As a tv user I just set the tv aspect ratio to “source” or “preserve aspect ratio” and let it play in whatever format it’s given. I would never feel comfortable trimming content, or stretching it. Maybe with the mad vr tech it would be cool to try out some advanced stretching but I’m more excited about the PXLVISION 3d simulating tech from Pixelgen. It like gives things shadows to simulate optical paralax. They should have a prize giveaway of one of them for the paid subscribers of the audioholics youtube channel ha ha ha.
Your explanation has to be the best I have heard in the four years I have been following this hobby on RU-vid! I am hoping that JVC, Sony, Epson will announce major upgrades/new projectors at the upcoming CEDIA, especially as it relates to fan noise on budget Sony and JVC 4K models. I have just replaced the bulb on my Sony 285 ES after 2700 hrs. and 5 years of use. With excessive fan noise in high mode on some premium laser projectors, I am concerned that a laser projector is no better than a bulb based projector as you have to increase the power (fan noise) over time to maintain the optimum level of performance for your room and screen. If after 5 years, the fan noise becomes noticeable/unbearable, what are you left with?! - to ditch the whole projector, so what was the benefit? Yes, it is said 20,000 hours - but in REAL use, I to have to wonder what REALLY will happen?! I am skeptical and I am waiting to see what improvements are made to the first generation of laser projectors. Meanwhile, I did not know JVC has already taken into account the black bar issue and yet another reason why I am seriously considering JVC for my next 4K projector. Very informative! Thanks.
Thanks. And the JVC gives you 10 memory slots to fine tune and recall your settings. JVC has really thought this through and I’ve found it easy to tailor my 2.4 screen to various programs and aspect ratios.
Funny, I was just noticing how successful I was in darkening my room so my OLED TV showed no black bars, no matter how much I tried to find them. I never minded them that much, but it is nice to try to get them out of your head whenever possible. Thanks Theo.
I'm so glad I bought the Monoprice Multiformat screen with built in masking before they stopped making it. It's crazy to me when I see high end theaters that cost more than my house and they are watching movies with black bars.
What is everybody masking? The content outside the picture is BLACK. All you need is a power zoom lens and multiple memories. I have the Epson 4010 projector for $1900. It is blazing bright, tack sharp at any zoom setting, and has the memories for any occasion. My screen is white paint with a simple frame around it to define a nominal picture area of 5 1/2 x 16 ft. The biggest pain is when they put subtitles outside the picture area, but all you have to do is select a different zoom setting. Bulbs are about $300 and last years, whereas laser projectors need to be replaced if and when their lasers fail.
I've never found black bars bothersome at all except when they're on the left and right. The majority of content these days is 1.78, 1.85, 2.0, or have changing ratios, so it makes no sense to me to use scope screens unless you have short ceiling heights.
The only time I find black bars annoying is when the movie or TV show was filmed in a widescreen format and the disc has black bars on all four sides, which shrinks the image. In most cases, those discs were made before HDTVs were in general use.
Nice to see someone that understands that Cinemascope is a wider format than 1.85/16:9 etc rather than smaller. I think because TVs are 16:9 and multiplexes are much the same, that's how people today think everything should be presented, so people think that scope is a smaller format, rather than a wider format. One RU-vid 'guru' channel here told me that scope was a 'dinosaur' format - despite it being very current. They just didn't understand presentation at all and watch everything as 16:9. It means scope, which should be the widest most epic format (other than IMAX which is effectively higher resolution scope with added height), is presented as the smallest. A major disservice to the format and the complete opposite to the design and intent when it was created back in 1953. In my youth, I remember seeing movies at theatres on a 2.40 screen with side masking. Back then, projectionists would ensure that all content that was shown before the main movie was shown smaller than the main movie. That way, the main movie was visibly the most epic presentation of the day. Today, it's not unusual to see the adverts presented taller and overall larger than the main movie. The art of presentation has been lost - they don't even have any masking. It's not the event it used to be. For movies I have always ran a CIH set up with my projectors after quickly finding a 16:9 screen was limiting and more of a 'big TV' experience than a cinema experience. I changed to a wider but slightly shorter 2.35:1 screen, and started watching scope movies by zooming, but found it makes the image coarser because you're making the pixels 33% larger and it's like you've moved your seats 33% closer, so I went with an anamorphic lens (I also moved my seats closer so the 1.85 movies were still visibly the same size as before on the old 16:9 screen). That meant that now, 1.85 looked exactly the same (same viewing angle), but scope was now wider and more immersive. A huge improvement and far more cinematic. Back then I was using an HTPC for all my scaling, and today I mostly use a standalone player, though still have an HTPC with MadVR which is great for everything, including running multiple demos. Today, due to IMAX, with my current set up I went with a wall to wall screen in a room that is entirely black velvet, and the screen has a height which gives a 16:9 aspect, but I mask the top and bottom to give me a 2.40:1 screen, and I run everything CIH just like before. My seating distance gives me a 60 degree horizontal viewing angle in the front row (effectively two times the 2.40 screen height back). For IMAX movies, I slide the ISCO lens out of the way and remove the top and bottom masking to allow for the IMAX content. As the IMAX content ratio can vary, I will add in some bottom masking to suit. 60 degrees is like sitting in the back row of an IMAX theatre so I do get a visibly IMAX like immersive experience, albeit at a smaller scale. But to be honest, the additional top and bottom IMAX content is usually just fluff and filler, with no additional content that would make any difference to the movie, it just adds a little more immersion. After all, all other non IMAX movie theatres will show the same movie as 2.40 (just like you did with Maverick when masked), though with potentially slightly different framing for the 2.40 content. In the overall scheme of things, it's not something most people will notice. Your room looks like it has the height for an IMAX screen, and as you use the JVCs masking, it looks like you don't use an anamorphic lens, so it's something you could easily do if you felt it was worth it. As you'll have to get new screen material (or a new screen entirely if you don't go the DIY route), it's probably not worth the cost.
I appreciate your comments and perspective. I chose to go with a Stewart Filmscreen 2.4 precisely so I can take advantage of the room width and for me that wide aspect ratio is the move experience. At this juncture an anamorphic lens is not in budget so using the built in masking on the JVC gives me lots of flexibility positioning fixed width as my primary aim.
@@TheoNicolakis "that wide aspect ratio is the move experience". I completely agree with you. Otherwise it's just big tv. Anamorphic lenses can be expensive, especially if you want it to pass 4k, and the current trend of vertical compression lenses from Panamorph put them outside of most peoples budgets (mine included). Sometimes a horizontal expansion lens comes on the used market at a good price, and the ISCO III lenses seem to be pretty cheap at times (under $2,000, sometime complete with sled), it's just a case of waiting for them to come up if they're something you'd like to consider. Keep up the good work. :)
For a AT projector screen I always just buy more material than my screen requires. Basically build a screen wall in front of the LCR speakers & then build a masking frame wall in front of the screen wall but with easily adjustable boarders around the screen frame (either simple magnets etc or more a complex electronic motorised system). That way if I decide I want a bigger screen or a different aspect ratio later on its just a case of adjusting the frame boarders.
I hate the premise of this: that black bars are "annoying". For me, I rejoice when I see them because it means I know I'm seeing the entire picture as intended, with nothing zoomed, cropped, or lost in any way. That trumps everything.
The premise is geared primarily for those who have projectors and unable to afford premium masking solutions on how to do it natively in the projector with the masking and aspect ratio memory settings.
I also have similar sentiments, but if I had a projector and suddenly the image was being projected onto the wall beyond the screen, I wouldn’t sleep until I had fixed it not to do that. The content creators switching it around is maybe where I would think this would be best resolved. They can crop the screen with scenery to narrow focus, like looking between two logs, or with clouds, obstructions etc.
Masking is an expensive option. DIY is the best solution if you must. Alternating ratios make masking a useless endeavor, so I've chosen to live with black bars on the biggest projection screen my room can support.
The format Cinerama and Todd-AO are 2.76.1 and while todd-AO used a faster frame rate as 30 frames per second to avoid flickering Cinerama used 26 frames per second.
Todd-AO is 2:2 to 1. 2:76 to 1 is anamorphic 65mm like Super Panavision 70 or MGM Camera 65. 3-projector Cinerama was actually about 2:60 to 1, a bit smaller than 2:76 to 1 anamorphic 65mm.
2.4:1 is the superior format and anything else is stupid. Your opinion is wrong if you think 1.87:1 is better. Or worse… variable aspect ratio. I built my own automatic real time masking system anyhow
