# Screen dimensions for 2.35:1 CIH setup

2561 Views 13 Replies 8 Participants Last post by  Ian_Currie
This might sound a little silly, but I'm about to order a screen and want to avoid making a mistake.

I had decided on a 132"x56" 2.35:1 screen, which is 100x56 for 16x9.

However, when I zoom for 2.35 material, the 132" width is filled before the height (56") is. If I fill the height, the wide goes over by about 2". I've tried several movies at this point and they're all pretty consistent in this respect.

So, I'm puzzled. 56 x 2.35 = 1.31.6, not 134.

Can someone enlighten me?

Thx.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
2.35 is somewhat of a misnomer, it's actually 2.39 for most movies.
So what do most people do - order a 2.39 screen or rely on projecting part of the movie onto a light-absorbent frame?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie /forum/post/0

So what do most people do - order a 2.39 screen or rely on projecting part of the movie onto a light-absorbent frame?

One way around this is to use a Prismasonic lens. You can adjust the stretch to precisely fit the sides of your screen.
What's the ballpark cost of one of those?
I have a 2.35:1 screen and most movies that are labeled 2.35 fit the screen perfectly. However, 2.39:1 and 2.4:1 movies need to overshoot on the sides to fit on the screen. I was shocked the other day when I wanted a 2.35 movie to test something, and the first 10 or so I grabbed were 2.4:1. No matter what shape screen you get, some films will not fit just right. I'd probably still stick with 2.35 (vs 2.4) if I had to do it over again.
Ian,

Will you end up using a lens or remain with the zoom method? If you use a lens, the lenses are based on 33%, so 1.78 x 1.33 = 2.3674 or 2.37:1 (rounded)...

Mark
I was going to start with the zoom method, and then maybe switch over to a lens. Sounds like the very least I should do is go with 2.37:1, which puts me at 133" wide (based on 100" wide 1.78:1 screen).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie /forum/post/0

So what do most people do - order a 2.39 screen or rely on projecting part of the movie onto a light-absorbent frame?

I'm using YXY on my HTPC to do the stretch, so I've just adjusted it to fit my screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie /forum/post/0

What's the ballpark cost of one of those?

Panamorph lenses just had a special for \$495.

I though that was a pretty good deal....

Best,

Tom

Chinaclipper
See less See more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian_Currie /forum/post/0

I was going to start with the zoom method, and then maybe switch over to a lens. Sounds like the very least I should do is go with 2.37:1, which puts me at 133" wide (based on 100" wide 1.78:1 screen).

One thing that can get confusing as you discuss screens is that normally 16:9 screens are referred to in the diagonal measurement but anamorphic screens 2.35:1 or similiar are usually referred to, at least around here, by the actual width of the screen, for instance my screen is 51"h X 120" wide.

So are you saying your screen will be 133" wide? if so does your projector zoom that large an image from where your placement is?
Yes, 133" wide. I'm using an RS1 and I have it back so that it's near max throw for 16:9 (100x56) and it zooms easily to 133" wide.
I suggest wide velvet screen borders to allow some flexibility in setup.
Anyone think brightness will be an issue with 133" wide 2.35 HP screen using zoom method (where proj is at max throw for a 16:9 image)?
1 - 14 of 14 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.