Theater Screen Advice (Aspect Ratios)

[LoveCinema]

I currently have a 105" fixed wall-mounted screen (due to physical limitations). I'm planning to replace this with a retractable screen (w/retractable tracking) with a "default" screen size of 135" at 16:9 ratio. This will be a "Constant Width" solution with the default screen as tallest and everything else masking down (all the way to 3:1 if desired - I'm looking at you Dust Bunny!).

Before I pull the trigger, I'm wondering if I should get a taller screen to facilitate additional aspect ratios. Based upon preliminary measurements, I think 1.66:1 might be the only additional option as my projector doesn't have the throw distance to handle 1.5:1 or 1.43:1. I'd be using lens memory on my JVC projector to accomplish this so as to not lose light on other aspect ratios, with everything else going through a to be acquired Lumagen. So, really, we're talking some Bond films and a few dozen others? Any folks in similar positions?

I'm still waiting to hear from Stuart Filmscreen if this is even an option, but I figured I'd check in with you fine folks to get some thoughts. Thanks!

 

[Edgar]

I think 16:9 is by far the most future-proof and headache-free AR option. While theatrical content is all over the place, home video is firmly set at 16:9 due to the installed base of TV panels.

Of course, I’m a Scope Man, so maybe I’m the wrong person to reply about going taller.

Although, your future Lumagen may make your Scope fears fade out of your peripheral vision!

 

[DieZwei]

So what´s actually limiting the size? Height or width?

 

[LoveCinema]

Although, your future Lumagen may make your Scope fears fade out of your peripheral vision!

So what´s actually limiting the size? Height or width?

No fears of scope, if my room was (much) wider I may be looking at different options. However, I do enjoy VAR and the "opening up" of a frame, and I want 16:9 eye candy like Avatar to be as big as possible. I'm definitely in the "fixed width" camp given a choice.

Anyway, physical limits: Room is 14' wide, 19' deep, 10' ceilings w/9' stepped perimeter. I have floor-standing speakers and the screen wall has two windows (blacked out and covered by drapes). In addition, there are columns and wainscoting that limit both horizontal and vertical space. Architectural changes aren't desired, so no false walls, in-wall speakers, etc. The physical space for wall mounting is 95" wide currently filled by the 105" 16:9 screen.

The current plan is to replace the fixed 105" screen with a 97" LG OLED (G5 or G6). Then, install a retractable screen that can drop down over the TV (and windows/drapes) at about 10' wide (118" image, 132" max screen, 138" case). Although I could squeeze a few more inches in, I have measured out a 135" 16:9 screen and tested it inside my Apple Vision Pro and find it to be a good (bordering too large) size for the room.

Although I currently intend for the image to remain above the wainscoting (for viewing from back row), the retractable screen could cross this limit as well to capture the 1.66:1 aspect ratio. What I'm weighing is the value of including that ratio vs. always mask to 16:9 (more wear/tear on masking screen?). I'm not sure if these are really factors, what others have done, etc.

 

[Stitch1]

If I had more height I would probably go with a 2:1 screen and do constant area. That way my tall content could be taller and my wide content could be wider. But my theater isn't very tall so I went scope and have a constant image height. I do seem to be more bothered by letterboxed bars than I am pillars for some reason. And I do really like the height of everything being the same. No movie really looks "smaller" to me doing it this way. Where on a 16x9 display wider content does look small to me.

Basically, my recommendation is to base your screen size off of whatever direction is limited by your room. If you have the height, go tall. If you have the width go wide. If you have a bit of both do something like a 2:1 and have presets for all the aspect ratios.

 

[rafaelsmith]

My vote is for 16x9. Its the most simple and future proof.

 

[DLCPhoto]

My usual approach is for someone to decide on the optimal screen size for 16:9 content - they're happy with that size, don't want it larger or smaller.

And if the room then allows for a 2.40:1 screen having the same height, but now with more width, you have the best of all possible worlds. You have the same 16:9 size you wanted to begin with, and now wider content expands horizontally, providing the immersion that is I think was the intent for cinemascope movies, to begin with.

If the room doesn't have that much width, you can then go as wide as you can. @Stitch1 - having a 2.00:1 screen does present an interesting option, since it's ~ half way between the two. And if one is so inclined to use NLS with an Envy, you could fill the screen relatively easy with most aspect ratios, as the black bars aren't too large, and the image wouldn't be changed too much.

 

[LoveCinema]

Basically, my recommendation is to base your screen size off of whatever direction is limited by your room. If you have the height, go tall. If you have the width go wide. If you have a bit of both do something like a 2:1 and have presets for all the aspect ratios.

If the room doesn't have that much width, you can then go as wide as you can. @Stitch1 - having a 2.00:1 screen does present an interesting option, since it's ~ half way between the two. And if one is so inclined to use NLS with an Envy, you could fill the screen relatively easy with most aspect ratios, as the black bars aren't too large, and the image wouldn't be changed too much.

Yup, 2:1 came up in a conversation with @thrillcat and if you talked to me a year ago I was convinced that was where I'd end up. However, the more time I've spent in my theater (and others) the more I've realized the black bars bother me... almost as much as stretching an image. In an ideal world I'd have a 4-way masking system. Limited to a retractable screen I can get a horizontal masking, so 2:1 left the conversation. Now it's just deciding if I want an accommodation of 1.66 or just lump it in with 1.43:1 and 1.5:1 (looking at you Obsession) as requiring bars.

 

[DLCPhoto]

Yup, 2:1 came up in a conversation with @thrillcat and if you talked to me a year ago I was convinced that was where I'd end up. However, the more time I've spent in my theater (and others) the more I've realized the black bars bother me... almost as much as stretching an image. In an ideal world I'd have a 4-way masking system. Limited to a retractable screen I can get a horizontal masking, so 2:1 left the conversation. Now it's just deciding if I want an accommodation of 1.66 or just lump it in with 1.43:1 and 1.5:1 (looking at you Obsession) as requiring bars.

Understood. I guess the biggest limitation for me is that with screens that are 16:9, or even taller with the ones you're considering, cinemascope movies, which should provide the most immersive experience, now provide the least immersion. And I've seen estimates that around 70% of movies are between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1.

But I do understand that in rooms that are significantly width limited, as yours appears to be, this is simply not possible or practical. So you do what you can within the physical constraints you have to deal with.

 

[DieZwei]

In an ideal world I'd have a 4-way masking system. Limited to a retractable screen I can get a horizontal masking, so 2:1 left the conversation.

Exactly. I also think 2:1 is a very good option maximising width and height for different ARs, but you definitely need a four-way-masking to fully enjoy that and you´re going for a retractable screen.

 

[rafaelsmith]

Another reason I went 16x9 is that we watch about as much TV and sports in the theater as we do movies. My room is only 12.5 wide, 8ft tall. 135 16x9 pretty much fills the wall with enough room on the sides for speakers and below for center.

 

[SJHT]

I use a retractable 16x9, but have top masking and a video processor which moves 2.4/2.2 etc. content to bottom and changes top masking accordingly. Works pretty good….

 

[andy]

A little late to the party, but I thought I’d chime in since my room is a similar size to @LoveCinema. Mine is 139" wide, about 19' deep, and a little under 9' tall.

I went back and forth between fixed width and fixed height, but ultimately chose a 135" 16:9 Seymour AV fixed-width auto-masking screen. I wanted the larger image for sports, games, and other 16:9 content.

Of course, I wish scope movies expanded to feel bigger and grander, as they do in a commercial theater, but not at the expense of the larger 16:9 image. The whole family has been very happy with the size from roughly 14' away.

The few taller movies haven’t been an issue for me, either. I notice the bars on the sides, but they don’t bother me nearly as much as bars on the top and bottom. I personally wouldn’t add height just for 1.66, though I’m not sure my ceiling would have accommodated much additional height anyway.

Overall, I’ve been extremely happy with the choice.

Andy

 

[LoveCinema]

Understood. I guess the biggest limitation for me is that with screens that are 16:9, or even taller with the ones you're considering, cinemascope movies, which should provide the most immersive experience, now provide the least immersion.

I appreciate this sentiment, but also acknowledge that "scope is most immersive" is an artificial designation tied to large (classic) theaters and nostalgia.

Once stadium seating was introduced and theaters became taller, the space was there for taller ratios with most modern premium format screens requiring black bars to display 2.4:1 films. On the home theater front, if you have a scope screen less than 200" diagonal then it's likely you have the height to accommodate a 16:9 screen of the same width. Shouldn't the screen with a third more image, the one that takes up a larger amount of your vertical and horizontal field of view be the more immersive?

But, we have memories of wide theaters where the curtains would draw back and show us MORE screen and it was amazing and childhood was great. No offense intended by any of this. Many prefer audio on Vinyl. Many like their movies with visible grain. What makes something "cinematic" is often personal. Anyway, what was I talking about???

 

[DieZwei]

On the home theater front, if you have a scope screen less than 200" diagonal then it's likely you have the height to accommodate a 16:9 screen of the same width. Shouldn't the screen with a third more image, the one that takes up a larger amount of your vertical and horizontal field of view be the more immersive?

Perception of vertical and horizontal field of view is different. Something that is fine horizontally, can be too much vertically.
I like to plan 0.9:1 viewing distance to image width with scope screens. Most of our clients (incl. me) like this for scope, but dislike it vor 16/9 content as the image just becomes too tall vertically.
In addition, composition for 16/9 content is often different (more closeups that become uncomfortable with closer viewing distance) than for scope content.
But as you say, that´s definitely personal preference. So it´s usually a longer discussion with a client (incl. sessions in our showroom or even at home with a loaner projector) to find out what best fits to him.

 

[Edgar]

There’s definitely variance over what feels immersive to each person. I tend to recommend 16:9 because of its practicality, but I also happen to agree with you. I do find it more immersive than scope, and also find IMAX 1.43:1 is more immersive than that. It maps best to human FOV anyway.

I prefer scope because all my favorite movies are scope. I’ve lined up my single row to have a 60 degree viewing angle on that scope screen, so I get my immersion and also the entire image of Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner. I’m also good to chop off the top and bottom of new movies because those filmmakers are good to chop them too.

I realize that may not seem entirely internally consistent. I’m really just saying I built my theater to show 5 movies perfectly. Everything else can literally take a back seat.

 

[DLCPhoto]

I appreciate this sentiment, but also acknowledge that "scope is most immersive" is an artificial designation tied to large (classic) theaters and nostalgia.

Once stadium seating was introduced and theaters became taller, the space was there for taller ratios with most modern premium format screens requiring black bars to display 2.4:1 films. On the home theater front, if you have a scope screen less than 200" diagonal then it's likely you have the height to accommodate a 16:9 screen of the same width. Shouldn't the screen with a third more image, the one that takes up a larger amount of your vertical and horizontal field of view be the more immersive?

But, we have memories of wide theaters where the curtains would draw back and show us MORE screen and it was amazing and childhood was great. No offense intended by any of this. Many prefer audio on Vinyl. Many like their movies with visible grain. What makes something "cinematic" is often personal. Anyway, what was I talking about???

I think I'm betraying my age in my comments, because I definitely recall the childhood experience of going to the movies, watching the coming attractions, and then seeing the curtains pull away horizontally to get ready for the *real* show! That's the experience that I'm trying to emulate in my own home theater!

As for the immersion factor, I get what you're saying. And people do differ in how their impression of immersiveness varies, with some being more impacted by the vertical dimension, others by the horizontal. There's no right or wrong here, so I do get it.

But let me push back a little on this: even for someone who is more impacted by the vertical dimension, there is still the objectively true statement that a 2.40:1 movie provides less immersion than narrower content. The width remains the same, and now the height is *reduced*, significantly so, providing less immersion, even for those who prefer a taller image.

I sometimes use the analogy (in a tongue in check way) that with a 16:9 screen, Family Feud provides a more immersive experience than Star Wars!

So I return to my original approach: define the tallest screen that you would prefer, and then if you have the available width, get a 2.40:1 screen with the same height, which now provides the expanded width. Best of both worlds. Many theaters will not have the room to do this, and so other choices need to be made.

(And as an aside, I do get the concept that so-called "IMAX" VAR movies will be able to expand vertically for those scenes that need them, with a taller screen. And some will "semi-permanently" mask the top and/or bottom of their screens to a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, only removing them for these "IMAX" VAR movies. Allocating that much screen area, and not using it, except for this handful of movies (relatively speaking), does seem a bit much. But I can't argue against it as it would preserve the immersive "intent" for pretty much all types of movies and other content.)

 

[LoveCinema]

I think I'm betraying my age in my comments, because I definitely recall the childhood experience of going to the movies, watching the coming attractions, and then seeing the curtains pull away horizontally to get ready for the *real* show! That's the experience that I'm trying to emulate in my own home theater!

Totally! Regardless of anything else I type, I really do get this. In fact, I've even played with the idea of putting the current drapes onto an automated system so that the TV gets covered/uncovered or it becomes part of the script for the retractable screen. Nostalgia is strong.

But let me push back a little on this: even for someone who is more impacted by the vertical dimension, there is still the objectively true statement that a 2.40:1 movie provides less immersion than narrower content. The width remains the same, and now the height is *reduced*, significantly so, providing less immersion, even for those who prefer a taller image.

I sometimes use the analogy (in a tongue in check way) that with a 16:9 screen, Family Feud provides a more immersive experience than Star Wars!

This is why I call it an "artificial designation of most immersive". You've got your thumb on the scale from the beginning. "I want Star Wars to be the most immersive experience in my home theater. Therefore, I will handicap all content that could be more immersive." Philosophically, I see this as no different than "Tarantino's The Hateful Eight is my favorite movie but has a soft image due to his creative choices. Therefore, for every other movie I defocus the lens on my projector slightly so nothing is sharper than this film." I think this is somewhat acknowledged through available "solutions" like non-linear stretch and cropping/masking to limit the amount of handicapping at play.

So I return to my original approach: define the tallest screen that you would prefer, and then if you have the available width, get a 2.40:1 screen with the same height, which now provides the expanded width. Best of both worlds. Many theaters will not have the room to do this, and so other choices need to be made.

Yup, I really do get it. But, here's an exercise:
1. Use an Apple Vision Pro (or similar headset).
2. Watch a 5 minute demo of Pacific Rim (1.78:1) sizing the screen until ideal.
3. Watch a 5 minute demo of Ready Player One (2.39:1) sizing the screen until ideal.
4. Compare the height of the two images.
Chances the height matches? I'd wager 0%. I think 100% of viewers would make the 1.78:1 image taller than the 2.39:1 image with no other limitations in place.

But, returning to real world limitations, this is basically saying the only proper solutions are constant area or 4-way masking. One is likely considered less than ideal by many (black bars/columns on all content) while the other faces physical and financial ($$$) challenges. So, we end up with exercises like yours, which are not only valid but likely the preferred solution for our, um, "nostalgic" demographic.

I think 20 years from now (10?) we'll see scope screens as a minority of home theater solutions with the nostalgic crew hanging on. TVs will keep getting bigger and take over a significant portion of the market. Then, with video walls improving in picture quality and price, 4-way masking becoming more affordable, and newer generations comfortable with and/or preferring taller screens, we'll see constant area take over custom solutions. "How tall?" "How wide?" "I'll place the order."

 

[Stitch1]

So a few counter arguments but honestly go with whatever fits your needs the most.

Using a projector 16x9 (or in a JVC's case 17x9) is going to be the brightest image. Making it "smaller" than scope just makes that even brighter but then when going "bigger" wider with each wider aspect ratio you gain the size that kind of makes up for the dimmer image. Said another way, the bigger the image the dimmer it will be but spread out over a wider screen kind of makes up for the shortcomings.

Going with that, you are using the least amount of pixels the wider you go. So might as well try to make them as big as possible instead of shrinking an already smaller image.

To your point of everything being 16x9 I find it kind of neat to have that unique experience that only a projector (and maybe some custom LED walls) provides. In theaters that are just giant 16x9 screens I can't help but think this is basically a giant TV. (for better or worse)

As said above, the framing can be different between the aspect ratios. However, when the height is the same they present as the same to your eyes. Again, in the VAR movies this is kind of a hinderance so I get why a lot of people prefer not dealing with that. Heck, some of my favorite movies have VAR and you do have to find work arounds. However, with KScape just put your UI in scope and boom, fixed!

One issue I have seen in some 16x9 setups is they will go too low with the image and now feet are in the way. I kind of hate that. I have a friend that his whole front wall is screen. It looks epic and it kind of is. However, your feet are always in the image because of how his couch is shaped. I was actually playing around with the idea of switching to a 2:0 screen and I could fit it but the only direction I have to go is down and I would then have the same feet issue. I have nice theater seats and I am almost always reclined when watching movies. So that ended up being end of that thought for this room. If I ever move and have higher ceilings I probably would go 2:0.

All that said, I do agree to try to max out one direction of your room. If you are height limited like me, go as tall as you can and then scope out to the sides. If your room is taller then it is wide. Go as wide as you can and keep all that added height. I really love lens shift. One thing that is cool on a 16x9 screen is you can still adjust the height of the scope content to be wherever it looks best. Some rooms adjusting the image up to the top of the frame looks better and then I have one friend that moves his to the bottom so that it is perfect for his middle row (MLP) and it's fantastic. He has a really REALLY big screen. So if you are going 16x9 remember to play with the image because the center isn't always the best spot.

 

[rafaelsmith]

. I really love lens shift. One thing that is cool on a 16x9 screen is you can still adjust the height of the scope content to be wherever it looks best. Some rooms adjusting the image up to the top of the frame looks better and then I have one friend that moves his to the bottom so that it is perfect for his middle row (MLP) and it's fantastic. He has a really REALLY big screen. So if you are going 16x9 remember to play with the image because the center isn't always the best spot.

I actually had never thought do try that...hmm. IN my setup my 135" 16x9 screens bottom is about 22 in up from floor. Thus far this has been just about perfect for both rows of seats. None ever complain about having to tilt head up/down or even left/right....hehe trust me I have asked cause I heard it could be a issue if size and distance are not "correct"...whatever correct is....the whole "proper" FOV thing seems subjective to me. I have always gone with the "as big as I can get and a close as I can get without any fatigue" approach. I have had family tell me that while the main row sounds way better ...when they watch in the 2nd row..on riser...it feels more like being at a theater. I think moving the scoped image up or down would probably change all that....and I wonder if one larger "black" bar would be more noticeable/distracting than two smaller ones.