J M O N Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Interested in this topic as I expect to be purchasing a new projector in the near future and really haven't researched any of them. 3D isn't really important to me but the ability to use 2.35:1 format seems like a good idea although I have no idea how many movies are available in this format for home use. It does sound like that may be the wave of the future though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 27, 2015 Moderators Share Posted August 27, 2015 Just about every movie I have purchased on BD is 2.35:1. I don't know for a fact but I would venture to say more BD's are in 2.35:1 than 16:9. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstrickland1 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I will sell it once the new screen is in place Thanks, I was just curious. I think a 103" would be perfect for my family room. Would it be possible for me to install a couple of small D-rings on the top border to hang screen on little hooks. Just thinking of the mounting possibilities considering it would not be a permanent install. I would stow away the screen when not in use, as well as the projector. My 103" elite screen has been hanging for 8 years with a pair of those large gorilla hooks. No problem whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Thanks. I'm wondering if I should be looking at a 110" size screen for our viewing distance of 11'. The THX website recommends to divide the diagonal measurement of your screen by 0.84 to come up with your viewing distance. If you take a screen size of 110 divided by 0.84 you get 131" or approx. 11'. Thx isn't very aggressive in this regard, seems that most people prefer the Smpte recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstrickland1 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I will sell it once the new screen is in place Thanks, I was just curious. I think a 103" would be perfect for my family room. Would it be possible for me to install a couple of small D-rings on the top border to hang screen on little hooks. Just thinking of the mounting possibilities considering it would not be a permanent install. I would stow away the screen when not in use, as well as the projector. My 103" elite screen has been hanging for 8 years with a pair of those large gorilla hooks. No problem whatsoever. https://www.doitbest.com/products/gorilla-hook-picture-hanger-for-drywall-and-sheetrock-as-seen-on-tv?sku=234575&utm_source=shoppingfeeds&utm_medium=googlebase&utm_term=234575&utm_campaign=BROI&gdftrk=gdfV25409_a_7c1793_a_7c6797_a_7c234575&gclid=CN_K8fO_yccCFc4XHwodpgkDUw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydog Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Well I drafted up a quick graphic showing how my front wall would look with either a 110" and a 125" 16.9 screen. Note that the grey bars represent the viewing area at 2.35. Based on this, it looks like the 125" screen will fit just fine. What do you guys think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 27, 2015 Moderators Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why not go with a scope screen? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 As for the original question, black levels are most important to me. I went with a nicer jvc specifically because of this. Probably a good thing too since I realized I hate the dynamic iris. Native contrast is where it's at. The trade off though is that it's not very bright. Your room has to be very light controlled and low gain screens aren't the best combination with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydog Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why not go with a scope screen? Just cant seem to find a reasonably priced electric drop down 2.35 screen. 125" electric drop down 16:9 is only $260 on Amazon. The closest I can find to that size screen in 2.35 is $1,374 on Amazon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 27, 2015 Moderators Share Posted August 27, 2015 Good reason. LOL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TasDom Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Why not go with a scope screen? Just cant seem to find a reasonably priced electric drop down 2.35 screen. 125" electric drop down 16:9 is only $260 on Amazon. The closest I can find to that size screen in 2.35 is $1,374 on Amazon. That's a good price. Is it tensioned? Here's my 120" 16.9:1 to help you visualize a little . Drops down in front of a 60" tv 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzydog Posted August 27, 2015 Author Share Posted August 27, 2015 That's a good price. Is it tensioned? The 16:9 for $260 is not tensioned. The 2.35:1 for $1,374 is tensioned. How important is the tensioning? I get what it does, but how great is the relative improvement of a tensioned vs. non tensioned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pathos Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I ended up with a Sony VPL-HW40ES. I originally got the Epson 5030UB that was beautiful and bright, but had a small dust blob almost center screen. The Epson doesn't have a closed light path and can get dust blobs anytime so I took it back. I was too afraid to get another one so I switched to the Sony. The Sony had a good picture right out of the box and really does a nice job with 3D too. The 3d is IR unless you buy a RF addon so it does limit your glasses and placement choices. I have to have an IR emitter sitting with my center channel that is pointed at the viewers. You don't see it unless I point it out, but it is connected to the projector via an RJ-45 cable. About 50% of my viewing is 16x9 sports content so the auto format change wasn't up at the top of my list. When we watch movies I live with the bars at the top. Guardians of the galaxy 3d switched formats mid movie. Someone told me that there are some others that did that too. I have a 106 screen at 15' and definitely want to go bigger. I was told that 106 at my viewing distance was the biggest I should go, but now I am regretting that and want to go bigger. I think 130' will fit in my area, even thought the "experts" say that is too big. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TasDom Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 That's a good price. Is it tensioned? The 16:9 for $260 is not tensioned. The 2.35:1 for $1,374 is tensioned. How important is the tensioning? I get what it does, but how great is the relative improvement of a tensioned vs. non tensioned? It's more a precaution than an improvement. Most electric screens are a vinyl type material and vinyl will tend to curl over time. Here's a good article on picking ratio's and screen sizes http://www.projectorcentral.com/build_home_theater_screen_aspect_ratio.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Interested in this topic as I expect to be purchasing a new projector in the near future and really haven't researched any of them. 3D isn't really important to me but the ability to use 2.35:1 format seems like a good idea although I have no idea how many movies are available in this format for home use. It does sound like that may be the wave of the future though. About 1/2 of the BDs I get are in 2.35. They look wonderful with a common height 2.35:1 screen (see Seymour online). Contrary to popular belief, this includes foriegn films and "Art" films, not just "Action" films, which I generally loathe. In theaters, the 2.35 format has been around for decades! It premiered with CinemaScope in the early 1950s. For the first few years it was even wider, but it got changed to exactly 2.35:1 early on. In 1961 the French New Wave embraced 2.35:1 with Last Year at Marienbad. In the 1970s, " 'scope," as it grew to be called, was transformed to 2.39:1 (which some people call 2.40:1) to hide splices more easily. A 2.35 screen with good, velvety black 2" border (like Seymour provides on their retractable screens) is close enough to handle any true widescreen format. My family and I absolutely recommend a Seymour electronic (remote control) 2.35:1 Acoustically Transparent screen that rolls down. We also recommend putting the center speaker behind the screen at ear level. These Seymour screens really are very nearly acoustically transparent, without the visible texture that some AT screens have. A Klipsch engineer measured the transparency of a fabric swatch as a favor for one of the forum members, and found only a minuscule attenuation at the very top of the frequency spectrum. We use Audyssey (built into several AVRs and Pre/Pros, such as some by Marantz and Denon), and do the Audyssey measurements with the screen down. That way Audyssey compensates for any slight high frequency attenuation, which we confirmed by running REW sweeps. A 2.35 screen will accommodate the following aspect ratios, with the image at full height (no black bars at the top or bottom): 2.2:1 (Todd-AO and most other 70 mm processes; very small, ignorable, bars on the sides of the image and none top and bottom) and 2.35:1, of course, (CinemaScope, Panavision, various European ARs, and most Super 35), with no bars. A few films have a deviant aspect ratio that is more elongated than 2.35, which will produce small, ignorable black bars top and bottom (MGM Camera 65, Ultra Panavision 70, both 2.76:1). The squarer formats (1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.66:1, and the old -- pre-1953, for the most part, Academy Apeture of 1.37:1) will produce black bars on the sides of the image, but none top or bottom. Many of the approx 1/2 of movies that use what filmmakers would consider "narrow screen" (1.85 and less) were meant to fit either modern TV screens (1.78, some images 1.85) or old CRT TV screens (1.33, which cut just a little off or the old movie shape of 1.37:1). You will want Lens Memory (Panasonic's term) so you can automatically switch between 3 or more aspect ratios without manually zooming. There are very expensive anamorphic lenses available for projectors, but 1) they are unnecessary, since with Blu-ray the resolution and acutance are high enough to allow zooming instead even on our 130" true width (diagonal 149") screen, and 2) Speaking of acutance, the needless anamorphic lenses have a reputation of softening the image slightly. With any projection system, all lights in the room should be off, IMO. The ambient light falling off the screen will be enough, except for very dark scenes. We give one person a flashlight, just in case. With lights off our Panasonic projector and Seymour screen produce a very bright image. You can look up a crossection of movies on IMDB, where they will give you the aspect ratio under "Technical." IMDB can usually be trusted to have the correct AR. Amazon certainly cannot. Edited August 28, 2015 by garyrc 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Well I drafted up a quick graphic showing how my front wall would look with either a 110" and a 125" 16.9 screen. Note that the grey bars represent the viewing area at 2.35. Based on this, it looks like the 125" screen will fit just fine. What do you guys think? Frontwall Comp.jpg You have room for a 2.35 common height screen there, with the same height for both 1.78:1 (or 1.85:1) as for 2.35:1, with no black bars. The results are spectacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Just about every movie I have purchased on BD is 2.35:1. I don't know for a fact but I would venture to say more BD's are in 2.35:1 than 16:9. Wow, I didn't realize that. I guess it's here now. Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted August 28, 2015 Moderators Share Posted August 28, 2015 I didn't realize myself that scope was around in the 50's and 70's. That's pretty cool 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I didn't realize myself that scope was around in the 50's and 70's. That's pretty cool The first 'scope movie was The Robe (Christ's robe) in 1953, in CinemaScope and 4 channel magnetic stereo. The Aspect Ratio was a little wider for this and the other early films in 'scope. It starred Richard Burton (largely unknown to American audiences then), Jean Simmons, and Victor Mature. It had a great score by Alfred Newman. He later created a symphonic cantata called Man of Galilee based on the scores he wrote for The Robe and The Greatest Story Ever Told. The cantata, along with other Newman works, are on a CD called Man of Galilee, LC07371. As movies, each of these was controversial among film critics. Each is worth a look, IMO, especially since you have a 2.35 screen. To me, Ben-Hur, with it's minimalist-but-powerful (regarding Christ) approach was the best of the lot. I agree with Episcopal Bishop Pike that it is the most deeply religious film ever made. Of course, it had the famous score by Rozsa. It is in Camera 65, a process using a 65 mm negative and 70 mm film, with 6 channel magnetic sound, and an aspect ratio of 2.76:1. TGSET seems slow to many people, but it was quasi-hypnotic in 70 mm, as were most 70 mm films. TGSET was in Ultra (not "Super") Panavision 70, (the same as Camera 65) with an AR of 2.76:1. Edited August 29, 2015 by garyrc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So today I stopped by a couple of local stores to see what was available in projectors. I don't recall all of the model numbers but did get to see Sony, JVC, and Epson. Of the three, the Sony appeared to have the best overall picture. I know that the Sony I looked at was the VPLHW55ES. The JVC and Epson projectors were comparable in price. There was also a Sony VPLHW40ES available that I did not get to see but one store said that the "55" was only marginally better, while the other store also carried it and said the "40" got you to about 85% of the "55." Bot are currently on sale at both stores with $1000 difference in price. The Panasonic mentioned in this thread is also intriguing but I'd like to see if I can find a place that carries it to see what the picture looks like. 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.