Home Theater Screen

[Rob21]

I am adding a "casual home theater" to my basement. I have purchased a Sony 6000 projector and now I need a screen to go with it. I will almost only use the theater to watch movies. 

 

My only requirements are the following:

- Fixed (non moving) screen

- acoustically transparent (left right center speakers are behind the screen)

- 120 inch

 

Questions:

- What aspect ratio should I go with (I was leaning towards 16:9 since I will almost only be using it for movies but I am unsure if this is the right choice)? 

- What make/model screen should I choose? 

 

Please excuse my ignorance on this topic. Any and all advice/help is greatly appreciated!

[DawnGordon]

A few questions:

What is the size of your room?
Is the room completely light controlled?
How far from the screen is your seating?

If the system is mostly used for movies, I always recommend cinemascope (2.40). Over 73% of the films made since the mid 1970's are in scope format.

I'm a big fan of Stewart Filmscreen.

[Rob21]

36 minutes ago, DawnGordon said:

A few questions:

What is the size of your room?
Is the room completely light controlled?
How far from the screen is your seating?

If the system is mostly used for movies, I always recommend cinemascope (2.40). Over 73% of the films made since the mid 1970's are in scope format.

I'm a big fan of Stewart Filmscreen.

Hi Dawn thanks for the help.
 

The room size is interesting… This basement has very low ceilings and I understood that that this would require compromises but I went forward with it anyway and I am very happy with how it’s going. I have installed two rows of seating with the back row on a raised platform. The maximum height of the screen should be no more than 48.2” so that the back row can see the bottom of the screen without the heads of the people in the first row getting in the way. I installed the projector to test this. 
 

Dimensions: 21’ length, 16’ width, 7’ 2” height 

 

The room is completely light controlled and the front of the first row is about 9 feet from the screen. I understand none of this is ideal but with everything in place I am really happy with how it worked out. I really appreciate your help!

[chopedogg88]

I would agree with Dawn that if primarily being used for movies, go with a 2.40:1 screen.  I primarily use Screen Innovations AT screens, with the built-in Philips Hue-controlled full color LED strip, integrated into Control4.  PM me if interested I can get you pricing and can drop ship one to your house.

[lippavisual]

So you want your screen to be only 3' High off the ground??

[c44me]

1 hour ago, lippavisual said:

So you want your screen to be only 3' High off the ground??

if sitting on low sofa it works well... eyes at bottom of screen essentially

[WhyPhy]

The highest a screen should be is this: measure 1/3 up the screen from the bottom - that imaginary horizontal line should be at or below seated eye level. This results in the bottom of the screen being pretty close to the floor.

If you’re ever going to watch TV shows, and probably even if you are not, you should go with a screen aspect ratio to match the projector aspect ratio. So unless you’re using an amorphic lens on the projector, you should use a 16:9 screen. Otherwise, you’re losing 1/3 the pixels and 1/3 the brightness and will have light spillover above/below the screen. 
 

For the price, you cannot beat a Silver Ticket screen from Amazon. Their woven acoustically transparent screen is a great performer, as proven in testing. If you want integrated boarder lighting or light rejection do SI; for absolutely reference color reproduction do Stewart StudioTek 130. 

[Don Cohen]

This is the primary area where I work now, and I agree with those recommending a 2.40:1 screen, if movies are an important part of what you're watching. As was pointed out, a large percentage of movies are in this aspect ratio, which was intended to be the same height, but wider, providing a visually more immersive experience. With a 16:9 screen, movies become smaller, and less immersive, the exact opposite of the intent behind the cinemascope format.

Yes this is less 'efficient' since projector chips have a 16:9 (or 17:9) aspect ratio, and perhaps 25% of the available pixels aren't used with 2.40:1 content. But in the course of theater design, one needs to basically 'do the math' to determine the optimal combination of equipment. Ideally, you would look at all options: Projector, Throw Distance, Screen Size, Gain and Aspect Ratio, before purchasing any one component. Choices with one of these will influence the choices in the others.

