AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am posting this here rather than the 2:35 forum since I dont want everyone who sees the post to be a 2:35 fan.


Can someone help my understand the benefits of this screen setup?

I do understand that the screen size for scope movies can be larger since most people could fit a wider screen in their theater this way, but that is where the benefits stop, unless I am missing something?


With next gen projectors (JVC rs1, etc), isnt the contrast ratio high enough that black bars on 2:35 material would be gone anyway?


Isnt one of the goals to eliminate as many video processing steps as possible? Putting the "stretch" of the projector back in the signal could only degrade or soften the image.


Another set of optics in front of the lens cant help, either.


Are there other benefits that I am missing?


I dont want to bash it at all - I just want to understand, in case it is something I should be looking into.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
For me, getting a bigger (wider) picture is more important than getting rid of the "black bars". Even ignoring the improved contrast that you mentioned, horizontal masking could also eliminate them for older PJs.


Size does matter!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
CIH setup with a projector that has Vertical stretch will let you use the lumens wasted for black bars for wider image with the use of Anamorphic lens.


In my case I choose 2.35 screen mainly because it allows me to have larger screen than is possible with a 16X9 screen for my ceiling height and also lets me have the bottom of the screen higher from floor.


Most of all, it feels like a theater than a TV!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts
I first measured how wide my screen could be, and then bought a 16:9 screen in that width. My thought process was if I couldn't go any wider than my 2:35 movies would also be as wide as possible, just on a 16:9 screen. My ceiling height didn't limit my width for a 16:9 screen.


Because I watch a lot of football and other 16:9 source material, it didn't make much sense to go 2:35 and stretch the 16:9 material. When I see movies in 2:35, my eyes focus on the image and not the black bars.


IMO, you give up about 10% of the quality by watching a 2:35 movie on a 16:9 screen, but you get 100% of the quality on 16:9 material; opposed to losing 20% of the video quality resizing 16:9 material on a 2:35 screen. Since 80% of my viewing is 16:9, I went with a 16:9 screen. I'd say if 80% of your sources are 2:35 I'd go with 2:35.


EDIT: If your ceiling height limits the width of a 16:9 screen, then the real question is by how much. A couple of inches is no big deal, but if you're going 90" wide to get a 16:9 screen, but could have gone 110" wide for 2:35, then I'd lean heavily towards a 2:35 screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hifiaudio2 /forum/post/0


I am posting this here rather than the 2:35 forum since I dont want everyone who sees the post to be a 2:35 fan.


Can someone help my understand the benefits of this screen setup?

I do understand that the screen size for scope movies can be larger since most people could fit a wider screen in their theater this way, but that is where the benefits stop, unless I am missing something?

The benefit is simply this: 2.35 material will be wider/bigger than 1.77 material. That's it.


I disagree with your reasoning on not posting to the 2.35 forum. If you want to know the benefits of 2.35 constant height, it seems to me that the 2.35 forum is the best place to find out; 2.35 fans would be more than happy to tell you why it's so great.


Now if you want to hear why 2.35 is no good, then you definately should avoid the 2.35 forum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
I see a few reason for CIH.


1 Bigger screen if you can not fit a 16:9 screen of the same width as the 2.35:1 screen.


2 All the lumen and pixels in your projetor can be used to paint the 2.35 image. You need an extra lens and processing.


3 It is cool. It shows you are one step ahead of the average Joe which may have a projector at this point. Do not underestimate this reason.


A good screen can mask any 2.35 movies not to show grey bars but that can also be a costly solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Here is a little blurb off the Panamorph website that may help.

If you use a moveable anamorphic lens on a 16:9 projector, a horizontal stretch lens will produce a wider 2.35:1 image but with 25% lower pixel density and about 30% less light per unit area compared to the 16:9 image. Alternatively, a moveable vertical squeeze lens will produce a 2.35:1 image with about 20% higher brightness and 33% higher pixel density, but also shorter than the 16:9 image. Either choice is "good" depending on your own preferences. But if you want the same brightness per unit area and same pixel density for all formats, go with a permanently installed lens.


I think another question you might want to ask is why is this technology becoming so popular now? After all anamorphic lenses for digital projectors have been around for many years, they were even standard on some versions of the old NEC HT1100.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
I agree with John and SimpleTheater. I'd rather put up with the occasional 2.35:1 black bars than see my 16:9 material s t r e t c h e d. Either way, I'd bet that width is a more common room space-limiter than height. I know it is for me - I got the widest screen I could fit.


-tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
2:35 horizontal expansion anamorphic was a no brainer for me because my HT room depth

is only 13'5", so the widest 16:9 screen I could have was 80" with my Optoma HD81. With

the anamorphic lens, I have a 100" wide screen for 2:35 material. Cinemascope and Panavision anamorphic movies should be projected larger than 1:85 spherical movies, as

this was the original intention of the studios for theatrical presentation. To me, it's the difference between an oversized TV set and a theatrical experience. The 2:35 presentation

with dedicated 2:35 screen is more immersive and it is the first thing friends notice when they see my home theater, before the projector is even turned on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu /forum/post/0


The benefit is simply this: 2.35 material will be wider/bigger than 1.77 material. That's it.

Here's how I would say it. With a scope screen I can view widescreen movies on a larger screen for a more immersive experience. I could not simply mask down a 16:9 image to accomplish this becasue the 16:9 image would simply be too large.


