Which aspect ratio screen to buy?

[Coytee]

I was over at Kriton's (Bruce) yesterday. Then... my brother in law brought his projector to my house and we got to play around setting things up while experimenting.

I was thinking the "hot" thing to get was a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.

When I was visiting with Bruce, he showed me several of his Blue Ray DVD's and many of them were of the even wider cinema format.

I hope you will pardon me not knowing all the different numbers, but I think it was 2.3 to something. I suddenenly feel like numerical soup right now with all of these aspect ratios floating around in my head.

Bruce said essentially "now that he knows what he knows" he might have rather bought an even wider screen than his 106" 16:9 (diag) so that his cinema layout movies would have been taller.

I've come home and we put on several here.... (I don't have many) and interestingly.... I had the little bars at the bottom indicating these might also be better viewed in the wider format (?).

I'm beginning to think he's right in that it might make better sense to start with the wider aspect ratio for a screen?? What is the aspect ratio of the bulk of the movies?

After seeing his 106" diag, I left there presuming I would just get a 110" because he was right....givein his situation, a larger screen would have been great. I was however, operating under one error in my logic (for my use). I was thinking my seating position would be 12' away. I forgot that the screen will be about 30" away from the back wall (ceiling mount) so it's actually about 9-9 1/2 feet away.

Here's one of my thoughts... get a larger screen like 110" diag (of which aspect ratio??) and if we find over time, we prefer a smaller image on it, I can adjust the camera to make that image. If however, we get a smaller screen and decide after some use that we'd really like a larger image....we're screwed.

Thoughts?

[wuzzzer]

I believe 2.35:1 is the aspect ratio you're referring to. I know Youthman has that aspect ratio for his screen, might be good to get ahold of him and get his thoughts on the matter.

Almost all Blu-Ray movies I've watched are in the 2.35:1 format, and they will have black bars on the top and bottom of a 16:9 screen. Discs that are around 1.85:1 aspect ratio will fill the entire screen of a 16:9 screen. Interestingly enough it seems that the majority of 1.85:1 Blu-Ray discs are animated movies.

[Youthman]

You will find that many movies are wider than 16:9, especially blurays. There are lots of different aspect ratios. Easiest way to think of it is in terms of units. You can place "feet" or "inches" in place of "units" below.

4:3 (almost square). These were the tube tv's. 4 units wide for every 3 units high.

16:9 (widescreen). 16 units wide for every 9 units high

2.35:1 (cinescope) 2.35 units high for every 1 unit wide.

You get the idea. So if you view a 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 screen, you will get grey bars on top and bottom. I love having a cinescope screen. As I stated in your previous thread, if my room was 3ft wider, I would have gone larger than 103" sitting at 11' from the screen.

[Youthman]

The photos on this page might help you visualize the different aspect ratios.

[JJkizak]

That does cover it.

JJK

[smokarz]

i just finish building a 16:9 screen and having seconds thought. several blurays that i popped in looked like they're 2.35:1.

next time i build a screen, it would definitely be 2.35:1 since i plan on watching lots of movies on it.

[Coytee]

More about screen size than aspect ratios:

Would you feel it's better to get an oversized screen so you know you are covered on all viewing choices or, would you suggest it's better to go through the mental gymnastics and get a screen that is "exactly" right?

Meaning.... wife feels a smaller screen is better. Indeed, by the time we got down to what she was liking, the image size was maybe 80 inches diagonal (don't recall if this was cinema wide or 16:9 wide). Bottom line is, this imgage wasn't that much bigger than my 50" Sony that I already have. Put differently, the image wasn't large enough to justify the approximate $5,000 price for screen & projector (MSRP's, I've not yet looked at street prices)

I told her that I thought it might make more sense to go ahead and have a larger screen and be able to zoom the image down to a smaller size if indeed, we felt the larger size was stressful. Conversely, I felt that if we got the smaller size and later wanted to put a larger image up then we're basically screwed because of the smaller sized screen.

If we got the larger screen and used a smaller image size, then we'd have more white space bordering the image. Would you feel this is a neutral or a bona-fide negative thing to have? (white space outside the actual image)

Right now, I don't know that I could really justfify the expense for all of this to get an image the size I saw last night. I'd be just as happy with my 50" Sony down there and the cash in my pocket. She likes the idea of rolling the screen up when not in use. I repeat again that I prefer the 50" Sony in plain sight and $5K in my pocket rather than being able to hide it. For a much larger visual impact.... I can be tempted.

The real farce here is all of this screen & projector chat is ultimately, so I can ascertain which screen I might end up with and consequently, I'd know approximately what area of the wall I need to pull some power lines and some low voltage lines.

[Youthman]

IMO, if you can't go with at least 100" screen, then you don't need a projection. One of the main goals of a projection is to have a vast screen. My screen is 8 feet wide. That is something you just don't find in a TV unless you want to spend $40,000 on it. I agree with you. If your wife is not going to like a big screen, if you have to scale the image down, it is going to look really goofy having blank space around the entire image. If possible, see if you can look up some local home theater shops in your area that you can go visit. Hopefully you can check out some different HT environments, screen sizes etc to see if there is a setup that both you and your wife can agree on.

I have absolutely no eye strain with a 103" 2.35"1 screen sitting at 11" from screen. 110" would be perfect if I had a few more feet of wall.

[Cal Blacksmith]

To my way of thinking, it depends on if you like black bars on the sides or on the top and bottom. There will be no PERFECT size, you could go with a system that adjusts for each size format, like the movies do, by zooming in or out to full height of the screen and adjust the sides with curtains.

We went with a 119" HD format screen 16x9 and the bars don't bother me. Our PJ is about 12 feet back as is the main viewing seating with the bottom of the screen at eye level. I don't get any eye strain, neck problems or other issues in watching movies.

Personal choice. Full width or full height adjust from there as your lifestyle suits.

[Youthman]

Cal is right, there is no one size fits all unless you put some money into masking (hiding the grey bars). I chose a CIH (Constant Image Height) setup. This means that the image always fills the height of my screen so no bars on top or bottom ever. On a 16:9 movie, I have grey bars on the sides. Once the movie starts, the bars disappear and you don't notice them. You can always add some fabric to hang over the grey bars if you wish to truly mask it. That would be inexpensive to do if you are ok with manually hanging the mask and removing it when you need to.

To me, the grey bars on the sides are less distracting than having grey bars on top and bottom.

[Coytee]

To me, the grey bars on the sides are less distracting than having grey bars on top and bottom.

Not having had both to use in my system to verify this....but I think I'd agree with your logic that the side bars would bother me less than the over/under bars.

[Saturn5]

Do it the way the theater does, use a 2.35:1 screen with masking/curtains on the sides for showing lower aspect ratio material.

[Buckeye_Nut]

If you're planning on watching any TV on that screen, you'll want a 16:9....my 2 cents....

[Youthman]

If you're planning on watching any TV on that screen, you'll want a 16:9....my 2 cents....

Just curious why you say that? If you think of the flipside, it would be the equivalent of saying If you're planning on watching any 2.35:1 movies on that screen, you'll want a 2.35:1. Regardless of what you do, unless you have a masking system (manual or automated), you are going to have grey bars either on top and bottom or on the sides.

I think a better statement would be if you're planning on watching MORE tv than movies on the screen, then go for the 16:9. Vice versa, if you are planning on watching more movies than TV, go with a scope screen.

Just my 2 cents (which in this economy is about 1/4th of a cent. []

[Buckeye_Nut]

I think a better statement would be if you're planning on watching MORE tv than movies on the screen, then go for the 16:9. Vice versa, if you are planning on watching more movies than TV, go with a scope screen.

Agreed.....