is there any advantage to going for "standard" size of 96 x 54 (16:9) rather than 100" x 54" (1.85:1).
if i wanted to maximize image size of "normal" widescreen movie from dvd source, the i assume with the bigger screen, i end up with full width of 100" and full image height of 54", and 1" top and bottom of black bar.
then when i switch to hdtv (or stretch regular satellite), i will end up with 1" of projected image on top and bottom. this should be absorbed by the 3" velux border like overscan...right?
and for regular 4:3, my projected image will be 75" x 56"
with a viewable image of 75 x 54...again with 1' top and bottom "overscan"
does this make sense?....or am i asking for trouble?
I'm not completely following you.
96x54 is 16:9 = 1.78.
If you were to display 1.85 ratio on that screen, the dimensions would be 96x52. The height gets smaller and you would need a 1" mask to cover.
4:3 comes out to be 72x54. So you need 12" masks on each side of the screen.
My opinion is to definitely go with a 1.78 ratio screen. If you go with 1.85, then you will not be able to view 1.78 material without adjusting your zoom and having borders all around the image.
To be real honest, you might as well use a 16:9 screen because virtually all 1.85:1 DVDs will fill your entire 16:9 screen anyway due to the amount of overscan of the image.
The Academy Home Theater
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.