Projection screen
- Thread starter jamhead
- Start date
http://myhometheater.homestead.com/view ... lator.html
http://hometheaterhero.com/htcalc.html
Personally I find the THX recommendations on the small side.
http://hometheaterhero.com/htcalc.html
Personally I find the THX recommendations on the small side.
jamhead
Well-Known Member
Here's my problem. My wife and I agreed to start to seriously plan out a video display for my dedicated room.
My room is set up for audio, and I don't want to change that....that is, I don't want to rotate the room 90 degrees due to the sloped ceiling on one half of the room (the current front half). Also, I'm designing this room knowing it's limitations (max seating will be 5 people...but we never watch movies with guests...only my family).
So, the front of the room declines from 10' to 5ft. The space between the main speakers, and on top of the center channel is 6' 3". Due to this, and the fact that there are dormers behind the main speakers, I don't have a desire to use a fixed screen (also wouldn't like the appearance in my room). So, I'm looking at motorized (tensioned) screens. My center channel is 20" tall, leaving me a maximum space above my center to the ceiling of 56". Looking at various screens, it seems 56" of total height from the top of the casing to the top of my center channel is light....most 92" screens require 60". One screen "may" fit, but it would be very tight. If I move my screen towards the viewer, it will raise it off the floor more due to the ceiling slope, but my fear will be that it will hinder audio as it will affect imaging as it'll be in front of the baffle line of the main speakers. The next size screen that I can tell (tensioned) is 84", which may be too small for my liking.
I've held sheets up for 84" and 90", and I could see a definite difference between the two. The 90" covers the top 1" of my center channel.
My throw distance will be 10 ft or so, which is pretty close.
Any ideas from the pros?
My room is set up for audio, and I don't want to change that....that is, I don't want to rotate the room 90 degrees due to the sloped ceiling on one half of the room (the current front half). Also, I'm designing this room knowing it's limitations (max seating will be 5 people...but we never watch movies with guests...only my family).
So, the front of the room declines from 10' to 5ft. The space between the main speakers, and on top of the center channel is 6' 3". Due to this, and the fact that there are dormers behind the main speakers, I don't have a desire to use a fixed screen (also wouldn't like the appearance in my room). So, I'm looking at motorized (tensioned) screens. My center channel is 20" tall, leaving me a maximum space above my center to the ceiling of 56". Looking at various screens, it seems 56" of total height from the top of the casing to the top of my center channel is light....most 92" screens require 60". One screen "may" fit, but it would be very tight. If I move my screen towards the viewer, it will raise it off the floor more due to the ceiling slope, but my fear will be that it will hinder audio as it will affect imaging as it'll be in front of the baffle line of the main speakers. The next size screen that I can tell (tensioned) is 84", which may be too small for my liking.
I've held sheets up for 84" and 90", and I could see a definite difference between the two. The 90" covers the top 1" of my center channel.
My throw distance will be 10 ft or so, which is pretty close.
Any ideas from the pros?
I might suggest you get a projector first and play around with image sizes while using the wall or a sheet or something.
In my previous house when I was making the move to a front projection system for the first time, I was sitting about 6-7 feet from where the screen was going to go. I had an almost 80" image up on the wall and I thought it was friggin' awesome! It wasn't so big that I need to turn my head or even move my eyes to view one side or the other but it was big enough to offer some serious in-your-face IMAX wow factor! I was going to be ordering an 80" screen the next day when a friend came over to check it out. Within a minute, he got dizzy and thought he was going to be sick. I had to dial it back down closer to 60" to make him comfortable. I didn't want this to occur with anyone else so I opted for a 64" screen.
My point? This could've been you. There's no point in buying a 100" screen if it's going to make you queazy and uncomfortable. So you might want to learn your limits first.
In my previous house when I was making the move to a front projection system for the first time, I was sitting about 6-7 feet from where the screen was going to go. I had an almost 80" image up on the wall and I thought it was friggin' awesome! It wasn't so big that I need to turn my head or even move my eyes to view one side or the other but it was big enough to offer some serious in-your-face IMAX wow factor! I was going to be ordering an 80" screen the next day when a friend came over to check it out. Within a minute, he got dizzy and thought he was going to be sick. I had to dial it back down closer to 60" to make him comfortable. I didn't want this to occur with anyone else so I opted for a 64" screen.
My point? This could've been you. There's no point in buying a 100" screen if it's going to make you queazy and uncomfortable. So you might want to learn your limits first.
jamhead
Well-Known Member
Zing said:
That's hilarious...I can see you sitting 6ft from an 80" image...big ass grin on your face.
No...I have a problem different than most...the width of the screen isn't the problem...it's the friggin height. When I had the sheet up (90") I could tell 100" would work too (for me...not sure about the wife).
The height issue is a pain in the ass....
Zing said:
That's what I did. Good advice. Doing that also helped me with screen placement. I used three push pins that I stuck in the walls at the edges of the projected image to give me my height and width. I know you're not building your screen, but just pointing out another advantage of playing around with image sizes first.
jamhead
Well-Known Member
Does anyone happen to know the conversion of picture size from 2.35 to 16:9? I've been thinking about it, and one option, though pricey, may be to use an electric screen with a 2.35 ratio instead of 16:9. The room will be for BR mostly, some concert video and football games.
Also, any downside for using a 2.35 screen for 16:9 movies/sports/tv/etc?
I thought I read to multiply the diagonal of a 2.35 screen by 0.9472 to convert to an equal 16:9 size....so, a 103" 2.35 screen would be equivalent to 97" as a 16:9. Does this sound right?
Also, I imagine the image height would change as well, so the 16:9 material will be quite a bit smaller on a 2.35 screen. But, since height is my limiting factor, I'm thinking I can get a wider 2.35 screen....
Oh, one projector I'm looking into is a JVC RS45, which has a nice memory feature whereby a 2.35 and 16.9 image is entered into memory, than will play either without the need for zooming,etc.
Is my thought process f'd?
Also, any downside for using a 2.35 screen for 16:9 movies/sports/tv/etc?
I thought I read to multiply the diagonal of a 2.35 screen by 0.9472 to convert to an equal 16:9 size....so, a 103" 2.35 screen would be equivalent to 97" as a 16:9. Does this sound right?
Also, I imagine the image height would change as well, so the 16:9 material will be quite a bit smaller on a 2.35 screen. But, since height is my limiting factor, I'm thinking I can get a wider 2.35 screen....
Oh, one projector I'm looking into is a JVC RS45, which has a nice memory feature whereby a 2.35 and 16.9 image is entered into memory, than will play either without the need for zooming,etc.
Is my thought process f'd?
Using your example above, a 103" 2.35:1 has an image height of 40.330". The 16:9 screen size that uses the same height is a hair under 83". These numbers are produced using an app called videocalc, assuming its correct these should be fairly accurate...
jamhead
Well-Known Member
Thanks Batman. So, using the image height as the limiting size factor for my screen, looks like if I get an 84" 16:9 screen, I'll max out my height requirement when factoring in casing and a 2" border around the visible screen. Looks like most 84" 16:9 screens have a height of about 56" total.
If I use a 2.35 screen, I'll get the same 16.9 size image (about 84") but a much larger 2.35 image.
Is there a downside to using a 2.35 screen? Do you think a PJ like the JVC with zoom memory would be good, or does the picture suffer?
If I use a 2.35 screen, I'll get the same 16.9 size image (about 84") but a much larger 2.35 image.
Is there a downside to using a 2.35 screen? Do you think a PJ like the JVC with zoom memory would be good, or does the picture suffer?
Hmmm, not sure how you're getting to those figures using an 84" screen as an example. I'm sure the total height including the frame varies a bit from one mfr to the next, but I'm not sure what I'm missing to overlook a difference of 14". I think you could go bigger. What's the total max width you have to play with?jamhead said: