Yet Another 2.35:1 or 16:9 Thread...cannot decide - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 45 Old 05-12-2020, 07:39 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Yet Another 2.35:1 or 16:9 Thread...cannot decide

I cannot decide what to do in my basement for a screen. The 16:9 looks huge on my wall, but the 2.35:1 looks even huger. The 16:9 in the photo is 120" diagonal, and the 2.35:1 in the photo is 142" diagonal.

If I go 2.35:1 I am planning to do a Silver Ticket Acoustically transparent screen and do in-wall speaker behind. With the 16:9 I can do an acoustic screen OR a normal screen.

The wall where the screen is going is 15ft wide and about 7.5ft tall because of a soffit. The room is 24ft deep. The inner tape lines are the120" 16:9 and the outer tape lines are 2.35:1 12" diagonal.

I will likely be doing a lot of streaming shows which are likely in 16:9 format, but want a huge screen when watching movies to make it epic.

I can't for the life of me figure out which way to go.

The projector will be an Epson 5040UB which has the lens memory to do both aspect ratios well (as soon as I can order one in stock).

Sorry for the redundancy since I know this is always a two-sided argument.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0435.jpg
Views:	129
Size:	728.0 KB
ID:	2724984  
Nick Proell is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 45 Old 05-12-2020, 07:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,820
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7932 Post(s)
Liked: 10280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Proell View Post
I cannot decide what to do in my basement for a screen. The 16:9 looks huge on my wall, but the 2.35:1 looks even huger. The 16:9 in the photo is 120" diagonal, and the 2.35:1 in the photo is 142" diagonal.

If I go 2.35:1 I am planning to do a Silver Ticket Acoustically transparent screen and do in-wall speaker behind. With the 16:9 I can do an acoustic screen OR a normal screen.

The wall where the screen is going is 15ft wide and about 7.5ft tall because of a soffit. The room is 24ft deep. The inner tape lines are the120" 16:9 and the outer tape lines are 2.35:1 12" diagonal.

I will likely be doing a lot of streaming shows which are likely in 16:9 format, but want a huge screen when watching movies to make it epic.

I can't for the life of me figure out which way to go.

The projector will be an Epson 5040UB which has the lens memory to do both aspect ratios well (as soon as I can order one in stock).

Sorry for the redundancy since I know this is always a two-sided argument.
Get the projector and try watching stuff at different sizes. Maybe try 135" diagonal 2.40:1 too. Then decide !
Craig Peer is offline  
post #3 of 45 Old 05-12-2020, 07:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lizrussspike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parkview, IA
Posts: 3,719
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1506 Post(s)
Liked: 2287
@Nick Proell agree with @Craig Peer as I often tell folks, project on to the blank wall, and that will give you a better idea before you purchase/DYI a screen. I did calculations for my first projector and screen, and have since changed screen twice and upgraded to a JVC.
lizrussspike is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 45 Old 05-12-2020, 09:02 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,820
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7932 Post(s)
Liked: 10280
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizrussspike View Post
@Nick Proell agree with @Craig Peer as I often tell folks, project on to the blank wall, and that will give you a better idea before you purchase/DYI a screen. I did calculations for my first projector and screen, and have since changed screen twice and upgraded to a JVC.
And if your wife will be unhappy if it's too big, make sure she gets to see content at different sizes too prior to ordering the screen. Although some wives say " make the screen larger " - you never know.
rossandwendy likes this.
Craig Peer is offline  
post #5 of 45 Old 05-12-2020, 11:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lizrussspike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parkview, IA
Posts: 3,719
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1506 Post(s)
Liked: 2287
Spot on @Craig Peer. She has noticed that the screen got bigger, and we moved closer....
Craig Peer and rossandwendy like this.
lizrussspike is offline  
post #6 of 45 Old 05-14-2020, 12:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
For me, this was easy.

Sports, Game of Thrones, Ozark, Christopher Nolan movies, videogames, IMAX movies (maybe), youtube videos, Netflix and Amazon originals, HBO Go........they are all in 16:9.

I'd estimate that 75% of my viewing requires a 16:9 image ratio.

And with a JVC rs620 projector, my black bars are pretty black, so I don't find them distracting. When immersed in a movie, my eyes literally don't even notice them.

I'd only go with a scope screen if I had image height limitations in my room, which I do not with a 12-foot ceiling in my dedicated room.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #7 of 45 Old 05-14-2020, 05:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
For the OP if you haven’t looked around in the CIH forum there are some great threads where we have kicked around the concepts of expanding on CIH for things IMAX and things IMAX-like. Of course the majority of people in that forum strongly advocate for CIH presentation as they have long ago made up their minds on what presentation method best suits them.

I personally have adopted a presentation method that is catching on in the DIY screen forum and that is using a borderless stealth screen wall of non descript size and AR and I freeform by immersion level based around content. It is really no difference than the advice you were given above to test out sizes on a blank wall except I liked that freedom so much I did a much better job of finishing and painting my wall to be a screen surface.

I think of it and call it PIA personal image area but I also think of it as being able to have a virtual theater of many different rows like a commercial theater and with zoom and a single row seating I can duplicate any row in a commercial theater including IMAX.

My personal liking for immersion has grown but some of my friends and family still like more of a middle of the theater seating. The nice part is I can give them that and when watching alone I can dial up the immersion.

It is not at all about screen size it is all about immersion. The AR we have no control over it is whatever the director made the movie in and now more and more the AR is changing in the movie.

Watch the Amazon Prime movie The Aeronauts when you are testing screen sizes it was made with the intent of being shown in IMAX. If you are confused now watching that movie or Dunkirk another AR changer will even more confuse you or if you are like me these movies will convince you there is no answer “except all of the above”.
rossandwendy likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #8 of 45 Old 05-14-2020, 06:11 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 17,820
Mentioned: 149 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7932 Post(s)
Liked: 10280
Quote:
Originally Posted by lizrussspike View Post
Spot on @Craig Peer. She has noticed that the screen got bigger, and we moved closer....

My wife noticed the seats have been inching closer over the last 5 years! She thinks it’s too close so we’ve compromised. No closer. Which is fine - I think both screens are good where we are at now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Craig Peer is offline  
post #9 of 45 Old 05-15-2020, 04:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
lizrussspike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parkview, IA
Posts: 3,719
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1506 Post(s)
Liked: 2287
What a wonderful option to have @Craig Peer, and a great wife is a bonus as well.
lizrussspike is offline  
post #10 of 45 Old 05-15-2020, 02:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
DigsMovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arriving Somewhere...
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 68
There's a lot of 2.00:1 content coming out now- so much that I've programmed a 2.00:1 setting on my JVC projector, and also on my Stewart screen with automated masking. Just last night we watched Ozark in 2.00:1. I use it several times a week now.

The vast majority of major new movie releases we watch are in some form of widescreen.

Going with a 2.40:1 ratio screen was one of the best decisions I made when building my current theater. (that and A.T. too) I'm designing another for a second home, and it will be widescreen without question.

Wall size and dimensions are a consideration for some, but otherwise going widescreen is a no-brainer.
Think about it this way- if choosing between 16:9 or 2:40.1, some content is going to be bigger and fill the entire screen. Do you want football and T.V. shows to be bigger, or do you want major movies to be bigger? Birds of Prey is on tap for us tonight, and it's going to fill the entire screen. (2.39:1) Widescreen is THE movie experience IMO.
DigsMovies is offline  
post #11 of 45 Old 05-17-2020, 07:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 857 Post(s)
Liked: 578
Odd... I find the 16:9 format to be the no-brainer solution. I have a native 16:9 projector, I can use a blu-ray player with the menu on on the screen and I don't have to worry about aspect ratios as I "consume" content. An added bonus is that I am able to use every available height/width given my room's limitations. This results in no "aspect ratio" being less and all content being an experience. Don't believe me? Just look at http://displaywars.com/151,5-inch-16...3,5-inch-235x1 for my room's height/width limits.

Now there are plenty of reasons to pick a screen format such as seating/angles, equipment strengths/limitations, room height/width limitations, personal preference and most importantly content "consumed" along with individual expectations. In my case I don't want to be limited by a scope "box" since I consume too much 4:3, 16:9, scope, 2:1 and so on. In the case of a Netflix 2:1 series why would I want to watch it in 125.7" when I can do it in 147.6"... a twenty inch increase in size. How about an old academy ratio (4:3) classic? I get 123.8" vs 93.6". Going to a 16:9 show/movie/sport I get 151.5" vs 114.6. Easy to see why 16:9 is a "no-brainer" for many.

I noticed in the under 3000 dollar section someone posted a question about projector purchases increasing in our current climate. All I know is that every time I've ever tried to "sell" someone on a projector I usually hear it is "too much trouble", so I have to show them how easy, simple, great and cheap the experience can be. I couldn't do that with a scope screen with having to worry about blu-ray players menus, close captioning, lens memory, CIH safe content, video processors and etc. Still if I had room for a twenty foot screen, CIH might be the way to go.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3800/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 4K Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 05-17-2020 at 12:06 PM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #12 of 45 Old 05-18-2020, 01:53 AM
Member
 
howiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I've had 16:9 projector setups and spent time in various scope setups and much prefer the latter. If you're not fighting width in your room, you can get the 16:9 image you want while getting a nice big scope experience (budget permitting ofc). My gripe with 16:9 is the majority of movies looked less impressive than a rubbish daytime soap!
howiee is offline  
post #13 of 45 Old 05-18-2020, 07:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Azekecse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked: 239
I had a 16:9 screen for many years. Then I went with the JVC NX-7 and DCR lens, and a 2:35:1 Scope screen was a no brainer for me, IMHO, of course YMMV.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

Marantz SR7011: 7.4.4 Martin Logan Edges (4: FR/FL/SR/SL) Martin Logan Axis (2: SBL/SBR) Martin Logan Stage X (Center) Martin Logan 1500X Sub (2) Martin Logan 1100X Sub (2) Sonance VP86R SST/SUR (4: Dolby Atmos) JVC NX-7/DaLite 125" 2:35:1 Scope Screen; Paladin DCR
Azekecse is offline  
post #14 of 45 Old 05-18-2020, 03:07 PM
Member
 
stinkyonion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 52
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I sit at 12’ from the screen. I started with a 1920x1080 projector with a 16:9 90” screen. Then after 5 years went to 16:9 100”. Then after another 5 years went to 4k projector with 16:9 112” screen. What ive learned is that most 16:9 content doesnt need a huge screen (news, sports, video games, and basically anything that is not a 4k movie). This is because <4k just looks bad on huge screen and sports and video games cause too much eye and neck work to follow the action on huge screens. On the other hand, 4k movies need a relatively larger image especially if in 2.4:1. My next screen will be 140” 2.4:1 and I will watch everything at fixed height. Only the width will vary depending on source material.

Plus, there is an extra wow factor with the extrawide screen. Everyone has a 16:9 tv.
stinkyonion is offline  
post #15 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkyonion View Post
I sit at 12’ from the screen. I started with a 1920x1080 projector with a 16:9 90” screen. Then after 5 years went to 16:9 100”. Then after another 5 years went to 4k projector with 16:9 112” screen. What ive learned is that most 16:9 content doesnt need a huge screen (news, sports, video games, and basically anything that is not a 4k movie). This is because <4k just looks bad on huge screen and sports and video games cause too much eye and neck work to follow the action on huge screens. On the other hand, 4k movies need a relatively larger image especially if in 2.4:1. My next screen will be 140” 2.4:1 and I will watch everything at fixed height. Only the width will vary depending on source material.

