8 feet wide to small for CIH - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 24 Old 04-07-2012, 04:36 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am thinking about going CIH just wondering if you think with a 96inch wide screen is it worth going with a lens? Or should I just use ciw and leave well enough alone.

I am thinking of pairing a rs1 or rs2 with a lens. Just not sure if the screen is too small. I cannot make this room any bigger till we move!!
wildchild22 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 Old 04-07-2012, 06:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JDLIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Marlborough, MA
Posts: 2,897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Send a message via Yahoo to JDLIVE
Well mine is only 12" wider, so I'd say go for it.
JDLIVE is offline  
post #3 of 24 Old 04-07-2012, 08:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
StevenC56's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Mine is 8.75' wide and works quite well.
StevenC56 is offline  
post #4 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 01:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I lived with a 8ft wide 2.35 screen just fine for five years. Optimum view distance is 2-3x picture height.
coolrda is offline  
post #5 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 04:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I'd also say go for it.

My first screen was a 7ft wide 16:9 screen, but I was always disappointed with scope presentations being smaller. Due to my room being a loft conversion, I was a bit limited, so looked at a form of CIA, but went for an 8ft wide 2.35:1 screen and moved my seating closer so that 16:9 didn't look too small (I kept the seating ratio the same as it was with the 16:9 screen height so it looked just as big as before). That was when I was using a 720 display and anamorphic lens and my seating distance to screen height ratio was 3:1, with my source material being mostly DVD. With BD and 1080 displays, there's no reason you can't sit closer unless you find it personally uncomfortable. If you watch a lot of DVD, then 3 x SH may be preferable due to image quality.

The important thing is seating distance as has been mentioned. I like 2 to 2.4 x screen height ratio (more immersive), but as coolrda says, 2 to 3 is a good ball park area with 1080 and HD source material. Adjust your seating distance so that 16:9 is as tall as you would like it and then 2.35 is just wider and more immersive, as designed.

If you sit too far back, you may find 16:9 looks too small and have the urge to zoom it bigger. That's usually the tell take sign that you need to sit closer.

Gary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #6 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 04:40 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
So for a 2:40:1 screen I see I should mask my 16:9 96 inch wide screen to 40 inch tall.
using this calculator
http://www.carada.com/MasqueradeCIHCalculator.aspx
What is the optimum seating distance for this?
40x3=120 inch back?
quoting Gary's 3:1 ratio.

10 feet back from the screen?
wildchild22 is offline  
post #7 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 06:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
230-SEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I have a 45" high CIH screen, that equates to a little under 106" wide for scope and 80" wide for 16:9. I'm happy with it, but I'm going by 1.5x the 16:9 screen width for seating distance and I feel it's comfortable.

-Sean
230-SEAN is offline  
post #8 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 06:21 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Now I need to know if a prism type lens would work with my room. I have found a used prismasonic 5000 but I am open to all types really cavx panamorph etc as long as they are not too pricey..

I am going with a used jvc rs1 or rs2 I think.
My screen will be 2:40:1 96x40
my distance from front wall where the screen is to the back wall is approx 14.5 feet.

So I am guessing I could mount anywhere from around 12 feet back and closer.

According to the calculator here
http://www.projectorcentral.com/JVC-...pare_list=3894
it seems I could mount as close as 7 feeet 8 inches and back as far as 16 feet 4 inches.
Do you think an a-lens will work with this?


I think my throw ratio is 1.87
so it should work.
as my size is 77x40 for 16:9
so from 12 feet back that would be
144/77 or 1.87

or if the jvc is not too long I could maybe be 13 feet for
156/77 2.02 throw ratio if my calculations are right!
wildchild22 is offline  
post #9 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 09:20 AM
Newbie
 
livermore larry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a rs-2 and a prismasonic 5000. My room is 11 feet by 14 feet. Projector at back of room ,screen is 45x106. Everything works fine. I overscan a bit to compensate for pincushion on 235 films.
livermore larry is offline  
post #10 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
How do you find the 5000? Is the focus good on these lenses? Are you happy with them?



Quote:
Originally Posted by livermore larry View Post

I have a rs-2 and a prismasonic 5000. My room is 11 feet by 14 feet. Projector at back of room ,screen is 45x106. Everything works fine. I overscan a bit to compensate for pincushion on 235 films.

wildchild22 is offline  
post #11 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildchild22 View Post

So for a 2:40:1 screen I see I should mask my 16:9 96 inch wide screen to 40 inch tall.
using this calculator
http://www.carada.com/MasqueradeCIHCalculator.aspx
What is the optimum seating distance for this?
40x3=120 inch back?
quoting Gary's 3:1 ratio.

10 feet back from the screen?

I'd sit at around 2 to 2.4 myself with 1080, (3:1 was with a 720 display, not 1080), but I would experiment to see what suits you.

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #12 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 12:57 PM
Newbie
 
livermore larry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The focus is fine on the prismasonic 5000. I t looks great.
livermore larry is offline  
post #13 of 24 Old 04-08-2012, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildchild22 View Post

I am thinking about going CIH just wondering if you think with a 96inch wide screen is it worth going with a lens? Or should I just use ciw and leave well enough alone.

I am thinking of pairing a rs1 or rs2 with a lens. Just not sure if the screen is too small. I cannot make this room any bigger till we move!!

I too was forced into a "small" room and my screen is just 8 feet wide as well. My TR is 2.1:1 and whilst I would love to have a bigger screen, that won't happen in this room.

At 2x the image height, the image is massive!

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #14 of 24 Old 04-09-2012, 07:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
hconwell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by barton02 View Post

Thanks for sharing.

In 'Scope format, my screen is only 78 inches wide. But it works great. It's CIH and goes out to about 2.66 to 1 for anamorphic 65mm stuff. Probably one of the smallest setups on AVS.

