Projector / Lense advice for my 2:35 setup

First off, welcome to the forum You have come to the right place.

For this type of screen / seating layout what type of projectors should I be looking at? I have less than $4K budget for the projector. As I understand if you use the zoom method there will be light spilling on the top and bottom, but I'm not sure how noticeable that would be. I'm hoping that there is a PJ that doesn't spill light but I don't think it exists.[/quote]

It does, but not for $4K [try about 12x that].


Those that zoom claim that the light spill does not both them. Back in 2005, I used to zoom and it never bothered me either. What I don't like about zooming is throwing 25% of the vertical projector rez off the screen.
Does this $4K have to cover both the projector and the A-Lens?


3D on the big screen is actually quite good and fun. If you don't want it, don't use it. Most projectors will support 3D.


Projection systems will not look at bright as a direct view because of the size of the image, but you can get an awesome looking image from even 'entry level' projectors these days.

I have a 52" led in the livrm and a 42" in the bedroom.
Even though they are brighter,you can't beat a big screen especially for movies.
I have 118" cinemascope screen and I really like it,better than any TV for movie watching
for me any way.
The big screen draws you in alot more.I wouldn't be without it now.

And a fair statement too. I just got off the phone to my local JVC rep who was all exited about the new projectors with lens memory for an auto Scope. It was not until we talked actual pixels that he got it. Because with a projector like X30 (X70, X90), the blacks are so black that you probably won't see the light spill. However the fact remains that there is now just 810 (approx) vertical pixels on screen for Scope. Using an A-Lens is the only way to get 1080 on screen for Scope.


I have made several attempts to capture the difference with a camera and the eye sees things a camera can not. The key issue I wanted to capture was pixels density because we are talking over 2M pixels with an A-Lens Vs 1.5M with zooming. The camera does not pick that up and of course looking at these images on a small PC monitor in no way reflects the actual image on screen.

I wonder if he really got it, because most people seem to confuse actual resolution with increased number of pixels. No matter what solution you make a scope bluray is only about 810 pixels in height. You dont gain any resolution with more pixels, you do diminish the screendoor effect with more pixels, but the screendoor is effected by projection technology and not just by zoom/lens issue.

The other issue is of course brightness and that is of course also dependent on projection technology.

The number of pixels is not intresting on its own, as long as BD is the source, but the entire solution (room+projector+lens+screen+seating distance).

The source maybe 810, but on screen there is an image made up of 1920 x 1080. The only time source rez should be of concern is someone looking to map 1:1 as I do with test patterns for calibration.



Yes and because when the source is from DVD (480/576) it looks quite bad on a 1080 projector. Whilst I am quite happy to sit at 2x the image height for BD, I can't bring myself to watch DVD at the same distance.

Its just upscaling, but since the source resolution is so high, the resolution loss upscaling creates is harder to detect.


While DVD has bad resolution, its not the biggest problem. DVD has huge problem with chroma and compression. You can always make a test and project a BD with a 480P signal. While its certainly looks worse then 1080P it looks alot better then DVD.

TyKelowna, all excellent advice here on considerations for you so far. Although I agree wholeheartedly with what they have said, any time you call up the main or pop-up menu, the image will be all over your wall with the zoom method. A lot of folks are okay with that, but how that affects you will depend on how much you value your experience staying within your screen. When the room darkens and the screen comes to life within the borders of your screen, the room and experience transforms a bit. When I need that menu, and the borders are "broken," it really bugs me...but that's just me. I'd rather have a macro programmed to change the v-stretch scaling for a moment to let me see the menu.

So, what I'm getting at is that an A-lens has "experience" benefits and convenience benefits. I like to leave the A-lens in place and scale for everything. Going with an A-lens also provides the benefit of not necessarily being chained to a JVC for it's great black levels for the overspill area (although there is much to like about the JVCs for 2D). It might open consideration of other projectors such as the Epson 5010 or 6010...off the top of my head, considering your budget.

What is your throw ratio/range? If it is 1.8 or greater, you might consider a combo of a JVC or Epson projector with the Panamorph FVX200 VC lens. It is very good for a prism lens and their most affordable.

Regarding brightness comparisions to direct view screens, I have the theory that with a large projection screen in a reasonably light-controlled room there is a perception phenomenon that the screen is brighter than it "really" is because it occupies so much more of your field of vision; there's a pretty good amount of light coming at you from a big area that says (to me) "bright." Just a theory.

One last thought, you might want to consider an ambient light rejecting screen such as SI Black Diamond or similar due to the proximity of your boundaries.

What say you, guys?

That's the dilemma people with a low budget (I'll arbitrarily define your budget as low) face; what's the most efficient way to use my limited funds:

A) Should I get a $6500 projector with no lens? Will the benefit from an expensive projector outweigh the disadvantages of larger pixels and lower brightness?

B) Should I get a $1500 projector and $5000 lens? Will the benefit from an expensive lens outweigh the disadvantages of a cheaper projector?

C) Should I get a $5500 projector and $1000 lens? Split the difference - is this the sweet spot?

I'm curious what option people would chose and why.

If it were me, I'd opt for secret option D) $3000 projector, no lens, and $3000 Nikon D800 (or $3500 Canon 5DMKIII if you're into that system) DSLR

The JVC may push the pj/fvx200 combo over the budget a bit...based on MSRP, but you will probably come under or very near based on real-world pricing.

The FVX200 is not heard of that much because few rooms have as much depth/length at yours. I've used it in several of the dedicated theaters I've designed. Another nice thing about it is that in the long throw scenario, it keeps the zoom lens in a wider focal length so there is less light loss. The only limitation would be using a curved screen.

There is another option that could be worth thinking about. Since you getting a dropdown screen, nothing prevents you from moving the screen closer to the seats and as a result you can get the same viewing area on a smaller screen but with increased brightness a side effect.

Good idea and has acoustic advantages. I typically don't care for in-ceiling LCR speakers, but this could be a scenario where they would work. If the screen was a bit away from the wall with the top of the image somewhere near the height of the door/windows or a little higher, in-ceiling LCRs (like the Klipsch KL-7502-THX) might be a good choice. I've never been in a situation where I could use them at LCRs, but have used them as back surrounds and also the KS-7502-THX surrounds in-ceiling. I don't think that the width of your room is nominal for in ceiling surround speakers, though.

Well, it seems like a room with a lot of potential, despite it being a little unconventional due to the door and windows.

Are you saying that the L/R speakers are considerably lower than the center? If so, you will experience "rollercoaster" screen pans rather than smooth screen pans; generally something to be avoided, if possible.

I agree with Cam Man. Given the doors, I would be getting 3 smaller LCRs and mount them all above the door height aimed down. Having had my LCRs at the same height since 1999(?), I now find a raised centre very distracting.

Almost the same problem I have. The center cant be mounted in an acceptable way in the current setup, so I dropped it. LR has to fill its spot. And to be honest I havnt missed it that much.

Which is fine so long as you never sit off axis. Centre is the MOST important out of the whole array IMO and no way could I live without mine.

If the screen is drop down anyway, can you flip the room facing the other way with the pool door in the rear? It isn't clear from your pic just how much of the current rear wall there is.

Could you not make a 90 degree turn of your hometheater with a black curtain to seal the room of?

The idea to turn the room might work if he had the width, but I don't think he does given what we can see in the photo above. The recess just does not look deep enough to do that.

The benefit is that he could use a framed screen, and if he just gets the right size/distance ratio it could be a better solution.

I agree with what your saying. It is just that from the photo of the room, there appears not to be allot of depth (width), so he is either facing having a really small screen, or he sits 2x the image height on a medium sized screen. Finding the right projector could be an issue as well as it is a short throw. If he wants to add an A-Lens, it further complicates the matter. Although having said that, the A-lens will provide him 33% wider images at what ever height he can get to work.

I did this something similar in 2008 when my AT screen was in storage. The screen was small and most would have not bothered, but I wanted my CIH system up and running and made a few compromises that worked out OK for the time.

Remember you have about 2x zoom with that unit so you should be able to get a pretty decent sized image even if you did shoot across the room.