2:40:1 screen or 2:35:1 - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 37 Old 07-21-2013, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Have you actually calculated the difference/size for 2.35 vs. 2.40 for your particular screen size? How big are they?

B.
Brian B is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 37 Old 07-21-2013, 03:16 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I don't have my permanent screen yet but 2:40:1 is .8 inches shorter and .4 inches wider.
Bardia is offline  
post #33 of 37 Old 07-21-2013, 07:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

I don't have my permanent screen yet but 2:40:1 is .8 inches shorter and .4 inches wider.

Why are you even worrying about it? Less than half an inch high and less than a quarter of inch wide?

I routinely overscan that amount and mask off. If you are using a lens on a flat screen I would think that this would be necessary anyway to help eliminate issues at the sides anyhow...

B.
Brian B is online now  
post #34 of 37 Old 07-25-2013, 01:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 410
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Actually 2.40:1 is trully 2.39:1, there is no real "2.40:1".

Since the best source we use atm is still Blu-ray, hence 1920x1080, it should be (in pixels):

1920x1080 = 1.78:1
1920x1038 = 1.85:1
1920x817 = 2.35:1
1920x810 = 2.37:1
1920x803 = 2.39:1
1920x800 = 2.40:1

As consumer 4K:
3840x2160 = 1.78:1
3840x2076 = 1.85:1
3840x1634 = 2.35:1
3840x1620 = 2.37:1
3840x1606 = 2.39:1
3840x1600 = 2.40:1

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #35 of 37 Old 07-25-2013, 01:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius2 View Post

Actually 2.40:1 is trully 2.39:1, there is no real "2.40:1".

It's 2.39 and change, which is rounded to 2.4.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #36 of 37 Old 07-25-2013, 04:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 634
I've decided to go with a 2:35 screen in the theater I'm building. At least half of what we watch in there will be 16:9 content, and that will give me the largest possible picture, no? I figure I'll just overscan the sides a teensy-tiny bit with scope content; shouldn't even be noticable on the black velvet screen frame. I'll be using an A-lens (Prismasonic C-150) with scope content as well.
archiguy is online now  
post #37 of 37 Old 07-25-2013, 06:14 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I've decided to go with a 2:35 screen in the theater I'm building. At least half of what we watch in there will be 16:9 content, and that will give me the largest possible picture, no? I figure I'll just overscan the sides a teensy-tiny bit with scope content; shouldn't even be noticable on the black velvet screen frame. I'll be using an A-lens (Prismasonic C-150) with scope content as well.

I agree. I think I will do the same. Yes you will have about an inch taller image when viewing 16:9 content
Bardia 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