Debating on 2.35:1 screen or 16x9 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 28Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 116 Old 08-31-2018, 04:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Debating on 2.35:1 screen or 16x9

Hello,

I keep going back and forth on what to get. I am either looking at a 130"16x9 or 135" 2.35:1 screen with a view distance of about 12.5 - 13 feet. What happens when you have a projector that does lens memory and then your play a movie like the Dark Night that pops back and forth between 2.35:1 and 16x9?

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 04:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
It’s a common question and if you enjoy movies like The Dark Knight that are a combination of scope and IMAX and you have a scope screen, when the image enlarges to IMAX the image will go above and below your screen onto your wall.

If you enjoy those movies there is a method of presentation called CIH+IMAX you can use. That requires you select your screen size and seating distance to suit IMAX and then get a 16:9 screen. You will still be able to watch all other content inside that screen as CIH constant image height if you want. That size screen will also allow CIA+IMAX constant image area if your tastes for immersion go that way.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #3 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 05:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,522
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4657 Post(s)
Liked: 2951
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It’s a common question and if you enjoy movies like The Dark Knight that are a combination of scope and IMAX and you have a scope screen, when the image enlarges to IMAX the image will go above and below your screen onto your wall.
.... and look absolutely ridiculous / awful.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 05:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,651
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
.... and look absolutely ridiculous / awful.
If the projector has lens memory it probably has a blanking mode to crop off the IMAX expansion, which is how it was shown in commercial theaters with a scope screens larger than their 1.85 setting.
ScottAvery is online now  
post #5 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 06:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottAvery View Post
If the projector has lens memory it probably has a blanking mode to crop off the IMAX expansion, which is how it was shown in commercial theaters with a scope screens larger than their 1.85 setting.
This is correct.

It is debatable if the expanding IMAX presentation or the scope presentation is the premier way to view the movie. We know for example the director of Avatar liked the entire IMAX version and released it to BD in that format. It is very clear the director of The Dark Knight and Dunkirk etc prefers the IMAX expansion over cropped but the movies were released both ways as scope and IMAX1.89 his actual most preferred AR is the True IMAX AR of 1.43:1. Unfortunately for us home theater folks we cant buy that AR of media and most HT projectors are 16:9.

Way back in the old days I had a 4:3 projector and screen and all the original “nature” IMAX movies were put on DVD as 1.43:1 and we had great fun watching them as HT IMAX.

The debate for the OP is how much he values vertical immersion of IMAXed movies and some content that is arguably IMAX like, Game of Thrones, Planet Earth, etc.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #6 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
This is correct.

It is debatable if the expanding IMAX presentation or the scope presentation is the premier way to view the movie. We know for example the director of Avatar liked the entire IMAX version and released it to BD in that format. It is very clear the director of The Dark Knight and Dunkirk etc prefers the IMAX expansion over cropped but the movies were released both ways as scope and IMAX1.89 his actual most preferred AR is the True IMAX AR of 1.43:1. Unfortunately for us home theater folks we cant buy that AR of media and most HT projectors are 16:9.

Way back in the old days I had a 4:3 projector and screen and all the original “nature” IMAX movies were put on DVD as 1.43:1 and we had great fun watching them as HT IMAX.

The debate for the OP is how much he values vertical immersion of IMAXed movies and some content that is arguably IMAX like, Game of Thrones, Planet Earth, etc.
I like both and am looking for a perfect compromise to which I think one does not exist. If I go to a 130" 16x9 from my 120" it will make the verticle 2.5" more on each side and the horizontal 4.5" wider on each side. Doesn't sound like much, I would just have to get used to it from the 13'. If I go 135" 2.35 to one the 16x9 would not be as big as my current 120". I think that would give me a 107" 16x9 screen within the 135" 2.35.1. Not bad, but not 120". There is a compromise one way or the other.
capricorn kid likes this.

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #7 of 116 Old 09-01-2018, 04:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
DuaneAA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin, MN
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
I like both and am looking for a perfect compromise to which I think one does not exist. If I go to a 130" 16x9 from my 120" it will make the verticle 2.5" more on each side and the horizontal 4.5" wider on each side. Doesn't sound like much, I would just have to get used to it from the 13'. If I go 135" 2.35 to one the 16x9 would not be as big as my current 120". I think that would give me a 107" 16x9 screen within the 135" 2.35.1. Not bad, but not 120". There is a compromise one way or the other.
I have a 125" diagonal 2.35:1 screen with my first row at 9.5 feet.


