Return to the CurtPalme.com main site CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum
A forum with a sense of fun and community for Home Theater enthusiasts!
Products for Sale ] [ FAQ: Hooking it all up ] [ CRT Primer/FAQ ] [ Best/Worst CRT Projectors List ] [ Setup Tips & Manuals ] [ Advanced Procedures ] [ Newsletters ]

 
Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Photo AlbumsPhoto Albums  RegisterRegister 
 MembershipClub Membership   ProfileProfile   Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in 
Blu-ray disc release list and must-have titles. Buy the latest and best Blu-ray titles to show off in your home theater!

Convince me to go CIH! (and what size screen?)
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Digital Projectors
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:34 am    Post subject: Convince me to go CIH! (and what size screen?) Reply with quote


        Register to remove this ad. It's free!
I'm starting the design phase of my new basement and depending how big of a screen I go with will likely dictate placement in the basement of many things. Big domino effect.

I'm realizing that I need to know sooner than later what 'footprint' the HT will take which basically means I need to know what screen size I'm going to go with.

The larger I go, the less placement options I have. So I need to decide on the screen size before anything else is determined in the basement.

I'm torn. Keep the 96x54" screen? Go with a bigger 16x9 screen? Go CIH?

I understand what CIH is, I understand the benefits. The confusion is partially due to the fact that I've never seen a CIH setup and don't understand all the ins and outs of exactly how it can be implemented and more importantly, I haven't seen the real world limitations of each of these implementations...

----------------

Today:

I have an 8' wide 16x9 screen now (36 sq ft) with gain of around 1.1-1.2. It can easily fit in many places in the new basement. Sitting in front of this screen I keep thinking to myself "I would like this to be about 2 feet wider".

Right now my first row of seating puts viewers heads about 10 feet back from an 8 foot wide screen (when reclined in the seats). This is why I'd like to go with a 10 foot wide screen to get it to 1:1. For me, having my eyes 10 feet from a 10 foot wide screen would just feels right. Gone are the days of having to fit farther back because of low-rez/soft 480i based content.

There's a second row of seating but I don't really care about how that works out. The nosebleed seats can suffer. Wink

I will be putting in a digital, probably LCOS technology as from my limited viewing experience it has the contrast I like. Probably something like the JVC RS45 coming out in fall of 2011 for under $3K. Whatever projector it is, it will likely be purchased in the spring of 2012 if not sooner to play around/test.

Future options:

1. Go with 10 foot wide screen but keep the 16x9 ratio: Surface area goes up to a big 56 sq ft (up 55%) which means that light output goes down 55% if all stays the same. Every aspect ratio movie will project bigger. My concern is if a newer digital like (say) the JVC RS45 can light something up this large at still get ~14 ft/L in 2D mode. Any thoughts? How many real-world foot lamberts do these things do?

2. Go with 10 foot wide 2.35:1 scope screen: Surface area goes up to 42.5 sq ft so not much bigger to light up. Something like an RS45 will most certainly fill this up and go 14 ft/L or more. 16x9 movies will actually be a bit smaller. 2.35:1 movies up in size by 18%. Not much. Yes, CIH is the SEMPTE standard, I know. The movies will 'look' right. Frankly I'm not sure I want to reduce the size of 16x9 movies however.

3. Go with 12 foot wide 2.35:1 scope screen: Surface area goes up to a really big 61.3 sq ft. Wow! All movies now are bigger. I have no idea if consumer grade higher end digital projectors can light up something this in 2D mode and still get ~14 ft/L. Probably not.


Going with a larger than 10 foot wide screen is going to be problematic for space not to mention that I suspect I'll run out of light here with most 'consumer' grade projectors.

So what size screens are you CIH digital guys running? What projector and screen grain?

I would prefer to stay at or under 1.3 gain. I'm not a fan of high gain screens but then, I haven't seen any more recent ones like SMX, Seymour or others. I'm not sure if this'll limit me to staying with an 8 foot wide screen or not.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0


Last edited by kal on Sat May 19, 2012 12:33 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Found a handy foot lambert calculator here: http://www.projectorshootouts.com/default.aspx

According to this, something like a JVC RS45 can light up a 10 foot wide 16x9 screen (137" diag) of only 1.1 gain above 14 foot lamberts. Assuming standard throw distance.

