CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[benareeno]

Seems like a fun project...and since crt rptv's are so cheap...I was thinking I should give this a try.

Any thoughts about doing this?? making the mirror smaller and raising the bottom of the screen while cutting down the top of the screen?

I would love to see 2.4:1 HD on a crt rptv that was precisely that size!

I want to hear your opinions on this and if you think it's do-able.

[AnalogRocks]

Sure why not? Are you going to letterbox it and discard the black bars or add a scaler, hack the service menu and compress the raster while using and external scaler?

[AnalogRocks]

Sure why not? Are you going to letterbox it and discard the black bars or add a scaler, hack the service menu and compress the raster while using and external scaler?

[benareeno]

Nothing like that, no...far simpler. Just display the active 2.4:1 viewing material as-is but rebuild the box and screen to fit. Maybe I'd have to adjust the angle of the mirror because the screen center would be lower.

[AnalogRocks]

You'd also have to adjust the angle of the lenses to get corner to corner focus no?

[AnalogRocks]

You'd also have to adjust the angle of the lenses to get corner to corner focus no?

[garyfritz]

I think I'd be tempted to just slap some velvet-covered panels on the screen top & bottom.

[Jeremy112]

I think I remember once seeing a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 CRT RPTV years ago, I'm not sure, but I swear I have never seen TV's wider than 16:9, and this particular TV was WAY wider than that, like 2.35:1 or 2.40:1

Maybe it was just me though

[AnalogRocks]

When they were standardizing HD back in the 90's they did a consumer test to see what aspect ratio they would tolerate. 2.40:1 wasn't well liked. 16:9 was.

People were use to 4:3 and 2.40 was to far from the norm as I recall.

[AnalogRocks]

When they were standardizing HD back in the 90's they did a consumer test to see what aspect ratio they would tolerate. 2.40:1 wasn't well liked. 16:9 was.

People were use to 4:3 and 2.40 was to far from the norm as I recall.

[Jeremy112]

That would explain why I saw a 2.40:1 TV then, right about that time too, I have to admit, I was in awe of how wide the TV was, it was HUGE had to be at least 70" wide, but the heighth was like a standard 27" 4:3 TV, so yeah I can see how people had trouble liking the image when they were all so used to a square box

[cmjohnson]

You're going to shrink the active picture area. I personally think that's pretty silly.


Forget aspect ratio, it's PICTURE AREA that's important. Bigger is better.

I'm building a new screen for my projector. It's TALLER than the old one. I'm moving from a 2:1 aspect ratio
to 16:10. Some movies will fully cover it. Such an image is a LOT bigger than the 2:1 aspect ratio version
at the same screen width.


CJ

[roland@b4]

If you cut the rear pro screen you will have to take the same off top and bottom
They are like a giant Fresnel lens.
So what was the centre must stay the centre of the screen

[donaldk]

Just physically mask the top and bottom of the screen, if that does not suffice mask the internal lightpath, so either mirror or in front of the lens. That way there is no need to use any blanking in the CRT circuits, hacking the controls to allow for that large amount of blanking.

[benareeno]

why are such simple and small concepts lost on some of you...I don't want to make a 2.4:1 tv to watch 16:9 material on it...I would solely watch 2.4:1 movies on it. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it. So, thanks for that tip...

I was wondering about technical inputs that some of you may have...and I think it would be cool to watch 2.4:1 on a screen that is precisely that size...I was thrilled when I got my first 16:9 tv for just the same reason!

[Tom.W]

[benareeno]

Good question...why do I bother?

[Nashou66]

you can have my Electrohome retro case. for free, come and get it you know where i live

Athanasios