I'd say go for it.

Hank Brown

"Being at the right place at the right time is purely a function of being at the right place a lot."

JPEG's of my Home Theater.
hconwell is offline  
post #15 of 24 Old 04-12-2012, 06:07 AM
Member
 
Cinema Gary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
my CIH screen is only 7 1/2 foot wide and looks great, I only had a 5 foot wide 16:9 screen before glad I went CIH
Cinema Gary is offline  
post #16 of 24 Old 04-12-2012, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
wildchild22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Deer Lake , Newfoundland
Posts: 590
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I am going for it. I got a good deal on a jvc rs1 and a anamorphicv lens. I have cut down my diy screen from 16:9 to 2:40:1 and have repainted it black. Now I need to re staple the da-lite high gain to it tomorrow. I should have all my stuff in a few weeks. I neded up with a great deal on the lens its a prismasonic hfe1500r older model of the 5000 with a smaller aperature but it should be fine for me.
wildchild22 is offline  
post #17 of 24 Old 04-13-2012, 07:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There are really plusses to using a smaller screen. One is the incredible sharpness of the picture. A 6 foot wide picture on a relatively inexpensive projector is probably going to look better than a 10 foot wide picture on a very expensive projector. A smaller screen buys you a tremendous increase in brightness, shapness, and contrast. As you increase the size of the picture all these parameters fall off geometrically.
taffman is offline  
post #18 of 24 Old 04-16-2012, 10:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a 11ft screen and while it looks very impressive with the lights on and works better with larger crowds it definitely taxes the projector. With the lights out and with each at the proper view distance there's no difference with the exception of the 8ft screen being brighter. My first screen was a 67" wide 16x9 and I would have no problem going back to a small screen in the right room. I still have my 8ft in case I ever buy another home with a smaller room. Two things that always excel in small rooms are projectors and subs.
coolrda is offline  
post #19 of 24 Old 04-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Newbie
 
tazinax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've got an 106" wide screen. Similar it seems to several who have posted above. With my JVC RS35 and Prismasonic lense, I am very very happy. We sit about 11-12 feet back and I think it is perfect.

Nick
tazinax is offline  
post #20 of 24 Old 04-28-2012, 02:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kgveteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 5,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 38
kgveteran is offline  
post #21 of 24 Old 04-28-2012, 08:40 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
AV Science Sales 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: A beautiful view of a lake
Posts: 7,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Liked: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post

I'd sit at around 2 to 2.4 myself with 1080, (3:1 was with a 720 display, not 1080), but I would experiment to see what suits you.

Gary

2.0 screen heights from my 107" wide 2.40 screen would be 7'-5" and a 62 degree viewing angle. I have never though about viewing from that close.

Mike Garrett, AV Science Sales
Call Me: 585-671-2968
Email Me: Mike@AVScience.com

Brands we sell: http://avscience.com/brands/

 

Call for B-stock projectors

Stewart, Seymour, SE, SI & many more.
Klipsch, RBH, Martin Logan, Triad, Atlantic Technology, MK Sound, BG Radia, SVS & Def Tech.

AV Science Sales 5 is offline  
post #22 of 24 Old 04-29-2012, 02:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Science Sales 5 View Post

2.0 screen heights from my 107" wide 2.40 screen would be 7'-5" and a 62 degree viewing angle. I have never though about viewing from that close.

I think Mark and Art sit at 2 x SH. SMPTEs closest recommended seating is 2 x SH IIRC.

If you sit in the geometric centre of the seating area of a THX certified theatre, you will be sitting at around 2.4 x the SH which is around 52 degrees IIRC. It's also where they suggest you sit with a full HD 16:9 display when watching good quality HD material. Many tech documents such as CEDIA suggest you start at 3 x SH + or - 1 x SH (so a range of 2 to 4 x SH) depending on what the customer prefers. It even suggests taking the customer to a commercial theatre to see where they usually sit there so they can do the same at home.

I was at a JVC event here in the UK and the seating was deliberately set up to be at 2,4 x the SH because in the UK forum some people didn't realise how close you could sit and often would sit when in a commercial theatre. No one at the event knew what the seating distance was as it wasn't mentioned until after the event, and no one thought they were too close. At one point when the room was full (there were two dem rooms which split the group into two), I was sat in front of the seating so closer to 2 x SH) and it was still very watchable. It's very immersive from there

Quite often when people first install a big screen they never even think about seating distance or relate it to a commercial theatre. With 1080 we can do pretty much the same as at a commercial venue. Film isn't the medium it could be so sitting closer then 3 x SH is probably the limit where immersion and image quality is optimum. With good digital material we can sit closer if we want to, but you may find pixel visibility an issue (depending on pj tech) and a lens may be preferable if you have a scope screen (like Mark and Art).

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc
Who says Cameron is "right" and why do we care about him so much - lol!

I trust Gary Lightfoot more than James Cameron.
Gary Lightfoot is offline  
post #23 of 24 Old 06-09-2012, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Lightfoot View Post


I think Mark and Art sit at 2 x SH. SMPTEs closest recommended seating is 2 x SH IIRC.

I do and I love it. 2x seemed over powering when I first set up my room, but after watching a few films there, I don't like the back row at all anymore.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #24 of 24 Old 12-18-2012, 06:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbraden32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cicleville, OH
Posts: 1,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazinax View Post

I've got an 106" wide screen. Similar it seems to several who have posted above. With my JVC RS35 and Prismasonic lense, I am very very happy. We sit about 11-12 feet back and I think it is perfect.

Nick

Nick,

I'm thinking of using your exact setup minus lens. Did you compare the JVC zoom method to using your lens? Differences and worth it on only 106" wide screen.

tbraden32 is offline  
Reply 2.35:1 Constant Image Height Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off