[wildchild22]

Just wondering if buying a screen would you recommend a 2:40:1 or 2:35:1 ?


I have a lumagen radiance so it probably doesn't mater too much, just looking for opinions on pros and cons.

 

[jeffmcclan]

I went 2.37 (not for a A-lens as I zoom) but rather to be midway between 2 scope aspect ratios. Very happy with Seymour AT screen.

 

[Roger Dressler]

It's worse, IMHO, to have some of the image spill onto the black matting than tho leave a small part of the screen unused. So the 2.35 screen would be preferred in that case.

 

[CAVX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Dressler It's worse, IMHO, to have some of the image spill onto the black matting than tho leave a small part of the screen unused. So the 2.35 screen would be preferred in that case.

Would you not want 2.40:1 then?

 

[Roger Dressler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAVX Would you not want 2.40:1 then?

No. The variation in aspect ratio is in the image height -- the degree of letterbox if you will. A 2.35 image is taller than a 2.40 image, native from the PJ. But they all have the same width. Zoom the PJ to fill the full screen width, center it vertically, and it's done. Play 2.35, 2.37, 2.40 all without ever touching the lens.

 

[Varrius]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/20800765


No. The variation in aspect ratio is in the image height -- the degree of letterbox if you will. A 2.35 image is taller than a 2.40 image, native from the PJ. But they all have the same width. Zoom the PJ to fill the full screen width, center it vertically, and it's done. Play 2.35, 2.37, 2.40 all without ever touching the lens.

I guess it just depends on personal preference and if you want to truly have CIH at any image ratio. What you describe would work just fine, but it would also work just fine for going from 1.78 to 2.35, people just don't want to do it that way because they want CIH not CIW.


I'm personally trying to decide this question myself. I'm leaning towards a 2.35 screen because it will give me a bit larger 1.78 viewing size (I watch a fair amount of TV and 1.78 movies). My screen size is width limited because of room dimensions, so at a fixed width I'll get a bit more height from the 2.35 than I would the 2.40. If I had the width to make my screen any height I wanted and still fit 2.40 then it would be a no brainer for me, I'd go with a 2.40.

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/20800765


No. The variation in aspect ratio is in the image height -- the degree of letterbox if you will. A 2.35 image is taller than a 2.40 image, native from the PJ. But they all have the same width. Zoom the PJ to fill the full screen width, center it vertically, and it's done. Play 2.35, 2.37, 2.40 all without ever touching the lens.

I understand your point of view, but reading many posts from those that Zoom here and it seems that the slight trimming of the image is not an issue for them. In fact, it seems that they enjoy that last tweak from their systems.


I don't zoom because I use an A-Lens, however I don't use an out board scaler either, so I face the same issue of slivers of black for 2.40:1. I choose to apply a slight amount of zoom to trim the image for these films. I will also trim-zoom (I think I'll TM that) the slivers of black off a 1.85:1 film.

 

[Roger Dressler]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrius /forum/post/20800965


I guess it just depends on personal preference and if you want to truly have CIH at any image ratio. What you describe would work just fine, but it would also work just fine for going from 1.78 to 2.35, people just don't want to do it that way because they want CIH not CIW.

Quote:
If I had the width to make my screen any height I wanted and still fit 2.40 then it would be a no brainer for me, I'd go with a 2.40.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/20801020


I understand your point of view, but reading many posts from those that Zoom here and it seems that the slight trimming of the image is not an issue for them. In fact, it seems that they enjoy that last tweak from their systems.

Quote:
I don't zoom because I use an A-Lens, however I don't use an out board scaler either, so I face the same issue of slivers of black for 2.40:1. I choose to apply a slight amount of zoom to trim the image for these films. I will also trim-zoom (I think I'll TM that) the slivers of black off a 1.85:1 film.

Let me see if we can separate some key issues. When a widescreen image does not fit the screen, you:

1. do not mind having unused slivers (blank screen)
2. zoom the image to fill the screen; I do not mind the overscan reflection
3. zoom as above because I have "black hole velvet" surrounds and I cannot see any of the image overscan.

I am coming at this from the perspective that 1 is better than 2, as I stated in my first post. However, if you have option 3 available, that might be the best of all, so then I would take the 2.40 screen.


Where do y'all come down on these three options?

 

[CAVX]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/20801220



Where do y'all come down on these three options?

I don't mind if there is slivers of side pillar.

I don't like slivers top and bottom.

I also have a light sponge boarder on my 2.37:1 screen.


If I am to have over scan, I'd rather it at the sides than the top/bottom.

 

[HogPilot]

I agree with CAVX - if I were to zoom, I'd want the image to always be completely framed by my screen so it looks clean (i.e. sharp edges with no bars on the screen). Most fixed-frame screens have some sort of black, light-absorbing material on the frame that will suck up any light that's spilled on to them. If you don't have this type of material on the frame, I could understand wanting to have bars on the screen rather than distorted slivers of the picture spilling on to the frame.

 

[NicksHitachi]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX /forum/post/20801305


I don't mind if there is slivers of side pillar.

I don't like slivers top and bottom.

I also have a light sponge boarder on my 2.37:1 screen.


If I am to have over scan, I'd rather it at the sides than the top/bottom.

+1

2.37 I run all scope formats on mine and don't notice the bit of under scan on 2.35 or 1/4-1/2" overscan on the velvet border.

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/20801220


Where do y'all come down on these three options?

I personally think it's all too much trouble to think about for what amounts to less than a half inch of vertical over/underscan on a 100" wide image.

 

[Roger Dressler]

Thank you all for the constructive viewpoints. I hope the OP s better able to decide his screen size as a result.

 

[wildchild22]

I guess it really doesn't mater too much with a lumagen I can whatever I want with the image so I quess whatever is cheaper I will go with!!!

 

[stanger89]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler /forum/post/20802745


Thank you all for the constructive viewpoints. I hope the OP s better able to decide his screen size as a result.

Sorry if my post came off snarky, that wasn't the way I meant it. I just meant that we tend to get hung up on the details around here, debating what's theoretically better than something else.


I've gotten to the point where I don't look at the AR of a movie before I fire it up, or drop it in, I don't start it and check if it's a little too tall, or a little too short, if it's 2.35:1, or 2.37:1, or 2.40:1, or if it's offset a little high or low. I just pop it in, or fire it up and if it's "scope", I hit the "2.35:1" AR button on my remote and it adjust the AR mode and I sit back and enjoy.


Now if I had the robust scaler, and the movie database (ala Kaleidescape), and the automation to tie it all together, I'd definitely go for a 2.40:1 screen (if not wider like Vern, but that requires a different/special lens) and have the automation set up to horizontally shrink each AR just enough so the height is always just right.

 

[Roger Dressler]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/20804024


Sorry if my post came off snarky, that wasn't the way I meant it.

Not at all. I hope my omission of

did not cause you to think I was being sarcastic. I really think we added value for to OP. I know I came away with a richer understanding of the many issues involved. And I like your M.O.: Set it and forget it.

 

[OJ Bartley]

Stanger, I like your philosophy too. I'm getting closer to the point where the OP is as well, and debating the various aspect ratios' pros and cons trying to figure out what size screen to build. I know I won't be going with an anamorphic lens due to cost, so I will be zooming, and probably building some mattes that are magnetic or something for quick screen swapping if necessary. But mostly I just want to be able to watch different formats without going through a complicated process every time.


I think projectors like the recent Panasonics have an aspect ratio zoom memory, that can switch back and forth with 1 button on the remote. Is there one way that's clearly better than the other (16:9 vs 2.35:1/2.40:1) for a screen setup for use this way?

 

[R Harkness]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/20804024


Sorry if my post came off snarky, that wasn't the way I meant it. I just meant that we tend to get hung up on the details around here, debating what's theoretically better than something else.


I've gotten to the point where I don't look at the AR of a movie before I fire it up, or drop it in, I don't start it and check if it's a little too tall, or a little too short, if it's 2.35:1, or 2.37:1, or 2.40:1, or if it's offset a little high or low. I just pop it in, or fire it up and if it's "scope", I hit the "2.35:1" AR button on my remote and it adjust the AR mode and I sit back and enjoy.


Now if I had the robust scaler, and the movie database (ala Kaleidescape), and the automation to tie it all together, I'd definitely go for a 2.40:1 screen (if not wider like Vern, but that requires a different/special lens) and have the automation set up to horizontally shrink each AR just enough so the height is always just right.

Quite a reasonable approach, I think.

 

[mtbdudex]



Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/20804024


Sorry if my post came off snarky, that wasn't the way I meant it. I just meant that we tend to get hung up on the details around here, debating what's theoretically better than something else.


I've gotten to the point where I don't look at the AR of a movie before I fire it up, or drop it in, I don't start it and check if it's a little too tall, or a little too short, if it's 2.35:1, or 2.37:1, or 2.40:1, or if it's offset a little high or low. I just pop it in, or fire it up and if it's "scope", I hit the "2.35:1" AR button on my remote and it adjust the AR mode and I sit back and enjoy.


Now if I had the robust scaler, and the movie database (ala Kaleidescape), and the automation to tie it all together, I'd definitely go for a 2.40:1 screen (if not wider like Vern, but that requires a different/special lens) and have the automation set up to horizontally shrink each AR just enough so the height is always just right.

+1, well said stanger89.

My intention when I built my screen was 2.37 AR (based on 16/9 x 4/3 a-lens), but due to my slight mis-calcualtion in building it came out as 2.35:1.


Now I just slightly overscan and it covers all the scope ratios, and totally watch and get immersed in the 130" onscreen image, not the little bit of video that the black velvet border is absorbing.


peace all.

 

[Cinema Gary]

I may be wrong but is the only difference between 2:35.1 and 2:39.1 is the height.


The width remains the same so you would get thin slivers of black on a 2:35.1 screen when projecting 2:39.1