|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 16, 2019 11:49:27 GMT -5
Have a question for the group. Now that I am able to control the lighting in my theater, would I benefit at all switching from a 110" grey screen to a 110" white screen? My projector is the Epson 6040. Right now, the picture looks great but i was just curious if I should change to screen color.
|
|
|
Post by tom9933 on May 16, 2019 12:18:03 GMT -5
So the reason for a darker screen is to increase the perceived contrast/black level, your epson has pretty good contrast so I would not suggest that. If ambient lighting is a problem and you don't need off axis viewing I would consider one of the light rejecting screens. Now there is no free lunch so you will find that not only are those screens more expensive but they also restrict vertical and horizontal viewing angles. Most of the manufacturers will send you samples and I'd highly recommend that. Having said that if possible the better option is to control the light but thats not always an option... One mistake I routinely see with projectors is that people cheap out on the screen... Prior to my JVC I had an epson 5030 and when I upgraded from an older da-lite 1.0 gain screen to my Stewart Cinma Neve (rated at 1.1 but really closer to 1.3) even my mom noticed the difference in color, sharpness and brightness.. BTW another way to really make your picture pop is to black out the room, be careful though as this is a sickness This is my current setup, I still need to wrap the tiles and grid with flocking... The curtains on the front and side not only made the picture pop a lot but they also soothed the room up nicely. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by tom9933 on May 16, 2019 12:55:42 GMT -5
Looks good what you find with the black is that there are levels, this is where the addiction comes into play... One thing I forgot to mention if you have not had a calibration done on the projector that might be worth looking into. My JVC was pretty good out of the box but the calibration made it even better especially with HDR content. In my case I was fortunate to have Chad B tweak it out but even basic calibration can make a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by creimes on May 16, 2019 13:21:00 GMT -5
I would keep it as it is, my room is in the basement and dark but i still went with grey spandex, I actually did two layers of spandex, I have black and then grey over top of that, picture quality is really really good considering I run just a Epson HC3500 Cheers, Chad
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 16, 2019 13:41:31 GMT -5
So the reason for a darker screen is to increase the perceived contrast/black level, your epson has pretty good contrast so I would not suggest that. If ambient lighting is a problem and you don't need off axis viewing I would consider one of the light rejecting screens. Now there is no free lunch so you will find that not only are those screens more expensive but they also restrict vertical and horizontal viewing angles. Most of the manufacturers will send you samples and I'd highly recommend that. Having said that if possible the better option is to control the light but thats not always an option... One mistake I routinely see with projectors is that people cheap out on the screen... Prior to my JVC I had an epson 5030 and when I upgraded from an older da-lite 1.0 gain screen to my Stewart Cinma Neve (rated at 1.1 but really closer to 1.3) even my mom noticed the difference in color, sharpness and brightness.. BTW another way to really make your picture pop is to black out the room, be careful though as this is a sickness This is my current setup, I still need to wrap the tiles and grid with flocking... The curtains on the front and side not only made the picture pop a lot but they also soothed the room up nicely. I think I will keep it as is and spend the money on panels or something else.
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 16, 2019 13:42:55 GMT -5
Looks good what you find with the black is that there are levels, this is where the addiction comes into play... One thing I forgot to mention if you have not had a calibration done on the projector that might be worth looking into. My JVC was pretty good out of the box but the calibration made it even better especially with HDR content. In my case I was fortunate to have Chad B tweak it out but even basic calibration can make a big difference. I have it tweaked in pretty well but I think this summer I am going to have it done professionally.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on May 16, 2019 15:20:40 GMT -5
I think I will keep it as is and spend the money on panels or something else. Go bigger - you can easily fit in more size. You won't regret it.
|
|
Timster
Sensei
Posting from Scarsdale, Vic, Australia
Posts: 140
|
Post by Timster on May 16, 2019 18:52:24 GMT -5
Your projector should be able to throw a pretty good 2.35:1 picture..... If it were me, I'd get a bigger screen that is a 2.35:1 (but same height as your current screen) and setup your projector with settings for 16:9 and 2.35:1 material. I have done this with a Panasonic PT7000 and it's fantastic. Put on a 2.35 movie and the projector detects the signal and zooms/refocuses filling the screen with no letterboxing. It was a major improvement over a 16:9 screen. 16:9 material shows vertical black bars, or you can zoom it it a bit. I have 16:9 material showing at about 2:1 to reduce the black bars on the side.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on May 16, 2019 20:47:50 GMT -5
I agree with Tim. While MTB’s Epson won’t autodetect the format ratio of the source, it does have multiple lens position memories and he can switch between them at the touch of a button on his remote. Go big!
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 17, 2019 6:08:23 GMT -5
Your projector should be able to throw a pretty good 2.35:1 picture..... If it were me, I'd get a bigger screen that is a 2.35:1 (but same height as your current screen) and setup your projector with settings for 16:9 and 2.35:1 material. I have done this with a Panasonic PT7000 and it's fantastic. Put on a 2.35 movie and the projector detects the signal and zooms/refocuses filling the screen with no letterboxing. It was a major improvement over a 16:9 screen. 16:9 material shows vertical black bars, or you can zoom it it a bit. I have 16:9 material showing at about 2:1 to reduce the black bars on the side. Unfortunately, my wife does not like the the 2.35 screen. We have friends that have this and she does not like it at all. I am still working on it and I think eventually I will be able to convince her to switch over to the 2.35 screen size.
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 17, 2019 6:11:32 GMT -5
I think I will keep it as is and spend the money on panels or something else. Go bigger - you can easily fit in more size. You won't regret it. When deciding the screen size, I looked at going bigger but due to the seating distance from the first row, about 12', it was hard to focus on the movie due to the screen being so large.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 17, 2019 6:24:38 GMT -5
Go bigger - you can easily fit in more size. You won't regret it. When deciding the screen size, I looked at going bigger but due to the seating distance from the first row, about 12', it was hard to focus on the movie due to the screen being so large. The 'in' thing today is immersive, whether video or audio. How do you focus when you go outside?
|
|
Timster
Sensei
Posting from Scarsdale, Vic, Australia
Posts: 140
|
Post by Timster on May 17, 2019 7:57:21 GMT -5
What is it that she doesn't like? I have seen poor setups that are "stretched" or "squashed" that look terrible... is that the issue?
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on May 17, 2019 8:03:58 GMT -5
When deciding the screen size, I looked at going bigger but due to the seating distance from the first row, about 12', it was hard to focus on the movie due to the screen being so large. That seems odd as it sounds more than far enough for a bigger screen. There's a thread on AVSforum on how far people sit based on their screen size and it's always an interesting read. Check it out. People are more used to watching with their eyes narrowed, from being similar distance away but on 60'ish" TV's. It takes them a bit of time to watch with more open eyes. For the wife, I wouldn't recommend a 2.35 screen per se, but rather a big enough canvas where you can get a bigger 2.35 picture, but still have at least the same 16:9 size as you currently have (or larger). That's what Tim meant with a 2.35 screen but "same height as your current screen". The Epson will handle the cropping accordingly.
