my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Limited screen size. Should I go CW or CH? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: Limited screen size. Should I go CW or CH? Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-02-2006 01:12 PM                        Looking for your advice. I am limited to a screen width of 7 feet wide in a small private screening room dedicated to film only. Normally I would never do anything other then a 235:1 constant height system but my 185:1 titles are so small. Considering film allows me to sit much closer then an electronic display I am considering a constant width screen. What would you do. Are there more CH die-hards here that would never run anything else other then CH regardless or under the circumstances would most recommend going CW?? Thanks!!  |  IP: Logged Dominic Espinosa Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1172 From: California, U.S.A. Registered: Jan 2004 posted 12-02-2006 01:30 PM                     I actually prefer common width myself. I have no argument as to why, I just like it.  |  IP: Logged Mitchell Dvoskin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1869 From: West Milford, NJ, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 12-02-2006 02:46 PM                     While I personaly prefer CH, in your case I would go CW. It is silly not to have the biggest picture possible on such a small screen. Just be shure to mask to top/bottom when you run scope.  |  IP: Logged Ken McFall Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 615 From: Haringey, London. Registered: Apr 2001 posted 12-02-2006 02:58 PM                     With such small screen size I would go for best of both which is Common Width. However in a 'real' auditorium I would go for picture quality rather than size. There tends to be a trend to push 1:85 too far in some places and the difference in illumination is very marked with scope being too bright compared with 1:85. If it were my choice I would compromise and go for a mixture of both.... with full side and top/bottom masking. Common Width plays down the impact of the Wide scope image almost making it inferior even though it has an effectively higher resolution in such a case.  |  IP: Logged Dan Lyons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 698 From: Seal Beach, CA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 12-02-2006 04:46 PM                     I have an 8 foot wide screen in my screening room; I do CW. For a screen that small, CW is the way to go.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 12-02-2006 05:07 PM                     another option would (perhaps) be a deep curve common hight screen, a mini cinerama style (perhaps not so deep) so perhaps a 10 ft screen in your 7 foot space. With scope, the image filling more of your peripheral image is very impressive. Best focus is if you attach a string to the projector so that the screen curve is exact same distance from the lens. In London I remember working in a cinema that had a 35 ft proscenium with a 50 ft screen curved installed. It was cool  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-02-2006 05:27 PM                        I know this question cannot be answered with a single definitive answer but it doesn't hurt to fish for opinions with hopes someone may point out a reason I may have missed to stay away from CW or offer another option. Looks like CW is winning the vote though. Cameron, interesting. I remember talking to John Harvey years ago and he recommended a very deep curved screen saying we would have no trouble focusing with a standard lens. I wonder how deep a curve one could go before getting into trouble. Id love to try this but if I cannot focus it could be a expensive experiment. Anyone have any experience with this. If I did the string between the projector and screen the curve would not be very deep at all. Maybe 6". John was talking deep, almost half a circle.  |  IP: Logged Ron Curran Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 504 From: Springwood NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2006 posted 12-02-2006 05:38 PM                        I don’t know if Americans – like Australians - are experiencing 57 aspect ratios on their 16 x 9 plasmas but if you watch an ad break with all the various shapes, you will be able to judge which would suit your environment. Watching a smaller 2.35 image on our 16 x 9 plasma is still more impressive than watching a full-height 1.85 (approx) image. But I would only do that at home. CW has no business in real cinemas.  |  IP: Logged Cameron Glendinning Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 845 From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia Registered: Dec 2005 posted 12-02-2006 07:19 PM                     Alan, The cinema in london was much much deeper than the string thing, but its a good reference point. You should see the 1.85 aperture plate(like the old cinemascope logo). The wider the lens (smaller the number) the less the depth of field, the more critical the focus but would result in a naturally deeper curve. So the longer the throw, the less the curve but is more forgiving with the focus, so a deep curve is also possible, in scope the image will look a little stretched at the edges the deeper the curve, 1.85 would not change much, subtitles might not be paralel with the bottom masking. Cinerama had a 144 degree screen, so I suggest not quite so deep personally though, when I build my screening room, this is the way I'm going to go. I already have a 24 ft wide common hight screen which I hope to put in a 18-20 ft wide room. Perhaps some focus tests with a bed sheet and gaffa tape before you commit. I also think the idea from Ken of all movable masking makes a lot of sense, that way no matter what ratio the screen would be a simiar size. quote: Ron Curran But I would only do that at home. CW has no business in real cinemas. Tend to agree with you on that one Ron  |  IP: Logged John Koutsoumis Master Film Handler Posts: 261 From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Registered: Aug 2003 posted 12-03-2006 06:43 AM                     Not only am I against CW but I don't like CH either. Each ratio should have it's own height in my opinion. I like just a little gentle raise of the bottom mask or bringing down a top mask for scope. In sense I say gentle as in that it's not all that noticeable but adds a real scope feel to the image. Of course the side masks come out substantially. A screening room that I work at has different heights (and widths) for the different ratios and I quite like it. The films look as they were meant to.  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 12-03-2006 07:45 AM                     The other problem with CW is that the optical axes must all be centred, so co-acting moving top and bottom masking for 'Scope is a must. But just as important, you need to be able to balance the light levels between 1.85 and 'Scope, so you really need a Stop Ring on the 'Scope lens or some other method to equalise the light levels. I think the Curved Screen concept, which might allow you to achieve CH, is a good idea and should be fully investigated. I'm not sure about a Deep Curve as that could distort the image and may be very difficult to focus, and indeed to illuminate evenly. Definitely one for careful analysis, especially at very small screen sizes. Also, is there any way of getting more than 7ft on the width, or is that the widest width physically possible? Finally, CW v. CH shouldn't be seen as a preference! There are cogent design reasons to always use the latter. Ioan Allen of Dolby did a fine paper on this some years back - essential reading and available from the Dolby website! [ 12-07-2006, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Brian Guckian ]  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 12-03-2006 11:43 AM                        Brian I just goggled Ioan Allen and looked on Dolby's web site and I am having a hard time finding that Paper. If you have a link please post it. It sounds like an interesting read. Thanks!! You guys have peaked my interest in a deep curved screen. Im going to do some experiments and see just how deep I can go while maintaining good focus. I have a friend just getting started in the screen manufacturing biz that can make me a curved frame at any radius so this may prove to be a fun project. I can always resort to hanging a cheap manual pull down screen on the wall if things do not work out.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 12-03-2006 12:48 PM                        If you look at the framing of the 2 main formats, you will notice that 2.35 tend not to involve severe closeups. This is not the case with 1.85. With CH, 1.85 seemds more intimate and 2.35 places that intimacy in the context of the wide open spaces. (Think: John Wayne on his horse on a hill.) With CW; you get inverted reality in composition; that is why it is so unsuccessful. Louis  |  IP: Logged Mark Hajducki Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 500 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: May 2003 posted 12-03-2006 04:04 PM                     Dolby paper on screen size and shape I think having movable masking on all 4 sides would be the best option to give the maximum image size in all formats (you would have to look at the distance the viewer will be from the screen). If you are likely to screen material that was recorded in 4:3 for TV then being able to increase the height would allow you to have a bigger picture for this as well.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 12-03-2006 05:26 PM                     4 sided masking is definitely the way to go if you are crunched for space. As far as curved screens, I've never liked them in the first place...but they will look outright dorky on a screen that small. Plus with curved screens, you lose the apparent width in the aspect ratio, cause geometric distortion and lower contrast. I have also had far better luck with focus on flat screens. Curved screens suck.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.