# Comtemplating the 2.35:1 screen...



## Sonnie

The Panasonic PT-AE3000 is looking like it may be the next PJ to end up in my HT room.

I still have to decide on a screen size and aspect ratio.

Here is a clip about the 3000 and Lens Memory, which looks promising to me.



> Lens Memory lets you automatically set the zoom lens to a wide angle setting to fill a 2.35 screen, so that you can view a 2.35 format film in full frame without any black bars. Then when you switch to a 16:9 source such as HDTV or a 1.78 film, you can press a button, and the projector will automatically zoom the lens to a position where the 16:9 image fills your screen vertically. And, unless the projector is positioned exactly at a height equal to the middle of the screen, a vertical compensation adjustment is required to get the image to center vertically on the screen. The AE3000 automatically makes this adjustment as well. Essentially, this eliminates the expense of a separate anamorphic lens.


If I understand this correctly, I can setup my screen for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio using a screen height of 50", the width will be approximately 118" with a diagonal screen of 128". If I use the Panasonic 3000, I can set the Lens Memory for this AR. If I watch something with a 16:9 AR, I can adjust the size of the image to match the height of the the 2.35:1 AR with the overall image being 50" high x 89" wide and 102" diagonal. I then set the Lens Memory for the 16:9 image. Depending on what AR I am watching, I can recall the Lens Memory setting with the press of a button on the remote. There can also be a setting for 4:3 AR. This keeps the image height constant, but creates black bars on aspect ratios less than 2.35:1. Of course there would be very narrow bars top and bottom with 2.40:1 aspect ratios, although minor and hardly noticeable.

The bottom picture is more than likely what I would be looking at.










Am I thinking along the right lines here?


----------



## hddummy

I believe you are correct sir.


----------



## Prof.

The feature on that projector called "Lens Memory" is not the same as anamorphic projection..
Basically all it's doing is zooming the lens to preset AR's..just as you would normally do with manual zooming..
It does not give you 1:1 mapping, as you have with CIH projection, so therefore your pixels are being expanded vertically and horizontally..
At the same time, you're losing 33 percent of your pixels in the black bars when you zoom out for a 2.35:1 AR..

Now for a good quality 1080p. projector this may not be too noticeable, but the bigger the screen the better chance there is of of seeing some deterioration in the image quality, compared to the non zoomed image..

My advise would be, if you want the absolute best image quality on a large screen, get a good anamorphic lens and set it up for CIH projection...
The impact of this type of image is quite breath taking..


----------



## Sonnie

With this projector... I would not see any issues even at full zoom 2:1... and I won't be there.

If I stick with a 15' throw range, I would be at 1.75 zoom on 2.35:1.

I could always use a throw distance of 19' and be at 1.1 zoom using 2.35:1, and 1.34:1 zoom using 16:9.

The convenience is pushing a button for the proper aspect ratio... how nice can that be?


----------



## Prof.

Sonnie said:


> I could always use a throw distance of 19' and be at 1.1 zoom using 2.35:1, and 1.34:1 zoom using 16:9.


That would be the best way to set up the projector if you're not going anamorphic..


----------



## Sonnie

Actually... I had that backwards. 1.34:1 zoom would be the 2.35:1. 1:1 zoom would be the 16:9.


----------



## Sonnie

I think I may be confused. :scratch:

With the Panasonic 3000... what will happen to the black bars that are normally seen on 2.35:1 aspect ratio's? This is not its native aspect ratio.


----------



## hddummy

Unless the projector has some method of masking the bars internally, the projector will still produce the black bars. They will be shown above and below the actual screen. All you are doing is expanding the projected image so that the portion that has picture on it fills the screen height on the wall. If you have dark matte paint/material around the screen, then the black bars should not be visible. Regardless, when you are sucked into a movie, who would really notice anyway.


----------



## Sonnie

So this is where anamorphic projection comes in handy... at least one of the benefits.


----------



## Prof.

Sonnie said:


> So this is where anamorphic projection comes in handy... at least one of the benefits.


As I understand it..and I may be wrong..you won't see any black bars with that projector, when projecting a 2.35:1 image, because the projector has zoomed them off the screen with this lens memory system..

With an anamorphic system..the 2.35:1 image is firstly, electronically stretched vertically, so there are no black bars top or bottom ( without any zooming ) and then optically stretched horizontally, to fill the width of the screen..
That way you don't lose any pixels, maintaining a 1:1 mapping of the pixel structure..


----------



## Sonnie

And how much is an anamorphic projection system if I do it myself... although I doubt I could.


----------



## Prof.

Sonnie said:


> And how much is an anamorphic projection system if I do it myself... although I doubt I could.


If you mean by "doing it yourself"..buying a lens kit and assembling it yourself..then you're probably looking at about $600.00US for a local brand..
Otherwise, if you're talking about a commercial product such as Panamorph...well here are some prices for you...
http://www.panamorph.com/pages/products.htm..

Either way, if you can build theatre, then it should be well within your capabilities to assemble a lens..and help is available here if you need it..


----------



## Sonnie

Where are the lens kits for $600 and which would they compare to on that link page you posted above? I see some of those are $2,000-3500... what makes them better and are they really needed?


----------



## Mark Techer

Sonnie said:


> Where are the lens kits for $600 and which would they compare to on that link page you posted above? I see some of those are $2,000-3500... what makes them better and are they really needed?


I am sorry, but is your question what makes a $2000 - $3500 lens better than a $600 lens? The answer is addional or corrective optical elements. I say yes you do need them, but in the end, you need to see the image for yourself. 

The difference between zooming (what you intended to do with the new Panny) and using a lens is simple. When you zoom, you throw away 25% of the vertical rez. When you use a lens, you use 100% of the projector's panel. Also when you zoom, your pixels become larger in both directions, where the lens only expands the pixels horizontally...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

I guess I never saw the full capabilities of my Panasonic PT-AE2000. It was mounted at 12' with a 97" diagonal screen. That means it was zoomed to 1.6:1. It still looked stellar though. In my suggested setup, I will not be zooming 16:9 at all anymore... and 2.35:1 will only be zoomed to 1.4:1. In both cases this will be superior to my last setup.


----------



## Mark Techer

And it scales for CIH if at point you want to add a lens and be able to use the full 1920 x 1080 panel...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Yes... the 3000 is setup nicely for adding a CIH setup, which I may very well tackle on the DIY side after I get the HT finished.


----------



## Mark Techer

And so is the 2000 you have now as it has VS and HS already built in. Apart from automated zoom, the 3000 does not offer that much more unless you intend zooming and don't want to get up out of your chair. If using a lens, you won't need to zoom anyway...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Oh no... I don't have the 2000 anymore, but I see what you mean. Of course the convenience of the Lens Memory on the 3000 does make it nice for those of us (me) that are lazy. :sarcastic:

I am hoping maybe the CIH kits will come down in pricing with time. Those things are expensive. :spend:


----------



## Sonnie

The Mitsubishi HC6500 seems like it would work well with an anamorphic lens. 



> The HC6500 has Mitsubishi's dual anamorphic modes, which allow the user to forego the articulated track usually paired with an anamorphic lens. Instead, the HC6500 scales all content for proper display through an anamorphic lens, and the lens remains deployed at all times.


Am I understanding this correctly? I can buy an anamorphic lens and permanently install the lens. From there I simply watch any aspect ratio I want without having to do anything to the projector?

What am I missing? This seems like it would be the ticket here.


----------



## Mark Techer

Correct. There are two basic modes you need to do this -Vertical Stretch and Horizontal Squeeze. Then you can watch both 1.78:1 and 2.37:1 with the lens in place and switch ARs with the remote of the projector...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

With all of the projectors I have owned... I didn't have to switch AR with the remote... it was automatic. Would this be something different, or are you familiar with this projector?


----------



## Sonnie

I know I am full of questions, but this has my interest indeed.

Are you familiar with Home Theater Brothers lens that is $610 shipped?

What do they mean by: Best results are achieved with throw ratios above 1.7?

Thanks for all the help!


----------



## Prof.

The HTB lens is the one I suggested at $600.00..
By all accounts, It's quite a good lens...

The TR they mentioned is the recommended minimum TR to keep pincushion to a minimum..
You can have a slightly lower TR and still be able to use the lens, but you will have a little bit more pincushion effect..


----------



## Sonnie

What is 1.7 in relation to though?

Projector needs to be mounted 1.7 times the width of image?

120" width... projector needs to be mounted at least 17' from screen?


----------



## Prof.

That is correct..:T


----------



## Prof.

I should have mentioned that the image width refers to the width of a !6:9 image..


----------



## Sonnie

Well... even if it was for the 2.35:1 image of my proposed 120-122" screen, which would be about 17'... that is not a problem. Most likely I will end up being at 17' 6" for a zoom of 1:1 at 16:9.

I am still a little confused about what has to be done on the HC6500 in order to switch between formats, if anything. Hopefully it is just a push of a button, or maybe nothing. I don't want to have to focus the image every time I change the format... or adjust lens shift. I am assuming I will have CIH, but not sure. I probably just need to research the projector features more and find someone who owns one and is using a lens. :dontknow:


----------



## Mark Techer

When you said the AR is Automatically changed, I have to assume that you are referring to 16:9 screens where the Scope AR is simply letter boxed. CIH means that there are no black bars and because the image is 33% wider than a 16:9 image of the same height, you do have to select a different opperating mode. When using a lens on the Panny projectors, you switch between 4 x 3 and Zoom1. You do not use the 16:9 mode with the lens in place. Yes I am familiar with these projectors.

Your TR is found by dividing the native 16:9 image width into the distance between the screen surface and the projector's lens. Therefore, if your Scope screen is 118" wide, then the 16:9 portion will be 88.5". You then can times 88.5 by the TR to find the mounting distance you need, or you divide that into the distance from the screen to the projector's lens to work out the TR. 

88.5 x 1.7 = 150.45". I personally would be looking to extend the TR to at least 2.0:1 to reduce the pincushion and even help reduce some of the CA that you might see from a 2 prisms (2 element) lens. The CA reduction is due to lessening the angles of the beam. CA will always be visible in such a lens, but if you can reduce it, then you should make the effort to do so...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Mark Techer said:


> When you said the AR is Automatically changed, I have to assume that you are referring to 16:9 screens where the Scope AR is simply letter boxed.


Yes... if I insert a 16:9 AR DVD, it shows 16:9... if I insert a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 DVD, it has black bars on top and bottom. If I insert a 4:3 DVD, it has black bars on both sides. No buttons are required to push... no focus adjustment... no lens shifting... just insert and press play.



Mark Techer said:


> CIH means that there are no black bars and because the image is 33% wider than a 16:9 image of the same height, you do have to select a different opperating mode. When using a lens on the Panny projectors, you switch between 4 x 3 and Zoom1.


So... does the anamorphic lens give me CIH?



Mark Techer said:


> You do not use the 16:9 mode with the lens in place.


So why does Mitsubishi state that you do not have to remove the lens to view 16:9 images?

From Mitsubishi:


> The HC6500 has Mitsubishi's dual anamorphic modes, which allow the user to forego the articulated track usually paired with an anamorphic lens. Instead, the HC6500 scales all content for proper display through an anamorphic lens, *and the lens remains deployed at all times.*





Mark Techer said:


> Your TR is found by dividing the native 16:9 image width into the distance between the screen surface and the projector's lens. Therefore, if your Scope screen is 118" wide, then the 16:9 portion will be 88.5". You then can times 88.5 by the TR to find the mounting distance you need, or you divide that into the distance from the screen to the projector's lens to work out the TR.
> 
> 88.5 x 1.7 = 150.45". I personally would be looking to extend the TR to at least 2.0:1 to reduce the pincushion and even help reduce some of the CA that you might see from a 2 prisms (2 element) lens. The CA reduction is due to lessening the angles of the beam. CA will always be visible in such a lens, but if you can reduce it, then you should make the effort to do so...


So... if I want my 16:9 AR image to be 102" wide, the projector should preferably be mounted at 204" (or 17'). So my 17.6' is looking good.

What is CA? I thought the image with this lens setup is supposed to be much better than without it. It sounds like it might be hindered in some way or another.


----------



## Mark Techer

Sonnie said:


> Yes... if I insert a 16:9 AR DVD, it shows 16:9... if I insert a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 DVD, it has black bars on top and bottom. If I insert a 4:3 DVD, it has black bars on both sides. No buttons are required to push... no focus adjustment... no lens shifting... just insert and press play.


Then your player was also doing a horizontal squeeze to allow you to see 4 x 3 material with side pillars and not have you change to the 4 x 3 mode on the projector. My BD player does that which is a good thing...



> So... does the anamorphic lens give me CIH?


The only true way to have Constant Image Height is to use an anamorphic lens...



> So... if I want my 16:9 AR image to be 102" wide, the projector should preferably be mounted at 204" (or 17'). So my 17.6' is looking good.


With CIH the longer the throw the better...



> What is CA? I thought the image with this lens setup is supposed to be much better than without it. It sounds like it might be hindered in some way or another.


Lens pending, the image can be better. CA is Chromatic Abberations. There is a thread on it in this forum. My new lens is corrected for CA, so does not show it. This is also a reason why most anamorohpic lenses are expensive. CA and focual correction come at a cost. The $600 lens you looking at only has two prisms and they are nothing more than trophies at that, so you will get what you pay for. There is allot to good optics and whilst prisms are a means to an end, there is much work needed to make them work well...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Sounds like I might be better off waiting until I can afford a good lens. I do not want to do anything to degrade a good image. I lived with the black bars on top and bottom of the 2.35.1 images forever... not that big of a deal. No sense in paying $600 to make the image fill the screen and it be worse quality. :huh:

Here is the info on the HC6500. It doesn't make sense to me. The last two columns are for anamorphic lens. I looks like you would select anamorphic1 for 2.35:1 AR images and anamorphic2 for 4:3 or 16:9, but in the examples that are highlighted in each column (bottom right corner squares), both look like they are squeezed up.


----------



## Sonnie

There also looks like there is an "Auto" setting, but not sure if it could be used or not. It is not really clear for anamorphic lens.


----------



## Sonnie

I think I understand now... the projector does the squeezing... then the anamorphic lens stretches it back out. 

Rodny called Mitsubishi today and they could even answer questions about the features of the unit. :loco:

It is still a question as to whether or not the lens shift, zoom or focus have to be used with the HC6500... or simply select A1 for 2.35:1 and A2 for 4:3 or 16:9.


----------



## Mark Techer

So I would use the cash that you had set aside for a new projector and be looking to buy a good lens. The right decision here means that you never need to upgrade that part again. 

Yes you have the idea, scaling plus optics.

One of the ideas towards leaving the lens in place all the time is that you don't have to re-focus and your calibration settings remain the same as well.

Then AR changes are as simple as pushing a button on the remote...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

That's sounding good... :T

At this point, I have went extra on speakers, which was not initially planned, so I don't have any extra above about $2500 to put into a projector setup. $600 for the lens is pretty much it for now. 

If I plan on doing a 2.37:1 or 2.40:1 screen right now, then I am going to need to do a lens, otherwise I have to readjust each time I have different aspect ratio's or either have wasted screen space on every aspect ratio. Neither of those sound good. 

I also do not believe I will ever be ready to spend $1500 to $2000 on a lens... not in this lifetime anyway. If they ever come down to less than $1000, then we might consider it.


----------



## Rodny Alvarez

This is from audioholics.......

Viewing widescreen 2.35:1 aspect ratio films is simple and easy with both new projectors; each provides Anamorphic Lens Modes 1 and 2 support. In the past, users needed an expensive lens railing or tracking apparatus to install or remove an anamorphic lens, depending on the desired 2.35:1 or 16:9 film aspect ratios. With the HC7000 and HC6500 users can now simply position an anamorphic lens permanently in front of the projector lens and select the appropriate Anamorphic Mode 1 or Mode 2, either 2.35:1 or 16:9 aspect ratios, for the corresponding movie format. It’s a simple and economical design that saves time and effort while providing the ultimate home theater viewing experience.

this one from pjcentral....

Dual Mode Anamorphic Stretch. First introduced on the HC5500, Mitsubishi's Dual Mode Anamorphic Stretch allows the viewer to install an anamorphic lens permanently in front of the projector, rather than on a moving track. When showing 16:9 films and video, the projector compresses the signal horizontally such that it passes through the lens and is stretched back to the proper 16:9. Since motorized tracks for anamorphic lenses typically cost quite a bit, this is a helpful feature that can save you money.


here from mitsubishi.....

http://global.mitsubishielectric.com/bu/projectors/products/home/hc6500_features.html


----------



## Sonnie

I think the question now is really whether or not we can find a lens for less than $1000, (ideally around that $600 mark) that will not degrade the image to a point that would be worse than what we could get by purchasing the Panasonic 3000 and simply zooming the image. 

Here's my point. If I can zoom the Panasonic image (which the zoom would only be 1.4:1 at the planned throw distance on 2.35:1), and that zoomed image looks as good as the $600 lens with CA on the HC6500, it seems more reasonable to just buy the Panasonic 3000 and be done with it. That way there is no fooling around with the lens.


----------



## hddummy

Be aware that if you use the Mitsubishi method, when you watch 16:9, the projector has to scale the image down to a ~1440x1080 image so the lens can stretch it back to the correct size. You are literally eliminating 25% of the image information just for convenience.

For any anamorphic lens option, the projector has to digitally stretch 2.35 material 33% vertically. The quality of the result will depend on the scaling ability of the projector. People keep saying you get 1:1, but that is not correct. What they mean is that you are utilizing the full image panel in the projector, but is that really a good thing? The portion of a 16:9 image used by a 2.35 format is 815 pixels high, so stretching it out to 1080 is not 1:1, it's 1.33:1. In my opinion any time you do digital processing on an image when it is not necessary only adds risk of making it worse. That on top of the fact that you introduce pincushion distortion and chormatic abberations makes the lens option a two thumbs down in my opinion.

The biggest detriment to the zooming method is that you are using 75% of the image panel, and therefore 75% available light, on a screen that has 33% more area than a 16:9. With a lens, you use 100% of the available light on a 33% larger screen. The PT-AE3000, however, is a rather bright projector and can still provide enough light output at that screen size. This is especially true in a light controlled room. In fact, you might even want to turn down the lamp brightness in 16:9 mode to provide the same on screen light density as you get in 2.35 mode. You would even extend the lamp life a little if you did.

Lastly, since you are zooming, each pixel does infact occupy more screen area in 2.35 zoomed than 16:9 regular. However, if you do the math for a 50" high screen, a 2.35 zoomed pixel is only .06 inches wide and a 16:9 pixel .046 inches wide. When you are sitting 10 feet from a screen, i challenge anyone to tell me the difference between the two. Do a little research into human eye acuity and you'll find that you need to actually sit 6 feet from the screen before a person with 20:20 vision could discern two adjacent pixels at that size.

Conclusion....buy the Panasonic, set it up for zooming and enjoy. If you honestly think you can gain by adding a lens...you can still do that later down the road.


----------



## Sonnie

Hmmm.... our first row seating will cause our eyes to be about 12' from the screen.

As I mentioned earlier... with our last projector (Panasonic 2000) we were zooming the 16:9 image at 1.6:1... never thought anything about it... image looked stellar to us sitting at 10-11' back. 

With the 3000, if we go with the maximum throw distance of 19'7", the 16:9 image would zoom to 1.06:1, which should leaps better than the 1.6:1 image we had with the 2000. The 2.35:1 image will be zoomed 1.42:1.


----------



## hddummy

The 3000 has a very flexible zoom range. What is the gain of your screen? I like the calculator feature on www.projectorcentral.com They are recommending a 1.2 gain screen for that projector on a 119" wide screen to give an acceptable light density.


----------



## Sonnie

I can do any gain I need. I was planning on using the Cream&Sugar mix... or I can go with Black Widow if I need more gain. Not sure what either of those are, but either way, I plan on doing a painted screen.


----------



## hddummy

Right, well you will also get higher light density the closer you put the projector to the screen. So if you go with 17' throw distance and zoom from 1.16 for 16:9 to 1.60 for 2.35, you might be a little better off.


----------



## Sonnie

So you think the throw distance being 2.5 feet closer with a 1.6:1 zoom is better than farther back with a 1.4:1 zoom?


----------



## hddummy

Well....If your AE2000 didn't have any distortion issues with a zoom in that range, then I doubt the 3000 would. These projectors have a relatively high zoom (2.0) as far as projectors go, so I don't think 1.6 will be a problem. I say it is better to get the brightest image you can without focal distortion. In the end, the best thing to do is experiment with different throw distances if you have that luxury. Also, the average throw ratio for this projector is 2.0 (1.35-2.66). For 2.35 screen you wanted a 118.5" wide and for 16:9 it would be 89". Your average width would be 103.75 and at the average throw ratio of 2.0, you get a throw distance of 17.3 feet.

Maybe I'm over analzying it, but what can I say....I'm an engineer.


----------



## Sonnie

I see no reason that I could not experiment to an extent. I have complete access to the attic above and can easily mount the projector at 17' or 19'.

I do want a bigger screen though. We had an 89" wide 16:9 screen in the old HT room. I would like to go to 92" on the 16:9 and 122" on the 2.35:1, but that shouldn't be a big deal.


----------



## Mark Techer

Don't hold your breath for cheap lenses, they are not coming. My new lens will the first in its class to be less than 2K, and it costs allot to produce and why the price. Real optics like what I have used are not the same as the trophies you see in lenses for $600.00...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

I may have to hold my breath until I hit it big then. :bigsmile:

I just realized something else that I have to be concerned with using the 3000. The black bar at the bottom on 2.35.1 images. It will basically be overscan below the screen. I need to make sure I do not build the equipment rack too tall, since it will be the speaker stand for the center channel. That black bar on the speaker might cause some issues. I know it's black, but I ain't sure it won't cause a problem.

How can I calculate how many inches that will be?


----------



## hddummy

A 50" 2.35 will have an 8" letter box overscaned above and below the screen.

50 * 2.35 / 1.78 = 66
66 - 50 = 16
16 / 2 = 8

I assume that you would have black border around the screen, so that should take up some of it. This is why I said it would be nice of the projector actually had masking panels inside that would keep the black bars from being projected entirely.


----------



## Sonnie

Yeah.... masking panels would be great.

I will have about 6" above the screen to the ceiling that I will probably cover entirely as the top border of the screen. I may also cover a 12" panel with the same material I cover the screen frame border and mount it on the ceiling above the screen. Then extend the bottom screen frame border to about 10" below the screen.

With 8'6" wall height, this means the top of my center does not need to be above 35" to be safe. Which in turn means a cabinet height of about 27". That seems reasonable.



Can anyone recommend the best light absorbing material to use for the screen frame border?


----------



## Sonnie

I found this TruBlack flok, but I really need something wider for the top and bottom borders.


----------



## Mark Techer

Another way to work out the height of the projected image for zooming is to times it by 0.75 - EG 1080 x 0.75 = 810 which is how many lines you use out of the available 1080. This also works with the screen height...

As for masking, there are several adheisive flockings around, but many are not really black. The stuff I have access to is black and a light sponge 

Mark


----------



## hddummy

Black velvet material is supposed to absorb light really well.


----------



## Prof.

Fidelio Velvet is recognized as the blackest velvet on the Planet..


----------



## Sonnie

It seems like I remember reading where regular velvet has something in it that doesn't absorb light as good as the velvet type material specifically made for absorbing light, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.


----------



## Mark Techer

Some black velvets just look purple or dark grey when compared to the black stuff I use now...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Well are you just going to keep us in suspense about this magical stuff you are using... :dontknow: ... is it a secret... :dontknow: ... you got a patent on it yet ... :dontknow: Go ahead and fess up... :whistling:


----------



## Mark Techer

Hehe, good to know that I have your attention  No I don't have a patent on it, but yes I am lining my new lenses with it because of its ability to soak up stray light. It is also the same stuf used on Oz Theatre's Majestic Scope Screens like the one I have...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Well it looks like the Fidelio velvet is the most popular... and reflects zero light, even with a camera flash, so I am not sure how it can get much better than that. The downside appears to be price at $25 per yard. Of course, spending $100 or so for a good screen border is chump change in comparison to the entire theater room. :spend:


----------



## Mark Techer

Thats it 

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Can spray adhesive be used on it to apply it to the wall... or is it too porous and thin? After all, you did mention spongy. I was thinking about maybe doing the entire front wall in it... maybe over some 705 or similar.


----------



## Mark Techer

Umm, the stuff I have is self adhesive like the "contact" that you cover books in, except that it is flocking, not plastic...but the same deal, peel away the backing and then stick it on the clean surface.

I did use spray adhesive for foam tiles though, but found that double sided tape worked better there too...

Mark


----------



## Sonnie

Where in the USA might one find this stuff that you use? Does it have a specific name?


----------



## Mark Techer

I don't know given that I am in Australia...

Mark


----------



## Rodny Alvarez

Is this the same thing?

last one on the page

http://www.mcmaster.com/#88015k1/=ex202


----------



## Prof.

Sonnie said:


> Where in the USA might one find this stuff that you use? Does it have a specific name?


In Australia you can buy 3" wide self-adhesive rolls of the flock tape from ebay..
You might find the same thing over there..


----------



## Sonnie

I am going to need something wider than 3" for covering the front wall.

I might order some of the Fidelio velvet and some of that self sticking velvet that Rodny posted a link to, and see how they compare.


----------



## Prof.

I think we're talking about three different things here..

For the screen borders, you will need to have them covered with Fidelio velvet or the flock adhesive tape,.,.

If you are planning to cover the front wall around the perimeter of the screen, then you don't need to use the Fidelio velvet..
Any good black velvet or velveteen will be fine...There won't be any light spill on that area..

If you're looking at a screen wall, with speakers mounted behind it, then you will need to use something like GOM or an open weave material..


----------



## Sonnie

No speakers behind anything.

Do they make Fidelio velvet in 3" widths with the adhesive backing?


----------



## Prof.

Not that I'm aware of..
I believe Joannes have..or used to have Fideliio velvet..They should be able to tell you if it's available in stick-on rolls..


----------



## Sonnie

Do most people generally staple it to the frame?


----------



## Prof.

Some people staple it on, others just glue it on..
I think a combination of both is the easiest and most effective way of covering your borders..

Just spray on glue to the timber borders and bond your pre-cut strips of velvet to the face and edges..and then staple it down on the back..


