# 2.35:1 or 16:9, which screen to go for?



## samcruise497

Hello guys...I am planning to setup a HT in a dedicated room of size 26*19*10. I am confused between 2.35:1 & 16:9, as in which aspect ratio screen to go with. I believe lot of Hollywood movies are in 2.35:1 and few in 16:9, also lot of Indian movies are in 2.35:1 size as well. My main use of HT would be movies and almost no TV. I am planning to go 150-160inch diagonal size DIY screen. The speakers would go behind the screen. 

1) Please suggest which is the best way forward in my situation as in what size screen and what aspect ratio would be ideal for my room.
2) Which fabric is good for acoustic transparent screen. I came across few options like seymour, Falcon, Carls.
3) Also suggest a good projector. If it's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, i have Panasonic AE 8000 in mind as it has lens memory option and can automatically zoom back and forth the aspect ratios without the need of anamorphic lens. Any other suggestion is also welcome, my budget is less than $2500 for the projector. 

Thank you
Sam.


----------



## mhconley

For a theater dedicated to mostly movies I'd definitely go with a 2.35:1 scope screen. I have my setup in our family room and it's used about 75% for TV and 25% for movies. I went with a 138" 2.35:1 scope screen and the Panasonic PT-AE8000U projector. The 16:9 image is an impressive 113" but when I sit down to watch a movie at 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 and the picture expands to fill the full 138" diagonal the experience is immersive. 3D on the screen is spectacular, as good or better than in any theater. I highly recommend a 2.35:1 scope screen and the Panasonic PT-AE8000U projector.

Martin


----------



## DavidHir

samcruise497 said:


> Hello guys...I am planning to setup a HT in a dedicated room of size 26*19*10. I am confused between 2.35:1 & 16:9, as in which aspect ratio screen to go with. I believe lot of Hollywood movies are in 2.35:1 and few in 16:9, also lot of Indian movies are in 2.35:1 size as well. My main use of HT would be movies and almost no TV. I am planning to go 150-160inch diagonal size DIY screen. The speakers would go behind the screen.
> 
> 1) Please suggest which is the best way forward in my situation as in what size screen and what aspect ratio would be ideal for my room.
> 2) Which fabric is good for acoustic transparent screen. I came across few options like seymour, Falcon, Carls.
> 3) Also suggest a good projector. If it's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, i have Panasonic AE 8000 in mind as it has lens memory option and can automatically zoom back and forth the aspect ratios without the need of anamorphic lens. Any other suggestion is also welcome, my budget is less than $2500 for the projector.
> 
> Thank you
> Sam.


I would definitely go with a scope screen. I cannot speak for which type of acoustic material, but try to get a JVC projector. For a little more, you can get an RS400 which will be far superior to the Panasonic which I don't believe is even being made anymore. If still too high, look for a used JVC. You can find great deals in the classified section with low hours. I would also recommend a good calibrator (like Chad B) to calibrate your projector to the screen - makes a huge difference.


----------



## soyhakan

It really depens what you watch. 
Are you watch older movies ( I do for example movies from 70's,80's,90's) ? A lot of them are 16:9.
Some movies has changing aspect ratio during scenes (Nolan movies). Some 3D movies has Imax versions such as Avatar, Pacific Rim, Transformers 2, Transformers 3, Transformers 4, Guardians of Galaxy, Tron Legacy v.s. and those movies are very immersive in 16:9 (they are 16:9 or has scenes 16:9)
Also do you watch tv shows ? Almost all of them 16:9. 
And if you watch movies with subtitles (I do) putting subtitles on the black bars helps for reading and they don't block the movie anymore.

If your answer yes for those questions go for 16:9.
But most of movies are 2:35:1. And they are very immersive with a 2.35:1 scope screen. Well 16:9 content will have black bars side of screen if you don't use zoom or someting when you use a 2.35:1 scope screen.


----------



## Craig Peer

soyhakan said:


> It really depens what you watch.
> Are you watch older movies ( I do for example movies from 70's,80's,90's) ? A lot of them are 16:9.
> Some movies has changing aspect ratio during scenes (Nolan movies). Some 3D movies has Imax versions such as Avatar, Pacific Rim, Transformers 2, Transformers 3, Transformers 4, Guardians of Galaxy, Tron Legacy v.s. and those movies are very immersive in 16:9 (they are 16:9 or has scenes 16:9)
> Also do you watch tv shows ? Almost all of them 16:9.
> And if you watch movies with subtitles (I do) putting subtitles on the black bars helps for reading and they don't block the movie anymore.
> 
> If your answer yes for those questions go for 16:9.
> *But most of movies are 2:35:1.* And they are very immersive with a 2.35:1 scope screen. Well 16:9 content will have black bars side of screen if you don't use zoom or someting when you use a 2.35:1 scope screen.


