Chart Distance x Screen Size - Standards SMPTE and THX - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 64 Old 07-19-2011, 04:15 AM
Member
 
scarpenter002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Peter,

Thanks for all the great information. You need to convince the moderators to make this a sticky thread.

Cheers,
Scott

CIH Wannabe...one step at a time
scarpenter002 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 64 Old 07-28-2011, 01:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 44
These charts and tables for good starting points, but viewing distance is a very personal thing, with wide variation in preferences. E.g., with a 2.35 screen I have seen many people report liking to sit ~ 1 screen width away ((53 deg viewing angle). This is a bit too close for me; I sit ~ 12.5 ft from a 12 ft W 2.35 pic (51 deg angle). For a 16x9 pic, from this same viewing distance, my viewing angle is 46 deg, which I fine good. I.e., I like a very immersive pic, but others fine it better with smaller viewing angles.

And I agree with Darin, that viewing angle [2*arctan(.5/SW), where SW is the viewing distance divided by the screen width] is the more useful parameter to discuss.
nathan_h likes this.
millerwill is online now  
post #33 of 64 Old 12-20-2011, 11:44 PM
Newbie
 
William1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomdahlberg View Post

They helped me, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

yeah it helped me too.
William1984 is offline  
post #34 of 64 Old 04-08-2012, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
audionewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i am wondering which standard i shall go with? THX or SMPTE?
audionewer is offline  
post #35 of 64 Old 04-08-2012, 02:22 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Peter_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewer View Post

i am wondering which standard i shall go with? THX or SMPTE?

These standards help to start, but can not be used as definitive.

Make some tests with a white cloth, so you can increase or decrease the size of the image until you find the right size for you and your family.


Best regards,
Peter
Peter_ is offline  
post #36 of 64 Old 04-08-2012, 04:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
audionewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i got 100inches 1.3 gain screen. i have to shrink it a little bit ( 92inches). i sit about 11 ft from the screen right now. i hope that is okay.
audionewer is offline  
post #37 of 64 Old 04-08-2012, 04:35 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Peter_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by audionewer View Post

i got 100inches 1.3 gain screen. i have to shrink it a little bit ( 92inches). i sit about 11 ft from the screen right now. i hope that is okay.

I think it is ok.
it is inside the SMPTE Standard.
I prefer the SMPTE instead of THX.
Peter_ is offline  
post #38 of 64 Old 10-13-2012, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Bump with new info:
I was posting in this thread, Will I See Pixels? , and saw new chart with 4k added to Carlton Bale website.
Saw it was not in this thread, the "old" 1440p was posted, so posted here as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbdudex View Post

There is also this chart, when I was designing my home theater it was helpful, I overlaid my viewing distance on LH axis and intended screen size bottom axis.
Then you know what zone you fall into.
(yea, being an engineer we do this daily)

More info here Chart Distance x Screen Size - Standards SMPTE and THX
resolution_chart_MR%2520HT-2.JPG

Ok; it's been so long since I used it (2007), I see chart has been updated for 4k, cool.
http://carltonbale.com/
resolution_chart.png
mtbdudex is online now  
post #39 of 64 Old 10-13-2012, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Peter_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 282
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Thank you, Mike.

Excellent Addition.
Peter_ is offline  
post #40 of 64 Old 10-13-2012, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_ View Post

Thank you, Mike.

Excellent Addition.
I try to point people to the info/data so they can grasp the "why things are they way they are" and reach their own conclusions instead of just telling them.
Your thread is a perfect example of that, give info and let them grasp.

Side note1;for those who took thermodynamics, remember your charts/tables used to explain the state of matter? (solid-liquid-gas)
350px-Phase-diag2.svg.png
and Pressure vs volume (lines of constant temp) ......or Temp vs Volume?(lines of constant pressure)
ex2.2_Pv.gif.....DOE_Thermodynamics_T-V-Diagram.gif

Now those took a while to use proficiently.....

