit the screen. Go to the Blu-ray software forums, you'll find tons of questions along the lines of "Why doesn't Blu-ray fill my screen." I bet if he'd have had a CIA they'd have asked why the scope content wasn't as tall as the HDTV, or maybe they'd have still asked why the HDTV couldn't be as wide as the scope content.



Possibly. But my experience with a sort of CIA approach, using the zoom method, so far hasn't born that out. I'm able to provide equally impactful images with both 2:35:1 and 1:85:1 ARs. No one seems left wanting in switching between them, my experience so far.


I'll know better when my "real" Home Theater is completed and up and running.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16148231
> 
> 
> And I (and probably CAVX and mabye Art) are just the opposite, we've got all the height we could ever want, we aren't wanting for more height. I think 16x9 would be _too_ big if I were to go CIA. But that's just difference in perspective.



Art's comment suggested the contrary. In his case, he'd take the option of having a larger 16:9 image when he wanted if it would be _easy_ to achieve.


As I've said, my perspective has been that I am comfortable with an image height up to about 62" for 1:85:1 content (from a 11.5 ft seating distance). But a scope image with that height would be about 146" wide - which to me would be just overwhelming from the same seating distance.


Also, when given the choice, my guests also like the 16:9 image much larger than if I'd stuck to a Constant Image Height.


I'm not saying one approach is better than the other - it's personal preference. I'm just adding my experience to the mix.







It's clear that CIH is thrilling people left and right and if I weren't going with a more complicated variable masking system I'd be choosing CIH as well, over a standard CIW screen.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16157521
> 
> 
> Possibly. But my experience with a sort of CIA approach, using the zoom method, so far hasn't born that out. I'm able to provide equally impactful images with both 2:35:1 and 1:85:1 ARs. No one seems left wanting in switching between them, my experience so far.



I know (and I'm trying to put this diplomatically) that's your thought (equally impactful) but are you saying that the lack of such questions by your guests as evidence that they're equally impactful?


Because I don't believe any of my guests have ever asked why the 16x9 isn't larger (and we do a good bit of 16x9 gaming before movies usually), nor have they commented about 2.35:1 being "too" big.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16157521
> 
> 
> Art's comment suggested the contrary. In his case, he'd take the option of having a larger 16:9 image when he wanted if it would be _easy_ to achieve.



That is the key - if it was easy to achieve. I still question the need if the image size/seating distance is based on height.


----------



## LJG

But why not have great impact for both aspect ratios, I know I have achieved that.


I have the largest 1.78 size and also the largest 2.35 size that my room can handle.


Having the ability to watch 12' 1.78 image does not in any way take away from my enjoyment when watching a 14' scoped movie.


As far as ease have a look see here http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65482957005659


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/16158586
> 
> 
> But why not have great impact for both aspect ratios, I know I have achieved that.



We're just going round in circles because it's largely personal perception I think (which is 100% fine), but I've got "great impact" for all ARs. Everything looks "right" to me, I don't wish my 4:3, or 16:9 was bigger. I don't feel a "let down" going from scope back 16:9 or even 4:3. Not saying this way is "right" but this is my "why", I don't feel I've sacrificed anything going CIH.



> Quote:
> I have the largest 1.78 size and also the largest 2.35 size that my room can handle.



I have the largest scope screen my room will hold. But I've also got my seating such that I've got the largest 1.78:1 viewing area I'd want. I could go CIA, but then I'd probably want my seating back farther for 16:9.



> Quote:
> Having the ability to watch 12' 1.78 image does not in any way take away from my enjoyment when watching a 14' scoped movie.



For me I'm sure it would. It was never _really_ the width that bothered me before I went CIH, it was the reduction in height going to scope. The smaller height just always seemed like a step down. CIA would have the same result, just to a lesser degree.



> Quote:
> As far as ease have a look see here http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65482957005659



"Ease" at least for me, also includes level of intrusiveness. One thing great about my system now is that you can instantly switch back and forth between all ARs. And I do mean instantly. I leave my lens in place so there's no interruption of lenses or screens sliding into place. Having to wait for a screen to drop would get tiresome IMO.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16157600
> 
> 
> I know (and I'm trying to put this diplomatically) that's your thought (equally impactful) but are you saying that the lack of such questions by your guests as evidence that they're equally impactful?



Anecdotally, yes. In other words, I was relaying my experience as compared to Art's description of his guests reaction to seeing his 16:9 image after his scope image, in which Art said: "I was asked why I couldn't make the game bigger. The answer to them was never satisfactory."


Clearly, after seeing the scope image being much bigger, the guests were perplexed by the smaller 16:9 image and why it couldn't be made bigger.


All I'm saying is I've had plenty of people over for movie watching and watching sports, where we've switched between ARs, and I don't get those questions _because I can make the 16:9 image really big as well._ So I can get a "WOW" impact out of a 16:9 image size even right after watching a widescreen scope image.


I'll never have a system as impressive as Art's. Yet I suspect the issues I've mentioned regarding the "comparison effect" in any fixed height or fixed width system is in play here. Once you set up a system that favors the size and impact of one AR significantly over the other, the comparison you've set up - constantly comparing a narrower AR to a wider AR _on the same screen_ - will make the narrower AR feel smaller than it otherwise would have if you weren't always comparing it to the wider AR on a wider screen.


And, as I said, there has been plenty of discussion on the forum over the years in which many (not all) CIH owners expressed some dissatisfaction with 1:85:1 AR once they went CIH (or at least, strong preference for scope AR). There's even Art's own thread on the subject were, even with a screen as huge as his is, he experiences just what I'm talking about. Look at all the other CIH owners chiming in with the same sentiments:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ight=prefer+35 


When I was sure I was going CIH I monitored this forum (for years now) but the issue of CIH owners becoming less satisfied with the 1:85:1 AR viewing experience just kept cropping up over and over. And once I had the chance to experiment with CIH on my own I found the same issue.

And the very last thing I personally wanted was to start choosing which movie to watch influenced by it's AR rather than the movie itself, just because I'd optimized my screen for that AR (scope). With the zooming (semi-CIA) method I've been using I simply do not experience that issue at all. I never stop for a second to base my choice on whether it's going to be a 1:85:1 or 2:35:1 AR, because they will both have all the visual impact I desire.


Also, note the comments in that thread link, from *cinematographer Rob Hahn*:

*"When I go to a local theater, I have a choice where I want to sit based on the format of the presentation. If it's 1.85, I sit closer, 2.35 farther back.


That's why the idea of constant area really intrigues me. I wish I had the height in my room to accomplish that."*


Which is what I keep saying: there is an element of the CIH mantra that doesn't seem to take into account that virtually no one actually experiences a

constant image height relationship at movie theaters _in real life_ because once you are in a different seat, or in a different movie theater, the height is not actually constant relative to your new viewing angle. That's a fact, whether the theater is using a Constant Image Height screen set up or not. Most of us want to be immersed in the image. Even a cinematographer like Rob Hahn chooses to sit closer to 1:85:1 image to increase the immersion factor (effectively making the 1:85:1 image "bigger" in terms of viewing angle). And that is effectively what I am doing (and people using CIA).


In movie theaters I've always been able to choose my seat based on how immersed I want to be in the movie. And that would be based upon the movie theater itself, the type of movie I'm watching (if it's Jurassic Park I'm going to want to sit close so the Dinosaurs appear really big, if it's a light comedy or drama then immersion isn't such a priority and I'll be fine sitting further back, etc).


It's this reality of movie-going that I personally am trying to reproduce in my home theater. A single home theater, often with limited rows of chairs and a single screen size, typically can't offer the type of choice you get in real movie going. What I find in being able to truly vary the image size - not sticking to any particular image height or image width - is that same flexibility and satisfaction. Tonight I'm in an "IMAX" mood, another night, another movie I don't want so in my face etc. And the image can be varied

according to source quality as well. I'm not stuck with a super big image for lower quality sources, so I can maintain image quality better from source to source.


That's my aim anyway. It's been working with the zoom method on my wall.

If I or my guests want the image bigger or smaller...no problem.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LJG* /forum/post/16158586
> 
> 
> But why not have great impact for both aspect ratios, I know I have achieved that.
> 
> 
> I have the largest 1.78 size and also the largest 2.35 size that my room can handle.



So exactly did you work that out?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16159681
> 
> 
> Anecdotally, yes. In other words, I was relaying my experience as compared to Art's description of his guests reaction to seeing his 16:9 image after his scope image, in which Art said: "I was asked why I couldn't make the game bigger. The answer to them was never satisfactory."
> 
> 
> Clearly, after seeing the scope image being much bigger, the guests were perplexed by the smaller 16:9 image and why it couldn't be made bigger.
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is I've had plenty of people over for movie watching and watching sports, where we've switched between ARs, and I don't get those questions _because I can make the 16:9 image really big as well._ So I can get a "WOW" impact out of a 16:9 image size even right after watching a widescreen scope image.



My only point was maybe it's just Art's guests, or your guests, or my guests, because I've also never been asked those questions. Yet I've got a CIH setup. I don't take guest's questions as evidence of anything. I've been asked what the lens is for a few times though, but that's to be expected with a huge chunk of glass hanging in front of the PJ.



> Quote:
> I'll never have a system as impressive as Art's. Yet I suspect the issues I've mentioned regarding the "comparison effect" in any fixed height or fixed width system is in play here. Once you set up a system that favors the size and impact of one AR significantly over the other...



See, and I just don't feel I'm "significantly" favoring the impact of one AR over another.



> Quote:
> And the very last thing I personally wanted was to start choosing which movie to watch influenced by it's AR rather than the movie itself, just because I'd optimized my screen for that AR (scope). With the zooming (semi-CIA) method I've been using I simply do not experience that issue at all. I never stop for a second to base my choice on whether it's going to be a 1:85:1 or 2:35:1 AR, because they will both have all the visual impact I desire.



I don't look at AR at all, it doesn't figure into my choices either.



> Quote:
> In movie theaters I've always been able to choose my seat based on how immersed I want to be in the movie. And that would be based upon the movie theater itself, the type of movie I'm watching (if it's Jurassic Park I'm going to want to sit close so the Dinosaurs appear really big, if it's a light comedy or drama then immersion isn't such a priority and I'll be fine sitting further back, etc).



I usually just aim for about the same seat regardless, and usually it's based on about how high up the screen the rows are.


----------



## R Harkness

stanger89,


I can see you are very satisfied with CIH which is great. And clearly the vast majority who switch to CIH remain thrilled that they have done so, over going with a regular constant image width.


BUT...


I think it's clear I'm not merely blowing smoke about the issues that arise for quite a number of folk who have switched to CIH, insofar as a certain dissatisfaction with narrower ARs can creep in and a preference for films of a certain AR (scope) creeps in.

It's right there, from plenty of CIH owners in the thread I linked to. Even someone with as huge and impressive a system as Art has - and he's got a 16:9 image larger than most of us do - can experience feeling less impressed with their 16:9 image than they used to be, once they introduce the constant comparisons with a scope image.


Not everyone with a CIH feels strongly that is the case, but then not everyone with a constant image width feels strongly about feeling dissatisfied with scope movies on their screen either. But what I refer to as "the comparison effect" is a real phenomena nonetheless which makes all the sense in the world given how our perception works. You do acknowledge this, given the sentiments expressed by a number of CIH owners on that thread, don't you? (Whether you happen to feel the same way or not).


Cheers,


----------



## scottyb

I do a CIA.

It seems to me this thread keeps going in circles.


Scott


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16164853
> 
> 
> I think it's clear I'm not merely blowing smoke about the issues that arise for quite a number of folk who have switched to CIH, insofar as a certain dissatisfaction with narrower ARs can creep in and a preference for films of a certain AR (scope) creeps in.



I'm not trying to say you're blowing smoke, but there seems to be a sense in this thread from CIA proponents that those of us happy with CIH are consciously "sacrificing" other ARs in favor of CIH.



> Quote:
> It's right there, from plenty of CIH owners in the thread I linked to. Even someone with as huge and impressive a system as Art has - and he's got a 16:9 image larger than most of us do - can experience feeling less impressed with their 16:9 image than they used to be, once they introduce the constant comparisons with a scope image.



I have a different take on Art's comments, as I do admittedly feel the same way. I like scope better. But I always have, I can't imagine stuff like Star Wars, LOTR, The Matrix, etc shot in anything but scope. And I find myself "disappointed' when something's not in scope, but IMO not because of the overall size, but just because I like scope better, I like the way it fits my FOV, it seems to me to be the best fit.


I personally don't think CIA would change my mind on that matter. I'm one of those who's more comfortable with width than height. One thing I notice is that look at a monitor sometime, like an LCD that can be rotated. Whenever I see an LCD rotated into portrait orientation, the AR always looks *much* greater than in the standard landscape configuration.



> Quote:
> Not everyone with a CIH feels strongly that is the case, but then not everyone with a constant image width feels strongly about feeling dissatisfied with scope movies on their screen either.



Oh, absolutely, CIA and CIH combined are utterly dwarfed by the proportion of the population who doesn't care enough to do either, they just "happily" watch their 16x9 image, letterbox and all.



> Quote:
> But what I refer to as "the comparison effect" is a real phenomena nonetheless which makes all the sense in the world given how our perception works. You do acknowledge this, given the sentiments expressed by a number of CIH owners on that thread, don't you?



My _only_ disagreement is that CIH doesn't inherently bring a sense of "loss" to 16x9 and 4x3 content like CIA proponents seem to state. I don't doubt for a second that you feel, given an "ideal" sized 16x9 screen that a CIH-sized scope image is too big. No doubt 16x9 is smaller in a CIH setup, but the debate is whether that's inherently a "let down" or not. Do you acknowledge that it's possible for people to be completely satisfied with their CIH 16x9 size, even those who watch a lot of 16x9 content?


----------



## Jeff Smith

OH for Gods sake, I leave this thread and come back days later and stranger89 still cant get it into his head that no one is criticizing his choice. I'm sure he has a killer setup. This thread is about the ability to choose, yet somehow it gets steered off into an argument of right or wrong...and we get sucked off track.


I HEREBY FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGE, ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE ELSE TOO, THAT HE AND MANY OTHERS ARE COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH WHATEVER HE SAYS HE IS, AND APOLOGIZE FOR ALL OF US IF SOMETHING WE SAY (PAST OR FUTURE) MAKES HIM THINK OTHERWISE BASED ON SNIPPETS OF POSTS QUOTED (WHICH WE ADMIT ARE OUR FAULT FOR BEING UNCLEAR AND EASILY MISUNDERSTOOD).


Rich has very eloquently given evidence that many think, as do we, that a choice is good (note - I did not say needed for those satisfied). That's all this is about, finding a good way to have a choice. It is not about if a choice should be considered, allowed, ridiculed or criticized...its about how to accomplish it for those who wish to. Life is about choice. Please don't argue this point too (although who wants to bet he can twist this into something negative as well?)


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16165417
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to say you're blowing smoke, but there seems to be a sense in this thread from CIA proponents that those of us happy with CIH are consciously "sacrificing" other ARs in favor of CIH.



To be clear, that isn't what I personally have been arguing. Although occasionally you have people who _have_ said they have had to sacrificed the 16:9 image they had, or that they would ultimately prefer, in order to go CIH. But even those people who acknowledge such a sacrifice generally say they are very happy having gone CIH nonetheless. (As you know).


But those people aside, I'm not telling people "You are sacrificing the 16:9 AR by going CIH." Lots of people keep pretty much the same 16:9 size they would have had anyway in going CIH.



However, something has been missed by the people who have often said on this forum: "_You can keep the same 16:9 image size, but just expand the width for 2:35:1, the result being no compromise on your 16:9 image and simply a better 2:35:1 experience."_ What has been missed is the "comparison effect." What I am trying to do is explain the phenomenon of CIH owners who experience various levels of "let down" with films that are 1:85:1, once they have gone CIH. _Even when they have maintained a similar sized 16:9 that they had before._ As is stated many times explicitly in Art's thread (and quite a number of similar discussions over the years). And the "comparison effect" I think explains it. For the most part, you may have one image size that feels big. But if you acclimatize to a much larger image (scope on a 2:35:1), it's typical of our perception that switching to the original sized image is going to feel smaller. Just as Art experienced and so many others. For the same reasons that putting a bright border around a gray square makes it seem darker - once you've introduced that contrast/comparison, introducing a much larger image size to compare with a standard image size will tend to make the standard image size feel smaller than it otherwise would.


Some claim to be immune from this effect, or are at least happy with their 16:9 image. But it is a sturdy enough principle of human perception to explain and somewhat predict the phenomenon I'm talking about. (And that I experienced as well).


I've also been giving the rationale for my own particular decision in going with a variable image size set up.


That's all.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16165417
> 
> 
> Do you acknowledge that it's possible for people to be completely satisfied with their CIH 16x9 size, even those who watch a lot of 16x9 content?



Yep. I certainly am not denying any CIH owner who reports satisfaction with their 16:9 image. But insofar as a good number of people (including myself) report otherwise, I think there is a reasonable explanation for why that is so.


Cheers,


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16164853
> 
> 
> Even someone with as huge and impressive a system as Art has - and he's got a 16:9 image larger than most of us do - can experience feeling less impressed with their 16:9 image than they used to be, once they introduce the constant comparisons with a scope image.



If I understand Arts situation correctly, he had to reduce the height of the 16:9 image to fit in the width of the Scope screen. This does not make CIH bad, wrong limiting or other as the limitation was the room itself, not the concept of Constant Image Height.


I have a friend with what is possibly the largest Scope screen in my state. His room is massive, and in fact he could have gone even larger than his 3.6m wide scope screen if he wanted to. He'd already set up his "ideal" 16:9 screen, and when I introduced him to the concept of adding an Anamorphic Lens, my question to him was simply - "how do feel about keeping your height and going 33% wider?"


The only reason he has not gone to an even larger screen (the room will easily support a 4.5m (180") wide Scope screen is that his speakers are too tall to fit under a screen that tall. There is also the possibility that his projector may not light it either, but if those factors did not count, then I'm sure he would go there.


----------



## Lee Weber




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16083790
> 
> 
> That's actually was one of the reasons I picked the scren size I ended up using,it made 16x9 about the same size as my old screen before I went CIH.
> 
> 
> Art




Mee too...

I had a 96" Wide 16:9 and then went to a 120" 2.37:1- pretty much keeping the 16:9 size I was used to and getting a treat for scope!


I cant think of a better way to go! CIA seems to be too much of a PIA and a bit akward to me. If you base your CIH off the 16:9 you want in YOUR ROOM- then there is no better way to go!


----------



## GG386




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *w3bby* /forum/post/16167989
> 
> 
> if you base your cih off the 16:9 you want in your room- then there is no better way to go!



+1


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *W3bbY* /forum/post/16167989
> 
> 
> Mee too...
> 
> I had a 96" Wide 16:9 and then went to a 120" 2.37:1- pretty much keeping the 16:9 size I was used to and getting a treat for scope!
> 
> 
> I cant think of a better way to go! CIA seems to be too much of a PIA and a bit akward to me. If you base your CIH off the 16:9 you want in YOUR ROOM- then there is no better way to go!



Umm, if the personal preference is for both AR's to share the same impact- both be equally a "treat"- then yes, there IS a better way to go.


CIA.


Try to keep up.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16167644
> 
> 
> If I understand Arts situation correctly, he had to reduce the height of the 16:9 image to fit in the width of the Scope screen.



Art said he specifically kept his 16:9/1:85:1 image pretty much the same size as it was before. However, once he put in the wider scope screen this meant it was unavoidable he would now be experiencing a much larger/wider image, which means switching back to his 16:9/1:85:1 image was going to feel less impactful than it used to, _even though it was pretty much the same size as before_. As he said when he started the thread about it:


*"I find myself not liking my 1.78 and 1.85:1 as much as I used to. Now that scope films are so large and engaging I don't want to watch the more narrow ones as much."*


Precisely what I'm talking about. He followed exactly the line of reasoning of "Don't worry, just keep your 16:9 image the size you like, base your CIH set up on that height, and then scope images will be wider...it's all benefit, no drawback because your 16:9 image is the same."


Only it doesn't necessarily work like that for the reason I keep repeating and what Art himself experienced: the comparison effect can diminish the impact of your 16:9 image, compared to what it would be if you weren't comparing it constantly to a much wider scope image.


This isn't to say Art is at all unhappy with his CIH set up. Obviously he is thrilled. But the issue, nonetheless, exists (as Art points out, there are always compromises) and _when people are promoting CIH_ (that includes magazine articles, not just in this forum) the "comparison effect" issue is virtually always ignored.


And of course it doesn't just go for CIH. It's the same for CIW. We know that some people trying to figure if they'll go CIH end up saying "Well, why don't I just buy the biggest/widest 16:9 screen I can fit in my room? That way I'll have as big a scope image as I can fit anyway, while also having the biggest 16:9 image too! Best of both worlds!"


CIH devotees can quickly spot the flaw in that thinking: simply choosing a bigger 16:9 screen is going to maintain just the same issues as a smaller 16:9 screen in terms of the impact of 2:35:1 films on that screen. Scope films are still going to feel like a compromise because they are going to have reduced impact compared to the 16:9 image...even if it is precisely the same width scope image if the person went CIH. And scope is "supposed to have more visual impact and immersion than 16:9." The person who replies "but...my scope image is exactly the same size it would be if I bought a 2:35:1 screen anyway, so it's the same impact" doesn't get it, do they? It won't have the same impact it otherwise would, because they are going from a LARGER 16:9 image to that 2:35:1 image.


So it's interesting to me that CIH devotees instantly grasp the comparison effect issues in the "get the biggest 16:9 screen I can" approach, but seem to sort of forget about the reverse effect on 16:9 images when advising others to go CIH.


If you choose a Constant Image Width 16:9 screen based on the widest scope images you can fit, it's not necessarily "the best of both worlds" because it's not simply "I'll have the same visual impact for scope, only my 16:9 images will have even more visual impact." Because, perceptually, you are likely to _lessen_ the visual impact of your scope images because of your giant 16:9 image.


Similarly, when choosing CIH, it's not simply as many say "I keep the same 16:9 impact and simply gain more impact for 2:35:1 films." Rather, one likely side effect is you will _lose_ some sense of impact for your 16:9 images because they won't be filling up the screen and you'll be constantly comparing them to a much wider scope image that does fill the screen.


That's pretty much all I have to say at this point...I think I'm hitting a zen-like level of repetition at this point.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *W3bbY* /forum/post/16167989
> 
> 
> 
> I cant think of a better way to go! CIA seems to be too much of a PIA and a bit akward to me. If you base your CIH off the 16:9 you want in YOUR ROOM- then there is no better way to go!



I tried it. Choosing a 16:9 image height and basing my 2:35:1 image off of that didn't work, so it wasn't the better way to go for me. One size does not fit all. And I wouldn't go recommending the method I'm using as "the way to go" either.


----------



## R Harkness

Oh, and as to how to actually achieve a Constant Area set up, I'm going to be starting my HT construction thread soon which will detail my attempt to build my room around an automated 4-way masking system, using the zoom method (and maybe incorporating an anamorphic lens at some point, since I'm a bit throw-distance-challenged).


Although, as I've said, I'm not strictly doing CIA. I just want to be able to vary the image size whenever I want. It's true this will be a more finicky system than you can get with an automated CIH set up. To a point. I look at it like this: If indeed I ever find it too much to zoom the image and re-mask for each film...well...I don't need to. Nobody is forcing me to do so. I can always leave it at a CIH set up and just use the side masking. (Or leave it at a CIW set up...much less likely). But because I'll have bought an extra tall/wide screen with 4 way masking, I'll always have the option available to me should I want to make the screen bigger or smaller. And I won't have the "wish I bought a bigger/smaller screen" regret.


I just figured that projection is the only technology whereby you are not necessarily stuck with a single image size, which can give me the flexibility of having the image size I want, when I want, so why not take advantage?


----------



## Lee Weber




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16168195
> 
> 
> I tried it. Choosing a 16:9 image height and basing my 2:35:1 image off of that didn't work, so it wasn't the better way to go for me. One size does not fit all. And I wouldn't go recommending the method I'm using as "the way to go" either.



Why didnt it work? Is that because you were limited in how wide your room is?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *W3bbY* /forum/post/16168284
> 
> 
> Why didnt it work? Is that because you were limited in how wide your room is?



No.


I am able to put up pretty much the widest scope image I'm comfortable with from my 11 to 11.5 foot viewing distance, which is just over 124" wide. (And I have 160" of wall width available for the screen). Even that is sort of pushing the comfort level for some films. So I'm not width challenged.


Rather, I found I can easily tolerate more height over more width. That is, I often want a 16:9 image bigger than if I'd stuck with a CIH screen of 124" wide. I'm comfortable with a 16:9 image at up to 62" tall or so. That's only a 110" width, so it doesn't force too much side to side scanning of the image from my viewing distance.


But there's no way I'd want to live with a scope image based on that height. The scope image would be over 145" (12 feet) wide - too big for my comfort from around 11 feet away. Therefore, basing either my 16:9 image off the scope width I'm comfortable with, or basing the scope size off the 16:9 height I'm comfortable with, simply did not work. Rather, I found my viewing comfort was actually dictated more by the overall _viewing area_ of the image vs a single height or width metric.


BTW, I'd add that some seem to think that a Constant Image Area approach takes away the drama of scope images, if you have a 16:9 image with the same image area. But even in a CIA set up, scope images are still significantly wider than the 16:9 image and thus I find there is still a satisfying feeling of a widening of the image when switching to scope. It still has the exciting "scope vibe" when making the switch, due to the shape of the image and the fact it actually is wider than the 16:9 image. (It's just that the 16:9 image doesn't feel disappointingly puny when switching back to 16:9).


----------



## R Harkness

BTW,


I can't see the need for a Constant Image Area forum. There are so few people doing it, I can't imagine it would be populated enough to justify it's existence. I think perhaps the CIH crowd just want CIA out of their hair ;-)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16168178
> 
> 
> Art said he specifically kept his 16:9/1:85:1 image pretty much the same size as it was before. However, once he put in the wider scope screen this meant it was unavoidable he would now be experiencing a much larger/wider image, which means switching back to his 16:9/1:85:1 image was going to feel less impactful than it used to, _even though it was pretty much the same size as before_. As he said when he started the thread about it:
> 
> 
> *"I find myself not liking my 1.78 and 1.85:1 as much as I used to. Now that scope films are so large and engaging I don't want to watch the more narrow ones as much."*



I've had this feeling about movies since I learned what CinemaScope was back in 1983. I actully feel ripped off when I go to the cinema and the film is 1.85:1 not Scope. When I learned that Scope could be projected in the home, I was nothing if not excited that I could have a wider image.


----------



## LilGator

You know, just reading about the Se7en BD, open matte creates a interesting argument against CIH.


Or at least the fact that they matte down to 2.40:1, losing picture, to create a certain shape and effect for the film, only showing a certain portion of the area they shot.


In that case (Se7en), the 1.78:1 open matte SHOULD be taller than then 2.40:1 image since there's more vertical picture! Obviously a CIH & OAR purist would probably crop this film to 2.40 and project full scope width (then again, unlikely since framing would be off), but it doesn't change the fact that the 1.78 presentation would be *intended* to be taller than the 2.40 presentation and the same width. In fact, it's fully *intended* to be both wider and taller in some cases as this shot shows (courtesy eric.exe, red is 2.40 framing, outside is full open matte):











Goes without saying that The Dark Knight was intended the same way, and while cropping to scope would do adequate justice to the film, 16:9 in the middle of the scope screen would not, and that's what CIH would imply if you left the IMAX scenes intact!


Seems there would be far more 1.85:1 presentations that weren't necessarily meant to be identical height to their scope counterparts. *How can that always be implied?* I'm looking for proof on this. Where is it?


It just seems to make more sense to show both ratios at roughly the same size, and let the shapes be the factor that makes them so different from each other, not a restricted size (width or height).


It can't be successfully argued that *100%* of 1.85:1 movies were intended to be identical in height to scope counterparts, but just not as wide- just as it can't be successfully argued that *100%* of 1.85:1 movies were intended to be identical in width to scope counterparts, but taller!


I'd wager that it *can* be successfully argued that SOME 1.85 films were meant to be taller than scope films and the same width, SOME were intended to be the same height as scope and less wide, and SOME were also intended to be that ratio without having any relation in size to scope films. How could it be proven otherwise?


If true, CIA seems to hit a majority of movies well without making any stretched assumptions. No?


I'm actually thinking that you could project a scope image of height 3x seating distance, make that your screen width, and use a 1.78:1 screen. Mask down to scope, mask sides for some 1.78/1.85 material as a typical CIH setup would, and you still have the capability of removing top/bottom masks to have a 1.78/1.85 image projected taller than scope when desired (TDK would benefit here). Open matte would be the same as OAR scope, except you have more vertical info that your eyes may or may not soak in, which is fine since it was cropped out for intended framing anyway- so the fact that it is "too big" for seating distance is not a valid point. TDK and any films that do this in the future would be close to replicating the IMAX feel.


You'd still have engulfing scope, not puny like a typical CIW setup would, the standard 3x height 1.78/1.85 for when that feels right, and also flexibility to project taller than scope for that experience when desired. Not to mention the ability to project CIA or anything else you'd want inbetween (assuming you had flexible 4-way masking)!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16183177
> 
> 
> You know, just reading about the Se7en BD, open matte creates a interesting argument against CIH.
> 
> 
> Or at least the fact that they matte down to 2.40:1, losing picture, to create a certain shape and effect for the film, only showing a certain portion of the area they shot.



They do this for many films that are presented in Scope. Are you now suggesting that the director doesn't know what is better for their vision?




> Quote:
> In that case (Se7en), the 1.78:1 open matte SHOULD be taller than then 2.40:1 image since there's more vertical picture! Obviously a CIH & OAR purist would probably crop this film to 2.40 and project full scope width (then again, unlikely since framing would be off), but it doesn't change the fact that the 1.78 presentation would be *intended* to be taller than the 2.40 presentation and the same width. In fact, it's fully *intended* to be both wider and taller in some cases as this shot shows (courtesy eric.exe, red is 2.40 framing, outside is full open matte):



And have you ever seen the P&S version of that film? There is a sceen when they discovered SLOTH's fingerprints planted behind the painting. The two main actors are on each side of the Scope frame. In the P&S version, the scene changes between the two as the speak their lines of dialogue. So even though the film might have been captured as OPEN MATT, it was certainly never used that way for early video transfers.


I disagree with your comment. Capture and presentation and two very different things. This film was MEANT to be seen as 2.40:1 and that is what we have.




> Quote:
> Goes without saying that The Dark Knight was intended the same way, and while cropping to scope would do adequate justice to the film, 16:9 in the middle of the scope screen would not, and that's what CIH would imply if you left the IMAX scenes intact!



The Dark Night is a different story altogether as it attempted to use two different film formats - 35mm and IMAX. The BD crops the IMAX from OAR of about 1.44:1 to 1.78:1 so that it compatible with our video systems.



> Quote:
> Seems there would be far more 1.85:1 presentations that weren't necessarily meant to be identical height to their scope counterparts. *How can that always be implied?* I'm looking for proof on this. Where is it?



DIRECTOR'S CHOICE! Again, capture method is very different from what the director wanted us to see on screen.


> Quote:
> It just seems to make more sense to show both ratios at roughly the same size, and let the shapes be the factor that makes them so different from each other, not a restricted size (width or height).



Only in your mind...2.35 is simply a larger number than 1.85, and if the end of the ratio is a 1 for both, then guess what? Both will be THE SAME HEIGHT when projected correctly.



> Quote:
> It can't be successfully argued that *100%* of 1.85:1 movies were intended to be identical in height to scope counterparts, but just not as wide- just as it can't be successfully argued that *100%* of 1.85:1 movies were intended to be identical in width to scope counterparts, but taller!



Why should Sex In The City be TALLER than Lord Of The Rings?



> Quote:
> I'd wager that it *can* be successfully argued that SOME 1.85 films were meant to be taller than scope films and the same width, SOME were intended to be the same height as scope and less wide, and SOME were also intended to be that ratio without having any relation in size to scope films. How could it be proven otherwise?



And which films would that apply to? In your case, all 1.85:1 films will be taller.



> Quote:
> If true, CIA seems to hit a majority of movies well without making any stretched assumptions. No?



No. The only films we will see where a smaller AR is larger than Scope is going to be films presented in IMAX. Cinema's won't change due to the cost involved. Refer back to my earlier post - they can play both 1.85:1 and Scope and they are CIH to do so.


I'm actually thinking that you could project a scope image of height 3x seating distance, make that your screen width, and use a 1.78:1 screen. Mask down to scope, mask sides for some 1.78/1.85 material as a typical CIH setup would, and you still have the capability of removing top/bottom masks to have a 1.78/1.85 image projected taller than scope when desired (TDK would benefit here). Open matte would be the same as OAR scope, except you have more vertical info that your eyes may or may not soak in, which is fine since it was cropped out for intended framing anyway- so the fact that it is "too big" for seating distance is not a valid point. TDK and any films that do this in the future would be close to replicating the IMAX feel.


I think I already covered that HERE . Notice however that when the top bottom masks are in place that the system is CIH.


> Quote:
> You'd still have engulfing scope, not puny like a typical CIW setup would, the standard 3x height 1.78/1.85 for when that feels right, and also flexibility to project taller than scope for that experience when desired. Not to mention the ability to project CIA or anything else you'd want inbetween (assuming you had flexible 4-way masking)!



In the system I decribed in the link, the 2x seating distance is for the CIH portion. The IMAX footage of a film like The Dark Knight is supposed to have a massive image (hence why it was shown in IMAX), so your at less than 2x for these sceens.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> And have you ever seen the P&S version of that film? There is a sceen when they discovered SLOTH's fingerprints planted behind the painting. The two main actors are on each side of the Scope frame. In the P&S version, the scene changes between the two as the speak their lines of dialogue. So even though the film might have been captured as OPEN MATT, it was certainly never used that way for early video transfers.



I understand all of that, but if you are going to watch the open matte Blu-ray of Se7en, you have three options.
Mask top and bottom for scope, but lose picture due to bad framing.
Watch the full frame 1.78 at scope height, effectively making the movie much smaller than intended for viewing distance.
Watch at scope width, but full height.


Only one of these gets you as close to the original 2.40 framing as possible.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> I disagree with your comment. Capture and presentation and two very different things. This film was MEANT to be seen as 2.40:1 and that is what we have.



Most films are OAR as they should be, but every now and then, more so on HDTV, open matte is common. Shrinking the movie down just because it has a narrow ratio isn't the correct approach there.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> The Dark Night is a different story altogether as it attempted to use two different film formats - 35mm and IMAX. The BD crops the IMAX from OAR of about 1.44:1 to 1.78:1 so that it compatible with our video systems.



You think that will never be done again? You think shooting on IMAX cameras will never be done again?


IMAX is a prime example of a "smaller" ratio intended to be taller than scope.


The Dark Knight BD for home release is intended to have scenes in it TALLER than scope.


You still haven't proven that when EVERY SINGLE director chooses the 1.85 ratio for their film they are saying: "I want my film to be just like scope, except not as wide. In fact, I want my movie to be smaller."


Small movies and big movies. What?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> DIRECTOR'S CHOICE! Again, capture method is very different from what the director wanted us to see on screen.
> 
> 
> Only in your mind...2.35 is simply a larger number than 1.85, and if the end of the ratio is a 1 for both, then guess what? Both will be THE SAME HEIGHT when projected correctly.



Not again, this is ridiculous. Ratio's don't work that way. You're implying that an assumption can be made that just can't be made.


16:6.8

16:8.7

16:9


Now all three ratios begin with 16, and guess what? Both will be THE SAME WIDTH when projected correctly.










Absurd.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> Why should Sex In The City be TALLER than Lord Of The Rings?



You forgot to mention that it would be less wide. What does the quality of the movie itself have to do with how it is presented? The crappier a movie is, the smaller it's supposed to be?










Why should Tim Burton's Batman (1.85) be so much smaller than Batman Begins?


Why does The Godfather have to be so much smaller than The Departed?


Why can't it just be a different shape and similar in size and impact?


7 out of IMDB's top 10 films are "less wide" than 2.35:1. Why can't these be as large and impactful (slightly less wide, slightly taller) as scope? Even if you count 2.20:1 as scope due to modern releases for home, 5 out of 10 are still "less wide" and therefore have to be smaller movies when projected CIH.


Are you saying that Super Panavision 70mm Star Wars was intended to be less wide than scope and the same height?


Then why on your typical CIH setup would 2.20:1 movies result in a slightly taller than scope image which ends up being cropped!?


Why does Ultra Panavision'd Ben Hur result in black bars on the top and bottom of the scope area, when you and your ratio number argument (for 2.76:1) would say it should be the same height as scope but even wider!?


Now you're either breaking your own rules, or you're zooming for different ratios to fit your screen, which is no different than what CIA tries to accomplish.


Sounds to me like you'd have to have a 3:1 screen with side masking AND you'd still have to zoom to have a proper "purist" CIH setup.


You also lose out on any sort of capability of projecting films intended to be taller than scope (now or in the future).


Not so simple anymore.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> And which films would that apply to? In your case, all 1.85:1 films will be taller.



All 1.85 films. Read what I wrote. Some 1.85 films may have been intended to be taller, some 1.85 films may have been intended to be less wide, and some (if not the majority) of 1.85 films may have been intended to be a different format than other films, but not limited to a certain size in relation to scope films.


Can you prove otherwise?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16184263
> 
> 
> No. The only films we will see where a smaller AR is larger than Scope is going to be films presented in IMAX. Cinema's won't change due to the cost involved. Refer back to my earlier post - they can play both 1.85:1 and Scope and they are CIH to do so.



We're not debating what cinemas will or won't do. We have the flexibility to project films however we desire.


Regardless, even if we wanted to model a theater, it still comes down to personal preference and NOT director's intention. Even if "all" cinema's implement CIH for whatever reason, it doesn't change the fact that seating is arranged from too close to too far away. No one dictates where you must sit, and ANY sort of director intention for one ratio to look smaller or larger than another ratio is thrown out the window- director's simply CANNOT have that intention, unless only one row of seating per theater were allowed along with a distance and screen size on spec to go along with the CIH projection.


You know this isn't the case, so how can any director logically imply that he wants his 2.40 film to look wider, and his 1.85 film to look smaller when it relies directly on which seat in the cinema the audience member chooses? At best, only 1/3 of a cinema is even CLOSE to the sweet spot for seating which means that the MAJORITY of viewers may be viewing a 1.85 film MUCH larger than they did when they saw the last 2.40 film (1/3 too close, and then 1/3 too far away).


----------



## CAVX

You constantly come up with "some films should be taller". Please make a list of what films you think should be taller and why.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16191318
> 
> 
> Some 1.85 films may have been intended to be taller, some 1.85 films may have been intended to be less wide, and some (if not the majority) of 1.85 films may have been intended to be a different format than other films, but not limited to a certain size in relation to scope films.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16191817
> 
> 
> You constantly come up with "some films should be taller". Please make a list of what films you think should be taller and why.



I never said any "should be" taller. I'm saying there "may be" some intended that way.


There's no reason Jurassic Park can't be assumed to be intended taller than scope. It's more reasonable to believe JP just required a taller ratio, and the size of the movie was intended to be just as big and impactful as any other!


I ask again, prove this wrong.


My point is, it's more accurate to say some films may not be intended to have any relation (height or width) to scope films, just a different shape, than to say ALL, 100%, EVERY FILM MADE is intended to be the same height and different widths.


That's quite an assumption.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16192502
> 
> 
> I never said any "should be" taller. I'm saying there "may be" some intended that way.
> 
> 
> I ask again, prove this wrong.



And I ask for you to even come up any reason (apart from your room's restrictions to not being able to fit a larger Scope screen) as to why they should or could be taller.




> Quote:
> My point is, it's more accurate to say some films may not be intended to have any relation (height or width) to scope films, just a different shape, than to say ALL, 100%, EVERY FILM MADE is intended to be the same height and different widths.



Then give some examples.


Other wize, 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 and 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 where 1 is the height is correct meaning CIH is correct











> Quote:
> That's quite an assumption.



Yes you have ASS-U-MEd too much







thinking that a director makes a film with the intention that the film will be viewed on a different shape or size screen other than its OAR.


Do you turn your surrounds up to?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193258
> 
> 
> And I ask for you to even come up any reason (apart from your room's restrictions to not being able to fit a larger Scope screen) as to why they should or could be taller.
> 
> 
> Then give some examples.
> 
> 
> Other wize, 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 and 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 where 1 is the height is correct meaning CIH is correct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you have ASS-U-MEd too much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thinking that a director makes a film with the intention that the film will be viewed on a different shape or size screen other than its OAR.
> 
> 
> Do you turn your surrounds up to?



No, I calibrate all levels, including surrounds to 75db. What does that have to do with anything?


If you would read, you'd see I already answered everything you just said:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16191318
> 
> 
> Not again, this is ridiculous. Ratio's don't work that way. You're implying that an assumption can be made that just can't be made.
> 
> 
> 16:6.8
> 
> 16:8.7
> 
> 16:9
> 
> 
> Now all three ratios begin with 16, and guess what? Both will be THE SAME WIDTH when projected correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd.
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention that it would be less wide. What does the quality of the movie itself have to do with how it is presented? The crappier a movie is, the smaller it's supposed to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should Tim Burton's Batman (1.85) be so much smaller than Batman Begins?
> 
> 
> Why does The Godfather have to be so much smaller than The Departed?
> 
> 
> Why can't it just be a different shape and similar in size and impact?
> 
> 
> 7 out of IMDB's top 10 films are "less wide" than 2.35:1. Why can't these be as large and impactful (slightly less wide, slightly taller) as scope? Even if you count 2.20:1 as scope due to modern releases for home, 5 out of 10 are still "less wide" and therefore have to be smaller movies when projected CIH.
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Super Panavision 70mm Star Wars was intended to be less wide than scope and the same height?
> 
> 
> Then why on your typical CIH setup would 2.20:1 movies result in a slightly taller than scope image which ends up being cropped!?
> 
> 
> Why does Ultra Panavision'd Ben Hur result in black bars on the top and bottom of the scope area, when you and your ratio number argument (for 2.76:1) would say it should be the same height as scope but even wider!?
> 
> 
> Now you're either breaking your own rules, or you're zooming for different ratios to fit your screen, which is no different than what CIA tries to accomplish.
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you'd have to have a 3:1 screen with side masking AND you'd still have to zoom to have a proper "purist" CIH setup.
> 
> 
> You also lose out on any sort of capability of projecting films intended to be taller than scope (now or in the future).
> 
> 
> Not so simple anymore.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16193402
> 
> 
> No, I calibrate all levels, including surrounds to 75db. What does that have to do with anything?



Just checking...



> Quote:
> If you would read, you'd see I already answered everything you just said:



I actually had a really long post typed up, but for what ever reason, it didn't stick.



> Quote:
> You forgot to mention that it would be less wide. What does the quality of the movie itself have to do with how it is presented? The crappier a movie is, the smaller it's supposed to be?



If a film is less wide, then it simply does not fill the full width of the screen. I am not the one the problem with the "smaller" image. I like seeing 16:9 smaller than Scope.



> Quote:
> Why should Tim Burton's Batman (1.85) be so much smaller than Batman Begins?



Director's choice?



> Quote:
> Why does The Godfather have to be so much smaller than The Departed?



Director's choice?



> Quote:
> Why can't it just be a different shape and similar in size and impact?



If all films were meant to be "the same size" Hollywood would have stuck with 1.33:1.



> Quote:
> 7 out of IMDB's top 10 films are "less wide" than 2.35:1. Why can't these be as large and impactful (slightly less wide, slightly taller) as scope?



And to counter that question, why should they be?



> Quote:
> Even if you count 2.20:1 as scope due to modern releases for home, 5 out of 10 are still "less wide" and therefore have to be smaller movies when projected CIH.



I count 2.20 as an odd ball ratio, but even so, it SHOULD be wider and the SAME height as 1.78:1. Yet you seem want to make is shorter. And it will be on a 2.05:1 screen as used in CIA.



> Quote:
> Are you saying that Super Panavision 70mm Star Wars was intended to be less wide than scope and the same height?



I've never seen SW at an IMAX. If the frame was modded to fit the IMAX screen of approx 1.44:1, then I would accept that as a director's choice. If the image is simply projected in the centre of the IMAX screen (AKA letterboxed) then it should be 2.35:1 and the ONLY reason the image would not fill the height is 2.35:1 is WIDER than 1.44:1 so the height is reduced. It doesn't matter, as IMAX is NOT a main stream cinema format. It is speciality event format. So the old saying of "can't fit a square peg in a round hole" become very true.



> Quote:
> Then why on your typical CIH setup would 2.20:1 movies result in a slightly taller than scope image which ends up being cropped!?



What do you think they (the studio) did to Top Gun? I have both copies of the DVD (2.20:1 and 2.35:1) and if I select a given sceen and AB then on a CIH system, they both look the same. The part that gets cropped on the 2.20:1 on my system is no different to the parts that cropped by the studio when they changed the AR. I am not seeing any more width on the Scope version.


Same goes for The Dark Night (IMAX footage) or the out of focus Roast in that screen shot of Se7en you've posted. With Top Gun, one might argue that cropping the top and bottom off a 2.20:1 image is wrong, but if it is that way in the 2.35:1 verrsion (a studio choice), is it still wrong? How important to the story is seeing that roast on the table in Se7en? We all know that is the dinner scene and what happens there. Will it change the story line? Of course not as it was never seen in cinemas in the first place.



> Quote:
> Why does Ultra Panavision'd Ben Hur result in black bars on the top and bottom of the scope area, when you and your ratio number argument (for 2.76:1) would say it should be the same height as scope but even wider!?



Ben Hur is an exception as there are not too many films that wide. But yes, if projected correctly, you would have the image height the same as HDTV's 1.78:1.



> Quote:
> Now you're either breaking your own rules, or you're zooming for different ratios to fit your screen, which is no different than what CIA tries to accomplish.



Not quite. When I zoom an image, I do so to "trim" the image to fit the screen. The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85 is about 4%. Overscan can eliminate that too, but then I would not be projecting 1:1 in the vertical.



> Quote:
> Sounds to me like you'd have to have a 3:1 screen with side masking AND you'd still have to zoom to have a proper "purist" CIH setup.



Did anything ever come out on 3:1? I don't think so, but a true CIH system would have a screen at least to 2.70:1. I think Vern Dias's screen is 2.66:1. He uses a 1.5x stretch lens and scaler to achive CIH that allows him to project older films. Modern cinema has basically limited the ARs down to two - 1.85:1 and 2.39:1.



> Quote:
> You also lose out on any sort of capability of projecting films intended to be taller than scope (now or in the future).
> 
> 
> Not so simple anymore.



The Dark Night is the first film that would require a taller image. I explained how to set that up in the link I posted earlier.


I heard Transformers 2 will also be shot this way, but that doesn't mean that we all need to dump our scope screens as 95% of all cinemas are not IMAX, they are CIH.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193548
> 
> 
> Director's choice?



The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.


Every director. Every film.


Are you serious?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193548
> 
> 
> I count 2.20 as an odd ball ratio, but even so, it SHOULD be wider and the SAME height as 1.78:1. Yet you seem want to make is shorter. And it will be on a 2.05:1 screen as used in CIA.



Umm, no, you're not understanding CIA. I would have a screen where the scope area is identical in width to a CIH setup. The screen would be taller, allowing 2.20 to be projected however I preferred.


I could project it CIH and mask the sides as if it weren't as wide as 2.35.


Or I could project it full width of the scope area, but retain the taller image as you admitted Top Gun would need.


With CIH you're limited to cropping the image, or zooming and projecting the image less wide at constant height. What good is an A-lens setup if you still have to zoom for ratios outside of 1.78 & 2.37?!


The point of Se7en was that open matte films, while not the director's intended ratio, cannot be projected even CLOSE to properly with a CIH setup. With CIA the size is much closer, and only a full scope width 1.78 screen would display it at a size doing the most justice to the original framing.


I realize the director isn't intended you to see everything, but he does intend for you to see the 2.40 framed area at a proper size!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193548
> 
> 
> The Dark Night is the first film that would require a taller image. I explained how to set that up in the link I posted earlier.
> 
> 
> I heard Transformers 2 will also be shot this way, but that doesn't mean that we all need to dump our scope screens as 95% of all cinemas are not IMAX, they are CIH.



So you would admit that the future holds films being taller than scope.


Why can't I be future proof and allow an immersive scope width identical to CIH setups while retaining the ability to project taller than scope when I want to?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16193595
> 
> 
> The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.
> 
> 
> Every director. Every film.
> 
> 
> Are you serious?



I didn't finalize the specs. Complain to SMPTE if you don't like it. Apart from a very smaller number of films, how many films are not Scope or Flat?

So from an artistic perspective that will be able to be seen around the world in a commercial cinema, yes, a director will have two main choices. Scope is becoming more popular as it is different from HDTV. CinemaScope was introduced for that exact reason in the 1950's and it seems that films are going back to that mind set.





> Quote:
> Umm, no, you're not understanding CIA. I would have a screen where the scope area is identical in width to a CIH setup. The screen would be taller, allowing 2.20 to be projected however I preferred.



So it looks like the original Top Gun (2.20:1) and limited films with a similar ARs are not going to conform to CIA after all as they will be both taller or wider than anything else you watch - IE they will have more impact filling your screen. A true CIA is 2.05:1, not 2.20:1.


> Quote:
> I could project it CIH and mask the sides as if it weren't as wide as 2.35.



Sorry, what AR would that be?



> Quote:
> Or I could project it full width of the scope area, but retain the taller image as you admitted Top Gun would need.



Depends on which version you own. The lastest version (DVD and BD) are 2.35:1, and as I don't want to see black bars top and bottom, I get to "fill" my screen










> Quote:
> With CIH you're limited to cropping the image, or zooming and projecting the image less wide at constant height. What good is an A-lens setup if you still have to zoom for ratios outside of 1.78 & 2.37?!



The use of the lens allows me to use the full panel. The fact that the HDTV panel is 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1 is a limit of HDTV, not CIH. And no, the idea is to NOT project the black bars. As for cropping, out of over 300 DVDs, I had one that was 2.20:1. And that was later re-issued at 2.35:1, so no cropping required.



> Quote:
> The point of Se7en was that open matte films, while not the director's intended ratio, cannot be projected even CLOSE to properly with a CIH setup. With CIA the size is much closer, and only a full scope width 1.78 screen would display it at a size doing the most justice to the original framing.



And what part of the "director's intended ratio" is no longer relevent?


> Quote:
> I realize the director isn't intended you to see everything, but he does intend for you to see the 2.40 framed area at a proper size!



And with CIH and a 2.40:1 screen, you do. I just happen to have a 2.35:1 screen (a loan screen BTW) that was made as 2.35:1.


> Quote:
> So you would admit that the future holds films being taller than scope.



Are you serious?

Rest assured, there is no change in the immediate future, not whilst 35mm film is still being used anyway. And so long as there are cinemas, there will always be CinemaScope. TDK is just one film Vs how many CinemaScope films?



> Quote:
> Why can't I be future proof and allow an immersive scope width identical to CIH setups while retaining the ability to project taller than scope when I want to?



Go for your life. I am not stopping you. I just see CIA as the future of cinema, but a compromise when a room is not wide enough for CIH. In fact there are cinemas close to where I live that that insert a 2.0:1 plate

to crop the width of Scope. It is not correct, but it gives then a slightly taller image, but it also keeps them CIH. They are just limited to 2.0:1.


I am tempted to make a system like I described in that link, but there would need to be more than 1 film for me to want to invest the cash to make the switch. Either way, the system I describe is still CIH for everything else which better refects the current status of how things are now.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193669
> 
> 
> So it looks like the original Top Gun (2.20:1) and limited films with a similar ARs are not going to conform to CIA after all as they will be both taller or wider than anything else you watch - IE they will have more impact filling your screen. A true CIA is 2.05:1, not 2.20:1.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, what AR would that be?



It would still be 2.20:1.


CIA is 2.05:1, and I can project 100% of the 2.20 frame on a 2.05 screen by zooming.


Just like 1.78, and 1.85, I would project slightly taller and slightly less wide than the full width 2.35.


It would cover the same area, offering the same overall impact.


It would retain all of the 2.2 information, as CIH would not do cropping top and bottom.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193669
> 
> 
> Go for your life. I am not stopping you. I just see CIA as the future of cinema, but a compromise when a room is not wide enough for CIH. In fact there are cinemas close to where I live that that insert a 2.0:1 plate
> 
> to crop the width of Scope. It is not correct, but it gives then a slightly taller image, but it also keeps them CIH. They are just limited to 2.0:1.



See I view cropping the width to be FAR more detrimental to director's vision and intention than being stuck on CIH.


I'd much rather see all of the image, even if it had to be slightly smaller.


Since you were a smartass in asking me about turning my surrounds up, are you the guy who zooms scope films to a plasma/LCD's height chopping the sides off?










--


If you sat Spieldberg down in your theater and showed Saving Private Ryan on a CIH scope screen, letting him choose where to place his seat, would he leave it in place when you followed the film with Jurassic Park? Or would he move his seat closer for that film?


Even more interesting, if you sat Sam Raimi down in front of Spider-Man projected full height on a CIA 2.05 screen, again allowing him to place his seat, would he have any desire to move when you started Spider-Man 2 and expanded to the width of the screen (11% wider than SM1)?


I'd be willing to bet Spielberg, and more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers would choose to scoot their chairs closer to see Jurassic Park on CIH and be more immersed.


I'd also be willing to bet that Sam Raimi (and again more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers) would have MUCH LESS (if any) desire to move seating when watching the SM films back to back on CIA.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16193808
> 
> 
> It would still be 2.20:1.
> 
> 
> CIA is 2.05:1, and I can project 100% of the 2.20 frame on a 2.05 screen by zooming.



So you have varing amounts of black bars. It is the height difference that I don't gel with for CIA.



> Quote:
> Just like 1.78, and 1.85, I would project slightly taller and slightly less wide than the full width 2.35.



Not slightly. Slightly is like the 4% difference between 1.78 and 1.85. You're talking about some 25% for CIW which you reduce to about 12% with CIA. No doubt you have done the proper maths. Actually, it would have to be more of you feel the need to sell your BenQ











> Quote:
> It would cover the same area, offering the same overall impact.



Not based on the documented research that prooves we are more sesitive to image height.



> Quote:
> It would retain all of the 2.2 information, as CIH would not do cropping top and bottom.



If that information is actually there. In most cases, it has been replaced with black bars. And I don't want to waste vertical rez there.





> Quote:
> See I view cropping the width to be FAR more detrimental to director's vision and intention than being stuck on CIH.



I said these cinemas are doing it. I don't do it.



> Quote:
> I'd much rather see all of the image, even if it had to be slightly smaller.



And I want to see the whole image at a constant height.



> Quote:
> Since you were a smartass in asking me about turning my surrounds up, are you the guy who zooms scope films to a plasma/LCD's height chopping the sides off?



I don't own a plasma and even if I did, I would except it for what it is and watch letterboxed images. I went CIH so I have don't have to watch black bars.



> Quote:
> If you sat Spieldberg down in your theater and showed Saving Private Ryan on a CIH scope screen, letting him choose where to place his seat, would he leave it in place when you followed the film with Jurassic Park? Or would he move his seat closer for that film?



