AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i'm interested in getting a 2.35 screen - i'm tired of "wide screen spectaculars" looking puny in image size compared to "regular" 1.85 movies. constant height is the way to go.


i'm most likely getting the new Sanyo 60 projector which is native 16:9.


to go 2.35, i would need to either use the projector's electronic zoom (have to check zoom range), OR use something like ISCO II (the sanyo can apparantly fill the entire 16:9 panel with a 2.35 a/r image - or maybe get the Panasonic RP91 that can do the same?!)


i would be most interested to hear what others think of my approach & best way to accomplish this, as well as other solutions that have been implemented by AVS members.


PS: i' m not too keen (WAF) on anything involving HTPC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,649 Posts
bossmonkey,


I use a scope (2:35:1) ratioed custom built screen in the HT set up. A Dukane 9015 D-ILA projector (4:3 display) lits it up when viewing DVDs and LDs. I use an Isco I anomorphic lens when using the Crystal Image video scaler/S7000 DVD/LD machines (unsqueezing the LD playback via the CI to avoid moving the lens out of the way -a royal pain in the ass!), thus full panel pixel resolution is attained without any zooming applied (the distance of the projector to the screen HAS to be varied, however, but am still working on a track system that wiil allow for that -it is nearly completed).


I also use a HT-PC for DVD playback and in fact prefer it over the scaler/DVD player, but haven't figure out how to disable the automatic anomorphic squeeze/unsqueeze feature (help, Larry! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif ), thus not taking full advantage of the Isco lens.


Viewing scope images occupying the 12 foot width is truly cinematic http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif but others are using even 14 foot widths! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/eek.gif Its use does exact some inconveniences. http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/frown.gif In any case, 70mm, 35mm, and Super-8mm film formats are also projected onto that screen so it must do for the time being...


Good luck on your quest!


-THTS



[This message has been edited by Frank J Manrique (edited 06-10-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
Hi Bossmonkey,


I'm another proponent of the 'scope screen approach. Like Frank, I use an Isco 1 anamorphic lens, but don't yet have an outboard scaler or HTPC (my next prospective purchase). I utilize the zoom of my projector (Dreamvision DL500 Starlight) along with the Isco lens to manage a constant height/variable width screen configuration. I really like the cinematic feeling you get from this type of widescreen set-up and heartily recommend using something like it in your theater.


The Isco 1 slightly overstretches the image, making the actual screen ratio about 2.54:1. I usually keep the height at about 66", so for the widest material, the dimensions are 66" X 168". When watching older, pre-widescreen movies (CASABLANCA or GONE WITH THE WIND, for instance), the dimensions might be 66" X 90" (1.37:1) or 66" X 88" (1.33:1). Movable side curtains allow me to frame the proper ratio as picture widths change. The constant height/variable width approach is the way most good commercial theaters manage films of differing aspect ratios. As a result, it makes for a nice cinematic simulation for your home theater.


Happy home theater-ing!


------------------

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
hi


I also set up my screen in 2.35 format ( well, something more like 2.2 ). While the cinematic effect is evident and the black-grey bars of our lcd-dlps can thus be "hidden" into black fabric on top and bottom ( or just top ) of the 2.35 screen, any 1.85/1.77 movies tend to lose the size impact, especially on movies such as JURASSIC PARK or STARSHIP TROOPERS: I now lean towards a larger screen, in the future, something like 16ft wide in order to regain the size effect I had before, when the screen was set up for 1.85:1 formats. 16ft (5meters wide +-) 2.35:1 still allows for a 3.92m wide 1.85 format. Oops, this is bigger than before, on a 3meters screen http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Well you get the idea... It also allows for decent 1.33 formats as some concerts are still shot in the format.

For such large screens, anamorphic and 2.35 lenses are compulsory.



------------------

for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
Count me in! I also have a 2.35:1 screen cause I think is more spectacular that way. Besides most of my movies are 2.35 anyway and the ones that are 1.85 are mostly comedies and stuff like that. I am trying to find an easy way to change screens but so far I'll stay with my almost 2.35 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
My next screen will definitely be 2.35:1. I made a mistake by buying a 1.78:1 screen (96" x 54" Stewart Studiotek 130 w/ Ve-Luxe border, an otherwise excellent screen with a 1.3 gain), since I don't watch any broadcast HDTV. I would prefer my next scope screen to be at least 12' wide as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
Thats why I love my trusty W400Q, the delta-pattern Vs stripe configuration of the pixels eliminates the screendoor effect so I can get away with stuff that usual LCD projectors can't (at least in my price range). 2.35 RULES!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
YOu have to keep in mind that due to the very high resolution of the 10HT it doesn't need the delta staggered arrangement. Since the 400 has less resolution it does. If you compared them side by side it will be hard to noticed any difference in resoultion...thats in fact due to the smart delta arrangement. Still, there was a lot of people dissapointed at Sony when the info regarding the lack of delta staggered pixels in the 10HT. Do a little search at the BigPictureDvd forum.

I hope you get to see one 400 some day and you'll be surprised at the image this oldie delivers.

