Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Anyone picking up Avatar on Blu-Ray today?

Regardless of the merits of a CIH setup...the original question referred specifically to Avatar, and a 2.35:1 viewing of that particular film is LOSING picture. That's all my point ever was.

If CIH is best then why does it “piss” you “off that it’s not 2.35,” I seem to be missing something here since if it’s best then what difference does the ratio of the source make?



I have seen CIH and CIA (which I prefer to CIH). I know exactly what I would have been missing with CIH, a larger IMO more engaging image in 1.85:1 and taller aspect ratios.



You could simply say it’s pointless to argue, unless winning it the point. Discussion on the other hand is a different thing since that implies an exchange of ideas, and in this case preferences of which not all will agree upon.



I’m not debating you as that implies a winner and looser and since I accept that people have differing opinions on what’s “best” for them I don’t see any one format being better for all people. I’m simply relating my preferences. Since money is a factor in enjoying our hobby it is IMO relevant to part of the discussion.



Just because economics is a primary factor doesn’t require that people do not find 1.78 more pleasing. When Sean and I watch the “Dark Knight” Blu-ray I found the 1.78:1 scenes much more pleasing because they seemed more natural than the 2.40:1. I made the point of telling Sean that I never even notice when it switched to the larger format, as it just looked “right.“ However, it was instantly noticeable for a few minutes when it switched back because to me the 2.40:1 image is not high enough for it’s width to fill my field of view as naturally. The flatter 2.40:1 image just lacks the same perception of depth compared to the 1.78:1 image for me. This movie was a perfect A/B comparison for the 2 ratios.



IMO the more natural looking, and engaging nature of the 1.78:1 image is also a valid point.



Who said I was referring to film in this day and age? I haven’t seen a lot of 1.33:1 films and that was 25% of what I stated viewing above. I may be off base but I imagine more and more people use there HT for other things than just movies. HDTV (especially sports), consol gaming and like now as I type this a computer monitor all support native resolutions of 16:9 or something close. Hence for me the very small amount of 1.35:1 material I use. Also, more and more of the new movies I watch are showing up in 1.78:1 or 1.85:1.



Where have you read this?

I don’t begrudge you or others preferring CIH and as I said above I can understand why some people prefer it. I would hope others could understand why I prefer the largest image size possible per aspect ratio.

I actually think you two may be closer than you realize. Michael did say (I think) a couple of times that 2.35 works only if and when you have sufficent height. Unless you are saying that between two screens with the same height you still prefer the 1.78?

If you can have both screens the same height you have nothing to gain with 1.78, you may as well go 2.35 at that point. Problem is, for most people to go 2.35, you lose height due to width restrictions.

Thank you for noticing. That is exactly what I said.

When picking a screen, start with the height. Figure out the maximum screen height that you can “comfortably” watch at your main seating position. Don’t even worry about width at this point. The best way to do this is to wait on the screen until you have your projector mounted, hang a sheet on the wall and zoom the image to an image size that you can watch without eye strain. Because you will not have an HE lens, you will be looking at a 1.78 image. If the 1.78 image is large as you can go and not feel eye strain, going wider will not bother you one bit. Going too high however will. But don’t believe me, ask your ophthalmologist. After you figure this out, you just do the math and if the room can accommodate a 2.35 width, then it’s just a decision that will be based on personal preference and finances. If you have the room for the 2.35 width, there really is nothing to loose by going with that AR. Black bars on the sides can be an irritant if the display does not have good native contrast, but curtains from Home Depot can fix that easily enough.

There’s a lot more to this AR discussion. I would prefer to discuss, debate, argue or whatever in a more orderly manner instead of an OT discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with it. If I can find some spare time, I’ll start an AR discussion thread where all the pro’s / con's can be discussed (as there are a few of each).

This OT derailment was started because I expressed my displeasure that this movie was not “native” 2.35, although I failed to state “native” because as Craig stated, cropped a 1.78 image to get a 2.35 AR would loose a ton of pixel content. I just said the same thing that all CIH owners are saying. I did not intend to bat the ball back and forth over the merits of CIH or personal preference of screen AR.

The reviewer at High-Def Digest said the Avatar BD is best viewed zoomed to 2.20:1. Going to 2.35 crops some of the graphics, but leaving it 1.78 has the subtitles floating high in the frame, and the open matte has too little action in the top and and bottom of the shot.

What I’m saying is that I prefer a 1.78:1 or similar ratio screen if neither height nor width is a limiting factor. I find those ratios more natural and aesthetically pleasing. Images that are much narrower either vertically or horizontally reminded me more often that I’m watching a screen.

I think we need to backtrack to why I commented in the first place. Note I’m not making multiple quotes to be a pinhead just to reset the discussion to the beginning in hopes of clarification.

Michael_d asked:



To which Potatohead responded:



To which michael_d responded:



My first point that money is a factor in enjoyment since one can only separate the two in a theoretical discussion not in the real world so I don’t see the point in limiting the discussion by that parameter. Michael and I clearly disagree on this.

My other point was that some people, like me, prefer an image ratio of 1.78:1 or similar because for most material we find it a more natural way of viewing the world therefore finding it more engaging making it easier to suspend disbelief.

That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate 2.35:1 or similar in some cases. Looking at large armies arrayed on the battlefield looks very impressive. However, in most shots even outdoor shots like in “Dark Night” I prefer an image framed closer to 1.78:1.
I believe Einstein once suggested that films be shot in various aspect ratios depending on the content of the scene. I don’t agree as it is a little distracting, reminding you for a bit that you are just watching a movie. But like with Dark Knight the distraction came for me when switching back to 2.40:1 and not the other way because the image seemed less natural and more like watching a film when in a 1.78:1 ratio.

Finally Michael, I am genuinely curious about the your comment that there will be a day when 2.35 projectors are mainstream and that it will cause a shift in the market. Considering the market penetration of 16:9 HDTV displays. That most affordable projectors right now have a native resolution of 16:9. That HDTV content is in that format and from my impression (no evidence) that more directors are framing their movies in 1.85:1 (presumably because of the proliferation of 16:9 displays) what would drive the market for projectors toward a 2.35 aspect ratio. Not that they won’t perhaps become more prevalent as costs of making projectors drops but what why would this drive a shift in the market? It seems to me that right now everything is moving in the other direction.

Oh, OK, I see now where the basis of the disagreement lies. It's just a personal preference then. Carry on...

It’s not that we disagree with this point (economics), as it always applies to all things in life in a society where material things need to be purchased. It’s that I disagree that money should not be a point of contention in this particular discussion, because it is strictly related to A/R viewing preference. IE: do you like 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 2.70 better? When you throw money into that discussion, the discussion then looses focus and pretty soon wall paper, lawnmowers, politics and religion become factors. I will not partake in discussions when the topic can not be focused on. I have better things to do than argue. In my day job, I spend a great deal of time with root cause analysis to find the failure mode of equipment. Same principle as this, stick to the facts and findings and don’t listen to the bullshit or make assumptions. Pretty soon you find the root cause. The bullshit does not pertain and clouds the investigation.

My comments regarding 2.35 are based on consumer demand. 2.35 is becoming more popular all the time for those who buy a front projection system. People are becoming more curious about it. Damn near all screen manufactures have ready to ship 2.35 screens. The PT 4000 has a button now for 2.35. It’s pretty goofy in how it does it, but nonetheless, it’s there. Some of the high end companies are already shipping 2.35 machines. Look at the trend in TV’s. 20 years “wide screen” TV’s started to roll out. Now you can’t find a 1.33 TV. They are all 1.78 or wider (many 1.85 TV’s are on the shelves now). I don’t recall the make or model, but remember seeing a 2.35 TV in an electronics store not too long ago. It only makes sense that projectors will soon be 2.35. It’s not terribly difficult and does not require massive hardware changes. It would not take much to re-tool and start pumping them out.

Getting back on the LOTR thing, I just watched the first one on Saturday night, the LFE is the best so far of any movie I have played in my theatre room, it was great. Lots of good demo material there.