Cinescope or Widescreen - Which is Better? - Home Theater Basics

[@bruceygoosey908]

Screw you guys, I'm gonna setup my projection screen in 9:16 so I can watch my favorite TikTok videos in the correct aspect ratio.

[@Youthman]

Hahaha love it

[@bruceygoosey908]

@@Youthman Thanks!

[@Jaredddddd]

@@Youthman I need one to make it look like an CinemaScope

[@victormuriel7266]

Best comment ever!!! 😜😂😂😂

[@HoiA1980]

I started (4 years ago) with a 104" diagonal 16x9 fixed frame screen, then added DIY motorized horizontal masking for scope films. Wasn't satisfied with the size of scope films on the 16x9 screen so I added a 115" wide motorized 2.39 scope screen to drop down over the 16x9 screen. A few weeks later added a JVC NX7 and DCR lens. Having 2 screens is Win-Win-Win!

[@HunGerMovies]

If you have a "tall" room, then 16:9 is bigger, if you have a wide room, with not much height, than 2.39 could be better. I prefer to have as big screen as possible, my ceiling is 3,8m high, and the width of the wall I can use is a bit less than 3m, so I went for the 16:9.

[@tkcdac]

I went 16:9, as I prefer black bars top and bottom, than to the sides. The picture can be HUGE, or as wide as it can on the 2.35 aspect. It always fills the width. The black bars on the sides make the image smaller every time, and there is so much content still only in 16:9.

[@ZombiesRus5]

I’m going to get a 2:35.1 for constant image height. The widescreen picture is smaller on a 16:9 screen. With constant image height you are getting the same size image for both 16:9 and 2:35.1

[@Youthman]

My screen is setup as CIH as well

[@tkcdac]

@@Youthman I would have done the same thing as you for your space though. My entire wall is a screen. Your theater looks super amazing.

[@paulrevere1479]

Cinemascope!!! Something about not seeing black bars looks so good when watching movies. It just looks right

[@Youthman]

Absolutely!

[@whiteandnerdytuba]

Unless your movie is in a different ratio

[@paulrevere1479]

@@whiteandnerdytuba True. But more than likely the movie is in scope. I can deal with a 16x9 image on my 2.35:1 screen once in a while.

[@kthx1138]

I agree! 2.35:1 looks like GOD'S aspect ratio. It's also approximately the aspect ratio of our eye sockets!

[@whiteandnerdytuba]

16:9 since it works with old and new movies. Thin and wide is less immersive than the same width but taller

[@BuildMontage]

I wanted to go CinemaScope, but changed my mind at the last minute. In all honesty I regret that now as I only watch movies on the theater room to save the globe for special occasions and watch TV on my 75”. Lessons learned I guess. I’d love to try building a screen like yours!!

[@troyn8269]

I was considering widescreen but then did a little math. 100" 2.35:1 screen is 39" by 92". 100" 16:9 is 49" by 87", which when watching a 2.35 movie is 87" by 37". So for me I don't mind sacrificing a couple inches for widescreen movies with 16:9 because you lose a lot of size when watching full screen movies using a 2.35 screen: 49" vs 39"

[@troyn8269]

@XY ZW oh for sure. Dark Knight Rises is a must to have 16:9

[@scott3715]

Seems like many streaming sources: Netflix, Disney+, etc are in 2:35:1.

[@saubriz]

Youthman: “I watch zero sports, none whatsoever!” The Whole World RN: “ditto” 🤣🤣🤣...................no? .....too early?

[@chadlott4566]

I had a 150" diagonal 16:9 screen for two years and three months ago switched over to a 140" diagonal 2.39:1 cinescope screen, and I am fairly confident that I will never go back to 16:9. I still watch a lot of 16:9 content (sports mainly but also shows on Netflix, Prime, etc.), but watching movies like Star Wars on a scope screen without the letterbox bars is simply a much more immersive and amazing experience. Sports and shows are still large and look good on the scope screen, and you can mask a scope screen much easier, so it's a no brainer for me now. If you want a true "theater" experience in your own home, go with a scope screen.

[@Youthman]

I completely agree Chad. It's simply not the same experience as having a wall to wall image in 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

[@georgepopescu1327]

A large 16:9 screen is much more flexible in terms of displaying content. Not all movies are shot in 2: 35 : 1 . A lot of classic movies are shot in 1 : 85 and recently there are some movies shot in IMAX which is close to 1 :85 too in terms of aspect ratio. For example I have seen movies on a cinespcope screen in a showroom and it is true that 2 : 35 movies look great but the moment I watched Jurrasic Park (a real classic movie) it was absolutely unwatchable. The image got hilariously small. On the other hand a 16:9 screen allows you do some tricks in order to get the image size you want (masking the white bars for example or, if you have money to burn a panamorph lens).

[@VONDOOM88]

I went with a 2.35:1 screen when i first got a projector with lens memory. I later got an anamorphic lens which made it even better. No regrets with a CIH setup. My only gripes are movies that switch aspect ratios wish it was optional on the disc

[@HunGerMovies]

I understand your point, and you are right that the content that you plan to consume is an important factor, and yes, a wide screen can be very immersive, but as I see you still have some room up and down, so imagine how immersive a 16:9 screen would be with the same width like your screen:) But again, if you really do not watch youtube videos, or any other content than movies with 2.35:1 aspect ratios, it is fine. I just think that most walls are closer to a 16:9 ar than a 2.35:1, and it is pity to not use as much of the wall space as possible. To sum it up, usually the width is the bottleneck of a wall, not the height, so for a home theater, I would go for the 16:9 anytime. I just love the extra height, when I can almost fit myself in the screen standing in front of it. If you have 3D content 16:9 that is also much more enjoyable than a 2.35:1 due to the extra height. I also love when the screen starts almost from the floor, and as high as me standing, then the middle of the screen is at my eye level when sitting, it is really like you were in the movie. But this is just me. To me the 2.35 could work if the rooom had a very wide wall.

[@Youthman]

Everyone must decide what works best for their preference and their room. I’m just sharing the reasons 2.35:1 is the best choice for my setup and preferences.

[@WeMuskMars]

Enjoyed the trip through your home theater history. Makes us all feel better about this journey we have embarked on. Keep on keepin on.

[@nedkulic2164]

THANK YOU ....Youthman.....You just helped me decide in more clarity to step into the 2:35.1 - I have Sony VPL-HW11000ES projector :-) with this feature Picture position feature for lens-less anamorphic (2.35:1) - No anamorphic lens required When using a cinema scope screen, enjoy 2.35:1 content without the need for an external anamorphic lens using the Picture Position function. - Picture Position Yes, 5 Modes (including lens-less anamorphic) - Picture Position Memory This feature remembers the position of the zoom lens. You can match it to a movie’s aspect ratio (including 16:9 and Cinemascope) and store the settings for a future viewing. Is there a reason why you chose Seymour Center Stage XD Cinescope Brand??? Cheers Ned

[@Youthman]

Seymour had a great reputation for making quality fabric without having to take out a second mortgage into your home. I paid $360 for the fabric and less than $100 to build the frame. And it looks fantastic

[@tinsonthomastravel]

Hey mate, what do you say about movies with variable aspect ratio. How it is displayed when using a scope screen with 2.35:1. I am considering putting a scope screen in my theatre, but wondering how this works. Esp for movies like Top gun Maverick where a lot of scenes are shot on IMAX format and then it switches back to 2.35:1 again..? Will the image spill over the screen if uses lens memory? Thanks for your reply.

[@ffdfdfdfdfdfdfdf]

I think its quite simple really. Get whichever screen gives you the largest real estate for your room. My room is fairly square so the 16:9 screen gave me the most screen. If it was more wider, I would have got a cinemascope screen.

[@gzamora25]

Youthman I got an even poorer man's anamorphic. I only have an entry level projector (Optoma HD142x). I placed my projector at a point where if I zoom my projector all the way out digitally, I end up with a 16:9 picture to fit perfectly in the middle of my cinemascope screen when I watch 16:9 content. That gives me a 100 inch picture. BUT when I watch movies, I zoom in digitally a few notches to fit in a 2.35:1 picture perfectly into my cinemascope screen. I do this with my projector remote and it doesn't take but a few pushes of a button. I think its worth mentioning that most projectors have digital zoom so anyone can get or make a cinemascope screen to accomplish that cinematic look. I will upgrade to the Epson 5050ub soon (still saving), which has the lens memory shift but for now, this does it for me. Congrats on the JVC!

[@danm203]

I've been doing 16:9 front projection for 15 years and recently went to a 128" acoustically transparent 2.35:1 screen. I'll never go back. I get great envelopment for movies and 16:9 images are still around 100".

[@Youthman]

Awesome Daniel! It’s truly a completely different experience with a scope screen.

[@UnboundGodz]

Realistically, you could just always build your screen to be 16:9. You can easily mask off all sides to suite 2.35:1 or 1.33:1 if and when its needed. But dont of course go overboard with it if your projector doesnt have the brightness needed for the size your attempting.

[@Youthman]

A lot depends on your room. My cabinet limits my screen height but my screen is almost the width of my room. So a scope screen is a much better option for my setup.

[@Harris316]

Great video and excellent explanation of the 16:9 and 2.35:1 aspect ratio. We don’t watch much sports, so the immersive experience of 2.4:1 ratio best fits our family’s preference. Thanks for great content👍👍

[@Youthman]

Thank you for the kind words Harris

[@Quetzalcoatl0]

When you have a 16:9 screen you can mask the top and bottom for a 21:9 image. Both ways you get the full width of the screen. When you have a 21:9 screen and you mask the sides to create a 16:9 you lose that width, basically created a way way smaller 16:9 image when then a 16:9 screen. So having a 120 inch 16:9 is better than having a 113 inch 21:9. If you switch a lot between TV series and movies.

[@Youthman]

Good points if you have electric masking (which can get very expensive). I love my 12’ wide 150” cinescope screen.

[@danielmravljov]

You have to remember that if Youthman, or anyone else, want to have a 150" scope image on a 16:9 screen. The screen have to be 159". That's like 78inches tall. In my own room that will almost be the intire height of the room 😅 You don't want your feet covering the view.

[@Quetzalcoatl0]

@@danielmravljov Good point :D

[@kthx1138]

I tend to prefer side masking for 16x9 because that's what commercial cinemas do.

[@Max-lp6bi]

Hi Youthman, I am also one of them that chose to go with a 2.35:1 cinescope screen in my home theater - I have 120 inches 4K screen. I just love watching movie in CinemaScope - it feel so good........

[@MrJgibo1]

Currently have my 125 inch drop down. Thinking when I update my projector I will add a bigger "cinescope" drop down so I can have both 😁

[@Raritytuber]

That's what Craig Peer's doing over at AVSForum. Best of both worlds and a lot less expensive than motomask solutions.

[@bryanp4827]

16:9 any day of the week...i don't need the hassles of anamorphic lenses, and or buying another projector just to have lense memory...

