16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide? - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 14Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
KCWolfPck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 36
16:9 or 2.35:1?? How do you decide?

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!
KCWolfPck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 11:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
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.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #3 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 12:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
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.

Last edited by tqlla; 03-16-2019 at 12:31 PM.
tqlla is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 04:44 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
KCWolfPck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 36
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.
KCWolfPck is offline  
post #5 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 05:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markmon1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,525
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4661 Post(s)
Liked: 2955
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.
bubbrik likes this.

Video: JVC RS4500 135" screen in pure black room no light, htpc nvidia 1080ti.
Audio: Anthem mrx720 running 7.1.4, McIntosh MC-303, MC-152, B&W 802d3 LR, B&W HTM1D3 center, B&W 805d3 surround, B&W 702S2 rear, B&W 706s2 x 4 shelf mounted for atmos, 2 sub arrays both infinite baffle: 4x15 fi audio running on behringer ep4000 + 4x12 fi audio running on 2nd ep4000.
markmon1 is offline  
post #6 of 108 Old 03-16-2019, 06:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Well, if you are unwilling to compromise on the screen size for the 16:9, then the much larger 2.35:1 is the only way to go.

Also, my center channel is 50lbs, you can just use large brackets like these, then put something in the front to slightly tilt the speaker up.. Make sure that you are screwed into Studs. https://www.amazon.com/Black-Steel-S...dp/B001BF1H0K/
tqlla is offline  
post #7 of 108 Old 03-17-2019, 09:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
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.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #8 of 108 Old 03-18-2019, 11:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Jeffg8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by markmon1 View Post
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.
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

Dedicated Theater -Projector -Sony 385es-Screen-Stewart Firehawk 110" 1.78-Video-Panasonic UB-900, Direct Tv-Preamp-Anthem AVM-60-Amplifiers-MM8077, Proceed Amp 5-Sub-SVS-PB13 Ultra Speakers-B&W 803D, HTM1, Side and Rear Wall B&W (4), Ceiling B&W (4)
Xbox One -Panamax M5300-PM-Control 4 Ea-5,Pakedge Router
Jeffg8 is offline  
post #9 of 108 Old 03-18-2019, 12:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 3,761
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1827 Post(s)
Liked: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffg8 View Post
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
A major fallacy with a scope screen is that it must or is intended to compromise narrower material. It most certainly doesn't and shouldn't. Also a narrower AR screen will always compromise wider AR material with a fixed seating location. You can never fit a wider rectangle into narrower one with shrinking it in both dimensions.

As to your maximum size question, you really need to see what image size you prefer. You should not simply measure the wall and throw up the biggest screen you can. Most people tend to watch at a viewing distance of 2-3x the screen height. So for example for a 50" tall screen most would find their optimal seating distance between 100-150". That's independent of the aspect ratio of the screen. Some do prefer a closer experience like IMAX (1.5x screen height or less) where the image overwhelms your vertical field of view. If you have the ability to experiment, I would suggest getting putting an image up on the wall and moving a chair closer and further from it to determine where your preference is. Once you found your desired seating distance you can use this along with the image height to determine what ratio you prefer. This ratio should be used to determine your ultimate screen size and seating distance.

What AR you ultimately decide to do should be determined by what your viewing preferences are. For me it's 99% movies. And of those movies about 2% of them are IMAX. Which is the only film format not maximized by a scope screen. So it's pretty easy choice for me. And because I maintained the exact same image height of my old 16:9 screen 1.33:1 (old school television), 1.37:1 (Academy films) and 1.78:1 (16:9) are NO smaller than they were before. However 1.85:1 (Flat films like Aliens or The Breakfast Club), 2.0:1 (Jurassic World and a lot of streaming content), 2.20:1 and 2.35:1 (most all action and sci fi blockbusters) are now larger. Up to 80% larger in fact in the case of 2.35:1 films.

So the first step is really to determine what your optimal image height to seating distance is. The second step is what AR do you want the screen to be? After that you can look at the actual room and figure out what you should actually build.

So for arguments sake lets say you put a chair in the room and move it back and forth from a projected image and determine you like a 2.5x seating distance to screen height. You have also decided you want a 2.0:1 screen as a compromise between movie and TV viewing. So say you want your seating to be 12' back due to a speaker placement preference, you would then need a screen 58" high (12'seating distance=144"/2.5 image height to seating ratio=57.6" screen height). Which with a 2.0:1 screen nets a screen 116x58". Granted that's just an example. Once you've found the seating ratio to screen height that works you can plug that into any ratio screen.
gooch02000 likes this.

jeahrens is online now  
post #10 of 108 Old 03-18-2019, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffg8 View Post
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
It is really quite simple TV sets can only make an image that fits inside the TV screen. All TV sets are 16:9 and if you buy a 60” TV you know the size every AR will be as it goes as big as it can within that 16:9 box a scope movie will touch the sides and an old 4:3 movie will touch the top and bottom.

Projectors have something no TV will ever have and that’s a zoom knob or a zoom button on the remote. Some projectors have a lot of zoom some a little.

