Review/Check my proposed 2.35 screen size (CIH 170") - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 10Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 11:08 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Review/Check my proposed 2.35 screen size (CIH 170")

Nothing is in stone but I wanted to check my screen size design before moving on to projector selection. I am also fully aware that as I shop for projectors I may need to change my design up a bit.

My current plan is 19'x28'x12' room, 3' behind screen for speakers so actually more like a 25' room. First row of recliners at 11' site distance, second row of recliners at 17', and final bar stool row at 21'. The bar stools are just an easy way to add seating and I am not too worried about small viewing angles from back there.

Screen: 156" x 66" (170" diag) 2.35 screen CIH design. Likely AT Center Stage XD
Size based on screen height = @11' (2.0x), @17'(3.0x), 21' (3.8x)
2.35 viewing angles = @11' (61 deg) @17'(42 deg) @21'(35 deg)

Resulting 16:9 image size = 118" x 66" (135" diag)
16:9 viewing angles = @11' (48 deg) @17'(32 deg) @21'(26 deg)

No specific "design row" but rather tried to size the screen to optimize first and second row. As mentioned, I may adjust this design depending on what projectors cost. While I think I can get reasonable projectors to get the classic 14-21 fL recommendation, it seems like the trend these days is to go bright for HDR. May need to fork out money, not worry about HDR, or swap AT screen for a more conventional screen with a high gain.
Travis Reed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 11:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Nothing is in stone but I wanted to check my screen size design before moving on to projector selection. I am also fully aware that as I shop for projectors I may need to change my design up a bit.

My current plan is 19'x28'x12' room, 3' behind screen for speakers so actually more like a 25' room. First row of recliners at 11' site distance, second row of recliners at 17', and final bar stool row at 21'. The bar stools are just an easy way to add seating and I am not too worried about small viewing angles from back there.

Screen: 156" x 66" (170" diag) 2.35 screen CIH design. Likely AT Center Stage XD
Size based on screen height = @11' (2.0x), @17'(3.0x), 21' (3.8x)
2.35 viewing angles = @11' (61 deg) @17'(42 deg) @21'(35 deg)

Resulting 16:9 image size = 118" x 66" (135" diag)
16:9 viewing angles = @11' (48 deg) @17'(32 deg) @21'(26 deg)

No specific "design row" but rather tried to size the screen to optimize first and second row. As mentioned, I may adjust this design depending on what projectors cost. While I think I can get reasonable projectors to get the classic 14-21 fL recommendation, it seems like the trend these days is to go bright for HDR. May need to fork out money, not worry about HDR, or swap AT screen for a more conventional screen with a high gain.
I love the huge screen idea, as I've been projecting a 152.5 x 64 scope image, but be aware you'd need something along the lines of the sixty-thousand dollar Sony 5000 lumens projector to properly do HDR at that size on the XD material. I've been doing only blu-ray so SDR and on high lamp with a Sony 45ES it was bright enough at 152.5” wide but as the bulb ages I wish for more brightness so I have reduced my screen size lately and decreased my throw distance to pop the picture a little more.

Your first row viewing angle at 62 degrees is close to the front of the commercial theater view, it is preferred by some on this forum but others will fnd it uncomfortable/overwhelming. I would get a projector to experiment with sizes and seating distance first using a wall, even if you have to buy used and resell when done testing, before committing to the build design.

Ross
Travis Reed likes this.

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83
rossandwendy is offline  
post #3 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 11:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
That gives you 2X and 3X screen height seating distance and that is the range commonly accepted as comfortable viewing. If you can maintain 14-21 FL that should provide nice film-like viewing. Keep in mind lamp dimming and that actual calibrated lumens are most of the time lower than advertised lumens.

PS that is the same info i provided about a week ago in one of your first threads on the subject.

Bud

Last edited by bud16415; 01-26-2020 at 11:45 AM.
bud16415 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 11:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
I love the huge screen idea, as I've been projecting a 152.5 x 64 scope image, but be aware you'd need something along the lines of the sixty-thousand dollar Sony 5000 lumens projector to properly do HDR at that size on the XD material. I've been doing only blu-ray so SDR and on high lamp with a Sony 45ES it was bright enough at 152.5” wide but as the bulb ages I wish for more brightness so I have reduced my screen size lately and decreased my throw distance to pop the picture a little more.

