Doin the lords work out here brother! I thought I wanted a 2.35 screen until I saw one in person and it was a lot skinnier and smaller than i thought it was gonna be. I later saw a 150 16:9 and I was blown away at how much more immersive it was. And I used to be one of the guys that swore by 2.35! Your bluntness and frustrations with everyone in the community saying 2.35 or bust are shared. And I'm glad I'm not crazy!
Nope you're good. And I don't care what anyone thinks. most ppl are on here to make money and hope to get BS subs with their crazy videos acting like clowns and no real experience. I don't need youtube money. Just going to tell the truth and maybe people will listen. I already have money...so the platform can't buy me lol
I always say. Maximize the width of the wall ( maximize the 2.35 image) Then if you have the ceiling height to bring in a 16:9 screen and without your feet getting in the way of the picture, go for it. My room has too low a ceiling so 2.35 was the obvious choice. The framing is a clear advantage on scope material but clearly more work with menus for different films.
I have to 100% agree with you again. I'm running 170 inches 16:9 which is roughly equivalent to 150 inches 235. Almost All high-end commercial theaters run something close to 16:9 (IMAX, DOLBY cinema ect.) The argument that it theaters don't use 16:9 or something close to it is total B.S. Every time the aspect ratio shifts to something larger than 2:35 it's supposed to be immersive, but if you have a scope screen it literally does the opposite by shrinking down all of the action scenes in TOP GUN maverick for example. I wouldn't be surprised if 235 screens are the reason so many people who are looking to get into home theater get burned out so quickly. Keep fighting the good fight, eventually this industry will move on from white cinema scope screens being the standard for home theater.
OH man...and what a fight it is. I got tired of the comments. I don't get...what they don't get. "see it as the director intended"....I am...in every case. lol. They are the ones that aren't. Not an opinion. It's fact. Coming from someone that has owned all the screens in all the shapes. Even this thumbnail is my old showroom...had 2.35 for years. It's just different now. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the video. Ive been agonizing over what ratio to get for my new room, I was settled on a custom 2:1 but you’ve convinced me to stick with 16:9. Much simpler and works for all content. I appreciate your common sense approach. Subscribed.
I didn't say you can't watch it scope. I said it's easier to view ALL formats on 16x9. And you are way off on your movies...SO many are VAR or solid 16x9. Seems lately by far half or majority. To each their own. But to even joke that I don't know what I am talking about shows how little you know. Unless projector companies and screen companies are calling you monthly for your advice and opinions? Because the do me...
This has been my exact thought for years now. If the width is my limiting factor, then I want a 16x9 screen there so that BOTH 2.35:1 and 16x9 content is as wide a possible. Otherwise, if I put a 2.35:1 as wide as possible, then when I watch 16x9 content, it has to be smaller when it is not smaller the other way around. The ONLY time I can see someone really wanting the other way is if they are limited by height (where a 2.35:1 screen would be at their height maximum) and they watch majority movies that are 2.35:1
I completely agree with you. Interestingly, I recently purchased a new 235 to 1 screen for my home theater. I do love the Cinemascope ratio but to be truthful I’m thinking I probably should’ve gone with a 16 x 9 for all the reasons that you just mentioned great videos keep it up.
When watching Guardians of the Galaxy 3, I noticed that the aspect ratio was changing depending on the scene. 16:9 works better than 2.35:1 in such scenarios. Generally, it's more advantageous to go with 16:9 I think.
Great explanation. I have an ALR screen and have spent a lot of time justifying my decision. I’ll just send this video next time. Btw, for reference, Digital IMAX cinemas projects at 1.9:1 which is slightly wider than 16:9 so going 16:9 actually is the more versatile 😉👍
I would do the same if I wasn't hindered by ceiling hight. I have low ceiling in my HT so to max out my screen I went with 2:35 since a majority of films come in that format. But as you say if a film is in 16:9 I do get a smaller picture. And those few with the god awful changing aspect it is very annoying.
16:9 for me all the way. With all the new film formats and especially switching aspect ratio films, 16:9 makes the most sense. Now I still love 2:35 content and the way it looks, but I still get that, just with bars top and bottom, which isn't a problem in my light controlled room I've also gone as wide as I can with the 16:9 screen, which means 2:35 would have made no sense. This way I believe I have the best of both worlds. When I'm watching 2:35 content and the aspect ration switches to 16:9, you get that feeling of immersion better. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 being a good example. The scene where Nebula is staring up at the ship taking off from Second Earth and the screen grows in height to 16:9 was absolute spot on! Loved that.
For me most of the content I’m watching is in 16:9, it just makes more sense to me… I also personally prefer 16:9 over 2:35 in general and wish more movies used aspect ratios like that or close to that. The original JP took advantage of the benefits of having a 1.85:1 which is close to 16:9 and helped show the height and scale of the dinosaurs… sometimes 2:35 has its benefits for sure, but I prefer movies that put you in the scene rather than view from afar which 2:35 feels like regardless of screen size. It’s a wider often longer shot.
You’re 100% correct.. in fact if you want an even better “best fit for all content screen” just get an IMAX Enhanced 1.9:1 aspect ratio screen. Then ALL your content will have tiny black bars and sweeter yet.. with the right ALR screen it will make those black bars simply look black to the eyes with or without lights on.😉
To each their own. I'm getting the larger 2.35 21 screen because the same width 16 by 9 will have my feet in the picture when the recliner is up. I know I'll suffer on size of the 16 by 9 but that is my choice. I understand the larger 16 by 9 concept and would do it if my feet weren't an issue. I will be masking the sides with smart curtains and using a JVC projector with memory settings. I love your room setup and how you made it work the best for you and to your liking. Great video
I choose 2:40 140” because I had 8ft ceilings and I have 2 rows so 16:9 would be too low. I only cared about movies and I have a MadVr PC so everything for me is filled regardless.
So far currently in my lifetime there have only been two standardized tv formats (4:3, 16:9). In the beginning most Home releases were formatted for tv, then with the emergence of dvd a lot of home releases contained both 4:3 and widescreen (as it was called) on one disk. The best of both worlds were offered then and it can be now… 16:9 owners deserve to have their screens filled and 235 owners deserve to have their screens filled. We all continuously invest in the software and hardware…
I'm in the beginning of a new construction home and have a dedicated theater room. I am going to choose all the stuff for it ik a few days. I have been torn between 16:9 and 2.4:1. I love watching sports and love my movie time. You 100% swayed towards 16:9. Thanks! I dont want wasted wall space... More screen please!
Happy to help you if you reach out. We design theaters and ship to anywhere in the US every week. I can help you with just not this. Email me through my site and we can start chatting.
Thanks for the advice..One question…because of my equipment and center channel speaker, my room has more width room than height…so I could fit either a 158” 2.35 screen or a 120” 16x9. Both would give a 120” 16x9 image, but would have bars on the left and right if I go with the 158” CinemaScope option. Is this dumb logic on my part? I have an Epson LS12000 with the 1 button lens memory. I’m currently just projecting on the wall (I know…blasphemy), but when we watch a widescreen movie and I expand it to the largest possible size (158”) with blanking on top and bottom, it is massively bigger and more immersive than the widescreen movie on the 120” 16x9. The 120” 16x9 widescreen looks tiny in comparison. I do understand that the inconvenience with the 2.35 screen is a real concern, especially with movies that change formats, but I figure I could just leave the lens option for 16x9 in those situations. So there’s my dilemma. I guess I could move all of my equipment to a rack in an adjacent room and put in an in-wall center channel with a 150”ish 16x9 acoustically transparent screen, but I’m not sure I can afford that at this time. I saw another one of your videos that showed the SI Black Diamond and Slate screens look like built in masking. That seems very appealing. Thanks again for all of your wonderful advice.
The 3rd Guardians movie is in 1.9:1 "Digital" Imax (LIEmax) format. I dont understand people's aversion to the black bars. Using a 16:9 screen just makes sense. Thats why they chose 16:9 for the HDTV standard because it was the best compromise for all the historical film formats.
