[Webmonkey]

Screen (size) upgrade dilemma: 110" 100% filled or 119" with ~116" filled?

Hi guys.


I plan on upgrading my current 92" Cinema Vision fixed frame screen to either a 110" or a 119" inch Da-lite HD Progressive screen.


The dilemma is that with my calculations I will be able to throw a ~116" image from my JVC X30 projector position (will be upgraded to the next-gen JVC 4K once it comes out...).



So right now I can completely fill a 110" screen, but not completely a 119".




I would like to hear peoples opinions regarding having a 116" image on a 119" and thus living with "borders" - will it be annoying or is bigger = bigger immersion despite the borders??




Cheers

 

[fierce_gt]

i would not personally buy a screen larger than i can project. i hate the look of 'gaps' on the screen.

when i left my parents house, i took my projector with me, but left them the screen and got them an LG LED projector for them. The projector had very little zoom, and we couldn't place it in the ideal spot without making the furniture placement ridiculous. They happily used the thing projecting a 97ish inch image on a 106inch screen for years. It annoyed me, but that projector was such a massive step down from what i'm used to, it was hard to pick just one thing

if we were talking a bigger difference, like 100inches vs 120inches, i'd probably say deal with the border. 110 vs 116 is barely significant imo. I suspect that if you walked out of the room, and somebody changed sizes, and you walked back in it would take you a few minutes to figure out what happened. I recently downsized from a 72" tall, to 65" tall screen( ~146" to 132" diagonal) and i honestly struggle to notice any difference. It certainly has not decreased the experience for me. 110 vs 116, is like the difference between sitting straight up in your chair, or reclined. It's going to be pretty subtle imo.

unfortunately, ALL of these things are extremely personal. So, just because these were my experiences, doesn't mean they will be yours. I also think the viewing distance will be important here. as for the projector upgrade, am i correct in reading that this will happen pretty soon? why not wait for that just in case it allows you to fill the larger screen?

 

[Zoom123]

You didn't mention how far you sit from the screen. Bigger is better until some point.

If the distance of your eyes from the screen is 12 feet (3.65m") or more from the screen then 116" would be better, other things equal. But in your case, where the projector can't fill the whole screen, I would personally go for 110". Pushing your projector at its widest might also not be the best idea.

Will you be able to fill the screen with your next projector? If yes, and if you are sitting far enough, then you might as well get the bigger screen.

 

[Webmonkey]

i would not personally buy a screen larger than i can project. i hate the look of 'gaps' on the screen.

when i left my parents house, i took my projector with me, but left them the screen and got them an LG LED projector for them. The projector had very little zoom, and we couldn't place it in the ideal spot without making the furniture placement ridiculous. They happily used the thing projecting a 97ish inch image on a 106inch screen for years. It annoyed me, but that projector was such a massive step down from what i'm used to, it was hard to pick just one thing

if we were talking a bigger difference, like 100inches vs 120inches, i'd probably say deal with the border. 110 vs 116 is barely significant imo. I suspect that if you walked out of the room, and somebody changed sizes, and you walked back in it would take you a few minutes to figure out what happened. I recently downsized from a 72" tall, to 65" tall screen( ~146" to 132" diagonal) and i honestly struggle to notice any difference. It certainly has not decreased the experience for me. 110 vs 116, is like the difference between sitting straight up in your chair, or reclined. It's going to be pretty subtle imo.

unfortunately, ALL of these things are extremely personal. So, just because these were my experiences, doesn't mean they will be yours. I also think the viewing distance will be important here. as for the projector upgrade, am i correct in reading that this will happen pretty soon? why not wait for that just in case it allows you to fill the larger screen?

Thanks for your input.


regarding borders - will it still be a thing i blacked out room using a JVC???




The upgrade to next gen JVC will come once JVC has a "N75" out. Do not want to go with a 1 gen of any tech.




From what I can see the current N series has a big wider throw, but on the other hand, are also deeping for the front will be a bit closer to the screen, probably nulling the difference.

 

[fierce_gt]

Thanks for your input.


regarding borders - will it still be a thing i blacked out room using a JVC???




The upgrade to next gen JVC will come once JVC has a "N75" out. Do not want to go with a 1 gen of any tech.




From what I can see the current N series has a big wider throw, but on the other hand, are also deeping for the front will be a bit closer to the screen, probably nulling the difference.

i have a jvc x35 and have pretty good control over ambient light. in any case, i've watched content when it was pitch black at night and i can absolutely tell the difference between the screens black border and 'unfilled' portions of the screen. I find that from my 12ish foot viewing distance, i can have about half an inch of 'space' before it becomes clear that my image doesn't fill the frame. If i zoom out and leave myself 2-3 inches of space, it does bother me.

if the next projector could for sure fill the screen, i don't think a short term use with a gap would bother me all that much. But I 100% would be annoyed if i still had that gap after spending the money on a new jvc.

some other thoughts...
-you may find a creative soul on here that could figure out a way to extend throw distance if you provide some pics of the room
-maybe you could modify the masking to reduce it to a 116" size
-viewing distance would still be useful to know. if you're sitting like 9ft away, i don't think i'd recommend the larger screen if you could fill it

 

[Webmonkey]

You didn't mention how far you sit from the screen. Bigger is better until some point.

If the distance of your eyes from the screen is 12 feet (3.65m") or more from the screen then 116" would be better, other things equal. But in your case, where the projector can't fill the whole screen, I would personally go for 110". Pushing your projector at its widest might also not be the best idea.

Will you be able to fill the screen with your next projector? If yes, and if you are sitting far enough, then you might as well get the bigger screen.

I am sitting 1,5x the screen width. So about or slightly less than 3,0m away. I have no idea if a future JVC N75 will be able to fill 119".

 

[Webmonkey]

i have a jvc x35 and have pretty good control over ambient light. in any case, i've watched content when it was pitch black at night and i can absolutely tell the difference between the screens black border and 'unfilled' portions of the screen. I find that from my 12ish foot viewing distance, i can have about half an inch of 'space' before it becomes clear that my image doesn't fill the frame. If i zoom out and leave myself 2-3 inches of space, it does bother me.

if the next projector could for sure fill the screen, i don't think a short term use with a gap would bother me all that much. But I 100% would be annoyed if i still had that gap after spending the money on a new jvc.

some other thoughts...
-you may find a creative soul on here that could figure out a way to extend throw distance if you provide some pics of the room
-maybe you could modify the masking to reduce it to a 116" size
-viewing distance would still be useful to know. if you're sitting like 9ft away, i don't think i'd recommend the larger screen if you could fill it

Hmm. Letterboxing and pillars for Academy format content does not bother me, but I was bothered on some old non-anamorphic DVDs with letterboxing, leaving black bars all around the picture.

 

[Zoom123]

I am sitting 1,5x the screen width. So about or slightly less than 3,0m away. I have no idea if a future JVC N75 will be able to fill 119".

For less than 3m viewing distance even 110" might be too big, and 119" could be uncomfortable. Then again some people like to sit at the front row of the cinema. If you like it in that way then 119" could be fine. if you are unsure then sit 2.30 meters from your current screen and try watching an action movie from that distance.

 

[Webmonkey]

For less than 3m viewing distance even 110" might be too big, and 119" could be uncomfortable. Then again some people like to sit at the front row of the cinema. If you like it in that way then 119" could be fine. if you are unsure then sit 2.30 meters from your current screen and try watching an action movie from that distance.

I will try this.

 

[Craig Peer]

Thanks for your input.


regarding borders - will it still be a thing i blacked out room using a JVC???



The upgrade to next gen JVC will come once JVC has a "N75" out. Do not want to go with a 1 gen of any tech.



From what I can see the current N series has a big wider throw, but on the other hand, are also deeping for the front will be a bit closer to the screen, probably nulling the difference.

You'll be waiting a while - at least until late fall or winter 2020.

Why not just get a custom screen made smaller than 119" but larger than 110" ? Maybe 115" ? Da Lite will charge you the 119" price for a custom slightly smaller screen.

 

[Webmonkey]

I will try this.

Tried it. Very fine. fills my field of view. So 110" it is.

 

[Webmonkey]

You'll be waiting a while - at least until late fall or winter 2020.

Why not just get a custom screen made smaller than 119" but larger than 110" ? Maybe 115" ? Da Lite will charge you the 119" price for a custom slightly smaller screen.

I am OK with waiting a year. For now, next investment is the bigger and better screen - then a pair of 2 more ceiling/height speakers in order to go from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6





- next is to choose screen material... 0.9, 1.1 or 1.1 "contrast" from Da-Lite....

 

[fierce_gt]

Hmm. Letterboxing and pillars for Academy format content does not bother me, but I was bothered on some old non-anamorphic DVDs with letterboxing, leaving black bars all around the picture.

i agree, i do find letterbox/pillar less distracting and less bothersome than an image that just doesn't fill the screen.

my parents, i still don't understand why they pay for this, get their cable from a company called Shaw here. They duplicate their HD channels with an SD version, and in most cases charge extra for the HD version. they usually broadcast SD in 4:3 or HD in 16:9. When it's a natively 4:3 show you get a stretched 16:9 SD image, and a pillar-boxed HD version. When it's 16:9 content you get a proper full screen HD version, but stretched SD as they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. But every now and then, actually quite often, they broadcast an HD version of the SD channel, which means if it's a 16:9 format, they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. So when you watch the HD channel, it's got letterbox bars and pillar bars, and you basically lose 20% of your tv's size. anyway, point is, even though i'm watching this on a tv, where those borders are near perfect black and virtually invisible, they are still annoying. maybe even just on principle, but it would just make me mad when i saw that.


PS, 7.2.6 with only 3m viewing distance? do you have more than row? i mean we all like the hobby, and enjoy the journey perhaps more than the destination, but unless you've already got the gear to drive a 7.2.6 set up that seems like a large financial investment for something that would have questionable benefits in a smaller space. maybe it's just because i have a TON of things i would like to spend money on upgrading before i would even think of adding more than 7.1.4, so it's hard to imagine. i don't mean any disrespect, if you've got nothing else to upgrade i'm pretty jealous though

 

[tqlla]

The dilemma is that with my calculations I will be able to throw a ~116" image from my JVC X30 projector position (will be upgraded to the next-gen JVC 4K once it comes out...).

So right now I can completely fill a 110" screen, but not completely a 119".

I would say go with 110". The borders would be different blacks, so that would be really annoying to me.

How far is your projector from the wall? Would it be possible to move back any?

I think new JVC projectors will have the same throw distance as old JVC projectors, meaning that the max screen size wont change.

 

[Craig Peer]

i agree, i do find letterbox/pillar less distracting and less bothersome than an image that just doesn't fill the screen.

my parents, i still don't understand why they pay for this, get their cable from a company called Shaw here. They duplicate their HD channels with an SD version, and in most cases charge extra for the HD version. they usually broadcast SD in 4:3 or HD in 16:9. When it's a natively 4:3 show you get a stretched 16:9 SD image, and a pillar-boxed HD version. When it's 16:9 content you get a proper full screen HD version, but stretched SD as they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. But every now and then, actually quite often, they broadcast an HD version of the SD channel, which means if it's a 16:9 format, they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. So when you watch the HD channel, it's got letterbox bars and pillar bars, and you basically lose 20% of your tv's size. anyway, point is, even though i'm watching this on a tv, where those borders are near perfect black and virtually invisible, they are still annoying. maybe even just on principle, but it would just make me mad when i saw that.


PS, 7.2.6 with only 3m viewing distance? do you have more than row? i mean we all like the hobby, and enjoy the journey perhaps more than the destination, but unless you've already got the gear to drive a 7.2.6 set up that seems like a large financial investment for something that would have questionable benefits in a smaller space. maybe it's just because i have a TON of things i would like to spend money on upgrading before i would even think of adding more than 7.1.4, so it's hard to imagine. i don't mean any disrespect, if you've got nothing else to upgrade i'm pretty jealous though

I have a 9.4.4 audio system ( Denon X8500 / Martin Logan speakers ), a 3 meter viewing distance to a 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, and one row ( 14' wide ). No complaints - everybody gets a front row seat.

 

[tqlla]

I am OK with waiting a year. For now, next investment is the bigger and better screen - then a pair of 2 more ceiling/height speakers in order to go from 7.2.4 to 7.2.6

Just remember. Atmos is typically excluded from 1080p blu ray.

The conversion from 4k HDR to 1080p(2k) is terrible. So IMO, do NOT use 4k on your projector. I have a DLA-x55r, and i have tested this. The Blacks are not as deep, the colors are off when using a 4k source.

Sadly, it means no atmos, until I get a new projector.

 

[Webmonkey]

Just remember. Atmos is typically excluded from 1080p blu ray.

The conversion from 4k HDR to 1080p(2k) is terrible. So IMO, do NOT use 4k on your projector. I have a DLA-x55r, and i have tested this. The Blacks are not as deep, the colors are off when using a 4k source.

Sadly, it means no atmos, until I get a new projector.

??? I have plenty of Blu ray with Atmos and DTS:X - Netflix also has a lot of titles, both movies and series now.


I know that in the typical UHD+BD double packs, Atmos is often missing for the BD.




- But I AM getting a UHD player before I am getting the 4K JVC - the Panasonics should have a great tone mapping for JVC projectors...

 

[Webmonkey]

i agree, i do find letterbox/pillar less distracting and less bothersome than an image that just doesn't fill the screen.

my parents, i still don't understand why they pay for this, get their cable from a company called Shaw here. They duplicate their HD channels with an SD version, and in most cases charge extra for the HD version. they usually broadcast SD in 4:3 or HD in 16:9. When it's a natively 4:3 show you get a stretched 16:9 SD image, and a pillar-boxed HD version. When it's 16:9 content you get a proper full screen HD version, but stretched SD as they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. But every now and then, actually quite often, they broadcast an HD version of the SD channel, which means if it's a 16:9 format, they add letterbox bars to make it 4:3. So when you watch the HD channel, it's got letterbox bars and pillar bars, and you basically lose 20% of your tv's size. anyway, point is, even though i'm watching this on a tv, where those borders are near perfect black and virtually invisible, they are still annoying. maybe even just on principle, but it would just make me mad when i saw that.


PS, 7.2.6 with only 3m viewing distance? do you have more than row? i mean we all like the hobby, and enjoy the journey perhaps more than the destination, but unless you've already got the gear to drive a 7.2.6 set up that seems like a large financial investment for something that would have questionable benefits in a smaller space. maybe it's just because i have a TON of things i would like to spend money on upgrading before i would even think of adding more than 7.1.4, so it's hard to imagine. i don't mean any disrespect, if you've got nothing else to upgrade i'm pretty jealous though

I already have a Marantz 8805 powered by a Sunfire Cinema Grand 7x400w and a Nuforce Prime 8x200 in 4x400W mode for the height speakers. All I need it to add a pair of SVS Prime Elevation + cables and the 7.2.6 setup is complete

 

[fierce_gt]

I have a 9.4.4 audio system ( Denon X8500 / Martin Logan speakers ), a 3 meter viewing distance to a 128" diagonal 2.35:1 screen, and one row ( 14' wide ). No complaints - everybody gets a front row seat.

while your set up is still 'out there' in terms of number of channels, it looks like your room is wide enough to at least maybe justify the extra wides. my concern was more about the 6 overhead channels. That would make some sense to me if you were trying to ensure there were overheard speakers in front and behind two rows of seating(speaker, seat, speaker, seat, speaker) but with one row of seating, if that's the case, i'm wondering how much of an advantage it will be to have atmos speakers directly overhead. compound this with the fact it's almost double the cost for an avr or processor that can run those two extra channels, it just seemed like a low value expense. of course, i'm not here to tell anybody what they should do, just curious about the decision, and if it's an informed one, then i certainly won't question it again.

I already have a Marantz 8805 powered by a Sunfire Cinema Grand 7x400w and a Nuforce Prime 8x200 in 4x400W mode for the height speakers. All I need it to add a pair of SVS Prime Elevation + cables and the 7.2.6 setup is complete

fair enough