psg Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Well that's a push towards the bigger (and more expensive) screen! Thanks! Great to know that 53 degrees isn't that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Given the option, I'd go with as wide a screen as possible; in fact, that's what I did, it just happens that at maximum width (11 foot viewing wall) I could also get a 16:9 screen...great for football! Basically the dimensions of my room limited the width, but not the height. Given a wider room, I would have increased the width, but kept the same height and gone with a 2.35:1 screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Given the option, I'd go with as wide a screen as possible; in fact, that's what I did, it just happens that at maximum width (11 foot viewing wall) I could also get a 16:9 screen...great for football! Basically the dimensions of my room limited the width, but not the height. Given a wider room, I would have increased the width, but kept the same height and gone with a 2.35:1 screen. You are hingting that your screen is close to 11 feet wide (132 inches) but your sig says its 110 inch diagonal, so I guess 110 inch diagonal is the biggest you could fit with the speakers on the side? Speaking of angles, there's also the vertical to worry about. The larger screen would go up close against the ceiling on all content, 88 inches off the ground. Since my eyes are at 40 inches off the ground in typical seats, the offset of 48 inches ten feet away yields a vertical nagle of 22 degrees, far exceeding recommendations of 15 degrees. The smaller screen, on 2.35:1 content, would have have the top of the screen 35 inches above eye level for 16 degrees elevation. This is closer to the mark. I don't know what to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Well that's a push towards the bigger (and more expensive) screen! Thanks! Great to know that 53 degrees isn't that much. I hasten to add that, since THX's standards pertain to actual theaters, I was describing the width in degrees of the image in some pretty elite 70 mm equipped theaters, when they were running 70 mm. In Home Theater, there are additional factors: Blu-ray is not as high resolution as most film (since about 1955), so the screens may need to be a little smaller, certainly smaller that 90 degrees, except for a very few BDs with very high PQ.. The negatives used in 70 mm (which are 65 mm wide) require a scan of about 8k to fully capture the resolution, while Blu-ray ends up something like 2 K (even those, like Baraka, which are made from 8K scans of 65 mm negatives). Even 35 mm, particularly with modern film, is higher resolution (on the film negative). Some argue that since the film resolution diminishes as it is converted to printing masters, and finally release prints, that Blu-ray is almost as good as a truly well made 35 mm film print. I don't think anyone believes that Blu-ray is almost as good as a superb 70 mm print made from a fine grain printing master made from a fine grain 65 mm negative ... and in the peak years of 70 mm, they used fine grain, slow film whenever possible (actors compained about the bright lights needed to properly expose the fine grain film). Blu-ray quality varies! You might get away with sitting one screen width away (e.g., with 2.35:1 reaching the edges of your screen) with many or most BDs. One screen width away would be about 53 degrees. With some beautiful BDs, you might be able to have a width of 60 degrees, or even wider. But with a shoddy, pasty faced, over digitally "corrected" BD -- like Spartacus or Patton, the image might look better at a greater distance (the irony here is that both of these films had superb PQ, and were near grainless in 70 mm in the theater). I intend to ignore all warnings and try 2001: A Space Odyssey at 90 degrees as soon as we get out new projector. Here is a handy tool ... ignore their seating recommendations, but go by their calculation of width in degrees: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Hmm. Good point. Still, lots of people are using big screens and are happy. Might have to start off on high mode though. Currently i am more worried about the 22 degree vertical angle. Seems a lot. My wall outline looks great when I stand in front of it, but looks high when i sit down. My brother says I need to sit my couch on a SPUD! But then what of the second row? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually the smaller 106" yiels 100" diagonal on 2.35;1, so smaller than your 104". How far back do you sit? I'm sitting (front row) about 10' back... sometimes a bit less if I'm using the second row... the technical sweet spot of my klipschorns is at only 8'. I never really calculated out my viewing "angles" ... but my room shape and size limited me to that size in both height and width. I feel it produces an immersive experience in my HT, although in your situation, I too would be tempted to go with the bigger one. If you were closer, I'd recommend you pass by and check it out yourself... ROb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Thanks Rob! That's nice of you. Let me know if you are ever in Rimouski! Right now it's the height of the top of the screen that worries me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Right now it's the height of the top of the screen that worries me... Some people use recliners to lean back to look at a high screen. If your couch has a high back, you could lean it back a little (carpet covered platform). Watch out, though! Make sure that people with bifocals or trifocals will be able to see the entire image through the top part (distance) of their glasses. And just one more complication .... you need one, right? .... some wearers of glasses will need a very bright image, so their eyes (iris) will stop down to provide the depth of focus necessary to bring an image 10 or 15 feet away into sharp focus. The top part of the lens is optimized for 20 feet to infinity. In an ordinary living room with normal lighting, they can probably see objects in sharp focus as close as 6 - 8 feet through the top part of the lens, but home theater projection is several stops darker -- that's why a totally darkened room is needed to make the image seem bright. Regular flat screen TVs tend to be much brighter than projection. In a home theater with a big screen the irises of the viewer's eyes tend to be wide open, and therefore intolerant of objects outside of the optimum depth of field. I have no problem, even though I have trifocals, but some people do. Nothing is simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Now we hear that anamorphic lenses tend to be softer than regular projector lenses, so that a softening effect is added --- the last thing we need --- so the fact that most people just use the zoom may not be so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 12, 2011 Author Share Posted November 12, 2011 I have yet another option to consider... The place I planned to get the screen from are introducing an Acoustically Transparent weave. I could get a 120" diagonal (105x59") 16:9 format screen and lower it to a comfortable height that would hide the tweeter and mid-horn of the La Scala. To recap: #1: 106" 16:9 (92x52) -> 42.1 degrees horizontal viewing angle ($1200) -> leaves 100-inch diagonal 2.35:1 screen (92x39) #2: 135" diag screen never fully unrolled -> 52.2 degrees ($1550) -> leaves 128 inch diagonal 2.35:1 screen (118x50) -> leaves 102 inch diagonal 16:9 screen (89x50) -> plus side: zoom out wider for 2.35:1 movies, which is cool. #3: 120" 16:9 (105x59") acoustically transparent screen -> 47 degrees ($1600) -> leaves 114-inch diagonal 2.35:1 screen (105x45) If I leave the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen (i.e. don't shift the picture up or down), then I can save $800 on a projector without auto lens shift and zoom (Epson 8350). This makes option #3 cheaper than #2. I am thinking this might be a good compromise on size and screen placement, and let's me get a cheaper projector. The downsides are that the picture may not be as good on an AT screen than on the opaque screen. I will also be projecting black bars on the screen (without masking) on 2.35:1 content. Options #2 is the only one that wouldn't project balck bars on the screen as I would zoom out for cinemascope, but the projector would cost $750 more. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Look at what Seymour acoustically transparent screens have to offer at http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp A forum member has one and loves it. His forum name may be something like bhendricks ... if you find the thread, there is another individual on there who uses a screen made out of the same fabric, who likes it. Chris at Seymour is happy to answer questions by email I'd hold out for the 2.35:1 image being the largest in area and wider than the other images by far ("Common Height"). That's what most filmmaker are visualizing when they shoot a (true*) wide screen movie, and the impact is tremendous. On a 16:9 screen, wide screen films will have less impact, and narrow screen films will have more. That's just the opposite of the intended effect. A 2.76:1 film will look like a narrow ribbon across the screen with big black bars top and bottom. To properly appreciate the newly released original aspect ratio (2.76:1) Blu-ray of Ben-Hur (1959) on a 16:9 screen, it is recommended that people move their chairs closer ... much closer ... to the screen. * IMO "wide screen," as the term was usually used in the '50s and '60s when modern widescreen processes premiered, meant one of the following aspect ratios, almost always projected with a greater width than a standard screen image (which had an AR of 1.37:1): 1.85:1 (wider than the current 16:9 -- 1.78:1 -- HDTV image!), 2.35:1 (most CinemaScope films, 35mm Panavision at first, and many new Super 35 films), 2.39:1 (later 35 mm Panavision), and the truly grand 70 mm processes, which were projected to be both wider and higher than the processes listed above, on a MUCH larger screen than normal: 2.20:1 (Todd-AO, and most other 70 mm processes, including Super Panavision 70, Super Technirama 70, D-150,etc), and 2.76:1 (Camera 65 and Ultra Panavision 70). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 12, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 12, 2011 I'd hold out for the 2.35:1 image being the largest in area and wider than the other images by far ("Common Height"). That's what most filmmaker are visualizing when they shoot a (true*) wide screen movie, and the impact is tremendous. Totally agree. I was hesitant at first and did a lot of research before deciding 2.35:1 was the right aspect for my setup. To me, the wider screen totally envelopes you into the movie. My friend built a HT in his basement. After seeing his 16:9 screen, although his screen is much higher than mine, it just doesn't compare to the "scope" that my 2.35:1 provides. With a constant height, you can always mask the sides for those occassional 16:9 movies but for me, most movies I watch are in the wider format. One day down the road, I "might" redesign the false wall and go with a larger, AT screen and put my center channel directly behind it....but that will not be anytime soon. Best wishes in whatever you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 13, 2011 Author Share Posted November 13, 2011 Thanks guys. I certainly understand wanting to go bigger for cinemascope... But remember that watching a movie (typically cinemascope) will always be bigger than HDTV since the screen drops down in front of the TV for movies. I won't be watching much TV on the big screen. Having the scrren drop once or twice a week for a movie will be an event, and the picture will always be much bigger than my current 50-inch TV (eventually 68-inch) whether it's a cinemascope movie or not. Only one of my close friends has a projection screen and it's in 16:9 format. He has no masking and the black bars don't bother him at all once the movie starts and the room is dark (I haven't sat through a movie; he lives in another city). Going 16:9 instead of cinemascope on the screen saves me several hundred dollars for the same screen width of 105", and saves $750 on the projector that doesn't need to have auto lens shift and zoom. Is avoiding projected horizontal black bars on the screen worth $1000? Are Seymour screen priced in the same ballpark as I mentionned? I am in Canada and shipping may be prohibitive as well. The only place I have found in Canada for higher-end screens (below $2000) is eastporters.com carrying Elunevision screens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Are Seymour screen priced in the same ballpark as I mentionned? I am in Canada and shipping may be prohibitive as well. The only place I have found in Canada for higher-end screens (below $2000) is eastporters.com carrying Elunevision screens. Not sure, but I think Seymour screens are similarly priced. The prices are on the website for an incredible number of sizes. ' They also sell the fabric alone for Do-It-Yourselfers ... at a real bargin price ... you would need to build a fixed frame ... in your room, you might need to have the whole frame hinge up to the ceiling and be flat against it when not in use. We almost did that, with a DIY very slightly curved screen to increase the sense of immersion. We were too busy and too inept to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 Found the store link... They are a tad more expensive than elunevision, then shipping is more for obvious reasons and there would be customs issues of course. Wish I could decide which to get... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Can anyone can reassure me that overshooting black bars onto a mat-painted dark ceiling (probably dark brown) won't show up as lighting up the ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Can anyone can reassure me that overshooting black bars onto a mat-painted dark ceiling (probably dark brown) won't show up as lighting up the ceiling. I can't reassure you, but in demos I've seen with very, very dark ceilings, the ambient light coming from the actual image bouncing off the ceiling drowns out the black bars. It helps that nothing is moving in the black bars. Ask this question on a Home Theater forum, and see what people over there say. This is the kind of thing a dealer should be willing to demonstrate, although if they are former TV dealers, rather than film buffs, they may not get the attraction of using a full 2.35:1 screen and zooming, and therefore try to talk you into a 1.78:1 screen. I have been repeatedly amazed by the lack of acquaintance of dealers with widescreen processes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 16, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 16, 2011 My screen is a few feet from the ceiling, my screen has 2" velvet border and my false wall is a dark grey color. I cannot guarantee anything for your setup as well but here is my experience. When I first zoom in to fill the screen, I see dim gray bars on my false wall (hard, somewhat reflective surface). Once the movie starts, they totally disappear and I have yet to notice them at all during a movie. I just watched a movie last night and not once did I see it. Also, if you take a look at any of my screenshots in my build thread, you will not see any grey bars. Here are some screenshots of screen sitting on barstools leaning against maroon painted wall (before my false wall was built) - Link Screenshots after false wall was built Hope that helps, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tragusa3 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Peter, you've seen my thread. My opinion on most of your questions are over there. I'll make a general philisophical statement here. Why do you want to go with a projector? I will assume for a BIG AZZ PICTURE! So go after that goal recklessly. My opinion is that you CAN'T make a screen too big. You've seen my screenshots of the Panny shooting a 14' wide 2.35 image. I think they speak for themselves. I used the SeymourXD material and built myself. The whole screen and frame were about $300 and took a half day of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted November 23, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 23, 2011 Peter, you've seen my thread. Peter, can you post a link to your thread? Can't remember if I've seen your setup. The whole screen and frame were about $300 and took a half day of work. Wow, when I do a bigger screen, I definitely need to build my own instead of buying. Paid $500 for my 8' wide Elite 2.35:1 screen. As my son always says, "Dad, Go BIG or Go Home". LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.