AVS Forum banner

1481 - 1500 of 2242 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Hi Rob,

How big is your frame box that holds your masking on your 19'? Isn't it about an additional 20" all the way around??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
I wanted, and was going to buy a 4-way, but I'm going to end up doing a custom native SSE 2:37 that is 175"w, and use the CIH approach due to my 9" ceiling height instead. This will provide a FOV of 40-degrees for 16:9, and 52-degrees for 2:37 at 15' SD. It also puts you right at the 1/3 screen height at the seating area which is probably as important as anything. If one wants to follow the THX specs of 2.4 x screen height, this is right on the money. Albeit I'm not necessarily going by this... Taped up, it just looks/feels right. And if its too big I can easily move back a foot to 16' SD. Also, Seymour makes that cool magnetic masking panel that you can manually attach on the screen when you're zoomed into 16:9, will work fine for my needs. Put them on when you need them, take them off when you're finished:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
20 foot wide room - that's quite large - mine is 18 and with he proscenium where my front wide speakers are maker the front with even smaller (unless I do major surgery).
The only advise I have is to keeping in mind Immersive Audio (which I understand is part of your upgrade plan) because it is best to sit in the middle of the room to get the best audio. I love the back row and used it for all these years but after getting ATMOS I moved to the front row (which I don't prefer as much).
They have given me a press of a button change in calibration of audio to move back and forth in the rows but the first row which is in the middle of the room is the real deal and the 2nd a compromise.
Or you can get the immersive audio installed according to your sitting preference.
This is such an interesting discussion... You might remember when I visited you guys 8 years ago, we talked a lot about where to sit. Originally, I was going to go with a 14' screen, but then we found we had room for a 16' screen (with 4-way masking, I could shrink the image to 14' if needed). A 14' screen at a 19' viewing distance (from the 2nd row) would put the ratio at 1.35, just about what I wanted (farther away than what Art likes).

So I figured if 16' was too large, I could just shrink the image.

But because the width of my theater is about 25' (wider if you include the space behind the fabric for acoustic treatments), we found we could go as wide as 19' for the screen. That's a 1.0 to 1.0 ratio to the screen from the 2nd row, too close for me. It turns out that the 3rd row would become the ideal place to sit for my preferences. A 19' screen from the 3rd row yields a 1.35 ratio, which is my ideal.

However, Keith had rightfully designed the 2nd row center as the money spot (for sound), because that's the center of the room. So what to do?

When the theater was finished, I started sitting in the 3rd row most of the time. But over time, I tried the 2nd row more & more. I knew the sound was ideally dialed in for the 2nd row so I wanted to try to see if I could stand sitting that close. Turns out, it's totally fine for most films. Granted, it's a different film experience from watching in the 3rd row - but at least I have a choice. And like you, I have a Trinnov setting that optimizes the sound for whichever row I'm sitting in. And it's not like the sound in the 3rd is terribly compromised, so sitting in the 3rd row is also fine. (That's where Keith's expertise really shines through - there's really no bad seat in the entire room).

I find I never shrink the image (like I thought I would). There's something about that 19' screen in relationship to the size of the room - it's pretty awesome.

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
Discussion Starter #1,486
afaik no 4k projektor has an anamorphic stretch function except Sony VW1100 with it's special 1.25 setting for the ISCO Cinema DLP lense.
The Sony 5000ES projector can accept both the 1.25 anamorphic lens and a standard 1.33 anamorphic lens. This is adjustable in the menu.

But I still don't recommend using one. But it gives you the option to use either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Hi Rob, thanks for your reply.

I'd already seen your build - the first construction pic I saw for some reason didn't seem to show the scale - until I saw some guys working in it! That's no theatre, thats a space station!! :)

I read your reasoning behind your choice and fully understand why you have gone that way, but I was more curious about the other guys here - it just seemed that suddenly there's a mass exodus to 2:1 and I was wondering what the reasoning was. Looking at Chris's room for example, and with 4K I can understand the change.

Do you watch all 16:9 content taller than scope, or just those movies that you feel should be taller?

Cheers

Gary
Space station - I like that!

I actually have a preset for 16:9 films on my Crestron remote that raises & lowers the masking for that aspect ratio, so yes I watch all 1.85 & 1.33 films taller. Since I have 3 rows, I can choose what kind of experience I want. When we designed my theater, I wanted the ultimate in flexibility - to have the ability to shrink an image if the transfer was crappy, or to shrink it if there was a lot of headache inducing handheld work, but truthfully I find I never shrink the image...

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,361 Posts
Space station - I like that!

I actually have a preset for 16:9 films on my Crestron remote that raises & lowers the masking for that aspect ratio, so yes I watch all 1.85 & 1.33 films taller. Since I have 3 rows, I can choose what kind of experience I want. When we designed my theater, I wanted the ultimate in flexibility - to have the ability to shrink an image if the transfer was crappy, or to shrink it if there was a lot of headache inducing handheld work, but truthfully I find I never shrink the image...

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html
We have a clue for naming that bad boy... based on interstellar name a 'Space Station'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
You really need a 10' ceiling at least to do a 170"w, 2.07 AR, 4-way masking screen this big. Your screen will end up too close to the floor otherwise. Plus remember, the Stewart Director's Choice 4-way has a surround box that is 10" additional on all sides (holds the masking). If it gets wider than 170", that box is probably more like 15 or 20" additional on all sides (Rob chime in please). And the sucker will weigh in excess of 500#'s! You best have a way figured out to get the darn thing in your house, and then better have a big place to build after, plus have some serious help getting it in place once built!

Seymour's TAM-4 surround box is much smaller. Its about an additional 4" all the way around, weighs much less, probably 250#'s at most. BUT it won't mask down to 4:3 like the Stewart will, only goes down to 16:9 if that matters...
Ted,

Sides are 20" and vertically the frame is 17.5" high. Originally it was spec's at 750lbs, but ended up being 615lbs!

Here are some pics showing what it took to get this beast into the room. We had to hoist it up using scaffolding through a window. We also changed a doorway so that once we got it in the house, it was a straight shot into the theater. No way was this thing going up a staircase! (sorry, don't mean to hijack the 5000 thread)...

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html













 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Hi Gary,

ccool96 explained it perfectly. The argument for CIH masking is that scope films should have the most impact, more impact than films shot in 1.85 & 1.33. But I argue that films like "Gone With the Wind" (1.33) and "Jurassic Park" (1.85) were meant to be as have as much impact as "Lawrence of Arabia" - they just use different canvases, some out of necessity (1.33 was the only aspect ratio available at the time of "Gone with the Wind") and some out of choice (Spielberg wanted to use 1.85 for the height of the dinosaurs).

When I designed my theater, I made sure I had enough width so that scope films were huge. I have a 19' screen. But I also made sure I had extra height (13' floor to finished ceiling) so I could expand 1.33 & 1.85 films vertically. That meant 4-way masking was mandatory. I also did not want to use an Isco because as a cinematographer, I hate the idea of putting another piece of glass in front of the pj. (Granted I haven't seen the Isco that W. Mayer is using). Still, every time I saw a system with an anamorphic lens, I didn't like what it did to the perceived contrast. So I zoom.


Check out my theater build - there are some pretty good pictures. (I will add more soon)...

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html
The 1.25x lens is the only lens in my experience that results in an image that is most perfectly faithful to what's coming out of the PJ lens - it's shockingly good especially after trying the 1.33x lens (and I have both the 1.25x and the 1.33x) - the only reason I was using the 1.25x was to generate a 14-ft wide image in a TR-constrained room. Every other lens pales in comparison. But now, I'm going for the ST lens option of the 5000ES and planning to ditch the 1.25x lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
338 Posts
Oh my! That's incredible... Yes you don't want to order this thing, get it there, and not have a plan! Reminds me of having to hoist my 16' w, 5000# Neve console up into the second story. We had to design doors into side of the house, and in to the control room to facilitate. Crazy!

Thanks for posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
Exactly ! The light output increase expected didn't materialize either. All I saw was decreased sharpness decreased fL and what appeared to be a loss of ANSI contrast although no measurements were done to prove it.
I've still got my lens, but I can't see me using it for 4k tbh. I'm in the middle of building my (bijou shoebox) room so I'll find out when it comes to getting the pj. Although I think I'm going to come to the same conclusion, I like to see with my own eyes because I'm just curious.

Something just occured to me regarding laser pjs and your perception of contrast loss with the ISCO - if you didn't see that with previous lamp based pjs, it reminded me that I'd read that a laser doesn't need to focus and can produce a perfect image on any surface at any distance without having to focus, so I wonder if that has something to do with why the lens seemed to not work that well with the Sony, especially with contrast? Darin probably knows the answer already but do you think that may have had something to do with that?

Gary, I've personally been one who believed that the whole concept of scope was that it was designed as a way to differentiate theaters from TV and it achieved that by making the projected image wider and thus more impactful. I still believe that is the case. The composition of films like Lawrence of Arabia demonstrate this with grand vistas that utilize the entire width in composition not just wider with everything going on in the center. .
I know what you mean. Growing up with scope theatres and how that was presented, and then doing that at home is an amazing experience IMHO.

I don't know about the other (besides Rob)but my reason for considering a 2.0:1 is that it allows one to have a much larger image for many films and take advantage of the unused chip area and still get essentially the same light from the screen. I've not decided yet on the screen but it is in the mix.

Based on my age I have to start thinking about how many more times I will change my room so much. After all these years I don't see me getting rid of it or not using it ; I go in there more than I ever have. I just need to consider this renovation as something of a ten year plan.:eek: The screen is one of the big three investments and I want to make the right decision for the long run.
I can't see myself never enjoying movies either - I still watch the same movies that I watched many years ago (Laurence is one of them) as well as the new ones, so if the old ones still keep me watching, I can't see that changing either. I recently took early retirement and have had a hiatus from watching movies (new house) so I can imagine myself living in the theatre for a good few years to catch up on all the movies I missed on the big screen (well, big to me lol).

I'm considering a 15' - 16' wide scope also but , of course, this will reduce the reflected light. I'm comfortable that brighter projectors with high sequential contrast are still coming. There is definitely something compelling about 35fL ! I was doing some tests where I took the lumagen out of the loop and full white screen projected the added height at the same width and one could see in my room what that would look like. Interesting for sure.


Anyway, as you can see it isn't like a light bulb came on and constant width answered my prayers.


Art
So how did you find the added height from where you sit?

I think his hobby just lends itself to upgraditus as the technology and quality improves, so it's certainly hard to stand still.

Cheers!

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
Space station - I like that!
Well it's kinda true :)

As someone else said, yours isn't a home theatre, it's a real theatre (but so much better)!

I actually have a preset for 16:9 films on my Crestron remote that raises & lowers the masking for that aspect ratio, so yes I watch all 1.85 & 1.33 films taller. Since I have 3 rows, I can choose what kind of experience I want. When we designed my theater, I wanted the ultimate in flexibility - to have the ability to shrink an image if the transfer was crappy, or to shrink it if there was a lot of headache inducing handheld work, but truthfully I find I never shrink the image...

-Rob
Thanks for the info. Do you find you watch the taller stuff from the second row or do you stay in the front row most of the time? I can't remember if it was in your build thread, but how far from the screen are your rows of seating?

Cheers.

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,693 Posts
So how did you find the added height from where you sit?

I think his hobby just lends itself to upgraditus as the technology and quality improves, so it's certainly hard to stand still.

Cheers!

