16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide? - Page 3 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 42Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 01:39 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 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)
I agree and if you read the bluray forums around a lot of people want to see the taller AR of the IMAX1.89 version or a 1.77 version if it is available of these movies.

@jeaherens is correct it is the directors option and some feel the scope version is more cinematic even when shrunk down to TV size with black bars. I then ask the question why did they make the dual AR movie in the first place. IMAX1.89 theaters and IMAX theaters are perfectly capable of showing scope movies and they do it all the time. If the director really likes the scope presentation better and wants it to go out to the public on BD / UHD BD then he shouldn’t be teasing them with an IMAX version and charging more to see it in theaters.

I think there have been other reasons behind it until now. Mainly if they put that version on BD IMAX wasn’t getting a cut of the action. That was the case with Avatar. It fills a TV screen and has all the content a scope version would have, But it’s not labeled as something IMAX. That’s just my opinion.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 02:02 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
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.
Good anamorphic lenses start around $3000 with really good ones getting to the $7K range. So for your budget that's not going to be a good option.

An Epson 5040 UB would work in that scenario light output wise but not throw distance wise. It streets for around $2500, there are some refurbished deals with factory warranties for much less if you can find them. The maximum width you can project from 14' with a 5040 is 123". It would accommodate your 135" 16:9, but not the 142" scope screen. If you are still interested in a scope screen, one thing most people miss is that perceived image size is the result of the actual image size and our distance from it. So let's say you are sitting 14' from that 66" tall 135" 16:9 screen. That equates to 2.5x screen height to seating distance (66"x 2.5 = 165" / 12 = 13.75'). If you were to use a scope screen of say 120" wide, that would give you a screen height of 51". To maintain the same perceived image size we apply the same ratio. So 2.5x * 51" = 102" or 8.5'. So by sitting 5' closer you would have the same perceived image size of the taller screen on the shorter one. This means a 1.78:1 TV show would look the same on either screen, however the scope screen would still have a huge advantage with wider material.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-05-2019 at 02:05 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #63 of 182 Old 04-05-2019, 02:04 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 then ask the question why did they make the dual AR movie in the first place.
Money in some cases. In others like, Nolan, it's the camera technology.

jeahrens is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 182 Old 04-06-2019, 12:21 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 jeahrens View Post
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.
Yes, when there is a 1.89:1 theater release, more screen filled is absolutely better. Why would you consider a cropped 2.35:1 image better? Why would you want the release that throws away 25% of the image?

If there was a 1.89:1 release in theaters, almost everyone would prefer that for the home release.
tqlla is offline  
post #65 of 182 Old 04-06-2019, 07:22 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 tqlla View Post
Yes, when there is a 1.89:1 theater release, more screen filled is absolutely better. Why would you consider a cropped 2.35:1 image better? Why would you want the release that throws away 25% of the image?

If there was a 1.89:1 release in theaters, almost everyone would prefer that for the home release.
If you are a person that considers a 2.35:1 screen the largest area you can comfortably view in both directions when it is maximized in height as tall as you ever want your eyes to move watching a movie. (Some people do I’m not one of them.) And then maybe you have a screening wall that runs out of height before it runs out of width and you are set on what your seating distance has to be. (Some people are I’m not one of them.) Then you see every other AR as having to fit inside that 2.35:1 rectangle. Such people see a 1.85:1 flat movie as no different than a 1.89:1 IMAX movie because they have hit their limit for height and absolutely don’t want more visually or by physical space in the room. Some feel the scope safe cut of the movie or a DIY scope safe extraction thru masking or software is better as they like the extra horizontal immersion even though they don’t like additional vertical immersion. These same folks given a regular flat screen TV at far less immersive seating distances may very well like filling the screen with the IMAX cut as you suggest. That’s why I believe @jeahrens made the statement we are talking FP here and not TV screens.

I have tested my own visual limits seeking how much immersion I like in both directions and I have also studied the data from places like NASA and the Air Force along with medical studies on vision that went into how our peripheral vision works and I disagree with those that say when you are comfortable at a width for scope as fully immersive then IMAX becomes overly tall. I disagree for several reasons, first being my own testing for myself shows me I don’t strain with the extra height because I know what is up there by the directors own cinematography is not critical content to the movie it is up there to fill the black bars and make the image more realistic, really the same way the sides of scope movies have been used for years. Just as in real life we walk around all day ignoring to some extent what is in our peripheral vision we do that in movies as well. That’s not saying some director might not cause our attention to move just like real life and we will look up or down, right or left during a movie. But the majority of the movie finds us wandering around with our eyes in our comfort zone. After all we can go and sit at center court for a tennis match and move our heads back and forth for hours and call it fun.
The second reason I like IMAX framing is some people like less immersive movie watching not all the way to TV levels but people that sit in the back 1/3 of a theater. I think there are people that find scope at the height they like just a little too wide. I have heard a number of scope fans say that when they go to an IMAX theater they sit in the back 1/3.

