downside to vertically masking 16:9 to get 2.35:1 ? - Page 3

Just as a comment on this thread and from my own internal struggles regarding going CIH or CIW, I think that if you have the room width-wise, CIH is the way to go, especially if you have a dedicated HT. However, in non-dedicated HTs generally compromises have to be made especially if you share the room with others. In my case, my HT is in a multi-use room with vaulted ceilings and limited width. My seating is not raised and the wife doesn't like the idea of a pj hanging down close to people's heads if they happen to be standing near it. With a 16:9 screen the pj's mounting height can be significantly higher without using keystoning. We have also watched smaller letterboxed movies on a 4:3 RPTV for many years, so any improvement in size is good. So even though a 2:35:1 image size may not be as "impressive" as a 16:9 image when moving from one to the other, once the movie starts, I do become absorbed by the experience and that is the point of all this.

Very good information in this thread. I have been masking my 16:9 for 2:35 as that is what I started out with years ago. Just masking for 2.35 and up films makes a huge difference, and should be done for a greater image impact,if that is all one can do, or will do. I did it for around $30 bucks or so, and it gets my butt up off the couch to apply when its time.

I cannot go any wider with my screen (hallway and wall) so I'm at the maximum width now. My son and I play a lot of games on the PS3 and would miss the larger 16:9 screen (116" diagonal) if I went with a 2:35:1 screen.

However I understand when I put my masking boards on and the screen gets smaller, how the effect is on one's mind. Which then makes me think about changing the setup once again.

Always something to improve on here at AVS.

RBP, I completely agree with you. I would definitely rather maximize the area for both 2.35 and 16:9 content.

Also, I don't really understand the "impact" argument. For those who say that they do it the other way so that 2.35 content appears more "impactful" than the 16:9 content, I don't believe it does. If you just sit down to watch a movie and your 16:9 screen is masked to 2.35, then it looks fine. If you sit down to watch a 16:9 movie and it's not masked, then that looks fine too. The only time I would think the masking would make it more "impactful" would be if you sat there and switched back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, between 16:9 and 2.35 content. Otherwise, I would think you would just get used to the size of both formats.

Basically, I think the only time the masking would make the 2.35 look more impactful would be the actual moment when you enabled or disabled the masking and "expanded" the screen size, which is fine, I know several people on these forums have said that they purposely start the movie in 16:9 and then remove the side masking for the visual impact, but personally I'd rather have the larger 16:9 screen (especially for Xbox 360 / PS3 games).

Having looked into this alot as I upgrade my 16/9 screen for a higher gain screen to accomodate my next projector with lower lumens output.... I see that the whole CIH thing is about two possible (at least) scenarious:
1) getting the 2.4 AR so as to impress people who come into the theater before the lights go out. The screen is wider and looks more commercial cinema like. Also there is no masking to worry about so the 2.4AR films are nicely presented without fuss/muss.
2) and/or, for a room that is height limited, then, you might as well go 2.4AR since the height is the limiting constraint.

In my room, with huge side speakers, and raised second row seating, and 10 foot ceilings, it seems like width is more the constraint, so why not get the largest 16/9 screen I can get, and then the 2.4 is what is is, with masking to optimize the viewing experience, and the 16/9 is as big as it can be. In other words, if I got the CIH solution for my room, the 2.4 picture would not change size whether it was shown on the widest 2.4AR or 1.78AR screen, but my 16/9 images would definitely shrink height if shown on the 2.4AR screen.

That being said, the 2.4AR screen is the most impressive in creating the impression of a true theatre... you (or I at least) just can't get around that perception advantage.

It really all just comes down to whether you believe (like most in the CIH forum) that scope movies should be wider/bigger, or not. The history of cinema shows that movies have gotten bigger by getting wider, not that they've gotten smaller/shorter.

I don't think that's the question at all. All movies in any format should be wider/better/bigger/faster/etc... the question is whether, in the pursuit of the most impressive scope screen, are you giving up potential 16:9 surface area, and depending on room size, the answer is yes.

If you have a more squarish opening for the screen, maybe because you have a taller ceiling and raised seating as well, then opting for a 16:9 screen with a width the same as the ideal scope screen, gives you a way larger 16:9 image while getting you the same as the ideal width scope screen. One downside is the cost of masking you might want at scope AR, and the other downside is that if you love the scope look, the 16:9 screen might look too old school. But leaving emotion aside, the 16:9 screen has it's benefits.

But we're humans and leaving emotion out of it is hard, so that's why I will probably go scope AR on the screen, and live with a smaller 16:9 picture than I currently have. Plus the projectors I like are dim, so concentrating light on a smaller screen raises foot lamberts.

IMO it is.


Not if you base your seating distance off screen height or size. There's no reason you should be unable to get a satisfying sized 16:9 screen in a CIH setup, period.


But then your 16:9 image is too big relative to the scope screen.


Well yeah, 16:9 screen with a 16:9 projector is way easier setup than a CIH setup. But then you have to live with scope movies being smaller than they should be relative to other ARs.

When Cinemascope was created, it wasn't to make a shorter/smaller image, it was intended to be a larger, more impressive image.


Just move your seating forward so you're sitting at the same distance relative to the new screen height. Your 16:9 will still be just as big and impressive as what you've got now, and scope will be just that much more impressive.

That's really the issue, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but those who keep contending that there's some room configuration in which you you can't get a satisfying image size with a scope screen/CIH setup just don't understand how to setup an HT system and/or are hung up on having the "largest" screen. It's not the gross size of the screen that's important, it's the relative size of the screen, the viewing ratio that's the important part.

I will put up as wide a screen as I can, to get the widest scope image I can. However, being that I have a tall ceiling, the A/R of the screen might be 16:9 so that I can optimize the 16:9 image.

You're certainly not suggesting anyone use a scope screen for CIH 2.4 and 16:9 when they could have a much larger 16:9, and mask the 16:9 screen for 2.4 scope movies. I think it would be ridiculous to do so, just so that when the lights are on, you have this wider screen...

In my case, I have gone for the widest width to achieve an acceptable height considering clearances (e.g. the 2nd row) and use side curtains to adjust the screen aspect ratio. I do not have adjustable vertical masking. This has worked well for me.

IMO, using adjustable vertical masking to mask a 16x9 screen to get 2.35:1 make the image perceivably smaller - this is not the case when 2.35:1 is masked to get 16x9.

it's simple math guys... you start with the widest screen you can put in your room, in my case between L and R speakers, in front of the C. Then divide that by 2.4 for the height. Or divide by 1.78 for the height, IFF your room/seating position can take the height.
In either case, the 2.4 scope pic is the SAME (with the only difference when the lights are on -masking). The real diff is the 16:9 image which will be bigger if I divide screen width by 1.78.

No I can't move my seating closer, cause my room is big 20x30 and my seating is precisely at the right spot for good imaging from the Wilson speakers. The seating is fixed, the screen size is the variable.

You're not suggesting that, in the dark, that a masked 16:9 to scope screen of size X is perceived as smaller than a true scope screen of same size X?

If the screen size is X, then what ever the method that is used to achieve it will surely not change the perceivable size. It will be always X.

What I meant was, if a screen is optimised for 16x9 and if vertical masking is used to achieve 2:35:1 aspect, most people would see the image getting smaller when it is changed from 16x9 to 2,35:1. (e.g. flat panel black bar syndrome). However, if the screen is optimised for 2.35:1 (CIH) and use side masking to achieve 16x9, the perceivable impact of the size reduction is not severe as the previous case.

syncguy, I see your point and agree. However, if the widest possible screen for the room, which is also 16:9, and was pre setup with the 2.4 masking before the audience comes in, then that perception would not take place. But I had not thought of the sequence as you suggest, which would sort of defeat the impact of the scope screen. thanks for explaining.

It's not about the audience, it's about you, and you'd know that the picture was smaller than the 16:9 version.