Screen size help - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 36 Old 08-04-2013, 10:06 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
My screen wall is 12ft wide and 9 ft tall.

The projector (JVC RS4810 is mounted 13 ft from screen wall.

Row 1 seating 12ft

Row 2 seating 15ft

What would be the biggest 16x9 screen or biggest 2:35 screen you would get for this room?
nflguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 36 Old 08-04-2013, 10:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Seegs108's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Schenectady, New York
Posts: 4,423
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked: 297
The largest from 13' is a 131" diagonal 1.78:1 screen. That might be a bit big for your front row seats. Ideally you want your seating distance to be 1.5x the distance of your screen width. This size screen would be perfect for your second row though.

Are you going to be zooming for 2.35:1 or or using an anamorphic lens?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Crazy Projector Journey
Seegs108 is online now  
post #3 of 36 Old 08-04-2013, 10:22 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I dont have a lense so will have to use zoom if we go with a 2:35 screen
nflguy is offline  
post #4 of 36 Old 08-04-2013, 10:28 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm a bit frustrated with my installer. He is very biased towards 16x9 screens. Plus when watching lord of the rings on bluray(I picked a movie I'm told looks great on a 2:35 screen) he didn't know how to project in 2:35 format. He showed me that the projector aspect ratio options were 16x9 or 4:3

There was also an option for "anamorphic on" or "anamorphic off". When anamorphic off was selected the image wasn't as tall but had same width. Basiically the opposite of what I was told an anamorphic image would look like.
nflguy is offline  
post #5 of 36 Old 08-04-2013, 10:34 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
The taller image was 133" diagonal with anamorphic turned on while the shorter image (but same width) was aprox 121" diagonal.
nflguy is offline  
post #6 of 36 Old 08-05-2013, 05:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
The "anamorphic" feature on a JVC is for use with an Anamorphic lens, it stretches vertically, distorting the image in the opposite way a lens does (electronic vertical stretch + optical horizontal stretch = correct display). It's of no use without an anamorphic lens.

Likewise the normal aspect ratio controls won't be of much use, you have to zoom with the motorized zoom and use the lens memory (IIRC that JVC has lens memory?)

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #7 of 36 Old 08-05-2013, 07:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 809 Post(s)
Liked: 924
you have to understand the difference between the displays aspect ratio and the source's aspect ratio. the jvc will output 16:9 all the time. that's what you want it to do. just like a flat screen, it's screen doesn't change shape when playing a BD to a different aspect ratio, it simply displays black bars top and bottom.

the same will happen with the jvc. when watching your 2.35:1 source, you'll get an image projected that is the same width, but not as tall. if the projector wasn't so good as showing black, you'd see that it's still projecting a 16:9 image, just with black bars top and bottom(like a flat screen).

there's two things you can do:
1. you can go with a 16:9 format screen, and never have to adjust anything. the biggest image will be when you watch 16:9 sources, and when you watch 2.35:1 sources the image will become shorter, leaving black bars on the top and bottom.

2. you can go with a 2.35:1 format screen, and use the lens memory feature to achieve 'constant image height'. what this means is that when you watch a 16:9 format source, the projector's 'full' image will fit on the screen with no projected image on the left and right edges of the scope screen. kind of like 'black bars' except that it's not the projector displaying black, it's no light being displayed there at all. then for 2.35:1 format sources you zoom in the projector so that it's projected 16:9 image spills over the top and bottom of your screen and fills it up completely horizontally. the part that spills over the top and bottom will be the 'black bars' and you won't see them at all.

i'll see if I can do this with some pictures. unfortunately i'm going the other way, using a 16:9 screen, but I think you should get a better understanding of what zooming in with the projector(that is still projecting 16:9) can show what looks like a full size 2.35:1 aspect ratio image.

here is my 16:9 screen


here it is with 16:9 content, nothing confusing yet...


now here is the lens shift guide on the jvc. the grid lines show a 2.35:1 AR in the middle, 16:9 around the outside, and where 'overscan' would crop the image if you used it(you shouldn't). as you can see, I have the 16:9 set here, the outermost lines hit the edge of my screen.


