I'd also say go for it.
My first screen was a 7ft wide 16:9 screen, but I was always disappointed with scope presentations being smaller. Due to my room being a loft conversion, I was a bit limited, so looked at a form of CIA, but went for an 8ft wide 2.35:1 screen and moved my seating closer so that 16:9 didn't look too small (I kept the seating ratio the same as it was with the 16:9 screen height so it looked just as big as before). That was when I was using a 720 display and anamorphic lens and my seating distance to screen height ratio was 3:1, with my source material being mostly DVD. With BD and 1080 displays, there's no reason you can't sit closer unless you find it personally uncomfortable. If you watch a lot of DVD, then 3 x SH may be preferable due to image quality.
The important thing is seating distance as has been mentioned. I like 2 to 2.4 x screen height ratio (more immersive), but as coolrda says, 2 to 3 is a good ball park area with 1080 and HD source material. Adjust your seating distance so that 16:9 is as tall as you would like it and then 2.35 is just wider and more immersive, as designed.
If you sit too far back, you may find 16:9 looks too small and have the urge to zoom it bigger. That's usually the tell take sign that you need to sit closer.
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.