I made two masking panels that I manually hang on the two outer edges when watching 16:9 sources.


When Jurassic World came out with its 2.0:1 aspect ratio, I created a new lens memory with the image shifted all the way to the left and just install the right masking panel.


One evening in the winter when we were having a blizzard, I was trying to watch TV and they were endless scrolling school closing messages along the bottom, which was very annoying. After a few minutes, I realized if I used my 2.0:1 aspect ratio setting most of this would project onto the black wall below the screen. After I did this, I realized I liked this configuration much better than 16:9, as it made the image about 15" wider while only sacrificing the top and bottom three or four inches of the image. I upgraded the black paint above and below the screen to black velvet and now I only use the 2.0:1 and 2.35:1 settings and never the 16:9 version.


As far as your original question - when I watched Dunkirk I used the 2.0:1 setup with a small part of the image projecting above and below the screen in the IMAX scenes and narrow letterbox bars at the top and bottom during the 2.40:1 scenes. But really, how many movies with alternating aspect ratios are out there? My guess is less than ten. I wouldn't let what is probably less than 1% of your total viewing time drive your screen decision.


Duane
DuaneAA is offline  
post #8 of 116 Old 09-02-2018, 05:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
I like both and am looking for a perfect compromise to which I think one does not exist. If I go to a 130" 16x9 from my 120" it will make the verticle 2.5" more on each side and the horizontal 4.5" wider on each side. Doesn't sound like much, I would just have to get used to it from the 13'. If I go 135" 2.35 to one the 16x9 would not be as big as my current 120". I think that would give me a 107" 16x9 screen within the 135" 2.35.1. Not bad, but not 120". There is a compromise one way or the other.

Sounds like you are in a similar mind set as myself when it comes to what would be perfect for you.

I can tell you what I do but it runs contrary to what most on the forum do and agree are perfect for them.

There is no hard rule saying you have to have ether / or 16:9 or 2.35:1 as a screen size.

I don’t have a screen. I painted my entire wall with screen paint originally to play around with presentation methods and found I like the free form method of selecting an image size I stuck with it. If I had to buy a screen I would chose a CIH+IMAX sized 16:9 screen, as that would hold all possible sizes I could ever want inside it.

It is a misconception IMO that if you are satisfied with the size of your scope screen as being totally immersive both vertical and horizontally that there may not be other content that you might feel is the perfect size for you taller but not as wide. IMO it does no disservice to a great scope movie to watch the original Wizard of Oz (Academy AR) a few inches taller.

My reasoning is when you go to a commercial theater you are given the option of many levels of immersion because the theater has many rows of seats. They are all good seats just to suit different tastes and get more people in the theater. Fortunately people have different tastes for immersion or we would all be fighting over the one and only perfect seat. Your zoom setting give you the virtual ability to simulate other rows at home.

Some people like @DuaneAA have found they only need 2 settings to be satisfied that works for him. I have many more and true there are only a few movies like Dunkirk or Avatar or The Hateful Eight that goes the other way, but when they come along why not enjoy them as a special treat as the director wanted you to. I personally find Game of Thrones that is “just TV” and also Planet Earth to be IMAX like and enjoy using more screen area for that.

What is now being called Prestige TV by some is being directed with larger flat panel TV’s in mind and not framed like old TV used to be where the director assumed it was a small TV with little immersion. This is just my opinion others may argue this. Some of this Netflix stuff is very well done and looks better to me taller than Wheel of fortune or the news. If you chose to watch that stuff on your projector.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #9 of 116 Old 09-02-2018, 06:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,522
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4657 Post(s)
Liked: 2951
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
I like both and am looking for a perfect compromise to which I think one does not exist. If I go to a 130" 16x9 from my 120" it will make the verticle 2.5" more on each side and the horizontal 4.5" wider on each side. Doesn't sound like much, I would just have to get used to it from the 13'. If I go 135" 2.35 to one the 16x9 would not be as big as my current 120". I think that would give me a 107" 16x9 screen within the 135" 2.35.1. Not bad, but not 120". There is a compromise one way or the other.
Cant you take your current 120" and expand the width to get to 2.35:1 then order a screen that size?

