Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Storm damage to HT room?

One more thing that I really liked about the HT room in the store I went to was the wall lights. They said that they used to use sconces like I was wanting, but they replaced them with something better. They built their own sound dampeners on the wall that were about 2 feet wide and 3 feet tall. They were framed like a picture. They stood out about 2 inches from the wall. They had some smaller framing on the wall side, where you couldn't see it that was about 5 inches smaller all around. then 2 rows of LCD rope light was wound around that inner area. This was attached to a dimmer switch.

Thanks for the links, Jason. It's going to take me some time to go over these. I don't have Excel, so I can't use the calculator, though.

Though some people prefer it I see no reason to sacrifice image height (constant image height (CIH)) of a native 1.78/1.85:1 or 1.33:1 picture to fit it on a 2.35/2.40:1 screen either by zooming the picture or using an anamorphic lens unless you are restricted by the height of the screen you can use. I chose to buy the widest screen I could fit on my wall which also turned out to be highest 1.78:1 or 16x9 I could use. That way I have the best of all worlds IMO by having the biggest image I can possibly have in any native format displayed the way it was produced.

Although when displaying 2.35/2.40:1 images I have horizontal “black bars” I can shift the image down to the bottom of my screen so that there is only one bar at the top and cover that area with DIY masking thus turning my 1.78:1 screen into a 2.35 or 2.40 screen. For 1.33:1 (4x3) I have vertical bars on each side of the screen but since this is typically TV (older) fare I don’t even bother masking it.

If you plan on only or mainly watching 2.35/2.40:1 movies then having a higher screen may not matter. However, if you plan on also watching a lot of 1.78/1.85:1 movies or 16x9 HDTV or video and computer games or 4x3 TV shows then IMO a 1.78:1 screen is the way to go especially since you already plan to go AT which means your speaker will fit behind it.


The PTAE4000 uses memorized zoom settings to scale an image to the screen size. This works well but does sacrifice image brightness when scaling from the native 16x9 resolution to any other resolution. Note that it also maintains the original image ratio so a 1.78:1 image displayed on a 2.40 screen will sill be 1.78 just much smaller in height and with “black” bars on the sides. An anamorphic lens will not sacrifice brightness and will stretch the image to fit the width of the screen but the height will still be smaller. Almost if not any projector can be manually zoomed in and out to fit any image to any size screen up to the limit of the screens width or height depending on the resolution of the image. The new Epson may also have the memorized presets now but I’m not sure.

Been doing some more measuring....

If I butt the 120 inch diag 2.35:1 screen in frame right up against the ceiling, that only leaves 30 inches of space under the screen. I doubt that I'd want the screen any lower than that.

Nope probably not. It looked like the wall was taller when I first looked at the picture.

I think having the picture right against the ceiling most likely isn't the best scenario either, possible reflections off the ceiling might be annoying.

True. I'm going to paint the entire ceiling and the front (so many feet, but don't know yet), a flat black, so hopefully that won't be a problem. Each size screen smaller is 7 inches narrower and 3 inches shorter, so downsizing the screen size isn't helping much. By the time I get one with an extra foot of clearance at the top, it's a whole 28 inches narrower. Not a real good option.

It wouldn't be right on the ceiling, but close. The frame would be about 2 inches and I would mount the frame about 2 inches away, so there would be at least 4 inches between screen and ceiling. This is a problem going with a wide screen and only having 7 foot (minus about 3 inches for drywall and flooring) ceilings.

I think I've just about talked myself into installing Dri-Core subflooring, for 2 reasons. #1 reason is to help keep the floor warmer by putting another layer between you and the concrete, and #2 reason is to keep the floor dry, just in-case another leak develops in the wall sometime in the future. Not going to install it in the entire floor, just inside the HT room, leaving a small gap for ventilation and inspection around the parameter of the room.

The dricore won't make the floor any warmer, because anything you put down for flooring will have some sort of thermal break between it and the floor ie. carpet underlay or laminate floor underlay which has a foam backing. It also won't cause any problems except for the added expense and the raising of the floor height in an already height challenged area. The dryness factor with your older house and previous issues makes it more of a requirement.

Cat, prior to totally overhauling my basement entertainment room, I did extensive research on installing a subfloor that would have an insulating factor. From all of the research I did, I found that this type of modular subfloor was the best option.

If only I had the room for both. Dri-core allows for better moisture management, but it's R-value is only 1.6. Barricade has an R-value of 3.2, but very little, if any moisture management capabilities.

It would seem to me that Dri-core with a good carpet pad and carpeting would be the best choice.