[Screen in place, Calib done] Worth calibrating before having a screen in place?

Why don’t you just go for a slightly smaller screen that will fit?

Because the Mrs loves the screen as big a we have it. She gets upset when I don't use a zoom to max the image width (she doesnt care for 1:1 pixel mapping).

Personally I wanted 100" wide but that's a 115" diagonal which wont exactly be a common size either.

Anyways, the Elite Aeon will fit... I don't image it's bad and it must be better than nothing
 
This is the screen for you.
Dark Energy Abyss - Pulsar 1.4 ALR
tCbUTay.jpg
 
This is the screen for you.
Dark Energy Abyss - Pulsar 1.4 AL
tCbUTay.jpg

Looks good for sure. Quick google I can't see they have any distributors outside of the US and they ship pre-assembled. I imagine shipping would be a mare but I've e-mailed them to ask and will check out some reviews over lunch.

//edit looks like a very small operation based in US and comments on avsforums say you can't get screen samples and there are limited options which ship to UK. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
You've already received professional and enthusiast tips from other experienced people on this thread... :smashin:

Allow me to give you my amatuer, non-pro take... :D

I have my projector temporarily installed in a room with black ceiling, dark wood floors and cream walls... A standard, price-of-a-nice-dinner-for-two-with-cocktails, grey non-ALR elite screen with black borders was transformative... No comparison vs. the wall on it's own... But more importantly, it's better than our newest local cinema... How?

Did I magically get a unicorn Epson? Does physics work differently in my house? No... The local cinema has very bright exit signs... Bright enough to raise the black levels of their screen to a light grey... :rotfl:

My point is this, if you want to enjoy a quality image, that does justice to your expensive projector and to yourself, get a proper screen and above all avoid the basic mistakes...

You don't need to turn your living room into a cave, or to settle for projecting on a wall. Just buy an expensive high quality retractable screen, or install a cost effective, but good fixed screen that fits your decor or can be concealed/integrated (lots of interior design ways to make these look good)... but most importantly, avoid the basic mistakes.

Personally, even though the screen I bought is basic, and will be replaced with an accoustically transparent screen when the dedicated room is done, it has made a huge difference in my film watching... I think you will find that to be the case when you get your screen. :cool:

Enjoy your movies
 
You've already received professional and enthusiast tips from other experienced people on this thread... :smashin:

Allow me to give you my amatuer, non-pro take... :D

My point is this, if you want to enjoy a quality image, that does justice to your expensive projector and to yourself, get a proper screen and above all avoid the basic mistakes...
Enjoy your movies

My parents (who now have the majority of time with the projector and who turn up to babysit with a bottle of wine and snacks, for the evening mind you!) didn't like me having the room pitch black at night so they use a candle on a coffee table. It is in a "lantern" with heart shaped holes and I threw a fit saying they'd likely ruin the image with light.

It goes without saying the projector utterly drenches their candlelight. With the projector off you can see very faint hearts on the wall. With it on, no chance of seeing any artefacts at all.

They watched The Big Lebowski on DVD last night and the Fisher King (DVD). Both look utterly aweful at 120" and have persuaded me not to buy a DVD again.... but as you say they enjoyed the movies!
 
Ignoring your Loudspeakers for now - where should your image be (position and size!)?

The Room/The Compromise - I guess that is the bit which is throwing many folk into a spin :) I doubt very many folk have the level of Projector you have in a ‘non-dedicated’ setting as that is what is required to eek out the best performance from the projector.

Screen-wall - is building out the wall to allow you to use an AT surface with the speakers correctly positioned behind the screen a non-starter?

Joe
 
Ignoring your Loudspeakers for now - where should your image be (position and size!)?

The Room/The Compromise - I guess that is the bit which is throwing many folk into a spin :) I doubt very many folk have the level of Projector you have in a ‘non-dedicated’ setting as that is what is required to eek out the best performance from the projector.

Screen-wall - is building out the wall to allow you to use an AT surface with the speakers correctly positioned behind the screen a non-starter?

Joe

Not sure about "should" but the Mrs is very happy with how the projected image is now which is as per post #92. I may bring it down 5cm or so when we get a screen installed (assuming we go with the boardless Elitescreen) but that will bring it below my mains level which is very wierd visually for me.

I think you've hit it on the head. The Mrs and I knew we wanted a top end projector but also knew we just could not bare redoing the living room. If we were away a month and someone worked on it that might work, but after our move and the house we were in before we don't want to move "backwards" in the state of the house. Most sane people would probably have considered what to do with the room and cost everything up first and compromise on this or that. Us? I went out and bought a Yamaha 3070 and then we got the projector... next we're working out a screen.

We have been watching films with the centre speaker below the image as long as we've known each other, we both love "my" surround system (although I've gotten twitchy feet wanting to upgrade the sub/speakers) and to be honest we just don't care about the centre being at the correct height.

Also I can imagine three scenarios for using an AT screen.

a) we get an acoustic electric pulldown and mount it on the ceiling about 30cm from the wall to be able to put the speaker behind it - the Mrs/I both agree we want the screen flat against a solid wall and not hanging "mid air" (as her brother does). So that's out.

b) we bought a fake wall forward to build a frame to hide the speakers and put an electric above it or fixed over it- I could live with that if the false wall just went to the protrusion from the extension but we'd lose 30cm or so from the room and the Mrs would get a smaller sized image... now she's seen the 120" image she doesn't want any less so it's basically out.

c) replace the mains/centre with on wall flat speakers and get an electric AT screen over it. I could definitely do that but every example of this I have shown the Mrs she hates. I suspect part of it is because she doesn't want me spending money on speakers, but to be fair every speaker I have shown her to pass the "visual" test she has said "ok" to box speakers with grills on ;-( absolutely nothing stylish (like the Mission SX3 which I absolutely love the look of and is even cheap in a damaged state) gets past her.
 
Keep in mind with Option 2 the ‘smaller’ screen is closer to you so potentially filling the same ‘size’ in terms of your field of vision!

Might be worthwhile knocking up a temp surface with a dust sheet or similar and playing with image size/position (or hire a Fast-fold for the weekend from a local AV Hire Co.).

Joe
 
Keep in mind with Option 2 the ‘smaller’ screen is closer to you so potentially filling the same ‘size’ in terms of your field of vision!

Might be worthwhile knocking up a temp surface with a dust sheet or similar and playing with image size/position (or hire a Fast-fold for the weekend from a local AV Hire Co.).

Joe

She's a mathematician she should know that. When it comes to her screen size she's like a sad teenage boy and it's important her's is bigger than "yours" ;-)

For what we have now personally I find 16:9 content uncomfortable, it's just too big/high. 2.35:1 content however is wonderful. I know the projector has a memory function so I could save two different positions... but I haven't had time to test it!
 
I would go with a CIH and I appreciate she likes big but most movies I watch are in 2.35:1.

Go with a fixed scope screen, either buy one with a border or paint a better colour on the wall. Then have masking ideally motorised for the big effect and then use the PJ memory for the two.
 
I would go with a CIH and I appreciate she likes big but most movies I watch are in 2.35:1.

Go with a fixed scope screen, either buy one with a border or paint a better colour on the wall. Then have masking ideally motorised for the big effect and then use the PJ memory for the two.

Hmm.

Out of the films I've recorded in my system (I gave up adding kiddy films a while back, I should add them again) the ratio's are

| Ratio| count(*) |
| 1.33 : 1 | 21 |
| 1.37 : 1 | 29 |
| 1.66 : 1 | 16 |
| 1.70 : 1 | 1 |
| 1.78 : 1 | 22 |
| 1.85 : 1 | 195 |
| 16:9 | 3 |
| 2.20 : 1 | 38 |
| 2.35 : 1 | 251 |
| 2.39 : 1 | 1 |
| 2.4 : 1 | 1 |
| 4 : 3 | 2 |

So although my collection skews towards 2.35:1 there is a lot of 1.85:1 in there.

I'm a purist to the extent that if the film was in 1.85:1 that's how I want to see it (so no masking). I may end up trying 1.85:1 films at the same height though to see how it feels.
 
Hmm.

Out of the films I've recorded in my system (I gave up adding kiddy films a while back, I should add them again) the ratio's are

| Ratio| count(*) |
| 1.33 : 1 | 21 |
| 1.37 : 1 | 29 |
| 1.66 : 1 | 16 |
| 1.70 : 1 | 1 |
| 1.78 : 1 | 22 |
| 1.85 : 1 | 195 |
| 16:9 | 3 |
| 2.20 : 1 | 38 |
| 2.35 : 1 | 251 |
| 2.39 : 1 | 1 |
| 2.4 : 1 | 1 |
| 4 : 3 | 2 |

So although my collection skews towards 2.35:1 there is a lot of 1.85:1 in there.

I'm a purist to the extent that if the film was in 1.85:1 that's how I want to see it (so no masking). I may end up trying 1.85:1 films at the same height though to see how it feels.

But masking isn't losing any of the picture its getting the border to the correct size for the PJ, (ok so you lose the black borders). As per the cinema its Constant Image Height (CIH) so 2.35 (2.4) etc is the biggest picture. Due to its aspect ratio for a given height you can go wider and as you say is "wonderful".

I appreciate there are lots of you should have done\you should do this etc.

My own personal preference would be for including a screen with active masking
 
I’m sure I’m not the only one reading this thread who is scratching their heads thinking “why?”.

You’ve really made this whole thing difficult for yourself without researching in the first place.

I would almost guarantee that you could have done a better job with a better picture and sound quality if you spent half of what you had done if you had researched properly.
 
Hmm.

Out of the films I've recorded in my system (I gave up adding kiddy films a while back, I should add them again) the ratio's are

| Ratio| count(*) |
| 1.33 : 1 | 21 |
| 1.37 : 1 | 29 |
| 1.66 : 1 | 16 |
| 1.70 : 1 | 1 |
| 1.78 : 1 | 22 |
| 1.85 : 1 | 195 |
| 16:9 | 3 |
| 2.20 : 1 | 38 |
| 2.35 : 1 | 251 |
| 2.39 : 1 | 1 |
| 2.4 : 1 | 1 |
| 4 : 3 | 2 |

So although my collection skews towards 2.35:1 there is a lot of 1.85:1 in there.

I'm a purist to the extent that if the film was in 1.85:1 that's how I want to see it (so no masking). I may end up trying 1.85:1 films at the same height though to see how it feels.
Your list is very similar to the list on the active masking system I made for my 16:9 screen. With the level of the projector you have you really should look to a masking system.

custom%20masking.jpg
 
I’m sure I’m not the only one reading this thread who is scratching their heads thinking “why?”.

You’ve really made this whole thing difficult for yourself without researching in the first place.

I would almost guarantee that you could have done a better job with a better picture and sound quality if you spent half of what you had done if you had researched properly.

Je regrette rien :)

I completely accept your point, but seriously if the Mrs and I had sat down to work out how to do things properly we would never have bought or done a thing. We're too busy and have too much on our plates. If we had waited till Spring the Mrs would have blown the money on something else. Call it a crazy impulse buy for the projector if you like but we did make an informed decision between the 285/550/760 as far as I'm concerned based of factors such as lamp life, contrast, sharpness, banding at 60hz with HDR, and the cool factor. They're our reasons though.

I did try and explain to the Mrs that the AV cabinet would muck up our screen choices but she couldn't stand the mess which the cabinet is hiding a minute longer.

As far as I'm concerned if I can get a screen which fits (Elite Aeon can't see any reason not to get it) then there is simply no issue.

As mentioned above a lot of people strive for perfection, I simply can't have a cave and I won't get a perfect image, hell I don't think I'll even ever have Atmos, and the WAF of new speakers is very low, but I already have something I'm happy with and I hope a screen will just improve that a little.


Your list is very similar to the list on the active masking system I made for my 16:9 screen. With the level of the projector you have you really should look to a masking system.

View attachment 979930

In a word "yes".

If the grey bars when watching 2.35:1 content on a 16:9 doesn't wind me up I will be very pleased, but I expect it will.
 
So although my collection skews towards 2.35:1 there is a lot of 1.85:1 in there.

I'm a purist to the extent that if the film was in 1.85:1 that's how I want to see it (so no masking). I may end up trying 1.85:1 films at the same height though to see how it feels.

You're already saying a couple of posts up that you're finding 16:9 too tall. I'd suggest you spend a bit of time watching some of these movies and working out what you prefer.

As others have said; the masking is how the movie was supposed to be seen. I think you're mis-understanding masking for zooming or something else.

Masking in this context means blacking off the grey bar sections of the screen to perfectly frame the image in a black border.
 
But masking isn't losing any of the picture its getting the border to the correct size for the PJ, (ok so you lose the black borders). As per the cinema its Constant Image Height (CIH) so 2.35 (2.4) etc is the biggest picture. Due to its aspect ratio for a given height you can go wider and as you say is "wonderful".

I appreciate there are lots of you should have done\you should do this etc.

My own personal preference would be for including a screen with active masking

I may be being utterly thick here, but we set the projector to show the widest possible image. Therefore a 1.85:1 image simply has more height than 2.35:1 and they have the same width. To get 1.85:1 height the same as 2.35:1 I'd have to make the image much narrower. I don't have an anthropomorphic lens to use the unused pixels on the projector for 2.35:1 content.
 
You're already saying a couple of posts up that you're finding 16:9 too tall. I'd suggest you spend a bit of time watching some of these movies and working out what you prefer.

As others have said; the masking is how the movie was supposed to be seen. I think you're mis-understanding masking for zooming or something else.

Masking in this context means blacking off the grey bar sections of the screen to perfectly frame the image in a black border.

I do. The Mrs doesn't. The Mrs has ok'd the Elitescreens Aeon 16:9 but she's a bit worried about covering it up when not in use... something we will leave till later (not just to annoy people on the thread honest!)

Yes I may have missed the point because masking sounds like exactly what I'll be doing.
 
I may be being utterly thick here, but we set the projector to show the widest possible image. Therefore a 1.85:1 image simply has more height than 2.35:1 and they have the same width. To get 1.85:1 height the same as 2.35:1 I'd have to make the image much narrower. I don't have an anthropomorphic lens to use the unused pixels on the projector for 2.35:1 content.

Youre not being thick, You’re right. The width stays the same, you just mask off the black borders top and bottom.

If however, you go for a CinemaScope screen, you then need to adjust the zoom and mask off both left and right sides. You are in this instance shrinking the image and making it smaller.

I know you say your mrs wants the biggest possible image, but like you’ve already mentioned, this can sometimes be too big.

You may be surprised, by going for a slightly smaller image, you may actually find it easier to watch and more enjoyable.

I personally went for the THX specs. If I had gone bigger, on 16:9 footage it would definitely have been too big, I do feel I could have gone slightly bigger on 2.4:1 footage though.

If you’re watching more than just films (box sets, sports, etc), you may actually find you’re watching more 16:9 footage than you think.

I would say my usage is 50:50 (I have an adjustable masking screen).
 
If you’re watching more than just films (box sets, sports, etc), you may actually find you’re watching more 16:9 footage than you think.

I would say my usage is 50:50 (I have an adjustable masking screen).

K. I understand now. I think what will realistically happen is when the Mrs isn't there and I'm watching 16:9 I will shrink the image down.

My database of films tends to compress a seasons (or even entire series) to one entry. What I could do it add up the entire time and that does skew things a little making it much more 50/50 between 2.35:1 and 1.85:1 (with a much bigger chunk of 4:3 on the side).

However the only TV series I really watch now is GoT and if I rewatch a series it tends to be on the phone commuting rather than on the PJ because of the time involved.

ratio %runtime

1.33 : 1 5%
1.37 : 1 4%
1.66 : 1 2%
1.70 : 1 0%
1.78 : 1 11%
1.85 : 1 26%
16:9 1%
2.20 : 1 6%
2.35 : 1 37%
2.39 : 1 0%
2.4 : 1 0%
4 : 3 8%

What I can't be bothered to do right now is find out if more new content I'm getting is 2.35:1 and I suspect it is.

//edit sighs. Quick scan of everything I've purchased in the last 3 years (not the year the film came out) shows the content is overwhelming 2.35:1, so it's as I suspected.
 
Just for clarity you can just adjust either the height or the width of the image to get the original aspect of the film/broadcast.

Mb3195 is talking about constant image width in which the masking is placed horizontally across the top and bottom of the image.

In this case if the base screen was 16:9, that would be the biggest image. You would need horizontal masking for films like 2.35:1, however you would also need vertical for those less such as 4:3.

Constant image height is just that the screen is a fixed height and the masking is vertical and comes in from the sides. this is what a lot of people will aim for.

This is the same as you see at a good cinema. You see the trailers and adverts in 16:9 and then the feature presentation if 2.35:1 opens the curtains further and pops the anamorphic lens into get a bigger picture with more wow factor.

You don't need an anamorphic lens now as the image on blu ray/uhd is not encoded anamorphically. Just a lens memory preset to effectively zoom the black bars off the edge of the screen. The disadvantage of this is your 16:9 image will be smaller. For me this is the right way round a bigger 2.35:1 is easier on the eyes.

If you get a screen without an edge its all a bit academic anyway. As others have said the black border does increase the perceived contrast and if its probably masked you then don't get any black\grey stripes on screen.

As they are motorised you can get some that have artwork, drop over the screen, so you don't need to hide it when not in use.
 
Last edited:
Elite screen samples turned up yesterday. They were a4 sized and posted from Germany.

Just for the record they didn't smell bad!

I hope to test all the samples I have tonight. Though I need to work out how to fix then to my wall without causing any marks or damage. Hopefully I have some fresh masking tape kicking around.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom