Am i crazy going 160" wide ? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 06-26-2010, 04:36 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
WilsonL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I want to go to 160" wide with the Seymour AT (2:35-1) screen, with the RS35. in a 20' length light controlled room.
Am i crazy?
should i go smaller?
WilsonL is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 06-26-2010, 05:03 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
My humble opinion is you might be disappointed based on the 900 lumen rating. I feel that that screen size really begs for something closer to double that number of lumens.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is online now  
post #3 of 36 Old 06-26-2010, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Would be cool if you can light it, however I have to agree with Art on this one.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #4 of 36 Old 06-28-2010, 04:37 PM
 
LilGator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You'd be lucky to hit 900 lumens best case scenario, high lamp, short throw, iris open, dynamic mode- but this is worst contrast performance scenario as well (and obviously terrible color). You'd be starting with about 14ftL there if you did.

You put it in THX mode, keep high lamp, shortest throw, iris all the way open and you've got about 725 lumens which results in ~12ftL.

Best contrast mode with high lamp (iris closed, long throw) you'd have ~5ftL, and halfway (50% iris, mid-throw) you'd have about ~8ftL.

Add bulb aging and you're screwed no matter the scenario. This is all assuming Seymour's 1.2 gain spec is spot on- personally, I'd only account for 1.1 gain in your calculations, if any.

I'd say 11ft wide is about the largest size screen you want to go with the RS35 and little to no screen gain.

Throw a high gain screen in the mix, and 160" wide is certainly attainable. The problem there of course becomes speaker placement.
LilGator is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 06-28-2010, 05:31 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
WilsonL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am thinking of just blocking it off with side panels for 16x9 for right now, if lumen output is an issue, using CIW , which gives it roughly 120" wide. When i get a more power light canon, then i'll open up the side panels for the full 160" wide scope.

If i go with that scenio, how far should i mount the RS35?
WilsonL is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 06-29-2010, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
doublewing11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Timber Country!
Posts: 3,868
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilsonL View Post

I want to go to 160" wide with the Seymour AT (2:35-1) screen, with the RS35. in a 20' length light controlled room.
Am i crazy?
should i go smaller?

I've been staring at the outlines for 140", 130", 120" wide 2:37 screen for the last two weeks..................I too am going CIH.

The more I stare, the more I'm convinced that 130" screen would best fit. My room is going to be bigger than yours........ 26' X 17' X 9/10 ' with seating at 14.5 ft and 18.5 ft............with a 3 ft AT wall.

160 inch wide screen? I think I'd go buggy-eyed or would soon look like a bush baby. To each his own..........

Have the Tylenol ready............someone's going to have headaches due to eye strain.........
doublewing11 is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 06-29-2010, 01:48 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
WilsonL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have seen a 120" wide CIW , and it looks really good , esp in the16/9 format, most of my viewings are done on 16/9, with an occasional scope film.
so i rather have the largest 16/9 possible, and the option to upgrade later to 2:35-1 later if needed.
WilsonL is offline  
post #8 of 36 Old 07-01-2010, 06:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
As lilgator mentioned, remember lamp aging wich can be rather significant in the first few hunded hours.

Things can begin to look quite lifeless as the fL drop and instances in films where it is daylight become totally unconvincing.

Just my take...



Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is online now  
post #9 of 36 Old 07-01-2010, 11:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
samalmoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I have the rs35 and a 170inch wide hipower screen, anamorphic lens..couple hundred hours on the projector..
for widescreen I've settled on 158inches wide and 140inches wide for 1;85. Going any larger dulls down the image too much imo. it's in a batcave..24ft throw. Thats with the full gain of the hp screen..close to eye level.
samalmoe is offline  
post #10 of 36 Old 07-12-2010, 01:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilGator View Post

You'd be lucky to hit 900 lumens best case scenario, high lamp, short throw, iris open, dynamic mode- but this is worst contrast performance scenario as well (and obviously terrible color). You'd be starting with about 14ftL there if you did.

.

I agree with most of your statement, except the "Dynamic Mode". That is not correct (I measure more of these than anyone). JVC is one of the few that actually rate their projectors accurately. In fact, in dynamic mode it puts out nearly 1400 lumens from my testing. Just wanted to be clear.

To the OP...no shot. You would need a high gain screen to be happy with that in my opinion.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 07-12-2010, 06:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

I agree with most of your statement, except the "Dynamic Mode". That is not correct (I measure more of these than anyone). JVC is one of the few that actually rate their projectors accurately. In fact, in dynamic mode it puts out nearly 1400 lumens from my testing. Just wanted to be clear.

To the OP...no shot. You would need a high gain screen to be happy with that in my opinion.

And of course a high gain screen is the last thing you want to use for a wide CinemaScope screen, since brightness will vary dramatically across the width of the picture. Stay with a 1.0 gain matt white and use a smaller screen - you will get a far superior picture quality all round, and every seat will experience exactly the same picture brightness with 100% uniformity of illumination.
taffman is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 07-12-2010, 08:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
samalmoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
hmmm..a little misinformation there i think. depending on how far you are from the screen and how many seats wide you go may determine if, say a hipower screen will work for you.. i sit around 22 feet from a 13foot wide hipower and 2-4 seats wide shows pretty even image from any seat. the hipower is great for what it does..i think most guys that have em love em.
samalmoe is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 07-15-2010, 07:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All in all this setup is NOT recommended.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #14 of 36 Old 07-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
How big to make your screen is a personal decision. The trade off is between picture quality and the degree of immersion in the picture. A smaller picture size is always going to give you a far better PQ, irrespective of the projector, the screen, or the picture source material. A smaller picture will be brighter, sharper, and have more contrast. As you increase screen size PQ nose dives pretty fast, but the sense of immersion and involvement in the film goes up rapidly. There is an optimum point where you get acceptable PQ and acceptable immersion. Nobody can tell you where that point is - its your personal decision for your particular set up. But don't make the mistake of going to a huge screen size just because you can. In my particular set up, I have a 110 ins wide screen, which suits me fine. I certainly have room to go to 120 or 130 ins ins but the picture looks anaemic at 120 ins compared with 110ins.
taffman is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 07-15-2010, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
How does a smaller screen have more contrast than a larger one? Or are you referring to the change most zoom lenses have on lumen and contrast as they move from one end of the zoom range to the other (variable F stop)?

Also, screen size is very relevant to seating distance. If you have a large screen and sit twice the width back, you'll have a less immersive experience than with a smaller screen where you sit at one screen width distance for example.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #16 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 02:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Highjinx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

How does a smaller screen have more contrast than a larger one? Or are you referring to the change most zoom lenses have on lumen and contrast as they move from one end of the zoom range to the other (variable F stop)?

Also, screen size is very relevant to seating distance. If you have a large screen and sit twice the width back, you'll have a less immersive experience than with a smaller screen where you sit at one screen width distance for example.

Gary

A smaller screen can improve on/off CR with projectors such as the JVC, as the manual iris can be set at a smaller aperture, providing the required brightness and better on/off CR, go with a bigger screen and one has to open up the aperture to maintain brightness required and a corresponding drop in on/off CR will result.

May the success of a Nation be judged not by its collective wealth nor by its power, but by the contentment of its people.
Hiran J Wijeyesekera - 1985.
Highjinx is offline  
post #17 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 09:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Also, screen size is very relevant to seating distance. If you have a large screen and sit twice the width back, you'll have a less immersive experience than with a smaller screen where you sit at one screen width distance for example.

Gary

I'm not sure that I agree with that Gary. Yes, strictly speaking, the immersive effect depends solely on the angle subtended at the eye by the screen. So, based on that theory, a 24 ins wide screen viewed at 24 ins distance should have the same immersive effect as a 120 ins screen viewed at 120 ins distance. We all know that is not the case, because your brain is aware of the absolute screen size in relation to the surrounding room - it knows a big screen when it sees one!
taffman is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 09:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Cam Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ & Los Angeles,CA, USA
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 99
It seems that about 1500 calibrated lumens while retaining other PQ factors (at a bearable price) is the next great threshold.
Cam Man is offline  
post #19 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 11:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highjinx View Post

A smaller screen can improve on/off CR with projectors such as the JVC, as the manual iris can be set at a smaller aperture, providing the required brightness and better on/off CR, go with a bigger screen and one has to open up the aperture to maintain brightness required and a corresponding drop in on/off CR will result.