You'd have to ask him that question. Both films are the same AR, so they should both be viewed from the same position and that position would be closer to 3x the image height. Do you think he would request to move the seating? I've never met the man, but I doubt that.



> Quote:
> Even more interesting, if you sat Sam Raimi down in front of Spider-Man projected full height on a CIA 2.05 screen, again allowing him to place his seat, would he have any desire to move when you started Spider-Man 2 and expanded to the width of the screen (11% wider than SM1)?



Would he care? He has probably watched him film on a 16:9 display manytimes.





> Quote:
> I'd be willing to bet Spielberg, and more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers would choose to scoot their chairs closer to see Jurassic Park on CIH and be more immersed.



You reckon? I doubt that. On a large CIH system like that friend of mine where the image is 1450mm high, the image is immersive even for 1.33:1.



> Quote:
> I'd also be willing to bet that Sam Raimi (and again more importantly a MAJORITY of film watchers) would have MUCH LESS (if any) desire to move seating when watching the SM films back to back on CIA.



Whatever dude.


I think Sam Raimi would be more impressed watching SM films back to back if SM2 and 3 were actually much wider as he intended them to be.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193906
> 
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> 
> I think Sam Raimi would be more impressed watching SM films back to back if SM2 and 3 were actually much wider as he intended them to be.



Well, the difference in size between SM1 & SM2 is what propells the reasoning behind CIA.


A majority of viewers would notice the difference between the two less on CIA than they would on CIH.


I do agree that SM1 should have been scope along with 2 & 3, at least that we can agree on.










Unfortunately, Spider-Man is smaller on the screen (go ahead, measure him!) in film one, than he is in film 2 assuming a CIH setup. Did Raimi intend for Spider-Man and the other actors to grow larger in between film 1 & 2?


Miracle-Gro ?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16193939
> 
> 
> Well, the difference in size between SM1 & SM2 is what propells the reasoning behind CIA.



I disagree with that. With CIH, both films are the same height and therefore only governed by the width. I never understood the why the director choose 1.85:1 for that film, but if SM1 was meant to be the SAME SIZE as 2 and 3, it would have been Scope.



> Quote:
> A majority of viewers would notice the difference between the two less on CIA than they would on CIH.



I think most people would simply except the smaller scope image as they are used to seeing LB on 16:9 displays. I doubt anyone would praise a CIA system for that bit of extra width. CIH is very obvious when the side masking opens up.



> Quote:
> I do agree that SM1 should have been scope along with 2 & 3, at least that we can agree on.



Phew, thanks











> Quote:
> Unfortunately, Spider-Man is smaller on the screen (go ahead, measure him!) in film one, than he is in film 2 assuming a CIH setup. Did Raimi intend for Spider-Man and the other actors to grow larger in between film 1 & 2?
> 
> 
> Miracle-Gro ?



Which scenes? If the geometry is correct on a CIH system, then SM himself will appear the same size on both assuming vertical framing of the actor is the same. This is because both are the same height







There is just more city in the background of 2 and 3 making it a more grand vision.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193983
> 
> 
> Which scenes? If the geometry is correct on a CIH system, then SM himself will appear the same size on both assuming vertical framing of the actor is the same. This is because both are the same height
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is just more city in the background of 2 and 3 making it a more grand vision.



I see your point about vertical framing, say a headshot. I'm more referring to scenes that are horizontally sensitive, ie. having multiple characters in view spreading the width of the screen, or having Spidey swinging from one end of the screen to the other. In that case, to show the same side to side effect, the 1.85 would have to have less tall characters to fit them in a similar scene (framing would be zoomed out some, and assuming not a P&S scene).


You're saying SM1 is just a cropped version of SM2? That they wanted to show more on the sides of each scene, not that they wanted to frame things differently to have a different effect?


SM1 is simply an *inferior* film to SM2, and SM3 even? In the same way a P&S 1.78/1.85 framing of SM2 would be an inferior version of itself?


See, with CIH I'd look forward to watching SM3 more than I would the less wide (and hence smaller) SM1, and I hate SM3! That shouldn't be


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16194003
> 
> 
> I see your point about vertical framing, say a headshot. I'm more referring to scenes that are horizontally sensitive, ie. having multiple characters in view spreading the width of the screen, or having Spidey swinging from one end of the screen to the other. In that case, to show the same side to side effect, the 1.85 would have to have less tall characters to fit them in a certain scene (framing would be zoomed out some, and assuming not a P&S scene).



That is exactly why we have CinemaScope. A wider field of view at a given height. And human vison is less sensitive to horozontal than vertical and why CinemaScope works and why IMAX is a speciality screening event.



> Quote:
> You're saying SM1 is just a cropped version of SM2? That they wanted to show more on the sides of each scene, not that they wanted to frame things differently to have a different effect?



I never said any such thing. I simply said that I questioned the reasoning behind filming SM1 in 1.85:1. If SM is actually smaller overall in the first film, then it would appear a way around the limiting of the width would be to reduce the height of the actors in the shot. AKA letterboxing but without black bars.



> Quote:
> SM1 is simply an *inferior* film to SM2, and SM3 even?



If that is your opinion of that film, then you entitled to it. I did not say that. It is what it is and I think SM (like The Hulk) is 1.85:1 to closer represent their comic book origins.



> Quote:
> In the same way a P&S 1.78/1.85 framing of SM2 would be an inferior version of itself?



No. Pan and Scan is just wrong period







I say Ban Pan and Scan...


----------



## taffman

I use CIH, but I have concluded, particularly after reading this thread, that a lot of people here are obsessed with CIH simply for CIH sake. It's as if no film can be enjoyed unless it is on a CIH set up, and there are no films worth showing unless they are 2.35:1. This philosophy of course is absolute nonsense. For one thing, any real film buff will tell you that the overwhelming majority of excellent films are not 2.35 or even 16:9, but are 4:3! So if you want the best 4:3 then CIA certainly has a whole lot to recommend it. But the CIH guys don't want to hear this. They are so obsessed with impressing their friends with that big scope screen and that Isco lens, that they cannot see that CIA has some positive aspects, and they are totally missing the boat in terms of watching the best films (4:3) ever made. Many CIH people are reluctant to , or even refuse to watch 4:3, and if its in black and white forget it! To them the whole CIH exercise has come down to attaining what they perceive as technical superiority in home theater. They will watch absolute garbage films like 'Quantum of Solace' simply because it looks so impressive to them onthat big 2.35 scren, while totally ignoring the truly wonderful 4:3 films of Hollywoods golden age. So I think a case can be made that many CIH people have totally lost the whole point of home theater, which is simply to watch great movies , in ALL formats.


----------



## stanger89

So if people don't like the kinds of films you do, they're "missing the boat" and not "real film buffs"


----------



## CAVX

I found some notes from CEDIA dating back to 2000. The interesting point is a reference to the screen size where it says that a room should be divided by 4 to find the height and then that number multiplied by the AR of the screen. At that time 1.78:1 was still fairly new and 1.33 was the norm, but even this example suggests CIH, not CIA.


As for what films work. All films work on CIH because the image height is based on the room depth and seating distances. QOS was an awesome action film and yes it scope and fills my screen (and my panel too







) but I have a few films that are 1.33:1 in my collection and I enjoy them as much as anything Scope simply because of the image height/seating distance relationship only CIH can have.


The only reason CIH would be an issue is room width limitations as Lilgator mentions in the early posts of this thread and hence why he want to try out CIA. He states he can't have the image height in the room that we wants based on the fact that room is small.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Wikepedia:


"The Dog in the Manger is a fable attributed to Aesop, concerning a dog (CIH) who one afternoon lay down to sleep in the manger (AVS forum). On being awoken (reading this thread's original question), he ferociously kept the cattle in the farm (us) from eating the hay (the ability to have any screen size we want) on which he chose to sleep, even though he was unable to eat it himself (without building a whole new screen), leading an ox to mutter the moral of the fable:


People often begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves.


The phrase is proverbial, referring to people who spitefully prevent others from having something that they themselves have no use for."



Its not about if CIH is the gold standard, its about us (not them...why don't they get that) having the ability to have custom screen sizes. It has nothing to do with height, it has to do with personal choices.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16196940
> 
> 
> So if people don't like the kinds of films you do, they're "missing the boat" and not "real film buffs"



No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.


----------



## Drexler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16197945
> 
> 
> No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.



And what's wrong with that?!? I'm an engineer for crying out loud!!!










By the way, which films that are "the very best" is a very subjective opinion. While there are old films that are good I still very much enjoy new films and the very best in my opinion are not that old. For example Big Lebowski, Office space, Snatch, Hot Rod, The Matrix and other films I very much enjoyed seeing.


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Franin* /forum/post/16198415
> 
> 
> I've been following this thread because it's very intersting but I have to say your post is the silliest out of the lot of them.



Ah, I dunno.


Been doing CH for a good four years now, first with a Prismasonic HT1000 and have been using a UH380 for the past two - nothing special about my equipment but the experience is there.


Haven't participated hereabouts for quite some time and frankly in my never so humble opinion there are elements of truth in what taffman posted.


Anyone purchasing *Last Year at Marienbad* on BD?


ted


----------



## Franin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvted* /forum/post/16198612
> 
> 
> Ah, I dunno.
> 
> 
> Been doing CH for a good four years now, first with a Prismasonic HT1000 and have been using a UH380 for the past two - nothing special about my equipment but the experience is there.
> 
> 
> Haven't participated hereabouts for quite some time and frankly in my never so humble opinion there are elements of truth in what taffman posted.
> 
> 
> Anyone purchasing *Last Year at Marienbad* on BD?
> 
> 
> ted



No I read it again I deleted mine as he is right in a way.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16197945
> 
> 
> No, what I'm saying is that anyone who restricts his viewing to modern scope films and refuses to watch any 4:3 films because of his obsession with impressing himself and other people with the visual spectacle of his CIH scope setup , is missing the very best films of the past 100 years and is in no way a "film buff". He is a tech freak.



Who exactly is restricting themselves to "modern Scope films" when about 80% of modern films are Scope!?! I try and go to the cinema at least once a month and in the past 2 years, (ready?) I've seen *just two films* that were *not* CinemaScope! The most recent was a lame commedy about a mall cop and was presented in 1.85:1. Do I care? No because the cinemas I go to are CIH and this film actually had a Scope trailior before it. It proved the point that I stated a few pages back - that cinemas are CIH and not CIA and can play both CinemaScope and 35mm Flat. It was odd to see the curtains open for the trailor and then close after, but there it is.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16193595
> 
> 
> The argument for CIH relies on the fact that EVERY DIRECTOR (100%) uses 1.85 to film a movie they want to be smaller than scope.
> 
> 
> Every director. Every film.
> 
> 
> Are you serious?



I don't believe that this is at all true. In my life, every always etc is simply not part of my language. This type of thought is doomed.


I do believe that scope images are meant to be the widest. All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16199463
> 
> 
> I don't believe that this is at all true. In my life, every always etc is simply not part of my language. This type of thought is doomed.
> 
> 
> I do believe that scope images are meant to be the widest. All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.
> 
> 
> Art



It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.


So far, no one has responded to this:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Regardless, even if we wanted to model a theater, it still comes down to personal preference and NOT director's intention. Even if "all" cinemas implement CIH for whatever reason, it doesn't change the fact that seating is arranged from too close to too far away. No one dictates where you must sit, and ANY sort of director intention for one ratio to look smaller or larger than another ratio is thrown out the window- director's simply CANNOT have that intention, unless only one row of seating per theater were allowed along with a distance and screen size on spec to go along with the CIH projection.
> 
> 
> You know this isn't the case, so how can any director logically imply that he wants his 2.40 film to look wider, and his 1.85 film to look smaller when it relies directly on which seat in the cinema the audience member chooses? At best, only 1/3 of a cinema is even CLOSE to the sweet spot for seating which means that the MAJORITY of viewers may be viewing a 1.85 film MUCH larger than they did when they saw the last 2.40 film (1/3 too close, and then 1/3 too far away).



Even within the safe seating zone's by SMPTE & THX, which by the way are how "director's intentions" are realized (assuming they actually exist as you argue), there is an allowance for seating closer for 1.85 films and further back for 2.35 films.


Anyone can have that preference, and still be completely following cinema specs and "director's intent"!


CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16199485
> 
> 
> It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.



I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16199514
> 
> 
> I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.
> 
> 
> Art



How does one not imply the other?


By picking scope because the director wants a wider movie (this is what I'm assuming you are confident happens), isn't he choosing _not_ to shoot 1.85 because it would be "smaller"?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All projection techniques are compromised but for films I believe that CIH is the most true to intent.



Well said


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16199485
> 
> 
> It may be easiest for cinemas to project this way, and CIH follows "spec" better than anything else in this regard, but I'm still finding it hard to believe directors of 1.85 films chose that ratio because they want a smaller movie.



Often the "asrtisic intent" does not require the extra width from which CinemaScope allows. You so need to get over your "small image" issue. It is not smaller, it is just not as wide.



> Quote:
> So far, no one has responded to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even within the safe seating zone's by SMPTE & THX, which by the way are how "director's intentions" are realized (assuming they actually exist as you argue), there is an allowance for seating closer for 1.85 films and further back for 2.35 films.



In a cinema, there are multiple rows to cater for many people.



> Quote:
> Anyone can have that preference, and still be completely following cinema specs and "director's intent"!
> 
> 
> CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.



Not sure how often you go to a cinema, but I try and sit in the same row (and even seats) if I can regardless of the film's AR. I find that many other people do the same with most people I know wanting to sit closer to the back of the cinema. So I am struggling to see your point. Are you suggesting that some people are going to move closer for a film in 1.85:1 or move back for a Scope film? I seriously doubt that, epecially if they are over 21.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16199514
> 
> 
> I certainly never said that but I would say with confidence that the converse is true.
> 
> 
> Art



Art, I'd beg to differ. I've worked with many directors. I would say that in general, or at least in a significant number of cases, my impression is that the AR is not chosen specifically because the director expects the film to be much bigger or smaller *in size*. Rather I am of the impression it's the shape of the image - the Aspect Ratio - that is the first consideration, in terms of it's compositional qualities and/or the "vibe" for lack of better word it brings to the movie. (I've read interviews with cinematographers that speak the same way about shooting scope).


For instance, not long ago I worked on a movie about a man who has Agoraphobia and is trapped in his small apartment for most of the film. The whole subject is intensely claustrophobic and most of the shots were very claustrophobic as well. There could hardly be a movie that is further from the type of content and approach envisioned when CinemaScope was first introduced. So why did the director choose to shoot such a movie in scope? I talked to the director about his choice of shooting in scope and he (he shoots lots of commercials as well as some features) simply preferred the AR for it's compositional qualities for movies. It felt "more like a movie," whatever it happened to be projected on. He wasn't shooting scope with the expectation "my movie will be a larger image than non-scope movies" - the movie is going to end up shown "wherever it is shown," be it a CIW or a CIH theater, or a big theater or small theater. (Most mixing theaters of my acquaintance do not have a CIH set up but use CIW...which doesn't stop the directors and producers being very happy when they see their movie projected in it's AR even on CIW screens).


I believe that the rationale for shooting scope is no longer the same as it was envisioned when it first came out (actually, that's a fact, if you look at how the inventors of scope thought movies were to be shot for scope). Since then I think it's just become another AR - another image shape - in the toolbox. Which is why THX specifies both CIH and Constant Image Area theaters.


I think there certainly have been many movies in which the film-makers chose CinemaScope with the mind that the image will indeed be shown wider than non-scope, and hence more "epic." (The Rings Trilogy is only one of a huge number of examples). But it's no longer a consistent motivation across the board. Spielberg shot a Goldy Hawn romp in 2:35:1 and a highly anticipated "event movie" action blockbuster about huge dinosaurs - Jurassic Park - in 1:85:1. Surely the motivation for choosing that AR is, as Spielberg said, it's compositional quality (he felt that AR would emphasize the dinosaur's height relationships against the shorter actors better than the 2:35:1 AR - a choice based strictly on the image shape), and not "I don't want this to feel as impactful and epic as my Goldy Hawn picture."


Cheers,


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16200715
> 
> 
> Often the "asrtisic intent" does not require the extra width from which CinemaScope allows. You so need to get over your "small image" issue. It is not smaller, it is just not as wide.



It's not an "issue", it's just a fact. A less wide image at the same height is *smaller*. Period.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16200715
> 
> 
> In a cinema, there are multiple rows to cater for many people.
> 
> 
> Not sure how often you go to a cinema, but I try and sit in the same row (and even seats) if I can regardless of the film's AR. I find that many other people do the same with most people I know wanting to sit closer to the back of the cinema. So I am struggling to see your point. Are you suggesting that some people are going to move closer for a film in 1.85:1 or move back for a Scope film? I seriously doubt that, epecially if they are over 21.



I explained that here:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16199485
> 
> 
> CIA would mimic that preference, whereas CIH would mimic the preference people have for staying in the same seat for both ratios.



You obviously fall into the crowd of people having the preference to stay in the same seat regardless of film.


I prefer to be fully immersed by both, and sit accordingly.


Sitting 3x or greater back from 1.85 results in a "large TV" effect, and not theater impact *for me*.


For you it may be different, but both of us are within spec for seating distances, and are within "director's intent" if it were to exist.


Even if all directors intend for their 1.85 movies to be projected the same height and less wide (smaller) than scope, I'm still following this intent by seating well within SMPTE, 20th Century Fox, and THX spec, albeit closer for 1.85.


As far as your typical audience goes, they are going to find a seat where they find one. This is where how the theater is designed (according to the same specs) comes into play. (Keep in mind, these people aren't building home theaters. We are!)


Only 1/3 of the audience will be near the spec'd sweet spot.


2/3 of the audience will be too close, or too far away.


Your typical viewer may go see "I Love You, Man" (1.85) and sit at 2x screen height, then they'll go see "Fast and Furious" (2.35) and sit 4x screen height, if only for the reason that's where they found seats.


The director can only intend so much as his intentions can be realistically "enforced".


The same showing of "I Love You, Man" can have people sitting 4x screen height, and follow the other people to "Fast and Furious" where they will sit 2x screen height.


In neither case (which is the majority of the time!) is the director's intent of having an identical height image but wider (or less wide) coming across even close.


This only proves that the director cannot intend to have his 2.35 film wider than 1.85 films (in cinemas), and of course he fully realizes that the vast majority of viewing of his film will take place at home on DVD/Blu-ray where his 2.35 film is shown incredibly smaller!


He still prefers to shoot 2.35 for the shape, which is preserved on 1.78 displays at home, and has nothing to do with the size.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16201290
> 
> 
> It's not an "issue", it's just a fact. A less wide image at the same height is *smaller*. Period.



And that is clearly an issue for you







hence why you feel you need need to make that image larger by either sitting closer to the screen at a cinema or wanting to impliment CIA at home.



> Quote:
> You obviously fall into the crowd of people having the preference to stay in the same seat regardless of film.



And that is 99.9999% of the public. I've never observed "adults" relocating themselves closer once the film started. I have seen teenagers do that though.


> Quote:
> I prefer to be fully immersed by both, and sit accordingly.



Then this only reienforces the comment I made a few pages back about arriving at the cineme BEFORE the lights go out. How could you possibly know what AR every film is going to be and therefore choose a seating distance prior to the main feature starting?


> Quote:
> Sitting 3x or greater back from 1.85 results in a "large TV" effect, and not theater impact *for me*.



The screens in the cinemas I go to are least 30'. That is bigger than TV...


> Quote:
> For you it may be different, but both of us are within spec for seating distances, and are within "director's intent" if it were to exist.



These cinemas are short as in 3.7x the image height deep. As long as I am further back than 2x the image height, I am "in spec" regardless of where I sit. I just like the elevation of the floor that also places me centred vertically as well as choosing a seat centre of the row.



> Quote:
> Even if all directors intend for their 1.85 movies to be projected the same height and less wide (smaller) than scope, I'm still following this intent by seating well within SMPTE, 20th Century Fox, and THX spec, albeit closer for 1.85.



Hmmm ok.



> Quote:
> As far as your typical audience goes, they are going to find a seat where they find one. This is where how the theater is designed (according to the same specs) comes into play. (Keep in mind, these people aren't building home theaters. We are!)



Actually I find many people seem to sit towards the edges and I generally seem to find a centre row seat far enough back.


> Quote:
> Only 1/3 of the audience will be near the spec'd sweet spot.



And less than that 1/3 care.



> Quote:
> 2/3 of the audience will be too close, or too far away.



And they don't know any better.


> Quote:
> Your typical viewer may go see "I Love You, Man" (1.85) and sit at 2x screen height, then they'll go see "Fast and Furious" (2.35) and sit 4x screen height, if only for the reason that's where they found seats.



But if they get there when the lights are up, and the film is not predictable (like the latest Bond film) how would one know what AR the film is. In fact, how many people even know why the curtains open at the start of a CinemaScope film.



> Quote:
> The director can only intend so much as his intentions can be realistically "enforced".



By design, something has to give and 1.85:1 is not as wide as Scope











> Quote:
> The same showing of "I Love You, Man" can have people sitting 4x screen height, and follow the other people to "Fast and Furious" where they will sit 2x screen height.



Not really. Most people aim for the back rows. It is just human nature.



> Quote:
> In neither case (which is the majority of the time!) is the director's intent of having an identical height image but wider (or less wide) coming across even close.



Would Peter Jackson really choose anything else but CinemaScope for Lord Of The Rings?



> Quote:
> This only proves that the director cannot intend to have his 2.35 film wider than 1.85 films (in cinemas), and of course he fully realizes that the vast majority of viewing of his film will take place at home on DVD/Blu-ray where his 2.35 film is shown incredibly smaller!



Not on MY home cinema











> Quote:
> He still prefers to shoot 2.35 for the shape, which is preserved on 1.78 displays at home, and has nothing to do with the size.



Sure it doesn't. And why you read many posts (in this forum too BTW) that ask "why doesn't the picture fit my screen?" Why do I see black bars at the top and bottom of the image?"


Having CinemaScope wider makes it look very different from the TV shape screen of 1.85:1 which means to see this type of presentation, one need to get away from their TV. This is why CinemaScope was introduced in the first place.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16200800
> 
> 
> Art, I'd beg to differ. I've worked with many directors. I would say that in general, or at least in a significant number of cases, my impression is that the AR is not chosen specifically because the director expects the film to be much bigger or smaller *in size*. Rather I am of the impression it's the shape of the image - the Aspect Ratio - that is the first consideration, in terms of it's compositional qualities and/or the "vibe" for lack of better word it brings to the movie. (I've read interviews with cinematographers that speak the same way about shooting scope).
> 
> 
> For instance, not long ago I worked on a movie about a man who has Agoraphobia and is trapped in his small apartment for most of the film. The whole subject is intensely claustrophobic and most of the shots were very claustrophobic as well. There could hardly be a movie that is further from the type of content and approach envisioned when CinemaScope was first introduced. So why did the director choose to shoot such a movie in scope? I talked to the director about his choice of shooting in scope and he (he shoots lots of commercials as well as some features) simply preferred the AR for it's compositional qualities for movies. It felt "more like a movie," whatever it happened to be projected on. He wasn't shooting scope with the expectation "my movie will be a larger image than non-scope movies" - the movie is going to end up shown "wherever it is shown," be it a CIW or a CIH theater, or a big theater or small theater. (Most mixing theaters of my acquaintance do not have a CIH set up but use CIW...which doesn't stop the directors and producers being very happy when they see their movie projected in it's AR even on CIW screens).
> 
> 
> I believe that the rationale for shooting scope is no longer the same as it was envisioned when it first came out (actually, that's a fact, if you look at how the inventors of scope thought movies were to be shot for scope). Since then I think it's just become another AR - another image shape - in the toolbox. Which is why THX specifies both CIH and Constant Image Area theaters.
> 
> 
> I think there certainly have been many movies in which the film-makers chose CinemaScope with the mind that the image will indeed be shown wider than non-scope, and hence more "epic." (The Rings Trilogy is only one of a huge number of examples). But it's no longer a consistent motivation across the board. Spielberg shot a Goldy Hawn romp in 2:35:1 and a highly anticipated "event movie" action blockbuster about huge dinosaurs - Jurassic Park - in 1:85:1. Surely the motivation for choosing that AR is, as Spielberg said, it's compositional quality (he felt that AR would emphasize the dinosaur's height relationships against the shorter actors better than the 2:35:1 AR - a choice based strictly on the image shape), and not "I don't want this to feel as impactful and epic as my Goldy Hawn picture."
> 
> 
> Cheers,



My point is that (at least historically perhaps not now) the choice the wider image was part of the grand scale filmmakers using it had in mind. Perhaps this is no longer the case.


I still am stuck in the past in a lot of ways and, at my age ,my theater is my portal since, although I may be stuck there, I love it.










Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16203215
> 
> 
> And that is clearly an issue for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hence why you feel you need need to make that image larger by either sitting closer to the screen at a cinema or wanting to impliment CIA at home.
> 
> 
> And that is 99.9999% of the public. I've never observed "adults" relocating themselves closer once the film started. I have seen teenagers do that though.
> 
> 
> Then this only reienforces the comment I made a few pages back about arriving at the cineme BEFORE the lights go out. How could you possibly know what AR every film is going to be and therefore choose a seating distance prior to the main feature starting?
> 
> 
> The screens in the cinemas I go to are least 30'. That is bigger than TV...
> 
> 
> These cinemas are short as in 3.7x the image height deep. As long as I am further back than 2x the image height, I am "in spec" regardless of where I sit. I just like the elevation of the floor that also places me centred vertically as well as choosing a seat centre of the row.
> 
> 
> Hmmm ok.
> 
> 
> Actually I find many people seem to sit towards the edges and I generally seem to find a centre row seat far enough back.
> 
> 
> And less than that 1/3 care.
> 
> 
> And they don't know any better.
> 
> 
> But if they get there when the lights are up, and the film is not predictable (like the latest Bond film) how would one know what AR the film is. In fact, how many people even know why the curtains open at the start of a CinemaScope film.
> 
> 
> By design, something has to give and 1.85:1 is not as wide as Scope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Most people aim for the back rows. It is just human nature.
> 
> 
> Would Peter Jackson really choose anything else but CinemaScope for Lord Of The Rings?
> 
> 
> Not on MY home cinema
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it doesn't. And why you read many posts (in this forum too BTW) that ask "why doesn't the picture fit my screen?" Why do I see black bars at the top and bottom of the image?"
> 
> 
> Having CinemaScope wider makes it look very different from the TV shape screen of 1.85:1 which means to see this type of presentation, one need to get away from their TV. This is why CinemaScope was introduced in the first place.



My point isn't that the majority of people know better and relocate after the see the film's AR.


My point is that the majority of people don't know better!


And thus, since the director can't enforce where people choose to sit, he also can't have the intention of making scope feel wider than 1.85.


A 30ft screen is meaningless if you're sitting 50ft away. It WILL feel like a big TV experience, and not a cinema experience.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16203813
> 
> 
> M
> 
> I still am stuck in the past in a lot of ways and, at my age ,my theater is my portal since, although I may be stuck there, I love it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



Hey, tell me about it. I'm still awaiting the completion of my theater room, with the JVC RS20 sitting in a box in my bedroom. I can't freakin' wait to start watching black and white movies. I literally feel like I want to go through my whole film education again, adding in all the old movies I've never seen. I'm just as excited about that as I am about watching Blu Ray movies on the system (most of which, of course, are newer films).


It's fun that my son is now 10 and we are watching movies together. Right now we are going through the first season of Twilight Zone (he's absolutely blown away by that series, and btw: what a great re-mastering job they did!). I can't wait to have the projector up and running and then get my hands on the Ray Harryhausen Blu Rays. Yep...we can't escape re-living our childhood can we?


Rose...bud....


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16204097
> 
> 
> My point isn't that the majority of people know better and relocate after the see the film's AR.



Even though you've suggested that they might











> Quote:
> My point is that the majority of people don't know better!



Too true











> Quote:
> And thus, since the director can't enforce where people choose to sit, he also can't have the intention of making scope feel wider than 1.85.



Sorry dude, that is the silliest thing you've said. It is the director's vision and he/she can make that vision as wide as they like (within the limits of the technology) which means using CinemaScope.



> Quote:
> A 30ft screen is meaningless if you're sitting 50ft away. It WILL feel like a big TV experience, and not a cinema experience.



Is that 30 foot high or wide?


The screen in Cinema 2 at the complex I like to go to is about 25 foot tall. Therefore if your seated 3x the image height, your at about 75 feet from the screen and your still off the back wall! So no, it does not feel like a big TV at all.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16204097
> 
> 
> And thus, since the director can't enforce where people choose to sit, he also can't have the intention of making scope feel wider than 1.85.



This is some serious reaching IMO. In a given theater, scope will be wider at any given seating position.


Art


----------



## R Harkness

I agree with Art LilGator. In the sentence quoted the second premise doesn't follow from the first, for the reasons Art just gave.


----------



## RonC

I've got to admit, this is one of the most amusing threads I've ever followed on AVS Forums.


After following all of it, I'm going to summarize my impression of what's transpired using myself and CAVX as each other's foil. (Mark, nothing personal here. I just consider you the leading proponent of CIH in this thread.)

*NOTE: What follows below is my attempt at humorously summarizing this whole thread as I see it. Neither CAVX nor myself have actually said what is in quotes below.*


Summary:

CAVX: "CIH is great and the way to go!"

RonC: "I don't like CIH, I prefer CIA better."


CAVX: "Well _CIH is what was intended_. To do otherwise is contrary to original intent."

RonC: "I don't care. _I like CIA better_ because I like it better."


CAVX: "Well _I don't see why you feel that way_. Considering that (insert 50 reasons here for the Scope-Should-Be-Bigger-or-Have-More-Impact-As-Intended) you shouldn't debate otherwise."

RonC: "Well, I'm gonna do it anyway since (insert 50 reasons why CIA blah, blah, blah), and _I think others should at least try and see for themselves_."


CAVX: "Well, they'll be _corrupting the concept_ too."

RonC: "_So be it!_"


Cheers and Happy Debating







,

Ron


*Note to self--Religious and Political discussions ain't so bad after all.*


----------



## GKevinK

Heh heh... "tastes great!" ... "less filling!" ...


Ultimately, the only thing I wish was that the directors would choose one AR and stick with it for the whole movie. At least that way I can do the zoom and lens adjustments at the beginning and have everything framed and masked appropriately. Switching AR's dynamically (like the recent Batman movie) just complicates things unnecessarily - if you assume that most people won't want to be watching to reframe mid-movie this results in the CIH user framing for 1.78 due to the handful of 'tall' shots and having the unused black bars top and bottom for most of the movie (in addition the side bars that were thrown away with the initial 1.78 framing.)


One thing that I do also think hasn't really been touched on yet is that CIA versus CIH would result in different riser height / line of sight calculations. CIA would likely trigger the need for a taller riser than would otherwise be needed.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16206415
> 
> 
> This is some serious reaching IMO. In a given theater, scope will be wider at any given seating position.
> 
> 
> Art





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16207078
> 
> 
> I agree with Art LilGator. In the sentence quoted the second premise doesn't follow from the first, for the reasons Art just gave.



It's far more common for someone to sit a difference distance from the screen to see a 1.85 movie and then a 2.35 movie (and vice versa), then it is for them to see those two movies from the same seat.


Seating distance is just as important as image size in determining perception of size or impact.


----------



## GKevinK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GKevinK* /forum/post/16207793
> 
> 
> One thing that I do also think hasn't really been touched on yet is that CIA versus CIH would result in different riser height / line of sight calculations. CIA would likely trigger the need for a taller riser than would otherwise be needed.



In thinking further about this I recognized that I was presuming that 2.35:1 material presented in a CIA setup would be positioned in the middle of the CIA screen, with bars top and bottom - when in fact one could possibly choose to use the same bottom border and have all the unused space at the top instead. CIA users - I'm curious - how to you choose to vertically position 2.35:1 source material on your screen?


----------



## RonC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GKevinK* /forum/post/16208456
> 
> 
> In thinking further about this I recognized that I was presuming that 2.35:1 material presented in a CIA setup would be positioned in the middle of the CIA screen, with bars top and bottom - when in fact one could possibly choose to use the same bottom border and have all the unused space at the top instead. CIA users - I'm curious - how to you choose to vertically position 2.35:1 source material on your screen?



I display the 2.35:1 source at the top of my screen, leaving one black bar at the bottom.


Happy Viewing,

Ron


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16208281
> 
> 
> It's far more common for someone to sit a difference distance from the screen to see a 1.85 movie and then a 2.35 movie (and vice versa), then it is for them to see those two movies from the same seat.



My comment was factual,your comment is speculation at best. I personally don't do what you say either in a commercial or my own theater.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16208524
> 
> 
> My comment was factual,your comment is speculation at best. I personally don't do what you say either in a commercial or my own theater.
> 
> 
> Art



It is factual, odds of a random movie goer getting the same row in two different AR movies is very low. Even if it were only a 10 row theater, it would still be a 10% chance of getting the same row in both films. That's a 90% chance that they are sitting closer for 1.85, or closer for 2.35, and both cases go against any sort of director intent to have both films appear the same height. Simple math.


Take into consideration the average actual number of rows in theaters, average seats, average screen sizes, personal preferences, etc... you still end up with a vast majority of people NOT sitting the same relative distance from the screen between two AR films.


Thus, a director can never realistically intend something like that.


If you read my original post, you'd see I'm not talking about people like you or me, but the average (majority) attendee.


Besides, the fact that you personally don't do it is voided by the fact that I personally sit closer for 1.85 films.







What does that matter?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209063
> 
> 
> It is factual, odds of a random movie goer getting the same row in two different AR movies is very low. Even if it were only a 10 row theater, it would still be a 10% chance of getting the same row in both films. That's a 90% chance that they are sitting closer for 1.85, or closer for 2.35, and both cases go against any sort of director intent to have both films appear the same height. Simple math.
> 
> 
> Take into consideration the average actual number of rows in theaters, average seats, average screen sizes, personal preferences, etc... you still end up with a vast majority of people NOT sitting the same relative distance from the screen between two AR films.
> 
> 
> Thus, a director can never realistically intend something like that.
> 
> 
> If you read my original post, you'd see I'm not talking about people like you or me, but the average (majority) attendee.
> 
> 
> Besides, the fact that you personally don't do it is voided by the fact that I personally sit closer for 1.85 films.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that matter?



Where's the beef ? Please quote some data that supports the above.I contend still that what you wrote is how you feel things are. The bottom line is at any given seating position in a theater scope is wider.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209109
> 
> 
> Where's the beef ? Please quote some data that supports the above.I contend still that what you wrote is how you feel things are. The bottom line is at any given seating position in a theater scope is wider.
> 
> 
> Art



Sure, but only in CIH theaters.


There are also CIW theaters. Just because CIW theaters exist doesn't mean I think director's intend for their movies to be projected that way either.


I gave you data. Probability. If you have a problem with probability, you have other people you need to take that up with, probably dead people










What do you want, a poll of people walking out of a movie asking whether they always sit the exact same relative screen height distance in every theater they walk in to?


Do you seriously believe a majority of moviegoers walk into a theater, find out what AR it's going to be, and then find the seat which aligns with the exact image height to distance ratio that they supposedly "always" sit in?


If not, then the director cannot intend for his 1.85 and 2.35 movies to be perceived that way.


Sure, you're right if a 1.85 film was showed back to back with a 2.35 film the majority of people would retain their seat, and of course the image would be wider for the 2.35 film.


But when does this happen?










Please quote some data that supports the fact that EVERY director intends for his 1.85 films to be smaller than his 2.35 films. Even if you could find data supporting a majority, or 51% of directors think this way, I'd be impressed (though it still wouldn't work for the case CIH argues, as you'd be missing out on the intentions of 49% of directors!).


----------



## LilGator

Some more food for CIA thought from an AVForums blog ( http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs...-cinema.html): 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve W (Pecker)* /forum/post/0
> 
> *‘As the Director Intended’, and ‘Just Like at the Cinema’*
> 
> 
> A discussion I’ve been involved with involves screen sizes, shapes, and seating distances. The main question revolved around whether it was best to have a 16:9 (constant width, or CIW) screen, or a 2.35:1 (constant height/CIH) screen, or a 2:1 (constant area/CIA) screen.
> 
> 
> The artistic arguments are that directors shoot films for the cinema, where the anamorphic/CIH system is used, so this gives you both ‘what the director intended’ and ‘what you get at the cinema’. This appears to make sense. When you visit the cinema, the set up is an anamorphic one, the directors of ‘scope films must surely know this when they shoot their films.
> 
> 
> For several months now I’ve seen this argument accepted without question, until forum member Jeff posted comments about his own CIA 2.1:1 screen *(1)*. I’ve been interested in getting as close as possible to what the director intended since I first learned about OAR, back with VHS, so I decided to do a little digging. This is what I found.
> 
> 
> Firstly, after much discussion, no one was able to quote, or provide any link to any director, cinematographer, author, academic, or film expert, saying clearly, or even hinting or implying, that any director shoots or composes with an awareness of their film being shown on a CIH screen. Several forum members are film makers, most of whom have done some sort of film course. Again, not one has ever shot with CIH in mind, or has heard of others doing this, or has ever heard taught, or seen in any text, the idea that a director shoots (or should shoot) with CIH in mind.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, those involved have said they shoot in ‘scope for the shape, and have learned to compose their shots accordingly *(2)* *(3)*.
> 
> 
> In short, I have not seen any evidence that the director intended you to see his film on a CIH screen, whilst I’ve seen evidence that directors compose their shots for shape.
> 
> 
> Secondly, it has become clear that most cinema screens in the US are not CIH. Vilmos Zsigmond (x2 OSCAR winning camerman) says that most are now CIA screens *(4)*. In an interview with THX the representative claimed there was a 50:50 split between CIW & CIH with only a few % CIA *(5)*, presumable making it something like 2% CIA, 49% CIW and 49% CIH. How can their comments be so different? Well, CIA can be used in 2 ways – one is to crop either the top (for 1.85:1) or sides (for ‘scope) of the image to fit the 2.1:1 screen. Alternately you can project the full image onto a CIA screen and leave small black bands at either the top and bottom or the sides.
> 
> 
> This may or may not have been what the THX representative was referring to. However, whatever he meant, and whichever source we believe, the one constant in the comments was that it is incorrect to claim that most cinemas are CIH. They are not. At the very most slightly fewer than 50% are CIH. BTW, he also pointed out that THX certify CIW cinemas, too.
> 
> 
> A further point to note; the British Film Institute has its own high-end (not to mention high brow) cinema on London’s South Bank, at the National Film Theatre. Of its four screens, two are CIH, but the other two are CIA set ups. The cinemas have been used for previews and special showings by many acclaimed directors and others working in film, including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Jane Fonda and Charlize Theron, as well as a host of others, who all appear to have been happy to show their work on. *(6)* On the other hand, I have seen no evidence or hint whatsoever that any director has refused to allow his/her film to be shown at a cinema which doesn’t have a CIH set up.
> 
> 
> In short, most films are not shown in cinemas on CIH screens, and this is true from the lows of the multiplex to the heights of the NFT.
> 
> 
> Thirdly, several directors have refrained from shooting in ‘scope in the past, as they were not happy with the panning and scanning which may go on for TV broadcast/video release. However, once OAR VHS, LaserDisc and DVD releases became popular, they relented. Two examples are Martin Scorsese (who refused to shoot in ‘scope until Cape Fear because he didn’t want his films cropped) *(7)* and Sydney Pollack (who stopped shooting in ‘scope for around 20 years for the same reason) *(8)* . These directors are aware that 75% of the time their films are viewed will be on a DVD (or other home video format) rather than at the cinema. In addition, other directors like Stanley Kubrick and Woody Allen have refused to allow their films to be released on any home video format without their agreeing to the print used, and they’ve always insisted on OAR. Both could, had they wanted, refused to allow the home video release at all (something Kubrick did for many years with A Clockwork Orange), but they were happy to allow this as long as they were in OAR. On the other hand I have not seen quoted a single instance of any director refusing to allow one of his/her films to be released on home video because almost all home set ups are CIW.
> 
> 
> In short, this is further evidence that these directors appear to be composing their films for shape, not whether the screen on which the film is viewed will be CIH, CIW or CIA.
> 
> 
> Fourthly, because of the above two points, we know that directors shoot their ‘scope films knowing that ¾ of the time these films will be viewed letterboxed on a 16:9 (or even 4:3) screen at home, and that more than ½ of the remaining ¼ of the time, when viewed in the cinema, it will be on a CIW or CIA screen.
> 
> 
> In short, directors know that, for the vast majority of viewings, their films will not be shown on a CIH screen.
> 
> 
> Fifthly, other directors without the power to dictate these terms, shoot their films with a ‘protected’ centre. Most of us who’ve seen ‘making of’ documentaries will have seen the director viewing images on a monitor with ‘safe area’ lines painted on, so they know which portion of the image is in the ‘safe’ central 4:3 or 16:9 area. They are effectively shooting two films at once, a ‘scope film and a ‘cropped’ film.
> 
> 
> In short, all directors are aware that their films will be shown on a 4:3 or 16:9 TV, and compose their shots accordingly.
> 
> *To re-cap on these 5 points:
> 
> 
> 1 - There is no evidence that directors compose for CIH, but there is evidence that directors compose instead for shape.
> 
> 
> 2 - Most cinemas are not CIH. THX certify CIW cinemas.
> 
> 
> 3 - There is evidence that directors shooting for 'scope do so with a TV audience in mind, not a cinema CIH audience.
> 
> 
> 4 - We may conclude that, if a director considers what shape of screen their work will be shown on at all, their consideration will be for it being shown most of the time on a CIW screen.
> 
> 
> 5 - Many directors 'shoot safe' with 'scope, in the knowledge that their work may be cropped for TV.*
> 
> 
> Having considered these five points, it is subsequently very difficult to conclude that ‘the director intended’ the film to be seen on a CIH set up, and it’s clear that such a set up is not ‘just like at the cinema’ in the majority of cases.
> 
> 
> I think it's important to clarify something here. I am not for a moment suggesting that having a CIH set up is undesirable, or that this is not a valid way to set up a home cinema system. I have seen some pretty astonishing and wonderful CIH home cinemas. They can be breath-taking, and usually have a most impressive ‘WOW!’ factor. If anyone has a CIH set up at home (anamorphic or otherwise), I’m sure it is excellent, and something of which they can be justly proud.
> 
> 
> However, any attempt to imply that they are the only (or more preferable) way to view the film ‘as the director intended’, or that they are most ‘like at the cinema’, is now shown to be inaccurate.
> 
> 
> Steve W
> 
> 
> (1) http://www.avforums.com/forums/dlp-l...rojection.html
> 
> (2) http://www.avforums.com/forums/8060545-post114.html
> 
> (3) http://www.avforums.com/forums/8081685-post200.html
> 
> (4) Operating Cameraman Online: Interview with Vilmos Zsigmond
> 
> (5) http://www.avforums.com/forums/avfor...er-2008-a.html
> 
> (6) BFI | Southbank | BFI Southbank Corporate & private hire
> 
> (7) Prof. John Belton Widescreen Cinema Amazon.co.uk: Widescreen Cinema (Harvard Film Studies): John Belton: Books
> 
> (8) Sydney Pollack interview in the extra Interpreting Pan And Scan Vs Widescreen on the DVD and HD DVD to his film The Interpreter Amazon.co.uk: The Interpreter and Amazon.co.uk: The Interpreter [HD DVD]


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209164
> 
> 
> Sure, but only in CIH theaters.
> 
> 
> There are also CIW theaters. Just because CIW theaters exist doesn't mean I think director's intend for their movies to be projected that way either.
> 
> 
> I gave you data. Probability. If you have a problem with probability, you have other people you need to take that up with, probably dead people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want, a poll of people walking out of a movie asking whether they always sit the exact same relative screen height distance in every theater they walk in to?
> 
> 
> Do you seriously believe a majority of moviegoers walk into a theater, find out what AR it's going to be, and then find the seat which aligns with the exact image height to distance ratio that they supposedly "always" sit in?
> 
> 
> If not, then the director cannot intend for his 1.85 and 2.35 movies to be perceived that way.
> 
> 
> Sure, you're right if a 1.85 film was showed back to back with a 2.35 film the majority of people would retain their seat, and of course the image would be wider for the 2.35 film.
> 
> 
> But when does this happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote some data that supports the fact that EVERY director intends for his 1.85 films to be smaller than his 2.35 films. Even if you could find data supporting a majority, or 51% of directors think this way, I'd be impressed (though it still wouldn't work for the case CIH argues, as you'd be missing out on the intentions of 49% of directors!).



I never said anything about 80% of the things in your post. All I said is that at any given seating distance in a theater scope is wider. I don't need another page of blog quotes or straw man arguments to divert things.


Without data it is my opinion that at least for most of scope film's history the intent was that it should appear wider than other formats (that was the draw that was the advertising) to encompass a great field of view.


See from my point of view CIH is a preference at home ,as is CIW or CIA. I feel for my room and my viewing tastes CIH is the best for me. I would recommend it to others with caveats.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> 
> All I said is that at any given seating distance in a theater scope is wider.



Congrats, you are correct. Never mind the fact that the majority of movie goers don't sit this way. Never mind the fact that the majority of theaters may not even be CIH. Never mind the fact that director's may not take CIH into account when they shoot films. Never mind the fact that they do take into account that the vast majority of viewing for their film is done CIW. Of course, none of that is relevant.


Only the fact that in a CIH theater, if one were to stay in the exact same seat for every film they watch, scope would be wider.


Can we move on now, or would you like to state this meaningless point another 10 times?







All you're saying is that a scope image is wider in a CIH theater. Yeah, I get that, we all get that.


If you have something to add that bases it's premise on the point you're making, please go ahead, I'm listening.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> 
> I don't need another page of blog quotes or straw man arguments to divert things.



Divert things from what exactly? The blog post was as relevant as any other argument in this thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> 
> Without data it is my opinion that at least for most of scope film's history the intent was that it should appear wider than other formats (that was the draw that was the advertising) to encompass a great field of view.
> 
> 
> See from my point of view CIH is a preference at home ,as is CIW or CIA. I feel for my room and my viewing tastes CIH is the best for me. I would recommend it to others with caveats.



Fair enough. Why can't I prefer CIA?


Why can't we accept that directors don't intend for CIH projection primarily or otherwise, and our own preferences determine at what size we'd like to view different AR films within reason, and still both of us be viewing a film 100% as intended by the director?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209626
> 
> 
> Congrats, you are correct. Never mind the fact that the majority of movie goers don't sit this way. Never mind the fact that the majority of theaters may not even be CIH. Never mind the fact that director's may not take CIH into account when they shoot films. Never mind the fact that they do take into account that the vast majority of viewing for their film is done CIW. Of course, none of that is relevant.
> 
> 
> Only the fact that in a CIH theater, if one were to stay in the exact same seat for every film they watch, scope would be wider.
> 
> 
> Can we move on now, or would you like to state this meaningless point another 10 times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you're saying is that a scope image is wider in a CIH theater. Yeah, I get that, we all get that.
> 
> 
> If you have something to add that bases it's premise on the point you're making, please go ahead, I'm listening.



Wow ! Lots of things there most which have no support. I can see why you want to move on though.












Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209689
> 
> 
> Wow ! Lots of things there most which have no support. I can see why you want to move on though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



You must not have read the blog post. I can see why you didn't want to read it though.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209626
> 
> 
> Only the fact that in a CIH theater, if one were to stay in the exact same seat for every film they watch, scope would be wider.



Yep but even that you seemed have a hard time acknowledging. As I said a long time back this is factual your post regarding most theaters not being CIH,that most people don't chose seats that way etc is just conjecture.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209718
> 
> 
> Yep but even that you seemed have a hard time acknowledging. As I said a long time back this is factual your post regarding most theaters not being CIH,that most people don't chose seats that way etc is just conjecture.
> 
> 
> Art



Where is your supposed "factual" data supporting most theaters being CIH?


Where is your supposed "factual" data that goes against simple probability in how seats are chosen?


A lack of support for your position doesn't make my "conjecture" false. At best, you're just as right as I am, until you can prove otherwise.


As it stands, it's your turn to offer up the other side of the story.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209626
> 
> 
> Congrats, you are correct. Never mind the fact that the majority of movie goers don't sit this way. Never mind the fact that the majority of theaters may not even be CIH. Never mind the fact that director's may not take CIH into account when they shoot films. Never mind the fact that they do take into account that the vast majority of viewing for their film is done CIW. Of course, none of that is relevant.



By that logic we should bag CIH *and* CIA and we should all go back to CIW


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16209943
> 
> 
> By that logic we should bag CIH *and* CIA and we should all go back to CIW


----------



## LilGator

And really, why can't we watch films on a CIW


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RonC* /forum/post/16207271
> 
> 
> I've got to admit, this is one of the most amusing threads I've ever followed on AVS Forums.
> 
> 
> After following all of it, I'm going to summarize my impression of what's transpired using myself and CAVX as each other's foil. (Mark, nothing personal here. I just consider you the leading proponent of CIH in this thread.)
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> CAVX: "CIH is great and the way to go!"
> 
> RonC: "I don't like CIH, I prefer CIA better."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well _CIH is what was intended_. To do otherwise is contrary to original intent."
> 
> RonC: "I don't care. _I like CIA better_ because I like it better."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well _I don't see why you feel that way_. Considering that (insert 50 reasons here for the Scope-Should-Be-Bigger-or-Have-More-Impact-As-Intended) you shouldn't debate otherwise."
> 
> RonC: "Well, I'm gonna do it anyway since (insert 50 reasons why CIA blah, blah, blah), and _I think others should at least try and see for themselves_."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well, they'll be _corrupting the concept_ too."
> 
> RonC: "_So be it!_"
> 
> 
> Cheers and Happy Debating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> *Note to self--Religious and Political discussions ain't so bad after all.*




Ron,


I am a huge suppoerter for CIH (after all this is the CIH forum) and all I ask is that if you want to use my name in reference to stuf that is said, then please find it and quote it properly. Did I actually say it like that? I don't think so.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GKevinK* /forum/post/16207793
> 
> 
> One thing that I do also think hasn't really been touched on yet is that CIA versus CIH would result in different riser height / line of sight calculations. CIA would likely trigger the need for a taller riser than would otherwise be needed.



A very good point given that we are more sensitive to vertical images height.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209739
> 
> 
> Where is your supposed "factual" data that goes against simple probability in how seats are chosen?
> 
> 
> A lack of support for your position doesn't make my "conjecture" false..



And a lack of support for your position doesn't make it false but it still makes it conjecture.



You are the one that made the claim you are the one who needs to support it.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16209164
> 
> 
> Sure, you're right if a 1.85 film was showed back to back with a 2.35 film the majority of people would retain their seat, and of course the image would be wider for the 2.35 film.
> 
> 
> But when does this happen?



In the movie marathons I mentioned a few pages back. In fact there is one on this weekend


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16210336
> 
> 
> And a lack of support for your position doesn't make it false but it still makes it conjecture.



So I have conjecture, and you have nothing.


Therefore, Art is correct.


Impressive.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16210363
> 
> 
> In the movie marathons I mentioned a few pages back. In fact there is one on this weekend



Even then, it's still common for lunch/dinner breaks where people could resume in a different seat than they were in previously.


And CAVX, do movie marathons consist of the majority of film-viewing in cinemas? No?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16210398
> 
> 
> So I have conjecture, and you have nothing.
> 
> 
> Therefore, Art is correct.
> 
> 
> Impressive.



Here is my post.:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> 
> Without data it is my opinion that at least for most of scope film's history the intent was that it should appear wider than other formats (that was the draw that was the advertising) to encompass a great field of view.
> 
> 
> See from my point of view CIH is a preference at home ,as is CIW or CIA. I feel for my room and my viewing tastes CIH is the best for me. I would recommend it to others with caveats.
> 
> 
> Art



You'll note that when I having nothing more than my opinion I don't state it as fact.


PS I've never read your blog unless it is in one of your posts here.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16210461
> 
> 
> Here is my post.:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that when I having nothing more than my opinion I don't state it as fact.
> 
> 
> PS I've never read your blog unless it is in one of your posts here.
> 
> 
> Art



Understood, you must have missed my reply to that:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> 
> Without data it is my opinion that at least for most of scope film's history the intent was that it should appear wider than other formats (that was the draw that was the advertising) to encompass a great field of view.
> 
> 
> See from my point of view CIH is a preference at home ,as is CIW or CIA. I feel for my room and my viewing tastes CIH is the best for me. I would recommend it to others with caveats.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Why can't I prefer CIA?
> 
> 
> Why can't we accept that directors don't intend for CIH projection primarily or otherwise, and our own preferences determine at what size we'd like to view different AR films within reason, and still both of us be viewing a film 100% as intended by the director?



The blog post I quoted can be found here: http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs...ke-cinema.html 


It provides support for things I've been saying, if you haven't read it. I'd assumed you had, which is why I've been wondering why you're still thinking I have 0 support for my "conjecture".










Here is the overview of what it covers if you just want to skim, refer to the full post for explainations and support:



> Quote:
> *To re-cap on these 5 points:*
> 
> *1* - There is no evidence that directors compose for CIH, but there is evidence that directors compose instead for shape.
> 
> *2* - Most cinemas are not CIH. THX certify CIW cinemas.
> 
> *3* - There is evidence that directors shooting for 'scope do so with a TV audience in mind, not a cinema CIH audience.
> 
> *4* - We may conclude that, if a director considers what shape of screen their work will be shown on at all, their consideration will be for it being shown most of the time on a CIW screen.
> 
> *5* - Many directors 'shoot safe' with 'scope, in the knowledge that their work may be cropped for TV.


----------



## Jeff Smith

While you guys are still debating, I'm 2/3 of the way through the build (or rebuild, more properly) of my torus screen which will be used 90 % of the time as either 128x54" WS or 96x54" TV (yes, CIH - using an ISCO IIIs).


But since the actual screen material is 128x60"...whenever I want, I can make my 16x9 bigger (107x60"). I may only do this on special occasions, because in general, I don't care that much about 16x9 size either.


But when I do care, I just do it.


All I do Is make the top and bottom masks go from 4" to 1" each...now that wasn't so hard.


I'm not doing this because any science says its better, or because any movie is better, but because I can. Now I don't care which is better...I have the option to to either.


I can see how this causes planning problems, but if you plan ahead, why not leave yourself the option. If you don't like it, just leave the masks at 4" and no one (but you guys) ever know I had anything but CIH.


Doing this never, ever, compromises your CIH setup. It just gives you added options if you want.


(its sad that I even have to say this, but please recognize this is not saying its better...or that everyone would want to...or that anyone is unhappy with what they have...I just think its cool to pull it off)


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16210412
> 
> 
> Even then, it's still common for lunch/dinner breaks where people could resume in a different seat than they were in previously.



Maybe maybe not. A movie marathon starts at about 10PM and runs through to 5am, so many bring pillows and have a sleep in the middle somewhere meaning that they ususlaly miss the intermissuion. If they do go, they usually send a group to the candy bar and leave someone (or a few) to mind their seats - IE they don't want to change their seats











> Quote:
> And CAVX, do movie marathons consist of the majority of film-viewing in cinemas? No?



Yes they do. These events are held in 3 to 4 differen multi plexes around my city. A ticket cost around $30 and that is for 3 (and sometimes 4) films. All 35mm with varing Aspect ratios. The last film of the night is usually something that is or has just come out on video. And out of the 15 or so cinemas in this city (all have between 8 to 16 screens), just 1 complex (8 screens) is CIW, one screen of another complex is CIW, the rest are all CIH.


