My New Theater - Version 2.0! - Page 9 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #241 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 11:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Ok - so, just for grins, here's a possible 2.35 setup that MIGHT work in my situation. You guys are so evil for getting me to think this route.



I just sketched this up quickly, so it really comes down to the height of my main channels. I was planning on Klipsch RB-81 bookshelf speakers, so I should still have a fair amount of room above them. This design wouldn't waste all of the vertical space by going all the way to the ceiling as well. What do you think?
mn_hokie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #242 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
umdivx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minnesota (aka the frozen tundra)
Posts: 5,322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm really considering a 2.35 setup, but have it setup with Fabric panels I can put up for to hide the edges and use for 16:9 content.

- Josh
umdivx is offline  
post #243 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:01 PM
Member
 
mplant1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've been saying 2.35 since day 1. Think how awesome it will be for you when you watch your favorite movie, Titanic.

I can see this working as well. You'll have a center speaker behind the screen, no matter what screen you pick (1.78 vs 2.35) so I guess what may factor is the heights of your side speakers and their boxes. I feel that with a 1.78 screen you will have empty vertical space running to the ceiling. Just my two cents...

Anyways, I think you should sketch up an idea showing how this will look if you decide to hook up your 360 of future PS3 and demonstrate how you will take care of the "empty" screen space during game use.
mplant1 is offline  
 
post #244 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
kezug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 2,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I almost caught that 2.35 bug too, but then I thought with my fabric panels I can always add that later. Plus I didnt want to do lens shifting nor invest in a Lens at this time.

So then, how will you handle your 16:9 content? Say for Superbowl, World Series, etc..?
kezug is offline  
post #245 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117


Ba,ha,ha,ha what else are we here for....

Once 2:35 bites it's hard to get away from its effects.
oman321 is offline  
post #246 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:22 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by kezug View Post

I almost caught that 2.35 bug too, but then I thought with my fabric panels I can always add that later. Plus I didnt want to do lens shifting nor invest in a Lens at this time.

So then, how will you handle your 16:9 content? Say for Superbowl, World Series, etc..?

That was going to be my next set of questions. For 16:9 material, I figured it would be fairly easy to buy 2 panels to cover the sides. My questions came around how to manage 1.78 vs 2.35 material when an anamorphic lens wasn't in place. Do I just mask the sides and pretend like i have a 1.78 screen for everything that isn't 2.35? And, when watching 2.35 material, would I then have to zoom to get the height right?? How much of a pain is this?
mn_hokie is offline  
post #247 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mplant1 View Post

I've been saying 2.35 since day 1. Think how awesome it will be for you when you watch your favorite movie, Titanic.

I can see this working as well. You'll have a center speaker behind the screen, no matter what screen you pick (1.78 vs 2.35) so I guess what may factor is the heights of your side speakers and their boxes. I feel that with a 1.78 screen you will have empty vertical space running to the ceiling. Just my two cents...

Anyways, I think you should sketch up an idea showing how this will look if you decide to hook up your 360 of future PS3 and demonstrate how you will take care of the "empty" screen space during game use.

Mike,

the center channel would actually be below the screen. I could either have it in one of the cutouts below, or add another box on the same plane as the left and right speakers and then have it there. However, if I did that, it might just make sense to continue that all the way across and have a straight line instead of three bump outs.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #248 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:27 PM
Member
 
mplant1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification.


So I think that settles that, 2.35 it is...
mplant1 is offline  
post #249 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Hey Jas,
You need to zoom in and out according to the aspect ratio.
2:35 would be zoomed out so the black bars go above and below you actual screen.
If you then watch something in 16:9 you retract the zoom so your height fits your 2:35 screen with black bars on the sides. Sometimes, depending on the projector, you need to use lens shift as the zoom is not equal on all sides. It can be a little bit of a pain depending on whose running the HT. If it's just you it's not a big deal, BUT if you want the Mrs. or girlfriend, or both to run it it can be complicated.

Scott
scottyb is online now  
post #250 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
umdivx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minnesota (aka the frozen tundra)
Posts: 5,322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

That was going to be my next set of questions. For 16:9 material, I figured it would be fairly easy to buy 2 panels to cover the sides. My questions came around how to manage 1.78 vs 2.35 material when an anamorphic lens wasn't in place. Do I just mask the sides and pretend like i have a 1.78 screen for everything that isn't 2.35? And, when watching 2.35 material, would I then have to zoom to get the height right?? How much of a pain is this?

A guy in the Minnesota Home Theater Users group does a 2.35 setup and has two fabric panels with Velcro that he puts up, actually has them up most of the time, the only time he takes them down, is for movie nights, and then just has a manual sliding anamorphic lense he slides in place.

There is no zoom requirements or height issues the height is the same between his 2.35 settings with the lens and the 16:9 settings without the lens in place and the panels up in place.

He demo'd it for me and it looked like it wasn't that much of a hassle to do at all.

- Josh
umdivx is offline  
post #251 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:39 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Scott,

The only real downside I see to all of that is havng to provide some kind of masking above and below the screen for 2.35 content. I've heard good things about the hometheaterbrothers lens, which would take care of all of that, but thats an $800 investment. All of the projectors I'm looking at right now do have lens shift, but it's manual. I'm curious about light output as I zoom in and out as well to fill that screen size (I could almost go up to 136" with a 2.35 screen).
mn_hokie is offline  
post #252 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Also some folks in the 2:35 area are playing around with doing 2:35 with a scaler only and no lens with what seems like good results. Some have even had sucess with projectors which offer squeeze modes.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1022306
They'll zoom in to fill the 2:35 then squeeze down the image for 16:9 or 4:3 with a scaler or the projector.
oman321 is offline  
post #253 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
How does that affect overspill on the top and bottom of the screen?
mn_hokie is offline  
post #254 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 01:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Some don't have a problem with it, some seem to be using the standard light absorbing material around their screen to make mostly a moot point. Mind you it is only the black bars from 2:35, the other content would be squeezed to fit into the screens actual height.
oman321 is offline  
post #255 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 01:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

Scott,

The only real downside I see to all of that is havng to provide some kind of masking above and below the screen for 2.35 content. I've heard good things about the hometheaterbrothers lens, which would take care of all of that, but thats an $800 investment. All of the projectors I'm looking at right now do have lens shift, but it's manual. I'm curious about light output as I zoom in and out as well to fill that screen size (I could almost go up to 136" with a 2.35 screen).


OOPS, when you said without the lens in plce my brain went to "no lens at all".

You need to make sure the overscan is absorbed or it's no better than having the light on the screen.

scott
scottyb is online now  
post #256 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I see that the new Panasonic AE2000 is basically "2.35 ready". What exactly does that mean?
mn_hokie is offline  
post #257 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 01:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
If I'm not mistaken it means that it offers the vertical stretch you would need in order to get rid of the black bars top and bottom. Then everything will look stretched until you put lens in front of projector which will then widen everything and correct the geometry of the image.
oman321 is offline  
post #258 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
So, as long as I had a projector that did that and I added side masking, I would be fine and have no top and bottom overspill?
mn_hokie is offline  
post #259 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 04:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
So, I did some measuring and here is what I came up with:

When seated in the front row, ear level is right at about 41" inches from the carpet. There's a 12" riser for the back row, which boosts ear level to 53". My stage is 10" above the carpet. Assuming I'd project the main channels directly at the front row, the speakers would need to be elevated 31" on the stage. I could also angle the front channels up slightly to project the sound over the front row. However, if doing this, I could probably get away with a little less than 31". This seems to be a pretty good height for a sub + bookshelf combo as well. I can't see this needing anymore than 30 inches or so.

The distance from the top of the stage to the bottom of the soffit is 87". Assuming I build an enclosure to house the main channels, this would allow me a maximum of 56 inches for screen height (87 minus 31). If I positioned the screen 6 inches below the soffit, this would then reduce the height to 50 inches (56 minus 6). According to Carada's website, a 120" 2.35 screen has an outside dimension of 51.2 inches, which would push the screen up an inch closer to the soffit, but provide a nice snug fit across the bottom.

My screen wall is 149 inches wide. The 120" screen has an outside dimension of 115 inches, leaving me 17 inches of play on each side. I could in theory run my columns all the way to the soffit at 17 inches wide (thoughts???).

Here's the neat part. A 1.78 image at the same height would result in a 96" diagonal. This would redude the width to 83.7 inches, which would require 13-14 inches of masking on each side. I could in theory install masking panels to the left and right of the screen since I have 17" available. Some sort of sliding track system would allow me to slide the panels right in place to generate the 1.78 image.

I'm very interested in comments about this, as well as if I should run my columns full height with this setup.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #260 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 05:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Jas,
Sounds good to me.
Now that your going 2:35 you'll discover you need to quote screen size in width rather than diagonal. That sounds like a good size for your screen and room.
I'm looking forward to coming to see it. I'll bring the beer.
Scott
scottyb is online now  
post #261 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 05:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Ha! I like saying 120 better than 115 though

I sketched up another version of how this could look. I think the dimensions are a little more accurate in this sketch. What do you guys think of running the columns all the way up to fill the wall and close things in? I looked on Klipsch's website and the RB81+RW10(I have no idea on what sub yet) end up being about 34 inches tall. This design would allow for taller speakers. I'd also like to kick out the corners to allow for the extra depth needed for the subs. My stage is only 24 inches deep, so I'll probably knock it out to 22 or so in the corners and back to 12 inches across the front. Thoughts?

mn_hokie is offline  
post #262 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 05:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
scottyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: mound,mn,usa
Posts: 3,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:


Ha! I like saying 120 better than 115 though

That's cause your a guy.
scottyb is online now  
post #263 of 1361 Old 07-30-2008, 06:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
mn_hokie is offline  
post #264 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 06:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
I like it! I took a quick look at the first 16:9 pic and the new 2:35 pic and the 2:35 is much more immersive, gonna make for a great screenwall.

To answer your question above, yes you will not have overspill. You fit your image including black bars into your screen's height, then with vertical stretch the black bars are eliminated. Then all you need is your lens choice. You can go with the HTB lens as you suggested, it seems like CAVX is not going into production with the Mark III unfortunately. Seems like maybe there wasn't enough interest which is a shame since he was making a plastic/abs jet molded enclosure and adding another lens or two to correct Chromatic abbiration (CA).

The other option is if you want to go DIY is to use either trophy prisms or surplus shed prisms. The surplus shed prisms are smaller so you have to make sure it fits in front the projectors lens, but they are coated on each side to prevent stray light reflections.
oman321 is offline  
post #265 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 07:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Oman,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll construct a profile view as well to show how I'm planning on accounting for the larger sub base. As far as the vertical stretching, I think that makes sense now. So basically, the projector will stretch the image vertically to remove the gray bars, but this would in turn affect the geometry of the image, right? So then the anamorphic lens would be used to stretch the image horizontally?

I'm actually fairly good friend with Mark Techer who makes the CAVX lens. We've known each other from another HT site for a few years now. I'll have to ask him about the new lens. I have heard good things about the hometheaterbrothers lens though. It seems like a good lens for the money, as there's no way I could pay 2K for a lens right now.

What we'll probably end up doing is masking the screen for 16:9 initially until I can gather some more funds for the anamorphic lens. I know the Panasonic has motorized zoom, which will work well for 2.35 movies in the meantime, assumming lens shift isnt necessary (that's a manual feature on the Panasonic).

I also need to look at the main differences between the border on the Precision and Criterion screens from Carada. I believe the Criterion has a larger border, which may very well pick up the overspill from zoomng a 2.35 image. Of course, I'd have to see if the larger screen border would still fit in the space. I could almost butt the screen all the way up to the soffit and still be ok.
mn_hokie is offline  
post #266 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 07:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

Oman,

Thanks for the feedback. I'll construct a profile view as well to show how I'm planning on accounting for the larger sub base. As far as the vertical stretching, I think that makes sense now. So basically, the projector will stretch the image vertically to remove the gray bars, but this would in turn affect the geometry of the image, right? So then the anamorphic lens would be used to stretch the image horizontally?

You got it, sometimes it's tough to get your head around this whole 2:35 thing but that's basically it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

I'm actually fairly good friend with Mark Techer who makes the CAVX lens. We've known each other from another HT site for a few years now. I'll have to ask him about the new lens. I have heard good things about the hometheaterbrothers lens though. It seems like a good lens for the money, as there's no way I could pay 2K for a lens right now.

That's cool, I wanted to send him a PM to see what happened with the third production, but I guess his account is set up not to receive PM's. I believe the CAVX and HTB lenses are pretty similar in performance, the nice thing is the HTB lens has a metal housing. The MarkIII would have been sweet with an ABS casing.

I wouldn't be able to swing that for lens either, I'd be in Divorce court. I'm going with the surplus shed prisms which I bought about a year ago from an unauthorized french power buy last year. You could seen some discussion on this in the 2:35 DIY section on this link. Since then Surplus Shed came foward and it was found out that these prisms are made domestically. For $125.00 they work great from my initial testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mn_hokie View Post

What we'll probably end up doing is masking the screen for 16:9 initially until I can gather some more funds for the anamorphic lens. I know the Panasonic has motorized zoom, which will work well for 2.35 movies in the meantime, assumming lens shift isnt necessary (that's a manual feature on the Panasonic).

That's a great projector from everything I've heard. It's excellent that it has the V. Stretch feature built in and doesn't require an outside scaler.
oman321 is offline  
post #267 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 07:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I'll send Mark a PM on my other site and see what he says about the lens. How was pricing compared to the HTbrothers lens?
mn_hokie is offline  
post #268 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 09:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Pricing was pretty comparable, I think the HTB lens got a little more expensive when they added the anti reflective coatings. Still not bad for the money. I'm not sure if Mark will even have his older Mark II available any longer. He had gotten a batch of non coated prisms which he sold at a cheap price according to his site. They're sold out at this point. At the bottom of that page it says discontinued so not sure what the deal is. Really to bad for the budget minded, but glad there is another alternative with HTB. Just wish it were smaller.
oman321 is offline  
post #269 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 09:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mn_hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 28
mn_hokie is offline  
post #270 of 1361 Old 07-31-2008, 09:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Here is the Cavx next to the Prismasonic and Panamorph


I believe the HTB is of similar demensions. More compact because of the housing being metal perhaps but the front swoops foward more I believe.
oman321 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Dedicated Theater Design & Construction

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