When I went through all the movies I own, and watch, 45% were 1.78:1 / 1.85:1 or 4:3. A surprising number of new movies are not 2.35:1 - depending on what movies you like to watch ! Just FYI.


----------



## bud16415

Stop in the CIH forum and read the latest 4 or 5 threads. Lots of good pro and con information there.


----------



## MinnesotaGreg

Why wouldn't everyone just buy the biggest 16:9 screen that can fit the wall and mask down when watching 2.35:1? This is my plan, and I'm going to cover some lightweight panels with black material and Velcro. Then stick the panels up when watching 2.35:1. 


Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


----------



## bud16415

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Why wouldn't everyone just buy the biggest 16:9 screen that can fit the wall and mask down when watching 2.35:1? This is my plan, and I'm going to cover some lightweight panels with black material and Velcro. Then stick the panels up when watching 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


Here is a spirited thread where we are talking about just this subject. 

If you want to hear both sides of the story and some in between here is a good read. 

I have a PIA setup and love it. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2...-perfect-image-area-sub-sets-cih-ciw-cia.html


----------



## steve1106

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Why wouldn't everyone just buy the biggest 16:9 screen that can fit the wall and mask down when watching 2.35:1? This is my plan, and I'm going to cover some lightweight panels with black material and Velcro. Then stick the panels up when watching 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


I think it comes down to taste. I do a 151.5 inches in 16:9 which gives me 123.75 inches in 4:3 and 2.35:1 in 143.5 inches but I watch a lot of TV/sports/movies in 16:9. In my case I have 132 inches of width to work with, but if I had 150 inches are more in width I would probably go scope since I would be height limited. The main argument for scope is that movies are being seen the way they are intended and give the appearance of being more epic when in fact in my width limited situation the 16:9 will produce exactly the same size scope image. With scope the other aspect ratios of 16:9 and 4:3 are limited so a scope movie looks like a movie according to the CIH guys. I don't buy into that and I've been told "what an idiot" more or less by some members. 

I toyed with doing a scope screen in my spare room but after running some primitive tests with two projectors 16:9 works better for me, but if I had 180 inches of width I would have to do a 2.35:1 setup or start at the floor and go to the ceiling for 16:9. 

While I have been told the images are worthless and my setup is bad, I posted them in my thread below (post 44).


----------



## humbland

My$.02
I was originally inspired by Craig's (and other AVSer's) dual screen posts.
We had a 16x9 110" DaLite High Power Electric Drop screen for years. We recently added a 125" 2.35:1 Elite Scope Electric Drop screen.
Our PJ has lens memory. Adding the scope screen has enhanced our movie experience. Having the 16x9 for sports (and some films) is a big plus.
I waited 2 years for DaLite to bring back the High Power fabric. Wish we had added with the Scope screen sooner...
If you can swing it, 2 formats is the way to go.


----------



## jautor

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


Yeah, do spend some time in the CIH thread, but avoid the other thread mentioned... It's mis-information and basically a flame war at this point. 

The short answer is that scope (2.35) films were meant to be shown at the same height as 1.85, but "wider". But since HDTV is 16x9 (close to 1.85:1), DVD/Blu-rays and really all home video / streaming content is sent in that form. To make 2.35 fit (and not crop - the hated "Pan and Scan" days...), the film is shown 'letterboxed' with the black bars. 

If you have a 2.35 screen, you adjust (zoom) the projector to fill the whole screen with image, and the black bars are spilled over onto the screen frame and wall. Zoom back for 16x9 / 1.85 / 4x3 content so it fill the full height of the screen. That re-creates the cinema presentation.

Jeff


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> Yeah, do spend some time in the CIH thread, but avoid the other thread mentioned... It's mis-information and basically a flame war at this point.
> 
> The short answer is that scope (2.35) films were meant to be shown at the same height as 1.85, but "wider". But since HDTV is 16x9 (close to 1.85:1), DVD/Blu-rays and really all home video / streaming content is sent in that form. To make 2.35 fit (and not crop - the hated "Pan and Scan" days...), the film is shown 'letterboxed' with the black bars.
> 
> If you have a 2.35 screen, you adjust (zoom) the projector to fill the whole screen with image, and the black bars are spilled over onto the screen frame and wall. Zoom back for 16x9 / 1.85 / 4x3 content so it fill the full height of the screen. That re-creates the cinema presentation.
> 
> Jeff


