2.35:1 vs 1.85:1 Home Theater Screen (1 Viewer)

[Dr Griffin]

I am beginning plans on a change-over from a plasma display to projector and screen in my HT. My maximum screen width will be about 100". My question is should I go for a 2.35:1 screen ratio over the 1.85:1? What's the general consensus on how 1.85:1 and 1.37:1 content looks down-sized on a 2.35:1 screen? Thanks.

 

[GeorgeAB]

Standard HDTV screens are 1.78:1 aspect ratio. If your most frequent or most critical viewing is of CinemaScope formatted movies, a 'Scope screen may be suitable for you. Most other aspect ratio programs will take up less screen real estate in the center of the screen. This type of setup is referred to as "constant image height" and can be achieved economically with a projector that has at least a 1.5 to 1 zoom ratio lens and suitable vertical lens shift. Such a projector can be adjusted manually or with motorized lens control features. Such a setup can accommodate aspect ratios that lie between 1.78:1 and 2.40:1. Examples of major motion pictures might include 2.20:1, 2.00:1, and 1.85:1.
The much more costly and complex method is to use an anamorphic lens, plus suitable digital image processing to stretch the image for this technique. A major advantage of this method is it can be fully automated, at still further additional cost. Such a lens/projector combination may not retain constant image height for the in-between ratios just mentioned.
Best regards and beautiful pictures,
G. Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants affiliate
"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"

 

[Jim Mcc]

I like the 1.78:1 screen size. When we watch sports or any HDTV programming, it fills the screen. And when we watch older 4:3 movies, we get the largest possible 4:3 image size. And when we watch 1.85 or any of the wider formats, the black bars don't bother us. I wish all HD programming and Blu-rays were in the 1.78:1 format. That would give us the largest HD image possible.

 

[GeorgeAB]

I like the 1.78:1 screen size. When we watch sports or any HDTV programming, it fills the screen. And when we watch older 4:3 movies, we get the largest possible 4:3 image size. And when we watch 1.85 or any of the wider formats, the black bars don't bother us. I wish all HD programming and Blu-rays were in the 1.78:1 format. That would give us the largest HD image possible.

First of all, 1.78:1 refers to the shape of a screen and has nothing to do with its size. Secondly, a screen aspect ratio that would give you "the largest possible 4:3 image size" would be a 1.33:1 screen, or the viewer could also simply move closer to the screen for a larger image. Your wishes for image shape formatting might satisfy you, but movies are formatted in various aspect ratios for artistic reasons preferred by the program's creator. Movie fans who value the content choices made by the original artists may legitimately design their home theater to reproduce such choices.
The thread starter may choose to be influenced by the "general consensus" of the home theater hobbyist community in this forum. However, he may reconsider the value in adhering to the compositional choices offered by the original artist, when such principles and options are explained in an objective manner. I would not expect much argument from a "home theater" community against designing a home system that would emulate, or replicate as close as possible, what is done in a professional screening room or top grade commercial cinema. Constant image height systems are preferred in such venues for preserving the wider screen options envisioned by motion picture artists.

 

[Jim Mcc]

First of all, 1.78:1 refers to the shape of a screen and has nothing to do with its size. Secondly, a screen aspect ratio that would give you "the largest possible 4:3 image size" would be a 1.33:1 screen, or the viewer could also simply move closer to the screen for a larger image.

You're right. I used a poor choice of words. I know 1.78:1 refers to the shape of the screen, but as the shape changes, the size also changes. And secondly, I meant to say a 1.78:1 screen would give the largest 4:3 image for the different widescreen aspect ratios.
I will now go stand in the corner and put the dunce cap on.

 

[Jonny_L]

Just my own 2¢ but at the moment a nice panoramic screen with projector is a bit out of my budget. I was thinking of getting a dark gray 1.78 screen as I play videogames and watch a lot of sports too. When prices fall ill look at getting a more purely cinematic setup.

 

[Jim Mcc]

Why dark gray?

 

[Dr Griffin]

I would not expect much argument from a "home theater" community against designing a home system that would emulate, or replicate as close as possible, what is done in a professional screening room or top grade commercial cinema. Constant image height systems are preferred in such venues for preserving the wider screen options envisioned by motion picture artists.

Yours is a good argument. I had been leaning toward a constant image height screen. It looks like I will now be doing some research on masking options.

 

[Dave Upton]

DIY masking solutions can be very effective - or you can spend a little money. Either way CIH is the best option in my opinion also. If you do decide to go with an AT screen - SMX has my vote.

 

[GeorgeAB]

DIY masking solutions can be very effective - or you can spend a little money. Either way CIH is the best option in my opinion also. If you do decide to go with an AT screen - SMX has my vote.

Or, you can spend a LOT of money: http://www.inremoteplaces.com/PMI2recut2010/
The PMI 2.0 system can ultimately offer a maximum screen size suitable for 4K programs coming in the future, scaled down with four way masking to a smaller screen area suitable for current 1080p HDTV resolution programming, but room to grow. The key is a combination of an automated four way masking screen, coupled with a motorized, cinema grade, zoom lens, mounted to a suitable projector that accepts such a lens (cinema grade projector). Just bring lots of money! Drool, drool.

 

[Dave Upton]

I love this solution: http://www.smxscreen.com/pro-mask-masking-screen.html

 

[Sam Posten]

From another thread:

I probably go against the grain to others here and say that a true 16x9 is the best solution. The vast majority of TV for the forseeable future will be in this format and it is the compromise size best for movies.
A 2.4 screen will look minimally better for the few scope movies you view and worse for the overwhelming majority of the rest of the content out there.
a 16x9 screen will look awesome for 90% plus of what you want to watch and be a minor compromise for true widescreen films. But you still won't get any more pixels off the disk to see those widescreen bits. That's baked in no matter what size your screen is.

The masking "solutions" are an interesting concept and a good compromise, but they do require user attention. I personally plan on going 16x9 and calling it a day. If you consider masking, check out the Monoprice soltion tho:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1315813/new-ranges-of-monoprice-screens-seem-to-be-coming-soon/480
[video]http-~~-//www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5j5exqkjwI[/video]