Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE
If you're width limited in your theater room and use a Scope Screen instead of a 16:9 screen (same width), your max 16:9 image area will be only 56% (0.75 * 0.75) of what it could be. Bad move. Bigger is better. For both 16:9 and Scope.
In my case, I'd go down from 138 inches diagonal to 103 inches, and the surface area would go down from 55 to 31 sq feet. (I double checked these numbers using a projector calculator
If this sounds reasonable to you, then you're welcome to think that. Taking a 56% hit in image surface area for no (rational) reason sounds positively absurd to me. I don't move my couch all that much anyway, I'm not one of those "movie purists" (or perhaps rather "movie supremacists" haha) who believes that Game of Thrones or Daredevil has to be less epic in presentation than The Devil Wears Prada
Just because you don't care about 70 years of film presentation convention (scope being larger than flat), doesn't make those who do "irrational".
And again, there's no such thing as width limited if you've got flexibility in your seating placement. And if you're moving your seating around you do. You can get the same 16:9 experience by simply moving the seating forward with a scope screen, but you get the benefits of having your audio always optimized for the MLP, and scope being perceptually
76% bigger than it would be in a 16:9/CIW setup.
The zoom method is useful to most people out there because unlike me, they don't live in lofts with 14 foot high ceilings, and typically watch movies in a much more modest, height challenged setting. Lofts rule. As do HUGE images. Every time people come over their jaws drop. Then I tell them my projector costs under half a G now and they are like, wtf why did we spend double that on a puny television we should have been smart and bought this. Duh.
I'm glad your happy with your setup. Some of us are willing to spend more money to get more performance, and some of us place more value on relative presentation than absolute size. Doesn't make either option irrational.
The new Epsons with HDR are so far the only thing in the past five years I consider worth upgrading to, as in a reasonable price / benefit ratio. I'd rather the price were cheaper but I'm tired of waiting. UHD Blurays are out now and it's time. I don't think Dolby Vision and/or dynamic metadata HDR is worth waiting for, unless in a projector with waaaay more lumens than these, which probably implies laser which is going to be too costly for at least another couple years. so HDR10 it is, and static metadata it is. P3 is also fine because that's what most movies will be mastered or remastered to for at least a while. (I think).
I hope they live up to the hype, but LCD Epsons have a track record of not living up to their specs so I'm skeptical until I see some more (more detailed) reviews and actual measurements.