I forgot to point this out in the video, but everything I talked about comes after you figured out the throw distance and light output of your projector, to know what your options are for your maximum screen size. And bigger is not always better, because if you don't have the appropriate light output, you're going to have bad contrast and dynamic range, which isn't going to be worth the sacrifice to have a wall filling sized screen, IMO.
I went with 16.9 because of how aspect ratios can change within a movie and I also watch shows and stream. Also with the size of my room and throw distance, projector, and my faux wall build it worked best for me.
For my next setup, I'll just do what I've done before. Buy the biggest screen the room and projector will accommodate when fully zoomed out - In this case, a 135" sheet of painted MDF board. Surround it with black material and black side curtains that mask the sides when needed. Then just zoom the picture in with a bit of lens-shift for 1:78, 1:85, 1:66, 1:33 or whatever - Constant Image Height, Just like a proper cinema! It just BAFFLES me why more people don't think to do this!!!
@@adrianbarac3063 I like the idea, except for the MDF part... I would think drywall would be a better option. But anyway, I'm not sure if you're talking diagonal or 135" wide, but either way that's multiple sheets of MDF/drywall, which will have seams in it, so that's not ideal. But I think the main reason more people don't do it, is that most rooms aren't going to be able to accommodate a massive screen, plus have space to the left and right for speakers on the outside of the screen. I think going with a large zero edge woven screen, so you can put in-wall speakers behind it, would be a good alternative as you would still be able to use the curtains for masking.
As always, your room dictates what is possible. I’m with you, in that, I wanted the largest “canvas” possible (in terms of overall square footage of screen on the wall). I also really enjoy the immersion of the IMAX framing. What I ended up with was a 135” 16:9 screen (borderless), which is essentially side wall-to-side wall wide in my room and gives me the maximum height I can get. But, most movies are 2.4:1-ish (scope), and I hate the grey bars. So, I have a cabinet that runs the full width of the front wall and it goes up to the base of the screen. This allowed me to make and install a pivoting acoustically transparent masking panel that I leave up most of the time, but that I can pivot down for content that takes advantage of the 16:9 aspect ratio. I use my JVC lens memory to shift the screen up and down, that way I always have the top of the picture at the top of the screen (and only have to mask the lower section). Simple, and it looks and works great. Best of both options. :-) Great video.
Thanks for this video as it reinforces my decision to go with a 16x9. A good free online tool to use is on Audio Advice website where you can add your projector model, room dimensions, sitting distance etc. to sort of visualize what you'll get. After debating on which way to go, my next upgrade is still 16x9 and create my own masking panels. I have visited a well known dealer personally and the salesperson recommended 16x9 as well even though they tend to push for the scope screens. If I could afford a MadVR and anamorphic lens I would definitely consider a scope screen. Also take in consideration how hard it is to sell a projection screen as it has the worst resale value I've seen on HT gear and think what's the biggest size you can go for now so that you don't pay the consequences later!!
For me.. projectors are getting brighter, and better contrast. If I can control the light in the room, creating the largest picture available. Grey bars with changing aspect does not bother me, as I will always have the largest picture possible. It will only look BETTER over time with newer projectors, and the bars will become more and more invisible with the dark levels. Watch a lot of TH-cam and 16x9 content, its a no brainer for me. Great movies like Maverick switch aspect when the camera and director know it adds more immersive content. Smaller screen area will never add to my experience.
Awesome video! Probably the most thorough video on YT that breaks it all down with example and real thoughts on pros and cons of both. 16x9 I think is the best option overall for most people that do not have a video processor. When you get into high end video processors, it changes things. Also - Silver Ticket is all most people need IMO. I would need to see a side-by-side, but I find it hard to believe that a screen that is 3,4,5x the cost over a ST makes a real difference?
To me, three things drove this decision. The content you watch, the room dimensions, and third is ‘what compromises you can live with most. First, content. If you’re going to watch lots of 16:9 content then that will certainly be a priority. You just have to live w the compromise that you will have black bars on most of your movie content (I said most, not all). If you’re strictly a movie person (like me). I prefer to have the largest scope area I can have so I try to maximize the entire width of my room regardless of screen choice. Then after I’ve decided on my width, I have to decide if my PJ can handle the light demands of the 16:9 or the scope screen. I dislike black bars on top and bottom of all movies but I can see liking the larger 16:9 image and not lose any size in my scope if I start off w my widest image to begin with.
