My First Projector & Screen

[1_sufferin_mind]

If prices were the same for each option:

I’d prefer a drop-down screen over a false front wall, because I’d like to keep my flat panel available for casual viewing, gaming, and backup. I’d also prefer the convenience of a drop-down screen over the effort required to build and operate a fixed fold-down. I love wood but hey, I have no woodworking experience!

I think I found a compromise. If it doesn’t work, I’ll fall back on a spin-off of thrillcat’s idea—the framed fixed screen, but in a hinged, fold-down mount instead of a false-wall mount. My stubbornness led me back to searching for a cheap, drop-down, tensioned AT screen. This time, I found a 16:9 100” diag Saker Tab-Tension AcousticPro UHD from reputable manufacturer Elite Screens for “only” $1120. But my $1700 budget-busting first choice, a 16:9 103” diag Center Stage XD by Seymour AV has best-in-class ranking for AT performance. I’d hate to cut corners on the screen only to have buyers remorse over audio performance.

Has anyone had experience with Elite AT screens? Is the tensioning system as good as Seymour's? How about acoustic performance—have you compared sound quality with and without the screen in place?

 

[NBPK402]

I used to have the SeymourAV DIY AT screen, and I loved it. A friend of mine just bought a SeymourAV pull down AT Screen, and he loves his. I will be buying another SeymourAV screen in the future for our new HT when I get that far in the room.

 

[Grayson Dere]

I use a pull-down Elite Screens that's about 110". It's not tensioned since I was on a tight budget but it doesn't look too bad! Sure, there are some very slight waves in certain areas but during a movie it looks completely flat...only when there's fast panning by the cameraman can I slightly see some of the waving.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Appreciate the feedback from both of you! I'm afraid my OCD will magnify even the slightest deformities, but it makes sense they may be masked by certain content.
Is there a rule of thumb for screen budgeting? Is it better to get into the game with a cheaper model to learn what you like or not?

 

[Todd Anderson]

I don't think there's a rule of thumb, per se... I would warn against going too cheap. But, at the same time, I don't think there's any reason to drop bank. I haven't researched screens in a long time... back when I bought mine, I ended up getting a Carada (which is now out of business). That screen has lasted me years... although, for some reason, it shows some thin lines during ultra-white scenes when watching 4K.

So, I might be in the market for a new 2.40:1 fixed screen soon.

Is that vague enough advice for you?

Perhaps @mechman would have something to say about this.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Only as vague as my questions, lol. I haven’t been researching screens, only shopping them; so don’t feel bad. I’m about to start, though.

 

[NBPK402]

SeymourAV will send you a sample of their screens for you to compare.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Hello again! It occurred to me while researching projectors that I may want to reconsider my decision to go with a 1.78:1 screen.

The deciding factor for my original decision to go with a 1.78 screen was a statement in this article that a 16:9 image on a 2.35 screen would cover less square area—due to Constant Image Height formatting—than the same image on a 16:9 screen. A lot less... 53% less! Since I watch a lot of 1.78 content, I prefer to maximize the picture size.

16:9 image on 2.4 screen

16:9 image on 16.9 screen

So why consider the switch to 2.4 screen size? I read somewhere (of course can’t find it now) that some projectors have a zoom function which lets you fill more of a 2.4 screen with a 16:9 image.

I know we’ve discussed letterbox and pillarbox screen formats, but can anyone please help clarify how to get maximum screen coverage on the fly.

 

[Grayson Dere]

Beware of zoom functions...as far as I know I believe those projectors are just using some sort of digital interpolation (if that's the correct term?) to fill the 2.4 screen size with the 16x9 info..similar to what one would use when digitally zooming with a cell phone. You'll definitely get a lesser quality image using the zoom function. And if I'm wrong, please inform me : )

I myself use a 16x9 screen and just deal with the black bars on top and bottom of the film during the 2.4 aspect ratio movies. Size wise I find it a good compromise rather than going with a 2.4 screen and losing width on the 16x9 material.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Back to projectors for the moment...

JVC has been the top recommendation for PQ and black levels. The RS46u model was suggested, and was on sale at eBay at the time. It was sold before I could do enough research, though.

This time, a much better X70 model is up for grabs, and seems like a good deal. The seller only lives a few hours from me so I may be able to save $150 shipping if u can convince them of local pickup. I fired off a few question to the seller and am anxiously awaiting their reply!

In the meantime, please let me know if
You think I’m heading down the wrong path. It’s hard to imagine how that could be, given a lot of previous advice about JVC projector benefits.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Right or wrong, I buckled under the stress and pulled the trigger on this little gem. My last choice was bought out from under me. I’m certain there will be more offerings in the many months before the theater has been competed, but this model seemed like just what the doctor ordered.