I asked how a smaller screen improved contrast, but your example is using the pj's iris, not the screen which is a different matter.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 11:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by taffman View Post

I'm not sure that I agree with that Gary. Yes, strictly speaking, the immersive effect depends solely on the angle subtended at the eye by the screen. So, based on that theory, a 24 ins wide screen viewed at 24 ins distance should have the same immersive effect as a 120 ins screen viewed at 120 ins distance. We all know that is not the case, because your brain is aware of the absolute screen size in relation to the surrounding room - it knows a big screen when it sees one!

Well of course that is an extreme, but we're talking about large projected images and not a small tv which will of course be difficult to set up at the kind of cinematic seating distances people are normally used to.

Obviously we are aware of absolute sizes but when talking about immersion and the screen sizes we use here, seating is probably more important than absolute size, especially in a darkened room with no other references. All you will know is that one screen looks smaller than the other because of how far back you are sitting. You may know the screen is bigger, but bigger is not always better when you sit so far back that the image appears smaller than a smaller screen when sat closer.

I've experimented with this in the past and have had a better viewing experience with an 8ft wide scope screen at 2.4 image heights (8ft back) compared to a 9ft 4ins wide screen from 14ft back. I've also had the same impression when sat in the back row of a commercial theatre - a considerably smaller looking image on a 45ft wide screen with less impact than the 8ft scope screen I had at home.

The potentially bigger benefit from a larger screen would be the larger room it is in and the larger distances from the surround speakers, since sitting too close to a speaker isn't desirable.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 12:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Posts: 2,064
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Image size needs to fit the soundstage too, IMHO.

High Desert Theater - work in progress
Building Bass - Subs

Surrounds - Easy as Pi

Storage - unRAID unDELL

petew is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 07-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
dangc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilsonL View Post

I want to go to 160" wide with the Seymour AT (2:35-1) screen, with the RS35. in a 20' length light controlled room.
Am i crazy?
should i go smaller?

Hi WilsonL,

I can provide you some first hand experience with a similar setup.

I use the Seymour AT screen (latest xD version) and I am in a fully light controlled room that is an absolute bat cave, (black painted ceiling, walls covered with black commando cloth, and black carpet). I also using a CIH 2.37:1 screen with an anamorphic lens.

I currently use a 144" wide screen and to have two different immersion choices I have my first row at about one screen width or 12' away and the second row at about 1.5 screen width or a little over 18' feet away. My projector however is an Infocus IN83 which can put out about 1200 calibrated lumens. This gives me around 600 lumens after reasonable bulb aging (around 500 hours) which gives me between 10 - 12 ft lamberts when you consider my screen is 60 sqft and my screen material has a gain of 1.2. Using the manual iris in the projector and the low power mode of the bulb when it is new I can maintain roughly 600 - 650 lumens for the first 500 hours. For me even in my bat cave, when I get to 700-800 hours my bulb has lost even a bit more brightness and I get down to around 550 lumens the picture starts looking dull and I replace the bulb. I would not go with a projector with less brightness, and therefore I made a choice that I simply would not be able to use these "ultra high contrast ratio" projectors such as the RS35 until they go to an LED or laser light source that doesn't loose much brightness over its life. You also have very few choices in bright projectors (greater than 1000 calibrated lumens) under $10K, but there are 2 pretty good choices out there right now for less than $5K and a couple more choices over $5K.

So the 160" screen may work for you with the RS35 when the bulb is new and after a 100 hours it will already be starting to look pretty dull and/or dim. Therefore I would say yes your are crazy to go that big with that projector and screen combo and yes for RS35 and AT screen you will need to go much much smaller, like 118" wide 2.37 to 1 screen would give you that 10-12 ft lamberts after bulb aging.

With all that said, I can tell you that I have seen setups from folks on this forum that are using large screens with in my opinion pretty dim projectors and live with and enjoy what is probably in the 5 to 6 ft lamberts. I will also tell you that I love the large screen and would not trade my setup for a 118" wide 2.37 screen using an RS35. And yes I have seen the RS35 in good light controlled setup and the picture was noticeably better than what I have; however, that loss in screen size to me would not be worth the gain in picture quality. Most people on this forum do not share that feeling however.

Good luck and have fun.
dangc is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 07-17-2010, 10:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
samalmoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 14
H i g h p o w e r
samalmoe is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 08:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Also note that 160" wide is nearly 20% larger than a 144" wide in overall surface area...that will make a large difference (though I agree with some hours it will simply dim too much on that screen.

As samalmoe stated, Hi Power or similar high gain may be the only real option (unless a more substantial projector was purchased).
Jason Turk is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 08:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 10,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 680
I'm a member of the bigger the better school.. if you can fit it in your room, go for it .. just consider a brighter PJ as others have stated. I personally don't care for a high gain screen. Let the PJ do the work, but get one that can. I've been quite happy with my Carada 110" BW for the last several years, however, I'd still like to install a 120" - 135" .. speaker placement then becomes an issue in my cave.

You'll also find that 1080p on BD allows a fairly close front row.. when I went from 720p to 1080p, I moved my seating up a few feet and gained the look of a larger screen without actually getting a larger screen. Of course, DVD content then suffered..

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is online now  
post #26 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 10:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

I'm a member of the bigger the better school.. if you can fit it in your room, go for it .. just consider a brighter PJ as others have stated. I personally don't care for a high gain screen. Let the PJ do the work, but get one that can. I've been quite happy with my Carada 110" BW for the last several years, however, I'd still like to install a 120" - 135" .. speaker placement then becomes an issue in my cave.

You'll also find that 1080p on BD allows a fairly close front row.. when I went from 720p to 1080p, I moved my seating up a few feet and gained the look of a larger screen without actually getting a larger screen. Of course, DVD content then suffered..

If one gets a projector capable of the size then absolutely. Problem is in the OP case, the RS35 isn't that.

Also one thing to point out is that 1080p BR is important, but with scope so is a lens. A native 1080p projector using the zoom method (no A lens) is only outputting roughly 817p...that could make a difference, depending on the room.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 12:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 10,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Also one thing to point out is that 1080p BR is important, but with scope so is a lens. A native 1080p projector using the zoom method (no A lens) is only outputting roughly 817p...that could make a difference, depending on the room.

I've got to admit, I've never thought of that... I don't zoom on scope, nor do I have an anamorphic glass, I move my motorized lens to the top of the screen, so all I have to deal with is a large black bar at the bottom.

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is online now  
post #28 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 12:38 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
WilsonL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 340
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
jason,

What PJ do you recommend for this size?
WilsonL is offline  
post #29 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 01:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

I've got to admit, I've never thought of that... I don't zoom on scope, nor do I have an anamorphic glass, I move my motorized lens to the top of the screen, so all I have to deal with is a large black bar at the bottom.

Yup...that is 817p roughly. Not a big deal since you aren't zooming. Specifically what I am referring to is those with a 2.35:1 native screen, but no anamorphic lens. For instance, take a 51"x120" screen.

51"x120" = 2.35:1
Equivalent 16:9 is 51"x90.75"
In the case of zooming, you are at 1080p on a 51"x90.75" screen...no problem. BUT, when switching to 2.35:1 you now are dropping to 817p (and losing about 25% of light output), AND increasing the size to 51"x120"...thus where the problem would come into play.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 07-20-2010, 03:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 10,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 322 Post(s)
Liked: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Turk View Post

Yup...that is 817p roughly. Not a big deal since you aren't zooming. Specifically what I am referring to is those with a 2.35:1 native screen, but no anamorphic lens. For instance, take a 51"x120" screen.

51"x120" = 2.35:1
Equivalent 16:9 is 51"x90.75"
In the case of zooming, you are at 1080p on a 51"x90.75" screen...no problem. BUT, when switching to 2.35:1 you now are dropping to 817p (and losing about 25% of light output), AND increasing the size to 51"x120"...thus where the problem would come into play.

Good info... thanks

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is online now  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

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