----------



## Sonnie

OK... so as far as you know the velvet material is not too porous for spray adhesive to leak through... providing it is not caked on like molasses.


----------



## Prof.

The spray adhesive only puts on a thin coat, and the velvet cloth is a closed weave, so there won't be any problem with the velvet becoming saturated..


----------



## Sonnie

Sounds like a plan... thanks for all the info.


----------



## Mark Techer

Any further action taken on this Sonnie?


----------



## Sonnie

Just working on the HT room to where I get to the point of doing the screen. I may end up going with an Elite screen 2.35:1, which already has a border. 

I will not be doing a lens at this time. I will use the Panny 3000 lens memory feature.


----------



## Home Theater Guy

I know this thread is a little old, but I hope I'm not too late to help out if I can. Let me start by saying that I am a big fan of anamorphic lenses, and having installed and experienced them, I fully understand their benefits and drawbacks. They can provide a powerful, immersive experience, and I love that. But there are also some technical challenges that need to be worked out to give a successful presentation. 

One aspect (pun intended) that is not often considered is how the screen will look within the room. For a room that is relatively wide like yours, Sonnie, a 2.35:1 screen would probably look very good. In some narrow rooms, you might get a "wall-to-wall" screen effect with a 2.35:1 screen; but the relatively small vertical height of the screen compared to the ceiling height might make the screen itself look small. In such a case, one might be better off with a 1.78:1 screen. There are many factors to consider in good home theater design, and we just need to make sure we look at them all.

I agree with your decision to use the lens memory feature. Not every projector has this, and it is a great asset. And I don't think you will have much problem with brightness or resolution, provided your screen isn't too huge. As for the aspect ratio, have you considered using a 2.0:1 screen? I know you would have to get a custom screen built, which may or may not cost more, but either way it is still much less expensive than using an anamorphic lens. Most manufacturers are willing to accomodate custom screen sizes. By using a 2.0:1 screen, you would have the largest average picture size no matter what aspect ratio you watch (see diagram). Notice how close in size the 2.35 and 1.78 aspect ratios are. Yes, there would be black bars with every aspect ratio, but their size would be minimized and unless you have a masking screen or masking curtains (for 2.35:1 screens), everyone has to live with them anyway. I know 2.0:1 screens are not well known (nor are they a standard size with most manufacturers), but they are starting to turn up in some high-end screening rooms.

Since you have the lens memory feature, using a 2.0:1 screen is an option for you that most people don't have. If it were my own theater, that's the way I would go. I would program in as many aspect ratios as the projector allows.

On the diagram, I selected a screen that is about the same height as the screens in your diagram for illustration purposes. Your screen size might vary depending on seating distance and projector location. Hope this helps!


----------



## Home Theater Guy

I just stumbled on the Cedar Creek Cinema link. I'm happy to see it turned out so well. The screen looks like a great fit and I especially love the velvet border.

Nice job!


----------



## getgray

I just ordered a Stewart CineW 2.35 (56" height) for my new room. My first curved screen. Looking forward to getting it in and hung. Trying to work out a way to move my PJ back a little though.


----------



## Prof.

Sounds like a good size screen..:T Is that an AT screen?
It would be preferable to move your projector back, if you have the room..and not zoom to fill the screen..
When you have it all set up, some pics. would be nice..


----------



## getgray

Prof. said:


> Sounds like a good size screen..:T Is that an AT screen?
> It would be preferable to move your projector back, if you have the room..and not zoom to fill the screen..
> When you have it all set up, some pics. would be nice..


No, I'm going to try it non AT. I struggled with the choice. I prefer the firehawk material for it's versatility. It has it's cons, but IMO it's pros outweigh them for many installs, mine included. I could get it microperfed, but the main issue was the layout of the room. With my speakers and the required air gap to the screenback, I'd lose 2'. I have a corner door on a 17' wall and it gets to be a layout problem as I pull that screenwall back. And it puts the seating in a likely bass problem spot, and it eats into the other end of the room where I have other plans (room is about 30' long). So I just pulled the trigger and went non AT. I have B&W tower speakers and going AT would have dictated a speaker change too. The 804's are fairly slender and fit tight up to the viewing cone so I think I'll be OK. I'm 100% movies and TV so not too concerned about 2 channel performance. All that said, I stay busy with my HT related work so much I rarely have time to work on my own things. Like a dentist with bad teeth . I've been piddling with this theater rebuild for some time. I have the drywall stacked in there though so I'm getting closer. I got a new PJ at CEDIA which I'm happy with so far so that's been a little more of a driver to get'er'done. Maybe by spring. Maybe


----------



## Prof.

That's a pity that you can't fit a screen wall in there..
I have a screen wall and I've finally bitten the bullet to put in an AVSeymour AT screen..
My screenwall is 2' out from the front wall and my monitor speakers have plenty of room not to be too close to the screen fabric..
I also only watch TV and movies, and all my movies are viewed at 2.35:1, regardless of their AR..The lens never moves..
What projector did you get?

Good luck with the re-build and let's see progress shots..


----------



## getgray

Prof. said:


> That's a pity that you can't fit a screen wall in there..
> I have a screen wall and I've finally bitten the bullet to put in an AVSeymour AT screen..
> My screenwall is 2' out from the front wall and my monitor speakers have plenty of room not to be too close to the screen fabric..
> I also only watch TV and movies, and all my movies are viewed at 2.35:1, regardless of their AR..The lens never moves..
> What projector did you get?
> 
> Good luck with the re-build and let's see progress shots..


DOH! That reminds me I was supposed to call Chris today. Need to find out how close the recommend having the speakers from their 4K material. Happen to know?

Lens never moves for HD TV??? Too bad  Obviously I'm in the move your lens camp 

I have Digital Projection Highlite Cine 260 HC. Wish they gave it a shorter name. :gulp:


----------



## Prof.

getgray said:


> DOH! That reminds me I was supposed to call Chris today. Need to find out how close the recommend having the speakers from their 4K material. Happen to know?


From what I recall, it's about a min. of 3"..



> Lens never moves for HD TV??? Too bad


I don't get that! :scratch: For HDTV the AR button on the projector remote is changed to 4:3 to give me a widescreen image with out moving the lens.. 



> I have Digital Projection Highlite Cine 260 HC. Wish they gave it a shorter name. :gulp:


Not familiar with that projector..I'm presuming it's pretty pricey!


----------



## getgray

Prof. said:


> From what I recall, it's about a min. of 3"..


Chris said a difference can be measured at 20khz but not heard from 0-2". After that, no measurable difference. 



> I don't get that! :scratch: For HDTV the AR button on the projector remote is changed to 4:3 to give me a widescreen image with out moving the lens..


 Because you are throwing away your vertical resolution. If you only watch scope, or very rarely do 1.78, I can see it. But kinda the point of using a A lens in the first place was to use your full panel to produce the best resolution. If you downscale in order to get a 1.78 through a lens, you aren't. And what happens if you want to watch something like Casablanca that is nearer to 4:3. You are getting a strip of data and expanding it. Since I make a lens transport I'm obviously biased, however I got into that world because I wasn't willing to sacrifice those pixels. Particularly since I watch a LOT of HD TV and I want the full resolution. Plus, in 16:9 there is no scaling going on, 1:1 pixel mapping. I don't' scale unless I need to (2:35).



> Not familiar with that projector..I'm presuming it's pretty pricey!


Yeah, list price is on up there. Street is better but it's not cheap. It WILL light up a big screen though.
http://www.digitalprojection.com/Br.../ProjectorId/162/MarketTypeId/11/Default.aspx

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## Prof.

getgray said:


> Becasue you are throwing away your vertical resolution. If you only watch scope, or very rarely do 1.78, I can see it. But kinda the point of using a A lens in the first place was to use your full panel to produce the best resolution. If you downscale in order to get a 1.78 through a lens, you aren't. And what happens if you want to watch somethign like Casablanca that is nearer to 4:3. You are getting a strip of data and expanding it. Since I make alens transport I'm obviosuly biased, however I got into that world becasue I wasn't willing to sacrifice those pixels.


Yeah..I'm aware of the reduction in vertical resolution, but with HDTV (for want of a better word  ) as most so called HD on TV is more like SD anyway,,with a few exceptions..so it doesn't bother me..
As for 4:3 movies, I never watch them..That AR dates them to era's that doesn't particularly interest me..even though they were made in my era!! lddude:

To see a movie like Avatar in scope (even though it was only made in widescreen) is quite breathtaking..even if you do occasionally lose a bit top and bottom!



> Yeah, list price is on up there. Street is better but it's not cheap. It WILL light up a big screen though.


It looks to be quite a powerful, solid unit..
One thing I did notice though is that it has quite a high fan noise at 35dB. You wouldn't want it over your head!


----------



## getgray

Thing is it's so bright I run it in eco mode. Bulb will last forever even after some aging be plenty bright. In eco mode it's not loud. A good bit Quieter than the JVC RS35 I had in here for a customer anyway. Plenty of extra umph if I want to turn it up in 2.35 mode.


----------

