# 2:35 screen vs 16x9



## nflguy

My media room is 12' wide and 17' long


The projector will likely be mounted approximately 13-14' back from the screen wall


I'm currently trying to decide between getting a 16x9 120" screen or a 2:35 screen


Note: I plan to watch mostly bluray movies in the media room with the occasional movie or football game on directv.


My concern with a 2:35 screen is that the only one I have ever seen in person appeared to be much shorter in height then the 16x9 screens.


Is it possible for a 2:35 screen to display 16x9 content and have the same height as you would get on a 120" 16x9 screen?


----------



## nflguy

I had a home theater company come by the house and they suggested I use a Sony Projector "VP" for $4,000 plus a special lens for the 2:35 screen for an additional $3,000. They will send me a detailed quote with model numbers etc Tommorow.


Are those typical prices?.


----------



## biliam1982

What projector do you have or are planning on getting?


Not sure what a Sony Projector "VP" is. Video processor?


You absolutely can have a 120" 16:9 image w/ a 2.35:1 screen.


You you may not be understanding is the aspect ratio of it.


A 2.35:1 screen is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. A 1.78:1 (16:9) is 1.78 times wider than it is tall.


The 2.35:1 screen is 33% wider than a 16:9 screen of equivalent height.


To get a 120" 16:9 image, you would need a 2.35:1 screen size of about 139" wide. Both would be about 59' tall.


The special lens they are referring to is an Anamorphic Lens. It stretches the image of the projector by 33% to fit the width of the screen.


I would suggest going to Panamorph.com and look at their videos hey have to easily explains how it all works.


Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio so it could benefit you to go w/ that type of screen.


Give AVS a call to discuss prices to see if that company is being reasonable or not. AVS often has the best pricing and well reputed customer service.


----------



## nflguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23536266
> 
> 
> What projector do you have or are planning on getting?
> 
> 
> Not sure what a Sony Projector "VP" is. Video processor?
> 
> 
> You absolutely can have a 120" 16:9 image w/ a 2.35:1 screen.
> 
> 
> You you may not be understanding is the aspect ratio of it.
> 
> 
> A 2.35:1 screen is 2.35 times wider than it is tall. A 1.78:1 (16:9) is 1.78 times wider than it is tall.
> 
> 
> The 2.35:1 screen is 33% wider than a 16:9 screen of equivalent height.
> 
> 
> To get a 120" 16:9 image, you would need a 2.35:1 screen size of about 139" wide. Both would be about 59' tall.
> 
> 
> The special lens they are referring to is an Anamorphic Lens. It stretches the image of the projector by 33% to fit the width of the screen.
> 
> 
> I would suggest going to Panamorph.com and look at their videos hey have to easily explains how it all works.
> 
> 
> Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio so it could benefit you to go w/ that type of screen.
> 
> 
> Give AVS a call to discuss prices to see if that company is being reasonable or not. AVS often has the best pricing and well reputed customer service.



AVS does home theater installs? I thought it was just a message board.


----------



## biliam1982

Don't think they do installs but do sell a lot at great prices.

http://avscience.com/contact-us/


----------



## stanger89

Depending on where you are, I think they do do installs.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biliam1982*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23536266
> 
> 
> Also, since you plan to watch mostly movies, most are in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio



I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.


Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

2.35 movies should be the same height but wider than 16:9 screens - that's the design, not the other way round. A 16:9 screen or TV that shows 2.35 movies as the same width and less height is the wrong way to present 2.35 films - they should be more immersive, not less than the smaller 16:9 ratio.


Screen size is only relative to your seating distance, so if you go for a 2.35 screen, make sure that the 16:9 image is as big as you want it to be from where you will be sitting - if you relate the screen height to a seating distance ratio, then something like a 3:1 ratio is a good start. With good HD material, THX suggest a 2.4 x screen height to seating distance ratio for best immersion without sacrificing image quality. I used to sit at 3 x the screen height when I had a 720 pj with anamorphic lens and watched mostly DVD material back then. Now with HD and Blu Ray, sitting closer is not a problem for most people.


If you get the 16:9 part right, then 2.35 is the same height and 33% wider and more immersive, just as designed.


Gary


----------



## biliam1982




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23537734
> 
> 
> I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.
> 
> 
> Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).



Yes, poor choice of words on my part. I should have said a lot of movies are in that format.


I would love to see the statistics on that though. I've searched but couldn't find much recent data on it.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

In one respect it's almost irrelevant which ratios are predominant, because if you set up your (2.35) screen size and seating distance correctly, you'll be seeing any format at the optimum size.


With 15 degrees being the recommended limitation for the vertical viewing angle, and we have 120 degrees horizontal binocular vision (and 60 degrees being the SMPTE recommended minimum viewing distance or 2xSH), the screen height should always be what dictates the size and seating distance, unless the room constraints dictate something different or if personal preference wants something else, but the deign has been around for a long time now.


If you go back to the early 50s when 4:3 screens were being replaced with CinemScope ones, the tech spec was that the screen should be the same height and twice the width of the existing screen (and mods to the auditorium were often required). By doing that, regardless of where your preferred seat was in the theatre, the image would be just as tall as before, but now more immersive due to the extra width of Scope presentations - just as designed.


If you essentially want a big tv then 16:9 is the way to go. It's technically a whole lot easier to implement (pretty much point and shoot), but of course any wider ratio movies will be shown smaller instead of wider.


Gary


----------



## nflguy

I have heard that a 16x9 screen and a 2:35 should have the same height. However, when i looked at the dimensions of 16x9 screens vs 2:35 (on a few aites selling the screens) and the 16x9 screens are usually taller.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

You might find they do even taller 4:3 screens but that doesn't mean we should by them... You'll probably find they sell more 16:9 screens because that is the most common option. 2.35 is probably only 5% of the market and other factors will determine what sizes they stock. It doesn't set a technical precedent.


How would you feel if you had a 4:3 TV at home right now? Would you be happy that the wider ratios such as 1.85 and 2.35 would be shown increasingly smaller? Why did you change to a 16:9 tv?


If you want a Constant Image Height system just like the original design, then the height is the factor you work too. If you want to compromise your 2.35 presentations, then go for a 16:9 screen. It's your home, so do what suits you.


Gary


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nflguy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23539614
> 
> 
> I have heard that a 16x9 screen and a 2:35 should have the same height. However, when i looked at the dimensions of 16x9 screens vs 2:35 (on a few aites selling the screens) and the 16x9 screens are usually taller.



How are you comparing these? What size 16:9 screen compared to what size 2.35:1 screen? If you're looking at two screens with the same diagonal measurement, of course the one in 2.35:1 shape will be shorter than the one in 16:9 shape. That's how math works.


For example, for a good round number, let's look at a 16:9 screen with a 100" diagonal. That's 87.2" wide by 49" high. A comparable 2.35:1 screen would be 115.15" wide by 49" high, for a diagonal of 125".


Most of the major screen manufacturers will cut a screen to whatever size you want.


----------



## CAVX

A 120" [dia] 16:9 screen should be the same height as a 150" [dia] Scope screen.


----------



## Bardia

This will help you:

www.displaywars.com


----------



## StevenC56

We have a 105" wide scope screen in our 12' wide room. That's right at 114" diag. 16/9 viewing is right at 91" diag. Height for both 44.6". It works well for us-The only thing I would like to add is side masking for non-scope material. The screen is a motorized Seymour Center Stage XD, and they are working on a retofit masking system that I'll be very interested in. Eye to screen from our primary seating area is 12'. The room is a dedicated HT and we watch mostly movies in it. Although 1.85 movies are OK, 2.35 movies are the big draw. When we're figuring out what movie to watch, I'm always a bit disappointed when the movie choice is not in scope.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23537734
> 
> 
> I feel the need to correct it every time someone posts something like this.
> 
> 
> Each year, about half the movies produced are 2.35:1 and the other half are 1.85:1. It has been this way for decades, and has shown no evidence of changing. Whether you personally tend to see more movies of one aspect ratio or the other will depend on your viewing habits and taste in movies (i.e. most big blockbuster action and sci-fi flicks are 2.35:1, while most comedies and indie dramas are 1.85:1).



It's also fair to say that most of the most popular movies of all time are 2.35:1. Of the top 100 grossing movies of all time, 76 of them are 2.35:1.


----------



## CAVX

We probably should say Scope or flat and not specifically list a Scope film as exactly 2.35:1. I do think these numbers confuse some people many Scope films have been 2.40:1 or 2.39:1.


Out of the last 10 films I have seen at the cinema, 8 were Scope and only 2 (AVENGERS and DESPICABLE ME 2) were flat (1.85:1), yet it is amazing that people still think that cinema will just change its shape to be more like "their TV". Nothing could be further from the truth as Scope is what keeps cinema different from "their TV" and why it was introduced in the first place.


With more and more MTV music clips and even some adds now being presented as letterbox on a 16:9 TV, I do believe there is a new TV shape to come.


----------



## Bardia

2:35:1 is the only way to go! I have a 120" screen and 1:85:1 movies are 95" diagonal in it. It doesn't make sense to get a 16:9 screen and have the bars on top and bottom. No way!


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23542639
> 
> 
> We probably should say Scope or flat and not specifically list a Scope film as exactly 2.35:1. I do think these numbers confuse some people many Scope films have been 2.40:1 or 2.39:1.



That's a tough one. Like Josh Z here on this board, I try to clarify the issue whenever I can (2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1, etc). However, we have found in our dealings with the industry and with the general population that 2.35:1 is the term most commonly understood, or at least the one a person is most likely to be familiar with. That said, it's still only a tiny fraction of people that understand what ANY of those terms mean (Scope, Flat, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc). This is why Panamorph has been advocating the use of the term "UltraWide" to refer to any film with an aspect ratio 2.0 or greater.


I should have taken my own advice above...


----------



## DL4567




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nflguy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23535815
> 
> 
> My media room is 12' wide
> 
> 
> I'm currently trying to decide between getting a 16x9 120" screen or a 2:35 screen
> 
> 
> Note: I plan to watch mostly bluray movies in the media room with the occasional movie or football game on directv.
> 
> 
> Is it possible for a 2:35 screen to display 16x9 content and have the same height as you would get on a 120" 16x9 screen?



If you are watching mostly movies, this is a no-brainer. Get a 2.35 screen. As has been said, if you want a 120" diagonal image for 16x9, you'd need a 150" diagonal 2.35 screen. That is 11.5 ft wide, plus the frame, so it might be a tight fit in a 12ft wide room, but do-able. There just wouldn't be room for speakers on the sides. You'd have to put them below the screen or behind an acoustically transparent screen.


With a throw distance of 13-14 ft, you'd need an anamorphic lens. I'm pretty sure no projector could zoom out (without an anamorphic lens) to do 2.35 that wide at that distance. But with a lens it would work.


Again, if movies are your thing, go for the 2.35 screen. Even if you have to go a little smaller than 150" to fit your room, scope movies will still be much bigger than they'd be on a 120" 16x9 screen. And yes, most "popular" movies are scope.


----------



## Bardia




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DL4567*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23544402
> 
> 
> If you are watching mostly movies, this is a no-brainer. Get a 2.35 screen. As has been said, if you want a 120" diagonal image for 16x9, you'd need a 150" diagonal 2.35 screen. That is 11.5 ft wide, plus the frame, so it might be a tight fit in a 12ft wide room, but do-able. There just wouldn't be room for speakers on the sides. You'd have to put them below the screen or behind an acoustically transparent screen.
> 
> 
> With a throw distance of 13-14 ft, you'd need an anamorphic lens. I'm pretty sure no projector could zoom out (without an anamorphic lens) to do 2.35 that wide at that distance. But with a lens it would work.
> 
> 
> Again, if movies are your thing, go for the 2.35 screen. Even if you have to go a little smaller than 150" to fit your room, scope movies will still be much bigger than they'd be on a 120" 16x9 screen. And yes, most "popular" movies are scope.



After watching Promethues on my 120" 2:35:1 screen last night, now way in hell I would ever consider 16X9..


----------



## coolrda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23543358
> 
> 
> That's a tough one. Like Josh Z here on this board, I try to clarify the issue whenever I can (2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1, etc). However, we have found in our dealings with the industry and with the general population that 2.35:1 is the term most commonly understood, or at least the one a person is most likely to be familiar with. That said, it's still only a tiny fraction of people that understand what ANY of those terms mean (Scope, Flat, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc). This is why Panamorph has been advocating the use of the term "UltraWide" to refer to any film with an aspect ratio 2.0 or greater.
> 
> 
> I should have taken my own advice above...



2.35 has become the generic term or brand name, if you will, that has replaced the product description. A Vacuum Flask or coffee container is now called Thermos. Everybody understands that. Do you have any facial tissue? Huh? What's that? You know.....Kleenex. Oh ok.


I'm fine with the 2.35 terminology. It's what most friends of mine understand when describing CIH. I dont know why that is other than earlier dvd packaging or screen size. Scope and Flat, wide screen, ultra wide, anamorphic wide, 2.35, 2.37, 2.39, 2.40, are all fitting. We need the stickies back on the mobile veiw. I miss those and there a great resource for people contemplating a system like this.


----------



## Josh Z

The actual standard for theatrical projection was changed to 2.39 (and some change) to 1 in 1970, but most people in the industry continue to refer to it as "2.35" out of habit. Although it doesn't make any mathematical sense, the terms "2.35:1," "2.39:1" and "2.40:1" are effectively interchangable.


----------



## jstrimel

Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02


----------



## Bardia




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jstrimel*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23552365
> 
> 
> Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02



120" 2:35:1 has 47" height. Do you mean 120" Wide?


----------



## jstrimel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bardia*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23553913
> 
> 
> 120" 2:35:1 has 47" height. Do you mean 120" Wide?



Yes that is correct. 120" wide has a 51" tall image. Sorry about the confusion, on one hand I was talking about the D of the 16:9 image, which I also stand corrected on. The D of a 51" tall 16:9 image is closer to 103" D further conveying my point that going with the 2.35 gives you the ability to have that larger screen for movie wow factor while having a 16:9 image that will still be IMO plenty big. Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## Mike Garrett




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jstrimel*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23552365
> 
> 
> Good thread guys. I have been wrestling with this very thing. I am in the middle of a build and in about 4 weeks will have to pull the screen trigger. My room is 14' x 18' 7", I will be doing a screen wall at 26" giving me a 16' 5" distance between my screen and back wall. I was originally going with a 100" wide 16:9 but after seeing a 2.35 in action there is little doubt this is the way to go for me. I am now going to do a 120" 2.35 which has a 51" tall image. Using the constant height approach that will give me somewhere in the neighborhood of a 91-95" D 16:9 image. Plenty for sports and TV from my 10' - 11' seating distance. I think for us greenhorns out there it important to point out that our eyes do much better with a wider viewing surface than a taller surface so bang for the buck wise going wider (2.35) gives us that incredible wow factor only a scope screen can provide for movies then by taking advantage of the constant height approach for 16:9 content we end up with sporting events and regular HDTV programming that is still immersive with potentially less eye strain. Just my .02



Sent you a PM.


----------



## nflguy

I have been projecting the image on the wall for several weeks. The overall 16x9 image is 64x115


Under this setup widescreen movies have been either 48 x 115 or 52x115 and we have enjoyed it a lot. For 16x9 content I zoom the screen so the dimensions are 52 x 93.


I also placed an order for a 133" 2:35 solar 4k performance series screen from screen innovations.


Wide screen movies should be 52 x 122.5 on this screen with 16x9 content displaying as 52 x 92


My projector (JVC RS4810) is currently 13ft from screen so I'm moving it back to 14.5 from screen to accommodate the wider dimmensions we want.


----------



## smuggymba

Guys - I'm struggling with this 2.35 vs 16:9 chat and I have see many videos on youtube and also saw the panamorph website. Can you guide me.



My room is 12 ft wide, assuming I leave 1 ft on each side for the speakers, I'm left with 10 ft i.e. 120 inches on width for the screen + frame. *The width of the screen is limited* but not the height since I have space.


Assuming, we're dealing with Sony HW50ES and a Frameless (zero edge or blade screen) - should I go for a 2.35 or 16:9. I watch both TV and movies. What format would give me a bigger size pic for both TV and movies.

OPTION 1: As per my understanding, a 16X9 screen - will give the max size pic for TV (_no black bars_) and movie(_black bars on top_)

OPTION 2: On the other hand, a 2.35 screen will show be the same size pic as above for movies (_no black bars_) and a smaller size TV (_with black bars on side_).


So, In option 1, I get a bigger pic for TV and in option 2 it's smaller (movie size remains same). Is my understanding correct?


----------



## stanger89

Your understanding is correct. The question is do you want Wheel of Fortune to be bigger than Star Wars?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23697057
> 
> 
> Your understanding is correct. The question is do you want Wheel of Fortune to be bigger than Star Wars?



Those are the exact words I was just going to post, right down to the examples.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23697057
> 
> 
> Your understanding is correct. The question is do you want Wheel of Fortune to be bigger than Star Wars?



How does that matter? The Star Wars size will be same size (on a 16X9 and 2.35:1 screen), only the Wheel of Fortune's size is changing (bigger on a 16X9 screen, smaller on 2.35:1).


Why would you want a smaller Wheel of Fortune?










People say that once you go scope, you won't like 16X9 anymore and I'm trying to find and understand why.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23697338
> 
> 
> Why would you want a smaller Wheel of Fortune?



Because Star Wars is an epic motion picture, filmed/intended to be shown on massive cinema screen, shouldn't it be bigger than an everyday syndicated game show not intended to be anything special (presentation wise)?


Or look at it another way, would you drive to the theater to see Wheel of Fortune on a cinema screen?


Now this is really just to illustrate the issue, but you have a similar situation with just movies. For the most part


> Quote:
> People say that once you go scope, you won't like 16X9 anymore and I'm trying to find and understand why.



People may say that, but I wouldn't (not like 16:9). What I would say is that if you look at the history, the evolution of film aspect ratios, they have gotten wider and wider, not shorter and shorter. Cinema created wider and wider aspect ratios to differentiate itself from the TV. A few films (Avatar, The Dark Knight, Transformers) have taken a different approach recently going taller (some using 70mm IMAX film), but they're still anomalies.


So the question/issue is, do you believe/care about this or not. The vast majority of folks just stick with 16:9 and are happy. But those of us "scope converts" who would never go back to 16:9 ("Constant" Image Width) systems are specifically because we do subscribe to that theory, that we don't want to have epic movies "shown up" in presentation/impact by everyday TV.


----------



## drew1910




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23697338
> 
> 
> How does that matter? The Star Wars size will be same size (on a 16X9 and 2.35:1 screen), only the Wheel of Fortune's size is changing (bigger on a 16X9 screen, smaller on 2.35:1).
> 
> 
> Why would you want a smaller Wheel of Fortune?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People say that once you go scope, you won't like 16X9 anymore and I'm trying to find and understand why.



If your screen height was kept the same:


Wheel of Fortune would be the same size on a 16:9 screen as a 2.35:1 screen. You would just have black bars (unused area) on the sides with a 2.35:1 screen.


Star Wars will be bigger on a 2.35:1 screen because it would use the whole screen. If it was placed on a 16:9 screen there would be black bars(unused area) across the top and bottom.

 

(Image borrowed from a quick google search)


Now with this being said you can get a larger 16:9 picture by going with a 16:9 screen then you will with masking a 2.35:1 screen down to 16:9 due to your width limitations. The problem doing this is you will lose a lot of your immersiveness/ theater feel you will get with a larger 2.35:1 screen.


This is your call on what is best for what you will watch most of the time.


----------



## nflguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23696752
> 
> 
> Guys - I'm struggling with this 2.35 vs 16:9 chat and I have see many videos on youtube and also saw the panamorph website. Can you guide me.
> 
> 
> 
> My room is 12 ft wide, assuming I leave 1 ft on each side for the speakers, I'm left with 10 ft i.e. 120 inches on width for the screen + frame. *The width of the screen is limited* but not the height since I have space.
> 
> 
> Assuming, we're dealing with Sony HW50ES and a Frameless (zero edge or blade screen) - should I go for a 2.35 or 16:9. I watch both TV and movies. What format would give me a bigger size pic for both TV and movies.
> 
> OPTION 1: As per my understanding, a 16X9 screen - will give the max size pic for TV (_no black bars_) and movie(_black bars on top_)
> 
> OPTION 2: On the other hand, a 2.35 screen will show be the same size pic as above for movies (_no black bars_) and a smaller size TV (_with black bars on side_).
> 
> 
> So, In option 1, I get a bigger pic for TV and in option 2 it's smaller (movie size remains same). Is my understanding correct?




I would reccomend having everything installed (speakers,projector et) then try projecting different sizes on the wall for a few weeks before making a decision on a screen. My installer tried pressuring me into getting a 120" 16X9 since "that's what everyone gets" but I'm glad I didn't listen. I first tried watching 120" 16x9. I thought it looked fine for some movies like avengers but wide screen movies like star wars, lord of the rings, the new star trek, Iron man, Transformers and several others all looked small. So after a few days of watching that it became clear I would not be happy if I planned to watch wide screen movies.


Then I tried 130" 16x9 and found the image to be too tall. It just wasn't pleasing to my eye when watching 16x9 content. However, wide screen movies played on the 130" 16x9 looked good. The height of the viewable image for most of the wide screen movies was 48" to 50" tall and 115 wide. I really liked how this looked but thought it would be even better an inch or two taller and a few inches wider.


So I ordered a 133" 2:35 screen. The viewable image for wide screen movies will be 52" by 122.5". The 16x9 content will be 52 x 92. I'm told that's close to the dimensions of a 110" 16x9.


So I get the 2:35 widescreen image I want and 16x9 content looks good too.


If my scope screen was smaller


----------



## booga24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23697057
> 
> 
> Your understanding is correct. The question is do you want Wheel of Fortune to be bigger than Star Wars?




Another question is do you want Sunday football and Super Bowl to be smaller than Will Smith's After Earth?


----------



## ahmedreda

My room is 12.5 feet wide. I opted for a 130" 1.78:1 screen. 1.78:1 will give you the biggest picture for all aspect ratios as you mentioned and you don't need any special lenses. It has the disadvantage that you will have top / bottom black bars for aspect ratios larger than 1.78:1 (1.85,2.2,2.35,2.4,2.59 etc) and side bars for ratios less than 1.78:1 (ex. 1.66, 1.37, 1.33 etc.). You can always mask the bars but this can be a hassle. In my case I created two sets of masks and I change them every month or so during which I only watch movies of a certain ratio. The second drawback is that you lose brightness in anything other than 1.78:1 vs using a lens to make use of all the projector light output.


2.35:1 screens have the advantage that they are easier to mask. You can just have a curtain to cover the sides vs masking the top and bottom which could be challenging.


I found that movies come in all aspect ratios depending on age / director choice etc.. Very old movies (silent) used to come in 1.33:1 then they changed to 1.37 from the mid 30s to the early 50s. From then on it was all about scope 2.35-2.55:1 until the 70s and 80s where they started using scope as well as 1.85:1. Older european movies used 1.67:1 and there are movies in odd ratios such as 2.2:1. Just don't make the assumption that all movies are going to be at 2.35:1 and TV is 16x9.



Here is a link to my setup and my masks. . In the second link, you will find a table showing the screen area, dimensions and bar sizes for the different ratios.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23696752
> 
> 
> Guys - I'm struggling with this 2.35 vs 16:9 chat and I have see many videos on youtube and also saw the panamorph website. Can you guide me.
> 
> 
> 
> My room is 12 ft wide, assuming I leave 1 ft on each side for the speakers, I'm left with 10 ft i.e. 120 inches on width for the screen + frame. *The width of the screen is limited* but not the height since I have space.
> 
> 
> Assuming, we're dealing with Sony HW50ES and a Frameless (zero edge or blade screen) - should I go for a 2.35 or 16:9. I watch both TV and movies. What format would give me a bigger size pic for both TV and movies.
> 
> OPTION 1: As per my understanding, a 16X9 screen - will give the max size pic for TV (_no black bars_) and movie(_black bars on top_)
> 
> OPTION 2: On the other hand, a 2.35 screen will show be the same size pic as above for movies (_no black bars_) and a smaller size TV (_with black bars on side_).
> 
> 
> So, In option 1, I get a bigger pic for TV and in option 2 it's smaller (movie size remains same). Is my understanding correct?


----------



## smuggymba

Drew1910 - Can you post assuming width is the limitation, not height.


My room is 12 ft wide, so I have a limitation there but not on the height.


Can you guys give me some sleek tower speakers that are only a few inches wide so I can go bigger on the screen and get a scope. I agree with nflguy on that if the screen is scope and close to 130", TV will be good size but if it's a smaller scope screen, TV will be really small.


Given, 12ft width and a zero edge screen and "sleek" tower speakers, how wide can I go on the scope.


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *booga24*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698110
> 
> 
> Another question is do you want Sunday football and Super Bowl to be smaller than Will Smith's After Earth?



Since I have "width" limitation and not height, what is the best option. I will watch movies and sports (not wheel of fortune)


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahmedreda*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698122
> 
> 
> My room is 12.5 feet wide. I opted for a 130" 1.78:1 screen. 1.78:1 will give you the biggest picture for all aspect ratios as you mentioned and you don't need any special lenses. It has the disadvantage that you will have top / bottom black bars for aspect ratios larger than 1.78:1 (1.85,2.2,2.35,2.4,2.59 etc) and side bars for ratios less than 1.78:1 (ex. 1.66, 1.37, 1.33 etc.). You can always mask the bars but this can be a hassle. In my case I created two sets of masks and I change them every month or so during which I only watch movies of a certain ratio. The second drawback is that you lose brightness in anything other than 1.78:1 vs using a lens to make use of all the projector light output.
> 
> 
> 2.35:1 screens have the advantage that they are easier to mask. You can just have a curtain to cover the sides vs masking the top and bottom which could be challenging.
> 
> 
> I found that movies come in all aspect ratios depending on age / director choice etc.. Very old movies (silent) used to come in 1.33:1 then they changed to 1.37 from the mid 30s to the early 50s. From then on it was all about scope 2.35-2.55:1 until the 70s and 80s where they started using scope as well as 1.85:1. Older european movies used 1.67:1 and there are movies in odd ratios such as 2.2:1. Just don't make the assumption that all movies are going to be at 2.35:1 and TV is 16x9.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to my setup and my masks. . In the second link, you will find a table showing the screen area, dimensions and bar sizes for the different ratios.



Another thing for my consideration is that I like the zero edge/blade screens with LED back lighting (because of looks purely). Will a 16 X 9 screen showing a 2.35 movie having black bars on top and bottom look good with LED backlights?


Nice setup by the way.


----------



## ahmedreda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698128
> 
> 
> Since I have "width" limitation and not height, what is the best option. I will watch movies and sports (not wheel of fortune)



Your best option if your goal is achieving the maximum screen area would be a 16x9. TV/Sports is going to be ~100% in 16:9, Movies I would say are 50/50.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698138
> 
> 
> Another thing for my consideration is that I like the zero edge/blade screens with LED back lighting (because of looks purely). Will a 16 X 9 screen showing a 2.35 movie having black bars on top and bottom look good with LED backlights?
> 
> 
> Nice setup by the way.



From my experience unless your projector has really good blacks you need to mask the picture. Not sure how that will look with a zero edge screen with led back lights but I can imagine it will pretty much look the same whether you are displaying a 16x9 image on a 2.35 screen or a 2.35:1 image on a 16x9 screen.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think sports can be a different animal to normal Wheel Of Fortune type of TV, but I still feel that movies should be larger and more immersive - it's both the design and intent. With 16:9 screens, 235 movies will always lose the visual impact they were designed to give. A 235 movie the same height as an existing 16:9 screen will be 77% larger than it would be if shown letterboxed on the 16:9 screen. It's a huge difference and provides a far better viewing experience compared to viewing on a 16:9 screen.


One way of setting up your screen size, is to find the biggest 16:9 screen size that will fit, while still allowing enough room for a same height 2.35 screen, and then move your seating so that the 16:9 image looks as big as you want it - any closer and it may be too overwhelming or uncomfortable to watch. That way, whatever you watch that isn't 2.35 will look big enough, and scope movies will then look move immersive due to being 33* wider.


Of course, if most of your watching is sports, then maybe 16:9 is the way to go. It's your room so your choice. Another option that people go for (usually due to width limitations) is a 2.05:1 ratio screen. Both 16:9 and 2.35 content occupies the same screen real estate, and it works by allowing you to fill the height for 16:9 stuff (smaller side black bars than with a 235 screen) or zoom larger to fill the width for 2.35 stuff (smaller black bars top and bottom than on a 16:9 screen). That may be your better option and could give you more room at the sides for speakers. 4 way masking can be a bit tricky though.


If you wanted a wall to wall 2.35 screen, toy could build a stud wall and put some in-wall speakers or speakers designed to work in a baffle wall within it, then use an Acoustically Transparent screen. Seymour XD material is a great choice at a good price and if you're OK with DIY you can build your own screen as well (plenty of people here do that).


Gary


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698128
> 
> 
> Since I have "width" limitation and not height, what is the best option. I will watch movies and sports (not wheel of fortune)



There is no best option, just the best option for you, and nobody can decide that for you. You have to decide if you think scope movies should/want scope movies to be, larger than run of the mill 16:9 content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698138
> 
> 
> Another thing for my consideration is that I like the zero edge/blade screens with LED back lighting (because of looks purely). Will a 16 X 9 screen showing a 2.35 movie having black bars on top and bottom look good with LED backlights?



There will be a significantly larger gap between the backlights and the image on the top/bottom than the sides, whether that looks "good" or not is up to you.


----------



## booga24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698128
> 
> 
> Since I have "width" limitation and not height, what is the best option. I will watch movies and sports (not wheel of fortune)




My point was using the aspect ratio of a blockbuster movie against not so popular tv show (at least for demographic of forum members) is not fair.


Star Wars vs Super Bowls. esp. if the patriots are playing







lol.


----------



## nflguy

I sit 11ft from a 133" 2:35 screen. 16x9 content on this screen is 52" by 92" and looks great. If the scope screen is big enough then you get the best of both worlds in my opinion.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *booga24*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23699096
> 
> 
> My point was using the aspect ratio of a blockbuster movie against not so popular tv show (at least for demographic of forum members) is not fair.
> 
> 
> Star Wars vs Super Bowls. esp. if the patriots are playing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.



No doubt it's more complicated, but it's a thought I don't think a lot of people have. It seems most folks who are "new" get stuck thinking merely in terms of inches of screen size and not in terms of presentation and impact of various content.


The first question is is it worth sacrificing the relative impact of scope (44% smaller than it should be given a 16:9 size) to 16:9 for a few special 16:9 "events"?


If the answer is no, then the next question is, is it worth setting up a slightly more complex setup (I call it CIH+IMAX) where you run a CIH setup 90%+ of the time, but have some sort of removable top/bottom masking so you can expand vertically for the special 16:9 events that should be huge (like IMAX)?


----------



## smuggymba

Can the Sony HW50ES (with native 16X9 projection) show a 2.35 movie with OUT anamorphic lens? On amazon, it says it shows 2.35 content if paired with an anamorphic lens.


Any recommendations on "sleek" tower speakers so I can get some more real estate to squeeze in a 133" scope screen (123 inches wide). My wall is 12 ft i.e. 144 inches. If I use 123 of those for the screen and say 1 for the frame (blade/zero edge), I'm left with 20 inches for 2 speakers.


Are there any 7-8 inches wide "good" tower speakers? Thanks.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *booga24*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23698110
> 
> 
> Another question is do you want Sunday football and Super Bowl to be smaller than Will Smith's After Earth?



If your primary interest is in watching 16:9 content like sports, videogames or Wheel of Fortune, then you should install a 16:9 screen, be happy with it, and go about your merry way. Constant Image Height is not for you. There's nothing wrong with that, but that is not the purpose of this forum.


Constant Image Height is about recreating the theatrical experience, in which "scope" movies are larger and wider than non-scope movies or TV content, not the other way around. Maybe you don't give a flying frack about that? OK, fine, that's your prerogative. See you later, have a nice day.


----------



## ahmedreda

The projected image will always be in 1.78:1 with the 2.35:1 image inside surrounded by the top/bottom black bars.


If you use a 2.35:1 screen, you can either:

1. Zoom in until your screen is filled and the bars projected outside the screen area (problematic with 1.78 content).

2. Use an anamorphic lens which takes the 1.78:1 image and shortens it to be in 2.35:1. This will require the image to be stretched first using your projector settings. (That is how I understand it anyway)


One thing you should consider with the area next to your screen is that speakers usually have minimum placement from the walls to sound their best so make sure you leave enough room depending on the speakers that you pick. You will also need to toe-in your speakers so the 20" you have for both speakers seem a little tight.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23699421
> 
> 
> Can the Sony HW50ES (with native 16X9 projection) show a 2.35 movie with OUT anamorphic lens? On amazon, it says it shows 2.35 content if paired with an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> Any recommendations on "sleek" tower speakers so I can get some more real estate to squeeze in a 133" scope screen (123 inches wide). My wall is 12 ft i.e. 144 inches. If I use 123 of those for the screen and say 1 for the frame (blade/zero edge), I'm left with 20 inches for 2 speakers.
> 
> 
> Are there any 7-8 inches wide "good" tower speakers? Thanks.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23699421
> 
> 
> Can the Sony HW50ES (with native 16X9 projection) show a 2.35 movie with OUT anamorphic lens? On amazon, it says it shows 2.35 content if paired with an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> Any recommendations on "sleek" tower speakers so I can get some more real estate to squeeze in a 133" scope screen (123 inches wide). My wall is 12 ft i.e. 144 inches. If I use 123 of those for the screen and say 1 for the frame (blade/zero edge), I'm left with 20 inches for 2 speakers.
> 
> 
> Are there any 7-8 inches wide "good" tower speakers? Thanks.



The HW50ES does not have auto zoom capability, so you will need to get an anamorphic lens UNLESS you want to manually zoom it every time (you can actually do this with just about any projector).


As someone else pointed out, placing speakers in corners results in a mid-bass / bass boost (in other words, somewhat "tubby" sound). This can be somewhat compensated for with EQ or auto-room correction. However, there are some other issues that can be created by corner placement. To test for them, sit in the same spot you will occupy when your theater is complete. Have someone go stand in the corner and speak to you, then compare that to their voice when they are standing at the middle of the screen wall. What you hear happen to their voice is exactly what will happen to the sound from the speaker. Usually there is a "tubby" and "zingy" quality to the sound, which can only partially be compensated for with EQ / auto room correction.


A better solution, already suggested, is to get or create an acoustically transparent screen and put your speakers behind it. That solves your width and speaker placement problems.


Zero edge screens are also problematic for 2.35:1 setups. In fact, they are problematic for projection systems in general. Some projector lenses do not produce perfect geometry, and those issues become readily apparent when there is no screen surround to zoom into. Zoom can really be a problem here too, as most auto-zoom projectors "drift" over time and this becomes really obvious with a zero edge screen.


----------



## smuggymba

I totally agree with you John; it's just that the zero edge looks really cool. For now I'm leaning towards Seymour 4K. Do you have recommendations for any installers/contractors who can build a false wall in Houston, TX? Thanks.


----------



## snyderkv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23704692
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you John; it's just that the zero edge looks really cool. For now I'm leaning towards Seymour 4K. Do you have recommendations for any installers/contractors who can build a false wall in Houston, TX? Thanks.



The zero edge appears to have a small frame just enough to cover some light? I have the DNP Supernova Blade and actually has no frame at all unlike Zero edge. I didn't notice any drift however my back wall is painted flat black and wouldn't notice any slight spillage. Just pointing out that it may not be a problem if your back wall isn't white.


----------



## New Design

For some reason, I never get tired of this debate. Probably because it's important and there has never been a great no compromise solution unless you have a lot of money to spend on screens and lenses. If you have the cash, you can buy a screen that changes shape to match the content and an anamorphic lens that doesn't distort or drop brightness in a notice le way. A little less money and you can get a pretty good making system and a slightly cheaper anamorphic lens if you can live with some minor flaws.


You shouldn't think of 2.40:1 screens as being smaller. They are a third wider. There shouldn't have to be a compromise. Just take whatever size 16:9 screen you were going to get and make it a third wider. Btw, a 12 foot wide screen is hardly a compromise unless you plan on sitting on the moon. It should be big enough for most home theaters and unless you have a really bright projector (which quality home theater projectors are typically not), going too big will limi you to only watching in complete darkness. Then there is your field of vision which is wider, not taller so you don't want to have to keep looking up and down to avoid missing content. A movie with subtitles would get super annoying. Having space at the sides when watching football is far less offensive than at the top an bottom for me but I accept that this is a matter of taste. Borders at the side are easy to mask with curtains if they bother you. I am working on a design for sliding panels which I will attach my front speakers to which will mask my unused screen for 16:9 content.


On anamorphic lenses, they cost a fortune but there is a way of building a high quality DIY lens for very little money. I am not talking about buying those glass wedge awards and living with the flaws. I am talking high end cylindrical lenses like the ones used in the $10,000 models.


Sorry if somebody already mentioned this but just in case..... On eBay etc, there are literally hundreds of old anamorphic lenses from the obsolete 35mm theater projectors and from theaters closing generally. Now as they are, most can not be used for home theater because they are 2x stretch lenses. That means they are designed to stretch a 4:3 image to 2.37:1. This would be ok if you have an older 4:3 projector but they would give too much stretch for a 16:9 image. So you have an anamorphic lens with high quality cylindrical prisms but they are positioned at the wrong angle. I purchased one of these lenses for about $50. The prisms were large though. Importantly, they were large enough for my projector lens which is huge (as far as they go) at 4 inches in diameter. The tube the lenses were mounted in was too narrow though and cut off some of my picture. For cleaning, most of these allow you to remove these lenses luckily. I unscrewed mine in less that 1 minute. They came out with their convenient turning knob attached so it was easy to mount them in a different enclosure. In my case, I made a simple short tube out of carbon fiber which I lined with black non reflective material I cut from an old T-shirt. I then simply drilled 2 holes in the tube and attached the lenses with the adjusting knobs sticking out the top. I then mounted the tube inside an open cube shape (also carbon fiber) so it wouldn't role off the table. I then positioned it in front of my lens and adjusted the 2 prisms until they gave me a perfect even 1.33 x stretch. I was going to build something to move it in and out of place but I decided it was easier to leave it permanently in place and switch the projector to 4:3 for 16:9 content which works really well. The quality is amazing. I can't see any loss in brightness or distortion. It may be there but I don't care if I can't see it. It is definitely better quality than the lower end commercial anamorphic lenses which sell for $2000 as you might expect from high end optics made for commercial theater. I would never have paid $5k - $10k for a piece of glass but for less than $60 and an hour of labor, I'm really happy with it.


Before this, I just zoomed in like most people which was fine until I got a newer projector which needed a longer throw distance that I didn't have space for. This lens enabled me to fill my 2.35:1 screen without having to pay more than $2k for a short throw lens.


These commercial but retired anamorphic lenses are all over the used market right now with nobody to buy them except "collectors" whoever they are... Hoarders maybe? As a general rule, i make a point of not being friends with people who say things like "would you like to see my collection of old lenses".


Just make sure you don't get one that can't be focused without 50 feet between screen and projector. The best ones focus using the primary lens. Some will say "8 feet to infinity" which is also fine. If you get lucky, you may find one that has an adjustable stretch. If it is big enough for your primary lens, you'd be able to use it without a DIY project. I believe they made these in the beginning before a standard for anamorphic widescreen was set so the projectionist could dial the right screen width for different content. I had a panavision one which I got for about $80 which could stretch anywhere from 0 to 2.5x.


So back to the question, um... Go 2.40:1 obviously. It is better. It just is. No reason to be watching epic widescreen movies (which is most of them) in a squashed compromised screen with ugly black bars. Even some tv shows are 2.40:1 when they come out on blu ray. People challenged me on that last point and almost had me doubting myself but I went back and checked to confirm that I had seen House in 2.35:1. So as I originally thought, I was right. I think if you buy a 16:9 screen, you'll regret it and end up buying a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen in the end.


----------



## CAVX

Without going too far off topic...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *New Design*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23711666
> 
> 
> On anamorphic lenses, they cost a fortune but there is a way of building a high quality DIY lens for very little money. I am not talking about buying those glass wedge awards and living with the flaws. I am talking high end cylindrical lenses like the ones used in the $10,000 models.



Please define "for very little money" because if this were possible, don't you think this cat would be out of the bag by now?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *New Design*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23711666
> 
> 
> So back to the question, um... Go 2.40:1 obviously. It is better. It just is. No reason to be watching epic widescreen movies (which is most of them) in a squashed compromised screen with ugly black bars. Even some tv shows are 2.40:1 when they come out on blu ray. People challenged me on that last point and almost had me doubting myself but I went back and checked to confirm that I had seen House in 2.35:1. So as I originally thought, I was right. I think if you buy a 16:9 screen, you'll regret it and end up buying a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen in the end.



HOUSE in Scope! Really? I might have to start watching it again.


Back to the 16:9 Vs Scope debate and to keep apples with apples, there have been a few film franchises where at least one of the films will be a different AR. ALIENS is an example. SPIDERMAN, HULK and PREDATORS are others.

If CIW was the true way to watch films with 16:9 taller, why would a character like Ripley suddenly get taller than she is in the other 3 films of that series?


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CAVX*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23712170
> 
> 
> If CIW was the true way to watch films with 16:9 taller, why would a character like Ripley suddenly get taller than she is in the other 3 films of that series?



I have to say this strikes me as a particularly strange argument. Characters are always changing their size relationship within the frame of any movie, and a different director or DOP may

have a different shooting style for one movie vs another. One director may favor lots of tighter shots so everyone's face is "bigger" on screen if you want to think of it that way, another director may favor full or long shots - think Orson Welles as a classic example, as he started off disdaining close shots - in which case everyone is generally "smaller" in terms of screen size.

So irrespective of whether you have a larger 16:9 screen or not, you are experiencing all sorts of variations of people's image sizes on your screen.


Does the altering of actor's sizes between movies bother you? When a shot changes from distant to close? Between different styles of cinematography? If you aren't generally bothered by the incredible variety of actor sizes you see on your screen, I can't figure out why this would be a particular point of contention.


----------



## jautor

Correct, because you've fixed the width. Your seating distance will be the deciding factor, if the the 16x9 size you'd get in option 2 would be large enough... The point of CIH is for the scope films to be on a "larger" screen than 16x9 material.


Jeff


----------



## ahmedreda

I don't agree with the part about the 2.35:1 screen being a third wider. In his case if I understand correctly he has a width limitation of 123"


Option 1: 2.35:1 screen:

a. 2.35:1 content : area = 44.67 sqft , Width = 123 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 133.7

b. 16:9 content : area = 33.78 sqft, Width = 106.7 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 106.7

Option 2: 16:9 screen:

a. 2.35:1 content: area = 44.67 sqft, Width = 123 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 133.7

b. 16:9 content : area = 59.1 sqft, Width = 123 , Height = 69.2, Diagonal = 141.1


What would be the advantage of CIH in this case given that the 2.35:1 would be the same exact size in option 2 while the 16:9 content is bigger?


I had a width limitation of 114" and I opted for a 16:9 screen. I can't imagine watching 16:9 or 1.37:1 content on a CIH screen. It would have just been too small. A good scene to demonstrate that was in the movie oz, the great and the powerful. The movie is in 2.35:1 but it starts at 1.37:1 within the 2.35:1 frame as a tribute to the wizard of oz then the width expands to fill all of the 2.35:1 frame. You simply can't compare that 1.37:1 image it had to 1.37:1 content when shown on a 16:9 screen. It looked too tiny in comparison.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *New Design*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23711666
> 
> 
> For some reason, I never get tired of this debate. Probably because it's important and there has never been a great no compromise solution unless you have a lot of money to spend on screens and lenses. If you have the cash, you can buy a screen that changes shape to match the content and an anamorphic lens that doesn't distort or drop brightness in a notice le way. A little less money and you can get a pretty good making system and a slightly cheaper anamorphic lens if you can live with some minor flaws.
> 
> 
> You shouldn't think of 2.40:1 screens as being smaller. They are a third wider. There shouldn't have to be a compromise. Just take whatever size 16:9 screen you were going to get and make it a third wider. Btw, a 12 foot wide screen is hardly a compromise unless you plan on sitting on the moon. It should be big enough for most home theaters and unless you have a really bright projector (which quality home theater projectors are typically not), going too big will limi you to only watching in complete darkness. Then there is your field of vision which is wider, not taller so you don't want to have to keep looking up and down to avoid missing content. A movie with subtitles would get super annoying. Having space at the sides when watching football is far less offensive than at the top an bottom for me but I accept that this is a matter of taste. Borders at the side are easy to mask with curtains if they bother you. I am working on a design for sliding panels which I will attach my front speakers to which will mask my unused screen for 16:9 content.
> 
> 
> On anamorphic lenses, they cost a fortune but there is a way of building a high quality DIY lens for very little money. I am not talking about buying those glass wedge awards and living with the flaws. I am talking high end cylindrical lenses like the ones used in the $10,000 models.
> 
> 
> Sorry if somebody already mentioned this but just in case..... On eBay etc, there are literally hundreds of old anamorphic lenses from the obsolete 35mm theater projectors and from theaters closing generally. Now as they are, most can not be used for home theater because they are 2x stretch lenses. That means they are designed to stretch a 4:3 image to 2.37:1. This would be ok if you have an older 4:3 projector but they would give too much stretch for a 16:9 image. So you have an anamorphic lens with high quality cylindrical prisms but they are positioned at the wrong angle. I purchased one of these lenses for about $50. The prisms were large though. Importantly, they were large enough for my projector lens which is huge (as far as they go) at 4 inches in diameter. The tube the lenses were mounted in was too narrow though and cut off some of my picture. For cleaning, most of these allow you to remove these lenses luckily. I unscrewed mine in less that 1 minute. They came out with their convenient turning knob attached so it was easy to mount them in a different enclosure. In my case, I made a simple short tube out of carbon fiber which I lined with black non reflective material I cut from an old T-shirt. I then simply drilled 2 holes in the tube and attached the lenses with the adjusting knobs sticking out the top. I then mounted the tube inside an open cube shape (also carbon fiber) so it wouldn't role off the table. I then positioned it in front of my lens and adjusted the 2 prisms until they gave me a perfect even 1.33 x stretch. I was going to build something to move it in and out of place but I decided it was easier to leave it permanently in place and switch the projector to 4:3 for 16:9 content which works really well. The quality is amazing. I can't see any loss in brightness or distortion. It may be there but I don't care if I can't see it. It is definitely better quality than the lower end commercial anamorphic lenses which sell for $2000 as you might expect from high end optics made for commercial theater. I would never have paid $5k - $10k for a piece of glass but for less than $60 and an hour of labor, I'm really happy with it.
> 
> 
> Before this, I just zoomed in like most people which was fine until I got a newer projector which needed a longer throw distance that I didn't have space for. This lens enabled me to fill my 2.35:1 screen without having to pay more than $2k for a short throw lens.
> 
> 
> These commercial but retired anamorphic lenses are all over the used market right now with nobody to buy them except "collectors" whoever they are... Hoarders maybe? As a general rule, i make a point of not being friends with people who say things like "would you like to see my collection of old lenses".
> 
> 
> Just make sure you don't get one that can't be focused without 50 feet between screen and projector. The best ones focus using the primary lens. Some will say "8 feet to infinity" which is also fine. If you get lucky, you may find one that has an adjustable stretch. If it is big enough for your primary lens, you'd be able to use it without a DIY project. I believe they made these in the beginning before a standard for anamorphic widescreen was set so the projectionist could dial the right screen width for different content. I had a panavision one which I got for about $80 which could stretch anywhere from 0 to 2.5x.
> 
> 
> So back to the question, um... Go 2.40:1 obviously. It is better. It just is. No reason to be watching epic widescreen movies (which is most of them) in a squashed compromised screen with ugly black bars. Even some tv shows are 2.40:1 when they come out on blu ray. People challenged me on that last point and almost had me doubting myself but I went back and checked to confirm that I had seen House in 2.35:1. So as I originally thought, I was right. I think if you buy a 16:9 screen, you'll regret it and end up buying a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen in the end.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahmedreda*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23715928
> 
> 
> I don't agree with the part about the 2.35:1 screen being a third wider. In his case if I understand correctly he has a width limitation of 123"
> 
> 
> Option 1: 2.35:1 screen:
> 
> a. 2.35:1 content : area = 44.67 sqft , Width = 123 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 133.7
> 
> b. 16:9 content : area = 33.78 sqft, Width = 106.7 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 106.7
> 
> Option 2: 16:9 screen:
> 
> a. 2.35:1 content: area = 44.67 sqft, Width = 123 , Height = 52.3 , Diagonal = 133.7
> 
> b. 16:9 content : area = 59.1 sqft, Width = 123 , Height = 69.2, Diagonal = 141.1
> 
> 
> What would be the advantage of CIH in this case given that the 2.35:1 would be the same exact size in option 2 while the 16:9 content is bigger?



The advantage is it maintains the proper relative size of aspect ratios.


> Quote:
> I had a width limitation of 114" and I opted for a 16:9 screen. I can't imagine watching 16:9 or 1.37:1 content on a CIH screen. It would have just been too small. A good scene to demonstrate that was in the movie oz, the great and the powerful. The movie is in 2.35:1 but it starts at 1.37:1 within the 2.35:1 frame as a tribute to the wizard of oz then the width expands to fill all of the 2.35:1 frame. You simply can't compare that 1.37:1 image it had to 1.37:1 content when shown on a 16:9 screen. It looked too tiny in comparison.



This is exactly how aspect ratios are supposed to work 1.37:1 is supposed to be the same height as 2.37:1. Imagine if "Oz: The Great and Powerful" did what is advised here (16:9 screen height, everything taking up the largest area possible), it would have started off with the 1.37:1 image being 69.2" tall and would have reduced down to only 52.3" high during the transition to scope. Or what if the idea were taken to it's extreme, if we had a 4:3 screen, Oz would have started out 89" tall and shrunk all the way down to 52" for the scope portion.


Oz is a great illustration of the concept of Constant Image Height and the relative size of aspect ratios/films over time. They started out 1.37:1 and they've grown wider over time (not shorter) to the now standard (for about 50% of films) 2.39:1.


Now if you don't care about that and you just want everything to be as many inches in size as is possible, and you don't care about maintaining the intended relative impact of aspect ratios, that's your prerogative.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahmedreda*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23715928
> 
> 
> What would be the advantage of CIH in this case given that the 2.35:1 would be the same exact size in option 2 while the 16:9 content is bigger?



The advantage is that 2 Broke Girls should never take up more screen real estate than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *New Design*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23711666
> 
> 
> Even some tv shows are 2.40:1 when they come out on blu ray. People challenged me on that last point and almost had me doubting myself but I went back and checked to confirm that I had seen House in 2.35:1. So as I originally thought, I was right.



'House', the medical drama starring Hugh Laurie, is not 2.35:1 on Blu-ray. It's 16:9 just like the majority of TV shows that have been broadcast in the HD era.

 


'House of Cards', the recent Netflix drama starring Kevin Spacey, is composed for and presented in a 2.0:1 aspect ratio on both Netflix and Blu-ray. This is an outlier example. Netflix encouraged the show's creators to do something unique that would differentiate it from broadcast TV.

 


The images above are screencaps from the Blu-rays, borrowed from the reviews at High-Def Digest and DVDTalk ( here and here ).


I have never heard of a TV show being composed for, broadcast in, or transferred to Blu-ray at 2.35:1.


----------



## New Design




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23716363
> 
> 
> 'House', the medical drama starring Hugh Laurie, is not 2.35:1 on Blu-ray. It's 16:9 just like the majority of TV shows that have been broadcast in the HD era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'House of Cards', the recent Netflix drama starring Kevin Spacey, is composed for and presented in a 2.0:1 aspect ratio on both Netflix and Blu-ray. This is an outlier example. Netflix encouraged the show's creators to do something unique that would differentiate it from broadcast TV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The images above are screencaps from the Blu-rays, borrowed from the reviews at High-Def Digest and DVDTalk ( here and here ).
> 
> 
> I have never heard of a TV show being composed for, broadcast in, or transferred to Blu-ray at 2.35:1.



I am putting on my orthopedic shoes so I can stand corrected. I read the box as anamorphic widescreen and forgot that people used to used anamorphic lenses to convert 4:3 to 16:9. I hate being wrong! Thanks for correcting though.


I still stand by the fact that 2.40:1 is better though.


----------



## smuggymba

Why the hell can't everyone stick to 16:9 and 2.35:1. If every production house comes up with their own stuff, that would be very confusing.


Tomorrow 2.6578:1 will come (for no reason) and it will mess up people's settings. How is 2:40 different from 2.35 - does it show one extra person in the frame?


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/30#post_23704692
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you John; it's just that the zero edge looks really cool. For now I'm leaning towards Seymour 4K. Do you have recommendations for any installers/contractors who can build a false wall in Houston, TX? Thanks.



Russell from Panamorph should have sent you a PM with a recommendation.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23718910
> 
> 
> Why the hell can't everyone stick to 16:9 and 2.35:1. If every production house comes up with their own stuff, that would be very confusing.
> 
> 
> Tomorrow 2.6578:1 will come (for no reason) and it will mess up people's settings. How is 2:40 different from 2.35 - does it show one extra person in the frame?



Don't worry - we are "stuck" with 16:9 (actually, 1.85:1) and 2.40.1 for a long time, as those are the only two aspect ratios supported and acknowledged by the DCI (Digital Cinema) spec. And it has been this way for a very long time. The other aspect ratios - 2.76:1, 2.20:1, etc - are mostly tied to films created between the early 50s through the 70s, when various different aspect ratios and film stocks were being experimented with.


The only real wild card here is IMAX, which has two different aspect ratios - 1.43:1 and 1.9:1. True IMAX utilizes a very large screen that takes up almost your entire field of view, so might be considered a separate film format altogether (one, that up until recently, was used almost exclusively for documentary fare).


If you want to get a really good example of "spin," check out the explanation of aspect ratio from the IMAX web site. After all of our talk of how a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen provides the most immersive experience, check out how IMAX spins things in the other direction, by playing on the common mis-perception that letterboxing means less picture info:

_Most films today are presented in an aspect ratio called CinemaScope (2.40:1); it was the newest thing in movie making in 1953 – and it’s still the standard today. When a film is presented in CinemaScope it is cropped and uses only part of the image the movie camera captures. This is the reason most ordinary screens are very wide but not particularly high – like looking at the world through a narrow slit.


IMAX broke the mold. We provide filmmakers with the ability to expand their film’s aspect ratio for an IMAX presentation so they can utilize much more of the originally captured image - either during production through shooting with the extremely high-resolution IMAX® camera (capable of up to IMAX® 1.43:1), which offers IMAX moviegoers up to 40% more of the image than standard cinemas, or protecting more of the image during their post production process (capable of up to IMAX® 1.9:1), which offers IMAX moviegoers up to 21% more of the image than standard cinemas.


And when this image is projected onto an IMAX® screen, which isn’t simply larger; but also curved, taller for its width and positioned closer to the audience than ordinary screens, the result provides you with a full panoramic view that fills your peripheral vision more than any other cinematic experience. That’s why, when you watch an IMAX movie, it feels like it’s all around you.


IMAX’s aspect ratio is just one of the reasons The IMAX Experience® is so different – why you feel like you’re inside the action, not just watching it._


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23719871
> 
> 
> Russell from Panamorph should have sent you a PM with a recommendation.



Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely look into it.


----------



## smuggymba

If we use a scope screen, how to push the subtitles from the bottom black bars on to the screen? Can the projector do that or do we need a Video Processor like Darbee/Lumagen or Oppo blu ray player.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23719917
> 
> 
> If you want to get a really good example of "spin," check out the explanation of aspect ratio from the IMAX web site. After all of our talk of how a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen provides the most immersive experience, check out how IMAX spins things in the other direction, by playing on the common mis-perception that letterboxing means less picture info:



Which is why, if someone is really serious about doing IMAX at home, I recommend a "CIH+IMAX" setup. Basically a standard CIH setup, but with a masked 16:9 screen so you can unmask for those rare IMAX titles and gain the extra height, while still retaining the proper CIH arrangement for "normal" 16:9 and scope content.


FWIW, there's a lot of marketing spin in that IMAX, scope done right doesn't look like looking through a slit (though it does in the average CIW setup).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720104
> 
> 
> If we use a scope screen, how to push the subtitles from the bottom black bars on to the screen? Can the projector do that or do we need a Video Processor like Darbee/Lumagen or Oppo blu ray player.



You need a Blu-ray player like the Oppo, after it's left the player the subtitles can't be moved.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23718910
> 
> 
> How is 2:40 different from 2.35 - does it show one extra person in the frame?



Read this. It's explained here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/


----------



## smuggymba




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720444
> 
> 
> Read this. It's explained here:
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/constant-image-height-refresher-2013-part2/



Awesome!!


----------



## ahmedreda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720104
> 
> 
> If we use a scope screen, how to push the subtitles from the bottom black bars on to the screen? Can the projector do that or do we need a Video Processor like Darbee/Lumagen or Oppo blu ray player.



I know for a fact that the oppo will do it. I was thinking about buying one until i found a subtitles placement option in my panasonic 220u.. I haven't had a chance to try it yet but I believe it will work.


----------



## ahmedreda




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720205
> 
> 
> [quote name="John Schuermann" url="/t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23719917"]If you want to get a really good example of "spin," check out the explanation of aspect ratio from the IMAX web site. After all of our talk of how a 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 screen provides the most immersive experience, check out how IMAX spins things in the other direction, by playing on the common mis-perception that letterboxing means less picture info:


Which is why, if someone is really serious about doing IMAX at home, I recommend a "CIH+IMAX" setup. Basically a standard CIH setup, but with a masked 16:9 screen so you can unmask for those rare IMAX titles and gain the extra height, while still retaining the proper CIH arrangement for "normal" 16:9 and scope content.FWIW, there's a lot of marketing spin in that IMAX, scope done right doesn't look like looking through a slit (though it does in the average CIW setup).[quote name="smuggymba" url="/t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720104"]If we use a scope screen, how to push the subtitles from the bottom black bars on to the screen? Can the projector do that or do we need a Video Processor like Darbee/Lumagen or Oppo blu ray player.[/quote]You need a Blu-ray player like the Oppo, after it's left the player the subtitles can't be moved.
[/QUOTE]


What would you consider normal 16x9 content.. Imax and non imax 16x9 movies all come in the same size/ratio.. Why would you display one differently than the other?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ahmedreda*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23722409
> 
> 
> What would you consider normal 16x9 content.. Imax and non imax 16x9 movies all come in the same size/ratio.. Why would you display one differently than the other?



Essentially anything non-IMAX, and maybe something like AVATAR. They may be the same ratio, but they were _not_ the same size when shown in the theater. Why would I display them differently? Because IMAX is an entirely different animal than run-of-the-mil 35mm or digital 16:9, IMAX is (was) a 1.4:1 70mm format intended to be shown on gigantic screens that are much larger than "normal" theaters.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23722864
> 
> 
> Essentially anything non-IMAX, and maybe something like AVATAR (which was shown scope or 16:9 in the theater depending on which one would be bigger). They may be the same ratio, but they were _not_ the same size when shown in the theater. Why would I display them differently? Because IMAX is an entirely different animal than run-of-the-mil 35mm or digital 16:9, IMAX is (was) a 1.4:1 70mm format intended to be shown on gigantic screens that are much larger than "normal" theaters.


----------



## rana_kirti

guys,


I'm thinking. .. is this a good alternative. ..?


Have 2 screens. First can be a 16:9 and the second can be a 2.35:1 of the same height.


Maybe have one fixed and the other as pulldown or have both as pull down.


Does the above sound practical and have any possibility as a valid option ?


----------



## Socio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23750702
> 
> 
> guys,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking. .. is this a good alternative. ..?
> 
> 
> Have 2 screens. First can be a 16:9 and the second can be a 2.35:1 of the same height.
> 
> 
> Maybe have one fixed and the other as pulldown or have both as pull down.
> 
> 
> Does the above sound practical and have any possibility as a valid option ?



The two options I am considering are:

Peregrine Twin Series 


It does both 2.35 and 16.9


Or a Lumagen Radiance mini and use it's ability to display 16.9 on a 2.35 screen in full screen and just go with a 2.35 screen.


----------



## Socio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23716363
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard of a TV show being composed for, broadcast in, or transferred to Blu-ray at 2.35:1.



I do remember seeing Star Trek Enterprise series in 2:35, don't remember if it was original airing on the CW or re-broadcast on HDnet been too long, and every once in a while Fox will air a pro football game in 2:35


----------



## stanger89

There may have been an episode (or parts of an episode) of Enterprise that were scope, but the show itself was certainly 16:9.


----------



## rana_kirti




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Socio*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23750733
> 
> 
> [quote name="rana_kirti" url="/t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23750702"]guys,I'm thinking. .. is this a good alternative. ..?Have 2 screens. First can be a 16:9 and the second can be a 2.35:1 of the same height. Maybe have one fixed and the other as pulldown or have both as pull down.Does the above sound practical and have any possibility as a valid option ?


The two options I am considering are: http://www.elitescreens.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&catid=1&Itemid=19&lang=en]Peregrine Twin Series[/URL] It does both 2.35 and 16.9Or a Lumagen Radiance mini and use it's ability to display 16.9 on a 2.35 screen in full screen and just go with a 2.35 screen.
[/QUOTE]


Awesome....!!


But... does there exist a projector which can show both 16:9 and 2.35:1 ( same height ) while being ceiling mounted at one fixed location without having to biy an anamorphic lens ?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Socio*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23750753
> 
> 
> I do remember seeing Star Trek Enterprise series in 2:35, don't remember if it was original airing on the CW or re-broadcast on HDnet been too long, and every once in a while Fox will air a pro football game in 2:35



I think it much more likely that you saw a 16:9 episode (probably in SD letterbox) stretched horizontally to 2.35:1 by the display.


Same with the football. Why would Fox intentionally broadcast a game in scope? Think about how much that would piss off the millions of Joe Sixpack viewers confused about why the game doesn't fill their HDTV. Not to mention that the smaller letterboxed image gives them much less room to display scores and stats and so forth on the screen. The high-def cameras used to shoot sporting events are all 16:9. There are no scope cameras for that application.


----------



## snyderkv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23750702
> 
> 
> guys,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking. .. is this a good alternative. ..?
> 
> 
> Have 2 screens. First can be a 16:9 and the second can be a 2.35:1 of the same height.
> 
> 
> Maybe have one fixed and the other as pulldown or have both as pull down.
> 
> 
> Does the above sound practical and have any possibility as a valid option ?



DNP Epic is motorized and will change aspect for you on one screen. But it's 20k +


----------



## DL4567




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/0_100#post_23750702
> 
> 
> guys,
> 
> 
> I'm thinking. .. is this a good alternative. ..?
> 
> 
> Have 2 screens. First can be a 16:9 and the second can be a 2.35:1 of the same height.
> 
> 
> Maybe have one fixed and the other as pulldown or have both as pull down.
> 
> 
> Does the above sound practical and have any possibility as a valid option ?



There would be no advantage to that other than not having white screen on the sides of your 16x9 picture. If you were going to go to the trouble of having 2 screens, you might as well make the 16x9 a little taller than the 2.35, giving you the best of both worlds when watching either aspect movies.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rana_kirti*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/0_100#post_23750801
> 
> 
> Awesome....!!
> 
> 
> But... does there exist a projector which can show both 16:9 and 2.35:1 ( same height ) while being ceiling mounted at one fixed location without having to buy an anamorphic lens ?



Any projector will do this using the "zoom method."


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DL4567*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23752175
> 
> 
> There would be no advantage to that other than not having white screen on the sides of your 16x9 picture.



You could just add manual masking panels if that's the goal.


----------



## Socio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_23720205
> 
> 
> Which is why, if someone is really serious about doing IMAX at home, I recommend a "CIH+IMAX" setup. Basically a standard CIH setup, but with a masked 16:9 screen so you can unmask for those rare IMAX titles and gain the extra height, while still retaining the proper CIH arrangement for "normal" 16:9 and scope content.



That is a very interesting idea, would be a whole lot cheaper than building an IMAX Private Theater , especially if you get an electric drop down screen that has memory settings where you could set is so mode 1 would drop it down to a certain point for 16.9 and scope content, mode 2 to drop it down further for IMAX content.


----------



## snyderkv

Delete


----------



## randyc1

Holy crap this is confusing !!


If my main concern is a (LARGE 2.35 Screen) ,.. Then i have to , UN zoom to get back a 16:9 image to fit in the 2.35 screen correct ??


Meaning if u dont have auto lens shift and zoom it has to be done manually Every Time !!


Is this correct ??????


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Unfortunately, yes, and you have to make sure you set the pj up so that zooming and unzooming doesn't require too much lens shift otherwise that's another adjustment you have to make. Quite often when you zoom, the image moves in the vertical plane as well.


However, if you generally only watch one move at a time, is it really a big problem? You set up the pj for whatever movie you watch, which may only take a minute or two, and then forget about it for the next two hours.


Gary


----------



## thegarr

Hey Bardea, I know this is an old post







but how far are you seated from your screen? I'm planning on the exact same screen for my setup ill be 12' away.


----------



## coffeeman101

also one thing to mention OP


how do you feel about Black bars?

if you want the all round screen, and don't mind the black bars..

then the answer is simple. the largest 16x9 you can go.


I for one don't mind the black bars. doesn't bother me at all.


BUT.. I wouldn't use my home theater to watch tv or sports I have a huge tv for that.


so for me its a no brainer I will take the epics in scope so its a 2:35:1 for me.

and I will deal with the pillars for other content if I end up watching sports or music videos etc..


masking a screen as everyone is saying, is just hiding the bars, but the bars are still there..

so the image is still technically the same size.. it's just you cant see the bars because they are covered with black ..

for me, I just leave the black bars and don't worry about it.


----------



## snyderkv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coffeeman101*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_24116185
> 
> 
> also one thing to mention OP
> 
> 
> how do you feel about Black bars?
> 
> if you want the all round screen, and don't mind the black bars..
> 
> then the answer is simple. the largest 16x9 you can go.
> 
> 
> I for one don't mind the black bars. doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> 
> BUT.. I wouldn't use my home theater to watch tv or sports I have a huge tv for that.
> 
> 
> so for me its a no brainer I will take the epics in scope so its a 2:35:1 for me.
> 
> and I will deal with the pillars for other content if I end up watching sports or music videos etc..
> 
> 
> masking a screen as everyone is saying, is just hiding the bars, but the bars are still there..
> 
> so the image is still technically the same size.. it's just you cant see the bars because they are covered with black ..
> 
> for me, I just leave the black bars and don't worry about it.



It's more than hiding bars. It's making the 2.35 image larger than your 16:9 with bars. The image gets pretty small. So if you have the money, that's the way to go.


If you project onto a wall where the screen is not limiting you, then you can easily just zoom against the wall and make the 2.35 image as large as you want, for a cost of FREE. no lens, special projector with wide and chromatic aberration options, no custom screen that would look odd with 16:9 content and cost a million dollars.


The black bars should disappear with good black levels or screen paint/masking even if you zoomed using a wide screen. I'm sure not a lot of people have 6-20 grand laying around to blow simply so they can say they have a real 2.35 system that looks no different than zooming which can be had for absolutely FREE.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *snyderkv*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/60#post_24116488
> 
> 
> It's more than hiding bars. It's making the 2.35 image larger than your 16:9 with bars. The image gets pretty small. So if you have the money, that's the way to go.
> 
> 
> If you project onto a wall where the screen is not limiting you, then you can easily just zoom against the wall and make the 2.35 image as large as you want, for a cost of FREE. no lens, special projector with wide and chromatic aberration options, no custom screen that would look odd with 16:9 content and cost a million dollars.
> 
> 
> The black bars should disappear with good black levels or screen paint/masking even if you zoomed using a wide screen. I'm sure not a lot of people have 6-20 grand laying around to blow simply so they can say they have a real 2.35 system that looks no different than zooming which can be had for absolutely FREE.



It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".


----------



## Yzfbossman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24117247
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".



Do you have a link for your masking set up. Thanks


----------



## snyderkv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24117247
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound you see the value of masking. For me the effect of a jet-black border framing the projected image is so dramatic, it's not even an option to do what you're suggesting. My masking system cost me $200 to make, using scrap lumber and black velvet. Not "6-20 grand".



Show me where I said masking would cost 6-20 grand?


First you need to upgrade your projector from say a 5030 to a 6030. That's $1000 extra.


Now buy a lens, the cheapest is $2000 total with mounting hardware and shipping. It goes up from there.


Finally buy the screen. A custom light rejecting screen I was quoted $4500 for 110". Sure I could buy a cheaper one but that's a downgrade from my current one. Cost difference is almost $2000.


That's 5,000 cheapest case scenario for me.


Cost is free if you just display on a wall with screen paint or something. You don't need any of those things. If you already have a screen, you could just zoom as you mentioned.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yzfbossman*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24117301
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for your masking set up. Thanks



I just realized that I've never posted pics, will try to do that tomorrow.


----------



## John Schlarb

Snyderkv, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you're saying that zooming to get the 2.35 experience is good enough, I agree with you. But the key to pulling that off is thick black velvet bars above and below the screen, to soak up the gray bars above and below the picture. Maybe we're saying the same thing.


I had always planned to mask off pillar bars for 16:9 content, but it never made the top of my long project list. For me movies are the main reason for owning a projector.


Regards,

John


----------



## snyderkv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24118400
> 
> 
> Snyderkv, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you're saying that zooming to get the 2.35 experience is good enough, I agree with you. But the key to pulling that off is thick black velvet bars above and below the screen, to soak up the gray bars above and below the picture. Maybe we're saying the same thing.
> 
> 
> I had always planned to mask off pillar bars for 16:9 content, but it never made the top of my long project list. For me movies are the main reason for owning a projector.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John



Or a projector and screen with really good black levels. The new 5030 with say a .8 gain screen I'm sure would make the bars go away?. I switched to a 2.3 gain recently and the blacks did take a hit.


----------



## srauly

I'm late to this party, but wanted to throw in my 2 cents. FWIW, I'm an old-timer around here but I've always been budget-minded...


1) A good question was posed before asking if you wanted your TV content to be bigger than your movie content (Wheel of Fortune vs something else I've forgotten). But then another good question was posed which introduced sports content as another type of viewing content that may be up for competition. That does complicate things if you're a big sports fan. Here's what I'll add, though (and this was something I thought about when making my decision): The best quality content (1080p) will come from Blu-rays, which basically means movies. TV shows and sports will max out at 1080i or 720p and will usually be lower bitrate than Blu-ray (in the case of cable TV, it can often be over-compressed). So, do you want to blow up high-bitrate Blu-ray sourced content to the largest possible size, or blow-up potentially over-compressed content (TV/sports)?


2) If the cost of a projector, scope screen, and panamorph lens scares you, instead of completely discounting the idea of scope, consider the "ghetto" manual zoom approach I use. I have a scope screen and manual-zoom Epson 8350 projector. I have my projector located right behind my head, so it's super-easy for me to adjust zoom/position/focus, but even if you had it ceiling-mounted or whatever, it could still be a workable option.


3) If you go scope, I recommend going 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1. The industry standard may be to use the term 2.35:1, but I've been disappointed to see that I have to adjust the zoom on my projector so as to overscan a lot of scope movies in order to get them to fill the height of my 2.35:1 screen. This results in useful image information being projected onto the masking of my screen (which doesn't work great to black it out, so I still kinda see it) and often even bleeds off my screen entirely and onto my back wall, so I have to dial it in precisely. Doh! A good amount of money spent on my screen with people telling me ahead of time that it shouldn't matter whether I went 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. I'm telling you, go 2.40:1.


----------



## nflguy

I went with a 133" 2:35 screen and have been very happy with it. Wide screen movies look amazing and 16x9 content is displayed at measurements comparable to 110" 16x9 screen


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *srauly*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24143531
> 
> 
> 
> 3) If you go scope, I recommend going 2.40:1 and not 2.35:1. The industry standard may be to use the term 2.35:1, but I've been disappointed to see that I have to adjust the zoom on my projector so as to overscan a lot of scope movies in order to get them to fill the height of my 2.35:1 screen. This results in useful image information being projected onto the masking of my screen (which doesn't work great to black it out, so I still kinda see it) and often even bleeds off my screen entirely and onto my back wall, so I have to dial it in precisely.



I've been using a DIY 2.35 screen (50" tall) for 4 years. The 4" of black velvet on the sides gobbles up the overscan (although with my new, brighter projector that may no longer be true). The problem with 2.40 is that so few manufacturers make 2.40 screens. And when you do play a 2.35 movie (which I think outnumber 2.40), you'll have gray bars on the sides.


----------



## srauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24148532
> 
> 
> I've been using a DIY 2.35 screen (50" tall) for 4 years. The 4" of black velvet on the sides gobbles up the overscan (although with my new, brighter projector that may no longer be true). The problem with 2.40 is that so few manufacturers make 2.40 screens. And when you do play a 2.35 movie (which I think outnumber 2.40), you'll have gray bars on the sides.


That's what people were saying before I bought mine, but I'm definitely getting too much bleeding on the sides. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I'm using the ghetto-style manual zoom method and others are using a panamorph and/or digital scalers and there's a difference there?


As for the custom screen aspect...I had a pull-down screen custom cut by Da-Lite. It's probably one of the lowest-priced options. If you want a fixed screen, it seems like those tend to be more expensive and you may not have as many custom sizing options.


----------



## AlexanderDelarg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bardia*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23542689
> 
> 
> 2:35:1 is the only way to go! I have a 120" screen and 1:85:1 movies are 95" diagonal in it. It doesn't make sense to get a 16:9 screen and have the bars on top and bottom. No way!


 



Unless you watch a lot of TV, then you are getting 36% less screen (120" diagonal) when using a scope screen to watch a TV show. That is big loss. If you watch mostly movies, then yes, a scope screen is the way to go. If you are 50-50, then it makes it tougher.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be. Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.


----------



## pbrandt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169470
> 
> 
> That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be. Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.


 

So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?

I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.


----------



## jeahrens

You have to to think of it in terms of screen height (CIH stands for Constant Image Height). A 110" 16:9 screen will measure 96" x 54". If you kept the same height of 54" you would have a scope (2.35:1) screen 127" wide. Because the height is constant you do not lose any picture size watching 16:9 content (still 96" x 54"), you only gain width watching a scope film. The only time you really have to worry about compromising is if your room is width constrained to the point you must sacrifice height to accommodate a narrower scope screen. Most rooms are much more height constrained (7-9' ceilings) so it's usually not the case.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderDelarg*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169318
> 
> 
> ...you are getting 36% less screen (120" diagonal) when using a scope screen to watch a TV show. That is big loss.



There's a great AVS thread about screen width/height here . I highly recommend reading it if you're trying to decide between CIH and CIW. What CIH really buys you is the ability to meet the SMPTE and THX recommendations with the same screen.


Sometimes smaller can be better; I found that out this weekend. My son and I watched 16:9 content that was 62" high from 13 feet away, and we both felt it was uncomfortable to watch. Moving the image closer to the floor helped, but that created other problems. We liked the 47" high image much better, and according to the resolution chart below it's perfect for watching 1080p content.


----------



## AlexanderDelarg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pbrandt*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169739
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?
> 
> I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.


 



I too am getting the Epson 6030 and would love a 2:35 screen but don't want to spend the additional money on an anamorphic lense. Probably will end up with the 16:9.


----------



## AlexanderDelarg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169943
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a great AVS thread about screen width/height here . I highly recommend reading it if you're trying to decide between CIH and CIW. What CIH really buys you is the ability to meet the SMPTE and THX recommendations with the same screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes smaller can be better; I found that out this weekend. My son and I watched 16:9 content that was 62" high from 13 feet away, and we both felt it was uncomfortable to watch. Moving the image closer to the floor helped, but that created other problems. We liked the 47" high image much better, and according to the resolution chart below it's perfect for watching 1080p content.


 



I agree that it is harder to watch 16:9 compared to 2:35 at least for me. Side to side viewing is more pleasing to me than more up - down screen size. Our eyes are left right and not on top of one another.....


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Yes - seating distance is very important, so you can have a scope screen and make sure you sit at the best distance for you for the 16:9 image, then the scope screen is the same height, only wider and more immersive, just as designed back in the 50s. Scope movies are all about having a greater visual impact over the other ratios.


If you have a certain size 16:9 screen already installed, but can not go 33% wider due to room/width restrictions, you can go smaller on the height to attain the scope ratio, but move your seating closer so that the image height to seating distance ratio remains the same. So if you have a height to seating ratio of say 2.5 to 1, and that is as close as you feel comfortable with the height for 16:9, then retain that ratio for the scope screen.


With the size of screens we use in the home, there's not a great deal to be had by looking just for the biggest screen we can fit in a room - 10 feet wide or 12 feet wide for example which means the scale isn't going to change much, but moving your seating closer can increase the visual impact quite a bit.


If going scope means sitting so close that your feet end up on the center speaker, then that is a good reason for sticking with 16:9 and sitting further back. If you have a large enough room and can be flexible on where the seats go, and provided movie content is one of the bigger factors for your viewing preferences, then I would always suggest going for a scope screen. If the room is a bit of a compromise, then a 2.05:1 screen (Constant Image Area) is the next best option in my opinion. For me, 16:9 compromises scope movies too much, but if your viewing content is primarily sport or tv then a scope screen would probably be a waste.


I personally prefer 2.37 with an A lens and sit at around 2.4 x the image height for 1080 material. I have sat closer and still enjoyed it with no problems, but if you have a back catalogue of SD (DVD) material, it can be a bit soft and if the image is too bright, source artefacts can start to become noticeable. That can mean being very careful with your set up and possible two different settings for DVD and BD.


Gary


----------



## Gooddoc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169470
> 
> 
> That's only assuming you're setting up for having scope inside a 16:9 screen and 16:9 within the scope area. Done properly, the 16:9 image is as big as it can be, and scope is the same height, only wider. By doing that, 16:9 is never too small and you're never getting 36% less screen. You're getting 100% 16:9 and wider scope movies, just as it should be.



I was going to start a new thread on this topic, but saw this and figured I'd jump in. I'm currently debating with myself whether to go scope or flat with my screen. I agree with what you wrote, but for those of us whose room is constrained by width, it is a far more difficult decision.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169470
> 
> 
> Assuming you're sitting at the optimum distance from the screen for 16:9 material.



Herein lies the problem. The width of my room allows for a 16:9 screen that is the size I want, but if I go with a 2.35 screen then the 16:9 image will be smaller than I would like for my seating distance. In other words, it's smaller than ideal. So with a 2.35 screen with scope content is perfect, but the flat content is smaller than I'd like.


My viewing material will be mostly movies, but also sports and high quality HD TV content, such as HBO and Showtime series Game of Thrones and others.


Although the mix of movies falls out to a 50% mix of scope and flat, once I add that other TV content the percentage of viewing will be more 16:9 than scope just due to law of averages.


Now, if all I watched were movies, and it were a 50/50 toss up, I would definitely choose the 2.35 screen and be done with it. I really do want that scope content without bars as I think its the best way to watch it. But given that I would then watch the greatest percentage of content in the smallest form factor it doesn't seem to make sense to forgo the largest image most of the time to get rid of bars for the least amount of content.


With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions. I do know that with my current plasma, although I'm aware of the bars at the start of a movie, the bars often disappear and by the time I'm involved in the movie itself I forget about them entirely.


So for a room without constraints for width or height, then sizing a 2.35 screen so 16:9 content is as large as necessary for the viewing distance would be the way to go in my opinion, just as you said. But in a width constrained situation, I'm not so sure.


I still haven't decided which way to go, but these are my thoughts so far.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderDelarg*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169955
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pbrandt*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169739
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is this accomplished by obtaining a larger scope screen?
> 
> I am new here and will be 50/50 on movies/(tv,games). I am still deciding on screen size (looking at 110"). I am planning on purchasing an Epson 6030. Possibly will get an a-morph lense down the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too am getting the Epson 6030 and would love a 2:35 screen but don't want to spend the additional money on an anamorphic lense. Probably will end up with the 16:9.
Click to expand...


You can manually zoom the projector or look at alternatives with built in lens memory. If movies are a priority then scope makes an absolutely massive difference in the home theater experience. Our JVC RS46 using the lens memory function performs excellent. I was using an inexpensive 2 prism lens with a DLP projector and do not regret switching to a zoom setup.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170024
> 
> 
> I was going to start a new thread on this topic, but saw this and figured I'd jump in. I'm currently debating with myself whether to go scope or flat with my screen. I agree with what you wrote, but for those of us whose room is constrained by width, it is a far more difficult decision.
> 
> Herein lies the problem. The width of my room allows for a 16:9 screen that is the size I want, but if I go with a 2.35 screen then the 16:9 image will be smaller than I would like for my seating distance. In other words, it's smaller than ideal. So with a 2.35 screen with scope content is perfect, but the flat content is smaller than I'd like.
> 
> 
> My viewing material will be mostly movies, but also sports and high quality HD TV content, such as HBO and Showtime series Game of Thrones and others.
> 
> 
> Although the mix of movies falls out to a 50% mix of scope and flat, once I add that other TV content the percentage of viewing will be more 16:9 than scope just due to law of averages.
> 
> 
> Now, if all I watched were movies, and it were a 50/50 toss up, I would definitely choose the 2.35 screen and be done with it. I really do want that scope content without bars as I think its the best way to watch it. But given that I would then watch the greatest percentage of content in the smallest form factor it doesn't seem to make sense to forgo the largest image most of the time to get rid of bars for the least amount of content.
> 
> 
> With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions. I do know that with my current plasma, although I'm aware of the bars at the start of a movie, the bars often disappear and by the time I'm involved in the movie itself I forget about them entirely.
> 
> 
> So for a room without constraints for width or height, then sizing a 2.35 screen so 16:9 content is as large as necessary for the viewing distance would be the way to go in my opinion, just as you said. But in a width constrained situation, I'm not so sure.
> 
> 
> I still haven't decided which way to go, but these are my thoughts so far.



There is a gentleman in the RS46 owners thread using a pulldown and a fixed screen. One 16:9 the other 2.35:1, both maximized for the room. Certainly not a cheap solution, but it does work.


----------



## tvolle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24169908
> 
> 
> You have to to think of it in terms of screen height (CIH stands for Constant Image Height). A 110" 16:9 screen will measure 96" x 54". If you kept the same height of 54" you would have a scope (2.35:1) screen 127" wide. Because the height is constant you do not lose any picture size watching 16:9 content (still 96" x 54"), you only gain width watching a scope film. The only time you really have to worry about compromising is if your room is width constrained to the point you must sacrifice height to accommodate a narrower scope screen. Most rooms are much more height constrained (7-9' ceilings) so it's usually not the case.




You are describing my screen's measurements.










My first row of seats is 11.5' away. This distance IMHO is perfect for my viewing tastes in 16:9 and 2.35:1 (the JVC RS56 has no discernible pixels at this distance). To me, the key to CIH is ensuring that you can comfortably see the screen top-to-bottom with no/minimal eye movement from your primary seating distance. Picking the proper height is also the beauty of the CIH set-up: once one sizes the 16:9 "screen", one can now comfortably watch all popular formats from the primary seating position. This allows one to view content comfortably in 4:3, 16:9, and all the way up to 2.40:1 since our eyes have a much wider viewing angle than vertical.


I am very happy with my decision to go with a 2.35:1 screen and CIH. Oh, I went the cheaper route and use zoom. No complaints there, either.


----------



## Gooddoc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170085
> 
> 
> There is a gentleman in the RS46 owners thread using a pulldown and a fixed screen. One 16:9 the other 2.35:1, both maximized for the room. Certainly not a cheap solution, but it does work.



Yes, not cheap







. Particularly if it is going in a living room and the screen needs to excel in not just bat cave conditions, but with higher ambient light as well.


This limits quality screen choices and increases costs even further.


----------



## John Schlarb

A quick way to decide whether a scope screen could work for you is to see whether a 16:9 image scaled down to fit the 'scope screen meets SMPTE recommendations. In my case, a 47" tall screen at 13 feet viewing distance gives me a 30 degree viewing angle for 16:9 content, which is perfect. But if I had more rows farther back I would strongly consider a flat (16:9) screen.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170024
> 
> 
> With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions.



Unless your HT is completely lined in black velvet, you'll see the black bars as gray no matter how good the projector's black level is. The reason is simple: ANY reflected light from the room will be picked up by the "black bars" part of the screen, because the screen is doing its job, reflecting its heart out. Put black velvet next to those bars, and you'll see how gray they really are.


----------



## Gooddoc

I can't dispute that with any personal experience. My comments were based off posts from members using the Black Diamond screen I'm considering. I'll definitely look into it further. If the bars are more than barely visible it will be unacceptable for me. I'd have to look at other options in that case.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170494
> 
> 
> I can't dispute that with any personal experience. My comments were based off posts from members using the Black Diamond screen I'm considering. I'll definitely look into it further. If the bars are more than barely visible it will be unacceptable for me. I'd have to look at other options in that case.



If you have a high-tech screen like the Black Diamond, it may not be an issue. Bias lighting would help as well, since your eyes will tell you the bars are black.


I currently use a 2.35 screen with a gain of .85 , and even with my walls and ceiling painted a very dark red, I see gray pillar bars where no image is being projected. Eventually I'll add DIY masking for 16:9, but side gray bars don't bother me nearly as much as top/bottom gray bars.


----------



## Gooddoc

I appreciate the comments and the heads up. Choosing my projector was easy compared to choosing my screen







. Exactly opposite what I thought when I decided I wanted to go with a projection setup. I have spent a ridiculous amount of time researching for a screen, lol. The PJ has been sitting in box for two weeks already waiting for something to shine onto...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Try shining onto the wall and see what works before buying a screen. I mentioned Constant Image Area before - the screen is 2.05:1 ratio, and you fill the height for 16:9, and zoom bigger to fill the width for 2.35. It's a better option than 16:9 IMHO as it doesn't compromise scope so much, so give that a go as well.


Gary


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24174844
> 
> 
> Try shining onto the wall and see what works before buying a screen. I mentioned Constant Image Area before - the screen is 2.05:1 ratio, and you fill the height for 16:9, and zoom bigger to fill the width for 2.35. It's a better option than 16:9 IMHO as it doesn't compromise scope so much, so give that a go as well.



That's an interesting compromise, kind of like getting a platypus because you can't decide between the beaver and the duck. ;-)


Seriously though, doesn't this approach force you to mask in 4 directions instead of just 2?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I think we all prefer beaver, though I could be wrong lol










Yeah it kinda does require 4 way masking which isn't the cheapest or easiest way to go IMHO, and I'd much rather stick with scope and only mask the sides, but some people prefer CIA.


Gary


----------



## electricmanscott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170024
> 
> 
> I was going to start a new thread on this topic, but saw this and figured I'd jump in. I'm currently debating with myself whether to go scope or flat with my screen. I agree with what you wrote, but for those of us whose room is constrained by width, it is a far more difficult decision.
> 
> Herein lies the problem. The width of my room allows for a 16:9 screen that is the size I want, but if I go with a 2.35 screen then the 16:9 image will be smaller than I would like for my seating distance. In other words, it's smaller than ideal. So with a 2.35 screen with scope content is perfect, but the flat content is smaller than I'd like.
> 
> 
> My viewing material will be mostly movies, but also sports and high quality HD TV content, such as HBO and Showtime series Game of Thrones and others.
> 
> 
> Although the mix of movies falls out to a 50% mix of scope and flat, once I add that other TV content the percentage of viewing will be more 16:9 than scope just due to law of averages.
> 
> 
> Now, if all I watched were movies, and it were a 50/50 toss up, I would definitely choose the 2.35 screen and be done with it. I really do want that scope content without bars as I think its the best way to watch it. But given that I would then watch the greatest percentage of content in the smallest form factor it doesn't seem to make sense to forgo the largest image most of the time to get rid of bars for the least amount of content.
> 
> 
> With a 16:9 screen I get the maximum size image for ALL the content with the only negative being the possibility(not a definite) of seeing black bars with scope content. I say "possibility" because my projector, the JVC 4910, may often produce blacks sufficient to make those bars effectively invisible with the proper screen and bat cave conditions. I do know that with my current plasma, although I'm aware of the bars at the start of a movie, the bars often disappear and by the time I'm involved in the movie itself I forget about them entirely.
> 
> 
> So for a room without constraints for width or height, then sizing a 2.35 screen so 16:9 content is as large as necessary for the viewing distance would be the way to go in my opinion, just as you said. But in a width constrained situation, I'm not so sure.
> 
> 
> I still haven't decided which way to go, but these are my thoughts so far.



I was in the same boat. Width wise I could only go 100" max so I bought a 100 inch wide fixed scope screen after reading all the scope is dope hype here at AVS. That gave me about 85" diagonal 16:9 within the scope screen. Way too small. Turns out, I watch a lot more 16:9 content than I realized and the small 16:9 screen area was just too small considering all the work I did to create a batcave and buy a projector. So I bought a 16:9 100" diagonal electric drop down screen and mounted it to the ceiling in front of the fixed screen. Problem solved! Nope. I bought an AT drop down and from my seating distance and with the necessary zoom on my projector I had awful Moire. So I ended up building a 100" wide 16:9 AT screen. Works perfectly . 16:9 is about 115" diagonal and scope is still 100"wide. The black bars when watching scope material really aren't too bad but they are definitely noticeable. So I made masking panels that velcro on for scope movies which gives the impression that you're watching a scope screen which in essence you are. Best of both worlds maximizing screen size for my space.


Side note, I have $1300 worth of unused screens sitting in two boxes.


----------



## Gooddoc

Yikes







. That's a heck of a journey!


Well, glad to hear you got what you wanted in the end.










Like you did, I'm thinking that I'm going to go with the largest 16:9 I can fit width wise and mask to 2.35.


The current plans are leaning towards the 113" diagonal 16:9 fixed Black Diamond 1.4 screen with the Carada Horizontal Masquerade masking system. That will get me a 2.35 image size of 107" diagonal.


I'm curious, what is your seating distance? My seating distance is 12 ft to 1st row, but I have a single recliner that would be about 6 or 7 ft. to the screen.


Our screens will be essentially the same size, based on your setup, do you think the screen will be watchable from that single recliner?


----------



## Gooddoc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24174844
> 
> 
> Try shining onto the wall and see what works before buying a screen. I mentioned Constant Image Area before - the screen is 2.05:1 ratio, and you fill the height for 16:9, and zoom bigger to fill the width for 2.35. It's a better option than 16:9 IMHO as it doesn't compromise scope so much, so give that a go as well.
> 
> 
> Gary



I'm sure I'm missing something. Given a maximum fixed width, what is the advantage of this approach over just masking 16:9 to 2.35?


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24176735
> 
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something. Given a maximum fixed width, what is the advantage of this approach over just masking 16:9 to 2.35?



I think Gary is pitching this as a compromise solution to try to equalize the screen area of 16:9 and scope. Both picture sizes would use the same surface area of the screen, minimizing as best you can the amount of unused area of the screen. You would still take a hit on overall 16:9 content size. Since you'd probably have to have the screen custom made and may have problems selling it down the road (not everyone would easily understand what the screen accomplishes), a 16:9 screen with masking probably makes the most sense. Although visually I can see the appeal of having scope and 16:9 content being the same overall area rather than scope being so much smaller on a 16:9 screen.


----------



## Gooddoc

Ok, I see the point. I know it's against the grain here, but I like the solution that maximizes BOTH formats.


Even with my little 60" plasma, once a scope movie has been underway for brief period of time I forget entirely about the fact that it's a smaller image area than the 16:9 content. It's the camera field of view and perspective of the scenes that dominate my perception at that point, so I don't think it will be a problem. In fact, I think it will become even less of an issue since, although it will be smaller than flat, it will still be a massive image at my seating distance. Particularly with masking.


As I have said, if I had the horizontal space I think the ideal situation would be to size a scope screen using the desired size of its 16:9 image to decide on its width. But in a width restricted application I think I like my approach more.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24179017
> 
> 
> Ok, I see the point. I know it's against the grain here, but I like the solution that maximizes BOTH formats.
> 
> 
> Even with my little 60" plasma, once a scope movie has been underway for brief period of time I forget entirely about the fact that it's a smaller image area than the 16:9 content. It's the camera field of view and perspective of the scenes that dominate my perception at that point, so I don't think it will be a problem. In fact, I think it will become even less of an issue since, although it will be smaller than flat, it will still be a massive image at my seating distance. Particularly with masking.
> 
> 
> As I have said, if I had the horizontal space I think the ideal situation would be to size a scope screen using the desired size of its 16:9 image to decide on its width. But in a width restricted application I think I like my approach more.



I personally think that the format that maximises both formats is a 2.35 screen with the seating placed st the closest position that maximises 16:9 for your own personal preference. That way, 16:9 is as big as you feel comfortable with, and scope is the same height, only wider - being more immersive, just as deigned way back in the 50s. By doing that, you're not sacrificing 16:9 because visibly it's the same size as a bigger 16:9 screen was when viewed from further back. Not everyone can or wants to move their seating closer to a smaller screen (even though what you get on your retina may be the same), so that's when other choices seem more favorable. CIA is another option that improves upon 16:9 for delivery of scope, which for some, greatly does a disservice to the presentation design of Scope which should be the 'biggest' most immersive format, not the smallest.


But, we're all different and our rooms may not be the ideal size for what we might like to have, so we just have to make do with what we've got or what we prefer. I just think it's important that people are aware that seating distance is an important factor, and there are more than one way to skin a cat other than sticking with 16:9.










Gary


----------



## Gooddoc

I pretty much agree with everything you said there Gary, with the exception that moving the seating closer can always make up for the screen size difference. I don't know what the phenomena is, perhaps it's entirely psychological, but there is something about a larger screen, even within the same visual field of view, that gives it a greater impact. Being closer to a smaller screen just doesn't have the same effect.


Now I realize I wrote this: "Even with my little 60" plasma, once a scope movie has been underway for brief period of time I forget entirely about the fact that it's a smaller image area than the 16:9 content", but what I meant by that was I forget that 16:9 content _on that screen_ is larger and it doesn't detract from my viewing pleasure. I do think that it would be better if it were a larger sceeen.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I do know what you mean - and I think it's our perception of 'scale'. I also think that it may have something to do with what else may be visible within our field of view if we can see things other than the screen when watching a movie.


This is what I found and it worked for me:


My last cinema room was in a loft with sloping ceilings, and the largest screen size I could get was 7 feet wide 16:9. I always felt that 2.35 looked too small and uninvolving so did some experimentation with CIA (kinda worked but was cumbersome) and then tried an 8ft wide 2.35 screen. Scope was now bigger and better, but 16:9 looked too small, and I initially had the urge to make some 16:9 movies larger by zooming to varying degrees which felt wrong, so to me there was something wrong with the set up if I felt like that.


I then realised that I was actually sitting further away from the now 6ft wide 16:9 image so of course it looked smaller. I moved my seating closer so that I was at the same height to seating ratio (which originally was 12 feet from the 7ft x 3.94ft 16:9, and 3 x SH away), so I moved the seating to 10.2 feet from the screen (8ft x 3.4ft) and everything felt much the same as before, and scope movies looked and felt even more impressive to watch - much more visual impact and immersion. I had a 720 pj at the time so sitting much closer than that wasn't really an option, and zooming for scope didn't do much for the image (mostly DVD as HD wasn't really available here in the UK then), so I added an Anamorphic lens which made a big difference. Of course with 1080 we can sit even closer if we want, and I do.


I think what helped was that I added black cloth to the walls and ceiling so now the image had the floating in space look and with no reference to anything else, it was by far a better experience than I had when viewing in a commercial theatre from the back row, which although had the perception of scale due to the lighting that they leave on, looked less impressive to me from a greater seating distance to screen height ratio. Of course, that's just anecdotal and there may be other factors which made me feel that way, but since then I've always considered seating distance, a completely blacked out viewing area and nothing else on view, above physical screen size, though having said that, I think we'd all like a bigger screen for that impressive 'wow' factor when you first walk into a room with the lights on.










I also think there is more to be had from a larger room when it comes to speaker location and the audio due to bigger distances and less speaker localisation due to the the greater distances involved.


Anyway, that's just my personal experience but we're all difference, and I also think that even when there may be no real difference, it's the knowledge of the difference that can make a difference (it could be bigger), if you know what I mean










Gary


----------



## Gooddoc

Yes I do







. Well said!


As you stated, there are many factors at play and carrying ones experience from room to room has pitfalls. Your points are well taken and your experience with your setup is very helpful to me as I formulate the game plan for my room


----------



## R Harkness

Gooddoc,


Obviously you've got some good possibilities for your set up and you can probably make any of them work. (I wouldn't even suggest mine, since I went more crazy and did an extra big screen with 4 way masking).


After reading about your situation and the content you will watch, my sense is that your idea of the 113" diagonal 16:9 screen with the Carada Horizontal Masquerade masking system, will be most satisfying.


And I really think the masking system would go some ways in making that set up more satisfying. I use the Carada Horizontal Masquerade system for part of my 4 way masking and it is a truly fantastic product; looks so professional

and works so superbly and reliably. 2:35:1 movies projected on a 16:9 screen have an odd, unfinished quality even if you think you aren't aware of the gray bars (never truly black). All you have to do is try masking to see the difference it makes from what you were used to with a 16:9 screen and a 2:35:1 image that fits the screen perfectly (when masked) surrounded in pitch black. Ask any Masquerade owner and they'll tell how how much better it

makes the viewing experience of 2:35:1 movies on their screen, and it does tend to help you "forget" you are even viewing on a 16:9 screen, as it is converted to a 2:35:1 screen...makes the image pop more, look better in contrast, etc.


Out of curiosity, what is driving you to the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen? Do you have a reflective room or issues with light control?


----------



## AlexanderDelarg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24181710
> 
> 
> Gooddoc,
> 
> 
> Obviously you've got some good possibilities for your set up and you can probably make any of them work. (I wouldn't even suggest mine, since I went more crazy and did an extra big screen with 4 way masking).
> 
> 
> After reading about your situation and the content you will watch, my sense is that your idea of the 113" diagonal 16:9 screen with the Carada Horizontal Masquerade masking system, will be most satisfying.
> 
> 
> And I really think the masking system would go some ways in making that set up more satisfying. I use the Carada Horizontal Masquerade system for part of my 4 way masking and it is a truly fantastic product; looks so professional
> 
> and works so superbly and reliably. 2:35:1 movies projected on a 16:9 screen have an odd, unfinished quality even if you think you aren't aware of the gray bars (never truly black). All you have to do is try masking to see the difference it makes from what you were used to with a 16:9 screen and a 2:35:1 image that fits the screen perfectly (when masked) surrounded in pitch black. Ask any Masquerade owner and they'll tell how how much better it
> 
> makes the viewing experience of 2:35:1 movies on their screen, and it does tend to help you "forget" you are even viewing on a 16:9 screen, as it is converted to a 2:35:1 screen...makes the image pop more, look better in contrast, etc.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, what is driving you to the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen? Do you have a reflective room or issues with light control?



I am thinking of going with the Carada Criterion Brilliant White (1.4) per David Giles of Carada. My room is a dedicated HT and has no ambient light and I can make it dark as space but he said to get the BW over the Classic Cinema White (1.0) for more pop when the bulb starts to dim and for better 3D. I have read that when the BW was tested it came out closer to 1.1 - 1.2. I thought for sure he would recommend the CW due to my set up. Which screen did you go with? Happy?


----------



## R Harkness

You didn't say how big your screen was, but the BW is a fantastic screen material and I'd bet you'll be really happy with it. Not to mention that your purchase experience will be a good one with Carada.

I tested the BW material and loved it. However, I needed a tiny bit more gain and went with the Stewart ST-130. I'm very happy with the stewart screen, combined with the Carada masking system.


----------



## John Schlarb

Carada told me the replacement cost for the screen alone is 55% of the total cost. I decided to get the CCW because I calculated that I'll still have plenty of lumens at mid-life. If I'm wrong, I can always switch over to the BW.


----------



## AlexanderDelarg

My screen is going to be 118" if 16:9 and 120" if 2:35.


----------



## Gooddoc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24181710
> 
> 
> Gooddoc,
> 
> 
> Obviously you've got some good possibilities for your set up and you can probably make any of them work. (I wouldn't even suggest mine, since I went more crazy and did an extra big screen with 4 way masking).
> 
> 
> After reading about your situation and the content you will watch, my sense is that your idea of the 113" diagonal 16:9 screen with the Carada Horizontal Masquerade masking system, will be most satisfying.
> 
> 
> And I really think the masking system would go some ways in making that set up more satisfying. I use the Carada Horizontal Masquerade system for part of my 4 way masking and it is a truly fantastic product; looks so professional
> 
> and works so superbly and reliably. 2:35:1 movies projected on a 16:9 screen have an odd, unfinished quality even if you think you aren't aware of the gray bars (never truly black). All you have to do is try masking to see the difference it makes from what you were used to with a 16:9 screen and a 2:35:1 image that fits the screen perfectly (when masked) surrounded in pitch black. Ask any Masquerade owner and they'll tell how how much better it
> 
> makes the viewing experience of 2:35:1 movies on their screen, and it does tend to help you "forget" you are even viewing on a 16:9 screen, as it is converted to a 2:35:1 screen...makes the image pop more, look better in contrast, etc.
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, what is driving you to the Black Diamond 1.4 gain screen? Do you have a reflective room or issues with light control?



Hey Rich,


Somehow my reply ended up over in the JVC thread over in the PJ forum. I really don't know how that happened? I'm surprised someone in that thread didn't comment that the post came out of nowhere, lol. Anyway, here it is













I'll give a quick recap - a Cliff Notes version - of my situation that I've spread throughout multiple threads in the process of asking my arguably inane questions,


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gooddoc*  /t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/2940#post_24177330
> 
> 
> Seriously though, this is a living room. Like one of those real "living" rooms. Young kids, wife - you know, your typical space invaders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now, having said that, I do get my movie nights on occasion where reference level audio and bat cave conditions prevail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . But this has got to be a do-it-all setup.
> 
> 
> That's why I would be going with a Black Diamond 1.4 screen and nice Carada Masquerade masking system - because, well, it's really freaking cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm being told that the screen should work well in my space even with lights on. I admit though, I have my reservations about that. My wife will be very unhappy to watch a washed out picture after viewing a professionally calibrated Pioneer KRP-600M for the past years.
> 
> 
> My other option is to recess a motorized BD into my ceiling and drop it down in front of the plasma and use the PJ for movies and selected HD tv only. The downside to that is two-fold. One is that I don't get masking for 2.35 in that scenario, and two, if I ever build a dedicated theater the fixed screen works in that scenario but the motorized not so much.
> 
> 
> But considering every bit of feedback to this point has been, paraphrasing, "I'd never go back to a small screen", I'm slowly gaining the confidence to just take the plasma off the wall and put the screen up.



Room:  


Also, to be clear, this room contains the ONLY TV in my home. So not only is the room a bit challenging, but "light control" and "kids and wife" and "low viewing hours" are generally incompatible concepts










But regardless, I was nearing the decision point of jumping feet first with the fixed screen and masking system to replace the plasma due to comments like this:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cardoski*  /t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/2940#post_24176986
> 
> 
> Well my setup is a dedicated room, it has total light control, so that is a big consideration at least for these projectors. I mean the size and quality of the image is so good you will wonder how you ever watched a TV. Not even the performance of the Panasonic VT60 I looked at could get me to switch back. Watching football or movies on a large screen is pure movie nirvana. If you have a proper viewing environment do it.



When I started getting comments like these,


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kelvin1965S*  /t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/2940#post_24177854
> 
> 
> While I'd never go back to small screen to watch films on, I wouldn't restrict myself to using a projector for day to day viewing either: Whatever the dealer says a BD will still look somewhat washed out with lights on compared to a plasma, projectors don't like being turned on and off for short periods either as it's better to leave it on if you plan to use it again within an hour or two. Plus I don't really want to watch things like the news, chat shows, etc in cinema size, after a while seeing everything that big will mean that films on the big screen won't seem 'special'.
> 
> 
> Just my take on it and why I still have a fairly basic, but serviceable, 40" TV for day to day use (especially since much of the time it's on and no one is _really_ watching it).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonStatt*  /t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/2940#post_24179136
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea. I don't personally think that projectors are viable for everyday usage although I know some do use it that way. It isn't just the bulb consumption but projectors do have panel mutation that gets progressively worse as the projector ages. While this should be fixable with calibration for a good few thousand hours, it has been found that once the mutation gets too bad, that it becomes impossible to fix, or the sacrifices are too great (loss of contrast, posterisation etc). I think having the projector as a primary is for those wealthy enough to change their projector every year or two at most.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JonStatt*  /t/1486011/new-range-jvc-2014/2940#post_24179281
> 
> 
> Indeed, others call it panel aging...but I call it panel mutation which is my own label for it.
> 
> 
> This is not just confined to JVCs but also Sony's do it. As Kelvin suggests, the changes in older models was far more radical. Gamma droop was a part of it, but also there are certain changes to the colour filters which mean that it may become harder to achieve Rec.709 as well. Like Kelvin, I have the 2013 model now, an X75, and the mutation is radically decreased, but I still see some changes. Right now we are at the 300-400 hour mark, and we don't know how much change there will be at 2000 hours. If you are using it every day, 2000 hours is not that hard to achieve. While it will take me many years to hit 2000 hours with my usage, and therefore a non-issue, I just feel it is taking a gamble on how the projector will age if you are using it everyday. If money is no object then its irrelevant, but if the projector is intended to be kept for 5 years for example, I would be very hesitant.
> 
> 
> Incidentally JVC do not deny the existence of this phenomenon. In fact they advertise the auto calibration feature as a way to help offset it. Notice in the marketing they refer to the use of calibration as the projector ages and distinctly not say as the bulb ages.



That gave me pause and I had to start rethinking the motorized retractable, which is a less desirable option from a PQ perspective. Besides, I really, really, really(did I mention really?) want that super cool masking system (I know, I sound like my kids














). And not _just_ because it's really super cool, but because I know it will give me the image I want. Also, the fixed screen is definitely usable if I ever get a dedicated theater room built, whereas the motorized is not.


At this point in the process it seems both the fixed mask and motorized retractable options have fatal(in my current view of the situation) drawbacks. So I'm stuck at an impasse. I can't seem to pick my poison







.


----------



## R Harkness

Yeah, the screen choice was probably the hardest part of my whole home theater.


I'm glad I took my time though. When I first started out I figured I'd be putting up a regular 92" diag 16:9 screen, between my existing speakers. "That's big enough."

But after borrowing a projector and watching movies on my wall for weeks and weeks, the image size grew, and I ended up with an image over 10 feet wide. So glad I

thought things through.


----------



## Gooddoc

Not having a dedicated room definitely makes things more difficult. I'm currently just marinating my options in my brain. I'll settle on something eventually.


My options are:


1) PJ as primary TV with fixed screen and Carada masking. Not likely option due to PJ wear. Replacing PJ's every couple years without resale value is not in the cards.


2) Fixed screen and masking in a dedicated room. This is most expensive option and a serious project that requires something I'm short on - patience







. As well, I have some challenges pulling this off in my current home. It is probably the smartest thing to do.


3) BD 1.4 flush electric in front of plasma. It's the best flush electric screen for my space without masking as far as I can tell. I can't do hung ceiling screens, so dual screens are not an option. Also, the BD is an expensive option and two of them would be ridiculously expensive. I could fund option two for the price of those two screens.


----------



## armstrr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24179456
> 
> 
> I personally think that the format that maximises both formats is a 2.35 screen with the seating placed st the closest position that maximises 16:9 for your own personal preference. That way, 16:9 is as big as you feel comfortable with, and scope is the same height, only wider - being more immersive, just as deigned way back in the 50s. By doing that, you're not sacrificing 16:9 because visibly it's the same size as a bigger 16:9 screen was when viewed from further back. Not everyone can or wants to move their seating closer to a smaller screen (even though what you get on your retina may be the same), so that's when other choices seem more favorable. CIA is another option that improves upon 16:9 for delivery of scope, which for some, greatly does a disservice to the presentation design of Scope which should be the 'biggest' most immersive format, not the smallest.
> 
> 
> But, we're all different and our rooms may not be the ideal size for what we might like to have, so we just have to make do with what we've got or what we prefer. I just think it's important that people are aware that seating distance is an important factor, and there are more than one way to skin a cat other than sticking with 16:9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary


I agree. I have lived with and enjoyed a 104" wide 16:9 high power with a CRT PJ for years...I just got my first digital PJ and am building a 128" wide 2,37 curved AT screen.. With the screen a little farther into the room,and the first riw moved an inch or 3 closer,the viewing angle will essentially be the same for 16:9...but when the panamorph 480 slides into place...wow


Side note...my seating distance is only about 9.5' and will be closer to 9' when the upgrade is complete.


If possible make sure your 16:9 size makes you happy....and then keep that height and get a 2.40 screen and you will be thrilled with simple side masks for 16:9


----------



## armstrr

The other thing to consider if a large screen is desired...the benefit of added brightness with a lens system...since acoustic transparent screens have less gain....also if you have a close seating position... Zooming may make pixel structure noticeable and annoying


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Same here. After comparing zooming with a lens, I couldn't go back. Maybe with 4K I could live with zooming but then I'd have that nagging feeling that I'm not using 2 million pixels that I paid good money for...










Gary


----------



## farsider3000

I have been wrestling with this question for quite some time now and I believe I have decided to go with a 2.4:1 screen vs. 16x9. If I buy a projector with great black levels such as the new JVC X700, and use it in my light controlled theater room will I actually see the black bars above and below a 16x9 screen when playing a 2.4:1 widescreen blu-ray or will it just blend with the blackness of the wall behind the screen?


My "eyes to screen" distance is 13.5ft from the front row and I designed the room with a hidden area under the trim to mount a motorized screen that will drop down in front of the existing plasma.


Gooddoc: if you can pull it off I highly recommend a dedicated room. This has been an amazing addition to our house that my wife and I use on a daily basis to watch tv, for college football and to have friends over to watch movies. The kids love it too. It is sound proofed so we can watch at reference levels without waking the kids. It's our oasis after the kids are asleep.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *farsider3000*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24206584
> 
> 
> If I buy a projector with great black levels such as the new JVC X700, and use it in my light controlled theater room will I actually see the black bars above and below a 16x9 screen when playing a 2.4:1 widescreen blu-ray or will it just blend with the blackness of the wall behind the screen?



The only way to obliterate the black bars is to use black velvet or something like it. They will be very faint with dark and non-reflective walls, but they'll bug you.


----------



## farsider3000

Thanks John. If I go with a scope screen I need to find an electric drop down screen that will drop down additional masking to mask the sides of the screen when I am watching 16x9 content. Any suggestions? I want to keep the plasma on the wall (also want to upgrade that to 75" LCD soon) for gaming (Xbox One kinect) and TV that I don't want to watch on a massive screen.


----------



## jeahrens

I can't see the black bars at all zoomed over onto the flat dark red walls in my theater with my JVC RS46. You will have a brighter image with a lens, however the drop with zooming is not nearly as dramatic as I feared it would be. The manual iris opened 2-3 steps easily compensates for it. I have to be about 6' from my 130" scope screen before I notice any pixel structure, so it is not visible from the seating area. If you can afford a high quality lens, it's the best way to go (though you will still lose a bit of contrast). However having gone from an inexpensive 2 prism lens to zooming, I am more than happy with the results zooming gives.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24209562
> 
> 
> I can't see the black bars at all zoomed over onto the flat dark red walls in my theater with my JVC RS46. You will have a brighter image with a lens, however the drop with zooming is not nearly as dramatic as I feared it would be. The manual iris opened 2-3 steps easily compensates for it. I have to be about 6' from my 130" scope screen before I notice any pixel structure, so it is not visible from the seating area. If you can afford a high quality lens, it's the best way to go (though you will still lose a bit of contrast). However having gone from an inexpensive 2 prism lens to zooming, I am more than happy with the results zooming gives.



Good comments, but just wanted to point out that opening the iris also causes a drop in contrast (as does zooming).


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24246676
> 
> 
> Good comments, but just wanted to point out that opening the iris also causes a drop in contrast (as does zooming).



Opening the iris raises the black level, but also increases brightness. So is the overall contrast (difference between black and white) really affected? Conversely zooming should lower both white and black levels. I will say that the lowest available black level is a function of the room and screen material, so if white gets dimmer while black stay the same you will lose contrast.


In practice I don't see any difference in contrast between zoomed 2.40 content and non-zoomed 1.78 content with my VPL-HW55. I can offset the loss of brightness by opening the iris.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24248233
> 
> 
> Opening the iris raises the black level, but also increases brightness. So is the overall contrast (difference between black and white) really affected?



Yes. Zoom lenses on (almost all) projectors are not constant aperture, as you open the aperture, less light is blocked (or more light is allowed to pass). This includes both "real" light and "waste" light. The less waste light you block the lower the contrast.


This is easily seen in Cine4home's data on the JVC projectors, for example here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.cine4home.de/knowhow/Cine4Home_Edition_JVC_X500_X700/JVC_DLA_X500_X700_C4HEd.htm&prev=/search?q%3Dcine4home%2Bjvc%2Bx500%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DVSJ%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial 


On the extreme end, on the X700, low lamp, min iris. Min throw is 280 Lumens and 62000:1 contrast, max throw is 230 Lumens and 80000:1 contrast, that's an 22% increase in brightness (min to max throw) but a 23% decrease in contrast. Of course that's over something like a 2x zoom range so real-world for zoom method it will be lower than that, how much will depend on where on the curves you fall since the drop isn't linear across the zoom range.


Of course the same applies to opening the iris (eg to compensate for the loss of brightness projecting a larger area), again taking things to a bit more of an extreme case than Zoom method would require. If you went from say Low lamp, max throw, minimum iris (230 Lumens) to say low lamp, min throw, medium iris to account for the 78% larger projected area (510/1.78=290 effective Lumens, so I guess not that unrealistic), contrast drops from 80000:1 to 41000:1, almost cut in half.


----------



## John Schlarb

What I've been doing lately is to use low lamp for 16:9, and high lamp for zoomed (2.35) content. This strategy will break down as my lamp dims, though.


I think what's important is to look at Luminance for various modes. Black levels are much harder to control unless you have black velvet walls and floors.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24246676
> 
> 
> Good comments, but just wanted to point out that opening the iris also causes a drop in contrast (as does zooming).



I open the iris in scope to equalize overall brightness with 16:9 content. So the contrast is essentially the same. I think scope is -7 and 16:9 is -9. I'd have to check to be sure (it's close to that though). But in both cases the iris is stopped down a fair bit.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24248290
> 
> 
> Yes. Zoom lenses on (almost all) projectors are not constant aperture, as you open the aperture, less light is blocked (or more light is allowed to pass). This includes both "real" light and "waste" light. The less waste light you block the lower the contrast.
> 
> 
> This is easily seen in Cine4home's data on the JVC projectors, for example here:
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.cine4home.de/knowhow/Cine4Home_Edition_JVC_X500_X700/JVC_DLA_X500_X700_C4HEd.htm&prev=/search?q%3Dcine4home%2Bjvc%2Bx500%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DVSJ%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial
> 
> 
> On the extreme end, on the X700, low lamp, min iris. Min throw is 280 Lumens and 62000:1 contrast, max throw is 230 Lumens and 80000:1 contrast, that's an 22% increase in brightness (min to max throw) but a 23% decrease in contrast. Of course that's over something like a 2x zoom range so real-world for zoom method it will be lower than that, how much will depend on where on the curves you fall since the drop isn't linear across the zoom range.
> 
> 
> Of course the same applies to opening the iris (eg to compensate for the loss of brightness projecting a larger area), again taking things to a bit more of an extreme case than Zoom method would require. If you went from say Low lamp, max throw, minimum iris (230 Lumens) to say low lamp, min throw, medium iris to account for the 78% larger projected area (510/1.78=290 effective Lumens, so I guess not that unrealistic), contrast drops from 80000:1 to 41000:1, almost cut in half.



Beat me to it! Thanks for an explanation that is both better and more detailed than mine would be.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24249229
> 
> 
> I open the iris in scope to equalize overall brightness with 16:9 content. So the contrast is essentially the same. I think scope is -7 and 16:9 is -9. I'd have to check to be sure (it's close to that though). But in both cases the iris is stopped down a fair bit.



You are equalizing brightness, but as Stanger89 pointed out in his post above, opening the iris more for Scope means less contrast for Scope.


How visible is this? That depends - how blacked out is your room, what is your throw distance, etc. I'm not saying it is a big deal to worry about, just that there is no free lunch with any of these various methods


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24250489
> 
> 
> You are equalizing brightness, but as Stanger89 pointed out in his post above, opening the iris more for Scope means less contrast for Scope.
> 
> 
> How visible is this? That depends - how blacked out is your room, what is your throw distance, etc. I'm not saying it is a big deal to worry about, just that there is no free lunch with any of these various methods



I realize you would need a meter and real measurements to give an accurate value, but I can tell you that the perceived difference is zero. The iris stepping to compensate isn't much and the black floor to the eye is consistent (it's very low in either case). Again you would need a light meter to really measure this. But I bet it's pretty close to linear.


I could see the slight contrast drop on my inexpensive 2 prism lens, where I can't zooming and slightly opening the iris. Obviously a high quality lens will be better at preserving contrast ratio. But having had experience both ways, zooming does not appear to have an effect. It may well be that the drop just isn't something I can perceive.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24250903
> 
> 
> I realize you would need a meter and real measurements to give an accurate value, but I can tell you that the perceived difference is zero. The iris stepping to compensate isn't much and the black floor to the eye is consistent (it's very low in either case). Again you would need a light meter to really measure this. But I bet it's pretty close to linear.
> 
> 
> I could see the slight contrast drop on my inexpensive 2 prism lens, where I can't zooming and slightly opening the iris. Obviously a high quality lens will be better at preserving contrast ratio. But having had experience both ways, zooming does not appear to have an effect. It may well be that the drop just isn't something I can perceive.



No argument here - it is quite likely that the difference would be very hard to perceive.


So many discussions on A/V boards become debates about what you can measure vs. what you can actually see or hear (or what people *think* they actually see or hear, vs. what can be confirmed by blind testing). This is why I said it isn't a big deal to worry about. So, I think we agree on this subject when it comes to actual perception


----------



## Tim Glover

Really good thread and really has me thinking. Like a few here, I haven't pulled the trigger on a screen yet but would love a scope one. But I just recently acquired a new Sony 50es...the zoom approach is the only solution that I can realistically do. So if I am reading this right; If I get a 16x9 screen-say 120. Then to zoom the scope film it would then fill the entire 16x9 screen?


I could try and sell my Sony. Only has 5 hours on it LOL...


----------



## stanger89

If you get a 16:9 screen, you won't be zooming, that's only applicable with a scope (~2.37:1) screen.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tim Glover*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24345858
> 
> 
> Really good thread and really has me thinking. Like a few here, I haven't pulled the trigger on a screen yet but would love a scope one. But I just recently acquired a new Sony 50es...the zoom approach is the only solution that I can realistically do. So if I am reading this right; If I get a 16x9 screen-say 120. Then to zoom the scope film it would then fill the entire 16x9 screen?
> 
> 
> I could try and sell my Sony. Only has 5 hours on it LOL...



As Stranger89 said you need to buy a scope screen (~2.35:1) to be able to use either the zoom method or a lens. Since you have probably watched a scope film on your current HDTV or projector you know that the image fills the width, but not the height (thus the black bars at the top and bottom). Now imagine taking that image and zooming it so it filled the height of the 16:9 screen. You would now have an image that fills the screen, but because it is wider a good portion of it is now off of the screen on either side. That is where the scope screen comes in. It's dimension match the scope image so the image is now perfectly framed when zoomed. When watching 16:9 content on a scope screen you will now have unused portions on the sides of the screen, just like how 1:33 movies ( most older black and white movies) and older 4:3 television programs look on a 16:9 screen. The nice part is that as long as you do not have to compromise on screen height no content will be compromised as far as size.So in your example of a 120" 16:9 screen (59" tall), as long as you could accommodate a 150" 2.35:1 screen (which would have a width of about 138" and have the same height of 59") you would have the same screen area used for viewing 16:9 content.


Your Sony is a great projector. You have a couple options here. The first is to securely mount the projector and manually zoom the image between 16:9 and scope content. Not very convenient, but workable. I know people that do this and seem to get along fine. The second would be to buy or build an inexpensive 2 prism lense. Before buying the JVC I used one with my Infocus X10. You will have a small drop in contrast and some slight visual anomalies, but overall it is still a very satisfying image. This would be something you would just move in front of the projector and engage its anamorphic mode to view scope content.


----------



## Tim Glover

Thank you both ^ for the help. I appreciate it. I realized after I posted that I was off base. The new Sony 50es is my 6th projector since 2003. I really want to do this setup right in terms of movie viewing. Sports in a close second but only during football season. I rarely watch tv at all during Feb-August.










So many good thoughts in this thread regarding films like Star Wars, LOTR, and so many more getting the short end of the screen. On the other hand, there's a few gems like Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, & Avatar.


My plan is measure exactly how wide I can truly go for a scope movie from our seating positions and do the same for 16x9 films as well.


----------



## stanger89

The "ideal" way to setup a CIH system, is to start with a 16:9 size you like, then just make it wider for scope. Then you haven't compromised either. Or at least think about it that way, if you place your seating so you're happy with the 16:9 size you should be fine with both.


There are some "strange" ones out there, like the IMAX format films (both IMAX movies and movies shot that way like Avatar, TDK, etc), but to really do those justice they should be larger than either scope or 16:9 movies, and that gets even more complex to setup. I like to call it CIH+IMAX, where you have a really large 16:9 screen, but 99% of the time have it masked to scope size (top/bottom 25% masked off), and you operate it as a normal CIH setup, but when you get one of those IMAX films, you can open up that masking for the IMAX experience.


Personally I don't think that's worth it for the handful of movies that fall into that category, but that's just me.


----------



## DavidHir

I just bought my first projector - JVC RS-4810. My dedicated room will be finished soon and I will have to decide on a screen size.


The most I can sit back is about 11 feet and I have been projecting on the wall up to 125" diagonal which is the most the projector allows. We're talking about 108.5" wide.


I don't see how a scope screen helps me in my case, correct? 16:9 or 2:35 cannot be wider than 108.5" given my throw distance (which is also maxed out).


Just comes down to if I want black bars on 2:35 content and such if I go with a 16:9 screen. Going with a ~2:35 would cause significant 1:85 size loss, of course.


I was thinking about one of these screens where there are manual masks for 16:9 screens - thoughts? Powered screens are out of budget. Thanks.

http://www.seymourav.com/masking.asp


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24355469
> 
> 
> Just comes down to if I want black bars on 2:35 content and such if I go with a 16:9 screen. Going with a ~2:35 would cause significant 1:85 size loss, of course.



IMO the real question is do you want, or are you OK with epic movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit (which are scope) being smaller than everyday TV or romantic comedies or whatnot which tend to be more 16:9.


I've said it before but I think people get too hung up on how many inches their screen is, when they should be thinking about the overall experience of the entire system as a whole. You say you can go up to about 110" wide, that's 46" high for a scope screen, at 11 ft seating distance, that's a bit under a 3.0x height seating distance, which is right smack in the middle of the recommended range of 2x to 4x from the likes of SMPTE, THX, FOX, etc:








http://cavx.blogspot.com/2006/09/marks-home-theatre-projects-cavx-room.html 

Actually your ratio is 2.86 which is almost exactly the Fox ideal seating distance.


I guess what I'm trying to say is even with scope I think you'd have a great size 16:9 image (actually your viewing ratio is a tad closer than mine, which is closer to 3.8). Personally I don't feel like I'm "missing out" with 16:9 in my setup. So before you make up your mind, take a moment to think about if you want 16:9 to be 33% larger than scope, or the reverse, and just the system as a whole.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24351415
> 
> 
> The "ideal" way to setup a CIH system, is to start with a 16:9 size you like, then just make it wider for scope. Then you haven't compromised either. Or at least think about it that way, if you place your seating so you're happy with the 16:9 size you should be fine with both.



That's the way it should be done IMHO, but quite a few people seem to get stuck in the biggest 16:9 image way of thinking and can't get their heads around having their seating in the right place as well so that 16:9 is visually as big as they want it, and scope is just wider. Even after mentioning that, some say "but look at how big the screen would be if 16:9 was that wide - it would be taller and bigger and better" which completely misses the point. They also miss the point that by setting up for 16:9 and allowing for a 235 screen, they haven't compromised 16:9 at all. It's visually as big as it would be if they had a bigger 16:9 screen and sat further back so it wasn't uncomfortable to watch. Then they'd be back at the best size visually, but now do not have the room for a scope screen...


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24355469
> 
> 
> 
> Just comes down to if I want black bars on 2:35 content and such if I go with a 16:9 screen. Going with a ~2:35 would cause significant 1:85 size loss, of course.



That's the thing - if you set up your seating distance correctly, and have 16:9 as big as you visually like it (usually the visual height governs this), then 16:9 is the correct size, and you have room for a wider 2.35 screen. That way, you don't lose any size visually for 16:9 content. If you just want the biggest screen you can fit and don't think about seating distance to maximise visual impact, then scope movies will be severely compromised.


If you have a 16:9 screen and watch 2.35 movies with black bars, and then compare that to a 2.35 screen of the same height, scope movies are then 77% larger when compared to how you would view them in the 16:9 screen. That's a huge difference and why scope was designed that way. It's more immersive than 16:9 and how it was originally designed to be seen way back in the 50s.


Of course, if you watch primarily 16:9 and stuff from tv like sports, then maybe that would be the better choice, but for movies, scope should be wider for a more immersive experience.


Just thought I'd add that when I first started, I had a 7ft wide 16:9 screen in my loft - it was the biggest I could fit and that's what governed my screen size choice then (as it does for most if us when starting out). After a while found that scope movies looked too small and were disappointing - not at all like the big movie theatres I'd been to as a kid, so for me the presentation was disappointing, That's what made me start thing about a scope screen. After experimenting with CIA, I ended up with an 8ft wide 2.35 CIH screen which now made scope movies look much better, but 16:9 now looked smaller than before - it was just 6ft wide and I was being tempted to zoom 16:9 larger to fill the screen more. I then realised that because I hadn't moved my seating closer so that I was at the same relative seating distance, my viewing angle for 16:9 had changed. Previously I was sat 12 feet back from the 7ft screen which was a screen height to seating ratio of around 3:1, but now it was 3.5:1, so I moved my seating closer so I was at the same viewing ratio ( 3 times the screen height so now 10.2 feet back), and now 16:9 looked as large as it was before, but now scope was even more immersive with much more visual impact.


Not long after that I went from zooming to using a lens because the image quality when zoomed was noticeably poorer, and a lens restored the image quality, but that's another story.


That was with a 720 pj and DVD. Nowadays with 1080 and Blu Ray, THXs recommended 2.4 x SH gives an even better visual experience for me, and sometimes I've sat a little closer. Seating distance is far more important than people realise IMHO.


Gary


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24355972
> 
> 
> That's the thing - if you set up your seating distance correctly, and have 16:9 as big as you visually like it (usually the visual height governs this), then 16:9 is the correct size, and you have room for a wider 2.35 screen. That way, you don't lose any size visually for 16:9 content. If you just want the biggest screen you can fit and don't think about seating distance to maximise visual impact, then scope movies will be severely compromised.
> 
> 
> If you have a 16:9 screen and watch 2.35 movies with black bars, and then compare that to a 2.35 screen of the same height, scope movies are then 77% larger when compared to how you would view them in the 16:9 screen. That's a huge difference and why scope was designed that way. It's more immersive than 16:9 and how it was originally designed to be seen way back in the 50s.
> 
> 
> Of course, if you watch primarily 16:9 and stuff from tv like sports, then maybe that would be the better choice, but for movies, scope should be wider for a more immersive experience.
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd add that when I first started, I had a 7ft wide 16:9 screen in my loft - it was the biggest I could fit and that's what governed my screen size choice then (as it does for most if us when starting out). After a while found that scope movies looked too small and were disappointing - not at all like the big movie theatres I'd been to as a kid, so for me the presentation was disappointing, That's what made me start thing about a scope screen. After experimenting with CIA, I ended up with an 8ft wide 2.35 CIH screen which now made scope movies look much better, but 16:9 now looked smaller than before - it was just 6ft wide and I was being tempted to zoom 16:9 larger to fill the screen more. I then realised that because I hadn't moved my seating closer so that I was at the same relative seating distance, my viewing angle for 16:9 had changed. Previously I was sat 12 feet back from the 7ft screen which was a screen height to seating ratio of around 3:1, but now it was 3.5:1, so I moved my seating closer so I was at the same viewing ratio ( 3 times the screen height so now 10.2 feet back), and now 16:9 looked as large as it was before, but now scope was even more immersive with much more visual impact.
> 
> 
> Not long after that I went from zooming to using a lens because the image quality when zoomed was noticeably poorer, and a lens restored the image quality, but that's another story.
> 
> 
> That was with a 720 pj and DVD. Nowadays with 1080 and Blu Ray, THXs recommended 2.4 x SH gives an even better visual experience for me, and sometimes I've sat a little closer. Seating distance is far more important than people realise IMHO.
> 
> 
> Gary



I guess I am not fully understanding.


My wall is only 119" wide. Seating distance at 11 ft max. With my RS-4810 throw capability, I am limited to around 108.5" wide no matter what screen I go with. It could be a couple of inches shorter for all I know once the ceiling mount gets placed (depending on the stud location in the ceiling) .


But the only difference here in my set-up will be the height of movies since 16:9 and 2:35 are the same width. I cannot go wider and just don't see why I should shrink 16:9 movies to a 2:35 screen when I can use masks (see Seymour link above). The black bars would not be seen in a 2:35 movie with this set-up. This way I get the max size of 2:35 and 16:9 that I can fit.


People talk about why should comedies be taller than epic movies. However, I was watching some of Saving Private Ryan and Platoon projected on the wall at 125" diagonal and it was an amazing, cinematic experience. Are they taller than Star Wars and Lord of the Rings? Of course, but why should I care? I am not worried about competing movies against one another.







And in a movie theater, this is how it's done anyway.


I do agree black bars from 2:35 could be distracting, but if I can mask them out, no longer an issue.


Now, if I go smaller than my max width, that does change what I am talking about and 2:35 would be smaller than otherwise - I want to keep my screen as wide as possible no matter what I do.


I am probably missing the point, so I apologize. I am front projection newbie and was a plasma guy up until now. Either way, I don't think I can seriously watch a movie again on my Panasonic 65" VT60. lol


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Not everybody gets it, but sometimes it's just down to personal preferences or a feeling about size etc, but if we can make you think about it and try a few things, at least you'll see what we're trying to do. if it doesn't work for you, at least you're now aware and have tried things, but have then settled on what you prefer to have - at least it's then an informed choice


Movie theatres have been dumbed down over the years, going from scope set ups to something much like we have at home. It's to get more screens in a theatre for more films and more bums on seats. From a design perspective, anything other than scope means that scope is not going have the immersion or presentation that it was designed to have. The presentation factor has taken a back seat to more screens for more revenue. Some directors have actually said that the art of presentation has been lost in modern theatres/multiplexes and it's not how they want their films to be seen. Unfortunately that doesn't make the theatres any money.


Your screen is roughly the same width as my screen will be in my next room. I will have a 9ft wide or maybe an 8.5 feet wide 2.35 screen, and I will be sat at around 8 or 9 feet away from it. Then 16:9 looks pretty big visually, and 2.35 is the same height and wider so more immersive. Its much the same as I had in my loft cinema so I know it works for me. It may not work for everyone though considering it's a smaller screen than many people here usually have and physical size is often felt to be important over other things sometimes.


If I went for a 9 feet wide 16:9 screen I would be sat about 12 feet back from it so that the 16:9 image looks the same size as it would on the 9 feet wide 2.35 screen when viewed from 9 feet away. The seating distance is what makes the difference. Currently you're sat at a good distance from your 16:9 screen at a ratio of around 2.1 which is very immersive, so if you went for a 108.5" 2.35 screen, to ensure that 16:9 looks the same size as your current screen does to you, you should sit 8 feet away from it. That might seem a bit close but you will need to try it and see what you think. Depending on where your center speaker is, you may find the audio is more disjointed from the on screen action so could be a no go for you from that point of view. You may just not like viewing from that distance regardless of what you're getting visually.


If you like the image sizes you see from around 8 feet back, but feel that you're physically too close, you could always experiment with CIA - a 108.5" wide 2.05:1 screen that is around 4.4 feet tall. Your 16:9 image will fill the height, and the 2.35 images will zoom to fill the width. You will be sat around 9.3 feet away from that screen so that visually 16:9 looks the same size as it does on your current set up.


Whatever you do, I agree, it's certainly going to be better than watching it on your tv, and movies are going to be so much better than how you see them now.










Gary


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24355916
> 
> 
> I've said it before but I think people get too hung up on how many inches their screen is, when they should be thinking about the overall experience of the entire system as a whole.



Well said. I constantly hear the complaint, "But my wall is taller. I can fit a bigger 16:9 screen in there." Then I have to ask, which is more important, your wall or the movie? If getting the most use of your wall is your top priority, you might get more benefit by painting a nice mural on it than installing a home theater.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24355953
> 
> 
> That's the way it should be done IMHO, but quite a few people seem to get stuck in the biggest 16:9 image way of thinking and can't get their heads around having their seating in the right place as well so that 16:9 is visually as big as they want it, and scope is just wider.



I was talking to someone on another forum earlier today who just installed a 125" screen and put his seat 5-feet from it. 5 feet!! He was complaining that he sees crosstalk artifacts when he watches 3D. He's sitting so close that his eyes can't take in both the left and right images and converge them properly in his brain.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24356538
> 
> 
> People talk about why should comedies be taller than epic movies. However, I was watching some of Saving Private Ryan and Platoon projected on the wall at 125" diagonal and it was an amazing, cinematic experience.



There are exceptions to every rule. However, if you look back through cinema history and at the movies in your own collection, you'll find that the vast majority of "epic" movies that cry out for the most immersive experience possible (such as war movies, if that's your thing) were photographed at 2.35:1.


> Quote:
> Are they taller than Star Wars and Lord of the Rings? Of course, but why should I care? I am not worried about competing movies against one another.



When CinemaScope was invented in the 1950s, the whole point of it was to compete with other movies - to project an image the same height as Academy Ratio classics like Casablanca or It's a Wonderful Life but twice as wide. That intention holds true today. When filmmakers shoot a movie in scope, they do so because they want a big, immersive picture. No director ever shot a movie in scope hoping that it would be projected small.


> Quote:
> And in a movie theater, this is how it's done anyway.



Only in crappy theaters and IMAX. Most other decent theaters use a Constant Image Height configuration.


IMAX has its own thing going on with a proprietary screen ratio that doesn't fit the majority of movies projected on it. (Almost 70% of movies screened in IMAX theaters are 2.35:1.) That's an IMAX gimmick, and has no relevance to what any of us do at home.


----------



## stanger89

First let me be clear the below is not trying to say your choice is wrong, your choice is your choice and what other people say really isn't imporant. That said....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24356538
> 
> 
> But the only difference here in my set-up will be the height of movies since 16:9 and 2:35 are the same width.



They are not supposed to be, the Cinemascope format (which I'm going to probably butcher some history here) which is the basis/origin of the 2.35:1/2.39:1 aspect ratio was conceived of with the express purpose of being wider, larger, more immersive (see the link in my sig for an original Fox "add" for it). 16:9 and 2.35:1 being the same width on DVD/Blu-ray is a limitation of the format not any indication of "intent" or "correctness", it is a sacrifice to make wide movies fit on a format designed for the average home display (and a better sacrifice than the alternative, Pan & Scan).


> Quote:
> And in a movie theater, this is how it's done anyway.



Some theaters do, but it's not the correct way, nor the way good theaters handle scope and flat movies.


----------



## John Schuermann

Time for a little flagrant self-promotion.


DavidHir, it might be worth an hour of your time to watch the webcast I did with Scott Wilkinson right here on this forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1515263/aspect-ratios-and-anamorphic-lenses-with-john-schuermann 


All of this stuff is talked about - and illustrated - during our talk.


If your projector is zoomed out to the maximum in order to get the 108.5" wide image, yes, if you are using the zoom method that is what you are restricted to in terms of maximum width. If you are open to considering an anamorphic lens, you can make the zoomed image 33% wider for Scope (2.35:1) material. In other words, with an anamorphic lens, you would be able to fill the entire width of your wall with 2.35:1 material.


Of course, that may leave the problem of where you put your speakers (unless you are going with an acoustically transparent screen).


Good luck!


----------



## boothman

I've noticed twice now new large format theaters RPX and maybe XD showing a smaller scope image. The 1.85 image is the screen's aspect ratio. They do not use masking so now we have black bars on a movie theater screen for scope films. How can the industry take such a step backwards and charge you a premium price for it?


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24357102
> 
> 
> Time for a little flagrant self-promotion.
> 
> 
> DavidHir, it might be worth an hour of your time to watch the webcast I did with Scott Wilkinson right here on this forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1515263/aspect-ratios-and-anamorphic-lenses-with-john-schuermann
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is talked about - and illustrated - during our talk.
> 
> 
> If your projector is zoomed out to the maximum in order to get the 108.5" wide image, yes, if you are using the zoom method that is what you are restricted to in terms of maximum width. If you are open to considering an anamorphic lens, you can make the zoomed image 33% wider for Scope (2.35:1) material. In other words, with an anamorphic lens, you would be able to fill the entire width of your wall with 2.35:1 material.
> 
> 
> Of course, that may leave the problem of where you put your speakers (unless you are going with an acoustically transparent screen).
> 
> 
> Good luck!



John,


I will check it out. But doing that with an anamorphic lens, aren't you distorting the OAR?


----------



## DavidHir

What you guys are saying is now starting to sink into my head.










I had to start thinking about it a bit more abstractly. It's really the concept of how a movie is to be seen. A 2:35 is "intended" to be the same height at 16:9, but wider. PERIOD. That is how the format was meant to be.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boothman*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24358396
> 
> 
> I've noticed twice now new large format theaters RPX and maybe XD showing a smaller scope image. The 1.85 image is the screen's aspect ratio. They do not use masking so now we have black bars on a movie theater screen for scope films. How can the industry take such a step backwards and charge you a premium price for it?



Unfortunately, that's how many multiplexes and 'art houses' are going these days, though in some cases, their 'best' screen is sometimes a scope screen. My local multiplex has a scope screen in screen 1, but all the others are 16:9 and mask down for scope







. They have 10 screens and can show 10 different movies if they want, so will always have something for someone. Unfortunately, those 9 screens are for revenue and not presentation IMHO, and when I go there, I'll always try to get a seat in screen one and sit in my favourite seat for the kind of immersive film going experience I like.


It's not as close as the guy Josh mentioned though - that's crazy immersive










Gary


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24360113
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> 
> I will check it out. But doing that with an anamorphic lens, aren't you distorting the OAR?



The idea behind an anamorphic lens is actually to preserve OAR.


Hopefully you find the webcast interesting.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24360113
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> 
> I will check it out. But doing that with an anamorphic lens, aren't you distorting the OAR?



If you don't apply the necessary electronic crop/stretch you would.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24361359
> 
> 
> The idea behind an anamorphic lens is actually to preserve OAR.
> 
> 
> Hopefully you find the webcast interesting.



I just finished watching it and it was outstanding.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24362223
> 
> 
> If you don't apply the necessary electronic crop/stretch you would.



Right. Essentially, the concept is a little bit like we had with non anamorphic vs anamorphic DVDs - and 4:3 SD CRTs (like Sony Trinitrons) which could push those 'black bar' scanlines from anamorphic DVDs into the 2:35 image to display the OAR correctly with more resolution (ala "anamorphic squeeze"). In this case, the lens and video processing is doing something similarly to solidify the image.


----------



## DavidHir

I'm going to test my JVC RS-4810 later to see how 16:9 content would look at CIH. I'm hoping to order whichever screen I go with in 7-14 days.


I'm hoping the room to be painted by the end of next week, carpeted by the end of the following week with the projector ceiling mounted or on a shelf (still deciding on which). Screen would be week after. Chad B out to calibrate audio and projector by mid March if all goes well.










If I did go 2:35, I am not even sure I need black mattes with 16:9 - are the "grey" bars that bad in this vertical fashion? I know this projector has very good blacks too so that may help the effect without a matte.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

When I first went CIH I didn't bother with side masking for a while, but later used some normal curtain track that was corded and allowed a simple pull of the cord to open or close the curtains. Quick and simple.


Gary


----------



## Tim Glover




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24357102
> 
> 
> Time for a little flagrant self-promotion.
> 
> 
> DavidHir, it might be worth an hour of your time to watch the webcast I did with Scott Wilkinson right here on this forum:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1515263/aspect-ratios-and-anamorphic-lenses-with-john-schuermann
> 
> 
> All of this stuff is talked about - and illustrated - during our talk.
> 
> 
> If your projector is zoomed out to the maximum in order to get the 108.5" wide image, yes, if you are using the zoom method that is what you are restricted to in terms of maximum width. If you are open to considering an anamorphic lens, you can make the zoomed image 33% wider for Scope (2.35:1) material. In other words, with an anamorphic lens, you would be able to fill the entire width of your wall with 2.35:1 material.
> 
> 
> Of course, that may leave the problem of where you put your speakers (unless you are going with an acoustically transparent screen).
> 
> 
> Good luck!



This is my issue as well...(by the way John that was a FANTASTIC webcast. I watched the entire thing)...but after watching and speaking to Mike at AVS I also am already fully zoomed on my Sony 50es. I'm throw distance challenged. Fully zoomed out I can achieve right at a 105.5 inch wide image & 44 image height when watching a scope film. I measured while I put in a Harry Potter Blu-ray. I think that makes a 114 or so 2;35 screen? But it's my understanding that since I am fully zoomed already an anamorphic lens wouldn't be ideal and would leave a pin cushion affect? My throw distance is a tad under 12 feet. I'll have to measure again in the morning.


Just checked....it's right at 12 foot throw. And the Sony has a manual zoom. So it's not practical to go back and forth. Anyone who has any thoughts on this I would love to hear it. Most of the movies in my collection are scope.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tim Glover*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24363940
> 
> 
> This is my issue as well...(by the way John that was a FANTASTIC webcast. I watched the entire thing)...but after watching and speaking to Mike at AVS I also am already fully zoomed on my Sony 50es. I'm throw distance challenged. Fully zoomed out I can achieve right at a 105.5 inch wide image & 44 image height when watching a scope film. I measured while I put in a Harry Potter Blu-ray. I think that makes a 114 or so 2;35 screen? But it's my understanding that since I am fully zoomed already an anamorphic lens wouldn't be ideal and would leave a pin cushion affect? My throw distance is a tad under 12 feet. I'll have to measure again in the morning.
> 
> 
> Just checked....it's right at 12 foot throw. And the Sony has a manual zoom. So it's not practical to go back and forth. Anyone who has any thoughts on this I would love to hear it. Most of the movies in my collection are scope.



There will always be some pincushion with an anamorphic lens; the shorter the throw the more pincushion there will be. Panamorph recommends a throw ratio of at least 3X the screen height for a horizontal expansion lens (one that makes the image 33% wider). So, with a 44" tall screen your minimum throw distance should be 11 ft. You are at a slightly greater throw distance than the minimum, which means you will have some pincushion but under the amount most people would call objectionable.


You are also at the focus limits of most anamorphic lenses as well. Just using Panamorph as an example, the higher end UH480 and DC1 lens systems have their absolute sweet spot at 14 to 18 feet, with good performance from 12 - 20 feet. I believe the CineVista's sweet spot is down to 12 foot.


Thanks for your comments, and good luck!


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24363383
> 
> 
> When I first went CIH I didn't bother with side masking for a while, but later used some normal curtain track that was corded and allowed a simple pull of the cord to open or close the curtains. Quick and simple.
> 
> 
> Gary



I think I would probably just make my own mattes if I go the 2:35 route (which I am starting to lean on).


A 2:35 screen would also allow me to wall mount my speakers (from under the screen) a bit higher which will help with audio placement.


I did some experimenting last night and 16:9 content was still rather large in CIH. While not as immersive, kind of more pleasant in one sense - which is probably how comedy and drama is supposed to be viewed. These are movies generally not meant to be experienced in "IMAX".










So, yes, I am leaning 2:35 CIH.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

My next room won't have the width for curtains, so some form of removable masking will be needed instead. I've not decided what method to use yet, but I'll be looking for ideas when the time comes.










Gary


----------



## Cyrano

I am jumping into this thread to say I wish I could do 2.35. I own an HD131XE 3D projector. I am 12' away from a 100" 16x9 screen. My projector is 9 feet high in a cabinet (above the rear wall) that emulates a rear wall in the room so the projector fires through a framed hole and cannot be seen or heard, or easily touched.

I really can't afford a anamorphic lens although I am reading about combining inexpensive prisms to make a lens.

I would like to get a larger 2.35 screen. CIH is clearly the way to view but from what I read it is either rezooming each time (not really doable for me) or investing in an anamorphic lens ($1500 or so - not going to happen).


I think those are the only two options I have.


----------



## Tim Glover




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24365428
> 
> 
> There will always be some pincushion with an anamorphic lens; the shorter the throw the more pincushion there will be. Panamorph recommends a throw ratio of at least 3X the screen height for a horizontal expansion lens (one that makes the image 33% wider). So, with a 44" tall screen your minimum throw distance should be 11 ft. You are at a slightly greater throw distance than the minimum, which means you will have some pincushion but under the amount most people would call objectionable.
> 
> 
> You are also at the focus limits of most anamorphic lenses as well. Just using Panamorph as an example, the higher end UH480 and DC1 lens systems have their absolute sweet spot at 14 to 18 feet, with good performance from 12 - 20 feet. I believe the CineVista's sweet spot is down to 12 foot.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comments, and good luck!



Hey John,


In my setup what would I benefit from having a CIH setup? That's not a flame question







I'm trying to read all I can LOL to avoid asking silly questions.







Totally zoomed out on the Sony 50es at 44 feet wide, would I obtain a larger scope image using an anamorphic lens?


I guess a benefit by using one is achieving the full 1080 resolution. With a slight pincushion I could go with a curved screen? IDK what to do...


----------



## DavidHir

So, for those of you who are using CIH without an anamorphic lens, how are you dealing with letter box bars for 2:35? They just spill onto the wall? How does that look? The room I am currently using projecting against the wall is not dark enough for me to tell, but once it's completely, it will be completely black (Rosco paint and carpet).


----------



## DavidHir

My JVC RS-4810 does have some masking controls, but not enough range to completely eliminate 2:35 bars (or 16:9 bars at CIH) as far as I can tell.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tim Glover*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24366477
> 
> 
> Hey John,
> 
> 
> In my setup what would I benefit from having a CIH setup?



The benefit is proper relative presentation of scope (~2.35:1) and flat (~1.78:1) material. Maintaining the intent that scope is supposed to be larger and more immersive, exactly the purpose anamorphic was invented for.


> Quote:
> That's not a flame question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to read all I can LOL to avoid asking silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally zoomed out on the Sony 50es at 44 feet wide, would I obtain a larger scope image using an anamorphic lens?



You can, but IMO that's not really the "right" way to think about out, reason being it's best to have as long a throw ratio as possible to minimize pincushion/distortion. That said if John says you're within the recommended throw range then that's not really an issue.


> Quote:
> I guess a benefit by using one is achieving the full 1080 resolution.



That's a benefit of using a lens, but not necessarily CIH in general, since the zoom method has no resolution gain, in fact you effectively lose it (there's less pixel density since the same pixels are spread over a wider area vs 16:9).


> Quote:
> With a slight pincushion I could go with a curved screen?



Yup


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24366168
> 
> 
> I did some experimenting last night and 16:9 content was still rather large in CIH. While not as immersive, kind of more pleasant in one sense - which is probably how comedy and drama is supposed to be viewed. These are movies generally not meant to be experienced in "IMAX".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, I am leaning 2:35 CIH.



Don't let us bully you into going 2.35:1 if you're ultimately not comfortable with it. Most of us post in this forum because we love Constant Image Height and want to educate others about it. However, what's really important is whatever makes you happiest and your viewing experience most enjoyable.


----------



## stanger89

Yup, well said. It's easy to get the idea reading this subforum that we're a bunch of hard nosed.... Wait, you probably got the right idea. But seriously, CIH is a minority, there a lots of valid reason to stick with a 16:9 screen. Like Josh said, we've all come to understand and enjoy CIH, and we've probably had a lot of the same thoughts along the way so we just try to share that, along with the reasoning behind it. I'll always recommend CIH for just about anything, but if someone doesn't want to mess with that (it is more complicated), or decides against it for some other reason, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


The only wrong choice is Pan&Scan


----------



## Tim Glover

I thought I was rather front projector savvy until I started down the "I wonder what a CIH setup would look like?" road.
























Quickly I learned that I have ALOT to Learn! But it's fun and on the bright side, we CIH virgins will make the rest of you feel like experts.


----------



## Cyrano

I wish I could make the CIH thing work w/o the huge cost. It is definitely the way to go.


----------



## stanger89

Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24377155
> 
> 
> Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.



Thanks. Do you have any Projectors to recommended? I own an hd131xe and cannot easily access the lens.


I should do research and will but any knowledge about scopeable under 1.5k (under 1k would be better) PJs would appreciated.


And, are there native 2.35 PJs?


Thanks for any info.


(the screen I can DIY, for a while anyway)


EDIT: Okay, I couldn't find any 21x9 PJs. Will we ever get scope native aspect ratio projectors?

And I see some familiar posters in threads discussing 21x9 projectors.

I know I am not up to speed on this.


----------



## John Schuermann

Read through this relatively short thread for many answers to your questions:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1490097/why-are-anamorphic-lenses-so-expensive


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24377308
> 
> 
> Thanks. Do you have any Projectors to recommended? I own an hd131xe and cannot easily access the lens.



Off hand my thoughts are the JVC machines or the Panasonic AE7000 (or whatever the current model is), all offer lens memory to automate the zooming process. In the


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24376167
> 
> 
> Don't let us bully you into going 2.35:1 if you're ultimately not comfortable with it. Most of us post in this forum because we love Constant Image Height and want to educate others about it. However, what's really important is whatever makes you happiest and your viewing experience most enjoyable.



Totally understand and I completely make my own decisions. However, I have given all of this more thought and it really makes sense.


I am 75% leaning 2:35 now (25% leaning 2:05 so to open up 16:9 content a bit more. 16:9 is out of the question).


However, I am running into a big issue and that is having enough height to mount my wall speakers below the screen and I need every inch I can get. 2:35 gives me that advantage too.


----------



## DavidHir

Another thing is, I am only going to be sitting about 10.5 to 11 feet back from a 109" wide screen which is closer than recommended (but I want the immesiveness - is that a word?). Going taller than 2:35 might be too much over time if you know what I mean. However, the 2:35 height seems really nice at this distance.


----------



## CAVX

People need to keep apples with apples. If the ratio of HDTV is 16:9, then Scope needs to be referred to as 21:9. There is nothing taller than the 9 units tall, just the width is wider for Scope due to ir being 21 unit wide.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi David,


If your 109" wide screen is 2.35, the height is around 3.8 ft tall, and your viewing ratio is around 2.7:1 if you sit 10.5 feet away - that's not as close as you were before so 16:9 might seem a bit small to you.


BUT - more importantly, if you like the height and the feel of things, then go for it.










THX suggest 2.4 x SH for best immersion with good quality HD material, and that would mean sitting a little over 9 feet away. I like that ratio myself, and can sit a little closer (and Mark already does) but sometimes the physical distance can become an issue - it's something you have to try and experience for yourself..


Your speakers don't have to go under the screen, they can go above. Do you have the facility to place them above the screen? maybe in a custom soffit or something?


If you don't want to move you seating closer, how would you feel about building a false wall and mounting your speakers in it, and use an acoustically transparent screen instead? That way you don't have a speaker problem and you've moved the seating distance closer without moving the seats. Many people much prefer their speakers behind the screen and it's how a commercial theatre does it, so it might be worth considering. Building a false wall isn't as difficult as you think IMHO.


Gary


----------



## DavidHir

Hey Gary,


I actually have the ability to sit closer so that is definitely an option and I would have no objection to sitting a little closer for scope either. What does THX suggest for 21:9 as far as seating distance? Yeah, sometimes 16:9 content does just seem a little too small Maybe sitting a bit closer can solve that.


That false wall is an interesting idea and maybe something to consider at some point.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

THXs 2.4 is based on screen height and good 1080 material to give good immersion and image quality - it's probably the crossover point where they feel sitting closer may start to reveal image artifacts, but it also depends on a few things like if you prefer the immersion over the occasional instance where something in the image may be a little more noticeable than if you had sat further back. People like Mark prefer closer than the 2.4 x SH suggestion and are more than happy there.


Image quality and immersion are both important and there will always be a point where the image may appear not as good when compared to sitting a little further back. That's when it becomes a more personal preference and why these things are just recommendations, but they're recommendations based on testing things. Back in the 50s, Fox suggested that 3 x SH was the optimal point before film grain, scratches and projector mechanics would start to become more noticeable if you sat closer, but since then film grain has improved, and Digital has removed many of the issues film and projectors presented with respect to image quality. Now we have pixels and compression artefacts.


If you zoom for scope, then the screen height effectively changes, and so might the crossover point where the seating distance is now effectively closer than it was before - zooming is like moving your seating 33% closer. But again, it's down to what you can see and what you prefer. There are plenty of people that zoom for scope and don't have any problems with it, so it's something you can experiment with to find your own personal preference. I like sitting closer but a brighter image tends to highlight image artifacts more than a dimmer one, so I set up my image to be similar to the brightness you get in a commercial theatre. For me it looks more cinematic and you have less chance of seeing any issues, even with poorer transfers.


I think like many things, using the guidelines is a good way to get into the ballpark, but testing for personal preference is the best way to get what really floats your boat










Gary


----------



## DavidHir

Gary,


I've also seen suggestions that seating should only be up to 1.5 times of the width of the screen which is quite a bit further back from THX. Where did this arise?


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

Hi David,


I think the 1.5 wide thing came from recommendations for a 16:9 screen. With scope, it should be 1 x. That's why using screen heights as a metric can work better because it should work to all formats. Zooming can throw a spanner in the works a little though.


Gary


----------



## DavidHir

Yep, makes sense. That's another reason why I am leaning 2:35 because the height consistency makes sense for viewing in regards to seating distance. And I think sitting around 9 feet back (instead of 11 feet) might just do the trick for me so that 16:9 content now seems at adequate size.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tim Glover*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/150#post_24363940
> 
> 
> This is my issue as well...(by the way John that was a FANTASTIC webcast. I watched the entire thing)...but after watching and speaking to Mike at AVS I also am already fully zoomed on my Sony 50es. I'm throw distance challenged. Fully zoomed out I can achieve right at a 105.5 inch wide image & 44 image height when watching a scope film. I measured while I put in a Harry Potter Blu-ray. I think that makes a 114 or so 2;35 screen? But it's my understanding that since I am fully zoomed already an anamorphic lens wouldn't be ideal and would leave a pin cushion affect? My throw distance is a tad under 12 feet. I'll have to measure again in the morning.
> 
> 
> Just checked....it's right at 12 foot throw. And the Sony has a manual zoom. So it's not practical to go back and forth. Anyone who has any thoughts on this I would love to hear it. Most of the movies in my collection are scope.



That would be your limit when zooming the picture.


Looking at the width you are specifying you are seeing a 16:9 picture of 105"x58". When using a lens, it is the height you will base your measurements off of. The lens will then expand this image to a 136x58" scope image (150" diagonal). My recommendation would be to acquire or build an inexpensive 2 prism lens. Yes there are some compromises to the image, but having lived with an inexpensive 2 prism setup for a year, I can tell you they are well worth it. The DIY section has good instructions on building one. I'm going to send you some information you may be interested in via PM.


----------



## GetGray

Or, get a real lens.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GetGray*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24401830
> 
> 
> Or, get a real lens.



I believe the poster stated he was on a budget. Which, to those of us that $1700+ USD is a significant amount of money, necessitates compromises. That's where the recommendation came from. If a high quality lens is within your budget, then it's certainly the way to go.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24377155
> 
> 
> Well best case, it's essentially "free", if you have the option of picking the right projector and screen, ie just get a scope screen and projector with the right zoom options and ideally lens memory, neither of those options are really more expensive (vs a 16:9 screen or similar projector without the features). Now if you have to start replacing things, new screen, new projector, of if you want to go the lens route, yeah the costs can add up.



I would agree with this but it's my understanding that the least expensive projector with memory zoom streets for around $2500. Obviously there are many 1080P projectors available for way under $2500. I'm not sure what the least expensive projector is with lens shift, my guess would be around $1500. As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24403159
> 
> 
> I would agree with this but it's my understanding that the least expensive projector with memory zoom streets for around $2500. Obviously there are many 1080P projectors available for way under $2500. I'm not sure what the least expensive projector is with lens shift, my guess would be around $1500. As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.



Right, I guess my point is though that those machines aren't that much because of lens shift/zoom memory. Just as an example, when JVC added lens memory to their projectors, they didn't increase the price any. Nor did Panasonic (that I'm aware of). Lens memory isn't really a "premium feature", not like the way LED machines cost twice as much just because they've got LEDs. The premium for machines with lens shift/lens memory is generally because they are just better machines.


I do sympathize though, my first lens I bought used, and in that case I had to use a lens since the projector was a DLP without sufficient zoom range, and I don't think it had lens shift.


----------



## John Schlarb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24403159
> 
> 
> As someone in another thread is struggling right now, without lens shift zooming becomes a real problem.



I wouldn't say it's a problem, it's more of a "chore". It's like having to grind your coffee beans because you want the freshest coffee, but don't want to buy one of those coffeemakers that grind-and-brew.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvolle*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/90#post_24170155
> 
> 
> 
> You are describing my screen's measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first row of seats is 11.5' away. This distance IMHO is perfect for my viewing tastes in 16:9 and 2.35:1 (the JVC RS56 has no discernible pixels at this distance). To me, the key to CIH is ensuring that you can comfortably see the screen top-to-bottom with no/minimal eye movement from your primary seating distance. Picking the proper height is also the beauty of the CIH set-up: once one sizes the 16:9 "screen", one can now comfortably watch all popular formats from the primary seating position. This allows one to view content comfortably in 4:3, 16:9, and all the way up to 2.40:1 since our eyes have a much wider viewing angle than vertical.
> 
> 
> I am very happy with my decision to go with a 2.35:1 screen and CIH. Oh, I went the cheaper route and use zoom. No complaints there, either.


I am trying to make the same decision. When going the zoom route, is that something that can be done with a remote control....or does it require standing on a chair and trying to change things on the projector itself? I would prefer the CIH option... but it seems that choosing that option immediately adds $3,600 to my budget for a Panamorph lens. Also, if I wanted to mask when watching 16:9, I would be concerned with the masks interfering with the Left/Right speaker output behind the acoustically transparent screen. If I went with a 16:9 screen,  I could probably do horizontal masking with something like the Carada Horizontal system without blocking any speakers (Klipsch  KL-650-THX ). 

 

It does seem like a gotcha regardless of what you choose. Why are all projectors designed for 16:9? It seems that most people buying projectors are doing so for movies....and most movies are in 2:35. It looks like 2:35 projectors would be good solution.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/180#post_24366193
> 
> 
> My next room won't have the width for curtains, so some form of removable masking will be needed instead. I've not decided what method to use yet, but I'll be looking for ideas when the time comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary


If using an acoustically transparent screen, it seems that curtains etc would potentially interfere with the output of the Left/Right speakers. I guess it depends on the size of the screen and how far out those speakers are placed.


----------



## crazy4daisy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24408982
> 
> 
> If using an acoustically transparent screen, it seems that curtains etc would potentially interfere with the output of the Left/Right speakers. I guess it depends on the size of the screen and how far out those speakers are placed.



If using an AT scope screen you'd typically place the LR speakers on the inside of the 16.9 section of the screen so any side masking would have no effect on the sound.


Otherwise, if you placed the LR speakers inside the 21.9 section, without even checking I'm sure Carada would do side masking panels in an AT option.


----------



## shivaji

I am not sure if this has been mentioned before in this thread but for those looking for a cheaper solution to 2:35.1, this is what I did. I have a Mitsubishi HC4000 PJ. With this projector you can go into the advance menu and click on 2;35 aspect, which will then display everything in that format, so you then zoom to fill the screen. But with a push of the aspect button on the remote it will switch the image to 16x9 within the 2;35 image and maintain the constant height. I have been doing this to great effect with a recent purchase of an Elite 2:35.1 114" diagonal screen off of Amazon. I previously had a 106" 16x9 screen and it much more immersive now and the image is very impressive. This was a $1200.00 projector when new. This function was not written about in the manual, but someone here on AVS figured it out and posted it.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24408956
> 
> 
> I am trying to make the same decision. When going the zoom route, is that something that can be done with a remote control....or does it require standing on a chair and trying to change things on the projector itself?



It depends on the projector. Some include zoom control on the remote. In fact, some have lens memories presets that will zoom to a specific location of your choosing and refocus with one button press. Other models may only have a manual zoom and focus at the projector itself.


> Quote:
> Also, if I wanted to mask when watching 16:9, I would be concerned with the masks interfering with the Left/Right speaker output behind the acoustically transparent screen.



I would recommend starting first without masking to see if the unused screen space on the sides really bothers you enough that you want to add masking.


> Quote:
> Why are all projectors designed for 16:9? It seems that most people buying projectors are doing so for movies....and most movies are in 2:35. It looks like 2:35 projectors would be good solution.



Half of movies made are 2.35:1. The other half are 1.85:1. Projector owners typically also watch a lot of HDTV programming, which is all 16:9.


There are legitimate reasons why 16:9 was chosen as the HD display standard. Unfortunately, doing so compromises the artistic intent of 2.35:1 movies. Average viewers may not care about this, but people like us in this forum do.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24411168
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the projector. Some include zoom control on the remote. In fact, some have lens memories presets that will zoom to a specific location of your choosing and refocus with one button press. Other models may only have a manual zoom and focus at the projector itself.
> 
> I would recommend starting first without masking to see if the unused screen space on the sides really bothers you enough that you want to add masking.
> 
> Half of movies made are 2.35:1. The other half are 1.85:1. Projector owners typically also watch a lot of HDTV programming, which is all 16:9.
> 
> 
> There are legitimate reasons why 16:9 was chosen as the HD display standard. Unfortunately, doing so compromises the artistic intent of 2.35:1 movies. Average viewers may not care about this, but people like us in this forum do.


Cool...thanks for the reply...


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *crazy4daisy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24410411
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24408982
> 
> 
> If using an acoustically transparent screen, it seems that curtains etc would potentially interfere with the output of the Left/Right speakers. I guess it depends on the size of the screen and how far out those speakers are placed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If using an AT scope screen you'd typically place the LR speakers on the inside of the 16.9 section of the screen so any side masking would have no effect on the sound.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, if you placed the LR speakers inside the 21.9 section, without even checking I'm sure Carada would do side masking panels in an AT option.
Click to expand...


If you want to replicate where speakers go in a commercial theatre, and to get close to the how the sound was mastered, the speakers should go between the edges of the 2.35 screen and the 16:9 portion, which then requires AT masking panels/curtains:


From the Dolby Atmos white paper:
 


For screens over 40 feet wide, you'd also need the left and right center speakers. Not an issue for most of us here










I wouldn't have thought the height of the speakers would not necessarily have to conform to the Dolby paper unless you had stadium seating.


Depending on the masking material, some eq may or may not be needed to equalise the front three channels with and without the masking, assuming the difference was audible.


With smaller screens, and depending on your seating distance, having the speakers within the 16:9 image area may affect imaging. I think with home set ups, some experimentation may be needed to see what works and what doesn't, and what amount of toe-in is needed for best results.


Gary


----------



## Romans828


The pricing on the Panamorph site *seems *ridiculous to me. The prices for the lenses themselves seem high... but the accessories baffle me more.

 



 

$1,500 for a mount.... $3,100 for a device to move the lens out of the way. A device to move a lens a few inches costs as much as a JTR Captivator S2 sub?? This device costs more than a flagship Denon receiver. 

 

Just when you start convincing yourself to go down the anamorphic route, you hit more and more gotchas. *Maybe* there are legitimate reasons for it but the prices for these things just seem way out of line for what they do. When you are paying $2,000 - $7,000 for a lens, it sure looks like all needed accessories would be included.

 

It is *very* frustrating when you are trying to create a budget...and you want to do things right. I bet people on this site have found better ways of doing this stuff. I will continue to research.


----------



## armstrr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24412969
> 
> 
> The pricing on the Panamorph site _*seems *_ridiculous to me. The prices for the lenses themselves seem high... but the accessories baffle me more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1,500 for a mount.... $3,100 for a device to move the lens out of the way. A device to move a lens a few inches costs as much as a JTR Captivator S2 sub?? This device costs more than a flagship Denon receiver.
> 
> 
> Just when you start convincing yourself to go down the anamorphic route, you hit more and more gotchas. _*Maybe*_ there are legitimate reasons for it but the prices for these things just seem way out of line for what they do. When you are paying $2,000 - $7,000 for a lens, it sure looks like all needed accessories would be included.
> 
> 
> It is *very* frustrating when you are trying to create a budget...and you want to do things right. I bet people on this site have found better ways of doing this stuff. I will continue to research.



Which is why we have.... http://www.avsforum.com/t/841816/diy-solutions-for-a-lens-mount/30#post_24413801 .


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24412969
> 
> 
> The pricing on the Panamorph site _*seems *_ridiculous to me. The prices for the lenses themselves seem high... but the accessories baffle me more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1,500 for a mount.... $3,100 for a device to move the lens out of the way. A device to move a lens a few inches costs as much as a JTR Captivator S2 sub?? This device costs more than a flagship Denon receiver.
> 
> 
> Just when you start convincing yourself to go down the anamorphic route, you hit more and more gotchas. _*Maybe*_ there are legitimate reasons for it but the prices for these things just seem way out of line for what they do. When you are paying $2,000 - $7,000 for a lens, it sure looks like all needed accessories would be included.
> 
> 
> It is *very* frustrating when you are trying to create a budget...and you want to do things right. I bet people on this site have found better ways of doing this stuff. I will continue to research.



While still speaking as a consultant for Panamorph, I can understand why you might be frustrated at the pricing of an anamorphic lens. But as I (and others) have commented in this thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1490097/why-are-anamorphic-lenses-so-expensive 


...creating and manufacturing an anamorphic lens - or a 2.35:1 projector - is not a simple or inexpensive matter.


I can understand, too, why you are getting hung up on the pricing of the accessories. I just checked the page myself and agree that it is confusing. I will pass on your comments (plus mine) to Panamorph.


To help put things in perspective, if you call Panamorph, they will walk you through the process of selecting a lens that complements your room and projector. They will also explain that most Panamorph lens systems come prepackaged in the form of a kit. To use the two figures you just quoted - $2000 and $7000 - here is what that gets you, Panamorph wise:


$2000 - CineVista Lens with Custom Mount for Sony, Epson or JVC included at that price. All you need to purchase separately is your actual projector mount (which you would need to buy anyway). So $2K essentially gets you everything you need lens and lens mount wise.


$7000 (actually, $7250) - UH480 Complete Lens Kit includes the UH480 lens, the ATH2 motorized sled, AK8 ceiling mount, plus Chief RPA Projector Mount, Chief 3" Extension Pole, and CMS Ceiling Plate. In this case, EVERYTHING comes in the kit - including the projector mount and ceiling plate itself. The manual version of the identical system (in other words, all of the same pieces except the MTH1 manual sled is substituted for the ATH2 motorized sled) sells for $5150.


What I agree is confusing is that it is difficult to determine exactly what pieces you need and do the proper math. Again, I will pass along your comments.


One thing you might do is call Russell or Dave at Panamorph and they will - without any sales pressure at all - walk you through the various options and help you design your complete system.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> $1,500 for a mount.... $3,100 for a device to move the lens out of the way. A device to move a lens a few inches costs as much as a JTR Captivator S2 sub?? This device costs more than a flagship Denon receiver.
> 
> 
> Just when you start convincing yourself to go down the anamorphic route, you hit more and more gotchas. Maybe there are legitimate reasons for it but the prices for these things just seem way out of line for what they do. When you are paying $2,000 - $7,000 for a lens, it sure looks like all needed accessories would be included.
> 
> 
> It is very frustrating when you are trying to create a budget...and you want to do things right. I bet people on this site have found better ways of doing this stuff. I will continue to research.



Suggestions:


1. Wait for an ebay b-stock UH480 and bid on it/buy it

2. Do research and build your own sled out of drawer slides and wood/paint for ~$30 (but be ready to expend two calories to move the slide out of the way manually when needed)

3. Profit???


I mean, seriously. The automated sled is designed, realistically, for people with an abundance of money that choose to spend their HT money for convenience. You sound cheap, like me. That's not a bad thing, but don't expect to have your cake and eat it, too. You either spend big bucks for the convenience and pretty form factor, or DIY it up, deal with the fact that it may not look or work quite as well as the retail version, but save a ton of money in the meantime. As for me, when the lights go out, I don't see the damned projector or lens, only what's on the screen. So you can imagine which route I've taken.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24415409
> 
> 
> 
> Suggestions:
> 
> 
> 1. Wait for an ebay b-stock UH480 and bid on it/buy it
> 
> 2. Do research and build your own sled out of drawer slides and wood/paint for ~$30 (but be ready to expend two calories to move the slide out of the way manually when needed)
> 
> 3. Profit???
> 
> 
> I mean, seriously. The automated sled is designed, realistically, for people with an abundance of money that choose to spend their HT money for convenience. You sound cheap, like me. That's not a bad thing, but don't expect to have your cake and eat it, too. You either spend big bucks for the convenience and pretty form factor, or DIY it up, deal with the fact that it may not look or work quite as well as the retail version, but save a ton of money in the meantime. As for me, when the lights go out, I don't see the damned projector or lens, only what's on the screen. So you can imagine which route I've taken.


Thanks for the input blastermaster. I don't think that I'm cheap. I'm going to try to do things right in my theater. I just can't justify the bang for the buck of $3,100 for an automated sled or $1,000 for a manual one. When I think about the mechanics required for a sled, these numbers just don't make sense. I do understand that they need to make a profit. I think that they would sell a lot more if the prices were more reasonable.  I bet there have been many people like me that wanted to go the CIH route but then you get hit with all of the extra inconvenience and costs.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24415920
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input blastermaster. I don't think that I'm cheap. I'm going to try to do things right in my theater. I just can't justify the bang for the buck of $3,100 for an automated sled or $1,000 for a manual one. When I think about the mechanics required for a sled, these numbers just don't make sense. I do understand that they need to make a profit. I think that they would sell a lot more if the prices were more reasonable.  I bet there have been many people like me that wanted to go the CIH route but then you get hit with all of the extra inconvenience and costs.



A projector with motorized zoom/lens shift with lens memory is also an option. I'm using a JVC RS46 and the results are excellent. With the lens memory going between scope and 16:9 is touching a button and waiting about 30 seconds for the lens to reposition itself. Do note that a good anamorphic lens will appear slightly sharper and will be brighter. In my case the RS46 is plenty bright in either setting with the iris closed down, so the brightness loss isn't a factor for me (my screen is a 130" 2.35:1). Although if you are filling a large screen it may be a factor.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24415920
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input blastermaster. I don't think that I'm cheap. I'm going to try to do things right in my theater. I just can't justify the bang for the buck of $3,100 for an automated sled or $1,000 for a manual one. When I think about the mechanics required for a sled, these numbers just don't make sense. I do understand that they need to make a profit. I think that they would sell a lot more if the prices were more reasonable.  I bet there have been many people like me that wanted to go the CIH route but then you get hit with all of the extra inconvenience and costs.



FWIW, these things are all basically bespoke, nearly one-off devices. There's basically no benefit of economies of scale going on, and if you've ever looked into custom machining, you'll know it's very expensive.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24416102
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, these things are all basically bespoke, nearly one-off devices. There's basically no benefit of economies of scale going on, and if you've ever looked into custom machining, you'll know it's very expensive.


Right...good point. I do understand that 99% of the population probably doesn't know what an anamorphic lens is.... so they probably aren't selling many.


----------



## GetGray

Not sure what Panamorphs retails for, but a CineSlide isn't $3000. And Stranger89 is right, there are very little (no) economies of scale when manufacturing these devices. Prices on components don't start falling even in small percentages until you are making tens of thousands of a product. This is a niche market, we make them 50 to 100 at a time. There's a thread in here somewhere where I discuss in detail, but something you haven't considered is that anything with a microprocessor (technically anything with a "clock" over 9600hz), has to be FCC certified. Fines for being caught out of compliance and not certified can be $10k per device in service per day. The FCC is serious about not creating devices that cause EMI. And for sales in the EU and AU, one must be CE and C-tick certified, which are substnatially harder to pass. The lab costs for the tests for those certifications run $10,000, $14,000, and $8000 respectively. So to sell a device one needs $32,000 in testing alone, and that's just the test. Fail the test and you hav eto pay for it again. Plus a year of R&D to perfect the device and make it safe to hold a $10,000 Isco/Schneider lens above your head. Mine supports RS232, dual triggers and IR input. Neither mine nor Panamorph's is an overpriced drawer slide on the ceiling.


It's not just for Rich people who are lazy. It is a system that augments your theater and is one of the biggest wow factors you can add, with instant aspect changes and no loss of brightness (due to zooming), or resolution (due to downscaling to not move the lens).


Ask someone who has one, there are a LOT of owners here on the forum, I challenge you to find one person who doesn't love it.


But a good deal on a CineSlide and a high end ground cylindrical XEIT lens system from me would be about $6k. Everyone can't afford the best, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the best. Something to aspire to later maybe.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> It's not just for Rich people who are lazy. It is a system that augments your theater and is one of the biggest wow factors you can add



I hope you didn't read that from my post, as that wasn't my intention. If I had the spare money I would definitely have one in my theater. There are a lot of people that don't know how anamorphic lenses work, and to be able to visually show people how it works at the press of a button is much more preferable than having me slide it into place manually by standing on my couch. I usually have it in place before friends arrive, so they just deal with the fact that it works and don't ask questions.


As a side note, the other wow factor people notice about my place apart from the screen is the inexpensive light switch with a remote dimmer. We're sitting and I push the remote and the lights slowly dim as the movie starts. Very fun stuff. Just watched Thor 2 last night with and I'm happy to say it was in 2.35:1 format and the 3D was actually pretty decent in parts.


----------



## GetGray

I Agree re lighting. I use/sell/recommend RadioRA2 for control. I love it. I have several zones in my room and I have the remote programmed so if you press "play", the lights go off, "stop" and it's lights up very gradually, "pause" and the path to the bathroom is just lit, etc. Guests are impressed, but I really like it myself.


----------



## stanger89

This is OT, and should probably be in a different thread, but how do you really make that work? I mean when I pop a Blu-ray in I either never hit "play", or it's before the disc is actually loaded, and I don't want the lights off then yet.


I guess what I really want is a Kaleidescape, which I think has the correct metadata to automatically turn down the lights when the actual movie starts, but I'd love to figure out another way to do that.


----------



## John Schuermann

Just to drop another 2 cents into this thread.


Shawn and I recently did a quick evaluation of how many anamorphic lens systems that are installed in home theaters around the world, and came up with an estimate of around 12,000. That's in the entire world, and not all of those are motorized. This is based on some strong insider information we have access to.


So, if you take that into account, you can understand why the economies of scale arguments above really do hold water.


This research was done due to the fact that we have been pitching anamorphic Blu-ray / HD content to the studios, and of course they wanted to know what the installed customer base was for anamorphic content. Obviously only 12,000 potential customers is not a huge opportunity in the eyes of the studios. This led to the development of our MFE technology, which allows for anamorphic content and letterboxed content to co-exist on the same Blu-ray (this has been discussed on this specific forum as well as on Scott Wilkinson's Home Theater Geeks webcast):

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436729/anamorphic-encoded-blu-rays-on-the-horizon 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1516457/who-wants-more-resolution-color-with-john-schuermann-shawn-kelly 


So, if we are successful in getting MFE adopted by the studios - and we are getting involved in some serious talks at this point - that means there will be high resolution anamorphic content available that requires an anamorphic lens to take full advantage of the extra resolution provided.* The other upside to us lens manufacturers is that the zoom method will not allow you to take advantage of the extra 33% vertical resolution that true anamorphic content provides - zoom still limits you with approximately 810 lines of vertical resolution. MFE gets you all the way to 1080 (or 2160, when adapted to 4K delivery).


*The vertical resolution boost of MFE could also be utilized by native 21:9 displays, or 4K displays scaling up from 1080P anamorphic. In the case of 16:9 4K displays scaling up from 1080P anamorphic, the content would still be letterboxed, but would contain the extra 33% of picture detail in the vertical.


----------



## Romans828


Are there any indications from the studios or projector manufacturers that something will be introduced in the near future that would make an anamorphic lens obsolete? Is it a good long term investment? Will these lenses work with upcoming 4K projectors? This has probably been asked already. If so, I apologize in advance.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/200_100#post_24418309
> 
> 
> Will these lenses work with upcoming 4K projectors?


Mine do.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/200_100#post_24417108
> 
> 
> This is OT, and should probably be in a different thread, but how do you really make that work? I mean when I pop a Blu-ray in I either never hit "play", or it's before the disc is actually loaded, and I don't want the lights off then yet.
> 
> 
> I guess what I really want is a Kaleidescape, which I think has the correct metadata to automatically turn down the lights when the actual movie starts, but I'd love to figure out another way to do that.


OK, quick OT and if we want to chat more about it we can start a thread elsewhere... I use a Media player and all my movies are on a server. But it still works similarly. And a Tivo. When I chose a Watch xxx task on my remote, it dims the lights, turns off the screen wash, and presents the corresponding media server window, or a Tivo menu. When I select a title, or choose a show, by pressing "select", the lights dim completely. What you may prefer though it to actually use the "play" button, which I also don't always use, as the trigger to tell the lights to go all the way off. My BRD player is setup similarly, and yes if you stick a disc in it just starts playing. But when I choose Watch Oppo on my remote, it sets the lights to medium and no screen wash. So me or my guests can get settled, get a beverage, etc, and get ready to go. When I press select or Play on the menu, I assume I am ready to go and it tells the lights to go off (all of them). At that point I'm either navigating a menu, or ready to watch. The thing about a play button is although you don't need it in many cases, there is no penalty for pressing play when the disc is going. It keeps playing anyway. So it's easy to make that your last word and lights off button. Leave select alone for example (no light control via select), select the movie, or the menu item of "play", then once playing if you are happy, press play to dim the lights. It's all up to you, but I'm very happy with mine set up this way. Especially "stop" bringing up the lights to "entrance" scene slowly. And Pause bringing up the lights in "dim". Both buttons fit what I do when I'm using those buttons. And with my Firehawk, a little bit of can lighting doesn't kill the screen, especially in "pause" mode. So my theater (& screen) has a nice appearance while someone goes for another beverage, or the bathroom, etc.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24418309
> 
> 
> Are there any indications from the studios or projector manufacturers that something will be introduced in the near future that would make an anamorphic lens obsolete? Is it a good long term investment? Will these lenses work with upcoming 4K projectors? This has probably been asked already. If so, I apologize in advance.



All of the lenses in the Panamorph lineup will work with 4K sources. As you move up the line, you have better quality contrast, coatings, etc, but all are capable of getting 4K resolution to the screen. I would think that any of the major lens brands can handle that - Schneider / ISCO, CAVX, XEIT, etc. To be honest, those are the only serious anamorphic lens manufacturers I know of. There are some cheaper knockoffs and "trophy lenses" out there, but I haven't actually seen those guys for a while now.


I don't know what would make an anamorphic lens obsolete other than native 2.35:1 projectors suddenly becoming ubiquitous and inexpensive, and I *honestly* can't see that happening. Projection Design, DPI and SIM2 all experimented with that a few years ago with essentially zero luck (it didn't help that these projectors were $30K plus).


I've been training on 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 UltraWide formats for going on 7 years now, and it's amazing how few people understand even the basic concepts. As I've stated here many times before, I've had classrooms filled with over 100 home theater industry types - manufacturers, dealers, you name it - and asked the simple question "how many here have any idea at all why there are black bars on most Blu-ray movies?" Maybe 5 hands will go up in a room of over 100. As an industry, we need to get the word out there far more effectively.


The fact is that the UltraWide format is a niche, and will probably remain that way.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24418309
> 
> 
> The fact is that the UltraWide format is a niche, and will probably remain that way.


I agree relatively speaking, and have the same experience with dealers as John. But it's still funny that almost all PJ companies at CEDIA displayed 2.35 or multi-format presentations. In any case, I think interest was just picking up as BluRay came out and the economy tanked. Since BR chose to not go anamorphic like the old DVD's did that took away a carrot towards implementing an A-lens solution because of the lost advantage of getting more source resolution on screen. I have high hopes for MFE. It will be sweet to get even more out of Cinemascope/UW home systems.


----------



## jeahrens

Yeah it's odd that a 21:9 projector just doesn't seem to catch on. John and I were discussing this in another thread and it just seems like something that doesn't want to happen. Front projection appears to be the perfect arena. 21:9 panels in the PC monitor space aren't terribly expensive, so the premium in the projector market doesn't seem like it would be huge (I know I would pay an extra 10-20% to get it). The buyers are usually much more savvy. It would be easy in the setup menu to specify the screen type and shift the menus and such appropriately. Sure there would be overspill and a mechanical masking system may be necessary for some situations, but if it did happen I think scope implementations would start to really pick up. It's certainly something that once you have experienced it, you can't imagine going back to a 16:9 setup. It's probably the biggest leap in my home theater experience since going to front projection.


Having said all that I don't realistically see the investment in a good lens not lasting well into 4K. Maybe the industry will surprise us and truly embrace 21:9 in the front projection arena, but I'm skeptical of it happening.


----------



## R Harkness

I don't know about 2:35:1 projectors, but I would have guessed (though I have no idea if I'd be right) that the trend in some of the major projector manufacturers in providing automated lens memory features for CIH set ups, would have taken a bite out of the A-lens market. I have the wonderful Panamorph UH480 lens with the automated sled, but my new JVC also offers up to 10 stored lens memory positions.

Once you have direct codes for the lens memories incorporated into macros in a universal remote, the AR/size changes are now remarkably fast. A lot of my AR changes at the click of a single button (masking system and lens memory activation) happen around as fast as using the A-lens. And the lens memories allow for an even more flexible system than strict CIH (e.g. though it's a niche within a niche currently, systems using closer to a 2:0 ratio screen to allow for a closer to Constant Area approach, (or using multiple screens to achieve similar) seem to be rising somewhat in prominence). The change from a single 16:9 AR to wider 2:35:1 is cool to be sure, but with all these lens memories and image sizes at the touch of a button, my system is feeling even closer to "magical" to use.


But on the subject of anamorphic Blu-Rays...yeah, damn, what a missed opportunity.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24431800
> 
> 
> I don't know about 2:35:1 projectors, but I would have guessed (though I have no idea if I'd be right) that the trend in some of the major projector manufacturers in providing automated lens memory features for CIH set ups, would have taken a bite out of the A-lens market. I have the wonderful Panamorph UH480 lens with the automated sled, but my new JVC also offers up to 10 stored lens memory positions.
> 
> Once you have direct codes for the lens memories incorporated into macros in a universal remote, the AR/size changes are now remarkably fast. A lot of my AR changes at the click of a single button (masking system and lens memory activation) happen around as fast as using the A-lens. And the lens memories allow for an even more flexible system than strict CIH (e.g. though it's a niche within a niche currently, systems using closer to a 2:0 ratio screen to allow for a closer to Constant Area approach, (or using multiple screens to achieve similar) seem to be rising somewhat in prominence). The change from a single 16:9 AR to wider 2:35:1 is cool to be sure, but with all these lens memories and image sizes at the touch of a button, my system is feeling even closer to "magical" to use.
> 
> 
> But on the subject of anamorphic Blu-Rays...yeah, damn, what a missed opportunity.



I too am very much enjoying the lens memory on my JVC RS46. It's very convenient and throws a very nice picture. Inexpensive lenses and lens memory may not offer the very best way to enjoy scope content, but they are both so much better than a straight 16:9 setup I encourage their use whenever possible (at least in cases where purchasing an expensive lens isn't an option). I think a lot of folks are intimidated when they start researching this topic and it's a real shame when that steers them away from a CIH setup. It's such a big step up in the hometheater experience IMO.


Maybe 4K Blu Ray will see fit to include an anamorphic option. Probably a better chance of that then a 21:9 panel projector. Although a true 21:9 device would be ideal.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24431800
> 
> 
> But on the subject of anamorphic Blu-Rays...yeah, damn, what a missed opportunity.



We're working on it, we're working on it










I'm happy to report we have seen significantly more interest in our MFE anamorphic Blu-ray encoding process since our presentation at the HPA Retreat (along with our Deep Color Encoding). We are in talks with several major Hollywood players at this point. The process is completely compatible with 4K as well.


Of course, anamorphic Blu-ray is of no benefit to zoomers - you either need an anamorphic lens, a 21:9 display, or a 4K 16:9 display that can integrate the extra vertical resolution (though the image on a 4K 16:9 display will still be letterboxed).


Stay tuned


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/210#post_24433438
> 
> 
> We're working on it, we're working on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to report we have seen significantly more interest in our MFE anamorphic Blu-ray encoding process since our presentation at the HPA Retreat (along with our Deep Color Encoding). We are in talks with several major Hollywood players at this point. The process is completely compatible with 4K as well.
> 
> 
> Of course, anamorphic Blu-ray is of no benefit to zoomers - you either need an anamorphic lens, a 21:9 display, or a 4K 16:9 display that can integrate the extra vertical resolution (though the image on a 4K 16:9 display will still be letterboxed).
> 
> 
> Stay tuned



I really hope they listen. Even though I currently don't have a lens, this is something I would support and back. It would be nice to see it added to standard Blu Ray and be supported across the board on 4k Blu Ray.


----------



## cinema1fan


When I equiped my home theater room in 2002, for me it was clear  - the only way how to do do - is the same like in a big cinema.  A cinemascope screen was indispensable.

 

The best choice I have made - would never go back to a 16:9 screen.









 

I will not repeat how much more beautiful is the look and feel.

 

Some other facts are very pretty: Paint the wall, were the screen is mounted in mat black. In cinemascope mode (zoom) is no masking needed. For 16:9 or 1:.33 movies a side mask is simple. Without any mask it is also very usable, because no direct light goes to the screen at the sides.


----------



## Socio

I got my 2.35 screen up can't watch 2.35 movies without it and 16x9 on this screen is not much different than 4x3 on a 16x9 screen, dark enough on both sides that extra masking though would be better is not necessary.



What I did not take in to consideration, but find I enjoy the most are old movies broadcast in HD in widescreen formats like on TMC, the MGM channel etc... like Ben Hur and most recently Sitting Bull or the old martial arts movies now being broadcast on the El Rey network in widescreen at 2.35 full screen.


I have only ever watched these movies on a small screen, now it is more like watching them like they were meant to be seen. Watching these old classics this way is even more fun than watching new releases which is already awesome.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> What I did not take in to consideration, but find I enjoy the most are old movies broadcast in HD in widescreen formats like on TMC, the MGM channel etc... like Ben Hur and most recently Sitting Bull or the old martial arts movies now being broadcast on the El Rey network in widescreen at 2.35 full screen.
> 
> 
> I have only ever watched these movies on a small screen, now it is more like watching them like they were meant to be seen. Watching these old classics this way is even more fun than watching new releases which is already awesome.



Totally. I have the box sets of Ben Hur and How the West was Won. They are simply amazing in scope.


----------



## ajvandenb

I have a 16:9 screen which basically becomes a 2.35 by using lens memory and applying a shift upward and applying a single velvet mask to the bottom. Then I just move my chair closer to the screen. Works for me.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24498690
> 
> 
> I have a 16:9 screen which basically becomes a 2.35 by using lens memory and applying a shift upward and applying a single velvet mask to the bottom. Then I just move my chair closer to the screen. Works for me.



What you have is really a CIW (constant image width) setup. Which, if you're happy with it, is great. However scope presentations are intended to be larger than the other aspect ratios used in cinemas which is why we are using a CIH setup with a 2.35:1 (or 2.4:1) screen. Here's an example to illustrate the advantage of CIH:


CIW for a 100" 16:9 screen (87"w x49"h)

16:9 content = 29.6 sq ft

2.35:1 content = 22.3 sq ft


CIH for a 125" 2.35:1 screen (115"w x 49"h)

16:9 content =29.6 sq ft

2.35:1 content = 39.1 sq ft


Note that in both cases you have the same screen height. However with the scope screen the scope content is 75% larger. This is the main reason for going with this screen shape. No content ends up being a compromise as long as you are not width constrained.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24499317
> 
> 
> What you have is really a CIW (constant image width) setup. Which, if you're happy with it, is great. However scope presentations are intended to be larger than the other aspect ratios used in cinemas which is why we are using a CIH setup with a 2.35:1 (or 2.4:1) screen. Here's an example to illustrate the advantage of CIH:
> 
> 
> CIW for a 100" 16:9 screen (87"w x49"h)
> 
> 16:9 content = 29.6 sq ft
> 
> 2.35:1 content = 22.3 sq ft
> 
> 
> CIH for a 125" 2.35:1 screen (115"w x 49"h)
> 
> 16:9 content =29.6 sq ft
> 
> 2.35:1 content = 39.1 sq ft
> 
> 
> Note that in both cases you have the same screen height. However with the scope screen the scope content is 75% larger. This is the main reason for going with this screen shape. No content ends up being a compromise as long as you are not width constrained.



Sure but again by moving seat closer it really is no different. I just have a smaller scope screen that I compensate by sitting closer.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24499529
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but again by moving seat closer it really is no different. I just have a smaller scope screen that I compensate by sitting closer.


If I decided to go with a 16:9 option (not going to), I would still try to maximize the width. In that scenario, the 2:35 content would be *exactly *the same size as it would be with a 2:35 screen....right? You would just have to deal with masking the black bars.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24499529
> 
> 
> Sure but again by moving seat closer it really is no different. I just have a smaller scope screen that I compensate by sitting closer.



Unless you moved the seat closer to a scope screen







. I understand where you are going, you are adjusting the seating so that the picture fills your field of view. That really is only applicable if you have one seat to worry about and don't really care about how the seating position will effect audio timing and acoustics.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24499674
> 
> 
> Unless you moved the seat closer to a scope screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I understand where you are going, you are adjusting the seating so that the picture fills your field of view. That really is only applicable if you have one seat to worry about and don't really care about how the seating position will effect audio timing and acoustics.


I guess my point is I actually have a scope screen that I make with the mask. It is just that I go in the opposite direction when I watch a film of a different aspect ratio. With a scope screen you are still going to reduce the size of the 16:9 image relative to my situation. I go smaller with the 2.35 while you go bigger and vice versa. And given that aspect ratios are about 50:50 in recent years it is not advantageous to go scope over 16:9 or vice versa. Which ever works for the individual.


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> And given that aspect ratios are about 50:50 in recent years it is not advantageous to go scope over 16:9 or vice versa. Which ever works for the individual.



It IS advantageous to go scope if you like big blockbuster hollywood and AAA movies, because the vast majority of them are filmed in 2.4:1. "Whatever works for the individual" really fits because those who like to watch TV, rom coms and indie films won't enjoy having pillarboxes on their setup all the time.


For some reason it seems more right to go bigger with 2.4:1 and smaller with 1.85:1 as the former tend to be more "epic" movies. Just my 0.02.


----------



## DavidHir

Well, I finally ordered my screen.


I decided to go CIH (2:35) 108" wide. It's Da-Lite HD Pro 1.1 gain.


My dedicated room is completed (Black carpet, black painted walls with Rosco paint).


JVC RS4810.


Looking forward to it.


----------



## DavidHir

What are you guys using for masks on non scope content?


I've got quite a bit of Duvetyne material left over for a foam board I am using to block out a window.


Maybe I can wrap it around a poster board and use velcro to the screen border?


----------



## Keith AP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24501099
> 
> 
> What are you guys using for masks on non scope content?
> 
> 
> I've got quite a bit of Duvetyne material left over for a foam board I am using to block out a window.
> 
> 
> Maybe I can wrap it around a poster board and use velcro to the screen border?



For non-scope, I have applied masking three different ways in the past; 1) Draw my curtains together to cover the offending black bars, 2) black velour wrapped around 1" foam board and simply inserted between the screen frame top/bottom (Carada Precision frame with 1" deep frame to screen), 3) black velour wrapped around 1" foam board with upper "J" brackets to simply hook over the top of the frame (Carada Criterion beveled frame).


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24499922
> 
> 
> I guess my point is I actually have a scope screen that I make with the mask. It is just that I go in the opposite direction when I watch a film of a different aspect ratio. With a scope screen you are still going to reduce the size of the 16:9 image relative to my situation. I go smaller with the 2.35 while you go bigger and vice versa. And given that aspect ratios are about 50:50 in recent years it is not advantageous to go scope over 16:9 or vice versa. Which ever works for the individual.



No, you are not reducing the size of a 16:9/1.85 image unless you choose to or your room is width constrained. Look at the figures I posted in my example. The viewing area does not go down on the scope screen when watching 16:9/1.85 content, *it stays exactly the same.* It is absolutely advantageous to go with a 2.35:1 screen as long as your room can properly support it.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502569
> 
> 
> No, you are not reducing the size of a 16:9/1.85 image unless you choose to or your room is width constrained. Look at the figures I posted in my example. The viewing area does not go down on the scope screen when watching 16:9/1.85 content, *it stays exactly the same.*



You are telling me my screen size stays the same when I remove my mask and project my 16:9 content? Not so, I gain about a foot of vertical screen when I do this (unless some gremlin is secretly stretching my screen when I put the mask on and project 2.35).


"It is absolutely advantageous to go with a 2.35:1 screen as long as your room can properly support it."

I fill nearly my entire front wall with the 16:9 image. If I go scope I miss several inches top and bottom by projecting the same width.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24500651
> 
> 
> It IS advantageous to go scope if you like big blockbuster hollywood and AAA movies, because the vast majority of them are filmed in 2.4:1. "Whatever works for the individual" really fits because those who like to watch TV, rom coms and indie films won't enjoy having pillarboxes on their setup all the time.
> 
> 
> For some reason it seems more right to go bigger with 2.4:1 and smaller with 1.85:1 as the former tend to be more "epic" movies. Just my 0.02.



Well the idea behind Cinemascope and the wider formats was absolutely to offer a bigger and more epic experience. That's why unless you are talking about a cheap multiplex, the screen is generally a 2.4:1 screen that is masked for the other ratios. Sure people that watch mostly TV or 1.85:1 films may not see as much benefit, but it's important to note they don't have to sacrifice anything to watch that content on a scope screen. We've been watching the Star Trek:TNG Blu Rays and the old Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection on Blu Ray. Both are roughly 1.33:1. I don't lose any meaningful screen size because my scope screen is very, very close to the same height as the 16:9 screen it replaced. Unless the pillar boxing really bothers you the experience is the same. I've never really been bothered with pillar boxing because the screen is being utilized to it's fullest potential without introducing some sort of stretch/distortion (which I really can't stand). Masking will obviously eliminate any negatives someone would have with pillar boxing of the image.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502664
> 
> 
> You are telling me my screen size stays the same when I remove my mask and project my 16:9 content? Not so, I gain about a foot of vertical screen when I do this (unless some gremlin is secretly stretching my screen when I put the mask on and project 2.35).



No, I'm saying that if the scope screen maintains the height of the 16:9 screen the size of the 16:9/1.85 content stays the same. If you replaced your 16:9 screen with a scope screen of the same height, but with the added width you would sacrifice nothing and gain a substantial increase in scope content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502664
> 
> 
> "It is absolutely advantageous to go with a 2.35:1 screen as long as your room can properly support it."
> 
> I fill nearly my entire front wall with the 16:9 image. If I go scope I miss several inches top and bottom by projecting the same width.



Again, unless you lack the room width to maintain your current screen height, there is no downside to going with a scope screen.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502699
> 
> 
> "No, I'm saying that if the scope screen maintains the height of the 16:9 screen the size of the 16:9/1.85 content stays the same. If you replaced your 16:9 screen with a scope screen of the same height, but with the added width you would sacrifice nothing and gain a substantial increase in scope content."
> 
> But as I mentioned in the previous post I have maxed out my 16:9 on my wall for the greatest impact on this aspect ratio. I *must* reduce my screen footprint in order to have 2.35 projected on the same width.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, unless you lack the room width to maintain your current screen height, there is no downside to going with a scope screen.



No, because I want a 16:9 at the greatest impact. So you are saying that by me wanting a larger impact for 16:9 content compared to 2.35 is a 'downside'? I believe you may be 2.35-biased.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502785
> 
> 
> No, because I want a 16:9 at the greatest impact. So you are saying that by me wanting a larger impact for 16:9 content compared to 2.35 is a 'downside'? I believe you may be 2.35-biased.



If that's your preference, then enjoy it. That's the point after all.


There's no real bias. Unless your room physically can't support a scope screen with the same height as your 16:9 screen, you lose nothing with a scope setup. 16:9 content still has the exact same impact. Scope content simply gains a lot more impact than it did with the 16:9 screen. There's no real negative here. Again though, it's all what you like. If you prefer your setup that way, that is the most important thing.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502874
> 
> 
> If that's your preference, then enjoy it. That's the point after all.
> 
> 
> There's no real bias. Unless your room physically can't support a scope screen with the same height as your 16:9 screen, you lose nothing with a scope setup. 16:9 content still has the exact same impact. Scope content simply gains a lot more impact than it did with the 16:9 screen. There's no real negative here. Again though, it's all what you like. If you prefer your setup that way, that is the most important thing.



Here is what I have noticed just projecting on the wall to get a feel of front projection.


Initially, my jaw dropped at the 124" diagonal (108" wide - throw maxed out)16:9 image sitting 9.5 feet back. It was huge - almost like IMAX. Very cool experience with 1:85 material. I was thinking, why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!


However, I started watching it more and realized that it was too big for 16:9ish content from my seating distance. A little overwhelming after a while and somewhat fatiguing.


For scope, it was awesome to have 108" wide though and 46" tall. I tried to then see what a scope screen might look like for 16:9 content and it essentially cut it down to 95" or so diagonally.


Big difference to go from 124" to 95" for 1:85 movies and such. At first it felt too small, but sitting just a bit closer now, it now feels fine and still large - but not in a fatiguing way - it just feels more comfortable and natural. Another option was 2:05, but then masking is needed to everything and I came around to liking every movie to be the same height.


Now though, psychologically, it just makes scope content (still 108" wide) feel so much "bigger" and grand. That's the best way to put it. It leaves an even bigger impact.


And I kind of like knowing I am watching movies the way they are meant to be seen with every movie being the same height. (Note, I am using my set up strictly for Blu-ray film and not anything else).


Scope also allows me to wall mount my front speakers a bit higher closer to ear position where as with 16:9 screen they would be almost at the floor level.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502874
> 
> 
> 
> If that's your preference, then enjoy it. That's the point after all.
> 
> 
> There's no real bias. Unless your room physically can't support a scope screen with the same height as your 16:9 screen, you lose nothing with a scope setup.  There's no real negative here. Again though, it's all what you like. If you prefer your setup that way, that is the most important thing.


I think it is important that this is clarified for others: You keep stating that: 16:9 content still has the exact same impact. Scope content simply gains a lot more impact than it did with the 16:9 screen." Here is my situation: 

 

I am limited by left and right (I can't have a wider screen then I have). Thus I am limiting myself for 16:9 impact if my screen was fixed at 2.35 (This can be imagined here assuming I have no mask). If I went with a 2.35 screen I would need to reduce the size of my 16:9 image to fit the horizontal borders of my screen. So I don't want to limit the impact of the 16:9 because I watch a lot of content at this aspect ratio.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502665
> 
> 
> We've been watching the Star Trek:TNG Blu Rays... are roughly 1.33:1.



OT, but I thought they were cropping/reframing them to 16:9, is that not the case?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502785
> 
> 
> No, because I want a 16:9 at the greatest impact. So you are saying that by me wanting a larger impact for 16:9 content compared to 2.35 is a 'downside'? I believe you may be 2.35-biased.



It's not a bias, it's an understanding of the history of the formats. Cinemascope was created to be larger, wider, more immersive than the "flat" format. Outside of large format (70mm, IMAX, etc) the 2.4:1 aspect ratio is supposed to be the largest (area) image presented. At least that was the case up until Avatar and the birth of the 1.9:1 or so mini-IMAX cinemas and movies shot specifically for IMAX/mini-IMAX.


Again, your preference rules in your home, but wanting scope/2.35:1/2.40:1 is not just some "whim" or personal bias, it has 71 years of cinema history behind it.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502950
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I have noticed just projecting on the wall to get a feel of front projection.
> 
> 
> Initially, my jaw dropped at the 124" diagonal (108" wide - throw maxed out)16:9 image sitting 9.5 feet back. It was huge - almost like IMAX. Very cool experience with 1:85 material. I was thinking, why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!
> 
> 
> However, I started watching it more and realized that it was too big for 16:9ish content from my seating distance. A little overwhelming after a while and somewhat fatiguing.
> 
> 
> For scope, it was awesome to have 108" wide though and 46" tall. I tried to then see what a scope screen might look like for 16:9 content and it essentially cut it down to 95" or so diagonally.
> 
> 
> Big difference to go from 124" to 95" for 1:85 movies and such. At first it felt too small, but sitting just a bit closer now, it now feels fine and still large - but not in a fatiguing way - it just feels more comfortable and natural. Another option was 2:05, but then masking is needed to everything and I came around to liking every movie to be the same height.
> 
> 
> Now though, psychologically, it just makes scope content (still 108" wide) feel so much "bigger" and grand. That's the best way to put it. It leaves an even bigger impact.
> 
> 
> And I kind of like knowing I am watching movies the way they are meant to be seen with every movie being the same height. (Note, I am using my set up strictly for Blu-ray film and not anything else).
> 
> 
> Scope also allows me to wall mount my front speakers a bit higher closer to ear position where as with 16:9 screen they would be almost at the floor level.


"why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!"

This is precisely the point I have been trying to make. If you are limited by width, but not so by height, then why wouldn't you want a 16:9 screen for the maximum impact on this content. It is ALL dependent on user preference for content.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502971
> 
> 
> I think it is important that this is clarified for others: You keep stating that: "16:9 content still has the exact same impact. Scope content simply gains a lot more impact than it did with the 16:9 screen." Here is my situation
> 
> 
> I am limited by left and right (I can't have a wider screen then I have). Thus I am limiting myself for 16:9 impact if my screen was fixed at 2.35 (This can be imagined here assuming I have no mask). If I went with a 2.35 screen I would need to reduce the size of my 16:9 image to fit the horizontal borders of my screen. So I don't want to limit the impact of the 16:9 because I watch a lot of content at this aspect ratio.



Again, if you're happy that is the main point. Not to stir the pot, but by just looking at your photos it looks like you do have some significant room to play with on the left/right of the screen. Again you are HAPPY so having a conversation about potential screen changes is probably not something you want to discuss. And that's totally understandable.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502986
> 
> 
> 
> OT, but I thought they were cropping/reframing them to 16:9, is that not the case?
> 
> It's not a bias, it's an understanding of the history of the formats. Cinemascope was created to be larger, wider, more immersive than the "flat" format. Outside of large format (70mm, IMAX, etc) the 2.4:1 aspect ratio is supposed to be the largest (area) image presented. At least that was the case up until Avatar and the birth of the 1.9:1 or so mini-IMAX cinemas and movies shot specifically for IMAX/mini-IMAX.
> 
> 
> Again, your preference rules in your home, but wanting scope/2.35:1/2.40:1 is not just some "whim" or personal bias, it has 71 years of cinema history behind it.


I am well aware of the history of the format. It has NOTHING to do with cinematic history for which you seem to be defensive about. By stating a preference for a format doesn't assume one has a bias against the other. It's just what one prefers depending on the amount of content.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502998
> 
> 
> "why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!"
> 
> This is precisely the point I have been trying to make. If you are limited by width, but not so by height, then why wouldn't you want a 16:9 screen for the maximum impact on this content. It is ALL dependent on user preference for content.



The majority of rooms I've been in are height limited (7'-9' ceilings), not width. It's always a case of sizing the screen for what you have. One reason you may want to artificially limit height is that humans field of vision is wider than it is tall. I would imagine this could be a reason the other poster was feeling fatigue.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24503030
> 
> 
> I am well aware of the history of the format. It has NOTHING to do with cinematic history for which you seem to be defensive about. By stating a preference for a format doesn't assume one has a bias against the other. It's just what one prefers depending on the amount of content.



The content argument is irrelevant if you have the space for a properly sized screen. In your case you are width constrained so your solution makes sense. In a situation where you do have the space for the scope screen there is no sacrifice in watching content. All content is maximized.


----------



## ajvandenb


But I do


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24503011
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if you're happy that is the main point. Not to stir the pot, but by just looking at your photos it looks like you do have some significant room to play with on the left/right of the screen. Again you are HAPPY so having a conversation about potential screen changes is probably not something you want to discuss. And that's totally understandable.


But I don't have room to play with, that is the point. So because of this I have a 16:9 screen so that I don't lose impact at this aspect ratio (after removing my mask my screen essentially expands downward instead of width wise, which was my point from the beginning). If I went with a 2.35 I would have had to reduce my 16:9 image which I didn't want to do because of preference.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502998
> 
> 
> "why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!"
> 
> This is precisely the point I have been trying to make. If you are limited by width, but not so by height, then why wouldn't you want a 16:9 screen for the maximum impact on this content. It is ALL dependent on user preference for content.



Yes, it ultimately comes down to preference, and whatever works best for your needs. If your room is limited in width, I can see why you would prefer a 16:9 screen.


However, the intent of Constant Image Height (which is the forum on this site that you're posting in) is to install as large a 16:9 image as you want, and then expand even wider for scope. You don't lose anything with 16:9 content. You just gain extra for 2.35:1.


A big factor that you're failing to consider is the artistic intent of the filmmakers. Directors who shoot movies in scope do so because they want a large, wide, immersive viewing experience. Movies like Jaws and Lord of the Rings are supposed to be bigger than movies like Dumb and Dumber, not the other way around. A 16:9 screen completely reverses that dynamic, so that even average TV sitcoms and game shows are displayed larger than Star Wars, Star Trek or Indiana Jones. That's just wrong, IMO.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24503050
> 
> 
> But I do
> 
> But I don't have room to play with, that is the point. So because of this I have a 16:9 screen so that I don't lose impact at this aspect ratio (after removing my mask my screen essentially expands downward instead of width wise, which was my point from the beginning). If I went with a 2.35 I would have had to reduce my 16:9 image which I didn't want to do because of preference.



In your photos it looks like you have at least a foot on either side to play with. For arguments sake if you have a 110" 16:9 screen which is 96"x54" you could accomdate a 120" x51" 2.35:1 screen (130" diagonal). Which is exactly what I did. You would lose an imperceptible amount on 16:9/4:3 content and gain a massive amount with scope. But if you don't view much scope wise, then the investment obviously would not be worth it. Add to that you are happy with what you have.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502986
> 
> 
> OT, but I thought they were cropping/reframing them to 16:9, is that not the case?
> 
> It's not a bias, it's an understanding of the history of the formats. Cinemascope was created to be larger, wider, more immersive than the "flat" format. Outside of large format (70mm, IMAX, etc) the 2.4:1 aspect ratio is supposed to be the largest (area) image presented. At least that was the case up until Avatar and the birth of the 1.9:1 or so mini-IMAX cinemas and movies shot specifically for IMAX/mini-IMAX.
> 
> 
> Again, your preference rules in your home, but wanting scope/2.35:1/2.40:1 is not just some "whim" or personal bias, it has 71 years of cinema history behind it.



Nope, TNG is shown in 4:3. Only the menus and some extras are 16:9. And it is just awesome to watch on the big screen. Picture and sound are great.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24503050
> 
> 
> But I do
> 
> But I don't have room to play with, that is the point.



I'm looking at that photo you posted above, and it looks to me like you have extra room on the sides that you're not using at all.


> Quote:
> So because of this I have a 16:9 screen so that I don't lose impact at this aspect ratio



Ask yourself what types of content are supposed to have the most "impact". Should Wheel of Fortune have more impact than Star Wars?


> Quote:
> If I went with a 2.35 I would have had to reduce my 16:9 image which I didn't want to do because of preference.



Your preference is your preference, and there's nothing wrong with feeling that way. However, you are posting in a Constant Image Height forum. We've all been very polite in trying to explain why we do what we do, but your comments are bordering on trolling at this point.


----------



## ajvandenb


The thread title was 2.35 vs 16:9. So by stating a preference I am trolling? Please. You certainly are a cranky member


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24503067
> 
> 
> Yes, it ultimately comes down to preference, and whatever works best for your needs. If your room is limited in width, I can see why you would prefer a 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> However, the intent of Constant Image Height (which is the forum on this site that you're posting in) is to install as large a 16:9 image as you want, and then expand even wider for scope. You don't lose anything with 16:9 content. You just gain extra for 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> A big factor that you're failing to consider is the artistic intent of the filmmakers. Directors who shoot movies in scope do so because they want a large, wide, immersive viewing experience. Movies like Jaws and Lord of the Rings are supposed to be bigger than movies like Dumb and Dumber, not the other way around. A 16:9 screen completely reverses that dynamic, so that even average TV sitcoms and game shows are displayed larger than Star Wars, Star Trek or Indiana Jones. That's just wrong, IMO.



Agreed.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/240#post_24502998
> 
> 
> "why in the hell would I want to make this image smaller?!"
> 
> This is precisely the point I have been trying to make. If you are limited by width, but not so by height, then why wouldn't you want a 16:9 screen for the maximum impact on this content. It is ALL dependent on user preference for content.



It ultimately comes down to preference, yes.


But, from a filmmaker/artistic perspective, movies are intended to be seen at the same height, hence, CIH. It's really no different than how a movie is intended to be seen at a certain aspect ratio. This concept is foreign to most people because of televisions, but front projection at home truly brings the cinema experience to you (I now chuckle thinking I was doing that with my 65" flat panel







). But, some people preferred to buy "full screen" DVDs over OAR DVDs and some people today zoom out any "black bar" they see on their flat panel - even if that means geometrically distorting the image so people on the screen are short and fat.


Second, and I am trying to figure out a better way to explain this so bare with me...but staying with CIH just makes scope content appear more grand and more impressive - compared to if you viewed it on a 16:9 screen even at maximum width.


Watching 16:9 content as large as you can so that it's taller than scope just makes scope feel diminished when watching it. It's psychological - but a strong psychological component at play. Maybe there is actually some physiology behind it too with how the eyes and brain work, I don't know. When you keep all movies at the same height, scope just appears *amazing* and more appreciable. And 16:9 content just feels more _natural_! I know it might sound weird because it did to me at first, but once I started experimenting and watching this, it became true to me. There is something pleasing on the eyes to have a consistency of the same height for all film (no wonder it's intended that way) and that's how the reputable movies theaters do it.


And as I mentioned before, for me anyway, watching 16:9 THAT large just seemed to be too much on the eyes after a while - too much of that IMAX effect or sitting in the front row if you will that became fatiguing. Not an issue with length - it seems to be that height is more fatiguing on the eyes as someone pointed out. Now, of course, one can make 16:9 content smaller - yet bigger than on a scope screen - by going with something like a 2:05 screen, but you still run into issues with that IMO and really don't optimize for anything which is probably why very few people seem to have 2:05 screens. Of course, one can just go with a smaller 16:9 screen in general to avoid fatigue, but then length suffers for scope (and 16:9 for that matter).


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503245
> 
> 
> 
> It ultimately comes down to preference, yes.
> 
> 
> But, from a filmmaker/artistic perspective, movies are intended to be seen at the same height, hence, CIH. It's really no different than how a movie is intended to be seen at a certain aspect ratio. But, some people preferred to buy "full screen" DVDs over OAR DVDs and some people today zoom out any "black bar" they see on their flat panel - even if that means geometrically distorting the image so everything on the screen is short and fat.
> 
> 
> Second, and I am trying to figure out a better way to explain this so bare with me...but staying with CIH just makes scope content appear more grand and more impressive - compared to if you viewed it on a 16:9 screen even at maximum width.
> 
> 
> Watching 16:9 content as large as you can so that it's taller than scope just makes scope feel diminished when watching it. It's psychological - but a strong psychological component at play. Maybe there is actually some physiology behind it too with how the eyes and brain work, I don't know. When you keep all movies at the same height, scope just appears *amazing* and more appreciable. And 16:9 content just feels more *natural*! I know it might sound weird because it did to me at first, but once I started experimenting and watching this, it became true to me. Something pleasing on the eyes to have a consistency of the same height for all film (no wonder it's intended that way).
> 
> 
> And as I mentioned before, for me anyway, watching 16:9 THAT large just seemed to be too much on the eyes after a while - too much of that IMAX effect if you will that became fatiguing. Not an issue with length - it seems to be that height is more fatiguing on the eyes as someone pointed out. Now, of course, one can make 16:9 smaller - yet bigger than on a scope screen - by going with something like a 2:05 screen, but you still run into issues with that IMO and really don't optimize for anything which is probably why very few people seem to have 2:05 screens.


 

You explained it quite well. Thanks. I have to agree it is all psychological and how you interpret it. For example: in the image I showed I do actually have a 2.35 screen. I just open up the bottom for 16:9 content by removing the velvet mask 







.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503315
> 
> 
> You explained it quite well. Thanks. I have to agree it is all psychological and how you interpret it. For example: in the image I showed I do actually have a 2.35 screen. I just open up the bottom for 16:9 content by removing the velvet mask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Thanks - I also re-edited my post for further comments.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503315
> 
> 
> You explained it quite well. Thanks. I have to agree it is all psychological and how you interpret it. For example: in the image I showed I do actually have a 2.35 screen. I just open up the bottom for 16:9 content by removing the velvet mask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



What you have is a Constant Image Width screen. The width is always the same, only the height changes. 2 Broke Girls will always be larger than Lord of the Rings. That's the opposite of what the rest of us are talking about here or want.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503412
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have is a Constant Image Width screen. The width is always the same, only the height changes. 2 Broke Girls will always be larger than Lord of the Rings. That's the opposite of what the rest of us are talking about here or want.


 



Or Taxi Driver will always be larger than Fifity First Dates


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503083
> 
> 
> Nope, TNG is shown in 4:3. Only the menus and some extras are 16:9. And it is just awesome to watch on the big screen. Picture and sound are great.



I see that now from the previews/trailers, but I could have sworn I remember seeing a video on youtube from before the first episode came out showing how they were slightly cropping them. Maybe they changed their mind between when they made that and when they released them.


I'm going to have to start watching them on Amazon and see, I'd not been because I thought even though they were "HD" they weren't the remastered versions since they were 4:3.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503430
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503412
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have is a Constant Image Width screen. The width is always the same, only the height changes. 2 Broke Girls will always be larger than Lord of the Rings. That's the opposite of what the rest of us are talking about here or want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Taxi Driver will always be larger than Fifity First Dates
Click to expand...


Which goes against the artistic intent of the filmmaker in the case of 50 First Dates and the reasoning behind the aspect ratios by the studios. Just because you can argue Taxi Driver is a better film (I certainly believe it is) does not validate a personal choice to make content intended to be narrower (smaller) by the filmmaker and film industry larger. Scorsese's The Departed is shot in scope, do you think he would prefer it smaller than Taxi Driver? Again your preference is your own. But the intent of the various aspect ratios is well established.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503505
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes against the artistic intent of the filmmaker in the case of 50 First Dates and the reasoning behind the aspect ratios by the studios. Just because you can argue Taxi Driver is a better film (I certainly believe it is) does not validate a personal choice to make content intended to be narrower (smaller) by the filmmaker and film industry larger. Scorsese's The Departed is shot in scope, do you think he would prefer it smaller than Taxi Driver? Again your preference is your own. But the intent of the various aspect ratios is well established.


 



How did this get to "aspect ratio intent"? I love 2.35 films in their aspect ratios, which is why I mask my screen. Just because a film is shot in a specific aspect ratio does not indicate its quality.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503440
> 
> 
> I see that now from the previews/trailers, but I could have sworn I remember seeing a video on youtube from before the first episode came out showing how they were slightly cropping them. Maybe they changed their mind between when they made that and when they released them.
> 
> 
> I'm going to have to start watching them on Amazon and see, I'd not been because I thought even though they were "HD" they weren't the remastered versions since they were 4:3.



CBS Films struck multiple transfers for the restoration of Star Trek. A cropped 16:9 version was prepared for syndication and streaming (and may or may not have been used), but the Blu-rays are pillarboxed to 4:3.


----------



## GetGray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/200_100#post_24503412
> 
> 
> What you have is a Constant Image Width screen. The width is always the same, only the height changes. 2 Broke Girls will always be larger than Lord of the Rings. That's the opposite of what the rest of us are talking about here or want.


Love that analogy(?) Josh, I'll have to remember it


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503505
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes against the artistic intent of the filmmaker in the case of 50 First Dates and the reasoning behind the aspect ratios by the studios. Just because you can argue Taxi Driver is a better film (I certainly believe it is) does not validate a personal choice to make content intended to be narrower (smaller) by the filmmaker and film industry larger. Scorsese's The Departed is shot in scope, do you think he would prefer it smaller than Taxi Driver? Again your preference is your own. But the intent of the various aspect ratios is well established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did this get to "aspect ratio intent"? I love 2.35 films in their aspect ratios, which is why I mask my screen. Just because a film is shot in a specific aspect ratio does not indicate its quality.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I must not have been clear. I was not implying there was a correlation in film quality with aspect ratio. I was saying that a filmmaker uses a certain aspect ratio to communicate their artistic intent. When using scope the intent is for a larger and more epic picture. Your comment implied that your choice was validated in going the opposite direction (making scope content smaller) because you found an example of a scope film that is arguably inferior to a 1.85:1 film. I pointed out that the intention and purpose of the aspect ratio used is not negated just because a film may not be a good one. I went on to point out that in the example of The Departed and Taxi Driver that it is obvious that Scorsese intends for the The Departed to be a bigger picture than Taxi Driver based on his aspect ratio choices. Which is not the case when you view them in your setup.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503430
> 
> 
> Or Taxi Driver will always be larger than Fifity First Dates



Go through your personal movie collection and make notes on how many titles are 1.85:1 and how many are 2.35:1. Then look at what types of movies those are, and which ones you believe merit the most "impact" in the presentation. That will guide you to a decision on what aspect ratio screen will work best of you. If more of your "impactful" movies are 1.85:1, then a 16:9 screen will work best for you. But if more of your "impactful" movies are 2.35:1, you may want to re-evaluate that choice.


It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen, and you just came here to argue with us. Hence my statement that your posts feel like trolling.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Josh: You are assuming that a theater is strictly meant for consuming film content. TV is a major part of my viewing habits, and I am sure many others with projectors.





> "It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen," Why would I want to do that?





>





> And who is the one trolling? You are hijacking a fairly useful discussion of aspect ratios and how they may fit into one's planning for a home theater. Give it up with the trolling garbage.





> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503584
> 
> 
> 
> Go through your personal movie collection and make notes on how many titles are 1.85:1 and how many are 2.35:1. Then look at what types of movies those are, and which ones you believe merit the most "impact" in the presentation. That will guide you to a decision on what aspect ratio screen will work best of you. If more of your "impactful" movies are 1.85:1, then a 16:9 screen will work best for you. But if more of your "impactful" movies are 2.35:1, you may want to re-evaluate that choice.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen, and you just came here to argue with us. Hence my statement that your posts feel like trolling.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503584
> 
> 
> Go through your personal movie collection and make notes on how many titles are 1.85:1 and how many are 2.35:1. Then look at what types of movies those are, and which ones you believe merit the most "impact" in the presentation. That will guide you to a decision on what aspect ratio screen will work best of you. If more of your "impactful" movies are 1.85:1, then a 16:9 screen will work best for you. But if more of your "impactful" movies are 2.35:1, you may want to re-evaluate that choice.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen, and you just came here to argue with us. Hence my statement that your posts feel like trolling.



Another easy experiment would be to zoom out his projector when showing a scope film onto the curtains flanking his screen. That will give a very quick and dirty look at what he could be experiencing and also how much extra width he could play without compromising height. As anyone who's gone CIH knows the difference is not subtle.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503615
> 
> 
> 
> Another easy experiment would be to zoom out his projector when showing a scope film onto the curtains flanking his screen. That will give a very quick and dirty look at what he could be experiencing and also how much extra width he could play without compromising height. As anyone who's gone CIH knows the difference is not subtle.


I have bookshelves behind those curtains so I can't (as I have mentioned twice already).  I know the impact 2.35 has. It seems some on this thread just don't want to let it go that others have different preferences. And as I also mentioned previously, I essentially have a 2.35 screen with the mask. I just open it up for 16:9 content. It really comes down to seating distance more than anything.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503613
> 
> 
> Josh: You are assuming that a theater is strictly meant for consuming film content. TV is a major part of my viewing habits, and I am sure many others with projectors.
> 
> "It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen," Why would I want to do that?
> 
> 
> And who is the one trolling? You are hijacking a fairly useful discussion of aspect ratios and how they may fit into one's planning for a home theater. Give it up with the trolling garbage.



Well if the setup in question is not constrained by width, then it does not matter what the viewing habits are. Nothing is compromised. As I said in a previous post your own setup appears to have unused width that could possibly accommodate a scope screen and make for a much better experience all around if you desired. If you don't and are happy, there's nothing wrong with that. But the point still stands that if you can use a properly sized scope screen you will be viewing all content without compromise.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503642
> 
> 
> I have bookshelves behind those curtains so I can't (as I have mentioned twice already).  I know the impact 2.35 has. It seems some on this thread just don't want to let it go that others have different preferences. And as I also mentioned previously, I essentially have a 2.35 screen with the mask. I just open it up for 16:9 content. It really comes down to seating distance more than anything.



If you have bookshelves there that is certainly a problem (I must have missed that being mentioned). As far as seating distance, your field of vision is wider horizontally, so you would very likely not have to move your seating at all. I didn't have to when I switched (I maintained basically the same screen height). It's the best change I have made since moving to front projection. It has been a massive improvement in the viewing experience for us.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503613
> 
> 
> Josh: You are assuming that a theater is strictly meant for consuming film content. TV is a major part of my viewing habits, and I am sure many others with projectors.



Fine. If watching TV shows is most important to you, then a 16:9 screen may be more appropriate for your needs. We're not trying to tell you what you should do. We're just trying to explain to you what the purpose of Constant Image Height is and why we do it.


You keep bringing up the "impact" of the larger presentation. How often is a TV show really supposed to have more impact than a feature film? Does it seem right to you that movies like Gravity, or Iron Man, or any of the Harry Potters, or any of the Pirates of the Carribbeans should be presented smaller on your screen than the evening news?


> Quote:
> "It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen," Why would I want to do that?
> 
> 
> And who is the one trolling? You are hijacking a fairly useful discussion of aspect ratios and how they may fit into one's planning for a home theater. Give it up with the trolling garbage.



Why are you posting in the Constant Image Height forum if you have no interest in Constant Image Height?


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503613
> 
> 
> Josh: You are assuming that a theater is strictly meant for consuming film content. TV is a major part of my viewing habits, and I am sure many others with projectors.
> 
> "It seems to me that nothing we can say here will convince you to change your screen," Why would I want to do that?



Well first off, the way I try to approach it is not to try and convince anyone to change their setup, but if they ask, to inform/educate them on the history/merits of CIH. Lots of folks get hung up on thinking just in terms of inches, and not in terms of overall presentation and relative presentation/impact of different aspect ratios.


To your comment about "major part", personally I don't agree that you should have a 16:9 screen just because most of what you watch is 16:9. Personally I think the only important question is the following:


On a theoretical/intellectual/ideal level do you think (in general) 2.35:1 is supposed to be larger than 16:9 or not? If the answer is no or "don't care", then get a 16:9 screen.


If the answer is Yes, well then it gets interesting. My belief is there is no such thing as "width limited", that's purely a mental limitation. If you want to, you can have a CIH setup in any room. But at this point you have to evaluate your room, equipment, budget, aestetic preferences, spousal preferences, etc. CIH is a compromise, generally in cost, complexity and sometimes room setup, and not everyone is willing to do that, and that's fine.


As for "Why would I want to do that?" well I'm a bit like you in viewing habits, I watch more TV and play more games on my system than I watch movies, but that actually _more_ of a reason to go CIH IMO. Reason being is I want my movies to be "special", and since most of the movies I watch tend to be scope, CIH make scope bigger than anything else I do in my HT. If I didn't have a CIH system, then most movies would be a bit of a "let down" since they would be smaller than the TV I watch and that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean I host movie nights for my friends and we watch some TV while we eat and play some games, but CIH means that (for most movies) when we sit down for the main event, the movie is the largest, most impressive thing we see, and not the smallest thing shown.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24503957
> 
> 
> Why are you posting in the Constant Image Height forum if you have no interest in Constant Image Height?


Although I do agree with Josh that CIH is the way to go *for me*, the title of this thread *(2:35 screen vs 16x9*) does open the door for debate. Is there even an "*Aspect Ratio*" forum available? If not, maybe should be.


----------



## ch1sox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24504008
> 
> 
> Well first off, the way I try to approach it is not to try and convince anyone to change their setup, but if they ask, to inform/educate them on the history/merits of CIH. Lots of folks get hung up on thinking just in terms of inches, and not in terms of overall presentation and relative presentation/impact of different aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> To your comment about "major part", personally I don't agree that you should have a 16:9 screen just because most of what you watch is 16:9. Personally I think the only important question is the following:
> 
> 
> On a theoretical/intellectual/ideal level do you think (in general) 2.35:1 is supposed to be larger than 16:9 or not? If the answer is no or "don't care", then get a 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> If the answer is Yes, well then it gets interesting. My belief is there is no such thing as "width limited", that's purely a mental limitation. If you want to, you can have a CIH setup in any room. But at this point you have to evaluate your room, equipment, budget, aestetic preferences, spousal preferences, etc. CIH is a compromise, generally in cost, complexity and sometimes room setup, and not everyone is willing to do that, and that's fine.
> 
> 
> As for "Why would I want to do that?" well I'm a bit like you in viewing habits, I watch more TV and play more games on my system than I watch movies, but that actually _more_ of a reason to go CIH IMO. Reason being is I want my movies to be "special", and since most of the movies I watch tend to be scope, CIH make scope bigger than anything else I do in my HT. If I didn't have a CIH system, then most movies would be a bit of a "let down" since they would be smaller than the TV I watch and that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean I host movie nights for my friends and we watch some TV while we eat and play some games, but CIH means that (for most movies) when we sit down for the main event, the movie is the largest, most impressive thing we see, and not the smallest thing shown.



You pretty much have the same ideas as me. Movies for us is an "event." I use the zoom method and when when it switches from 16:9 to 2.35, that feeling of awesomeness kicks in.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stanger89*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24504008
> 
> 
> Well first off, the way I try to approach it is not to try and convince anyone to change their setup, but if they ask, to inform/educate them on the history/merits of CIH. Lots of folks get hung up on thinking just in terms of inches, and not in terms of overall presentation and relative presentation/impact of different aspect ratios.
> 
> 
> To your comment about "major part", personally I don't agree that you should have a 16:9 screen just because most of what you watch is 16:9. Personally I think the only important question is the following:
> 
> 
> On a theoretical/intellectual/ideal level do you think (in general) 2.35:1 is supposed to be larger than 16:9 or not? If the answer is no or "don't care", then get a 16:9 screen.
> 
> 
> If the answer is Yes, well then it gets interesting. My belief is there is no such thing as "width limited", that's purely a mental limitation. If you want to, you can have a CIH setup in any room. But at this point you have to evaluate your room, equipment, budget, aestetic preferences, spousal preferences, etc. CIH is a compromise, generally in cost, complexity and sometimes room setup, and not everyone is willing to do that, and that's fine.
> 
> 
> As for "Why would I want to do that?" well I'm a bit like you in viewing habits, I watch more TV and play more games on my system than I watch movies, but that actually _more_ of a reason to go CIH IMO. Reason being is I want my movies to be "special", and since most of the movies I watch tend to be scope, CIH make scope bigger than anything else I do in my HT. If I didn't have a CIH system, then most movies would be a bit of a "let down" since they would be smaller than the TV I watch and that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean I host movie nights for my friends and we watch some TV while we eat and play some games, but CIH means that (for most movies) when we sit down for the main event, the movie is the largest, most impressive thing we see, and not the smallest thing shown.



I agree with most of what you are saying, but the physical room layout is a factor that definitely plays a role in the decision. I get that from an aesthetic and artistic viewpoint scope is intended to be the visually largest and most impressive picture. However there are some cases where a scope setup is just to much of a compromise. One of my friends just moved into a new house. His theater room is very narrow. He can get three theater chairs across with just enough room to get by them. He'd love a scope setup but his current screen (a 110" 16:9 screen) just barely fits between the L/R tower speakers. He watches a fair amount of TV. Probably 50-50. So in his case the width limitations make it to much of a compromise. He'd be looking at around an 80" 16:9 picture switching to a scope screen or about a 30% loss in size. The scope picture would be the same size as it is now. Yes you would still be correct in stating that switching to scope would still be the most theatrical way to enjoy his setup, but the reality is that he enjoys enough varying content that it just isn't worth the sacrifice. And I don't disagree with him.


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24506787
> 
> 
> I agree with most of what you are saying, but the physical room layout is a factor that definitely plays a role in the decision. I get that from as aesthetic and artistic viewpoint scope is intended to be the visually largest and most impressive picture. However there are some cases where a scope setup is just to much of a compromise. One of my friends just moved into a new house. His theater room is very narrow. He can get three theater chairs across with just enough room to get by them. He'd love a scope setup but his current screen (a 110" 16:9 screen) just barely fits between the L/R tower speakers.



That sounds just like my HT, 11.5' wide, I've got three chairs and just enough room to walk by on one side. I went with an AT screen so I could use the full width of the room, so my scope screen is 110" wide. I've placed my seating so that 16:9 is a satisfying size.


> Quote:
> He watches a fair amount of TV. Probably 50-50. So in his case the width limitations make it to much of a compromise.



I guess I just don't understand, I use my HT every day, but only watch movies on the weekends, so I'm well under 50% movie use. This is what I mean by "getting hung up on inches". Why should TV be larger just because that's what you watch the most of? Especially if you agree Scope is meant to be larger. Just so you can have as many inches of screen as possible all the time?


> Quote:
> He'd be looking at around an 80" 16:9 picture switching to a scope screen or about a 30% loss in size.



So what? My 16:9 area is about 82" wide (94" diagonal). Yeah I could go bigger, since my screen is AT I could just expand vertically, the 16:9 would be about 126" diagonal, but why? Just so I can say it's bigger? Frankly with my seating distance, that would be way too big. I have my seating setup so that 16:9 (at "only" 82" wide) is a pleasing size, but then when I watch those epic scope movies, they're even bigger just like they're supposed to be.


My point is, one needs to stop thinking in terms of inches, stop thinking you need as many inches as possible all the time, and start thinking about presentation. Your friend has a similar room to mine, the key to being "happy" with all aspect ratios is seating distance. Sounds like your friend has a 96" wide screen, that would make the scope height 40". So if your friend were to place his seating 12' from the screen, that would be a very nice 3 screen heights. You could go as close as 7-8' feet or so if you wanted a really immersive experience.



> Quote:
> The scope picture would be the same size as it is now.



But the extra impact that the 33% wider scope picture is supposed to have would be lost, instead scope is diminished relative to everything else you watch in such a system. Relatively, scope is only half as big as it's supposed to be in such a system.


> Quote:
> Yes you would still be correct in stating that switching to scope would still be the most theatrical way to enjoy his setup, but the reality is that he enjoys enough varying content that it just isn't worth the sacrifice. And I don't disagree with him.



And my question is why not? Is it just because you're "wasting" space and 16:9 doesn't have as many inches as are possible in the room? Can the seating not be moved forward? Is an AT screen not an option? Something else?


I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative (I'm really just using your friend as an exercise, not trying to get him to change), but I really think a lot of people have a mental block that they just can't get past the idea of "maximum inches" to realize that the "impact" of a system is not based solely on the number of inches the screen occupies, but on the screen size relative to the rest of the room, specifically seating distance. It seems to me a lot like the people who want movies Pan & Scanned because they think that if they're not using "all the inches" of their screen all the time they're wasting space or not getting their money's worth. Now I'm not saying CIW is like Pan & Scan, just that I think there's a similar sort of mental block.


We're so used to buying "TV"s by buying the biggest (ie most number of inches) we can. But with TVs the aspect ratio is fixed, and most of the time the room is never even thought of. I think when people move to projection, they sort of forget, or don't realize that that's not the case, and that projection is a system and the whole room, seating, and system design all come into play as to how impressive or satisfying the image "feels" for any given aspect ratio. That inches of screen isn't the only criteria, that feet of seating distance is just as important to creating the experience you want.


----------



## jeahrens

It's not as black and white as getting lost in inches/size at the expense of cinematic intent. It's about impact and preference. He enjoys watching TV shows down there and the size compromise would lessen the impact of them. He is used to a 110" picture and the loss in size would not be a plus. There's just no getting around that 30+% smaller just makes less of an impact. It's simply how the human brain works. The room isn't setup well for an AT screen (we were thinking about this before he moved everything in), there just isn't a lot of depth to work with and there is a soffit running along the ceiling that would be bear to work around. Trust me I am a huge advocate for CIH. He's over at my house often and loves it, but his room simply has constraints that don't fit with a scope setup.


----------



## stanger89

Like I said, I understand it's not for everyone, but all too often I just see the reason for not doing it being "but I could have a bigger 16:9" image, well it's not as simple as that either. That's why I think the most important question is, do you think scope should be bigger than 16:9. If you don't, or don't care, then CIH isn't for you. It sounds like your friend falls into this category, which is fine.


----------



## jeahrens

Well he has an investment in a home theater, so he cares more than most about the presentation of movies. He'd agree that if possible scope should be the largest picture and have the most impact. So it's not really fair to say he doesn't care or doesn't believe in CIH. It's mainly about where his pain threshold is trying to balance all the formats he enjoys. We talked about an AT scope screen, but there isn't much depth to the room so it would be hard to do (and again that soffit would be a pain). You can't really go the other way because of how narrow the room is. The projector doesn't have the zoom for it and even if you found a way to bounce the light around you would be uncomfortably close to the speakers and screen.


----------



## ajvandenb

Yes


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24507828
> 
> 
> Well he has an investment in a home theater, so he cares more than most about the presentation of movies. He'd agree that if possible scope should be the largest picture and have the most impact. So it's not really fair to say he doesn't care or doesn't believe in CIH. It's mainly about where his pain threshold is trying to balance all the formats he enjoys. We talked about an AT scope screen, but there isn't much depth to the room so it would be hard to do (and again that soffit would be a pain). You can't really go the other way because of how narrow the room is. The projector doesn't have the zoom for it and even if you found a way to bounce the light around you would be uncomfortably close to the speakers and screen.



I have been away for the past day. i want to say I appreciate that you can see my perspective now. Thanks. Now let's enjoy our home theaters the way we want them!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I know it doesn't work for everyone because some people prefer the height, but as Stanger says, stop thinking in inches, and start thinking in seating distance ratio and field of view occupied by image.


If your someone has a 110" wide 16:9 screen and sits around 12.3 feet away (approx 2.4 x the screen height), they could change to a 110" wide 2.35 screen and sit around 9.5 feet away and still visually have the same size 16:9 image they had before, only now, their scope movies are the correct size and more immersive - as designed.


Screen size is nothing without seating distance.


Gary


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24507917
> 
> 
> I know it doesn't work for everyone because some people prefer the height, but as Stanger says, stop thinking in inches, and start thinking in seating distance ratio and field of view occupied by image.
> 
> 
> If your someone has a 110" wide 16:9 screen and sits around 12.3 feet away (approx 2.4 x the screen height), they could change to a 110" wide 2.35 screen and sit around 9.5 feet away and still visually have the same size 16:9 image they had before, only now, their scope movies are the correct size and more immersive - as designed.
> 
> 
> Screen size is nothing without seating distance.
> 
> 
> Gary



Yup that's exactly it.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24507906
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> I have been away for the past day. i want to say I appreciate that you can see my perspective now. Thanks. Now let's enjoy our home theaters the way we want them!



I don't know if I would go that far







. If he had your room I can about guarantee you there would be no curtains with bookshelves behind them. There would be a scope screen there instead.


Seriously though I do understand that everyone's preferences are different. If you're happy that is all that matters.


----------



## ajvandenb

Sure if you had the extra cash to remove the bookshelves







i'd rather spend it on content instead, and move my seating position. Not unlike going to the commercial movie theater and sitting in the first five rows versus sitting five rows from the back.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24507917
> 
> 
> I know it doesn't work for everyone because some people prefer the height, but as Stanger says, stop thinking in inches, and start thinking in seating distance ratio and field of view occupied by image.
> 
> 
> If your someone has a 110" wide 16:9 screen and sits around 12.3 feet away (approx 2.4 x the screen height), they could change to a 110" wide 2.35 screen and sit around 9.5 feet away and still visually have the same size 16:9 image they had before, only now, their scope movies are the correct size and more immersive - as designed.
> 
> 
> Screen size is nothing without seating distance.
> 
> 
> Gary



Your assuming that the depth of the room is there to play with. In the example I am talking about he doesn't have room to go much closer or further back, He's got maybe a 2-3' behind him which he needs for the equipment and is about 8-9' from the screen (already probably to close). The speakers are set out from the wall for acoustics and moving much closer probably wouldn't be all that good from a sound perspective. You'd be too close to the front soundstage. I'm not trying to belabor the point. It's just not always as easy as it sounds to make things work. We tried looking at it from all the angles we could think of and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't feasible. This isn't because he doesn't understand CIH or isn't passionate about film. It's just the reality of the room he's stuck with.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508013
> 
> 
> Sure if you had the extra cash to remove the bookshelves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd rather spend it on content instead, and move my seating position. Not unlike going to the commercial movie theater and sitting in the first five rows versus sitting five rows from the back.



The curtains make it hard to tell, but it doesn't look like they stand out from the wall. So for recessed in wall shelves I would hang the scope screen and the construct an inexpensive wall cover with black velvet attached to it. It would get you the best presentation screen wise and the wall treatment would be pretty economical, cover the shelves and improve contrast. You could also remove the wall covering pretty easy if you moved or need to rearrange.


Yeah, yeah it's not a priority for you. I know. Just the fact you're even in this discussion makes me try to find ways for you to experience a CIH setup. You're happy with what you have and that is what matters.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508027
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that the depth of the room is there to play with. In the example I am talking about he doesn't have room to go much closer or further back, He's got maybe a 2-3' behind him which he needs for the equipment and is about 8-9' from the screen (already probably to close). The speakers are set out from the wall for acoustics and moving much closer probably wouldn't be all that good from a sound perspective. You'd be too close to the front soundstage. I'm not trying to belabor the point. It's just not always as easy as it sounds to make things work. We tried looking at it from all the angles we could think of and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't feasible. This isn't because he doesn't understand CIH or isn't passionate about film. It's just the reality of the room he's stuck with.



Can't argue with that. Bummer...


Gary


----------



## ajvandenb

Or again. I just move my seating position. The funny thing is I actually have a 2.30 scope ( if you assume I didn't ever remove the mask). I think many get too hung up on the aspect ratio itself rather than the actual impact determined by personal experience. In my case if I would have gone with a scope screen I would have compromised my 16:9 impact at the same seating distance, so i went with a 16:9 and created the large mask. It may also be useful to point out that zooming and lens memory make it much easier than some projectors that don't have these features.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24504104
> 
> 
> Although I do agree with Josh that CIH is the way to go _*for me*_, the title of this thread *(2:35 screen vs 16x9*) does open the door for debate. Is there even an "*Aspect Ratio*" forum available? If not, maybe should be.



Given that we are in the Constant Image Height forum, read almost exclusively by people interested in Constant Image Height, I interpret the thread title as "Explain the difference between these two things," and not "Pit these two things against one another. Fight! Fight! Fight!"


----------



## stanger89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508157
> 
> 
> Or again. I just move my seating position. The funny thing is I actually have a 2.30 scope ( if you assume I didn't ever remove the mask). I think many get too hung up on the aspect ratio itself rather than the actual impact determined by personal experience. In my case if I would have gone with a scope screen I would have compromised my 16:9 impact at the same seating distance, so i went with a 16:9 and created the large mask. It may also be useful to point out that zooming and lens memory make it much easier than some projectors that don't have these features.



For the sake of argument, er discussion.... Why did you not just move your seating forward permanently and go with a scope screen?


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508157
> 
> 
> Or again. I just move my seating position. The funny thing is I actually have a 2.30 scope ( if you assume I didn't ever remove the mask). I think many get too hung up on the aspect ratio itself rather than the actual impact determined by personal experience. In my case if I would have gone with a scope screen I would have compromised my 16:9 impact at the same seating distance, so i went with a 16:9 and created the large mask. It may also be useful to point out that zooming and lens memory make it much easier than some projectors that don't have these features.



Well moving the furniture will definitely affect speaker delays and possibly acoustics. I don't if you're just living with that or resetting your speaker distances and rerunning room correction for each move. Maybe you're just not bothered by it. It's also not very convenient to move the furniture around. Looking at the photo you posted I don't know if you would be getting the same perceived size moving things as you would with a genuine screen maintaining the same height. But in the end it's working for you.


For most of us I don't think picking up our chairs, tables, etc to move them for aspect ratio changes is all that practical. I've spent a lot of time getting my speakers setup and calibrated so I know I wouldn't be happy moving things around from an acoustic perspective. Let alone moving all that stuff.


That's a good point on CIH requiring extra equipment or equipment with certain features to make it convenient (or work at all if you are using a lens). I know there are folks who manually refocus and zoom when changing aspect ratios. That seems a bit to cumbersome to me, but if they're happy with it good for them. A good solution for a tight budget is an inexpensive 2 prism lens.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508231
> 
> 
> 
> Given that we are in the Constant Image Height forum, read almost exclusively by people interested in Constant Image Height, I interpret the thread title as "Explain the difference between these two things," and not "Pit these two things against one another. Fight! Fight! Fight!"


Right...I understand. There should probably be an "Aspect Ratio" discussion forum for people to discuss the topic in an unbiased way. For example, there are extra costs (anamorphic lens etc.) if you want to do CIH the *"best"* way. People looking to gain knowledge should be able to discuss those things without having other posters trying to throw them out of the forum.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508320
> 
> 
> (anamorphic lens etc.) if you want to do CIH the right way.



I've seen that sentiment posted before and it just rubs me the wrong the way. Zooming is not wrong. It's not as good as a very nice lens. No arguments here. But it produces an excellent picture and is a perfectly viable CIH method. For a lot of people this or an inexpensive lens are the only affordable ways to enjoy CIH. I'd never steer anyone away from going either route, because both are better than the alternative.


Heh I just now noticed your location. Any chance you'd be willing to do a hit on a certain Gungan for us? Himsa needs to die.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508394
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that sentiment posted before and it just rubs me the wrong the way. Zooming is not wrong. It's not as good as a very nice lens. No arguments here. But it produces an excellent picture and is a perfectly viable CIH method. For a lot of people this or an inexpensive lens are the only affordable ways to enjoy CIH. I'd never steer anyone away from going either route, because both are better than the alternative.


I edited my post to read.... if you want to do CIH the *"best"* way...







 At least that is what the experts tell me. I'm still trying to make that decision myself and have not seen the "zoom" method in person.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Heh I just now noticed your location. Any chance you'd be willing to do a hit on a certain Gungan for us? Himsa needs to die.


Haha...I'm actually going to name my theater "The Naboo Theater" and do a black and blue space theme. The house isn't even built yet. It should be in progress this time next year. I'm using this site for research and budgeting. Although some members can be a little "testy", this site has been a great resource. I live near GetGray and hope to be able to use his expertise.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508694
> 
> 
> Haha...I'm actually going to name my theater "The Naboo Theater" and do a black and blue space theme. The house isn't even built yet. It should be in progress this time next year. I'm using this site for research and budgeting. Although some members can be a little "testy", this site has been a great resource. I live near GetGray and hope to be able to use his expertise.



Sweet! I would love to do a ground up theater. Our current one is just in a room we use for it. Works fairly well, but a purpose built room just has a lot of class. I've found this site to be a great resource as well. Always nice to chat with people interested in this hobby. I recently found the thread for folks in my area and it's been a blast to hear and see what others have done. Especially those folks with toys way above what I can afford.


Back on topic. I'm sure you can find a good dealer demo of a projector with lens zoom/memory. A good lens demo will be harder to find. You might be able to find someone local through the forums to help you out. If you can afford it a good lens will be like speakers, an investment that lasts a very long time. But on the flip side I have been very happy zooming and if your budget is tight it's a great way to go as well.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508940
> 
> 
> Back on topic. I'm sure you can find a good dealer demo of a projector with lens zoom/memory. A good lens demo will be harder to find. You might be able to find someone local through the forums to help you out. If you can afford it a good lens will be like speakers, an investment that lasts a very long time. But on the flip side I have been very happy zooming and if your budget is tight it's a great way to go as well.


GetGray did a lens demo for me. His theater is awesome. I do want to see the zoom method in person. Current house plans have my room at 16 ft wide by 25 ft long. I should be able to go with a very large 2.35 acoustically transparent screen. When I read that zooming reduces the brightness by 25%, that scares me a bit (especially with the large screen). However, this fear is based completely on reading and not real life experience. I would definitely like to avoid the extra cost of the anamorphic lens. It wasn't on my radar at all before visiting this forum.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24509033
> 
> 
> GetGray did a lens demo for me. His theater is awesome. I do want to see the zoom method in person. Current house plans have my room at 16 ft wide by 25 ft long. I should be able to go with a very large 2.35 acoustically transparent screen. When I read that zooming reduces the brightness by 25%, that scares me a bit (especially with the large screen). However, this fear is based completely on reading and not real life experience. I would definitely like to avoid the extra cost of the anamorphic lens. It wasn't on my radar at all before visiting this forum.



My screen is 10' wide (130" diagonal 2.35:1 with 1.0 gain) and I run in low lamp mode with the iris stepped down to -8 on my JVC RS46 and things are plenty bright for me. I have pretty good light control, but not complete. When I run 16:9 I close the iris down to -11 to equalize the difference. Everyone's preference for brightness varies, so its something I would sample. You're probably looking at ~150" scope screen with that kind of width to play with (11-12' wide).


----------



## DavidHir

Seems to me there are pros and cons to the A-lens aside from cost. I've got a JVC RS4810 which seems to zoom nicely with its memory sets.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24511970
> 
> 
> Seems to me there are pros and cons to the A-lens aside from cost. I've got a JVC RS4810 which seems to zoom nicely with its memory sets.


What are the other cons? ....pincushion, barrel?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24512269
> 
> 
> What are the other cons? ....pincushion, barrel?



Pincushion, a slight softening of the image and loss of contrast. The pincushion can be minimized with careful setup, and the other two are pretty mild. IMO, the pros outweigh the cons. However, given the cost of these lenses, and the difficulty of installation (if ceiling mounted), I can understand why many people would choose to zoom instead.


I actually have two projectors installed in my home theater currently: a JVC for 2D and a DLP for 3D. I do CIH for both. The JVC is ceiling mounted with a Panamorph lens. The DLP is shelf mounted below it with no lens. I zoom with that one. I get satisfying results with both.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24512269
> 
> 
> What are the other cons? ....pincushion, barrel?



In addition to what Josh said and depending on the lens, you can have chromatic aberration. People that have the better ones seem to happy with them though.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

The cheaper lenses can soften the image, but the higher end lenses like ISCOs etc don't tend to do that. The loss of contrast is due to the horizontal zoom effect, but is no different to zooming the pj lens for scope (zoom bigger increases lumens but reduces contrast, and vice versa). ANSI contrast loss is unoticable on a good lens if it exists. I think someone may have measured it, but not sure of the method used but I've a feeling it may have been Prismasonic. A few years ago I measured the ANSI of my Optoma H78 with ISCO II in perfect conditions (no room reflections) and it was the same as the advertised ANSI CR of the model and that as measured by Greg Rogers, so no apparent loss there.


With a good lens, the only real disadvantage that I have noticed is the pincushion and that can be lost in the border with a little overscan, and then you don't even know it's there. You could use a curved screen to hide it that way, but I think you then have to match the curve to the throw you're using so I beleive there's no universal curved screen to fit a given set up.


Which ever way you go, I think CIH is the best way to see movies as that is the original design intent, so don't worry about how you do it, just do it!!










Gary


----------



## nflguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Romans828*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24508320
> 
> 
> Right...I understand. There should probably be an "Aspect Ratio" discussion forum for people to discuss the topic in an unbiased way. For example, there are extra costs (anamorphic lens etc.) if you want to do CIH the _*"best"*_ way. People looking to gain knowledge should be able to discuss those things without having other posters trying to throw them out of the forum.



I started this thread and you are correct.


----------



## nflguy

My media room is 12x 17 and we went with a 133" 2:35 that is aprox 52" tall and 123" wide


When watching movies our eyes are about 11.5 ft from screen. We have been very happy with it so far.


I had someone from this site (name escapes me at the moment) calibrate my projector JVC rs4810 and he said in his experience the pana lense was a waste of money. He could be wrong but we use zoom and the picture looks really really good.


The only issue I have had happened recently. I bought "frozen" for my kid to watch and unlike most animated movies this one is wide screen. I couldn't get it to fit on my screen. The picture was 4 or 5 inches too tall. If zoomed out to make it fit then I had small bars on the side. I ended up shifting the picture down so the top fit right and it over ran on the bottom which my kid didn't mind. Anyway, until that experience all wide screen movies have fit the screen very well .


----------



## ch1sox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nflguy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24533898
> 
> 
> My media room is 12x 17 and we went with a 133" 2:35 that is aprox 52" tall and 123" wide
> 
> 
> When watching movies our eyes are about 11.5 ft from screen. We have been very happy with it so far.
> 
> 
> I had someone from this site (name escapes me at the moment) calibrate my projector JVC rs4810 and he said in his experience the pana lense was a waste of money. He could be wrong but we use zoom and the picture looks really really good.
> 
> 
> The only issue I have had happened recently. I bought "frozen" for my kid to watch and unlike most animated movies this one is wide screen. I couldn't get it to fit on my screen. The picture was 4 or 5 inches too tall. If zoomed out to make it fit then I had small bars on the side. I ended up shifting the picture down so the top fit right and it over ran on the bottom which my kid didn't mind. Anyway, until that experience all wide screen movies have fit the screen very well .



I believe that's because Frozen has an odd aspect of 2.24 instead of 2.35/2.40. If I'm not mistaken, it was originally in 2.39 and they cut it to 2.24.


----------



## Romans828




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ch1sox*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24533995
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that's because Frozen has an odd aspect of 2.24 instead of 2.35/2.40. If I'm not mistaken, it was originally in 2.39 and they cut it to 2.24.


I don't understand why they do stuff like that.  I guess this is where a video processor like the Lumagen would come in handy.


----------



## jeahrens

Honestly the black level is good enough on the JVC's I just leave the small pillarboxes. In a dark room they disappear and you don't even think about them once the film is playing. I think I ran into a couple in the Bond set that had an odd ratio.


----------



## nflguy

The next time she wants to watch it I will try it with pillar boxes so top and bottom of image fits within my 52" tall screen.


----------



## drjay71

Could someone please clarify.


If I go with a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens I can use the zoom method to fill my screen when watching 2.35:1 content. That I understand. What can I use if I want to fill my screen when watching 16:9 content (i.e football)? I know this will cause distortion and make the players look short and fat but what if the distortion is acceptable to me? Can use the the Lumagen Radiance or an anamorphic lens? Are there projectors that have "horizontal stretch"?


Sounds like it is possible but just wanted confirmation.



Thanks!


----------



## blastermaster




> Quote:
> Are there projectors that have "horizontal stretch"?



I'm pretty sure you have to work within the 16:9 confines of the projector. Within that, most projectors will allow you to stretch and shrink the image. If you want to go outside of that, you will need something external as you've said. A horizontal expansion anamorphic lens will do that for sure and will also mean that you won't need to zoom for 2.35:1 content.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/300#post_24534414
> 
> 
> I think I ran into a couple in the Bond set that had an odd ratio.



The first three James Bond movies (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger) are 1.66:1.


Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun are 1.85:1.


The rest of the Bond movies are either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1. However, on a handful of them (Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker), the opening credits have been horizontally squeezed to about 2.2:1 with pillarbox bars on the sides. I believe this was done because the credit text extends to the edges of the screen and the studio didn't want it cut-off on displays with overscan. Unfortunately, the squeezing is very noticeable on some, especially when round images like the moon appear oval. After the credits end, the picture returns to 2.35:1 with normal geometry.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24535855
> 
> 
> Could someone please clarify.
> 
> 
> If I go with a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens I can use the zoom method to fill my screen when watching 2.35:1 content. That I understand. What can I use if I want to fill my screen when watching 16:9 content (i.e football)? I know this will cause distortion and make the players look short and fat but what if the distortion is acceptable to me? Can use the the Lumagen Radiance or an anamorphic lens? Are there projectors that have "horizontal stretch"?
> 
> 
> Sounds like it is possible but just wanted confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



How do I fill my 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 content?


Believe it or not, this is the number one question that Panamorph receives. We have heard from our friends at Screen Innovations that that is also the number one question they receive regarding 2.35:1 screens.


If you have an anamorphic lens, it is easy. You can either just move the lens in place (which gives you exactly the result you describe - people look short and fat) or you can engage the vertical stretch with the lens in place (in which case the geometry will be correct - people will look normal - but you will crop off 16.5% of the top and bottom of the image).


There is no way to do this if you are zooming, unless you invest in a Lumagen processor and start cropping the image.


Perhaps not surprisingly, most people here on this particular forum will object, since you are distorting the image. However, most of the folks on this forum (including myself) are fanatical about preserving the original intent of the filmmakers / videographers, which is part of what led us to creating Constant Height home cinemas in the first place. However, there is a *vast* number of people out there who just want to fill the screen. And, while it may be technically incorrect, it is ultimately a preference. When it comes to preference, there is no right or wrong.


Russell Warnhoff - the sales manager of Panamorph - hosts a SuperBowl party every year at his home (20 - 30 people). The only complaints he gets is if he does NOT fill the 2.35:1 screen with the game. Even after he demonstrates exactly why filling the screen is "improper," his audience still prefers the screen to be filled.


----------



## trans_lux




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24535855
> 
> 
> Could someone please clarify.
> 
> 
> If I go with a 2.35:1 screen without an anamorphic lens I can use the zoom method to fill my screen when watching 2.35:1 content. That I understand. What can I use if I want to fill my screen when watching 16:9 content (i.e football)? I know this will cause distortion and make the players look short and fat but what if the distortion is acceptable to me? Can use the the Lumagen Radiance or an anamorphic lens? Are there projectors that have "horizontal stretch"?
> 
> 
> Sounds like it is possible but just wanted confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



If you are going with a fixed set up with 2:35 being the only image size A Lumagen would be your best bet for a couple reasons.


When in 2:35 you could mask/blank the top and bottom of the image so you would have no spill over beyond the screen when watching movies with mixed aspect ratios i.e. any Chris Nolan movie.


You can create presets with any ratio you want. You could: stretch a 16:9 image to fit into 2:35, crop the top and bottom of a 16:9 image to fill 2:35, watch an unaltered 16:9 ratio in the center of the 2:35.

note: keep in mind without a anamorphic lens resolution and brightness will be compromised as you will only be using the center of the chip.


I prefer not using an anamorphic lens as I think the double scaling and image distortion produce a much softer image. However I do want to watch 16:9 content in the correct unaltered ratio and use the entire chip. Projectors with lens memory such as the JVC, or the better Sony & DPI projectors IMHO are the best of both world.


I'd still recommend a Lumagen as it can do amazing things to image quality in the hands of an experienced professional calibrator.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24536659
> 
> 
> Russell Warnhoff - the sales manager of Panamorph - hosts a SuperBowl party every year at his home (20 - 30 people). The only complaints he gets is if he does NOT fill the 2.35:1 screen with the game. Even after he demonstrates exactly why filling the screen is "improper," his audience still prefers the screen to be filled.



Funny, whenever I've fired up my home theater for lay-people who don't know anything about aspect ratios, I've never had anyone complain that the screen wasn't filled when I projected 16:9. They're generally impressed by the size and presentation, and don't notice the pillarbox bars at the sides.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24536753
> 
> 
> Funny, whenever I've fired up my home theater for lay-people who don't know anything about aspect ratios, I've never had anyone complain that the screen wasn't filled when I projected 16:9. They're generally impressed by the size and presentation, and don't notice the pillarbox bars at the sides.



That has been my experience as well. People are used to looking at the HD ratio material and are impressed with the size of the pillarboxed image and then I throw in something like Raiders and they really go WOW. For me personally I wouldn't be cropping or distorting the image just to fill the screen. It would bother me.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24536753
> 
> 
> Funny, whenever I've fired up my home theater for lay-people who don't know anything about aspect ratios, I've never had anyone complain that the screen wasn't filled when I projected 16:9. They're generally impressed by the size and presentation, and don't notice the pillarbox bars at the sides.



Maybe Russell needs to exchange his friends for yours










I've never heard the complaint myself, but then again, I have a masking screen, so when people see 16:9 they aren't as painfully aware of the "unused space" as they are with Russell's non masked screen.


But what I said still stands, as far as the feedback we get from dealers, end users, and screen manufacturers. I am not exaggerating when I state that the overwhelming preference reported back to us is to fill the whole screen, regardless of OAR. This is part of why Panamorph started putting more resources into promoting fixed lens systems. Our research revealed that most people would just leave the lens in place all the time so they could fill the screen.


There is the AVS World and then there is everybody else


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24537528
> 
> 
> That has been my experience as well. People are used to looking at the HD ratio material and are impressed with the size of the pillarboxed image and then I throw in something like Raiders and they really go WOW. For me personally I wouldn't be cropping or distorting the image just to fill the screen. It would bother me.



It bothers me too. I want the film to be presented with correct geometry.


However -


When you say people are used to the HD ratio, my experience is directly the opposite. Based upon all of my experience doing trainings on this subject, plus attending trade shows and doing consumer demos (about 6 years now), what I have found is that people have no concept of the different ratios unless you do a "before and after" or "side by side" demo. Early on, we used to use just a 2.35:1 screen for Panamorph demos, showing the whole screen filled for widescreen movies. Even at trade shows filled with home theater dealers and "experts," most of them never even realized that the screen was any different in shape than standard 16:9. This led to us demoing with 16:9 and 2.35:1 screens set up side by side so people could clearly see the difference. That in turn led to the creation of the famous Panamorph "Instant Demo", which is a simple foldout brochure that has 16:9 letterboxed on one side, and 2.35:1 UltraWide on the other. Without the side by side element, people just didn't get it.


I would bet the reason that you impress people with your Raiders demo is because you are essentially doing a "before and after."


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24536753
> 
> 
> Funny, whenever I've fired up my home theater for lay-people who don't know anything about aspect ratios, I've never had anyone complain that the screen wasn't filled when I projected 16:9. They're generally impressed by the size and presentation, and don't notice the pillarbox bars at the sides.



A question - are they drunk sports fans?


----------



## ch1sox

I use a Lumagen with its NLS settings to fill 16:9 images to 2.35. It works REALLY nice and it's awesome for games and movies.


----------



## nflguy

I never thought about filling my 2:35 screen with 16x9 source material since I expected the image to look terrible. If it's possible to do it and have a quality HD image then it would be worthwhile.


----------



## drjay71

Thanks for the replies.


Sounds like the Lumagen tends to stretch the peripheral aspects of the image more than the central aspect when filling a 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 content. I have seen a few examples online and I don't think it is going to bother me too much. Plus I love the idea of not having black bars on the sides and having sporting events feel more immersive.


Correct me if I am wrong but using the Lumagen for aspect control requires a one time set up and therefore I don't have to get a projector with lens memory. With my budget I would much rather get the Sony VPL-HW55ES rather than a Panasonic AE8000U.


Thanks!


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24538420
> 
> 
> It bothers me too. I want the film to be presented with correct geometry.
> 
> 
> However -
> 
> 
> When you say people are used to the HD ratio, my experience is directly the opposite. Based upon all of my experience doing trainings on this subject, plus attending trade shows and doing consumer demos (about 6 years now), what I have found is that people have no concept of the different ratios unless you do a "before and after" or "side by side" demo. Early on, we used to use just a 2.35:1 screen for Panamorph demos, showing the whole screen filled for widescreen movies. Even at trade shows filled with home theater dealers and "experts," most of them never even realized that the screen was any different in shape than standard 16:9. This led to us demoing with 16:9 and 2.35:1 screens set up side by side so people could clearly see the difference. That in turn led to the creation of the famous Panamorph "Instant Demo", which is a simple foldout brochure that has 16:9 letterboxed on one side, and 2.35:1 UltraWide on the other. Without the side by side element, people just didn't get it.
> 
> 
> I would bet the reason that you impress people with your Raiders demo is because you are essentially doing a "before and after."



Well when I fire up a 1.85:1 movie or 1.78:1 program the room is usually dark. The geometry is what they see on their own TV, the picture is just larger. Most don't see or pay attention to the sides of the screen. Then you throw in a scope film and the difference is VERY apparent. Sometimes I will put in it in with the lens still focused on 16:9 and then show them the picture properly sized on the screen. Other times I will let the lens do it's thing while I swap in a disc. Either way the impact is very impressive.


No most don't immediately pick up on the aspect ratio of the screen. When I said they are used to viewing 1.78:1, I simply meant they are familiar with how the presented material looks from their own living room. Very few have much of a concept of aspect ratios. Other than some movies/programs fill their screen, others have bars.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nflguy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24539122
> 
> 
> I never thought about filling my 2:35 screen with 16x9 source material since I expected the image to look terrible. If it's possible to do it and have a quality HD image then it would be worthwhile.



You can either chop off the top/bottom or introduce distortion of some sort. I have yet to find a distortion method that I don't find to look bad. I guess the best are those that tend to stretch the edges, but still anytime an object approaches the edge I find it to be pretty bad. Hard to fit a square peg in a round hole without something messy occurring.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24539943
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Lumagen tends to stretch the peripheral aspects of the image more than the central aspect when filling a 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 content. I have seen a few examples online and I don't think it is going to bother me too much. Plus I love the idea of not having black bars on the sides and having sporting events feel more immersive.



The Lumagen is a very flexible tool that will allow you to do a number of different things to watch a 16:9 source on a 2.35:1 screen. The most common are:


1) Pillarbox the 16:9 picture in the center of the screen with bars on the sides.


2) Zoom the 16:9 picture so that the width fills the screen but some image is cropped off the top and bottom. This often causes character heads to get cut off.


3) Simply stretch the picture so that it fills both the width and height of the screen. This will leave you with a very distorted picture in which everyone looks short and fat.


4) Apply a non-linear stretch in which the image is stretched more on the sides than in the center. Depending on the content, this may look OK during still shots, but during any motion you'll get a "fisheye" effect where objects warp as they pass from the center to the sides or vice versa. IMO, this would be extremely disorienting on a sports program with a lot of movement.

Especially basketball, which is generally shot on a horizontal plane with players running back and forth from side to side as the camera pans to keep up with them. I suspect you may find your guests projectile vomiting all over your carpet and furniture if they watch more than a couple minutes of that.


Really, the only good option here is #1.


> Quote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but using the Lumagen for aspect control requires a one time set up and therefore I don't have to get a projector with lens memory.



If you plan to leave the projector set up for a 2.35:1 screen at all times, you can use the Lumagen to scale content of other ratios to fit on that screen, such as shrinking and pillarboxing a 16:9 picture in the center. However, you'll throw away a lot of resolution in the source to do that.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24540277
> 
> 
> Well when I fire up a 1.85:1 movie or 1.78:1 program the room is usually dark. The geometry is what they see on their own TV, the picture is just larger. Most don't see or pay attention to the sides of the screen. Then you throw in a scope film and the difference is VERY apparent. Sometimes I will put in it in with the lens still focused on 16:9 and then show them the picture properly sized on the screen. Other times I will let the lens do it's thing while I swap in a disc. Either way the impact is very impressive.
> 
> 
> No most don't immediately pick up on the aspect ratio of the screen. When I said they are used to viewing 1.78:1, I simply meant they are familiar with how the presented material looks from their own living room. Very few have much of a concept of aspect ratios. Other than some movies/programs fill their screen, others have bars.



Got it. IIRC you've got a really dark room so the extra real estate on the screen is probably very hard to see with the lights off. Most people have lighter colored rooms, and in those situations the pillarbox bars become quite ovbvious due to light spill. Many times people doing Super Bowl parties leave some lights on drawing attention to empty screen space even more.


Sounds like you understand "the art of the demo."


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24540831
> 
> 
> Got it. IIRC you've got a really dark room so the extra real estate on the screen is probably very hard to see with the lights off. Most people have lighter colored rooms, and in those situations the pillarbox bars become quite ovbvious due to light spill. Many times people doing Super Bowl parties leave some lights on drawing attention to empty screen space even more.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you understand "the art of the demo."



I have a feeling some may be too polite to say "but part of the screen is empty". Then when a scope film comes up they get it. Or if I do the switcheroo I'll tell them "this is how _insert your favorite scope film_ looks on your TV" which they're familiar with and then click the button to show them how it looks on the scope setup. I'm not surprised that folks ask you. We all know that there are some people that simply insist that the screen be filled. No matter how ugly it looks.


----------



## R Harkness

I also believe people don't really notice aspect ratios per se. With my 4 way masking system the screen essentially changes shape, so sometimes it's left on a 16:9 AR other times 2:35:1.

I don't see any evidence that the average person notices a difference in terms of screen shape, whether there is a movie playing on it or not. It's when you do the demo, starting with

16:9 and then 2:35:1 that they see the difference. (Just did this again this week for a buddy of mine. He thought Avatar looked very cinematic. Then I switched to King Kong and opened up the

2:35:1 image and he was wow'd, and "got" the concept and rational behind doing this).


----------



## srauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/270#post_24506787
> 
> 
> One of my friends just moved into a new house. His theater room is very narrow. He can get three theater chairs across with just enough room to get by them. He'd love a scope setup but his current screen (a 110" 16:9 screen) just barely fits between the L/R tower speakers. He watches a fair amount of TV. Probably 50-50. So in his case the width limitations make it to much of a compromise. He'd be looking at around an 80" 16:9 picture switching to a scope screen or about a 30% loss in size. The scope picture would be the same size as it is now. Yes you would still be correct in stating that switching to scope would still be the most theatrical way to enjoy his setup, but the reality is that he enjoys enough varying content that it just isn't worth the sacrifice. And I don't disagree with him.


I'm just now checking back in on this thread, so I'm "bumping" this comment of yours from a few pages back. I wouldn't disagree with your friend's decision, either, but I do have one question: What, if any, issues would there have been if your friend reoriented his room 90 degrees (i.e., put the screen on one of the longer walls, instead of a shorter wall)?


On another note that's been brought up here...I just want to say that I use the manual zoom method and I'm perfectly happy with it. For anyone considering that, feel free to ask me questions. I will say that my situation is a bit unusual in that I have my projector mounted just about a foot above my head (when seated), so I can easily lean back, raise my arm, and focus/zoom/shift the image as needed while still sitting in my seat. If I had my projector on the ceiling, and it was a high enough ceiling that I couldn't reach it without some sort of a ladder, that could obviously be a deal killer. FWIW, my projector is the Epson 8350.


And to address another question that was posed by the one scope detractor participating in this thread, they asked, "Why would anyone want to purposely limit the size of their screen, just to get scope?" Well, I am in that situation. My movie room is also my living room, and it's a two-story room. I have very high ceilings. The obvious choice for me would be to maximize the wall dimensions by using a huge 16:9 screen. But, as has been pointed out by others, I don't want most of my TV content to have a bigger impact than a scope movie. The one exception to that rule might be football, but that's a small enough percentage of my total viewing that it still wasn't worth it to me. In my case, the wall I'm projecting onto is still huge enough in width, that I'm still getting a huge 16:9 image (inside of my 2.35:1 screen), so I don't feel like I'm missing out when watching football. And, in fact, if I was to zoom out a 16:9 television show to fill my wall to see what it would be like had I gone with the 'maximum 16:9 size' route, the image feels uncomfortably big. I don't have the exact dimensions off the top of my head, but if anyone's interested, I'll post back with them.


Here's the thread I posted about my room:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1410740/sraulys-post-beam-house-living-room-theater 

The dimensions of various things are probably posted somewhere in there.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24540639
> 
> 
> The Lumagen is a very flexible tool that will allow you to do a number of different things to watch a 16:9 source on a 2.35:1 screen. The most common are:
> 
> 
> 1) Pillarbox the 16:9 picture in the center of the screen with bars on the sides.
> 
> 
> 2) Zoom the 16:9 picture so that the width fills the screen but some image is cropped off the top and bottom. This often causes character heads to get cut off.
> 
> 
> 3) Simply stretch the picture so that it fills both the width and height of the screen. This will leave you with a very distorted picture in which everyone looks short and fat.
> 
> 
> 4) Apply a non-linear stretch in which the image is stretched more on the sides than in the center.
> 
> 
> Really, the only good option here is #1.



Does the Lumagen allow you to combine options (2) and (4)? A slight crop combined with a non-linear stretch? That way, you would have a less extreme crop and a less extreme stretch. Still not perfect, but perhaps a good compromise.


And in regards to pillar boxing...sometimes when watching the news, and they have a clip that doesn't fill the width of the 16:9 screen (an old 4:3 clip, or a vertical video clip from some clueless cell-phone videographer), they pillarbox it. But instead of using solid black pillar boxes, the pillar boxes are a generated using the content of the video, but with a heavy blur or some similar effect, so that you end up with the whole screen filled. Does the Lumagen have a similar option for pillar boxing?


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *srauly*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24571632
> 
> 
> I'm just now checking back in on this thread, so I'm "bumping" this comment of yours from a few pages back. I wouldn't disagree with your friend's decision, either, but I do have one question: What, if any, issues would there have been if your friend reoriented his room 90 degrees (i.e., put the screen on one of the longer walls, instead of a shorter wall)?



I think one of my posts covered it. The room is so narrow that the throw ratio would not have worked (we thought about a mirror to bounce the image briefly). Even if you got a crazy short throw projector (which wasn't going to happen) he would have been almost on top of the speakers and way to close to the screen. The room is just wide enough to squeeze around his 3 theater chairs to sit down in them if that gives you an idea of the width.


----------



## Socio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24576754
> 
> 
> Does the Lumagen allow you to combine options (2) and (4)? A slight crop combined with a non-linear stretch? That way, you would have a less extreme crop and a less extreme stretch. Still not perfect, but perhaps a good compromise.
> 
> 
> And in regards to pillar boxing...sometimes when watching the news, and they have a clip that doesn't fill the width of the 16:9 screen (an old 4:3 clip, or a vertical video clip from some clueless cell-phone videographer), they pillarbox it. But instead of using solid black pillar boxes, the pillar boxes are a generated using the content of the video, but with a heavy blur or some similar effect, so that you end up with the whole screen filled. Does the Lumagen have a similar option for pillar boxing?



One of the posters here Brolic made a youtube vid to show 16:9 to 2:35 with a Lumagen Radinace and can bee seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwF7nYe-YzM looks pretty good.


I am entertaining the idea myself, but I like sports, I would love to watch NFL games at 2:35 for example, but am concerned as to how much gets cropped off, losing the scores and information usually at the top and bottom of the screen would not bee good.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24576754
> 
> 
> Does the Lumagen allow you to combine options (2) and (4)? A slight crop combined with a non-linear stretch? That way, you would have a less extreme crop and a less extreme stretch. Still not perfect, but perhaps a good compromise.



I have not played with the NLS settings, personally.


> Quote:
> And in regards to pillar boxing...sometimes when watching the news, and they have a clip that doesn't fill the width of the 16:9 screen (an old 4:3 clip, or a vertical video clip from some clueless cell-phone videographer), they pillarbox it. But instead of using solid black pillar boxes, the pillar boxes are a generated using the content of the video, but with a heavy blur or some similar effect, so that you end up with the whole screen filled. Does the Lumagen have a similar option for pillar boxing?



Not to my knowledge, no. Would you really want to watch something that way? Sounds horribly distracting.


----------



## drjay71

Besides the Lumagen, are there any other scalars that can stretch 16:9 content to 2.35:1?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24590097
> 
> 
> Besides the Lumagen, are there any other scalars that can stretch 16:9 content to 2.35:1?



I assume you want a non-linear stretch. If you just wanted a linear stretch, all you have to do is pop an anamorphic lens in front of the projector, and BAM, your picture is stretched. It'll look awful, of course, but it will fill the 2.35:1 screen.


Lumagen is the best option for NLS. I'm not sure that any other processor brands even offer it.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24592215
> 
> 
> I assume you want a non-linear stretch. If you just wanted a linear stretch, all you have to do is pop an anamorphic lens in front of the projector, and BAM, your picture is stretched. It'll look awful, of course, but it will fill the 2.35:1 screen.
> 
> 
> Lumagen is the best option for NLS. I'm not sure that any other processor brands even offer it.



You know, my Onkyo TX-NR818 has a pretty decent video conversion chipset, as do many other mid-high-end and high-end AVR's. I'm sure it would be a fairly simple matter of software modification to add the 2.35 NLS capability to the existing hardware. That would certainly be an interesting development if somebody decided to implement. it. Much like Oppo has become the default Blu-ray player for CIH due to the subtitle-shift capabilities, the AVR maker who adds an NLS feature would become the default AVR for many CIH users who don't necessarily have the budget for an outboard video processor.


Out of curiosity, would using a 4:3-->16:9 stretch mode also approximately work for 16:9-->2.35:1? If so, do any of the more-affordable DVDO processor's offer a 4:3-->16:9 NLS mode?


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy

In response to my previous post, I just went onto Amazon and found this under the specifications for the DVDO Edge processor:

*Presets*: 4:3 full frame, 4:3 letterbox, 16:9 full frame, Panorama (non linear stretch)


So it looks like it has a NLS "Panorama" preset to stretch 4:3 material to the edges of a 16:9 screen. Just thinking about it, it seems like for somebody using the zoom method for CIH, that the 4:3 stretch would also work? Or would it over due the stretch, so that you would lose the edges of the 16:9 image? If so, I think you can also manually adjust the stretch with +/- controls, so even if it was not perfect, perhaps it could be tweaked to work?


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24592294
> 
> 
> In response to my previous post, I just went onto Amazon and found this under the specifications for the DVDO Edge processor:
> 
> *Presets*: 4:3 full frame, 4:3 letterbox, 16:9 full frame, Panorama (non linear stretch)
> 
> 
> So it looks like it has a NLS "Panorama" preset to stretch 4:3 material to the edges of a 16:9 screen. Just thinking about it, it seems like for somebody using the zoom method for CIH, that the 4:3 stretch would also work? Or would it over due the stretch, so that you would lose the edges of the 16:9 image? If so, I think you can also manually adjust the stretch with +/- controls, so even if it was not perfect, perhaps it could be tweaked to work?




Thanks for posting this. I was also wondering the same as the DVDO is a less expensive option.


----------



## drjay71

I know this is probably not the way to fill a 2.35:1 screen with 16:9 content, but are there any projectors that will do a "horzontal" stretch?


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24592294
> 
> 
> In response to my previous post, I just went onto Amazon and found this under the specifications for the DVDO Edge processor:
> 
> *Presets*: 4:3 full frame, 4:3 letterbox, 16:9 full frame, Panorama (non linear stretch)
> 
> 
> So it looks like it has a NLS "Panorama" preset to stretch 4:3 material to the edges of a 16:9 screen. Just thinking about it, it seems like for somebody using the zoom method for CIH, that the 4:3 stretch would also work? Or would it over due the stretch, so that you would lose the edges of the 16:9 image? If so, I think you can also manually adjust the stretch with +/- controls, so even if it was not perfect, perhaps it could be tweaked to work?



If you use the Zoom method for CIH and try to watch 16:9 content, picture at the top and bottom of the image will spill off the screen onto the wall. Applying a non-linear stretch at that point would not be enough in itself. You first need to scale the image down so that it's contained within the 2.35:1 portion of the frame, and then stretch. I don't believe that DVDO's controls are sophisticated enough to do that.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/330#post_24592400
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting this. I was also wondering the same as the DVDO is a less expensive option.



Hopefully somebody can answer the question definitively, but if not, then it may be worth your time to try it out. If the DVDO does not work out for your needs, you could always re-sell it and lose little or no money. But if it does work, it would be a big savings versus the Lumagen.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24592545
> 
> 
> If you use the Zoom method for CIH and try to watch 16:9 content, picture at the top and bottom of the image will spill off the screen onto the wall. Applying a non-linear stretch at that point would not be enough in itself. You first need to scale the image down so that it's contained within the 2.35:1 portion of the frame, and then stretch. I don't believe that DVDO's controls are sophisticated enough to do that.



I see what you're saying.


----------



## DavidHir

All I can say is, I've been using my first time front projection set-up since last week having gone with a 2:35:1, 108" wide screen. I absolutely love it and I am so glad I went this route.


And my initial concerns beforehand about 1:85:1 movies not looking big enough was completely unfounded as they look plenty big projected at 99" diagonally as I am sitting about 9.5 to 10 feet back.


Having every movie at the same height just looks so aesthetically pleasing and see scope films is just mind blowing.










Funny thing is, I don't even feel the need right now to make mattes for 1:85. The bars seems pretty dark (JVC RS4810 projector) and seeing them on the sides vertically is FAR less distracting as opposed to seeing them horizontally as was the case on my plasma with 2:35:1 content. I still might try it at some point, but not in a hurry.


On any rate, 2:35:1 is THE WAY to go for a film lover.


----------



## srauly

You shouldn't need to buy a DVDO Edge to figure this out. Go to the company's website and email them with very specific, detailed questions and I'm sure they can tell you what it can/can't do in this regard.


----------



## srauly

DavidHir, I agree. My living room is also my movie theater. I've got a pretty darn big 2.35:1 screen (I can never remember the size, but it's more than 120" diagonal) and the seating distance is pretty close, too, so 16:9 content looks plenty big. I also don't bother with masking, and the dark gray bars don't bother me enough to bother trying to come up with some solution for masking them.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

I didn't bother masking my first 2.35 screen at first, because like you the side bars weren't that distracting. But later on, just for completion, I used a cheap corded curtain track with black velvet curtains. It does tidy things up, but for me it wasn't that urgent that I did it. It doesn't affect the image of course, but might have a perceived effect when viewing.


Gary


----------



## AidenL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schlarb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24208408
> 
> 
> The only way to obliterate the black bars is to use black velvet or something like it. They will be very faint with dark and non-reflective walls, but they'll bug you.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24246676
> 
> 
> Good comments, but just wanted to point out that opening the iris also causes a drop in contrast (as does zooming).



So, is the only answer to no black bars when using a scope screen, to use an Anamorphic lens?


I'm using a motorised tab tensioned screen, so can't mask.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *farsider3000*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/120#post_24206584
> 
> 
> If I buy a projector with great black levels such as the new JVC X700, and use it in my light controlled theater room will I actually see the black bars above and below a 16x9 screen when playing a 2.4:1 widescreen blu-ray or will it just blend with the blackness of the wall behind the screen?



I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.


----------



## drjay71

I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?


Thanks!


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24604591
> 
> 
> I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24604591
> 
> 
> I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.



Nice looking room!


Any chance you can paint your ceiling too? If that is a white screen you will get a rather substantial increase in contrast. If you can see the ceiling when you are watching a movie, that means it is a light source.


Then again, as I look at the picture, it looks like you have some acoustic treatments on the ceiling right in front of the screen. Is that correct?


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24628714
> 
> 
> I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



The only way I know of to fill a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen with a 16:9 image is either with a Lumagen processor or by getting an anamorphic lens.


The only ways of actually eliminating black bars (so that they don't get projected onto the walls) are by using an anamorphic lens or by purchasing one of the super high end projectors that internally mask (emulating how it is done in a Digital Cinema). AFAIK only uber-expensive projectors from Wolf and DPI do this (30K plus).


FYI the Lumagen Radiance gets you into the price range of an anamorphic lens. Is there a reason you are anti-lens other than cost?


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24659525
> 
> 
> 
> Nice looking room!
> 
> 
> Any chance you can paint your ceiling too? If that is a white screen you will get a rather substantial increase in contrast. If you can see the ceiling when you are watching a movie, that means it is a light source.
> 
> 
> Then again, as I look at the picture, it looks like you have some acoustic treatments on the ceiling right in front of the screen. Is that correct?



Thanks!


Yeah, my screen is in an alcove that is four feet deep, so I have the first four feet of ceiling out from the screen covered in black velvet. So while there is some reflection from the rest of the ceiling, the worst of it has been eliminated.


After installing the velvet on the ceiling and the velvet curtains on either side of the screen, my contrast was greatly improved. I no longer get a washed out image when there is a scene with simultaneous dark and bright areas. I don't want to go _too_ cave-like, since the home theater is located in one corner of a large multipurpose basement room, so I'm very happy with the light levels now when watching movies.


Here's a better picture showing how much of the ceiling has been treated:

 


And I have more before/after pics and more info on the ceiling installation here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1528626/edgar-in-indys-home-theater-improvement-thread-before-and-after-pics


----------



## John Schuermann

Cool! I totally get where you are coming from, and that was a great idea to extend the black velvet out on the ceiling.


The other thing you can do (if you get the upgrade bug, and we all do) is to get some acoustic treatments and cover them with the same black velvet.


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24659549
> 
> 
> The only way I know of to fill a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen with a 16:9 image is either with a Lumagen processor or by getting an anamorphic lens.
> 
> 
> The only ways of actually eliminating black bars (so that they don't get projected onto the walls) are by using an anamorphic lens or by purchasing one of the super high end projectors that internally mask (emulating how it is done in a Digital Cinema). AFAIK only uber-expensive projectors from Wolf and DPI do this (30K plus).
> 
> 
> FYI the Lumagen Radiance gets you into the price range of an anamorphic lens. Is there a reason you are anti-lens other than cost?



Thanks for your reply. I am really not in favor of getting a lens mainly for cost. Also, since I would like to stretch 16:9 content to fill a 2.35:1 screen, I would like to do so using a non linear stretch.


I have a related quick question. I noticed the Sony VPL-HW55ES has a "Wide Zoom" function when cycling through the different options provided by the "Aspect" button on the remote. My understanding it is supposed to take 4:3 content and stretch it to fill a 16:9 screen. Does that also mean that it can take 16:9 content and stretch it to fill a 2.35:1 screen?


Thanks


----------



## drjay71

  


BTW, This is what I am referring to from the User Manual


----------



## Socio




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24604591
> 
> 
> I have an Epson 5010, and my walls are dark brown, with velvet on the ceiling and to either side of the screen. I could usually see the black bars when my walls were white, but with the brown walls I rarely see the bars. It has to be a bright scene with the iris fully open, and even then you really have to look for them. So I would say YMMV on whether or not the zooming method will bother you in terms of black bars. But in my experience, it's not a problem with dark walls and a high-contrast projector.
> 
> 
> [



Hey that is a great idea, what did you use to cover in velvet and mount on the ceiling, my side walls and ceiling are white so I am thinking a 2-3ft wide top and side wall panels in black velvet, sort of create a black box around the screen?


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Socio*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24660830
> 
> 
> Hey that is a great idea, what did you use to cover in velvet and mount on the ceiling, my side walls and ceiling are white so I am thinking a 2-3ft wide top and side wall panels in black velvet, sort of create a black box around the screen?



I cut four equal-sized pieces of velvet, and I actually just attached the velvet directly to my ceiling using a staple gun. I then used fluted casing, painted glossy black, to trim around the edges of the velvet. You can get more detailed information and see pictures of the installation process at the following thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1528626/edgar-in-indys-home-theater-improvement-thread-before-and-after-pics 


For my sides, I found velvet curtains to be the easiest solution, and they look really great. The curtains on either side also give me a great place to hide my speaker grills and my 16:9 masking panels when I'm not using them.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24628714
> 
> 
> I definitely want to go 2.35:1 and NOT use a lens. I have used the zoom method before with my JVC HD950 projector and will do the same but looking for a new projector and have it down to the JVC X35 or the JVC X500R projectors. I know both are great and probably an upgrade from my old projector. My biggest dilemma (and I know this may sound blasphemous) is that I want to use a NLS to fill my screen when watching 16:9 screen. So far, the only way I have found to do this without a lens is a Lumagen Radiance processor. Is there ANY other, hopefully less expensive, way?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Another cheaper option is to buy a 16:9 and use lens shift and zoom with a single velvet mask attached at the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 . I presently do this with the X35 and I like it. But I understand that this will be blasphemous for others here. If you don't mind that your 16:9 image is bigger than 2.35:1 *than you won't have to look at any stretched image at all.* The only thing you would need to do is use the lens memory and apply and remove the mask depending on the content. Just a thought.


----------



## ajvandenb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661426
> 
> 
> 
> Another cheaper option is to buy a 16:9 and use lens shift and zoom with a single velvet mask attached at the bottom of the screen for 2.35:1 . I presently do this with the X35 and I like it. But I understand that this will be blasphemous for others here. If you don't mind that your 16:9 image is bigger than 2.35:1 *than you won't have to look at any stretched image at all.* The only thing you would need to do is use the lens memory and apply and remove the mask depending on the content. Just a thought.


Or better still look at other masking screens such as the "Multi-Format Frame Projection Screen " from Monoprice.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajvandenb*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661551
> 
> 
> Or better still look at other masking screens such as the "Multi-Format Frame Projection Screen
> 
> " from Monoprice.



That screen is a great option, but for somebody interested in cinemascope, it really limits your scope screen size. I wish they would make something similar in 2.35 format, with side masking panels.


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661600
> 
> 
> That screen is a great option, but for somebody interested in cinemascope, it really limits your scope screen size. I wish they would make something similar in 2.35 format, with side masking panels.



I agree. I guess I just don't like the idea of 2.35 content being smaller than 16:9 content. Kind of defeats the purpose in my mind.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661632
> 
> 
> I agree. I guess I just don't like the idea of 2.35 content being smaller than 16:9 content. Kind of defeats the purpose in my mind.



I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.


As a compromise, I've considered going with a screen somewhere between 2.35:1 and 16:9...something like 2:1. (I'm sure there's a ratio where 2.35:1 and 16:9 content ends up with equal screen area, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head). You would need to have both vertical and horizontal masking bars on hand depending on whether you are watching 16:9 or 2:35:1, but at least you would end up with a screen where everything is roughly the same overall size, regardless of the format.


In my case, I don't want to go with a scope screen that is less than my current 122" wide (133" diagonal) image. I actually wouldn't mind a few more inches in scope format. But a 16:9 image that is 122" wide would end up being 140" diagonal, and that is uncomfortably large for my seating distance. So it seems like a split-the-difference 2:1 screen would be the only way to get my ideal sizes for both 2.35 and 16:9.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drjay71*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24660365
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I am really not in favor of getting a lens mainly for cost. Also, since I would like to stretch 16:9 content to fill a 2.35:1 screen, I would like to do so using a non linear stretch.
> 
> 
> I have a related quick question. I noticed the Sony VPL-HW55ES has a "Wide Zoom" function when cycling through the different options provided by the "Aspect" button on the remote. My understanding it is supposed to take 4:3 content and stretch it to fill a 16:9 screen. Does that also mean that it can take 16:9 content and stretch it to fill a 2.35:1 screen?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Unfortunately no, because the SXRD chip on the Sony projector is still 16:9 native in shape. If you did this while zoomed, you would still overshoot the top and bottom of the screen, plus if it did work, it would just end up cropping off the left and right portions of the image, since the Sony has no way of knowing you have a 2.35:1 screen. The only way to "change the shape" of the light coming out of the Sony is with an anamorphic lens, or by using the Lumagen to scale everything down to 2.35:1 height (810 vertical pixels) and using the zoom.


Here is what happens when you use the Lumagen method combined with "stationary" zoom (by stationary, I mean you just leave the projector zoomed in to fill the width of the 2.35:1 screen at all times):

UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 810, just zoomed in so that the extra 270 rows of pixels that represent the black bars fall onto the wall above and below the screen.
Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 810 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 810 if you want it to fill the whole screen (using Non Linear Stretch, or Linear Stretch). The same unused 270 rows of pixels fall onto the wall above and below the screen.


If you go the fixed anamorphic lens method (which you can do for under $2K, and does not require a separate scaler with most projectors unless you really want the Non Linear Stretch), here is what you end up with:

UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 1080 and black bars are eliminated (in other words, they are not projected onto the wall). The projector stretches the image from 810P to 1080P so that the whole imaging chip is used - 1920 x 1080. While it is true that this process does not add any real additional picture detail (the movie is hard encoded onto the disc at 1920 x 810, or thereabouts), it does use 33% more pixels to "draw" the image. It also usually results in about a 20% brightness gain over zoom (depending on a number of factors).
Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 1080 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 1080 if you want it to fill the whole screen. In the latter method, no resolution or brightness are lost, as the anamorphic lens is what is stretching the image, not a scaler. You also have the ability to watch 16:9 "cropped" when using the lens method. To do this, you just engage the same vertical stretch on the projector as you would for 2.35:1 material. The result is a 16:9 image that fills the whole 2.35:1 screen but without geometric distortion. The downside is that the very top and bottom of the image are missing (you lose things like the tickers at the top and bottom of the screen, and sometimes people can get scalped).


The long and short of it is that going with a "fixed zoom" method limits you to 810P resolution, while using a lens can get you 1080P resolution (with the caveats listed above).



Hope this helps clarify things.


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661931
> 
> 
> Unfortunately no, because the SXRD chip on the Sony projector is still 16:9 native in shape. If you did this while zoomed, you would still overshoot the top and bottom of the screen, plus if it did work, it would just end up cropping off the left and right portions of the image, since the Sony has no way of knowing you have a 2.35:1 screen. The only way to "change the shape" of the light coming out of the Sony is with an anamorphic lens, or by using the Lumagen to scale everything down to 2.35:1 height (810 vertical pixels) and using the zoom.
> 
> 
> Here is what happens when you use the Lumagen method combined with "stationary" zoom (by stationary, I mean you just leave the projector zoomed in to fill the width of the 2.35:1 screen at all times):
> 
> UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 810, just zoomed in so that the extra 270 rows of pixels that represent the black bars fall onto the wall above and below the screen.
> Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 810 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 810 if you want it to fill the whole screen (using Non Linear Stretch, or Linear Stretch).
> 
> 
> If you go the fixed anamorphic lens method (which you can do for under $2K, and does not require a separate scaler with most projectors unless you really want the Non Linear Stretch), here is what you end up with:
> 
> UltraWide 2.35:1 films are presented at 1920 x 1080 and black bars are eliminated (in other words, they are not projected onto the wall). The projector stretches the image from 810P to 1080P so that the whole imaging chip is used - 1920 x 1080. While it is true that this process does not add any real additional picture detail (the movie is hard encoded onto the disc at 1920 x 810, or thereabouts), it does use 33% more pixels to "draw" the image. It also usually results in about a 20% brightness gain over zoom (depending on a number of factors).
> Standard 16:9 material is displayed at 1440 x 1080 if you want it pillarboxed (black bars on the sides), or at 1920 x 1080 if you want it to fill the whole screen. No resolution or brightness are lost, as the anamorphic lens is what is stretching the image, not a scaler. You also have the ability to watch 16:9 "cropped" when using the lens method. To do this, you just engage the same vertical stretch on the projector as you would for 2.35:1 material. The result is a 16:9 image that fills the whole 2.35:1 screen but without geometric distortion. The downside is that the very top and bottom of the image are missing (you lose things like the tickers at the top and bottom of the screen, and sometimes people can get scalped).
> 
> 
> The long and short of it is that going with a "fixed zoom" method limits you to 810P resolution, while using a lens can get you 1080P resolution (with the caveats listed above).
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps clarify things.



Yes it does. Thanks so much for such a detailed and informative response.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661646
> 
> 
> I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.
> 
> 
> As a compromise, I've considered going with a screen somewhere between 2.35:1 and 16:9...something like 2:1. (I'm sure there's a ratio where 2.35:1 and 16:9 content ends up with equal screen area, but I don't know what it is off the top of my head). You would need to have both vertical and horizontal masking bars on hand depending on whether you are watching 16:9 or 2:35:1, but at least you would end up with a screen where everything is roughly the same overall size, regardless of the format.
> 
> 
> In my case, I don't want to go with a scope screen that is less than my current 122" wide (133" diagonal) image. I actually wouldn't mind a few more inches in scope format. But a 16:9 image that is 122" wide would end up being 140" diagonal, and that is uncomfortably large for my seating distance. So it seems like a split-the-difference 2:1 screen would be the only way to get my ideal sizes for both 2.35 and 16:9.



Why would you not just go with a 2.35:1 that maintains the same height? 16:9 would be the same size as it is now. 2.35:1 would be the largest format as it is intended. To me it's "perfect". Material is presented the same way it is in the majority of cinemas.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662206
> 
> 
> Why would you not just go with a 2.35:1 that maintains the same height? 16:9 would be the same size as it is now. 2.35:1 would be the largest format as it is intended. To me it's "perfect". Material is presented the same way it is in the majority of cinemas.



Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be _that_ much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.


When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662349
> 
> 
> Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be _that_ much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.
> 
> 
> When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.



You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):

http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf 


He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662387
> 
> 
> You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):
> 
> http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf
> 
> 
> He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.



Thanks for the link. From what I can tell, he proposes the 2:1 ratio. Such a screen, given my target width of 122" for scope content, would give me a height of 61". That would result in a 16:9 image that is 125" diagonal, which would be just about perfect for my needs.


I just built my scope screen a couple months ago, and I made the 16:9 masking panels only a week ago, so my wife will think I'm crazy(ier) if I tell her I already want a new screen. But it's definitely something I'll be thinking about in the upcoming months, after I get a few other projects out of the way.


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662349
> 
> 
> Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be _that_ much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.
> 
> 
> When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.



That's exactly how I feel. I used to have a 2.35:1 screen and used the zoom method with my JVC projector. It was great for scope movies however for movies in a 16:9 ratio and more importantly sports and other HDTV the image was just too small and I really didn't like having the black bars on the side. I really couldn't go any bigger with the 2.35:1 ratio screen and so I was stuck with a smaller 16:9 screen when viewing that content.


After going 2.35 I don't see myself going back and I feel like that's the best single aspect ratio. For that reason, I don't mind stretching 16:9 ratio content in order to make it feel more immersive even though that will introduce some distortion but from what I can tell using the nonlinear stretch, the distortion isn't terrible.


I suppose constant image area would be another way to go but I would have to have four-way masking and it seems like more of a compromise.


----------



## R Harkness

*(I know some here are already familiar with my system, but I wrote the following in case it is of interest to others).
*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24661646
> 
> 
> I feel the same way. There really is no perfect solution.



I have found the solution I used pretty close to "perfect" over the 4 years I've been using it. I maintain as much impact as I want for whatever movie I'm watching (within the size of my screen of course, with is a somewhat larger than 2.0 AR, using 4 way masking and zooming).


Personally, I don't bother, or see any need, to stick to some mathematically precise relationship in screen sizes, be it CIW, CIH or CIA. I never did such calculations when choosing different seats in movie theaters - I just ended up in a seat that, per movie, felt like where I wanted to be. I just replicated that flexibility at home.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662387
> 
> 
> You are referring to "Constant Area" projection. Anthony Grimani of PMI was an advocate of it a few years back, as an alternative to Constant Height. He prefers Constant Height overall but proposed this Constant Area as a solution for people just exactly like yourself. Here is a link to his press release about it (with the proper aspect ratio listed):
> 
> http://www.pmiltd.com/downloads/PMI.2.0%20Solution.PR.FNLdoc.pdf
> 
> 
> He and I discussed it at a shared training event at Stewart Filmscreen.



Here's a page with a video of the purported benefits of their process:

http://blog.dsientertainment.com/audio-video-home-theater-automation/bid/26852/The-Best-Home-Theater-Screen-Money-Can-Buy 


The impression given by PMI is that this is a truly novel, next gen idea, so of course it will cost you the fortune they are asking. Only the ultra rich need apply. (They will use only the most expensive products, projectors etc, in putting the system together no doubt).


However, this being AVS, one can often find people ahead of the curve. Constant Area was touted many years ago by forum member Bjoern Roy:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/15649/my-9-wide-2-35-1-screen-in-action-braveheart-twine-ts2 


I put together two commercial masking systems (one for top/bottom masking, the other for side masking), with as large a screen as could fit on my wall and using a decent universal remote (even a Harmony) all sorts of user-designed pre-set image sizes can be programmed. Add in that lens memory functions are becoming ever more available on projectors, and it's amazing what can be automated.


I have around 20 pre-set image sizes for my masking, 10 of which also employ the 10 lens memory pre-sets of my JVC projector. So at a single press of a button, the screen size (masking) an image size (zooming) changes shape

in seconds, depending on how much impact I want for the experience, or depending on the quality of the source material. (I keep meaning to post a video of the system in action - haven't got around to it).


I know this is sort of like the guys who say "Kaleidescape is over-priced, you can do all that so much cheaper with an HTPC." But really the point is that someone can look at the PMI system and get the impression this is some unreachable idea if you aren't rich. But, resourcefulness is our middle name here on AVSforum.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/360#post_24662349
> 
> 
> Because I don't want my 16:9 image to be _that_ much smaller than my 2.35:1 image. The 16:9 image isn't just for TV and sports. In fact, I hardly ever use my projector for anything other than Blu-ray movies. I would prefer if all movies were scope, but there are a lot of epic movies that are 16:9 (or 1.85:1) and cry out for a large screen.
> 
> 
> When I'm watching a movie like 'Pacific Rim', which is 16:9, I want the same super-sized, impactful image I get right now from my 133" scope screen. But when I display a 16:9 image on my current screen, it is only about 108", which I feel is a little small. Ideally, I would like to have a 16:9 image in the 120"-125" range. I've played with my lens zoom, and I've discovered that I would enjoy a slightly larger 16:9 image. I just don't want to go all the way up to 140", which is what would be required to maintain my 2.35 size.



I understand your preference is your preference. However Pacific Rim is not supposed to have the same area as a scope film. The director, for whatever reason, chose to shoot it in 1.85:1. If you find yourself wanting more image height, then I would say the scope screen is undersized and would go with the 140" scope screen. But it's your setup. To me scope is not supposed to have parity with 1.85:1. It is supposed to be larger.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24662698
> 
> 
> I understand your preference is your preference. However Pacific Rim is not supposed to have the same area as a scope film. The director, for whatever reason, chose to shoot it in 1.85:1.



Well, let's think about why the film-makers decided to shoot in 1:85:1.


Here's a movie about GIGANTIC TOWERING ROBOTS AND MONSTERS. Do you think the film-makers were thinking "Well, we don't want this movie to have the sense of immersion, size and scale as The Notebook, or American Beauty (shot in scope)."?


Surely the choice of 1:85:1 would more likely be for compositional reasons, the idea that 1:85:1 would suite how they wanted to portray the height relationship of these robots and monsters, much as Spielberg did in selecting 1:85:1 for Jurassic Park.


I believe that, while the original rational for shooting in scope was a uniform expectation for the image to be much wider, things change and since then a variety of aspect ratios are chosen for their compositional aspects, and how it will serve the movie, and not just "wider for immersion." I feel quite certain that the makers of Pacific Rim would want a great sense of immersion to get those monsters feeling huge on screen. And for the same reason, I'd bet that if you had the 1:85:1 Pacific Rim showing on a 2:35:1 screen and you said to the film-maker, "I can make this image significantly larger and more immersive" the film-maker would say "damn-straight! Let's do it."


I know that for my guests that is often the case. If I just show them the 16:9 image at CIH size on my system it appears plenty big to them. But if I say "We can watch this even larger (especially for a spectacular movie)" they say "ok" and when the image expands to a much larger image they typically are like "Whoooa! Awesome. Let's watch it like this!"


The thing is, if you watch absolutely every 1:85:1 movie at it's largest size then you end up with the CIW effect of scope movies regularly being smaller. I never expand 1:85:1 movies to the full width of my screen - even at 136" diagonal for 1:85:1 there is plenty of width to differentiate scope movies.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24662673
> 
> 
> I have around 20 pre-set image sizes for my masking, 10 of which also employ the 10 lens memory pre-sets of my JVC projector. So at a single press of a button, the screen size (masking) an image size (zooming) changes shape in seconds, depending on how much impact I want for the experience



Your setup sounds amazing, and I'd love to see it in person. When I get some more free time tonight, I'll gonna check out the links in your sig.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24662673
> 
> 
> , or depending on the quality of the source material. (I keep meaning to post a video of the system in action - haven't got around to it).



This is an important point. I mentioned earlier that 140" would be too large for me for a 16:9 image. But to elaborate further, if everything I was watching in 16:9 was pristine, 5-star quality Blu-ray video, I think I could do 140". But I know that will not always be the case. Some material just doesn't hold up to being seen too closely. Older movies with a lot of grain, overly compressed TV such as NFL games, downloaded content, etc. So that's a big reason that I don't wan to go too far with my 16:9 image size.


For example, we recently watched the UK Blu-ray of the 1968 production of "Romeo and Juliet", and while the video quality was beautiful in many parts of the movie, it did have a lot of grain, and it would not have benefited from being much larger than I already had it. I did play around with blowing it up to 140" (even though it was overlapping my screen on top and bottom), and I did not like what I saw at that size.


Now if I could change the size and masking at will, like you describe, I suppose that would be the best of every world.


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24662840
> 
> 
> Well, let's think about why the film-makers decided to shoot in 1:85:1.
> 
> 
> Here's a movie about GIGANTIC TOWERING ROBOTS AND MONSTERS. Do you think the film-makers were thinking "Well, we don't want this movie to have the sense of immersion, size and scale as The Notebook, or American Beauty (shot in scope)."?
> 
> 
> Surely the choice of 1:85:1 would more likely be for compositional reasons, the idea that 1:85:1 would suite how they wanted to portray the height relationship of these robots and monsters, much as Spielberg did in selecting 1:85:1 for Jurassic Park.
> 
> 
> I believe that, while the original rational for shooting in scope was a uniform expectation for the image to be much wider, things change and since then a variety of aspect ratios are chosen for their compositional aspects, and how it will serve the movie, and not just "wider for immersion." I feel quite certain that the makers of Pacific Rim would want a great sense of immersion to get those monsters feeling huge on screen. And for the same reason, I'd bet that if you had the 1:85:1 Pacific Rim showing on a 2:35:1 screen and you said to the film-maker, "I can make this image significantly larger and more immersive" the film-maker would say "damn-straight! Let's do it."
> 
> 
> I know that for my guests that is often the case. If I just show them the 16:9 image at CIH size on my system it appears plenty big to them. But if I say "We can watch this even larger (especially for a spectacular movie)" they say "ok" and when the image expands to a much larger image they typically are like "Whoooa! Awesome. Let's watch it like this!"
> 
> 
> The thing is, if you watch absolutely every 1:85:1 movie at it's largest size then you end up with the CIW effect of scope movies regularly being smaller. I never expand 1:85:1 movies to the full width of my screen - even at 136" diagonal for 1:85:1 there is plenty of width to differentiate scope movies.



I don't know why the Del Toro chose to go 1.85:1 for Pacific Rim, but I'm sure (like you commented) it was chosen for its compositional traits and probably 3D. However I'm sure the director knew full well that it would, on the majority of cinemas, have less visual size than a scope presentation. I know Whedon chose 1.85:1 for The Avengers because he felt it was the best way to frame the Hulk. I personally think the Battle of New York and many other segments would have worked better in scope, but it's a great film nonetheless and I love what Whedon did with it. But it does not change the point that both these directors knew full well that they were choosing to frame their films to be smaller than if they went scope. So in actuality, yes, the filmmaker did decide to have Pacific Rim be smaller than American Beauty. I don't appreciate a film more or less because of the aspect ratio. If the composition works, it works. Jurassic Park works fantastic.


Our vision is more tolerant of width than height, so my opinion is get to the height you want and use that as your CIH baseline. Your home experience will mimic the theater experience. But in the end you have to be happy with what you have. The realities of your room may not make it feasible or, like in your case, it's just plain preference.


For me CIH is what I see at the cinema and I love that experience at home. My height is maximized for my room. Every format has the impact it would if I was sitting in a theater. Right now I'm making my way through the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection and don't even think about the screen on either side of the 4:3 picture.


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeahrens*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663150
> 
> 
> I don't know why the Del Toro chose to go 1.85:1 for Pacific Rim, but I'm sure (like you commented) it was chosen for its compositional traits and probably 3D.



I'm going to let my Godzilla film geekiness shine through a bit here










The reason Del Toro chose 1.85:1 is the same reason the 90s Godzilla films were shot in 1.85:1. If your subject (in this case, Godzilla) is supposed to be extremely tall and dwarf everything around him, it makes more sense to go taller than wider. At least, that was the thinking of FX director Koichi Kawakita. The new Legendary Godzilla film is 2.40:1, so obviously Gareth Edwards thinks differently.


BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).


FWIW, most filmmakers are very unhappy about this, because they usually choose 2.40:1 for the immersion factor - now lost at home and at many movie theaters


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663310
> 
> 
> BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).



That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.


But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?


----------



## John Schuermann




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663328
> 
> 
> That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.
> 
> 
> But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?



Most people don't notice it at all, since the masking panels usually move as the lights are dimming and the audience is distracted.


The reason they do constant width is so they can cram more theaters in less space.


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663310
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, most multiplex screens are constant width, not constant height. Usually only 4 out of the typical 12 screens is constant height. The smaller auditoriums mask down for 2.40:1, while the larger auditoriums open up. It's sad, but true - most movie theaters show 2.40:1 letterboxed on a 1.85:1 screen (although with masking).



Very true. At my local multiplex, only screen 1 is scope, all the rest mask down. I pretty much always go for that screen and sit in the same seats for most immersion (for me at least).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663310
> 
> 
> FWIW, most filmmakers are very unhappy about this, because they usually choose 2.40:1 for the immersion factor - now lost at home and at many movie theaters



I remember Brad Bird saying much the same, and that he feels modern cinema has lost the art of showmanship. I have to agree with him:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brad Bird*
> 
> I feel like multiplexes and the shutting down of the grand old theaters have taken a lot of the showmanship out of presenting movies. There used to be a thing such as “first run.” The meaning of “first run” is gone now because on opening day you can see a brand new movie on a good screen but it’s more likely you’ll see it on a crappy screen. And it can even be a small, crappy screen.



He does seem to be a fan of IMAX, but not 3D judging by other comments he made.


Gary


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663348
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663328
> 
> 
> That's an interesting tidbit. I hardly ever go to the theater, but I can't ever recall take much notice of masking, whether it was on the sides or top/bottom.
> 
> 
> But now that you made me consider it, I believe that theater-goers would be more likely to notice masking on the sides, and perceive the screen size as being reduced, than they would be to take notice of masking at the top/bottom. Particularly people sitting at the edges of the seating would probably notice if the screen did not extend to their seats. So maybe that's a reason they are more likely to mask top/bottom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't notice it at all, since the masking panels usually move as the lights are dimming and the audience is distracted.
> 
> 
> The reason they do constant width is so they can cram more theaters in less space.
Click to expand...


The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope (and many people cheered). If it was 1.85:1, you never noticed them because they didn't move.


these days I really notice the top and bottom masking close down the image if I go to another screen. The last time I did that was because the 2D time suited better than the 3D time. Even so, I made sure I got the seats that were close enough to coincide with a similar seating distance to the seats I pick in the main screen. Fortunately you can choose your seats from the monitor when you buy your tickets, and I have paced out the screen to seating distance to ensure I am sat where I like to be.


Gary


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663383
> 
> 
> The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope *(and many people cheered)*.



That made me laugh for some reason. Must have been before my own time!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663411
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary Lightfoot*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663383
> 
> 
> The only time you notice the side curtains was when they opened up for the main feature when it was in scope *(and many people cheered)*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That made me laugh for some reason. Must have been before my own time!
Click to expand...


Maybe!


Though I'm sure people still do cheer when the main feature arrives even today, but perhaps that depends on the type of movie and the patrons in attendance










It's also quite possible that I'm remembering just a few occasions when it happened and it just sticks in my mind because I associate it with the curtains opening.


Gary


----------



## R Harkness

I'm even noticing theaters that zoom/crop scope movies to fit their 1:85:1 screens!


----------



## Gary Lightfoot

It wouldn't surprise me!


Gary.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Schuermann*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24663310
> 
> 
> 
> If your subject (in this case, Godzilla) is supposed to be extremely tall and dwarf everything around him, it makes more sense to go taller than wider. At least, that was the thinking of FX director Koichi Kawakita.



I seem to recall hearing that is why Spielberg chose 1:85 for Jurassic Park.


----------



## DavidHir

I've seen it both ways depending on the theater: constant image height as well as constant image width.


----------



## jeahrens

Most of our multiplexes are not the huge 10+ screen affairs and still have about an 80/20 scope/1.85 ratio. Although when I watched Rush in one, not only was it a masked 1.85:1 screen it was off center. So it happens. But thankfully the norm is still scope. I have not seen one crop a film yet. I may ask for my money back if I run into that atrocity!


----------



## AidenL

I switched a week ago to a 130 inch diagonal 2.35:1 from a 104 inch 16:9, and I'm amazed how much more cinematic it is - fantastic upgrade.


----------



## drummermitchell

I like the saying..16x9 is like looking through your living room window and 2:35 is like stepping out into your front yard.

When I switched to 23:5 it was end of story.


----------



## Skylinestar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drummermitchell*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24777397
> 
> 
> I like the saying..16x9 is like looking through your living room window and 2:35 is like stepping out into your front yard.
> 
> When I switched to 23:5 it was end of story.


How about IMAX? Stepping into ?


----------



## Murilomms

Look this solution with two screens from Ava Projecta and a Panasonic Projector (using triggers, lens memory and auto switching)


TV = 64"

Screen 1.78:1 = 72"

Screen 2.40:1 = 82"





 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHILtTP_c8Y


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *smuggymba*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9#post_23696752
> 
> 
> Guys - I'm struggling with this 2.35 vs 16:9 chat and I have see many videos on youtube and also saw the panamorph website. Can you guide me.
> 
> 
> 
> My room is 12 ft wide, assuming I leave 1 ft on each side for the speakers, I'm left with 10 ft i.e. 120 inches on width for the screen + frame. *The width of the screen is limited* but not the height since I have space.
> 
> 
> Assuming, we're dealing with Sony HW50ES and a Frameless (zero edge or blade screen) - should I go for a 2.35 or 16:9. I watch both TV and movies. What format would give me a bigger size pic for both TV and movies.
> 
> OPTION 1: As per my understanding, a 16X9 screen - will give the max size pic for TV (_no black bars_) and movie(_black bars on top_)
> 
> OPTION 2: On the other hand, a 2.35 screen will show be the same size pic as above for movies (_no black bars_) and a smaller size TV (_with black bars on side_).
> 
> 
> So, In option 1, I get a bigger pic for TV and in option 2 it's smaller (movie size remains same). Is my understanding correct?



Sounds like you pretty much understand it, except I would point out that only about half the movies out there are 2.35.


If you go with your maximum width in a 16:9 screen, you will not be losing any size in 2.35 format. But going 120" wide will give you a 137" 16:9 screen. That is quite large, and it may be uncomfortable depending on how close your seating is.


I have a 120" wide 2.35 screen since I watch 90% movies on my projector. That gives me a 16:9 image of about 108", but I would like for my 16:9 to be a little bigger. Ideally around 120-125 inches diagonal. But I don't want to give up any size from 2.35 format. It seems like the only way to have my perfect size in both 2.35 and 16:9 is to go with a compromise ratio, such as 2.0:1. The bad thing about that is I would have black bars for both formats. Not a deal breaker, but something to be aware of.


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24784101
> 
> 
> Sounds like you pretty much understand it, except I would point out that only about half the movies out there are 2.35.
> 
> 
> If you go with your maximum width in a 16:9 screen, you will not be losing any size in 2.35 format. But going 120" wide will give you a 137" 16:9 screen. That is quite large, and it may be uncomfortable depending on how close your seating is.
> 
> 
> I have a 120" wide 2.35 screen since I watch 90% movies on my projector. That gives me a 16:9 image of about 108", but I would like for my 16:9 to be a little bigger. Ideally around 120-125 inches diagonal. But I don't want to give up any size from 2.35 format. It seems like the only way to have my perfect size in both 2.35 and 16:9 is to go with a compromise ratio, such as 2.0:1. The bad thing about that is I would have black bars for both formats. Not a deal breaker, but something to be aware of.



This is exactly why I went with two electric screens ! I didn't want to compromise either way.


----------



## Edgar_in_Indy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24789292
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I went with two electric screens ! I didn't want to compromise either way.



Very nice! You could say that having two screens is also a compromise, since you had to buy and install TWO screens, but it is a very good solution to the problem. What sizes are the two screens?


Although they are very close together, they are not on the same plane. Is the difference enough to require a focus adjustment when you are switching between screens?


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Edgar_in_Indy*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24789350
> 
> 
> Very nice! You could say that having two screens is also a compromise, since you had to buy and install TWO screens, but it is a very good solution to the problem. What sizes are the two screens?
> 
> 
> Although they are very close together, they are not on the same plane. Is the difference enough to require a focus adjustment when you are switching between screens?



The 16:9 screen is a Stewart Cima Neve 1.1 - 106" wide x 59.5" x 122" diagonal. The 2.35:1 screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 - 118" wide x 50.2" x 128.2" diagonal. We sit 12' 6" from them. No, I don't need to re-focus. The screens are 5" apart, but that doesn't effect focus. I suppose a person with a new JVC with lens memory could use separate focus for each screen. I've been using this setup for over 5 years - although the current screens are new !


----------



## DavidHir

Craig,


Which projector(s) are you using? For some reason I was thinking you had a JVC.


----------



## drjay71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Craig Peer*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24789407
> 
> 
> The 16:9 screen is a Stewart Cima Neve 1.1 - 106" wide x 59.5" x 122" diagonal. The 2.35:1 screen is a Stewart StudioTek 130 G3 - 118" wide x 50.2" x 128.2" diagonal. We sit 12' 6" from them. No, I don't need to re-focus. The screens are 5" apart, but that doesn't effect focus. I suppose a person with a new JVC with lens memory could use separate focus for each screen. I've been using this setup for over 5 years - although the current screens are new !



That is a great setup. Did you ever think about going with a fixed screen and a motorized screen instead of two motorized screens?


----------



## Craig Peer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24790712
> 
> 
> Craig,
> 
> 
> Which projector(s) are you using? For some reason I was thinking you had a JVC.



I have a Sim Lumis Host. Been a great projector for 5+ years. I did have the JVC RS4910 and RS57 in my theater to demo for AVS forum members that live near me - that's probably why you thought I owned one.



> Quote:
> That is a great setup. Did you ever think about going with a fixed screen and a motorized screen instead of two motorized screens?



If there wasn't a sliding glass door behind the screens I think that would save money and accomplish the same thing. BTW, I've used the 2 screen method with an anamorphic lens too. But my current theater isn't the right dimensions for a lens - too short a throw distance. However, this set up works perfectly for my needs !


----------



## Potatogod93

How do you figure a proper throw distance for a zoom setup? Im debating a jvc x500r and was considering a 120" 16:9 screen but since have started considering a 138" 2.35:1 screen as 16:9 stuff would be close to the same size but movies more immersive.


Im a ways away from being ready but 1 would that be bright enough for that screen? According to projectorcentral's calculator it should be but then how do I determine throw distance for both sizes? Just calculate distance for the bigger screen?


----------



## jeahrens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Potatogod93*  /t/1482009/2-35-screen-vs-16x9/390#post_24797309
> 
> 
> How do you figure a proper throw distance for a zoom setup? Im debating a jvc x500r and was considering a 120" 16:9 screen but since have started considering a 138" 2.35:1 screen as 16:9 stuff would be close to the same size but movies more immersive.
> 
> 
> Im a ways away from being ready but 1 would that be bright enough for that screen? According to projectorcentral's calculator it should be but then how do I determine throw distance for both sizes? Just calculate distance for the bigger screen?



I posted this for another person but you should be able to change the numbers for your setup:

_The easiest way to calculate your throw range is to look at the 16:9 screen size and the converted 16:9 screen size for the 2.35:1 screen.


So a 144" 2.35:1 screen has dimensions of 132x56". To calculate the 16:9 screen size you use the height. So that give us a 16:9 image of 99.5x56". The next size is the blown up 16:9 image size. When zooming the image is still 16:9, we're just letting the bars spill over. So in this case we use the width to calculate. So the 16:9 image we're projecting for 2.35:1 is 132x74.3". When you plug those screen sizes into the calculator you get:


16:9 : 11'7"-23'3"

2.35:1 (using the 16:9 size): 15'5"-30'10"


So the range to use the zoom method is 15'5"-23'3". I don't like going to the edge of either. I tend to sacrifice brightness for the better black level of a longer throw so I would go towards the long end. Probably 18-20'. If you want it closer and brighter I'd start at 16'._


As far as brightness goes our RS46 does just fine on a 130" 2.35:1 screen with the iris closed in low lamp mode. I would think the X500R would only be better.


----------

