AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all. Which would you guys go with in my situation? I have a viewing distance of ~13'/156". My wall screen width is ~148" wide. Height that I'm working with is 98" (9' ceiling but have a media cabinet below the screen).

Option 1: Scope 2.39:1 at 132" wide and 55" tall for 143" diagonal. 16:9 image would be 112"/113" diagonal.

Option 2: 16:9 at 118" wide and 66" tall for 135" diagonal. Scope image would be 128" diagonal.

Option 3: Other?

I have really been struggling with this. I am coming from a 150" diagonal 16:9 AT screen. I want more brightness and pop for sharpness and HDR. Willing to sacrifice some size, so that's why I'm going down in size (and also going away from an AT screen).

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,297 Posts
I went from a 110" 16x9 screen to a 115" 2.35:1 screen and have been very happy with the change. I don't watch very much 16x9 movies, so it made more sense for me to go scoped. Of course, when watching 16x9 it does seem rather small, but not bad once you get used to it, and again, I don't watch much in this format so I don't really felt like I lost a lot, and I certainly gained by getting a much wider scoped screen for the majority of movies I do watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I went from a 110" 16x9 screen to a 115" 2.35:1 screen and have been very happy with the change. I don't watch very much 16x9 movies, so it made more sense for me to go scoped. Of course, when watching 16x9 it does seem rather small, but not bad once you get used to it, and again, I don't watch much in this format so I don't really felt like I lost a lot, and I certainly gained by getting a much wider scoped screen for the majority of movies I do watch.
Thanks for the response! That's good to know. Having said that, I went to Best Buy the other night and was shocked by the number of movies that are presented in 16:9 (or close to it) format. Granted, Star Wars, Marvel movies, etc. are all scope. Also, aren't almost all of the new series on HBO (e.g., Game of Thrones) and Netflix (e.g., Breaking Bad) also 16:9 format? I know sports on cable tv is all 16:9, such as the Super Bowl last night. This is why I'm struggling with pulling the trigger on the scope screen.

We also have friends over for Mario Kart/game night every now and then, which would also be 16:9.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
770 Posts
You could go with a 2.1:1 aspect ratio screen where 16:9 content would be proportionally be as big as 2.35:1. But then again you'd always have black borders no matter the content(unless there are movies in 2,1:1). But some people swear by this aspect ratio due to the proportionally more correct size for 4:3 and 16:9 content. No matter what you choose, 1.77:1, 2.35:1, 2.1:1 or whatever there will always be a compromise in one way or another. You have to look to very expensive solutions to get rid of all the problems - 4-way masking and Lumagen scaler, anamorphic lens etc -very expensive stuff. Also think about that quite a few movies implement multiple aspect ratios with IMAX scenes and so on. You can't really win.

My personal solution was to buy the biggest 2.35:1 screen my room would allow and then sit relatively close to it - movies it's really epic mode activated and 16:9 and 4:3(Star Trek TNG etc) content I watch is still big enough to get a cinematic experience. I optimised for movies basically. I watch a lot of series which is 16:9 but the size is fine due to that the screen can't be taller due to the room. So I'd say if you go for 2.35:1 then go the biggest you can. If you're coming from something like a 100" 16:9 then go for something like 130" 2.35:1 to not get disappointed with less wide but taller content.

I see now that you are looking at quite big screens which is the way to go basically if you have the light output. But also think about that such large screens which are not AT will affect the sound quite a lot. I went the other way where I ran non-AT before and I'm now running AT. The sound is quite improved imo so think about this that you'll have a very large reflective surface. But there is a significant difference in sharpness and light output so I understand your move there. Everything is basically a compromise in one way or the other so choose what's most important to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You could go with a 2.1:1 aspect ratio screen where 16:9 content would be proportionally be as big as 2.35:1. But then again you'd always have black borders no matter the content(unless there are movies in 2,1:1). But some people swear by this aspect ratio due to the proportionally more correct size for 4:3 and 16:9 content. No matter what you choose, 1.77:1, 2.35:1, 2.1:1 or whatever there will always be a compromise in one way or another. You have to look to very expensive solutions to get rid of all the problems - 4-way masking and Lumagen scaler, anamorphic lens etc -very expensive stuff. Also think about that quite a few movies implement multiple aspect ratios with IMAX scenes and so on. You can't really win.