----------



## sonofdbn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16212909
> 
> 
> All I do Is make the top and bottom masks go from 4" to 1" each...now that wasn't so hard.



Jeff, do you have four-way or two-way masking? And is the masking motorised or manual? I'm interested in hearing about the factors you considered.


----------



## scottyb

Jeff,

How are you doing your masks?


Scott


----------



## RonC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by RonC
> 
> I've got to admit, this is one of the most amusing threads I've ever followed on AVS Forums.
> 
> 
> After following all of it, I'm going to summarize my impression of what's transpired using myself and CAVX as each other's foil. (Mark, nothing personal here. I just consider you the leading proponent of CIH in this thread.)
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> CAVX: "CIH is great and the way to go!"
> 
> RonC: "I don't like CIH, I prefer CIA better."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well CIH is what was intended. To do otherwise is contrary to original intent."
> 
> RonC: "I don't care. I like CIA better because I like it better."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well I don't see why you feel that way. Considering that (insert 50 reasons here for the Scope-Should-Be-Bigger-or-Have-More-Impact-As-Intended) you shouldn't debate otherwise."
> 
> RonC: "Well, I'm gonna do it anyway since (insert 50 reasons why CIA blah, blah, blah), and I think others should at least try and see for themselves."
> 
> 
> CAVX: "Well, they'll be corrupting the concept too."
> 
> RonC: "So be it!"
> 
> 
> Cheers and Happy Debating ,
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> *Note to self--Religious and Political discussions ain't so bad after all.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16210289
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> 
> I am a huge suppoerter for CIH (after all this is the CIH forum) and all I ask is that if you want to use my name in reference to stuf that is said, then please find it and quote it properly. Did I actually say it like that? I don't think so.
Click to expand...


Mark,


My apologies. I was not trying to quote you literally, and certainly did not intend any offense. No, you did not actually state your position as I wrote it. (I wrote it as *I perceived* the message CIH proponents were sending.)


I was attempting (unsuccessfully it seems) to present a hypothetical, humorous "skit" to indicate what I thought the whole thread boils down to----not all people share the same likes, dislikes, or opinions; and proponents on both sides of the debate can be adamant about their positions. I will edit my post to make it clear that it is satire.


Again, my apology for giving anyone the mistaken impression I was quoting you directly.


Ron


*2nd note to self----better do more work/prep on humor delivery!*


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RonC* /forum/post/16214784
> 
> 
> *2nd note to self----better do more work/prep on humor delivery!*



I've kept an eye on this debate. Stayed out of it on purpose. But FWIW, although maybe not completely on target, I thought your summary was pretty humorous (took it as some fun-poking anyway).







.


Cheers,

Scott


----------



## Jeff Smith

Ron, I agree about this being funny...your post made it clear that we sound like school children. I had to back off and not let emotion make me say sarcastic stuff (like I tend to so, sorry).


It really is amusing that we would get this upset about who tries what, when most of us have never met and will never see the others HT...at least we lack nothing in passion (that's the forum for you).


OK...the masking:


This would take lots more typing than I want to do now, but I'll start by saying it's real easy if your screen isn't torus, still not bad with a single curve...but harder.


I would never be able to do auto masking. Way too much money and would take up much more space and equipment. All my suggestions are DIY.


Think about the side masks, they're easy. All you need is a straight edge on the inner or image side. Once you go farther out than that, you can have wrinkles, etc. and they won't show. Black velvet (JoAnn Fabric) either loose hanging like a curtain or spray glued to a solid back would work fine. Remember, the masks aren't that wide. My biggest issue was what to do with them when they are open. I went the curtain route, with a 1" piece of Lowe's steel as the inner straight edge. This is the only place it is glued. I used steel because my side masks need to hold a slight vertical curve (torus). On my 10.5' wide screen, there is less than 1' mask on either side, so I just fix the material to the outer side of my frame (back around the corner where it can't be seen in front.) When closed for TV, the material is pulled tight, it needs no support at the top as it doesn't sag over 10-11". When open, the straight edge is simply moved to the edge of the frame, becoming the border of the WS, and 10" of velvet falls loosely to the sides. I don't try to hide it any more than that, and it looks very nice.


The top and bottom masks are way harder with the curve, but remember, even with a 10.5x5' screen, these masks are 10.5' long, but only have to cover 3" each at the top and bottom. My prob is the curve, and my old solution involved bending steel conduit and covering with velvet. I may still do that, but I needed much bigger masks on the 16x9 screen 'cause I had to cover more area top and bottom when I put a movie in than I will now...I'm looking for something more elegant, and here am open to suggestions.


For no curve, any material that won't sag over the width of your screen will do, just cover with velvet. Remember, only the image side needs to be straight...and the height is very minimal. But to be elegant they need to look good in both positions. If my screen was flat, I would just manually move the 4 corners up or down 3" (my old setup used velcro but use whatever works best and shows least). So the same edge is the border top and bottom for any screen size, whether it is 10.5' by 3-4" of loose material or 10.5' by 3-4" of solid velvet covered something.


This may sound like a lot of work, but my old setup took all of 15-20 seconds to move, and think how much extra space any sort of mechanism to auto-move it would take. The auto masking is only "more professional looking" to the audience if it is important to you to have the audience watch the masking move. But to just see the HT screen with the masks already in either position, the manual way can be made much more attractive. Look at any commercial 4 way masking and you'll see what I mean...its very bulky. Auto side-only is much easier (but still money I wouldn't spend, I don't want my guests to see the movie setup, just the movie).


OK, here I'm making this up as I go, thinking out loud. I may still use conduit. It holds its line better over length and can be curved, although I'm considering cutting a curve from wood. Somewhere there is a member that made a curved screen this way and I thought I could adapt his idea with a solid 4" masonite, plastic, luan plywood, quality cardboard, etc covered with velvet.


I'm still working in it, but the point is, with CIA (Oh God, there's that term again) the top and bottom masks are very thin...just long...but easy to move.


If it takes me more than 90 seconds at a relaxed pace to change everything (stretch on PJ, move lens, move masks) I'll be amazed. If I factor in the money saved on auto masking, that's a lot I earn with each manual switch.


...its a work in progress. I don't have time to type this much each time, but over the next week or 2, I should have it done and will try to post some pics.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16213450
> 
> 
> Maybe maybe not. A movie marathon starts at about 10PM and runs through to 5am, so many bring pillows and have a sleep in the middle somewhere meaning that they ususlaly miss the intermissuion. If they do go, they usually send a group to the candy bar and leave someone (or a few) to mind their seats - IE they don't want to change their seats



Which is because it's a hassle to find group seating, and has nothing to do with screen height seating distance and aspect ratios.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16213450
> 
> 
> Yes they do. These events are held in 3 to 4 differen multi plexes around my city. A ticket cost around $30 and that is for 3 (and sometimes 4) films. All 35mm with varing Aspect ratios. The last film of the night is usually something that is or has just come out on video. And out of the 15 or so cinemas in this city (all have between 8 to 16 screens), just 1 complex (8 screens) is CIW, one screen of another complex is CIW, the rest are all CIH.



Ah, I see ... Brisbane = the entire world.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16217515
> 
> 
> Which is because it's a hassle to find group seating, and has nothing to do with screen height seating distance and aspect ratios.



You yourself had made a comment about "where ever they could get a seat", so yes, once they have their ideal seats, they're not going to just give them up.





> Quote:
> Ah, I see ... Brisbane = the entire world.



Australia is about the same size as the US and I am not sure how much traveling you have done around your country, but I have traveled from coast to coast of mine and therefore seen cinemas from various cities. The only CIWs I have seen as in Brisbane and Townsville. All of the other cites that have BCC, Hoyts, Greater Union and Pacific are ALL CIH which includes Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin and a heap of smaller complexes in bewteen.


Interestingly enough, whilst the majority of cinemas are CIH with a few that are CIW, there are NONE that are CIA.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16218544
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, whilst the majority of cinemas are CIH with a few that are CIW, there are NONE that are CIA.



I don't have anything but CIH theaters around here (with the exception of the old theaters like the Michigan in Ann Arbor).


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16218544
> 
> 
> Australia is about the same size as the US and I am not sure how much traveling you have done around your country, but I have traveled from coast to coast of mine and therefore seen cinemas from various cities. The only CIWs I have seen as in Brisbane and Townsville. All of the other cites that have BCC, Hoyts, Greater Union and Pacific are ALL CIH which includes Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin and a heap of smaller complexes in bewteen.
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, whilst the majority of cinemas are CIH with a few that are CIW, there are NONE that are CIA.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16219269
> 
> 
> I don't have anything but CIH theaters around here (with the exception of the old theaters like the Michigan in Ann Arbor).
> 
> 
> Art



That's great, but even then your local areas don't comprise every cinema in the world.


You both must have missed this, unless you don't think Oscar winning cameramen and THX reps have anything valid to contribute:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by * http://www.avforums.com/forums/blogs/pecker-51915/715-director-intended-just-like-cinema.html * /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> *Secondly, it has become clear that most cinema screens in the US are not CIH*. Vilmos Zsigmond (x2 OSCAR winning camerman) says that most are now CIA screens (4). In an interview with THX the representative claimed there was a 50:50 split between CIW & CIH with only a few % CIA (5), presumable making it something like 2% CIA, 49% CIW and 49% CIH. How can their comments be so different? Well, CIA can be used in 2 ways – one is to crop either the top (for 1.85:1) or sides (for ‘scope) of the image to fit the 2.1:1 screen. Alternately you can project the full image onto a CIA screen and leave small black bands at either the top and bottom or the sides.
> 
> 
> This may or may not have been what the THX representative was referring to. However, whatever he meant, and whichever source we believe, the one constant in the comments was that *it is incorrect to claim that most cinemas are CIH. They are not.* At the very most slightly fewer than 50% are CIH. BTW, he also pointed out that THX certify CIW cinemas, too.
> 
> 
> A further point to note; the British Film Institute has its own high-end (not to mention high brow) cinema on London’s South Bank, at the National Film Theatre. Of its four screens, two are CIH, but the other two are CIA set ups. The cinemas have been used for previews and special showings by many acclaimed directors and others working in film, including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Jane Fonda and Charlize Theron, as well as a host of others, who all appear to have been happy to show their work on. (6) On the other hand, I have seen no evidence or hint whatsoever that any director has refused to allow his/her film to be shown at a cinema which doesn’t have a CIH set up.
> 
> *In short, most films are not shown in cinemas on CIH screens, and this is true from the lows of the multiplex to the heights of the NFT.*



The fact that THX certifies CIW cinemas pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for anyone arguing CIH is the only "valid" way to watch films.


----------



## CAVX

All I have to say is this [see attachment].


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16221116
> 
> 
> All I have to say is this [see attachment].



Well that's all I needed. Why did you wait 8 pages to post this!


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16221127
> 
> 
> Why did you wait 8 pages to post this!



Where would the fun be for everyone posting it back on page 1?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16220347
> 
> 
> That's great, but even then your local areas don't comprise every cinema in the world.



Did I say some place that it did ?


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16224189
> 
> 
> Did I say some place that it did ?
> 
> 
> Art



Did I say some place that you did?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16224479
> 
> 
> Did I say some place that you did?




In the quote above you acted like my comment had no validity since it didn't compromise more theaters.


My staff right now is calling every commercial theater in southern Michigan and northern Indiana (they've been at it since Monday) We have a talley at this point and it is nothing like the THX and I'm not sure why. So far 297 screens only eight are not constant height.Of course we still have a long way to go but it would be odd to see this proportion change much.


Art


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

In the more modern multiplexes near me, they have 8 to 10 screens each, and it seems that only one or two of the screens within them are CIH and they're used for the newly released movies. After that they go into one of the CIW screens to make way for another new release in the main screen. Although in these cases the ratio of CIH to CIW may be in favour of CIW, they seem to want to show the newest movies on their best screen(s) which also have the most seats. More screens overall means more movies and more revenue.


Something I've found is that the people who seem to want 16:9 CIW or CIA to be the 'best' way to show movies are generally those that cannot go wider in their set ups so are limited by their rooms to a 16:9 set up. They'll tell you how bad it is for various reasons and supply you with links that don't actually say what they want them to say, and many of them have never seen or tried a scope set up so generally are in no position to comment either way. They also tend to ignore the fact that people are actually doing it and are sitting at 1 x sw or in some cases closer (they tell them they're doing it wrong or sitting too close because THX recommends 40 degrees for HDTV in the home for example). If it was as bad as they want it to be, people wouldn't be doing it.


The guy with the blog is room limited to 16:9 by the way.


It doesn't really matter if not all cinemas are CIH, the fact is scope was designed to be wider than 16:9. If it wasn't why go to all the added expense of building them? Just because they're not all CIH doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't replicate the original intent of scope in our homes if we can, and there's absolutely no reason, technical or otherwise that we shouldn't if we're able and want to.


I guess these people with little or no experience know better than people like Dennis Erskine who installs them, or Art who has gone from one of the best systems on the planet to a scope one.


Just what are you guys thinking??










Gary


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/16225195
> 
> 
> In the more modern multiplexes near me, they have 8 to 10 screens each, and it seems that only one or two of the screens within them are CIH and they're used for the newly released movies. After that they go into one of the CIW screens to make way for another new release in the main screen. Although in these cases the ratio of CIH to CIW may be in favour of CIW, they seem to want to show the newest movies on their best screen(s) which also have the most seats. More screens overall means more movies and more revenue.
> 
> 
> Something I've found is that the people who seem to want 16:9 CIW or CIA to be the 'best' way to show movies are generally those that cannot go wider in their set ups so are limited by their rooms to a 16:9 set up. They'll tell you how bad it is for various reasons and supply you with links that don't actually say what they want them to say, and many of them have never seen or tried a scope set up so generally are in no position to comment either way. They also tend to ignore the fact that people are actually doing it and are sitting at 1 x sw or in some cases closer (they tell them they're doing it wrong or sitting too close because THX recommends 40 degrees for HDTV in the home for example). If it was as bad as they want it to be, people wouldn't be doing it.
> 
> 
> The guy with the blog is room limited to 16:9 by the way.
> 
> 
> It doesn't really matter if not all cinemas are CIH, *the fact is scope was designed to be wider than 16:9*. If it wasn't why go to all the added expense of building them? Just because they're not all CIH doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't replicate the original intent of scope in our homes if we can, and there's absolutely no reason, technical or otherwise that we shouldn't if we're able and want to.
> 
> 
> I guess these people with little or no experience know better than people like Dennis Erskine who installs them, or Art who has gone from one of the best systems on the planet to a scope one.
> 
> 
> Just what are you guys thinking??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary



Your whole argument hinges on that bold phrase. Yes, scope is wider than 16x9 on a CIH screen. It was designed that way. Thanks for letting us know.











It remains to be seen whether directors intend for their scope films to be *viewed* larger than their 1.85 films. I haven't heard evidence of that yet, only "speculation" as someone likes to say.


There are numerous reasons CIH may be of benefit at home or in a theater, but there's no dictator saying how close you need to sit for any given film.


I could have a CIH setup "just like the best cinemas" as you may want to argue, but that doesn't stop me from preferring to sit closer for 1.85 films. Just like it doesn't stop me in a cinema certified to specs that all directors understand their films will be presented on!


It just so happens that for this preference, CIA is easier to implement than moving my couch back and forth.


If I were doing CIH and moved my couch back and forth, this thread would be 8 posts long.


But because I want to change the shape of my screen ... all hell breaks loose.


----------



## LilGator

By the way, why is it that 2.35 material is now provided on Blu-ray at less resolution than 1.85 material (CIW)?


At best, with anamorphic DVD's, it was equal resolution (CIA).


I'm not sure why we took a step backward there, but in any case, why haven't we been provided material that gives 2.35 more resolution (CIH)?


Does anyone know what resolution is sourced for playback in DLP cinemas for each AR?


Looking at film, wouldn't it be that 1.85 flat would contain more image data than shooting Super35 2.39, and then anamorphically shot 2.35 would then have more image data than both?


Out of that, how can it be assumed director's intend for their 2.35 images to always be bigger than their 1.85 images?


Everything shot is then "resized" for print & projection in cinemas, so how can some be intended larger than others?


It seems much more reasonable to infer that they are looking for a specific look, shape and feel, and not necessarily any change in size between AR's and methods of shooting.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16225828
> 
> 
> By the way, why is it that 2.35 material is now provided on Blu-ray at less resolution than 1.85 material (CIW)?



Because Blu-ray only supports square pixels and doesn't support the requisite 2560x1080 for square pixel 2.35:1.



> Quote:
> At best, with anamorphic DVD's, it was equal resolution (CIA).



DVD had exactly the same relative resolution between 16x9 and 2.35:1 as Blu-ray.


----------



## oztheatre

8 in 297 is 2.7%... this sounds about right Art. I have spoken with a few collegues around the world about this and whilst there are a 'few' CIA screens out there... and let's underline 'a few' a couple of hundred times, it's nothing like that kid is making out.


I've seen more CIW cinemas, and the amount of those do not even register against all the CIH screens I've seen.


228 posts? Lilgaytor needs to get off his front porch from time to time and experience 'other cinemas'


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16225872
> 
> 
> DVD had exactly the same relative resolution between 16x9 and 2.35:1 as Blu-ray.



You're right about that relationship.


4:3 -> 16:9 on anamorphic DVDs shared resolution (close enough, due to AR), with 4:3 being the format's full resolution.


16:9 -> 2.35 on Blu-ray doesn't share resolution, with 16:9 being the format's full resolution.


Not having 2.35 share res with the format's full resolution was the downstep I was referring to.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16225905
> 
> 
> 8 in 297 is 2.7%... this sounds about right Art. I have spoken with a few collegues around the world about this and whilst there are a 'few' CIA screens out there... and let's underline 'a few' a couple of hundred times, *it's nothing like that kid is making out*.
> 
> 
> I've seen more CIW cinemas, and the amount of those do not even register against all the CIH screens I've seen.
> 
> 
> 228 posts? Lilgaytor needs to get off his front porch from time to time and experience 'other cinemas'



I'm not making anything out. A twice Oscar winning cameraman suggested that most are CIA (this was a few years ago). A THX rep claimed that it's roughly 50/50 CIW and CIH, with CIA comprising a small minority in Nov of last year. You can listen to the podcast yourself: http://www.avpodcast.co.uk/podcast.mp3?p=98 .


Any way you slice it, THX certifies all three, so it doesn't seem relevant how many I've attended.


Please learn to read, and by your standards and 12 posts, it seems your cinema experience would be lacking.










8 pages into this thread, we're only going in circles. It's fairly obvious that there isn't a conclusive end to this.


I mean, do we even have one quote, just one director who prefers his 2.35 films to be bigger than his 1.85 films? One?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/16225195
> 
> 
> 
> Something I've found is that the people who seem to want 16:9 CIW or CIA to be the 'best' way to show movies are generally those that cannot go wider in their set ups so are limited by their rooms to a 16:9 set up. They'll tell you how bad it is for various reasons and supply you with links that don't actually say what they want them to say, and many of them have never seen or tried a scope set up so generally are in no position to comment either way. They also tend to ignore the fact that people are actually doing it and are sitting at 1 x sw or in some cases closer (they tell them they're doing it wrong or sitting too close because THX recommends 40 degrees for HDTV in the home for example). If it was as bad as they want it to be, people wouldn't be doing it.



That doesn't apply to me, fwiw. I'm neither width limited nor unfamiliar with CIH set ups (having experienced several from Epson/JVC RS20/Panamorph set ups to Marantz flagship/ISCO III CIH set ups).


Sometimes I love being immersed in the image, but I always find there is some level of trade-off, image quality-wise, so other times I'll go for a somewhat smaller image.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16225905
> 
> 
> Lilgaytor needs to get off his front porch from time to time and experience 'other cinemas'



I've experienced other cinemas and still find there are good reasons behind why someone may wish to go with a CIA, or other approach, over CIH.

(Not that there is anything wrong with CIH, which is great in it's own way too).


If one is not dogmatic, these points might be acknowledged, as some CIH devotees already have done.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16226435
> 
> 
> If one is not dogmatic, these points might be acknowledged, as some CIH devotees already have done.



So why was CinemaScope introduced if not to provide a W I D E R image that could be stored on the same 35mm print stock?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16225391
> 
> 
> Yes, scope is wider than 16x9 on a CIH screen.
> 
> 
> It remains to be seen whether directors intend for their scope films to be *viewed* larger than their 1.85 films. I haven't heard evidence of that yet, only "speculation" as someone likes to say.



Regardless, the clue is in your own reply.










Directors only care that it's seen in it's original format, and that's not necessarily wider than flat, but scope was originally designed to be wider and unlike some modern theaters I don't have to worry about getting more bums on seats by compromising the presentation so I'll ensure it's done how it should be.


Sit where you like, and watch what you like how you like, but as this is a home theater forum I thought the idea was to try and emulate a commercial theater where possible. For me personally that isn't making my 16:9 HDTV bigger, it's replicating the cinemascope presentation. It's what I had in my last theater and it'll be what I'll have in my next. Why go back when you can go forward? Who has a 4:3 tv these days?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16225391
> 
> 
> There are numerous reasons CIH may be of benefit at home or in a theater, but there's no dictator saying how close you need to sit for any given film.



You're the one who seems to be dictating and telling us how things are or are not meant to be seen.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16225391
> 
> 
> I could have a CIH setup "just like the best cinemas" as you may want to argue, but that doesn't stop me from preferring to sit closer for 1.85 films. Just like it doesn't stop me in a cinema certified to specs that all directors understand their films will be presented on!
> 
> 
> It just so happens that for this preference, CIA is easier to implement than moving my couch back and forth.
> 
> 
> If I were doing CIH and moved my couch back and forth, this thread would be 8 posts long.
> 
> 
> But because I want to change the shape of my screen ... all hell breaks loose.



I don't care what you or anyone else wants to do, but after having tried scope I can't go back to 16:9 again.


BTW, if you're 16:9 image is too small, you're sitting too far away. And what are you doing in the 2.35:1 forum if you think it's such a poor choice? Or are you telling us your method is better? better for you maybe, but not necessarily better for anyone else, and certainly not better for me.


Gary


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16226013
> 
> 
> I'm not making anything out. A twice Oscar winning cameraman suggested that most are CIA (this was a few years ago). A THX rep claimed that it's roughly 50/50 CIW and CIH, with CIA comprising a small minority in Nov of last year. You can listen to the podcast yourself: http://www.avpodcast.co.uk/podcast.mp3?p=98 .
> 
> 
> Any way you slice it, THX certifies all three, so it doesn't seem relevant how many I've attended.
> 
> 
> Please learn to read, and by your standards and 12 posts, it seems your cinema experience would be lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 pages into this thread, we're only going in circles. It's fairly obvious that there isn't a conclusive end to this.
> 
> 
> I mean, do we even have one quote, just one director who prefers his 2.35 films to be bigger than his 1.85 films? One?



I have 12 posts because I work hard running my company. I own a screen manufacturing company in Australia, but what would I know hey : ) I know who's lacking, I know who maxed out his 1.78 screen image in his tiny room, and it ain't me!


Myself, I quite like my 135 inch scope screen which gives me a 107 inch 16:9 image at 3.5-5.5 metres.


I do understand what you're trying to acheive, I really do. I just think there's a right way to do things, and there are some odd and different ways to do things such as CIA... It doesn't make you wrong, it's just 'not right' in my professional opinion. You don't like my opinion because I don't agree with you. You can dig up all the posts you want, that cameraman is way off the mark.


However, some cinemas do show their (few) 16:9 films in smaller theatres, simply because they reserve the 'blockbuster movies' for the larger CIH theatres where $30,000 A lenses are in place. What we have here are called Senstadium cinemas. Most blockbuster movies are in cinemascope format - which is why we actually go to the movies to begin with, right?

I don't go to the movies knowing in advance the film will be 235 CIH, I go because I want to see the film, it just happens, like I said, that most decent 'cinema worthy' films are in scope.


Regardless though of what cinema is showing what movie, I have seen about two 1.78 movies in the past 12 months out of perhaps 20+ movies, the rest, you guess it were in scope and the cinemas were all indeed CIH.


Don't get upset when people in the industry and abroad don't agree with you ok.


Let me ask you this then, if there were no scope films out there, how big is 'big enough' for your 16:9 screen? And what if scope came along later and gave you a 33% wider image again, would you then be unhappy with your 16:9 image? The very image that you had been viewing all those years?


The simple fact remains, scope is MEANT TO BE WIDER. One can still have an immersive 16:9 image if it's done right. Your room, by the sound of it is restricted by width. No?


I wish all films were in scope.. but I have my 16:9 image perfect and like 99% of us, we're happy with what the pros have given us and we choose not to tamper with it.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16227093
> 
> 
> So why was CinemaScope introduced if not to provide a W I D E R image that could be stored on the same 35mm print stock?



Mark, it should be obvious by now that is a very narrow view of the issue, for the reasons often presented in these discussions.


If you _really_ want to go back to original intentions of the format, it came with expectations also of how movies were going to be shot for Cinemascope: the inventors intended there be little camera movement and fewer edits, as one rational was that all the camera movement had only been necessary in narrower ARs. The CinemaScope frame allowed for a more live-theater-like experience where the actors would inhabit the frame more like a stage and, more like real life, your eye would do the scanning between them (instead of camera moves or cutting) and be directed via the dramatic interest, lighting etc.


However, as happens with most technologies, the original rational does not rule what is done with the technology as more people use it. Most CinemaScope movies are not shot as envisioned by the makers of CinemaScope. Yet I presume you don't have any problem, or guilt, enjoying all those CinemaScope movies which diverge from that original intent.


Likewise, CinemaScope images were intended for projection on VASTLY larger screens than the (relatively) teeny one you use at home. This was just as crucial to the original rational of the CinemaScope experience as simply being wider than the standard academy format. Yet this disparity with the original rational for CinemaScope does not seem to stop you from thinking you are reproducing the original intent of CinemaScope. (And if you wish to retort that CinemaScope is based only on a viewing angle relationship vs narrower ARs - "as long as I'm sitting so I get the intended viewing angle I'm experiencing the original intent" - then you end up necessarily implying that someone with their face stuck close to a scope movie playing on their 20 inch monitor is experiencing CinemaScope as it's makers intended....which would be silly of course).


If you choose to focus on only one aspect of image presentation - "wider" - then you are going to miss relevant points to this discussion.


We both want to re-create an element of cinema-going. You want to re-create the operation of a CIH theater, in how scope films are presented; I want to re-create the choice of immersion I've always experienced in going to the movies, be it choosing the cinema with the bigger screen, or sitting closer or farther depending on the film I'm viewing. I acknowledge the legitimacy of your choice; I don't know why you seem to have problem acknowledging the legitimacy of mine.


----------



## R Harkness

I'm a scope-format lover myself, but at least I like to keep some perspective.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16227398
> 
> 
> I don't go to the movies knowing in advance the film will be 235 CIH, I go because I want to see the film, it just happens, like I said, that most decent 'cinema worthy' films are in scope.



That strikes me as a phenomenally narrow view of cinema you have there. There is a vast library of "cinema-worthy" film not shot in scope. And there is a large crap-to-good ratio of movies shot on scope these days.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16227398
> 
> 
> Myself, I quite like my 135 inch scope screen which gives me a 107 inch 16:9 image at 3.5-5.5 metres.



That sounds lovely. I could have a screen up to *154"* of viewable screen width. So if you are happy I doubt you'd consider me width limited.










The reason I'm going with a variable image size set up with 4 way masking is not based on inadequacy, so that route of taunting won't work with everyone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16227398
> 
> 
> I just think there's a right way to do things, and there are some odd and different ways to do things such as CIA... It doesn't make you wrong, it's just 'not right' in my professional opinion.



Speaking of "right and wrong" you don't seem aware that, from the THX recommended standards of home cinema presentation, your current set up is "wrong." THX recommends a maximum viewing angle of 40 degrees, based on the limitations of Blu Ray high-def resolution. Your quoted screen size/viewing distance is much closer than THX spec recommended.


I'm not going to call your set up "wrong," because I'm sure it looks great and you enjoy it. But you invite these issues when you toss around the word "right and wrong" in judging other people's rational.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16227398
> 
> 
> but I have my 16:9 image perfect and like 99% of us, we're happy with what the pros have given us and we choose not to tamper with it.



That is simply to ignore the issues brought up in the forum quite a number of times: what I've described as The Comparison Effect. Many attempt to follow the advice of basing their CIH set up on a "satisfying" 16:9 size/height, the received wisdom being that in doing so, going CIH is all gravy because you'll simply get an even more impressive scope image. But this advice is to ignore the comparison effect, where once you set up a larger image (scope) to constantly compare to your 16:9 image, it's going to make the 16:9 feel relatively less impactful than it otherwise would. Some claim to be immune to this issue, but it crops up all the time on this forum. As I've pointed out, Art is hardly screen-size-challenged and has a 16:9 image far bigger than most of us. And yet he started a thread to exclaim how, once he'd introduced a larger scope image his 16:9 image size didn't seem satisfying anymore.


I found this to be the case too, in my own experiments with CIH in my home (using zoom method). A retort of "well, I'm happy" does not erase the fact of this issue for other people. Sure most are still happy with CIH over CIW (every set up involves a compromise of some sort), but others like me want to ensure a sense of immersion, impact and satisfaction (not dictated by the AR) no matter what movie we choose to watch.


I'm varying the image size, just like choosing a bigger theater to see a movie in, or sitting further or closer in the theater, as I've been able to do my entire movie-going life. If someone is still going to say "that is wrong" he is being very narrow minded (and not a tenable position to argue, either: it amounts to saying you should not be able to choose which theater you attend or which seat you feel most comfortable in).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Mark, it should be obvious by now that is a very narrow view of the issue, for the reasons often presented in these discussions.



Thank you for your post. Directors like Bay tend to choose Scope, but then tend to fill the frame vertically as if shooting for a smaller AR. One modern film example that show how Scope (IMO) should be used is Rambo in the open sequence where the actors are filmed at about half the frame height. This required a larger screen, even at home.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I haven't heard evidence of that yet, only "speculation" as someone likes to say.



We have already discussed this with the *Spiderman* films. If *Spiderman* is 10 ' tall when projected on screen in the first film (1.85:1), why should he suddenly shrink back to 8 feet tall for films 2 and 3 Scope)? Surely at some point in all three films, the main character will be shot at the same height in relation to the frame.


What about *The Terminator* and *T2*. Does Cameron really want the first Terminator to be seen larger than the Terminator in the secod film? And what about *Alien* and *Aliens*? Different directors, but is *Aliens* not supposed to be tight and closed in?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16228034
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. Directors like Bay tend to choose Scope, but then tend to fill the frame vertically as if shooting for a smaller AR. One modern film example that show how Scope (IMO) should be used is Rambo in the open sequence where the actors are filmed at about half the frame height. This required a larger screen, even at home.



I was never a Rambo fan, but on your recommendation I'll have to check it out.


I absolutely love the scope format. I seem to remember it was John Carpenter's use of scope in Halloween that, in particular, made me really notice scope as a kid. I just love the vista-like feel of scope and I love when it is used with more sparing movement, when shots are framed artistically (instead of consisting of rapid movement and cutting) and characters and action sort of move about and inhabit the real estate of the frame.


Interestingly, among the best uses of frame real estate, in this way, that I've ever seen is a non-scope (Academy Flat 1:85:1) AR movie: Jacques Tati's classic film Playtime. Tati keeps the camera to longer shots and simultaneous actions/plots happen within the same frame (i.e. even when the camera starts to favor one plot line you can often see elements of another going on at the side of the frame or in the background). It has this amazingly rich tapestry effect. Have you seen it?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16228034
> 
> 
> Thank you for your post. Directors like Bay tend to choose Scope, but then tend to fill the frame vertically as if shooting for a smaller AR. One modern film example that show how Scope (IMO) should be used is Rambo in the open sequence where the actors are filmed at about half the frame height. This required a larger screen, even at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have already discussed this with the *Spiderman* films. If *Spiderman* is 10 ' tall when projected on screen in the first film (1.85:1), why should he suddenly shrink back to 8 feet tall for films 2 and 3 Scope)? Surely at some point in all three films, the main character will be shot at the same height in relation to the frame.
> 
> 
> What about *The Terminator* and *T2*. Does Cameron really want the first Terminator to be seen larger than the Terminator in the secod film? And what about *Alien* and *Aliens*? Different directors, but is *Aliens* not supposed to be tight and closed in?



Dunno, have you asked him?







"Speculation"...


Besides, non-anamorphic scope is much closer to CIA in comparison to 1.85 flat on film than CIH. And Super35 scope is much more common now with CGI being used than anamorphically shot scope is. How can you say it takes up more width on film like CIH supposedly does?


----------



## taffman

Quote:" I don't go to the movies knowing in advance the film will be 235 CIH, I go because I want to see the film, it just happens, like I said, that most decent 'cinema worthy' films are in scope."


This statement just confirms what I stated earlier, namely the ridiculous opinion of so many CIH users that the only good films are in scope. And they consider themselves film buffs!


----------



## Jeff Smith

Hey, anyone remember this? It's the original posted question.

__________________________


"CIA: Constant Image Area

I'm thinking about doing a CIA setup with a 2.05:1 screen since 1.85:1 looks too small on CIH and 2.40:1 looks way too small on a 1.78:1 screen.


I watch a lot of HD sports as well as scope Blu-rays so I want the best of both worlds really, and this seems the only way to get there.


I want to look forward to viewing movies with both ratios and enjoy the difference in geometry rather than size.


I know this is a sketchy topic for this subforum, but I know there are a few CIA people out there, and maybe some that haven't ventured out of the 'ol closet yet.


I'd love to see some CIA setups from you people that have them, and thoughts on what you appreciate/don't care for about them!"

____________________________


9 pages later the bickering continues. LilGator got sucked into arguing more than he should have, so I guess he's helping to prepetuate the problem, but nowhere in his original question do I hear any suggestion of right or wrong. That all started from the "experts". All he wants is to enjoy both ARs at the size he (not you) want. Rich and I have tried to tell everyone that. Why is that such a problem for those who have no interest in doing it themselves?


...he starts out admitting that he doesn't know what area to ask the question in. Remember, there wasn't always a CIH forum. Were you guys this belittled for trying it at first? I bet most of the negatives were about how hard it would be to do well. If someone back then told you how wrong it was to even consider it, I bet you got just as frustrated trying to get a new idea across.


...forget movies for a minute, no one has addressed his desire to see sports bigger (which has nothing to do with THX or directors opinions). If all you care about is movies, that's fine, but maybe everyone doesn't feel exactly the same way. I know I'm not rich enough to have a different "theater" for movies and sports. Maybe those that are so lucky (or don't care about sports or other 16x9 material) can give a break to those of us with more emphasis on the "Home" than the "Theater" part of "Home Theater".


OTOH - LilGator, it would help if you would stop trying to argue the fine points of cinema with people who obviously are well educated and passionate about it. It does nothing to further your goal of achieving what you want...it just changes the focus of the question you asked from "How do I do this" to "I'm right and you're not". No one will win that one but many will keep trying. Besides, one of the best things about the "home" part of HT is that you can set it up to emphasize the best you can achieve with a given sized room and budget. Commercial theaters are there to make money and must seat hundreds. Some of the statements about why commercial theaters do what they do aren't completely applicable to a home theater... many on the forum have wonderful picture and sound with a setup aimed to please as little as 2-3 people.


----------



## Jeff Smith

"Tilting at windmills"


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting otherwise-unwinnable battles. The word “tilt,” here, comes from jousting.


This idiomatic phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes, and is often used today in reference to persistent engagement in a futile activity.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16228346
> 
> 
> Quote:" I don't go to the movies knowing in advance the film will be 235 CIH, I go because I want to see the film, it just happens, like I said, that most decent 'cinema worthy' films are in scope."
> 
> 
> This statement just confirms what I stated earlier, namely the ridiculous opinion of so many CIH users that the only good films are in scope. And they consider themselves film buffs!



Indeed.










This is only IMDb's top 150 films, and look 86 of them aren't scope:


The Shawshank Redemption (1.85)

The Godfather (1.85)

The Godfather: Part II (1.85)

Schindler's List (1.85)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1.85)

12 Angry Men (1.66)

Casablanca (1.37)

Seven Samurai (1.37)

Goodfellas (1.85)

Rear Window (1.66)

City of God (1.85)

Psycho (1.85)

The Silence of the Lambs (1.85)

Sunset Boulevard (1.37)

Dr. Strangelove (1.37)

North by Northwest (1.85)

It's A Wonderful Life (1.37)

Citizen Kane (1.37)

Apocalypse Now (2.00)

Taxi Driver (1.85)

American History X (1.85)

Vertigo (1.50)

Paths of Glory (1.33)

M (1.20)

Double Indemnity (1.37)

To Kill a Mockingbird (1.85)

A Clockwork Orange (1.66)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1.37)

The Shining (1.85)

The Third Man (1.37)

The Pianist (1.85)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (1.85)

Spirited Away (1.85)

Requiem for a Dream (1.85)

Aliens (1.85)

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1.85)

Das Boot (1.85)

City Lights (1.20)

Pan's Labyrinth (1.85)

Rashômon (1.37)

Raging Bull (1.85)

The Maltese Falcon (1.37)

All About Eve (1.37)

Modern Times (1.37)

Singin' in the Rain (1.37)

Metropolis (1.33)

Downfall (1.85)

Rebecca (1.37)

Some Like It Hot (1.85)

Life Is Beautiful (1.85)

Cinema Paradiso (1.66)

The Great Dictator (1.37)

Once Upon a Time in America (1.85)

Full Metal Jacket (1.85)

Sin City (1.85)

The Sting (1.85)

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1.37)

Touch of Evil (1.85)

The Bicycle Thief (1.37)

On the Waterfront (1.85)

Back to the Future (1.85)

The Seventh Seal (1.37)

Strangers on a Train (1.37)

The Green Mile (1.85)

The Manchurian Candidate (1.85)

Notorious (1.37)

High Noon (1.37)

The Big Sleep (1.37)

Fargo (1.85)

The Wizard of Oz (1.33)

Princess Mononoke (1.85)

The General (1.33)

Witness for the Prosecution (1.66)

Wild Strawberries (1.37)

Ran (1.85)

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1.37)

It Happened One Night (1.37)

Annie Hall (1.85)

The Wages of Fear (1.37)

The Sixth Sense (1.85)

Platoon (1.85)

Nights of Cabiria (1.33)

Judgement at Nuremberg (1.75)

Diabolique (1.37)

Life of Brian (1.85)

8½ (1.85)


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16228963
> 
> 
> OTOH - LilGator, it would help if you would stop trying to argue the fine points of cinema with people who obviously are well educated and passionate about it. It does nothing to further your goal of achieving what you want...it just changes the focus of the question you asked from "How do I do this" to "I'm right and you're not". No one will win that one but many will keep trying. Besides, one of the best things about the "home" part of HT is that you can set it up to emphasize the best you can achieve with a given sized room and budget. Commercial theaters are there to make money and must seat hundreds. Some of the statements about why commercial theaters do what they do aren't completely applicable to a home theater... many on the forum have wonderful picture and sound with a setup aimed to please as little as 2-3 people.



The only reason I have, is because this thread in any attempt to stay true to my original question, failed miserably. Since there's no where else to do it, we might as well argue the validity of CIA right here.


Besides, as you stated, my original question had nothing to do with "I'm right, you're not" and CIH generals have come in here telling me I'm not right! Well ... 9 pages later, we have no conclusion, which has been my point all along- no one needs to be right or wrong. CIA is just as valid as CIH and neither deride any sort of director intentions.


I'd already decided CIA was probably the best approach for what I want, but wanted to hear from some people who've tried it to verify my suspicions.


The problem is, we've rocked the whole "the way it's meant to be seen" boat, and some don't like that.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16228342
> 
> 
> Dunno, have you asked him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Speculation"...



Typical. Youré now backed into a corner and have tried to run








with no where to go...



> Quote:
> Besides, non-anamorphic scope is much closer to CIA in comparison to 1.85 flat on film than CIH. And Super35 scope is much more common now with CGI being used than anamorphically shot scope is. How can you say it takes up more width on film like CIH supposedly does?



What is that supposed to mean? The Scope image on 35mm film is horizontally squeezed by 50% (Cinema uses a 2x stretch lens to restore the geometry), but you should know that generally, that squeezed image is the same height as the 35mm flat image. This suggests CIH to me.


----------



## oztheatre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16228346
> 
> 
> Quote:" I don't go to the movies knowing in advance the film will be 235 CIH, I go because I want to see the film, it just happens, like I said, that most decent 'cinema worthy' films are in scope."
> 
> 
> This statement just confirms what I stated earlier, namely the ridiculous opinion of so many CIH users that the only good films are in scope. And they consider themselves film buffs!



No, you've got me all wrong.. What I mean is: the vast majority of films I end up seeing are in scope, and not because I know this before hand, they just happen to BE IN SCOPE FORMAT. and I don't consider myself as having a taste that is any different to the normal Joe.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16228346
> 
> 
> This statement just confirms what I stated earlier, namely the ridiculous opinion of so many CIH users that the only good films are in scope. And they consider themselves film buffs!



As I stated earlier, I try to go to the cinema at least once a month, so I would consider my self a film buff. And I just happened to find a handfull of ticket stubs which include, but not limited to:


Taken (Scope)

Seven Pounds (Scope)

Clone Wars (Scope)

X-Files I Want To Believe (Scope)

The Mummy 3

The Dark Night (I will say Scope as it was CinemaScope in the cinema I saw it in).


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16069897
> 
> 
> Whether or not the 16x9 size is comfortable to you isn't the issue, the fact that it's so much smaller is the issue.
> 
> 
> 25% smaller is still 25% smaller. You can't change that.
> 
> 
> CIA can.
> 
> I want sports, 1.85 and scope movies to all share the same impact. CIH would only give scope the impact.



I believe this is all that needs to be said. If this is your goal and ,it was on the first page ,our position will not change that will yours ?


Are you looking for validity ?


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16229541
> 
> 
> Typical. Youré now backed into a corner and have tried to run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with no where to go...
> 
> 
> What is that supposed to mean? The Scope image on 35mm film is horizontally squeezed by 50% (Cinema uses a 2x stretch lens to restore the geometry), but you should know that generally, that squeezed image is the same height as the 35mm flat image. This suggests CIH to me.



I was giving you a hard time, nothing serious- you make a fair point







The problem is that you have to take width into account. You can't assume the director never wants to show the same width as scope in a 1.85 film. He has to want to do that every now and then. And in those times people will appear smaller than they do in scope on CIH for the same width being represented. You're looking at this as if the director is shooting scope but wants the sides chopped off. I'm looking at it as if the director just wants a different framing/shape/look for the film. It's no wonder we come up with different conclusions for the same scenarios.


Only anamorphically shot scope is done that way, as I understand it. Super35 2.35, isn't shot with an anamorphic lens (it uses a spherical lens), and as such only uses a "cropped" portion of the 35mm film, though the neg area is increased for exposure (hence Super35) using the same 35mm film.


Anamorphic scope is a dying trend I hear, but I could be wrong.


Really, technically only anamorphically shot scope can really have an argument for being intended to be wider than 1.85 flat. Though it wouldn't be the same height, it would be taller!


2.35 "flat", on Super35 is shot the same way as 1.85 with masks, no anamorphic squeezing.


If anything, it would say that 2.35 anamorphic was shot intended to be wider than 1.85 flat, and 2.35 flat was shot intended to be slightly wider, and less tall in comparison to 1.85 flat.


Here's the dimensions of the exposed area of both film:


35mm: 0.864 X 0.630 (in.)

Super35: 0.980 X 0.735 (in.)


For 1.85 flat, the masked area is: 0.825 x 0.446 = *0.36795* sq. in.


For 2.35 flat, the masked area is: 0.945 x 0.394 = *0.37233* sq. in.


For those keeping track at home, that's only a 1.2% difference in film area. Looks a lot like CIA to me more than anything










I'm really not saying this means anything in particular, I'm just saying it's another example of the director making a choice where the focus is on the framing, shape, and look of the shot and really has nothing to do with intended size.


FWIW, James Cameron prefers 2.35 flat to anamorphic.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16229737
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, I try to go to the cinema at least once a month, so I would consider my self a film buff. And I just happened to find a handfull of ticket stubs which include, but not limited to:
> 
> 
> Taken (Scope)
> 
> Seven Pounds (Scope)
> 
> Clone Wars (Scope)
> 
> X-Files I Want To Believe (Scope)
> 
> The Mummy 3
> 
> The Dark Night (I will say Scope as it was CinemaScope in the cinema I saw it in).



I thought the point of a home theater was to re-live films on the big screen, old and new? Most movies coming out now that you like may well be scope. But you can't ignore some of the best films of all time, a good chunk of which are 1.85.


It's not really a big drama, action movie / comedy split, or a great movie / ok movie split which I think some use to justify watching 1.85 smaller since the films aren't as "worthy". My list included arguably the two best films ever made, and many, many I would prefer to see with just as much impact as scope.


Let me quote a self-proclaimed CIH noob:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *damnsam77* /forum/post/15573113
> 
> 
> I am at the point where I wish every movie is shot in 2.35/2.40 even comedies and animation which are tradditionally framed in 1.78/1.85. Once you go Cinemascope its hard to want to enjoy watching 16:9 content.



Sad really, and not what I'm looking for, and certainly not what the directors of those classic 86 films above were hoping for I'm sure.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16229990
> 
> 
> I believe this is all that needs to be said. If this is your goal and ,it was on the first page ,our position will not change that will yours ?
> 
> 
> Are you looking for validity ?
> 
> 
> Art



No, my position can't change, because I prefer sports, 16x9 (HDTV), 1.85 and and scope to all share the same impact, as I said.


I don't need validity, but I also don't need CIH purists telling me I'm not seeing what the director intended.


I'm seeing the very same thing you're seeing. I'm seeing everything, exactly the way the director intended.


I just prefer to sit closer in the theater for 1.85 than you and other CIH'ers do.


Completely within any theater specs (which I'm not required to meet at home, but do anyway!), and as such well within any sort of director intention.


Every seat in the theater should be a good seat I believe is the idea, so sitting closer for some films is perfectly acceptable, and only a preference!


It's ridiculous to say my preference is "wrong" or not "the way it's meant to be seen".


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16232489
> 
> 
> I don't need validity, but I also don't need CIH purists telling me I'm not seeing what the director intended.
> 
> 
> I'm seeing the very same thing you're seeing. I'm seeing everything, exactly the way the director intended.
> 
> 
> I just prefer to sit closer in the theater for 1.85 than you and other CIH'ers do.
> 
> 
> Completely within any theater specs (which I'm not required to meet at home, but do anyway!), and as such well within any sort of director intention.
> 
> 
> Every seat in the theater should be a good seat I believe is the idea, so sitting closer for some films is perfectly acceptable, and only a preference!
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to say my preference is "wrong" or not "the way it's meant to be seen".



Of course ,I've never said any of this. Still wondering though why you insist on page after page of argument knowing ,irrespective of arguments ,that they will be ignored (by your own admission) anyway.


This is the CIH forum to discuss things about CIH. What is your point in ? I can't find a commercial CIA theater within 100 miles of my home. There may be one, I stopped checking after a few hundred.




Art


----------



## Craig Peer

WOW - this thread goes on and on.


> Quote:
> If my focus were movies exclusively, I'd do a 2.40:1 screen and deal with 1.85:1 movies at the same height. I'd sit closer to make that possible.
> 
> 
> If my focus were HDTV, then I'd do a 16:9 screen, sitting to where 1.78 material was very immersive, and live with the fact that scope is quite a bit smaller in rare instances I watched such films.
> 
> 
> However, this is a dual-purpose setup, and as such neither of the above really work well for that. I want all ratios to share that same impact.



Just use two different screens like I do and split the difference so both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 have the impact you want. It's worked for me for about 3 1/2 years now. Works with a lens or the zoom method.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgall...ppuser/7419278


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16234910
> 
> 
> Of course ,I've never said any of this. Still wondering though why you insist on page after page of argument knowing ,irrespective of arguments ,that they will be ignored (by your own admission) anyway.
> 
> 
> This is the CIH forum to discuss things about CIH. What is your point in ? I can't find a commercial CIA theater within 100 miles of my home. There may be one, I stopped checking after a few hundred.
> 
> 
> Art



And, once again, I never said you did. Why is everything always about you?










This is the CIH sub-forum. This also happens to be the best place on this forum to discuss alternate front projection techniques. If you have a better place, then suggest somewhere for a mod to move it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer* /forum/post/16235689
> 
> 
> WOW - this thread goes on and on.
> 
> 
> Just use two different screens like I do and split the difference so both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 have the impact you want. It's worked for me for about 3 1/2 years now. Works with a lens or the zoom method.
> 
> http://gallery.avsforum.com/showgall...ppuser/7419278



I like your setup, it's a great idea. I've seen a few like this in the CIH sub-forum, and no one complains that technically it's really CIA with two screens!


It definitely solves the hassle of 4-way masking, which is nice.


Thanks for the idea and input.










The Firehawk electric is a bit out of my league for a living room project, do you know of any budget 2.35 electric screens? I had trouble finding them, and masking a 16x9 electric would defeat the purpose of having two screens. Perhaps a fixed 2.35 screen on the wall, with a drop-down 16x9 would work. I'll have to weigh the cost/benefit ratio to DIY'ing some masks for a Carada 2.05:1.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16232489
> 
> 
> I was giving you a hard time, nothing serious- you make a fair point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that you have to take width into account. You can't assume the director never wants to show the same width as scope in a 1.85 film. He has to want to do that every now and then. And in those times people will appear smaller than they do in scope on CIH for the same width being represented. You're looking at this as if the director is shooting scope but wants the sides chopped off. I'm looking at it as if the director just wants a different framing/shape/look for the film. It's no wonder we come up with different conclusions for the same scenarios.



True, but something has to give doing it this way. The idea of what you saying maked perfect sense as I think this is how Scope shot in Super35 works too - they have to reduce the height of the subject being filmed in order to get the width of the shot they want. This however does not meant that one AR would be taller than another when projected in a cinema - even when the subject matter is the same IE Spider Man.



> Quote:
> Only anamorphically shot scope is done that way, as I understand it. Super35 2.35, isn't shot with an anamorphic lens (it uses a spherical lens), and as such only uses a "cropped" portion of the 35mm film, though the neg area is increased for exposure (hence Super35) using the same 35mm film.



Which gives more height if needed later. The first issue of Pirates Of The Carribean on BD has bad framing where heads can get chopped due to the later post conversion to Scope. I have one such disc, but I only noticed that "bad frame" in two scenes and given one actor is standing on a box or stairs, didn't consider it objectional.



> Quote:
> Anamorphic scope is a dying trend I hear, but I could be wrong.



Anamorphic Capture maybe, but not anamorphic projection for presentation.


> Quote:
> Really, technically only anamorphically shot scope can really have an argument for being intended to be wider than 1.85 flat. Though it wouldn't be the same height, it would be taller!



Why would it be taller? The anamorphic lens takes a given apperature size and optically compresses it in the horizontal only. The height remains the same. If you want to see this as as example on your projector, take a letterboxed film and toggle between letter box and real on the BenQ remote.


> Quote:
> 2.35 "flat", on Super35 is shot the same way as 1.85 with masks, no anamorphic squeezing.



Is this where your getting your height difference from - IE CIW during capture?



> Quote:
> If anything, it would say that 2.35 anamorphic was shot intended to be wider than 1.85 flat, and 2.35 flat was shot intended to be slightly wider, and less tall in comparison to 1.85 flat.



A wild theory at best...



> Quote:
> Here's the dimensions of the exposed area of both film:
> 
> 
> 35mm: 0.864 X 0.630 (in.)
> 
> Super35: 0.980 X 0.735 (in.)
> 
> 
> For 1.85 flat, the masked area is: 0.825 x 0.446 = *0.36795* sq. in.
> 
> 
> For 2.35 flat, the masked area is: 0.945 x 0.394 = *0.37233* sq. in.



But the 35mm film stock that the cinema gets is HS'd by 50%. It is intended to be projected wider than the standard image of 1.85:1.



> Quote:
> For those keeping track at home, that's only a 1.2% difference in film area. Looks a lot like CIA to me more than anything



That doesn't really mean anything as there is a huge difference between image capture and final image presentation at the cinema and that can change to what we get on BD at home - IE The Dark Night.



> Quote:
> I'm really not saying this means anything in particular, I'm just saying it's another example of the director making a choice where the focus is on the framing, shape, and look of the shot and really has nothing to do with intended size.
> 
> 
> FWIW, James Cameron prefers 2.35 flat to anamorphic.



Probably easier to look at the "dailies" if it is geometry correct










> Quote:
> I thought the point of a home theater was to re-live films on the big screen, old and new? Most movies coming out now that you like may well be scope. But you can't ignore some of the best films of all time, a good chunk of which are 1.85.



I enjoy films back to 1.33:1. The difference is that I can live with my image height and you want to change that.



> Quote:
> It's not really a big drama, action movie / comedy split, or a great movie / ok movie split which I think some use to justify watching 1.85 smaller since the films aren't as "worthy". My list included arguably the two best films ever made, and many, many I would prefer to see with just as much impact as scope.



It just comes back to those numbers ending in ":1".


----------



## LilGator

Hey now, you're claiming director's intent is for CIH, yet many *choose* to shoot flat 2.35 which is the same film area as flat 1.85.


There's no CIH intent to be found there.










How they are printed for projection isn't director's intent anymore. That's the realm of convenient standards for world wide cinemas. It wouldn't make sense to waste film on huge black bars, hence anamorphic prints.


Even for print, they only share film resolution.


Why doesn't it have 27% more resolution since it has to cover 27% more area according to CIH? 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16236456
> 
> 
> Why would it be taller? The anamorphic lens takes a given apperature size and optically compresses it in the horizontal only. The height remains the same. If you want to see this as as example on your projector, take a letterboxed film and toggle between letter box and real on the BenQ remote.



Because anamorphic scope capture uses more vertical film area than flat 2.35 and flat 1.85, hence taller.


This is only IF you are trying to prove that directors intend some movies to be different sizes from others, which I'm not







But since you are, you might as well be consistent looking at each choice a director makes that would affect AR.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16236456
> 
> 
> It just comes back to those numbers ending in ":1".



This is getting old; how can you not see how ridiculous your reasoning is with that? It's almost childish. You can't compare two ratios and draw any conclusions as to *dimensions* between the two. They are unitless, and completely independent, though sharing a 1 for ease of comparison for simplicity. They are rounded numbers after all, so none of them are :1!


1.78 is really 1.777777777777..., but you don't see that anywhere do you? 16x9 is more accurate.


How does not liking 1.85 films as much as 2.35 films using a CIH setup have to do with :1 ?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16098351
> 
> 
> I'd take it but as with almost anything we do there are compromises. I often wish more films were 2.35:1 when I put in a 1.85:1 now based on my CIH choice.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16235993
> 
> 
> And, once again, I never said you did. Why is everything always about you?



Do you mean besides the fact that you quote me ? Understand, when you quote me you are calling me out.


Answer my questions please.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16236910
> 
> 
> Do you mean besides the fact that you quote me ? Understand, when you quote me you are calling me out.
> 
> 
> Answer my questions please.
> 
> 
> Art



I quote you when I answer your direct question to me.


Your questions were:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16229990
> 
> 
> I believe this is all that needs to be said. If this is your goal and ,it was on the first page ,our position will not change that will yours ?
> 
> 
> Are you looking for validity ?
> 
> 
> Art



The first I don't understand. "Our position will not change that will yours ?"


I interpreted it as: If this is my goal, as it was on the first page, your position will not change my goal, will it?


And I answered both questions as such:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16232489
> 
> 
> No, my position can't change, because I prefer sports, 16x9 (HDTV), 1.85 and and scope to all share the same impact, as I said.
> 
> 
> I don't need validity...



The rest, since you asked, explains why I'm continuing to defend my position that CIA is just as valid as CIH.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16232489
> 
> 
> but I also don't need CIH purists telling me I'm not seeing what the director intended.
> 
> 
> I'm seeing the very same thing you're seeing. I'm seeing everything, exactly the way the director intended.
> 
> 
> I just prefer to sit closer in the theater for 1.85 than you and other CIH'ers do.
> 
> 
> Completely within any theater specs (which I'm not required to meet at home, but do anyway!), and as such well within any sort of director intention.
> 
> 
> Every seat in the theater should be a good seat I believe is the idea, so sitting closer for some films is perfectly acceptable, and only a preference!
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to say my preference is "wrong" or not "the way it's meant to be seen".



Is there another question I didn't answer?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16236552
> 
> 
> Hey now, you're claiming director's intent is for CIH, yet many *choose* to shoot flat 2.35 which is the same film area as flat 1.85.
> 
> 
> There's no CIH intent to be found there.



There will be when they project it in the cinema










> Quote:
> How they are printed for projection isn't director's intent anymore. That's the realm of convenient standards for world wide cinemas. It wouldn't make sense to waste film on huge black bars, hence anamorphic prints.



Ahh, but didn't you say that they choose the "shape" of the image? On video, we get black bars to preserve the OAR. I wish we had true anamorphic titles so that everything was the same height.



> Quote:
> Even for print, they only share film resolution.



Which is higher than the current 2K video we use at home











> Quote:
> Why doesn't it have 27% more resolution since it has to cover 27% more area according to CIH?



Images on film are captured images of light. Therefore the density per given area is the same. Video is electronically drawn, so the more pixels in video, the better it tends to look at a given size - hence why HD looks better on a 100" + screen over SD video. An example of density for home theatre is the zoom vs the lens method of CIH projection where scaling with the lens in place all the time means that the pixel density remains the same for all ARs, but lets not turn this into yet another lens/zooming debate.



> Quote:
> Because anamorphic scope capture uses more vertical film area than flat 2.35 and flat 1.85, hence taller.



Based on a CIW theory only or assuming the "open matt" us used as is done for Panning and Scanning, they have more image area, not more resolution.



> Quote:
> This is only IF you are trying to prove that directors intend some movies to be different sizes from others, which I'm not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since you are, you might as well be consistent looking at each choice a director makes that would affect AR.



Take Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Do you honestly think those films would have the same visual impact if done in 1.85:1?



> Quote:
> This is getting old; how can you not see how ridiculous your reasoning is with that? It's almost childish. You can't compare two ratios and draw any conclusions as to *dimensions* between the two. They are unitless, and completely independent, though sharing a 1 for ease of comparison for simplicity. They are rounded numbers after all, so none of them are :1!
> 
> 
> 1.78 is really 1.777777777777..., but you don't see that anywhere do you? 16x9 is more accurate.



Hit a nerve did I? The :1 is the height. The number you just gave is the width where 1.77777777777 is rounded up to 1.78. 16 / 9 = 1.7777777, but that is just the width. The whole ratio is still 1.78:1 and Scope is 2.39:1. This fact never changes, only the width and shape, and given each number is a unit representation, makes the height constant - IE it is ONE UNIT TALL AND 1.78 UNITS WIDE or it is ONE UNIT TALL AND 2.4 UNITS WIDE. The unit can be anything - 1mm, 1inch, 1 foot, 1m, 1 mile if you like, whatever, but ratio dictates that any two ratios of X:1 will be the same height.


You keep going back to 1.78:1 being the same as 16:9 so 1.33:1 = 12:9 and 2.33:1 = 21:9. Notice that the unit 9 which is the height is used in all three examples.



> Quote:
> How does not liking 1.85 films as much as 2.35 films using a CIH setup have to do with :1 ?



I never said I don't like 1.85:1 becuase I even like 1.33:1, I just prefer 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.


I base my image height on room length (RL / 4 ) and my seating distances on image height (IH x 3). This is simple math that works in any room. The image height is what it is for my room (which appears from you have posted to be the same depth as yours) and results in an image of a certain a certain height. If I want a bigger image, I will need a bigger room.


The point is, whilst I except that image height, you do not (even though we use what is essentially the same projector). I therefore choose to use an anamorphic lens which gives me a larger (wider) screen at that given height. You want to zoom the image larger because you think it is too small and have now introduced the concept and justification of CIA to allow a bigger image even if that image is taller.


In the end, the projector manufactures have parameters to work around and why the throw and the zoom is what it is for these models. It just so happens that the throw and image height corrospond to the charts you've posted.


----------



## Jeff Smith

OK, now I'm officially tired of LilGators arguing too. I wish he would stop since he never brings the thread back around to "how to achieve a goal" like I keep asking the CIHers to do.


Look - LG, I respect many of these guy way too much to get this petty and folks like Rich and I just want to achieve our own goals, not change others.


There is no forum for CIA, and this is seemingly the best one to discuss what we want, but I think if you (and I for that matter) would just stick to the "how to" part the naysayers would drop it.


I wish the term CIA never came into it. It sounds too much like CIH. Is there a less inflamatory term to use, guys?


I just want to use the principles I've learned on the CIH forum using an A-lens and add the ability to choose a different size 16x9 in addition using 4 way masking.


I see lots of threads, as well as commercially available 4 way masks. They must be doing something an addition to CIH, since CIH only needs bilateral side masks.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16236972
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first I don't understand. "Our position will not change that will yours ?"
> 
> 
> I interpreted it as: If this is my goal, as it was on the first page, your position will not change my goal, will it?
> 
> 
> And I answered both questions as such:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest, since you asked, explains why I'm continuing to defend my position that CIA is just as valid as CIH.



Again I never said that CIA was invalid. A respected member Lon over on the 20K forum is using a projector that has the ability to run automated CIA using two screens.


The issue is your insistance on trying to run CIA down our throats on the CIH forum.



Most of us here are sold on the merits of CIH including it's use as an impact tool in theaters over 1.78:1.


At least in 100 miles around me CIH is king in commercial theaters.


It is all but perfect for my theater ,seating and room proportions.












This may not be the case for all ,especially those who watch more sports than movies, but even then it is a great great option ,IMO, since I watch quite a bit of sports in my theater.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16241716
> 
> 
> OK, now I'm officially tired of LilGators arguing too. I wish he would stop since he never brings the thread back around to "how to achieve a goal" like I keep asking the CIHers to do.
> 
> 
> Look - LG, I respect many of these guy way too much to get this petty and folks like Rich and I just want to achieve our own goals, not change others.
> 
> 
> There is no forum for CIA, and this is seemingly the best one to discuss what we want, but I think if you (and I for that matter) would just stick to the "how to" part the naysayers would drop it.
> 
> 
> I wish the term CIA never came into it. It sounds too much like CIH. Is there a less inflamatory term to use, guys?
> 
> 
> I just want to use the principles I've learned on the CIH forum using an A-lens and add the ability to choose a different size 16x9 in addition using 4 way masking.
> 
> 
> I see lots of threads, as well as commercially available 4 way masks. They must be doing something an addition to CIH, since CIH only needs bilateral side masks.



Now now, there's no need to be politically correct. If the mods felt this thread wasn't appropriate in CIH, they would have moved it.


I'm not trying to change anyone's goals, I'm just not letting anyone change mine










You can't ask the CIHers to turn the thread back around to "how to achieve a goal" because that's not why they're here! They aren't interested in CIA. As long as they propagate misinformation in this thread (that CIA is not valid, and inferior to CIH), I will continue to argue otherwise.


The only other thing this thread was created for, was seeing some CIA setups that people have- and I appreciate those who have contributed. It is still very much open for doing that!


CIA is the correct term for what I'm doing. Dancing around it doesn't help anyone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16242503
> 
> 
> Again I never said that CIA was invalid. A respected member Lon over on the 20K forum is using a projector that has the ability to run automated CIA using two screens.
> 
> 
> The issue is your insistance on trying to run CIA down our throats on the CIH forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us here are sold on the merits of CIH including it's use as an impact tool in theaters over 1.78:1.
> 
> 
> At least in 100 miles around me CIH is king in commercial theaters.
> 
> 
> It is all but perfect for my theater ,seating and room proportions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may not be the case for all ,especially those who watch more sports than movies, but even then it is a great great option ,IMO, since I watch quite a bit of sports in my theater.
> 
> 
> Art



Again, I never said that you did. Many other people in this thread have argued that CIA is completely invalid, and only CIH is correct. If you'd like, you can go back and read the posts that spurred my responses to bring about page 9+. Here's an example:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16099951
> 
> 
> The very idea of wanting 16:9 to have the same impact as cinemascope is the problem in itself. Perhaps you could accept the fact that scope will always have more impact because it's one third wider... ?? It doesn't present a problem for me at all...
> 
> 
> IMO this is a prime example of butchering what the professionals have given us. Why people continue to try and improve on perfect and change things around because 'they think they can' is beyond me. Fact is if you did it right the first time your 16:9 image would be correct for your PJ and seating distance.



I not once have insisted on anything, but the fact that CIA is equal in validity to CIH. You seem to agree, so what is the issue?


Some people not quite sold on CIH would benefit from reading about CIA, why is that an issue?


THX certifies CIW, CIH, and CIA theaters. They are all valid.


I am glad though, that you have found a method you are perfectly happy with, I am only trying to do the same with CIA.


----------



## LilGator

For what it's worth, I think this sub-forum could be strictly Constant Image Height | Anamorphic Lens threads, and a separate sub-forum could be strictly Variable AR & Zooming threads.


Should separate most ideas but keep similar ones associated (IE: CIA and zooming).


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16242910
> 
> 
> THX certifies CIW, CIH, and CIA theaters. They are all valid.



That is because regardless of AR, siting at 1.54x the width will equate to 36 degrees. My point has been about the image height where at some point, you may be closer then 2x the image height for one AR - I've not done the math this morning, so maybe CIW and CIA could.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243015
> 
> 
> That is because regardless of AR, siting at 1.54x the width will equate to 36 degrees. My point has been about the image height where at some point, you may be closer then 2x the image height for one AR - I've not done the math this morning, so maybe CIW and CIA could.



I prefer to have both my horizontal viewing angle and vertical viewing angle as close to the same as possible for all AR's with 3x screen height and 36° horizontal as my reference.


CIW can only do horizontal, and CIH can only do vertical, so for my preference, CIA gives me the least compromise.


My CIA math is here, 40° for scope, 37° for 1.85 and 35° for 1.78.


The closest I'd be for any AR is 2.8x screen height, which is perfectly fine. I'm not understanding what you're saying.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16117955
> 
> 
> A 2.37 screen would be ~41" tall.
> 
> 
> Viewing at 11ft on couch would be ~3.3x screen height viewing distance (40° viewing angle).
> 
> 
> If I did a 2.37 screen & CIH my 16:9 area would be 72" wide and would be again ~3.3x height viewing distance of course (though 30.5° viewing angle).
> 
> 
> If I do a 2.05 screen (CIA), my scope area would be 96" wide (identical), but my 16:9 area would be ~84" wide. Now ~2.8x screen height viewing for 16:9 (35.3° viewing angle).



If I had the space for 3x screen height seating for scope, 1.78 & 1.85 would only be 2.6x screen height, NOT closer than 2x?


The only way one AR would be closer than 2x (uncomfortable) is if you had scope at 2.3x screen height, which is pushing the limit itself.


----------



## CAVX

You so need a new projector then


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243167
> 
> 
> So so need a new projector then



For what? The math is relative and works for any projector. Being closer than 2x for some ARs isn't a problem for CIA or THX spec at 36° horizontal viewing angle.


----------



## CAVX

Why exactly are you selling your BenQ?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16243192
> 
> 
> Being closer than 2x for some ARs isn't a problem for CIA or THX spec at 36° horizontal viewing angle.



umm, you think? Have another look at that chart you posted. And the letters S M P T E mean anything to you?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243207
> 
> 
> Why exactly are you selling your BenQ?



Zoom range. I have too short of a throw for DLP, even though I prefer the look










I can only get an 84" diagonal 16x9 with it, too small for any AR or method


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16243229
> 
> 
> Zoom range. I have too short of a throw for DLP, even though I prefer the look
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can only get an 84" diagonal 16x9 with it, too small for any AR or method



Interesting given our rooms (throws) are about the same size. I've got the W5000 working for CIH


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243219
> 
> 
> umm, you think? Have another look at that chart you posted. And the letters S M P T E mean anything to you?



Yes, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.










The chart I posted confirms my math. At 36° horizontal, I can't be closer than 2x image height for any aspect ratio.


I'm still not getting what your point is.


My CIA setup proposed of 40, 37, and 36 degree viewing angles with image heights from 3.3x to 2.8x is well within the spec of that chart.


If I did CIA, my scope would be within spec, but 1.85 and 1.78 would be outside THX's furthest recommended.


No option would leave me too close, or 2x as you are saying.


----------



## CAVX

So what exactly is the problem?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243245
> 
> 
> Interesting given our rooms (throws) are about the same size. I've got the W5000 working for CIH



Well, I only have 12ft room depth, so my throw is approx. 11ft. Seating is 11ft as well (couch on back wall).


You must have your seating closer, so that a smaller image is acceptable, and you are probably using an HE lens, correct?


Moving my couch to the middle of the living room (on top of the coffee table?) isn't realistic, neither is having an anamorphic lens setup. It's just the nature of the room I'm using (non-dedicated).


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243252
> 
> 
> So what exactly is the problem?



You were the one with the problem, remember? Something about 36° leaving you closer than 2x for some AR's?


I was just throwing some math out disproving your theory.


THX certifies CIH, CIA, and CIW theaters because they are all valid and within spec


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16243266
> 
> 
> You were the one with the problem, remember?



Not at all. I'm satified with the image height in my current room







I accept that if I want a bigger image that I need a larger room or I just sit closer


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243295
> 
> 
> Not at all. I'm satified with the image height in my current room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accept that if I want a bigger image that I need a larger room or I just sit closer



Would you like a cookie?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16243315
> 
> 
> Would you like a cookie?



I've got something better than a cookie. I'VE GOT CIH!!!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243349
> 
> 
> I've got something better than a cookie. I'VE GOT CIH!!!



It must be better if it's in all caps.










By the way, I don't think I've see your room dimensions, screen size, and throw length. What are they?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16243355
> 
> 
> It must be better if it's in all caps.



And don't forget the larger font











> Quote:
> By the way, I don't think I've see your room dimensions, screen size, and throw length. What are they?



This room is small only 3m deep deep, so the screen is small at just 1610mm x 685mm [2.35:1]. The screen is a loaner (used at CEDIA as a part of a Sceen display) until I move to new place and can take my Curved AT screen out of storage or new room pending, I may even get that new 3500mm wide AT Scope I have wanted for a while.


For now, the BenQ W5000's focus ring is about 2530mm off the screen. The Aussiemorphic MK3 Lens is shelf mounted in front on that on a custom EQ Rack. Therefore the TR is 2530/[1610x0.75]= 2.09:1.


I sit at around 2300mm off the screen or about 3.35x the image height. I sometimes sit slightly closer depending on how I feel or the film I am watching. The interesting thing is, if I do sit closer (might go to 2.5x), it for a Scope film, not HDTV or similar AR.


So the point is, it works and provides good image size for the limits of the room. This system would have been ideal for the last unit I was in as well.


What this proves if that CIH can work in small spaces as well as large rooms.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16242910
> 
> 
> THX certifies CIW, CIH, and CIA theaters. They are all valid.



Maybe but CIA is hard to find ,can you name a few theaters using this ? I can't find them.


Oh and by the way dismissing me isn't a valid technique in argument.


I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16244031
> 
> 
> I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.



Given the added expense Cinema would have to cover (zoom lens for smaller ARs and 4 way masking systems), you have wonder why they would even bother. There are cinemas on the Gold Coast that use an apperature plate to try and even up the difference in ARs, but all this does is limit the width of Scope from 2.39:1 back to about 2.0:1. They still use the 2x anamorphic lens for Scope films, but they can now have a taller image in a given width cinema. No one (except me) seemed to notice, so I guess ignorance is bliss in this case. It does not make it right and given the strong lean towards CinemaScope in modern film, I can only hope that they will reduce the image size slightly vertically to allow the full Scope width to be projected?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16243898
> 
> 
> What this proves if that CIH can work in small spaces as well as large rooms.



But only if that is your preference. CIA can work in small spaces as well as large rooms if that is preferred as well.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16244031
> 
> 
> Maybe but CIA is hard to find ,can you name a few theaters using this ? I can't find them.
> 
> 
> Oh and by the way dismissing me isn't a valid technique in argument.
> 
> 
> I agree that CIH is the best way to project in the home and likely is the default way to project commercially adds validity to CIH. CIA has significantly less legs to stand on IMO.
> 
> 
> Art



Besides the one referenced in the blog post, and the one CAVX mentioned, no I can't name any CIA cinemas I know of.


Art, unlike you, I don't need commercial cinemas to validate what I do with my own home theater. After all, I have one because it doesn't take much to be superior to the average cinema and improve upon it's shortcomings.


Look, I get it, CIH is way more popular than CIA probably ever will be. I'm not denying that. It doesn't mean that CIA is any less valid a way to view films.


I haven't dismissed you in any way, I have answered your questions, and responded to any direct comments.


CIH is only the best way to project in the home if that is what your preference entails.


I find it interesting that the $20K+ community is very open minded about CIA:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CINERAMAX* /forum/post/13886359
> 
> 
> Lon, I had never thought of the need for equal area on cinemascope and hdtv, interesting point.
> 
> 
> The current and upcoming slate of Blue Ray movies is just a sampling from the bottom half of all the great films out there, I am very dissapointed in the quantity of quality offerings. Turner Classic Movies, and Fox Movie Channel one day will start transmitting in full hd. At that time I suspect you will see a scramble for CIA.
> 
> 
> Congratulations for being ahead of the pack.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=13886359 


Also, look what I dug up in the archive from '01, some CIA on CRT love. Oh, and yes, they used the term "constant area", even 8 years ago, because that is what it is







:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> As i explained above, i am using a '*constant area*' methology for my screen. To show the difference of the 3 common widescreen ratio concepts, i prepareded some images. For simplicity, I only used the two most popular widescreen ratios: 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, while in reality i implement the concept for all ratios 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and 2.76:1.
> 
> 
> 1) 'constant width' on a 16x9 screen. This is the most common concept. The problem with this popular setup is that you either:
> 
> a) sit at a distance so that 1.85:1 movies look perfect, but then 2,35:1 movies look somewhat puny and loose a lot of their impact.
> 
> b) or you sit at a distance so that 2.35:1 movies look perfect, but then 1,85:1 movies look somewhat intimidating, a bit too large.
> 
> 
> 2) 'constant height' on a 2.35:1 screen. I prefer this setup over 1 by a long shot. Its like in the theaters, scope movies open up wider to give a more epic, eh, scope. I used this methology for a long time. *I either adjusted my seating distance so that 2.35:1 look immersive, but then 1.85:1 movies looked a bit tiny, although acceptable. Or i adjusted my seating distance so that 1.85:1 look just right, but then i ended up with a seating distance of a lot closer than 1.5 times screen width for 2.35:1 movies, which is IMHO simply too close for DVD , let alone other sources.* For HDTV material, this would probably be the ideal setup.
> 
> 
> 3) So i decided to go the 'constant area' route, which projects every format so that the same area on screen is occupied. This results in having a almost equal size-sensation, no matter what ratio you display. *I am very happy with the results, because i don't get 'somewhat small' feeling for any format, like i did with the other methologies.* The actual sizes of the different ratios in my setup are described in an earlier post.
> 
> 
> Very few people operate their FP system in a 'constant area' scenario, perhaps because it is mandatory to have a real 4-way masking system to implement it. If done right, its amazing.
> 
> 
> Hope this is insightful to people who are in the planning stages of a HT room (and others as well, of course). Feel free to ask whatever questions you have, here or through email.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Bjoern





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Alan,
> 
> 
> i just love 2.35:1, too! Since most of my viewing is done in 2.35:1 these days anyway, my screen is in that ratio most of the time anyway. And i wholeheartly agree, entering my HT with the screen in 2.35:1 mode gives me goosebumps every time. *My theater is designed to give the perfect experience for 2.35:1 material. So its not different to a 'pure' 2.35:1 screen in that regard. Its just that i use a few percent more screen area for movies in the 1.85:1 ratio than you would with a 2.35:1 screen.* You would have to try it to get a believer in this. In a movie theater its quite different for me, because i usually sit at 1 times screen width or closer, so no matter what ratio the movie is, its HUGE


 http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/s...threadid=15649 


What is interesting, pre Blu-ray, is his comment about CIH, DVD and HD sources. I wonder what Bjoern now thinks of CIA and seating distances. What he may not have anticipated, is how fast our eyes adjusted to seeing a majority of HD sources!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16244065
> 
> 
> Given the added expense Cinema would have to cover (zoom lens for smaller ARs and 4 way masking systems), you have wonder why they would even bother. There are cinemas on the Gold Coast that use an apperature plate to try and even up the difference in ARs, but all this does is limit the width of Scope from 2.39:1 back to about 2.0:1. They still use the 2x anamorphic lens for Scope films, but they can now have a taller image in a given width cinema. No one (except me) seemed to notice, so I guess ignorance is bliss in this case. It does not make it right and given the strong lean towards CinemaScope in modern film, I can only hope that they will reduce the image size slightly vertically to allow the full Scope width to be projected?



You bring up another point about why a home theater can, and must, be set up differently than a commercial cinema. If modern film is leaning heavily scope (as you say), it is commercial cinema's interest to project CIH.


If I projected a vast majority of scope, I'd probably feel the same way.


The problem is, I don't watch modern films exclusively, and the history of films leans exactly the opposite way!


AFI's top 100 has more 1.85 films than 2.35 films (this isn't even counting the 1.37 films).


Funny thing is, the average ranking of the 1.85 films is slightly higher than the average ranking of the 2.35 films










I know this is trivial, I'm only poking, but it doesn't change the fact that home theater has to be balanced in both directions if you plan on experiencing all of film over time, and not just very recent film.


Now, you may prefer seeing these all at the same height, and that's fine.


I don't, and that is just as fine


----------



## LilGator

I found another great post by Bjoern in that archived thread that may help others looking to implement CIA:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> 
> the quotes below are from a fellow HT freak, who contacted me about my setup. I will post the answer here for those who might be interested. There is also a more detailed explaination of my 'constant area projection' methodology. Have fun.
> 
> ____________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> For 2.76 aspect ration films (Ben Hur?) is your screen width then about 117 inches?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! 117" width x 42" height for 2.76:1 content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> One other question: Is your screen (unmasked)in a 4:3 aspect ratio with a width determined by the widest aspect ratio film?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a 4-way maskable screen it kinda doesn't matter how large the screen is behind the masks. The important thing you mention is that the screen has to have the width of the widest ratio film. For height, a 4:3 screen would be a lot too tall. Since the unused screenspace is masked anyway, it doesn't really matter, though.
> 
> 
> Lets assume 2 practical scenarios here.
> 
> *1) Full blown Constant Area scenario (ultimate nerd alert)*
> 
> You do care for 2.76:1 movies a lot and want to use the constant area scenario for ALL formats, including 2.76:1. Then the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is 1.92:1. For example in my case: screen width is determined through the widest ratio 2.76:1, thus 117 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 117" / 61" = ~ 1.92:1. It would not make much sense to actually buy a screen in a 1.92:1 ratio, though. You would simply buy a 117' wide 1.77:1 or 1.85:1 screen and have an inch or two unused above and below.
> 
> 
> I would suggest to implement these ratios in this full blown configuration: 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1), 2.35:1 and 2.76:1. All of these modes would use the same area on screen.
> 
> 
> You could also implement 1.37:1, but thats too close to 1.33:1 to be worth the effort. Simply use the 1.33:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.37:1.
> 
> 
> Same with 1.78:1 which isn't even a real format. Having a mode for 1.78:1 AND 1.85:1 is also not really worth the effort. The two are VERY close, so just choose either one. I would suggest 1.78:1. Most 1.85:1 transfers are actually framed at 1.78:1 anyway. Simply use the 1.78:1 mode and narrow the vertical masks slightly if a transfer is actually properly framed to 1.85:1 like Starship Troopers.
> 
> *2) CA 'light'*
> 
> Its kinda silly to take 2.76:1 movies into account if you don't have many, if any at all. So you could simply use the modes listed in 1) but without an actual 2.76:1 mode. Then you would watch a rare 2.76:1 presentation in you 2.35:1 mode, and again, narrow the vertical masks slightly to mask the letterboxing.
> 
> 
> In this scenario, the minimum screen ratio surrounding all formats is exactly 1.78:1, what a nice coincidence! Or maybe this is why they came up with 1.78:1 in the first place?
> 
> 
> To clarify: The screen width needed here is determined through the widest ratio 2.35:1, in my case 108 inches. Screen height is determined through the tallest ratio 1.33:1, thus 61 inches. 108' / 61' = ~ 1.78:1. So you could simply buy a 1.78:1 screen. Good for resale value, too.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> I prepared another figure to show again how the different scenarios actually look like:
> 
> 
> My preference is from left to right.
> 
> 
> I already posted a comparisson in a post above with pics comparing TS2 and Twine, so these comments here are just to further clarify these comments and bring the other formats into the discussion. I will include the pics again for convenience:
> 
> *1) Constant Area*
> 
> Pros: all ratios seem to have the same "size". None of them are too small or too big. You simply adjust your seating distance to you liking for, lets say, 2.35:1 movies and the others all look perfect too.
> 
> Cons: variable 4-way masking needed
> 
> *2) Maximum Size within 2.35:1 screen*
> 
> Pros: easier to implement than 1). Except for 2.76:1 material,only horizontal masking needed (curtains). 2.76:1 material would be slightly letterboxed and if no vertical masking is available, wouldn't have the full impact of a properly masked presentation. The need for 100% masking can't be stressed enough, really!
> 
> Cons: All formats smaller than 2.35:1 are too small for my liking, but as i already said, i still prefer this over the 16:9 solution. To make a 2.35:1 screen work, you adjust your seating distance so, that you sit a tad too close for 2.35:1 movies (lets say 1.3-1.4 times screen width, instead of my 1.5 times recommendation). Then 2.35:1 is slightly too big and 1.85:1 is slightly too small, but all in all, both look great. 1.33:1 is outright puny! But you could argue 'who cares'? 1.33:1 is not meant to be epic anyway. If you watch a lot of 1.33:1 television stuff, this might be a problem for you. But i would argue that most 4:3 material (e.g. NTSC broadcast) is terrible in quality anyway and not worth getting projected too big.
> 
> *3) Maximum Size within 1.78:1 screen*
> 
> Pros:Very common, pretty much straight forward.
> 
> Cons:You still need 4-way masking! So you could go the extra mile for 1) if at all possible (projector memories etc...) In scenario too, you could adjust your seating so that its a compromise between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1, just like in 2). Only that now 2.35:1 look somewhat small and 1.85:1 somewhat big, which i simply don't like. So the only other option would be to adjust seating so that 2.35:1 looks perfect, but then 1.85:1 movies look enormous.
> 
> *4) Constant width in 4:3 screen*
> 
> Pros: If you don't watch movies, this is great
> 
> Cons: Well, better don't get me started.
> 
> 
> I really tried to keep it short. REALLY!
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Bjoern
Click to expand...


I just wish all of the images he posted were still available










Edit: I found his webpage housing some more info and pics of his CIA setup: http://www.videophile.info/Screen/Page_01.htm


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> *1) Constant Area*
> *You simply adjust your seating distance to you liking for, lets say, 2.35:1 movies and the others all look perfect too.*



And this applys to CIH as well







but LilGator says on page 1 that he can't or doesn't want to move his seating. It is all about image height, not width.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16244234
> 
> 
> And this applys to CIH as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but LilGator says on page 1 that he can't or doesn't want to move his seating. It is all about image height, not width.



Um, no, if it did he wouldn't have created his CIA setup.










He seems to have a different opinion from yours ... which I share











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/0
> 
> *'Constant area' projection is IMHO by far the best methology, because the brains 'size sensation' is perceived through area, not width or height.*



Also read what he wrote about CIH:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Cons: All formats smaller than 2.35:1 are too small for my liking, but as i already said, i still prefer this over the 16:9 solution. To make a 2.35:1 screen work, you adjust your seating distance so, that you sit a tad too close for 2.35:1 movies (lets say 1.3-1.4 times screen width, instead of my 1.5 times recommendation). Then 2.35:1 is slightly too big and 1.85:1 is slightly too small, but all in all, both look great.



If you're fully moving your seats for CIH closer for 1.85 films, then you are doing CIA anyway, just in a round about way!


CIA allows you to set your seats once, and all AR's share the same viewing area at that seating distance, no seat moving required, and exactly what I'm trying to do.










It's not just about image height, it's about both. That's my preference.


You have yours.


----------



## LilGator

I decided to construct some mockups of what a CIA setup would look like on a standard 16x9 screen. This setup would be ideal as Bjoern mentions, if you view a lot of 4:3, 1.85, and 2.35.


It's hard to justify for me over a 2.05 screen (common denominator for 1.78, 1.85, 2.35), since I don't do 4:3 as much as the others, or care to see it at that size all the time ... but, the following post I think makes up for it










It's interesting that in the 80's 16x9 was created since it could house all aspect ratios, being both the greatest common denominator and the least common denominator of possible ratios shown in *constant area*!


Yes, 16x9 was created on the *constant area* concept, oh ... nearly 30 years ago.


Where we went wrong since then, was forcing 16x9 displays to be CIW (not that I blame them, based on the tech), which throws the AR's all out of whack










This is how stretched 4:3 and zoomed 2.35 came about with HDTV as well










With home front projection and masking easily done, why can't we go back to the roots of the 16x9 screen housing all aspect ratios (OAR!) at constant area idea?

*The Wages of Fear (1953) shown in 1.37*:









*Prison Break: Season 1 (2005) shown in 1.78*:









*Doubt (2008) shown in 1.85*:









*Quantum of Solace (2008) shown in 2.40*:


----------



## LilGator

And, drumroll..... the best part about this setup, besides the fact that 1.37/1.78/1.85/2.35 are all shown constant area ... is that The Dark Knight can be projected exactly as intended in relation to all AR's!










I know CAVX, one of your blog posts mentions this as the best way for this film.


Future proof, ain't it







And yet it gives old 1.37 & 1.85 films all the justice they deserve.

*The Dark Knight (2008) shown in 2.35*:









*The Dark Knight (2008) IMAX scene shown in 1.78*:


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16244154
> 
> 
> Art, unlike you, I don't need commercial cinemas to validate what I do with my own home theater.



Nor do I, you are the one using the THX certification as a means of vaidating CIA.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16244154
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that the $20K+ community is very open minded about CIA:



Yes they are, I'm one. Peter,Bjoern and Lon are also as I've mentioned.



Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16245168
> 
> 
> Nor do I, you are the one using the THX certification as a means of vaidating CIA.



I'm using THX certification to prove that CIH is not the only valid way to watch films.


I'm not the one calling hundreds of theaters to see what they do.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16246157
> 
> 
> I'm using THX certification to prove that CIH is not the only valid way to watch films.
> 
> 
> I'm not the one calling hundreds of theaters to see what they do.



You mentioned a 50:50 split in an earlier post which is just false.When I said that my local theaters were CIH you said that my local theaters don't mean all the theaters in the world or some such. I know better but I was willing to go the extra mile to show you. Instead of admitting that you were wrong you ridicule my efforts.


Art


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16220347
> 
> 
> That's great, but even then your local areas don't comprise every cinema in the world.
> 
> 
> .



Here it is. I could call every cinema in the world but I don't think that will be necessary.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16246860
> 
> 
> You mentioned a 50:50 split in an earlier post which is just false.When I said that my local theaters were CIH you said that my local theaters don't mean all the theaters in the world or some such. I know better but I was willing to go the extra mile to show you. Instead of admitting that you were wrong you ridicule my efforts.
> 
> 
> Art



Um, I quoted a THX rep who stated it was 50/50 CIW & CIH with a small percentage of CIA.


You can take it up with him if you'd like.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16247325
> 
> 
> Here it is. I could call every cinema in the world but I don't think that will be necessary.
> 
> 
> Art



You could, and until then you can't say for sure what the ratio of formats is.


I'm not seeing the difference it makes though, THX certifies all three.


Why are you still going on about this?


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16247344
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not seeing the difference it makes though, THX certifies all three.
> 
> 
> Why are you still going on about this?



The difference is you stated that my contention that CIH was by far the most commonly used technique was not adequately supported ,it is.


Art


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16244300
> 
> 
> With home front projection _*and masking easily done*_, why can't we go back to the roots of the 16x9 screen housing all aspect ratios (OAR!) at constant area idea?



Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either _very_ expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and _lots_ of work, but certianly not both.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16247698
> 
> 
> The difference is you stated that my contention that CIH was by far the most commonly used technique was not adequately supported ,it is.
> 
> 
> Art



Maybe, maybe not. THX rep disagrees with you.


Accurately, the theaters in a decent radius around your area use CIH as the most common technique.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16247701
> 
> 
> Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either _very_ expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and _lots_ of work, but certianly not both.



Sorry, I was making a comparison to masking typical 16:9 displays (since the 80's when the concept of 16:9 came about).


A home theater is more flexible now with FP, and though very expensive or lots of work, it can be done. Masking other displays over the years was never practical, and as such CIA was never practical until now.


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16247701
> 
> 
> Exactly how would masking for a CIA FP setup be easy? A 4-way masking system can be either _very_ expensive and relatively easy, or cheap and _lots_ of work, but certianly not both.



The difficulty of DIY 4-way masking is always overstated on this forum. The fact is that anybody with basic handyman skills can put together a motorised 4-way masking system for about $500.00, and it looks and works just as good as a professional system costing $10k.

You have to realize that to a large extent AVS Forum is a promotional marketplace for all kinds of high-end equipment, so it easy to get the impression that you can't get good results with anything less. In the case of 4-way masking, nothing could be farther from the truth.


----------



## scottyb

Hey taffman,

Can you PM me plans for this system. I only need two way masking.


Thanks,

Scott


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16248962
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. THX rep disagrees with you.



So says you. What is his username on this site?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16249066
> 
> 
> So says you. What is his username on this site?



Not says me, says him. You can listen to the interview yourself. I'm not going to post it for a third time, go back and actually read my posts


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16248962
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. THX rep disagrees with you.
> 
> 
> Accurately, the theaters in a decent radius around your area use CIH as the most common technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I'd bet my you know waht that if I were to have my staff make random calls all over the country that the proportion would be very similar.


Of course just as in this case you say it wasn't enough to prove anything.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16250738
> 
> 
> I'd bet my you know waht that if I were to have my staff make random calls all over the country that the proportion would be very similar.
> 
> 
> Of course just as in this case you say it wasn't enough to prove anything.
> 
> 
> Art



That's a pretty vague assumption. You're assuming whoever answers the call on the other end actually knows the difference between CIH, CIW, & CIA. If so, will they say CIH if their primary screen is CIH? Will they say CIH if the majority of screens in their cinema are CIH?


I'll take THX's estimation with a few more grains of salt, thank you.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16251548
> 
> 
> That's a pretty vague assumption. You're assuming whoever answers the call on the other end actually knows the difference between CIH, CIW, & CIA. If so, will they say CIH if their primary screen is CIH? Will they say CIH if the majority of screens in their cinema are CIH?



No it isn't at all. The only ones included were ones where the manager of the theater were asked specifically regarding the screen shape and masking.No one ever was asked about CIH,CIW or CIA.


Your attempts here are reaching. This is cut and dried. This is simply a sample yes, but it got pretty big.


Let me guess,now you will go back to arguing that you don't need the commercial cinema model. If that's the case ,then I suggest you quite arguing that for CIA.


Art


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16248983
> 
> 
> The difficulty of DIY 4-way masking is always overstated on this forum. The fact is that anybody with basic handyman skills can put together a motorised 4-way masking system for about $500.00, and it looks and works just as good as a professional system costing $10k.
> 
> You have to realize that to a large extent AVS Forum is a promotional marketplace for all kinds of high-end equipment, so it easy to get the impression that you can't get good results with anything less. In the case of 4-way masking, nothing could be farther from the truth.



Actually I've followed the 4-way masking system thread in the DIY portion of this forum for quite some time. The manual 4-way masking system isn't expensive, but even that is probably more than a single weekend project. They're still looking for an inexpensive and practical way to motorize that system - their most recent attempts have been significantly noisier and slower than conventional systems. It seems they've solved the problem of positioning the masks using memory presets. However the scope of such a project (no pun intended) is beyond your average "handyman" level and would require some learning for your average guy. You may be familiar with most of the systems required to do this already - I would venture a guess that your average person is not. Not to mention that $500 is definitely on the low side for a fully motorized 4-way masking system with presets for a significant number of ARs like what you would get from a professional system. As I said, it's a trade between money and time.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16251548
> 
> 
> That's a pretty vague assumption. You're assuming whoever answers the call on the other end actually knows the difference between CIH, CIW, & CIA. If so, will they say CIH if their primary screen is CIH? Will they say CIH if the majority of screens in their cinema are CIH?
> 
> 
> I'll take THX's estimation with a few more grains of salt, thank you.



He's not making an assumption, it's called statistics. Poll a random sample group of sufficient size, and you can extend the results to the entire population.


I think Art has sufficiently illustrated the rarity of CIA in commercial cinema.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16251998
> 
> 
> I think Art has sufficiently illustrated the rarity of CIA in commercial cinema.



LilGator only mocked me when I told him that out of all the cinemas I have beeni into (and that is quite allot), that most were CIH, a very limited few were CIW and none were CIA.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16251900
> 
> 
> No it isn't at all. The only ones included were ones where the manager of the theater were asked specifically regarding the screen shape and masking.No one ever was asked about CIH,CIW or CIA.
> 
> 
> Your attempts here are reaching. This is cut and dried. This is simply a sample yes, but it got pretty big.
> 
> 
> Let me guess,now you will go back to arguing that you don't need the commercial cinema model. If that's the case ,then I suggest you quite arguing that for CIA.
> 
> 
> Art





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16251998
> 
> 
> He's not making an assumption, it's called statistics. Poll a random sample group of sufficient size, and you can extend the results to the entire population.
> 
> 
> I think Art has sufficiently illustrated the rarity of CIA in commercial cinema.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16252470
> 
> 
> LilGator only mocked me when I told him that out of all the cinemas I have beeni into (and that is quite allot), that most were CIH, a very limited few were CIW and none were CIA.



Polling only cinemas in your area does not constitute a worldwide random sample.










I can dismiss your "scientific polling" just as much as you dismiss THX's stats.


Would you like to argue about this for 14 more pages? If so, I'm game.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16252633
> 
> 
> Polling only cinemas in your area does not constitute a worldwide random sample.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can dismiss your "scientific polling" just as much as you dismiss THX's stats.
> 
> 
> Would you like to argue about this for 14 more pages? If so, I'm game.




Well from this ,as I said previously, you are refusing to accept the obvious. I knew you wouldn't like it when I could come up with hundreds opf theaters indicating the dominance of CIH in commercial theater. I also knew that even if I was able to show this fact even with a sample this large you would attempt to squirm out of the facts (now requiring me to contact every theater in the world) . What is sad is even if I did that you would not admit that your stance even with this one simple point is untenable.


I personally am not up for arguing for endless periods with someone anyone in this thread can see has a problem admitting they are wrong.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16252718
> 
> 
> I personally am not up for arguing for endless periods with someone anyone in this thread can see has a problem admitting they are wrong.
> 
> 
> Art



Indeed, likewise.










Like I said before, I'll take THX's specs with a few more grains of salt than a Michigan/Indiana sample.


The THX rep has no agenda.


You might.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16252742
> 
> 
> Indeed, likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I'll take THX's specs with a few more grains of salt than a Michigan/Indiana sample.
> 
> 
> The THX rep has no agenda.
> 
> 
> You might.



Best of luck !


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16252742
> 
> 
> Indeed, likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said before, I'll take THX's specs with a few more grains of salt than a Michigan/Indiana sample.
> 
> 
> The THX rep has no agenda.
> 
> 
> You might.



Because you _obviously_ don't have an agenda.










Art is a straight shooter and doesn't come here with an agenda. I don't know him personally but I know that all those who do respect him and his many positive contributions to this forum. You're not going to win any support by attacking him personally. And I guarantee you, with the amount of money he has it his disposal, were he to want a CIA setup he could have it, but he doesn't.


Cherry-picking and manufacturing information which only support your CIA crusade while systematically dismissing legitimate information contrary to your opinion aren't going to help you either. The burden of proof lies with you to show how common CIA is commercially since you're the one making the assertion. Currently your "proof" has been 1) the internet, where one can find "proof" of just about anything, and 2) a supposed single person's statement - a THX rep who may or may not be correct. I find it ironic that Art's findings agree with CAVX's - who lives on another continent - yet you dismiss both as being too narrow with their samples. Meanwhile you have yet to provide any salient proof for your assertions aside from parroting "a THX rep said..." At this point you've achieved nothing more than an opinion-based rant and attacks on respected forum members. Maybe this mental masturbation is keeping you happy, but to most others here you're just becoming borderline obnoxious.


----------



## LilGator

I find it interesting that you want to argue with THX's stats, when they send out teams of engineers to verify/certify these cinemas around the world.


THX certifies all three scenarios.

*All three are acceptable and equally valid.*


You keep ignoring this point, but it's still 100% true.


At the very least it's quite questionable that CIH is the most widely used, but EVEN SO, it doesn't make it more valid than others. 99.9% of theaters could be CIH, but even then, CIA is still 100% a valid presentation of a director's intentions on film.


Playing the numbers game isn't doing anything for you. "Well, more are CIH so it must be better".


*Yawn*


The only defense you have is this statement I hear all the time, "most theaters are CIH" and the reason I've brought it up in this thread is that even that can't be proved and may even be completely false!


CIH, CIW, CIA are all three valid and NONE are better than another EXCEPT where personal preference reigns.


That has been my theme: *refute this*.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16252866
> 
> 
> Because you _obviously_ don't have an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art is a straight shooter and doesn't come here with an agenda. I don't know him personally but I know that all those who do respect him and his many positive contributions to this forum. You're not going to win any support by attacking him personally. And I guarantee you, with the amount of money he has it his disposal, were he to want a CIA setup he could have it, but he doesn't.
> 
> 
> Cherry-picking and manufacturing information which only support your CIA crusade while systematically dismissing legitimate information contrary to your opinion aren't going to help you either. The burden of proof lies with you to show how common CIA is commercially since you're the one making the assertion. Currently your "proof" has been 1) the internet, where one can find "proof" of just about anything, and 2) a supposed single person's statement - a THX rep who may or may not be correct. I find it ironic that Art's findings agree with CAVX's - who lives on another continent - yet you dismiss both as being too narrow with their samples. Meanwhile you have yet to provide any salient proof for your assertions aside from parroting "a THX rep said..." At this point you've achieved nothing more than an opinion-based rant and attacks on respected forum members. Maybe this mental masturbation is keeping you happy, but to most others here you're just becoming borderline obnoxious.



Art doesn't have an agenda, has no desire to use, validate, or discuss CIA, yet is in this very, lone might I add, CIA thread.


Right.


Am I in CIH threads trolling them with CIA agenda? No?


I am also not providing statistics done by myself which you have to take my word at. Sorry, but those are the facts.










I'm not looking to win any support, I'm just trying to defend the position that CIA is as valid as CIH and CIW.


If you don't like THX's stats, take it up with them. The rep's name is Andrew (last name was in the interview, don't remember off the top of my head), and he seems to be pretty knowledgeable.


I've not ever said CIA dominates commercially, only that CIH doesn't necessarily do that itself, which is the PRIMARY argument for CIH's superiority!


Here's where this started:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16209586
> 
> *At any given seating distance in a theater scope is wider.*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16193548
> 
> 
> I heard Transformers 2 will also be shot this way, but that doesn't mean that we all need to dump our scope screens as *95% of all cinemas are* not IMAX, they are *CIH*.



I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you and that assertion










Can you tell me your purpose in this CIA thread? You're certainly aiding the topic at hand.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16252910
> 
> 
> Art doesn't have an agenda, has no desire to use, validate, or discuss CIA, yet is in this very, lone might I add, CIA thread.
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> Am I in CIH threads trolling them with CIA agenda? No?
> 
> 
> I am also not providing statistics done by myself which you have to take my word at. Sorry, but those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking to win any support, I'm just trying to defend the position that CIA is as valid as CIH and CIW.
> 
> 
> If you don't like THX's stats, take it up with them. The rep's name is Andrew (last name was in the interview, don't remember off the top of my head), and he seems to be pretty knowledgeable.
> 
> 
> I've not ever said CIA dominates commercially, only that CIH doesn't necessarily do that itself, which is the PRIMARY argument for CIH's superiority!
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you and that assertion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me your purpose in this CIA thread? You're certainly aiding the topic at hand.



I might remind you you're in the CIH forum. If the purpose of this thread is to inform everyone that you prefer CIA over CIH, then you achieved that long ago. Obviously you have an agenda, since you're still here after 14 pages of saying the same thing - not much of which has to do with how to install or implement a CIH theater in one's home.


No one here has taken issue with THX, they've taken issue with you and the fact that you are charging ahead screaming "CIA is best!" with the same blind vehemence that you accuse of CIH users of being victim to.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16252994
> 
> 
> I might remind you you're in the CIH forum. If the purpose of this thread is to inform everyone that you prefer CIA over CIH, then you achieved that long ago. Obviously you have an agenda, since you're still here after 14 pages of saying the same thing - not much of which has to do with how to install or implement a CIH theater in one's home.
> 
> 
> No one here has taken issue with THX, they've taken issue with you and the fact that you are charging ahead screaming "CIA is best!" with the same blind vehemence that you accuse of CIH users of being victim to.



Seriously? "CIH is best" is the only thing I've heard in this thread. I haven't made any statement that CIA is best for anyone other than myself.


I have no agenda other than to discuss CIA, which is CLEARLY stated in post #1.


If you have a better place for this thread, suggest it to a mod. It's been here 3 weeks now, so I'm sorry, but this is the best place to discuss it.


Would you like to discuss CIA now in this CIA thread HogPilot, buddy?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16253118
> 
> 
> Seriously? "CIH is best" is the only thing I've heard in this thread. I haven't made any statement that CIA is best for anyone other than myself.
> 
> 
> I have no agenda other than to discuss CIA, which is CLEARLY stated in post #1.
> 
> 
> If you have a better place for this thread, suggest it to a mod. It's been here 3 weeks now, so I'm sorry, but this is the best place to discuss it.
> 
> 
> Would you like to discuss CIA now in this CIA thread HogPilot, buddy?



If you really think that your posts are tantamount to simple discussion, than your objectivity is lacking.


You're in the CIH forum, irregardless of the topic of your post. If that fact escapes you, then your powers of observation are _severely_ lacking.


For someone who is here "only discussing" CIA, your fervor for defending it is notable, but simultaneously obnoxious.


Good luck with whatever you came here looking for.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Why anyone still argues this is beyond me but I'll bet LG will not be the first to drop it for good.


I agree that if all you want to do is put down CIH then its rude to do so (although if he wanted to be rude, what other forum would he do it in?)


OTOH - there isn't a CIA fourm, just like there wasn't once a CIH, Flat panel, HDTV, HT building, etc forum either.


Despite our bickering I still like to think of AVS as one of, if not the most progressive and knowledgable forums for HT in the world.


We argue, but push the envelope. We are quoted in HT journals. Our members invent **** that no one else thought of. We are not closed-minded (I choose to believe).


Please let this thread die. I still want to be able to ask questions that matter without pissing someone off.


----------



## oztheatre




LilGator said:


> "CIH is best"
> 
> 
> That's right lilgaytor, CIH is best, and don't you ever forget it


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16252910
> 
> 
> I've not ever said CIA dominates commercially, only that CIH doesn't necessarily do that itself, which is the PRIMARY argument for CIH's superiority!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you and that assertion



Of course ,the superiority of CIH is in the presentation of scope films.In my room they go nearly wall to wall and are perfect for my ceiling height .You are the only one who is pressing with the straw man argument that it is in all ways superior as if we must prove that, by stating we are saying that it makes the quality of CIH harder to demonstrate,except from our own experiences.


Your joy in stating that you would be happy to post forever irrespective of what we all say indicates a love of argument for it's own sake.










All I know is I can't find enough theaters within a hundred miles of my home that are CIW to care about and CIA is non existant as far as I can tell.


When I say this you say that commercial theaters don't matter but then reference your THX information in the same breath something smells. Either it matters or it doesn't.


Ah yes,again as I've asked several times why are you arguing against CIH in the CIH forum ?


Oh ,and I think all of us here understand that you are not interested in the _"burden of proof "_.





Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16253159
> 
> 
> If you really think that your posts are tantamount to simple discussion, than your objectivity is lacking.
> 
> 
> You're in the CIH forum, irregardless of the topic of your post. If that fact escapes you, then your powers of observation are _severely_ lacking.
> 
> 
> For someone who is here "only discussing" CIA, your fervor for defending it is notable, but simultaneously obnoxious.
> 
> 
> Good luck with whatever you came here looking for.



It began that way. CIH'ers took it beyond that, unnecessarily.


Get over the CIH forum nonsense, this thread has been here pushing a month, if it belonged somewhere else it would be there. I'm well aware, and have stated it myself.


Try to keep up










And your presence here is in my opinion obnoxious, but how is that relevant?










Would you like to discuss CIA now?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16253181
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16253118
> 
> 
> "CIH is best"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right lilgaytor, CIH is best, and don't you ever forget it
Click to expand...


Nice work! I see it's definitely a busy schedule that keeps you from posting too often











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16253598
> 
> 
> Of course ,the superiority of CIH is in the presentation of scope films.In my room they go nearly wall to wall and are perfect for my ceiling height .You are the only one who is pressing with the straw man argument that it is in all ways superior as if we must prove that, by stating we are saying that it makes the quality of CIH harder to demonstrate,except from our own experiences.
> 
> 
> Your joy in stating that you would be happy to post forever irrespective of what we all say indicates a love of argument for it's own sake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is I can't find enough theaters within a hundred miles of my home that are CIW to care about and CIA is non existant as far as I can tell.
> 
> 
> When I say this you say that commercial theaters don't matter but then reference your THX information in the same breath something smells. Either it matters or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Ah yes,again as I've asked several times why are you arguing against CIH in the CIH forum ?
> 
> 
> Oh ,and I think all of us here understand that you are not interested in the _"burden of proof "_.
> 
> 
> Art



Welcome back










It's not a straw man argument, you see, look at the quote right about yours. Countless times in this thread CIH has been said to be best in every way, maybe not by you, but once again - everything is about you isn't it?


Can you name for me where I've stated that CIA is "best" and everyone doing CIH is "wrong"?


Because I can find the opposite to be very true here, in my thread!


I'm dumbfounded that you're still talking about commercial theaters after you supposedly put it to rest. Amazing.


You reference your own personal statistics, I'm referencing THX. I never said commercial cinema's don't matter, only that they aren't my sole influence in designing my theater.


THX. Certifies. All. Three.


Keep ignoring that.










--


Here's the thing, if CIH really was superior, beyond personal preference, objectively...


...it wouldn't have taken 11 pages to prove, and that still hasn't happened!










Sounds subjective to me










And you might say the only reason it's been 11 pages is due to my stubbornness to accept the faulty reasoning, and in that case...


...why have you bothered for so long?










Why are you arguing against CIA in a CIA thread?


I didn't start anything CIH in this thread, pro or con. I only began discussing CIA.


Maybe go find another thread that suits your tastes?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16253177
> 
> 
> Why anyone still argues this is beyond me but I'll bet LG will not be the first to drop it for good.
> 
> 
> I agree that if all you want to do is put down CIH then its rude to do so (although if he wanted to be rude, what other forum would he do it in?)
> 
> 
> OTOH - there isn't a CIA fourm, just like there wasn't once a CIH, Flat panel, HDTV, HT building, etc forum either.
> 
> 
> Despite our bickering I still like to think of AVS as one of, if not the most progressive and knowledgable forums for HT in the world.
> 
> 
> We argue, but push the envelope. We are quoted in HT journals. Our members invent **** that no one else thought of. We are not closed-minded (I choose to believe).
> 
> 
> Please let this thread die. I still want to be able to ask questions that matter without pissing someone off.



I have no reason to drop anything, since I didn't start any discussion involving CIH







When they drop what they started, I will as well.


This thread veered with quite the opposite, CIH promotion and CIA bashing. I've only responded with what they've brought to the table.


The rest of what you posted I agree with fully


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16253673
> 
> 
> I'm dumbfounded that you're still talking about commercial theaters after you supposedly put it to rest. Amazing.
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, if CIH really was superior, beyond personal preference, objectively...
> 
> 
> ...it wouldn't have taken 11 pages to prove.
> 
> 
> And you might say the only reason it's been 11 pages is due to my stubbornness, and in that case...
> 
> 
> ...why have you bothered for so long?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you arguing against CIA in a CIA thread?
> 
> 
> I didn't start anything CIH in this thread, pro or con. I only began discussing CIA.
> 
> 
> Please go find another thread to troll.



Your answers demonstrate exactly what I'm saying. The 20K forum has two guys who love and have worked hard to implement CIA. A thread there would have made a lot more sense.



You asked why is it all about me and I've repeatedly stated that when you quote me you are calling me out. You ask for me to be here over and over and over.


Whether I respond just to those calls or agree with points others have made that is my right.


We believe CIH is superior thats why we are here in this forum discussing the implementation of this technique.


In my nine years on the forum I've never had that term used in reference to me. Of course I could understand calling me that if it weren't your choice to diminish CIH as a technique in the CIH forum. Again answer my question and this time not with another question.


Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16253735
> 
> 
> Your answers demonstrate exactly what I'm saying. The 20K forum has two guys who love and have worked hard to implement CIA. A thread there would have made a lot more sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked why is it all about me and I've repeatedly stated that when you quote me you are calling me out. You ask for me to be here over and over and over.
> 
> 
> Whether I respond just to those calls or agree with points others have made that is my right.
> 
> 
> We believe CIH is superior thats why we are here in this forum discussing the implementation of this technique.
> 
> 
> In my nine years on the forum I've never had that term used in reference to me. Of course I could understand calling me that if it weren't your choice to diminish CIH as a technique in the CIH forum. Again answer my question and this time not with another question.
> 
> 
> Art



My thread has as much to do with 20K+ as it does with CIH, maybe even less.


I quote you only to reply to you, nothing more.


If I'm not directly accusing you of saying something, don't assume so! If I'm vague, it's because I'm referring to other people!


I get that you believe that about CIH, but why can't my CIA thread be left alone? My first post said nothing about CIA superiority or CIH at all! In fact, I fully acknowledged the fact that it wasn't entirely the best idea to post in this subforum!


You guys have every thread, and unlimited new threads to discuss the merits of CIH. Why does it have to dominate my lone CIA thread?


There's a first for everything, though I removed it out of respect- my bad.










