16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide? - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 42Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 182 Old 04-01-2019, 02:13 PM
Member
 
RTPBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Just found this thread, I've got the Epson 4000 model with a 2.35:1 screen. Made some light wooden frames, covered them with black felt, added drawer sliders and use them to slide in from each side (masking)when I do 16:9 viewing. Only width issue was to make sure I had room to slide the masking out to the side when doing 2.35:1 viewing. Lens memory is set to adjust for the varying video formats. Have to tweak it every once in a while because not all movies are the same ratio (especially Disney).

Every once in a while I think it would be nice to have a large black roller blind on each side then the screen could be wider, but haven't gotten serious about it as what I have is working.
ckronengold likes this.
RTPBob is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 182 Old 04-02-2019, 10:56 AM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTPBob View Post

Every once in a while I think it would be nice to have a large black roller blind on each side then the screen could be wider, but haven't gotten serious about it as what I have is working.
I was going to add the same thought. Its easier to mask the 2.35 for 16:9 viewing than to mask the 16:9 for 2.35 viewing.

I made some "curtains" to hang when I was watching scope movies, but it was difficult to prevent them from sagging in the middle on a 110" screen. The idea of just "lowering the curtain" on the sides of a scope screen is really appealing. Especially if you add an automated / voice activated curtain. "Alexa, I'm watching wide screen." https://www.thesmartesthouse.com/pro...nt=29191065489

I actually just added one of those to my projector lift. "Hey Google, periscope down" gets the job done.

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
ckronengold is offline  
post #33 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 06:47 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
KCWolfPck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post
May I know why you don't plan for an AT screen?
If you want a huge screen, you NEED AT screen. Else the speaker placement is thrown off. Main left and right will be too far out, and the worst, the center speaker will be too low/high. Speaker placement will be a PITA.

Regarding 16:9 or 2.39:1, I'll go for the scope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCWolfPck View Post
Protector: Epson 5040
Throw distance: 15'10"
Seating Distance: 12-13'

Using Projector Central's Throw Distance Calculator:

If I went with a 16:9 screen, I could go with a 132" screen (115"w x 65"h) - 7445 square inches.
Positives: - This size would not be maxing out the projectors zoom

If I went with a 2.35:1 screen, I would max out at a 153" screen due to constraints of the projector at that throw distance (140"w x 60"h) - 8427 square inches.
As indicated in my initial post.....at that throw distance the max screen size I can get it either 65" in height (for 16:9) or 140" wide (for scope).

If I do a false wall to be able to use an AT screen, I loose another 2-3 feet of throw distance and my max screen sizes will be way smaller.

Even at 140" wide screen....my seating distance is 144"-156"....so the front speakers would be the same distance apart from each other as they would be from the main listening position. The center channel speaker will be on a stand 25" from the floor.

These are the reasons I am not considering an AT screen at this time.
KCWolfPck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I'm contemplating switching from a 110" 16:9 screen to a 128" 2.35:1 screen, but I'm totally on the fence about it.

The 'scope screen is 4" shorter, but almost 2' wider. That is almost 15% more screen area. That seems like a lot on paper, but I'm not sure if its a big enough gain to make the switch.

I was hoping I could make 142" 2.35:1 work, but I'm limited by a staircase and a lally pole that prevents me from using more horizontal lens shift.

Just referencing the Screen Innovations calculator, it recommends 109" 16:9 at 10' seating distance. The front of my sofa is 10' from the wall, and the screen sits about 2" off the wall. So right in the sweet spot. But they suggest 136" when switching to 2.35, so I'd be a good 10" under their recommended seating distance for the screen I could fit.

I don't want to put too much weight on their calculations, though, but it annoys me to think that I'd be going from "the right size screen" to "too small a screen" even when getting a bigger screen.

yay or nay? suggestions welcomed.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	screentape.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	1,004.0 KB
ID:	2548530   Click image for larger version

Name:	widescreen.jpg
Views:	52
Size:	195.4 KB
ID:	2548532   Click image for larger version

Name:	shelves.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	68.9 KB
ID:	2548696   Click image for larger version

Name:	shelves2.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	73.7 KB
ID:	2548698  

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850

Last edited by ckronengold; 04-03-2019 at 08:09 PM. Reason: additional info
ckronengold is offline  
post #35 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 07:52 PM
Member
 
MaxTemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckronengold View Post
I'm contemplating switching from a 110" 16:9 screen to a 128" 2.35:1 screen, but I'm totally on the fence about it.

The 'scope screen is 4" shorter, but almost 2' wider. That is almost 15% more screen area. That seems like a lot on paper, but I'm not sure if its a big enough gain to make the switch.

I was hoping I could make 142" 2.35:1 work, but I'm limited by a staircase and a lally pole that prevents me from using more horizontal lens shift.

yay or nay or suggestions welcomed.

For 2.35 movies, its actually 50% bigger area! For 16:9 content, your current screen is 15% bigger. Even if your content is 50/50 with those aspect ratios, you are gaining a lot more with the scope screen. I vote yay.
http://displaywars.com/110-inch-16x9-vs-128-inch-235x1
ckronengold likes this.
MaxTemp is offline  
post #36 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 08:12 PM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTemp View Post
For 2.35 movies, its actually 50% bigger area! For 16:9 content, your current screen is 15% bigger. Even if your content is 50/50 with those aspect ratios, you are gaining a lot more with the scope screen. I vote yay.
http://displaywars.com/110-inch-16x9-vs-128-inch-235x1
Well when you put it that way, it hardly seems like a tough decision at all! I gain a ton of screen size for the movies, and the kids won't notice a difference on their whatever-it-is-they-watch.

Thanks for that link!

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
ckronengold is offline  
post #37 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 08:29 PM
Member
 
MaxTemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckronengold View Post
Well when you put it that way, it hardly seems like a tough decision at all! I gain a ton of screen size for the movies, and the kids won't notice a difference on their whatever-it-is-they-watch.

Thanks for that link!

You are welcome. Sometimes we forget the black bars are also taking space on the 16:9 screen. Scope movies will look amazing when you upgrade.
ckronengold likes this.
MaxTemp is offline  
post #38 of 182 Old 04-03-2019, 08:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Just throwing this out there . I have a scope screen (the only way to go IMHO ) and I'm using a Lumagen mini 3d which comes with a feature called Non Linear Stretch which when done right stretches 1.85 to 2.35 and I don't notice the stretch . Purists would have me hung but I've always felt that all good movies should be in scope .
monstermike67 is offline  
post #39 of 182 Old 04-04-2019, 02:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,494
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Liked: 425
In most home theater rooms the available space between floor and ceiling is the limit and the (angled) center speaker still has to go somewhere to the bottom or the ceiling (unless you are content with stereo).


If the room is wide enough a 2.35:1 screen may ultimately yield a larger screen area and has one advantage overlooked to often: Speaker placement just below the screen has the speakers as close to the sound event on the screen as possible (unless one uses an acustically transparent screen), i.e. no black letterbox bars in 2.35:1 program content will cause an acoustic gap.


And it sets the home theater apart from the conventional 16:9 only flat screen...


For practical use and convenience a front projector with motorized or manual zoom and lens shift would be required, good to know that with the arrival of the BenQ HT5550 there'll be another option on behalf of 2.35:1 screens from the DLP camp.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is online now  
post #40 of 182 Old 04-04-2019, 06:34 AM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
In most home theater rooms the available space between floor and ceiling is the limit and the (angled) center speaker still has to go somewhere to the bottom or the ceiling (unless you are content with stereo).
Stereo? Are you some kind of communist?!? Thats blaspheme! But to your actual point, ceiling height has been 100% of my problem in my current house as well as my previous house. Low ceilings combined with poorly thought out HVAC (well, poorly thought out for home theater purposes) have kept me from building a "real" theater and "settling" for a man cave / media room. But I do think that was ultimately the right decision for me anyway. Damn kids and family. I have a 7' (maybe 7'2") ceiling, and I have a 12" soffit between the projector and the screen wall that almost derailed my plans. (see pics)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
If the room is wide enough a 2.35:1 screen may ultimately yield a larger screen area and has one advantage overlooked to often: Speaker placement just below the screen has the speakers as close to the sound event on the screen as possible (unless one uses an acustically transparent screen), i.e. no black letterbox bars in 2.35:1 program content will cause an acoustic gap.
Thats actually a nice perk. Gonna have to tell the wife about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
For practical use and convenience a front projector with motorized or manual zoom and lens shift would be required, good to know that with the arrival of the BenQ HT5550 there'll be another option on behalf of 2.35:1 screens from the DLP camp.
I'm choosing between the HT5550 vs the Epson 5050 and closely watching both of those threads, trying to figure out which will be better for me. I currently have an Epson 5030, so not sure I'd be able to give up the deep black levels since I have a totally light controlled room. Anxious to see what the professional reviewers have to say.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	projectormount.jpg
Views:	38
Size:	268.7 KB
ID:	2548806   Click image for larger version

Name:	projcetorview.jpg
Views:	40
Size:	264.5 KB
ID:	2548808  

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850

Last edited by ckronengold; 04-04-2019 at 06:47 AM.
ckronengold is offline  
post #41 of 182 Old 04-04-2019, 12:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Also after paying attention to aspect ratios I am seeing on my 65” tv all the tv channels have black boarders top and bottom, same with Netflix movies and shows. I thought hdtv was all 16:9? It would be odd to have a tv that is not 16:9 correct? If in fact the tv I’m watching are also the 2.39:1 I would just mask a screen to that aspect ratio.
SDoutdoorsman is offline  
post #42 of 182 Old 04-04-2019, 08:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 3,116
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1023 Post(s)
Liked: 531
If you have a normal 16:9 HDTV most programming should fill the screen. Unless this is an old 65" RPTV with a 4:3 AR. Go into TV setting and make sure scaling is turned off and AR is set to 16:9 or just fit. Many movies and some special programs are in a wider format like 2:35 but most normal shows should fill the screen. Every motel I have been to the TV's AR is always wrong and they default to it, it makes no since.

"Smart enough to know better, to old to care" ------ Dedicated Bat Cave Home Theater, JVC RS49U/Mitsubishi HC7900DW Projector, 110" 16:9 Jamestown screen with variable power masking for CIW 2.50:1 to 16:9, Marantz 7009 with 7.1.4 Atmos with Ohm mains,3 DIY Subs (2 15" (1 ported, 1 sealed and a 12" 4th order bandpass), 1 DIY butt kicker, Custom Built HTPC, 18TB DroboFS NAS
rekbones is offline  
post #43 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 06:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
Also after paying attention to aspect ratios I am seeing on my 65” tv all the tv channels have black boarders top and bottom, same with Netflix movies and shows. I thought hdtv was all 16:9? It would be odd to have a tv that is not 16:9 correct? If in fact the tv I’m watching are also the 2.39:1 I would just mask a screen to that aspect ratio.
A lot of Netflix movies and series are made in 2.00:1 AR that's why you are seeing small gray bars.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #44 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 07:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckronengold View Post
Stereo? Are you some kind of communist?!?
The correct method is not to run your theater in stereo but to select phantom center on your AVR if having a center speaker is not to your liking.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #45 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 07:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckronengold View Post
Well when you put it that way, it hardly seems like a tough decision at all! I gain a ton of screen size for the movies, and the kids won't notice a difference on their whatever-it-is-they-watch.

Thanks for that link!
Before you decide rent Aquaman it is a new release with many more similar movies to follow. It is 90% IMAX 10% scope.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #46 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 07:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by wookiegr View Post
My goal is more about finding a compromise between ratios than it is to simulate the IMAX experience. It's months away so I may change my mind again anyways.
IMAX makes up less than 5% of the available films out there (probably way less). I know there are "initiatives" to increase it's market presence, but in the last 12 months of Hollywood film releases we've had Aquaman and MI:Fallout to my recollection. The latter of which is merely an open matte that can be safely cropped to scope if you desire to. You can always watch them at 1.78:1 on a wider screen too. If your screen height is set where you want, it won't look any different.

In a nutshell a 2.35:1 or 2.0:1 screen is going to be much better suited to maximizing your viewing experience. Unless you really love the handful of cropped IMAX shifting aspect ratio films out there.
ckronengold likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #47 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 08:42 AM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Before you decide rent Aquaman it is a new release with many more similar movies to follow. It is 90% IMAX 10% scope.
Are they all superhero movies?