My personal solution was to buy the biggest 2.35:1 screen my room would allow and then sit relatively close to it - movies it's really epic mode activated and 16:9 and 4:3(Star Trek TNG etc) content I watch is still big enough to get a cinematic experience. I optimised for movies basically. I watch a lot of series which is 16:9 but the size is fine due to that the screen can't be taller due to the room. So I'd say if you go for 2.35:1 then go the biggest you can. If you're coming from something like a 100" 16:9 then go for something like 130" 2.35:1 to not get disappointed with less wide but taller content.

I see now that you are looking at quite big screens which is the way to go basically if you have the light output. But also think about that such large screens which are not AT will affect the sound quite a lot. I went the other way where I ran non-AT before and I'm now running AT. The sound is quite improved imo so think about this that you'll have a very large reflective surface. But there is a significant difference in sharpness and light output so I understand your move there. Everything is basically a compromise in one way or the other so choose what's most important to you.

This is very helpful. My wall is about 148" wide, so I can go really wide for the scope 2.39:1 screen. However, per Mike G. and others and as you mentioned, at that size I really need an anamorphic lens to maintain sufficient brightness for HDR. My projector will be the JVC NX7. Therefore, I was thinking of going smaller/narrower and go with 133" wide at the most. A 132" wide, 55" tall scope would give me a 143" diagonal scope image but only a 112" diagonal 16:9. The smaller I go in the scope screen, the smaller the 16:9 image becomes but the better light output and HDR performance. I really have no idea when I will budget for and purchase an anamorphic lens, if ever, given the price. Ah, such a difficult decision!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
You didn't say what projector you have or what sources you will use. Managing a scope screen takes either a little bit of extra technology or a lot of manual adjustments. A projector that has lens memory makes it trivial to manage, but if you don't have that option you need to get an external scaler, use an HTPC for everything, and/or add an anamorphic lens.

If you do have lens memory, you could use both of those screens, as long is one is retractable.

55" high scope is a very respectable size. The silver ticket 138" screens come in at that size at a very reasonable price (because they are actually oversized but they didn't want to change the marketing). I am assuming you are saving room for your speakers, thus the limit. If you find it a little small you can move your seating closer.


Not sure how true it is currently, but at least historically, it has been stated that the mix of AR is about 50/50 for scope vs. 16x9. You have to ask yourself whether you want to see tv and romantic comedies bigger than lord of the rings and star wars. If you were comparing two equal height screens, watching a scope movie on a 55 inch high scope screen is 80% larger than on a 55 inch high 16x9 screen. Most in this forum want that 80% for the scope content rather than larger 16x9, but it is a very personal decision and there are just as many people who are pained by reducing their 16x9 content when comparing comparable width screens. Academically, the original intention was for scope to be wider, but it the modern cineplex that has been lost. See the many other threads of debate on this subject, or wait 5 minutes for an explanation of PIA to magically appear here. :) *hugs* bud! */hugs*

Game of Thrones was 16x9 but a lot of new content, particularly streaming stuff, is much wider. 2.0 is very common, but there are 2.2 and 2.35 items out there too. See Josh' list: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...t-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You didn't say what projector you have or what sources you will use. Managing a scope screen takes either a little bit of extra technology or a lot of manual adjustments. A projector that has lens memory makes it trivial to manage, but if you don't have that option you need to get an external scaler, use an HTPC for everything, and/or add an anamorphic lens.

If you do have lens memory, you could use both of those screens, as long is one is retractable.

55" high scope is a very respectable size. The silver ticket 138" screens come in at that size at a very reasonable price (because they are actually oversized but they didn't want to change the marketing). I am assuming you are saving room for your speakers, thus the limit. If you find it a little small you can move your seating closer.


