AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My first projector, a JVC RS4910, just arrived in the mail today, and I've been having a blast with it. I don't have a dedicated screen yet, so for now I've just been playing video onto a white wall. Even in this rudimentary setup the picture is breathtaking.

I've been experimenting with different screen sizes and formats, and the main decision I'm grappling with is whether to go widescreen or not. I love the epic feel that the full 2.35:1 aspect ratio gives for movies shot that way, but the 16:9 picture size is noticeably smaller than what is potentially available if I went with that type of screen (about 122" vs. 106").

So my question, as stated in the topic, is whether the people with a 2.35:1 screen feel disappointed/underwhelmed when switching to 16:9 content. Does having the widescreen lower the viewing quality of normal content, or is it still relatively the same?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
930 Posts
My first projector, a JVC RS4910, just arrived in the mail today, and I've been having a blast with it. I don't have a dedicated screen yet, so for now I've just been playing video onto a white wall. Even in this rudimentary setup the picture is breathtaking.

I've been experimenting with different screen sizes and formats, and the main decision I'm grappling with is whether to go widescreen or not. I love the epic feel that the full 2.35:1 aspect ratio gives for movies shot that way, but the 16:9 picture size is noticeably smaller than what is potentially available if I went with that type of screen (about 122" vs. 106").

So my question, as stated in the topic, is whether the people with a 2.35:1 screen feel disappointed/underwhelmed when switching to 16:9 content. Does having the widescreen lower the viewing quality of normal content, or is it still relatively the same?
I only have a 100" 16:9 screen and I feel it is the perfect size for me when watching regular TV or playing on the Xbox. However when I am watching movies and have the black bars on the top and bottom I do feel that I would like to go bigger.

I would say i watch regular TV and play the Xbox on it 70% of the time and movies 30% of the time so that is why I chose a 16:9 screen.

I realize this is the opposite to the question you were asking but hopefully it helps. I would say to go with the aspect ratio that you will watch the majority of the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,873 Posts
It's a good question to ask. I have a JVC RS4810 and 2:35 screen (108" wide), but I do strictly Blu-ray movie viewing with it. If I did a lot of sports and TV viewing, I might go with 16x9 or even a compromise like 2:05.

But I don't find 16:9 movies underwhelming as I am viewing them still at almost 100" diagonally from 10 feet back, but they do look a lot smaller compared to scope movies - but that is how they were intended to be. Scope movies are supposed to look a lot bigger as movies have technically been supposed to be viewed at the same height (hence, constant image height). With modern day TVs and most flat panels displays, this has not been possible until front projection. Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer, but that is generally my take about it. When you watch a scope movie on a constant image height set-up, it just has that much more "wow" factor to it and appreciation. And since I use my projector exclusively for movies, most movies tend to be scope anyway.

As Skylinestar said, the only real downfall I have seen is with the last two Dark Knight movies. But since my walls are painted black, the image spill is relatively faint and still makes the movies watchable although not desirable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,527 Posts
My first projector, a JVC RS4910, just arrived in the mail today, and I've been having a blast with it. I don't have a dedicated screen yet, so for now I've just been playing video onto a white wall. Even in this rudimentary setup the picture is breathtaking.

I've been experimenting with different screen sizes and formats, and the main decision I'm grappling with is whether to go widescreen or not. I love the epic feel that the full 2.35:1 aspect ratio gives for movies shot that way, but the 16:9 picture size is noticeably smaller than what is potentially available if I went with that type of screen (about 122" vs. 106").

So my question, as stated in the topic, is whether the people with a 2.35:1 screen feel disappointed/underwhelmed when switching to 16:9 content. Does having the widescreen lower the viewing quality of normal content, or is it still relatively the same?
I don't know if you plan to do a motorized drop down or fixed screen, but if you do motorized, you could get 2 cheaper screens. One for 2.35:1 and one for 16x9. For me, I'd go for the largest 2.37:1 screen I could fit and sit appropriate distance. I love scope to much to go back to 16x9. There's also matted screens and some are electronic and allow you to hide the screen you're not using. IMO CIH is the way to go or dual screens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
These are great answers, thanks everyone.

I only have a 100" 16:9 screen and I feel it is the perfect size for me when watching regular TV or playing on the Xbox. However when I am watching movies and have the black bars on the top and bottom I do feel that I would like to go bigger.

I would say i watch regular TV and play the Xbox on it 70% of the time and movies 30% of the time so that is why I chose a 16:9 screen.

I realize this is the opposite to the question you were asking but hopefully it helps. I would say to go with the aspect ratio that you will watch the majority of the time.
Although I can't say for sure how the projector is going to be used (as it's my first one), I'd venture that it'll mainly be used for movies, as we have a nice Panasonic plasma in the living room that should get the bulk of the casual TV/sports viewing.

The one thing I will watch routinely in 16:9 on the projector is what worries me about going smaller for that aspect ratio: Game of Thrones. We're huge GoT fans in this house, so that'll be something we use it for every Sunday. A part of me says, "It's still over 100-inches diagonal, it'll be great either way," but the other part of me says, "How much better would it look at 122-inches?!"

It's a good question to ask. I have a JVC RS4810 and 2:35 screen (108" wide), but I do strictly Blu-ray movie viewing with it. If I did a lot of sports and TV viewing, I might go with 16x9 or even a compromise like 2:05.

But I don't find 16:9 movies underwhelming as I am viewing them still at almost 100" diagonally from 10 feet back, but they do look a lot smaller compared to scope movies - but that is how they were intended to be. Scope movies are supposed to look a lot bigger as movies have technically been supposed to be viewed at the same height (hence, constant image height). With modern day TVs and most flat panels displays, this has not been possible until front projection. Ultimately, it comes down to what you prefer, but that is generally my take about it. When you watch a scope movie on a constant image height set-up, it just has that much more "wow" factor to it and appreciation. And since I use my projector exclusively for movies, most movies tend to be scope anyway.

As Skylinestar said, the only real downfall I have seen is with the last two Dark Knight movies. But since my walls are painted black, the image spill is relatively faint and still makes the movies watchable although not desirable.
That is actually a great point that I forget: movies were intended to be viewed at CIH. And that's probably the point that'll convince me to stick with CIH. The 16:9 picture will suffer slightly, but damn, I don't know if I could give up that wow factor when switching to cinescope.

And I forgot about that issue with the Dark Knight films. One of the first things I planned on doing once this projector was all set up was to watch Interstellar, but that likely has the same issue as the last two Dark Knight films. Damn you Christopher Nolan!

I don't know if you plan to do a motorized drop down or fixed screen, but if you do motorized, you could get 2 cheaper screens. One for 2.35:1 and one for 16x9. For me, I'd go for the largest 2.37:1 screen I could fit and sit appropriate distance. I love scope to much to go back to 16x9. There's also matted screens and some are electronic and allow you to hide the screen you're not using. IMO CIH is the way to go or dual screens.
I've thought about going the dual screen route before, maybe it's an option worth exploring. I don't want to go too cheap on the screens though, so price is a huge factor here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,873 Posts
That is actually a great point that I forget: movies were intended to be viewed at CIH. And that's probably the point that'll convince me to stick with CIH. The 16:9 picture will suffer slightly, but damn, I don't know if I could give up that wow factor when switching to cinescope.
Before getting my screen, I projected on the wall and saw how sitting 10 feet back from a 124" diagonal (9 feet wide) 16:9 image was going to be overwhelming to my eyes. It was too much of that IMAX effect. However, watching a 2:35/2:4 image at the same distance and the same 9 foot width not only felt fine on my eyes, but just looked remarkably cool. I found out width is less straining than height which makes sense when you consider our eyes are anatomically horizontal to one another. I just couldn't see sacrificing width of scope movies to accomodate the height of 16:9 movies. Not only did it not look good, but it became evident how it was not meant to be seen that way. As one forum member put it...why should Wheel of Fortune look taller than Star Wars or Lawrence of Arabia?

Now, one compromise would be to go with something like 2:05, but you are losing constant image height, although you are making 16:9 larger than on a 2:35 screen - but then you're also going to have to mask four ways...if such bothers you.

I don't even mask with 16:9 content on my 2:35 screen as vertical side bars don't bother me although I might try masking them one day as many seem to like the effect of doing so.

