2:35 screen vs 16x9 - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 420 Old 12-25-2013, 12:58 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

It's more than hiding bars. It's making the 2.35 image larger than your 16:9 with bars. The image gets pretty small. So if you have the money, that's the way to go.

If you project onto a wall where the screen is not limiting you, then you can easily just zoom against the wall and make the 2.35 image as large as you want, for a cost of FREE. no lens, special projector with wide and chromatic aberration options, no custom screen that would look odd with 16:9 content and cost a million dollars.

The black bars should disappear with good black levels or screen paint/masking even if you zoomed using a wide screen. I'm sure not a lot of people have 6-20 grand laying around to blow simply so they can say they have a real 2.35 system that looks no different than zooming which can be had for absolutely FREE.

It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".
John Schlarb is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 420 Old 12-25-2013, 01:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Yzfbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post

It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".

Do you have a link for your masking set up. Thanks

Here is my build thread:

---->Like a Boss Theater Build<----
Yzfbossman is offline  
post #93 of 420 Old 12-25-2013, 03:30 PM
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post

It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".

Show me where I said masking would cost 6-20 grand?

First you need to upgrade your projector from say a 5030 to a 6030. That's $1000 extra.

Now buy a lens, the cheapest is $2000 total with mounting hardware and shipping. It goes up from there.

Finally buy the screen. A custom light rejecting screen I was quoted $4500 for 110". Sure I could buy a cheaper one but that's a downgrade from my current one. Cost difference is almost $2000.

That's 5,000 cheapest case scenario for me.

Cost is free if you just display on a wall with screen paint or something. You don't need any of those things. If you already have a screen, you could just zoom as you mentioned.
snyderkv is offline  
post #94 of 420 Old 12-25-2013, 09:21 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yzfbossman View Post

Do you have a link for your masking set up. Thanks

I just realized that I've never posted pics, will try to do that tomorrow.
John Schlarb is offline  
post #95 of 420 Old 12-25-2013, 09:29 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Snyderkv, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you're saying that zooming to get the 2.35 experience is good enough, I agree with you. But the key to pulling that off is thick black velvet bars above and below the screen, to soak up the gray bars above and below the picture. Maybe we're saying the same thing.

I had always planned to mask off pillar bars for 16:9 content, but it never made the top of my long project list. For me movies are the main reason for owning a projector.

Regards,
John
John Schlarb is offline  
post #96 of 420 Old 12-27-2013, 05:56 PM
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post

Snyderkv, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you're saying that zooming to get the 2.35 experience is good enough, I agree with you. But the key to pulling that off is thick black velvet bars above and below the screen, to soak up the gray bars above and below the picture. Maybe we're saying the same thing.

I had always planned to mask off pillar bars for 16:9 content, but it never made the top of my long project list. For me movies are the main reason for owning a projector.

Regards,
John

Or a projector and screen with really good black levels. The new 5030 with say a .8 gain screen I'm sure would make the bars go away?. I switched to a 2.3 gain recently and the blacks did take a hit.
snyderkv is offline  
post #97 of 420 Old 12-31-2013, 06:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm late to this party, but wanted to throw in my 2 cents. FWIW, I'm an old-timer around here but I've always been budget-minded...

1) A good question was posed before asking if you wanted your TV content to be bigger than your movie content (Wheel of Fortune vs something else I've forgotten). But then another good question was posed which introduced sports content as another type of viewing content that may be up for competition. That does complicate things if you're a big sports fan. Here's what I'll add, though (and this was something I thought about when making my decision): The best quality content (1080p) will come from Blu-rays, which basically means movies. TV shows and sports will max out at 1080i or 720p and will usually be lower bitrate than Blu-ray (in the case of cable TV, it can often be over-compressed). So, do you want to blow up high-bitrate Blu-ray sourced content to the largest possible size, or blow-up potentially over-compressed content (TV/sports)?

2) If the cost of a projector, scope screen, and panamorph lens scares you, instead of completely discounting the idea of scope, consider the "ghetto" manual zoom approach I use. I have a scope screen and manual-zoom Epson 8350 projector. I have my projector located right behind my head, so it's super-easy for me to adjust zoom/position/focus, but even if you had it ceiling-mounted or whatever, it could still be a workable option.

3) If you go scope, I recommend going 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1. The industry standard may be to use the term 2.35:1, but I've been disappointed to see that I have to adjust the zoom on my projector so as to overscan a lot of scope movies in order to get them to fill the height of my 2.35:1 screen. This results in useful image information being projected onto the masking of my screen (which doesn't work great to black it out, so I still kinda see it) and often even bleeds off my screen entirely and onto my back wall, so I have to dial it in precisely. Doh! A good amount of money spent on my screen with people telling me ahead of time that it shouldn't matter whether I went 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. I'm telling you, go 2.40:1.
biliam1982 likes this.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #98 of 420 Old 12-31-2013, 10:31 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I went with a 133" 2:35 screen and have been very happy with it. Wide screen movies look amazing and 16x9 content is displayed at measurements comparable to 110" 16x9 screen
nflguy is offline  
post #99 of 420 Old 01-02-2014, 06:25 AM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by srauly View Post


3) If you go scope, I recommend going 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1. The industry standard may be to use the term 2.35:1, but I've been disappointed to see that I have to adjust the zoom on my projector so as to overscan a lot of scope movies in order to get them to fill the height of my 2.35:1 screen. This results in useful image information being projected onto the masking of my screen (which doesn't work great to black it out, so I still kinda see it) and often even bleeds off my screen entirely and onto my back wall, so I have to dial it in precisely.

I've been using a DIY 2.35 screen (50" tall) for 4 years. The 4" of black velvet on the sides gobbles up the overscan (although with my new, brighter projector that may no longer be true). The problem with 2.40 is that so few manufacturers make 2.40 screens. And when you do play a 2.35 movie (which I think outnumber 2.40), you'll have gray bars on the sides.
John Schlarb is offline  
post #100 of 420 Old 01-02-2014, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
srauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: W Simsbury, CT, USA
Posts: 1,529
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post

I've been using a DIY 2.35 screen (50" tall) for 4 years. The 4" of black velvet on the sides gobbles up the overscan (although with my new, brighter projector that may no longer be true). The problem with 2.40 is that so few manufacturers make 2.40 screens. And when you do play a 2.35 movie (which I think outnumber 2.40), you'll have gray bars on the sides.
That's what people were saying before I bought mine, but I'm definitely getting too much bleeding on the sides. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm using the ghetto-style manual zoom method and others are using a panamorph and/or digital scalers and there's a difference there?

As for the custom screen aspect...I had a pull-down screen custom cut by Da-Lite. It's probably one of the lowest-priced options. If you want a fixed screen, it seems like those tend to be more expensive and you may not have as many custom sizing options.

Scott R
--------------
I'd much rather watch a great movie in B&W at 240 lines of resolution than a lousy movie in 1080p with lossless audio.
srauly is offline  
post #101 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 11:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Omaha
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

2:35:1 is the only way to go! I have a 120" screen and 1:85:1 movies are 95" diagonal in it. It doesn't make sense to get a 16:9 screen and have the bars on top and bottom. No way!

 



Unless you watch a lot of TV, then you are getting 36% less screen (120" diagonal) when using a scope screen to watch a TV show. That is big loss. If you watch mostly movies, then yes, a scope screen is the way to go. If you are 50-50, then it makes it tougher.

Epson Pro Cinema 6030 | OPPO BDP - 103 | Pioneer Elite VSX 70 | Definitive Technology PM 1000 (L/R) | PC 2000 (C) | SR8040BP's (7.1) | Rythmik LV12R | Carada Criterion Brilliant White 118" | URC MX 780 & MRF 350 | ATS Acoustic Panels | Sanus AV Rack | DirecTv | Roku 2 | Monoprice 12AWG |
AlexanderDelarg is offline  
post #102 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 38
That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be. Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.

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 #103 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:07 PM
Member
 
pbrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be. Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.

 

So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?

I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.

pbrandt is offline  
post #104 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
You have to to think of it in terms of screen height (CIH stands for Constant Image Height). A 110" 16:9 screen will measure 96" x 54". If you kept the same height of 54" you would have a scope (2.35:1) screen 127" wide. Because the height is constant you do not lose any picture size watching 16:9 content (still 96" x 54"), you only gain width watching a scope film. The only time you really have to worry about compromising is if your room is width constrained to the point you must sacrifice height to accommodate a narrower scope screen. Most rooms are much more height constrained (7-9' ceilings) so it's usually not the case.
pbrandt likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #105 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:41 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderDelarg View Post

...you are getting 36% less screen (120" diagonal) when using a scope screen to watch a TV show. That is big loss.

