worth going CIH

For me one of the benefits going scope was getting a lot bigger screen for scope movies and lost only couple of inches for maximum sized HDTV picture my viewing space could accommodate.

In this situation, i wouldn`t go for scope. Only 7" gained screen size for scope movies vs 21" loss of HDTV screen size -> It wouldn`t be upgrade screen size wise. There are still lots of movies out there with ratio of 1.78:1 and 1.85:1.

Of course there are lots more other benefits in CIH with lens vs CIW without lens, but cause i`m more of a practical home theatre user than a purist, this screen size issue would be a deal breaker for me.

Well for a movie buff a CIH setup is always a classier option, because it keeps movies with different ratios in right perspective.

IMHO it is bit anticlimactic to switch from casual film like Sex And The City to a real epic master piece like Lord Of The Rings and watch it from a smaller screen!!!

I`m a huge sports fan so for me it is also important to keep the HDTV screen size as impressive as possible, but i could imagine that for a movie fanatic this wouldn`t be so important.

Now when i remember back my 16:9 screen days, i was always a little bit disappointed when i started to watch a movie and it turned out to be scope; "damn...a smaller screen and those black bars...". So i always unconsciously preferred 16:9 movies and all movie lovers know it shouldn`t be like that.

Nowadays it always delight to see those black bars in the beginning of the movies; a one button vertical stretch while sliding the lens in place and...oh joy.

These are of course my personal thoughts about this matter. You and your customer have to figure out the best alternative for him together.

RF1031 -- It sounds like you really have 2 problems. First, with a pull-down (retractable screen), it needs to be tab-tensioned to prevent "waves" developing in the screen material after a couple of years of use. This will present an additional width restriction. Secondly, the need for a CIH setup really depends on your client's choice of movies he prefers to watch. If his choice is less than 40% (or so) of Cinemascope (2.35:1) movies, then I, personally, prefer a 16:9 screen (a lot of the classic movies are in the smaller formats, 16:9 or 4:3).

Also, for widths less than 120" (viewable screen area), it makes more sense to go with a 16:9 format screen, IMHO. You can't fit a 120" wide screen into a 124" box, since the tab-tensioned versions add, at least, 8" to the overall screen width (2.5" for the border, on each side, + the space needed for the tab-tensioning). This is the practical aspect of screen selection. Another factor is than non-tensioned, retractable, screens require large rollers (3" diameter or larger), to reduce the probability of developing "waves".

Another suggestion (which depends on your budget), is that you would be much wiser buying a retractable screen from Stewart Filmscreen, rather than having one built (they do custom screens too). Stewart screens are not cheap, but they are the best quality, and well worth it for your client's long term enjoyment. Stewart can also advise you as to the best choice of screen to fit into the 124" wide box, for your application (you can also buy Stewart screens through the AVS store). Screens are not something that should be scrimped on, in terms of budget.

I agree with Donhou that a 2.35:1 CIH setup is the classier way to go. However, unless you can convince your client to replace his existing retractable screen box, you are caught "between a rock and a hard place" (so to speak). But, IMHO, unless you can go to, at least, a 130" wide screen, the 2.35:1 CIH choice is just not worth the effort (for a classic movie buff). You didn't tell us what his viewing distance is, and that plays a very important part in the CIH choice, as well. If his first row of seating is more than about 1.2 to 1.4 times the screen width, then a CIH setup is definitely not worth the effort. Again, this is just my opinion.