AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
My current setup is a JVC DLA-X550r projected onto a manual pull down Elite 80" 16:9 screen (1.1 gain). I am thinking about adding a second manual pull down Elite 95" 2.35:1 screen (same material to keep the same calibration for both) basically back to back hanging from the ceiling. My thought is that obviously now I gain about 56% more screen real estate for scope movies and lose the black bars but then I would also keep the 16:9 screen for 1.78 / 1.66 / 1.85 films to minimize black bars on those also. So I would pick a movie and determine which screen to pull down based on the films AR?

Does anyone do this or does everyone just use a larger 2.35 screen and deal with the bars on the sides for 16:9 content?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
My current setup is a JVC DLA-X550r projected onto a manual pull down Elite 80" 16:9 screen (1.1 gain). I am thinking about adding a second manual pull down Elite 95" 2.35:1 screen (same material to keep the same calibration for both) basically back to back hanging from the ceiling. My thought is that obviously now I gain about 56% more screen real estate for scope movies and lose the black bars but then I would also keep the 16:9 screen for 1.78 / 1.66 / 1.85 films to minimize black bars on those also. So I would pick a movie and determine which screen to pull down based on the films AR?

Does anyone do this or does everyone just use a larger 2.35 screen and deal with the bars on the sides for 16:9 content?
Unlike Letterboxed bars, the pillarboxed bars are not lit by the panel. So they really aren't something you notice. So by and large yes most just use the scope screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Unlike Letterboxed bars, the pillarboxed bars are not lit by the panel. So they really aren't something you notice. So by and large yes most just use the scope screen.
That's something I never really thought of....thanks very good point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,749 Posts
Unlike Letterboxed bars, the pillarboxed bars are not lit by the panel. So they really aren't something you notice. So by and large yes most just use the scope screen.
The OP clearly asked if we knew of anyone that used 2 different screens with lens memory. The 80” 16:9 would have a height of 39” and the 95” scope screen 37” this is not quite CIA but a nice step in that direction. We do have several members using dual screens and doing close to your ratios between sizes they have posted about the advantages of doing such many times. I haven’t seen anyone doing CIH using that method but there could be someone. The method lends itself nicely to CIA or for someone wanting a different vertical immersion between the two AR’s and then not needing expensive 4way masking.

There are also now screen manufactures that will house both screens in one housing. You can also get two different screen materials assuming the 16:9 screen may be used for sporting events with ambient lighting in the room and the scope screen used as CIH as a lights out home theater.

They may come along and see your thread but if you posted it in the regular screen forum they will surly comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,005 Posts
If you go with one screen with scope as priority, you probably want a 2.4:1 rather than 2.35 to fit the current scope standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,650 Posts
My current setup is a JVC DLA-X550r projected onto a manual pull down Elite 80" 16:9 screen (1.1 gain). I am thinking about adding a second manual pull down Elite 95" 2.35:1 screen (same material to keep the same calibration for both) basically back to back hanging from the ceiling. My thought is that obviously now I gain about 56% more screen real estate for scope movies and lose the black bars but then I would also keep the 16:9 screen for 1.78 / 1.66 / 1.85 films to minimize black bars on those also. So I would pick a movie and determine which screen to pull down based on the films AR?

Does anyone do this or does everyone just use a larger 2.35 screen and deal with the bars on the sides for 16:9 content?
I'm using two screen. Have been for 10+ years -







I have one Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreen, StudioTek 130 G3 material – 50.2 x 118 x 128.2 diagonal, 2.35:1 aspect ratio and one Stewart Luxus Model A ElectriScreen, Neve 1.1 material – 59.5 x 106 x 122 diagonal 1.78:1 aspect ratio. Pretty much the best of both worlds. Avatar and Pacific Rim look awesome on the 1.78:1 Cima Neve ( as do classic films like " Singing in the Rain ", and modern scope films look awesome on the 2.35:1 Studiotek 130. 10' seating from the 2.35:1, 10' 5" from the 1.78:1 screen !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,734 Posts
+1 on the two screen solution. I was inspired by Craig, years ago.
For sports and video, we have a 110" 16 x 9 Da-Lite Cosmo Electrol in HP 2.8. The second "movie" screen is a 125" Elite Cinetension 2.35:1 "scope" 1.3 gain electric drop.
They both play nicely with our Sharp Z30K DLP with lens memory.
NO MORE BLACK BARS:)
One comment: It would be nice if they had some sort of AR indicator on the media discs (especially Netflix). A lot of time we have it set up in one format, based on the previews or intros. Then the movie starts in another format:eek: Retract one screen, lower the other, push a few buttons on the PJ remote and it's all good...In the "big picture" (HT humor), not a big deal. Totally worthwhile addition to HT enjoyment and cheaper than variable geometry masking.
Highly recommended.
Thanks again Craig:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks for the answers guys, I am going to do it, there is just enough room I think to mount it behind my current screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
If you go with one screen with scope as priority, you probably want a 2.4:1 rather than 2.35 to fit the current scope standard.
Although you are right that most films are 2.4:1 or just under, the difference is a few inches at best with a 2.35:1. So personally I'd look at cost as well as the AR. If you can get a screen package in 2.35:1 much cheaper than a custom 2.4:1 in the same material I'd certainly go with the former. Same cost a 2.4:1 or 2.37:1 would be good choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
Thanks for the answers guys, I am going to do it, there is just enough room I think to mount it behind my current screen.
If you are able to size the screen height optimally in relation to your seating distance there's really no need for 2 screens. But there are situations where 2 make sense. In the end it's really you want. Personally I'd cut the extra complication out of the equation unless your room really dictates the need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
If you are able to size the screen height optimally in relation to your seating distance there's really no need for 2 screens. But there are situations where 2 make sense. In the end it's really you want. Personally I'd cut the extra complication out of the equation unless your room really dictates the need.
My room is slightly unique :).

