What's new

Who is doing a 2.35 screen? How ? Why ? (1 Viewer)

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
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
 

Bobofbone

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
297
Location
East Tennessee
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.
 

Jim Mcc

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
3,757
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.
 

schan1269

HTF Expert
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
17,104
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.
 

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
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.
 

GeorgeAB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
522
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"
 

GeorgeAB

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 28, 2001
Messages
522
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
 

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
Location
New England
Real Name
Gregg Loewen
Alan, awesome information.

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

Excited.

Gregg
 

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
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.
 

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
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!
 

Chuck Anstey

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 10, 1998
Messages
1,640
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.
 

Gregg Loewen

Founder, Professional Video Alliance
Insider
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
6,458
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
 

DavidJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2001
Messages
4,365
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,832
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top