Gary

More IMAX like in feeling. Just fills the entire field of view, impressive .


Yea ,the hobby does that. However, except for the new projector and Kscape gear I've not changed the theater in over ten years.


Art
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,361 Posts
More IMAX like in feeling. Just fills the entire field of view, impressive .


Yea ,the hobby does that. However, except for the new projector and Kscape gear I've not changed the theater in over ten years.


Art
Art - You mentioned a DT screen with 8 inch border... do you know who makes this?

I have received a Stewart 14 foot Cinecurve proposal - the screen is 34000 dollars and I am not sure if I am getting the value by getting another curved screen? I rather spend the money and go constant height and use a flat screen. Will appreciate your comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,693 Posts
Art - You mentioned a DT screen with 8 inch border... do you know who makes this?

I have received a Stewart 14 foot Cinecurve proposal - the screen is 34000 dollars and I am not sure if I am getting the value by getting another curved screen? I rather spend the money and go constant height and use a flat screen. Will appreciate your comments.
Some good questions on this thread that raise lots of points. I have been in the high end cinema business for over a decade now and these are the sort of questions which led me to start a new screen company this year. Our company is called DT Screens and website etc will be up before the CEDIA expo. We have quite a few reference installs already though and are staring to push in the market.

Our strategy is to focus firmly on the high end market where people are looking for a premium solution rather than just one element such as the fabric. There has been a lot of development in the fabrics recently but little improvement in the mechanics, especially the masking control.

I have done a large amount of testing across all brands (most of whom I have even worked with) but am always happy to receive and test samples of AT screens. It is time that there was a bit more rational discussion about this which I will go in to below.

With all that background, let me answer a few of the questions – in no particular order!

- Availability in Europe?

DT Screens are made in the UK with distribution already in place for USA and several other nations.

- Custom sizes and screen ratio's (I might opt for 2.40:1)

All our screens are bespoke built which means you can have whatever you want. We price based on the screen width and in 30cm “bands” so this easy to get pricing for. For technical reasons we do not offer pricing on screens over 5.1m wide without getting a lot more information about the install. We can do up to 7m but this needs planning – especially if it is multiway masking.

- Gain of the screen

Our AT Ref fabric is 0.93 gain when measured installed over the black backing. It is significantly brighter, whiter and more matte than other lauded fabrics sold as 1.0 gain. I have not measured a non optical AT surface that gets to 1.0 gain in reality. I will address below why this is virtually impossible without introducing significant artefacts.

- Light loss through the screen (how much?)

Our surface has an open area of almost 40% when under tension. Without black backing the light streams through this just as you would expect! Good black backing cuts out all light transfer though and helps to give an excellent contrast to the image. I haven’t come up with a good way to measure this effect yet but the contrast benefit is clear.

If you are in the UK, the new issue of Home Cinema Choice magazine features an article on the Meridian Reference Cinema which has a 4.3m DT Screens Dynamic-2S masking screen. The speakers behind the screen (DSP8000 of course) are finished in a high gloss red! This does not impact the image in any way.

- Sensitivity to moiré (which seating distance?)

Inherently a non issue with fabric screens – still an issue with micro perf screens.

- Acoustic transparency quality of the screen (how much EQing is needed? How many dB's are we losing in which frequency domains?)

All screen manufacturers love to wax lyrical on this point. My testing however suggests that all of the main players do a pretty good job of this. Our AT Ref fabric + black backing introduces a loss of 1dB below 1k then rises linearly to around -3dB at 20k. A simple treble control can EQ that and would work similarly well with all the others I have tested. For what it is worth this is the lowest I have measured but only by a tiny amount.

The largest drop I have measured is 5dB at 20k on a product advertised at “linear 1dB attenuation” which of course ignores the black backing. I don’t really understand the point of lying about this when the real performance is great anyway!