I will see how I like the 2.35 screen and I can always ditch the 16:9 later if I want but complication is the charm of my space.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,749 Posts
For someone like the OP or Craig Peer or humbland there are great advantages to doing this. First being perfect masking automatically. The second being they can run their presentation between the two AR’s as a Personal Image Area that suits their needs best. The third is they can use two different screen materials and even program different projector settings for each screen and have the ability to use their theaters in dual ambient lighting levels. Could be in a living room and have a day screen for TV and a night screen for movies. The forth reason is they will still have a perfect CIH scope screen and can leave the 16:9 screen up for all their movie needs if they want both scope and flat. No one is saying having a 16:9 screen means you have to project flat movies to it. Craig watched Dunkirk on his to get the benefit of the IMAX parts. Others might want the 16:9 for a superbowl party where most of the people wont be sitting in the theater seats they will be behind them where the bar and pool table are eating chicken wings and the size of the image will be perfect. :):) Two screens two smiles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
That's a fun looking room! The thing is though if you have the width available (and it looks like you do) to simply make the scope screen the same height as the existing 1.78:1 (16:9) screen then you don't gain anything. The image area is exactly the same on both when watching non-scope content. And there's really no reason for you not to base the height of the scope screen off the existing one. That's a best case and generally what you would want to do. For example I moved from a 54" tall 1.78:1 screen to a 51" tall 2.35:1 screen. So I basically kept the same image size with narrower ARs and simply expanded scope (I did move my seats up a bit to correct for the slight height difference). Best case I would have found a 54" tall scope screen, but I didn't find one in my price range at the time. Masking really isn't an issue because as discussed above the panel isn't lighting the pillarboxed area.

Rooms where 2 screens make sense (at least in my opinion) are where you have a fixed seating position that was sized to an existing 1.78:1 screen. The owner would like to get more width but the dimensions won't allow them to simply expand wider using the existing screen height. Since moving the seating isn't an option you put in the additional scope screen to max width the room can accommodate. You're not gaining as much as you could, but you're still gaining more impact for scope than what the 1.78:1 screen offered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
That's a fun looking room! The thing is though if you have the width available (and it looks like you do) to simply make the scope screen the same height as the existing 1.78:1 (16:9) screen then you don't gain anything. The image area is exactly the same on both when watching non-scope content. And there's really no reason for you not to base the height of the scope screen off the existing one. That's a best case and generally what you would want to do. For example I moved from a 54" tall 1.78:1 screen to a 51" tall 2.35:1 screen. So I basically kept the same image size with narrower ARs and simply expanded scope (I did move my seats up a bit to correct for the slight height difference). Best case I would have found a 54" tall scope screen, but I didn't find one in my price range at the time. Masking really isn't an issue because as discussed above the panel isn't lighting the pillarboxed area.

Rooms where 2 screens make sense (at least in my opinion) are where you have a fixed seating position that was sized to an existing 1.78:1 screen. The owner would like to get more width but the dimensions won't allow them to simply expand wider using the existing screen height. Since moving the seating isn't an option you put in the additional scope screen to max width the room can accommodate. You're not gaining as much as you could, but you're still gaining more impact for scope than what the 1.78:1 screen offered.
I was really trying to avoid empty space but after seeing the comments here I see that my logic is somewhat flawed.... and yes (2) DILA projectors and (1) CRT keeps me entertained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
So I ended up going CIH after all with the Elite VMAX dual 95/100" motorized screen (free Amazon prime shipping sealed the deal, @ just over $500.00 this was a deal).

Wow what a difference it makes once the top and bottom bars disappear...thanks for the responses guys.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
So I ended up going CIH after all with the Elite VMAX dual 95/100" motorized screen (free Amazon prime shipping sealed the deal, @ just over $500.00 this was a deal).

Wow what a difference it makes once the top and bottom bars disappear...thanks for the responses guys.

Unless I'm reading this wrong:
https://www.amazon.com/Elite-Screens-VMAX-Dual-2-35/dp/B00Y7X9SKO

Your width is the same on both screens. So you have a CIW setup. You've just used the second screen to avoid masking. Scope is still roughly half the intended size and much smaller than 16:9. I'm glad your happy with it though. I'm sure it looks very nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Unless I'm reading this wrong:
https://www.amazon.com/Elite-Screens-VMAX-Dual-2-35/dp/B00Y7X9SKO

Your width is the same on both screens. So you have a CIW setup. You've just used the second screen to avoid masking. Scope is still roughly half the intended size and much smaller than 16:9. I'm glad your happy with it though. I'm sure it looks very nice.
Correct, sorry my width does stay the same I am not using the right terms. My original idea would have had a 95" 2.35 screen to go with my existing 80" 16:9 screen so I still have the 2.35 size I intended but now my 16:9 exploded to 100"...

This is way neater than I could have imagined, no fumbling with multiple screens and no need for lens memory.

Sorry I see that this is now in the wrong section :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
Correct, sorry my width does stay the same I am not using the right terms. My original idea would have had a 95" 2.35 screen to go with my existing 80" 16:9 screen so I still have the 2.35 size I intended but now my 16:9 exploded to 100"...

This is way neater than I could have imagined, no fumbling with multiple screens and no need for lens memory.
Well the idea behind CIH is to maintain the same image height for content the same as it's done in the cinema. Which is how directors intend it to be viewed when choosing an AR. Your original idea would have been very close to recreating this. But it sounds like your original screen wasn't really sized to what you enjoy.

Generally what you would want to do is figure out what you enjoy for an image height and base your scope screen from there. A 100" 16:9 image is darn cool. Now imagine a 2.35:1 screen at that same image height (49" tall). Star Wars would be 80% larger than what you are seeing today. 16:9 content would be exactly as it is now. Again I'm glad you're enjoying what you got. Don't mean to be a downer on a new shiny toy, just trying to get across what setting up that lens memory and watching that scope film with it's intended impact brings to the table. If you want to see it for yourself setup a scope film and zoom it out until it fills the height of your 16:9 screen. It's not a subtle change. But save a lens memory first so you can go back to where it is now easily :D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Well the idea behind CIH is to maintain the same image height for content the same as it's done in the cinema. Which is how directors intend it to be viewed when choosing an AR. Your original idea would have been very close to recreating this. But it sounds like your original screen wasn't really sized to what you enjoy.

Generally what you would want to do is figure out what you enjoy for an image height and base your scope screen from there. A 100" 16:9 image is darn cool. Now imagine a 2.35:1 screen at that same image height (49" tall). Star Wars would be 80% larger than what you are seeing today. 16:9 content would be exactly as it is now. Again I'm glad you're enjoying what you got. Don't mean to be a downer on a new shiny toy, just trying to get across what setting up that lens memory and watching that scope film with it's intended impact brings to the table. If you want to see it for your self setup a scope film and zoom it out until it fills the height of your 16:9 screen. It's not a subtle change. But save a lens memory first so you can go back to where it is now easily :D.
Makes perfect sense but yes I am just happy with the increase in size, finally feels like a real home theater and not just a really big TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,749 Posts
The OP confirmed he likes the CIW approach to his dual screen setup. I would enjoy the exact same setup only for quite different reasons and when and if he desires he would have to change nothing except start using his presets and he could have. Screen “A” for all his CIH needs flat and scope movies and screen “B” as his IMAX1.89 / CIA / PIA screen.

Watching the Super Bowl yesterday made me think of these threads and someone mentioned how wonderful it would be if sports used a scope like AR and how much of the playing field we could then see. The entire game whenever the framing was such they did exactly that. The camera was dropped enough that the center of the action and all the players were in the top scope area of the 16:9 screen. The bottom part of the screen contained the scores and the clocks and information pertaining to the game, no players. I was watching it IMAX1.89 like with my PIA setup and when the camera was switched from the big picture scope like to play action shots the framing then centered but the action was not filmed so close as to require looking up and down into never land. All the full frame 16:9 composition was modestly framed this way. As well as many of the commercials if that even matters. I felt it was like a conscious effort was made at making this sporting event suitable for more immersive viewing. It was really noticeable when the local commercial came on for a local plumber and it was framed like it would have been for super bowl 1.

I think as time moves ahead for the OP and he starts judging his content against his choice for CIW he may decide to scale back on the size of at least some of his 16:9 content. It wont be long that scope movies wont feel as grand as they should and he will move the seating closer or if it is the right distance now he will feel some TV is just to grand and will scale it back. Ether way he has everything he needs now for every method of presentation there is. Dunkirk will look amazing on the big screen. God forbid he ever watched wheel of fortune on his system but if he does the light bulb will come on.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top