2:35 screen vs 16x9 - Page 14 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #391 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 319
(I know some here are already familiar with my system, but I wrote the following in case it is of interest to others).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.

I have found the solution I used pretty close to "perfect" over the 4 years I've been using it. I maintain as much impact as I want for whatever movie I'm watching (within the size of my screen of course, with is a somewhat larger than 2.0 AR, using 4 way masking and zooming).

Personally, I don't bother, or see any need, to stick to some mathematically precise relationship in screen sizes, be it CIW, CIH or CIA. I never did such calculations when choosing different seats in movie theaters - I just ended up in a seat that, per movie, felt like where I wanted to be. I just replicated that flexibility at home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):

http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf

He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.

Here's a page with a video of the purported benefits of their process:

http://blog.dsientertainment.com/audio-video-home-theater-automation/bid/26852/The-Best-Home-Theater-Screen-Money-Can-Buy

The impression given by PMI is that this is a truly novel, next gen idea, so of course it will cost you the fortune they are asking. Only the ultra rich need apply. (They will use only the most expensive products, projectors etc, in putting the system together no doubt).

However, this being AVS, one can often find people ahead of the curve. Constant Area was touted many years ago by forum member Bjoern Roy:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/15649/my-9-wide-2-35-1-screen-in-action-braveheart-twine-ts2

I put together two commercial masking systems (one for top/bottom masking, the other for side masking), with as large a screen as could fit on my wall and using a decent universal remote (even a Harmony) all sorts of user-designed pre-set image sizes can be programmed. Add in that lens memory functions are becoming ever more available on projectors, and it's amazing what can be automated.

I have around 20 pre-set image sizes for my masking, 10 of which also employ the 10 lens memory pre-sets of my JVC projector. So at a single press of a button, the screen size (masking) an image size (zooming) changes shape
in seconds, depending on how much impact I want for the experience, or depending on the quality of the source material. (I keep meaning to post a video of the system in action - haven't got around to it).

I know this is sort of like the guys who say "Kaleidescape is over-priced, you can do all that so much cheaper with an HTPC." But really the point is that someone can look at the PMI system and get the impression this is some unreachable idea if you aren't rich. But, resourcefulness is our middle name here on AVSforum. smile.gif
R Harkness is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #392 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 01:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be that much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.

When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.

I understand your preference is your preference. However Pacific Rim is not supposed to have the same area as a scope film. The director, for whatever reason, chose to shoot it in 1.85:1. If you find yourself wanting more image height, then I would say the scope screen is undersized and would go with the 140" scope screen. But it's your setup. To me scope is not supposed to have parity with 1.85:1. It is supposed to be larger.

jeahrens is offline  
post #393 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 01:23 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

I understand your preference is your preference. However Pacific Rim is not supposed to have the same area as a scope film. The director, for whatever reason, chose to shoot it in 1.85:1.

Well, let's think about why the film-makers decided to shoot in 1:85:1.

Here's a movie about GIGANTIC TOWERING ROBOTS AND MONSTERS. Do you think the film-makers were thinking "Well, we don't want this movie to have the sense of immersion, size and scale as The Notebook, or American Beauty (shot in scope)."?

Surely the choice of 1:85:1 would more likely be for compositional reasons, the idea that 1:85:1 would suite how they wanted to portray the height relationship of these robots and monsters, much as Spielberg did in selecting 1:85:1 for Jurassic Park.

I believe that, while the original rational for shooting in scope was a uniform expectation for the image to be much wider, things change and since then a variety of aspect ratios are chosen for their compositional aspects, and how it will serve the movie, and not just "wider for immersion." I feel quite certain that the makers of Pacific Rim would want a great sense of immersion to get those monsters feeling huge on screen. And for the same reason, I'd bet that if you had the 1:85:1 Pacific Rim showing on a 2:35:1 screen and you said to the film-maker, "I can make this image significantly larger and more immersive" the film-maker would say "damn-straight! Let's do it."

