Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Is Dark Knight the new demo standard?

I watched the Blu-Ray disk last night. Surprisingly good.

Three comments :

1. It seems that the aspect ratio changes from 1.78 to 2.4 and back a number of times. I got a bit tired of adjusting the zoom each time (constant area, you know) -- any idea why this is ?

2. The cape and the motorcycle seemed like a really bad mix. We should set a better example for our youth.

3. Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker was as good as I had heard, although for some reason I was expecting a completely different character from what was played. It's always hard to say how much of the final impact comes from writing, production or acting, but in this case I think they nailed all three.

I always wondered what Dr. House would have been like if he weren't bound by that pesky "do no harm" rule

Mike, from your location you shuld be able to drop by Santa's shop and pick it up to ease his load.

It's because some of the scenes were filmed in the Imax format.

Santa?? I was told when I was just a young chap that he didn't exist??? What's going on

That's why he is getting the D-ILA projector and you and I are not! I knew that would catch up with me someday.

This appears to be one of those few times the upper crust of the videophiles got punished for their lavish setups. For us 16:9 poor folk it is great, IMAX fills the 16:9 without black bars.
Batman is clearly a man of the common people!

Ooh, "lavish". I like the sound of that...

4x8 sheet of formica, 2:1 aspect ratio. For 1.78 format I zoom out a bit until the picture fills the screen height. For 2.35:1 I zoom in a bit until the picture fills the screen width.

But "constant area" sounds so much better

Does the formica really work? I'm on the edge of going projector and this whole screen things is really hard to figure out. I hear drywall, formica, cheap DIY screen, and expensive screens. Can they all be near the same? (I know, wrong thread...)

I researched screens to death as I was on a budget. After 6 months, the seam filling is still not complete in the new room but I have tested out my new screen thoroughly and I am extremely pleased.

After viewing tons of comments and test results, including some done by actual light meters and such, I went with a $130.00 sheet of laminate and built my own frame. Specifically, it was WilsonArt Designer White.

I am very, very pleased with the results paired with my 1080p projector in a very dark room. It is as clear as my HD-TV for sure, but 106" in size.

However, the correct choice for you also depends on your room and projector types. Aside from material, there are many levels of white screens and grey colored screens. To over simplify, white screens can give you more brilliant colors but require a VERY dark room. If you have windows or can't otherwise totally control your light levels, a grey screen will be preferable. It will help with deeper black levels.

I think I have some much longer posts on this topic back when I was in the research phase this spring. You may find further detail there as I'm out of typing time. I can come back for questions later though.

www.ProjectorCentral.com has some great info and thier forums are very active with these types of questions. There was another forum I found very informative as well, but this is the only URL I can remember at this time.

I went through something similar - months of research followed by a couple of hours of action

In my case it wasn't clear at all what kind of screen I should get (even the tradeoff between white and grey didn't have an easy answer) so I figured the best way to learn was to try something and see how it worked.

I was trying to find the WilsonArt that Murph mentioned but every WilsonArt dealer I went to only seemed to sell Formica. I ended up going with a white formica that was "a bit shinier than matte". I think it cost $40 or so. I was worried about hotspotting but there was none visible. Bottom line is that I'm quite happy with the screen and have no plans to change it.

FWIW, I'm also real happy with the decision to keep the 2:1 aspect ratio. I was also flip-flopping between a 2.35:1 and 16:9 screen and the answers kept coming back "depends what you watch the most". Given that I seem to watch about a 50:50 mix of 2.35 and 1.78 DVDs that wasn't real useful

The obvious problem with cutting the screen for one aspect ratio or the other is that you end up with an image that is a bit small when viewing the "other" aspect ratio, and end up with a different optimal viewing distance as a result. Going with a 2:1 screen and being willing to zoom in and out a bit gave me roughly the same apparent image size both ways, so I can plant my butt in the same spot no matter what is on the player.