Is anybody here using a 1292 and a 2:35:1 AR screen? I just ordered a 1292, and I going to build a DIY screen. I can't decide what AR to go with. I've read most of the threads on the topic, but still can't decide. So, I thought I would check if anybody has the set-up I'm considering, and if there happy with it?
1292 and 2.35:1 screen
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
- Status
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
I think very, very few have a 2.35:1 screen. Most here seem to feel 2.35:1 has too many disadvantages to justify the downsides.
Me, I had a long, long thread on the topic just a few days ago. Ordered a 2.35:1 AR screen, as I found that at least half of my material is 2.35:1, and the other half is 16:9, so either way results in unused raster. I chose to go with the 2.35:1 as it would present the correct effect to me that the director intended (which is to have a 2.35:1 movie be wider, but same height as a 1.85 flat film).
However, there is a loss of resolution in doing this. If your primary source is HD material, you'll lose so much resolution with a 2.35:1 screen (have to chuck it and downsample) that it may not be worth it. On the other hand, DVDs are so low resolution that I still will have to scale up to generate a higher resolution, just not as high of a resolution as if I had a 16:9 screen. So its not a loss to me.
Don't know of anyone using a 2.35:1 screen other than Vern Dias and Alan Gouger. I'll be the 3rd to publicly admit my insanity I think.
Me, I had a long, long thread on the topic just a few days ago. Ordered a 2.35:1 AR screen, as I found that at least half of my material is 2.35:1, and the other half is 16:9, so either way results in unused raster. I chose to go with the 2.35:1 as it would present the correct effect to me that the director intended (which is to have a 2.35:1 movie be wider, but same height as a 1.85 flat film).
However, there is a loss of resolution in doing this. If your primary source is HD material, you'll lose so much resolution with a 2.35:1 screen (have to chuck it and downsample) that it may not be worth it. On the other hand, DVDs are so low resolution that I still will have to scale up to generate a higher resolution, just not as high of a resolution as if I had a 16:9 screen. So its not a loss to me.
Don't know of anyone using a 2.35:1 screen other than Vern Dias and Alan Gouger. I'll be the 3rd to publicly admit my insanity I think.
I know I was a way from the board for awhile (grandmother died), spearce, but I've had my 2.35 for a little bit longer than you. Don't throw me out of the club, yet!
Like spearce said, check out his thread. It is a pretty good recap of 2.35 vs other aspect ratios. I love mine!
Don't throw me out of the club, yet!Like spearce said, check out his thread. It is a pretty good recap of 2.35 vs other aspect ratios. I love mine!
Joined
·
2,673 Posts
Quote:
I have a 1292 + Stewart 87x49" screen + HTPC, often move up from 1.5 widths for 1.85:1/16:9 sources to 1.1-1.2 screen widths for scope material, and think there's a good chance a retractable 2.35:1 screen will be my next major upgrade (my preferred seating position and maximum screen width are constrained by stereo requirements in a combination listening/movie room).
With good setup (my projector is at a slightly wrong angle, so up close you only pickup scan lines on most of the screen when you run 960p) you should be able to resolve 1696x720p on a 2.35:1 screen. A mediocre setup will still get you a razor sharp 1272x540p. On DVD you will not loose any resolution.
If you intend to run HD which doesn't go through an HTPC or HD scaler (basically the HD leeza), you will probably run out of squeeze - I think my RGB vertical size is at 10 when I run an ATSC 720p signal in and have never tried ATSC 1080i. On my first few setups I converged for a 4:3 screen, currently I'm converged for a 16x9 screen, and I don't think it makes a difference in the RGB size adjustment needed when you're feeding a 16x9 signal to the projector.
Since you're not adverse to building a screen I recommend playing with it - mask for 2.35:1, sit at 2.7-2.8 screen heights, use Powerstrip to run a 2.35:1 desktop (play with the vertical itmings to make it fit), setup some cutom aspect ratios in Theatertek, and see how you like it!
| Originally posted by mklein49 Is anybody here using a 1292 and a 2:35:1 AR screen? I just ordered a 1292, and I going to build a DIY screen. I can't decide what AR to go with. I've read most of the threads on the topic, but still can't decide. So, I thought I would check if anybody has the set-up I'm considering, and if there happy with it? |
With good setup (my projector is at a slightly wrong angle, so up close you only pickup scan lines on most of the screen when you run 960p) you should be able to resolve 1696x720p on a 2.35:1 screen. A mediocre setup will still get you a razor sharp 1272x540p. On DVD you will not loose any resolution.
If you intend to run HD which doesn't go through an HTPC or HD scaler (basically the HD leeza), you will probably run out of squeeze - I think my RGB vertical size is at 10 when I run an ATSC 720p signal in and have never tried ATSC 1080i. On my first few setups I converged for a 4:3 screen, currently I'm converged for a 16x9 screen, and I don't think it makes a difference in the RGB size adjustment needed when you're feeding a 16x9 signal to the projector.
Since you're not adverse to building a screen I recommend playing with it - mask for 2.35:1, sit at 2.7-2.8 screen heights, use Powerstrip to run a 2.35:1 desktop (play with the vertical itmings to make it fit), setup some cutom aspect ratios in Theatertek, and see how you like it!
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