One any rate, for a movie person, a scope screen is the way to go IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
You could consider a hybrid/ best of both worlds approach.

This thread (look around page 87 of the thread) recently converted to a 'maximize both sizes' approach. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...179-bacon-race-theater-patio-bar-project.html

Here is another thread where the guy did something similar. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/1495884-diy-frame-using-semour-center-stage-xd.html

In my case, I am squeezing too much into my room, so, I was a bit limited on 'height' as my subs will be under the screen - so, I just went with a 2.35:1 ratio (purchased, sitting in my home office, but not ready to install). I'll use it along with my JVC-4910, also purchased, sitting in a box :-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
I have a 2.35:1 screen. I think watching 16:9 content like TV makes me enjoy the 2.35:1 movies even that much more. I play all my movies through my HTPC so if I have a 16:9 movie that I really want to watch in scope format I've found Media Player Classic does a good job of stretching the picture without too much distortion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,978 Posts
My first projector, a JVC RS4910, just arrived in the mail today, and I've been having a blast with it. I don't have a dedicated screen yet, so for now I've just been playing video onto a white wall. Even in this rudimentary setup the picture is breathtaking.

I've been experimenting with different screen sizes and formats, and the main decision I'm grappling with is whether to go widescreen or not. I love the epic feel that the full 2.35:1 aspect ratio gives for movies shot that way, but the 16:9 picture size is noticeably smaller than what is potentially available if I went with that type of screen (about 122" vs. 106").

So my question, as stated in the topic, is whether the people with a 2.35:1 screen feel disappointed/underwhelmed when switching to 16:9 content. Does having the widescreen lower the viewing quality of normal content, or is it still relatively the same?

This is exactly why I have 2 screens - one 118" wide 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, and one 106" wide 122" diagonal 16:9 screen. If I went constant height, Avatar and other 1.85:1 movies would suck - they would be too small. 2 screens, zero compromise.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
I am happy with my monoprice Multi-Format screen. They are available in 106" and 120".

It is really a 16:9 screen but has top and bottom masks that pull up/down black out the bars for 2.35 movies.

The screen is smaller in 2.35 mode but not distorted and the bars are invisible. As mentioned movies that change formats is annoying. Movies that put the subtitles in the bars also can't utilize the masks or they can't be read.

-Rich
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,978 Posts
I am happy with my monoprice Multi-Format screen. They are available in 106" and 120".

It is really a 16:9 screen but has top and bottom masks that pull up/down black out the bars for 2.35 movies.

The screen is smaller in 2.35 mode but not distorted and the bars are invisible. As mentioned movies that change formats is annoying. Movies that put the subtitles in the bars also can't utilize the masks or they can't be read.

-Rich

Movies that change aspect ratios are probably fun on your screen - jump up and move the masking !! Some Blu Ray players allow you to move the subtitles up or down. I know this can be done on Oppo players - probably others too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Before getting my screen, I projected on the wall and saw how sitting 10 feet back from a 124" diagonal (9 feet wide) 16:9 image was going to be overwhelming to my eyes. It was too much of that IMAX effect.
I sit a little further back than you (roughly 12ft, give or take), so I found that a 122" diagonal 16x9 screen is about perfect. Any larger and I'd probably start getting the IMAX effect as you described. Granted, the 106" diagonal I'd get with the CIH setup is good too, but not quite as good as the 122".

Now, one compromise would be to go with something like 2:05, but you are losing constant image height, although you are making 16:9 larger than on a 2:35 screen - but then you're also going to have to mask four ways...if such bothers you.

I don't even mask with 16:9 content on my 2:35 screen as vertical side bars don't bother me although I might try masking them one day as many seem to like the effect of doing so.

One any rate, for a movie person, a scope screen is the way to go IMO.
I'm definitely interested in masking my screen to keep it looking professional in all formats, and a four-way masking system sounds like a pain to manage. Maybe I could get away with not masking the horizonal bars in 2.35:1 formats, but I'd have to see it first.

You could consider a hybrid/ best of both worlds approach.

