109 replies to this topic

[minty]

cashflag, on 23 May 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Have you got any sort of side masking for 16:9 on your scope screen? I ask because until I did, watching 16:9 always felt like it was somewhat of a compromised experience. Implementing masking and better defining those borders eliminated that niggling feeling for me.

Yes I have manual side masking panels I made myself and agree they do define the image so well, but still wanting for a larger image.

[minty]

mmu16, on 23 May 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

agree with cashflag. similar experience for me too. Also, masking for 16:9 is easier than masking for 2.35:1

Yep agree with that, much easier to hang two panels on the sides and cheaper also and simple to DIY.

[minty]

BladeRnR, on 23 May 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Sounds like a good project John and with your solution you'll get the same size Scope as you've enjoyed for ages. Do you intend masking for 2:35.1 material (Top/Bottom)?

Best of both worlds solution which is what I hope to do in my room is this:

SMX Quad-Mask

We only need 1 Kidney to function right?

Blade

Hi Blade, yes 4 way masking would be the way to go, just the cost frightened the hell out of me. Sussing this option of a 16.9 screen instead and would definitely have some form of top and bottom masking.

[minty]

Guys sorry for the multiple posts but currently only have access via iPhone which doesn't allow multiple quotes in one post.

yorac, on 23 May 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Not probably much help here mate but have a 120" 16 x 9 set up in our current rental, welcome to poke the head in when down in Melbourne next, other than that next GTG at my place is 7th or 14th July...............

Thanks mate that is a generous offer. We have a BPP in Ballarat so might check out there, GTG sounds good if I can make it.

[minty]

Highjinx, on 23 May 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Throw CIA(Constant Image Area) into the mx of options, this way both 2.35:1 and 16:9 should have similar impact.

Would love the 4 way masking screen Blade has linked, that would be awesome but 15K is a lot.

[minty]

oztheatre, on 23 May 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Seaton, you know you're going to hell, don't you?

Keep in mind guys, when the 237 screen gained it's popularity, most of the time it was coupled with a lens.
So the idea of gaining a little more brightness vs zooming was a benefit as was the full 1080 lines (scaled) on screen vs 810.

Now we're seeing a move back towards zooming - JVC and Panasonic - and I think next year we'll see more zooming memory machines on the market to fill that niche.
And many are going for larger 16:9 screens and putting up with black bars top and bottom, which works well too, apart from fta tv which can look a little ordinary and why some prefer that image to be smaller by way of using a scope screen.

Why the move back towards zooming? Well it's free to begin with so you come out in front there. Then the problems with lenses which have been debated and talked over before a million times on here, so I can understand why people choose to zoom. Though we still need more JVC 4K e-shift options. I think the X70 looks sensational when you can't see pixels and you're image is 3.5 metres wide and you can sit 3 or 4 metres from it. I realise we're scaling, you're also scaling when using a lens too.

Lol yes one way ticket and I will lose my life membership of team scope

Thanks for the info Rich. Interesting stuff.

[minty]

:), on 23 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Yes credit where credit due even if exploring no harm even if end up sticking with what have.

If havent done already, I'd suggest zoom out 16:9 picture on current scope screen to match width with material you typically watch. Will give idea of brightness and also importantly what image looks like at distance planning to watch from. Important with fta tv for instance which can be sub par at times. Seating distance maybe best compromise between immersion for scope movies and sitting too close to 16:9 material that looks average.

As per your suggestion I did this yesterday arvo. Put on Jurassic Park and then zoomed it out to the 3m width. Couldn't notice any light loss but maybe a little loss of PQ but not enough to deter. Gotta say the larger size was impressive and exactly what i'm searching for. I hung some bed sheets over the bottom to get a better idea and really starting to think this may be the way to go. This was done with the anamorphic lens in place too, so could only be better again if that was not there. Thinking too that with an AT 16.9 screen the L and R speakers would be positioned perfectly for either AR rather than inside the 16.9 borders of a scope AT screen. Watched a bit of GoT's and much better at the larger size. Finally put on Toy Story 2 opening scene, wow! I'll try more experimenting over the next few days.
Thanks again Al, great advice.

[BladeRnR]

I watch all 16:9 content through the Lens. Have done since I installed it. I've never perceived any loss of detail but of course it is sharper when watching natively. However, the experience has never been diminished. I guess Scope has spoiled me for visual impact hence why I watch 16:9 this way.

Having said that...my preference is to watch material in it's native AR given that's how the Director intended me to see it.

A large 16:9 with Quad-Masking is the only way I can see of having the best of both worlds (CIA). Watching 16:9 natively and Scope at the size I am used to (At least 130"). A benefit of this method is the AR becomes irrelevant. SMX's Quad-Mask caters for "Infinite" AR. That's especially good for the the odd title I have seen that has a weird AR like Ben Hur or (from memory), The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. There's a few other titles I have that have "non-standard" Scope AR's (Those that are not 2:35, 2:37, 2:39 or 2.40).

Your solution though John is great. You'll still enjoy Scope at the size you're used to AND be able to watch 1:78 / 1:85 natively.

Cheers

Blade

Edited by BladeRnR, 24 May 2012 - 11:56 AM.

[Owen]

Seatonrocks,
I must congratulate you mate, if you have seen the crap that has gone on here whenever the scope V 16:9 screen issue has been raised lately you must have been apprehensive about starting this thread.
You are proposing to do what I have been advocating, i.e. use a 16:9 screen the same width as you find ideal for scope, yet you have not been attacked, vilified and had the thread degenerate into useless argument. In stead the response and been polite, encouraging, friendly and helpful, the exact opposite of the responses I have received whenever I have even suggested that it might be a good idea.
We even have the startling admission from BladeRnR that a large 16:9 screen with dual masking may be ideal and offer “the best of both worlds”, not only that but he says he intends to install such a setup himself, even after attaching me every time I mention the concept.

Anyway, well done. As you are discovering having 33% extra screen height for 16:9 content greatly enhances the viewing experience, you get much more screen area with no loss of picture quality for 16:9 and get the same scope image you had previously on your scope screen, win win.

[cashflag]

RE: Quad masking. One other (cheaper) option would be to get a pull down 16:9 screen of about equal area mounted above your scope screen.

[yorac]

seatonrocks, on 24 May 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Thanks mate that is a generous offer. We have a BPP in Ballarat so might check out there, GTG sounds good if I can make it.

yorac, on 24 May 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Hi guys once again going to put on another GTG and this one will be at my place (Narre Warren Sth) Sat 14 July time TBA...........


Matt from TCC will be putting on some door prizes and as per usual munchies and soft drinks will be available, would love to see some new forum faces along as well.......

we will find some stuff to demo along the way, for Graeme and Chris happy to leave some internal or garage space for you to show your light boxes and masking system.......

will probably see if we can get the Epson 9000 with the new firmware to demo again..........


please indicate your interest via this thread.................

now confirmed............

[minty]

Owen, on 24 May 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

Seatonrocks,
I must congratulate you mate, if you have seen the crap that has gone on here whenever the scope V 16:9 screen issue has been raised lately you must have been apprehensive about starting this thread.
You are proposing to do what I have been advocating, i.e. use a 16:9 screen the same width as you find ideal for scope, yet you have not been attacked, vilified and had the thread degenerate into useless argument. In stead the response and been polite, encouraging, friendly and helpful, the exact opposite of the responses I have received whenever I have even suggested that it might be a good idea.
We even have the startling admission from BladeRnR that a large 16:9 screen with dual masking may be ideal and offer “the best of both worlds”, not only that but he says he intends to install such a setup himself, even after attaching me every time I mention the concept.

Anyway, well done. As you are discovering having 33% extra screen height for 16:9 content greatly enhances the viewing experience, you get much more screen area with no loss of picture quality for 16:9 and get the same scope image you had previously on your scope screen, win win.

Hi Owen, thanks for that and couldn't agree more that the response has been so positive, makes for a much better place all round. I must say too that I've also been someone who has not agreed with many of your views, however I apologise for any past comments wrt denigrating your view of the line "why should 16.9 content be displayed smaller than scope?" My view has always been that scope should be larger simply because the cinemas do it that way. Through my refusal to change that narrow minded view it has probably/obviously caused much past angst with yourself and others and then that leads into both parties disrespecting each others opinions on anything which leads to further angst, a no win situation. So again apologies to you.
Mate full credit to you for sticking to your guns. One of your best posts which cannot be argued with is the following which you've said many times before, maybe you just worded it better this time?.................

...

Owen, on 23 May 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

My message to Alex is simple, audition a 16:9 screen the same width as the scope screen you are considering with a variety of Bluray content, both scope and 16:9. If you then think there is an advantage in displaying 16:9 content taller than scope (the same width) as opposed to smaller as would be that case on the same width scope screen you might want to consider a 16:9 screen.

Like I said, my view has always been that scope should be larger and everyone can get f@@@ed if they think otherwise. Very narrow minded and disrespectful to many, and very, very wrong. It's just HT and fun, people have every right to display whatever way they want. There is no right or wrong way, just different ways. You opened my mind that's for sure, it just took a long time Whether I change or stay with scope, at least I will have made an informed decision and I'll never judge anyone who does it differently, so thanks.

[Mining Man]

I remember now why I used to love this forum.

Humility, respect and shared passion. This thread has more in 2 pages than the whole of the last two years. seatonrocks, congratulations.

[oztheatre]

You can look at this in a few ways.

16:9 is 25% taller than scope.
Scope is 33% wider than 16:9
and 4:3 format should be killed

The thing with scope is like Seaton said, it's how these films are displayed at the movies so why try and change that?

The only real downsides from a large 16:9 screen in trying to get a large scope image is the change in image height might be a neck ache and that fta TV and any lower res films can look very ordinary.

The other downside is brightness, yet this is a non issue if you're zooming. If you're 16:9 image is large enough and bright enough, your scope images will not suffer either.
The rest is limitations. Many simply don't have the height for large16:9 screens, so the next best thing is a 33% wider scope image. Besides the wow factor, I think this is why many go scope to begin with.

So it's traditional cinemascope with the right 16:9 image, everything being the same height, vs IMAX style 16:9 screens and everything being the same width.

Glad this thread has remained calm. It's good to hear everyones opinions.. at the end of the day nobody's going to die, it's just home theatre.

Note to Chris. you will need to get your masking system working for 16:9 screens.

[Owen]

I see aspect ratio as independent of screen size, go to different conventional cinemas and the screen size can vary considerably, then go to an IMAX theatre and the screen is wider than the widest scope screen and about twice as tall 1.44:1.
I would hope that know one would want to project an IMAX title the same height as scope, the impact would be completely lost. IMAX has the resolution to be projected MUCH larger than scope for a given level of image quality, image size and clarity is what makes IMAX so impressive compared to 35mm.

16:9 on Bluray also has greater resolution that scope on Bluray so it can be projected at least 33% taller for the same image quality as scope or better. Unless there is some practical limitation on screen height it seems silly not to take advantage of this and get the largest image area possible for maximum impact and immersion, especially since it pretty much comes for free. A 16:9 screen the same width as a scope screen costs much the same.

Just because you have a larger screen does not mean you have to use all the width or all the height, you can project what ever size image is appropriate to the source. If black bars are objectionable masking is preferable to a smaller screen that limits what you can project.

When 4k source and projectors become the norm we may want to project larger images than we currently do with Bluray so a screen size appropriate for 4k is likely going to be larger than what we would prefer to use for Bluray (2k), assuming you don't have a problem with larger images .  The one screen size fits all approach is not ideal, optimal image size will vary significantly depending on what is being displayed, the higher the source quality the larger we can go.

Edited by Owen, 24 May 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[BladeRnR]

Owen, on 24 May 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

We even have the startling admission from BladeRnR that a large 16:9 screen with dual masking may be ideal and offer “the best of both worlds”, not only that but he says he intends to install such a setup himself, even after attaching me every time I mention the concept.

There is no "admission" about anything here Owen. And to be fair mate - you have never mentioned CIA or Quad-Masking in any post I have ever read (Happy to be corrected). Previous discussions from my perspective have always been about "size" and "visual impact" when 16:9 vs 2:35.1 has been raised as a topic. Scope has more impact for me - always has, always will. Your argument generally centres around PQ which I do not consider as significant as you have made out in the past. I have also disputed your claims that a Lens softens an image to the point where it is unwatchable (For you it does - and that's cool). A Constant Image Area solution has always been my No #1 solution as it is AR agnostic I just don't have the space for it (Few people do) which is why I rarely mention it. I have never raised Dual (Quad) Masking in a thread during previous discussions on this topic either. Top/Bottom Masking OR Side Masking only.  

I will still be using a Lens on a CIA solution (Unless I am able to achieve the same size Scope image simply by using an appropriate TR)....How large (In comparative Scope size) does your image appear on your current 16:9 screen? If I can't get a 130" - 140" Scope sized image on a CIA solution then I will stick to Scope. By all accounts this is achievable as stated by bbar and I've done the Math (It fits).

A CIA solution does not necessarily/strictly utilise a native 16:9 screen either. I may very well opt for a completely customised "shape" (Simply a large rectangle with no fixed AR) - SMX and many others make custom sizes. It is the masking that will dictate the screen size/shape/AR - not the overall shape of the surface.

"Best of both worlds" - that is the only salient point here.

Anyway, in deference to the OP who is a very good friend of mine (In real life) we'll stick to the OT, applaud his choice and leave it at that.

Blade

Edit - TBA I'd even consider a CIW solution given the amount of 1:33.1 material that will be watched is almost none (Wizard of Oz is the only Classic I can recall that is 1:33.1). CIW covers all Scope formats and of course 1:78.1, 1:85.1 etc.

SMX CIW Pro-Masking Screen.

Edited by BladeRnR, 25 May 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[oztheatre]

There are many reasons I choose to watch new releases at home.. It's just so much better.

I didn't mean IMAX literally Owen.

You certainly can project 'IMAX' footage on a scope screen, you just might want to move closer if the resolution allows for that extra immersion.
Moving closer is the same as staying in the same seat and making the image bigger. The downside of zooming out is loss of brightness.

The idea of making the screen vanish when in use is why I went so far with my screens. Whilst I don't like bare material on the sides when viewing 16:9 material, I have to put up with it until I get my masking system from Chris. But when you have a perfectly masked image with a nice sharp crisp edge and no bare screen material to be seen anywhere, no distractions, just a floating image, there's nothing better imo.

So for me, I'd much prefer to keep my screen filled properly and if the resolution and quality is a problem, I move back.

[BladeRnR]

oztheatre, on 24 May 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

But when you have a perfectly masked image with a nice sharp crisp edge and no bare screen material to be seen anywhere, no distractions, just a floating image, there's nothing better imo.

100% true. There is a guy on AVS Forum (I think I have linked to his build thread in the past) that implemented Quad-Masking in a budget fashion (Albeit extremely well thought out). I have never seen a better implementation of CIA anywhere since. He has remote presets for all popular and not-so-common AR's. It is elegant and is what set me on the path to CIA and Quad-Masking a few years ago.

AVS Forum - CIA by R Harkness (Page 3 has pictures of the finished product).

Blade

Edited by BladeRnR, 25 May 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[Owen]

Blade,
I don’t talk about CIA because I cant see any point in it, video is not constant in width, height or resolution so why attempt to force a constant on it. I have said that I consider a screen as just a surface to project and image on, it needs to be large enough horizontally and vertically to handle all expected needs. The only reason 16:9 makes sense is because it matches the native aspect ratio of the projector and Bluray video, not because there is something inherently “better” about 16:9 for a screen aspect ratio.

The ultimate setup for me would have a screen larger enough to take full advantage of 4k, but since most content is not up to that standard only part of the screen would be used for Bluray and much less for DVD and TV, this is where four way masking comes in. No attempt would be made to force video to any constant, image size would be dictated by source quality and aspect ratio is free.

Image impact and immersion is dominated by size, and with the best available source we have (Bluray) 16:9 content can be displayed the largest for a given level of image quality simply because it has the greatest resolution. Therefore your assertion that scope always has more impact than 16:9 makes no sense, that can only be true if you project scope wider than 16:9, as you normally do. When projected the same width how can 16:9 content not have more impact, the image has 33% greater area than scope and the picture is just as sharp and clear if not more so.
If only we could have IMAX in original 1.44:1and 4k at home, now that's wow factor.

As for a-lens performance, I have NEVER said that they soften the image to the point where it is unacceptable, far from it. I am sure there are some dodgy examples out there but the lens I evaluated certainly did not soften the image in a significant way and I said so.
What the a-lens did not do was allow me to view a scope image any larger then I find acceptable using zoom, it was therefor not useful to me.

A CIW solution is simple as it matches what the projector and Bluray provide, it eliminates any need to adjust the projector for different aspect ratios and only two way masking need be used, but its not as flexibility of a four way masked setup that can deal with varied image size due to variations in source quality

[BladeRnR]

Owen,

Respect your opinion and...that is where I will leave it.

Thanks

Blade

[Prior]

seatonrocks, on 24 May 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

I must say too that I've also been someone who has not agreed with many of your views, however I apologise for any past comments wrt denigrating your view of the line "why should 16.9 content be displayed smaller than scope?" ...

Like I said, my view has always been that scope should be larger and everyone can get f@@@ed if they think otherwise. Very narrow minded and disrespectful to many, and very, very wrong.

Actually, I think that's exactly correct.  It's not just because the cinema's display scope movies that way, it's the very premise Scope was designed in the first place, which is why I personally went down the scope path in the first place.
I don't think it's narrow minded, it's just fact.
That's not to say it's not horses for courses wth how each person wants to set up their own cinema.  It's your money, so do what you want.

Cheers,

Chris

[Highjinx]

As the true resolution/detail/quality of source material can vary, CIH or CIW forces compromises, CIA gives each of the two main AR's equal impact to the viewer........twin screen or 4way masking can cater for all circumstances without any black bars.

[MarkTecher]

Might want to re-think this whole return to 16:9 thing.

Quote

These formats include anamorphic 1920 x 1080 for anamorphic projections systems; enhanced 2560 x 1080 for emergent, higher resolution 21:9 displays

Full Story

[Htpc-online]

MarkTecher, on 27 May 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Might want to re-think this whole return to 16:9 thing.



Full Story

Why the hell didn't they do this in the first place?

[Htpc-online]

highjinx how much did your dual screen setup set you back?

Prior is your masking system 4 way, and whats the damage on that?