StewartFilmScreen RigidFrameSeries2
Stewart FilmScreen Rigid Frame Series

Year after year, I'm asked by home theater newbies on the ProjectorCentral Forums some form of this question: Should I go with a 2.35 aspect ratio screen for my first projection setup? The answer is the all too typical: It depends! Most of the time, though, the best answer for many is not to use a 2.35 screen for their debut system. If in doubt, at all, it's better to go with a 16:9 (1.78) screen and pair it up with your 16:9 projector.

Aspect Ratio 178
16:9, or 1.78 aspect ratio image, typical of what most see with HDTV viewing and video gaming.

For the uninitiated, the aspect ratio of a projection screen, or any screen for that matter, is the ratio of the width of the screen to the height of the screen. Before the days of flat-screen displays, the old CRT tube-type televisions had an aspect ratio of 4:3, or 1.33 (4/3=1.33). This was a standard across the industry and all television shows were presented in the squarish 4:3 aspect ratio, as were many movies. As we moved into the era of high-definition television, the standard changed to the wider 16:9 or 1.78 format. So, a screen 16 inches wide would be 9 inches tall. A projection screen 178 inches wide would be 100 inches tall...with that 16:9 aspect ratio always maintained. This is now the standard for televisions throughout the world. Every LCD TV at your local big-box store is being sold in the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the vast majority of computer monitors and laptop displays use this screen ratio as well.

Aspect Ratio 133
1.33 or 4:3 classic television aspect ratio. Rarely seen anymore except for classic television and some older movies.

The Wider Widescreen

So, what's the hype with front projection and 2.35?

First, let's get a bit more accurate with our language, as many blockbuster films are actually shot in the 2.39 aspect ratio, often called 2.40 by many, but still used interchangeably with 2.35 or "anamorphic." This is a screen ratio that is about 33% wider than the 16:9 aspect ratio. So, while 16:9 was often called widescreen, 2.35 is an even wider widescreen. This aspect ratio is selected by many movie studios to present films with a very wide viewing area that displays a more artistic viewpoint of the landscape and the people within. Most major cinematic films are shot in this aspect ratio. You can see in the image below the dramatic difference in presentation compared with the truncated 16:9 image of the same landscape shown above.

Aspect Ratio 235
2.35 widescreen aspect ratio image common with many movies released on Blu-ray and from streaming services. Notice the extra detail to the left and the right that is not present in either the 1.33 or 1.78 aspect ratio presentation.

"Great! So, that's perfect for my theater, I will get it!" you think to yourself. "I've certainly seen a lot of advertisements and home theater photos online showing that type of screen in all the best setups."

But this is where it all falls apart for many new projector buyers. Many of those really nice home theater setups have tens of thousands of dollars invested in the room and the equipment in use. If you are on a far more limited budget, which is almost always the case, then care must be taken before jumping into a setup which may not be at all ideal for your specific theater.

The room itself matters because most rooms have a blank wall that is the location where the screen will go. When you look at the wall, you can tape off or visualize different screen sizes on that wall. It is typical that most rooms aren't terribly wide, and most walls in the United States are about 8 feet tall. So, the first thing to do is measure the wall and see how much width you actually have to work with for your front projection screen. Keep in mind that speakers often need to go to the left and right of the screen, and that another speaker typically sits under the center of the screen for the center channel audio. On a wall that's 12 feet wide (144 inches), you may only have about 10 feet, or 120 inches, of width that the screen can fit into. A nice fixed-frame screen may have a 4-inch wide frame around it, reducing the actual screen width to 112 inches.

In the 1.78 aspect ratio, a screen that is 112-inches wide will be 63-inches tall. In the 2.39 aspect ratio, a screen 112-inches wide is just 47 inches tall. When you look at your wall, do you have 16-inches to accommodate the taller 1.78 screen? That's 8-inches on both the top and the bottom added to screen size. In fact, most people do have plenty of room to handle the height, but often don't have the width they need to go wide enough to achieve the desired impact. Others may have a very wide room but have some architecture or furniture that severely impacts the height they have available to them.

Constant Image Height

Okay, let's say you are in a setup where the width works, and you really want to go with a wider screen. So, we come to the next part, which is the budget. You see, all home theater projectors these days are designed around the 1.78 aspect ratio. Just like you can't buy a TV these days which isn't 1.78, you can't buy a home theater projector which isn't 1.78. When you watch TV at night, all television broadcasts are 1.78. All video gaming is 1.78. Even though the movie itself may be 2.39, all movies are presented to you in your home as 1.78. This means that even if you really want a 2.39 image, there will still be a fair bit of viewing material that needs the projector to fill a screen with that 1.78 aspect ratio. Whatever projector you buy will have to be able to switch from the 2.39 aspect ratio to the 1.78 aspect ratio while maintaining the image with the full height of the screen.

This can be done two ways.

First you can buy an expensive add-on lens. Remember when I said that you were sold on the wider aspect ratio because of those nice theaters? Well, those people probably purchased a really expensive 1.78 projector, then matched it up with an adapter lens, likely on a motorized sled, that slides in front of their projector and converts the 1.78 output to 2.39. This lens is called an anamorphic lens. It's a common feature in high end home theaters and one of the major manufacturers in the industry, Panamorph, has their least expensive lens starting at a price of almost $7,000. A good used lens may be several thousand dollars. An anamorphic lens is the ideal option because, when mated with a projector that has an anamorphic viewing mode, it eliminates the black letterbox bars from the image before it's projected up and uses all the pixels in the projector's imaging devices to retain the highest level of brightness. But if your total budget, including sound, is just a few thousand dollars, then getting an anamorphic lens is likely out of the question.

This leaves the second, and increasingly more common option of using a projector which has enough zoom range to fill the 2.35 screen fully, or fill the 1.78 area within the 2.35 screen when the content calls for that. When the projector is zoomed to fill the full 2.35 screen, letterbox bars placed in the movie to accommodate a 1.78/16:9 screen bleed off the top and bottom, allowing the active part of the widescreen movie image to fill the full screen height and width. Conversely, when the projector is zoomed to fill the full height of the screen with a 1.78 image, you're necessarily left with some unused area on the left and right. (See more about letterbox and pillarbox bars below). This zoom procedure works well enough, though when the full 2.35 screen is being used, some number of pixels at the top and bottom of the projector's imaging chips are still reproducing the letterbox bars, which results in a modest loss of brightness compared with using an anamorphic lens. Of course, there is also some marginal loss of brightness associated with moving the zoom from a wide position to a more telephoto position—as well as with sliding an anamorphic lens into the light path if you do use one.

Using the so-called "zoom method" requires that you adjust the zoom on the projector from one position to the other anytime the switch needs to be made. This can be a really big hassle for most people and certainly not something that a typical user wants to do in day-to-day use. Fortunately, there are a few projectors on the market with motorized lenses that feature memory presets that allow you to switch between different lens settings at the touch of a button or two. For example, Epson currently has the reasonably priced Home Cinema 4010, 5050, and 6050 models with this feature. Some of JVC's and Sony's current projectors, for a bit more money, also feature motorized lens presets.

If you go this route, measurements need to be made, checked, and double-checked to ensure that the projector properly fits the space to allow the zoom method to work. Returning to the example of the 112-inch wide, 2.39 aspect ratio screen, we know the image height is about 47 inches when viewing 2.39 content. Using the budget-minded Epson HC 4010 as an example, checking the projector manufacturer's or ProjectorCentral's throw distance calculator, we see that this projector can throw that 112-inch width from about 13 feet to 26 feet, lens-to-screen. But, to fill the 47-inch screen height with 16:9 content, the projector must be between approximately 10 and 20 feet. The crossover between those two ranges, then, requires the projector to be about 13 to 20 feet from the screen. Does this work for your room?

Black Bars: Can't Live Without 'Em

One of the big reasons that people love the idea of the 2.39 screen is that movies created and presented in the 2.39 aspect ratio won't show visible black bars above or below the image on screen (called letterboxing). All you will see is the movie, perfectly framed by your projector screen, just like in the movie theater. But, most content produced for 16:9 HDTV viewing, even many blockbuster movies originally created in a 2.39 format, won't be broadcast with black bars above and below the image. Therefore, when you switch to 1.78/16:9 viewing, there will be bars on the left and right side of the image. This is called pillarboxing. So while you can eliminate letterbox bars by using a 2.35 screen, you can't get completely away from some form of black bars or masking.

Pillarboxing on 239 screen

Letterboxing on 239 screen
Above: Pillarboxing effect caused when a 1.78 image is displayed on a 2.39 aspect ratio screen. Below: Letterboxing effect caused when a 2.39 image is displayed on a 1.78 aspect ratio screen.


If your available wall really demands a 2.35 screen and the budget allows the use of an anamorphic lens, or the use of a projector with motorized zoom presets, then it's hard to beat the immersion and the home theater feel that a 2.39 setup can deliver. Yet, for those just looking to get their feet wet for the first time in the front projector and home theater world, relying on the industry standard 1.78/16:9 aspect ratio is a much safer way to go and a much easier setup to work with as it already matches all the other TVs you own in your home and fits naturally with the content you already have. The biggest downside is when you watch 2.39 aspect ratio widescreen movies, there will be black letterbox bars above and below the image—just like you've seen for years with widescreen movies on your 1.78 television. The only difference is that, even with a 1.78 screen, you'll be enjoying a much larger and engaging front-projected image that beats a typical flat-screen hands down every time.

To sum up, here's a list of pros and cons to help you decide what screen aspect ratio is right for you.

Pros of a 2.39 aspect ratio setup:

  • Most accurate representation of the movie theater experience at home
  • Fits some walls better than screens with a 1.78 aspect ratio
  • No letterboxing with 2.39 films
  • With an anamorphic lens, the maximum brightness possible is achieved with widescreen content

Cons of a 2.39 aspect ratio setup:

  • More expensive to setup than a 1.78 home theater
  • Requires much more planning and thought to get the setup right
  • May be wasting available height which the projector could be using within the home theater
  • Pillarboxing will occur when viewing 1.78 content on the 2.39 screen
  • Need to change lens preset, or move an anamorphic lens, when switching between 2.39 and 1.78 content
  • Some movies have subtitles which are below the 2.39 viewing area, putting it below the bottom of the screen

Pros of a 1.78 aspect ratio setup:

  • Very straightforward setup that matches the aspect ratio of the projector you are buying
  • Less expensive to set up
  • Screen size maximizes both the available width and height in most rooms
  • No pillarboxing with 1.78 content
  • No need to adjust lens or zoom when a movie switches aspect ratio
  • Subtitles will always appear on the screen where they were meant to appear

Cons of a 1.78 aspect ratio setup:

  • Not as immersive with 2.39 movies. The largest content you will be presenting will be 1.78 HDTV content
  • 2.39 movies will have letterboxing or black bars above and below the movies as they play
  • May not always use the available width that a wall may have to offer
Comments (20) Post a Comment
Gary L Posted Sep 5, 2019 5:49 PM PST
It's a bit of a myth that rooms are a limitation for a 2.40:1 screen - you just plan your seating in the correct place so that the horizontal viewing angles are maintained. That can be down to personal preference of course, but a rule of thumb for THX guidelines (52 degrees for 2.40, 40 degrees for 16:9) is to sit as far back as the 2.40 screen is wide. So if your 2.40 screen is 10ft wide, sit 10 feet back. If its only 8 feet wide, sit 8 feet back. Etc etc...

As an aside, Many people quote 36 degrees as THXs recommended viewing angle, but that's actually for the back row, not where they say you should sit. It's a common misconception
Anthony G Posted Sep 6, 2019 6:37 PM PST
I have a setup similar to what you described in your article. I have a Carada 2.35:1 aspect ratio 110" width x 47" height screen and an Epson 4010 projector. The reason for choosing a 2.35 screen is because I found that most of my viewing was with cinema-scope movies. My first screen was 16:9. The projector is positioned about 19 ft from the screen which allows for the constant height setup to work using the zoom method. The motorized lens preset feature on the Epson 4010 makes changes between various aspect ratios extremely easy once it is set up. Yes I do sacrifice screen size for 16:9 content (83.5" width x 47" height for my setup), but for me it is worth it for the cinema-scope content viewing.
Ronald Posted Sep 7, 2019 6:43 AM PST
Since I switch between 2.35 & 16:9 content so much, I went with a 16:9 screen so that I can get the largest image possible with both aspect ratios. I am not bothered by the letterboxing but can imagine that some people really are.
Gary L Posted Sep 9, 2019 12:37 PM PST
As the article says: 2.39:1 - "This is a screen ratio that is about 33% wider than the 16:9 aspect ratio. So, while 16:9 was often called widescreen, 2.35 is an even wider widescreen". That's why people want a scope screen - they want to see their movies wider and more epic than the smaller formats. If you have your seats correctly placed (viewing angle and seating distance is very important - see the THX guidelines), 16:9 is visually just as large as you feel comfortable with, but scope is even wider and more immersive. Only IMAX should be taller. So when swapping between formats, scope is always seen as the most epic format becoming of blockbuster movies, rather than being seen smaller with black bars like on a tv.
Hayes M Posted Sep 9, 2019 2:16 PM PST
How about screen masking? There are complete systems available, as well as numerous guides for do-it-yourself set-ups. This potentially gives the best of both worlds for projection. The extra cost for the masking system makes it a more expensive option over the zoom method, but presumably much cheaper than using an anamorphic lens.
Paul Vail Posted Sep 11, 2019 8:54 AM PST
Hayes - The article didn't really get into screen masking which is a very good option, and is available for very little money for those who are in the DiY camp. You can wrap boards and create a manual system to affix black masking boards to the top and bottom of a screen for not a lot of cash. Likewise, for those who hate pillarboxing, you can create a mask for the left/right of your screen, or use motorized curtains which are stopped right at the edge of the image.

There are a ton of options, and it is clear that someone like Gary is a huge proponent of anamorphic setups, which is great, but can be very challenging to first time projector owners on a tight budget and a beginners level of knowledge of front projection.

At the end, if someone is buying a sub $1,000 projector with a entry level screen, then anamorphic is a very difficult way to go and get good results that avoid the pitfalls that will exist.

Those willing to spend a bit more and do their homework who have an ideal room and seating may really get a lot out of the 2.39 aspect ratio and the key point of the article is making knowledge king, not suggesting that one is better over the other.

For people who are buying a projector for gaming and sports primarily, the 2.39 aspect ratio is far inferior. For those who are entirely about the cinematic movie experience, it may be the most important goal. To each their own, but come armed with knowledge.
Paul Posted Sep 15, 2019 1:22 PM PST
Cinemascope is the crown jewel of front projection, and the pitfall of 16/9 flat panel TV's. Even with a huge 87 ins diagonal flat panel TV (height 42.6 ins), Cinemascope films look quite small with a height of only 32 inches, whereas a 120 inch wide scope screen will have a cinemascope picture height of 51 ins. In other words the height of the projected cinemascope picture is way bigger than the total height of the 16:9 87ins diagonal flat panel TV! Go with the widest screen you can accommodate and the screen height that you want for 16/9. Then use simple moveable DIY masking panels. I made powered side masking panels for less than $500.00. Go with a projector that has lens memory, much better than the ridiculous cost and complexity of a moveable anamorphic lens which IMO offers no real picture quality improvement over zooming.
Paul Posted Sep 17, 2019 8:04 AM PST
The 2.35 aspect ratio screen is probably one of the main advantages that projectors have over flat panel TV'S. The immersive effect of CinemaScope just cannot be attained by a letterboxed presentation on a 16:9 flat panel. So I would encourage anyone to go for that wide screen from the outset if they are setting up a new home theater. Sure it takes a little more up front time and DIY effort, but once they see it they will never look back.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Sep 17, 2019 9:26 AM PST
Paul, the only argument I have with anything you've said here is that there is most definitely an image quality improvement with the use of a high quality anamorphic lens vs zooming, though I'd never suggest its an improvement worth denying yourself a 'Scope screen vs going with the zoom method. I've seen a significant and noticeable improvement in sharpness using the lens.
Paul Posted Sep 18, 2019 7:07 AM PST
Rob, I admit that I have not seen some of the latest anamorphic lenses such as the Paladin DCR, which seems to have excellent reviews. I think what I was trying to say(rather badly!) was that projectors with lens memory zooming deliver a very good 2.35 experience at far less cost than the anamorphic lens option.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Sep 18, 2019 7:59 AM PST
Thanks, Paul -- absolutely agreed. Nearly everyone I know who went to the 2.35 screen did it using the zoom because it's so cost effective, and the difference when watching widescreen movies is absolutely amazing to me. It just feels so much more immersive.
Leon Posted Oct 20, 2019 7:05 AM PST
Thanks for the article Paul.

Couldn’t agree more that the 2,39 aspect ratio has real visual impact. I own a philips 21:9 tv and enjoy cinemascope movies almost every day without black bars. 16:9 is streched to the screen width with a little bit of loss on the top and bottom (the image is compressed on the left and right edges so you don’t lose that much of the original image). Constant image height would be my preference in a projector screen.

Seeing nobody produces tv’s anymore in 2,35 i’ve started looking into projectors. Had my eye on the epson tw9300/9400 for a while now because they have lens zoom memory, should make shifting between aspect ratios a whole lot easier. Can’t wait to upgrade from my 58” tv to a 115” screen
Paul Posted Oct 21, 2019 8:13 AM PST
Leon, once you have experienced CinemaScope projected onto a 10ft wide 2.35 masked screen in a darkened room, you will never watch movies on your flat panel TV again. It's just amazing. If you don't fancy the cost of an anamorphic lens definitely make sure you get a projector with programmable lens memory, it is well worth the extra cost to be able to switch aspect ratios at the push of a button.
SSB Posted Nov 16, 2020 11:29 AM PST
Can someone please explain to me why somewhat budget cinemascop screens are not sold/specified with the exact 2.39 aspect dimensions? For example, all Ellite screens are advertised as 2.35 and when you calculate their "viewing area" ratio it doesn't match anything perfectly. So confusing.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Nov 16, 2020 12:52 PM PST
I've seen some variance in the precise aspect used in different features, but I don't imagine that at the most common home theater screen sizes that the difference between 2.35 and 2.4 amounts to much.
SSB Posted Nov 17, 2020 6:42 AM PST
@Rob Sabin, Editor: The 125" 2.35 Elite screens are listed as 115"x 48.9". By my calculations, the vertical is 0.8-0.9" taller than 2.39 aspect ration. Not sure that is something I would like if I spending $$$ and time. This might be a good think to investigate and write an article about. I get the 2.4 but where on earth 2.35 came from?
Bill Posted Jan 17, 2021 10:02 AM PST
I have a 92 inch 16:9 screen that rolls down from the ceiling and is mounted 11 inches from the wall. So I am thinking of adding a much larger wide screen on the wall behind the first screen. Native resolution of the chips in the projector is 16:9, so you loose about 33% of the pixels and resolution when a movie is made wide screen, but that is the movie's choice, something you have no control over. Problems I foresee is getting the second screen to be perfectly level with the first screen as I would not want to re-level the projector feet every time I switch movie formats. A bigger screen means a significant loss of brightness as the light is spread out more. I worry about how well the projector's lens memory is, if it gets exactly both picture formats with no extra steps for the user when switching back and forth. I also worry big time that if the lens memory memorizes the exact focus and lens shifts of the two screens as I would not want to re-focus when changing screens and the screens would not have the same lens shift settings. In other words, the extra price of a new larger screen plus if I have to do more than switch lens memories in the project menu every single time the movie format changes, it would wipe out the benefits for me of having two screens.
Bill Posted Jan 17, 2021 10:13 AM PST
I wish projector remotes have a button you push to shift a wide screen movie to the top, bottom, or center of a 16:9 screen. That way, you would only have the black bar either on top or on the bottom of the screen and not both places. When I lay on my recliner with my head tilted back, it is hard to watch a movie through the top of my progressive lens eyeglasses, so I want the picture shifted to the top of the screen. I wonder why TV manufactures have not figured this one out. Maybe this could be done with the motorized lens memory presets, but doing this electronically would be better and happen instantly when a button is push.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Jan 21, 2021 5:25 AM PST
Bill, if you get a projector with effective lens memory control, such as the Epson HC4010/4050 or HC5050/6050 or one of the JVCs, it's a simple matter of calling up the correct lens memory for each screen type. With widescreen movies the image gets zoomed out enough so that you see no bars -- they bleed off the edge of the screen. With 16:9 content, you would get full image height on the wide screen with black pillars on the right and left...but if you have a separate dedicated screen that rolls down for 16:9, it'll just fill the screen perfectly. Zoom, shift, and focus are very precise with these projectors--you shouldn't really have to do any additional adjustments.
Denny Posted Sep 14, 2023 2:20 PM PST
I made my own screen to maximize 1:85 movies. The screen size is as large as I can fit to my wall so I have full width for 2:40 movies and full height and width for 1 85 ratio movies. The super wide screen movies do not fill the screen height of course, but guess what? I watch all movies in full widescreen in a darkened room with black velvet front wall so I do not see anything but the movie. This is a simple option to eliminate seeing any black bars no matter the movie ratio.

Post a comment

Enter the numbers as they appear to the left