Projection screen

[Zing]

Also, any downside for using a 2.35 screen for 16:9 movies/sports/tv/etc?

The only downside I can think of is you'll get a smaller picture (and larger letterbox pillars) when displaying 16:9 content. That and the fact that your PJ choices will be greatly reduced. The upside though is you'll get maximum impact from Cinescope movies.

 

[heeman]

Helpful Link:

http://www.displaywars.com/84-inch-16x9-vs-94-inch-16x9

 

[jamhead]

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?

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?

That's a big part of my problem....many manufacturers' sites don't have the total screen dimensions listed. The only one that does is Elite, and I'm not sold on their screens. According to their site, the 84"...total from top of casing including the attachment clips to the bottom of the "weight bar" is 56". For a 92" screen, the total is 62". I've contacted them and they have said the top black border is adjustable from 0 - 6", so maybe that's where they are getting their numbers. A 92" screen with 2" borders all around should have: 2+45 (viewing height)+2+6 (for the casing) = 55"...not 62.

It's going to be tight..as I have (ideally) 54" (which would put the screen right on top of my center and about 1" behind the baffle lines of the main speakers). If I move the screen to 1" in front of the baffle line of my mains, I'll have 56". From an audio perspective, I may be satisfied with having the screen 1" in front of the baffle lines, as the sides of the screen would be at least 12" away from the sides of the speakers. Not ideal, but for movies, I don't think the sound quality would suffer that much.

The only screens I'm currently looking into are tensioned, but I don't know how important that is. Zing's screen is not tensioned, and I don't believe he has any problems. But then, it's a higher quality than what I want to spend, for now.

Width-wise, I have 110" or so between the main speakers, which is plenty for a screen size since I'm only 9ft away from the screen.

Damn...it's always something.

I've contacted Visual Apex just to get an idea of their size in relation to Elite, and he thought the 92" screen "is gonna be real tight".

 

[jamhead]

Zing's idea of an acoustic screen is a good one, and would solve my problem, but I probably wouldn't go bigger than 92", as 92" puts the bottom of the screen at 24" above the ground, or so. A 100" would put the bottom of the screen a little closer to the ground......possibly too low. The cost premium is substantial, so I'd have to weigh the elevated cost with minimal, if any, screen size.

 

[jamhead]

Here's a view of the front of the room so you can see what I'm dealing with:

 

[Towen7]

Are you willing to suspend the screen from the ceiling instead of hanging it on the short wall?

 

[Zing]

^ GMTA

As I saw that picture, my first thought was 'why doesn't he just mount the screen a little closer to the seating?'.

 

[jamhead]

OK. I will try and explain a little better.

The screen (electric) will ideally be hung from the ceiling between the main speakers. The main speakers are about 2 feet in front of the wall you see, so the screen will be hung about 2 feet in front of the wall. Where the ceiling meets the wall in that photo, it is 5ft off the ground (60"). As you move from the wall to the seated position, the ceiling elevates. The center channel is 20" tall, so above the center channel (and in line with the main speakers) I have clearance of 54" over the center (from floor to ceiling it would be 74"). With the projector screen directly in line with the main speakers, it is 9ft from the viewing position. I have no intention of hanging a PJ screen on the wall, but from the ceiling.

Due to the dormers located behind the speakers (notice the ceiling), hanging a projector casing will require me to build a false "ceiling" so the projector casing will not over-hang the ceiling between the speakers (which is 76" wide). The space between the speakers is 108" or so.

Now the problem. If I move the screen towards the viewer, my main speakers will be behind the screen, causing a definite imaging problem. I would like to avoid that. Also, with the projector screen in line with the main speakers, my throw distance for the projector is at 10'. As I move the screen closer to the viewer, not only do I suffer audio consequences, I also now have a problem with obtaining projectors that can meet that throw distance, without going to a short throw PJ....

I'm trying to balance the absolute largest screen I can get without sacrificing audio and fear an 80 - 84" screen may not be big enough to give me the WOW factor I'm hoping for. Granted, 80" is bigger than the 57" RPTV I have in the family room....I was just hoping for more.

If I were to use either a JVC RS45 or Epson 5010 (for reference) in low power with a 1.1 gain screen, calibrated, I would have 28-31 ft cdl off the screen (92") and both projector's throw distance minimum is 9'6" or so. So I am already at close to max. zoom.

 

[Towen7]

Maybe I'm over thinking this... If you locate the screen even with (or slightly behind) the mains you have a known maximum width. You also have a maximum height. With those two numbers you have all you need. Just maximize one dimension or the other. The decision is which aspect ratio and if you want (16:9 to maximize height or 2.31:1 to maximize width).

 

[jamhead]

No. You're not overthinking this Towen. I'm struggling with "what I want to have" and what I may "end up with" due to the height being so low. I understand the give and take with this hobby....

If I go with the height restriction, I will no doubt end up with a smaller screen than what I wanted, which is what prompted my initial question. Everyone's answers made me realize (I kind of already knew this) that the screen size I end up with...will be less than what I was hoping to have...and, really, smaller than ideal.

It's my own issue in that I've set up the room for audio performance (which is really, really good) and was expecting to sacrifice the video side. But now that I'm looking to spend the $$, potentially anyway, I want to maximize my dollar (and really, with PJ's, not much $$ difference between screen sizes). I just need to determine how much audio I'm willing to sacrifice to have the screen size I want, or, how much extra money to get the screen size I want (ie-acoustic screen).

I'm just thinking through all potential options.....at least before I decide to say "fuck it" and keep it an audio room.


Nothing wrong with that option either.

 

[Batman]

I'd go with the 2.35:1 option, SO many movies are shot that way and you'd have a definite WOW factor for sure. With the 16:9 stuff you would still be making a substantial upgrade to the size you're currently used to.

 

[jamhead]

I like the idea myself, but now I'll have to see what projectors would be able to throw a 2.35 image from a fairly close throw. I also like the idea of an acoustic transparent screen. This would allow me to raise my center a little, which will help in that regard as well.

You know PJ's batman, do you think the video quality will decrease fairly dramatically by using a PJ with the "zoom" feature to fill a 2:35 screen? An anamorphic lens will be out of the questions for me.



I

 

[Batman]

Having played with the feature on my JVC, I don't think you would be disappointed.

 

[Zing]

do you think the video quality will decrease fairly dramatically by using a PJ with the "zoom" feature to fill a 2:35 screen?

Video quality won't decrease but light output will be greatly affected. In almost every instance, it's better to have the projector further away to maximize image size than to have it closer and adjust the lens to increase image size.

What's your expected throw distance?

 

[jamhead]

Approximately 10 to 10.5 feet.

 

[Towen7]

Having played with the feature on my JVC, I don't think you would be disappointed.

I agree that 3.35:1 is the way to go if your looking for a wow factor.

You'd still need a Panamorph lens though, right?

 

[Zing]

Approximately 10 to 10.5 feet.

Is that a maximum distance or simply your preferred mount location?

You'd still need a Panamorph lens though, right?

Not if he chooses a projector with lens memory/aspect ratio detection. With those, he can dial in a 2.35:1 image, set it, and then dial in a separate 16:9 image and set it. Then depending on the PJ he has, it'll either detect it on its own and display the correct image and size or he can press a button and it'll happen.

 

[jamhead]

Depending on exact screen location and depth of PJ, that's max (no closer than 10, possibly as far back as 11).

 

[Towen7]

You'd still need a Panamorph lens though, right?

Not if he chooses a projector with lens memory/aspect ratio detection. With those, he can dial in a 2.35:1 image, set it, and then dial in a separate 16:9 image and set it. Then depending on the PJ he has, it'll either detect it on its own and display the correct image and size or he can press a button and it'll happen.

That's why I love you man!

I need to see if my JVC works that way. The expense and complication of the sled/lens is one (of several) reasosn I haven't upgraded to a 2.35:1 yet.

 

[jamhead]

I just checked the light output on a great calculator from someone at AVS, and the 2.35 screen (103") dramatically decreases from 31 to 23 fl. Also, my max throw would be 10ft, 2in. Maybe a little too close.

What PJ do you have Towen?