AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is there a DLP projector which would allow me to do 2.35:1 using the "zoom method"?

Trying for 34"H x 80"W wide at 10' throw.
$1500 budget

Manual or automatic zoom doesn't really matter, just need to be pointed in the right direction. All my searching and reading has yielded nothing but confusion. Trying to accomplish this setup with DLP as I like the look of this technology. Open to other recommendations of course. Thanks all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
http://www.projectorcentral.com/BenQ-W1070-projection-calculator-pro.htm

Benq W1070 can do it.Just.
But. 80"x34" is quite small size for 2.35:1 screen. In 16:9 aspect ratio it equals 92" diameter screen (same width).
If you want to have constant image height of 34" it means that with your setup your would end up with 69" diameter 16:9 picture. Which is really small.

My opinion is that just get 92" 16:9 screen and forget the CIH. If that is the max size you can have. Then you can use the whole screen for 16:9 content (92") and mask the black bars when watching 2.35:1 content.
In the end the 2.35:1 image will be as big as you can get it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
http://www.projectorcentral.com/BenQ-W1070-projection-calculator-pro.htm

Benq W1070 can do it.Just.
But. 80"x34" is quite small size for 2.35:1 screen. In 16:9 aspect ratio it equals 92" diameter screen (same width).
If you want to have constant image height of 34" it means that with your setup your would end up with 69" diameter 16:9 picture. Which is really small.

My opinion is that just get 92" 16:9 screen and forget the CIH. If that is the max size you can have. Then you can use the whole screen for 16:9 content (92") and mask the black bars when watching 2.35:1 content.
In the end the 2.35:1 image will be as big as you can get it.
Pretty sure the w1070 can't quite do it. It has 1.30 zoom, but you'd need at least 1.33. Also, the vertical lens shift would have to be altered manually each time.

+1 on the fact that that's a pretty darn small Scope screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,652 Posts
But. 80"x34" is quite small size for 2.35:1 screen. In 16:9 aspect ratio it equals 92" diameter screen (same width).
If you want to have constant image height of 34" it means that with your setup your would end up with 69" diameter 16:9 picture. Which is really small.

My opinion is that just get 92" 16:9 screen and forget the CIH. If that is the max size you can have. Then you can use the whole screen for 16:9 content (92") and mask the black bars when watching 2.35:1 content.
In the end the 2.35:1 image will be as big as you can get it.
No need to be snobby about it. If 80" wide is as large as his space can accommodate, there's no reason he couldn't do CIH if that's what he wants. In my former apartment, my CIH screen was 72" wide and it was a fine experience. In my opinion, the aesthetic benefits of CIH always outweigh the "bigger bigger bigger bigger bigger screen!" mentality.

If he puts in a 92" 16:9 screen, he's still going to be stuck with the problem that Wheel of Fortune will be 33% larger than Lawrence of Arabia. IMO, there's no scenario where that will ever be acceptable to me. YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
No need to be snobby about it. If 80" wide is as large as his space can accommodate, there's no reason he couldn't do CIH if that's what he wants. In my former apartment, my CIH screen was 72" wide and it was a fine experience. In my opinion, the aesthetic benefits of CIH always outweigh the "bigger bigger bigger bigger bigger screen!" mentality.

If he puts in a 92" 16:9 screen, he's still going to be stuck with the problem that Wheel of Fortune will be 33% larger than Lawrence of Arabia. IMO, there's no scenario where that will ever be acceptable to me. YMMV.
Well I didn't mean to be snobby, sorry if I gave that kind of impression. No need to start a fight here. :)

What I just wanted to point out was that having a CIH screen with height of 34" will shrunk the 16:9 picture to 69".
What I would do is to choose to go with Constant Image Width solution instead. That way you will have the exactly same size 2.35:1 picture (width 80") than with CIH solution but you would have a much larger 16:9 picture (92" compared to 69").

Does it matter if Wheel of fortune is larger than Lawrence of Arabia? You can't watch them simultaneously. :)

I have to agree that CIH is more elegant solution but I wouldn't choose that small 16:9 picture. Even the 92" isn't that big. IMHO.

madtapper, try to borrow a projector somewhere and test it so you can make the final decision yourself. If 69" isn't too small then the CIH will be a good solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks everyone for the responses,

Yes, it is a very small screen by most standards in a very tiny room, but it's the only space I have which can be dedicated to theater. I still really want 2.35:1 for watching movies, however, as I believe wider is better for me. I feel it's much more immersive for my taste compared to a larger/taller 16:9.


I did some remeasuring and it looks like I might have 10.5' throw if using the BenQ 1070 as it's fairly compact. This is my first attempt at a PJ setup, so again thanks for the input. Think I'll just pull the trigger on the BenQ and see what works once I get it in the room. I have leftover painter's tape that needs a new purpose anyway.

Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,652 Posts
What I just wanted to point out was that having a CIH screen with height of 34" will shrunk the 16:9 picture to 69".
69" is still larger than most high-end HDTVs. It's nothing to scoff at, especially if he's in a small room.