Did I do okay?
JVC X70 Projector - eBay

EDIT: Sure it’s only good for 16:9 HD in 2D mode. Oh yeah, and only in a light-controlled space. It’s bulb burns out after an estimated 2000-3000hrs, too! Did I mention the fake 4K and no upscaling? But you know what? It’s a JVC! I am pumped.

 

[Grayson Dere]

Right or wrong, I buckled under the stress and pulled the trigger on this little gem. My last choice was bought out from under me. I’m certain there will be more offerings in the many months before the theater has been competed, but this model seemed like just what the doctor ordered.

Did I do okay?
JVC X70 Projector - eBay

EDIT: Sure it’s only good for 16:9 HD in 2D mode. Oh yeah, and only in a light-controlled space. It’s bulb burns out after an estimated 2000-3000hrs, too! Did I mention the fake 4K and no upscaling? But you know what? It’s a JVC! I am pumped.

At the time of writing in Sept. 2012 a reviewer from Home Theater HiFi had wonderful things to say about the JVC X70...
"What the JVC X70 does better than virtually any projector out there is display film content. Blacks are deep, contrast is incredible, and details are clear and sharp. For watching a movie in my theater, there isn’t a projector I’d recommend before it that falls into the same price class."

Source: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/video-display/projectors/jvc-x70-three-chip-d-ila-projector/

I think you did fine! : )

 

[JStewart]

Also for your reading pleasure... https://www.projectorreviews.com/jvc/jvc-dla-x70r-projector-review/

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

No buyer’s remorse yet! Low 3D light output is one of the X70’s weak points, but I easily tire of the format due interference between my prescription eyeglasses and 3D models. The new room will be light-controlled by blackout shades and curtains for the two side-by-side windows.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

As I learn more about my projector through its owners manual, I’m starting to realize I may need to budget for professional installation of both the projector and the screen.

Remember I’m no handyman! Audience safety might be at risk if I try my luck at hanging a projector above their seats. And the mains might be damaged should a 100+ pound screen come crashing down. A bit more learning on my part is needed to decide if I should tackle either job (with physical help, of course).

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

What does everyone think of a professional projector calibration? I’ve calibrated a few basic settings on my flat-panel with the help of the HD Spears & Munsil disc, so I can probably do some basic setup for the projector. But I imagine a pro cal would bring out the projector’s best, especially if the previous owner changed settings from default and they are now restored on power-up.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Now that my projector choice has been made, I think the next step would be to work out screen details. After a few false starts, I revisited screen size/ratio. I’m now unsure I want to stick with my original 16:9 HD decision. The JVC X70’s manual lists several modes/adjustments that may give me what I’m after; namely, to maximize a 16:9 picture on a 2.25:1 screen. I’m not really interested in Constant Image Height (CIH), because that just shrinks the displayed area for 16:9 content... quoting this article:

“The point is that the room's dimensions limit the width of the screen much more than they limit the height. Believe it or not, in most home theater spaces, the 2.4 format actually turns out to be the smallest screen you can install from a total square footage perspective.

Now, on a 10-foot wide 2.4 format screen, every image you project will be the same height, which is 4.25 feet. That's why 2.4 set-ups are often called Constant Image Height, or CIH for short. The only thing that varies is the width of the image. A film in 2.4 will take up the entire 10 foot screen width, but a 1.78 image will be only 7.56 feet wide. The total square footage of that 1.78 image will be 4.25 x 7.56 = 32.1 sq. ft. Conversely, if you installed a 16:9 screen that was 10 feet wide, the total square footage of your 1.78 image would be 10 x 5.62, or 56.2 square feet. Hmmm...roughly 32 vs. 56 square feet. That is a much bigger 1.78 image--almost double the square footage.”

That’s their point. What’s mine? From what I’ve read in the projector’s user manual, it seems that a combination of zoom settings, lens memory, and custom masking options may do the trick. Does anyone know if zooming a 16:9 image to become its largest on a 2.35 screen would introduce visible artifacts? Previously mentioned caveats about excessive zoom may or may not be an issue with JVC due to e-shift providing film-like quality.

 

[JStewart]

As I learn more about my projector through its owners manual, I’m starting to realize I may need to budget for professional installation of both the projector and the screen.

Remember I’m no handyman! Audience safety might be at risk if I try my luck at hanging a projector above their seats. And the mains might be damaged should a 100+ pound screen come crashing down. A bit more learning on my part is needed to decide if I should tackle either job (with physical help, of course).

Would your builder build you a shelf attached the ceiling? IIRC JVC mounts are a little pricey. Professional install perhaps more so. The OM will have specifics on clearances for air flow around the unit.

What does everyone think of a professional projector calibration? I’ve calibrated a few basic settings on my flat-panel with the help of the HD Spears & Munsil disc, so I can probably do some basic setup for the projector. But I imagine a pro cal would bring out the projector’s best, especially if the previous owner changed settings from default and they are now restored on power-up.

After owning projectors for over a decade, using calibration discs, and getting in as heavy as one can with JVC autocal and their required meter, I got this one calibrated just to see what difference it would make and I it was worth getting in deeper with software and a decent meter. I now look at it as a decade of missed opportunity. One person's experience.

 

[JStewart]

That’s their point. What’s mine? From what I’ve read in the projector’s user manual, it seems that a combination of zoom settings, lens memory, and custom masking options may do the trick. Does anyone know if zooming a 16:9 image to become its largest on a 2.35 screen would introduce visible artifacts? Previously mentioned caveats about excessive zoom may or may not be an issue with JVC due to e-shift providing film-like quality.

Wouldn't you loose the top and bottom of the original picture if you could do that and "mask" it off?

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Yes, that makes sense to me if the image is zoomed past the vertical limits of the screen.

I am mostly just parroting what little I’ve collected in this cobweb-covered cranium!

Even after reading more about screen aspect ratios versus image aspect ratios, I’m still struggling with how the projector knows the difference between the two screen sizes.

So is the X70 capable of throwing a CinemaScope picture? I wouldn’t be disappointed if it couldn’t. I believe I’ll still prefer the larger 16:9 image area on a 16:9 screen. In any case, my manual is of little help:

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

And now to nail down screen specifics. My projector’s manual doesn’t include a throw ratio, so I got it from projectorcentral.com along with a really nifty calculator! I ran a few scenarios to get the feel for the effects of projector distance and lens zoom. Now I’m worried. My screen is only 13’ from the back wall, and my viewing distance is likewise fixed at approximately 10.5’.

For a 100” diag 16:9 screen at 1.5x zoom, the calculator yields a throw distance of 13’ 6” (outside the room). Increasing the zoom to a maximum of 2.0x decreases throw to 10’ 2”. Likewise for a 110” diag 16:9 screen at 1.5x zoom, throw distance is once again outside the room at 14’ 1”. Increasing my to 2.0x zoom reduces throw to 11’ 2”.

QUESTION: Which is better, maximize screen size and projector distance knowing it will be operated at 2.0x zoom? Or slightly reduce screen size for same max projector distance knowing that lens can be reduced from maximum 2.0x zoom?

EDIT: I've since discovered screen distance recommendations in the X70 manual which differ from the above calculator (which is based on a non-published projector throw ratio). Recommended mounting distance from a 100" screen varies between 9' 11" and 20' 1". Recommended distance from a 110" screen varies between 10' 10" and 22' 2". Maybe it's time to call a dealer or JVC Customer Support.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Another question, if you will please:
Is there such a thing as DIY masking for a drop-down screen? A few companies offer masking built-in to their drop-downs, but at a severe cost adder (as much as 45%).

 

[JStewart]

QUESTION: Which is better, maximize screen size and projector distance knowing it will be operated at 2.0x zoom? Or slightly reduce screen size for same max projector distance knowing that lens can be reduced from maximum 2.0x zoom?

There is no decline in picture quality by having the projector closer to the screen. There is an increase of available light though, which is a good thing.

Remember you're calculating distance from the LENS to the screen which takes into account length of projector and required clearance from back of projector to wall.

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

Thanks, I’d forgotten about increased light at closer range. My low-output X70 needs all the help it can get.

To clarify though, my question should be asked in multiple parts:

1. Should max zoom be avoided on JVC models? I’ve heard that zooming can cause artifacts.
2. How do I determine the actual throw ratio—or equivalent screen distances? The manual is at odds with distance calculator.

Leaving one foot clearance to the back wall for cabling, ventilation, & curtains puts the lens face another 18.8” away. The maximum distance from screen to lens would then be:
Throw Distance = Lroom(max) - Screen Offset(min) - Lens Offset(min)

Max Throw Distance = 17’ - 4’ - 2.6’ = 12.4’

According to my previous posts, the image should be large enough to fill a 100”-110” diag screen with the projector lens at around 12.5’ but using close to max zoom.

EDIT: Corrected throw from 11.4 to 12.4

 

[1_sufferin_mind]

On another note, does anyone know how sound would be affected if the center were mounted a few feet behind the weave AT screen instead of right up on it?