I'm in the process of building my first DIY screen using parts of various methods found online. What I've decided to do is build a screen using the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. This was after much consideration mind you. I love the CinemaScope 2.35:1 widescreen content but after doing a lot of experimenting I decided to make the 1.85 for this build. I think most are using the 16:9 or 1.78:1 AR when building and that is fine. It really comes down to personal preference I think; that and what your projector is capable of along with your viewing room conditions.
I think that I'll eventually go with a huge 2.35:1 screen (the constant image height setup) but you really have to make that puppy big to get the 16:9 material close to what a 16:9 format screen would make it. For example -
a 1.78:1 screen 50x89 is a pretty good size screen.
a 2.35:1 screen using the same 50" height would be 117.5 in wide
The cool part about the constant height setup is that if you can get a screen that big in your room and your PJ can output the necessary lumens and resolution your 16:9 images will still be huge. The thing that always got me down in the past is when viewing a movie like Seabiscuit (formated in the 2.35:1 AR) on a modest 30" widescreen TV the image has to be reduced to fit on the screen. Sorry if I'm rambling...
So a 65" tall 2.35 screen would be about 153 inches wide - yes, I like that mental image!
ramble, ramble...
Full Version: Screen Size Compromise
Where did you get the 1.85:1 aspect ratio? If I were you, I would just stick to the tallest ratio screen that you would watch (ie, 16:9 or 4:3). Unless of course you have the ability to resize the video via software.
I have a native 4:3 projector, and frequently watch TV and widescreen movies with it. I'd rather take the cut in height than mess with a funky screen size. But that is just me
.
And don't get me started on 16:9.
It has been a total sham since it first came out. Complete marketing crap. Oop, there I go... 
I have a native 4:3 projector, and frequently watch TV and widescreen movies with it. I'd rather take the cut in height than mess with a funky screen size. But that is just me
.And don't get me started on 16:9.
It has been a total sham since it first came out. Complete marketing crap. Oop, there I go...
Well, daveoxide, let me explain myself. I chose to make my screen using the 1.85:1 aspect ratio for several reasons. Remember those warnings before movies that let you know that this movie has been formatted to fit your screen?
My screen has been formatted to fit the movies!
The reason that I picked 1.85 instead of 1.78 (16:9) is because I believe in the constant image height setup. What that means is everything that you watch on this kind of screen will always be the same height, the thing that varies is the width. This is completely opposite of the traditional 4:3 screen where the width is constant and the height changes. So with my widest content (probably something like a 2.40:1 AR) I just choose the height that I desire to watch that kind of movie in, make a screen to that height specification, and the rest of the content will fall into place. So I picked the 1.85 screen (instead of the extreme widescreen) for this screen because about a third of my favorite movies are formatted in 1.85. That means that 2.35 (or wider) movies will only have minimal black bars at the top & bottom.
I watch probably 90% movies so 4:3 content is not a real consideration for me anyway. As for the widescreen being a marketing concept I must disagree. Filmmakers (for the most part) utilize wide aspect ratios for their aestheticly pleasing frame. The wider frame is more like natural eyesight than the 4:3 frame (As for HDTV standard using the 16:10 aspect ratio, that's another story). I realize that this setup isn't for everyone but there are masking and alternative methods to achieve good results. That's the cool thing about DIY, you can completely customize your setup for your needs and not have to settle for what the big box store offers.
My screen has been formatted to fit the movies!
The reason that I picked 1.85 instead of 1.78 (16:9) is because I believe in the constant image height setup. What that means is everything that you watch on this kind of screen will always be the same height, the thing that varies is the width. This is completely opposite of the traditional 4:3 screen where the width is constant and the height changes. So with my widest content (probably something like a 2.40:1 AR) I just choose the height that I desire to watch that kind of movie in, make a screen to that height specification, and the rest of the content will fall into place. So I picked the 1.85 screen (instead of the extreme widescreen) for this screen because about a third of my favorite movies are formatted in 1.85. That means that 2.35 (or wider) movies will only have minimal black bars at the top & bottom.
I watch probably 90% movies so 4:3 content is not a real consideration for me anyway. As for the widescreen being a marketing concept I must disagree. Filmmakers (for the most part) utilize wide aspect ratios for their aestheticly pleasing frame. The wider frame is more like natural eyesight than the 4:3 frame (As for HDTV standard using the 16:10 aspect ratio, that's another story). I realize that this setup isn't for everyone but there are masking and alternative methods to achieve good results. That's the cool thing about DIY, you can completely customize your setup for your needs and not have to settle for what the big box store offers.