I know that for my guests that is often the case. If I just show them the 16:9 image at CIH size on my system it appears plenty big to them. But if I say "We can watch this even larger (especially for a spectacular movie)" they say "ok" and when the image expands to a much larger image they typically are like "Whoooa! Awesome. Let's watch it like this!"

The thing is, if you watch absolutely every 1:85:1 movie at it's largest size then you end up with the CIW effect of scope movies regularly being smaller. I never expand 1:85:1 movies to the full width of my screen - even at 136" diagonal for 1:85:1 there is plenty of width to differentiate scope movies.
R Harkness is online now  
post #394 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 01:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I have around 20 pre-set image sizes for my masking, 10 of which also employ the 10 lens memory pre-sets of my JVC projector. So at a single press of a button, the screen size (masking) an image size (zooming) changes shape in seconds, depending on how much impact I want for the experience

Your setup sounds amazing, and I'd love to see it in person. When I get some more free time tonight, I'll gonna check out the links in your sig.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

, or depending on the quality of the source material. (I keep meaning to post a video of the system in action - haven't got around to it).

This is an important point. I mentioned earlier that 140" would be too large for me for a 16:9 image. But to elaborate further, if everything I was watching in 16:9 was pristine, 5-star quality Blu-ray video, I think I could do 140". But I know that will not always be the case. Some material just doesn't hold up to being seen too closely. Older movies with a lot of grain, overly compressed TV such as NFL games, downloaded content, etc. So that's a big reason that I don't wan to go too far with my 16:9 image size.

For example, we recently watched the UK Blu-ray of the 1968 production of "Romeo and Juliet", and while the video quality was beautiful in many parts of the movie, it did have a lot of grain, and it would not have benefited from being much larger than I already had it. I did play around with blowing it up to 140" (even though it was overlapping my screen on top and bottom), and I did not like what I saw at that size.

Now if I could change the size and masking at will, like you describe, I suppose that would be the best of every world.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #395 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 02:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Well, let's think about why the film-makers decided to shoot in 1:85:1.

Here's a movie about GIGANTIC TOWERING ROBOTS AND MONSTERS. Do you think the film-makers were thinking "Well, we don't want this movie to have the sense of immersion, size and scale as The Notebook, or American Beauty (shot in scope)."?

Surely the choice of 1:85:1 would more likely be for compositional reasons, the idea that 1:85:1 would suite how they wanted to portray the height relationship of these robots and monsters, much as Spielberg did in selecting 1:85:1 for Jurassic Park.

I believe that, while the original rational for shooting in scope was a uniform expectation for the image to be much wider, things change and since then a variety of aspect ratios are chosen for their compositional aspects, and how it will serve the movie, and not just "wider for immersion." I feel quite certain that the makers of Pacific Rim would want a great sense of immersion to get those monsters feeling huge on screen. And for the same reason, I'd bet that if you had the 1:85:1 Pacific Rim showing on a 2:35:1 screen and you said to the film-maker, "I can make this image significantly larger and more immersive" the film-maker would say "damn-straight! Let's do it."

I know that for my guests that is often the case. If I just show them the 16:9 image at CIH size on my system it appears plenty big to them. But if I say "We can watch this even larger (especially for a spectacular movie)" they say "ok" and when the image expands to a much larger image they typically are like "Whoooa! Awesome. Let's watch it like this!"

The thing is, if you watch absolutely every 1:85:1 movie at it's largest size then you end up with the CIW effect of scope movies regularly being smaller. I never expand 1:85:1 movies to the full width of my screen - even at 136" diagonal for 1:85:1 there is plenty of width to differentiate scope movies.

I don't know why the Del Toro chose to go 1.85:1 for Pacific Rim, but I'm sure (like you commented) it was chosen for its compositional traits and probably 3D. However I'm sure the director knew full well that it would, on the majority of cinemas, have less visual size than a scope presentation. I know Whedon chose 1.85:1 for The Avengers because he felt it was the best way to frame the Hulk. I personally think the Battle of New York and many other segments would have worked better in scope, but it's a great film nonetheless and I love what Whedon did with it. But it does not change the point that both these directors knew full well that they were choosing to frame their films to be smaller than if they went scope. So in actuality, yes, the filmmaker did decide to have Pacific Rim be smaller than American Beauty. I don't appreciate a film more or less because of the aspect ratio. If the composition works, it works. Jurassic Park works fantastic.

Our vision is more tolerant of width than height, so my opinion is get to the height you want and use that as your CIH baseline. Your home experience will mimic the theater experience. But in the end you have to be happy with what you have. The realities of your room may not make it feasible or, like in your case, it's just plain preference.

For me CIH is what I see at the cinema and I love that experience at home. My height is maximized for my room. Every format has the impact it would if I was sitting in a theater. Right now I'm making my way through the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection and don't even think about the screen on either side of the 4:3 picture.

jeahrens is offline  
post #396 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

I don't know why the Del Toro chose to go 1.85:1 for Pacific Rim, but I'm sure (like you commented) it was chosen for its compositional traits and probably 3D.

I'm going to let my Godzilla film geekiness shine through a bit here smile.gif

The reason Del Toro chose 1.85:1 is the same reason the 90s Godzilla films were shot in 1.85:1. If your subject (in this case, Godzilla) is supposed to be extremely tall and dwarf everything around him, it makes more sense to go taller than wider. At least, that was the thinking of FX director Koichi Kawakita. The new Legendary Godzilla film is 2.40:1, so obviously Gareth Edwards thinks differently.

BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).

FWIW, most filmmakers are very unhappy about this, because they usually choose 2.40:1 for the immersion factor - now lost at home and at many movie theaters frown.gif

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #397 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).

That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.

But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #398 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,304
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.

But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?

Most people don't notice it at all, since the masking panels usually move as the lights are dimming and the audience is distracted.

The reason they do constant width is so they can cram more theaters in less space.

John Schuermann, Filmmaker / Film Composer
Home Theater Industry Consultant
JS Music and Sound
Panamorph
Check out my new movie!: www.stephensonmovie.com
John Schuermann is online now  
post #399 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post


BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).

Very true. At my local multiplex, only screen 1 is scope, all the rest mask down. I pretty much always go for that screen and sit in the same seats for most immersion (for me at least).
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

FWIW, most filmmakers are very unhappy about this, because they usually choose 2.40:1 for the immersion factor - now lost at home and at many movie theaters frown.gif

I remember Brad Bird saying much the same, and that he feels modern cinema has lost the art of showmanship. I have to agree with him:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Bird 
I feel like multiplexes and the shutting down of the grand old theaters have taken a lot of the showmanship out of presenting movies. There used to be a thing such as “first run.” The meaning of “first run” is gone now because on opening day you can see a brand new movie on a good screen but it’s more likely you’ll see it on a crappy screen. And it can even be a small, crappy screen.

He does seem to be a fan of IMAX, but not 3D judging by other comments he made.

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 #400 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.

But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?

Most people don't notice it at all, since the masking panels usually move as the lights are dimming and the audience is distracted.

The reason they do constant width is so they can cram more theaters in less space.

The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope (and many people cheered). If it was 1.85:1, you never noticed them because they didn't move.

these days I really notice the top and bottom masking close down the image if I go to another screen. The last time I did that was because the 2D time suited better than the 3D time. Even so, I made sure I got the seats that were close enough to coincide with a similar seating distance to the seats I pick in the main screen. Fortunately you can choose your seats from the monitor when you buy your tickets, and I have paced out the screen to seating distance to ensure I am sat where I like to be.

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 #401 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope (and many people cheered).

That made me laugh for some reason. Must have been before my own time! smile.gif

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #402 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 03:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope (and many people cheered).

That made me laugh for some reason. Must have been before my own time! smile.gif

Maybe!

Though I'm sure people still do cheer when the main feature arrives even today, but perhaps that depends on the type of movie and the patrons in attendance smile.gif

It's also quite possible that I'm remembering just a few occasions when it happened and it just sticks in my mind because I associate it with the curtains opening.

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 #403 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 04:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 92 Post(s)
Liked: 319
I'm even noticing theaters that zoom/crop scope movies to fit their 1:85:1 screens!
R Harkness is online now  
post #404 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 04:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 39
It wouldn't surprise me!

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 #405 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 05:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,344
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post


If your subject (in this case, Godzilla) is supposed to be extremely tall and dwarf everything around him, it makes more sense to go taller than wider. At least, that was the thinking of FX director Koichi Kawakita.

I seem to recall hearing that is why Spielberg chose 1:85 for Jurassic Park.

DavidHir is online now  
post #406 of 420 Old 04-29-2014, 05:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,344
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 415
I've seen it both ways depending on the theater: constant image height as well as constant image width.

DavidHir is online now  
post #407 of 420 Old 05-01-2014, 09:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Most of our multiplexes are not the huge 10+ screen affairs and still have about an 80/20 scope/1.85 ratio. Although when I watched Rush in one, not only was it a masked 1.85:1 screen it was off center. So it happens. But thankfully the norm is still scope. I have not seen one crop a film yet. I may ask for my money back if I run into that atrocity!

jeahrens is offline  
post #408 of 420 Old 05-30-2014, 03:46 AM
Member
 
AidenL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I switched a week ago to a 130 inch diagonal 2.35:1 from a 104 inch 16:9, and I'm amazed how much more cinematic it is - fantastic upgrade.

Display : JVC X500 Projector | 130" ReAct 2.1 2.35:1 Screen | Panasonic 65VT30 |
Sources : Oppo 103 D Multizone | Apple TV3 | HTPC | Sky HD | Sonos Connect | Synology 24Tb |
Audio : Anthem MRX 510 | KEF R700 | KEF R600c | KEF E301 Sides & Rears | Paradigm Sub 1 |
Control : Harmony Ultimate |
AidenL is offline  
post #409 of 420 Old 05-30-2014, 08:00 PM
Member
 
drummermitchell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I like the saying..16x9 is like looking through your living room window and 2:35 is like stepping out into your front yard.
When I switched to 23:5 it was end of story:).
AidenL likes this.
drummermitchell is offline  
post #410 of 420 Old 06-01-2014, 12:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummermitchell View Post

I like the saying..16x9 is like looking through your living room window and 2:35 is like stepping out into your front yard.
When I switched to 23:5 it was end of story:).
How about IMAX? Stepping into ?
Skylinestar is offline  
post #411 of 420 Old 06-01-2014, 02:42 PM
Member
 
Murilomms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look this solution with two screens from Ava Projecta and a Panasonic Projector (using triggers, lens memory and auto switching)

TV = 64"
Screen 1.78:1 = 72"
Screen 2.40:1 = 82"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHILtTP_c8Y
Murilomms is offline  
post #412 of 420 Old 06-02-2014, 05:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by smuggymba View Post

Guys - I'm struggling with this 2.35 vs 16:9 chat and I have see many videos on youtube and also saw the panamorph website. Can you guide me.


My room is 12 ft wide, assuming I leave 1 ft on each side for the speakers, I'm left with 10 ft i.e. 120 inches on width for the screen + frame. The width of the screen is limited but not the height since I have space.

Assuming, we're dealing with Sony HW50ES and a Frameless (zero edge or blade screen) - should I go for a 2.35 or 16:9. I watch both TV and movies. What format would give me a bigger size pic for both TV and movies.

OPTION 1: As per my understanding, a 16X9 screen - will give the max size pic for TV (no black bars) and movie(black bars on top)

OPTION 2: On the other hand, a 2.35 screen will show be the same size pic as above for movies (no black bars) and a smaller size TV (with black bars on side).

So, In option 1, I get a bigger pic for TV and in option 2 it's smaller (movie size remains same). Is my understanding correct?

Sounds like you pretty much understand it, except I would point out that only about half the movies out there are 2.35.

If you go with your maximum width in a 16:9 screen, you will not be losing any size in 2.35 format. But going 120" wide will give you a 137" 16:9 screen. That is quite large, and it may be uncomfortable depending on how close your seating is.

I have a 120" wide 2.35 screen since I watch 90% movies on my projector. That gives me a 16:9 image of about 108", but I would like for my 16:9 to be a little bigger. Ideally around 120-125 inches diagonal. But I don't want to give up any size from 2.35 format. It seems like the only way to have my perfect size in both 2.35 and 16:9 is to go with a compromise ratio, such as 2.0:1. The bad thing about that is I would have black bars for both formats. Not a deal breaker, but something to be aware of.

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #413 of 420 Old 06-03-2014, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Sounds like you pretty much understand it, except I would point out that only about half the movies out there are 2.35.

If you go with your maximum width in a 16:9 screen, you will not be losing any size in 2.35 format. But going 120" wide will give you a 137" 16:9 screen. That is quite large, and it may be uncomfortable depending on how close your seating is.

I have a 120" wide 2.35 screen since I watch 90% movies on my projector. That gives me a 16:9 image of about 108", but I would like for my 16:9 to be a little bigger. Ideally around 120-125 inches diagonal. But I don't want to give up any size from 2.35 format. It seems like the only way to have my perfect size in both 2.35 and 16:9 is to go with a compromise ratio, such as 2.0:1. The bad thing about that is I would have black bars for both formats. Not a deal breaker, but something to be aware of.

This is exactly why I went with two electric screens ! I didn't want to compromise either way.

16:9 and 2.35:1 screens - no aspect ratio compromise either way !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at craig@avscience.com
http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #414 of 420 Old 06-03-2014, 01:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

This is exactly why I went with two electric screens ! I didn't want to compromise either way.

16:9 and 2.35:1 screens - no aspect ratio compromise either way !

Very nice! You could say that having two screens is also a compromise, since you had to buy and install TWO screens, but it is a very good solution to the problem. What sizes are the two screens?

Although they are very close together, they are not on the same plane. Is the difference enough to require a focus adjustment when you are switching between screens?

My home theater gallery Epson 5010 Projector, 133" Cinemascope Screen, Klipsch RF-7
Edgar_in_Indy is offline  
post #415 of 420 Old 06-03-2014, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgar_in_Indy View Post

Very nice! You could say that having two screens is also a compromise, since you had to buy and install TWO screens, but it is a very good solution to the problem. What sizes are the two screens?

Although they are very close together, they are not on the same plane. Is the difference enough to require a focus adjustment when you are switching between screens?

The 16:9 screen is a Stewart Cima Neve 1.1 - 106" wide x 59.5" x 122" diagonal. The 2.35:1 screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 - 118" wide x 50.2" x 128.2" diagonal. We sit 12' 6" from them. No, I don't need to re-focus. The screens are 5" apart, but that doesn't effect focus. I suppose a person with a new JVC with lens memory could use separate focus for each screen. I've been using this setup for over 5 years - although the current screens are new !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at craig@avscience.com
http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #416 of 420 Old 06-03-2014, 09:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,344
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Craig,

Which projector(s) are you using? For some reason I was thinking you had a JVC.

DavidHir is online now  
post #417 of 420 Old 06-04-2014, 05:20 AM
Senior Member
 
drjay71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post

The 16:9 screen is a Stewart Cima Neve 1.1 - 106" wide x 59.5" x 122" diagonal. The 2.35:1 screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 - 118" wide x 50.2" x 128.2" diagonal. We sit 12' 6" from them. No, I don't need to re-focus. The screens are 5" apart, but that doesn't effect focus. I suppose a person with a new JVC with lens memory could use separate focus for each screen. I've been using this setup for over 5 years - although the current screens are new !

That is a great setup. Did you ever think about going with a fixed screen and a motorized screen instead of two motorized screens?
drjay71 is offline  
post #418 of 420 Old 06-04-2014, 08:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my home theater ( when I'm not rock climbing, cycling or kayaking ) - Sacramento CA area
Posts: 4,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 121 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Craig,

Which projector(s) are you using? For some reason I was thinking you had a JVC.

I have a Sim Lumis Host. Been a great projector for 5+ years. I did have the JVC RS4910 and RS57 in my theater to demo for AVS forum members that live near me - that's probably why you thought I owned one.

Quote:
That is a great setup. Did you ever think about going with a fixed screen and a motorized screen instead of two motorized screens?

If there wasn't a sliding glass door behind the screens I think that would save money and accomplish the same thing. BTW, I've used the 2 screen method with an anamorphic lens too. But my current theater isn't the right dimensions for a lens - too short a throw distance. However, this set up works perfectly for my needs !

Craig Peer, AV Science Sales. Direct Line - 585-671-2972
I'm available 8:30am - 4:30pm PST, Monday - Friday Email me at craig@avscience.com
http://shop.avscience.com/
Yes, we sell Home Theater gear right here at AVS !!
JVC, Sony, Epson, DPI, SV Sound, Martin Logan, RBH, Klipsch, and many more!
Craig Peer is offline  
post #419 of 420 Old 06-05-2014, 02:15 PM
Member
 
Potatogod93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How do you figure a proper throw distance for a zoom setup? Im debating a jvc x500r and was considering a 120" 16:9 screen but since have started considering a 138" 2.35:1 screen as 16:9 stuff would be close to the same size but movies more immersive.

Im a ways away from being ready but 1 would that be bright enough for that screen? According to projectorcentral's calculator it should be but then how do I determine throw distance for both sizes? Just calculate distance for the bigger screen?
Potatogod93 is offline  
post #420 of 420 Old 06-05-2014, 02:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatogod93 View Post

How do you figure a proper throw distance for a zoom setup? Im debating a jvc x500r and was considering a 120" 16:9 screen but since have started considering a 138" 2.35:1 screen as 16:9 stuff would be close to the same size but movies more immersive.

Im a ways away from being ready but 1 would that be bright enough for that screen? According to projectorcentral's calculator it should be but then how do I determine throw distance for both sizes? Just calculate distance for the bigger screen?

I posted this for another person but you should be able to change the numbers for your setup:

The easiest way to calculate your throw range is to look at the 16:9 screen size and the converted 16:9 screen size for the 2.35:1 screen.

So a 144" 2.35:1 screen has dimensions of 132x56". To calculate the 16:9 screen size you use the height. So that give us a 16:9 image of 99.5x56". The next size is the blown up 16:9 image size. When zooming the image is still 16:9, we're just letting the bars spill over. So in this case we use the width to calculate. So the 16:9 image we're projecting for 2.35:1 is 132x74.3". When you plug those screen sizes into the calculator you get:

16:9 : 11'7"-23'3"
2.35:1 (using the 16:9 size): 15'5"-30'10"

So the range to use the zoom method is 15'5"-23'3". I don't like going to the edge of either. I tend to sacrifice brightness for the better black level of a longer throw so I would go towards the long end. Probably 18-20'. If you want it closer and brighter I'd start at 16'.


As far as brightness goes our RS46 does just fine on a 130" 2.35:1 screen with the iris closed in low lamp mode. I would think the X500R would only be better.
Potatogod93 likes this.

jeahrens 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