or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 16:9 or 2.35: 1 - One more newbie asking for help :)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# 16:9 or 2.35: 1 - One more newbie asking for help :)

Hello Experts,

I know this topic has been beaten to death and I have read thousands of posts to this topic, none the less I wanted get your expert opinion for two things.

1.) If my understanding is right.
2.) What would be the recommended format

I am in the process of building my dedicated home theater (my 20 year dream) and I am stuck at the whole 16:9 or the 2.35 :1 screen.

Room dimensions: 14’ X 23’

Screen wall Dimension (after dry walled etc) – W 14’ X H 8’

Content: watch a lot of blu ray movies , NFL , Netflix, 3d in future

I am so tempted to go the 235 route with a projector that will do the zoom (JVC, Sony, Panasonic), but I did a math that tells me to go the 16:9 route. Please see my math below and tell me if I am missing anything.

If i choose 235 format I can go 136 inches. But now my 16:9 content is only 109 inches.

If i choose the 16:9 format, i can do a screen of 134 inches .But my 235 will still be a very acceptable 127 inches. (black bars at the top – acceptable)

This math of mine is telling me that I should go the 16:9. Am I missing anything.

The reason I chose these screen sizes are based on the fact that I am leaving space on all sides for speakers etc.

I would greatly appreciate your time and your input before I make any decisions.

### AVS Top Picks

Your math is definitely off or you aren't giving us some critical piece of information...

By the math:

A 14' wide wall is 168" wide.

With zero edges...
You could have a 16:9 screen that was 168" wide by 90.75" tall with a diagonal of 191". If you projected 2.35:1 content on that screen you would have an image 168" wide by 71.5" tall with a diagonal of 182.625".
OR
You could have a 2.35:1 screen that was 168" wide by 71.5" tall with a diagonal of 182.625". If you projected 16:9 content onto that screen you would be limited by the 71.5" height and would have an image that was 132.25" wide by 71.5" tall with a diagonal of 150.375".

Now that's the theoretical maximums... I understand you are leaving room for speakers but I don't get why your 2.35:1 is 136" and your 16:9" is 134". (Perhaps it is a center speaker that needs clearance and limits the 16:9 height? You didn't tell us.)

So... continuing with the math...

If your 2.35:1 format can goto 136 inches, and it's unclear if that is diagonal or width, it doesn't work out to 109" for 16:9 with the information you provided.

If you meant 136" inches wide then you get this:
136" wide 2.35:1 screen is 136" wide by 57.875" high with a 147.75" diagonal. If you put 16:9 content on that and limit it by the height you get an image 107.125" wide by 57.875" high and 121.75" diagonal.

If you meant 136" diagonal then you get this:
125.125" wide by 53.25" high with 136" diagonal 2.35:1 screen. Putting 16:9 content on it and limiting by height you get an image 98.5" wide by 53.25" high with a 112" diagonal.

I could do the same thing for your 16:9 134" calculations... but I'll just give you this link instead: http://www.draperinc.com/ProjectionScreens/CustomSizeCalculator.asp

If you have masking or are not bothered by the black bars above and/or below then you will get a bigger image for both if you use a 16:9 screen. If you use a 2.35:1 screen your screen height will make you zoom/shrink the 16:9 content to fit.

P.S. In your other thread from three days ago this was your 15 year dream... today in this thread it's your 20 year dream. It's less critical to HT performance but I think your math is off there as well.
Edited by walterappleby - 10/30/13 at 2:32pm
Thanks for taking the time to put this together for me.

Apologize that I was not clear on the dimensions. The 134 and 136 are both the diagonal measurement.

Also you were spot on regarding the lower 16:9 height because of my center.

Thanks for the link. I think I should be able to figure this out with the link.

Most of all gives me a good idea of how to treat these in perspective.

PS: it is a 20 year dream for sure. My math was off in the other post. No wonder I have to get help with the math
Someone stated it perfectly.

What do you want to look BIGGER?

Obviously I'm aware there are 1.85:1 movies, so when I say movies I'm talking scope movies.

It's really that simple. Although the aspect ratio of the screen wall might matter a bit from a perception perspective, but I love my scope screen and am thankful for this forum.
What do you want to look BIGGER?

Nailed it. Thanks!
The benefits of a 2.35:1 screen are primarily aesthetic. When CinemaScope was invented in the 1950s, its purpose was to provide a larger, wider picture than other movies. The current 16:9 HD standard reverses that dynamic, so that even TV sitcoms and game shows are displayed larger than epic movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, etc. A Constant Image Height screen puts things back in the proper intended perspective, so that those epic movies are the largest content you watch.

With that said, some people get hung up on the idea that they're "wasting space" by not installing the largest possible 16:9 screen, or that they should make any individual piece of content as large as possible, even if that means The Big Bang Theory dwarfs Lawrence of Arabia. Only you can decide what your priorities are. There honestly isn't a wrong decision here. Those of us who choose Constant Image Height wish to prioritize the presentation of scope movies above all else, regardless of whether we could put a larger 16:9 screen on the wall or not.
Thanks for your input. Very nice perspective of how to look at this aspect ration confusion.
One thing to think about when trying to determine the right aspect ratio for your home theater is versatility.

Panamorph lens' recommends a 2.40:1 aspect ratio because most movies since about 1970, have been shot in the 2.39/2.40 aspect ratio.

Another reason is that a 2.35 movie fits better on a 2.40 screen, giving you an image with a small unused area ( less then 1/2") of the screen on the right and left, but with the full height. The human peripheral vision is more able to ignore the side bars.

However, if you use a 2.35 screen, the 2.39/2.4 movies will be letterboxed, with bars on the top, bottom and sides.

One other thing to think about is whether or not to add an anamorphic lens to the system, if you go with a Ultrawide system, or to use the zooming technique of the Panasonic, JVC, etc.

Actually most projectors have the ability to zoom out the image, the issue is having it on a memory location versus having to do it manually every time.

If you use the projector zoom method, keep in mind that you are losing 25% of the overall image brightness, and enlarging an image that is not 1080p

WIth an anamorphic lens, the image is restored to a full 1080p resolution, it retains it's brightness and you still get the Ultrawide image.

If you have any questions, message me or something.
Quote:

Panamorph lens' recommends a 2.40:1 aspect ratio because most movies since about 1970, have been shot in the 2.39/2.40 aspect ratio.

I find aspect ratios to be a crap shoot at best. 2.37 seems to be a nice compromise. I spoke to Dave at length concerning AR and he said 2.35 was actually the recommended setup due to how the lens converted the image.
I have an article about the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/

Ignore the anti-CIH troll in the comments section. That guy's a total head-case.
I suggest you seriously consider AT screen, putting your speakers behind the screen will allow you to maximize the screen size, and you will be able to plan and implement a better acoustic solution as well.

That my lesson learned to you.
Edited by mtbdudex - 11/5/13 at 2:17am
So which is it Josh? Bigger is better or smaller is better?!?!?! .

That seemed like the constant image height version of "Who's on First?"! Holy cow...you can't make that stuff up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IA_Hi_Fi_Guy

So which is it Josh? Bigger is better or smaller is better?!?!?! .

That seemed like the constant image height version of "Who's on First?"! Holy cow...you can't make that stuff up!

That guy's done the same thing in other threads there. Always the same BS. Always the same three or four examples trotted out to "prove" that 1.85:1 is the superior aspect ratio for all movies. He never gives up.
Have you explored a constant area set up, with four way masking?
jollyguy23--

My room is about the same size as yours (14' x 22' x 8'). I put in a false wall and a 2.35:1 AT screen that is 54" CIH. My primary viewing position is about 11.5' feet away and I love it. I much rather have black bars on the sides than on the top and bottom when viewing 16x9 content.

I am very happy that I went 2.35:1 for my screen.

Oh, I use a JVC RS-56 projector.
Thanks Tvolle. Thanks for your information. I have taken the 2.35 route as well. I have placed an order for my screen with 52" CIH. Eargerly looking forward to it .
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyguy23

Thanks Tvolle. Thanks for your information. I have taken the 2.35 route as well. I have placed an order for my screen with 52" CIH. Eargerly looking forward to it .

so how is the screen treating you?
you happy with the 2:35?
Have not set up the screen yet. There is a delay in my project. Hoping to get it all set before the Super Bowl. Will let you know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
• 16:9 or 2.35: 1 - One more newbie asking for help :)

### AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › 16:9 or 2.35: 1 - One more newbie asking for help :)