Anyone can relate to how CinemaScope brings the movie experience to the eyes, some of us can even remember the Cinerama experience over 40 years ago, almost everyone is familiarized with the term and meaning of HDTV, and with HT (Home Theater). So I created the term "CinemaScope HDHT" because it is actually blending the 3 concepts and technologies into one, and this series of articles is about implementing the 3 concepts, at your home, finally with consumer products.
For some people the choice of 16:9 (aspect ratio of 1.78:1 for HDTV) has been...
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/articles/2007/01/cinemascope_hdh.php]Read the Full Article[/url]
CinemaScope(TM) HDHT - Part I - The Concept
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
-
vstone
- Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:38 pm
Possible typo
The quote "like most movies do at 2.35:1, implies to me that most movies are made at 2.35. I believe that today far more movies are made at 1.85. Some westerns, a lot of sci-fi, and the occasional drame are made at 2.35, but almost everthing is made at 1.85. Perhaps more so than before to more easily fit 1.78 screens.
Some have started referring to 2.35 as 2.40. Ican't speak to this, but wonder should we also discuss the original 2.35 Cinemascope II films as 2.40? Cinemascope I was 2.55 and the actual negative was 2.66.
Some have started referring to 2.35 as 2.40. Ican't speak to this, but wonder should we also discuss the original 2.35 Cinemascope II films as 2.40? Cinemascope I was 2.55 and the actual negative was 2.66.
-
cj
- Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:41 am
Thanks for this series of articles. I recently built a home theater built around a 16:9 720p projector. The concept of CH / cinemascope is interesting to me. I think your initial article is a great start. I'm looking forward to the follow-ups.
One question and a comment I would like to see addressed in the future installments:
Question: If you build a 2.35:1 CH theater, and you plan to watch at least some 16:9 or (gasp) 4:3 material in that theater, then you are not really getting rid of the black bar problem. Instead, you're simply making the choice to live with vertical sidebars when you watch non-2.35 material. Correct?
Comment: It seems to me that the screen size should match the native format of the projector. That's the only way to maximize the available projector resolution. So, if you want to go with a 2.35:1 setup, why not demand a projector with that native format? Those probably exist, but I've never tripped over one in many hours of projector research. I suspect those projectors may live in a mega-$ neighborhood, and that, for me, is in a galaxy far, far away.
One question and a comment I would like to see addressed in the future installments:
Question: If you build a 2.35:1 CH theater, and you plan to watch at least some 16:9 or (gasp) 4:3 material in that theater, then you are not really getting rid of the black bar problem. Instead, you're simply making the choice to live with vertical sidebars when you watch non-2.35 material. Correct?
Comment: It seems to me that the screen size should match the native format of the projector. That's the only way to maximize the available projector resolution. So, if you want to go with a 2.35:1 setup, why not demand a projector with that native format? Those probably exist, but I've never tripped over one in many hours of projector research. I suspect those projectors may live in a mega-$ neighborhood, and that, for me, is in a galaxy far, far away.
-
vstone
- Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:38 pm
Part of the issue is,: when designing HD-DVD/Blue Ray, why didn't they figure out a way to lose the bars on whatever side. I realize that, once compressed, the black bars don't take up much room, but a more elegant solution would be to just have ths sytem identify and recognize the proper format, be it 1.33, 1.37, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.00, 2.2, etc. The system could pass this info along to the smart display device, which would handle it accordingly.
I believe that some of the projectors can be set up for multiple formats, including 2.35.
As an aside, when we watched movies in the Navy at sea, the 16mm projector had one lens. It could be adjusted for at least 1.85 and 2.35. I don't recall what we did for 1.33 or 1.66 (which used to be an occasional formaat, especially in films from Europe).
I believe that some of the projectors can be set up for multiple formats, including 2.35.
As an aside, when we watched movies in the Navy at sea, the 16mm projector had one lens. It could be adjusted for at least 1.85 and 2.35. I don't recall what we did for 1.33 or 1.66 (which used to be an occasional formaat, especially in films from Europe).
-
hdtvjim
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:14 pm
Anamorphics in a Home Theater
When the SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) drafted the then new 16x9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio the idea of a screen that could use all of the aspect ratios including the old Edison format 4x3 (1.33:1) was discussed.
Theaters attracted patrons in 1953 with Twentieth Century Fox's film "The Robe". An anamorphic lens put in front of the camera photographed the scene by compressing the width of the horizontal image by 2.