Case in point, I have a 125 inch wide scope screen, resulting in a 94 inch wide 16:9 screen. I am very comfortable with each of these screen dimensions from my seating distance. If I did not have the scope screen, I might have increased my 16:9 screen size to about 100 inches but that would be the largest I could comfortably handle at a seating distance of about 1.5 X. So going with a scope screen produces a more optimal viewing experience for scope movies.


The ability to handle the additional width with a scope screen without being overwhelmed was a key for me to go this route because movies are my priority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
I guess if you watch a lot of 2:35 movies it might make sense for certain rooms.


However, for folks who watch a lot of HD material (sports, etc.) it doens't make as much sense. Additionally a lot of movies are in the 16:9 format.


I wonder what percent of moview I watched last year were in 2:35?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbacos /forum/post/0


I agree with John and SimpleTheater. I'd rather put up with the occasional 2.35:1 black bars than see my 16:9 material s t r e t c h e d. Either way, I'd bet that width is a more common room space-limiter than height. I know it is for me - I got the widest screen I could fit.


-tony

I've been thinking about going to 2.35 setup and from the way I understand it you do not watch 16x9 material stretched, you watch it with bars on the side. For me I currently have a 52x92 size 16x9 screen. Going to a 2.35 screen would be a 52x122 screen size if maintaining my current height. My 16x9 material would then be the same size, but my scope movies would be bigger. It might be a couple of years before I go this route though because I won't have the money to get the anamorphic lens for awhile and I want to get a quality one in order to minimize any potential distortion issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mit07 /forum/post/0


I guess if you watch a lot of 2:35 movies it might make sense for certain rooms.


However, for folks who watch a lot of HD material (sports, etc.) it doens't make as much sense. Additionally a lot of movies are in the 16:9 format.


I wonder what percent of moview I watched last year were in 2:35?

There's no question that there are a whole lot more films shot 1:85 spherical vs.

2:35 anamorphic or Super 35 matted for 2:35, but there is no downside to having

a constant image height system that makes 2:35 wider than 16:9 material. Some

feel that masking is worthwhile to crop the sides of the 2:35 screen for 16:9 viewing, I haven't found it necessary. The point is to be able to allow the biggest budget, most visually and aurally impressive Hollywood productions, the ones typically shot in anamorphic 2:35, to be seen in the way intended--bigger than (16:9)1:78 movies, not smaller.


When I watch 16:9, the anamorphic lens slides out of the way, and all of the 2:35 screen width isn't used. No big deal, no loss of quality. Of course, if movies aren't the primary viewing material or one doesn't like action movies, westerns, war movies, the biggest science fiction movies, or big budget musicals, then they probably don't have too many 2:35 DVD's in their collection anyway.


My laser disc, DVD and HD DVD collection is probably around 25-30% 2:35, so

that made an anamorphic CIH setup worthwhile for me. YMMV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,032 Posts
Watching 2.35 content on a 16:9 screen is the same as watching 16:9 content on a 4:3 screen.


A 2.35 screen allows you to watch most movies with the correct relative-sized aspect ratio. If you don't care if different aspect ratios are not sized correctly relative to one another, then get whatever screen you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
FYI crossposting is verboten (or so I thought). Someone wanna merge the threads?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocoloco /forum/post/0


Watching 2.35 content on a 16:9 screen is the same as watching 16:9 content on a 4:3 screen.


A 2.35 screen allows you to watch most movies with the correct relative-sized aspect ratio. If you don't care if different aspect ratios are not sized correctly relative to one another, then get whatever screen you want.

I think you're misunderstanding the 16:9 crowd (myself included). We watch all our 2:35 content in the 2:35 aspect ratio, not 16:9. We have black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.


In my home theater I can't go any wider, so even if I put in a 2:35 screen, the image projected would be the exact same size and aspect ratio as on my 16:9 screen. However, my 16:9 source material is significantly larger than it would be on a 2:35 screen.


IMO, if ceiling height doesn't limit your 16:9 screen width, than go with 16:9.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleTheater /forum/post/0


IMO, if ceiling height doesn't limit your 16:9 screen width, than go with 16:9.

Unless the screen size becomes too big relative to your seating distance. For example, I can comfortably sit 1.25 screen widths away from a scope screen but no closer than 1.5 screen widths from a 16:9 screen. A scope set-up allows you to optimize seating distance for both 16:9 and 2:35 whereas with a 16:9 screen, you can only optimize for 16:9.


If on the other hand, you have a width constraint that only allows you to optimize for 16:9, then as you suggest, I would go that route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,143 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder /forum/post/0


Unless the screen size becomes too big relative to your seating distance. For example, I can comfortably sit 1.25 screen widths away from a scope screen but no closer than 1.5 screen widths from a 16:9 screen. A scope set-up allows you to optimize seating distance for both 16:9 and 2:35 whereas with a 16:9 screen, you can only optimize for 16:9.


If on the other hand, you have a width constraint that only allows you to optimize for 16:9, then as you suggest, I would go that route.

Another great point. One thing I figured out when setting up my home theater is there is never a perfect solution. And to the OP, be wary of anyone saying their way is the best way - those people haven't done the hard work of understanding how many nuances there are in setting up a system.
 
1 - 20 of 69 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.
Top