My HT\2ch setup - Page 35 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1021 of 1071 Old 08-09-2014, 12:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
You know, it was fun while it lasted, but I don't think it's going to work. I looked really hard and could not find a 2:35 screen in the size I needed. The only screen I found in the size I wanted was a 1:78 screen that was 64in. But even that is too big. I think height wise at 35.6in high. That's just not going to work. The smallest 2:35 screen I found was 80in and that really is not going work. I need something that is not that tall. 2:35 seems to fit the bill but not in my size. I am sure if I wanted a custom one it could be done but at more money. So I am resolved to letting this go, unless someone else has an idea.
Also, standard 16x9 in that size is also just to big in the height area. Oh well. At least I had a dream about it .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1022 of 1071 Old 08-10-2014, 03:54 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkeDuke View Post
You know, it was fun while it lasted, but I don't think it's going to work. I looked really hard and could not find a 2:35 screen in the size I needed. The only screen I found in the size I wanted was a 1:78 screen that was 64in. But even that is too big. I think height wise at 35.6in high. That's just not going to work. The smallest 2:35 screen I found was 80in and that really is not going work. I need something that is not that tall. 2:35 seems to fit the bill but not in my size. I am sure if I wanted a custom one it could be done but at more money. So I am resolved to letting this go, unless someone else has an idea.
Also, standard 16x9 in that size is also just to big in the height area. Oh well. At least I had a dream about it .
You should enquire on the custom one Mike, It might be not be that much.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #1023 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 08:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
We shall see Frank, we shall see. Still in the planning out, will this really work stage right now. It may end up being more cost prohibitive then I thought. I will let it sink in for a while. I mean, it's not like I am in a rush or anything.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1024 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 09:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
Have you considered masking a standard 16:9 screen? People often use black velvet material to block the areas they don't use.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1025 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 09:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post
Have you considered masking a standard 16:9 screen? People often use black velvet material to block the areas they don't use.
There are "issues" that I really don't want to get into here. Due to the size of what the 16:9 screen would be, it would just be too large for me to get away with it. Plus the masking is more money to put out and I am not about to let this thing spiral out of control. Reading some stuff in the 2:35 section has made me just take this really slow now. It seems that people are not full satisfied with that solution. I need this to be as easy to setup and user friendly as possible. I am not sure a masking system would make things easier for me in the long run. But thanks for the idea.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-11-2014 at 09:49 AM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1026 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 11:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
It's really 2:35 or nothing I am afraid. I need to watch the height of the screen. If I go to Draper, and play around, a 16x9 65" screen would have be 56.65in wide and 31.86in high. A 2:35 screen would be 59.81in wide but only 25.45in high. That 6in height would mean a lot to me. But I may need to add that 6in back in overall material to get the screen at a comfortable height. I just don't know. My current TV has dimensions of
40.6" in wide and 25.5in high. So I would be gaining a significant amount of width for 2:35 movies but probably not much for 16x9 movies regular TV shows. It's all very confusing to me . Most of my movies are 2:35 or 2:40 but I do have some that are 16x9. There are just a lot of factors I have to think about.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1027 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
If you rearrange your equipment (move some of the taller ones to the left side shelving), you might be able to reduce the maximum height of your shelving. That might allow the use of a taller screen or TV.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1028 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 12:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Craig already moved a ton of stuff for me(I am physically unable to work on my on system) and I really don't want to have to do that again. I need to keep my 42" in TV in the room because someone whom I watch a lot of TV and movies with can't handle a screen much bigger than that. So, I would have to drop the screen in front of my racks. If I do that, There is another person I have to take into consideration who would look at how big a 16x9 screen would be and would not be happy with that. The whole thing relies on me being able to drop a screen in front of my TV, and also low enough so I don't get neck strain. I know I am asking a lot but it's the only way it can get done. 65"-70" 2:35 is my limit.

The whole idea was to keep the smaller screen for the person who really doesn't like a huge screen but still allow me the chance to watch on a big screen when I have the chance. If Craig makes it over to my place, we still may think about how it can be done. I still am hoping that I can do it but I also understand it will take work. There are forces working against me that I would rather not get into.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1029 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
I understand. When more than one person is involved, there always are compromises that have to be made.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1030 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 06:28 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkeDuke View Post
We shall see Frank, we shall see. Still in the planning out, will this really work stage right now. It may end up being more cost prohibitive then I thought. I will let it sink in for a while. I mean, it's not like I am in a rush or anything.
Take your time Mike, no rush at all mate. Like me I now have to wait awhile. Wife's oven have broken down and have to replace them. Unfortunately that takes priority 😔
Franin is offline  
post #1031 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 07:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post
Take your time Mike, no rush at all mate. Like me I now have to wait awhile. Wife's oven have broken down and have to replace them. Unfortunately that takes priority 😔
Yea, I would say food is a priority. I keep on going back and forth. My only thing is I am wondering if a 2:35 screen is worth it. Yea, it will be wider by a good margin, but it's the height. I think the height will be as big as my TV if I have it in full mode which won't be too bad. Visually, the screen won't look as intense but the width would probably be a nice thing to have. I just need to think on it and see if I convince the right people.,

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1032 of 1071 Old 08-11-2014, 07:10 PM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkeDuke View Post
Yea, I would say food is a priority. I keep on going back and forth. My only thing is I am wondering if a 2:35 screen is worth it. Yea, it will be wider by a good margin, but it's the height. I think the height will be as big as my TV if I have it in full mode which won't be too bad. Visually, the screen won't look as intense but the width would probably be a nice thing to have. I just need to think on it and see if I convince the right people.,
You could also look at getting a larger TV, Mike?
Franin is offline  
post #1033 of 1071 Old 08-12-2014, 04:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
A larger TV like a bigger plasma would require me to change TV stands and possibly get rid of my racks that I have presently. And again, I wanted something that I could use on my own and when I have company who can't look at a bigger screen, I could still use the 42in TV. I know I am probably asking for the impossible. But it doesn't hurt to try .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-12-2014 at 09:34 AM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1034 of 1071 Old 08-13-2014, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Still talking with different people about this. If I should do it. How it would look. The aspect ratio thing really has my head spinning. While movies, for the most part are 2:35, I do have some that are different aspect ratios. Plus I have series also Take for ex Star Trek TNG. Those ratios are all over the place
star trek TNG S1 1:33
star trek TNG S2 1:77
star trek TNG S3 1:85
star trek TNG S4 1:85
star trek TNG S5 1:33
star trek TNG S6 1:33

Then I have Deadwood
Deadwood S1 1:77
Deadwood S2 1:78
Deadwood S3 1:78

Then I know I have some TV series and mini series that I know are 1:33. I mean, how would all that look on a 2:35 screen. I think on a 2:35 screen, those would not look much bigger then my 42in TV now right? Right now I have my TV setup so that I never see any bars for 4:3 content. I have it in what I think is "full" mode. Now for somethings that gets rid of the black bars but for most content it does not. Man oh man. I knew there was a reason I stayed away from video .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1035 of 1071 Old 08-13-2014, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
If you have a 16:9 TV and are not seeing dark sidebars for 4:3 content, then either the top and bottom are being lost (cut off) or the image is being distorted (stretched horizontally).

In general, one would expect images that are narrower than the screen to be "pillar-boxed", with dark (unilluminated) regions on both sides of the projected image. I think that's often referred to as a "constant height" system, and is standard when widescreen (2.35:1) screens are used.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1036 of 1071 Old 08-13-2014, 04:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I don't have any dark bars when I watch regular cable or a show that is 4:3. I am using the least intrusive mode my TV has. I really can't see any distortion in the mode I use. Now there are modes that I don't use where the distortion is easily viewed and I never use those. My TV has
Full-Enlarges the 4:3 image horizontally to the screen’s side edges.
(Recommended for anamorphic picture) That looks good. I am pretty sure this is what I use.

Just-Stretches to justify the 4:3 image to the four corners of the
screen. (Recommended for normal TV broadcast) That looks almost like Full. Just a little difference

H-Fill-Enlarges the 4:3 image horizontally to the screen’s side
edges. The side edges of the image are cut off. Looks like Crap. I never use that.

4:3-(Note that “Image retention” of the side bar may occur from
displaying it for a long time.) I don't use that because it is a plasma and I don't want any grey areas.

Zoom-Enlarges the 4:3 image to the entire screen.
(Recommended for Letter Box) I sometimes use that. That also has adjustments that I never used.
If you want some visual representation go to page 55 here
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/TCP42G25.PDF


Now really, the only one that causes major distortion is H-Fill so I never use that.

So you see, that is what I am used to. I was hoping the projector had something similar to that so I could make 4:3 not have the vertical bars while still have the movie aspect ratios in tact. If that makes sense.

As you see, I am still chasing the mice in my head, which is a dangerous thing to do. But I do appreciate any and all thoughts.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-13-2014 at 04:21 PM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1037 of 1071 Old 08-14-2014, 02:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
Some projectors have similar stretch features but some do not, so you'll have to carefully inspect the manuals of the ones you're considering.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1038 of 1071 Old 08-14-2014, 05:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
The Panasonic has these
16:9-Projects at 16:9. (Enlarged horizontally)

Just-Adjusts horizontally to fit 16:9. When projecting a 4:3 aspect ratio video, distortion in the center of the screen is reduced. (Enlarged horizontally)

Zoom-Enlarges while preserving original ratio.The projected video may be clipped in some cases, but the video can be accurately reproduced.Use the ▲ ▼ buttons to adjust vertically.(Not available with HDMI signal.)


The Panasonic has this that I would probably try:
Just:Adjusts horizontally to fit 16:9. When projecting a 4:3 aspect ratio video, distortion in the center of the screen is reduced.
(Enlarged horizontally). That would be good for TV shows and any videos that are 4:3
The issue is with the Panasonic is that on a few of them it says it won't work with a HDMI signal. Well that doesn't help me. Zoom doesn't look like it would help me because it doesn't work with HDMI signals. Again, I don't know how a 16:9 movie would look like on a 2:35 screen if I can't get it to fit the screen and not look like crap.

The Epson 5030 has these
Auto Automatically sets the aspect ratio according to the input signal.

Normal Displays images using the full projection area and maintains the
aspect ratio of the image.

Zoom Displays images using the full width of the projection area and
maintains the aspect ratio of the image.

Full Displays images using the full width of the projection area, but does
not maintain the aspect ratio.
With the Epson, it actually looks like it's better in that regard. Normal and Zoom both look promising. A bit more than the the Panny.

But this is just my inexperienced eye looking at this. I find it odd that you can't use zoom on the Panny with an HDMI signal. I mean, to me, that is a serious option not allowed. So the key is, can I make 16x9 and 4:3 look good with these projectors and a 2:35 screen. I would like to use as much of the screen as possible when I watch those aspect ratios. See, more complications .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-14-2014 at 05:29 AM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1039 of 1071 Old 08-14-2014, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
People often use video processors in between the video signal source and the projector to provide image resizing and other capabilities that the projector itself doesn't provide. Of course, that would be another device which would need to be upgraded at significant expense if/when you go to 4K.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1040 of 1071 Old 08-14-2014, 07:04 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I think the Lumagen is one right? But that's another expense. I am not sure how far I want to take this for something that may not be used every day. More things to think about.
YAY .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1041 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 04:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Now that I am doing more critical thinking on it, the Panasonic may be OK. I mean I thought Craig said that we could zoom the image if we wanted to but by those specs, it looks like I can't for movies(since that uses HDMI cables). I am really only going to use the projector for movies that I have. I would probably only use it sparingly for CATV. If I get a 70in 2:35 screen(or 65in), without being able to use zoom, it just means that I will have black bars to the left and right of the image right? When I watch a movie, my room is almost pitch black with the lights of so it may not look that bad. The picture would just be a bit smaller. What I don't know is how big the picture would really be. If it is still bigger overall then watching a 16x9 movie on my 42in screen, then that's a win. The fact that 2:35 movies would fill up the entire screen is a bonus. I just don't want to have any bleeding of the picture above or below the screen because that would be very annoying.

What's interesting is I watched Wrath of the Titans last night. I just looked that up and that is a 1:78 film so it filled my entire TV screen. But Clash of the Titans is 2:40 so I would get letter box bars for that. Tron Legacy(I know it switches), Avatar, Contagion, Cop Land, Frailty and I probably have others that are 1:78 as well. I assume that those would have largest areas of black bars on either side of them on a 2:35 screen? But those movies wouldn't look swashed right? Also, again, I would not have bleed over above and below the screen would I? That I would not handle. Would a zoom feature help in this regard?
Thanks to all who are helping .

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-15-2014 at 08:38 AM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1042 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
If the projector is adjusted not to do any stretching of the image (i.e. is set to Normal), you would adjust the projector's zoom lens so the image just fills the screen from top-to-bottom when all of the pixels of the projector's LCD panel are illuminated. After that adjustment, you'd never get bleed-over above or below the screen. However, as you wrote, if the LCD panel is actually 1920x1080 (which is the usual 16:9 aspect ratio with square pixels and no stretching), then wide-screen images would be letterboxed, while narrow (like Academy or 4:3) would be pillarboxed. The image shown on the screen would always be 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high but pixels at the top&bottom or on the sides wouldn't be illuminated. Widescreen Blu-ray movies have an on-disk resolution of 1920 wide x700 pixels high (or thereabouts).

A problem with the 5030's user's guide is that it is not very technical. As a result, its descriptions of how its image aspect ratio adjustments work are somewhat ambiguous. Someone who actually uses one might have to describe how they actually work.

However, my reading of the description on page 58 is that after you've set its imaging as I wrote above, then when you select Zoom, the projector will always fill the width of its LCD panel no matter what aspect ratio the movie is. If you watch a wide-screen movie, it'll be letterboxed with dark pixels at top and bottom. If you watch a 16:9 (e.g. TV) image, it'll fill the screen. If you watch a 4:3 image (Academy), it'll fill the screen but the top and bottom of the image will be lost above and below the screen. They'll be above and below the LCD panel, too, so they won't be illuminated and won't cast any distracting light.

I don't see any mention of a strictly vertical zoom, though, which is what I understand many widescreen enthusiasts employ: stretch the image vertically so it uses all 1080 pixel scanlines, but don't stretch it horizontally. That way you get the maximum amount of light because all of the LCD panel's pixels are in use for your chosen aspect ratio. Then use an anamorphic lens to provide the appropriate horizontal stretch to the image so it has the correct dimensions on the screen. This means that the pixels projected onto the screen aren't square, though.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1043 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Thanks Selden. I have to admit that some of this still is complex for me. I am not going to get another lens though to stretch the picture. I was just trying to find a simple solution for me to add a projector to my room. I guess if I went with a 16x9 screen, a lot of these issues might go away since the projector is 16x9 as well? I don't know. I have to think on it some more. I want an upgrade but I also don't want to introduce new problems at the same time. I probably won't watch any 4:3 content with this screen and projector. It would only be used for my movies that are 2:35 or 16x9. If that's the case then and I use a 2:35 screen then a 2:35 movie would fill the screen but a 16x9 would not. It would have black bars on the side but would it show above and below the screen?

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1044 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
Mike,

I believe you're correct. As I read its manual, with this projector and a wide screen, you'd have the option of either pillarboxing 16:9 images the way you describe or zooming them but having it illuminate the areas of the room above and below the screen. Even widescreen images would send a little light into those areas, although it wouldn't be flickering. Too often "black" pixels aren't quite all the way off.

I think you'd actually have to try something to find out if the compromises are acceptable.

Could you rent a projector and maybe a pull-up screen to see if the increase in image size is worth it? Then you could install a pull-down screen for the final configuration.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1045 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 12:42 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
The try before you buy thing would really be an issue. I have no place to easily put the projector, plus I wouldn't know who to rent one from or a pull up screen. If I do the pillarboxing, would it still project above and below the screen. I have seen what that can look like and that's what I am afraid of. Again, maybe it's just too much work to get it right so it won't totally suck. I want to to do it, and I will still have Craig come over to really get down to it, but if I can't oh well. But I will not be crushed if we really can't do it.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1046 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 12:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
For an initial test, you could put the projector on a table in front of the seating (assuming it can focus that close). They don't have to be hung from the ceiling. People just do that so they're out of the way.

FWIW, there are lots of projector rental services, although there's still the hassle of paperwork and packing. I've never used one, though, so I can't suggest one from personal experience.

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1047 of 1071 Old 08-15-2014, 04:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
I think I will just wait until I can get more experienced people over here to give me their thoughts. It will be easier then trying to do some sort of test to see if it will work. I do think it can be done. I just need to figure out the right combo that's all. I mean, I can't be the only person on the forum who is looking to setup a projector the way I want to.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MIkeDuke; 08-15-2014 at 09:43 PM.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1048 of 1071 Old 08-17-2014, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 6,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 400
That sounds like a very reasonable thing to do!

Selden
Selden Ball is online now  
post #1049 of 1071 Old 08-18-2014, 04:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MIkeDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: eastern PA
Posts: 6,276
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post
That sounds like a very reasonable thing to do!
It's pretty funny how "reasonable" and home theater almost never go together . But it seems the smartest thing to do.

It ain't easy being green.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MIkeDuke is offline  
post #1050 of 1071 Old 08-19-2014, 06:43 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 312
Hi Mike,

I know this whole aspect ratio thing can be confusing. Nonetheless, here are a couple of articles that can help to explain it:
http://www.projectorcentral.com/buil...pect_ratio.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

To try to put this into perspective, my screen, (which you have seen), is a 2.35:1 screen, 120" diagonal. The seating is 11.5' from the screen. When we watched King Kong and FotR, that was 2.35:1 content shown on a 2.35:1 screen. The entire screen was filled with the image. The "widescreen" image was very wide and immersive. We then watched Avatar, and the screen was filled top to bottom, but there were black bars "pillarboxing" the image. This was 16:9 content on a 2.35:1 screen. It was still very immesive, but not the same as it would have been if it had been shown on a true 16:9 screen. A true 16:9 screen would have displayed this content in a much *bigger* format, not as wide, but taller and with an overall "bigger" presentation. 16:9 content on a 16:9 screen is the ideal way to display 16:9 content... but 2.35:1 on a 16:9 screen will have letterbox black bars above and below the image, as you now have with your current TV.

Bottom line, content is always best when displayed in it's original aspect ration and on a screen that IS that aspect ratio. There is no single aspect ratio screen that will be optimal for all different aspect ratio content. Therefore, if you're displaying multiple aspect ratio content, it makes the most sense to choose a screen that is the native aspect ratio of your "most viewed" content. For you, that would seem to be a 2.35:1 screen.

If you decide that you really want to go with a projector and screen, my recommendation would be to go with the largest 2.35:1 screen you can accommodate, which would probably be a 70" - 72" diagonal 2.35:1 screen. This would give you the biggest image for the content you view the most. A 72", 2.35:1 screen at a viewing distance of 7' or 8' would be hella immersive, and the PQ of a "widescreen" image that size, using one of these high brightness/high CR projectors, would be absolutely stunning!!!! Optimize the content you watch the most! Then, you can decide if you want to use the projector/screen for your other, less-viewed content, (16:9 4:3, etc.), or if it's more appropriate to view that content on your existing 16:9 TV.

The other significant issue for your situation is the dropped "height" of the screen. If you want to do this, we would need to find a screen supplier who can do a custom screen with the ability to add some extra "drop." This would allow the screen to be lowered to the proper height for your viewing position. This will add to the cost of the screen, but it can certainly be done.

One last comment... Please don't be concerned with the image bleeding off the top and bottom of a 2.35:1 screen. What "bleeds" off the top and bottom of the screen with a 2.35:1 screen is the letterbox black bars. It is not a problem at all to have these black bars bleed off the screen because they're *BLACK!!!* In a darkened room, you won't see them at all... because they're BLACK! With a projector with a CR of 500,000K:1, the black bars are so black, they're not at all visible. They're simply not a problem.

Bottom line, this is a doable solution. It just depends on how much $$$ and FAF, (Family Acceptance Factor), you want to expend. Only you can decide those factors.

Craig

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

craig john is offline  
Reply What's Your System Configuration

Tags
Velodyne Sms 1 In Room Bass Correction Kit With Included Microphone , Oppo Bdp 83 Blu Ray Player , Monster Signature Series Home Theater Reference Htps 7000 Mkii Powersource With Dual Balanced Pure P , Playstation 3 160gb System , Panasonic Viera Tc P42g25 42 Inch 1080p Plasma Hdtv , Onkyo Integra Dtr80 3
Gear in this thread - P42g25 by PriceGrabber.com

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