IMAX1.89 home theaters are not without some problems in peoples home theaters. First is if they have the height by moving the bottom of the screen down and they like 2 or more rows they get into issues with the second row not seeing over the first rows head. IMAX needs steeper stadium like risers. Then there is the problem if you don’t have an AT screen the center speaker is too low for some peoples liking. Another common complaint is to do CIH+IMAX correctly you need some form of 4way masking and to automate that it can be pretty pricey.

Then there is familiarity with the classic shape of a scope screen and that it is not a TV like shape. Add to that the mindset of 75 years of seeing that shape as the premier framing of most of the best movies. Some will tell you that has no bearing on the issues, but I think for some it does.

I’m not against scope framing of movies in any way shape or form, just as I’m not against the director switching it up if he feels a different AR for different parts of a movie is what works best. I love what Wes Anderson did with The Grand Budapest Hotel for example. I find scope as a very beautiful and wonderful window to watch a movie in. Just as I love 1.43:1 for the great nature, science and history movies IMAX makes that don’t want us to view thru a window rather try and make realism for us with total immersion.

All this is why I chose the presentation I did because I want it all. All the options.

The truth is if IMAX Enhanced really flies it will likely be for the 25% reason and people being able to fill their new 75” TV up. And nothing wrong with that I guess I will with a few others reap the benefits having a sized down version of IMAX at home with these movies and still have all the benefits of great Scope presentations as well.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #66 of 182 Old 04-06-2019, 08:14 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
If you are a person that considers a 2.35:1 screen the largest area you can comfortably view in both directions when it is maximized in height as tall as you ever want your eyes to move watching a movie. (Some people do I’m not one of them.) And then maybe you have a screening wall that runs out of height before it runs out of width and you are set on what your seating distance has to be. (Some people are I’m not one of them.
Of course, if you run out of height and want a bigger screen, you should go 2:35:1. But thats for your choice of screen. I am advocating for movie release aspect ratios, IF there is a theatrical release with more data(1.89:1), that release should be available for home release. They wouldnt even have to release a second disc, since 2:39:1 would just be a crop of the 1.89:1.

When there is a 1.89:1 release and the studio releases a 2.35:1 crop, the studio is just throwing away 25% of visual data that should be available.

As for the 16:9 vs 2.35:1 debate,
At 135" I would go with 16:9
At 150" I would go with 16:9 if I had a 9 ft ceiling
Anything larger would have to be 2:35:1 due to the height of the room.
tqlla is offline  
post #67 of 182 Old 04-06-2019, 08:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Since this is about "16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide?", IMAX content, Netflix/Amazon original show ratios, standard TV, variable aspect ratio movies/TV and even sports have to be considered when deciding between which screen format would be best along with personal preference, equipment, angles, seating distance/rows, width/height available and content watched.

I live in a world where I never know what aspect ratio I might be getting from old silent movies to academy standard to all the variations of scope to Netlix/Amazon aspect ratios. I know that either way I choose to go, I may end up with a limiting "box/container" for my content, so which box is best? It depends on the individual.

Blanket statements that you get more with scope screen aren't true. In my case I get more with a 16:9 box...more 2:1, 2.20:1, 16:9, IMAX, variable aspect ratio movies/TV and 4:3 while getting the same 143.5" of scope that my width limit of 132" allows.

This example was used:

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.


So lets look at the math for a person who has the height to work with the 120" of width.
http://displaywars.com/137,58-inch-1...0,4-inch-235x1

If you have the added height to work with along with the 120", it is easy to see how much more limiting a scope screen would be...less IMAX... less 2:1... less 16:9...less 4:3...less everything except 2.35:1.

To me it comes down to common sense...actually math... personal preference, equipment, angles, seating distance/rows, width/height available and content watched. Pick what works best for you. For some, width might not be an issue while height is, so scope is the clear winner. For some...like myself, it is a wash, so I went with 16:9 because it gives me the largest possible experience for all the aspect ratios in my home while also keeping it simple with my native 16:9 projector.
rossandwendy likes this.

