Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
#366710 02/15/12 07:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,422
axiomite
OP Offline
axiomite
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,422
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
single choice
1.78:1 (42%, 5 Votes)
2.35:1 (58%, 7 Votes)
Total Votes: 12
Voting on this poll ends: 02/19/12 02:00 AM

Farewell - June 4, 2020
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366718 02/15/12 07:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,955
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,955
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.
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366722 02/15/12 08:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,422
axiomite
OP Offline
axiomite
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,422
That is my problem. It thought is was clear cut... Now I am not so sure.


Farewell - June 4, 2020
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
Murph #366723 02/15/12 08:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210
Originally Posted By: Murph
There seems to be no escaping the bars.


Sounds like my younger days Murph.


Rick
Our Room

smile
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366724 02/15/12 08:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,471
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


Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366725 02/15/12 08:28 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
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.

Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
RickF #366732 02/15/12 08:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
shareholder in the making
Offline
shareholder in the making
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,458
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 :::::::
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366735 02/15/12 09:01 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 110
A
veteran
Offline
veteran
A
Joined: Jul 2010
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
Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
nickbuol #366736 02/15/12 09:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 504
N
aficionado
Offline
aficionado
N
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 504
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.

Re: 1.78 or 2.35 screen size? Your opinion
avjunkee #366737 02/15/12 09:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
axiomite
Offline
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,015
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.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Link Copied to Clipboard

Need Help Graphic

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics24,940
Posts442,457
Members15,616
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
Top Posters
Ken.C 18,044
pmbuko 16,441
SirQuack 13,840
CV 12,077
MarkSJohnson 11,458
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 136 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newsletter Signup
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4