[video1]

My room is 18 wide x 19 deep. False wall will be 2 feet so actually viewing room is 18 wide x 17 deep.

My seating position is 10 feet back.

I used blue tape to mark off a 2.35 screen and I could go either 150" wide (163" diagonal) or the 140". I'm thinking the 150" would be better because with 16x9 material you lose about 25% of the screen width. So on a 150" 2.35 screen, 16x9 material the image would be about 112" wide. Not terrible but not really that big for me as far as I'm concerned.

OTOH if I get a 16x9 screen that has approx the same diagonal, it would be a 130" screen. While my 16x9 image would be both wider and taller than it would be on a 2.35 screen, 2.35 movies would be 20" narrower.

As for our viewing habits, my wife and I watch movies and recorded television programs about 50:50. So it's kind of a tough choice. Do I want a bigger 16x9 image or a bigger 2.35 image?

The projector I'm thinking of getting is the Sony VPL-HW40es for now until 4k shakes itself out. Our home theater is going to be sound isolated with total light control. It's a dedicated HT with two rows, the 2nd row being on risers. Ceiling height is 9.5 feet. Riser height is at 21".

 

[Nalow]

I fought with myself about the same thing as well, and decided to go with the bigger 16x9 screen. Half of my collection is 16x9 and I still felt as if the image size was satisfactory when watching 2.35 content.
The image size with 16x9 content was just going to be too small if I had a 2.35 screen. Black bars don't bother me either.

My screen is 120" and I too sit 10-feet away.

 

[eljaycanuck]

I'd go with the 16x9 screen.

 

[Barrettmr]

So I guess you're saying with using the max width you would run out of ceiling height when comparing to 16:9? I also had to make this decision but for me my space is only 11' wide so it was an easy choice - I went for a 115" wide (131"d) 16:9 so I have max width for 2:35 and biggest picture for non-scoped movies. I will also tell you 3D 16:9 is 100x better on a bigger screen and having the 16:9 means you wont have problems with variable aspect ratio films if you watch them, like Tron, Interstellar, etc. So yes I would also go 16:9 if that was my space! And further I can also totally recommend Falcon Screens, if you haven't decided I would take a look at their offerings for sure!

Even my screen at 10' seating would be huge and it sounds like you have more space - I like big is better but also note that too big/close means you eyes are going to be working overtime scanning that area and may give you some eye strain and related issues. Personally I don't think I could be 10' from my 131" and enjoy it as much as from my 14' first row - but we are all different!

 

[TyTimp]

If you are going to watch TV shows on it I recommend a 16:9 screen. A 16:9 shows are going to look small on a 2.35:1 screen whereas 2.35:1 material is going to look the same on a 19:9 screen but with black bars.
If it’s dedicated only for movies it’s a tougher call. Especially with very little content being presented in 16:9 nowadays. Even animated movies which used to always be 16:9 are now 2.35:1. But with the current trend in shifting aspect ratios for IMAX filmed segments, a 16:9 screen makes sense.

I highly recommend buying the projector first and projecting onto the wall before deciding on a screen. Adjust the image to try different screen sizes. Watch different ratios on different size screens. Your intended screen sizes seem large for your seating distance. When I lived with my brother, we sat 10’ from a 120” 16:9 screen. I found scope movies were at their maximum size for my field of view. For 16:9 movies, while very immersive, my eyes were constantly movie all over the screen to try and take everything in. In my current house, I sit 9.5’ from a 110” screen and find it nice but a little small. A 115” screen would be perfect but I’m maxed out with my room size. My point is, “try before you buy”.

 

[Mike Garrett]

My room is 18 wide x 19 deep. False wall will be 2 feet so actually viewing room is 18 wide x 17 deep.

My seating position is 10 feet back.

I used blue tape to mark off a 2.35 screen and I could go either 150" wide (163" diagonal) or the 140". I'm thinking the 150" would be better because with 16x9 material you lose about 25% of the screen width. So on a 150" 2.35 screen, 16x9 material the image would be about 112" wide. Not terrible but not really that big for me as far as I'm concerned.

OTOH if I get a 16x9 screen that has approx the same diagonal, it would be a 130" screen. While my 16x9 image would be both wider and taller than it would be on a 2.35 screen, 2.35 movies would be 20" narrower.

As for our viewing habits, my wife and I watch movies and recorded television programs about 50:50. So it's kind of a tough choice. Do I want a bigger 16x9 image or a bigger 2.35 image?

The projector I'm thinking of getting is the Sony VPL-HW40es for now until 4k shakes itself out. Our home theater is going to be sound isolated with total light control. It's a dedicated HT with two rows, the 2nd row being on risers. Ceiling height is 9.5 feet. Riser height is at 21".

Have you viewed a 112" wide 16:9 image from 10'? That is very close for 16:9. I would get sick from that distance with that size screen. That is a 1.07 viewing width ratio. A scope screen does not work very well with the HW40, but I assume you are buying the screen for your next projector, not the HW40. Personally, I would go with a scope screen. Your eyes can handle screen width better than screen height. I would probably go with 140" wide 2.35. That would give you a 106" wide image (122" diagonal 16:9) and a viewing ratio of 1.13 for. That is still real close (closer than 90% out there would like), but you sound like you like to be close to a large image. I think I would get projector first and watch it on a wall, to make sure you can handle an image that large from that close. If we can help you, give us a call.

 

[video1]

I was at Magnolia HiFi and they had a JVC projector showing on a 92" 16x9 screen. That screen was awfully small and I had to get within about 6 - 7 feet of the screen before I felt any kind of immersive effect. So I figure a 130" 16x9 screen would be proportionally the same size visually if I were 10 feet back.

That means if I go with a 130" 16x9 screen then the 2.35 movies would show as 130" wide x 55" high vs a 140" wide x 60" high if it were a 2.35 screen.

My ceiling height is 9.5 feet. Second row riser is 21". I'm hoping projector can be placed at the very back of the 17 feet deep room.

 

[Dominic Chan]

My room is 18 wide x 19 deep. False wall will be 2 feet so actually viewing room is 18 wide x 17 deep.

My seating position is 10 feet back.

I used blue tape to mark off a 2.35 screen and I could go either 150" wide (163" diagonal) or the 140". I'm thinking the 150" would be better because with 16x9 material you lose about 25% of the screen width. So on a 150" 2.35 screen, 16x9 material the image would be about 112" wide. Not terrible but not really that big for me as far as I'm concerned.

OTOH if I get a 16x9 screen that has approx the same diagonal, it would be a 130" screen.

There seems to be some inconsistencies in the way you refer to the screen sizes (width vs diagonal). If you go with a 150" wide 2.35 screen, the 16x9 image that would fit on that screen is 130" diagonal (113"w x 64"h). The 16:9 screen with the same diagonal would be a 163" screen, which is very big. This may throw off the subsequent discussion (e.g., when you refer to a 92" screen).

 

[video1]

Sorry for the confusion. The Magnolia here only has 16x9 screens. I guess I should only refer to screens by their width? Is that the convention, unlike television where it's the diagonal that is quoted?

The screen at Magnolia was 92". I don't know if that is the width or the diagonal. I'm going to guess diagonal because the thing was bloody tiny!

Your measurements are correct. If i go with the 150" 2.35 screen, my 16x9 image will be 113" wide. That's quite a bit smaller but likely still acceptable.

 

[Dominic Chan]

Sorry for the confusion. The Magnolia here only has 16x9 screens. I guess I should only refer to screens by their width? Is that the convention, unlike television where it's the diagonal that is quoted?

Projector screens follow the same convention as direct-view TVs, i.e., all the nominal dimensions refer to the diagonal, not the width.

If i go with the 150" 2.35 screen, my 16x9 image will be 113" wide. That's quite a bit smaller but likely still acceptable.

Going by that convention, your 2.35 screen would be 163". When displaying 16:9 contents, the image would be the same size as a 130" 16:9 screen, which really isn't considered "small" by most people.

 

[Mike Garrett]

I was at Magnolia HiFi and they had a JVC projector showing on a 92" 16x9 screen. That screen was awfully small and I had to get within about 6 - 7 feet of the screen before I felt any kind of immersive effect. So I figure a 130" 16x9 screen would be proportionally the same size visually if I were 10 feet back.

That means if I go with a 130" 16x9 screen then the 2.35 movies would show as 130" wide x 55" high vs a 140" wide x 60" high if it were a 2.35 screen.

My ceiling height is 9.5 feet. Second row riser is 21". I'm hoping projector can be placed at the very back of the 17 feet deep room.

Viewing a 92" diagonal 16:9 screen from 7' would be the same proportionally as viewing a 114" diagonal 16:9 from 10' or a 123" diagonal 16:9 from 6'. So if we use 6.5', then it would be 118" diagonal 16:9, so I would look at a around 136.6" wide 2.35. 140" wide is a standard size and I would start there. If we can help you with screen selection and pricing, give us a call.

 

[rlindo]

I'd go with the 16x9 if you're splitting up viewing between tv and movies.

 

[Mike Garrett]

I'd go with the 16x9 if you're splitting up viewing between tv and movies.

It may not apply in this case, but you also have to take the room into consideration. Let's say you watch 80% HDTV and only 20% movies and you can only fit a 54" high image in your room. Would you recommend that they go with a 54" high 16:9 screen or a 54" high 2.35 screen?

 

[DavidHir]

Have you viewed a 112" wide 16:9 image from 10'? That is very close for 16:9. I would get sick from that distance with that size screen. That is a 1.07 viewing width ratio.

Agreed.

When I first got my projector, I was viewing 10 feet back against the wall at 108" wide 16:9 image and it was just too big and overwhelming - but 108" with 2:35 is near perfect.

 

[video1]

that's why I'm thinking of going with a 140" 2.35 screen. 16x9 would be 105".

 

[MaxTemp]

that's why I'm thinking of going with a 140" 2.35 screen. 16x9 would be 105".

Wont it be 112" for 16x9?

 

[video1]

Wont it be 112" for 16x9?

I thought 16x9 ends up being 75% of the width of a CIH 2.35 screen, no?

 

[joe1016zw]

For a good view feeling may be you can with a 54" high 16:9 screen or a 54" high 2.35 screen to your phone.

 

[Mike Garrett]

that's why I'm thinking of going with a 140" 2.35 screen. 16x9 would be 105".

Yes a 140" wide 2.35 would give you a 105" wide 16:9 image.

 

[Dominic Chan]

Wont it be 112" for 16x9?

For a given height, the 16:9 screen would have 75% of the width of a 2.35 screen, but 80% of the diagonal.
The diagonal is usually quoted as the nominal size of screens (which would indeed be 112" vs 140" as you noted), but in this case the discussion is regarding the width.