# Are 2.35:1 screens the best choice for Blu-ray?



## Orbitron (Jul 14, 2012)

So many titles in my collection are 2.35:1, a strong reason to get a 2.35:1 screen?


----------



## Harold Dale (Jun 26, 2006)

Nearly all blu-rays are 2.35:1 these days, even the Disney titles seem to be 2.35:1 more then they aren't where as they used to almost exclusively be 16:9.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

Here's my quick take.

If space is not an issue, and you are able to fit a massive 16:9 screen into your space, then you'll have the best of both world.

In my HT space (height) became an issue... if I had gone 16:9, any 2.35:1 movie would have been smaller... getting a 2.35 screen allowed me to get a much larger screen and, thus, benefit in the long run because most movies (2.35:1 movies) are shown much larger!


I find 80% of movies to be 2.35... and if they aren't, sizing down to a 16:9 isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Also agree, 2,35:1 is hard to beat for a screen. It just immerses you in the movie that much more. I use a 120" screen and that still gives me a 96" 16x9 (1,85:1) image if its necessary.


----------



## KelvinS1965 (Feb 6, 2011)

My first screen was a 16:9 and I was disappointed to find that most of what I watched on it was 2.35:1 and I could see the black bars due to the poor contrast of my old projector. I then replaced it with a 2.35:1 one and a while afterwards I got lucky and found a used Isco II lens as well (though I got by with zooming for a good while). Recently I made up some black velvet clip on side masks for 16:9 content for the finishing touch (though I'd love some electric side masks these will do for now).

I think it does also depend on whether you watch much sport, documentaries or concerts which tend to be 16:9.


----------

