[Phil Hinton]

AVForums Home Cinema Podcast : 25th November 2008

We discuss anamorphic projection and the recent AVForums event at JVC house. THX tell us about industry standards and how they can be used to design a home cinema. And we introduce you to our new hardware reviewer.

(you may need to right-click and save).

0:01:00 Discussing Anamorphic projection and recent forums event at JVC
0:10:50 Interview with THX
0:51:40 Discussion of the points raised from the THX interview
1:01:25 Introduction of David Mackenzie a new member of the hardware review team


Time: 1:05:31 Size: 59.9MB

Please reply to this thread with your feedback.

[Pecker]

I've only managed the first ten minutes (I have to nip off now), but it sounds very good.

A big congrats to all 3 guys involved in the introduction for their...shall we call it 'diplomatic' language.

Steve W

[Nelviticus]

Hello Phil, thanks for this, it's always good to get a new AV podcast. However your RSS XML is broken - your 'itunes:category' tags are a bit messed up, some are contained within others and some don't have a closing tag.

Regards

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by rigman

Thanks for that Phil it was a very interesting discussion.

So I suppose the argument about what the director intended is blown out of the water though as he seemed to confirm the director makes his films with 'most people will watch this on a widescreen TV' in his mind.

I think that was confirmed, and more. Andrew more than suggested that DVDs and Blu-ray Discs were authored using a plasma (or similar) as a monitor, as that's how most would be viewed.

THX's comments were interesting and useful. They confirmed a lot of the discussion at the other thread:

- You can sit within very broad parameters and still see the screen as THX stipulate (quite close, quite far away, or inbetween)
- THX have no real dialogue with film makers as to the creative process, so THX recommendations don't have too anything at all to do with what the director intended
- When really pressed by Phil (well done on that BTW, PHIL) THX recommend a fixed width image because the technical challenges of CIH & CIA are so difficult to overcome. The idea that 'anamorphic on a budget' set ups are a good step forward wasn't particularly supported. The best thing anyone could take from Andrew's comments concerning CIH is that, if you have an awful lot of money, you might be able to get a CIH set up that looks as good as a CIW set up.

The only disappointment was the discussion at the end, where the participants appeared to completely ditch the clear THX recommendation for CIW - I found it difficult to imagine that Neil & Graham had just listened to the same interview as the rest of us.

Steve W

[tryingtimes]

Originally Posted by Pecker

- THX have no real dialogue with film makers as to the creative process, so THX recommendations don't have too anything at all to do with what the director intended

I didn't read this the same.
THX said that they didn't really have anything to do with the creative process of film production, yes. But he did mention a couple of times, that they were employed by film makers to ensure that their product was transferred to the screen in a way that they were happy with.
I took that to mean that they were directly involved with trying to get across the director's intentions in a commercial cinema.

[tryingtimes]

I think THX have historically erred on the side of caution when it comes to satisfying the obsessives versus the people who just want a slick home cinema. A good analogous example is the early non-anamorphic THX dvd transfers. They knew that the processing needed to remove the extra lines to show the film on a non-anamorphic display resulted in a degraded image (which was true), so they eschewed anamorphic for a while.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by tryingtimes

I didn't read this the same.
THX said that they didn't really have anything to do with the creative process of film production, yes. But he did mention a couple of times, that they were employed by film makers to ensure that their product was transferred to the screen in a way that they were happy with.
I took that to mean that they were directly involved with trying to get across the director's intentions in a commercial cinema.

Yes, but not in respect of CIH v CIW. THX recommend CIH for cinemas, but he cleary said they recommend CIW for the home. They can't both be 'what the director intended'...or should I say they can be, but if that's the case it doesn't really matter which you go for.

Originally Posted by tryingtimes

I think THX have historically erred on the side of caution when it comes to satisfying the obsessives versus the people who just want a slick home cinema. A good analogous example is the early non-anamorphic THX dvd transfers. They knew that the processing needed to remove the extra lines to show the film on a non-anamorphic display resulted in a degraded image (which was true), so they eschewed anamorphic for a while.

Good point, TT.

But the interview remains and stands as it is. Andrew didn't say "We do not recommend CIH for the home", but he probably came as close to that as it's possible to do without actually saying it.