It's just getting old, that's all.


If there were a better place for this thread, it would be there. I've said that many times now.


I've suggested a new sub-forum for Variable Image & Zooming Chat, I've notified mods that this would be a good idea, and I've done nothing to encroach on CIH space, I've done everything possible not to!


I'm sorry CIA is so threatening to everyone here.










If CIH was so undeniably superior, why would anyone care?










Just because it's here and is not CIH doesn't mean I need to be told what I'm doing isn't valid, is wrong, isn't the "best", etc.


The moment that happened, this thread lost it's purpose and I've played along with you guys- you only asked for it!


(Disclaimer: not all above is directly referencing you, Art.)


----------



## LilGator

Getting back on track, I did similar mockups to these (a 1.78 screen CIA setup) for a 2.05 screen CIA setup.


The idea here is that you only tend to watch 2.35 and 1.78/1.85 so you share constant area between those.


Benefit is that you only need side or top masking at one time, and not window-boxing-like 4-way masking during 1.78/1.85 like the other method.


Downside is 4:3 isn't constant area, it shares height with 1.78. This could be a benefit if you only view 4:3 as SD material.


Other downside is IMAX scenes (TDK, maybe future titles) can't be done so slickly requiring a smaller 2.35 area to preserve OAR (BD OAR anyway, not IMAX OAR I know), or cropping IMAX scenes to 2.05 (hard to do, needing HTPC or projector blanking). They do crop better than on a 2.35 screen though, as the example I post would have his head cropped and 2.05 doesn't quite get there.


TDK scenarios in next post.

*The Wages of Fear (1953) shown in 1.37*:









*Prison Break: Season 1 (2005) shown in 1.78*:









*Doubt (2008) shown in 1.85*:









*Quantum of Solace (2008) shown in 2.40*:


----------



## LilGator

*The Dark Knight (2008) shown in 2.35*:









*The Dark Knight (2008) IMAX scene shown cropped to 2.05*:










Alternatively you can leave masks in place for 2.35 (some CIH people do this, though with a lens. Just like above crop (2.05) this would be hard to do without blanking).

*The Dark Knight (2008) IMAX scene shown cropped to 2.35*:










To preserve BD OAR:

*The Dark Knight (2008) 2.35 scene shown zoomed for 2.05 height*:









*The Dark Knight (2008) IMAX scene shown zoomed for 2.05 height*:


----------



## CAVX

Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16253999
> 
> 
> CIH supporters, respond to this simple question, please:



Will do so, but I already know you don't won't like the answer










> Quote:
> *If my preference is for all aspect ratios to share the same impact (which I made known in post #1), is CIH superior?*



I will still say yes because for me, home theatre is about RECREATING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN THE HOME. Given that MOST CINEMAS USE CIH, it makes sense to to do that at home. And here lies the problem. I've stated that most of the cinemas I have seen on a continent the same size as the US does use CIH, and you say that is not a valid point. Art gets his staff to ring around (other side of the world BTW) to come up with the same result and you still say that is not valid.



> Quote:
> If your answer is yes, you don't know CIH very well. Go study.



Study what? I've already visited many cinemas is several states to make an informed decision about what I need to do to recreate that in my home. So all I am left with is the over drawn debate in thread? What is the point? You only keep defending your point of view and your supporting evidence has not been the strongest.



> Quote:
> If your answer is no, you have no need to post in this thread (unless separately you want to discuss CIA ideas). Best move along.



You have asked for CIH supporters to respond, then have stated that they need not if not going to agree with you.



> Quote:
> If you would like to attack my preference, and tell me it's not a valid preference, etc..., don't bother responding because it's not an answer to my question. Try again.
> 
> 
> Fair enough?



Not really. You asked for pros and cons back in your first post, then when all you got was cons, you've had a dummy spit and you don't like it.


How much more valid points do valued members of this forum need to submit? In the end, the facts remain that your room and present equipment does not allow you to have CIH, and you then decided to look for an alternative. You simply do not have the support that you hoped for.


As I have said a few times in this thread - IT IS YOUR SYSTEM, DO AS YOU WILL.


In the end of the day, if all of the cinemas I have been to were not CIH, I would not have CIH. Is that fair enough?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence



Nice. So what's your substitute for intelligence?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> Will do so, but I already know you don't won't like the answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will still say yes because for me, home theatre is about RECREATING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN THE HOME. Given that MOST CINEMAS USE CIH, it makes sense to to do that at home. And here lies the problem. I've stated that most of the cinemas I have seen on a continent the same size as the US does use CIH, and you say that is not a valid point. Art gets his staff to ring around (other side of the world BTW) to come up with the same result and you still say that is not valid.



Wrong answer, CIH prevalence has nothing to do with the question asked regarding my personal preference.


You're actually wrong twice, because only for you is home theatre about "RECREATING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN THE HOME". For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> Study what? I've already visited many cinemas is several states to make an informed decision about what I need to do to recreate that in my home. So all I am left with is the over drawn debate in thread? What is the point? You only keep defending your point of view and your supporting evidience has not been the strongest.



Study the fact that 2.35 on a constant image height screen is larger. I can quote Art saying this if you like.


Are you debating the very basics of CIH?


In case you didn't comprehend, for me, my preference, shared impact = shared area. The hint is in the title of the thread.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> You have asked for CIH supporters to respond, then have stated that they need not if not going to agree with you.
> 
> 
> Not really. You asked for pros and cons back in your first post, then when all you got was cons, you've had a dummy spit and you don't like it.



My post was rhetorical, no need to reply with an actual post. Congrats on giving it a try anyway!


You're wrong again. I asked for pros and cons in my first post *from people that have CIA setups*. I got cons from CIH users.










The funny thing is, I entertained those posts being a good sport, even though I never asked them anything! Now, 11 pages later, they are complaining that I've entertained those posts instead of ignoring all CIH promotions in this thread?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> How much more valid points do valued members of this forum need to submit? In the end, the facts remain that your room and present equipment does not allow you to have CIH, and you then decided to look for an alternative. You simply do not have the support that you hoped for.



Name one valid point that shows where CIH is superior when the personal preference is for all ratios to share the same impact (defined as area, if you need the hint again).


Oh noes, not alternatives! How dare I!? (This is also rhetorical, you don't need to actually tell me how I dare look at alternatives.)


When did I ask for support? I have no desire for support *from CIH users especially*, nor do I care. I just wanted some CIA users to discuss. Apparently too complicated for some in this sub-forum.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254195
> 
> 
> As I have said a few times in this thread - IT IS YOUR SYSTEM, DO AS YOU WILL.
> 
> 
> In the end of the day, if all of the cinemas I have been to were not CIH, I would not have CIH. Is that fair enough?



And I will, so why do you keep posting as if I will do what you want me to?


Of course that's fair enough, you choose to base your theater design primarily on commercial cinema's design. Nothing wrong with that, I just am not taking your identical approach.


Fair enough?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16254238
> 
> 
> Nice. So what's your substitute for intelligence?



I'm not substituting anything. I'm not the one making the personal attacks.




> Quote:
> Wrong answer, CIH prevalence has nothing to do with the question asked regarding my personal preference.



Exactly my point.



> Quote:
> You're actually wrong twice, because only for you is home theatre about "RECREATING THE CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN THE HOME".



So you don't actualy watch movies?



> Quote:
> For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made).



I can't help that cinemas in your local area suck. The ones I go to are very high end. They even have base traps and that impresses me allot.




> Quote:
> Study the fact that 2.35 on a constant image height screen is larger. I can quote Art saying this if you like.



Are you finally coming around to excepting that fact? I've been saying that since page 1 of this tread.


> Quote:
> Are you debating the very basics of CIH?



No, but I can if you want.


> Quote:
> In case you didn't comprehend, for me, my preference, shared impact = shared area. The hint is in the title of the thread.



And to re-state what I just said in my last post - you asked for the pros and cons of a CIA system, and all you got was cons. It was nothing to do with the name.





> Quote:
> My post was rhetorical, no need to reply with an actual post. Congrats on giving it a try anyway!



So in other words, you just wanted to have the last say.



> Quote:
> You're wrong again. I asked for pros and cons in my first post *from people that have CIA setups*. I got cons from CIH users.



People will respond regardless to share their point if view. If you only wanted CIA owners to respond, then this subforum is the wrong place to have posted your thread.





> Quote:
> Name one valid point that shows where CIH is superior when the personal preference is for all ratios to share the same impact (defined as area, if you need the hint again).



Unless you are the director of a film, your personal preference doesn't actually count. I don't do CIH for my personal preference, I do it because of the number of CIH cinemas I've been to. This week has been interesting. Not only have I had the oppertunity to take a first look at JVCs 4K projector, I got to demo Zooming Vs a Lens to JVC using two of their 1080 projectors as well as got to discuss CIH with a new film director using digital camers (indy short films). He is very interested in the idea that with CIH, his vision can be presented, projected as he would like to see his work - IE 2.35 wider than 1.78 at the same height.



> Quote:
> Oh noes, not alternatives! How dare I!?
> 
> 
> When did I ask for support?



The second you posted the thread.



> Quote:
> And I will, so why do you keep posting as if I will do what you want me to?



Then post it already.



> Quote:
> Of course that's fair enough, you choose to base your theater design primarily on commercial cinema's design. Nothing wrong with that, I just am not taking your identical approach.
> 
> 
> Fair enough?



So what exacly are you basing it on?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> I'm not substituting anything. I'm not the one making the personal attacks.



Hilarious. Right after you say I'm substituting pride for intelligence, you say you don't make personal attacks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> Exactly my point.



Ah, so you agree that you had the wrong answer being that is was completely irrelevant. Mmmkay.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> So you don't actualy watch movies?



Yes, I actually do. We can watch movies differently. That's what the words personal preference refer to in my question.


What, you'd like to attack my personal preference?







Enjoy.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> I can't help that cinemas in your local area suck. The ones I go to are very high end. They even have base traps and that impresses me allot.



So you've been to them then? No?


Base traps, eh? I'm glad you're impressed.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> Are you finally coming around to excepting that fact? I've been saying that since page 1 of this tread.



I stated that fact in post #1. Way to keep up!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> No, but I can if you want.



Seeing as you agree with me, I don't think it's necessary, but since you like answering questions I didn't ask, feel free to!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> And to re-state what I just said in my last post - you asked for the pros and cons of a CIA system, and all you got was cons. It was nothing to do with the name.



I asked for feedback from people with CIA setups. Is that really so difficult to understand? I'm sorry if it was.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> So in other words, you just wanted to have the last say.



In other words, I offered to end the merry-go-round in a reasonable way. Since you don't want to, I'll keep going! Don't say I didn't try though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> People will respond regardless to share their point if view. If you only wanted CIA owners to respond, then this subforum is the wrong place to have posted your thread.



I see, I supposed I should have posted it in the CIA sub-forum. Oh, there isn't one? Well, I should have posted it in subwoofers then, and not the only subforum on this site that deals with an alternate projection method clearing stating it probably was sketchy to place it here and fully realized mods would have moved it to the proper place, whoops.


Guess what, some CIA owners responded, as I was looking for.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> Unless you are the director of a film, your personal preference doesn't actually count.



Good work again. My preference doesn't count when I want to watch a movie in my home.


Brilliant.


Do you read? "If you would like to attack my preference, and tell me it's not a valid preference, etc..., don't bother responding because it's not an answer to my question. Try again."


Yet you did, yet you did.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> The second you posted the thread.



Aaaand wrong again, I never asked for support.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> Then post it already.



I have been posting thoughts on CIA applications, including some mockups.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254322
> 
> 
> So what exacly are you basing it on?



I didn't say I wasn't basing it on commercial cinemas, obviously front projection does by nature. I only said I'm not following your identical approach. It's amazing how much I'm repeating myself!


"For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made)."


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16254368
> 
> 
> Hilarious. Right after you say I'm substituting pride for intelligence, you say you don't make personal attacks.



Note that this statement was made above the rest of the posts - IE it was not in response to anything you said so it could have been about myself, yet you clearly have an issue with it and why you've taken it as a personal attack and had an upset.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16254412
> 
> 
> Note that this statement was made above the rest of the posts - IE it was not in response to anything you said so it could have been about myself, yet you clearly have an issue with it and why you've taken it as a personal attack and had an upset.



Valiant effort.


It's not possible for you to upset me







I fired right back at you in good humor.


Regardless, to call it anything but a personal attack (which it still is no matter who it is directed to) would be false.


----------



## Bjoern Roy

Hold your horses guys... or the bickering is going to get this resourceful thread shut down....

*A little history on 'Constant Area'...*

*1982-1990*

A young movie buff Bjoern intuitively utilized the concept of having 'favorite seating rows' for scope (2.35:1) and academy flat (1.85:1) movies as a teenager 25 years ago...

*1990*

Almost 20 years ago, in the early laserdisc days i build my first HT screen. In an outlandish move, i build it in an academy flat ratio (1.85:1) when most of the few people into projection at the time had TV-centric 4:3 screens, yikes.

*1995*

Being dissatisfied with the fact that scope movies had less impact on my 1.85:1 screen due to reduced height, i build my first scope screen (2.35:1). Note that i did not use the term Constant Height at the time, although it was the concept motivating me. Along with all the arguments for CIH presented here. That was 14 years ago, mind you










Satisfaction with the scope screen lasted only 2 years... Not because of the limited amount of scope material on laserdisc, but because i changed my seating scenario from a single to two rows.


Huh? Let me explain:

In the movie theater, i was able to adjust seating distance to achieve the proper size sensation for any aspect ratio material...


With the scope screen at home, the only way to achieve the same 'size' satisfaction with both ratios, i had to move my seat back and forth. Having only one non-fixed seating row and bit of open space to the front, it was a little awkward yet reasonably practical to watch scope material at the actual seating row distance and move a bit forward for academy material...


When i installed a second row to increase seating capacity, the concept of adjusting seating distance via moving any of the seats became impractical. Since the seating rows where fixed now, the only viable option was to 'choose the row' like in the movie theater... Yet, this did not solve the problem.

*1997*
_Note: This is a key moment in videophile history







_


I wondered... Why was 'choosing the appropriate row' intuitively feasible in the movie theater, but failed at home? Answer: Different 'seating distance granularity' between two adjacent rows!


I realized that it is the 'size' of the projected image that drives my satisfaction. Neither the width nor the height. To achieve the goal of having the same 'size' for scope (2.35:1) and academy (1.85:1) movies, i had to sit 12,7% closer for academy material.


Assuming a seating row distance of about 4', an theoretical referential row has to be about 35,5' away so that an adjacent row exists directly in front of it which is 12,7% closer. Applying common viewing cone preferences, this implies a 35,5' wide scope screen in a movie theater (distance factor 1.0 x width), a 29,5' wide scope screen in a HD home theater (distance factor 1.2 x width) and a 25,5' wide scope screen in a SD home theater (distance factor 1.4 x width).


Again: It needs a scope screen of that width to be able to accomplish the same 'size sensation' for academy flat (1.85:1) material in the same bounderies (read: with the same height) of the scope screen, by sitting a single adjacent row closer to the screen. Puh, that's a mouth full.










In movie theaters, screens are often much wider, so granularity is even finer than that. In common theaters my favorite spots for the two ratios is usually 2-3 rows apart.


In home theaters on the other side, a screen that huge is utopical even by 20k+ forum means. Assuming a large 14' wide scope screen with two rows at 16' and 12', the front row delivers an image 33% wider than the back row. A far shot from the desired 12,7%.


The consequence is this:

- Either you watch both scope and academy movies in the 16' back row, making academy movies and 16x9 sport 'too small'.

- Or you switch to the front row for academy movies, which makes them waaaay too big, relatively speaking. Actually, moving up to the front row for academy movies will lead to a perceptional bigger 1.85:1 image than even a standard 16x9 screen delivers.


I realized that image 'ratio' and 'size' are two completely seperate concerns...

_Funny sidenote: Being a software architect, there are basically only three things i am paid for. Abstracting any problem to the n-th degree. Solving them at this highest or any more reasonable lower abstraction level. And keeping things apart that don't belong together (seperation of concerns)._


I set out to revolutionize the image delivery concept, being neither limited by constraints a movie theater has to deal with (plenty of width available, height is limited), nor limited by constraints a home theater is plagued with (limited seating row flexibility).


Define three orthogonal concerns of an image.
*A) 'Relative' image size*

There are two driving forces behind this concern. In image too small lacks 'imapct'. An image too big lacks resolution and thus 'quality'. Note that i use the term 'relative' image size here, meaning the size of the image relative to the viewing distance. A 100' wide screen does look puny from 10 miles away...

*B) 'Absolute' image size*

While A is important, the human perception is driven by a second 'size aspect'. The larger the image is in absolute terms, the more authority it induces on us. If A would be the only size aspect influencing our perception... a movie watched on an iPod from 4" away would WOW us as much as a huge theater with 1000 seats and a 150' wide screen from 150' away. We all know this is not the case. The larger the more WOW, as easy as that.

*C) Aspect ratio*

Movies do have different aspect ratios. Check. The sole driving force behind the DP choosing these ratios is and should be framing, thus 'artistic intend'. All other supposed 'reasons' (impact, size, vista, peripheral vision etc) bleed over to the completely unrelated concern A.


The key observation now is, that Concern A is orthogonal from Concern C. Thus, images of different aspect ratios can and will be perceived as having the same 'relative image size'. In reality, image size sensation seems to be driven by area, not width alone, or height.

*Desires:*

- You want to be able to choose the relative image size so that 'impact' is to your liking, independant of aspect ratio (Concern C). And so that 'quality' doesn't suffer for your level of source material. This is acomplished through relative image size (Concern A).

- At the same time you want a screen as large as possible to achieve satisfaction through absolute image size (Concern B).

*Constraints:*

- Due to the 'corse seating distance granularity' issue, switching rows for different aspect ratios is not feasible...

- Due to practicability in most cases, moving seats front and back is not an option either...

*Solution:*

- Don't adjust seating to vary relative image size (Concern A) for different aspect ratios. Stay in your reference seat and vary the image size.

- Keep the image 'area' constant to keep the relative image size the same.


I coined the term *Constant Area Screen* to describe the methodology. I coined the term *Constant Height Screen* to seperate the methodology that i had for 2 years from the one i just invented.


The result revolutionized movie watching.... for me!

*Conclusion:*

I abandoned my Constant Height screen due to dissatisfaction almost 12 years ago. Ever since i only operated Constant Area screens in my theaters. There is no going back. I inspired many people all over the world to do the same. I stopped 'preaching' CA in home theater communities almost 4 years ago. Over the last 2 years, i notice an increased momentum.... thanks to people like Jeff.


Great! Anyone is welcome to join. This will be the 'last' screen methodology you ever switch to. Don't be shy!











Regards

Bjoern


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Bjoern,

That would be a great start to the CIA forum.







In fact , after that there would be no need for one.







Great to see you back !!


Art


----------



## taffman

All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16255527
> 
> 
> All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.



That isn't right. I admitted that pages ago. In the case of 1.33:1 I feel that is more than large enough. In my room that height is plenty. I watched two Charlie Chan films last night and for me this is essentially perfect.


The issue is the size of the 16x9. This is why I chose a screen height in my room that was very close to the size of my old CIW screen. Yes, in comparison to 2.35 it is a let down but that is fine. The expansive look of scope eating up so much peripheral vision is just the $hit. My room could not accomodate a 16x9 screen that wide.


Of course you are right about opening up the masking. At my last home theater meet I went from _42nd Street_ to _Corpse Bride_ to _300_. When the masking opened up to 14' I heard lots of gasps. Not any different than owning a nice home that has a lot of show value, a nice car,etc.I'm not feeling guilty for that.


Art


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16255527
> 
> 
> But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope.



That is so not true. This weekend I have been watching both Scope and 1.85:1 such as *Commando* and *RoboCop* (love the HD transfers BTW). Both are enjoyable classic 80's films. The fact that they are not as wide as films like *I, Robot* does not make them "less impactful". Their cheesy FX might be, but that is what was avaliable at the time when they were made and what gives these films their classic look and place in film history.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/16255009
> 
> *A little history on 'Constant Area'...*



Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!










Few questions, are you using a 1.78 screen to house 4:3 at an equal area to the other formats, or are you using the ~1.9x screen to house the wider stuff like 2.76 also at equal area?


What do you think of 2.05 screens that are somewhat common now, with the purpose being to only share area between 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 - the three primary HD formats? (For those that don't watch 4:3 much, and if they do it's usually SD).


I found some pics of your uniquely shaped room and CIA setup. Do you have any new pics of what you've done recently?


Oh, and do you have any of those pictures that you posted in the 2001 archived thread I quoted (not likely, but who knows right?)- some may be helpful in visualizing aspects of this application. I've tried recreating some comparisons, but I would be interested to see what you came up with as well.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16255516
> 
> 
> Bjoern,
> 
> That would be a great start to the CIA forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact , after that there would be no need for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great to see you back !!
> 
> 
> Art



Much agreed. Though just like CIH, I'm sure there would be plenty of discussion for this concept, planning and application.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/16255527
> 
> 
> All well and good sense. But the CIH crowd DONT WANT 4:3 and 16:9 to look as impactful as scope. They want Scope to look more impressive, and to do that they have to sacrifice the impact of their 16:9 and 4:3 films. For them, the whole CIH thing is about expanding the masking out to 2.35 and getting that WOW from their audience. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never admit that they are compromising the other formats.



The difference is, the CIH crowd (by nature of the name) feel that based on a certain seating distance, all ratios can share the same impact with the proper shared height. Since their argument is that it's the way it's meant to be seen (CAVX's signature), all ratios are getting the impact they deserve, so they feel nothing is lost.


Also, they do admit that scope gets the most WOW, and they are OK with that.


We feel that impact has to do with the sizes of the image, both vertical and horizontal (area), and because of that impact is not shared between ratios on a CIH setup *for our preference*. We want all ratios (or at least 1.78 -> 2.35) to share the same WOW factor.


This was covered in post #1 in the thread.


The problem is when CAVX, and many others, tell me that my preference is wrong.


Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not?







Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16257533
> 
> 
> Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!



It's the delivery, not the poster.



> Quote:
> The difference is, the CIH crowd (by nature of the name) feel that based on a certain seating distance, all ratios can share the same impact with the proper shared height. Since their argument is that it's the way it's meant to be seen (CAVX's signature), all ratios are getting the impact they deserve, so they feel nothing is lost.
> 
> 
> Also, they do admit that scope gets the most WOW, and they are OK with that.
> 
> 
> We feel that impact has to do with the sizes of the image, both vertical and horizontal (area), and because of that impact is not shared between ratios on a CIH setup *for our preference*. We want all ratios (or at least 1.78 -> 2.35) to share the same WOW factor.
> 
> 
> This was covered in post #1 in the thread.
> 
> 
> The problem is when CAVX, and many others, tell me that my preference is wrong.
> 
> 
> Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?



It's not that your preference is wrong, it's your continued (apparent) argument that a CIH screen *necessarily* means an underwhelming 1.78:1 experience, that CIH means sacrificing 1.78 as a rule.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16257533
> 
> 
> Great summary Bjoern! It's amazing that when the exact same points are made by someone with an earlier join date and more posts, they're suddenly all completely valid and reasonable and no one wants to argue with your preference!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is my preference wrong, but Bjoern's is not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or have you guys just not gotten around to picking his preference apart yet?



Bjoern has been around along time. We all know he is a psycho mother fuucker who has been stockpiling weapons for years. I don't want to do anything to piss him off so I just suck up to him. It is demeaning yes but I have a strong self preservation instinct.










I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster. He has been to my home and he is bright but generally diplomatic. He has been a great contributer to the forum for a long time. I still think he has part of my camera tripod.

















Art


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16258448
> 
> 
> It's the delivery, not the poster.
> 
> 
> It's not that your preference is wrong, it's your continued (apparent) argument that a CIH screen *necessarily* means an underwhelming 1.78:1 experience, that CIH means sacrificing 1.78 as a rule.



Good story, but it is the poster. I've stated the exact same points he has. No CIH supporter seems willing to argue with him however.










Also, that is the case- many have stated that my preference is wrong, including CAVX.


Guess what, CIH means an underwhelming 1.78/1.85 experience for me, read post #1.


It also does for Bjoern, but you don't seem to mind that.










By the way, you've admitted these things yourselves:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16098351
> 
> 
> I'd take it but as with almost anything we do there are compromises. I often wish more films were 2.35:1 when I put in a 1.85:1 now based on my CIH choice.



What's the implication here? 2.35 has more impact. And that's fine, he's said so, that's his preference.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16098749
> 
> 
> Maybe that's really the answer, CAVX, and Art and I are movie lovers first, we want scope to have more impact than 16x9, or HDTV, as it was intended to. It's not that we "don't care" about 16x9 size, we want 16x9 to have great impact like everyone else here, but contrary to some, we want scope to have *even more impact* than HDTV/16x9.



No implication here, you just come out and say it:

*We. Want. Scope. To. Have. Even. More. Impact.*


But wait ...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16255631
> 
> 
> That is so not true. This weekend I have been watching both Scope and 1.85:1 such as *Commando* and *RoboCop* (love the HD transfers BTW). Both are enjoyable classic 80's films. *The fact that they are not as wide as films like I, Robot does not make them "less impactful".* Their cheesy FX might be, but that is what was avaliable at the time when they were made and what gives these films their classic look and place in film history.



You guys (CIHers) can't even keep your story straight!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16258510
> 
> 
> Bjoern has been around along time. We all know he is a psycho mother fuucker who has been stockpiling weapons for years. I don't want to do anything to piss him off so I just suck up to him. It is demeaning yes but I have a strong self preservation instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster. He has been to my home and he is bright but generally diplomatic. He has been a great contributer to the forum for a long time. I still think he has part of my camera tripod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art










I'll be sure to keep that in mind.


For the record, I've only attacked posters (in addition to their post content!) when they opened up the table for such by attacking me.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16251973
> 
> 
> Actually I've followed the 4-way masking system thread in the DIY portion of this forum for quite some time. The manual 4-way masking system isn't expensive, but even that is probably more than a single weekend project. They're still looking for an inexpensive and practical way to motorize that system - their most recent attempts have been significantly noisier and slower than conventional systems. It seems they've solved the problem of positioning the masks using memory presets. However the scope of such a project (no pun intended) is beyond your average "handyman" level and would require some learning for your average guy. You may be familiar with most of the systems required to do this already - I would venture a guess that your average person is not. Not to mention that $500 is definitely on the low side for a fully motorized 4-way masking system with presets for a significant number of ARs like what you would get from a professional system. As I said, it's a trade between money and time.



Yes, I've followed those efforts too and agree with your assessment. Especially if one is looking for _automated_ 4 way masking.


For those reasons, and because I'm not much of a handyman myself, I've gone for a middle option. Instead of building everything from the ground up I'm combining two professionally made systems for masking:


1. The Carada Masquerade screen masking system for vertical masking (top/bottom masks).


with:


2. A roller panel system from Goelst. This system is much like an automated curtain system, only it uses panels in a "come-along" design, so that they all stack behind one another to each side of the screen when open, and can close to cover the entire screen. This will be the side masking panels. This panel system can have up to 5 pre-set image width stopping points.



So it will all be remote controllable from the viewing seats. Total cost will be around $5,000. Pretty good when you consider 4 way masking often runs over $18,000 from the big companies. And I think $5,000 is a bargain for building such flexibility into the home theater.


----------



## R Harkness

*Bjoern Roy*,


Nice to see a great post by a pioneer!


I originally planned on doing a CIH set up. However, when used a projector on my wall to determine image sizes I came to exactly the conclusion you did. That my comfort and desire for any particular image size tended to be determined by it's overall image area, vs it's height or width. In thinking about it I came to all the same reasons you have and have been arguing such since then.


Not that others SHOULD do as I do; only that it is a choice that makes sense for some of us, with a good rational underlying the choice.


While I think Constant Image Area is a useful concept insofar as it identifies

the impact of image area over other criteria, I don't see it as a solid restriction (at least in my case) as is the case with Constant Image Height.

In other words, I don't view achieving a perfect CIA for every aspect ratio as my goal, so much as using the fundamental insight about the fact of movie going and the choice of seating (and movie theater, for that matter) and how that affects the immersion. This is what I keep pointing out about CIH; that the rational offered for CIH isn't simply the change in aspect ratio, but the "greater immersion" of the scope image. But since immersion and impact are affected by the angle of view, which is affected by where you sit, the relative "height" and size of the image is rarely constant in actual movie going.


Like many folks I've chosen which theater to attend (a huge screen theater or otherwise) and which seat to sit in, based on the movie I'm watching, my preference for immersion in that movie etc. It's this flexibility that, as you identify, most home theaters do not allow due to limited seating compared to movie theaters.


And it is this flexibility, offered in real movie-going, that I'm building into my home theater by using an extra big screen, 4 way masking, and zooming the image. I can vary the angle of view, via zooming to various image sizes, as I desire, like choosing a different cinema or a different seat in the cinema.

I will also be able to vary the image size based on the quality of the source content, to maintain image quality.


So it's not that I am trying to maintain a strict Constant Image Area. I want to be free of restrictions which is the reason I'm not going with either a standard Constant Image Width or CIH in the first place. But my decision is based on the underlying issues identified in the rational for Constant Image Area (how image sizes affect us, the choice of seats in theaters etc).


Cheers!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16258732
> 
> 
> Yes, I've followed those efforts too and agree with your assessment. Especially if one is looking for _automated_ 4 way masking.
> 
> 
> For those reasons, and because I'm not much of a handyman myself, I've gone for a middle option. Instead of building everything from the ground up I'm combining two professionally made systems for masking:
> 
> 
> 1. The Carada Masquerade screen masking system for vertical masking (top/bottom masks).
> 
> 
> with:
> 
> 
> 2. A roller panel system from Goelst. This system is much like an automated curtain system, only it uses panels in a "come-along" design, so that they all stack behind one another to each side of the screen when open, and can close to cover the entire screen. This will be the side masking panels. This panel system can have up to 5 pre-set image width stopping points.
> 
> 
> 
> So it will all be remote controllable from the viewing seats. Total cost will be around $5,000. Pretty good when you consider 4 way masking often runs over $18,000 from the big companies. And I think $5,000 is a bargain for building such flexibility into the home theater.



I wonder if Carada could custom build a Masquerade that did both horizontal and vertical masking since they offer both separately ($5K or under of course, which is a fairly decent amount of padding, nearly double what they ask for one or the other)? Probably a longshot I guess.


Scratch that, they don't sound interested right now:



> Quote:
> No unfortunately we don’t offer a 4-way Masquerade system capable of masking all sides of the image. You can get that kind of masking system from Stewart, Screen Research, or SMX, or Vutec. But sit down before you call for pricing because the sticker shock might make you a bit dizzy.



Seems like they're most of the way there in providing 4-way at a reasonable price, I wonder when they'll offer it?


----------



## oztheatre

*


LilGator said:



"For me, it's about doing better than the cinema experience in the home, based on what I prefer, and not what's convenient for the masses and bottom line (tickets sold, profits made)."

Click to expand...

*


LilGator said:


> You claim you 'do it better than the Cinema'? Dear oh dear..
> 
> 
> If you want to 'piss in your beer' and claim it tastes better that way, go right ahead


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16259027
> 
> 
> You claim you 'do it better than the Cinema'? Dear oh dear..
> 
> 
> If you want to 'piss in your beer' and claim it tastes better that way, go right ahead



I'm sorry you've been repressed, but really, it's ok- go ahead try it, you may like it.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16258510
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with Bjoern but generally he attacks the problem not the poster.



You see Art, I don't have much to work with










I could respond by explaining what the typical American cinema is really like and how easy it is to do it better (repeating myself of course), but then again, I don't think that's what he's after with this post.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16258599
> 
> 
> Good story, but it is the poster. I've stated the exact same points he has. No CIH supporter seems willing to argue with him however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, that is the case- many have stated that my preference is wrong, including CAVX.
> 
> 
> Guess what, CIH means an underwhelming 1.78/1.85 experience for me, read post #1.



I have, we asked you a simple question about whether you'd considered adjusting your seating, to which you responded with comments about "darting eyes". And you've continued to argue that all ARs _should be the same size_ essentially that CIH is wrong.



> Quote:
> It also does for Bjoern, but you don't seem to mind that.



Because he made it clear that he wasn't happy with CIH, and wanted something different.



> Quote:
> By the way, you've admitted these things yourselves:



I haven't seen any of the CIH proponents "admit" that 16:9 is underwhelming. Quite the contrary, we've all stated that we find 16:9 is a pleasing size.



> Quote:
> What's the implication here? 2.35 has more impact. And that's fine, he's said so, that's his preference.



The implication is that he likes the 2.35:1 format better. I think R Harkness has admitted the same preference (despite wanting a CIA/Variable Size setup).



> Quote:
> No implication here, you just come out and say it:
> 
> *We. Want. Scope. To. Have. Even. More. Impact.*



"More impact" for 2.35:1 does not equate to "underwhelming" for 16:9. CAVX, I and Art I think all find that each AR has the "right" impact in our CIH setups, that we aren't left wanting for anything.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Bjoern Roy - well presented (and with a "polite" delivery).


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16253673
> 
> 
> It began that way. CIH'ers took it beyond that, unnecessarily.
> 
> 
> Get over the CIH forum nonsense, this thread has been here pushing a month, if it belonged somewhere else it would be there. I'm well aware, and have stated it myself.
> 
> 
> Try to keep up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your presence here is in my opinion obnoxious, but how is that relevant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to discuss CIA now?



I'm calling you obnoxious because you've managed to argue with CIH-ers for 12 pages over personal preference and queep under the guise of looking for practical information on CIA setups. Either put your overactive google skills to use amassing practical information for CIA, or get out of the CIH forum.


In your original post you solicited opinions on a CIA setup because you said you wanted to install one. How's that coming along? In the last month, I have yet to see any substantive technical information posted here related to actually implementing a CIA HT setup. From the outset you chose to argue semantics, and instead of spending your time researching CIA you have googled all sorts of useless information.


If you're serious about CIA, here are some good questions to start you off:


- You will almost always have some sort of black bars without the use of a masking system. What are the PQ/budget/time tradeoffs for using masking vs not? Your screen and setup will not be optimized for any specific AR so unlike CIH, there will be no AR that completely fills your screen - so masking may be more important than in other variable AR setups. This could make CIA less practical from an HT standpoint for some.


- Have you done any research into whether a commercial or DIY masking system would better suit your needs and budget?


- What kind of options are you looking at for achieving all the different ARs you'd be viewing? Zoom only, zoom/variable expansion lens (Prismasonic)/scaling, or a fixed expansion lens (Panamorph/Schneider/ISCO) and scaling only? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each from a PQ and viewability perspective (real life vs. hypothetical)?


- Without the use of a manual iris, the only way to achieve constant brightness would be the use of zoom/variable expansion lens/scaling, which is the most complicated method. What are the real-life PQ consequences of each AR having a different brightness level from a viewability/calibration standpoint?


That's just the tip of the iceburg. I think you'll find more support and inquiry if you take things in that direction. Or you can just continue to bicker about a topic that ultimately boils down to subjectiveism and won't ever see resolute consesus.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16259259
> 
> 
> I have, we asked you a simple question about whether you'd considered adjusting your seating, to which you responded with comments about "darting eyes". And you've continued to argue that all ARs _should be the same size_ essentially that CIH is wrong.



If I sit where I prefer to see 16x9, then I'm too close to see all of 2.35 comfortably on a CIH setup. This is a personal preference, you prefer 16x9 to be smaller than I do. Get it yet?


I've NEVER argued that CIH is wrong. I've only argued that CIH is not the only valid method.


You really need to pay attention, this thread is full of posts insinuating CIH's divine supremacy, NOT the opposite.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16259259
> 
> 
> Because he made it clear that he wasn't happy with CIH, and wanted something different.



As did I, identically, in post #1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16259259
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of the CIH proponents "admit" that 16:9 is underwhelming. Quite the contrary, we've all stated that we find 16:9 is a pleasing size.



Will you keep up? I never said anyone called 16x9 underwhelming on CIH, only you did.


I said that I prefer shared impact. You said that you prefer 2.35 to have more impact.


CIH proponents admit that 16:9 has less impact than 2.35 on a CIH screen.


I don't prefer that. Do you have a problem with that?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16259259
> 
> 
> The implication is that he likes the 2.35:1 format better. I think R Harkness has admitted the same preference (despite wanting a CIA/Variable Size setup).



But the argument for CIH is that 2.35 vs. 1.85 isn't a matter of format, it's a matter of size, namely width.










I'm the one who said directors choose an AR based on the shape, look and feel (format) and not based on any size intended. Now you're using my argument?










Art's statement was based on his CIH choice. Because 2.35 images are projected wider (are larger) he often wishes 1.85 movies were wider (and larger).


R Harkness has said that he prefers 2.35, but his choice is based on format, and not size in relation to other ARs.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16259259
> 
> 
> "More impact" for 2.35:1 does not equate to "underwhelming" for 16:9. CAVX, I and Art I think all find that each AR has the "right" impact in our CIH setups, that we aren't left wanting for anything.



Only because that is your preference. I prefer 1.85 and 2.35 to share impact, you don't.


It has nothing to do with extreme terms like "underwhelming" which you came up with.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> I'm calling you obnoxious because you've managed to argue with CIH-ers for 12 pages over personal preference and queep under the guise of looking for practical information on CIA setups. Either put your overactive google skills to use amassing practical information for CIA, or get out of the CIH forum.



I have argued that my personal preference shares equal validity with the CIH preference.


For the 600th time, if this thread was meant to be anywhere besides here:

*IT WOULD BE THERE.*










I'm sorry you don't feel that way










It's amazing how many times I've had to type this. You need a reading comprehension class or something.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> In your original post you solicited opinions on a CIA setup because you said you wanted to install one. How's that coming along? In the last month, I have yet to see any substantive technical information posted here related to actually implementing a CIA HT setup. From the outset you chose to argue semantics, and instead of spending your time researching CIA you have googled all sorts of useless information.



At the moment it's on hold because I can't use my DLP projector and it's limited zoom range.


I have posted technical content related to implementation, in between arguing with CIHers who would like to distract the thread from it's intended purpose. I found a quality source (old archived threads of Bjoern's) and posted them for others to glean valuable info from.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> If you're serious about CIA, here are some good questions to start you off:
> 
> 
> - You will almost always have some sort of black bars without the use of a masking system. What are the PQ/budget/time tradeoffs for using masking vs not? Your screen and setup will not be optimized for any specific AR so unlike CIH, there will be no AR that completely fills your screen - so masking may be more important than in other variable AR setups. This could make CIA less practical from an HT standpoint for some.



So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?


Yes, masking is more important for this setup than any other. CIH, CIW, and CIA all have tradeoffs, what's your point?


Budget/time tradeoffs are very similar to the zoom vs. lens method of CIH. Yes, you have to adjust zoom and vertical lens shift. Yes it takes a minute to adjust that before starting a film. Adjusting 4 masks vs. 2 masks takes a marginal amount of additional time.


I used to watch my dad setup anamorphic 2.35 DVDs for playback by going into the service menu of a 4:3 CRT and adjusting vertical compression. Masking and adjusting zoom/lens shift is no biggie.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> - Have you done any research into whether a commercial or DIY masking system would better suit your needs and budget?



A DIY system most definitely better suits my needs. This is a very cheap living room setup. I will attempt to build common masks and use magnets to apply them to the screen. I've seen it done very effectively here.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> - What kind of options are you looking at for achieving all the different ARs you'd be viewing? Zoom only, zoom/variable expansion lens (Prismasonic)/scaling, or a fixed expansion lens (Panamorph/Schneider/ISCO) and scaling only? What are the benefits and drawbacks of each from a PQ and viewability perspective (real life vs. hypothetical)?



Because I'm keeping it simple and cheap, zoom only.


Benefits and drawbacks for PQ will be as hotly debated and inconclusive as zooming vs. lens method for CIH. Nothing new here.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> - Without the use of a manual iris, the only way to achieve constant brightness would be the use of zoom/variable expansion lens/scaling, which is the most complicated method. What are the real-life PQ consequences of each AR having a different brightness level from a viewability/calibration standpoint?



Negligible. Projected image area is identical. The adjustment between widest (2.35) and tallest (1.78) is too small for a non-light-controlled environment to matter for me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16259347
> 
> 
> That's just the tip of the iceburg. I think you'll find more support and inquiry if you take things in that direction. Or you can just continue to bicker about a topic that ultimately boils down to subjectiveism and won't ever see resolute consesus.



If CIA was relegated to subjectivism, a personal preference equally as valid as CIH, as I intended, we wouldn't have had 12 pages of bickering.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?



As you continue to argue CIA in a CIH forum


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16259651
> 
> 
> As you continue to argue CIA in a CIH forum



Yes, I'm talking about CIA, in a CIH sub-forum of Display Devices, a sub-forum of AVS Forum.


Thanks for the recap.


If this wasn't the proper place to discuss CIA, this thread would have been moved.


Guess what...










This is the third largest thread in this sub-forum.


It is currently the 29th most viewed thread in this sub-forum (which has been around since '06) already, and it hasn't even been around a month.


Sounds like it's fitting in.


----------



## oztheatre

*


LilGator said:



This is the third largest thread in this sub-forum.


It is currently the 29th most viewed thread in this sub-forum which has been around since '06 already, and it hasn't even been around a month.

Click to expand...

*


LilGator said:


> It's the '3rd largest' thread in this sub-forum because YOU continue to argue like a knob against anyone who does not agree with you. YOU and YOU alone made this thread the '3rd largest'.
> 
> 
> I have never seen anyone in my years, clutch at straws the way you have.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16259978
> 
> 
> It's the '3rd largest' thread in this sub-forum because YOU continue to argue like a knob against anyone who does not agree with you. YOU and YOU alone made this thread the '3rd largest'.
> 
> 
> I have never seen anyone in my years, clutch at straws the way you have.



Quite the contrary. There are at least 3x the CIH posters in this thread than CIA posters, and they continue to argue equally as much.


Sorry, it takes two (or 6-8+ in this case) to tango










Also, I'm not forcing anyone to view it, yet it's racking up views at a rate of 1500+ a week. There's plenty of interest in CIA out there.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> I have argued that my personal preference shares equal validity with the CIH preference.



You've done so ad nauseam. Everyone knows how you feel. So what's your continued purpose here? To re-iterate again and again that you have an opinion on something? THIS IS THE CIH forum. If you want to come in here and advocate something else, make the thread useful - ACTUALLY SET SOMETHING UP. Discuss technical implementation issues _after_ you've tried it. Don't argue the same tired old reguritated crap that you have for 12 pages straight. Believe me, you're convincing no one but yourself and acting like a troll in the meantime.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> You need a reading comprehension class or something.



So when you post something over and over, it's acceptable, but when someone else does, it's not? Hypocracy and personal attack all in one statement - well done. Very useful.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> At the moment it's on hold because I can't use my DLP projector and it's limited zoom range.



So you haven't actually implemented CIA - you'd rather waste a month here arguing about it with people who don't share your viewpoint. At least you have your priorities straight.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> I have posted technical content related to implementation, in between arguing with CIHers who would like to distract the thread from it's intended purpose. I found a quality source (old archived threads of Bjoern's) and posted them for others to glean valuable info from.



Wrong, you've used a serach tool and posted some links - anyone can do that. How can you possibly have new, useful information to conribute if you've never even attempted a CIA setup? Until you actually put your money where your mouth is, you're beating a dead horse in a forum that doesn't share your viewpoint.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> So you continue to argue for CIH in a CIA thread?



I did no such thing - why are you so defensive? As someone who actually owns, uses, and knows the PQ benefits of a motorized masking system, I pointed out that CIA's persistent black bars would benefit more from a masking system as compared to CIH or CIW, where the primary aspect is properly framed by a screen with black borders. Achieving this even just part of the time with CIA would _require_ some sort of masking system, which makes it more complicated to implement. Plus, there's no simple way to mask with CIA - you either have to construct a set of masking panels for every AR, build a 4-way manual masking system, or you have to buy an aftermarket solution.


Budget/time tradeoffs are very similar to the zoom vs. lens method of CIH. Yes, you have to adjust zoom and vertical lens shift. Yes it takes a minute to adjust that before starting a film. Adjusting 4 masks vs. 2 masks takes a marginal amount of additional time.[/quote]


If you're using just zoom, then yes you "only" have to adjust lens shift and zoom every time you change ARs - a process which I can assure you gets quite tedious even with everything motorized (unless you're using a Panny 3000, but then you're limited to a single projector's performance, which is an another argument in and of itself). It only gets more complicated setup-wise once you add a scaler and/or lens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> A DIY system most definitely better suits my needs. This is a very cheap living room setup. I will attempt to build common masks and use magnets to apply them to the screen. I've seen it done very effectively here.



Again, you'll have to construct separate masks for every AR - 1.33:1 and 2.40:1 will be a set of bars, all others will be full rectangles. Unless you only choose to mask a couple "main" ARs, which would ultimately show favoritism and contradict the "all are equal" idea behind CIA.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Because I'm keeping it simple and cheap, zoom only.



The two hardly go hand-in-hand as I've already illustrated. A fully motorized 4-way memory masking system would be simple; magnetized masks would be cheap. The two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Benefits and drawbacks for PQ will be as hotly debated and inconclusive as zooming vs. lens method for CIH. Nothing new here.



Right - I'm trying to push this in the direction of discussing those actual benefits and drawbacks. You know, people with actual experience with CIA talking about their experiences. The fact that you admit that there will be differences and that they'll be discussed is of use to no one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Negligible. Projected image area is identical. The adjustment between widest (2.35) and tallest (1.78) is too small for a non-light-controlled environment to matter for me.



Say you have a 120"x67.4" 1.78:1 screen, and your projector outputs 600 calibrated lumens on a full D65 100IRE image. 1.33:1 would be the tallest of all images, using the full panel height, but because you'd only use 75% of the panel, you'd lose 25% of your lumens, so you'd get 10.7 ftL on said screen. 1.78:1, on the other hand, would use the full panel (full lumens) at the same area as the 1.33:1 picture, giving you 14.4 ftL. Hardly negligible. This is the kind of practical knowledge that you'd get from actually setting this up (or at least better researching it from a practical standpoint) rather than arguing symantics.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> If CIA was relegated to subjectivism, a personal preference equally as valid as CIH, as I intended, we wouldn't have had 12 pages of bickering.



I never said CIA wasn't a valid method of setting up one's HT. But until you do something practical and actually set one up to provide useful info (something you've yet to do), you're just some guy with a bone to pick.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> You've done so ad nauseam. Everyone knows how you feel. So what's your continued purpose here? To re-iterate again and again that you have an opinion on something? THIS IS THE CIH forum. If you want to come in here and advocate something else, make the thread useful - ACTUALLY SET SOMETHING UP. Discuss technical implementation issues _after_ you've tried it. Don't argue the same tired old reguritated crap that you have for 12 pages straight. Believe me, you're convincing no one but yourself and acting like a troll in the meantime.



Everyone knows how CIH proponents feel, yet they keep posting. What's their purpose here?


If my thread was worthless it would have been buried long ago.


Did you actually read my first post? I simply asked for people with CIA setups to share what they've done and what they think. Nothing more.


Yes sir, I will believe you, because I actually care what you think. Right.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> So when you post something over and over, it's acceptable, but when someone else does, it's not? Hypocracy and personal attack all in one statement - well done. Very useful.



Have I said it's not? If I'm repeating myself to answer your useless question, it means one thing: you can't read.


Hypocrisy would be picking on someone about personal attacks and hypocrisy, while in the same post calling them a troll. Hypocrisy recursion. Even more useful.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> So you haven't actually implemented CIA - you'd rather waste a month here arguing about it with people who don't share your viewpoint. At least you have your priorities straight.



Yes, that was clear in my first post. I'm glad you're realizing that on page 12. Once again, you can't read.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> Wrong, you've used a serach tool and posted some links - anyone can do that. How can you possibly have new, useful information to conribute if you've never even attempted a CIA setup? Until you actually put your money where your mouth is, you're beating a dead horse in a forum that doesn't share your viewpoint.



Anyone can, yet nobody did. If you read my first post, you'd realize I never claimed to have firsthand experience with CIA, because I was asking others for it- the primary and sole intention of creating the thread!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> I did no such thing - why are you so defensive? As someone who actually owns, uses, and knows the PQ benefits of a motorized masking system, I pointed out that CIA's persistent black bars would benefit more from a masking system as compared to CIH or CIW, where the primary aspect is properly framed by a screen with black borders. Achieving this even just part of the time with CIA would _require_ some sort of masking system, which makes it more complicated to implement. Plus, there's no simple way to mask with CIA - you either have to construct a set of masking panels for every AR, build a 4-way manual masking system, or you have to buy an aftermarket solution.



Sorry, but no one has to do anything- and we certainly don't have to do what you say.


The vast majority of FP setups here on this forum are CIW and use no masks. So I'm taking on a more challenging approach, sorry.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> If you're using just zoom, then yes you "only" have to adjust lens shift and zoom every time you change ARs - a process which I can assure you gets quite tedious even with everything motorized (unless you're using a Panny 3000, but then you're limited to a single projector's performance, which is an another argument in and of itself). It only gets more complicated setup-wise once you add a scaler and/or lens.



It's worth it to me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> Again, you'll have to construct separate masks for every AR - 1.33:1 and 2.40:1 will be a set of bars, all others will be full rectangles. Unless you only choose to mask a couple "main" ARs, which would ultimately show favoritism and contradict the "all are equal" idea behind CIA.



Again, I don't have to do anything, including everything you want me to do.


You must have missed my attempt at starting a discussion about 1.78 & 2.05 setups based on what you watch more.


I tend to watch 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 about 99% of the time, so there's no point in masking for 4:3. The only difference from CIH is that I'll need to mask top and bottom for 2.35.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> The two hardly go hand-in-hand as I've already illustrated. A fully motorized 4-way memory masking system would be simple; magnetized masks would be cheap. The two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.



You said yourself a fully motorized 4-way would be the most complicated to implement. That's what I was referring to.


Simple & cheap refer to implementation and are one and the same. Operating speed/ease is another matter that I'm not worried about for obvious reasons..



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> Right - I'm trying to push this in the direction of discussing those actual benefits and drawbacks. You know, people with actual experience with CIA talking about their experiences. The fact that you admit that there will be differences and that they'll be discussed is of use to no one.



Very good, and you asking the question adds just as little insight.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> Say you have a 120"x67.4" 1.78:1 screen, and your projector outputs 600 calibrated lumens on a full D65 100IRE image. 1.33:1 would be the tallest of all images, using the full panel height, but because you'd only use 75% of the panel, you'd lose 25% of your lumens, so you'd get 10.7 ftL on said screen. 1.78:1, on the other hand, would use the full panel (full lumens) at the same area as the 1.33:1 picture, giving you 14.4 ftL. Hardly negligible. This is the kind of practical knowledge that you'd get from actually setting this up (or at least better researching it from a practical standpoint) rather than arguing symantics.



Someday you'll learn to read and understand that we all aren't going to do things your way. A 2.05 setup which I referred to with 1.78 being the full height of the screen, will not share the lumen gap that you speak of.


My living room isn't a critical production screening room. It isn't light controlled.


You also completely ignored the effect zooming will have on different ratios.


Negligible.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16260180
> 
> 
> I never said CIA wasn't a valid method of setting up one's HT. But until you do something practical and actually set one up to provide useful info (something you've yet to do), you're just some guy with a bone to pick.



I never said you did. Plenty of others have. When you learn to read, you can go back through the thread and see those posts.


I'm actually just some guy who wanted some insight from CIA users, something you aren't.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16260517
> 
> 
> Everyone knows how CIH proponents feel, yet they keep posting. What's their purpose here?
> 
> 
> If my thread was worthless it would have been buried long ago.
> 
> 
> Did you actually read my first post? I simply asked for people with CIA setups to share what they've done and what they think. Nothing more.
> 
> 
> Yes sir, I will believe you, because I actually care what you think. Right.



You posted an off topic thread in a forum that is at direct odds with your original topic, you personally attack people when they disagree with you (surprise! you're in the wrong spot) and talk down to everyone as if they're 5 because they don't share your viewpoint. You accuse others of getting personal, but you certainly didn't waste time lowering yourself to that level, to include whining about people disagreeing with you or telling you that your'e wrong (God forbid!). The fact that this thread is 12 pages long has nothing to do with the usefulness of the content - only the troglodytic nature of the OP who can't let any contrary opinion go ignored or un-punished.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Have I said it's not? If I'm repeating myself to answer your useless question, it means one thing: you can't read.



"You can't read...", "Keep up" "Did you even read my first post?"


Such responses serve no purpose except to degrade and insult. Why are you surprised that no one here takes you seriously when you continually fall back on such responses?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy would be picking on someone about personal attacks and hypocrisy, while in the same post calling them a troll. Hypocrisy recursion. Even more useful.



I used the term troll very literally. If you take it personally - as you have done with so many other things here - that's not my fault. Defensively accusing me of not being able to read because you can't answer a legitimate question is a personal attack. I doubt you'll figure the difference between the two out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Yes, that was clear in my first post. I'm glad you're realizing that on page 12. Once again, you can't read.



I've already addressed your propensity for statements like this that serve no purpose but to insult and dodge legitimate questions.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Anyone can, yet nobody did. If you read my first post, you'd realize I never claimed to have firsthand experience with CIA, because I was asking others for it- the primary and sole intention of creating the thread!



Plenty of people use the search function here every day. They just don't feel the need to create threads about how awesome they are at typing a few characters and hitting the "Search" button and then insulting anyone that posts anything contrary to their opinion.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no one has to do anything- and we certainly don't have to do what you say.



If you want any respect here, you'll do it. Or you can just banter on, and maintain your current troll status. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" as you are clearly alone in this thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> The vast majority of FP setups here on this forum are CIW and use no masks. So I'm taking on a more challenging approach, sorry.



You haven't taken anything on. You've made an excuse as to why you've spent the last month arguing with people about opinion and symantics here instead of actually producing a setup and providing information of worth to others.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> You must have missed my attempt at starting a discussion about 1.78 & 2.05 setups based on what you watch more.



No, I didn't, but it was unimpressive and short-lived, since you decided to dedicate this thread to arguing with those who don't agree with you.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> I tend to watch 1.78/1.85 & 2.35 about 99% of the time, so there's no point in masking for 4:3. The only difference from CIH is that I'll need to mask top and bottom for 2.35.



Either your system won't be _true_ CIA (anything less than 1.78 will have less area than everything else) or you haven't done your homework. 1.78:1 needs to be masked on all four sides in a _true_ CIA setup. But go ahead and bend the definition of CIA to your whims in order to try to sound right in absolutely everything you say. It will impress everyone and completely fool them.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> You said yourself a fully motorized 4-way would be the most complicated to implement. That's what I was referring to.
> 
> 
> Simple & cheap refer to implementation and are one and the same. Operating speed/ease is another matter that I'm not worried about for obvious reasons..



Having separate sets of masks that need to be mounted before viewing may be simple to construct, but along with the zooming/resetting lens shift/mounting the masks, it's anything but simple in implementation. A 4-way mask would take more time to build but be quicker to use. You have no real world experience with this, but you're telling everyone how easy it will be. How does that work?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Very good, and you asking the question adds just as little insight.



I'm not the one trying to justify this thread's existence or placement - you're the one who needs to come up with material of substance.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> Someday you'll learn to read and understand that we all aren't going to do things your way. A 2.05 setup which I referred to with 1.78 being the full height of the screen, will not share the lumen gap that you speak of.
> 
> 
> My living room isn't a critical production screening room. It isn't light controlled.
> 
> 
> You also completely ignored the effect zooming will have on different ratios.
> 
> 
> Negligible.



No, I didn't ignore anything - you're talking zoom-based CIA, so my numbers are based on a zoom-based, _true_ 1.78:1 CIA setup. Let me explain this to you on a very basic level. Light off the screen is calculated by multiplying the lumen output of the projector by the screen gain and dividing by the screen area in ft^2 - this gives you the footlambers (ftL) coming off the screen. Two images of different area and/or proportions measured at the same ftL will appear idendically bright. However, when you watch a movie that uses less than the full display panel, you're not using the full lumen output of the projector - the light deflected by the pixels in the black bars gets "thrown away". A 2.39:1 image uses just under 75% of the available display panel on a 1.78:1 projector, as does a 1.33:1 image. Therefore in both situations your light output is cut by approx 25%. In a CIW setup, the viewable area decreases proportionally with the lumen output, so the percieved brightness is constant no matter what AR you watch. In a CIA setup, since the viewable area is always constant - your image area remains constant while the the effective lumen output changes based on the size of the black bars. Therefore, in the case of a true 1.78:1 screen CIA setup, 1.78:1 material will be the brightest, with all other ARs getting dimmer the further you move from 1.78:1 in either direction. In the case of a 2.05 screen, you still lose 15% of the light output at 2.39:1 or 1.78:1, and you also lose the CIA aspect of the setup if you display any AR less than 1.78:1. It's convenient that you'll claim that a 15% loss of light is negligable, but I guarantee it is not (especially from a calibration standpoint when it comes to shadow detail and blacks with respect to the CR capabilities of your projector). I'm sure you'll continue to flippantly dismiss it as unimportant just like you do everything else you dismiss that doesn't fit in with your cherry-picked, straw-grasped argument.


If you'd actually put your money where your mouth is rather than argue semantics and opinion repeatedly, a substantial lumen loss like the one you discussed above would be readily apparent upon viewing. You've made it painfully clear that your only personal choice is for a CIA setup, so what are you waiting for - ACTUALLY DO IT. Or just continue on your banal rants in the wrong forum...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259500
> 
> 
> I never said you did. Plenty of others have. When you learn to read, you can go back through the thread and see those posts.



It's easy to skim when you say the same things over and over...and over...and over...


I'm actually just some guy who wanted some insight from CIA users, something you aren't.[/quote]


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> You posted an off topic thread in a forum that is at direct odds with your original topic, you personally attack people when they disagree with you (surprise! you're in the wrong spot) and talk down to everyone as if they're 5 because they don't share your viewpoint. You accuse others of getting personal, but you certainly didn't waste time lowering yourself to that level, to include whining about people disagreeing with you or telling you that your'e wrong (God forbid!). The fact that this thread is 12 pages long has nothing to do with the usefulness of the content - only the troglodytic nature of the OP who can't let any contrary opinion go ignored or un-punished.



Here I go, repeating myself, because someone can't comprehend a simple concept:


If it didn't belong here, it wouldn't be here. Take it up with the mods, not me.


If you don't like it here: do something about it.


I only talk to people on their level chief.










You know how much pointless arguing you've done in similar threads to this?


Oh, and let's quote HogPilot, shall we?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16086762
> 
> 
> We've established that 1) you know nothing about calibration, nor do you have a desire to learn, 2) you think calibration is a bunch of crap, yet 3) you're posting in a thread about calibration. So why are you here?



You can tell someone who isn't interested in the topic at hand, only wants to argue against the topic, yet is still posting in the thread, that they have no reason to be there- yet when I do that, it's not "allowed"?


And I'm the hypocrite somehow?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> "You can't read...", "Keep up" "Did you even read my first post?"
> 
> 
> Such responses serve no purpose except to degrade and insult. Why are you surprised that no one here takes you seriously when you continually fall back on such responses?



I'm glad you comprehended that much. Since you opened the table to such responses by personally attacking me, I'm only playing your game.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> I used the term troll very literally. If you take it personally - as you have done with so many other things here - that's not my fault. Defensively accusing me of not being able to read because you can't answer a legitimate question is a personal attack. I doubt you'll figure the difference between the two out.



The fact that you personally attack me does not imply that I take it personally, I couldn't care less.


If I repeat myself in answering your question, you can't read. This is a rather simple concept.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> I've already addressed your propensity for statements like this that serve no purpose but to insult and dodge legitimate questions.



Congrats, man. What purpose does this statement serve? Can you break that one down for me?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> Plenty of people use the search function here every day. They just don't feel the need to create threads about how awesome they are at typing a few characters and hitting the "Search" button and then insulting anyone that posts anything contrary to their opinion.



*Yawn*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> If you want any respect here, you'll do it. Or you can just banter on, and maintain your current troll status. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" as you are clearly alone in this thread.



I see, if I want respect, I'll do as you say. Yes, my lord.


If I'm a troll, what does that make you? That's right.


Troll bait, and you bit hard- again and again.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> You haven't taken anything on. You've made an excuse as to why you've spent the last month arguing with people about opinion and symantics here instead of actually producing a setup and providing information of worth to others.



Neither have you. Where's your CIA setup to show us? I'm not making excuses, I can implement my setup a year from now if I so choose.


You in a hurry there bub?


Where in my initial post did I say I would be providing any sort of information?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> No, I didn't, but it was unimpressive and short-lived, since you decided to dedicate this thread to arguing with those who don't agree with you.



Well now I'm going to cry, because my goal here was to impress Mr. HogPilot.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> Either your system won't be _true_ CIA (anything less than 1.78 will have less area than everything else) or you haven't done your homework. 1.78:1 needs to be masked on all four sides in a _true_ CIA setup. But go ahead and bend the definition of CIA to your whims in order to try to sound right in absolutely everything you say. It will impress everyone and completely fool them.



Again if you learned to read, you'd see I've done my homework. The setup would be Constant Image Area because I'd only be using 3 aspect ratios. 2.35, 1.85, and 1.78. All at constant areas, all on a 2.05 screen.


Perhaps you need to do your homework?


I've said many times in this thread if you require 4:3 at constant area you would need a 1.78 screen and four-sided masking for 1.78/1.85 content. I created mockups showing these scenarios. I'm well aware, thank you.


I'm not creating a CIA setup for HogPilot to watch. I'm creating one for me to watch.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> Having separate sets of masks that need to be mounted before viewing may be simple to construct, but along with the zooming/resetting lens shift/mounting the masks, it's anything but simple in implementation. A 4-way mask would take more time to build but be quicker to use. You have no real world experience with this, but you're telling everyone how easy it will be. How does that work?



Ha, nowhere did I say 4-way masking would be easy. Nice try though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> I'm not the one trying to justify this thread's existence or placement - you're the one who needs to come up with material of substance.



Nope, I don't. What are you going to do about it?


You are the one with an issue about the thread's existence and placement, not me. Have you forgotten?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> No, I didn't ignore anything - you're talking zoom-based CIA, so my numbers are based on a zoom-based, _true_ 1.78:1 CIA setup. Let me explain this to you on a very basic level. Light off the screen is calculated by multiplying the lumen output of the projector by the screen gain and dividing by the screen area in ft^2 - this gives you the footlambers (ftL) coming off the screen. Two images of different area and/or proportions measured at the same ftL will appear idendically bright. However, when you watch a movie that uses less than the full display panel, you're not using the full lumen output of the projector - the light deflected by the pixels in the black bars gets "thrown away". A 2.39:1 image uses just under 75% of the available display panel on a 1.78:1 projector, as does a 1.33:1 image. Therefore in both situations your light output is cut by approx 25%. In a CIW setup, the viewable area decreases proportionally with the lumen output, so the percieved brightness is constant no matter what AR you watch. In a CIA setup, since the viewable area is always constant - your image area remains constant while the the effective lumen output changes based on the size of the black bars. Therefore, in the case of a true 1.78:1 screen CIA setup, 1.78:1 material will be the brightest, with all other ARs getting dimmer the further you move from 1.78:1 in either direction. In the case of a 2.05 screen, you still lose 15% of the light output at 2.39:1 or 1.78:1, and you also lose the CIA aspect of the setup if you display any AR less than 1.78:1. It's convenient that you'll claim that a 15% loss of light is negligable, but I guarantee it is not (especially from a calibration standpoint when it comes to shadow detail and blacks with respect to the CR capabilities of your projector). I'm sure you'll continue to flippantly dismiss it as unimportant just like you do everything else you dismiss that doesn't fit in with your cherry-picked, straw-grasped argument.



So, where in this wall of text do you respond to the fact that you completely ignored zoom's factor on light output. If you're going to be thorough, at least be thorough.


15% loss, even if true, is negligible for me. If it weren't, I'd be replacing my bulb every 450 hours.


Ridiculous.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> If you'd actually put your money where your mouth is rather than argue semantics and opinion repeatedly, a substantial lumen loss like the one you discussed above would be readily apparent upon viewing. You've made it painfully clear that your only personal choice is for a CIA setup, so what are you waiting for - ACTUALLY DO IT. Or just continue on your banal rants in the wrong forum...



It's funny you think this is such a huge deal, but you won't go near Bjoern or other "more respected" members with this argument.


In a hurry again, eh?


Oh, the wrong forum? Really? I had no idea! Why don't you place it in the correct forum for me.


What's that, you can't?







Too bad isn't it?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16261164
> 
> 
> It's easy to skim when you say the same things over and over...and over...and over...



Well I'm trying very hard to keep things easy for you.


----------



## Jeff Smith

LG - I agree with HogPilot. Go actually do something in CIA, I am.


You've even alienated those of us who wanted to support your CIA goals (and now I even doubt your goals as that seems far less important to you than being "right").


There is nothing you can say in support of CIA that is more convincing or eloquently presented than what Bjoern Roy posted...period. Just refer people to his post. It really is about how things are presented.


You may not even realize how you come across, but you will never gain respect this way (and I mean of any of us, not just those arguing back). I would think that matters to you...maybe not.


Please reread your own first post...and no, I didn't mind a few digs back at the CIH folks at first, but now you just come across as spiteful and mean.


I also can't believe you'd actually seem proud of how long this thread is. It almost seems you are trying to get it pulled. You've set us back if anything. A few here have already directly helped me with my system, and at first I thought you too were asking for help. Now all I think you care about it having the last word. Too bad.


I got sucked into taking your side when you stuck to goals. Now, even though (a very few) others here have been been just as bad about name-calling...this thread is really about you being right, not about CIA at all.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16261502
> 
> 
> LG - I agree with HogPilot. Go actually do something in CIA, I am.
> 
> 
> You've even alienated those of us who wanted to support your CIA goals (and now I even doubt your goals as that seems far less important to you than being "right").
> 
> 
> There is nothing you can say in support of CIA that is more convincing or eloquently presented than what Bjoern Roy posted...period. Just refer people to his post. It really is about how things are presented.
> 
> 
> You may not even realize how you come across, but you will never gain respect this way (and I mean of any of us, not just those arguing back). I would think that matters to you...maybe not.
> 
> 
> Please reread your own first post...and no, I didn't mind a few digs back at the CIH folks at first, but now you just come across as spiteful and mean.
> 
> 
> I also can't believe you'd actually seem proud of how long this thread is. It almost seems you are trying to get it pulled. You've set us back if anything. A few here have already directly helped me with my system, and at first I thought you too were asking for help. Now all I think you care about it having the last word. Too bad.
> 
> 
> I got sucked into taking your side when you stuck to goals. Now, even though (a very few) others here have been been just as bad about name-calling...this thread is really about you being right, not about CIA at all.



You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm doing here.


I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything besides the fact that my preference is just as valid as theirs.


I wanted to see some CIA setups before I jumped in to one.


The moment CIH proponents jumped into the thread (when I never asked for their input) proclaiming the undeniable superiority of CIH was the moment this thread died.


Again, I've only responded with what has been thrown my way again and again.


The reason, the real reason this thread is about "me being right", is because CIH supporters tried to make it about me being wrong. I'm not going to sit here and say ok, yeah, I must be wrong.


Because I'm not.


CIA is as valid as CIH, and we can go another 13 pages if they want to argue against this.


This thread proves we need a restructuring of this subforum. It's clear CIH need it's space.










I don't see how that sets anyone behind, no matter which you method you prefer.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16259791
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third largest thread in this sub-forum.
> 
> 
> It is currently the 29th most viewed thread in this sub-forum (which has been around since '06) already, and it hasn't even been around a month.
> 
> 
> Sounds like it's fitting in.



And what was it you asked me? Oh yeah. Would you like a cookie with that?


----------



## JeffY

I've been doing constant area for about 6 months and would never consider anything else now. I can watch any aspect ratio movie and I'm perfectly happy with the relative size of the picture. I use a scaler so that I can accomodate pretty much any aspect ratio at the touch of a button. It's a very elegant solution, I don't have to worry about readjusting the zoom lens all the time or use an anamorphic lens. Icing on the cake would be 4 way electronic masking however the black bars are small and dark enough not to bother me.


I've noticed that CIA is now available is a high-end solution for custom installers via companies like PMI.


Here is a flash demo of PMI's constant area solution.

http://www.noydcom.com/PMI/screen_demo.swf


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262149
> 
> 
> I use a scaler so that I can accomodate pretty much any aspect ratio at the touch of a button.



Please share what you have done. The 3D D-Cinema presentation I saw for Monsters Vs Aliens also did not use an anamorphic lens (the film was Scope) but it was CIH and not CIA. I am guessing the processor in the projector scales the image so as only to use the pixel height of the scope presentation (810?) x the panel width and proportionally less for the smaller ARs. Again this did not zoom either so would be close to what your doing.


----------



## JeffY

I have a Lumagen HDP Pro, I use the shrink option (output setting) to downscale the image to either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, 2:35:1 is 1-1 pixel mapped. The Lumagen also has custom electronic masking so you don't get any image showing outside of the main screen area. It looks very clean, downscaling (especually for 1.85:1) is minimal and hardly noticable.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262220
> 
> 
> I have a Lumagen HDP Pro, I use the shrink option (output setting) to downscale the image to either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, 2:35:1 is 1-1 pixel mapped. The Lumagen also has custom electronic masking so you don't get any image showing outside of the main screen area. It looks very clean, downscaling (especually for 1.85:1) is minimal and hardly noticable.



Thanks. Is it possible to see images of the different ARs?


----------



## scottyb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262149
> 
> 
> I've been doing constant area for about 6 months and would never consider anything else now. I can watch any aspect ratio movie and I'm perfectly happy with the relative size of the picture. I use a scaler so that I can accomodate pretty much any aspect ratio at the touch of a button. It's a very elegant solution, I don't have to worry about readjusting the zoom lens all the time or use an anamorphic lens. Icing on the cake would be 4 way electronic masking however the black bars are small and dark enough not to bother me.
> 
> 
> I've noticed that CIA is now available is a high-end solution for custom installers via companies like PMI.
> 
> 
> Here is a flash demo of PMI's constant area solution.
> 
> http://www.noydcom.com/PMI/screen_demo.swf



Jeff,

can you give me a bit more details as this sounds intriguing.


----------



## JeffY

Mark, I don't have anything to hand, I'm rubbish with a camera. I might have a go later in the week if I have some time.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/16262834
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> can you give me a bit more details as this sounds intriguing.



On the PMI solution?

The Integrator » Is There Something Better Than A 2.35:1 Screen? 


Quotes from the article



> Quote:
> The question we've always run into is, How do you create a screen that will take you into the future?' said Terry Hill, PMI's general manager. He went on to explain that PMI 2.0 involves not a new and improved version of his company, but a screen with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. It's a canvas that provides the best starting point for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1, he explained. It means that you don't have to compromise sports in 16:9 high-def for movies in 2.35:1, or vice versa.
> 
> 
> The most profound advantage PMI claims is that its new scheme delivers a better picture because it requires no additional video processing and no anamorphic lens. The purer signal path eliminates the potential for artifacts that extra video processing introduces, and also eliminates the distortion, chromatic aberration, and loss of detail that an additional lens might cause.
> 
> 
> Constant-height systems have the advantage of using the entire surface of the DLP chip in the projector no matter what widescreen aspect ratio is shown; using the entire chip can deliver extra brightness and can make individual pixels less visible on-screen. In comparison, PMI 2.0 uses the full DLP chip only at the chip's native 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Hill said he feels that PMI 2.0's benefits outweigh this disadvantage.





> Quote:
> For the near future, PMI 2.0 will be an option only for the world's elite theaters. According to Hill, it demands a ceiling height of at least 12 feet; a projector that currently costs about $200,000; and a screen that costs $30,000 and up. He predicts the projector cost will come down substantially, but the screen cost won't.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262849
> 
> 
> Mark, I don't have anything to hand, I'm rubbish with a camera. I might have a go later in the week if I have some time.



I guess I am confused with the "1:1" bit. On a 1080 with BD, 1:1 would be full panel 16:9 including letterboxed Scope which is CIW. Therefore I am wondering how you do Scope in CIA @ 1:1 without applying some zoom.


----------



## JeffY

I fill the width of the 2.05:1 screen which leaves small black bars top and bottom on a 2.35:1 movie. Anything outside of the screen is electronically masked.


----------



## CAVX

Ok, and 1.78:1?


----------



## JeffY

I have a scaler memory for 1.85:1 and another for 1.78:1.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16263074
> 
> 
> I have a scaler memory for 1.85:1 and another for 1.78:1.



So you scale these ARs to fit the 2.05:1 screen height?


----------



## JeffY

Yes I do, 1.85:1 equates to an approx 10% downscale.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16263401
> 
> 
> Yes I do, 1.85:1 equates to an approx 10% downscale.



Thanks for that


----------



## Jeff Smith

14 posts without an argument...a record. Plus, interactive dialogue has occurred BW the 2 sides with the emphasis on the actual implementation.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262149
> 
> 
> I've been doing constant area for about 6 months and would never consider anything else now. I can watch any aspect ratio movie and I'm perfectly happy with the relative size of the picture. I use a scaler so that I can accomodate pretty much any aspect ratio at the touch of a button. It's a very elegant solution, I don't have to worry about readjusting the zoom lens all the time or use an anamorphic lens. Icing on the cake would be 4 way electronic masking however the black bars are small and dark enough not to bother me.
> 
> 
> I've noticed that CIA is now available is a high-end solution for custom installers via companies like PMI.
> 
> 
> Here is a flash demo of PMI's constant area solution.
> 
> http://www.noydcom.com/PMI/screen_demo.swf



I stumbled across PMI's demo last night after thinking about creating a similar animation showing the difference between AR's on CIA. That saved me some time!


Awesome, what projector do you use, who makes your screen and what size? I imagine the black bars are less distracting than they are on a CIW screen, and even then many people don't bother.


I'm guessing I would start that way and see how I feel about them.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262220
> 
> 
> I have a Lumagen HDP Pro, I use the shrink option (output setting) to downscale the image to either 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, 2:35:1 is 1-1 pixel mapped. The Lumagen also has custom electronic masking so you don't get any image showing outside of the main screen area. It looks very clean, downscaling (especually for 1.85:1) is minimal and hardly noticable.



So the approximate resolution of 1.78 would be 1665x937? 1.85 would be 1733x937?


I guess I already asked the screen size, what is your seating distance? Do you sit to where you can't notice any scaling, or do you sit without taking that into consideration since it's so transparent?


Do you do 2.05 screen height for 4:3 content (SD or HD)?


Do you mimic PMI's size reduction for SD DVD content?


This sounds like a really easy clean approach to CIA, and with quality sources (BD) the scaling shouldn't be very noticeable as you say. Obviously compressed HDTV isn't that great to begin with and even less than HD sources would have to be scaled to 1080p, so 937p should look very similar. I would be curious to see a comparison of the two, say 1.85 BD scaled and zoomed just to see if there's any difference detectable in stills.


The Lumagen's masking (blanking?) would come in handy for IMAX content. Have you watched TDK on your setup?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16263896
> 
> 
> 14 posts without an argument...a record. Plus, interactive dialogue has occurred BW the 2 sides with the emphasis on the actual implementation.



It's amazing what we can do when we leave CIH and attacking personal preferences out of the thread.








Hopefully this is a turn back on topic.


Do we know what the bare minimum ($-wise) scaler would be needed to accomplish this type of implementation? Obviously a HTPC can do it, but for standalone devices?


The other interesting thing about this approach (since 2.35 is 1:1 @ 1920x817) is the fact that it is constant image resolution and constant pixel size as well.


----------



## JeffY

I have a JVC HD750 (RS20) projector, the screen is Carada fixed screen with a 2.05:1 aspect ratio. Viewing distance is approximately 1.5 x screen width. There is a very slight softening of the image when downscaling Blu-Ray material but you would be hard pressed to tell the difference most of the time.


I don't watch much SD material but what I do watch I use the same image size as HD, but I do like PMI solution. If I had the 4 way electronic masking I would certainly consider it.


I use the 1.78:1 scaler setting for 4:3 and 1.66:1 material. Effectively anything above 2.05:1 aspect ratio is constant width and anything below is constant height. The black bars are generally far less objectionable than I had with my previous 1.78:1 setup, the much smaller bars helps but so does a projector with very good blacks.


The electronic masking is a big feature for me, even seeing parts of a DVD or Blu-ray menu outside of the screen area is a big turn off for me, but yes it also works with TDK.


----------



## scottyb

Jeffy,

I was looking for more info on your set-up, not the PMI.

Basiclly have you set up the scaler etc...


Scott


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scottyb* /forum/post/16264972
> 
> 
> Jeffy,
> 
> I was looking for more info on your set-up, not the PMI.
> 
> Basiclly have you set up the scaler etc...
> 
> 
> Scott



Don't mean to answer for him, just wondering if I'm on the right track. JeffY please correct any misinfo I have:


He didn't confirm this, but these should be the resolutions for scaled down ratios:


1.78 would be 1665x937

1.85 would be 1733x937


2.35 has no scaling & is 1920x817.


However, I don't think they are important as I believe in the scaler this would be called a zoom, with varying levels. I'm guessing he played with the zoom percentage using a 1.78 full screen until he hit the masking for his screen's height. If the scaler uses percentage numbers for zoom level, it should be around 87%.


After that you would set the blanking to 72 pixels (or 6.6%) top and bottom to make sure nothing outside 2.05 is projected.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16264662
> 
> 
> Effectively anything above 2.05:1 aspect ratio is constant width and anything below is constant height.



[Off Topic]


I liked this explanation. It just hit me how powerful that statement is, as CIA, CIW & CIH all work this way based on different native screen ARs. Only 1.78 CIA (with 4-way masking) wouldn't fit this description.


It's kinda funny how all three are technically mis-named, and actually share the most important part of how they work in common!










[/Off Topic]


Does anyone know if the DVDO Edge would be capable of driving this? It has the zoom needed (though I'm not sure about blanking). The downside I see is lack of memory to remember and easily switch. Since it has codes for zoom could a Harmony or similar be programmed to make the switch?


B-stock iScan VP50's are only $1K and do zoom and from what I can tell vertical blanking in 1 pixel increments (so 72px should work?). It would have a user preset that should work.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16265083
> 
> 
> Don't mean to answer for him, just wondering if I'm on the right track. JeffY please correct any misinfo I have:
> 
> 
> He didn't confirm this, but these should be the resolutions for scaled down ratios:
> 
> 
> 1.78 would be 1665x937
> 
> 1.85 would be 1733x937
> 
> 
> 2.35 has no scaling & is 1920x817.
> 
> 
> .



It's about that, I havn't checked it exactly. 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 are scaled using the shrink option on the Lumagen which is applied to the image output (rather than scaling the input). It might seem like a small detail but it's actually very important for SD material since it means the full input resolution is kept intact.


All that is needed is a Lumagen HDP, which should be fairly easy to find for not much money on the used market.


PS The Lumagen has 4 memory selections, I have the 4th setup to show 2.35:1 movies as full screen, I've watched a few movies this way and while it looks good I still prefer watching the movie in it's original aspect ratio.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16266108
> 
> 
> It's about that, I havn't checked it exactly. 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 are scaled using the shrink option on the Lumagen which is applied to the image output (rather than scaling the input). It might seem like a small detail but it's actually very important for SD material since it means the full input resolution is kept intact.
> 
> 
> All that is needed is a Lumagen HDP, which should be fairly easy to find for not much money on the used market.
> 
> 
> PS The Lumagen has 4 memory selections, I have the 4th setup to show 2.35:1 movies as full screen, I've watched a few movies this way and while it looks good I still prefer watching the movie in it's original aspect ratio.



I'd agree, the Lumagen would be the best value for running a scaling-based CIA setup. Lumagen's scaling is definitely superior to DVDO's - I own both a Radiance and a VP50 and find the Radiance to be sharper and have significantly less ringing (AFAIK the HDP and Radiance use the same scaling algorithm). A used HDP would also be less expensive than a used VP50, and the Edge can only perform the required scaling (but not the masking).


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16264377
> 
> 
> The other interesting thing about this approach (since 2.35 is 1:1 @ 1920x817) is the fact that it is constant image resolution and constant pixel size as well.



As well as constant brightness and calibration for all ARs which is a nice plus for movies. I thought about mentioning this method here but figured it might get lost in the "shuffle"







I'm glad Jeff beat me to it since he's actually doing a CIA setup. I've used the "shrink" method with an HDP for about a year in my CIH setup. I'm still amazed at the downscaling on 1.85:1 BDs. HD cable is not quite as good, but still acceptable. Hard to say if the source or downscaling ability is the bigger factor.


CIA should be an ideal application for the shrink method. There would even be the option to do some minor cropping and/or stretching to fit one or both ARs on a 2.05:1 screen. (The HDP has a variable non-linear stretch option) I know this option wouldn't be for everyone, but it could have interesting possibilities on some material. I know one well known member was planning on doing exactly this (name withheld to protect the guilty)










For more feedback and info, here's where I got the idea for the shrink method:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1022306


----------



## CAVX

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but are you guys not concerned about not being able to use the full 1080 rez of HD?


----------



## JeffY

The scaling is only needed on movies with an AR below 2:1, even then the scaling is minimal enough to be hardly noticable. The ease of use and the ability to show all aspect ratios correctly, not to mention the constant brightness and pixel density far outway any negatives.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

What's the largest 2.05:1 AR screen you guy are using ?


Art


----------



## phansson

I have been following this thread honestly because I didn't know what CIA was. Then the constant bickering kept me coming back.










My thoughts.


1. 4 way masking would seem like a pain in the backside. Not to mention extremely expensive.


2. It appears that CIA still does not use the entire vertical resolution of the panel on the display device. Which is a main reason CIH is popular. This also results in not using the full brightness potential of the display, which is important for some of the new lcos/sxrd projectors.


3. Some of the CIA posters have stated having to "blank" pixels. Wouldn't this result in loss of original material?


4. Art stated that his "new" 1.78 image is the same size as his old setup. Thus he gets a 33% larger image with 2.35 material. This is the "impact" improvement that I am looking for.


----------



## Oliver Klohs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16270124
> 
> 
> What's the largest 2.05:1 AR screen you guy are using ?
> 
> 
> Art



Mine is almost exactly 14ft around the curve, scope images are about 6ft high, movies shot in 70mm flat come in at around 6.5ft.


I am pretty sure though that I will not go with a 2.05:1 AR again, I used 2.15 before and liked it better and I am now considering something between 2.20:1 and 2.66:1.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16270490
> 
> 
> I have been following this thread honestly because I didn't know what CIA was. Then the constant bickering kept me coming back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts.
> 
> 
> 1. 4 way masking would seem like a pain in the backside. Not to mention extremely expensive.
> 
> 
> 2. It appears that CIA still does not use the entire vertical resolution of the panel on the display device. Which is a main reason CIH is popular. This also results in not using the full brightness potential of the display, which is important for some of the new lcos/sxrd projectors.
> 
> 
> 3. Some of the CIA posters have stated having to "blank" pixels. Wouldn't this result in loss of original material?
> 
> 
> 4. Art stated that his "new" 1.78 image is the same size as his old setup. Thus he gets a 33% larger image with 2.35 material. This is the "impact" improvement that I am looking for.



1. Black bars are much smaller so masking is less needed. CIH setups also require 4 way masking if you want to avoid black bars. (1.85:1 and anything above 2.35:1 aren't full height)


2. Depends in the implementaion, the same is true for some implementations of CIH.


3. Not sure what you mean.


4. If that is what you are looking for that is fine. I'd rather have the a similar impact regardless of aspect ratio.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16270601
> 
> 
> 1. Black bars are much smaller so masking is less needed. CIH setups also require 4 way masking if you want to avoid black bars. (1.85:1 and anything above 2.35:1 aren't full height)
> 
> 
> 2. Depends in the implementaion, the same is true for some implementations of CIH.
> 
> 
> 3. Not sure what you mean.



1. I would guess 90% of what I watch is either 2.35 or 1.78. So I would rather optimize for those formats.


2/3. I thought that you stated you were using a scaler and having to zoom and blank out some pixels.


----------



## JeffY

1.85:1 is far more common than 1.78:1, 1.78:1 is more of a TV format, it's rarely used for film. it would be very strange that you have more 1.78:1 movies unless you cherry picked movies based on aspect ratio.


I use scaling in my implementatiion of CIA because of ease of use and because it works so damn well, it's a personal call.


----------



## Jeff Smith

When you get down to it, all you need to keep the CIA option open from the start is to make your screen slightly taller to start with. If you don't like it, you just leave your top and bottom borders on and voila, CIH!


All screens should have masking. Its just a fact. If you haven't tried it, do so. It just makes the image stand out.


Even with no light on the "black bars" the area is still visible just from light from the image itself bouncing off of the room. Even CIH needs 4 way masking for this reason...its just that 2 of their masks never move.


All the good systems out here have a velvet/velux/etc border top and bottom, even if its fixed. It took me a few years before I found this out, and what a difference it made. I can't emphasize this enough. Don't just let the PJ or scaler "mask" for you. At least get a sample of a cheap plain black velvet (not fancy crushed velvet) from a fabric store and try it. You can prob take the whole roll home and return it if you put it on you credit card, but you need to see the difference a sudden transition from the image to the blackness makes.


DIY masking was the best "bang for the buck" thing I did in my system, by far. Cost less than $60 plus labor. BTW, flat black paint or anything else I tried didn't even come close.


There are many ways to do CIA. I chose to do it with an A Lens so I never waste pixels.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16271089
> 
> 
> Even CIH needs 4 way masking for this reason...its just that 2 of their masks never move.



In a regular CIH/anamorphic setup 1.85:1 isn't full height so ideally you do need 4 way variable masking.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16270984
> 
> 
> 1.85:1 is far more common than 1.78:1, 1.78:1 is more of a TV format, it's rarely used for film. it would be very strange that you have more 1.78:1 movies unless you cherry picked movies based on aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> I use scaling in my implementatiion of CIA because of ease of use and because it works so damn well, it's a personal call.



Sorry I watch tv on my setup so 1.78 is somewhat of an important ratio for me.


So with the use of scaling in your implementation, do you have to zoom out or remove part of the actual picture to fit your screen?


----------



## JeffY

Yes, effectively I only use 1920x937 of the available projector resolution.


----------



## phansson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16271279
> 
> 
> Yes, effectively I only use 1920x937 of the available projector resolution.




That is what I thought. Thanks.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16270601
> 
> 
> 1. Black bars are much smaller so masking is less needed. CIH setups also require 4 way masking if you want to avoid black bars. (1.85:1 and anything above 2.35:1 aren't full height)



No it's not, you stretch it horizontally so it's wider than 1.78:1, by 4%. I'd be very, very surprised if anyone with a CIH setup had horizontal masking. Or if you're in the real world, that 4% is usually covered by the overscan caused by the small differences between projector/lens/image/screen proportions.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16271089
> 
> 
> When you get down to it, all you need to keep the CIA option open from the start is to make your screen slightly taller to start with. If you don't like it, you just leave your top and bottom borders on and voila, CIH!



That assumes you're building your own screen and/or plan on having horizontal masking. One benefit of CIH is eliminating the need for horizontal masking. If I would have made my screen taller I'd have had to make/buy some sort of horizontal masking that I don't need with my 2.39:1 screen.



> Quote:
> All screens should have masking. Its just a fact. If you haven't tried it, do so. It just makes the image stand out.



But CIH doesn't need horizontal masking.



> Quote:
> Even with no light on the "black bars" the area is still visible just from light from the image itself bouncing off of the room. Even CIH needs 4 way masking for this reason...its just that 2 of their masks never move.



That is fundamentally wrong, CIH does not need 4-way masking. It only "needs" vertical masking. I think you're confusing Screen borders with masking. If you're building your own screen then it may be largely a non-difference, but if you're buying one, or using something like the velvet-wrapped moldings I used, then it's an important one.



> Quote:
> All the good systems out here have a velvet/velux/etc border top and bottom, even if its fixed.



Border yes, masking no. Actually not even the border necessarilly, some people opt for the floating, boarderless screen, that makes masking pretty hard.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phansson* /forum/post/16271238
> 
> 
> Sorry I watch tv on my setup so 1.78 is somewhat of an important ratio for me.



Watching (lower quality) TV at 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 movies 33% bigger would work very well.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16271341
> 
> 
> No it's not, you stretch it horizontally so it's wider than 1.78:1, by 4%. I'd be very, very surprised if anyone with a CIH setup had horizontal masking. Or if you're in the real world, that 4% is usually covered by the overscan caused by the small differences between projector/lens/image/screen proportions.



Mark H has a 4 way electronic CIH screen. 4% overscan is far too much IMO especially for Blu-ray where (unlike many DVD's) the full image area is used. In any case you can't make 1.85:1 (than 1.78:1) any wider since you are using the full panel width. All you end up doing is cropping 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 material. Cropping the width isn't too bad but cropping the top and bottom off a 2.35:1 movie is a step too far for me.


----------



## Jeff Smith

By masking, I mean creating a sharp edge at the edge of the screen. If border is a better term, I'll use that, but I think were talking about the same thing. I also wrap with velvet, the only difference is your sides are adjustable in some way in only 2 directions, whereas all 4 sides of mine are. Maybe you don't actually move your side borders at all but use a seperate movable vertical border (or curtain mask etc).


Unless you have a floating screen, you would benefit from a black border (adjustable or not).


BTW, I tried the floating thing, it wasn't as effective as a black border IMHO. Didn't give the image the "pop" that the black velvet did...maybe if you had black velvet walls behind the screen it would. some light from the image invariably seemed to either overshoot to the back wall or undershoot leaving a small area of screen showing (like the image didn't go to the edges or "fill the screen").


I find any screen showing without the image to be a distraction that I fell could be cheaply addresses. I think it just looks better to have the image touch the black, even slightly overlapping, rather than leave screen showing with no image on it...personal opinion.


Finally, I don't know about all screen companies, but odd sizes are usually not a problem. If you DIY, its cheaper, for example, to order a DaLite HP in a pull down model C then cut the material to size, fixed mount it, and throw away the housing.


Again, much of what I'm doing is easier for a DIYer and it requires the committment to a fixed screen. My primary concern is the PQ. I can afford higher quality electronics, etc, if I do this.


Its been years since I bought a ready made screen, but I thought most of those had a black border already built in.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16271089
> 
> 
> All screens should have masking. Its just a fact. If you haven't tried it, do so. It just makes the image stand out.



I agree 100% - I never masked with my CIH setup, and found the pillarbox bars mildly annoying. Now I have a CIW setup (due to room constraints, not because I prefer it over CIH) with a Carada Masquerade, and I really can't fathom how I ever didn't use a masking system. The difference in impact and image pop is night and day when it's always properly masked on all 4 sides.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16271089
> 
> 
> There are many ways to do CIA. I chose to do it with an A Lens so I never waste pixels.



In my CIH setup, I kept the lens in place all the time and used my scaler to switch ARs, which was very convenient and meant I always had the material filling the full height of the screen. Throwing away horizontal lines of resolution on the display panel didn't bother me all that much, but throwing away vertical resolution did make a noticable difference in PQ when I played around with it. Some people - particularly hardcore CIH zoomers - prefer no scaling to avoid any artifacts that can result from the process, but for most real world viewing I find that, when properly executed, scaling's impact on the image is minimal as long as you don't throw away vertical resolution.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16271488
> 
> 
> Mark H has a 4 way electronic CIH screen. 4% overscan is far too much IMO especially for Blu-ray where (unlike many DVD's) the full image area is used.



What do you mean "the full image area is used", Blu-ray and DVD use the same picture area.



> Quote:
> In any case you can't make 1.85:1 (than 1.78:1) any wider since you are using the full panel width.



Yes you can, Vern Dias does, you just need to use the lens for 1.85.



> Quote:
> All you end up doing is cropping 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 material. Cropping the width isn't too bad but cropping the top and bottom off a 2.35:1 movie is a step too far for me.



Cropping 7/8" off the edges of a 46" height is too much? Besides if you really have a 2.35:1 screen your screen is already too tall so most scope films (2.37-2.40:1) would be a bit underscanned anyway.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16271753
> 
> 
> By masking, I mean creating a sharp edge at the edge of the screen. If border is a better term, I'll use that, but I think were talking about the same thing. I also wrap with velvet, the only difference is your sides are adjustable in some way in only 2 directions, whereas all 4 sides of mine are. Maybe you don't actually move your side borders at all but use a seperate movable vertical border (or curtain mask etc).



Well there's two things, there are borders, which are fixed and usually part of the screen frame, and then there's masking, which is movable/adjustable. Agreed most screens come with (or most DIY'rs build) a fixed black frame/border around them, on all four sides, usually a few inches wide.


My scope screen has such a border, I build it out of wall molding wrapped in black velvet. It's basically part of the screen frame.


My point was CIH doesn't require horizontal masking in addition to the normal border. Also it's not a "simple" matter to "just make the screen taller" for someone wanting CIH because that introduces added expense/effort/complexity vs just getting a scope screen in the first place. Like I said above, if I would have gone with a 2.0 screen I would have had to come up with additional horizontal masking that I don't currently have or need.



> Quote:
> Finally, I don't know about all screen companies, but odd sizes are usually not a problem. If you DIY, its cheaper, for example, to order a DaLite HP in a pull down model C then cut the material to size, fixed mount it, and throw away the housing.



It's not the size, it's the issue that, again for someone seeking a CIH screen, getting a 2.0/CIA screen means they have to build/buy horizontal masking that they wouldn't otherwise need.


I'm just pointing out that a 2.0 screen for someone wanting CIH has more implications than just having extra screen. They need to figure out a way to cover it up.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16273321
> 
> 
> What do you mean "the full image area is used", Blu-ray and DVD use the same picture area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can, Vern Dias does, you just need to use the lens for 1.85.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cropping 7/8" off the edges of a 46" height is too much? Besides if you really have a 2.35:1 screen your screen is already too tall so most scope films (2.37-2.40:1) would be a bit underscanned anyway.



DVD's generally don't fill the 720x480 pixels available, overscan is expected (mostly due to legacy display reasons). Virtually every Blu-ray disc I've seen uses all the available pixels (allowing for aspect ratio differences), no overscan is needed.


Vern, uses a 1.5x anamorphic lens and doesn't use all the available panel resolution, he is the only person I know that does this. Most people doing constant height seem to accept that 1.85:1 would have top and bottom black bars rather than overscanning the projector by 4%.


It is normal that any movie with an aspect ratio greater than 2.35:1 isn't constant height on a 2.35:1 screen, so top and bottom black bars should be visible.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16272602
> 
> 
> In my CIH setup, I kept the lens in place all the time and used my scaler to switch ARs, which was very convenient and meant I always had the material filling the full height of the screen. Throwing away horizontal lines of resolution on the display panel didn't bother me all that much, but throwing away vertical resolution did make a noticable difference in PQ when I played around with it. Some people - particularly hardcore CIH zoomers - prefer no scaling to avoid any artifacts that can result from the process, but for most real world viewing I find that, when properly executed, scaling's impact on the image is minimal as long as you don't throw away vertical resolution.



Probably why many HD providers got away with 1440x1080 (and some still do?). Many people still saw through that (aside from bitrate) though, so horizontal res loss is noticeable- but this is around 25% loss.


Obviously optical zooming is best for retaining resolution- and I'd think anyone should at least try it first to see how tedious it got, manual or electric.


The other thing is that scaling for a 2.05 screen retains much more resolution (both H&V) than scaling for a 2.35 screen (without a lens method, as the thread quoted by 5mark).


1.85 @ 1733x937 on a 2.05 screen isn't too bad (only 13% vertical loss)


1.85 @ 1511x817 on a 2.35 screen is 24% vertical loss.


So, using a scaler for one-button switches definitely has it's ups and downs, the ease of use can't be ignored. You'll have to judge how much the PQ affects your taste, but if people are accepting it for 2.35 CIH use, this will only look better than that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16271488
> 
> 
> Mark H has a 4 way electronic CIH screen. 4% overscan is far too much IMO especially for Blu-ray where (unlike many DVD's) the full image area is used. In any case you can't make 1.85:1 (than 1.78:1) any wider since you are using the full panel width. All you end up doing is cropping 1.78:1 and 2.35:1 material. Cropping the width isn't too bad but cropping the top and bottom off a 2.35:1 movie is a step too far for me.



I feel like doing some math to verify all of this.


From what I've seen with most CIH lens setups, you have a 2.37 screen so that after scaling scope material to full height (33%) the 16:9 image is stretched by the lens (33%) horizontally. 16:9 x 1.33 = 2.37.


If on a BD you have a 2.35 (817px vert) image, it would become ~1089px, leaving 9px to be cropped when projected (4-5px off top and bottom). 0.8% overscan.


A 2.40 BD will have 800px vert, becoming 1067px with the scaler, and leaving 13px of black bars above the image (6-7px over top and bottom). 1.2% underscan.


Both are very tiny, and hardly noticeable- so it could be left this way. However, 2.40 & anything greater than 2.37 (like 2.76) will have black bars on top and bottom (not CIH), and anything less than 2.37 will get cropped, to the point where you want to switch and not use the lens like 1.85 and 1.78. 1.85 can either be massively cropped to 2.37 or it will have black bars on top/bottom.


Since some don't like black bars over top and bottom of the image, they would adjust the zoom permanently to crop extra space over the 2.40 BD (most common widest AR). This results in 2.35 & 2.40 both filling the vertical area to the masking, though now 2.35 is cropped more. Now 2.35 has 22px vert cropped: 2% vertical overscan.


Now, if you want to take 1.85 into consideration, you have 1038px vertically. Since we've only zoomed enough to fill 2.40 vertically (1067px), we still have 29 more pixels (14-15px over top and bottom) of the image of black space. Again, we're not CIH now, so we need to zoom more to make it the same height. 1.85 would retain all of it's picture, but everything else would now suffer the 1038px crop.


1.78, being all 1080 pixels tall, would be cropped 3.9% vertically.


2.35 would then be cropped 4.7% vertically. 2.40 would be cropped 2.7% vertically.


So technically on a lens CIH setup, either you are cropping (not preserving all image), or you are leaving horizontal black bars requiring masking. This is unless you zoom in between AR's or use a VP that can do variable vertical stretch with a variable lens and of course a 2.40 screen or wider.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16273321
> 
> 
> Cropping 7/8" off the edges of a 46" height is too much? Besides if you really have a 2.35:1 screen your screen is already too tall so most scope films (2.37-2.40:1) would be a bit underscanned anyway.



Looking at my math above confirms what you say about a 2.35 screen, 2.37-2.40+ all require masking on top and bottom if you don't want black bars. If you crop, all of the above percentages apply, but you crop more off the sides due to the less wide shape of 2.35 vs. 2.37.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16273321
> 
> 
> My point was CIH doesn't require horizontal masking in addition to the normal border. Also it's not a "simple" matter to "just make the screen taller" for someone wanting CIH because that introduces added expense/effort/complexity vs just getting a scope screen in the first place. Like I said above, if I would have gone with a 2.0 screen I would have had to come up with additional horizontal masking that I don't currently have or need.



It does require horizontal masking, unless you are cropping the image, zooming in between (the hassle a one-button switch lens setup is suppose to avoid), or a variable stretch VP and variable lens (added cost).


It may not be a simple matter, but the only inconvenience is horizontal masking (which if you are doing a 2.37 CIH on a 2.0 screen IS permanent masking, not border) and the upsides have been discussed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16273321
> 
> 
> It's not the size, it's the issue that, again for someone seeking a CIH screen, getting a 2.0/CIA screen means they have to build/buy horizontal masking that they wouldn't otherwise need.



Only if you plan on cropping and losing image, or you plan on zooming or using expensive VP's and lenses to do variable stretching. The average CIH'er uses the scaler in the projector and a standard (not variable) lens.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16273321
> 
> 
> I'm just pointing out that a 2.0 screen for someone wanting CIH has more implications than just having extra screen. They need to figure out a way to cover it up.



And doing CIH has more implications than just flipping 1.33x vertical stretch on and off and using a 1.33x lens. To preserve all image data (we're talking nearly 5% here, and that's just vertically, not a little sliver hitting the velvet like ALL FP methods usually do) you have to get more complicated.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16269519
> 
> 
> The ease of use and the ability to show all aspect ratios correctly, not to mention the constant brightness and pixel density far outway any negatives.



Yeah that is what I love about my CIH system too


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16273871
> 
> 
> Yeah that is what I love about my CIH system too



How is CIH constant brightness if you move the lens in and out of the light path?


How is it constant pixel resolution or density if you keep the lens in the path and use the scaler?


What methods are you using to do both?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16273734
> 
> 
> Probably why many HD providers got away with 1440x1080 (and some still do?). Many people still saw through that (aside from bitrate) though, so horizontal res loss is noticeable- but this is around 25% loss.
> 
> 
> Obviously optical zooming is best for retaining resolution- and I'd think anyone should at least try it first to see how tedious it got, manual or electric.
> 
> 
> The other thing is that scaling for a 2.05 screen retains much more resolution (both H&V) than scaling for a 2.35 screen (without a lens method, as the thread quoted by 5mark).
> 
> 
> 1.85 @ 1733x937 on a 2.05 screen isn't too bad (only 13% vertical loss)
> 
> 
> 1.85 @ 1511x817 on a 2.35 screen is 24% vertical loss.
> 
> 
> So, using a scaler for one-button switches definitely has it's ups and downs, the ease of use can't be ignored. You'll have to judge how much the PQ affects your taste, but if people are accepting it for 2.35 CIH use, this will only look better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like doing some math to verify all of this.
> 
> 
> From what I've seen with most CIH lens setups, you have a 2.37 screen so that after scaling scope material to full height (33%) the 16:9 image is stretched by the lens (33%) horizontally. 16:9 x 1.33 = 2.37.
> 
> 
> If on a BD you have a 2.35 (817px vert) image, it would become ~1089px, leaving 9px to be cropped when projected (4-5px off top and bottom). 0.8% overscan.
> 
> 
> A 2.40 BD will have 800px vert, becoming 1067px with the scaler, and leaving 13px of black bars above the image (6-7px over top and bottom). 1.2% underscan.
> 
> 
> Both are very tiny, and hardly noticeable- so it could be left this way. However, 2.40 & anything greater than 2.37 (like 2.76) will have black bars on top and bottom (not CIH), and anything less than 2.37 will get cropped, to the point where you want to switch and not use the lens like 1.85 and 1.78. 1.85 can either be massively cropped to 2.37 or it will have black bars on top/bottom.
> 
> 
> Since some don't like black bars over top and bottom of the image, they would adjust the zoom permanently to crop extra space over the 2.40 BD (most common widest AR). This results in 2.35 & 2.40 both filling the vertical area to the masking, though now 2.35 is cropped more. Now 2.35 has 22px vert cropped: 2% vertical overscan.
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to take 1.85 into consideration, you have 1038px vertically. Since we've only zoomed enough to fill 2.40 vertically (1067px), we still have 29 more pixels (14-15px over top and bottom) of the image of black space. Again, we're not CIH now, so we need to zoom more to make it the same height. 1.85 would retain all of it's picture, but everything else would now suffer the 1038px crop.
> 
> 
> 1.78, being all 1080 pixels tall, would be cropped 3.9% vertically.
> 
> 
> 2.35 would then be cropped 4.7% vertically. 2.40 would be cropped 2.7% vertically.
> 
> 
> So technically on a lens CIH setup, either you are cropping (not preserving all image), or you are leaving horizontal black bars requiring masking. This is unless you zoom in between AR's or use a VP that can do variable vertical stretch with a variable lens and of course a 2.40 screen or wider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at my math above confirms what you say about a 2.35 screen, 2.37-2.40+ all require masking on top and bottom if you don't want black bars. If you crop, all of the above percentages apply, but you crop more off the sides due to the less wide shape of 2.35 vs. 2.37.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does require horizontal masking, unless you are cropping the image, zooming in between (the hassle a one-button switch lens setup is suppose to avoid), or a variable stretch VP and variable lens (added cost).
> 
> 
> It may not be a simple matter, but the only inconvenience is horizontal masking (which if you are doing a 2.37 CIH on a 2.0 screen IS permanent masking, not border) and the upsides have been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you plan on cropping and losing image, or you plan on zooming or using expensive VP's and lenses to do variable stretching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And doing CIH has more implications than just flipping 1.33x vertical stretch on and off and using a 1.33x lens. To preserve all image data (we're talking nearly 5% here, and that's just vertically, not a little sliver hitting the velvet like ALL FP methods usually do) you have to get more complicated.



We're arguing about the noise here though. 2-4% is well within the margin of error between screen dimensions, projected image dimensions, AR, differences between film to film, etc. It's practically impossible to get a projector and screen together, mounted and oriented, that will match up exactly and have exactly 0 overscan.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16274108
> 
> 
> We're arguing about the noise here though. 2-4% is well within the margin of error between screen dimensions, projected image dimensions, AR, differences between film to film, etc. It's practically impossible to get a projector and screen together, mounted and oriented, that will match up exactly and have exactly 0 overscan.



You said yourself that vertical resolution loss is very noticeable.


If that's the case, vertical cropping should be noticeable.


4-5% cropping for 1.78 & 2.35 material, is safe, but not everyone is going to like that.


At what percentage point does it become significant?


If you had to choose between a BD cropped to 720 pixels vertically or the same BD scaled to 720p but all image intact, which would you choose?


At a certain point you see, vertical cropping becomes more noticeable than vertical scaling!


JeffY's setup allows for 100% of the image to be shown, with as little cropping due to border/masking as he is able to be precise. I know when I set up my permanent zoom to hit the velvet, I shoot for 1, maybe 2 pixels at the most.


CIH is talking about up to 25 pixels being chopped off top and 25 pixels off the bottom! To avoid this, you have 21 pixels of underscan on the top and bottom, most people would want to mask.


To illustrate this, here's 2.35 shown as it would need to be on a CIH setup, to have 1.85 fill the height of the screen, and not need masking top/bottom.


The green is the area that is cropped to show what you're missing.


~5% doesn't sound like much, but it is a substancial amount of picture missing; a lot more than normally is eaten to fill the border to the edge.











If you decide not to do this, and let 1.85 have underscan, (by some people's standards, would need masking) this is what it would look like:


The green is the area that is not screen border/masking or projected image. The "gap" so to speak. I have shown the side masks in place.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16273946
> 
> 
> How is CIH constant brightness if you move the lens in and out of the light path?
> 
> 
> How is it constant pixel resolution or density if you keep the lens in the path and use the scaler?
> 
> 
> What methods are you using to do both?



I believe that CAVX, like myself, uses a scaler to switch ARs and keeps the lens in place at all times. This means that brightness and pixel density (pixels/unit area) remain constant, as do vertical resolution. Horizontal resolution decreases as the AR decreases (i.e. 2.39:1 -> 1.85:1). Obviously the downside to this method is that all ARs except for scope require scaling, which can induce undesirable artifacts depending on the scaling algorithms used. However, I found that the convenience of being able to quickly switch ARs far outweighed any PQ degredation from horizontal information lost due to scaling.


Regarding the "loss of vertical resolution" issue - losing it due to cropping is different than losing it due to scaling. Unlike cropping, scaling affects the whole picture, which can induce the aforementioned unwanted artifacts (softness, ringing, etc) - so vertical resolution lost due to scaling (depending on the degree of the scaling and quality of the scaler) can be noticable, as opposed to pure cropping which is a relatively transparent process.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16274535
> 
> 
> I believe that CAVX, like myself, uses a scaler to switch ARs and keeps the lens in place at all times. This means that brightness and pixel density (pixels/unit area) remain constant, as do vertical resolution. Horizontal resolution decreases as the AR decreases (i.e. 2.39:1 -> 1.85:1). Obviously the downside to this method is that all ARs except for scope require scaling, which can induce undesirable artifacts depending on the scaling algorithms used. However, I found that the convenience of being able to quickly switch ARs far outweighed any PQ degredation from horizontal information lost due to scaling.
> 
> 
> Regarding the "loss of vertical resolution" issue - losing it due to cropping is different than losing it due to scaling. Unlike cropping, scaling affects the whole picture, which can induce the aforementioned unwanted artifacts (softness, ringing, etc) - so vertical resolution lost due to scaling (depending on the degree of the scaling and quality of the scaler) can be noticable, as opposed to pure cropping which is a relatively transparent process.



That's what I was thinking, in that case I can see brightness remaining constant. Pixel density would remain the same, but constant resolution can't be done as JeffY's method does.


The convenience of being able to switch quickly outweighing resolution lost and scaling artifacts is good to know, since it confirms what JeffY has said for his CIA setup (same process).


Actually, all AR's including scope will require scaling, since you are using a lens. This can also introduce undesirable artifacts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16274535
> 
> 
> Regarding the "loss of vertical resolution" issue - losing it due to cropping is different than losing it due to scaling. Unlike cropping, scaling affects the whole picture, which can induce the aforementioned unwanted artifacts (softness, ringing, etc) - so vertical resolution lost due to scaling (depending on the degree of the scaling and quality of the scaler) can be noticable, as opposed to pure cropping which is a relatively transparent process.



If you had to choose between a BD cropped to 720 pixels vertically or the same BD scaled to 720p but all image intact, which would you choose?


At a certain point you see, vertical cropping becomes more noticeable than vertical scaling!


What point is that, and why can't that be 5% for some people? I don't see where that crossover point could be anything but a personal preference, and not a rule.


Right?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16274576
> 
> 
> If you had to choose between a BD cropped to 720 pixels vertically or the same BD scaled to 720p but all image intact, which would you choose?
> 
> 
> At a certain point you see, vertical cropping becomes more noticeable than vertical scaling!
> 
> 
> What point is that, and why can't that be 5% for some people? I don't see where that crossover point could be anything but a personal preference, and not a rule.
> 
> 
> Right?



A lot of material is shot and mastered with the a certain "safe" border (I'd estimate 5%-10%, but that's just a guess) around the material with the expectation that it may be overscanned and lost. The amount of actual overscan on a display varies quite a bit.


And yes, obviously it would be possible to do something ridiculous and crop 1920x1080 to 1280x720 to make it "fit" instead of scaling it, and yes that would obviously affect the PQ much more than any artifacts that would be induced by even mediocre scaling. However, in the specific case being discussed here - using cropping to prevent small percentages of light overspill - is far less deleterious to overall PQ than would be any artifacts that would result from the scaling required to slightly decrease the picture in size.


However, ultimately it depends on you and your perception of the tradeoffs in image quality - if you'd prefer to see the entire original image and you don't notice any PQ degredation with scaling, that's just as acceptable as cropping a couple percent from the edges to avoid scaling-related image alteration.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16276558
> 
> 
> And yes, obviously it would be possible to do something ridiculous and crop 1920x1080 to 1280x720 to make it "fit" instead of scaling it, and yes that would obviously affect the PQ much more than any artifacts that would be induced by even mediocre scaling. However, in the specific case being discussed here - using cropping to prevent small percentages of light overspill - is far less deleterious to overall PQ than would be any artifacts that would result from the scaling required to slightly decrease the picture in size.



Right, that's all I'm saying. At some point the cropping is too much, and you'd prefer to scale down to fit. At what point that is exactly, depends on the person. Looking at my example of The Fast and the Furious, it's easy to see how some people would prefer scaling (assuming they are ok with the scaler quality) than losing all of that green picture information.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16276558
> 
> 
> However, ultimately it depends on you and your perception of the tradeoffs in image quality - if you'd prefer to see the entire original image and you don't notice any PQ degredation with scaling, that's just as acceptable as cropping a couple percent from the edges to avoid scaling-related image alteration.



Agreed.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16273946
> 
> 
> How is CIH constant brightness if you move the lens in and out of the light path?



I don't move the lens in and out of the light path.



> Quote:
> How is it constant pixel resolution or density if you keep the lens in the path and use the scaler?



I scale all images for the lens, so pixel density and image brightness remain the same.



> Quote:
> What methods are you using to do both?



I currently scale using Mode 1 and 2 in the BenQ, but soon I will add a DVDO Edge. Using an anamorphic lens not only gives me CIH, but more importantly, allows all images to use the full 1080 for all ARs (keeping the pixels at the same height is important to me) and why I don't like the zoom method and disagree with both CIW and CIA.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16276938
> 
> 
> I don't move the lens in and out of the light path.
> 
> 
> I scale all images for the lens, so pixel density and image brightness remain the same.
> 
> 
> I currently scale using Mode 1 and 2 in the BenQ, but soon I will add a DVDO Edge. Using an anamorphic lens not only gives me CIH, but more importantly, allows all images to use the full 1080 for all ARs (keeping the pixels at the same height is important to me) and why I don't like the zoom method and disagree with both CIW and CIA.



What's your plan to keep 2.40 & 1.85 at constant height with 2.35 without cropping the image like my example of TFATF shows?


If you zoom some to crop everything to the same height, then you're only seeing 1038 vertical pixels, not 1080.


If you zoom for 1080 2.35 full height, then you have black bars over 1.85 & 2.40 content, so it's not CIH anymore.


Will you have the EDGE do custom zoom for each AR? Does it have a memory to do this, or will you have to do this manually each switch?


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16277220
> 
> 
> What's your plan to keep 2.40 & 1.85 at constant height with 2.35 without cropping the image like my example of TFATF shows?
> 
> 
> If you zoom some to crop everything to the same height, then you're only seeing 1038 vertical pixels, not 1080.
> 
> 
> If you zoom for 1080 2.35 full height, then you have black bars over 1.85 & 2.40 content, so it's not CIH anymore.
> 
> 
> Will you have the EDGE do custom zoom for each AR? Does it have a memory to do this, or will you have to do this manually each switch?



I am not sure if the EDGE will have memory for presets, but at least it will give me the flexibity to get 1.85:1 correct. 2.40:1 will not be as

1. The screen is not 2.40:1

2. The 16:9 projector + lens equals 2.37:1 anyway.


I'm not too fussed and I need to do more reseach on this. In the end, I may be better off with what I am doing anyway.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16276558
> 
> 
> A lot of material is shot and mastered with the a certain "safe" border (I'd estimate 5%-10%, but that's just a guess) around the material with the expectation that it may be overscanned and lost. The amount of actual overscan on a display varies quite a bit.



Well, I finally found a reference for this - unfortunately it's Wikipedia (article: 35 mm flim), but it's a start. If you scroll down to Technical Specifications at the bottom:


camera aperture: 0.866 by 0.630 in (22 by 16 mm)

projector aperture (full 1.37:1): 0.825 by 0.602 in (21 by 15 mm)

projector aperture (1.66:1): 0.825 by 0.497 in (21 by 13 mm)

projector aperture (1.85:1): 0.825 by 0.446 in (21 by 11 mm)

TV station aperture: 0.816 by 0.612 in (21 by 16 mm)

TV transmission: 0.792 by 0.594 in (20 by 15 mm)

TV safe action: 0.713 by 0.535 in (18 by 14 mm); corner radii: 0.143 in (3.6 mm)

TV safe titles: 0.630 by 0.475 in (16 by 12 mm); corner radii: 0.125 in (3.2 mm)


The "TV safe action" area is the protected area to which I was referring. As you can see, it's a full 18% narrower (9% on each side) and 15% squatter (7.5% on top and bottom each), which is quite a large margin. Obviously we would never want to watch a display that exhibits this much overscan, but at least those numbers give you an idea of how much of a buffer exists around the edges of the material you're watching at home if you do choose to crop 1% or 2% for the sake of fitting your screen.


----------



## LilGator

TV Safe is quite a different issue as they had to compromise for varying amounts of CRT overscan on 4:3 little bitty TVs.


It's pretty rare that the intended home setup for films, a BD -> Blu-ray player -> HDTV has any significant amount of overscan, and certainly not the 3-5% choppage that would be necessary for a CIH setup to be truly constant height (1.85 -> at least 2.35 if not 2.40).


For modern HDTV's, only RP would have any significant amount of overscan that can't be adjusted.


In any case, preserving 100% of the frame is always the goal, otherwise they wouldn't provide it on the BD knowing it will be displayed on primarily fixed pixel displays with little to no overscan.


Whether that overscan is acceptable or not isn't the issue, it's just a compromise of CIH. Preserving the full frame is better, you can't deny that.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16320558
> 
> 
> Whether that overscan is acceptable or not isn't the issue, it's just a compromise of CIH. Preserving the full frame is better, you can't deny that.



How many titles are actually full frame anyway?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16320558
> 
> 
> Whether that overscan is acceptable or not isn't the issue, it's just a compromise of CIH. Preserving the full frame is better, you can't deny that.



No it's not. It's a compromise of one possible *implementation* of CIH.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16323694
> 
> 
> How many titles are actually full frame anyway?



Full frame provided on our source, in this case BD.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16323719
> 
> 
> No it's not. It's a compromise of one possible *implementation* of CIH.



I thought that was understood clearly.


Removing that compromise by using another implementation of CIH only introduces other compromises, like having to manually adjust projector zoom between films to fit the screen's height, or spending the money on a more advanced scaler than what's provided in their projector (vstretch) to do variable stretch and fill height. In both cases, CIH is no easier or cheaper than CIA.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16323757
> 
> 
> TV Safe is quite a different issue as they had to compromise for varying amounts of CRT overscan on 4:3 little bitty TVs.



No, it's quite relevant since you were asking about the effect of cropping a couple percent off of the sides of a picture in the name of fixing overspill or underscan. I provided the above info to illustrate that most movies are shot with quite a bit _more_ overscan in mind, making the cropping of a couple percent of picture info for specific reasons even more trivial.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16323757
> 
> 
> I thought that was understood clearly.



It wasn't because you lumped all CIH into one category when that would be like lumping all CIA - which probably has even more possible implementations, each with their own individual compromises - into one category.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16323757
> 
> 
> Removing that compromise by using another implementation of CIH only introduces other compromises, like having to manually adjust projector zoom between films to fit the screen's height, or spending the money on a more advanced scaler than what's provided in their projector (vstretch) to do variable stretch and fill height. In both cases, CIH is no easier or cheaper than CIA.



You keep talking about miniscule amounts of cropping or scaling being a compromise for CIH, yet you also dismiss the significant changes in screen brightness that I clearly illustrated with your hypothetical CIA zoom setup as "insignificant." The best part is, you haven't even seen the two setups in person to actually compare the impact of the compromises necessary for any method of either setup to make an informed decision. I've used a scaler and lens to adjust ARs on a CIH setup, and let me be the first to tell you that it is _orders of magnitude_ easier than adjusting the zoom and lens shift every time. I'm sure now you'll pull your standard "well that's your opinion" BS that you try to use to dismiss anyone who has legitimate experience that flies in the face of your untried and hypothetical opinions.


You constantly re-iterate the downsides of CIW and CIH while downplaying their benefits based on your personal preferences, and then sing CIA's praises while casually dismissing its equally significant shortcomings.


Are you looking to accomplish anything real here or are you just here to try to spurn a CIA masturbation-fest? Meanwhile you're arguing over in a CIH thread about whether a couple 2.2:1 70mm films should somehow gain priority over a massive library of scope films in someone's HT, and then you're in another thread talking about how JVC just still can't reach CRT black levels. Have you even seen any RSX or CRT properly set up and in action before? I haven't seen someone talk out his a$$ this much since getting spoonfed uniform BS in a combat zone by some first sergeant who's never even been on a single combat sortie, let alone flown one.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324045
> 
> 
> No, it's quite relevant since you were asking about the effect of cropping a couple percent off of the sides of a picture in the name of fixing overspill or underscan. I provided the above info to illustrate that most movies are shot with quite a bit _more_ overscan in mind, making the cropping of a couple percent of picture info for specific reasons even more trivial.



TV safe area has nothing to do with films presented in a home theater. Just because it's trivial to you doesn't mean it's trivial for everyone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324045
> 
> 
> It wasn't because you lumped all CIH into one category when that would be like lumping all CIA - which probably has even more possible implementations, each with their own individual compromises - into one category.



Quite the opposite, if you read, you'd see I spelled out popular CIH setups and explained the ups and downs of each just last page.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324045
> 
> 
> You keep talking about miniscule amounts of cropping or scaling being a compromise for CIH, yet you also dismiss the significant changes in screen brightness that I clearly illustrated with your hypothetical CIA zoom setup as "insignificant." The best part is, you haven't even seen the two setups in person to actually compare the impact of the compromises necessary for any method of either setup to make an informed decision. I've used a scaler and lens to adjust ARs on a CIH setup, and let me be the first to tell you that it is _orders of magnitude_ easier than adjusting the zoom and lens shift every time. I'm sure now you'll pull your standard "well that's your opinion" BS that you try to use to dismiss anyone who has legitimate experience that flies in the face of your untried and hypothetical opinions.



5% isn't minuscule, that's the point, especially if it can be avoided. My point is that using a scaler to do CIA provides equal brightness, resolution, and pixel density along with area.


Using a scaler (lens in place) provides the same (minus equal resolution) for CIH...


...*BUT*, you have the downside of cropping films significantly (not just border spill) in order to truly have constant height...


...*OR*, you don't crop but have the downside of underscan and black bars above 2.40+ and ratios between 2.35 and 1.78 (2.2, 1.85) making it NOT constant height anymore ironically.


Of course, you don't think this is significant cropping, how convenient.










That would compare apples and apples.


Now, if you want to compare just manually zooming/lens shifting CIA vs. manually zooming/lens shifting CIH then you have the same downsides (including brightness changes) for both!


I've made the point that CIA is no more a hassle or expense than CIH (apple to apple methods).


What's your point exactly?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324045
> 
> 
> You constantly re-iterate the downsides of CIW and CIH while downplaying their benefits based on your personal preferences, and then sing CIA's praises while casually dismissing its equally significant shortcomings.



So you say. Can you tell me the benefits of CIH & CIW that I've downplayed?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324045
> 
> 
> Are you looking to accomplish anything real here or are you just here to try to spurn a CIA masturbation-fest? Meanwhile you're arguing over in a CIH thread about whether a couple 2.2:1 70mm films should somehow gain priority over a massive library of scope films in someone's HT, and then you're in another thread talking about how JVC just still can't reach CRT black levels. Have you even seen any RSX or CRT properly set up and in action before? I haven't seen someone talk out his a$$ this much since getting spoonfed uniform BS in a combat zone by some first sergeant who's never even been on a single combat sortie, let alone flown one.



Well you're certainly staying on topic, aren't ya? And I'm talking out of my ass?










Are you going to ban me if I don't accomplish something real? Oh no?


I pointed out that 2.20 70mm should be projected larger than 2.35 35mm, NOT smaller. CIH users got their panties bunched blubbering excuses for how those films are actually supposed to be smaller (except for Art, who admitted that correctly). Please.










Would you like to say something? You want to show how DILA matches CRT black levels in a CIA thread? That would be epic.


I've seen properly setup CRT's; I've seen and played with properly set up DILA and SXRD setups; I've owned LCD and DLP projectors.


I want to know how in the world that is relevant.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16323757
> 
> 
> Full frame provided on our source, in this case BD.



So therefore your saying that CIH is correct when projecting at 2.40:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1. 2.0:1. 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 provided that the full height of the image is projected.


----------



## HogPilot

I ask you once again - amidst all of your inept, hypothetical bantering, what real-world experience do you bring to the table on any of these subjects? Anything at all? I would LOVE to hear it all.


Or you could keep talking with no experience - which is called talking out your ass, since you obviously don't know the meaning of the expression.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16324288
> 
> 
> So therefore your saying that CIH is correct when projecting at 2.40:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1. 2.0:1. 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 provided that the full height of the image is projected.



When the full height and width are protected (no cropping), yes that is a "correct" display of the material. I'd still say that 70mm (whether 2.20 or 1.78) should be larger than 35mm based material, but that's a separate issue.


As is a CIA presentation equally preserving all image area.


Properly done CIH = CIA, aside from ratio size preferences; they are equally valid. That's been my point for every page in this thread.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324314
> 
> 
> I want to know how anything you say is relevant to anything but you arguing for the sake of arguing. You talk as if whatever you say is right - you defend your position with opinion if numbers and facts don't agree, and vice versa. You misconstrue what others say, and when presented with facts that are contrary to your position, you don't address them. Things are significant when you want it to be, it's insignificant when you want them to be. All the while you have no real experience to back this. That's called talking out your ass.
> 
> 
> I ask you once again - amidst all of your inept bantering, what real-world experience do you bring to the table on any of these subjects? Anything at all? I would LOVE to hear it all.



At a minimum, what I'm saying is relevent to the thread topic. That could hardly be said for the ridiculous last paragraph you wrote.


If you'd like to prove these assertions, present them and I will defend myself to you (even though I don't need to).


Otherwise, keep posting mass vagueries and maybe someday someone will believe you.


The only relevant experience in this thread would be that from the perspective of a director who believes that when he makes 2.35 films he intends for them to be larger than his 1.85 films.


Since you don't have that, and I don't have that, and I don't think anyone in this thread has that, what experience are you looking for that I supposedly am required to have?


Are using basic math skills talking out of my ass?


By the way, pointless bickering in this thread died until you showed up again.


Congrats.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324314
> 
> 
> Or you could keep talking with no experience - which is called talking out your ass, since you obviously don't know the meaning of the expression.



Guess what, I just pulled my W20K out, displayed some films CIA, and now have experience.


I also sat closer for a 2.35 film on my Kuro than I did for a 1.85 film. I now have pseudo-CIA experience as well.


You can officially STFU now.










Can we get back on topic now?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324362
> 
> 
> Guess what, I just pulled my W20K out, displayed some films CIA, and now have experience.
> 
> 
> I also sat closer for a 2.35 film on my Kuro than I did for a 1.85 film. I now have pseudo-CIA experience as well.
> 
> 
> You can officially STFU now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we get back on topic now?



Wow...really, you played with the zoom button on your W20K? That's so impressive! That lends legitimacy to EVERY SINGLE THING you've argued here! Don't pull out all the stops all at once, you have to save something for later to wow us with again!


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324415
> 
> 
> Wow...really, you played with the zoom button on your W20K? That's so impressive! That lends legitimacy to EVERY SINGLE THING you've argued here! Don't pull out all the stops all at once, you have to save something for later to wow us with again!



And... you've proved how ridiculous "having experience" is. I'm glad I didn't have to spell it out for you this time.


Proves a lot, don't it?










Oh, and guess what smarty pants with all that experience ... the W20K has manual zoom.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324430
> 
> 
> And... you've proved how ridiculous "having experience" is. I'm glad I didn't have to spell it out for you this time.
> 
> 
> Proves a lot, don't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and guess what smarty pants with all that experience ... the W20K has manual zoom.



Sorry, I was thinking of my older model - read previous generation - W10K that had motorized everything. But hey, some people like to pay more for less, no worries.


I'm sure anyone looking to get info on CIA will find your post above VERY useful. "Oh, I'll try the zoom on my projector and see what that does..." Purely brilliant.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324459
> 
> 
> Sorry, I was thinking of my older model - read previous generation - W10K that had motorized everything. But hey, some people like to pay more for less, no worries.
> 
> 
> I'm sure anyone looking to get info on CIA will find your post above VERY useful. "Oh, I'll try the zoom on my projector and see what that does..." Purely brilliant.



Nice recovery after shooting yourself in the face ... almost.










Now this is a BenQ thread eh? You're on a roll now, why stop there? Care to talk plasma vs. LCD or sealed vs. ported subwoofers?










W10K's even now can't be had for less than what I paid for my W20K.


Keep trying though, eventually you'll find something that makes you feel better.


----------



## CAVX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324320
> 
> 
> When the full height and width are protected (no cropping), yes that is a "correct" display of the material. I'd still say that 70mm (whether 2.20 or 1.78) should be larger than 35mm based material, but that's a separate issue.



LilGator,


You stated in the earlier post that the "full frame" is what we get on BD. So why now are you going back to 70mm film formats?


Do you actually have a 70mm projector in your house?


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324466
> 
> *Now this is a BenQ thread eh?* You're on a roll now, why stop there? Care to talk plasma vs. LCD or sealed vs. ported subwoofers?



You're the only one here who's said that. Straw man argument, anyone?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324466
> 
> 
> W10K's even now can't be had for less than what I paid for my W20K.



Even if someone offered me a 20K for under $2K (unless you go refurb or used, you barely find a 5K for that little from a legitimate retailer), I'd still take the 10K.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX* /forum/post/16324634
> 
> 
> LilGator,
> 
> 
> You stated in the earlier post that the "full frame" is what we get on BD. So why now are you going back to 70mm film formats?
> 
> 
> Do you actually have a 70mm projector in your house?



No, no, I'm just talking about how it was shot. Obviously what we have on BD is 1920x1080 CIW.


If 70mm wasn't meant to be projected larger than 35mm, why was it shot on 70mm? This is a legit question.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324673
> 
> 
> You're the only one here who's said that. Straw man argument, anyone?
> 
> 
> Even if someone offered me a 20K for under $2K (unless you go refurb or used, you barely find a 5K for that little from a legitimate retailer), I'd still take the 10K.



*Yawn*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324459
> 
> 
> Sorry, I was thinking of my older model - read previous generation - W10K that had motorized everything. But hey, some people like to pay more for less, no worries.


----------



## HogPilot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16324721
> 
> 
> If 70mm wasn't meant to be projected larger than 35mm, why was it shot on 70mm? This is a legit question.



Higher resolution? Of course, as I've said a million times before, that whole argument goes out the window once you transfer both formats to BD, which has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower resolution than either 35mm or 70mm. At that point you've optimized your seating distance based partially on pixel visibility, which is fixed. You can blow a picture up as large as suits you, that doesn't mean it will look good.


Just curious, what exact improvements do you think you got in the more expensive 20K over the 10K? Aside from highly over-inflated contrast numbers due to a DI (which the 10K doesn't need) and Brilliant Color which is absolutely worthless, what is better? You get manual zoom/focus/lens shift instead of motorized, a louder machine, and firmware that just finally got fixed. Please, oh wise one, tell me all that is better!


----------



## HogPilot

Ok seriously now...it's been fun to mess with you LilGator. Maybe it's because you're so easy to screw with, maybe it's because you'll try to argue just about any inane point until the end of time no matter how wrong you are or how badly you're burning the candle on both ends. But my deployment free time has come to an end, and unfortunately I must spend my time on AVS pursuing only fruitful discussions. I do, after all, have a REAL HT to enjoy.


But good luck with...well, whatever it is that you think you're doing here - arguing? Yes, good luck arguing. That will assemble your CIA theater in no time.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324810
> 
> 
> Just curious, what exact improvements do you think you got in the more expensive 20K over the 10K? Aside from highly over-inflated contrast numbers due to a DI (which the 10K doesn't need) and Brilliant Color which is absolutely worthless, what is better? You get manual zoom/focus/lens shift instead of motorized, a louder machine, and firmware that just finally got fixed. Please, oh wise one, tell me all that is better!



You're joking right? Did I say anything about the W20K being better?


Are you that desperate to grasp for something to make you feel better?


The W20K has a new menu system with added gamma controls, dual HDMI inputs, Dynamic Black which works great for me (I see no pumping aside from credits), BC is useful for daytime lumens and can be calibrated within reason for a non-light controlled environment, it's just as quiet as the W10K (nice try!), and has better HD processing with the Silicon Optix Reon chip, while your W10K has the crappy Faraoudja. Oh, and it was cheaper.


With your off-topic nonsense out of the way...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324810
> 
> 
> Higher resolution? Of course, as I've said a million times before, that whole argument goes out the window once you transfer both formats to BD, which has a SIGNIFICANTLY lower resolution than either 35mm or 70mm. At that point you've optimized your seating distance based partially on pixel visibility, which is fixed. You can blow a picture up as large as suits you, that doesn't mean it will look good.



Higher resolution film transferred to BD can be seen even at 1080p. You can tell a difference.


This still doesn't change the fact that 70mm IMAX is supposed to be taller than the 2.35 frame, and 2.20 70mm Super 70 Panavision is supposed to be taller than the 2.35 frame, otherwise they wouldn't have cropped top and bottom for 2.35 prints!


There is more vertical information in both instances, and identical horizontal information. There is a logical conclusion here, see if you can find it.


It also just so happens that both are preserved on BD exactly this way.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/16324827
> 
> 
> Ok seriously now...it's been fun to mess with you LilGator. Maybe it's because you're so easy to screw with, maybe it's because you'll try to argue just about any inane point until the end of time no matter how wrong you are or how badly you're burning the candle on both ends. But my deployment free time has come to an end, and unfortunately I must spend my time on AVS pursuing only fruitful discussions. I do, after all, have a REAL HT to enjoy.
> 
> 
> But good luck with...well, whatever it is that you think you're doing here - arguing? Yes, good luck arguing. That will assemble your CIA theater in no time.



And good luck to you ... and whatever you were doing in this thread.










I know, right? What the heck am I doing in a thread I created? Weird.


----------



## Jeff Smith

Most childish thread I've ever seen, I thought it was finally forgotten.


It only exists to bicker. If there were any real desire to get anywhere it would be done in a new thread.


...but maybe you enjoy the arguing.


----------



## Warbie

Handbags at dawn is the only way to settle this


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16333093
> 
> 
> Most childish thread I've ever seen, I thought it was finally forgotten.
> 
> 
> It only exists to bicker. If there were any real desire to get anywhere it would be done in a new thread.
> 
> 
> ...but maybe you enjoy the arguing.



If you're referring to me, absolutely. There's nothing like seeing CIH diehards get bent out of shape while we wait for a sub-forum restructuring.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Warbie* /forum/post/16334186
> 
> 
> Handbags at dawn is the only way to settle this



I'm game, but why dawn? It's so early.


----------



## sonofdbn

What sort of aspect ratio screen have people tried for CIA? Let's say we've decided how wide the screen should be for 2.35:1. Then to keep a CIA for 16:9, we narrow the width and increase the height. Obviously there are mathematically an infinite number of possibilities for 16:9 with different widths and heights that would have the same image area as the original 2.35:1, but what have people used and liked?


I read somewhere that 2:1 has been used. That would give a 16:9 image that is 15% narrower (than the 2.35:1 image) and 18% taller. Any thoughts?


(Let's not get into a debate about WHY I want to do CIA. If we focus on the HOW, this thread would be much more constructive.)


----------



## scottyb

Hey son,

If you can I would project an image on a wall and see what two sizes look best to you and go with the heightthat looks best with 16:9 and the width that looks best for 2:35.


It doesn't necessarily have to be a CIA. I will say it helps to have power zoom and focus but it can be done without it(I do, but it's a bit of a pain).


By the way our screen is 1.90:1


Scott


----------



## sonofdbn

Unfortunately I can't project because it's for my attic (OK, OUR attic) which is under construction. But the 1.9 is useful information. Thanks.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16337448
> 
> 
> What sort of aspect ratio screen have people tried for CIA? Let's say we've decided how wide the screen should be for 2.35:1. Then to keep a CIA for 16:9, we narrow the width and increase the height. Obviously there are mathematically an infinite number of possibilities for 16:9 with different widths and heights that would have the same image area as the original 2.35:1, but what have people used and liked?
> 
> 
> I read somewhere that 2:1 has been used. That would give a 16:9 image that is 15% narrower (than the 2.35:1 image) and 18% taller. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> (Let's not get into a debate about WHY I want to do CIA. If we focus on the HOW, this thread would be much more constructive.)



Hi sonofdbn, the two most popular ratios for true CIA (you don't have to do exact constant area obviously as scotty mentioned, you can go with what looks good to you) are 1.78 and 2.05.


Carada sells 2.05 screens for this purpose. What you would do is project 2.35 full width of the 2.05 screen and 16:9 the full height of the screen. They would be identical in area using that ratio, keeps things simple.


If you want CIA for all ratios, you would use a typical 16:9 screen the width of what you want 2.35 to be. To show how this would work I'll do some math:


2.35 will be full screen width, let's say 100". The screen would be 56.25" tall. The 2.35 film would be 42.55" tall. The 2.35 film will have a 29.6 sq ft area.


A 16:9 image (HDTV) would be zoomed to 86.98" wide by 48.92" tall, a 29.6 sq ft area.


A 1.85 movie would be zoomed to 88.73" wide by 47.96" tall, a 29.6 sq ft area.


This would also allow 1.37 movies to be projected full height of the screen (roughly 77" wide) resulting in about constant area in comparison to the other formats.


Lastly you can project 70mm films just as wide as scope, but taller. For example, The Dark Knight can be projected full width of the screen and the 2.35 material will look the same size as any other 2.35 movie, but then the IMAX scenes will open up to full screen height (larger than typical 1.78 HDTV and 1.85 movies on your CIA setup) for that extra large IMAX effect.


2.20 70mm films like 2001: A Space Odyssey can be projected full width of scope but slightly taller for that more immersive effect. Very flexible to do want you want to do with it.


So to sum it up, 2.05 keeps it simple with only 2-way masking require for any film, and works best if you primarily watch 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35.


1.78 gives you more flexibility, works better if you want to watch smaller ratios like 1.66 and 4:3 at constant area, and want to see 70mm larger than 2.35 films. The downside here is 4-way masking for formats in between 2.35 and 4:3 (or 1.37).


Here's a post with mockups showing how CIA looks on a 1.78 screen: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16244300 


And here's a post with mockups showing how CIA looks on a 2.05 screen: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16254169


----------



## LilGator

History lesson, for those wondering why a standard 1.78 works so well for CIA.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by * http://www.cinemasource.com/ * /forum/post/0
> 
> *The Father Of 16:9*
> 
> 
> The most prevalent aspect ratios filmmakers deal with today are: 1.33 (The Academy standard aspect ratio),
> 
> 1.67 (The European widescreen aspect ratio), 1.85 (The American widescreen aspect ratio), 2.20
> 
> (Panavision), and 2.35 (CinemaScope). Attentive videophiles may note that 1.77 (16:9) isn't on this list and
> 
> may ask: "If 16:9 isn't a film format, then just exactly where did this ratio come from". The answer to this
> 
> question is: "Kerns Powers".
> 
> 
> The story begins in the early 1980s when the issue of high definition video as a replacement for film in movie
> 
> theaters first began to arise. During this time, the Society Of Motion Picture And Television Engineers
> 
> (SMPTE) formed a committee, the Working Group On High-Definition Electronic Production, to look into
> 
> standards for this emerging technology. Kerns H. Powers was then research manager for the Television
> 
> Communications Division at the David Sarnoff Research Center. As a prominent member of the television
> 
> industry, he was asked to join the working group, and immediately became embroiled in the issue of aspect
> 
> ratios and HDTV. The problem was simple to define. The film community for decades has been used to the
> 
> flexibility of many aspect ratios, but the television community had just one. Obviously a compromise was
> 
> needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the story goes, using a pencil and a piece of paper, Powers drew the rectangles of all the popular film
> 
> aspect ratios (each normalized for equal area) and dropped them on top of each other. When he finished, he
> 
> discovered an amazing thing. Not only did all the rectangles fall within a 1.77 shape, the edges of all the
> 
> rectangles also fell outside an inner rectangle which also had a 1.77 shape. Powers realized that he had the
> 
> makings of a "Shoot and Protect" scheme that with the proper masks would permit motion pictures to be
> 
> released in any aspect ratio. In 1984, this concept was unanimously accepted by the SMPTE working group
> 
> and soon became the standard for HDTV production worldwide.
> 
> 
> Ironically, it should be noted, the High-Definition Electronic Production Committee wasn't looking for a display
> 
> aspect ratio for HDTV monitors, but that's what the 16:9 ratio is used for today. "It was about the electronic
> 
> production of movies," Kerns Powers states, "that's where the emphasis was". Interestingly, today, there is
> 
> little talk today about the extinction of film as a motion picture technology, but there is a lot of talk about
> 
> delivering HDTV into the home. And, as a testament to Kern H. Powers clever solution, it's all going to be on
> 
> monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio.


*Yes, 25 years ago, the concept of a 1.78 screen housing all ratios at CONSTANT AREA was unanimously accepted by SMPTE!*


----------



## oztheatre

Have you actually done any of this?


By the amount of arguing you've done, you come across like the CIA master. Surely you have the best CIA setup of all time. Pics please, no mockups or examples. Show us your setup please.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16337957
> 
> 
> Hi sonofdbn, the two most popular ratios for true CIA (you don't have to do exact constant area obviously as scotty mentioned, you can go with what looks good to you) are 1.78 and 2.05.
> 
> 
> Carada sells 2.05 screens for this purpose. What you would do is project 2.35 full width of the 2.05 screen and 16:9 the full height of the screen. They would be identical in area using that ratio, keeps things simple.
> 
> 
> If you want CIA for all ratios, you would use a typical 16:9 screen the width of what you want 2.35 to be. To show how this would work I'll do some math:
> 
> 
> 2.35 will be full screen width, let's say 100". The screen would be 56.25" tall. The 2.35 film would be 42.55" tall. The 2.35 film will have a 29.6 sq ft area.
> 
> 
> A 16:9 image (HDTV) would be zoomed to 86.98" wide by 48.92" tall, a 29.6 sq ft area.
> 
> 
> A 1.85 movie would be zoomed to 88.73" wide by 47.96" tall, a 29.6 sq ft area.
> 
> 
> This would also allow 1.37 movies to be projected full height of the screen (roughly 77" wide) resulting in about constant area in comparison to the other formats.
> 
> 
> Lastly you can project 70mm films just as wide as scope, but taller. For example, The Dark Knight can be projected full width of the screen and the 2.35 material will look the same size as any other 2.35 movie, but then the IMAX scenes will open up to full screen height (larger than typical 1.78 HDTV and 1.85 movies on your CIA setup) for that extra large IMAX effect.
> 
> 
> 2.20 70mm films like 2001: A Space Odyssey can be projected full width of scope but slightly taller for that more immersive effect. Very flexible to do want you want to do with it.
> 
> 
> So to sum it up, 2.05 keeps it simple with only 2-way masking require for any film, and works best if you primarily watch 1.78, 1.85, and 2.35.
> 
> 
> 1.78 gives you more flexibility, works better if you want to watch smaller ratios like 1.66 and 4:3 at constant area, and want to see 70mm larger than 2.35 films. The downside here is 4-way masking for formats in between 2.35 and 4:3 (or 1.37).
> 
> 
> Here's a post with mockups showing how CIA looks on a 1.78 screen: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16244300
> 
> 
> And here's a post with mockups showing how CIA looks on a 2.05 screen: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16254169


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oztheatre* /forum/post/16338076
> 
> 
> Have you actually done any of this?
> 
> 
> By the amount of arguing you've done, you come across like the CIA master. Surely you have the best CIA setup of all time. Pics please, no mockups or examples. Show us your setup please.



This isn't rocket science. Do you really think when all's said and done I won't post pics of my setup for you to see?










You know what I have done, and am doing? My homework.


Sorry you can't do simple math, would you like a children's coloring book version?


----------



## sonofdbn

LilGator, like you, I'm trying to do my homework before deciding how to proceed. Thanks for the information; it's very useful.


----------



## westgate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *warbie* /forum/post/16334186
> 
> 
> handbags at dawn is the only way to settle this



lol!!!


----------



## Jeff Smith

Yeah, I want to know too.


What have you done to try or prove any of what you say? Just what exactly are your credentials other than being able to say "nyah, nhay, nyah" louder and more often than anyone else?


I am so sick of you doing nothing but empty talk. I don't follow many threads here but just noticed you talking the same S**T in another CIH thread (one you didn't start).


Homework? Let me know when you pass from the "simple math and childrens coloring books" to actually doing a class project where you make something.


In the time you've been arguing this, I have gone from (no exaggeration) giving up on the whole idea of CIA to:

- rethinking it and calculating the max size (10.5' wide) for a very tight space. I'm ashamed that it was this thread that made me try and that I supported you at first.

- talking on the phone with several forum members, almost all CIHers (including several who posted on this thread), who were actually nice, polite, and happy to give their time and advice...amazing how well common courtesy works.

- taking apart, recalculating proper screen radius and rebuilding a torus screen frame (airtight box, compound curve, vacuum fan to pull to exact curve)... not NASA, but lets see you google and paraphrase that math for us

- ceiling mounted my PJ with an adjustable mount and made a ventilated hush box for it

- mounted the anamorphic lens with a homemade transport

- shopped screen materials, visited other members HTs to evaluate screen materials, talked with Stewart Filmscreens, scored some out-of-production high gain screen material, and ordered a custom size to fit the frame

- repositioned and re-equalized my speakers and audio

- designed and nearly completed an adjustable 4 way masking system (try that on a compound curve, keeping the masking within a cm of the screen without touching it)

- with just me and an unemployed handyman-carpenter and no AV professionals

- while working a full time job in the ER

- and I made lots of mistakes I've had to rethink and correct...successfully, so far (knock wood)


When you graduate from grade school and actually set foot in a lab, get back with us.


You've presented some good points, then ruined your credibility by acting like a middle school whiner and crying that your "presentation" shouldn't be the issue. But so far all you seem to have actually done is discover that the zoom button makes the picture bigger and smaller...that and somewhere in the last few months you discovered the "smile" icons.


BTW - I make no claims at being an CIA master either.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jeff Smith* /forum/post/16343010
> 
> 
> I have gone from (no exaggeration) giving up on the whole idea of CIA to:
> 
> - rethinking it and calculating the max size (10.5' wide) for a very tight space. I'm ashamed that it was this thread that made me try and that I supported you at first.
> 
> - talking on the phone with several forum members, almost all CIHers (including several who posted on this thread), who were actually nice, polite, and happy to give their time and advice...amazing how well common courtesy works.
> 
> - taking apart, recalculating proper screen radius and rebuilding a torus screen frame (airtight box, compound curve, vacuum fan to pull to exact curve)... not NASA, but lets see you google and paraphrase that math for us
> 
> - ceiling mounted my PJ with an adjustable mount and made a ventilated hush box for it
> 
> - mounted the anamorphic lens with a homemade transport
> 
> - shopped screen materials, visited other members HTs to evaluate screen materials, talked with Stewart Filmscreens, scored some out-of-production high gain screen material, and ordered a custom size to fit the frame
> 
> - repositioned and re-equalized my speakers and audio
> 
> - designed and nearly completed an adjustable 4 way masking system (try that on a compound curve, keeping the masking within a cm of the screen without touching it)
> 
> - with just me and an unemployed handyman-carpenter and no AV professionals
> 
> - while working a full time job in the ER
> 
> - and I made lots of mistakes I've had to rethink and correct...successfully, so far (knock wood)



Sounds like you've successfully implemented the system you wanted, and it sounds great. Be sure to post pics for the other CIA folks we haven't scared off


----------



## markrubin

non productive posts removed


----------



## sonofdbn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16337957
> 
> 
> Hi sonofdbn, the two most popular ratios for true CIA (you don't have to do exact constant area obviously as scotty mentioned, you can go with what looks good to you) are 1.78 and 2.05.
> 
> 
> Carada sells 2.05 screens for this purpose. What you would do is project 2.35 full width of the 2.05 screen and 16:9 the full height of the screen. They would be identical in area using that ratio, keeps things simple.



Not that I didn't believe, but I wondered if it would make a difference using 2.39 instead of 2.35. Perhaps not unexpectedly, it turns out that the screen ratio would be very similar, 2.06 instead of 2.05.


In other words, starting with the width you want for 2.39:1, the height you need for 16:9 to keep the same area would be 1/2.06 of the width. At least, that's what Excel tells me.










And to keep it in perspective, for the 100 inch width screen, the height difference would be less than half an inch out of almost 49 inches.


----------



## JeffY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16356607
> 
> 
> Not that I didn't believe, but I wondered if it would make a difference using 2.39 instead of 2.35. Perhaps not unexpectedly, it turns out that the screen ratio would be very similar, 2.06 instead of 2.05.
> 
> 
> In other words, starting with the width you want for 2.39:1, the height you need for 16:9 to keep the same area would be 1/2.06 of the width. At least, that's what Excel tells me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to keep it in perspective, for the 100 inch width screen, the height difference would be less than half an inch out of almost 49 inches.



It doesn't really make any difference (exact area not important), even a 2:1 aspect ratio would be fine. In fact that is what PMI uses in their heigh end CIA systems.


PS people take constant height, constant width and constant area too literally. There are usually exceptions.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonofdbn* /forum/post/16356607
> 
> 
> Not that I didn't believe, but I wondered if it would make a difference using 2.39 instead of 2.35. Perhaps not unexpectedly, it turns out that the screen ratio would be very similar, 2.06 instead of 2.05.
> 
> 
> In other words, starting with the width you want for 2.39:1, the height you need for 16:9 to keep the same area would be 1/2.06 of the width. At least, that's what Excel tells me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to keep it in perspective, for the 100 inch width screen, the height difference would be less than half an inch out of almost 49 inches.



You could make a screen any ratio you want by doing that math. 2.40 as your widest and 1.78 as your tallest works out to 2.07. Since it ranges from 2.35-2.40 you will typically want to fill the width so it won't be constant area exactly, but visually about the same.


You just have to choose what ratio you want to be widest, and what ratio you want to be tallest while staying constant area.


----------



## JustMike

I've read this entire thread (please mail my purple heart to me...) and found some useful information.


One question, though, I haven't seen addressed. In my upcoming theater room, I have an unfortunate constraint: I have a patio door directly behind where the screen is going to go. Relocating the door is not an option, so my next best solution is to use a roll-down screen.


I was planning to use a 2.35 motorized screen with masking panels for 1.78 and 1.33, but then I was shown the PMI 2.0 concept, which was also mentioned in this thread a few pages ago.


I did some extensive testing of my own (*) and concluded that the PMI 2.0 approach (CIA-like, but with smaller image sizes for SD content) has a lot of merit.


I'd like to do this type of setup at home, but to do it properly requires true 4-way masking with variable size in BOTH horizontal and vertical dimensions. There are motorized screens that do variable masking of the image height, but for width, all the screens I can find can only select one or two fixed widths by lowering curtain-like masks.

*My question:* has anybody found a way to do variable screen-width masking with a motorized screen?


One possibility would be to use drapes. This would be a bit of a challenge in my situation because of where my left and right speakers will stand, but perhaps I could make something fly, especially if I used a lightweight masking material rather than heavy drapes for this purpose.


Any other options?


Many thanks to those folks making constructive contributions to this thread!


(*) In case anybody cares about the specifics of what I tried:

I spent this past Saturday in a very nice theater that is set up for 2.35 CIH with a 3-chip DLP and an ISCO-III. I was also able to vary my seating distance to yield different viewing angles. I brought a laser distance finder so that I could quickly calculate the viewing angle for seating locations that I tried. I found that -- _for me_ -- 40 degrees viewing angle is too much for nearly all content. I found 36 to be spot-on perfect for 2.35 Blu-ray. Meanwhile, although I could watch upscaled DVD at the same size, my preference was to watch it at a somewhat smaller size where the compression artifacts of DVD were not as visible.


As well, I found that if I were to use a CIH screen set up at a size that I found comfortable and enjoyable for 2.35, most 1.78 content looked fine to me on the CIH screen, but some would have benefitted from being bigger. IMAX is a prime example, but Planet Earth and One Six Right (HD-DVD) were both also more enjoyable a bit bigger. And of course The Dark Knight....


In summary, I could do just fine with a 36-degree 2.35 CIH screen with masking for 1.78 (and maybe 1.33 if I really go crazy), but it would involve a compromise for some content. What kind of self-respecting HT geek would I be if I didn't at least try to do the no-compromise solution?










By the way, to the person who commented a little while ago about how he was surprised by how big a difference masking made -- I second that! In my testing, I was also able to open the masking system wide open to see what it would be like to just forego masks, and even with a very good projector in a fully light-controlled room, the jet-black masking really adds punch to the image.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JustMike* /forum/post/16480976
> 
> 
> One possibility would be to use drapes. This would be a bit of a challenge in my situation because of where my left and right speakers will stand, but perhaps I could make something fly, especially if I used a lightweight masking material rather than heavy drapes for this purpose.
> 
> 
> Any other options?



That's about all I can think of.



> Quote:
> Many thanks to those folks making constructive contributions to this thread!
> 
> 
> (*) In case anybody cares about the specifics of what I tried:
> 
> I spent this past Saturday in a very nice theater that is set up for 2.35 CIH with a 3-chip DLP and an ISCO-III. I was also able to vary my seating distance to yield different viewing angles. I brought a laser distance finder so that I could quickly calculate the viewing angle for seating locations that I tried. I found that -- _for me_ -- 40 degrees viewing angle is too much for nearly all content. I found 36 to be spot-on perfect for 2.35 Blu-ray. Meanwhile, although I could watch upscaled DVD at the same size, my preference was to watch it at a somewhat smaller size where the compression artifacts of DVD were not as visible.
> 
> 
> As well, I found that if I were to use a CIH screen set up at a size that I found comfortable and enjoyable for 2.35, most 1.78 content looked fine to me on the CIH screen, but some would have benefitted from being bigger. IMAX is a prime example, but Planet Earth and One Six Right (HD-DVD) were both also more enjoyable a bit bigger. And of course The Dark Knight....



I think you'll find if you read through the thread, that most of even us most die hard CIH people, agree that IMAX should be larger. The issue is, how much content is that? I've got 1 IMAX movie and I haven't watched it in years.


I suppose If I were to build for IMAX, within the limitations of cropped-for-Blu-ray, 1.78:1 IMAX) I'd have a 16:9 screen as wide as my 2.35:1 screen and leave it masked down to 2.35:1 all the time. Everything but IMAX would be CIH, and then I could open up for IMAX. Though this would probably require a VC lens or the shrink method.


That would retain everything in the proper proportion, scope movies bigger than TV, and IMAX bigger than everything, each as they're intended to be. But is it worth it, for one or two IMAX movies? And as for TDK, well, that's an odd one, sure I don't have the IMAX experience, but then again, I didn't when I watched it in the (not IMAX) theater either.



> Quote:
> In summary, I could do just fine with a 36-degree 2.35 CIH screen with masking for 1.78 (and maybe 1.33 if I really go crazy), but it would involve a compromise for some content. What kind of self-respecting HT geek would I be if I didn't at least try to do the no-compromise solution?



Unless you've got a IMAX ratio screen (and a source for uncropped IMAX content at a quality better than DVD), you're going to have to compromise something. IMAX is very hard to do well at home, arguably impossible since you can't get native 1.43:1 IMAX content with decent quality (ie better than DVD).


HT is all about where you draw that line.


----------



## JustMike

Thanks for that. Do you find that you enjoy BD and DVD at the same size, or would you rather see DVD at a somewhat reduced size compared to BD if that were feasible?


You raise a good point about IMAX -- it's definitely not 1.78 natively. I have a handful of titles, and I'm a bit of a space nut so I do watch some of them from time to time, so it'd be nice to make it big, but it's not the end of the world if not.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JustMike* /forum/post/16480976
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to do this type of setup at home, but to do it properly requires true 4-way masking with variable size in BOTH horizontal and vertical dimensions. There are motorized screens that do variable masking of the image height, but for width, all the screens I can find can only select one or two fixed widths by lowering curtain-like masks.
> 
> *My question:* has anybody found a way to do variable screen-width masking with a motorized screen?



I believe I have, although my system is being put together as I write this. Whether it works great remains to be seen. But I have no particular reason to think it won't work.


I'm employing 4 way automated masking, because I want to be able to vary my screen size and shape. 4 way automated masking from the screen manufacturers is hideously expensive, and even some $18,000 4 way masking systems aren't as flexible as I'd like (or as you'd like, it seems).


I didn't want to go the full DIY route because I'm not a handy-man and it's clear automated 4 way masking is quite a trial, even for the DIY guys.


So I decided to combine two professionally made products to create my 4 way masking. For horizontal masking - varying the image height - I'm using the Carada Masquerade Horizontal masking system:

http://www.carada.com/Masquerade-Masking-System.aspx 


As you can see Carada will soon be offering a vertical CIH masking system.

However, when it comes to creating motorized four way masking, it's typically much easier to come up with a solution for the side masking (motorized curtains, etc) than it is for the horizontal (top/bottom) masking. Which is why I'm buying the Carada horizontal masking system.


For vertical masking - the side masking - I searched for a company offering automated curtain systems, preferably that would allow me to program pre-set stopping points for various image widths. Then I found Goelst, who offer just what I was looking for: Their 6200 track system is remote controlled and offers up to 5 programmable stopping points for various image widths:


Goelst:

http://www.gsoft.nl/index.php?id=18 


But then I noticed they also do a roller panel system, using the same motor:

http://www.gsoft.nl/index.php?id=15 


Video of roller panel system:

http://www.gsoft.nl/index.php?id=35 


So I decide on using the roller panel system instead of the curtains for side masking. I can get a nice clean edge with the roller panel system and a nice clean look over all. Also, the panels stack behind each other, to either side of the screen when opened up, taking up little space to the sides of the screen. (I'm going to modify the edge of the inner side masking panel to orientate it closer to the screen surface, to avoid shadowing).


So the combination of the Masquerade for top/bottom masking and the Goelst panel system for side masking will make for 4-way remote controllable automated masking.


My screen will be as wide and as tall as I can fit in the room - in my case I'll end up with a 124" wide by 61" high viewable screen area - and the masking system will alter the image shape and size as I wish, while I zoom to whatever size I wish depending on the movie, source quality, my mood or whatever. Always fully masked.


As far as how it will operate: Both the Masquerade and the Goelst system offer a continuously adjustable travel so I can zoom the projected image to the size I wish, and then "jog" or adjust both top and bottom masking to fit the image.


As far as pre-set image sizes go, that's a bit more of a mixed bag. The Goelst will allow the 5 pre-set image widths - 6 if you count "fully open" - which would actually cover most image sizes I might use. Whereas the Masquerade has fewer presets - "open" and "2:35:1" masked. You can have Carada set the 2:35:1 stopping point wherever you want.


So there's the issue of the side masking offering more pre-sets than the Carada top/bottom masking. Personally this is fine with me as I'll be adjusting the masks likely anyway. Having some pre-set image widths can expedite the masking process to some degree: Select an image width, the masks move to that width, zoom the image to that width, then bring down the top/bottom masks to fit. And in fact it might be possible to program more pre-set image heights

with the Carada. The Carada has a "jog" button that moves the masks in 1/2" increments with each push. At least one forum member has found he's been

able to program the Carada to stop at various image heights, using macros on his universal remote to activate the jog feature to discrete numbers of steps.

I'll likely try the same.


One other issue is how projector zooms tend to work: They don't always zoom out proportionately, e.g. the top portion of the image will expand more than the bottom portion. How much this occurs will tend to depend on how much lens off-set you've had to use, dependant upon how centered to the screen you are able to place your projector (the more lens off-set you must use, the more uneven the image will zoom out).


Is it a big deal? In my pre-tests for this system, I have not found it to be so, either zooming with a manual projector or with my new JVC RS20. The JVC has remote controlled zoom and lens shift. I've practiced zooming the image from the JVC, using various tape marks on my wall to see how easy it is to adjust the zoom and image shift to within specific boundaries - as will happen with the masking system. It has been very quick and easy to do so, so I don't foresee any issues. (I've also tested out this "zoom method" on another forum member's RS20 projector on his screen and it was a cinch).


My room is under reno and the screen wall is being rebuilt right now. I have the Goelst roller panel system in hand and I'm awaiting my Carada Masquerade.


Fingers crossed it all works..but it should. I'll be able to give every aspect ratio it's full glory, even including IMAX content, The Dark Knight etc. And the price for the Carada/Goelst combo will come in just under $5,000. Around 1/4 the price of options from the screen companies, and even more flexible than some of those more expensive offerings.


Hope that helps.


(I'll be starting my Home Theater build thread with all the details very soon)


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JustMike* /forum/post/16482855
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. Do you find that you enjoy BD and DVD at the same size, or would you rather see DVD at a somewhat reduced size compared to BD if that were feasible?



I watch DVD rather rarely anymore actually. Well somewhat rarely. Anything scope I watch in BD, just the way it works out, only DVDs I watch are TV show type things and by nature of being CIH they're smaller than scope movies. Doesn't really bother me having it that large.



> Quote:
> You raise a good point about IMAX -- it's definitely not 1.78 natively. I have a handful of titles, and I'm a bit of a space nut so I do watch some of them from time to time, so it'd be nice to make it big, but it's not the end of the world if not.



I don't want to try and talk you into giving anything up. But we (all of us) tend to get easilly hung up on "small" issues. IMAX gets brought up a lot when talking about the merits of CIH, and it seems to be forgotten just how much some of us really use/watch it.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89* /forum/post/16483186
> 
> 
> I don't want to try and talk you into giving anything up. But we (all of us) tend to get easilly hung up on "small" issues. IMAX gets brought up a lot when talking about the merits of CIH, and it seems to be forgotten just how much some of us really use/watch it.



I agree. The whole Dark Knight issue became blown out of proportion I think. There are compromises in virtually every home theater system, so it's a question of picking your compromises, or at least limiting them to the degree you can.


If you choose an IMAX-shaped screen you end up with a screen that does not "fit" the vast majority of films available, in order to privilege the very few. I don't know why anyone would do this.


Now, in my particular set up I won't feel particularly compromised in terms of the size and shape of my screen, since it will alter it's size. I feel my compromises have been moved more into the expense and complexity, which a lot of people may feel aren't worth the gains.


----------



## JustMike

Thanks for the pointers, Rich, and regarding IMAX I agree completely. My focus for purchased content moving forward is going to be for 2.35 Blu and 1.85/1.78 Blu, but I still have a huge DVD library and I doubt that much of that content will become available on Blu very soon. For this iteration of the theater, I need to factor in DVD viewing.


One other thing: stranger89 noted that TV should be smaller than 'Scope film. I agree with this in most instances. As an example, I had friends over to watch the Battlestar Galactica series finale on my existing 108" 1.78 screen (brought over from the previous house), which in my new room is very nearly the _width_ at which I eventually want to project 2.35 Blu. It was much too big for me! I had a headache by the end of the show.


I think that there is a big difference in how scripted TV entertainment is shot for HD than in how film is shot -- (HD)TV tends to completely fill the screen with action and movement. I hypothesize that this is because they're targeting people with plasmas and LCD's, which is certainly the majority of the viewers. If the screen is very large, this kind of content is uncomfortable for me.


Therefore, I expect that the smaller 1.78 area of a CIH screen would be absolutely perfect for nearly all HDTV. The exceptions might be programs like Planet Earth, and also possibly sports (but I'm not a big sports guy so it's less of a factor for me).


It's with the 1.85 films that I have a bit of concern. One thing I like about the PMI 2.0 strategy is that 1.85 is _not_ as wide as Scope for these films, but it is a little taller. And, DVDs that don't hold up very well at the full 2.35 screen size can be shown a bit smaller where they really look quite good.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JustMike* /forum/post/16483697
> 
> 
> 
> It's with the 1.85 films that I have a bit of concern. One thing I like about the PMI 2.0 strategy is that 1.85 is _not_ as wide as Scope for these films, but it is a little taller. And, DVDs that don't hold up very well at the full 2.35 screen size can be shown a bit smaller where they really look quite good.



That is somewhat in line with what I found when I experimented with various image sizes on my wall. From my 11.5 foot seating distance, I found my comfort level reaching a limit at around 124" wide for CinemaScope, and in fact somewhat narrower sometimes depending on the content. Yet there was 1:85:1 content that I really enjoyed significantly taller than the height they would have been limited to if I stuck with a CIH set up. Examples being Jurassic Park, Planet Earth, HD DVD/Blu Rays like Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket.


I watched Full Metal Jacket, a 1:85:1 aspect ratio, at about 61" tall (around 124" diagonal size) and it was just awesome. It really put me into the scenery which felt really "right" in that war movie. Like I was there.


Yet if it had been a CinemaScope film at that image height it would have been a massive 143" wide image - too big overall for my comfort at that seating difference. So the standard CIH formula of "find the height you like for 16:9/1:85:1 content and then expand the width for scope" didn't work in my case. Once I enjoyed some 1:85:1 content REALLY BIG it was too disheartening for me to give up the option and stick with CIH.


So...on to 4 way masking and a very tall/wide screen I went.


----------



## JustMike

Can't wait to see your build thread!


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Speaking of IMAX ,I saw _Star Trek_ yesterday, what a wonderful film and at 70' it was very engaging. Some of the fight scenes it was almost too big.


Art


----------



## b curry




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/16485936
> 
> 
> Speaking of IMAX ,I saw _Star Trek_ yesterday, what a wonderful film and at 70' it was very engaging. Some of the fight scenes it was almost too big.
> 
> 
> Art



Which IMAX theater did you see it in Art?


We went to the NGC Trillium in Grand Blanc. It's a DLP IMAX and the projector seem to have a little trouble keeping up with a few scenes. I would like to see it again in a film IMAX to compare.


Super movie, lots of fun, and perfect for IMAX. And I agree, sometimes it did feel almost too big.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b curry* /forum/post/16486362
> 
> 
> Which IMAX theater did you see it in Art?
> 
> 
> We went to the NGC Trillium in Grand Blanc. It's a DLP IMAX and the projector seem to have a little trouble keeping up with a few scenes. I would like to see it again in a film IMAX to compare.
> 
> 
> Super movie, lots of fun, and perfect for IMAX. And I agree, sometimes it did feel almost too big.



Celebration Cinema in Lansing. This is a film based theater.


Art


----------



## b curry

Thanks Art.


----------



## Redskin

I have read through a lot of this thread, and I am thinking CIA is the way to go for me. Is 2.05:1 or 2:1 better?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ********* /forum/post/16721105
> 
> 
> I have read through a lot of this thread, and I am thinking CIA is the way to go for me. Is 2.05:1 or 2:1 better?



I'm not sure 2.05:1 or 2:1 really matters, the difference is small. Carada offers 2.05 screens which is nice. 2.05 I believe is closer to a true constant area between 1.78 (full screen height) and 2.35 (full screen width).


The primary decision is between 1.78 and 2.05.