I don’t watch my movies on crappy compressed Disney +. Guardians of the galaxy 2 is 2.39:1 on blu ray and k scape. What would you do if you had a client with a room like yours that didn’t want to use in wall speakers? Where would you put your center in that room? Would you just use a smaller 16:9 screen, set the center on the floor, Or would you use a 144” 2.39:1 so they could put their center directly under the screen?
Either is ok. Can go floorstanding too if my screen was higher. My subs are big so they dictated my wall. We sell more floor speakers than IW all day every day.
I've got a 150" 16x9 screen. When I watch 2:39 movie I zoom in to fill the screen. I miss a little on the sides. 1:85 movies, steaming sports, tv shows etc are great as they are in 16x9. My screen goes almost from the ceiling to the floor of 8' ceilings. People, athletes are just about 1:1 scale so to speak. You can't get that with a 2:35 screen. My center speaker and SVS PC ultra 13 are behind the screen
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV Lose a little. it's another option that stretches vertically, and doesn't look right. The zoom option makes the movie look like it was made in 1:85. Panasonic AE8000
One aspect of your thinking is that the width of the 2.4 screen is limited to the width of the 16:9 width. However, in some, many ?, cases that’s not true and one could go much larger in width. Doing calculations now.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV not really. You are assuming you can’t go with a larger width. Your assumption is that the width of your 2.4 screen is the same as the width of the 16:9 screen when in fact, you can use a larger 2.4 screen. I have the calculations. With a 16:9 screen the areas of the screen is 71.3 and the 2.4 image area is 52.8. However, I can increase the size of the 2.4 screen to a 175.5 diagonal giving a screen area of 75.9 and a 16:9 image area of 56.25. The sacrifice in image size is more with the 16:9 screen. Additionally, if I max out my width on the 2.4 screen so that the height = the 16:9 it’s nit even close. You mislead by artificially restricting the width of the 2.4 screen to the width of the 16:9. In many cases the restriction is vertical not horizontal. It’s simply misleading to suggest that 16:9 is the only answer. But I appreciate the discussion and your willingness to participate. Many RUclipsrs don’t.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV did you delete my reply to this? You assume width is constrained to the 16:9 value when, in fact, it’s height that an also be constrained. If it is height that is constrained then using a 2.4 screen will optimize image area between 16:9 material and 2.4 material.
And if the room is short and long you should get a 2:35 screen...which I said in the video..and I even owned one for the same reason. So yes..but most room saren't that way. I design THOUSANDS of systems. Most are wider than tall but plenty for a huge 16x9 screen...still less issues when you do so.
I made the exact same choice, with the exact same logic, as you did when I built my theater. People who choose 2.35:1 screens do so to maximize their room’s width, but if you put in a 16:9 screen that’s the same width, you now have room for the picture to expand for IMAX type content. You lose nothing when you watch either kind of content. As always, to each their own. :-)
The aspect ratio for the new Gardians is IMAX Enhanced (1.9:1). I’ve been making this same argument forever and even many “so called” professionals don’t get it.😂
Most who get a scope screen do it so they for brag about it. I know they exist but no one is yet to convince me a MadVR or anamorphic lens does enough to improve PQ to justify their price.
Good points. I currently have a 16x9 - 120” and been thinking of changing to a 2.4 aspect ratio with some kind of masking panels. My thought is I want movies to have a bigger wow factor than tv. However movies are now coming out in IMAX format. To me the best option would be a 16x9 with 4 way masking. Then when watching tv or playing video games you could mask down to smaller screen size and run your projector on lower setting to save lamp or laser life. Then when you watch a movie open it up to 2:35 for movies that support that or better yet open all masking for IMAX movies to give you that extra wow. However who can afford 4 way masking😂
I have a 100 Inch Screen I over project at 120 Inch for about 2.35 and pull the screen down to match the image seems to work for me. i know their is image still being projected but I do not notice black bars in a darkened room.
From what I understand, a Cinemascope shows video content on the left and right side that the 16 x 9 does not it’s not a huge amount but there is images that you will not see on a 16 x 9 if you’re watching a movie that is in scope so I think that’s the reason why people choose in a scope is cause if the image is there, they want to be able to see it
There is 100% not more on the sides of a 2:35 picture...it's just hte middle of aa 16x9..with either screen shape you see the same picture amount. Nothing is cut off. Now if you get a 2.35 screen and try to watch things or use a madVR etc..it cust the picture to fit. Then you are losing.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I’ve seen screenshots that show a Cos scope with more images on the left and right and then that same image on a 16 x 9 those images are not there
There may be extra content when it's actually filmed but the version you watch at home is going to be the same on a 169 or 2.35 screen...there isn't a native 2.35 chip or two versions of a recording you get at home. So it's the same...you don't magically see more on the sides if you have a different shape screen....It's a fact.
to be honest with you and all, I want to have a 4:3 AR, IMAX one, but practically impossible because I haven't found true above HD projectors with 4:3 AR (maybe because I'm not that much great in researching). we don't even have to go to TV because there is none.
Unless you have access to ACTUAL IMAX 1.43:1 content, a 4:3 screen would be of little benefit because the IMAX scenes on 16:9 Blu-ray discs aren't the same aspect ratio as 1.43:1. 16:9 TV shows and 21:9 movies would look worse on a 4:3 screen. You'd get huge blacks bars on the top and bottom. 🤮🤮🤮
I have a CIH screen and I understand your perspective completely. My reason for maintaining a 2.35:1 screen is because my ceiling height with the ventilation drops down too low to maintain a 16:9 screen. So, much like your limitation of going left-to-right due to the subwoofers, I'm limited vertically. If I chose a 16:9 I would go down from a 168" diagonal to a 127.5" screen. That's a loss of 40" for 75% of movies. I don't do a ton of gaming but I do occasionally watch RUclips and obviously other 16:9 media. I love your channel/perspective - keep up the good work.
I once made a 2.00:1 outdoor "drive in" screen out of 4x4s and plywood. It was a good compromise really. Im considering making one for my guest house theater since i already have curtains.
Very nice demonstration. The only case where I would consider 2.35 is a basement with really low ceilings. In pretty much every other case, I would go 16:9. Weird aspect ratios for movies are on the rise and it is just plain annoying for both: Games and Menus.
Agreed a 16:9 is the better choice. But if one is really picky neither 2.35:1 or 16:9 are correct. Since the letterbox should be slightly wider than 16:9 one need something like 2:1 screen to accomodate this. Then of course you have the imax aspect wich makes the issue even more tricky. Not to mention many newer movies are 2.4:1. Plus all the older aspects they used to do muddies the water again. I do have three settings programmed, 2.35, 2.4 and 16:9, since my screen isnt 16:9 exactly. But for me 16:9 screen would be most correct most of the time. 🤷♂️
The only reason I didn't go 16 x 9. It's because I've pretty severe height constraints. I would have screwed myself out of a lot of width. I have a low ceiling in my basement and a sofit to work around. So acoustically transparent screen and 235. Was the way to go for me. 16 x 9 would be more convenient, though.
@RobertTyrrellSlater I just figured out what the maximum height screen I wanted was. I didn't want something all the way to the floor. Because I sit closer than I probably should. Also I like to recline. I didn't want to stare at my toes while I watched a movie. I put that into a projector screen calculator. To look at the difference in the width measurement. I decided I wasn't willing to give up 23ish inches of width for the convenience of 16 x 9. For me personally, if the difference between the two is under a foot. There's a pretty strong chance I would lean towards 16 x 9. The set and forget nature of it is hard to overstate. So if the height of the screen required is fixed at a relatively low number, it's a question of how much width and height( for scope )are you willing to give up in the name of convenience? Because at that point, the 6 x 9 image doesn't change. Only the scope screen does. Assuming you have a projector with enough zoom and Lens memory. If not, the decision is made for you, it's 16 x 9.
When you’re width limited, maximize for all aspect ratios with 16:9, like the post-er is doing. When you can make width or height whatever you want, then an argument can be made to size your screen height the max for your viewing distance with a 235 screen. Meaning your 16:9 image is as big as you’d ever want it. Then when a wider 235 image fills out the sides, your eyes can accommodate that easily. Point being, if you go 235 in a width limited room, you’re needlessly making your 16:9 image tiny. But when space for whatever, a native 235 screen lets most big movies be the largest image. That’s changing a little with IMAX and changing aspect ratios multiple times during the movie. But the room and what you watch determines what’s best, not a cookie cutter answer that doesn’t take the room and seating distance into account. ***and it’s true that a 235 setup virtually demands a madVR to deal with the changes, to say nothing of the tone mapping*** But to be clear, if your width is limited, the biggest 16:9 screen makes all aspect ratios as big as they can be.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I have a TW9400 (I think equivalent to 6050UB) and a 150" screen. To me, this presents as the best bang for buck for a normal house (and most houses I've been to could accomodate a screen between 120 - 150"). The Sonys and JVCs and 3 - 8 times the price are better, but not 3 - 8 times better. And similar to seeing to TVs side by side in the showroom, one might look slightly better than another, but once you take it home and immerse yourself in the content, the small difference don't mean that much.
Amazing video 👏 thanks for finally ending the 16:9 or 2.35:1 debate and confusion I also loved your advice video on the screen innovations acoustic transparent slate screen I was going to purchase a anamorphic lens but decided to get more affordable gear and get an envy mad VR since it's only $3,500 more than the lens and it all worked out in the end
Is that the ls12000 in SDR mode? Do you get any blue in your blacks with that screen. I agree with you but can you not just use blanking. Most imax scenes are shot so they can be blanked.
Yes SDR. I hate HDR on projectors less than 5000 lumens. It's not tech that was made for projection. It's a direct view (tv ) tech. And yes...I can cut off picture that should be ther ebut I do not want to and shouldn't have to. I want to see...everything that's there. Why see less...I don't get it.
I think its mostly because of the extra width you have above the subwoofers, you could fill the whole width of the wall with a 2.40 screen and you would gain extra height not just width. If like yourself you game and watch lots of 16.9 content then the largest 16.9 screen makes sense and that looks pretty awsome playing the 2.40 content. I only watch movies on mine so 2.40 was the way to go, however I've been thinking about going 16.9 for the few films in that format like Jurassic park ànd Titanic, and those annoying picture shift movis like batman begins which jumps from one format to another.
I really don't care what the director intended me to see, I'm watching the way I want too. just like all these people saying you need to use the most accurate picture setting. I don't want to see a dull image, I want to see brightness and color that pops with contrast. Do things the way you like it and forget what other people are saying.
@@kennyjurgens9084It's not that simple. Morgan Freeman's skin should NOT look Brick Red due to oversaturated colors. That's why natural colors matter.
I love my 2.35 screen and that is how I feel home theater should be but I agree with the fact you do not sell your customers on the idea. It adds so much complexity to using a projector so I feel it is just for enthusiast.
Don’t understand why people get upset about the aspect ratio. Changing memory settings is slow and have to readjust regularly. Personally would rather spend that 15k elsewhere for a video processor. How dumb do you look when your AppleTV menu is off screen with a scope.
16:9 all the way I went with 2:35 first and regretted it, did not listen to my installer to go with 16:9. Turn the lights off and you can’t see the bars. Don’t need a MadVr or Lumagen, I am in the same boat, game sports etc. I think most of it is the cool look of 2:35 screen instead of functionality.
Awesome. And not all installers are smart seems like your's was. Just like most info on this platform is not good...hence why I now spend thousands a month on it.
I have a room with a 7.5 feet ceiling , a soffit on either side and big subs dictating my wall. I can either do a 120 inch 16:9 or a 125 inch 2.4 screen with a lens and lumagen. Which one would you recommend. Thanks in advance !
I still say the 16x9 because only less than half is 2.4 now and even those change in the middle half the time. Games, TV, Netflix, shows...all not 2.4. Sure your 2.4 picture will be smaller then but not bad at all. The Lens helps but still skews the image or chops it. I want to see all that's there. Just my opinion.
Yes easy. Just find out what the height is of your 2.35 screen....or what you want. Then do that same height for a 16x9 and you'll have what that'll be.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV Thanks for your help. I can do a 125 inch 16:9 screen vs a 120 inch 2.4 screen. I have decided to go with a 16:9 option as my 2.4 image wouldn’t be that small compared to my 1.78 image on a 2.4 screen. Happy I stumbled upon your video just in time.
I don't feel pretty today 😂 Great discussion and I agree with you 100%. I know more about movies than most of these home theater snobs and with 2.35 aspect ratio you loose information that was originally filmed. All movies are shot in 1.85 and when the director and filmographer get together to edit they then crop the shots. This started way back during the filming of Lawrence of Arabia, and others before it. I like getting the whole picture and it looks better in home theater. Scope screens look ridiculous. And one of the best arguments is IMAX enhanced. Top Gun maverick, Guardians of the galaxy, many marvel movies and don't forget about Avatar. If you have a scope screen the switch back and forth won't work and eliminates that movie from your Playlist.
Breath of fresh air...all these smart commenters finally. You should see what's on my other videos I already posted on the subject...TWICE. I just did it a different way this time. Thanks for watching. I really appreciate it.
Your explanation would be 100% solid had you not admitted that your projector CAN project a wider image. You state that your subwoofers stop the larger image but that would not be the case with a 2.35:1 screen. If you look at the black bars during 2.35 content in your current setup, a 2.35:1 screen centered in the same vertical position as your current 16:9 screen would be ABOVE your subwoofers, so they would no longer limit the width. FYI, I personally chose to go with a 16:9 screen, in my own theatre, for all the reasons you stated because my projector is projecting the widest image possible, so a 2.35 screen provides NO benefit to me. My theatre setup includes an acoustically transparent screen with horizontal masking, so I get the best of both worlds. On the masking front, in case you haven't heard of them, Seymour AV makes MUCH more affordable masking systems than Stewart. A horizontal masking system from Stewart that would cost $25,000, would cost more like $6,000 from Seymour AV. You could probably get a 4 way masking system from Seymour AV that would cost the same as a horizontal masking system from Stewart. That being said... I ordered a horizontal masking system from Seymour 3 months ago with a supposed 2 week lead time and it still hasn't arrived and has no projected delivery date. Their recent appearances at expos with their 4-way masking, and budget horizontal or vertical masking, has gained them ALOT of attention, so they're dealing with some growing pains.
I promise you my explanation is 100% valid. I know I can go wider if it's 2.35 above the subs...I had that. I don't want it for ALL the other reasons I said. What I said is.... whatever your max width is...whatever that is..do it in a 16x9 if you can and you can get the same 2.35 size because it's the same width. I don't want 2.35 anymore..had it a decade. Annoyed me to death and annoys my clients too.
@HomeTheaterAdvice you're contradicting yourself in your own explanation. You say to go with WHATEVER your max width is. However, your maxwidth is WIDER than what you are using. THEN go 16:9 if you CAN, but you CAN''T because the subs would get in the way. Your explanation would would be 100% accurate if you just said to go as wide as a 16:9 screen would allow and just leave it at that. 99% is still an "A". Don't take it as an insult. I'm on your side.
Im sorry you don't understand what I am saying but im not contridicting myself. You're saying it's bigger if I just go above my subs. that's ony true when watching 2.35 content which is getting less and less. Only in that once instance it's true. I want my other content bigger...so I've maximized my width for 16x9. It's simple.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I fully understand what you were trying to say. You just did a poor job, initially. Thank you for acknowledging that its simple if you just say you maximized your width for 16:9.
People really aren’t smart. I optimize to max out content 90% of the time and that’s 16:9. Everything else is to sell more shit…and you clearly don’t play that game. I’ve always thought that madvr, panamorph lenses, and masking screens are great but only if you want to spend a ton for incremental gains. I will come to you when it’s time to expand my own theater. Also, 99% of your comments about annoying bars on the side/top are from those with a white screens…ALR screens don’t have the same issue. Keep up the great work and don’t let idiots get to you…LOL 😂
All of these comments are smart. I said it in two videos and got burned in the comments. Not that I care...I don't need RUclips. I use RUclips. I am not trying to be a youtuber...lol. So much of that on here. Can't wait to help you when it's time. Just message us through the site and ask for me directly. We do $7M a year so I have a team but will gladly take care of anyone personally If they ask.
It is cool...thanks. I watch other things in there not just movies....tons of movies and about half of whats coming out now are not 2.39. My 2.39 pic is the same either way...what I put here is 100% fact not opinion. It's simple math.
It's called throw distance. I am maxed out at width with my subs there anyway. It's maxed out. I am not insulting anyone...you are the one doing that. I think everyones opinion matters and everyone should get what they want. just can't argue all day about it. I put my opinion. you said i'm wrong. It's all good.
I don't exaggerate and I didn't say profit...Sales. I also have 26 employees. Health benefits.. real problems way beyond youtube. I just put on videos with my thoughts. Not worth getting all worked up about. I go to exotic vacations and drive exotic cars all from doing what I truly believe is doing right by my clients every time. So I am just fine. But thanks for the concern. You are far more insulting than I have been. I'll continue to put up content I believe in. I'd suggest moving on if you don't like it. If I don't like a video..I just move on.
Pros and cons to both. Many that choose a scope screen don't get it in a big enough viewing angle so their 16x9 is too small. Should get at least a 53 to 60 degree viewing angle if buying a scope screen. Do that and its great. Most can't handle a 16x9 screen at 53 to 60 degrees though so their screen or TV is probably in a 35 to 45 degree viewing angle. So it covers VAR material but nothing is really big and Jeopardy is same size or bigger than watching many blockbuster movies. An option for those that have wall space is doing an oversized 16x9 screen. Get that in say a 57 degree view angle. Mask down to 2.35/2.40. You'll have huge scope films and 16x9 shows are still a big 44 to 45 degrees. For VAR "imax style" films remove the masks and get tremendously immersed when those VAR scenes occur.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV not really. For the avg consumer sure, but they are fine using a basic soundbar and a 75" TV from 12' away. IMAX is meant to be immensely immersive.
your belief of an avg customer is skewed...because you more than likely are a customer ...don't sell to customers. I sell 300 theaters a year. The customers for the most part just want easy...they want good sound. they don't want to mess with things. One button on a remote and go. The soundbar in a theater customers you are talking about don't even come in. They go to Best Buy.
This is exactly what I do. Oversized 16x9 at 55 deg horizontal viewing angle. Fantastic for scope content. Too tall for non-imax 1.78-1.85 content (for most adults). I have top and bottom magnetic masking panels for scope. The top panel almost always stays in place (which turns out is about a 2:1 screen ratio) and use that for 1.78, 1.85, 2.0. For the occasional imax or VAR film I take off both masks and get very high immersion as intended for imax. Yes agree for the non-enthusiast dealing with masking and lens memories is not ideal but I don't mind. If just the kids are watching without me I'll just leave it in full screen without masking as they don't mind the size and then it doesn't matter what they choose.
16:9 is much popular Xbox and Playstation is using 16:9 the majority of people have 16:9. Newer TV is only using 16:9 tv shows local channels only used 16:9 people hate that nasty black bars.
The only way to do it properly is to have a masking screen. If you don’t have that then clearly 16:9 is the correct way to go. It’s really the best budget option for a projection screen. It’s dumb to argue about this. You either do a 4 way masking screen or you realize you can’t afford it. That’s it.
2.4:1 is dumb. Why sacrifice height? Especially as: A) Many of the biggest movies by the most popular directors are utilizing IMAX for high immersion 1.9 and 1.4 screens. B) No displays offer a native 2.4 ratio matrix so you’re always having to compromise by adding an expensive lens or wasting lumens by over shooting your screen with the zoom method. C) No one I’ve seen with a 2.4 is maximizing height. As in- everyone with a 2.4 has swaths of unused space above and below the screen. Why? You’re wasting real estate.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Perfect demonstration! Thanks for this. Haven’t seen this compelling a case made for 16:9 up until now. I couldn’t have agreed more!
Very welcome!
Doin the lords work out here brother! I thought I wanted a 2.35 screen until I saw one in person and it was a lot skinnier and smaller than i thought it was gonna be. I later saw a 150 16:9 and I was blown away at how much more immersive it was. And I used to be one of the guys that swore by 2.35! Your bluntness and frustrations with everyone in the community saying 2.35 or bust are shared. And I'm glad I'm not crazy!
Nope you're good. And I don't care what anyone thinks. most ppl are on here to make money and hope to get BS subs with their crazy videos acting like clowns and no real experience. I don't need youtube money. Just going to tell the truth and maybe people will listen. I already have money...so the platform can't buy me lol
Respect. Subscribed 👍🏻
you're the best.
I always say. Maximize the width of the wall ( maximize the 2.35 image)
Then if you have the ceiling height to bring in a 16:9 screen and without your feet getting in the way of the picture, go for it. My room has too low a ceiling so 2.35 was the obvious choice. The framing is a clear advantage on scope material but clearly more work with menus for different films.
You got it.
I have to 100% agree with you again. I'm running 170 inches 16:9 which is roughly equivalent to 150 inches 235. Almost All high-end commercial theaters run something close to 16:9 (IMAX, DOLBY cinema ect.) The argument that it theaters don't use 16:9 or something close to it is total B.S.
Every time the aspect ratio shifts to something larger than 2:35 it's supposed to be immersive, but if you have a scope screen it literally does the opposite by shrinking down all of the action scenes in TOP GUN maverick for example. I wouldn't be surprised if 235 screens are the reason so many people who are looking to get into home theater get burned out so quickly. Keep fighting the good fight, eventually this industry will move on from white cinema scope screens being the standard for home theater.
OH man...and what a fight it is. I got tired of the comments. I don't get...what they don't get. "see it as the director intended"....I am...in every case. lol. They are the ones that aren't. Not an opinion. It's fact. Coming from someone that has owned all the screens in all the shapes. Even this thumbnail is my old showroom...had 2.35 for years. It's just different now. Thanks for the comment.
Thanks for the video. Ive been agonizing over what ratio to get for my new room, I was settled on a custom 2:1 but you’ve convinced me to stick with 16:9. Much simpler and works for all content. I appreciate your common sense approach. Subscribed.
Glad it was helpful!
Definitely stick with 16x9 👍
Or else suffer the wrath of IMAX enhanced and all the upcoming movies that won't work on 2.35 👍
I didn't say you can't watch it scope. I said it's easier to view ALL formats on 16x9. And you are way off on your movies...SO many are VAR or solid 16x9. Seems lately by far half or majority. To each their own. But to even joke that I don't know what I am talking about shows how little you know. Unless projector companies and screen companies are calling you monthly for your advice and opinions? Because the do me...
@@Davek2sb 👎
lol
This has been my exact thought for years now. If the width is my limiting factor, then I want a 16x9 screen there so that BOTH 2.35:1 and 16x9 content is as wide a possible. Otherwise, if I put a 2.35:1 as wide as possible, then when I watch 16x9 content, it has to be smaller when it is not smaller the other way around.
The ONLY time I can see someone really wanting the other way is if they are limited by height (where a 2.35:1 screen would be at their height maximum) and they watch majority movies that are 2.35:1
And you're right
I completely agree with you. Interestingly, I recently purchased a new 235 to 1 screen for my home theater. I do love the Cinemascope ratio but to be truthful I’m thinking I probably should’ve gone with a 16 x 9 for all the reasons that you just mentioned great videos keep it up.
I really appreciate it. I"ll always do my best to bring what I believe to be the truth to help others.
When watching Guardians of the Galaxy 3, I noticed that the aspect ratio was changing depending on the scene. 16:9 works better than 2.35:1 in such scenarios. Generally, it's more advantageous to go with 16:9 I think.
For sure
Great explanation. I have an ALR screen and have spent a lot of time justifying my decision. I’ll just send this video next time. Btw, for reference, Digital IMAX cinemas projects at 1.9:1 which is slightly wider than 16:9 so going 16:9 actually is the more versatile 😉👍
100%
I would do the same if I wasn't hindered by ceiling hight. I have low ceiling in my HT so to max out my screen I went with 2:35 since a majority of films come in that format. But as you say if a film is in 16:9 I do get a smaller picture. And those few with the god awful changing aspect it is very annoying.
totally get it. I cover that in the video that "And if you have the height"...if not go 2.35. I do rooms like that as well and go that route.