If you study the history of AR you will read and find out wide screen scope 2.35:1 was invented to draw people back into movie theaters in the 1950’s. All thru the 50’s and 60’s new theatres were built to showcase the new wider AR. These theaters were equipped with 2.35 screens so of course the biggest image to be shown was the scope image. The big question is when they were making 4:3 and other lesser format before scope in the 20’s 30’s and 40’s before 2.35:1 films were ever even thought about was the presentation of those AR films intended to be as small as what they are shown cut into a scope CIH setup. I don’t conceder it misinformation to provide information on the great movie palaces of the 20’s and 30’s that had 2000 + seats and gigantic 4:3 screens very much like Imax is today. Smaller towns had smaller versions of these movie houses and scaled down with equally tall proportioned screens. When scope became in vogue in the 50’s the movies were normally a group of features followed lastly by the main feature. There were cartoons and a short movie and PSA type things. They were shot intentionally in the old narrow formats and when the main feature came along the masking was open from the format people were used to and the new wide scope presentation came to life. It was showmanship at its best. And the scope movie seemed to dwarf all the other images in scale. 

We don’t live in the 1950’s anymore and we don’t watch movies projected from film. The quality of movies can be so good today that any level of immersion a person wants on any AR is possible with a image as clear as you could ever ask for. There are also movies and even quality TV programming in lesser AR than scope that people may want to experience with immersion both vertical and horizontal. Testing done on human field of vision shows our FOV isn’t a 2.35:1 ratio and history shows us that that ratio was selected 60 some years ago with no thought to what human FOV even was. 

There is nothing wrong with a CIH viewing method but I don’t think it is misinformation to advise someone that is trying to figure this out all the facts and let them make up their own minds. 

Here is a link to a new product that Steward Filmscreen is now selling. If money was no object I would be doing this on my home theater. The narrative is correct though as they explain how people in this millennium are using projectors for. 






If you read James Cameron’s take on his movie Avatar he wanted it shown as large as possible and sent out copies in both AR’s depending on what size screen the theaters had. When asked what AR he liked best he said the more immerse Imax version AR. Anyone with a home movie theater can have an Imax experience at home with movies such as this if they want and can still have a CIH for stuff that you wouldn’t want to watch like Imax. You need a 16:9 screen to do that. The OP doesn’t need to be told what direction to go they need to look at the facts and what their wants are and then pick the AR that suits it best for a screen.


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> There were cartoons and a short movie and PSA type things. They were shot intentionally in the old narrow formats and when the main feature came along the masking was open from the format people were used to and the new wide scope presentation came to life. It was showmanship at its best. And the scope movie seemed to dwarf all the other images in scale.


It "happened to be that way", but cartoons were shot 4:3 / 1.85 for cost. Yes, it made for good showmanship, but that's not why they were shot that way...



> There is nothing wrong with a CIH viewing method but I don’t think it is misinformation to advise someone that is trying to figure this out all the facts and let them make up their own minds.


It is when you invent a term to define your opinion, give it (in your own words) a bombastic name, frame the discussion as "both sides of an issue" when it's not, ignore basic definitions (like what 'constant' means), and fold in lots of topics like FoV that just serve to cloud and confuse...



> Here is a link to a new product that Steward Filmscreen is now selling.


Just because someone is selling a product that does something you find interesting doesn't make it right, modern, better or anything else.

And as has been said many, many times - do whatever works for you.



> Anyone with a home movie theater can have an Imax experience at home with movies such as this if they want and can still have a CIH for stuff that you wouldn’t want to watch like Imax. You need a 16:9 screen to do that.


Hollywood movies shot with IMAX scenes are a result of IMAX looking to fill their theaters and promote their interests, nothing else. Films shot in IMAX native were absolutely meant to fill the huge, immersive screen - they were certainly filmed that way, too - you won't find many close-up shots filling the entire height of the screen, for example. Once IMAX moved to digital presentation, their ability to show Hollywood content in their theaters became much more economically viable (read: profitable) - so they've done that to provide a lot more reason to build IMAX theaters (which sells a lot of IMAX gear!). And when those made-for-IMAX scenes are shot, notice how they're always shot "2.35 safe" - the added height information is "ambiance" for lack of a better word. 

Those scenes show up on home video releases because they CAN, since the formats are all 16x9, and anything wider is letterboxed, and the vast majority of consumers will see the presentation on a 16x9 display, and they can put a "with IMAX!" sticker on the box, to NOT do it would be foolish! If Blu-ray had supported an anamorphic mode like DVD did back in the 4:3 to 16:9 HDTV transition, that IMAX footage probably wouldn't have made it to the home video releases...



> The OP doesn’t need to be told what direction to go they need to look at the facts and what their wants are and then pick the AR that suits it best for a screen.


I answered his question. I didn't tell him what to buy. I did direct him away from a thread that contain a lot of confusing posts, though.

Jeff


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> It is when you invent a term to define your opinion, give it (in your own words) a bombastic name, frame the discussion as "both sides of an issue" when it's not, ignore basic definitions (like what 'constant' means), and fold in lots of topics like FoV that just serve to cloud and confuse...


The use of the bombastic in the other thread was tongue in cheek as that’s exactly how the beloved Cinema Scope was first sold to the public. I will quote from this article. http://www.brooklyncentercinema.com/scope/articles/about_cinemascope.htm
The first movie shown was The Robe and here is the quote from the above article how fox described the presentation of the movie. 

“ Fox's publicity department heralded its first Cinemascope production of THE ROBE with the usual Hollywood conservative understatement ... "more spectacular than the eye has ever seen...the greatest achievement in the history of motion pictures....the miracle that you see without glasses (the last quote appeared on every THE ROBE poster; its intent being to make people believe that the process was a type of 3D that could be seen without glasses, which, of course it wasn't...it was wide, it just wasn't 3D).”

If you are a fan of cinema the “Bombastic” word is the middle name of Hollywood. 

I know very well what the word constant means. As I am constantly reminded of it. Well not really constantly as sometimes an hour goes by without the constant reminder. 

As the OP hasn’t been back in close to a month and if they do return I will try and drive my comments back on topic as to what someone might want at home. They mentioned they were fans of movies and will only watch movies, no TV, etc. So their home theater for them should be a creation of the era of cinema they love. If they are buffs of the pre 1950’s era films they should build a theater that reproduces the majesty of a 1920’s movie palace and equip it with a spectacular Academy Ratio screen. If they are fans of the classic Cinema of the last century based around film media compressed and stretched presentations, their home theater should mimic the “A” bomb area cinemas of the 60’S with a 2.4:1 scope screen and a CIH method of presentation and hold true to that period. I actually don’t know of one person who has a desire to copy any elements of the 80’s to 2000’s multi plex theaters at home so I won’t mention them. The next stage of cinema is now evolving and how it will manifest itself completely is still unknown. It is the age of digital cinema and digital movie production. It is soon to be the day of 4k and 8k content and who knows what kind manipulations of the super high definition images will take place. If the OP is interested in immersive viewing such as the direction Imax has taken and with the better image quality who knows what kind of bombastic ideas Hollywood might come up with to draw people back to the movies again and away from their 4k 70” TV’s at home with a 1000 different inputs waiting to fill the screen to make the point mildly. Hollywood might step up their game again or they might roll over and die, we don’t know. But there is an option out there for the next generation of home theater we just don’t know what it is going to be yet. All I know is technology is always advancing and advancing faster. 

The beauty of home theaters is you can go back to the place in technology you love and build a home theater to reproduce it.


----------



## MinnesotaGreg

Wow!!!  And I thought the presidential race had deeply rooted fans on each side with unwavering views.......


----------



## bud16415

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Wow!!!  And I thought the presidential race had deeply rooted fans on each side with unwavering views.......


There are only two products that I know of that people love enough to have their logo tattooed on their body. Harley Davison and Cinemascope.


----------



## jautor

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Wow!!!  And I thought the presidential race had deeply rooted fans on each side with unwavering views.......


Uh, no, don't lump me into that category... 

There aren't two sides - one person posting a supposed new and "perfect" solution and then claiming there's debate "on both sides" is just an attempt to elevate their opinion. See "Creation Science" as the poster child for this fallacy / tactic...

There's no right choice for screen size / ratio - there's only "right for you and your room". Your question was why someone would deploy a 2.35 screen instead of masking down a larger 1.85. CIH is the answer to that question (or at least, the most likely reason). If you get the screen height correct for your seating distance(s), going wider for scope films works really well. IMAX variable height BD releases are an anomaly and IMO those dozen or so films (with how many total minutes of IMAX footage?) aren't a justification for choosing a screen.

My own experience going through the screen size/shape process followed that method - I tested to find the largest 1.85 screen size that would be comfortable for my front row. Then CIH would allow me to make it wider and fill the screen for scope films. I looked at my collection and saw a ~60/40 split of scope films (and a much higher ratio for stuff I would probably show for friends), which is what made me choose the 2.35 screen...

(and the lens and the masking and yeah AVS is a disease...  )

Jeff


----------



## bud16415

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Why wouldn't everyone just buy the biggest 16:9 screen that can fit the wall and mask down when watching 2.35:1? This is my plan, and I'm going to cover some lightweight panels with black material and Velcro. Then stick the panels up when watching 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


It is kind of like some people can’t have sweets in the house because if they are there they feel they have to eat them. Same with a 16:9 screen sized to do CIH with masking. You will get all set up for CIH with your masking system and be going along fine and Pawn Stars will come on and you will have an overpowering urge to rip the masking down so you can watch Rick and Chumley at gigantic immersive sizes. As hard as you try and wait to watch Avatar, or Jurassic World or something like PBS planet earth immersive off a wonderful BD you won’t be able to wait and it will end up being Pawn Stars or Storage Wars you will get all funky with. Who knows how bad the addiction will be before you know it you will be watching old blurry You-Tube vids huge you won’t be able to control yourself. 