If your screen is the largest size you think you will ever want and when that size your projector zoom is set to be as big as it will zoom, then you can zoom things smaller for as much range as your zoom has.

This is exactly what I do. I sit 8’ from my screen and the max size picture I want to see is 110” That’s IMAX movies and maybe Game of Thrones or maybe Nascar races and good quality scope movies. From there I can only zoom down and my setup lets me zoom down to 65” That’s where I watch stuff that looks better smaller like Wheel of Fortune and the nightly news.

You can sort it out yourself what you like what size if you like video games smaller then that’s how you should play them, if ESPN looks better someplace in the middle that's how you should watch it.

Get a screen big enough for you biggest desire and a projector with enough zoom for your smallest desire. There is no rule that says you have to fill your screen all the way up.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #11 of 108 Old 03-18-2019, 03:54 PM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If width isn't limited and seating distance isn't to close, i'd go with the largest scope screen possible, or that my projector can power.
howiee is offline  
post #12 of 108 Old 03-18-2019, 03:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 821 Post(s)
Liked: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffg8 View Post
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
For me it comes down to what you view, height/width available, rows/angles, personal preference and equipment. I want simple like a TV so I went with a 16:9 that uses every available inch of width in my room. This results in a 151.5" image at a standard seating distance of 13 feet. In my case a scope box would limit the other aspect ratios too much with no gain for scope content. This site shows that more is in fact more when it comes to my 16:9 choice.

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

But numbers are numbers and both formats are just different limiting boxes, so I also experimented with two of the same projectors and I decided I would rather have my Avatar, Avengers, Game of Thrones and Justice League in 151.5" 16:9 vs a much smaller 114.61" 16:9 in a scope box. Now if I had the width for a 190" scope box????
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01789a.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	161.9 KB
ID:	2541074  
tebling 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 #13 of 108 Old 03-19-2019, 04:26 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
This results in a 151.5" image at a standard seating distance of 13 feet.
Hey Steve. Did that take some getting used to at 16:9 - any visible pixels and moving your head around to see everything? That's under 2*height viewing distance and must look massive!
howiee is offline  
post #14 of 108 Old 03-19-2019, 10:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,118
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 821 Post(s)
Liked: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by howiee View Post
Hey Steve. Did that take some getting used to at 16:9 - any visible pixels and moving your head around to see everything? That's under 2*height viewing distance and must look massive!
Yes it took some getting us to but so did my 70" TV when I first jumped from 55 to 70" years ago. No we don't move our heads around and the pixels only come into view at around 6 to 8 feet for family members. We actually do 8 to 10 for 3D...in your face 3D. No eyestrain issues and we have been known to binge watch a Netflix series for 12 to 14 hours on a cold wet/snowy day.

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 #15 of 108 Old 03-19-2019, 10:26 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 71
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve1106 View Post
Yes it took some getting us to but so did my 70" TV when I first jumped from 55 to 70" years ago. No we don't move our heads around and the pixels only come into view at around 6 to 8 feet for family members. We actually do 8 to 10 for 3D...in your face 3D. No eyestrain issues and we have been known to binge watch a Netflix series for 12 to 14 hours on a cold wet/snowy day.
haha fair enough. I've been on a similar journey but it ended at 120" a while back. Might be time to try something bigger!
howiee is offline  
post #16 of 108 Old 03-21-2019, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ScottAvery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Great Falls, VA
Posts: 1,651
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 632 Post(s)
Liked: 183
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.

Last edited by ScottAvery; 03-21-2019 at 02:05 PM.
ScottAvery is offline  
post #17 of 108 Old 03-25-2019, 02:46 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 10
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.
skylolow is offline  
post #18 of 108 Old 03-25-2019, 03:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylolow View Post
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.
How will you watch Aquaman?

https://screenrant.com/aquaman-movie...nes-james-wan/

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #19 of 108 Old 03-25-2019, 09:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
IMO, all movies that have an imax option, should come in 16:9 for home release. Or at least have the 16:9 option.

Is the home release of Aquaman going to be 16:9 for most of the movie, or are they going to cut it to 2.35:1?

I thought about masking my Theater to 2.35:1 for watching movies, but then I watched the latest Mission impossible, and it switched between formats. Same with the first guardians of the galaxy(though I was watching 3D)
tqlla is offline  
post #20 of 108 Old 03-25-2019, 10:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqlla View Post
IMO, all movies that have an imax option, should come in 16:9 for home release. Or at least have the 16:9 option.

Is the home release of Aquaman going to be 16:9 for most of the movie, or are they going to cut it to 2.35:1?

I thought about masking my Theater to 2.35:1 for watching movies, but then I watched the latest Mission impossible, and it switched between formats. Same with the first guardians of the galaxy(though I was watching 3D)
It will switch between 16:9 IMAX and 2.35 Scope.

90% of the movie is IMAXed.


I agree and soon with IMAX Enhanced we should be getting the IMAX framing on the movies that released in both scope and IMAX. They will also have the benefits of being run thru the IMAX DMR process.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #21 of 108 Old 03-25-2019, 11:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It will switch between 16:9 IMAX and 2.35 Scope.

90% of the movie is IMAXed.


I agree and soon with IMAX Enhanced we should be getting the IMAX framing on the movies that released in both scope and IMAX. They will also have the benefits of being run thru the IMAX DMR process.
Awesome. They should have been doing IMAX'es releases for years now, since 99.9% of all flat screen TVs are 16:9.
bud16415 likes this.
tqlla is offline  
post #22 of 108 Old 03-26-2019, 12:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borneo Island
Posts: 3,039
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCWolfPck View Post
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?
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.
Skylinestar is offline  
post #23 of 108 Old 03-26-2019, 10:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 0
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.
SDoutdoorsman is offline  
post #24 of 108 Old 03-26-2019, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
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.
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-di...on-method.html

If you are interested in this method please post to that thread.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #25 of 108 Old 03-26-2019, 01:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
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.
Projectors are natively 16:9 in most cases.
When you watch a 2.35:1 movie, you have black bars on the top and bottom to fill up the 16:9 image.
If you want to zoom in to fill a 2.35:1 screen, then the black bars are outside of the screen.

JVCs have pretty good blacks, so the black bars are not as noticeable on the wall

Basically, when you project on a 125" 2.35:1 screen, your projector is actually projecting a 134" 16:9 with black bars on the top and bottom.
Scott KL likes this.
tqlla is offline  
post #26 of 108 Old 03-27-2019, 08:07 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqlla View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
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.
Projectors are natively 16:9 in most cases.
When you watch a 2.35:1 movie, you have black bars on the top and bottom to fill up the 16:9 image.
If you want to zoom in to fill a 2.35:1 screen, then the black bars are outside of the screen.

JVCs have pretty good blacks, so the black bars are not as noticeable on the wall

Basically, when you project on a 125" 2.35:1 screen, your projector is actually projecting a 134" 16:9 with black bars on the top and bottom.

So am I correct that the projector would need to have a longer throw to project a bigger “2.35:1”screen using a 16:9 projector. Assuming I am using almost all the manual zoom to make the throw distance as short as possible?
SDoutdoorsman is offline  
post #27 of 108 Old 03-28-2019, 06:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tqlla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDoutdoorsman View Post
So am I correct that the projector would need to have a longer throw to project a bigger “2.35:1”screen using a 16:9 projector. Assuming I am using almost all the manual zoom to make the throw distance as short as possible?
I am not sure what your question is. Some projectors are typical(1.4x), and others are short throw. Manual zoom and power zoom doesnt make a difference in the throw distance.

If you have the space, dont go too short on the throw distance. Make sure you have enough space to project a larger screen should you wish to upgrade.
tqlla is offline  
post #28 of 108 Old 04-01-2019, 10:17 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tedd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,969
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2044 Post(s)
Liked: 834
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?
Tedd is offline  
post #29 of 108 Old 04-01-2019, 01:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by wookiegr View Post
Something to contemplate if going DIY:

I'll be custom building my screen at 2:1 aspect ratio at around 165" diagonal. That is exactly the middle point between 16x9 and 2.35:1. For the typical scope screen owners, they lose the tops and bottoms of the full IMAX and 16x9 presentations. So there is lost image. They typically see things as "scope friendly" in regards to how movies are shot when there is shifting aspect ratios too. My design is to gain more picture above and below the image for all non scope content. Scope content will only have reduced black bars to contend with, roughly half the size they would normally be on a full 16x9 screen. I also have the option of slightly zooming scope content to the full 2:1 screen by losing only a small percentage on the sides which is still a better amount of loss than the amount scope owners lose from the tops and bottoms of IMAX presentations. Of course, this is only possible using one of the three big companies latest projectors, JVC, Sony and Epson for their lens memory settings. I plan to post videos of the process later in the summer when I get that phase of my build. I find this to be the best of both worlds and by staying neutral between the two ratios I actually get most of everything without losing much of some things. If I decide to keep all scoped content slightly zoomed in, I'll never have to worry about just how black or grayish the bars above and below the scoped image will be either. And for gamers, you are still much closer to the full 16x9 ratio where you zoom back slightly and you have your black bars on the sides back with 100% display availability.
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.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #30 of 108 Old 04-01-2019, 01:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,596
Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2031 Post(s)
Liked: 1024
Quote:
Originally Posted by wookiegr View Post
For my situation, I believe it makes more sense since a second row would not have a good view of the lower portion of the screen considering how large it will be.
I have heard people say that, and really a second row at home is already getting out of the IMAX immersion factor anyway due to distance/screen size. Thing is having the extra area doesn’t mean you have to use it. If you are showing an IMAX movie for just a couple people use the front row and get the whole thing. if you have people in the back you can zoom it back or you can just let the heads get in the way if the heads crop it or your screen crops it there isn’t much difference.

When I did 2 rows I had lower reclining seats in the front row and taller more upright seats in the second row that didn’t recline. That and few inches more in the riser and you have stadium seating.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Screens



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