Does it matter if Wheel of fortune is larger than Lawrence of Arabia? You can't watch them simultaneously. :)
Yes, to some of us it matters a lot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
I have constant image width too, but mostly because I am width limited in my projector room, and have more than enough vertical space to have a 138 inch 16:9 image without hitting the ceiling or the bottom of the image hitting my speakers. (120 inches wide, also makes a nice sized 2.37:1 image too).

The way I see it, isn't that Jeopardy would or should be bigger than Lawrence of Arabia, but that IMAX format movies and games would be bigger and have more vertical space. I can always shrink my 16:9 content a bit if I want it smaller.

I love my VC lens but it's definitely a huge step down in size for movies and games in 16:9 when using the 4:3 shrink method.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,652 Posts
The way I see it, isn't that Jeopardy would or should be bigger than Lawrence of Arabia, but that IMAX format movies and games would be bigger and have more vertical space.
To each their own, but how many IMAX format movies are there versus how many scope movies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
Let me preface this by saying (despite the words I will likely use) I am not disparaging anyone's choices or opinions.... I'm simply trying to illustrate a different way of thinking about the situation that people may not have thought about.

I have constant image width too, but mostly because I am width limited in my projector room, and have more than enough vertical space to have a 138 inch 16:9 image without hitting the ceiling or the bottom of the image hitting my speakers. (120 inches wide, also makes a nice sized 2.37:1 image too).
IMO there's no such thing as a "width limited", if you think that you're too focused on "inches" and not thinking enough about the overall system and experience. The reason I say this is a lot of people still think about their Home Theaters like they do a TV. We've been (unintentionally) conditioned to think about TVs in terms of more inches is better/bigger, but TVs don't have aspect ratio to consider (they're all the same) so for that it works. However home theater is all about the experience and how the whole system works together, and that system is not just the screen, includes the room, projector, seating distance, etc.

When you setup an HT, IMO "is my room width limited" is absolutely the wrong question to ask when trying to decide whether to go scope/CIH or not. The right question to ask is whether you believe Jeopardy, the evening news, 2 Broke Girls, or Sharknado should be larger than Lawrence of Arabia, The Matrix, Star Wars, etc.

If you believe in the concept that scope movies are meant to be larger, then you can absolutely have a great CIH setup in a room of any width, you just have to ensure your seating and everything else all work together well. There's no such thing as "width limited" or "too narrow" except in one's own mind.

The way I see it, isn't that Jeopardy would or should be bigger than Lawrence of Arabia, but that IMAX format movies and games would be bigger and have more vertical space. I can always shrink my 16:9 content a bit if I want it smaller.
Jeopardy isn't IMAX though, and while you "could" shrink 16:9 down, do you, and do you have the masking to do it? That said, I agree with you about IMAX, which is why for a long time I've said CIH+IMAX is the "ultimate" in home theater. It is, simply, the largest 16:9 screen you can fit, but most of the time it's masked down to 2.37:1 and run as a CIH/scope system. But when you've got IMAX content you can open up the masks to get the IMAX experience.

The number 1 problem with CIH+IMAX though, beyond the need for more masking, is the lack of content. At least for me (who doesn't collect IMAX documentaries) I've only got one, maybe two movies with IMAX content. It's just not worth it for 2 of 200 movies. On top of that it is technically impractical for me, since my projector doesn't have the zoom necessary for the zoom method so without extraordinary measures, it's just not possible.

I love my VC lens but it's definitely a huge step down in size for movies and games in 16:9 when using the 4:3 shrink method.
While I understand, that for 16:9, IMO it's a bigger sacrifice to go from huge screen, arbitrary content (TV, streaming, games, etc), to a 25% smaller presentation of a an epic scope film that was meant to be 33% larger instead. Or, to look at it another way, should be 78% (relatively) larger than it is.

For me, movies are the most important thing I view in my HT, but I do watch a lot of TV in there too, and when I have friends over for a movie night we usually watch some favorite TV and play some games before the feature presentation. If I went with a 16:9 screen, epic movies like The Matrix, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc would be the least impressive, thing ever shown in my theater, and IMO that is just wrong. While I really like Top Gear, Forza, and Halo, I don't want them to be more impressive than Star Wars, I mean if this isn't one of the largest most impressive things shown in a home theater, is it really a theater?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
The number 1 problem with CIH+IMAX though, beyond the need for more masking, is the lack of content. At least for me (who doesn't collect IMAX documentaries) I've only got one, maybe two movies with IMAX content. It's just not worth it for 2 of 200 movies. On top of that it is technically impractical for me, since my projector doesn't have the zoom necessary for the zoom method so without extraordinary measures, it's just not possible.
Adding on to your collection is Interstellar ... in variable aspect ratio like the batman movies. :p
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
stranger, I get what you're saying, but I think your argument is flawed. I don't watch poofy shows like jeopardy, and even if / when I do, I don't see why I shouldn't watch it in a 10 foot wide, 138 inch 16:9 format, even if 10 feet is the max width I can project on. Most people have more width in their rooms available to them, than height, hence HE lenses make more sense (also easier to compensate for geometry issues with a curved concave screen, a bit brighter and focused at the viewer position). But the fact remains, when I watch movies like Sin City, Interstellar, Guardians, Dark Knight, the extra height adds a HUGE wow factor to those movies.

I'm happy to own a VC lens and use it for scope movies, but leaving it in place all the time is simply costing me a huge amount in terms of screen real estate, as well as resolution and geometry. I'm constrained by the dimensions of my theater, as is everyone else. I believe most people have more width available to them than height, because they don't live in a loft like I do, so a scope screen and HE lens would make more sense for most setups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
stranger, I get what you're saying, but I think your argument is flawed. I don't watch poofy shows like jeopardy, and even if / when I do, I don't see why I shouldn't watch it in a 10 foot wide, 138 inch 16:9 format, even if 10 feet is the max width I can project on.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and that's absolutely fine. Like I said, IMAX aside (it's its own issue IMO), I don't want LOTR/Star Wars to be the smallest/least impressive thing that I watch in my HT, quite the opposite actually.

But the fact remains, when I watch movies like Sin City, Interstellar, Guardians, Dark Knight, the extra height adds a HUGE wow factor to those movies.
Well a couple of those (at least) are shot in IMAX and deserve special handling if you can, and are willing to deal with that. But I don't think that logic applies to 16:9 content in general.

As for the Dark Knight movies, I watch them scope just like they were shown at most theaters.

I'm happy to own a VC lens and use it for scope movies, but leaving it in place all the time is simply costing me a huge amount in terms of screen real estate, as well as resolution and geometry. I'm constrained by the dimensions of my theater, as is everyone else. I believe most people have more width available to them than height, because they don't live in a loft like I do, so a scope screen and HE lens would make more sense for most setups.
I still think you're thinking too much about the number of inches you see, but that's fine ;) Even if I were more constrained by width than height, I'd still got CIH, I'd just position my seating so that 16:9 is a satisfying size, and then scope will be even bigger/better :cool:

But as to the OP, most DLPs (even expensive ones) don't have the zoom range necessary for the zoom method, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
The reason most people get projectors is to get the biggest possible image then can, right? An HE-lens can benefit more people because they have lower ceilings than the width available to them. I'm a different case, my ceilings are 13 feet high and my width is 10. To maximize my viewing, both in Scope and in 16:9, I need to use all the 10 feet I have available to me. I could have done that using an HE lens and put my projector closer to the screen, but then I would be giving up a massive amount of size for games, tv shows, imax movies, etc.

I'm with you about maximizing the projected image dimensions to get the most bang for the buck, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Given my setup, the biggest possible image for all my content is CIW, not CIH. There's no point in debating who is correct, if I had more width available to me, such that 16:9 content would still be sufficiently large in the center of the scope frame (and with an HE-lens out of the light path), I would do that. I still get a really large scope image at 120x50. I would be shooting myself in the foot by using only a 50 inch height for 16:9 content. I watched Avatar the other day in 16:9, it was pretty awesome. Sin City, Dame to Kill for in 3D too. Everybody was floored with how awesome it was to watch that on a 138 inch diagonal chunk of wall.

Anyway, happy theater watching, whatever you chose :) The fact is, many of the biggest movies are in 16:9 AR due to IMAX. Those are IMO the top of the food chain, and worthy of the biggest image. It's pretty fun playing Mario Kart with 4 players on a massive wall too, each with their own quadrant that's bigger than most HDTVs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
The reason most people get projectors is to get the biggest possible image then can, right?
Not necessarily, for a lot of us it's more about recreating the (idealized) cinema experience at home, that necessitates a large screen, but to maintain the proper relative presentation of scope vs most flat movies, it means a scope screen.

I would be shooting myself in the foot by using only a 50 inch height for 16:9 content.
So you don't find Star Wars, LOTR, etc to be far less impressive than TV in your setup?

The fact is, many of the biggest movies are in 16:9 AR due to IMAX.
There's less than 10 (feature) films that include IMAX footage, 8 by my count (9 if you include Avatar which wasn't technically IMAX):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Feature_films_partially_shot_on_IMAX_cameras

For me personally that's not enough to justify a CIH+IMAX setup, especially when all (to my knowledge) of those were shown scope in "regular" theaters, just as they are in mine.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,903 Posts
So you don't find Star Wars, LOTR, etc to be far less impressive than TV in your setup?
Lol no, Star Wars and scope movies are plenty big enough, trust me. I can always move my couch closer too, my theater room is about 25 feet deep so I have lots of flexibility to get the exact image size I want.

I guess I don't see it as a P*ssing contest between this movie vs that show should be bigger. I want the biggest possible size that's comfortable to watch at a certain distance, and I can get the best use of the geometry of the wall I have available, but maximizing the width that I use for all content. If I could get a wider scope image, I would, but what you're saying sounds like I should cut off my nose to spite my face.

I deliberated having a CIH setup and leave my lens in all the time, but decided I loved having a 138 inch 16:9 image too much :) I thought it over quite a bit, and it just doesn't make sense to limit your 16:9 image size if you don't have to. And I don't, so I won't.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top