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.
steve1106 is offline  
post #68 of 182 Old 04-06-2019, 10:07 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 tqlla View Post
Of course, if you run out of height and want a bigger screen, you should go 2:35:1. But thats for your choice of screen. I am advocating for movie release aspect ratios, IF there is a theatrical release with more data(1.89:1), that release should be available for home release. They wouldnt even have to release a second disc, since 2:39:1 would just be a crop of the 1.89:1.

When there is a 1.89:1 release and the studio releases a 2.35:1 crop, the studio is just throwing away 25% of visual data that should be available.

As for the 16:9 vs 2.35:1 debate,
At 135" I would go with 16:9
At 150" I would go with 16:9 if I had a 9 ft ceiling
Anything larger would have to be 2:35:1 due to the height of the room.
I agree with you and for quite a few years I have been advocating movies that were made both ways give us the taller version or a choice at least. There is no reason with BD and UHD BD that when you pop a disk in the first thing you see is selector screen. IMAX theater release / Scope theater release. It could be that simple even the AR switchers could be made that way now.

The reason we are not getting that version is IMAX is putting up a lot of money when the movie is being made to have this pristine version available to be played in the IMAX1.89 theaters and they don’t want to give that away. They also know that it is the overall experience people go to IMAX for, improved sound and resolution clean enough to be watched extra immersive. They want control over the whole thing and they finally got smart and put a name to it IMAX Enhanced.

Way back in the days of DVD they tried this with their 1.43 movies and they made them as good as DVD could be. I have almost all of them and we enjoyed them for a lot of years. It was possible to get a small amount of the IMAX experience with them but as soon as you went for immersion the resolution became a problem. But compared to a 32” TV the 120” version I had was amazing. Now with 4k UHD it is the right time IMO and in IMAX opinion to try again.

I honestly thought we would see more context faster coming from them. If people are willing to pay a little more I think that 25% in itself will make it very successful.

Although there are some people that find that extra material not a good thing. They call the whole process LieMAX they will select scope when the movie comes up. That’s just how it is.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #69 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 07:53 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
Yes, when there is a 1.89:1 theater release, more screen filled is absolutely better. Why would you consider a cropped 2.35:1 image better? Why would you want the release that throws away 25% of the image?

If there was a 1.89:1 release in theaters, almost everyone would prefer that for the home release.
The artistic opinion I was referring to was the Director of the films, not mine. Which is the chief one that matters with regards to framing. Changing the frame composition to include "more material" isn't always a benefit. It can ruin the balance of a given frame. Or not impact it significantly. The director will decide what the prefer and that's what we should be getting on disc.

jeahrens is offline  
post #70 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 07:57 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
Of course, if you run out of height and want a bigger screen, you should go 2:35:1. But thats for your choice of screen. I am advocating for movie release aspect ratios, IF there is a theatrical release with more data(1.89:1), that release should be available for home release. They wouldnt even have to release a second disc, since 2:39:1 would just be a crop of the 1.89:1.

When there is a 1.89:1 release and the studio releases a 2.35:1 crop, the studio is just throwing away 25% of visual data that should be available.

As for the 16:9 vs 2.35:1 debate,
At 135" I would go with 16:9
At 150" I would go with 16:9 if I had a 9 ft ceiling
Anything larger would have to be 2:35:1 due to the height of the room.
Flawed logic. The room can in some cases force an AR, but generally most can accommodate a wider AR. You simply need to design your seating and screen size accordingly.

A narrow 1.78:1 screen will always compromise a wider AR when seating is static. It's math. There are good reasons for going with a 1.78:1 screen, but the room dimensions are rarely it.

jeahrens is offline  
post #71 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 08:07 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 steve1106 View Post
Blanket statements that you get more with scope screen aren't true.

I agree. It always depends on the particulars of a given setup. And your continued fixation on measurements while ignoring visual immersion offered by interaction of screen size/ratio and seating distance is still flawed. I've shown you the math repeatedly. And also pointed out that I enjoy a larger 1.78:1 picture on my physically smaller scope screen than you do because of my seating distance.

Also a significant amount of streaming content is 2.0:1 or wider and will have more visual impact on a wider screen.

jeahrens is offline  
post #72 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 12:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
^^ @jeahrens If I used "blanket statements" like yours, I could safely say that in my case a scope screen would limit every aspect ratio while scope is exactly the same. I choose to not use absolute statements like:

Also a significant amount of streaming content is 2.0:1 or wider and will have more visual impact on a wider screen.

Nope... much larger on my 16:9. Figuring that a scope setup 132" in width would limit me to 56.19" of height.

http://displaywars.com/147,625-inch-...nch-d%7B2x1%7D

Oh, right...sit closer....so smaller is more immersive...