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #10 of 116 Old 09-02-2018, 06:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 821 Post(s)
Liked: 540
LowellG's room:







I grabbed a few pictures from his link. Starting with the oldest to the most current.

My question for LowellG is: "how do you use the room/projector...is it for TV/Sports/Movies/Games or just movies?"

You have a great room and after several years you should have a good idea of what you want and how you use the room. http://displaywars.com/120-inch-16x9-vs-135-inch-235x1

As Markmon1 suggested you could go with a larger 16:9 and avoid much of the compromise...if it will fit with your subs, width/height, angles, personal preference, etc. It might be "crazy big" for you...but it is amazing how quickly you can adjust. For example, on size I do a 151.5" at 13.5' of 16:9 and since I use every inch of available width, there is no compromise in size between either a 16:9 and 2.35:1. (Note I said size...not bars above and below, director's intent, personal taste, cool factor, guidelines, etc. ) Also, the current Home Theater of the Month does a 165" 16:9 with seating distances at 12' and 17'. http://displaywars.com/165-inch-16x9...6,5-inch-235x1 Now that is "crazy big".

Hard call after years with the 120" 16:9, but it comes down to what you want...more scope less 16:9, or more 16:9 with less scope (130" flat vs 135" scope)...the good thing is that even with going with a 130" 16:9 you see gains in both.

Thank you for your service.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 09-02-2018 at 07:04 AM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #11 of 116 Old 09-02-2018, 07:17 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
Cant you take your current 120" and expand the width to get to 2.35:1 then order a screen that size?
I have calculated it out and a 150" 2.35.1 would give me the 120" 16x9. I just feel that would be to big. I zoomed my old Panasonic out and I would have to move the projector back about foot. Again, it almost seemed to big.

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #12 of 116 Old 09-02-2018, 07:20 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
LowellG's room:







I grabbed a few pictures from his link. Starting with the oldest to the most current.

My question for LowellG is: "how do you use the room/projector...is it for TV/Sports/Movies/Games or just movies?"

You have a great room and after several years you should have a good idea of what you want and how you use the room. http://displaywars.com/120-inch-16x9-vs-135-inch-235x1

As Markmon1 suggested you could go with a larger 16:9 and avoid much of the compromise...if it will fit with your subs, width/height, angles, personal preference, etc. It might be "crazy big" for you...but it is amazing how quickly you can adjust. For example, on size I do a 151.5" at 13.5' of 16:9 and since I use every inch of available width, there is no compromise in size between either a 16:9 and 2.35:1. (Note I said size...not bars above and below, director's intent, personal taste, cool factor, guidelines, etc. ) Also, the current Home Theater of the Month does a 165" 16:9 with seating distances at 12' and 17'. http://displaywars.com/165-inch-16x9...6,5-inch-235x1 Now that is "crazy big".

Hard call after years with the 120" 16:9, but it comes down to what you want...more scope less 16:9, or more 16:9 with less scope (130" flat vs 135" scope)...the good thing is that even with going with a 130" 16:9 you see gains in both.

Thank you for your service.
I pretty much use room for everything. Regular TV, movies, gaming. I probably do spend more time in 16x9 format now that I think about it. I am also switching to a AT screen. I can really tell my sound comes from below my screen right now. I am the only one it bothers though. Thanks for the input.

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #13 of 116 Old 09-04-2018, 01:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
I have calculated it out and a 150" 2.35.1 would give me the 120" 16x9. I just feel that would be to big. I zoomed my old Panasonic out and I would have to move the projector back about foot. Again, it almost seemed to big.
Honestly it probably won't be. You're just not used to seeing scope material shown as it's intended to be vs. the narrower AR material. Our binocular vision has more peripheral area vs vertical area.

Now whether you want to commit to lighting a screen that big is another matter. As you move into 4K HDR, you may find it hard to get the results you want on a screen that big. Although I think it's doable.
capricorn kid likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #14 of 116 Old 09-04-2018, 03:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,946
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 373 Post(s)
Liked: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
LowellG's room:


If this was my room, I'd go wall to wall scope and move those L and R speakers to be under the screen so LCR are all in the same horizontal plane.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #15 of 116 Old 09-04-2018, 04:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Honestly it probably won't be. You're just not used to seeing scope material shown as it's intended to be vs. the narrower AR material. Our binocular vision has more peripheral area vs vertical area.

