Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

16:9 or 1.85:1(widescreen)?

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 of 5 OFFLINE   Austin R

Austin R


  • 12 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 14 2005

Posted February 06 2005 - 05:00 AM

I am planning my home theater and have originally thought of putting in a 16:9 screen, but am now wondering if 1.85:1 would be better for my environment. I would rather give preference in presentation to DVD movies(or other digital formats) rather than TV. Does that mean I should choose a widescreen format or what other things should I be considering? thanks! Austin

#2 of 5 OFFLINE   Leo Kerr

Leo Kerr


  • 1,699 posts
  • Join Date: May 10 1999

Posted February 06 2005 - 05:44 AM

Point 1 in your consideration: Go to a common denominator:

1.33:1 - Television
1.37:1 - SMPTE/Academy Silent Full Aperature
1.66:1 - so-called 'European' wide-screen, also commonly used by Disney Animation
1.77:1 - HDTV aspect (also called 16:9)
1.85:1 - North American spherical wide-screen
2:1 - common shoe-box compromise screen aspect
2.35:1 - Commonly quoted, but often refers to 2.39:1 and 2.4:1 aspect, anamorphic wide-screen (aka Cinemascope.)

Those are the common formats floating around. Yes, you do occassionally get the odd-balls - the super-ultra-magna-MGM-Pana-Scopes™ with the 3.2:1 aspect ratios, or some of the really funky Russian 3-D formats that are pretty close to 1:1 (actually, I think they're .9:1 - narrower than they are tall, but I said they were funky.)

Anyway, back to the original point, there's a lot of stuff in the 1.66:1 - 1.85:1 range. How much would it hurt you to go to a minimum aspect of 1.85:1? I don't really know. Individually, the steps between 1.66 and 1.77, and then 1.77 to 1.85 are fairly small, but if you look at the difference between 1.66 and 1.85, well, now we're looking at real differences!

Another point is, often, projectors have a 4:3-shrink mode, that'll reduce the 4:3 area into something that'll fit (pillarboxed) into the 16:9 frame. Except with your 1.85:1 screen, it'd be artifically letterboxed on top of that, too.

In case you're wondering, I'm not really trying to be helpful - I don't know what helpful is in this case.


#3 of 5 OFFLINE   RickGagne



  • 3 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2005

Posted February 12 2005 - 04:09 AM

I went with a 16x9 specifically because there are so many formats out there and I find it's the best compromise. HDTV is spectacular and is in that format. When there are more movies on PPV in HDTV I can see ordering those instead of going to the video store because until blu-ray or the other HD DVD's come out they offer better PQ. Also the new PJ's now do a very good job of renedering the bars to almost black. The bars are simply not as anoying as they used to be. Another option for you might be a masking screen, but those are quite costly.

#4 of 5 OFFLINE   Jack Ferry

Jack Ferry

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 222 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 20 2003
  • Real Name:Jack Ferry

Posted February 12 2005 - 02:33 PM

I made some pretty decent masking using $3 worth of black fabric and some velcro.

#5 of 5 OFFLINE   Greg_Hammond



  • 38 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 31 2005

Posted February 14 2005 - 03:51 AM

Personally, I'm glad I went with a 4:3 aspect ratio. I tend to watch a good bit of DirecTV on my projector, and find that the black bars across the top/bottom with 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 aren't bad at all. On extreme widescreen 2.35:1, I've considered making black painted 1/4" plywood masks and hanging them when needed, but honestly - it's not that bad with a 400:1 contrast projector and a grey screen today. Greg

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users