16:9 best for variety of aspect ratios?

[bigkid]

Hi all. I am working towards having a projector and screen in our lounge to replace the current plasma screen. Got the projector sorted in the JVC DLA-x5900.  We watch about 1/3 4:3 old movies (love our film noir), 1/3 recent TV series usually in 16:9 and another 1/3 CinemaScope movies. We are anticipating we'll be able to fit in a 100in screen to be viewed from 3.7m away. I was thinking that 16:9 would be the best compromise given our viewing habits. Is that correct?

 

Cheers,

 

Allan

Edited November 7, 2018 by bigkid

[otagomed]

I am about to make a same decision.  Cinemascope looks great but I realized that about 70% of what I watch is 16:9.

 

Also I watch many foreign movies with subtitles and 16:9 seems to be the better option for me.

[Quark]

Yes, 16:9 should be your best option. With your screen size, consider projecting onto a wall or sheet for a few weeks - what seems huge at first can seem a little small in a short time. If you've got the throw distance available to go larger you may find a 110" or 120" ends up a better option. Alternatively, just sit closer if needed.

[Kaynin]

Yes, I agree.  If you plan on watching mainly scope, then that's the answer, but if you're watching other content, go with 16:9.  I don't use my cinema room just for movies I also watch plenty of TV shows, sports and gaming.

[Kaynin]

@Quark   agreed, what seems large becomes the norm fairly quickly.  I sit 4.5m from a 120" 16:9.  If the OP can go 110" then...I would!

 

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Kaynin

[betty boop]

Just have to remember ... where width limited the choice is 16:9 no benefit of scope screen

 

where height limited or no width limitation then scope is a choice worth considering

[MaxTemp]

As mentioned, if width limited, then the choice is made for you.

Whatever fixed screen you get, its a compromise for other ratio content. You just have to find whats important to you more.

If you have the option for scope (both in width and throw distance), then its worth considering strongly.

You can still get around the 100 inch 16:9 size, but just wider.

For example, if you are able to fit in 125 inch scope, then you are getting all the 'benefits' of a 100 inch screen, except now your widescreen movies are bigger and have more impact.

 

 

[muriwai]

I split the difference and got a 2:1 screen
Best of both worlds !!

[bigkid]

Thanks all. Yes, I am width limited (to about 227cm of visible screen) so it looks like 16:9 it is. Not sure about 2:1, it looks a good compromise.  However, it will probably be the perfect fit less often with our viewing habits - and there is something quite pleasing about seeing the whole of a big screen filled  

 

Cheers

 

Allan

[Owen]

Your projector is natively 16:9 and video is natively 16:9 (constant image width) even for scope content.

Wide screen movies are not "wide" at all, they are exactly the same width as 16:9 movies. They are created by cropped the top and bottom off the much taller original image that was captured by the camera.

 

16:9 movies are becoming increasing common so a scope screen doesn't make sense to me unless there is a height limitation.

[bigkid]

Thanks Owen. 16:9 it is!  

[T800]

9 hours ago, Owen said:

 

 

16:9 movies are becoming increasing common so a scope screen doesn't make sense to me unless there is a height limitation.

If you are going to get in to 4K BD movies then the above is completely wrong, as most are in 2:40 ratio or thereabouts. 

 

BUT as everyone else has said since you have a big mixture 16:9 is best for you.   My HT is specifically to watch 4K BD so I'm going Cinemascope screen.  For the odd 1:85 ratio movies and similar, I will just have to have the back borders on the left and right.

[Owen]

2 hours ago, T800 said:

If you are going to get in to 4K BD movies then the above is completely wrong, as most are in 2:40 ratio or thereabouts.

Since when did 4K BD movies use a different aspect ratio to 1080 BD versions of a movie ???????? They are the same, both 1080 and 4K BD are native 16:9 with black bars encoded in for scope titles.

 

I am moving to a dedicated theatre room and plan on using a 150" screen with room for a 200" if I ever feel the need. I ONLY view BD movies on a projector, no TV or games EVER, and would not even consider a scope screen that cripples 16:9 content under any circumstances. Even if 16:9 movies are in the minority I want to see them at full size.

 

A 16:9 screen displays ALL content at its best, a scope screen can't do that. Simples.

 

IMHO a screen is just a surface to projector onto, it doesn't have an aspect ratio or size. It needs to be at least as big in any dimension as anything that that will ever be projected onto it, it doesn't need to match the size of the projected image either horizontally or virtually, I would rather it be bigger. To each their own.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Owen

[cashflag]

All set-ups (except, perhaps, a dual-screen set-up) have their compromises. Go with what both appeals the most and works best for your particular tastes and circumstances. There's no scientific formula for those.

 

The recommendation to shoot on the wall or a sheet until you know what you really want is always a good one.

[cashflag]

On 08/11/2018 at 5:19 AM, muriwai said:

I split the difference and got a 2:1 screen
Best of both worlds !!

You did? Awesome. I was considering doing something similiar at one stage a few years ago. It didn't gain much attention and ultimately proved unnecessary.

[T800]

10 hours ago, Owen said:

Since when did 4K BD movies use a different aspect ratio to 1080 BD versions of a movie ???????? They are the same, both 1080 and 4K BD are native 16:9 with black bars encoded in for scope titles.

 

I am moving to a dedicated theatre room and plan on using a 150" screen with room for a 200" if I ever feel the need. I ONLY view BD movies on a projector, no TV or games EVER, and would not even consider a scope screen that cripples 16:9 content under any circumstances. Even if 16:9 movies are in the minority I want to see them at full size.

 

A 16:9 screen displays ALL content at its best, a scope screen can't do that. Simples.

 

IMHO a screen is just a surface to projector onto, it doesn't have an aspect ratio or size. It needs to be at least as big in any dimension as anything that that will ever be projected onto it, it doesn't need to match the size of the projected image either horizontally or virtually, I would rather it be bigger. To each their own.

Never said they were different!!! I said if want to get in to 4 k bd most are 2:40:1 these days.     

[Owen]

Again you mentioned "4K bd" why? Movies are movies mate, it doesn't matter what disk they come on.

For people who are into viewing MOVIES rather than pixels "4K bd" is pretty much irrelevant as only a tiny proportion of movies are available in that format, and of the few that are most where never 4K to begin with. Nothing that was shot on film (with the possible exception of a some true IMAX content) is even close to "4K" and that knocks out a large proportion of 4K BD catalogue from the get go. Even for new release moves the vast majority are not available on 4K bd and are never likely to be.

 

Scope has been the norm for decades BUT things are changing, an increasing number of movies are in 16:9 and mixed aspect ratio. Thats a good thing IMHO as I find using scope for an entire movie inappropriate as it often looks like what it is, an image with the top and bottom cropped off. The scope presentation is appropriate for some scenes but for others its definitely not and switching to 16:9 for those scenes is straight up better IMHO.

 

Going from scope to 16:9 at the same image width gives a 30% increase in picture area, that's a very significant increase and is much more visually impressive IMHO.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Owen

[cashflag]

You must be a hit at dinner parties, Owen. 

[T800]

7 hours ago, cashflag said:

You must be a hit at dinner parties, Owen. 

LOL.

 

And for the record owen most big release/med release movies are 2:39/2:40/2:37, that's a fact. If your happy with your 16:9 screen then enjoy it, no need to justify it to the rest of us.  The OP was just after peoples opinions, so I gave mine.

 

Secondly I said 4K BD as that's what a lot of people are buying these days with 4k and 4K e-shift projectors incl me.  That's why I referenced them in my post, if we were back in the late 90's I would have said DVD's but don't think most HT buffs buy these much anymore!!  '

 

Anyway, I lost interest in your post after the first line..

[IMDave]

Only watch movies in my HT, and am genuinely disappointed when the movie is 16:9. Dont know why they even exist anymore.

[IMDave]

Btw i would think that approximately 400 of the 500 movies i own are cinemascope. Most of the 16:9 movies are Disney's animated offerings i bought when my kids were little. 

[Owen]

32 minutes ago, IMDave said:

Only watch movies in my HT, and am genuinely disappointed when the movie is 16:9.

If you use a scope screen that would make perfect sense because you must display the 16:9 image much smaller.

However, if you use a 16:9 screen which is the same width as the scope screen the 16:9 image is 30% larger in area than scope, whats disappointing about that?  Since when is smaller better?

 

Unlike with a scope screen there is no need to zoom in and out for different aspect ratio content either, with a 16:9 screen the projector is set and forget.

 

No need for me or anyone else to justify the use of a 16:9 screen, they justify them selves. Scope is a compromise.

[Owen]

1 hour ago, IMDave said:

Btw i would think that approximately 400 of the 500 movies i own are cinemascope. Most of the 16:9 movies are Disney's animated offerings i bought when my kids were little. 

I don't view kids movies but do view old movies which are not scope and new movies that are not main stream, no shortage of 16:9 content in that lot but many great titles.

 

How much 16:9 content on comes across depends heavily on what you want to view.

 

 

[br0d0]

8 minutes ago, Owen said:

I don't view kids movies but do view old movies which are not scope and new movies that are not main stream, no shortage of 16:9 content in that lot but many great titles.

 

How much 16:9 content on comes across depends heavily on what you want to view.

 

 

Would you mind sharing the size of your 16:9 screen and viewing distance by any chance please?

[Owen]

I current use a 100" screen and view it from 2.8 - 3.0m.

When the new house is built I plan on using a 150" 16:9 and view it from 4m. I expect I wont always want to use the whole screen, 130" will be fine most of the time. The intent is for the screen to be bigger than it will ever reasonably need to be to allow flexibility. I'd rather have too much screen than not enough, and since the room will be a total bat cave and absorb allmost all light coming off the screen there will be no need to mask the unused areas.