16 9 Vs 1.85 1
- #1
But trying to go views really, I take a limited drop area where my screen is and can't go lower than the height of my floor standing speakers which I'm not changing. Given I'm thinking of replacing a 92" xvi:9 with something that may control the calorie-free better, should I take this opertunity to go ii.35:1 ratio or not? My thoughts are for the aforementioned drop length I can get a bigger / wider screen if 2.35:1. I probably lookout man 75% films (bd / uhd) and 25% Sky (usually Atlantic non sports). Is 2.35:1 a chip oddball or out of favour these days or are there disadvantages I oasis't idea of? I have an Epson 9300 and then am I right in thinking it may have lens memories and so tin preset the lens to easily switch between xvi:9 and 2.35:1? Bit out of my noesis pool here really.
- #2
If your pj has the lumens for a larger screen, I would certainly go for a scope screen. If you lot go for a ii.35 screen that is the same height as your existing screen, 2.35 will be 77% larger than it currently is on your existing sixteen:9 screen and far more immersive, just every bit designed. It's a considerable upgrade all by itself IMHO.
Saying that scope could be 'oddball' or 'out of favour' is an odd choice of words - telescopic was designed to be the the aforementioned height but twice the width of the existing 4:3 University ratio screens back in the very early 50s (1.85 and other ratios came later, but should nonetheless be presented as constant height inside the ii.35 frame). sixteen:9 is a more recent ratio designed every bit a compromise format for tv set, and the simply mode to fit scope onto it without cut the sides off is to shrink information technology downward to fit, and that creates the black bars meridian and bottom. It should actually be the aforementioned height and wider, non the same width and shorter.
The trouble is due to modern tvs existence sixteen:9 and a lot of multiplexes being sixteen:9 too, well-nigh people have no idea that scope should actually be wider, non smaller than sixteen:9, and that'south why people don't empathize why there are black bars top and bottom.
So it's not oddball, it's actually a pattern intent that's been around since the 50s, and sixteen:9 is a compromise for tvs since the 90s.
If you're not moving your seats, keep the scope screen the same height as your current 16:9 screen. Then 16:9 is as large as you currently accept, but scope is wider and more immersive, just as designed and intended.
Last edited:
- #3
Once you've experienced CinemaScope (constant height projection) at home and you have the power to revert from 1.78:i to 2.35:1, you will never wait dorsum.
It actually is the only manner of matching the cinema, when your sat at dwelling and with a unproblematic click of your finger on the remote control and the epitome zoom'due south out to that wonderful CinemaScope. It's fantastic.
Another touch and the image reduces to i.78:1 enabling TV and the likes to become unspoiled by increasing the zoom. I know some don't like having large borders at the sides, simply I feel the trade of is well worth information technology.
Of course, if you have an anamorphic lens, then this is fifty-fifty better and it creates the perfect CinemaScope experience
Regards, Shane.
Last edited:
- #4
If you lot're express by pinnacle, ii.35:ane is the natural pick. If width is the constraining cistron, 16x9 makes more sense. A 16x9 picture on your scope screen would be the aforementioned size as it would be had yous opted for a 16x9 screen, since the height dictates your screen size. And then in that sense it's a no-brainer 
.
> are in that location disadvantages I oasis't idea of?
The only downside of a two.35 screen is that when the epitome is zoomed to watch a 2.35 film, the black (or not then blackness) bars will exist projected off-screen (above and below the screen itself). An anamorphic lens would remedy that but they are expensive.
Also brand sure you have plenty zoom range to fill the extra width.
- #vii
Rooms don't necessarily limit having a scope screen if you lot can position your seating so that the xvi:9 role of the epitome is every bit big as you are comfortable with. Seating distance and the resulting viewing angles are important.
For example:
In my room, I can fit a 119" diagonal 16:ix screen (around (58.5" alpine x 104" wide). For that to be as big as I feel comfortable with, I would sit at around 117" inches back (2x the screen height - I like to sit down closer than most people, simply the principle still applies to your preference).
With a 104" broad telescopic screen that is say 44" tall, if I sit down at around 2x the image height, that puts me at around 88" from the screen, and the 16:9 image all the same expect the same size as before, but at present scope is wider and more immersive.
Of course the calibration of the screen has changed and that can be disappointing for some people who similar to run across the largest screen they tin can fit. That tin be particularly truthful in non dedicated rooms where other things are on testify and the scale can be determined while watching a movie.
I have yet to have a problem with subtitles, and many players tin shift them now anyway. I remember my Panasonic has that facility, but I've never had to use it withal.
Like some people have already done, what I did was to fit the 119" diagonal 16:nine screen but mask it to ii.35 and watch everything CIH (sat at 2xIH). If at that place is a movie with IMAX scenes, I can remove the peak and lesser masking and come across the extra filler in those scenes. It doesn't really add much, merely the option is there if i desire it.
As it is, the OP looks like they can keep the screen height exactly the aforementioned as their current 16:9 screen, so a scope screen of the aforementioned height should be like shooting fish in a barrel to do without any other changes and exist more often than not beneficial.
- #ix
I think it's really room dependant, I tin can't fit a much wider screen in than 2.5m and I view from well-nigh 4m away.
If I was going to get for a scope screen this would make the 16:9 paradigm pretty small-scale.
In an platonic world I would go along the pinnacle I have for 16:nine and have a wider screen for scope.
Likewise don't be too quick going for a 2.35:one screen, a lot of films are two.39/2.four:one.
When I watch telescopic films I shift the image downwardly then the bottom black bar is off the screen. I have never noticed the bottom black bar.
- #10
If light control is a consideration and I'chiliad assuming we are talking an electric screen and then why not a React 3 boarder-less screen in the largest size you can fit.
Dropped every bit far as required for sixteen:9 to requite the largest picture show and for any version of scope raise the screen to suit using the lens retentivity to position the image where yous want information technology. The natural grey fabric frames the moving-picture show without the need for black boarders.
I e'er desire the biggest picture I tin can have and that for me ways width non pinnacle. I can't motility my seats And then the boarder-less React three is for me the all-time compromise.
I don't know about this borderless ReAct3 idea; I was initially strongly considering it. I know it has fans though; but some of that seems to be to avoid ladder lines and trapezoiding of the projection expanse that some of these screens with borders suffer.
I've got a ReAct3 stock-still screen with Veltex borders, and I use my screen a lot in well-nigh complete darkness but in a very reflective (everything is white) room. The Veltex border gives a much more satisfying contrasting border for the image than the screen surface manages; fifty-fifty with the deep black of my JVC X30.
I would have thought that if you become borderless with ReAct you still get your picture show "framed" in part by the bars top and bottom being lighter than the screen surface that extends beyond the projection surface area (unless yous have enough ambient lite to launder out the bars).
Of course the exception to the above would be if y'all're using an anamorphic lens where the projected black borders disappear.
- #12
Usually, if you can comfortably watch a taller epitome, so you weren't sitting shut enough to begin with, or should have gone for a larger scope screen.
The OP seems happy with the size of his sixteen:9 paradigm and I don't think it can go any lower or larger, and so is why he's considering a scope screen. CIA would hateful a smaller/less broad telescopic image than he can get with a telescopic screen, and then wouldn't be as beneficial in this case. It'southward certainly a better choice than 16:9 though, which compromises scope style also much.
- #thirteen
Cheers guys, this is bully info, sounds similar a lot to consider. I sit effectually 4m away from screen if that helps or influences. The PJ is an Epson 9300 and is slightly farther as sits the other side of the rear wall. I originally bought a 92" screen every bit it seemed nearly as depression equally the screen could become before covering the tops of my floor standers (Neat Motive 2'south ~765mm tall). To be honest I wasn't too scientific virtually it when I picked the screen size, but I practice think the current couldn't go much lower, although there's obviously a black strip in a higher place the screen.
- #14
Lounge is roughly 4m x 4m, normal tiptop ceilings etc and yeah current screen is electric, it comes down in forepart of the boob tube which is sat in a bay window.
- #15
I sit the same distance, 4m away. I found 92" was "ok" for xvi:9 only as well small for telescopic.
A 3m broad scope screen which from retention will be the same superlative as a 92" 16:9 would exist a skillful option.
In that location are guidelines on screen sizes to seating altitude.
Every bit you have your projector have you tried projecting onto your wall to see what size you like.
Last edited:
- #xvi
I simply did a check, and a 92" diag sixteen:nine screen is 45.1ins alpine, which is 114.55cms. A two.xl:ane screen will be 2.75m wide.
A 3m wide ii.40 screen will be 49.two inches tall, then around iv inches (10cms) taller than yous currently have. If you don't need so much black leader at the top of the screen, a 3m broad screen would be a better choice than a 2.75m wide one IMHO due to your seating distance (bold the screen isn't too loftier and causes yous to look up too much). A 3m broad 2.four screen puts you at effectually 3.2 x screen heights back.
Every bit Russ said, information technology'due south a skilful idea to experiment with seeing how big yous tin can go with the pj every bit you can experiment and meet what works best for you from where you sit. Zoom a 2.4:1 movie out to 3m to meet if the pj allows that size and can position it vertically in the right place. If you can go a trivial taller and accommodate a 3m wide screen (or larger if y'all want), then your proficient to become
- #17
Hello there
Not certain if it will work but take you considered an acoustically transparent screen which can sit in front end of your speakers, thus enabling yous to get a bigger screen even at xvi:9?
i was going to go with a ii.35:1 screen as my speakers were in the way for anything bigger than my 99" xvi:9 screen only then i obtained a large screen which will sit in front of the speakers and gives me a 2.35 image as large as the wider screen would accept but likewise a much bigger image on 16:nine.
The downside - it needs to exist a metre away from the dorsum wall to fit in the speakers (i don't have in wall speakers) then you need a long room
If not and so i concur a 2.35:1 is a good idea
16 9 Vs 1.85 1,
Source: https://www.avforums.com/threads/16-9-or-2-35-1-screen.2117522/
Posted by: westhoodmine.blogspot.com
0 Response to "16 9 Vs 1.85 1"
Post a Comment