AVS Forum banner

Will content availability making 2.35:1 obsolete?

8K views 41 replies 16 participants last post by  bud16415 
#1 ·
I was about to make a 2.35:1 screen purchase (it will be primarily for movies). But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction, compounded by the rumored eventual elimination or severe reduction of physical media availability.

Thoughts? TIA.
 
#2 ·
Actually a lot of Netflix original series and even a lot of broadcast/cable dramatic series, now, are being done 2:1(16:9 is 1.77:1).

Physical media, or lack there of, shouldn’t really have any bearing on aspect ratio of the content. Heck, I had letterboxed content on VHS.
 
#3 ·
I worry about this to, but I still went with a 2.35:1 screen. But really thats about all the height I can get anyway so I'm not sure if it was just 16:9 I could go much bigger.

I sit about 10-12 feet away from a 141" 2.35:1 screen. I have a 10-12' stage and I'm in a 8 ft basement. There is a soffit in the front to a column so that lowers that ceiling by about 12 inches.
 
#4 ·
But then it occured to me that content is beginning to trend away from this ratio and more toward 16x9, evidenced by netflix, vudu and hulu as streaming providers moving in this direction,
That's not at all correct. The following thread has a list of almost 400 TV shows (growing daily) with aspect ratios wider than 16:9. Streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu are leading that trend.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...t-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html

And that doesn't account for one-off original movies and other specials, which also frequently use wider ratios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nathan_h
#5 ·
It is virtually imposable for a TV show to be wider than 16:9 because of the very nature of TV shows are being made to be played on TV and TV is 16:9.

When Netflix or other make a TV show say 2.0:1 that they are doing a lot these days they understand 99.99% of the people that view it will view it shorter than 16:9 not wider.

It therefore is their intent it is shorter than normal TV. For them to make a TV show and assume the end user was going to not only have a projector but also a setup to do CIH scope presentation would be absurd. Such a small percentage of homes have projectors and of them even a smaller percentage do CIH 2.4:1 presentation.

We have no control over what Hollywood does or what Netflix does. The only thing we really know is TV is 16:9, BluRay is 16:9, most projectors are 16:9 and the widest format is Scope and IMAX and the tallest is IMAX and that would be 16:9 on media.

If you want to future proof and be inclusive of everything you need an IMAX immersion screen that is 16:9. Of course that wont be a real IMAX screen unless your media room is 80’ high. Just so the OP understands immersion takes into account seating distance. :)
 
#12 ·
So if the content makers know their content is not being showcased and consumed on CIH screens in movie theaters, it’s reasonable to think they are targeting CIW screens since that is how the vast majority of their content will be consumed.
Google ultrawidescreen monitors. These are not projectors, but they clearly show that 16x9 may very well not be destined to be the standard in the future. 32x9 is a monitor option today.
 
#24 ·
Black bars are not going anywhere....especially since I have over 1000 disks with them.



Having lived with 16:9 for the last 3 years, my new screen will be CIH 2:35:1...........I will keep the same size 120 inch 16:9 screen size, but make it wider to 2:35:1.



I would much rather have the bars on the side when viewing 16:9 and then get the full width at 2:35:1......



When you get in the 12 to 15 foot wide screen range, that will never work in a 8 foot ceiling house at 16:9......


My current 16:9 is at about 60 inches tall.........which leaves 24 inches at the bottom and about 12 at the top......., thats about pushing it for a double row seating. Luckily I only have a single row or it would have to be smashed up as far as it could to the ceiling to barely get viewing from a second row.

I can go from 8.5 to 12 foot wide at approx the same 60 inch screen height........you could max it out at 14 feet wide in a 8 foot ceiling single row set up at 72 inch screen height, which would be 8 foot at 16:9


In 3 years I might change back again....use what works for you and what you like...its all about enjoyment .....a big deciding factor for me is my next PJ will have auto zoom/focus........my current one is manual so I did 16:9
 
#27 ·
Thanks for bringing the thread back to the real world and having some logical reasons for wanting a scope screen CIH.

You like black bars better to the sides than the top and bottom and you want scope larger than flat and your room wont allow you to go higher even if you wanted to. You plan on getting a projector that makes that all easy to do so you are doing it.

Perfectly good logic and I know you will find it a big improvement over CIW. :)
 
#29 ·
As others have stated 2.35:1 is the way to go when you go big. I lived with a 150” 16:9 screen for about a year sitting 10’ back and my neck said enough was enough. The novelty wore off watching movies like Avatar. I much preferred wide pictures on the screen, and would even say they could have looked better if I had more width to work with.

I’m in the process of building a theater room in my new space and will be going with a 2.35:1 screen at 147 or 152 inch diagonal (haven’t decided) sitting about 12 feet back. From my own experience that would be perfect for me, and a definite no go if the screen was 16:9.
 
#30 ·
I gave your post a like as it is clear you gave the issue some thought and decided on what will best work for you.

A 152” CIH scope screen sitting 12’ away will be an immersion level of around 2.5 times the screen height of 58”. That will be very close to sitting about half way back in a modern commercial CIH venue.

With your 150” 16:9 and a seating distance of 10’ the height was 73.5” and that was an immersion level of 1.6 times the screen height and that is pretty much an IMAX immersion level and if you were watching regular 1.85 flat movies at that height I’m sure it was quite intense comparing that to your scope movies at 54.5” tall being 2.2 times screen height immersion level. That is more like being about one third of the way back in a commercial theater. Incidentally that 2.2 X is what I like for scope and flat as CIH and your 1.6 for me is great for IMAX content. So I would like what you have if used as CIH+IMAX and would find it awful as CIW.

