AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok... If you are like me you've had enough of trying to work thru this scenario and have read far too many threads about such, but...


and I almost hate to bring it up again...


Can anyone provide any solid intelligence/personal experience with this very tired question: 4:3 vs 16:9 for a Native 4:3 projector?


I am about to plunk down for a NEC HT1000 projector and am shopping for an appropriate screen. I do realize that much of screen choice is based on "personal" viewing preferences, etc. - my viewing habits unfortunately "cross" - I will absolutely be watching a LOT of native 16:9 (dvd, hdtv) but am also a NUT for a good classic movie, IMAX (4:3).


I have about 80" of ceiling height to work with, 106" wide, viewing distance just under 10', ambient light not an issue...


ANY thoughts (again!) on this would be VERY MUCH appreciated... just when I think I have come to a semblance of a decision I start countering my own arguments....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,769 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jwooten


Can anyone provide any solid intelligence/personal experience with this very tired question: 4:3 vs 16:9 for a Native 4:3 projector?
1. 16:9 is cooler

2. 16:9 is todays and the future format. 4:3 is 1950's

3. Most modern good stuff is produced for 16:9 (HDTV) all older stuff is of poor quality anyway so you dont need all the resolution of the panel to show junk. Set the 4:3 projector up for 16:9 then just use the inner portion for 4:3 stuff. Or use the zoom if you must use the whole panel.


you still have to fully automate all this with other equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
I have the HT1000. I have a 4:3 electric screen. My basic rule of thumb would be if you have a 16:9 PJ then go with a 16:9 screen, if you have a 4:3 why would you compromise the fabulous picture you get with restored classics, concerts and other pristine 4:3 transfers available?


When I watch a 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie I simply raise the screen so the picture is framed without any fuss, muss or bother. I can have Tryg's cool 16:9 or any other ratio. :)


I think the HT1000 can offer the best of both worlds and that you would be limiting yourself to restrict yourself to 16:9. The only exception I would make is if you get an anamorphic lens turning the NEC into a full time 16:9 PJ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Refling
I have the HT1000. I have a 4:3 electric screen. My basic rule of thumb would be if you have a 16:9 PJ then go with a 16:9 screen, if you have a 4:3 why would you compromise the fabulous picture you get with restored classics, concerts and other pristine 4:3 transfers available?


When I watch a 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie I simply raise the screen so the picture is framed without any fuss, muss or bother. I can have Tryg's cool 16:9 or any other ratio. :)


I think the HT1000 can offer the best of both worlds and that you would be limiting yourself to restrict yourself to 16:9. The only exception I would make is if you get an anamorphic lens turning the NEC into a full time 16:9 PJ.
Awesome! does the 4:3 screen have to be large enough width-wise to accomodate 16:9 (i.e., is to small a 4:3 problematic for 16:9)?


Also, what do u mean by "raise the screen?" apologies, talking to a novice here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
I say go with an anamorphic lens and a 16:9 screen. The lens will convert the 4:3 panel of the HT1000 to 16:9. Watch your classic films pillarboxed (image centered with empty areas on the sides) and your modern widescreen programming at full screen width--just as you would in a real movie theater.


Widescreen programming is meant to be wider than older Academy Ratio material (1.37:1, about 4:3). Making Academy Ratio material super tall and watching widescreen material at half height is backwards. I'd only recommend a setup like that if you're such an old movie nut that Academy Ratio material makes up most of your viewing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by thirdkind
I say go with an anamorphic lens and a 16:9 screen. The lens will convert the 4:3 panel of the HT1000 to 16:9. Watch your classic films pillarboxed (image centered with empty areas on the sides) and your modern widescreen programming at full screen width--just as you would in a real movie theater.


Widescreen programming is meant to be wider than older Academy Ratio material (1.37:1, about 4:3). Making Academy Ratio material super tall and watching widescreen material at half height is backwards. I'd only recommend a setup like that if you're such an old movie nut that Academy Ratio material makes up most of your viewing.
Got it; I'm getting closer (decision wise) - thx!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Refling
I have the HT1000. I have a 4:3 electric screen.


When I watch a 16:9 or 2.35:1 movie I simply raise the screen so the picture is framed without any fuss, muss or bother. I can have Tryg's cool 16:9 or any other ratio. :)


I think the HT1000 can offer the best of both worlds and that you would be limiting yourself to restrict yourself to 16:9.


[Glenn, still interested in your thoughts here when u get a chance (as an actual ht1000 end user with 4:3, etc.)].


does the 4:3 screen have to be large enough width-wise to accomodate 16:9 (i.e., is to small a 4:3 problematic for 16:9)?


