14ft screen distance whats the ideal screen 2:35 screen size - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 22 Old 01-24-2007, 05:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Still kicking the idea around to possibly do a constant height setup, im 14ft from screen what is the ideal 2:35 screen size in width that I should use, I dont want to go too large and be moving my head from side to side, currently I have 110" inch diagonal screen and thats fine for me but im afraid that if I use that same width for a constant height that I wont get that immersive effect because it may be too small but dont want to be huge either, also how high should the screen be?
funlvr1965 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 22 Old 01-24-2007, 09:34 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
Whilst others will disagree, I like 3.68 times the image height. Given that your going scope, you could also work that as 1.54 time the image width (both work out to be pretty much the same in scope BTW)...

With your projector mounted at the given distance (14 ft), and at min zoom (smallest image), how wide is the 16:9 light beam? If your happy with that image height, measure and times that by 2.37 to work out how wide the image will be...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 22 Old 01-24-2007, 09:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
lol oh lord more math just give me a size lol
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #4 of 22 Old 01-24-2007, 10:44 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
Alright lets keep it simple. Project an image (16:9) on to where the screen will go at the smallest image size and measure that for me. From there, I can do the math

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 05:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
ok I think I kinda know where youre going with this as I also read your answer in my other thread, thanks for the answer, the more I think of it the more I think that If I do a CH I may have to remount for a proper distance to avoid any major geometry issues, well I guess the good part is that the Marantz 11-s1 should be easier to work with than the ruby I sold
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #6 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 05:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
If you go CH in your room, the screen is going to end up being 30% shorter than it is now- and ultimately the same width (give or take a couple feet possibly). From having been in your room; I have to say that you probably won't benefit at all from a HE lens for 2.35, but maybe using a moveable VC lens for CW viewing for more "resolution" in the 2.35 area you see now (although I think it would be hard to distinguish).

Is the sacrifice of 1.78 material worth it? (image size) I know you're using your room for movies primarily- but what about stuff like the world series and the superbowl? (da bears!)

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #7 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 05:32 AM
Member
 
acave_uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
81w 34.5 should be fine. I run that size in a sixteen foot room. I have a border of 3.5 on my screen. I could have squeezed a bit more width out but I doubt my eyes would have noticed it.

I will say one thing though. 2.35.1 looks great but other aspects look too small (unless you scale the image and lose a bit). I think 1.85.1 files are just inder 64 in width due to keeping the height the same.
acave_uk is offline  
post #8 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 06:19 AM
Member
 
Jsmith757's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am running an Optoma H79 on a 126" x 54" x 2.35:1 High Power at 15' and that would be about the max you would want maybe a little smaller at 14' it gives a 96" x 54" 16 x 9 image which is perfect. Just my .02


John
Jsmith757 is offline  
post #9 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 06:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanFrancis View Post

If you go CH in your room, the screen is going to end up being 30% shorter than it is now- and ultimately the same width (give or take a couple feet possibly). From having been in your room; I have to say that you probably won't benefit at all from a HE lens for 2.35, but maybe using a moveable VC lens for CW viewing for more "resolution" in the 2.35 area you see now (although I think it would be hard to distinguish).

Is the sacrifice of 1.78 material worth it? (image size) I know you're using your room for movies primarily- but what about stuff like the world series and the superbowl? (da bears!)

Dan

Dan one of my thoughts were to keep the electric screen I have currently and add a fixed screen 2:35 screen behind, its also possible that I might be adding a second projector (JVC RS1) to the theater so each could be used for a different ratio,more costly I know seems like im trying to do two things at once, give the jvc a try since it might pickup where the ruby fell short(no not selling the marantz) and also do a constant height setup, one of the problems with regards to screen width is if I stretch the screen to maximum width that my right speaker would be in the way of the screen for the person sitting in the far right seat right by the equipment rack so im not sure how much wider I can make a 2:35 screen without moving the right speaker but im not sure if I would be happy with a 2:35 screen the same width as the 110" diagonal I have right now...decisions decision, in the future we need to talk about you coming back to do calibration I would like to have a hd calibration disk by then, hope it comes out soon, friend of mine came over with spyderpro and did some tweaking and it looks better although the marantz seems to be relatively flat to d65 with a green push, would still like to see what results can be with a signal generator like the sencore
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #10 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 07:42 AM
Member
 
butterbars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Greenback TN
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Check out the Feb 2007 issue of Widescreen Review. There is a Cinemascope article which among other topics, discusses 2.35 screen sizes.

IIRC, for a 720p projector you would use 3x the screen height for viewing distance, and for a 1080p use 2.5x the screen height. With a given seating distance, you could back into a screen size.
butterbars is offline  
post #11 of 22 Old 01-25-2007, 03:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Thanks, I have an online subscription so I will give it a look
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #12 of 22 Old 01-26-2007, 06:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DanFrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Just let me know when- since I'm back in town for the duration now (barring any unforseen trips).

Do you still have the HDQ in the chain, or did it get removed when the Marantz showed-up?

Dan

Dan Francis
Head of Sales US
C'SEED Entertainment Systems GMBH
www.cseed.tv
df@cseed.tv
DanFrancis is offline  
post #13 of 22 Old 01-26-2007, 07:12 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
HDQ has been removed from the chain, waiting to give the d1 to my dealer to get it upgraded to the d2 with gennum scaler and hdmi switching which will handle hd audio, friend of mine brought over his d2 and plugged it into the theater and the hdmi audio is now a must have, currently im using hd dvd player and ps3 directly into the Marantz
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #14 of 22 Old 01-27-2007, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mburnstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bloomfield Twp., MI
Posts: 1,858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A 1.78:1 screen for HDTV is 126.2" (3206mm) 110 (2794mm) 61.9" (1572mm)
If I have a 12 foot wide 2.35:1 screen dimensions 144" wide and 62 inches H
would the CH set up put my HDTV viewing in a rectancle of essentially a 110" 16:9 screen with side bars of about 17" per side, using full H of the 2.35:1 screen???

mark

Top Home Theater's I hope to see: The Bland's
Art's and my buddy Steve Bruzonsky! And Oneobgyn if I ever make it to NorCal!
mburnstein is offline  
post #15 of 22 Old 01-27-2007, 03:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
Adz523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Metro NY
Posts: 890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I sit 14 feet away from my current 114" inch 16:9 screen (which is approx 99.5 x 55). I am now looking at going 2.35CH. To do that though, I would not want to sacrifice any height at all. So, to keep the height at 55" in a CH set-up, I would need to go about 11 feet in length. Does that sound about right?

CAVX and Others- do you think I would have any issues with that sized screen at that distance?

Adz
Adz523 is offline  
post #16 of 22 Old 01-28-2007, 04:23 AM
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
In CIH with a HE lens, it is simply the screen height x 2.37 or 55 x 2.37 = 130"

You can get away with 14 feet at the screen size...

Mark

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #17 of 22 Old 01-28-2007, 08:56 PM
Senior Member
 
rcgustafson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sebastopol, Ca USA
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why don't you guys make it easy on yourselves and download a decent screen calculator? There are several out there. Here is the one I use--it is an Excel spreadsheet so you need that program. Very easy to manipulate different values and it includes presets for 2.35. You can use it to adjust many different variables in your proposed setup.

www.CarltonBale.com/ht/calculator
rcgustafson is offline  
post #18 of 22 Old 01-28-2007, 09:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
video_bit_bucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta Ga
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by funlvr1965 View Post

HDQ has been removed from the chain, waiting to give the d1 to my dealer to get it upgraded to the d2 with gennum scaler and hdmi switching which will handle hd audio, friend of mine brought over his d2 and plugged it into the theater and the hdmi audio is now a must have, currently im using hd dvd player and ps3 directly into the Marantz

I have a D1 and am looking for someone who has used a D2 to do the stretch for a HC lens running a 2.35 screen. Would that be you? If so at what input resolution?

The second thing that I am wondering is if it can do the squeeze on 16x9 materials so I could leave a HC lens in place and not use a sled on the lens.

The cost of the D1 to D2 upgrade is comparable to many dedicated VP units. If these two functions are well implemented it would make the D2 upgrade a super deal and put a projector agnostic scope setup in my future!
video_bit_bucket is offline  
post #19 of 22 Old 01-29-2007, 05:23 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by video_bit_bucket View Post

I have a D1 and am looking for someone who has used a D2 to do the stretch for a HC lens running a 2.35 screen. Would that be you? If so at what input resolution?

The second thing that I am wondering is if it can do the squeeze on 16x9 materials so I could leave a HC lens in place and not use a sled on the lens.

The cost of the D1 to D2 upgrade is comparable to many dedicated VP units. If these two functions are well implemented it would make the D2 upgrade a super deal and put a projector agnostic scope setup in my future!

I will be turning my D1 into my dealer in a few weeks after Anthem calls him back and gives him the ok to send it in for the upgrade so currently its still in a D1 state however a friend of mine and forum member at my recommendation did purchase a D2 and brought it over and hooked it up to the Marantz 11s1 we did not test the stretch feature because the Marantz can already accomplish that on its own due to the gennum chip inside the pj however the D1 will do the stretch, what im paying for the upgrade simply cannot be accomplished with any other piece of equipment at that price, once I heard the lossless audio over pcm I was immediately sold and the gennum chip inside the Anthem D2 does the same great job at scaling and deinterlacing a 1080p signal and the seemless hdmi swiching and no lipsync or audio drop out over hdmi is just icing on the cake, for me its definately worth the upgrade, its possible I may take delivery of the jvc RS1 which currently will not do a 2:35 stretch and thats where the Anthem would be used
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #20 of 22 Old 01-29-2007, 07:06 PM
Advanced Member
 
video_bit_bucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta Ga
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the response!
video_bit_bucket is offline  
post #21 of 22 Old 01-29-2007, 08:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
funlvr1965's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MADISON wisconsin
Posts: 1,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
funlvr1965 is offline  
post #22 of 22 Old 01-30-2007, 05:21 AM
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,537
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by funlvr1965 View Post

dont mention it


Too late, he already did
scottyb 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