But throw in light loss over time (35% at 1000 hrs? 50% at 2000 hrs?) and install with a longer throw to increase CR, and it goes down quite a bit:

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------
137" Screen at Mid-Zoom
----------------------------------------------------------
<<Calculations for a New Lamp>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 14.7fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 18.6fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accurate NON-Best Mode)= 20.6fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 23.5fL

<<Used Lamp with 200 Hours assuming 15% Lumen Loss>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 12.5fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 15.8fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accuract but NOT a Best Mode)= 17.5fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 20fL

<<Used Lamp with 500 Hours assuming 25% Lumen Loss>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 11fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 14fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accurate NON-Best Mode)= 15.4fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 17.6fL

<<Used Lamp with 1000 Hours assuming 35% Lumen Loss>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 9.5fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 12.1fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accurate NON-Best Mode)= 13.4fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 15.3fL

<<Used Lamp with 2000 Hours assuming 50% Lumen Loss>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 7.3fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 9.3fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accurate NON-Best Mode)= 10.3fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 11.8fL

<<Used Lamp with 3000 Hours assuming 65% Lumen Loss>>
137" Screen (Lamp Low Best Mode)= 5.1fL
137" Screen (Lamp HIGH Best Mode)= 6.5fL
137" Screen (Semi-Accurate NON-Best Mode)= 7.2fL
137" Screen (Absolute Brightest Mode)= 8.2fL


Still, that's almost 10 ft/L at 2000 hrs if you switch to running in HIGH output mode. I also have no idea how accurate these numbers are or how much variance to expect in real life samples.


Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0


Last edited by kal on Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:56 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator



Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26690
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GASP! D!gital?


Digital_say_what.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  23.34 KB
 Viewed:  50049 Time(s)

Digital_say_what.jpg



_________________
Tech support for nothing

CRT.

HD done right!
Back to top
View user's photo album (27 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep. Just to piss you off.

It's either that or get an 8 x 5 grid array of Sony F520 CRT monitors. I think that would look cool. Wink

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
WTS




Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1276
Location: Calgary


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kal,

Get a scope screen size that keeps your 16x9 movies the same as they are now, that way your scope movies get the awh effect they should have. So I suppose that would give about 10' wide or something like that.

_________________
Thanks
Walter
Back to top
HogPilot




Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383


TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kal,

The new RS55/65 were measured to output a max of around 930 calibrated lumens (iris full open, max zoom, lamp on bright), and IIRC the RS45 puts out about 100 or so more than that. For a 10' wide 2.39:1 1.0 gain screen, you'd need 585 lumens to achieve 14ftL, assuming you're using an anamorphic lens to capture the entire light output of the projector. Given that the RS45 can put out almost double the required lumens, I think you'd be very safe going with a 10' wide screen. This was similar to what I had 2 theaters ago (125" wide CIH screen w/lens), and I still found 16:9 material to be plenty enjoyable, although obviously scope was preferable because of the level of immersion it offered comparatively.

_________________
ecrabb wrote:
Curt Palme wrote:
Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure.

He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.

SC
Back to top
Bucketfoot




Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 698
Location: Centennial, CO


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm running a 1.2 gain 115" x 49" 2.35 screen with a JVC RS2. It is combined with a budget anamorphic lens and I love everything about it. OK, I'd like a better lens, but I'm just too darn cheap to justify the cost of the better ones.

I've never measured light levels, but with over 1000 hours on my bulb I have no issues with the brightness.

Bottom line is I would absolutely recommend a scope screen.
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WTS wrote:
Hi Kal,

Get a scope screen size that keeps your 16x9 movies the same as they are now, that way your scope movies get the awh effect they should have. So I suppose that would give about 10' wide or something like that.


My current 16x9 ratio screen is 96x54". To keep 16x9 movies the same size on a CIH 2.35:1 screen I'd need to keep that 54" height but go 2.35 times wider, so the new screen would be 126.9" wide by 54" high. So about 10.5 feet wide. Big screen.

IIRC, the RS45 will have lens memory/zoom. I'm guessing that this means I can have 2 settings programmed into the remote: One for watching 2.35:1 scope movies to zoom and fill the CIH screen. The other setting would be used for all other content (4x3, 16x9) and would leave varying sized black bars on the left/right. I'd leave it normally in the 4x3/16x9 mode and switch over to 2.35:1 only to watch 2.35:1 content.

By not using an anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 content I'd be losing some light output (and not using the full panel). If the light output's still adequate then that's fine. I don't really care for using the full panel for 2.35:1 content since I imagine doing that requires some sort of video processor before the projector (Radiance?) to stretch the image right? Or if I remember correctly 2.35 content on Blu-ray is stored to take up to full 1080 height and the player (PS3 in my case) "scales down" to add the black bars? So I could output the signal "natively" and use an anamorphic lens to squish the image.

Am I getting this right?

I'm not overly fond of the idea of getting an anamorphic lens/sled. Hell, I don't really like the idea of having to switch the projector between 2 different aspect ratio modes depending on what we're watching to begin with.

I'm such a [digital] projector newb. Wink

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0


Last edited by kal on Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
HogPilot




Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383


TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In order to use an anamorphic lens, you have to have some way of vertically stretching scope content so that it fills the panel height. The RS45 can do this internally, and I think this year it's capable of doing it for both 2D and 3D content (last year you could only stretch 2D content because of processing limitations). So you wouldn't need any extra hardware, aside from the lens itself.

kal wrote:
I'm such a [digital] projector newb. Wink

Kal


It's all good, we've all been there...it's always fun to help new people with their systems and see how much they enjoy it once they get it set up!

_________________
ecrabb wrote:
Curt Palme wrote:
Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure.

He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.

SC
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HogPilot wrote:
In order to use an anamorphic lens, you have to have some way of vertically stretching scope content so that it fills the panel height. The RS45 can do this internally, and I think this year it's capable of doing it for both 2D and 3D content (last year you could only stretch 2D content because of processing limitations). So you wouldn't need any extra hardware, aside from the lens itself.


Gotcha. My concern is the lens cost. The good ones seem to cost as much as the RS45 ($3K).

I understand that the two items (projector + Anamorphic lens) should be thought of as a 'system', but when we don't watch that much 2.35:1 content it gets harder to justify. I can still watch 2.35:1 content on a CIH screen, I'll just be using something like 817 lines instead of 1080 lines (if I remember correctly) and the light output will be lower.

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
WanMan




Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10273



PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kal, I bought into what I figured was a CIH-safe 10' wide 2.35 Seymour screen. When I popped Avatar into the player I realized (again) it is 16:9 and it made me want a 10' wide 1.78 screen. I probably sat there for a good 5-6 minutes wondering how I would handle two AT screens of that width, but one of each aspect.

I then remembered that at the time of my purchase, Seymour didn't offer a 1.78 screen in 10' width. That may have changed.

_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WanMan wrote:
Kal, I bought into what I figured was a CIH-safe 10' wide 2.35 Seymour screen. When I popped Avatar into the player I realized (again) it is 16:9 and it made me want a 10' wide 1.78 screen. I probably sat there for a good 5-6 minutes wondering how I would handle two AT screens of that width, but one of each aspect.

I then remembered that at the time of my purchase, Seymour didn't offer a 1.78 screen in 10' width. That may have changed.


Good point. So are you regretting your CIH screen purchase? If a 10' wide 1.78 screen had been available at the time would you have purchased it instead? What projector are you running?

While I'm not a big fan of the movie, Avatar's a good example of the sort of movie that is supposed to appear 'epic' in scale and immersive but will actually look smaller on a lot of CIH screens for people. This is one of my concerns.

I'd have to go with a 10.5' wide CIH screen to make 16x9 movies appear the same size as on my 8' wide 16x9 screen today. But I actually want these 16x9 movies to appear bigger too, so I *think* would like a 10' wide 16x9 screen or at least 9' wide 16x9 screen.

I completely understand the relative size issues of going from 2.35 to 16x9 movies... I understand that "When Harry met Sally" is shown on a 16x9 screen that it'll appear 'bigger' than "Laurence of Arabia" because of this. I understand that this goes against SMPTE rules. I'm not sure I care. Wink

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
HogPilot




Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 2383


TV/Projector: Vizio P702ui-B3, Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD & 111FD


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:
HogPilot wrote:
In order to use an anamorphic lens, you have to have some way of vertically stretching scope content so that it fills the panel height. The RS45 can do this internally, and I think this year it's capable of doing it for both 2D and 3D content (last year you could only stretch 2D content because of processing limitations). So you wouldn't need any extra hardware, aside from the lens itself.


Gotcha. My concern is the lens cost. The good ones seem to cost as much as the RS45 ($3K).

I understand that the two items (projector + Anamorphic lens) should be thought of as a 'system', but when we don't watch that much 2.35:1 content it gets harder to justify. I can still watch 2.35:1 content on a CIH screen, I'll just be using something like 817 lines instead of 1080 lines (if I remember correctly) and the light output will be lower.

Kal


Totally understandable on the cost issue. From time to time a Panamorph UH480 will come up for sale for a good price ($<2K) on Videogon or AVS, but you're definitely right that you don't want to put a cheap lens in front of your projector as you'll significantly degrade your PQ. Plus since the RS45 has a lens memory, zooming for CIH will be very easy for you to implement. FYI, you'll need to have 785 lumens for 14ftL if you're zooming, 12ftL gets you down to 673 lumens. You might find the image getting a tad dim for your taste at the very end of the bulb life if you're used to 14ftL. Certainly doable still though.

_________________
ecrabb wrote:
Curt Palme wrote:
Interesting, Mac isn't returning my emails. Go figure.

He's mad at us for making Hog a moderator. He took his ball and went home.

SC
Back to top
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at my numbers from my Greyscale for dummies guide (I knew I wrote that for some reason Wink), I was getting 13.8 ft/L but that was 3.5 years ago. It's likely down a bit since then.

Whichever way I go I'm tempted to rebuild my own screen again as my results with this painted BOC material are great. I love my current screen. The issue is the gain is only about 1.1-1.2 (as compared to Draper and Stewart samples I have). Not sure I'd want to go over 1.3. Maybe buying some pre-made material from SMX or Seymour and building my own frame would work? I have no idea what fixed flat non-AT quality screens go for these days...

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
dturco




Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3779
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland

TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well Kal, I feel what your going through. I recently moved my rack and built a false wall to hold my screen. My screen sixe was determined by the slope of my ceilings. The screen is 16x9... 58x104. If I had gone any larger the slope would cause interference. I thought about the about the same thing going to scope and retaining the CIH... but that would have meant a 136" wide screen Shocked

So I left the screen the size it is ... for now Wink

http://s955.photobucket.com/albums/ae34/dturco/Jolida%20pictures/Moving%20the%20rack/?action=view&current=Movingtherack007.jpg

And just a few wires to hook up, I think I have one of every kind here 10/4 speaker wires for the front 14/4 for the rears and DVI, HDMI, 5 BNC, and Ethernet, and coax and


http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae34/dturco/Jolida%20pictures/Moving%20the%20rack/Movingtherack002.jpg

_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.

http://www.hulu.com/firefly
Back to top
Person99




Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of my favorite topics these days!

You've done a bit of research, so I'll just add my 2 cents, but I will couch it with a brief explanation. I'm cheap. I mean really cheap. I can afford to pay a bit more at times, but I really like getting good value, so I like to be at the point of the price/performance curve where it line starts to flatten (the value sweet spot IMO).

Further, I decided that my theater was not about impressing the "Jones'"--its real purpose was for me and my family to enjoy. So, that became my benchmark. So, perfection was not my target, just "really good" and enjoyable.

So, take what I say with all that in mind.

I think a "big" screen is fun--but at a certain point, it is "big enough" and I start worrying about viewing angle. I like viewing from about 1.1 scope width or about 2.5 screen height. Both of these are "near" the THX and 20th Century Fox recommendations for "optimal". So, I wanted the brightest screen I could get that was "big" but provide good viewing angles from the front and back row of my theater.

My CRT was on a 52" tall 16:9 screen (so just a bit smaller than yours), I ended up building a 49" tall CIH screen. I don't really miss the extra few inches. That puts me at almost 10' wide (9.6') and gives the front row the optimal angle and the back row an "acceptable" angle (it is at the THX max--so like the back row of a THX certified theater).

As far as screens, unless going AT, I would go Wilsonart all day long. I compared this to Stewart, Hurley, DaLite, etc models and there is just no reason to go with any of those in non-AT. Secondly, It is WAAAAAY easier to build a curved screen with than that others. My screen look awesome and only cost me $250 in materials and a weekend of work.

With the curved screen, my scope picture is just under 13 ft. Lamberts and I'm fine with it. Would not mind a bit over 14, but it is not a deal breaker--at some point I may go with a bit brighter PJ.

Now, the use of a curved screen is predicated on the use on an anamorphic lens since part of what it. does is straighten the bow. I like the curve and the boost in brightness so I like using an anamorphic lens. So, there are three things I dislike about zooming:
- Less bright image.
- Have to deal with movable mask in front of PJ or deal with light spill above and below the screen.
- No curved screen.

As far as anamorphic lenses. I compared the $1K and the $3K plus lenses. In my mind, the extra money was not worth it. There was virtually no difference in picture quality in the middle 67% of the screen. The cheaper lenses had a bit of blue fringing on the edge which in my case spills on to the felt. I rarely see the blue fringing--The massive amount of white in the internal ship scenes in beginning of Star Wars is about the only time, and I've had almost a dozen people watch that with me and I always ask them if they saw the blue outline in objects near the edge of the screen and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has said "what are you talking about?"

So, I ended up with these guys lens and sled: http://www.anamorphicresearch.com/store.html

And honestly, I can't say enough good things about them--great product, great support, great to deal with.

Now, I did this with a 720p PJ so I wanted a sled. Given that over 2/3rds of the movies we watch are scope, if I were doing with a 1080p PJ I'd likely just go fixed anamorphic lens.

OK, that's enough for now, lets see where that thread goes.

_________________
Dave

A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Back to top
View user's photo album (1 photos)
kal
Forum Administrator



Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 17844
Location: Ottawa, Canada

TV/Projector: JVC DLA-NZ7


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the feedback Dave!

Quote:
You've done a bit of research....

A "bit" is right... I haven't really done any yet! What I've learned is basically just from being involved in HT over the years. As far as digitals and CIH/anamorphic setups go I haven't done any research at all really.

Quote:
... at a certain point, it is "big enough" and I start worrying about viewing angle. I like viewing from about 1.1 scope width or about 2.5 screen height.

Sound like what I like as well. For example, sitting about 11 feet from a 10 foot wide screen.

Quote:
Now, I did this with a 720p PJ so I wanted a sled. Given that over 2/3rds of the movies we watch are scope, if I were doing with a 1080p PJ I'd likely just go fixed anamorphic lens.

Sorry, buy fixed anamorphic lens you mean one that's permanently in front of the PJ? So what happens when you watch non-scope content?

Kal

_________________

Support our site by using our affiliate links. We thank you!
My basement/HT/bar/brewery build 2.0
Back to top
View user's photo album (18 photos)
Person99




Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kal wrote:

Sorry, buy fixed anamorphic lens you mean one that's permanently in front of the PJ? So what happens when you watch non-scope content?

Kal


Yes, you scale all content and the brightness of the image between aspect ratios stays the same (unlike my moveable one where 16:9 content is over 3 ftL brighter).

Basically it is accomplished by horizontally squishing the 16:9 content for the lens to restore. This is done by putting the PJ or scaler in 4:3 mode. The downside is that you have no way to really watch 4:3 content if you do this. Personally I never watch 4:3 content, but if you dig the really old movies this would be an issue.

I don't mind this scaling for two reasons:
1) Humans don't perceive resolution along the horizontal axis as well as the vertical
2) Downscaling is well understood and everyone does it great.

I've looked at 1080p PJs set up this way with and without the lens and 4:3 scaling and it is very very difficult to tell the difference in 16:9 content. To me, that is worth what you get from it:
1) The geometry on your curved screen is perfect for both 16:9 and scope
2) I'm to cheap to buy an automatic sled--so this allows you to set it up perfectly once, and not have to manually slide the lens.

A note about the geom. With my curved screen I "split the difference" because I have a movable screen. The curve is just under about 75% of the depth it should be, so my scope geometry is not perfect, the corners have just under 1/4" of the picture in the felt and my 16:9 image has the corners just over 1/8" from the felt.

_________________
Dave

A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Back to top
View user's photo album (1 photos)
dvh99




Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 2158
Location: nederland


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you could opt for a screen like black diamond 16:9, no masking required, a big wallet is though.

proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMHh5Vt_UQs&feature=related

_________________
1 answer always poses multiple questions.
marquee 9500ultra HD10L moome hdmi1.3 v3+ some mods.
Back to top
Person99




Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4901
Location: Flower Mound, TX


PostLink    Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dvh99 wrote:
you could opt for a screen like black diamond 16:9, no masking required, a big wallet is though.

proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMHh5Vt_UQs&feature=related


Not worth it. They don't make a 10' wide 16:9 screen unless you custom order and that puts it over $5K IIRC. Even a 10' wide 2.35:1 screen is over $3500. And I didn't find the performance gain over a wilsonart screen.

Now, one thing to consider Kal is that if you don't mind zooming and can handle 4 way masking (or are willing to spend close to $5K on a custom size SI screen, you could do a CIA. That way, 16:9 would be bigger, but not "too big" which I think it is 11' away from a 10' 16:9 image is.

But again, I don't like the decrease in brightness from zooming a big scope image. I would not zoom over 9' wide.

_________________
Dave

A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
Back to top
View user's photo album (1 photos)
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Printer-friendly view    CurtPalme.com Forum Index -> Digital Projectors All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 1 of 9
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum