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).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.
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.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.
Space station - I like that!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?
We have a clue for naming that bad boy... based on interstellar name a 'Space Station'...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...
Ted,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...
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.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)...
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.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 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.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 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 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. The screen is one of the big three investments and I want to make the right decision for the long run.
So how did you find the added height from where you sit?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.
Well it's kinda trueSpace station - I like that!
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?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...
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.
Art - You mentioned a DT screen with 8 inch border... do you know who makes this?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.
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.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.
Warranty and after sales service would be a concern with a new company ....
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.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?
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.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...
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.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...