Should I go for a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 66Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 05:00 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmhvball View Post
So, since the OP said he is going as wide as he can... I think 8' wide... do you think an 8' wide 2:35:1 ratio screen is any more immersive than an 8' wide 16:9 screen?
For me

I think a 16:9 screen the same width as my current scope screen would be too much for 99.9% of the 16:9 content I watch, it would be overwhelming.

Even if not it would still leave the issue that 16:9 content would be bigger than scope content, and outside of a handful of movies intended to be that way (IMAX), that's just not right IMO, the vast majority of 16:9 content isn't meant to be larger than scope content.

The general idea with CIH, is find the 16:9 size you're happy with, and then get a screen 33% wider, and you're set for both.

Quote:
I would think 8' wide is 8' wide either way...
But that means Alvin & The Chipmunks is larger than Star Wars TFA.
stanger89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 08:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,569
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
In a perfect world I would agree with your method totally find the proper 16:9 height distance relationship you want and then add the length for the scope format. That runs into snags when your room is narrow and you have two rows of seating as only one row can be optimum. The other place is like my room with 4 seats across when I find the ideal screen size for 16:9 I don’t have enough width unless I put my front mains above or below the screen or go AT going at I would have to move the screen closer the image would be smaller and I wouldn’t need the added width I pick up. I do zoom as much as I can with scope and don’t find I’m short changing any AR. Eyes are both height and width sensitive and scope was never invented to fill both equally.

For every Alvin & Chipmunks reference there is I can find you 2 equally as annoying movie filmed in scope and 2 stellar 16:9 PBS specials or the like. That’s why I chose to have no screen dimensions and zoom everything to the size I feel does it justice.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #33 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 09:15 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
In a perfect world I would agree with your method totally find the proper 16:9 height distance relationship you want and then add the length for the scope format. That runs into snags when your room is narrow and you have two rows of seating as only one row can be optimum.
The OP doesn't have that problem.

Quote:
The other place is like my room with 4 seats across when I find the ideal screen size for 16:9 I don’t have enough width unless I put my front mains above or below the screen or go AT going at I would have to move the screen closer the image would be smaller and I wouldn’t need the added width I pick up. I do zoom as much as I can with scope and don’t find I’m short changing any AR. Eyes are both height and width sensitive and scope was never invented to fill both equally.
But you don't have, nor are you advocating a 16:9 screen. You've thought about it and come to your own conclusion, which is the right thing to do.

Quote:
For every Alvin & Chipmunks reference there is I can find you 2 equally as annoying movie filmed in scope and 2 stellar 16:9 PBS specials or the like. That’s why I chose to have no screen dimensions and zoom everything to the size I feel does it justice.
It's not about being annoying or not, it's about the "scale" of the movie and what it was intended for. Outside of large format theaters (IMAX/mini-IMAX/70mm/etc) scope is the largest projected format available at the cinema (we're talking proper cinemas, not the discount multiplexes). Movies shot on scope are expected to be the largest format available (normal cinemas) while 16:9 content is expected to be smaller. You don't even need two hands (at least not all of two) to count the number of movies that don't fit that convention.

If you don't care about that convention, no problem, if you watch a lot of IMAX content, great. I just want people to consider presentation and think about it beyond just "But, but 16:9 would be bigger, but scope would be the same size."

For me, I don't own anything 16:9 that deserves to be bigger than the mass of scope content I own (at least nothing that wasn't shown in scope in normal theaters), and I'm not going to go through the extra trouble/effort/expense of horizontal masking for the rare rental case that does. PBS may be great, but the quality is not there (overcompressed) to be that large.
stanger89 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 10:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
I'm with Stanger and Josh.

There's also the point of correct presentation - scope should be wider than 16:9 so that those movies are wider, more immersive and more epic than the smaller formats - that's by design and intent. All the names in the industry (Dolby, THX, CEDIA, SMPTE etc) will tell you that. Otherwise (as Josh and Tarentino say), it's just big tv....

