110" Scope or 110" 16:9? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 9 Old 08-25-2013, 12:04 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
AVS,

I'm shrinking the image hight by around 5 or 6 inches which is why I'm asking if it's worth upgrading to 2:35 with the same diagnall but smaller hight? I am not retaining constant image hight but adding a wider picture. My 16:9 content will be smaller which I'm not too concerned about anyways. What are you're oppinions?

My current 100" 16:9

snyderkv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 10:00 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
If you install a 2.35:1 screen, you will have Constant Height by definition. Both 16:9 content and 2.35:1 content will have the same height with no letterbox bars, but 2.35:1 content will be wider.

This is a matter of personal preference. One of the big advantages of Constant Height is aesthetics. "Scope" movies are photographed with the intent of being projected larger and wider than 1.85:1 in theaters. A 16:9 screen reverses that. On a 16:9 screen, episodes of Wheel of Fortune will be displayed larger than Lord of the Rings or Indiana Jones. Going Constant Height restores the original balance.

That may not be important to you. If your main focus is on 16:9 content like TV shows or video games, a 16:9 screen will probably make more sense. It's certainly easier. Those of us who've installed 2.35:1 screens do so because we primarily watch movies and want scope movies to be displayed with all the grandeur they were intended to have.
John Schuermann likes this.

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #3 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 10:43 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If you install a 2.35:1 screen, you will have Constant Height by definition. Both 16:9 content and 2.35:1 content will have the same height with no letterbox bars, but 2.35:1 content will be wider.

This is a matter of personal preference. One of the big advantages of Constant Height is aesthetics. "Scope" movies are photographed with the intent of being projected larger and wider than 1.85:1 in theaters. A 16:9 screen reverses that. On a 16:9 screen, episodes of Wheel of Fortune will be displayed larger than Lord of the Rings or Indiana Jones. Going Constant Height restores the original balance.

That may not be important to you. If your main focus is on 16:9 content like TV shows or video games, a 16:9 screen will probably make more sense. It's certainly easier. Those of us who've installed 2.35:1 screens do so because we primarily watch movies and want scope movies to be displayed with all the grandeur they were intended to have.

Great thanks for your response. What I meant by "smaller" was that my current 100" screen is actually taller and I can go 110" so I would not be gaining any video real estate or surface area by going wide. So I guess the only benefit would be the ability to watch a wider image during 2:35 playback. I'll go for it if I can get a response from DNP to see if they will cut me a custom 2:35 for less than a small fortune.

Should I get 240:1 or keep it 2:35? I heard all 2.35:1 content is actually 2:40:1 and 2.35:1 name just stuck
snyderkv is offline  
post #4 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 10:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

What I meant by "smaller" was that my current 100" screen is actually taller and I can go 110" so I would not be gaining any video real estate or surface area by going wide.

If it helps you to make the decision, here are the dimensions you're dealing with:

100" 16:9 screen (current)
87.16" wide x 49.03" tall

110" 16:9 screen
95.87" wide x 59.93" tall

110" 2.35:1 screen
101.22" wide x 43.07" tall

On a 110" 2.35:1 screen, 16:9 content pillarboxed in the middle will be 76.57" wide x 43.07" tall, which is equivalent to an 88" 16:9 screen.

On a 110" 16:9 screen, 2.35:1 letterboxed content will be 95.87" wide x 40.80" tall, which is equivalent to a 104" scope screen.
Quote:
Should I get 240:1 or keep it 2:35? I heard all 2.35:1 content is actually 2:40:1 and 2.35:1 name just stuck

Here's an article I wrote that addresses this question:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #5 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 11:07 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Cool thanks for the details. I'd definately go 2:xx:1 as I think it's aesthetically pleasing as well. Like when we jumped from 4:3 to 16:9 it didn't really impress me at the time but now 4:3 is just an awfull looking box.. I wouldn't be surprised if standard TVs go from 16:9 to 2:35 someday.
snyderkv is offline  
post #6 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If it helps you to make the decision, here are the dimensions you're dealing with:

100" 16:9 screen (current)
87.16" wide x 49.03" tall

110" 16:9 screen
95.87" wide x 59.93" tall

110" 2.35:1 screen
101.22" wide x 43.07" tall

On a 110" 2.35:1 screen, 16:9 content pillarboxed in the middle will be 76.57" wide x 43.07" tall, which is equivalent to an 88" 16:9 screen.

On a 110" 16:9 screen, 2.35:1 letterboxed content will be 95.87" wide x 40.80" tall, which is equivalent to a 104" scope screen.
Here's an article I wrote that addresses this question:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/

One more question Josh, I spoke to DNP who said they will make me a custom 2:35 screen and asked me for the dimensions. I gave them these dimensions based off of this website http://www.draperinc.com/ProjectionScreens/CustomSizeCalculator.asp

Diag 110"
Hight 43.125"
Width 101.375"

Would these be the correct measurements to give to a custom fabricator?
Should I go 2:40 to elimnate tiny black bars on 2:40 sources material?
snyderkv is offline  
post #7 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 01:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

One more question Josh, I spoke to DNP who said they will make me a custom 2:35 screen and asked me for the dimensions. I gave them these dimensions based off of this website http://www.draperinc.com/ProjectionScreens/CustomSizeCalculator.asp

Diag 110"
Hight 43.125"
Width 101.375"

Would these be the correct measurements to give to a custom fabricator?

The difference between those numbers and the ones I posted just comes down to rounding. They are both within the margin of error out a few decimal places. So long as the width divided by the height rounds to 2.35, you should be fine.
Quote:
Should I go 2:40 to elimnate tiny black bars on 2:40 sources material?

That's entirely up to you. I didn't think it's worth the effort, personally. You can just zoom the projector out a little so that the black bars spill off onto your frame and you'll never see them. Other people are more bothered by this. Only you can decide if it will bug you.

Keep in mind that the vertical stretch mode built into projectors and Blu-ray players calculates the stretch based on an expected output of 2.35:1. If you need an exact 2.40:1, you'll have to add a Lumagen video processor that will let you program a custom 2.40:1 ouput, but that's another big expense. In my view, a 2.35:1 screen is the path of least resistance. Your mileage may vary.

(This is assuming that you plan to use an anamorphic lens. If you're doing the Zoom Method, you'll be fine either way. Just pick what you like.)
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if standard TVs go from 16:9 to 2:35 someday.

That's very unlikely. 16:9 was chosen as the HDTV standard because it's the mid-point between the narrowest ratio (4:3) and the widest (2.35:1). There's around 80 years of TV programming made in 4:3 (some still is today), and a couple decades more at 16:9. The 16:9 ratio is a logical shape for a living room TV. 2.35:1 is really only for those of us with dedicated home theaters, and we're a minority.

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
post #8 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 01:37 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
snyderkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Alright thanks for the assitance.

Regarding the scope TVs particulary OLED. I think in the future as TVs get larger and cheaper and manufactures are looking for the next cool thing i.e 3D, curved, 4k etc, 2:35 just might be that next new money grab.

Thanks again
snyderkv is offline  
post #9 of 9 Old 08-26-2013, 01:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyderkv View Post

Regarding the scope TVs particulary OLED. I think in the future as TVs get larger and cheaper and manufactures are looking for the next cool thing i.e 3D, curved, 4k etc, 2:35 just might be that next new money grab.

Philips and Vizio have toyed with making 21:9 TVs. They haven't been very successful.

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


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

Josh Z is offline  
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