|
|
Timster
Sensei
Posting from Scarsdale, Vic, Australia
Posts: 140
|
Post by Timster on May 17, 2019 8:24:34 GMT -5
When deciding the screen size, I looked at going bigger but due to the seating distance from the first row, about 12', it was hard to focus on the movie due to the screen being so large. That seems odd as it sounds more than far enough for a bigger screen. There's a thread on AVSforum on how far people sit based on their screen size and it's always an interesting read. Check it out. People are more used to watching with their eyes narrowed, from being similar distance away but on 60'ish" TV's. It takes them a bit of time to watch with more open eyes. For the wife, I wouldn't recommend a 2.35 screen per se, but rather a big enough canvas where you can get a bigger 2.35 picture, but still have at least the same 16:9 size as you currently have (or larger). That's what Tim meant with a 2.35 screen but "same height as your current screen". The Epson will handle the cropping accordingly. Exactly... Keep the same height as you have, just get a screen that is wider :-) That's what I did. I think my 2.35 screen is about 2" shorter than the 16:9 it replaced. Your standar "widescreen" 16:9 material will be the same size, but the 2.35 stuff will be so much more immersive. It's what the cinemas do when they open the curtains a bit wider. I can take a video of the difference if you want, for an example... Let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 17, 2019 15:09:47 GMT -5
What is it that she doesn't like? I have seen poor setups that are "stretched" or "squashed" that look terrible... is that the issue? I think it's just the fact that it's wide and she is not used to it. I have been explaining to her about this and I think she will come around to the idea of the 2.35 screen
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 17, 2019 15:12:29 GMT -5
When deciding the screen size, I looked at going bigger but due to the seating distance from the first row, about 12', it was hard to focus on the movie due to the screen being so large. The 'in' thing today is immersive, whether video or audio. How do you focus when you go outside? It's just hard for me to focus sometimes. On drama or chic flicks, I am ok but the action movies it's hard due to all the movement of the action sequences. I should also not that I do get vertigo from time to time so that may have something to do with it as well.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on May 17, 2019 17:30:31 GMT -5
The 'in' thing today is immersive, whether video or audio. How do you focus when you go outside? It's just hard for me to focus sometimes. On drama or chic flicks, I am ok but the action movies it's hard due to all the movement of the action sequences. I should also not that I do get vertigo from time to time so that may have something to do with it as well. T he action motion performance of many displays, especially projectors, is not usually optimal. FI (frame interpolation) is used to smooth things out. It can be found in most new projectors at 1080 resolution level, but few have it at the 4k resolution level. Sometimes I get the vertigo effect when the director gets too close to the action and the movement back and forth and very close up drives me nuts. But most directors do a better job than that and normally I am not bothered at all by it even 10 ft. from a 120" 16:1 screen.
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 20, 2019 9:50:39 GMT -5
It's just hard for me to focus sometimes. On drama or chic flicks, I am ok but the action movies it's hard due to all the movement of the action sequences. I should also not that I do get vertigo from time to time so that may have something to do with it as well. T he action motion performance of many displays, especially projectors, is not usually optimal. FI (frame interpolation) is used to smooth things out. It can be found in most new projectors at 1080 resolution level, but few have it at the 4k resolution level. Sometimes I get the vertigo effect when the director gets too close to the action and the movement back and forth and very close up drives me nuts. But most directors do a better job than that and normally I am not bothered at all by it even 10 ft. from a 120" 16:1 screen. Thank you for the info. I just checked and the Epson 6040 does have Frame Interpolation, it's a button on the remote, I will try that and see if that helps at all.
|
|
|
Post by Mountainbiking Fool on May 23, 2019 10:46:09 GMT -5
Your projector should be able to throw a pretty good 2.35:1 picture..... If it were me, I'd get a bigger screen that is a 2.35:1 (but same height as your current screen) and setup your projector with settings for 16:9 and 2.35:1 material. I have done this with a Panasonic PT7000 and it's fantastic. Put on a 2.35 movie and the projector detects the signal and zooms/refocuses filling the screen with no letterboxing. It was a major improvement over a 16:9 screen. 16:9 material shows vertical black bars, or you can zoom it it a bit. I have 16:9 material showing at about 2:1 to reduce the black bars on the side. Dumb question for you....I know sometimes when watching in 16:9, sometimes the film is the entire screen and sometimes it has bars on it. On a 2.35 screen, if the movie is shot in 2.35, I am assuming that the entire movie takes up the entire screen without bars of any kind?
|
|