If your projector has zoom and memory, I have to wonder if the ultimate set up for a narrow room is a semi constant area set up?
I have a 9'5" wide room with a horizontal masking system with 54x96" AT screen. The masking system eats up 3" x3 of width and
6" x2 of height (not an issue). With a new projector with zoom and memory, I've begun to wonder if there's upgrade room that would give me a more
balanced screen size between scope and 16x9. Which kind of has me wondering if I could get 108" scope and maybe shrink 16x9 to 52x92" ?
Here's KiRiN's folding mask panels from 10-12 years ago.
masking doors.jpg 27k .jpg file
ratio 1_33.jpg 54k .jpg file
ratio 2_3.jpg 40k .jpg file
screen instructions1b copy.jpg 36k .jpg file
Now if we drag his concept into today's world, and are dealing with 16:9 and 2.35:1, why not hinge the side panels on the outside? Throw in a
AT screen into the mix and today's light absorbing material options, couldn't this max out a width challenged room?
scope vs 169.jpg 34k .jpg file
scope vs 169 masking panels.jpg 55k .jpg file
scope.jpg 66k .jpg file
16x9.jpg 67k .jpg file
Construction would be a little challenging but certainly easier then building a motorized masking system. The front wall framing would be minimal
in materials. Maybe as little as a 2x4 side attached to the side walls, and some ladder style framing top and bottom. Put in a couple of stops to slide a
DIY screen frame into the opening.
So the masking would be manual, but one could squeeze out some more scope width in a width challenged room. Seems to me this could be a killer
budget setup for a width challenged room, if one embraces dark finishes to absorb stray light coming off a woven screen.