If you didn't listen to his interview, and just picked up the comments at the end, you'd think he'd spent an hour singing CIH's praises in the home.

Just to add, lots of credit to Phil on this one. He went to great pains to pin down the THX representative on this for us, repeating questions where necessary.

Steve W

[rigman]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Just to add, lots of credit to Phil on this one. He went to great pains to pin down the THX representative on this for us, repeating questions where necessary.

Steve W

Yes even though his view was opposed to what Phil believed.

That is another thing that is great about this forum. Everyone has their views but the guys in charge still get an impartial view from the experts.

Top stuff

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by rigman

Yes even though his view was opposed to what Phil believed.

That is another thing that is great about this forum. Everyone has their views but the guys in charge still get an impartial view from the experts.

Top stuff

Aye, I think Phil gained himself and AVF a lot of brownie points with his impartial approach there.



Steve W

[Gary Lightfoot]

Nice one Phil, quite a coup.

He initially mentions a 40 degree viewing angle which is for a 16:9 HDTV display, and later recommends sitting at 1 Picture Height from the screen for a scope screen, or 0.8 x the diagonal width of a direct view 16:9 display. That seems to correlate to a 31+ degree vertical viewing angle (less than the 35 degree max for comfort) and is a lot closer than I would have thought was ideal for a 1080 display due to pixel visibility, and is a lot closer than their 50 degree optimal distance (approx 2.4 x PH) for theaters. He did mention immersion though which a closer seating distance will deliver.

They also mention that they don't get involved in movie making but want to preserve the studios content by making sure it's played back correctly. They also work closely with the likes of SMPTE and AES.

It appeared to me that they don't recommend a CIH system for the home simply because he said it's much easier for the end user to have a 16:9 display and display everything within it whilst preserving image quality between different aspect ratios, since it's less technically challenging (than an anamorphic set up). He also said that you can use an anamorphic lens with front projection or the zoom method at home, but with caveats for zooming (scaling, possible lens artifacts (CA), image brightness and pixel visibility) since they may cause issues with preserving image quality.

It seems the end users capability is their concern with using something other than a 16:9 display, and the THX ethos appears to be that a THX product (video or audio) should preserve quality without needing much technical knowledge/input from the end user (ease of use for the end user).

Nice to hear it from the horses mouth

Gary

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by Nelviticus

Hello Phil, thanks for this, it's always good to get a new AV podcast. However your RSS XML is broken - your 'itunes:category' tags are a bit messed up, some are contained within others and some don't have a closing tag.

Regards

Should be fixed now, thanks for the feedback.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot

Nice one Phil, quite a coup.

He initially mentions a 40 degree viewing angle which is for a 16:9 HDTV display, and later recommends sitting at 1 Picture Height from the screen for a scope screen, or 0.8 x the diagonal width of a direct view 16:9 display. That seems to correlate to a 31+ degree vertical viewing angle (less than the 35 degree max for comfort) and is a lot closer than I would have thought was ideal for a 1080 display due to pixel visibility, and is a lot closer than their 50 degree optimal distance (approx 2.4 x PH) for theaters. He did mention immersion though which a closer seating distance will deliver.

They also mention that they don't get involved in movie making but want to preserve the studios content by making sure it's played back correctly. They also work closely with the likes of SMPTE and AES.

It appeared to me that they don't recommend a CIH system for the home simply because he said it's much easier for the end user to have a 16:9 display and display everything within it whilst preserving image quality between different aspect ratios, since it's less technically challenging (than an anamorphic set up). He also said that you can use an anamorphic lens with front projection or the zoom method at home, but with caveats for zooming (scaling, possible lens artifacts (CA), image brightness and pixel visibility) since they may cause issues with preserving image quality.

It seems the end users capability is their concern with using something other than a 16:9 display, and the THX ethos appears to be that a THX product (video or audio) should preserve quality without needing much technical knowledge/input from the end user (ease of use for the end user).

Nice to hear it from the horses mouth

Gary

Gary, some of this does not quite tally with my memory of the podcast, though to be fair I've had a couple of beers since then. I'll have to have a re-listen. But he seemed very clear to me - CIW at 40 degrees, which is c.1.375 screen widths.

What surprised me was that he couldn't bring himself to directly recommend CIH for the home. He left that possibility hanging implicitly when he said THX would recommend CIW in most cases, and the reason for that was the quality of both kit and install you'd need to get CIH right. From this I think the most you could get is that CIH may be okay if you can afford extremely good kit and an extremely good install - I would imagine of the standard Neil demonstrated in the recent platinum room. **

I think his comments left no room whatsoever for a 'cheap' anamorphic install, by THX standards.

However, I must agree with Neil's & Graham's comments at the end about the 'wow' factor of having your image stretch out with an anamorphic set up. Time and again in the discussion afterwards and in other threads, we have comments about the 'wow' factor, about how 'cool' it is, about how you get something special that your neighbour doesn't have. This is surely the real attraction of CIH - it's swish, cool, different, impressive. It's unfortunate that we got sucked into a discussion about 'what the director intended' and 'what THX recommend', as I think those matters have now been addressed. CIH should sell itself on its own true merits, and is I believe more than capable of doing so.

Steve W

** Neil himself described the gold room set up as 'middle market' (or something like that), so that certainly doesn't fit the bill of 'most' home systems being better off CIW, particularly as THX are based in the US where their 'middle market' is somewhat better than ours.

SW

[Jeff]

Many thanks to Phil for organising this, it was great to hear from Andrew from THX. He confirmed a lot of things I already knew but it was great to here it from a clearly very knowledgeable person.

Here are some of the things I took from the Interview.

THX certifies constant height, constant width and constant area commercial cinemas.

Commercial and home cinema standards are different.

There is a very big difference in resolution between film and HD, 12 millions grains of resolution vs 1.5M pixels for a scope movie. This is why recommended viewing distances are different. The recommended viewing distance for a home projection system is diagonal screen size divided by .85. For a scope screen this would be 2.4 x screen heights viewing distance, this doesn’t not take into account the visual degradation of lower scope movie resolution and image degradation caused by the anamorphic lens and image scaling, so the viewing distance should be further increased.

He says THX generally recommend constant width and explains the technical difficulties with constant height. He went on to explain some of the issues such as being able to keep the correct aspect ratio, differences in light levels between aspect ratios and differences in resolution/image quality in viewing different aspect ratio. He talked about anamorphic lenses and how they help but are still not ideal and need to be very well designed.

At no point does Andrew talk about price being an issue because it isn’t. At any price point constant height is still very much a compromise. Of the 2 systems shown by Neil at JVC. Neither system address the different light levels or the image degradation issue and I don’t believe either setups were capable of preserving all aspect ratios correctly. In the case of the entry level system it didn’t address ease of use and required you to go into the projectors menu system to select the vertical stretch.

With constant area I very much agree it is still a compromise however I have addressed most of the issues Andrew talks about in my own implementation.

[tryingtimes]

Do THX certify 2k digital theaters? If so, I wonder what their viewing distance recommendations are for those and if they are any different to film? You'd hope so given that they change it so much for 1080p.

[Jeff]

I don't know, but I have seen white papers on why 2K digital isn't good enough for most commercial cinemas and why moving to 4K is a must. Again this was based on human visual acuity and viewing distances.

[Pecker]

Hi Gary, I've had another listen, and the portion you're looking for is from c.16 minutes up to around 22 minutes.

The main points are:

1 - THX recommend a furthest seat of 36 degrees (just over 1.5 xSW)
2 - THX allow up to 26 degrees for the back row (just over 2.1 xSW)
3 - Andrew says the front should be no closer than 45 degrees, stating “Once you get above 45 degrees you start to get deteriorations in image quality”. 45 degrees is around 1.2 xSW. **
4 - In the home he recommends 40 degrees, stating “It changes a bit when we’re talking about content into the home because there are other factors involved, so we’re really looking at an optimal viewing angle of around 40 degrees horizontally” 40 degrees is around 1.4 xSW
5 - When asked by Phil if there's a 'sweet spot' THX’s design philosophy is that "...every seat should be a good seat...". However, he notes that when films mixed for sound & picture in post production, the seats for the mixers, etc are 2/3rds back. This would equate to c.1.37 xSWs - (I think that's the closest he comes to 'what the director intended').
6 - The word 'immersive' is used several times, but the only time Andrew uses it he stresses that this is a matter 'for personal taste', which isn't really saying it's 'what the director intended', but ‘what the viewer prefers’.

Points 3 and 4 are interesting. They suggest that even if you have bottomless pockets and can replicate the real cinema at home with a perfect anamorphic system, you still shouldn't be closer than 45 degrees (1.2 xSW). This is quite a different message from THX to the one suggested to us in recent threads.

Hope this helps.

Steve W

** It's interesting to note that this is quite different to the recent 'platinum room' demo, which was at 1.0 xSW - Andrew is very clear that he considers this too close, as that's nearer 50 degrees.

SW

[Jeff]

Just as a side note that shows why THX are correct to have different viewing standards for the home. Just look at the threads on AVS regarding PQ issues with films like Baraka and The Dark Knight, these people that are complaining about picture quality are clearly sitting too close. There is nothing immersive about a big screen if you keep seeing visual defects that distract from the movie viewing experience.

[tryingtimes]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I don't know, but I have seen white papers on why 2K digital isn't good enough for most commercial cinemas and why moving to 4K is a must. Again this was based on human visual acuity and viewing distances.

Yes, I read that - just trying to join up all the dots
Even so, I find it hard to rely on resolution as the defining characteristic of my system, given that I was perfectly happy for several years with SD on a 7' screen seen from 11 feet away. Is HD better? Yes, but I wouldn't want to watch SD at a quarter of the size (half width, half height) which would be the logical extension of this argument.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Pecker

** It's interesting to note that this is quite different to the recent 'platinum room' demo, which was at 1.0 xSW - Andrew is very clear that he considers this too close, as that's nearer 50 degrees.

SW

It was far too close for me, what I can't quite understant is Neil (correctly) talks about following standards (story about the not touching the reference LCD display) but then chooses not to follow viewing distance or light level standards.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Jeff

It was far too close for me, what I can't quite understant is Neil (correctly) talks about following standards (story about the not touching the reference LCD display) but then chooses not to follow viewing distance or light level standards.

Jeff, you've touched on something that struck me. I certainly don't want to sound at all like I'm having a go at Neil, particularly as he's been extremely honest and consistent with us. Even when I've disagreed with Neil, I've always appreciated his consistency - "If this is what THX says, this is what I'm doing. It's the only way to maintain standards".

He said in the CIA thread, and again at the start of this podcast, that he was interested to note the different perspectives which he called 'creative' and 'technical'. What has struck me about Neil's approach is that it's marvellously consistent. He knows where he's coming from and why. He says he doesn't come from a film making/film studies background, he comes from a technical background, and I suppose you could say he 'follows the book/manual'.

I'm sure he'd argue (and I'm sure he'd be right) that in the platinum room set up he managed to achieve balanced light levels for both 1.85:1 and 'scope, and I think Andrew hinted (without saying explicitly) that in a very high end set up like this you might be able to overcome THX's concerns.

However, if he's following THX's advice he shouldn't be sitting clients at 1.0 xSW, as Andrew quite clearly states that anything closer than 45 degrees (1.2 xSW) is too close, and "you start to get deteriorations in image quality". And that's at the cinema with film, let alone on 'lower resolution' homer video. I know that Neil's number 1 priority is image quality.

I hope I've been as consistent in my approach to this as Neil, and my point has always been that if you sit too close you'll not be able to see the whole image properly and comfortably, and subsequently I like to sit at 1.2 xSW. This now appears to be completely in line with Andrew's comments.

Steve W

[millerwill]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Hi Gary, I've had another listen, and the portion you're looking for is from c.16 minutes up to around 22 minutes.

The main points are:

1 - THX recommend a furthest seat of 36 degrees (just over 1.5 xSW)
2 - THX allow up to 26 degrees for the back row (just over 2.1 xSW)
3 - Andrew says the front should be no closer than 45 degrees, stating “Once you get above 45 degrees you start to get deteriorations in image quality”. 45 degrees is around 1.2 xSW. **
4 - In the home he recommends 40 degrees, stating “It changes a bit when we’re talking about content into the home because there are other factors involved, so we’re really looking at an optimal viewing angle of around 40 degrees horizontally” 40 degrees is around 1.4 xSW
5 - When asked by Phil if there's a 'sweet spot' THX’s design philosophy is that "...every seat should be a good seat...". However, he notes that when films mixed for sound & picture in post production, the seats for the mixers, etc are 2/3rds back. This would equate to c.1.37 xSWs - (I think that's the closest he comes to 'what the director intended').
6 - The word 'immersive' is used several times, but the only time Andrew uses it he stresses that this is a matter 'for personal taste', which isn't really saying it's 'what the director intended', but ‘what the viewer prefers’.

Points 3 and 4 are interesting. They suggest that even if you have bottomless pockets and can replicate the real cinema at home with a perfect anamorphic system, you still shouldn't be closer than 45 degrees (1.2 xSW). This is quite a different message from THX to the one suggested to us in recent threads.

Hope this helps.

Steve W

** It's interesting to note that this is quite different to the recent 'platinum room' demo, which was at 1.0 xSW - Andrew is very clear that he considers this too close, as that's nearer 50 degrees.

SW

I agree that this does seem weird. 1 SW is 53 deg viewing angle, and there are plenty of folks that like it there; this is THX's 'maximum recommended' value, with 36 deg its 'minimum recommended' value, as noted above. 45 deg is right in the middle. So it's strange for the THX rep to say that 45 is the max one should go for.

I sit at 1.3 SW, a 42 deg viewing angle, from my 16x9 screen, and would not like to be closer. But with a 2.35 screen, 1 SW would be excellent.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by millerwill

I agree that this does seem weird. 1 SW is 53 deg viewing angle, and there are plenty of folks that like it there; this is THX's 'maximum recommended' value, with 36 deg its 'minimum recommended' value, as noted above. 45 deg is right in the middle. So it's strange for the THX rep to say that 45 is the max one should go for.

I sit at 1.3 SW, a 42 deg viewing angle, from my 16x9 screen, and would not like to be closer. But with a 2.35 screen, 1 SW would be excellent.

I just want to stress I DON'T CARE WHERE ANYONE SITS, OR WHAT SORT OF SYSTEM THEY HAVE!

As has been said, there's no right or wrong, only personal preference - this isn't a battle or a crusade. If you want an anamorphic system and sit at 1.0 xSW, and that's good for you, then go ahead. If people at the platinum room demo sat comfortably at 1.0 xSW, then good for them - I have no issue with that.



The only thing we can talk about is personal preference and THX recommendations, and THX say (A) sit at 40 degrees & use a CIW at home, and (B) whatever you do, whether you're at home or the cinema, whether you're CIH, CIW or CIA, they don't think you can see clearly if you sit closer than 45 degrees (around 1.2 xSW).

I think the reason for the anomaly is that Andrew said your view 'will start to deteriorate' at closer than 45 degrees. Obviously, as 44 degrees it won't have deteriorated very much. But also note that, whilst 36 degrees is the closest recommended, 26 degrees is acceptable to THX as a furthest seat. On the other hand 53 degrees is both closest recommended and closest acceptable. In other words, even at 26 degrees you can still at least see everything. But on the other hand, closer than 53 degrees and it's absolutely crazy, so they won't allow it at all.

Steve W

[millerwill]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I just want to stress I DON'T CARE WHERE ANYONE SITS, OR WHAT SORT OF SYSTEM THEY HAVE!

As has been said, there's no right or wrong, only personal preference - this isn't a battle or a crusade. If you want an anamorphic system and sit at 1.0 xSW, and that's good for you, then go ahead. If people at the platinum room demo sat comfortably at 1.0 xSW, then good for them - I have no issue with that.

The only thing we can talk about is personal preference and THX recommendations, and THX say (A) sit at 40 degrees & use a CIW at home, and (B) whatever you do, whether you're at home or the cinema, whether you're CIH, CIW or CIA, they don't think you can see clearly say closer than 45 degrees (around 1.2 xSW).

Steve W

I certainly agree with your bold face statement above; i.e., everybody should sit where they like, and they don't need anyone's 'approval' to do this.

However, I was simply pointing out the inconsistency in this particular THX representative's recommendation, since it is published fact that THX's 'max recommended' viewing angle is 53 deg (1SW), and 'min rec' value is 36. So why is he saying that anything greater than 45 deg is too close?

[Jeff]

If I got the gist of what Andrew was saying there are 2 things to take into account, how close I'd like to sit in order to get the immersive image I'm looking for and how close can I sit before image quality becomes an issue. The 1st thing is down to personal taste, the 2nd thing they have recommendations for. If you do sit closer than recommended do not be surprised to see artefacts in movies where the vast majority of people, studios included, think the transfer is more than adequate.

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by millerwill

So why is he saying that anything greater than 45 deg is too close?

Because he was talking about home standards and not cinema standards.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by millerwill

I certainly agree with your bold face statement above; i.e., everybody should sit where they like, and they don't need anyone's 'approval' to do this.

However, I was simply pointing out the inconsistency in this particular THX representative's recommendation, since it is published fact that THX's 'max recommended' viewing angle is 53 deg (1SW), and 'min rec' value is 36. So why is he saying that anything greater than 45 deg is too close?

I think the answer is pretty simple - you can't have one seat cinemas.

If you found the 'perfect viewing distance' it'd be one seat, slap bang in the middle of the cinema (note that Andrew says this is where most people sit, given thechoice, and is approximately where the post-production team work from when mixing, etc). Sit one row closer than that one seat and things get worse. Sit one row further away and they get worse. But you can't have a one seat cinema, so a certain amount of deterioration is okay, within acceptable limits, unless we want to be stuck with one seat cinemas.

But sit too close or too far away and things haven't just deteriorated, they've become laughable and impossible to justify.

So 1.0 xSW is on the edge of just about justifiable, and 2.0 xSW is just about justifiable, but 1.4 xSW is that magic middle seat. Of course, sat at home with only 1 or 2 rows, you don't have the same problem.

This is what troubles me with anyone connected with THX sitting at 1.0 xSW. It's taking the furthest forward allowable, rather than trying to hit the very best. Fine for personal preference, but not a particularly accurate representation of THX's point of view. A cinema is one thing, but why try to push THX's recommendations to the absolute limit by sitting right at the edge of 'too close' or 'too far away'? Why not sit in the middle - the ideal seat, when you have the luxury to make your own 'one seat cinema' at home?

Steve W

[Manni01]

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

AVForums Home Cinema Podcast : 25th November 2008

We discuss anamorphic projection and the recent AVForums event at JVC house. THX tell us about industry standards and how they can be used to design a home cinema. And we introduce you to our new hardware reviewer.

Please reply to this thread with your feedback.

Sorry it took me a while to listen to this excellent podcast and comment, I've been quite busy too...

First of all thanks a lot Phil for taking the time to explore this in such depth, and especially to get Andrew from THX to contribute, as I thought his feedback was extremely useful. I especially appreciate the way you've tried to ask open questions to him, in a true "pursuit of knowledge" way. Well done Sir!

I have to say that I am 100% in agreement with Andrew, and for me he stands completely and clearly on the side of the filmmakers, even if it's often on the cautious side.

I guess the most interesting point to me was that replicating a cinema setup at home isn't necessarily the best way forward for Andrew, which is the position quite a few of us have been trying to defend in the CIA thread, and that's one of the reasons why I can happily agree with him.

His aim is not to replicate a commercial cinema setup at home, following commercial cinema standards and presenting this as the Holy Grail in any circumstances, but to make sure the audience can experience a movie as close as possible to the filmmaker's intention, whether it is at home or in the cinema, and this is what really matters. If some things have to be different - and in my opinion they do - because the constraints are different, then that's not a problem for him. This is why he can recommend CIH in cinemas and CIW at home (whether we agree with him or not!).

It was also very useful to remind everyone how things like color calibration and most technical standards are useful in order to get in your home an experience as close as possible to the fimmaker intention. I personnally applaud THX and the work initiated by Lucas to improve projection standards in cinema (and at home), or the way the ISF has made it possible to provide professionals to calibrate your system as well as to define and share a methodology allowing you to do it yourself if you are so inclined.

I wasn't really surprised with Andrew's recommendation for CIW at home, because it is indeed the simplest setup for most consumers as it guarantees constant brightness and constant picture quality for every ratio. But it still leaves the question open regarding which is the best setup if you're ready to put the money and the effort to priviledge the impact of movies (both 2.35 and 1.85) versus less wide content.

If I just wanted a pat in the back from the powers that be, it should make me happy as 1.78 CIW is my present setup at home, but it doesn't change the fact that I still find I lose too much impact when watching 2.35 movies compared to 1.85 in my width and height limited room.

So my personal opinion, defined and refined thanks to the excellent contributions to the CIA thread from all sides of the argument, doesn't really change after listening to the podcast. Like Phil and unlike Neil or Graham, I still don't believe that one setup is better or superior for watching movies at home whatever the circumstances, and I guess I will have to agree to disagree with Neil and Graham from that respect, as they still seem to believe CIH is the ultimate setup for the real or discerning enthusiast.

I believe that the three setups, if well implemented, do respect the director's intention as long as the picture is not significantly cropped in any ratio. So if we put aside the picture quality variations and the practical aspects of each setup, what remains is the possible trade-off regarding the impact of the two main movie ratios, and this is the way I would personnally try to assess the best setup for a given room:

If I can setup on my wall a 1.85 picture that gives me the impact I'm happy with from my sitting distance, and if my room is wide enough to project a 2.35 picture keeping the same 1.85 picture size I am happy with, then I would probably go for 2.35 CIH as long as I can afford a solution that doesn't compromise too much on picture quality (anamorphic lens) or picture brightness (zoom method). I guess most enthusiasts who can afford such a setup can dedicate a room large enough for the room itself not to be the limiting factor, and that's why dealers and installers can recommend this most of the time as "the ultimate setup" without it being a silly compromise.

If my room is limited in width in such a way that setting a 2.35 CIH screen means my 1.85 movies would significantly lose impact compared to what I could get on a maxed out CIW setup in the same room, then CIA could be for me if I can find a practical and affordable way to deal with 4-way masking (or if my PJ projects black bars that mean not masking is acceptable) and an external VP to resize the picture depending on the ratio of each movie (or if my PJ has a zoom memory).

If my room is limited in height and width, I'm probably stuck with CIW (like I am at the moment, although thanks to Andrew I feel slightly better about it), and will have to to change my sitting position (move forward) to keep an immersive experience when watching 2.35. In a non width restricted room, CIW cannot be the answer for me as if I was able to setup a CIW screen which would give me a 2.35 picture size I'm happy with, 1.85 content (and narrower ratios) would be way too high to be comfortable.

That's just my personal opinion of course, and if there is any clarity for me at this stage, it's thanks to everyone's contribution, so thanks again to all involved in the CIA thread and in this podcast, it's been a fascinating learning experience, at many levels!

Special thanks to Jeff for starting the CIA thread and for explaining the merits of a CIA setup, and to Phil for putting so much time and effort (and patience!) in the development of this debate, especially through this first class podcast.

[Jeff]

Here is the THX viewing distance standard for home systems that Andrew talks about in the podcast.

THX Home Theater Display Setup

[Pecker]

Manni, regarding CIA.

This is one area left a little unclear from the podcast, as I think there was some confusion about terms.

CIA can mean 2 things:

1 - You can take a 2.1:1 screen and treat it like Jeff's, with slight letterboxing for 'scope and slight pillarboxing for 1.85:1, but maintaining the OAR at all times.

2 - You can take a 2.1:1 screen and crop the sides off your 'scope picture, or your top & bottom off your 1.85:1 picture, filling the screen each time, and not preserving OAR.

When Andrew was asked he commented that most cinemas maintained OAR, so his answers about CIA in cinemas appear to not have been about the use of 2.1:1 screens per se, but about their use with a cropped image - ie. cropping the sides of a 'scope image and the top and bottom of a 1.85:1 image.

That's certainly how it sounded to me, though I'm interested to hear what other people think.

Steve W

[Manni01]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Here is the THX viewing distance standard for home systems that Andrew talks about in the podcast.

THX Home Theater Display Setup

Thanks Jeff, my screen being 88" diag, optimal seating distance is 104", so as I suspected my sofa is a bit too far (135"), but sitting on cushions on the floor is just right