AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
someone give him an atta' boy...he is a thinker...dont know if I would like it but it sure is different. Might want to patten it, call it the "T" screen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
What would be the advantage? I mean, what do you get out of the cut outs, other than maybe a reference point for adjusting the screen when going from 2.4:1 to 16:9? is that the idea?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,017 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ithunter /forum/post/18235846


someone give him an atta' boy...he is a thinker...dont know if i would like it but it sure is different. Might want to patten it, call it the "t" screen.

..patten?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 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..."
 

·
Registered
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,958 Posts

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts
Isn't this just a constant area setup? Move the 2.35:1 section down so it's centered, add top and side masking and that's what you've got, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
If done correctly you might fine a way to build a nested masking system so that they are either at the bottom or on the sides...or top and bottom and the sides...screen shape depending T or +.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDLIVE /forum/post/18242040


Isn't this just a constant area setup? Move the 2.35:1 section down so it's centered, add top and side masking and that's what you've got, no?

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDLIVE /forum/post/18242040


Isn't this just a constant area setup? Move the 2.35:1 section down so it's centered, add top and side masking and that's what you've got, no?

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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,438 Posts
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
Top