>>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.

That's what I expected as well, but if you pull out the calculator the 2.35 actually ends up with a bigger diagonal. The 2.35 image is limited by the width at 41x96 or ~104" diagonal, while the 16:9 image is limited by the height to 48 x 85 or about 97" diagonal.

Note that the area of the two screens is actually a better measurement than the diagonal. The 2.35:1 screen area is 3936 in^2 while the 16:9 screen area is 4176 in^2, so the 16:9 image is larger even though the diagonal is smaller.

>>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?

It depends on how high your screen is. If it's a 16:9 106" screen then the height will be more like 54" high (4-1/2 feet) so you will get an honest 106" diagonal.

You have a nice big screen there -- bigger than mine -- so you have more flexibility. If I were buying a real screen (rather than coasting with the Formica until I figured out what I should get) then something like your screen would be at the top of my list.

Last edited by bridgman; 09/11/06 03:26 AM.

M60ti, VP180, QS8, M2ti, EP500, PC-Plus 20-39
M5HP, M40ti, Sierra-1
LFR1100 active, ADA1500-4 and -8