AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat › Is 96" Worth It?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 96" Worth It?

post #1 of 17
2/8/07 at 7:40am
Thread Starter 
Well, my time is soon arriving to join the projector club; finally, we are moving into a home that has a dedicated room I can use for our hobby. The room is only 12' 1" x 14' 11", but has the advantage of almost total light control. I know I have enough room to have one row of seating, and a 92" 16x9 screen, but I have always wanted to do CIH.

Most of you have opted for the widest possible image (green with envy), but I can only feasibly manage a 96" screen in this room (if I'm wrong, let me know).

My question is this: If you could only do a 96" 2.35: 1 screen, would you still opt for CIH? Will the cinematic impact be that much different over a 16:9 screen?

BTW, I will be doing HD media at 1080p (both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray via a PS3), and upconvertng 1080i DVD through a Pioneer Elite DV-79.

Thanks,

Jim
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 17
2/8/07 at 11:24am
My room and screen size will be similar to yours and personally I'd rather take my 98"x41" 2.35 screen over a 98"x55" screen. I've maxed out my width at 98" and built the screen and I like the look of the 2.35 screen better. When I mask it I think the 73"x41" screen still looks great for my room size and then when you look at that 33% wider, it looks amazing! Just my 2 cents.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 17
2/8/07 at 11:44am
Absolute screen width shouldn't be a factor when considering CIH.

You should look at the distance you are going to sit from that screen. If you are going to sit much less than 1.5X screen widths, then CIH is the right way to go, otherwise 16:9 movies are going to look totally blown out of proportion.

If on the other hand, you are going to sit more than 1.5X, I think CIH doesn't have much merit.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 17
2/8/07 at 12:26pm
You also need to pay attention to throw ratio. If you are doing a CIH setup with an anamorphic lens then you need to keep your throw ratio as high as possible. Figure out what pj you will be using and what your throw ratio will be. That is why I am planning to be at about the same screen size you are talking. What I did was try and figure out what size 16x9 screen I thought I would want. Well, I started off thinking 92"-100" but with limited room space my throw ratio would likely not be high enough. I am planning to keep my TR from 1.8-2.0 so I may very will be doing a 95"wx40"h screen which has a 16 x9 picture at about 80" diagonal (70wx40h).

Heck up until November/December I thought I was just going to buy a 60" or so LCOS style RPTV. This will be huge compared to that and much larger then my current 16x9 42" RPTV.

On a side note, I am not setting this up until I move in April and if I can swing I might jump up to a 107"wx45"h screen (that would be a 92" diagonal 16x9 image).
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 17
2/8/07 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones_Rush View Post

Absolute screen width shouldn't be a factor when considering CIH.

You should look at the distance you are going to sit from that screen. If you are going to sit much less than 1.5X screen widths, then CIH is the right way to go, otherwise 16:9 movies are going to look totally blown out of proportion.

If on the other hand, you are going to sit more than 1.5X, I think CIH doesn't have much merit.

I completely agree with this reasoning. I would also add that 1080p lets you comfortably sit much closer than 1.5x SW (in fact most think it's necessary to take full advantage of the resolution/detail). That makes 1080p and CIH an ideal combination.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 17
2/8/07 at 1:36pm
If only 1080p projectors would have been cheaper... I don't have the patience to wait for prices to fall... :-)
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 17
2/9/07 at 5:55am
Thread Starter 
Thank you all for your input. Projector-wise, I am thinking Sony Pearl, but the RS1 may be a very viable alternative (time will tell). Am I correct in assuming that a Prismasonic UH380 would be the best lens to use if I am placing the projector 14' from the screen? Also, seating distance will be between 6' to 8' (yet to be determined at this point). Sounds like CIH is good to go.

Jim
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 17
2/9/07 at 7:27pm
Isn't the right question to DreamTheater 1974 whether his restriction to a 96" screen is height or width limited? If the restriction is on width, then isn't he better off going 16:9 at his maximum width, accepting or possibly dynamically masking the horizontal bars when he watches 2.35:1 content at the maximum width his room allows?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 17
2/10/07 at 5:07am
Quote:


Isn't the right question to DreamTheater 1974 whether his restriction to a 96" screen is height or width limited? If the restriction is on width, then isn't he better off going 16:9 at his maximum width, accepting or possibly dynamically masking the horizontal bars when he watches 2.35:1 content at the maximum width his room allows?

Again, as I said before, I think the important question can not be limited to absolute sizes, rather, it must take into account how many screen widths he is going to sit from the maximum screen width he can pull off.

To make things clrearer, even if he said that the maximum screen width he can allow is 50", but he intend to sit less than 1.3 screen widths away from this screen, I would recommend him to go with CIH (from the same reason I mentioned before: sitting less than 1.3 screen widths from a 16:9 image, is too big to be comfortable for most people. 16:9 movies and 2.35:1 movies are shot differently, and the 16:9 movies are intended to be viewed using a narrower screen).
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 17
2/11/07 at 7:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones_Rush View Post

Again, as I said before, I think the important question can not be limited to absolute sizes, rather, it must take into account how many screen widths he is going to sit from the maximum screen width he can pull off.

To make things clrearer, even if he said that the maximum screen width he can allow is 50", but he intend to sit less than 1.3 screen widths away from this screen, I would recommend him to go with CIH (from the same reason I mentioned before: sitting less than 1.3 screen widths from a 16:9 image, is too big to be comfortable for most people. 16:9 movies and 2.35:1 movies are shot differently, and the 16:9 movies are intended to be viewed using a narrower screen).

From all that I read, I see that CIH uses screen height instead of width for calculating viewing distance. So, with 720p, and lower you would use 3H as a base point, and with 1080p you would use 2.5H or 2H as the base point. So, if my screen height is 40", then my seating distances would be approximately 120" (10 feet) for 720P and below, and approximately 80" to 100" (between 6 and a half feet, and 8 feet) for 1080p. These calculations, of course, are projector and screen dependent, and those choices would alter my basic math considerably.

Jim
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 17
2/12/07 at 8:09am
Thread Starter 
Quick Question:

What current 1080p projectors do the scaling necessary for CIH?

The only one I know of for sure is the Optoma H81, which, do to my room restrictions, is not going to work.

Anything else?

Jim
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 17
2/12/07 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamtheatre1974 View Post

Quick Question:

What current 1080p projectors do the scaling necessary for CIH?

The only one I know of for sure is the Optoma H81, which, do to my room restrictions, is not going to work.

Anything else?

Jim

If you've got the cash for a 1080p you must have room in the budget to get a scaler too

Sorry didn't answer your question... but you really could get any projector you wanted and buy a stand alone scaler to do the trick!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 17
2/13/07 at 5:56am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roar View Post

If you've got the cash for a 1080p you must have room in the budget to get a scaler too

Sorry didn't answer your question... but you really could get any projector you wanted and buy a stand alone scaler to do the trick!

Even if you have the cash I'm not thrilled spending $2,000+ for something that should be included in the projector. It appears, though, that if you want a 1080p projector for CIH your either stuck with that option, or zoom in (which I'm leaning towards as a serious option).

Jim
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 17
2/13/07 at 9:23am
My quant little HT room is 12 X 16. I need access behind the couch as that's where my AV rack and disk shelves are. So, I'm sitting 12' away from the screen wall. I went with a 96 X 41 screen. My first screen was 80 X 45 and that screen would give me eye strain. The 2.35 screen does not give me eye strain at all. That extra 4 of height with the first screen was killing me.

But to answer your question if it's worth it, yes, absolutely. The down side is limited but space because at 12', the screen size is just right where any closer, it's too big. Due to the room's width limitations, there's only enough room for three people to view the movie comfortably. My surround back speakers are too close as well, but it's doable.

I gave up on finding a projector to V stretch and bought a VP. Some will do this for you, or even some AVR's, but none do it well or with a simple discrete command with the remote. The VP just makes things a bit simpler. And after all, what's another three grand on top of everything else? At least that was where I was after everything was all said and done.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 17
2/13/07 at 11:55am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdrew View Post

My quant little HT room is 12 X 16. I need access behind the couch as that's where my AV rack and disk shelves are. So, I'm sitting 12' away from the screen wall. I went with a 96 X 41 screen. My first screen was 80 X 45 and that screen would give me eye strain. The 2.35 screen does not give me eye strain at all. That extra 4 of height with the first screen was killing me.

But to answer your question if it's worth it, yes, absolutely. The down side is limited but space because at 12', the screen size is just right where any closer, it's too big. Due to the room's width limitations, there's only enough room for three people to view the movie comfortably. My surround back speakers are too close as well, but it's doable.

I gave up on finding a projector to V stretch and bought a VP. Some will do this for you, or even some AVR's, but none do it well or with a simple discrete command with the remote. The VP just makes things a bit simpler. And after all, what's another three grand on top of everything else? At least that was where I was after everything was all said and done.

I am interested in the new Lumagen Radiance, and that may be an option, but what about the Key Digital product being discussed in another thread? While there may be limitations it very well may be the ticket.

In regards to having only three seats I may have found a way around that. You can buy Berkline's with two recliners on either end, and a loveseat in the middle. That's only a width of a little over 100" (at least according to the tool on their website).
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 17
2/13/07 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamtheatre1974 View Post

I am interested in the new Lumagen Radiance, and that may be an option, but what about the Key Digital product being discussed in another thread? While there may be limitations it very well may be the ticket.

In regards to having only three seats I may have found a way around that. You can buy Berkline's with two recliners on either end, and a loveseat in the middle. That's only a width of a little over 100" (at least according to the tool on their website).


No idea about that gadget. I just said the hell with it and bought the VP50. I have around 800 SD/DVD's, and wanted the best upconversion I could get for them. The VP50 was being touted as that machine. Plus, V stretch, 1080P.....sold!

In my room I currnenly use two couches perpendicular to each ohter. Four buts can find room, but the three on the main couch have got to be pretty good freinds. I'm looking at Natutzi leather reclining couches now. The little lady likes to 'snuggle', so chairs are not an option for me.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 17
2/13/07 at 6:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdrew View Post

The little lady likes to 'snuggle', so chairs are not an option for me.

Same "problem" here.

Thanks,

Jim
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 › Is 96" Worth It?