# 2.35 or 1.78?



## mrshanes (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm in the planning stages and I'm having a difficult time deciding which size screen I want/need. This will be a theater after all, so my main focus is movies, but there will be some HDTV watching with sports and the occasional game session with the Wii (if not blocking the projector beam...). I would like it to look like a true theater so I think a 2.35 screen would look better. Is the standard for BD movies going to be 2.35 going forward? It seems to be a mix now, but I don't want to go 1.78 if 2.35 (2.40) will be the standard going forward.

Thanks for the guidance...


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ive been using a 2,35:1 screen and find its the best given most of the movies I have watched seem to be in that format.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

> Is the standard for BD movies going to be 2.35 going forward? It seems to be a mix now, but I don't want to go 1.78 if 2.35 (2.40) will be the standard going forward.


There will most likely be a mix of 1.78, 1.85 and 2.35 movies for some time to come..Regardless of that, I would definitely go for a 2.35:1 screen if you have the width in your room for a wide screen..


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2011)

A few years ago, I thought a 2.35:1 screen would be sweet, but what do you guys do about movies like Tron Legacy, Avatar and Batman The Dark Night? When the IMAX screen changes over to fill a 16:9 screen, do you just over project on a wall or screen?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Well it was a bit annoying and wont be common practice. My projector just zoomed in and out automatically to compensate. That works great in Imax but is very impractical for any home setup


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

I have a CIH scope screen with anamorphic lens..I can watch all my movies in 2.35:1 without any over spill, regardless of the aspect ratio..On some of the formats I just lose a bit top and bottom on occasional images, depending on how the images are framed in the movie..
To change from one AR to another just requires the pressing of one button on the remote!


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

Generic said:


> A few years ago, I thought a 2.35:1 screen would be sweet, but what do you guys do about movies like Tron Legacy, Avatar and Batman The Dark Night? When the IMAX screen changes over to fill a 16:9 screen, do you just over project on a wall or screen?


I spent two weeks watching movies on a temporary screen (white muslin) before deciding on my screen size and aspect ratio. I ended up following the road less traveled, a 2.125:1 aspect ratio. Why? I couldn't find a CIH size that pleased me for both 2.35:1 and 16:9 content. This way, I can watch 2.35:1 movies at the size I want, and 16:9 movies at the size I want. For oddball aspect switching movies, I tend to watch them as 2.35:1, and when 16:9 kicks in, a little of the top and bottom spill over (black masking above and below the screen swallow it up).

It also means I can shift the image up for 2.35:1 movies with subtitles.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Don't you still have black bars top or bottom with 2.35 movies on the 2.125:1 screen?


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

Prof. said:


> Don't you still have black bars top or bottom with 2.35 movies on the 2.125:1 screen?


Yes - well top anyway, since I usually shift the image to the bottom for 2.35:1 movies. In a dark room, and with the projector's black level set properly, so far it doesn't bother me. I can always add a top mask if it does at some point.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I would go for a 2.35 screen, and make some simple masks to use for 16:9 content. No matter what you do, those movies that switch aspect ratios on you will give you trouble, so I figure go with the widest screen you can fit for the majority of the (new) content.


----------



## mrshanes (Mar 3, 2010)

Sounds like 2.35 is the way to go. My primary focus is movies, so occasional masking should be no problem.
Thanks


----------



## Mopar_Mudder (Nov 8, 2010)

2.35 with out a doubt, actually 2.4 is my choice. Even if you don't do masking for 16:9 content, I find that 16:9 on a 2.4 screen less distracting then the black bars top and bottom when showing 2.35 on a 16:9 screen


----------



## RanZiv (Mar 1, 2008)

Ditto on the 2.4:1. The WOW factor is just so much more than 1.78.


----------



## SALESEPHOTO (Jul 5, 2009)

I debated this choice as well. What I decided on was 2.39 screen with curtains on motor rod to block sides of screen for 1.78 viewing works great. Constant height setup.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Wait, now I'm confused again... I thought I had this figured out and settled on 2.35:1. What content is in 2.4:1 ratio, or is that just building in some kind of a buffer? Its hard enough to go between 2.35:1 and 16:9, but it should be manageable. Now throw in 1.85, 2.4, and other less common ratios and it makes quite a mess.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

2,40:1 is not nearly as common as 2,35:1 plus if not painting the screen the 2,40:1 is also uncommon as a screen size.
All the 2,40:1 shows is very narrow black bars top and bottom and the image can be zoomed out slightly to offset that without spilling over the sides of the screen.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder (Nov 8, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> 2,40:1 is not nearly as common as 2,35:1 plus if not painting the screen the 2,40:1 is also uncommon as a screen size.
> All the 2,40:1 shows is very narrow black bars top and bottom and the image can be zoomed out slightly to offset that without spilling over the sides of the screen.


Seems quiet a few of the movies are actually somewhere bettween 2.4 and 2.35. Reguardles of what the box says they aren't real rigid on the standards. With 2.35 you may get a slight black bar top and bottom on some movies, 2.40 eliminates that. If you want you can project them all at 2.4 you are just going to slightly clip of top and bottom of a true 2.35 movie. In may case I have adjustable masking that I can may any ratio from 0 to 2.50 actually.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

I guess it would be too much to ask for the studios to just stick with a few standards and make it easy for us. I think I'd still go with 2.35:1 and zoom and mask anything that was a little off. Or if I was really smart, I'd set up the projector first and test it out in place with some of my favourites, or the most common ratios in my collection and make it an exact fit for those.


----------



## Mopar_Mudder (Nov 8, 2010)

I think you will be happy with a 2.35 screen. Depending on the projector some of them have the ability to electronicly cut of the sides of a picture. So for a 2.40 movie you would fill the entire hight of your screen and use the electronic masking for cut of the extra couple of inches that spill over the sides of the screen. I know the Panny 4000 or 7000 will do this, don't know about the others.


----------



## Owen Bartley (Oct 18, 2006)

Yeah, I think that's the best solution, relying on smart projectors to figure out what to do with the various signals. If I were going to build starting today, I would probably be going with the Panny 4000 based on what I've read, and its ability to change between zoom modes by remote.


----------