Side note2: What is the only element that crystallizes from the top > down?
And why is that so important?
mtbdudex is online now  
post #41 of 64 Old 10-15-2012, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,717
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 298
I promise this will be my only OT post here.....
Where are all the engineering geeks?
For sure I would have thought someone would have posted by now
Quote:
Side note2: What is the only element that crystallizes from the top > down?
And why is that so important?

H20
Ice rinks would not be possible, nor would life be able to sustain in ponds/lakes in the winter.

H20 is the only element that as it drops in temperature and nears it's phase change gets less dense.......so cold water only falls until 39deg f or so, then it rises and at 32deg crystalizes and then floats on top of its liquid self.
All other compounds don't do that.
Ask any mold engineer what the shrinkage rate it for something when it changes phase, and thy have to take that into account.

If H20 did not do that, then ponds would freeze from the bottom up and all life in it would cease to have a place to exist.
Don't you think that is kinda neat...who engineered it to be so?
Of all the compounds only water does that, why?
mtbdudex is online now  
post #42 of 64 Old 10-15-2012, 09:05 PM
Member
 
bigdogaxis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Woodlands
Posts: 113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I got to the party too late. While I am not an engineer, ice seemed the logical choice.

My equipment: JVC RS-55, SI Performance 120" 1.3 gain, OPPO BDP-103 & -93, DENON 4311CI & 2113CI, Roomie-iPad, QNAP 469L NAS, ROKU 2 & 3, ATV, DTV HR34-500, PS3, XBOX 360. ML Source, Matinee, MotionFX, Motion4, 2-Depth-i subs. M/ASlim5 Rack, CalMAN 5 Enthusiast/C6 meter, UMM-6/REW.
bigdogaxis is offline  
post #43 of 64 Old 12-21-2012, 03:01 PM
Newbie
 
dchandwani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
These are very useful charts. Does anyone know what will be the difference with JVC X55 eshift on seating distance ?
dchandwani is offline  
post #44 of 64 Old 03-03-2013, 09:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47



I hope this helps. I am into CIH (Constant Image Height) and created this really easy to use diagram in Sketch Up. This is based on that chart that Gary posted on page 1 and is how I work out screen sized and seating distances.

The two images are the same, I have just scaled the 2nd up to 2x the size keeping the girl at 1:1 for a scale reference.

Both take the room length and divide that by 4 to find an ideal screen height. This was actually the recommended method back by CEDIA in the 1.33:1 days and works perfectly well today.
.
The screen height is then used for both finding the width (by multipling by what AR you desire) and the seating distances. In the chart posted by Gary, there is a minimum of 2x the image height recommendation by SMPTE. This can also be found on the Disney WOW Blu-ray and in real life experience (from someone that actually sits at this distance in their own cinema), it is very immersive.

There has been discussion about the THX 36 degree recommendation as well. Based on the chart posted by Gary, 36 degrees is about 3.68x the image height (for CinemaScope 2.39:1) and I have used that to find the farthest distance from the screen. Note it leaves a gap between the back seats and the back wall.

To keep it really simple, divide your room by 4 to find the image height. You sit NO closer than 2x and NO farther than 3.68x and you can feel free to sit ANYWHERE in between you want.

I have used the mid point between 2x and 3.68x to find the centre of the surround field. I have used equal spacing of 60 degrees between each surround. Even if seated behind the side LS/RS, you will still get good envelopment from a 7.1 system because you are still in the sound field.
ScottJ and nathan_h like this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #45 of 64 Old 07-26-2013, 09:08 AM
Member
 
BillFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Round Rock, Texas
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I need help on size of fixed screen for my home theater. My room is 14.5 ft x 18 ft. projector is mounted on back wall (18ft). Our 4 HTchairs are 16 ft. We watch 4.3,1.85,2:35 movies using Dtheater Dvhs, laserdisc's,.HD-DVD, Blueray OPPO 105 players.
My projected screen on a white wall from a EW270E projector is 122x74. watching men in black(1.85) bluray it is 122x66. It seems t be just right. Based on your THX figures, what size fixed screen would you recommend? I hope to upgrade to a 1080p/4k projector someday. I would appreciate your help.
BillFree is offline  
post #46 of 64 Old 07-26-2013, 10:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
millerwill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 11,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I would recommend getting as wide a screen as you can fit on your front wall. E.g., my room is almost the same size as yours, though 144" is the widest screen I could fit (due to speakers, etc.). For 2.35 pkcs this thus gives a pic ~ 61" high. For 16x9 HDTV, though, it would be 81" high, which is too much for my viewing distance. I settled on 72" high for a 16x9 pic, which gives a 128" wide pic.

SO, I went with a screen 144" x 72". For 2.35 pics, I zoom the pic to be 144" wide and have a 'black bar' ~11" high across the top (since I lens shift the pic to line up with the bottom of the screen). For 16x9 pics, I zoom to fill up the 72" height and have a 'black bar' 16" wide on one side of the screen that I mask with a panel with black absorbing material. (Having a projector that has zoom and lens shift memory makes this especially simple.)

This works great for me, but you may come up with a better solution for yourself. Be creative and think about all the possibilities--that's the fun part of doing HT!
millerwill is online now  
post #47 of 64 Old 07-28-2013, 10:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
You really need to work off image or screen height, not the width.
nathan_h likes this.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #48 of 64 Old 08-17-2013, 08:01 PM
Newbie
 
lanlishi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i think so,good,i'll be right around 11 1/2 feet from a 119" screen. thank you kec8
lanlishi is offline  
post #49 of 64 Old 10-31-2013, 07:34 AM
Member
 
dark41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I just want to say thanks for all the work put into this. I had no idea that I should be sitting so close to a 55" screen. smile.gif
dark41 is offline  
post #50 of 64 Old 10-31-2013, 10:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
dougri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 934
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Do any of the guidelines change for 3D content? I've only had a 3D projector for a few days, but I find that 3D is a tradeoff for me between immersion and the ability to focus on pop-out objects. If only depth cues are used, I prefer a larger screen with 3D than with 2D, but that is limited by my ability to focus on the popout effects... in some scenes I have to scoot back a few feet to focus (e.g. on some of the foreground fish in imax under the sea). Ignoring the pop out focus issue, I prefer just over 2x screen heights for 3D and just under 3x for 2D. Curious if anyone else has dealt with this tradeoff in deciding on a screen purchase.

"A wide screen just makes a bad film twice as bad. "
-Samuel Goldwyn

I wonder what he'd think about 3D IMAX?
dougri is offline  
post #51 of 64 Old 11-01-2013, 08:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
I guess in one respect it doesn't change because the theatre seating remains the same whether or not the presentation is 3D or not. That may help with the focus issues you're having but that doesn't really help overall.

I think you've come to the same conclusion I did. I prefer closer seating distances, and I too think that for 3D to work well, you do need to be close(r) to the screen. When a 3D image hits the screen border and is quite visible when it does it, the 3D illusion collapses. I really noticed this with Avatar because I was not able to sit in my usual seat, and was sat further back. I found the movie was less immersive or involving, and the 3D didn't really add anything, especially when the effect hit the borders, where it brought attention to itself as a distraction. Not the best movie experience for me.

I'm sure not everyone feels the same, but for me, you need to be close enough for the 3D to remain as intact as possible. So I guess that IMAX is probably the best format for 3D to work at its best. At home with CIH, for some of us it's going to be a bit of a compromise.

To get the best from a CIH set up, you should set up for 16:9 - make sure you are sat close enough so that 16:9 is as big as you can comfortably watch, and then 2.35 should be wider and more immersive, as designed. If you do it the other way round or don't take 16:9 into account when deciding on the screen size and seating distance, you will find 16:9 looks too small and may be tempted to zoom it larger on the 2.35 screen. 3D seems to add another variable into the mix for some of us.