Now whether you want to commit to lighting a screen that big is another matter. As you move into 4K HDR, you may find it hard to get the results you want on a screen that big. Although I think it's doable.
Thank you, that's a really good point about horizontal vs vertical vision. I would still be using my old Panasonic AE7000 for now until up upgrade around the first of the year. I am thinking the new JVC that's 1800 Lumen, N5. Even though I don't want to pay that much. I don't like the Faux 4K machines. I am not overly concerned about HDR as much as I am 4K right now.

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #16 of 116 Old 09-04-2018, 04:56 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
LowellG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Helotes, TX
Posts: 2,204
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 595 Post(s)
Liked: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post
If this was my room, I'd go wall to wall scope and move those L and R speakers to be under the screen so LCR are all in the same horizontal plane.
My plan right now is to go as wide as I think will be comfortable. A 150" 2.35.1 will go all the way across, but 13' may be to close.

I moved beyond those speakers in that picture, but have bought 3 Mythos 10s to go behind the screen. I plan on a Seymour XD material. I am concerned I will be able to see the dots. I have seen AT screens and they have an SDE to me.

Lowell


The MarvelAtmos Home Theater: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-ded...e-theater.html
LowellG is offline  
post #17 of 116 Old 09-04-2018, 05:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,594
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3877 Post(s)
Liked: 2902
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuaneAA View Post
But really, how many movies with alternating aspect ratios are out there? My guess is less than ten. I wouldn't let what is probably less than 1% of your total viewing time drive your screen decision.
Here is the complete list:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...s-blu-ray.html

17 movies. 8 of them only have variable ratio in the 3D edition. 1 only has variable ratio in a retailer exclusive edition.


In the entire 100+ years of cinema history, 17 movies do this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #18 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 04:53 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,152
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1197 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
How many movies switch between these two ARs ?

Art
Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #19 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 06:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

In the entire 100+ years of cinema history, 17 movies do this.
To be honest for close to the first half of those 100 years there were no wide format movies there was Academy AR and similar. The screens they were shown on and theater seating arrangements allowed for very immersive viewing.

The idea of IMAX1.89 is fairly recent in terms of the last 100 years as are the expanding movies between scope and IMAX1.89.

No one knows the trend in motion pictures let alone streaming media and regular TV. Both of these forms of entertainment are enjoyed by many front projection enthusiasts.

There are many examples of where people see other content desirable viewed with IMAX1.89 levels of immersion. As one example when Game of Thrones was shown in commercial venues the creators of the series chose IMAX as the preferred venue, because they felt their show was best suited as being IMAX like.

So as you are correct in the last 100 years only 17 movies require this type of screen AR to fit in with CIH presentation for the rest from the late 1950’s till now. The OP asked about one such movie in particular and it can’t be shown in its best without such a screen.

We also don’t know what other media will be watched that is outside the cinema realm. Game of Thrones and Planet Earth are to name two that are not at all cinema movies.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #20 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 06:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,152
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1197 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
I asked the question because I personally feel that it is analogous to building a 2.78:1 screen to watch Ben Hur and Battle of the Bulge. I will add that Ben Hur is my favorite film of all time.


Art
rboster likes this.

Last edited by Art Sonneborn; 09-05-2018 at 06:55 AM.
Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #21 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 07:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
My plan right now is to go as wide as I think will be comfortable. A 150" 2.35.1 will go all the way across, but 13' may be to close.

I moved beyond those speakers in that picture, but have bought 3 Mythos 10s to go behind the screen. I plan on a Seymour XD material. I am concerned I will be able to see the dots. I have seen AT screens and they have an SDE to me.
I sit about 9.5' from a 10' (130") scope screen. You should be fine. I've seen a 110" 16:9 Seymour XD from closer and the weave was not visible.

jeahrens is offline  
post #22 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 07:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LowellG View Post
Thank you, that's a really good point about horizontal vs vertical vision. I would still be using my old Panasonic AE7000 for now until up upgrade around the first of the year. I am thinking the new JVC that's 1800 Lumen, N5. Even though I don't want to pay that much. I don't like the Faux 4K machines. I am not overly concerned about HDR as much as I am 4K right now.
Have you seen the e-shift JVCs? I've seen several 4K native Sony and several e-shift JVCs. For movies (even 4K end to end films) from a normal seating distance you really can't see much difference. Now the brightness and constrast on the other hand is readily apparent. Which is why a JVC RS520 hangs in my theater and not a Sony 385. The Sony has it strengths, I'd mostly say the native the 4K would be a plus for gaming. The N5 is shaping up to be a fantastic unit, but depending on your uses I wouldn't count out a lightly used JVC RSxxx unit for much less (I imagine we'll see some for sale in the next few months as owners go after the new shiny).

jeahrens is offline  
post #23 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 08:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
@Art Sonneborn I agree and you can throw in The Hateful Eight as another outlier and there are more.

There is some logic IMO to matching your screen AR to that of your projector. if I had an A-lens or someone built a 2.35:1 native projector or even if all I watched was commercial cinema released movies I could be persuaded to toss aside the 17 expanders and maybe Avatar also as the director smartly IMO selected the taller AR to go on home media, and go with exclusively CIH 2.35 screen. I could also be persuaded if I had a large media room with low ceilings and I needed seating for lots of people where I couldn’t move everything closer to the screen. Roughly half the movies made are scope and the other half flat. All movies in my case make up about 50% of my projectors on time.

@jeah erns in his above post mentioned games. I spend 0% on games but understand others do games a lot. A huge concern is input lag time whatever that is. I don’t know if games are flat or scope or 16:9, and I don’t know if bigger more immersive is better or not. I have a friend that does flight simulators and he sits more immersive than even I would like for IMAX.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #24 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 09:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
@Art Sonneborn I agree and you can throw in The Hateful Eight as another outlier and there are more.

There is some logic IMO to matching your screen AR to that of your projector. if I had an A-lens or someone built a 2.35:1 native projector or even if all I watched was commercial cinema released movies I could be persuaded to toss aside the 17 expanders and maybe Avatar also as the director smartly IMO selected the taller AR to go on home media, and go with exclusively CIH 2.35 screen. I could also be persuaded if I had a large media room with low ceilings and I needed seating for lots of people where I couldn’t move everything closer to the screen. Roughly half the movies made are scope and the other half flat. All movies in my case make up about 50% of my projectors on time.

@jeah erns in his above post mentioned games. I spend 0% on games but understand others do games a lot. A huge concern is input lag time whatever that is. I don’t know if games are flat or scope or 16:9, and I don’t know if bigger more immersive is better or not. I have a friend that does flight simulators and he sits more immersive than even I would like for IMAX.
I mentioned gaming as an advantage to the native 4K panel on the Sony projector vs. the outgoing e-shift JVC lineup. Screen AR isn't really a factor here. If it's 16:9 it's pillarboxed. If you are gaming on something you can set a 21:9 resolution (a PC can do this), then it isn't. In the room we're discussing he's not losing any 16:9 picture area so it's really moot.

Commercial Cinemas aren't usually using 21:9 panels (I don't know if any exist). Panel AR doesn't equate to or impact the screen AR. Just like a home setup, they will zoom or use a lens.

jeahrens is offline  
post #25 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 10:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
I mentioned gaming as an advantage to the native 4K panel on the Sony projector vs. the outgoing e-shift JVC lineup. Screen AR isn't really a factor here. If it's 16:9 it's pillarboxed. If you are gaming on something you can set a 21:9 resolution (a PC can do this), then it isn't. In the room we're discussing he's not losing any 16:9 picture area so it's really moot.

Commercial Cinemas aren't usually using 21:9 panels (I don't know if any exist). Panel AR doesn't equate to or impact the screen AR. Just like a home setup, they will zoom or use a lens.
It matters to the extent that people do use FP home media rooms to play games. Games are clearly not motion pictures. I have no clue if they are more entertaining at an IMAX level of immersion or a flat cinema level of immersion. Both are close to the same AR just different sizes. My friend that plays flight simulators much prefers a width like scope and a height like IMAX to fill his vision 100% or close to it. That would include full eye movement and even some head movement. My guess the extra immersion doesn’t make it any easier to fly the plane it just makes it more like reality and less like an image.

