[drumheller]

hey all .... im new so forgive me if this seems redundant. i am seroiusly looking at the z2 and have screen questions. i like to get ALL my facts straight before i purchase. .... anyway on to the question.


my current movie collection breaks out as follows:


1.33 = 26

1.78 = 18

1.85 = 119

2.35 = 170


scince i will be using the projector 90% for DVD movie watching, 10% computer gaming i was wondering what ratio you all have out there? is it wise to do a 2.35 with masking to accomadate the other ratios ? i think i have selected my screen material (2" thick foam board from owens corning - via HD-- ill glue it to the right size sand it and paint it )


let me know what you guys think. if all goes well i'll order my PJ in the next few weeks.


thanks in advance.

D.

 

[drumheller]

just a little bump ....help a new guy out ...plzzz

 

[GreggPenn]

There is no "right" answer for your question. Hence the lack of relies?


It is no more/less wise to go with a masked 2.35.1 screen verses any other choice. However, that is what I'm going to do -- because I want wide material to be wider.


The Z2 (you're considering) has a helpful feature for this type of setup. I believe it can be mounted level with the center of the screen. And, you can zoom up to 1.2 times closer. If you mount the PJ (distance away from screen) where a 2.35.1 picture matches your screen size at maximum zoom, you will simplify your setup somewhat. I think 1.85 movies would only require side masking. And, you may not care if you add top/bottom masking for the other ratios.


(For whatever reason, I don't think black bars above/below a picture is quite as annoying. Also, most of your material won't display black bars since they're the wider versions).


Another option is to mount your PJ on a rail to aid in its ability to zoom.


FYI: What you're shooting for is called a "constant height" setup -- in case you want to do a search for more info on this type of setup.

 

[akm3]

Z2 has 1.3 zoom.


I went with a 2.05:1 screen, but I'm weird.


If it was me, I'd save yourself headache and go for 16x9. It is the easiest to implement and was CHOSEN because it is the best compromise between 2.35:1, 1.85:1, and 4:3.


Plus, it is the defacto standard for HDTV.


The Z2 falls JUST short of full enough zoom for constant height, so you can take a compromise approach like I did, or just stick with 16x9.


-Allen

 

[Kevin Korom]

Going 16x9 is the simplest solution, but having a 2.35 screen (fixed height) just looks so much better, IMO. If you watch a lot of scope movies, you should at least look at the feasability of doing this. A search under "fixed height" should pull up some good discussions on this.

 

[HorrorScope]

In your case I would do a 16:9 screen. Smart-Stretch 4:3 material to fit into 16:9 and then all you have left to deal with is the 2.35.


For 2.35 I personally use the zoom feature of the DVD software to blow the picture up to fill the screen or settle for the black bars. This zoom is more controversial imo since you lose stuff on the edges and by zooming on software you lose a bit of quality. But doing this everything and I really do mean everything from DVD's to TV to PC Games fits fully on a 16:9 frame which is masked nicely. It looks professional.

 

[doubleJ]

I'm using 1.78:1. That's only because of wall size and ease of use. There were readily available resolutions for powerstrip and my x1. I would prefer 2:1 or 1.85:1, but I didn't see any resolutions and I didn't want the overlay onto the black borders to remove my start bar and such.

JJ

 

[Steve Scherrer]

I have a parkland plastics screen that I initially framed with black velvet. Then I put a 5-6 inch strip of wood (covered in black velvet) across the top of the screen, and a 5-6 inch strip of wood (also covered in black velvet) across the bottom. However, on the bottom, I hinged the strip of wood so that I can flip it between (roughly) 2.35:1 and 1.78:1, depending on the aspect ratio of the movie. Fairly easy way to manually mask my screen (and cheap).

 

[thegratingone]

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Korom Going 16x9 is the simplest solution, but having a 2.35 screen (fixed height) just looks so much better, IMO. If you watch a lot of scope movies, you should at least look at the feasability of doing this. A search under "fixed height" should pull up some good discussions on this.

Sorry for my ignorance, and I'm going to search myself, but what's better about "fixed height" if you have 4-way masking with a 16:9 screen? You still can have the widest masked scope-sized 2.35 screen when appropriate. What's the advantage? Thanks.

 

[trpltongue]

If you have a 16:9 screen, 16:9 movies will be just as wide as 2.35 movies, which is not how they were meant to be seen. Unless you are masking your 16:9 movies to something smaller with all 4 masks.


A 2.35 screen keeps the height constant so only horizontal masking is required (convenient) and also keeps all other formats narrower than 2.35:1 wich is how they were meant to be seen.

 

[RonAuger]

Quote:

Originally posted by thegratingone Sorry for my ignorance, and I'm going to search myself, but what's better about "fixed height" if you have 4-way masking with a 16:9 screen?

The advantage is not having to deal with the complexity and expense of 4-way masking. Also, as someone else noted, since your seating distance is fixed a 2.35 movie doesn't get wider than a 1.85 movie. They stay the same width and you just lose height.

Quote:

Originally posted by GreggPenn If you mount the PJ (distance away from screen) where a 2.35.1 picture matches your screen size at maximum zoom, you will simplify your setup somewhat. I think 1.85 movies would only require side masking. And, you may not care if you add top/bottom masking for the other ratios.

GreggPenn,

Assuming you are talking about a 2.35 screen here, you would not need top/bottom masking -- all other ratios would be less wide and require only side masking (not counting the odd 2.55 ratio, and 2.4 is so close to be immaterial)


My recommendation for drumheller -- 2.35 or 1.78 (assuming the Z2 is 1.78 native). Your decision may have to do with where your constraints are, on height or width (assuming you're trying to go as large as you can)


FWIW mine is 1.78

 

[RonAuger]

For me, since my primary viewing is HDTV, it was a no-brainer to go 1.78 screen (also the native ratio of the Sharp Z10k). When I looked at my DVD distribution, out of 523 titles, it breaks down the following way:

• 2.35 29%
• 1.85 39% (includes 1.78)
• 1.33 25%
• other 7%

Looking at this, a 16x9 screen matches the majority of my DVDs -- made it a double no-brainer!