which screen size should we get? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 06-30-2001, 11:14 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
madoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi all,

My husband and I are planning our home theater and are considering getting the JVC D-ILA with a Stewart screen. What size screen would be the best to get? Our AV installers spec'd us for a 16:9 screen, but we would like to get the most common one for movies/DVDs and then mask to the other aspect ratios. Should we get a 16:9, 1.85:1, or 2.35:1? Does Stewart make a 2.35:1 screen or would this request push it into the custom realm?

If we were to get one screen with 2 sets of motorized masks, which aspect ratio would you use as the primary, and which 2 to mask to?

Thanks!

p.s. There's no need for the WAF test in this household. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."
madoka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 06-30-2001, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Honestly, I would get a Stewart Horizontal Electrimask Screenwall. This is a fix mounted screen that has top and bottom motorized masking. I use one and I purchased mine to start as a native 16:9 screen. This way it can be masked for 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. It is actually variable from 1.78:1 to 3.20:1. This screen is expensive, but well worth the money IMHO. Also you will likely want to use the GrayHawk screen material with a D-ILA projector.

Here's some pics of my frontwall...

Screen without masking at 1.78:1 (16:9)
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/at...rn/Screen1.jpg


Screen with masking panels lowered and raised for 2.35:1
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/at...rn/Screen2.jpg



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #3 of 32 Old 06-30-2001, 10:53 PM
REW
AVS Special Member
 
REW's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley North(Canada)
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi Madoka,
Welcome to the forum.Gather as many viewpoints as you can.Check out Bjoern Roy's stunning HT pics(Gladiator)And his screen solutions.http://home.t-online.de/home/bjoern.roy/Screen/Gladiator/page_01.htm
Cheers Ron

------------------
Ron
"Your priorities will be different-its the weighting that counts!"

Ron
"Your priorities will be different-its the weighting that counts!-only if its done by FET!"

REW is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree that Bjoern's pics are nice, but he uses a CRT projector which is the reason he can do the "constant area" screen. I'm quite sure you can't do that with a D-ILA projector.



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 07:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by DMan:
I agree that Bjoern's pics are nice, but he uses a CRT projector which is the reason he can do the "constant area" screen. I'm quite sure you can't do that with a D-ILA projector.

I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Most digital projectors will use the full width and not use top and bottom pixels (depending on AR). Horizontal masking would be perfect. That's what I use. In other words, constant width, variable height (no zooming required). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Mark Lopez is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 09:49 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
madoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thank you all for your responses. We have not purchased our projector yet. The reason we wanted the D-ILA was because we saw one being demo'd at the CEDIA Expo last September, and the picture quality (brightness and clarity) seemed significantly better than any DLP at the show. But we will definitely check out the Sanyo projectors suggested.

One question: Why is horizontal masking preferred? I was thinking, why not get a 2.35:1 screen and then 3 sets of vertical maskings to get 1.85:1, 16:9, and 4:3? Wouldn't this give us the largest picture possible in all the aspect ratios?

Also, what attributes of the Grayhawk screen make it a good choice for a D-ILA? Our installer suggested the MicroPerf with center channel behind the screen, but we are concerned that we won't be far enough away to not see the holes. Primary seating will be about 10-11 feet from the screen. Also, the room is not a dedicated theater. It is our living room, so ambient light and attractiveness of the whole setup are both concerns. We do plan to get a fixed screen.

Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."
madoka is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 09:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mark,

Yes, you are correct. For digital projectors you simply set the width and the top and bottom can be masked for the unused portion of the image (aspect ratio dependent). As you said and as I stated above, the screen that I use (horizontal masking) would be perfect for a digital projector.

What I was trying to convey was that Bjoern Roy uses a homemade screen method that he call's "constant area" by which he can mask on all four sides to create screen areas that are very close in surface area for both 1.85 and 2.35.
This is not the same as "constant width" (which is what I use) or "constant height". As far as I know, only CRT projectors allow you to do "constant area" since you can increase and decrease the image on both the horizontal and vertical plane.

Before I confuse you any further, check out the following post with plenty of pics for examples... http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/002498.html



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 10:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Christopher Calder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by madoka:
My husband and I are planning our home theater and are considering getting the JVC D-ILA with a Stewart screen.
If you have not purchased the projector yet, why not consider other models. I would much rather have a Sanyo PLV-60, with native 9:16 display and a cheaper bulb that lasts longer. It has 1,200 lumens and produces half the heat as the JVC. http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...m?part_id=1109

Or a Sano PLC-XP30 that has 3,000 lumens (uses the same bulb as the PLV-60), so you can watch movies with the lights on. http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...m?part_id=1106
This is a great 3:4 XGA projector with digital inputs and, people say, a very good scaler built in. Either Sanyo model can be had for the same or less money than a JVC.
$6,000.-PLV-60, $6,900.-PLC-30 street prices. Either would work with a Stewart Gray Hawk screen.

Christopher
Christopher Calder is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 11:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
One question: Why is horizontal masking preferred? I was thinking, why not get a 2.35:1 screen and then 3 sets of vertical maskings to get 1.85:1, 16:9, and 4:3? Wouldn't this give us the largest picture possible in all the aspect ratios?

Also, what attributes of the Grayhawk screen make it a good choice for a D-ILA? Our installer suggested the MicroPerf with center channel behind the screen, but we are concerned that we won't be far enough away to not see the holes. Primary seating will be about 10-11 feet from the screen. Also, the room is not a dedicated theater.
As for the GrayHawk screen material. It enhances the black level of digital projectors because of the screen's slightly gray surface. Also at 10-11 feet viewing distance you definitely don't want to do MicroPerf as you will see the holes in the screen material at that distance.

And concerning the proper screen for you, here's a diagram to let you see the image area used for the different ratio screens...
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/at...pectRatios.jpg

FWIW, I would go with a 4:3 screen or a 16:9 screen with horizontal masking.



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #10 of 32 Old 07-01-2001, 11:35 PM
Senior Member
 
darth maul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Of course you can do constant _area_ with a digital projector, use your zoom button, http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif. Its what I do for my LCD 4:3 projector on a DIY screen. I am still working on DIY masking, and have never done the math, but I am close enough to constant area for my purposes. See, if I had a 4:3 screen movies would just look small when masked. And if I had a full 1:85 screen, TV imges (aka 4:3) would look small. And I can't go to big cause of my budget projector's weaknesses, like only 500 lumens, screen door, etc. So any way, I use a 81" width for movies (no matter what the AR, we have been using a 81"width or so). And I think 48" height or there abouts for 4:3 material. You can do the math on how close I am for constant area, but its good enough for us. Now just to get the 4way masking done.
darth maul is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 01:59 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
madoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OK, fine, Bjorn is god. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif Now that we've got that fact established...

First off, darth maul, I don't think zooming on a digital projector gets you constant area. In order to do constant area as defined by Bjorn, you must be able to grow and shrink the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the image independently. Zooming will make the image bigger and smaller, but the aspect ratio of the width and height is maintained.

Secondly, based on DMan's suggestions and more research at ProjectorCentral (thanx to Christopher for pointing us there), it looks like we may go with a 4:3 screen with horizontal masking. We will be installing the projector in a console/coffee table unit because the room constraints make both back wall installation and drop-down lift options unfeasable. The shorter throw distance forces us to go with the D-ILA S15U, which does not have a zoom lens. The D-ILA has a native aspect ratio of 4:3, so to maximize the number of pixels used for each display aspect ratio, it makes the most sense to mask horizontally from a 4:3 screen.

Fortunately, because we don't have installed dedicated theater seating, our viewing distance can be flexible. We can simply move our chairs forward or back to compensate for the different image sizes.

The last concern would be the noise and heat generated by the projector especially because it will be in the middle of the room, but that's a topic for a different forum...

What do y'all think?

Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."
madoka is offline  
post #12 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 05:12 AM
jkv
Advanced Member
 
jkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Duluth, GA. US
Posts: 649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by madoka:


[snip]

Also, what attributes of the Grayhawk screen make it a good choice for a D-ILA? Our installer suggested the MicroPerf with center channel behind the screen, but we are concerned that we won't be far enough away to not see the holes. Primary seating will be about 10-11 feet from the screen. Also, the room is not a dedicated theater. It is our living room, so ambient light and attractiveness of the whole setup are both concerns. We do plan to get a fixed screen.
I use a MicroPerf screen since I wanted my center channel to be in the 'proper' position. My seats are at 11' and 15'; I really don't start noticing the holes until I am around 8-9'. The screen is a Stewart with a gain of 2.0 and I have a dwin hd700 projector.