[@Youthman]

Nothing wrong with that. Only you can decide what is best for your setup

[@bryanp4827]

@@Youthman 👍

[@chadlott4566]

Most projectors have lens memory features so an anamorphic lens is not a must have. My JVC easily switches back and forth between 16:9 and scope.

[@thehawkinator449]

Hey Youthman. What happens when you watch a movie that changes between 2.35:1 and 16:9 for IMAX scenes?

[@johnphillips1328]

2.35:1 is the only way to go, currently loving a 142" Cinescope screen. With the JVC's lens memory, I have both the 2.35:1 and 16x9 saved so jumping back and forth isn't an issue.

[@bighands69]

I have a similar sort of set up with my screen size being 130" and have a lens memory as well. I have seen my self making mistakes at times and forgetting set up.

[@NickSmith-ku5pn]

I'm trying to decide what aspect ratio screen to get I also will only be using the theater for movies however my concern with getting a 2.35 ratio screen is watching movies that are shot in 1.85 like jurassic Park would I be better off getting a 16x9 screen and just dealing with the black bars?

[@HalfbrickVHS]

What i'm going to do when i eventually get my cinema room is to have a 2.35 screen on the wall, and a motorized 16:9 screen that drops down infront of it, for when i want to watch 1.85 content.

[@CameronWoolf]

For this discussion I feel it’s important to talk about CIH (constant image height) which can play a big part in the decision. You should also consider the size of the location your screen will be placed (both height and width). Also, having lens memory as an option on your projector helps a TON! I have an NX7 and a 156” SI scope screen and absolutely love it. Switching between pre-programmed lens memory is a simple one click on the remote. Ps- YM, u will love the latest firmware update for the NX7 that came out last October.

[@Youthman]

Thanks Cameron. All great points to consider.

[@saubriz]

I can’t live without 16:9 content mainly because of the, even though small amount, outstanding 16:9 content and Imax scenes out there, how can you do without them? However I don’t like black bars on cinemascope stuff, so my solution was to get an electric (2 in 1, if you will) dual screen from Elite Screens: 16:9 120” and 2:35 114”, the 2:35 screen has the built in masking for those damn bars 👍👍 as if they are not there AT ALL 🤗 I find this solution to be a nice compromise!!

[@Youthman]

Masking is great

[@alford35]

If you get a screen that’s as wide as possible for the room then you will have both. You can’t fit a 16.9 height wise in almost all standard residential rooms so the widest scope screen fits both aspects.

[@saubriz]

alford35 but then you would have the edges with black “bars” due to the wider cinescope screen which to me is not an ideal situation.....although you could mask the sides with some adjustable black curtains

[@georgepopescu1327]

@@alford35 there is a problem with that. All consumer grade projectors have native 16 : 9 native ratio so even if you don't see the black bars they still have it thus meaning that you loose 33% of resolution and light output. So if you buy a very large screen, regardless of it's ratio, you will have problems with light output and dependeing on the projector with screen door.

[@saubriz]

George Popescu but that’s not the main point in this dialogue, it’s about the “visibility” of the black bars.....I am well aware of the waste of lumens and resolution, but without an anamorphic lens, which is a very expensive solution, that is a compromise MOST enthusiasts have to live with.

[@ricanman85]

Do you have issues with IMAX ratio scenes and movies?

[@christopherterheyden9583]

Both my current home theater on the first floor and the new one I’m working on in the basement are outfitted with Cinemascope screens (2.35:1). With the new room, I went with an acoustic transparent screen to hide the speakers and for image sound localization. Being able to hide the speakers is also a great way to take advantage getting some great deals on used or discounted floor model speakers (Youthman’s Tip #2). If the cabinets are blemished, or your setup is mismatched, it’s less of a concern when they’re hidden away. I’m running an anamorphic on my current setup but I’m not sure I’ll use it on the new setup because I’ve always struggled with dialing out the pincushion.

[@garypranzo9334]

My wall can take 150" 16:9 but I decided on a 2.35:1 screen with Epson 5050 Lens memory So when 2.35 it is the size it will be when it is on a 150" 16:9 but when when I zoom into 16:9 to fit the 2.35 screen it isd a 115" screen but that is more then big enough and I have remote curtains to matt the left and right when I want to 16:9, Imax 1.33:1, 4:3, Netflix ratio etc

[@toddroy9558]

So if I had a wall 120” wide, my screen would be 51” high? I have a room that’s 13’x20’ but the door coming into it is at the front where the screen is, so I will have a aisle to one side where the door comes in. That means the screen will be on the other side. So I have 10’ to work with. So I want to build a screen, but I want it as big as I can get it. The 3 towers and two subs will be behind the screen. So basically my front seats will be about 6’ from the screen. Do you think that will work? Trying to plan everything before building.

[@myhometheater7029]

I went with a 16:9 150” acoustic transparent screen but now I wish I had went with a 2.35:1 screen. Great video brother.

[@Youthman]

Thank you.

[@bighands69]

It all comes down to your viewing distance. If you are too far away then those black bars might become an issue as they can reduce space on the screen. There is a lot of content with 16:9 and I would be really dubious of streaming services when it comes to movies and their aspect ratio. And unless you are really familiar with movie in question it might get very difficult to know how near are to native aspect.

[@mrx01210]

The best setup imo is to do CIH+IMAX with 4 way masking.. 16:9 is displayed the same height as a 2.35 image but narrower.. IMAX content is displayed the same width as scope but taller .. this can be achieved with a large 16:9 screen and 4 way masking .

[@Youthman]

Masking is sweet but isn’t cheap.

[@kthx1138]

Excellent video! How does one handle wider than 2.35:1 movies like Ben Hur and Hateful Eight in 2.76:1?

[@BY-nc2br]

Fantastic explanation! Thanks for this!

[@Youthman]

Glad you found the video helpful

[@shaneducholke364]

The brand name I always wanted in my theatre room over 15 years ago was Classe pre/pro and amps. They were just so sleek and sext and the performance was breathtaking.

[@numanali4945]

Very good information. Really like the clarity with which you convey the concept.

[@rajivchauhan3223]

Hi ajitman... want to know 2 imp thing about your HT.. 1. What are the dimensions of your theater room 2. What is the size ( diagonal) of your theater screen..and what is the total size of this ( LxB)

[@Youthman]

My room is 13’ x 19’ x 10’ Screen is 150” diagonal in 2.35:1

[@robertkeeler6211]

I’ll take my Stewart Gemini, 2:35 for movies with a reference material for watching immersive movies in the dark and a 16:9 alr screen for watching tv with the lights on.....

[@akaredcrossbow]

It’s amazing how big your room looks now compared to before! 🤯🤯🤯 👍🏻👍🏻

[@Youthman]

What makes it look larger? It's still 13' x 19' with 10' ceiling.

[@akaredcrossbow]

Youthman I’m guessing, but the darker colors that you used in the room and the camera angles you use now! I honestly don’t know! I have a 13x25 room, and your room in your videos looks like it dwarfs mine🤷🏻‍♂️😀. I remember back when I first started watching your videos and looking at your theater room saying to myself “I wish I had the size room you have so I could do something like this”. A couple videos later you said the dimensions of the room and my jaw dropped! It literally looks like your theater room is 19x25. I believe you have set that room up perfectly! 👍🏻👍🏻😃

[@shaneducholke364]

Great vid. I love swing how people made certain decision I their theatre room, especially of it was built a long time ago. I started building min in 2002 after about a year of PLANNING. I was at the same crossroads as you were but the decision was easier for different reasons. At the time, I lived cinemascope, but the problem was that very few titles offered it on DVD as back then everything was watched on 42" - 48" widescreen TV's, we already had a 50" Toshiba projo and the brand new 60" were over $6000. The only titles I had that would do scope was Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Kingdom of heaven and a few others. My other issue was wall space as my front entrance is on the screen side and I even cut into my furnace room for an angles entrance to give me as much space as possible. I wanted a snack area, and rear access to my rack, it was my only layout option. That means in a 16:9 setup, the biggest screen I could fit was 106" and with all masking tape, the scope screen was just too small at that size so 16:9 it was. If I didn't have a wall width issue I would ha e fit the biggest anamorphic 21:9 screen I could fit. It was so much harder to build dedicated theatre rooms 17-20 years ago without KZbin and minimal online, you had to buy the 3 different magazines a month and dig deep into forum's for answers and advice.

[@techwave870]

what i don't like about having 2.35:1 ratio is that everything other than the movie still shows up at the above and below the screen. for example, say you're using an apple tv and decide to play a movie on plex or something, the apple tv is still in 16:9 and goes outside the screen when you're navigating through it. and if you use the lens ratio change that you mentioned in this video then i guess that could work as long as the projector detects the ratio being outputed and automatically changes based on that. On top of that movies that switch between 16:9 and 2.35:1 would be annoying in this. and the movies that do full 16:9 are some of my favorite haha

[@Youthman]

There are two better solutions...but get your wallet ready. 1) Anamorphic lens and sled. Will typically cost you more than your actual projector. 2) Electric Masking (again very expensive. I'm COMPLETELY ok with the imperfections of the poor man's anamorphic setup I shared in this video.

[@don7630]

Love yout channel, lol you are costing a lot of money. I have an odd question? I work on RV's and currently building a Home Theatre system, I'm wanting to make my own Screen out of the roof material I use every day. It's made of PVC and very flat with a matt finish, might not be the best material but I can make my screen as large as I need and I understand that I should be using a screen with a value of at least a 1.3 or so using a Epson 5050UB, any thoughts?

[@Youthman]

I would say absolutely try it out. You could always place a small amount of it up against the wall and just see how it looks. Lots of people use a variety of DIY solutions and get great results. I’ve never heard needing a gain of 1.3 for the Epson. Maybe it’s because of the size of screen that you were going for?

[@erod9088]

If you like Christopher Nolan films, NFL and college football games, video games, Netflix series, etc, then you need to go 16:9. If you ONLY watch movies, most are in 2.35:1, but some you have certain directors like Nolan who like to use both ratios in movies.

[@michaelviers6461]

How do you handle films or tv shows with mixed aspect ratios? Something like ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD or even THE MANDOLORIAN which uses aspect ratios changes for emotional effect. Also do you research the film ahead of time to pre-set your aspect ratio or skip to a scene, set and then start over?

[@Youthman]

My setup is designed around scope content since the vast majority of what I watch are in 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 aspect ratio. For the 0.1% that has mixed content, I mask the area of the image that would otherwise spill above and below my screen. I do not do any research. I hit play and hit one button on my Harmony Elite to switch to one of my presets on the JVC NX7.

[@captainrizal67]

Hey! Thanks for the informative video. I have 110” (diagonally) screen and am using BenQ HT 2700 projector. My screen width and height are 95” and 53” respectively. I don’t think I have anamorphic lens in this projector. I can’t find this option. I only have 16:9 projection option. Do I have to buy a projector with anamorphic lens for 2.35:1 projection? If I buy such projector, is my screen wide enough to project 2.35:1 projection?

[@Youthman]

Your projector needs Lens Memory. This video explains what that is and how to set it up - kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKPCdGmbqZtpi6csi=xt2RFZ_KmdRe1Ea_

[@Youthman]

Projector images are 16:9

[@giuseppealba9814]

Hi, I followed your video and tried to do as explained.. .but I can't find the right compromise with other video formats that aren't 2.35:1..... I'll start by saying that my screen is 2.33:1 but I just can't find a solution for example with 1.85:1.. I have a JVC N7 as a video projector. Do you have any advice for me? I would like to see everything in 2.33 without any vertical or horizontal black bars.

[@Youthman]

If your desire is to fill a cinema scope screen with all content, you only have a few options. 1) madVR Envy using non-linear stretch. Check out my video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4uskmeYl9KGi6Msi=77H2CdfSL5eU4Q2N 2) Electronic side masking 3) Manual side masking The lens memory in the NZ7 allows you to zoom in and fill the entire Cinemascope screen. But when you’re viewing content that is not as wide, you’re going to have Gray bars on the left and right unless you do one of the three above.

[@yuzainijiebahadin793]

Hi Youthman....limitations on my pj to change from 16:9 to 2.35:1 has led me to make a top and bottom masking for my CIW projection set-up.

[@sliknik1966]

Thinking of ordering the Epson 6050 projector and trying to decide on my screen. The room is 15.6 x 22 and I have it set up looking at the screen in the 15 foot direction. Will the Epson shoot onto a 120" 2.35.1 screen ok? and will the projector be loud over my head. Oh the ceilings are 10ft. Also I noticed the 4k ultra discs I have say 2.39.1. Will I have bars on a 2.35 screen? Love your channel, keep it up

[@Raritytuber]

I see how cinescope makes sense in your room and I get your thinking, but for most people who watch mixed content (TV shows , KZbin, Twitch, surf the web etc. AND movies), 16:9 screens is the way in my opinion. That way you don't take a huge loss in screen height when watching your favourite TV show (you fill the whole screen). You do get black bars with movies, but at least the picture is as big as with a scope screen. Also, you won't have to deal with changing aspect ratio back on forth and blacking out above and under the screen (although lens memory makes it easier). The new Justice League probably isn't too cool on a cinescope screen either.

[@Youthman]

It’s all a matter of preference. You you have to figure out what fits best with your setup.

[@Raritytuber]

@@Youthman It's a compromise either way. If money were no object you would have a motomask solution, or a widescreen and a cinescope screen (one pulled down over the other).

[@kratoslostson3427]

I have a 150 inch 16:9 elite screen didn’t know about 2.35 ratio lol

[@Youthman]

Now you know

[@kratoslostson3427]

Youthman haha I know but found out 1 week after ordering my screen. My projector doesn’t have CinemaScope anyway :\. I love the way your screen looks. 2:35 looks really nice

[@georgepopescu1327]

@@kratoslostson3427 none of the home cinema projectors have native 2 : 35 : 1 . You get this only with projectors like Christie or Barco, but they cost a lot, 25 000 - 30 000 $ and up. All cheaper projectors, even those very good JVC's have 16 : 9 native ratio so they will have black bars.

[@Youthman]

You are correct. My projectors is native 16:9 but here is how I handle 2.35:1 content - kzbin.info/www/bejne/boimnGSGpr9nfrM

[@georgepopescu1327]

@@Youthman still for HDR and 3D movies a panamorph lens will give you 33% more light output which is very important on a screen that size. Maby your next investment :))

[@artyfhartie2269]

There is also a tv setting called Original. What format is that?

[@stevemartinez960]

You gotta remember not all movies come in one format. Next the 2:35 shows more of a shot length wise than you would at 16:9 My set up I can watch both

[@marcosvictor4935]

I really think the right way to go about this is make the screen in a format that better utilises the space available in your wall! Often people get annoyed by the black bars and really, I believe that's a thing about point of view because if you crop the top and bottom of your screen to not have the black bars... You still got those bars... They're just not in the same plane as the rest of the screen anymore. So if you have more vertical space on your wall, go with 16:9 if you have more horizontal space go with cinemascope. You'll end up getting bars anyway no matter if the content matches your screen or not. Unless you purpose build your wall to be the exact size of the screen in both directions to make the screen fill it entirely. "Black bars" in a dark room are only annoying when they're not black, but rather gray so you can see them and that's really annoying. But, if you have laser projector with a grey or black screen, or in TV,s case an OLED, or a good FALD TV, that should not be a problem. I have only a 9 square meters room and I Use a 55 inch OLED on it and I really don't mind the black bars, because they black, and so they disappear into the darkness, and I don't really know they're there unless I turn any light on. To be clear it would be better a cinemascope on my room because of space reasons, it's hard to explain without a photo, but I can't have projector because I can fit at MAX 62 inches on my wall and there's no cinemascope or 21:9 screen big enough for my use case (that I know of) also I wanted OLED so I ended up with a LG C9 and some pistons to get thing out of the way when watching 16:9 content.

[@Youthman]

The only issue with using wall size to determine aspect ratio is like in my case, I am probably 90% cinescope content. Absolutely no reason for me to have a 16:9 screen. Every situation is different. You just have to determine what aspect is best for you.

[@gialloradio]

By having 2.35:1 screen do you lose burned in subtitles (at the bottom) say Hunt For Red October? Some movies put these burned in subtitles in the lower black bar.

[@Youthman]

It depends on where they place the subtitles. If they normally appear in the bottom black bar then yes, that would extend below your screen.

[@jonb3792]

Never thought about that. I always watch with subtitles on. Glad I bought a 16:9 screen, I was going to get 2.35:1.

[@gialloradio]

@@jonb3792 Subtitles will fit in the screen - it's when the film maker decides to put foreign translations into the bottom black bar. HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER burns the Russian translation in the bottom black bar.I assumed it would be off screen as Youthman says.

[@danielmravljov]

I rather learn russian before going back to 16:9 😅 But I hear you....the few times I watch Netflix I have a "2.35:1 Netflix" settings on my jvc where i'd raised the picture so the subtitles shows

[@Microwave414]

Games are actually more or less supportive of that 2.35:1 or 21:9 aspect ratio now days, especially on PC. I'd love to see the original darius arcade game played on that screen, it was originally intended to play across 3 4:3 CRT screens so that game would probably be even wider but it's sequel darius 2 was made using just two massive for their time CRT arcade monitors so that should fill up that entire screen perfectly and I mean perfectly.

[@Trojan0304]

Love older films like Predator & Rambo so like full screen 16:9 screen. Also like 4:3 old movies, Maltese Falcon, that JVC nx7 displays dark bars on sides. Sometimes use Oppo 203 that can zoom 4:3 full screen. Also big football fan so 16:9 works for me. Films that alternate IMAX & 2:35 work well like Dark Knight

[@kthx1138]

That's great, but those "older" Rambo movies were shot in 2.35:1.

[@TheBudgie29]

2.35:1 all day. I have Two Phillips Cinema 21.9 TV's, I have the 58" In the Cinema Room, and It's little Brother the 56" In the Living Room. I have a 100foot drop down 21.9 Projector screen that drops down In front of the TV. I will never go back to 16.9 and those Horrible Black Bars. The Modification Is called Anamorphic. The 58" model can make any Film or Game 3D, and It looks Great.

[@superlameusername362]

With PC gaming, the aspect ratio can be whatever you want.

[@fred88alex]

What about with movies such as Mission Impossible: Fallout, Aquaman and Interstellar? Those movies switch from 2:35:1 to 16:9? Wouldn't it bleed out of your screen?

[@Youthman]

That is correct. 3 movies out of a huge host of non switching content. I can deal with that for the benefit that 2.35:1 offers.

[@fred88alex]

@@Youthman so how would you correct that? Would you adjust your projector to 16:9, making your screen smaller to adjust for those films? Sorry for the 21 questions

[@AGC828]

I think it comes down to cost more than what media we watch most. Because there are "multi-masking" screens that will auto resize the aspect ratio. But htey cost 7x more than a fixed screen. Very few HT people can afford...as they would then be getting a front projector on par with the screen...people who can afford the $30k+ projectors and the hi-end gear. How wide is your 150" screen in feet? Curious. 58" "too small"? Perhaps standing against your rear wall. :)

[@Quetzalcoatl0]

Before 2013 everything was simple. If you watch TV series you can do a 16:9 and then add masking for a 2.35:1 but now we have TV series that are 19:9, there are movies that are 2.39:1. And now the Imax scenes some movies have, it's super frustrating. There are 4 different aspect ratios that we have worry about. Even if you do a motorized masking, there are still 2 more aspect ratios. Ok maybe the 2.35:1 and the 2.39:1 can be consider as one and lose a bit of image info. I'm planning to go a 16:9 pull down (can't do fixed and there are like 1 or 2 pull down screens that i found to be 2.35:1) maybe do some kind of a masking for 2.35:1 but not sure how that is going to work. So the 16:9 will be used for TV series including the ones that are 19:9. and masking to 2.35:1 and 2.39:1. UH. They need to create a material that is going to be powered, so that we can black out some parts of the screen to create whatever aspect ratios we want.

[@Youthman]

Yes it does stink that we have to try and adjust for so many different aspect ratios. But in the end it’s still worth having a home theater

[@victormuriel7266]

@Youthman Great video Michael. In my house, I'm mostly the only one who spends time in the theater room, and most of the time is for gaming, so I decided to go just with a 4K TV, now I'm looking for an acoustic transparent screen in order to slide it over the TV for the big cinematic experience when watching movies with my family.

[@Youthman]

Thank you Victor. I originally was going to do a 55” TV and a 103” Projection Screen in front of it but ended up just going with the projection because we do not watch TV shows.

[@victormuriel7266]

@@Youthman and you ended up with the bes theater!!!

[@Youthman]

Thanks!

[@toddroy9558]

After thinking, I decided to turn it around. Now because I have 8’ ceilings, I’m going with a 120”x 61” screen. I will have two rows of seats, with a ceiling mounted projector, so I’m not sure how high the bottom of the screen needs to be off the floor, so that the projector doesn’t hit the tops of people’s heads. I think because I’m using towers, I won’t be able to put them behind the screen, but I do want to put the subs Behind the screen. I’m trying to make my room like yours but I have shorter ceilings. Any thoughts from you would be great. Thanks

[@pwrmx24]

Why not get a 16:9 screen and mask with curtains for 2.35:1?

[@Youthman]

As I shared in the video, the vast majority of content I watch is in 2.35:1 so why would I want to design a room that isn’t in that format? Manual masking would require a stepstool each time I wanted to add it, and I would need a place to store the long masking panels. Electronic masking is extremely expensive. So for my room, and my needs, 2.35:1 is the optimal solution. I have ZERO regrets not going with a 16:9 screen.

[@macho9556]

Awesome subject Youthman!!!! Reason being.... Is that I'm torn between Cinescope and a UST. I deff want the convinence of a pretty much plug n play UST but I would love the immersiveness of a 2:35:1 screen

[@albertelazar4069]

Youthman the CinemaScope ratio does at first sound like a good decision, but unfortunately there have been many amazing movies that were shot in the 16:9 format, which are the “Back To The Future” films, “Predator 1987,” and the 1993 classic “Jurassic Park” just to name a few… Also, all the big screen 45min IMAX documentaries are also in the 16:9 format, when watching them on Blu-Ray😔🤦🏻‍♂️

[@prestont447]

Youthman, I have watched pretty much all of your home theater videos and do remember at one time you did mention, how far your front row is from you screen. Would you please give me the distance again....? I am looking at 106inch screen and between 9 to 12 feet to the first row.

[@devvin]

I love your videos, man! I know you've got an NX7 with a 150" 2.35 XD screen. I have an RS2100 showing up this week and I'm trying to choose a screen material. What do you think of the XD material with regards to visible texture from the weave? I'm sitting at 11.5-12 feet back from the screen and want a great experience. I'm looking at the XD, NEO, and Dreamscreen V7. Would love to hear your experience with your screen. Thanks, and keep making these great videos!

[@jesusrdz4091]

Wait wait waiiiiiitt!!!! Did you change your Subs??? Wow, those two beasts must have very impressive work, you always loved your subs !!!! 🤨

[@icey_matty]

I have a 55 inch 4k tv I love projections systems but I haven’t got the cash for that I have a 5.1.2 surround sound I love this channel for amazing tips and explains the basic stuff

[@rhdtv2002]

Great Great video..hey Youthman..one thing that as an older guy i.miss about older reviews of the past is the calibration part of video. Im a guy who grew up calibrating my projector tv with software and colorimeters such as HCFR..or Calman - today you dont hear much.of color calibration anymore like the early 90s..

[@Youthman]

Techno Dad is learning how to Calibrate TV’s on his channel.

[@albertelazar4069]

Hi Youthman, you mentioned that you’re immersed at 9ft away from your 150 inch screen. That is an enormous 65 degree viewing angle from where you’re sitting, and far off the SMPTE’s (40 degree) and THX’s (36 degree) closest recommended viewing angles. At that distance do you have to constantly move your head or eyes left to right, in order to view the whole screen while watching movies?

[@Youthman]

Both of those recommended viewing angles are extremely old and outdated. I just had another guest visit my home yesterday and I asked him how he felt sitting 9 foot from 150 inch diagonal in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. He loved the immersion and did not feel he was sitting too close. I’ve had hundreds of guests in my home and have yet to find one person that felt the image was too large.

[@albertelazar4069]

I see ok, that’s great to know! Thank you so much for explaining👌

[@albertelazar4069]

@@YouthmanSo, the SMPTE and THX recommendations are outdated?

[@Youthman]

SMPTE guidelines were introduced in the 1980’s and THX in the late 1980’s and early 90’s.

[@Youthman]

I believe CEDIA now recommends 40-50 degree viewing angle.

[@fishis14]

Now I watched your video and you made many great points. But have you ever thought of using masking panels to cover the black bars? You maximised the width of the screen but it looks like you still have a fair bit of height real estate available, why not go for a 16/9 screen so at least you can take advantage of the rare movie (avatar) that's been shot in 16/9? My home theater dreams haven't been realised yet but I love your room, many things i would copy :)

[@Youthman]

Several issues with doing that in my setup. 1) Would prevent me from having a lower cabinet that pulls out to allow me easy access behind my equipment and an upper cabinet that is decorative. 2) Where do you store 12.5' wide masking panels? Imagine the how big of a pain in the butt it would be to manually add them each time the aspect ratio changes. Definitely not practical. 3) Electronic masking would be great if I didn't need #1 above but electronic masking for a 150" screen would be ridiculously expensive. I personally do not see any value in spending tons of money on a solution so I can enjoy rare movies that switch aspect ratios. As mentioned in a previous comment, every situation is different and people have to decide what will work best for their needs and their room. I personally will always have a scope screen for my theater room unless I one day move and build a new home theater and can afford electronic masking for a ridiculously large wall to wall 16:9 screen.

[@fishis14]

Do it for finding nemo! Lmao just kidding, those are great points. I'm ignorant on the price of electronic masking, so obviously it must be way more $$ than I imagined.

[@Youthman]

$5,000 - $10,000 depending on screen size - www.google.com/amp/s/www.twice.com/the-wire/seymour-screen-excellence-cuts-motorized-masking-costs-by-50-percent-with-trim%3famp

[@fishis14]

@@Youthman Shit......... there a diy option? lol

[@Youthman]

If you can DIY go for it.

[@wking8]

Great video, as usual. I know this clears up a lot for people.

[@ninomazzini1]

Hi Michael, When you install your new JVC NX7 projector, I would like you to do a very detailed review about the lens memory function of this projector with demo videos, because I can't find much information about this function in its manual. thanks

[@Youthman]

Thank you for the suggestion

[@optimusvader7823]

Hello Michael 🙋🏻‍♂️, Thank you for a great video . I don’t know much about this topic . God bless !

[@yoyotaka14]

Great video thanks! One Big question os when you say it's ok to sit sat 9feet (2,75m) for a 150 inch screen I assume that's for 4k material, would that distance change if it's 180p?

[@FinnishArmy]

I have a 70" 4K TV so 16:9. I thought about projector but the input lag would be insane. I play games on my PC, so I need something fast. 70" was $700 for me. Anything over (75"+) would be over $1k.

[@mattgiunt]

I thought I was the only one who watches no sports.Im so relieved!

[@Youthman]

Welcome to the club!

[@SteveSmith-cm1hx]

Great video Youthman! I always learn alot when watching your videos. Keep up the great work.

[@Youthman]

Thanks! That means a lot to hear I am providing value to you.

[@powerinnumbers6159]

so do you not notice the grey bars outside the screen edge?

[@Youthman]

In 2.35:1, my entire screen is filled and the grey bars that are above and below the screen cannot be seen.

[@myhomeaudio8751]

ok, but 16:9 screen is more immersive with movies like Aquaman, Avatar, Dark Knight, etc. I dont mine if there are black bars on top and bottom, but i hate if a screen has black bars on sides when watching imax scenes, and also imax screen looks smaller and ugly on 2.35:1 screen. With 16:9 screen you get best of both worlds.

[@Youthman]

Except for the fact that EVERY aspect ratio wider than 16:9 you will get grey bars above and below the image. That would absolutely drive me bonkers.

[@danielj.glowny4108]

While I agree with your use of 2.35:1 the fact that it is video not film 1.78:1 is more correct.

[@Youthman]

Technically yes but it’s like everyone referring to their system as a 7.2.4 when technically it’s a 7.1.4 due to their only being a single LFE channel. Most people understand when you refer to it as 2.35:1 or “scope”

[@danielj.glowny4108]

@@Youthman Some Scope pictures are wider that 2.35:1 and some are less wide,In fact most 2.35:1 are framed for 2.40:1

[@Youthman]

Yes, there are numerous aspect ratios that can be considered as scope format.

[@peat381low8]

Just got into your channel. I wish I had did a little bit of research for aspect ratios before purchasing some cheaper screens. I am glad you are discussing this. I feel like projectors are really becoming popular because of the lockdowns. I tend to watch more anime that is 4:3 then I do have movies 🎥 and streaming that do use the wider cinemascope. I do plan to use a streaming device like most people and might end up getting a 16:9 screen. Love your channel.

[@Youthman]

Thank you for the kind words. I always recommend a screen that is in the aspect ratio that you use the most. For me, the VAST majority of content is in scope so that's why 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 screen works better in my setup. I also wanted something different than just a larger 16:9 TV in my dedicated theater room.

[@highflyingfalcon1380]

By now i think i know this tings, but now i learn some new thinks. Great and helpful video! :)

[@atorgeese]

You and me both brother, no time for sports with all those great movies out there!

[@Pwn3dbyth3n00b]

I did 16:9 and ended up with a 150" screen. 2.35:1 to me extremely limits the room to just specific movies and doesn't make use of a lot of UHD Blu Rays and streaming content that is starting to feature IMAX content and it also limits you on watching KZbin videos or streaming shows that are made for widescreen, you'll be stuck with black bars on the side of the screen.

[@Youthman]

To each his own. The vast majority of content I watch is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 so for me, a 2.35:1 screen is the perfect fit

[@joem2241]

Hello Youthman, do you have any recommendations for pull down 2:35:1 screens? Having a real difficult time locating any, thanks!

[@Youthman]

I just searched Amazon and found one

[@joem2241]

@@YouthmanThanks for the quick response, is it a large size? I am trying to find one close to 150"

[@Youthman]

It might be difficult to find 150 inch pull down. I think the one I found was about 100 inches

[@Zmap6191]

Can the newer UST projectors project a 2.35:1 image?

[@DavidE2024]

Can I get an affordable Cinescope screen? I can't find any that are less than like $2000, they are mostly like $7000.

[@Youthman]

Elite, Silver Ticket both make affordable cinescope screens

[@toddroy9558]

It looks like you speakers are about ear level. If they are does it really matter if they are a little higher?

[@Youthman]

The tweeters are slightly above ear level but it works great. Towers wouldn’t work

[@ZND2022]

Hey youthman! I’m buying a projector and screen for the first time and I was wondering how you handle a 2.35:1 screen on movies with constantly changing aspect ratios such as the IMAX scenes in interstellar? Thank you!

[@Youthman]

I mask the overspill. You can either mask it, let it spill above and below your screen or spend big money on MadVR to do non linear stretch.

[@Youthman]

Keep in mind there are probably 0.001% of movies that do that. No reason to build your system around that small percentage

[@ZND2022]

@@Youthman 99% of movies I watch are in 2.35 but I read that The physical release of Top Gun Maverick will have variable aspect ratios! So thank you! I’ll have to look into masking! Also your channel has helped me out so much while building my home theatre! Keep doing what you’re doing!!

[@Youthman]

Appreciate the kind words. Yes, I too read that about Maverick. You aren’t missing anything important that will be masked above and below your 2.35:1 screen. I can’t wait to get my Steelbook and watch it in my theater room

[@faysalusman]

Having said that u use lens memory so when you adjust to a 235, please make a video on how you handle the black bars below and above the screen.

[@Youthman]

Ask and you shall receive - kzbin.info/www/bejne/boimnGSGpr9nfrM

[@alford35]

You get a Lumagen R Pro? That’s the only thing I can think of that’s been around as long as you said you’ve been wanting something?

[@Youthman]

I was referring to wanting a JVC projector for the past 13 years. Not necessarily a certain model - kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHeVf4OGbZ5_pLc I have been wanting to upgrade to the NX7 for about a year.

[@alford35]

Very true. I wear slim frameless lenses similar to yours but still surprised you Ed never noticed lol. Don’t try to notice!!! It will be one of those things that once you notice that will forever be there in the future lmao. Sorry.

[@brendanvinsent6069]

Hi Youthman, how do you handle watching movies that switch aspect ratios midway ie., The Dark Knight?

[@Youthman]

For that 0.5% of movies that have more than one aspect ratio, I just let it spill above and below my screen.

[@Mark-rn6rs]

Thank you 👍🏻 Exactly what i was looking for