Can't decide which first 2:35 or 16:9 Fixed Screen for Pansonic PT-AE4000U - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 07-08-2010, 08:29 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
greenville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am planing to purchase the package deal with screen, projector mount, and Panasonic PT-AE4000U which has an advantage built in automatic switch for 16:9 and 2:35 format. The sale man recommend me to get 16:9 106" screen.

First I will tell you exact my theater room size is 12.4" wide, 7.10", and 19' long. The second row of couch sitting is 17' feet on platform. The first front row couch is about 11.5" toward to screen. I have to remind myself that front row has limit head height for screen size where the second row see over the heads to screen. What I found is maximum height screen is about 59" with frame. That is why I pick 106" screen 16:9.

What I figure out three sizes screens that i am roughly figure out the viewing size and fit the room. Correct me if I am wrong. I am glad you help me so I will not make mistake the first time.

First, If I get 16:9 Screen 106" (screen H 52",92"W and 106" D) that will be perfect fine for all HDTV shows, future AppleTV, DVD and some BlueRay movies that fit all 16:9 Format. comfortable viewing. But when I watch some DVD and BlueRay that require 2:35 and I am sure that i will adjust to make fit the screen the width inside the 106" screen. My guess is 92.5" W x 41.5 H to be fit inside 106". 5.25" Top and 5.25" bottom black bars will be shown. It will be a lot smaller view for 2:35 format.

Second, If I get 115" 2:35 Format screen (106" Wx 45" H) and I am guessing 16:9 Format (80" W x 45" H and 11.5" Black bar on left and right side will be fit inside 2:35 screen. It will be like 92" screen. For real full view 2:35 is good size but I am concern that 16:9 will be too small.

Third, If I get 125" 2:35 Format screen (115.5" W x 49"H) and I am guessing 16:9 Format (89" W x 49" H, with 13" blackbar on each side inside the 2:35 screen. It is slightly smaller than 106" by 3 inches off on each side. Is this 16:9 fit perfectly for viewing? What about 125" 2:35 is it too big or just perfect viewing for first and second row.



Now I need your help to help me decide which one is best screen so I will not be disappointed and purchase again in future. I do want the job once.

Thanks for help and feed back.
greenville is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 07-08-2010, 09:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MattGuyOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I just set-up my 120" 2.37:1 screen mated with the Panny 4000 and I'm only 13 feet from the screen and it looks fantastic. 125" might be kinda big for the front row, but I still recommend getting a 2.35:1 screen, they are really amazing. You will be glad you did when you watch the epic movies as they were meant to be seen. When I watch 1.85:1 movies, they are about the same size as 1.85:1 movies used to be on my 100" 16x9 screen. As much as I loved that screen, too, there's no going back. Scope rules.
MattGuyOR is offline  
post #3 of 32 Old 07-09-2010, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vitod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattGuyOR View Post

I just set-up my 120" 2.37:1 screen mated with the Panny 4000 and I'm only 13 feet from the screen and it looks fantastic. 125" might be kinda big for the front row, but I still recommend getting a 2.35:1 screen, they are really amazing. You will be glad you did when you watch the epic movies as they were meant to be seen. When I watch 1.85:1 movies, they are about the same size as 1.85:1 movies used to be on my 100" 16x9 screen. As much as I loved that screen, too, there's no going back. Scope rules.

+1 on 2:35:1 screens.

Evil is Good
vitod is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 07-09-2010, 12:11 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Your room is very similar to mine at 12 3" wide I have a 120" wide 2.40 screen first row at 11' and its perfect. Really depends on the person if you like it big go big but go scope for sure. I have no complaints in my theater of it being too big.

www.NastyPerformance.com

10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 07-13-2010, 05:46 AM
Senior Member
 
18628239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Elysium
Posts: 397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasty N8 View Post

Your room is very similar to mine at 12 3" wide I have a 120" wide 2.40 screen first row at 11' and its perfect. Really depends on the person if you like it big go big but go scope for sure. I have no complaints in my theater of it being too big.

How do you control light bouncing off the side-walls near the screen? While color might help darken a room, a surface will reflect.

Not saying this cannot be achieved to a satisfactory conclusion, but I am curious as I also have a ~12.5' wide room and I am considering an AT screen of 120" width.

The drawback, on one hand, is the loss in gain due to AT material and the light on the L/R sides of the screen bouncing off the walls, and on the other hand a non-AT screen would afford higher gain options.

"What we do in life echoes in eternity." General Maximus Decimus Meridius
18628239 is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 07-13-2010, 06:31 AM
Newbie
 
BillFree2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Take a look at a new screen by Screen Innovation called "Black Diamond" projector screens and the light problem disappeared and what a difference it made. Hot item for CIH setups. Once you see it and try it you are sold. The WOW factor is there. Excellent demo:
http://www.screeninnovations.com/
Note:After watching the first video, move your mouse slightly up and a selection of all demo's will appear. The one that shows reflective light on the HT ceiling in a completely dark room, the white screen moved away showing a incredible projected picture.
BillFree2 is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 07-13-2010, 02:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I have fabric walls and did about 20" of black from the screen wall down the sides.

www.NastyPerformance.com

10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 07-13-2010, 08:56 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
go with a 2:37 screen an use the 4k's auto AR.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 07-15-2010, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
premiertrussman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Central Indiana
Posts: 2,042
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I would definitely go scope. You might have to sacrifice a little bit of size when you watch 16:9 material, but the bonus you get when watching scope material far out weighs that imo. I think most people tend to agree.

Another thing ive seen as well, is people seem to not have any problems with a scope screen that may seem a little too big on paper...once they get it into their rooms, they are happy with it.

Where are you going to put your LCR channels? If you were planning in front you might have trouble going with a really large 2.35 screen as it might push them all the way to the edges of the room. Just something to think about.

One other thing to think about, dont buy to combo...If you really want to make sure you get it right for you the FIRST time, buy the projector and play with it. You can sit her and ask questions and crunch numbers all day long, but when it comes right down to it, everyone prefers something different.

So weight out the difference is whatever savings youll get buying a package deal worth taking a best guess or would you rather have piece of mind?

If nothing else, call a sales rep at the company you are going through, see if they would be willing to ship a the screen at a later date, so you would have time to get a feel for what size you really want. You may have to pay extra shipping but...its all about what your piece of mind is worth.

Shades of Grey Theater

Live: Hero of CanntonĀ 

Currently Playing: CoD Black Ops II

premiertrussman is offline  
post #10 of 32 Old 07-29-2010, 01:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbraden32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cicleville, OH
Posts: 1,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Don't want to start another 2:35 vs 16:9 and trying not to hi-jack this thread, so I thought I would ask here and hope you guys could expand your thoughts some more on this very common subject.

I know almost everyone recommends 2:35 over 16:9 for movies. However, lets say this is the senario in a dedicated HT Room:
  • 55% HDTV/Sports
  • 40% Movies
  • 5% Gaming

Being constricted to lets say a smaller screen 105" width. Which would give approx. 2:35 screen of 105wX45h and a 16:9 screen 105wX60H

Would you recommend going 2:35 and masking for the 16:9 screen or the opposite of going with a bigger 16:9 screen and masking for the 2:35?

I have read multiple dicussions about this and really like the width of the 2:35but don't want to sacrifice the size for Sports watching.

So, What are the negatives of doing the bigger screen then masking for the 2:35?
  1. Not having constant height? What problems does this create?
  2. Masking Issues? If so, known problems.
  3. Others?

Thoughts?

tbraden32 is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 07-29-2010, 03:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Personally I would go 2.35 any day but that's just me. How big is your room and what's the seating? In your case a large 16/9 or maybe a CIA might be better? Personal preference

www.NastyPerformance.com

10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #12 of 32 Old 07-30-2010, 12:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbraden32 View Post

I know almost everyone recommends 2:35 over 16:9 for movies. However, lets say this is the senario in a dedicated HT Room:
  • 55% HDTV/Sports
  • 40% Movies
  • 5% Gaming

This would imply that well over 60% of your viewing would be 16:9 content, so I'd choose the setup to favour your bias rather than mine for example. I only watch films on my setup and of those I've found that 90% or more seem to be 2.35/2.40:1 (which is partly to do with my taste in films, not the percentage made in scope) hence my 2.35:1 screen choice. If you consider that of your '40%' movies not all of these will be scope either, then I'd say go for 16:9 or CIA as said above.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 07-30-2010, 06:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
unclemat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey Guys. I also started considering AE4000 in order to go scope w/zoom. It's gonna be my first projector/HT experience and I'd like to get it "right" the first time (ok, ok, as close as possible given limited budget).

I am thinking about 115" diagonal 2.35 screen (Cinetension), white (1.1 gain). Seating distance would be about 10.5'. I'd like to ceiling mount the projector at 13-14' away from the screen. Living room, with decent light control, but movies would be watched only at night anyway.

Per the calculator at http://www.projectorcentral.com/Pana...ulator-pro.htm it seems I'll be pushing it light wise.

Do you think it will be too dim when zoomed to 2.35 at that throw distance? I know anamorphic lens would be the way too go, but it won't really fit the budget right now and I am kinda skeptical of going cheap there (and it does not seem like there are really cheap options, are they?). I am a photographer and I always dread adding crappy lens to the light path...

Also if I mount it at the ceiling above screen top edge I guess I will run into issues when remote switch beteen 2.35:1 and 16:9 won't be possible and I'll have to adjust lens shift manually. Bit of a bummer but I guess I'll have to live with it (the projector needs to be on the ceiling).

Suggestions/comments would be much appreciated!
unclemat is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 07-30-2010, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tbraden32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cicleville, OH
Posts: 1,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasty N8 View Post

Personally I would go 2.35 any day but that's just me. How big is your room and what's the seating? In your case a large 16/9 or maybe a CIA might be better? Personal preference

I am just now getting ready to build my room. It will be approx 14"w X 20"L and 8" H. With CIA, what problems does that cause with projector setup and masking?

Whats the diffence in CIW vs CIA. If I built a 16:9 screen, then when playing 2:35 movies, would I just have to mask the top and bottom, thus allowing me to still have the bigger 16:9 screen for viewing that material? And still expereincing the Max width for both?

tbraden32 is offline  
post #15 of 32 Old 07-30-2010, 09:28 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Nasty N8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake in the hills IL
Posts: 1,136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
If you have 14' width to work with why limit the scope screen size? Why not compromise with sizes and pick something in the middle 120"-130" wide scope will give you a great 16/9 as well.

www.NastyPerformance.com

10,000 Watts, custom built speakers, 10' CIH screen = Holy Crap
Nasty N8 is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 08-02-2010, 07:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemat View Post

Hey Guys. I also started considering AE4000 in order to go scope w/zoom. It's gonna be my first projector/HT experience and I'd like to get it "right" the first time (ok, ok, as close as possible given limited budget).

I am thinking about 115" diagonal 2.35 screen (Cinetension), white (1.1 gain). Seating distance would be about 10.5'. I'd like to ceiling mount the projector at 13-14' away from the screen. Living room, with decent light control, but movies would be watched only at night anyway.

Per the calculator at http://www.projectorcentral.com/Pana...ulator-pro.htm it seems I'll be pushing it light wise.

Do you think it will be too dim when zoomed to 2.35 at that throw distance? I know anamorphic lens would be the way too go, but it won't really fit the budget right now and I am kinda skeptical of going cheap there (and it does not seem like there area really cheap options, are they?). I am a photographer and I always dread adding crappy lens to the light path...

Also if I mount it at the ceiling above screen top edge I guess I will run into issues when remote switch beteen 2.35:1 and 16:9 won't be possible and I'll have to adjust lens shift manually. Bit of a bumper but I guess I'll have to live with it (the projector needs to be on the ceiling).

Suggestions/comments would be much appreciated!