If we use a 16:9 screen with top and bottom masking and use it as a 2.35 screen most of the time (and with normal 16:9 content within it, and sat suitably close), you could use the full height of the screen for the occasional IMAX movie or 3D, but that could be a problem finding a pj that can fill the screen for all circumstances, and being able to zoom enough and then not have (source or display) pixel visibility issues as well.

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 #52 of 64 Old 12-12-2013, 12:36 PM
Senior Member
 
jtl46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Venice, FL
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Hopefully people are still responding to this thread. I am now getting reading order my first pj and screen and I am not sure I really understand as much as I thought. My projector of choice is a Benq 1080ST essentially because I have a good spot on the ceiling to mount it. I am limited to 13' or less for my seating. I was going to purchase a 110" 16:9 diagonal screen but after looking at the charts in this thread I wonder if that is too large, if so I could get a 100". I am also confused about projecting 2:35 images. Will this just show bars on the top and bottom of my screen like they do on my HDTV? On my TV I just zoom the image to fill the screen, but I was told to put my projector on max zoom before I establish the throw distance. If I do this I will not be able to enlarge the picture for 2:35 content or am I missing something. Thanks.
jtl46 is offline  
post #53 of 64 Old 12-12-2013, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Been having a little trouble posting, and had a few failed attempts, but here goes...

A 16:9 screen is just like a big tv, so a 2.35 movie will have black bars top and bottom the same as on your tv. It means that 2.35 films look considerably smaller than they could with a 2,35 screen and correct seating distance for immersion.

If you have the projector, you can experiment to see what sizes work best for you, but I would try for a 2.35 screen if the pj has a zoom of over 1.33 and can lens shift to keep the image on the screen. Without lens shift the image may move off the screen top or bottom, so you need to experiment.

If you zoom, you have to experiment with seating distance to make sure that pixel size doesn't become a problem when you zoom larger for scope.

Three times the screen height for the 2.35 image may be a reasonable starting point to get you going, and experiment with moving the seating forward and backward for scope movies to see what works best and deciding on where to keep your seats, but I would ensure that both scope and 16:9 works for you before buying a screen.
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 #54 of 64 Old 02-12-2014, 11:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,133
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post




I hope this helps. I am into CIH (Constant Image Height) and created this really easy to use diagram in Sketch Up. This is based on that chart that Gary posted on page 1 and is how I work out screen sized and seating distances.

The two images are the same, I have just scaled the 2nd up to 2x the size keeping the girl at 1:1 for a scale reference.

Both take the room length and divide that by 4 to find an ideal screen height. This was actually the recommended method back by CEDIA in the 1.33:1 days and works perfectly well today.
.
The screen height is then used for both finding the width (by multipling by what AR you desire) and the seating distances. In the chart posted by Gary, there is a minimum of 2x the image height recommendation by SMPTE. This can also be found on the Disney WOW Blu-ray and in real life experience (from someone that actually sits at this distance in their own cinema), it is very immersive.

There has been discussion about the THX 36 degree recommendation as well. Based on the chart posted by Gary, 36 degrees is about 3.68x the image height (for CinemaScope 2.39:1) and I have used that to find the farthest distance from the screen. Note it leaves a gap between the back seats and the back wall.

To keep it really simple, divide your room by 4 to find the image height. You sit NO closer than 2x and NO farther than 3.68x and you can feel free to sit ANYWHERE in between you want.

I have used the mid point between 2x and 3.68x to find the centre of the surround field. I have used equal spacing of 60 degrees between each surround. Even if seated behind the side LS/RS, you will still get good envelopment from a 7.1 system because you are still in the sound field.

This is very cool math.

For example, my room is 16' deep, 12' wide. So my 2.35:1 screen should be 48" tall according to your system.

My screen is 120" wide 2.35:1 so it's 51" high. And you know what? I've mostly lived with it masked down to.... wait for it.... 47" tall (or as small as 40" tall with some speakers) which is within the sweet spot of this calc.

Wish I had seen this post back when planning instead of learning through trial and error :-)

____________________

Build Thread: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is offline  
post #55 of 64 Old 02-12-2014, 10:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,133
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchandwani View Post

These are very useful charts. Does anyone know what will be the difference with JVC X55 eshift on seating distance ?

While the eshift does make visible pixel structure almost a complete non issue no matter one's distance from the screen, it doesn't actually change much about the distance recommendations, since even with 1080p the recommendations are based mostly on how much of one's field of view is occupied, without regard for visible pixel structure in most instances.

____________________

Build Thread: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is offline  
post #56 of 64 Old 02-19-2014, 05:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,391
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougri View Post

Do any of the guidelines change for 3D content?

It was actually the testing of a 3D projector (Mitsubishi HC9000) that led me to want to sit 2x the image height. I started out the day in my back row, just found that (and apparently I am not the only one here) a 3D image at a given size looks smaller than the same image in 2D on the same screen. So I jumped to the front row and found it to be great. I then decided to sit there for 2D and now the front row is "the best seats" in the house. My kids don't like being that close and will always ask if they can sit in the back row.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan_h View Post

This is very cool math.

Thank you smile.gif

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #57 of 64 Old 02-19-2014, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary Lightfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan_h View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dchandwani View Post

These are very useful charts. Does anyone know what will be the difference with JVC X55 eshift on seating distance ?

While the eshift does make visible pixel structure almost a complete non issue no matter one's distance from the screen, it doesn't actually change much about the distance recommendations, since even with 1080p the recommendations are based mostly on how much of one's field of view is occupied, without regard for visible pixel structure in most instances.

Actually, the recommendations from the charts take into account picture quality as well as immersion. For example, Fox determined back in the 50s that a 45 degrees horizontal viewing angle for scope (3 x the screen height) was the optimal viewing distance for film based on the crossover point where image quality deficiencies (film grain, projector mechanics) start to become visible with how close we could sit for better involvement (immersion). Back in 2000 Dolby produced a white paper that suggested that with improved film grain and perhaps better projectors, sitting closer to around 50 degrees would be possible. As it turns out, THX recommend 52 degrees for scope (40 degrees for 16:9 in the same seat for a CIH set up) with good quality HD material as their optimal viewing distance. That's around 2.4 x SH. This is probably dues to the better image quality and less projector mechanical artifacts that digital presentations give us compared to film.

So, if eshift improves image quality by reducing any visible artifacts, then it can be used in conjunction with closer seating distances because immersion is determined to be 'a good thing', and the quality/immersion crossover point allows closer seating distances if the individual wants that.

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 #58 of 64 Old 04-16-2014, 01:45 PM
Newbie
 
Curamrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe - Czech Republic
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

a am little bit loosing int the schemas... what is the max screen for me, when I can watch from 4m ?

Curamrda is offline  
post #59 of 64 Old 04-16-2014, 02:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
nathan_h's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,133
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curamrda View Post

a am little bit loosing int the schemas... what is the max screen for me, when I can watch from 4m ?

What aspect ratio are you using? 2.35:1 or 16:9 or something else? This will help people answer the question.

Useful info, but less important: What is the source? 1080p, 720p, UHD/"4k"? This will help people refine their answers.

How many rows of seats?

My view would be to have a 4m WIDE (not diagonal) 2.35:1 screen as my maximum size in your situation, without knowing anything else.

____________________

Build Thread: "Nathan's Theater in Search of....".
nathan_h is offline  
post #60 of 64 Old 04-16-2014, 03:32 PM
Newbie
 
Curamrda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Europe - Czech Republic
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10

sorry. it will be 16:9 1080p. one row seats

Curamrda is offline  
Reply Screens

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