• Thanks for visiting the Kaleidescape Owners' Forum

    This forum is for the community of Kaleidescape owners, and others interested in learning about the system, equipment, services, and the company itself.

    It is run by a group of enthusiastic Kaleidescape owners and dealers purely as a service to this community.

    This board is not affiliated in any way with Kaleidescape, Inc.
    For official technical support, product information, or customer service, please visit www.kaleidescape.com

    You can dismiss this box forever by clicking the "X" in the upper right corner of this message.

  • You are currently in "Guest" mode and not logged in with a registered account.

    The forum is free to use and most of the forum can be used by guests who are not registered....

    ... but we strongly encourage you to register for a full account. There is no cost to register for a full account.

    Benefits of registering for a full account:

    • Participate in the discussions! You must have a registered account to make posts on the forums. You will be able to start your own thread on a topic or question, or you can reply to other threads/discussions.
    • Use the "Conversation" feature (known as "private messaging" on other forums) to communicate directly with any of the other users here.
    • Access the Files area. The "resources" area of the forum contains many "Favorite Scene" and Script files that can dramatically increase the enjoyment of your Kaleidescape system. Go directly to great scenes in your favorite movies, created by other owners, and add automation to playback of your system with Scripts.
    • You won't see this annoying notice at the top of every screen!😊

    It's easy and free to register for the forum. Just click the "Register" button in the upper right corner of this page, and follow the instructions there.

    This box goes away for registered users.

US Digital Releases for July & August 2026

Nonametofame said:
Correct. It never changed ratios. I think it's been confirmed it will remain locked at 16x9 for the disc. Fans are complaining it isn't 1.43.
I just hope digital also gets 16x9. Typically, they use the traditional non VAR 2.35.
Click to expand...
1.43 makes no sense for home release because it just shrinks the image for absolutely everyone defeating the purpose of it. I guess they should make it an option for those that want it but I personally hate it, I’ve watched the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League but I don’t own it partly for that reason and partly because it wasn’t THAT different to the original and they aren’t continuing with it so the future scenes don’t matter.

I’m slightly worried about obsession being 1.50:1 but the reasoning at least makes sense so I got it anyway.
 
Furnace Inferno said:
1.43 makes no sense for home release because it just shrinks the image for absolutely everyone defeating the purpose of it. I guess they should make it an option for those that want it but I personally hate it, I’ve watched the Zack Snyder cut of Justice League but I don’t own it partly for that reason and partly because it wasn’t THAT different to the original and they aren’t continuing with it so the future scenes don’t matter.

I’m slightly worried about obsession being 1.50:1 but the reasoning at least makes sense so I got it anyway.
Click to expand...

Doesn't 1.43 only significantly shrink the image for those using a scope screen? Wouldn't it be closer to the Director's intent on a 16:9 screen with some black bars?
 
Pre-Order Updated
Mutiny (2026) from Lionsgate updated to include C_DV/C_HDR/C_SDR/DV/HDR
www.kaleidescape.com

Mutiny

Framed for murder, a former Special Forces operative uncovers a global conspiracy while fighting to clear his name. Action, Crime. Directed by Jean-François Richet. Starring Jason Statham, Annabelle Wallis, Roland Møller, and Adrian Lester. Purchase and download today in 4K Cinematic HDR10.
www.kaleidescape.com www.kaleidescape.com
 
OCD2 said:
Doesn't 1.43 only significantly shrink the image for those using a scope screen? Wouldn't it be closer to the Director's intent on a 16:9 screen with some black bars?
Click to expand...
It depends on the room dimensions but a scope screen should really be the same height as the equivalent 16:9 screen and just wider. It’s very unlikely anyone has a screen nearly as tall as it is wide because standard room ceiling heights wouldn’t accommodate it.

Basically what should be a taller image just ends up being narrower. The equivalent is IMAX scenes shrinking down to fit on a scope screen using MadVR or a Lumagen, the complete opposite intent of the scene.

You see more of the scene on the top and bottom but the image itself is smaller, for the home, I think it’s not a good aspect ratio to aim for especially as with TVs you can’t do a giant 4:3 screen even if you want to.
 
Furnace Inferno said:
It depends on the room dimensions but a scope screen should really be the same height as the equivalent 16:9 screen and just wider. It’s very unlikely anyone has a screen nearly as tall as it is wide because standard room ceiling heights wouldn’t accommodate it.

Basically what should be a taller image just ends up being narrower. The equivalent is IMAX scenes shrinking down to fit on a scope screen using MadVR or a Lumagen, the complete opposite intent of the scene.

You see more of the scene on the top and bottom but the image itself is smaller, for the home, I think it’s not a good aspect ratio to aim for especially as with TVs you can’t do a giant 4:3 screen even if you want to.
Click to expand...
Because of the design of my room, i have the ability to increase the height of my current screen which is 54" to approximately 85" but that results in a scope screen that may be doable but likely challenging from a lumen perspective (my projector puts out about 3400 lumens uncalibrated).

Thanks for your input.
 
OCD2 said:
Because of the design of my room, i have the ability to increase the height of my current screen which is 54" to approximately 85" but that results in a scope screen that may be doable but likely challenging from a lumen perspective (my projector puts out about 3400 lumens uncalibrated).

Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Yeh brightness is the real issue with anything not 16:9/17:9 on a projector, I mean you can get anamorphic lenses for scope but that has other issues and very expensive.

An 85” height 4:3 screen would be about 142” which would mean needing the brightness for a 174” 16:9 which basically means no JVC and either the Epson QL7000 or straight up to mega money (said as if the 7000 is cheap 😂).

I would have loved to get a 185” 2.4:1 electric masking screen which would be the same height as my current 145” 16:9 but it’s roughly equivalent to 196” 16:9 which is just huge.

Instead I’ve settled for 150” 16:9 with electric masking, I wouldn’t go any taller, these screens I’ve seen where it starts at the floor aren’t usable as far as I’m concerned, as soon as you recline even a little your legs/feet block the bottom!

Maybe one day there will be affordable projectors that are bright enough and have decent contrast but given the screen would cost $16000 alone, I’ll be reluctant to change by then when the one coming isn’t cheap.
 
Removed
The Man Who Knew Infinity (2015) in HD with DTS-HD Master 5.1
www.kaleidescape.com

The Man Who Knew Infinity

A brilliant Indian mathematician battles depression and prejudice after earning a place at a prestigious British university. Drama, Biography. Directed by Matthew Brown. Starring Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, Devika Bhise, and Stephen Fry.
www.kaleidescape.com www.kaleidescape.com
 
KDeering said:
It was technically shot all in one continuous aspect but he did different framing for different venues theatrically. I am not sure why, if the full open frame was his preferred vision, he could have shown it that way in every theater. But you know, marketing.
Click to expand...

When directors make movies for IMAX, they know that IMAX is an "immersive" format where the content goes beyond a normal viewing area -- your eyes can't really see sharply the stuff on the top and bottom, so they use that as just ambient empty space with no significant content in it. It'll be empty sky or landscape, or the lower parts of people's bodies or whatever.

The cut they make for normal theatres is one that's intended for a "framed" image, where the whole thing is within your sight all the time, and where all the content is significant. If you were to take the IMAX image, and shove it within that frame, it would look weird and empty, like the director hadn't zoomed in tightly enough on their subjects. When Disney started putting 1.90 "IMAX" versions of its movies on D+, some directors complained about this, because they had never intended for those versions to be seen in a normal theatrical/home presentation. But hey, it got rid of the black bars, and people hate black bars, so Disney doesn't care.
 
mkozlows said:
When directors make movies for IMAX, they know that IMAX is an "immersive" format where the content goes beyond a normal viewing area -- your eyes can't really see sharply the stuff on the top and bottom, so they use that as just ambient empty space with no significant content in it. It'll be empty sky or landscape, or the lower parts of people's bodies or whatever... The cut they make for normal theatres is one that's intended for a "framed" image, where the whole thing is within your sight all the time, and where all the content is significant. If you were to take the IMAX image, and shove it within that frame, it would look weird and empty, like the director hadn't zoomed in tightly enough on their subjects.
Click to expand...
Yup, and this is where I think things get interesting with the future digital home release. There are already multiple versions of The Odyssey that have been re-framed for the specific aspect ratio. Therefore, if they release the film digitally in 16:9 it will be a version that was framed for that aspect ratio. So, for the scope folks, they'd be stuck with cropping a version that expects that space. I'm sure for most shots it won't matter. Removing VAR from the equation means we can't be sure what we'll see.
 
Personally, I hate VAR movies. PIck a aspect ratio and go with it. On my 16x9 135inch screen...if that means bars...so beit...I have gone overboard on blacking out my room and setting up my projector that we barely notice bars...the screen image...regardless of size just kinda floats in space....yeah I know the bars are there but they are so close to the surrounding black that after a few minutes into the movie they virtually disappear.

That said, I have not set foot in a commercial theater in over 15 years so really have never experienced this IMAX everyone speaks of =P
 
IMAX is completely overrated in the theater. I find they can be a tad too loud and the picture quality is not drastically different than regular theater. The pricing is off the charts (over $100 for a family of 4) and the chairs didn't even recline in the last one I went to. The only positive it has is the screen is larger.

I have also noted that attendance is lower in IMAX than the same day in other theaters. I live in an affluent area and I guess people are not seeing the value.

Last I heard, IMAX was not doing well financially.
 
deyorew said:
IMAX is completely overrated in the theater. I find they can be a tad too loud and the picture quality is not drastically different than regular theater. The pricing is off the charts (over $100 for a family of 4) and the chairs didn't even recline in the last one I went to. The only positive it has is the screen is larger.
Click to expand...
Hehe, I would argue that Nolan fits into the overrated category as well.
 
I agree, give me Batman 1989 any day over Batman Begins. And most of his movies are a little more cerebral than I like. But then again I just watched Jurassic World Rebirth last night and found it a lot of more fun than any of his movies, so I usually keep my mouth shut when people start praising Nolan.
 
deyorew said:
IMAX is completely overrated in the theater. I find they can be a tad too loud and the picture quality is not drastically different than regular theater. The pricing is off the charts (over $100 for a family of 4) and the chairs didn't even recline in the last one I went to. The only positive it has is the screen is larger.

I have also noted that attendance is lower in IMAX than the same day in other theaters. I live in an affluent area and I guess people are not seeing the value.

Last I heard, IMAX was not doing well financially.
Click to expand...

Not all IMAX theaters are the same. The good ones can be an epic experience visually and sonically, while the basic ones are nothing special. Google “different types of IMAX theaters” or peruse this link:
vibeoncue.com

IMAX Explained: The Complete Deep-Dive Guide to the World's Most Immersive Cinema Format (2026 Edition). - Vibe On Cue

Want to Experience movies the way Filmmakers Intended? This complete IMAX guide explores the differences between IMAX Digital, Laser, and 70mm Film, reveals how IMAX cameras capture up to 26% more image, explains the best seating strategy, and highlights the biggest IMAX releases of 2026.
vibeoncue.com

I’ve only seen two movies at my local IMAX this year (Mandalorian and Grogu, The Odyssey). Both were excellent experiences and well worth it. As far as price, I think my IMAX is $16, so not bad, but I understand even “affluent areas” need to watch expenditures these days. My only caution with IMAX is that your seating location matters. The “sweet spot” comprises perhaps 20% of the seats. If those seats are already taken (my theater has a screen allowing you to select from available seats), I’d wait for another showing or select a non-IMAX option.
 
deyorew said:
I agree, give me Batman 1989 any day over Batman Begins. And most of his movies are a little more cerebral than I like. But then again I just watched Jurassic World Rebirth last night and found it a lot of more fun than any of his movies, so I usually keep my mouth shut when people start praising Nolan.
Click to expand...
Just finished watching the Nolan trilogy of Batman in new cinematic format and it looks good and definitely the best Batman series in the franchise.
 
IMAX at my local theater is $27.18 per ticket. Standard ticket is $16.18. So $11 premium.
I thought all IMAX theaters were managed by IMAX corporation who basically rents out the space. Which explains seats not reclining but not sound and quality issues.

We saw Mandalorian in the IMAX. Good movie, but didn't need the premium price, the regular theaters in the same complex are great. And popcorn is the same :)

I would rather support my local theater these days anyway instead of IMAX, so my IMAX days are over.
 
deyorew said:
IMAX at my local theater is $27.18 per ticket. Standard ticket is $16.18. So $11 premium.
I thought all IMAX theaters were managed by IMAX corporation who basically rents out the space. Which explains seats not reclining but not sound and quality issues.

We saw Mandalorian in the IMAX. Good movie, but didn't need the premium price, the regular theaters in the same complex are great. And popcorn is the same :)

I would rather support my local theater these days anyway instead of IMAX, so my IMAX days are over.
Click to expand...
My IMAX is in a Regal Cinema, but not sure if IMAX corp actually rents the space behind the scenes or not. We have Regal, AMC, and Cinemark locations locally here, but I wouldn’t consider them any different than IMAX in terms of my consumer loyalty. I think the lack of reclining seats in IMAX is due to the aggressive stadium seating. Reclining seats would eat up a couple of rows of prime real estate in an IMAX. +$11 isn’t a crazy bump for select movies. You may want to relent and see Dune 3 in the best IMAX in your area. That one should be stunning!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top