That may sound like a stupid question, but I am stuck with a dilema.

In my brain I want a 128" screen, but that would require sitting 16' back to meet the 1.5 ratio. If I went with a 100" screen, I could sit 12.5' back and I should still experience the same relative size, should I not?

The 12.5' from the screen really makes more sense given my room size and desire to have multiple rows, but 128" is really triggering the "bigger is better" area of my brain.

I would really love some input from those with finished rooms, would go with a smaller screen and sit closer, or a larger screen and sit further back, or really would it not make much of a difference once you are sitting and watching.


Also, I figure 128" is going to require a longer throw, and more light output from the projector, so I would probably get a better picture out of the 100", correct?

Some of it depends on the projector. For me I sit 12 feet from a 76" screen with a 480p projector and can still see some screen door. I plan to go with a 2.37:1 screen that is 3" taller but that would be the max for me.
For 1080p and 720p, especially with some of the newer projectors being light cannons you could sit closer and/or go larger. It really boils down to personal preference. Now if you want to follow THX that is a different animal and you need to look up their specs.

Just to be sure.... that 1.5 rule of thumb is width not diag. measurement. And it was created before many of the newer 1080P projectors. Best to see your projector in action, get it and project on a white wall, then determine how close YOU can sit.

Big is better.

I would go for a smaller screen at the same 1.5x distance than a larger one, all other things being equal. You obviously need more lumens when you go with a larger screen, and while it is cool to have a huge screen for bragging rights, from a practical standpoint you are just throwing money at the projector and screen to get the same experience that a smaller screen at the same 1.5x ratio will give you.

Just to be sure.... that 1.5 rule of thumb is width not diag. measurement. And it was created before many of the newer 1080P projectors. Best to see your projector in action, get it and project on a white wall, then determine how close YOU can sit.

Big is better.


I thought Diag, hmm. Though I guess the same concept still holds. I know newer Pj's allow you to site closer than the 1.5, and I probably will, but I will still be curious as to which scenario would be better even at a 1:1 size/seating ratio.

So I guess basically my question is given all things being equal, would a large screen from furter away or a smaller screen from closer up really be perceived as being differet as long as the same size/distance ratio is held constant, or when viewing would you not notice a difference.

I would go for a smaller screen at the same 1.5x distance than a larger one, all other things being equal. You obviously need more lumens when you go with a larger screen, and while it is cool to have a huge screen for bragging rights, from a practical standpoint you are just throwing money at the projector and screen to get the same experience that a smaller screen at the same 1.5x ratio will give you.


That is currently what I am laning towards, but being a guy I like bragging about how big things are :)

Keep the aspect ration in mind as well. To my eyes you can comfortably go with a wider aspect ratio at a given seating distance. Some of that will depend on the contraints of the room you are working with.

If you post the overall dimentions of your room or a floorplan I am sure the folks on the forum will be able to give you some more detailed feedback.

I'm sitting about 13' back from a 126" screen using a Panny 700. It's perfect. You should go with the 128" or you'll always wish you went bigger.

Cannot understand why those outdated ratios are still being used

That 1.5 ratio (at least with the new generation AE700 upwards Panasonics front projectors) is absolutely outdated - sitting for example .7 times screen width distance (eyes to screen center) is absolutely no problem, an certainly not a problem for example at .9 x screen width distance-however note that "smooth screen: ability is optimized with a (commercial theater style) dead center mid screen shelf mounted shot -e.g from about 4.5 in height onto a typical 8 ft screen

Note at close distances, there is no eyestrain or other issues with eyes naturally focusing on center of screen -with on additional head movement needed - with seating generally at a very slight side side angle to the screen

Note at IMAX theater - these distances are somewhat routine anyways

Other manufacturers no doubt will soon match Panasonic with near complete elimination of any screen door effects

By the way at 1.5 x screen width distance one is in effect outdistancing the available HD detail at least with the better (non-HD lite) HD broadcasts/HD discs - thus defeating the entire purpose of HD

I am in the United States and other than a few other people on this site and one person posting on an Australia site - it seems few people have tested the close-in capability of the Panasonics

They invariably mistakenly assume that excess head movement (like watching a tennis match in person) is required when in fact the eyes (lets say looking from a slight side angle about 6 ft eyes to screen center looking onto an 8 ft diag screen) focus on screen center - where the director puts the action - and then one's piriphreal vision naturally fills in the rest

Too bad BEST BUY has kept nearly all HD projectors out of most stores or vastly limits sales and displays - because then many many people would have noticed this by now

The reason this close-in (IMAX style) viewing distance can be important is that it opens up the possiblity of putting front projectors in extra bedrooms or dens - e.g 10 x 12 ft in size - something a huge amount of people might have relative to larger rooms or dedicated large space in a cellar

Given the 2k or less pricing today and the only extra requirement other than a shelf is light control and a blank light colored wall - meaning that nearly anyone could own a high impact theater these days

I get your point and I'm a front-projection fan, too but I think you're vastly underestimating the importance of the ambient light issue. The AVS crowd is not at all representative of the public at large. Most "average Joes" don't want to sit in a pitch black room and watch movies. They want a "media-room" with some lights on to read a magazine or whatever while their significant other channel-surfs.

The enthusiasts here talk about rooms in terms of how much light we can keep out, while average Joe talks about his media room in terms of how many lights he can keep ON. The problem is only compounded by using a "blank light colored wall", since that type of surface has no ability whatsoever to reject ambient light.

Until somebody perfects (and makes affordable) one of the polarized or other funky high-tech ambient light reflecting screen surfaces, front projection just isn't going to be suitable for every den or bedroom theater install.

That said, I personally prefer sitting much closer to the screen than in the BACK row of the theater. The 1.5x screen width figure that everybody throws out happens to be about the same as the 35 degrees THX recommends for the back row viewing angle - it's a minimum!

I'm a CRT guy, but I'll be sitting at about 1.1 or 1.2x - 9 or 10 feet from a 96"-wide screen. I love the enveloping feeling of sitting closer. Maybe in the SD-days it made a lot more sense, but with 1080i/p sources and higher-res digital projectors with a lot less screen door, I definitely think people could be sitting closer. Of course, it's all personal preference.

One thing I always tell people to do is go to the theater and sit where you like to sit - where the image size looks good to you. From your seat, you can count the ceiling tiles to get an almost exact measurement of screen width and viewing distance, and your personal "ratio preference".

SC

I get your point and I'm a front-projection fan, too but I think you're vastly underestimating the importance of the ambient light issue. The AVS crowd is not at all representative of the public at large.



Bingo!

Keep the aspect ration in mind as well. To my eyes you can comfortably go with a wider aspect ratio at a given seating distance. Some of that will depend on the contraints of the room you are working with.

If you post the overall dimentions of your room or a floorplan I am sure the folks on the forum will be able to give you some more detailed feedback.


The room is 24x17x8. The problem lies that although I know it is best to have the screen on the short wall, they way the room is shaped really makes it easier to put it on the long wall and use 17' as the depth of the room. I am still trying to work the other way and I will try to do that, but that is not what I want this thread to be about.

Neither do I want to focus on the 1.5 distance vs a closer distance. I really want to focus on whether at the same ratio of screen to distance it would be better to sit further back and get a bigger screen or sit closer and get a smaller screen.

So please foget I ever mentioned 1.5.

If all you really want to focus on is the size (and assume the ratio stays the same), and assuming you can accommodate the throw either way, then brightness is what you'll really sacrifice to go larger. Assuming the same gain, that 128" will be a whopping 60% of the brightness of the 100" screen. But, what projector and screen material are you thinking about?

SC

If all you really want to focus on is the size (and assume the ratio stays the same), and assuming you can accommodate the throw either way, then brightness is what you'll really sacrifice to go larger. Assuming the same gain, that 128" will be a whopping 60% of the brightness of the 100" screen. But, what projector and screen material are you thinking about?

SC


That is what I am thinking to and is the reason I am leaning towards to smaller screen.

As far as screen and projector, I am kicking around a few ideas, but have not settled on anything yet. Right now I am trying to get the room figured out, so I can plot risers and all that fun stuff. If I had to choose right now, it would probably be a Z5 and a Carada HP, though going smaller would allow me to get the Carada Grey and sacrifice some screen gain for better blacks.

If I had to choose right now, it would probably be a Z5 and a Carada HP, though going smaller would allow me to get the Carada Grey and sacrifice some screen gain for better blacks.

Good, now some people that know the Sanyo and the Carada screen can comment on which screen size might be the better choice for you.

My dad has a Z4 on a 48x85.33 DIY blackout cloth screen, and it looks plenty bright at that size. Screen door isn't really noticeable until I'm well inside 1x screen width. It's a really decent setup considering he spent less than what most people spend on an RPTV barely half that size.

SC

In my brain I want a 128" screen, but that would require sitting 16' back to meet the 1.5 ratio. If I went with a 100" screen, I could sit 12.5' back and I should still experience the same relative size, should I not?

Personally I believe there is a difference, whether its just the Tim Taylor effect or some other psychological effect, or physics, I have no idea, but its there for me.

Looking at it another way, try going the other direction - is the visual experience (ignoring creature comforts like a nice squishy recliner) the same between watching a movie on a 19" PC LCD at 1.5x vs. a 52" TV LCD at 1.5x?

I always thought that a larger screen at 1.5x would be "better/larger" than a smaller screen at 1.5x, but I went and seen "300" at the IMAX a couple weeks ago. It was my first time at an IMAX, and I though to myself "You know, that screen isn't any bigger than a normal theater", so I did exactly what ecrabb suggested and counted the ceiling tiles. Turns out, the screen was around 56' wide and I was sitting at a 1.3x screen ratio. So even though the screen was much larger than my standard theater, I perceived it as being the same size.

One more thing. If your viewing room is going to be completely light controlled and you will be viewing with the lights off, then I would suggest going with the smaller screen and saving some money. When the room is dark, you will not be able to scale the screen size off something, and your brain will perceive the screen ratio only and not the actual size. This gives you more options for the future, also. You can use the lamp in low power mode, and when you get 400-500 hundred hours, you can switch to high mode and it will seem like a new bulb.

That may sound like a stupid question, but I am stuck with a dilema.

In my brain I want a 128" screen, but that would require sitting 16' back to meet the 1.5 ratio. If I went with a 100" screen, I could sit 12.5' back and I should still experience the same relative size, should I not?

The 12.5' from the screen really makes more sense given my room size and desire to have multiple rows, but 128" is really triggering the "bigger is better" area of my brain.

I would really love some input from those with finished rooms, would go with a smaller screen and sit closer, or a larger screen and sit further back, or really would it not make much of a difference once you are sitting and watching.


Also, I figure 128" is going to require a longer throw, and more light output from the projector, so I would probably get a better picture out of the 100", correct?

My room was designed for optimized two channel listening. So HT was a part of the room design, but surround sound and screen options were sacrificed for the greater good of the two channel experience. I figured I could make up for the surround sound issues with a top of the line preprocessor and DSP, and so far that has been more than true with the Meridian 861 - which also solves the room reverberation issues of a more aurally alive sounding room as opposed to a HT/Surround heavily treated room. My screen width is 128.5" but that was out of necessity to accomplish the best two channel sound in the room while having the screen match up with the front speakers. Even with that size I couldn't go with a fixed wall screen, I had to go with a recessed electrical screen as the front wall is too far away to work anything out with a decent aspect ratio.

If you keep the 1.5 aspect ratio it doesn't matter how big your screen is IMO. As long as you are adhering to either THX or MPAA standards for screen size and distances for veiwing angles, etc. If you have that 1.5 aspect ratio you are golden. As my HT room stands, I had to sacrifice the 1.5 aspect ratio and settled with something between 1.57 and 1.6 in order to get my two channel objectives matched and have the room look nice at the same time (my other option was to get a little bit of a bigger screen and cut into the soffit, which would have looked ugly...). A 1.5 aspect ratio is a 1.5 aspect ratio, no matter what your screen size is, it will all look the same from the seating position with the lights off if both setups share the same ratio.

I would make your decision based on other factors, like how to achieve the best acoustics in your room for whatever format you prefer to listen to the most. If it is HT only, then I would do what is best for surround sound. If you plan to eventually have 7.1, or 7.2, 7.4... Then I would make the screen appropriate for the room so you will get the best acoustics for the 7.1, 7.2 or 7.4 setup, etc. That's just my 2 cents worth of advice. Good night and good luck. ;)

Personally I skewed to the smaller ratio with a 106" diagonal with an 11' view distance. I did not want to go any bigger because of the large drop off in brightness. I did buy a 1080p set, which has no visible screen door after about 3' back. I have only tested the system briefly upstairs, but everything is framed in now that drywall is done and I can tell you that I am surprised how much smaller the screen looks to me than I had imagined as I physically fit the largest screen in my room as posible and I was a bit worried I went too big. I would say 110" is a good compromise between size, brightness and PQ. for those room dimensions.

That said, I personally prefer sitting much closer to the screen than in the BACK row of the theater. The 1.5x screen width figure that everybody throws out happens to be about the same as the 35 degrees THX recommends for the back row viewing angle - it's a minimum!

I'm a CRT guy, but I'll be sitting at about 1.1 or 1.2x - 9 or 10 feet from a 96"-wide screen. I love the enveloping feeling of sitting closer. Maybe in the SD-days it made a lot more sense, but with 1080i/p sources and higher-res digital projectors with a lot less screen door, I definitely think people could be sitting closer. Of course, it's all personal preference.

One thing I always tell people to do is go to the theater and sit where you like to sit - where the image size looks good to you. From your seat, you can count the ceiling tiles to get an almost exact measurement of screen width and viewing distance, and your personal "ratio preference".

SC

Excellent post ! Where do you like to sit for immersion in a commercial theater, use that in your own theater if the projector resolution allows.

Art

Don't sit too close to that tv, you'll ruin your eyes!

Just remembering my youth.

bigger is better.

I think the best rule-of-thumb is don't sit close enough for puke to hit the screen in a highly intense action scene or first person shooter video game. :D

Seriously though - I think that only when your head is interfering with the projectors image, would you be too close. The first row of a movie theater is roughly 8 feet away from a screen that is as big as a barn. That definitely violates any of the *rules* being thrown around here from THX or MPAA standards for screen size. Not being a jikkjack ass - but it is true. :)

I'm breaking the rule and sit "too close" to my 480p projector... ~1.5x You can train your eyes to ignore the bad things if you like. I would go a little smaller and sit closer if you're getting an HD projector. Since you have the width, I'd also look at the constant-height aspect ratio thread and make a masking system.

You can always scoot back.

By the way, I like to sit about .75-1.0x away at a movie theater.

So I took some time today and did some measurments, and even put some duct tape on the bare wall to simulate screen size. I realized my best option is to go long ways and have the 24' of depth. I have to do something about some small windows, but it shouldn't be a big deal.

After fidling around I determined a 110" diag (95" wide) screen is about perfect for the room. It gives me about 2 feet above and below the screen and about 4 feet on either side.

I also determined that a 1.3 viewing angle is probably what works best for me, the edge of the screen is just a the periphery of my vision when I view straight on from the center of the room.

My only problem now is, it seems that the speakers are going to be very close to the listening position. 1.3 x 95 = 123" or a little more than 10 feet. You figure an average floor floor standing speaker is around 15-18" deep, and should be placed another foot or two from the wall, and I could be sitting about 7 feet from the front speakers. Does that seem pretty close to anyone? Sure I could do AT, but then I loose at least 3-4 feet of depth in the room, and I actually kind of like having the speakers visable. Plus I really like the Carada screens, and they do not come in AT.

Any comments?

I one uped you when I used spray paint on my walls :)

Anyway, not sure if I can add much or just reiterate what others have said... But...

Good projectors nowadays mean screen door is not the main issue. Horrible content can still be an issue, so you need to realize what you are watching in there (reminding me of getting yelled at once because standard def nascar didn't look good on their big screen).

So, screen door - not the issue. Content - HD DVD/Blueray vs DVD (though DVD through a good scaler, anyway) vs Cable/Satellite.

If you don't care if you notice how bad the bad content looks, get a big screen. The latest numbers from someone I respect (Tony Grimani) are that a 45deg angle for viewing angle on a 16:9 is good (so 1.17 I believe), move that out to a 2.35 screen and you can have a pretty darn big screen nowadays.

So, in the end, Art et all are right, you are building YOUR theater, not a movie theater. Put the distance where you enjoy it and you will be happy when it is done.

Curt

I wold just make sure you like how most DVDs will look from that distance unless you only plan on playing 1080p content. Even good picture quality DVDs (such as Star Wars rereleases, the Matrix, etc) upscaled through the Pearl PJ scaler to 1080p are noticably weak looking compared to 1080p media on my screen that has an aspect ratio of 1.57. It doesn't look absolutely terrible, and it certainly could look worse (such as the normal non-HDTV DirecTV content does), but considering you plan to sit even closer, I would make sure you see what it will look like before you make the final decision. ;)