AVS Discussions

2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens

2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« on: December 02, 2016, 06:52:18 AM »
I suspect that many HT owners considering a new screen are drawn to using a 'scope screen instead of the more common 16 x 9 format.  Once the decision is made to go the 'scope route then there is the question of which aspect ratio to actually use.  The term 'scope generally refers to any aspect ratio from 2.35:1 to 2.40:1.  As a little history on Cinemascope, according to Wikipedia:

"CinemaScope was developed to use a separate film for sound (see Audio below), thus enabling the full "silent" 1.33:1 aperture to be available for the picture, with a 2:1 anamorphic squeeze applied that would allow an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. When, however, developers found that magnetic stripes could be added to the film to produce a composite picture/sound print, the ratio of the image was reduced to 2.55:1. This reduction was kept to a minimum by reducing the width of the normal KS perforations so that they were nearly square, but of DH height. This was the CinemaScope, or CS, perforation, known colloquially as "fox-holes". Later still an optical soundtrack was added, reducing the aspect ratio further to 2.35:1. This change also meant a shift in the optical center of the projected image. All of Fox's CinemaScope films were made using a silent/full aperture for the negatives, as was this studio's practice for all films, whether anamorphic or not."

"In order to better hide so-called "negative assembly" splices, the ratio of the image was later changed by others to 2.39:1 and, finally, to 2.40:1. All professional cameras are capable of shooting 2.55:1 (special 'Scope aperture plate) or 2.66:1 (standard "Full"/"Silent" aperture plate, preferred by many producers and all optical houses), and 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 or 2.40:1 is simply a hard-matted version of the others."

I would add that the current Panavision standard is 2.39:1. 

Most of the Blu-ray releases for the past few years seem to be using a 2.39:1 or  2.40:1 aspect ratio while there are some of the mainly older titles using 2.35:1.  Most DVD and Blu-ray packaging will show the 'scope title's aspect ratio as either 2.35:1 or 2.40:1.

So what aspect ratio should a HT owner be using for the screen.  I've decided on 2.40:1 for my HT, that way I can keep a constant image height for any aspect ratio up to 2.40:1, but there are certainly many others that have elected to go with a 2.35:1 screen. 

I'm starting this tread so others can express their opinion and rational for selecting a 2.35:1 vs. 2.40:1 aspect ratio for the screen.



« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 06:54:13 AM by Ron Jones »
Ron Jones
Reviewer/Writer/Blogger for Projector Reviews
http://www.projectorreviews.com

bmoney

  • ***
  • 439
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2016, 07:00:21 AM »
If I remake my screen it 100% will be 2.4 instead of 2.35 (almost no movies are 2.35)

Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2016, 07:05:18 AM »
I went 2.40 and think that works very well with an A-lens (I use an A-lens). Though I can see some advantages to 2.35. You get a slightly larger 16:9 image and for scope, if you fill the height of the screen, you can lose the overscan on the sides in the black velvet surround. You are not going to miss that 1/2"+/- on each side that you lose.
Mike Garrett
AV Science Sales
585-671-2968
mike@avscience.com

JVC, Sony, Epson, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Stewart, Seymour, Screen Innovations, Screen Excellence, DNP, Carada, Da-Lite, Vutec, Triad, SVS, Martin Logan, Def Tech, RBH, M&K and many other brands.

bmoney

  • ***
  • 439
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2016, 07:25:20 AM »
I went 2.40 and think that works very well with an A-lens (I use an A-lens). Though I can see some advantages to 2.35. You get a slightly larger 16:9 image and for scope, if you fill the height of the screen, you can lose the overscan on the sides in the black velvet surround. You are not going to miss that 1/2"+/- on each side that you lose.

agreed

the other night I watched Pacific Rim....and I have been lazy the past few months with 1.85 movies..and havent put the masking up...but did with PR  wow what a difference....time to stop being lazy haha

AVSCraig

  • *****
  • 1336
  • Home Theater Lover / Sales / Advice
    • AV Science, Inc
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2016, 08:42:14 AM »
If I got a new screen, I think it would be 2.40:1. My current scope screen is 2.35:1. Most movies leave a tiny black bar, which with the JVC RS600 is fine - can't see it anyway.
Direct (585) 671-2972   craig@avscience.com
www.avscience.com
We carry projectors, screens, speakers, receivers etc. !!
Twitter - @AVS_Craig

ellisr63

  • ***
  • 478
  • Surfing in the Home Theater
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2016, 09:30:45 AM »
I was disappointed in my setup before I got the anamorphic lens as I couldn't use the full 195" diagonal screen. Now with the anamorphic I get the full screen (about 10" larger), and a brighter picture to boot. Watching 2.40 aspect movies is so much nicer with out black bars. :)
Yamaha CX-A5100, (3) diy synergy horn 2 ways,, 4 JBL 8340As, 4 JBL 8320s, PS3, XBoxOne, Monoprice speaker wire, and XLR cables, Redmere HDMI cables, Monster HTPS7000, 2 Furman filters, SeymourAV 195" diagonal scope screen, Panamorph UH-480, Darbee Darcet, diy 14 channel Ice Power amp

AVSCraig

  • *****
  • 1336
  • Home Theater Lover / Sales / Advice
    • AV Science, Inc
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2016, 10:16:00 AM »
I was disappointed in my setup before I got the anamorphic lens as I couldn't use the full 195" diagonal screen. Now with the anamorphic I get the full screen (about 10" larger), and a brighter picture to boot. Watching 2.40 aspect movies is so much nicer with out black bars. :)

How many foot lamberts do you get on that sized screen ?
Direct (585) 671-2972   craig@avscience.com
www.avscience.com
We carry projectors, screens, speakers, receivers etc. !!
Twitter - @AVS_Craig

bmoney

  • ***
  • 439
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2016, 10:19:47 AM »
If I got a new screen, I think it would be 2.40:1. My current scope screen is 2.35:1. Most movies leave a tiny black bar, which with the JVC RS600 is fine - can't see it anyway.

same here...but of course it bugs me every now and then ahah

ellisr63

  • ***
  • 478
  • Surfing in the Home Theater
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2016, 10:42:11 AM »
How many foot lamberts do you get on that sized screen ?
About 8FL last time I checked... I know that is low, but the wow factor is great. Someday I will have enough money (hopefully) to get a much brighter projector. ;)
Yamaha CX-A5100, (3) diy synergy horn 2 ways,, 4 JBL 8340As, 4 JBL 8320s, PS3, XBoxOne, Monoprice speaker wire, and XLR cables, Redmere HDMI cables, Monster HTPS7000, 2 Furman filters, SeymourAV 195" diagonal scope screen, Panamorph UH-480, Darbee Darcet, diy 14 channel Ice Power amp

bmoney

  • ***
  • 439
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2016, 11:45:10 AM »
About 8FL last time I checked... I know that is low, but the wow factor is great. Someday I will have enough money (hopefully) to get a much brighter projector. ;)

wow that is low...i assume you dont watch 3D

Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2016, 12:09:44 PM »
If I got a new screen, I think it would be 2.40:1. My current scope screen is 2.35:1. Most movies leave a tiny black bar, which with the JVC RS600 is fine - can't see it anyway.

Yeah, I will have to agree. With the JVC, a tiny black bar is hard to notice.
Mike Garrett
AV Science Sales
585-671-2968
mike@avscience.com

JVC, Sony, Epson, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, Stewart, Seymour, Screen Innovations, Screen Excellence, DNP, Carada, Da-Lite, Vutec, Triad, SVS, Martin Logan, Def Tech, RBH, M&K and many other brands.

ellisr63

  • ***
  • 478
  • Surfing in the Home Theater
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2016, 01:25:28 PM »
wow that is low...i assume you dont watch 3D
We have 3D, but I know it is not bright enough for 3D so we watch all our movies without 3D.
Yamaha CX-A5100, (3) diy synergy horn 2 ways,, 4 JBL 8340As, 4 JBL 8320s, PS3, XBoxOne, Monoprice speaker wire, and XLR cables, Redmere HDMI cables, Monster HTPS7000, 2 Furman filters, SeymourAV 195" diagonal scope screen, Panamorph UH-480, Darbee Darcet, diy 14 channel Ice Power amp

AVSCraig

  • *****
  • 1336
  • Home Theater Lover / Sales / Advice
    • AV Science, Inc
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2016, 02:44:04 PM »
About 8FL last time I checked... I know that is low, but the wow factor is great. Someday I will have enough money (hopefully) to get a much brighter projector. ;)

That can't be in " best mode " either, since your projector only puts out 622 lumens in Rec. 709. Takes a lot of horsepower to light up a screen that big. You need a laser projector that will ( for all practical purposes ) never dim.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 03:10:09 PM by AVSCraig »
Direct (585) 671-2972   craig@avscience.com
www.avscience.com
We carry projectors, screens, speakers, receivers etc. !!
Twitter - @AVS_Craig

ellisr63

  • ***
  • 478
  • Surfing in the Home Theater
Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2016, 04:11:47 PM »
That can't be in " best mode " either, since your projector only puts out 622 lumens in Rec. 709. Takes a lot of horsepower to light up a screen that big. You need a laser projector that will ( for all practical purposes ) never dim.
It is in eco mode/dynamic...hopefully some day I will be able to afford a Laser projector some day. :)
Yamaha CX-A5100, (3) diy synergy horn 2 ways,, 4 JBL 8340As, 4 JBL 8320s, PS3, XBoxOne, Monoprice speaker wire, and XLR cables, Redmere HDMI cables, Monster HTPS7000, 2 Furman filters, SeymourAV 195" diagonal scope screen, Panamorph UH-480, Darbee Darcet, diy 14 channel Ice Power amp

Re: 2.35 vs. 2.40 'scope screens
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2016, 04:17:37 PM »
I chose 2:35 for reasons Mike cited as I use the zoom method.  2:35 makes non-scope just a tiny bit bigger as I actually did some comparisons projecting onto the wall before deciding.  Also, a lot of classic catalog titles on Blu-ray are actually framed at 2:35 (slightly altered from their original 2:39) including Alien, Blade Runner, Indiana Jones movies, original Star Wars movies, and others so I get to see those a hair larger.

Because my zoom is maxed out, I do get a very slither of black bar on the top and bottom of 2:39-2:4 movies, but it doesn't bother me and is tuned out watching movies.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 04:20:08 PM by DavidHir »