CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

Interesting stuff, though I'm not sure exactly who the target market is - one would think that someone who cares enough about movies to want 2.35, and who could afford such a thing, would also care enough to have a dedicated theater or at least a nondedicated FP projection setup.

It still looks kinda cool though.

Nashou66 · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 16171 Location: West Seneca NY

I think Runco was making one as well. 100" wide or something like that.

Athanasios

WanMan · Joined: 19 Mar 2006 Posts: 10270

Its unfortunate that motorized masking systems are pricey.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:13 pm Post subject:

When they first started to spek the HDTV standards they set up a bunch of aspect ratios and did focus groups ( I read this in a video magazine c.1990ish ) They set up 4:3, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.20:1 and a few other ratio's and, after much testing people prefered the 1.85:1 ratio.

I'm not sure how that transitioned into 16:9 though ( the naming I mean ) Maybe they were trying to subconsiouly make it sound sexy

I 6:9 Wink

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:52 pm Post subject:

perisoft · Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 2920 Location: Ithaca, NY

Well.... if I watch a 2.35 movie on my CRT now, it's... a 2.35 movie, using maximum phosphor available for a 2.35 movie. If I *only* watched 2.35 movies, there'd be no point to having the top and bottom blank bits on the screen, right? So I get rid of them. Now it's '2.35 CIH' - but really the only difference is the screen size.

When you start watching stuff other than 2.35, of course, everything changes, and you're back to the old debate. But for 2.35 only, there's no difference - might as well have the screen be the same ratio as what you're watching.

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject:

So you're using a screen for 16:9 then when you do a 2.35:1 movie the image get's wider?

Or are you saying you use two screens? Is your 16:9 taller than your 2.35:1? How could 2.35:1 use " (the) same phosphor usage as it would be with 16:9, just a different screen "?

ecrabb · Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:53 am Post subject:

What he's saying is that for any given screen width - 8' for instance - for 2.40 material, it doesn't matter whether you're projecting on a 2.40 screen or a 16:9 screen... the image on the tube face is the same.

In other words, if you watched 95% scope material in your HT, you could just do a scope screen and pillarbox the rare occasions when you wanted to watch taller material. Like me, he also watches OTA, games, and other taller material, so the 16:9 screen made more sense.

I'm taking a wild guess, but I'd say in my HT, scope is probably only 50-60% or so of my watching. In addition to the big scope movies, I watch some HDNet, Discovery HD, SpeedHD - all in 16:9, the occasional game, plus all the music and movies that are 1.78 or 1.85.

Some day - probably in my next house - I'll definitely do a theater with a 2.40 CIH screen with side masking. That would be SO cool. My current room really isn't big enough to do it right, anyway... But, even if I did, I didn't really feel like dealing with either a scaler to do all the AR control, and I DEFINITELY didn't want to screw with an HTPC. I really enjoy walking down into the theater, throwing a BD in the PS3, and be watching the movie 30 seconds later.

SC

**AnalogRocks** · Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:20 am Post subject:

So it's a 16:9 image within a 2.35:1 image area? That never made any sense to me. I like constant width. my 4:3 screen is 10.5'x8' or so. That makes the 2.35:1 movies also 10.5 feet wide, likewise 16:9 etc.... I like to use as much of the tube face for 4:3 as I can.