Plus, there is an extra wow factor with the extrawide screen. Everyone has a 16:9 tv.
It's largely dependent on what projector you have and how "black" it can display the black bars. JVC is the only brand that gets this right.

In a couple of years, we'll be seeing 4K broadcasts on television on a regular basis, and videogames will be in 8K. I expect the same to be true with Netflix and its brethren as well.

More and more directors are following Christopher Nolan's lead and switching aspect ratios in movies. Notice how they use scope for the quieter dialogue screens, and the go full 16:9 when the action begins.

I prefer the extra real estate top and bottom, and I think the future will be much more 16:9 and 2.00:1 content.

But again, I couldn't deal with the gray bars of other projector brands, so that is a big part of the choice.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #16 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,537
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2410 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
It's largely dependent on what projector you have and how "black" it can display the black bars. JVC is the only brand that gets this right.

In a couple of years, we'll be seeing 4K broadcasts on television on a regular basis, and videogames will be in 8K. I expect the same to be true with Netflix and its brethren as well.

More and more directors are following Christopher Nolan's lead and switching aspect ratios in movies. Notice how they use scope for the quieter dialogue screens, and the go full 16:9 when the action begins.

I prefer the extra real estate top and bottom, and I think the future will be much more 16:9 and 2.00:1 content.

But again, I couldn't deal with the gray bars of other projector brands, so that is a big part of the choice.
Well Nolan and IMAX in general make up probably less than 1% of the content out there. And Nolan generally uses IMAX anyplace he can fit the camera. It's not about the content as much as if the camera can fit in the shot. Streaming has a lot of 2.00:1 and wider material and it seems to be moving more and more towards this. A 16:9 screen makes any wider film than 16:9 smaller than it is intended. The wider the content the smaller it is.

If film is a priority then a scope screen will show everything that is not IMAX optimally. If you're an IMAX fan, nothing wrong with sizing your screen for it. For the other 99% of films out there a scope screen is in my opinion the best choice. Sized correctly you lose no impact with 1.85:1 or 16:9 on a scope screen. Basing your vertical immersion around 16:9 will always compromise wider ARs though. Also a scope screen setup is much less sensitive to the black floor of a projector as the pillarboxing is not lit by the projector panel.

The diagram attached shows a 16:9 and scope screen of the same height. As you can easily see the scope screen equals the 16:9 picture area and wider material is shown as intended by the filmmaker. The 16:9 screen is shrinking everything wider.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AR Screen Comp.jpg
Views:	42
Size:	52.5 KB
ID:	2729214  

jeahrens is offline  
post #17 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 01:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Well Nolan and IMAX in general make up probably less than 1% of the content out there. And Nolan generally uses IMAX anyplace he can fit the camera. It's not about the content as much as if the camera can fit in the shot. Streaming has a lot of 2.00:1 and wider material and it seems to be moving more and more towards this. A 16:9 screen makes any wider film than 16:9 smaller than it is intended. The wider the content the smaller it is.

If film is a priority then a scope screen will show everything that is not IMAX optimally. If you're an IMAX fan, nothing wrong with sizing your screen for it. For the other 99% of films out there a scope screen is in my opinion the best choice. Sized correctly you lose no impact with 1.85:1 or 16:9 on a scope screen. Basing your vertical immersion around 16:9 will always compromise wider ARs though. Also a scope screen setup is much less sensitive to the black floor of a projector as the pillarboxing is not lit by the projector panel.

The diagram attached shows a 16:9 and scope screen of the same height. As you can easily see the scope screen equals the 16:9 picture area and wider material is shown as intended by the filmmaker. The 16:9 screen is shrinking everything wider.
It's far more than just Nolan films. It's becoming more and more common.

Films with multi-aspect ratios or non-scope ratios are plentiful.

Aquaman
First Man
Ready Player One
Saving Private Ryan
Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy

Many, many more.

Not to mention Game of Thrones, Ozark, Breaking Bad, Better Caul Saul, or whatever series you watch on streaming devices.