@@FrankieKennethLI would argue that even if all you do is watch movies(which seems pretty unrealistic considering all the excellent premium TV shows that exist with excellent A/V presentations)... But either way, I would still argue against sacrificing height just to get a little bit more width, considering that between 30 and 40% of movies are going to be IMAX enhanced or have a 1.85 or 1.78 aspect ratio.... Based on my calculations of a sample size of about 500 movies. So it goes back from what I said in the video, if 5"of additional width comes at the cost of 12" of height, then I would strongly recommend 16x9. But if you can get 15 more inches of width, with only sacrificing 8"of height, then go with scope! And I wish I made this point in the video, but of course you have to consider your projector's throw distance and light output when making that decision.
@@TerminatorJuice well said. That is why I gave 3 parameters…..I accidentally left off the 4th…which is PJ capabilities. Fact of the matter is, it’s a very personal choice ,,,,with NO right or wrong answer. I will just simply say that now that I’ve had my very first projection system for two years…..I would probably choose 2:1 screen first, then choose scope, then 16:9 in that order. I despise black bars and having them on even 60% of my content (and at unavoidable line of sight) is Almost a deal breaker for me. I have a Lumagen which I would use to make 2:1 content scale to scope w zero bars, and 16:9 content scale to 2:1 w the bars that are smaller and on the periphery of my sight lines. They’re far less visible and distracting to me. And I have a JVC which have the most forgiving black bars of projectors at my prize/budget mark.
@@TerminatorJuice yes. I also have magnetic masking. But that’s only useful for static AR movies. Does not help w changing ARs. but while I have masking panels, they collect a lot of dust cause my Lumagen mitigates their need as much as before.
The projector is 16:9. Unless you’re using an anamorphic lens you’re giving up something going with 2.35. Scope is cool… but ultimately a compromise. Just deal with the black bars.
Yeah, using a lens is the only way to get full resolution and brightness when using a scope screen... but I don't think that is a deal breaker for having one.
I have a 16.9 100 inch screen what I do to get a scope effect is over project at 120 inch and with a pull down screen i adjust it for a 100 inch display seems to work for me regards Trevor
Decision is easy for me as I bought a 16x9 which covers that aspect ratio but then I utilize top and bottom screen masking for when I want to watch 2:39:1 movies. Don’t go with a 2:39:1 screen and then mask the sides to a 16x9 because then your overall screen square area would be less than what I suggested first. Look up screen masking, pay a pretty penny for it, or get creative to save on the cost, looks amazing, best of both worlds.
When it comes to this, the proper comparison is same height screens. Ignoring the room entirely, just looking at screens. Obviously a 120 inch 16:9 that is the same width as a 21:9 113 inch is better - it's physically larger and you get the same size (small) 21.9 image in the center of it. However, a 21:9 screen that's as tall as the 16:9 is *considerably* larger, and for many people wall height is the limiting factor rather than width. Even so, for most people buying 16:9 makes sense because all projectors are 16:9 native. You have to be a bit of an enthusiast to deal with anamorphic lenses and long throw projectors. Some projectors, like my UST projector, has no 21:9 option at all so I have a 120 inch 16:9. But a 150+ inch 21:9 is what I'd want to have. Because to me the widescreen movies are my priority, so I want widescreen to be the biggest and most immersive. 16:9 content could have black bars and I'd be more than fine with it. Unfortunately, there are precious few 21:9 native devices out there, though some seem to be coming thanks to Microsoft Teams of all things. But yeah, comparing screen you have to compare them at the same height. And same height, 21:9 is vastly superior. In your room same height wasn't an option, since your front wall is too narrow. But if you had the width, a 21:9 the same height as the 120 16:9 would be vastly superior.
If your objective is making sure that the scope screen comes out as the winner, then yes, you should only compare screens of the same height! Lol The point of video is to talk about being open to both aspect ratios, and making the best decision based on the restrictions of your front wall. For some rooms it's going to be an easy choice based on the limitations of the room height or width... but like I pointed out in the video, there's going to be times where someone's going to have to make the decision to lose either the width or the height of the screen, in favor of the other...
Also, even if you have a massive 300" 2.35:1 screen, when you zoom down 16x9 content, it's going to look small and be less immersive than the scope movies do in a comparison. That's why I would highly recommend somebody look to see if they have the available height to go to the 16x9 version, once they've decided on the width of the screen they want.
@@TerminatorJuice I just disagree on that philosophy because to me, I *want* 2.35:1 to be the most immersive content I view. I want to go from a smaller 16:9 to a whoooaa feeling of 2.35:1 when I fire up the real content ie a movie. That's literally also why 2.35:1 even exists to some degree, it was an answer to people watching content in their own homes, and theaters needed something to differentiate, something to give that whoa feeling. Extra width produced that. To me, 16:9 throwaway content being more impressive looking than the good stuff that's in 2.35:1 will never not be wrong.
