# 2.40/1 screen. Am I on track?



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

Hy people,

I would like to do a widescreen HT set-up. After reading posts here, I made an attempt to a design that you can view from the attachment. 

The room is semi-dedicated with ample glazing, so even with the heavy black curtains, some ambient light cannot be excluded 100% though we usually watch after dark.
Room W = 28' / D = 23' / H = 8'
There's a 16' wide "black" part of the front wall for the LCR, the custom made pair of LLT SW towers and an AT screen.
We would like a hugh screen, we are not fanatic about picture quality, as long as it's decent enough. Seating distance would be 12'. Hence the screen height could be not more than 6'. For a 16/9, this would limit to a 128" width. But if 2.40/1, this would be 168" x 70"! That's more like it. 

Am I pushing to wide here? For normal teevee 16/9 content, we would still have the 128" width, more or less. But with BluRay movies and a anamorphic lens, it would be really immersive. I tried to estimate the viewing distance / screen width ratio in our local movie theater and the screen width was at least as wide as the viewing distance when we sit in the favoured center of the theater.

I see 2 projectors which could do the job in our price range:
1/ Pana PT-AE4000 that is easy for setting up the 2.40/1
2/ BenQ W6000 which is bright enough for a very large screen.
Which would be best?
I found the prices to be 2000€ for the BenQ and 2400€ for the Pana

Projector / screen distance would be max 19' (ceiling mount)

View attachment Ronse2010B_HTplan2.pdf


Thanks for helping out!

Oh, one more thing: the Philips BDP9100 player is sold as the ideal device for 21/9 format because of the possibility to shift the subtitles away from the black bars. Maybe no concern for most of you if you only watch English spoken movies, but this is certainly not the case here in Belgium. We have the habbit of using subtitles, not voice-overs for foreign languages. English is no problem, but most other languages are a challenge. Ideas? The BlueRay of choice would be the Oppo BD83, not the Philips.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

Well, this is probably the first time I've ever said this, but I think that screen will be too large.

I sit about 12' from a 126" (diagonal) 16:9 screen and while I think it's about perfect, I would not want it any larger (btw, the recommended screen size for 12' viewing distance is about 105" diagonal for a 16:9 screen). That's only 110" wide. Your planned screen of 128" wide is significantly larger and I would not recommend it.

I think you'll be much better off if you stick with a fixed screen height of about 62" (110" wide 16:9, and 148" wide 2.4:1)


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

I agree it's a bit over. THX recommendation is for a max 40° included angle. At 12' distance, that's about 104" wide. I would go for this as the max width regardless of ratio.


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, I looked into 2.40/1 before but at the time decided against it beacuse
a/ I don't want to spend 3000€ for the anamorphic lens
b/ Starting with a certain 2.40/1 screen width with the 40° THX recommendations results in a 16/9 size that is simply to small for our liking with constant height.

But since then I read recommendations for even 45 to 50° viewing angles (think it was Seymoor AV) and Prof said to start from double the screen height as viewing distance. So I got carried away. A bit.

But 110" (275 cm) 16/9 and 148" (370 cm) with 2.40/1 would be a very good compromise I think. We now have a 65" RPTV @ 250 cm (100") viewing and we think a projection screen should be way bigger! If we would stick to a width of 110" (or 104"), I would forget the whole 2.40/1 stuff and stick to 16/9. No?


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

Well, any way you cut it there's going to be a compromise between size at one ratio vs size at another.

Where that compromise hits a sweet spot is really your own opinion.

Do you tend to favor content with one ratio significantly more than the other?


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

glaufman said:


> Do you tend to favor content with one ratio significantly more than the other?


That's a tough one. I would guess the 16/9 would be for teevee content mostly (we love watching series like the Sopranos earlier, Deadwood today and Midsummer Murders (UK) or Wallander (from Sweden)) and that's more "casual". The proper 2.40/1 would be for BluRay and we would like to get this as "cinematic" as possible.
Conclusion: 80% would be 16/9, but more casual than watching 2.40/1 BluRay.

I have to remind myself to do some proper measuring next time @ the movies 
No more of that footstepping, just gonna take out my laser!:devil:
Honoustly, officer, I didn't mean to cause such panic, I am only building a HT:innocent:


----------



## glaufman (Nov 25, 2007)

erwinbel said:


> Conclusion: 80% would be 16/9, but more casual than watching 2.40/1 BluRay.


Keeping in mind that not every BD is 2.4:1...
So take that 80/20, and alter it to reflect the increased importance of the BD watching...


----------



## Stele (Jul 3, 2010)

Just to clarify some THX recommended screen sizes:

For HD home viewing 16:9 is upto 40°

For 2.40:1 HD it's upto 52°

These also both increase if the source is 3D (upto 56° with 'cinemascope', 2.40:1)

-Pete
THX Certified Professional


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

Thanks. I adjusted the design.
For 2.40:1 @ 55° this is W 360 cm (12') x H 150 cm (5')
For 16/9 @ 42° the height results in W 267 cm (107")

This is less than we hoped for to get that immersive feeling. We will do some test-viewing when the time comes. Maybe don't bother with cinemascope afterall and use 16/9 300 cm (10') x 169 cm (68") with black bars top and bottom when a 2.40:1 movie is showed. We will see.


----------



## edgebsl (Oct 1, 2010)

I am still holding out hope for a native 2.35:1 PJ. Probably won't happen, but I can dream.


----------



## salvasol (Oct 31, 2006)

edgebsl said:


> I am still holding out hope for a native 2.35:1 PJ. Probably won't happen, but I can dream.


Not an expert on PJ... but I read that a native 16x9 will be ok to project 2.35:1 movies :huh:

You can start with the PJ (I read is the recommendation for us newbies :whistling, then use the wall to determine the screen size you like better :huh:

Are you planning to buy or build the screen???


----------



## edgebsl (Oct 1, 2010)

salvasol said:


> Not an expert on PJ... but I read that a native 16x9 will be ok to project 2.35:1 movies :huh:
> 
> You can start with the PJ (I read is the recommendation for us newbies :whistling, then use the wall to determine the screen size you like better :huh:
> 
> Are you planning to buy or build the screen???


I have a pulldown graywolf 106"

I have wanted to build a 2.35:1 screen but not that keen on an external lens.


----------



## salvasol (Oct 31, 2006)

edgebsl said:


> I have a pulldown graywolf 106"
> 
> I have wanted to build a 2.35:1 screen but not that keen on an external lens.


I read that if you don't want/can get an external lens... you can use the zoom of the PJ :huh:

Like I said, I'm doing some research for the future, currently I'm using a 67" DLP TV, but I hope some day to get a PJ and screen raying:


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

edgebsl said:


> I am still holding out hope for a native 2.35:1 PJ. Probably won't happen, but I can dream.


Well, there's the new avielo Optix Superwide 235 with native 2.40/1
They are very secretive about the price, but I read a guestimate of something like 20K...

Press release:
http://www.avielo.com/pdf/optix SuperWide235 for cedia2010.pdf

Fingers crossed for a more affordable attempt. I would pay 5K, since a commercial anamorphic lens will cost 2-3K, without a projector like the Pana 4000.


----------



## edgebsl (Oct 1, 2010)

That is ridiculously priced but it is good because hopefully that feature will start showing up in affordable units.

I remember when 720p projectors were crazy expensive.

Thanks for sharing the link!


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

*Prismasonic H 850 M*

Is this any good to use with the Panasonic AE4000?

http://www.highendpassion.nl/epages/62310579.sf/nl_NL/?ObjectPath=/Shops/62310579/Products/"H 850 M"

It's affordable +/- €1,000
Better buys out there?


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Not being able to read German or whatever that language is..all I can say is that you can use any A lens on a projector, providing the lens elements are large enough not to cause vignetting..


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

Prof. said:


> Not being able to read German or whatever that language is..all I can say is that you can use any A lens on a projector, providing the lens elements are large enough not to cause vignetting..


It's Dutch... a millenium or so old spinn-off from German.

I was advized today that the BenQ W6000 would be better for my desired hughe screen. More lumens. It's also cheaper in EU vs the Panasonic, unlike the USA situation.


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

Ah, the Prismasonic is from Finland:

http://www.prismasonic.com/english/index.shtml

Prices start at €990, shipping to EU is €40
This is EU, hence no VAT and duties added within EU (were already in)
EDIT: PRICES ARE WITHOUT VAT: 23% for EU


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

erwinbel said:


> It's Dutch... a millenium or so old spinn-off from German.
> 
> I was advized today that the BenQ W6000 would be better for my desired hughe screen. More lumens. It's also cheaper in EU vs the Panasonic, unlike the USA situation.


And at 2500 lumens, it is a light cannon! I just wish they had not changed the chassis from the W5000.


----------



## erwinbel (Mar 23, 2010)

*Prismasonic*

Prismasonic will be introducing a cilindrical lens, which is supposed to be superior over prisms. How is that the case? Prices are obviously higher (from $3K on that other forum)

Big problemo for these gents will be that they will be forced to change their company name to *CILINDROSONIC* or something of that stretch.:rofl:
Rotolosonico in Italian maybe?
Wait! Got it: *ROTOLOSCOPE*
All royalties for the name are to be sent to erwinbel so he can invest in more toys...

HD6000R looks appealing though with the Panny in the rendering. Cool CB500 ceiling mount too.


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

*Re: Prismasonic*



erwinbel said:


> Prismasonic will be introducing a cilindrical lens, which is supposed to be superior over prisms. How is that the case? Prices are obviously higher (from $3K on that other forum)


It is true. Cylindrical lenses are better because they allow the optics to be adjusted to allow both horizontal and vertical lines to be brought into focus at the same time. Prisms are limited in that they can only focus one plain at one time, so you end up fudging the focus between H and V. Correction elements help here but are not as good as true cylindrical lenses. 



> Big problemo for these gents will be that they will be forced to change their company name to *CILINDROSONIC* or something of that stretch.:rofl:


I said the same thing when I first heard their move from prisms to cylindrical lenses. 
I love how "some" are claiming those renders to be real. Yeah right :rubeyes:


----------

