Question Wanting to go to CinemaScope

Discussion in 'Projectors, Screens & Video Processors' started by dinoprada2003, Jun 16, 2018.

  1. dinoprada2003

    dinoprada2003
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    LONDON
    Ratings:
    +6,828
    Hi,

    I have the Epson 9300 and am currently using a spitfire 16:9 92” screen . However the PJ is only for movies (dedicated bat cave) and a lot are shot in the 2:4:1 aspect .

    Normally I just use the projectors lens memory and live with dropping the image down and having black bars at the top however it’s starting to grate .

    I’m considering options one of which is to switch to a 2:4 screen

    Couple of questions

    1.) Given the short throw of the Epson 9300 and my room 11ft x 9ft (my pj is on a shelf on the back wall ) should / could I go for a bigger screen if I change to a 2:4 screen ?

    2.) if I keep the 16:9 screen are there any “hacks” people use like Devore or something when the movies switch to 2:4 to use with the 16:9 screen to hide the black bars ?

    3.) is there a way I can have my cake and eat it regarding a screen that can handle 16:9 when needed and 2:4 etc


    :D
     
  2. NM20

    NM20
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,431
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Campsall nr. Leeds
    Ratings:
    +202
    I have my screen on a wooden frame and at the bottom I have a piece of wood which spans the width of the screen with a small chain at each end. Attached to this piece of wood is a piece of Devore that is folded down. I then lift this piece of wood and have hooks behind the screen which I attach the chain to. Job done and the bottom of the screen is as dark as the rest of my room.
     
  3. Peter Parker

    Peter Parker
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2001
    Messages:
    14,022
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    UK.
    Ratings:
    +3,464
    Zoom the image as wide as it will go in your room, and that will give you the max image width you can get for scope. Make a note of the height and see if you can zoom 1.85 to that height. If you feel the 1.85 image is too small, can you move the seats a little closer? Ideally you would have scope the same height as your current screen, and 33% wider.

    Another option is to have a second screen that is 2.4 and pull that down for scope movies (or vice versa) so you don't have to worry about masking

    Or you could try something like a 2.05:1 screen if you can't go as wide as you would like but want 16:9 to be a bit taller, but that then means 4 way masking which can be a bit tricky to implement.

    if I use PJCentrasl 9300 calculator, I get something like 93" wide (with the pj lens 10ft 6ins from the screen - is that about right?) which gives a 39.2" tall scope image, and that would give you a 69.6" wide 16:9 image which is equivalent to an 80" diagonal 16:9 screen. If you can get a wider image than that then you will get a larger 16:9 image.

    If you could move the pj into the room behind and fire through the wall you could get a bigger image :)
     
  4. ShanePJ

    ShanePJ
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,756
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Unit 5 The Sidings, Bacup, Lancs, OL13 9RW
    Ratings:
    +708
    Which distance do you have the projector projection from, 9' or 11'.

    With the projector's depth of 0.5m this would reduce the size of screen you could use with the memory zoom.

    Using these calculations on the 9' throw, this will give you a maximum zoom of around 75" diagonal. Now I suspect that the screen you are already using is larger than that anyway guessing that you are projecting from the 11' wall. This would give you a maximum diagonal throw of around 95". So if you was to use the memory zoom and are already use a 92" diagonal screen, then there isn't much scope for increasing the total width of the image in order to maximise your viewing size.

    In order to create a constant height for this projector using you would require a throw distance closer to 14'.

    Now as every projector is slightly different with its own throw ratio, you could see how big the image will increase, although I don't feel you will get to the magic constant height with such a short throw in place.

    The only real alternative is using an anamorphic lens to create a cinema scope experience, these tend to be an expensive option as the lens is a very special type of lens which requires you to use "Anamorphic Wide" on the Epson which is technically is vertically stretching the image and the lens re-aligns the pixels back into shape all-be-it with a slightly softer look.

    To read a little more, please visit "Panamorph"
     
  5. Peter Parker

    Peter Parker
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2001
    Messages:
    14,022
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    UK.
    Ratings:
    +3,464
    Unless he gets a wide aperture horizontal expansion anamorphic lens, he's probably too close or will have a lot of pincushion. Ideally you need the pj at least two times the screen width back to to reduce the pincushion. He could get a 108" wide scope image the same height as his current 16:9 screen if he could fit one though. Some lenses do go down to as little as 1.4x the SW throw IIRC but the pincushion can be quite large, though it can be hidden in the velvet surround by zooming the image a little larger. I prefer using a lens to zooming but it's not always practical for shorter throws,

    A vertical compression lens would probably be a better choice as that just compresses the height, but can give a little barrel distortion at the sides. That can be lost in the border too usually.

    You shouldn't get a softer image with a good A lens as the pj is using smaller pixels to render the image which gives the impression of a sharper and more detailed image compared to zooming (which increases the pixels by 33% and looks coarser in comparison), despite the scaling that is going on.
     
  6. ShanePJ

    ShanePJ
    Well-known Member AVForums Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,756
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Unit 5 The Sidings, Bacup, Lancs, OL13 9RW
    Ratings:
    +708
    I personally don't think it would be worth (especially when you take the price of a lens into account) it as the seating distance would then need to be taken into effect and if the overall height of the image is to large, it will be like sitting on at the front row of the cinema's which almost everyone hates.

    I hope this doesn't dissolution @NM20 to much :(
     
  7. Peter Parker

    Peter Parker
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2001
    Messages:
    14,022
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    UK.
    Ratings:
    +3,464
    That's kinda why I didn't mention the A lens in my first reply, as they tend to be expensive and require more thought to the set up, especially in a smaller room. I think VC lenses should be OK if he's within their throw range though. They seem to be coming more into vogue now (I think possibly due to the extra light they give and HDR needing more of that), but being new will also be expensive. Unless you can find an older one perhaps, but you'd probably need to try before you buy.

    He should be OK seating distance wise, as height is usually the limiting factor (vertical viewing angle looking up) and if he's happy with the height of he's existing 16:9 screen, keeping the same height and going wider shouldn't be a problem.
     

Share This Page

Loading...