There's a great AVS thread about screen width/height here. I highly recommend reading it if you're trying to decide between CIH and CIW. What CIH really buys you is the ability to meet the SMPTE and THX recommendations with the same screen.

Sometimes smaller can be better; I found that out this weekend. My son and I watched 16:9 content that was 62" high from 13 feet away, and we both felt it was uncomfortable to watch. Moving the image closer to the floor helped, but that created other problems. We liked the 47" high image much better, and according to the resolution chart below it's perfect for watching 1080p content.

John Schlarb is offline  
post #106 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Omaha
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrandt View Post

 

So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?

I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.

 



I too am getting the Epson 6030 and would love a 2:35 screen but don't want to spend the additional money on an anamorphic lense. Probably will end up with the 16:9.

Epson Pro Cinema 6030 | OPPO BDP - 103 | Pioneer Elite VSX 70 | Definitive Technology PM 1000 (L/R) | PC 2000 (C) | SR8040BP's (7.1) | Rythmik LV12R | Carada Criterion Brilliant White 118" | URC MX 780 & MRF 350 | ATS Acoustic Panels | Sanus AV Rack | DirecTv | Roku 2 | Monoprice 12AWG |
AlexanderDelarg is offline  
post #107 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
AlexanderDelarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Omaha
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schlarb View Post



There's a great AVS thread about screen width/height here. I highly recommend reading it if you're trying to decide between CIH and CIW. What CIH really buys you is the ability to meet the SMPTE and THX recommendations with the same screen.



Sometimes smaller can be better; I found that out this weekend. My son and I watched 16:9 content that was 62" high from 13 feet away, and we both felt it was uncomfortable to watch. Moving the image closer to the floor helped, but that created other problems. We liked the 47" high image much better, and according to the resolution chart below it's perfect for watching 1080p content.



 



I agree that it is harder to watch 16:9 compared to 2:35 at least for me. Side to side viewing is more pleasing to me than more up - down screen size. Our eyes are left right and not on top of one another.....

Epson Pro Cinema 6030 | OPPO BDP - 103 | Pioneer Elite VSX 70 | Definitive Technology PM 1000 (L/R) | PC 2000 (C) | SR8040BP's (7.1) | Rythmik LV12R | Carada Criterion Brilliant White 118" | URC MX 780 & MRF 350 | ATS Acoustic Panels | Sanus AV Rack | DirecTv | Roku 2 | Monoprice 12AWG |
AlexanderDelarg is offline  
post #108 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Yes - seating distance is very important, so you can have a scope screen and make sure you sit at the best distance for you for the 16:9 image, then the scope screen is the same height, only wider and more immersive, just as designed back in the 50s. Scope movies are all about having a greater visual impact over the other ratios.

If you have a certain size 16:9 screen already installed, but can not go 33% wider due to room/width restrictions, you can go smaller on the height to attain the scope ratio, but move your seating closer so that the image height to seating distance ratio remains the same. So if you have a height to seating ratio of say 2.5 to 1, and that is as close as you feel comfortable with the height for 16:9, then retain that ratio for the scope screen.

With the size of screens we use in the home, there's not a great deal to be had by looking just for the biggest screen we can fit in a room - 10 feet wide or 12 feet wide for example which means the scale isn't going to change much, but moving your seating closer can increase the visual impact quite a bit.

If going scope means sitting so close that your feet end up on the center speaker, then that is a good reason for sticking with 16:9 and sitting further back. If you have a large enough room and can be flexible on where the seats go, and provided movie content is one of the bigger factors for your viewing preferences, then I would always suggest going for a scope screen. If the room is a bit of a compromise, then a 2.05:1 screen (Constant Image Area) is the next best option in my opinion. For me, 16:9 compromises scope movies too much, but if your viewing content is primarily sport or tv then a scope screen would probably be a waste.

I personally prefer 2.37 with an A lens and sit at around 2.4 x the image height for 1080 material. I have sat closer and still enjoyed it with no problems, but if you have a back catalogue of SD (DVD) material, it can be a bit soft and if the image is too bright, source artefacts can start to become noticeable. That can mean being very careful with your set up and possible two different settings for DVD and BD.

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 #109 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be.

I was going to start a new thread on this topic, but saw this and figured I'd jump in. I'm currently debating with myself whether to go scope or flat with my screen. I agree with what you wrote, but for those of us whose room is constrained by width, it is a far more difficult decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.

Herein lies the problem. The width of my room allows for a 16:9 screen that is the size I want, but if I go with a 2.35 screen then the 16:9 image will be smaller than I would like for my seating distance. In other words, it's smaller than ideal. So with a 2.35 screen with scope content is perfect, but the flat content is smaller than I'd like.

My viewing material will be mostly movies, but also sports and high quality HD TV content, such as HBO and Showtime series Game of Thrones and others.

Although the mix of movies falls out to a 50% mix of scope and flat, once I add that other TV content the percentage of viewing will be more 16:9 than scope just due to law of averages.

Now, if all I watched were movies, and it were a 50/50 toss up, I would definitely choose the 2.35 screen and be done with it. I really do want that scope content without bars as I think its the best way to watch it. But given that I would then watch the greatest percentage of content in the smallest form factor it doesn't seem to make sense to forgo the largest image most of the time to get rid of bars for the least amount of content.

With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions. I do know that with my current plasma, although I'm aware of the bars at the start of a movie, the bars often disappear and by the time I'm involved in the movie itself I forget about them entirely.

So for a room without constraints for width or height, then sizing a 2.35 screen so 16:9 content is as large as necessary for the viewing distance would be the way to go in my opinion, just as you said. But in a width constrained situation, I'm not so sure.

I still haven't decided which way to go, but these are my thoughts so far.

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #110 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 01:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderDelarg View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbrandt View Post

 

So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?

I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.

 



I too am getting the Epson 6030 and would love a 2:35 screen but don't want to spend the additional money on an anamorphic lense. Probably will end up with the 16:9.

You can manually zoom the projector or look at alternatives with built in lens memory. If movies are a priority then scope makes an absolutely massive difference in the home theater experience. Our JVC RS46 using the lens memory function performs excellent. I was using an inexpensive 2 prism lens with a DLP projector and do not regret switching to a zoom setup.

jeahrens is offline  
post #111 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 02:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

I was going to start a new thread on this topic, but saw this and figured I'd jump in. I'm currently debating with myself whether to go scope or flat with my screen. I agree with what you wrote, but for those of us whose room is constrained by width, it is a far more difficult decision.
Herein lies the problem. The width of my room allows for a 16:9 screen that is the size I want, but if I go with a 2.35 screen then the 16:9 image will be smaller than I would like for my seating distance. In other words, it's smaller than ideal. So with a 2.35 screen with scope content is perfect, but the flat content is smaller than I'd like.

My viewing material will be mostly movies, but also sports and high quality HD TV content, such as HBO and Showtime series Game of Thrones and others.

Although the mix of movies falls out to a 50% mix of scope and flat, once I add that other TV content the percentage of viewing will be more 16:9 than scope just due to law of averages.

Now, if all I watched were movies, and it were a 50/50 toss up, I would definitely choose the 2.35 screen and be done with it. I really do want that scope content without bars as I think its the best way to watch it. But given that I would then watch the greatest percentage of content in the smallest form factor it doesn't seem to make sense to forgo the largest image most of the time to get rid of bars for the least amount of content.

With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions. I do know that with my current plasma, although I'm aware of the bars at the start of a movie, the bars often disappear and by the time I'm involved in the movie itself I forget about them entirely.

So for a room without constraints for width or height, then sizing a 2.35 screen so 16:9 content is as large as necessary for the viewing distance would be the way to go in my opinion, just as you said. But in a width constrained situation, I'm not so sure.

I still haven't decided which way to go, but these are my thoughts so far.

There is a gentleman in the RS46 owners thread using a pulldown and a fixed screen. One 16:9 the other 2.35:1, both maximized for the room. Certainly not a cheap solution, but it does work.

jeahrens is offline  
post #112 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 02:20 PM
Member
 
tvolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

You have to to think of it in terms of screen height (CIH stands for Constant Image Height). A 110" 16:9 screen will measure 96" x 54". If you kept the same height of 54" you would have a scope (2.35:1) screen 127" wide. Because the height is constant you do not lose any picture size watching 16:9 content (still 96" x 54"), you only gain width watching a scope film. The only time you really have to worry about compromising is if your room is width constrained to the point you must sacrifice height to accommodate a narrower scope screen. Most rooms are much more height constrained (7-9' ceilings) so it's usually not the case.


You are describing my screen's measurements. biggrin.gif

My first row of seats is 11.5' away. This distance IMHO is perfect for my viewing tastes in 16:9 and 2.35:1 (the JVC RS56 has no discernible pixels at this distance). To me, the key to CIH is ensuring that you can comfortably see the screen top-to-bottom with no/minimal eye movement from your primary seating distance. Picking the proper height is also the beauty of the CIH set-up: once one sizes the 16:9 "screen", one can now comfortably watch all popular formats from the primary seating position. This allows one to view content comfortably in 4:3, 16:9, and all the way up to 2.40:1 since our eyes have a much wider viewing angle than vertical.

I am very happy with my decision to go with a 2.35:1 screen and CIH. Oh, I went the cheaper route and use zoom. No complaints there, either.
tvolle is offline  
post #113 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post

There is a gentleman in the RS46 owners thread using a pulldown and a fixed screen. One 16:9 the other 2.35:1, both maximized for the room. Certainly not a cheap solution, but it does work.

Yes, not cheap smile.gif. Particularly if it is going in a living room and the screen needs to excel in not just bat cave conditions, but with higher ambient light as well.

This limits quality screen choices and increases costs even further.

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #114 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 03:00 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
A quick way to decide whether a scope screen could work for you is to see whether a 16:9 image scaled down to fit the 'scope screen meets SMPTE recommendations. In my case, a 47" tall screen at 13 feet viewing distance gives me a 30 degree viewing angle for 16:9 content, which is perfect. But if I had more rows farther back I would strongly consider a flat (16:9) screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions.

Unless your HT is completely lined in black velvet, you'll see the black bars as gray no matter how good the projector's black level is. The reason is simple: ANY reflected light from the room will be picked up by the "black bars" part of the screen, because the screen is doing its job, reflecting its heart out. Put black velvet next to those bars, and you'll see how gray they really are.
John Schlarb is offline  
post #115 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
I can't dispute that with any personal experience. My comments were based off posts from members using the Black Diamond screen I'm considering. I'll definitely look into it further. If the bars are more than barely visible it will be unacceptable for me. I'd have to look at other options in that case.

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #116 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 03:44 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

I can't dispute that with any personal experience. My comments were based off posts from members using the Black Diamond screen I'm considering. I'll definitely look into it further. If the bars are more than barely visible it will be unacceptable for me. I'd have to look at other options in that case.

If you have a high-tech screen like the Black Diamond, it may not be an issue. Bias lighting would help as well, since your eyes will tell you the bars are black.

I currently use a 2.35 screen with a gain of .85 , and even with my walls and ceiling painted a very dark red, I see gray pillar bars where no image is being projected. Eventually I'll add DIY masking for 16:9, but side gray bars don't bother me nearly as much as top/bottom gray bars.
John Schlarb is offline  
post #117 of 420 Old 01-06-2014, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 145
I appreciate the comments and the heads up. Choosing my projector was easy compared to choosing my screen eek.gif. Exactly opposite what I thought when I decided I wanted to go with a projection setup. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time researching for a screen, lol. The PJ has been sitting in box for two weeks already waiting for something to shine onto...biggrin.gif

JTR Noesis 212HT x 3 (LCR) powered by Lab Gruppen 10000Q amp
CHT SHO-10 x 4 (sides and rear) powered by Denon 4311
JTR S2 x 2
CHT 18.1 x2
Oppo BDP103D bluray player/Sonos/PS3
Gooddoc is offline  
post #118 of 420 Old 01-07-2014, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Try shining onto the wall and see what works before buying a screen. I mentioned Constant Image Area before - the screen is 2.05:1 ratio, and you fill the height for 16:9, and zoom bigger to fill the width for 2.35. It's a better option than 16:9 IMHO as it doesn't compromise scope so much, so give that a go as well.

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 #119 of 420 Old 01-07-2014, 01:53 PM
Member
 
John Schlarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: GA
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

Try shining onto the wall and see what works before buying a screen. I mentioned Constant Image Area before - the screen is 2.05:1 ratio, and you fill the height for 16:9, and zoom bigger to fill the width for 2.35. It's a better option than 16:9 IMHO as it doesn't compromise scope so much, so give that a go as well.

That's an interesting compromise, kind of like getting a platypus because you can't decide between the beaver and the duck. ;-)

Seriously though, doesn't this approach force you to mask in 4 directions instead of just 2?
John Schlarb is offline  
post #120 of 420 Old 01-07-2014, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I think we all prefer beaver, though I could be wrong lol smile.gif

Yeah it kinda does require 4 way masking which isn't the cheapest or easiest way to go IMHO, and I'd much rather stick with scope and only mask the sides, but some people prefer CIA.

Gary
pbrandt likes this.

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  
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