Would building a screen like this be dumb or awesome?
-
Now Available: Tech Talk Podcast with Scott Wilkinson, Episode 19 Click here for details.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
719 Posts
i think that's kinda dumb and awesome at the same time.
It's not dumb, nothing is dumb. You've taken the time to think of an idea, and that's how all things start.
I think they screen aesthetically looks terrible, however, practically, if you have a zoom function on the projector, i don't see why it wouldn't work! It looks like it would work doesn't it? You'd have to tilt the projector down in that picture as the top is level.
You could just have a white wall/screen material with no border, then you can project anything you like!
I think they screen aesthetically looks terrible, however, practically, if you have a zoom function on the projector, i don't see why it wouldn't work! It looks like it would work doesn't it? You'd have to tilt the projector down in that picture as the top is level.
You could just have a white wall/screen material with no border, then you can project anything you like!
Joined
·
3,770 Posts
So, do you want this for variable aspect ratios, or for subtitles (and zoom). I think skip it if you just want to have a tall 4:3 area (and just stick with a large 4:3 screen and some masking).
OTOH, if you want it for subtitles while zoomed, that's a fun idea, but I think I would prefer a removable extra screen. But it would probably be more economical to use a player that can move the subs.
So I guess I say "not for me, but maybe for someone else..."
OTOH, if you want it for subtitles while zoomed, that's a fun idea, but I think I would prefer a removable extra screen. But it would probably be more economical to use a player that can move the subs.
So I guess I say "not for me, but maybe for someone else..."
Joined
·
4,644 Posts
That's putting the "T" into HT.
Joined
·
781 Posts
This is very marginal gain (imho) for the effort.
Projecting a 16:9 image on a 2.4 screen will always result in wasted space to either side of the image. The only solution is to make it taller (as you've done). As you regain your lost width you add height until you end up projecting 2.4 material on a 16:9 screen instead of projecting 16:9 material on a 2.4 screen.
Although it's a neat idea, we're talking inches here. On a 120" wide screen you will have an 8.71" underhang and you'll regain 7.75" on either side.
Unless you like being unique, just go with either a 2.4 or 16:9 screen and mask the difference. It will look better.
Projecting a 16:9 image on a 2.4 screen will always result in wasted space to either side of the image. The only solution is to make it taller (as you've done). As you regain your lost width you add height until you end up projecting 2.4 material on a 16:9 screen instead of projecting 16:9 material on a 2.4 screen.
Although it's a neat idea, we're talking inches here. On a 120" wide screen you will have an 8.71" underhang and you'll regain 7.75" on either side.
Unless you like being unique, just go with either a 2.4 or 16:9 screen and mask the difference. It will look better.
I got to see a DIY screen similar to this about 18 months ago. The guy wanted to use a lens for Scope, but seemed to be moving towards CIA, and he had made a similar T section so that when he zoomed for CIA, he would have a taller 16:9 image. He also seemed to suggest that this would be good for STs, however when using a lens, any STs in the Scope film would be cut away during the scaling process anyway. As has been said, moving the lens and then zooming for 16:9 seems allot of effort for a few inches of height.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtousign /forum/post/18235405
![]()
I got to see a DIY screen similar to this about 18 months ago. The guy wanted to use a lens for Scope, but seemed to be moving towards CIA, and he had made a similar T section so that when he zoomed for CIA, he would have a taller 16:9 image. He also seemed to suggest that this would be good for STs, however when using a lens, any STs in the Scope film would be cut away during the scaling process anyway. As has been said, moving the lens and then zooming for 16:9 seems allot of effort for a few inches of height.
OK, I'm just going to say it....
I think it would "look" dumb in a room, unless you had masking to cover up the parts you're not using. But if you had that, you might as well go with a 16:9 or 2:1 screen since the extra would be covered up either way.
Now if you were trying to cram the biggest screen possible in your room and were going to cram subs in those notches or something, well then....
![]()
I think it would "look" dumb in a room, unless you had masking to cover up the parts you're not using. But if you had that, you might as well go with a 16:9 or 2:1 screen since the extra would be covered up either way.
Now if you were trying to cram the biggest screen possible in your room and were going to cram subs in those notches or something, well then....
Joined
·
131 Posts
That would also put the 16x9 area slightly above the 2.35 area, which makes setting up the AE4k (which is what the op uses) much easier.
I think a dual-screen setup would be much more practical for a CIA setup, unless the goal is to paint that type of screen on the wall as a cost savings measure.
That would also put the 16x9 area slightly above the 2.35 area, which makes setting up the AE4k (which is what the op uses) much easier.
I think a dual-screen setup would be much more practical for a CIA setup, unless the goal is to paint that type of screen on the wall as a cost savings measure.
On the AE4000 I can zoom and move the image. So I could actually zoom in to create a larger 2.35:1 image and save it in lens memory. This is what a multi-purpose screen would have to look like though.
I agree with everyone that it is ugly as sin. But the point of it is to maximize the size of the image for the viewing distance in both 16:9 and 2.35:1.
On the AE4000 I can zoom and move the image. So I could actually zoom in to create a larger 2.35:1 image and save it in lens memory. This is what a multi-purpose screen would have to look like though.
I agree with everyone that it is ugly as sin. But the point of it is to maximize the size of the image for the viewing distance in both 16:9 and 2.35:1.
I thought of making a screen like this, only upside down. The idea was to go higher for the middle 16:9 portion. It would work, but you'd have to play close attention to your screen material tensioning to make sure there isn't anything funky going on at those inverted corners.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