Regards
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
Luis


I also have the delta arrangement on my Philils LC2000. I think mine and yours are the only ever lcd to use this system and to me, it represents the best thing for image naturalness! As for what they have abandonned it, it's due to the corporate customers, to which projectors are first destined ( well, it's changing ) and which require straight pixels configuration for perfect computer compatibility (VGA VGA, SVGA SVGA etc )


The delta arrangement was not only chosen to reduce screendoor effect. But I sure would love to have a 2.35 panamorph! http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif


------------------

for cinema sound in your HT, use cinema speakers and cinema amps! unbeatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Using a smaller 2.35 screen, 44 x 105, with a VT540 and ISCO II. The ISCO reduces the screen door. Yes, it stretches the pixels, but adds more of them, so screen door is less compared to 2.35 the same size without it.

My screen has masking for the residual letterboxed bands. (What I actually ordered was a 60 x 105 16x9 screen, and had additional masking applied at the factory to narrow the active picture area to 44 x 105. That way, when using the ISCO, the letterbox bands fall exactly within the masking. The screen rolls up when not in use, leaving no masking or paint on my walls.)

With a Dalite higain screen, in this size, the image is extremely bright.. While it is true that there is less info on a 2.35 DVD than on a 16x9 one, it still looks very sharp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,129 Posts
I have a DIY 2.0 screen! That's what you get when you use a 4'x8' sheet of melamine and paint it gray. 4:3 and 16:9 are presented at a constant height of 4'. For 2.35 movies, I zoom out to a width of 8' giving a height of ~3.4'.

Enjoying the compromise



------------------

The button is labeled "Play", not "Pay". STOP the MPAA!

Our Silent Angels

Please visit The Manny Page!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
Hey Man E that's exactly my screen size but mine is covered with a Blackout fabric. I do the same thing...8' wide for 2.35:1 and then reduce the size for 1.85 and so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
drmyeyes:

You have a rolldown Dalite 2.35?

That' s exactly what I would like, but it doesn't seem like they offer one. How, and from whom did you order it?


Do you have any side masking system?

Tell us all about it.

Pip
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,165 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
Posted above: "I also have the delta arrangement on my Philils LC2000. I think mine and yours are the only ever lcd to use this system..."


I used a Sharp XV80U LCD projector for several years---it also had a delta picture element configuration. The delta arrangement diminished the "screen door" effect but did not eliminate it. I agree with other posters who suggested that the benefit of a delta configuration is quickly being superceded by the ever-increasing pixel density of newer generation projectors.


------------------

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Quote:
To make it more clear, since I got bug-eyed the first time I read this. It stretches the pixels horizontally, and adds more pixels vertically. But what I was saying is that you cant make a pixel bigger, which is what stretching does, without also making the gap (screen door) bigger. Im not even saying its more noticeable, but stretched pixels = stretched gaps.


mark sink
Mark, this is going to sound confusing, but think about it, the ISCO lens horizontally stretches neither the pixels nor the gaps for any given screen size.


It is true that the lens stretches the image horizontally. The say, 100" wide picture that you watch, does indeed have horizontally wider pixels and spaces than the 75" or so wide picture that was stretched to produce it. However, it's got the same pixel spacing that you would wind up with by merely enlarging the image without the lens to the same 100". Vertically, the pixels are smaller, as the whole panel is used and thus there are more of them filling the same height. The net effect, then, is smaller pixels and spaces than without the lens, for any given screen size, and, consequently, less screen door effect.


[This message has been edited by drmyeyes (edited 06-11-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Pip-


Read my post again-


"What I actually ordered was a 60 x 105 16x9 screen, and had additional masking applied at the factory to narrow the active picture area to 44 x 105. That way, when using the ISCO, the letterbox bands fall exactly within the masking."


I attached a curtain rod to the screen case, by gluing the rod supports with GE Silicone II. (Plenty strong enough, and totally reversible, without blemish.) I used black felt for the curtains, hung with curtain hooks. I wrapped the leading edge of each curtain around a metal shelf standard to create a sharp edge and add some weight so it hangs straight. I can easily take off the curtain, and roll up the screen.


[This message has been edited by drmyeyes (edited 06-11-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,580 Posts
Hi Guys,

You are narrowing horizontal pixel gap with the ISCO. The same thing applies to cinemascope lenses that do a 2x horizontal stretch. With the scope lens, vertical pixel gap is noticeable (at least on my SVGA DLP. I've been told it isn't visible on D-ILA's). The reason being that there is now a disparity between the vertical and horizontal pixel gap. Horizontal pixel gap appears to be non existent. But now, the vertical gap is visible - by comparison. I used an SVGA DLP with an ISCO I (1.44x horizontal stretch) lens and I didn't notice any change in pixel gap. It wasn't noticeable. But the pixels were greatly minimized, the image was brighter and looked more film-like. For me, it was the best home theater accessory I had bought. Cygnus makes a depixilizer lens (IMX), to reduce the screen door effect. That may also be worth looking into.


[This message has been edited by Larry Davis (edited 06-12-2001).]
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top