# 235:1 or 16x9



## Fortin's H.T room (Nov 11, 2009)

I run a panny 2000 projector on a 106" screen,can i change my set up and buy a new screen with a 235:1 set up with my projector.Looking at a 120" 235:1 screen.Thanks


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

The 2000 is a 16:9 projector. In order to go scope with it, you'd need to either buy an anamorphic lens (pricey), or have a 2.35:1 screen with very large black borders on the top and bottom (and the inability to watch anything that's 16:9 without cutting off the top and bottom).

You're better off just getting a larger 16:9 screen and using a masking system for scope movies (or getting a new projector).


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

Personally I would go for the 2.35:1 screen..
You'll get the full screen image for most Blu-rays, and it's easier to mask the sides for when you're viewing any 16:9 movies..


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

Prof. said:


> Personally I would go for the 2.35:1 screen..
> You'll get the full screen image for most Blu-rays, and it's easier to mask the sides for when you're viewing any 16:9 movies..


But since it's a 16:9 projector, if he goes with a 2.35:1 screen (and fills it), it's only be because the rest of the image (the black borders) is above and below the screen (absorbed by thick masking).

How would he mask the sides when viewing 16:9? A 16:9 movie would still fill the screen width, but would now extend over the top and bottom of the screen, right?


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

I believe you can get the 2.35:1 ratio with the Panasonic 3000 & 4000 and I have considered getting a 2.35:1 screen but am happy with 16:9 to be honest, and you can lose some image quality by zooming in & out to obtain this ratio.


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

IMO, it depends on what you watch most. If it's movies go for the wider screen. If it's TV go for the 16x9.
That being said reference quality in movies is more important to me than TV so I'd go wider if I could.


----------



## Fortin's H.T room (Nov 11, 2009)

lsiberian said:


> IMO, it depends on what you watch most. If it's movies go for the wider screen. If it's TV go for the 16x9.
> That being said reference quality in movies is more important to me than TV so I'd go wider if I could.


Its only for movies,i watch tv on a 42", i was watching different movies last nite on the 106" and alot of my movies are 235:1 or 240:1,but what will happen if one of my movie is in 16x9 will the image be bigger than my screen,this is whats baffling me.Dont get me wrong i'm happy with the 16x9 but alot of movies are 235:1 or 240:1 so i thought why not get a 235:1 screen for my next set up.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

recruit said:


> I believe you can get the 2.35:1 ratio with the Panasonic 3000 & 4000


Correct, but not the 2000.



Fortin's H.T room said:


> but what will happen if one of my movie is in 16x9 will the image be bigger than my screen,


Yes.



Fortin's H.T room said:


> alot of movies are 235:1 or 240:1 so i thought why not get a 235:1 screen for my next set up.


As long as you upgrade your projector to the 4000, it won't be an issue.


----------



## Prof. (Oct 20, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> But since it's a 16:9 projector, if he goes with a 2.35:1 screen (and fills it), it's only be because the rest of the image (the black borders) is above and below the screen (absorbed by thick masking).
> 
> How would he mask the sides when viewing 16:9? A 16:9 movie would still fill the screen width, but would now extend over the top and bottom of the screen, right?


Without an anamorphic lens he would have to first set up the projector so the !6:9 image is centred on the screen and at the full height of the screen..That then leaves black bars each side of the image which can easily be masked if required..
Then to get the 2.35:1 image to fill the screen would just require zooming ..No black bars top, bottom or sides..
One of the advantages of having an anamorphic lens..no zooming required!


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

Fortin's H.T room said:


> I run a panny 2000 projector on a 106" screen,can i change my set up and buy a new screen with a 235:1 set up with my projector.Looking at a 120" 235:1 screen.Thanks


Your projector does not contain the image processing feature necessary to use an anamorphic lens. There are outboard processors available in video processing units or in some Blu-ray Disc players. Another method of adjusting the image to properly fill a CinemaScope aspect ratio screen is via the zoom and vertical lens shift options on your projector. If your projector is mounted level with the center of the screen, only zoom is required. If not, vertical lens shift will also be needed. 

I don't know if your projector has the proper zoom ratio to accommodate both 1.78:1 and 2.40:1 images from a stationary mount location. You could verify this by marking out a 2.40:1 area on your wall with tape. One advantage of the zoom method over anamorphic is much lower cost and simplicity of setup. Another is the ability to view other aspect ratios and still fill the height of the screen. Some Best Picture Oscar winning films use other aspect ratios than 1.78:1 or 2.40(35):1, such as: 'Patton' and 'The Last Emporer,' etc., at 2.20:1. Others use 1.85:1, 1.33:1, etc., etc. An affordable way to variably mask the width of a CinemaScope screen is with drapes.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

Prof. said:


> Without an anamorphic lens he would have to first set up the projector so the !6:9 image is centred on the screen and at the full height of the screen..That then leaves black bars each side of the image which can easily be masked if required..
> Then to get the 2.35:1 image to fill the screen would just require zooming ..No black bars top, bottom or sides..
> One of the advantages of having an anamorphic lens..no zooming required!


Ah, gotcha. Since the 2000 has a manual zoom, I was presuming he wouldn't want to be zooming and un-zooming depending upon the movie.


----------



## Fortin's H.T room (Nov 11, 2009)

Maybe i will just stick with a 120" 16x9.Thanks for the advice


----------



## KnightRT (Jan 21, 2010)

FYI, Mitsubishi's HC3800 and HC4000 have an Aspect button on the remote that downsamples 16x9 content to the center of a 2.40:1 screen. Accounting for crop, the effective resolution is 1920x800 for 2.40 and 1420x800 for 16x9. It's simple and quick, and to my mind, an effective alternative to an anamorphic lens.


----------