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
ckronengold is offline  
post #48 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 08:44 AM
Senior Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
in the last 12 months of Hollywood film releases we've had Aquaman and MI:Fallout to my recollection. The latter of which is merely an open matte that can be safely cropped to scope if you desire to.
I watched Fallout about a month ago and honestly don't remember anything different about the aspect ratio.

Video: Epson 5050 / nVidia Shield / OPPO-103
Audio: Marantz 7010 / MartinLogan Motion 40 (LR), 50XT (center), M2 (surrounds)
Streaming: nVidia Shield / Roku Ultra / Chromecast Ultra
NAS: Synology 1515+ Server: Ubuntu 18.04, i7-8700 CPU
HTPC: Win10 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
ckronengold is offline  
post #49 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 09:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
IMAX makes up less than 5% of the available films out there (probably way less). I know there are "initiatives" to increase it's market presence, but in the last 12 months of Hollywood film releases we've had Aquaman and MI:Fallout to my recollection. The latter of which is merely an open matte that can be safely cropped to scope if you desire to. You can always watch them at 1.78:1 on a wider screen too. If your screen height is set where you want, it won't look any different.

In a nutshell a 2.35:1 or 2.0:1 screen is going to be much better suited to maximizing your viewing experience. Unless you really love the handful of cropped IMAX shifting aspect ratio films out there.
Over the last 6 months there have been several new threads started by the forums management talking about the IMAX enhanced program. There have been dozens of articles written in all the HT magazines about it. Many movies have been made over the last few years in dual formats to play to IMAX and also scope theaters and at least according to ticket prices the IMAX version is considered the premier showing. They are all scope safe and can be cropped as that’s what is done in the scope theaters. All the major trade shows have had booths set up showing off the concept. Lastly several equipment makers are now offering certified IMAX modes of operation to play the new media.

If you have an established scope theater by all means be conservative and enjoy your theater as you like it. But someone contemplating building a theater should be aware of the potential changes that are coming down the pipeline and not base their decision around the history of movies or even what has come out in the last year. IMAX enhanced may well fall flat on its face and be the Betamax of this century, but the early signs are it is something consumers widely want mostly based on most consumers of home media are not doing FP rather they are the folks with these 70” flat panel 16:9 TVs and they like the idea of filling the screen up and not loosing any of the scope width. To that point you are correct you can show them within the flat frame of your scope screen. But I have a feeling most will be under-whelmed in doing that.

Thus the reason I simply would advise anyone thinking about a new FP theater to watch Dunkirk or Aquaman or MI:Fallout, and think about the AR in those movies and the potential for whole movies to be coming out with the taller AR. If you want to watch a full feature in a tall AR that has the full scope width then watch Avatar.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #50 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckronengold View Post
Are they all superhero movies?
Dunkirk was released to the home market as an AR switcher between scope and IMAX.

Lots of movies like Sully were shown in IMAX theaters as 1.89 and in scope theaters as 2.39 cropping out the top and bottom.

What IMAX has is a process called DMR where a movie is ran thru the process frame by frame and the movie is improved in terms of clarity to allow for a more immersive IMAX experience. Everything I have read is the process is very expensive and also time consuming it is not just a filtering automated process and when done nothing in the original framing is lost so it is not pan and scan or anything like that nonsense. These versions are going to then be put on 4k media and also streamed thru 4k streaming sites along with movies like (maybe) Sully that are done and waiting for a second release in their taller AR.

Dunkirk was shot in part using the massive IMAX film format that is still the gold standard in resolution. Movies like Sully are being shot with what are being called IMAX digital cameras and most likely digital will become the standard in movie making at some point. These cameras record both ARs at the same time and then they cut the scope version out. The director is the final say in what goes out to home media but at least when he is making the movie he knows there is that premiere IMAX product being made. It is not an open matte process where the director was only shooting a scope movie even though the film was collecting more information. The taller framing of an IMAX released movie was put there intentionally.

I consider Sully a superhero though.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #51 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 10:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Dunkirk was released to the home market as an AR switcher between scope and IMAX.

