-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Who is doing a 2.35 screen? How ? Why ?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted February 19 2014 - 04:52 PM

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


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#2 of 19 OFFLINE   Bobofbone

Bobofbone

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 151 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2010

Posted February 19 2014 - 05:28 PM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   Jim Mcc

Jim Mcc

    Producer

  • 3,710 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2004
  • Real Name:Jim
  • LocationOconomowoc, WI.

Posted February 19 2014 - 11:18 PM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 13,881 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted February 20 2014 - 01:00 AM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted February 20 2014 - 05:58 AM

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. 


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#6 of 19 OFFLINE   GeorgeAB

GeorgeAB

    Second Unit

  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2001
  • Real Name:G. Alan Brown
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted February 20 2014 - 11:39 AM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   GeorgeAB

GeorgeAB

    Second Unit

  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2001
  • Real Name:G. Alan Brown
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted March 12 2014 - 10:18 AM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted March 12 2014 - 10:44 AM

Alan, awesome information. 

 

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

 

Excited.

 

Gregg 


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#9 of 19 OFFLINE   GeorgeAB

GeorgeAB

    Second Unit

  • 468 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 28 2001
  • Real Name:G. Alan Brown
  • LocationDenver, CO

Posted March 12 2014 - 11:03 AM

Alan, awesome information. 

 

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

 

Excited.

 

Gregg 

Please provide more details. 



#10 of 19 OFFLINE   schan1269

schan1269

    HTF Expert

  • 13,881 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 04 2012
  • Real Name:Sam
  • LocationChicago-ish/NW Indiana

Posted March 12 2014 - 03:51 PM

Cool...so another person went Screen Research...

 

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



#11 of 19 OFFLINE   Jim Mcc

Jim Mcc

    Producer

  • 3,710 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2004
  • Real Name:Jim
  • LocationOconomowoc, WI.

Posted March 12 2014 - 06:47 PM

Cool...so another person went Screen Research...
 
Although, I would hope more than two of us on HTF have one.


You may be the only 2 with money !!

#12 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted April 01 2014 - 05:59 AM

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.


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#13 of 19 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,993 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted April 16 2014 - 10:16 AM

 

Alien, 1.85:1

 

Ummm, no. Alien is 2.35:1


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#14 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted April 16 2014 - 10:24 AM

going up today!!


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#15 of 19 OFFLINE   DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter

  • 2,542 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted April 16 2014 - 11:23 AM

Nice. Looking forward to pics.



#16 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted April 21 2014 - 05:32 AM

Wow, this 2.35 is frkn awesome. Im going to do some painting of ceiling tiles today and will then get some photos up!


The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#17 of 19 OFFLINE   Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,567 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted April 21 2014 - 11:55 AM

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 of 19 OFFLINE   Gregg Loewen

Gregg Loewen

    Video Standards Instructor, THX Ltd.

  • 6,326 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 09 1999
  • Real Name:Gregg Loewen
  • LocationNew England

Posted April 22 2014 - 07:08 AM

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

The Sonodome - circa 2001
The Newest Sonotube - circa 2001
Gregg's DVDs updated...sometimes
Lion Audio Video Consultants usually current


#19 of 19 OFFLINE   DavidJ

DavidJ

    Screenwriter

  • 2,542 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 23 2001
  • Real Name:David

Posted April 24 2014 - 11:59 AM

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users