IMAX is also meant to be taller than scope, so as Stanger alluded earlier, the OP could go for the largest 16:9 screen he can fit, and semi permanently mask the top and bottom for 2.35, and watch all movie content that way as CIH. Then, if he wants to watch an aspect changing movie like The Dark Knight or Interstellar, or he likes his sports to be full height 16:9 too, he can just remove the top and bottom masking. For that to work he will have to ensure that his seating distance is fine for that. 8ft from an 8ft wide 2.35 screen is almost optimal if you follow THX guidelines too.

Anamorphic lenses - compared to zooming, the good ones (as mentioned by Stanger) will give you an improved image compared to zooming (that's why those who do the comparisons usually buy them), but I don't know if your room will allow an A lens to work there - how deep is the room? You have the seating at 8 feet but I assume that's not at the back wall.

Also, the vertical viewing angle will be greater with a 16:9 screen, and according to SMPTE, discomfort can begin if the vertical viewing angle starts to exceed 15 degrees. IMAX will be OK as those movies are framed and shot with that in mind, along with closer seating distances. So an 8ft wide 16:9 screen from 8ft back would support CIH + IMAX better.

I would also consider possibly going wider for scope/CIH - if you can experiment with different screen sizes and layouts before buying a screen, you'll know for sure what size you would like best.

I like sitting at around 2x the screen height with a CIH set up which makes 16:9 even more immersive, so experimenting by projecting onto the wall you may be able to determine which size suits you best from where you sit. In your case, a 9ft wide 2.35 screen may work even better for you (and you can still go CIH + IMAX if you want).

Closer seating can tend to promote the use of anamorphic lenses or 4k/eshift projectors though.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.

Last edited by Gary Lightfoot; 04-11-2016 at 10:40 AM.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #35 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 12:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
Going along with what has been said. Decide on a screen height that is comfortable and pleasing. If you have the width to make that height work with a scope screen, then it's the way to go. Nothing is shortchanged. Scope features will see a huge boost in image size.

As someone who has used an inexpensive lens and has seen a Panamorph in action on a Sony 55ES, I would not recommend an expensive lens unless you absolutely need the light output. A good lens will smooth out the picture with negligible impact in quality. It will use the full panel and increase light output (it does not create any new picture information though). But comparing the 55ES and Panamorph to my RS46 zoomed I would be very hard pressed to recommend the cost for what you're getting (again unless you really need the lumens). The pixel structure isn't visible or distracting on the zoomed setup. At least to my eyes. Looking forward, UHD has enough pixel density that a lens is not needed. Light output on the latest projectors has climbed to the point where only the largest screens would really need a boost from a lens. And lumen output continues to increase. UHD Blu Ray is not anamorphically encoded, so there's no extra information to be had with a lens. And projectors are excluding anamorphic scaling for certain 4K modes. So while a good lens would certainly offer a tangible benefit on today's material, I can't say it would be worth it in the long run. And the gain over a good zoomed setup isn't worth the cost IMO.

jeahrens is offline  
post #36 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
I've found much the same - hard to tell the difference with 1080 and a lens vs eshift or 4k on the same set up. A friend of mine sold his ISCO II after comparing with his RS49 because he couldn't see a difference. The money effectively made his projector $1000 cheaper.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #37 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 01:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Thanks for the replies.

The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it. The seating location is a little behind the middle point of the room (around 9 ft from the front wall). I've been thinking and it seems I'd prefer a CinemaScope screen over a 16:9 screen for reasons already mentioned in this thread. I basically want CinemaScope movies to be the largest image possible instead of 16:9 images.

My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.

Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.
Kain is offline  
post #38 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 02:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Thanks for the replies.

The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it. The seating location is a little behind the middle point of the room (around 9 ft from the front wall). I've been thinking and it seems I'd prefer a CinemaScope screen over a 16:9 screen for reasons already mentioned in this thread. I basically want CinemaScope movies to be the largest image possible instead of 16:9 images.

My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.

Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.
We sit about 9-10' from our 130" 10' wide screen. We feel it's great. Width is generally easier for us to take in than height, so I think you'll be fine. One easy thing to do is grab some painters tape and mask off the screen dimensions and have a seat. See how you like it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #39 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 02:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
With the screen lower to the floor so that you don't have too high a vertical viewing angle, you may be fine with a 10ft wide screen, but I would try and test first like I mentioned. The height to viewing distance is around 1.9 x the screen height - a dealer near me has a 3m wide 2.35 screen and the eyes to screen distance is 2.5m, which is 1.95 x SH, and I find that perfectly watchable - I completely watched Terminator Genysis on it, as well as many other demo pieces before hand with no issues. The screen is close to the floor but I think that helps make it more comfortable, which is why I suggest that for your set up.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #40 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 03:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Now that I am pretty much set on a CinemaScope screen, are most CinemaScope movies in 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1? I know the difference is not much but I still want to know. If I get a 2.35:1 screen, will 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 movies have very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen? I prefer to have the ratio where all movies will be equal to the screen ratio or "undershoot" the screen ratio slightly. Don't want to have a ratio that will result in some movies "overshooting" the screen ratio.

Edit: I think my thought process is wrong here for how different CinemaScope ratios are displayed on a 2.35:1 screen as it's called CIH for a reason.
Kain is offline  
post #41 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 03:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wnielsenbb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 2,084
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I ran 2.35 till I realized half my movies were 16x9 anyway, and not just Dance Moms There are a lot of really good tv shows that are worthy of projector viewing too, even if you don't think so now.
Today's projectors have good enough black levels that masking isn't really that important. What is really cool is watching the Wal-Mart version of Transformers (the first one) in 2.35 till the big fight in the forest and it kicks into full screen for the i-max scenes to catch the height of the giant robots fighting. That is pretty dang cool.
Warren.
wnielsenbb is offline  
post #42 of 297 Old 04-11-2016, 05:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Looking forward, UHD has enough pixel density that a lens is not needed. Light output on the latest projectors has climbed to the point where only the largest screens would really need a boost from a lens. And lumen output continues to increase. UHD Blu Ray is not anamorphically encoded, so there's no extra information to be had with a lens.
But UHD (at least UHD Blu-ray) all seems to be HDR, and you can use ever scrap of light you can get. Not that necessarily offsets the cost of a $3000+ lens, but it's something to consider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
The room is about 15 ft deep and the screen will be roughly 9-10 inches off the front wall to keep some room for the LCR speakers behind it.
Are these in-wall speakers? If so, you might be able to go with a woven screen (like the new AVS "V6" material) and not have to leave any space between speaker and screen.

Quote:
My ceiling is about 9.5 ft high. For mounting the screen in front of the LCR speakers, could I use two rods that drop down from the ceiling and attach to the two edges of the screen (frame) holding it in place in front of the speakers? I cannot build a baffle wall and want something more elegant than a stand for the screen.
I have a much lower ceiling, but that's what I did.

Quote:
Lastly, with a viewing distance of about 8 ft, would a 10 ft horizontally wide CinemaScope screen be too large? I know I shouldn't really be asking size preference questions and everything thinks differently when it comes to this but I still just want to get an idea. The front wall is about 12 ft wide.
You're really going to need to test it for yourself. The standards and recommendations can give you a starting point, but only you know how big you really like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Now that I am pretty much set on a CinemaScope screen, are most CinemaScope movies in 2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1? I know the difference is not much but I still want to know. If I get a 2.35:1 screen, will 2.39:1 and 2.40:1 movies have very small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen? I prefer to have the ratio where all movies will be equal to the screen ratio or "undershoot" the screen ratio slightly. Don't want to have a ratio that will result in some movies "overshooting" the screen ratio.

Edit: I think my thought process is wrong here for how different CinemaScope ratios are displayed on a 2.35:1 screen as it's called CIH for a reason.
In theory, you'd probably want a 2.76:1 screen since there are a couple movies out there that wide. Though at a practical level, that's sort of like CIH+IMAX, probably not worth it. I'd probably go 2.39/2.40:1 as that's actually what the standard is. However it's really a crapshoot what you actually get on disc, but you can save lens memories for 2.35 and 2.40 that don't overscan anything. Though frankly for the 3/8" you'd end up overscanning, I'd not bother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnielsenbb View Post
I ran 2.35 till I realized half my movies were 16x9 anyway, and not just Dance Moms There are a lot of really good tv shows that are worthy of projector viewing too, even if you don't think so now.
FWIW, it's not about whether there's "good" content, it's about the type of content, but more importantly, it's about how, when properly setup, a CIH setup doesn't "cheat" the narrower ARs.
Avengers is a blast on my CIH setup, and doesn't feel underserved or anything. But at the same time, Nova dwarf Star Wars 7.

Quote:
Today's projectors have good enough black levels that masking isn't really that important. What is really cool is watching the Wal-Mart version of Transformers (the first one) in 2.35 till the big fight in the forest and it kicks into full screen for the i-max scenes to catch the height of the giant robots fighting. That is pretty dang cool.
Warren.
Funny, I watched that at a 70mm IMAX when it was out, and the IMAX scenes were pretty much over before ever noticed they were higher, that's what you get when you sit at IMAX seating distances in an IMAX theater, the extra height is very much in the periphery.
stanger89 is offline  
post #43 of 297 Old 04-12-2016, 08:17 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Another crucial factor to me with CIH that I see rarely discussed is 'eye level to screen'. I prefer having my eyes at about the bottom 1/3 or slightly above on the screen. With a 16x9 screen, this is impossible because you get letterbox bars with scope movies which places the actual movie higher - so you're forced to look up more and not see every movie at the same height with your eye level. Some people might not care, but for me this is important; I like consistency in my viewing in this regard.
DavidHir is offline  
post #44 of 297 Old 04-12-2016, 08:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,569
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2017 Post(s)
Liked: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Another crucial factor to me with CIH that I see rarely discussed is 'eye level to screen'. I prefer having my eyes at about the bottom 1/3 or slightly above on the screen. With a 16x9 screen, this is impossible because you get letterbox bars with scope movies which places the actual movie higher - so you're forced to look up more and not see every movie at the same height with your eye level. Some people might not care, but for me this is important; I like consistency in my viewing in this regard.
I kind of agree. I like my eyes centered on the screen half way across and half way up. That is also lucky as it stays the same for every aspect ratio. If you do like looking up from 1/3 point when you zoom to do your scope you will also have to do a shift so you can make it where you want it height wise. Nothing says a scope image has to be anywhere on a larger screen you could put it to the bottom mask and only have to mask the top.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #45 of 297 Old 04-12-2016, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Nothing says a scope image has to be anywhere on a larger screen you could put it to the bottom mask and only have to mask the top.
True, but it's possible the required amount of lens shifting would negatively affect the image and/or geometry if one wanted to shift the scope image down to the bottom of the 16:9 screen. I suspect it would depend on the set-up (screen size, how much zoom is used, throw, etc.). It may not be an issue, but in some cases with a large screen and throw maybe it could be. It might also still look a little awkward even with masking.
DavidHir is offline  
post #46 of 297 Old 04-12-2016, 02:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 48
I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #47 of 297 Old 04-12-2016, 02:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6,434
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1302 Post(s)
Liked: 1053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post
I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.
I agree - that's how it was meant to be. If I had the room, I'd do something similar and use an array of anamorphic lenses to get the geometry right while still using the full display panel. But that would be a costly way to do it.

At my preferred seating distance of two times the screen height that would put my eyes at a tad under 6.5 feet from the screen, which is probably a little too close for the audio and possibly screen weave visibility. Something to try maybe

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.

Last edited by Gary Lightfoot; 04-12-2016 at 02:38 PM.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #48 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post
I went with a scope aspect ratio to fit the widest blu-ray out there, How the West Was Won. I only need side masking so the wider the movie the larger the image. 16X9 is on the small side but all scope is great. Movies like Ben Hur and The Hateful Eight are amazing and HTWWW is spectacular. At a viewing distance of 8' in a black velvet room, you really notice the size diff between 2.4 and 2.55+. Ben Hur should be larger than Star Wars in my opinion.
You're a true CIH purist. I guess I am a CIH "lite" as I went with a 2:35 screen to give me the largest ~1:85 and 2:35 movie sizes possible yet staying within "scope".
DavidHir is offline  
post #49 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 08:59 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Well reality does enter into the equation. Not much point getting a 2.76:1 screen if you never watch movies that wide.
stanger89 is offline  
post #50 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
But UHD (at least UHD Blu-ray) all seems to be HDR, and you can use ever scrap of light you can get. Not that necessarily offsets the cost of a $3000+ lens, but it's something to consider.



Are these in-wall speakers? If so, you might be able to go with a woven screen (like the new AVS "V6" material) and not have to leave any space between speaker and screen.



I have a much lower ceiling, but that's what I did.



You're really going to need to test it for yourself. The standards and recommendations can give you a starting point, but only you know how big you really like.



In theory, you'd probably want a 2.76:1 screen since there are a couple movies out there that wide. Though at a practical level, that's sort of like CIH+IMAX, probably not worth it. I'd probably go 2.39/2.40:1 as that's actually what the standard is. However it's really a crapshoot what you actually get on disc, but you can save lens memories for 2.35 and 2.40 that don't overscan anything. Though frankly for the 3/8" you'd end up overscanning, I'd not bother.



FWIW, it's not about whether there's "good" content, it's about the type of content, but more importantly, it's about how, when properly setup, a CIH setup doesn't "cheat" the narrower ARs.
Avengers is a blast on my CIH setup, and doesn't feel underserved or anything. But at the same time, Nova dwarf Star Wars 7.



Funny, I watched that at a 70mm IMAX when it was out, and the IMAX scenes were pretty much over before ever noticed they were higher, that's what you get when you sit at IMAX seating distances in an IMAX theater, the extra height is very much in the periphery.
Thanks.

Here are the LCR speakers I'm considering. They are about 8.5 inches deep: http://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crmsc/

You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?

Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.
Kain is offline  
post #51 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 01:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,735
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1808 Post(s)
Liked: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Thanks.

Here are the LCR speakers I'm considering. They are about 8.5 inches deep: http://www.alconsaudio.com/product/crmsc/

You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?

Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.
As others have said the screen size difference between 2.35:1 and 2.4:1 aren't much. And the specified ratio on packaging and sites aren't always accurate. I have a 2.35:1 screen and just overscan a smidge. Don't notice it and most all widescreen films either fill the screen or are so close you have to be right up to the screen to tell. So my advice is just find the screen you like that fits your budget and don't sweat the small differences.

jeahrens is offline  
post #52 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
You stated that you use the same method of "holding the screen" as I stated (i.e. two rods from the ceiling to hold the screen in place). Will it be possible for you to post some pictures of the setup/screen mounting?
I don't have any good pictures handy, but I have this one in the gallery:
https://www.avsforum.com/photopost/sh...03&cat=2083878

Quote:
Lastly, you recommended I should go for a 2.39:1/2.40:1 screen but basically every CinemaScope movie I see on IMDb has a ratio of 2.35:1.
2.35:1 is most often used as a name, not as an accurate measurement. When you get a scope movie, it's a crapshoot what exact ratio it will be and it's a bigger crapshoot if it will be documented accurately.
stanger89 is offline  
post #53 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 02:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Thanks for the replies.
Kain is offline  
post #54 of 297 Old 04-13-2016, 06:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Monahan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Butte, Montana Hometown of the late Evel Knievel
Posts: 2,746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
You're a true CIH purist. I guess I am a CIH "lite" as I went with a 2:35 screen to give me the largest ~1:85 and 2:35 movie sizes possible yet staying within "scope".
I was stuck with a small 8' wide max 2.40 scope screen due to short throw of my Benq 3d projector. The new JVC 500/600 models have great 3d so it would give me enough zoom with my conversion lens to use a 9' wide 2.40 screen. Unfortunately, I'm not looking to replace my projectors until JVC comes out with a native 4k projector.
DavidHir likes this.

My equipment: JVC RS55 for 2D, BenQ W7000 for 3D, Carada 40x117 2.925:1 AR BW Criterion screen, Navatar .8 HD conversion lens, Darbee Darblet, region free Oppo BP93, Toshiba HD-A35 HD-DVD, JVC HD-DH5U D-Theater, Mitsubishi HS-HD 20000 DVHS, Pioneer CLD-97 LD player/AC-3 mod, B&K AC3 Demodulator
Tom Monahan is offline  
post #55 of 297 Old 04-14-2016, 03:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
hatlesschimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,292
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 541
Go cinemascope! Movies are amazing without the black bars!
hatlesschimp is offline  
post #56 of 297 Old 04-14-2016, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,265
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2532 Post(s)
Liked: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Monahan View Post
I was stuck with a small 8' wide max 2.40 scope screen due to short throw of my Benq 3d projector. The new JVC 500/600 models have great 3d so it would give me enough zoom with my conversion lens to use a 9' wide 2.40 screen. Unfortunately, I'm not looking to replace my projectors until JVC comes out with a native 4k projector.
My 2:35 screen is 9 feet wide and I am likely sticking with my JVC RS4810 (zoom method) until they come out with a native 4K projector and the entire HDR thing is worked out with standards.
DavidHir is offline  
post #57 of 297 Old 04-14-2016, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CMRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Diego, Ca.
Posts: 7,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 37
A wonderful compromise

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
My front wall is about 12 ft wide and the viewing distance will be around 8 ft. The maximum horizontal width of a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen is the same in my room. They only difference each aspect ratio will offer me is a difference in height. We are talking about an AT screen, by the way. Is there any reason for me to get a 2.35:1 screen over a 16:9 screen since displaying a 2.35:1 image on a 16:9 screen, in my room, will offer an image size that would be equal to what could be displayed on a 2.35:1 screen? One advantage I can think of is there will be no black bars with a 2.35:1 screen but it will result in a smaller 16:9 image size.

Of the two, I lean in the 2.35:1 direction.


However, a 2.0:1 screen offers a nice compromise. Almost all projectors have at least a 1.2 zoom so fitting both aspect ratios on the screen is a snap. You'll still get 'smaller' less distracting black bars, however you'll maximize image size for both formats.


Just a thought.
CMRA is offline  
post #58 of 297 Old 04-15-2016, 11:09 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Off-topic question, but...

Say I were to start putting together my new home theater at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. Would it be a good idea to get a good 1080p projector with a Blu-ray Disc player while I wait for 4K/UHD projectors and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc players to "mature"? There should be more options available towards the end of 2017 as well. Or, should I just go ahead with getting a 4K/UHD projector and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc player from the start?
Kain is offline  
post #59 of 297 Old 04-15-2016, 11:20 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
Moderator
 
rboster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 24,792
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1600 Post(s)
Liked: 2178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain View Post
Off-topic question, but...

Say I were to start putting together my new home theater at the end of 2016 or beginning of 2017. Would it be a good idea to get a good 1080p projector with a Blu-ray Disc player while I wait for 4K/UHD projectors and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc players to "mature"? There should be more options available towards the end of 2017 as well. Or, should I just go ahead with getting a 4K/UHD projector and Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc player from the start?
That's a question that shouldn't be answered till the fall. There are announcements that will come out at CEDIA in Sept. What someone may suggest today maybe completely different if this question was posed before you are ready to buy. Too many develops when we are on the cusp of 4k in both projectors, blu ray players and the media/movies. Dolby Vision is another variable. Concentrate on items that you know will not change....this topic of which aspect ratio is one of them.
DavidHir likes this.
rboster is online now  
post #60 of 297 Old 04-15-2016, 11:36 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 4,185
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1932 Post(s)
Liked: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster View Post
That's a question that shouldn't be answered till the fall. There are announcements that will come out at CEDIA in Sept. What someone may suggest today maybe completely different if this question was posed before you are ready to buy. Too many develops when we are on the cusp of 4k in both projectors, blu ray players and the media/movies. Dolby Vision is another variable. Concentrate on items that you know will not change....this topic of which aspect ratio is one of them.
I guess you're right.

I'm pretty much set on getting a 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 screen so I thought I would ask that question too. I think I'll just have to wait and see how things turn out though.
Kain is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off