AVS Forum

AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   Screens (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/)
-   -   What screen aspect ratio to get? (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/19558-what-screen-aspect-ratio-get.html)

Goi 03-17-2001 08:30 PM

I'm about to get a screen, but I'm in a fix as to what aspect ratio to get. I know I want widescreen, so basically I have 3 choices, 16:9, 1.85:1 or 2.35:1

I will be watching mainly DVDs(probably anamorphic widescreen ones whenever possible), no HDTV at all, and normal 4:3 material.

I'm leaning towards the 16:9 or 1.85:1, since they're more popular and easier to get, but is there any big difference between the 2?

Also, my projector will probably be native 4:3, so how can I use it to display a 16:9 or 1.85:1 image on the screen?

Thanks!

Bulldogger 03-18-2001 07:35 AM

What projector did you decide on? I see we are traveling the same path. I have the PSB stratus stuff for speakers and am looking to spend about the same as you for a projector. I bought the 16:9 aspect because I expect everything to shift to this format. Even if you do not watch hdtv, the American movie industry is churning out the most movies.If 16:9 becomes the most popular television format in a few years, you can expect dvds to follow suit.

Mark Lopez 03-18-2001 03:58 PM

I just recently got an LCD projector. I initially got my hands on a 4:3 (80"x60") screen just to get things up and running. I thought I would want a widescreen instead and ordered a 16:9. However, I now plan to keep the 4:3. The reason being is that I can display all aspect ratios at the full width of the screen and just use top and bottom masking for every possible aspect ratio. I feel this gives me the most flexibility while maintaining the widest image including 4:3 which will be around for a while.



[This message has been edited by Mark Lopez (edited 03-18-2001).]

uncle eric 03-19-2001 04:28 AM

Goi,
If you plan on mostly DVD viewing get yourself a 16x9(1:78-1) screen.
16x9 movies will obviously be perfect. 1:85-1 will have very thin black bars top and bottom while 2:35-1 will have (around 4 inches on mine) slightly thicker black bars top and bottom. 4x3 can be viewed in the centre of the screen with black bars on the left and right of the image.

If you use a 4x3 screen and view something like a 2:35-1 (many dvds use this aspect ratio) image you will end up with around 60% of the screen unused/blank. You might as well look through blinds.
Stick to 16x9. You wont go far wrong.
Eric

Mark Lopez 03-19-2001 06:38 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:

If you use a 4x3 screen and view something like a 2:35-1 (many dvds use this aspect ratio) image you will end up with around 60% of the screen unused/blank. You might as well look through blinds.
</font>
That may be true, but with masking, it's a non issue. With a drop down screen it's even less of an issue since you can probably get away with just a top mask by not dropping the screen all the way. Just my .02


uncle eric 03-19-2001 07:39 AM

Mark,
Masking???... Ok, you can also mask the sides of a 16x9 screen to achieve 4x3 ratio....Besides, dont forget that Goi will be watching mostly widescreen dvds. Its just not logical for him to go the 4x3 route.
Eric


Mark Lopez 03-19-2001 07:53 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Masking???... Ok, you can also mask the sides of a 16x9 screen to achieve 4x3 ratio....Besides, dont forget that Goi will be watching mostly widescreen dvds. Its just not logical for him to go the 4x3 route.
</font>
Yes, but masking the sides for 4:3 looses much of the screen real estate too. Depending on the projector, getting 4:3 material to fit may not even be possible. My point was that with a 4:3 screen, you can keep the same width at all aspect ratios. Everyone will have their own preferences, I was just pointing out one option (that has worked very well for me). If 4:3 is never going to be viewed, then yes, 16:9 would be the best bet.



[This message has been edited by Mark Lopez (edited 03-19-2001).]

DRS 03-19-2001 12:52 PM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Goi,
If you plan on mostly DVD viewing get yourself a 16x9(1:78-1) screen.
16x9 movies will obviously be perfect. 1:85-1 will have very thin black bars top and bottom while 2:35-1 will have (around 4 inches on mine) slightly thicker black bars top and bottom. 4x3 can be viewed in the centre of the screen with black bars on the left and right of the image.

If you use a 4x3 screen and view something like a 2:35-1 (many dvds use this aspect ratio) image you will end up with around 60% of the screen unused/blank. You might as well look through blinds.
Stick to 16x9. You wont go far wrong.
Eric
</font>
I am wondering, if he is never going to watch HDTV (1.78:1) why not get a 1.85:1 screen to totally eliminate the bars for that ratio?

archtech 03-19-2001 09:03 PM

Guess I'll chime in here, too. I agree with Mark. It seems logical to me that Goi goes with his native resolution (4:3). Other than the few 16:9 HDTV broadcasts (which he says he doesn't watch anyways), there's simply NO standard aspect ratio other than 4:3. At least with 4:3 there's gobs of classic, pan & scan and non-anamorphic DVD material out there, not to mention VHS, over-ther-air, cable, and satillite broadcasts in native 4:3. Plus, if he ever wants to hook up a laptop or dedicated HTPC to his projector, he's got a full-screen for gaming, surfing, watching home movies, checking out the avsforums... whatever. Then when he wants to watch DVD's he's only masking the bottom of the screen or like Mark said, with a pull-down just not pulling the thing down all of the way.

I'd say, buy the WIDEST screen that'll fit in your viewing space, and make it 4:3 so it'll also be the TALLEST for when you choose to watch 4:3 material. Maybe you do buy some extra screen real estate, but at least you won't be penalized when some of the fifty-plus years of dusty-old 4:3 material comes along that you'd like to watch.

Just my $0.02,
Brian

uncle eric 03-20-2001 03:33 AM

Drs, sorry dont know your name, yes, some people do go for 1:85-1 which is fine. However, there are studios that produce 1:78-1 such as disney...Toy Story, Dinasour etc etc. Some people who use 16x9 slightly stretch the 1:85-1 image verticly top and bottom (only by an inch or so each way) this is hardly noticable, but I prefer to leave mine alone. On a side note, for people who live in the USA HDTV

Mark,
I still dont understand why you are recommending 4x3 to Goi. If he is going to watch a lot of 4x3 material yes 'the real estate' or unused area's of my proposed 16x9 screen on the left and right of the image does not make sense.
However, the guy HAS said that he will be watching mostly DVD. 95% of all dvd's on the market are widescreen and typicaly enhanced for 16x9.
The minimal time that Goi will be watching 4x3 he can view in the middle of the 16x9 screen.
The fact is that MOST people who are involved with this hobby and take it seriously try to emulate a movie theater in the home. Hence the term HOME THEATER!...Some of us even surpass most movie theater standards.
Now, when was the last time you say a 4x3 movie or 4x3 SCREEN in a movie theater. Unless you are Charlie Chaplins age, I doubt it.
Mark, you will find that your constant width theory does not exist in movie theaters. They are constant height and variable width. So in fact you have things a little topsy turvy.
Remember that gasp in the movie theater just as the film begins and the screen seems to stretch out to the sides for a letterbox 2:35-1 movie. If the screen were a 4x3, instead of gasping with delight, people would cringe in disgust.
By the way, for those of you that live in the states, if you dont recieve HDTV now, I'm sure you will do sometime in the near future (lucky devils)... HDTV and perhaps one day HD DVD is the future.
4x3 will be pretty much in the past.

Brian,
Thanks for chiming in. You will find in fact that ALL CRT's and most Lcd/Dlps have a native resolution of 4x3.
Should we not watch any widescreen?????????Whats your advice??????
I agree that there is no 'standard aspect ratio' thats why this disscusion is taking place.
There is however, far more widescreen material than 4x3 In dvd material, which is if you remember what Goi will be watching most of the time, not laptops etc. You have (maybe correctly) assumed that Goi will be using HTPC in which case he can use Jim Fergusons YXY program.

Your advice to Goi to purchase screen 4x3 so that he is not penalized when watching "50 years plus, dusty old 4x3 material" is with respect the most silly advice I have ever heard in any forum.....

What you are saying is that Goi should be prepared for the past not for now or the future. Down grade, not Upgrade, is that it!!!
Might as well get the guy to gear himself up properly. Throw out that dvd player. Lets find an old betamax and a cranky old tv ariel for him too.

Perhaps I should also follow your advice, what was it again. "Buy the widest that will fit into you viewing area and make it 4x3 so you will have the tallest image"
Lets see now. My current screen is 8ft wide, so a 4x3 screen would have a height of 6ft. I also have a total of 10 inches masking at the top and bottom, which would mean, that from my 8ft ceiling, the screen would end up at just over 1 foot from the ground. Great if you are a midget.....
Sorry Brian, but your 2 cents is'ent worth that.

Eric




uncle eric 03-20-2001 03:38 AM

DRS,
Sorry, I did'ent finnish my sentance.
As a side note for people living in the USA. HDTV is something to look foward to if you dont already have it. To help prepare, one of your steps of course, should be the purchase of a 16x9 screen!
Eric

DRS 03-20-2001 06:01 AM

Eric:

1.85:1 is 16:9 isn't it? Anyway I am in a similar prediciment and am not sure if I want to order a 1.85:1 screen or a 1.78:1 screen. I will not have HDTV for at least a couple of years but a lot of animation films are closer to the 1.78:1 ratio. Right now I am thinking I should get the 1.85:1 screen and just scale the rest using YXY.

------------------
System info: Native XGA LCD FP, Dalite 57X77 HP, P3 700, ATI Radeon, Cinemaster 2k, WinDVD 2.6.4, WinME

uncle eric 03-20-2001 06:20 AM

Drs,
16 divided by 9 is 1.78.
1:85-1 is just a little narrower. If you go for 16x9 (1:78-1) you can always stretch the top and bottom very slightly. Its so minimal (around an inch or so) that you wont see any distortion in the image.
Personaly, one inch thick black bars dont bother me.
Dont forget that when HDTV does become widely available it would be nice to have 16x9.
Eric

Mark Lopez 03-20-2001 06:40 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Mark,
I still dont understand why you are recommending 4x3 to Goi.
</font>
Ummm... Because it was just that.. a recomendation. I clearly stated it was just my opinion and something that worked for me (and others).

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Mark, you will find that your constant width theory does not exist in movie theaters. They are constant height and variable width. So in fact you have things a little topsy turvy.</font>
Well, I am not at the movie theater, I'm in my house. I prefer to view every aspect ratio as wide as possible.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
If the screen were a 4x3, instead of gasping with delight, people would cringe in disgust.</font>
Hmm... Funny, with masking, my 4:3 screen is 16:9 (or whatever I want it to be). No cringing here. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:

The minimal time that Goi will be watching 4x3 he can view in the middle of the 16x9 screen.
</font>
If his projector can zoom enough (or he uses an external processor).


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
The fact is that MOST people who are involved with this hobby and take it seriously try to emulate a movie theater in the home. </font>
No argument here. Obviously some more than others. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

While I may not be the HT expert here, I have spent considerable time reading nearly all the posts in the various forums here. I have gathered a wealth of information, based mostly upon peoples opinions. I think people should be allowed to make their own decision based upon their needs and preferences. If Goi wants to go with a 16:9 screen then by all means he should. I was merely pointing out issues and options that he may not have considered.

Also, to make comments like “Sorry Brian, but your 2 cents is'ent worth that.†is far from being helpful.


[This message has been edited by Mark Lopez (edited 03-20-2001).]

japanam 03-20-2001 07:06 AM

I am planning on going with a 100 x 54, 1.85:1 screen. According to Don Stewart and others, this is the maximum screen size for the CRT projector I am planning on. Some of you have said that making the small stretch of a 1.85 picture to fill a 16x9 screen is not noticeable. Is the reverse true as well? If compress the 16x9 screen to fill a 1.85 screen will it more or less noticeable, or would that be a bad idea? Please consider the 100 x 54 dimensions of the screen. Thanks for all thoughts.

Carl

DRS 03-20-2001 07:22 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Drs,
16 divided by 9 is 1.78.
1:85-1 is just a little narrower. If you go for 16x9 (1:78-1) you can always stretch the top and bottom very slightly. Its so minimal (around an inch or so) that you wont see any distortion in the image.
Personaly, one inch thick black bars dont bother me.
Dont forget that when HDTV does become widely available it would be nice to have 16x9.
Eric
</font>

Hehe, I never made the 16 divided by 9 connection. I always divided the width by the length in inches so I never associated the two. I guess it could be 16 feet divided by 9 feet... oh nevermind :-)

uncle eric 03-20-2001 08:23 AM

Mark,
"It was just that, a recomendation"
Why dont you try recomending whats best for Goi. As has been stated many times he will be watching a lot of dvd. Heres a simple formula for you... DVD = widescreen not 4x3.

"I'm not at the movie theater I'm in my house"
Firstly, I think I may have gathered that. Secondly, it is just this sort of imature pointless remark that makes me think about your so called 2 cents worth.

"No cringing here, I use masking"
Yes and probably lots of it!!! I do hope you dont watch a lot of dvd because vast areas of your screen probably never see the light of day (or your projector for that matter)

"4x3 into the centre of a 16x9 screen, if he uses a projector that can zoom enough or has an external processor"
WRONG AGAIN... I have CRT, I dont have zoom (obviously) nor an external processor.

"I was merely pointing out the issues or options that he (Goi) may not have considered".
Once again, and for the last time, if Goi wants to view mainly DVD there are no issues. Widescreen is the only way to go!
If he were viewing mainly normal tv programes via an ariel or satelite then ok 4x3 would be an option.

You say you have done lots of research and gathered lots of information. ON WHAT EXACTLY?
Maybe somebody should tell the studios and dvd big boys because someone has done a boo boo somewhere. They also were supposed to have done a lot of research before the launch of dvd a few years ago.I wonder why they have they chosen to go widescreen. Maybe its something to do with preserving the original aspect ratios so as to emulate a movie theater as much as possible? Someone should have told them about your research and that you were viewing AT HOME!!!
HDTV (alias the future) wonder why they chose 16x9. You should have sent them your notes of your research also.

You keep mentioning how important Width is to you, I do hope that your viewing area is not 14 ft wide or something because unless you live in a catheadral you are probably getting a lot of neck ache following half the action along the ceiling.
Good luck to your 4x3 viewing

Eric

uncle eric 03-20-2001 08:24 AM

Carl,
Yes, 1:85-1 would be no problem.
Eric

DMan 03-20-2001 10:34 AM

OK guys, let's take a little break and ease back a little on this subject. A lot of times emotions run high but it's not a big deal. With all that said, I have to side with going with the 16:9 screen and here's my reasoning.

First off, IMHO I would like the largest image in my Home Theater to be the "cleanest" high resolution signal possible, whether it's ATSC or NTSC here in the States. Knowing that, then one would know that HDTV and DVD are both primarily 16:9 formats and offer everything from 480p to 1080i. Then you can use the smaller 4:3 area inside the 16:9 image area for your lower resolution 4:3 "noiser" sources such as DSS, cable, and VHS. Anyone that has ever seen DSS on a 27"-32" television versus a 50"-65" television can attest to the larger 4:3 image showing the excessive compression and digital artifacts due to the increase in picture size without an increase in the source resolution.

I had a chance to use a 80x60 (100" diagonal 4:3 screen), but I chose to use a 80x45 (92" diagonal 16:9 screen instead). This allows me to view the lower resolution 4:3 sources at a size of 60x45 (75" diagonal 4:3 image area). I couldn't imagine watching DSS on a 100" diagonal screen, at least at 75" diagonal it's watchable.


This is simply just my personal preference and my reasons for doing so. Everyone else's mileage may vary. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

Enjoy,



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater

archtech 03-20-2001 10:58 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Remember that gasp in the movie theater just as the film begins and the screen seems to stretch out to the sides for a letterbox 2:35-1 movie. If the screen were a 4x3, instead of gasping with delight, people would cringe in disgust.
</font>
I’ll remember to do just that next time I’m at the Imax and they show that yucky old squarish 1.44. I’ll sit there and cringe and secretly wish they’d take away about two and a half stories or so just so I can be “modern†and “looking to the future†and all that. “Wider is better,†right?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Your advice to Goi to purchase screen 4x3 so that he is not penalized when watching "50 years plus, dusty old 4x3 material" is with respect the most silly advice I have ever heard in any forum.....
</font>
I’m sorry. I thought Goi said he wanted to watch some 4:3 material. To do so, he can choose to zoom or schlep his projector back and forth across the ceiling just so he can watch a postage stamp in the middle of his widesceen setup OR he can watch all A.R.s at their widest possible picture with no zooming or dollying by following Mark’s and my advice. His choice.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Sorry Brian, but your 2 cents is'ent worth that.

Eric
</font>
I guess I’m sorry, too. I thought this was a forum where we could all discuss opinions and viewpoints without put-downs and deprecations. I’m sorry I ever “chimed in.â€

Uncle Eric,
Just a hunch, but you’re probably not originally from the U.K. are you? An American abroad, maybe? From my travels there, I remember warm, easygoing folks with respect, deference and kindness to others. Have fun ranting about me all you want, but I won’t read it. I’m checking-out of this thread before I sink down to a baser level. I have enough stress in my life without volunteering to be mocked, ridiculed and lambasted on an international forum. And I guess I “stuck it back to you†a little in this post, but I really don’t want to be that way. I’ve got no axes to grind with you and you’re probably a nice guy in person. Maybe if we could meet face-to-face over a warm pint things might be more civil. Until then, “all the best, mateâ€

Goi,
Much luck to you and your quest for the right ratio. I just don’t think there is a RIGHT one for everyone, I just tried to give some advice. It might well be as worthless as Uncle Eric suggests, but at least it was free.

Everyone else,
I think I’m still going to build my 4:3 soon and don’t really care how “square†I am. My native computer resolution will be there in all its glory (even IF you have to be a midget to enjoy it), along with any full-width A.R.you can throw at it. Works for me, might not work for anyone else. To each his own.

If I develop some thicker skin, I’ll post pics and details once I get underway.

Cheers,
Brian

DMan 03-20-2001 09:03 PM

Carl,

You came over to my home last year and at that time saw my Draper M2500 (2.3 gain) screen at a size of 96x52 (actual image area 92x48) 1.85:1. Well...I have recently remodeled my room and went with a more appropriate sized Stewart Screen. The new screen is a Stewart Studiotek 130 (1.3 gain) screen and the size is 80x45 (1.78:1). Since going with a slightly smaller screen I had to reposition my projector closer to the screen which had two huge benefits. The image is MUCH brighter with the projector closer now, as well as a sharper focused image.

I would not recommend using the maximum screen size for your CRT projector. Going a little smaller will yield amazing results, and you can use a more accurate low gain screen as well. I have certainly learned that the Stewart Studiotek 130 screen material sized at the optimum screen size for my projector has helped to increase my overall image quality to an incredible level. Just some food for thought. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater

Mark Lopez 03-20-2001 09:45 PM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
Secondly, it is just this sort of imature pointless remark that makes me think about your so called 2 cents worth.
</font>
&lt;sigh&gt; Whatever.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:
"4x3 into the centre of a 16x9 screen, if he uses a projector that can zoom enough or has an external processor"
WRONG AGAIN... I have CRT, I dont have zoom (obviously) nor an external processor.
</font>
Goi did not state what type of projector he has. This IS an issue with LCD, DLP etc.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:

"No cringing here, I use masking"
Yes and probably lots of it!!! I do hope you dont watch a lot of dvd because vast areas of your screen probably never see the light of day (or your projector for that matter)
</font>
http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/confused.gif Huh?? What difference does it make whether I use an 80"x45" 16:9 or an 80"x60" 4:3 screen? The projected DVD image is going to be EXACTLY the same size. Those 'vast' areas will be available for whatever AR I decide to watch, all at 80" wide. What part of top and bottom masking is confusing you?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:

You say you have done lots of research and gathered lots of information. ON WHAT EXACTLY?
</font>
On how to ignore posts from people without an open mind.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by uncle eric:

Good luck to your 4x3 viewing
</font>
Thank you, I will. Along with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 in all of thier full width glory.


[This message has been edited by Mark Lopez (edited 03-20-2001).]

uncle eric 03-21-2001 02:47 AM

Brian,
Maybe I was a little hard on you. Sorry if I caused offence. I am very passionate about this hobby and sometimes I do get carried away.
I was just trying to steer Goi(even though we have'ent had any reply from him since he opened this thread)in the right direction according to what his viewing would be. I dont have anything against 4x3 so if Goi had said he views mostly terrestrial or cable I would have said 4x3 is fine.
In his case he did say he will "Mainly" view DVD hence my recomendation for 16x9.
Unfortunately I am not of American origin (Turkish actually, although I was born in London). If I were I would be there faster than you can say "green card" grabing the best HDTV reciever I could get my hands on and settle down in my leather 'lazy boy' recliner.
If you visit London one day call me up and we'll have that pint.

Rudee,
"Rock On"....are you a time traveler from the 60's. Were you the guy that drove Mama Cass around in a VW Van.

over and out,,,,

Eric



Goi 03-21-2001 04:05 AM

Hi again, and thanks for all the replies. I haven't been able to reply because I'm usually not home until the weekends. It just happens that I have the chance to come home tonight, hence I'm posting.

I think I've pretty much decided on a widescreen screen, now its just a matter of which widescreen format, but thanks for all your opinions anyway.

I guess I can't go wrong with either a 16:9 or 1.81:1 format?

It seems like a lot of people with native 4:3 projectors have had success with widescreens. However, I'm wondering how to get a 4:3 projector to display a 16:9 or even 1.85:1/2.35:1 image? I've heard of scalers, how do they come into play?

DRS 03-21-2001 06:43 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DMan:
OK guys, let's take a little break and ease back a little on this subject. A lot of times emotions run high but it's not a big deal. With all that said, I have to side with going with the 16:9 screen and here's my reasoning.

First off, IMHO I would like the largest image in my Home Theater to be the "cleanest" high resolution signal possible, whether it's ATSC or NTSC here in the States. Knowing that, then one would know that HDTV and DVD are both primarily 16:9 formats and offer everything from 480p to 1080i. Then you can use the smaller 4:3 area inside the 16:9 image area for your lower resolution 4:3 "noiser" sources such as DSS, cable, and VHS. Anyone that has ever seen DSS on a 27"-32" television versus a 50"-65" television can attest to the larger 4:3 image showing the excessive compression and digital artifacts due to the increase in picture size without an increase in the source resolution.

I had a chance to use a 80x60 (100" diagonal 4:3 screen), but I chose to use a 80x45 (92" diagonal 16:9 screen instead). This allows me to view the lower resolution 4:3 sources at a size of 60x45 (75" diagonal 4:3 image area). I couldn't imagine watching DSS on a 100" diagonal screen, at least at 75" diagonal it's watchable.


This is simply just my personal preference and my reasons for doing so. Everyone else's mileage may vary. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

Enjoy,

</font>
I am wondering, is the screen still 4:3 but masked to 16:9? Because I am in the same boat but just wondering if I go with a 80x45 screen what am I going to do with the light spilling over? If I go with a (80x60) 4:3 screen masked to 80x45 (16:9) then the light "spillage" is taken care of.


------------------
System info: Native XGA LCD FP, Dalite 57X77 HP, P3 700, ATI Radeon, Cinemaster 2k, WinDVD 2.6.4, WinME

rickforrest 03-21-2001 07:32 AM

The screen I am currently constructing will be 80x45 (16x9) viewable, with removable masks for 60x45 (to make 4x3) and 80x34 (21:9 = 2.35:1)

Edited to add that I agree with the poster who stated that he'd rather view 4x3 smaller and 16x9 bigger because the 4x3 source material (i.e. NTSC, older movies, etc) is more likely (though not always) to be of lesser quality and so bigger is not better in that case.

My 4x3 material will be off of Dish, which is pretty heavily compressed, and thus has artifacts. My cleanest signal will be from progressive dvd, and almost exclusively anamorphic widescreen.

[This message has been edited by rickforrest (edited 03-21-2001).]

DMan 03-21-2001 08:59 AM

DRS,

No I use a 16:9 screen 80"x45" that has electric masking panels at the top and bottom for 1.85, 2.0, 2.35 and so on aspect ratios. I don't use any side masking because I very rarely watch any DSS on my front projector. I have a 50" 4:3 RPTV upstairs in my Den that I watch 4:3 material on.

Their is absolutely nothing wrong wih using a 4:3 screen, especially if you plan to watch a lot of 4:3 material. Since I have a dedicated theater room, I primarily use it for DVD movies and occasional HDTV viewing so 16:9 just makes more sense for me.

rickforrest,

You understood perfectly! I couldn't agree with you more. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater

Mark Lopez 03-21-2001 09:01 PM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Goi:
It seems like a lot of people with native 4:3 projectors have had success with widescreens. However, I'm wondering how to get a 4:3 projector to display a 16:9 or even 1.85:1/2.35:1 image? I've heard of scalers, how do they come into play?</font>
You never mentioned what type of projector LCD or CRT.

Depending on the projector you get (if LCD), the internal scaler may be fine. It's the internal line doubler that is usually below par. All aspect ratios will display fine on a native 4:3 projector (assuming you are talking LCD etc). The image will be scaled (wide screen ARs) by the projector to the left and right edge and the top and bottom pixels of the panel will just not be used (resulting in some loss of brightness)unless an anamorphic lens is used. For any other LCD projector related questions, you should visit the LCD forum here. Lots of good info for most popular projectors.

As a side note, as I tried to explain above, with an LCD projector, it will want to use the full 4:3 panel when viewing 4:3 material. This can make it difficult (without an external processor) to view in the center of a widescreen. You need to be able to zoom enough to shrink it down (top and bottom) or physically move the projector depending on the throw ratios. Some projectors don't even have a zoom.

I am NOT trying to talk you out of a widescreen, just letting you know about 4:3 material issues when using an LCD.



[This message has been edited by Mark Lopez (edited 03-21-2001).]

Goi 03-23-2001 05:00 AM

Thanks. I'm talking about either an LCD or a DLP projector. I'm currently leaning towards LCD due to a couple of good models from NEC, as well as upcoming models from Sanyo and Eiki that seem to fit the bill.

As for the internal line doubler, if I already have a progressive source(progressive scan DVD player connected via component input), will that even be a factor?

DMan 03-23-2001 05:38 AM

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for the internal line doubler, if I already have a progressive source(progressive scan DVD player connected via component input), will that even be a factor?</font>
Yes, unless the projector has a native 640x480p panel. If the projector has an 800x600 or 1024x768 native panel resolution, then the projector will have to scale internally.



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.