Your first row viewing angle at 62 degrees is close to the front of the commercial theater view, it is preferred by some on this forum but others will fnd it uncomfortable/overwhelming. I would get a projector to experiment with sizes and seating distance first using a wall, even if you have to buy used and resell when done testing, before committing to the build design.

Ross
I agree.

With his spacing as I told him the other day he is likely splitting the most common preferred seating distance (the center of a commercial theater) between his two rows. Most people want one row to be what they like best and then comprise around the rest. I told him the other day one method to make the compromise less problematic is to use upright theater seating for the second row and thus compressing the distance loss. Doing that also allows for a less high riser for those with normal ceilings and even allows for IMAX sizing of the screen if so desired.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #5 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 12:33 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
I agree.

With his spacing as I told him the other day he is likely splitting the most common preferred seating distance (the center of a commercial theater) between his two rows. Most people want one row to be what they like best and then comprise around the rest. I told him the other day one method to make the compromise less problematic is to use upright theater seating for the second row and thus compressing the distance loss. Doing that also allows for a less high riser for those with normal ceilings and even allows for IMAX sizing of the screen if so desired.
Yup my final decided size came from your recommendation and some others. Still considering non reclining for second row. Just trying to get a final confirmation that my approach to screen size is "correct". When I actually have a room complete and have some chairs, I should be able to tell pretty quickly if I need to buy some additional room for the front row by changing from recliner to regular seat.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #6 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 12:45 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
I love the huge screen idea, as I've been projecting a 152.5 x 64 scope image, but be aware you'd need something along the lines of the sixty-thousand dollar Sony 5000 lumens projector to properly do HDR at that size on the XD material. I've been doing only blu-ray so SDR and on high lamp with a Sony 45ES it was bright enough at 152.5” wide but as the bulb ages I wish for more brightness so I have reduced my screen size lately and decreased my throw distance to pop the picture a little more.

Your first row viewing angle at 62 degrees is close to the front of the commercial theater view, it is preferred by some on this forum but others will fnd it uncomfortable/overwhelming. I would get a projector to experiment with sizes and seating distance first using a wall, even if you have to buy used and resell when done testing, before committing to the build design.

Ross
$60k yikes. Starting to think HDR is just not practical for home theater applications. Do commercial theaters even bother?

Looks like your screen is very similarly sized to mine. What viewing distances are you at? I imagine you are plenty bright on your 16:9 content though since it is shrunk down to fit the height of the screen? I was considering the JVC NX7 and now considering the NX9 but going to do a lot more research there.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #7 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 02:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1469 Post(s)
Liked: 1158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
$60k yikes. Starting to think HDR is just not practical for home theater applications. Do commercial theaters even bother?



Looks like your screen is very similarly sized to mine. What viewing distances are you at? I imagine you are plenty bright on your 16:9 content though since it is shrunk down to fit the height of the screen? I was considering the JVC NX7 and now considering the NX9 but going to do a lot more research there.
I would highly consider using Paladin DCR lens with the 2:35 screen and the NX7. The lens will give roughly 33-38% more lumens on your screen. You will need all the lumens you can for such a large AT screen if you want to watch HDR content. There are also throw distance recommendations/requirements for anamorphic lens. Just my two cents.

Frankly I would reduce screen size to 135 inches, do non-AT higher gain screen like the Stewart Filmscreen Studiotek 130 and go with the NX7 and some type of video processor like Lumagen Radiance Pro or madVR Envy. I would prefer quality over that enormous screen size.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #8 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 03:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 148
I sit 134" (11'2") away from a 142" wide scope screen and I wouldn't want to be any closer.

Extrapolating those figures to your screen would put me at 147" (12'3") away from your 156" screen.
I think 11' will be too close and you won't want to sit there, so you will end up in the second row and that will be a bit far away for ideal, and if you go upright seating won't be as comfortable.

So I guess you have to decide if you want that size screen and compromised seating or good seating and smaller screen.
Smaller screen lets you get two rows of good seating (with the front row in ideal position), will cost less and will be less taxing (and cheaper) on the projector.
niterida is offline  
post #9 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 03:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1469 Post(s)
Liked: 1158
Quote:
Originally Posted by niterida View Post
I sit 134" (11'2") away from a 142" wide scope screen and I wouldn't want to be any closer.

Extrapolating those figures to your screen would put me at 147" (12'3") away from your 156" screen.
I think 11' will be too close and you won't want to sit there, so you will end up in the second row and that will be a bit far away for ideal, and if you go upright seating won't be as comfortable.

So I guess you have to decide if you want that size screen and compromised seating or good seating and smaller screen.
Smaller screen lets you get two rows of good seating (with the front row in ideal position), will cost less and will be less taxing (and cheaper) on the projector.
Sitting distance is so personal. That is why a movie theater has seats front middle and back. I would never presume to tell someone how close or far away to sit from their screen. A person should test out seating distances for themselves similar to testing the chair that a person will sit in. The resolution makes a huge difference as well. Generally speaking the higher the resolution the closer you can sit because image quality is better and less of a strain on the eye to process the image. That being said some people like to sit closer some people further back.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #10 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
It costs about 10 bucks to test your immersion. You go to your local cinema on a day and time when you know is slow and a movie that’s not in high demand. You bring with you a small tape measure and find the seat you think you might like. During the movie take the tape measure and at arms length measure the screen width of the scope movie. Then maybe try 5 or 6 rows closer and then back 5 or 6 rows. At some point you will think this is too close it is too tall. When you find your happy seat remember that width. Go home and put a chair 11’ from the wall get out the tape measure and have your wife stick 2 pieces of tape on the wall that line up with the measurement you got at the theater. Get out of the chair and measure between those two pieces of tape and you will know what size screen is perfect for your best seat. It is just that simple.

Now put the whole 2.35 scope screen size on the wall with blue painters tape. Look at it again from 11’ and then move the chair back to 17’. Take a good look at that size then move it up to 14’ and take a gander. That’s what reclined or upright second row will look like.

6 bucks to get in the movie house and 4 bucks for a roll of blue painters tape and you will know all you need to know.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #11 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:13 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
I would highly consider using Paladin DCR lens with the 2:35 screen and the NX7. The lens will give roughly 33-38% more lumens on your screen. You will need all the lumens you can for such a large AT screen if you want to watch HDR content. There are also throw distance recommendations/requirements for anamorphic lens. Just my two cents.

Frankly I would reduce screen size to 135 inches, do non-AT higher gain screen like the Stewart Filmscreen Studiotek 130 and go with the NX7 and some type of video processor like Lumagen Radiance Pro or madVR Envy. I would prefer quality over that enormous screen size.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I have been looking at the those A lenses and definitely considering. Currently trying to figure out how much HDR is worth to me.

The 170" 2.35 screen actually results in a 135" 1.78 screen. Man, it seems like if I reduce my 2.35 screen to 135" (105" 1.78 screen) that would be mighty small and I would need to reduce the room size. I commonly see people recommending when in doubt go bigger.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #12 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:18 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by niterida View Post
I sit 134" (11'2") away from a 142" wide scope screen and I wouldn't want to be any closer.

Extrapolating those figures to your screen would put me at 147" (12'3") away from your 156" screen.
I think 11' will be too close and you won't want to sit there, so you will end up in the second row and that will be a bit far away for ideal, and if you go upright seating won't be as comfortable.

So I guess you have to decide if you want that size screen and compromised seating or good seating and smaller screen.
Smaller screen lets you get two rows of good seating (with the front row in ideal position), will cost less and will be less taxing (and cheaper) on the projector.
I appreciate your advice. This is has been the coin flip decision I have been trying to make. 2 rows in the sweet spot but neither in ideal spot, or design to the single row front or middle. I think I will see if I can make some friends and go check out their theaters to check immersion.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #13 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:20 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
It costs about 10 bucks to test your immersion. You go to your local cinema on a day and time when you know is slow and a movie that’s not in high demand. You bring with you a small tape measure and find the seat you think you might like. During the movie take the tape measure and at arms length measure the screen width of the scope movie. Then maybe try 5 or 6 rows closer and then back 5 or 6 rows. At some point you will think this is too close it is too tall. When you find your happy seat remember that width. Go home and put a chair 11’ from the wall get out the tape measure and have your wife stick 2 pieces of tape on the wall that line up with the measurement you got at the theater. Get out of the chair and measure between those two pieces of tape and you will know what size screen is perfect for your best seat. It is just that simple.

Now put the whole 2.35 scope screen size on the wall with blue painters tape. Look at it again from 11’ and then move the chair back to 17’. Take a good look at that size then move it up to 14’ and take a gander. That’s what reclined or upright second row will look like.

