Hello AVS,

I am new to CRT and am in need of some help. I have decided to purchase a CRT projector in the future for a dedicated home theater. The room I will be using is currently a game room. The dimensions are 33 wide by 16 feet deep. The width will be cut in half approximately as one half of the game room will be used for a pool table. The usable space works out to 16 x 20 approximately. Ceiling height is 8 ft, though a return air duct runs along the ceiling where the screen will hang so the room is 8 ft high but the wall where the screen is located is only 7 ft. The room is 100 percent light controlled with only a few small windows that will be shaded (downstairs). I have decided to go with a sheet of DW Wilsonart ala Clarence and his posted recomendations for the screen and a DIY frame. Projector, though not purchased yet, will most likely be a 9500.

My question is 2.35 or 16:9. Most of my viewing will be movies or 2.35 setup. I have read multiple forums on this subject and might be more confused now than before! Is 2.35 in a CIH setup the best for the movies I will be watching? Do I have to run a scaler? How do I get the most light out of a 9500, with a 2.35 or 16:9? Does a 2.35 screen that is "only" 100 inches wide look short? My current source is Toshiba HD-DVD A2. I plan on running a HDMI from my source to the 9500 with the VIM HD component card from Curt.

My screen size will be approximately 100 to 110 Inches, your input on screen size would be appreciated as well. The wall that will be the backdrop for the screen is 128 inches wide x 7 ft. tall. The room is 16 feet deep so my viewing will be approximately 13 feet from the screen. This is a complete ground up build, I currently do not have any equipment so I can do almost anything from a setup standpoint given the size of the room.

Thank you in advance for your input.

Lance

Hello

It is a personal choice; but I would rather fill the 1.78 screen width and not fill the height on 2.35 sources. With 1.78 setup you are lighting up about 75% of your total available tube phosphor as opposed to 56% on dedicated 2.35, and you are giving up resolution parking 1.78 in the middle of a 2.35 screen.

That are almost the exact dimensions of my room. Which happens to be perfect for accoustics it provides the least amount of nulls for each frequency so a nice flat frequency responce room. I used a program on strereophiles guid to home theater site. they use to have a spread sheet that would help you find the high and low spots for sound in your room. i found theat a room 16.5 by 30 by 9 had near perfect accoustics. It also figured out where to put the seating with respect to aproximation of ear location on all 3 axis. very helpfull tool not sure i f i stil have it but i'll look. ok i got off topic.

I would use a 16x9 and do the CIW (constant image width) you'll appreciate it more during sport events and some movies that are 1.78 and 1.85 . My screen is 144 inch wide and looks great with my stacked marquee's 16x9 movies are very bright and going to the 2.35,2.40 doesnt hurt it that much. for crt CIW is better than CIH where any 16x9 gets way to small width wise where 2.35 will still be wide. If using a scaler or HTPC make sure to employ active area scanning. you set up the area to be scaned by the crt so that the unused phosphor wont get scaned and it frees up bandwidth for higher scan rates. Let me explain. With 2.35 movies on high deff material blu ray and HD-DVD the active image is not 1080p its ether 817p for 2.40 or 800p for 2,35 i think or it might be reversed for the two. the black bars at top and bottom of the movie are still being scanned onto the tube face. so you would set up your VP or htpc to output either 800p or 817p to get maximum use of bandwith. then you can run higher than 48hz scan rates for 1080p24 material like 72 hz . So it be 817p 72hz out from your HTPC or Video processor. here is a spread sheet for resolutions CIR-Engineering made up for this its on the first post and he describes it in more detail

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=737385

But i'd go with 16:9

Athanasios

Tim and Athanasios,

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like running 16:9 is the consensus so far, and it makes sense. This is where I get alittle lost. If I were to run a direct feed from my HD DVD without the scaler, I would see the black lines on the top and bottom correct? Just like my Sony Grand Wega LCD TV? By going to a scaler or HTPC the benefit ends up being that I can run higher scan rates or over 48 hz which ultimately gives me a better picture?

What is the cost of a good scaler? I will be limiting my viewing to mostly movies but i will run either a digital cable or dish feed for tv and sporting events. Also possibly a gaming system for the kids (alright, for me too). Is there a benefit to running a home computer vs. a scaler?

Thanks again for your patience. There is an amazing amount of information to process in the beginning. When I decided to make the jump from digital to CRT I wasn't aware of the extensive amount of information and a whole new learning curve :eek:

Lance

[QUOTE=nashou66;12279901]That are almost the exact dimensions of my room. Which happens to be perfect for accoustics it provides the least amount of nulls for each frequency so a nice flat frequency responce room. I used a program on strereophiles guid to home theater site. they use to have a spread sheet that would help you find the high and low spots for sound in your room. i found theat a room 16.5 by 30 by 9 had near perfect accoustics. It also figured out where to put the seating with respect to aproximation of ear location on all 3 axis. very helpfull tool not sure i f i stil have it but i'll look. ok i got off topic.



Athanasios,

This is great news on the acoustics. My sound system won't be ridiculous right off the bat. I have a limited budget which is why I decided to spend the majority of it on the projector. I figured the CRT will last me for a decade so I might as well spend my money there first. I have a Jamo 10" center channel with some mid-level surrounds. I haven't purchased the amp yet but was leaning towards an Onkyo 805, they seem to have pretty strong following for the $800.00 range. And for that money I can get into HDMI switching which is nice. I will also pick up a decent mid-level sub to round things off. I would love to budget more but I figure the amp will serve it's purpose while I concentrate on picture quality. Speakers I can upgrade over the next couple years, I have the speakers already so I might as well use what I have.

Lance

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like running 16:9 is the consensus so far, and it makes sense. This is where I get alittle lost. If I were to run a direct feed from my HD DVD without the scaler, I would see the black lines on the top and bottom correct? Just like my Sony Grand Wega LCD TV? By going to a scaler or HTPC the benefit ends up being that I can run higher scan rates or over 48 hz which ultimately gives me a better picture?Lance
the aspect ratio (AR) and refresh rates are not really connected. Any HD-DVD or BR player will output at 60HZ, no scaler equired. The nice thing about a sclaer and CRT is you can run 1080i 96hz which is a really nice resolution for CRT's.
The reason to run 16:9 is because even when your watching 2.35 content and there's Black bars top/bottom the black areas of the image are still being actively scanned and allowing the projector more time for retrace. When you watch a 16:9 movie, you don't lose any resolution.

If you actively squeeze the image down to 2.35 constant heighth you emmediately lose some resolving ability. the nwhen a 16.9 movie comes up you will have black bars on the sides of the image along with the squeezed raster. It's a double penalty to pay for constant image height (CIH).

Dragan,

Thanks for the response, that makes sense, I will surely plan on a 16:9 setup.

What is the scaler of choice for a 9500?

Lance

well I don't use a scaler but the Lumagen series is really popular with the CRT crowd. Keep in mind though that a lot of them have also gotten away from scalers. The new HD-DVD players will actually scale-up your old DVD collection to whatever resolution you like. So it all depends on how much standard definition TV you watch on whether you really need scaler.

well I don't use a scaler but the Lumagen series is really popular with the CRT crowd. Keep in mind though that a lot of them have also gotten away from scalers. The new HD-DVD players will actually scale-up your old DVD collection to whatever resolution you like. So it all depends on how much standard definition TV you watch on whether you really need scaler.

I found with the marquees its easier to get the picture to fit from blu-ray or hd-dvd with the scaler than directly into the moome card, and the color controls along with gamma and the output memories for each resolution combined with the recall memories of the marquee make for a great all inclusive video display. One memory for each resolution. but since he's a newbee maybe one input for now is best. And the marquee wont accept the 24p directly out with out refreshing it to a usable rate. Am i correct draganm?

And the scaler just makes life easier i think, at least for me it does.

Athanasios

I found with the marquees its easier to get the picture to fit from blu-ray or hd-dvd with the scaler than directly into the moome card, good point, my HD-DVD chops of the last 2 inches on the right side. No way to fix it without a scaler.

And the marquee wont accept the 24p directly out with out refreshing it to a usable rate. Am i correct draganm?And the scaler just makes life easier i think, at least for me it does.
Athanasios
all true, taking 24p from the player and scaling it up to 72 or 96 should produce a much better pic than the standard 60Hz option that comes out of the player.

The thought that comes to mind is cost. Most scaler's that I have seen that fall into the "solid" category run about a grand. If it's not vital I may just run it direct with the HD DVD A2 until I can afford to pick up a scaler. Most of the use will be movies from the HD DVD and it does a decent job of upscaling, at least, much better that my last DVD Player that wasn't HD.

Thanks again for all the input.

Lance

Here is one for sale on videogon
this used to be there top of the line model till the 4000 dollar radiancexd came out

http://cgi.videogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?procscal&1199043971&class&3&4&

Snap it up quick !

plus it has two sdi inputs if you get a nice used panasonic RP91 with sdi outs standard dvd will never look better!

Athansios