I used to be hardcore Scope aspect ratio until multiple aspect ratio movies like Top Gun Maverick came out. If you use a scope screen for this type of movie and you want to watch in the ratios “as the director intended” you will watch this movie in a shrunken “window box”, not using the sides nor the top or bottom of your Scope screen. Most of the movie will look like a postage stamp on your large beautiful screen. Then, when the IMAX ratio portion of the movie hits (which the director intends to be more immersive) , you STILL won’t be using a large portion of your screen. I say to use the use the aspect ratio that allows you to use the most real estate available, based on your viewing conditions. Those mainly consisting of wall size/shape, speaker placement, viewing conditions (single/multiple rows). Acoustically transparent screens can help you maximize this real estate by placing your speaker(s) behind the screen so you don’t have to shrink your screen to fit between the speakers. If you don’t have an acoustically transparent screen, a Scope screen will most likely enable you to maximize your real estate without compromising the audio, which would be the result of placing your center channel significantly below the left and right channels in order to fit it below a 16:9 screen.
A video processor solves this as well, so you always maximize height on the scope screen. I'm not worried about changing aspect ratios. They are still framed and shot to be watched just fine in scope.
@@Techthusiasm a video processor doesn't solve it. The IMAX portions will still take up a smaller field of view than was intended when the movie was created, in all cases. In the case where the video processor keeps the aspect ratio, it shrinks down the entire image to fit within the height of the screen. The image shrinks down on the sides, when it is supposed to get bigger on the top and bottom, making it less immersive instead of more immersive in the actions scenes for which they are used. In another case, the video processor distorts the image when it is stretched to fill the screen side-to-side with linear or non-linear stretch. Even in in that case, the image stays the same size when it is supposed to get bigger, losing the enhanced immersion that is trying to be created with change in aspect ratio. I maintain to project as large of an image as your limitations allow, whether those limitations are the projector itself (throw distance, lumens, contrast ratio, etc), your room (size, color, seating locations, speaker placement, obstructions, screen material, etc.), or eye comfort (eye fatigue, nausea, etc.). Whatever aspect ratio that results is, maximizes the immersion. If that result is 16:9, go with 16:9. If that result is Cinemascope, go with Cinemascope. Maybe spend an extra $10,000-15,000 on a processor to make whatever compromises that you prefer for changing aspect ratio movies on a Cinemascope screen. There are many other benefits of video processors, so that may investment may be worth it for some. For my example, my screen size is limited by the throw distance of my projector. I can only project my screen so wide. I've got an acoustically transparent screen so I don't need to leave room for my center channel below the screen. I could have a 2.40:1 screen 10 ft wide and 4.2 ft tall or a 16:9 screen 10 ft wide and 5.6ft tall. Why would you want to give up this real estate? Scope movies will ALWAYS be as wide as they can be in BOTH cases. However, a 16:9 screen ALSO allows me to get the additional enhanced effect of the IMAX ratio as intended in multiple aspect ratio movies. My screen masking maintains the Scope effect for movies with a fixed 2.40 aspect ratio. Prior to changing aspect ratio movies, for me, Cinemascope was a no-brainer for ALL theatres where movie watching was the primary use. Now I view it on a more case-by-case basis, based on what would be the most immersive.
I agree with you, in general, but I feel like you're overlooking that space can be constrained in two dimensions. I'm also not as concerned about changing aspect ratios versus just seeing my full 163" scope screen filled up. Changing aspect ratios movies are still shot and framed to be shown in scope format just fine. Not every theater is an IMAX type screen, many more are just ultra-wide. Choosing an aspect ratio really does, as you mention, boil down to the space you have available, and in which dimension your space is constrained. For me, I can go wider than I would want to go tall, so scope make perfect sense. If you are limited on width, but can go taller, then by all means forget scope and go 16:9. That is more sensible than giving up free 16:9 space. As you say, do what gives you the most immersive image per your specific limits. I would not want a 16:9 screen in my room that is 150" wide like my 163" diagonal 2:35 screen is. It would be way to big and tall. I had a 135" diagonal 16:9 screen originally, and when I made the change to scope, I kept the same height but added to the width to make that height allow for scope, as I did not want any taller of an image. It worked perfect.
@@Techthusiasm Definitely not overlooking that space can be constrained in two dimensions. This should have been evident when I addressed placement of the center channel below the screen. Keeping the center aligned with the left and right speakers would limit the height of the screen available when using a non-AT screen. My main point was that for me, it used to be cut and dry. Always go Scope when you can. I used to believe that there was NO benefit to a 16:9 screen for a person primarily using the screen for movies. As more movies are starting to change aspect ratio during the movie, and that change being using more of the top and bottom of a 16:9 screen, there are scenarios where it can make more sense to go 16:9.
Well… not to forget the advantage of not being sensitive to ratio-changes like imax! If you use scope, you do not get that more immersive experience! And with scope+videoprocessor, you sacrifice on light in Non-Scope content.
The main problem I see with 16:9 screens is that movies, the vast majority of which have a wider aspect ratio, become less immersive, rather than more immersive. So a regular TV show is a more imposing visual experience than a blockbuster movie. Cinemascope originated to provide a more immersive experience, with movies having the same height as before, but now wider. 16:9 screens create the opposite effect. Now if someone is primarily interested in sports and gaming, and rarely watches a movie, then 16:9 might best meet their needs, and there's nothing wrong with that. The way I usually approach this is to have a person decide on what is the ideal 16:9 image they want to have in their theater - not too big, and not too small. And then, if they have the physical space available, they can go with a scope aspect ratio screen having the same height. This way, they have what they want for 16:9 content, and a more immersive experience with movies. This isn't always possible due to room limitations. In those cases, some type of compromise is needed, and that can go either way. But if it is possible, you then have the best of both worlds.
Your suggestion is exactly the path I took. That is spec out the ideal 16:9 size and then turn that into a scope screen of the same height. It worked perfect in my room. I have more to come on this in the next video.
People with 16:9 screens use their home theaters all the time. Wide screen owners not nearly as much. That's been what I've noticed. For sports, gaming, and now more and more content that is 16:9, 1.85, 2:1, mixed aspect ratios, you should go 16:9, and you'll enjoy your theater more often. Of course, you can always get an electronic masking screen system, but that is pricey.
I had a very similar journey as you, where I was constrained by my tower speakers in my room, so I went with a 92" 16x9 screen and was very happy with 1.85:1 content, but scope movies were a bit lacking to me... So my idea was to go with in-wall speakers behind the screen, and then pick the 2.35:1 size that had the same height as my 16x9 screen, which was 115". I've had the scope screen for 11 months now, and I'm absolutely loving it when I'm watching fixed scope aspect ratio movies, but when I seen what a full 16x9 image would have looked like on 120" screen, I do wish that I had just gone that route, and then used masking panels for scope content.
@@Techthusiasm I realize now though that I could have went with the same width as my scope screen, but in a 16x9 ratio(which would have been 120"), and had a totally immersive experience with IMAX enhance movies and also 1.85:1 content... I didn't think I would want to sit that close to a screen that big, but now I know that it would have been acceptable.
I’m planing to order an projector canvas and I was undecided about witch one should I get 16:9 or 4:3 Now you made it all clear for me. That helped a lot z Thanks. 🙏 🎩
Good video. I also started with a 16:9 but recently went to a much larger 2.4:1 and I love it. There are some nuances of course but I think it is worth it, especially because my content priority is almost all movies, and I love that cinematic experience. My dedicated space also has 7' ceilings and I was much more limited by height than I was width so it made sense for me to maximize size based on width. If I had much taller ceilings and much more space, I could see the argument for a GIANT 16:9 where the 2.4:1 image inside that 16:9 would be the same size as my 2.4:1 to get the best of both worlds. The one thing about my setup is 16:9 or 1.85:1 movies are just not as immersive, but it's a tradeoff I was willing to make, and in this hobby there are often compromises to make. BTW my fronts are I believe the same speakers you used to have. Focal 1038BE's. Love them, but my space also doubles up for Hi-Fi so something like in walls and AT screen is not for me
I was limited with my basement height. I also had to work around a bump out in the ceiling. I went with a scope screen. That goes wall to wall. My thought process is to go as big as I can. I can always mask down. I can't mask up.
I like the idea of getting a scope screen for my theater I’m about to build but if you have mixed content watching where a lot of it will be TV or games in 16:9 format and the fact that I’ll use the room pretty much every day makes 16:9 a better choice. Home Theater Gurus brings up a great point where a 16:9 screen will keep the same viewing angle as scope when masking from 16:9 down to scope. 16:9 will leave you with a larger image with masking for scope vs a scope screen making the 16:9 image smaller. You will lose less real estate with 16:9 vs scope if you watch both formats. So as much as I want to get a scope screen for immersive movies the 16:9 just makes more sense for me I think. I can get a 138in 16:9 which displays 130” scope image vs a 138” scope screen that only displays a 110” 16:9 image. Scope would drastically reduce the viewing angle making 16:9 look small from the watching distance. I should add that I’m really interested in the 138” 16:9 Seymour Center Stage XD with the Proscenium motorized masking and that would make scope look awesome
OK, yeah at this point, there's no way you want a 4:3 display on anything anymore. 16:9 is the default. For a large home theater setup though, you may consider going wider.
In my opinion, in a standard room, if you have a convenient masking solution and you are not height limited, there's no reason to go for a scope screen below maybe 150 inches. Why opt for a much smaller screen when having 16:9 content? e.g., if you only have space for a 16:9 120 inch screen, you have a 265cm x 150cm screen for 16:9 and 265cm x 113cm screen for 21:9 content (115 inches diagonal). With the same space restrictions, if you go for a scope screen, you would have the same 115 inches 21:9 screen for 268cm x 115cm, but only a ”tiny” 92 inches for 16:9 content for 204cm x 115cm. I repeat, that's if you have a convenient masking solution, that's not to much of a hassle to install. Otherwise, I understand the dislike for the grey bars. Of course, if you go for something big, like 150 inches in an average height room, I understand the scope screen, because 16:9 would be to tall. e.g. 150 inches is 187cm in height. In a 255cm average room, that's too much. The image stops at the ceiling and it's possible you can't see the bottom if you recline.
Well, getting a sizable scope image and then just making that a 16:9 ends up making sometimes for a very large 16::9, perhaps too large. That's the thing to watch out for. What I did was take the 16:9 size that was nice and immersive for my room and turned my screen into a scope aspect of that same vertical height. So neither aspect is compromised.
You didn't mention films shot for Imax. Increasingly, many of the more cinematic blockbusters are filmed with Imax sequences or even entirely in the Imax aspect ratio which is ‘Supposed’ to be taller than Scope. The only way to experience these as the film maker intended is on a 16:9 screen. With many of these films, the blu ray / 4k disc was only released in the Imax version
IMAX is a good point. We'll see how that progresses. My take in the video that 16:9 is the "easier" choice does apply to covering IMAX and changing ratios, for sure.
There is a surprising amount of "premium" content via streaming that are 2.0:1 native aspect ratio (Netflix, Amazon prime, Apple TV+,etc) I'm pleased with my 16:9 grey (ALR) screen and then using a lumagen to zoom native scope content to almost fill the height of the 16:9 screen. "Black bars" on a grey screen are much less noticeable than on a true white screen
I think you covered most of the factors that go into this decision. There are definitely strong opinions on both sides in the forums. I went through this decision about 1 year ago when designing our dedicated theater. My final choice is a little atypical but feel it works very well so just wanted to comment. In recent years I think there has been an increase in various aspect ratios including imax, 2.0, and variable ratios within one movie which has made the decision even more challenging. I wanted to be able to take advantage of these aspect rations and have as immersive an experience as possible. I chose a 16x9 screen with top and bottom magnetic masking (seymour premier frame) but sized it for my preferred horizontal viewing angle for scope content. For me this was 54.5 degrees (120" at 8.5ft) which is equivalent to sitting in the front 1/3 of a commercial theater. This means that for 1.78 or 1.85 content that's not intended to be imax it's oversized and the vertical height is a bit too much for most people, myself included. However it's great for imax content. So for 1.78, 1.85, and 2.0 content I use a single top mask with lens memories for each. For scope content I use top and bottom masks, and for imax or VAR content no masks. Of note a 16x9 screen with just one mask is just about a 2.0 screen. Yes this means a little more work but 80% of the time both masks stay up for scope content. I have been very happy with this method.
@@Techthusiasm Thanks for the reply. I hope my comment didn't come across as harsh. It is EXTREMELY difficult to self edit. And if you script the video in advance it comes off as being scripted and that I would be saying you have no personality. Keep up the good work.
No worries. Making content is a continual learning process. I think my content is way tighter and concise now than it had been. No more extended intros and all that at least. :)
There is another option besides 16:9 or scope screen. That is choosing an aspect in between. Many choose a 2:1 aspect, I personally matched the native 1.9:1 aspect of my JVC NX-7 with a seymour 1.9:1 aspect ratio screen with electric masking.
I built our theater in the summer of 2021 and went with a 120 inch 16:9 Stewart ST130 G4. I go back and forth on changing to a 2.40 screen. Anytime I watch a movie in scope I wish I had a scope screen, but we do watch a lot of shows on Apple TV (HBO, Netflix, Disney, Apple TV+) which benefit from a 16:9 screen so that keeps me from making the change. I just wish I had explored masking options for the 16:9 screen when I purchased because now it seems like my only options to mask a 16:9 is DIY. No one sells masking solutions for 16:9 for fixed screen frames; not even directly from Stewart (I’ve asked Don). Seymours retro solution is only for scope screens. I’ve been struggling to come up with a solution that’s easy to implement as I’m not very handy. I made masking panels out of some foam board and wrapped in velvet but attaching them nicely to the screen has proven to be a pain. Tried Velcro and that doesn’t really work too well imo.
I have seen DYI masking solutions with strong magnets. Maybe use 2 masking panels below the screen and 2 above. This way you'd have a more manageable 4x 1.25 meter panels, instead of 2x 2.5 meter long panels. Another idea for when 21:9 content is watched could be to shift the image up (or down), so you only have to mask below the screen (or above).
@@dragosdobre9479 these are good ideas. I’ve thought about doing something with magnets. I think that’s ultimately the solution. And yes I agree with moving the image down or up for extra wide content. I already have lens memory setup just for those scenarios.
I just bought some 5" side masking panels for my Seymour, but that's a special case because I can't yet fill the width. I think a scope screen with automated side masking capable of stopping at various points would be the long term ideal.
