CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

**kal** · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:33 pm Post subject:

Thanks but I have no interest in using a PC to play back movies. That's a lot of expense and extra work for what I'd consider a very minor improvement (moving subtitles that are placed incorrectly).

I did use an HTPC for many many years without any issues but that's because I did my homework and really put a lot of work into it. That's because the only other option of same quality was a $10K Faroudja scaler. Those days are long gone (scaler no longer needed) and I don't want to go there again for what (for me) would be a minor improvement. I use a PS3 now and love the simplicity and versatility of it for the low price of $250.

Kal

**kal** · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject:

I suppose the other option here is that I don't *NEED* to go with a 2.35:1 ratio screen. If I keep the same 54" height on the new screen my 16x9 movies will all look the same as today which is probably good given that my head is about 10 feet away.

Is my math right?:

My 96x54" screen now is 1.78:1. That means that 2.35 movies are 96x41" in size which is 2936 sq inches at 43.6 degree viewing angle.

2.0:1 screen: If I increase the screen width by 1 foot to 108", 2.35 movies become 108x46 which is 4968 sq inches at 48.5 degree viewing angle. The 2.35 movie is now 69% larger. That's a big change. Viewing angle is pushing the boundries of acceptable?

2.22:1 screen: If I increase the screen width by 2 feet to 120", 2.35 movies become 120x51 which is 6120 sq inches at 53.1 degree viewing angle. The 2.35 movie is now 108% larger. That's a *massive* change. I worry that the viewing angle is simply way too much (?).

By only adding 1 foot to the width, it's pretty amazing that 2.35 movies now occupy 69% more space.

Kal

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

**kal** · Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject:

Thanks Dave. After I wrote that I thought to myself "Hey! I'm describing constant image area (CIA)!".

Lots of TV (16x9) gets watched as does playing 16x9 PS3 games. So the amount of 2.35 content is fairly low in relation. That said, the TV and games are watched mostly by people other than me, and nobody else in the house cares about image quality as much as I do.

I don't watch much TV. I tend to stick to movies. No idea how many are 1.33 vs 1.78 vs 2.35 however. One of these days I should sit down and go through my favourites and see where they fall.

Masking has never been an issue for me with CRT. The non-image areas are near back (dark enough). I'm assuming (maybe incorrectly) that an late model LCOS machine would give me close to the same.

Kal

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

MikeEby · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5150 Location: Osceola, Indiana

WanMan · Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 9668

BTW, last week I watched Avatar on the KVC while it was zoomed in for 2.35 aspect. I was too lazy to both zooming out and left it there. That was one movie where I do not think I missed any content enough to detract me from other aspects of the film (bad story). While cannot be said for lazy viewing of foreign films with subtitles, I lived with it enough to enjoy it.

I then turned around and watched the last two [available] Harry Potter movies in scope.

**kal** · Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:25 am Post subject:

Boilermaker · Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 527

Kal - This might be a little late in the game, but you do have another option that will probably be a little cheaper.

First, I went CIH a couple of years ago to a 2.35, 126" wide screen and like it so much that I will never go back to 16:9.

I know you have a Barco crt, so your other option is to pick up one more and do a 10% blend. You have the skills to do it easily and would appreciate the many advantages it offers.

Just a thought!

Bob

WTS · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 1221 Location: Calgary

I wouldn't count on having the same blacks on a digital as with your 1200, so you might want to think about a masking system of sorts. I think it would be easier with a constant width screen and then mask the upper/lower screen when using scope movies. I'm not sure how you'd do CIH without the special lens.
Wouldn't it be better to do CIW because the panels in all projectors are 16:9 and when a 2:39 movie is playing it is using the full width but not the full height of the panels.

**kal** · Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:18 pm Post subject:

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Thoughts on masking.

I'm using a movable anamorphic lens, in a room with VERY dark maroon walls, the front wall is all black velvet except the screen area and I have a 3.5' long black carpeted stage in front of the screen wall.

When I screen a 16:9 movie, there is no light from the projector hitting the right and left sides of the screen, but there is still ambient light in the room simply from the projected image. Does it look horrible without the masking? No, but you can certainly see the screen sides. Does it look better with the masking? Heck yeah.

Person99 · Joined: 09 Mar 2006 Posts: 4901 Location: Flower Mound, TX

Kal, if you wanna do the blend let me know, I got a COG board I can get to you. Smile

WTS · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 1221 Location: Calgary

Hey Kal if you want to do a blend I got a spare 1200 in mint shape low hrs - I sent you a PM.

I don't want to buy a lens and I don't want to use zoom and lose res, so I guess I'll have to mask top and bottom.

Boilermaker · Joined: 21 May 2006 Posts: 527

HogPilot · Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject:

dturco · Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:57 pm Post subject:

**kal** · Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:57 pm Post subject: