• 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 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.

2.2 Aspect Ratio

SJHT

Well-known member
Not sure how many K movies use this aspect ratio, but had to make some changes for my setup to handle. Normally, for 2.4 aspect ratio movies, my system (which reads the K control information to know the movie is 2.4) lowers the image to the bottom of my 16:9 screen and lowers top masking. Also, because K control system allows you to reframe things, you can instruct it to set screen masking on. This allows all of the on screen displays (menus, etc.) to be reframed to 2.4. Works slick. Also, when I go back to the movie covers screen, the system reverts back to 16:9 (e.g. raises masking, etc.). Now comes in Tenet! So, have a new preset for this movie to also lower the image to the bottom of the screen and a new preset for my screen masking for 2.2. However, K does not have a 2.2 image ratio option for reframing the image as it reports 1.85 for the image ratio for that movie (they don't seem to have a 2.2 option for control system feedback). Maybe a one off that can be handled manually, but might be nice to have... :). Thanks. SJ
 
Yup, ran into the same issue......

(On a separate note, also had a bunch of video drop outs with this film for some reason. I deleted it this morning, re-downloaded it, but haven't had time to check it.)

Jim
 
The same with 2.0 Aspect Ratio like Jurassic World marked as 1.85.
 
In looking closer, the menus and other elements are fine. However, can’t trigger my system to handle automatically like other movies. May be time to get this from my Lumagen Pro if K is not going to update their control protocols to give us this info. SJ
 
Menus OK, but subtitles with 2 lines have one off screen. Their process for 2.4 movies is perfect. Adding a few more options would be nice....
 
Maybe software thing, I guess it's a matter of devoting the engineering time to get that done. No idea what that time value is, but given there aren't many of these AR's in play, might not be something that makes financial sense (obviously makes owner support sense:)).


Jim
 
Great, no software changes needed! (I didn't even realize Tenet had subtitles....I tend to have them off anyway.🤪)

Jim
 
I do to, but the Tenet dialog mix is not the greatest. People think it is on purpose and the way Nolan wanted it. Makes you more engaged and paying attention. Will use them on my second viewing.... :giggle:
 
Still not sure why K would report 2.2 and 2.0 movies as 1.85. I have to go through some craziness to get my Lumagen to get the correct AR for that content. K has a specific component in their control system to report aspect ratio, but even though they know the correct AR, they report incorrectly (I believe it is even documented that they will report incorrectly). Nice if this were added at some point, thankfully are not too many movies...
 
The proliferation of unusual aspect ratios is definitely something we're looking to handle better.

A little background. We have some defined aspect ratios that are part of our guide database and are also reflected in the control protocol: 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, and 2.40. Those of you who are fans of Super Panavision 70 and Todd-AO will notice that this list does not include 2.20, and fans of Ultra Panavision 70 will notice that the list is also missing 2.76. 2.0 is becoming popular for some productions more recently as well.

So to answer SJHT's question -- if an aspect ratio is not one of those defined ratios, we report the closest ratio that is "more open" than the actual ratio, assuming a native 1.78 HD/4K display. So, for 2.2 or 2.0 content, that closest ratio would be 1.85. Imagine if you had a 1.78 screen with top and bottom masking. You would definitely not want to mask to 2.35, because you'd cut off some of the 2.0 or 2.2 image. Masking to 1.85, you won't fully mask the unused portion of the screen, but you won't hide any image.

We could, of course, add additional defined ratios, but given the installed base of control systems, we need to do something that maintains backward compatibility and doesn't break things for existing customers. That makes it a little bit more of a complex problem to solve, but we'll solve it.

I should add that the control protocol includes the concept of "trim" for systems that support fully variable 4-way masking (such as the Stewart Director's Choice). Even when a movie doesn't match one of our presets, we go with the closest one as described above, and then specify the required trim to mask correctly. Unfortunately, these fully variable systems are quite rare.
 
Thanks for the feedback. Understand worrying about installed base. When my control system receives 1.85 from my Strato it starts an analysis of the source AR as it assumes it might be incorrect. Needs to be a better long term solution. Maybe added a new control system feedback. Lumagen has done this with new feedbacks that don’t interfere with previous feedbacks from their control system. SJ
 
Is there metadata for variable aspect ratios? e.g. Mission Impossible : Fallout has two 1.90:1 scenes in an overall 2.40:1 film.

This will show a brief projector “overshoot” during those scenes.

My opinion is: 1.78:1 screens should be fundamental screen; its the geometric mean. Users, should mask to a constant image height at all times. Meaning a working 2.40:1 screen. Use a scaler if necessary- or just set it in the strato. The exceptions are, when films display images, at the direction of the creator, above and below the CIH.

Besides having to have the knowledge that the film is a variable aspect ratio film, the automation via metadata flag would assist the screen masking system to determine what to open/close to without the movie watcher’s interaction.

Thank you
 
No, we don’t currently include metadata for variable aspect ratios, and I think it’s unlikely that we’ll do so. There are some movies where it would work okay to change screen masking during the film (The Hunger Games: Catching Fire comes to mind — exactly one change, at the mid-point of the movie), but other films where it would be extremely distracting (The Dark Knight, which has some IMAX scenes that are only a few seconds long — the masks would still be moving to the new ratio when they’d be commanded back again).

Our approach for these films is to bookmark the “most open” aspect ratio. So for Dark Knight, it’s bookmarked as 1.78, and the 2.40 scenes play letterboxed. Unfortunately, this is not a great experience on a 2.40 screen, since 1.78 content gets displayed in the center of the screen with side masks, and then the letterboxed image appears inside that smaller area. The Dark Knight is an interesting case, because the director shot it such that it could be projected in a cropped format on 2.40 screens. You can actually just crop the film down to 2.40 and all the IMAX scenes work fine. So for a 2.40 screen, you could override the aspect ratio to 2.40 and it would be a better experience. That is not the case with all such movies (Aquaman, for example, does not look right if you crop it).

Constant image height is one approach to screen masking. It’s the standard practice with 2.40 aspect screens. Constant-width uses a 1.78 screen with top and bottom masking. It’s arguably the setup best-suited for the Christopher Nolan style of multi-aspect film, as it most closely approximates how they’re projected theatrically. Constant image area is another approach. These systems typically use a 2.0 aspect screen and do something like displaying 2.40 content full-width with top and bottom masks, and 1.78 and 1.85 content full-height with side masks. These systems also typically use projectors with zooming and lens memories, so they’re even less well-suited to changing the aspect ratio mid-film than systems with only masking.

So, long story short, it’s a complex problem without a one-size-fits-all solution. I would like to make some improvements in this area that would allow for greater flexibility for the different approaches to masking.
 
Mike...

First I’m excited you answered! I completely understand your comments. Further, constant area is something I have espoused— the benefits outweigh any of the CIH drawbacks.

Talking more on Variable Aspect Ratio films, Yes, Kaleidescape elects the most open aspect ratio. That UX decision works. However, the intention of Tenet is to be immersive.

I’m gonna pick on this one since its the newest film on the store that has a variable aspect ratio and is a film that needs to be watched many times to understand it.

I am going to stick my neck out and say that Chris Nolan wanted this film to be at 1.43:1 and for the viewer to side within one screen width away from the screen. To bring this to a home format, the decision to fit this film in the maximum container size of 1.78:1 (for all HD/UHD content) was a “best fit” option.

Now, the Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers (SMPTE) recommends that screen distance should be 3 screen heights away from a 2.40:1 CIH screen. Where does Tenet fit here?

Tenet fills a 1.78:1 frame but has 2.20 scenes throughout. One could download the UHD HDR version and go about their way. Still, The approach I am suggesting is to sit within one screen width of 1.78:1 or 2.40:1 screen. The Strato does have a setting to indicate what aspect screen its being used on. Then, here is what I am getting at, either crop the image to fit a 2.40:1 screen or with a 1.78:1 screen instruct the projector, scaler, and or masking system to open all the way. This would be triggered by a metadata flag called something like native_screen_aspect. value is crop or open. This flag will instruct the strato to crop OR will leave room for the integrator to run a command to the respective devices in the system. e.g. if OPEN then..

I use a button to do this on my own, I would be a feature added trick to “know” what the native screen aspect ratio a film is based on. Just sending 1.78:1 to the Projector, masking system and scaler will not achieve the desired user experience. Requesting the feature to make my digital projectionist “smarter.” Thank you 😊
 
The proliferation of unusual aspect ratios is definitely something we're looking to handle better.

A little background. We have some defined aspect ratios that are part of our guide database and are also reflected in the control protocol: 1.33, 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, and 2.40. Those of you who are fans of Super Panavision 70 and Todd-AO will notice that this list does not include 2.20, and fans of Ultra Panavision 70 will notice that the list is also missing 2.76. 2.0 is becoming popular for some productions more recently as well.

So to answer SJHT's question -- if an aspect ratio is not one of those defined ratios, we report the closest ratio that is "more open" than the actual ratio, assuming a native 1.78 HD/4K display. So, for 2.2 or 2.0 content, that closest ratio would be 1.85. Imagine if you had a 1.78 screen with top and bottom masking. You would definitely not want to mask to 2.35, because you'd cut off some of the 2.0 or 2.2 image. Masking to 1.85, you won't fully mask the unused portion of the screen, but you won't hide any image.

We could, of course, add additional defined ratios, but given the installed base of control systems, we need to do something that maintains backward compatibility and doesn't break things for existing customers. That makes it a little bit more of a complex problem to solve, but we'll solve it.

I should add that the control protocol includes the concept of "trim" for systems that support fully variable 4-way masking (such as the Stewart Director's Choice). Even when a movie doesn't match one of our presets, we go with the closest one as described above, and then specify the required trim to mask correctly. Unfortunately, these fully variable systems are quite rare.
Hi Mike,

I have a 1.78 screen and I am in the process of changing my masking settings to use top masking only for 2.35 and 2.40 content because it is a better viewing angle for my single row theater and also has the advantage of getting rid of letterboxing. I have been experimenting with the Vertical Shift setting that is available in the Lumagen Radiance Pro to shift the image for 2.35 and 2.40 content to the bottom of my screen, and from there closing the top mask. The first thing I did was to use the Kaleidescape Test Masking option to determine the proper Vertical Shift setting for 2.35 content. So far in my testing this is working fine with 2.35 titles.

I then put on some 2.40 titles so that I could use them to set the vertical shift value since Test Masking has no 2.40 option. This is where I started running into some unexpected problems because the vertical shift value I needed changed dramatically depending on the specific title I was playing. For example, A Few Good Men worked as expected because I needed a higher vertical shift value to move the image slightly lower on my screen than for 2.35 content. Ford v. Ferrari also worked with a higher vertical shift value than 2.35, although I did need to tweak it slightly. But when I tried Cloud Atlas or Bacurau the image was way too low on my screen and the bottom was cut off so I needed to set the vertical shift value to be exactly half of what worked for A Few Good Men in order to raise the image much higher than where I moved it for 2.35 content, which is counterintuitive. When I tried playing Cloud Atlas and Bacurau on my ATV the higher vertical shift setting for 2.40 worked exactly as expected.

FYI, I am using Crestron as my control system, and I have scheduled time with my programmer on Monday to try to fix this.

So here are my questions for you:

1) Is there a way to use Kaleidescape controls to work with top masking instead of relying on the Lumagen Vertical Shift setting? I have quoted below from SJHT's post in this thread which would suggest that there is:

Normally, for 2.4 aspect ratio movies, my system (which reads the K control information to know the movie is 2.4) lowers the image to the bottom of my 16:9 screen and lowers top masking. Also, because K control system allows you to reframe things, you can instruct it to set screen masking on. This allows all of the on screen displays (menus, etc.) to be reframed to 2.4. Works slick. Also, when I go back to the movie covers screen, the system reverts back to 16:9 (e.g. raises masking, etc.).

2) Can you also explain what SJHT means when he says the K control system "allows you to reframe things" so that the on screen menus are reframed to 2.40?

3) Is there a reason I am seeing such dramatically different results, only on Kaleidescape, with the same vertical shift setting for titles that are all described as 2.40?

Many thanks.
 
Sent you an email per your questions..

1. Ive never seen this option in their control system, but I’m not an expert!
2. This is a command that is part of the K control system (see my email maybe in your Spam folder lol). You can get the entire document from the K website
3. There should be no difference if setup correctly. K system is more robust in giving you the info to automate. You don’t have to figure out what the AR is for most movies as that data is retrieved from their system when you start a movie. You can combine 2.35/2.40 in your Lumagen. Lumagen has new feedback called V4 which has the info once the movie starts as it calculates AR.

I believe Mike also uses top masking so he can probably help! Im also sure there are people who sell Creston stuff that handles. SJ
 
Thanks SJHT! As you suspected, I missed your message because it ended up in my Spam folder.

Out of curiosity, has anyone found a way to sort Kaleidescape titles by aspect ratio, either on the store or in their library through the browser interface? Would make it much easier to test masking settings that way.
 
By chance, are the titles that you’re playing that are showing unexpected shift amounts coming from Blu-ray Discs? Or are they downloaded from the movie store?

I do use top masking on my own system, by the way.
 
Mike,

The titles that are giving me problems are downloaded from the store.

Good to hear that you use top masking. Makes me think this should be solvable!
 
Back
Top