This thread (look around page 87 of the thread) recently converted to a 'maximize both sizes' approach. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...179-bacon-race-theater-patio-bar-project.html

Here is another thread where the guy did something similar. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/1495884-diy-frame-using-semour-center-stage-xd.html

In my case, I am squeezing too much into my room, so, I was a bit limited on 'height' as my subs will be under the screen - so, I just went with a 2.35:1 ratio (purchased, sitting in my home office, but not ready to install). I'll use it along with my JVC-4910, also purchased, sitting in a box :-(
I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like they just went with a 2:1 ratio screen to (somewhat) get the best of both worlds. It's another option worth considering, but a few concerns pop into my head right away. Firstly, price is an issue. I don't want to go the DIY route, so the screen would likely have to be custom-made, raising the price considerably. My budget is limited, so that may cross that option off the list from the get-go. Second, as I mentioned before I'd have to utilize a four-way masking system, and that just doesn't seem worth the effort.

While it would be a nice compromise between the two formats, there may be too many things going against it for the option to be viable.

This is exactly why I have 2 screens - one 118" wide 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, and one 106" wide 122" diagonal 16:9 screen. If I went constant height, Avatar and other 1.85:1 movies would suck - they would be too small. 2 screens, zero compromise.


Yeah, I'll definitely look into this option because it would let me get the best of both words with absolutely zero compromises. The biggest factor here is price, because as I said before my budget is limited. This may end up being a "sometime down the road" upgrade.

I am happy with my monoprice Multi-Format screen. They are available in 106" and 120".

It is really a 16:9 screen but has top and bottom masks that pull up/down black out the bars for 2.35 movies.

The screen is smaller in 2.35 mode but not distorted and the bars are invisible. As mentioned movies that change formats is annoying. Movies that put the subtitles in the bars also can't utilize the masks or they can't be read.

-Rich
I'd probably be going for something similar to this if I was completely set on a 16x9 screen, but after seeing cinescope in action I'm not sure I can give that up. It just brings so much of a "wow" factor.

I think you all have pretty much convinced me on keeping the widescreen image as big as it can possibly get, because it really is awesome when you see it in action. With that being said, I will look into the other two options mentioned, because if I can get a larger 16x9 image without sacrificing the cinescope screen, that would be absolutely perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
I'll be using a DIY adjustable masking system of some type where the top frame will move up and down using an electric actuator to get a bigger 16:9 screen for those "BIG" 16:9 movies.

or 2 screens would be another good option.

As one forum member put it...why should Wheel of Fortune look taller than Star Wars or Lawrence of Arabia?
No disrespect to you David because I prefer watching scope movies on a scope screen as well, but I never understand why this statement gets so much traction. I don't see how Avengers and Pacific Rim, (along with many other BIG 16:9 movies) are supposed to look smaller than scope movies, many of which are dramas and chick flicks? IMO we have scope movies primarily so theaters can still draw in crowds. (But I do understand the whole horizontal viewing field, which makes sense etc.)
Many scope movies are originally shot in 16x9 and then edited down to 2.XX:1. You see it all the time in bonus features. Again just my opinion :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,527 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,873 Posts
I'll be using a DIY adjustable masking system of some type where the top frame will move up and down using an electric actuator to get a bigger 16:9 screen for those "BIG" 16:9 movies.

or 2 screens would be another good option.


No disrespect to you David because I prefer watching scope movies on a scope screen as well, but I never understand why this statement gets so much traction. I don't see how Avengers and Pacific Rim, (along with many other BIG 16:9 movies) are supposed to look smaller than scope movies, many of which are dramas and chick flicks? IMO we have scope movies primarily so theaters can still draw in crowds. (But I do understand the whole horizontal viewing field, which makes sense etc.)
Many scope movies are originally shot in 16x9 and then edited down to 2.XX:1. You see it all the time in bonus features. Again just my opinion :)
No disrespect taken. It still comes down to the intent of the filmmaker at the end of the day in this respect and how they decide to edit. They determine the aspect ratio they deem most fitting. The Avengers was done specifically at 1:85 to make the Hulk look taller relative to everything else; Jurassic Park(s) were done the same to give the dinosaurs more of a bigger/taller effect. This was stated by both filmakers. Many (but not all) comedys and dramas tend to be 1:85 because the filmmaker is focusing upon the characters and emotional aspect of those characters instead of the environment; a scope movie is said to remove that element more and as such focus more visually as we tend to see more sci-fi, action, fantasy, etc. however, as said, there are expections to be sure.

I just watched the remastered version of The Breakfast Club on Blu-ray last night which is 1:85. That is very fitting, in my opinion, for this type of movie since it's so strongly centered around the characters. It would have been strange and maybe taken that element out a bit more had it been 2:35/2:4 as the environment would have come into play more which was not necessary and would have been more of a distraction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
I've never heard that before. Is that from observation of the credits or something you read?]
Just an observation from watching bonus features and deleted scenes.
One that comes to mind is Iron Man, the deleted scenes are in 16:9, I've noticed it often. And many others that I've noticed as well in interviews and commentary's and such where they show footage of the actual camera capturing the movie. They often have the lines on the camera screen where the scope image will be.

I hate watching movies and wondering why the top of the actors heads are cut off? Maybe because in the original 16:9 shot it wasn't?

It still comes down to the intent of the filmmaker at the end of the day in this respect and how they decide to edit. They determine the aspect ratio they deem most fitting.
Well said.
I still like Avengers to be bigger than/closer to the Note Book so I'm going to try for an adjustable screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidHir

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,873 Posts
One small thing I found interesting going front projection is how Warner crops all of their non-scope movies to 1:78 instead of the original AR of 1:85. I assume this is because HDTVs are 1:78. However, on a constant image height set-up, you can see how 1:78 is just slightly less wide than 1:85.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like they just went with a 2:1 ratio screen to (somewhat) get the best of both worlds. It's another option worth considering, but a few concerns pop into my head right away. Firstly, price is an issue. I don't want to go the DIY route, so the screen would likely have to be custom-made, raising the price considerably. My budget is limited, so that may cross that option off the list from the get-go. Second, as I mentioned before I'd have to utilize a four-way masking system, and that just doesn't seem worth the effort.
Certainly masking is an issue and it does seem like a lot of effort to manage.

In terms of the "DIY" route, I purchased Screen Material from Falcon Screens, and they have installed the grommets and provided the rubber band type things. I figured since I was building a 'screen wall', which will surround my screen with dark fabric, I would just kill two birds with one stone. My plan is a modified screen wall which acts both as the 'black surround' and the frame for the screen. So, the "DIY" for is no additional effort vs buying a screen with frame and having to build the surround frame's anyway.

Jamestown screens will build customized size screens for a very reasonable price, although, I frequently see concerns about the 'time to shipment'... people seem happy with the product, but it seems to commonly take longer than planned. This comment is 100% from reading it on these forums, I have no direct experience. I know for awhile, part of the issue was the screen material itself wasn't available (for AT screens, he sources from Seymour screens).

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,803 Posts
These are great answers, thanks everyone.



Although I can't say for sure how the projector is going to be used (as it's my first one), I'd venture that it'll mainly be used for movies, as we have a nice Panasonic plasma in the living room that should get the bulk of the casual TV/sports viewing.

The one thing I will watch routinely in 16:9 on the projector is what worries me about going smaller for that aspect ratio: Game of Thrones. We're huge GoT fans in this house, so that'll be something we use it for every Sunday. A part of me says, "It's still over 100-inches diagonal, it'll be great either way," but the other part of me says, "How much better would it look at 122-inches?!"



That is actually a great point that I forget: movies were intended to be viewed at CIH. And that's probably the point that'll convince me to stick with CIH. The 16:9 picture will suffer slightly, but damn, I don't know if I could give up that wow factor when switching to cinescope.

And I forgot about that issue with the Dark Knight films. One of the first things I planned on doing once this projector was all set up was to watch Interstellar, but that likely has the same issue as the last two Dark Knight films. Damn you Christopher Nolan!



I've thought about going the dual screen route before, maybe it's an option worth exploring. I don't want to go too cheap on the screens though, so price is a huge factor here.
Don't try to buy both at the same time. Get one (my choice would be 2.35 first) then later get the 16:9 screen.
 
1 - 20 of 47 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