now, when i'm watching 2.35:1 content, I would adjust so that the 2.35:1 guidelines hit the edge of my screen(I roll my 16:9 up part way). you can even see the top edge of the projector's image shining on my ceiling


and here is the 2.35:1 content showing


and finally with my screen rolled up to match. notice you can't see anything above or below the screen, but the projector is in fact displaying 'black bars' above and below.


my recommendation is to get yourself familiar with your projector, and go with a 2.35:1 screen and use lens memory to achieve constant image height. you sound similar to me, I find 16:9 images too tall when they are the same width as my preferred size 2.35:1 image.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #8 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:13 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Thank you so much for taking the time to do that!!!
nflguy is offline  
post #9 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:39 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm told that on a 120" 2:35 screen that 2:35 content will have an image that is 47" by 110"


I used Iron Man on Bluray to try out some sizes since it's letterboxed which i assume means its 2:35 content,

I zoomed out the viewable movie image to a width of 110 but the height was 46"

Zooming the height of the image to 47" resulted in a width of 112"

I then zoomed the screen out as big as it would go.

The overall dimensions were 64" by 115"

Zoomed as big as possible the letterbox iron man image was then 48" by 115" (not including the black bars)


Questions and thoughts......



I'm still not clear on how the 2:35 content would look different on a 16x9 screen vs a 2:35 screen.



I really like the way the iron man image looks at 48" by 114.5". Granted it's being projected on a dark wall and I can;t see the black bars but I'm happy with the size of the image I can see.


I wouldn't want an image that has less height or width. 48" by 115" looks really good to me


So I'm happy with how 2:35 content looks on a 133" 16x9 screen

What size 2:35 screen would I need to get for the image to be 48" by 114.5" ??


The only drawback I can see is that while the 2:35 content looks good to me on the 133" 16x9 screen......16x9 content on the 133" screen would be too big for my viewing distances. 16x9 image on a 120" 16x9 screen is more my speed.
nflguy is offline  
post #10 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Looking at Screen Innovations website..

A 120" 2:35 screen has a viewable height of 47" and viewable width of 110". So an inch shorter and 5 inches less wide then what i would prefer.


A 133" 2:35 screen has a viewable height of 52" and viewable width of 122".


My max width is 115" so that rules out the 133" 2:35 screen.


I have heard people say the trade off with a 2:35 screen is that 16x9 content is smaller then they would prefer.

In this instance 16x9 content would be bigger then I would prefer on a 16x9 screen thats big enough for me to be happy with 2:35 content on it.
nflguy is offline  
post #11 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 05:41 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

I'm still not clear on how the 2:35 content would look different on a 16x9 screen vs a 2:35 screen.

There's no difference in how it looks on one screen vs the other, other than on a 2.35:1 screen it will be relatively larger than 16:9 as it was intended to be, rather than smaller (as you get when you show it on a 16:9 screen).
Quote:
What size 2:35 screen would I need to get for the image to be 48" by 114.5" ??

A 114.5x48" screen, or whatever size is closest to that.
Quote:
The only drawback I can see is that while the 2:35 content looks good to me on the 133" 16x9 screen......16x9 content on the 133" screen would be too big for my viewing distances. 16x9 image on a 120" 16x9 screen is more my speed.

That's why you'd get a scope screen, then your 16:9 would be 86x48.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #12 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 09:21 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't understand why the 16x9 image being projected on the wall would change size based on the size of the screen installed.

I have the image zoomed out as far as it will go on the wall 133"( 64" by 115") 16x9

Which results in a 48" by 115" 2:35 image not including black bars and a 64" by 115 16x9 image.

So if I get a 48" by 115" scope screen wouldn't the lense still have to zoomed out all the way to get the 48" by 115" image? And if so wouldn't 16x9 content still project the same size it did on the 16x9 screen only part of the image would be off screen since the scope screen is shorter then the 16x9 screen?
nflguy is offline  
post #13 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

I don't understand why the 16x9 image being projected on the wall would change size based on the size of the screen installed.

I have the image zoomed out as far as it will go on the wall 133"( 64" by 115") 16x9

Which results in a 48" by 115" 2:35 image not including black bars and a 64" by 115 16x9 image.

So if I get a 48" by 115" scope screen wouldn't the lense still have to zoomed out all the way to get the 48" by 115" image? And if so wouldn't 16x9 content still project the same size it did on the 16x9 screen only part of the image would be off screen since the scope screen is shorter then the 16x9 screen?

Yes, on that screen you would project 2.35 content exactly like you are doing now, which would fill the screen. To watch 16:9 content you would zoom the image down to 48" high so it fits the height of the screen with black bars (blank screen) on the sides. Both of these zoom positions would be assigned a different lens memory which could be recalled at the push of a button.

BTW, if you are liking scope at 115" wide there is a good chance you would like it even wider. So I'd still suggest moving the projector back to check out all of your options.
5mark is online now  
post #14 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 11:21 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I don't think it can be moved further back . The installer said it needed to be installed on a stud. There is one more stud closer to back wall but its too close so projector wouldn't fit.
nflguy is offline  
post #15 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:11 PM
Senior Member
 
5mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You could do a shelf mount on the back wall.
5mark is online now  
post #16 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:42 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,256
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

I don't think it can be moved further back . The installer said it needed to be installed on a stud. There is one more stud closer to back wall but its too close so projector wouldn't fit.

As the other poster stated, you could use a shelf mount. Will need a shelf that is 22" deep and that is just enough to get the front legs on the shelf. This is a good way to go for rooms that need all of the available depth and is why I use a shelf mount.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #17 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Are these shells specially made for projectors
nflguy is offline  
post #18 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 809 Post(s)
Liked: 924
this isn't to scale, but assuming your screen size is restricted by how tall the image can be, this would represent you choices



obviously 16:9 on 16:9 and 2.35:1 on 2.35:1 would be full screen. also be aware there are several other AR's that are used, so even with a 2.35:1 screen, some 'widescreen' movies are 2.40:1 and will still have black bars top/bottom. clearly there's an advantage to the 2.35:1 screen in this situation.

as for your mounting, you could always cut a piece of plywood to span between the two studs, and then mount the projector anywhere you need to along the plywood

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #19 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 01:58 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Since the installer already installed the projector in the ceiling at 13 feet from the screen.. How difficult would it be to take down and install on a shelf?

The projector unit is aprox 19" long. So if the projector were placed on a shelf on the back wall (with an inch or two space between the projector and back wall (for HDMI cables) then the lense would be aprox 15 ft from the screen wall.

What would that do for the width of my screen? At 13ft my max width is 115. Max width of the wall is 145
nflguy is offline  
post #20 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 04:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Gradius2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iquique, Chile
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 14
To be like the pic above, it needs to be 2.37:1, not 2.35:1.

[]s,
Fernando
Gradius2 is offline  
post #21 of 36 Old 08-06-2013, 11:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

I'm a bit frustrated with my installer. He is very biased towards 16x9 screens. Plus when watching lord of the rings on bluray(I picked a movie I'm told looks great on a 2:35 screen) he didn't know how to project in 2:35 format. He showed me that the projector aspect ratio options were 16x9 or 4:3

There was also an option for "anamorphic on" or "anamorphic off". When anamorphic off was selected the image wasn't as tall but had same width. Basiically the opposite of what I was told an anamorphic image would look like.

Sounds like you need to find a local professional who can not only do the installation, but explain to you the benefits and drawbacks of the options.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #22 of 36 Old 08-07-2013, 01:51 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
So I went through a bunch of my blurays and found that 99% of them were 2:35 or 2:4:1 etc

So I tried out a few blurays on the 64" by 115" image my projector puts on the wall when fully zoomed out for biggest possible image.

Iron Man, transformers, lord of the rings, Star Trek(2009), Harry Potter Deathly Hollows and a few others measured 48" by 114.5" not including the black bars.

Empire Strikes Back was 49" by 114.5"

Star Trek First Contact, and True Grit were 50" by 114.5

I thought they all looked great!

Since most of the movies were 48" by 114.5, I tried zoomed in the image until the 16x9 image had a height of 48"

I put in one of my few blurays that display 16x9 (Rocky II). Zoomed out max and this movie displays at 64" by 115" on my wall. After zooming in the height of my overall image to 48" I tried watching the movie again. Now the movie had a height of 46" and a width of 85"

I did notice however that when zooming in the image to make it smaller that the image moved higher up on the wall.

My screen will be fixed frame so seeing the 16x9 content Image move higher on the wall as it got smaller was concerning. Let's say I buy a screen that is 48" by 115". What happens when I play a 16x9 movie?
nflguy is offline  
post #23 of 36 Old 08-07-2013, 02:04 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
If I'm happy with how 2:35 content looks on my 133" 16x9 screen since 2:35 content is displayed at 48" by 114.5" ....does it then boil down to deciding if I prefer the occasional 16x9 content to be only 46" by 85" if i get a screen that measures "48 by 115" OR do I want the occasional 16x9 movie to be shown as 64" by 115"
nflguy is offline  
post #24 of 36 Old 08-07-2013, 05:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 17,477
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

My screen will be fixed frame so seeing the 16x9 content Image move higher on the wall as it got smaller was concerning. Let's say I buy a screen that is 48" by 115". What happens when I play a 16x9 movie?

You have to use the lens shift to shift the image back down onto the screen.

See what an anamorphoscopic lens can do, see movies the way they were meant to be seen
stanger89 is offline  
post #25 of 36 Old 08-07-2013, 08:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 8,256
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

If I'm happy with how 2:35 content looks on my 133" 16x9 screen since 2:35 content is displayed at 48" by 114.5" ....does it then boil down to deciding if I prefer the occasional 16x9 content to be only 46" by 85" if i get a screen that measures "48 by 115" OR do I want the occasional 16x9 movie to be shown as 64" by 115"

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

You have to use the lens shift to shift the image back down onto the screen.

The JVC's have lens memory, so you use the lens shift, zoom and focus to set the size and placement of the image. Then you store that in memory. Then you just recall that setting each time you want that size image. The projector will automatically make the changes to zoom, lens shift and focus to the image.You can set one for 16:9 and another for 2.35. You can also place other aspect ratios in the memory such as 4:3.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com
Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/ 
Call for B-stock projectors
Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI, Falcon, DNP & more.
RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Tech., MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech, Denon, Marantz & Yamaha .
AV Science Sales 5 is online now  
post #26 of 36 Old 08-07-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

If I'm happy with how 2:35 content looks on my 133" 16x9 screen since 2:35 content is displayed at 48" by 114.5" ....does it then boil down to deciding if I prefer the occasional 16x9 content to be only 46" by 85" if i get a screen that measures "48 by 115" OR do I want the occasional 16x9 movie to be shown as 64" by 115"

Yes.

B.
Brian B is offline  
post #27 of 36 Old 08-09-2013, 04:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
Glen Graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

What would be the biggest 16x9 screen or biggest 2:35 screen you would get for this room?

The biggest size is to have your eyeballs decide! cool.gif

When we were building our theater, we put the first row were it had to be (side speakers dictated it), and projected onto a blank wall. After a couple of weeks of adjusting the size and vertical location, we settled on what my wife and I both liked. Shockingly, radically different from all recommendations.

We sit with our eyeballs 131" from a 133" screen! Everyone who has watched movies in our theater in the last 7 years have also liked it (rarely, some choose the back row). This is with a Panasonic AE700u - 720p, watching normal DVDs. Wanting to upgrade as its hurting bad (I won't watch, but kids still do).

Construction: http://goglen.com/post/theater/

*edit* It sounds like you did the same thing - and settled on the same 133" (about the biggest I could get, making it still good for 2.35).

Glen
My Home Theater
***********************************
Whatever is not nailed down, is mine.
Whatever I can pry loose... is not nailed down!

Glen Graham is offline  
post #28 of 36 Old 08-09-2013, 07:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 809 Post(s)
Liked: 924
^^ absolutely, and make sure to check with both formats. my next screen will definitely be 2.35:1, I recently downgraded from a 120" screen at about a 15ft viewing distance because it was too big for me. that is, 16:9 was too big for me. after going with the smaller screen(100") it's near perfect for 16:9 content, but I've gone so far as to install some s-hooks so I can rehang the old screen for 2.35:1 content, and absolutely love watching it at that size. I clearly have more problems with a tall picture than I do a wide picture. not something I would have expected

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is online now  
post #29 of 36 Old 08-09-2013, 10:12 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
nflguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Tonight was our first chance to watch a full movie projected on the wall (Transformers 3). The viewable image was 48" by 114.5. The bottom of the image is 42" from the floor. That combined with the 10inch riser result in an unblocked view of the screen for the people in the back row (riser) too. I didn't want people's heads blocking the bottom portion if the screen for those watching from back row.

I don't have any theater style seating yet so I put a couch in front of the riser so we could find out what it's like watching the screen from that distance. Sitting on the couch put our eyes aprox 11.5 ft from the screen wall. We LOVED it. I kept thinking the only thing that would be better is if the viewable image was just an inch or two taller and a few inches wider but it was a very pleasant viewing experience. I had thought sitting in front of the riser would be too close but it's just right. Watching 133" 16x9 content hurts my eyes after 45 minutes or so but this was enjoyable from start to finish.

On the one hand I could get a 133" 16x9 screen that matches the dimensions of the image we are projecting on the wall now, and use lense memory for scope movies and to make the 133" 16x9 image closer to 110 or 120" for 16x9 content (also by using lense memory).

However getting the 133" 2:35 screen gives me an additional 4 inches in height and 8 inches of width for scope movies. This would require us to uninstall the projector from its current position then add some plywood in the attic so it can be installed another 1.5 ft further back from the screen.

Right now the Image is projected on a wall painted dark blue. I wonder if my 2:35 movie were projected on a white/grey 133" 16x9 screen if the unused portion of the screen would be distracting. The unused part when watching scope movies now is on a dark wall so not sure If that makes a difference.

One thing I kept thinking during the movie was "why do I need a screen?" . The picture quality was great just projected on the wall. what exactly is the benefit of a screen when the picture already looks good projected on a wall? Especially when a screen could cost $2,000 or more plus shipping. Does it make the image brighter, better contrast etc?
nflguy is offline  
post #30 of 36 Old 08-10-2013, 02:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflguy View Post

Tonight was our first chance to watch a full movie projected on the wall (Transformers 3). The viewable image was 48" by 114.5. The bottom of the image is 42" from the floor. That combined with the 10inch riser result in an unblocked view of the screen for the people in the back row (riser) too. I didn't want people's heads blocking the bottom portion if the screen for those watching from back row.

I don't have any theater style seating yet so I put a couch in front of the riser so we could find out what it's like watching the screen from that distance. Sitting on the couch put our eyes aprox 11.5 ft from the screen wall. We LOVED it. I kept thinking the only thing that would be better is if the viewable image was just an inch or two taller and a few inches wider but it was a very pleasant viewing experience. I had thought sitting in front of the riser would be too close but it's just right. Watching 133" 16x9 content hurts my eyes after 45 minutes or so but this was enjoyable from start to finish.

On the one hand I could get a 133" 16x9 screen that matches the dimensions of the image we are projecting on the wall now, and use lense memory for scope movies and to make the 133" 16x9 image closer to 110 or 120" for 16x9 content (also by using lense memory).

However getting the 133" 2:35 screen gives me an additional 4 inches in height and 8 inches of width for scope movies. This would require us to uninstall the projector from its current position then add some plywood in the attic so it can be installed another 1.5 ft further back from the screen.

Right now the Image is projected on a wall painted dark blue. I wonder if my 2:35 movie were projected on a white/grey 133" 16x9 screen if the unused portion of the screen would be distracting. The unused part when watching scope movies now is on a dark wall so not sure If that makes a difference.

One thing I kept thinking during the movie was "why do I need a screen?" . The picture quality was great just projected on the wall. what exactly is the benefit of a screen when the picture already looks good projected on a wall? Especially when a screen could cost $2,000 or more plus shipping. Does it make the image brighter, better contrast etc?

Yes, a screen is worth it! And I agree with Glenn Graham, that you should do as you're doing: show the projected image on the wall for at least a week, looking at 16x9 and 2.35 material, and decide what works best for you.

My opinion though (FWIW) is that your room is more 'width challenged' and has plenty of height to spare. So if I were you--which I am of course not!--I would get a screen as wide as will fit your space. My guess, though, is that a 2.35 screen of this width will not be high enough to give a 16x9 pic that is as large as you want. So you may want to get a custom size screen--as wide as you can fit in, and high enough to give a 16x9 pic as large as you want. (Screens are advertised in standard sizes, but you can usually have one made to whatever dimensions you want.)

And REMEMBER: you rarely hear people say they wish they had gotten a smaller screen, but often that they wish they had gotten a larger one.
millerwill is online now  
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Tags
Jvc Dla Rs4810 3d Home Theater Projector
Gear in this thread

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