A narrow 1.78:1 screen will always compromise a wider AR when seating is static.

Nope...not in my case 2:1, 2.2:1 are larger and scope is exactly the same. Also, I would think most people pick a seating distance that works for them before making the seating distance "static" so a little prior planning goes a long way to avoiding this. "Sit closer" comes to mind.

I get it. Many like the look of scope. Many don't want to have just a "TV". Black bars bother some. For some, CIH is the only way to go...seating/angles/etc. Some want to see content the way the director intended (why they every watch it at home and not in the cinema???). For some, more width is available and scope provides so much "more". For some it is the sit "comfortably" closer to scope for more immersion argument (how did they ever get away from TV when they could've just sat closer for more immersion???). Along with the other various reasons.

Lets look at "common sense" and "real" math of why 16:9 works best in my room:

I have exactly 132" of width to work with and enough height to support a 151.5" 16:9 screen. Using the same 132" and going with a scope screen would yield the same 143.5" of scope I get with a 16:9. Following??? So using the same logic, 2:1 is actually 147.625" on my 16:9 screen vs the much smaller 125.625" I would get on a scope screen. Using common sense it is easy to see in my case that a scope screen provides a better 2:1 experience "size-wise" and in the last week alone we have binge watched the new seasons of "The Tick" on Amazon and "Santa Clarita Diet" on Netflix.

How can I say a scope screen...in my case...would limit the other aspect ratios??? Simple math:

http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16...3,5-inch-235x1


So on to the statement on fixed/static seating...I don't have fixed seating. I have five recliners and a couch to the side. If I want more immersion that 151.5" of 16:9, or 143.5" of 2.35:1, or 123.79" of 4:3, or 147.5" of 2:1, I can get it.

In summary, a 2.35:1 screen would be too limiting as far as my personal preference.

There are plenty of reasons to pick between a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen:

personal preference, equipment, angles, seating distance/rows, width/height available, being part of the CIH AV club and content watched.

As to personal preference, I prefer all my aspect ratios as large as possible given my current home.

As to equipment, angles, seating distance/rows and width/height available, it works for us and I don't leave any unused inches on the wall. Also, we can move the recliners for more.

As to content watched, we watch everything secure in the knowledge every aspect ratio is a large as possible in our home on a 16:9 screen and much of our content is 2:1, 16:9 and 4:3. (See displaywars math...16:9 spanks 2.35:1 in my case.)

Finally, here are the best reasons for my/us picking 16:9:

It fits our native 16:9 projector.
It works for our seating distance...fits our eyes...no eyestrain even with binge watching.
It allows us to use every inch available for the largest possible experience in my room regardless of the aspect ratio.
Variable aspect ratio movies/TV look "great" on it and the projector does all the work.
The new IMAX enhancement... more expanded content may be coming.
It is simple and spanks what a small 143.5" scope screen would offer in my home.
It "wows" family and friends...normal people...that buy the largest possible TV instead of just sitting closer.
A 143.5" scope screen would just look small to us now for 90% of the content watched.
It gives us the largest possible "TV" in my home.
We often prefer a good TV/Netflix/Amazon/HBO/premium channel series to commercial scope movies.
We like our 50% of "flat" commercial movies to be as impressive (large as possible) as "scope" releases come movie time.


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; 04-08-2019 at 12:18 PM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #73 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 01:02 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 steve1106 View Post
I choose to not use absolute statements like:

Also a significant amount of streaming content is 2.0:1 or wider and will have more visual impact on a wider screen.
So you don't grasp that content intended to be wider is decreased in size when shrunk in both dimensions to fit a narrow aspect ratio?


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Oh, right...sit closer....so smaller is more immersive...
The distance you sit from an image is part of how big you perceive it. I've shown the math for your seating distance and screen size vs. mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
A narrow 1.78:1 screen will always compromise a wider AR when seating is static.

Nope...not in my case 2:1, 2.2:1 are larger and scope is exactly the same. Also, I would think most people pick a seating distance that works for them before making the seating distance "static" so a little prior planning goes a long way to avoiding this. "Sit closer" comes to mind.
In every case. You can't shrink a wider rectangle into a narrower one without shrinking it in both dimensions.

Yes planning your theater is imperative. You could plan around a wider AR and architect seating accordingly, but you have limited your concept to filling your wall and allowing that to dictate your setup. And then you proceed with posting dimensions as if this gives your position validity. Which it doesn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
I get it. Many like the look of scope. Many don't want to have just a "TV". Black bars bother some. For some, CIH is the only way to go...seating/angles/etc. Some want to see content the way the director intended (why they every watch it at home and not in the cinema???). For some, more width is available and scope provides so much "more". For some it is the sit "comfortably" closer to scope for more immersion argument (how did they ever get away from TV when they could've just sat closer for more immersion???). Along with the other various reasons.
Home Theater, to some, is to recreate the theater experience as best we can at home. Raiders of the Lost Ark is not and never was intended to be shown smaller than the Breakfast Club. IMAX is the only case where a scope screen does not preserve the directors intent. IMAX makes up a minuscule amount of my collection, so I've picked the best fit for the content I watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Lets look at "common sense" and "real" math of why 16:9 works best in my room:

I have exactly 132" of width to work with and enough height to support a 151.5" 16:9 screen.
I don't have to include the rest. You have tunnel visioned on "I want to fill this space". The thought process should be: What content do I watch most? What is the goal for my room? What AR fits these best and will it work for my space?

In your case, through prior discussions I'd say you made the right choice. But your mindset is all wrong for someone coming into a discussion on which screen AR they may ultimately want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
How can I say a scope screen...in my case...would limit the other aspect ratios???
A scope screen won't limit any AR that isn't IMAX. Which also requires the theater room built around IMAX levels of immersion. You could architect your space around a wider AR and lose no perceived impact for narrower material, but choose not to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
So on to the statement on fixed/static seating...I don't have fixed seating.
Unless you're recalibrating your audio when moving seating, that is a really bad solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
In summary, a 2.35:1 screen would be too limiting as far as my personal preference.
Yes you want to fill space X and then justify this as the "best" solution because your filled that space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
There are plenty of reasons to pick between a 16:9 or 2.35:1 screen:

personal preference, equipment, angles, seating distance/rows, width/height available, being part of the CIH AV club and content watched.
There absolutely are. For your space with a fixed offset DLP media room, a 16:9 screen makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
As to personal preference, I prefer all my aspect ratios as large as possible given my current home.

As to equipment, angles, seating distance/rows and width/height available, it works for us and I don't leave any unused inches on the wall. Also, we can move the recliners for more.

As to content watched, we watch everything secure in the knowledge every aspect ratio is a large as possible in our home on a 16:9 screen and much of our content is 2:1, 16:9 and 4:3. (See displaywars math...16:9 spanks 2.35:1 in my case.)

Finally, here are the best reasons for my/us picking 16:9:

It fits our native 16:9 projector.
It works for our seating distance...fits our eyes...no eyestrain even with binge watching.
It allows us to use every inch available for the largest possible experience in my room regardless of the aspect ratio.
Variable aspect ratio movies/TV look "great" on it and the projector does all the work.
The new IMAX enhancement... more expanded content may be coming.
It is simple and spanks what a small 143.5" scope screen would offer in my home.
It "wows" family and friends...normal people...that buy the largest possible TV instead of just sitting closer.
A 143.5" scope screen would just look small to us now for 90% of the content watched.
It gives us the largest possible "TV" in my home.
We often prefer a good TV/Netflix/Amazon/HBO/premium channel series to commercial scope movies.
We like our 50% of "flat" commercial movies to be as impressive (large as possible) as "scope" releases come movie time.

I'm glad you're enjoying your setup. It's certainly head and shoulders above most rooms and something to be proud of. However it only "spanks" a wider AR screen because you choose to set your room up to limit that option.

jeahrens is offline  
post #74 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 02:22 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
The artistic opinion I was referring to was the Director of the films, not mine. Which is the chief one that matters with regards to framing. Changing the frame composition to include "more material" isn't always a benefit. It can ruin the balance of a given frame. Or not impact it significantly. The director will decide what the prefer and that's what we should be getting on disc.
Flawed Logic. IF they gave us a choice of what to see in theaters, we should have that same choice at home.
tqlla is offline  
post #75 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 02:31 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 tqlla View Post
Flawed Logic. IF they gave us a choice of what to see in theaters, we should have that same choice at home.
Not really. If both versions exist and the Director wants to put both out there, great. If the Director prefers the IMAX framing and decides to release that, great. If the Director wants to release only the scope framing, that's fine too. Ultimately it's their choice.

In the end as long as we are getting what the creative forces behind the film feel is the best presentation, we're good. There are certainly cases where a Director may make a film in multiple ARs due to commercial obligations and not care for a certain cut. They're not obligated to release that cut.

jeahrens is offline  
post #76 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 05:37 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
Not really. If both versions exist and the Director wants to put both out there, great. If the Director prefers the IMAX framing and decides to release that, great. If the Director wants to release only the scope framing, that's fine too. Ultimately it's their choice.

In the end as long as we are getting what the creative forces behind the film feel is the best presentation, we're good. There are certainly cases where a Director may make a film in multiple ARs due to commercial obligations and not care for a certain cut. They're not obligated to release that cut.
You are basically accusing directors of compromising their artistic integrity by filming sub-par presentations, then releasing those in theaters.

Last edited by tqlla; 04-08-2019 at 05:42 PM.
tqlla is offline  
post #77 of 182 Old 04-08-2019, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 827 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Home Theater, to some, is to recreate the theater experience as best we can at home.

But your mindset is all wrong for someone coming into a discussion on which screen AR they may ultimately want.
Since there is nothing either of us can say to convince the other, I'll leave it at agree to disagree and let my previous posts speak for themselves....but...

I would suggest "your mindset is all wrong for someone coming into a discussion on which screen AR they may ultimately want." You are too fixated on scope content when there is a much wider aspect ratio world out there. Sports, IMAX enhanced, Netflix, Amazon, premium channels, documentaries, 50% of commercial (1.89:1) movies, variable aspect ratio offerings and TVs are "a growing", so you might find yourself left behind as change takes place and the TV "limiting" scope box is broken.
rossandwendy likes this.

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.
steve1106 is offline  
post #78 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 01:45 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,067
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2443 Post(s)
Liked: 1321
IMO, once you have 2 screens with one being electric (or two electrics is also an option), you will never go back to fully manual masking.
If you have 1 screen with a second 2.35 electric over it, the electric being wider automatically masks the width, and the extra 'vertical black drop' masks the top if the electric has enough.

I've tried several methods of masking / CIH, and IMO this wins. There is something to be said about not having to get out of the seat when changing aspects.
The electric going down is about the same speed as a projector's lens memory. So it's just 1 macro button on a remote, and it auto-changes for you in 20 seconds or so.

If you want an IMAX setup with 2.35 and 16:9, it's also possible using the above method, but it will require some manual (or motorized) masking, or use a giant 4:3 electric screen.

The only solution that beats the above is to install fully motorized 4-way masking, but that's a ton of DIY work to pull it off, and the off-the-shelf solutions are ridiculously expensive.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --

Last edited by coderguy; 04-09-2019 at 02:04 AM.
coderguy is offline  
post #79 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 06:25 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
You are basically accusing directors of compromising their artistic integrity by filming sub-par presentations, then releasing those in theaters.
No, I'm not. Hollywood is a business. There may be a financial or practical incentive to release different cuts of a film. A director is allowed a preference between these cuts and is the ultimate say as to what gets released.

Personally I find shifting AR films ugly and distracting. It's not a preference of one AR over another, it's that the change takes me out of the film. Nolan has made scope only cuts of his films due to the practicality of the majority of theaters not being IMAX. Am I entitled to that cut to eliminate the shifting AR? No. Despite not personally liking the shifting AR presentation I respect that this is what Nolan feels is the best presentation of his work and watch it accordingly.

jeahrens is offline  
post #80 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 06:52 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 steve1106 View Post
Since there is nothing either of us can say to convince the other, I'll leave it at agree to disagree and let my previous posts speak for themselves....but...

I would suggest "your mindset is all wrong for someone coming into a discussion on which screen AR they may ultimately want." You are too fixated on scope content when there is a much wider aspect ratio world out there. Sports, IMAX enhanced, Netflix, Amazon, premium channels, documentaries, 50% of commercial (1.89:1) movies, variable aspect ratio offerings and TVs are "a growing", so you might find yourself left behind as change takes place and the TV "limiting" scope box is broken.
How? 1.78:1 and narrower content is as big on my scope screen as it was on the 1.78:1 screen. We've had 2 VAR Hollywood films released in the last year. Hardly a huge spike in growth. Half of the streaming content is WIDER Than 1.78:1, which means it has MORE impact on the wider screen.

How is asking someone what they watch and their goals for their room "fixating on scope"? I've suggested folks stick with 1.78:1 or use 2.0:1 as a compromise based on their viewing habits several times. And in your case I believe you've made the right choice for your room. I've said this before and it bears repeating: the goal of a scope setup is not to diminish the impact of narrower material it is to RESTORE the intended impact of wider.

The only film format I don't show as intended is IMAX. Which as I've pointed out makes up very little available content. And I have no interest in sitting at 1.5x screen heights to accommodate it.

In the end the right screen AR is the one that fits your needs and goals for the room.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-09-2019 at 07:10 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #81 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 10:16 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,067
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2443 Post(s)
Liked: 1321
No point in arguing about an opinion, the best solution is usually just 2 screens so you can pick whatever sizes you prefer for whatever aspect.
Plus there are a FEW shows that have weird borders at times or odd aspect ratios that do not FIT either one of my screens, and guess what, I can just raise or lower the electric to match the aspect ratio (to a degree).

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #82 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 10:35 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 coderguy View Post
No point in arguing about an opinion, the best solution is usually just 2 screens so you can pick whatever sizes you prefer for whatever aspect.
Plus there are a FEW shows that have weird borders at times or odd aspect ratios that do not FIT either one of my screens, and guess what, I can just raise or lower the electric to match the aspect ratio (to a degree).
Two screens isn't a bad solution. I have lens memory, so I have presets for 16:9, 1.85:1, 2.0:1 and 2.35:1. Since the sides of the screen aren't lit by the panel, there's no need for masking. Contrast isn't impacted. If a projector has light leakage around the lens, then masking would probably be something you'd want.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-09-2019 at 10:44 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #83 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 10:54 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 jeahrens View Post
No, I'm not. Hollywood is a business. There may be a financial or practical incentive to release different cuts of a film. A director is allowed a preference between these cuts and is the ultimate say as to what gets released.

Personally I find shifting AR films ugly and distracting. It's not a preference of one AR over another, it's that the change takes me out of the film. Nolan has made scope only cuts of his films due to the practicality of the majority of theaters not being IMAX. Am I entitled to that cut to eliminate the shifting AR? No. Despite not personally liking the shifting AR presentation I respect that this is what Nolan feels is the best presentation of his work and watch it accordingly.
You are accusing directors of filming an aspect ratio they dont want, releasing it in theaters, then saying that theater release is not good enough for home release.

OF course shifting aspect ratios is going to be a problem for you, because you are on a zoomed scope screen. Shifting aspect ratios are just a reminder that everyone is only using 74% of their projectors resolution when watching (2.4:1), and its probably more jarring to you since the image will project onto your walls.
tqlla is offline  
post #84 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 11:02 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
You are accusing directors of filming an aspect ratio they dont want, releasing it in theaters, then saying its not good enough for home release.

OF course shifting aspect ratios is going to be a problem for you, because you are on a zoomed scope screen. Shifting aspect ratios are just a reminder that you are only using 74% of your projectors resolution.
They are giving us their preferred version of the film. That other versions exist is simply a reality of the industry. I'm not accusing them of anything. I respect their choice as artists.

No I watch shifting aspect ratio films at 1.78:1. They are as big as they were with the 16:9 screen. So, no problems. As I said it has nothing to do with preferring one AR over the other, I find the change immersion breaking and don't care for it. I didn't like it with a 16:9 screen either. Also my projector is able to easily mask overspill, so I do have an option to crop shifting AR material. I chose not to in most cases, as that's not the intent of the director.


Last edited by jeahrens; 04-09-2019 at 11:06 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #85 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 11:19 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
coderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,067
Mentioned: 63 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2443 Post(s)
Liked: 1321
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Two screens isn't a bad solution. I have lens memory, so I have presets for 16:9, 1.85:1, 2.0:1 and 2.35:1. Since the sides of the screen aren't lit by the panel, there's no need for masking. Contrast isn't impacted. If a projector has light leakage around the lens, then masking would probably be something you'd want.
I still like masking just so the entire wall is covered since I am using a 16:9 electric, however if you use a 2.35 as the electric, then it can cover the whole area depending on the amount of 'black drop' it has at the top.

**Updated Projector Calculator Released NOV 2017**
-- www.webprojectorcalculator.com --
coderguy is offline  
post #86 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 11:35 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 coderguy View Post
I still like masking just so the entire wall is covered since I am using a 16:9 electric, however if you use a 2.35 as the electric, then it can cover the whole area depending on the amount of 'black drop' it has at the top.
I originally thought I would go with masking, but after seeing the results it just didn't seem worth it. The picture just floats in black so I wouldn't see the masking anyway.

But there are a lot of cases where masking is very beneficial.

jeahrens is offline  
post #87 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 01:05 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 jeahrens View Post
They are giving us their preferred version of the film. That other versions exist is simply a reality of the industry. I'm not accusing them of anything. I respect their choice as artists.

No I watch shifting aspect ratio films at 1.78:1. They are as big as they were with the 16:9 screen. So, no problems. As I said it has nothing to do with preferring one AR over the other, I find the change immersion breaking and don't care for it. I didn't like it with a 16:9 screen either. Also my projector is able to easily mask overspill, so I do have an option to crop shifting AR material. I chose not to in most cases, as that's not the intent of the director.
I would assert what makes a IMAX shifting movie jarring for you is in the fact you are watching it under immersive showing it as 1.77:1 on your scope screen. If you had and I know you don’t a proper IMAX sized screen the scope portion would look normal as it always does for you and then when the expansion happened it would happen in your upper and lower peripheral vision and not jar into your more acute vision.

If I watch say Dunkirk on a normal TV at normal TV distances the AR changes are very apparent and I wouldn’t call them jarring but they do take your mind off the subject of the movie. When I watch them immersive in the dark on my big screen with FP I never once notice them, and yes the immersion is getting close to 1.5 SH. You may or may not like that immersion but that is what IMAX is.

Watching IMAX is not even remotely close to watching a 1.85:1 flat movie at IMAX size. That would be jarring to me.

When we conceder watching these movies at home we have to remain aware what seating ranges exist in the real theaters the movies were made to be shown in (in terms of immersion). Those seats are arranged for varying desires of those viewing and even IMAX stops the rows at points they feel are too close or too far. When you watch an expanding IMAX movie within your 1.77 area of your 2.35 screen you are taking yourself out of the IMAX experience and most likely even out of the IMAX theater.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #88 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 01:33 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 jeahrens View Post
I originally thought I would go with masking, but after seeing the results it just didn't seem worth it. The picture just floats in black so I wouldn't see the masking anyway.

But there are a lot of cases where masking is very beneficial.
This is a controversial subject and one I agree with you on. When is masking, masking? Of course it is when your vision and brain see an improvement that is significant enough to make it worthwhile.

In my case my screen wall has no boundaries described by any AR. There is only what is projected and what isn’t and what ever spill there is within a black bar the projector itself is trying to mask as black.

In my case with a neutral gray screen with a reflectance of 50% and a dark chip 3 DLP projector in a pitch black room. The projectors projected black is pretty good and the fact it is well into my peripheral vision due to immersion and that there is no black boarder to draw my attention to what is truly black it is a case of what looks as black as my best black in the image is black enough.

Of course if I’m watching with some ambient light in the room I realize my lack of masking is still as black as my not so good projected blacks. I’m much more distracted by less than perfect blacks in the image than by black bars not being black in my peripheral.

After having a stealth setup now for a year I will never go back to wanting masking in any form. I know many people even the vast majorities wont accept forgetting about masking. All I can say is try it to them.

The problem right now with 4k coming on strong is finding a light cannon 4k projector to make it happen without going into a less accurate color mode to get some brightness.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #89 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 01:51 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 would assert what makes a IMAX shifting movie jarring for you is in the fact you are watching it under immersive showing it as 1.77:1 on your scope screen. If you had and I know you don’t a proper IMAX sized screen the scope portion would look normal as it always does for you and then when the expansion happened it would happen in your upper and lower peripheral vision and not jar into your more acute vision.

If I watch say Dunkirk on a normal TV at normal TV distances the AR changes are very apparent and I wouldn’t call them jarring but they do take your mind off the subject of the movie. When I watch them immersive in the dark on my big screen with FP I never once notice them, and yes the immersion is getting close to 1.5 SH. You may or may not like that immersion but that is what IMAX is.

Watching IMAX is not even remotely close to watching a 1.85:1 flat movie at IMAX size. That would be jarring to me.

When we conceder watching these movies at home we have to remain aware what seating ranges exist in the real theaters the movies were made to be shown in (in terms of immersion). Those seats are arranged for varying desires of those viewing and even IMAX stops the rows at points they feel are too close or too far. When you watch an expanding IMAX movie within your 1.77 area of your 2.35 screen you are taking yourself out of the IMAX experience and most likely even out of the IMAX theater.
No I didn't like it on my 16:9 screen. Has not thing to do with how much or how little of the screen is filled, it's the shift itself that pulls me out of the film. If it stayed at a constant 1.78:1 or 1.89:1 I really wouldn't care.

jeahrens is offline  
post #90 of 182 Old 04-09-2019, 01:52 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 steve1106 View Post
What a great screen shot. I love seeing the director play with frame breaking like that and giving the audience a 3D feeling of the movie reaching out into their space. Life of Pi did it also as have a few others. Without a full IMAX screen available these cleaver tricks are lost.

Bud
bud16415 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