AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 95 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looks like I've gone into major upgrade mode this past week. Since I moved recently, everything is torn apart, and I'm slowly putting it all back together in the new place. I just ordered new blue and green tubes from VDC today, and will install them as soon as they arrive. I'm ordering wall covering to make the theater 100% black cave, so light spill will be a non issue.


Something that is bugging me, and has always bugged me, is why are my 16:9 movies taller than my 2.35:1 movies ? The effect I get is the 16:9 DVD is taller, but after watching a long 2.35:1 movie (e.g. Lord of the Rings) I'm just sucked right into the scene.


So here's my delimma: up until now I've been using white painted drywall as my screen. I'm right on the edge of ordering some screen material, but I need to settle on an AR. I'm this close >.

Nearly all of my content is DVD, and nearly all of the DVDs I watch are 2.35:1. Enough are 16:9 though that its certainly not a rare thing, I'd guess about 40% are 16:9, maybe as much as half.


I know Vern would vote for 2.35:1, and many of you feel that 2.35:1 is an abuse of the CRT - but I have to argue that in the same vein, isn't 16:9 an abuse of the CRT? :)


Whadda think? I clearly can't make up my mind on this...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hmm, after rereading my post, I realize it makes as much sense on first read as Frode's comment does. :)


Simple question: 2.35:1 or 16:9?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
If you can afford the reduced image size and light output when you watch 16:9 or 4:3 material I'd do the 2.35 in a heart beat!


Until I fully understood the whole point behind constant height variable width, I though it was pointless... thanks to Vern Dias's patience, I completely understand the purpose... 2.35 constant height variable width is the ONLY way to go if you can 'afford' the down sides that it might present for some projectors.


Oh yeah, and 2.35 screens look even cooler than 16:9 screens ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,876 Posts
I personally gave it a serious thought before choosing a screen AR.

It really boils down to what you watch most of the time and which carries a higher priority for picture quality. Both ways have their pitfalls.


The main problem I had with 2.40 was the fact that my 1080i would be compromised as full width raster is not utilized. Other than that using too much of either will wear the raster uneven in width. That should be taken into consideration carefully as it is the brightness and to some good degree resolution parameter of your PJ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Constant width is the sane way to go...so yes you would be nuts to get a 2.35:1 screen.


What Frode said was right on the money....CRT's are 4:3 displays. I personally think that if you ever ever watch 4:3 material...then you should get a 4:3 screen. If you are only viewing DVD's and HDTV...then get a 16:9.


Of course, you are mister floor mounter....so you are already used to making compromises. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Hmm, good points. My projector is a Barco 808, and I'm figuring it could put out ~200 ANSI lumens. My screen width would be pretty close to 96".


Assuming a 1.3 gain screen material, I came up with:


2.35:1 = 40.8" x 96" = 27 sqft = 9.6 ft/L

16:9 = 54" x 96" = 36 sqft = 7 ft/L


Clearly I'm missing something when trying to estimate the ft/L on screen as a 2.40 screen claims to yeild a higher number. Am I forgetting to take into account the unused parts of the raster?


2.35:1 = 55% used = 5.28 f/L

16:9 = 73% used = 5.11 ft/L


Clearly no, as the 2.35:1 is still a tad higher. :)


I don't do that much 16:9, but I can definately see how that would be a big issue with the wear pattern being formed. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,507 Posts
I'm in a slightly different position. I am currently using a 4:3 screen, and am using 50/50 4/3 material vs widescreen.


I'm painfully aware that a 4:3 image projected within a 16:9 screen uses even less phosphor area than a 16:9 image does on a native 4:3 tube.


I've therefore stuck to the 4:3 screen and stil run 4:3 material on a larger screen than 16:9.


Call me a heretic, but years from now I'll still be on my original tubes..:)


I will be putting in blackout material once I frame in the screen in so that I can pull material across the top and bottom.


Curt


Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I'm sure you are right Curt that you will be on the original tubes in a few years. Meanwhile the rest of us will be scrambling to purchase tubes from you, given that you have the good sense to horde all of them. :)


I never watch 4:3 on my projector. The only 4:3 I watch in there is "The West Wing", which actually is a 1.5:1 AR I believe, so I zoom this up with DScaler so I clip off the letterboxing NBC sends out. Since this is an SD feed :)(), I don't want it too big. Also, I only watch 1 hour a week, and even then that is only during the regular season. So 4:3 is so low on my priority list that it doesn't exist to me. I have my wife trained to make sure she only purchases 16:9 DVDs. She'll now leave the "fullscreen" editions on the shelves where they belong. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I just searched back through time and found the threads where Vern Dias + et. al. were discussing the benefits/tradeoffs to a 2.40 AR screen.


Thus far, the biggest one is the chance of uneven wear in the center of the image area due to excessive use of smaller ARs.


The other is reduced resolution, as there's only so many scan lines one can cram onto the face of the tube with any given machine...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,226 Posts
i need to chime in...i actually would like to run a constantheight setup in my theater eventually as well...i just don't see what the big deal is if you use powerstrip and or your projector has memory "inputs"?????plz explain in LAYMAN terms. using the above combination can't you setup various resolutions to run your projector at..and have the software for the most part do all the work?why is this so diffulcult? it would seem easy to have powerstrip just squeeze the sides in for the appropriate screen or shall i say movie size,not easy?


brickie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,606 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Oh, you are totally right brickie, its easy to setup.


The issue is the 16:9 image will appear with black bars on either side of it. If you watch a lot of 16:9 material, this may wear the center of your 2.35:1 image area, creating uneven colors in the 2.35:1 content.


Conversly, if you watched a lot of 2.35:1 content within a 16:9 image area (16:9 screen), the black bars top and bottom should create an uneven wear pattern in the middle stripe of your 16:9 image.


I'm not sure why everyone talks about the wear pattern with 2.35:1 screen AR and not with 16:9 screen AR...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
I'm in the same boat so I bought a 92x52" even though I plan on 80x45". I just figured on masking H&V as needed. 2.35:1,16:9 what ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
It really comes down t viewing habbits. If you are an HD viewer as well as DVD, then 16:9 is the ticket. If you mostly watch 4:3 TV material, get a RPTV.....lol


Terry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I totally agree with Curt, a maskable 4:3 screen has the most benefits of all screens for use with CRT's.


I will not consider a 2.35:1 screen before somebody makes a pj with that aspect as native. The aspect of the tube/DMD/LCD is the aspect of the screen I will choose, everything else just limits your choises and presents serious drawbacks and hassles.


For those that think wideaspectscreens look cool, just leave the masking in 2.35:1 mode when the pj is turned off :)


Frode
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
I vote 16:9, here is mine masked to 16:9 and 235:.

My screen:


Wes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
937 Posts
I'm surprised it has not been mentioned yet. Go with the 2.35 and the side by side projectors with the $15k edge blender that we've been reading so much about :)
 
1 - 20 of 95 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top