16:9 for me all the way. With all the new film formats and especially switching aspect ratio films, 16:9 makes the most sense. Now I still love 2:35 content and the way it looks, but I still get that, just with bars top and bottom, which isn't a problem in my light controlled room
I've also gone as wide as I can with the 16:9 screen, which means 2:35 would have made no sense. This way I believe I have the best of both worlds. When I'm watching 2:35 content and the aspect ration switches to 16:9, you get that feeling of immersion better. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 being a good example. The scene where Nebula is staring up at the ship taking off from Second Earth and the screen grows in height to 16:9 was absolute spot on! Loved that.
some people just get it and some don't lol. You get it.
For me most of the content I’m watching is in 16:9, it just makes more sense to me… I also personally prefer 16:9 over 2:35 in general and wish more movies used aspect ratios like that or close to that. The original JP took advantage of the benefits of having a 1.85:1 which is close to 16:9 and helped show the height and scale of the dinosaurs… sometimes 2:35 has its benefits for sure, but I prefer movies that put you in the scene rather than view from afar which 2:35 feels like regardless of screen size. It’s a wider often longer shot.
Thanks
You’re 100% correct.. in fact if you want an even better “best fit for all content screen” just get an IMAX Enhanced 1.9:1 aspect ratio screen. Then ALL your content will have tiny black bars and sweeter yet.. with the right ALR screen it will make those black bars simply look black to the eyes with or without lights on.😉
Some people just get the logic. Some people don't. lol. Thanks
16:9 is the way to go especially when you consider director change aspect ratios in a movie.
We 100% agree
To each their own. I'm getting the larger 2.35 21 screen because the same width 16 by 9 will have my feet in the picture when the recliner is up. I know I'll suffer on size of the 16 by 9 but that is my choice. I understand the larger 16 by 9 concept and would do it if my feet weren't an issue. I will be masking the sides with smart curtains and using a JVC projector with memory settings. I love your room setup and how you made it work the best for you and to your liking. Great video
I get it. I've had siimilar issues and had chosen 2.35 for those times just like you are. good choice
I choose 2:40 140” because I had 8ft ceilings and I have 2 rows so 16:9 would be too low. I only cared about movies and I have a MadVr PC so everything for me is filled regardless.
Ive had similar issues and had a 2.35 then too.
So far currently in my lifetime there have only been two standardized tv formats (4:3, 16:9). In the beginning most Home releases were formatted for tv, then with the emergence of dvd a lot of home releases contained both 4:3 and widescreen (as it was called) on one disk. The best of both worlds were offered then and it can be now… 16:9 owners deserve to have their screens filled and 235 owners deserve to have their screens filled. We all continuously invest in the software and hardware…
Just depends how you use the room
I'm in the beginning of a new construction home and have a dedicated theater room. I am going to choose all the stuff for it ik a few days. I have been torn between 16:9 and 2.4:1. I love watching sports and love my movie time. You 100% swayed towards 16:9. Thanks! I dont want wasted wall space... More screen please!
Happy to help you if you reach out. We design theaters and ship to anywhere in the US every week. I can help you with just not this. Email me through my site and we can start chatting.
Thanks for the advice..One question…because of my equipment and center channel speaker, my room has more width room than height…so I could fit either a 158” 2.35 screen or a 120” 16x9. Both would give a 120” 16x9 image, but would have bars on the left and right if I go with the 158” CinemaScope option. Is this dumb logic on my part?
I have an Epson LS12000 with the 1 button lens memory. I’m currently just projecting on the wall (I know…blasphemy), but when we watch a widescreen movie and I expand it to the largest possible size (158”) with blanking on top and bottom, it is massively bigger and more immersive than the widescreen movie on the 120” 16x9. The 120” 16x9 widescreen looks tiny in comparison. I do understand that the inconvenience with the 2.35 screen is a real concern, especially with movies that change formats, but I figure I could just leave the lens option for 16x9 in those situations.
So there’s my dilemma. I guess I could move all of my equipment to a rack in an adjacent room and put in an in-wall center channel with a 150”ish 16x9 acoustically transparent screen, but I’m not sure I can afford that at this time.
I saw another one of your videos that showed the SI Black Diamond and Slate screens look like built in masking. That seems very appealing. Thanks again for all of your wonderful advice.
In this case go with the 2.35 as you are still maximizing both things.
The 3rd Guardians movie is in 1.9:1 "Digital" Imax (LIEmax) format.
I dont understand people's aversion to the black bars. Using a 16:9 screen just makes sense. Thats why they chose 16:9 for the HDTV standard because it was the best compromise for all the historical film formats.
100% just makes more sense in most cases but not all cases.
I don’t watch my movies on crappy compressed Disney +. Guardians of the galaxy 2 is 2.39:1 on blu ray and k scape. What would you do if you had a client with a room like yours that didn’t want to use in wall speakers? Where would you put your center in that room? Would you just use a smaller 16:9 screen, set the center on the floor, Or would you use a 144” 2.39:1 so they could put their center directly under the screen?
Either is ok. Can go floorstanding too if my screen was higher. My subs are big so they dictated my wall. We sell more floor speakers than IW all day every day.
It just makes sense :D
I have been saying this for years now. Great video. You got a sub and a like.
Thanks for the sub!
I've got a 150" 16x9 screen. When I watch 2:39 movie I zoom in to fill the screen. I miss a little on the sides. 1:85 movies, steaming sports, tv shows etc are great as they are in 16x9. My screen goes almost from the ceiling to the floor of 8' ceilings. People, athletes are just about 1:1 scale so to speak. You can't get that with a 2:35 screen. My center speaker and SVS PC ultra 13 are behind the screen
When you zoom in...what happens to the content on the sides...
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV Lose a little. it's another option that stretches vertically, and doesn't look right. The zoom option makes the movie look like it was made in 1:85. Panasonic AE8000
One aspect of your thinking is that the width of the 2.4 screen is limited to the width of the 16:9 width. However, in some, many ?, cases that’s not true and one could go much larger in width. Doing calculations now.
Width is Width...If Width is maxed out on a 16x9 screen your 2.35 is the same size either way. Not sure how anyone can argue that fact.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV not really. You are assuming you can’t go with a larger width. Your assumption is that the width of your 2.4 screen is the same as the width of the 16:9 screen when in fact, you can use a larger 2.4 screen. I have the calculations. With a 16:9 screen the areas of the screen is 71.3 and the 2.4 image area is 52.8. However, I can increase the size of the 2.4 screen to a 175.5 diagonal giving a screen area of 75.9 and a 16:9 image area of 56.25. The sacrifice in image size is more with the 16:9 screen. Additionally, if I max out my width on the 2.4 screen so that the height = the 16:9 it’s nit even close.
You mislead by artificially restricting the width of the 2.4 screen to the width of the 16:9. In many cases the restriction is vertical not horizontal. It’s simply misleading to suggest that 16:9 is the only answer. But I appreciate the discussion and your willingness to participate. Many RUclipsrs don’t.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV did you delete my reply to this?
You assume width is constrained to the 16:9 value when, in fact, it’s height that an also be constrained. If it is height that is constrained then using a 2.4 screen will optimize image area between 16:9 material and 2.4 material.
And if the room is short and long you should get a 2:35 screen...which I said in the video..and I even owned one for the same reason. So yes..but most room saren't that way. I design THOUSANDS of systems. Most are wider than tall but plenty for a huge 16x9 screen...still less issues when you do so.
Makes total sense - THANK YOU! I almost made the mistake getting a 2.35/40 - Having to custom order ALR UST (almost) 4m wide :)
Glad I could help!
I made the exact same choice, with the exact same logic, as you did when I built my theater. People who choose 2.35:1 screens do so to maximize their room’s width, but if you put in a 16:9 screen that’s the same width, you now have room for the picture to expand for IMAX type content. You lose nothing when you watch either kind of content. As always, to each their own. :-)
Awesome. It's a simple concept really. Why mess with it if you don't want to.
The aspect ratio for the new Gardians is IMAX Enhanced (1.9:1). I’ve been making this same argument forever and even many “so called” professionals don’t get it.😂
Some people just get it..some don't. lol. I'll keep fighting the good fight.
So called "professionals".
NOT "so called" professionals.
🤣🤣🤣
Most who get a scope screen do it so they for brag about it. I know they exist but no one is yet to convince me a MadVR or anamorphic lens does enough to improve PQ to justify their price.
Agreed. I did it for years because it was right for me...till it wasn't.
Good points. I currently have a 16x9 - 120” and been thinking of changing to a 2.4 aspect ratio with some kind of masking panels. My thought is I want movies to have a bigger wow factor than tv. However movies are now coming out in IMAX format. To me the best option would be a 16x9 with 4 way masking. Then when watching tv or playing video games you could mask down to smaller screen size and run your projector on lower setting to save lamp or laser life. Then when you watch a movie open it up to 2:35 for movies that support that or better yet open all masking for IMAX movies to give you that extra wow. However who can afford 4 way masking😂
Good enough screen you don't need the masking. Watch my other video on screen quality
I have a 100 Inch Screen I over project at 120 Inch for about 2.35 and pull the screen down to match the image seems to work for me. i know their is image still being projected but I do not notice black bars in a darkened room.
.
From what I understand, a Cinemascope shows video content on the left and right side that the 16 x 9 does not it’s not a huge amount but there is images that you will not see on a 16 x 9 if you’re watching a movie that is in scope so I think that’s the reason why people choose in a scope is cause if the image is there, they want to be able to see it
There is 100% not more on the sides of a 2:35 picture...it's just hte middle of aa 16x9..with either screen shape you see the same picture amount. Nothing is cut off. Now if you get a 2.35 screen and try to watch things or use a madVR etc..it cust the picture to fit. Then you are losing.
I'ts unfortunate people think that..it's not true. Opposite of the truth if anything.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I’ve seen screenshots that show a Cos scope with more images on the left and right and then that same image on a 16 x 9 those images are not there
There may be extra content when it's actually filmed but the version you watch at home is going to be the same on a 169 or 2.35 screen...there isn't a native 2.35 chip or two versions of a recording you get at home. So it's the same...you don't magically see more on the sides if you have a different shape screen....It's a fact.
to be honest with you and all, I want to have a 4:3 AR, IMAX one, but practically impossible because I haven't found true above HD projectors with 4:3 AR (maybe because I'm not that much great in researching). we don't even have to go to TV because there is none.
cool
Unless you have access to ACTUAL IMAX 1.43:1 content, a 4:3 screen would be of little benefit because the IMAX scenes on 16:9 Blu-ray discs aren't the same aspect ratio as 1.43:1.
16:9 TV shows and 21:9 movies would look worse on a 4:3 screen. You'd get huge blacks bars on the top and bottom. 🤮🤮🤮
I have a CIH screen and I understand your perspective completely.
My reason for maintaining a 2.35:1 screen is because my ceiling height with the ventilation drops down too low to maintain a 16:9 screen.
So, much like your limitation of going left-to-right due to the subwoofers, I'm limited vertically. If I chose a 16:9 I would go down from a 168" diagonal to a 127.5" screen. That's a loss of 40" for 75% of movies. I don't do a ton of gaming but I do occasionally watch RUclips and obviously other 16:9 media.
I love your channel/perspective - keep up the good work.
In these cases...the wide screen is best for sure. Enjoy.
I once made a 2.00:1 outdoor "drive in" screen out of 4x4s and plywood. It was a good compromise really. Im considering making one for my guest house theater since i already have curtains.
cool
Very nice demonstration. The only case where I would consider 2.35 is a basement with really low ceilings. In pretty much every other case, I would go 16:9. Weird aspect ratios for movies are on the rise and it is just plain annoying for both: Games and Menus.
I agree. If you don't have the height....for sure go 2.35.
Agreed a 16:9 is the better choice.
But if one is really picky neither 2.35:1 or 16:9 are correct.
Since the letterbox should be slightly wider than 16:9 one need something like 2:1 screen to accomodate this.
Then of course you have the imax aspect wich makes the issue even more tricky.
Not to mention many newer movies are 2.4:1. Plus all the older aspects they used to do muddies the water again.
I do have three settings programmed, 2.35, 2.4 and 16:9, since my screen isnt 16:9 exactly.
But for me 16:9 screen would be most correct most of the time. 🤷♂️
I agree
Your set up is like having 144 inch OLED! Looks great and no video processor or anamorphic lens needed!
I'ts awesome.
Spot on. I have a 2.07 ratio screen. Giving me biggest picture in both formats😊😊
Awesome. thanks for the comment
The only reason I didn't go 16 x 9.
It's because I've pretty severe height constraints. I would have screwed myself out of a lot of width. I have a low ceiling in my basement and a sofit to work around. So acoustically transparent screen and 235. Was the way to go for me. 16 x 9 would be more convenient, though.
Somtimes it's the way to go...I've done it for years. Just grew tired of it..but different rooms call for different solutions.
Would you be willing to share what set up you went with? Im basically in an identical place to you.
ruclips.net/video/7cnzwM6zeMo/видео.html
@RobertTyrrellSlater I just figured out what the maximum height screen I wanted was. I didn't want something all the way to the floor. Because I sit closer than I probably should. Also I like to recline. I didn't want to stare at my toes while I watched a movie. I put that into a projector screen calculator. To look at the difference in the width measurement. I decided I wasn't willing to give up 23ish inches of width for the convenience of 16 x 9. For me personally, if the difference between the two is under a foot. There's a pretty strong chance I would lean towards 16 x 9. The set and forget nature of it is hard to overstate. So if the height of the screen required is fixed at a relatively low number, it's a question of how much width and height( for scope )are you willing to give up in the name of convenience? Because at that point, the 6 x 9 image doesn't change. Only the scope screen does. Assuming you have a projector with enough zoom and Lens memory. If not, the decision is made for you, it's 16 x 9.
When you’re width limited, maximize for all aspect ratios with 16:9, like the post-er is doing. When you can make width or height whatever you want, then an argument can be made to size your screen height the max for your viewing distance with a 235 screen. Meaning your 16:9 image is as big as you’d ever want it. Then when a wider 235 image fills out the sides, your eyes can accommodate that easily. Point being, if you go 235 in a width limited room, you’re needlessly making your 16:9 image tiny. But when space for whatever, a native 235 screen lets most big movies be the largest image. That’s changing a little with IMAX and changing aspect ratios multiple times during the movie. But the room and what you watch determines what’s best, not a cookie cutter answer that doesn’t take the room and seating distance into account.
***and it’s true that a 235 setup virtually demands a madVR to deal with the changes, to say nothing of the tone mapping***
But to be clear, if your width is limited, the biggest 16:9 screen makes all aspect ratios as big as they can be.
Good points
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV and full disclosure, I’m in the industry, so I speak from experience as well 😊
I have been waffling on screen aspect. This helped out immensely. Thank you.
Glad it helped!
Hi sir it's a good explanation. Could you please tell me what projector and screen details used in this vedio
Hi I did a whole video on my room actually. Epson LS12000 and Slate AT 153"
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I have a TW9400 (I think equivalent to 6050UB) and a 150" screen. To me, this presents as the best bang for buck for a normal house (and most houses I've been to could accomodate a screen between 120 - 150"). The Sonys and JVCs and 3 - 8 times the price are better, but not 3 - 8 times better. And similar to seeing to TVs side by side in the showroom, one might look slightly better than another, but once you take it home and immerse yourself in the content, the small difference don't mean that much.
Sounds like fun stuff. I am glad you are enjoying your system. That's what it's all about !
Thank you. Your experience is appreciated. I want the largest 16:9 screen my 12’ 10” W x 6’ 7” H wall will allow for use with an UST Epson LS800.
that projector really is supposed to max out at 120
Amazing video 👏 thanks for finally ending the 16:9 or 2.35:1 debate and confusion I also loved your advice video on the screen innovations acoustic transparent slate screen I was going to purchase a anamorphic lens but decided to get more affordable gear and get an envy mad VR since it's only $3,500 more than the lens and it all worked out in the end
that's awesome. Simple video but hope it helped. It certainly sparked a debate..haha. It's must my opinion...based on facts...haha.
Another argument is, if Chris Nolan switches from wide to IMAX he intends for the picture to get bigger and more impressive not smaller.
I think were talking about the same thing but not sure.
great video on the subject. As a CI integrator I've been specifying 16:9 screens for a long while now for common sense reasons
Glad it was helpful!
Is that the ls12000 in SDR mode? Do you get any blue in your blacks with that screen. I agree with you but can you not just use blanking. Most imax scenes are shot so they can be blanked.
Yes SDR. I hate HDR on projectors less than 5000 lumens. It's not tech that was made for projection. It's a direct view (tv ) tech. And yes...I can cut off picture that should be ther ebut I do not want to and shouldn't have to. I want to see...everything that's there. Why see less...I don't get it.
How far to do you sit from that screen? Please let me know your eyes to screen.
In my own Theater? Front row 10'...still looks good. Back Row 17'
You’re right, cheaper to darken your room so the black bars aren’t a problem.
well cheaper to darken the room but still on a good screen.
What screen/projector is this? looks great! BTW 100% agree with you.
About time. Normal people with brains. It's Epson LS12000....Screen Innovations Slate. Watch my full video on my home system
slate AT actually....with Focal Utopia in walls....it's special .
This is fact! 2:35 is annoying and not worth the trouble ! People watch way more content that’s 16:9! Enjoy!
100%. Both are good...just one has more issues than the other. I am trying to hvae less issues with life lol.
I think its mostly because of the extra width you have above the subwoofers, you could fill the whole width of the wall with a 2.40 screen and you would gain extra height not just width.
If like yourself you game and watch lots of 16.9 content then the largest 16.9 screen makes sense and that looks pretty awsome playing the 2.40 content.
I only watch movies on mine so 2.40 was the way to go, however I've been thinking about going 16.9 for the few films in that format like Jurassic park ànd Titanic, and those annoying picture shift movis like batman begins which jumps from one format to another.
I had that...didn't like it.
I really don't care what the director intended me to see, I'm watching the way I want too. just like all these people saying you need to use the most accurate picture setting. I don't want to see a dull image, I want to see brightness and color that pops with contrast. Do things the way you like it and forget what other people are saying.
Good advice. Same advice I give.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV Thanks, you take care my friend
Thanks !
@@kennyjurgens9084It's not that simple.
Morgan Freeman's skin should NOT look Brick Red due to oversaturated colors.
That's why natural colors matter.
Just did this math myself for getting my own screen and came to the same conclusion, glad im not crazy
No you're not. Enjoy !
I love my 2.35 screen and that is how I feel home theater should be but I agree with the fact you do not sell your customers on the idea. It adds so much complexity to using a projector so I feel it is just for enthusiast.
Agreed. For some it's the right choice.
Don’t understand why people get upset about the aspect ratio. Changing memory settings is slow and have to readjust regularly. Personally would rather spend that 15k elsewhere for a video processor. How dumb do you look when your AppleTV menu is off screen with a scope.
Oh...it's a trigger...hahahah. you should see the other vid comments. Thanks for watching truly.
Yeah but when get full screen you see less on the side if you make letterbox see more on the both side left and right am I right ?
@@jonathonpursell1268Full screen what exactly?
💯
Great point, but what if you location doesn’t allow for the taller 16x9 screen? Isn’t it better to maximize the movies size in that case?
Then you do the 2.35....I owned one for a decade. Just don't prefer it.
That’s great info,Thanks for sharing👍🏻
Thanks so much
your room looks perfect for 2.39:1 screen and it fits left to right
Had that...hated it. Changed it
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV hey can I know why you didn't like it that way ?
it's what this video is about...
It doesn’t make sense if you watch a lot of different format content. Period.
Which I do... 16x9 all day. ESP when im selling to clients that never understand what I know.
Great way to combine both aspects. How far away are you sitting? Assuming it’s the same for 16:9 content and CinemaScope content.
I am about 16ft away. Front row 10 or so
16:9 all the way I went with 2:35 first and regretted it, did not listen to my installer to go with 16:9. Turn the lights off and you can’t see the bars.
Don’t need a MadVr or Lumagen, I am in the same boat, game sports etc.
I think most of it is the cool look of 2:35 screen instead of functionality.
Awesome. And not all installers are smart seems like your's was. Just like most info on this platform is not good...hence why I now spend thousands a month on it.
What is the ceiling height of your theater
HI. I'ts 8' to 9' in the tray
I have a room with a 7.5 feet ceiling , a soffit on either side and big subs dictating my wall. I can either do a 120 inch 16:9 or a 125 inch 2.4 screen with a lens and lumagen. Which one would you recommend. Thanks in advance !
I still say the 16x9 because only less than half is 2.4 now and even those change in the middle half the time. Games, TV, Netflix, shows...all not 2.4. Sure your 2.4 picture will be smaller then but not bad at all. The Lens helps but still skews the image or chops it. I want to see all that's there. Just my opinion.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV thanks for your response. How did you calculate what’s the 16:9 image size in your 2.35 screen. Is there a calculator ?
Yes easy. Just find out what the height is of your 2.35 screen....or what you want. Then do that same height for a 16x9 and you'll have what that'll be.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV Thanks for your help. I can do a 125 inch 16:9 screen vs a 120 inch 2.4 screen. I have decided to go with a 16:9 option as my 2.4 image wouldn’t be that small compared to my 1.78 image on a 2.4 screen. Happy I stumbled upon your video just in time.
I am too. Tell all your friends how awesome we are...haha.
I don't feel pretty today 😂
Great discussion and I agree with you 100%.
I know more about movies than most of these home theater snobs and with 2.35 aspect ratio you loose information that was originally filmed.
All movies are shot in 1.85 and when the director and filmographer get together to edit they then crop the shots. This started way back during the filming of Lawrence of Arabia, and others before it.
I like getting the whole picture and it looks better in home theater. Scope screens look ridiculous. And one of the best arguments is IMAX enhanced. Top Gun maverick, Guardians of the galaxy, many marvel movies and don't forget about Avatar.
If you have a scope screen the switch back and forth won't work and eliminates that movie from your Playlist.
Breath of fresh air...all these smart commenters finally. You should see what's on my other videos I already posted on the subject...TWICE. I just did it a different way this time. Thanks for watching. I really appreciate it.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV 🤜🤛🙏
Everyone should get what they want ultimately.
What are your thoughts on 2:1 aspect ratio?
My thoughts are that's not a normal size so you should get a 16x9
I agree with you brother. The future of movie watching is Imax-enhanced. Also, you missed out imax IMAX-enhanced scenes if you don't have 16 by 9
Another good option. Imax works on the 16x9 we sell though so it's easier
16:9 is the best of both aspect ratios.
Agreed. 100% normal comments. What a change. People arguing about something that doesnt matter...lol. thanks so much.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV ya with lights turned off and good contrast projector like jvc those black bars are negligible.
see my video I just posted. super short
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV ya will check
What type of Center Channel Speaker is that, below your screen?
In the thumbnail? That's a Paradigm. In the Video it's Focal but behind Screen.
Are you using Lumagen or Madvr? And which would you recommend
I’m not. I like it but not really something I’ve thought was worth it
What do you think about 1.9:1 or 1.43:1 vs 16:9?
All the same. Get a 16x9 and run with it to not have issues. The commercial theaters do the same thing....for the same reason
Great video, how many inches is that screen it looks great!
It's a 153" ...it's my personal system. I did a video about it as well.
😂 and my self today very regret choosing 2.40 AR than 16:9 screen, for watch 16:9 screen very small 😢😢
Sorry...I regretted my screen too for years. Had to change it.
What brand of screen is that?.. please tell
Other videos about that in my theater. But it's the SI Slate 1.2
I agree 100%.thx for the video.
Thank you actually for watching and getting it. Got tired of the know-it-alls on here. It's insane.
Which projector are you using
LS12000 here.
Your explanation would be 100% solid had you not admitted that your projector CAN project a wider image. You state that your subwoofers stop the larger image but that would not be the case with a 2.35:1 screen. If you look at the black bars during 2.35 content in your current setup, a 2.35:1 screen centered in the same vertical position as your current 16:9 screen would be ABOVE your subwoofers, so they would no longer limit the width.
FYI, I personally chose to go with a 16:9 screen, in my own theatre, for all the reasons you stated because my projector is projecting the widest image possible, so a 2.35 screen provides NO benefit to me. My theatre setup includes an acoustically transparent screen with horizontal masking, so I get the best of both worlds.
On the masking front, in case you haven't heard of them, Seymour AV makes MUCH more affordable masking systems than Stewart. A horizontal masking system from Stewart that would cost $25,000, would cost more like $6,000 from Seymour AV. You could probably get a 4 way masking system from Seymour AV that would cost the same as a horizontal masking system from Stewart. That being said... I ordered a horizontal masking system from Seymour 3 months ago with a supposed 2 week lead time and it still hasn't arrived and has no projected delivery date. Their recent appearances at expos with their 4-way masking, and budget horizontal or vertical masking, has gained them ALOT of attention, so they're dealing with some growing pains.
I promise you my explanation is 100% valid. I know I can go wider if it's 2.35 above the subs...I had that. I don't want it for ALL the other reasons I said. What I said is.... whatever your max width is...whatever that is..do it in a 16x9 if you can and you can get the same 2.35 size because it's the same width. I don't want 2.35 anymore..had it a decade. Annoyed me to death and annoys my clients too.
@HomeTheaterAdvice you're contradicting yourself in your own explanation. You say to go with WHATEVER your max width is. However, your maxwidth is WIDER than what you are using. THEN go 16:9 if you CAN, but you CAN''T because the subs would get in the way. Your explanation would would be 100% accurate if you just said to go as wide as a 16:9 screen would allow and just leave it at that. 99% is still an "A". Don't take it as an insult. I'm on your side.
Im sorry you don't understand what I am saying but im not contridicting myself. You're saying it's bigger if I just go above my subs. that's ony true when watching 2.35 content which is getting less and less. Only in that once instance it's true. I want my other content bigger...so I've maximized my width for 16x9. It's simple.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV I fully understand what you were trying to say. You just did a poor job, initially. Thank you for acknowledging that its simple if you just say you maximized your width for 16:9.
What is your setup ?
Have a video on my whole room at home. Focal Utopia room video
16x9 VS 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Focal Utopia in wall 7.2.4 Dolby Atmos Theater Tour. JL audio Subwoofer
ruclips.net/video/7cnzwM6zeMo/видео.html
Perfect. Big is best. Get the biggest screen. So all ratio aspects fit. Forget masking. You never see it at night. Great video. Great set up
Thanks so much. Keep watching. I appreciate it.
People really aren’t smart. I optimize to max out content 90% of the time and that’s 16:9. Everything else is to sell more shit…and you clearly don’t play that game. I’ve always thought that madvr, panamorph lenses, and masking screens are great but only if you want to spend a ton for incremental gains. I will come to you when it’s time to expand my own theater. Also, 99% of your comments about annoying bars on the side/top are from those with a white screens…ALR screens don’t have the same issue. Keep up the great work and don’t let idiots get to you…LOL 😂
All of these comments are smart. I said it in two videos and got burned in the comments. Not that I care...I don't need RUclips. I use RUclips. I am not trying to be a youtuber...lol. So much of that on here. Can't wait to help you when it's time. Just message us through the site and ask for me directly. We do $7M a year so I have a team but will gladly take care of anyone personally If they ask.
It is cool...thanks. I watch other things in there not just movies....tons of movies and about half of whats coming out now are not 2.39. My 2.39 pic is the same either way...what I put here is 100% fact not opinion. It's simple math.
Oh man...these people. lol.
It's called throw distance. I am maxed out at width with my subs there anyway. It's maxed out. I am not insulting anyone...you are the one doing that. I think everyones opinion matters and everyone should get what they want. just can't argue all day about it. I put my opinion. you said i'm wrong. It's all good.
I don't exaggerate and I didn't say profit...Sales. I also have 26 employees. Health benefits.. real problems way beyond youtube. I just put on videos with my thoughts. Not worth getting all worked up about. I go to exotic vacations and drive exotic cars all from doing what I truly believe is doing right by my clients every time. So I am just fine. But thanks for the concern. You are far more insulting than I have been. I'll continue to put up content I believe in. I'd suggest moving on if you don't like it. If I don't like a video..I just move on.
Great vid man. 👌🏻
I appreciate it.
With a grey screen you can't see the bars anyway
Not Gray...ALR....watch my video on that. Thanks for watching
Pros and cons to both. Many that choose a scope screen don't get it in a big enough viewing angle so their 16x9 is too small. Should get at least a 53 to 60 degree viewing angle if buying a scope screen. Do that and its great. Most can't handle a 16x9 screen at 53 to 60 degrees though so their screen or TV is probably in a 35 to 45 degree viewing angle. So it covers VAR material but nothing is really big and Jeopardy is same size or bigger than watching many blockbuster movies. An option for those that have wall space is doing an oversized 16x9 screen. Get that in say a 57 degree view angle. Mask down to 2.35/2.40. You'll have huge scope films and 16x9 shows are still a big 44 to 45 degrees. For VAR "imax style" films remove the masks and get tremendously immersed when those VAR scenes occur.
Sounds like a lot of work. Which is my point.
@@TheaterAdvice_FCAV not really. For the avg consumer sure, but they are fine using a basic soundbar and a 75" TV from 12' away. IMAX is meant to be immensely immersive.
your belief of an avg customer is skewed...because you more than likely are a customer ...don't sell to customers. I sell 300 theaters a year. The customers for the most part just want easy...they want good sound. they don't want to mess with things. One button on a remote and go. The soundbar in a theater customers you are talking about don't even come in. They go to Best Buy.
This is exactly what I do. Oversized 16x9 at 55 deg horizontal viewing angle. Fantastic for scope content. Too tall for non-imax 1.78-1.85 content (for most adults). I have top and bottom magnetic masking panels for scope. The top panel almost always stays in place (which turns out is about a 2:1 screen ratio) and use that for 1.78, 1.85, 2.0. For the occasional imax or VAR film I take off both masks and get very high immersion as intended for imax. Yes agree for the non-enthusiast dealing with masking and lens memories is not ideal but I don't mind. If just the kids are watching without me I'll just leave it in full screen without masking as they don't mind the size and then it doesn't matter what they choose.
16:9 is much popular Xbox and Playstation is using 16:9 the majority of people have 16:9. Newer TV is only using 16:9 tv shows local channels only used 16:9 people hate that nasty black bars.
Thanks
This makes total sense
Awesome...happy it helped.
The only way to do it properly is to have a masking screen. If you don’t have that then clearly 16:9 is the correct way to go. It’s really the best budget option for a projection screen. It’s dumb to argue about this. You either do a 4 way masking screen or you realize you can’t afford it. That’s it.
And nobody has that money..just about. So I do it this way. I hardly see bars with lights off on my screen. Thanks for commenting/
That anamorphic lens is a snake oil scam! It cost more than projector? Its ridiculous!
I don't love them either.
Agree. And 1.85 is gorgeous.
Benefits to both just have to find out what's right. Selling 16x9 makes sense to me
2.4:1 is dumb. Why sacrifice height? Especially as:
A) Many of the biggest movies by the most popular directors are utilizing IMAX for high immersion 1.9 and 1.4 screens.
B) No displays offer a native 2.4 ratio matrix so you’re always having to compromise by adding an expensive lens or wasting lumens by over shooting your screen with the zoom method.
C) No one I’ve seen with a 2.4 is maximizing height. As in- everyone with a 2.4 has swaths of unused space above and below the screen. Why? You’re wasting real estate.
Agreed.
Also, I think masking is waaaayyyy overrated
I don't disagree