Return to the CurtPalme.com main site CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletters ]

 
Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Photo AlbumsPhoto Albums  RegisterRegister 
 MembershipClub Membership   ProfileProfile   Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in 
Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

Kal's basement Home Theatre/Bar/Brewery build 2.0
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Home Theater Design & Construction
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


        Register to remove this ad. It's free!
benareeno wrote:
When the apocalypse happens....do you have room for one more in your compound?? Smile

Room for many... and lots of beer too (unless the world supply of grain runs out...) Wink

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
VideoGrabber



Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan


PostLink    Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

benareeno commented:

> please...please...just try watching a 16:9 movie on a 2:35:1 screen...and cut off the top and bottom. Unless it's a tv show, it will likely look fine with a bit cut from top and bottom. <

This is just crazy-talk. Very Happy Throwing away a whopping 26% of the content, on purpose! This makes no more sense than cropping off 24% of the width to fit a 16:9 screen. In each case, you're losing something... possibly important. In neither case do you wind up seeing the "whole show".

When content is captured, it is done while viewing in a specific aspect-ratio. So certain things are included or excluded, by choice, not accident. Including things meant to be outside the field of view (boom mikes, support people) is distracting. Removing elements meant to be inside the FOV can range from distracting to debilitating. I.e., making something totally meaningless, because there's some key element you can't see. Or perhaps you enjoy the tops of people's head chopped off? My Dad certainly seemed to, in some of the photos he took when we were kids. Smile

It's time folks stop trying to make "one size fits all" solutions, because they are no solution. Accept the fact that movie and TV content comes in all shapes and sizes, just like photographs and paintings do. And design your display surface large enough in both dimensions to be able to accept any type of content. At least with FP-based systems, you still have this flexibility. Don't throw it away with rigid thinking.

[And with digital systems, you no longer have to be concerned with phosphor utilization %ages and wear factors. So they do have that going for them. Even with CRTs, you can fit a wider image into 2.35 than you can 1.78 or 1.33 (going taller on those).]

_________________
- Tim
Back to top
Ile



Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1491
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland


PostLink    Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:
I'm used to a traditional sauna (high heat/low humidity) but we're planning on using a heater that does both traditional heat sauna and cooler steam sauna using a Tylo Combi heater:

Automated steam heaters aren't that popular around here, probably because of traditions.

Few last years heaters with huge amount of stones (100-300 kg) are game more popular, it's kind of newer version of original smoke sauna stoves.

http://www.ikikiuas.com/eng/6.htm

We have traditional 2m x 3m sauna with continuous heated wood stove. No speakers and such...
I have planned something like this wood burning "fish trap" stove when I need new stove.
http://www.ikikiuas.com/eng/original_plus.htm

kal wrote:
I remember as a kid they used to drill into our heads the Estonian sauna 'code of conduct': You had to be very quiet in the sauna. It wasn't a place to play, socialize, or drink. It was almost a place to meditate. As small kids however they probably just wanted to keep us quiet. Wink

Kal
We have similar sauna code around here.

It's always huge debate when someone ask what kind speakers can be installed to sauna or how to install tv to sauna. Laughing

Those that are breaking traditions have used car speakers below heater top level and some have installed tv to cooled closet behind window.

Here's some points for ventilation, it's important for good sauna.
http://www.springssauna.com/saunaVentilation.htm
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ile wrote:
We have traditional 2m x 3m sauna with continuous heated wood stove. No speakers and such...
I have planned something like this wood burning "fish trap" stove when I need new stove.
http://www.ikikiuas.com/eng/original_plus.htm

Nice. There's something about wood burning that just seems nicer. Probably the combination of the smoke smell with the wood & dry heat. It's what I'm used to with the external saunas that my grandparents both had. They were completely separate buildings with a sitting/changing room with a fridge, shower, and sauna. What I liked too is that you fed the fire externally from an outside - no need to move wood through the rooms. This helps make cleanup much easier. I'd be afraid that with the wood burning heater above that it would be messy.

Ile wrote:
We have similar sauna code around here.

Yes, i noticed that. The Finnish & Estonian people follow the same sorts of rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauna#Finnish_sauna

Quote:
It's always huge debate when someone ask what kind speakers can be installed to sauna or how to install tv to sauna. Laughing

I'm not surprised. In North America a lot of them come with car stereo sets & speakers or LED mood lighting. Seems kind of cheesy to me.

Thanks for the ventilation tips!

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wall and ceiling framing has been continuing... bulkhead work has also started.

A shot looking into the bathroom where you can see the 5x7' sauna now completely framed:




A reverse angle view from the shower towards the sauna:



The little alcove to the right of the sauna will hold a bench with some shelves above for towels and other things.


The end of the hallway between the sauna and mechanical room is being framed for floor to ceiling shelves for DVDs/Blu-rays on both sides:



A 'fake' door frame is being created to make this DVD storage area seem more like a separate room instead of just the end of the hallway. It also helps hide the fact that ceiling in the DVD storage area has to drop down significantly because of ductwork.


2x12's waiting to be turned into a home theater riser (platform):




I've been concerned with is keeping noise from the mechanical room (furnace/hot water tank/HRV) out of the home theater as much as possible. (I'm actually more concerned about keeping noise *out* of the theater than the other way around).

One of the things we're doing to help with this is to ensure that there are basically always two walls between the home theater and the mechanical room:



Having two completely isolated walls that are drywalled on the outside only (not inside) and then filled with insulation provides you with an STC (sound transmission class) of about 57. Higher numbers are better. A very effective way to isolate if you have the room for a double wall or can make double walls part of your design.

For comparison sake a single 2x4 wall with standard studs, filled with insulation, with a layer of drywall on either side only has an STC of 36.

It's interesting to note that if you add layers of drywall to the insides of the double wall, the STC actually drops down to about 40. Not much better than just a standard single wall.

One problem location where we can't have double walls is the area shown in red in the previous picture. There's no room to do a double wall as the furnace is extremely close to the DVD storage area. So instead, we do something that's almost nearly as good: Staggered studs.



One row of studs installed, one left to go:



A staggered stud wall filled with insulation and a single layer of drywall on either side will give you an STC of about 48. Not as good as a double wall (STC 58) but much better than non-staggered studs (STC 36). You could argue that it's not required here as the wall is not directly facing towards the home theater, but for the minimal added cost I think it's worth it.

For complete details on this sort of design and construction see 'The Home Theater Book' I help sell:


Link: http://www.curtpalme.com/TheHomeTheaterBook.shtm

This book goes into lots of details on this and facets of home theater construction. Shameless plug: It also has an exclusive audio interview with yours truly on Home Theater calibration. Wink

HEADS UP:

It may be difficult to provide pictures in the next little while as I've agreed to not show any pictures of the bulkhead framing method that our design/build company uses. It's a special method they've been perfecting over the last ~10 years I'm told. It seems to be completely unique and I'm told it results in perfectly straight bulkheads with joints/seams that do not warp or crack over time, less labour/cost/material, and allows for a tighter fit when space is at a premium (as in the case here in some spots).

All I can say is that it seems like a very effective method that is somewhat of a hybrid of different methods I've seen used in the hundreds of Home Theater constructions I've seen and followed in the past. I found it surprising that nobody else seems to have thought of it so I spent a few hours going through photos of hundreds of other home theater builds on various forums to see if anyone else was doing bulkheads this way and I didn't see any. Interesting.

On the brewery related front, I went to go pick up my modified brewery vent hood a couple of days ago but they had (unfortunately) not done the work correctly nor to level of quality promised so it stays with the shop for another week or so. We'll see what happens...

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The riser (platform) for the second row of home theater seating is now done:



The front row of seating goes in front off the riser (to the left in the photo above). The riser puts the second row of seats 12" higher than the first which lets people in the second row see the screen without having to look around heads in the first row.