Also, what do u mean by "raise the screen?" apologies, talking to a novice here!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,544 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jwooten
Got it; I'm getting closer (decision wise) - thx!
I'll 2nd the recommendation to go with the HT1000, add a Panamorph PSO anamorphic lens, and then go with high contrast screen in the .9-1.0 gain range to help make the blacks just a little darker. I have been projecting on an ultra white painted wall for almost a year. The image has been great. I finally settled on a screen and just bought some Da-Lite 1.1 gain High Contrast Cinema Vision material .


My seating distance is right on 10'. I find 80" wide full 16:9 HD image is just the right size and comfortable to watch. I zoom a 2.35 movie just a little wider to 88", to help expand the vertical aspect of the image and this helps improve the impact of the film. However, anything beyond 90" wide at 10', I begin see the pixel structure in the image.


I have found using the Panamorph PSO lens and playing with focus adjustment on the HT1000, reduces the presence of screen door while maintaining a sharp image. This combo allows the 90" wide screen at 10'.


IMHO, I don't see how you would be able to watch a 106" wide image from 10' with the HT1000 or a HD2 projector. If you are talking about 106" as a diagonal measurement, that's a different matter. But 106" wide screen from 10' is a real challenge. Maybe the JVS SX-21 with it's super duper resolution would allow a screen size that wide at your view distance.


As a rule, the HT1000 requires a 1.5-1.7x viewing distance ration to screen size. Thats a 70-80" wide screen. I have found adding the Panamorph lens and carefully tweaking the focus changes the ratio to 1.3-1.4. A 85-92" wide screen. You're 106" wide screen at 10' would be a 1.13 ratio.


So... if you plan to keep the HT1000 factory, you might want to stick with a 80" wide screen range. Add a Panamorph, you could take it to a 88-90" wide screen. Anything beyond that and you may not be happy. However, some folks really love the extra size despite the screen door effect.


I am working out a test driving of an IMX Image Processor with my HT1000/Panamorph combo. Based on reports from other IMX users, the pixel elimination process may expand the screen size a bit more from my current capability, but I don't know how much.


Honestly, an 80" wide full 16:9 HD image from 10' is just super. It's a 2.35 movie that really benefits from some extra width so the vertical presentation of the image fills my field of view. A 88-90" wide screen from 10' is pretty good. Actually, it's the poor quality of the DVD source that has the greatest impact on a screen this size. I am just a couple of days away from a switch to the Bravo D1, so maybe that will help over come some of the resolution challenges of a DVD source.


If I was shopping today, it would be a much more difficult process than this time last year. Good luck with your purchase.


RJ

...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thank you, Bytehoven! this is right on, makes me feel a little better - a 47" h x 78.5" w 16:9 is my main consideration so this is in keeping with your estimations here with what sounds like very good results (106" is actually the width of my wall - i wasn't being very succinct).


With your 80" (wide) screen u'r 4:3 output doesn't look too small?


I think I will grab up the ht1000 and play with it on a blank wall for awhile before making a final decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,544 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jwooten

Thank you, Bytehoven! With your 80" (wide) screen u'r 4:3 output doesn't look too small?/B]

I agree with Jay. A 4:3 image formatted inside a 80" wide 16x9 screen at 10' is plenty big. The 4:3 source is typically a standard definition TV source, which looks better if you go smaller, to help hide the artifacts.


Good idea to take your time on a screen choice, especiallyu if you plan to make a significant investment in something like a Stewart Grayhawk or Firehawk.


I found a good deal on the Da-Lite HCCV screen material, that I can adapt to fit a nice 92" 16x9 Fast Fold frame kit I have. I would love to buy a 92" 16x9 Grayhawk, but I need to save up some cabbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
I haven't gone the anamorphic lens route and haven't gotten swept up into 16:9 must be wider mantra. I go for the maximum size that the displayed material deserves within my room restraints. The width is always 92 inches, the height will vary.


I simply can't understand why there is this insistence that one movie format must be larger than another regardless of any other factor. :)


I would never want my concerts and pristine 4:3 stuff to be limited to a small screen when I can use a 7.5 ft by 5.75 ft image. It's bright, it's beautiful.


Just my 2 cents worth. :D I'm happy with it, my guests are happy with it and gee I saved all that anamorphic lens money and spent it on DVDs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,544 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Refling
I simply can't understand why there is this insistence that one movie format must be larger than another regardless of any other factor. :)
IMHO, it has to do with the image height. I find zooming a 2.35 format movie, helps inhance the film impact because of the increase of the vertical size increase.


I like to get the image to a size where my upper/lower vision range is right at the edge of the image, when looking at the center of the image. Thus the difference between 16:9/1.85 format and 2.35 format material.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top