[powdercarrot]

I have a new theater build with a short ceiling. The top of the screen can be no more than 83" from the floor and the room is 15 feet wide. Most of the content will be movies, some sports, and almost no 4:3 content.


I have a Sony VPL-HW50ES projector that can be mounted anywhere along the 23' length of the room.


So, with those dimensions, would I be better off with 2.35, 1.78, or 1.85 ratio?


Thanks

 

[devotech]

2.35:1 seems like the obvious option due to the restricted height and generous width.

 

[petew]

2.76

 

[BIGmouthinDC]



Quote:
Originally Posted by powdercarrot  /t/1523679/screen-format-options/0_40#post_24513493


I have a Sony VPL-HW50ES projector that can be mounted anywhere along the 23' length of the room.

Just want to make sure you are aware that if you get a 2.35:1 screen that there is a specific range of distances where you can mount the Sony and utilize the memory zoom. That range is smaller than other memory zoom projectors. Pretty sure it won't work at 21 ft for example.

 

[powdercarrot]


Pretty sure that my model doesn't have memory zoom.

 

[BIGmouthinDC]

just looked, you are right, so unless you plan on adding an anamorphic lens to the setup, a 2.35:1 screen may not be a wise choice, You would have to mannually adjust the projector to switch back and forth between formats.

 

[cw5billwade]

I love my Panasonic AE-8000 and it does have the automatic zoom. Mine is 17" throw to a 126" wide AT 2.0:1 screen so no issues. I could have pushed it back but I like 3D and the closer you are the brighter the image is. If height limited go with 2.40:1. If most of your content is movies you cannot go wrong with 2.40:1 I have about $600 in my DIY Seymour Center Stage XD screen build. Check my thread. Your room length is the same as mine so if going with a 24" screen wall and Acoustically Transparent screen like I did then you have to consider the riser depth and door opening but 2 rows of 4 should work really well. My first row is 10.6’ second row is 17’ and the 36” door just clears the backs of the chairs. This gives the back row a good distance from the rear speaker.

 

[doublewing11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by devotech  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24513806


2.35:1 seems like the obvious option due to the restricted height and generous width.

The confusing part, movies are shot in so many different ratios. The best compromise would be 2.37 as it's the middle ground between 2.40 and 2.35. Overscan of some movies can be limited..........anyhow, 2.40, 2.37, or 2.35 is your best option with limited height.

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24532282


The confusing part, movies are shot in so many different ratios. The best compromise would be 2.37 as it's the middle ground between 2.40 and 2.35. Overscan of some movies can be limited..........anyhow, 2.40, 2.37, or 2.35 is your best option with limited height.

See this article for an explanaiton of why the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is not as clear as the math would imply:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/


If the o/p is considering a 2.35:1 screen, he may want to read the Constant Image Height forum on this site for tips and advice.

 

[doublewing11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24532322


See this article for an explanaiton of why the difference between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1 is not as clear as the math would imply:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/


If the o/p is considering a 2.35:1 screen, he may want to read the Constant Image Height forum on this site for tips and advice.

Self promoting huh?

Nice job on write-up. I had extensive talks with both Chris from Seymour-SE and Mike at AVS before purchasing screen. Like your article suggests, not a huge difference between the fore-mentioned ratios, but I'm my case 2.37 was decided upon as best compromise.


Isn't it a "right of passage" for those building a movie room to go through this screen ratio thinking/decision process?

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by doublewing11  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24532396


Self promoting huh?

If you can find another article on the subject, I'll link to that as well.

 

[cw5billwade]

same discusion at the savoy the-savoy build on page 19 Chris posted this link and is recomending 2.37:1
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/FeatureStats.php?OrderBy=AspectRatio

 

[Josh Z]



Quote:
Originally Posted by cw5billwade  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24533156


same discusion at the savoy the-savoy build on page 19 Chris posted this link and is recomending 2.37:1
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/FeatureStats.php?OrderBy=AspectRatio

The stats on that page are based on the information printed on the disc packaging, which is written by the studio marketing department based on boilerplate templates and is rarely accurate when it concerns the distinction between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1.


The theatrical standard for scope projection changed from 2.35:1 to 2.3942:1 in 1970. Most people round that number to 2.40:1. However, what you actually get in any given home video transfer will vary depending on how the film scanner used for the transfer was calibrated. Even recent movies may wind up as either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. There's no way to predict this other than to watch the disc. You can't even rely on Blu-ray or DVD reviews, because the ratios are so close that most reviewers can't see the difference on their 16:9 HDTV screens and just write down whatever the packaging says.


Skimming that list for random examples that I can personally confirm, Flags of Our Fathers and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra are listed as 2.35:1 but are actually transferred at 2.40:1.


Bullit says 2.40:1 based on a misprint on the packaging. The movie's OAR was actually 1.85:1, and it's been transferred to video as open-matte 16:9.

 

[devotech]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24533101


If you can find another article on the subject, I'll link to that as well.

I've read Josh's CIH articles on a few separate occasions. Very solid writing.

 

[doublewing11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24533101



If you can find another article on the subject, I'll link to that as well.

 

Aaaa....................... a pioneer!

 

Once again, great job and found your article an interesting read.......................

 

[cw5billwade]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24533403


The stats on that page are based on the information printed on the disc packaging, which is written by the studio marketing department based on boilerplate templates and is rarely accurate when it concerns the distinction between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1.


The theatrical standard for scope projection changed from 2.35:1 to 2.3942:1 in 1970. Most people round that number to 2.40:1. However, what you actually get in any given home video transfer will vary depending on how the film scanner used for the transfer was calibrated. Even recent movies may wind up as either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. There's no way to predict this other than to watch the disc. You can't even rely on Blu-ray or DVD reviews, because the ratios are so close that most reviewers can't see the difference on their 16:9 HDTV screens and just write down whatever the packaging says.


Skimming that list for random examples that I can personally confirm, Flags of Our Fathers and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra are listed as 2.35:1 but are actually transferred at 2.40:1.


Bullit says 2.40:1 based on a misprint on the packaging. The movie's OAR was actually 1.85:1, and it's been transferred to video as open-matte 16:9.

guess that is why he recomends 3.37:1 that and the ananomorphic lens thig he mentions. I have a 2.0:1 constant image area screen and love it but I had the space for it. 10' ceiling 19' wide. with total light control and the AE-8000 I do not even fell the need for masking.

 

[Josh Z]

The reality of the matter is that 2.35:1, 2.37:1 and 2.40:1 are all so visibly similar that you can easily make a screen at any of these ratios work with content from another. A tiny smidge of zooming or stretching can make the image fill the screen without being noticeably "wrong" to the eye. Some people really obsess over minutiae like this, but it's hardly worth fretting about.

 

[doublewing11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z  /t/1523679/screen-format-options#post_24536869


The reality of the matter is that 2.35:1, 2.37:1 and 2.40:1 are all so visibly similar that you can easily make a screen at any of these ratios work with content from another. A tiny smidge of zooming or stretching can make the image fill the screen without being noticeably "wrong" to the eye. Some people really obsess over minutiae like this, but it's hardly worth fretting about.

 

Guilty as charged!