or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by FLBoy

Before making the installation permanent, I suggest you experiment with different locations for your subs to determine what you like best. Your proposed mid-wall position may result in a weak bass output. Try a floor position for comparison. If your crossover is 80 Hz or lower, the sub bass should not be directional.
The general rule of thumb is to place the screen such that 1/3 of the viewing area is below your seated eye level, and 2/3 is above. Seated eye level is normally about 38". That would place the bottom of your screen's VA at 18". If your screen has a 3" frame, the physical bottom of the screen would be at 15". That should leave enough room for a center channel speaker under the screen. Some folks prefer to locate center screen at seated eye level. You would probably...
Well, there you have it, Jason. We're all in agreement here. ...... ....... NOT!
Jason: I did a quick calculation to see whether you are worried about a non-problem. I think you are. My calculation shows that if the top of your screen's viewing area is at least 3" below the bottom of the bulkhead, it will be impossible for you to mount the PJ high enough to get any shadowing from the bulkhead! (You can verify this for yourself by making a side-view scale drawing of your ceiling, PJ, bulkhead, and screen wall.) As to the Epson, if you are still...
Jason, yes, of course you could mount either a manual pull-down or an electric screen on the front side of the bulkhead. This will shorten the throw (the distance from the front of the PJ lens to the screen) even further. If you make the screen width 112", your PJ will need to be capable of a throw ratio of less than 1.39, which will further restrict your choice of PJ. Also, roll-down screens have their own set of drawbacks. (See my screen comparison chart linked...
Jason: I will tell you right out of the box that I am NOT a fan of AT screens. They do affect the audio negatively somewhat (attenuation and frequency response). In addition, they affect the video negatively as well (low gain, visible texture at close viewing distance, and possible visible moire). I don't even buy the "sound seems to come more from behind the screen" idea, because with my non-AT screen the sound seems to me to come from behind the screen just fine,...
Yes, 'scope refers to CinemaScope aspect ratio and includes both 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. I can't speak for Cabo, but I would just hang it on the back wall. Depending on the line of sight, you may (or may not) need to use a short extension pole on the ceiling mount to avoid having the bulkhead shadow the top of the screen. (The top of the projector lens needs to have an unobstructed view of the top of the screen.) You will also probably prefer a projector that has some...
Yep, it stands for Florida. Sorry, I didn't "get" the joke, because I'm not that familiar with Dawn of the Dead. I knew it was about zombies, but did not know one of the characters was Fly Boy. Oh, well. Duh!
Thank you, Cabo. I was the fifth zombie from the right in the mall scene. They used me because I required no makeup. Jason: I agree with Cabo's two posts above. Personally, I would not try to hang an electric from the front of the bulkhead. I would use a fixed frame screen under the bulkhead. It will look better than an electric both with the lights on and while watching a movie (no waves). The only reason I would ever use a roll-up screen in a dedicated HT is if...
You do not necessarily need to have an anamorphic lens to fill a 2.35:1 screen with a 2:35:1 image from a native 16:9 projector. There are two methods: a) the anamorphic lens method, and b) the zoom method. The A-lens arguably will provide a bit more brightness, but is expensive. The zoom method loses some brightness, but requires no additional lens. When you project a 'scope image on a 16:9 screen, the projector projects the 'scope image with black bars above and...
New Posts  All Forums: