Originally Posted by DefinerOfReality
Wasn't this supposed to be a top of the line HT?
Hmm, what do you mean by "top of the line?" I've spent quite a bit of money on this project already. This is not a salesroom, it is my house, and it is being used as a family movie room, not a showroom.
I don't recall ever having claimed it was going to be a top of the line HT. I've never advertised it as such anywhere. This has always been a design based on two channel music first, surround music second, and HT last. I consider a lot of things that people do frivolous and excessive (as many people would consider the things I do to be frivolous and excessive as well, no doubt). My wife certainly doesn't feel I need to add a second screen or anamorphic lens...
Part of the fun of this whole process has been my own integral involvement. I didn't hire someone to come in and do the whole thing (like I did with my pool...). I actually GC'ed it myself and I learned about everything that was being done by being a part of the process. It probably would have been a lot easier and cheaper to have just hired someone to come in and do the whole thing and throw a Crestron on top, but that isn't my style. I don't enjoy things if I'm not a part of the process. I know how to use every piece of equipment in my room. I know how to program them all and I know how most of them fundamentally work. At the same time, my lack of expertise has been the cause of many ad hoc solutions to problems that have arisen during this process. What can I say, I don't work in this business, I'm just a hobbyist. The important thing is, when I find a problem, if it can be solved, I go about solving it!
Originally Posted by DefinerOfReality
What about the use of a projector with automated zoom & focus settings?
I never expected to buy a 32K+ MSRP projector in the first place, let alone adding a second screen with anamorphic ratios, plus an anamorphic lens. The add-ons were afterthoughts, or I would have thought about it more before hand. One of my criteria is trying to get the best quality without spending insane amounts of money. I don't think I can do much better than I have done in the price range I bought into without sacrificing picture quality for other features.
Considering that most people don't use a second screen, I think the exotic nature of automated zoom and focus would likely take the projector price out of the range I would be willing to spend (the Sim2 C3X 1080 was already out of the price range I was considering, which was originally ~$20K). Not to mention, I didn't plan on a 2.35:1 additional screen until after my projector purchase anyway. I don't mind pushing a button on the remote to re-focus the screen when I decide to switch between screens. I could also automate it myself with a programmable remote if I really want to... It would only be a matter of figuring out how many button pushes is required to switch between the two positionings and then programming that into the remote control macros. It isn't a large step from there to add that macro into a larger macro that turns on the correct screen, sets the focus correctly, and puts the Cineslide up or down all in one step.
This room started out with HT itself as an afterthought. The original criteria was two channel optimization. Considering that the room, as planned, was finished awhile ago, these are all upgrades and additions at this point. If two channel optimization weren't an important consideration for me, I could have done what I am doing in the HT portion of the room with a lot more ease. I started with a pre-existing space, with metal beams in the ceiling severely limiting what I could do within the room, and not much knowledge about any of this stuff, so I think I'm doing pretty darn good all things considered. I didn't even know I could do a 2.35:1 screen until recently.
I didn't think I would be able to do an additional screen at all until I considered using an acoustically transparent screen that would be closer to the seating position. I had resigned myself to the limitations of my house's foundational supports. So considering the situation, I'm happy I can actually improve the 2.35:1 viewing ratio from a 3.6 to a 2.5 with little aggravation. Actually, I'm not happy, I'm thrilled.
I'm also thrilled by the picture quality of my new projector. Fanphuckintastic!!!