[AidenL]

Quick question for the experts.


I sit 14ft from the screen, currently have a 104" and looking to install a wider 2.35:1 screen.


I'd like it to be a Draper ReAct as I have been happy with my current screen.


I have 140" wide between covings on my celing, so wondering whats the widest screen I can fit in that space, assuming I'll lose a bit of width to casing and motors - I will be going with electric and tab tensioned.


Also, as the PJ will be projecting a 16:9 view onto a 2.35:1 screen, will I need an anamorphic lens?? Or is it better to fit a 16:9 screen and gain the extra benefit of being able to use it for sports etc?


Thanks in advance.

 

[Craig Peer]



Quote:
Also, as the PJ will be projecting a 16:9 view onto a 2.35:1 screen, will I need an anamorphic lens?? Or is it better to fit a 16:9 screen and gain the extra benefit of being able to use it for sports etc?

Ah, the age old question - which aspect ratio ( which is why I have one of each - I hate compromise ). You don't necessarily " need " an anamorphic lens, but that depends on what projector you are using.

 

[PillPu$her]

I'll tell you what I did. First of all, ask yourself what aspect ratio you watch MOST OF THE TIME. I watch mostly DirecTV programming, so I wanted to get a 16:9 screen. That way, the content I watch the most would be the biggest size it can be. You can add vertical masking for watching scope movies or just ignore the black bars. This type of setup is called Constant Width, because the width of your image does not change, just the height.


When I started measuring my wall, I realized that I had a lot more width available than height (only 8' tall after adding a 12" soffet at the ceiling). By the time I subtracted the minimum amount of space I felt comfortable with from the floor to the screen, I found that my largest 16:9 image would be exactly the same no matter what screen format I chose. So I decided to get a scope screen to enjoy both formats in their largest size. This is called Constant Height, for obvious reasons.


As for how large of a screen you should get, I heard and read a lot of different "rules" to follow about this. In the end, I went to see a movie at my local theater and sat where I normally like to sit. Then I looked up and counted ceiling tiles, which were 4' x 2'. I found that the screen I was watching was 40' wide and I was sitting comfortably 50' away. So I used the same ratio of width to distance in my theater.


I hope this helps.

 

[Craig Peer]



Quote:
I'll tell you what I did. First of all, ask yourself what aspect ratio you watch MOST OF THE TIME. I watch mostly DirecTV programming, so I wanted to get a 16:9 screen. That way, the content I watch the most would be the biggest size it can be. You can add vertical masking for watching scope movies or just ignore the black bars. This type of setup is called Constant Width, because the width of your image does not change, just the height.


When I started measuring my wall, I realized that I had a lot more width available than height (only 8' tall after adding a 12" soffet at the ceiling). By the time I subtracted the minimum amount of space I felt comfortable with from the floor to the screen, I found that my largest 16:9 image would be exactly the same no matter what screen format I chose. So I decided to get a scope screen to enjoy both formats in their largest size. This is called Constant Height, for obvious reasons.


As for how large of a screen you should get, I heard and read a lot of different "rules" to follow about this. In the end, I went to see a movie at my local theater and sat where I normally like to sit. Then I looked up and counted ceiling tiles, which were 4' x 2'. I found that the screen I was watching was 40' wide and I was sitting comfortably 50' away. So I used the same ratio of width to distance in my theater.


I hope this helps.

Very well thought out methodology there. Especially going to the movie theater. Another way to do this is to get your projector first, mount it, then experiment with different image sizes on a white bed sheet from your preferred sitting distance.

 

[PillPu$her]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer  /t/1521733/14ft-viewing-distance-2-...fect-size-and-anamorphic-lenses#post_24482062


Very well thought out methodology there. Especially going to the movie theater. Another way to do this is to get your projector first, mount it, then experiment with different image sizes on a white bed sheet from your preferred sitting distance.

That's a great idea, especially since his theater is already built. In my situation, I'm designing my theater and need to make that decision ahead of time.

 

[Craig Peer]



Quote:
That's a great idea, especially since his theater is already built. In my situation, I'm designing my theater and need to make that decision ahead of time.

If your married, you can also make sure you don't pick a screen that's too big and makes your wife sea sick watching the new season of 24 !

Trust me on that one - I speak from experience..............

 

[Edgar_in_Indy]

If you watch a lot of sports or other TV programming, then you may want to be careful with going too large. The effective resolution is so poor on any of the major TV providers that it's not very pretty if your image is too large in relation to your seating position. The TV providers try to cram hundreds of HD channels into a limited amount of bandwidth, and the only way they can make it work is by over compressing the feed. So while the picture may look decent on a 55" TV viewed from 15 feet away, the deficiencies can become painfully obvious if you're watching a 140" screen from the same 15 feet.


If you mostly watch Blu-rays, on the other hand, then you can probably go with the largest screen size you are comfortable with, and the picture will still look good.

 

[Craig Peer]



Quote:
If you watch a lot of sports or other TV programming, then you may want to be careful with going too large. The effective resolution is so poor on any of the major TV providers that it's not very pretty if your image is too large in relation to your seating position. The TV providers try to cram hundreds of HD channels into a limited amount of bandwidth, and the only way they can make it work is by over compressing the feed. So while the picture may look decent on a 55" TV viewed from 15 feet away, the deficiencies can become painfully obvious if you're watching a 140" screen from the same 15 feet.


If you mostly watch Blu-rays, on the other hand, then you can probably go with the largest screen size you are comfortable with, and the picture will still look good.

I only watch HDTV on my projector - never SD. HDTV on Dish ( and Comcast, and I assume Direct TV ) looks pretty good most of the time. That's on a 120" diagonal 16:9 screen from 12' 6" away. YMMV.

 

[Edgar_in_Indy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer  /t/1521733/14ft-viewing-distance-2-...fect-size-and-anamorphic-lenses#post_24500104


I only watch HDTV on my projector - never SD. HDTV on Dish ( and Comcast, and I assume Direct TV ) looks pretty good most of the time. That's on a 120" diagonal 16:9 screen from 12' 6" away. YMMV.

I also have Dish, and while I think it's probably one of the best out there for picture quality, it still isn't up to the standards of Blu-ray. And when you're talking about live sporting events, the situation is worse since they're using mobile studios and the video feed may be re-compressed multiple times to ad graphical overlays such as scores, etc. And local stations may do so again to add ad their logo, news/weather alerts, etc.


I look forward to the day when NFL games will look as good as Blu-ray movies, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


My only advise would be for the OP to test the screen size by projecting the desired 16:9 image onto the wall if possible to see if he will like that size for sports. I had some NFL games on my DVR, so that's what I used when deciding on the maximum size I would like for sports. I also was trying to decide between a huge 145" 16:9 screen or masking a smaller 16:9 image on an equally-wide (but shorter) 2.35 screen, and I didn't think that the NFL games held up well at 145" from about 15 feet.


As you can see, I ended up going with the 2.35 screen:

 

[Craig Peer]

It varies - Revolution, The Tonite Show, CSI: Miami, the Winter Olympics - those all look either very good or outstanding for the most part where I live, on my Sim Lumis. Bones on Fox, other shows have some compression artifacts. When you say HDTV " doesn't look as good as Blu Ray - the reality is that Blu Rays are all over the place too. But I'm generally pleased with " most " HDTV via Dish. SDTV - forget about it !!