109 replies to this topic

[minty]

Been watching a lot of 16.9 material recently such as Game Of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Sons Of Anarchy and am constantly thinking how much better they would be on a bigger screen.

Maybe I've read too many of Owens posts and subconsciously I've been brainwashed into his thinking of why should 16.9 be displayed smaller than scope, not sure, but I've been giving a lot of thought this last week or so to reverting back to a 16.9 screen in my next HT room.

Basically I choose my current scope screen by picking my ideal scope image size relative to my seating distance and personal preference. ATM scope still wows me but 16.9 is getting more and more underwhelming.

I would like to know if I chose a screen based on my ideal scope sized image of 130", what size 16.9 screen would I end up with if I went the same width as the scope image? Also I need to know roughly what throw distance I would require  and whether or not there would be enough light output from a projector such as a JVC X30 to light what I would imagine will be a huge screen? Also what height would the screen be?

I only require the facts to these 4 questions or any other issues I haven't thought of.

Please no debates on whether 16.9 should or shouldn't be larger than scope, just the facts to my 4 questions.

Thanks.

Edited by seatonrocks, 23 May 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[Prior]

Do you have the height to be able to go for a 130" 16:9?
Also, are you watching a lot of 16:9 material on the screen these days?  I know you're watching a lot of 16:9, just not sure if it's on the real screen or the TV... If you are, that could add to the "underwhelmingness" because you're getting "used" to that sized image.  Try only using your screen once or twice a week and see if it's the same...

Cheers,

Chris

Edited by Prior, 23 May 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[minty]

Prior, on 23 May 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Do you have the height to be able to go for a 130" 16:9?
Also, are you watching a lot of 16:9 material on the screen these days?  I know you're watching a lot of 16:9, just not sure if it's on the real screen or the TV... If you are, that could add to the "underwhelmingness" because you're getting "used" to that sized image.  Try only using your screen once or twice a week and see if it's the same...

Cheers,

Chris

.

Hi Chris, the 130" is the scope image so the 16.9 size will be larger again.

Height will be 9 feet.

Basically I am not willing to compromise my ideal scope size of 130", so asking if it's possible to do it by having a 16.9 screen that will display scope at 130". I'm just guessing that a 16.9 screen would be 150" + maybe to do this????

Watching on the big screen mate, Game Of Thrones especially deserves more than the current 102" roughly that I am getting by projecting on a 130" scope screen.

Edited by seatonrocks, 23 May 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[davep]

Projector Central calculator indicates that a 130" scope screen is about 120" wide (2.39:1) which would make a 16:9 screen 120" wide, 138" - doesnt seem like a huge jump.  Maybe someone else could check the numbers.

[minty]

davep, on 23 May 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Projector Central calculator indicates that a 130" scope screen is about 120" wide (2.39:1) which would make a 16:9 screen 120" wide, 138" - doesnt seem like a huge jump.  Maybe someone else could check the numbers.

Ok, if that's correct it's certainly less than I was thinking off the top of my head, and probably doable. Thanks mate.

[bbar]

seatonrocks, on 23 May 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Ok, if that's correct it's certainly less than I was thinking off the top of my head, and probably doable. Thanks mate.

It is correct.  Between 7 and 8 inches bigger on diameter.

Height is another thing. It is about 43cm taller.

If you have the X30 now on a 130" scope screen and zoom out for scope then it is giving you a 138" image including black bars now, so going to 138 16:9 should make no difference in throw distance or brightness.

If you don't mind a little advice I would do something like Prior says as I first went scope, then went 16:9, then went back to scope. It becomes a bit expensive.

What I found is you get used to the bigger image height then get disappointed when the scope image is smaller. Expressed another I was disappointed no matter which AR screen I used; however found that I had more scope titles than 16:9 ( 60% - 40% ish) and was less disappointed with varying width that with varying height.

Some are the opposite and watch more 16:9 and are more disappointed with varying width.

No right or wrong, just make sure you know which one you really are before spending more money. Advice I should have taken as it hits the pocketbook!

If you think the additional height of the 16:9 image is great then there is no reason why a scope screen of that height would not be great also, even though you feel 130" is perfect.

Again as per Priors post - move your seating forward so you will have current 16:9 image at same seating to height ratio as would be if you moved to 138" 16:9 screen.
If you say, yep, that 16:9 image size is perfect, then watch a scope encode at same height and see if it is not also perfect.

Much cheaper to move some seating temporarily than to purchase a new screen. Leave seating in place for a couple weeks to get used to it before making any final decision.
Also if new HT room will have 2 rows then a scope screen can provide a bigger 16:9 image depending on viewing distance preferences. Basically if you like seating distance of 2.8 +- a bit then you may find having back row for 16:9 encodes and front row for scope encodes means a smaller ratio in the back row for 16:9 than having a front row at 2.8'ish times screen height and using front row as primary viewing location for both.

Last caveat is - if you like watching at 2.2+- times screen height then best to have a 16:9 screen as you MAY notice artifacts when zooming a scope image at that seating distance.

Edited by bbar, 23 May 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[Mining Man]

Credit where it's due.

Good on you for your openmindedness, and preparedness to start this thread.

I hope the discussion you want is treated with the respect it clearly deserves.

[minty]

bbar, on 23 May 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

It is correct.  Between 7 and 8 inches bigger on diameter.

Height is another thing. It is about 43cm taller.

If you have the X30 now on a 130" scope screen and zoom out for scope then it is giving you a 138" image including black bars now, so going to 138 16:9 should make no difference in throw distance or brightness.

Thanks Brian. That surprises me but is great news as 43cm taller would work in current room with 8 feet 6 ceiling height, so 9 feet in future room will be no probs. I actually have a JVC HD350, but because this whole fact finding mission is for my future room I thought it better to use a current day projector. Not zooming either, through a lens. I'm not sure either but if I didn't use a lens and zoomed, would I theoretically be able to move my projector forward, or would it be the same or further back? Sorry for the dumb questions

[bbar]

seatonrocks, on 23 May 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Thanks Brian. That surprises me but is great news as 43cm taller would work in current room with 8 feet 6 ceiling height, so 9 feet in future room will be no probs. I actually have a JVC HD350, but because this whole fact finding mission is for my future room I thought it better to use a current day projector. Not zooming either, through a lens. I'm not sure either but if I didn't use a lens and zoomed, would I theoretically be able to move my projector forward, or would it be the same or further back? Sorry for the dumb questions

A Lens is great; but I zoom. Primarily for cost reasons.

With a lens you need to have the PJ farther back. This reduces the brightness; but by having a smaller image the brightness loss is negated unless the PJ drops significant brightness when fully zoomed in versus zoomed out.  The JVC is about 20% difference but I have heard that the BenQ is closer to 40%.

Anyway, when zooming one should have the PJ mounted fully forward for maximum brightness and with a lens somewhere near the back or over 2.2 times throw.

To me brightness is not really a factor and PQ is very close. There are pros and cons to both; but to me both do a great job given one has a decent lens.

On my HD 750 I will sit the lens at about 4m on a 122" scope screen which is just about full forward as that is about a 128" 16:9 image including black bars.

[minty]

Mining Man, on 23 May 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Credit where it's due.

Good on you for your openmindedness, and preparedness to start this thread.

I hope the discussion you want is treated with the respect it clearly deserves.

Thankyou Mining Man. Yes it's a bit of humble pie I might have to taste one day, but if I end up happy with the end result then the taste will be a good one

And yes not a debate on the pros and cons, just whether it could be done and, thanks to the previous posters, looks like should be no worries

[minty]

bbar, on 23 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

A Lens is great; but I zoom. Primarily for cost reasons.

With a lens you need to have the PJ farther back. This reduces the brightness; but by having a smaller image the brightness loss is negated unless the PJ drops significant brightness when fully zoomed in versus zoomed out.  The JVC is about 20% difference but I have heard that the BenQ is closer to 40%.

Anyway, when zooming one should have the PJ mounted fully forward for maximum brightness and with a lens somewhere near the back or over 2.2 times throw.

To me brightness is not really a factor and PQ is very close. There are pros and cons to both; but to me both do a great job given one has a decent lens.

On my HD 750 I will sit the lens at about 4m on a 122" scope screen which is just about full forward as that is about a 128" 16:9 image including black bars.

Ok that is fantastic Brian, many thanks to you. The new room will be 6m long but will have an AT screen so about 5m deep. That should mean can get lens about 4.5m back. Would that fill the 138" 16.9 screen? Actually make it 140", nice round no. using say an X30?

[:)]

Yes credit where credit due even if exploring no harm even if end up sticking with what have.

If havent done already, I'd suggest zoom out 16:9 picture on current scope screen to match width with material you typically watch. Will give idea of brightness and also importantly what image looks like at distance planning to watch from. Important with fta tv for instance which can be sub par at times. Seating distance maybe best compromise between immersion for scope movies and sitting too close to 16:9 material that looks average.

[bbar]

seatonrocks, on 23 May 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Ok that is fantastic Brian, many thanks to you. The new room will be 6m long but will have an AT screen so about 5m deep. That should mean can get lens about 4.5m back. Would that fill the 138" 16.9 screen? Actually make it 140", nice round no. using say an X30?

Yep 4.5 throw is fine though you probably want some space behind PJ.

Not sure of seating preference but keeping 1 metre + off back wall will provide better acoustics. If sound important then this needs to be brought into the equation.
If sitting at 4 metres then 140" 16:9 means sitting at 2.3 times screen height which some prefer anyway.

Anyway, always about compromise so you will need to weigh up pros and cons.

Edited by bbar, 23 May 2012 - 11:25 AM.

[minty]

:), on 23 May 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Yes credit where credit due even if exploring no harm even if end up sticking with what have.

If havent done already, I'd suggest zoom out 16:9 picture on current scope screen to match width with material you typically watch. Will give idea of brightness and also importantly what image looks like at distance planning to watch from. Important with fta tv for instance which can be sub par at times. Seating distance maybe best compromise between immersion for scope movies and sitting too close to 16:9 material that looks average.

Yes that makes perfect sense. Only problem would be current screen is over an alcove and walls are jet black, but would still give a good indication of picture quality on the full width. I'll do that later today with several sources. Anamorphic lens might catch edges too but still should get an indication.

Thanks

[minty]

bbar, on 23 May 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Yep 4.5 throw is fine though you probably want some space behind PJ.

Not sure of seating preference but keeping 1 metre + off back wall will provide better acoustics. If sound important then this needs to be brought into the equation.
If sitting at 4 metres then 140" 16:9 means sitting at 2.3 times screen height which some prefer anyway.

Anyway, always about compromise so you will need to weigh up pros and cons.

Yep 4m will be where I plan sitting. 2.3 screen height sounds good. I'll measure my current seating distances and screen height so I can get a good comparison. I'll also write them down so I'm not guessing all the time.

Anyway this is dangerously close to getting away from the intended purpose of the thread.

Thanks everyone for your valued advice, much appreciated.

[kopthat]

I found this post from Richard handy when selecting a screen size and aspect

oztheatre, on 20 April 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

It sounds really big. But look at the 16:9 image on these scope screens and you get the following within an inch or so, i'm just rounding here:

120 scope =   95 16:9
130 scope = 103 16:9
135 scope = 107 16:9
140 scope = 110 16:9
150 scope = 118 16:9
160 scope = 126 16:9

Edited by kopthat, 23 May 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[bbar]

seatonrocks, on 23 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yep 4m will be where I plan sitting. 2.3 screen height sounds good. I'll measure my current seating distances and screen height so I can get a good comparison. I'll also write them down so I'm not guessing all the time.

Anyway this is dangerously close to getting away from the intended purpose of the thread.

Thanks everyone for your valued advice, much appreciated.

Sounds great .  It should come together perfectly then.

[cashflag]

Have you got any sort of side masking for 16:9 on your scope screen? I ask because until I did, watching 16:9 always felt like it was somewhat of a compromised experience. Implementing masking and better defining those borders eliminated that niggling feeling for me.

[mmu16]

agree with cashflag. similar experience for me too. Also, masking for 16:9 is easier than masking for 2.35:1

[BladeRnR]

Sounds like a good project John and with your solution you'll get the same size Scope as you've enjoyed for ages. Do you intend masking for 2:35.1 material (Top/Bottom)?

Best of both worlds solution which is what I hope to do in my room is this:

SMX Quad-Mask

We only need 1 Kidney to function right?

Blade

[oztheatre]

Seaton, you know you're going to hell, don't you?

Keep in mind guys, when the 237 screen gained it's popularity, most of the time it was coupled with a lens.
So the idea of gaining a little more brightness vs zooming was a benefit as was the full 1080 lines (scaled) on screen vs 810.

Now we're seeing a move back towards zooming - JVC and Panasonic - and I think next year we'll see more zooming memory machines on the market to fill that niche.
And many are going for larger 16:9 screens and putting up with black bars top and bottom, which works well too, apart from fta tv which can look a little ordinary and why some prefer that image to be smaller by way of using a scope screen.

Why the move back towards zooming? Well it's free to begin with so you come out in front there. Then the problems with lenses which have been debated and talked over before a million times on here, so I can understand why people choose to zoom. Though we still need more JVC 4K e-shift options. I think the X70 looks sensational when you can't see pixels and you're image is 3.5 metres wide and you can sit 3 or 4 metres from it. I realise we're scaling, you're also scaling when using a lens too.

[yorac]

Not probably much help here mate but have a 120" 16 x 9 set up in our current rental, welcome to poke the head in when down in Melbourne next, other than that next GTG at my place is 7th or 14th July...............

[Highjinx]

Throw CIA(Constant Image Area) into the mx of options, this way both 2.35:1 and 16:9 should have similar impact.

[roh008]

I was thinking of going scope but realised my image width is fixed to around 2.5m so I would just be sacrificing my viewable area. I do think solid black rather than "projected black" has a positive impact on image though. But I want biggest real estate so am sticking with 16:9... for now

[minty]

kopthat, on 23 May 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

I found this post from Richard handy when selecting a screen size and aspect

Yep i remember seeing that at the time, very handy. Thanks for that, a good reference point to have.