Contemplating 2.35:1 Screen

[David Vaughn]

So I've been using a 88" diagonal Stewart Firehawk G1 screen since 2005, but I'm contemplating getting a 2.35:1 screen (110" diagonal Firehawk). This would make the screen the same height, but have about 33% more screen area for 2.35:1 movies. I really don't want to get an anamorphic lens, so I would use the "zoom" method on my JVC RS2000 projector. I'd have to move it back about a foot from its current location for this to work (thankfully I have the room) and as screen sizes go, it's still not that big but I'm sure I'll take a brightness hit. Then again, I usually run with the iris clamped down for SDR and open it wide up for HDR (all on low power). Thoughts?

[DLCPhoto]

Hey Dave,

If movie watching is a main reason for your theater, then I would strongly advocate for a scope screen.

In my situation, movies constitute the vast majority of what I watch in there, and with probably 80% or so of movies being in scope, that is definitely the way to go.  I get frustrated when major movies are 16:9 or 1.85:1, because of the unused screen real estate!

I got the NX7 a little over a month ago, and the picture quality using zoom was awesome.  I have a 160" diagonal 2.35:1 SI Screen, with nominal gain of 1.3, 18' throw distance, and had plenty of brightness available.  For HDR, it beat my RS400 without trying.

I have since added the DCR Lens, but I was more than happy with the NX7 by itself.

If somebody mainly watches sports and non-scope content, a scope screen wouldn't be the best choice, but for movie watching, it can't be beat (if you have the width for it, which you apparently do).

If I were buying a screen now, I would see if I could find similarly priced 2.40:1 screens, since the vast majority of movies (after 1972, I think) are that ratio, rather than 2.35:1, but my 2.35:1 is working just fine.

My $.02 worth!

Don

[David Vaughn]

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, to get the same height screen I don't think I can go with 2.40:1...I'll have to do some measurements in the morning to see if it will fit in my room configuration. It's only a couple inches wider, but I have to fit it between my L/R speakers which are wall mounted.

[DLCPhoto]

I wouldn't sweat the 2.40:1 though.  As I said, I have 2.35:1, and when I was zooming, I'd just zoom out a tad more to fill the screen top and bottom, with slight spillover on the screen frame on the side.  Wasn't visible.  So I had one preset for 2.35:1 and another for 2.40:1.  Not a big deal, and even when leaving it at 2.35:1, the slight letterbox bars top and bottom were quite narrow and easy to ignore.

As you can tell, I'm all in on scope screens for movies, with the Constant Image Height approach.  If one determines the optimal vertical dimension for watching 16:9 content in their room, and if the space is available to keep that height, and go scope for greater horizontal immersion, it's a win-win situation.

[AVSMike]

So I've been using a 88" diagonal Stewart Firehawk G1 screen since 2005, but I'm contemplating getting a 2.35:1 screen (110" diagonal Firehawk). This would make the screen the same height, but have about 33% more screen area for 2.35:1 movies. I really don't want to get an anamorphic lens, so I would use the "zoom" method on my JVC RS2000 projector. I'd have to move it back about a foot from its current location for this to work (thankfully I have the room) and as screen sizes go, it's still not that big but I'm sure I'll take a brightness hit. Then again, I usually run with the iris clamped down for SDR and open it wide up for HDR (all on low power). Thoughts?

Yes, I would highly recommend you do this. You would not need to change your viewing distance since height is unchanged. It would greatly improve your emersion of scope movies. 

[AVSCraig]

So I've been using a 88" diagonal Stewart Firehawk G1 screen since 2005, but I'm contemplating getting a 2.35:1 screen (110" diagonal Firehawk). This would make the screen the same height, but have about 33% more screen area for 2.35:1 movies. I really don't want to get an anamorphic lens, so I would use the "zoom" method on my JVC RS2000 projector. I'd have to move it back about a foot from its current location for this to work (thankfully I have the room) and as screen sizes go, it's still not that big but I'm sure I'll take a brightness hit. Then again, I usually run with the iris clamped down for SDR and open it wide up for HDR (all on low power). Thoughts?

I'd say go for it. 110" isn't huge, but it is a decent size and a good size upgrade from your current 88" screen. Come over and see my 128" scope screen if you want. 

[David Vaughn]

I pulled the trigger today. Ordered a Wallsreen Deluxe Stewart Firehawk G5 43x101 (110" diagonal) 2.35:1. I should have it in a couple of weeks. I will say this...the shipping cost is crazy high, but given the package size, I"m not surprised. It's 115" long and weighs 60 pounds. 

[AVSMike]

You will love the larger size of your scope movies and you gave up zero size in 16:9. 

[David Vaughn]

You will love the larger size of your scope movies and you gave up zero size in 16:9.

Exactly. I would have loved to have actually gone a bit bigger, but unfortunately, it wouldn't have fit in the room. I can only move the projector back so far into the back of the room because of a load bearing header. 

Thanks for everyone's advice. I'll post pictures when I get it up. (Wow...that just doesn't sound right, does it?) LOL

[TRainH2O]

I can't wait to see your NEW SCREEN, David. Sorry, I felt I should clarify my statement. 

[AVSMike]

Exactly. I would have loved to have actually gone a bit bigger, but unfortunately, it wouldn't have fit in the room. I can only move the projector back so far into the back of the room because of a load bearing header.

Thanks for everyone's advice. I'll post pictures when I get it up. (Wow...that just doesn't sound right, does it?) LOL

Getting your wife to help you?  

You could not shoot under the load bearing header?

[David Vaughn]

Getting your wife to help you?

You could not shoot under the load bearing header?

LOL

As for the header, no...it would place the projector in the adjoining kitchen and would be much too low. 

[AVSMike]

LOL

As for the header, no...it would place the projector in the adjoining kitchen and would be much too low.

You mean your wife would not like an oversize cabinet sticking out an extra 16" past the rest of the wall cabinets.  

[David Vaughn]

It isn't that...it literally would never work. I'll snap a picture and show you what I mean. Also, I only have 108" between my speakers and the 2.35:1 screen is 107 5/8 inches---it's going to stick out from the wall about 3 inches due to some construction obstacles (window sills) and since my front wall is all black, I'm not worried about blocking the windows. See my 2nd picture...never mind the writing, this is a picture I sent to GIK Acoustics

Contemplating 2.35:1 Screen

Contemplating 2.35:1 Screen

[AVSMike]

I was kidding.