Constant-height display systems adjust a front-projected image so that no resolution is wasted on creating black bars above and below the picture when showing super-widescreen movies. For instance, when you go from watching an HDTV program with a 16:9 aspect ratio to a movie with a 2.35:1 ratio, the system fills the entire screen instead of adding bars to compensate for the wider image. To do this, it has to maintain a constant image height — and thus, its somewhat unwieldy name.
It seems to me that mere anamorphic magnification will get you nothing in terms of wasted resolution unless the source has the film recorded anamorphically. (That is, if the black bars are in the material, zooming gets you nothing.)
As pointed out below, if you're watching DVDs/BluRays, resolution is still wasted. What isn't wasted is vertical wall area. The image gets larger to match the height, so it in essence gets wider instead of shorter when you go to a wider aspect ratio.
This is not how theaters do it, BTW. Almost all theaters make the image shorter when wider aspects are used.
If you use film, or have custom content, you could make an anamorphic image on the disc, like 4:3 enhanced is in DVD. Then stretch it during projection and you still get full resolution, just wasted wall area.
End CinemaScope (2.35:1) now! Stop wasting screen (wall) area and resolution.
The most important part about CIH projection is that it preserves the intended "impact" of 2.35:1 movies. Generally, these are the big action flicks and others of more epic scope, where the filmmakers chose this apsect ratio in order to immerse you more fully in the movie by filling more of your peripheral vision with picture.
As "why not" says above, many of our modern shoebox theaters now use vertical masking to change from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 aspect ratios, the same way a widescreen TV adds "black bars" above and below the picture. I think letting the movie theater architecture dictate artistic choice is a very bad idea. Instead, we should be asking for theaters to project films the way the creators intended, and seeking out and spending our money at theaters who do it right. Besides, even if we were to suddenly have a wholesale shift from 2.35:1 back to 1.85:1 for all future films, there is an existing library of hundreds or thousands of great films that I would like to see in the home with their intended impact intact.
I still dream of a CIH home theater. Maybe someday, if I'm lucky.
Multiplexes already show even 1.85:1 movies using the full width of the theater (typically 3 feet or less unused between the edge of the screen and the corner of the theater). There's no way they could make the image wider for 2.35:1 movies than 1.85:1 movies. All they can do is make 1.85 movies narrower or 2.35:1 shorter.
I'll take as much picture as possible. That means as tall as possible and as wide as possible, and that generally means 1.85:1. IMAX is 1.43:1, and it fills your field of view very well.
End CinemaScope now. It's wasting screen space and it's wasting resolution.
So why, what you're really asking for is not a particular aspect ratio--it's just to use the entire front wall of the theater. Theaters should be building their front walls in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and then we'll both be happy. Long live the 2.35:1 ratio!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Adam P @ Aug 29th 2008 3:30PM
I don't understand "constant height" -- can someone fill me in? Thanks
zargon @ Aug 29th 2008 4:07PM
Constant-height display systems adjust a front-projected image so that no resolution is wasted on creating black bars above and below the picture when showing super-widescreen movies. For instance, when you go from watching an HDTV program with a 16:9 aspect ratio to a movie with a 2.35:1 ratio, the system fills the entire screen instead of adding bars to compensate for the wider image. To do this, it has to maintain a constant image height — and thus, its somewhat unwieldy name.
jrtallen @ Aug 29th 2008 6:21PM
It seems to me that mere anamorphic magnification will get you nothing in terms of wasted resolution unless the source has the film recorded anamorphically. (That is, if the black bars are in the material, zooming gets you nothing.)
madgamer @ Aug 29th 2008 5:53PM
..nothing except for a picture that is quite a bit larger (depending on screen size).
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 29th 2008 6:05PM
As pointed out below, if you're watching DVDs/BluRays, resolution is still wasted. What isn't wasted is vertical wall area. The image gets larger to match the height, so it in essence gets wider instead of shorter when you go to a wider aspect ratio.
This is not how theaters do it, BTW. Almost all theaters make the image shorter when wider aspects are used.
If you use film, or have custom content, you could make an anamorphic image on the disc, like 4:3 enhanced is in DVD. Then stretch it during projection and you still get full resolution, just wasted wall area.
End CinemaScope (2.35:1) now! Stop wasting screen (wall) area and resolution.
Mr. E @ Aug 29th 2008 7:12PM
The most important part about CIH projection is that it preserves the intended "impact" of 2.35:1 movies. Generally, these are the big action flicks and others of more epic scope, where the filmmakers chose this apsect ratio in order to immerse you more fully in the movie by filling more of your peripheral vision with picture.
As "why not" says above, many of our modern shoebox theaters now use vertical masking to change from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 aspect ratios, the same way a widescreen TV adds "black bars" above and below the picture. I think letting the movie theater architecture dictate artistic choice is a very bad idea. Instead, we should be asking for theaters to project films the way the creators intended, and seeking out and spending our money at theaters who do it right. Besides, even if we were to suddenly have a wholesale shift from 2.35:1 back to 1.85:1 for all future films, there is an existing library of hundreds or thousands of great films that I would like to see in the home with their intended impact intact.
I still dream of a CIH home theater. Maybe someday, if I'm lucky.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 29th 2008 10:59PM
Multiplexes already show even 1.85:1 movies using the full width of the theater (typically 3 feet or less unused between the edge of the screen and the corner of the theater). There's no way they could make the image wider for 2.35:1 movies than 1.85:1 movies. All they can do is make 1.85 movies narrower or 2.35:1 shorter.
I'll take as much picture as possible. That means as tall as possible and as wide as possible, and that generally means 1.85:1. IMAX is 1.43:1, and it fills your field of view very well.
End CinemaScope now. It's wasting screen space and it's wasting resolution.
Mr. E @ Aug 30th 2008 11:07AM
So why, what you're really asking for is not a particular aspect ratio--it's just to use the entire front wall of the theater. Theaters should be building their front walls in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and then we'll both be happy. Long live the 2.35:1 ratio!