Lots of movies like Sully were shown in IMAX theaters as 1.89 and in scope theaters as 2.39 cropping out the top and bottom.
I just dont understand why. Probably 99.9% of all Blu Rays/Streams sold are displayed on a 16x9 device. If there is a 1.89:1 cut.... why crop to 2.39:1?
tqlla is offline  
post #52 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqlla View Post
I just dont understand why. Probably 99.9% of all Blu Rays/Streams sold are displayed on a 16x9 device. If there is a 1.89:1 cut.... why crop to 2.39:1?
In most cases there is no 1.89:1 cut. If there is a full 1.89:1 framed version, then it's usually the Directors preference as to which gets released. Avengers Infinity War had both and was released scope at the Directors behest.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-05-2019 at 11:55 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #53 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 11:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Over the last 6 months there have been several new threads started by the forums management talking about the IMAX enhanced program. There have been dozens of articles written in all the HT magazines about it. Many movies have been made over the last few years in dual formats to play to IMAX and also scope theaters and at least according to ticket prices the IMAX version is considered the premier showing. They are all scope safe and can be cropped as that’s what is done in the scope theaters. All the major trade shows have had booths set up showing off the concept. Lastly several equipment makers are now offering certified IMAX modes of operation to play the new media.

If you have an established scope theater by all means be conservative and enjoy your theater as you like it. But someone contemplating building a theater should be aware of the potential changes that are coming down the pipeline and not base their decision around the history of movies or even what has come out in the last year. IMAX enhanced may well fall flat on its face and be the Betamax of this century, but the early signs are it is something consumers widely want mostly based on most consumers of home media are not doing FP rather they are the folks with these 70” flat panel 16:9 TVs and they like the idea of filling the screen up and not loosing any of the scope width. To that point you are correct you can show them within the flat frame of your scope screen. But I have a feeling most will be under-whelmed in doing that.

Thus the reason I simply would advise anyone thinking about a new FP theater to watch Dunkirk or Aquaman or MI:Fallout, and think about the AR in those movies and the potential for whole movies to be coming out with the taller AR. If you want to watch a full feature in a tall AR that has the full scope width then watch Avatar.
Yes we've been hearing about this potential for a while now. I'm still not seeing any huge shifts yet. The IMAX "enhanced" program has a handful of documentary releases thus far.

-The percentage of IMAX films is still miniscule. Again 2 Hollywood films out of how many have been released in the last year.

-Unless the viewer is setting up their immersion levels to replicate IMAX (a seating distance of 1.5 screen heights or less) then the IMAX "experience" is no more immersive than it would be on a properly setup 2.35:1 or 2.0:1 screen

The foreseeable future still looks like 50/50 scope/flat. Just like it has been for decades. Streaming is favoring 2.0:1. So again, unless you really are in love with those few IMAX features, I would size your setup in accordance with what you will be watching on it the majority of the time. And if you have no desire to sit at IMAX immersion levels you won't be missing anything anyway.

jeahrens is offline  
post #54 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 12:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Yes we've been hearing about this potential for a while now. I'm still not seeing any huge shifts yet. The IMAX "enhanced" program has a handful of documentary releases thus far.

-The percentage of IMAX films is still miniscule. Again 2 Hollywood films out of how many have been released in the last year.

-Unless the viewer is setting up their immersion levels to replicate IMAX (a seating distance of 1.5 screen heights or less) then the IMAX "experience" is no more immersive than it would be on a properly setup 2.35:1 or 2.0:1 screen

The foreseeable future still looks like 50/50 scope/flat. Just like it has been for decades. Streaming is favoring 2.0:1. So again, unless you really are in love with those few IMAX features, I would size your setup in accordance with what you will be watching on it the majority of the time. And if you have no desire to sit at IMAX immersion levels you won't be missing anything anyway.
Most people, probably more than 99.5% of people watch home releases on a 16x9 screen.

A 70" 16x9 has 14.4 sqft of viewing area. Watching a 2.39:1 reduces that to 11sqft. For most people, a 16x9 movie will be more immersive than a scope screen. So if there is a taller cut of a movie(1.89:1), it should be released that way.

