Audio & Video quality: Diff between Perf. and non Perf sceens.

V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
Hi,

I am considering options for my dedicated home theater room's screen. First row of seating is about 13' from the front wall. Second row of seats is at about 16 feet from the front wall.

Is there a noticeable loss in audio and/or picture quality between a perforated and non perforated screen?

I do about 60/40 movies to television/sports. Should I go for a 16:9 or 2:40:1 aspect size screen?

Based on your suggested aspect screen size, how large should the screen be at the previously stated viewing distances?

Thanks
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
I am considering options for my dedicated home theater room's screen. First row of seating is about 13' from the front wall. Second row of seats is at about 16 feet from the front wall.

Is there a noticeable loss in audio and/or picture quality between a perforated and non perforated screen?
From what I have seen and heard, as long as you get a quality screen, you will not have any appreciable loss in audio/video quality.

I do about 60/40 movies to television/sports. Should I go for a 16:9 or 2:40:1 aspect size screen?
2.35 screen setups are expensive and you need to be willing to commit to doing it properly. The cheap way (AE4000 zoom method) is not something I would recommend. So, a good anamorphic lens, motorized (or manual) sled for the lens, and the compatible projector (many), is a significantly pricey addition is cost. Many rooms are also completely inappropriate for 2.35 projection because they aren't wide enough to support that format. An acoustically transparent screen can help make it possible for sure.

Based on your suggested aspect screen size, how large should the screen be at the previously stated viewing distances?
.66x viewing distance is screen width by typical standards.
13' and 16' is a 8'-10' wide screen. You can go between, or go a bit larger if you like sitting closer or wanted to. I would probably be shooting for a 120" diagonal 16:9 image. If you go 2.35:1, then you keep the same 59" screen height and it jumps to a 153" diagonal.

I really like anamorphic when it is done properly. Far to often rooms are simply not wide enough and people put in a screen which just ends up being to small in height for the space. So you will see a 100" diagonal 2.35 image then a 80" diagonal 16:9 image, with people sitting at 12' away and it's all just to small and not nearly the theater experience at home. So, be very cognizant of the space you are working in before making a purchase.
 
V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
Thanks for the reply. I understand what you mean about 'doing it right,' and I am willing to spend the money to get it done. I am not planning a high end home theater, but I am planning a mid-high end one. This will not be a DIY or low budget type project.

I have Stewart Firehawk G3 swatches of perforated and non perforated screens. Without having a projector I put them at my screen location, stood back and shot a flashlight at them with the lights in the room off. I was able to observe the perforations at about 12 feet of distance. The Firehawk G3 is a smoothe, flat, vinyl type of screen with a pearlesque/lumininesce type finish in medium-dark gray. The only difference in the perforated version was the perforations were simiply holes added, no weaves or fabric type screen as opposed to what I saw with Vutec. I did notice, of course, light 'dots' going through the screen when I did my test, so there is definitely light loss. Stewart claims about 8% light loss.

A local distributor who sells both perf and non perf Vutec screens advises against perf because of 'too much loss of contrast' (granted he's only seen Vutec perfs though and does not know the other brands).

I am not a videophile by any means, and am fairly easily impressed (as I was with the Vutec perf screen), but as my knowledge and optic demands continue to grow as I learn more and more, I do not want to purchase a screen now (which will dictate (in wall/free standing) my speaker selection, which dictates my pre-amp/decoder decision), only to regret it later. Since they all sort of tie -in, the screen is the first major decision to make the way I see it.

Based on what I have seen and opinions of others, I was looking into one of the higher model JVC projectors with an anamorphic lens. Runco V3x (or something) has been quoted to me with an anam. lens for about $8k (not sure if it was motorized or manual - the distributor I spoke with suggested I consider manual lenses and just move it myself - thought?).

So, what specific perforated screens are suggested in order to get good video and audio? What about size based on my room dimensions (it has one tier down)?
My floorplan: img834.imageshack.us/img834/3869/theater.gif

(sorry unable to embed link due to my noob status)
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
To bypass noob status, post some jibberish here:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49318

For anamorphic lens, the two names that come up most often for me are ISCO III and Panamorph.

Stewart, in general, is known to be the king of screens, but not knowing much more than that, I'd likely get a Seymour weave.

Yet, for 60/40 movies/TV, I'd forget the whole anamorphic thing. Even if it was more like 99% movies as with me, do I think it's not an easy decision. In the end, the room, more than anything, dictates which way to go (outside of budget). I think BMX already alluded to that. Lastly, the thousands of dollars you save by forgetting the lens could go towards many other things.

For motorization of lens, check out Cineslide.

At 8 freaking thousand dollars possibly saved by not getting that lens you speak of, you might consider one of those cool masking systems, such as made by Carada.

For my personal tastes, I'd go at least 120" from 13'. In fact, if I was to reproduce my own front row viewing angle, it would be considerably bigger yet.

However, 120" is nice because a JVC will have no problems lighting that up with unity gain screen, or thereabouts.

My off the cuff vote is for Seymour, JVC, no anamorphic, but possibly masking system. Get three identical speakers for front stage, same height.
 
Last edited:
V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
My theater floorplan can be seen here:


Hey, and thanks.

Okay, so forget anamorphic lens? This means I will still be able to play anamorphic size if the source is already anamorphic, is this correct? Or is an anam. lens required in order to view an anamorphic image on screen? i guess the good thing is that I can start with the projector only and then always had the lens later (if i really want it) as it is always an add on - correct?

On the 3 LCR identical speakers, I have heard this before (kipnis recommended theater), but was thinking of going against this as I thought felt that if this was the case, ever speaker co. out there would not make a separate center speaker. It'll probably be cheaper this way though :).

Does the Seymour weave mean no or neglible loss in audio and video quality? I really don't want to sacrifice either too much for sake of room aesthetics (a little sacrifice is okay).

BTW, so if I do a 16x9 screen, that means the masking will have to come down from the top and up from the bottom in order to make it anamorph size. With top down masking, I have heard you do not get the full 1080p resolution (as opposed to getting an anamorph screen and then doing left right masking to make it 16:9, which I have been told preserves full 1080p).

Thoughts?



To bypass noob status, post some jibberish here:

For anamorphic lens, the two names that come up most often for me are ISCO III and Panamorph.

Stewart, in general, is known to be the king of screens, but not knowing much more than that, I'd likely get a Seymour weave.

Yet, for 60/40 movies/TV, I'd forget the whole anamorphic thing. Even if it was more like 99% movies as with me, do I think it's not an easy decision. In the end, the room, more than anything, dictates which way to go (outside of budget). I think BMX already alluded to that. Lastly, the thousands of dollars you save by forgetting the lens could go towards many other things.

For motorization of lens, check out Cineslide.

At 8 freaking thousand dollars possibly saved by not getting that lens you speak of, you might consider one of those cool masking systems, such as made by Carada.

For my personal tastes, I'd go at least 120" from 13'. In fact, if I was to reproduce my own front row viewing angle, it would be considerably bigger yet.

However, 120" is nice because a JVC will have no problems lighting that up with unity gain screen, or thereabouts.

My off the cuff vote is for Seymour, JVC, no anamorphic, but possibly masking system. Get three identical speakers for front stage, same height.
 
Last edited:
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
Hey, and thanks.

Okay, so forget anamorphic lens? This means I will still be able to play anamorphic size if the source is already anamorphic, is this correct? Or is an anam. lens required in order to view an anamorphic image on screen? i guess the good thing is that I can start with the projector only and then always had the lens later (if i really want it) as it is always an add on - correct?
Mmmm, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking (prolly my fault), but yes the lens is simply an add on. You will need vertical stretch, but it's hard for me to imagine that won't be standard issue with the pedigree of PJs you're looking at.
On the 3 LCR identical speakers, I have heard this before (kipnis recommended theater), but was thinking of going against this as I thought felt that if this was the case, ever speaker co. out there would not make a separate center speaker. It'll probably be cheaper this way though :).
No offense meant here, but this is exactly what the layman thinks. The horiz center speaker came about purely as an aesthetic compromise. They have become so entirely ubiquitous, that the layman now believes it to be at least necessary if not simply superior.

If a horiz layout was indeed superior, then all of our speakers would be horizontal. The first issue with the most typical horiz MTM is lobing, since two drivers are playing the exact same thing, and once you are offaxis, the interference will create certain sets of boosts and cancellations depending on the offaxis angle. Why do they have two drivers then? To be able to effectively produce enough sound at those frequencies.

There are better ways of designing a center speaker. You can have a WTMW. The dedicated midrange woofer lets the speaker xover the woofers low enough where lobing is no longer detectable to us.

Another solution is the coaxial, which again implies a dedicated midrange (that doesn't try to reproduce bass). One of the better compromises with this design is that it can be shorter of a speaker (no tweeter above mid).

So, let's come full circle here. Three identical speakers, vertically arrayed, all on the same height gives you these advantages:

-even height of all drivers for the best panning
-the best acoustic match truly possible
-no lobing issues
-very often better power handling

And the above is when I assume a center channel speaker is "properly" placed. However, it usually isn't. Mine isn't.

Read this excellent article (and the follow up article, basically saying that horiz center speakers aren't really that bad as long as you aren't crazy offaxis). Of course the second article doesn't go so far as to say that vertical isn't better. The first article is written by Chris Seymour, that's right, the owner of Seymour screens.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs

Does the Seymour weave mean no or neglible loss in audio and video quality? I really don't want to sacrifice either too much for sake of room aesthetics (a little sacrifice is okay).
By most/all accounts, negligible. It's the audiophiles who really love this screen, so that should definitely say something about its AT capability. Video, that's where you may find a more differing opinion. Check out rmk's system; he went from a Stewart to Seymour recently. I also recommend checking out both basspig's and mperfct's systems as well, both with Seymour, and both of those with anamorphic setups.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36461&page=80

BTW, so if I do a 16x9 screen, that means the masking will have to come down from the top and up from the bottom in order to make it anamorph size. With top down masking, I have heard you do not get the full 1080p resolution (as opposed to getting an anamorph screen and then doing left right masking to make it 16:9, which I have been told preserves full 1080p).

Thoughts?
You bring up an excellent point, with the full 1080p. Another thing you get is the maximum capability of the PJs brightness, since black bars with regular setups are wasting about 1/4 of their power on black bars.

However, your FL will be lower when using the lens with anamorphic, since the light power is now spread out more. Detractors of these setups would bring up the most obvious point in that you have to distort the image two times, once by using the vertical stretch, and then of course stretching again horizontally with the lens. This is why you might see an expert like BMX saying that if you go this route, get the checkbook out, because you don't want to skimp on glass. Is it worth the money? Individual answer. For the person who might afford a 65" plasma, he could instead get an Epson 8500 with a Focupix or Carada screen for even less money. Once we're getting closer to 5 digit budgets for video, ok sure . . . .

Since you pick my brain a little more, I think the truly best implementation with automasking would be to have masking for BOTH horiz and vert. Then you can choose any darn size for any darn AR at any time. Now, this requires zooming/refocusing, and this is a can of worms I'm not getting into now. Anyways, have you seen The Dark Knight?

You are whetting my appetite a bit with this anamorphic thing. I can rather easily alter my screen for 2.35 AR, my audio would be significantly improved my further placing the center speaker away from the midbass boosts of the floor (even if acoustically treated), and I can scoot my seating even closer, hehe.
 
V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
Jostenmeat:

What I was saying about the aspect ratio is that I have seen that if the DVD is in 2:35/40:1 then you don't need the anamorph lens to 'convert' it to that ratio.

I am still leaning towards and anamorph lens and, based on my contact with Stewart filmscreens, my height at 13 and 16 feet should be between 50 and 54". Obviously, this means an anamorph. screen with a, say 52" screen height will have a longer diagonal and width than a 16"9 with a 52" height. If space permits, and in my case with my 17' wide room it does, this approach to having both an anamorph and 16:9 aspect ratio option appears to be better with a large anamorph screen. This seems to achieve two things, first, with left right masking we preserve full 1080p. Second, if the anamorph screen is large, when converting to 16:9, it will not be too small.

The same LCR concept makes perfect sense to me, i was being a bit naive by stating "why co's would make it...".

There are simply too many different ways of going about the home theater, both audio and video, which are interconnected. I'm at the point where I'm almost just tempted to say my budge is X dollars, TELL me what to do....

Mmmm, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking (prolly my fault), but yes the lens is simply an add on. You will need vertical stretch, but it's hard for me to imagine that won't be standard issue with the pedigree of PJs you're looking at.


No offense meant here, but this is exactly what the layman thinks. The horiz center speaker came about purely as an aesthetic compromise. They have become so entirely ubiquitous, that the layman now believes it to be at least necessary if not simply superior.

If a horiz layout was indeed superior, then all of our speakers would be horizontal. The first issue with the most typical horiz MTM is lobing, since two drivers are playing the exact same thing, and once you are offaxis, the interference will create certain sets of boosts and cancellations depending on the offaxis angle. Why do they have two drivers then? To be able to effectively produce enough sound at those frequencies.

There are better ways of designing a center speaker. You can have a WTMW. The dedicated midrange woofer lets the speaker xover the woofers low enough where lobing is no longer detectable to us.

Another solution is the coaxial, which again implies a dedicated midrange (that doesn't try to reproduce bass). One of the better compromises with this design is that it can be shorter of a speaker (no tweeter above mid).

So, let's come full circle here. Three identical speakers, vertically arrayed, all on the same height gives you these advantages:

-even height of all drivers for the best panning
-the best acoustic match truly possible
-no lobing issues
-very often better power handling

And the above is when I assume a center channel speaker is "properly" placed. However, it usually isn't. Mine isn't.

Read this excellent article (and the follow up article, basically saying that horiz center speakers aren't really that bad as long as you aren't crazy offaxis). Of course the second article doesn't go so far as to say that vertical isn't better. The first article is written by Chris Seymour, that's right, the owner of Seymour screens.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs



By most/all accounts, negligible. It's the audiophiles who really love this screen, so that should definitely say something about its AT capability. Video, that's where you may find a more differing opinion. Check out rmk's system; he went from a Stewart to Seymour recently. I also recommend checking out both basspig's and mperfct's systems as well, both with Seymour, and both of those with anamorphic setups.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36461&page=80



You bring up an excellent point, with the full 1080p. Another thing you get is the maximum capability of the PJs brightness, since black bars with regular setups are wasting about 1/4 of their power on black bars.

However, your FL will be lower when using the lens with anamorphic, since the light power is now spread out more. Detractors of these setups would bring up the most obvious point in that you have to distort the image two times, once by using the vertical stretch, and then of course stretching again horizontally with the lens. This is why you might see an expert like BMX saying that if you go this route, get the checkbook out, because you don't want to skimp on glass. Is it worth the money? Individual answer. For the person who might afford a 65" plasma, he could instead get an Epson 8500 with a Focupix or Carada screen for even less money. Once we're getting closer to 5 digit budgets for video, ok sure . . . .

Since you pick my brain a little more, I think the truly best implementation with automasking would be to have masking for BOTH horiz and vert. Then you can choose any darn size for any darn AR at any time. Now, this requires zooming/refocusing, and this is a can of worms I'm not getting into now. Anyways, have you seen The Dark Knight?

You are whetting my appetite a bit with this anamorphic thing. I can rather easily alter my screen for 2.35 AR, my audio would be significantly improved my further placing the center speaker away from the midbass boosts of the floor (even if acoustically treated), and I can scoot my seating even closer, hehe.
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
Jostenmeat:

What I was saying about the aspect ratio is that I have seen that if the DVD is in 2:35/40:1 then you don't need the anamorph lens to 'convert' it to that ratio.
Of course not. However, without the lens or fiddling with zoom/focus, a 2.35 movie on a 2.35 screen would look very lame! You know, I've actually seen a RS25 setup just like that on a Draper screen, haha.

I am still leaning towards and anamorph lens and, based on my contact with Stewart filmscreens, my height at 13 and 16 feet should be between 50 and 54". Obviously, this means an anamorph. screen with a, say 52" screen height will have a longer diagonal and width than a 16"9 with a 52" height. If space permits, and in my case with my 17' wide room it does, this approach to having both an anamorph and 16:9 aspect ratio option appears to be better with a large anamorph screen. This seems to achieve two things, first, with left right masking we preserve full 1080p. Second, if the anamorph screen is large, when converting to 16:9, it will not be too small.
I can't make sense of the end of this paragraph, however, the best and easiest thing to do, IMO, is to just get the PJ first, and play with the pic on the wall for a whole week. Yes, it's VERY HARD TO BE PATIENT with a high end pj in your hands, trust me I know.

But if I had to guess, with your description, with the money in hand, yeah a scope setup would work very well in there. You've got 17' width, that's fantastic.

The same LCR concept makes perfect sense to me, i was being a bit naive by stating "why co's would make it...".

There are simply too many different ways of going about the home theater, both audio and video, which are interconnected.
I'm at the point where I'm almost just tempted to say my budge is X dollars, TELL me what to do....
You hit the nail on the head. Everyone finds their own solution. Some people are on the extremes, as far as compromises. I've seen humungous speakers surrounding an old school CRT, and I've seen a dedicated theater, with tiny satellites sitting on the ground.

Think of it as "art". :D Time for you to be the artist . . . .
 
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
What I was saying about the aspect ratio is that I have seen that if the DVD is in 2:35/40:1 then you don't need the anamorph lens to 'convert' it to that ratio.
Keep in mind, only DVDs have anamorphic information on the disc. This maximizes the quality of the DVD itself, and all DVD players handle anamorphic DVD playback correctly.

Cinemascope (2.35/2.40) films on Blu-ray Disc do not use the full 1920x1080 pixels, but use black masking above and below the film on the disc itself. So, you actually have less than 1080p to work with in the original film material.

When you say you get the 'full' 1080p, this is only on the projector side of things, not on the source. So, there is no gain in quality, and potentially a quality loss as the image is scaled. This is something important to remember - the quality of the scaler used to do the vertical stretch, combined with a quality anamorphic lens is of tremendous importance in a good scope setup. It's also important to have a sled (motorized or manual) so that HD viewing (16:9) is properly using the full 1080p panel as it is intended to be used.

I am still leaning towards and anamorph lens and, based on my contact with Stewart filmscreens, my height at 13 and 16 feet should be between 50 and 54". Obviously, this means an anamorph. screen with a, say 52" screen height will have a longer diagonal and width than a 16"9 with a 52" height. If space permits, and in my case with my 17' wide room it does, this approach to having both an anamorph and 16:9 aspect ratio option appears to be better with a large anamorph screen. This seems to achieve two things, first, with left right masking we preserve full 1080p. Second, if the anamorph screen is large, when converting to 16:9, it will not be too small.
With a 17' wide wall, I would agree that your room is ideal for doing a proper scope setup. I would refer back to my first post as I would definitely call 50" height to small and 54" height a minimum. Rear seats at 16' ask for a 16:9 screen to be over 120" wide. That works out to a 68" screen height. At 11' an image slightly larger than 110" diagonal (1.78:1) is 54" tall.

Stewart seems to be short changing what you would be getting in your typical properly designed movie theater with their recommendation.

Of course THEN we start the discussion of finding a projector which will deliver enough lumens on screen to fill a larger than typical screen size adequately. I think at about a 59" screen height you will get by with most projectors without issue.

I'm at the point where I'm almost just tempted to say my budge is X dollars, TELL me what to do....
There are people who design and install this stuff for a living and the better ones will tell you what to do, and will tell you why to do it, and will do it for you if your budget allows for it.

Don't forget a really good remote control for it all, hiding equipment, proper equipment access, proper cabling, good mount, proper ventilation, etc. You are on the front side of what many people have been studying for years and years.
 
AVRat

AVRat

Audioholic Ninja
We've also discussed dual PJ setups: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63682

I would definitely prefer a setup that at least puts the center channel behind the screen. There are many speaker manufacturers that have in-walls/rooms that are timbre matched.

A couple of Epik Empire subs would pressurize your room nicely!!:eek::D

The JVC DLA-RS25/Seymour screen combo is an excellent way to go.

BTW, what is the ceiling height? Throw your budget at us anyway!
 
V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
I like seymours fabric, a sample came in a few days ago. i just wasnt sure if i should go gray i.e. firehawk, black diamond or if i should go white. ppl say if you have a lot of ambient light, go for a gray screen. well what is a lot? i have a dedicated theater room. the only lights are step lights, and, if i want to, dim the wall sconces a bit during the movie, and if someone gets up and opens the doors which are at the rear of the theater.

i do not have a budget in mind, however i hate 'wasting' money. i like to make purchases that i can use for a long time. i am not an early adopter, a late adopter. i like maximum bang for the buck and believe in the law of diminishing returns for most items.

We've also discussed dual PJ setups: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63682

I would definitely prefer a setup that at least puts the center channel behind the screen. There are many speaker manufacturers that have in-walls/rooms that are timbre matched.

A couple of Epik Empire subs would pressurize your room nicely!!:eek::D

The JVC DLA-RS25/Seymour screen combo is an excellent way to go.

BTW, what is the ceiling height? Throw your budget at us anyway!
 
V

violator_1977

Audiophyte
hi and thanks for the reply.

i've never had a home theater and so do not know what i would like. so i went to best buy and purchased a jvc 350 for trial. put up white bedsheets in my ht room and put on a couple movies.

after testing, i THINK, i like a 68" screen height for 16:9, and 58-60" height for scope. i used jvc's built in zooming.

if i do a CIH, then i think i would go about 60" in height. or if i get a 2.0:1 screen then maybe i can get a masking system to mask on all 4 sides that way i can maximize my 16:9 size.

everyon'es got different ideas i guess. i'm the kind of person that tries to go a little past the half way mark back from the screen in commercial theaters, dead center.

when playing around with scope screen sizes, one thing that came to my mind was to what degree should a movie 'immerse' its viewers? the bigger i went (up to the point of eye strain), the more immersive the movie. is it supposed to be so large that you feel you are there because your eye does not focus on the outer perimiter of the screen? never had a theater so don't know what to expect..
Keep in mind, only DVDs have anamorphic information on the disc. This maximizes the quality of the DVD itself, and all DVD players handle anamorphic DVD playback correctly.

Cinemascope (2.35/2.40) films on Blu-ray Disc do not use the full 1920x1080 pixels, but use black masking above and below the film on the disc itself. So, you actually have less than 1080p to work with in the original film material.

When you say you get the 'full' 1080p, this is only on the projector side of things, not on the source. So, there is no gain in quality, and potentially a quality loss as the image is scaled. This is something important to remember - the quality of the scaler used to do the vertical stretch, combined with a quality anamorphic lens is of tremendous importance in a good scope setup. It's also important to have a sled (motorized or manual) so that HD viewing (16:9) is properly using the full 1080p panel as it is intended to be used.


With a 17' wide wall, I would agree that your room is ideal for doing a proper scope setup. I would refer back to my first post as I would definitely call 50" height to small and 54" height a minimum. Rear seats at 16' ask for a 16:9 screen to be over 120" wide. That works out to a 68" screen height. At 11' an image slightly larger than 110" diagonal (1.78:1) is 54" tall.

Stewart seems to be short changing what you would be getting in your typical properly designed movie theater with their recommendation.

Of course THEN we start the discussion of finding a projector which will deliver enough lumens on screen to fill a larger than typical screen size adequately. I think at about a 59" screen height you will get by with most projectors without issue.


There are people who design and install this stuff for a living and the better ones will tell you what to do, and will tell you why to do it, and will do it for you if your budget allows for it.

Don't forget a really good remote control for it all, hiding equipment, proper equipment access, proper cabling, good mount, proper ventilation, etc. You are on the front side of what many people have been studying for years and years.
 
G

goonstopher

Audioholic Intern
I know very little about this but I can say that IMO Imax looks dull and especially bad in 3d. I think 3d is not compatible with perf screens. That double resolution needed magnifies the perforations.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top