Originally Posted by Roger Dressler
It's a reference based on cinema industry practice and human acuity. Nothing old school about that. And nothing to do with contrast, either.
That Sir, is reasoning firmly rooted in not just the Foundations of the "Old School", it lies under the rubble created by the Wrecking Ball of Progress. It's time you dug you way out and into the Light of the potential of immersing one's self in the viewing experience. Had you simply stated that some people find such viewing distance to a large Screen uncomfortable, no issue could be taken with that stance. But by stating the old Screen Size/Seating distance limitations are still held to
valid due to human visual acuity....that's simply not the case for the majority.
Lasik Hybrids and Human/Eagle Mutants notwithstanding of course.
I certainly will agree that Industry Standards continue to play a role in such misconceptions, but then again...they (the Mfg Screen Industry...) has been needing a new set of Glasses for quite a while. We here on DIY Screens have been working to re-educate them for quite a while. It's been easy for use...not so much for them.
Originally Posted by Robert2011
I'm at 9' viewing distance and used the calculator to come up with an 85" screen size. I wish I had gone bigger and would be happier with 110", but it's about personal preference. The wife thinks the 85" is perfect, so if she's happy I'm happy.
It (viewing distance to Screen size ratio) "has" become a matter of preference.....and moved away from being a technical necessity.
As long as these factors come together:
High Resolution (1080i or above) I know of no current 1080p PJs whose image structure when showing 1080p HD content shows marked
pixel-ation or SDE. Some show absolutely NADA structure/artifacts, so if that's so, where then is the lower limit for effective viewing?
The real unit of measure is now the limits imposed by Peripheral Vision. Although the "IMAX Ping Pong Effect" is a factor than creates discomfort in more than a few, that results primarily because of the Screen area exceeding the Peripheral. When a person perceives movement far to one side of center-vision, and rapidly glances back and forth, disorientation can result. But why then do we not all be stuck in a constant state of disorientation when using our eyesight normally, and taking in everything within our field of vision? Because we do not try to over compensate to constantly monitor the visual that lies beyond the Peripheral.
A 1:1 Ratio, Eye distance to Diagonal Screen size is a very doable and exciting experience. But one must become acclimated to watching such a wide field of imagery. It's simple. Relax. Do not try to follow off center movement...just take it in like you would when noting movement to one side of your position when gazing eyes forward while walking.
But for certain, other elements must be working for such an experience....not against it.
Effective Balance between brightness and contrast vs viewing distance is also essential. Too bright...or too Dim....or a lack of detailed deffinition can be more detrimental and cause eye strain and headaches far more readily than merely staying in the habit of shifting one's eyes rapidly back and forth following that 'ol Ping Pong Ball.
The height of the center of the screen as relates to the height of the viewer's eyes, and the resulting pitch the head must maintain to view "center" is another potentially limiting factor. And can also be a personal preference thing. I've seen Owners who ALWAYS rest their Head back against the seat/couch and naturally gaze upward...while other "edge of their seat'ers" like to maintain a "level chin" viewing position.
But casting aside all personal issues, technically there is no "too close" restrictions anymore if Display / Content issues are addressed by today's drastically improved performance potential.
Lastly, experience must come into play as well. Those who graduated from the "Old School" or in the least have taken the Mantra of those Post Grads to breast have really not even explored the boundaries of maximum screen size to viewing distance. Understandable since they have more experience being subjugated to the whims of both conventionality and equipment limitations.
Goodness sake...I can easily recall a time when the Screen surface itself was at least as much a factor as image resolution. Much of my own early DIY Screen applications worked to eliminate such Screen-oriented concerns, and thereby helped many a 800x600 & 720p Projector outperform expectations. One could say...no, MUST say that such advances in DIY Screens outstripped their Mfg Screen counterparts in that respect...leastwise far in advance to when Mfg Screen makers decided to play catch-up.
That last factor is directly responsible for the enormous increase in DIY Screen sizes we see. Those who know me and my past efforts know that since 2002 my average DIY Screen size has always been 110" diagonal (...and that with hoary old Sanyos and InFocus entry level PJs ) and a great many example have exceeded 135" diagonal. Some out to 144" diagonal...which under lessor "Screen" circumstances would have resulted in untenable viewing quality...regardless of viewing distance.
Such sizes did not come into being because I was accepting of poorer viewing experiences in favor of sheer size, nor would very many DIY'ers who have gone on to creating similar applications venture to state that they exceeded the boundaries of sensible design.
My standard practice is to place the Viewer within a 1:1.2 ratio, Diagonal Screen Size to viewing distance, unless that person specifically states he wants it otherwise. To almost every instance, those who expressed concern learned quickly enough how to adjust....they simply stopped trying to focus on too many areas at once and started gazing at the vista of the Screen as a whole.