Most people want to use more of their screen, especially if it means more content(top and bottom, not a zoom in of a scope movie)
tqlla is offline  
post #55 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqlla View Post
Most people, probably more than 99.5% of people watch home releases on a 16x9 screen.

A 70" 16x9 has 14.4 sqft of viewing area. Watching a 2.39:1 reduces that to 11sqft. For most people, a 16x9 movie will be more immersive than a scope screen. So if there is a taller cut of a movie(1.89:1), it should be released that way.

Most people want to use more of their screen, especially if it means more content(top and bottom, not a zoom in of a scope movie)
This is a screen thread asking about which AR to choose and why, which means front projection. A television doesn't have that choice and isn't really relevant to the discussion.

If there is a narrower/taller cut of a film (which there isn't in most cases) then it's up to the filmmakers to decide which they want to release. Although you may equate more of your screen filled = better, changing the framing does impact the artistic presentation and thus that is a creative call. For what it's worth I'm perfectly fine watching whatever cut the filmmaker releases.

On the flip side:

1.89:1 film

On a 91x51" 16:9 screen = 30.4 sq ft (1.89:1 is wider than 16:9 so even here there is some letterboxing)
On a 120x51 2.35:1 screen = 34.1 sq ft

2.35:1 film

On a 91x51" 16:9 screen = 24.4 sq ft
On a 120x51 2.35:1 screen = 42.5 sq ft

A 16:9 (1.78:1) screen doesn't "maximize" any theatrical aspect ratio. The wider the aspect ratio the more it loses.

jeahrens is offline  
post #56 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Does anyone have recommendations on a projector that is 2.35:1 native with a large lens shift and short to medium throw?
SDoutdoorsman is offline  
post #57 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
Does anyone have recommendations on a projector that is 2.35:1 native with a large lens shift and short to medium throw?
There are no native 2.35:1 projectors in the consumer market. The native panel is either 17:9 or 16:9, but with projection it doesn't really matter. Any projector with lens memory (which is the ability to remember zoom and focus parameters) can accommodate a 2.35:1 screen. What is your budget?

The best new 4K model out there with these features from a budgetary standpoint is the Epson 5040 UB. In the 2K arena I would look at a used JVC or Epson that features lens memory. DLP doesn't generally feature lens memory and those models that do end up costing around what a better performing LCoS/LCD option does.

jeahrens is offline  
post #58 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,793
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2110 Post(s)
Liked: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
Does anyone have recommendations on a projector that is 2.35:1 native with a large lens shift and short to medium throw?
I don’t think there is such a projector. They did make one about 10 years ago and it was priced at about $25k and was only 1080 if I remember correctly. It never took off.

If you really want a scope projector the best way to do it is by adding an A-lens . If you go to the CIH forum there are lots of threads talking about that.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #59 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,053
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2034 Post(s)
Liked: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I don’t think there is such a projector. They did make one about 10 years ago and it was priced at about $25k and was only 1080 if I remember correctly. It never took off.

If you really want a scope projector the best way to do it is by adding an A-lens . If you go to the CIH forum there are lots of threads talking about that.
An Anamorphic lens is a great solution but generally a very expensive option. Todays higher lumen models with lens memory will get you a very good setup with a lot less cost. Which fits better depends a lot on their budget.

I think the projector you mention was a Runco. I think it did OK for the market it was in, but in that price bracket/market it was more efficient just package an anamorphic lens vs. making a custom panel.

jeahrens is offline  
post #60 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 0
A lens could definitely work, I’m in no rush to go 4K so if there is a cheaper 1080 option I’m good with that as well. I’d like to stay around $1000 but I also have a couple features that are a must, like a large lens shift, because my low ceiling i need to be able to move the screen quite a bit. I’m also ok with manually shifting and using zoom to make a switch between screen sizes, I also have a fairly short throw, at 13-14 feet. I understand to get these features I’m looking I might have to change my budget a little. The screen will be used mostly for movies so I’d rather have a larger screen for that and am ok with losing some size to switch to 16:9 to watch sports. I am looking to project a 135” 16:9 image or roughly a 142” 2.39:1 screen, that is where I start to run into room size constraints.
SDoutdoorsman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens

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