Do we tolerate bigger screens for 2.35 then 16:9? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 14 Old 04-20-2014, 02:01 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
omholt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm about to purchase a Screen Excellence 4K fixed screen in 2.35 or 2.40 format. I'm uncertain about the size. Distance from eyes to the screen is approximately 9,1 feet (2,8 m). I know from visiting a friend that 92" would be as large as what I find comfortable with this distance if the screen was in 16:9 format.

But it hear that the screen can easily be bigger when it's anamorphic without a problem. Is this true and would a screen size of 98" work well with my distance?
omholt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 Old 04-20-2014, 06:37 PM
Advanced Member
 
chrisreeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I find a more helpful metric is a multiple of the screen height to your viewing distance. For me, I like 2.5 times the screen height - with your viewing distance of 9 feet, that is approximately 115" diagonal in 2.35:1.

"Don't forget that a significant contribution made by the use of high-end cabling is emotional. Knowing that you have the best available causes the listening and viewing to be that much more enjoyable. Observable improvements make it even better."

-From a post on the audio video improvements forum
chrisreeves is offline  
post #3 of 14 Old 04-20-2014, 11:20 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
omholt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisreeves View Post

I find a more helpful metric is a multiple of the screen height to your viewing distance. For me, I like 2.5 times the screen height - with your viewing distance of 9 feet, that is approximately 115" diagonal in 2.35:1.
Thanks for the reply. Wow, that's a huge screen for a distance of only 9 feet! You don't find that uncomfortable for your eyes at all? What do you find ok for a 16.9 screen as a comparison?

I'm worried 98" diagonal might be too big for 9 feet distance. However, I've no experience with a 2.35 screen. My only reference is my friend's 92" 16:9 screen. He has a now a viewing distance of 8,2', and I find that a bit too close. I should mention though that his screen his placed a little high, so one ends up looking upwards to some degree. Mine will be placed so the center of the screen is where my eyes are.
omholt is offline  
post #4 of 14 Old 04-21-2014, 09:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
jeahrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by omholt View Post

Thanks for the reply. Wow, that's a huge screen for a distance of only 9 feet! You don't find that uncomfortable for your eyes at all? What do you find ok for a 16.9 screen as a comparison?

I'm worried 98" diagonal might be too big for 9 feet distance. However, I've no experience with a 2.35 screen. My only reference is my friend's 92" 16:9 screen. He has a now a viewing distance of 8,2', and I find that a bit too close. I should mention though that his screen his placed a little high, so one ends up looking upwards to some degree. Mine will be placed so the center of the screen is where my eyes are.

We sit about 10' from a 130" 2.35:1 screen and have no issues with eyestrain or the image appearing to big. Our guests have never complained about it either. Our field of view is much wider than tall. A personal observation is that this may be why a larger scope screen isn't as objectionable.
ellisr63 likes this.

jeahrens is offline  
post #5 of 14 Old 04-21-2014, 10:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,923
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Liked: 318
Because we have two eyes arranged horizontally on our faces, humans have evolved to scan our enviroment from side to side. Viewing discomfort usually occurs when the screen is too tall and we're forced to scan vertically, which is not natural.

If you're comfortable viewing a 92" diagonal 16:9 image, the corresponding 2.35:1 screen size would be 106" (same height of 45").
ellisr63 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #6 of 14 Old 04-21-2014, 01:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
chrisreeves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 16
What those two said. A 2.35:1 115" image is wider but not much taller than a 92" 16:9. Eyestrain is more about looking up and down than left and right. After you go wider you'll never go back.
ellisr63 likes this.

"Don't forget that a significant contribution made by the use of high-end cabling is emotional. Knowing that you have the best available causes the listening and viewing to be that much more enjoyable. Observable improvements make it even better."

-From a post on the audio video improvements forum
chrisreeves is offline  
post #7 of 14 Old 04-21-2014, 02:26 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
omholt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Excellent guys. This is very helpful. A 98" Screen Excellence fixed 2.35 screen shouldn't be a problem for me then and I might even consider 104".
omholt is offline  
post #8 of 14 Old 04-21-2014, 06:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Yzfbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by omholt View Post

Excellent guys. This is very helpful. A 98" Screen Excellence fixed 2.35 screen shouldn't be a problem for me then and I might even consider 104".

http://www.displaywars.com/104-inch-235x1-vs-83-inch-16x9

This is a helpful site.

Here is my build thread:

---->Like a Boss Theater Build<----
Yzfbossman is offline  
post #9 of 14 Old 04-23-2014, 02:38 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: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I love 2x the image height smile.gif so at a seating distance of 2.8m, I'd be going 1.4m tall.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #10 of 14 Old 04-23-2014, 02:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 38
We have a binocular horizontal field of view something like 120 degrees, and where Mark sits (2X image height) is only approx 60 degrees, so he's still only using around half of his field of view. I doubt he has to move his head, only his eyes if he needs to scan across the screen from one side to the other.

Gary
ellisr63 likes this.

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 online now  
post #11 of 14 Old 04-23-2014, 06:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Yzfbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Frisco, TX
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

I love 2x the image height smile.gif so at a seating distance of 2.8m, I'd be going 1.4m tall.

I'm at 2.4x

I think it's a *bit* dependent on the media (blu-ray vs HDTV) and projector (big pixel gap like on my EPSON vs a 4k)

If I had 4k and a solid screen I could easily go 2.0 and love it with Blu-ray movies. When watching HDTV....2.5 is as close as I want to be with my EPSON.

Hope that makes sense..
ellisr63 likes this.

Here is my build thread:

---->Like a Boss Theater Build<----
Yzfbossman is offline  
post #12 of 14 Old 04-23-2014, 09:41 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: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yzfbossman View Post

I'm at 2.4x

I think it's a *bit* dependent on the media (blu-ray vs HDTV) and projector (big pixel gap like on my EPSON vs a 4k)

If I had 4k and a solid screen I could easily go 2.0 and love it with Blu-ray movies. When watching HDTV....2.5 is as close as I want to be with my EPSON.

Hope that makes sense..

Totally dependent on the source. i don't watch anything but BD these days. Yeah I am a self confessed HD snob. 4K would rock and having seen the new SONY, look forward to the day it is the norm.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 14 Old 04-24-2014, 12:48 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
omholt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I ended up ordering a 98" 2.40 Screen Excellence 4K fixed screen. I could have maybe gotten 104" but considering that chance of changing to other speakers and thus having to place the screen closer (it will be fixed from a sloping ceiling), I felt safer staying with 98".
Thank you all for contributing and that calculator from displaywars was very nice.

Another question: What do you find the best way to show 16:9 movies on a 2.40 screen? I see J River Media Center which I'm using has the possibility of converting 16:9 to 2.40. Does this work well or is it more better to show in it native 16:9?

I'm planning by the way to upgrade my projector to a 4k one in a few years. Will stay with my Sony HW-15 until then.
omholt is offline  
post #14 of 14 Old 04-24-2014, 08:54 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by omholt View Post

Another question: What do you find the best way to show 16:9 movies on a 2.40 screen?

Centered, with side masking
Quote:
I see J River Media Center which I'm using has the possibility of converting 16:9 to 2.40. Does this work well or is it more better to show in it native 16:9?

Native is preferred over distorted/cropped, IMO.
JDLIVE 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