I want to share some ideas about how you can take a 2:1 aspect ratio screen and get every major aspect ratio with only a few sets of masking panels.

In order to do this, start with a 2:1 screen and determine the width of a 16:9 feature that fills the screen vertically. Subtract the width of the 16:9 image from the width of the 2:1 screen, then divide by 2. This will be the width of Set B. Divide the width value of Set B by 2 to get the width of Set A. Multiply the width value of Set B by 1.5 to get the width of Set C. The length of these panels will simply be the height of the screen, which is half the width of the 2:1 screen. This allows us to position these same sets of panels both vertically and horizontally in different combinations in order to get every significant screen ratio.

Let’s consider a 2:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 72” tall and 3 sets of masking panels that I will simply refer to as Set A, B, and C.

Masking Panel Set A: 2 pieces, each 4” x 72”

Masking Panel Set B: 2 pieces, each 8” by 72”

Masking panel Set C: 2 pieces, each 12” by 72”

1.85:1 Ratio Masking - If you take set A and place both panels vertically on the left and right sides of the screen, you will get a 1.88:1 ratio, very close to 1.85. The screen would be 136” wide by 72” tall, whereas a true 1.85 ratio screen would be 133.2” wide by 72” tall. If you overscan to go to 136” wide you will lose a total of 1.51 inches of image vertically, so about 0.75” on each the top and bottom of the image if it is centered. When filling a 16:9 screen vertically with a 1.85 image you will lose 5.9% of the image on the sides, so this solution is significantly better as it will be 97.9% framed properly.

16:9 Ratio Masking - If you take set B and place the panels vertically on the left and right sides of the screen, you will get a 16:9 ratio screen that is 128” wide by 72” tall.

2.40:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set C and place both panels next to each other horizontally at the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.40:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 60” tall.

4:3 Ratio Masking - If you take all 3 sets (A, B, and C) and position them vertically on the left and right sides of the screen you will get a 4:3 screen ratio screen that is 96” wide by 72” tall.

2:1 Ratio Masking - No panels required.

2.20:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set B and place both panels next to each other horizontally at the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.25:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 64” tall, whereas a true 2.20:1 ratio screen would be 144” wide by 65.45” tall. This means you will again lose about 0.75” on each the top and bottom of the image if it is centered. You will still get nearly 98% of the image framed properly.

2.55:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set A and Set C and stack them horizontally across the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.57:1 screen ratio that is 144” wide by 56” tall, whereas a true 2.55:1 screen would be 144” wide by 56.47” tall. This means you will lose about 0.25” on the top and bottom of the image when filling the screen horizontally. You will still get 99% of the image framed properly.

2.76:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set B and Set C and stack them horizontally across the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.77:1 screen ratio that is 144” wide by 52” tall, whereas a true 2.76 screen would be 144” wide by 52.17” tall, which is a difference of less than 0.25”. You will still get more than 99.5% of the image framed properly.

]]>In order to do this, start with a 2:1 screen and determine the width of a 16:9 feature that fills the screen vertically. Subtract the width of the 16:9 image from the width of the 2:1 screen, then divide by 2. This will be the width of Set B. Divide the width value of Set B by 2 to get the width of Set A. Multiply the width value of Set B by 1.5 to get the width of Set C. The length of these panels will simply be the height of the screen, which is half the width of the 2:1 screen. This allows us to position these same sets of panels both vertically and horizontally in different combinations in order to get every significant screen ratio.

Let’s consider a 2:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 72” tall and 3 sets of masking panels that I will simply refer to as Set A, B, and C.

Masking Panel Set A: 2 pieces, each 4” x 72”

Masking Panel Set B: 2 pieces, each 8” by 72”

Masking panel Set C: 2 pieces, each 12” by 72”

1.85:1 Ratio Masking - If you take set A and place both panels vertically on the left and right sides of the screen, you will get a 1.88:1 ratio, very close to 1.85. The screen would be 136” wide by 72” tall, whereas a true 1.85 ratio screen would be 133.2” wide by 72” tall. If you overscan to go to 136” wide you will lose a total of 1.51 inches of image vertically, so about 0.75” on each the top and bottom of the image if it is centered. When filling a 16:9 screen vertically with a 1.85 image you will lose 5.9% of the image on the sides, so this solution is significantly better as it will be 97.9% framed properly.

16:9 Ratio Masking - If you take set B and place the panels vertically on the left and right sides of the screen, you will get a 16:9 ratio screen that is 128” wide by 72” tall.

2.40:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set C and place both panels next to each other horizontally at the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.40:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 60” tall.

4:3 Ratio Masking - If you take all 3 sets (A, B, and C) and position them vertically on the left and right sides of the screen you will get a 4:3 screen ratio screen that is 96” wide by 72” tall.

2:1 Ratio Masking - No panels required.

2.20:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set B and place both panels next to each other horizontally at the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.25:1 ratio screen that is 144” wide by 64” tall, whereas a true 2.20:1 ratio screen would be 144” wide by 65.45” tall. This means you will again lose about 0.75” on each the top and bottom of the image if it is centered. You will still get nearly 98% of the image framed properly.

2.55:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set A and Set C and stack them horizontally across the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.57:1 screen ratio that is 144” wide by 56” tall, whereas a true 2.55:1 screen would be 144” wide by 56.47” tall. This means you will lose about 0.25” on the top and bottom of the image when filling the screen horizontally. You will still get 99% of the image framed properly.

2.76:1 Ratio Masking - If you take Set B and Set C and stack them horizontally across the bottom of the screen, you will get a 2.77:1 screen ratio that is 144” wide by 52” tall, whereas a true 2.76 screen would be 144” wide by 52.17” tall, which is a difference of less than 0.25”. You will still get more than 99.5% of the image framed properly.

Is there a A-lens horizontal expansion compatibility list anywhere.

I have the Epson 6020ub. I'm curious because I read some posts

where people have bought A-lenses and they don't work due to the recessed optics

on the projector.

I know Epson made a Panamorph with mount but its discontinued now.

I read posts about different lenses like (diy HTB, Phoenix, Isco 1-3, Prismasonic, CAVX 1-4, Schneider's)

are there any others out there that I am missing? Can anyone chime in as to what is compatible and what is not

with Epson brand and their outer case design.

]]>I have the Epson 6020ub. I'm curious because I read some posts

where people have bought A-lenses and they don't work due to the recessed optics

on the projector.

I know Epson made a Panamorph with mount but its discontinued now.

I read posts about different lenses like (diy HTB, Phoenix, Isco 1-3, Prismasonic, CAVX 1-4, Schneider's)

are there any others out there that I am missing? Can anyone chime in as to what is compatible and what is not

with Epson brand and their outer case design.

My room is roughly 5.4m long and have a JVC x7000 and Id love to get 140" or 150" cinemascope 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 etc. But I dont know if the projector will have enough length in the room to project that big and also will it be bright enough for 4k/UHD HDR content?

Are the AT screens hard to make?

Here is my house being built at the moment with a plan below. Looking to go eventually 2 rows but will have just the one to start with. Ill be running 4 atmos ceiling speakers and 5.2 on the floor.

Also I will put in a soffit all the way around the ceiling.

Any help would be great thanks lads!

]]>Are the AT screens hard to make?

Here is my house being built at the moment with a plan below. Looking to go eventually 2 rows but will have just the one to start with. Ill be running 4 atmos ceiling speakers and 5.2 on the floor.

Also I will put in a soffit all the way around the ceiling.

Any help would be great thanks lads!

Since the Shield (Kodi/SPMC) cannot do vertical strech for 2.35:1 CIH setups, I wonder if there is another

media player, capable of playbacking a 4K file with the vertical stretch for CIH setups?

Please let me know if such a device exists!

]]>media player, capable of playbacking a 4K file with the vertical stretch for CIH setups?

Please let me know if such a device exists!

Hello All,

I am considering taking the plunge into non-16:9 realm of screens but I am on a budget. I recently purchased a Panamorph FVX200ED. I am currently projecting on a 16:9 135 fixed frame screen and would really like to try out Cinema Scope. The wall I am projecting on is 25ft wide by 95 inches tall. The room is approx. 23 feet deep (278 inches). The catch is my main speakers (McIntosh XR20's) are pretty tall (85 inches) so I am not sure I can afford an AT screen that they will hide behind properly. The other catch is I am not sure the projector I am looking at will fill that screen properly.

So my first question: I have a DVDO edge that I hope to use as a video scaler and the Panamorph FVX200ED. If I were to purchase an Epson 5025ub what is the maximum size that you would recommend for a 2.35 scope screen?

Second question: Does anyone have any experience with the silver ticket curved AT screens: Ie the STC-158-WAB? Would this screen be a good match for this setup.

My thought process is that with this size of screen I could keep the McIntosh XR20's and my height speakers on either side of the screen and put the XCS350 center channel behind the screen. I am currently not running any subwoofers with my setup (7.0 using two pairs of XR19's) but hope to build or have built some FTW-21 or UXL-18's to run behind the screen.

Any help or suggestions would greatly be appreciated!

Thank you in advance.

]]>I am considering taking the plunge into non-16:9 realm of screens but I am on a budget. I recently purchased a Panamorph FVX200ED. I am currently projecting on a 16:9 135 fixed frame screen and would really like to try out Cinema Scope. The wall I am projecting on is 25ft wide by 95 inches tall. The room is approx. 23 feet deep (278 inches). The catch is my main speakers (McIntosh XR20's) are pretty tall (85 inches) so I am not sure I can afford an AT screen that they will hide behind properly. The other catch is I am not sure the projector I am looking at will fill that screen properly.

So my first question: I have a DVDO edge that I hope to use as a video scaler and the Panamorph FVX200ED. If I were to purchase an Epson 5025ub what is the maximum size that you would recommend for a 2.35 scope screen?

Second question: Does anyone have any experience with the silver ticket curved AT screens: Ie the STC-158-WAB? Would this screen be a good match for this setup.

My thought process is that with this size of screen I could keep the McIntosh XR20's and my height speakers on either side of the screen and put the XCS350 center channel behind the screen. I am currently not running any subwoofers with my setup (7.0 using two pairs of XR19's) but hope to build or have built some FTW-21 or UXL-18's to run behind the screen.

Any help or suggestions would greatly be appreciated!

Thank you in advance.