And for the absolute 'best of both worlds' an anamorphic lens, along with a video processor like the madVR Envy, can be added. This does raise the budget significantly, but the results in terms of both picture quality and ease of use, can't be overstated.

As for the size, my usual approach is for someone to determine their ideal size for a 16:9 image, where they wouldn't want it larger or shorter, and then assuming they have the width available, get a 2.40:1 screen of the same height, but now with the added width. They then have their ideal 16:9 image size, along with the greater immersion for movies. It isn't always possible to do this, given physical constraints of the room, but is the ideal approach.

And the choice of screen size and gain will impact how many lumens the projector needs to provide to have acceptable brightness on screen, which is why these choices should really be made at the same time, as part of the overall theater design.

Hope this helps! Feel free to pm to discuss further.

[DawnGordon]

I use a Panamorph lens with my JVC projector and 1.39 screen.  As soon as I saw the difference with Anamorphic, there was no going back to "zooming." 

[WhyPhy]

I think Dawn has the ideal setup. JVC projector, panamorph lens, 2.39:1 screen. 

[Rob21]

Hi everyone. Thank you all for your input.  After plenty of research, I am leaning towards a Screen Innovations 5 Fixed 120” 2.40:1 with Slate AT 1.2 material. I chose Slate because 95% of the time we are going to be watching movies in the dark but occasionally we might want the lights on for something more casual. I was originally going to go with their zero edge screen but I was worried about light bleeding over the edge of the screen which pushed me to the 5 fixed. Any thoughts / advice on going with the SI 5 Fixed in Slate AT 1.2?

[WhyPhy]

I’d be very cautious about using an ALR (active light rejection) screen. They generally have noticeable sparkles from the fresnel prisms and also have some degree of color shift. You don’t need ALR if you just have a few lights on. It’s really most beneficial if there are lights directly over the screen or bright omni-directional light from windows. There are noticeable drawbacks for these types of screens, so be sure you are ready to accept them. 
 

Also, are you adding an anamorphic lens to convert your projector output from 1.78:1 to 2.40:1? If not, you will always have noticeable light spillover above and below the screen. I would not use a 2.40:1 screen unless the projector is converted to a matching 2.40:1 aspect ratio. 

[Rob21]

7 hours ago, WhyPhy said:

I’d be very cautious about using an ALR (active light rejection) screen. They generally have noticeable sparkles from the fresnel prisms and also have some degree of color shift. You don’t need ALR if you just have a few lights on. It’s really most beneficial if there are lights directly over the screen or bright omni-directional light from windows. There are noticeable drawbacks for these types of screens, so be sure you are ready to accept them. 
 

Also, are you adding an anamorphic lens to convert your projector output from 1.78:1 to 2.40:1? If not, you will always have noticeable light spillover above and below the screen. I would not use a 2.40:1 screen unless the projector is converted to a matching 2.40:1 aspect ratio. 

Thank you for your help! I was not familiar with these drawbacks of ALR screens. I thought that the ALR screen would  sacrifice on image quality but not in a way that would be noticeable to the untrained eye. 
 

I have a Sony VPL-XW6000ES projector. I am planning on getting an anamorphic lens to convert the output to 2.40:1, but I was only aware of the image quality benefits that would come with it. Would an anamorphic lens allow me to completely eliminate light spillover? If so, should I choose to go with the zero edge screen over a screen with 3.5 inch black velvet bezels? Thank you for everything!

[WhyPhy]

Yes, definite downsides to ALR. I only recommend them for rooms with lots of windows and not in basements with light control. However, I will admit that I haven’t seen the “11th Gen ALR” from Screen Innovations, which they claim eliminates sparkles and hot-spotting (i.e. the flashlight beam effect.) Read some posts on the topic at AVSforum.com to learn more and figure out which drawback you’re willing to live with (lower contrast vs. sparkles/hotspots.) Ideally, go see a demo yourself. 
 

The anamorphic lens will completely eliminate light spillover for a 2.40:1 screen…IF EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY ALIGNED SND STAYS THAT WAY. The reality is that it’s very difficult to get the alignment perfect, and the projector and mount (and house) will slightly shift over time. Tiny movements of the projector result in bigger movements at the screen. Long story short, if you absolutely want no spillover, get a velvet boarder around the screen. The only reason not to have a boardet is aesthetic (if you really want that “floating screen” effect.)

[DawnGordon]

I would consider looking into Stewart. They have no color shift and minimal sparklies.  But as others have said, if you have a completely light-controlled room, then ALR isn't necessary. You could go with Stewart's StudioTek 130 G4, which will boost the light levels for a brighter picture. But I'm a big fan of the StudioTek 100, with no artifacts whatsoever.

FWIW, we sell both Screen Innovations and Stewart.

[BXTR]

If you’re really concerned about audio quality, look at SeymourAV, their XD material is phenomenal and the image quality is fantastic

Perforated screens like Stewart seriously hinder audio, they even have electronics you’d put in the signal path to compensate 

Woven screens like Seymour and other don’t need compensation because they don’t affect the sound much

There’s a reason that the high end booths at CEDIA and mastering studios are moving away from perforated….

[Cyknight]

perforated was ALWAYS a designer choice, never an a/v quality choice.

woven is better. somewhat

Having nice speakers, even if in/on wall that aren't behind a screen is proper.

 

Stop trying to hide speakers, make them look good instead

[Rob21]

I appreciate everyone's input and help. I am down to two options for screen material. Screen innovations Slate AT (acoustically transparent) 1.2 or Pure White AT 1.3.

 

I have decided that I would rather have the best quality with the lights off than to be able to use the screen with the lights on. The basement is pitch black with the lights off, but my concern is that I have a white ceiling and walls. The ceiling height is low (7ish feet) and light scatter from the projector lights up the ceiling and walls. The wall's and ceiling are staying white.

 

Should I go with SI Slate AT 1.2 or Pure White AT 1.3? Thanks again.

[RAV]

All that money in screen and projector, the best thing you can do for the room is to repaint the ceiling a dark color for $100 worth of paint.
if you're worried about multipurpose, and the room too dark, than put in more lights.
Will make way more of a difference than Slate vs Pure White.

[Rob21]

@RAV thank you I am still considering painting it a dark color. In the case that it does remain white (tying to keep my wife happy) should I go with the Slate AT 1.2 or Pure White AT 1.3?

[WhyPhy]

ALR should somewhat help reduce the light reflection on the wall and ceiling, but at the expense of on-screen image quality in the dark. Everything is a tradeoff. 
 

Personally, I’m with @BXTR on the Seymour Screen Excellence Woven Acoustically Transparent, non-ALR. I think it offers the fewest trade-offs. 
 

And Stewart StudioTek for the absolute best image quality. 

[Rob21]

@WhyPhy On screen image quality is what I care most about - so it sounds like out of the SI options you would go with the Pure White AT 1.3?

[WhyPhy]

16 minutes ago, Rob21 said:

@WhyPhy On screen image quality is what I care most about - so it sounds like out of the SI options you would go with the Pure White AT 1.3?

Yes, I agree. Assuming it’s a dark room. 

[RAV]

Other than the viewing cone, the two fabrics are going to be very similar.
The slate will have less reflection on a ceiling than the pure white, as it has a lower half gain.
But if the room is wider, and you need better off axis viewing depending on seating, than the white is a better choice.

[lippavisual]

You can keep the walls white by making your own foam wall panels.  It’s pretty easy to do and is a fun, moderately priced, project.  But I’d also make sure to have a dark material surround for the screen.

you’ll be satisfied in the end no matter what.  As long as your budget is happy, you’re happy.