AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Help me decide whether or not to join you freaks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Help me decide whether or not to join you freaks

post #1 of 23
6/24/08 at 5:13pm
Thread Starter 
I meant that in a nice way of course.

I am joining this forum a little too late. I already have a home theater completely done except for the screen.


My projector is a mitsu hc5000, and it is mounted 16 feet back. The viewing area is between 14-18 feet (I will just move the couch). I have total light control, and have painted the whole room with a very dark flat brown paint.

My screen can be as big as 140" 16:9 or 128" 2.35:1.

All of my favorite movies are cinemascope, but I haven't purchased any yet (I just borrow my brothers whenever I need to). I really want to do 2.35, or at least do the screen in 2.35 and live with zooming or something until I can afford to go anamorphic. I have thought about doing the inexpensive lens (hometheaterbrothers), and trying to find an inexpensive scaler, but I don't know if I will end up with a great picture or not.

So, my question is this I guess - should I do a 2.35 screen and live with my setup as is (vertical black bars), or should I do a 16:9 screen and sell it when I eventually do the 2.35 thing. I will also watch ballgames, hddvr, etc. in this room.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 23
6/24/08 at 6:30pm
DO IT!! You will not regret it. I have total light control in my room and when having vertical black bars on the sides they are almost non existant once the lights go out. I love my 2.35 setup! no, i FREAKIN LOVE IT! Best thing I did in that room. 2.35 movies should be larger than 1.85, not the other way around. Trust me you wont regret it. You'll never forget the first time you pop in the ultra wide dvd! Its almost orgasmic really. If theater screens were women, 2.35 would be that really hot waitress at your favorite restaurant that you really wanna bring home when the wifes out of town, but have never been allowed to do that. But guess what, now you can! She is available! And she wants to please you! She wants to come home with you! Bring her home dude! Bring her home! You wont regret it and if your really lucky when the wife gets home she'll take one look at your new lover and fall just as madly in love as you have! Life will be beutiful! Am I still talkin about screens? Well, you did say we were freaks lol!
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 23
6/25/08 at 5:34am
Quote:


My screen can be as big as 140" 16:9 or 128" 2.35:1.

BTW, We freaks don't use diagonal measurements when we talk about our 2.40:1 screens. It is very confusing. Using the width or height and AR make for a more understandable discussion.

At least I assume thats what you are doing. 2.40:1 screens should be wider than 1.77:1 screens. If you can't do that within the limitations of your room, for example because you have a narrow room with tall ceilings, then you may not want to use CIH.

Vern
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 23
6/25/08 at 9:32am
You should be able to rig up a temporary screen (white sheet or some cheap material from Home Depot) and using the zoom method to see what it would look like in your room. I think once you do, you'll realize it's the way to go.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 23
6/25/08 at 11:13am
Go with a 2.35 screen, and install DIY motorized side masking panels so you can mask off for 16:9 and 4:3 movies. Stay with the zoom method for now. You will probably decide that the 2.35 picture is awesome and you can do without the huge cost of an anamorphic lens and motorized sled setup.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 23
6/25/08 at 2:11pm
The thing is when you use zoom instead of an anamorphic lens you drastically distort the picture. You can buy a scaler if you projector will not do 2.35.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 23
6/25/08 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3chip View Post

The thing is when you use zoom instead of an anamorphic lens you drastically distort the picture. You can buy a scaler if you projector will not do 2.35.

If you have not stretched the picture vertically first and you just zoom the black bars off the screen you do not distort the picture.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 23
6/25/08 at 9:05pm
Buy that scope screen today and be able to use it tomorrow. If you go 16:9, you will have to sell it at some point, then be up for more cash for the scope screen anyway. Better to make the right purchasing decison first time

Mark
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 23
6/25/08 at 9:52pm
IMO your seating distance is a little too far back to really take advantage of a CIH setup. Definitely try projecting a scope movie on a temp screen (sheet, etc) and experiment with seating distance. Also project 16:9 material at the same height as the proposed 2.35:1 screen.

The good news is your projector has an advanced function that lets you set your screen shape to 2.35:1. It will then scale 16:9 material to fit on a scope screen without having to use zoom/lens shift. A forum member reported good results here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14031907
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 23
6/26/08 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5mark View Post

IMO your seating distance is a little too far back to really take advantage of a CIH setup.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14031907

How do you figure he is too far back?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 23
6/26/08 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall View Post

How do you figure he is too far back?

