AVS Forum banner

2.35 or 2.40 ???

25K views 109 replies 16 participants last post by  k3nnis 
#1 ·
I posted this in screens as well. I apologize for the double post, but I wasn't sure what to try.


I'm a long time 16 x 9 screen guy. We just got a new projector (Sharp Z30K )with powered lens memory.


I've decided to get a DaLite Cosmopoltan Electrol High Power screen in "scope" size and watch movies in their "normal" AR (without black bars).

DaLite does not offer electric screens in scope, but they will cut down the drop of a 16 x 9.


My question, is which exact size to get made? From lurking in "screens" and here it seems that more people are using 2.40 screen size.


As is typical, my room is limited in width. I need a maximum of 133" width screen to fit in.

The question is how high to make it.?

2.35 = 56.6" high and 2.40 = 55.4" high.


It costs to have the screen custom sized...


I hope to use it for a long time.


What do you guys recommend?


Thanks
 
See less See more
#2 ·
most of 2.35 movies are actually 2.39:1, and I had the same question pop up for me a couple of years ago. I ended up going with a Carada BW 2.40:1 b/c I prefer the SLIGHTLY wider aspect. In all reality, it's not going to be a dealbreaker for you either way. Since you are working from a 16x9 screen, it would make sense to go 2.35 to maintain the SLIGHTLY bigger hieght, and your limitations on the width of your room. Hope that helps!


Terry
 
#3 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by KBMAN  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23358478


most of 2.35 movies are actually 2.39:1, and I had the same question pop up for me a couple of years ago. I ended up going with a Carada BW 2.40:1 b/c I prefer the SLIGHTLY wider aspect. In all reality, it's not going to be a dealbreaker for you either way. Since you are working from a 16x9 screen, it would make sense to go 2.35 to maintain the SLIGHTLY bigger hieght, and your limitations on the width of your room. Hope that helps!


Terry

Thanks Terry,


Are most modern films going to 2.39?
 
#4 ·
How big a black border can they give you?

With the slight variation in AR's of movies seems you'd want/need at least 1.5" to 2" all around.

I've got 3" black border in my DIY screen and just slightly overscan the image into it.
 
#5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23360111


How big a black border can they give you?

With the slight variation in AR's of movies seems you'd want/need at least 1.5" to 2" all around.

I've got 3" black border in my DIY screen and just slightly overscan the image into it.

The standard DaLite border is 2". I think that you can have them make it any way you want (for a fee). I know for sure that they add extra (black) drop on the top for what ever height ceiling/wall you are working with.

3" seems like a lot of border. Why so much? When I overscan, it seems as if it's never more than 1" or so.

Back to the original question, what size of scope screen did you opt for and why?
 
#7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23359130


Are most modern films going to 2.39?

Do you mean as opposed to 1.85:1? There is no evidence to suggest that. The split between "flat" movies and "scope" movies has been around 50/50 for decades and shows no sign of changing. If you happen to see more of one than the other, that has more to do with your particular viewing habits than what's actually being produced. For example, big summer blockbusters are frequently scope, while indie dramas are more likely to be flat.


If you were referring to the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.39:1, the theatrical projection standard for "scope" widescreen changed to 2.39:1 around 1970 and has remained there. People in the industry continue to refer to it as "2.35:1" out of habit, even though that's not mathematically accurate. However, when it comes to home video, it's a crapshoot as to whether any particular movie will be transferred at 2.35:1 or 2.39:1.


I wrote the following in another thread recently:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1471073/2-35-ultra-wide-demystified-free-panamorph-si-webinar/30#post_23311637


There's a lot of discussion about this in the 2.35:1 Constant Image Height forum on this site. Much of this decision will come down to personal preference.


A few points to keep in mind:


- Although the theatrical projection standard for "scope" (or "ultra wide") movies is 2.40:1, there is no practical standardization for how those same movies will wind up transferred to home video. Some will be 2.40:1, some will be 2.35:1. This may vary from studio to studio, or even disc to disc from the same studio. It depends on how the specific telecine machine used for the film-to-video transfer was calibrated. It's a total crapshoot what you'll get on any given disc, and the specs on the packaging are no help because they're written by the studio Marketing department.


- The 1.33x stretch that an anamorphic lens adds to your projector's output will give you an aspect ratio of 2.37:1. No movies are (intentionally) transferred for this ratio, so you will have some tiny amount of geometrical distortion. Further, the electronic "vertical stretch" features in projectors and video processors are programmed based on an expected target ratio of 2.35:1, not 2.40:1, so you'll have slightly more distortion on a 2.40:1 screen than a 2.35:1 screen.


- The difference between 2.40:1 and 2.35:1 is so miniscule that it's really not worth fretting over. Nor is the geometrical distortion I've just mentioned likely to be noticeable to your eye in real-world playback.


- No matter which screen ratio you chose, not all "scope" movies will fit it perfectly. A 2.40:1 movie on a 2.35:1 screen will have tiny letterbox bars on the top and bottom, or a 2.35:1 movie on a 2.40:1 screen will have tiny pillarbox bars on the sides. In either case, you can adjust your zoom to let tiny slivers of picture fall off the edges of the screen, so you'll never see the black bars. This will not affect the compositional intent of the photography, and is well within the expected tolerances for variances in theatrical projection.


As I said, it'll really come down to personal preference. I chose a 2.35:1 screen and am very happy with it.
 
#8 ·
Josh,

Thanks for that very well thought out explanation.

It would seem that with the current paradigm, it would make sense to go with a 2.37:1 screen, as sort of a compromise between the two prevelant formats. that way you would be zooming the minimum amount most of the time. Perhaps a device like the Lumagen in the chain would help. If it can automatically resize to fit a given screen. I don't know if that's possible (yet).
 
#9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23364794


Josh,

Thanks for that very well thought out explanation.

It would seem that with the current paradigm, it would make sense to go with a 2.37:1 screen, as sort of a compromise between the two prevelant formats. that way you would be zooming the minimum amount most of the time. Perhaps a device like the Lumagen in the chain would help. If it can automatically resize to fit a given screen. I don't know if that's possible (yet).

Lumagen's vertical stretch preset is programmed for 2.35:1. However, it is possible to set a custom output aspect ratio. I don't see point of 2.37:1, personally, as there are literally no movies photographed at that ratio.


My feeling is that the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is practically negligible. Installing a 2.35:1 screen and using the 2.35:1 presets on my Lumagen processor was the path of least resistance, requiring much less complicated customization for what will ultimately not be noticeable to the eye in any case. YMMV.
 
#39 ·
Since the thread just got revived, anyway, I'll add a clarification question:

Lumagen's vertical stretch preset is programmed for 2.35:1.
I'm not sure I understand that. How can a vertical stretch be programmed for a specific aspect ratio? An anamorphic lens expands (or compresses) the image horizontally (or vertically) by a factor of 4/3, right? So I would expect the Lumagen vertical stretch to do the "opposite" of what the anamorphic lens does. If it does that, a movie encoded as 2.35:1 should stay 2.35:1, and a movie encoded as 2.40:1 should stay 2.40:1, no?

What am I missing here?

What do you think would be the best vertical stretch factor? I'm looking for a good default value for the next bigger madVR build where I plan to add support for automatic vertical stretching. I thought 4/3 would be it. But now your post makes me wonder...
 
#10 ·
when using an a-lens, it expands by 4/3's, ie 1.33333, so 16/9 projector panel * 4/3 expansion = 64/27 = 2.37037, hence people with a-lens typically pick 2.37 as screen size because a-lens expands that way.


Like Josh Z stated, it's all "horse shoes and hand gernades" i.e., close enough, 2.35 or 2.37 or 2.40 are so close in real world a little of overscan and any will work.


Have fun and in the end enjoy your "scope" pictures, I mean your "ultra-wide" picture


btw, my velvet black border is 2.5" wide, I had to look back at what I did here
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1029683/diy-curved-screen-with-structural-extruded-aluminum-metal-framing/30#post_15254612
 
#11 ·
Thanks for the help.

At the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter much.

Several AVsers have advised me hold onto the 16x9 HP 2.8 screen, since you can't get them anymore. So, I guess it's 2.40 :1 for the new screen.

I have a question for people. How come there are not more 2.40 screens for sale? It seems that Bluray discs are here to stay and that's the dominant AR. Does anyone even offer a 2.40 pull down or electric?

I using the search function, this issue has been discussed several times...

Some of the people have elected to go with 2.40 have expressed that they wish they had gone 2.35 or 2.37 to split the difference between DVDs and Blurays. The point has been made that having overspill on the sides of a very wide screen is less noticeable than on the top or bottom.

What do you think?
 
#12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23366712


I have a question for people. How come there are not more 2.40 screens for sale? It seems that Bluray discs are here to stay and that's the dominant AR.

As I said earlier, there is no dominant aspect ratio. About half the movies made every year are 1.85:1, and the other half 2.40:1. On top of this, remember that all current HDTV programming and video games are 1.78:1, and you can see why most people would default to a standard 16:9 screen. Constant Image Height really only appeals to hardcore film buffs like us here.
Quote:
Some of the people have elected to go with 2.40 have expressed that they wish they had gone 2.35 or 2.37 to split the difference between DVDs and Blurays.

To be clear, the aspect ratio has absolutely nothing to do with a difference between DVD and Blu-ray. The studios use the exact same video tranfers for both formats, just downconverted to the necessary resolutions.
 
#13 ·
"The point has been made that having overspill on the sides of a very wide screen is less noticeable than on the top or bottom."


Too me, this seems a valid point. Since there will be some sort of overspill on any compromise "scope" screen format, it makes sense to have it at the sides as opposed to the top/bottom. Your field of view is mostly in the center and it stands to reason that it will be less noticeable there... Am I understanding this correctly?
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23368520


"The point has been made that having overspill on the sides of a very wide screen is less noticeable than on the top or bottom."


Too me, this seems a valid point. Since there will be some sort of overspill on any compromise "scope" screen format, it makes sense to have it at the sides as opposed to the top/bottom. Your field of view is mostly in the center and it stands to reason that it will be less noticeable there... Am I understanding this correctly?

I assume that your screen frame will have some sort of black border around it? If you zoom the image up slightly to let the excess picture fall off the edges of the screen, the amount of picture we're dealing with is so small that it should all fall onto that black border. I doubt you'll notice it regardless of whether you let it spill onto the top/bottom (2.35:1 content on a 2.40:1 screen) or onto the sides (2.40:1 content on a 2.35:1 screen).


If, for whatever reason, it is noticeable, then that statement sounds like a reasonable enough premise. However, I really think you're stressing too much over what really amounts to a non-issue.
 
#15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40/0_50#post_23368826


...However, I really think you're stressing too much over what really amounts to a non-issue.



basically, on a 50x120 screen (130" diagonal) the difference between this 2.4 ratio and 2.35 is 2.5" horizontal inches. I agree having the spill at the sides, instead of the middle makes sense. So, if you go with 2.35 ratio (so you never see black bars) you can use 1 "scope" lens memory and sometimes lose 1.25" on each side. You will never notice. But you would notice black bars on the screen...and have to zoom height to get rid of them (2nd lens memory)


2.35 will be perfect sometimes, and spill 1.25" other times, while keeping a single lens setting. That's what I would do.
 
#16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonSixGolf  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23376880


basically, on a 50x120 screen (130" diagonal) the difference between this 2.4 ratio and 2.35 is 2.5" horizontal inches. I agree having the spill at the sides, instead of the middle makes sense. So, if you go with 2.35 ratio (so you never see black bars) you can use 1 "scope" lens memory and sometimes lose 1.25" on each side. You will never notice. But you would notice black bars on the screen...and have to zoom height to get rid of them (2nd lens memory)


2.35 will be perfect sometimes, and spill 1.25" other times, while keeping a single lens setting. That's what I would do.

From looking at products online it seems that people are offering 2.37;

I'm cosidering a 116" wide screen. So that means that if I choose a 2.37 AR the screen height will be 49".

A 2.35 picture will give a height of 49.4" (or .2 inches overspill top and bottom). A 2.40 image will be only 48.3" tall. (or .35" short on top and bottom) with black bars.

Currently, I have only the 16 x 9 screen to judge by, and it's hard to measure the image changes.

However, it looks like with the 116" wide 2.37 I'll have to zoom out about .84'' into the sides in order to fill the 2.37 screen with a 2.40 image (.35" x 2.40=.84").

Is that correct?
 
#17 ·
I appreciate this discussion as I'm building a dedicated theater and wresting with this same issue - 2.35 or 2.40 ratio in a 110" wide screen? I'll have a JVC DLA RS4810 (aka DLA X55R) projector w/ Prismasonic anamorphic lens and no plans to buy a separate video processor. The JVC should do scaling well enough. And it has electronic zoom and zoom memory, so maybe that makes the issue moot...?


Seems like a 2:40 aspect ratio actually makes the screen slightly smaller for 16:9 material, right? Maybe that should be the governing principle here. After all, doesn't "size matter" in HT as well as....well, other areas?
 
#18 ·
"Seems like a 2:40 aspect ratio actually makes the screen slightly smaller for 16:9 material, right? Maybe that should be the governing principle here. After all, doesn't "size matter" in HT as well as....well, other areas?
[/quote]


Yes, that much is certain. That is, if you are going with one screen to display 16 x 9 and scope, then it should be 2.35 INMO.

That way you'll have the largest possible 16 x 9 image.


My decision is which format size to go for a dedicated scope only screen. I'm leaning towards the 2.37 for the reasons mentioned below. I sure wish I could actually see how the differences would look on the various options before pulling the trigger...
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23382747


I sure wish I could actually see how the differences would look on the various options before pulling the trigger...

You have the projector now? Shine it onto an empty wall. Measure and mark out the screen dimensions with masking tape.
 
#20 ·
Thats exactly what I did was project on to the wall,then put green painters tape around the projected image.

Did that with 2-3 different sizes.

I wanted that immersive feeling of being drawn in to the movieI did that for a week or so and went with the BIGGER dimensions,who'd a thought that would happen
LOL...
 
#21 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by drummermitchell  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23389035


Thats exactly what I did was project on to the wall,then put green painters tape around the projected image.

Did that with 2-3 different sizes.

I wanted that immersive feeling of being drawn in to the movieI did that for a week or so and went with the BIGGER dimensions,who'd a thought that would happen
LOL...

I wish it were that easy. The projector is ceiling mounted on a cathedral ceiling (way up there). It's shooting onto a retractable 16x9 110" Diagonal screen which works great for HD sports.

I can (and have) shot a 2.35, 2.37, 2.4 scope image on it and played around with different formats, but it's not the same as zooming out to the image to the required width (which overspills the existing screen by 20").
 
#22 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23389070


I wish it were that easy. The projector is ceiling mounted on a cathedral ceiling (way up there). It's shooting onto a retractable 16x9 110" Diagonal screen which works great for HD sports.

I can (and have) shot a 2.35, 2.37, 2.4 scope image on it and played around with different formats, but it's not the same as zooming out to the image to the required width (which overspills the existing screen by 20").

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If I had the same film shown on three different screens in three different rooms, using 2.35, 2.37 and 2.40, you would be hard pressed to tell which was which. The image would be zoomed out a little so there would not be any black bars showing on any of the screens. As far as zooming off top and bottom vs right and left side, it does not matter as long as you have a black velvet covered frame. You will not be able to see it either way.
 
#23 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23390305


You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If I had the same film shown on three different screens in three different rooms, using 2.35, 2.37 and 2.40, you would be hard pressed to tell which was which. The image would be zoomed out a little so there would not be any black bars showing on any of the screens. As far as zooming off top and bottom vs right and left side, it does not matter as long as you have a black velvet covered frame. You will not be able to see it either way.

Mike,

I hear you. It's more of an intellectual exercise. The forum is constantly asking questions about like "what would you do"?

So, Mike if you were going to have an electric scope screen custom built, which AR would you choose 2.35, 2.37 or 2.4 (and why)? It will be dedicated for scope use only. I'm planning on keeping the 16 x 9 screen to use for HD TV.

Yours is certainly an informed opinion.


Thanks
 
#24 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23392367


Mike,

I hear you. It's more of an intellectual exercise. The forum is constantly asking questions about like "what would you do"?

So, Mike if you were going to have an electric scope screen custom built, which AR would you choose 2.35, 2.37 or 2.4 (and why)? It will be dedicated for scope use only. I'm planning on keeping the 16 x 9 screen to use for HD TV.

Yours is certainly an informed opinion.


Thanks

I did the same thing you're doing, however, my research was done over years which gave me enough time to make a decision. After everything else considered, I had two main reasons of deciding why to go 2.35:1 with both relating to black bars when viewing various content at different aspect ratios.


Here's the reasons:


1. I'm using an anamorphic lens. So throwing a 2.37:1 image and overscanning it slightly should eliminate seeing any deficiencies caused by the lens at the fringes of the screen. True, at the left and right most portions of the screen it will still be seen, but at 116" wide, I'm more focused in the middle of the screen and won't normally be looking there and see it even if it's visible at all.


2. I watch more movies, so again, overscanning will fill the screen w/ 1.85:1 material. Yes, I'll lose some of the image w/ normal 16:9 content, but it's minimal.


With my Da-Lite HCHP Model C manual pull down, it came w/ 2 inches of black border. Actually a little more on the top and bottom. Plenty to hide any overscan.
 
#25 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by biliam1982  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23392932


I did the same thing you're doing, however, my research was done over years which gave me enough time to make a decision. After everything else considered, I had two main reasons of deciding why to go 2.35:1 with both relating to black bars when viewing various content at different aspect ratios.


Here's the reasons:


1. I'm using an anamorphic lens. So throwing a 2.37:1 image and overscanning it slightly should eliminate seeing any deficiencies caused by the lens at the fringes of the screen. True, at the left and right most portions of the screen it will still be seen, but at 116" wide, I'm more focused in the middle of the screen and won't normally be looking there and see it even if it's visible at all.


2. I watch more movies, so again, overscanning will fill the screen w/ 1.85:1 material. Yes, I'll lose some of the image w/ normal 16:9 content, but it's minimal.


With my Da-Lite HCHP Model C manual pull down, it came w/ 2 inches of black border. Actually a little more on the top and bottom. Plenty to hide any overscan.

Thanks for the input.

If you were not using the A-Lens, and had a separate dedicated 16 x 9 set up (to display HD sports), then would you still feel the same way when adding a second dedicated scope screen? You will be overscanning some of the time anyway...How would you choose the BASE scope format. Would you still choose 2.35? If so, then why?
 
#26 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by humbland  /t/1474387/2-35-or-2-40#post_23399286


Thanks for the input.

If you were not using the A-Lens, and had a separate dedicated 16 x 9 set up (to display HD sports), then would you still feel the same way when adding a second dedicated scope screen? You will be overscanning some of the time anyway...How would you choose the BASE scope format. Would you still choose 2.35? If so, then why?

Tough question, but again, I think I have 2 answers as to why I would still go 2.35:1 for the AR.


1. As you've probably read, it's a roll of the dice to what AR you'll actually get w/ scope content from whatever source, be it BR, DVD, streaming, et al. So again, it'll cover your bases for for getting a 2.40:1 or 2.37:1 image and overscanning to prevent black bars.


2. It'll help hide artifacts and lines of different colors you sometimes get w/ streaming older content or cable channels. Though I normally see it more w/ 16:9 and 4:3 content, you might also see it w/ scope images.


True, w/ answer #2, it's sometimes on the left and right edges of the image instead of top and bottom that you see those pesky lines and artifacts, which in that case you could go 2.37:1 for the screen's AR and balance hiding both. But still think 2.35:1 would win out most of the time and you could always just slightly overscan some more to cover the left and right side with out loosing too much more if you even notice it. Which again, you'll likely be focused more on the center portions of the screen so you probably won't most of the time.


We both have the Sharp VX-Z30000, which so far, I've only found 2 settings for lens positions that can be saved. So unless you plan on getting an external scaler in the future, which will be able to scale the image more and give other screen AR options, I'd stick w/ 2.35:1.


But that's just my opinion.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top