Which one: 2.35 or 1.78?

[ImPulSive]

I am trying to decide if I should go with a 2.35 screen or a 1.78 (16x9). I am holding off on buying anything yet until the new series of PJs are released to see if there will be any sales or significant upgrades to consider. Right now I am 99% set on the Panny AE4000, but I am still confused by which screen to get. I would love to have the money to spend on a Black Diamond screen but I can not justify the cost, especially since the room will be dedicated and I should not have any ambient lighting issues. Leaning towards a Carada screen.

My biggest question has been whether to get a 2.35 or a 1.78 screen. If I got the 2.35 screen then I could use the zoom feature of the AE4000 to resize for other AR like 1.78 but the width of my picture would be shrinking too. If I got a 1.78 screen then I could maintain a constant width and maximize the big screen affect for all content. But there must be one or more reasons why people chose 2.35 CIH screens over 1.78.

So my question is, why get a 2.35 screen when I could get a 1.78 screen?

1. Is it a masking issue with black bars on the top and bottom for content with an AR greater 1.78 and these bars are noticeable and distracting on a 1.78 screen?
2. Or is it just cost since the same width screen will have more material for a 1.78 AR?
3. What am I missing and will I be happy with 2.35 content on a 1.78 screen?

I am looking at a total screen width (frame included) of 130 inches max. Thanks.

[MrFattBill]

I opted for a 16:9 screen in the widest width my space would allow, that way I was also getting the largest 2.35:1 image my space would allow. I built a mask for the top of the screen and use the Panasonic to shift the image to the bottom of the screen for Cinemascope movies (pics in my gallery)

Bill

[ImPulSive]

Originally Posted by MrFattBill

I opted for a 16:9 screen in the widest width my space would allow, that way I was also getting the largest 2.35:1 image my space would allow. I built a mask for the top of the screen and use the Panasonic to shift the image to the bottom of the screen for Cinemascope movies (pics in my gallery)

Bill

Would you change anything about this set up if you could do it all over again? Suggestions on materials to use for mask? I was considering the 1.4 gain (Brilliant White) Carada screen so I could use the AE4000 in eco mode and extend bulb life. Since you have the AE4000, do you know the output when in eco mode? Normally it is 1600 correct? Eco mode = what? Trying to gauge brightness on screen and what gains to consider. Thanks.

[MrFattBill]

Originally Posted by ImPulSive

Would you change anything about this set up if you could do it all over again? Suggestions on materials to use for mask? I was considering the 1.4 gain (Brilliant White) Carada screen so I could use the AE4000 in eco mode and extend bulb life. Since you have the AE4000, do you know the output when in eco mode? Normally it is 1600 correct? Eco mode = what? Trying to gauge brightness on screen and what gains to consider. Thanks.

I am very happy with the setup as I have it. I had considered a fixed screen but after taking into consideration the want/need for a door to the front half of the garage in case of a power outage I decided against it (although I haven't raised the screen in a long time).

The screen is a 1.1 gain and I am pleased with the brightness in ECO mode (no way to take measurements), of course I have TOTAL light control and the wall colors were my decision as well, no WAF to worry about.

I guess if I could change one thing I would try a shorter throw distance to see if it would make THAT much of a difference in brightness in my environment. The problem is that the next closest spot I could put the projector is where the ceiling fan currently is, 2ft closer, but I don't want to lose the fan

I ended up building my mask out of extra wood I had laying around from a shelving idea we ended up not doing and both painting it with the ceiling paint and covering it in black felt (pics in the same gallery)

Good review of the projector:
http://www.projectorreviews.com/pana...erformance.php

Bill

[Flatnate]

Just thought I would toss my two cents in but for me the decision is determined by how much of each format you watch. I hardly watch much in terms of sports or t.v. and 3/4 of the movies I watch are in a cinemascope format so I guess I prefer the black bars on the side for my 16:9 viewing. I think the scope screen ratio does a lot to add to the movie theater vibe if your room allows for it and especially if you have a fixed frame screen. If your thinking of doing masking I would imagine a DIY masking solution would be easier on a 2.35 screen to mask horizontally for 16:9. You could easily make some curtains or panels using black fidelio velvet or something else similar.

[ImPulSive]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

If your thinking of doing masking I would imagine a DIY masking solution would be easier on a 2.35 screen to mask horizontally for 16:9. You could easily make some curtains or panels using black fidelio velvet or something else similar.

Would you need to side mask a 2.35 screen for non 2.35 content? The PJ will not be sending any light on that portion of the screen (no vertical black bars), unlike the bars across the top and bottom of a 2.35 video on a 1.78 screen. Would the bare white screen on the sides still be visible/noticeable for non 2.35 content in a totally darkened room?

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by ImPulSive

Would you need to side mask a 2.35 screen for non 2.35 content? The PJ will not be sending any light on that portion of the screen (no vertical black bars), unlike the bars across the top and bottom of a 2.35 video on a 1.78 screen. Would the bare white screen on the sides still be visible/noticeable for non 2.35 content in a totally darkened room?

I get what you mean. Your right the projector would not be sending any light to the sides of a 16:9 image shown on a 2.35 screen. So it should theoretically be "black" right? Well yeah, thats a lot better than the projector projecting black (grey in some cases) on the top and bottom of the frame and it is fine and dandy for most folks but thats not how they do it at your local cineplex and masking the sides of a 16:9 image really does make everything pop a lot more. Also depending on your wall color you do get a lot of light reflected back on to vertical black bars of the white screen. So a darker matte colored wall near your screen will really help with that as well. Thats why Carada makes that gorgeous (albeit expensive) automatic masking system. Seymour AV and SMX screens also makes gorgeous acoustically transparent 2.35 screens that have black panels you can put on the sides to the same effect. The other option (again pricey) is to go with a screen material like Screen Innovations Black Diamond where even with the lights on the screen looks black and it rejects a lot of ambient light and makes any black bar in a dark room look really black. Now I guess these are all pricey solutions that I have spent far too much time foaming and dreaming about but I figured I would toss em out there. I guess for me, regardless of if you do or do not use vertical masking I'd rather have vertical bars on a 2.35 screen when showing 16:9 that have no light being thrown out from the projector on to them. Also its just totally a showmanship thing man.

Ahh I had to edit this to add that I had read on another forum that a fella who works in a commercial theater says that some theaters use constant image height and some use constant image width masking or even a combination. But I guess that comparison here is really apples to oranges. I vote to go for what your main movie viewing style is and whats best for your room set up... perhaps with a low cieling then go scope, taller.. maybe go 16:9.

[#Darren]

I prefer 16x9. It gives the best size across the board when you factor in 4x3 material, and you don't have to worry about subs not appearing.

[MrFattBill]

Originally Posted by iDarren

I prefer 16x9. It gives the best size across the board when you factor in 4x3 material, and you don't have to worry about subs not appearing.

I agree with this completely. I picked the widest 16:9 screen I could fit which will also have the largest 2.35:1 image I can fit as well.

Bill

[teknipper]

I like the 16:9 format. The "black" bars on the screen never bug me. If it did, I would build a homemade masking system like FatBill did.

Tom

[MrFattBill]

Originally Posted by teknipper

I like the 16:9 format. The "black" bars on the screen never bug me. If it did, I would build a homemade masking system like FatBill did.

Tom

Best cheap upgrade I did, lol.

Bill

[Scott Parr]

Today my Carada Criterion 118" 1.78:1 screen came in. I had it installed this afternoon. I went with the Brilliant White because you can see in my HT gallery that I do not have control of light. I do not have my projector yet but that will come soon.

I was very happy with the packaging, and assembly was a breeze.

It is also designed so that if I were to desire a different gain screen, I can easily replace the surface material.

I went with the 16x9 ratio as I do watch a lot of sports / TV. I feel that a scope screen would look AMAZING on my wall but I get the best of both with my decision. 16x9 is as large as I can go, and when I'm watching a scope movie, it will also be as large as I can go.

If it bothers me, I'll come up with a masking solution.

Looking forward to many years of HT viewing :-)

- Scott

[roar]

Why go 2.35? Honestly? Because it looks cool I honestly think it looks more like a 'real' theatre. That being said, i've had a 2.35 screen for a number of years now and if I had to do it over again... and I am going to do it over again, I'd go 1.78.

I think anyone faced with this decision should let their room drive the decision. If you have more height than width available to you I think you should go 1.78 and if you have more width than height you go 2.35, that way you are maximizing your screen area. If you have more height and width than your projector can handle then the call is up to you.

[Allforce]

FatBill let me understand this, you got a 16:9 screen, and when you wanna watch a movie that has the bars on the top and bottom (2:35), you just drop down a black panel over a portion of the top of the screen? And then do you just adjust the zoom and placement of the image via the projector? Whats the main draw of this, aren't the black bars just black on the top and bottom when you're watching 2:35 content on the 16:9 screen? What does the mask accomplish if anything?

[Trogdor2010]

Depends on what content you want to watch.

I'd say for movies, 2.35:1 screen IMO. The majority of films were shot in this format and is the best way to experience them. I don't watch alot of TV or sports. I do game alot, but I found a method to play (a few) PC games in scope (see HT gallery).

[ImPulSive]

Originally Posted by Allforce

FatBill let me understand this, you got a 16:9 screen, and when you wanna watch a movie that has the bars on the top and bottom (2:35), you just drop down a black panel over a portion of the top of the screen? And then do you just adjust the zoom and placement of the image via the projector? Whats the main draw of this, aren't the black bars just black on the top and bottom when you're watching 2:35 content on the 16:9 screen? What does the mask accomplish if anything?

No projector will give you a perfect black color, i.e. the absence of all light. (I say this for the projectors that most of us can afford to buy.) There will always be some amount of light leakage even when it is supposed to be purely black and no light at all. So when content that contains black bars is projected on to a screen surface that is designed to reflect back light for viewing the image, these black bars will be noticeable. How noticeable depends on a bunch of factors like the amount of ambient light in the room, the brightness of the projector, the gain of the screen, your sensitivity to light, and the content being shown at that time. Some people will not be bothered by presence of these bars, while others will find them distracting.

FatBill's approach for a 1.78 screen is to replace the portion of the screen where these black bars would be seen with something else that will absorb that light and not reflect it back, making these black bars much less visible, perhaps even invisible.

If you have a 2.40 screen instead, you do not need to do this masking of horizontal black bars since these bars will fall off the screen's reflective surface if the projector is properly set up. In this case, you will want the area outside the screen (above and below) to absorb as much light as possible so when the black bars are projected onto that surface, they disappear. This is why manufacturers advertise black velvet borders and similar materials on their frames.

[Allforce]

That's interesting, I might look into that idea down the road. Maybe not as elaborate as FattBill's setup but the idea of masking the top of the screen and just being able to adjust the image down a bit is a cool option I never really considered before.

[beckmen]

The sheet I am using is about 2:1 (because it's folded in half), and I am happy with the ratio. You get more picture information on the sides with a 'scope' movie, and more on the top and bottom with a 'flat' movie/tv show. It's a good compromise, IMO.