Incidentally that I believe is what the expanding IMAX movies and IMAX1.89 is all about also.

It always seems odd to me that the motion picture industry is making loads of movies dual AR and releasing IMAX 1.89 versions to theaters equipped for that. They also must know when releasing to the home market as DVD, BD & UHD BD that 99.99% of the people buying them will play them on a CIW flat panel TV set with a 16:9 AR and a few people doing CIW with a projector. Why not do what Avatar did and fill in those black bars for people. The unchanged scope information will still be there. If that was the case then the number would be much higher than 17.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #26 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 10:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,758
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It matters to the extent that people do use FP home media rooms to play games. Games are clearly not motion pictures. I have no clue if they are more entertaining at an IMAX level of immersion or a flat cinema level of immersion. Both are close to the same AR just different sizes. My friend that plays flight simulators much prefers a width like scope and a height like IMAX to fill his vision 100% or close to it. That would include full eye movement and even some head movement. My guess the extra immersion doesn’t make it any easier to fly the plane it just makes it more like reality and less like an image.

Incidentally that I believe is what the expanding IMAX movies and IMAX1.89 is all about also.

It always seems odd to me that the motion picture industry is making loads of movies dual AR and releasing IMAX 1.89 versions to theaters equipped for that. They also must know when releasing to the home market as DVD, BD & UHD BD that 99.99% of the people buying them will play them on a CIW flat panel TV set with a 16:9 AR and a few people doing CIW with a projector. Why not do what Avatar did and fill in those black bars for people. The unchanged scope information will still be there. If that was the case then the number would be much higher than 17.
First as I pointed out, the 16:9 area is not changing. So this gaming tangent is doing nothing. The posters gaming habits aren't going to be impacted. Again, the comment on gaming was about projector technology and not AR.

Ask the people making the movies why this is. We can speculate, but this isn't really pertinent to this thread. Probably best discussed in the shifting AR thread.

jeahrens is offline  
post #27 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,594
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3877 Post(s)
Liked: 2902
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It always seems odd to me that the motion picture industry is making loads of movies dual AR and releasing IMAX 1.89 versions to theaters equipped for that. They also must know when releasing to the home market as DVD, BD & UHD BD that 99.99% of the people buying them will play them on a CIW flat panel TV set with a 16:9 AR and a few people doing CIW with a projector. Why not do what Avatar did and fill in those black bars for people. The unchanged scope information will still be there. If that was the case then the number would be much higher than 17.
Hey guys, I need a little advice. I just dropped a cool $100 mil at auction for Picasso's "Young Girl with a Flower Basket" oil on canvas. Then I went to Ikea and got a $20 picture frame to put it in, but the frame is too big and the wrong shape to fit the painting! I'm thinking I'll just paint in the difference to fill the empty space. Is Behr Premium Plus paint good for that, or should I spring for the Benjamin Moore Aura? Thanks in advance!
visaudio likes this.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
post #28 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 10:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Hey guys, I need a little advice. I just dropped a cool $100 mil at auction for Picasso's "Young Girl with a Flower Basket" oil on canvas. Then I went to Ikea and got a $20 picture frame to put it in, but the frame is too big and the wrong shape to fit the painting! I'm thinking I'll just paint in the difference to fill the empty space. Is Behr Premium Plus paint good for that, or should I spring for the Benjamin Moore Aura? Thanks in advance!
If we are talking art why was Da Vinci obsessed with the Golden Ratio and why is the golden ratio 1.618…. Hmmm. Did he know something we don’t.

To answer your question I would go with the Behr premium plus.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #29 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 11:41 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 24,152
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1197 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
All I'm saying is I believe to maximize utility make it what you use it for and even from a hypothetical perspective the number of films that switch between scope and IMAX is almost negligible.

Art
Josh Z and bud16415 like this.

Last edited by Art Sonneborn; 09-05-2018 at 11:51 AM.
Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #30 of 116 Old 09-05-2018, 12:59 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 24,594
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3877 Post(s)
Liked: 2902
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
If we are talking art why was Da Vinci obsessed with the Golden Ratio and why is the golden ratio 1.618…. Hmmm. Did he know something we don’t.
Apparently, he didn't know anything about making movies, because there's never been a movie photographed in that ratio.

Josh Z
Home Theater Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
Josh Z is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat



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