....they're better'n Easter eggs!
And I appreciate the compliments. It was a more difficult task than normal. I'm only 5'9" and my arms are not "Gibbon-like". (...contrary to my detractor's claims..
) Maintaining a consistency of the speed of movement/Spray pattern placement while traversing a 16' width walking sideways on a 2" x 12" plank, while holding a Spray Gun above your head's height takes more sub-conscious mental effort (doing many things at once...all precisely...) and physical effort (muscle control) than I'd care to muster on a regular basis. But I'm not a professional painter...so it can be done if one applies one's self.
Really though....the intended purpose of keeping this info current lies in the need to make people aware that "the accepted norm" is no longer Status Quo, and that performance limits unlike that we have all been accustomed to have changed. So better get used to it....it's all good.
The 2.35:1 aspect ratio demands that the width of the image be absolutely as wide as possible. This because the height of the image is tied to the width...obviously. People who want the "Big Picture" don't want just the "cinemascope" aspect, they also want impressive height.
2.35:1 often reduces height to a point that a important part of "screen presence" is lost on smaller examples.
So OK...we all know bigger is better...and quite do-able with todays High Resolution PJs. So two things have to be balanced out. Width of screen to Distance to seating. In the past, resolution and light uniformity had everything to do with determining how close you could sit before either you could see every little detail of SDE or image noise, and/or where the reflected light at the center of the screen would start to crisp your corneas.
Using a 1:1 ratio of Screen width to Seating distance has become a reality with 1080p Digital PJs that are able to deliver exceptionally sharp images that have native
Contrast ratios exceeding 6000:1 Up the latter to 15,000:1 and things get all the "mo bedder".
Taking the Screen example in this thread, at 16' wide, when sitting at 16' from the screen, a total immersion in the screen's content occurs. Personally, I have no trouble with my eyes encompassing the width and breadth of the image, without moving my eyes or head. I have found this to be because of the uniformity of the light being received allowing me to relax and just "gaze" at the image, not "focus".
That is the key.
As Humans, each of our MMV. However, the reasons to NOT attempt closer Seating/Viewing Distance ratios do not include the image being "grainy" or "noisy", and with properly calibrated PJs, the potential for eye fatigue.
Unfortunately, some individuals cannot abide sitting so close to a moving image, because they cannot help but to follow the action with their eyes. This can result in a "dizziness" feeling when the brain is trying to encompass too much input coming from opposite directions. That is a personal "physical trait" that has nothing to do with how well the content is being presented . In fact, those are the people you see at the Cinemaplex who "prefer" to sit 2/3rd of the way back in the Theater.
For those individuals, 2.35:1 will always be constrained to being just a wider image that is markedly less tall than 16:9.
But for serious cinema advocates that aspire to 2.35:1 as a standard, size matters. As sizes go up, matching a screen's performance to the PJ becomes more problematical. What with this being a "DIY CIH" Thread, the intervention of a exceptional DIY Screen solution carries great significance.Although I cannot discuss in length in this Thread the "How to's" of the making of such, we can discuss the "Whys", the "Why bother's, and the "What can be's". PM me for the "How to's" or ask for me to do the same in a single sentence on this Thread .
Taking the JVC (700 lumens) and showing that with a proper DIY Screen surface that it can reliably deliver an exceptional image at 16' wide flies in the face of accepted known practices (...thank goodness...) so there can be no question that anything under that standard (size) will present no issues.
A brief "DIY" Plug.
It should be strongly noted that S-I-L-V-E-R is not the sole contender for every viewing situation. Nothing is. But even as Mfg Screen makers purport to have "an answer" for the varied needs of PJ Owners, so does the DIY Screen Section. And as the example of this thread shows, don't let anyone tell you DIY Screens cannot provide performance and value that can exceed contemporary expectations. In fact, several examples of different "Hi Gain-High Contrast" DIY Paint applications are in the works and being "cleaned up & ironed out" that plainly outperform their Mfg. counterparts. In any instance where such a "DIY" consideration is feasible, it should definitely be considered. DIY can encompass every aspect of a Theater project if that is what the "Project Manager" desires. Knowing that nothing is left wanting by taking that route is the icing on the cake that makes having DIAY "Done It ALL Yourself"
taste all the more sweeter.
DIY Plug over
What level of importance should placed on one being able to "Custom" optimize the balance between Screen performance, PJ specifications, viewing position? Only everything. Therein lies the results we all desire, but often do not either expect or receive. Time to put an end to all that nonsense, eh?
Well, time's a-waistin' as far as choosing the DIY Screen part of DIY CIH. Ask....and ye can/shall receive the answer!
However, as I'm going along, I watch this thread closely for real advancements in converting 16:9 imagery to 2.35:1 at a truly "DIY" level of cost. I note that after the major players in Conversion Lenses first worked with the Forum to get some hardware out to 2.35:1 CIH HT advocates, once that was accomplished, the real quality Lens assemblies come in at a price point far above the average DIY'ers desire to spend. Yet it is the "Average" person whose satisfaction index soars high when they get something special at a price point they did not expect.
I'd like to see more options developed in the realm of taking existing Lenses and adapting them to affordable "manual Slides" that are less bulky. If we can get that accomplished...along with appropriate DIY 2.35:1 screen choices, the end results will be a very large troop of Happy Campers.
leastwise...IMO.Easy 2.35:1 masking solution until you get to the CIH stage.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008446