16:9 or 1.85:1 screens?

[rolyasm]

Hey all,
Looking at some screens and noticing that besides the 4:3 ratio, which I don't want, there is also these other 2 formats. I have read what I could on the internet about amorphic and non-amorphic, and from what I can understand the best picuture is an amorphic DVD on a 16:9 screen. Is that correct? I know the DVD will determine how the picture will appear, so how does one go about choosing a screen? Movies are mostly what I watch. Have a lot of them and I don't really pay attention to what format they are all in. So is one screen size becoming more dominant than the other? Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
Roly

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hey all,
Looking at some screens and noticing that besides the 4:3 ratio, which I don't want, there is also these other 2 formats. I have read what I could on the internet about amorphic and non-amorphic, and from what I can understand the best picuture is an amorphic DVD on a 16:9 screen. Is that correct? I know the DVD will determine how the picture will appear, so how does one go about choosing a screen? Movies are mostly what I watch. Have a lot of them and I don't really pay attention to what format they are all in. So is one screen size becoming more dominant than the other? Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
Roly

I would recommend a 1.85 ratio screen. Very few movies are in 16:9 ratio compared to the 1.85 and wider movies. And, with a 1.85 screen you will loose very little, 1" top and bottom, on a 100"x54" screen.

 

[rolyasm]

Just doing some more research and I also see the CinemaScope screen. Anyone using that screen size? Also, I see that most of the projectors I am looking at list a 16:9 aspect ratio. Does that mean I should use a 16:9 screen with a 16:9 projector, or will other screens work alright with that? Thanks for the reply Mtrycrafts.

 

[MDS]

I may be off-base here having never owned a projector, but I don't think projectors nor screens come in any aspect ratio other than 16:9 (1.78:1).

The 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (Cinemascope) ratios to which you are referring are common aspect ratios of a film - not the screen. That's the reason that a 16:9 widescreen TV will still show small black bars - because the aspect ratio of the film is slightly wider than the aspect ratio of the screen.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I may be off-base here having never owned a projector, but I don't think projectors nor screens come in any aspect ratio other than 16:9 (1.78:1).

The 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (Cinemascope) ratios to which you are referring are common aspect ratios of a film - not the screen. That's the reason that a 16:9 widescreen TV will still show small black bars - because the aspect ratio of the film is slightly wider than the aspect ratio of the screen.

Yes, you are correct. But, if you use a 1.85 screen, available from most makers, any size, you would not have any black mark on 1.85 film and a smaller bar on 2.35. You only loose a small amount of picture if a film is 1.77
(16x9). If, on the other hand, one watches lots of TV that has 16x9 material, then that size screen may be in order.

 

[Rob Babcock]

You can buy a screen in any imaginable aspect ration. Some PJs are capable of projecting in many aspect ratios. I would strongly advise you purchase a 16:9 (sometimes referred to as 1.78:1) unless you have the budget and know-how to use an anamorphic lense and create a CIH setup.

True, 1.85:1 is probably the single most common aspect ratio for movies. The problem is that if you set up your PJ with a 1.85:1 screen, then a 1.78:1 movie will have a bit of the top & bottom "cut off" or spill over the screen onto the border & wall. You could of course pull the zoom back or move the projector, but that's a lot of work each time. And then you'll have areas of blank screen to the left and right. This can be avoided with electric variable masking, but that will cost thousands of dollars- more than most HT's, in fact.

IMOHO the best option for most people is to match the screen aspect ratio to the native resolution of their particular PJ. Some DLPs can be set to other "native" ratios, using the full engine for PC ratios and just 720 for HD, but this isn't extremely common. Plus, there is a lot of 16:9 material, including many films and nearly all HD stuff. Also, many recent TV series, both on-air and on TV, are "16:9, enhanced for widescreen." On such series is Lost, which I've been watching from DVD lately. Bear in mind that as time goes on, 1.78:1 will probably become more prevalent as more and more TV content "goes widescreen" for HDTV.

 

[rolyasm]

Thanks for all the responses. I think I am starting to understand it better. I went through my movies and sure enough, most of them were in 1.85 or wider formats. I like the idea of having most of my movies fill up the entire screen, but I am not sure if I like the idea of a 16x9 being cropped on the top and bottom. I certainly wouldn't want the picture to "spill" out over the edges, though I might me happy if it was simpy cropped to fit the screen. Any idea how to tell if the projector will simply play the 16x9 cropped, or if it will actually let make the picture larger than the screen? Are there any cheaper PJ's on the market ($3-4k range) that will auto format to fit the screen? Thanks all.
Roly

 

[Rob Babcock]

What you suggest would require scaling the image, which generally degrades the picture. A good scaler will harm the image less, but PJs will look best at their native resolution. The PJ won't "recognize" and adjust based on the aspect ratio of the material. You could get an electric masking system for the screen.

Most people are not bothered to much by having a bit of "black bars" around the image. Perhaps in a perfect world, we'd only have one aspect ratio. Certainly this would be nice for hardware purposes! Since that's not the way it is, the best bet is usually to compromise. For most people a 1.78:1 is probably the most practical, but the 1.85:1 size can be useful, too.

For the money you're willing to spend you probably could do a constant image height setup with an anamorphic lense. This isn't "automatic," but doesn't take much work to use.

FWI: theaters usually do this. They only have to adjust the drapes on the sides of the screen to accomodate different aspect ratios.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I think cropping a film is always a bad idea. After all, that's what "Full Screen" or "pan & scan" movies are. In cropping you always throw something away, usually something important!

 

[BMXTRIX]

I assume we are speaking of buying a screen for a front projection setup.

If this is the case, then there is one consistent rule to follow: BUY A SCREEN THAT MATCHES THE NATIVE RESOLUTION OF YOUR PROJECTOR!

Are you really planning to never view HDTV on your screen? If you own a 16:9 projector (1.78:1) then the chip inside that projector can only project ONE size: 16:9. Just because it doesn't have an image to project above and below the 2.35:1 films, doesn't turn those pixels off - it just projects 'black' (no image) at the top and bottom below the film. It doesn't magically reconfigure the chip from 16:9 to 2.35:1.

So, here's the real kicker: If you buy a screen the wrong shape for the chip in the projector, it will ONLY look correct for movies that are the exact aspect ratio of the screen you purchased. Nothing else (NOTHING!) will fill the screen completely - and anything that is less than 1.85:1 (such as HDTV or regular 4:3 TV) will actually overshoot the screen and fall onto the black border... or perhaps the wall.

There are proper - and very expensive - ways to get wider than 1.78:1 aspect ratios from front projection. But, if you aren't on a $20K+ budget, I would avoid those methods because they will tend to look shoddy at best and will be very cumbersome to utilize fully. Even the nice setups still tend to require some user intervention to get proper utilization out of the equipment.

If you are concerned about black bars on your screen... Try a screen masking system like this one:
http://www.htiq.com/

You buy the 1.78:1 screen, then mask it to the size that's appropriate for what you are viewing.

 

[mpompey]

I'd recommend the 16x9 setup as well. Many DVD are being "optomized" for 16x9. Plus, if you get a large enough screen size, the bars from the varying movie formats are not going to be that big of a deal.

I know with my DVDs, I have ratios running from 2.40:1 down to 4:3. I usually don't worry about it that much.

 

[rolyasm]

Infocus IN82 new 1080P??

Still trying to afford my PJ. I have the opportunity to get an Infocus IN82, their new 1080p projector that ships is August. Infocus' fact sheets states that the native resolution is 16:9, but that the projector also fully supports 2.35:1 with an anamorphic lens. I know this has been discussed earlier, but just want to clarify. So the native is 16:9. The projector will have to scale to 2.35:1? Do all projectors do this with an anamorphic lens, or is the projector claiming something unique?
Here is the web site
http://www.infocus.com/Products/Projectors/IN82.aspx
go to the bottom and click on data sheet. The stats are at the bottom.
If I am undetstanding correctly though, this WILL degrade the video. Regardless of PJ capability. Anyway, the way the add is reading, it is making it sound like one could get full resolution in the 2.35 format without any degredation. Let me know what you think. Thanks all. Also, does anyone have any pics of their screen with curtains, black bars, etc. Just curious what they all are looking like so I can get some good ideas how to do mine. Thanks

Roly

 

[MDS]

Aspect ratio is simply the ratio of the width to the height. The aspect ratio isn't scaled - the number of pixels in the source image is scaled to the number of pixels of the native resolution.

What the projector specs say is that it displays an image with 1920 x 1080 pixels in a 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio. If you get the special anamorphic lense, it can display the same number of pixels but in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

If the source is already in a 2.35:1 ratio you'd see the exact image with no black bars. If the source were 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 and you want it displayed as 2.35:1 it would be a stretching process similar in concept to how a 4:3 image is stretched to fit a 16:9 display area.

 

[rolyasm]

So is it possible to have the anamorphic lens for true 2.35, then take it of for 16:9 movies without too much hassle? Is it as simple as putting the lens on/off, or would you have to recalibrate or move the projector everytime? Also, what happens to a 2.35 movie played on a 16:9 screen. Does the picture go over the edges (top/bottom) of screen? I would love to have a 2.35 screen, but realize few movies created this way. If there was a fairly simple way to use the lens and then make some side panels/black bars when I was using the 16:9, I might go for it. I don't have the money for an automated panel system, but I do plan to use curtains on the side of the screen, perhaps like in a movie house. Thanks
Roly

 

[mpompey]

Sounds like it would be a hassle. I would just go with the 16:9 screen and deal with and bars you would see. You'll never be able to watch all DVDs in every ratio natively. As long as your screen is large enough, and the projector quality is there, you are not going to care. Trust me. Go through your DVD collection and count up the number of titles that are 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 2.38, etc. Do you really want to be switching lenses each time you put in a DVD? I think you'll be fine with the 16:9 setup.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Revisiting my opinion:

Get a screen that matches the native resolution of your projector - that means that you WANT a 16:9 (1.78:1) screen in almost all scenarios.

If you really want to go with a CIH setup (constant image height) then there are two ways to do it, and both of them produce similar results and are, in my opinion, a waste of time and money.

1. Use an anamorphic lens. Last I checked this was a $3,000 upgrade over the base price of the HD81 projector, likely the same for the HD82. It is nice because you don't have to refocus/zoom the lens every time you switch from non-2.35 material to standard material, but you do have to move the lens (manually I believe) and likely have to change the aspect ratio setting of the projector to 'normal' or 'full' mode. So, everytime you switch, you are futzing around with the projector and for a mere premium of $3,000 above the cost of the projector.

2. Use a projector that has a 1.33x zoom lens, like the new JVC model. You will have to zoom/refocus the projector everytime you go from standard material to 2.35 material, but it is no additional cost. You will have similar image brightness and very similar image quality by doing this and it is by far my preferred way of going 2.35:1 unless you have a serious budget and can do option 1 (above) using a motorized/auto detect setup which is $10K+ added to the cost.

To trim the edges of the screen, just use those curtains you are getting. Get a dark color like a deep blue, red, or black, then simply open/close them to the width necessary for the screen.

But, realistically, you just don't need any of it and won't have any hassles at all if you go with a 16:9 screen in the first place. You can just set the projector up, project onto a 16:9 screen, and then non-16:9 material will either produce bars at the top, or the sides of the image, but you won't be zooming, scaling, or generally degregading the image to achieve some aspect ratio that it wasn't natively designed to display.

Really, 2.35 images on a 1.78:1 screen simply doesn't look bad when your room is about 100% dark and if it does offend, you likely can make your own velvet wrapped masks that you could put on your screen fairly easily and cheaply.

 

[rolyasm]

It might be a hassle, I agree. However, a little hassle would be fine. I would be willing to occassionally remove the side bars and put on a anamorphic lens, if there was some easy way to move the projector to the new position. Only take 5-10 minutes for a great cinema. Are there any mobile track systems for projectors that make it easy to move the projector back and forth to a set position. What I envision is one preset for the 16:9, then I simply release a lever, slide the projector until it stops in the correct position, reset the brake, and I am done. Anything like that out there? Thanks all.
Roly

 

[ace55]

I'd suggest 16 x 9

 

[jimfitz]

Why wouldn't you simply buy a screen that fits the largest width and height image your projector could ever display. Then, anytime it's projecting something smaller, it won't quite fill up the screen top to bottom or side to side?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Why wouldn't you simply buy a screen that fits the largest width and height image your projector could ever display. Then, anytime it's projecting something smaller, it won't quite fill up the screen top to bottom or side to side?

Jim - What you are suggesting is that he gets a 16:9 screen, which is the same thing that has been suggested many times over already.

His response, from last month, which I never responded to...

If you have an anamorphic lens, then you should not need to move your projector in a CIH scenario if you buy a anamorphic lens which does HE (horizontal expansion) instead of VC (vertical compression).

Unfortunately a lot of anamorphic lenses screw up the actual image with imprerfect optics, so instead of an anamorphic lens ($$$) I would strongly suggest a projector, properly mounted, that has more than a 1.33:1 throw range. This way you can go 2.35:1 CIH if you want, but when you want a 1.78:1 image you can simply zoom in a bit to shrink the image down to the right size. Then when it's 2.35:1 you zoom it back out. You maintain the native resolution (which is proper), maintain brightness, and get a full 2.35:1 experience if you want it.