Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Blind Listening Tests

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Wall'O'Fame
Experimental Atmos
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
Who's Online
0 registered (), 49 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13329 Members
11 Forums
22920 Topics
405219 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17789
pmbuko 16289
SirQuack 13341
CV 11236
MarkSJohnson 10942
Meanwhile On Facebook

Did you get your "Golden Email"? The great gift certificate email giveaway star...

Here's a helpful article for everyone looking at putting a new stereo or home th...

Interesting article about who's getting the money from streaming radio services...

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#366710 - 02/15/12 02:24 PM 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4516
Loc: Marion, IA
So in my theater build, I was set for the longest time on a 2.35:1 screen width to height ratio. These are for the really wide (scope) movies that are just pure awesome... Well, anyway, I was talking to a guy at work, and he has the more traditional 1.78:1 ratio (regular HDTV format)and likes it a lot. I really like the look/feel of the wider 2.35:1 format for the room. Seems more theater like than a giant living room TV feel

I had a 104" 1.78:1 in my previous theater, and the bars at the top and the bottom always drove me nuts. I tried making a masking system, and it was great in design, but a pain in construction and usability. My new projector has motorized screen shift, zoom, and focus with memory presets, so it can really do whatever I want without an expensive lens system (I know the benefits, but I also know the costs of using a lens).

So here is the question. In order to get the 2.35:1 screen to the size that I want (width limited in the room) I would have a viewable screen size of about 52" tall by 122" wide. That comes to a 133" diagonal image. With my projector, it is basically "zooming" to make the image fit that size, and letting the black "bars" at the top project off of the screen on to a black background/wall. Viewing HDTV on this screen would yield a 106" diagonal image with black bars on the sides. We rarely watched TV in our theater, so the primary use would be movies and less HDTV format than others might watch.

OR, for the same width (since that is my limit), I could get an extra 16" in height on the HDTV (1.78:1) format and end up with a 140" 1.78:1 image, and still the same 52" x 122" (133" diag) image of the 2.35:1.

The problem comes back to needing to mask off the screen. I can't use curtains since I will be going with an acoustically transparent wall for the screen with the speakers behind it. So I would need to make some rigid panels if I wanted to block off the extra screen height (or width for that matter).

Thoughts? Practical experience?
1.78 or 2.35
Only one choice allowed (12 total votes)
1.78:1 - 5 (42%)
2.35:1 - 7 (58%)
Voting on this poll ends: 02/18/12 09:00 PM
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#366718 - 02/15/12 02:58 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
Murph Offline
axiomite

Registered: 10/05/06
Posts: 6864
Loc: PEI, Canada
I went with 2.4:1 because I knew I would primarily watching movies.

However, I didn't vote as there is no longer any easy answer. I have watched movies that I discovered were filmed in 1.78:1 (Avatar) and I have a lot of concert videos and they seem even more random. Plus, there are a bunch of movies shot in 1.85:1.

In the end, I think it just comes down to whether you like horizontal bars or vertical bars. There seems to be no escaping the bars.
_________________________
With great power comes Awesome irresponsibility.

Top
#366722 - 02/15/12 03:15 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
nickbuol Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4516
Loc: Marion, IA
That is my problem. It thought is was clear cut... Now I am not so sure.
_________________________
http://ht.buol.us
M60s, VP180, VP150, QS8s, SVS 20-39PCi, HTPC, JVC RS45, Onkyo TX-NR709, Shakers

Top
#366723 - 02/15/12 03:26 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: Murph]
RickF Offline
axiomite

Registered: 02/26/05
Posts: 5210
Loc: Vero Beach, Florida
Originally Posted By: Murph
There seems to be no escaping the bars.


Sounds like my younger days Murph.
_________________________
Rick
Our Room

smile

Top
#366724 - 02/15/12 03:26 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
medic8r Offline
axiomite

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 6402
Loc: Fredericksburg, Virginia
Yeah, I'm with Murph. The bars will be there for some portion of your viewing experience.

I wondered the same thing - aspect ratio - when I did my HT back in 2006. At that time, there were a lot more movies in 1.85:1 than there were in 2.35:1, and I watched a fair amount of HDTV off of DirecTV, so I was (am) happy that I went with a 1.85:1 screen. Remember, there's some really good TV programming out there - Palladia, NatGeo, HBO, Showtime, etc - so I wonder if you may end up watching more TV than you think. I know that I've enjoyed True Blood and Dexter in the HT a lot more than I did when I watched them on my 42" TV upstairs.

Still, there's a part of me that wonders what a 2.35:1 screen would be like.

I think that you can make a case that either screen is correct.

Glad to be of help! crazy
_________________________
"The Universe is the game of the self, which plays hide and seek forever and ever" - Alan Watts

Top
#366725 - 02/15/12 03:28 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 5914
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
I'm a big fan of the wider screen. More cinematic. I haven't watched a narrower image on one of these 2.35:1 screens yet, so I don't know how the bars would affect anything. There is a store locally that has a 2.40:1 screen where I could check this out, which I probably should do one of these days.

I also plan on going with an AT 2.35:1 screen one of these days, but because of space limitations it would be either a 9 or 10 foot wide screen. I'm thinking just leaving the bars uncovered, unless it's too distracting, which I doubt it would be, but you never know for sure.

Top
#366732 - 02/15/12 03:37 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: RickF]
MarkSJohnson Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 10942
Loc: Central NH
Originally Posted By: RickF
Originally Posted By: Murph
There seems to be no escaping the bars.


Sounds like my younger days Murph.

::Like:: grin
_________________________
::::::: No disrespect to Axiom, but my favorite woofer is my yellow lab :::::::

Top
#366735 - 02/15/12 04:01 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
avjunkee Offline
veteran

Registered: 07/28/10
Posts: 110
Most people generally perceive the taller 1.78 image as feeling "bigger" despite the 2.35 image being wider. Going 1.78 gives you the most flexibility and best of both worlds (in terms of acheiving max image size regardless of content ratio), but it sounds like the top/bottom bars might bother you too much. Also, some don't like having a 1.78 movie "feel" bigger than a 2.35 one so they go with a 2.35 screen in order to get a smaller 1.78 image.
_________________________
M80s, VP180, QS8s, EP800 v3

Top
#366736 - 02/15/12 04:02 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: nickbuol]
Nick B Offline
devotee

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 496
Nick,

Here are some nice links on your question that may help.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1001579

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=112329

http://www.seymourav.com/screensfixed.asp

The AVS link suggests to put the speakers in the 16:9 area of your 2:35 screen or perhaps even have a motorized sled of something that moves the main speakers depending on the aspect ratio, among other suggestions.

The Seymour company mentions a AT masking panel called Millibel. When I stumbled upon these links last summer I remember reading that there are affordable AT masking options. So maybe the mains can be placed behind the masking????? Or maybe they are suggesting that you want the masking to be as AT as possible so that there is minimal coloration when the speaker is placed behind the screen in the 16:9 area, but close to the edge of it. If you click on the "store" link on the Seymour website you can see the pricing for the screens and masking is quite reasonable at $1500 to $2000.

I too would like to have a super wide 2:35 screen that goes slightly into my peripheral vision, for that extra immersion into the movie. It seems that the only way that the audio would work with this wide of a screen is with an AT screen. Please keep us informed as to what you end up doing, so that we can see some real-world options.

Top
#366737 - 02/15/12 04:12 PM Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion [Re: avjunkee]
CatBrat Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/05/09
Posts: 5914
Loc: Milky Way Galaxy
Originally Posted By: avjunkee
Also, some don't like having a 1.78 movie "feel" bigger than a 2.35 one so they go with a 2.35 screen in order to get a smaller 1.78 image.


Actually, I'd go 2.35:1 in order to get a bigger 2.35:1 image. %#@*&! the 1.78 image.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.