Riverside Cinemas
jkv is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 09:49 AM
Senior Member
 
darth maul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"First off, darth maul, I don't think zooming on a digital projector gets you constant area. In order to do constant area as defined by Bjorn, you must be able to grow and shrink the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the image independently. Zooming will make the image bigger and smaller, but the aspect ratio of the width and height is maintained"

We are talking about finished viewable image right? Sure you can get constant area by zooming. Ya, the inharent problem with a 4:3 projector is that for watching different aspect ratios you will be losing 1/3 of the image resolution or more. But certainly you can still do a constant area for the projected image on a screen. No, not like a CRT, which uses its full resolution for the various aspect ratios, but its still constant _area_. And I guess I define constant area, as the same square footage of viewable material not including any black bars for each aspect ratio.

http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif If you say I can't get a constant area with my LCD projector, fine, but then what do I have set-up in my living room? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif
darth maul is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by DMan:

What I was trying to convey was that Bjoern Roy uses a homemade screen method that he call's "constant area" by which he can mask on all four sides to create screen areas that are very close in surface area for both 1.85 and 2.35.

DMan,

Oops, my mistake. I had read your post and assumed the pictures you were talking about were the ones above. I didn't ralize that you were the one that posted them. That's why I was confused since I didn't see any vertical masking. Now I see you were refering to another setup. Guess I should slow down and actually read the whole thing next time.
Mark Lopez is offline  
post #15 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 08:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mark,

No problem!

Kam,

I agree completely. Unless Madoka wants to use this projector as her main television for 4:3 viewing, I would suggest going with the 16:9 screen as well. But a 4:3 screen with horizontal masking would be an equally pleasing alternative.

Enjoy,



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 10:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
KFung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Madoka,

10-11' is right at the distance that the perforations start to disappear, at that point they are very small and almost undetectable. If you are considering perforations and your closest seating is in that range you should probably obtain a sample from Stewart for evaluation to see how it looks to your eyes. Hopefully you will find that even if you can see the perforations at that distance they are not objectionable (that was my opinion when I was evaluating my micro-perf sample).

Stewart custom manufactures all their screens, there should be no cost penalty for getting the screen size and aspect ratio you want. If you watch a lot of movies, I would echo DMan's recommendation and recommend a 16:9 screen with horizontal masking. Unless you plan to use this as your primary TV I would not recommend a 4:3 screen, your ceiling height may limit the size of screen you can use at that aspect ratio.

The S15 may not work for your application, it is designed for rear-projection and the lens must be even with the centre of the screen, you may want to consider the M15 (I believe it has a shorter throw than the G15 and it has a zoom lens). You may also want to consider the new 150HT, it is much better out-of-the-box than the regular models and it comes pre-calibrated. Fan noise is also reduced and it has interchangeable lenses.

Regards,

Kam Fung
KFung is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 11:23 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
madoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi All,

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions thus far.
Quote:
Originally posted by KFung:
If you watch a lot of movies, I would echo DMan's recommendation and and recommend a 16:9 screen with horizontal masking. Unless you plan to use this as your primary TV I would not recommend a 4:3 screen, your ceiling height may limit the size of screen you can use at that aspect ratio.
Quote:
Originally posted by DMan:
Unless Madoka wants to use this projector as her main television for 4:3 viewing, I would suggest going with the 16:9 screen as well. But a 4:3 screen with horizontal masking would be an equally pleasing alternative.
Can you gentlemen please elaborate on why you recommend the 16:9? I would definitely agree with you if the projector throws a 16:9 image. But the D-ILA projects a 4:3 image. So we thought it would be best to go with a 4:3 screen since that would maximize the number of pixels used for each aspect ratio. What advantage would a 16:9 screen offer to make sacrificing maximal pixel usage worthwhile? Are there other important factors we have not considered? FYI, we would not have problems with wall height for a 4:3 screen since the room has high ceilings. We are aiming for a 8' wide screen.
Quote:
Originally posted by KFung:
The S15 may not work for your application, it is designed for rear-projection and the lens must be even with the centre of the screen, you may want to consider the M15 (I believe it has a shorter throw than the G15 and it has a zoom lens). You may also want to consider the new 150HT, it is much better out-of-the-box than the regular models and it comes pre-calibrated. Fan noise is also reduced and it has interchangeable lenses.
Sigh... So the S15 won't work. It was our best bet at a 1:1 throw distance. Both the M15 and the G15 takes 50% offset from center projection, but the M15 has a 1.5:1 throw distance to screen width ratio and the G15 is 2:1 to 3:1 with zoom. Given an 8' wide screen, both of these would put the projector too far back in the room.

The 150HT sounds intriguing, but we couldn't find good specs on it on either ProjectorCentral (only minimal info there) or the JVC site (not found at all). Can you recommend another site where we can find specs on this unit?


------------------
Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."

[This message has been edited by madoka (edited 07-03-2001).]

Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."
madoka is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 07-02-2001, 11:26 PM
REW
AVS Special Member
 
REW's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley North(Canada)
Posts: 1,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Madoka,
Yes Bjoern is near God status but there are at least 12 others who qualify so he cant get a swelled head.
I noticed nobody stepped up to advise you on sitting right on top of PJ with loud fan noise and enough heat to save on fuel bills.Hush box adds ventilation issues.
You may also be around 12FL with grey screen in living room with lots of ambient light to deal with.This number comes from the Bill Cushman measurements in WSR on G-20 PJ.
He says he wants 50-100FL under these conditions.
Hopefully members who have dealt with these issues will be giving you more advice.
Regards Ron
http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Ron
"Your priorities will be different-its the weighting that counts!"

Ron
"Your priorities will be different-its the weighting that counts!-only if its done by FET!"

REW is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 07-03-2001, 07:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by madoka:
So we thought it would be best to go with a 4:3 screen since that would maximize the number of pixels used for each aspect ratio.
While not a very elaborate setup, here is mine http://www.speakeasy.org/~malopez . I am using a 4:3 screen with horizontal masking. While I’m sure many will argue that a wide screen is a better choice, I like the flexibly a 4:3 gives me. At 80â€x60†it is not too overwhelming for 4:3 material. However, I would not go much larger (4:3)for the size of my room (14'x17')
Mark Lopez is offline  
post #20 of 32 Old 07-03-2001, 09:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
KFung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Can you gentlemen please elaborate on why you recommend the 16:9? I would definitely agree with you if the projector throws a 16:9 image. But the D-ILA projects a 4:3 image. So we thought it would be best to go with a 4:3 screen since that would maximize the number of pixels used for each aspect ratio. What advantage would a 16:9 screen offer to make sacrificing maximal pixel usage worthwhile? Are there other important factors we have not considered? FYI, we would not have problems with wall height for a 4:3 screen since the room has high ceilings. We are aiming for a 8' wide screen.
If ceiling height is not a problem, then you might as well go with a 4:3 screen. The reasons for getting a 16:9 in most installations with a screen of that size would be ceiling height and cost. An 8' wide 4:3 screen is 6' tall and in a standard 8' ceiling, depending on how your seating is arranged, there may be sight-line problems (people's heads getting in the way) and problems fitting the centre speaker in the remaining 2' under the screen. You also lose some height from the frame/motors that are associated with the screen. A 16:9 screen would be much shorter in height and would generally give you more flexibility in your installation, but as you say, you would have problems with 4:3 material. That is why we asked if you were watching primarily movies on that screen (and 4:3 on another TV). The cost for a 16:9 screen of the same width is also less than a 4:3, if that is a concern. (I assume it's not if you are considering a horizontally-masked Stewart!)

Quote:
Sigh... So the S15 won't work. It was our best bet at a 1:1 throw distance. Both the M15 and the G15 takes 50% offset from center projection, but the M15 has a 1.5:1 throw distance to screen width ratio and the G15 is 2:1 to 3:1 with zoom. Given an 8' wide screen, both of these would put the projector too far back in the room.
The 150HT sounds intriguing, but we couldn't find good specs on it on either ProjectorCentral (only minimal info there) or the JVC site (not found at all). Can you recommend another site where we can find specs on this unit?
Have you considered suspending your projector from the ceiling? What kind of ceiling do you have and how high is it? What size of room do you have? Many installations with those kinds of issues end up with projectors attached to a pole off the ceiling.

The 150HT is a new model that JVC was showing at INFOCOMM a couple weeks ago, I don't know when it will start showing up in stores, but hopefully it will be in the near future. It costs quite a bit more than the regular G15, but it requires a lot less tweaking to get a stellar image. I am not surprised there is not a information out yet, but it is very similar to the M2000 except with 1500 lumens and less noise. The lens options are the same as the G15, M15, S15 so you are still in the same situation with regards to throw distance.

Regards,

Kam Fung
KFung is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 07-04-2001, 09:28 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
This may be a relatively minor point but choosing a constant height screen such as a 2.35:1 and masking only the sides does have some resolution issues.The largest image will be the 2.35:1 sources and this also happens to be the source with the lowest amount of inherent resolution to work with.

[This message has been edited by Art Sonneborn (edited 07-04-2001).]

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 07-04-2001, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Nothing at all wrong with using a 4:3 screen and then masking horizontally for widescreen movies. The only reason I suggested a 16:9 screen is that you originally stated the following...

"Our AV installers spec'd us for a 16:9 screen, but we would like to get the most common one for movies/DVDs and then mask to the other aspect ratios."

Well, the most common screen size for DVDs is 16:9, so I would agree with your A/V installers on that point. Also, don't forget that if you plan to sit 10-11 feet away from a 72"x96" screen, then be prepared to be disappointed. Afterall, most all 4:3 viewing is the lowest quality video source (ie, DSS satellite, VHS, or cable). When you magnify these already soft and compressed images up to 72"x96" you will likely be wanting a much smaller 4:3 image, or you will want to move your seating a lot further back.

As for DVD video quality, it tends to hold up incredibly well when increased to 96" wide, albeit as long as it's scaled and processed well. HDTV on the other hand looks fantastic at 8 feet wide with zero complaints.



------------------
DMan
The Academy Home Theater
DMan is offline  
post #23 of 32 Old 07-04-2001, 08:23 PM
Member
 
Big_John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 96
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is something else to consider. I like a big picture (as do most of us here). I have an older sysem using an old Sharp PJ. I bought a 100" diag 4:3 screen. Im not sure of the dimensions. At 10-11 feet wide screen movies were perfect. But if I watched 4:3 source I got a headache and my eyes got tired. I figured that with 16:9 movies my eyes were looking left and right, but with 4:3 I was looking left, right, up and down. We usually ened up backing off the zoom to maybe 70-75". For this reason and looking at the pictures above I am going with a 16:9 screen in my new home.
John
As always view yourself and then decide.
Big_John is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 07-04-2001, 11:27 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
madoka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Happy 4th everybody! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by KFung:
That is why we asked if you were watching primarily movies on that screen (and 4:3 on another TV).
Sorry I forgot to answer that question. No, we would not be using the theater setup for primary 4:3 viewing. I expect to use it for sporting events and those TV programs that deserve special treatment such as the X-Files, Star Trek, and programs broadcast in surround sound.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark:
While not a very elaborate setup, here is mine http://www.speakeasy.org/~malopez
Your setup and custom masking looks very nice. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif Do you use the RPTV for regular TV viewing and then drop down the screen for movies? Very efficient use of space.
Quote:
Originally posted by KFung:
Have you considered suspending your projector from the ceiling? What kind of ceiling do you have and how high is it? What size of room do you have? Many installations with those kinds of issues end up with projectors attached to a pole off the ceiling.
The room is 16.5'(screen wall)x 20' long. There is a large window that opens to the street on the back wall (which is why we can't install the projector there). The wall height is 9' up to the crown moldings, then the ceiling slopes diagonally up to a higher flat ceiling which is 11.5' in height. The ceiling is sort of a 3D trapezoid, if you can visualize that. I seem to recall someone telling me that it is called a coffered ceiling, but I could be wrong.

I am reluctant to do a permanently suspended ceiling mount because it would significantly detract aesthetically from the room's other function as a living room which is right off the main entry. Any sort of ceiling mount would have to be a lift mechanism, which is challenging given the ceiling height there at 11.5'. Although there is attic space above the room, the roof of the house slants right above there, and there is question whether we could fit a full lift mechanism above the ceiling. We have thought about using a lift but was leaning toward the console solution because it seemed easier to do (less labor/construction, complexity, and cost). But if a lift is our only viable option because we can't find a projector to work with our throw distance, we will have to revisit it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Art:
This may be a relatively minor point but choosing a constant height screen such as a 2.35:1 and masking only the sides does have some resolution issues.The largest image will be the 2.35:1 sources and this also happens to be the source with the lowest amount of inherent resolution to work with.
If I understood your comment correctly, this is why I was thinking of a 4:3 screen, because that allows us to maximize the number of pixels used for each aspect ratio.
Quote:
Originally posted by DMan:
Well, the most common screen size for DVDs is 16:9, so I would agree with your A/V installers on that point. Also, don't forget that if you plan to sit 10-11 feet away from a 72"x96" screen, then be prepared to be disappointed. Afterall, most all 4:3 viewing is the lowest quality video source (ie, DSS satellite, VHS, or cable).
I didn't know the most common screen size for DVDs is 16:9. I thought it would be either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And your point about viewing low-quality 4:3 sources on such a large screen is well taken. Looks like we're back to 16:9 as the best option.
Quote:
Originally from Big_John:
I bought a 100" diag 4:3 screen. Im not sure of the dimensions. At 10-11 feet wide screen movies were perfect. But if I watched 4:3 source I got a headache and my eyes got tired. I figured that with 16:9 movies my eyes were looking left and right, but with 4:3 I was looking left, right, up and down.
This is also a good point. You guys all have great ideas and suggestions. This forum rocks! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

Is horizontal masking on a Stewart much more costly than vertical masking? Is this because of the bottom mask panel that must raise up? Is it possible to get top horizontal masking only to lower the cost? I think with a Faroudja processor, we can shift the image down to the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 to eliminate the need for a bottom horiztonal mask.


------------------
Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."

Madoka

"Winners never quit, and quitters never win. But those who never win AND never quit are idiots."
madoka is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 08:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Is horizontal masking on a Stewart much more costly than vertical masking? Is this because of the bottom mask panel that must raise up? Is it possible to get top horizontal masking only to lower the cost? I think with a Faroudja processor, we can shift the image down to the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 to eliminate the need for a bottom horizontal mask.
I use the Horizontal Masking screen from Stewart and I believe that you can only order it with top and bottom masking panels together. But you should call Stewart to get an exact answer. I only watch widescreen material on my projector, so 1.78:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 DVDs can all fit perfectly on my screen. If I watch any television programming on my 1.78:1 screen, it is only HDTV programming which is a 16:9 format as well.

Since you're planning to use a video processor with your D-ILA projector, be sure to get a unit that can support the D-ILA resolution of 1365x1024, and also 1365x768. The TAW Rock would be an excellent candidate with it's abundance of D-ILA features. The TAW Rock allows you to put a 4:3 image in the middle of your 16:9 image area for those rare 4:3 viewings you mentioned.

Also, Stewart does offer a screen that has both vertical and horizontal masking called the "Ultimate 4-way". This screen starts out as a 16:9 (1.78:1)screen, then has top and bottom masking panels for wider aspect ratios (ie, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc), plus it has two drop down vertical side panels to mask the screen for 4:3 viewing. Appropriately named, this is the "ultimate" screen...and it comes at an "ultimate" price as well.

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

[This message has been edited by DMan (edited 07-05-2001).]
DMan is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 12:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
krasmuzik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NewPort, VA
Posts: 11,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Dman great picture.

I showed Xmen (2.35 aspect DVD) last nite to some relatives. I have an 8'x6' screen.

"I can't see the whole screen - there are black bars"

"Can't you expand the picture?"

"I can't watch this it is too annoying"

I showed your picture that the problem is I need a 2.35 screen - then they would complain they are missing the whole picture when they watch regular TV. At least then they would be right.

But for these more unique constant area or constant height screens - what projector, scalar/dvd player then do people use.
krasmuzik is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 06:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
KFung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by madoka:

<snip>
Sorry I forgot to answer that question. No, we would not be using the theater setup for primary 4:3 viewing. I expect to use it for sporting events and those TV programs that deserve special treatment such as the X-Files, Star Trek, and programs broadcast in surround sound.


Then I would recommend a 16:9, regular 4:3 cable or DSS will not look good blown up to that size (it doesn't even look good on my 40" widescreen). Maybe you could stick your regular TV there and connect it to you audio system?

Quote:
<snip>
The room is 16.5'(screen wall)x 20' long. There is a large window that opens to the street on the back wall (which is why we can't install the projector there). The wall height is 9' up to the crown moldings, then the ceiling slopes diagonally up to a higher flat ceiling which is 11.5' in height. The ceiling is sort of a 3D trapezoid, if you can visualize that. I seem to recall someone telling me that it is called a coffered ceiling, but I could be wrong.

I am reluctant to do a permanently suspended ceiling mount because it would significantly detract aesthetically from the room's other function as a living room which is right off the main entry. Any sort of ceiling mount would have to be a lift mechanism, which is challenging given the ceiling height there at 11.5'. Although there is attic space above the room, the roof of the house slants right above there, and there is question whether we could fit a full lift mechanism above the ceiling. We have thought about using a lift but was leaning toward the console solution because it seemed easier to do (less labor/construction, complexity, and cost). But if a lift is our only viable option because we can't find a projector to work with our throw distance, we will have to revisit it.
Hmmmm, one solution is to move the console a little back and go with a mirror arrangement in your console. That should get you enough throw distance to move to an M15. You could put the projector in the front of the console firing towards the back of the room, then have a mirror at the back of the console to reflect the projected image onto the screen. It would be kind of like the mirror arrangement in an RPTV, except the mirror would be smaller and closer to the projector and the throw would be longer. The mirror could be motorized to fold flush with the top of the console when not in use. Bonus points for the coolness factor. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif

Quote:
<snip>
I didn't know the most common screen size for DVDs is 16:9. I thought it would be either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. And your point about viewing low-quality 4:3 sources on such a large screen is well taken. Looks like we're back to 16:9 as the best option.
You are right about the aspect ratios, however a 2.35:1 screen is probably not practical because you would have to zoom in and out a lot to properly frame 1.85, 16:9, and 4:3 material. 1.85:1 is actually very close to 16:9, however if you went with 1.85:1 you would need 4-way masking (expensive) to cover 16:9 and 2.35:1. If you forgo 4:3 masking on a 16:9 screen you could just get horizontal masking and it would cover 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.

Quote:
<snip>
Is horizontal masking on a Stewart much more costly than vertical masking? Is this because of the bottom mask panel that must raise up? Is it possible to get top horizontal masking only to lower the cost? I think with a Faroudja processor, we can shift the image down to the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 to eliminate the need for a bottom horiztonal mask.
Are you talking electric screen of fixed? In either case it's more expensive to go with horizontal masking but the system is different with an electric and I don't think you can save money by eliminating a masking panel (because it only has one). OTOH the electric is not that much more with horizontal masking over vertical.

Regards,

Kam Fung
KFung is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 09:07 PM
Member
 
Cygnus23's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by jkv:
I use a MicroPerf screen since I wanted my center channel to be in the 'proper' position. My seats are at 11' and 15'; I really don't start noticing the holes until I am around 8-9'. The screen is a Stewart with a gain of 2.0 and I have a dwin hd700 projector.
Does *anybody* make an accousticly transparent screen with holes that can't be seen at all? at least not from more than a couple feet?

Cygnus23 is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 10:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Lopez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by madoka:
Your setup and custom masking looks very nice. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif Do you use the RPTV for regular TV viewing and then drop down the screen for movies? Very efficient use of space.
Thanks. Yes the RPTV is for normal TV viewing. While I will admit that I rarely use the screen in 4:3 mode, it does come in handy for things like IMAX movies. I had originally bought the 4:3 used just to test out the new projector and actually ordered a 16:9. But then I decided to keep the 4:3 since it offered more flexibility (for my situation). I agree with Big_John that viewing regular TV (dss) at that size (100" diag) is not a very pleasant experience with all the compression artifacts.
Mark Lopez is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 07-05-2001, 11:24 PM
Senior Member
 
luvmytivo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chatsworth, CA, USA
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by krag:
<snip>
"I can't see the whole screen - there are black bars"

"Can't you expand the picture?"

"I can't watch this it is too annoying"

I showed your picture that the problem is I need a 2.35 screen - then they would complain they are missing the whole picture when they watch regular TV. At least then they would be right.

</snip>
That's what masking is for. Next time you're in a movie theater watching a 2.35:1 movie, watch the drapes - they'll move out after the previews (usually 1.85:1) to reveal more of the screen (of course, you'd have to be lucky enough to find a thatre with true 2.35:1 capabilities). The idea is that if you can't see the unused screen, then it's not there - it's a mental trick, but it works. As an added plus, a black felt mask just looks very 'theatre-like'.

------------------
----
Darren Rogers

Darren
luvmytivo is offline  
Closed Thread Screens

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