To some degree it will depend on your definition of "light control" for that room. But, a 115" diagonal 2.35:1 is no problem with the Panny. Try not to pay attention to those calculators...they are really pretty pointless, other than figuring out location for mounting and such.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 08-02-2010, 09:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
unclemat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks! I'll be going with 103" 2.35 screen anyway. For our sitting distance of ~10.5 ft and considering our preference to not be 'too close', this size should work nicely. Smaller screen will also make it easier to keep it lit.
unclemat is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 08-02-2010, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Jason Turk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Rochester, NY USA
Posts: 12,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Welcome.
Jason Turk is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 08:37 AM
pfp
Member
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbraden32 View Post

I have read multiple dicussions about this and really like the width of the 2:35but don't want to sacrifice the size for Sports watching.

So, What are the negatives of doing the bigger screen then masking for the 2:35?



I'm Planning my first dedicated HT projector room and am also in search of the answer to this question.
  • The room is roughtly 14 X 17 X 9
  • Content will be 100% movies
  • Projector - Panasonic PT-AE4000U (90% sure)
  • Screen - Carada Criterition, most likely 136" but not sure about aspect ratio

At first I was all set to go 136" 2.35:1. When watching 1.85 movies I'd just have black bars on the sides. Then I started wondering - why do I need to keep the height constant, why not keep the width constant? Here are two sketches I did showing the different screen sizes on my wall and the alternate AR on those screens.

Here I take a 29" diag hit on size for the alternate AR


With this option I only take a 6" diag hit for the alternate AR
pfp is offline  
post #20 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 08:56 AM
Senior Member
 
dzirkelb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The reason for constant height, in my mind, is because it makes movies seem bigger.

If you have a 16:9 screen, then you can only utilize it for, mainly, TV and 16:9 movies. Now, probably 80% of blu rays (if not more) are in 2:40, which means for 80% of your movies watched, on a 16:9 screen, you will have black bars on top and bottom.

I ended up going with a 2:40 screen because the movies seem bigger than regular viewing. When watching TV, most programs are 16:9, so then, when I pop in a movie, it just seems like it is a bigger experience, which in fact, it is.

If, however, I went with constant width (16:9 screen), then the movies would in fact seem smaller than regular viewing, because, it is (black bars on top and bottom).

It really boils down to this:

If viewing movies mainly, then do the 2:40 screen. If movies will rarely be watched, and the screen is mainly for sports and TV, then do 16:9.
dzirkelb is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 09:07 AM
pfp
Member
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I found this post which seems to explain why. I've only read the first page so far but definitely food for thought.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1287699
pfp is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 10:57 AM
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 pfp View Post

...why do I need to keep the height constant, why not keep the width constant?...

Assuming that you sit in the same place when switching between 2.40 and 16x9 viewing:

In your first sketch, 2.40 movies are bigger than 16x9 movies.

In your second sketch, 16x9 movies are bigger than 2.40 movies.

To answer your question: you keep the height constant so that at the same seating distance, 2.40 movies look bigger than 16x9 movies. In most cases, that is the director's intention. If 16x9 feels small, then push your seating closer until it feels just the right size. At that point, 2.40 movies will be large, maybe larger than you're accustomed to, but that's the point --> it should feel large compared to 16x9.
ilsiu is offline  
post #23 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
 
dzirkelb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

Assuming that you sit in the same place in both examples:

In your first sketch, 2.40 movies are bigger than 16x9 movies.

In your second sketch, 16x9 movies are bigger than 2.40 movies.

To answer your question: you keep the height constant so that at the same seating distance, 2.40 movies look bigger than 16x9 movies. In most cases, that is the director's intention. If 16x9 feels small, then push your seating closer until it feels just the right size. At that point, 2.40 movies will be large, maybe larger than you're accustomed to, but that's the point --> it should feel large compared to 16x9.

+1

I had a hard time wrapping this around my mind also. If you use a 16x9 screen, you never have to refocus your projector, which makes you think you never lose any screen size. When, in fact, this is true. A 16x9 screen will dispaly a full 16x9 image, and a full 2:40 image.

However, your 2:40 image will "appear" smaller than the 16x9 image, because, it is, which is caused by the black bars on top and bottom.

So, since the majority of blus are in 2:40, I chose to do a 2:40 screen because the movies seem bigger than watching regular TV, because the display image has to be bigger (2:40 screen with a 16x9 image has black bars on right and left).

Boils down to 2:40 screen will make movies seem bigger
16:9 screen will make movies seem smaller
dzirkelb is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 11:20 AM
pfp
Member
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yeah, that other thread really drove it home for me that the intent is for 2:35 to be bigger. I also realized that I'll just need to move my seating closer which will be easy enough.

One question though. When you write 2:40 do you mean 2:35?
pfp is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 01-18-2011, 11:31 AM
Senior Member
 
dzirkelb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfp View Post

Yeah, that other thread really drove it home for me that the intent is for 2:35 to be bigger. I also realized that I'll just need to move my seating closer which will be easy enough.

One question though. When you write 2:40 do you mean 2:35?

Yes on the 2:40 to 2:35.

Honestly, on all of my research, they all say 2:35; however, I actually haven't encountered a movie that says 2:35 on the box yet, they all say 2:40.

I'm not sure why people refer to it as 2:35, or why the box says 2:40, or what the deal is...but, for sake of argument, consider them to be the same (with just a slight bit of difference when seen on the screen).
dzirkelb is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 01-28-2011, 08:13 PM
pfp
Member
 
pfp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
My PT-AE4000 was delivered yesterday and I set it up temporarily in the room to test cables, screen size, position, etc. I think I made a mistake in selecting The Dark knight as my first viewing experience with a projector because of the way this film uses multiple aspect ratios.

Question: How do you watch this film on a scope screen? I'm assuming you have to watch it in the 1.85 zoom and accept the smaller screen size for most of the film which is 2.35?

Another issue I discovered in my setup. My projector will have one source - a Popcorn Hour A200 using a slightly modified YAMJ AEON skin. All the YAMJ screens themselves are 16:9. The mostly blu-ray rips I will be watching range in aspect ratio. Assuming I use a scope screen what would the procedure be for changing AR when navigating the popcorn hour vs watching a movie.
pfp is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 01-29-2011, 02:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kelvin1965S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 3,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfp View Post

Assuming I use a scope screen what would the procedure be for changing AR when navigating the popcorn hour vs watching a movie.

You could change to the AE4000's 'S16:9' aspect ratio while leaving the zoom set for scope: The 16:9 menu will then be 'shrunk' to fit within the height of the scope screen. The only issue is that you have to cycle through the various aspect ratios to get to 'S16:9' rather than having a direct button press, so it's not very slick. Note that you lose resolution dong this, but it's fine for navigating menus and trailers.

Zooming: Been there, done that, bought the lens...
Kelvin1965S is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 04-06-2011, 04:56 PM
Newbie
 
krinkov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfp View Post

My PT-AE4000 was delivered yesterday and I set it up temporarily in the room to test cables, screen size, position, etc. I think I made a mistake in selecting The Dark knight as my first viewing experience with a projector because of the way this film uses multiple aspect ratios.

Question: How do you watch this film on a scope screen? I'm assuming you have to watch it in the 1.85 zoom and accept the smaller screen size for most of the film which is 2.35?


OK.I just worked this one out on my set up. I also have the Panasonic PT-AE4000 & 2 35:1 screen. I use the Upper & Lower Masking Area (+70 on both) options in the Lens Control settings on the projector to make the Imax 16:9 parts stay within the border of the screen. In theory cutting off the top & bottom of the 16:9 IMax parts. I also turn off auto Lens Memory switching & do it manually. This makes films like The Dark Knight & the latest Tron Legacy play all the way through in Scope 2 35:1.
krinkov is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 04-07-2011, 07:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeffmcclan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
+1 for Seymour 2.37 AT screen

Great for movies. Ordered 2.37 AR as a midpoint between 2.35 and 2.40 movies. Panny auto selects between 1.78 and 2.37. Can press button for 1.85 content.
jeffmcclan is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 04-10-2011, 07:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18628239 View Post

How do you control light bouncing off the side-walls near the screen? While color might help darken a room, a surface will reflect.

If you use 1ft of black velvet or velour framing the screen, it will absorb the light. I use it to absorb the reflection off my centre channel, also I glued the same material on the right side of the left speaker and on the left side of the right speaker. (see pic)


follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
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