Not sure how true it is currently, but at least historically, it has been stated that the mix of AR is about 50/50 for scope vs. 16x9. You have to ask yourself whether you want to see tv and romantic comedies bigger than lord of the rings and star wars. If you were comparing two equal height screens, watching a scope movie on a 55 inch high scope screen is 80% larger than on a 55 inch high 16x9 screen. Most in this forum want that 80% for the scope content rather than larger 16x9, but it is a very personal decision and there are just as many people who are pained by reducing their 16x9 content when comparing comparable width screens. Academically, the original intention was for scope to be wider, but it the modern cineplex that has been lost. See the many other threads of debate on this subject, or wait 5 minutes for an explanation of PIA to magically appear here. :) *hugs* bud! */hugs*

Game of Thrones was 16x9 but a lot of new content, particularly streaming stuff, is much wider. 2.0 is very common, but there are 2.2 and 2.35 items out there too. See Josh' list: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...t-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html
Thanks for the response. I'll try to add more details and thoughts:

- My viewing distance is approximately 13' and that is pretty fixed, meaning I can't really sit closer or further back.
- The projector will be the JVC NX7.
- The screen material will be the Stewart StudioTek 130 G4.
- I have good light control, darker walls and will paint my ceiling the same color (it's currently white), but I do not have a bat cave.
- Sources will be Apple TV 4K for streaming YouTube TV, Netflix, Prime Video, iTunes movies, and Disney Plus, and a Panasonic 4K player for physical disks.
- My in-wall speakers will go below the screen. This was a compromise with my wife, so I no longer have floor standing speakers other than the subs. :)
- I read where 2.0 AR is becoming more and more popular. If so, wouldn't that favor a 16:9 screen over a 2.39 screen?

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
Thanks for the response. I'll try to add more details and thoughts:

- My viewing distance is approximately 13' and that is pretty fixed, meaning I can't really sit closer or further back.
- The projector will be the JVC NX7.
- The screen material will be the Stewart StudioTek 130 G4.
- I have good light control, darker walls and will paint my ceiling the same color (it's currently white), but I do not have a bat cave.
- Sources will be Apple TV 4K for streaming YouTube TV, Netflix, Prime Video, iTunes movies, and Disney Plus, and a Panasonic 4K player for physical disks.
- My in-wall speakers will go below the screen. This was a compromise with my wife, so I no longer have floor standing speakers other than the subs. :)
- I read where 2.0 AR is becoming more and more popular. If so, wouldn't that favor a 16:9 screen over a 2.39 screen?

Thanks!
Because I have drunk the CIH Kool-aide, If it were my room with that system I would go with the widest scope screen I could fit and still have reasonable speaker placement. I assumed you were width limited because of tower speakers, but if you now have more room you can use more of your room width. If I later found I was unsatisfied with the 16x9 presentation I'd add a motorized 16x9 screen to drop down. That projector can handle both.

A unique alternative available with that projector is a 17x9 screen as that is the panel AR. So just a little wider.

- I read where 2.0 AR is becoming more and more popular. If so, wouldn't that favor a 16:9 screen over a 2.39 screen?
Only if you believe those shows should be shown bigger than an epic scope movie. What you may not have realized is that you CAN project all of those wider ratios larger than 16x9 using lens memory on a scope screen. That is exactly what this CIH hobby/cult/obsession is about. a 2.0 show on your sample scope screen would be projected 110 inches wide at 55 inches tall, or 123 inches diagonal compared to your 98 inch wide (112 inch diagonal) 16x9 image.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Because I have drunk the CIH Kool-aide, If it were my room with that system I would go with the widest scope screen I could fit and still have reasonable speaker placement. I assumed you were width limited because of tower speakers, but if you now have more room you can use more of your room width. If I later found I was unsatisfied with the 16x9 presentation I'd add a motorized 16x9 screen to drop down. That projector can handle both.

A unique alternative available with that projector is a 17x9 screen as that is the panel AR. So just a little wider.



Only if you believe those shows should be shown bigger than an epic scope movie. What you may not have realized is that you CAN project all of those wider ratios larger than 16x9 using lens memory on a scope screen. That is exactly what this CIH hobby/cult/obsession is about. a 2.0 show on your sample scope screen would be projected 110 inches wide at 55 inches tall, or 123 inches diagonal compared to your 98 inch wide (112 inch diagonal) 16x9 image.

I have always had in-wall speakers in this room, so I used almost all of my wall width for my current 130" wide, 150" diagonal 16:9 screen. If I change that to the scope screen, I can go a little wider to about 140" wide (148" max wall width but must account for frame width of ~6"), but the wider I go the less brightness I'll get for HDR purposes without the anamorphic lens, correct? I would like to avoid that additional expense, at least for now. So, what is the recommended sweet spot for brightness/HDR? 130" wide? 132" wide? 132" wide would be 143" diagonal scope and 112" diagonal 16:9. That's sort of what I was leaning towards. I really don't want to go smaller than 110" diagonal for my 16:9 image, but I do want my scope image to be bright enough for HDR purposes.

That's good info on the 2.0 size as well. Much appreciated!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
I have always had in-wall speakers in this room, so I used almost all of my wall width for my current 130" wide, 150" diagonal 16:9 screen. If I change that to the scope screen, I can go a little wider to about 140" wide (148" max wall width but must account for frame width of ~6"), but the wider I go the less brightness I'll get for HDR purposes without the anamorphic lens, correct? I would like to avoid that additional expense, at least for now. So, what is the recommended sweet spot for brightness/HDR? 130" wide? 132" wide? 132" wide would be 143" diagonal scope and 112" diagonal 16:9. That's sort of what I was leaning towards. I really don't want to go smaller than 110" diagonal for my 16:9 image, but I do want my scope image to be bright enough for HDR purposes.

That's good info on the 2.0 size as well. Much appreciated!
You are right to be concerned about brightness and I was just writing an edit. I forgot I was using an A-lens for wide ratios so yes indeed you should consider remaining reasonable. I recall @Craig Peer has recommended capping out at 135inch diagonal for HDR, but I don't remember why or if it was for a unity gain screen. I am sure he can chime in and help.


I am guessing from your numbers your target is a 2.4 screen, and I would agree with that, personally. The vendors target 2.35:1 so 16x9 doesn't look quite as tiny, but it is marketing, really. 55 inches tall will be plenty big.


Projection Widths:

AR width in inches
1.37 = 75.35
1.66 = 91.3
1.78 = 97.9
1.85 = 101.75
2 = 110
2.2 = 121
2.35 = 129.25
2.39 = 131.45
2.4 = 132
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
You have painted yourself into a corner caused by HDR desires and not having any flexibility in your seating distance plus projector selection and not getting the brightness boast an A-lens would provide.

You mentioned GOT and the Super Bowl. Both of those are TV but something I call prestige TV and both for different reasons have IMAX-like qualities and both will seem under immersive shown as CIH in your case because with your fixed seating distance and room shape plus lumens you are starting out on the lesser end of good immersion even for scope, so that places even more restriction on the less wide or as I like to say the taller formats and will make them feel really less immersive. GOT, The Super Bowl, Avatar and maybe even Saving Private Ryan.

You’re not going to buy an A-lens that turns your 16:9 projector into a Scope projector for all practical purposes. So what you have is a 16:9 projector with zoom abilities. Determine how wide you can go and still have a bright enough image to meet your HDR needs and go as tall as you can to make your immersion needs for non scope media.

