Fox sports 1 aspect ratio calculator4/10/2023 ![]() ![]() But it is not so exciting for HD music concerts. I have a viewing room that has a 10.5 foot wide 2.4 screen, and it is fine for 2.4 movies. Your room will probably be different, so it is important to study your room's particular limitations and come up with your own assessment of what will work best for you.Īnd always keep in mind, your ultimate decision should be based on the type of material you prefer to watch. In this article I've used an example of a room with a wall 14 feet wide and 9 feet high to illustrate the concept. ![]() If you want them to be larger than your 2.4 films, increase the screen's vertical height and go with the 16:9 format. The only remaining question is how big do you want your 1.78 and 1.85 material to appear? If you want those images to be smaller than your 2.4 films, go with a 2.4 screen. Once you establish how wide a screen you can install, that determines the absolute size of your 2.4 image. Therefore, to recap: if you are like most people, your room will determine the maximum width of your screen. The only difference is that the 2.4 screen gives you a full frame effect, and the 16:9 screen gives you black bars top and bottom. Meanwhile, regardless of whether you use a 10-foot wide 2.4 or 16:9 screen, a 2.4 film will be the same size on either screen-10 feet wide and 4.25 feet tall for a total of 42.5 square feet no matter what. So despite the fact that the two screens are identical in width, a 1.85 movie like Chicago looks much bigger on the 16:9 screen-almost double the size-due to its increased vertical height. On a 2.4 screen, it is displayed in pillar-boxed format, and on the 16:9 screen it is virtually full frame: The following images are of the 1.85 format scene from Chicago. As you can see, the 16:9 picture is larger since it gives you more vertical space to deal with. The first is 2.4 format, and the second is 16:9. The following are pictures of two 10-foot wide screens. Let's look at a graphic illustration of this. That is a much bigger 1.78 image-almost double the square footage. 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. The total square footage of that 1.78 image will be 4.25 x 7.56 = 32.1 sq. 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 only thing that varies is the width of the image. That's why 2.4 set-ups are often called Constant Image Height, or CIH for short. Now, on a 10-foot wide 2.4 format screen, every image you project will be the same height, which is 4.25 feet. 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. (In theory, if you were installing a classic movie theater for the screening of pre-1953 films, you could install a 4:3 screen that is 10 feet wide and 7.5 feet tall.) The point is that the room's dimensions limit the width of the screen much more than they limit the height. If you opt for a 16:9 screen, it will be 10 feet wide and 5.62 feet high. If you go with a 2.4 screen, it will be 10 feet wide and 4.25 feet high. Now, since this room has a 9 foot ceiling, the height of your screen can be pretty much anything you want. Practically speaking, these room dimensions limit you to a maximum screen width of about 10 feet. Let's also assume you want to leave two feet to either side of the screen for speaker placement and aesthetic clearance from the side walls. Let's assume for example that the wall you are projecting onto is 14 feet wide and 9 feet high. Why? In the vast majority of home theater situations, the room dimensions place a practical limit on the maximum width of the screen before placing any limitation on its height. Your 16:9 and 4:3 images will be much smaller than they would be if you used a 16:9 screen. However it has one big problem: In most home theater rooms, a 2.4 aspect ratio screen is the smallest screen you can install. And if you tend to watch mostly films in 2.4 format, it is a great alternative. Part Three: The Problem with Cinemascope 2.4Īt first glance the idea of a super widescreen 2.4 format has a lot of appeal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |