I have a customer who likes the look of a curved screen and wants a 120" 16x9, acoustically transparant. Screen Research is too much so I'm hoping to find an economical model.

Is there an appropriate time to do a curved screen? Could it actually make a picture worse than it would look on a flat screen? The projector is an Epson 8500 that can be placed at any distance right now.

What would you recommend?

I can't say for certain as we have never used curved screens WITHOUT also using anamorphic lenses; I received this message from one of our suppliers recently with an explanation:



"So, there are two types of anamorphic lens – Prismatic and Cylindrical. They both introduce different types of distortion, which is completely normal and expected in this situation:

Cylindrical lenses introduce a ‘pin-cushion’ effect on the image (ie. Corners pinched out) and;
Prismatic lenses introduce a ‘barrelling’ effect on the image (ie. Corners rounded off)

So, when using a cylindrical anamorphic lens, you get a little bit of pin-cushion effect (which is amplified by a shorter throw). The brilliant thing here is that a curved screen will go some way to correct this distortion, in some cases removing it completely.

When you use a prismatic lens, you get the opposite – barrelling of the image. When you use a curved screen in this instance, you actually amplify the distortion, as you are shortening the throw distance on the outside edges you make the sides of the image even smaller.

The bottom line here is that curved screens are great for cylindrical lenses, and really bad for prismatic lenses."

Define "economical" I doubt you wouldfind a curved AT screen for less than $5k



The reason for doing a curved screen is to reduce pincushon from an anamorphic lense. Also adds viewer imersion. I don't know why anyone would even build a 16:9 curved screen. If you did a 16:9 curved screen, witn no anamprphic lense, obviously, the image would be defocused at the edges.

In the right app, with the right proj, a 2:35 cinecurve is awesome. I have a 110" in my office.

Personally, I think a 16:9 curved screen, if you can find one, with a 16:9 projector, is a waste of money.

I'm sure Stewart would build you whatever you want, but it won't cheap.

My advce is, if this guy really likes a curved screen, is do a Stewart cinecurve, non AT screen, and move the speakers and upgrade him to a better proj (or add an anamprohic lense to that one if you can (at least $3k) and anamorphic lense. The AT option will at least double the price of the screen.

聘请亲

Just what I was thinking

Is there any projector out there that could work with a cinemascope curved screen and no anamorphic lens. Or what projector/lens combo is reasonably priced?

Can you upgrade him to the 9500? I believe it has anamorphic streching whereas the 8500 doesn't because it's not the pro series. Then look at panamorph for a "cheap" lens.

you can do 16:9 on a curved screen using the proper geometry correction dsp scaling...however if your talking about the budget of the screen you don't need to even need to continue the discussion.

I think he meant 雇用一位专家

same difference =)

Here's a very basic question, sort of off topic: Is the anamorphic lens for cinemascope stretching the projector image or squeezing it? I completely understood the principle of stretching the image on older projectors with an anamorphic lens to get 16x9 without losing resolution but I can't seem to wrap my head around what the projector image should by set to, what it's doing and why to get a cinemascope image from a 16x9 projector. Does anyone have an easy explanation?

And is there a link to a DSP product to compensate for a curved 16x9 screen. How does it deal with a loss of focus on corners?

Runco does a pretty good job explaining it.
[Link: runco.com]

And the Stewart whitepaper
[Link: stewartfilmscreen.com]

This is all excellent information. I feel like a cinemascope expert now.

So we have now decided we are going to install a 110" wide, Screen Research, cinemascope curved screen. Still have a couple of questions in mind.

1) What's the best way to determine the projector distance for this. We are using an Epson 9500 and its anamorphic lens. Is it likely going to be installed further back or closer to the screen to create the geometric distortion required?

2) The client asked, "What's better, 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 ratio?" I recall seeing something on AVS claiming that 2.40:1 was better or something. Are these really even options with cinemascope projection or are these really the same thing just rounded off to an even number?

Juts out of curiosity, isn't the screen going to cost a lot more than the projector?


lol, I think you are taking that article a little too literally. You want to minimize geometric distortion as much as possible. You have not said what lens you are using, or if you did I missed it, last time I used an isco I believe the minimum you want to aim for based on a 16:9 screen width is 2x throw, but you really want *more* for less visible pincushioning (there is always some at the edges but you typically need a test pattern to see it iof you can achieve an optimal throw). I'd consult the lens manufacturer.

Base everything off of 16x9 as far as throw goes. The Epson is very flexible with position but not as flexible with a lens in place.

Dont try to go too big with that level of projector either the lens will drop you lumens by around 10% if I remember correctly.

Look into Screen Excellence, one of the original guys that invented the Screen Research original material is the owner of SE. The Enlightor4k is probably the best AT screen material available.