The screen surface itself will be 28" at the lowest point so a 12" riser works well. When it comes to risers, higher is always better (within reason) but then you start to possibly get bumped heads.

These are the same numbers and distances I used at the old house so I know it works well. The second row may be slightly farther back than what we did previously because now we have more room. We'll see.

One of the problems with risers is trying to find a way to make it interesting and not just be a giant box covered in carpet. They can sometimes look odd in a multi-function room such as this because they're open on 2 sides. In a dedicated home theater room 3 of the sides will be against walls so all you see is steps (no sides).

Since the riser is 12" high a step is required, so we'll use that to add some detail to the riser by including an "open" or "floating" square edged wood step that goes all around the side (including the little angled cutout). Every few feet you put some sort of support. Something like this:



The side of the riser will be matching wood and the top will have a square bullnose (that's the reason the plywood doesn't go right to the edge - to provide room for the bullnose). All this wood will probably be some sort of dark stain.

This should hopefully get rid of that 'giant box of carpet' look.


So how's the old saying go? "Measure twice, cut once?". I had provided the builder my home theater chair dimensions and distances from the screen wall (front row starts at 9' from the screen) so that the riser could be designed/built.

After it was built I did a sanity check and pulled a chair out and realized that the chair depth I provided was 39" but that the chairs are actually closer to 34-35" deep. Oops. When placed in in the right location at 9' from the screen, this left an uncomfortable (unsafe) ~6" gap between the riser and the back of the front row of seats. Not good. You don't want someone to step off the riser by accident and twist an ankle. At the old house the front row of seats came within 2 inches of the riser so I want the same thing here.

So an extra three 2x12's will be added like this:



Measure twice, cut once.


The riser was stuffed with fiberglass insulation before the plywood was screwed to the top. We thought about turning the riser into a broadband bass trap but then decided against it.

What's a bass trap? Bass traps are used in corners to lessen low frequencies that peak at the room boundaries (right tri-corners where velocity is the lowest / pressure is highest). They’re often done in risers with openings that are where the peaks exist which means making a bunch of holes on top of the riser along the side and back wall boundaries. On a riser the size of mine you’d need about 8-10 cutouts for big 4x10" open registers for this to be a broadband bass trap. Use too few and you’ll inadvertently create a Helmholz resonator which (if not tuned properly) usually does more harm than good since it only only absorbs a narrow frequency range.

I decided against it in the end because:

(a) Putting a bunch of 4x10" vents along the side and back would have looked ugly (though really long diffuser registers could probably be found),
(b) It would have probably have to have been framed with 2x6's instead of 2x12's to make one giant cavity to work effectively (more work),
(c) And more importantly: It probably would not have been that much of a benefit given the open concept room and given the fact that the second row won't be that close to the back or side wall where bass peaks may occur.

We'll see. Down the road if I ever get around to measuring the room response I can always cut out some holes for registers if I want. It can always be done later. I rarely sit in the back row anyway. Wink


There's a waste water stack from the main floor powder room that drains to the right of where the first row of seats will end up. This could simply be framed as as column that bumps out (it would actually be perfectly located for the right rear/side bipolar speaker which is to be placed up high), but we feel the bump out would get in the way of the step on that side of the riser. It also creates a break in the wall that isn't matched anywhere else.

Lots of people built columns to hide side/rear speakers but we're not in a dedicated room so having columns on one side we feel would look odd.

So the stack is s being moved into the wall to completely hide it:





Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
paw



Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kal

What's a bulkhead?

The reno looking good!

_________________
Aubrey
Back to top
View user's photo album (8 photos)
Nashou66



Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16170
Location: West Seneca NY


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kal. use resiliancy channels for the dry wall I did it and it really helps.

http://soundproofing.org/infopages/channel.htm

Athanasios

_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher


"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan

One Smart Dog!!!

Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
Back to top
View user's photo album (1 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paw wrote:
What's a bulkhead?

A dropped part of the ceiling. Usually used to hide structural stuff (ducts/pipes/etc) or as an architectural feature to define rooms.

Google basement bulkhead.

Here's an example from elsewhere:



The picture above is actually a good example of what I *DIDN'T* want to see the basement. Tastes are different of course but to me, man, that's one ugly set of bulkheads. Mostly because budget probably didn't allow for the ducts to be moved.

For our basement I didn't want the bulkheads to look exactly like existing sets of duct work with just drywall added. That's what you usually see.

Here's some more reno pics frome the same place (someone else's house) that show exactly the sort of dropped section that we used to have and how it could have looked had we just framed around it without moving any ducts:

Original duct (some other house):



Framed (some other house):



This other reno person (not my guy) uses 2x4's to create bulkheads instead of 2x2's which are common. Using 2x4's helps reduce warping but then you get a bigger bulkhead - they don't know the trick my guy uses which results in keeping bulkheads tight without any warping. Wink (Even the 2x'4 can warp too - best to use something completely different that doesn't warp at all...)

The end result (some other house):



IMHO this stands out too much, but that's just me. It's become a focus point in the room. Of course there's a post there too but posts can be moved by replacing the I-beam with a larger I-beam. That's expensive though and requires engineers to get involved.


Nashou66 wrote:
Kal. use resiliancy channels for the dry wall I did it and it really helps.

It was a consideration but given that I'm just looking at keeping noise from the mechanical room out of the home theater and that I have room for double walls, we went that route as it gives even better isolation. Adding resilient channel on top of that wouldn't do much extra. I also had concerns because it's s really easy to short circuit resilient channel if not installed right, completely negating the usefulness. (I'm not installing it myself and I don't personally know the drywall team they're using - they'd probably be fine but I figured I'd stick with standard building methods).

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0


Last edited by kal on Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:28 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
dturco



Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3779
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland

TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kal, have you looked into Rock Wool for the insulation? I used rock wool in my theater and love the stuff, costs a little bit more, [not much] is better at sound absorption, and is fire proof. That last part is reason enough for the areas where you will have exposed insulation on the rear of some of your walls.

http://www.lowes.com/pd_138683-1278-RXCB351525_4294769460_4294937087_?productId=3388304&Ns=p_product_qty_sales_dollar|1&pl=1&currentURL=%2Fpl_Stone%2BWool%2BInsulation_4294769460_4294937087_%3FNs%3Dp_product_qty_sales_dollar|1&facetInfo=

The brand I used was Roxul, Rockwool, Mineral wool, all the same product.

_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.

http://www.hulu.com/firefly


Last edited by dturco on Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dturco wrote:
Kal, have you looked into Rock Wool for the insulation? I used rock wool in my theater and love the stuff, costs a little bit more, [not much] is better at sound absorption, and is fire proof. That last part is reason enough for the areas where you will have exposed insulation on the rear of some of your walls.

I believe using something like that is part of the plan. Not sure.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
paw



Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:
paw wrote:
What's a bulkhead?

A dropped part of the ceiling. Usually used to hide structural stuff (ducts/pipes/etc) or as an architectural feature to define rooms.

Kal


AAAA!!! I've always called those soffits.

Thanks for the "hint" on framing bulkheads. Use non-wooden frame components to prevent warping. HMMM!!! Steel studs, square alumium tubing, etc.

_________________
Aubrey
Back to top
View user's photo album (8 photos)
paw



Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1176
Location: Arvada, CO


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:
Of course there's a post there too but posts can be moved by replacing the I-beam with a larger I-beam. That's expensive though and requires engineers to get involved.

Kal


I've got TWO I-beams and TWO posts. One I-beam ends with one post. Six inches way another I-beam starts with another post. WHY couldn't they have just used ONE I-beam and ONE post?!?! Evil or Very Mad

_________________
Aubrey
Back to top
View user's photo album (8 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paw wrote:
AAAA!!! I've always called those soffits.

