[Brandon B]

After having my FP setup for about a year and a half now (120" diagonal 16:9), I have come around to agreeing with those who prefer a constant height setup, making the real wide aspect films the largest presentation as they were meant to be.


By agreeing, I mean wishing I could make my screen wider. I am not so enamored of the idea that I am shrinking my 16:9 films down to size, but if and when I do my next setup, it will incorporate this arrangement (as well as being RP if I can swing it).


It also means you are either wasting resolution one way or the other, or need to buy some extra lenses. But that would be worth it to me I think at this point


Anyone else feel this way? Occurred to me when my wife complained the screen WASN"T BIG ENOUGH during LOTR. Love my wife.


BB

 

[dan marquardt]

I'd be interested in setting this up but I want to stay away from a HTPC. so I don't know which parts to add to my projector and source devices to make it work.

 

[opel70]

Definitely. I was constrained to a screen size of ~48" tall. However, width was not a real issue. So I wound up making my screen roughly 9'x4' which gives me an almost 2.35 screen. I have curtains that I normally set to give a 16:9 screen, but when we are viewing a larger aspect DVD I can open up the curtains to give a screen about 18" wider and then zoom the projector. Really does make a difference for watching those "big" movies. Now I just need to get a motorized rod for the curtains.

 

[Brandon B]

How far do you sit from the screen? I have the same PJ as you, and at 8' wide, my 11.5' viewing distance is pushing it as far as living with artifacts.


BB

 

[jcebedo1]

I have a quasi contant height setup. My screen is 2.15:1 I just zoom up or down depending on the aspect ratio. and since my pj has a lens shift, (DT200), it helps greaty when centering the image. Wider is better!, much more cinematic!

 

[Alan Gouger]

I use a 235:1 screen.

I have a CRT projector and I also have a Seleco combined with the Isco lens. The Seleco allows custom aspect ratio so I never have to remove the lens or change the zoom/focus to the projector. This works with HD material as well. Of course when displaying 16x9 in the center without removing the lens I loose horizontal rez but I defy anyone to notice it. Its the vertical rez you do not want to sacrifice.


Using the Isco lens you can now use your panels full resolution for all your aspect ratios using their new HT Mount .
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hreadid=353948


Heres my screen.
http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/2silverstar.jpg


I made my own masking system by ordering 2 motorized shades from an online curtain company. $600 total.
http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/2Picture_0091.jpg
http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/2Picture_006.jpg

 

[Pip]

Brandon:


I also use my projectors zoom to get constant height. Also have only vertical masking. I love it. I do sacrifice image size at the narrower ratios, but I feel it is worth the trade-off.


If I'm not mistaken, with the 20HD, you have more than enough zoom (although you might need to remount). You can recenter vertically with either lens shift, or by moving the active image within the projector's 16:9 frame.


Be careful of two things:

Your letterbox bars will overshoot your screen on either the top, bottom, or both (depending on how you adjust the vertical) so you will need extra masking (drop) above/below your screen. Decide how you want to do this, and do the math before you order your screen.


Also depending on your projectors overscan, 2.35 may not be 2.35. On my projector it is 2.19. Project some scope films on a wall at the width you plan to order your new screen, and measure the height of the picture.


One warning: There are many good projectors with which this will not work: either they lack enough zoom range, or they lack lens shift, or the ability to shift the image electronically. I would love to upgrade to a new DLP (from a 10HT). But these difficulties have so far prevented me. I just can't bring myself to abandon constant height.


Pip

 

[opel70]

My seating is about 13' from the screen. I don't really notice any artifacts from this distance, but I don't know if I would get much closer. I can see some screendoor if the conditions are just right (generally only happens when browsing the web.)


As I mentioned, I have really enjoyed this setup, and the 20HD makes it very easy to switch between sizes.

 

[shodoug]

I am in the process of trying to figure out my pj setup in my theater, and I am definitely leaning toward a constant height setup, or a reasonable facsimile therof. I do not know if my 2.35 will be the same height as the 16:9, but I do know that I would like it to be wider. It looks too squished at the same width.


I am not sure if it will work out, but I am considering using my pj without a lens for 4:3, using a panamorph 1.85 for 16:9, and using a panamorph 2.35 for widescreen.


My latest mental rambling is to have both lenses mounted on the ceiling, and move the projector back and forth between the mounts. (Still making do with my 3.3 pound lt-150)


For 4:3, I am considering a third mounting position (which might be just in front of the 16:9 lens), using a different pulldown screen, or even just letter boxing through the 16:9 lens. We like to watch the 4:3 concert dvds and movies larger than constant height would dictate. I might use the pj without the 16:9 lens for that, and use the 16:9 lens to letterbox lesser sources.


It might really end up working out to being closer to constant brightness, rather than constant height.


I am doing rough estimates using the lenses and pj on the floor, to simulate the pj being stuck up in the ceiling. I know it will be noisier up there, so some form of easily opened hush box would be in order.


Currently, the front runner is:


a) having the HiPix output going to the 16:9 lens position, and using that for 4:3 and 16:9. (Haven't gotten it to play DVD's yet, but i haven't tried yet, either)


b) having the radeon video card output going to the 2.35 position, and using zoomplayer for that


c) possibly having the output from my toshiba dvd player going to the third (non-lens) position, in case we find we really miss the larger 4:3 images from DVD's.


If I could pick one up cheaply enough, I might even consider having a pj mounted at each of the lenses.


Don't know if it will work or if i will really get time to implement it...


Best Regards,

Doug

 

[Phat Phreddy]

My theater is always in a state of flux but I am house hunting (and land hunting to build) so I am not thinking of major changes such as this (plus I am width restrained in my current room) right now but...


I cant help feeling like I would love a 2.35 setup... Looking at my films I have more scope than anything else and simply looking at pictures of scope setups gives that feeling of 'true' theaterness (Alan, that looks so slick) plus I have a HTPC for all the scaling and an unused Panamorph for 16:9 to 1:2.35 conversion.


What used to hold me back was my old setup did a lot of TV watching but currently I dont have any TV feed so have not watched any TV (expect for sports in a bar) for nearly 2 years !!! Even if I do decide to put sat back in for simple sports, nature docs and CNN (about all I can stomach on TV) I could live with a compromised 5% crop and S--T-RET-C--H mode that brings 4:3 to 16:9 pretty well for non critical viewing IMHO.


Alternatively something else that comes to me fairly often would be to build my own 4 way mask and run it over a 2:1 or 2.1:1 screen... The big drawback here would be the lack of suitable Panamorph (suits a CRT better) but this kind of (near) constant area would work out as a spread compromise... MovieBear posted a great image of a 2.?:1 screen with the many many different film ratios color coded onto it... With this kind of setup you have more trade offs but it is a very interesting approach...

 

[Brandon B]

Someone remind me. Panamorphs do or don't change throw, and a 1.78->2.35 panny costs (ballpark)? (wife said she likes the idea, so the mental gears are turning).


BB

 

[shodoug]

The panamorph will squash the image vertically, leave the width virtually unchanged, and I am not sure about the lens shift of the newer, solid panamorphs.


You may be better served by an ISCO that stretches the image horizontally, a la Alan?


EDIT


It might be a good time to contact Jason to ask whether a new version of the panamorph or an ISCO would be best?


Best Regards,

Doug

 

[tbain]

The Panamorph will not change the throw distance of the projector, but it will effect the offset -- that is, for a ceiling mounted projector the image drop from lens center will be greater.

 

[Warren460]

Our system is based on constant height principals.


I was very skeptical when Dennis Erskine recommended it.


Now that it is in, I fully understand and appreciate the system.


I would not go back..


You do need a scaler or HTPC to handle the varioys ar's.


this has not been a problem.


I will be installing curtains shortly for vertical masking.


Warren

 

[ksmyth]

I currently am waffling between constant height and constant area. I personally like the constant height setup. much easier to deal with crt setup and the like. but I was sick of the kids and wife bitching about the "small" 4:3 movies and tried the constant area setup one weekend and was pleasantly surprised as well. it is all about personal preference! i love it!

 

[Alan Gouger]

ksmyth


You can tell them anything 4x3 is usually the lowest quality anyway so it benefits from the smaller size.

 

[Brandon B]

Hmmm, tell my wife about the benefits of smaller size. Think I'd pass on that one.


BB

 

[ksmyth]

shucks, you're making me blush!

 

[ksmyth]

Alan, yep I tried that. They are the videophile equivalents to cave children and women. don't know, don't care. it looks small is all i kept hearing. i use a lumagen vision and one time i thought the movie was a 16:9 release (it was the hulk) and I had it set to 16:9. right off i could tell something was wrong, the people where short and fat. the wife and kids where oblivious. I zoomed back down with the handy remote and they darn near rioted! (they out number me 6:1)


i tried to turn the tide of discontent and bash the woman for daring to by the "full screen" version of a movie! what was she thinking! didn't work. the funny thing is now that i have setup for constant area as well and am using more of the raster, the 4:3 image doesn't look that shabby really big. I just finished "gooing" my wall this morning so it can only get better. I can always go back as i just "gooed" a bigger area of the wall.

 

[drmyeyes]

I, too, have a 2.35 constant height set up, with a Dalite hipower screen. I think it's the only way to go. While I could be watching 16x9 larger (higher) than I do, it's really cool to watch wide screen movies, well... wide screen, wider than 16x9 movies.


I use an ISCO II and a rolling video cart, which has worked very well to vary the aspect ratio, and provide maximum gain from the hipower screen.