What's new

Home Theater United Episode 32 - Adrian Silva of Stewart Filmscreen (1 Viewer)

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
31,875
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
This room actually would fit a wider screen than will work for 16x9:
3B33E10B-B82A-4C79-81D1-D0AF9C3965E7.jpeg


I’m still going 16x9.

My quote for the motorized masking system was north of $40k BTW. So yeah, not doing that.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
26,758
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I think you’re making the right decision. :) Your room, similar width to my room, I don’t see the benefit of having a smaller screen for 75%+ of viewing just so some movies can be wider.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
26,758
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I need to know more about screen gain. I’m really ignorant on that. My current screen is 1.0 gain I think. Looking at Stewart’s site, maybe I should instead be using a 1.3 gain screen, to reduce reflections off the walls. (And partnered with a projector that I can stop the iris down to get the brightness right.)
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
8,935
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
No idea about pricing, but Stewart has this for masking solution that probably suits me:


FWIW, I actually do watch most 16x9 content smaller on my 120" 16x9 screen, but not quite as small as on a CIH scope AR screen of same width. I only use the full screen for content (mainly epic-ish looking movies) that I actually want to look that big. I also have lens memory setting for the increasing amount of 2:1 AR content (mostly via streaming) set to fit w/in what would've been the CIH frame so there are slim black bars on the sides. That works for me...

_Man_
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
31,875
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I’m going to annotate that image with physical dimensions and overlay a couple possible screen dimensions over it. Wonder what the best way to do that would be, getting accurate ratios on the rectangles?
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
31,875
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
I’m going to annotate that image with physical dimensions and overlay a couple possible screen dimensions over it. Wonder what the best way to do that would be, getting accurate ratios on the rectangles?

Welp I did a crash (self taught Dr. Google) course in Sketchup tonight. This is the best I can do with no formal training...
basementViaSketchup.JPG


For me this proves beyond a doubt that a 16x9 130" screen with a 1/5" border is my best bet and will be way better use than whatever I could fit in there at 2.35
 

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,363
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
Just to help answer a question that came up in the pod-cast about scope-screens and resolution loss with different content...

If you have a projector that has lens-memory (like the JVCs), and if you use the lens-adjustment to zoom in/out to "fit" the content to the screen... then you are not losing any resolution from the original signal regardless of the aspect ratio. For instance, if you have a scope 2.40 screen and you watch a 16x9 program, your PJ just adjusts zoom to shrink the image optically (not digitally) until it fits the 16x9 window-area of your scope screen. The image is now 100% the same as if you had just bought a 16x9 screen of that same height and adjusted your PJ accordingly (except you have vertical black bars on the unused left/right of the 2.40 screen of course). But no loss of resolution... all of the pixels of your original image are now represented in the 16x9 area. Then you decide to watch LOTR... now your lens zooms the other way to enlarge the image until it fits the full width. Still, every pixel of active image content is represented 1:1... no loss (the black bars that are now overscanned above and below the screen had no active image content since they were used for the "black bars" and so you're still not losing any active image pixel in comparison to having watched the movie letterboxed on a 16x9 screen... just larger and without the black bars on the screen).

That's a simplified explanation, but it's important for folks to realize (if they care about preserving resolution/pixels) that with today's projector's that have lens-memory, you can now "go scope" and with a push of a button have the image sized to the screen with no loss of resolution from the original signal.

Now, where it gets complicated and can change is when folks get an anamorphic lens and choose to leave it in place even with 16x9 content... in that case they *digitally* downscale horizontally to avoid having to move the lens out of the way. That does indeed throw away resolution for 16x9 content. The benefit of the lens is that it adds brightness for material wider than 16x9 because it allows scope content to be vertically upscaled (stretched) to use the full height of the chip (the area that had previously been wasted on black bars) so it's an advantage there, but a disadvantage with native 16x9. Dedicated videophiles who want to optimize for both scope and 16x9 material often build a "sled" to slide the lens out of the way for 16x9 material, which allows both 16x9 and scope to now be viewed in the best way possible.

Scope screens open a lot of possibilities and benefits for the scope films, but do add a bit of complexity when watching non-scope aspect ratio content... but nothing that can't be solved and for many enthusiasts the added complexity is well worth it given the benefits it brings for scope content.
Thanks so much David. This is great!
 

Brian Dobbs

Ambassador
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
1,363
Location
Maryland
Real Name
Brian Dobbs
Sorry to hear about early demise of amps! That stinks.

It’s possible the move cross-country hastened its demise. It got dropped and the shock caused a micro-crack in a trace. That trace then failed over the past couple years of thermal cycling from normal use.

It’s tough choice to decide whether to spend $100 shipping to then find out if it’s worth spending more money to maybe fix it.

At least you‘ve got your old AVR to power the system in the interim.
Aw, thanks bro. At least someone understands my pain! Yeah, just use the AVR for now. Buy new in a few years once I get another theater.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
350,770
Messages
4,930,172
Members
142,910
Latest member
fadilale
Recent bookmarks
0
Top