Upon projection another anamorphic lens spread the film image by 2. Thus a 4x3 (1.33:1) image could be projected onto a screen 16x6 (2.66:1). The sound track on another film was synchronized with the image film.
The result a wide screen movie from a 4x3 image onto a 16x6 screen. Most theaters in those days had balconies and/or the ceilings limited the height of the projected image so the anamorphic lens was an instant success for Fox.
Today the greater majority are filmed with regular "spherical" lenses that do not squeeze the image but the theater projects the 4x3 image and clips off the top and bottom of the image by having the black borders of the screen and the aperature plate in the projector.
With digital cinema the idea is to use the full native resolution of the projector but not use the pixels that are not part of the image and adjust the screen black borders to the desired aspect ratios. Most theaters have a 2:1 screen as they no longer present movies in the "Old Edison" 4x3 (1.33:1) format. (BTW with the "Academy" Aperature the image is 1.37:1.)
It is true that except for the "scope" films all other aspect ratios are related to the films image width. Since the stereo sound track has been added to "scope" films the actual image after it is unsqueezed provides a 2.35:1 image on the screen.
For Home Theater If you could buy an HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD with a squeezed image in the 16x9 high definition format then its16x9 video frame would have to be stretched from the 1920 pixel width with an anamorphic lens to fill a 2.35:1 screen and still maintain the 1080 pixel height. This would require an anamorphic with a with only a 32% stretch of the image. (BTW anamorphic films today are 2.39:1.)
I don't think the studios are going to do this extra manipulating of the images since "scope" films are in the minority. All other films use various areas of the film so why not the HD images also use various areas of the projectors native pixel area and not complicate things with an anamorphic. BTW for most Home Theaters anything at or above1280x720 is great anyway when sitting in the "sweet" spot.
Theaters attracted patrons in 1953 with Twentieth Century Fox's film "The Robe". An anamorphic lens put in front of the camera photographed the scene by compressing the width of the horizontal image by 2.
Upon projection another anamorphic lens spread the film image by 2. Thus a 4x3 (1.33:1) image could be projected onto a screen 16x6 (2.66:1). The sound track on another film was synchronized with the image film.
The result a wide screen movie from a 4x3 image onto a 16x6 screen. Most theaters in those days had balconies and/or the ceilings limited the height of the projected image so the anamorphic lens was an instant success for Fox.
Today the greater majority are filmed with regular "spherical" lenses that do not squeeze the image but the theater projects the 4x3 image and clips off the top and bottom of the image by having the black borders of the screen and the aperature plate in the projector.
With digital cinema the idea is to use the full native resolution of the projector but not use the pixels that are not part of the image and adjust the screen black borders to the desired aspect ratios. Most theaters have a 2:1 screen as they no longer present movies in the "Old Edison" 4x3 (1.33:1) format. (BTW with the "Academy" Aperature the image is 1.37:1.)
It is true that except for the "scope" films all other aspect ratios are related to the films image width. Since the stereo sound track has been added to "scope" films the actual image after it is unsqueezed provides a 2.35:1 image on the screen.
For Home Theater If you could buy an HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD with a squeezed image in the 16x9 high definition format then its16x9 video frame would have to be stretched from the 1920 pixel width with an anamorphic lens to fill a 2.35:1 screen and still maintain the 1080 pixel height. This would require an anamorphic with a with only a 32% stretch of the image. (BTW anamorphic films today are 2.39:1.)
I don't think the studios are going to do this extra manipulating of the images since "scope" films are in the minority. All other films use various areas of the film so why not the HD images also use various areas of the projectors native pixel area and not complicate things with an anamorphic. BTW for most Home Theaters anything at or above1280x720 is great anyway when sitting in the "sweet" spot.
Last edited by hdtvjim on Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
vstone
- Member
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:38 pm
I believe the original format was 1.37 and became the Acedemy 1.33 when they alloted room for the optical audio track. I've never heard it called the Edison format, but it wouldn't surprise me if he originated it. I once read that the 35mm format came from slicing 70mm film, which apparently was the standard (or at least readible available) for the still film negatives, in half.
The compression I was referring to was the MPEG compression, not anamorphic compression. I don't knoe how digital projectors go from 1.85 to 2.35.
The compression I was referring to was the MPEG compression, not anamorphic compression. I don't knoe how digital projectors go from 1.85 to 2.35.
Last edited by vstone on Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
hdtvjim
- Member
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:14 pm
Edison Format
Edison is credited with inventing movies hence the 4x3 image he used is sometimes refered to as "The Old Edison format".
Film is made on big wide rolls and are slit to the desired width. For motion picture and other uses sproket holes are added after the film is made and slit to the desired width.
You are correct the 1.37 image is projected in 1.33 by masking with the aperature plate in the projector.
As far as aspect ratio screens there are only two in the TV world 4x3 (1.33:1) and 16x9 (1.78:1). The 4x3 is expected to dissapear on February 17, 2009 when all analog transmitters are to be turned off. However 4x3 will be around for a long time because 4x3 is legacy and will be with us for a long time. 16x9 is the best screen compromise when 4x3 is included. Otherwise 2:1 is the best overall choice and that is what the movie theaters have gone to.
Film is made on big wide rolls and are slit to the desired width. For motion picture and other uses sproket holes are added after the film is made and slit to the desired width.
You are correct the 1.37 image is projected in 1.33 by masking with the aperature plate in the projector.
As far as aspect ratio screens there are only two in the TV world 4x3 (1.33:1) and 16x9 (1.78:1). The 4x3 is expected to dissapear on February 17, 2009 when all analog transmitters are to be turned off. However 4x3 will be around for a long time because 4x3 is legacy and will be with us for a long time. 16x9 is the best screen compromise when 4x3 is included. Otherwise 2:1 is the best overall choice and that is what the movie theaters have gone to.
Last edited by hdtvjim on Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
I will cover the comments/questions in one post to avoid splitting the material.
When I finished typing the last paragraph of this response to the several questions I realized that I typed 4 pages of material that might appear in the next articles, but is done.
My use of the word CinemaScope as applied for this project is also to convey the idea of being wider than 1.78:1 (HDTV), and anything wider would produce bars in presentation, and the bars use space, and use chip resolution, considering that most projectors today are chip based DLP, LCD, LCoS, and most recently 1080px1920 resolution in 1 or 3 chips.
Their chips are fixed to the resolution of their design; the geometry of the CinemaScope movie (again, anything wider than 1.78:1 for this general article purpose) would require that the chip use parts of it for the bars to be projected on the screen.
The articles are for making readers aware that there is a way around other than loosing that resolution of the projector, and that way around is now in the consumers hands.
It obviously requires a 2.35:1 screen to show all the width of the original image if one were to maintain the height (of the projector chip 1080 vertical resolution, and the screen), reason by which this project if only for front projector installations.
Regarding how many movies are shot as (or should I say are transferred to) 2.35, 1.85, 1.78, 2.40, 2.39, etc, I frankly do not feel the need to keep track of their share in the big pie, but judging by the most recent publications that show that information, like WSR, one can see than in a 5 month period the movies reviewed are about 50 to 60% in the wider formats at of above 2.35:1, mostly 2.35:1.
Most of the newer Hi Def DVDs are coming out as 2.35:1 and above, BD in December was 5 over 3, in January was 6 over 3, in February will be 6 over 2. In HD DVD is about half and half. But that depends on the timing of release of movies on each video format, maybe one should also see the actual filmmaking pie, but again, what it counts for the project is what we see at home.
In regular DVD releases during 2 weeks in December 15 titles were 2.35:1 and wider, 3 listed as TBD, 9 titles were not wider than 2.35:1.
I know that WSR Magazine on the web keeps a Data Base that any subscriber can consult back to day one; perhaps the person making the statement above could do such research for us, it would be interesting knowing the share of ARs.
But most importantly, it would be interesting to research the gradual shifting of filmmaking to wider formats (or not). Remember film became a wider AR when TV came to town in the 50s, they had to offer something you could not view on a TV.
Now that TV is 16:9 I would not be surprised if Hollywood wants again to experiment with wider formats for the public to get back to the movie theater to maintain this valuable art industry alive, an art and industry everyone needs in one way or another.
On the other hand, there will always the valid case of those directors that choose 16:9 for their OAR on the movie, so it will show exactly the same way in HDTV at home, rather than Pan-Scan, or with black bars, which they know the public is always confused about the reason, and the feeling of losing some content with the bars, when is the opposite.
It is important to note that no matter what that pie % of 2.35:1 movies would be now, the number would not be that low to disregard their existence and the frequent use of the wider format, which brings the need for our magazine to do the effort I am doing to explain projects like this, to extract the best of the movie, the media, and the projector.
Some of the other questions, such as the bars and resolution questions on the different formats, were already partially addressed; but more information will be appearing on the next articles that provide some light about those matters that seem confusing to grasp at the beginning.
This series of articles is not intended to provide a lecture of the differences, the evolution, the applicability, and the percent of implementation of any widescreen format used by filmmaking. For that subject, I recommend going back to some excellent articles that over the years the WSR Magazine published so expertly, credit should be due for that effort to Gary Reber, the publisher.
Again, the purpose of this project is to describe a system that first recognizes the existence of wider formats, formats that are not necessarily following a replacement or non-replacement objective when chosen by a director, their effect on current 16:9 equipment and media, and how one can make such system improve the final result by using anamorphic lens and scalers, rather than doing nothing, waste resolution, view bars (or masks of the bars), and adapt to a smaller image, smaller than it could be in a CH approach.
There are some anamorphic lenses that are AR adjustable and provide a bit more control on the different ARs, however, I did not hear good remarks about the collateral damage caused by such adjusting capability, damage to the image quality itself, the main ingredient that one should never compromise.
Reason by which I chose toward quality rather than adjustability, and selected a lens that was fixed to 2.35:1, a lens system that was sturdy and professionally constructed, and also of choice by several projector manufacturers for their near future projector/lens package solutions that we will start seeing in 2007 (a driver that must not be ignored).
In other words, if you like a projector because of its quality, including its projector lens, it is important to know why the manufacturer is choosing a CH solution with lens
When I finished typing the last paragraph of this response to the several questions I realized that I typed 4 pages of material that might appear in the next articles, but is done.
My use of the word CinemaScope as applied for this project is also to convey the idea of being wider than 1.78:1 (HDTV), and anything wider would produce bars in presentation, and the bars use space, and use chip resolution, considering that most projectors today are chip based DLP, LCD, LCoS, and most recently 1080px1920 resolution in 1 or 3 chips.
Their chips are fixed to the resolution of their design; the geometry of the CinemaScope movie (again, anything wider than 1.78:1 for this general article purpose) would require that the chip use parts of it for the bars to be projected on the screen.
The articles are for making readers aware that there is a way around other than loosing that resolution of the projector, and that way around is now in the consumers hands.
It obviously requires a 2.35:1 screen to show all the width of the original image if one were to maintain the height (of the projector chip 1080 vertical resolution, and the screen), reason by which this project if only for front projector installations.
Regarding how many movies are shot as (or should I say are transferred to) 2.35, 1.85, 1.78, 2.40, 2.39, etc, I frankly do not feel the need to keep track of their share in the big pie, but judging by the most recent publications that show that information, like WSR, one can see than in a 5 month period the movies reviewed are about 50 to 60% in the wider formats at of above 2.35:1, mostly 2.35:1.
Most of the newer Hi Def DVDs are coming out as 2.35:1 and above, BD in December was 5 over 3, in January was 6 over 3, in February will be 6 over 2. In HD DVD is about half and half. But that depends on the timing of release of movies on each video format, maybe one should also see the actual filmmaking pie, but again, what it counts for the project is what we see at home.
In regular DVD releases during 2 weeks in December 15 titles were 2.35:1 and wider, 3 listed as TBD, 9 titles were not wider than 2.35:1.
I know that WSR Magazine on the web keeps a Data Base that any subscriber can consult back to day one; perhaps the person making the statement above could do such research for us, it would be interesting knowing the share of ARs.
But most importantly, it would be interesting to research the gradual shifting of filmmaking to wider formats (or not). Remember film became a wider AR when TV came to town in the 50s, they had to offer something you could not view on a TV.
Now that TV is 16:9 I would not be surprised if Hollywood wants again to experiment with wider formats for the public to get back to the movie theater to maintain this valuable art industry alive, an art and industry everyone needs in one way or another.
On the other hand, there will always the valid case of those directors that choose 16:9 for their OAR on the movie, so it will show exactly the same way in HDTV at home, rather than Pan-Scan, or with black bars, which they know the public is always confused about the reason, and the feeling of losing some content with the bars, when is the opposite.
It is important to note that no matter what that pie % of 2.35:1 movies would be now, the number would not be that low to disregard their existence and the frequent use of the wider format, which brings the need for our magazine to do the effort I am doing to explain projects like this, to extract the best of the movie, the media, and the projector.
Some of the other questions, such as the bars and resolution questions on the different formats, were already partially addressed; but more information will be appearing on the next articles that provide some light about those matters that seem confusing to grasp at the beginning.
This series of articles is not intended to provide a lecture of the differences, the evolution, the applicability, and the percent of implementation of any widescreen format used by filmmaking. For that subject, I recommend going back to some excellent articles that over the years the WSR Magazine published so expertly, credit should be due for that effort to Gary Reber, the publisher.
Again, the purpose of this project is to describe a system that first recognizes the existence of wider formats, formats that are not necessarily following a replacement or non-replacement objective when chosen by a director, their effect on current 16:9 equipment and media, and how one can make such system improve the final result by using anamorphic lens and scalers, rather than doing nothing, waste resolution, view bars (or masks of the bars), and adapt to a smaller image, smaller than it could be in a CH approach.
There are some anamorphic lenses that are AR adjustable and provide a bit more control on the different ARs, however, I did not hear good remarks about the collateral damage caused by such adjusting capability, damage to the image quality itself, the main ingredient that one should never compromise.
Reason by which I chose toward quality rather than adjustability, and selected a lens that was fixed to 2.35:1, a lens system that was sturdy and professionally constructed, and also of choice by several projector manufacturers for their near future projector/lens package solutions that we will start seeing in 2007 (a driver that must not be ignored).
In other words, if you like a projector because of its quality, including its projector lens, it is important to know why the manufacturer is choosing a CH solution with lens
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
hdtvjim,
Regarding your comment:
"The 4x3 is expected to dissapear on February 17, 2009 when all analog transmitters are to be turned off. "
What makes you think that the DTV deadline would make 4:3 disappear?
Please review the DTV formats on the Glossary:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php
HDTV is the only format that is "16:9 only" but the DTV mandate is not for HDTV, is for DTV in general, of which HDTV is only the higher resolution formats, and is not even mandated.
480i and 480p formats of the mandated DTV could be 16:9 and 4:3.
In addition, ther will be tons of legacy 4:3 content that will continue to be delivered as 4:3 for years to come.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
Regarding your comment:
"The 4x3 is expected to dissapear on February 17, 2009 when all analog transmitters are to be turned off. "
What makes you think that the DTV deadline would make 4:3 disappear?
Please review the DTV formats on the Glossary:
http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/glossary.php
HDTV is the only format that is "16:9 only" but the DTV mandate is not for HDTV, is for DTV in general, of which HDTV is only the higher resolution formats, and is not even mandated.
480i and 480p formats of the mandated DTV could be 16:9 and 4:3.
In addition, ther will be tons of legacy 4:3 content that will continue to be delivered as 4:3 for years to come.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
hdtvjim,
I believe you should review at the way movies of wider AR are actually stored in DVD (Hi Def or regular).
Your statement of:
"For Home Theater If you could buy an HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD with a compressed image in the 16x9 high definition format then its16x9 video frame would have to be stretched from the 1920 pixel width with an anamorphic lens to fill a 2.35:1 screen and still maintain the 1080 pixel height. This would require an anamorphic with a with only a 32% stretch of the image. (BTW anamorphic films today are 2.39:1.) "
You are missing the point, the 16x9 video frame contains the wider image with its bars into it, to fill the 1080, which means that the projector would not use all its 1080 pixels of the chip for the image but for the bars as well, and that is not resolved by just using anamorphic lenses and stretching laterally.
You need a combination of scaler and lens to use the full potential of the projector chip, and to show a larger 2.35:1 image that when all the pixels are used it should be brighter and better defined than just stretching.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
I believe you should review at the way movies of wider AR are actually stored in DVD (Hi Def or regular).
Your statement of:
"For Home Theater If you could buy an HD DVD or Blue Ray DVD with a compressed image in the 16x9 high definition format then its16x9 video frame would have to be stretched from the 1920 pixel width with an anamorphic lens to fill a 2.35:1 screen and still maintain the 1080 pixel height. This would require an anamorphic with a with only a 32% stretch of the image. (BTW anamorphic films today are 2.39:1.) "
You are missing the point, the 16x9 video frame contains the wider image with its bars into it, to fill the 1080, which means that the projector would not use all its 1080 pixels of the chip for the image but for the bars as well, and that is not resolved by just using anamorphic lenses and stretching laterally.
You need a combination of scaler and lens to use the full potential of the projector chip, and to show a larger 2.35:1 image that when all the pixels are used it should be brighter and better defined than just stretching.
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra