| What is your screen's aspect ratio? |
| 4:3 |
|
26% |
[ 18 ] |
| 16:9 |
|
50% |
[ 35 ] |
| 1.85:1 |
|
7% |
[ 5 ] |
| 2.35:1 |
|
5% |
[ 4 ] |
| 2.40:1 |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| Custom with masking. Please eleborate. |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| Other. Please explain. |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 69 |
|
| Author |
Message |
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: Poll: What is your screens aspect ratio? |
|
|
|
Just wondering what aspect ratio gets the nod.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
zaphod
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2002
Location: Cloverdale
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: Re: Poll: What is your screens aspect ratio? |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | Just wondering what aspect ratio gets the nod. |
i have too much 4:3 material (true letterbox, not anamorphic) to have it presented with columns on either side to shrink it within a non 4:3 screen.
_________________
walk gently. leave a good impression.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sonynut
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 367
Location: Bradford,PA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I agree with Zaphod. Plus theres just something about wasting all that phosphor that I really don't like. My screen is 4:3- When I watch widescreen, my blacks are low enough that I barely see the bars. This also gives me the flexibility to watch any ratio I want.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In today's world, 16:9 screens are almost a no brainer. Unless half (or more) of what you watch is 4:3 (very rare these days) go 16:9.
There is very little HD 4:3 content, so pillarboxing it won't cause you to loose any resolution. Further, when you put 16:9 HD (or SD DVDs) on a 4:3 screen, those black bars are eating up bandwidth for no real reason.
I think you'll find the 16:9 is the most common screen to use with a CRT today.
Dave
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zebu Fellenz
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 2567
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I use 4:3 @1280*960 with my Marquee 8000; I would be using 720P 16:9 but I have yet to find a setting in powerstrip that will allow 1280*720 @ 72hz. to fill the tube face 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I watch regular cable through the Sony 1271 switcher with the Farudja line doubler all the time in 4:3. No it's not jaw dropping, nope not stunning and yes I can see scan lines especialy since I only sit 5 feet from the screen. However it's fine for regular TV. Makes me apreciate doubled DVD at 960P even more and the 1080i High def stuff more than that.
I'd considered just leaving a 27" TV out for regular 4:3 stuff but it's so hard to go back. Plus I can read the fine print in the commercials that tell you all the side effects or the service/product that they're advertising at the moment in what amounts to 2 point text. It's an interesting read.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Murrell
Joined: 05 Apr 2006
Posts: 590
Location: Kentucky
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
2.40:1 baby
-Gary
_________________
-Gary Murrell, www.custom-ht.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, Gary - do you not watch much 16:9, then? OTA, satellite, etc.?
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ile
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 1491
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
My screen is 4:3.
I use different memory blocks for different material, so I use shrinked raster for widescreen materials.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted 4:3, because that is what it is: Draper M1300 100" NTSC format. Of course, only the wife's TiVo uses this aspect (or unless its a 4:3 DVD). Both HDTV and DVD use a raster that is 16:9.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papalek
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1536
Location: Longs SC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I use a power screen and change the highth to match the content.
This alows me to have the image always 10 feet wide with no black bars.
_________________
My current list of PJ's AmPro 1 1/2-4600,4200, 1/2-3600,2600.
I do love my AmPro's
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PsychoDogBeast
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 97
Location: Huddersfield, Fenay Bridge, Earth :)
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi there
I use a 4:3 screen because the maximum width i have for a screen is 6ft, but ive got really high cielings so it seemed daft to use a 6ft 16:9 screen when ive got room for a 6ft 4:3 screen. Ive got best of all worlds with this.
James
_________________
Rockford Fosgate made me deaf!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | So, Gary - do you not watch much 16:9, then? OTA, satellite, etc.?
SC |
Gary and I have had many of these exchanges. 
He watches over 90% 2.35+:1 movies, so he lives with considerably downscaling of 1.85:1 and 16:9 contnent when watching them.
But, I'm with you, why downscale those, just for the wow factor of a CH set up.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can understand why he does what he does. The impact of seeing a 2.35 movie on a nice, wide screen is definitely cool - and even I admit I'm torn. It sucks that a 2.35 movie is significantly smaller than the image you get watching Bikini Destinations or something else 16:9 on a 16:9 screen.
As for me, I'll probably watch close to 50/50 2.35 and other wide stuff vs. 1.85 and 16:9 stuff. I want to get as much performance as I can out my projector since I don't have any sharpness to spare from my lowly 1271. I wish there was a way to do a constant area setup that would make me happy (and not require an expensive scaler), but there isn't - so for, now I'll go 16:9 and reevaluate my options in a year or two after I've enjoyed a few hundred movies. 
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | I can understand why he does what he does. The impact of seeing a 2.35 movie on a nice, wide screen is definitely cool - and even I admit I'm torn. |
Well, I've said it before, the only thing that will ever get me to switch to digital is a CH set up. Now, just two things have to happen:
1) A digital PJ that looks as good as my Barco needs to be invented.
2) It needs to be priced will under $3000.
Something tells me I'm going to be living with letterboxing for awhile.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | I want to get as much performance as I can out my projector since I don't have any sharpness to spare from my lowly 1271. |
OK, for a given screen width, the brightness of a 2.35:1 image is about the same whether you are projecting on a 16:9 screen or a 2.35:1 screen, since almost exactly the same amount of phosphor is being illuminated.
Given this, I still think screens wider than 96" are too much of a sacrifice in brightness. Put another way, just because the screen is 2.35:1 doesn't mean you can still get it bright enough at 120" wide! So why not just get a 16:9 screen and a simple (even manual)masking system to mask 2.35:1?
Given the restriction of width, I don't see the downside of this approach.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's simply the visual impact of the "wider-than-wide" screen that 2.35:1 gives that excites me. With a 16:9 screen, even with masking, if you switch from a 16:9 program to a 2:35:1 movie, the image gets shorter instead of wider. It's a simple matter of recreating the theater experience. At the cinema, the wider aspects are wider.
All that said and as much as I'd love to go 2.35, I'm with you. If a given projector has only enough light output to light up an X" wide screen, going to a shorter screen doesn't help break that law... No, only more gain will help you go larger.
So, I just hung my projector to go 96" wide and hopefully masking top/bottom for wider aspect ratios. I don't give a sh*t about 4:3 since I'll probably rarely watch anything with that aspect ratio and I sure as hell don't want it looking larger than widescreen stuff. On the rare occasion I do watch some 4:3, it'll be SD and probably older material - so I won't care about raster utilization or resolution.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | | It's simply the visual impact of the "wider-than-wide" screen that 2.35:1 gives that excites me. With a 16:9 screen, even with masking, if you switch from a 16:9 program to a 2:35:1 movie, the image gets shorter instead of wider. It's a simple matter of recreating the theater experience. At the cinema, the wider aspects are wider. |
I'm with you, and I agree totally. What I'm saying is, let's agree we are limited to about 96" wide with an 8" PJ (I actually think you are limited to about 80" wide with your 1271--but we won't debate that now).
OK then no matter the screen AR, on a 96" wide screen 2.40:1 content is 40"x96". Now, if the screen is 2.40:1, then 16:9 content is a mere 71" wide (40"x71")--that is not much bigger than a big RPTV!
In other words, I won't accept my 16:9 image being much smaller than it is now (52" x 92"). Given that, with a CH setup, I need a 10' wide screen. An 8" PJ will not drive a 10' wide screen--period.
So, there are only three options as I see it:
1) Live with a CRT and 16:9 screen.
2) Blend 2 CRTs onto a 2.40:1 screen.
3) Go digital
Since the picture from 3 is crap and number 2 is not affordable or practical yet, I'm stuck with number 1.
I realize you have come to this conclusion also, I'm just saying, no sense in worrying about it, there is no other option now.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drice1234
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1309
Location: Allen, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In other words, I won't accept my 16:9 image being much smaller than it is now (52" x 92 |
Don't mean to hijack the thread but if I were to setup my screen at 52" x 92" then that should handle all of the different sizes that they make movies in? As I understand it a true 16x9 movie would fill the entire screen and the other aspect ratios would use less of the screen. The only ratio that would not fit into this area would be 4x3, is this correct. The 52"x 92" would be just the size I need for the space I have.
Thanks
Dan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drice1234 wrote: | | Quote: | | In other words, I won't accept my 16:9 image being much smaller than it is now (52" x 92 |
Don't mean to hijack the thread but if I were to setup my screen at 52" x 92" then that should handle all of the different sizes that they make movies in? |
Yes.
| Quote: | | As I understand it a true 16x9 movie would fill the entire screen and the other aspect ratios would use less of the screen. |
Yes, but there are few "true" 16:9 movies. Movies near that AR are usually 1.85:1.
| Quote: | | The only ratio that would not fit into this area would be 4x3, is this correct. The 52"x 92" would be just the size I need for the space I have. |
This is wrong. 4x3 will fit on the screen nicely, it will also use less of the screen. The issue with 4x3 is that if you don't have a source or a processor that will pillarbox it for you, then 4x3 will also fill up the screen because it will be stretched vertically. To effectively pillar box it, you just need to create another memory block for 4x3 content, then manually switch to that memory block.
As an aside 52x92 is pretty darn big for a D50, but if you want to pop by sometime, that is my screen size, so you can see what all the different ARs look like. In fact, if we just knock my contrast down about 33%, it will be about the brightness of your D50.
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
