CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

So, I am probably going to do a from scratch setup, What do you guys think is the best format to use ?
I had 16:9 before and liked it but it seems everything is in 2.4 or 2.33 or 2.35
Is there a clear advantage of one over another ? IF so what ?
!6:9 WORKS good in my room it gives me good size and the g70 is already set at that throw. so I guess I need A reason
to change.
All help is appreciated.

ecrabb · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:30 pm Post subject:

Unless you want to deal with a scaler, Jeff - you need to stay with 16:9.

Scope movies aren't as plentiful as you think, either. 1.85 movies are quite common, and of course HDTV is all 16:9 (1.78).

SC

Jeremy112 · Joined: 28 Sep 2006 Posts: 2649 Location: Fond du Lac, WI

From what I've seen, if you use screen masking a 2.35.1 gives you the most flexibility with formats, You can do 16:9, 4:3, 2.33, 2.35 etc..

With screen maskinng it would look more professional and I think you would like it.

I have a 16:9 screen but that is only because I don't have the room for a 2:35 screen. If I went with a 2:35 I would have much less image height. However, if I had the room a 2:35 would be the way I would go

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

Why, How much wider would you need ? it couldnt be that much, could it ?

Spanky Ham · Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5643 Location: Comedy Central

I think it depends on what you watch most. If you watch a lot of scope, then it might be the best for you. As Crabb said, you will need a scaler or HTPC.

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

I watch BD off all kinds, from netflix, video store and amazon. They all seem to be in a different format.
I really dont understand SCOPE.
If I set up in 16:9 and the format is in 2:33 what am I losing ?
PQ ?
I really dont understand all this, I am not just trying to give everybody a headache.

dturco · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject:

Here you go Jeff. It's pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

No matter what anyone says with a CRT you are limited to 9 feet in width for any format. The light output will be too dim after that.

Forget about a scaler you will pull your hair out and smash it.

Unless you higher Craig Rounds or someone like him....forget about the scaler.

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

Yeah, I kinda thought that was what steve was saying, forget about the scaler, deal with 16:9.
My screen was 8 foot by four and a half foot, It was PLENTY big enough for me
I was wondering if I was "missing something " in the 16:9 setup.
The link was very informative.
I guess I still dont get why people "setup" in so many different formats, Unless there is a BIG difference in PQ or "pop"
I think I will go back to what worked before and just try to get the best PQ I can get.
This all starts tomorrow when my moome gets here so GET READY for another round of stupid questions.
Before I get started I just want to say THANK YOU, THANK YOU ALL .

dturco · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject:

You do realize that your G-70 displays whatever scope it receives right? If you run a 235 movie it just puts the black bars in place of what would be the top and bottom if it were 16x9.

The reason everyone goes to scalers is for the ability to not use any of the P/J's bandwidth to display black bars. When using the scaler the black bars are not put into the image to be projected.

The black bars are still there... but they were not put into the image to be displayed as a projected black image, there just there because the space is there, and it has no signal. So it's not active. It's off which comes out as black because the is no light output from that area of the tube.

All of this is called active area scanning when a scaler is used.

When no scaler is used it's just processed as part of the image and the P/J displays black areas.... if the gray scale is right that is....

Other wise you get kinda gray bars above and below the displayed image.

And Bob's your uncle, until he has a sex change then he's your aunty.

Clear as mud right?

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

I kinda get it, maximizing the pj output, if I'm understanding correctly.
Just came upstairs, Now I got a WRINKLE in my screen. DAMN IT !
Well, I guess I needed something to do today anyway. The screen was the ONE THING I figured I didnt have to worry about.
Oh well

dturco · Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject:

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

a little.

MikeEby · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5237 Location: Osceola, Indiana

For a CRT I think 16:9 with a masking system gets you the best of both worlds.

Mike

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

I had my screen masked off with a 2 inch overscan on the edges.
I used a "royal" black velvet all around, pretty much as pictured above.
That stuff KILLS light it amazed me how well it worked, It really gave it contrast or at least the appeareance of contrast.
Anyway I liked it.

MikeEby · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 5237 Location: Osceola, Indiana

jeffslife · Joined: 17 Apr 2010 Posts: 4190 Location: ohio usa

My screen looks almost exactly like yours, the cheapest improvement I made.
I was considering putting it about 6 -8 foot out from the top also, I think it would help alot.
bigger fish to fry for now but i'm keeping it in mind.

cmjohnson · Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 5180 Location: Buried under G90s

I prefer a screen that's 16:10 in format. A little TALLER than 16:9

The reason for this is because some movies I watch aren't in widescreen format, and at 16:10 the screen almost is tall enough.

I don't need a 4:3 screen, though. 16:10 is the compromise that makes me happy.

For CRT use, I think nothing could be sillier than using a 2.35:1 aspect ratio screen. Use that screen and it's ONLY good for 2.35:1 aspect
ratio movies. Any taller aspect ratio requires you to shrink the image horizontally in order to fit all on the screen, and by doing that you
lose EVERYTHING...MTF, total light output, and tube life.

Constant width, variable height is, to my way of thinking, far more sensible for a CRT user. You want to use all the phosphor you can,
every time.

No matter what the height, at least I'm always using the full width of the CRT. In every aspect ratio, I will be using more CRT phosphor
area than you are if you have a 2.35:1 screen setup, except in that single aspect ratio, and there we're equal.

Since I'm using more phosphor area, I get more total light output, better MTF values with more spacing between scan lines, a sharper
picture due to lack of scan line overlap, and longer tube life because of more even wear and a lesser drive requirement for a specific
light output level, due to the larger light emitting surface area.

The 2.35:1 crowd sacrifices the performance of the projector, and tube life, in favor of a cool looking screen.

CJ