Sandmans Home Theater Construction Begins! - Page 34 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 09:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark P's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dallas OR
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWhite View Post

What are you going to watch the most? Personnally I would go for the largest 16:9 image and mask vertically for 1.85 and 2.35. Easier masking system to make as well.

I am curious as to why vertical masking is easier to do than horizontal?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mark P is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 09:25 AM
Member
 
Test_Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI(USA)
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To me it seems that the 16:9 "might" be too big. I'm sure you have done the renders and drawings, but I wonder if it is possible to just do a quick mock-up in your theater since you haver the chairs available for exact measurements to see if the image of the large height of the 16:9 is not cut out for the second row(can't see the bottom of the image when seated). It would be a shame to sacrifice second row viewing for larger 16:9.

On the other hand, is the very wide screen of the 2.35:1 just "too wide" for comfortable viewing. I know it is better to be immersed in the movie, but I hate it when I get stuck too close to the screen and have to "look around" to take in the entire image.

I think I like the idea of the largest 2.35:1 ratio screen and mask for 16:9! It would be so much easier to have 2 black curtains to pull out from the sides to form a mask for 16:9. Long horizontal masks for a 16:9 screen seems like it would be much more complex and difficult.

I guess in the end you have to ask yourself: "Are GREAT movies(or your primary content) produced more often in 2.35:1 or 16:9." I don't know the answer to that, as I have not done any research on that, but I'm sure you know the answer due to your profession! I think this question should drive your ultimate decision.


BTW, I totally agree on your philosophy of getting more work done late at night. My wife goes to bed at about 10:30, and I get so much done between 10:30 and 1AM! My mother-in-law always says it has something to do with what time of day you were born. If you were born in the morning you will be a "morning person".....for me, that theory works, I was born about 8PM, and I am definitely a 'night owl".
Test_Engineer is offline  
post #993 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 10:55 AM
Senior Member
 
bmackrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Sandman,

What are your plans for finshing around your projector mount?

billmac

BillMac
Optoma Projector is dying a slow painful death ...
bmackrell is offline  
post #994 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 11:00 AM
Senior Member
 
artimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
you said something a few threads back about I think the DVD player and possibly the sony jukebox hooked up looking fairly close to the htpc as far as picture quality-- what components are you using? I can't do the HTPC right now so with what you tested what would you have suggested? Your work is TRULY AMAZING!
artimp is offline  
post #995 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SVonhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manteca, Ca, USA
Posts: 4,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Mark P, please don't edit out the pics. It doesn't clutter up the thread, especially the ones with the paint/screen comparisons, that is unreal. I have talked to lots of people who just want to use a painted board or project onto the wall and if that is a true comparison, that will show everyone what a good screen will do for the image.

BTW, I have subscribed to your thread for your theater and await updates!

Scott
 

SVonhof is offline  
post #996 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 11:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jmorris644's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post

Now just One of my biggest confusions is with this new 2.35.1 screen size. I really loved the Size of the 16:9 I had before when watching HD and playing xBox 360. Now if I go with the narrowness of 2.35.1 my 16:9 is going to be much smaller.

So what does one do at that point? Go Wider to make up the Difference on the 16:9 height I like now? If I do that, I definitley need to do perforated.

If I do perforated, Da-Lite is out of the Question and the Next thing I would have to consider would be Screen Research's ClearPix2 which dulled the picture a bit.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.

Thanks
Ruben

Ruben,

I cannot remember if I talked about this in this forum or another. If this is a repeat I apologize.

I had the opportunity to see the Pix2 screen with a width of 8' and a Sony Ruby doing the projecting. The installer that showed me the setup had also installed the black clearscreen material behind the Pix2 material.

At a distance of 5' or closer I could definately see the pattern in the material. However, at the normal distance for an 8' screen (16'), no matter how hard I tried I was unable to discern any pattern or problems with the Pix2 material. No hot spots, no moire(sp)

This was the setup that I had chosen prior to actually seeing it, based on reading only, and was lucky enought to actially experience the exact combination. But now, I believe I like my screens bigger. So I am now thinking of going with a bigger screen but need to do some testing to see if the Ruby will still thro enough light. If I go wider I will be putting my L&R mains behind the screen as well as the center channel.

Joe

Joe

Starting Research for new Theater. New Theater will be 24x36x12.

The link to my previous theater build :)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



A Proud Father >

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jmorris644 is offline  
post #997 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jmorris644's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post


So my question to all you guys. Do you think the slight dullness of the screen is going to be a bad choice? The only benefit I see of the duller picture is the screen door dissapears more from close up but the real fine detail dissapears too.

Thanks
Ruben

Ruben,

This is one question we cannot answer for you. Because of your trade I am guessing you are extremely more critical than most of us. Also, and I think you and I share this character flaw , if you know it is there, then it will bother you whether you can see it or not.

If YOU are not thoroughly convinced it is the right solution than I don't hink you should do it.

Joe

Starting Research for new Theater. New Theater will be 24x36x12.

The link to my previous theater build :)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



A Proud Father >

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jmorris644 is offline  
post #998 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark P's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dallas OR
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVonhof View Post

if that is a true comparison, that will show everyone what a good screen will do for the image.

In a way its not an absolutely fair comparison because the first image was before the anamorphic lens arrived and if you look hard you can see black bars ever so slightly on the wall, the other one if I recall correctly was taking up the entire 14' wide screen. This puts the advantage to the painted wall ( it was probably 11 ft. wide-ish, maybe 12' )

Same DVD player, same camera , same auto settings ( Im not smart enough to shoot anything but auto and have it work properly) My jaw dropped the first time I saw the image on the screen, even on old grainy movies like The Good,the Bad and the Ugly the close ups of Eli Wallach and bunch just blow you away.

If I were Ruben I would try very hard to find someone local to test the images on Fabric and a Stewart or other slightly higer priced screen before commiting.

We can barely see a difference between econo and normal bulb brightness but the PJ it self is quiet and cool in econo, its still quiet in normal but the heat intensifies quite a bit. My guess is econo mode is out for sure on a fabric screen, the samples we got were very dim when compared but they were awful small samples


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mark P is offline  
post #999 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 12:04 PM
Member
 
radm1f's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post

Does Anyone know about this?

SONY DVP-CX995V

It's a Sony 400 Disk DVD Jukebox with an HDMI Output.
Selectable 480p/720p/1080i output via HDMI digital interface

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-NxnNG0r...sp?i=158CX995V

Sandman I don't know if you are still interested on info on this or not. I own one and am pretty happy with it. As mcascio mentioned it does not have a serial input. It has its own processor for DTS, Dolby Dig II., SACD. For SACDs its output is only through analog channels (6channels), it does have HDMI output but SACDs will not output through that nor the optical output. My biggest complaint about it is that it is not easy to have it so when you turn it on it goes to the menu of the disc list. It always trys to play whatever disc was playing last. Hope this helps.

The stage is absolutely beautiful!!

Mehran
radm1f is offline  
post #1000 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 12:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jmorris644's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVonhof View Post

Mark P, please don't edit out the pics. It doesn't clutter up the thread, especially the ones with the paint/screen comparisons, that is unreal. I have talked to lots of people who just want to use a painted board or project onto the wall and if that is a true comparison, that will show everyone what a good screen will do for the image.

BTW, I have subscribed to your thread for your theater and await updates!

I agree with Scott, Please leave the pictures. It sure changed my impression.

Joe

Starting Research for new Theater. New Theater will be 24x36x12.

The link to my previous theater build :)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



A Proud Father >

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
jmorris644 is offline  
post #1001 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 12:45 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris644 View Post

I agree with Scott, Please leave the pictures. It sure changed my impression.

Joe

Hey jmorris you got the 1000th post in my thread. That's not fair I thought I would get the 1000th post but all this activity happened while we were hooking up the Grafik Eye.

I figured everyone here would be offline this weekend for the SuperBowl. I personally don't like FootBall, I rather watch Poker

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1002 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:00 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebr View Post

Give it up -- where did you get the $40 fabric that kicks CCCs butt...??

On the size - given everything else you've done, you should probably go for the constant height 2.35:1. It will cost more (need a lens) but not that much relative to everything else you've done.

That Fabric I threw up there was clearer than the CCC but not as transparent. I only threw that up for deciding on Size and Ratio. It was definitly clearer but blocked more sound. I have no idea what the material is either, It may be on the receipt somewhere.

I bought at a Fabric Store.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1003 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark P View Post

Theres an anamorphic lens which you would want if you were going constant height anyway. It stretchs the picture horizontilly ( I think some stretch vertical as well) then you use the TheaterTek Aspect Ratio settings to adjust the picture to fit the screen.

We also have to use a scaler when using DirecTv since you cant run an HDTivo into Media Center

Yeah I been reading about those anamorphic lenses. They run about $1,200 or so for them.

I would like to understand better how the anamorphic lens stretches the 16:9 without people looking too fat, or do they? Can someone explain in more detail how they benefit a constant height?

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1004 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:11 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWhite View Post

What are you going to watch the most? Personnally I would go for the largest 16:9 image and mask vertically for 1.85 and 2.35. Easier masking system to make as well.

I will mostly Watch Movies (via DVD and HTPC), DirectTV nd play Video games in that order.

My friend suggested keeping the 16:9 size I have now 122" x 70" and Mask the top and bottom when needed.

I figured If I did a 2.35:1 screen, I could easily automate the Mask on the Sides for 16:9 with a motorized curtain track.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1005 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
KWhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Top/bottom is easier to do because you have gravity to help. With your 16:9 native projector, the anamorphic isn't worth it, you will spend more time messing around with scaling and resizing than you will enjoying it. BTW 98% of the digital cinema installations will not be using an anamorphic lens.
KWhite is offline  
post #1006 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:30 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark P View Post

That would be decided with ease as soon as you figure out what it is that will be projected the most and/or If you want black bars when watching 2.35:1 robbing you of 33% of your resolution. If you watch alot of TV , hardly any movies go 16 x 9 , If your going to watch alot of movies and little TV then the choice is obvious.

Do you want HDTV big and movies considerably smaller with 33% loss on resolution

or

Do you want movies big and HDTV considerably smaller with no loss of resolution

If your not having the screen covered by curtains than 2.35:1 would be a must for the visual impact of walking into an actual theater, to me 16 x 9 just looks to close to a TV screen. Once we hung the screen we really tossed the idea of no curtains around for several days just because of the impact of the Stewart Screen when you walk into the room, it is the whitest white I have ever seen and with proper lighting it really drops your jaw when walking into the room.

take those pics you made where you masked off the screen sizes and fill them with white or crop a favorite movie and do it sort of like this



As far as using cloth as a screen, I would SERIOUSLY reconsider a gain screen, when we were waiting for the screen we went out and bought the whitest white paints we could find and heres the image



We thought it was amazing and started to wonder if we wasted money, and heres after the screen



I am just wondering what fabric , vinyl coated or not is going to give you the best picture possible and I just cant see it. Everything we saw was not worth moving the center speaker down right below the screen but again I have external crossovers and tweek the sound any way we choose.

Good luck , my vote is the biggest 2.35:1 you can go for and not see screendoor ( which is probably 1.25 screen width back, not familiar with your PJ so I dont know for sure) and the center speaker below, do audio testing right now and see if you can tell the difference using your fabric. put it behind, then move it below. We did all this before the PJ and screen ever showed up. In my opinion it would be a major shame to spend the time making such a beautiful room to shock and awe everyone that comes in and then turn the lights off and have the next 2 hours look half as good as it could.

Let me know when youve read this and I will edit out all my pics as to not clutter up your wonderful thread

Could you explain to me how I will be losing 33% resolution by not having a 2.35:1 Screen? This is fairly new to me.

As you know I have compared every perforated Screen material from Stewart, Da-Lite, VuTec, Screen Research & Dazian to my painted wall and the Color differences side by side were not that dramatic like your pictures. It looks llike the white balance in your camera was set differently at the times you took those pictures. I can take pictures and hit the white balance button by mistake and get the same differences. So you may want to look into that. I do it all the time on my camera.

The material I am experimenting with is Vinyl Micro weave material (that's not the material hanging in the pictures I took). I found the same exact weaves VuTec is using on their weaved screens. I even found the same weave Screen Research is using for ClearPix 2, but I need to find out on Monday if it comes in white and grey like all the other weaves I found did.

Upon further comparison's with the Stewart MicroTek Perf, the perfs add an overall graininess to the image. Whereas the weave material seems to maintain the clearity and have better accoustic values than the Stewart microperf.

The open weave and micro weave vinyl material I'm getting runs $12 a yard and comes in 62" and 72" widths and any lenght. Imagine finding a Material that proves just as good if not better than Vutec and Screen Research for $12 a yard? I will be able to do my Screen for under $100.00 and be able to help all the DIY's out at thge same time.

As far as curtains, that was my intentional plans. But after seeing the real cool 2.35:1 rooms on AVS I think I may use my $550 curtain track for Masking now

Also please leave your pictures in my thread.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1007 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:40 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmackrell View Post

Sandman,

What are your plans for finshing around your projector mount?

billmac

I made a hush Box. Its just not on in the picture I took.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1008 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:43 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by artimp View Post

you said something a few threads back about I think the DVD player and possibly the sony jukebox hooked up looking fairly close to the htpc as far as picture quality-- what components are you using? I can't do the HTPC right now so with what you tested what would you have suggested? Your work is TRULY AMAZING!

Components? I am using an Optoma H-79 projector hooked up to the DVD Jukebox via heavy duty Component cables from avcable.com The HTPC is hooked up via DVI.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1009 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 01:47 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorris644 View Post

Ruben,

I cannot remember if I talked about this in this forum or another. If this is a repeat I apologize.

I had the opportunity to see the Pix2 screen with a width of 8' and a Sony Ruby doing the projecting. The installer that showed me the setup had also installed the black clearscreen material behind the Pix2 material.

At a distance of 5' or closer I could definately see the pattern in the material. However, at the normal distance for an 8' screen (16'), no matter how hard I tried I was unable to discern any pattern or problems with the Pix2 material. No hot spots, no moire(sp)

This was the setup that I had chosen prior to actually seeing it, based on reading only, and was lucky enought to actially experience the exact combination. But now, I believe I like my screens bigger. So I am now thinking of going with a bigger screen but need to do some testing to see if the Ruby will still thro enough light. If I go wider I will be putting my L&R mains behind the screen as well as the center channel.

Joe

Joe

With the Weaves I'm experimenting with, you do not see the pattern from 3 feet away unless you are looking really hard.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1010 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 02:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
SVonhof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Manteca, Ca, USA
Posts: 4,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post

I figured everyone here would be offline this weekend for the SuperBowl. I personally don't like FootBall, I rather watch Poker

Ruben

I normally watch it more for the commercials and movie trailers in HD. This year, my bro-in-law is going to get the front seat, since he is and always has been a Steelers fan. That makes it a little more exciting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post

I would like to understand better how the anamorphic lens stretches the 16:9 without people looking too fat, or do they? Can someone explain in more detail how they benefit a constant height?
Ruben

My understanding of these is that it stretches the image, but you have it compressed to start with, so you end up with a correctly displayed image. For example, when they were showing these being used on 4:3 projectors at CES a few years ago, they had the image normal width, but had the image stretched vertically using the settings in the projector or DVD player to fill the 4:3 image. When they put the lens in front of the image, it compressed the image to 16:9 ratio(this was how they had it set up) which brought the image back to normal looking. By doing this, you don't loose any brightness of the image, since you are always using all the pixels in the display device (say 1024x768 4:3 image with no lens and a compressed 1024x768 image when the lens was in front of it).

Also, from what I remember, the lens has oil between the lenses, which probably helps bring the cost up...

Scott
 

SVonhof is offline  
post #1011 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 02:32 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVonhof View Post

I normally watch it more for the commercials and movie trailers in HD. This year, my bro-in-law is going to get the front seat, since he is and always has been a Steelers fan. That makes it a little more exciting.



My understanding of these is that it stretches the image, but you have it compressed to start with, so you end up with a correctly displayed image. For example, when they were showing these being used on 4:3 projectors at CES a few years ago, they had the image normal width, but had the image stretched vertically using the settings in the projector or DVD player to fill the 4:3 image. When they put the lens in front of the image, it compressed the image to 16:9 ratio(this was how they had it set up) which brought the image back to normal looking. By doing this, you don't loose any brightness of the image, since you are always using all the pixels in the display device (say 1024x768 4:3 image with no lens and a compressed 1024x768 image when the lens was in front of it).

Also, from what I remember, the lens has oil between the lenses, which probably helps bring the cost up...

Thanks Scott for the explaination. Yeah I was reading here someone had a leaky lens

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1012 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 02:59 PM
ebr
AVS Special Member
 
ebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 3,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Sandman - when you watch a 2.35:1 movie on a 16x9 screen your projector projects black bars on the top and bottom to make it a 2.35:1 image (so its only using about 66% of the pixels on your display device for the actual image).

When you use a constant height setup for 2.35:1 you have a processor in between (you are using an htpc so it can do this) that takes the image from the DVD and stretches it vertically so that, if you just sent that straight to your projector, you would have the whole movie filling the 16x9 screen but people would be tall and thin.

Now, stick an anamorphic lens in front of the projector and it stretches the image back to the 2.35:1 ratio. The net of all this is now you are using all the pixels in your projector for the 2.35:1 picture - full resolution.

This is actually how real movie theaters project a widescreen image from 35mm film. Ever notice how the little circles that warn the projectionist (in the old style theaters) that a reel change is coming up are actually ovals, not circles... This is due to this stretching by the lens.

ebr

 


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ebr is offline  
post #1013 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 03:06 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebr View Post

Sandman - when you watch a 2.35:1 movie on a 16x9 screen your projector projects black bars on the top and bottom to make it a 2.35:1 image (so its only using about 66% of the pixels on your display device for the actual image).

When you use a constant height setup for 2.35:1 you have a processor in between (you are using an htpc so it can do this) that takes the image from the DVD and stretches it vertically so that, if you just sent that straight to your projector, you would have the whole movie filling the 16x9 screen but people would be tall and thin.

Now, stick an anamorphic lens in front of the projector and it stretches the image back to the 2.35:1 ratio. The net of all this is now you are using all the pixels in your projector for the 2.35:1 picture - full resolution.

This is actually how real movie theaters project a widescreen image from 35mm film. Ever notice how the little circles that warn the projectionist (in the old style theaters) that a reel change is coming up are actually ovals, not circles... This is due to this stretching by the lens.

Awesome explaination ebr. Thanks!!! That completely cleared that question up.

Ruben


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1014 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark P's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dallas OR
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by KWhite View Post

Top/bottom is easier to do because you have gravity to help. With your 16:9 native projector, the anamorphic isn't worth it, you will spend more time messing around with scaling and resizing than you will enjoying it. BTW 98% of the digital cinema installations will not be using an anamorphic lens.


Hes using TheaterTek, it will take him all of about 10 minutes ( if he does it blind folded) to achieve scaling and a about 3 minutes to focus the anamorphic if hes as anal about it as I was when I did it my first time.

I can start from scratch and scale in in less than 1 minute now that I have fudged around with projecter locations about 3 different times.

The anamorphic takes the 33% resolution you lose in the black bars and uses them in the actual picture using a native 1.78:1 native PJ.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mark P is offline  
post #1015 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark P's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dallas OR
Posts: 1,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandmanX View Post

As you know I have compared every perforated Screen material from Stewart, Da-Lite, VuTec, Screen Research & Dazian to my painted wall and the Color differences side by side were not that dramatic like your pictures. It looks llike the white balance in your camera was set differently at the times you took those pictures. I can take pictures and hit the white balance button by mistake and get the same differences. So you may want to look into that. I do it all the time on my camera.
Ruben

I know youre not seeing much of a difference between your painted wall and the fabrics and this is what I was trying to point out, get a sample of Stewart Studiotek 130 ( no microperf) and add that to the mix and see what happens to the colors and contrast.

I was seeing very little difference between Painted and Fabrics, the problem is that if sound can pass through so does light, even light of different colors. Hold up your samples and turn the PJ on and look at how the picture passes right through the fabric onto the wall behind, this is why you will also need blackout cloth .

All that color and light should be on your screen.

I cant hit the white balance button without being a contoursionist. this is the difference between paint and a Stewart Studiotek 130.

I cant believe the folks who have tried the audio screens and the gain screens are not chiming in here, come on guys chime in on what you found in the dimness and color differences. Art Sonneborn where are you?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mark P is offline  
post #1016 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 05:08 PM
ebr
AVS Special Member
 
ebr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Mooresville, NC
Posts: 3,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Just as a point of note - using an acoustically transparent screen gives you more than just the ability to place the center channel behind it. It also eliminates a huge sound reflector at the front of your room and, thus, opens up more area for proper acoustical treatment.

There are tradeoffs, for sure, but I just wanted to point that part of the equation out.

ebr

 


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ebr is offline  
post #1017 of 3772 Old 02-04-2006, 06:45 PM - Thread Starter
SmX
AVS Special Member
 
SmX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 2,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark P View Post

I know youre not seeing much of a difference between your painted wall and the fabrics and this is what I was trying to point out, get a sample of Stewart Studiotek 130 ( no microperf) and add that to the mix and see what happens to the colors and contrast.

I was seeing very little difference between Painted and Fabrics, the problem is that if sound can pass through so does light, even light of different colors. Hold up your samples and turn the PJ on and look at how the picture passes right through the fabric onto the wall behind, this is why you will also need blackout cloth .

All that color and light should be on your screen.

I cant hit the white balance button without being a contortionist. this is the difference between paint and a Stewart Studiotek 130.

I cant believe the folks who have tried the audio screens and the gain screens are not chiming in here, come on guys chime in on what you found in the dimness and color differences. Art Sonneborn where are you?

Thanks Mark,

I have the whole Stewart Line up of Samples. I got a bg kit from Stewart. I posted screen Shots of all the Samples side by Side including the wall and a white piece of paper about 150 pages back in this thread

I sat down with multiple friends for countless hours with about 20+ Different Screen Samples (perforated and Non) and the Difference we seen between the Perf and non perf is the loss of brightness due to the Perfs along with Moire in my case.

For the higher gain screens we saw a more glowing brighter screen (which I did not care for). For the Grey Screens we saw Higher contrast/darker blacks. The Solid Screens were pretty equivelent to the white paper and painted wall. The Microperf 130 was pretty close to the Studiotek 130 except a loss of brightness and a grainier looking image. But as far as the 2 pictures you posted, nothing has been that different. Maybe that paint you used was real funky? My painted walls are a Bone white Flat paint.

The reason I took all the Pictures of screen shots was because I thought no one would believe me that the wall was pretty damn good considering.

Here is the Post I did of the Screen shots with Stewarts StudioTek 130 and various others including Da-Lite and white paper and the Wall. If You see a dramatic difference (besides gains) like what you posted, Please point it out to me and I will go to the Doctors first thing Monday Morning and get my eyes checked

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post6855895


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


SmX Video Projection Screens and Masking Systems

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SmX is offline  
post #1018 of 3772 Old 02-05-2006, 06:49 AM
Senior Member
 
ChiTown_Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago burbs
Posts: 233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ruben,

I ran across some screen size calculators you may or may not know about..

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/srceen_size.shtml#2

http://www.carltonbale.com/ht/calculator/index.html

Screen size:
Personally, I like 16:9 because if you use all the height you have and do a 2.35:1 you would have to be way back from the screen to see it all.. just my preference.. maybe you have that distance and that's your plan..

Do you really need masking for showing 2.35:1 on a 16:9 screen? It seems your blacks are very black on the wall projections you showed..

I'm still not clear why you need to have your speakers behind the screen. Have you played with centers mounted above and angled at all?

thanks.. great project!

Jerry
ChiTown_Jerry is offline  
post #1019 of 3772 Old 02-05-2006, 07:42 AM
Member
 
tonygates2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ruben,

Beautiful job on the theater. It will be an inspiration when finished.

As far as the screen material goes, you have to consider that your projector will need to be recalibrated based on which screen you are using.

Your projector will look dull on a woven screen which has a .8 gain until you calibrate your white balance to the D65 standard to that particular screen. You will also need to calibrate the picture, tint, contrast and brightness for each screen material since each one is slightly different.

The reason why the other material looks better is that it more closely matches your projectors current settings.

Tony
tonygates2 is offline  
post #1020 of 3772 Old 02-05-2006, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CaspianM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Land of Cardinals
Posts: 5,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I believe you will get a different outcome from different screen materials once your PJ is calibrated to D65 with proper contrast and brightness setting. Would it make sense that Stewart StudioTek 130 which is the industrial standard would be as good as (or as poor as) a painted wall!? Plus there are subtle differences that won't come to play until use the material for a longer term. It is not always what you see at once. Sounds funny but I had screens that thought was as good as screen A but after weeks of using it I saw more things that I did not like about it. What ever you buy make sure is returnable for 30 days if possible.

It is all about quality...that is the picture

JVC & NEC 8" CRT with 106" wide Stewart screen. All NHT speakers driven by Pioneer Elite AVR and bluray

Custom dedicated 8 seat theater

CaspianM is offline  
Reply Dedicated Theater Design & Construction

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