The thing no one seems to get is I watch in the CIH mode most of the time my guess is 85% of the time but I can’t call it CIH of course one because I have a 16:9 projector and no screen I use a wall carefully painted to be a screen but walls don’t have AR’s. The second reason is because 85% is not constant. So for the 15% of the time I’m going larger than CIH say 10% I have a bunch of people deep in the room watching a UFC fight or a football game. The other 5% I’m treating myself to some simulator type immersion with a movie that is sharp and clear and digitally perfect and I just feel like it. Those things are wrong. 

By the way when I go deep into immersion I also crank the sound up even the subs. Just because I can and when the dinosaurs are bigger they need to sound bigger. That and I do it just because I can. 

Then there are other days when I’m watching You Tube clips I make them really small something like 70” because they just look better smaller with their 480 like resolution.


----------



## MinnesotaGreg

jautor said:


> "There's no right choice for screen size / ratio - there's only "right for you"
> 
> Jeff


Jeff, Last night and again today I viewed your theater build photos and I'm astonished, it's simply beautiful. You also mention the right screen size is unique to each person and your plans suggest your first row seat is about 9'6" from a 136" scope screen. Would you have kept this viewing ratio if you only went with two rows of seating? 


My question is self serving of course and I'll note I'll likely never achieve the pinnacle of home movie theater knowledge as you and several others here so I'm all ears when out of my league and this is one of those times. What size AT scope screen would you put on a 14' wide wall with first row seating currently planned for 15' from front wall? I'm guessing you're going to say 14'?


----------



## MinnesotaGreg

samcruise497 said:


> Hello guys...I am planning to setup a HT in a dedicated room of size 26*19*10. I am confused between 2.35:1 & 16:9, as in which aspect ratio screen to go with. I believe lot of Hollywood movies are in 2.35:1 and few in 16:9, also lot of Indian movies are in 2.35:1 size as well. My main use of HT would be movies and almost no TV. I am planning to go 150-160inch diagonal size DIY screen. The speakers would go behind the screen.
> 
> 1) Please suggest which is the best way forward in my situation as in what size screen and what aspect ratio would be ideal for my room.
> 2) Which fabric is good for acoustic transparent screen. I came across few options like seymour, Falcon, Carls.
> 3) Also suggest a good projector. If it's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, i have Panasonic AE 8000 in mind as it has lens memory option and can automatically zoom back and forth the aspect ratios without the need of anamorphic lens. Any other suggestion is also welcome, my budget is less than $2500 for the projector.
> 
> Thank you
> Sam.




Sam, My apologies, I just realized I'm hijacking your thread but you certainly know how to bring up hot topics!


----------



## Craig Peer

I went with two screens so there was no compromise either way - I didn't want " Avatar " any smaller than it had to be. Or 2.35:1 movies any narrower than they had to be. Basically, my two screens are the largest I could install ( due to throw distance and soffit / ceiling height ) for each format. And the wife said " those are big enough.


----------



## jautor

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Jeff, Last night and again today I viewed your theater build photos and I'm astonished, it's simply beautiful. You also mention the right screen size is unique to each person and your plans suggest your first row seat is about 9'6" from a 136" scope screen. Would you have kept this viewing ratio if you only went with two rows of seating?


Thanks!

So one of the mistakes I made was when the house was built, the risers were built into the room - long before I actually turned the (unfinished) room into a theater. So my seating distances were set in, well, lumber. Changing that would have been difficult and expensive. And I didn't really have any more room depth to give, either, without dropping a row - so it really didn't matter...

So yes, eyeball to screen from my first row is about 9'6". I sized the screen for the second row (at 15') - since that's the level where you enter the room (which an expert at CEDIA explained tends to make that the primary row - since it's the one you naturally come to...), and then wanted to just make sure that the screen wasn't "too big" for viewing from the front row. 

The fact that I have bar seating (third row) didn't really factor - that has always been "overflow seating", and my concern was about making the front view too big. 

Designing a new room - I'd probably push the front row back to 10-11' and use an AT screen. But I'd put the front row as close as possible without being able to see the screen fabric weave - which is generally around 11'... IMO, moving further back just increases the size and cost of everything to get the same level of immersion. The AT screen arrangement also pulls the speakers away from the front row, which is also a good thing. Front row at 11' puts second row at 17-17.5' (leaving enough space between rows for recliners without issue).



> My question is self serving of course and I'll note I'll likely never achieve the pinnacle of home movie theater knowledge as you and several others here so I'm all ears when out of my league and this is one of those times. What size AT scope screen would you put on a 14' wide wall with first row seating currently planned for 15' from front wall? I'm guessing you're going to say 14'?


I'd say there's a range - and you should test it before committing to a screen size. Either visit one or project onto a temporary screen surface to see what works for you. And I'd pull that first row closer by 2-4'... But yes, 14' wide (2.35:1), plus/minus a foot is probably what I'd use. 

One of the benefits of using the second row as primary is that you do give folks options based on preference. Assuming you size accordingly - they can choose to go bigger than you like, and if you're got a bar/3rd row, they can go smaller... 

What I didn't want to have happen was everyone scrambling to sit in the "main" row, and then not liking the view from the front because it was "too big". I think I got it right - as I have friends who, given the choice in an empty theater, will choose the front row - and some that always want to sit at the bar in the back.

Hope that helps,

Jeff


----------



## Craig Peer

jautor said:


> Thanks!
> 
> So one of the mistakes I made was when the house was built, the risers were built into the room - long before I actually turned the (unfinished) room into a theater. So my seating distances were set in, well, lumber. Changing that would have been difficult and expensive. And I didn't really have any more room depth to give, either, without dropping a row - so it really didn't matter...
> 
> So yes, eyeball to screen from my first row is about 9'6". I sized the screen for the second row (at 15') - since that's the level where you enter the room (which an expert at CEDIA explained tends to make that the primary row - since it's the one you naturally come to...), and then wanted to just make sure that the screen wasn't "too big" for viewing from the front row.
> 
> The fact that I have bar seating (third row) didn't really factor - that has always been "overflow seating", and my concern was about making the front view too big.
> 
> Designing a new room - I'd probably push the front row back to 10-11' and use an AT screen. But I'd put the front row as close as possible without being able to see the screen fabric weave - which is generally around 11'... IMO, moving further back just increases the size and cost of everything to get the same level of immersion. The AT screen arrangement also pulls the speakers away from the front row, which is also a good thing. Front row at 11' puts second row at 17-17.5' (leaving enough space between rows for recliners without issue).
> 
> 
> I'd say there's a range - and you should test it before committing to a screen size. Either visit one or project onto a temporary screen surface to see what works for you. And I'd pull that first row closer by 2-4'... But yes, 14' wide (2.35:1), plus/minus a foot is probably what I'd use.
> 
> One of the benefits of using the second row as primary is that you do give folks options based on preference. Assuming you size accordingly - they can choose to go bigger than you like, and if you're got a bar/3rd row, they can go smaller...
> 
> What I didn't want to have happen was everyone scrambling to sit in the "main" row, and then not liking the view from the front because it was "too big". I think I got it right - as I have friends who, given the choice in an empty theater, will choose the front row - and some that always want to sit at the bar in the back.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Jeff



In my case I only have one row, so everyone pretty much gets the same size picture.


----------



## humbland

Craig Peer said:


> I went with two screens so there was no compromise either way - I didn't want " Avatar " any smaller than it had to be. Or 2.35:1 movies any narrower than they had to be. Basically, my two screens are the largest I could install ( due to throw distance and soffit / ceiling height ) for each format. And the wife said " those are big enough.


+1 Craig. You were the inspiration for me. 
The way I figured it, by the time I set up automated masking, it was cheaper to just add the scope screen... 
We already had the 110" 16 x 9 Cosmo Electrol from a previous set up. Since it was HP 2.8 and so hard to find, I kept it, instead of going to a 120" diagonal 16 x 9 (largest that would have fit in this room).
When it came time to add the Elite 2.35 Cinatension2 Scope screen, we went for the widest we could get in the space (125"). 
An annoying aspect (PJ humor) of movie night is not knowing exactly which AR the main feature is in. On the Netflix sleeves, there is no mention of the AR.  The trailers are often in 16 x 9 and the feature film is often in 2.35:1. It takes a few moments to run one screen up, the other screen down and toggle/adjust the lens memory to fit...All in all, well worth it however.
Of course I could have looked at the Netflix site for the proper AR, but I'm too lazy...
Perhaps you can develop an automatic AR sensor to control the screen deployment...


----------



## bud16415

One thing to keep in mind when you talk about immersion and multi row seating at home with more than normal row spacing you would find in a commercial theater as the home reclining chairs require a greater spacing between rows 2X to 3X commercial specs, and the size of the theater scaled down, one row of immersion at home can equal 10 or more rows of immersion at a commercial theater. The idea of a CIH setup holds true as long as you always sit in the same row at home. I wont do the math as I don’t have all the dimensions of the Rock Creek Theater but given 3 rows as there are the potential for immersion change is greater than what I suggest in the PIA setup for single row home theaters. The only real difference is one way you pick your row or halfway between rows with your zoom function the other way you change and move up or back a row. They are both CIH with the ability to change immersion. 

One advantage if it is one is with a single row such as Craig and I have is I find the off angle viewing of the two end seats less objectionable than the change of immersion with a group of 4 or 5 people. There is the social and family aspect of all sitting in the same row together also. Again a personal choice. 

The only way I wish I had two screens would be if I had different materials on each for different conditions. Otherwise I would just want one the max height and width of the two and masking to do the rest.


----------



## jautor

bud16415 said:


> They are both CIH with the ability to change immersion.


 Changing the height of the screen isn't CIH, I don't know why you insist on improperly using the term. There is nothing wrong with what you're doing - it's just not a CIH setup. If your goal is to educate, your statements need to be clear... 



> One advantage if it is one is with a single row such as Craig and I have is I find the off angle viewing of the two end seats less objectionable than the change of immersion with a group of 4 or 5 people. There is the social and family aspect of all sitting in the same row together also. Again a personal choice.


With the screen sized appropriately, no one has to be anywhere near the screen edges or feel "off angle". To say a single row is an advantage is not really a debate - the only "advantage" to multiple rows is the ability to seat more people given the room dimensions. Immersion, sight lines, speaker placement, etc. are all easier with a single row. But more than 4 (recliner) seats across and you do start to tilt some economic and design points. Room becomes wider than long, screen size has to increase to keep folks well inside the frame, which then pushes the row back so it's not too close, which makes the room bigger, and now the projector, etc, etc. 

I originally planned (a strong word for "I thought it was a good idea without doing any math!") to have 15 seats in my room (3 rows of 5). Budget, awful placement and some basic geometry fixed that thought... I have no idea how I thought that was going to work. I managed to squeeze in the two rows of 4, with the bar table placed on the riser that was supposed to be the third row of recliners. That turned out to be a happy accident, as the riser allowed the bar to be at table-height, not counter height, so I could use more comfortable chairs instead of bar stools. 

I'll routinely have 8-12 people in the room - there would be nothing beneficial to having that many people in a single row! But that question is a very valid one that folks should think hard about: how many seats do you really need? Having that number sized right, especially if there's some "overflow" seating potential (bar table, bean bags, etc.) for the rare occasion you need more is much more economical than grossly over-sizing the setup...



> The only way I wish I had two screens would be if I had different materials on each for different conditions.


You mean lighting conditions? As in one screen for daytime (higher ambient)? Just note that changing screen materials would also affect the display and color - it certainly wouldn't be calibrated the same. May be "close enough", but that would have to be researched.



> Otherwise I would just want one the max height and width of the two and masking to do the rest.


Yeah, well, see the pricing on motorized 4-way masking and you'll see why multiple screens are an option! 

Jeff


----------



## bud16415

jautor said:


> Changing the height of the screen isn't CIH, I don't know why you insist on improperly using the term. There is nothing wrong with what you're doing - it's just not a CIH setup. If your goal is to educate, your statements need to be clear...


I know your screen doesn’t change height when you move from your front row of seats to your back row of seats. Your screen is a constant height. What changes when you move from the front row to the back row is the size of the image in your brain, or better put in your FOV. When you move from your back row to your front row the height of the image is changing but your screen size isn’t. The resulting immersion is exactly the same produced 3 different ways. One as you do changing to a closer seat, two if the screen would come closer to you, or three stay in your single row of seats as many of us have and zoom the image larger. 
Of course the height of your screen never changes. I seldom watch my screen I mostly watch the image. Hope that is more clear.


----------



## Mike Garrett

MinnesotaGreg said:


> Why wouldn't everyone just buy the biggest 16:9 screen that can fit the wall and mask down when watching 2.35:1? This is my plan, and I'm going to cover some lightweight panels with black material and Velcro. Then stick the panels up when watching 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> Or, maybe I'm missing a key point in all this and don't really understand what's going on. So if you're reading my comment and thinking "what an idiot" please let me know what I'm missing as I have time to change plans yet.


height is the limiting factor with viewing. So if you go with a large 16:9 screen, that is going to set your viewing distance. Now when you go to watch a scope movie, the height will be a lot smaller and you will not have as much immersion. So less immersion factor, when watching scope movies and scope movies is where I would want the most immersion. 

In other words I would much rather be more immersed in a scope movie than I am watching some TV show.


----------



## bud16415

Mike Garrett said:


> height is the limiting factor with viewing. So if you go with a large 16:9 screen, that is going to set your viewing distance. Now when you go to watch a scope movie, the height will be a lot smaller and you will not have as much immersion. So less immersion factor, when watching scope movies and scope movies is where I would want the most immersion.
> 
> In other words I would much rather be more immersed in a scope movie than I am watching some TV show.


Just about everyone agrees height is the limiting factor in our FOV and NASA has done some extensive research pertaining to Field of Vision as well as all elements of vision. Several other studies also confirm this done by medical societies pertaining to vision. They have been sighted in quite a few threads here and around the internet and everyone agrees height is the limiting factor. In fact when you take into account peripheral vision humans have at least 180 degree coverage. With that it tells us that actually there is nothing that will ever limit the width of a screen it could be a mile wide and although it would be very small and far away it would be in our vision. The same is not true for up and down. 

All the research also shows we have different amounts of acuity depending on how central the vision is and also that there are degrees of eye motion involved in normal vision running from zero being fixed center gaze to maximum angular movement in both side to side and up and down. Somewhere within that maximum range of eye movement is comfortable eye movement. That movement isof two types voluntary and involuntary movement. 

Lastly we are all somewhat different in what limits we want to involve our vision in our movie watching. I personally think most people after having a home theater for a while gravitate to liking more immersion. That is not proven fact that’s just what I have found to be the case in reading here and other places and watching people get used to having an outlet for immersive viewing at home. 

When I analyze the data and test my own likes and dislikes in image aspect ratio and immersion I find my cutoff points do fall closer to a 16:9 AR than they do 2.4:1 AR given the new media no longer requires greater seating distance because of poorer resolution. And 4k is only going to push that point deeper for those that like immersion. 

It is not really fair to always compare great movies to TV when making the 2.4:1 to 16:9 comparisons. I won’t go down the list of things I might want to watch immersive that are displayed as 16:9 and none of them are bad TV shows. 

Classic CIH is a great way to manage viewing different AR but there are exceptions and personal choices. 

Here is a video of one of the major well respected screen company product that may keep up with the changing times better for some. It looks like a wonderful system to have, but there is no reason a person couldn’t do the same manually or semi-automatic and have the same benefits using a 16:9 screen and not doing CIW with it.


----------



## Mike Garrett

bud16415 said:


> Just about everyone agrees height is the limiting factor in our FOV and NASA has done some extensive research pertaining to Field of Vision as well as all elements of vision. Several other studies also confirm this done by medical societies pertaining to vision. They have been sighted in quite a few threads here and around the internet and everyone agrees height is the limiting factor. In fact when you take into account peripheral vision humans have at least 180 degree coverage. With that it tells us that actually there is nothing that will ever limit the width of a screen it could be a mile wide and although it would be very small and far away it would be in our vision. The same is not true for up and down.
> 
> All the research also shows we have different amounts of acuity depending on how central the vision is and also that there are degrees of eye motion involved in normal vision running from zero being fixed center gaze to maximum angular movement in both side to side and up and down. Somewhere within that maximum range of eye movement is comfortable eye movement. That movement isof two types voluntary and involuntary movement.
> 
> Lastly we are all somewhat different in what limits we want to involve our vision in our movie watching. I personally think most people after having a home theater for a while gravitate to liking more immersion. That is not proven fact that’s just what I have found to be the case in reading here and other places and watching people get used to having an outlet for immersive viewing at home.
> 
> *When I analyze the data and test my own likes and dislikes in image aspect ratio and immersion I find my cutoff points do fall closer to a 16:9 AR than they do 2.4:1 AR given the new media no longer requires greater seating distance because of poorer resolution. And 4k is only going to push that point deeper for those that like immersion.
> *
> It is not really fair to always compare great movies to TV when making the 2.4:1 to 16:9 comparisons. I won’t go down the list of things I might want to watch immersive that are displayed as 16:9 and none of them are bad TV shows.
> 
> Classic CIH is a great way to manage viewing different AR but there are exceptions and personal choices.
> 
> Here is a video of one of the major well respected screen company product that may keep up with the changing times better for some. It looks like a wonderful system to have, but there is no reason a person couldn’t do the same manually or semi-automatic and have the same benefits using a 16:9 screen and not doing CIW with it.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nNmvEx0X-k


Sounds like you just need a larger 2.40 screen or sit closer, so that the height is more of a factor. I agree you want the height to help you feel immersed, but no reason to give up the width, if you do not have to. As for what is best, it varies based on the room. If you have a low ceiling, but a wide room and it only allows a 52" high image, would you pick a 52" x 92" 16:9 or a 52" x 122" 2.35 for that room?


----------



## bud16415

Mike Garrett said:


> Sounds like you just need a larger 2.40 screen or sit closer, so that the height is more of a factor. I agree you want the height to help you feel immersed, but no reason to give up the width, if you do not have to. As for what is best, it varies based on the room. If you have a low ceiling, but a wide room and it only allows a 52" high image, would you pick a 52" x 92" 16:9 or a 52" x 122" 2.35 for that room?


I would pick the 52”x92” 16:9 and watch it in CIH mode as a 38”x92” 2.39:1 screen at a 2x height seating distance from 76” away. When I wanted to watch Imax or other similar content I would then view it at 52”x92” on the full screen and indulge my immersion in both directions.


----------

