Quote:

I'm probably just starting to discover what the movie industry has known for years, but here goes...

My screen right now is a 4x8 piece of matte white Formica, which is working surprisingly well. This allows roughly 104" diagonal on 2.35:1 movies (96x41) and 97" diagonal on 16:9 movies (85x48). Viewing distance is about 12 feet, just far enough that I don't see any screen door effect unless move closer.

When I watch films with fast action at 16:9 I seem to "lose the picture", ie I feel like there is too much happening for me to keep an eye on everything. Oddly enough, when watching a 2.35:1 movie with slightly higher magnification and larger diagonal (104" vs. 97") I have no such problem.

I used to think that going with a 2.35:1 screen would mean I would lose the ability to have a "nice sized" image when watching 16:9 movies, but it is now starting to appear that the larger 16:9 image may be too big for my eyes and brain anyways.

Has anyone else noticed this effect ? I did a casual search on the net for information but it was kinda late so it wasn't a very intensive search.

This is, regrettably, another small step towards a 2.35:1 CH arrangement. Help, I'm slipping down the slope...



You lost me but I am late to the game anyway. Unless you are running CH on your formica, then the 16:9 image should be longer diagonally than a 2.35. I have a graywolf 106" that is almost exactly 8 feet wide. In 2.35 mode, non constant height, I am probably down to the 97 or so you have listed for 16:9. Does that sound right?

Greg