16:9 v 2.35:1

MartinH32

Well-known Member
After having a 2.35:1 screen I've made the decision to rip it down and replace it with a 16:9 screen.
I'm in a totally dark room so light leak on black bars shouldn't be a huge problem.
I'm just pretty sick of multi aspect ratio movies that seem to be getting more common at the moment.
Picture is the 2.35:1 - starting work on the new one next week when the material arrives
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2020-11-19 at 13.54.29.png
    Screenshot 2020-11-19 at 13.54.29.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 100

mb3195

Distinguished Member
Personally I think you’ll find the black bars annoying, it certainly makes a big difference to the overall pop of the image.

Any way you can add some sort of manual masking system?
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
Personally I think you’ll find the black bars annoying, it certainly makes a big difference to the overall pop of the image.

Any way you can add some sort of manual masking system?
I'll probably do that if it's the case - may even rig something motorised longterm. If I watch a 16:9 image at the moment I'm shrinking it to fit and as the room is black it's not really an issue! I use lens memory at the moment but it's a faff with all the different ratios that are available and movies like Interstellar are a flipping nightmare with the ratio changes.
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
I hear where you are coming from. I’ve gone from a 2.37:1 screen back to a 1.85:1 screen for that exact reason, I do however have masking so get the best of both worlds.

you will definitely notice the black bars top and bottom more so that the side bars though, side bars don’t generally bother me as much, I still have side bars when I use my Xbox and keep my top and bottom masking on just to reduce my screen size.
 
Last edited:

Tight Git

Distinguished Member
you will definitely notice the black bars top and bottom more so that the side bars though, side bars don’t generally bother me as much...

There's no "definitely" about any of this, as someone else might notice the other way around.

Personally, I couldn't care less about where the black bars are, I just ignore them! :D
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
There's no "definitely" about any of this, as someone else might notice the other way around.

Personally, I couldn't care less about where the black bars are, I just ignore them! :D

Yeah there is when you’ve had a CinemaScope screen for so long, you’ll go from ink black borders to grey borders, he will 100% notice the difference, whether it bothers him or not is a different question entirely.

have you ever had one? If not, you won’t know any different.
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
I can't see any other solution for the numerous different ratios - I have them all set up in lens memory but the problem is the multi aspect ratio movies (even the flipping Mandalorian is at it now)
 

IWC Dopplel

Distinguished Member
I have a 16:9 screen and variable making that I made 10 years ago with folded aluminium bars works great mm accurate. They are held in runners to keep them true and connected over a pulley so one suspends the other, lift the bottom bar and the top drops, lower the bottom bar and the top raises symmetrically
Bars are folded and made to mould the screen then wrapped in adhesive velvet

I can mask anywhere between1.85 and 2.2:1
I wouldn’t be without it

AB606587-C1A1-470F-9DDA-A9EC6DCBFA09.jpeg

9058F47C-E3B3-47A9-B42A-43BB510F5E4A.jpeg

8126581B-AB8F-4E68-AAC1-594BC22F9BB6.jpeg
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
I have a 16:9 screen and variable making that I made 10 years ago with folded aluminium bars works great mm accurate. They are held in runners to keep them true and connected over a pulley so one suspends the other, lift the bottom bar and the top drops, lower the bottom bar and the top raises symmetrically
Bars are folded and made to mould the screen then wrapped in adhesive velvet

I can mask anywhere between1.85 and 2.2:1
I wouldn’t be without it

View attachment 1405685
View attachment 1405686
View attachment 1405688
That is awesome
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
I can't see any other solution for the numerous different ratios - I have them all set up in lens memory but the problem is the multi aspect ratio movies (even the flipping Mandalorian is at it now)

multi aspect ratio films are a real pain.
If they are only using the full screen for a few scenes, I generally crop the image and watch in 2.37:1 instead.

A compromise though......
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
multi aspect ratio films are a real pain.
If they are only using the full screen for a few scenes, I generally crop the image and watch in 2.37:1 instead.

A compromise though......
Yup it's what I'm doing. My Epson has masking on it - I only need to make around 70 key presses to mask it properly :(
Even with macros set up on my Harmony there isn't enough buttons to automate it.
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
Yup it's what I'm doing. My Epson has masking on it - I only need to make around 70 key presses to mask it properly :(
Even with macros set up on my Harmony there isn't enough buttons to automate it.

oh dear mate.

Another benefit of a a lumagen.....it does it all for you😎
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
oh dear mate.

Another benefit of a a lumagen.....it does it all for you😎
Tell me more, before I rip everything down. What it does and can I afford it without selling my last kidney? Actually scrap that I've seen the price :eek:
 

dfdd

Well-known Member
Interesting..... there are many variations of aspect ratio and they don't all fit into the 2:35, 16:9 categories.
personally, and its what works best for me-all 16:9 ratios are masked to 2:35 ratio by my JVC projector, in fact I watch all my content at 2:35-its what works best for our eye s after all!
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
Tell me more, before I rip everything done. What it does and can I afford it without selling my last kidney?

It has many options. It will auto detect aspect ratios and covert to the right size, your projector zoom stays as is and the lumagen scales everything.
You can also stretch the image to fit a CinemaScope, this is fully adjustable so you can choose to crop parts and stretch various parts of the image keeping the centre of the screen unstretched. It can work really well in certain situations.

Again, it’s all automatic so you don’t touch anything once it’s setup.

Of course, the main benefit is the calibration features, the upscaling and sharpening of the image, but the real benefit now is the HDR tone mapping making 4k hdr images much much better.

Affording it without selling a kidney.....that I couldn’t answer for you 🤣
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
Interesting..... there are many variations of aspect ratio and they don't all fit into the 2:35, 16:9 categories.
personally, and its what works best for me-all 16:9 ratios are masked to 2:35 ratio by my JVC projector, in fact I watch all my content at 2:35-its what works best for our eye s after all!
Never thought of watching everything at 2:35. Saying that I have inFuse on the Apple TV and if I did that I'd miss some of the menus. So pros and cons really.

The ideal solution for me is something that can mask the signal on the way to the projector to 2.35: or a harmony replacement that would allow that many key presses!
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
Never thought of watching everything at 2:35. Saying that I have inFuse on the Apple TV and if I did that I'd miss some of the menus. So pros and cons really.

The ideal solution for me is something that can mask the signal on the way to the projector to 2.35: or a harmony replacement that would allow that many key presses!

just done a quick video on how quick it is to change the ratio through the lumagen. I’ve done this manually just for reference.

Screen sizes are full screen 1.85:1. Full width 2.37:1 and masked height 1.78:1 - I use this for gaming.

 

dfdd

Well-known Member
its easy to get the menus with the jvc -you just turn the mask off with a couple key presses and switch it back on when done(sometimes the menus are off screen but still legible). there are also 3 or 4 memories for different mask settings-and the mask is adjustable at pixel level......

a Big problem with 16:9 screens replacing 2;35 screens is you often have to fit a smaller width screen in order to accommodate the increased vertical height if above the centre speaker, in which case your 2;35 ratio movies shrink in size dramatically.........pointless if you want max image size on your wall like me

when it comes to projection bigger is best every time for full immersion-all imo of course
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
just done a quick video on how quick it is to change the ratio through the lumagen. I’ve done this manually just for reference.

Screen sizes are full screen 1.85:1. Full width 2.37:1 and masked height 1.78:1 - I use this for gaming.

That is seriously impressive
 

mb3195

Distinguished Member
its easy to get the menus with the jvc -you just turn the mask off with a couple key presses and switch it back on when done(sometimes the menus are off screen but still legible). there are also 3 or 4 memories for different mask settings-and the mask is adjustable at pixel level......

a Big problem with 16:9 screens replacing 2;35 screens is you often have to fit a smaller width screen in order to accommodate the increased vertical height if above the centre speaker, in which case your 2;35 ratio movies shrink in size dramatically.........pointless if you want max image size on your wall like me

when it comes to projection bigger is best every time for full immersion-all imo of course

All PJs have masking function, that isn’t really the issue that the OP has, it’s the changing of screen sizes which takes time with the lens shift, then of course they vary slightly from one movement to the next.

The argument of 2.35:1 v 16:9 has been done many times. For me, a 16:9 screen is best, my PJ is at full throw already so I can never go wider, I then mask if for 2.37:1 viewing (screen masks, not using the lumagen or PJ) so my screen is then exactly the same as my old CinemaScope screen. But for occasions where I want to watch a 1.85:1 image, I just remove the masking and have a bigger screen.

I always felt, like the OP, that I was shrinking my image down to watch some real blockbuster films, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Pacific Rim, The Terminator, Predator, etc.

The way I have it now I have no compromise, I get the maximum possible size image regardless of the format.

Masks off:
image.jpg

Masks on:
image.jpg
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
All PJs have masking function, that isn’t really the issue that the OP has, it’s the changing of screen sizes which takes time with the lens shift, then of course they vary slightly from one movement to the next.

The argument of 2.35:1 v 16:9 has been done many times. For me, a 16:9 screen is best, my PJ is at full throw already so I can never go wider, I then mask if for 2.37:1 viewing (screen masks, not using the lumagen or PJ) so my screen is then exactly the same as my old CinemaScope screen. But for occasions where I want to watch a 1.85:1 image, I just remove the masking and have a bigger screen.

I always felt, like the OP, that I was shrinking my image down to watch some real blockbuster films, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Pacific Rim, The Terminator, Predator, etc.

The way I have it now I have no compromise, I get the maximum possible size image regardless of the format.

Masks off:
View attachment 1405798
Masks on:
View attachment 1405797


Your setup is really making me think about just ditching the TV behind the PJ and going full-on projector mode at some point. argh..
 

MartinH32

Well-known Member
All PJs have masking function, that isn’t really the issue that the OP has, it’s the changing of screen sizes which takes time with the lens shift, then of course they vary slightly from one movement to the next.

The argument of 2.35:1 v 16:9 has been done many times. For me, a 16:9 screen is best, my PJ is at full throw already so I can never go wider, I then mask if for 2.37:1 viewing (screen masks, not using the lumagen or PJ) so my screen is then exactly the same as my old CinemaScope screen. But for occasions where I want to watch a 1.85:1 image, I just remove the masking and have a bigger screen.

I always felt, like the OP, that I was shrinking my image down to watch some real blockbuster films, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Pacific Rim, The Terminator, Predator, etc.

The way I have it now I have no compromise, I get the maximum possible size image regardless of the format.

Masks off:
View attachment 1405798
Masks on:
View attachment 1405797
That's pretty much it. I don't mind though shrinking it, it's the flipping multi aspect material that annoys me. If my projector (say as the JVC did) just had a couple of key presses I'd mask the top and bottom and watch in 2.35:1 on multi aspect movies. I don't REALLY want to change my screen as it's got a nice velvet rim all the way around and as like has been said the 2.35:1 works fab
 

dfdd

Well-known Member
All PJs have masking function, that isn’t really the issue that the OP has, it’s the changing of screen sizes which takes time with the lens shift, then of course they vary slightly from one movement to the next.

The argument of 2.35:1 v 16:9 has been done many times. For me, a 16:9 screen is best, my PJ is at full throw already so I can never go wider, I then mask if for 2.37:1 viewing (screen masks, not using the lumagen or PJ) so my screen is then exactly the same as my old CinemaScope screen. But for occasions where I want to watch a 1.85:1 image, I just remove the masking and have a bigger screen.

I always felt, like the OP, that I was shrinking my image down to watch some real blockbuster films, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Pacific Rim, The Terminator, Predator, etc.

The way I have it now I have no compromise, I get the maximum possible size image regardless of the format.

Masks off:
View attachment 1405798
Masks on:
View attachment 1405797
Spot on-if you have the height available to accommodate 16;9 without reducing screen width, then that is a great solution as you get the maximum image size for both 16;9 and 2;35.

worth also bearing in mind, when viewing 2;35 content on a 16;9 drop down screen, you can eliminate one of the black bars by dropping the top border down further , or lifting the bottom border up
 

kenshingintoki

Distinguished Member
Spot on-if you have the height available to accommodate 16;9 without reducing screen width, then that is a great solution as you get the maximum image size for both 16;9 and 2;35.

worth also bearing in mind, when viewing 2;35 content on a 16;9 drop down screen, you can eliminate one of the black bars by dropping the top border down further , or lifting the bottom border up
Forgot about this. You're totally right. I remember actually doing this for some 3D films.
 

Luminated67

Distinguished Member
Aren't most movies that are in the dual aspect shot by the camera so you don't have to have it jumping from one aspect to another?

I didn't see Aquaman in the local cinema to know how they handled it because they are usually 2.40:1, at least that's our local.
 

The latest video from AVForums

AVForums Movies Podcast: Streaming Theatrical Releases And The Future Of Cinema
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Panasonic TVs now feature Apple TV+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Magico announces Titan 15 subwoofer
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Ajax Systems adds UK Socket to expand smart home options
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Best TVs of 2021 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Melco update improves N10, N100 and N1 EX digital libraries
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom