Projector Screen Recommendations?

[Dack]

I think I've decided on the Panasonic PT-AE7000u as my projector, but was curious if anyone had any screens they'd recommend?

I'd like to do an Electric one (unless there's any reservations about them) and I think I've decided on going 16:9 (unless anyone can convince me otherwise).

As size is not a problem for me, I was also wondering if there's a certain size you shouldn't go over in fear of degrading the picture quality?

[Almadacr]

Size will be a problem if your maximum trow distance is for example 12ft , you should't go with a 150" screen .

You have several brands from Da-lite , Elite screens etc .

But you should start with the Calculator pro at projector central to know what is the best trowing measure for your specific room .

[victorvondoom88]

The 7000 does have a lens memory feature that would allow you to go with a cinemascope screen (2.35:1 or 2.40:1).

I have found that more of the movies & even TV shows I watch are 2.35:1-2.40:1 than 1.78:1 (16:9)-1.85:1 so I went with a 120" 2.35:1 screen. With my previous projector I had 100" 16:9 screen. With the set up I have now I have roughly 96-97" 16:9 image and a 120" 2.35:1 image.

So when I watch 16:9 material I have what looks like black bars on the sides but in reality there actually nothing being projected there. I'm going to make some kind of masking system at some point.

When I watch scope movies I use the entire screen no bars. Some that have seen my set up first hand find that not using the entire screen in 16:9 mode is odd until I put in a scope blu-ray and fill the whole screen up. Then its like

You can check out my gallery for some pictures there are 3 folders, screen shots, old set up(16:9 screen) & home theater. You can compare the screens as they are both mounted in the same place/same room.
I went with a Carada so its a fixed frame screen and there aren't many electric scope screens. There are a few though.

In the end you have to decide whats right for you. In my situation I couldn't go much bigger than 100" with a 16:9 format because I would've had to keep moving my center channel lower. Going scope allowed me to get a lot bigger picture for most of my blu-ray watching the trade off being a slightly (~3") smaller 16:9 image.

[Dack]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

The 7000 does have a lens memory feature that would allow you to go with a cinemascope screen (2.35:1 or 2.40:1).

I have found that more of the movies & even TV shows I watch are 2.35:1-2.40:1 than 1.78:1 (16:9)-1.85:1 so I went with a 120" 2.35:1 screen. With my previous projector I had 100" 16:9 screen. With the set up I have now I have roughly 96-97" 16:9 image and a 120" 2.35:1 image.

So when I watch 16:9 material I have what looks like black bars on the sides but in reality there actually nothing being projected there. I'm going to make some kind of masking system at some point.

When I watch scope movies I use the entire screen no bars. Some that have seen my set up first hand find that not using the entire screen in 16:9 mode is odd until I put in a scope blu-ray and fill the whole screen up. Then its like

You can check out my gallery for some pictures there are 3 folders, screen shots, old set up(16:9 screen) & home theater. You can compare the screens as they are both mounted in the same place/same room.
I went with a Carada so its a fixed frame screen and there aren't many electric scope screens. There are a few though.

In the end you have to decide whats right for you. In my situation I couldn't go much bigger than 100" with a 16:9 format because I would've had to keep moving my center channel lower. Going scope allowed me to get a lot bigger picture for most of my blu-ray watching the trade off being a slightly (~3") smaller 16:9 image.

Now you're tempting me!

Is using the lens memory feature and what not to project 2:35:1 difficult?

[Pure-Evil]

you really want a FIXED FRAME screen.
try http://www.buildyourownprojectorscreen.com for cheap but awesome material.

if you get an electric you WILL get the "W" wave in it eventually if not right away and you WILL notice it in your picture. If you get an electric, and it's a must, make sure it's tab tensioned.

[Dack]

Originally Posted by Pure-Evil

you really want a FIXED FRAME screen.
try http://www.buildyourownprojectorscreen.com for cheap but awesome material.

if you get an electric you WILL get the "W" wave in it eventually if not right away and you WILL notice it in your picture. If you get an electric, and it's a must, make sure it's tab tensioned.

Unfortunately, my home theatre area can only support a retractable screen.

This is one I have in mind:

http://www.amazon.com/Elite-TE138C-E16-CineTension2-Electric-Projection/dp/tech-data/B004PTMU14

[Dusso Janladde]

Originally Posted by Dack

and I think I've decided on going 16:9 (unless anyone can convince me otherwise).

Ideally, your screen should be both as wide and as tall as the available wall space for it, regardless of aspect ratio. Any projected image should fill either the full height or full width of it.

For example, if your available screen space was 112" wide by 84" high, you'd be best off with a 1.33:1 (4:3) screen. At the other extreme, if you available screen space was 129" wide by 58" high, you'd be best off with a 2.35:1 screen.

[Dack]

Originally Posted by Dusso Janladde

Ideally, your screen should be both as wide and as tall as the available wall space for it, regardless of aspect ratio. Any projected image should fill either the full height or full width of it.

For example, if your available screen space was 112" wide by 84" high, you'd be best off with a 1.33:1 (4:3) screen. At the other extreme, if you available screen space was 129" wide by 58" high, you'd be best off with a 2.35:1 screen.

Yeah, the room is super long and not overly high, so I think Im going 2:35:1 so long as its not difficult to project in that ratio with the panasonic.

[Pure-Evil]

Originally Posted by Dusso Janladde

Ideally, your screen should be both as wide and as tall as the available wall space for it, regardless of aspect ratio. Any projected image should fill either the full height or full width of it.

For example, if your available screen space was 112" wide by 84" high, you'd be best off with a 1.33:1 (4:3) screen. At the other extreme, if you available screen space was 129" wide by 58" high, you'd be best off with a 2.35:1 screen.

dude. that is just wrong. plain wrong. wtf are you thinking? NO ONE should ever have a 4:3 screen. period

[Pure-Evil]

Originally Posted by Dack

Yeah, the room is super long and not overly high, so I think Im going 2:35:1 so long as its not difficult to project in that ratio with the panasonic.

you'll need an anamorphic lense...that's going to be $$$

[rpatt]

I bought a PT-AE7000 and plan to get the screen that you linked to but in 106". I need to have an electric roll up as I want to still use my wall mounted flat screen. As mentioned, you can use the AE7000 in 2.35:1 with the lens memory feature. Are you getting a new or used AE7000? The reason I'm asking is that the first run of these had a flicker problem and it is still not clear if it was the lamp, ballast or software. Panasonic is not being very open with this problem. You should read through this thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1363959

[Dack]

Originally Posted by rpatt

I bought a PT-AE7000 and plan to get the screen that you linked to but in 106". I need to have an electric roll up as I want to still use my wall mounted flat screen. As mentioned, you can use the AE7000 in 2.35:1 with the lens memory feature. Are you getting a new or used AE7000? The reason I'm asking is that the first run of these had a flicker problem and it is still not clear if it was the lamp, ballast or software. Panasonic is not being very open with this problem. You should read through this thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1363959

Thanks for the link! I plan to get a new AE7000.

How complicated is the lens memory feature to use? Would I still need an anamorphic lens?

Any other complications projecting in that ratio, or just mount the projector as you normally would?

[roar]

Originally Posted by Pure-Evil

dude. that is just wrong. plain wrong. wtf are you thinking? NO ONE should ever have a 4:3 screen. period

With proper masking why not? I think you should always let your room dictate your aspect ratio and I believe you should maximize your area and if that means you have more height than width there is nothing wrong with 4:3... especially if you watch a lot of 4:3 content. It may not work for you but it doesn't make it wrong.

[roar]

Originally Posted by Dack

Thanks for the link! I plan to get a new AE7000.

How complicated is the lens memory feature to use? Would I still need an anamorphic lens?

Any other complications projecting in that ratio, or just mount the projector as you normally would?

The lens memory is easy to use from anything I've read, I imagine if you can figure out how to get your screen on the wall and the projector on the ceiling you can figure out the lens memory.

When using the lens memory you don't need an anamorphic lens, you are doing a 'poor man's 2.35' setup, which means you can do 2.35 without the added expense of a lens and a system to move that lens around.

I ran one for years where I manually zoomed my picture to fit my 2.35 screen for 2.35 content and then zoomed it the other way for the 1.78 content, the lens memory would have saved me having to get up to do it is all.

I'm pretty sure the 7000 also has the vertical stretch required to 2.35 with an anamorphic lens which is the other way you could go, but then you need a way to get the lens out of the way when watching content that isn't 2.35.

If you're room is wider than tall and you can maximize your screen area with a 2.35 or greater screen go for it, hard to beat that experience.

[sonic_debauchery]

http://www.htdepot.com/default.asp

If you are at all interested in the 3d use of your new projector your going to want a 1.2 to 1.4 gain screen so the 3d ness is not to dark.

The tab tensioned screens are a great price, but you can get 2 of the regular screens for the price of the tab tensioned. I spoke to the forum member who has screens made by focupix ( you'll see in the htdepot gallery) and he hasn't had a noticeable problem with his screen.

[Pure-Evil]

well i mention the tab tensioned because the W wave creates valleys that cause distortion in the image, and shadows and it drove me nutz. some might not care...but if you are going to do it...do it right!

btw. personally I would steer far far away from Panasonic projectors. Just my .02 but the software they use to soften the screen door effect basically blurs your image so you never get a sharp crisp picture. I have seen many and I've always hated the picture on the Panasonics. Make sure you do some comparisons with other brands like Mitsubishi, Benq, Sim2 etc.

[Flatnate]

Before Pure-Evil totally scares you away from the Panasonic you can read this article about Pansonics smooth-screen technology here: http://www.cine4home.com/know-how/4-...sharpness.html .

LCD projectors do have slightly greater inter-pixel gap than some other technologies but then I can still make out occasional rainbow artifacts on even the newest single chip DLP projectors. Thats a deal breaker for me, I'd rather get the Panny. Personally, I'm a fan of the LCOS technology myself (also known as D-ILA with JVC and SXRD with Sony).

Just to say it again, but you will not need an anamorphic lens if you elect to use the zoom/lens memory on the PT-AE7000 for a 2.35:1 screen. Personally I'd go for the JVC RS45 if you can swing it. You still have 3D, lens memory for 2.35:1, better black levels without a dynamic iris, smaller interpixel gap (no smooth-screen technology to do it really). On the other hand, the Panasonic is brighter than the JVC if your serious about 3D or sports in a room thats not completely light controlled. Every projector has their strengths and weaknesses in the end.

Check out http://www.projectorreviews.com/ . Find the projector your interested in and at the end of every write-up Art will usually talk about how that machine compares to the competition.

[HyperRealist]

Originally Posted by Pure-Evil

you'll need an anamorphic lense...that's going to be $$$

No you do not need a anamorphic lens. I have a 2.35 screen with no lens. Just zoom. Anamorphic lens is the biggest waste of money ever.

[Pure-Evil]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Before Pure-Evil totally scares you away from the Panasonic you can read this article about Pansonics smooth-screen technology here: http://www.cine4home.com/know-how/4-...sharpness.html .

LCD projectors do have slightly greater inter-pixel gap than some other technologies but then I can still make out occasional rainbow artifacts on even the newest single chip DLP projectors. Thats a deal breaker for me, I'd rather get the Panny. Personally, I'm a fan of the LCOS technology myself (also known as D-ILA with JVC and SXRD with Sony).

Just to say it again, but you will not need an anamorphic lens if you elect to use the zoom/lens memory on the PT-AE7000 for a 2.35:1 screen. Personally I'd go for the JVC RS45 if you can swing it. You still have 3D, lens memory for 2.35:1, better black levels without a dynamic iris, smaller interpixel gap (no smooth-screen technology to do it really). On the other hand, the Panasonic is brighter than the JVC if your serious about 3D or sports in a room thats not completely light controlled. Every projector has their strengths and weaknesses in the end.

Check out http://www.projectorreviews.com/ . Find the projector your interested in and at the end of every write-up Art will usually talk about how that machine compares to the competition.

I know EXACTLY what it is..and how it works. I'm just giving my $.02 and that is that I would never buy any projector that has this function enabled and not able to turn it off. It blurs the image quality and for me a sharp crisp picture with bright colours and deep blacks is what I'm going for. I'm not interested in losing the SDE because I have my room set up properly..where my seating distance is far enough away that it is not noticable.

The problem with most theaters in homes is that people want a 130" screen sitting only 10 feet away. You will see the SDE no matter what you do. If you sit at a proper distance, you'll be all set.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Dack

Now you're tempting me!

Is using the lens memory feature and what not to project 2:35:1 difficult?

Sorry for the late response. No there is good instructions in the manual for proper throw distance. I had to make an extension to move my projector back an additional 2 feet I think to make it work for me but that was upgrading from a 16:9 set up.

Once you have it set you save it in the memory. I have two presets one named 2.35:1 & one named 16:9. Its a few simple button pushes and Pow! Pow!

There is even a automatic function that will do it for you. I turned it off because of films like TDK that switch formats repeatedly, also because I watch TV on it and some commercials are scope-ish and some are not and likewise with the shows themselves.