I've seen them called that too, but normally a soffit is the underhang under a roof:



Google images seems to agree.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paw wrote:
I've got TWO I-beams and TWO posts. One I-beam ends with one post. Six inches way another I-beam starts with another post. WHY couldn't they have just used ONE I-beam and ONE post?!?! Evil or Very Mad

Physics.

The one post would have to be larger, as would the single I-beam. That means more expensive. Right now the load is split.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
dturco



Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3779
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland

TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:
paw wrote:
AAAA!!! I've always called those soffits.

I've seen them called that too, but normally a soffit is the underhang under a roof:



Google images seems to agree.

Kal


Nah Kal, a soffit is anything that hangs under something else, like a ceiling or stair case, or even the roof like you say. As a builder, it's a soffit if it doesn't bear a load and a bulkhead when it does bear a load.


From WIKI

Soffit (from French soffite, formed as a ceiling; directly from suffictus for suffixus, Latin suffigere, to fix underneath), in architecture, describes the underside of any construction element. Examples of soffits include:

the underside of an arch or architrave (whether supported by piers or columns),
the underside of a flight of stairs, under the classical entablature,
the underside of a projecting cornice, or side of chimney
the underside of a ceiling to fill the space above the kitchen cabinets, at the corner of the ceiling and wall, the exposed undersurface of any exterior overhanging section of a roof eave.

_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.

http://www.hulu.com/firefly
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator


Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 16370
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-RS56


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dturco wrote:
Nah Kal, a soffit is anything that hangs under something else, like a ceiling or stair case, or even the roof like you say. As a builder, it's a soffit if it doesn't bear a load and a bulkhead when it does bear a load.

Ok. I've seen them referred to as either soffit or bulkhead, but never heard of this load/no load thing.
Somewhere else I searched said that Canadians tend to call them bulkheads, while Americans call them soffits:

Quote:
Soffit

A lowered portion of a ceiling. The horizontal surface below the eave. A porch roof. The under surface of a lowered portion of the ceiling. A "bulkhead" in Canada. An enclosed area used to fill a space between the tops of the wall cabinets and the ceiling.



Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
dturco



Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3779
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland

TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner


PostLink    Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep either word works, but as a builder in my area, bulkhead is when you're covering something that carries a load, soffit is just dressing or covering something that could be moved without any structural change.

Of course I live in a seaside town and I'm sure that marine definition/reference carries over to land lubbers like us.

_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.

http://www.hulu.com/firefly
Back to top
benareeno



Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1614
Location: ottawa, canada


PostLink    Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That poster who damned me for suggesting to crop 16:9 to fit into a 2.4:1 screen because of more screen area...I hope he is watching all 4:3 movies.

If this logic was sound, then why are the best theatrical movies always in 2.4:1? Because it's the best way to watch a movie, that's why.

And having a crt brings some unique compromises...and I have found they're not even compromises. Most movies are filmed to fit to 2.4:1 anyhow. So cropping them is not sacriligious....perhaps viewing them in 16:9 is!

At any rate...I've experimented with all kinds of screens, and nothing beats 2.4:1. It's really that simple. And viewing 16:9 movies in 16:9 is of secondary concern. Viewing them inside 2.4:1 is awesome...same screen size, no matter what.

Last night I watched the Fugitive like this...I'll be damned if anyone on here would find it objectionable. In fact, I now think it's preferable!
Back to top
VideoGrabber



Joined: 09 Apr 2006
Posts: 933
Location: Michigan


PostLink    Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

benareeno wrote:
That poster who damned me for suggesting to crop 16:9 to fit into a 2.4:1 screen because of more screen area...

Who did that? I went back and checked, and AFAICS, _I_ was the only one who commented. And I certainly didn't "damn" you for your suggestion. My apologies if you took offense at the humorous way I expressed my opinion on the subject, and cautioned others that I didn't think it was wise advice. I'm hopeful we can discuss things here in a friendly and cordial fashion, even if we have disagreements. However, I'm beginning to think that aspect ratio is more of a religion than one would like.

Quote:
I hope he is watching all 4:3 movies.

Why? Question

Quote:
If this logic was sound,

?? Which logic are you referring to? My comment that films should be viewed in the same aspect ratio that they are filmed in?

Quote:
...then why are the best theatrical movies always in 2.4:1?

Is this a known fact, that I am unaware of? Or simply your opinion, that you enjoy widescreen films more than otherwise? In any event, I will disagree with you that the best are always in 2.40.

Quote:
Because it's the best way to watch a movie, that's why.

That sounds like an opinion to me. And you are certainly welcome to it. I wouldn't try to talk you out of it, but will not agree with it. And from what I can tell, most folks with CIH screens watch smaller AR films with sidebars (i.e., OAR). So they would disagree with you as well.

Quote:
Most movies are filmed to fit to 2.4:1 anyhow.

This is definitely false. Most movies are not (provable at IMdB), though recently 2.35-2.40 is becoming more popular than in the past.

Quote:
So cropping them is not sacriligious....perhaps viewing them in 16:9 is!

No one said it was sacrilegious. It has nothing to do with religion (or shouldn't). But you're suggesting that viewing something OAR may be? Surprised Seems peculiar.

Quote:
I've experimented with all kinds of screens, and nothing beats 2.4:1.

For you. I'm glad you're happy, and there's nothing wrong with that. But not everyone will agree with that opinion. I just happen to be one wasting my time discussing it with you, because I wouldn't want other readers assuming your claims were gospel.

Quote:
It's really that simple.

It's really not. What IS a simple fact is that for most people, the "most perfect" aspect ratio for movies OR TV is the shape of the display device they own. Back when all that folks had were 4:3 TVs, the majority of people preferred pan & scan, because it filled the screen they had. To hell with the fact that it butchered many films. Then when the majority of people had moved to 16:9 screens, the preference shifted to a 1.78 AR, which is why some/many movie channels crop their 2.35 AR films to fill that box. You have a 2.40 AR box, so you want to get out the hacksaw and cut everything to fit that. Nothing has really changed. 'Filling the box' remains your top priority, regardless of the consequences.

Quote:
And viewing 16:9 movies in 16:9 is of secondary concern.

??? Shocked

Quote:
Viewing them inside 2.4:1 is awesome...same screen size, no matter what.

I get it. I get it. The shape of the picture frame is far more important to you than the contents. Here's the Mona Lisa, in 2.40 widescreen, center-cropped, for your enjoyment...



Quote:
Last night I watched the Fugitive like this...I'll be damned if anyone on here would find it objectionable.

I have to disagree again. I'd find it extremely objectionable, as would (I suspect) Andy Davis (the director... though he's not on here). I'm just guessing, but since he's directed at least a dozen films, and all have been 1.85 aspect ratio so far, that perhaps that's the AR he prefers, for the type of movies he's filming? It's not like he couldn't film them in 2.40 AR if he wanted to.

I also disagree that you'll be damned if anyone else finds it objectionable. Wink

This isn't even an academic exercise. When I saw Avatar at the theater the first time, it was in 2D, and 2.35 AR. I enjoyed it more than the 3D version I saw later, presented in 1.78 AR. When I got the Blu-ray, I was disappointed to see that it was NOT in the theatrical ratio I had experienced, but rather 1.78. Sad Attempting to expand that to fill a 2.40 screen pushed 35% of the content off the top and bottom, and cropped things in very ugly and conspicuous ways. Somebody on one of the review sites tried this as well, and had the same experience. [IIRC, he was able to crop to 2.20 with decent results.] It turns out that when Cameron prepared his 2.35 version, he shifted portions of the film to fit properly. Unfortunately, he declined to release this version to home viewers.

Quote:
In fact, I now think it's preferable!

More power to ya! Smile I see absolutely nothing wrong with you watching your films in the way that's most enjoyable to you. Just as long as I don't have to watch them with you. Very Happy

_________________
- Tim
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Home Theater Design & Construction All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 5 of 19
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum