Originally Posted by rmaddog
Agreed on both ends. Get the biggest possible screen based on your width or height situation of the room and of course based on what your projector can project. If restricted by width, then your 16:9 image will be larger and mask the top and/or bottom to get the 2.35 image. If restricted by height, then your 2.35 image will be larger and mask on the sides to get the 16:9 image. In my case, my room is plenty wide at approximately 18' and but the ceiling is just under 8' so I will have a much larger 2.35 image than my 16:9 image. I was originally considering the 8000 but am in for a pre-order of the RS46 since the price was better and I don't care about the 3D that much. Once I get that in November/December, I will see what size of screen will work best from where I will be projecting.
If I had a dedicated Theater Room (sigh) , the largest screen with 4 way masking is the way to go. Better yet is the two screen idea.
For those of us who have to make do with a family room or living room and use an electric or pull down screen, then there is not a good (cost effective) solution.
That's why I'm considering using modern video processors to achieve a similar outcome.
Da-Lite will make an electric drop screen with any dimension you want, within reason, for about the cost of the next size up in their lineup.
I'm thinking of having them make a 130" x 65" (2.0:1) electric drop and using a Lumagen (or similar) to auto adjust all formats to 2.0:1 with non linear stretch
There are several examples on Youtube of people using the Lumagen to take 16x9 to 2;35 and it looks so "natural" that I couldn't tell what the original AR was...
Besides getting the largest "constant area" picture possible, using the processor means that you don't need
a projector with powered lens controls, so something like the new Sony 50ES will now work.
Everything involves some sort of compromise...