Many who go scope and aren't happy with 16x9 size is because they did too small a scope screen viewing angle. To have a good size 16x9 within scope you need at minimum a 53 degree viewing angle. Ideally 55 to 60 degrees.
@@flyers10az For some reason people who focus on viewing angles, never seem to care about the vertical viewing angle... ; ) Seriously though, I think the worst thing a person can do is be single minded when it comes to aspect ratios in a home theater. I've witnessed many arguments within the community because people for some reason need to take a hard stance on a particular aspect ratio, and it is so silly to me. Why can't it be just about finding the best aspect ratio for a person's front wall, whether it's scope or 16x9??? But anyway, it's irrelevant in my case, because I'd need a 150" scope screen to have the same size 16x9 image as I do now, which is impossible for my room, due to the available front wall width being only around 120".
@@46GarageUSA What about your speakers? Now if you said you're just going to paint a large rectangle on your wall in the size of screen you wanted, then that's totally understandable, and I've seen people do it and then use curtains on the sides to mask off for different aspect ratios, and it looked great.
@@TerminatorJuice I'm on a poor man's budget for a theater. I have a used BenQ sh910 at 4000 lumens . For sound I use a simple 60 watt Zealot Bluetooth speaker from Amazon. Has decent enough bass on this speaker to be good enough for enjoying a film . Better bass than a tv .. I project anywhere from 80 to 120 inch depending on the wall I decide to use. I'm only renting so I'm limited in what I can do.
@@46GarageUSA Well you can get a silver ticket 120" screen with a nice velvet aluminum frame for $279 on Amazon, and I can tell you from experience that it competes with screens that are $2,000 or more!
I forgot to point this out in the video, but everything I talked about comes after you figured out the throw distance and light output of your projector, to know what your options are for your maximum screen size. And bigger is not always better, because if you don't have the appropriate light output, you're going to have bad contrast and dynamic range, which isn't going to be worth the sacrifice to have a wall filling sized screen, IMO.
I went with 16.9 because of how aspect ratios can change within a movie and I also watch shows and stream. Also with the size of my room and throw distance, projector, and my faux wall build it worked best for me.
For my next setup, I'll just do what I've done before. Buy the biggest screen the room and projector will accommodate when fully zoomed out - In this case, a 135" sheet of painted MDF board. Surround it with black material and black side curtains that mask the sides when needed. Then just zoom the picture in with a bit of lens-shift for 1:78, 1:85, 1:66, 1:33 or whatever - Constant Image Height, Just like a proper cinema! It just BAFFLES me why more people don't think to do this!!!
@@adrianbarac3063 I like the idea, except for the MDF part... I would think drywall would be a better option. But anyway, I'm not sure if you're talking diagonal or 135" wide, but either way that's multiple sheets of MDF/drywall, which will have seams in it, so that's not ideal.
But I think the main reason more people don't do it, is that most rooms aren't going to be able to accommodate a massive screen, plus have space to the left and right for speakers on the outside of the screen. I think going with a large zero edge woven screen, so you can put in-wall speakers behind it, would be a good alternative as you would still be able to use the curtains for masking.
As always, your room dictates what is possible. I’m with you, in that, I wanted the largest “canvas” possible (in terms of overall square footage of screen on the wall). I also really enjoy the immersion of the IMAX framing. What I ended up with was a 135” 16:9 screen (borderless), which is essentially side wall-to-side wall wide in my room and gives me the maximum height I can get. But, most movies are 2.4:1-ish (scope), and I hate the grey bars. So, I have a cabinet that runs the full width of the front wall and it goes up to the base of the screen. This allowed me to make and install a pivoting acoustically transparent masking panel that I leave up most of the time, but that I can pivot down for content that takes advantage of the 16:9 aspect ratio. I use my JVC lens memory to shift the screen up and down, that way I always have the top of the picture at the top of the screen (and only have to mask the lower section). Simple, and it looks and works great. Best of both options. :-) Great video.
@@ericreese4606 thanks for the excellent comment which added some nice nuance to the conversation! : )
Thanks for this video as it reinforces my decision to go with a 16x9. A good free online tool to use is on Audio Advice website where you can add your projector model, room dimensions, sitting distance etc. to sort of visualize what you'll get. After debating on which way to go, my next upgrade is still 16x9 and create my own masking panels. I have visited a well known dealer personally and the salesperson recommended 16x9 as well even though they tend to push for the scope screens. If I could afford a MadVR and anamorphic lens I would definitely consider a scope screen. Also take in consideration how hard it is to sell a projection screen as it has the worst resale value I've seen on HT gear and think what's the biggest size you can go for now so that you don't pay the consequences later!!
@@Carl-iw9sy Sounds like you're making an educated purchase... And the correct choice IMO! ; )
For me.. projectors are getting brighter, and better contrast. If I can control the light in the room, creating the largest picture available. Grey bars with changing aspect does not bother me, as I will always have the largest picture possible. It will only look BETTER over time with newer projectors, and the bars will become more and more invisible with the dark levels. Watch a lot of TH-cam and 16x9 content, its a no brainer for me.
Great movies like Maverick switch aspect when the camera and director know it adds more immersive content. Smaller screen area will never add to my experience.
Awesome video! Probably the most thorough video on YT that breaks it all down with example and real thoughts on pros and cons of both.
16x9 I think is the best option overall for most people that do not have a video processor. When you get into high end video processors, it changes things.
Also - Silver Ticket is all most people need IMO. I would need to see a side-by-side, but I find it hard to believe that a screen that is 3,4,5x the cost over a ST makes a real difference?
To me, three things drove this decision. The content you watch, the room dimensions, and third is ‘what compromises you can live with most. First, content. If you’re going to watch lots of 16:9 content then that will certainly be a priority. You just have to live w the compromise that you will have black bars on most of your movie content (I said most, not all). If you’re strictly a movie person (like me). I prefer to have the largest scope area I can have so I try to maximize the entire width of my room regardless of screen choice. Then after I’ve decided on my width, I have to decide if my PJ can handle the light demands of the 16:9 or the scope screen. I dislike black bars on top and bottom of all movies but I can see liking the larger 16:9 image and not lose any size in my scope if I start off w my widest image to begin with.
@@FrankieKennethLI would argue that even if all you do is watch movies(which seems pretty unrealistic considering all the excellent premium TV shows that exist with excellent A/V presentations)... But either way, I would still argue against sacrificing height just to get a little bit more width, considering that between 30 and 40% of movies are going to be IMAX enhanced or have a 1.85 or 1.78 aspect ratio.... Based on my calculations of a sample size of about 500 movies. So it goes back from what I said in the video, if 5"of additional width comes at the cost of 12" of height, then I would strongly recommend 16x9. But if you can get 15 more inches of width, with only sacrificing 8"of height, then go with scope! And I wish I made this point in the video, but of course you have to consider your projector's throw distance and light output when making that decision.
@@TerminatorJuice well said. That is why I gave 3 parameters…..I accidentally left off the 4th…which is PJ capabilities. Fact of the matter is, it’s a very personal choice ,,,,with NO right or wrong answer. I will just simply say that now that I’ve had my very first projection system for two years…..I would probably choose 2:1 screen first, then choose scope, then 16:9 in that order. I despise black bars and having them on even 60% of my content (and at unavoidable line of sight) is Almost a deal breaker for me. I have a Lumagen which I would use to make 2:1 content scale to scope w zero bars, and 16:9 content scale to 2:1 w the bars that are smaller and on the periphery of my sight lines. They’re far less visible and distracting to me. And I have a JVC which have the most forgiving black bars of projectors at my prize/budget mark.
@@FrankieKennethL That's why I bought a screen with masking panels, so I don't have to make any compromises. : )
@@TerminatorJuice yes. I also have magnetic masking. But that’s only useful for static AR movies. Does not help w changing ARs. but while I have masking panels, they collect a lot of dust cause my Lumagen mitigates their need as much as before.
The projector is 16:9. Unless you’re using an anamorphic lens you’re giving up something going with 2.35. Scope is cool… but ultimately a compromise. Just deal with the black bars.
Yeah, using a lens is the only way to get full resolution and brightness when using a scope screen... but I don't think that is a deal breaker for having one.
I have a 16.9 100 inch screen what I do to get a scope effect is over project at 120 inch and with a pull down screen i adjust it for a 100 inch display seems to work for me regards Trevor
Decision is easy for me as I bought a 16x9 which covers that aspect ratio but then I utilize top and bottom screen masking for when I want to watch 2:39:1 movies. Don’t go with a 2:39:1 screen and then mask the sides to a 16x9 because then your overall screen square area would be less than what I suggested first. Look up screen masking, pay a pretty penny for it, or get creative to save on the cost, looks amazing, best of both worlds.
@@ThePenguin-rn1lo Reading your comment, leaves me wondering... did you watch the video?
Get the biggest 2.35:1 thin framed screen your room can handle, add in a Lumagen video processor and you’re laughing.
Adding a Lumagen is spending $4k on a self inflicted problem... and your 16:9 content is still small.
When it comes to this, the proper comparison is same height screens. Ignoring the room entirely, just looking at screens. Obviously a 120 inch 16:9 that is the same width as a 21:9 113 inch is better - it's physically larger and you get the same size (small) 21.9 image in the center of it. However, a 21:9 screen that's as tall as the 16:9 is *considerably* larger, and for many people wall height is the limiting factor rather than width. Even so, for most people buying 16:9 makes sense because all projectors are 16:9 native. You have to be a bit of an enthusiast to deal with anamorphic lenses and long throw projectors. Some projectors, like my UST projector, has no 21:9 option at all so I have a 120 inch 16:9. But a 150+ inch 21:9 is what I'd want to have. Because to me the widescreen movies are my priority, so I want widescreen to be the biggest and most immersive. 16:9 content could have black bars and I'd be more than fine with it. Unfortunately, there are precious few 21:9 native devices out there, though some seem to be coming thanks to Microsoft Teams of all things.
But yeah, comparing screen you have to compare them at the same height. And same height, 21:9 is vastly superior. In your room same height wasn't an option, since your front wall is too narrow. But if you had the width, a 21:9 the same height as the 120 16:9 would be vastly superior.
If your objective is making sure that the scope screen comes out as the winner, then yes, you should only compare screens of the same height! Lol The point of video is to talk about being open to both aspect ratios, and making the best decision based on the restrictions of your front wall. For some rooms it's going to be an easy choice based on the limitations of the room height or width... but like I pointed out in the video, there's going to be times where someone's going to have to make the decision to lose either the width or the height of the screen, in favor of the other...
Also, even if you have a massive 300" 2.35:1 screen, when you zoom down 16x9 content, it's going to look small and be less immersive than the scope movies do in a comparison. That's why I would highly recommend somebody look to see if they have the available height to go to the 16x9 version, once they've decided on the width of the screen they want.
@@TerminatorJuice I just disagree on that philosophy because to me, I *want* 2.35:1 to be the most immersive content I view. I want to go from a smaller 16:9 to a whoooaa feeling of 2.35:1 when I fire up the real content ie a movie. That's literally also why 2.35:1 even exists to some degree, it was an answer to people watching content in their own homes, and theaters needed something to differentiate, something to give that whoa feeling. Extra width produced that. To me, 16:9 throwaway content being more impressive looking than the good stuff that's in 2.35:1 will never not be wrong.
Many who go scope and aren't happy with 16x9 size is because they did too small a scope screen viewing angle. To have a good size 16x9 within scope you need at minimum a 53 degree viewing angle. Ideally 55 to 60 degrees.
@@flyers10az For some reason people who focus on viewing angles, never seem to care about the vertical viewing angle... ; )
Seriously though, I think the worst thing a person can do is be single minded when it comes to aspect ratios in a home theater. I've witnessed many arguments within the community because people for some reason need to take a hard stance on a particular aspect ratio, and it is so silly to me. Why can't it be just about finding the best aspect ratio for a person's front wall, whether it's scope or 16x9???
But anyway, it's irrelevant in my case, because I'd need a 150" scope screen to have the same size 16x9 image as I do now, which is impossible for my room, due to the available front wall width being only around 120".
Paint the entire wall in project screen paint.
@@46GarageUSA How about, NO? Lol
@@TerminatorJuice well... I may try it
@@46GarageUSA What about your speakers? Now if you said you're just going to paint a large rectangle on your wall in the size of screen you wanted, then that's totally understandable, and I've seen people do it and then use curtains on the sides to mask off for different aspect ratios, and it looked great.
@@TerminatorJuice
I'm on a poor man's budget for a theater.
I have a used BenQ sh910 at 4000 lumens .
For sound I use a simple 60 watt Zealot Bluetooth speaker from Amazon.
Has decent enough bass on this speaker to be good enough for enjoying a film .
Better bass than a tv ..
I project anywhere from 80 to 120 inch depending on the wall I decide to use.
I'm only renting so I'm limited in what I can do.
@@46GarageUSA Well you can get a silver ticket 120" screen with a nice velvet aluminum frame for $279 on Amazon, and I can tell you from experience that it competes with screens that are $2,000 or more!
Scope
Went with 16:9 just because thats how I'd be able to get the biggest screen in my room.