Who is doing a 2.35 screen? How ? Why ?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Gregg Loewen, Feb 19, 2014.

  1. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    hi guys

    I have been thinking about going to 2.35 screen for a while now and think I am about to pull the plug on it. How are you doing / viewing 2.35 and why are you doing it that way ?

    I am some what stuck between wanting to do mechanical zoom with my JVC x-75 or an use an anamorphic lens option (or both).

    Is your screen fixed 2.35 or variable aspect ratio or CIH ? How did you chose?

    TIA.

    Gregg
     
  2. Bobofbone

    Bobofbone Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    29
    Real Name:
    Bob
    I'm using a 2.4:1 screen that's about 138" in size (on diagonal).

    Home theatere Screen Shot.jpg

    I used a wide screen because the majority of my viewing is in movies, most of which are around this aspect ratio. I thought it duplicated most of what I had seen in the past. I view it from a single row, about 10' from the screen. I arrived at this size and distance by going to a Saturday showing of a near empty theater, trying out different seats in the theater, and then pacing off the screen size and distance, and duplicating the same ratios at home. Nobody who has visted felt the screen was too close. I projecting from Panasonis AU 7000, and using the atomatic settings to size the image to fit the screen. Most of my viewing is in a darkened room, and the images that are in a lower aspect ratio, like 1.78:1 or Academy ratio fill the screen vertically but not horizontally. I've kicked around putting up curtains to mask the sides, but my wife hasn't bit on that yet. If she doesnt, I might have to learn how to use a sewing machine.

    My screen was around $100. I made it, with lumber and harware from Lowes, and extrawide white blackout cloth from Carl's Fabrics. I also bought a canvas pliers to stretch the fabric, and pretty much had my staple gun die in the process. It was about 30 years old, and I said a fond goodbye. I put a black fram around the screen (looks nice, but not necessary) and have rope light clips in back, but haven't strung the incandescant rope light around the frame yet. I'm doing it to dress things up-it will have a remoe Lutron dimming control (Already built in). I plan on doing it for effect.

    At the cost of the screen, I figured it was an inexpensive way to try things out. I like my setup.
     
    bryan4999 likes this.
  3. Jim Mcc

    Jim Mcc Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Oconomowoc, WI.
    Real Name:
    Jim
    I don't like the 2.35:1 format. I wish all HD was in the 16:9 format. Why shrink down the image size? It doesn't make sense to me. Most of use want larger and larger screens, and then some of us want to shrink it down to a 2.35:1 format. I don't get it.
     
  4. schan1269

    schan1269 HTF Expert
    HW Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    17,112
    Likes Received:
    899
    Location:
    Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
    Real Name:
    Sam
    I'm not "doing 2.35", but...I arranged my seating for when 108"(ish) 2.35 is showing on the 120" 16:9.Projector is set native.
     
  5. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    Most movies are 2.35 (70%) so maximizing this size makes sense for most people that want to optimize for movies and not for the NFL.

    Native pixel mapping is a good thing...but not necessarily needed....these new projectors offer excellent video processing and then you have to consider that with MPEG 2 (etc) compression...you never really have 1:1 mapping anyways.
     
  6. GeorgeAB

    GeorgeAB Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Real Name:
    G. Alan Brown
    This is the "Home Theater Forum" after all! Movies are exhibited a certain way commercially for very specific reasons. Those reasons include: artistic, scientific, technical, and financial. Folks in this forum have a wide range of opinions about what defines "home theater" for them. For me, the fundamental purpose of having a home theater is to provide the most authentic reproduction possible of cinematic art in a residence. I agree with imaging guru Joe Kane's slogan: "It's all about the art."

    Academy screening rooms are used for the most critical evaluation of cinematic productions to judge their quality, and for awarding Oscar statuettes. Those rooms have two-piece projection, multi-channel sound systems, not televisions in them. Movies are mostly produced for exhibition in commercial theaters on large projection systems. The aspect ratio of the production is usually determined for artistic reasons by the director, prior to shooting the first frame. Wide aspect ratios were first implemented in order to offer a greater panorama of action and scene composition to entice audiences back into the cinema in the early days of television. The best theaters use masking from the sides, rather than masking from the top to accommodate differing aspect ratio productions. "CinemaScope" movies are intended to be viewed larger and wider than television programs.

    The best way to replicate the CinemaScope experience in the home, via a video reproduction system, is with a 2.35/2.40:1 aspect ratio screen and projector. Narrower aspect ratio programs can be shown on the same screen at the same height, leaving empty space on the sides. Masking of the sides can be accomplished in a variety of ways.

    My system uses a "constant image height" (CIH) setup. Due to financial constraints, I chose a zoom and shift method, rather than an anamorphic lens. The projector has sufficient zoom ratio, and vertical lens shift travel, to fill the 2.35:1 screen properly for the vast majority of movie and video formats. My projector does not have a motorized lens or lens memories, so I have to make adjustments manually. It is suspended from a 7.5' ceiling, so I can reach the adjustments from a standing position. The screen is masked from the sides with dark drapes, and black fabric is on the wall behind, above, and below the screen. Both the projector and screen were designed by Joe Kane, and are used by studios and post production facilities for large format, quality control display.

    One of the benefits of the zoom approach is the ability to project aspect ratios between 1.78:1 and 2.40:1 without image loss or black bars being visible. Some of the great blockbuster films of all time have aspect ratios between those sizes. From what I have read and learned from respected sources over recent years, the anamorphic lens method is not justified considering the substantial cost difference. It appears to me the primary benefit for some folks is with the motorized lens sled versions. Being able to automate the process of switching to a wide aspect ratio will simplify the process, and add the sex appeal of automation in a system. The difference in image quality between zooming or anamorphic lens methods is minimal. Each method has pros and cons that don't really amount to much of a difference.

    The best system I've yet seen is Anthony Grimani's PMI 2.0 system , or its equivalent. However, it is very expensive to implement fully. It uses a four-way, auto masking screen, and automated, cinema grade, multi-format zoom lens. It would be the ideal system for taking ultimate advantage of a 4K/UHDTV/2160p projector. However, the screen alone costs more than many on this forum have invested in their entire system.

    Best regards and beautiful pictures,
    G. Alan Brown, President
    CinemaQuest, Inc.
    A Lion AV Consultants affiliate

    "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
     
  7. GeorgeAB

    GeorgeAB Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Real Name:
    G. Alan Brown
    A simple anamorphic lens setup, with a 2.40:1 masking screen, does not completely accommodate all options in a true constant image height system. Only the PMI 2.0 system or equivalent mentioned above can do full justice to the few aspect ratios narrower than 2.40:1. Here are some examples from my collection of hit movies on HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc that have aspect ratios between or beyond 1.78:1 and 2.35/2.40:1:

    2001 A Space Odyssey, 2.20:1
    Alien, 1.85:1
    Aliens, 1.85:1
    Baraka, 2.20:1
    Ben-Hur, 2.76:1
    Bridge On The River Kwai, 2.55:1
    English Patient, 1.85:1
    Godfather (trilogy), 1.85:1
    Lawrence Of Arabia, 2.20:1
    Legends Of The Fall, 1.85:1
    Once Upon A Time In The West, 1.85:1
    Patton, 2.20:1
    Princess Bride, 1.85:1
    River Runs Through It, 1.85:1
    Shawshank Redemption, 1.85:1
    Sound Of Music, 2.20:1
    Ten Commandments, 1.85:1
    War Of The Worlds (2005), 1.85:1
     
  8. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    Alan, awesome information.

    I ordered a Screen Research drop down 4 way masking screen.

    Excited.

    Gregg
     
  9. GeorgeAB

    GeorgeAB Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2001
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Real Name:
    G. Alan Brown
    Please provide more details.
     
  10. schan1269

    schan1269 HTF Expert
    HW Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2012
    Messages:
    17,112
    Likes Received:
    899
    Location:
    Chicago-ish/NW Indiana
    Real Name:
    Sam
    Cool...so another person went Screen Research...

    Although, I would hope more than two of us on HTF have one.
     
  11. Jim Mcc

    Jim Mcc Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,757
    Likes Received:
    38
    Location:
    Oconomowoc, WI.
    Real Name:
    Jim
    You may be the only 2 with money !!
     
  12. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    My screen arrives today. Im totally pumped!

    Alan, originally I thought I had ordered a VAR screen, however I was built a 2.35 / 1.78 drop down screen, so I will have to live with it.

    Currently I have an epson 6030 with fixed anamorphic lense and also a JVC x75 which I will be zooming (thank gawd for presets!).

    Only problem....I leave for LA / Vegas / San Fran tomorrow, so i wont be able to get it installed and running for a few weeks.
     
  13. Stephen_J_H

    Stephen_J_H All Things Film Junkie
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,239
    Likes Received:
    673
    Location:
    North of the 49th
    Real Name:
    Stephen J. Hill
    Ummm, no. Alien is 2.35:1
     
  14. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    going up today!!
     
  15. DavidJ

    DavidJ Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    231
    Real Name:
    David
    Nice. Looking forward to pics.
     
  16. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    Wow, this 2.35 is frkn awesome. Im going to do some painting of ceiling tiles today and will then get some photos up!
     
  17. Chuck Anstey

    Chuck Anstey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 1998
    Messages:
    1,624
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Chuck Anstey
    Very nice. I'm have a Constant Image Area setup with no additional masking, just shifting the image towards the bottom of the screen.
     
  18. Gregg Loewen

    Gregg Loewen Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.
    Insider

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 1999
    Messages:
    6,379
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    New England
    Real Name:
    Gregg Loewen
    okay....I finally got the ceiling painted and the room cleaned up. It was a very long day!!
    DSC04980.jpg
    Old Toshiba 65H80 crt. Makes a great stand for my busts.
    DSC04981.jpg
    Screen Research 2.35
    DSC04982.jpg
    Screen Research 1.78, side mattes down.
    DSC04977.jpg
    Multiple PJs. Top to Bottom
    Marantz 11S2 DLP
    JVC X-75 LCOS
    Epson 6020 LCD, with fixed Anamorphic lense
    Runco Q750i LED DLP
    To the right, JVC RS-25
    DSC04978.jpg
    head.JPG
    DSC04984.jpg
    POTA, Prototype Head. Thanks Peter!
    DSC04985.jpg
     
    ManW_TheUncool and SAhmed like this.
  19. DavidJ

    DavidJ Producer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    231
    Real Name:
    David
    Nice. I really want to make the move to a projector at home, but it would be in a living room albeit a living room focused on a good viewing environment. I like the 2.35 screen with the side mattes to make it 1.78. I don't think I'll have the budget for Screen Research though. Enjoy, Gregg.
     
    Gregg Loewen likes this.

Share This Page