Still Stuck on 16:6 / 2.35:1 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-28-2012, 11:06 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PanicRGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ok , im trying to be as honest as i can here.
i have been between 16:9 and 2.35 screens many time and still in no position to decide. I will be as honest as i can and will highlight my thoughts on 16:9 or 2.35

- I Will mainly be watching Movies and TV Shows on Blu-Ray which would be best to go for 2.35

- I Have a current setup that i play xbox on , but it will be pretty cool to play on a massive projector so i will probably be playing xbox on it sometimes. 16:9

- I Want the biggest screen possible (I Know the bigger isnt the better but im just like that as a person) so 16:9

- I Really do not want to pay alot of money on a Anamorphic Lens , 16:9

- I Have been told that a 2.35 screen is very immersive and is worth it.

- I Think Black bars on the Left and Right would look horrible when watching 16:9 Content and i am a pretty bad DIY'r

I Am really stuck on what to pick and want to see some opinions with both sides.
PanicRGH is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-28-2012, 12:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicRGH View Post

Ok , im trying to be as honest as i can here.
i have been between 16:9 and 2.35 screens many time and still in no position to decide. I will be as honest as i can and will highlight my thoughts on 16:9 or 2.35
- I Will mainly be watching Movies and TV Shows on Blu-Ray which would be best to go for 2.35
- I Have a current setup that i play xbox on , but it will be pretty cool to play on a massive projector so i will probably be playing xbox on it sometimes. 16:You can play on a 2.35 with no problems, 9
- I Want the biggest screen possible (I Know the bigger isnt the better but im just like that as a person) so 16:9Go with a random sized screen so that you can have the best of both worlds, pj brightness and wall space will determine sizes
- I Really do not want to pay alot of money on a Anamorphic Lens , 16:9[BMany newer pjs have zoom method which works really great][/B]
- I Have been told that a 2.35 screen is very immersive and is worth it.I will never go back to 16:9
- I Think Black bars on the Left and Right would look horrible when watching 16:9The sides do not bother me one bit and even the non DIYer can make masking panels if it does bother them Content and i am a pretty bad DIY'r
I Am really stuck on what to pick and want to see some opinions with both sides.

I went from a 110" 16:9 Carada to a 1.5 gain microperf 180ish" 2.35 and it has converted me for sure although if I would have had room to go taller I would have went with a random aspect just to squeeze out a little larger 16:9 size.
audiovideoholic is offline  
Old 09-28-2012, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
secondhander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I think point #1 says it all and there are 2.35 friendly projectors out there so you don't need to rely on an anamorphic lens (Such as the panasonic line up with memory functions). The biggest screen possible is only as good as the content your projecting. If you do a lot of 2.x content then the larger screen height becomes wasted anyway and you can build masking panels for 16x9 content if sidebars are a concern.

After having a 2.35 screen I wouldn't want a 16x9 screen because of the content I watch and the fact that it's damn cool looking. However, there is the odd time where I wish I could immerse myself more when watching sports. A screen with more height really gives a feeling of being there when watching a game imo.
secondhander is offline  
Old 09-28-2012, 12:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Albuquerque, NM USA
Posts: 2,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I find side bars less offensive than top and bottom. And as said by others, a projector with zoom memory will eliminate the need for an external anamorphic lens.

High Desert Theater - work in progress
Building Bass - Subs

Surrounds - Easy as Pi

Storage - unRAID unDELL

petew is online now  
Old 09-28-2012, 01:53 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PanicRGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i have put around £2500 thats around $4000 aside for the Projector.

at the moment im deciding on getting a 2.35 screen and having a smaller 16:9 Pull down in my bedroom.

Its just the fact that some of my favourite films are 16:9 and think it would look absolutely amazing on a 16:9 Massive screen i will also play xbox sometimes , but on the other hand some of my favourite films are 2.35< and they would also look great when watching in the true format.

I Would love 2.35 but would love watching 16:9 just as much.
I normally watch a TV Series over a week or 2 i literally watch 8-10 Episodes a day when im in the mood , and if not i normally watch a movie a day or so.
PanicRGH is offline  
Old 09-28-2012, 02:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_P_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama
Posts: 4,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 267
It's not difficult to build some fixed masking panels. Then you can build a screen that's as tall and wide as will fit your wall/seating position comfortably (don't worry about the aspect ratio), get a PJ that supports zoom memory, and then just hang the masking panels depending on which aspect ratio you are watching currently. It's always going to be a compromise unless you want to spend the big money on automated masking, etc.

Dude, are you made of leprechauns? Cause that was awesome!

The Plains Theater Has Begun
J_P_A is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

It's not difficult to build some fixed masking panels. Then you can build a screen that's as tall and wide as will fit your wall/seating position comfortably (don't worry about the aspect ratio), get a PJ that supports zoom memory, and then just hang the masking panels depending on which aspect ratio you are watching currently. It's always going to be a compromise unless you want to spend the big money on automated masking, etc.

Yeah thats exactly what I tried to explain, you just did a better job lol. Focus on how much of an image you can "truly" light up and then build the screen to fit. Or if think will be able to have higher light output in near future build what your wall will allow, use masking until the update, and you'll have the best of all aspects throughout your upgrades.
audiovideoholic is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rabident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,040
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I've gone back and forth over the years and used both masking and anamorphic lens. Like AT screens, there are compromises either way. Other things to consider:

  • 16:9 will have your highest resolution source, so it makes sense for it to be the largest area displayed (native screen size). Even with a lens 2.35 content takes on a noticeably softer look when it is the native screen size.
  • If you use the zoom method for 2.35 screen on a projector that uses DI the black bars are still part of the image which skews overall picture brightness downward and can reduce CR. For example a "fade to white" scene like the helicopter crash in Sum of All Fears still only registers ~66% of full brightness because of the black bars, so the DI never fully opens and you lose peak white.
  • 2.35 screens look better on the wall
  • there is a psychological factor where you get used to the 16:9 size and then 2.35 content just feels smaller when the intent of the wider format is to give a more epic feel. With 16:9 native screen masking down to 2.35 I always had a sense of disappointment as the masks came down, vs 2.35 native gives a feeling of excitement as the masks open up.
  • YMMV for video games on the big screen. I thought it would be cool too, but found that I get motion sickness from FPS and RTS games have a noticeable lack of sharpness due to being blown up so large.
  • more projectors include lens memory systems now so you can use a 2.35 screen without needing an a-lens provided your screen size isn't too big. Zoom method requires extra attention to absorb the light spill. If it ends up on your ceiling or reflecting around back into the room, then it can impact CR as well.
  • in terms of size, extra wide is more comfortable to look at than extra tall. If you want to go large, 2.35 shape is easier on the eyes
  • 16:9 seems to be frequently used for 3D and some movies have additional content that is lost when viewed on a 2.35 native screen

If they had included a 1080p anamorphic format in Bluray then it would have been more clear cut that 2.35 was best but as is it mostly comes down to what trade offs are important to you. I'm going to go back to 2.35 for my new room because it's so wide, but neither is perfect.

 

 

rabident is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tlogan6797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
I find side bars less offensive than top and bottom. And as said by others, a projector with zoom memory will eliminate the need for an external anamorphic lens.

I agree 100%.
Quote:
2.35 screens look better on the wall
there is a psychological factor where you get used to the 16:9 size and then 2.35 content just feels smaller when the intent of the wider format is to give a more epic feel. With 16:9 native screen masking down to 2.35 I always had a sense of disappointment as the masks came down, vs 2.35 native gives a feeling of excitement as the masks open up.

And I agree 100% with this.

I'm using a 2.35 screen with a Panny 4K and I still love watching the auto-lens zoom out from 16:9 to full width 2.35 (which I'm guessing is pretty much the same as watching masking open up). With a completely black screen wall, black bars on the side of 16:9 do not bother me in the least as they virtually unnoticeable.

Tom Logan
Everytime I reply the thread ends
Need motivation? Get LOGANED
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014847

An as-yet un-named theater designed by Big-WarrenP-BritInVA
tlogan6797 is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,958
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
I have a Panny AE7000U with a scope screen and find myself wishing I had a standard 16:9.

I convinced myself that I needed the lens memory feature and was willimg to give up some brightness over the Epson 5010 to justify the need.

Real world use I am noticing that most of the content I watch is 16:9. So if I could do it over again I would have went 16:9 from the start...
popalock is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
cdika17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
What if a person went with say a 160" 2.35 screen, then use masking panels to make screen what you want.

160" 2.35 masked to 1.78 gives you a 120".

You would need vertical and horizontal panels.

-----------------------------------------------
Chase "Fetch"


Current Theater Build
 

New House Build

 

cdika17 is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_P_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama
Posts: 4,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

I have a Panny AE7000U with a scope screen and find myself wishing I had a standard 16:9.
I convinced myself that I needed the lens memory feature and was willimg to give up some brightness over the Epson 5010 to justify the need.
Real world use I am noticing that most of the content I watch is 16:9. So if I could do it over again I would have went 16:9 from the start...

Would you feel the same if your screen was optimized for both 16:9 and 2.35? That seems to be the way the discussion is turning, now. I'm interested in your thoughts on this as I'm tentatively planning to do this myself.

Dude, are you made of leprechauns? Cause that was awesome!

The Plains Theater Has Begun
J_P_A is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 09:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
aaustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I think JPA hit the nail on the head here. The key words are optimizing the screen for both 16:9 and 2.35:1.

The way I would approach this situation is to pick a comfortable 16:9 screen size. Take the height of this screen and build a 2.35:1 format with your given height. Then mask to 16:9 when needed. This way, you will have the best 16:9 and 2.35:1 experience.

Of course, there is the problem that your given screen height may result in a 2.35:1 screen size that is too wide. In this case you will have to adjust things accordingly to achieve the right balance.

The Austin Home Theater:
A DIY high school project (now complete and being enjoyed everyday)

aaustin is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_P_A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: L.A. - Lower Alabama
Posts: 4,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked: 267
Well, we just solved the 16:9 vs 2.35 debate! Somebody start a "Solution to World Peace?" thread while we're on a roll here smile.gif

Dude, are you made of leprechauns? Cause that was awesome!

The Plains Theater Has Begun
J_P_A is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 09:37 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PanicRGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Way i see it is....

If i have an acoustically Transparent Screen and go Wall - To - Wall with a screen.
I will be getting the best possible Width and Height i can have by getting the biggest 16:9 Screen i cant fit.

When i occasionally play xbox , it will be on the biggest screen possible.
When i Watch Blu Ray TV Shows they will be on the biggest screen Possible

And when i watch a 2.35 Movie , it will also be the biggest screen possible as i have good as wide as i can.

If i mask the Tops and Bottoms of the 16:9 Screen it will look great.
And also a 16:9 Screen does not look Bad.


Thats the way i see it , if im wrong please comment
or if you want to persuade me to go 2.35 < also comment.

Panic
PanicRGH is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 10:14 AM
Senior Member
 
secondhander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicRGH View Post

The Way i see it is....
If i have an acoustically Transparent Screen and go Wall - To - Wall with a screen.
I will be getting the best possible Width and Height i can have by getting the biggest 16:9 Screen i cant fit.
When i occasionally play xbox , it will be on the biggest screen possible.
When i Watch Blu Ray TV Shows they will be on the biggest screen Possible
And when i watch a 2.35 Movie , it will also be the biggest screen possible as i have good as wide as i can.
If i mask the Tops and Bottoms of the 16:9 Screen it will look great.
And also a 16:9 Screen does not look Bad.
Thats the way i see it , if im wrong please comment
or if you want to persuade me to go 2.35 < also comment.
Panic


Mine is wall to wall and is cinescope. I originally had the same thoughts as you and from my initial tests I loved it. I would have gone 16x9 to be honest (which would be 120" diag), but I have a bulkhead above my screen so I felt I couldn't raise the screen high enough for my liking as it would only be 15" from my floor (Something you need to consider for backrow of seats). I have a toddler and he can walk right now all over the floor in front of the seating without stepping in to the light which is a bonus in my opinion. He can't sit still for 5 minutes.

Had I done it over though, I probably would do the full 120" 16x9 screen and mask the bottom of the screen off to display the 2.35 content at the top portion of the screen. I would keep it that way for all of my primary viewing and then when I want the full 120" screen open for watching a 16x9 movie or a ball game I would remove the bottom panel. That would only be doable with a memory lens shift projector which I have but to me that would be the best of both worlds. I considered doing this but being a first time DIYer I didn't feel confident enough in building it properly.
secondhander is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tlogan6797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
The way I would approach this situation is to pick a comfortable 16:9 screen size. Take the height of this screen and build a 2.35:1 format with your given height. Then mask to 16:9 when needed. This way, you will have the best 16:9 and 2.35:1 experience.

This is exactly what I did.I think most screen sizes are height constrained rather than width constrained. Since, as had been noted, you need to account for bottom of screen to floor and any bulkheads, prosceniums, etc. Doing this will give you the max height you can have. That, then, determines the width. By making the width 2.35, you have the max scope and max 16:9 you can possibly have.

Tom Logan
Everytime I reply the thread ends
Need motivation? Get LOGANED
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014847

An as-yet un-named theater designed by Big-WarrenP-BritInVA
tlogan6797 is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aaustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Well, we just solved the 16:9 vs 2.35 debate! Somebody start a "Solution to World Peace?" thread while we're on a roll here smile.gif

It's amazing what you can come up with while sitting in a general psychology lecture. biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicRGH View Post

The Way i see it is....
If i have an acoustically Transparent Screen and go Wall - To - Wall with a screen.
I will be getting the best possible Width and Height i can have by getting the biggest 16:9 Screen i cant fit.
When i occasionally play xbox , it will be on the biggest screen possible.
When i Watch Blu Ray TV Shows they will be on the biggest screen Possible
And when i watch a 2.35 Movie , it will also be the biggest screen possible as i have good as wide as i can.
If i mask the Tops and Bottoms of the 16:9 Screen it will look great.
And also a 16:9 Screen does not look Bad.
Thats the way i see it , if im wrong please comment
or if you want to persuade me to go 2.35 < also comment.
Panic

While this will work, I would be wary about getting a screen that is too big. Not knowing more about your setup (room dimensions, viewing distances, etc.) it's hard to determine whether a wall-to-wall 16:9 screen will work effectively.

The Austin Home Theater:
A DIY high school project (now complete and being enjoyed everyday)

aaustin is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
audiovideoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Murray KY
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 201 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Millerwill, uses this concept on a hp screen. He sets the zoom to where on 2.35 the image only has bars on the top. He did exactly what I would have if had the height to do so.

I maxed the width on a 2.35 screen with my throw 13' wide and that also was the max of the height I could fit on the wall. If my wall were higher I would have went taller but now have just over 120" diag 16:9 image.

My pj uses all of the content on 2.35 so I dont have that problem that was mentioned earlier. 4k has advantages in the 2.35 scene even tho its not truly here yet.
audiovideoholic is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Brady84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NTX
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am extremely happy with my 125" wide 2.07 CIA screen with both sets of masking panels. I'm no longer upset when movies are in 1.85 like I was when I had a 120" CIH screen. CIH has a bit more streamlined visual experience in my experience but the extra height of a CIA screen really produces some wow factor when watching video sources, such as action sports movies etc...

Now if I could get my X-30 to actually re adjust to where I saved the presets I would be 100% happy. Little manual tweaks aren't difficult just annoying.
Brady84 is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PanicRGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaustin View Post

It's amazing what you can come up with while sitting in a general psychology lecture. biggrin.gif
While this will work, I would be wary about getting a screen that is too big. Not knowing more about your setup (room dimensions, viewing distances, etc.) it's hard to determine whether a wall-to-wall 16:9 screen will work effectively.

Could you explain more.
Should you sit closer for 2.35?

I was thinking about having a front row for 2.35
and a back for 16:9?

I Have Space for about 120" wide , so around 130" Diagonal
And if that were 16:9 137" Diagonal.


How far should you sit from a 137" 16:9 Screen?
And how far for 130" 2.35 Screen

Thanks
PanicRGH is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,958
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Would you feel the same if your screen was optimized for both 16:9 and 2.35? That seems to be the way the discussion is turning, now. I'm interested in your thoughts on this as I'm tentatively planning to do this myself.

How about this...

Right now I have a 120" CIH setup. When I watch 16:9 content, my screen has to shrink down to around 106" to fit within my screen height limitations.

I do not have the constraints that some have (i.e. - kids running around), so if I would have went with a 138" 16:9 screen to begin with, then I could still have the same 120" 2.35:1 image with the added benifit of a 138" 16:9 image vs the 106" size I am stuck with...

My scope screen "looks" cool, but a 16:9 screen would be more functional in my case.

I tell you one thing... I was pretty disappointed to find out The Avengers was in 16:9 and I wasn't able to fill my entire screen...

(Note - The screen size/proportions may be off a little, but hopefully you get my point)
popalock is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:45 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
PanicRGH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

How about this...
Right now I have a 120" CIH setup. When I watch 16:9 content, my screen has to shrink down to around 106" to fit within my screen height limitations.
I do not have the constraints that some have (i.e. - kids running around), so if I would have went with a 138" 16:9 screen to begin with, then I could still have the same 120" 2.35:1 image with the added benifit of a 138" 16:9 image vs the 106" size I am stuck with...
My scope screen "looks" cool, but a 16:9 screen would be more functional in my case.
I tell you one thing... I was pretty disappointed to find out The Avengers was in 16:9 and I wasn't able to fill my entire screen...
(Note - The screen size/proportions may be off a little, but hopefully you get my point)

Thats the way i see it.
If i had massive amounts of space (20FT - 25FT+) , then CIH would definitely be the way.
But on average people do not have that sort of space.

It also saves alot of money with the A-Lens etc.
And the black bars if masked will not make the picture look bad , yes there might be a little difference but most people dont care

Panic
PanicRGH is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:54 PM
Member
 
Discotech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

I tell you one thing... I was pretty disappointed to find out The Avengers was in 16:9 and I wasn't able to fill my entire screen...

You just broke my heart. Waiting to get my PJ and screen to see the movie on 2:35...... I'm gonna go cry now.
Discotech is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,958
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicRGH View Post

Thats the way i see it.
If i had massive amounts of space (20FT - 25FT+) , then CIH would definitely be the way.
But on average people do not have that sort of space.
It also saves alot of money with the A-Lens etc.
And the black bars if masked will not make the picture look bad , yes there might be a little difference but most people dont care
Panic

Agreed.

I know you would be happier with a 16:9 setup.

My panny has the lens memory feature, and was one of the ptimary reasons I bought it. In retrospect, if I would have went with the 16:9 screen, this feature would have been unnecessary.

BTW. IMHO I feel as though the top/bottom bars are more natural than the side bars you get with a CIH scope screen, but both can be easily masked...

I personally would rather a larger 16:9 screen.
popalock is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 03:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Spaceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North Houston
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

I tell you one thing... I was pretty disappointed to find out The Avengers was in 16:9 and I wasn't able to fill my entire screen...

I guess I can take that one off the list of potential movies for opening night. I definitely want to start with an awesome 2.35:1 movie.
Spaceman is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aaustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanicRGH View Post

Could you explain more.
Should you sit closer for 2.35?
I was thinking about having a front row for 2.35
and a back for 16:9?
I Have Space for about 120" wide , so around 130" Diagonal
And if that were 16:9 137" Diagonal.
How far should you sit from a 137" 16:9 Screen?
And how far for 130" 2.35 Screen
Thanks

My point was that it is possible to have a screen that is too big. Since we didn't know your room width I was cautioning about automatically making your screen wall-to-wall. If you had a 20' wide room, for instance, I wouldn't make the screen that wide unless you can sit pretty far back.

A 120" wide 16:9 screen is 67" tall. If your ceiling height is tall enough to make that work, and you can sit far enough away to make a 137" diagonal image comfortable, then I don't see a problem with doing a wall-to-wall screen. I would be sure to make the side walls a dark color (black would be best) since you won't have anything on the sides of the screen.

Viewing distance is based somewhat on personal preference, but generally if you have to move your head around during a movie to see everything on the screen then you are sitting too close or your screen is too big. I wouldn't sit any closer than 12' for a 137" 16:9 screen.

The Austin Home Theater:
A DIY high school project (now complete and being enjoyed everyday)

aaustin is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 06:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tlogan6797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Austin beat me to it. I contend that, contrary to popular belief, there IS such thing as a too big screen.

As Austin says, unless you like sitting in the first row of the theater and moving your head back and forth to see the entire screen, the screen can be too big. I didn't believe this until I set up a wall-to-wall-ceiling-to-floor screen (roughly 12'x8'), filled the screen and put some chairs in the seating location. Neither LOGANESS nor I liked it. I backed it down little by little until we got the largest screen we were happy with. I ended up with an AT 2:35 screen 8' wide (104" diagonal) in my just-over 12' room with eyeballs right at about 12'.

You really need to test this for yourself. It IS a personal preference.

Tom Logan
Everytime I reply the thread ends
Need motivation? Get LOGANED
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014847

An as-yet un-named theater designed by Big-WarrenP-BritInVA
tlogan6797 is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 3,958
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 588 Post(s)
Liked: 880
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman View Post

I guess I can take that one off the list of potential movies for opening night. I definitely want to start with an awesome 2.35:1 movie.

Man, it was such an awesome movie I only noticed the size format on the menu. Soon as I hit play, it was forgotten and not really missed. However, it has annoyed me a bit more on other movies. TRON especially since the aspect ratio seems to be constantly switching. Real workout for the lens memory feature of my Panny and it really got on my damn nerves…
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaustin View Post

My point was that it is possible to have a screen that is too big. Since we didn't know your room width I was cautioning about automatically making your screen wall-to-wall. If you had a 20' wide room, for instance, I wouldn't make the screen that wide unless you can sit pretty far back.
A 120" wide 16:9 screen is 67" tall. If your ceiling height is tall enough to make that work, and you can sit far enough away to make a 137" diagonal image comfortable, then I don't see a problem with doing a wall-to-wall screen. I would be sure to make the side walls a dark color (black would be best) since you won't have anything on the sides of the screen.
Viewing distance is based somewhat on personal preference, but generally if you have to move your head around during a movie to see everything on the screen then you are sitting too close or your screen is too big. I wouldn't sit any closer than 12' for a 137" 16:9 screen.

This Screen Size Standards AVS thread does a good job of consolidating information from most (if not all) of the published standards and is a great reference point. My head is about 12.5 ft away from my screen, so the 137” 16:9 screen you mention above would fit perfectly for me in my scenario. My current scope screen is approximately 54” tall. Here is a pic for reference in case some of you are wondering:

20120903_080721.jpg

Pardon the TRON theme…lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlogan6797 View Post

Neither LOGANESS nor I liked it.

Lol… Is this what we call the wife?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlogan6797 View Post

I backed it down little by little until we got the largest screen we were happy with. I ended up with an AT 2:35 screen 8' wide (104" diagonal) in my just-over 12' room with eyeballs right at about 12'.
You really need to test this for yourself. It IS a personal preference.

104”… Boooo….
popalock is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tlogan6797's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Lol… Is this what we call the wife?

You obviously have not read my thread, O uninitiated one.

Tom Logan
Everytime I reply the thread ends
Need motivation? Get LOGANED
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014847

An as-yet un-named theater designed by Big-WarrenP-BritInVA
tlogan6797 is offline  
 
Thread Tools


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