Paducah Home Theater Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Seymour xd is nice primarily due to the reflective dust. Unless you have a need for it there may be more appropriate choices. Low output projectors on a huge screen, sure. A normal screen and/or a light cannon, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I believe the original scope ratio was 2.66 x 1 since that was what my 1973 Moeller 16mm projection lens ($650.00) had written on it. Also my Japanese taking lens ($140.00) on the camera which was a cheaper projection lens modified by me to fit on the camera in front of an Angenuiox ($950.00) 17 to 60 mm zoom lens. I had to clamp that lens in a lathe to do some critical turnings on the front of it to reduce the vignetting and to fit a custom coupling ring on miniature bearings to facilitate the back and forth motion when zooming. One miscue and good bye lens. JJK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I believe the original scope ratio was 2.66 x 1 since that was what my 1973 Moeller 16mm projection lens ($650.00) had written on it. Also my Japanese taking lens ($140.00) on the camera which was a cheaper projection lens modified by me to fit on the camera in front of an Angenuiox ($950.00) 17 to 60 mm zoom lens. I had to clamp that lens in a lathe to do some critical turnings on the front of it to reduce the vignetting and to fit a custom coupling ring on miniature bearings to facilitate the back and forth motion when zooming. One miscue and good bye lens. JJK Yes, the original CinemaScope was 2.66:1. After the first demonstrations, which had double system sound, they decided to put the magnetic 4 channel sound and picture on a single strip of film; that reduced the aspect ratio to 2.55:1, because the soundtracks took up so much space. A few years later, Fox decided to make most prints "magoptical," with both 4 channel stereo magnetic tracks and a mono optical track print in case the print was sent to the "boonies." That further reduced the aspect ratio to 2.35:1. At first, 35 mm Panavision used this same aspect ratio, then changed to 2.39:1 (commonly called 2.40:1). On a 2.35:1 home theater screen, 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 are not appreciably different -- the 2" black velvet screen borders to each side absorb the difference, with the height exactly the same. As I said in a former post, filmmakers generally expect the same height for every image ("common height"), but different widths, making 2.35, and similar widths, bigger. That's part of the reason for choosing 2.35, etc., over the narrow 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 (= the HDTV shape,16:9, quaintly called "widescreen" by the TV manufacturers, when it is actually narrower than most American theater screen/image shapes after about 1954). Other shapes, like the usual AR for 70 mm (2.20:1), work out well on a 2.35 screen, using the entire height, and all but about 2 inches on the sides. The only aspect ratios that call for a different height with a 2.35 screen are the rare Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70 and Camera 65 films, and those with a similar ARs (2.76:1), like Tarantino's new film. These films produce small bars on top and bottom, but look big, especially when compared to the pitiful ribbon of an image with this AR on a HDTV 16:9 screen. Edited January 22, 2016 by garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Seymour screens are great! They will either sell you the fabric or a complete screen by direct mail. They are very helpful; we exchanged several emails with them before buying. We got a 130" (wide, not diagonal) 2.35:1 acoustically transparent screen. "CinemaScope" is a trade name for the anamorphic process introduced by 20th Century Fox in 1953. It was later all but replaced by Panavision. I assume what you have in mind is a 2.35:1 screen, which was one of the CinemaScope shapes. There were other shapes in very the early history of CinemaScope. If you look at all screen shapes, by all professional cinema companies, there are at least 10 aspect ratios (shapes). They all look good on our 2.35:1 screen. As Youthman said, grey bars at the sides look better than grey bars at the top and bottom. Most filmmakers are banking on a 2.35 image being larger in screen area than the usual 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 (16:9), which is what you get with a 2.35:1 screen. The most common CinemaScope and Panavision shapes completely fill our 2.35:1 screen. I strongly recommend an acoustically transparent screen, with the center speaker behind the screen, at ear height. The Seymour models have only about 2 dB loss at 15,000 Hz. If you have Audyssey, it will totally compensate for that. Correct, the 2.35:1 format is what I'm looking for. Due to room and speaker size considerations, I have decided to not put speakers behind the screen. The center channel will be right below the screen instead. I've used this same configuration before with satisfactory results. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 Does anyone have any experience with "Silver Ticket" brand? They have some very good prices on Amazon with free shipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappydue Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 My buddy was gonna order one but he went with elite in the end. I ordered a cheap screen before from Amazon. The material was really nice. The frame is what was cheap about it. The tensioning system on it was a joke. I had to duct tape the crap out of it to get it to stay in its track. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 Does anyone have any experience with "Silver Ticket" brand? They have some very good prices on Amazon with free shipping. I did a lot of research which included the following recommendation: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-projector-screen/ and decided to go with Silver Ticket. I found a dirt-cheap price on Amazon with free shipping. Hopefully I'll like it but it appears to be a good choice (especially for the money) based on reviews I've seen. One thing I've noticed with Amazon is that prices can vary quite a bit from time-to-time. This particular scren fluctuated in price by as much as 50% over just a few weeks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxoffice Buff Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I have Ellte Lunette Series scope screen. I special ordered it from B&H Photo Video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phorm Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Does anyone have any experience with "Silver Ticket" brand? They have some very good prices on Amazon with free shipping. I did a lot of research which included the following recommendation: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-projector-screen/ and decided to go with Silver Ticket. I found a dirt-cheap price on Amazon with free shipping. Hopefully I'll like it but it appears to be a good choice (especially for the money) based on reviews I've seen. One thing I've noticed with Amazon is that prices can vary quite a bit from time-to-time. This particular scren fluctuated in price by as much as 50% over just a few weeks. Thanks for that link - great writeup. I found it very informative and it helped support my decision process. I had been comparing the Silver Ticket with the Monoprice screens so this was a nice objective comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 My Silver Ticket screen came in and I've assembled it but have not yet mounted it to the wall. Seems to be a nice screen and a great value. I got it from Amazon and it was one of those used "open box" buys -- stated to have no defects other than damaged packaging. With free shipping, I paid $164 after sales tax. it is pretty big at 138" diagonal. As noted in reviews, installation instructions are not great but it wasn't too hard to figure out how to put it together. Overall, pretty satisfied with purchase. I don't know how the performance will be once I project an image on it (still deciding on projector) but the reviews state it is comparable to most other screens priced much higher so I'm fairly sure it will do just fine. Here it is fully assembled. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted February 27, 2016 Moderators Share Posted February 27, 2016 Looks great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 can you post the dim. from top to bottom including frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 Looks great! Thanks! Think I got a great deal but what I found is if one is patient and watches the prices, they can fluctuate quite a bit. When I first looked at this screen the price was $280 shipped free and I was already leaning towards getting it after reading the review I posted above. Then there were a couple of used ones (returns most likely) that were right around $200 and I almost bought one of them. Then late one evening, I saw one "NEW" priced at $190 and one of those other "used" ones dropped down to $164. Since the "used" one had no issues, I decided to get that one. The $190 new one was sold by the next day. The current new price is showing up as $380 right now. The gray screen version is now priced at $248 (it was close to $300 when I first started looking and there was a point when I saw it at $200 for a new screen. I believe the gray screen is normally a little bit more expensive but as you can see the prices change quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 can you post the dim. from top to bottom including frame. Sure, including frame the height is 60.5" and width is 135.5". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derrickdj1 Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Heck, with a screen that wide get a few panavision films in 70 mm., lol. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Heck, with a screen that wide get a few panavision films in 70 mm., lol. Indeed! The Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia (recent edition, box marked copyright 2012 layout and design -- the earlier transfer to BD is not as good) would look and sound great. The Ben-Hur Blu-ray looks great, but the sound effects have been compressed a bit for reasons beyond all understanding. 2001: A Space Odyssey looks great, as well. L of A was in Super Panavision 70, so it has an AR of 2.20:1. So does 2001. We created a special lens memory setting for this AR, since so many good 70mm films were made in it. B-H was in Camera 65 (the same as Ultra -- not super -- Panavision 70), so it is in 2.78:1, but don't worry, it will look great on your 2.35:1 screen. You can create a lens memory setting for this AR as well, but only a few films were made in it (including the new Tarantino). Even the strangest film of all time, Last Year at Marienbad, looks much better on a 2.35:1 screen of your size (Black & White 2.35:1 in Daliscope [sp?], the French equivalent of CinemaScope). Edited February 28, 2016 by garyrc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted March 1, 2016 Author Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Just a follow-up on this screen. I have mounted the screen and was able to set up my way outdated projector with it and got a very nice picture with it. Especially when considering the price paid for a large 2.35:1 screen, I don' think I could've made a better choice. While I have a relatively dark room, even during the day I was able to get a very dececent picture. I can certainly recommend Silver Ticket for anyone that doesen't want to spend a ton on a screen. Edited March 1, 2016 by JMON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Youthman Posted March 1, 2016 Moderators Share Posted March 1, 2016 Just goes to show you that you don't have to buy a $1500 screen to get a great picture. There are guys that have painted a flat wall white and get great results. The silver on white fabric is supposed to help with contrast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J M O N Posted March 1, 2016 Author Share Posted March 1, 2016 Very true! Silver Ticket offers white, gray, acoutically transparent, and "silver" screen materials. Each can be optimum for different conditions. They also sell curved screens. I contacted them to help make a decision on which to get. In my case, I have a relatively dark room so white is what was recommended for me. Anyone that is looking to purchase a screen should at least consider this brand. Free shipping from Amazon also helps quite a bit (I don't have Amazon Prime -- so it is free for everyone). 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.