2:35 screen vs 16x9 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 420 Old 07-16-2013, 09:37 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
My media room is 12' wide and 17' long

The projector will likely be mounted approximately 13-14' back from the screen wall

I'm currently trying to decide between getting a 16x9 120" screen or a 2:35 screen

Note: I plan to watch mostly bluray movies in the media room with the occasional movie or football game on directv.

My concern with a 2:35 screen is that the only one I have ever seen in person appeared to be much shorter in height then the 16x9 screens.

Is it possible for a 2:35 screen to display 16x9 content and have the same height as you would get on a 120" 16x9 screen?
nflguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 420 Old 07-16-2013, 09:45 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 had a home theater company come by the house and they suggested I use a Sony Projector "VP" for $4,000 plus a special lens for the 2:35 screen for an additional $3,000. They will send me a detailed quote with model numbers etc Tommorow.

Are those typical prices?.
nflguy is offline  
post #3 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 05:32 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
What projector do you have or are planning on getting?

Not sure what a Sony Projector "VP" is. Video processor?

You absolutely can have a 120" 16:9 image w/ a 2.35:1 screen.

You you may not be understanding is the aspect ratio of it.

A 2.35:1 screen is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. A 1.78:1 (16:9) is 1.78 times wider than it is tall.

The 2.35:1 screen is 33% wider than a 16:9 screen of equivalent height.

To get a 120" 16:9 image, you would need a 2.35:1 screen size of about 139" wide. Both would be about 59' tall.

The special lens they are referring to is an Anamorphic Lens. It stretches the image of the projector by 33% to fit the width of the screen.

I would suggest going to Panamorph.com and look at their videos hey have to easily explains how it all works.

Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio so it could benefit you to go w/ that type of screen.

Give AVS a call to discuss prices to see if that company is being reasonable or not. AVS often has the best pricing and well reputed customer service.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #4 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 08:53 AM - 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

What projector do you have or are planning on getting?

Not sure what a Sony Projector "VP" is. Video processor?

You absolutely can have a 120" 16:9 image w/ a 2.35:1 screen.

You you may not be understanding is the aspect ratio of it.

A 2.35:1 screen is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. A 1.78:1 (16:9) is 1.78 times wider than it is tall.

The 2.35:1 screen is 33% wider than a 16:9 screen of equivalent height.

To get a 120" 16:9 image, you would need a 2.35:1 screen size of about 139" wide. Both would be about 59' tall.

The special lens they are referring to is an Anamorphic Lens. It stretches the image of the projector by 33% to fit the width of the screen.

I would suggest going to Panamorph.com and look at their videos hey have to easily explains how it all works.

Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio so it could benefit you to go w/ that type of screen.

Give AVS a call to discuss prices to see if that company is being reasonable or not. AVS often has the best pricing and well reputed customer service.

AVS does home theater installs? I thought it was just a message board.
nflguy is offline  
post #5 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 10:55 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Don't think they do installs but do sell a lot at great prices.

http://avscience.com/contact-us/
biliam1982 is offline  
post #6 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 01:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Depending on where you are, I think they do do installs.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 01:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982 View Post

Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio

I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.

Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).
John Schuermann and djenzo like this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #8 of 420 Old 07-17-2013, 07:13 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
2.35 movies should be the same height but wider than 16:9 screens - that's the design, not the other way round. A 16:9 screen or TV that shows 2.35 movies as the same width and less height is the wrong way to present 2.35 films - they should be more immersive, not less than the smaller 16:9 ratio.

Screen size is only relative to your seating distance, so if you go for a 2.35 screen, make sure that the 16:9 image is as big as you want it to be from where you will be sitting - if you relate the screen height to a seating distance ratio, then something like a 3:1 ratio is a good start. With good HD material, THX suggest a 2.4 x screen height to seating distance ratio for best immersion without sacrificing image quality. I used to sit at 3 x the screen height when I had a 720 pj with anamorphic lens and watched mostly DVD material back then. Now with HD and Blu Ray, sitting closer is not a problem for most people.

If you get the 16:9 part right, then 2.35 is the same height and 33% wider and more immersive, just as designed.

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 #9 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 03:18 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.

Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).

Yes, poor choice of words on my part. I should have said a lot of movies are in that format.

I would love to see the statistics on that though. I've searched but couldn't find much recent data on it.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #10 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 04:57 AM
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
In one respect it's almost irrelevant which ratios are predominant, because if you set up your (2.35) screen size and seating distance correctly, you'll be seeing any format at the optimum size.

With 15 degrees being the recommended limitation for the vertical viewing angle, and we have 120 degrees horizontal binocular vision (and 60 degrees being the SMPTE recommended minimum viewing distance or 2xSH), the screen height should always be what dictates the size and seating distance, unless the room constraints dictate something different or if personal preference wants something else, but the deign has been around for a long time now.

If you go back to the early 50s when 4:3 screens were being replaced with CinemScope ones, the tech spec was that the screen should be the same height and twice the width of the existing screen (and mods to the auditorium were often required). By doing that, regardless of where your preferred seat was in the theatre, the image would be just as tall as before, but now more immersive due to the extra width of Scope presentations - just as designed.

If you essentially want a big tv then 16:9 is the way to go. It's technically a whole lot easier to implement (pretty much point and shoot), but of course any wider ratio movies will be shown smaller instead of wider.

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 #11 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 06:32 AM - 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 have heard that a 16x9 screen and a 2:35 should have the same height. However, when i looked at the dimensions of 16x9 screens vs 2:35 (on a few aites selling the screens) and the 16x9 screens are usually taller.
nflguy is offline  
post #12 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 07:50 AM
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
You might find they do even taller 4:3 screens but that doesn't mean we should by them... You'll probably find they sell more 16:9 screens because that is the most common option. 2.35 is probably only 5% of the market and other factors will determine what sizes they stock. It doesn't set a technical precedent.

How would you feel if you had a 4:3 TV at home right now? Would you be happy that the wider ratios such as 1.85 and 2.35 would be shown increasingly smaller? Why did you change to a 16:9 tv?

If you want a Constant Image Height system just like the original design, then the height is the factor you work too. If you want to compromise your 2.35 presentations, then go for a 16:9 screen. It's your home, so do what suits you.

Gary
cinema1fan 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  
post #13 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

I have heard that a 16x9 screen and a 2:35 should have the same height. However, when i looked at the dimensions of 16x9 screens vs 2:35 (on a few aites selling the screens) and the 16x9 screens are usually taller.

How are you comparing these? What size 16:9 screen compared to what size 2.35:1 screen? If you're looking at two screens with the same diagonal measurement, of course the one in 2.35:1 shape will be shorter than the one in 16:9 shape. That's how math works.

For example, for a good round number, let's look at a 16:9 screen with a 100" diagonal. That's 87.2" wide by 49" high. A comparable 2.35:1 screen would be 115.15" wide by 49" high, for a diagonal of 125".

Most of the major screen manufacturers will cut a screen to whatever size you want.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #14 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 03:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
A 120" [dia] 16:9 screen should be the same height as a 150" [dia] Scope screen.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 04:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
This will help you:

www.displaywars.com
AlexanderDelarg likes this.
Bardia is offline  
post #16 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 07:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 30
We have a 105" wide scope screen in our 12' wide room. That's right at 114" diag. 16/9 viewing is right at 91" diag. Height for both 44.6". It works well for us-The only thing I would like to add is side masking for non-scope material. The screen is a motorized Seymour Center Stage XD, and they are working on a retofit masking system that I'll be very interested in. Eye to screen from our primary seating area is 12'. The room is a dedicated HT and we watch mostly movies in it. Although 1.85 movies are OK, 2.35 movies are the big draw. When we're figuring out what movie to watch, I'm always a bit disappointed when the movie choice is not in scope.
StevenC56 is offline  
post #17 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 08:37 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 Josh Z View Post

I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.

Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).

It's also fair to say that most of the most popular movies of all time are 2.35:1. Of the top 100 grossing movies of all time, 76 of them are 2.35:1.

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 offline  
post #18 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 11:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,378
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 42
We probably should say Scope or flat and not specifically list a Scope film as exactly 2.35:1. I do think these numbers confuse some people many Scope films have been 2.40:1 or 2.39:1.

Out of the last 10 films I have seen at the cinema, 8 were Scope and only 2 (AVENGERS and DESPICABLE ME 2) were flat (1.85:1), yet it is amazing that people still think that cinema will just change its shape to be more like "their TV". Nothing could be further from the truth as Scope is what keeps cinema different from "their TV" and why it was introduced in the first place.

With more and more MTV music clips and even some adds now being presented as letterbox on a 16:9 TV, I do believe there is a new TV shape to come.
cinema1fan likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #19 of 420 Old 07-18-2013, 11:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
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!
Bardia is offline  
post #20 of 420 Old 07-19-2013, 07:36 AM
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 CAVX View Post

We probably should say Scope or flat and not specifically list a Scope film as exactly 2.35:1. I do think these numbers confuse some people many Scope films have been 2.40:1 or 2.39:1.

That's a tough one. Like Josh Z here on this board, I try to clarify the issue whenever I can (2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1, etc). However, we have found in our dealings with the industry and with the general population that 2.35:1 is the term most commonly understood, or at least the one a person is most likely to be familiar with. That said, it's still only a tiny fraction of people that understand what ANY of those terms mean (Scope, Flat, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc). This is why Panamorph has been advocating the use of the term "UltraWide" to refer to any film with an aspect ratio 2.0 or greater.

I should have taken my own advice above... wink.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 offline  
post #21 of 420 Old 07-19-2013, 12:29 PM
Member
 
DL4567's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

My media room is 12' wide

I'm currently trying to decide between getting a 16x9 120" screen or a 2:35 screen

Note: I plan to watch mostly bluray movies in the media room with the occasional movie or football game on directv.

Is it possible for a 2:35 screen to display 16x9 content and have the same height as you would get on a 120" 16x9 screen?

If you are watching mostly movies, this is a no-brainer. Get a 2.35 screen. As has been said, if you want a 120" diagonal image for 16x9, you'd need a 150" diagonal 2.35 screen. That is 11.5 ft wide, plus the frame, so it might be a tight fit in a 12ft wide room, but do-able. There just wouldn't be room for speakers on the sides. You'd have to put them below the screen or behind an acoustically transparent screen.

With a throw distance of 13-14 ft, you'd need an anamorphic lens. I'm pretty sure no projector could zoom out (without an anamorphic lens) to do 2.35 that wide at that distance. But with a lens it would work.

Again, if movies are your thing, go for the 2.35 screen. Even if you have to go a little smaller than 150" to fit your room, scope movies will still be much bigger than they'd be on a 120" 16x9 screen. And yes, most "popular" movies are scope.
DL4567 is offline  
post #22 of 420 Old 07-19-2013, 12:52 PM
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL4567 View Post

If you are watching mostly movies, this is a no-brainer. Get a 2.35 screen. As has been said, if you want a 120" diagonal image for 16x9, you'd need a 150" diagonal 2.35 screen. That is 11.5 ft wide, plus the frame, so it might be a tight fit in a 12ft wide room, but do-able. There just wouldn't be room for speakers on the sides. You'd have to put them below the screen or behind an acoustically transparent screen.

With a throw distance of 13-14 ft, you'd need an anamorphic lens. I'm pretty sure no projector could zoom out (without an anamorphic lens) to do 2.35 that wide at that distance. But with a lens it would work.

Again, if movies are your thing, go for the 2.35 screen. Even if you have to go a little smaller than 150" to fit your room, scope movies will still be much bigger than they'd be on a 120" 16x9 screen. And yes, most "popular" movies are scope.

After watching Promethues on my 120" 2:35:1 screen last night, now way in hell I would ever consider 16X9..
Bardia is offline  
post #23 of 420 Old 07-19-2013, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post

That's a tough one. Like Josh Z here on this board, I try to clarify the issue whenever I can (2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1, etc). However, we have found in our dealings with the industry and with the general population that 2.35:1 is the term most commonly understood, or at least the one a person is most likely to be familiar with. That said, it's still only a tiny fraction of people that understand what ANY of those terms mean (Scope, Flat, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc). This is why Panamorph has been advocating the use of the term "UltraWide" to refer to any film with an aspect ratio 2.0 or greater.

I should have taken my own advice above... wink.gif

2.35 has become the generic term or brand name, if you will, that has replaced the product description. A Vacuum Flask or coffee container is now called Thermos. Everybody understands that. Do you have any facial tissue? Huh? What's that? You know.....Kleenex. Oh ok.

I'm fine with the 2.35 terminology. It's what most friends of mine understand when describing CIH. I dont know why that is other than earlier dvd packaging or screen size. Scope and Flat, wide screen, ultra wide, anamorphic wide, 2.35, 2.37, 2.39, 2.40, are all fitting. We need the stickies back on the mobile veiw. I miss those and there a great resource for people contemplating a system like this.
coolrda is online now  
post #24 of 420 Old 07-19-2013, 01:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,043
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 343
The actual standard for theatrical projection was changed to 2.39 (and some change) to 1 in 1970, but most people in the industry continue to refer to it as "2.35" out of habit. Although it doesn't make any mathematical sense, the terms "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" are effectively interchangable.
Q8472 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

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

Josh Z is offline  
post #25 of 420 Old 07-22-2013, 11:35 AM
Member
 
jstrimel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02

Budget? What's that?

The Meta Theater
jstrimel is offline  
post #26 of 420 Old 07-22-2013, 07:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Bardia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstrimel View Post

Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02

120" 2:35:1 has 47" height. Do you mean 120" Wide?
Bardia is offline  
post #27 of 420 Old 07-23-2013, 09:02 AM
Member
 
jstrimel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Allen, TX
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardia View Post

120" 2:35:1 has 47" height. Do you mean 120" Wide?

Yes that is correct. 120" wide has a 51" tall image. Sorry about the confusion, on one hand I was talking about the D of the 16:9 image, which I also stand corrected on. The D of a 51" tall 16:9 image is closer to 103" D further conveying my point that going with the 2.35 gives you the ability to have that larger screen for movie wow factor while having a 16:9 image that will still be IMO plenty big. Thanks for pointing that out!

Budget? What's that?

The Meta Theater
jstrimel is offline  
post #28 of 420 Old 07-23-2013, 12:54 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstrimel View Post

Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02

Sent you a PM. smile.gif

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.
AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #29 of 420 Old 09-02-2013, 07:54 AM - 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 have been projecting the image on the wall for several weeks. The overall 16x9 image is 64x115

Under this setup widescreen movies have been either 48 x 115 or 52x115 and we have enjoyed it a lot. For 16x9 content I zoom the screen so the dimensions are 52 x 93.

I also placed an order for a 133" 2:35 solar 4k performance series screen from screen innovations.

Wide screen movies should be 52 x 122.5 on this screen with 16x9 content displaying as 52 x 92

My projector (JVC RS4810) is currently 13ft from screen so I'm moving it back to 14.5 from screen to accommodate the wider dimmensions we want.
nflguy is offline  
post #30 of 420 Old 09-03-2013, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
smuggymba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 15
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?
smuggymba 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