Cinemascope Screen

[SDL]

I think the problem appears MLXXX is that you appear to also want an answer that can be critically examined, but why do you prefer red cars and not blue? Why do you prefer Fords to Holdens? I wonder if people that can't accept everything doesn't need to be defined in terms of definitive facts have a hard time staying in a relationship....sorry just thinking out loud I'm sure you can all put up with the illogical choices of your better halves

[betty boop]

  On 29/04/2012 at 4:10 AM, bbar said:

~

Al has challenged that this is an open forum and folk can provide or say anything they want ( Freedom of speech) and it is up to the receiver of the advice to determine whether it is valid or not. He feels that it is overly burdensome to always have to qualify ones statements.

On this rare occasion I disagree with Al. Not abot free speech; but whether it is reasonable to ask distinguished members to provide parameters for there recommendations where said recommendations cannot be applied universally. I believe it is easy to provide advice within parameters like in my environment I am experiencing 'X' ; or I am doing X as it gives me Y. Or where there is scientific evidence such as ability to resolve detail at different resolutions based on seating distance. Giving this information or knowledge to people is helpful.

If advice is simple like will this PJ be bright enough with this screen size and throw then we can provide real life numbers if we have one or can use others real life experience or use a web site who states that numbers are based on manufacturers information. You have provided guidance here and stated that numbers are based on manufacturers and are probably optimistic and not based on 'best' mode settings. You have also stated with JVC x3 that there numbers are fairly accurate and you were able to confirm with your own measurements. This is Helpful.

bbar not a challenge as such, just stating what is hopefully the obvious. and while I think what your saying is reasonable. what you or I might think is probably irelevant. its something each individual poster usually decides when posting on a forum, their manner, content. not something you or I have any control of.

while the detail you put into posts is commendable and really helpfull for a lot of people, unfortunaltely its an unrealistic expectation to have of everyone posting on this forum. just not going to happen. I know even myself at times will go into a bit of detail in posting if think will help or needed and just kicking back with some time on my hands, but at other timess can be quite brief where think detail is not warranted or necessary or really needed or for that matter just making a quick post inbetween things.

also with your example, "you have provided guidance here and stated that numbers are based on manufacturers and are probably optimistic and not based on 'best' mode settings. You have also stated with JVC x3 that there numbers are fairly accurate and you were able to confirm with your own measurements. This is Helpful. "

I've actually found owens comments in regard projectors and their brightness actually quite misleading and not really helpfull, especially in dealing with projectors he has obviously never experienced or set eyes on let alone been able to confirm with any measurements.

[bbar]

[quote name=' timestamp='1335679725' post='1800701]

bbar not a challenge as such, just stating what is hopefully the obvious. and while I think what your saying is reasonable. what you or I might think is probably irelevant. its something each individual poster usually decides when posting on a forum, their manner, content. not something you or I have any control of.

while the detail you put into posts is commendable and really helpfull for a lot of people, unfortunaltely its an unrealistic expectation to have of everyone posting on this forum. just not going to happen. I know even myself at times will go into a bit of detail in posting if think will help or needed and just kicking back with some time on my hands, but at other timess can be quite brief where think detail is not warranted or necessary or really needed or for that matter just making a quick post inbetween things.

also with your example, "you have provided guidance here and stated that numbers are based on manufacturers and are probably optimistic and not based on 'best' mode settings. You have also stated with JVC x3 that there numbers are fairly accurate and you were able to confirm with your own measurements. This is Helpful. "

I've actually found owens comments in regard projectors and their brightness actually quite misleading, especially in dealing with projectors he has obviously never experienced or set eyes on let alone been able to confirm with any measurements.

Hey Al, happy when u challenge as you always have good points. Also not disagreeing each poster will do what they want and it is beyond anyones control unless they violate forum guidelines then the mods act.

Agree also that no need to provide detail when not warranted or unable for whatever reason. The point I was trying to raise was giving parameters when the advice you are giving is only valid within certain parameters or the impact is only relevant within certain situations is important as it is basically dis-information/advice if excluded. It behooves the poster to make that information available when not already known by the Op or the other person in the discussion as not doing so just creates useless discussion on points. To me better not to make the comments/post if one knows it will cause a sh!t fight without it. Also avoiding inflammatory global statements goes a long way to reducing the angst in other contributors. We have been around long enough to see that there are ways to have a productive information exchange and ways to turn it into a Sh!t fight.

My way or the highway is an open invitation to a sh!t fight. Based on my preferences and my environment I chose Z typically brings positive questions about your environment and preferences and your decision process. All constructive and helpful posts.

This thread is a case in point to my assertions.

Actually can remember your interchange with Owen and again much along the lines of AJM. Again, a case in point to my assertions.

When he provided guidance based on personal experience and warned on specific manufacturers numbers being optimistic, he was probably more helpful. When his statement was a sweeping negative then he got a number of backs up which invoked negative responses. I think we respond more critically to him than others as we know he is knowledgeable member and expect more from him than we would another infrequent poster.

Would say the same about you Al. You are respected here and if you started to make strong negative statements about everything except what you have then you would probably get the same strong response.

[bbar]

  On 29/04/2012 at 6:02 AM, SDL said:

I think the problem appears MLXXX is that you appear to also want an answer that can be critically examined, but why do you prefer red cars and not blue? Why do you prefer Fords to Holdens? I wonder if people that can't accept everything doesn't need to be defined in terms of definitive facts have a hard time staying in a relationship....sorry just thinking out loud I'm sure you can all put up with the illogical choices of your better halves

Must agree and MLXXX, I respect your technical knowledge as it exceeds mine; however you must accept that sometimes things are simple and don't need a detailed analysis.

Let me say that there are people I would bow to re their knowledge. Al for Audio, Owen and yourself for detailed technical knowledge on video and probably you for audiobut more from a technical/analytical point of view,

However, like Al, SDL, AJM, Yorac, Blade and others (sorry to any if I have used your name in vain) I believe that sometimes folk just like something because they do and that is good enough for us. I think we also are into enjoying the experience HT provide and do not need to debate that X is better than Y by some small increment either by sophisticated measurement equipment or by eye.

I think we need to step back and look at a thread and intelligently decide is this just a red versus blue question ( thats colour and not Blu-ray versus HDDVD) rather than a thread asking for a technical debate on every aspect.

Edited April 29, 2012 by bbar

[MLXXX]

  On 29/04/2012 at 5:41 AM, bbar said:

To me it is simple

- if you watch mostly 16:9 stuff (TV,Games, Movies....) ;and/or it offends you more to watch 16:9 at the same height as scope; and/or you want to sit <2.6 times height and can see softness on DVD's, SD TV and scope encodes; and/or your room is horizontally challenged then go with 16:9 screen;

- If it offends you less to have 16:9 encodes with black bars at side; and/or you predominantly display scope material; and/or you have the room size to display 16:9 at the size you want and the extra width to view scope encodes; and you sit > 2.5 times image height and/or are not affected/care about softness when seating < 2.5 times screen height then go scope.

Now we can make it harder than that but it does not have to be any more difficult than that.

Those two paragraphs each introduced with a dash don't strike me as particuarly simple, bbar! There are many factors to consider, interactively.

I would hesitate to know exacty what was meant by the factor of "you sit >2.5 times image height". That may involve a tacit assumption of CIH. There may also be an assumption of a constant seating distance. It is also unlcear what image quality is involved. Just that one factor is difficult for me to interpret. At home, I sometimes sit closer for high definition material than for standard definition.

I note that despite there being a mention of whether the room is wide enough for scope, there is no corresponding mention of whether there is enough vertical wall space for tall 16:9 (relevant for people who place cabinets under their screens, or perhaps have non-tiered seating that precludes using the bottom of the wall area for screen purposes). Again a tacit assumption of CIH may be present.

Anyway...

For the record, applying those two paragraphs, as best I can interpret them, the answer for me would be a large 16:9 screen, wide enough for scope i.e. as wide as I would want it for scope, but allowing me to view 16:9 at up to the same width.

As someone has mentioned, participation in this thread can be exhausting. I think I will leave this post as my last salvo. Cheers

[ajm1503559545]

  On 29/04/2012 at 5:08 AM, MLXXX said:

Surely, if there are arguments for scope screens instead of 16:9 sreens of similar width, they can be presented. As I understand it, the factors for would include the following:

Surely there are. And surely if you're set on arguing then it would be ideal to only consider and comment on one side of the argument. And this is the origin of the "angst". My hope is just to see opinions and preferences recognised and expressed as such and I couldn't give a rate knacker what "side" they're on.

Again, bbar puts is better than I.

[bbar]

See and I thought they were simple. Happy to explain if they are not.

The distance thing is basically Owens view that one can comfortably watch a 16:9 encode down to 2 X screen height which would have a resulting 2.6 X height for a scope on a 16:9 screen. He says that softness is visible when one watches a scope encode at 2.0 or 2.3 X screen height.

So, one can possibly perceive softness at < 2.6 times screen height for scope encodes then advice could be to recommend scope when seating distance to height on scope screen is > 2.5 X image height unless softness not an issue for the person.

Basically it is personal choice unless there are room restrictions and/or specific seating distances then choices may become restricted.

Nothing more than that and agree re vertical height restrictions can also influence recommendations in some situations.

[SDL]

  On 29/04/2012 at 8:10 AM, MLXXX said:

For the record, applying those two paragraphs, as best I can interpret them, the answer for me would be a large 16:9 screen, wide enough for scope i.e. as wide as I would want it for scope, but allowing me to view 16:9 at up to the same width.

As someone has mentioned, participation in this thread can be exhausting. I think I will leave this post as my last salvo. Cheers

Great you have stated your preference, and that is fine, but hopefully you can see that it doesn't mean everyone must make the same choice and because you decide based on the possiblities that you will go for the biggest 16:9 that everyone should, or that the discussion takes in all parameters that help others make a decision and are therefore not facts but just preferences based on choices available.

[SDL]

Oh and for the record I just watched Kung Fu Panda 2 on my scope screen with my 5 year old and it looked awesome ( pun intended)

[oztheatre]

Maybe a new format is needed??? The sixteenninascope should keep everyone happy : /

One format would be great...would like something even wider again... 2.80:1

[SDL]

Or instead of masking the screen rolls out sideways for scope

[betty boop]

  On 29/04/2012 at 10:02 AM, SDL said:

Or instead of masking the screen rolls out sideways for scope

extendable table style

[mello yello]

  On 29/04/2012 at 6:02 AM, SDL said:

but why do you prefer red cars and not blue?

Why do you prefer Fords to Holdens?

I wonder if people that can't accept everything doesn't need to be defined in terms of definitive facts have a hard time staying in a relationship....sorry just thinking out loud I'm sure you can all put up with the illogical choices of your better halves

technically ALL cars consist of a combination of the three primary colours used in pigments and dyes which are cyan , magenta and yello.

In CRT technology the primary colours are red/blue/green although the set red/blu/yello is popular amongst artists

it is also a proven fact that red cars do indeed go faster

than blue cars

even ones with 6 wheel drive

so its NOT as simple as red/blue as there are millions of variables in between, of which any single one could be a determining factor in determining final choice

also to say there is no other choice other than a Holden or Ford is an example of the sweeping statement being "complained" about

if you find your point can you chuck it this way, SD ?

[mello yello]

  On 29/04/2012 at 3:02 AM, Owen said:

Why is it that some here spend so much time and effort abusing and vilifying me, but non explaining to the punters why they are better of with a scope screen. They accuse me of distorting/misrepresenting the facts yet put nothing up themselves even when asked to.

Playing the man and not the ball is a great sport for those who cant support their case.

...and it makes me wonder...

[minty]

Time this thread was probably closed, especially now seeing as the resident troll has slid up from OT to add nothing but his usual dribble. Also everyone from what I can tell realises either way is down to personal preference, except one person who keeps banging on about his way, and then makes up some crap about personal attacks and vilification when challenged.

[mello yello]

  On 29/04/2012 at 1:25 PM, seatonrocks said:

Time this thread was probably closed, especially now seeing as the resident troll has slid up from OT to add nothing but his usual dribble. Also everyone from what I can tell realises either way is down to personal preference, except one person who keeps banging on about his way, and then makes up some crap about personal attacks and vilification when challenged.

been around longer than you son, and lifes not a case of close it and hope the truth goes away

besides, Chopsus suggested I post more in the main threads, so my input here is that its more than just an A/B comparison and choice, and to keep an eye out for Owen who has more than enough technical knowledge to deserve not to be villified like a cheap hooker in a gay bar in other threads because of what he believes here

however I feel it only fair that I give you some reciprocal feedback and compliment you on your new found tolerance towards others' "personal preference" and your evolution of thought to not take it "personal" if someone prefers something other than what you used to promote as your preference. Ironic innit how worms turn?

As for "crap" regarding villification, you provide a shining example of what not to do on a forum and hopefully you have learned from your reprieve from the permanent ban you recently survived

[mello yello]

[mello yello]

  On 10/04/2012 at 10:57 AM, Sati001 said:

Hi Guys,

Sorry, I know this has been asked many times and I have gone throught alot of threads but still not sure what's the correct answer for me. I am really confused with this and will really appreciate some help.

I am planning to buy Panasonic ae7000u for dedicated theater room - 4.7 m x 4.4 m (screen wall - height 2.7 m). I saw LP Morgan 132 manual masking screen demo and absolutly loved its cinemascope. But for 16:9 aspect, my first impression was the screen ia not grand enough and wasted too much screen space on sides. But the whole focus was on cinemascope, so not sure if 16:9 was Ok or not.

I will be using my project to watch foxtel (sports, movies), blu-ray movies and xbox/ps3 games.

Considering all of the above, what is the screen size and aspect radio you guys recommend for me.

Many thanks for the help.

Regards,

Leo

there are many correct answers for you, O.B 001

since you mention your primary project is mostly 16:9 source I would suggest a format that best suits your sources.

loving cinemascope would be easy to do, but if you liken it to women you could say the 16:9 is the faithful old mousey girlfriend and the cinemascope you "love" is the hot redhead that looked your way

you may have to convert to Islam where you could have both wives, however I dont think Shia law allows you to own 2 HTs

[minty]

  On 29/04/2012 at 8:12 PM, mello yello II said:

been around longer than you son, and lifes not a case of close it and hope the truth goes away

besides, Chopsus suggested I post more in the main threads, so my input here is that its more than just an A/B comparison and choice, and to keep an eye out for Owen who has more than enough technical knowledge to deserve not to be villified like a cheap hooker in a gay bar in other threads because of what he believes here

however I feel it only fair that I give you some reciprocal feedback and compliment you on your new found tolerance towards others' "personal preference" and your evolution of thought to not take it "personal" if someone prefers something other than what you used to promote as your preference. Ironic innit how worms turn?

As for "crap" regarding villification, you provide a shining example of what not to do on a forum and hopefully you have learned from your reprieve from the permanent ban you recently survived

Apologies troll I temporary forgot I can't express my opinion as I don't have a post count or years of trolling/posting such as you do.

And thanks for the lesson on vilification, you have much experience in that field so much appreciated.

I also didn't know you ran a front projection setup, so apologies there also. Maybe you could post some pics of your setup? Is it scope or 16.9? People asking questions in here might prefer to know the answers are coming from people with actual experience rather than trolls looking for a reaction.

[mello yello]

  Quote

DTV Gods :

"Problems? Please use the report button and detail your concern."

also ignore buttons work both ways, you cant say you are ignoring someone and villify them further, its another contradiction in terms

[mello yello]

  On 29/04/2012 at 10:01 PM, seatonrocks said:

I also didn't know you ran a front projection setup, so apologies there also. Maybe you could post some pics of your setup? Is it scope or 16.9? People asking questions in here might prefer to know the answers are coming from people with actual experience rather than trolls looking for a reaction.

nope , nada projectors, a pure 16:9 setup

my advice to the OP is generic, you dont have to own a motorbike to suggest to someone to get a motorbike if you are wanting to go for a motorboke ride

apology accepted

[minty]

  On 29/04/2012 at 10:09 PM, mello yello II said:

nope , nada projectors, a pure 16:9 setup

my advice to the OP is generic, you dont have to own a motorbike to suggest to someone to get a motorbike if you are wanting to go for a motorboke ride

apology accepted

Just as I knew, nothing much happening in OT so the troll wandered up here for nothing more than an adverse reaction and controversy to feed his trolling appetite. It's not advice you're giving, it's an opinion based on zero experience.

[BladeRnR]

  On 29/04/2012 at 10:20 PM, seatonrocks said:

Just as I knew, nothing much happening in OT so the troll wandered up here for nothing more than an adverse reaction and controversy to feed his trolling appetite. It's not advice you're giving, it's an opinion based on zero experience.

Leave the Megalomaniac to it's own devices gents. It posts in the main forum only to garner reaction if it's not getting any down in OT so don't buy into it.

Any advice from it is akin to heeding Joseph Mengele delivering a speech on racial tolerance & love at a Hari Krishna rally.

Ignore is the best policy.

Blade

Edited April 29, 2012 by BladeRnR

[mello yello]

  On 29/04/2012 at 10:20 PM, seatonrocks said:

Just as I knew, nothing much happening in OT so the troll wandered up here for nothing more than an adverse reaction and controversy to feed his trolling appetite. It's not advice you're giving, it's an opinion based on zero experience.

thanks for sharing your meandering paranoid thoughts and theories based on your zero experience and insight but if my input causes you convulsions because I choose 16:9 based on source material and offer that as advice opposed to your choice of scope then I suggest youd be better served using the ignore button as well as Ms yorac

[mello yello]

just for the record

before seatonrocks ( aka birdyblitz) succesfully uses anti-social behaviour to achieve his goal of "locking this thread" in the interests of Harmony remotes

here is where the real trolling took place...

http://www.dtvforum....dpost&p=1800334

...and the slagging of members in unrelated threads I brought up