I personally like classic film-like brightness levels and myself I would be tempted to make scope width wide enough to enjoy it regardless of getting to some “HDR brightness number” and just zoom to whatever size I wanted depending on if the media was HDR or not. But doing free form variable immersion like I do requires some kind of 4way masking or do what I do and ignore it like I do. Just the same way you ignore the gray bars when you watch an IMAX expander movie like Dunkirk in a commercial IMAX theater. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,961 Posts
Having said that, I went to Best Buy the other night and was shocked by the number of movies that are presented in 16:9 (or close to it) format. Granted, Star Wars, Marvel movies, etc. are all scope. Also, aren't almost all of the new series on HBO (e.g., Game of Thrones) and Netflix (e.g., Breaking Bad) also 16:9 format? I know sports on cable tv is all 16:9, such as the Super Bowl last night.
If you're looking at the raw number of movies made overall every year, the proportion has been about 50/50 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 for decades. However, the big $100 million+ studio tentpole visual spectacle movies favor 2.35:1 by at least 70/30, whereas rom-coms and low-budget indies favor 1.85:1.

The majority of TV series are still 16:9, but streaming services like Netflix have made a big push to adopt 2.0:1 or wider ratios. Prominent event series like The Mandalorian and Star Trek: Picard go all the way to 2.35:1.

Scott already linked to my thread that tracks these. There are literally hundreds of series with aspect ratios wider than 16:9 now, and the trend is making its way into cable and broadcast networks on shows like The Outsider (HBO), Batwoman (CW), and Prodigal Son (Fox).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...t-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html

- I read where 2.0 AR is becoming more and more popular. If so, wouldn't that favor a 16:9 screen over a 2.39 screen?
Only if you want those shows to be smaller than Wheel of Fortune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
You are right to be concerned about brightness and I was just writing an edit. I forgot I was using an A-lens for wide ratios so yes indeed you should consider remaining reasonable. I recall @Craig Peer has recommended capping out at 135inch diagonal for HDR, but I don't remember why or if it was for a unity gain screen. I am sure he can chime in and help.


I am guessing from your numbers your target is a 2.4 screen, and I would agree with that, personally. The vendors target 2.35:1 so 16x9 doesn't look quite as tiny, but it is marketing, really. 55 inches tall will be plenty big.


Projection Widths:

AR width in inches
1.39 = 76.45
1.66 = 91.3
1.78 = 97.9
1.85 = 101.75
2 = 110
2.2 = 121
2.35 = 129.25
2.39 = 131.45
2.4 = 132

Thanks again. I have more confidence in my 2.39/2.35 screen decision again. I just need to settle on the appropriate width, and I'm leaning towards 132".


You have painted yourself into a corner caused by HDR desires and not having any flexibility in your seating distance plus projector selection and not getting the brightness boast an A-lens would provide.

You mentioned GOT and the Super Bowl. Both of those are TV but something I call prestige TV and both for different reasons have IMAX-like qualities and both will seem under immersive shown as CIH in your case because with your fixed seating distance and room shape plus lumens you are starting out on the lesser end of good immersion even for scope, so that places even more restriction on the less wide or as I like to say the taller formats and will make them feel really less immersive. GOT, The Super Bowl, Avatar and maybe even Saving Private Ryan.

You’re not going to buy an A-lens that turns your 16:9 projector into a Scope projector for all practical purposes. So what you have is a 16:9 projector with zoom abilities. Determine how wide you can go and still have a bright enough image to meet your HDR needs and go as tall as you can to make your immersion needs for non scope media.

I personally like classic film-like brightness levels and myself I would be tempted to make scope width wide enough to enjoy it regardless of getting to some “HDR brightness number” and just zoom to whatever size I wanted depending on if the media was HDR or not. But doing free form variable immersion like I do requires some kind of 4way masking or do what I do and ignore it like I do. Just the same way you ignore the gray bars when you watch an IMAX expander movie like Dunkirk in a commercial IMAX theater. :)
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, this isn't a dedicated theater room so I am restricted with my seating distance. I love the contrast, native 4K, HDR mapping, etc. that the NX7 gives you, so in order to make up for any light output issues I felt like a 1.3 gain ST130 would be a good solution. I am also coming from a JVC RS520, so I have been pleased with JVC's performance.

I may be indeed overthinking and/or placing too much emphasis on HDR. I would love to buy an A-lens and may do so down the road, but it's another $6k that I simply don't have in the budget at the moment.

I'm thinking 132" wide and 55" tall OR even a little wider would work well with my 13' seating distance. In fact, if I use all of my wall width and go with 140" wide, that would put my height at 58" and give me a 152" diagonal scope picture and a 119" diagonal 16:9 image. Those seem pretty big for that viewing distance, at least for me since I like to sit halfway or 3/4 back from the screen at the theater. That sound right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
If you're looking at the raw number of movies made overall every year, the proportion has been about 50/50 1.85:1 vs. 2.35:1 for decades. However, the big $100 million+ studio tentpole visual spectacle movies favor 2.35:1 by at least 70/30, whereas rom-coms and low-budget indies favor 1.85:1.

The majority of TV series are still 16:9, but streaming services like Netflix have made a big push to adopt 2.0:1 or wider ratios. Prominent event series like The Mandalorian and Star Trek: Picard go all the way to 2.35:1.

Chad already linked to my thread that tracks these. There are literally hundreds of series with aspect ratios wider than 16:9 now, and the trend is making its way into cable and broadcast networks on shows like The Outsider (HBO), Batwoman (CW), and Prodigal Son (Fox).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-...t-tv-shows-wider-than-16-9-aspect-ratios.html



Only if you want those shows to be smaller than Wheel of Fortune.

Thanks for the response! And LOL at the WoF comment. :D

As noted above, I am definitely back to the scope screen as my choice now. I'm just trying to decide how wide I should go with it. My throw distance is 16' or so, so I'm right at the minimum throw distance for a 140" wide screen (using the NX7).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,161 Posts
55 inches tall will be plenty big.


At 13’ 156” seating distance a 55” tall screen will be an immersive factor of 2.8 X screen height. Most feel that sitting 3X SH is like sitting about 70% of the way back in a commercial theater and most would say you were getting out of the 4k benefits zone. Not to mention anything IMAX or IMAX-like. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Only if you want those shows to be smaller than Wheel of Fortune.
Exactly, anything wider than 1.78:1 you are continually decreasing your vertical immersion and leaving your horizontal immersion unchanged. The two screens in the attachment have the same height and show you how the wider a film is shown, the less immersion it offers on the TV AR screen. As you can see 2.00:1 is clearly getting a lot more real estate on the 2.35:1 screen.

From a view distance of 13' I would suggest a 150" scope screen (1.0 gain or greater). As an NX7 owner it will be right at the edge of what that projector can push without a lens.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Exactly, anything wider than 1.78:1 you are continually decreasing your vertical immersion and leaving your horizontal immersion unchanged. The two screens in the attachment have the same height and show you how the wider a film is shown, the less immersion it offers on the TV AR screen. As you can see 2.00:1 is clearly getting a lot more real estate on the 2.35:1 screen.

From a view distance of 13' I would suggest a 150" scope screen (1.0 gain or greater). As an NX7 owner it will be right at the edge of what that projector can push without a lens.
Thanks! Okay, so 150" diagonal and 139" wide, correct? My gain would be a true 1.3 gain (I believe) from Stewart with the ST130.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,922 Posts
Thanks! Okay, so 150" diagonal and 139" wide, correct? My gain would be a true 1.3 gain (I believe) from Stewart with the ST130.
Yup that should be an excellent fit for that seating distance. When setting up the NX7 be sure to set the aspect option in the installation menu to "zoom" to use the full panel for content 1.90:1 or wider. That allows you to use the full 17:9 panel of the projector and will net you an extra 10-12% light on scope films.

On my NX7 I have installation modes (lens memories) for:

-1.78:1 (aspect Native)
-1.85:1 (aspect Native)
-2.00:1 (aspect Zoom)
-2.20:1 (aspect Zoom)
-2.35:1 (aspect Zoom)
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top