Plus sports and videogames.

I understand scope if you are height limited and can go wider. Absolutely,I would go scope in that situation. But I have 12-foot ceilings, so I don't have that limitation.

To me, a 16:9 screen with left and right speakers outside the screen frame is the way to go. That accommodates most visual and sound mixing choices in film.
rossandwendy likes this.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #18 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 447
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 156
AT screen is a 100% no brainer decision. Just beware that the Silver Ticket screen is prone to moire due to the coarse weave.

I went 2.35 after having a 16:9 screen, and I love the 2.35. And I even usually watch 16:9 content. But having the scope movies get wider, instead of shorter, is such a treat.
bochoss is offline  
post #19 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 01:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,537
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2410 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
It's far more than just Nolan films. It's becoming more and more common.

Films with multi-aspect ratios or non-scope ratios are plentiful.

Aquaman
First Man
Ready Player One
Saving Private Ryan
Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy

Many, many more.

Not to mention Game of Thrones, Ozark, Breaking Bad, Better Caul Saul, or whatever series you watch on streaming devices.

Plus sports and videogames.

I understand scope if you are height limited and can go wider. Absolutely,I would go scope in that situation. But I have 12-foot ceilings, so I don't have that limitation.

To me, a 16:9 screen with left and right speakers outside the screen frame is the way to go. That accommodates most visual and sound mixing choices in film.
No it really isn't. There are less VAR films being released in the last few years.

Aquaman
First Man
Ready Player One - 3D only for open matte, 4K UHD is scope. Common theatrical presentation was also scope
Saving Private Ryan - Not IMAX, shot 1.85:1
Grand Budapest Hotel - Uses AR to denote time period. It is not VAR in the same sense Aguaman is.
Guardians of the Galaxy - 3D only for open matte, 4K UHD is scope. Common theatrical presentation was also scope

Ozark is 2.00:1, not 16:9. Jack Ryan moved to 2.00:1. Star Trek Picard is 2.35:1. I could list more if you want. Keep in mind, my 16:9 screen area is the same size on the scope screen. So things like Game of Thrones are every bit as big on this screen as they were on the 16:9 screen. But the wider shows are certainly much more immersive.

Scope is not an application for height limited situations. That's absurd. As I illustrated above if you desire to see a films as they were intended then 16:9 isn't the best solution. 16:9 (a compromise ratio for TV) will shrink every wider AR film you put on it. The Breakfast Club was never intended to be bigger than Star Wars. Also Spielberg choose 1.85:1 for Saving Private Ryan to more closely emulate war reel films. He choose 1.85:1 for Jurassic Park so the dinosaurs took more of the frame. He knows full well that scope is the larger framing.

jeahrens is offline  
post #20 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 02:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
No it really isn't. There are less VAR films being released in the last few years.

Aquaman
First Man
Ready Player One - 3D only for open matte, 4K UHD is scope. Common theatrical presentation was also scope
Saving Private Ryan - Not IMAX, shot 1.85:1
Grand Budapest Hotel - Uses AR to denote time period. It is not VAR in the same sense Aguaman is.
Guardians of the Galaxy - 3D only for open matte, 4K UHD is scope. Common theatrical presentation was also scope

Ozark is 2.00:1, not 16:9. Jack Ryan moved to 2.00:1. Star Trek Picard is 2.35:1. I could list more if you want. Keep in mind, my 16:9 screen area is the same size on the scope screen. So things like Game of Thrones are every bit as big on this screen as they were on the 16:9 screen. But the wider shows are certainly much more immersive.

Scope is not an application for height limited situations. That's absurd. As I illustrated above if you desire to see a films as they were intended then 16:9 isn't the best solution. 16:9 (a compromise ratio for TV) will shrink every wider AR film you put on it. The Breakfast Club was never intended to be bigger than Star Wars. Also Spielberg choose 1.85:1 for Saving Private Ryan to more closely emulate war reel films. He choose 1.85:1 for Jurassic Park so the dinosaurs took more of the frame. He knows full well that scope is the larger framing.
I may be getting some actual movies mixed up off hand, but it is not a small percentage as you say. I believe the Star Trek movies use multi aspect, and there are many others.

Bottom line, it's a personal choice. I think 50-degree-plus wide viewing angles are nauseating, and the resolution and brightness loss as a result is a steep price to pay just to go huge.

I can go as wide and tall as I want in my room. The best experience for me is a 44-degree viewing angle with 60-degree left/right sound stage. Immersive without wearing me out over log viewing sessions and sacrificing pristine image quality and black levels. I could do a 65-degree viewing angle if I wanted, but that would look like a washed out, blurry tennis match for my eyes and neck. LOL

It took me two years to choose which direction I wanted to go with my screen, which was already a Studiotek 130. I looked at AT screens. Way too much loss in image quality. I looked at scope screens. I looked at much larger 16:9 screens.

I ended up choosing a slightly larger Studiotek 130 with the new G4 material. What I had was already better than anything I went to look at elsewhere, so I just improved on what I had.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #21 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 02:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by bochoss View Post
AT screen is a 100% no brainer decision. Just beware that the Silver Ticket screen is prone to moire due to the coarse weave.

I went 2.35 after having a 16:9 screen, and I love the 2.35. And I even usually watch 16:9 content. But having the scope movies get wider, instead of shorter, is such a treat.
AT is cool. I really thought I wanted one because I'd love to get that center channel behind the screen.

But have you seen the image on a Stewart Studiotek 130 screen? It absolutely destroys what any AT screen can do image wise.

Until I see something much closer to that, I'm going to wait on AT. One day they'll figure it out.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #22 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
 
cargen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brentwood, TN
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Instead OF 235:1, get 240:1 and if you just can't decide, install both a 240:1 and a 16:9 like I did.

I use the 240:1 for serious lights off movie watching and the 16:9 slate for sports, TV and some lights on viewing.

Chris
humbland likes this.

JVC RS3000 in AeroLift 150, Paladin DCR lens, Lumagen Radiance Pro, Two Screens: Stewart ElectiScreen StudioTek 130G 153” 240:1 and Screen Innovations Motorized Series 5 Slate 1.2 120" 16:9, Rack: Anthem AVM-60, Oppo 203, Sony CX-7000ES BD Changer, two Anthem A-5's, Rotel 1075, Atmos 7.2.4: 7 Thiel PowerPoint 1.2's, 2 SVS SB-16 Ultra's, 4 Thiel PowerPlane 1.2's. Projector cabling: FIBBR + RUIPro 10M, Remote: URC MX-990.
cargen is offline  
post #23 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 03:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 447
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
It absolutely destroys what any AT screen can do image wise.
Aboslutely destroys ANY AT screen?? Doubt. Sure they can be brighter and slightly sharper. The tight woven screens look amazing.

I would never trade marginal improvement in picture quality for putting the most important speaker in the wrong location.
bochoss is offline  
post #24 of 45 Old 05-19-2020, 04:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
humbland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,693
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1160 Post(s)
Liked: 363
I'll get my $.02 in here. After years of only 16x9 (and black bars), I followed Craig Peer's lead and added a 2.35:1 scope screen. Both are electric drop. For Sports/TV and some movies it's 16x9. For most movies it's 2.35:1. NO BLACK BARS! (Thanks Craig). It's the single best HT improvement in almost 20 years (Atmos is 2nd ).
For those of you dealing with the AT screen dilema, we went with another solution. I took the pre-amp output from the AVR center channel and split it. I send 1/2 of each signal to seperate amps. I then drive a pair of center speakers (one above and one below the center of the screens). I then balanced the output of both of them so that they were each outputting half of the center (mostly dialog). The sum of both was then equalized to be the same as each main side speaker (R/L). The AVR auto room correction does it's magic and what remains is a seamless center channel that seems to be coming from the middle of the screen. Before trying it, I was concerned about possible comb filtering from the two (upper and lower) audio sources. However, to my ears, it's non-existent. The AVR (Pioneer Elite SC-97) microphone is set up at the prime listening position. When it does it's auto room correction (MACC Pro), it compensates for any anomalies. It just "sees" a single center speaker and balances the front soundfield accordingly.
It sounds like a lot of trouble, but it's really "easy/peasy". Also, it's one time set it and forget it.
INMO, the key is the auto room correction. Back in the "SPL meter day", it would have been difficult to get it to sound right. Now, it's set up the mike, push a few buttons and enjoy...
For those of you wondering weather to go with HD or scope screens, the answer is BOTH!
rossandwendy likes this.

