Minimum screen height for 16:9

[jdha777]

I'm in the early stages of a build and had a question that some of you may have had to consider yourselves. I have a room with plenty of depth and 10ft ceilings, however the overall width is just a little over 14ft. I'm looking at Carl's enclosures with a 16:9 aspect ratio (4k projector). Their DIY kit has a height of 7.7ft (13ft width) and I'm a bit torn because I don't want to diminish the immersion factor, especially if I'm at the lower acceptable limits for screen height. Should I abandon my current preferences and opt for a 4:3 setup with a screen height of 9ft (vs 7.7ft) or am I making much ado out of nothing? Are there other disadvantages at this height such as hitting balls above the screen on higher lofted clubs?

Many thanks. I've enjoyed learning from many of the posts on this valuable forum.

[TULSAG]

I have a similar problem with a square wall that makes me want to use a 4:3 aspect ratio to maximize the 'immersion'. You are going to have to remember that 'immersion' is a function of 1) square inches and 2) image quality. I have been told by Carl's that using a 4:3 aspect ration on a 4k projector will degrade the image quality down to something more like 1080 instead of 4k. If you are wanting FULL 4k quality you HAVE to stick with the 16:9 aspect ratio. With your big wall, I'd go with 16:9 because you will benefit by 4k on such a huge blown up screen (156" x 91"). Me, I may be able to get away with buying a 4k projector and tolerating it being downgraded to an effective 1080p quality when using a 4:3 aspect ratio because buying a 4k machine and losing quality might be OK since I have such a smaller screen area at 90" x 68" in 4:3 mode. You have 2.5 times more screen area than me so you need ALL of the 4 times more resolution that 4k provides.

Mark

[JayJo13]

I have a screen that is 13ft x 7.7ft and it is plenty big and immersive. I went with 16:9 just because I couldn't wrap my head around 4:3. Everything these days is 16:9 and I felt like that would provide a better and more realistic experience. I think the ultimate would be 16:10.

I hit a lot of shots "above" the image on my screen but it doesn't change the immersion at all. I still look to the screen to see my ball flight and pay no attention to where the actual ball hit the screen.

[yorkie]

I bought a Carls Enclosure 16 x 10 thats 7.7 ft x 11.5 ft with 5 ft enclosure, projector fills the full screen really pleased. I have a 8.2 ft ceiling so just room for a few shipping blankets
if i hit a wedge to high.

[Jay28]

I have a screen that is 13ft x 7.7ft and it is plenty big and immersive. I went with 16:9 just because I couldn't wrap my head around 4:3. Everything these days is 16:9 and I felt like that would provide a better and more realistic experience. I think the ultimate would be 16:10.

I hit a lot of shots "above" the image on my screen but it doesn't change the immersion at all. I still look to the screen to see my ball flight and pay no attention to where the actual ball hit the screen.

Whether you hit the wedges over the screen depends on how far you are hitting from.
7ft7 high is perfectly ok if you are say 8ft from the screen. As long as you have a frame ceiling, even your lob wedge will only hit around the top the screen/start of ceiling. Lob shots will catch more of the ceiling.
Of course depends on your swing too - whether you are adding dynamic loft or compressing and taking loft off.

My enclosure, taking into account floor height and enclosure ceiling depth is about 8ft4. Top of actual scree is more like 7ft 7. SW does not make it to top of screen

[jdha777]

Thank you everyone for your replies. I'm leaning towards the 8.5x13 (16:10) enclosure to get more height while leaving the width unchanged.

[Wormburner]

Here is my 2 cents! I have a 4:3 screen and was not happy I had to go with that option but that is what fits my room the best. I have a 8.5 X 9 screen so pretty small compared to most. This was my first build so I have not seen an impact screen up close. I have a Carls Premium screen made for a crisper image than most and screen material still creates fuzzy edges. I Have a Epson 5050 projector that is a 4k pixel shift projector so it produces an awesome picture and I highly recommend. I have changed image to 16:9 and the image quality is not much better at all. I have a cinema room in my house and on a real media screen you can definitely tell a difference in quality between the 2 aspect ratios but on this impact material I do not think it is noticeable enough between 4:3 and 16:9 to give up screen size. Yes I would rather have a room that a 16:9 screen but in a smaller space I would rather have a 4:3 image and fill my screen more with little loss of image. Why dont you just buy the larger screen and use whatever aspect ratio you choose based on preference?