Changing your presentation method to CIH I understand and even giving yourself a little more distance and less immersion. I wonder why you wouldn’t just keep the screen you have and rig some masking to do CIH+IMAX and arrange seating to your likes. Even if you never pull the masking it is there if something IMAX comes along. I think you might not find Avatar that annoying at your new immersion level or other IMAX movies.
:)
 
#31 ·
Thanks, great reply. Your response made me realize I should clarify: if I could place seating at height similar to an IMAX theater, then my comments on viewing comfort vs distance for such a large screen are nullified. In a perfect world I would have the space for such a setup, the immersive experience of 16:9 so close is truly unique, I’ll give you that. I have been to imax theaters many times throughout my life, and I can’t put my finger on why, but a home setup with a gigantic screen just feels one level up in total immersion (versus theater) even when the math works out for how much the screen fills your field of view.
 
#32 ·
Immersion is great, but it can be too much.......


I had a 143 or 147 inch 16:9...it was the max my pj could throw in the small room at about a 6 foot seating distance.....very immersive, problem was 50% of my guests suffered some degree of motion sickness,...even some fast pans got to me in the action scenes. It made you feel sea sick....




I am 8 feet from a 16:9 120 inch screen and its not bad....rarely does any one fell nauseous now......it so minimal if it does happen its not bad and only lasts a few seconds......


Different people have different levels they can tolerate before they feel motion sickness.......I never had anyone lose their lunch, but it was close a few times, they turned pale and were sweating profusely and had to get away from the screen. Feeling sick is not entertainment for the person feeling sick, though I will admit it gave me a snicker the first few times until it got me, then I had more empathy and reduced the screen size.


Lately I have it turned down to about 95 inches 16:9 at 108 inch viewing distance and its much easier on the eyes....and guests ......I still blow it back to 120 for wide screen movies...when I feel like it.........


The exception is 3D......the bigger the better.....we managed about 5 foot from the 150 inch screen before your head is in the way....the bigger the better with 3d and for some reason motion sickness was not bad with 3d. Which is literally your toes touching the screen in a recliner.....:D
 
#33 ·
It comes down to a personal decision, really - as to whether you go full 2.35 or stick with 16x9

That said, my personal choice is 16x9 for the den, and 2.35 for the cinema - here's why...

Almost all movie releases are in 2.35 (or 2.4 etc) - and most releases to home video are indeed letterboxed to fit inside a 16x9 space, so the presentation area is still 2.35

In my den, I have an 86" LG 4K TV, which is perfect for mixed content from cable, AppleTV, Bluray, etc - so a letterboxed 2.35 movie is still large enough to be appreciated on this TV

But as a purist, I wanted my main theater setup to show the full experience as intended, so my theater screens are 133" across, 2.35 AR, and I simply "zoom" the projector, to fill that 2.35 space with the letterboxed content, typically from Bluray, or whichever source. I have separate screens (both 2.35) for 2D (black diamond II 1.4 gain) and 3D (black diamond 3D 2.7 silver screen)

This is shot with two JVC NX7 projectors - only one pj is used in regular 2D presentations, but both projectors are utilized when viewing 3D content (linear polarizing filters on each pj for left and right channels)

So as you can tell - my setup is probably a little more over the top than most - however, if you have a separate den for your main TV usage, and a separate setup for movie nights, its just a shame not to go for a 2.35 AR screen for the movie setup - a missed opportunity, in my opinion

Don't forget, you can still zoom down and show your regular 16x9 content, centered in the 2.35 screen space

Anyway - that's my 2 cents on the question raised by this thread

CHeers!
 
#34 ·
This is shot with two JVC NX7 projectors - only one pj is used in regular 2D presentations, but both projectors are utilized when viewing 3D content (linear polarizing filters on each pj for left and right channels)
I'm fascinated by this idea, but if you use one projector more than the other, won't the lamps be uneven brightnesses when you need to use them together? I'd think that repeated zooming using lens memory presets would also leave you with frustrating alignment problems unless you take the time to carefully re-align them every time. How do you deal with issues like those?
 
#37 ·
Right now I am sitting in a room that is about 30' wide with a 9' ceiling. I am about centered and about 15' back from the 30' wall. Looking straight ahead I can see both side walls, floor and the ceiling. But if I turn my head side ways, I can't see the side walls without shifting my eyes up and down. This obviously shows my horizontal field of view is greater than my vertical field of view, which with horizontal eye placement, is expected. Makes sense for the most immersion to fill most of my field of view and stay comfortable, as in not having to constantly shift my eyes, to use a scope screen.

I have owned many screens (currently own 3 and soon to be 4) and as I posted above, own a 16:9 in one room and a scope screen in the other room. My vertical field of view is the same for both rooms. I did not arrive at these viewing distances by measuring and making them the same. I arrived at these viewing distances, based on what felt comfortable. It was only later, after measuring and calculating vertical viewing angle, that I discovered the angle was the same. Anyway, the closer viewing distance on the scope screen feels a lot more immersive to me and that is the room that I prefer to watch movies on, especially scope movies.
 
#40 ·
For what it is worth CBS launched Picard and the second season of Discovery with 2.35:1 ratios. To date there seems to be plenty of new content with the wider ratio, but who knows what the future will bring. I find myself watching 16:9 shows on a TV in the family room while enjoying the 2.4:1 screen in the theater room. Feels like a waste to screen 16:9 downstairs.
 
#41 ·
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top