6 bucks to get in the movie house and 4 bucks for a roll of blue painters tape and you will know all you need to know.
Yeah this is what I need to do to be sure. I might also just buy a cheap used projector and give it a try.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #14 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1469 Post(s)
Liked: 1158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Yeah this is what I need to do to be sure. I might also just buy a cheap used projector and give it a try.
If you live near Philadelphia I have an Epson 6500 projector you can borrow to test out screen size and seating distance.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Travis Reed likes this.
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #15 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
Sitting distance is so personal.

True.


However at my distance the screen takes up all of my focused vision - outside of the screen is the start of my peripheral vision.


So if you sit any closer than my ratio it will almost certainly be too close unless you like turning your head or eyes to watch the movie.


Sure it may be too close for some but I am pretty sure that not a lot of people would want to sit any closer.
The OP was planning on being quite a bit closer
niterida is offline  
post #16 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
skylarlove1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1469 Post(s)
Liked: 1158
Quote:
Originally Posted by niterida View Post
True.


However at my distance the screen takes up all of my focused vision - outside of the screen is the start of my peripheral vision.


So if you sit any closer than my ratio it will almost certainly be too close unless you like turning your head or eyes to watch the movie.


Sure it may be too close for some but I am pretty sure that not a lot of people would want to sit any closer.
The OP was planning on being quite a bit closer
Everybody has different visual acuity. You are probably right for the majority of the population. There are several AVS Forum members who sit at ten feet from 150 inch 2:35 screens. Definitely too close for my comfort level. I hope the OP just tests everything for himself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
skylarlove1999 is online now  
post #17 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 07:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Yeah this is what I need to do to be sure. I might also just buy a cheap used projector and give it a try.
I know a lot of people that borrowed the office projector for a weekend to do just that. plug it into a BD player or laptop and get a pair of computer speakers and watch a few movies on the garage wall. You will learn more in a weekend than all the research in the world will tell you.
Travis Reed likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #18 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 08:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by skylarlove1999 View Post
There are several AVS Forum members who sit at ten feet from 150 inch 2:35 screens.

150" diagonal ? I sit 11' from 155" diagonal so about the same !!
I have excellent vision and over180deg peripheral vision so I stand by my assertion that only exceptional (insane??) people want to go any closer


But yes - there is nothing like testing to see what you like. When I originally planned mine I wanted the screen to be full room width (14') but when I projected that big it was too big and required head/eye movements to take it all in. So I had to reduce it to 11'10"
niterida is offline  
post #19 of 40 Old 01-26-2020, 08:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
rekbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somers, CT
Posts: 3,504
Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1206 Post(s)
Liked: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
I have been looking at the those A lenses and definitely considering. Currently trying to figure out how much HDR is worth to me.

The 170" 2.35 screen actually results in a 135" 1.78 screen. Man, it seems like if I reduce my 2.35 screen to 135" (105" 1.78 screen) that would be mighty small and I would need to reduce the room size. I commonly see people recommending when in doubt go bigger.
This is why a 16:9 screen might be the better choice with power masking. With 12' ceilings you definitely aren't height limited. My recommendations have always been if you can fit the width screen you want and have the available height always go with a 16:9 screen. The 2:35 camp will always argue this is nuts but with all the IMAX formatted movies and full screen epic TV like Game Of Thrones a 16:9 makes more sense in my book.
bud16415 and ClemsonChad like this.

"Smart enough to know better, to old to care" ------ Dedicated Bat Cave Home Theater, JVC RS49U/Mitsubishi HC7900DW Projector, 110" 16:9 Jamestown screen with variable power masking for CIW 2.50:1 to 16:9, Marantz 7009 with 7.1.4 Atmos with Ohm mains,3 DIY Subs (2 15" (1 ported, 1 sealed and a 12" 4th order bandpass), 1 DIY butt kicker, Custom Built HTPC, 18TB DroboFS NAS
rekbones is offline  
post #20 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 09:51 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
I appreciate all the advice. I will try and pick up a cheap projector or borrow one. I think my boss got one for outside movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rekbones View Post
This is why a 16:9 screen might be the better choice with power masking. With 12' ceilings you definitely aren't height limited. My recommendations have always been if you can fit the width screen you want and have the available height always go with a 16:9 screen. The 2:35 camp will always argue this is nuts but with all the IMAX formatted movies and full screen epic TV like Game Of Thrones a 16:9 makes more sense in my book.
I hear ya, seems like this is the never ending debate on this forum. It just did not make sense to me for my favorite action packed movies to be smaller than 1.78 TV content. I believe it was also not the artist's/filmmakers intent to have their movies watched on smaller TV but rather wider. If you switch from 1.78 show to a 2.35 movie, the curtains should open more for a bigger screen, not reduce image size with bars on top and bottom like our conventional TVs.

I was also told that a 150" 1.78 screen is more fatiguing than a 150" 2.35 screen since our eyes run out of height well before width since they are beside each other. If this is true, it further makes since to watch 2.35 content on bigger diagonal than 1.78.

This is just info I researched that seemed to make sense with no experience though. My mind may completely change when I test out screen sizes.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #21 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 11:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
I appreciate all the advice. I will try and pick up a cheap projector or borrow one. I think my boss got one for outside movies.



I hear ya, seems like this is the never ending debate on this forum. It just did not make sense to me for my favorite action packed movies to be smaller than 1.78 TV content. I believe it was also not the artist's/filmmakers intent to have their movies watched on smaller TV but rather wider. If you switch from 1.78 show to a 2.35 movie, the curtains should open more for a bigger screen, not reduce image size with bars on top and bottom like our conventional TVs.

I was also told that a 150" 1.78 screen is more fatiguing than a 150" 2.35 screen since our eyes run out of height well before width since they are beside each other. If this is true, it further makes since to watch 2.35 content on bigger diagonal than 1.78.

This is just info I researched that seemed to make sense with no experience though. My mind may completely change when I test out screen sizes.
You are right Travis that it's a never ending debate due to personal preferences. In some modern theaters now they are (unfortunately) using constant image width so there are black bars above/below 2.39 films. But for the traditional and better method of expanding the masking curtains to reveal a wider image for 2.39, people are still free to move to whatever seat they wish, so on a 1.85 film I can move a few rows closer to keep an immersive feel. What that means for me and some others is we prefer constant image area. So at home I have been projecting 152.5" wide for 2.39, and then for 1.85 I go to 135" wide. This keeps scope content wider as it should be, but avoids the disappointment of 1.85/16:9 content shrinking down so small like it does on a CIH screen. To me it is the best of both worlds, especially when you can custom design your own CIA screen tailored to your exact personal preferences with a manufacturer like Seymour, complete with masking panels.

Those who believe CIH is the *only* way insist that our vision can accommodate lots of width but not height, but that is not true for me, and not true for some family and friends who have enjoyed my theater. I like more height for my 1.85/16:9 content (about 2.1x screen height) while on 2.39:1 I prefer 2.4x screen height (pure magic!).

Ross

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83
rossandwendy is offline  
post #22 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 01:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
I appreciate all the advice. I will try and pick up a cheap projector or borrow one. I think my boss got one for outside movies.



I hear ya, seems like this is the never ending debate on this forum. It just did not make sense to me for my favorite action packed movies to be smaller than 1.78 TV content. I believe it was also not the artist's/filmmakers intent to have their movies watched on smaller TV but rather wider. If you switch from 1.78 show to a 2.35 movie, the curtains should open more for a bigger screen, not reduce image size with bars on top and bottom like our conventional TVs.

I was also told that a 150" 1.78 screen is more fatiguing than a 150" 2.35 screen since our eyes run out of height well before width since they are beside each other. If this is true, it further makes since to watch 2.35 content on bigger diagonal than 1.78.

This is just info I researched that seemed to make sense with no experience though. My mind may completely change when I test out screen sizes.
No one has ever suggested that you watch your favorite action packed scope movie smaller than a 1.77:1 TV content. It is often stated in reverse telling people that 2.35:1 CIH is better because you don’t want to watch an action packed movie smaller than TV. We are talking about presentation here and you have the idea there is only two methods of presentation CIH and CIW. There are many more methods that are well established one being CIA constant image area and another CIH+IMAX constant image height plus IMAX. These other 2 methods are or were on the fringe because CIH and CIW require 2way masking and CIA and CIH+IMAX require 4way masking.

Some people doing CIH+IMAX have hard semi permanent top and bottom masking they run their theater day in and day out as CIH then when a spectacular new movie come out in IMAX or an AR changing blockbuster that changes between scope and IMAX, they simply pull off the semi permanent masking panels, maybe a 5 minute job and then get to watch something even more spectacular than even a scope movie.

I proposed a new 5th method of presentation I called PIA personal image area. It uses a screen sized for IMAX as in CIH+IMAX mentioned above. This assumes IMAX will be the largest format there is at this time so why have a screen larger than that. Everything else fits inside that. If masking is important to you then you have two options the first being fully automatic 4way masking fast and expensive. the second is manual 4way masking slow and inexpensive. Now there is a third method and what I like along with a few others who are too busy enjoying their theaters to be here talking about it. modern projectors are producing some pretty good CRs /blacks these days and there are some screens that are dark gray/”black” in color and when paired with a proper projector black bars are little to no problem. This is called self-masking and works at the speed of light and cost zero.

There seems to be an unwillingness to watch anything projected without black picture frame all around the image. It is reported here that to do so the image is virtually imposable to watch. But then again millions of people went and watched any number of the IMAX AR and AR changing movies like The Last Knight, Dunkirk, Aquman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and the list goes on without even noticing that half the time the image wasn’t fully masked. The only people I know that noticed are fans of theater presentation and were watching for it because they knew it was there. I would even further say in doing so they spoiled the movie for themselves rather than what they normally say the effect spoiled the movie for them.

Take some time and completely understand presentation methods. Otherwise people are offering advice that’s being misunderstood.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #23 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 02:28 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossandwendy View Post
You are right Travis that it's a never ending debate due to personal preferences. In some modern theaters now they are (unfortunately) using constant image width so there are black bars above/below 2.39 films. But for the traditional and better method of expanding the masking curtains to reveal a wider image for 2.39, people are still free to move to whatever seat they wish, so on a 1.85 film I can move a few rows closer to keep an immersive feel. What that means for me and some others is we prefer constant image area. So at home I have been projecting 152.5" wide for 2.39, and then for 1.85 I go to 135" wide. This keeps scope content wider as it should be, but avoids the disappointment of 1.85/16:9 content shrinking down so small like it does on a CIH screen. To me it is the best of both worlds, especially when you can custom design your own CIA screen tailored to your exact personal preferences with a manufacturer like Seymour, complete with masking panels.

Those who believe CIH is the *only* way insist that our vision can accommodate lots of width but not height, but that is not true for me, and not true for some family and friends who have enjoyed my theater. I like more height for my 1.85/16:9 content (about 2.1x screen height) while on 2.39:1 I prefer 2.4x screen height (pure magic!).

Ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
No one has ever suggested that you watch your favorite action packed scope movie smaller than a 1.77:1 TV content. It is often stated in reverse telling people that 2.35:1 CIH is better because you don’t want to watch an action packed movie smaller than TV. We are talking about presentation here and you have the idea there is only two methods of presentation CIH and CIW. There are many more methods that are well established one being CIA constant image area and another CIH+IMAX constant image height plus IMAX. These other 2 methods are or were on the fringe because CIH and CIW require 2way masking and CIA and CIH+IMAX require 4way masking.

Some people doing CIH+IMAX have hard semi permanent top and bottom masking they run their theater day in and day out as CIH then when a spectacular new movie come out in IMAX or an AR changing blockbuster that changes between scope and IMAX, they simply pull off the semi permanent masking panels, maybe a 5 minute job and then get to watch something even more spectacular than even a scope movie.

I proposed a new 5th method of presentation I called PIA personal image area. It uses a screen sized for IMAX as in CIH+IMAX mentioned above. This assumes IMAX will be the largest format there is at this time so why have a screen larger than that. Everything else fits inside that. If masking is important to you then you have two options the first being fully automatic 4way masking fast and expensive. the second is manual 4way masking slow and inexpensive. Now there is a third method and what I like along with a few others who are too busy enjoying their theaters to be here talking about it. modern projectors are producing some pretty good CRs /blacks these days and there are some screens that are dark gray/”black” in color and when paired with a proper projector black bars are little to no problem. This is called self-masking and works at the speed of light and cost zero.

There seems to be an unwillingness to watch anything projected without black picture frame all around the image. It is reported here that to do so the image is virtually imposable to watch. But then again millions of people went and watched any number of the IMAX AR and AR changing movies like The Last Knight, Dunkirk, Aquman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and the list goes on without even noticing that half the time the image wasn’t fully masked. The only people I know that noticed are fans of theater presentation and were watching for it because they knew it was there. I would even further say in doing so they spoiled the movie for themselves rather than what they normally say the effect spoiled the movie for them.

Take some time and completely understand presentation methods. Otherwise people are offering advice that’s being misunderstood.

Im sorry, I just usually jump to CIW when I hear recommendations for 16:9 screen. I had not given CIA much thought until now and it sounds like it might be more "middle ground". I will just borrow a projector and get this all figured out and see what my preference is. Let me make sure I understand correctly though, CIA uses an oversized 1.78 screen with 4-way masking on 1.78 content? Switching to scope you can fill the width and just use horizontal masking or really oversize your screen to give as much flexibility you want and 4-way mask all content. Professional 4-way masking sounds expensive. I may look into this.
rossandwendy likes this.

Last edited by Travis Reed; 01-27-2020 at 02:45 PM.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #24 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 02:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 148
I use CIS - constant image size
In other words I have a scope screen and just project 16:9 over it so the top and bottom of the image are off the screen.
No masking, no cost, no worries about which is better etc etc.
My screen is an AT that sits 8" off the wall and everything around it is flat black so there is no reflections and you can't see the extra image off the screen.

The only minor issues are subtitles and menus can't always be seen and occasionally the 16:9 image gets cut off a bit too much (mainly 4:3 music videos). But usually you don't even notice the missing bits.
niterida is offline  
post #25 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 04:21 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Im sorry, I just usually jump to CIW when I hear recommendations for 16:9 screen. I had not given CIA much thought until now and it sounds like it might be more "middle ground". I will just borrow a projector and get this all figured out and see what my preference is. Let me make sure I understand correctly though, CIA uses an oversized 1.78 screen with 4-way masking on 1.78 content? Switching to scope you can fill the width and just use horizontal masking or really oversize your screen to give as much flexibility you want and 4-way mask all content. Professional 4-way masking sounds expensive. I may look into this.
Various ways to do it. One is a custom sized screen from Seymour or Stewart et al that is 2.07 ratio - use the full width for scope (with top/bottom masks if you wish) and then use full height for 1.85 (with side masks if you wish). Another option is a taller 16:9 ratio screen, still use full width for scope but for 1.85 using less of the available height, and when you want to have fun with IMAX style like Avatar project the entire huge screen. Another way is a huge smoothed and painted wall and project whatever you want with each particular ratio and film - PIA, personal image area - which Bud and some others use. If I did not have a window interrupting my large wall that is exactly what I would be doing - absolute freedom now and in the future depending on my mood, my audience's preference, the PQ of the movie, how it was filmed, etc.

EDIT: forgot a fourth method used by member Craig Peer and some others, which is two screens, one wider and sized for scope and one taller than that sized for 1.85/16:9. One can be fixed for the main usage with the 2nd a drop-down, or both drop-down as Craig does. Another way to accomplish CIA.

Ross

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83

Last edited by rossandwendy; 01-27-2020 at 04:31 PM.
rossandwendy is offline  
post #26 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 04:33 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,314
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7606 Post(s)
Liked: 9390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
$60k yikes. Starting to think HDR is just not practical for home theater applications. Do commercial theaters even bother?

Looks like your screen is very similarly sized to mine. What viewing distances are you at? I imagine you are plenty bright on your 16:9 content though since it is shrunk down to fit the height of the screen? I was considering the JVC NX7 and now considering the NX9 but going to do a lot more research there.
HDR can be excellent looking, but it will be hard to do properly with too large a screen. Where are you located ? You should put that in your signature - maybe someone has a theater near you that you could check out.
rossandwendy likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #27 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 04:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,098
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2253 Post(s)
Liked: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Im sorry, I just usually jump to CIW when I hear recommendations for 16:9 screen. I had not given CIA much thought until now and it sounds like it might be more "middle ground". I will just borrow a projector and get this all figured out and see what my preference is. Let me make sure I understand correctly though, CIA uses an oversized 1.78 screen with 4-way masking on 1.78 content? Switching to scope you can fill the width and just use horizontal masking or really oversize your screen to give as much flexibility you want and 4-way mask all content. Professional 4-way masking sounds expensive. I may look into this.
CIA screen AR is dependent on what ARs you are going to include. If you are splitting between 1.85 and 2.35 then No. If you include Academy AR then Yes.

More importantly even the best CIA theaters use the term loosely. If you read what Rob Hahn says about his “CIA” theater most regard as the best home theater in this forum and perhaps anywhere. He uses a 2.0:1 screen I believe and puts a strong concern for presentation for Academy movies. So he is not exactly adhering strictly to area.

I’m criticized a lot for my presentation and I watch Academy movies some as tall as CIA would have me and others smaller than CIH would have me. One of the main reasons is these classic movies have not all been preserved to the same level. They are still great movies but they are grainy with all kinds of old age artifacts. Others the really great ones have been re-mastered and are likely better than they were the day of their premiers. I play DVD some still and the quality for high immersion is just not there. They are still great movies but not made better pretending they are 4k.

So I make adjustments for a number of reasons that’s why it is called PIA Personal image area. @niterida uses a novel method I wouldn’t follow but for him it works so his method is also personal to him.

Most wont admit it but lots of people want a scope 2.35 screen just because the way it looks in their room. It just doesn’t look like a TV shape and some people desire that.

I don’t have a screen just a wall so when you walk in my room other than there is a projector you don’t know what you are in. when the movie comes on it is described by how much of the wall it uses. Very WAF for some people that don’t have dedicated theaters.
rossandwendy likes this.

Bud

Last edited by bud16415; 01-27-2020 at 04:40 PM.
bud16415 is offline  
post #28 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 04:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Geraldton - 250miles from Perth Western Australia
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
@niterida uses a novel method I wouldn’t follow but for him it works so his method is also personal to him.
I only really do it because my projector has a manual zoom and I am too lazy to get up, get the setpstool and adjust it
But people who don't know that the 16:9 is being chopped off never even notice or mention it
niterida is offline  
post #29 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 05:17 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Tyler, Texas
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
HDR can be excellent looking, but it will be hard to do properly with too large a screen. Where are you located ? You should put that in your signature - maybe someone has a theater near you that you could check out.
Good idea. Updated my profile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
CIA screen AR is dependent on what ARs you are going to include. If you are splitting between 1.85 and 2.35 then No. If you include Academy AR then Yes.

More importantly even the best CIA theaters use the term loosely. If you read what Rob Hahn says about his “CIA” theater most regard as the best home theater in this forum and perhaps anywhere. He uses a 2.0:1 screen I believe and puts a strong concern for presentation for Academy movies. So he is not exactly adhering strictly to area.

I’m criticized a lot for my presentation and I watch Academy movies some as tall as CIA would have me and others smaller than CIH would have me. One of the main reasons is these classic movies have not all been preserved to the same level. They are still great movies but they are grainy with all kinds of old age artifacts. Others the really great ones have been re-mastered and are likely better than they were the day of their premiers. I play DVD some still and the quality for high immersion is just not there. They are still great movies but not made better pretending they are 4k.

So I make adjustments for a number of reasons that’s why it is called PIA Personal image area. @niterida uses a novel method I wouldn’t follow but for him it works so his method is also personal to him.

Most wont admit it but lots of people want a scope 2.35 screen just because the way it looks in their room. It just doesn’t look like a TV shape and some people desire that.

I don’t have a screen just a wall so when you walk in my room other than there is a projector you don’t know what you are in. when the movie comes on it is described by how much of the wall it uses. Very WAF for some people that don’t have dedicated theaters.
I like how practical and customizable this approach is! Although, it probably is not as "impressive" when the lights are on and have no screen. Like you said, some may not even realize it is a theater. Is the lack of masking very distracting? The surrounding white not reflect back? I think I read through a post not long ago about making everything as black as possible. Could you use black paint for the theater screen wall?

Last edited by Travis Reed; 01-27-2020 at 05:33 PM.
Travis Reed is offline  
post #30 of 40 Old 01-27-2020, 05:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
rossandwendy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 855
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 265 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Reed View Post
Good idea. Updated my profile.

I like how practical and customizable this approach is! Although, it probably is not as "impressive" when the lights are on and have no screen. Like you said, some may not even realize it is a theater. Is the lack of masking very distracting? The surrounding white not reflect back? I think I read through a post not long ago about making everything as black as possible. Could you use black paint for the theater screen wall?
You can use dark paint and that will help make masking unnecessary, but it also reduces gain which in turn means you won't be happy projecting 14 feet wide. Those damn tradeoffs no matter what you choose.
bud16415 likes this.

__________________________________________________
DISPLAY: JVC RS540, 160" Stewart WallScreen ST130 G4
SPEAKERS/SUBS: Chane A5.4/A2.4/A1.4, Rythmik FV18 x 2
POWER: Outlaw 5000 5-channel, Denon AVR-X3300W
SOURCE: multi-region Oppo BDP-103D & BDP-83
rossandwendy 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