Well his largest considered 2.35 screen is 118" wide (assuming 128" is diag) and his closest mentioned seating is 14' (168") This puts his 2.35 image at about 1.42 screen widths. That might be acceptable, but a 1080p projector is capable of much more immersion (Which I think is one of the key reasons for going CIH). The big problem is that his resulting 16/9 image would be 50" high. This works out to about 1.9 SW. I think most would agree that this is on the small side, especially for a 1080p projector. If all he was watching was movies it would be one thing, but he specifically mentions sports and hdtv. From his seating distance he might be happier getting a 16:9 screen and being around 1.4 SW for everything. Again, just my opinion. OP: have you tried any experimenting yet?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 23
6/26/08 at 4:39pm
5mark,

While many of us sit much closer and have larger screens, mine is 120" wide and my rows are 9.5 and 12.5', there are equal or more numbers here that have much further seating with the same size screen or even smaller screens and they swear by it for themselves.

I think 14' would still be a fairly impressive viewing. Certainly Bigger is always better! LOL
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 23
6/26/08 at 4:58pm
Seating distance is EXTREMELY user preference. Look at a comercial movie theater, some people like the back some like the front, others want dead center. I think the only thing people agree on is nobody likes the sides.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 23
6/26/08 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCall View Post

While many of us sit much closer and have larger screens, mine is 120" wide and my rows are 9.5 and 12.5', there are equal or more numbers here that have much further seating with the same size screen or even smaller screens and they swear by it for themselves.

I think 14' would still be a fairly impressive viewing. Certainly Bigger is always better! LOL

Of course personal preference plays a huge part (nice viewing ratios BTW!) But the main reason people started using anamorphic lenses with 720p projectors in the first place was to sit closer to the screen without SDE. (Yes, I know there are other reasons as well) A huge advantage of CIH is it allows you to sit closer to 2.35:1 movies without 16:9 material getting too big. I could never watch most 16:9 material at around 1 SW, but scope movies at that distance are incredible (as you obviously know) IMO of course.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 23
6/29/08 at 7:28pm
Once you see a movie on a 2.35 screen, I guarantee you will not want a 16:9. Just do it. You will not regret it.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 23
7/2/08 at 9:48am
when you zoom to just get the black bars off the screen, the projector is still losing about 33% of the pixels and detail to produce those black bars, when you use an anamorphic lens it turns those black bars into image, thus you get a better picture because your projector is using all of its pixels to produce the image.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 23
7/2/08 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3chip View Post

when you zoom to just get the black bars off the screen, the projector is still losing about 33% of the pixels and detail to produce those black bars, when you use an anamorphic lens it turns those black bars into image, thus you get a better picture because your projector is using all of its pixels to produce the image.

This is a bit misleading sine using the anamorphic lens dos not by itself turn black bars into image. you need to vertically stretch your image with some sort of scaling either in projector or a separate scaler etc. THEN the anamorphic lens either stretches or compresses the new tall image using all the pixels.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 23
7/3/08 at 2:36pm
Guys...
I'm kind of piggybacking off of the OP's question but here goes..
I want to take my home theater to the next level and I think CIH is the way to go. I've read the FAQ guide and Panamorph's buyers guide but I want to make sure I've got this right.
Here is my current equipment:
JVC RS1
110" Da-lite Pearlescent 16:9 screen
13' throw; 12' seating distance (I have to use some horiz and vert shift as my PJ is ceiling mounted almost flush and not centered horiz)
Panny BD30 Blu-ray player (Pioneer 05FD on order)
Onkyo HD805 HD DVD player
D* HR20
Pio Elite VSX-92TXH AVR

I have no outboard scaler/processor, will I need one?
What 2.35:1 screens should I be looking at that would comparable to the gain I get with the Pearlescent screen?
Recommendation on anamorphic lens?
What would be the best way to transition to 16:9 programming such as D* HD stuff and 16:9 movies? Keep the lens on?

Thanks for any help you can give me.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 23
7/4/08 at 12:33am
You will need a scaler, I don't know if you can get a Pearlescent in 2:35, but I would think you could. Get the best lens you can afford, if it's only a cheapie then that's what it is. I wouldn't ever leave the lens in place, but a bunch do, they just use their scaler to change the ratio. If you're happy with that then coming up with a solution otherwise would be silly. But, either way, when you mount the lens I would make sure it was on a slide of some sort(motorized or manual) so you have the option to move it if you wish to. I know that you have to have a certain "throw distance" to make an anamorphic lens work, I'm not sure on the exact distance that's needed though, I think it's 2X screen width, but once again I'm unsure. I bet someone on here knows though
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 23
7/8/08 at 4:28pm
Quote:


If theater screens were women, 2.35 would be that really hot waitress at your favorite restaurant that you really wanna bring home when the wifes out of town

wouldn't you rather want to bring home the narrower woman?
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 23
7/10/08 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Osadciw View Post

wouldn't you rather want to bring home the narrower woman?

She may be wide, but shes graphic, action packed, and some times violent! When its over you'll be dying for the sequel!
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 23
7/10/08 at 11:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Osadciw View Post

wouldn't you rather want to bring home the narrower woman?

Sir Mix-A-Lot would cringe at this statement.....so would I
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 23
7/11/08 at 12:51pm
We all should.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Help me decide whether or not to join you freaks