Need some screen recommendations - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 4 Old 11-24-2019, 09:08 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Need some screen recommendations

I have a jvc x790r and it has made me unable to stop loving movies with its amazing image. I do want to upgrade my screen from 120 inch to about 135 maybe 150 in 16x9. I’m happy with how the image looks right now on a grey 1.0 gain screen without alr. It’s very well light controlled room. If I go to 135 I think I would like 1.3 gain to keep the same brightness and for 150 inch I would need about 1.5 gain which might not be reasonable without artifacts or spending to much $$$. I’m hoping to spend maybe $1000 but somewhat flexible if it means better image. My current 120 is cinegrey aoen from elitescreen and it’s done well especially with my last 1080p projector. Would like to remain borderless if possible maybe a tiny border would be alright.
[email protected] is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 4 Old 11-24-2019, 08:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 3,320
Mentioned: 73 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1123 Post(s)
Liked: 579
First "LIGHT CONTROLLED" means no white reflective surfaces like a white ceiling. If this is not the case then it gets very complicated. Any screen above a 1.3 overall gain has the possibility of introducing hot spots and sparkles. If you love movies and you have a capable projector why not a 2:39 scope screen?

"Smart enough to know better, to old to care" ------ Dedicated Bat Cave Home Theater, JVC RS49U/Mitsubishi HC7900DW Projector, 110" 16:9 Jamestown screen with variable power masking for CIW 2.50:1 to 16:9, Marantz 7009 with 7.1.4 Atmos with Ohm mains,3 DIY Subs (2 15" (1 ported, 1 sealed and a 12" 4th order bandpass), 1 DIY butt kicker, Custom Built HTPC, 18TB DroboFS NAS
rekbones is online now  
post #3 of 4 Old 12-10-2019, 02:32 AM
Member
 
skibbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekbones View Post
First "LIGHT CONTROLLED" means no white reflective surfaces like a white ceiling. If this is not the case then it gets very complicated. Any screen above a 1.3 overall gain has the possibility of introducing hot spots and sparkles. If you love movies and you have a capable projector why not a 2:39 scope screen?
Not to restart this ongoing debate, but I find the constant suggestion that true movie lovers prefer 2:39 screens to be offensive - I don't think any actual cinephile would suggest that. There are tons of great films in 1.85:1, 16:9, etc. and optimizing for 2:39 at the cost of other aspect ratios just prioritizes a small subset of films over all others. I'd prefer to watch a beautiful transfer of In the Mood for Love (1.66:1), Il Sorpasso (1.85:1), Kikujiro (1.85:1), Tampopo (1.85:1), Rear Window (1.66:1), etc. over a lot of epics that use ~2.39:1. There's a whole world of amazing cinema out there, let's not limit people to just optimizing for ~2.39:1 films. I might be biased, I work in media for a company that produces a lot of high quality 16:9 content many folks in here probably watch more than ~2.39:1 content... but I also own over 6,000 films on physical media and many of the most important works in cinema are not in ~2.39:1 aspect ratio - if that's all you want to watch, great, but you're really prioritizing the viewing experience of a small subset of cinema over many films that are arguably much more important. I love that movies give everyone so much enjoyment, so let's not dismiss beautiful works of art in favor of movies that went with a specific aspect ratio. That being said, I love many ~2.35:1 films - Polanski's Chinatown is my favorite film and it looks just fine on a 16:9 screen while I can still enjoy other amazing films in different aspect ratios at much larger sizes as well. A 16:9 screen is a great compromise if you can't afford multiple screens or masking solutions that are often super spendy. Can we quit the ~2.39:1 is for "movie lovers" gatekeeping?
skibbs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 4 Old 12-10-2019, 03:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 3,320
Mentioned: 73 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1123 Post(s)
Liked: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by skibbs View Post
Not to restart this ongoing debate, but I find the constant suggestion that true movie lovers prefer 2:39 screens to be offensive - I don't think any actual cinephile would suggest that. There are tons of great films in 1.85:1, 16:9, etc. and optimizing for 2:39 at the cost of other aspect ratios just prioritizes a small subset of films over all others. I'd prefer to watch a beautiful transfer of In the Mood for Love (1.66:1), Il Sorpasso (1.85:1), Kikujiro (1.85:1), Tampopo (1.85:1), Rear Window (1.66:1), etc. over a lot of epics that use ~2.39:1. There's a whole world of amazing cinema out there, let's not limit people to just optimizing for ~2.39:1 films. I might be biased, I work in media for a company that produces a lot of high quality 16:9 content many folks in here probably watch more than ~2.39:1 content... but I also own over 6,000 films on physical media and many of the most important works in cinema are not in ~2.39:1 aspect ratio - if that's all you want to watch, great, but you're really prioritizing the viewing experience of a small subset of cinema over many films that are arguably much more important. I love that movies give everyone so much enjoyment, so let's not dismiss beautiful works of art in favor of movies that went with a specific aspect ratio. That being said, I love many ~2.35:1 films - Polanski's Chinatown is my favorite film and it looks just fine on a 16:9 screen while I can still enjoy other amazing films in different aspect ratios at much larger sizes as well. A 16:9 screen is a great compromise if you can't afford multiple screens or masking solutions that are often super spendy. Can we quit the ~2.39:1 is for "movie lovers" gatekeeping?
This subject has all ready been beat to death and there is no simple answer. First and foremost it is purely personal preference. Secondly a lot depends on the room. In my opinion if you can get the width screen that you like and still have clearance to make it 16:9 then that is what I would do. Your typical 8' high room unless it if fairly narrow I doubt this would work. The projector is native 16:9 so it really makes a lot of sense. I personally have a 16:9 screen and it is the maximum width my room will support and I have a DIY power mask to change it to almost any format that I want. One of my favorite movies is Bridge on the River Kwai with an AR of 2:50 to 1 and my screen matches it with no black bars.

"Smart enough to know better, to old to care" ------ Dedicated Bat Cave Home Theater, JVC RS49U/Mitsubishi HC7900DW Projector, 110" 16:9 Jamestown screen with variable power masking for CIW 2.50:1 to 16:9, Marantz 7009 with 7.1.4 Atmos with Ohm mains,3 DIY Subs (2 15" (1 ported, 1 sealed and a 12" 4th order bandpass), 1 DIY butt kicker, Custom Built HTPC, 18TB DroboFS NAS
rekbones is online now  
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