QUOTE (daring @ Jun 10 2008, 10:26 PM) 
The reason that I picked 1.85 instead of 1.78 (16:9) is because I believe in the constant image height setup. What that means is everything that you watch on this kind of screen will always be the same height, the thing that varies is the width.
How do you vary the width and not the height? Do you have a super duper LCD controller or are you going to use software to do this?
QUOTE
So I picked the 1.85 screen (instead of the extreme widescreen) for this screen because about a third of my favorite movies are formatted in 1.85. That means that 2.35 (or wider) movies will only have minimal black bars at the top & bottom.
Wait, I thought you were doing a constant height? Why will you have black bars on the top and bottom? Shouldn't you only have black bars on the sides when viewing 16:9 content? Or am I misunderstanding something (which has been known to happen on occasion
)?QUOTE
As for the widescreen being a marketing concept I must disagree. Filmmakers (for the most part) utilize wide aspect ratios for their aestheticly pleasing frame. The wider frame is more like natural eyesight than the 4:3 frame (As for HDTV standard using the 16:10 aspect ratio, that's another story).
I was referring to the 16:9 (and 16:10) ratio's being a sham. 2.35:1 IS widescreen, the others are not, IMO.
QUOTE
I realize that this setup isn't for everyone but there are masking and alternative methods to achieve good results. That's the cool thing about DIY, you can completely customize your setup for your needs and not have to settle for what the big box store offers.
I am with you here. I am just trying to better understand the reasons why you would do this, and how you would make it work. I don't mean to come off abrasive, I am just questioning you so that I can learn from you.
Don't worry, I'm not offended at all. I love talking about this stuff and this is a learning community.
You ask me how I vary the width, I do not. The content varies the width. The easiest way to think about it is this setup is the opposite of a traditional 4:3 set. On that old set the width of all content is the same & the height varies based on content. The idea of a constant height setup is to get the largest super wide content possible, so you setup your screen for the maximum height. The height of a CIH never changes, just like the old TV width, but the content is shaped differently so it "changes" producing bars on the side which can then be masked if desired.
The reason I chose 1.85 instead of 2.35 (or 2.40, the normal choice for a constant height setup) is, as I said in my title, a compromise. Almost all of my viewing involves sources that are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 with few exceptions. Therefore a setup that presents the most screen real estate for these two aspect ratios is what I wanted.
My screen has a viewable area of 40x74". In order to get a 40" height on a 2.35:1 you are looking at a width of 94 inches. While this isn't really "too big" it was a little bit much for my particular setup at this time. This project is a "Phase 1" kind of production so I am actually planning on making a second screen in the near future, after I have experimented quite a bit, using the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Hopefully this makes things more clear for you as to the method to my madness (that really is there...).
As for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, this is considered the Academy Flat ratio and is used in such movies as Rocky, The Shawshank Redemption, and Sling Blade. A greater portion of Hollywood movies use the wider 2.35:1 such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, American Beauty, and Seabiscuit. The whole 16:9 thing I think came about through the television producers and I think that we are in agreement that when widescreen was being adopted it should have simply been the 2.35:1 aspect ratio giving us all the same constant height monitors.
You ask me how I vary the width, I do not. The content varies the width. The easiest way to think about it is this setup is the opposite of a traditional 4:3 set. On that old set the width of all content is the same & the height varies based on content. The idea of a constant height setup is to get the largest super wide content possible, so you setup your screen for the maximum height. The height of a CIH never changes, just like the old TV width, but the content is shaped differently so it "changes" producing bars on the side which can then be masked if desired.
The reason I chose 1.85 instead of 2.35 (or 2.40, the normal choice for a constant height setup) is, as I said in my title, a compromise. Almost all of my viewing involves sources that are either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 with few exceptions. Therefore a setup that presents the most screen real estate for these two aspect ratios is what I wanted.
My screen has a viewable area of 40x74". In order to get a 40" height on a 2.35:1 you are looking at a width of 94 inches. While this isn't really "too big" it was a little bit much for my particular setup at this time. This project is a "Phase 1" kind of production so I am actually planning on making a second screen in the near future, after I have experimented quite a bit, using the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Hopefully this makes things more clear for you as to the method to my madness (that really is there...).
As for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, this is considered the Academy Flat ratio and is used in such movies as Rocky, The Shawshank Redemption, and Sling Blade. A greater portion of Hollywood movies use the wider 2.35:1 such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, American Beauty, and Seabiscuit. The whole 16:9 thing I think came about through the television producers and I think that we are in agreement that when widescreen was being adopted it should have simply been the 2.35:1 aspect ratio giving us all the same constant height monitors.
Okay... I think I've finally wrapped my mind around the Constant Height setup. If you're still trying to figure it out, check this out. Or this.
Here's the 2.35 Constant Height FAQ over at AVSForums.com.
How are you going to adjust your projection to the screen? Are you going to use some sort of digital scaler or special triplet?
Here's the 2.35 Constant Height FAQ over at AVSForums.com.
How are you going to adjust your projection to the screen? Are you going to use some sort of digital scaler or special triplet?
Ahah! Light bulb is turning on! Long warm-up time for this bulb I guess....
Ok, I think I finally got it now too. Pretty slick actually, especially when you use one of these. And since most LCD TV's have the ability to stretch or skew the image already, one of these lenses should do the trick just fine. I wonder how much they are though...
Just found the pricing, ~$2100 for the cheapest one!
There has to be a way to DIY something like this. At a minimum all you need is two prisms...
Ok, I think I finally got it now too. Pretty slick actually, especially when you use one of these. And since most LCD TV's have the ability to stretch or skew the image already, one of these lenses should do the trick just fine. I wonder how much they are though...
Just found the pricing, ~$2100 for the cheapest one!
There has to be a way to DIY something like this. At a minimum all you need is two prisms...
QUOTE (daveoxide @ Jun 12 2008, 11:37 AM)
Ahah! Light bulb is turning on! Long warm-up time for this bulb I guess....
Ok, I think I finally got it now too. Pretty slick actually, especially when you use one of these. And since most LCD TV's have the ability to stretch or skew the image already, one of these lenses should do the trick just fine. I wonder how much they are though...
Just found the pricing, ~$2100 for the cheapest one!
There has to be a way to DIY something like this. At a minimum all you need is two prisms...
Ok, I think I finally got it now too. Pretty slick actually, especially when you use one of these. And since most LCD TV's have the ability to stretch or skew the image already, one of these lenses should do the trick just fine. I wonder how much they are though...
Just found the pricing, ~$2100 for the cheapest one!
There has to be a way to DIY something like this. At a minimum all you need is two prisms...
plans all over the place... just google DIY anamorphic... if you have a commercial projector (with a reasonable size triplet, unlike our beseler-based PJs) you can even use 'trophy' crystal wedges as the prisms and get very nice results.
I have heard about constant height for a while but when it finally clicked for me I thought, "Yeah, that's the way to go!"
As for my current setup I'm going to set the projector up so that my 1.85 content is projected perfectly to fit the screen. When I get to my later phases I'll hopefully get into the anamorphic lenses and a bigger better LCD panel to take advantage of higher resolutions.
As for my current setup I'm going to set the projector up so that my 1.85 content is projected perfectly to fit the screen. When I get to my later phases I'll hopefully get into the anamorphic lenses and a bigger better LCD panel to take advantage of higher resolutions.
daring,
Kudoos for listening to your own drum. Indeed that is the heart beat of DIY.
I, personally, went with a 16:9 format screen even though my projection panel is a 4:3. I physically mask off the top and bottom black strips with pieces of aluminum right on the panel. Really bings up the contrast a notch or two! Using KMplayer, I often zoom in when viewing a true wide screen movie with no real noticeable loss in the picture.
Kudoos for listening to your own drum. Indeed that is the heart beat of DIY.
I, personally, went with a 16:9 format screen even though my projection panel is a 4:3. I physically mask off the top and bottom black strips with pieces of aluminum right on the panel. Really bings up the contrast a notch or two! Using KMplayer, I often zoom in when viewing a true wide screen movie with no real noticeable loss in the picture.
I'm finally about to start with my 3rd panel and hope to get some results this week. I too will be using some different masking techniques on the LCD panel to achieve my desired results. The panel I'll be using is a 4:3 panel which I'll be experimenting with and we'll see how it goes. I guess I should start a plog sometime here (been working on this since Aug '07).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.