- Accuracy of the masking


This is a big weakness with most solutions currently on the market. Our custom designed and built solution knows the location of the masking bars which makes it the only system on the market that can deliver real accuracy over the lifetime of the unit. Anything that uses a time only solution or the better but still not ideal encoders on the rollers can’t promise this.

- Masking steering (automation possibilities)

Again our bespoke solution allows us to deliver a much richer user experience than others. All of the other systems that I have tested use presets to control the masking. We can do this of course but we can also allow direct aspect commands. In other words you can tell the screen to go to aspect x.xx and it will do it.

- Width of the frame (left/right) of the screen (the smaller the better!)

Smaller the better indeed but simple physics also plays a huge part. Masking screens typically use a roller for each mask. The weight of these is quite surprising as is the amount of tension applied by the mask. The thinner the roller, the smaller the frame can be but the more it will sag when used for top and bottom masking elements. This sag makes the mask fabric ripple which does not look good.

We have spent a long time working with industrial tube manufacturers to get the stiffest tubes we can but the diameter is still relatively large. Our masking frame is in two parts, 160mm wide at the front and 40mm wide at the back. This design means that on the two way units we have an identical appearance on all four edges of the screen when masks are fully open. Something we feel strongly about.

- Quality of the masking (acoustic transparency, how black does it look?, can the screen be closed entirely (ok, just a gimmick)))

I am biased of course but I think we came up with the best possible compromise. The masks are made of the same material of the black backing which has an extremely low insertion loss and naturally matte finish. The mask bars are finished in the same velvet as the rest of the frame.

We do not offer a classical full close solution. In my opinion they don’t look great and often have issues getting a nice tidy close. It is so annoying seeing the white of the screen peaking out the gap! We solve this with an additional panel that drop from the top and covers the surface completely and seamlessly. This can be plain black (boring) or more impressively, a custom art work panel. This adds a lot of cool factor to the room with the lights on.




Neil Davidson - Visit my facebook page




ceenhad is offline Report Post
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,361 Posts
Neil Davidson - Visit my facebook page

ceenhad is offline Report Post
Warranty and after sales service would be a concern with a new company ....

But thanks very much for the lead.... I am seriously thinking of getting a 14 foot or bigger (I think depending on the screen make (How wide the frame is) I might be able to go upto 15 feet and will do constant height...

Fun Fun...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
416 Posts
Do you find you watch the taller stuff from the second row or do you stay in the front row most of the time? I can't remember if it was in your build thread, but how far from the screen are your rows of seating?
Good question! I actually have 3 rows. The first row is _way_ too close, but I included that row to give the feeling of a real theater (and we have had people populate those seats when needed). I find I watch the taller movies from the 3rd row, because the height changes the angle of view and it's a little more comfortable from the last row.

Seating distances from screen:

Front row: 13' 8"
Middle row: 19'
Back row: 25'

-Rob

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-dedicated-theater-design-construction/2523385-rob-hahn-theater-build.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/2519561-evening-rob-hahn.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/2544881-ht-month-hahn-theater.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
936 Posts
Seymour's TAM-4 surround box is much smaller. Its about an additional 4" all the way around, weighs much less, probably 250#'s at most. BUT it won't mask down to 4:3 like the Stewart will, only goes down to 16:9 if that matters...
We can do 4:3 in smaller screens, but as a standard you're correct. We have a 25' wide TAM screen in build, so we'll be implementing some new tricks that may expand our ability to mask narrower.

Cheers,
Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
Warranty and after sales service would be a concern with a new company ....

But thanks very much for the lead.... I am seriously thinking of getting a 14 foot or bigger (I think depending on the screen make (How wide the frame is) I might be able to go upto 15 feet and will do constant height...

Fun Fun...
Neil Davidson is from Genesis Technologies and has been in the high end av business for quite sometime, so should be OK IMHO. He posts here as ceenhad if that's any help. Not that that will change anything, but thought it may help if you knew more about him.

Gary
 
1481 - 1500 of 2242 Posts
Top