AE4000 coming - 2:35 or 16x9? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 04:37 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
fitsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Westbrook, CT, USA
Posts: 713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I an old HT guy, but new to front projectors. I have a 13 x 24 room (building that is) it will be very light controlled, but tan in color (WAF). I want to leave some room between the speakers and side wall...so I was thinking of a 16x9 100 inch screen, but have been doing some research on the 2:35 screens that the AE4000 can take advantage of.

I would be watching some HD stuff, particually Football and BBall games and some other TV, but mostly movies.

Is it worth it getting a 2:35 screen? Does it make that big of a difference on movies?
fitsman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
16x9 and a different color room. i.e darker color

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #3 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 05:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
blastermaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:


I would be watching some HD stuff, particually Football and BBall games and some other TV, but mostly movies

Because you will be mostly watching movies, I'd say go with 2.35:1. Get the biggest one you can get without touching your speakers on the sides. Oh, and let your wife choose a darker colour and offer to paint it on your own free time (unless you're fortunate enough to be able to get someone else to do it).

Rationale? It seems just wrong to go from a huge sized baseball game on hdtv to a significantly smaller 2.35:1 movie that is meant to be larger than life. Besides, wasn't scope not only done to fit more into a scene, but also because our eyes can handle watching a large scope screen because we have good peripheral vision? Anyone feel free to dispute this, I'm probably talking with my head up my arse.

blastermaster is offline  
post #4 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 05:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitsman View Post

I an old HT guy, but new to front projectors. I have a 13 x 24 room (building that is) it will be very light controlled, but tan in color (WAF). I want to leave some room between the speakers and side wall...so I was thinking of a 16x9 100 inch screen, but have been doing some research on the 2:35 screens that the AE4000 can take advantage of.

I would be watching some HD stuff, particually Football and BBall games and some other TV, but mostly movies.

Is it worth it getting a 2:35 screen? Does it make that big of a difference on movies?

Since everyone starts off with a flatpanel, and every flatpanel is 16x9 CIW, everyone is conditioned to having 2.35 be smaller than 16x9.

Front projectors aren't constrained to CIW, but everyone not familiar with CIH wonders will it feel weird to have 2.35 always be larger than 16x9. I think CIH is very natural, and so do many others after they've experienced it.

If you don't have a projector, the best way to find out for yourself is to tape outlines of different screen sizes and aspect ratios. Then you'll get a feel of what you are and are not comfortable with.
ilsiu is offline  
post #5 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 08:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitsman View Post

Is it worth it getting a 2:35 screen?

Yes.
Quote:


Does it make that big of a difference on movies?

Yes.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #6 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 09:04 PM
Member
 
jimluu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm thinking about the same thing with the panasonic, are you using zoom or anamorphic lens?
jimluu is offline  
post #7 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 09:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimluu View Post

I'm thinking about the same thing with the panasonic, are you using zoom or anamorphic lens?

Most of the guys on this forum that bought the panny 3000 and now 4000 do the zoom method due to its 2 x zoom and lens memory function.

I use an anamorphic lens and I don't own a Panny.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #8 of 56 Old 11-01-2009, 09:57 PM
emf
Senior Member
 
emf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hold off on screen for a month or two.
Once your projector arrives, it's easy to project movies directly on your tan wall and determine what size works with your speakers in place.
emf is offline  
post #9 of 56 Old 11-02-2009, 03:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
There is a way to mathematical way to work out what you should be aiming for if you want. Just winding out the zoom might seem like the right way to go, however there are some guidelines that stil need to be adhered to.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #10 of 56 Old 11-02-2009, 06:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Michael Sargent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Kemptville, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 833
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I'm using an AE3000 and zooming onto a 2.40:1 screen, and I love it.
Michael Sargent is offline  
post #11 of 56 Old 11-02-2009, 08:10 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
fitsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Westbrook, CT, USA
Posts: 713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am planning on using the Zoom..maybe later upgrade to a lens if it is worth it.
fitsman is offline  
post #12 of 56 Old 11-02-2009, 10:06 AM
Member
 
wiatrak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gdansk, PL
Posts: 186
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
+1 (10?) for 2,35:1!
What I'm doing might be considered as child's play, but for scope movies I'm zoomed my... Mitsu HC 1500. It has only 1,2 zoom (not enough for real CIH), but I'm very impressed watching movies in that way.

"...Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril..."
Don Quixote was a villain! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Windmill
wiatrak is offline  
post #13 of 56 Old 11-02-2009, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jamis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Add another for 2.35:1.

I have a 129" wide 2.37:1 screen and use the zoom method with my Panny AE3000.

In my case, I figured out the biggest 16:9 screen my room/seating could handle (height-wise) and then added the width for 2.37:1. It's the best of both worlds.
jamis is offline  
post #14 of 56 Old 11-04-2009, 10:31 AM
Member
 
rolandtk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You may want to consider the 2:1 ratio, for constant area (CIA). i think it does the best to preserve the wow factor for both 2.35 and 1.8 films. since any selection is a compromise, i think the 2:1 ratio is the best compromise. this assumes one format does not dominate your viewing experience. i believe dramas and comedy tend to use 1.8 ratios, and most others use 2.35. HD tv of course is 1.8= 16:9.
rolandtk is offline  
post #15 of 56 Old 11-04-2009, 06:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
loganross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 723
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have the AE4000 and a 128" 2.35 screen. I watch mostly movies. This is a great size screen for a home theater. If I had purchased a 16x9 screen it would have had to have been massive to achieve the same size 2.35 picture. I am happy with my decision and won't go back
loganross is offline  
post #16 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 05:47 AM
Member
 
robber616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
my room small 12x13 max zoom about 114" 16:9 and 110" 2.35:1. i don't know what should i buy too.
robber616 is offline  
post #17 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 05:53 AM
Member
 
padgettl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm in the same boat and have read tons of stuff on here. For some reason it's just not clicking in my head, I understand that a 2.35 screen would be filled for movies, but what happens if I want to watch a tv show or sports in 16x9? Would I get black bars on the left and right of the image?
padgettl is offline  
post #18 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 06:34 AM
Member
 
robber616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by padgettl View Post

I'm in the same boat and have read tons of stuff on here. For some reason it's just not clicking in my head, I understand that a 2.35 screen would be filled for movies, but what happens if I want to watch a tv show or sports in 16x9? Would I get black bars on the left and right of the image?

yes, and you have a small 16x9. that's why i don't know what i do. i like 2.35:1 but when watch tv or play games i will have just 87" 16:9 tv
robber616 is offline  
post #19 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 06:44 AM
 
floridapoolboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: florida
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I'm using a 96" 16:9 screen now, but I'm thinking of upgrading to 2.35:1. If I go with a 120" screen I'll have the same size 16:9 image, but scope movies will be huge! If you're satisfied with the size of your 16:9 now just calculate the size needed to retain the image when using a scope screen. I tried zooming last night and the increase was dramatic, this should be a very cool upgrade.
floridapoolboy is offline  
post #20 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 09:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitsman View Post

I an old HT guy, but new to front projectors. I have a 13 x 24 room (building that is) it will be very light controlled, but tan in color (WAF). I want to leave some room between the speakers and side wall...so I was thinking of a 16x9 100 inch screen, but have been doing some research on the 2:35 screens that the AE4000 can take advantage of.

I would be watching some HD stuff, particually Football and BBall games and some other TV, but mostly movies.

Is it worth it getting a 2:35 screen? Does it make that big of a difference on movies?

Just get an AT screen and then you're not constrained by speaker placement


See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
post #21 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhdiab's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by robber616 View Post

yes, and you have a small 16x9. that's why i don't know what i do. i like 2.35:1 but when watch tv or play games i will have just 87" 16:9 tv

Well a lot of people have a wider room than the height

Say you would go with a 110 inch it is 54X96 as 16X9 format

now the same person could possibly fit a 54X126 as cinemascope format

so the way I figure for a lot of people (maybe not you) yes your 16X9 will seem smaller than your 2:35:1, but it won't actually be smaller than you could fit in your room if you went 16X9

or did I miss something?
mhdiab is offline  
post #22 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhdiab's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridapoolboy View Post

I'm using a 96" 16:9 screen now, but I'm thinking of upgrading to 2.35:1. If I go with a 120" screen I'll have the same size 16:9 image, but scope movies will be huge! If you're satisfied with the size of your 16:9 now just calculate the size needed to retain the image when using a scope screen. I tried zooming last night and the increase was dramatic, this should be a very cool upgrade.

apparently I did miss something -- I missed floridapoolboy (and I am jealous being up here in AK) already said what I did
mhdiab is offline  
post #23 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 03:27 PM
Senior Member
 
piratemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Just get an AT screen and then you're not constrained by speaker placement


I AGREE......loving mine and everyone that comes over is in awe
If you can, go 2:35 or 2:37 and AT
Good luck!
piratemonkey is offline  
post #24 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 03:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
elmalloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Can anyone truly say that anything but the best AT screens is not degrading video and audio quality?

Current Projects:
IN PROGRESS (80%) - Building 3D Theater room.
IN PROGRESS (30%) - Building Lounge/Hallway Area.
IN PROGRESS (15%) - Building Home LAN (4 PCs).
ON HOLD - Building Home Gym.
ON HOLD - Building Simulation Room (Eyefinity).
ON HOLD - Building Theater room (Sim2 HT380, 2.35 14ft wide).
elmalloc is offline  
post #25 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Senior Member
 
piratemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

Can anyone truly say that anything but the best AT screens is not degrading video and audio quality?

If you choose a decent SMX or Stewart AT screen you will not see any loss of either IMHO unless you are extremely critical and then again the audio improvement due to placement would make up the difference.

I recently finished my HT room with a 124" 2:37 SMX AT screen and cannot be happier, truly remarkable and having the speakers hidden behind the screen is the finishing touch.
piratemonkey is offline  
post #26 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
elmalloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by piratemonkey View Post

If you choose a decent SMX or Stewart AT screen you will not see any loss of either IMHO unless you are extremely critical and then again the audio improvement due to placement would make up the difference.

I recently finished my HT room with a 124" 2:37 SMX AT screen and cannot be happier, truly remarkable and having the speakers hidden behind the screen is the finishing touch.

Yes that's what I mean, the SMX and stewart AT screens are known. I wonder if there are other manufacturer's out there (cheaper in price) that are crappy in video and audio degradation...

Current Projects:
IN PROGRESS (80%) - Building 3D Theater room.
IN PROGRESS (30%) - Building Lounge/Hallway Area.
IN PROGRESS (15%) - Building Home LAN (4 PCs).
ON HOLD - Building Home Gym.
ON HOLD - Building Simulation Room (Eyefinity).
ON HOLD - Building Theater room (Sim2 HT380, 2.35 14ft wide).
elmalloc is offline  
post #27 of 56 Old 11-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Senior Member
 
piratemonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waxhaw, NC
Posts: 226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

Yes that's what I mean, the SMX and stewart AT screens are known. I wonder if there are other manufacturer's out there (cheaper in price) that are crappy in video and audio degradation...

I'm sure there are but was never a thought for me......I planned the distribution of $$'s to go to the most important aspects of my HT including screen, pj & speakers, etc with the hidden component rack as the least priority
piratemonkey is offline  
post #28 of 56 Old 11-06-2009, 05:37 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
fitsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Westbrook, CT, USA
Posts: 713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by piratemonkey View Post

If you choose a decent SMX or Stewart AT screen you will not see any loss of either IMHO unless you are extremely critical and then again the audio improvement due to placement would make up the difference.

I recently finished my HT room with a 124" 2:37 SMX AT screen and cannot be happier, truly remarkable and having the speakers hidden behind the screen is the finishing touch.

The size of my speakers makes this pretty limiting (Von S. VR IV Gen III) and the fact that I really do not want to give up the placement and sound quality that comes with the right placement. Plus I cannot believe that a screen does not effect the sound quality for critical music listening which I do as well. So I think an AT screen is out. I am leaning towards 16x9 as I will be doing sporting events on the screen as well... The other thing I thought of is the wife and kids...anti tech types..it will just confuse the heck out of them. With all that and the fact that I just do not have the width I really need for a 2.35 screen I think I am just going to go wtih a 16x9 and loose a bit of screen on movies.
fitsman is offline  
post #29 of 56 Old 11-06-2009, 05:43 AM
Member
 
robber616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitsman View Post

The size of my speakers makes this pretty limiting (Von S. VR IV Gen III) and the fact that I really do not want to give up the placement and sound quality that comes with the right placement. Plus I cannot believe that a screen does not effect the sound quality for critical music listening which I do as well. So I think an AT screen is out. I am leaning towards 16x9 as I will be doing sporting events on the screen as well... The other thing I thought of is the wife and kids...anti tech types..it will just confuse the heck out of them. With all that and the fact that I just do not have the width I really need for a 2.35 screen I think I am just going to go wtih a 16x9 and loose a bit of screen on movies.

i'm on the same boat with you, my room small and i dont know 2.35 is standard for movies or some days in the near future all blueray movies will have 2.40 or somethings else
robber616 is offline  
post #30 of 56 Old 11-06-2009, 06:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitsman View Post

The size of my speakers makes this pretty limiting (Von S. VR IV Gen III) and the fact that I really do not want to give up the placement and sound quality that comes with the right placement. Plus I cannot believe that a screen does not effect the sound quality for critical music listening which I do as well. So I think an AT screen is out. I am leaning towards 16x9 as I will be doing sporting events on the screen as well... The other thing I thought of is the wife and kids...anti tech types..it will just confuse the heck out of them. With all that and the fact that I just do not have the width I really need for a 2.35 screen I think I am just going to go wtih a 16x9 and loose a bit of screen on movies.

I'd think you could get a sample or two of the material and place it over your speakers to find out. You might be surprised.

http://www.smxscreen.com/audio-measurements.html

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is online now  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off