AVS Forum banner

16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide?

31K views 185 replies 29 participants last post by  pitchcut29 
#1 ·
I am in the process of building a dedicated theater in my basement. I have decided on the projector, but I am having difficulty in making a final decision on a screen aspect ratio.

Here is the information I am using to try to make a decision:

Protector: Epson 5040
Throw distance: 15'10"
Seating Distance: 12-13'
I will not be using an acoustically transparent screen.
Screen material will likely be white 1.3 gain
Walls and ceiling will be dark.
Maximum Screen Height is 65" (Ceiling height is 94", clearance for center speaker with stand is 25", I am allowing 4" for top screen frame)
I have no limitations for screen width.
Let's assume playback of 16:9 and 2.35:1 material will be split 50/50.

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
- Brightness would be 54fL
- I wouldn't have to worry about using lens memory
- IMAX Enhanced movies could be viewed hassle free
- More flexibility with placement of front speakers
Negatives: - Smaller size for CinemaScope movie viewing (approx. a 123" 2.35:1 image)
- Not as "theater-like"

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.
Positives: - Much larger screen for CinemaScope movie viewing
- Looks more "theater-like"
Negatives: - Smaller screen for 16:9 material (approx. 120" 16:9 image)
- The zoom of the projector would be maxed out
- The brightness would be lower at 42fL
- I would need to use lens memory
- I would place and remove magnetic masking panels when switching between sources
- Less flexibility with placement of front speakers. They would be at least 12' apart (but at a 12' seating distance, that's not a huge issue).


Given the above, I would appreciate it if anyone knows of other things I should consider when making this decision. Maybe there is something I am not considering that, once know, will make my decision easier.

Thank you!
 
See less See more
#2 ·
You are asking the $64,000 question :) that has been debated many times and has several deeply rooted outcomes depending on where you ask the question.

There is a CIH forum that is a great resource if you are interested in CIH and as expected everyone there is a fan of scope screens and constant image height presentation.

CIH is the method that has been around from the 1950’s and directors of motion pictures base their cinematography around that as the intended method of presentation. TV also fits fairly nice into CIH. So the two main type of movies made over the last 70 years are flat 1.85:1 and scope 2.35:1 and should really be watched about the same height. The action and the panning is designed if you feel the right immersion for one the other should be ok also. Our eyes are limited for tracking motion up and down more than side to side and scope movies have always been intended to be the most immersive of the two and the blockbusters.

That is until IMAX1.89 came into the picture with the expanding movies you mentioned like Dunkirk etc. Now there is also a program underway called IMAX Enhanced you can read about all over the internet and coming soon. It is going to provide us these IMAX cut movies for home as 1.89 or 1.77 AR. They will contain the whole scope movie in width and additional material in height. They should be then presented as the most immersive of all you content using a method some call CIH+IMAX. The screen width will be the same as above only not a scope screen but once again a 16:9 screen.

I have my room setup for this method and I don’t move my seats. When I watch flat or scope movies my seating distance is 2 times the screen height. When I watch an IMAX movie my seating distance is 1.5 times that screen height.

I further modified the above presentation as I know my preferences are slightly more immersive than some friends and family may like. When you go to a commercial movie with others you select a row to sit in that is comfortable for all. Because I sized my screen and seating for me as most immersive I sometimes use my zoom to effectively lower the immersion for others. I know this is getting a little complicated at this point and let me explain I could have bought a screen to suit all this but instead I painted the whole wall with a DIY screen paint and now I’m just limited by my desires.

If I was you I would rig the center speaker so it could be lowered for IMAX movies and go with a CIH+IMAX sized screen as that’s your only limiting factor in height other than your room.

That’s my 2 cents others will advise you quite different I’m sure. :D
 
#3 · (Edited)
Are you custom building your screen? If not, I dont know how available a 150 2.35:1 is. If you are absolutely stuck on 16:9 132" vs 2.35:1 153", then go with the 2.35:1. It will be bigger all the the time. 42FL is very good.

If it were me, I would say squeeze a 150" 16:9. Take it to the ceiling and lower your center channel by 5". You can make a shelf on the wall for the speaker, rather than using the stand.

Even if you had a higher ceiling, it would change your viewing angle, since the screen would still be at the same height(or possibly higher).

The Elite Screens AEON 150" 16:9 is 74.4" H x 131.7" W x 1.3" D.
 
#4 ·
Yes....I am having a screen custom built. I can choose the size and aspect ratio.

As I indicated in my original post....I am restricted in screen height to 65”. I can’t/don’t want to lower my center channel any closer to the floor than it already is. It weighs 70 lbs, so that would take a pretty hefty shelf. LOL I do not have room for a 150” 16:9 screen. If I did....I would not have this difficult decision to make. :cool:
 
#5 ·
l hate scope screens because my usage is mostly not movies. I watch a ton of TV shows and play a lot of games in my theater. However, in your case, I'd definitely go with the scope because it's far bigger and the differences in 16:9 content is small. For me, I already have the widest screen in my room possible so 16x9 makes sense. I also have an electronic masking system that's automatic based on movie aspect ratio at playback. You could make your masking system be electronic using an electric drape type install.
 
#8 ·
I watch a lot of sports, espn shows PTi as well as one to two movies a week. Do you all feel there is a max size for 16:9...for tv viewing that shouldn't be exceeded?..i often think about a larger screen for movies but wonder if the other side, video games etc would suffer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
#7 ·
It sounds as if you have made up your mind. Your theater is an example of what is commonly called a height limited room. If you cant go higher then going wider is the conventional wisdom.

You should think about doing what many do when faced with existing IMAX content and future IMAX Enhanced content and that is figure out how to mask out or program out all the upper and lower material in the movie effectively making it into a scope movie. Other wise the overspill will fall on your ceiling and center speaker.
 
#16 · (Edited)
OP, your room limitations and your choice in hardware (with lens memory) make it an easy choice. You can safely forget about the 3 action movies that were not made in scope and happily watch everything else in widescreen from now on. Movies should be larger than TV, and they will be in your new CIH theater. Congrats!

EDIT: nevermind the following, forgot you are not using a lens. Scaling IS going to be a problem, however, since the 5040 was crippled (only 6040 has scaling). See if you can get an Oppo 203 second hand.

edit, since you are custom building, go at least to 2.40:1 instead of 2.35:1, since that is the more likely aspect ratio of all content you will have.
 
#17 ·
Like most I had the same choice to make and went back a forth for weeks

I can tell you I went with 2.35 and looking back now I would questioned myself going with 16:9 that I should did 2.35. To me the most impressive thing you can do is watch movies on a projector so why not have the immeresing effect you get with 2.35. When I watch 16:9 content it doesn't even bother me with the black bars on the side. Black bars on top and bottom is would really annoy me on a 16:9 screen. Not to mention how much small that picture will look on the screen. 16:9 content on any 2.35 screen larger than 130" is still pretty damn big picture and I doubt you'd ever wish it was even larger. With your Memory Lens function of the Epson it just so easy to go between the two that it makes 2.35 a no brainer.

Go 2.35 and never think about it again.
 
#22 ·
I am in the process of building a dedicated theater in my basement.
I will not be using an acoustically transparent screen.
May I know why you don't plan for an AT screen? :confused:
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
I dont mean to hijack this post, but I have read people talking about using a projectors manual zoom feature to switch between 16:9 and 2.39:1 screen size, anyone care to expand on how this is done? I am trying to place my projector as close to the screen as possible so the zoom will likely be close to max but i would also like to leave some zoom to be able to go to 2.39:1.
 
#24 ·
You need a projector with enough zoom range to do this. Also most projectors when inverted say have the center of the lens near the top of the image. Opposite for table mount. So when you zoom from big to small the top of the image wont move much if at all. So your smaller image might be too high. Some projectors have offset that is another manual control that will then lower the image. Then you will also have to refocus. I did something like this for a while and being able to change the size is a positive thing all the fiddling around adjusting things got old.

High end projectors have this covered as the motions are motorized and are able to be put into memory so you just push a button and it goes to anyone of say ten preset size/location. It is a super nice feature and you pay for it.

Most of the projectors that do this are also longer throw length and in my short room didn’t work out.

So I used another method I described here.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...96-low-cost-cih-imax-presentation-method.html

If you are interested in this method please post to that thread. :)
 
This post has been deleted
#29 ·
I have seen others opt for 2.0:1 screen and many people wish they had picked 2.0:1 as the new TV standard of 16:9 or 1.77:1.

Normally when I see someone wanting to do 2.0:1 they have a height problem in the room working with a preferred seating distance they don’t want to shorten, maybe because of the row width and number of seats etc. Otherwise I never saw the logic in not doing full on CIH+IMAX. Some of the new IMAX movies will be 1.9:1 I believe as that is the tallest version made digital IMAX. Others shot for release in IMAX1.43 on film are cropped for home release to 1.77 like Dunkirk.

The bottom line is all projectors are 16:9 it kind of seems logical at least to me to have a 16:9 screen and with that include anything IMAX as 1.77:1

I will disagree that you need one of the big 3s projectors with their programmable zoom functions in order to do CIH+IMAX. There are a couple other methods I have used to do it. One is scaling with a HTPC setup it worked very nice and with 4k resolution there is no reason it won’t work great if you have the brightness to fill the IMAX size. The second method is what I do now, and that is with moving the projector. My projector is hung inverted on an inclined slide. When it moves the size, offset and focus all happen at once.

The projectors with programmable functions are very nice though I just wanted to do it with a $500 projector instead of a $2500 projector to see if it could be done. I like it so well now I wouldn’t think of changing.:)
 
#28 ·
Your seating layout very likely will impact on the best choice for a screen format, as well as it being about properly locating speakers.

The type of content you watch, also might sway a screen format choice. There's a lot of quality hdtv show content, and sports can also be extra
impressive on a big screen.

Why have you tossed out an AT screen option, so early in the design process?
 
#31 ·
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.
 
#32 ·
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/pr...sh-shutter-module-zmnhcd3?variant=29191065489

I actually just added one of those to my projector lift. "Hey Google, periscope down" gets the job done.
 
#34 · (Edited)
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.
 

Attachments

#35 ·
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
 
#38 ·
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 .
 
#39 ·
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.
 
#40 · (Edited)
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)


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.

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.
 

Attachments

#41 ·
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.
 
#42 ·
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.
 
#57 ·
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.
 
#60 ·
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.
 
#62 · (Edited)
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.
 
#67 ·
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-16x9-vs-130,4-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. :)
 
#71 ·
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.
 
#72 · (Edited)
^^ @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-d{2x1}-vs-125,625-inch-d{2x1}

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-16x9-vs-143,5-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.

:D
 
#73 ·
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? :confused:


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:D
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.
 
#78 · (Edited)
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.
 
#81 ·
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).
 
#82 · (Edited)
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.
 
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