Here are mockups of common ARs on a 2.05 screen presented in CIA: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16254169 


And here are mockups of common ARs on a 1.78 screen presented in CIA: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16244300


----------



## Redskin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16721275
> 
> 
> I'm not sure 2.05:1 or 2:1 really matters, the difference is small. Carada offers 2.05 screens which is nice. 2.05 I believe is closer to a true constant area between 1.78 (full screen height) and 2.35 (full screen width).
> 
> 
> The primary decision is between 1.78 and 2.05.
> 
> 
> Here are mockups of common ARs on a 2.05 screen presented in CIA: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16254169
> 
> 
> And here are mockups of common ARs on a 1.78 screen presented in CIA: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16244300



In my situation, 2.05 or 2:1 is a better situation than 1.78. If both 2.05:1 and 2:1 are both viable options, I think I will go 2:1. 2:1 allows me to make a 3" boarder and catch all of the spill for scope movies. If I were to go 2.05:1, using the border I was planning on building , a fraction of an inch would spill above the border...not a big deal, but I might notice it on Dark Knight IMAX scenes


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ********* /forum/post/16722392
> 
> 
> In my situation, 2.05 or 2:1 is a better situation than 1.78. If both 2.05:1 and 2:1 are both viable options, I think I will go 2:1. 2:1 allows me to make a 3" boarder and catch all of the spill for scope movies. If I were to go 2.05:1, using the border I was planning on building , a fraction of an inch would spill above the border...not a big deal, but I might notice it on Dark Knight IMAX scenes



Makes perfect sense to me, go for it! Post back here when you get 'er done!


Do you plan on using horizontal or verical masking for any ARs? What projector are you using?


----------



## Redskin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16723094
> 
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me, go for it! Post back here when you get 'er done!
> 
> 
> Do you plan on using horizontal or verical masking for any ARs? What projector are you using?



I am using a Marantz 8600.


I am doing a diy screen. I am going to start by painting the wall black and hanging my screen. Next step is figuring out the best way to do diy masking on the cheap. I might even forgo the velvet from for the moment to make sure I am coming up with something that could include a masking system. My screen is a Doable 1/4" thick hard board. The way I am going to hang it, it will "float" off the wall by about 1/2" to 1" all the way around.


Does anyone know of any diy threads that offer ideas for different masking options?


----------



## ccool96

lilgator


I am in the same boat as you. When i completed my theater a few months ago, I installed a 14' wide 2.40 SMX screen. I watch alot of movies but also watch alot of 16:9 material. Once i got use to watching movies in scope, 16:9material definitely felt like a sacrifice.


DP released a new feature on their Titan Projectors called ILM. Intelligent Lens Memory. Now you can save mutiple lens positions for Zoom, Focus, and Shift. Now that there is an easy way to adjust image area, i am looking at making a screen change. Luckly my Titan Ref can be upgraded. I am sending it off to DP on monday.


I am looking at doing a 2.0 aspect 4 way masking SMX screen. That way my scope material with still remain 170" X 72" but my 16:9 material will increase from 128" X 72" to 150" x 85"


My scope material will still be wider, but my 16:9 material will be alittle taller. That seems like win win to me :0


Now the Gators will never be sacrificed to a smaller screen size again!


As soon as I get the projector back and get the new screen, ill update my room construction forum with pics!


----------



## Oliver Klohs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/16734729
> 
> 
> lilgator
> 
> 
> I am in the same boat as you. When i completed my theater a few months ago, I installed a 14' wide 2.40 SMX screen. I watch alot of movies but also watch alot of 16:9 material. Once i got use to watching movies in scope, 16:9material definitely felt like a sacrifice.
> 
> 
> DP released a new feature on their Titan Projectors called ILM. Intelligent Lens Memory. Now you can save mutiple lens positions for Zoom, Focus, and Shift. Now that there is an easy way to adjust image area, i am looking at making a screen change. Luckly my Titan Ref can be upgraded. I am sending it off to DP on monday.
> 
> 
> I am looking at doing a 2.0 aspect 4 way masking SMX screen. That way my scope material with still remain 170" X 72" but my 16:9 material will increase from 128" X 72" to 150" x 85"
> 
> 
> My scope material will still be wider, but my 16:9 material will be alittle taller. That seems like win win to me :0
> 
> 
> Now the Gators will never be sacrificed to a smaller screen size again!
> 
> 
> As soon as I get the projector back and get the new screen, ill update my room construction forum with pics!



Wow, talk about the big budget way to do CIA










Have you fiddled around a little with different aspects ?

I have done that and as a lot of movies are 1.85 to 1 rather than 16:9 I found them to be too close in width to Scope on a 2:1 aspect ratio.


I would probably be able to live with anything from 2.05 to 2.2 to 1 but I definitely would lean to 2.1 to 1 and above in order to make Scope movies noticably wider than 1.85 to 1 movies.


My first real home theater screen that I got nearly 10 years ago was 2.15 to 1 - I still think that is a very nice AR.


----------



## R Harkness

Whoa ccool96. That's an incredible set up you have, and are going to have.

As someone who will be doing 4 way masking and a zoom method, I drool over the SMX 4 way masking system.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/16734729
> 
> 
> lilgator
> 
> 
> When i completed my theater a few months ago, I installed a 14' wide 2.40 SMX screen. I watch alot of movies but also watch alot of 16:9 material. Once i got use to watching movies in scope, 16:9material definitely felt like a sacrifice.



That's the point I keep bringing up, which virtually never gets brought up when the CIH devotees give the lists of reasons to do CIH. The mantra is that all you have to do is base your CIH on a satisfying 16:9 screen size/height and then a 2:35:1 screen based on that height should leave you with no compromise, since you start with a satisfying 16:9 image size.


But human perception just doesn't work that way (at least for most people).

Once you get used to a larger image - in this case your scope image - your 16:9 image is going to feel smaller _than it otherwise would have_ if you'd stuck with 16:9.


I mean, you have a HUGE screen with a 16:9 image of 127 inches wide and about 146" diagonal. That dwarfs the size of most people's 16:9 screens on this forum. And yet even a 16:9 image THAT big feels unsatisfying to you once you introduce an even larger image to constantly compare. Art on this forum has stated similar things, and he has a mammoth 2:35:1/16:9 image as well.


That's why I say it's not simply an issue of how big your screen is, or how big or tall your 16:9 height is, the comparison effect will come into play no matter what.


I think you'll have this solved, albeit in an expensive way, with your new screen size/4 way masking.


I haven't got my screen up but have for the last year simply zoomed the image to whatever size I wanted on my wall. Ever since I started doing that I've never once experienced issues with image size, or the "comparison effect" because I can always make any AR the size that feels right.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi Cool,


Beautiful looking theater.










Which row of seats do you usually sit in?


Gary


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/16735160
> 
> 
> Whoa ccool96. That's an incredible set up you have, and are going to have.
> 
> As someone who will be doing 4 way masking and a zoom method, I drool over the SMX 4 way masking system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the point I keep bringing up, which virtually never gets brought up when the CIH devotees give the lists of reasons to do CIH. The mantra is that all you have to do is base your CIH on a satisfying 16:9 screen size/height and then a 2:35:1 screen based on that height should leave you with no compromise, since you start with a satisfying 16:9 image size.
> 
> 
> But human perception just doesn't work that way (at least for most people).
> 
> Once you get used to a larger image - in this case your scope image - your 16:9 image is going to feel smaller _than it otherwise would have_ if you'd stuck with 16:9.
> 
> 
> I mean, you have a HUGE screen with a 16:9 image of 127 inches wide and about 146" diagonal. That dwarfs the size of most people's 16:9 screens on this forum. And yet even a 16:9 image THAT big feels unsatisfying to you once you introduce an even larger image to constantly compare. Art on this forum has stated similar things, and he has a mammoth 2:35:1/16:9 image as well.
> 
> 
> That's why I say it's not simply an issue of how big your screen is, or how big or tall your 16:9 height is, the comparison effect will come into play no matter what.
> 
> 
> I think you'll have this solved, albeit in an expensive way, with your new screen size/4 way masking.
> 
> 
> I haven't got my screen up but have for the last year simply zoomed the image to whatever size I wanted on my wall. Ever since I started doing that I've never once experienced issues with image size, or the "comparison effect" because I can always make any AR the size that feels right.



Exactly! lol


Sometimes it seems the simplest of concepts are the ones that most people miss. My 16:9 image is plenty big, but when you wow people with scope movies then everyone comes over to watch, just for argument sake, the superbowl, they are like why do you have black bars? why is it smaller?


then i stretch it out to fill the scope screen and everyone is like wow. thats cool, but then everyone is short and fat!


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Oliver Klohs* /forum/post/16735057
> 
> 
> Wow, talk about the big budget way to do CIA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you fiddled around a little with different aspects ?
> 
> I have done that and as a lot of movies are 1.85 to 1 rather than 16:9 I found them to be too close in width to Scope on a 2:1 aspect ratio.
> 
> 
> I would probably be able to live with anything from 2.05 to 2.2 to 1 but I definitely would lean to 2.1 to 1 and above in order to make Scope movies noticably wider than 1.85 to 1 movies.
> 
> 
> My first real home theater screen that I got nearly 10 years ago was 2.15 to 1 - I still think that is a very nice AR.




I have fooled around with them on paper more than in real life.


I havnt worried about being exact on 2.0 2.1 etc. cause im planning on putting the largest screen in that fits my opening. which happens to work out to be about a 2.0 aspect. Then i can kinda work thru the exact sizes with the masking. But i agree that the last thing i want is to end up with a 16:9 image that makes me wanting a larger scope screen. I just want to find a nice balance between the 2 screens.


In my old theater i actually accomplished the same thing on a much tigher budget. I used a 133" diagonal 16:9 fixed screen and a 12' wide scope screen that motorized down in front of the other.


That worked pretty well but with the screen in the new theater being AT, a masking screen really seems to be the only way to go.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/16735695
> 
> 
> Exactly! lol
> 
> 
> Sometimes it seems the simplest of concepts are the ones that most people miss. My 16:9 image is plenty big, but when you wow people with scope movies then everyone comes over to watch, just for argument sake, the superbowl, they are like why do you have black bars? why is it smaller?
> 
> 
> then i stretch it out to fill the scope screen and everyone is like wow. thats cool, but then everyone is short and fat!



Yeah, my kids are always saying "Make the picture bigger!" They want everything they view as large as possible. The key is to not show them the "bigger" image because once they see it and I try to make it smaller, they complain.


Also, when I was trying to decide on a 16:9 image size for a CIH set up I couldn't resist throwing in things like Planet Earth (HD) and zooming the image huge on my wall. It went into an IMAX-like awesomeness that I could never get if I stuck strictly with a CIH set up. So I decided to get as wide and tall a screen as I can fit, and mask the image as desired. I just couldn't give up the possibility of the extra awesomeness for non-scope format, once I experienced it.


Also, because I vary the image sizes per content, it keeps the impact fresh for when I make the image really big. No matter what size screen you get you tend to acclimatize to the image size pretty quickly. But varying the image size, at least for me, maintains the "wow" effect when I want it.


----------



## ccool96




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot* /forum/post/16735304
> 
> 
> Hi Cool,
> 
> 
> Beautiful looking theater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which row of seats do you usually sit in?
> 
> 
> Gary



I sit in the middle. They are 12' to front row 18' second row and 24' third row from screen.


----------



## Redskin

I just went to a CIA setup for the same reasons. I didn't want my scope movies to "wow" in comparison to my 1.85:1 movies...I want wow for both. What about Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds (newer version), Cloverfield and the original Spiderman to name a few. In my room, when I went as wide as I could with a CIH screen, my 1.85:1 image was too small, when I put the right sized 16:9 screen up, my scope movies were too small. I am going to have to manual zoom when I switch aspect ratios, but a small price to pay for an impactful movie experience for any aspect ratio


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ccool96* /forum/post/16735728
> 
> 
> I sit in the middle. They are 12' to front row 18' second row and 24' third row from screen.



How did you decide on the seating distances and what's it like when sat in the front row?


Gary


----------



## John Ballentine

YES ccool96! Very NICE theater!


I think I would want to sit in row #2 (w/ that giant 14' wide screen). Wonder what viewing angle that would be?


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/16739659
> 
> 
> YES ccool96! Very NICE theater!
> 
> 
> I think I would want to sit in row #2 (w/ that giant 14' wide screen). Wonder what viewing angle that would be?


*2.40 (170"x72")*


Row 1 is 61° or 2X image height.

Row 2 is 43° or 3X image height.

Row 3 is 33° or 4X image height.

*Old 16x9 (128"x72")*


Row 1 is 48° or 2X image height.

Row 2 is 33° or 3X image height.

Row 3 is 25° or 4X image height.

*New 16x9 (150"x85")*


Row 1 is 55° or 1.7X image height.

Row 2 is 38° or 2.5X image height.

Row 3 is 29° or 3.4X image height.


ccool96, can't wait to see your finished setup- I suppose another benefit of CIA and the 2.0 screen is that your screen wall will be filled better (to the gold trim)


----------



## Pisto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/16338064
> 
> 
> History lesson, for those wondering why a standard 1.78 works so well for CIA.
> 
> *Yes, 25 years ago, the concept of a 1.78 screen housing all ratios at CONSTANT AREA was unanimously accepted by SMPTE!*



It is great to learn that! Few weeks ago, I have designed a CIA TV. Here are the main features:


- Fixed resolution panel: 2560x1600 (like some 30" monitors)

- Let's dream







: constant image area of 9 square feet (40 pixels/inch)

- Direct mapping "1:1" for 16:9 content in 1080p

- Yes, of course, upscaling and downscaling for every other aspect ratios

- Compatible with aspect ratios from 0.81:1 (portrait) to 3.16 (panoramic landscape)


Pictures:
In the middle of the page (French website)

Click on the image to see the CiaTV in high resolution.


Of course, this television does not yet exist. I am just waiting for a Sony or a Samsung of this world to make and sell it.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pisto* /forum/post/17076824
> 
> 
> It is great to learn that! Few weeks ago, I have designed a CIA TV. Here are the main features:
> 
> 
> - Fixed resolution panel: 2560x1600 (like some 30" monitors)
> 
> - Let's dream
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : constant image area of 9 square feet (40 pixels/inch)
> 
> - Direct mapping "1:1" for 16:9 content in 1080p
> 
> - Yes, of course, upscaling and downscaling for every other aspect ratios
> 
> - Compatible with aspect ratios from 0.81:1 (portrait) to 3.16 (panoramic landscape)
> 
> 
> Pictures:
> My CiaTV at full resolution (Look at the bottom left part of this image)
> My CiaTV at a smaller resolution
> 
> 
> Of course, this television does not yet exist. I am just waiting for a Sony or a Samsung of this world to make and sell it.



Links aren't working for me, but I'd love to see them. EDIT: They work, no hotlinking, but copy/paste to browser address works fine (no referrer). Cool concept where CIA is forced with the curved screen edge!


I have a Dell WFP3007, 30" 2560x1600 and can definitely see what you mean about 1:1, and CIA on this type of panel. Would need a scaler with some horsepower though for full-screen stuff, but it would look fantastic, while not sacrificing resolution for the scaler (1-click) method of CIA.


I'm looking at doing a 9-10ft wide 1.78 screen for CIA- finally have the proper room to do it in. Masking is definitely the hard part of this setup, and will take some thought.


----------



## HogPilot

LilGator what ever came of your CIA theater? I know my buddy lifted your W20000 off of you (nice PJ btw, especially for what he paid!), but have you replaced it with anything yet?


For masking are you looking at DIY or a commercial solution?


----------



## rman222

Hi,

I'm just getting into CIH and CIA... and found this thread. .and post.. and have to say...

this post may be the most lucid, cogent, and articulate post I have ever read here.. (and there have obviously been some really oustanding posts here)

Thank you!

Joe H




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bjoern Roy* /forum/post/16255009
> 
> 
> Hold your horses guys... or the bickering is going to get this resourceful thread shut down....
> 
> *A little history on 'Constant Area'...*
> 
> *1982-1990*
> 
> A young movie buff Bjoern intuitively utilized the concept of having 'favorite seating rows' for scope (2.35:1) and academy flat (1.85:1) movies as a teenager 25 years ago...
> 
> *1990*
> 
> Almost 20 years ago, in the early laserdisc days i build my first HT screen. In an outlandish move, i build it in an academy flat ratio (1.85:1) when most of the few people into projection at the time had TV-centric 4:3 screens, yikes.
> 
> *1995*
> 
> Being dissatisfied with the fact that scope movies had less impact on my 1.85:1 screen due to reduced height, i build my first scope screen (2.35:1). Note that i did not use the term Constant Height at the time, although it was the concept motivating me. Along with all the arguments for CIH presented here. That was 14 years ago, mind you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satisfaction with the scope screen lasted only 2 years... Not because of the limited amount of scope material on laserdisc, but because i changed my seating scenario from a single to two rows.
> 
> 
> Huh? Let me explain:
> 
> In the movie theater, i was able to adjust seating distance to achieve the proper size sensation for any aspect ratio material...
> 
> 
> With the scope screen at home, the only way to achieve the same 'size' satisfaction with both ratios, i had to move my seat back and forth. Having only one non-fixed seating row and bit of open space to the front, it was a little awkward yet reasonably practical to watch scope material at the actual seating row distance and move a bit forward for academy material...
> 
> 
> When i installed a second row to increase seating capacity, the concept of adjusting seating distance via moving any of the seats became impractical. Since the seating rows where fixed now, the only viable option was to 'choose the row' like in the movie theater... Yet, this did not solve the problem.
> 
> *1997*
> _Note: This is a key moment in videophile history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> I wondered... Why was 'choosing the appropriate row' intuitively feasible in the movie theater, but failed at home? Answer: Different 'seating distance granularity' between two adjacent rows!
> 
> 
> I realized that it is the 'size' of the projected image that drives my satisfaction. Neither the width nor the height. To achieve the goal of having the same 'size' for scope (2.35:1) and academy (1.85:1) movies, i had to sit 12,7% closer for academy material.
> 
> 
> Assuming a seating row distance of about 4', an theoretical referential row has to be about 35,5' away so that an adjacent row exists directly in front of it which is 12,7% closer. Applying common viewing cone preferences, this implies a 35,5' wide scope screen in a movie theater (distance factor 1.0 x width), a 29,5' wide scope screen in a HD home theater (distance factor 1.2 x width) and a 25,5' wide scope screen in a SD home theater (distance factor 1.4 x width).
> 
> 
> Again: It needs a scope screen of that width to be able to accomplish the same 'size sensation' for academy flat (1.85:1) material in the same bounderies (read: with the same height) of the scope screen, by sitting a single adjacent row closer to the screen. Puh, that's a mouth full.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In movie theaters, screens are often much wider, so granularity is even finer than that. In common theaters my favorite spots for the two ratios is usually 2-3 rows apart.
> 
> 
> In home theaters on the other side, a screen that huge is utopical even by 20k+ forum means. Assuming a large 14' wide scope screen with two rows at 16' and 12', the front row delivers an image 33% wider than the back row. A far shot from the desired 12,7%.
> 
> 
> The consequence is this:
> 
> - Either you watch both scope and academy movies in the 16' back row, making academy movies and 16x9 sport 'too small'.
> 
> - Or you switch to the front row for academy movies, which makes them waaaay too big, relatively speaking. Actually, moving up to the front row for academy movies will lead to a perceptional bigger 1.85:1 image than even a standard 16x9 screen delivers.
> 
> 
> I realized that image 'ratio' and 'size' are two completely seperate concerns...
> 
> _Funny sidenote: Being a software architect, there are basically only three things i am paid for. Abstracting any problem to the n-th degree. Solving them at this highest or any more reasonable lower abstraction level. And keeping things apart that don't belong together (seperation of concerns)._
> 
> 
> I set out to revolutionize the image delivery concept, being neither limited by constraints a movie theater has to deal with (plenty of width available, height is limited), nor limited by constraints a home theater is plagued with (limited seating row flexibility).
> 
> 
> Define three orthogonal concerns of an image.
> *A) 'Relative' image size*
> 
> There are two driving forces behind this concern. In image too small lacks 'imapct'. An image too big lacks resolution and thus 'quality'. Note that i use the term 'relative' image size here, meaning the size of the image relative to the viewing distance. A 100' wide screen does look puny from 10 miles away...
> 
> *B) 'Absolute' image size*
> 
> While A is important, the human perception is driven by a second 'size aspect'. The larger the image is in absolute terms, the more authority it induces on us. If A would be the only size aspect influencing our perception... a movie watched on an iPod from 4" away would WOW us as much as a huge theater with 1000 seats and a 150' wide screen from 150' away. We all know this is not the case. The larger the more WOW, as easy as that.
> 
> *C) Aspect ratio*
> 
> Movies do have different aspect ratios. Check. The sole driving force behind the DP choosing these ratios is and should be framing, thus 'artistic intend'. All other supposed 'reasons' (impact, size, vista, peripheral vision etc) bleed over to the completely unrelated concern A.
> 
> 
> The key observation now is, that Concern A is orthogonal from Concern C. Thus, images of different aspect ratios can and will be perceived as having the same 'relative image size'. In reality, image size sensation seems to be driven by area, not width alone, or height.
> 
> *Desires:*
> 
> - You want to be able to choose the relative image size so that 'impact' is to your liking, independant of aspect ratio (Concern C). And so that 'quality' doesn't suffer for your level of source material. This is acomplished through relative image size (Concern A).
> 
> - At the same time you want a screen as large as possible to achieve satisfaction through absolute image size (Concern B).
> 
> *Constraints:*
> 
> - Due to the 'corse seating distance granularity' issue, switching rows for different aspect ratios is not feasible...
> 
> - Due to practicability in most cases, moving seats front and back is not an option either...
> 
> *Solution:*
> 
> - Don't adjust seating to vary relative image size (Concern A) for different aspect ratios. Stay in your reference seat and vary the image size.
> 
> - Keep the image 'area' constant to keep the relative image size the same.
> 
> 
> I coined the term *Constant Area Screen* to describe the methodology. I coined the term *Constant Height Screen* to seperate the methodology that i had for 2 years from the one i just invented.
> 
> 
> The result revolutionized movie watching.... for me!
> 
> *Conclusion:*
> 
> I abandoned my Constant Height screen due to dissatisfaction almost 12 years ago. Ever since i only operated Constant Area screens in my theaters. There is no going back. I inspired many people all over the world to do the same. I stopped 'preaching' CA in home theater communities almost 4 years ago. Over the last 2 years, i notice an increased momentum.... thanks to people like Jeff.
> 
> 
> Great! Anyone is welcome to join. This will be the 'last' screen methodology you ever switch to. Don't be shy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Bjoern


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HogPilot* /forum/post/17083329
> 
> 
> LilGator what ever came of your CIA theater? I know my buddy lifted your W20000 off of you (nice PJ btw, especially for what he paid!), but have you replaced it with anything yet?
> 
> 
> For masking are you looking at DIY or a commercial solution?



Indeed he did







I think I'm stuck with the DLP bug, and so I'm waiting to see if anything worthwhile comes down the pipeline. Just that time of year where it usually pays to hold off










The new Infocus I'm interested in (playing with a SP7210 right now, always loved that thing), and I'm curious to see what the new BenQ's are capable of.


If none of these work out, probably will be going with the 8150- and I'll also be eying the new JVC's, or the RS20 if those are weak upgrades.


High power and Carada BW is another choice I'm trying to make- as the projector will be shelf mounted, and can be positioned ideally for the HP.


I'll be starting out with DIY masking. I'm probably going to be covering the screen wall in black curtains, and then making masks that can pull down and cover certain areas.


I will say that if Carada ever comes out with a 4-way masking screen like their new CIH one- I'd be all over it.


I have realized though, playing with the 7210- that a 9-10ft wide image gets to be rather tall. So a CIA setup I'm thinking I will having everything aligned to the bottom of the screen. In that case, 2.35 is full width and top masked (1-way masking), and 1.78/1.85 is 3-way masked (top and sides). Makes things a bit easier, and feels more natural I think over ARs being centered on a large 1.78 screen.


----------



## GetGray

For the folks who have and are happy with the 7205 or 7210, I am expecting the new SP8602 to be a drop-in reasonably priced perfect upgrade path. It's priced way less than the 7210 was when it was new, and I expect it will street reasonably well. It has a ton of new featuers including all of TI's extras. I'm on the waiting list to buy a demo unit so I can play with one myself. Be a few more weeks before they hit the ground. I beleive Jason has one on order too, and I expect he'll give it a review. I think for DLP fans it will be a nice alternative to the JVC's a this price point. I think I remembered the per-release docs saying it has a manual focus though, so that might be a fly in the soup if you need to zoom ond focus a lot. It's "anamorphic ready" with trigger outputs for a CineSlide, masking, etc. so that's good.


----------



## Pisto




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/17083222
> 
> 
> Links aren't working for me, but I'd love to see them. EDIT: They work, no hotlinking, but copy/paste to browser address works fine (no referrer). Cool concept where CIA is forced with the curved screen edge!



Thank you for your comments. I have replaced the links by this link which gets you to a page of my website.


----------



## R Harkness

Well I've ALMOST got my system finished.


I just installed my 124" wide by 60" tall (viewing area) Stewart ST-130 screen

with a Carada Masquerade masking system (for masking top/bottom of the image). I don't have my side masking up yet to complete the 4 way masking.


But...wow!


I was watching War Of The Worlds at around 107" diagonal. About the 16:9 size I'd have if I had decided on a 124" wide CIH system. (My 16:9 image would have been about 53" tall, ). I was thinking "This looks quite nice. Maybe I'd be happy with the image this size for 16:9."


Then I opened up the Carada masks (with remote control) and zoomed the image up to 60" tall - 122" diagonal. Holy crap what a difference! It was just a whole new ball-game of "WOW" cinema experience. I'm so glad I didn't give up the ability to do that by going with a strict image height (or strict image width).


Even though I was just using my old Panasonic 900 projector, it's on a "lift" mechanism right behind me so I could easily reach it's manual lens to zoom the image. Then adjusting the masks was a cinch. I don't feel even remotely "put out" by having to do this as it's so easy and the results are so gratifying. My remote controlled RS20 projector lens controls will make the

experience even more refined (I've already done a lot of playing with those lens controls).


So, at least at this point, I continue to be very happy in going along a variable image/4 way masking route.


Sorry...it's not strictly CIA, but this seemed the only related thread in which to mention my situation.


----------



## John Ballentine

Fabulous Rich! You truly have the best of both worlds. It may take a little extra effort to set up for different aspect ratios - but it's well worth it. I grimace every time I'm about to watch a 1:33 or 1:78/1:85 film because the image seems too darn small - even on my 120" wide 2:40 screen.


You've been working a long long time towards this (several years







) and I'm glad to see your efforts are finally paying off







.


----------



## R Harkness

I sure appreciate the supportive sentiments, John. It's been pretty grueling, actually.

Firing up even my old projector on the Stewart Screen/Carada Masquerade combo had that "finished" refined look that made me feel "maybe the effort and expense _will_ be worthwhile after all."


----------



## Steve Smith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/17108764
> 
> 
> Well I've ALMOST got my system finished.
> 
> I was watching War Of The Worlds at around 107" diagonal. About the 16:9 size I'd have if I had decided on a 124" wide CIH system. (My 16:9 image would have been about 53" tall, ). I was thinking "This looks quite nice. Maybe I'd be happy with the image this size for 16:9."
> 
> 
> Then I opened up the Carada masks (with remote control) and zoomed the image up to 60" tall - 122" diagonal. Holy crap what a difference! It was just a whole new ball-game of "WOW" cinema experience. I'm so glad I didn't give up the ability to do that by going with a strict image height (or strict image width).



Rich, It's great that you're almost finished. Looks like we're on a similar timeline. I've been working on a a DIY 4 way masking setup for months that's almost done. The other night I hooked up the projector and try some different image sizes and aspect ratios to see how it would look. My screen is 136w"x67h" Dalite HP. Projector is an RS20 that's been sitting in the box for months







. I was worried that the masks may cast some shadows on the screen. My side masks are ~1.75" away from the screen surface and the top/bottom masks are about 2" away. That was as close as I could get them because of the depth of the screen frame. I was pleased to see no problems with shadows whatsoever. The edge was crisp and it was difficult to tell the difference between the screen frame and mask.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve Smith* /forum/post/17116124
> 
> 
> Rich, It's great that you're almost finished. Looks like we're on a similar timeline. I've been working on a a DIY 4 way masking setup for months that's almost done. The other night I hooked up the projector and try some different image sizes and aspect ratios to see how it would look. My screen is 136w"x67h" Dalite HP. Projector is an RS20 that's been sitting in the box for months
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I was worried that the masks may cast some shadows on the screen. My side masks are ~1.75" away from the screen surface and the top/bottom masks are about 2" away. That was as close as I could get them because of the depth of the screen frame. I was pleased to see no problems with shadows whatsoever. The edge was crisp and it was difficult to tell the difference between the screen frame and mask.



Jumpin' Jeepers that's a big screen Steve! Height Of Your Powers there!


I'm really glad you mentioned your exeperience with the distance of your screen masking. It gives me hope for mine. I had fretted quite a bit about getting the right masking distance so I don't see shadowing and notice the masks. It turned out with the Carada Masquerade we got the masks about 1/2" from the screen surface. There is zero visible shadowing. I figure if I'm lucky I'll be getting my side masking about 1" (or a tad more) from the screen surface.


To solve the issue of having to clear the screen frame depth I did this: I ordered my screen/Carada Masquerade extra wide. The side masking panels will always sit over the sides of the screen frame, never having to clear them. This will allow me to make the inner side mask (the one travelling closest to the screen material, providing the side masking edge) bevelled inward toward the screen, to get it riding just above the Carada horizontal masks. As I mentioned, with luck this will put the side masks about 1 or

1 1/4" away from the screen surface. Your experience gives me some optimism that I might get good results.


I plan to post about my Carada Masquerade as soon as I can get a picture ready.


Cheers,


----------



## R Harkness

Hey...good news at least for my system:


Though the Carada CIW masking system I bought only comes with 2 discrete stopping points - "16:9" or "*fully open*" in my case, and "*2:35:1*" - it also features two "jog" buttons which, if you tap quickly, can jog the masks open or closed in 1/2" increments.


I have been able to easily copy the remote commands to my old MX500 Universal Remote control, set up macros and get various pre-set image heights at a single macro button command. It has been perfectly reliable thus far. Combined with the 6 pre-set stopping points available from my side masking, this means I should be able to program

macros for a variety of pre-set image sizes.


----------



## R Harkness

For anyone interested, here is a post about my system so far, with the Carada Masquerade up for vertical masking. Side masking to come soon.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17209234


----------



## tbase1

hey guys,


I've been running a sanyo Z5 with a prismasonic V1000 lens and VP30 scaler on a 8' scope screen in CIW at a approximate 17' throw. I just bought a ruby to replace my Z5.

I know I have to move the ruby closer to the screen to get better image PQ, however, will my cuurent equipemnt work with the ruby or if not what should I 86 to achieve CIW. Please bare in mind at this present time I don't have to touch my system for any content I feed my Z5.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16262878
> 
> 
> On the PMI solution?
> 
> The Integrator » Is There Something Better Than A 2.35:1 Screen?
> 
> 
> Quotes from the article





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Article* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> “The question we’ve always run into is, ‘How do you create a screen that will take you into the future?’” said Terry Hill, PMI’s general manager. He went on to explain that PMI 2.0 involves not a new and improved version of his company, *but a screen with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. “It’s a canvas that provides the best starting point for both 1.78:1 and 2.35:1,” he explained. “It means that you don’t have to compromise sports in 16:9 high-def for movies in 2.35:1, or vice versa.”*
> 
> *The most profound advantage PMI claims is that its new scheme delivers a better picture because it requires no additional video processing and no anamorphic lens. The purer signal path eliminates the potential for artifacts that extra video processing introduces, and also eliminates the distortion, chromatic aberration, and loss of detail that an additional lens might cause.*"
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> "For the near future, PMI 2.0 will be an option only for the world’s elite theaters. According to Hill, it demands a ceiling height of at least 12 feet; a projector that currently costs about $200,000; and a screen that costs $30,000 and up. He predicts the projector cost will come down substantially, but the screen cost won’t."



Whoa. Leave it to the industry to find the most expensive possible "solution" to an issue. $230,000 to essentially end up being able to have a bigger 16:9 image, masked, than you would with a CIH system?


Most of the issues "solved" by this system touted by the PMI guys are easily addressed with vastly less money. All you have to do is start with a 2.0 screen (or thereabouts, which is what I have), easily ordered from many screen manufacturers, and come up with some masking for various ARs.



I've put together just such a system with remote controlled 4 way masking which will have multiple pre-set image sizes (if desired) for about $5,000 (for the screen/masking). It will work with any projector, although remote controlled zoom will be helpful. My projector, the RS20, was about $6,500.

So my total is about $11,500 for a system that offers the main benefits touted (in bold, above) by the PMI system. A little less than $230,000 !


----------



## huggy1

WOW......I'm glad I found this thread.

I've been thinking about going scope once I replace my 9" crt however,as many have addressed in this thread,going scope has it's own issues that come into play once one decides to watch 16*9.

Why should I have to compromise on HDTV viewing when there is a viable alternative.

Kudos to all you CIA guy's!I will definately follow this path with my DIY motorised masking solution that will cost me all of 500$












Dave


----------



## scottyb

Dave,

Now you did it.

Tell us about your masking system plan.


Scott


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huggy1* /forum/post/17222768
> 
> 
> I will definately follow this path with my DIY motorised masking solution that will cost me all of 500$



Yes, spill the beans Dave!


----------



## huggy1

Well I had a stupid Idea on my way back from work involving some pvc pipe for rollers,plastic covered wire for moving masking and a 40mm holesaw bit to drill a hole in some chipboard to hold the rollers. Lo and behold much to my amazement,it worked and it worked quite well.







All I had to do was pull one one cable and both masks would move simultaniously.

Next I thought about adding a motor,so I jumped in the car,went to the local wrecking yard and bout a window winder with the motor.Took it home,hooked it up to a 14v battery and tied it into the existing cabling on my masking system,and again much to my amazement it worked.So I now have motorised masking all for a measly 100$.

Here's a vid of it in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbRu2Y_6Z8Q 


I'd never post the pics of this botch job on AVS,even though it was a very primative prototype and I just wanted to see if the idea worked,I'd probably get grilled for it anyway







.


I'm in the process of adding Ir to the motor and once I can access it from the couch,I'm gonna tear it down do a professional job on the kit.

BTW,some of the stuff on here gets complicated,mine took me half a day to do and it works great as it is

When I do go CIA,all I have to do is the same thing but in the horizontal plain.




Dave


----------



## scottyb

OK Dave,

i saw the video and want to know how to make it with pics plz. You can email me if you don't want to post here but botch job is how we get better!!!! [email protected] 


Scott


----------



## R Harkness

Just another report from the "beyond CIH" camp.










For me my variable image size set up reaped big dividends with the Olympic Opening Ceremonies last night!


As I've mentioned before during long months of experimentation I found that the size I enjoyed in 16:9/1:85:1 AR did not correspond height-wise to the size I preferred in scope format and visa versa. So I went with a variable image size with 4 way masking.


We were watching the Olympics at first at around 106" diagonal (a size I'd used earlier for another movie). That's about the largest image I would have had, had I gone CIH (based on the fact I reach my comfort level in my room at about 122" to 124" wide for scope). It looked great and had I been limited to that size I probably would have thought this was almost as good as it gets. But then I opened up the screen and put it at around 120" diagonal and it looked HUGE (from 10 feet) and it propelled the experience more to "Being there" vs looking in through a window. It really was astounding. Even as I think of the memories of viewing the ceremonies last night it's more like memories of being there, the sense for instance of viewing some of the aerial acrobatics as if on the ground and they are high above me.


But the next time I put on a DVD (I like many movies not available on HD media yet) it's not going to survive being blown up that big very well, so I'll opt to make my screen a size that strikes a balance between "feels cinematic" and "nice image without artifacts in my face." This flexibility has worked out exactly as I hoped so I continue to be so glad I went this route.


Projection is the only species of display in which you can vary the image size

to such a huge degree. I love taking advantage of that. Of course if you like an image masked by black as I do, that adds the complication of 4 way masking.


I guess someone could just go with a huge screen and if he has a projector that does black levels deep enough, he could zoom various sizes on the screen and the unused screen areas may be unnoticeable enough for many folks. But I prefer pitch black around the image myself.


One intriguing idea is to use some of the specialty screens out there that are based on very dark screen substrates, such as the Black Diamond screens.

A good projector's "black bars" will appear almost pitch black on those screens. One review of the Black Diamond screen actually noted that the reviewer thought it made masking totally unnecessary. If so, having a giant screen like that to zoom on could be ideal, with the image always looking essentially "masked." Just hit your projector's zoom button and enjoy whatever image size you feel like.


Downsides are the cost - the BD type screens tend to be expensive. Whether there is enough gain on such a screen to work for some people. And the biggest, for me: I see too much issue with hot-spotting and screen artifacts on the specialty screens. But others don't so it could be ideal.


Just thinkin' out loud.


----------



## taffman

I totally agree with you Rich about the flexibility offered by a big screen with a 4-way masking system. My DIY system is very similar, but I keep a fixed bottom mask with two remote powered side masks and a remote powered top mask. With this set up I find that I can literally have any screen size I want (up to the max permitted) and I can accomodate any format of film from 1.33 up to 3.0. I can operate CIH if I want to or CIA if I prefer. I have no desire to use an A-lens for 2.35 films, as zooming looks incredibly good to me, and I think an A-lens addition would definately restrict the flexibility that I presently enjoy. So for me 4-way masking + zooming is the only way to go.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taffman* /forum/post/18128613
> 
> 
> I can operate CIH if I want to or CIA if I prefer.



That's an important point that I've brought up before. And it's what I sort of mean (in a cheeky way perhaps) of 4 way masking/zooming being "beyond" CIH in certain aspects. Because you can operate as CIH if you want, but for those times a larger 16:9 image would be preferred, it's there. A variable size/4 way masking system can operate in CIW, or CIH or CIA or anything in between - a flexibility denied in the the other approaches.


CIW is nice. CIH is awesome. But it's nice for people to know there are other options as well.


----------



## JustMike

Interesting idea about using a Black Diamond or similar screen in lieu of a masking system. I'd be interested to try that, actually. Have they come out with an acoustically-transparent version yet?


----------



## R Harkness

Update:


My masking system and RTI universal remote control are fully programmed.


I've been able to program as many different AR shapes and image sizes as I desire. Right now I've stopped at 16 pre-sets because I can't find the need for more. So there is a dedicated button (with the image size on it) on my touchscreen remote for each AR/image size.


I have a SCREEN SIZE page on my remote with the available image sizes to operate masking (one button press) and the lens controls for my RS20 projector mapped the hard buttons. I press the image size I want and the masking starts changing the screen shape. As that is happening I press the lens control button and the lens pattern goes up on the screen. Fortunately the RS20 Zoom/Lens shift pattern has all the relevant ARs outlined. So I just zoom out the image to the new image width, shift the image up or down and done.


I've timed the process switching from various AR/image sizes and *it takes a mere 15 seconds or so (sometimes only 12 seconds)* to entirely switch the screen size and fit the projected image. And it gets a "wow, cool" from guests.










It's an incredibly easy, fast process. My 11 year old son had no problem learning how to do it in minutes. (This is where a good universal remote really pays off).


So...CIA - or as I like to call mine Variable Image Size (VIS) (or should that be Variable Image Area? (VIA)? - can be achieved without spending the price of a new car on the masking. The expense for my masking/remote is around what I might have spent for a Panamorph lens set up if I did CIH.

(And if I did the A-lens set up, I'd still feel compelled to spend more money on masking anyway).


And like I mentioned in the Avatar thread, this set up allows me to be entirely unperturbed or unconcerned about the AR of any film as all films can be given "wow" impact. I have a 118" to 120" wide scope image at the moment from a 10 to 11 ft viewing distance (screen is actually bigger so if I ever want to add an A-lens I can increase that size...but I have no desire at this point). Of course I can run the system as a CIH system whenever I want. But this gives me more flexibility in how I present the films. If I stuck with CIH I'd have a mere 104" diagonal 16:9 image to display Avatar in it's released AR (the AR intended by Cameron). But in this set up I can choose a 126" diagonal 16:9 image - a subjectively huge step up in image size and immersion. So I'm happy as a clam viewing whatever AR Cameron intended.


Another plus is not really getting "used" to any particular screen size, as can happen in fixed screen size scenarios. The size is always changing (as I desire) for SD, or 16:9 sports, for comedies (not so huge) and Blu Ray Epics (blow that image up big!), different ARs etc. It just feels continually fresh, almost like I'm always getting a bit of the "wow" of installing a new screen, at the press of a button.


For anyone interested in going this route, I can give thumbs way up. Living with this flexibility has spoiled me and given the chance I wouldn't do it any other way.


I plan to get pictures...and likely video...up within the next couple weeks, of my system in action.


Cheers,


----------



## LilGator

Fantastic Rich, love it. If you can get video up of this in action, that would be freakinawesome.


----------



## R Harkness

It's coming.


BTW, yesterday I was treated to a CIH demo. It used the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen 2:35:1 screen, and it's size looked very close to the size I often view scope at home. The projector was the Anthem version of my projector (same JVC projector as mine) and it used the popular Panamorph UH480 A-lens.


We looked at various demo HD material that I've seen on my home screen. What I noticed mostly is that I'm getting a better image at home. I don't see any pixels at home so there was no difference in that respect for using the A-lens. I tried to spot any additional character brought by using the lens - e.g. did it have any feeling of extra

"density" or dimensionality that I could spot due to using the projector's full panel res?

Not that I could see. Was it brighter? Well, that of course depends on projector settings etc. At home I never have my lens aperture full open anyway, so when I project a larger image I simply open up the lens aperture for more brightness if needed.


So, no advantage jumped out at me, and as I said I see a better image at home (even though I'm using the zoom method). I've seen a CIH set up at a forum member's house using the same projector I do, and I had the same impression: no advantage in image quality grabbed me with the A-lens employed.


Still, I've yet to do a really careful, deliberate A/B test with a lens. And I've left the option of employing an A-lens in my set up to get more image width if I desire (although I'd still use a variable image size approach overall). But if I get an A-lens I won't go into it with high hopes it will really improve the image - more a matter of getting extra image width in my case.


As for the Black Diamond screen: The 1.4 version is a dark gray, although not the almost-black like the lower gain version. "Black bars" on images (e.g. the sides of 16:9 images, and sometimes we shrunk the scope images to look at the black bars) were very dark, although not totally black. I'd still want masking, personally. Although a lot of people I'm sure could be happy.


When the image went dark - e.g. in between trailers or during source switching, the screen went almost-disappearing dark, which was really cool. But interestingly once movie images were playing, both bright and dark scenes, I didn't get a sense of better contrast than I'm getting at home. I think overall the image looks better, with more "pop" at my place with my Stewart ST-130 screen.


Something that stood out once again for me with the Black Diamond screen is the screen texture. Whatever gain coating they are using creates a really prominent mottled,speckled texture over the image which is especially visible during bright scenes, or when you have solid areas of a similar color (like the sky). It's like someone has thrown dirty water all over the screen and was so obvious I found it completely unacceptable. I could never live with it. Add to that the screen's tendency to hot-spot - if I sat in front of one side of the image the other side got visibly darker - and I have to say this is a product I couldn't live with.


Don't get me wrong: the screen is very cool and DOES deliver on some of it's promise to make an image more viewable with some ambient lighting.


But ye canna change the laws o' physics....and ye canna get something for nothing. There's always a compromise built in to products like these. (And there's issues with whatever we buy - a white screen is going to mean tougher decor choices to get good performance).


----------



## rolette




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18373019
> 
> 
> My masking system and RTI universal remote control are fully programmed.



Rich, were you able to find a "complete" IR library for the RS20 for your RTI?


When I was programming mine a few months ago, the best I could find was for the RS2. The commands that are there work fine on an RS20, but it is missing some.


Which RTI are you using?


Thanks,

Jay


----------



## R Harkness

Jay,


I'm using the RTI T2-C remote with the RP-6 controller.


As far as I know my installer had the codes for the RS20. Although a couple seem to be missing in my case too. (E.g. gamma switching).


----------



## taffman

Rich, your automated set up sounds incredible. I totally agree with your whole philosophy on the benefits offered by 4 -way masking. Too bad that so much press on this forum is devoted to the A-lens, when masking can deliver so much more in terms of image impact and presentation flexibility, and at much less cost. Your actual observations on the A-lens Vs zooming pretty well confirm my feelings that A-lenses are way over-hyped. I am thankful everyday for my 3-way masking , because it seems that film formats are all over the map and you have to have the flexibility of masking films almost on an individual basis, although I suspect that the 16 presets that you already have pretty well covers almost everything out there. I would hate to be locked in with a fixed height system and a scope lens. But like you I can do exactly what I want, CIH, CIA, or anything in between, but in general I maximize height for 16:9 and 4:3, and maximize width for 2.35.


----------



## R Harkness

Yeah, it's very gratifying.


I remember when the Wizard Of Oz played at our local rep theater, which had a fairly large screen, a few years ago. I went to see it because like most people I'd never seen that movie in the theater so I wanted to experience as audiences got to see it when it was released. I'll never forget what an impression it made; how enhanced the experience was seeing the image so big, how all the facial expressions that I'd never seen so clearly became prominent at that size. The acting and atmosphere just took on another dimension.


Not long ago we were watching the Blu-Ray of Wizard Of Oz (4:3 AR, obviously). I tried it at various sizes, starting first with the size I would have had if I stayed CIH. In the end I had the image blown up to take full advantage of my full screen height. The image was so much bigger and gave so much more of an I'm At The Cinema effect, it was no contest. At the larger size it had that same vibe that I adored in the cinema.


And that is what I'm personally trying to re-produce: the involvement in whatever movie I put on. Wizard Of Oz at the larger size simply re-created better the feeling of seeing it in a cinema. Varying size (like moving to a closer seat in a cinema, or viewing a movie at a different cinema with a larger screen) immersing myself in a film image, no matter what particular AR it happens to be, brings me much closer to the cinematic experience I have of a movie theater than if I'd stuck to some by-the-numbers "the next film I view must be the same height as my scope image, no matter if it loses impact" approach.


(As I always say, I'd choose CIH over CIW...but I like this a lot better than either of those restrictions).


----------



## R Harkness

Just another note: When talking of "cinematic size" I think this is clearly a relative term. When I first saw my friend's set up, a 94" projected image, I was used to my 42" plasma and I felt about my friend's image "This is BIG...now THIS is cinematic."


But now when I go to his place to watch a movie it seems quite small compared to mine. He comes to my place and he's "Wow! This is a BIG image!"


And yet some forum members have screens much larger than mine, and my image would seem smallish to them, and hence less cinematic. So it's pretty relative these cinematic impressions.


But this is precisely the phenomena that I'm deliberately playing with in my set up.

I'm rarely using the full size of my set up, especially not the full height. Sometimes I'll have watched several movies in a row in an almost CIH approach. But then I'm watching something that I want to be more immersed in and opening up the screen size gets that "wow, more cinematic" feeling, because of the contrast. If I were used to the same screen size all the time it wouldn't have the same impact.


(And of course CIH folks use this same phenomena to get that WOW feeling when they widen their screen for scope images after seeing 1:85:1 or 16:9 content).


----------



## Highjinx

This size issue I find fascinating. With 20/20 vision the ideal sitting angle to resolve the 55 pixels per degree is 34.9* degrees. 1920/55 = 34.9degrees.


So if one is sitting at the _angle*_ for optimum image quality, irrespective of the physical screen size, they will appear the same size to the eye.


If one is sitting at closer distances/larger angles, would indicate a less than resolved image to ones eyes.....but no doubt the immersion would be greater.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness* /forum/post/18373019
> 
> 
> Update:
> 
> 
> My masking system and RTI universal remote control are fully programmed.
> 
> 
> I've been able to program as many different AR shapes and image sizes as I desire. Right now I've stopped at 16 pre-sets because I can't find the need for more. So there is a dedicated button (with the image size on it) on my touchscreen remote for each AR/image size.
> 
> 
> I have a SCREEN SIZE page on my remote with the available image sizes to operate masking (one button press) and the lens controls for my RS20 projector mapped the hard buttons. I press the image size I want and the masking starts changing the screen shape. As that is happening I press the lens control button and the lens pattern goes up on the screen. Fortunately the RS20 Zoom/Lens shift pattern has all the relevant ARs outlined. So I just zoom out the image to the new image width, shift the image up or down and done.
> 
> 
> I've timed the process switching from various AR/image sizes and *it takes a mere 15 seconds or so (sometimes only 12 seconds)* to entirely switch the screen size and fit the projected image. And it gets a "wow, cool" from guests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an incredibly easy, fast process. My 11 year old son had no problem learning how to do it in minutes. (This is where a good universal remote really pays off).
> 
> 
> So...CIA - or as I like to call mine Variable Image Size (VIS) (or should that be Variable Image Area? (VIA)? - can be achieved without spending the price of a new car on the masking. The expense for my masking/remote is around what I might have spent for a Panamorph lens set up if I did CIH.
> 
> (And if I did the A-lens set up, I'd still feel compelled to spend more money on masking anyway).
> 
> 
> And like I mentioned in the Avatar thread, this set up allows me to be entirely unperturbed or unconcerned about the AR of any film as all films can be given "wow" impact. I have a 118" to 120" wide scope image at the moment from a 10 to 11 ft viewing distance (screen is actually bigger so if I ever want to add an A-lens I can increase that size...but I have no desire at this point). Of course I can run the system as a CIH system whenever I want. But this gives me more flexibility in how I present the films. If I stuck with CIH I'd have a mere 104" diagonal 16:9 image to display Avatar in it's released AR (the AR intended by Cameron). But in this set up I can choose a 126" diagonal 16:9 image - a subjectively huge step up in image size and immersion. So I'm happy as a clam viewing whatever AR Cameron intended.
> 
> 
> Another plus is not really getting "used" to any particular screen size, as can happen in fixed screen size scenarios. The size is always changing (as I desire) for SD, or 16:9 sports, for comedies (not so huge) and Blu Ray Epics (blow that image up big!), different ARs etc. It just feels continually fresh, almost like I'm always getting a bit of the "wow" of installing a new screen, at the press of a button.
> 
> 
> For anyone interested in going this route, I can give thumbs way up. Living with this flexibility has spoiled me and given the chance I wouldn't do it any other way.
> 
> 
> I plan to get pictures...and likely video...up within the next couple weeks, of my system in action.
> 
> 
> Cheers,



Sounds fantastic ! Keep us posted on your experiences and perhaps a CIA for dummies would be great as well.










Art


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18420850
> 
> 
> This size issue I find fascinating. With 20/20 vision the ideal sitting angle to resolve the 55 pixels per degree is 34.9* degrees. 1920/55 = 34.9degrees.
> 
> 
> So if one is sitting at the _angle*_ for optimum image quality, irrespective of the physical screen size, they will appear the same size to the eye.



It's not so easy. Viewing angle doesn't seem to be the only way our brain judges size. For instance, I can put my face much closer to my 24" computer monitor to view a picture or a movie playing and it doesn't suddenly fool my brain into believing the images have become gigantic. My brain easily registers I'm closer to a small image, not that the image has become huge.


Similarly, moving closer to my image does increase immersion, but even if I were at the same viewing angle as, say, Art's screen it's not going to have the same authority as Art's.


I tried sitting really close to my plasma for years. It's not the same experience as seeing my larger projected image. Size does count.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/18420999
> 
> 
> Sounds fantastic ! Keep us posted on your experiences and perhaps a CIA for dummies would be great as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



It would be written by a dummy, unfortunately.










I'll do my best. Pix and (I think) video _are_ coming.


----------



## Highjinx

Rich,


I feel your 4 way automated masking is the ultimate.


All bases are covered, no digital scaling is involved, perfect pixel mapping is maintained, no additional glass that may alter the image.


Within reason, whatever image size/area the viewer wishes, irrespective of the AR.


With a superb encode the ability to make the image bigger for greater immersion, _than_ one can with an average encode.


Nice!


----------



## taffman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Highjinx* /forum/post/18428922
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> 
> I feel your 4 way automated masking is the ultimate.
> 
> 
> All bases are covered, no digital scaling is involved, perfect pixel mapping is maintained, no additional glass that may alter the image.
> 
> 
> Within reason, whatever image size/area the viewer wishes, irrespective of the AR.
> 
> 
> With a superb encode the ability to make the image bigger for greater immersion, that one can with an average encode.
> 
> 
> Nice!



I could not agree more. 4 -way masking solves all the aspect ratio issues without any compromise.


----------



## Bluskinsfan21

Hopefully there is no blow-back from reviving this thread. I have the new hc4000 epson with the powered lens memory and the entire reason for getting this projector was to power zoom for various ARs. I've determined that a 2.1:0 ratio screen seems to be the best of all options given the implementation of a 4way masking system. Have opinions changed on this or, in the nearly 10 years since this thread started, have the people with 2.1:0 (or thereabout) regretted it??


----------



## bud16415

Bluskinsfan21 said:


> Hopefully there is no blow-back from reviving this thread. I have the new hc4000 epson with the powered lens memory and the entire reason for getting this projector was to power zoom for various ARs. I've determined that a 2.1:0 ratio screen seems to be the best of all options given the implementation of a 4way masking system. Have opinions changed on this or, in the nearly 10 years since this thread started, have the people with 2.1:0 (or thereabout) regretted it??


I can attest nothing has changed. Well almost nothing, IMAX 1.89 has come along and it is to be presented as the same width of scope. 

If you want the more recent opinions on the topic read my PIA personal image area thread in this forum.


----------



## R Harkness

Bluskinsfan21 said:


> Hopefully there is no blow-back from reviving this thread. I have the new hc4000 epson with the powered lens memory and the entire reason for getting this projector was to power zoom for various ARs. I've determined that a 2.1:0 ratio screen seems to be the best of all options given the implementation of a 4way masking system. Have opinions changed on this or, in the nearly 10 years since this thread started, have the people with 2.1:0 (or thereabout) regretted it??


7 years later I continue to be ecstatic with my choice for screen size/masking system. I never really get bored with it, and it's worked beautifully over the years. And it really helps with the variability of image quality, from older film transfers, to the variability in streaming quality, etc. I can always end up with an image size that, to my eyes, is the right compromise between images size and image quality. It's still probably the single best decision I made.


----------



## Oliver Klohs

Bluskinsfan21 said:


> Hopefully there is no blow-back from reviving this thread. I have the new hc4000 epson with the powered lens memory and the entire reason for getting this projector was to power zoom for various ARs. I've determined that a 2.1:0 ratio screen seems to be the best of all options given the implementation of a 4way masking system. Have opinions changed on this or, in the nearly 10 years since this thread started, have the people with 2.1:0 (or thereabout) regretted it??


Depending on what you watch you may want to provide ample masking space to also go smaller than the theoretical minimum sizes for both height and width. This will allow you to go with less screen area for some lesser sources like SD TV, DVD or lesser streaming offers that may look worse than a DVD even when they claim to be HD.


----------



## bud16415

Oliver Klohs said:


> Depending on what you watch you may want to provide ample masking space to also go smaller than the theoretical minimum sizes for both height and width. This will allow you to go with less screen area for some lesser sources like SD TV, DVD or lesser streaming offers that may look worse than a DVD even when they claim to be HD.


I couldn’t agree more.


----------