Last edited by humbland; 05-19-2020 at 04:32 PM.
humbland is offline  
post #25 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 07:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
As to the 3 dimensions of a room length, width and height.

A lot of us are not fortunate enough to be able to design a home theater from the ground up and build a room to the exact specs we would need to perfectly do everything we would like. We instead work around the challenges we are given with the location we are given.

Some guys are given a basement and quite often a lot of floor space with limiting height. I have seen a lot of basement theaters with 7’ or less of head room once pipes and ducts and finished ceilings are factored in. Of course if you only want a couple seats you can scale back the screen size and sit closer but in today’s world of 85” TVs maybe you are ruling out FP.

Then there are people that sometimes get stuck in a smaller room with high ceilings. This was more the case for me and instead of height limiting we could call it width limiting and again we could move closer and again it is a small room to start with and if we are going to do that there are some big TVs now.

Then there is the room length and to AT or non-AT the screen surface. In my case to get the desired single row of 4 seats to give all the viewers the same visual immersion I chose to project onto the longer wall. This made my seating distance shorter and I have 2 front facing 12” subs with 2 full range mains on top of them at ear level. They extend into the room 2’ and to put an AT screen in front of them would move me 2’ closer to the screen and would not possibly work. Instead I have a full range center mounted just below the image angled up slightly and I also do something similar to what @humbland does and that is to run my AVR in phantom center mode 90% of the time when there are just 2 of us sitting in the center two seats. It is easy to flip back and forth between phantom and center. I would suggest people try it both ways as it is interesting to see if you are a person that is bothered or not by center directionality or not. I have found many people don’t notice one way or another.

So as much as I’m a fan of CIH+IMAX image sizing for a screen and then running a variable sizing method of presentation, I can also see where room dimensions can play a role in the presentation method as well.

I can also understand some peoples thoughts that a CIH screen made tall enough to fit their max vertical immersion level may just be too wide to be comfortable in width. This wasn’t always true as with lesser resolutions we used to artificially hold back our immersion in both directions because of resolution. Now that there is 4k almost everyone is only limited in immersion by what is overwhelming. Be it height or width one or the other will limit you and the other will be what it is. If you are a person that doesn’t want to be close to your limits then the compromise is not that apparent as no one is bothered in particular by under immersion.

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #26 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 08:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,537
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2410 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
I may be getting some actual movies mixed up off hand, but it is not a small percentage as you say. I believe the Star Trek movies use multi aspect, and there are many others.
Only Into Darkness in 4K has some VAR scenes. The rest are scope. And yes IMAX is a TINY fraction of whats out there. I have hundreds of Blu Ray, 4K and DVDs. VAR content is probably 20 films or less, most of them the Nolan box set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
Bottom line, it's a personal choice. I think 50-degree-plus wide viewing angles are nauseating, and the resolution and brightness loss as a result is a steep price to pay just to go huge.
I agree it's a personal choice there are a lot of good reasons to stick with 16:9 and a lot of good reasons not to. I get over 30ft-l on my 130" scope screen and a JVC NX7 without a lens, so plenty bright. Our field of view is much wider than it is tall so no issues with nausea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
I can go as wide and tall as I want in my room. The best experience for me is a 44-degree viewing angle with 60-degree left/right sound stage. Immersive without wearing me out over log viewing sessions and sacrificing pristine image quality and black levels. I could do a 65-degree viewing angle if I wanted, but that would look like a washed out, blurry tennis match for my eyes and neck. LOL
Nothing fatiguing with a wide picture. Our scope screen is as tall as the 16:9 it replaced just wider. Soundstage is still excellent. 1.85:1 films and 16:9 TV is the same size it always was and scope has 75% more area. Huge difference in wider material immersion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
It took me two years to choose which direction I wanted to go with my screen, which was already a Studiotek 130. I looked at AT screens. Way too much loss in image quality. I looked at scope screens. I looked at much larger 16:9 screens.

I ended up choosing a slightly larger Studiotek 130 with the new G4 material. What I had was already better than anything I went to look at elsewhere, so I just improved on what I had.
The Stewart screens are awesome.


Last edited by jeahrens; 05-20-2020 at 08:19 AM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #27 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 09:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 126 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked: 1288
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeahrens View Post
Nothing fatiguing with a wide picture. Our scope screen is as tall as the 16:9 it replaced just wider. Soundstage is still excellent. 1.85:1 films and 16:9 TV is the same size it always was and scope has 75% more area. Huge difference in wider material immersion.
Not to nit pick here but if your screen is the same height as your old 16:9 but wider then it will be about 35% larger. If my math is correct.

As example a 100” 16:9 is
49x87 = 4263 sq inches

2.4:1 would be
49x117 = 5733 sq inches

5733/4263 = 1.35

Bud
bud16415 is offline  
post #28 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 11:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 4,537
Mentioned: 98 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2410 Post(s)
Liked: 1693
Quote:
Originally Posted by bud16415 View Post
Not to nit pick here but if your screen is the same height as your old 16:9 but wider then it will be about 35% larger. If my math is correct.

As example a 100” 16:9 is
49x87 = 4263 sq inches

2.4:1 would be
49x117 = 5733 sq inches

5733/4263 = 1.35
It isn't:

31.97% larger diagonal
74.15% larger area

Based on a 49" height.

Your 16:9 figure for a scope film should be:
36x87 = 3132 sq inches

This is because only part of the screen is active showing scope content.


Last edited by jeahrens; 05-20-2020 at 12:03 PM.
jeahrens is offline  
post #29 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 11:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Erod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North Texas
Posts: 2,022
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1404 Post(s)
Liked: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by bochoss View Post
Aboslutely destroys ANY AT screen?? Doubt. Sure they can be brighter and slightly sharper. The tight woven screens look amazing.

I would never trade marginal improvement in picture quality for putting the most important speaker in the wrong location.
I would agree with you on most every screen. But not the Studiotek 130 screens. They are a significant improvement over AT image quality.

Video: JVC RS620/X9500 projector, Stewart ST130 screen, Panasonic ub820 UHD player
Audio: Anthem AVM60 preamp, Anthem MCA525 amp, B&K Reference 125.7 amp
Subs: dual SVS PC-12 cylinders
Speakers: RBH SV-661R and SV-661CR fronts, Jamo 626k4 side/rear surrounds, DefTech DI6.5R heights
Erod is offline  
post #30 of 45 Old 05-20-2020, 12:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
DigsMovies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arriving Somewhere...
Posts: 695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erod View Post
I would agree with you on most every screen. But not the Studiotek 130 screens. They are a significant improvement over AT image quality.
I'm sure you know this, but for the record- one can get an AT Studiotek 130.

Yes, there is a trade-off. A little brightness is lost, but the benefit of placing speakers behind the screen more than makes up for it. The larger the screen, the more of a distraction it is to have the center speaker located above or below. I notice it (the sonic location) easily, and it really bugs me. I noticed it even with an old 35" CRT T.V., with the center speaker on top.

Having the dialogue come from the proper location is a tremendous benefit!
DigsMovies 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